inquired whether the Government intended to renew the Committee, or take any measures with respect to the Bank of England?

said, that in the course of next week he should propose the re-appointment of the Committee on joint-stock banks.

Will it be open for the Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Bank of England during the last eighteen months?

said, that it certainly was not his intention to propose any question before that Committee the tendency of which would be to alter the arrangements deliberately entered into between that House and the Bank of England; at the same time he thought it would be impossible for the Committee to consider the state of banking generally throughout the country without taking into account a certain portion of the proceedings of the Bank of England, as connected with the circulation of the country.

said, it was not his intention to propose any alteration in the agreement made with the Bank of England, but he wished to know how that agreement was to be carried out. He should therefore move, whenever the proposed Committee should be appointed, that the inquiry should be extended into the conduct of the Bank of England. He also wanted to know what was to be done with the Bank of Ireland, as the expiration of its charter was fast approaching?

proposed to proceed with the inquiry on joint-stock banks before any measures should be be taken with regard to the Bank of Ireland.

asked whether the Government had directed its attention to the alteration of the French tariff on linens and linen yarns?

stated, that as soon as the Government heard of the rumour of the intention to alter the duties on linens and linen yarns, no time had been lost in making representations at Paris against the proposed change; but from the communications made to him he was not led to hope that the decision which the French Government would come to on that point would be very satisfactory to himself or to the hon. Member (Mr. Baines).

wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Government had been directed to the recent loss of the Killarney steamer, and whether Ministers had any legislative measure in contemplation for the purpose of securing passengers against the risks to which they are constantly exposed on board Steam-boats as at present conducted?

said, the unfortunate accident to which the noble Lord had alluded, had occurred so recently, that the Government had not had time to investigate the circumstances attending the loss of the Killarney steamer. It was, however, a subject well worthy of the most attentive consideration, and it was unquestionably of the greatest importance to ascertain whether in regard to steam-boats generally some restrictions could not be made as to the quantity of live stock shipped on board those vessels, similar to those restrictions which existed in regard to other passage-boats.

said, that although he thought the Bill insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, and was persuaded that it would impose heavy expenses, without corresponding advantages, yet he could not reconcile it to his conscience to withhold his support from it. Whatever faults there might be in the measure, sooner than that the poor of Ireland should remain in their present depressed and degraded state, he was prepared to adopt a measure even still more objectionable in its character. The first thing that struck him as objectionable in the Bill was, that one-half of the burthen was to be im- posed upon a class of persons who were usable to support it, and who ought not in justice to be called upon to pay it. By this Bill persons in Ireland occupying land to the value of 5l. a year were rendered liable to the payment of the amount of one-half of the poor-rate. Now, really, that was too hard, especially when the almost destitute state of persons who occupied a much higher station as tenants of land was considered. He was quite aware that it would be said that those persons would be relieved from the charge which at present devolved upon them; but that was a payment made by them voluntarily, a very different matter from being compelled to pay, under an act of Parliament which was to be carried into effect by a most extensive machinery. It was also different; because under this Bill the relief to the poor would be entirely left to the discretion of the poor-law guardians; it would rest with them whether the destitute poor should have relief or not; it rested with them to say whether they would grant relief to all, to some, or to none, of the destitute poor within their respective districts. The Bill expressly provided that the guardians of the different unions should have it in their discretion to make orders for the relief of the poor, as they should see fit. He, for one, was very apprehensive that these Poor-law guardians, or, in other words, the rate-payers themselves, the persons whose immediate interest it would be to curtail the relief within the narrowest limits possible—that these Poor-law guardians, speaking the voice of the rate-payers, would take a very limited view indeed of the number of persons who ought to receive relief under the provisions of this Bill. It was his opinion, therefore, that if it were really intended that this Bill should be what it professed to be—a Bill for the more effectual relief of the destitute in Ireland—that it should grant a right to such relief to such persons as were destitute and unable to support themselves; and also that the nature of that relief should be such as to make it practically applicable to the extent of the destitution which existed in Ireland. He would, endeavour to show that, by denying a right to relief, and by restricting the mode of administering relief, the Bill must prove inefficient as to its proposed object; and also that this Bill would be by no means efficient as a measure for remedying even in the slightest degree, the causes which created the destitution in Ireland, namely, the total want of employment by the people. Why, what was the Bill? It was a Bill that, perhaps, might be the means of affording relief to 80,000, or, it might be, 120,000 persons; and that altogether depended upon certain powers conferred on the Poor-law commissioners, and for raising a sum of money, by way of poor-rate, for the purpose of emigration. Such was the full measure of relief which it was proposed to bestow upon the destitute poor of Ireland. In forming his opinion on the subject he would not advert to the amount of the relief now given to the poor in Ireland, or to the number who received that relief. He had been told that in making a calculation upon such a basis the results would be quite erroneous, and would give an exaggerated notion of the amount of destitution in Ireland. He thought, however, that he should be justified in referring to the evidence and the information collected by the commissioners of inquiry into the state of the poor of Ireland. He knew it had been objected that those commissioners were mistaken in many of their calculations, and that their statement of destitution was exaggerated; but it was, nevertheless, indisputable that the distress which existed was most extensive, and imperatively called for relief. The poor in Ireland were without clothing; they lived in hovels that were totally unfit for any human being to breathe in; they were huddled together in crowds, and lay on the damp floor at night. Such was the condition of the poor in Ireland, and he should like to know what degree of human suffering further than that was required before it was thought expedient to give relief? If ever relief was necessary, the people of Ireland required it. There were nearly two millions of human beings in that country in the state which he had described. In his opinion, the present Bill would not operate in the slightest degree upon the cause of destitution; for it was not by shutting up two or three hundred thousand persons that any good could be effected, or that the social condition of the Irish peasantry could be improved. Employment was the only efficient and desirable remedy—employment which, while it administered to the physical wants of man, elevated him in his moral feelings. The Bill left the great evil which existed among the peasantry of Ireland without alleviation. The Irish peasant had at present no security for his miserable subsistence, unless it were the occupation of some wretched patch of ground. Now, the bill held out no right to such a person to claim relief, or no prospect of enjoying it; and, therefore, no feeling of security was created that he who received the relief would continue to obtain it; as the administrator of the law had the power of refusing it, even if he had the means of granting it to the fullest extent required. The consequence of it would be, that the fierce struggle for land which now existed to such a frightful extent in Ireland would continue unabated. Yet that was the real cause to which most of the barbarous murders and other crimes that were committed in Ireland and to which the insecurity of property in that country were mainly attributable. He would not occupy the time of the House by entering into statements to prove that this was the fact, for it was already well known to every one who was acquainted with the administration of the law in Ireland. It was a well established fact that there was scarcely a landed proprietor in Ireland who dared to make the slightest alteration whatever in the distribution of his property, without incurring the danger of raising an insurrection in the country around him. It appeared to him of the highest importance that they should without delay vigorously grapple with the difficulties which surrounded this question. In his opinion, with every sense of the difficulty of the undertaking, the only course was at once to place the landed proprietors in that position in which they would be compelled to find either employment or subsistence for the poor. They ought to be made to do that which they had so long neglected to do—to employ the great mass of labour which now existed in Ireland in a destitute state, and which might be so profitably employed. It had been objected to a poor-law bill for Ireland that it would absorb a considerable portion of the rental of the landlords. That would certainly be the fact if the landlords looked supinely on while the change was going forward; but if they applied themselves to the better cultivation of their estates, and to the breaking up of waste lands they would cause an increase of the means of subsistence, and would promote general benefit, of which they would be large participators. There was one part of Mr. Nicholls's second report which bore so strongly on this question that, with the permission of the House, he would read it. It related to a part of Ireland with which he was well acquainted, and he would vouch for its accuracy. The passage was as follows:—

