Sitting of 12 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Public Records. Petitions presented. By Lord G. SOMERSET, from Cotton Spinners and Factory Proprietors, and by Lord ASHLEY, from 500 Women connected with the Cotton Factories, for a Limitation of the Hours of Labour.

COAL TRADE.
Mr. Laboucheremoved the further consideration of the Report on the Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill.
Lord G. Somersetthen rose to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to make provision for the repeal of such parts of the Acts 3 and 4 William 4th., cap. 36 (the Birmingham Railway Act,) 4 and 5 William 4th., cap. 38 (Southampton Railway Act), 5 and 6 William 4th., cap. 107 (Great Western Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 75 (the London and Dovor, or South-eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 103 (London and Cambridge, or Northern and Eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 106 (London and Norwich, or Eastern Counties Railway Act), 6 and 7th William 4th., cap. 108 (Thames Haven Railway Act), 1 Vict., cap. 119 (Brighton Railway Act) as imposes a duty of one shilling and a penny per ton, to be paid to the corporation of the city of London, on coals carried on the several railways, sanctioned by those acts respectively, nearer to London than certain points specified in those several acts, and which points vary in distance from the limits of the city of London, from about fifteen to eighteen miles. As this was the first occasion on which the question had been fairly brought before the House since these clauses had been introduced, the House must affirm the principle, that the city of London dues should be rateable at 1s. 1d. per ton on all coals carried within a certain circumference of the city. But how were these clauses introduced? Without imputing anything to the city of London, he was bound to say, that they were much more careful of what they supposed to be

171
their rights than the House of Commons was of the interests of the public. He might be met by the fact, that the companies had agreed to the clauses; but they all knew, that the companies, when they were applying for their bill, would do much to gain support, and would agree to almost anything to obviate such opposition as that of the city of London. So lax had they been in the performance of their duty, that he did not believe, the attention of the House was ever once called to these clauses. He had no doubt it would be said, why should sea-borne coals be subject to a tax from which inland was exempted? The last time the question was before the House, was, he believed, in 1810. But there was a vast difference between the situation of the question then and now. Then there was a duty of 4s. per ton upon all sea-borne coals, and to protect that duty, inland coals were almost prohibited. The question was now in a very different situation, for there was now no duty to protect, and the duty of 1s. 1d. per ton made all the difference between the possibility of sending up inland coals with a profit, or with none. He might be met by the assertion, that the quantity would be so small, so inconsiderable, that it was not worth discussing. Then he would say, if it was so, it surely was not worth the opposition of the city. The only way to meet that combination, which operated most injuriously against the lower classes, and which was contrary to all principles of supply and demand, was to agree to his amendment. He could not help thinking, that it would be worth the while of the coal-owners in the north to co-operate with him on this object, and to make arrangements with the several railway companies, by which the supply of coals would be conveyed to the London market much more expeditiously and cheaply than by sea. It was the duty of the gentlemen residing in and about London also to assist him in this object; because it was quite clear, that so long as this tax of 1s. 1d. per ton was continued, the railroad proprietors would consider it a complete failure. There was one other point to which he would refer. The hon. Baronet (the Member for the City of London), had stated, that the object was, to continue the revenue derivable from coals to the corporation of London, to the time originally fixed (1858), but he had neglected to point out, that the revenue had so enormously
172
increased within the last few years, that it was expected to expire in the year 1852. He hoped the House, under all the circumstances, would support his proposition; for, if not, they would let slip the only opportunity which would be afforded them, of placing the matter in its proper position, and of breaking down a monopoly which was most injurious to the best interests of the community.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion. These Acts had been introduced without the knowledge of the country, or the knowledge of the House, and without due notice.
Mr. Laboucherecould assure the House, that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to see a bill pass that House, the tendency of which would be to reduce the price of coals; but that must be done by fair and just means. He would not go into the regulations of the coal-owners in the north, nor would he attempt to justify them; but if they were illegal, an Act of Parliament ought to be introduced to counteract those combinations, and let that act be fairly passed. If the present bill was not passed, the city would not lose anything, because the city would immediately revert to their ancient dues—to dues levied in an infinitely more inconvenient manner to the public than those that were levied by this bill. Looking at every part of the bill, it must be taken as making a good bargain for the public. He felt bound, in justice to the city, and to all the great interests that were concerned, to resist the proposal made as strenuously as he could. It would be most improper to do anything which would tend to injure the shipping interest, for the sake of giving a partial benefit to another interest. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not consent to the motion of the noble Lord. He believed it would cast a most serious impediment in the way of the bill passing at all—a bill which was calculated to confer so great a benefit on the community. There was one provision in the bill, to which he must for a moment refer. The city, under the present law, possessed the right of levying 1s. 1d. for every ton of coals brought within a certain distance. Two circumstances had happened, which deserved the serious attention of the House; one was, that coals were becoming more an article of export than they were formerly; the other, that steamboat navigation was going on with a spirit

173
of enterprise, which became every day more daring and successful. It was of the utmost consequence that London should be able to enter into competition with Liverpool, Bristol, and the other great ports of the country, upon perfectly fair and equal terms. It was of the utmost consequence that ships exporting coals from London for the purposes of commerce, and that steam-boats, taking coals from London, should not be subject to this duty. He therefore urged the expediency and propriety of the city not standing on any rights they possessed, in order to defeat the wishes of the House. The city had already, most liberally, consented to allow a drawback on every ton of coals within a certain limitation, and that was no slight sacrifice, for it amounted to about 5,000 l. a year. Under all the circumstances, he called upon the House not to support the proposition of the noble Lord, which would be attended with the greatest possible danger to the bill.
Mr. Warburtonagreed, in a great measure with the sentiments of his hon. Friend; at the same time, he should wish the bill to pass into a law, subject to the clauses proposed by the noble Lord opposite. A more scandalous monoply and a more scandalous combination never existed than that which affected the coal trade. He would now state to the House certain facts which he did not see in the report of the Committee of this year, but which had been partly elicited by the evidence brought before the Committee of 1836. The President of the Board of Trade had introduced a bill exempting coal exported from the greater part of the duty to which it was subjected, and the consequence of this was, that a greatly increased trade was going on with the north of England for the exportation of coals to foreign ports. If the owners of coal merely demanded the same price from the English consumer as they did from the foreign one, there could be no room for complaint. But that was not the rule they adopted. They sold their coals at 1s. per ton less than they would supply any for home consumption. That was not the worst of their conduct. There was a small sort of coal, called Bean Coal, which was fitted for lime-burners, engines, and steam-boats. The coal-owners sold that coal to the foreigner at 8s. 6d. the Newcastle chaldron, while they actually refused to sell a ton of it to the
174
English consumer at less than double that price, so that the foreign consumer got it at a cheaper rate than the Englishman. Was there ever such a want of public spirit—such selfishness—that in order to drive the manufacturers of England and the steam-boats to use the large coal, they did that which was eminently calculated to promote the growth of foreign manufacturers. Was there ever such a monopoly—it was really infamous, and he hoped Parliament would adopt such regulations as would put the trade upon the principle of fair and open competition.
Mr. Bellacknowledged, that it was with extreme surprise, that he had heard the proposition of his noble Friend, who was usually very anxious to do justice to all parties. He heard, with much surprise, the proposition of his noble Friend, because he had always found, that his noble Friend upon former occasions, when he had any matter on hand, showed the greatest disposition to do equal justice to all parties. In this instance he thought he had a fair right to complain that his noble Friend was disposed to treat a large portion of his constituents hardly. The great injustice of repealing the duty on inland coal, and leaving it in force as regards seaborne coal, was so apparent, on general principles, as not, in his opinion, to entitle it to the serious consideration of the Legislature. If, however, his noble Friend persevered in his motion, he hoped it would be dealt with in the way in which it deserved. It was, he conceived, a sufficient answer to the proposition of his noble Friend that, if carried, it would have the effect of giving a bonus to one set of traders over their competitors in the same market, which was contrary to sound policy and fair legislation. It should be borne in mind, in discussing this question, that the inland coal was charged as well as the sea-borne coal, with the 1,000,000 l. for the improvements of the metropolis, and, if his noble Friend's proposition were carried, it would have the effect of throwing the whole charge on the sea-borne coal, which would be an act of great injustice. His noble Friend and other hon. Members had alluded to monopoly and combination, Now he could take upon himself to say that nothing of the sort existed. He understood monopoly to mean the privilege of selling confined to a few. Now the pri-

