said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that no half-crown pieces have been coined for some years past at the Mint, and if it is the intention to allow that useful coin ultimately to be withdrawn from circulation?

, in reply, said, it was true that no new half-crowns had been coined for fifteen years, but the present supply was adequate to the demand. Half-crown pieces formed about 30 per cent of the silver coinage, and there was no present intention of withdrawing them from circulation.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the Tenure and Occupation of Land in Ireland; and, if so, when will the Commission be issued?

It is the intention, Sir, of the Government to issue the Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is our earnest wish to endeavour to induce some Members of both Houses of Parliament to serve on the Commission; but, having regard to the Business of both Houses and the convenience of Members, it will be impossible to appoint the Commission until the termination of the Session.

said, he wished to preface his Question on this subject by a few remarks. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, which had been subject to the unceasing persecutions of an irresponsible body of persons signing themselves "The Eyre Defence Committee."

said, the hon. Member is not acting in accordance with the Rules of the House in not confining himself to such matter as is necessary for explaining the grounds on which he puts the Question.

said, he did not wish to trespass on the Rules of the House, and if it were necessary he would move the Adjournment. He was a member of the Jamaica Committee, and he had taken it upon himself to ask the hon. Member for Bute, On what grounds he stated, on Friday June 5th, that the Petition which he presented praying for an early re-appointment of Mr. Eyre to Her Majesty's Colonial Service was signed by 71 Peers, 6 Bishops, 20 Members of the House of Commons, 40 Generals, 26 Admirals, 400 Clergymen, and 30,000 other persons, when, in fact, it is only signed by 3 Peers, 1 Bishop, 6 Members of Parliament, 20 Generals, 9 Admirals, 171 Clergymen, and 10,000 other persons? He should not have ventured to ask this Question if it merely contained a Prayer that the expenses of Governor Eyre should be paid by the country, because there would be nothing astonishing in a Petition of that kind from a large number of irresponsible persons who might not have had the blue books before them, and might have signed the Petition in ignorance of the facts.

I think the hon. Member has now stated everything necessary to give the information he desires to convey.

said, he must beg the indulgence of the House while he gave a brief explanation of the circumstances attending the exaggerated statement referred to. When that Petition was given to him for presentation to the House it was accompanied by a short statement in writing, purporting to be an analysis or summary of the Petitioners. He did what he imagined the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent or any other Member of this House would have done—he did not analyze this immense number of names himself; but be accepted the written statement as being substantially correct, and he read it to the House. He had now to express his regret that he committed himself to an unintentional exaggeration of the numbers, and he trusted that the House would believe him when he said that he stated that which he believed at the time to be strictly correct. It appeared that this exaggeration of the numbers was caused by the clerk who made up the statement supposing that he was entitled to include as Petitioners all those who had subscribed sums of money, however small, to Mr. Eyre's Defence and Aid Fund. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, of which he had private notice, he begged to say that, considering the vast preponderance of opinion in favour of his distinguished friend among the educated and enlightened classes of the community, and especially among those who know anything about the colonies, he apprehended that there would not be the slightest difficulty before the prorogation in procuring a Supplementary Petition from the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent and the borough of Westminster alone, even more numerously signed than he stated the last to be.

said, he wished to make one or two remarks, and, to place himself in Order, he would, if necessary, move the Adjournment of the House. When the Petition was placed in the hands of the hon. Member for Bute some information was handed to him by the Secretary of the Eyre Defence Fund referring to figures which he might have to make use of in his speech. As soon as the Secretary saw the exaggerated statement in question he went to the hon. Member for Bute and told him of the mistake that had been made. None of the members of the Defence Fund Committee were responsible for the mistaken statement that had gone forth to the public.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay his intended Bill for the amendment and consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts upon the Table of the House before the close of the Session, that the Country may have an opportunity of considering its provisions before the meeting of the next Parliament?

said, in reply, that, when it became evident that there was no chance of passing this Bill during the present Session, the draughtsman was directed to employ himself on work of greater emergency; and therefore the consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts was not proceeded with with as much rapidity as before. He hoped, however, to lay the Bill on the table before the end of the Session, and to distribute it to Members sufficiently early for those who were interested in the question to express an opinion upon it in ample time before the meeting of the next Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Recommendations of the Neutrality Commission have received the attention and approval of the Government; and, if so, whether a Measure will be introduced for the purpose of giving effect to them?

Sir, I have read the Report of the Neutrality Commissioners with great interest and attention, and I may say that in the general scope of their recommendations Her Majesty's Government entirely concur. But with regard to the details of those recommendations I require more leisure than I have yet had for considering them before I give an opinion upon them. In the actual state of Business I conceive that it would be quite useless to attempt to legislate on the subject during the present Session; but if I have the opportunity I shall certainly be prepared to do so when the new Parliament meets.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have yet decided on an amended scheme of retirement from the non-purchase corps; and if, before taking the Vote for Retired Officers in the Army Estimates, he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence on the subject between the Departments of Government, and the actuary's calculations of the cost of the plan proposed by the Select Committee of last year?

, in reply, said, he was not able to say that the Government had yet come to a decision on the subject, which was one that must be very carefully considered. They had a plan before them, and the Report of an actuary, and information received from other quarters; and if he could devise a plan that would receive the sanction of the Government, he would lay it on the table in the course of the Session, in order to act on it hereafter. It was more desirable that the plan should be prepared with due caution that that it should be prepared quickly. The subject was not a pressing one, and there was no immediate hurry. The really important object was to have the plan prepared with the greatest care. There was no Correspondence, and he was sure the hon. Member would not ask him to produce any Official Minutes. He had no objection to give him the Report of the actuary, if he would move for it.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as alleged in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 13th instant, that Captain Brooke, of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, has been under arrest for one month without being brought to a Court Martial?

said, in reply, that it was quite true that Captain Brooke was under "open" arrest for nearly a month; but the course pursued with respect to him was quite in accordance with the 18th Article of War.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Correspondence which has taken place beetween Colonel Peel (late of the 11th Hussars), General Wetherall, and the Military authorities at the Horse Guards, which was the original cause of Captain Brooke being placed under arrest?

said, he did not think it would conduce to the convenience of the Service to lay Correspondence of that nature before the House, and he, therefore, must decline to produce it. As he believed that the hon. and gallant Officer asked the Question from a regard to the character of Colonel Peel, he had great pleasure in stating that there was nothing in all these transactions at all impugning the honourable character of Colonel Peel.

said, Captain Brooke had been placed under arrest for a month and reprimanded, but at the end of that time he returned to his duty.

said, he would beg to ask the First Minister of the Crown the Question he had given notice of for Friday last, Whether he will give him an early opportunity of moving the Second Reading of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and whether he will state the course which the Government intend to take in regard to it?

said, he did not see any Notice of the Question on the Paper.

