wished to inquire of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he had received any information of a melancholy and sanguinary affray which had taken place near Canterbury? He wished to ask, also, whether the individual who was the chief author of that affray was not a decided madman; whether he had not been for some time confined as such in a lunatic asylum in the county of Kent; and by whose authority that individual had been set at liberty?

, with regard to the unfortunate occurrence, could only say, that the accounts received at the Home-office from the magistrates as well as the military authorities, coincided very nearly with the public accounts, with which the hon. Gentleman was already acquainted. With respect to the individual who was the chief author of the melancholy occurrence, he was found guilty of perjury in the year 1833, at the assizes for the county of Kent. It was then said, that he was of unsound mind, and he was confined from the year 1833 in the lunatic asylum in the county of Kent. Towards the latter end of the last year his father reported to him (Lord John Russell), as Secretary of State, that although his son was in some degree of unsoundness and flighty, yet that he had not been found guilty of any criminal act of violence, and the father stated that, if released, he would take charge of his son. Upon this representation, he directed the visiting magistrates to give an account of his state of mind, and an account was forwarded from the surgeon of the asylum that he certainly was still of an unsound mind, fancying himself (Sir William Courtenay) a knight of Malta, and having other erroneous impressions; but there was nothing to show that there was anything dangerous or malicious in his madness. He had no reason to doubt, that the person who was his father, and who was represented to him as a person of good character, would undertake the charge of his son; and on his representation, and on his engagement, this individual, having been four years confined, he gave orders should be set at liberty. It appeared, that the father afterwards went to the lunatic asylum, and instead of taking charge of his son himself, said, that he had authority to have his son delivered up to whomsoever he might appoint; and instead of appointing a person used to the care of such patients, he gave him in charge to a person living in the neighbourhood, in the county of Kent, of whom there was no reason to suppose that he was fit for the charge of any man in such a condition. There was nothing with which he (Lord John Russell) was acquainted in the previous circumstances, to induce him to believe, that the individual was likely to commit any crime of violence; he had been found guilty only of perjury, and not of any violent assault, or of an attack on an individual; and under these circumstances he complied with the request of the father. It appeared that since his discharge the individual had been living in the county of Kent, and had been guilty of the acts which led to this unfortunate occurrence.

had been applied to on this subject by an hon. Friend, a Member of that House, whom he did not then see in his place, who stated that he knew the individual, and that his family were most respectable, and they were very desirous of having him under their protection. They stated, that they were convinced that the insanity was only temporary, and the request came not only from the father, but also from the wife. The noble Lord had particularly guarded himself, by making particular inquiries as to the respectability, before he acceded to the request, and under the conditions as to the charge of his person, the individual was ultimately released.

wished to ask whether, previous to the actual collection of persons which led to the unfortunate collision, the magistrates had made any representations that this individual was occupied in agitating the public mind upon this subject?

replied, that he had not received any representation of the kind, nor had he received any statement till this day.

Did not accounts reach the noble Lord some days previously that the individual was occupied in agitating the public mind?

No; no information of any kind had reached me before this occurrence.

moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill. On the question that the Speaker leave the chair,

said, that there was one point on which that House had a right to expect that it should receive from the noble Lord some information. When he found, that two powerful and rival parties in the State, had effected a compromise—a compromise on a subject so important as the government of a country, and that country so interesting as Ireland, and one which was so important a portion of the empire—he felt, that it was at least due to the House, to their constituents, and to the nation at large, that they should be favoured with a clear, an intelligible, and a perfect idea of the principle in favour of which this compromise was effected. He assumed that such principle was not a meaner one than as to what should be the manner on which the future and permanent government of Ireland should be carried on; for if he thought, that the principle was of a meaner nature, he would look only on the compromise as a miserable expedient, as an attempt to elude difficulties against which they must finally contend; and that it would only give a momentary lull to the storm of political agitation which had so long menaced the State, instead of that calm which right-minded persons of all parties were anxious to witness, and that Ireland should enjoy. There was only one principle for the government of such a country, and that was, the principle of centralization; and for this reason, if for no other, it was, that we delegated power from England to Ireland, because it was the only authority which could be trusted to execute that power without passion. He was sure that such was the principle adopted by the right hon. Baronet, and on which alone he would consent to govern Ireland; and unless he (Mr. D'Israeli) were informed, distinctly informed, that the noble Lord intended to adopt such a principle of government, he would most reluctantly enter upon a compromise which would not benefit Ireland. The noble Lord was obliged to adopt such a principle now he had the advantage of a stipendiary magistracy and of a paid police, and he (Mr. D'Israeli) thought that there was some inconsistency in the noble Lord availing himself of a machinery without which he could not maintain order, whilst order was preserved in England without such machinery; and then in the noble Lord attempting to assimilate the two systems of municipal government, and to give magistrates to towns when the noble Lord could not trust the rural magistrates with the preservation of order.

The House in Committee.

On the first Clause,

said, that he wished to move an amendment, to unite the two first schedules A and B, so as to leave only two schedules instead of three, as at present. The first, to contain the towns to which corporations were to be given, with an uniform 10l. franchise as assessed to the poor-rates, and the second to contain those towns in which a majority of the 10l. householders might apply for and obtain a charter, and in which, if they did not so apply, commissioners were to be appointed. His formal amendment to effect this object would be, to introduce the word "and" in the 13th line after the letter A.

