moved, that the Municipal Corporations Ireland Bill be recommitted.

On the motion, that the Speaker do leave the chair,

said, that he had to request the indulgence of the House while he suggested reasons why this bill should not be recommitted at present. His object was, to submit to the House, such materials as had come lately into his possession, in order to show, that the proposed plan should not be adopted—at least, as far as related to the city of Dublin. He meant to call the attention of the House to the particular situation of the franchise in that city, and to the incumbrances attached to its exercise. He should premise by stating, that when the prospect was first held out of entirely destroying the Irish corporations, and substituting ameliorated corporations in their place, the announcement of such an intention was received with unmingled satisfaction. But a suspicion had arisen in his mind, that this plan, which was so plausibly proposed, would turn out to be pure delusion. The House should understand, what it was, that the people of Ireland required. They knew, that Scotland had got municipal reform, and that the Parliamentary franchise was in that country made the municipal franchise. They knew that England too had got municipal reform, but that the franchise there was of a different description, depending entirely on the rating of the party to the poor. In each country residence was required, but residence for a longer period in the English than in the Scotch Bill. What the people of Ireland demanded was, that they should get either the Scotch or the English plan of municipal reform. It was possible to realise the English plan in Ireland in every thing except in the payment of poor-rate, as the poor-rate did not yet exist in Ireland. The difficulty was sought to be met by the Government proposition of residence for six months prior to the registry. The right hon. Baronet opposite thought that too short a period, and substituted a year for half a year's residence. What he called on the House to do was, to give the people of Ireland either the English or the Scotch Bill. Circumstanced as Ireland was, he should prefer infinitely the Scotch Bill. And if the House did agree to give them that Bill, it would be accepted in a grateful and cheerful spirit. Or, if the House should refuse them the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill, and give them the English bill, identifying them with the institutions of England, his countrymen would accept it at once. What he wanted was either the one or the other. The materials for the Scotch Bill they could easily have. The materials of the English bill they would shortly have, as the Poor-law was about to receive the sanction of Parliament. There was no pretext for giving to Ireland a different bill from either of those which had been given to England and Scotland, but the object which hon. Members were so ready to disavow, of diminishing the number of electors. Therefore it was, he deprecated the plan of the right hon. Baronet. If they employed a rating fixed at a particular sum they must restrict the franchise by the trammels which did not exist in England or Scotland. He wished to put the question so that the House should have before it the state of the Parliamentary franchise which was unincumbered by the details—by one half of the charges which the right hon. Baronet wished to impose on the Municipal Reform Bill. Let the House compare the population of Dublin with its Parliamentary constituency, and then say, would it be justice to limit the municipal constituency in the same way. The inhabitants of Dublin were 265,316. There were districts in the county of Dublin that were not included in the Parliamentary boundary of the city, the population in these amounting to something like 40 or 50,000. He left these out of the calculation. The House ought to be curious to know how many voters were among the 265,316 Parliamentary voters. The number of householders who had votes did not amount to 4,000. The entire of the constituency that voted in Dublin at the last election ran thus—the greatest number, 3,556 voted for him, and nearly the same number for his hon. colleague; 3,467 voted for the defeated candidates; 1,886 were freemen: of these 136 voted for the sitting Members, 1,750 for the defeated candidates. The municipal franchise was to be found among the residue of the constituency. These were composed of leaseholders and freeholders on the one hand, and householders on the other. The leaseholders and freeholders who voted for the sitting Members were 1,590, for the defeated candidates 1,065, making together 2,655. The householders who voted for the sitting Members were 1,830 and for the defeated candidate 652, making altogether 2,482. It was amongst these that they were to find the municipal constituency. But there should be considerable deductions. In the first place, the holders consisted of 50l. freeholders, who were not bound to reside; next of 50l. rent-chargers, who were not bound, and did not reside; of 20l. freeholders and 20l. rent-chargers, who did not reside; and from the class of 10l. freeholders and landholders would the municipal constituency be found. There were, therefore, certainly only one-sixth of these, 2,482, who, being 10l. freeholders and householders, would be at once transferred to municipal electors, if the municipal law and the Parliamentary franchise were to be synonymous. Let them add 600 to these, and they would have 3,000 at the utmost, as the constituency of Dublin under the Municipal Bill, which was infinitely too small a franchise! Take it at 4,000, and the franchise was still miserably small; and was there any man in that House who would be disposed to lessen that franchise? Take the towns in England—take Leeds, which has a population of 150,000, and they would find, that they had there 25,000 voters. Take Dublin, and see what a gross injustice had been perpetrated in the shape of a Parliamentary Reform Bill! They had struck down, by their vexatious regulations, in a population of 265,000—nearly double that of Leeds—the resident voters, to only 5,000 at the utmost. The noble and learned Member proceeded to ask, was that to be made the basis of inflicting upon Dublin a greater wrong? He might be asked, what it was that prevented the franchise being more extensive in Dublin? He would tell the House it was the high state of the taxation, which might be placed under five separate heads; the voter could not be registered unless he paid those taxes—he must pay the watching and paving tax; he must pay the wide-street cess, and the pipe-water cess; and, in addition to this, he would now be called upon to pay the poor-rate, the insurance of the value of the premises, and the annual estimate of the repairs; those three additional taxes must be paid before a party could register. What would be the consequence of introducing such taxes? The right hon. Baronet proposed a poor-rate, and that there should be a ten-pound franchise. The consequence of that would be, that upwards of one thousand voters of the present limited number would be disfranchised. It was, perhaps, of little consequence how the franchise should be disposed of, if the House designed to insult Ireland as she had often been insulted before. But, if they wished to grant to that country an identification of interests with England, he called upon them to hesitate before they gave their sanction to a scheme calculated to produce so much injury. The right hon. Baronet said, that all he wanted was a just and fair criterion of value, in order to establish a claim to the qualification. Was such a criterion wanted in Dublin? Certainly not. When the right hon. Baronet was high in the councils of a former Sovereign—when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department—he had brought in and passed a bill to value the whole of the houses in Dublin. A commission was appointed under that bill. Two surveyors were appointed; they were of Tory opinions, and they undertook a valuation of the whole city—a valuation of the most laborious and intricate description. They not only gave the rent and other circumstances connected with the valuation, but they gave an account of every thing contained in each tenement; in fact, more complete, particular, or detailed valuation never came before the House of Commons. The surveyor had divided the houses into eight or ten classes; the 10l. houses were 14,640. That was the number of the 10l. householders, and if they compared them with the number of those possessing the franchise, they would find what a miserable proportion it bore to the number who had a just and sufficient claim to it. But there were reasons for this; the same reasons which now induced persons to wish for a qualification that would, when afterwards applied to the Parliamentary franchise, have a similar tendency to that which was sought to be produced by this limited number of electors, as compared with any town in England or Scotland of a similar population. Nothing else could account for the desire that was evinced to raise the qualification to so unfair a height. If the right hon. Baronet wanted a bonâ fide extension of the value and qualification—if he had that in view and nothing else—had he not here as perfect a valuation as could be had—a valuation which was undertaken under the direction of persons who had political feelings of the same tendency as that of the right hon. Baronet? It might be said, that many houses had been built since the valuation to which he was alluding. He would meet that objection and set it aside at once. The Police Act had been applied to those houses as the bill of the right hon. Baronet had been applied towards the houses that were in existence previously, so that there was no pretext for any additional criterion. All the houses built since, had been valued under the Police Act. There was not in Dublin any house from which either municipal or Parliamentary franchise could be claimed which was not already valued. But there was another view, besides the obtaining of a bonâ fide test of qualification, there was a political intention in it, and that was the reason; if not, why did the right hon. Baronet ask for any additional criterion? In any of the towns in Ireland there were very few cases of fraudulent value. It was true, that at the first registration under the Reform Act the registering barristers had admitted some claimants to register from houses where the value was less than 10l. But, at the very utmost to which those cases could be carried as examples, it must be admitted, that they did not apply to Dublin at all. A committee to inquire into fictitious votes had sat day after day to investigate the registration, and after hearing all the evidence which could be brought forward upon the subject, it had been admitted there was no proof of anything like fraudulent votes being admitted in Dublin; indeed, one witness who had been examined, and whose tendencies were on the popular side, said, that the chairman had been too rigid in his inquiries as to the value of the houses from which the claimants sought to register in the cases of the 10l. franchise. At this moment, as the representative of Dublin, he could declare that the number of voters compared with the population was most miserably deficient, it cast a stigma upon Ireland that such should be the case—it was a fruitful source of vexation—it was a source of just excitement, and now they were about to increase this vexation—to add to the degradation—by a lessening of the number to whom they proposed to grant the franchise. They were going a stage further, and instead of diminishing they were about to increase the causes of vexation. In the Scotch Bill nothing was required but a value of 10l. and to pay the assessed taxes, which were not in that country added to the franchise qualification. He would desire no more than the Scotch bill. Let them apply that test to Ireland; let them afford her the same measure of justice which they had given to Scotland and he would be satisfied. He did not ask for any partiality towards Ireland; or, if they objected to granting the Scotch bill, he would gladly adopt the English Municipal Bill, although he preferred the former. Upon what pretext did they seek to place upon Dublin a qualification over the value, that was not including the taxes in the 10l. valuation? Was it fair or just, that this distinction should be made in respect to Ireland which was not made in England or Scotland? They sought to include those additional charges in the net rent of the elector. If the House would consent to his proposition—if they would consent to postpone the further consideration of the report for one week—he would lay before them full details, which could not fail to convince them of the utter injustice of this measure as related to the 10l. franchise in Dublin. His constituents were now preparing the most satisfactory evidence upon that subject, and surely it was not too much to ask to postpone the consideration of the bill for one week, in order that they might be enabled to hear evidence, that could not fail to convince them, how unfair a plan they were called on to adopt towards Ireland. Instead of decreasing the franchise they ought to increase it. If he attempted to increase its extent—if he sought to obtain a virtual equality with England—in that respect he knew he would meet with the old sectarian cry—he would be taunted with the tithe opposition—he would be met with the "No Popery" cant. They would be again told the Church is in danger"—those sectarian watch words would be brought forward to oppose his claim for justice. He was not idle enough to suppose that the courtesy of the House which he now received, and for which he was so grateful, would, if extended to him in that case, enable him to prevail upon them to extend the Parliamentary franchise in Ireland. The Church establishment would be brought into operation against him, and all the other elements of religious animosity. He was well aware of the nature of the opposition, that would be made to his just demands for his country, and he was not vain enough to expect, that he could obtain an increase of the electors. But at all events if they refused that, let them not add to the degradation of his country by diminishing the number. What, after all, was the parliamentary franchise in a town or city? It was nothing less than the management of that town or city, of the property belonging to it, of its municipal regulations, of the keeping of its peace, of the superintending of its watch and police—matters in which all classes were interested; and yet it was to the enjoyment of this franchise, that so much apprehension existed of admitting poor voters. Again, he should call the attention of the House, to the plan they were called on to support. They were called on to perpetuate all the municipal taxes of that most overtaxed city, Dublin. They were called on to lay a burthen upon the clectors greater than ever existed. This plan says, that all persons prior to claiming to be burgesses should have previously paid all the municipal taxes with the exception of those for the three months preceding. The taxes of Dublin were exceedingly heavy, and in addition to this, the grand jury cess was payable from the 5th of June prospectively. Were hon. Members aware of that fact—that it was to be paid for the ensuing year? So that under this management a man who sought to register in January, 1838, in addition to having all the most oppressive municipal taxes paid up, should have his grand jury cess paid up to the 5th of January, 1839. That was a most monstrous inconvenience. Were they to support such a bill as that for Ireland? The words of the reform bill were equivocal upon this subject of taxes. Two committees sat upon it—one decided against his return, and the other in his favour, but both those committees agreed in deciding that the claimants registered were not bound to pay those taxes in advance. The barrister, however, refused to register any who had not paid in advance; but if there was equivocation or doubt upon it before, this bill proposed to set it aside, for its plan was, that any one claiming to register should pay in advance, at least so far as the heavy grand jury cess was concerned. This was the effect of the motion of the right hon. Baronet. He did not ask of the House to take those facts upon his assertion; he only asked them to give time—the short period of one week—in order that he might be enabled to lay before the House a full detail of those and numerous other cases. He would show them the enormous diminution of the constituency. If, however, the House refused to accede to his request—if hon. Members were determined to persevere—he trusted they would recollect, that he demanded for Ireland that which had been granted to England and Scotland. All he wanted was an equality of rights, as they said there was an Union. Let them have the same institutions; let there be no difference between that country and England and Scotland. Surely he did not demand too much? Let Ireland receive either of the Municipal Corporations Bills at present in existence. He would take the English Bill verbatim or at least as far so as possible. He only sought protection and equality. He demanded not to have the qualification raised in Ireland nearly one-half above its nominal value. For the last three years the right hon. Baronet and those who acted with him had refused municipal rights, upon the grounds that the Irish people were not deserving of them. That was intelligible—that could be understood; but now they had abandoned that ground, they had given the Irish people the word of concession, and they refused the reality. Let them give municipal institutions—privileges in reality not in words Nusquam tuta fides. Let them give some evidence that they were deserving of faith. Scotland, he should again remind, them, was more nearly assimilated to Ire- land than England was; but if they refused that, he would waive the difference of wealth between England and his country—he would not ask them for the generous discount which they might offer, nor would he consider whether the poverty of Ireland was a cause of the wealth of England, from the drain which she had been on his country. Let them give an equalization at all events. Under those circumstances he should conclude by moving as an amendment, that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the further consideration of the report upon that day week.