It was on the Paper on Friday.

said, he found it quite impossible at present to fix any day; other Business was so pressing. If he could find an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman he would; and when the time came he would state the course which Government intended to take in regard to it.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the present state of the Mauritius, in reference to the disease which has been prevalent there?

said, in reply, that a despatch had been received dated the 13th May, which stated that the mortality had in the previous month been 2,036, whilst in April, 1867, the mortality was 10,867, and only 1,216 of these 2,036, were from fever;—there was great hope that the fever was dying out. The proposed sanitary measures, if fairly carried out in Port Louis, may greatly diminish the chance of its recurrence.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Amendments which had been made in "another place." Two years ago the late Government had brought under consideration a Bill for facilitating the establishment of oyster fisheries. Lord Derby's Administration took it up, devoted much attention to it, improved it and passed it into a law. It was working well. Many applications had taken place under the Act for the establishment of oyster fisheries, and so far as he knew, the measure was giving general satisfaction. In the Sea Fisheries Bill it was thought desirable that all the statutes relating to sea fisheries should be consolidated into one, and therefore the Oyster Bill was put into the Sea Fisheries Bill as a matter of consolidation. Important Amendments had been made in the Bill in the House of Lords, which, if adopted by Parliament, would go far to defeat all the main objects of the measure intended to encourage the establishment of oyster fisheries. It might be right enough to amend, but it was not the proper way of doing it in a Consolidation Bill without notice or discussion. If the Oyster Fisheries Act was to be repealed, it should be brought under the consideration of Parliament; the object should not be effected in an indirect manner by the insertion of Amendments in a consolidating Bill by the other House of Parliament. The Bill enabled persons to appropriate unproductive, useless areas on the sea-shore for the cultivation of oysters; but care was to be taken that al! proprietary and other rights should be respected, that all parties concerned should have due notice and an opportunity of being heard against any such appropriation of the sea-shore—not only before the Board of Trade, but if they thought fit before a Select Committee of the House, as in the case of a private Bill. There were many parts of the sea-shore which might be appriater to oyster beds without injury to anybody; but unless private rights, frequently of undefined and valueless character, were barred, after persons had received a grant and gone to a great expense in laying down oysters the persons who had rights of dredging might come and dredge them all up. He would bar any such right; but he would not do so without notice, and consent or compensation. What, then, had been done? The House of Lords said that it was right that areas of the seashore should be appropriated to oyster fisheries; but they inserted clauses to the effect that the Board of Trade Order should bar no rights except those of parties who had given their consent. Now, what would be the effect of this? There might be the inhabitants of a village who might have undefined prescriptive rights though of no real value, whose consent could not be obtained, and they might lie by whilst the Order was obtained, and then after the unfortunate grantee had invested his money they might come forward and say that their consent had not been obtained, and therefore they had the right to take the oysters. Certain Scotch proprietors appeared to think that there was some intention to interfere with their foreshore rights; but they would find that this measure for the promotion of the oyster fisheries would be most beneficial to them in the end. He thought that the Lords' Amendments ought to be rejected—in the first place, because what they proposed to do was not a fair mode of defeating the intentions of the Legislature when it passed the Oyster Fisheries Act. The clause in that Act which he supported was the law of the land. If, however, it could be shown that under the existing law adequate compensation was not given for the interference with the rights of any person where they were affected injuriously by any provisional Order of the Board of Trade, he should be ready to accede to an extension of that law in order to secure that object. The Lords' Amendments did not provide for the compensation of individuals for such an infringement of their rights, and, therefore, he moved that, instead of those Amendments, a clause be inserted in the Bill providing that the Lands Clauses Acts should be deemed to be incorporated in every Order of the Board of Trade made under this Act, and that grantees should make full compensation under the Lands Clauses Acts to all persons whose rights of fishing or any of whose rights were injuriously affected by any Board of Trade Order, or by any confirming Act, under the Oyster Fisheries Act of 1866.

said, he could not deny that he preferred the clauses as they stood in the Bill passed by that House, and he certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton that this alteration would to some extent curtail and fetter the operation of the Board of Trade, and so far impede the granting of Orders for oyster fisheries. At the same time there was considerable force in the arguments which induced the House of Lords to adopt these Amendments—namely, that a Government Department ought not to have the power of interfering with or taking away any property or right, however small or ill-defined, but that such power ought to be vested in Parliament alone. Inserting the Amendments in a consolidating Act might not have been the best way of proceeding; but they knew that it was the constant practice of Parliament to unite amendment with consolidation, and he did not think that they could find fault with the House of Lords on such a ground. The House of Lords thought that the power ought to be vested in Parliament alone to take away rights, and that it would be hard to call upon people to defend their rights before Parliament because the Board of Trade had made an Order which would curtail those rights. Very high legal authority had declared that the clauses in the Oyster Fisheries Bill were hardly constitutional, and ought not to have passed in 1866. That was a question which he must leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle with a former and probably future Colleague of his own; which, if they might judge from the ordinary sources of information, he would not find a very easy task. On the other hand, it might be said that in practice the present Board of Trade had been so careful of existing interests that not only had there been no objections on that score in respect of any of the Orders already issued, but they had drawn upon themselves complaints, he might even say taunts, from people speaking and writing in the interest of applicants for grants of oyster fisheries, on the ground of their being unduly scrupulous; so that the Board of Trade was not such an instrument in the hands of a despotic Government for the confiscation of property as it had been represented to be. Still, it was clearly contrary to the usage of law or Parliament that the property or rights of any persons should be left to the discretion of the occupants of a Government Department, who might not always be equally scrupulous. The effect of the Lords' Amendments would doubtless be that the only cases in which they would be able to grant oyster fisheries would be those to which no opposition was made. But then they should still be able to give full protection to such fisheries when made, which was probably the original intention of legislation on this matter. He was afraid there would be a more serious impediment; thrown in the way of regulating fisheries, and especially of protecting places like Boston Deeps from wanton destruction of mussel spawn. The right hon. Gentleman proposed as an alternative the incorporation of the Lands Clauses Acts, but that would hardly meet the case, because those Acts simply provided for compensation for property compulsorily taken, whereas the objection made to the Bill was, that no power at all to take compulsorily ought to be given by it. As he had already said, he regretted the alteration which had been made. On the whole, however, he should be inclined to recommend the House to defer to the anxiety exhibited in "another place" for the protection not only of the property of great proprietors—for that was hardly a fair way of putting it—but of the rights of the general public in this matter, and agree with those Amendments, rather than run the risk of losing the Bill altogether; and then, in case the Act proved unworkable and it were found necessary to give more power to the Board of Trade, it might be done by a future substantive measure.

