moved an amendment in Clause 35, to enable bishops to grant licences for non-residence in case of dan- gerous illness of the wife or child of any spiritual person.

did not consider it necessary to invest the bishops with the power proposed, who were only disabled in that particular by acts no longer in force.

The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 72: Majority 30.

Clause rejected.

On the question that the bill do pass.

availed himself of the opportunity to protest against the measure, and expressed his regret that the noble Lord had been a party to it.

said, he believed that the bill would cause increasing residences and diminishing pluralities, and he considered it an honour to have been in any way instrumental in passing it.

Bill passed.

moved the omission of the words "rated to the poor," and to substitute for them the words, "should be of the yearly value of 10l."

wished, he said, to take that opportunity of stating why he had the other night voted against the right hon. Baronet, and those Gentlemen amongst whom he sat, and with whose views he generally coincided. He had long entertained a very strong opinion with respect to the municipal corporation question, and it was, therefore, with great regret, that he had in former years seen that the opportunity of coming to a settlement respecting it, had not been taken advantage of. Most sincerely did he now desire that they would come to an amicable settlement upon this question. There was no one, he was sure, who had seen the course which the present debate had taken, who must not be conscious that her Majesty's Ministers had abandoned the 5l. franchise. The difference between the two sides, was as to the mode of ascertaining the 10l. franchise. It appeared to him, that ascertaining the 10l. franchise by the net value, was raising the franchise above 10l. It was disputed, that the amount above 10l. would be something more, or something less; but that the effect would be to raise the franchise higher in Ireland than it was in England and in Scotland, could not be denied, and was not denied by those who sat on the same side of the House with himself. He still, however, entertained the hope, that after that great principle had been conceded—after agreeing to the amount of qualification, that some mode might be devised of coming to some conciliatory termination, and not to hold over this measure for another year as a matter of irritation. It appeared to him, that the bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stroud, where in the schedules were given two columns, one ascertaining the gross value, and the other the net value of property, by which the rates were to be imposed, would afford to them a principle by which they might act in coming to an amicable settlement. If such an object could be attained, it would afford him satisfaction for having been under the painful necessity of voting against his friends.

concurred most heartily in the views which had been expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He would not press his amendment, if he was not thoroughly convinced that in proposing it, he was carrying into effect the object which that hon. Gentleman contemplated. He wished to show what was the difference between valuation for the purpose of rating, and the real value of property, and for this purpose he referred to the statement of the police valuators of Dublin, by which it appeared that the principle of valuation was effected by valuing property 33l. per cent under the actually paid rents.

was sorry to see the benches on the opposite side were empty, when a matter of conciliation was under consideration. He wished to remark upon this point, that he had found, from inquiries he had made, that in the west of England, where there was a poor population, the rating of tenements differed from fifteen to twenty-two per cent under the real value.

regretted, that his absence on a former occasion, should have prevented him from voting with his hon. Friend, the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Lascelles). It would be a deep disappointment to all moderate reformers, and would do no credit to the legislative con- stitution of this country, if, upon a question so long considered, and upon which the peace of Ireland was so deeply involved, the legislature were once more to separate without coming to a settlement, calculated to satisfy the general expectation of the country.

thought, that it was extremely desirable that they should come to a satisfactory settlement of this question, and he should regret much, if the present prospect of a settlement should fade away. He thought, that the settlement of this question was imperatively called for on all hands. It appeared to him, looking at the state of Ireland, and looking at the number of houses under 10l., that a smaller amount of qualification ought to be required there in proportion to this country. He was afraid that as the bill stood, with the schedules A and B, it would be difficult in the smaller towns to find persons qualified to act as councillors. He did not consider that this question was at all mixed up with the church question. He could conceive, that the Protestant church would have felt jealous as long as it was left in the power of the corporations to return Members to Parliament. With respect to this bill, he must say, that he conceived that a franchise of 10l. with a rating, would exceed a 10l. fair annual value.

said, that there did not remain a doubt that a 10l. rating was greater than a 10l. annual value. It amounted to a value of at least 12l. 10s. Ireland was a poorer country than either England or Scotland, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to give her a higher franchise.

was disposed to uphold the principle which the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth had laid down upon this subject,—namely, that the qualification for Ireland should be the same as that which had been laid down by law as the qualification for England and Scotland. It was, however, very difficult to know at present what really constituted a 10l. franchise in Ireland, and he was ready, agreeably with the sentiments which had been expressed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Somersetshire, that night, if it could be shown that this new phraseology, as it was termed, would raise the franchise in Ireland, to meet the hon. Gentlemen opposite fairly on the subject. He must remind the House, however, that he was the only Irish county Member present on his own side of the House.