"Nothing can exceed the miserable appearence of the cottages in Donegal, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels, always teeming with an excessive population. Yet, if you enter their cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous, 'too thick upon the land,' and that, as one of them declared, 'they were eating each other's heads off—but what could they do? There was no employment for the young people, nor relief for the aged, nor means nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more eligible spot. They could only therefore live on 'hoping,' as they said, 'that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner or later do something for them.' Yet, with all this suffering, no disturbance or act of violence has occurred in Donegal. During the severe privations of the last summer, when numbers were actually in want of sustenance, there was no dishonesty, no plundering—the people starved, but they would not steal; and although their little stock of cattle and moveables have been notoriously lessening these last four years, and especially in the last year, which seems to have swallowed up nearly all their visible means, they have yet paid their rents—the occupier's share of the produce has been insufficient for his own support, yet the landlord's share has generally been paid in full; and I was assured by the agent of one of the largest proprietors that he had no arrears worth noticing."

He begged to ask how long it was thought desirable that the people of Ireland should remain in this miserable condition, while at the same time they were able and willing to work, and to earn their subsistence? An efficient poor law would certainly be in the end a pecuniary advantage to the landlords in Ireland, although it would no doubt be attended with some inconvenience in the first instance. Although he advocated a poor-law in Ireland on the most extended scale, he was convinced that auxiliary measures must he put in operation at the same time. He should vote for the second reading of this bill, and for its going into a Committee, with the greatest reluctance, and only because he had no alternative.

intended to support the principle of the bill by voting for the second reading; but he thought that the details of it would require many alterations and amendments in Committee. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Style) who had just sat down in the principle that the poor had a right to relief; nor did he agree with him in the proposition that relief should be given out of the work- house. He thought that the principle upon which the bill ought to proceed was this: in-door relief to the aged and impotent, aided by increased facilities of emigration to the able-bodied. Neither this law nor any other that could be devised would be adequate to give relief to all who were in distress, or employment to all who were idle, in Ireland. The subject was one of a very complicated and difficult nature, and required to be very calmly and very carefully considered before any decisive measure were adopted. He did not feel that he should be justified in trespassing upon the patience of the House at that moment; but in a subsequent stage he should consider himself bound to state his opinions upon the bill at considerable length. Meanwhile, everybody, he thought, would feel that the question was one that ought not to be influenced by considerations of party. Every one, too, must be aware, now that the subject had once been mooted, that a law partaking something of the character of the present must certainly be adopted.

agreed with one-half of what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was a great deal, he thought. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Bill did not pass this year, as he (Mr. O'Connell) certainly hoped it would not, a measure giving some kind of relief to the poor of Ireland must some day pass. At the same time he did not see why it should be expected that the House of Commons should be unanimous in introducing Poor-laws into Ireland at all. Had he (Mr. O'Connell) been in London a few hours sooner, he should have felt it his duty to have trespassed upon the House at considerable length in stating his objections to the Bill now proposed; but as his arrival had been delayed, he should confine himself to one or two observations only in the present stage of the Bill, reserving himself until the proposition for going into Committee, when he should state his objections at length, and move that the Committal of the Bill be deferred for six months. He could not agree in the principle of any Poor-law as proposed to be applied to Ireland which should go beyond the extension of relief to the lame, the impotent, and the blind—those who from permanent physical causes were utterly incapable of labouring for their own subsistence. To that extent, and to that extent only, would he go in the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland. Any thing short of that he knew it would be ruin for him, in the present feeling of the House of Commons, to attempt to resist. But upon that point—upon the limitation of the relief to the objects he had named—his determination was fixed and inflexible; and upon that point he would decidedly take the opinion of the House, even if he stood alone. He entertained a firm conviction that a poor country was never yet benefitted by a Poor-law. He believed that Ireland was too poor for a Poor-law. The distinction that was attempted to be drawn between poverty and destitution, although both certainly existed, excited something of the ludicrous when applied to Ireland. The sages who out of that House had laid the ground-work for the present measure admitted that there was more poverty in Ireland than in England; "but then," said they, "there is less destitution." There might be great merit in the phraseology employed to express that opinion; but how, in common sense, poverty should not be considered the mother of destitution it was impossible for him to explain, as he certainly could not understand. He entertained a full conviction that a measure like the present must entirely fail. The notion of having 100 workhouses, in each of which 800 persons were to be boxed up and imprisoned for the benefit of their health, the fattening of their bodies, and the increase of their moral feelings and tenderness by the separation of husband and wife, was absurd and ridiculous. There never was a country so utterly unfitted for the introduction of such a system of Poor-laws as Ireland. Mr. Nicholls need not have gone to Bristol, to Liverpool, and to Manchester, to ascertain whether the Irish were reluctant to receive relief administered in the form proposed by this Bill. Every body who knew any thing of Ireland would have told him that the Irish people would rather remain in a state as near as possible akin to actual starvation than be admitted to the enjoyment of workhouse food at the cost of personal liberty. He had trespassed further than he intended upon the patience of the House; his only object in rising was to intimate his intention, in the next stage of the Bill, of proposing, by way of amendment, that it be deferred for three or six months.

rejoiced that there was at least one Irish question upon which all sides of the House were agreed, and he regarded the present discussion as an omen of better days for his unhappy country. Before they proceeded, however, to legislate on a measure which was of such paramount importance as this, and which was pregnant with consequences of such a vital nature, they ought to inquire if they had sufficient data to proceed upon. He denied that they had such data, and he impeached in particular the report of Mr. Nicholls. That gentleman had stated that the number of poor that would require relief in Ireland would be only 80,000. He (Mr. Gibson) could not believe it. Would it were true! From his experience of the state of the poor in Ireland, he believed that that was only a fraction of the number that would require relief. The House could not proceed to legislate with confidence on this subject upon such data as the report which had been laid on the table of the House contained. Upon that report the Legislature ought to place no reliance, for it really furnished no data upon which Parliament could efficiently legislate. He denied that 80,000 would be the highest number that would require relief, and the system was calculated to pauperise the middle classes in Ireland, upon whom the burden of contributing to that support would fall. The principle of this Bill was repugnant to the feelings of the Irish poor man, who would never consent for a paltry subsistence in the workhouse to a separation there from the wife of his affection, and the children of his love. He had a further objection to this Bill, on the ground that it excluded any provision with reference to the law of settlement. Though he was ready to admit, that in this country the law of settlement had been much abused, and had led to considerable expense, still some provision with reference to that subject ought to be made for Ireland, or the Bill would be the acme of injustice. On these grounds he objected to the introduction of the proposed law, and would say it would be better to leave Ireland alone, and rely on the natural course of events, from which even Mr. Nicholls admitted that improvement within the last fifty years had ensued; and he believed, that if equal and impartial justice were done—if there was not one law for the rich and another for the poor—more happiness would be produced than could possibly flow from a measure of the kind now under the consideration of the House. On these grounds he could not assent to the principle of the Bill, but, coerced as he was by the opinions of others, he should not oppose its second reading, but should watch with minute attention its progress through the Committee.