said, he believed that the acceptance of the Lords' Amendments would counteract the benefit conferred by the Act passed two years ago. He trusted that in all that was done with regard to this subject, care would be taken to respect in every way the rights of the foreshore proprietors.

said, he would support the Motion made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton. The Act of two years ago was passed in consequence of the recommendations made by a Commission appointed to inquire into the subject, and the only complaint that had since been made with regard to the working of that Act was that the Board of Trade had put its provisions into force too cautiously. It was preposterous to imagine that the House of Lords would, if the Amendments were rejected, throw out the Bill, because by so doing they would leave the law precisely in the state of which they complained. He therefore trusted that the House would not consent to Amendments which the Vice President of the Board of Trade did not attempt to defend, and which would entirely defeat a Bill which had been very beneficial to the public, and was only objected to by certain Scotch Lords, who, not content with owning a great part of Scotland, wished to extend their imaginary rights even into the sea.

said, he hoped that the House would accept these clauses which had been inserted in the Bill with the strictest attention to public rights, and in thorough harmony with the spirit of the Constitution.

said, that as the Bill originally stood owners of foreshore were liable to deprivation of their rights by an Order of the Board of Trade, confirmed by an Act of Parliament, and the only way in which they could preserve their rights was by defending them in the passage of the Act through Parliament. The House of Lords perceived that this was a very strong piece of legislation, and they now endeavoured by these clauses to provide a remedy; for it certainly was hard that a man who had bonâ fide rights over a fishery should be deprived of those rights, however desirous he was of preserving and exercising them, or be compelled to oppose the passage of a Bill through Parliament.

said, that the working of the Act had been attended with great benefit in Ireland, and it was unreasonable that so well-considered a measure as this had proved to be should be defeated by a side-wind, as now contemplated by the other branch of the Legislature. It appeared to him that the tendency of the Amendments was not so much to protect real rights as to give a colour to imaginary rights, and thus occasion useless litigation.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) as regarded oyster fisheries; but must remind him that other rights were affected by the clause in question. For instance, Hastings had an ancient charter giving its corporation a right to take shingle from the foreshore to mend the roads; the Board of Trade, however, instead of inquiring as to the right exercised under this charter, sent its circular ordering coastguard officers to report cases of removal of shingle, and thus interfered with the unquestionable rights of the people. The question was a serious one for Hastings, because metal for the roads other than shingle cost the corporation almost as much as coal.

said, he feared the Attorney General argued on the erroneous basis that it was desirable to grant rights for compensation, and to treat the matter entirely as a private concern, without admitting those large considerations to which a great Government Department ought always to give due weight. The power of the Crown over foreshores had been vested in the Board of Trade, and administered by that Deportment to the general satisfaction. He highly approved the Circular of the Board recently presented to the House, because it dealt with foreshores on the principle that the public was concerned in them. The case quoted by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) did not affect the expediency of issuing a general Order by the Board of Trade. No doubt a simple representation from the Corporation of Hastings would have secured a due consideration for its rights under the Royal Charter.

said, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) had failed to appreciate the point under discussion. The more careful legislators in the House of Lords, with whom he agreed, objected to depriving subjects by force of rights they had long enjoyed. [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: There is compensation provided for.] That was precisely what the Lords objected to. Rights were to be taken away by force and compensation given. The only argument used against the view taken by the other House was that some parties would lie by by design while their rights were being dealt with; but the Lords said that if the rights of individuals were to be interfered with it should be done by an Act of Parliament, and not by a Government Department.

said, he trusted the House of Lords' proviso would be maintained as far as Scotch foreshores were concerned; but if the Irish Members parti- cularly wished to have their foreshores placed entirely at the disposal of the Board of Trade, by all means let it be so.

said, that parties whose rights were affected had ample means for protecting their interests. Their Lordships appeared to attach some peculiar sacredness to the rights of foreshores which entitled them to be treated in a different manner to that in which Parliament had acted in sanctioning inclosures and all public improvements.

said, he must complain very strongly of the language of the Circular drawn up by the Board of Trade. The Crown having always failed to establish their rights to the foreshores in Scotland in a straightforward manner, it was now sought to circumvent the proprietors of foreshores by the systematic course of action laid down for the Department.

said, it was altogether a mistake to suppose that the Board of Trade were grasping at any jurisdiction. The Bill merely recited the law as it now stood; and it was the other House of Parliament who wished to alter the law, and deprive the Crown of its rights. The Crown in this case was but the personification of the public interests, and the Board of Trade, in the name of the Crown, were merely protecting the public. He recommended the House to let well alone, and not to alter the existing state of the law.

said, he wished to explain. He had been misunderstood by the learned Attorney General. The Motion affected no rights, altered no proprietary rights, and set up no titles. His only object was to apply to rights over the sea-shore the same formula which was applied to rights over land—namely, consent or compensation. But their Lordships would have no compensation.