seconded the amendment.

was quite ready to proceed with the bill, but if the House were of opinion that it should be postponed for the reasons stated he would not oppose that determination.

With respect to the reasons assigned for the postponement, they applied only to one city in Ireland and they could be better discussed at a future stage in Committee. He was not of opinion that the consideration of the report ought to be postponed under the circumstances, and postponement at this period would endanger the passing of the bill before the termination of the Session.

thought, it would be much better for the House to go into Committee to-night. Considering the number of hon. Members present he thought whatever was determined in Committee, that an opportunity should be afforded to the hon. and learned Member of stating the facts to which he had adverted relative to the city of Dublin.

Amendment negatived, and the House went into Committee.

On Clause 3rd,

moved, that in addition to the words—"That from and after the passing of this Act no person shall be elected, made, or admitted, a burgess or freeman of any borough by gift or purchase," should be added the words "or at the discretion of any body or of any individual". His object was, to do away with the discretionary power which had been hitherto most unfairly used by the corporation of Dublin in the admission or rejection of freemen. Pending the Reform Bill, the House of Commons sent an inquiry to the Dublin corporation upon this subject, and the answer they sent through the town clerk, and, of course, under the direction and legal advice of the learned Recorder, was, that no persons were ad- mitted of right to the corporation of Dublin. Since the Reform Bill, however, that had been changed; they had admitted freemen as of right in shoals. The corporation at present, in fact, reject whoever they please, and admit whoever they please, without assigning any reason. It was quite evident what use might be made of this for political purposes. It was an undefined power, and which could be used without responsibility. He wished to abolish this system; he wished to have the corporation open to all who had fair claims, and not for those who were most pleasing to the common council or board of aldermen. It was for this reason that he proposed to insert the words he had read.

said, that another clause would render that amendment unnecessary. If a person had an inchoate right, a mandamus would lie; if no inchoate right, then, under the Reform Bill, he was not entitled to admission. If the Court of Queen's Bench refused the mandamus in a case where the right lay, a person might proceed by a writ of error, and in a case where there was an improper admission, the right could be tried by a quo warranto. Under these circumstances, he thought the words "gift or purchase" as they stood in the clause were quite sufficient.

said, that on the showing of the hon. and learned Gentleman he ought to vote for the addition to the clause, for they were now denied in Ireland that corporate freedom to which they had an inchoate right if the corporation wished. He had applied upon those grounds for a mandamus to the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, and it was refused, to compel the corporation. So that the hon. and learned Member would deny them that right for which a mandamus would not lie. With respect to the quo warranto, he had also tried that, and the King's Bench refused it, because they should give an unqualified ouster, and this they were unwilling to do. What remedy, then, had they in Ireland? They were perfectly at the discretion of the corporation. To remove this unqualified discretion was the sole purpose of his suggestion.

upon the part of the corporation of Dublin, objected to the insertion of those words. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was not very clear upon the subject of the admission of freemen to the corporation of Dublin. There was a wide contrast between the honorary members which were prevented by the Reform Bill and those admitted by claims of birth, servitude, or marriage. He (Sergeant Jackson) objected to the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because they might have the effect of disqualifying a great many persons entitled to their freedom.

would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether a man might not have fulfilled all the conditions which were supposed to give him a right to the freedom of the city of Dublin, and yet be rejected on his application for admission thereto, either by the board of aldermen or common council, without reason assigned? If that was the fact, what became of the inchoate right? There could be no right when there was no power of enforcement.

said, it certainly was discretionary with either of the bodies mentioned to reject an application for the freedom of the city of Dublin in the manner stated. It was, however, peculiar to Dublin, and existed in no other place in Ireland.

had been inclined to attach but little importance to the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, until the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had spoken on the subject. Now, however, he thought that a case had been made out in favour of some remedy for an evil of which he did not before know the exclusive existence. The exception in this instance claimed by the corporation of Dublin, was but a fraudulent excuse for the retention of political power. The Stamp Act only recognised two classes of freemen as entitled to admission. Were the corporation of Dublin to create a third class? Of the abuse of this assumption he need only instance the case of Lord Plunkett's son, the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who, claiming to be admitted a freeman by birthright, was rejected by the corporation for political causes. When a right could not be enforced, it was clear that the franchise was simply honorary. He, therefore, felt inclined to adopt some amendment which would have the effect of getting rid of that anomalous state of things in question.

said, the case was different from any which he had supposed to exist, on the showing of all parties. It seemed to him, that if the words of the Irish Reform Bill were so abused some others in the Bill before the House were necessary to remedy it. He was not, however, prepared to say, that the amendments of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were those he should adopt, and under these circumstances, he thought it would be better to postpone the clause for further consideration.

entreated the Committee to pause ere it proceeded further in the matter. It was a new question; and, as it involved the subject of rights, he hoped that time would be afforded to consider it sufficiently before any decision were come to. If it were found, that the corporation of Dublin had still the power of creating honorary freemen, none would be more ready than he to apply la proper remedy; but he trusted, that the noble Lord's suggestion of a postponement would be agreed to until that was satisfactorily ascertained.

Clause postponed.