observed, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth had stated, when this question was last under discussion, that his only object was, to obtain a bonâ fide annual value of 10l. as the qualification for the municipal franchise; but looking to the difficulty of finding a proper test of the amount, he gladly availed himself of the means for procuring a fit test presented by the machinery of the Poor Relief Bill. When the hon. and learned Member for Dublin stated his anxiety to have the same franchise for Ireland as was established in Scotland, he overlooked the fact, that there existed an additional test of the value of a house besides the mere assertion of the occupier. When a person represented himself as occupying a house of 10l. yearly value, for the sake of obtaining a vote, he became liable to the assessed taxes with which a house of that value was charged. The object of an efficient test he understood to be, that no one should be permitted to put a fictitious value on his house in order to gain a vote without subjecting himself to increased taxation.

did not think, any Irish Member would wish to see a man's fancy made the test of the franchise which he might wish to confer on himself, because he did not think any Irish Member could bear to contemplate the enormous mass of perjury to which such a state of things would give rise. The efforts which had been made to confer the franchise on individuals who wished for it had caused a lamentable influx of demoralization into that country. It was utterly impossible to read the evidence of the Committee on Fictitious Votes in Ireland without coming to that conclusion; and he was sure, that every Member from Ireland must concur in the wish to put an end to such a state of things; and this end they might put, by giving some fixed, clear, and ascertained test of value. But if they determined to give a test of value, what test could they have so good as that which would be held out to them by the New Poor-law? A rating such as this, in which the whole country was interested that it should work well, was certainly the best adapted for the purposes of this bill; and if it were adopted, the vices and informalities of that system of rating which were relied on to support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would in his (Mr. Litton's) opinion, be got rid of. He meant, therefore, to suggest to the House, that by adopting the rating of the poor-law, they would do justice, and, as he thought, the only objection to the clause would be removed.

must protest against the slightest credence being given to the statement of the hon. and learned Member. Indeed, he should really have thought, but from the gravity of the hon. and learned Gentleman's manner, that he was pleased to be facetious. There was not any evidence of perjury brought before the Committee. There was, it was true, some difference as to the facts, but it was not in the evidence, but in the law, being caused solely by the vagueness of the words of the law. The law spoke of two kinds of franchise—chattel franchise, and freehold franchise—and it was this difference, taken by the law, that created the difference in the testimony.

admitted, the great candour evinced by many hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion of this question, and the disposition they showed to take the difficulties of it into fair consideration, but he would beg the Committee to recollect what had taken place with respect to this clause. It was first proposed on his side, that there should be a 10l. franchise for the large towns, to be taken by the value. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said, he would not object to a 10l. franchise provided it were taken on the rating to the poor-rate. To that it was objected that it would be raising the qualification in all cases beyond the actual value of the house, so that a house rated at 10. would in all cases be worth more than 10l. annual value. The hon Member for Somerset had pointed out a course by which a different mode of rating under the poor-law bill might come nearer the real value of the property rated; but, without saying that this would get rid of all the difficulty of the case, he thought a mode of rating might be obtained which would considerably lessen that difficulty. What he principally rose for was, to impress on the mind of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford (Sir George Clerk)—he was sure he need not do so on many other hon. Members who had spoken on the other side—that they should make it plain to the people of Ireland that they were to obtain the municipal franchise in the same manner as those of other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be immaterial whether this bill passed or not, if it were such as would create discontent instead of satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He did hope that if any change could be made in the rating under the Irish Poor-law Bill, by which the real value of the property could be come at, it would be adopted. Hon. Members at the other side having so far given way as to admit that the Irish people should be admitted to the municipal franchise, ought to consent to its being given in that way which would give general satisfaction.

said, that there was less difference between both sides of the House than was at first supposed. The object which the Opposition had in view was, to have a bonâ fide qualification of 10l.; and if that could be managed, it would give general satisfaction, he had no doubt, to both sides. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House contended, that the qualification should be 10l. of letting value. Now, he, on the contrary, must contend that it would be desirable to take some test of value extrinsic of that attached by the tenants themselves, or their witnesses. It would be seen, in reference to the evidence before the committee, that in Cork, Belfast, and Clonmel, parties had registered out of cellars belonging to houses, the whole of which were not worth 6l. a-year; yet those parties swore that they had a good 10l. qualification. Therefore, he must repeat, that they ought to have some better test than the value attached by the parties themselves.

