rose to move that the order for the Second Reading of this Bill (which stood for this day) should be discharged. As the intentions of the promoters of the Bill had been a good deal misunderstood, he begged to make a few observations on the subject. About sis months ago it was thought desirable that an amalgamation of the Caledonian Railway and the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Companies should, if sanctioned by the various classes of parties interested, be brought about. The circumstances of the Caledonian company had some time since rendered a committee of investigation necessary, and Mr. Blackburn, the chairman of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, made a proposition to that committee with the view of such amalgamation. The Caledonian line had been approved of by Railway Commissioners appointed by Government; and after a severe Parliamentary contest, was sanctioned by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1845. It was constructed in a wonderfully short space of time, and reflected the highest credit on the engineering skill and talent of his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. It was now universally acknowledged that such a line ought not to have been made, as it not only went through a district noted for bleakness and sterility, but was in addition exposed to the competition of two nearly parallel lines, one on each side of it. The Caledonian company was now proved by the report of its own committee to be, at this time, in a state of utter inability to meet the claims upon it, whether arising from debentures or from guaranteed lines; and the only object of the promoters of the present Bill was to raise the question whether or not means could be adopted by which the business of the two railway companies might be conducted by one establishment—one secretary, one engineer, and one set of clerks and bookkeepers, so that a very large amount of saving might be effected to both companies. He readily admitted that if there had been funds to meet the engagements of the Caledonian company, the proposal would have been a very monstrous one indeed; but it was never intended to do anything that would not be of general advantage. He was not the author of the Bill, but he thought that, preserving the rights and obtaining the consent of all parties, some such arrangement might have been come to before a Select Committee of the House as would have greatly economised the management of both lines. Certainly, he would not have lent himself to anything like a confiscation of property; but he thought Parliament, having deluded the unfortunate shareholders into the construction of this most ruinous undertaking, he held that they were bound, if called upon, to reconsider the case, with the view of ascertaining or suggesting some mode whereby, possibly, a less disastrous prospect might be entertained. A most ruinous competition was at present going on between these two companies as regarded the journey between Edinburgh and Glasgow, to the great injury of the shareholders. He believed the new board of directors of the Caledonian company had been so busy keeping the doors shut against their clamorous creditors, that they had found no time as yet to consider this subject; but he saw from the Times of this morning, that it was intended to bring the matter before the next half-yearly meeting of the shareholders, and that the new board were evidently desirous that opportunity were afforded for the whole proposal being maturely considered. Sufficient time not having yet been afforded for this purpose, he considered that the Bill should be withdrawn; and he therefore begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

would not enter upon the merits of this question. He understood that the one company entirely repudiated the measure, and that the other had not given its consent to it. It would be, therefore, slaying a suicide to say one word upon the matter, except that he could never agree to any Bill of this nature.

was glad his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Edinburgh repudiated the authorship of this measure—he was glad he denied having any participation in the objects of it. One, however, would imagine, from the speech of his hon. Friend, that this Bill was brought in for the advantage of the Caledonian Railway Company, and for the benefit of the great body of the shareholders; but what was the fact? This Bill had been introduced to the attention of the great body of the shareholders at their last meeting, and there was a general cry to oppose it. He was quite sure, if the House went into this measure, they would not entertain it; and he was only sorry that his hon. Friend, instead of moving that the Bill be read this day six months did not propose to negative it, and thus enable the House to mark their sense of the principle it contained, and their opinion that no Bill containing such principles would ever have the sanction of the House.

scarcely considered it necessary to kick the carcass of this defunct and unprincipled Bill, but begged to say it was an insult to the House to propose to its consideration so unscrupulous a measure.

felt assured that if the House entertained any measure of this kind, it would have the effect of spreading a panic through the country. Even the probability of the House agreeing to a Bill of this kind would be most unfortunate. It appeared that his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Edinburgh introduced the Bill in the expectation that the two companies would come to some agreement, and he hoped the House would never consent to the second reading of a Bill—of the main provisions of which they decidedly disapproved—in the vain hope that the parties concerned would come to a settlement. The Bill before them was objectionable, not only in detail but in principle, violating the good faith of parties.

said, he was one of the parties whom the Bill kindly proposed to divest of property. With respect to the particular part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Edinburgh, in which he said he was in hopes that the parties would agree amongst themselves, he (Mr. Gladstone) wished the hon. Gentleman and the House to understand that no opportunity of agreeing had been given. The House had not seen one-half of the case. No doubt the Bill proposed in the first instance to make contracts between two companies, one of which dissented from it, and the other did not assent to it: but, in addition, it proposed to destroy six or eight contracts, all framed under a special Act of Parliament, promoted by mutual consent of the parties, not only without the consent of those parties, but without giving them the opportunity of assenting or dissenting; for though the hon. Gentleman said there was no evil intention on the part of the promoters, and he believed the hon. Gentleman had no such intention, it was rather strange that the promoters, in framing a measure of so extraordinary a character, should have made no communication to those persons with whose property it proposed so unceremoniously to deal. He hoped the public would know and feel, after this discussion, that they were perfectly safe in the honour of the Government and of the House of Commons. He should have taken no part, as an interested person, in a division of this Bill, or no part in the discussion of it, if he did not feel that public considerations were at stake. The introduction of this Bill had given an additional blow to railway property in its depression; and to the rejection of the Bill, and the manner it was received by the House, without exception, did he look for repairing the evil effects of this blow; because, after what had then passed, it was perfectly vain for parties, whether their motives were innocent or otherwise, to solicit Parliament to break the faith the House had given, or to destroy the sanction the House had affixed to contracts entered into by responsible parties. It showed that the House would protect the rights it had created, and on the creation of which the public had given its confidence.

expressed his approval of the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and of the course taken by the House with respect to this Bill.

said, that Bills had been read a second time, by which parties got rid indirectly of guarantees which that House had authorised. The most obvious way of protecting persons and their properties from such proceedings would be to insert a clause, similar to that inserted last year, in all unpassed Bills, that nothing in the Bill contained should interfere with or in any way impair guarantees, or other obligations previously entered into under the sanction of the House, If Committees received that instruction, a clause could be put into every Bill that would give ample securities to parties having guarantees under former Acts, and without such a clause no parties could think them selves safe.

thought that if a Bill had passed that would have the effect of repudiating any guarantee created by a former Bill, the hon. Gentleman should take care that the Bill would be brought under their notice.

would move on the following day that it be an instruction to Railway Committees to introduce such a clause.

said, that his name had been put on the back of this Bill, but he altogether disapproved of it, and thought it ought to be thrown out.

said, that he held two documents in his hand which purported to be protests against the late decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in the case of "Gorham v. The Bishop of Exeter," signed by the Rev. G. A. Denison, vicar of East Brent, and dated the 10th of March. The first of these protests, after asserting "that the universal Church alone possesses, by the commission and command of its Divine Founder, the power of defining in matters of doctrine," says—

"I, George Anthony Denison, clerk, M.A., vicar of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, and diocese of Bath and Wells, do hereby enter my solemn protest against the state of the law which empowers the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take cognisance of matters of doctrine, and against the exercise of that power by the said Judicial Committee in each particular case; and I do hereby pledge myself to use all lawful means within my reach to prevent the continuance of such a state of the law, and of the power claimed and exercised under the same."