175
vilege of supplying London and other places was not confined to the coal-owners of Northumberland and Durham; it was open to the coal-owners of Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire, and other places. The reason why the coal-owners of the North had the preference was, because they deal in a better article, and at a cheaper rate, as the following returns proved:—Wear Coals, 1st class, per ton, 11 s. 6d.; 2d class, 9s. 6d.; 3d class, 7s. 6d. Tyne coals, 1st class, per ton, 10 s. 6d.; 2d class, 8s.; 3d class, 6s. This is on shipboard. Tees coals average between the two prices. Scotch coal—Elgin's Wand, 12 s. per ton; Parrot, 21 s. per ton. Welsh coal—Swansea, 14 s. per ton; Milford, 19 s. 6d. per ton; Merthyr, 11 s. per ton. Yorkshire from 8s. 6d. to 10 s. 6d.; Staffordshire, 11 s. 2d. per ton. Combination he took to mean the union of parties for the sake of raising prices. The effect of the regulation in the North had not produced that effect, coals having fallen there in price 2s. and 2s. 6d. the ton within a few years, and the rise in London had been a mere trifle. Stewart's had increased 11 d. between 1836 and 1837; Hetton's 1s. in the same period, and New-mart's 17 d. per ton. Neither had the regulation had the effect of limiting the supply to London. It had increased 750,000 tons between 1806 and 1827, and 250,000 tons between 1836 and 1837; and so far from the regulation being general, there were fourteen or sixteen collieries that did not belong to it at all. Perhaps hon. Members were not aware that the coal-owner received very little more for the expense and risk of working a ton of coals than the coal merchant received for conveying them to the consumer's cellar from the ship. The charge was as follows;—Cost of coals on shipboard, 10 s. 6d.; charges in London, city dues, 2s. 8d.; freight, 9s. 4d.; London coal merchant, 10 s.; total, 1l. 12 s. 6d. per ton to the consumer. He trusted he had said enough to vindicate the coal-owners from the charge of monoply and combination; enough, also, to induce the House to reject the motion of his noble Friend. Although he had a great respect for the city authorities, yet, for one, he could not give his consent to a proposition that would have the effect of giving them the power of ordering a collier below Gravesend or into dock after the first market day if she had not disposed of her
176
cargo, because such a proceeding would be very prejudicial to the interest of all those connected with the coal trade of the north of England. Any such enactment would press very hard upon the colliers when it is considered that vessels laden with grain and other traders would still be suffered to remain a month waiting for a favourable market, as was now the case. It should be borne in mind, that within a very few years the number of colliers suffered to remain in the Pool had been reduced from 170 to 146, in consequence of complaints of the crowded state of the river. Moreover, several tiers of these vessels had been removed from their berths to make entrances to the London and St. Katharine's Docks, the entrance to the one requiring a radius of 600, the other of 300 feet. To this the individuals connected with the coal trade submitted without a murmur, and he thought, therefore, that it was very hard that they should be still further interfered with. For one, he was of opinion, that neither the Legislature nor the City of London ought to interfere with individuals in the disposal of their private property, but that they should be left to make such arrangements as they should, in their own wisdom, deem most beneficial to their interests. Although he entertained those opinions, yet he would support the original motion rather than the amendment.
Sir Robert Peelcould not agree to the proposition of his noble Friend, as it involved a dangerous principle—viz., that of interfering with places which had natural and physical advantages, in order to bring them down to an equality with those which were less favoured. Every place ought to get the fair advantage of its local position; and to say, that goods brought from one place by sea should be subject to an impost, while those brought by land, from places not having the same facilities were exempted, was most unfair. The county of Essex, for instance, from its proximity to the London market, had great facilities for the disposal of its corn. But, would any one say, that the corn brought from Essex should be subjected to additional duties in order to bring it down to the level of other places more distant and less favoured? He agreed with the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) that there was a practical monopoly upon the part of the coal-

177
owners, and that they were anxious and eager to get as much as they could. He was only surprised at the hon. Gentleman's indignation at the circumstance, and his disappointment at not finding disinterestedness and patriotism in a coal-hole. He, for one, never expected to find more patriotism in a coal-owner quà coal-owner than he did in a horse-dealer. He never expected anything but great selfishness from the coal-owners. He had foreseen the consequences of permitting foreigners to purchase their coal duty free several years since. He foresaw the injury it would be likely to create as regarded competition with foreign manufacturers, and it was the fault of that House that an exception had not been made with regard to that particular article, and thereby securing to England the elements of future prosperity. He acquitted the coal-owners of all blame, but he could not pass upon them those panegyrics which his hon. Friend, the coal-owner behind him, had complimented them with. Why, Quintus Curtius himself, if he was a coal-owner, would extort as much as he could. As the right hon. Gentleman had observed, they had legislated much too hastily upon the subject of railways. It was right that inland coals should pay as high a duty as those carried by sea; but the City had no right to demand more than a fair proportion. It was their duty to say to the City, "We will reduce the tax on inland coals, but then we require you to diminish the duty on sea-borne coal in similar proportion." He for one, could not consent that sea-borne coal should be charged with a duty while inland coal was allowed to pass free. The City, in his opinion, had a vested interest in this matter, which he was willing to protect to the uttermost. It had shown a great example of liberality in appropriating so large a proportion of these funds for the protection and convenience of trade. Although he could not concur in the proposal of his noble Friend, he would at the same time express a strong opinion, that it was impossible that anything could be more advantageous to the City than to make every reduction they could in the price of coals. The facility of procuring fuel was one of the greatest advantages which could be conferred upon the labouring classes of the community. It was most important to facilitate the delivery of coals. The metropolis was gradually
178
becoming a great manufacturing town; and this, coupled with the improvements in steam navigation, rendered it most important that the price of coals should be reduced to the very lowest scale possible. The improvement of this great city he considered an object most worthy the application of its funds; and he thought, therefore, it was a legitimate application of part of this duty to the construction of a Royal Exchange. He should give his cordial support to the gradual reduction of the coal duty. He should be happy if there were none at all. He thought that would be the proper way of meeting the monopoly. But he would never consent to an attempt to secure to the consumers greater advantages than they ought justly to possess. He was of opinion it would be setting a most dangerous precedent to interfere with the property of other persons—not that he denied the existence of the monopoly—not that he did not believe in the existence of the combination, and he was quite ready to put an end to it by every legitimate means, but, at the same time, he would resort to no means not reconcilable with the principles of justice.
Mr. Peasesaid, the coal-owners of the north did not object to competition on every ground. Till a few years ago coals from Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland, were gradually increasing in quantity, but the reduction in the price of coal from Durham and Northumberland had produced the practical monopoly which the country wished—the cheapest and the best. The coal trade in Durham and Northumberland had not, nevertheless, been a fair paying trade for the last ten years. He spoke feelingly on the question. He did not think the coal-owners of the north had much to do with it. The coals might rise to-morrow a shilling—the Staffordshire coals might then come into the market, and the market would be opened. After having heard all the evidence, he considered the best way would be to take the duty off, and let all parties stand fair.
Lord Teignmouthcould not support the motion of the noble Lord, because it appeared to him to be a partial way of meeting a great question, which was, whether this coal-tax should be continued or not. He thought considerable delusion existed on the subject of the coal-tax, and if that tax were removed, the consumers would not derive much benefit; but that if any party was benefitted, it would be the coal

179
proprietor. He should be extremely sorry to gain a little popularity with his constituents by voting for a proposition that was manifestly unjust.
Mr. W. Attwoodshould vote against the proposition of the noble Lord on the ground that the result of it would be, if carried, to give a bonus to the land-borne coal at the expense of the sea-borne coal.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, the sense of the House did not appear to him to be so much in favour of his proposition as to justify the House in dividing on it.
Motion withdrawn.
The House went into Committee.
On the 13th Clause,
Mr. Humemoved the omission of the last paragraph—"Provided also that no such regulations which apply exclusively to the coal trade shall prevent any vessel from remaining with the cargo thereof unsold within the port of London for a period not exceeding fifteen days." One great nuisance connected with the coal trade was, the great number of vessels allowed to remain in the river, frequently for several weeks. The committee discussed the remedy to meet this complaint, and it was agreed, that powers should be given to the committee of the city to make such regulations as would remove the complaints now existing of the great crowd of colliers that interfered so much with the navigation of the river. In order to protect the interest of the public against the errors of the city authorities, it was proposed, that all the regulations should be made by the navigation committee, but could not be acted upon without the sanction of the Board of trade. If the proviso were retained, the city authorities could not remove any vessel unless they had remained in the river more than fifteen days. Any one at all acquainted with the state of the river, must be well aware that such a length of time was too long, for it was much incommoded, and the authorities ought to have power to remove them sooner. He thought the proviso would stultify the whole powers given by the bill. He hoped the House would concur in the propriety of leaving the whole of the regulations in the hands of the city authorities, and he moved the omission of the proviso.
Mr. A. Chapmandenied, that the river was in the state represented, for, owing to the great exertions of the harbour-masters, the river, from the Lower Pool to
180
St. Katharine's docks, was clear for ships. If the object of the hon. Member's proposition was, that the vessels should not be allowed to remain in the river any longer than fifteen days, unless below Black wall, he (Mr. Chapman) would not object to it. But he was of opinion, that any compulsory measure by which the ship-owners would be obliged to send their vessels into certain docks, entailing upon them additional expense, would inevitably throw that additional expense upon the consumer.
Mr. Labouchereobjected to the House making those regulations which might be much more conveniently left to the corporation of the city of London, assisted by the Board of Trade. The hon. Member opposite objected to these vessels being sent into collier docks, and he (Mr. Labouchore) quite agreed with him, that it would be inconvenient to send them in, but that was not the question before the House. As a general principle he objected to the limitation which these regulations imposed, which should be more properly left to the discretion of the corporation of the city of London and the Board of Trade.
Mr. Peasecomplained of the unfair and harsh manner in which hundreds of thousands of ship-owners from the north were treated, by placing them in a position from which all other ship-owners were exempted. It was too much now to call upon the House to strike out the only clause which afforded a protection to the ship-owners. After a certain period they were to be driven out of the river, whether they had succeeded in selling their cargoes or not. The ship-owners in the north had full confidence in the fairness of the Board of Trade, but they had not confidence that the city would, on all occasions, administer those regulations with fairness.
Mr. Humeagreed with the hon. Member, that if the provision was applied to the coal-owners alone, it would be highly improper; but he wished the regulations to be applied to all vessels frequenting the port of London.
Lord G. Somersetcontended, that the city, under the supervision of the Board of Trade, should have perfect freedom of action. He was anxious, that this clause should stand part of the bill; but he could not agree, that this proviso was to be considered as having the sanction of the Committee. The proposition of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was, to leave