said, in his judgment the present measure was the best ever introduced for the improvement of the condition of Ireland. He trusted her Majesty's Government would keep the Bill in its present shape, with the exception of the clause relating to emigration. He thought also that the relief ought to be confined to indoor relief, as by increasing the various modes of relief the object of the measure would be wholly destroyed. With these alterations, and by the omission of the emigration clause, the Bill would be a blessing to the country to which its operations were directed. The hon. Member who had spoken last had said leave Ireland alone; but that would never do when it was notorious that the assassinations, agrarian combinations, and outrages—all were to be traced to the state of destitution which, unhappily, generally prevailed in Ireland. The establishment of boards of guardians would of itself be productive of great good. The noble Lord below him (Lord Morpeth) was entitled to great praise for the mode in which he had brought the Bill forward, and he trusted that the Government without vacillation would carry it through in a bold, manly, and straightforward manner.

said, that having some years ago been engaged as a commissioner to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, he hoped to be permitted to express his opinion on the present measure. Undoubtedly the Government had taken great pains in the matter; they had consulted persons of high attainments upon the subject, and the result was the Bill now on the table, the great objection to which was that part which involved the public with a degree of liability with regard to the great mass of the labouring classes of the people. He thought that liability to be of a very injudicious character. The classes of people who were to be entitled to relief ought to be specified, and when the Bill was in Committee, he should feel it his duty to propose amendments to attain that object, and to confine relief to the lame, blind,' and impotent, following as near as possible the words contained in the statute of Elizabeth and to exclude from the provisions of the Bill young healthy men who were able to earn their own livelihood.

begged to ask the hon. Member who had just sat down, if it was not the young men of Ireland who formed agrarian combinations, and committed murders and outrages in consequence of not having the means of subsistence? and if so, what answer would the hon. Member give to such young men, when, though in a state of starvation, the workhouse was not open to them? He was disposed to give his support to the present Bill. He approved of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow in the latter part of his speech. He certainly thought that this was the most important measure by far which had ever been introduced for the pacification of Ireland. He believed that it would raise that country from a position the most miserable and the most disgraceful of any nation on the face of the globe to one of the most prosperous that could be imagined. On the whole he agreed most completely with the general principles of the Bill. He did hope, however, that the Government would not erase the clauses which related to emigration. He was far from thinking that too many avenues could be opened for employment. It was, in his opinion, desirable to have as many strings as possible to their bow. Ireland was in a situation of great embarrassment, and it required extraordinary efforts to meet extraordinary circumstances. The more means they took to assist the practical operation of the Bill, in providing employment for the poor, the better. He regretted that there was not some measure carried on in conjunction with this Bill which would promote its operation, such as an extensive system of public works. He believed that a great pressure on the board of guardians would be the result, and that great numbers of able-bodied men would be unable to obtain work. He trusted, therefore, that Government would do something to relieve the guardians from this difficulty. There was some prospect last Session of employment from public works forming an adjunct to this measure, and he hoped that it would not be lost sight of by the Government, and that the House would endeavour to open as many doors as possible to the employment of the poor of Ireland, as the best and most effectual method of giving real relief.

observed, that it had been said that this was not a party question. He wished it were a party question, for it would then be better for the poor of Ireland. They would then have had both sides of the House richly clothed; but because the poor of that country had no party in that House, hon. Members could say this was not a party question, and both sides of the House could agree to oppress them. He could not concur with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in that a Poor-law was not necessary for Ireland. On the contrary, he thought it highly necessary, and therefore if he expressed the very strong objections which he felt to the measure in its present shape, he hoped the House would not infer that he was opposed to the principle of a poor-law generally. He had no objection to the machinery of this Bill, or to a board of guardians, but would the hon. Member for Wicklow call this a good Bill; when it contained a clause which dried up entirely that source of relief for destitution which as yet had never failed the poor of Ireland—he meant the charity of their countrymen. What did this Bill propose to do? In a country containing 2,000,000 of beggars, it was proposed to pass into law a clause which provided that every person begging or gathering alms, or placing himself for the purpose of begging or gathering alms, or placing any child to do so, should be committed to the house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for any period not exceeding one calendar month, and for a repetition of the offence he was to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three calendar months. Any person might apprehend the offender, and a justice of the peace might issue his warrant on suspicion, and then any person when in the last hour of destitution he cried to his fellow-man for relief, and had found a heart to assist him in his distress, might have the money taken from him and applied to defray the expense of conducting him to gaol, and of keeping him there. Did they live in a Christian land? Did the 43rd Elizabeth introduce any vagrancy clauses? This was called a bill for the more effectual relief of the Irish poor. If it deserved that title, did the House think that the Irish poor would not avail themselves of it? Did they suppose that they would beg a precarious subsistence from the hand of charity if they were properly treated in the workhouses of the noble Lord? He felt that if this clause were pressed, they would inflict as great an injustice on the people of the north of England as on the poor of Ireland. What would be the consequence? They would drive the poor of Ireland from that country to this. The principle upon which relief was to be afforded was this, that the treatment of the poor under the workhouse system, must be worse than the subsistence which they might earn by their labour out of it. Now, what was the food on which the poor of Ireland lived? Potatoes and buttermilk. Their workhouse system, then, must provide them with worse food than this. But the Government said to the poor, "You shall not have recourse to private charity, but you shall be imprisoned in the workhouse, and fed on fare worse than potatoes and buttermilk, or else we will drive you from the land." They would then come to the north of England, they would compete with the labourers there, who were not accustomed to live on potatoes and buttermilk, and what would be the results of that competition it was not difficult to foresee. They would also apply to the manufacturers, and that would increase the distress which already prevailed there. He trusted that this clause would be struck out of the Bill.

was sure, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, would himself, on reflection, condemn the intemperate language which the House had heard from him. The speech of the hon. Member was, he must say, more suited for the Committee than for the present moment. He was himself disposed to think that the mendicancy clauses had better be omitted. If reasons were given to satisfy him that they ought to be retained, he should be glad to see them form part of the bill, but he thought this was not the present time to discuss that question. In reference, however, to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member in the beginning of his speech, he must say, that it was very unfair in him to say that both parties in that House had agreed to oppress the poor of Ireland. He would assert that but one feeling prevailed in the House, and that was anxiety to remedy their condition. He should not have ventured to rise on this occasion, but that he wished to make one remark, which he begged to do with great respect and deference to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. He thought it desirable that the noble Lord should, on going into Committee, lay before the House a more general view than he had hitherto done of the way in which he would recommend that the discretion given to the Poor-law Commissioners should be acted on. He himself approved of the powers which were vested in the Poor-law Commissioners, but no explanation had yet been given of the way in which they were to be exercised, and he believed that much of the dissatisfaction with the measure which prevailed in Ireland took its origin in the misapprehension which existed with respect to the nature of those powers. The present was a question of much complication; there was the question of the formation of unions, the question as to the size of the unions—whether the system was to be tried first in one part of Ireland, or whether it was intended that its operation should be simultaneous, which he thought would be found impracticable. If, therefore, the noble Lord, would give the House some explanation, not of the details but of the principles on which the discretion of the Poor-law Commissioners was to be exercised, he thought that it would soften the feeling of hostility with which this measure was regarded in some quarters.

