said, that it was with much regret be rose to interpose any obstacle between the motion of the noble Lord and its acceptance by the House. He said, that he rose with great regret for the purpose of opposing that motion upon the part of the noble Lord, because among those who, in the earliest stages of the discussion upon this important measure, which now stood for a third reading, had indulged a warm and eager expectation that those who set at his (Lord F. Egerton's) side of the House might be able ul- timately to give their assent to the measure proposed by the Government, there was no one hon. Member whose hopes had been warmer than his own; as at no time could any hon. Member have been more reluctant than himself to take this course of opposition with regard to any measure, whether proposed by her Majesty's present Government, or emanating from any other quarter to which he could give his conscientious support. But the measure as it stood at present, was one which he felt himself constrained to meet by as direct a negative as the forms of the House would permit. He was quite aware, that in adopting this course he might expose himself to the imputation, not perhaps of any lurking desire to prevent the adjustment of those differences upon this subject which had long divided the parties of which this great empire was composed, but, at least, of some indifference towards those considerations, the attainment of which was so warmly desired, and respecting which so unanimous a feeling existed amongst hon. Members at both sides of the House. But he was one of those who, from the commencement of these discussions, had concurred in the views which were explained by his right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Peel), and he saw no reason now to alter his opinion. Called on, then, as he was, to reject or accept the measure in its present shape, he ventured to come forward to explain to the House why he felt, and he deeply regretted the impossibility, that he could not vote with the noble Lord on the present occasion. When his right hon. Friend had consented upon certain conditions to give not only his assent, but his assistance and co-operation to her Majesty's Government upon this subject, the first and principal condition laid down, was the plain proposition of a ten pounds voting franchise, to be tested by rating. Upon this subject he must take the liberty of saying, that the understanding clearly was, that a property qualification should be adopted—that species of qualification on behalf of which all but the advocates of universal suffrage were arrayed—the same species of qualification, he would also observe, which had been adopted by the framers of the Reform Bill, the authors of the present measure. It was then to be a bonâ fide property qualification. In deciding in his own mind on the necessity of having a genuine qualification of this description, as the condition of conceding the municipal franchise, he had not at all inquired as to what would be the religious opinions of those in whom that franchise would probably be vested. It had not been a question with him, however, it might be with others, whether those parties were Catholics or Protestants. He had clone the Catholics what he hoped and believed was the justice of conceiving that a higher standard of education would produce amongst them greater independence and enlightenment of mind. He had not, therefore, inquired what might be the particular effect of this measure with regard to the distribution of power among the different religious sects. But he would adhere steadily to that property qualification, without distinction of religious persuasion, with which they had set out, of a ten pound franchise, to be ascertained by being rated under the Poor Law Bill. Did the bill which was then before the House contain any such qualification? Why, the bill lying upon their table was perfectly free from every shadow of a concession to this primary condition laid down by the light hon. Baronet for the guidance of her Majesty's Government. He (Lord F. Egerton) felt himself, therefore, compelled to adopt the only course which he could consistently pursue. He did not say, that it was the only one which the forms of the House would permit him to adopt, without directly consenting to the third reading. He would not adopt a course which might have less appearance of candour, but which he believed the forms of the House would permit—namely, to move a temporary postponement. To any proposition of this nature, his answer would be, that he believed that any prospect of conciliation by this means, would he vain, and any attempt at adjustment fruitless. Still less was he capable in this stage of things, of relying on the exertions of any other body, forming a portion of the constitution to repair what he considered to be the inherent and vital defects of this measure. He thought, that when a Member of the House of Commons was dealing with a subject of this magnitude, such a course would be inconsistent with his duty, and would expose them to inconvenience in matters of the greatest moment. He thought it more fair and candid, as well to hon. Gentlemen opposite as to hon. Members behind him, to adopt the course which he now adopted, of moving that the bill be read a third time at a later period. The differences between the framers of the bill and those with whom he had the honour to act, appeared to him, as the bill now stood, to be of the greatest magnitude. A reduction in the amount of the franchise was proposed to the extent of fifty per cent. In any mercantile transaction this would be considered a most formidable and almost insuperable obstacle. But this proposition of the noble Lord for the reduction of the qualification from 10l. to 5l. was not the only one in the course al the discussions upon this question from which he felt it necessary to dissent. "Give us the Scotch Bill," said that hon. Member; "give us a 10l. qualification untested by rate." His objection to this proposition was, that he could never consent to leave the value to the oath of the claimant. [Hear.] The hon. Gentleman told them, that if they declined to give them the Scotch Bill, they insulted Ireland. The cheers of the hon. Gentleman proved, that he (Lord Egerton) had at least not overstated the hon. Gentleman's argument. Now he positively disclaimed the remotest intention of offering either insult or injury to Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had very recently, in the debate upon the Factories Bill, got up in his place and stated, that the Factories Bill was a dead letter in Glasgow, and elsewhere in Scotland. He put it to him, whether it could have become so without falsification of certificates and perjury. Was not this substantially offering the same insult to Scotland? And how could the hon. Member with any degree of consistency repeat the charge of insult, when their only object was to get rid of a system which, as was in evidence before the house, had led to a similar amount of perjury? Had any Scotch member thought it necessary to get up for the purpose of repudiating that insult? With regard to the question of a test, there could be no doubt, from the spirit in which the Scotch bill was framed, that had a poor law existed in Scotland the rating test would have been adopted. He had now stated the main point of the bill, but he felt bound to say, that there were others which rendered it equally impossible for him to pursue any other course than that which he proposed. He had said, that not one of the stipulations of his right hon. Friend had been met by the smallest concession on the part of the noble Lord opposite. The most important stipulations, no doubt, regarded the amount of the franchise, but there were also others to which be should advert. With regard to the fran- chise itself, he must say, that now, after so many discussions upon the subject, they found themselves in a worse situation than they were at first. During one of those discussions the noble lord had avowed himself prepared to give a 10l. franchise, without the rating, he believed, first in seven, and afterwards in eleven, of the towns stated in the bill. But they had now an uniform 5l. franchise, notwithstanding the noble Lord's proposal. There was another stipulation, secondary only in importance to the franchise, and which had reference to the compulsory obligation upon the towns in the second schedule of receiving this bill, and being submitted to its operation. With regard to that compulsory enactment, which affected thirty-six towns, all of which, for aught he knew, might be very anxious for this bill, he thought there were very serious and solid objections. He objected also to the manner in which the police powers were vested. It would appear, on the general principle, that those powers should be given to the town-council, but they might under this bill be vested entirely in the executive Government. Then, again, nothing could be more unreasonable or inconsistent than the watch clauses in this bill, to which his right hon. Friend had objected. The other night, too, the noble Lord opposite, in answer to a question respecting the manner in which the local taxation would be made, said, that it would be regulated upon the principle of the Irish act of the 9th of George 4th, implying thereby that it would be established upon a graduated scale, varying according to the presumed income of the party. Now, in the thirty-six towns to which he alluded under this bill, those who would be taxed at 1s. in the pound would be at the mercy of those who paid a higher rate. That was another point which hon. Members on his side of the House conceived to be open to very great objection. Now with regard to the subject itself, whether considered there or in the other House, it certainly had been stated, that the main condition on which that (the Opposition) side of the House, or those acting on their principles, would assent to a settlement of this question was the previous disposal of a bill immediately concerning the Irish church. The non-settlement of that question, he confessed, likewise placed him in a situation to withhold his assent from the motion of the noble Lord. The Irish Tithe Bill was, he believed, read a second time the other night but it was read without the cognizance of the House, or, at least, of a great portion of it. In conclusion he could only say, that in opposing the third reading of this bill, he still retained unimpaired the warmest desire to see this great question brought to an amicable adjustment. He retained the wish to give to the majority of towns in Ireland municipal corporations, that was to say, provided that they expressed a desire for them. But he unhesitatingly said, that he did not wish to make it compulsory on those towns to place themselves under the operation of this bill if they were not so disposed. Under these circumstances, he felt it impossible to do otherwise than he had already intimated. He should, therefore, move that this bill be read a third time that day three months.