181
the question unfettered, and he hoped the hon. Member would succeed.
Mr. Bellsaid, within the last few years the number of colliers in the river allowed to stand had been reduced from 170 to 146, and lately four or five tiers had been removed. The coal-owners of the north had agreed to this, and they ought not to be further fettered. Neither the legislature nor the city had any right to interfere with them in the disposal of their private property; they ought to be suffered to use their own discretion in making regulations beneficial to themselves and to the public.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that they had agreed to give to the corporation of London, subject to the supervision of the Board of Trade, the power of making bylaws, and the question was, whether they should limit that power to a particular period? He presumed it had been considered for the advantage of the coal trade of the metropolis, and of the navigation of the river, that that power should be given; and if it were given in one thing he saw no reason why it should not be given in another, or why it should be limited. If they conferred on the city the power of making by-laws, because they considered it inexpedient, that that House should legislate by by-laws, it would be the height of inconsistency, if they acted on that principle, to limit the power by this proviso. He would not offer any opinion as to the time, he would not say whether he thought fifteen days, or thirteen, or ten sufficient, and his reason for wishing to exclude the proviso was, because they could not ascertain now, much less for the future, what number of days ought to be applied. If they were to adopt this proviso, they would effectually bar themselves from obtaining any advantage of a regulation, that should fix less than fifteen days. He did not believe, if it were left to the corporation of London, that they would make any regulation, that would be inexpedient, and if they did, the Board of Trade would not consent to enforce it. He thought, upon the whole, that it would be better that power should be given in this instance, as well as in the others, to the city authorities to make what regulations they should think proper.
Mr. A. Whitesaid, that if the ship-owner was not allowed fifteen days for the sale of the cargo he would be put in a
182
worse condition than the merchant who imported corn or any other produce into this river. It would be making a very improper and invidious distinction between shipowners.
Mr. Humethought, the navigation committee ought to have the power of fixing the time, lest the parties should make use of the time for the purpose of combining for the raising the price of coals.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonconsidered this a question which should be decided according to the extent of confidence the House had in the navigation committee. He for one should state, that, having been a Member of that committee, and having taken very great pains to have certain regulations carried into effect, but not having been able to succeed, he had no confidence whatever in their being fit persons to make by-laws on so important a question. He had been long convinced, that the way in which the navigation committee exercised their power was a most unwise mode of exercising it, and that it called loudly for redress. He had not confidence enough in the navigation committee to allow them to deal with so large and important a part of the shipping frequenting the port of London. Why were they to make laws for colliers, excluding all other vessels? The tendency of the amendment of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was to drive the colliers into the docks. There was a project for constructing such docks, and no doubt if they should be found useful and convenient the colliers would enter them, but he protested against compelling them.
The Committee divided on the question, that the proviso remain part of the clause:—Ayes 49; Noes 96: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Dungannon, Lord

Barrington, Lord

Eastnor, Lord

Blackburne, I.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Blackett, C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Blair, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blandford, Marg. Of

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bowes, J.

Goulburn, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Broadley, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Bruges, W. H.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Heathcote, G. J.

Chapman, A.

Hinde, J. H.

Darby, G.

Hodgson, R.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Holmes, W.

Dottin, A. R.

Hope, hon. C.

Duke, Sir J.

Hope, G. W.

183

Hughes, W. B.

Rolleston, L.

Hurt, F.

Rose, Sir G.

Ingestrie, Lord

Style, Sir C.

Kemble, H.

Thomson, Alderman

Manners, Lord C. S.

Waddington, H.

Meynell, Capt.

White, A.

Ord, W.

Wyndham, W.

Palmer, G.

TELLERS

Praed, W. M.

Bell, M.

Richards, R.

Pease, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marshall, W.

Ainsworth, P.

Maule, hon. F.

Archbold, R.

Melgund, Lord

Attwood, W.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Miles, P. W. S.

Baines, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Barry, G. S.

Murray, J. A.

Beamish, F. B.

Nicholl, J.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, W. J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bridgeman, H.

Paget, F.

Brodie, W. B.

Palmer, C. F.

Brotherton, J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Bryan, G.

Pattison, J.

Callaghan, D.

Pechell, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Perceval, G. J.

Cayley, E. S.

Polhill, F.

Clay, W.

Power, J.

Clements, Lord

Price, Sir R.

Crawford, W.

Rich, H.

Curry, W.

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Salwey, Colonel

Douglas, Sir C.

Sanford, E.

Dundas, hon. T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Easthope, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Stewart, James

Egerton, W. T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ellis, J.

Strutt, E.

Farnham, E. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Finch, F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Gibson, T.

Thomson, C. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Thornley, T.

Grant, F. W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grattan, H.

Turner, E.

Grote, G.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, C. P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wallace, R.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wilbraham, G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Williams, W.

Hodges, T. L.

Wilshere, W.

Howard, F. J.

Wood, C.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, T.

Hutton, R.

Yates, J. A.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Kinnaird, A. F.

Hume, J.

Labouchere, H.

Parker, J.

Proviso struck out.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed.
Bill with amendments reported.

BANKRUPTS' ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Lord Advocatemoved, that the further consideration of the Bankrupts' Estates (Scotland) Bill be deferred till Saturday.
Sir W. Raewished to know whether it were intended to proceed with a bill which made such an immense change in the law at this period of the Session? Here was a bill which had taken four or five years to prepare, and in which there were not less than 145 clauses, and at this period of the Session it could not be expected to pass both Houses. It was intended to throw the blame on the House of Lords of rejecting the bill, and he did not think that was a fair position in which to place that House. He trusted, that it would be withdrawn until the next Session, and then brought fairly before the House. He moved, that it be further considered that day month.
The Lord Advocatewas rather surprised at the tone of his right hon. Friend. No doubt this bill had been before the House for five years, but similar bills had been before the House twelve or fifteen years, and it was extremely difficult to obviate the various objections made to the bill. If there was any ground for further deliberation he had no objection to give the opportunity. If his right hon. Friend had adopted a different tone, he might, perhaps, have been disposed to accede to his suggestions, but under the present circumstances he could not.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 62; Noes 34: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Grattan, H.

Baines, E.

Hawes, B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hector, C. J.

Barry, G. S.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Beamish, F. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bernal, R.

Howard, F. J.

Bewes, T.

Howard, P. H.

Blake, M. J.

Hutton, R.

Blake, W. J.

James, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Langdale, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

Macnamara, W.

Bryan, G.

Melgund, Lord

Callaghan, D.

Morris, D.

Clements, Lord

O'Connell, J.

Divett, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duke, Sir J.

Palmer, C. F.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Fergusson, R. C.

Parrott, J.

Finch, F.

Pattison, J.

Gillen, W. D.

Pechell, Captain

185

Power, J.

Turner, E.

Rich, H.

Turner, W.

Rundle, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Sanford, E. A.

Villiers, C. P.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wallace, R.

Stanley, E. J.

Warburton, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

White, A.

Strutt, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Style, Sir C.

Williams, W.

Tancred, H. W.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Murray, J. A.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Maule, F.

List of the NOES.

Barrington, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

Blair, J.

Hurt, F.

Blandford, Marq. of

Mackenzie, T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Miles, P. W. S.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Nicholl, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Palmer, G.

Darby, G.

Parker, R. T.