In the second document he says—" Such sentence is necessarily false, and gives public legal sanction to the teaching of false doctrine," and concludes thus:—

"I, George Anthony Denison, clerk, Ac, do hereby enter my solemn protest against the said sentence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and do warn all the Christian people of this parish to beware of allowing themselves to be moved or influenced thereby in the least degree; and I do also hereby pledge myself to use all lawful means within my reach to assist in obtaining, without delay, some further formal declaration, by a lawful synod of the Church of England, as to what is, and what is not, the doctrine of the Church of England in respect of the holy sacrament of baptism."

Now, he (Mr. Hume) thought that it was incumbent on the Government, if they wished to have the decisions of one of the highest tribunals in the kingdom respected, to take notice of such language; and the question he wished to put was, what notice the Government intend to take of the protest of Mr. Denison, published in all the papers yesterday, impugning the judgment of Her Majesty's Council in the case of "Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter," and denying the supremacy of the Crown as head of the Established Church?

I think it is just to Mr. Denison that I should read to the House a statement which he sent to me, which I received this morning, and which professes to be a statement of his opinion as regards the supremacy of the Crown as connected with this case. It is as follows:—

"I have not denied, and do not deny, that the Queen's Majesty is supreme governor of this Church and Realm, and is, in virtue thereof, supreme over all causes ecclesiastical and civil, judging in causes spiritual, by the judges of the spiritualty, and in causes temporal by temporal judges, as enacted by the statute 24th of Henry VIII. c. 12. And I have not impeached, and do not impeach, any part of the regal supremacy, as set forth in the second canon and in the 37th article of our Church. But I humbly conceive that the constitution does not attribute to the Crown, without a synod lawfully assembled, the right of deciding a question of doctrine; and this, although disclaimed by the Lords of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, is what, as appears to me, has been done, indirectly indeed, but unequivocally, in the late case of 'Gorham v, the Bishop of Exeter.'

(Signed) "GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON. "March 18, 1850."

Now, I have no hesitation in saying that I think Mr. Denison is entirely mistaken in this opinion which he has given, and that the judgment given by the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is entirely within their jurisdiction, and such as they were authorised by law to give. I believe likewise it is a decision which has generally given great satisfaction. But as the hon. Member for Montrose asks me further what notice the Government intends to take of the protests of Mr. Denison, I must say that though it may be necessary for the Government at a future time to take some steps, if it should appear that any measures adopted hereafter on the part of those who think with Mr. Denison required them—though I guard myself by saying that this may be necessary—yet I should be most reluctant to take steps against any men who give what they conceive to be the conscientious expression of their views with regard to the Church, and should fear that any such act on the part of the Government would only tend to disturb still further the harmony of the Church. And, therefore, entirely dissenting from Mr. Denison, and thinking it may be doubtful, particularly after the letter I have read, whether he means to deny the authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or whether he intends that he ought to use every lawful means to alter the law, the Government, as at present advised, is not prepared to take any steps with regard to the protests.

begged to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government of this country, or our Ambassador at Constantinople, were parties, by advice or otherwise, to the conduct of the Turkish Government in condemning Kossuth and the other Hungarian refugees in Turkey to banishment and confinement in the interior of Asia Minor? And, if the British Government had not been a party to that most unjustifiable proceeding; he also wished to ask whether the British Government had made any remonstrance to the Porte on the subject?

, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, whether Her Majesty's Government had been a party to the transportation of the Hungarian refugees, said, that Her Majesty's Government had only so far interfered as having, through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople recommended to the Porte to make the detention of those persons—if the Porte considered itself bound by its engagements with Austria to detain them at all—for as short a time as was consistent with those engagements; and in the meantime to render their detention as little irksome and inconvenient as possible. He had no difficulty in saying, as his own opinion, that it would have been desirable if the Porte could have set them at liberty, and not detained them at all. It was not for Her Majesty's Government to judge what were the engagements and communications entered into by the Porte with the Government of Austria; but, taking a broad view of the matter, it would have seemed that if the Porte had felt itself at liberty to act fully and freely, that engagement which the Porte was bound to fulfil—namely, preventing the Turkish territory from being the scene of intrigue for the purpose of disturbing the tranquillity of its neighbours, would have been accomplished by removing altogether from the Turkish territory those persons on whom the Austrian Government looked with anxiety and jealousy; but the Porte was the only judge of what its engagements compelled it to do, and the advice which Her Majesty's Government had given was that which he had stated in the beginning of his reply.

said, that, although by the resolution he was about to place in the Chairman's hands, he proposed at present to deal with only that class of stamp duties which related either to the transfer of property on mortgages or bonds, he was by no means prepared to say that there were not other branches of the stamp duties which required consideration; but it would be remembered that the subject of a general revision of the stamp duties had been under consideration for many years past. In the time of Lord Althorp a scheme was actually prepared and laid before the House. A similar scheme was entertained by is right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; and he rather thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Cambridge had also had a scheme for that purpose under his consideration. But, upon all those occasions, the amount of the details and the difficulty of carrying them at once had deterred all his predecessors from undertaking such revision; and the consequence was, that although fifteen years had elapsed since such scheme was first prepared, little had been done until he had himself taken a step in that direction in the course of last year. He thought it right, therefore, rather to take up the matter piecemeal, to see how much they could carry out. The class of stamp duties with which he meant now to deal was that which related to conveyances, transfers, mortgages, bonds, and leases; and the general tenor of the proposal he had to make was, instead of the present exceedingly unequal and unjust rates, to adopt, as nearly as might be, the principle of an ad valorem duty, though to carry it out strictly would be utterly impossible. Whereas at present there were jumps in very large sums from 1,000l. to 2,000l., 3,000l., and so on, he proposed to adopt a much more minute scale, beginning with as small a sum as 25l., then going to 50l., 100l., and so up-wards. The result of that would be very nearly an ad valorem duty, and as nearly so as could be carried out, and it would effect a considerable reduction in the stamp duty on transactions under 1,000l. as regarded conveyances and mortgages. It might perhaps be convenient, with a view of showing what he proposed to do, if he gave a few instances to the House, and he would take first the case of mortgages and bonds, because they were the most general transactions:—Where the money to be secured did not exceed 50l. the present duty was 20s., and he proposed 5s.; exceeding 50l., and not exceeding 100l., present duty, 30s., proposed, 10s.; exceeding 100l. and not exceeding 200l., present, 40s., proposed. 20s.; exceeding 500l., and not exceeding 1,000l., present, 5l.;—exceeding 500l., and not exceeding 600l., proposed, 3l.; exceeding 600l., and not exceeding 700l., proposed, 3l. 10s.; exceeding 700l., and not exceeding 800l., proposed, 4l.; exceeding 800l., and not exceeding 900l., proposed, 4l. 10s.; exceeding 900l., and not exceeding 1,000l., proposed 5l.;—exceeding 1,000l., and not exceeding 2,000l., present, 6l.; exceeding 1,000l., and not exceeding 1,100l., proposed, 5l. 10s.; exceeding 1,100l., and not exceeding 1,200l., proposed, 6l.; and then higher than at present 10s. per cent rising on each additional sum of 100l. On the higher amounts of mortgages there was at present no increase beyond a certain amount. He did not think that fair. He did not see why an ad valorem duty should not be carried up the scale, and he proposed, therefore, by the mode he had stated to the House, to carry out an ad valorem duty of ½ per cent on mortgages and bonds. Conveyances and transfers were rather more complicated; and, in the first place, he proposed to adopt the phraseology of "not exceeding" instead of the present words "and under." He quoted the other night the report of the Committee of the House of Lords on the burdens affecting land, and pointed out from that how heavily the present rates fell upon small properties, and that was confirmed by the evidence stated in that report. The most important part of the evidence was given by a gentleman named Baxter; and, if it were any consolation for hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would state that this gentleman was the Conservative agent for the West Riding, and a very able and intelligent man. He said—

