Sitting of 4 March 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Real Property Conveyance.
2° Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland); Registrar of Metropolitan Public Carriages; Turnpike Road and Bridge Trusts (Ireland); Titles of Religious Congregations (Scotland).

PRUSSIA AND DENMARK.
MR. SANDARSrose to put a question to the noble Lord opposite. He had given notice of his intention to put this question to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or in his absence to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and not observing the Foreign Secretary in his place, he hoped he should receive a reply from the First Lord of the Treasury. He wished to know whether an answer had been received from Her Majesty's Ministers at Frankfort and Berlin, in reply to the proposal of the Danish Government to renew the armistice on certain conditions, if those
314
conditions had been acceded to? If not, whether this provisional state of peace or war depending on six weeks' notice on either side, was to be suffered to continuo, on the part of England, to the serious hindrance and prejudice of the trade and commerce of the united kingdom? Having also seen it stated in the sources of public information, that an armistice had been agreed on between Prussia and Denmark, he wished to know whether the Government had any official information on the subject, and if they had, what were the terms and conditions?
LORD J. RUSSELL(in the absence of Viscount Palmerstou) replied, that he did not think any official information had been received of a new armistice. But the negotiations for peace were still going on.
MR. SANDARSdeclared himself dissatisfied with this answer; and gave notice that utdess the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs was in his place on the following day to answer his question, he should move the adjournment of the House for an hour, in order that he might make his appearance.
LORD J. RUSSELLwished to know from the hon. Member whether be intended to put this question in the form in which it stood on the paper?
MR. SANDARSreplied in the affirmative.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONafter a short period entered the House.
MR. SANDARS, seeing the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) in his place, begged to repeat the question of which he had given notice. It had been stated that an armistice had been agreed upon, and he wished to know whether the noble Lord had any information on the subject, and what was the nature of such armistice?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sorry to say that the report to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded is premature, and that the statement is not correct. No armistice—that is, no renewal of the armistice—has as yet been agreed upon between Denmark on the one hand, and Frankfort and Berlin on the other. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the three parties concerned, with the view of obtaining a fixed prolongation of the armistice, as well as with the view of obtaining a final settlement of the dispute; but as yet nothing definitive has been settled with regard to the armistice. The hon. Gentleman, and the House, under these circumstances, will not expect

315
me to go into the detail of the difficulties which prevent the renewal of the armistice; but I may state that the armistice continues de facto, and will continue, until either one party or the other gives notice of its termination. Neither of the parties has yet given notice, and I do not expect that either party has any wish, at present, to give notice of the termination of the armistice.
Subject dropped.

SCARIFF UNION.
MR. P. SCROPEbegged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he had received a letter from the guardians of the Scariff union, stating that during four weeks out of six they had been unable to give the necessary relief to the poor; that the workhouse was overcrowded, many being compelled to remain in a shelterless condition under the walls; that twenty-three persons had been seized with fever in the probationary ward in one night; that there was no milk or bread for the sick in the hospital; that some of the sick were without shirts; that the clothing of others was sadly deficient; that the sheriffs' officers had seized all the goods in the house, for debts owing by the union; and that the guardians were utterly unable to fulfil the duties enjoined on them by law. He also wished to ask the noble Lord on whom he considered the responsibility rested of relieving the poor?
LORD J. RUSSELLreplied, that he had received a letter upon this subject, which he had referred to the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland. He regretted that the returns on the subject were not as complete as it was desirable they should be; they did not enter into all the necessary particulars. It appeared, however, from such information as had reached them, that in the week ending the 16th of February, 1850, the number of persons receiving relief was 2,546, and that the persons receiving outdoor relief were not less in number than 8,000. He could only state that there was great difficulty in collecting the rates of that union; that some statements had reached him which were not consistent with the letter he had referred to; that, up to the 29th of September, the advances to that union amounted to 20,000 l.; that from the time the rate in aid had been established it had received 13,000 l., and, from the 29th of last September to the 26th of January, 2,000 l. He understood there was now a rate of 4s.
316
in the pound in the course of collection" and the inspector (Mr. O'Brien) stated that he believed an improvement was taking place in the state of the union.
MR. P. SCROPE: Would the noble Lord allow the paper to be printed from which he made this statement?
LORD J. RUSSELLhad only an abstract of papers which were now in Ireland. He should have to send for them, but he had no objection to the whole statement being laid upon the table as soon as it could be received.
Subject dropped.