Dungannon, Lord

Perceval, G. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Polhill, F.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Rolleston, L.

Goulburn, H.

Rose, Sir G.

Graham, Sir J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Grant, F. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Wyndham, W.

Hodgson, F.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Holmes, W.

Rae, Sir W.

Hope, G. W.

Gordon, Captain

Consideration of the report postponed till Saturday.

PARLIAMENTARY BURGHS (SCOTLAND.
Mr. F. Maulemoved, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill.
Sir W. Raemoved, that the bill be postponed till that day three months.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, it was most important this bill should pass, to enable the Parliamentary burghs to make provision for their self-government. He knew, that Scotland fully appreciated the justice of this bill, and no objection to it had proceeded from that country.
Captain Gordonsaid, it was a mistake to suppose there was no objection to the bill, because he had received a petition from Leith, which he had not as yet an opportunity of presenting, strongly deprecating the bill.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 56; Noes 36: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Barry, G. S.

Baines, E.

Beamish, F. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Bernal, R.

186

Bewes, T.

Morris, D.

Blake, M. J.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Bridgeman, H.

Parrott, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pattison, J.

Bryan, G.

Pechell, Captain

Bulwer, Sir L.

Power, J.

Callaghan, D.

Pryme, G.

Corry, hon. H.

Rich, H.

Divett, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Duke, Sir J.

Sanford, E. A.

Dundas, hon. T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Elliott, hon. J. F.

Stanley, E. J.

Finch, F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Grattan, H.

Strutt, E.

Hawes, B.

Style, Sir C.

Hector, C. J.

Thornley, T.

Hindley, C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. E.

Howard, P. H.

Wallace, R.

Hutton, R.

Warburton, H.

James, W.

White, A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Macnamara, Major

TELLERS.

Mather, J.

Maule, F.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Murray, J. A.

List of the Noes

Barrington, Viscount

Hodgson, F.

Blackburne, I.

Hodgson, R.

Blair, J.

Holmes, W.

Blandford, Marq. of

Hope, hon. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hope, G. W.

Broadwood, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Bruges, W. H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Buller, sir J. Y.

Mackenzie, T.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Nicholl, J.

Darby, G.

Parker, R. T.

Dungannon, Lord

Perceval, G. J.

Eastnor, Viscount

Polhill, F.

Egerton, W. T.

Rose, Sir G.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, H.

Turner, W.

Graham, Sir J.

Wood, T.

Grant, F. W.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Rae, Sir W.

Hawkes, T.

Gordon, Captain

Bill went through Committee, pro forma.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Qualification; Western Australian Act Continuance.—Read a second time:—Entails (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RUTLAND, from Great Grimsby, and by Lord KENYON, from Clergymen in the county of Norfolk, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from a place in Ireland, in favour of Irish Municipal Reform.

AFFIRMATIONS INSTEAD OF OATHS.
Lord Denman moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Affirmation Bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonfeared, that unless great circumspection were used, this bill would have the effect of encouraging a species of inferior evidence in judicial cases. He suggested, that those who meant to avail themselves of the provisions of the bill, should previously procure a certificate setting forth their scruples, which certificate should be granted without expense, and should be renewed annually.
Lord Denmanhad no objection to adopt the suggestion of the noble Duke.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, it would be better, in his opinion, if a general measure, extending to all classes, were passed; and that the particular privileges now granted to certain sects only, should be removed. As the law now stood, and would stand under this bill, one mode of affirmation was allowed to one body, and another to a different body. He thought that provi-
146
sion should be made in this bill calling on individuals to make known their sentiments on the subject of taking oaths, before the occasion arose when they might wish, in a court of justice, to make a declaration. Individuals ought not to be allowed to take that course on the spur of the moment.
Lord Ellenboroughagreed in the propriety of what had fallen from the noble Lord. If some such precaution were not adopted, alibi-men would be found ready on all occasions to make these declarations, and the effect would be most injurious to the interests of justice.
The Earl of Haddingtonobjected to the provisions of the bill being extended to Scotland.
The Earl of Wicklowhad attended the Committee on this bill, which certainly, compared with what it was, had been considerably improved. If, however, it were a good measure for this country, he could not see why the noble Earl should wish to exempt Scotland from its operation. He was willing, by a measure of this nature, to give relief to that extent, but to that extent only, which appeared to be necessary. But the present measure went far beyond that; because it went to give to every person, no matter of what religious creed, who preferred an affirmation to an oath, the opportunity of taking the former. That, he maintained, was giving relief to a much greater extent than the evil required. Although he admitted, that the bill had been much improved in Committee, still, if a vote were taken on the subject, he should vote against it.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, if this measure were found necessary for Scotland, he should not object to it. But he thought it would be extremely hard to pass it, when no communication had been received from Scotland on the subject.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that he was not aware that this bill had been called for by any of the judges, nor were their Lordships acquainted with the opinions of magistrates, or of chairmen of quarter sessions on the subject. Considering how little their Lordships knew of it, and the late period at which it had been presented to their attention, he thought, that no great inconvenience would follow if it were deferred till next Session; and he therefore moved, that it be committed that day six months.
Lord Denmansaid, that if their Lordships were prepared to say, that men should not be allowed to give evidence on account of their religious opinions, they would accede to the proposition of the noble Lord; but he should certainly take the sense of the House on the subject. He proposed, that they should now go into Committee, and, after any alterations which might be deemed necessary had been made in it, that, on the third reading, their Lordships should express their opinion on the merits of the measure as a whole. He entreated their Lordships to deal with the bill upon the general principles which it contained, and not let it be thrown out in this unexpected manner, after the exertions he had made, at great inconvenience to himself, to remove all the objections which had been urged against the measure. He asked their Lordships to pass this bill, as the means of avoiding the suppression of truth and the exclusion of evidence which could not otherwise be obtained. The parties for whose relief the bill was designed, were prepared to give evidence, if they might be allowed to do so, without a violation of their conscientious scruples. The experiment had been already made in the case of Quakers, and others, with infinite advantage. The Quakers, the Moravians, and the Separatists, were now at liberty to come into a court of justice, and say, "I am a Quaker, or a Moravian, or a Separatist," and to give their evidence without an oath. It was supposed, that persons would not be afraid to affirm what they would be afraid to swear; but he would maintain, that no man that would deceive as a witness on affirmation, would hesitate to deceive on oath. He had pointed out a great public evil, and he had also pointed out a simple and general remedy. Under these circumstances, he objected to further delay; and he should persevere therefore with his motion, that the bill be now committed.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that if it would not be inconvenient to the noble and learned Lord to attend on a future occasion, as he collected from what the noble and learned Lord had said, it would certainly be convenient for the House to see the bill in its most perfect shape, and then to express an opinion upon it. He would not enter into an argument upon the general question, but he must say, that if any alteration were to be made in the pre-
148
sent law at all, he would much rather do away with oaths altogether, and substitute some solemn declaration. He did not see, however, how this question of oaths, being a burthen upon men's consciences, could be treated, except upon the most extensive grounds. It affected the highest as well as the lowest; it touched the coronation oath, and the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. However, with their Lordships' permission, he would withdraw his amendment, and let the bill pass through Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it was perfectly true, that on a former occasion he had expressed an opinion that a bill of this nature might be, with propriety, applied to certain persons who had been Quakers, Moravians, or Separatists, but who had separated themselves from those classes, while they still had this feeling with regard to an oath. But he never thought of extending the privilege to all mankind. He must remark, that the judges of the land had not given an opinion in favour of this bill, and the judges, who were in the constant habit of hearing evidence, ought to be the persons, above all others, who were competent to form an opinion upon its merits. He would certainly vote against the bill, unless it were known that it was the opinion of the judges of the land that the bill ought to pass; because, on such a subject, his opinion would be governed by theirs. A noble Lord, connected with Scotland, had expressed a desire to have the opinion of the judges of Scotland on the subject; and another noble Lord, connected with Ireland, had stated a wish to be made acquainted with the sentiments of the Irish judges on this question. It was, indeed, a question connected with the administration of justice, upon which the judges were more competent to form an opinion than any other persons. For his own part he would not, before he knew the opinion of the judges of this country, give his assent to a measure which might deprive justice of its main foundation—its truth.
Lord Denmanwas extremely sorry to trouble their Lordships so often, but he had communicated on the subject of his bill with all the noble Lords in that House who filled, or who had filled, judicial situations; and with one exception, Lord Wynford, who had some doubts, they were all favourable to the principle of the measure. He had not entirely neglected, therefore,