"There is one suggestion that I would make with reference to the expense of" the conveyance of property of small value; that is, that the stamps upon the sale of land should not stand, as they do now, higher upon the smaller amounts of property, but he regulated by a per centage. I find that at present the stamp upon a 50l. sale, calculating a certain length of conveyance, would amount to 12½ per cent. That the stamp upon a 100l. sale would amount to 5l. per cent, and upon a 300l. sale would amount to 2l. 10s. per cent; upon a 500l. sale to 1l. 14s. 3d. per cent; and then above that only 1 per cent. This is not effected by saying in so many words that a buyer to the amount of 50l. shall pay 12l. 10s. per cent, which is the amount that he does pay; but it is in consequence of burdening the transfer of property with a second conveyance, which we call a lease for a year. It was a principle of law that you were obliged to have a lease for a year, and a release, in a transfer of property, so that you had two distinct stamps and two distinct deeds. An Act was passed about a twelvemonth ago, relieving you of the necessity of having two deeds, but continuing the necessity of having two stamps."

He proposed, therefore, altogether to repeal the stamp duty attaching to the lease for a year. At present, on a conveyance or transfer, the duty, if the property did not amount to 20l., was, lease 10s., release 10s.; not exceeding 25l., he proposed it should be 2s. 6d.; amounting to 20l. and under 50l, the present duty was, lease 15s., release 20s., together 1l. 15s.; amounting to 50l. and under 150l., lease 20s., release 30s., together 2l. 10s.; exceeding 25l. and not exceeding 50l., he proposed 5s.; exceeding 50l. and not exceeding 75l., he proposed 7s. 6d.; exceeding 75l. and not exceeding 100l., he proposed 10s.; exceeding 100l. and not exceeding 125l., he proposed 12s. 6d.; exceeding 125l. and not exceeding 150l., he proposed 15s.; amounting to 150l. and under 300l., the present duty was, lease 35s., release 40s., together 3l. 15s.; exceeding 150l. and not exceeding 175l., he proposed 17s. 6d.; exceeding 175l. and not exceeding 200l., he proposed 20s.; exceeding 200l. and not exceeding 250l., he proposed 25s.; exceeding 250l. and not exceeding 300l., he proposed 30s.; not exceeding 500l., present 7l. 15s., he proposed 2l. 10s.; not exceeding 800l., present 10l. 15s., he proposed 6l. 15s.; not exceeding 1,000l., present 13l. 15s., he proposed 7l. 10s.; not exceeding 1,200l., present 13l. 15s., he proposed 12l.; not exceeding 1,400l., present 13l. 15s., he proposed 14l. It was at first intended to adopt an uniform scale, but the objections to it were very great, as in some cases it would have increased the amount of duty. He proposed, therefore, that it should increase ½ per cent up to 500l., ¾ between 500l. and 1,000l., after 1,000l., 1l. per cent upon all transactions up to 2,000l., and then he proposed they should vary with every 1,000l. Mr. Baxter also stated in his evidence—

"The consequence of that is, that that small stamp attaches to a 150l. purchase as much as it attaches to a 100,000l. purchase. It bears, therefore, peculiarly hard on small properties, and a reduction of the stamps to an equal rate of 1 per cent upon the amount of the sale would be a sensible relief, if it would not be a great loss to the revenue."

He had heard no objections to the proposal he was now making, and he believed it would promote the purchase of land by poor men, who were anxious to invest the fruits of their labour in that way. He should be very sorry to see land divided into small properties, as in the case of a neighbouring country, where a large number of the landed proprietors were little better than paupers; but still he should be glad to see the hardworking labourer of this country lay out his earnings in the purchase of small quantities of land. He believed that a great number of gentlemen attached great importance to leases; but the result of the present heavy stamp duty on leases was that very few leases were given under any circumstances whatever. He proposed, therefore, to reduce the duty on leases very considerably, and to adopt the same principle of an ad valorem duty. At present leases, where the rent reserved was under 20l., the present duty was 1l.; not exceeding 25l., he proposed 2s. 6d.; amounting to 20l. and under 100l., the present duty was 1l. 10s.; amounting to 100l., and under 200l., the present duty was 2l.; amounting to 200l. and under 400l., the present duty was 3l.; exceeding 25l. and not exceeding 50l., he proposed 5s.; exceeding 50l. and not exceeding 75l., he proposed 7s. 6d.; exceeding 75l. and under 100l., he proposed 10s.; exceeding 250l. and not exceeding 300l., he proposed 1l. 10s.; exceeding 350l. and not exceeding 400l., he proposed 2l.; and so on. He wished to call the attention of hon. Members from Ireland to what he was about to say, because leases to Ireland were, to a certain extent, exempt in some cases, and were not on the same footing as leases in England. He had put them in schedule on the same footing, but he was not prepared to insist on it, if on the whole Irish Members should object to it. The proposal he made was, that leases under 50l. should pay 2s. 6d. duty, and as to all others he should considerably reduce the high amount of duty. The proposal he made was, that leases for rackrent up to 25l. should pay 2s. 6d.; from 25l. to 50l., 5s. Rents, not exceeding 10l., now 10s., proposed 2s. 6d.; 10l. and not exceeding 20l., now 10s., he proposed 2s. 6d.; 20l. and not exceeding 25l., now 15s., he proposed 2s. 6d.; 25l. and not exceeding 50l., now 15s., he proposed 5s. In cases where fines were also paid, he should relieve them up to 75l. After that he should, to a certain extent, increase them. If, however, they would have the exemption, they must take it as it stood, and in that case they would not have the benefit of the reduction to a lower amount. It would be more convenient if any reduction should be made, that all discussion should be postponed at the present time. He proposed, therefore, that the resolution should be reported, and he should be very glad that the discussion should be delayed until the Committee on the Bill; for of course all transactions must necessarily be suspended until the new law came into operation, and it was therefore desirable, as fast as possible, to bring' the measure to a conclusion. He would therefore propose to move the resolution, and should be glad if the House would allow the postponement of the Bill till after Easter, and then go into the discussion of it at once. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly moved a resolution to alter the stamp duties according to the schedule attached.