wished to say a few words to explain his view on the point which the right hon. Gentleman adverted to the other night. He would not enter into the questions which might be discussed on particular clauses, nor would he enter into the details of the two principal points adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought that it would be most convenient if he were to state his view with respect to the two propositions. Those two propositions, as he conceived, were, to pass a bill giving corporations to only eleven cities and boroughs in Ireland, and to leave out the granting of corporations to all the places in schedule C, giving, however, to them and to other places which had not corporate charters, liberty of applying to the Crown, with the view of obtaining charters, thereby absolutely conferring new and reformed corporations on eleven cities and boroughs, reserving the power of granting the same to others by a different mode, not denying corporations to any, but determining that these towns might, or might not, on their own application, have the same charters. The other proposition of the right hon. Gentleman regarded the amount of the franchise, by which, instead of a division of a 10l. franchise in some towns, of a 7l. franchise in others, and a franchise of 5l. value in all the rest, some thirty in number, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that there should be one uniform franchise for all corporations constituted by that bill, or to be afterwards constituted, provided that if a rate to the poor should be established by Act of Parliament such rate should be the criterion by which the value was to be ascertained. With regard to the first proposition to which the right hon. Gentleman's present amendment more particularly referred, he stated, that although he had preferred the bill as it stood, to the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, yet, as the proposition contained in the first place an enactment that a certain number of the principal cities and towns in Ireland should have corporations, and, secondly, that the administration of other towns, should, under certain conditions, be similarly provided for, he did not think the point of difference of vast importance, he was content to wave it, and he would be glad to see the bill in operation. He would, therefore, allow the right hon. Gentleman's proposal in that respect. With regard to the other proposition relating to the franchise, it seemed to the Government, after the best consideration which they had been enabled to give to the question, that an uniform 10l. franchise, coupled with rating to that amount, would be too high a qualification. He was not going to argue the whole question then; but he only made these observations to facilitate their proceedings. Every proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and the grounds on which it was placed, must be considered in their general operation for the establishment of the franchise in municipal towns, and, without stinting any, they ought to be peculiarly anxious to see the franchise granted in a manner which should not be offensive or invidious to any. They were grounds which, supposing the House were considering the establishment of corporations for Scotland, might equally have been considered by the right hon. Gentleman as the foundation of the franchise for that country. Therefore, with respect to the mode of reasoning adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, he (Lord John Russell) would at once say, that he was ready to follow the same mode of reasoning, although he came to a different conclusion from him with regard to the amount at which the franchise ought to be fixed. He did not wish to propose any franchise at a sum unreasonably low. With regard to all the other points upon which the right hon. Gentleman had touched, he (Lord John Russell) believed, that, hardly without any exception, when they came to the discussion of the amendments that would be proposed, there would be no difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and himself. He, therefore hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would not divide the Committee now upon the clause in its present shape, on the understanding that the point should be reconsidered. Taking the matter one way or the other, however, the main point of difference that remained with respect to the bill was the question of the franchise. If that question upon discussion could be satisfactorily arranged, he was not disposed to dispute this point, and he thought that they might be able to agree generally with respect to the provisions of the bill. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, would understand that whatever might be the decision at the present moment, he (Lord John Russell) considered that the discussion of the clause with respect to the amount of the franchise would be the main discussion on this bill. Upon that clause he should be prepared to state his views, and wherein he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, although there was really no difference in principle between them.

agreed that it was a matter of indifference, whether they took this clause at present or not. Although his right hon. and learned Friend nominally proposed the omission of schedule C, yet it was not for the purpose of removing from the bill those towns that stood in that schedule. It was necessary to make the proposal on this account, because, of course, they (the Opposition) must assume for the sake of argument that their principles were admitted. That was inevitable. They proposed, that the whole eleven towns should have corporations as a matter of course; that it should be obligatory upon those towns to have them. They assumed, also, that the amount of the franchise should be 10l. In that case it was unnecessary to have two schedules, so that what was now called schedule C would become part of schedule B. But the noble Lord would perceive, that this very point would arise in discussing the sixth clause, because that clause contained the amount of the franchise, and the whole of the amendments which he had prepared would depend upon the decision come to respecting that clause, resting as they entirely did upon the question as to what should be the amount of the franchise. He wished to suggest his amendments in the most conciliatory spirit; yet he was bound to state to the noble Lord, that he did not come forward to propose them without full consideration, and without a perfect determination to abide by them. When the question of franchise should arise, he intended steadily to adhere to the principle on which he proposed, that the corporations should be granted. Therefore, supposing the House should determine that a 5l. franchise should be given in certain cases, it would become him to consider the position in which he should be placed, because, in that supposition it would evidently be unnecessary for him to propose the passing of many subsequent amendments, which, in fulfilment of his engagement, he had prepared.