149
to ascertain what were the opinions of those who might be supposed competent to form a correct judgment on this question. If, however, the noble Duke contended that this bill ought to be submitted to the judges at large, and that its fate should rest upon their decision, that, he apprehended, was a novelty in the practice of legislation. For his own part, he contended that their Lordships, who exercised a presiding care over justice—and he called upon them to do so as a matter of duty—were bound to decide whether the persons to whom this bill related, should or should not, be kept out of the pale of the law. He did not exactly know in what situation the House now stood. He had understood the noble Lord to say, that he would withdraw his motion; but the noble Duke said, that he would oppose the bill. Having, however, taken up the bill from a sense of public duty, he felt that it was a duty to the public not to abandon it; and he should therefore persevere in his motion, that the bill be now committed.
Lord Broughamsubmitted, that the House was bound, out of respect to the Select Committee to whom the bill had been referred, to allow the bill to be considered in a Committee of the whole House. This course would be much the more convenient, and would not, in the least, damage the opposition to the bill. He should therefore suggest, that without further delay, the bill should go through Committee. Perhaps something would be done in Committee, which might remove the objections now entertained to the bill.
Their Lordships went into Committee.
The Earl of Haddingtonrose to move, as an amendment on clause 1,—first, that its provisions should not extend to Scotland. In that country, an oath was administered in the most solemn manner. It was administered by the judge who presided, amid profound silence, and each individual, holding up his right hand to heaven, swore by the Almighty himself, and as he should answer to God at the great day of judgment. The people of that country had a most profound veneration for an oath. He was, however, sorry to learn that false swearing had of late become more common in Scotland than it had been; and he was apprehensive that the affirmation would be taken advantage of by all persons in Scotland who were unwilling or immoral witnesses, who would
150
be afraid to take that oath, but had not that moral feeling which told them that the essence of an oath lay in its truth.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill went through the Committee, and was reported.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRE-LAND).
On the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill being read,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had been requested by several noble Lords on his side of the House, to submit to the consideration of their Lordships, on going into Committee on the bill, certain material and important amendments, and he thought it would be most convenient in this stage of the proceeding, and before going into Committee, both from the nature of the measure, and the character of those amendments, that he should now generally state their nature, in order, that their Lordships might view them in connexion one with the other, and be better able to judge of their propriety, when the amendments came on successively in Committee. He was perfectly sensible of the demands generally upon their Lordships' time, and at this period of the claims upon their Lordships' hospitality, and he therefore assured the House, that in what he was about to state, he would endeavour to compress that which he had to communicate within the narrowest possible compass. His noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), in the last Session of Parliament, had stated to their Lordships, that he conceived, from the prospect of a bill for the settlement of Irish tithes being probably passed, and also from the circumstance that it was probable that a bill for the purpose of granting relief to the poor in Ireland, would likewise be passed into a law, that a very considerable portion of the difficulties of the measure now under their Lordships' consideration would, by the passing of the two bills to which he had adverted, be removed. The noble Viscount, at the head of her Majesty's Government at that time, expressed his satisfaction at the communication then made by the noble Duke, but, at the same time, took occasion to state to their Lordships, that he did not distinctly see what connexion there was between the question of tithes, and the question of granting Municipal Corporations to Ireland. He believed, that if the noble Viscount did

151
not see the connexion, the noble Viscount was the only individual in the House who did not. For several years, the subject of Irish tithes had created great agitation in Ireland, where persons, from time to time, had been most active in their opposition to them; and it was considered, by every person acquainted with the history of Ireland, that the Municipal Corporations established in that country were, for the most part, so established, to protect the Protestant religion and the Protestant Church, in that part of the United Kingdom. And it was also considered by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and by him, to be of great importance that these barriers of protection should not be removed, and that it was even of still more importance, that in removing those barriers (if at all), corporations of a different character should not be established, until at least the important question of Irish tithes should be set at rest. He imagined that his noble Friend felt this when he made the remarks which the noble Viscount opposite on the occasion in question had adverted to. Now, at the present moment, their Lordships had the prospect, that the question with respect to tithes in Ireland, would come to some settlement; and with respect to the other measure, which had been mentioned by his noble Friend—he meant the Poor Relief Bill for Ireland, a measure which connected itself with the subject in a very important way—he presumed he might consider it as passed. In order to establish corporations in Ireland, in which he and others would be disposed to place confidence, it was necessary to have a secure and substantial qualification, and it was idle to talk of a qualification of 10 l. value, unless there was something devised to put that value to the test. When he said it was idle to talk of a 10 l. value, without some test, he need only refer their Lordships to the evidence taken before the select committee of the other House of Parliament, on the subject of fictitious votes, to show how little reliance could be placed on a qualification of that description, unless it was marked and checked by something else, and therefore it had no doubt been considered by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) that the Irish Poor-law Bill established a system of rating in that country, which would afford a sufficient check and test of the amount of the qualification, and give a security to this country
152
and to the people of Ireland, that the qualification should not be merely nominal, but should answer the purposes intended. Now, these two great measures to which he had alluded—the Irish Tithe Bill, and the Irish Poor Relief Bill—though not actually passed, were now in progress. With regard to one of these bills, he had expressed his opinion some time since, and he had seen nothing in its progress to induce him to alter those opinions: but when he had found they were but little consistent with those entertained by the majority of the House, he did not now think it necessary further to press them upon their Lordships. He, therefore, would say nothing further on that measure, except that it gave the test of rating, which could be well applied to the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill now under their Lordships' consideration, and gave the security of a good and substantial qualification. These were the only general observations which he intended to make, and he now therefore came at once to the statement of the amendments which it was his intention to submit to the House; and in doing so, he should not go out of his way to state a single fact or circumstance, except only such as were necessary to render the amendments intelligible. Now, in the first place, it would be found, that the bill had two schedules, A. and B. Schedule A contained a list of eleven cities and towns, each of which contained, not only a considerable, but a very extensive population; it would be found, also, that every one of them had already corporations possessing large amounts of property. There was no intention, therefore, on his, (Lord Lyndhurst's) side of the House, to make any exception whatever in granting corporations to the cities and towns enumerated in schedule A, according to the conditions ultimately to be settled in the bill. But when their Lordships came to schedule B, they would find a numerous list of towns of a very different class and character from those contained in schedule A; and that it was so considered by the framers of the bill was manifest, from the circumstance of those towns being inserted in a separate and distinct schedule. The towns in schedule B differed from those in schedule A, not only in population, but also in the fact, that very few of them possessed property to any amount; indeed, many of them possessed no property whatever, and it had occurred

153
to him, and to other noble Lords, that it would be unjust to force on them corporations, which, under all the provisions contained in this bill, could not be imposed without being followed by very heavy charges. It was on this account he thought that corporations ought not, by the operation of this bill, to be imposed on those towns, but that it should be left to the inhabitants of the towns themselves to apply, if they thought proper, to the Crown, for the purpose of having charters granted to them, corresponding in form with the provisions of this bill. For the purpose of doing this, it was intended to propose, by way of amendment, that if the majority of the rated inhabitants holding property to the amount to be named in the bill thought proper to apply to the Crown for charters corresponding with those which would be conferred by this bill, it should be optional in the Crown to grant such charters. He, and noble Lords with whom he acted, thought also, that a certain time should be limited, within which such application should be made, and if, at the expiration of that time, no application was made, that then the present existing corporations in those towns should cease and terminate, and that the management of their pecuniary affairs, and the performance of other necessary duties to be provided for, should be vested in commissioners, not to be appointed by the Crown, or in the terms of the former bill, but to be elected by the majority of those who, under this bill, would be entitled to vote in the election of corporate officers, if a corporation had been granted. These were the first amendments which it was his intention to propose, and he did not think, nor had he reason to expect, on the part of the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that any objection would be made to these proposals. The reason why he thought so was, because these propositions were a mere repetition of those made in the other House of Parliament, and had not been objected to at the time, though finally they were not adopted, from the circumstance of more material amendments having been rejected by the other House. Passing that over, he now came to the second and more material amendment—that which related to qualification, and which was in fact the only essential amendment in the bill. He had to propose that the qualification in Ireland should be similar to that which had been
154
adopted for Scotland—viz, the occupancy of a house of the annual value of 10 l. He had already said it would be idle to do nothing further than to say, that every person occupying a house of the annual value of 10 l. should have the right of voting, because it was known, that such a qualification would be illusory, as shown in the evidence taken before the select committee on fictitious votes. He would not go into any detail of that evidence, because most of their Lordships had either read it or had been informed by other means of its nature and character. He, therefore, would only select the evidence of one witness, Mr. Long, of the city of Cork, and he rather referred to the evidence of that gentleman because it was the evidence of a person beyond all exception, inasmuch as not only was he not a Conservative, but of the politics of Her Majesty's present Government. From his testimony it appeared that to intitle a person to vote for corporate officers in the city of Cork he must pay taxes upon a house to the value of 5l. and upwards, and that a large number, indeed a large multitude of persons, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of those imposts and municipal duties, declared upon their oaths that their property was under the value of 5l. and yet these same persons afterwards registered as 10 l. householders, in order to enable them to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament; so that when the payment of money was concerned the property was sworn to be under the value of 5l., but when it came to the registration to vote, the same property was sworn to be of the value of 10 l. This it appeared from the evidence, occurred in innumerable instances, and cases had occurred of this description—persons rated at more than 5l. had appealed against the rate; the appeal had been allowed, and the rate reduced below 5l. and yet those very persons had afterwards registered out of the same property as 10 l. householders. What reliance, then, was to be placed on the qualification under this bill, unless some test was applied as to the value of the house? Again there was a large class of persons possessing property under the value of 10 l. who gained considerable advantages with regard to Excise licences, and upwards of 200 persons had obtained licences because their houses were stated to be under 5l. value; and yet of 211 individuals who had so ob-