bogged to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the leases, as regarded transfers of land, applied to house property, as also if it were his intention to introduce into the Bill an alteration in reference to stamps which persons taking up their freedom were obliged to pay. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that by the Municipal Act of 1835, all fines on redemption were abolished by that House. There was a class of persons in the City who felt greatly grieved and annoyed at the tax, which fell very heavily on them. They did not complain so much of the amount of the tax—3l.—as that they were compelled to pay it when others were not. His two questions, then, were simply these: first, if house property were included as well as landed property; and next, if stamps affecting freedom and redemption were to be included.

said, that the reduction of duty applied to transfer of all property. As regarded the second question, he should say the subject had already been matter of debate in the present Session, and had been rejected. Therefore he thought it better not to encumber a measure really beneficial, with such extraneous matter.

said, with respect to duty on leases in Ireland, it was of great importance that the tenants should be encouraged to take them. In certain cases, according to the Bill which it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to move, the rates of duty would be lowered, whilst in other cases they would be raised, as, for instance, in one case, from a shilling to 2s. 6d., which augmentation was certain to be attended with consequences not encouraging.

should say that he proposed on the whole a considerable reduction on the duty in Ireland; and the cases in which the duty would be raised were very few indeed.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of having a surplus, but he apprehended he had no right to say that he possessed such a thing until he had paid his debts. The present measure would not confer any benefit upon him or upon his tenantry: he gave no leases, and he had no tenants who wished to have them. If they disliked each other, why they got rid of their bargain, and that was all about it. The Chancellor would have done more service to the country if he had removed, or even lessened, the duty on stamps for fire insurance, which were more than 300 per cent. The immense duty deterred a great number from insuring; and if he followed the precedent of reduction in this instance, he would increase the revenue instead of diminishing it, and he would confer a boon upon the country.

should say that whilst the proposal to regulate the stamp duty was an improvement on the present system, he regretted the right hon. Gentleman had not extended a little more indulgence to Ireland. He begged to remind the House that by the assimilation of the law regulating the stamp duty between England and Ireland, which took place about five years ago, Ireland was forced to contribute 150,000l. annual increase to the Exchequer in consequence of that assimilation. This sum was placed upon the hack of the Irish camel because she was not charged with the income tax; the reason of which being that, he believed, there was no traceable income. He should also say he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not thought fit to relieve a class of professional gentlemen—the solicitors and attorneys of Ireland—from a most un-just impost which they were obliged to pay, namely, those resident in Dublin 12l. annually, and those resident outside it 8l. annually. ["Question!"] He was addressing himself to the question as regarded Ireland. He thought a body of gentlemen who paid 120l stamp duty upon being articled, and from 20l. to 30l. in the shape of fees, should not be charged with 8l. and 12l. annually. He regretted that by the assimilation of, the stamp duty the heaviest pressure fell upon the poor; because a 6d. stamp that held good for upwards of 10l Irish before the assimilation, was raised to 1s. 6d. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of his intention to relieve the people of England from an annual 150,000l., by abolishing the tax on bricks, the Irish Members did not cry "Question." He (Mr. Reynolds) did not grudge the English people any amount of pecuniary relief they might obtain, as he believed they were entitled to it; and he only regretted the state of the revenue did not enable the Government to relieve them from an impost which was abolished twenty years ago in Ireland, namely, the window tax; because he believed that in any civilised or well-governed country there ought not to be a tax on air or light. He was anxious to allow the question to go on without provoking discussion, because he believed there would be sufficient time for discussion when the Bill itself came before the House. Therefore, he felt bound to say that his reason for rising was to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of considering if he could not relieve the humble classes to a greater extent, as also the solicitors and attorneys of whom he had spoken.

thought that, by the alteration proposed in the stamp duties for Ireland, a lease relating to a property of 100l. a year value would pay a higher duty than a lease of the same description in England.

said, that his object was to assimilate the duties in both countries, and in effecting that object the duties now payable in Ireland would, in a few instances, be augmented, but in most cases they would be considerably reduced.

was of opinion that the scheme propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday was ludicrous, if it was to be looked upon as a compensation to the agricultural interest for the losses they had sustained. The great hulk of the tenants in England had no leases, and when parties in Scotland entered into agreements for a term of years, they dispensed with stamps, because they knew that if it should be necessary at any time to have the agreements stamped, they could send them up to London for that purpose. The repeal of the brick duty would afford no relief to Scotland, where houses were built of stone, and it would be of little advantage to the English agriculturists, however beneficially it might operate as regarded building speculations in London, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, and other towns.

said, that the great majority of the holdings in Ireland being under 50l. in value, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by raising the stamp on leases of that value from 1s. to 2s. 6d., was acting in opposition to his own principle of affording relief to the humbler classes.

suggested the propriety of reserving discussion on matters of detail for another occasion.

said, he rose to propose a resolution, to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to make advances, for the purpose of drainage and other improvements of landed property in Great Britain and Ireland, to the amount of 3,000,000l., either from the Consolidated Fund, or by means of Exchequer bills, such advances to be repaid within a limited period. He did not think it necessary to detain the House, the numerous documents in his possession proving the advantages of drainage all over the country; he would, therefore, at once move his resolution.

wished to know, if they agreed to the resolution in its present form, whether they would be prevented from proposing the extension of the grant for other purposes at a future stage?

replied, that the terms of his resolution were so large as not only to include drainage, but for improvements of landed property generally; therefore the hon. Gentleman would not be precluded from making a Motion on the subject at a future stage of the measure.

was anxious to learn how the instalments were to be repaid. They had been told that three millions were to be raised, Was this money in hand, or was it to be borrowed, and repaid within a limited period? If it was to be repaid by instalments, were they at once to be carried to the credit of the country; and thus, if there was a deficiency in the public revenue, it would diminish the apparent amount; and if there was a surplus, it would help to swell it up. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained whether this was the case, nor had he stated whether the repayments were at once to go to the reduction of the public debt.

said, his answer to the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that no repayments would at once be carried to the credit of the revenue, nor be applied to the reduction of the debt—the amounts would be carried to the credit of the Consolidated Fund. He hoped, when the repayments exceeded the advances, some future Chancellor of the Exchequer would be called upon to apply the amount to the reduction of the debt.