contended that the bonâ fide value of a property consisted, not only of what the possessor paid for it as rent, but also his disbursements for repairs, insurance, and taxes. If a party paid 7l. rent, and 3l. taxes and insurance, it was to all intents a bonâ fide qualification of 10l. The elements of a 10l. qualification he took to be, first, the net rental; next, 25l. per cent. on that rental for repairs and insurance; and then the amount paid for taxes. If all these together amounted to 10l., that was the actual sum which the man paid for his tenement, and ought to give him a qualification.

observed, that the mode of measuring the qualification mentioned by the hon. Member who spoke last would be totally different from that acted upon in this country. Here it was measured by the amount of rent which a man paid, not by the actual value. For instance, one man rented a farm, tithe free, for which he paid 50l. a-year; he was allowed to vote; while another man renting a farm of the same extent, not tithe free, paid only 40l. a-year, and was not allowed to vote. He would prefer the system of rating, because the whole system of value would be exposed to the grossest frauds. The principle of rating was that for which the right hon. Member for Tamworth had so strongly contended the other evening; and if the right hon. Baronet should give up that principle, he would be betraying every man who voted with him on that occasion.

The Amendment negatived.

The Clause agreed to.

House resumed, bill as amended to be printed.

said, his wish was that all the money given as bounty should go into the pockets of the officers and sailors who took the ships. And this was the understanding when the bill was formerly before the House; but it would be found that although no fees were charged, there were deductions made which amounted to five per cent., the bounty paid not being 5l., but 4l. 15s. He held in his hand an account of a capture of a ship with 441 slaves on board, and the amount of deductions from the bounty was 110l. 18s. 3d. The fees were not now paid partly to the Exchequer and partly to the Treasury, but to the Treasury in lot; and he must say, the parties were cheated out of a proportion of the amount which they ought to receive. He should move as an amendment, that the bounties he paid free of all deduction and charge whatsoever.

said, the gallant Officer wished the House to imagine that the Government desired to defraud the officers of the navy. This was not so, and he had never known such a want of knowledge on this subject as had been shown by his gallant Friend, who had not dealt fairly either with the House or the Government. The object of the bill was, to give rewards to the navy for their best exertions, by allowing bounties on the tonnage of vessels captured while employed in the slave-trade, but without slaves on board, equal to what would have been awarded if the latter had been the case. The observations of his gallant Friend did not apply to the present bill, because there were new bounties to be paid on the tonnage of the vessels captured, and were to be paid free of any deduction whatever. With regard to the old bounties, all he would say was, that since the year 1831 no less a sum than 306,000l. had been paid to the navy, on account of vessels captured with slaves on board; and this bill would give 22,000l. on account of ships that had been already captured without having slaves on board.

said, the officers had been out of pocket in every instance where the prizes, when condemned, did not realize the amount of condemnation; and, therefore, it was but fair either that they should have their expenses paid or be allowed bounty.

said, the loss of human life, not in an open attack of war, but in silent destruction, without glory, in resisting this black and accursed system of slavery, was far greater than was the case in any other branch of the service. He did, therefore, seriously urge upon the Government that the officers and men employed in it ought either to have increased bounties or double pay, while engaged in a service in accordance with the wishes of the whole nation.

The Amendment withdrawn.

Bill passed through the Committee.

moved the second reading of the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill. The bill of 1832 had been passed in a hurry and discovered various defects. No means were provided for raising municipal funds, and advances had been made from the private funds of the magistrates, which they could not be reimbursed. He proposed to supply this defect, and also to change the qualification of the municipal constituency by requiring that an elector should have resided four months in the town, or carried on trade there for the preceding twelve- months. Another alteration he proposed was that of introducing a 5l. qualification in two small burghs—Cromarty and Oban.