, in moving the insertion of Clause B, as inserted by the Lords, said, he should like to say a few words on this Amendment. In 1839 a Convention was concluded with France fixing a close time for oyster fishing in the seas between the United Kingdom and France from the 30th of April to the 1st of September. The Convention was held not to apply to the sea within the three-mile limit, nor to seas beyond the English Channel. This was shown by the case of the oyster dredgers on the East Coast of England, who defied the authorities to prevent their taken their dredges out of port and fishing the whole year round beyond the three miles; and by the instance of the Ark-low Banks, off Ireland, on which, according to the Report of the Irish Fishery Board for 1856, the Irish dredgers fished during the close months, from January to September. So that the position under the old Convention was this: a close time applicable to the Channel alone, and binding only on the French and English, because, the open sea being free to all, the Dutch or Belgians might have fished there with impunity at any time. This close time, even in the Channel, was practically disregarded by the English fishermen of the East Coast, as against them it was enforced only by cruizers, which the dredgers managed generally to evade. It was operative against the South Coast fishermen, who complained grievously of the unequal treatment. For these and many other reasons this system of quasi game laws in the open sea was condemned by the Deep Sea Fishery Commisioners appointed by the late Government; and their views on this point being adopted by the present Government, negotiations ensued with the French Government, with the object of bringing about an entire abolition, or, failing that, a relaxation of the close time. It was found that the French were very unwilling to relax the rule, not because they cared about the deep-sea beds, with respect to which they to some extent shared our views, but because they hoped by these means more effectually to preserve the beds within their territorial limit. However, our Government succeeded in striking off six weeks of the close time in the Channel, leaving the law in other parts precisely as before. There was, therefore, no pretence for saying that we took care of ourselves in the sense in which that expression had been used; and, moreover, any danger there might be that the Irish deep-sea beds might be fished during the close time in the Channel by dredgers driven during its continuance from their ordinary grounds existed before this new Convention was concluded, and had been practically dimin- ished by the new Convention, inasmuch as I the close time had been cut short by six weeks; and he need scarcely say that if the Bill were thrown out, or the Convention suspended, and the old Convention consequently ipso facto revived, the Irish banks would be exposed to the danger of which the Irish Members were now afraid, for six weeks longer. Whatever might be the ancient doctrine of mare clausum, or property in the bed of the sea, an opinion had been given by the Law Officers of both countries that the Irish Fishery Board never had any authority outside the three-mile limit; and when it was represented that the interests of Ireland were sacrificed it should be remembered that the Irish Sea was left in precisely the same position as the Bristol Channel, and the whole of the seas washing Scotland and England beyond the English Channel, in all of which were valuable oyster beds. Moreover, Ireland was left in this better position according to her own views, inasmuch as she had the power of completely regulating the fisheries within three miles. It had been asked, why should we not have a close time for oysters as well as for grouse or partridges? But oysters did not sit upon eggs, and everyone knew, in reference even to game, that close time was of no use, unless sufficient birds were left to breed. It was not dredging in close time which had diminished the supply of oysters, but partly failure of spat and partly over-dredging in open time. Hence the scarcity was felt in France, where close time was strictly observed. When oysters were taken in a sick, unhealthy state, it was when they had just spawned. Like other fish, they were wholesome shortly before spawning, when their capture, of course, still more prevented increase of brood. But he must say, with all deference, that this desire on the part of Ireland to obtain powers to which she had no claim by law, and which she had never exercised, ought scarcely to have been made a ground for impeding a Convention concluded nearly two years ago with a friendly Power—a Convention in which that Power made considerable concessions, and the principles of which had received the approbation of the late as well as of the present Government. It would not have been creditable to this country to inform France that we could not carry out our engagements because a section of Parliament endeavoured, by opposing this Bill, to obtain concessions at variance with the principle of entire freedom in the open sea, to which we endeavoured throughout the discussions to obtain the assent of the French Government. In order to avoid this the noble Duke the President of the Board of Trade reluctantly consented to the introduction of this clause, to which he moved that this House do now agree—

"The Irish Fishery Commissioners may from Time to Time lay before Her Majesty in Council Byelaws for the Purpose of restricting or regulating the dredging for Oysters on any Oyster Beds or Banks situate within the Distance of Twenty Miles, measured from a straight Line drawn from Wicklow Head to Carnsore Point on the Coast of Ireland, but outside of the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands, and all such Byelaws shall apply equally to all Boats and Persons on whom they may be binding. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to do all or any of the following things—namely, (a) To direct that such Byelaws shall be observed; (b) To impose Penalties not exceeding Twenty Pounds for the Breach of such Byelaws; (c) To apply to the Breach of such Byelaws such (if any) of the Enactments in force respecting the Breach of the Regulations respecting Irish Oyster Fisheries within the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands, and with such Modifications and Alterations as may he found desirable; (d) To revoke or alter any Order so made. Provided that the Length of Close Time prescribed by any such Order shall not be shorter than that prescribed for the Time being by the Irish Fishery Commissioners in respect of Beds or Banks within the exclusive Fishery Limits of the British Islands. Every such Order shall be binding on all British Sea-Fishing Boats, and on any other Sea-Fishing-Boats in that Behalf specified in the Order, and on the Crews of such Boats."

said, that Ireland had great cause to complain of the three-mile limit, because the greater portion of some of their most valuable oyster beds were outside that distance, and consequently the great difficulty was how to protect that portion which was outside the municipal limit. He objected to the power of making by-laws being taken from the Sea Fisheries Commissioners and placed in the Board of Trade. At present every person interested in the oyster fishery had full opportunities of making objections, and in that respect the system had been found to work well. But it was now proposed to put an end to that system, and instead of their being one set of by-laws and one uniform limit, the Bill would create two limits, to be regulated by two sets of by-laws; a state of things that could only produce confusion. The effect of the Amendment he proposed would be that the by-laws for both limits should be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council. The hon. Member concluded by moving to leave out in line 2, the words "Her Majesty, and to insert in their place, "Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor of Ireland."

said, that as one of the Members of the recent Fisheries Commission, he desired to observe that, in the opinion of Professor Huxley and Mr. Caird and himself, no close season was desirable at all, and that the late failure in the supply of oysters was attributable to the exceptionable state of temperature that had been experienced, and other extraneous circumstances, and not to over-dredging or to the non-enforcement of a close season. The Commissioners them-selves were therefore willing to do away with the close season altogether. But the French Commissioners with whom they came in conference, in negotiating the new Convention, though of the same opinion themselves, represented that the French fishermen were not yet prepared for so great a change; and upon this representation the Commissioners agreed not to recommend the abolition of the close season, but that it should be shortened from four months to two and a half months. It was also agreed that the limits within which the close season should be enforced should be very nearly the same as those under the old Convention of 1844, that is to say, the English Channel only, and not the East Coast, or the Irish Channel, or the Irish Coast. The line was drawn from the North Foreland to Dunkirk, and from Land's End to Ushant. It was not therefore because they believed in the advantage of a close season that this limit had been agreed upon; in fact the close season was to be confined to as narrow limits as possible. He apprehended that the same policy which the Commissioners thought best for the East Coast of England was also best for Ireland. It could not therefore be said that they had neglected Ireland. But as there was a difference of opinion on this important subject among the Irish Fishery Commissioners, as there was a certain advantage in trying two opposite systems, it was not his intention to oppose the Amendment adopted by the House of Lords, giving to the Irish Commissioners the power of making by-laws as regards the three-mile limit, and also, under certain conditions, as regards the fisheries beyond that limit. He thought, however, that the Queen in Council ought to have the supervision of such by-laws.