GREECE.
MR. HUMEwas anxious to know the state of the political relations between this country and Greece. Much anxiety was felt on the subject, and hopes were entertained that there was to be a speedy settlement of the existing differences.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The state of affairs is this; It has been thought necessary at last to make a peremptory demand for certain reparation, for which application has long been made by this country without success; and, that demand having been refused, reprisals have been commenced, which consist in keeping in pledge certain property belonging to the adverse parties as security for the payment of these demands. These reprisals have been carried to a certain extent, and by the last return, dated, I think, on the 10th ult., I think that sufficient reprisals had been made to answer all the demands against the Greek Government. Meantime the good offices of the French Government have been offered and accepted, but the negotiator sent by the French Government had not arrived when the last accounts left. I may also state, that notwithstanding what has occurred, the diplomatic relations between this country and Greece have not been suspended. Mr. Wyse, although he has embarked on board a man of war, has continued up to the last moment in diplomatic relations with the Government of Greece; and, as a proof that no courtesy was omitted on our part, I may mention that the other day, on the anniversary of the birthday of either the King or the Queen, I forget which, our fleet saluted with all the honours on the occasion.

GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that a few days ago the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, in reply to a ques-

317
tion as to the government of Western Australia, had contended that, notwithstanding the expiration of the Act of Parliament, power still remained to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the colony. The hon. and learned Gentleman had then rather humorously added, that taxation was generally admitted to be one of the essentials of good government. He (Sir F. Thesiger) now wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether that was an opinion formed after careful consideration, or whether it was an off-hand answer to an unexpected question; and also whether his hon. and learned Friend adhered to the opinion he had expressed?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not his habit to give opinions by which he was not prepared to abide. What he had said was, that the 10th Geo. IV. gave powers to the King or Queen to constitute a Council, and that Council had the power to make such laws as were necessary for order and good government. He stated his opinion to be that taxation was a part of good government, and that the council, notwithstanding the Act had expired, had still the power to pass laws for the good government of the colony.
SIR F. THESIGERbelieved that the question asked of his hon. and learned Friend was, whether the existing body had power to make future laws after the expiration of the Act?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that what he had formerly observed was that the Act had expired, but the Council continued in force.
SIR W. MOLE S WORTHsaid, that the question, as put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was not as he had framed it. He had asked whether the council, after the expiration of the Act, had power to make laws, and whether those laws were legal or illegal; and he had especially asked, if they had made laws as to the application of public money, whether an indemnity would be necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman had then proceeded to answer these questions in an off-hand manner.
The ATTORNEY GENERALdenied that his manner had been off-hand. He had answered the question before, and he would answer it again in his opinion—and he was prepared to abide by his opinion—it might be wrong, and certainly if he differed with the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, of course it was wrong—in his opinion, the Act of Parliament having expired, and the Crown having the power
318
to create a Council, and that power having been exercised, the Council still continued to exist, and would exist, until revoked by the same power of the Crown.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHhad asked—had that Council, since the 1st of August last, the power to make any laws? That was his question.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould answer that question to-morrow, and he hoped satisfactorily.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would also answer to-morrow whether the Council had the power to tax the colony?
The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Certainly; or any other question that the hon. and learned Gentleman would propose to him.
Subject dropped.

PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The House having gone into Committee on this Bill,
On Clause 2,
SIR R. FERGUSONproposed the omission of Clause 2. If the clause were suffered to remain, it would have a mischievous tendency by encouraging joint occupation.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he had no wish to pass the clause, but he wished to take the opinion of Irish Members upon it. If he was to take the hon. Baronet as the foreman of the jury, the clause must be expunged.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he was not disposed to take the hon. Baronet as the foreman of the jury; and he thought the noble Lord, instead of taking the opinion of the hon. Baronet, should take the opinion of the representatives of popular constituencies. The hon. Baronet said, this joint occupation would cause the subdivision of land. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not believe that would be the effect; but where a farmer and his sons had land which would give to each a rating of the required value, the clause would give to each of them a vote, in the same manner as by joint occupation each would have a vote in a city or a borough. There was a precisely similar clause in the Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill, governing the franchise in cities and boroughs.
COLONEL DUNNEhad supported the second reading of the Bill, but he did not support this clause, and he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry that this clause was most objectionable.
MR. FITZPATRICKsaid, he should cordially support the proposition of the hon. Member for Londonderry, agreeing with him that the clause would have a most mischievous tendency; that it would act as an encouragement to a species of tenure alike injurious both to the landlord as well as the tenant. Taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of Ireland at present, the vast changes taking place there in the distribution of land, all tending to a sound and more satisfactory condition, he thought this House could not be too careful in guarding against any legislation which might give an inducement to revert to that wretched system of mismanagement of property, from the evil effects of which all classes were now suffering severely.
MR. FAGANsaid, that this was a kind of Chandos clause, and the only way of preventing intimidation being practised towards the tenants was to extend the franchise. It so happened that in Ireland joint tenancies were very numerous, and he did not see why persons so occupying land should be deprived of their franchise.
MR. GROGANwas very glad the noble Lord was disposed to comply with the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry. He believed a more mischievous clause could not have been contrived. He could not conceive anything more injurious to Ireland than the subdivision of property.
DR. POWERdid not see how the objection to the clause could arise, because if a man had a farm which would give to each of his three sons a vote, he could easily subdivide the farm, and give a vote to each of his three sons. He thought they ought to extend the franchise as much as possible.
Mr. GRATTANhad heard no reason whatever for omitting the clause. The truth was, landlords did not like joint tenancies, because that would make them look after their land. It was not for the franchise. If four persons had a joint occupation of land, the hon. Baronet objected to three of them having votes. He said he did not see why they should be entitled to vote. He should ask him, why not? Did these men so conduct themselves towards their tenants that they were afraid to trust them with votes?
MR. R. M. FOXsupported the clause, believing there was no more connection with joint occupancy and subdivision than existed between the acts of joining and dividing.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, they were not discussing the question of joint tenancy, but of joint occupancy, which was a different thing. He hoped the House would not encourage the system of joint occupancy. Everybody connected with Ireland was aware of the evils of such a system, and he maintained that this clause would have a tendency to continue that system.
MR. SADLEIRthought the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have to take upon himself the responsibility of expunging or maintaining this clause. On a subject of this nature it was utterly impossible to obtain unanimity. He admired the intimation given by the noble Lord on Friday evening that he would, to a great extent, be guided by the opinions of those Members of that House who were in favour of the great and leading principles of this Bill. This was one of the leading principles. There were at present at least two millions of acres in Ireland in joint occupancy, or occupied by tenants in common. He entreated the Government to pause before they put out this clause, which he thought it was wise and sound policy to retain. There had never been conferred on the people of Ireland the franchise enjoyed by the people of this country. It was notorious that the franchises given by the Irish Parliamentary Reform Bill were not those which it was the intention of the Government and of the Legislature to give. The decisions of the Judges had much curtailed the right of voting in Ireland, and, even under this Bill, the people of Ireland would have but a stinted constituency. There were franchises irrespective of residence and occupation; and there was the 5l. in fee franchise, which was liable to great abuse by the granting of rentcharges. How could they prevent that? By enlarging the franchise in respect of residence and occupation. He did not think that landlords would in future improve their political influence by the sacrifice of their property. Joint tenants had long enjoyed the franchise in England, and they had never heard of its being abused in this country.
MR. ROEBUCKrose to ask for information at the hands of the Government. If he understood it, the objection to the clause on that side of the House was that it would lead to the subdivision of property. He would at once acknowledge that that was an enormous evil. But he wanted to know whether this clause legitimately

321
led to that conclusion, and, if it did, whether they would not be doing an injustice to the people of Ireland by omitting the clause. A large number of persons, say six or eight, might hold property, a factory for example, and it might be worth say 1,000 l. a year. Were not these six or eight persons joint tenants of that property, and had they not a right to vote? If they took out this clause, those persons could not vote; but one man, and one man only, could vote. But it might be said they would have property so small, that at last they would get the whole country divided into 8l. tenancies. But that depended on the landlords. He therefore asked the noble Lord, or those who had charge of the Bill, to explain this to the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it had been considered that persons occupying to the value of 8l. a year should have a vote, and where there were two persons holding land together, and their occupation in point of value was 8l. each, these two persons would be qualified to vote as the one person who had a separate holding, and therefore they thought that the clause might fairly be put in the Bill. Several Members, however, who were in favour of the Bill, were of opinion that the consequence of dividing holdings would be mischievous in Ireland, and they hoped this clause would not be inserted in the Bill. However, he must say, so far as he had heard, there did not appear to be a general agreement that the clause would produce that effect, and therefore, not having the proof shown to him that the clause would be mischievous, he was prepared to adhere to his original intention.
MR. STAFFORDlooked upon the statement of the noble Lord as an indirect announcement that the suggestions of Irish Members would only be favourably received if they came from one (the Ministerial) side of the House. But a word or two as to the effect of this clause. He would take the case of a tenant hostile to the landlord, and also of another tenant favourable to the landlord. Then he would take the case of a landlord anxious, by fair or by foul means, to increase his political influence. Suppose the tenant was hostile to the landlord, and divided his farm into three parts, and, for the purpose of having three votes, paid himself one-third of the poor-rates—when he presented one-third of the poor-rate tickets, and proposed to deduct one third, the landlord would stop him at once and say, "You shall not subdivide
322
the farm; you are only in possession of one vote, and one only you shall have;" and then he would strike off two voters. He would next take the case of a tenant favourable to the landlord—when the tenant came with one poor-rate receipt, the landlord might say, "You have two sons; I wish to increase my Parliamentary influence, so register your two sons." Then, in that case, the landlord would have the power to add two votes. On the whole, he considered that the effect of the joint-tenant clause would be to give a very large political power to the landlords throughout Ireland.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the only effect of the clause would be, that a landlord, instead of letting a farm of twenty-four acres, for instance, in three farms, might, if he chose, let it to three occupiers. It was, no doubt, desirable to have largo farms; but if they wished to counteract the influence of the landlords, that could not be done by expunging this clause. Suppose a tenant joined his three sons in his occupation, the landlord would got three votes; and he could do so at present by having the farm split up into separate tenancies. Therefore, the mischief pointed out would not be remedied by expunging this clause; it was left open cither way.
MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had only put the case of a landlord who did not care a single farthing for his property, and who would sacrifice his property to the making of votes. But the case put by his hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire was one whore the landlord had some regard for his property, but also wished to have political influence. He would ask any hon. Gentleman, whether, on commencing improvements on his property, he would not desire not to have large farms with joint occupancy, but to have every man holding his own land. When he came into possession of his estate, one half of it was held under joint tenancies, and he felt his first step should be to get each tenant to hold separately his own land. The clause would give a dangerous power to the landlords; but it was an instrument which, though it might sometimes work favourably to them, was full of danger, for it would lead to the creation of fictitious voters. Considering how the clause would affect the social condition of Ireland, and believing that it would serve as an inducement to landlords to create