155
tained licences, 92 had registered as 10 l. householders in order to get the Parliamentary franchise. He would not go further into details; he only mentioned these circumstances as instances of which an abundance might be found in the mass of evidence taken before the committee to which he had alluded. Therefore it was, that he contended that some test was necessary, and that the only test for real security was the test of rating, in which a pecuniary interest was involved,—there was the interest to avoid being rated too high: he therefore knew no better test, and he should propose to limit the qualification, not to a house of 10 l. value merely, but of 10 l. value as proved by the rating. Then there still remained another question—viz., what should be the rate and what the amount of rating. A bonâ fide 10 l. value was what he contended ought to be the qualification; but then he had to inquire what was a house of 10 l. value. He held a house of 10 l. value to be a house that would give to the landlord a 10 l. rent, the landlord paying all such charges as were necessary to enable him to command such a rent. He did not mean the value of the repairs in any year, but the average of the repairs necessary to enable the landlord to command a rent of 10 l. An article was valued by the price it would sell for; so he would value a house by the rent it would let for, deducting that which might be necessary to keep the premises, so as to fetch that rent. He apprehended therefore that he stated it clearly and fairly, when he said, that the test must show that the qualification was a house which, when let to a tenant year by year, the tenant paying the usual charges, would bring the landlord 10 l. in the shape of rent, after he had paid the average charges necessary to keep that house in repair. He hoped he made himself understood, for this was the principal, the basis of the whole of his amendments. Now, he proposed to check the value by the rating, and it still remained to consider the nature of the rating, and to see if the value under it corresponded with the definition of rating which he had given. Now a bill had been passed two or three years ago with respect to rating in England, and under that bill the estimate of value corresponded with the description he had given to their Lordships. He alluded to Mr. Poulett Scrope's bill, and that mea-
156
sure, as worked under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners, took the value thus—viz., what a tenement would let for from year to year, the tenant paying the usual charges, and deducting from that rent the amount of those repairs and insurances which were paid by the landlord, and which enabled him to command the rent. But there was still another proposition to be taken into account, and that was the rating under the Irish Poor Relief Bill, which was worded differently from the bill to which he had referred. He would not go into details, because it was difficult clearly to communicate them; but the result was this:—that the results of the rating under the Poor Relief Bill were in substance precisely the same as under Mr. Poulett Scrope's bill; therefore with the rating under the Poor Relief Bill the clear yearly value of the tenement could be accurately ascertained. If he had made himself intelligible, there was only one remaining point, but it was a most material and important point, and one on which the whole question turned. In England the Parliamentary franchise was fixed at the yearly value of 10 l. In Ireland it was the same, and in Scotland the same, and 10 l. also in Scotland was the municipal franchise. That principle had not been adopted with respect to the municipal franchise in England, but that he left out of the account. Now, in the application of the Parliamentary franchise in England, the revising barristers have never, except in one or two instances, deducted for the landlord's repairs; the consequence had been, that the value of a 10 l. tenement in England was less than the clear annual value to which he had referred. He did not think the revising barristers had done right, but, however, in Ireland the uniform practice had been to throw the items for repairs and insurances in favour of the franchise. Now, what had been the arguments used in another place? Why, it had been said, "Will you raise the value in Ireland higher than that which is practically the value in England?" He would not stand up in favour of any such a proposition; but he maintained, that they must take the practical rating here and apply it to Ireland, and, therefore, what he proposed was to make the estimate of the value in Ireland correspond with that of England in this way—he would add to the rated

157
value the amount of the landlord's repairs and insurances, as stated on the face of the rate, and he should say, that the 10 l. value would be measured by the aggregate of those three sums, and thus it was demonstrable to anybody who had considered this bill, that the value in Ireland would correspond with the practical value here in this country. He did not know whether he had conveyed his meaning clearly, for it required the most minute inspection, and a vast deal of consideration, of the various bills to which he had alluded, to understand the point; but he was satisfied, that any noble Lord who would take the trouble to devote a careful attention to those bills, would find the result to be such as he had stated. He had now, perhaps, better read the terms of his amendment in this respect. He proposed first to raise the amount of the qualification to 10 l. Next, to provide the manner in which that 10 l. value was to be measured. The first question, therefore, would be, would their Lordships accede to raise the value to 10 l; and the next point would be, whether or not the House was of opinion that the mode in which he proposed to take the value was a correct and proper mode. The clause, after fixing the value at 10 l., would run on to enact, that "such yearly value be determined in the manner following, that is to say, that it should be composed of the net annual value rated to the relief of the poor, of the amount of the sum of the landlord's repairs, and paid for insurances, as estimated and stated in such rates." Their Lordships would, of course, be aware, that by an amendment moved by a noble Friend of his, there was a schedule in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill defining the form of the rating, and that in one column there was the rated value, and in another, the estimated amount of landlord's repairs, and in a third, the amount of insurance, so that the matter would not be left in ambiguo, for the Poor-law Commissioners under the bill would appoint their own valuers; the rating would be under their directions; and, therefore, the persons who would have to decide upon the qualification would have no other duty to discharge than to take and add together the three sums to which he had referred. [Lord Brougham: Will you read your clause again.] He would state its purport again. The amendment would provide, that the
158
yearly value of 10 l. would be ascertained, estimated, and determined in this manner: that the persons exercising the qualification would take the amount of the rating of the tenement, and to that amount of rating add what appeared in one column as the estimate for landlords' repairs, and from the third column the amount for insurances, and if those three sums amounted to 10 l., it would constitute a tenement of the clear annual value of 10 l., which would entitle the party to vote. There would thus be DO room for fraud, for he should provide, that the revising or assistant barrister should sit with the magistrates of the county at the revision, and that they should decide on the validity or otherwise of the qualification. Repeating what he had already stated, he contended, that the result of this arrangement would be to make the valuation in Ireland correspond with what the revising barristers in England had decided was the test of value. In short, it would make the valuation under the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill correspond with the valuation for the Parliamentary franchise in England. These were the amendments which he meant to propose, and in doing so he begged to be considered as the mere organ to submit them to the House. They did not originate with him alone—they were the result of much consideration, and he had been requested (and it was impossible that he could refuse) to submit them for their Lordships' consideration. There was, however, another amendment which it was also his intention to move, with reference to trustees. There were in Ireland many charities which had been endowed for Protestant purposes, and he intended to propose an amendment to the effect, that none but Protestants should be concerned in the administration of those trusts. He should also propose, that for the maintenance of the peace of those towns and boroughs, and for all purposes of police, the constabulary shall be employed as in London and elsewhere; for that purpose he should move, that the clause relating to watchmen and a watch-rate should be expunged from the bill. Again, there was another alteration in the bill which he thought essential—he meant as to the boundaries of the corporate towns. There was a bill on this subject now in the other House of Parliament, founded on the report of the Commissioners. He did not think it right