said, that the views of the Irish people had not been adequately represented by the Commissioners. The most valuable part of the Irish fisheries was beyond the three-mile limit. Regard ought to be paid to the wishes of the people concerned rather than to the opinions of Professor Huxley and other theorists, who knew nothing of the matter. When the Lords gave the twenty-mile limit it was to have been expected that they would place the whole twenty miles within the jurisdiction of the Irish Commissioners, instead of leaving seventeen miles subject to Her Majesty in Council. Could there be anything more absurd than having two rules with regard to close time within the twenty miles? The three-mile limit was a modern invention assumed by lawyers; but the Government had over and over again exercised jurisdiction to the extent of the wider limit; and it did not follow because there were fisheries within it that they were to be open to the whole world.

said, he must remind the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that some of the highest authorities on the subject—such as Mr. Barry, the Irish Commissioner, who understood the oyster question before the hon. Gentleman was born, Mr. Burchell, author of the able and valuable work, The Harvest of the Sea, Mr. Harry Long, chairman of one of the most successful oyster breeding companies yet established in England, and Dr. Frank Buckland, the eminent naturalist, agreed in thinking that it was of the greatest importance to protect the oyster fisheries during spat time. So convinced were the Irish fisherman of the same fact, that they had voluntarily established a close time, and had quite resolved not to be parties to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. For his own part, he was inclined to think that the present want of oysters was owing partly to causes connected with temperature, but partly also to the system of over-dredging which prevailed so extensively. During the Whitsuntide Recess he had paid a visit to two or three of the best oyster fisheries in the kingdom; he found at all of them a great want of spirit, and he was convinced that unless the oyster fishery was properly protected by legislation its deficiency next year would be felt even more severely. Ireland was better adapted than any other country for the successful culture of oysters; but if the beds were dredged without being replenished they would soon be exhausted. The Irish Members were evidently unanimously in favour of a closer season, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would yield to their united opinion.

said, it was shown in 1856 that the Irish fishermen did not observe close time. But the question really before the House was this, whether Her Majesty should or should not be ousted of her authority over the Irish seas; and whether the Lord Lieutenant should for the first time in history be endowed with an authority extending beyond Ireland? That would be the practical result of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite. It should be remembered that the Bill only proposed that by-laws enacted by the Irish Fishery Commissioners should be subject to the sanction of the Queen in Council. There could be no conflict between the authorities, for it was provided that the close time should be the same both within and without the three miles limit, within the lines laid down in the clause already adopted by the House, and the by-laws, when sanctioned by the House, would be enforced within the whole area by the Irish Commissioners.

said, that if anything, £20 was too much, as under the Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 106, the Irish Fishery Commissioners could only impose a penalty of £5 for such offences within three miles; and it would be most unreasonable that they should be allowed to impose ten times that amount outside the three-mile limit.

said, he wished to explain that in taking the course he had taken on Thursday night, with reference to one of the two clauses which he had given notice of his intention to move in Committee on the Bill, he was acting in accordance with an arrangement he had entered into. The clause to which he referred had been drawn with the assistance of one of the most distinguished Members of that House, and he believed it to be a clause of great importance. Wishing, therefore, that it should be fully discussed, be had agreed with some of his hon. Friends not to bring it on after a certain hour on Thursday night. Under those circumstances, when he found that he could not bring it on be fore that hour, he thought the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was one he ought to accept. Unfortunately, his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) moved a clause. His hon. Friend had since written him a letter on the subject, which letter was of a most satisfactory character. ["Read."] He did not think it necessary to read the letter. His hon. Friend made his Motion under a misunderstanding, being under the impression that he (Mr. Brady) had not accepted the proposition of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had placed him in the position in which those who supported him desired he should be. He wished the House to understand that he, at least, was in no way responsible for the disorderly scene which had taken place on Thursday night.

said, he could not allow this Bill to pass through this its final stage without giving expression to his unqualified dissatisfaction at the manner in which it dealt with the interests of the Irish people. When the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) introduced the Bill some months since, he stated his objections to it. He stated that it was, so far as he could judge, framed upon no principle which had been previously accepted or adopted by the House. It proposed to increase the county representation by five Members to the injury of the urban representation as it stood. It left quite untouched the great question of the county franchise, and avoided the freemen so long objected to by Irish representatives. The Bill had now passed through Committee without any important Amendment, with the exception of the abandonment by the Government of their proposal for disfranchisement and re-distribution of seats—the borough franchise had been fixed at a figure above £4, the county franchise remained at £12, and the freemen, with nil their objectionable characteristics, remain in the full possession of all the powers which they have so long misused. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire told the House on Thursday last that the claims made for the increase of the county constituencies were fair and ought to be considered. He told you that even in 1850, when the English figure of qualification was six times what it now is, this House agreed to a reduction to £8. He quoted the remarkable words of Sir Robert Peel and he reminded the House that the £12 figure then fixed was arrived at as a compromise. He might have added to the authority he quoted many others almost of equal weight. He might have said that Mr. Hume considered that an £8 Irish rating was then equal to a £30 English rating; and he might have given the words of Sir James Graham, that, in a great nation of 8,000,000, to have an electoral body of less than 50,000 was an anomaly quite inconsistent with the safety of the State or the security of our institutions. But the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were unavailing, and the county franchise remained untouched. He much regretted this result, as he must entirely disagree with the remarks which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. He did not believe there would be any danger to the Liberal cause in giving votes to the Irish tenant-farmers valued at £8. He believed them to be as independent and as well entitled to the franchise as the English tenants. The very impatient manner in which the subject of Irish Reform was received by the House on Thursday last left those who represented Irish opinions and Irish interests little to hope for. The Bill was in Committee for some few hours on Monday night on merely formal matters. It was resumed on Thursday, and it was with difficulty those hon. Members who were anxious to express their opinions upon a subject of such moment were able to do so. Be it so; but such a course, they might rest assured, will not be lost upon the Irish people. What had they done by this Bill? They gave to Irish voters an increase of 9,000. Scotland receives 50,000 voters; and England 570,000 voters by the English Bill. They were told that our representation was sufficient for our population of upwards of 5,000,000. If the proportion added to England's register was to be taken, they should be increased 50,000 at least—20 per cent. If the numbers on their own re- gister were to be taken, they should be increased by one-fifth—40,000; and yet we receive only 9,000. Such a measure is a mere mockery. He protested against its being called a measure of reform of the Irish representation; it was only a stronger proof that the Parliament did not deal with Ireland as it dealt with England and Scotland. The House might rest satisfied that the estimate which the Irish people would form of this debate would be shown by the unanimous expression of their opinion at the approaching elections, and that they would tell that House and the Ministers that they would no longer submit to legislation so unequal in its character and so unjust to the best interests of their country.