in seconding the motion said, he regretted that the course which had hitherto been taken upon this bill had only tended to "cloud that prospect" which had existed at an earlier part of the session of coming to a final settlement of this question. Whilst he regretted this, as tending to perpetuate one of those fertile topics of agitation, and to prolong the animosities which had been kindled regarding it, he could not, so far as the intrinsic merits of the question were involved, feel much concern at the prospect of its being postponed for another year, or even for a longer period. He felt perfectly satisfied that the delay which had already taken place upon it had been productive of the very hest results; its effects had most amply confirmed the repeated assertions made by himself and his friends, that the people of Ireland were utterly indifferent on the matter. It had given them time to investigate the proposition—to inquire what those municipal institutions actually were, and how far they were suited to their wants; and he had no hesitation in saying that, the conclusion at which they had arrived was one, if not of hostility, at least of absolute indifference to their introduction. If the contrary was asserted, where was the proof of it? Where were the expressions of a different opinion? Where were the petitions in favour of it? In former years, whilst the agitation was brisk and the question little understood, the table of the House had literally teemed with them; but this year, after three sessions' discussion, there had not been presented above seventy with about 32,000 signatures in all. It had been upon this conviction alone, upon the grounds of their vexatious cost and absolute inutility, that he had all along opposed the introduction of corporations into Ireland. His opposition to the bill had neither arisen from religious prejudices nor political apprehensions. As to the 10l. franchise, which had always hitherto been proposed for the large towns, he felt no alarm for its operation, under proper regulations; he felt that a bona fide 10l. qualification would insure a municipal body endowed with sufficient property to insure their prudence in its protection, and sufficient intelligence to protect them from abusing their powers for factious purposes. Besides this, he did not, after all, apprehend that these bodies would be quite so democratic as their advocates seemed now to anticipate. It was the natural and inevitable tendency of the possession of power, but, above all, of the responsibility of power, to make those who held it more or less Conservative; and he had little doubt, that it would soon be perceived in these municipal bodies, as in other similar constitutions, that those who had been liberal of promises to obtain authority, would soon discover an unwillingness, as well as an inability, to go all the lengths that their supporters had expected from them. His objections to the bill, as it now stood, wholly apart from all political considerations, but arising solely from the injury which he believed it would produce inevitably to the peace, the good order, the comfort, and prosperity of the towns of Ireland, were sufficiently strong to compel him to vote against its being read a third time. It was unnecessary to say, that the bill, as it had now left the Committee, was, with reference to the grounds on which Gentlemen on his side of the House had assented to a settlement of the question, the most objectionable which had yet been introduced. It contained every single provision which they had condemned in former years—it embodied no one suggestion from the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel); and in addition to all this, the extent of the franchise (which was, after all, the vital principle of the whole measure), so far from having been securely defined at an ascertained instead of an uncertain amount, had, in the seven great towns of Ireland, been reduced from a 10l. to a 5l. qualification. It was impossible, under these circumstances, to imagine that those who had resisted the bill in former years, could possibly assent to the passing of the present one. He had likewise understood from the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) that the system of rating would be an uniform poundage upon all property, whilst the bill, as it now stood, introduced the graduated scale, by which, whilst the vote of a 5l. householder, who would always form the vast majority, was of equal value with that of the wealthiest banker, his taxation would be but a mere fraction in comparison, and thus the entire revenue and economy, the entire taxation and expenditure, of large towns, like Dublin and Belfast, would be virtually in the hands of the 5l. majority, to the practical exclusion of the wealthier portion, who were nevertheless to bear the real burthen, and be taxable at their command. He would not enter into a discussion on those other points and provisions of the measure which were of a political complexion, and which had been already so often and so thoroughly dilated upon. What he wished, in assenting to any municipal bill, was, to see a purely municipal institution established in each town that required it or wished for it; and he concurred, that the efficiency and simplicity of this would be infinitely diminished by the provisions made in the bill as it now stood, imposing, as it did, upon the council duties connected with the police and the constabulary, the appointment of sheriffs and coroners, and salaried magistrates, and all the other functions connected with the administration of justice. He did hope yet to see a bill passed by which those duties would be transferred to more expedient authorities, and its provisions confined, as had been proposed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, to the purely municipal government of the Irish towns. There was one portion of the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet, and one only, from which he dissented, and that was the compulsory enforcement of these corporations upon eleven great towns, mid its optional offer to the remainder. What he would have preferred, would have been an option given to the whole, and power to any community to reject it, if they so thought fit. As it now stood, he (Mr. E. Tennent) felt convinced, that corporations would be forced upon many towns which would be most unwilling to adopt them, but who would be left neither a choice nor an alternative, and amongst these was the town which he had the honour to represent—the town of Belfast. The bill, as it now stood, would be productive of the most extraordinary confusion and difficulty, not only in that town, but in others with which he was acquainted which were similarly situated. The House would remember, that Belfast, like many of the other great towns in Ireland, though having a nominal corporation, had long since superseded it, and were now governed by local acts, under which efficient governing bodies were annually elected, taxes levied, and all municipal duties performed. Now the present bill, whilst it established a new corporation in each of these towns, did not profess to repeal those local acts or to abolish the system at present, in operation under them. The result of this would be, that we should have in those towns two rural systems in active operation, two sets of officers, one corporate and one local, and two systems of government, and in some cases not only two but actually four or five different systems of rating and leasing all in force at the same moment in the same community. To illustrate this, he would take the individual case of Belfast. By the bill, as it was now framed, they would have a corporation actually forced upon Belfast; but as they did not repeal the existing local acts (the 40th and 56th George 3rd), they would actually leave to that corporation, when duly elected, scarcely one single function to perform. The new corporation would have nothing to do with the harbour—that was already placed under commissioners by an act not to be repealed. They would have nothing to do with the charitable funds and estates—that also was under a second act, which was not to be altered. The paving, lighting, and watering, were now performed by a board popularly elected under a third act, which was not to be effected, and these duties again, unless with the wish of the commissioners themselves, they were not to interfere with; and the only solitary function left to them would be the watching of the town, which, by the bill, would be handed over to them compulsorily. Thus, in the great town of Belfast they would have a corporation chosen and elected with vast trouble and expense, and a whole host of salaried officers for no other purpose than to manage a night watch, which was now efficiently conducted by a board of commissioners, who gave their services gratis. But the confusion would not rest here. They would have in Belfast no less than three different systems and scales of rating and taxation. In the first place, for the election of burgesses and officers, they would have the rating under the poor-rate; secondly, for paving, lighting, and watching, they would have the present assessment by the existing valuators; thirdly, for the municipal taxes and support of the watch they would have the graduated scale under this bill; and to crown the confusion, they would have the town assessed for the watch-rate under the one system, and the rural district for the same purpose under another. He was unwilling on such an exhausted topic to weary the patience of the House by any lengthened strictures—those he had made he offered in no spirit of faction. When it had been resolved upon by both sides of the House that municipal institutions should be granted to Ireland, he had felt an anxious desire to render those bodies as efficient for the purpose as it was possible, disencumbering them of every unnecessary or pervertible function. He regretted, that on these details there had not been a greater unanimity in the House; but whilst he sincerely hoped, that at some future period they would have a measure at once practicable and safe with a prudent qualification and well-defined duties, he could not possibly vote for the present bill, defective as it was in all these particulars, and fraught as he believed it to be, with injury to the peace, the social order, and internal prosperity of the towns of Ireland.

said, that in the vote which he intended to give, he wished to have it understood that he did not entertain the remotest idea of going over to the other side of the House. The only instance in which he intended to support the Queen's Government was on the present question. Neither on the hustings nor in Parliament had he ever said otherwise than that Ireland ought to have a full and complete measure of corporate reform. He had always considered, that it was a measure too long delayed, and he had, whenever an opportunity offered, expressed that opinion. To him it appeared that the House of Commons was not then assembled for the purpose of driving a hard bargain; he had not come for the purpose of seeing how little would suffice, but how much he could safely agree to give, He had, humble as he was, made sacrifices for Ireland; he had lost his seat at one election on account of the sentiments he expressed on the Roman Catholic question. On the subject of corporate reform in Ireland it did evidently appear, that nothing could be more unjust than that in the poorest country there should be fixed the highest fran- chise. It had been said, and most truly said, that we wanted information on the state of Ireland; there could be no doubt that statistical information was required; but in the absence of that information he desired to give the benefit of the doubt which he entertained to the more full and liberal measure. He was aware in the present state of parties of the extreme difficulty of getting at the truth; but though the noble Lord might think it right to consult the feelings and opinions prevalent in another place, still he must be aware that full justice ought to be done to the country. It was not to be supposed that a body so intelligent and so independent as the House of Lords would eventually refuse to do that which was consistent with the true interests of the community at large. If asked, for which franchise he should vote, he did not hesitate for a moment to say that he should prefer a 5l. franchise. He regretted, that from that side of the House (the Oppoposition) there had not proceeded some measure of compromise; but as matters stood, entertaining the opinions which he did, he could not do otherwise than support the Government on this occasion, for he felt it to be essentially a Conservative Government. He could not bring himself to believe in an eternal crisis. He might hear of the Church being in danger, or the Lords being in danger, but to talk of a 10l. franchise being one of the institutions of the country, was utterly absurd. On matters of mere detail he did hold himself at perfect liberty; and for his part he was unable to comprehend how people could talk of making a stand on the 10l. franchise. He repeated his right to exercise his judgment freely on matters of detail, and declared his intention to vote with the Queen's Government on the present question.