159
to take the chance of that bill being passed into a law, and, therefore, he meant, in a schedule, to set out the boundaries as stated in the report of the Boundary Commissioners, and, as he believed the bill in the other House corresponded, with one exception only, to that report, there would be no objection to that amendment. Their Lordships would also feel, that it would be necessary to provide for the discharge of the various duties in, and the management of property belonging to, towns now corporate, and to which corporations would not be granted under this bill as amended, according to his plan, and for that purpose he proposed to vest those duties in commissioners, to be elected in the manner he had already pointed out. The House would scarcely be aware, from this statement, what a variety of details these alterations would embrace; the points themselves were very simple, but the alterations were of a most extensive character; and what he would now suggest was, that the House should enter now upon the first amendment—namely, as to the number of towns to which the bill is to apply, and afterwards to enter upon the question of the qualification, and then that the amendments consequent upon these changes should be printed. He, therefore, did not object now to going into Committee. He believed, that he had kept the promise he had made at the outset, and had not attempted to deviate from that which he considered necessary to show the nature of the amendments. When in Committee, he should move the first amendment to which he had called their Lordships' attention.
Viscount Gortobserved, that as the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down had said, that no person on his side of the House had any objection to schedule A of the bill, he rose to state his opposition to it. It grieved him much to differ on this question from his noble Friend the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Wellington), and from his noble and learned Friend who had last addressed the House; and it was with great pain and reluctance, that he rose to oppose their view of the subject. His noble Friends appeared to him to be reduced to this dilemma, that they must either admit and confess, that the view taken by them when this matter was last debated was erroneous—that the fears
160
and apprehensions they entertained of this bill being passed into a law were idle and futile—that the eloquence then displayed, was only a sow for them to grapple with, or else they must admit, that Ireland was now in a different situation, from that she held when this measure was last under the consideration of the House. With regard to the present state of Ireland, he would only adopt the opinion expressed by the noble Duke near him at the commencement of the present session. The noble Duke, too, said, that, bad as Ireland was at that period, it was now in an infinitely worse condition; and, therefore, if this bill was dangerous last year, it must be doubly dangerous at the present moment. But now his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) came for ward with a kind of compromise and said, that the large towns should have municipal corporations, and that the small towns should be excluded. Why, the whole danger of these municipal corporations would be in the large towns, many of which were counties within themselves, enjoying separate jurisdictions, with extensive patronage and large estates to dispose of. He could not believe his noble and learned Friend to be serious, when he thought, that the objects of the Tithe Bill and the Poor Relief Bill justified the dereliction of principle which his noble Friend had just avowed. Look at the effects of this bill in large towns. By the charter of the city of Limerick the Mayor was constituted the principle judge of assize, and must of necessity at present be approved of by the Lord-lieutenant and the Privy Council before he could act, but there was no such provision in this bill, and the great probability was, that a Roman Catholic, or what he thought still worse, a Radical Protestant, might come to be Mayor; the sheriffs would be the same, and as a matter of course the juries also. What chance, then, would a Protestant have of getting possession of his property by an action of ejectment, for they would turn round and say, that the treaty of Limerick had been forfeited? But he might be told, that an appeal would lie to this House. He, however, was not sure their Lordships' appellate jurisdiction would long survive, for they were granting concession after concession, the last step of the ladder would be reached by this bill, and the wall of the constitution would be thrown down and the repeal of the union brought about by

161
this aid. He must ask their Lordships if they were prepared to legislate with the sword over their heads, and Mr. O'Connell and his mob assembled on the Curragh for the purpose of coercing them. Why was a different principle adopted in legislating for Canada, and in legislating for Ireland? In Canada the constitution had been taken out of the hands of the rebel Catholics, and placed in those of the Protestants, while indirectly the reverse course was pursued by this bill. He wished the House, at least, to be consistent. He did not desire to give the upper hand in Ireland, to either the one party or the other, but admitted as it had been by his noble and learned Friend, that corporations in Ireland, had been established to protect the Protestant religion in that country, why should the power be given to the Roman Catholics, as would be the case under this bill? He repeated, that he desired, that neither should have the ascendancy, but would rather, that the present corporations, should, as last session had been proposed, be abolished altogether and thrown into the hands of the Crown. With these views he called upon his noble and learned Friend, to withdraw the proposition he had just made, and resume that fine manly tone of resistance, which last year he had exhibited against this bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that nothing could have been more fair and candid than the course which had been taken by the noble and learned Lord opposite: It was impossible, that the noble and learned Lord could have executed the task which had devolved upon him, in a more clear and dispassionate manner. He believed, that in referring back to what had taken place last session, and in adverting to what had fallen from the noble Duke opposite, and from him, the noble and learned Lord had correctly stated both the expressions and the import of the observations which both had made. It was not his intention now to go back, to ascertain whether he were right, or whether he were wrong, in the observations he had then offered, because it was unnecessary to advert to by-gone differences, as there seemed to be some disposition, to come to a general agreement on the whole subject. The noble and learned Lord had stated exactly the amendments which he meant to propose. With respect to the first amendment, and as to the alterations in respect
162
of the towns specified in the second schedule of the bill, he would not go into them further than to say, that it appeared to him, that a great number of those towns were of sufficient magnitude and population to require to be governed by that which was admitted to be best for such purposes—he meant a corporate body; and with respect to leaving it to the population of the other lesser towns to apply for charters of incorporation, he must observe, that it would not be the same thing to them to grant them at once, or to leave the matter to be asked and applied for. There might be many reasons why a charter would not be asked, there were many matters which might stand in the way of an application, and on the other hand, it would be more beneficial to them that the charter should be granted in the first instance. But the great and most material amendment propounded by the noble and learned Lord, was that which had reference to an alteration of the qualification. As it at present stood in the bill, the qualification was fixed at a 5l. house, exclusive of charges which the noble and learned Lord threw in and joined with his 10 l. qualification. Now, he presumed they all had the same object in view, that of giving municipal corporations fairly, and in such manner, as would give satisfaction and contentment to all parties; that they should not give amongst a great body of inhabitants a corporation either of an oligarchical or an aristocratic character; that the power should not be placed in a few hands, which, so far from giving satisfaction, would only lead to a renewal, a re-opening, and a re-agitation of this question. Meaning, therefore, on all sides to settle this subject, the plan to be pursued, he apprehended, should be that which really would be satisfactory, and all this would depend on the nature of the qualification, the number admitted, and the number excluded. If the number admitted was small, no satisfaction or settlement would follow. The noble and learned Lord admitted, that the qualification in Ireland ought not to be higher than it was in England. Now, he would take leave to ask, whether, considering the relative situation of the two countries, their relative condition as to wealth and poverty, it was really fair, that the qualification should be of the same value? It ought to be considered how far the same qualification that suited a wealthy country was

163
applicable to a poor country. He would not, however, discuss the matter further until the House went into Committee, and the amendment came regularly under consideration. Those amendments, involving rents and rates, and value, were rather puzzling, and it was not very easy to steer clearly through them, until details were arrived at, as they would be in Committee. Then it certainly would be matter for serious consideration, whether the qualification as sent up from the other House of Parliament, and as it stood now in the bill, was not the best that could be devised, and whether it would not be both wise and prudent to adhere to it.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it was most gratifying to him to see that the differences of opinion which had existed on the subject, were now, in so great a measure, removed. From what had transpired here now, and elsewhere formerly, he presumed, that the point of difference was narrowed to the question of franchise. That being the case he should be exceedingly sorry if the present Session were allowed to terminate without such an arrangement of the subject as would insure to Ireland the benefits of municipal reform. Not having heard the proposals intended to be made Until he heard them to-night, it was possible he might have misunderstood his noble and learned Friend; but if he were not mistaken, there appeared to be no great difference between the opinions of his noble and learned Friend, and those he entertained on this subject. He held that the establishment of a 5l. franchise would, in itself, be monstrous, and in that the Government must acquiesce, when they, in framing the Poor-law Bill, provided that a person possessed of so small a property as a 5l. value, was of so low a description as to be entitled to be freed from the payment of all rates under that bill. Ministers having acted so, was it possible that they would now, in attempting to carry this bill, require that the 5l. franchise should be maintained? From everything that had taken place elsewhere, as well as from the good sense of the noble Lords opposite, he was led to hope, that they would not make a stand upon this point. The only question which remained as to this bill was, how the 10 l. qualification was to be formed. He confessed, that what he considered a bonâ fide 10 l. qualification, which was the same as that which qualified persons to vote for
164
Members of Parliament, was not to be retained with the addition of the rating under the Poor-law Bill, because the effect of that would be to raise the franchise higher than it was in England and Scotland. It was admitted by all who had taken part in the discussions on this subject, that such a qualification should not be required. If the same description of qualification which existed as regarded the voters under the Reform Bill in Ireland should be adopted with the additional taxation under the Poor-law Bill, it would raise the qualification higher than any one party wished it to be. His noble and learned Friend had shown, that was not what he wanted, but that, as it appeared to him, the rating to the poor, the amount of repairs and insurance, should be added to make up the qualification; but he feared, that it would be difficult to arrive at a perfect knowledge of what the landlords paid for repairs and insurances. He confessed, that he preferred what he considered to be a bonâ fide qualification, a fixed amount, because, then there would be no difficulty in arriving at the reasons for registering individuals. He wished to see a qualification laid down, about which there could be no mistake; that was to say, if it were nominally below 10 l., and if such an amount was capable of being made out by those expenses on the premises, whether paid by landlord or tenant, which must be paid, and also the rating under the Poor-law Bill, it would amount to a bonâ fide qualification. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that the number of towns mentioned in Schedules A and B was too large, but he was also of opinion that the number in Schedule A alone was too small. His anxious wish had been to see all those towns which at the time of the union were considered to be of sufficient size to return Members to Parliament, should at once have Municipal Corporations given to them, and that all the other towns in Schedule B should have the power of applying for the institution of corporations with the consent of a majority of their inhabitants. Upon that point he imagined that there could be very little difference of opinion among their Lordships, and should that point be so settled, there would be then little or no difference on the further arrangements of the bill. He must say, that he felt some objection to one proposition which he understood