said, he thought that a measure so small and so absurd had never before been brought before the House. In agreeing to it the Irish Liberal Members only relegated the question to a Parliament of more authority and vigour. But they certainly had hoped that a more extended county franchise would be at once adopted. He did not complain of hon. Members opposite, who had only acted in honest accordance with their principles; but he could not and would not say the same for Members on that (the Liberal) side. Irish Members had sat there night after night patiently endeavouring to make the other two Reform Bills worthy of England and of Scotland; but when they came to debate the question of their county franchise they found themselves deliberately, basely deserted by the men they had supported. What had this Reform Bill done for Ireland? Why, it had only reduced the franchise in towns from £8 to over £4. The county franchise it had left precisely as it stood before. He felt exactly as one might feel that found himself abandoned by his comrades in the face of danger. Of course, to those English and Scotch Members who had supported their Irish Friends these remarks did not apply; but whomsoever the cap fitted, he might wear it. In common with, he believed, all the Irish Liberal Members, he protested against the Bill; and if by saying "No" he could throw it out, he would willingly pronounce that word.

said, he thought English Members had no just ground for complaining that too much of the time of the House had been occupied by this measure. He did not complain of the time occupied by the English Reform Bill or by the Scotch Reform Bill. The consideration of this Bill had only extended over two evenings. He wished to endorse the sentiments expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell). Having analysed the two important divisions that took place on the last day this subject was under discussion, he found that a majority of the Irish Members had voted for extending the suffrage in the counties and abolishing the Dublin freeman franchise; but the Motions introduced to carry out those objects were lost in consequence of the apathy of the English and Scotch Liberal Members, who would not come down to the House to assist their Irish brethren in their endeavours to obtain what had been obtained for England and Scotland. This Bill could scarcely be called a Reform Bill at all. It was confined to a mere lowering of the borough franchise. He deeply regretted the course that had been taken in reference to the Motion of the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) with respect to the ballot. It was a Motion of very great importance, and deserved serious debate and consideration. It was unfortunate that that Motion was brought on at so late an hour, and that the suggestion of the First Minister of the Crown to postpone it to this stage was not accepted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) had been prepared to address the House upon the subject. The question of the ballot was now upon an entirely different footing from that on which it stood before the passing of the Reform Act, and he was anxious to have the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury on the question. He desired that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion on the, subject should be expressed before the election, because he had reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was not on principle opposed to the ballot. He had reason to think that the right hon. Gentleman believed the ballot would be a truly Conservative measure, and if left to his own views would have proposed it in the Reform Bill. He was led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose it because his party were not sufficiently educated for the purpose. He did not speak without authority, for in a work published some years ago, entitled The Spirit of Whiggism, the right hon. Gentleman thus spoke in re- ference to the extension of the franchise and the ballot—

"The disposition of property in England throws the power of the country into the hands of the natural aristocracy. I do not believe that any system of suffrage or any method of election-would direct that power into other quarters. It is the necessary consequence of our present social state. I believe that the wider the popular suffrage the more powerful would be the natural aristocracy. That seems to be the inevitable consequence; but I maintain this proposition on the clear under standing that such an extension should be founded on a fair and not on a factious basis. Here then arises the question of the ballot, into the merits of which I shall take another opportunity of entering, recording merely my opinion that in the present state of the Constitution even the ballot is in favour of the power of the natural aristocracy, and that if the ballot were to be contemporaneously introduced, with a fair and not a factious extension of suffrage, it would produce no change in the distribution of power affecting the natural aristocracy."

said, he wished to point out how unjustly the provisions of the present Bill would operate. They had given to England a rating franchise for the boroughs, whereas in Ireland they restricted it to houses of £4 rental. In England the county franchise was fixed at £12, and one of the best authorities in the House had shown that a £12 franchise in Ireland was practically equivalent to a £30 rental in England. One or two figures would enable the House to understand the real character of this Bill, which was called a Reform Bill for Ireland. ["Oh, oh !"] He perceived no argument in these extraordinary noises, and he thought that hon. Gentlemen would do better to use the English language. Take the county of Clare, and compare its present condition with its condition forty years ago. It had then 17,000 electors, and now only 5,300. The county of Mayo had 20,300 electors in 1828, and only 3,400 in 1868. The Bill would not add as many electors to the which constituent body of Ireland as had been deducted in 1828 from the constituency of the one county of Clare. With respect to the ballot question, he would only say, that the observations of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Brady) in the discussion the other night had been quite inaudible. Now that he understood from his hon. Friend that he had accepted the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister, he regretted much that he should have interposed between his hon. friend and the House.

said, all the friends of Reform must look upon this Bill as in no way a settlement of the question. He should feel guilty of a dereliction of duty both to himself and to his constituents, if he were to omit entering his protest against it. It must be perfectly understood that they would re-open the question on the very earliest opportunity. As regarded both the county franchise and the freemen's franchise, they would consider no settlement satisfactory, no matter what Government might be in Office, which did not deal with both these subjects.

said, he rose to propose a clause, altering the qualification to one of the net annual rental value of £6 or upwards for counties, and £3 or upwards for boroughs, of lands, tenements, or hereditaments. He thought that after Irish Members had assisted in passing Reform Bills of a character so liberal for England and Scotland, they were entitled to a better return. The present Bill would make an addition of only 9,000 voters in a population of nearly 6,000,000. Were a measure so restricted proposed for England, it would be burned at the market cross of every town throughout the country. But if the House would accept the clause he now proposed it would in effect hold out the olive branch to Ireland and do something to establish friendly relations with that country.

said, he only rose to correct the impression which might be derived from the statement of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) regarding the part taken by the Scotch Members. No less than twenty-one Scotch Members voted in favour of the Motion for reducing the Irish county franchise to £8, and only seven on the other side.

proposed a clause extending the residence of electors of the city of Dublin from seven to twelve miles. He remarked that, in the case of the English metropolis, the limit of residence had been extended to twenty-five miles, and as railway facilities induced many persons to live by the seaside or otherwise beyond the distance of seven miles from Dublin, he hoped a similar boon would be extended to the Irish metropolis.

said, he thought there was much force in the argument of his hon. Friend. The circumstances of Dublin were very peculiar, and of late years a large proportion of the most respectable citizens had lived outside the town. The seven mile limit at present excluded a number of persons from the enjoyment of the franchise, and, considering the concessions agreed to with regard to London and that the class who would benefit by this provision were much the same as in that case, he thought the clause was a reasonable one.