congratulated the House on there being in the Opposition one honest man at least. He had heard more than one right hon. Gentleman who had filled the office of chief secretary to the Lord-lieutenant say, that the only thing wanted to preserve our Protestant Constitution was, to keep the Catholics out of Parliament, and yet the same individuals supported the Catholic Relief Bill, and now told them a 10l. franchise was essential to the preservation of the British constitution. The Irish would not give up one iota of their rights. They did not require more than the English or Scotch, but they would never be content with less.

had thought the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) by requiring a rated value higher than the real value of the qualification, was more than they professed to exact. He even thought that a lower qualification than had been proposed might have been adopted. Nor did he think, that the security of the Protestant Church depended on the composition of municipal corporations in Ireland. But when he looked at the bill as it now stood, he found that the Government had not in any degree modified their proposition. All parties agreed, that an alteration should be made in the system of municipal corporations; all parties agreed that a 10l. bonâ fide qualification was the fair and reasonable point at which they should meet, and the only difficulty was as to the way in which it should be tested. The Government did not think themselves justified in declaring that the 5l. qualification was advisable; he had, therefore, a right to expect that they would act on their own opinion. There was considerable difficulty in obtaining accurate statistical information on this subject with reference to Ireland; but it was said, there was a difference in the Irish towns of twenty-five per cent. between the rated and real value. He drew from that fact, however, a different conclusion from what was drawn from it by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had hoped some modification would have been made by Government, so as to secure a bonâ fide qualification, which, not having been done, he was driven to the alternative of voting against the third reading of this bill.

had hoped, after the course which this measure had taken in preceding discussions, and especially after what he flattered himself were overtures and approaches to conciliation, tendered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, on the third reading, they would not have had to encounter a motion for its absolute and final defeat. The question they were now called on to determine was, whether they should ratify and confirm the opinion that Irishmen should be debarred from privileges of which Englishmen and Scotchmen were in the full enjoyment, or whether this question should be bequeathed as an irritating legacy for future sessions. His noble friend (Lord John Russell) was willing to enter into any adjustment; but the raising of the franchise was one of those points he could not yield. He was willing that the franchise should be the same in Ireland as in Scotland—a 10l. qualification free from the test of rating; or as it was in England, simple roting to the relief of the poor; but then it would be impossible for the next two years to carry the latter into effect in Ireland. At all events, he was not prepared to take away so much of the Scotch proposition as would raise the qualification to 10l., and so much of the English as fixed the test of rating so as to combine the aggravations, and give to the poorest country the highest franchise. Ministers did not consider themselves irrevocably bound to the 5l. qualification; they declared themselves ready to listen to any fair and reasonable suggestion which would have the effect of ultimately securing the success of the bill; but although abundant opportunities had been given, no such proposition had been made. There was no approach to an arrangement on the other side, and they, therefore, did not think themselves warranted in departing from the 5l. franchise, which tested by a rating would, he really believed, come up to a bonâ fide 10l. qualification. In reply to the observation from the noble Lord who opened the debate, he must observe, that since his connexion with Ireland, he had been unable to trace any unwillingness in the inhabitants of the towns of that country to be encumbered with this franchise. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that the town of Belfast would have been brought under the compulsory operation of this bill, and that the inhabitants preferred their present system of local government. Without entering into any examination of the accuracy of that assertion, he would merely observe, that, even if such were the case, there was no other town in the whole of Ireland which would have any objection to receive a municipal government formed upon the same principles as the corporations now existing in England and in Scotland. The question then before the House was, whether it would pass an act, placing the municipal corporations of Ireland under the same principle of popular control to which the municipal corporations of England and Scotland were now subject, or whether it would hand over this bill to another session, and leave to this House the pleasant legacy of renewing once more these acrimonious and irritating discussions. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen, after the expectations of Ire- land had been so raised, and after the people of the three countries had begun to think, that we were at last coming to the end of these vexatious and angry discussions—he hoped, he said, that hon. Gentlemen would not let them hear, that the House of Commons was prepared to retrace its steps, and to come back to a vote which would place a brand of inequality on the sister country of Ireland. No, he hoped, that they would pursue a more manly, a more generous, and a more conciliating policy. They could take no course which would tend so much to make the union between the two countries a union of feeling, of heart, and of understanding, and not a mere union of form, of parchment, and of statutes.