On Clause 6, which involved the question of a 10l. or a 5l. municipal franchise,

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman in the speech made by him before the Speaker left the chair, observed, that the first announcement of his (Sir R. Peel's) expectation and his sanguine hope that the Irish questions might be adjusted in a satisfactory way, had been received with almost universal satisfaction in Ireland. But his declaration was not a bare announcement that his opposition to the principle of re-establishing municipal corporations was withdrawn, leaving it perfectly vague and uncertain what substitute would be offered in lieu of the proposal of preceding years; it contained a distinct explanation of the conditions on which he would consent to withdraw that opposition. It was impossible, therefore, that the people of Ireland could have been led into any mistake on that subject. They heard that municipal corporations were to continue in Ireland; but they understood, also, that he would only accept of a franchise of the clear annual value of 10l., to be determined, not by the opinion of the holder, but by the test of a rate. He believed, that that announcement did give universal satisfaction, because it was felt that the proposition he made was perfectly just and reasonable. It was because he felt it to be so—because he still entertained an earnest desire that the several questions at issue might be amicably settled, that he thought it most becoming in him not to be deterred by the vote of the other night hostile to his views. Instead of abandoning in despair all prospect of an adjustment, he thought it more in conformity with his duty as a Member of that House again to submit to it his proposition—again to make an appeal to its sober and deliberate judgment, and he should make that appeal with a perfect conviction that the proposal he made was one that ought to give satisfaction, and was in itself fair, equitable, and moderate. He called upon hon. Members at the other side not to allow themselves to be carried away by party feeling, not to take for granted that the insinuation of the hon. and learned Member opposite, that he intended to insult Ireland, was correct. He asked them to hear with attention the offer he was about to mike, to consider well the position in which this question and the others connected with it were placed, to bear in mind the advantages that would result to both countries if they were brought to a satisfactory termination, and not to reject his proposal on the vague and groundless assumption that such a motive as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member really actuated him, but before they came to an unfavourable decision, if to such they were resolved to come, to entertain it at least in a spirit of candour and conciliation. He should adhere to the proposal he had formerly made, because subsequent and mature deliberation had convinced him it was a just one. Let them deliberate on the whole of that proposal; let them not omit to consider previous discussions, or the adverse decision to which the two Houses of Parliament had come regarding this subject. Whatever their decision on this point, with respect to the tithe question and the appropriation clause, they (the Opposition) relied on their own inherent strength, and felt secure. He had not used the word "compromise" in reference to that question; he felt, that he possessed, independent of the wishes and intention of Ministers, the power to defeat any arrangement of it which included the principle of appropriation. They mistook him if they supposed he was speaking in any tone of triumph or insult—quite the reverse; he desired to see the questions now pending arranged on a basis mutually satisfactory, and he wished to offend no one by making this statement. Turning then to the question now to be discussed, he had proposed to wave altogether any objection in principle to the establishment of municipal corporations. He proposed, that as regarded the eleven principal towns in Ireland, containing a population of more than 15,000, there should be not an option resting with the inhabitants, but an obligation to receive a corporation. He admitted the principle, that in towns of considerable magnitude, local Government, by means of corporations, was preferable to any other system for the management of municipal affairs. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had dwelt to-night on the case of Dublin, and the amount of local taxation raised in that city. He had already declared, in the observations he made a few nights since, that he was desirous to see the local taxation of Dublin reduced by the amalgamation of boards and the reduction of expensive establishments. He had suggested, that it might be advantageous, on account of the importance of Dublin, the complicated nature of its local taxes, the extensive jurisdiction of its local tribunals, to submit Dublin to the same rule as London, and to apply to it a separate legislative measure. His right hon. Friend, the Recorder for the city of Dublin, had also stated, that no wish existed to force peremptorily on Dublin a corporation differing in any essential particulars from those to be established in other towns of Ireland. His proposition did not involve the necessary extinction of municipal corporations in any town in which one had previously existed; it did not involve the necessary refusal of a corporation to any town which had not previously possessed one; he proposed, that with respect to all other towns besides those he had mentioned, corporate property, where it existed, should be managed by local authorities, elected by the inhabitants, but that considering the peculiar circumstances of many towns in Ireland, considering that provision for their municipal Government had been made by many Acts of Parliament, especially that known as the 9th of George 4th, a municipal corporation should not be absolutely forced on those towns, and it should be left to a majority of the rated 10l. householders to consider whether or not it would be for the advantage of the town to establish it. With respect to the franchise, he had laid down three several conditions to which he should steadily adhere. He proposed, in the first place, that there should be an uniform franchise for all the towns of Ireland; next, that the voter should possess a house or a tenement with land of the clear annual value of 10l., and he added the condition, that the annual value should not be determined, as it had been hereto- fore by the oath of the party holding the premises, but by some more satisfactory test, the test on which he was disposed to insist, as the most satisfactory, being that of rating. These were the three constituent elements of the municipal franchise which he proposed, and he asked, if there was any thing in the proposal which entitled any man to say, that it implied an insult to Ireland, that it involved injustice, and created an invidious distinction in its case, that in insisting on the test of rating his intention was to confirm the existing monopoly and continue municipal offices, as regarded the eleven principal towns, in the hands of the Orange party? He would now consider the imputations thus cast on his plan, and the foundation existing for them. In the first place, he proposed an uniform franchise for Ireland, and was not uniformity of franchise the rule adopted both in England and Scotland? The noble Lord rejected the principle of uniformity, which he had formerly supported, and proposed a 10l. franchise for some towns, and a 5l. franchise for others. In England the Parliamentary franchise was conferred by the occupation of premises of the yearly value of 10l., and the municipal franchise by an occupancy for three years and the payment of all rates and taxes, but both franchises applied uniformly to all towns. They had not fixed the franchise at 20l. in London and the large towns, and 10l. for smaller boroughs, or at 10l. in larger towns, and 5l. in the smaller, or made it to depend on the payment of three years' rates in large towns and one year's in smaller. They had adopted an uniform standard for both the Parliamentary and municipal franchises, which applied to all towns alike. Adopting exactly the same course with respect to Scotland, they had made the Parliamentary franchise identical in amount with the municipal, and applied it to all boroughs. Where, then, was the, injustice in taking a uniform franchise for Ireland, and selecting rating as the test of the value? He very much doubted whether there was any material difference between the standard of a three years' occupancy and the payment of rates, and that of the possession of premises of 10l. annual value. The circumstances of boroughs differed materially, but in Liverpool the number of 10l. householders entitled to vote at elections of Members of Parliament did not much differ from that of burgesses voting at municipal elections. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, "Give me the English principle if you please, but I greatly prefer the Scotch principle; apply that, and I shall be perfectly content; there will then be no room to suppose any intention to insult Ireland." Now, what was the Scotch franchise? The municipal and Parliamentary franchises were, he had stated, identical; the Act for amending the representation of Scotland would, therefore, give the qualification of municipal voters. It enacted, that every person, not subject to any legal incapacity, who had been for a period of twelve calendar months in the occupancy of any house or tenement in which he shall have resided for six months, and who shall occupy under the same landlord any counting-house, shop, or other building, whether either simply or with any land occupied and owned by him, or occupied under the same landlord, shall be of the yearly value of 10l., shall be entitled to a vote. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said, "Do not mock us with words, give us the substance:" nusquam tuta fides was his maxim; he was loud in his demands for the reality of municipal reform. The Legislature had expressly decided, as regarded both England and Scotland, that he only should be entitled to vote who held premises of the annual value of 10l. Did they mean less than 10l. when the measures to which he referred were passed? if so, it was a fraud; if they meant 10l., that was all that he insisted upon in the present case, with a security that it should be a bona fide qualification. He did not want to raise the clear annual value of the premises to 14l. or 15l.; he wanted to have the annual value of 10l. ascertained by rating. With that he should be satisfied—with nothing less would he be satisfied. He wanted to show, by reference to the examples of England and Scotland, by the preference shown to a 10l. franchise, and by the course taken with respect to uniformity of franchise, that he was not proposing what was unjust or insulting to Ireland, but only what was necessary to insure the good local government of the towns, and the application of corporate privileges to their proper purpose—not subserviency to factious interests, but the promotion of the welfare of the boroughs on which they were conferred. A proposal was made several Sessions ago to disturb the uniformity of the municipal franchise in Scotland, by reducing it to 5l. in smaller towns. It was resisted on the ground that a 10l. franchise gave greater security for the integrity and independence of the voter—that it afforded less scope for the exercise of improper influence on the part of landlords. Had he not then a right to say, that a 5l. franchise for Ireland would give greater opportunity for the exercise of improper influence than a 10l. franchise could give? How did Lord Jeffrey, then Lord-Advocate, combat the proposition to which he had referred?

"It was alleged (the learned Lord observed, when the Reform Bill for Scotland was under discussion), that the 10l. franchise would in great towns create a constituency almost as extensive as universal suffrage, while in small towns it would throw the election into the hands of the oligarchy. The principle which solved the question then, as it would do now, in the case of the municipal franchise, was, that it would be better to establish an uniform scheme, which might be productive of inconvenience, than to endeavour to escape partially, for they only escape partially from its anomalies by an arbitrary classification. The hon. Member might say, that the present question and the reform question were not parallel cases, but in principle they were the same. He took on himself to say, that the privilege of electing fit magistrates required a greater degree of impartiality and intelligence than was necessary to enable a man properly to exercise the privilege of voting at elections for Members of Parliament. If they reduced the municipal qualification to 5l., they would soon be compelled to admit a Parliamentary constituency at the same rate."

What was the opinion of the present Speaker, Mr. Abercromby, who had taken an active part in the discussion of the question? The right hon. Gentleman said,

"That he would give his strenuous support to the clause as it stood. He hoped the whole of his life had afforded sufficient proof that he was not opposed to the extension of popular rights, but he thought that in this case a 10l. franchise was most desirable, as it was desirable that an uniform franchise should be established. He could see no reason why the municipal franchise should be lowered rather than the Parliamentary franchise. The keeping up of the franchise would in no way lessen the stimulus to every industrious man to place himself in the situation of a voter. He trusted that the bill would be carried into effect in the manner he thought most satisfactory to the people of Scotland."

Did the people of Scotland raise any outcry that their national feelings were outraged by the rejection of this amendment? Not at all? They saw that it was necessary for the purposes of good government, and that if carried it might obstruct the progress of a measure of salutary reform. The arguments used on the occasion to which he alluded applied with equal force to the question regarding the Parliamentary franchise. Without going so far as to maintain that it was of greater importance to preserve municipal voters from the exercise of improper influence than Parliamentary electors, that object would surely be admitted to be worthy the attention of Parliament. What said the noble Lord opposite, when he brought forward the Reform Bill in 1831?

"He would not now enter into the merits of the clause establishing a 10l. qualification. At another time, either on the second reading, or when the House resolved itself into Committee, he should be prepared to defend that part of the bill as perfectly unassailable. He should be prepared to shew, if Ministers were to raise the franchise in large towns, and lower it in small boroughs, that they would on one hand create something like the scot and lot boroughs, and on the other, alienate from the Government and the constitution a large mass of intelligent and independent voters."