Sir, I should like to have a few words of explanation from the noble Earl as to the application of this principle to the cases of other large cities and towns, before we assent to the Motion made by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance). He founded it in a great degree on the fact that Dublin is a metropolis, arguing that as the metropolis of the Empire had that privilege, something of the same kind should be conceded to the metropolis of Ireland. But the privilege was not granted to the metropolis of England on the ground of its being a metropolis; it was on account of peculiar conditions with respect to residence, and the fact of the metropolis being blocked in on all sides by Parliamentary boroughs of great extent, containing an enormous mass of population. That is a very different matter from laying down the principle that a particular town, because it is a metropolis, should have electoral rights different from those of other large towns containing an equal population. Edinburgh is also a metropolis, the citizens of which, in many cases, live at a considerable distance out of town, but no such privilege has been given to it. We have dealt also with the cases of Glasgow, Manchester and Salford, Liverpool, and Birmingham. No such privilege has been given to them, though in Liverpool, for example, numbers of the inhabitants reside for great part of the year at Southport and other places fifteen miles distant. With respect to the modern system of conveyance, several of these towns have a much larger number of railroads running into them than Dublin. I submit that if any change of this kind be sanctioned, it ought not to be merely on the ground of a place being a metropolis; but in reference to physical conditions affecting the residence of the voters, and ought to be extended to all large towns. I cannot conceive that an isolated Motion of this kind can either be accepted as a compliment to Ireland, or be a satisfactory mode of recognizing a principle.

said, he had been a resident of Dublin for thirty years and upwards, and did not know that any large number of electors having their business in the city resided at any outside place. With the exception of Kingstown, which was within the seven-mile limit, there was no considerable place where persons went for sea residence. Bray was a small though growing town outside the limits of the county of Dublin, and nearly twelve miles from the city. The persons who would be brought in by the clause were not occasional residents, but occupants of villas, who lived outside of Dublin for the purpose of escaping the urban taxation, and did not contribute in any way to the municipal burdens of the city. It would admit, in short, a large agricultural population, having no direct connection with the place such as ought to belong to electors and who had already votes for the county. In behalf of the citizens of Dublin, he should oppose the clause.

said, he was surprised at the view taken by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) who himself had a villa residence outside Dublin, while his place of business was in the city. He thought there were good grounds for extending the limit of residence to twelve miles. He knew that many persons engaged during the day in business in Dublin resided at Bray.

said, he was in favour of extending the privilege granted in the case of the City of London to towns like Manchester and Liverpool, and also to Dublin. He could not see why there should be a seven-mile limit excluding gentlemen who had an interest in that city though they lived in country houses.

said, he was surprised that the Government should support this clause. He had understood that it was agreed on all sides to accept the Bill in the condition in which it left the Committee. If this understanding were not adhered to there would be an opening up of many clauses besides this in the Bill.

said, he thought it was a very suspicious measure to select one place in which to make a distinction, as was now proposed with reference to the city of Dublin, without any special circumstances connected with it. It looked very like a party and political move. ["Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to flinch from the imputation, and he did not wonder at it. He challenged any hon. Member to answer the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and to explain why this proposal should be adopted in Dublin and not adopted in the large towns of England.

said, he wished to state that he had had no consultation whatever with Her Majesty's Government, and that he was entirely responsible for the Amendment.

said, that as a challenge had been thrown out for hon. Members on his side of the House to deny if they could that this Amendment had been made from party motives, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) that he and his Colleague (Mr. Pim) by no means sailed in the same boat on political questions, and that his hon. Colleague was going to vote for this Amendment. That plainly showed that the Amendment was not proposed from party motives.

said, that the Amendment would favour an increase in the number of freemen voters, and this explained the proposal.

said, he hoped that the Government would reconsider the course they seemed disposed to take, and which would end in the whole question of Irish Reform being reopened.

said, that, believing that this was a clearly defined party proposal, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he had been quite ignorant of this "party struggle" until the subject was introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance). Much might be said both for and against the Amendment. No doubt the precedent established last year in regard to the City of London, and which—although explained by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire—was one of very doubtful import, quite justified his hon. Friend in bringing forward this proposal. If his hon. Friend had, however, consulted him he should have said that upon the whole, and in the present state of the Irish Reform Bill, it would not be expedient to open this question. This would show what exaggerated statements had just been made, and how completely unfounded was the conclusion to which the hon. Member for Galway County (Mr. Gregory) had arrived when he hinted that this was some deep and sinister party move. He would say that, although his hon. Friend was quite justified in making this proposal, which was not only plausible, but very reasonable, and which was supported by both the Members for Dublin, still it was not expedient to press the Amendment to a division.

said, he had made this Motion in the interest of his former con- stituents, but, as it did not meet with the general concurrence of the House, he would withdraw it.

said, he rose, according to Notice, to move the following clause:—

(Assimilation of franchise in boroughs, counties of cities, and counties of towns.)

"Every man shall be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for any borough who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and who is seised of a freehold estate in such borough, or of any rent-charge arising out of any freehold estate in such borough of such value and subject to such conditions as would if in a city or town, being a county of a city or county of a town by itself, entitle such person to register his vote for such city or town, or who holds as lessee or assignee any lands or tenements in such borough for such term visions of the Registration Acts shall apply to of such value and subject to such provisions as would if such lands or tenements were situate in a city or town, being a county of a city or county of a town by itself, entitle such person to register his vote for such city or town; and all the pro-voters in boroughs on whom the franchise is hereby conferred in the same manner in all respects as far as is practicable as they now apply to such voters in cities and towns."

said, he hoped that the clause would meet the same fate as the last, and that the First Lord of the Treasury would recommend the hon. Mover to withdraw it. The franchise which it proposed to extend was properly a county franchise, and he objected on principle to its introduction into the Irish boroughs generally. At present, it was almost exclusively confined to cities or boroughs which were counties in themselves, and it had scarcely any existence in England.

supported the clause, which sought to extend a very valuable franchise that, though existing in but a few English boroughs, already prevailed in many Irish boroughs, and would act as a counterpoise to the dangerous lowering of the borough franchise proposed by the Bill.