said, that having but that moment arrived from Ireland, he had no opportunity of hearing the arguments and opinions adduced during the present discussion; but, nevertheless, he could not forego the occasion now presented of expressing his conviction that it was high time to extend to Ireland a system of protection for its poor; and that he was more disposed to regret that circumstances should have prevented its commencement at a much earlier period, than to quarrel with its adoption now; convinced as he was that if adopted some years ago, and therefore now in active and mature operation the condition of the Irish people, and the face of that country would present a much more gratifying aspect. Few opposed the measure on principle, and therefore, the sooner they came to the details and thereby expedited practical proceedings with a view to arrive at the test of experience, the sooner would they be enabled to discover faults, if any, and to smooth down difficulties. Difficulties no doubt must attend the maturing of every new measure and extensive change; but that he was quite sure so soon as the machinery was made by practical knowledge and experience, to work with ease, the measure would be found to be one most salutary and beneficial to all classes of the community. Nevertheless, no one felt more than he did that it was only a beginning and a fragment of what was due to Ireland, and necessary to remove the impediments and to call forth the sources of her prosperity—sources in which no country more abounded, but which from, various causes, moral and political, had been grievously neglected, if not disregarded. Yet he considered this measure a most indispensable first step, and a sure foundation upon which to build future exertions, and if they allowed themselves to be deterred by seeming difficulties they might as well abandon it altogether, for whenever undertaken, those difficulties would have to be encountered. Therefore the sooner they began the nearer they would be to the disembarrassed advantages of that measure, and he could not allow speculative fears or doubts to retard even a mitigation of the mass of misery which so long and still pervaded the poorer classes of Ireland, and which must needs be so prolific of disorder and disturbance. Then in regard to its expense he trusted they would find it not so serious as might be apprehended; for a little before he left Limerick (the city he represents) he visited one of the principal asylums for the poor there, called the House of Industry; where he saw 400 to 500 poor fellow-beings, healthfully and gratefully fed and lodged, (though from want of adequate space rather crowded together), at the trivial expense of about 3d. each per day; very much owing indeed to the zeal and benevolence of a respected fellow-citizen, who so charitably and gratuitously superintended it. In fine he was disposed to strongly hope that when a short period of practical operation and experience smoothened down obstacles, and disclosed the proper remedies, this measure would be hailed and acknowledged as one most salutary and beneficial, but to render it so assuredly required the most rigid scrutiny of its details, both as regarded such a measure in general and in reference to the peculiarities of Ireland in particular.

certainly could not agree with the hon. Member for Ashton, who seemed to think that the House must intend to oppress the poor because there was an agreement between both parties to pass this measure for their welfare. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that we ought to go back to those times when beggary was generally permitted, and when it was considered to be rather a merit than otherwise that the whole country was overrun with troops of mendicants. The hon. Gentleman seemed also to think that at present the law permitted vagrancy in Ireland. But so far from that, as the law now stood, vagrants might be transported. The hon. Member, therefore, was mistaken in supposing that this bill introduced for the first time a punishment for vagrancy. The Government thought that the law of Ireland pressed too severely on this offence, and they therefore proposed that it should be visited by a lighter punishment. The feelings of mankind would not go along with the law unless the law were consonant to general justice. It was the practice of the law in England, that while with one hand we offered relief to destitution, if it were not accepted, with the other we inflicted punishment for vagrancy. But while the law of Ireland punished vagrancy most severely, it gave destitution no relief. The Government, then, proposed to place the law on a more just footing, and while vagrancy was not to be permitted on the one hand, on the other relief would be given to the poor. He must say that it appeared to him that this arrangement was consonant with the principles of general justice. This was the general principle on which any poor-law should be founded. He knew no country in which it was not the duty of the state to relieve destitution, and punish vagrancy. But when they relieved the destitute, they should also take care to provide that no abuses should take place; and if any hon. Member should be of opinion that the hardships which would probably arise in individual instances from the establishment of the principle of a test of destitution would outweigh the advantages to be derived from its adoption, that hon. Member would be bound to oppose the Bill. He must observe that numerous cases had been proved to have occurred under the operation of the English Poor Law Act, and were equally likely to occur elsewhere, where persons not really destitute preferred the idle mode of subsisting by receiving parochial relief without work, rather than support themselves by the wages of industry. If he were asked to specify a recent instance of this description, he could point to a letter which had appeared in the public newspapers two or three days since from a person who signed himself a "Market Gardener," in which the public was cautioned against giving relief to persons going about and describing themselves as market gardeners out of work. The writer of this letter stated that if these persons chose to work, there was employment for them, but that, in point of fact, they had left their work of their own accord, so tempting a thing was it to them to live on the charity of the public. To abuses of this description the charitable institutions of every country were liable. And if they established by law a system of relief, without identifying with it some test of destitution, they would run a great risk of turning men, who might otherwise be laborious and useful members of society, aside from the paths of industry. For these reasons he had arrived at the conclusion that some test of destitution there should be, and that which appeared to be the best practical test, was the workhouse, established upon the principle that no person should receive relief outside it. He was not prepared to say that in Ireland particular circumstances might not exist which might call for some modification of this principle. He was not prepared to say that in Ireland there ought to be no relief except in the workhouse. Neither did he say, that there might not be some other test framed; but that the principle must, he believed, at least with certain limitations, be adopted. He was glad to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) approved of the principle of the Bill, and would give it his support. The details would of course all form the subject of consideration in Committee. His noble Friend near him had made some observations as to the mode in which the commissioners were to proceed in working out the details of the Bill. He did not exactly understand the point to which the noble Lord alluded. If there was any point upon which he was desirous of being informed as to his (Lord J. Russell's) intentions, he should be happy to explain to the noble Lord. This much he would observe generally, that in carrying into effect the details of the Bill, much must of course be left to the discretion of the commissioners. He was happy to find that no serious opposition had been made to the second reading of this Bill. And from what had fallen from several hon. Gentlemen, he belived that the House was disposed generally to adopt some Bill of this description; and, without entertaining the extravagant expectations in which some individuals had indulged, as to the benefits which the people of Ireland would derive from this Bill, he would express his belief that it would tend very much to improve their condition.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the Bill be divided into two Bills, the first referring to the 10l. household voters, and the other referring to the freemen. It had been said by the noble Lord opposite, that, in conceding a been to the freemen of this country, it was proper that a been should also be conceded to the 10l. householders. With that part of the subject, however, he had nothing to do. But he would observe that the noble Lord having been, as he might say, compelled to grant this been to the freemen when the hon. Member for Coventry brought forward this subject last year, he had determined to grant it with the worst possible grace. For coupling it with another been to the 10l. householders, in remitting to them a portion of their taxes, he adopted the most effectual means of insuring its rejection in the other House of Parliament. Having treated this subject at considerable length before, he would content himself with expressing a hope that the House would support him in his present proposition, which was for the separation of two subjects which were totally distinct, and rested upon entirely different grounds.