He desired a 10l. franchise, ascertained by the test of rating, because it would afford greater security against improper influence, the very principle on which it had been adopted in England; and he had a perfect right surely to assert this principle, without being accused of a desire to oppress or insult Ireland. The English bill, in the first instance, went upon adopting the rating to the poor, in order to ascertain the 10l. value. Various precautions were taken, but the English bill did at first adopt rating for the poor. Why was that abandoned? Because it would give a value above the proper value? No; the sole ground was, that different towns had different principles of rating; one town took three-fifths of the value, another four-fifths, another the whole value; so that it would have been unjust and unequal in England, where different principles of rating applied, that the rule should apply. The noble Lord abandoned that principle on the distinct ground that the test in England would be unequal. But the noble Lord regretted, that he had not the opportunity of applying the test. The noble Lord said, "he would have been inclined to abide by the poor-rates as a measure of value, but that, from all the information he had received, he felt convinced that the assessments were so irregular in different parishes, that it would not be possible to have recourse to them with effect." So said the noble Lord, "I abandon the principle of rating, solely on account of the different principles of rating prevailing in different places, when the bill was in Committee, that a 10l. rating should be adopted; but this was objected to, not because it was an unfair test of the value, or on the ground that it would raise the qualification." Lord Althorp said, that the principle was sound, provided there was an equal principle of rating pervading the whole country; but they would not postpone the Reform Bill till an equal principle of rating should be introduced. They said, "We admit, that the test is a good one." What were the circumstances of Ireland? The House was going to establish a just principle, an equal principle, an uniform principle, applying to the whole of Ireland; the House was about to apply to Ireland the very circumstances which, if they had existed in England, the noble Lord would have adopted as the rule in England. How could it be said, that, taking the rating for the poor-rates, tended to increase the qualification? The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said, "You are going to raise the franchise." But the House was going to confer a new franchise, and all he asked was, that it should correspond with the other franchise. If the other franchise had not been abused, he was not going to raise it; but if it had been abused, he was going to raise it, and he had a right to do so. The question was, had it been abused? If Scotland had not abused it, there was no analogy; if Scotland required a clear annual value of 10l., and Ireland did not, the cases were different, and they had no right to take the same rule. Let hon. Members read the report of the Fictitious Votes Committee, and say whether the right of voting should depend on the opinion of the party, as to the value. He would read the evidence of Mr. J. Lane, treasurer of the city of Cork. Was Mr. Lane a person whose opinion should be rejected on account of the violence of his party politics? Mr. Lane said, "I am what you would call a Liberal. I voted for Mr. Beamish and Mr. Callaghan. I have voted for the Liberal Members ever since I recollect." There were instances of persons voting, who were exempted from the rate, as under 5l. The Parliamentary Reform Act required that voters should possess a 10l. tenement. Parliamentary voters claimed to be registered, and were registered, and Mr. Lane, this person holding Liberal opinions, had produced three lists for the city of Cork. The first was a list of the number of persons registered under 10l. He is asked:—"What is the result of the three lists you have delivered in? What is the total of persons registered, who are valued under 10l.?—365." "What is the total number of persons registered, who are not valued at all?—119." So that 119 were registered as 10l. householders, who had not property to the amount of 5l. "What is the total number of persons who were valued in the supplementary valuation, but upon appeal were struck off?—55." And he gives instances of persons who voted as 10l. householders who, when they came to be excused from the rate, took an oath that they were not worth 5l. Was any gentleman prepared after this to make a vote depend on the opinion of a party who had voted as a 10l. householder, and when he came to be excused from the rate, swore that his property was not worth 5l.? There was another gentleman named Young, whose evidence also referred to the city of Cork; and in the evidence of Mr. Young he found this passage—"Did you visit a person of the name of John Oakshott, in Phillip's-lane?—I did. Did you see his shop?—I was in it. You examined it?—I did. What is the highest value you would put upon that shop?—2l. a-year. What description of shop is it?—It is a workshop; he is a carpenter." Then to Mr. Lane—"Does such a person as John Oakshott, in Phillip's-lane, appear to have been valued?—No. Do you find John Oakshott upon the register?—I do; John Oakshott, carpenter, Phillip's-lane, city of Cork, 10l. householder; registered the 2nd of November, 1832; voted in 1832 and 1835.'" So that here was a person registered at 10l. a year, in 1832, who voted in 1832 and 1835 for a carpenter's shop, and when Mr. Young is asked what is the highest value he put upon the shop, he says "2l. a year." There were many instances of votes where the property was not 5l. a year. Then he was not satisfied to leave the franchise, as far as the municipal corporations were concerned, on the same footing as he found the Parliamentary franchise. He had attempted to show, that he required an uniform franchise, applicable to all Ireland, which he formerly proposed for England. Next, that by adopting a 10l. franchise, he adopted the franchise the Ministers thought ought to be the franchise for the constituent body in England, and he took the 10l. franchise, because he thought it hit the line for establishing the integrity of voters, and because they ought to have a more satisfactory test of the qualification of persons than their own opinions; lastly, because it was actually adopted at first in the English Reform Bill, and was abandoned, not because it was a bad test, but because of unequal customs. There was another question—whether by this course, he was doing injustice to the Roman Catholic party, and creating a monopoly for the Protestants. Nothing surprised him more than to hear it suggested, that by establishing a bonâ fide 10l. franchise, he was establishing a preponderance for Protestants. He had heard of the wealth and respectability of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and he was surprised that it should be suggested that the majority of 10l. householders could consist of Protestants. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the city of Dublin. He must know the state of that city; but he had been told that, at the Dublin election of 1835, of the 10l. householders, 1,664 had voted—353 for the Conservative candidate, and 1,311 for the hon. and learned Gentleman. In 1837, of the 10l. householders, 719 had voted for West and Hamilton, and 1,799 for the hon. and learned Gentleman. If his information was accurate (if not, he was, of course, in error), it was inconsistent with the argument that by taking a 10l. franchise for Ireland, be designed to secure a monopoly to the Protestants. In Cork, in Galway, in Limerick, was it likely that this franchise should give a preponderance to the Protestants over the Catholics? It was admitted that if a 10l. franchise would exclude Roman Catholics, that was a valid ground of objection; if so, and if he showed that a 5l. franchise would exclude Protestants, would he not have an equally valid ground of objection. He con tended that there was no security but a bonâ fide franchise of 10l. with occupancy for twelve months, and residence for six months; and he thought he might hope that the proposition that rating should be the test would continue to conciliate the same degree of public favour amongst those who desired to see these questions settled on a just foundation in England, Ireland, anti Scotland, and who hailed the proposition, when he first made it. Let him recall to the recollection of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the arguments which were urged previous to the passing of the Act for the removal of Catholic disabilities in favour of the relief of the Roman Catholic population from those disabilities. They were not then told, that the Protestants were the preponderating party in Ireland. The argument then used was, that the Roman Catholics were the preponderating party, particularly as regarded numbers; and that they also, in the towns, had greatly the preponderance in that respectability which depended on wealth. Such were the arguments urged in favour of the Catholics previous to the passing of the Relief Bill; but they were now told that the Protestants of Ireland were the preponderating party, and that a 10l. franchise, with rating, would have the effect of giving the monopoly to the Protestants. One of the ablest works he had ever read on the subject of Catholic emancipation was that written by Mr. Scully. Now, what were the arguments of that Gentleman when advocating the claims of the Roman Catholics? He said—

"Whoever would rightly understand the actual state of Ireland ought principally to inform himself of the peculiar condition of its Catholic inhabitants. In every point of view, they form a most important subject of inquiry and of serious reflection. Strength, industry, energy, and all the characteristic virtues which bestow value upon a people, are theirs in an eminent degree. In numbers they have prodigiously increased; and they are continually increasing, beyond example in any other country. Already they compose the far greater part of the trading and manufacturing interests."

Could he then have anticipated, after the lapse of several years, during which the Catholics of Ireland had been rapidly increasing in numbers and in wealth, that he should have been taunted with wishing to give a preponderance to the Protestants when he proposed the same franchise for Ireland as had been given to England, and with wishing to establish a monopoly in favour of the Protestants, when he contended for the application of a 10l. franchise for such towns as Cork and Limerick? Mr. Scully further stated that—

"Numerically the Catholics constitute full five-sixth parts of the Irish population; and, compared with the members of the Established Church, they are in the proportion of, at least, one to ten—a proportion, be it observed, rapidly advancing of late years. In every city, town, and village, their numbers more or less preponderate."