thought, it would be more convenient if the Committee were made to understand the amendments of the right hon. Gentleman more in detail. They understood what the principle of the right hon. Gentleman was; that it was, in fact, contracting the franchise by diminishing the number of voters in Ireland, so that, if possible, the same result might be obtained after the establishment of the corporations, as was obtained now, but by a different process; and that they might be, if not quite so exclusive as at present, yet, in point of fact, still an exclusive body, and with a power existing to make them equally exclusive, if necessary. The very distinctness with which the right hon. Gentleman had announced his adherence to the arrangement he pro- posed, showed exactly what the people of Ireland had to expect; that was to say, that this measure was to be a compromise, in which one party would propose it, another party would not accept it, while the third and most important party of all was to be left out of consideration altogether. That being distinctly the fact, the question was, whether it was worth while to consider it at all—whether it was worth while to be playing the game of delusion any longer. It was melancholy to reflect that a measure brought in by the Government, and now pending in the House of Lords, and which was founded upon the principle of charity and benevolence towards Ireland, should be made subordinate to party views in arrangements affecting the civil rights of the people of that country; and be made use of as an instrument for lessening the extent of the municipal franchise. In no country in the world could such a thing be done, except with respect to Ireland. As far as he understood what was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it was, that the poor-law should be taken as a test, with a view to raise the amount of the franchise, and to diminish the number of voters both in the counties and towns in Ireland. He did not care how that object was covered, or by what plausible or conciliatory words it was to be accomplished. A wise statesman would desire that the people of Ireland should be received within the pale of the British constitution, not for the purpose of domination, but for the purpose of being identified with the people of England and of Scotland. These ought to be the objects of a wise and benevolent statesman. It was said, that the Catholic Emancipation Bill was enacted for that object, and to a certain extent, it undoubtedly was. But how far did that bill go? It went so far as giving rights and privileges to the gentry and upper classes, but at the same time, it took away rights and privileges from the people, and from the humbler classes, by raising the franchise to such an amount as placed it beyond their reach. These two objects, that of conferring rights on the rich, and taking away rights from the poor, ought to have had no connection. The power of holding seats in the Houses of Parliament, of occupying stations on the bench, and of holding commissions in the army and navy, were boons to the wealthier classes, but the people were at the same time struck out of the franchise. Now, what he complained of was, that the Emancipation Bill was accompanied with a severe diminution of the rights of the people at large, so that it became absolutely necessary for them to agitate, without which no public rights could ever be obtained. And what was it that they were now doing? England and Scotland having had corporate reform for years, they were insulting Ireland, and had insulted her over and over again, by audaciously refusing to give her corporate reform, an insult which could be diminished by using gentle and mitigated terms. The black flag, it was true, had been taken down, but the people of Ireland were now to have a flag hoisted against them, which was neither orange nor green, but a mixture of both; and with the intent of something being done for them things were to be made worse. If it were meant to give Ireland corporate reform, let it be given as it had been given to England and to Scotland. He, for one, would not accept a corporate reform bill for Ireland upon any ground, but that of having a franchise as extensive as England and Scotland enjoyed. He did not desire more, but he did desire that effectually; and the people of Ireland would not be defeated on that point by any dexterity. If the House were disposed to give them a franchise to the extent he had described, then they would be ready to go into the question amicably, with a view to a final arrangement; but if they would not do that, any measure they might adopt would have no effect whatever. It would only give a certain degree of power to a certain proportion of the people of Ireland, which would enable the people generally to consider it as a paltry instalment and as a reason for the further agitation of the subject. Let not the right hon. Gentleman propose a 10l. franchise when it was really his intention to struggle for a 20l. franchise. If his object was to prevent a 5l. or a 10l. franchise let him avow it openly, and let him meet the present proposition fairly and bonâ fide.

said, that whatever might have been the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the evident effect of his speech was, to prejudice the future discussion, that might arise on the question now before the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that he (Sir Robert Peel) had more sternly tonight declared that which he very mildly stated the other night to be his intentions with respect to this bill. He (Sir Robert Peel) was not aware, that there was any particular sternness in the manner in which he might state the course he meant to pursue, but he was quite sure, that the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, that a person might have a certain determination to pursue a particular course, and yet, anxious to avoid giving rise to any party discussion, might state his intentions in very mild language. It was stated in the bill, that in the eleven towns in which there were to be corporations, the constituency should be composed of those who truly and really held tenements of the full yearly value of 10l. and upwards. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that when it was proposed, that the franchise should depend upon the possession of property of a certain clear yearly value, let them distinctly understand what that was to be—let not a 20l. franchise be constituted under a nominal franchise of 10l. He (Sir R. Peel) agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. But when they told him (Sir R. Peel) that the franchise should be limited to those who possessed property of the bonâ fide value of 10l. a year, he called upon them to make their enactments correspond with that declaration, and give a guarantee, that the franchise was, as it professed to be in words, of the yearly value of 10l. and upwards in possession. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the poor-law proposed for Ireland was a very unsatisfactory measure, and that we were prejudicing the corporations by proposing to take it as a test of rating. All that he (Sir Robert Peel) had said, of the poor-law was this, that the poor-law afforded an unvarying controlling check upon the amount of rating, and was, therefore, a good test of the bonâ fide nature of the possession on which the franchise was to depend. It would, in his opinion, be very objectionable to have two different principles of rating in the same borough. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the poor-law would be passed, all that he urged was, that they should take a common principle for rating, both for the poor, and for ascertaining the corporation franchise. Those who thought that a 5l. franchise should be established would, of course, object to this; but those who proposed a 10l. franchise (as was proposed by the present bill) could not possibly object to taking the rating for the poor as a criterion of the municipal franchise. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that this would be to perpetuate a monopoly. Surely in the eleven towns in Ireland proposed to be included in schedule A, it could not be said, that the occupation of a 10l. franchise was a monopoly. He, on the contrary, thought it would give a fair balance of interests. At least, that was not his object in proposing it. It was his fixed determination to adhere to the principle he stated the other evening, namely, that eleven towns at the franchise of 10l. should be fixed, instead of seven as proposed by the noble Lord; and with respect to the other towns, he should propose to leave the granting of corporations to depend upon the application of those who were to constitute them. Upon this principle he was desirous of bringing this question to a satisfactory settlement. He hoped that the same spirit would not prevail here as had prevailed out of doors. It was clear, that there was a desire on the part of some to defeat the settlement of this matter. But all the observations, that had appeared in the public prints with that object, would not in the slightest degree affect his own principle which he indicated the other evening, and which he must say, appeared to give great satisfaction to a large proportion of the Members of that House. With a steady adherence to this principle he intended not in the slightest degree to deviate from seeking to effect an amicable settlement of these questions. He should persevere in the earnest wish to bring them to an amicable arrangement, and he should be very much surprised, if persevering in that conciliatory and steady course, he should fail. Should the attempt, however, on his part fail, he very much doubted, whether he should not stand acquitted in the eyes of those who were anxious to see a suspension of that agitation in Ireland which had prevented the satisfactory adjustment of so many questions affecting the well governing of that country.