said, that he had stated upon a former occasion the grounds upon which it had been judged proper to unite these two subjects in the same Bill. He could not say, that the hon. and learned gentleman had convinced him by any of the reasons which he had advanced, that he was wrong in adopting that course. He therefore thought that the House should pass into Committee upon the Bill as it stood at present.

said, that when this subject was last before the House, he had stood forward for the purpose of vindicating the honest freemen of England from the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, her Majesty's Attorney-General, who had thought fit to designate them "the curse of the country." He was happy again to have the opportunity of standing forward boldly in behalf of those injured, individuals whose character he was ever ready to defend. The two points which, formed the subject of the present Bill appeared to him to be totally incongruous; and, for his part, he never would become a party to any such unjustifiable and underhanded trick. He certainly would not commit himself by giving his sanction to any Bill of this, he was going to say, nefarious description.

could not sup- port the proposed separation, because he was anxious to effect both the objects of the Bill. The rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act he considered to operate merely as a help to the tax gatherers, and in many places most distressing circumstances took place in consequence of their strict enforcement. In the borough which he represented it was the custom of the overseers and collectors of taxes to sit up till twelve o'clock at night on the 20th of July to receive the taxes; and their strict payment entailed, therefore, considerable hardships on the public officers, as well as upon the rate-payers themselves. The interval between the 5th of April and the 20th of July was a period during which many persons were frequently away from home, it was inconvenient for them, therefore, to pay the taxes, and these persons on their return very frequently found themselves disfranchised. Another objection which he entertained to the system as it stood was, that it made the collector of poor-rates a political person, for he had the power on the 15th or l6th of July of going round to his political friends, telling them that their taxes must be paid before the 20th, or they would be disfranchised; he postponed his call upon his opponents, who being ignorant of what was required, lost their votes. He thought, therefore, that the Bill should pass without alteration, as he did not consider it as changing any part of the principle of the Reform Act, but only as an amendment on some of its details, which had been found to work badly.

could not see the propriety of mixing up one part of the Bill with the other, and thus making them stand or fall together. The principle involved in the two parts was entirely different. The stamp duty on the admission of freemen was imposed only for fiscal purposes, and had no reference to their right to vote; and even during the discussion on the Reform Bill not one word was said on the necessity for this payment. Up to that time the admission to the freedom was the means of acquiring several pecuniary privileges, and the right to vote was only an incidental advantage. These pecuniary privileges had since been taken away, and all that remained of the right for which they had to pay the stamp-duty was the exercise of the elective franchise, for which they ought not to be made to pay. With the ten pound householders, however, the case was different. They had a right conferred upon them by the Reform Act subject to the performance of certain conditions, and if the House altered or repealed these conditions the Reform Bill would be altered, and with many persons this circumstance alone would be a sufficient reason for rejecting the Bill. The noble Lord had said that if a been were given to one class he would give another been to the other class; both the freemen and the ten pound householders, however, disclaimed the receiving of any such boon. If it were for the public advantage let their demands be granted, but let it not be described as a boon. If, it were meant as a been to the freemen how could they expect that it would proceed from the Ministerial side of the House, on which sat the noble Lord who had already denounced the freemen, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who considered them so great an evil? He (Mr. Praed) saw no reason why the Bill should not be divided into two parts, and why the House should not decide separately on the merits of each; and he should therefore vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle.

objected to proceeding with the Bill. If it were proposed on the ground of fraud on the part of the overseers, he could understand it, but none such was alleged, and the House was left entirely in the dark as to the reasons for proposing the measure. If it were correct to relieve the Parliamentary electors, why did they not make it more extensive and let it apply to voters under the Vestry and Corporation Acts, in both of which Acts payment of rates formed part of the qualification? He objected also to the introduction of a series of changes without the reason for them having been unfolded by the leader of that House; and unless good grounds for this measure were brought forward, he hoped that it would be rejected on the third reading.

rose to introduce an amendment, which, as he thought, would be a great benefit. He proposed to leave out the last two lines in the first clause, "except such as shall have become payable from him previously to the 11th day of October in the preceding year." The effect, if the omission which he suggested were adopted by the House, would be to enact that, after the passing of that Act, no person should be required, in order to have his name retained in the list of voters for any city, town, or borough, in England, for any year, to have paid any poor-rates or assessed taxes. This was a simple and summary mode of repealing the rate-paying clauses of the Reform form Act. It was for the House to say whether the clause should be repealed, or whether the remedy which he proposed was not preferable to the homoeopathic provisions of the Bill. Motions to the same effect had already been brought forward in the House, which for a considerable time had been generally rejected, but at the same time they were gradually more favourably received, and at length one which he had introduced to the House in the year 1837 was carried by a majority of eleven. Some, observations had fallen from an hon. Member opposite that the more respectable classes of society were those by whom the rates were more generally paid, but he was prepared to say, that this was not the case, for in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, which was well known as the most aristocratic parish in London, containing most of the fashionable streets and squares, there were 5,144 persons rated, and who would be entitled to vote, but of whom twenty-two only had paid their rates. This at least showed that it was not always the disreputable portion of the community who were negligent in this respect. The clause completely reversed the order of things, for it not only required the electors to be taxed, but it also required that they should have paid the tax before they could vote for the representatives that were to be empowered on the principles of the constitution to impose taxes on them. He did not see why it should apply to 10l. householders, and not to tenants of the yearly value of 50l. who had votes for the counties, and he knew that many 50l. tenants had expressed their wish that the principle should apply to them, because they could then disfranchise themselves if they chose, and relieve themselves from the unpleasant situations in which they were frequently placed. When the noble Lord proposed the Reform Bill he told them that they were to have 500,000 additional men called into electoral existence in Great Britain, of which London was to have 95,000; whereas it had at present but 47,000. It was thrown out also by an hon. Member opposite that the Bill would not be well received elsewhere. He believed it would not; but if the House adopted his amendment, it would have the effect of showing to the public the opinion of the House; and he was persuaded that if the noble Lord would adopt his amendment he would have the public feeling very much in his favour in consequence. Therefore, he sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would adopt the amendment, which hew as convinced would give universal satisfaction to true Reformers. The noble Lord would then be able to send the Bill to the other House with the greatest satisfaction, and with the greatest confidence in the effect which it would produce in the public mind.

had only to say, that the proposition of the hon. Member was far wide of the alteration which he proposed—an alteration which was originally suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He proposed it on the ground, which he considered a just one, of punctuality in the payment of the rates year after year. It often happened that persons failed in paying those rates at the necessary time for entitling them to be placed on the register, and, therefore, said the hon. Gentleman, was it that persons to whom the Reform Bill intended to give the franchise were by this provision prevented from exercising it, although every person admitted that those were the persons for whom the Reform Bill was chiefly intended. But the hon. Member's proposition now was, that the franchise ought to be given to persons for whom the Reform Bill intended it. The Reform Bill adopted the principle established in the constitution of this country respecting scot and lot voters, that the payment of the rates should be looked upon as the criterion of their solvency. The hon. Member wished them to extend the franchise to those who did not pay taxes, and who gave no test of solvency, a proposition consequently differing from the Reform Bill, and one in which he could not therefore agree. It would be in fact, to admit that the Reform Bill, and the ancient constitution, were altogether wrong, and that insolvency and beggary were no obstacle to the exercise of the franchise.