But, in point of fact, a 10l. qualification with the test of rating would not give the preponderance to the Protestants in Ireland. He had never proposed a 10l. franchise with that view, and he did not believe, that it would have such an effect. He thought, as far as Dublin was concerned, the evidence was conclusive, that the Protestants would not have a monopoly by such a qualification as he had proposed, and when he reflected on the number of 10l. houses in that place, he could not doubt that with a 10l. franchise, even with the test of rating, they would secure fairness and impartiality and a respectable body of electors. What was the rule which had been applied in the case of the rating for police? Had they not exempted houses under 10l. of annual value from affording a vote, and by that determination had they not given it as their opinion that a 10l. qualification was the best? He had attempted to show, that the qualification which they had deemed best qualified for securing freedom and integrity in England and for preventing the influence of property, was the best also for Ireland. He had also attempted to prove, that a 10l. qualification in the eleven towns for which it was proposed, with the test of rating, would not give the Protestants the preponderance, and he did entreat the House to consider the whole state of the question, the length of time it had been under consideration, the opening which was now afforded for its settlement, and the apparent prospect of a satisfactory adjustment which was now before them, and he hoped they would not allow the opportunity for a fair and equitable settlement of the question to escape. He had not made his proposition with a view to give a preponderance to a party, or to establish a monopoly in favour of any sect. He had been called upon to make sacrifices, and he had laboured diligently for the single purpose of conciliating opposition to the plan which he had suggested. He believed, if they sanctioned the principle which he contended for—if they approved the qualification he had proposed, the measure before the House would be approved of elsewhere and that the bill would be passed into a law. He did, therefore, entreat them to adopt a qualification which was founded on a secure and safe principle as regarded Ireland, and which would have the effect of giving peace to Ireland, and of securing for that country tranquillity and happiness and all the advantages of good local Government. The right hon. Baronet con- cluded by moving to substitute in the clause the words 10l. for the word 5l.

rose to address himself to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet, and he very much regretted, that, after further consideration, the right hon. Baronet had thought proper to persevere in the proposition which he had last made to the House. In so saying he did not by any means find fault with the grounds upon which the right hon. Baronet had made his proposition. On the contrary, he rejoiced that the right hon. Baronet had placed his argument upon these grounds, of the comparative franchise between England and Scotland, for to this no person could reasonably object. But it was upon those grounds themselves that he contested the conclusion at which the right hon. Baronet arrived. It was upon the ground of the franchise as established in England and Scotland, and on the ground of the present state of towns in Ireland, that he thought the proposition which the right hon. Baronet had made to the House was rather more calculated to keep alive feelings which were unjust and invidious, and differences that at present existed, than to establish the foundation of lasting harmony upon the questions that agitated Ireland. With respect to the question which the right hon. Baronet had mentioned in the beginning of his speech, namely, the tithe question and the appropriation clause, he wished to reserve anything he had to say upon the subject to a different occasion. He only wished now to say that whatever might be the issue of this debate, or of this bill, with respect to the municipal corporations, it had never been his intention or understanding, that one bill was to be given as a bargain or set-off for another. It was his intention to proceed with the bill, which he had already stated his intention of proceeding with, as a means of mitigating the evils which were suffered from the present state of the tithe question in Ireland. This he would say, that at least they might come to the discussion of this question upon grounds which might be fairly debated on one side or the other, but with the most dispassionate and deliberate determination to do what would be best to secure permanent legislation on this subject. In speaking of the franchise to be adopted the right hon. Baronet in the first place mentioned the course that had been followed with respect to the Parliamentary franchise in England. The right hon. Ba- ronet was quite correct in saying, that, when the English Reform Bill came to be discussed in this House, those who sat on that (the ministerial) side of the House did not agree to the proposition they made, and which was again made in Committee by an hon. Gentleman (the Member for East Retford), that a rating of 10l. should be adequate as a qualification for the Parliamentary franchise. But the right hon. Gentleman was hardly so correct when he stated that the only and sole reason mentioned in opposition to this proposal was, that the modes of rating were different, and that a different proportion of rates prevailed in different towns. One reason which he stated, and to which the right hon. Gentleman at the time referred, was, that a great number of persons would be disfranchised to whom the Government meant honestly to give the franchise. To the same effect Lord Althorp, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, said,

"That the hon. and learned Gentleman objected that the alteration made in this clause, as compared with the corresponding clause of the last bill, would lead to a great extension of the suffrage, because in the last bill there were several tests necessary in addition to the value of the House. The intrinsic value of the House, however, was felt to be the simplest test, and all others had been dispensed with."

Such was the plain and intelligible declaration of Lord Althorp with regard to the Parliamentary qualification. He thought, therefore, as far as the English Reform Bill was concerned, no sanction could be found for the present proposition in any thing that took place, at least with the consent and on the part of those who proposed the Reform Bill, during the discussions upon it. Next, with regard to the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill, that bill was not encumbered with restrictions as to a rate. There were certain qualifications and restrictions belonging to a rate from which at least the municipal voter in Scotland was free, but whether the franchise was altogether the best that could be taken for the Scotch municipal towns, especially the small municipal towns, he was not prepared to say; and he owned that if the question were put to him whether he should impose those restrictions, or rather extend the franchise in Scotch towns, the latter part of the alternative he would greatly prefer. But, however that might be, nei- ther in the English Reform Act nor the Scotch Municipal Reform Act was the test of rating to be found. Was it, then, to be found in the English Municipal Act? They might look in vain there for a ten pound franchise accompanied by rating. He there found every person rated and occupying for a certain period allowed to vote for municipal councillors without any restriction upon value whatever. He thought, therefore, so far as precedent was concerned, as far as the Acts to which Parliament had given its sanction were concerned, that the proposal now made with respect to the Irish municipal towns of combining a ten pound franchise with rating to the amount of 10l. must be acknowledged to be a higher qualification, and a more restricted qualification than that which was taking in voting for English Members of Parliament, English municipal councillors, or Scotch municipal councillors. He was about to declare, that the right hon. Baronet's proposal, be it for better or worse, would impose, with regard to the Irish municipal franchise, a higher qualification than Parliament had hitherto thought it necessary to take. The right hon. Baronet had said, that there were three qualifications which he proposed with regard to this franchise. With respect to one of them, namely, that of uniformity, he thought the right hon. Baronet used a singular argument, when he said that as there was an uniform franchise with respect to Parliamentary electors and corporation electors in England, he proposed that there should be a uniform franchise in Ireland. He admitted, that they might have a uniform franchise, and the only question was, what kind of uniform franchise should it be? They might say to the people of England and Ireland they ought to live upon a uniform diet, but whether that diet should consist of wheaten bread or of potatoes would make the whole question in dispute. He, therefore, did not think that the people of Ireland ought to be satisfied with the assertion of a uniform franchise because they saw one in England; the amount and nature of the franchise was the whole question in dispute. What, then, was the nature of a 10l. house, or warehouse rated at 10l. a year? Was it merely a house of the value of 10l. a year and no more? The right hon. Baronet said it was; he said it was not the mere value, and, without going into much discussion, he could show some differences by ap- pealing to an Act that was passed only two years ago, called "An Act to regulate Parochial Assessments." That Act, after imposing such burdens as poor-rate, county-rate, &c., upon householders, went on to state that in imposing the rate it was a fair principle to take into consideration the nature of the property, and if the property were such as a house that required repairs from year to year to keep up its value, it was plain that a different rate should be put upon a house to that which was put upon land which did not require the same expenses. He thought, this was a very good principle with regard to rating, and this bill, after specifying the amount of rent required to entitle the holder of a house to vote, added these words, "deducting the probable annual costs of repairs, insurances, and other expenses necessary to maintain the house in a state to demand such rent." Those were not the expenses of a house let from year to year, which were usually paid by the tenant; on the contrary, they were usually paid by the landlord, and it was, therefore, very fair and just to say, that when they imposed a burden, they would consider the principle of the burden as compared with the house, and that they would only rate according to the value of the property. When the question was the giving the franchise, and they had a person paying 10l. a year rent, was it just to say, that they would deduct the expenses which naturally belonged to the landlord, the expenses of repairs, and that, although a person paid 10l. a year to his landlord, and paid what were usually the tenant's taxes, yet the rating being under 10l. a year, he was not qualified to vote? Such, however, must be the effect of the right hon. Baronet's proposition. In either case a person paying rates and taxes to the amount of 5l. or 6l., and paying 10l. a year besides in rent, would not have a vote, because from his 16l. must be deducted the amount necessary for repairs, and if these amounted to 7l. or 8l., the person paying 10l. a year would be disqualified. This restriction was not imposed on the 10l. householder in England who voted for Members of Parliament, or upon the voters for councillors in Scotland—this qualification and this restriction were reserved peculiarly and especially for Ireland; and if they proposed to impose these restrictions upon Ireland, at the very moment when they professed, and he had no doubt sincerely professed, to be actuated by feelings of grace and kindness towards Ireland, and a wish to place her municipal towns on the same footing as the towns of England and Scotland, the people of Ireland would be slow to believe in the sincerity of he it professions. He did not think it just that they should have this double restriction in the case of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had stated several instances to show that the ten-pound parliamentary franchise had been abused. He knew, that there were cases which bore out the right hon. Baronet's proposition. He did not deny it; and when this bill was last in Committee, he declared his readiness to admit, that rating should be taken as the test of value; but he could not admit, that rating together with a 10l. rental, should be taken as a test, because, both together would give a higher qualification than he proposed. The right hon. Baronet said, that there were various cases in which the number of Parliamentary electors had been swelled up by persons who had properly no right to the franchise. If that were the case, the consequence must be, that the number of municipal electors for Ireland would be more restricted than the number of Parliamentary electors; and the number, therefore, would be so extremely limited, whether Protestant or Catholic (for he did not wish to enter into that question), that the great proportion of the householders would be excluded. They had in the returns before the House the number of 10l. householders in different towns in Ireland. In Dungannon, for instance, there were 197, in Ennis 256, in Enniskillen 215, in Kinsale 221, in Lisburne 124, and in Tralee 174. These returns showed, that the number of Parliamentary electors a little exceeded or fell below 200, and yet the right hon. Baronet proposed to limit it still further, and to restrict all those towns which were below the franchise at all to about one hundred, or one hundred and twenty voters. As the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be so immovably attached to a 10l. franchise, there would be no use in proposing any other to him. Let those who would thus restrict the franchise of the people of Ireland remember, that the ears of the people of Ireland must be conciliated by other sounds, than that it was necessary to restrict municipal privileges in Ireland, in order to maintain the Church Establishment. In his opinion, it was not at all fair that the people of Ireland should be debarred from the enjoyment of their constitutional privileges, simply because in the estimation of some, their exercise would be incompatible with the welfare of the Church. His belief was, that if they wished the people of Ireland to form an united, loyal, and affectionate portion of the kingdom—that even if they conceded nothing on the score of the Church, if they persisted in leaving it entirely as it was at present—still the wisest way would not be to tell them the Church of Ireland stood in the way of all their franchises; but to say, "We will make no single concession on the subject of the Church, but you shall have all your franchises and your freedom in the fullest possible manner; and then, whatever may be your objections to our Church, we shall feel secure that you will have no temptation to become the assailants of it." Let those who would curtail these franchises, recollect that they were now at the end of a long period during which the greatest proscriptions and penalties had been laid upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and, calling to mind the words of a great statesman, that "confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom," let them consider that confidence was also of slow growth amongst a long-persecuted people. His firm opinion was, that it was the intention of the House of Commons to give the people of Ireland their constitutional franchises in the fullest and most effectual manner; but if, in according those franchises, they gave them in a more restricted manner than they were enjoyed in any other part of the kingdom, they ought not to be surprised, if so acting was quoted as a proof that the same old spirits still remained; and that whilst they professed to give every freedom and franchise to which the people of Ireland could be entitled, they did it in so jealous and grudging a manner that no dependence should be placed upon their fulfilling all that liberal policy which they had set out by professing. Considering, therefore, the past events which had taken place in Ireland, and considering also the present state of that country—considering that it was the object, not of any one party in that House, but he firmly believed of the great majority of it, to fulfil the intentions which were declared by Mr. Pitt at the time of the Union, entertaining these sentiments, he could assure the Committee that they would be disappointed if they supposed that he should concede to the Proposition of the right hon. Member.