said, that from the last sentiment of the right hon. Baronet he totally differed. The right hon. Baronet knew that Ireland never got anything but by agitation, and there was no better witness of that fact than the right hon. Baronet himself. It was not from conviction, or reason, or judgment, or an opinion of his own, that the people of Ireland had a right to emancipation, that he consented to it; but he yielded obviously to agitation, and he did wisely: he, therefore, was the last person who ought to stigmatise agitation. But the question now was, not whether in words—for in words the right hon. Baronet really stood by his former statement of his intentions—but the real question was whether in reality it was intended to fix the franchise at the sum nominally mentioned. The only question between him (Mr. O'Connell) and the right hon. Baronet was as to the value. He would give an instance. In the town of Belfast the franchise depended on the value as rated. There were persons sworn to set a just value upon the houses, and yet those valuers came before the fictitious votes committee, and declared that houses which they had themselves valued at 8l. might have been most safely taken at 10l. value. Every man, therefore, rated at 8l. was shut out of the franchise. That was exactly the question at present; and it was quite right that they should know how far they were likely to agree upon this point with the right hon. Baronet. He never could consent to any one man being deprived by any species of dexterity of the franchise, or by voluntarily avoiding to pay what he ought to pay, and thereby release himself of the exercise of the franchise.

begged to suggest that as this point would again come under discussion when the right hon. Baronet should propose his amendment in clause 6, the present conversation had better terminate.

wished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Dublin what test of qualification he would himself suggest?

would answer that question at once. He would take the value as it was ascertained under the Parliamentary Reform Act for towns and boroughs, but not for counties; for them there must be a valuation. The test he proposed was perfect in its nature. No man would pay 10l. for a tenement which was not worth it. Where the rent was less than 10l. they would have to ascertain whether any fine were given by the tenant, which they would add to the rent at the rate of ten per cent. If there had been no fine given, then they would have to inquire whether there had been any improvements which would induce a solvent tenant to give 10l. a-year for the house as it stood. These were the tests now. But the test the right hon. Baronet proposed would altogether change this; and he (Mr. O'Connell), when the period for discussing the point came, would show that there would be but little reliance to be placed upon the rating under a poor-law bill.

said, if the real value of the premises was 10l. a-year, that would be the amount at which it would be rated, and must be abided by.

said, that having attended to a great number of cases, he had come to the conclusion that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the criterion of value as established before the revising barristers. It was important that a certainty of a just valuation should be procured, and he saw no better plan than one in which the parties themselves were interested, by the payment of rates, and he must express his belief, that the success of any other would be hopeless.

It was easy to understand that this was a mere struggle to increase the amount of the franchise, and why not admit it at once? It was even yet to be ultimately decided what was to be the rating under the poor-law, and it would be better to postpone this subject at once than go on in the dark? Was it intended that the franchise for the burgess roll should be higher than the parliamentary franchise?

would read the amendment which he proposed to move, and then the hon. and learned Member would understand what was intended. The hon. and learned Member said, "What is the use in going on with this discussion?" Now, if he (Sir Robert Peel) were to have proposed the postponement of this measure until the poor-law had passed, what would have been at once said? That he wanted to postpone in order to delay the granting of the privileges to Ireland. He was determined, therefore, to offer no obstruction to its going on regularly, and to frame his amendment on the assumption of the passing of the poor-law; and in the event of that bill being thrown out, to look for some other test of value. It would be to the effect that every man of full age occupying any house, warehouse, counting- house, office, or shop, which either "separately or jointly, with any land within such borough, occupied therewith by him as tenant under the same landlord, or occupied by him therewith as owner, and shall in respect of the said premises be assessed under any act for the relief of the poor in Ireland, to poor-rate as for premises of the yearly value of 10l. or upwards, made on an estimate of the net annual value of the same premises," &c.

Did the right hon. Baronet intend that the franchise should be higher or lower than the parliamentary franchise?

wished to prevent the fictitious votes; and if any person improperly obtained possession of the franchise, it would be higher, while, on the contrary, if the premises of the voter were of the true yearly value required, it would be lower; and his object was, to take satisfactory means of ascertaining the real value. If the rating of the voter, then, was too high, he meant to give him an interest in procuring its diminution, but if too low to give him an interest in having his rate increased, and so to give him the means of enjoying his full franchise. A controlling check would thus be furnished which would effectually act on both sides.

The right hon. Baronet would have answered his question directly if it had suited his purpose. He would pledge himself to show, that the franchise which the right hon. Baronet intended to introduce was not such a one as was proper, or such as would be adopted; and that a person who held the Parliamentary franchise, being a holder of premises of the yearly value of 10l., would not be permitted to vote under it. Then it was said, that it must be "paid by the tenant." So that although the landlord should pay the costs of repairs and other matters, the tenant should not have the value of it. Then, who was to calculate the value of the repairs? Let it be avowed, therefore, that it was intended to make the franchise above 10l. It must be a net annual value above the poor-rate itself, taxes and all repairs done, and not only on one year, but on an average of years. So that it was evident the intention was to curtail the privileges of the poorer classes.

remarked, that there was another objection to the amendment of the right hon. Baronet, which was, that the tenant was required to hold all the premises under the same landlord. Now, it might happen that he held premises of the yearly value of 9l. under one landlord, and of the like yearly value under another landlord, and yet he would not be entitled to a vote.