was induced to rise at that period of the debate—which, under the present feelings of the House, he could not call an early period of the debate—partly on account of its apparent unwillingness to enter into any protracted discussion on matters which had been so long and so frequently discussed, and partly owing to his wish to avoid adding to the irritation already existing by refraining from all topics by which irritation might be excited, and which he hoped would be eschewed as much as possible during the remainder of this debate. He had already obtained this admission from the noble Lord opposite, that he (Sir Robert Peel) had made proposals for the adjustment of this much-litigated question, respecting which parties in Ireland were much divided, and respecting which, the House of Commons and the House of Lord had taken different views during the last three sessions—he had already, he repeated, obtained an admission from the noble Lord opposite that he had made proposals for the adjustment of it, which, except in one respect, were not inadmissible. He had proposed terms on which he thought there was a reasonable prospect of adjustment. Every one of them had been accepted, save one, and that related to the amount of the franchise. That admission of the noble Lord he considered to be a decisive proof of the spirit in which his offer had been made. Would any man last year have believed, that it would be possible this year to have offered terms of arrangement on this question—terms which Ministers had no reluctance to accept, and to which no valid objection could be made, save as to the amount of the franchise. [Ironical cheers from Mr. O'Connell.] Before hon. Gentlemen received that observation with a sarcastic cheer, he hoped that they would permit him to vindicate himself with respect to that particular proposition. He had already called the attention of the House to the admission which he had obtained from the noble Lord opposite; and it was with great pain and reluctance, that he then found himself in a situation in which he had no other alternative but to vote against the third reading of this bill, consistently with the course which he had pursued, with the principles which he had maintained, and with the expectations which he had held out to the counrty—expectations which it was necessary for him to hold out, in order to procure the assent of many who were conscientiously opposed to the bill. Was the noble Lord surprised at the course which be was pursuing? If the noble Lord was surprised, he ought not at any rate to be, for the terms which he had proposed were, according to the noble Lord himself, admissible, and yet not one of them had been accepted. To his terms the noble Lord, he once more repeated it, had acceded; and yet, strange to say, the bill then before the House did not contain a single one of those terms. With the respect, then, which he felt for the House of Commons as an independent branch of the Legislature, ought he to entertain the expectation that the modifications which he wished to introduce into this bill would be made in the other House of Parliament, and ought he to pass this bill in the hope that its objectionable parts would be amended elsewhere? No; the course which he should take was, to consider this bill on its abstract merits; and being of opinion, that it ought not to pass into law, he could not reconcile it to himself to let it pass here, in the hope of having its objectionable parts abated elsewhere. If, in the general enactments of the bill he had concurred, and had only differed from the supporters of it on matters of detail, he might have been justified in pursuing a different course. But the question which he felt bound to ask himself was, "Am I ready to accept this bill as it now stands as a settlement of this much-disputed question?" And it was because he was compelled to answer that question in the negative, that he must, from respect to the House, and also from respect to himself, now give his vote against the third reading of this bill. He might have opposed the third reading of this bill upon other grounds. After the declaration which the noble Lord had made on a former evening upon the course he intended to take in bringing forward the public business, he had had a right to expect, that the third reading of this bill would not have been proposed until the course which the House intended to adopt on the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill was known. The noble Lord had already adjourned the stage of one of those bills, in order that a discussion on the other might precede it. The House had not as yet gone into Committee on the Tithe Bill. It was already threatened with a discussion on the appropriation clause. It did not know what decision a majority might come to either upon that clause or upon the principle of the Tithe Bill itself, and yet the noble Lord proposed to take the third reading of this bill before he proposed to enter into the Committee on the Tithe Bill. That was a departure from the course which the noble Lord had promised to take. Even if he had approved of the provisions of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill, he might have asked for the delay of a fortnight before proceeding to the passing of it, in order to make himself more fully acquainted with the provisions of the Tithe Bill. Yet that course he could not prevail upon himself to take; for it would imply, that, if the decision on the Tithe Bill was satisfactory to him, he would be prepared to support the Municipal Reform Bill. In so doing he would be raising an expectation, that his opposition to the Municipal Reform Bill was only a transient and temporary opposition. Now, such an expectation, though it might be calculated to catch some fleeting popularity, he would not countenance for a single moment; because it must ultimately prove to be delusive; and such being his determination, he would now proceed to state the grounds on which be objected to the present motion. After the admission which he had already obtained from the noble Lord, it was not necessary for him to enter into more than a few details of this bill. In attempting to settle this question, he thought that it would not be satisfactory if he did not assume at once with regard to the great towns of Ireland, that their government by means of municipal corporations would be in conformity to the general wishes of their inhabitants. And yet an hon. Friend of his, representing the large and opulent town of Belfast, and speaking the sense of many of his constituents, said, that he could not assent to that proposition, inasmuch as most of his constituents would rather remain under their present local Government than be placed under that which was proposed in lieu of it. He had been aware of that objection; but he had told his hon. Friend, that he could not make an exception in favour of Belfast, which must be subject to the general rule. With respect to the other towns of Ireland, the noble Lord opposite had admitted, that he considered it to be no insult to them to let them decide whether they would have municipal corporations or not. He had stated distinctly to the House, that in all cases where the towns refused to have municipal corporations, he would have the corporation property managed by local commissioners elected by a popular body. He believed, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had publicly acknowledged that, as to his proposals of all parts of the bill, excepting the franchise, he saw nothing to which he could reasonably object. [Mr. O'Connell dissented.] Then, he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman; but, at any rate, the noble Lord had asked "Why did you not attempt to amend the bill in Committee?" To that question he would reply by stating, that he had attempted to amend it there. He had made a proposition against the 5l. franchise. He found that the bill contained a 10l. franchise for seven large towns, and a 5l. franchise for the remaining towns. He told the House, that so far as the Parliamentary franchise was concerned, uniformity of franchise was the rule in all the three countries, and that it was the rule in England and in Scotland so far as related to the municipal franchise. He had proposed that the same rule should be applied to Ireland. That was no insult, he supposed, to Ireland, for the noble Lord had himself adopted the proposition. He had also proposed the principle of rating. That was no insult, he supposed, to Ireland, for the noble Lord had adopted that proposition also. The uniformity of the franchise and the principle of rating were then no insult to Ireland, for both propositions had been adopted by the noble Lord. The insult to Ireland, then, consisted in attempting to fix the amount of the franchise. He had been defeated in his first attempt to negative the 5l. franchise. He thought that a deduction of 50 per cent. from the original proposal was a most enormous and unjustifiable reduction. The sense of the House was taken upon it, and the House resolved that the 5l. franchise should be insisted on. He determined not to act upon a feeling of temporary pique, and, therefore, after some time had elapsed, he repeated his proposition that 10l. should be the amount of the franchise, and not 5l. The House again repeated its former resolution. Finding, that the sense of the House was thus decidedly against him, he did not propose any alteration in the details of the bill; for he felt, that no such alteration could reconcile him to the principle of the bill, and that he should only be practising a delusion if he proposed amendments on minute details, which would not obviate his objections to the bill itself. Another reason why he had not proposed amendments on the details of the bill was, that if he had proposed them, and if the House, after a formal division, had rejected them, that would have been an objection, but not, he confessed, an insuperable objection, to the adoption of them, subsequently by the House, in case they were proposed and carried elsewhere. His conduct, therefore, in abstaining from proposing in that House, any amendments on the details of the bill, was perfectly reconcileable with a desire of bringing this disputed question, to an amicable settlement. He had now answered every objection, which had been offered, to the conduct which he had pursued, except those which related to the amount of the franchise: and on that subject, he wished to place his views distinctly on record. In establishing municipal corporations, it became necessary to establish as a condition precedent, a certain amount of franchise. You take the possession of a house, of the yearly value of 10l. as the amount of the franchise. He conceived, that the franchise meant this—that you required that the house or tenement, which entitled the possessor to the elective franchise, should be worth 10l. a-year to a solvent tenant, the tenant paying all rates and charges upon it; in other words, you require that the occupying tenant should pay all rates and charges upon his house or tenement; and that, after he has paid them, he shall occupy his house or tenement, for a certain definite time prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and that his house, after he has paid all rates and charges upon it, shall be worth to him the sum of 10l. That was the Parliamentary franchise in England and in Scotland, and he found, that they had adopted the same Parliamentary franchise for Ireland also. In the Reform Act for Ireland, there were words introduced, which were not to be found in the Reform Acts for England and Scotland. The object of these additional words was, to make the intention of the Legislature still more clear and intelligible. The Legislature required, that, for the Parliamentary franchise in Ireland, the house occupied by the voter, should be bonâ fide of a value not less than 10l.; it also required that the occupation should be for six months before the registration, and that the occupant should have paid all taxes, rates, and grand jury cesses imposed upon it. He had been taunted with introducing the words bonâ fide but those words were not his; they were the words of their own act of Parliament. They made no difference as to intention. He looked to the Scotch Act which determined the Parliamentary and the municipal franchise, and he found, that it had been agreed, that, both for the municipal and Parliamentary franchise, the same principle was adopted, that the voter should occupy a house of the clear yearly value of 10l., paying the rates and charges properly falling on him: and it was not left to the opinion and oath of the party, but there was a power given to the revising barristers of ascertaining the fact. The noble Lord said, that a 5l. franchise, tested by a rate, was equal to a loose and unsatisfactory franchise of 10l., that showed, that when a 10l. franchise was asked it was not meant; but when a loose and unsatisfactory franchise of 10l. was talked of, he said, that when it was adopted for England, a bonâ fide 10l. was meant, and he said, that in England we had it. In England the qualification in respect to which a person had a right to vote was, clear yearly value of 10l., and that the revising barristers, in deciding what a 10l. value meant, acted under Mr. Poulet Scrope's Act, in order to ascertain whether it was a bonâ fide franchise. He had made inquiry of a revising barrister, of some authority, in order to learn upon what principle they decided. When he had been told, that he was insulting Ireland, when he required the poor-law rate for a test, he said, that in England we appealed to the poor-law assessment. It was required in England, that a voter should be rated at 10l., but the revising barristers were entitled to call before them collectors of taxes, and overseers of the poor, in order to test the oath and opinion of the English voter. We did say to the English voter, "Your oath and opinion shall not be binding on us: the revising barrister shall have another test—the rate-book of the collector." He would now state the answer which he had got from a revising barrister. That gentleman stated, that he had ceased to act as a revising barrister for two or three years, but he knew that, the general and almost universal practice [Interruption,] "I am showing," said the right hon. Baronet, "that I am not insulting Ireland by requiring a bonâ fide franchise; and I am attempting to show, that in England, the noble Lord was wrong in supposing, that a 5l. bonâ fide franchise was equal to a loose and unsatisfactory 10l. franchise, if he supposes it is so in England. The revising barrister had stated—

"The general, I may say the almost universal, practice has been to ascertain the value in the same way as the annual value is ascertained in rating to the relief of the poor; i. e. by ascertaining the value intimated by a supposed rental, if the premises were let from year to year, the tenant being subject to the charges, rates, and taxes, which by the law are payable by him in respect of his occupation. The actual rental is no criterion of the value where, by agreement between the parties, the landlord takes upon himself the payment of rates, charges, and taxes, which fall upon the tenant, or where the tenant subjects himself, by special agreement, to burdens, repairs, or other outlay, greater than those which the law, without such special agreement imposes on him. In the former case the rent exceeds, in the latter it falls short of, the real value."