would ask why householders should be required at all to prove their solvency, and why a rule should be applied to persons resident in England which was not applied to electors in Scotland. He was prepared to vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he would go farther than that hon. Member; and he was sure that if the hon. Member would propose a regulation for England similar to that which existed in Scotland he would succeed. He really hoped that some hon. Member would put a motion to that effect on record, in order that the opportunity of exhibiting the opinion of the House to the public might not be lost.

said, that before the passing of the Reform Act, the qualification of voters was on a far different footing from that which now existed, and the House had then adopted a pecuniary qualification; but he did not think that that should be used as a means of enforcing payment of taxes, and he thought it would be better to repeal or modify that section of the Reform Bill, which had a rather larger influence than had been originally thought. He said this because he was one of those who was disposed to take his stand on the Reform Act, and he stated distinctly that he did not think it advisable to extend the elective franchise to others besides those mentioned in it. The pecuniary test was that which it had been chosen to assume, and he believed that it had gone far enough, and he was entitled to demand that the whole of the class should have the elective franchise. Bribery and corruption, it was complained, had hitherto been practised, but he thought that the proposition of the hon. Member, if adopted, would give it one more opportunity. He concluded by declaring his intention to support the noble Lord.

said, he believed the Bill to be an extremely useful amendment of the Reform Act, and he sincerely thanked the noble Lord for the amendment which he had introduced. At the same time however, he could not but express his intention to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which was only consistent with the view which he took during the passing of the Reform Bill.

was prepared to say that much mischief had hitherto proceeded from the system at present acted upon, for during the last Westminster election but one he saw some dozen persons who were prepared to vote for Mr. Leader if the committee would pay their taxes; but he had reason to believe, that their votes were eventually secured by the Conservative candidate. When the clause in the Reform Bill referring to scot and lot voters was before the House, it was predicted that this would be the result, and it was the result; and he thought that the noble Lord was bound to complain of the Reform Bill. His object in passing that measure was not to have any constituency consisting of less than 300 voters, but he must now be well aware that there were forty with less than that.

said, that he was astonished at the statement just made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny. It was well known that one of the purposes of the Reform Act was to remove the species of temptation to which the elec- tors just mentioned were presumed to have been exposed. If there had not been such a provision as there was in the Reform Act, the temptation to electors to ask the committees of candidates to pay their taxes would have been great; but according to the Reform Act, before they could vote, their names must be on the registry, and before those names could get there, the parties, antecedently to a certain day in July, must have paid all the taxes due previous to the preceding 5th of April. He could not, then, conceive how electors of Westminster came to a candidate's committee asking them to pay their taxes. Not being on the register how could they expect to vote, and they could not be on the register if they had failed to pay their taxes. He was glad, then, that his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had not been imposed on by persons thus pretending to be electors. His hon. Friends, the Members for Bridport and for Finsbury had complained that towns and counties were not placed, with respect to the right of voting, upon the same footing, appearing at the same time to complain of that as an instance of inconsistency in him (Lord J. Russell). To this he had but one reply to make, namely, that he had never undertaken to do any thing of the sort. In the Reform Act no general uniformity of principle was proposed in the modes of voting for counties and cities. Electors for counties were presumed to possess an estate in land, and no other test of their solvency was required. As to those who claimed to vote under the 50l. tenant-at-will clause, there might, perhaps, have been no objection to their payment of rates and taxes being required as a qualification, and, in fact, he considered that a provision for that purpose ought to have been introduced. While he was upon this part of the subject he begged to observe that his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had voted for that 50l. tenant-at-will clause, and that none of the Government did. His hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, used another argument in favour of the proposed amendment, on which he wished to make an observation. His hon. Friend contended that the Scottish elector was not bound to prove the payment of rates; so far from that being the case the Scottish Reform Act provided that electors should prove the payment on or before the 20th of August in the year in which the act was passed, and on or before the 20th of July in all future years, of all rates and taxes which fell due before the 6th of April preceding. How, then, his hon. Friend could say that the Scottish Reform differed from the English Reform Act appeared to him incomprehensible. He believed that if he had thus called attention to the clause of the act to which his hon. Friend referred, it Would have been supposed that there really existed a substantial difference between the two acts.

said, in explanation, that when the names of the electors were once on the register, it never after became necessary for them to prove the payment of rates and taxes.

said, it had been ruled that the non-payment of rates and taxes formed no valid objection to the right of voting. He thought his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had used his argument fairly enough, and was right in his facts. As to the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, it should have his cordial support.

approved of the principle of the Bill, but he contended that its operation ought to be extended. By the Bill as it at present stood, the extension of the time for the payment of rates and taxes, applied only to persons whose names were already upon the register of the past year, and not to those who claimed in virtue of their occupancy to have their names inserted upon the register for the first time. This was a distinction unknown to the Reform Act, and he hoped the noble Lord would extend the time for the payment to the 11th of October in the preceding year, as well to those names which were not in the former register as to those that were inserted in that register. He might mention, to show the importance of this alteration, that in the borough which he had the honour to represent there were upwards of a thousand names claiming to be registered in the last revising barristers' court, not one of whom could have availed himself of the benefit of this Bill if it had then been passed into a law. Nothing could be more detrimental to the Reform Act than to grant the privileges under it partially or parsimoniously.

supported the amendment, and referred to the opinions expressed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, during the debates on the Reform Act. Their opinions, he had no doubt, would have more weight with the House than any thing he could urge. The former said, that the clause which the hon. Member for Finsbury sought to amend would open a wide door to bribery and corruption—that strong temptations would be held out to electors to invite candidates to pay their rates and taxes, and the result, he had no doubt, would be that purity of election must be impaired to a greater extent than before. The right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire stated, that he had long been resident in London—that he never was called on in July for the rates due in April, and he thought it would be hard if he happened to be out of town and neglected to pay his rates that that circumstance should deprive him of the right of voting. He was sure that the effect of the clause must be to disfranchise hundreds of thousands of electors. It was also material for the House to recollect, that Sir Charles Wetherell, in the same debate, had contended, that the people would not find the 10l. qualification any great boon, when it was fettered with this restriction. He hoped, then, that the noble Lord would reconsider his measure, and take the advice of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

considered that it was necessary he should correct a misapprehension into which an hon. Member had fallen with respect to what he had stated. He never said, that the rich and the reputable would pay their rates, while the poor and disreputable would not pay; he thought, on the contrary, and said, that many reputable people might not pay their rates, but he was of opinion, that the payment of a man's just and fair debts afforded a fair test of his respectability. He objected to the clause however, on grounds totally distinct from those relied on by hon. Members opposite. The opinions of right hon. Members, not now in the House, referred to by the hon. Member for Marylebone, supplied no evidence as to what they thought of the present Bill. On the opposition side of the House, they desired to abide by the Reform Act in its present state, and to take it as a whole. As to the evil arising from the non-payment of taxes, it was every year decreasing, and he really thought that, after the change in the franchise which that measure effected, it was not unreasonable to expect the continuance of such a test of solvency, of respectability, of attention to, and interest in, public affairs, as the punctual payment of rates and taxes supplied. He was resolved to oppose the amendment.