said, he was not aware that any test of value could be discovered so good as that which would be established by rating under the Poor-law Act. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had said, that they were going to introduce a different franchise from that which was obtained on a 10l. yearly value, and he said, that the Parliamentary franchise was obtained on a qualification of a house for which a rent of 10l. a-year was paid. No doubt such a qualification would be good either for the Parliamentary or the municipal franchise; but the hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that that was not the value which was contended for, and he must know, that the real test was not the rent which the house would fetch, but what the tenant was able or willing to swear the house was worth. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that it had not been contended, and successfully contended, that the true test of value was not the rent which was paid, but that if any person occupying the premises could make them worth 10l. a-year to himself by any trade which he carried on there, he was entitled to the franchise? He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman a case which had occurred in his own experience, which was now reported by Messrs. Cockburn and Rowe, and this not relating to the question of a beneficial interest in a county, but in the borough of Clonmel. He had the book there, as he did not like to trust to his own memory only. In the case to which he referred at Clonmel, eighty persons claimed the right to vote as 10l. householders, and to be put on the register in that capacity. What sort of premises did these applicants occupy? Cellars under ground, and parts of houses in different parts of the town. In the town of Clonmel there was a rate for the borough improvement, and certain persons appointed to value the houses for this rate were called as witnesses before the Committee, and stated, that they had made a valuation of these houses for the rate. They stated, that they took the improved rent, and what they supposed the houses would fairly let for. They exhibited the lists of these valuations, by which it appeared, that of the entire houses only one was rated at a valuation of 6l. a-year, and all the others were rated at 5l. a-year or under. The whole houses were, most of them, rated at less than 5l. a-year, and therefore it would have been incorrect to put upon the register even the whole houses. What should he say, then, of the parts of houses which these persons occupied? The voters, on being examined, were asked, whether their houses were worth 10l. a-year? Their invariable answer was, "They are so to me." And the barrister thought this answer sufficient, though it appeared that in this estimate were included their own savings by their various callings, together with those of their wives, such as rearing of pheasants and selling eggs. The barrister refused to put any question as to the amount of the rent which they paid, or which the premises would let for, declaring that no person could be so good a judge of the value of the premises as the person who occupied them. And the barrister further declared that, when the voter had taken his oath as to the value, it was not for him to refuse to register him. He asked, whether they would now continue such a system of ascertaining value? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, that the meaning of "houses of 10l. yearly value" should be interpreted by the amount of rent paid. Why, it was by that species of interpretation that these eighty persons were allowed to remain at Clonmel upon the register, and that the Member whom they succeeded in unduly returning, was allowed to retain his seat in that House for a considerable period. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the ambiguity of the term "beneficial interest;" but he contended that this system was suffered to exist not in the counties only, where the beneficial interest came into operation, but in the boroughs. The parties had but to swear that the premises were worth so much to them. The effect of this was little short of conceding universal suffrage, and universal suffrage in the worst possible mode, because it was accompanied by an encouragement to the most extensive system of perjury. Upon this subject he had the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin himself. When that learned Member was examined before the committee of the House of Lords on the subject of getting rid of the 40s. freeholders, what did he recommend. Of the question and answer he had taken a copy, and they were as follow:—"Do you think that the raising of the qualification to 10l. would be productive of great benefit in Ireland?" To which the hon. and learned Gentleman replied—"It would, in my humble judgment, be of no small benefit, if you could get rid of any portion of the perjury which exists at present, and it would be the commencement of what we want very much in Ireland—a substantial yeomanry." The hon. and learned Gentleman was then of opinion, that it would be an improvement to raise the franchise in Ireland. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to support the same test of value in the bill which was now before the House—to apply the same test with a view to prevent the recurrence of that perjury. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked why, in establishing the municipal qualification, would they deal differently with Ireland from either England or Scotland? He must recollect, however, that the franchise proposed by this bill was not the same as in the two other countries. In Scotland the franchise was conceded to the 10l. householders, without distinction. In England it was given to persons paying the rates generally for a period of three years. In England there was no qualification with respect to value. In Ireland they proposed to introduce the same franchise as in Scotland, but he asked them not to introduce it colourably into their bill, and, at the same time, extend the franchise in a way which was not proposed by the bill. All he asked of them was, to carry their proposition fairly into effect. As an illustration of this subject, he would refer to the bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, on the subject of the registration of votes in Ireland. That bill first set aside the decisions of the judges in that country, and next, it declared the law. He should be, probably, told that the mode of estimating the value by what it was worth to the claimant, as at Clonmel, was not legal, and that this would be set right. Why, the judges of Ireland had already said so; but their opinion was not acted on in many instances. Besides, it should be recollected that the persons to place the parties on the register were the mayor and assessor of the town. He might fairly assume, therefore, that a person putting forth such a fraudulent claim might, as heretofore, in the instance of Clonmel, be placed on the burgess roll, and that the evil would, unless some substantial change were introduced, be suffered still to continue. Was not his right hon. Friend near him, therefore, right in insisting upon the establishment of some test of the bonâ fide possession of the franchise? The bill to which he had referred, for the registration of voters in Ireland, said:—"And be it declared and enacted, that in determining whether any premises in respect of which any person shall claim to register (it was exactly the same thing in boroughs as in counties) are of the said yearly value of 10l., such value shall be estimated according to the beneficial interest of the person so claiming to register out of the said premises, calculating such interest to be the profit or advantage derived by such person from such premises, or by means thereof." They were about, therefore, to give the sanction of an Act of Parliament to the mode of estimating the value which had been put so fraudulently into practice at Clonmel. The clause from which he had read went on to state, that "the same should not be calculated according to the rent which a solvent tenant could afford to pay for the same over and above any rates or other expenses to which the premises were liable." So that that which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had stated just now to be the proper mode of estimating the value was not to be adopted at all. The clause, he must observe, was not confined to counties, but extended to boroughs. The "profit" and not the "rent," was distinctly declared to be the mode of estimating the qualification. Was that clause introduced into the bill with the sanction of the Government? And if so, he would ask whether hon. Members at his side of the House would consent to a bill conceding the 10l. franchise, which would give validity and legality to that mode of estimating the yearly value which he had already read to the House? The hon. and learned Member had, in a former debate, alluded to the freemen of Dublin. Now, there were clauses in this bill which made him believe, that they had been introduced by some person with the express object of disfranchising the freemen of Dublin. Those clauses were directed expressly to their disfranchisement, and he wanted to know whether that also was done by the sanction of Government? If that bill had passed, the clause to which he had referred for ascertaining the value would apply equally to the municipal franchise. [Mr. O'Connell: What is the number of the clause?]. Clause 37. The hon. and learned Gentleman further stated, that the object of the opposition was to raise the franchise. Now, that was not their intention. What they desired was to have an accurate test of the yearly value of 10l. In England the annual value was easily ascertained by discovering through a competent witness what the house would let for annually, and taking into consideration the amount of rates and taxes. But there were no parliamentary taxes imposed upon tenants in Ireland—no assessed or window taxes. He understood the present proposition to be, that the franchise should be confined to persons occupying houses of the clear yearly value of 10l.; and if so, the poor-rate was in Ireland, as in England, the safest test that could be applied. Why, in this very bill, which had been introduced by her Majesty's Government, when they wanted to apply a test, they had actually taken the test which was now proposed. In page 21 in the bill, when they required a qualification for mayor, aldermen, and councillors, it was stated, that they should have "occupied for the twelve months preceding a house of the yearly value of 20l., situated in the borough;" but that if a rate should be imposed on the borough, the words "rated as being of the value of 20l." should be inserted instead of the words "of the yearly value of 20l." It was here, therefore, clearly admitted, that the rating was the clearest test of annual value. With regard to the hon. and learned Gentleman's evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, upon the subject of taking away the encouragement to perjury, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would pardon him for being now of the same opinion. He was not afraid to avow that he did not at all think an extension of the elective franchise in Ireland would tend to increase the prosperity of the people of that country. His belief was, that the mode in which the franchise was exercised tended rather to destroy their happiness than to promote it. lf, instead of exposing them to the influence of that agitation of which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be so fond, their energies were to receive a different direction—if their endeavour to rival the people of England and Scotland were confined to useful objects, to agricultural improvements, to manufactures, and to commerce, it would be much better than, under the pretence of confining the franchise to bonâ fide 10l. householders, fraudulently to extend it to others. Actuated by a strong desire to prevent this bill from going forth into Ireland without the establishment of some genuine test of value, he should give his cordial support to the amendment of his right hon. Friend.