It had been intimated to him, that he had mistaken the meaning of a 10l. franchise; that it was not the meaning of a 10l. franchise that it should be the value of the house after payment of rates falling on the tenant, but that it was the test of the capacity of the tenant to pay 10l., and that he (Sir Robert Peel) ought to add, to what the landlord takes, the rates the tenant is liable to pay. If the landlord takes 5l. and the tenant has to pay 5l., it was said that is a 10l. franchise. This he denied. He contended that it meant where the house was worth 10l. to let, the occupying tenant paying all the rates and charges to which he was liable by law. That rule was the universal rule in Great Britain, and that was the principle he contended for. Hearing this opinion of his denied, he had again referred to the revis- ing barrister, the gentleman whom he had before quoted, and he had received this additional information. He stated, "I have again inquired anxiously as to the practice amongst English revising barristers. I have consulted many gentlemen of different circuits. They all declare that they act upon this principle, that if the house, &c., is worth 10l. a year to let to a tenant who is liable to pay the tenant's usual charges, i. e. rates, taxes, and his common law repairs (which last is, however, in practice disregarded, as being too minute a matter to be considered), they consider the property of sufficient value; otherwise not." Then what were the proposals he (Sir Robert Peel) had made? That the franchise should be uniform, this had been assented to; that the test should be by rating, this had been assented to; and that the franchise should be a 10l. qualification, to be determined by rating, this had been rejected. The question was, is the test a good one? If it raised the test above 10l. it is a bad one. If a 5l. franchise was meant, say so; if an 8l. say so; or if a 10l. say it; but do not talk of a loose and unsatisfactory one. No man could get up and say, that a 10l. franchise ought to be less than a bonâ fide one. What he had said from the first was, that the 10l. should be a bonâ fide value; he did not want, he never meant, to raise it in Ireland to 12l. or 20l. "If you tell me," said the right hon. Baronet, that the franchise is too high for Ireland, I can understand you; if you tell me that Ireland is a poor country, and, it ought, therefore, to have a lower franchise, I do not admit the argument, but I can understand it. I deny, that, after the passing of the Reform Act, the franchise in Ireland ought to be lower than in England." The only question would be as to the landlord's repairs. In Ireland, the tenants bore the charge of repairs—in England, the landlord; but there were various charges in England from which the tenants were exempt in Ireland. Upon the new Poor Law Bill, in Ireland the tenants would bear half the charges and the landlord the other; but the sole point on which there was a difference of opinion, was the different practice in England and in Ireland with respect to landlord's repairs and insurance. He believed, generally speaking, where there was a holding from year to year, the tenant bore the charges; in some cases, he feared, they were borne by neither. He repeated, that, after the fullest considera- tion, he could not consent to accept any thing less than what he had required at the outset, a bonâ fide holding of 10l., as it was considered in England, namely, not left to the opinion of the party, but ascertained by rating; and he now declared he did not believe, looking to the principle of the Parliamentary franchise, that it was an unreasonable proposal on his part, or that the House would reject either the amount of the franchise or the test he proposed. He was amongst those who were most anxious to see this question settled, and he was sorry that an attempt should have been made to disappoint this object, by calling in other topics calculated to act upon the passions. He had been told, that he had offered an insult to the people of Ireland. He had thought, that he might argue against a system on the ground that it led to the commission of perjury, without insulting the people of Ireland, and he had supposed so from the practice of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had found fault with a system because it encouraged perjury. What said the hon. and learned Member in his evidence before the Committee on the 40s. freeholders in 1835? Did he not say, that the system to which he referred there, gave encouragement to perjury, and might not he use the same argument? The hon. and learned Member was asked:—"Are you of opinion any corrective could be applied to the evils which are understood to have arisen from the system of 40s. freeholds in Ireland?—It is difficult for me to answer that question. The system of 40s. freeholds in Ireland is essentially different from that which is in England. There are some 40s. freeholders who have fee simple estates, and with these I suppose nobody would meddle. Then, with respect to those who have derivative interest, there is an immense deal of perjury," this was the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman, "from accumulation of oaths, and they are part of the live stock of an estate." "Do you think you will avoid the evil of perjury by raising it to 10l.?—Yes, I do. A man who had a 10l. freehold would be known among his neighbours. He would have a character to preserve, and I do not think there would be nearly the temptation to perjury there now was." Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think he was insulting the country by this? Then again: the hon. and learned Gentleman was asked, "Are you acquainted with the administration of justice by the magistrates of cor- porate towns? "It is extremely complained of in both civil and criminal matters," was his answer. "They have civil jurisdiction called Courts of Conscience that set at defiance, certainly, every notion of conscience." They are considered as the worst receptacles of perjury. We had a right to argue from the result of experience, and it was only those who felt their arguments to be intrinsically weak who would have recourse to such a suggestion as that insult was intended. He had endeavoured to ascertain what was the number of 10l. houses in Dublin. He found that the total number of houses in Dublin was 17,300, of which 14,103 were above the value of 10l. He had no doubt they would be considerably reduced by rating, but he could not help assuming that a 10l. franchise would give a respectable constituency when he found, that out of 17000 houses, 14,000 were valued at 10l. But the bill took 5l. instead of 10l.; and the question for him to determine being, whether he preferred this bill being rejected at once, or sent to the House of Lords, and time being given for the further consideration of it, he said, he would rather that it should be rejected at once than that it should pass into a law. He retained, unabated by anything which had passed, a sincere desire that this question should be brought to a final, and he should be happy if it could at the same time be brought to an amicable and satisfactory adjustment. He should regret if the course he now proposed to take should prevent that adjustment; but if he were asked whether he preferred the alternative of giving his consent to the bill, or of postponing a settlement of the question, he should be ready to take the consequences of postponing a settlement rather than give his consent to a bill which he could not in his conscience approve of.

observed that he willingly accepted the statements of the right hon. Baronet, and would endeavour to see whether the principles which he had laid down would justify the vote which the right hon. Barcnet had stated his intention of giving. The right hon. Baronet said, that if the test which he proposed would have the effect of raising the bonâ fide value it was a bad test—and he would now prove by facts, the truth of which was very generally avowed, that the test which the right hon. Gentleman proposed was not a just test, Even according to the right hon. Baronet's own principles the city with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been for many years politically connected, namely, the city of Limerick, contained a greater number of houses of that description, which might be termed the better class, than most of the other towns of Ireland. Now, he was as ready and as anxious as the noble Lord or the right hon. Baronet, or as any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, to put an end to any perjury that might exist on this subject, and he entreated them to give him their attention whilst he stated the facts of the case as concerned the city he had alluded to. In that city there was a valuation of the houses in the district he referred to, and that valuation he held in his hand. The paper contained two columns, and showed a comparison between the rated value in the parochial books, and the bonâ fide rent paid by the lessee. The first of these houses, it appeared from this paper, was rented at 100l. a-year, and rated at no more than 80l. The next at 95l. a-year, and rated at 75l.; the next at 60l. a-year, and rated at 40l.; others at 65l. a-year, rated at 40l.; and several at 55l. and 50l., and rated at 35l., whilst of the houses rented at a lower rate the inequality was still greater. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite consider this when they asked for a franchise of 10l. bonâ fide value. He did not tax his opponents with disingenuousness, but he considered them to be under a misapprehension and misinformed, for he was convinced that a 10l. franchise, coupled with a rating, would disfranchise a large number of the best voters in Ireland—voters equal to the best that either England or Scotland could produce. If he was not in error with regard to what he had shown with reference to the city of Limerick, he believed that a similar inquiry into the circumstances of the renting and rating of houses in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and other places would lead to the same result. But the right hon. Baronet said, he wished to have an uniformity of franchise, and quarrelled with hon. Gentlemen opposed to him on that point, maintaining, that they had not given it in this bill. But the bill, as it now stood, established uniformity with the raising of the franchise in the smaller towns. The right hon. Gentleman had given a satisfactory reason for not having proposed other amendments to this bill, and he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a prudent course in not doing so, although, perhaps, there were some of his amendments on which the Government might have been inclined to have acted. He could not bring himself entirely to despair of the amicable adjustment of this question. When he considered how many gentlemen on both sides of the house appeared anxious for such a result, and that, taking both sides of the House together, there had been so generous, and, he might say, bold and courageous a disposition exhibited to have it settled, he could not think it would all end in nothing, and be of no avail. Let hon. Gentlemen think of the consequences of throwing out this bill. The points of difference on this subject would never again be so few as at that moment, or lie in so narrow a compass as they then did; and on these grounds he for one would not yet despair that the present session would close without giving an amicable adjustment of the questions of corporations and tithes, which, if not final, would at least give Ireland a better chance of tranquillity, remove the hostile collision into which the two departments of the Legislature had been thrown, and put an end to those heartburnings and differences which had harassed their past deliberations.