had no doubt, that if the right hon. Members referred to were in the House, they would vote against the amendment; they opposed the extension of the franchise, and now they desired to cripple its exercise as much as possible. He could name three Gentlemen, Members of that House, whose sufficiency could not be doubted, whose names had been struck off the register of voters, in consequence of not having paid their rates. In small boroughs, where parties were divided, the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act, in addition to many other evils consequent upon them, placed the election too much in the hands of the overseers. Candidates were frequently called upon to pay the voter's taxes for him; and he had no hesitation in declaring, that some years ago, he had assisted in the payment of the rates and taxes of some persons occupying 10l. houses, in order that they might be placed upon the register of electors. In his opinion the 10l. franchise should be carried out to its full extent, and he thought, that there was no right to demand that a vote should be consequent on the payment of rates. He should, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

considered it impossible to find one argument in favour of the course followed by the noble Lord. It was a truckling and a middle course, and if this measure were taken as a sample of the policy of the Government, he was sure they would derive commendation from no party in the House, and that the people without would give them no credit, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be praised for spoiling the question for which they were all contending, viz., freedom of election.

said, that at his election for Westminster there were not ten or twelve, but hundreds of persons holding the 10l. franchise who were anxious to vote for him, but who could not do so, because, owing to some accident or some negligence, their names had been struck off the registry. In consequence of this rate-paying claim they could not vote. This had occurred to him not only in Westminster, but also at Bridgewater. It frequently happened that the overseers were Tories, and favourable to their own party, and they took the opportunity their offices gave them of disfranchising electors by calling on ratepayers opposed to them only once for their rates, but giving to others the convenience of their calling several times. This ought not to be the case, and the continuance of it was a great temptation to corruption. It opened a wide source for corruption at the time of registration. The hon. Member for Marylebone had declared in a very manly manner, and he wished others who had done so would avow it as candidly, that he had assisted many in being registered by the payment of their rates. This, however, he considered as almost buying their votes; it was certainly giving them something for them. He thought that the proposal of the noble Lord would ensure opposition from a large party in that House, and the rejection of it in the Upper House, but that the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was what the majority of electors wished for. If men were fit to vote by a 10l. qualification, they were fit without the consideration of their rates being paid or not; this ought not to have been super-added to the franchise, it was an unnecessary restriction, and he should, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

did not think the payment of rates the best qualification, but, as he considered that the amendment would defeat the object of the Bill, he should vote for the proposal of the noble Lord.

had not the slightest political respect for either Whigs or Radicals; and since the noble Lord had been altering, patching up, and mending the measure of reform, which he had told him at the time of passing, he knew nothing about, he would ask the noble Lord why the 10l. qualification should not be extended to the county electors as well as to those of boroughs? He should like to see this power given to them. As to the rejection of this measure by the House of Lords, he hoped that House would long continue to resist the machinations of parties opposite. With respect to the noble Lord's proposal, he considered it mere trumpery; and as to that of the hon. Member for Finsbury, it was still more truckling. Unless some good measure were brought forward, he would vote for neither the one nor the other, but thought he should best perform his duty by withdrawing altogether.

thought, the best provision of the Reform Act was the extension of the franchise to 50l. landholders; but he had long wished to see the 10l. qualification extended to both town and country, as he considered it the only reasonable proposition for putting an end to further litigation on the subject. He owned that it was not without great regret he had heard the noble Lord express his intention of opposing the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He could not understand in what manner the noble Lord could adhere to the principle of the Reform Bill, and not go on to doing away with the rate-paying clause altogether. The noble Lord's proposition, without the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, was practically a repeal of that clause, for a great number of persons who were now disfranchised would get their votes by means of this Bill, but he thought the measure would not pass the other, House. The people felt no interest in the Bill, because it enlarged their franchise in a manner they did not ask for. He wished to stand on the true intention of the Reform Bill. The rate-paying clause, however, gave great power to overseers, and many of their own party were allowed to be registered, whilst others of the opposite party were, although equally reputable persons, frequently disfranchised by their means.

thought, it was of much greater importance to propose such measures as were likely to be carried into effect than to push principles too far and fail altogether. The Bill of his noble Friend met the case of a man who, under existing circumstances, would be deprived of his vote by an accidental omission to pay his rate, and supplied a remedy for that inconvenience, whereas the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury would extend the franchise to an individual who might be insolvent. He could not help observing that the practice pursued by some hon. Members on the present and other occasions was calculated to place the Ministers in a false position, for whenever an advanced step in the course of amendment was taken by them, it was misrepresented to the country by its being immediately contrasted with some more extreme measure. He begged to remind the House that when the present Bill was introduced in a former Parliament, it was received with general satisfaction by the Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House.

felt some surprise at the Bill proposed by the Government, support for which was demanded, not only from those who advocated the present small measure, but also from those who were in favour of a stronger measure. He recollected that the noble Lord once denounced all changes of the Reform Act, saying that it was a charter by which he would abide, and that a revolution once a year was too much for any country to bear: and yet the noble Lord now proposed to make an alteration of that charter; whereupon the hon. Member for Finsbury said, as it was natural he should say, if there is to be an alteration at all let it be an effectual one. If he were forced to choose between the two propositions, he should certainly vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he was for leaving the Reform Act alone. When that Act was first introduced, the right of voting was made dependent upon the payment of rent, but in consequence of his repeated remonstrances on the inconveniences and evils which such a provision would create, that portion of the bill was not insisted on; and now that the Bill had passed into law, he was not the one who would consent to see it altered day after day. It appeared to him that the Government desired to open the rate-paying clauses, and to enlarge the franchise; but they had not the courage to make that proposition frankly, and they therefore wished, by a little grant and a little concession, to pave the way by degrees for the adoption of the hon. Member for Finsbury's motion. He repeated, he was against all changes of the Reform Act. When he last had the honour of sitting in Parliament, he remembered that if he found the least fault with the provisions of the Reform Act, he was told that the people were knocking at the doors of that House, and that they were devotedly attached to the bill—the whole bill. Well! the bill having passed into law, nobody obeyed it with greater fidelity than himself, for he took the principle of Conservatism to be, to oppose that which might be deemed bad, but when once it passed into law, to obey it. But now it was said by the other side that the oppression practised under the Reform Act was such as no man could long endure. Did the noble Lord think, that continually tampering with the constitution of England, that making some trifling alteration in it year after year, and leaving the rights of Englishmen unsettled, was a course which would be long endured by the country? He again repeated that he would oppose these eternal changes in the Reform Act, which had worked better than he had expected—a result he attributed to the right feeling and good sense of the people of England.

felt extreme astonish- ment at hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had so perseveringly and bitterly opposed the Reform Bill, now say, with regard to that measure, "leave well alone." The hon. and learned Gentleman having night after night opposed the progress of that bill—having condemned it as revolutionary, and predicted that it would take the Crown off the Monarch's head, and sever Church from State, now, after an absence of some years returned to the House, and,