was understood to say, but he spoke amidst continual interruptions that he lamented the tone which had pervaded the speech of the noble Lord, because his right hon. Friend had entered into this debate on the very grounds on which the noble Lord had previously said this question ought to be discussed. As this was but the third speech, he hoped he was not taking too great a liberty in addressing the House on so important a question. ["Divide" and "Question"] He thought those interruptions exceedingly unbecoming, considering the quarter whence they came. No man was more willing than he to give way to the sense of the House, but when he was interrupted in that way, he did not feel inclined to abandon his purpose of addressing a few observations to the House on what had fallen from the noble Lord. In the discussion on the Reform Bill, in 1831, the test of the 10l. qualification was objected to because it was justly contended, that the rating was different in different parts of the country, and that therefore a 10l. qualification in some places would be equal to a 15l. qualification in others. The noble Lord himself had in the first bill proposed a 10l. qualification for several of the large towns; how, then, could he say, that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was intended to be a religious test? It was much easier for Gentlemen to create interruption than to afford information to the House on that subject. The noble Lord had said, that if the 10l. qualification were inserted in the bill, it would be necessary to add something more than 10l. to the test; but that was not what they required they did not ask anything beyond the 10l. qualification; let the noble Lord, then, frame some modification of the test so as to bring it to that precise amount. He wished the question to be rationally discussed; he was trying to see which was the reasonable side of the House, and he would tell hon. Gentlemen that the country would judge between them. Hon. Gentlemen might cry "question" because they did not like to hear reason, but that would not satisfy the country. It should be remembered, that in Ireland the tenant paid no assessed taxes, and only half the poor-rate was to be paid by the tenant; but in England the whole of the poor-rates and assessed taxes were paid by the tenants: so then in England the tenant had to obtain a higher franchise to enable him to vote, and in both those instances the scale was turned greatly in favour of the people of Ireland. It would be found, that in England and Scotland the tenant under a term at 10l. paid all repairs, poor-rates, taxes, and insurances, and even if the rent was 9l. and he bore all these burdens, he would not be entitled to vote. Now, in Ireland, with this test the matter would be different, for there, if the property was let on lease, the yearly value stated in the lease would not be taken as the test of value, but according to this bill the value was that which premises would fetch at a letting from year to year, the tenant paying certain demands. Now, when it was remembered that in Ireland the tenant paid no assessed taxes, and that he would only pay half the poor-rates raised under the Irish Poor-law Bill, he could not but submit that this bill did not require so high a franchise as that provided either in the Municipal Reform Act for England or the Municipal Reform Act for Scotland, and that, therefore, the Irish municipal electors had an advantage in every possible way over those of England and Scotland. On these grounds he submitted, that the test proposed by the right hon. Baronet near him was unobjectionable, but at the same time, if the noble Lord could point out any modification of that test, provided it would not reduce the value below the clear yearly value of 10l., he (Sir E. Sugden) had no reason to suppose but that any such alteration or modification of the test would be met with a corresponding feeling by his right hon. Friend.

said, that if the Committee would honour him with its attention for a very few moments, he thought he should be enabled to show that the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, would have the effect of raising the franchise in Ireland higher than it stood either in England or in Scotland, and further, to raise it higher than the value was required bonâ fide to be in the bill propounded by her Majesty's Government. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), that it was important to have a test of value. He looked with as great horror and as much abhorrence as did the right hon. Baronet at the perjuries on both sides by voters being allowed to value on their own oaths the property they held, and out of which they claimed the franchise. He admitted the difficulties of such a mode of valuation, and he could state from the experience of former years, when it was the practice to try appeals against assessments, that frequently in an appeal against the rating of a tenement at 10l., six surveyors could be found to swear on the one side it was not worth 5l.; while, on the other hand, six surveyors would come forward to swear it was worth 15l. He, therefore, should be glad to see a test of value applied which would not raise the franchise, and which would not disfranchise those upon whom the franchise ought to be conferred. But he could show to demonstration, that the proposal now before the Committee would materially enhance the franchise. In the first place, the test now proposed had been before attempted, and had failed. By the Statute 10th Anne it was enacted, that no person should be allowed to vote, &c., for any freehold unless the freehold was rated to the full annual value of 40s. or more for one year before the election. This law had been found to be so inconvenient, and actually disfranchised so large a proportion of electors, that in two years—namely, by the Statute of 12th Anne, and from that time down to the present, rating had never been adopted as a criterion of value as to the enjoyment of the Parliamentary or municipal franchise. The bill for the regulation of Irish corporations stated, that a person occupying a house of the full yearly value of 10l. should have the franchise. Now, did that mean that the municipal franchise should be higher than the Parliamentary franchise? He said not, but it was meant, that the one should be identical with the other; and with regard to the Parliamentary franchise, he contended that every householder paying a rent of 10l. had a right to vote without any deduction being made from his rent, either for taxes, rates, repairs, or insurance; and that there might be no doubt on the subject, into the English Reform Act had been introduced a proviso expressly making that declaration. So also was a similar proviso contained in the Irish Reform Act. The English Reform Act said, that the House should be of the clear yearly value of 10l. over and above all charges payable out of the same. Then came the proviso by which it was declared, that no public or Parliamentary tax, church, county, or parochial rate, should be deemed a charge payable out or in respect of any lands or tenements within the meaning of that Act, The Irish Reform Act, he repeated, contained a precisely similar clause. [Sir R. Peel: The proviso in the English Act does not apply to boroughs.] The right hon. Baronet said this proviso did not apply to boroughs. He (the Attorney-General) begged to say, that it had been so applied by all revising barristers but two, who at Coventry allowed deductions to be made from the rent for repairs; but in no other case had it been so decided, and he, therefore, contended, that according both to the English and Irish Parliamentary franchise, the tenant paying 10l a-year rent was entitled to vote without recurring to any bargain existing between him and his landlord with respect to repairs. But what would be the effect of the qualification proposed now by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth? He said he must have the test of assessment. Now, assessment necessarily introduced deductions from the amount of rent for taxes, for all outgoings, for repairs, and for insurance; so that a tenant who now paid 10l. per annum rent would not, after those deductions, be assessed at 10l., but at 8l., or even 5l.; and, therefore, if the qualification proposed by the right hon. Baronet should be adopted by the committee, one-half of those otherwise entitled to vote would be entirely disfranchised. This test of assessment the right hon. Baronet took from the Irish Poor-law Bill, and contended, that assessment should be the criterion of value. The Irish Poor-law Bill made deductions for all the outgoings he had enumerated, and the effect of the adoption of assessment as a criterion of value would be, that hundreds and thousands of those who paid bonâ fide 10l. rent, and who had the Parliamentary franchise, would not possess the municipal franchise; in short, that in Ireland, a much poorer country than either England or Scotland, there would be the very highest qualification. He must ask, was that just—was it reasonable? The right hon. Baronet said, he was pledged to a 10l. value, and a 10l. assessment. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ripon, seemed inclined to depart from that to which the right hon. Baronet had irrevocably pledged themselves. Be that as it might, a vast difference existed between a 10l. value and a 10l. assessment. For these reasons it seemed to him that the right hon. Baronet would find, that dissenting from the Government proposal to reduce the value to 5l., even on his own principle considerable deductions must necessarily be made from the rent actually paid.