could not think, that the case of Limerick, quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, in any degree sustained the right hon. Gentleman's argument, for rating might be good as a general test., although in some particular instances, the rating itself might be defective. Such seemed to be the case in Limerick, and such had been the case in the city of Dublin antecedent to the recent valuation. But if the rating were correct, and uniform, it would afford as correct a test as could well be found; but if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was good for anything, it went too far for his own purpose; for the bill as amended by the Government took rating as its test of value, and brought the question between them to this—was the franchise to be a 10l. one, or a 5l. one? Now, he and those with whom he acted, only contended for a bonâ fide 10l. franchise, and if they could be shown to be in any particular error in estimating it, they were ready to correct the error; but, on the other hand, the Government, who had themselves first offered a 10l. franchise, admitted, that the present system of fraud, and fiction, and perjury which existed in Ireland in reference to the Parliamentary franchise should be put an end to, They also allowed, that rating was the true test of value, but then they turned round and said, instead of a 10l., we will only give you a 5l. franchise. His Friend, when they said 10l., meant, that the franchise should be no more than 10l. Could the Government assert, that when they said 5l., they meant that it should be no less than 10l., for really the question was simply one of good faith. He complained, that due credit was not given, but, on the contrary, great injustice was done, to the motives and conduct of those who had already made large concessions with respect to the question. It had been very difficult to overcome, in the minds of those connected with the existing corporations of Ireland, old prepossessions, and former prejudices, if their feelings were so to be termed; and it was too much to expect, that the conditions upon which those concessions had been concurred in, could then be departed from. At the same time, he, for one, was bound, and ready to act up to, not only the letter, but the spirit of the terms to which he had assented; but while the Tithe Bill was unsettled, a 5l. franchise in that bill, and many other of its provisions objectionable, he never could consent to its third reading. That the question was not then adjusted, was the fault of the Government, who had receded from their own proposition, and upon them would rest the entire responsibility.

was understood to say, that if hon. Members would only consider the true question, without being influenced by a desire to gain a party triumph, they would see that there was really very little difference between either party.

said, that the question for the House to decide was, whether the 5l. rating which was now proposed by the Government, carried out a full 10l. yearly value, as originally proposed by them. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had said, that with this test a 5l. franchise would come very nearly, or quite up to a 10l. yearly rent. But he should like to know, where the noble Lord got evidence to support that assertion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared to concur in the views of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, and has cited the state of the rating for the city of Limerick; but he (Mr. Praed) must contend, that if rating did not represent the full yearly value, still there it was not a bad test of yearly value, but it was a bad rating, It was well known, that in many parts of the country a house, of the full yearly value of 25l., was rated under the statute of Elizabeth at 3l., but that state of things never could exist under the rating as provided by the Poor-law Bill for Ireland. What he and the Opposition side of the House wanted, was the full yearly value of 10l., as those words were familiarly understood in every revising barrister's court in this country. What was the difference between the 10l. franchise in England, and the 10l. franchise in Ireland, when the principle of rating was applied? This was the difference, that in England, the landlord was responsible for repairs and insurance, while in Ireland, the tenant bore those expenses; so that in Ireland, under this bill, a tenant paying 9l. a year rent, and 1l. more for repairs and insurance, would not be entitled to the municipal franchise, whereas as they (the Opposition) interpreted it, the party so situated would be entitled to the franchise. It was said, this was a surreptitious attempt on their part. He (Mr. Praed) denied the assertion, and maintained, that they were merely following out the very words of that clause of the noble Lord's bill which related to the qualification for aldermen. The noble Lord in that clause, provided, that the qualification for aldermen should be the occupation of a House of the full yearly value of 25l., and had assumed in that clause that rating, and full yearly value were synonymous, as applied to the larger amount of rate, and yet he made a difference of fifty per cent., as to the smaller value. On these grounds, he concurred in the views of the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire.

The House divided on the original question. Ayes 169; Noes 134:—Majority 35.

Bill passed.

having moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Sugar Duties Bill,

I have to request the attention of the House to a brief explanation of the object of the motion I am about to submit for its adoption. That motion is as follows: "That it be an instruction to the Committee, to make provision for permitting British plantation sugar to be taken out of bond, for the purpose of refining, on approved security being given for the payment of the duty." Should I be successful in this motion, it is my intention to propose in Committee, "That a drawback of 24s. per cwt. be paid on the exportation of every description of refined sugar, and on the treacle produced in the process of refining." The object of these two motions is to get rid of the concealed bounty, at present paid on the exportation of refined sugar, and which can only be effectually got rid of by the mode I propose. I am quite aware that the question I raise by these motions, is not of a kind to attract the attention of this House,—it is a question, nevertheless, of no mean importance, for not only does the concealed bounty, to which I have referred, cause a considerable annual loss to the revenue, but it enhances by a direct and inevitable process the price of all the sugar consumed in this country, and thus imposes a very heavy tax—a tax the more objectionable that it eludes observation—on the British people. The drawback, or bounty paid in the export of refined sugar, is fixed by the following process of calculation: it is assumed, that a given quantity of refined sugar can be made from an cwt. of raw sugar, and such an amount of drawback is given on a cwt. of refined sugar as is supposed to be exactly equal to the duty paid, on the quantity of raw sugar necessary for its production. Prior to 1807, there were only two rates of drawback, one on refined sugar, and one on bastard sugar, (an in- ferior kind of refined), and these were computed on the assumption that one cwt. of raw sugar yielded of

The drawback was given only on refined sugar, and on bastards, having the treacle produced to come in duty free. Subsequently a demand arose in foreign markets for sugar more highly refined than it was thought could be produced by a single process of refining, and as in a second process of refining a further loss of quantity occurred, it was considered that a larger drawback was required to re-imburse to the refiner the duty paid on the raw sugar. Since 1807, therefore, there have been three rates of drawback, viz:—on doubled refined, single refined, and bastards; but as in the progress of the art, methods have been discovered for producing from the first melting, sugar as fine in quality as that which was formerly attainable only by two successive meltings, it is not now insisted on, that sugar should be twice refined to be entitled to the highest rate of drawback, it is enough that it be equal to a certain standard sample kept by the officers of the Customs. In point of fact, there is now, as the House will readily believe, from what I am about to state, none, or next to none, other sugar exported than such as is entitled to the highest drawback. The present rates of drawback are, for bastards 24s. per cwt.; single refined 36s. 10d. per cwt.; double refined 43s. 2d. per cwt. These drawbacks were calculated, as I have stated, with the intention that they should exactly repay to the refiner the duty he had paid on the raw sugar used in producing each kind of refined, but the process of calculation was open to this very material source of error. The whole calculation is founded on the assumption, that only a certain quantity of refined sugar can be produced from a given quantity of raw, if more than was supposed can be obtained, the refiner gets more drawback than he paid duty; if less than he had assumed, then he gets less drawback than he had paid duty. It is beyond a doubt, that the former is the true proposition, and that he gets, in the shape of drawback on the refined sugar, a far larger sum than he paid as duty on the raw sugar from which it was manufactured, Some experiments, made three or four years by Dr. Ure, under the directions of the Board of Trade placed this fact beyond dispute, but more recent experience shows, that Dr. Ure had much under-rated the excess of drawback, over duty. The following is an account of the actual proceedings as communicated to the Board of Trade of a refinery in London during a part of the year 1836.