pointed the attention of the House to the system which compelled landed proprietors in Ireland to bear the burden of expenses in the expenditure of which they had no control. One half of a district could compel the other half to proceed with works upon an estimate furnished by the Board of Works, the officers under which were paid, not by the job, but by the time they employed, which was always excessive. As an illustration of the system, he observed that he had undertaken and completed a work for 1,500l. which the Board of Works had estimated at a cost of 4,000l. The officers under the Board of Works were nearly all relatives of the commissioners. These works ought to be subjected to public competition, otherwise half of the money would be wasted.

thought the money might be more beneficially applied under the Land Improvement Act.

suggested that some precautions should be adopted in the distribution of the loan, otherwise the persons who most required assistance might not obtain it.

could only say that of the 2,000,000l. for England and Scotland, 1,500,000l. would be applicable to English purposes. It was thought advisable that the money should not be advanced in such large sums as formerly. He also proposed that the advances should be repaid in twenty-two years, capital and interest, at the rate of 6½ per cent per annum; and he had the satisfaction of saying that the late advances had been repaid with great punctuality.

hoped precautions would be taken against the abuses which existed in Ireland in the application of the late advances—abuses which hon. Members for Ireland had pointed out, and which ought to be avoided.

said, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire lamented the misapplication of Irish advances, but had not said a word about Scotch jobs—the Caledonian Canal for instance. The money already expended in arterial drainage had been productive of great advantage in Ireland. He also advocated the application of a portion of the advance—say half—to the promotion of railways. Immediate advances for public works were necessary to keep the people from starvation and the workhouse.

did not know what abuses existed with respect to carrying out arterial drainage in Ireland, but he would suggest, before the question again came before the House, that any memorials which had been presented to the Government from the proprietors of land which was charged with the expense of arterial drainage, complaining of abuses as to the carrying on the works, should be laid on the table, and be printed.

said, it would be utterly impossible for the Treasury to examine into all the cases, or to exercise control over all the works in detail in every part of Ireland. Complaints had been made in that House, but except in one or two instances they had not been received at the Treasury. The proper place to apply to, in case of an alleged cause of complaint, was the Board of Public Works in Ireland. Every care, however, had been taken to exercise a proper control, and for this purpose he had sent over an engineer officer, unconnected in other respects with Ireland, to superintend the other inspectors of public works there, and this officer was still there. This was all the Government could do in the shape of control.

said, if abuses existed with respect to the carrying on the drainage in Ireland to any very serious extent, as they might suppose from the observations they had heard, it was not at all improbable that there would be an animated discussion on the next stage of the Bill. Although some advantages may have resulted from some of those kinds of grants, he never would borrow one farthing from them, as he would not allow the management of his estate to be taken out of his hands. He could not help feeling that the Government was stepping out of its proper province in making these loans, as they appeared to have no control over the expenditure.

repeated it would be impossible for the Treasury to control in detail the carrying out these works. All those petty complaints should be made to the Board of Works, and not to the Treasury. As for the Government interfering, he could only say that appeal after appeal had been made to it by Irish Gentlemen to come forward in this matter. They stated that where there were three parties holding land in the same district they never would agree in the principle of the drainage of their lands unless the Government interfered.

observed that the arterial drainage was carried on altogether under the control of Government officers, and although numerous complaints had been made of the conduct of several of them to the Board of Works they were never attended to.

observed, that from the evidence laid before the Committee, of which he was a Member, on the Miscellaneous expenditure, it appeared that the Board of Works was much overlaid with duties. He was not surprised that Irish Gentlemen should remonstrate when their estates were taxed for works of drainage, although they had no control over the expenditure.

called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer especially to cases in which arterial drainage was to be effected, by means of small rivers running into larger. He knew instances in which parties had been induced to give the necessary assent for the improvement of such small rivers, and in one the estimate was exceeded one-third. He begged to suggest for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, whether means might not be devised, whereby the parties most interested as proprietors and tenants should have it in their power to see that no unnecessary expense was incurred.

felt it necessary to enter his protest against making the grants now proposed. Hon. Gentlemen who supported the measure did not agree among themselves, differing as to the proportion to be appropriated to the different parts of the country with which they were respectively connected. One hon. Gentleman had asked why nothing was to be granted for railways. In short, it was a great communist scheme with which the country was threatened. The Government might act more wisely than individuals in applying the grants, but they ought not to fritter away the wealth of the country in experiments which the Government themselves admitted could not be successful. The Chancellor of the Exchequer offered a most potent argument against the grants, in stating that it was impossible the Treasury could supervise when they came to be applied. If the Government wished to stave off the recurrence of protection by buying the land, they ought to say so at once.

stated, that ample and excellent security was to be obtained for the advances made for drainage in Ireland; and the House, he was satisfied, would be prepared, not indeed to grant, as the hon. Member for Tavistock mistakenly supposed, but to lend the money proposed to that part of the united kingdom which required advances most, which had long suffered from oppression, and on which the hand of Providence had weighed so long, but which had approved its good faith by paying its instalments more regularly than any other portion of the empire. What they wanted in Ireland was money; they were not beggars; and he repeated that they were ready to give good security for the advances which might be made.

said, that before this matter passed through Committee, he would ask to be allowed to say that some months ago he had been in a part of Ireland, where these drainage works were being carried on. He had spent some days in going over some of the expensive works, and he was bound to say that the mode in which they were being carried on was, as it appeared to him, exceedingly satisfactory. He was now talking of Castlebar, Galway, and some other portions of the: west of Ireland. He examined minutely into the system of book-keeping with regard to wages, &c., and the control which the superior office in Dublin had over the expenditure of money, and these matters seemed to him to be exceedingly well arranged; so far so, that it appeared to him to be impossible that there could be any waste of money in the conducting of these works. He saw a large number of persons employed, who were gaining instruction in various kinds of labour, such as they had no opportunity of receiving before. Without defending any particular works, or saying whether they were required or not, he was quite sure that owing to these works, large tracts of land, both at Galway and other parts of the west of Ireland, were now under cultivation; large portions of which would otherwise be lying under water, unproductive. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Tavistock with respect to these loans, and he was bound to say that the expenditure of the Board of Works had in many parts been productive of great advantage.