said, every hon. Gentleman who had spoken from the other side of the House, including his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, had expressed his willingness to adopt some test of the value of the premises occupied. His hon. and learned Friend had said, that he had the same abhorrence as the right hon. Baronet at the perjuries arising from the present system, and had expressed his anxiety to apply a test. The Attorney-General did not object to the test of the poor-law assessment, provided he was satisfied it would not increase the rental. But neither his hon. and learned Friend nor any other hon. Member had pointed out any possible test but that of rating, and, therefore, if it could be shown that that test did not increase the amount of franchise, all must agree that it was the right test. His hon. and learned Friend referred to the statute of Queen Anne, which required an assessment on the 40s. freeholder. That statute, it was true, was not continued, why he knew not, but it had not been pointed out that any inconvenience had arisen from that practice. He, therefore, could not suppose there existed any objection to the test of value afforded by the poor-rate. He and those who thought with him wanted to be to be satisfied that the annual value was 10l. bonâ fide; and if he could see that the rating would raise the franchise above the value of 10l., he for one (and he was sure he expressed the feelings of those on his side of the House) would have no objection to any alteration being applied to that test which would prevent the possibility of the franchise being so raised; but let them not be told that because the rating test would raise the value, that therefore the value should be lowered from 10l. to 5l. But in what way was it possible that the value could be raised by the adoption of the test proposed? He took it that the clear mode of ascertaining the value of a House was to know what that House would let for, the tenant being subject to all the usual burdens. That was the mode in which the value was estimated in England, and that the tenant should pay the tenant's taxes and tenant's repairs, and, subject to those burdens, the rent paid was the fair criterion of value. Now, the mode of rating in Ireland, was precisely that, with but two exceptions. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin said that in Ireland the landlord never did tenant's repairs. Doubtless the hon. and learned Gentleman was right, and if so, his position as to this not raising the franchise was correct, for if the tenant repaired, then that item would not be a deduction; but the assessment would be on the actual annual value. But supposing the landlord did the repairs, to what extent would that raise the value? In Ireland there was no house-tax, no window-tax, in short, there were no assessed taxes, but there were certain municipal taxes in some of the corporate towns. He should not allude to Dublin, for the circumstances of that city stood perhaps on different ground, and therefore its consideration had been postponed. Now what could the landlord's repairs come to on a 10l. house? Why, according to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, to nothing. There, then, only remained the charge for insurance, which would be, perhaps, 2s. 6d., so that at the utmost the application of the proposed test of value would only increase the franchise by 4s. or 5s. a-year. Was it because the proposition of his right hon. Friend involved that risk that the noble Lord at once would lower the franchise to 5l.? If the public were to judge between the propositions, he would state, that he and his Friends wanted to have the question settled on this basis—that there should be a real and bonâ fide franchise of 10l., and to ascertain that value they were willing to have the test of the Poor-law Bill applied—a test which could not raise the franchise above 4s. or 5s. He spoke for himself and others who acted with him when he said they were perfectly willing to allow any alteration to be introduced into the mode of fixing the rate in order to ascertain, and only ascertain, that the seal value was 10l. They did not wish to increase the franchise; all agreed that some test of value was necessary; this they held to be the only safe and proper one, and they asked the Government and the House to consent to that test.

reminded the Committee that the question really before it was whether the words "ten pounds" should be inserted in the clause before it, and said, he wished the Committee to understand what the effect of that insertion would be. He brought the question to the test. He would suppose a rate of 1s. in the pound, which would be 10s. per annum upon each 10l. house—a rise of twenty-five per cent. upon what the law said was the full rating in this country. Only two years since, an Act of Parlia- ment was brought in by his noble Friend, the Member for Stroud, for the purpose of having the parochial assessments in this country fixed at the full value. In that act almost identically the same wording was adopted, as well in the present as in the Irish Poor-law Bill. At the end of the act to which he referred there was a most useful schedule, containing in several columns the name of the occupier, the name of the owner, a description of the property rated, &c. The hon. and learned Gentleman here read from the schedule "White Acre Farm," the gross estimate of the rental of which was stated in one column to be 60l., and the rateable value 55l. The obvious meaning of this was, that the 5l. was to be deducted. [No.] He contended that this was clearly the meaning. He found in the same schedule another entry of a house in West-street, the gross rental of which was stated at 30l., and the rateable value at 25l. Practically, however, the reduction was made from 30l. to 24l., and from 10l. to 8l., these latter sums being more convenient multipliers. If a person occupy a House the annual rent of which is 10l., the rate which he pays is estimated upon the sum of 8l.; and an individual rated as for a 10l. house was the occupier of a house of the annual value of 12l.

said, that there never was a greater mistake than that which the hon. and learned Gentleman committed in his mode of interpreting the Act of Parliament. The figures which he had quoted were given merely as an example.

said, that those figures were undoubtedly given as an illustration, but that they proved the understanding of the Legislature to be, that a large deduction should be made in ascertaining the rateable value.

considered the figures to have been put down as anything but an example. It was clearly pointed out to be the practice of surveyors to make such a deduction.

spoke amidst much interruption. He said, he hoped the committee would see the necessity of coming to a different decision on this clause from that to which they had arrived a few nights ago. He, and he believed every Gentleman on that side of the House, felt that the great principle of the bill and its ultimate operation and effect were absolutely involved in the amount of qualification to be now fixed, and dependent upon the establishment of some certain and varying test by which to ascertain it—some mode of proof which could neither be disputed nor evaded. As to the amount, he could not possibly conceive, that for any popular purpose requiring at once an exercise of intelligence and an interest in property, it was prudent to go below the ten-pound franchise in the towns of Ireland. This was the minimum at which the judgment as well as the experience of the framers of the Reform Bill had fixed its amount, and he believed, that if any change whatsoever had been wrought in the minds of the supporters by the experience of the last six years, the inclination of their opinion was, that a somewhat higher amount would have, at least, given a better security against the evasion and abuse of the law, and that in Ireland the constituencies as at present registered, had fallen considerably below the standard which it had been their intention to maintain as a limit. Concurring, as he did, in the abstract opinion, as to the propriety of fixing 10l. as the minimum qualification for the exercise of political rights, he could not, with any consistency, assent to fixing a lower ratio for municipal. In the great towns in Ireland especially, the two functions would be of almost co-equal importance; there would be the same exercise of judgment, and the same scope for opinion, besides the investment with a new power not hitherto enjoyed by any popular body in the kingdom; namely, the power of levying a rate, and of raising taxes on the community; for it could not, with any force, be contended that duties such as these involved a minor exertion of intelligence and prudence, or a less direct interest in the representation of property, than the selection of a Member to serve in Parliament; or that, whilst the security of a 10l. interest was deemed prudent to be exacted for the one, the possession of one-half that amount might be taken as sufficient for the other? On the contrary, he believed, that in the large towns in Ireland, such as Cork, Limerick, and Belfast, towns rapidly increasing in extent, and peopled with a busy and active-minded manufacturing population, the duties of judicious local economy, and effective self-government, so as to promote social order as well as internal comfort, would require even greater judgment, and more practical intelligence, than ordinarily belonged to the inferior class of Parliamentary electors. This conviction of the importance of the functions about to be devolved upon these new municipal bodies naturally led to another consideration, on which he would equally oppose the reduction of the franchise below 10l. It would be impossible, after such a reduction for one purpose, to resist it for others, and we should ultimately have an unanswerable argument, as well as an urgent demand, for a 5l. Parliamentary franchise. It would be impossible for men to see their neighbours in a rank of life not essentially superior to their own exercising privileges from which they were excluded. In the schedule to the present bill which contained the names of those towns to which it was proposed to give a 5l. franchise, there were seventeen towns that now returned Members to serve in Parliament. And was it to be anticipated or believed, that the 5l. householders of these seventeen towns, after having once been admitted to exercise popular municipal rights, after becoming accustomed to all the forms and excitements of popular elections, canvassings, pollings, and contests—after selecting and returning officers to tax and govern their several towns—would not look with anxious jealousy on those who exercised the only right from which they were excluded; and, finally, demand to be admitted to the Parliamentary franchise also? Nor did he see by what argument or answer that demand could be successfully met, if they were now to be invested with other functions not one whit less dignified and important. But, however important might be this limit to the amount of the franchise, he considered it practically of even less importance than the accompanying proposition of the right hon. Baronet of the rating test by which to ascertain it. The experience of the working of the present registration system in Ireland had amply proved, that without some such controlling check, the nominal 10l. franchise would be little better than one-half the amount, and that even a 20l. qualification could, by dint of perjury and fraud, be manufactured out of a 5l. house, if the occupant was disposed to try the experiment. The advantage of a rating test, in a political point of view, as a self-acting regulator, by which the law would be enabled to work itself, and to enforce its own provisions, would not be less gratifying than its operation, in a moral point of view, in putting an end to fraud and false swearing before the registering officer. He did not hesitate to avow his hope and his belief that this test, if once established for municipal purposes by law, would, in practice, be extended to all analogous inquiries, and be finally adopted and acted upon in determining the Parliamentary franchise also. He did not anticipate nor wish for that which had been attributed or surmised by hon. Members opposite, that this proposal, if carried, would have the effect of raising the qualification above the nominal amount, or of converting a nominal 10l. franchise into a 15l. or 20l. What he sought was a 10l. franchise, not in name only, but in reality; not in the mere interested and prejudiced opinion of the owner himself, but in the cool, deliberate judgment of disinterested and impartial strangers. Reference had been made to the system of valuation at present in practice under local Acts in Ireland, and the cases of Belfast and other towns had been quoted, in which the valuation was practically from ten to twenty per cent, under the value. That was true, but it was also avowedly and notoriously true; there was no deception practised, and the valuation being thus known to be liberal towards the parties to be rated was never taken as conclusive evidence in disputes as to value. But it would be very different under the poor-law, which, as it now stood, would exempt no class of property from bearing its portion of the public burthen, and would, therefore, afford no opening for the exercise of partiality in permitting some parties to go exempt at the expense of others. The rates to be levied would be too serious in amount for any one party to screen another in evading his portion of the common impost. At present the practice of granting excise licences for the sale of spirits in Ireland was to charge for each according to a graduated scale, all houses below the value of 10l. obtaining their licence for a sum of 3l. or 4l. a-year lower than those whose annual value was above 10l., so that practically the proof that a man's rent was under 10l. availed him from 3l. to 4l. a-year in obtaining his licence. Now he had recently moved for and obtained a return of all excise licences granted in Ireland to houses under the value of 10l. In that return he was astonished to find no less than 313 houses included as licensed in Belfast alone; but on coming to scrutinize that list, he was still more astonished to find, that of these at least 200 had been duly registered as bonâ fide 10l. householders, and as such had voted at the last election. Now, in this case, there was a manifest fraud, either upon the excise in evading the payment of the duty, or upon the registering barrister in obtaining the franchise, or perhaps upon both, and to obviate it, there was but one simple and obvious remedy; namely, to refer the valuation of these premises to a third party, who would have no interest in falsifying his return. The fundamental principle of the proposition made by the right hon. Baronet for the settlement of this question was, as it appeared to him, a qualification uniform in amount with the Parliamentary franchise, and a test of value which would render that amount bonâ fide—and so much importance did he attach to the latter portion of that proposition—so much value did he attribute to that test, not only in a political, but in a moral point of view—that if he must choose between a 10l. franchise under the present system of evasion and perjury, and a 5l. qualification, accompanied by a test, which would put an end to both, he should infinitely prefer the latter. He would prefer a bonâ fide well-ascertained 5l. rating to any nominal sum which, whilst it professed to mean a 10l. franchise, would, in reality, mean anything to which an ambitious claimant might choose to annex his own false and fictitious estimate. He hoped that the House would see the equity as well as the expediency of conforming to both these proposals of the right hon. Baronet; and for his part, so vitally essential did he regard both the one and the other, that he should consider the surrender or defeat of either one or the other as a virtual discomfiture of the entire plan for the adjustment of municipal corporations in Ireland.