In the letter from the Board of Trade to the Treasury recently laid on the table of this House from which I have quoted the foregoing remarkable statement, it is assumed, although it is not said on what grounds, that the instance in question "is to be taken rather as an experiment to show what can actually be produced than as coming within the ordinary course of sugar refining." I believe from information on which I place reliance, that if more favourable in its results than the ordinary process of modern refining under the improved methods now in use, the experiment I have just referred to, is so only in a very small degree. I believe, that on the average, a refiner of the ordinary skill, using the best machinery, can produce from an cwt. of raw sugar, as much refined sugar as will entitle him to a drawback on exportationof between 31s. and 32s.—7s. or 8s. more, that is to say, than the 24s. he paid in the cwt. of raw sugar, if to this be added the advantage of selling duty free for home consumption, the 15 to 20lbs. treacle made in refining the cwt. of raw sugar—an advantage of from 2s. to 3s.—is impossible to estimate at less than 10s. per cwt. the concealed bounty obtained under our present laws by the refiner on every cwt. of raw sugar which he refines for exportation. This conclusion is rendered irresistible by the perfectly notorious fact, that British plantation sugar which can be used in our refineries sells for 10s. or 12s. per cwt. dearer than foreign sugar of equal quality which cannot be so used. Now what are the results of this state of the law? Why first, that the revenue is greatlydefrauded—the Customs lose 10s. on every cwt. of sugar refined and exported.—If 500,000 cwts. of sugar be refined and exported, therefore, the revenue suffers to the extent of 250,000l. But, secondly, and this is by very far the more important consequence of the present state of the law, this concealed bounty of 10s. per cwt. does enhance to that precise extent, the price of every pound of sugar consumed in the United kingdom,—and as the quantity consumed is about 4,350,000 cwts. annually, has the effect of imposing a tax on the public of 2,1 75,000l. per annum for the whole and sole advantage of the West-India proprietors—or the growers of that sugar which has the monopoly of the home market. The mode in which this effect is produced, may be stated in very few words, and will be at once admitted by every hon. Gentleman who hears me, who is conversant either with commercial transactions or with the elements of economical science. It is worth the while of the foreign merchant, to give as much for our refined sugar, as it will fetch in the foreign market, deducting his profit and the charges of transit,—the price he will at present give for refined sugar put on board his ship in the river Thames, is 35s. per cwt. the refiner gets in addition 43s. 2d. drawback, together 78s. 2d. or deducting the charges of shipping 2s. 2d.—76s. per cwt. for his cwt. of refined sugar—of course this must be also the price Of refined sugar in the home market, for he will not sell to the English grocer for a less price than he can get from the foreign merchant. But in the 43s. 2d. drawback on his refined sugar, I have shown, that the refiner has got much more than he paid as duty on the raw sugar. Now does the House suppose, that, of that excess he puts into his pocket any the smallest fraction as profit? not one single sixpence; the competition of other refiners will prevent his getting more than the ordinary profits of trade, and if it be true, as is undoubted, that on refining one cwt. of raw sugar he gets from the Customs 10s. morein drawback than he paid in duty, precisely that 10s. more per cwt. will it be worth his while to pay for the raw sugar, than would be worth his while if there were no concealed bounty. In the same market there cannot be two prices for the same article; the price, therefore, which the refiner can afford to give, every other buyer must pay, and the price of the whole quantity of sugar consumed in the United Kingdom, is enhanced to the public to the exact amount of the concealed bounty, on the exports of refined sugar. Now, Sir, how does my right hon. Friend, admitting the existence of the evils I have described, (for if he differ from me, it is, I know, not in principle but in degree, he may perhaps not allow the concealed bounty to be so large as I have stated it)—how does my right hon. Friend propose to get rid of the inconvenience I have described and the wrong suffered by the public under the existing law. He proposes, by the bill now before the House, to reduce by about 6s. per cwt. the drawback on refined sugar—leaving as they now stand all other regulations in the matter—6s. per cwt. on relined is about equal (as is allowed by my right hon. Friend) to 4s. on the raw sugar, and the concealed bounty being 10s. on the raw sugar, he does not remove quite one half of the bounty, nor, of course, relieve the public of quite one half of the burthen of which I complain. I do not say, that the measure of my right hon. Friend is not a beneficial measure or that we should not be grateful to him for what he proposes to do in this matter, but I do say, that the public is entitled to much more, and would support him in carrying through a much bolder measure. That my right hon. Friend does not take off more of the concealed bounty arises mainly from this, that he adheres to the old system of paying drawbacks calculated on the assumed products of refining. Now, as there is great uncertainty as to the result of refining any given sample of sugar, he cannot venture to take off from the drawback the real amount of concealed bounty, lest in some cases he should inflict a hardship on the refiner by giving him less drawback than he had paid duty. The plan involved in the motion I have submitted to the House and the motion I shall submit to the Committee, obviates this difficulty, and it is the only plan by which all difficulty and unfairness to any parties can be obviated. I would propose, that a refiner should be at liberty to take raw sugar out of the bonded warehouses, on giving approved security to the Customs for payment of the duty—that at the end of a given period he should be called on to vacate that bond, which he might do either by entering for exportation the whole produce of the sugar refined, or any part of it, and receiving credit at the rate of 24s. per cwt., the duty on the raw sugar for the part so returned, whether refined bastards or treacle; on whatever part of the produce of the sugar he chose not to enter for exportation, whether refined bastards or treacle, he should be called on to pay the duty of 24s. per cwt. Thus it would be certain, that, on whatever sugar he refined for the home market, he would pay more than the duty on the raw sugar consumed, and on that which he exported he would merely be free from any duty at all, there could be no concealed bounty, and, consequently, no factitious enhancement of the price of the home market. To this plan I have heard but of two objections, both capable of conclusive reply. The first is, that the revenue might be defrauded, as the refiner might enter for exportation more treacle than he really made, as he could purchase molasses from the West Indies which only pays 9s. duty; but it would be easy to limit the quantity of treacle which he should be allowed to enter for exportation. It is again objected, that the price of treacle would be enhanced, as it would, under the plan I propose, pay a duty of 24s. per cwt. on entry for home consumption, whereas it is now virtually duty free, and that this advance of price would press severely on the humbler classes by whom treacle is chiefly consumed. This objection is scarcely worth confutation. If the poor man purchased his treacle some what dearer (and it would not be rendered dearer to the extent of the duty, the present system, by raising the price of the superior saccharine products, having the tendency unnaturally to force up the price of the inferior) he would get his sugar fully as much cheaper; and it is really too absurd to talk of the advantage of affording to the public some few thousand cwts. of treacle 10s. or 12s. cheaper, at the price of forcing the whole people to buy four millions of cwts. of sugar 10s. or 12s. dearer. The plan I propose would also have other and great advantages. As regards the public, it would have the effect of diminishing the difference of price between raw and refined sugar, thus substi- tuting a purer and more wholesome saccharine product for the coarse, impure, and less wholesome product, raw sugar, of which our present absurd system compels the extensive use. It is not as generally known as it ought to be, that the process of refining separates from sugar not only dirt, but poisonous, or, at least, highly deleterious, ingredients. As regards the refiner, whilst it would incalculably extend his home market, it would not impair, in the long run, his foreign market; for, as I have shown beyond, I think, the possibility of doubt, it is the West-India proprietor, and not the British refiner, who gets the whole benefit of the concealed bounty. If that bounty were removed, the refiner would purchase his raw materials so much the cheaper, and be as able consequently, as now to meet foreign competition with the produce of his refinery, although the description of that produce which it might be desirable to export, might not be the same as at present. I am happy to be enabled to state to the House, that such are the opinions now entertained by very many, at least, among the refiners themselves. They have found, by sad experience, the evil effects of a false and artificial system, which, while it has appeared to secure to them the foreign market, has had the far more important consequence of narrowing their market for home consumption. It so happens, that the greater number of the refineries of London are situated within the borough which I have the honour to represent. I will now read to the House a letter I have received from eighteen firms engaged in the business of sugar refining, the whole number, I believe, in London being twenty-four. The House will, I am sure, agree with me, that the letter, advocating as it does the best principles of free trade, does honour to the gentlemen by whom it is signed:—

COPY OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

W. CLAY, ESQ. M. P.

"9 June, 1838.

"SIR—We, the undersigned sugar-refiners, request, that you will, whenever the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves, either a continuance of the law conferring bounty on refined sugar exported, or suggests such alteration in that law as will not extinguish the said bounty, protect, on our behalf, against such renewal or imperfect alteration of the act, explaining to the honourable House that we, so far from desiring the aid of bounty to fortify our exports, do earnestly pray, that precisely the same amount of drawback per cwt. be returned to the exporters of the produce of our refineries, as the duty paid on the raw material, or in order to simplify the operation, that we be charged with duty only on the refined produce not delivered to the Customs for exportation."

(Signed by the proprietors of eighteen sugar-refineries.)