did not think, great as were the talents of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he could persuade that side of the House to sanction the franchise being altered in such a way as was so much desired by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party. He did not mean to say, that where the rent was less than 10l. a year, that the person should be entitled to vote. The hon. and learned Gentleman had availed himself of the Clonmel case in 1832. In that case, he admitted, that the registering barrister had carelessly allowed a number of persons, who were not entitled to have their names placed on the register. That was a case where persons were placed on the register, who did not pay 10l. a year. He had no objection to taking a 10l. franchise; but if they adopted this amendment, the effect would be, that a man paying 10l. a year rent, might not be allowed to be on the municipal register. The hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted from his (Mr. O'Connell's) evidence; it was, he supposed, too much to expect, that he could on any occasion be fairly quoted. He then said, that all that was requisite to be placed on the register as a forty-shilling freeholder was, that the claimant went before a magistrate and swore, that he was possessed of a bonâ fide interest in a property to that amount. No corroborative evidence was required; and the oath of the individual himself was sufficient to enable him to vote. This led to the grossest perjury, but the originators of it were the aristocracy, who were anxious to multiply the number of voters on their estates, with the view of increasing their Parliamentary interest. The original proposition relative to the forty-shilling freeholders, was opposed by the Catholics in 1793, for they wished to have a five-pound franchise. In hearing, however, from the other side such alarm expressed, lest any poor persons should be placed on the register, who were not possessed of this bonâ fide franchise, it was remarkable, that one class of poor voters constantly escaped the malediction of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to have no objection to the freemen who were poor voters, because they were purchasable voters. He believed, that not less than from 800,000l. to 1,000,000l. was expended in corrupting them. This was openly and boldly avowed by that body. The object of the present motion clearly was, to sneer at Ireland, by enhancing the franchise as much as possible, and by telling the people of that country they must not be put on an equality with Englishmen and Scotchmen. He did not admit anything of superiority in the hon. and learned Gentleman over the people of Ireland. England was peaceable, because there was an identity of feeling between the people and the Government, and Ireland was in a disturbed state, because the Government had been always identified with a party. He admitted the brilliant talents of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and no doubt from the possession of these, he had a high right to power; and if the franchise in Ireland was restricted to the extent that Gentlemen opposite desired, the hon. and learned Member might now be in possession of that power. He regretted, that the learned Gentleman should have joined the ranks opposite, for it should ever be the province of true genius to join the oppressed.

The hon. and learned Member for Exeter maintained, that they could not have a 10l. franchise, unless accompanied by a rate to that amount, without the perpetration of a great many frauds and evasions of the Act of Parliament. He wished to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, what would be the effect, if they adopted the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. They had a 10l. franchise in the municipal corporations in Scotland. With regard to England, there was a continued duration of residence required, but no particular value was to be set on a house. It was not necessary that a person should occupy a house of any particular value, but he must pay rates, and have paid them for a certain period. Under the Scotch Municipal Act a burgess must occupy a house of particular value, without the test of paying poor or other rate. The English burgess, therefore, might vote without any restriction as to the value of his house, and it was immaterial whether it was 10l. 6l. or 5l. a-year. It was, however, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to Ireland, that they should have the Scotch restriction with respect to value, and the English restriction with respect to poor-rates. Now, although he might find fault with the franchise as it stood, he did think, that in establishing municipal corporations in Ireland there would be considerable inconvenience in having these double restrictions. It appeared to him, that when they established municipal corporations they should say, that all those who were most interested in the peace and order of the place should be entitled to the franchise, and therefore he thought, that the franchise proposed in the bill was preferable to that recommended by the right hon. Gentleman. It appeared to him, that the great objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition was, that it would imply, that this bill could not come into operation until a system of poor-laws was established, and not merely poor-laws, but that unions should be established in those districts in which the municipal corporations should happen to be situated. He did not see how the borough rates could be enforced, until they became a regularly elected body. It was said, that he did not consider the 10l. franchise too high, for he had proposed it in the first instance. Now, he thought, that it was only reasonable to say, take the 10l. franchise proposed in the bill until poor-rates are established in towns, and when poor-rates were established they might adopt the English principle and enact, that after residence and occupancy of a house for a certain period, and after being rated for the poor-rates, a right of voting should be conferred; or perhaps it would be better, that they should have in Ireland a rental of 5l. and the payment of poor-rates. By these means they would have a body of voters in the cities and boroughs deeply interested in promoting the interests of such boroughs and cities as well as of the country generally. He would put it to Gentlemen opposite to say, whether the bill was or was not to come into operation until a poor-rate was established in Ireland.