contended that the difference between the amount of annual rent the rateable value would not be a few shillings, as alleged by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, but would amount to pounds. It had really astounded him to hear the hon. Gentleman assert, that the difference would be only a few shillings. A 10l. house could surely not be made a permanent source of income by the expenditure of a few shillings per annum. Perishable property like that which consisted of houses, must, for rating purposes, be put on an equality with other property, such as land. The commissioners must convert the income arising from house rent into a permanent income. Surely 10l. a-year arising from a house could not be considered as at all equal to the same sum arising from land.

asked what was the course which this question had taken? The right hon. Baronet now appeared to feel that he was wrong to a certain extent on a point of fact. [Sir R. Peel, No.] He thought it was now conceded that the proposition originally made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin, which had been strenuously resisted by the Member for Exeter, had some foundation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter, contended that there was no difference between actual and rateable value. The hon. Baronet admitted a difference, but declared himself unalterable on the subject of the 10l. rent. Now, if the hon. Baronet had the wisdom to change his mind, he should have the virtue to change his conduct. He thought that a concession had been made by hon. Members opposite upon a point of fact established by hon. Members at his side of the House—viz., that there was a difference between the rateable and actual value. Instead of engaging in the small sophistications or ingenious subtleties which the hon. Baronet had introduced, but for which the House had no capacity, they should go at once to the broad fact, that between the actual and rateable value there was an essential difference. The difference was as great, in his opinion, as twenty-five per cent. They had got that great point. The hon. Baronet and his party were receding; they would not stick to their proposition; they found themselves wrong in point of fact; they came forward first saying they were open to no proposal, and then made a proposal, founded upon facts which they now admitted, but upon which they were originally in error. There was another fact to which he wished to draw attention. The hon. Baronet had expatiated on the Scotch bill at great length, and quoted the speech of Lord Jeffrey. He had read the speech of the hon. Baronet himself on the English Corporate Reform Bill, in which he said, that the Scotch 10l. franchise ought not to be adopted. He referred in that speech to a speech made by the noble Lord not far from him, in which that noble Lord said, that the 10l. franchise was too high a qualification. When the English Municipal Bill was at stake, the noble Lord came forward and repudiated the narrow Scotch qualification. He would read his words. [The hon. Member then read an extract from the speech of the noble Lord to that effect.] The hon. Baronet, taking the noble Lord's view of the subject, insisted that there should be a difference between the municipal and Parliamentary franchise, and said he would not require a 10l. rating as a qualification. Would they not deal with Ireland as they dealt with their own country? He did not like to use the phrase "justice to Ireland," because it was regarded as a sort of cant phrase; but he would say, that equity to Ireland, if they preferred the term, consisted in equality with England, and on that equality they did insist. He had another point to submit. When the hon. Baronet was in office in 1829, he passed a bill for Ireland, commonly called the Paving and Lighting Bill, conferring powers analogous to those conferred on the corporations—the power of taxing for lighting, paving, and watching. By this bill, however, the corporations were deprived of almost all functions except those he had named. A rate and a franchise were introduced. But what did the right hon. Baronet, and what was the franchise He took the 5l. rent as a qualification according to the 9th George 4th, chap. 82, to which he referred the hon. Baronet. In small towns such as Clonmel he made 5l. the test of qualification, and yet by this act 5l. householders were to be rejected, and the 10l. qualification substituted. He saw no equity—he saw no equality—he saw no sound reason in that. They dwelt upon the point of uniformity. They wanted uniformity between Dublin and Cork, between Waterford and Limerick, between Clonmel and Drogheda; but he wanted a nobler uniformity—he wanted an uniformity between England and Ireland. That was the uniformity he demanded, on which he insisted, and upon which he knew he should prevail. He had said nothing whatever to excite offence, and it would not be inconsistent with his desire to avoid doing so in telling the right hon. Baronet that he was mistaken—that he was pursuing a policy inconsistent with the principle he had admitted, and acting most anomalously in giving to Ireland a different qualification from England and Scotland. Why give them corporate reform at all? They were laughed at two years ago, as just now, when they spoke of justice to Ireland in reference to this measure. What was then a subject of merriment with hon. Gentlemen opposite had now become a subject of con- cession; and he thought that those whose own experience had taught them to feel they were in error, might misdoubt their own judgment, and have some misgivings as to the propriety of their own conduct. But why make this distinction between the two countries? The noble Lord in his reply had touched upon the cardinal point of the case. He said, that hon. Members opposite acknowledged they were making a different qualification for England and Ireland, because the majority of the people of Ireland are Roman Catholics. It was an admitted fact. He had watched every hon. Member who had succeeded the noble Lord on the opposite side of the House, and he had remarked, that on that subject they were most studiously silent. It was, however, a silence more significant than anything the English language could supply. There was no doubt, then, that they were acting upon that principle of partial legislation. He would submit to anything upon honorable grounds, but when told that his religion was the reason of his disfranchisement, he disdained submission. Let hon. Members opposite not take him to task. Let them take to task their leaders, for they were the men that had made this admission. Tell them that they were wrong in making it; wrong in insisting upon a 10l. qualification; and wrong in making that qualification a Church question. If they had not done so, he begged their pardon, and was glad the House was in Committee, as they might have an opportunity of ample retractation.

said, he did not rise to reply, but it was of importance that their real intentions should not be misunderstood. What he wished was a 10l. franchise. He wished that to be a bonâ fide franchise, to be conferred by what in England was called a clear annual value. He was satisfied with the terms of the original act, if they would have given him what would have been really and truly a 10l. franchise. He was satisfied with that, but he was not satisfied to let it rest upon the oath or opinion of the party. He said, therefore, that they must call in, as an indispensable condition, the principle of rating, that he must have that check upon the opinion on oath of the party. But he had said from the first, and he continued to repeat, that under the pretext of asking a 10l. franchise, he did not seek to establish a higher franchise. The franchise in England was exercised on account of a bonâ fide possession of property of the clear annual value of 10l., or, in the words of this act, of the true and real value of 10l. He wanted no more. If the Poor-law should raise the franchise from 10l. to 12l., upon the same ground that he would not take an 8l. franchise in lieu of a bonâ fide one of 10l., would he refuse to raise a bonâ fide 10l. franchise above that which they claimed, and establish a 12l. franchise?

said, that the right hon. Baronet had over and over again repeated that all he wanted was a 10l. franchise. Now, he found in the Scotch bill a 10l. franchise, and he asked that bill for Ireland, but in vain. The right hon. Baronet answered him by referring to the evidence of the Fictitious Votes Committee, and showing from the number of persons who had perjured themselves the necessity of guarding the Irish franchise. The inference drawn by the right hon. Baronet from that evidence was, that the Irish people were prone to perjury. The right hon. Baronet might not have the intention of insulting the people of Ireland, but in his conduct he certainly did so. The practice in Scotland was guarded by trial in the first instance, and appeal afterwards. He wished both for Ireland. In the act it was guarded by the words "yearly value of 10l." Why not make the same words equivalent and of the same force in Ireland? He was ready to take the Scotch bill with all its ramifications, but that the right hon. Baronet refused because he wanted, as was too evident, a higher bill for Ireland.

appealed to any hon. Member on either side of the House, who had beard his language in the course of this discussion, or on any Irish question, whether he was justly chargeable with either the intention or effect of insulting the Irish people. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that he (Sir Robert Peel) insulted Ireland, because he implied that they should not intrust the franchise to the hands of the people on account of the tendency there existed to perjury. Now, when he referred to some particular cases of perjury, which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in common with many other hon. Members, had admitted and deplored, had he not said, that he felt it had arisen from an imperfection in the provisions of the law, and not from anything characteristic of the people? With respect to his intention to insult the people of Ireland, the hon. and learned Gentleman said so, because he (Sir Robert Peel) proposed to adopt a different qualification for Ireland and Scotland. If he were guilty of that intention upon such grounds, the noble Lord opposite was equally so. He asked for this test because Parliament had consented to appoint a committee to consider to what degree the prevalence of fictitious voting had defeated the provisions of the Reform Act. He was not aware that any such committee had been appointed for Scotland. There might have been improper divisions of property in Scotland, but had there been any such allegations respecting the municipal corporations? He did find in the report of the committee in the case of Cork and other places, such evidence of the imperfections of the existing law as to prevent his being satisfied with the opinion of the voters alone. It was admitted on all hands, that the temptations to overrate the property, and thereby perjure, were but too observable and too often acted upon. He, therefore, felt, that nothing more strongly showed how impregnable was his situation than the attempts of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to create prejudices against him and his proposition. He could assure the House, that the idea of offering insult to the people of Ireland by word or action never once on that or any other question entered his mind.

said, that he imputed no motives. He wanted to come to facts, and from facts he drew his conclusions. Cases of fraud had been stated to have occurred in the registration in Ireland; so there had been in Scotland, and frauds not only amongst the lower, but amongst the very highest, classes. He did not say those allegations were true; but if they were, they were such as would degrade some of the worst classes who appeared at the Old Bailey. What he condemned was, that the inference drawn from the alleged frauds in Cork should be, that a different system of legislation should be applied to Ireland from that which was applied to England and Scotland. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet for his language towards Ireland. He blamed him for his conduct. In his words he flattered her, but he insulted her by his conduct.

The Committee divided on the original motion:—Ayes 286; Noes 266;—Majority 20.