said, that one of the questions which agitated the public mind in Ireland was the land question, and yet when a proposition was made to enable landed proprietors to express their opinions the House refused to' entertain it. But now the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate) came forward to introduce a landlord element into constituencies, to enable landlords to make faggot votes and swamp the constituencies, which were at present pretty evenly balanced.

said, he had voted so often before for the maintenance of the distinction between borough and county franchise in England that he could not now support the clause of the hon. Baronet.

said, he rose only to protest against the imaginary compact which the hon. Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had announced as having been come to on Thursday night. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to think that there had been an agreement on both sides that no new matter was to be introduced into the Irish Reform Bill, that the Committee was virtually closed, and that they were only to touch some points of detail which, for particular reasons, could not be dealt with conclusively on Thursday night. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Hear, hear!] He was glad that the hon. and learned Baronet acknowledged the justice of that statement of what he had said. But his (Mr. Disraeli's) impression was totally different. He thought that it was agreed on Thursday night that Progress should be reported, in order that the House on Report might have an opportunity of deciding upon many very important questions, and particularly upon the question of election by ballot, which was to have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady). But there were other questions also of great importance, of which due Notice had been given, and that Notice proved how utterly erroneous and unfounded was the statement of the hon. Member for Clare. He found from the Paper that the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) had given Notice that he would call the attention of the House to the propriety of lowering the borough franchise, while the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Serjeant Barry) intended on Clause 4 to move to omit certain words which would entirely alter the character of the lodger franchise, and there was also the Notice of the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the pro-sent question. The House, therefore, ought to decide upon this question on its merits, and it appeared to be one well worth consideration. He believed it a decision was arrived at in favour of the proposition they would add greatly to the strength of the town constituency and improve the representation of Ireland.

said, he was greatly disappointed when he heard that the right hon. Gentleman intended to support this clause. Whatever arguments might have induced the right hon. Gentleman to do so he was sure there was one to which he would lend no countenance—namely, the argument brought forward by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance). That hon. Gentleman had said that they had reduced the borough franchise to so dangerous a level that this clause was intended to act as a counterpoise. Well, as the House had adopted the borough franchise for Ireland proposed by the Government themselves, Her Majesty's Ministers at least would give no countenance to such an argument. But what was the House really asked to do? They were asked to do in the case of Ireland what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had reminded them they had repeatedly refused to do in the case of England. If there was one objection more deeply felt and more strongly urged than another to the proposals of the Government in 1859, it was that county voters should be removed from the counties of England, and transferred with the same franchise to the boroughs. They had rejected that proposal for England; they ought now to reject it for Ireland, for if bad for England it was far worse for Ireland, where there was not so large an infusion of the commercial element in the county constituency. The creation of rent-charge votes in small constituencies was very objection-able. If they agreed to this clause they would add another anomaly to those which already existed, and another argument in favour of re-opening the question of Irish Reform.

said, he should oppose the clause on the ground that this franchise had been left where it was in 1832, both with regard to England and Ireland; and as it had not been extended by the late Reform Act in England, it ought not to be extended in Ireland. Such an attempt as that made by the hon. Baronet would have a very had effect in Ireland; for it would furnish with a new argument that increasing class of persons who maintained that it was useless to look for justice to Parliament, when it was seen that the Government had taken good care not to suffer the power of the landlords to be threatened in the counties, and now endeavoured to give them new influence in the towns. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion for an adjournment. He said the object of the clause brought forward by the hon. Baronet was to give county voters a vote also in the boroughs, a procedure that was manifestly unjust.

Sir, this clause has been supported on two grounds. The hon. Member for Armagh supported it on a ground worthy of the attention of the House and the country—namely, that the propositions of the Government with regard to the borough franchise are of so dangerous a character that they require to be counteracted and neutralized, and he thinks he finds in this proposition of the hon. Baronet the remedy he wants. I confess I think it would have been much better if the hon. Gentleman had exposed this dangerous character of the propositions of the Government when they were made, and had not supported them in silence. But, whether he is happy or not in the choice of his opportunity, I wish to protest against the principle that we are to counteract by restrictive propositions the effects of those enlarging propositions which we have applied to the franchise. On that ground it appears to me it is totally impossible to defend the clause of the hon. Baronet, and I do not know whether the hon. Baronet will be obliged to the hon. Member for the character he has given to the clause as retroactive, and meant to restrain the effect of that exceedingly slight enlargement of the franchise which we have made by our so-called Irish Reform Bill. But, putting aside the doctrines of the hon. Member for Armagh, I do not think it right to give a vote on this question without fairly warning hon. Gentlemen opposite of what appears to me to be the certain, although perhaps not the immediate upshot of a Motion such as this. The hon. Baronet opposite proposes to introduce into the whole of the boroughs of Ireland a county franchise, and, to give its full effect within these boroughs, to withdraw it from the counties. Now, does the hon. Baronet imagine that the House can take such a step as that, and, having taken that step, can stop there? My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) has stated, and stated truly, that in 1859 a similar proposition was made by the Government of that day. That proposal, however, differed from the proposal of the hon. Baronet, in that it was a complete proposal. While the county franchise was carried into the boroughs, the borough franchise was carried into the counties. And let hon. Gentlemen lay their account with this, that if they choose now to tamper with the subject, and carry in Ireland the county franchise into the boroughs—I know not what its bearings on parties may be; I see what is involved as a logical consequence in such a measure—it must inevitably be followed by its counterpart, the carrying of the borough franchise into counties. And when you have carried the county franchise into boroughs—and are congratulating yourselves or condoling with yourselves, as the case may be—you must be prepared to have the same change carried into England. I do not say whether it will be a good change or a bad change. But I think it my duty to say that it is a change for which you must be prepared. It is impossible to adopt proposals of this kind—involving in themselves certain principles of broad application—for your own immediate purposes, and then think you can stay their application within the limits to which they can be conveniently carried.

rose to move the adjournment of the House, but there were calls for

who said, he was not convinced by the argu- ments he had heard against his proposal, which he had made without any party motives. It had been said that a great difference existed between the county and the borough franchise in this—that the former was based on property, while the latter rested on occupation and residence. But it had been forgotten that great part of the English county franchise—all that resting on the Chandos Clause—depended on occupation. If, however, an assurance were given that the Bill should be now allowed to proceed, he would not allow his proposal to stand in the way, and would withdraw the clause.

, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to amend the present law of bankruptcy, It dealt exclusively with deeds of arrangement.

said, he should offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, some portions of which would effect an improvement in the present law.