I will add only one other observation before placing the motion, Sir, in your hands, it is this—I earnestly deprecate the charge of bringing forward this motion in any hostile spirit to the West-India interests. I have shown, on more than one occasion, how ready I am to defend those interests to the utmost extent of their just claims. I voted for the twenty millions compensation—I supported her Majesty's Ministers in their opposition to the motions for the immediate termination of the apprenticeship system, mainly on the ground that I could not be a party to the infraction, even in the smallest particular, of the solemn contract into which felt that we had entered with the colonial proprietors. But in this case I am restrained by no such feeling—I know of no bargain or compact by which the people of England have engaged to tax themselves to the enormous extent of two millions per annum, and to limit themselves in the use and enjoyment of that which has almost become a necessary of life, for the sole advantage of a body which has recently received so splendid a proof of national justice and munificence, and to which we still assure for the produce of their estates a monopoly of the best market in the world.

observed, that the effect of his hon. Friend's motion would be to alter the whole of the sugar-refining system. His hon. Friend appeared also to find fault with the plan of the Government, on the ground that it took certain proportions as its basis which varied according to the skill exercised in the manufacture of the sugar. Now, be contended that this exposed his hon. Friend's plan to the same objection as that of the Government. He would not consent to a plan which increased the price of the coarse article without placing the finer qualities of sugar within the reach of the working classes. With respect to bounty, he was surprised to hear from his hon. Friend that 10s. 10d. was gained by the exporter, and that the price to the consumer of sugar in this country was to that extent raised. A more exaggerated statement he never heard; and if his hon. Friend had only read the whole of the letter, of which he read by extracts, his statements would have been completely answered. According to experiments which he had caused to be made, first by Dr. Ure, and afterwards by the principal refiners in London, the result was, that the average bounty did not exceed 4s. 6d. He could neither, therefore, agree to the arguments which his hon. Friend used, nor to the Motion with which his hon. Friend concluded.

contended that a committee should have been appointed to examine into the facts, which were contradictory in this case.

After what has passed in this debate, the House will be able to comprehend the reasons which actuated the President of the Board of Trade, when, on a former occasion, he commented upon the proposition I then had the honour to make to the House to the effect, that the import duty on molasses should be made 24s. per cwt.—the same amount as is now paid on sugar, the growth of British plantations. The President of the Board of Trade was pleased to say, that he did not understand my proposition nor my arguments. I have, however, the satisfaction of knowing, that if those arguments and that proposition were misunderstood by him, there was no other person, acquainted in the least degree with this question, who misunderstood the views I ventured to throw before the House. But the very thing which I ventured to anticipate has now actually occurred; there is now, without further explanation, no misunderstanding on the part of the President of the Board of Trade, and he has already occupied my ground, and wielded, with his accustomed skill, the argument which I foresaw the House would place in his hands by passing a negative on my proposition. What then did I say? This—that if you would get rid of bounty—a fluctuating quantity and a state of things, most unfavourable to well-regulated and prosperous enterprise—if you would free the refining trade from a system which the letter from the Board of Trade expressly designates as arbitrary, you must conclude to levy the same duty on all deseriptions of sweet, and thus you would be in a condition to define the precise amount paid in the first instance, and to be repaid on exportation—this principle was acknowledged to be the only sound one. I was aware, that there were practical difficulties in the way of such a change of system as must ensue; but I felt, and the House must feel, that a sound policy required that change; and although afraid of wearying the House by many figures and calculations, my reasoning might not have its full weight on the former debate, yet I surely said enough to prove, that, as a preliminary to the adoption of a better order of things, my proposal must be adopted. The President of the Board of Trade persuaded the House to discountenance these views, and having succeeded in persuading us to levy no more than 9s. per cwt. on molasses, whatever might be the proportion of sugar it contained, and to which in many, very many, cases 9s. bears no equivalent. He says, "How can you give a drawback of 24s. on treacle when you only received 9s.—this would, indeed, be monstrous." Then he added, my hon. Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, says, "Oh! but I would only allow a drawback of 24s. on the proportion of treacle which might arise in refining the sugar; why, in this word proportion lies the whole difficulty of the question." Now this is precisely what I said, and endeavoured to prove, but my proposal solved the whole difficulty, and would have placed my Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, beyond the reach of this attack—however unfair it is in reality, and would have placed us in a situation to pursue the plan I sketched, than which none could be better, or could succeed; but the truth is, the President of the Board of Trade is afraid, really afraid, to work out his own principles. He does not dare to look the question fairly in the face he does not handle it fairly even now—for, on the point just alluded to, he knows as well as any man what would be a fair, a reasonable, and a satisfactory proportion—an allowance that would be deemed fair by the trade, and would be so limited as to prevent any frauds. In this way this important matter is now to be got rid of, but the day is not far distant when this matter must be revived, and placed on an amended footing. We must get rid of a system which treats all sugars and all sweets alike—which permits,. as I have already shown, the most glaring and palpable frauds in the import of molasses—which treats, in different ways, most arbitrary and uncertain, the same produce, which legislates for double-refined sugar and single-refined sugar—such a commodity as double-refined sugar being now unknown and banished by an im- proved process of manufacture—which erects standards of quality unknown to science, and illegal, and which places the people of this country in the situation of being taxed to the extent of millions annually without knowing how nor why—at the same time our refiners are injured if not ruined, and our policy in this branch of business is a disgrace to the age. I must be allowed to comment for a moment on another point. It is said, you will raise the price of treacle to the poor man. Now, this comes with a bad grace from those who well know the workings of the present arrangement of duties and drawbacks. Will the House believe, that, at a very recent period, and the case is even at this very time not widely different, double-refined sugar was selling to the foreign consumer, in this city, at the same, or very nearly the same price as treacle to the British labourer? What will the House think of the fact, that, at this moment, treacle is retailed to the poor man at a considerably higher rate than what is paid by the foreign exporter for beautiful double-refined sugar? Thus we treat our own countrymen—thus we cast our advantages and generosity around us anywhere but at home. Let the House reflect, that if refining is encouraged, and the treacle rendered what it ought to be, what it claims to be, treacle will be abundant. Molasses are now worth 10s. per cwt. in bond, if the 24s. is added, 34s., a price not unknown, even within a few mouths might be its price to the English consumer; but he would, by the annihilation of bounties and the substitution of the bonâ fide drawback, obtain double-refined sugar at the price he gives for coarse brown soft sugar, and the other qualities at a greatly reduced rate, adding materially to his comforts, and relieving the Exchequer from a large and dishonest drain upon its funds. I conclude with assuring the House, that to these principles we must revert, and on these principles the Government must act. If its policy is to be consistent with its own pretensions—if sugar-refining is to hold its due place in our manufacturing arts, and in our commercial operations, and so soon as there is a fixed determination impartially to do justice to all, then the change will come pregnant, in my humble opinion, with the most beneficial results.

considered the plan of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets to be totally impracticable, and declared his intention of voting against it.

Motion negatived.—The House went into Committee.—Bill to be reported.

On Clause 1,

moved an amendment to the effect that the duty on brown and muscovado sugars should be reduced from 24s. to 20s. per cwt. The hon. Member contended that in every instance where a reduction of duty had taken place in any article a great increase in the consumption of that article was the consequence. This was instanced in the article of coffee. Since the duty on coffee had been reduced from ls. to 6d. per lb. the consumption of that article had greatly increased; and so far from the revenue having suffered by the reduction there had, on the contrary, been a very considerable increase in the revenue with respect to that article. The same had taken place with respect to wine and spirits. He contended that the same effect would be produced by reducing the duty on sugar. Under any circumstances 158,000l. per annum would be the utmost that could be risked by the experiment, and he thought that where the benefit of the public was concerned that experiment ought to be made.

said, that the consumption of sugar had increased with the increase of duty, and he therefore, trusted that the Committee would not agree in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but that the House and the country would be satisfied with the progress they were making, and not again make a gratuitous sacrifice of the revenue of the country.

said, that if the duty was reduced to the drawback formerly allowed it would be a serious reduction of the revenue. The history of the sugar duties showed that the tax did not affect the producer or the consumer of sugar in a manner so serious as to prevent the extensive consumption of that article, and he should therefore oppose the amendment.

thought that foreign sugar should be admitted at the same duty as the sugar produced in our own colonies. This, he considered, would be the best mode of benefitting the consumer.

Amendment withdrawn, Clause agreed to.

The remaining clauses were agreed to and the bill ordered to be reported.

House resumed.