"Ut belli signum laurenti Turnus ab arce Extulit,"

he waged another war against the Government under other auspices; for he attacked not the Reform Act, being, indeed, only anxious to bear testimony to its beneficial operation and the utter failure of all his predictions. The spirit of Conservatism appeared to be very strong and singular in its nature, for he should certainly have expected that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, being so strong in numbers, would have come forward with a proposition to repeal a bill which they characterised as sure to work perpetual mischief. At the motion made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he felt no surprise; because that hon. Member, and the Gentlemen who supported his views, always contended that the Reform Bill should lead to other changes. What they asked now was, in principle, that property should have nothing to do with the elective franchise. That, he thought, was implied by their proposition. For his part, he had always contended that the principle of the Reform Bill should be maintained; but he had never gone so far as to say, that there could not possibly be found any defects in that measure arising from its working, or arising from the conduct of those who had always been its enemies, and who tried to impede its working in a natural and safe manner. He should, therefore, be always ready to promote practical remedies for such defects, and he thought that if such practical amendments were introduced, they would tend to the maintenance of the Reform Bill; and that if they were refused, the consequence would be, that such propositions as that of the hon. Member for Finsbury, would meet with greater support.

complained of the charge made against the supporters of the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that they wished to have the electoral qua- lification totally unconnected with property. On what ground did the noble Lord make such a charge?

thought, that the principle involved in the proposition was, that property should not be the basis of the qualification, for it did away with the necessity of paying rates, which might be looked upon as a test of the bonâ fide occupation of a House.

said, it appeared from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the duty of the Conservatives was to oppose a bad law before passing, and to support it after it had passed, maintaining it unchanged in its original form. It was certainly a curious sort of Conservatism for hon. Gentlemen opposite to support a law against which they had so vehemently protested, as they did against the Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, and those around him, were continually crying out against every improvement, and saying, "let well alone." They would admit of no alterations in the Reform Bill, against which they had ever exerted all their energies. The right hon. Gentleman had said, he had contended against the rent-paying clauses of the Reform Bill, and been successful in having them removed, and in his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion, it would be better to strike out the rate-paying clause also; and he should therefore vote for the amendment.

observed, that he had only talked of obeying the law, and had said nothing of alterations of the law. To obey the laws, he had said, was the duty of the Conservatives; but perhaps the hon. Member for Dublin did not fully understand that duty.

did not say whether his obedience to the laws was or was not greater than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He regretted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should have lost his temper.

could assure the hon. Member for Dublin that he had not lost temper.

Then all I have to say is, that the right hon. Gentleman can say an uncivil thing in good humour—that's all.

suggested to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether proof of one year's payment of taxes would not be sufficient. He did not mean to divide the House on the subject, but as the law at present stood, it was necessary, in many cases, to go back for, perhaps, twenty years, and he had seen great inconvenience resulting as the consequence to the revising barristers. He thought it would be better, if the payment of one year's rates and taxes before entering the name of the elector on the register was made sufficient. He only wished to suggest the matter to the noble Lord, and had no wish to impede the progress of the bill.

thought, the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, would have been better discussed on a question of registration than on the present occasion.

said, there was one portion of the clause on which he should divide the House, unless the noble Lord opposite consented to alter it. The bill required the payment of rates and taxes to give a right to vote, but it never could have been the object of its framers to apply any other test than that of solvency to claimants for the right of exercising the franchise. Now, overseers might have prejudices and be actuated by party feelings, and therefore decline calling on and demanding payment of rates from those whom they did not wish to vote. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord consented to frame the clause so as to make a demand for payment of rates by the overseers necessary before an elector was disqualified from voting, he should take the sense of the House upon the subject.

, on bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, for the House resolving itself a Committee on the Coal Trade Act said, that, although the subject was of considerable importance, yet it would not be necessary for him to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. The object which he had in view was the continuance of the Bill which Mr. Frankland Lewis brought in a few years ago for regulating the coal trade, as respected this metropolis and certain parts of the adjoining counties. That Bill, as the House must recollect, made an alteration, by which instead of being sold by measure coals should be only sold by weight, the dues being regulated by the same principle. The operation of Mr. Frankland Lewis's Bill was limited to seven years, and as that time had nearly expired it became necessary to continue its provisions. If it were allowed to expire the consequence would be a return to the old system. The whole of the arrangements with respect to coal metres would be done away with, and the vexatious imposts and dues of the city of London would all be revived. There could, he thought, be no difference of opinion as to the impropriety of allowing this Bill to expire, but at the same time he begged to say, that it was not his intention to propose its renewal without allowing the House a full opportunity of looking into it, and closely and accurately investigating every one of its provisions, in order to see whether any fresh alterations were necessary, and if the duties and regulations of the trade could be rendered less onerous to the inhabitants of the metropolis than they now were. It appeared to him, that the proper course would be to refer the Bill on the second reading to a Select Committee up stairs. Its provisions would by this means be best examined and considered, and, with this impression on his mind, that was the course he meant to take. He had communicated with the parties interested in the subject, both in the North and in London, and they all expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with what he proposed to do. This circumstance relieved him of the necessity of going into the details of the measure. There was one point, however, which he was bound to mention, and it was one which he was sure would give satisfaction to the House, and that was, that when the corporation of the city of London applied to him to move for the renewal of this Bill, they stated, that they would consent to have the duty now levied by them on each ton of coals reduced one-half The sum thus to be given up to the public would be about 6,000l. a year, and showed the disposition of the city of London to do everything in their power to contribute to the comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He should propose, that the Select Committee should have power to inquire whether the duty of 12d. the chaldron, at present paid, could not be still further reduced, and also to investigate generally the manner in which the coal trade was conducted in the port of London. It was not his intention that they should carry their inquiry further, or go into the coal trade as it existed in the North; and in order that they should confine themselves to this branch of the subject merely, he should propose that their investigation should be limited to the regulations of the coal trade in London, and the amount of duties chargeable on coals brought into market in the metropolis. In these inquiries they would find considerable assistance in the Report of the Committee of 1826. Though they did not want to make any material alterations with respect either to the amount of the duties or the way in which the coal trade was carried on, he was anxious that the matter should be fully examined into, in the hope that a satisfactory result to all parties would be arrived at. The hon. Member then moved, that the House should resolve itself into Committee.

said, he concurred in much of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, but in considering the question he hoped the interests of the coalowners of the north were not the only interests which would be regarded. He disapproved of invidious distinctions, and as the system of combination in this trade existed as much now as ever, he thought that the whole subject, without reference to any part of the country, should be inquired into.

then proposed a resolution, to the effect that a Bill should be brought in for continuing the law now in operation with respect to the coal trade of the metropolis.

feared, that the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would not be attained by his resolution, as it went merely to the continuance of the present Act, and not to the inquiry proposed.

said, that he meant to effect the inquiry by means of an instruction to the Committee. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord, (Lord G. Somerset), he had merely to explain, that his reason for mentioning the coal-owners of the north was, because it was on them the metropolis depended for a supply of that article. He was sorry to say, that little or no coals reached the port of London from any other quarter.