165
his noble and learned Friend to make, namely, that for depriving the municipal bodies of the power of appointing their own constables and watch. He trusted the noble Viscount would allow the amendments to be printed before any further proceedings took place, that their Lordships might have a fair opportunity of considering them, and he also trusted, that their Lordships would come to the consideration of the bill with a desire to bring the question to a satisfactory settlement.
Lord Portmansuggested, that the net annual value being ascertained, certain deductions should be made from it. In considering whether the sum was 8l. 5s., or 10 l., it was most important that the House should recollect that the object was to get rid of this question, that it might not be perpetually brought before their Lordships. He begged to remind their Lordships that the franchise laid down by the 9th of George 4th, which was an Irish act relating to the lighting and watching of the towns of Ireland, every 5l. occupier was a rated inhabitant. If they decided, that only a certain number of towns should have charters under this bill, and that certain other towns should have them by the choice of a majority of the inhabitants, they should take care that they did not hold out inducements to those towns to prefer the 9th of George 4th, to that bill which they were about to pass, a preference which their Lordships could scarcely wish to see given.
Lord Lyndhursthad thought it better, before going into Committee, to state his general views of the subject, and he now thought it would be better to go into Committee at once, than to discuss the points which would still remain to be contested in Committee.
House went into Committee.
On Clause 4,
Lord Lyndhurst proposed to insert, after the words, "in any borough," the words "in the said Schedule A."
The Marquess of Lansdowneinquired, whether the noble and learned Lord intended to have two distinct Schedules? He apprehended, that the first thing to be decided was, the manner in which the towns were to be enfranchised, and next, how many?
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the sole question was, whether a portion, or the whole of the towns in the two Schedules was to be
166
taken. The amendment, it was clear, bad reference to Schedule A, which was at the end of the bill, and it would be competent for any noble Lord to take any town out of it, or to put others into it. His object was, that some of the towns in Schedule B, should not have corporations forced upon them, as it were, by this bill.
Amendment agreed to.
On Clause 6,
Lord Lyndhurstproposed to strike out the words, "rated to the relief of the poor," for the purpose of adding after the words "of the—" the words "yearly value of not less than 10 l., to be ascertained and determined as hereinafter mentioned." The operative words he proposed were—"and that such yearly value be ascertained and determined in manner following and not otherwise; that is to say, such value shall be composed of the net annual value of the premises occupied by the persons, and rated as they are hereby required under an act passed for the relief of the poor in the present Session of Parliament, and of the landlord's repairs and insurance, as estimated and stated in such rate."
Viscount Melbourneshould certainly take the sense of the House on that amendment.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, the landlord was obliged to keep his tenements in a necessary state of repair, in order to command a rent for them. The principle was the principle of rating laid down in Poulett Scrope's bill, and that principle would be the test of value under the Irish Poor-law bill. He merely proposed to make the value in Ireland conform to that which was the practical value in England. Whatever dues were paid by either landlord or tenant, the question was, what was the value of the property let by the landlord? What did it fetch in the market? The rent paid by the tenant might include all rates and taxes which were actually paid by the landlord, and all other expenses were included in the qualification, which, according to the phrase of Poulett Scrope's bill, were necessary to enable the landlord to command the rent.
The Marquess of Lansdownethought the plan would operate very unequally.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that it was proposed that the franchise should be 10 l., estimated and tested as it was in England, and placed on the same footing as the

167
parliamentary franchise in England. What more could be required?
Lord Plunkettsaid, the bill, in its original form, would give the franchise to a large class of persons in Ireland, who ought to be in possession of it; not to a mob as they had been styled, but to a class of not unrespectable persons. He considered that the 5l. franchise was not too low, and he should therefore support the bill in the shape in which it had come up from the other House.
Their Lordships divided on the amendment:—Contents 96; Not Contents 36:—Majority 60.

List of the CONTENTS.

Rutland

Reay

Dorset

Middleton

Wellington

Sondes

Tweedale

Boston

Salisbury

Bagot

Hertford

Camden (Earl of Brecknock)

Bute

Westmeath

Southampton

Devon

Grantley

Shaftesbury

Carteret

Abingdon

Montagu

Morton

Kenyon

Home

Braybroke

Dartmouth

Gage

Harrington

Stewart of Garlies (Earl of Galloway)

Warwick

Hardwick

Saltersford (Courtoun)

De Lawarr

Bathurst

Calthorpe

Talbot

Rolle

Liverpool

Bolton

Mountcashel

Wodehouse

Wicklow

Northwick

Bandon

Dunsany

Rosslyn

Carbery

Wilton

Clonbrock

Charleville

Alvanley

Harrowby

Redesdale

Harewood

Ellenborongh

Verulam

Sandys

Glengall

Dalhousie

Eldon

Meldrum (Marquess of Huntley)

Cawdor

Ripon

Colchester

Arbuthnot

Glenlyon

Strathallan

Ravensworth

Hawarden

Rayleigh

Doneraile

Downes

St. Vincent

Bexley.

Melville

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

Gort

Beresford

Wharncliffe

Combermere

Lyndhurst

Clinton

Melrose (Earl of Hadington)

Willoughby de Broke

St. John

Cowley

Saltoun

Heytesbury

Colville

Clanwilliam

168

De Lisle

Bangor

Ashburton

Carlisle

BISHOPS.

Glocester

London

Paired off.

CONTENT.

NOT CONTENT.

St. David's (Bishop of)

Hereford (Bishop of)

Albemarle

Sheffield

Belhaven

Eglintoun

Westminster

Clare

Barham

Skelmersdale

Shrewsbury

Churchill

Carlisle

Lonsdale

Meath

Thomond

De Mauley

Tankerville

Dacre

Moray

Suffield

Jersey

Clifford

De Grey

Radnor

Aylesford

Gardner

Kinnoull

Crewe

Hereford

Sutherland

Camden

Denman

Manners

Breadalbane

Aberdeen

Byron

Fitzgerald

Conyngham

Mansfield

Clanricarde

Buccleuch

Bowden

Limerick

Roxburghe

Maryborough

Kinnaird

Leven

Sligo

Beauchamp

Rosebery

Selkirk

Burlington

Brownlow

Dormer

Malmesbury

Strafford

Belmore

Petre

Carnarvon

Wellesley

Mount Edgecumbe

Zetland

Macclesfield

Essex

Powis

Bateman

Sidmouth

Derry (Bishop of)

Ormonde

Cowper

Sydney

Uxbridge

Forester

Wrottesley

Bradford

Brougham

Canning

Argyll

Lothian

Segrave

Howe

Lilford

Falmouth

Howard de Walden

Stuart de Rothesay

Dinorben

Paulett

Ducie

Beaufort

Viscount Melbournestated, that as he considered the opinion of the House to have been decidedly expressed by the late division, it was not his intention to occupy their Lordships' time by taking any farther division in regard to the qualification.
The Marquess of Lansdowneconcurred with his noble Friend near him, in the inexpediency of taking any further division in regard to the qualification; but even admitting, that the qualification in the bill, as sent up from the other House was not

169
exactly that which ought to be adopted, still he considered, that that which the noble and learned Lord had proposed to substitute was not the best, and that the mode proposed for ascertaining the value was liable to serious objections, and would act very unequally.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Lord Lyndhurstthen said, that as his two principal amendments had been disposed of, he would propose to print the others, and to take the discussion on them on the consideration of the report. Such, he conceived to be the most advisable course, as sufficient time would then be given to allow those amendments to be fully considered by their Lordships.
The Marquess of Lansdownebegged to ask the noble and learned Lord what he proposed to do with the schedules.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he proposed to retain schedule A and omit schedule B, and it would then be competent for any noble Lord to propose to add to or to take from schedule A such towns as they might see fit. The question would then be opened as to what towns the provisions of the bill should be extended to. By the qualification he had proposed a constituency would be given to some of the towns of not less than 16,000 persons, and in none would the constituency be less than about 700, whereas in many of the towns in England the constituency was so low as from 200 to 300. He would state the authority on which that calculation was made when they discussed the question on the bringing up of the report. His next amendment related to trustees, and in regard to trustees he proposed, that no Catholic should be appointed a trustee for Protestant purposes.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaw no objection to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and the only question about which there could be any difficulty was, what were to be considered "Protestant purposes."
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, his next amendment related to the watch. He proposed to omit all the clauses relating to watching and to make the constabulary force the only police force in the different towns to which the operation of the bill would extend, thus placing the appointment and control of the police in the hands of the Government. Then, again, he proposed, that the clauses of the Boundary Bill should be introduced into a
170
schedule of the bill, instead of having a separate bill on that subject. Such were the chief amendments which he intended to propose, and, if their Lordships agreed with him in opinion, he should move, that they be printed.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed, bill, with amendments, reported.