observed, that it did not appear to him, that his right hon. Friend wished to limit the franchise: all that he required was, that it should not be extended to those who were not bonâ fide 10l. householders.

said, it would not be denied, that the effect of the proposed plan would be to raise the franchise beyond the Parliamentary franchise, and the motive of this obviously was, that an opportunity might be given of raising at a future time the Parliamentary franchise to the same standard, and this it was, that induced him (Mr. Sheil) and those who thought with him to oppose that plan. In the three last years, during which hon. Gentlemen opposite had so vehemently protested against all municipal reform in Ireland, many thousand additional freemen had been created there. If these were to be kept up, which he supposed was intended, then it was essential for the protection of the people's rights and liberties, that the power of these freemen should be counterbalanced by that of a body of burgesses chosen under a moderate franchise. The only reason for restricting the franchise in this manner was, that the majority of the population of Ireland was Roman Catholic, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere in it.

felt altogether disposed with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to discuss this measure simply as a question relating to the local good Government of Ireland; but the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) thought he perceived in the amendment a lurking desire to humiliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Now the proposal in the bill was, that the franchise should depend on the possession of a house of the full and real value of 10l., and the humiliating proposal was the test of qualification. That was urged as an insult to Roman Catholics, and all the return he got for what the hon. and learned Gentleman called his honest and fair attempt to settle this great question. The difficulties on both sides should be looked at. These corporations were not originally instituted for the purposes of local government, but such at least as were founded in the reign of James 1st to confirm and strengthen the Protestant interests. His first proposal, was, that they should be abolished, but that had the effect of wounding the feelings of national pride, and therefore, he avowed, that so soon as he could get security for what he considered an essential interest by the exclusion of the appropriation clause, he should be ready to consider the terms on which a satisfactory adjustment could take place. Really some deference was due to the feelings on both sides, if there were two sides on this question; and he did not think it an unreasonable proposal, the noble Lord himself suggesting a 10l. franchise, to provide that the qualification should be a bonâ fide one. Would the country think that an unreasonable demand? He took the eleven largest towns in Ireland, all containing a population above 15,000, and assuming the principle that corporations were desirable gave the inhabitants no option with regard to their establishment; and with respect to the other seven, he insisted, that the franchise should be a bonâ fide qualification founded on the poor-rate. Then it was asked, would they have dared to make such a proposal with regard to Scotland? Why, they did treat Ireland on as favourable a system as Scotland. Had the same abuses existed in Scotland as had been proved with respect to Ireland? Was there any case such as Clonmel among the Scotch corporations? He said this without any reflection on Ireland. The evil was in the law; the people would naturally avail themselves of it, unless effectual precautions were adopted. The noble Lord said, he would admit as many corporators as possible; but if applying the Scotch principle in Jedburgh out of a population of 3,300, the noble Lord was satisfied with 169 corporate electors—if in Lanark, with a population of 4,300, he was satisfied with 156 electors—if in Peterhead, having 5,112 inhabitants, with 170 electors—if the noble Lord, satisfied with the law existing there, brought in a bill to extend the franchise to 5l. but leaving every town untouched having upwards of 100 10l. electors, he (Sir R. Peel) might as well think of inflaming the national feelings of Scotchmen by pointing to this as an insult, as it would be for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that his (Sir R. Peel's) proposition was one of indignity and contempt for the Irish people. He had said all along, that he only attached importance to the poor-law because it would furnish a proper test of qualification; so far from entertaining any wish to postpone this measure, he thought this was a most favourable time and the sooner the corporations were established, the better. He had the greatest satisfaction in deferring to the national feeling, whether in England or Ireland, provided no important interests were thereby committed. But it was of the utmost importance, not for party purposes, but for the sake of good local government, that they should not adopt the suggestion of a defective test of value in the first instance. There could be no greater evil than to prescribe an ineffectual test. It would open the door to fraud, it would encourage perjury and present temptations too strong to be resisted by those who would make a push to get the corporations into their hands at first, and defy all future regulation. He did not see what should prevent the making of a rate forthwith, to afford the requisite test of qualification in all those towns in which it was impossible to establish corporations. It was not his fault, that this bill was discussed before the poor-law bill had passed the other House; if he had proposed to delay its consideration in Committee until they knew the fate of that measure, it would have been said, that he wished to postpone it until it would be too late to pass it during the present Session. But, without taking hypothetical cases, he was obliged to frame his amendment on the assumption, that the poor-law bill would become law; and to the principle of his proposition of a bonâ fide 10l. corporate franchise he should adhere, because looking to all the considerations connected with this question, and the considerable concessions it involved on the one hand, he did not think on the other, that it could be considered other than a perfectly reasonable and just demand for the purpose of securing good local government in Ireland.

thought it very likely that the Poor-law Bill might become an Act of Parliament; but if it did not pass, they might then discuss some other mode by which this bill might be carried into operation as to the nature of rating, without the Poor-law Bill. As to the amount of rating, his opinion was, that as an uniform franchise for all the other towns, as well as the eleven, a 5l franchise would be better. He should, therefore, when they came to fill up the blank, propose 5l. instead of 10l., not objecting, however, to the right hon. Gentleman's words in other respects.