hoped the hon. Member did not intend to proceed with the other bill (the Royal Burghs Bill), which was of more importance, the present session, since not a single burgh in Scotland had expressed its opinion in favour of the bill. With regard to the present bill, if it was necessary to proceed with it, he hoped Edinburgh and Glasgow would not be included in it. Those towns had opposed the bill; and with regard to Glasgow, a pledge had been given that it should not extend to that town. The most important alteration which the bill contemplated, was that of the municipal franchise. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was not in the House when the alteration was proposed of a system which he had panegyrised. The present qualification was a residence of six months; why alter it to four; Then with respect to carrying on business; suppose a man had carried on trade for many years, and had left it off, was he to have no voice in the municipal government of the town? He would, of all others, have the most interest in its good government. He felt, that he was bound to oppose the bill on the ground that the alterations proposed to be effected by it were uncalled for—namely, in the first place, that no person should be allowed to exercise the franchise who did not reside within the town; and secondly, that there should be a difference of the franchise in the larger and the smaller towns. He begged to ask if one single recommendation of the commissioners who had inquired into and reported on this subject had been embodied in the bill? Not one; although it was pretended that the bill had been founded on the report of the commissioners. Its provisions, in fact, were totally at variance with the recommendations of the commissioners: for they had declared in favour of an uniform franchise, and proposed that in towns of small size the number of councillors should be diminished, so that instead of having fifteen or twenty-one councillors, the number should be reduced to nine, or six, or even three. In some cases, indeed, it would be better to take away the corporations altogether. The change proposed to be made in the muni- cipal franchise by this bill must, he believed, in a short time effect a change in the Parliamentary franchise, and therefore he hoped the House would not sanction it, more particularly as it was only part of a system which was to be extended to a greater class of burghs, and still more because not a single petition had been presented to Parliament in favour of the measure, while many against it had been presented.

said, the observations of the hon. Baronet did not apply to the present bill, but to another—the Royal Burghs bill. It was quite necessary that a distinction should be observed between the two bills, and that the interests of two different classes of burghs should be legislated upon separately. The object of this bill was, not to diminish the franchise, or to interfere with existing rights, but to give more ample powers of local government to the Parliamentary burghs, and to remedy certain inconveniences and abuses which had grown up. He would not detain the House by dwelling on the merits of the bill, further than to say, that it was one which would effect considerable improvements in the corporations to which it would apply, and he confidently hoped that the House would agree to the second reading.

objected to the bill; because, it would cause a reduction of the franchise; and because it was a surreptitious intrusion upon the rights given by the existing Act. This bill would neither correct the evils arising out of the deficiency of rating, nor lead to the establishment of a good police. In fact, it was a bill full of sins of omission and commission. It was calculated to interfere with the rights of property in Scotland, and he hoped that it would be rejected by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.

could see no sins either of omission or commission in the bill. It had nothing to do with the Royal Burghs Bill, but its object was to give to those burghs which now possessed a nominal corporation only power to establish bonâ fide corporations, and to enable them also to provide means for the maintenance of those corporations. A number of the burghs of Scotland had been called on to have corporations, and town-councils, and magistrates, and had been put to great expense without the means of meeting it, and they were at the present moment under a debt, not only of gratitude, but of a pecuniary nature, being largely out of pocket. He would ask the House whether they would not afford those gentlemen who had assumed the offices of magistrates and councillors an opportunity of having those expenses reimbursed to which they had been put in carrying out the intentions of the Legislature? The object of the bill was to enable magistrates to keep the corporations in those boroughs in a fit and proper state, to alter the number of councillors, and the franchise under which those councillors were elected. The bill did not seek to undermine the Parliamentary franchise, but to prevent the evils rising from the continuance of a 10l. franchise in the two small and insignificant towns, where at present it was utterly impossible under the existing franchise to get a fit and corporate body. The same state of things existed in the district of burghs he had the honour to represent, for there under a 10l. franchise, even after abolishing the burgess-rate altogether, it was impossible to find suitable individuals to effect the change the law at present required of one-third of the body of councillors going out of office in each year. In such burghs there could surely exist no reason against reducing the qualification in the way proposed by his hon. friend, especially after the mode in which the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill of 1833 was smuggled through this House. That bill had been so altered in another place as to render it impossible to recognize it as the measure which had passed this branch of the Legislature, and this bill, in conformity as it was with the provisions of that original measure, had now been three years before Parliament without any of the objections now suggested being raised against it. On these grounds and considerations he trusted the House would at least consent to the second reading of the Bill.