Sir, I am convinced the assurance just made by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is an experienced engineer officer sent over to inspect the work of the Board of Works, will give infinite satisfaction in Ireland. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Board are by no means popular in Ireland, They are very dictatorial and imperious in their decisions, and in many instances the work is shamefully done and neglected. The injury they did during the years of famine can never be forgotten or forgiven—destroying good roads and finishing scarcely anything they commenced. I am happy the right hon. Gentleman has made the selection of Colonel Forster, of the engineers, whose experience and talent I am very happy to bear testimony of.

said, he did not moan to object to the clause, but he wished to call the attention of the House and the Government to the position in which many of the borough constituencies of Ireland would be left if this Bill were passed. In England there were 187 cities and boroughs, of which there were only 11 having constituencies fewer in number than 300. In Ireland there were 33 cities and boroughs, and by this Bill 10 of those constituencies would be under 300. This state of things, he thought, the House would agree with him in thinking deplorable, and open to the most serious objections, as being sure to lead to bribery, corruption, and every vice which, even in the best representative system, it was difficult to avoid. In Scotland and Wales there were no constituencies under 300, because the system of having different boroughs represented by one Member had been carried out there. He was aware there were objections to that system; but upon a balance be thought the less evil was the joining these boroughs, and he wished to impress upon the Government the absolute necessity of applying the same principle to Ireland—a course he could see no reasonable objection to. As the House had rejected the proposal of the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin to reduce the qualification from 8l. to 5l., the case was now stronger than it otherwise might have been, and he hoped the Government would state that during the Easter recess they would consider the question with a view of deciding whether these Irish boroughs could not be consolidated upon the system which had worked so well in Scotland and Wales, and thus avoiding the evil of leaving them open to corruption.

said, that if he was to understand that the hon. Gentleman wished that certain boroughs might be combined, for the purpose of reducing the number of Members to Parliament, he would have serious objections to such a course; but if he meant that each of the present representative boroughs should form the head or centre of other contributory boroughs, so as to make an increase in the constituencies, it would be well worthy of consideration. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, there would be many difficulties, both in principle and detail; but he did not see that there could be any prominent objection to it. He would not be justified in saying that he would oppose it when it may be brought forward; and he would observe that during the recess the question would be considered, and he would endeavour to collect every information on the matter to lay before the Government before they should take any decisive steps with regard to it.

said, that he objected to the proposition which had been made by the hon. Member for Limerick, as he thought that it would have the effect of depriving the counties of the intelligence of many of the towns. He was afraid that the hon.' Member who suggested the plan was personally interested in the matter.

said, in the county he represented there was no borough, therefore it could have no effect upon his constituency. On the other hand the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had considerable influence in the borough of Mal-low, so that his opinion perhaps was not quite so impartial as his (Mr. Monsell's).

approved of the proposal of the hon. Member for Limerick. He had gone carefully through the list of boroughs, and he found that there would be no difficulty whatever in adding towns to such of them as required it, in order to bring up the population to nearly 20,000, and the constituency to a respectable figure.

said, seeing that the franchise was not to be extended in towns, the proposition of the hon. Gentleman opposite was well worthy of consideration. At the same time, it must be remembered that the only antagonistic influence in the counties against landlord power would come from the towns.

said, whatever was proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick was always intended for the benefit of Ireland, and he thought that the hon. Gentleman was deserving of public thanks for having made this suggestion. For himself, he thought it would be well if the Government would consider this point, not only with reference to Ireland, but England also, for he had a strong idea that, by uniting boroughs, they would do more for the purity of elections than by any other system. Let them take for example the borough of New Ross. At this moment that borough, so ably represented at present, had just a constituency of 80, and, with this 8l. rating, it would degenerate to 50, whilst, by adding to it Enniscorthy, or any similar town, they might secure a respectable and comparative numerous constituency.

thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government had now had the opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of private Members on both sides, and it appeared that there was great unanimity among them on the point. He did not understand the noble Lord to say that the Government would consider the subject with a view of introducing any measure; but he hoped the noble Lord would have leisure and opportunity during the recess to do so.

said, that at no period had there been sufficiently large constituencies in Irish boroughs, and the result had been the grossest corruption. The noble Lord at the head of the Government would find very little practical difficulty in ascertaining what would be the actual constituencies of the Irish boroughs, if he adhered to the provisions of the present Bill. The constituency of the borough he represented was now reduced from 470 down to 210. Under the proposed Bill he apprehended it would be much decreased.

Sir, I have heard very many arguments during the progress of this debate about the franchise—its increase and its diminution; but as I differ in some points from hon. Members, I will beg to make a few remarks. I do not pretend to much knowledge of the county franchise, though convinced of the necessity for its increase; but I confess my impression is, that an 8l. rating is greatly too low; for I should prefer giving this privilege to a more substantial class of persons—to a class of well-judging men who would vote according to the dictates of their conscience, and neither be guided by their landlords or their clergy. I think, however, I may lay claim to some knowledge of the franchise of cities and boroughs from that never-to-be-forgotten experience of four contested elections. I cannot agree with hon. Members who imagine the supposed diminution of the franchise, or paucity of the registry, can be attributed to persons waiting for this newly-expected Bill. I really think such a reason is both puerile and absurd. For what advantage could they expect from the new Bill which they did not enjoy under the old? In my mind the diminution arises from the decided apathy and carelessness of all ranks in society to register. They positively set little or no value upon this boasted privilege of voting. I think the diminution of the franchise is in a great measure attributable to the difficulty of registering; the uncertainty of the opening of the sessions; the uncertainty of the arrival of the law officer; the uncertainty of his decisions; and the very great annoyance from waiting hour after hour in crowded courts; and from employed agents squabbling about points of law, and endeavouring to discover some legal flaw in the elector's evidence or paper, although well aware of his being fully entitled to the franchise he seeks. Now, to prove what I have said, I will instance the last registry at Cork. The opening of the sessions was appointed for a Friday. A great number of persons anxious to register attended in defiance of most inclement weather The court was crowded to excess, but no law officer arrived. He sent word he was unwell, consequently many were obliged to leave town to attend their parochial duties—many to their weekly markets; thus a vast number were disfranchised for twelve months. The court was opened on Saturday. The second name on the list was a most respectable gentleman—a 50l. freeholder—who had two christian names, only one of which was written in full upon the registry paper, although there was no doubt of his identity, he having frequently before voted upon a similar return: he was refused; and this decision disfranchised for a year about 200 gentlemen who were similarly situated. The assistant barrister afterwards confirmed the decision of his locum tenens, although a similar objection had not been raised for fifteen or twenty years, and by this new decision reversed what he had ruled before, and what he had been acting upon since his appointment. I must beg to observe, I do not cast the least imputation upon the assistant barrister at Cork, for I firmly believe all his decisions are guided by strict impartiality and justice in his important situation. To prove the apathy I have spoken of, I will only quote one example—Ex uno disce omnes. Upon my late election, in the city of Cork, 3,244 names appeared on the registry: only 1,277 voted—793 for me, 584 for my hon. opponent, giving a majority of 209 for protection; and I believe the usual exertions on both sides at contested elections were not wanting. A registration sessions occurred in a few days afterwards, before the excited feelings of the one party, elated by victory, or the other, angered by defeat, had subsided. Notices to the amount of 1,489 were served; only 295 came to register: a few days after, 110 notices were served; 23 came forward. After these facts, can any hon. Member doubt that apathy alone causes the diminution of voters? Generally speaking, I object to this Bill. I object to it, for I do not think any change is required in boroughs or cities—I object to it from the qualification being too low—I object to its being carried into effect at present, until we can obtain a more just and equitable rating, or until Mr. Griffith's valuation is completed—I object to it for not making residence a qualification of voting—of the subdivision of votes. In short, the only good clause I see in the Bill, which is a mass of mystification and confusion, is the necessity of an annual revision, and I think we are greatly indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland for this clause, making the name appearing upon the list of the clerk of the peace the test of voting. This will, I trust, do away with the great evils at elections in Ireland—personation, intimidation, and perjury. Considering this as much an English as an Irish question, and considering it only as the prelude for another Reform Bill for England—for how can it be refused to England if granted for reland?—considering it as a measure fraught with great danger, and of a democratic and revolutionary character—considering it as the first step towards shaking, and perhaps at no distant period subverting, the Royal authority in these kingdoms—I give my decided opposition to the Bill.