The Committee divided on Sir R. Peel's Amendment that the qualification be 10l. with rating:—Ayes 111; Noes 137: Majority 26.

moved to fill up the blank with the words "five pounds."

said, that the noble Lord having succeeded in negativing the amendment, he had proposed, he did not mean to take the sense of the House on the noble Lord's proposal to fill up the blank with 5l., because his doing so would appear to imply that he would be satisfied with something less than 10l. He felt himself called on to repeat what he did, in perfect good humour, that he for one would not give his consent to any proposal for reducing the amount. The whole of the amendments he had proposed were founded on the assumption that his proposal would be acceded to; but he was very little encouraged to proceed when the only one he had proposed had this unfortunate result. What were the facts? He found in schedules A and B eleven towns, in seven of which the noble Lord proposed to establish a franchise of 10l. He found it enacted in the bill that the person entitled to vote should be "truly," and not only "truly," but "really possessed of property of the full yearly value of 10l. and upwards." He had now lost that which he had in hand, the 10l. franchise—the full yearly value of 10l.—and he found in its place a 5l. franchise, estimated by the principle of rating. It was quite clear, then, that, after all, they were to have no security whatever, that the franchise was to be really and truly of the yearly value of 10l.; on the contrary, it was now evident that they were to have nothing better than a 5l. franchise. He was sorry that this important point had been determined in a House comparatively few in numbers. Under all the circumstances, he did not see that the slightest advantage would be likely to result from his proceeding with the details of the bill in Committee, but he should reserve to himself the power, in order that he might lay before the House the whole of his amendments, and enable it to form a clear conception of his whole scheme of taking another division on this question on the bringing up of the report.

said, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the only proposal he had made had met with an unfortunate result, he (Lord John Russell) must explain what it was that he had already declared his readiness to agree to. Putting aside various propositions, to which he said he thought there would be no objection, the state of the bill on its introduction was this:—There were forty-seven boroughs to which corporations were to be extended according to this model, in seven of which there was to be the 10l. franchise, without any rating; and in the other forty the franchise was to be 5l., likewise without rating. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, that one uniform scale of voting for all the boroughs should be adopted; that only eleven of those in the schedule of the bill were to have corporations extended to them; and that with regard to all the rest, it was to be a question of application and of grant. Thus the uniform franchise was to be 10l., with the addition of the rating. He agreed that eleven should be the number out of the forty-seven which should be in the bill as towns to which corporations should be absolutely given. He agreed likewise that the test of rating should be applied; but said if that test was added it would require, as could be shown by a reference to the Poor-law Bill, an increased value of the House to confer the right of voting; therefore he would have the 5l. franchise given by the bill to the whole of the forty towns, and not the 10l. given to the seven towns. Whether the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was a better one than his, or not, was for the House to determine. He thought he had shown no indisposition whatever to entertain a reasonable proposition when he said, that out of forty-seven towns contained in the bill he would give up all except eleven, and as to the franchise he would consent to introduce the principle of rating; but he asked to have the franchise what he had proposed for the larger number of towns, and not that which he had proposed for the seven towns in Ireland. This, he thought, showed that they were prepared to make great alterations in the bill on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It did appear to him, that the amendment he had proposed was a fair and reasonable amendment, that it was in conformity with the spirit of the bill, and that it would tend to make this bill work more beneficially in Ireland; he regretted, therefore, the determination the right hon. Gentleman had come to, and he did not think it called for, with regard to the principles on which he said he was prepared to accede to the measure.

stated from the first, that a ten-pound franchise, considering all the concessions that accompanied it, appeared to him a just and reasonable franchise, if it were estimated by the rating; and he never led any one to suppose that with any thing less than that, he should be satisfied. The whole of the amendments he had prepared were framed under an impression that his proposition would be accepted. He would now say, without the slightest ill-humour, that he was not prepared to throw up the whole consideration of the question; but on the bringing up of the report he would again submit his amendments to the House.

said, that no man ought to be better tempered than he was at this moment, having completely succeeded in the object which he had in view. The cause of his good humour was this—an attempt was made to saddle on Ireland the franchise of Scotland, which would have been fair if taken by itself, but the burden of England was to be added.

understood from the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and his Friend, that they proposed to give the municipal privilege to the same extent an Ireland as in England. Now he would state a fact to show that if the 10l. qualification was established in order to confer a right of voting at municipal elections in Ireland, it would reduce the municipal electors to less than one fourth the number that enjoyed the same privilege in England on a comparison of population. In Dublin the number of municipal electors with a 10l. qualification would not amount to more than 6,000, though the population of that city was nearly 300,000, while, from a petition which he (Mr. Baines) had this day laid upon the table of that House, it appeared that the number of municipal electors upon the register in the borough of Leeds, would this year be 25,000, although the population of that borough, at the taking of the last census, amounted to little more than 120,000 souls. The difference showed that if the 5l. qualification were adopted in Ireland, as proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, the number of municipal electors in the Irish corporations would still be far short of the number in the English corporations.

The words "five pounds" were then inserted.

House resumed; Committee to sit again,

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a British colony in New Zealand.

objected to the introduction of such a bill without any explanation of its object and intention. He questioned the right of this country to establish a colony in a part of the world which was as independent of Great Britain as France or any of the nations of Europe,

hoped, that the hop. Baronet would not object to the mere introduction of the bill, especially as the Government was not pledged to support it in any one of its future stages. It was necessary that the bill should be introduced in order that the details of the scheme might be seen and understood.

was of opinion that such a measure ought only to be introduced upon the responsibility of Government, as it trenched on the prerogative of the Crown.

signified her Majesty's assent to the measure.

The House divided—Ayes 74; Noes 23; Majority 51.