rose to supply an omission of which his hon. Friend the Member fur Stamford had been guilty,—namely, to move, that the bill be read a second time this day three months. The whole of the argument adduced on the other side, had, while it endeavoured to keep this bill separate and distinct from the Royal Burghs Bill, been directed to the provisions of both measures. It was impossible it could be otherwise—the measures were identical and both combined the principle of re- ducing the qualification from 10l. to 5l. It was convenient for hon. Members opposite to tell the House that this bill was only confined to two boroughs—but once passed, what use would be made of the principle it embodied, when in the other bills which contained no less than thirty-one burghs, it was also proposed to reduce the qualification to 5l. sterling? If once the principle was established that 5l. was a proper qualification in the burghs referred to in this bill, it would be urged as a ground for the establishment of a similar franchise in the other burghs specified in the bill which had been indirectly referred to, and it would follow, that the adoption of the same franchise would be sought to be established with reference to the election of Members of Parliament. This bill was proposed, as he conceived, only with a view to deprive property of that influence which justly it ought to possess, and on these grounds he should move, that the bill be read a second time this day three months.

The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 88; Noes 59: Majority 29.

Bill read a second time.

could not allow the second reading of this bill to pass in silence. He was not one who would object to put down party processions of all kinds in Ireland, but he must complain of the partial, unconstitutional, and monstrous powers vested in stipendiary magistrates by the law which this bill sought to renew. That law had been executed in Ireland in a manner which he was confident the Legislature had never contemplated, inasmuch as it had not been brought to work with equal justice upon all parties. It was not equal justice to allow parties to go out with banners to meetings against tithes, while on other occasions a small number of individuals for merely carrying a flag of a certain colour were sent to gaol, the greater offenders against the peace being permitted to go at large. The operation of the law which this bill sought to renew had endangered the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, inasmuch as it had been especially carried out against Orangemen. In the city of Londonderry, where the custom had long been on the 18th of December in each year to celebrate a festival, and even when no prospect of a disturbance presented itself, that city had, under this law, been inundated by a large body of police, headed by a stipendiary magistrate. The city of Derry was thus taken possession of at an early hour in the morning, and thus the ceremonies, which were harmless to every one, of the apprentice-boys of Derry were prevented. The apprentices of Derry had been grossly insulted, and their city most unlawfully and unconstitutionally invaded by a large body of armed police. By the charter of the city of Derry no magistrate could act except he had served the office of mayor and by that charter he and those similarly circumstanced were alone empowered to act, unless some excuse of incapacity or otherwise was given. Now, in the instance to which he had alluded no offence had been given, no complaint was made either against the mayor or the aldermen, who having served the office of mayor were competent under the charter to act. No application to the Government for aid had been forwarded, and yet an armed police, headed by a stipendiary magistrate, had been introduced into a peaceful city. Again, since the provisions of the bill had been law the northern counties of Ireland had always on the 12th of July been treated as rebellious counties, and he believed the armed forces introduced into them to prevent on those days the usual ceremonies had been so introduced for the sake of irritation, and for provoking the otherwise peaceable and loyal population. That effect, he was happy to say, had not been produced, but he must assert that the Protestants of the north of Ireland had been insulted, their best feelings irritated and excited by the operation of the law now desired to be renewed. This bill was intended to put down the processions of one party in Ireland, but the other party were not interfered with. Every St. Patrick's day there were party processions, and the bands of the regiments in Dublin played party tunes, which were quite as revolting to the feelings of the Protestants as any Orange tune could be to the ears of the Roman Catholic party in Ireland. To these party processions the Lord-lieutenant gave every sanction, and regularly came to the window of the Castle on that occasion to cheer the mob. This might be Irish justice, all on one side, but its effect could only be to irritate and insult the Protestants of Ireland. If it had been the intention of the Government to bring forward this bill, they ought to have brought it forward at an earlier period of the Session. He lamented exceedingly that they had not done so, for he was afraid that the Protestants in the north of Ireland, supposing that the bill should die a natural death, would renew on the ensuing 12th of July their usual processions. It was not his intention to divide the House, but he must decidedly enter his protest against the bill.

would not run the risk of imitating the people of Ireland by dwelling upon any topic which might have a tendency to inflame party feeling. He would only beg the House to pass this bill, if for no other reason, on the ground supplied by the hon. Baronet himself, that if the bill were not renewed, it would be likely to lead to a renewal of party processions. He, however, quite agreed with the hon. Baronet in thinking that this bill ought to be carried out impartially, and that its provisions ought to be enforced against all parties who offended against the law.

said, that if the hon. Baronet would not divide the House, he would.

The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 10:—Majority 64.

Bill read a second time.