regarded the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick as a very reasonable one. Perhaps the best illustration he could give of the necessity of some such arrangement was the case of Portarlington. Portarlington would have under this Bill, if it passed, 110 persons rated to the relief of the poor at 8l., or upwards. Deducting one-fifth as the proportion of those who were not likely to register, they would reduce the constituency of Portarlington to 88. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represented that borough was of opinion, indeed, that the number would be reduced to 75. Would any hon. Member say that that was a sufficient number of electors for that borough? In his humble opinion the House ought either to adopt the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick, or throw the representation of Portarlington into the Queen's County at large; because, to give 75 men the power of sending a representative to that House, was as absurd as to re-enfranchise Old Sarum, and the other rotten boroughs which had been blotted out of the representation of the kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cork prided himself upon being the representative of the Protectionists of Cork, who had returned him, he said, by a majority of 209. They must, then, have voted from love of a dear loaf; but he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman had mistaken the feelings of the people of Cork upon this subject. At all events he invited him to test the question when this Bill became law. [Colonel CHATTERTON said he was perfectly prepared to do so.] He was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say he did not mean to show the white feather, for he had certainly never fled from his colours whenever an enemy was to be met with. The only thing he had heard urged against the proposition was by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow, who apprehended that if they associated towns with each other, they would weaken the popular strength of the counties. He (Mr. Reynolds) had no such apprehension. He would ask whether it would not be an improvement to give the inhabitants of Fermoy and Kanturk the power of voting for the hon. Baronet, or whoever should hereafter represent Mallow in that House? It occurred to him, also, that it would be an improvement to associate the borough of Cashel—which, under the new law, would not have been more than 130 voters—with the towns of Tipperary and Thurles. [An Hon. MEMBER: And Nenagh.] He had no objection. This arrangement would not take more than 1,000 electors from the county of Tipperary, which, he understood, would have about 16,000 under the Bill. [Cries of "No."] At least, there would be a sufficient number left to form a respectable constituency. He was reminded that the county of Tipperary had at one time returned his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint by a majority of 1,800; but that was before the right hon. Gentleman had had imposed upon him what he would call a lucrative taciturnity. He trusted they would return the right hon. Gentleman again; for, recognising him as he did as the living leader of the Irish people, he should be exceedingly sorry that any circumstances or combination of circumstances should arise to diminish the number of his supporters in that or in any other county. It appeared to him, also, that it would not endanger the seat of the present hon. Member for Dundalk if that borough were associated with the patriotic town of Ardee. Neither did he imagine that the independence and purity of Athlone would suffer from being associated with the important towns of Roscommon and Moate. [An Hon. MEMBER: Mullingar.] He had not the least objection, except that Moate was only eight miles from Athlone, while Mullingar was twenty. With respect to Ennis, he did not suppose that the hon. Member for that borough would object to have his merits and value attested by a constituency which included Kilrush in connexion with Ennis. He was reminded that the hon. Member who had taken Kilrush under his protection might object to see that town associated with any other except for poor-law purposes; but, though Kilrush was at present in a state of great distress, he hoped that it would soon become what it once was, an important town. In conclusion, he begged to express his gratification at the manner in which the noble Lord at the head of the Government had responded to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Limerick.

believed that he could satisfactorily answer many of the objections which had been made in the course of this discussion with respect to the effect likely to be produced by the Bill; but he abstained from doing so, in the hope that the Committee would remain satisfied with the assurance given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the subject should receive every consideration, and that hon. Members would now allow the Committee to get on with the Bill.

hoped that sufficient time would be allowed to the people of Ireland to consider this proposition. He was very much afraid that, if adopted, the effect would be to abstract the intelligence and influence of the towns from the counties, and hence to allow the landlord influence to predominate there.

wished to impress upon the Committee the importance of approaching the consideration of this question without reference to party feelings. He was sure they must all feel it desirable to prevent the anomaly of increasing the county constituencies, and diminishing the constituences of the boroughs.

said, that one effect of the proposition would be, to semi-disfranchise the electors of the towns which they proposed to unite, by giving them one vote for a borough Member, in place of two votes for two county Members, as they had at present.

proposed to add a proviso to retain those electors who had been registered within eight years previous to the 1st of December next, so long as they continued to possess the qualification in respect to which they were registered.

said, that the effect of this proviso would be to retain the old qualification which the Bill proposed to abolish.

had not anticipated any objection to his Amendment, which he thought exceedingly reasonable. There were many cases in which persons occupying 10l. houses were rated to the poor at less than 8l.; and it was to prevent that class being disfranchised that he made his present proposition. Why were the freemen retained if these were objected to?

said, that his hon. Friend proposed to extend to the borough constituencies the privilege which the House had already decided should not be extended to the counties. If his hon. Friend would read the Bill, he would see that what he proposed was entirely opposed to its principle. The principle of the Bill was to form one perfect register, to be revised every year. The freemen would have to come forward and register, the same as the other voters.

thought the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of one material point in the objection he raised to the Motion of his (Mr. Bright's) hon. Friend the Member for Cork city; the right hon. Baronet said that the House had decided a certain way as to counties, and his hon. Friend wished them to decide another way as to boroughs. This Bill in many boroughs was alleged to be quite certain to diminish the number of electors, and it appeared to him likely to be the case. It was a serious thing to pass a Bill to disfranchise anybody where corruption had not been proved. There was no such allegation here; the parties whom this Bill would disfranchise were those to whom the Reform Bill gave the franchise. There was no proof of their not having exorcised the franchise properly. If this were a Bill to alter the franchise in any way, there ought to be the same measure of justice dealt out to the Reform Bill electors that was always dealt out under the old system. The Reform Bill electors were at least as worthy the sympathy and protection of the House as any who voted under the class of freemen. He hoped the Secretary for Ireland would not summarily dismiss the case, as the proposition was quite reasonable.

said, the proviso was opposed to the whole principle of the measure. It was expedient to try the amended franchise for a while, at all events, with an annual registration. If this did not answer, the hon. Member for the city of Cork would have a far better case.

considered, that to deprive voters legally on the register of their franchise would be an injustice quite without precedent. If the 50l. voters were to be preserved, why were the equally legitimate voters, to whom the expense of vindicating their rights was an object, to be disfranchised?

thought it would be most unfair if men who had for years, by a compliance with the law, maintained their names on the register, were now, by a penal enactment, dispossessed.

did not understand why, if the old principle was so good, as implied by the hon. Member for the city of Cork, a new principle was requisite.

said, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for the city of Cork, but he could wish that his proviso bad been limited to the class of 10l. leaseholders, whom he considered very hardly treated by the Bill, since it practically made them liable for local rates and taxes, from which at present they were exempt.

said, the proviso went further than hon. Gentlemen seemed to conceive, since, in point of fact, it not only continued the votes in question for the remainder of the eight years, but absolutely perpetuated them.

moved that the following words be struck out of the clause:—" Excluding nevertheless from such lists all persons registered under the said Act in respect of any qualification heretofore requiring the elector to be or to have been in the actual occupation of the premises." His object was, that the names of persons now on the register should be retained until they were objected to, such persons as might hereafter establish their claims being added to the list.

said, the proposal of the hon. Baronet would alter one of the main principles of the Bill, which proceeded upon the English borough registration system. That plan had worked more satisfactorily and less expensively than the English county registration system; and he thought the clause as it stood would establish the most simple and satisfactory mode of registration.

observed, that this Bill had been introduced professedly as a boon to the people of Ireland—as a means of extending the franchise, and giving every person possessing a qualification the right of voting for representatives in Parliament. As this clause now stood, however, the Bill would not in many cases be regarded as a boon; because, under the clause, every person possessing a qualification was to be placed upon the register, whether he wished it or not. Every one acquainted with Ireland was too familiar with the agitation and heartburnings attending elections in that country, and many persons possessing the requisite qualification as voters would prefer not being upon the register, that they might avoid the annoyance to which they were liable to be subjected at elections.

remarked, that the evil of pressure upon the elector would not be remedied by so shaping the law that he would not only be pressed for his vote, but pressed to send in his claim to be registered.

thought that, according to the view of the hon. Member for Queen's County, the House should proceed to disfranchise Ireland.

believed it would be a hardship in some cases to compel persons to be upon the register, and they might perhaps leave their rates unpaid in order to avoid this.

observed, that their not being on the register would not enable them to escape payment of their rates, and the franchise was to be viewed as a trust cast upon the persons indicated by law as the parties to whom it should be committed.

said, that the operation of the Amendment would be to produce the very effect apprehended from the clause—namely, a contest between the territorial and sacerdotal influences. His advice was to avoid registration contests altogether. There certainly would be such contests if they did not provide a self-acting registration, as the landlord would say stay at home, while the priest would exhort them to register. His (Mr. Sheil's) opinion was that both influences should be neutralised.

said, surely there was balm in Gilead without resorting to so extreme a measure as the disfranchisement of all Ireland, which one hon. Member had stated as the only cure. The point to note, was the wonderful unanimity of Members on both sides the House, in declaring that the suffrage was abhorrent to Irishmen, a thing no man would accept if he could help it, and this, as had been plainly said, through the intimidation of the landlords on the one side, and the priests upon the other. In this condition of things, the promised Motion of the Member for Tralee for the ballot in Ireland, would come like oil upon the troubled waters, and he hoped all parties would remember their unanimity for its necessity.

moved a proviso at the end of clause 15. His object was to strike out from clause 15 to clause 19, with a view to the substitution of the clerk of the union for the high constable, as the officer who would have to prepare the lists of persons qualified to vote, and to make out the objections indicated in clause 19, and to receive general claims and objections. He also proposed that the lists so prepared should be forwarded to the clerk of the peace, who should be the officer to cause the lists to be printed and exhibited, and likewise that the lists should be made out by parishes and townlands alphabetically. He contended that the clerk of the union was the proper officer to prepare the lists, more especially as the baronies over which the high constables presided were often divided among two or three unions.

admitted that the proposition of his hon. Friend would be an improvement on the Bill, as it would save expense and greatly facilitate the operation of the measure. He would, there-fore, agree to insert the proviso to omit the clauses as proposed; the substituted clauses could be brought up at the end of the Bill.

proposed an Amendment, for the purpose of preventing the; striking off from the list a voter whose residence only might have been changed, his qualification remaining still the same.

said, that the provision would not affect the franchise or the register, but merely provided for the accuracy of the high constable's list.

said, that as the clause stood, a person with a 50l. freehold in Wexford, who happened to reside in Dublin, would lose his vote if he changed his house or apartments.

said, that hon. Members seemed to disregard the operation of preceding clauses, which rendered it impossible for this provision to disfranchise a voter.

said, he did not wish to waste time. He left his Motion in the hands of the House, and if hon. Members wished to divide, let them do so.

, pursuant to notice, moved that the Committee of Inquiry as to the oaths of Members do consist of twenty-one Members. He wished, as Mr. Disraeli would not be able to attend, that the name of Mr. Herries be substituted for that of Mr. Disraeli.

was surprised that the name of the hon. Member for Youghal, who had given much attention to this subject, had not been included in the proposed Committee.

said, he should object to the list of the Committee, and divide the House on it, unless he received a distinct assurance that the Committee was not to consider and report upon the admissibility or non-admissibility of Jews, otherwise than by Bill. It ought to be confined to the objects stated in the Motion.

could not answer for the Committee, but so far as the terms of the Motion went, and so far as his own intentions went, the Committee would be one like that which sat in the case of Mr. Pease—simply a Committee to report on Acts of Parliament and precedents. It would consist of twenty-one Members, being six beyond the usual number.

moved that the number be twenty-two.

objected to the constitution of the Committee. There were thirteen Members of it favourable to the Jewish claims, and only eight unfavourable. He should, therefore, meet the Motion to add one more to the number of those who were favourable with a decided negative.

observed, that if one hon. Member moved to have a Committee of twenty-two, another hon. Member might propose twenty-three. It was better to adhere to the numbers usually appointed, namely, fifteen, or occasionally twenty-one.

wished the hon. Member he had named placed on the Committee, because that hon. Gentleman knew more of the subject than any one else. He should move that the name of the Earl of Arundel and Surrey be omitted; not that he had any objection to the noble Earl personally, but that he might make the substitute he had proposed. If he had any support he would divide the House. The Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Lord J. Russell. Sir R. Peel, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. W. Wynn, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Attorney General, The Lord Advocate, Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Henley, were nominated Members of the Committee.

moved the First Reading of the Bill to repeal the Duty on Bricks; and, in reply to a question of Mr. Hudson, said, that no provision had at present been made in the Bill for a return of the duty on the stock of bricks in hand, but the matter was under consideration.