323
fictitious votes, he had no hesitation in voting against it.
MR. HUMEconsidered that they were not legislating there for the purpose of giving votes to landlords, and he must protest against the argument of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, when he supposed that they could not give a vote to a particular individual, but that it would favour the landlord to whom the property belonged. As a matter of justice they ought to give the votes to the persons occupying the land and resident upon it, and then let the electors vote by ballot, and they might set at defiance the influence of the priests at one side, and the landlords at the other. That was the way to meet the objection, and he trusted the Government would persevere in the clause.
MR. SCULLYrejoiced that the Government were resolved to maintain this clause. This was not a question between landlord and tenant, and he thought that view of the subject should have been left out of the case altogether. In his county there were tenants who had occupied for twenty, thirty, and fifty years as joint tenants, and if this clause were not adopted, those parties would be disfranchised. Before he sat down, he wished to refer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire with respect to an observation made by the hon. Member for Carlow, and to say, in reply, that that was not a question of a borough at all. It was a national question; and any hon. Member who thought warmly on the subject of the franchise in Ireland was hound to give his opinion honestly and sincerely on the entire franchise of the country. With regard to the opposition to this measure at the other side of the House, he must say, that, although this question of the franchise might have been taken very coolly by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the first instance, it was now factiously opposed by them, as was shown by eight divisions in one night. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire had said that this clause would give power to the landlords. If so, he (Mr. Scully) was surprised that the hon. Gentleman and those agreeing with him, who were so anxious an all occasions to support that class, should oppose the clause on that ground.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHbegged of the House to recollect that they were legislating on this subject with very slight ideas of what the future constituency of Ireland would be under this Bill. They had no
324
means of judging, except from the returns which had been furnished by his right hon. Friend opposite. Taking the county of Down, the nearest guess he could make was, that the 8l. rating would give a constituency of 20,000; but if this joint occupancy clause passed, he would be glad to know what might the constituency be—not less than 25,000 or 30,000, and what he complained of was, that they had no means of knowing. It was very well to tell Gentlemen on that side of the House that they were illiberal, but he did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had looked to the amount of the constituency in England. He found, by a return made in March, 1847, that the English constituencies were reduced to an exceedingly small extent. In the three counties of Bedford, Berkshire, and Buckingham, the constituencies were 4,000, 5,000, and 5,000; and even in Devonshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, the constituencies were limited. If they increased the constituencies in Ireland 10,000 or 15,000, there would be reason to complain that they were called upon to legislate in this manner without information.
MR. ROEBUCKthought, that if the clause should have any political influence at all, it would be an influence in favour of the landlord. He was willing to meet that by making a large constituency, and he was not to be stopped by the declaration of the noble Lord the Member for Down, that England had small constituencies. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: Then, the only way the Government will have to moot the difficulty is by increasing the number of representatives for Ireland.
SIR F. THESIGERtook it for granted that the clause was introduced because it was the opinion of the Government that it was desirable, in the system about to be established, such a clause as this, with regard to joint occupants, should be adopted; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government told them he had been disposed to abandon the clause, with the notion that several Irish Members thought it would be desirable that such a clause should not be introduced. He certainly understood that the noble Lord had abandoned the clause. But the noble Lord having received encouragement from certain Gentlemen connected with Ireland at the other side of the House, stooped down to pick up the clause again, and insisted

325
that it should form part of the Bill he proposed to the House. There was a great mistake with regard to the exact effect of this particular clause, and he thought the difficulty had arisen from the Government having refused the proposition of one of his hon. Friends the Member for Oxford-shire, the other night, that after the word "occupy," "tenant or owner" should be inserted. If those words were inserted in the first clause, the difficulty they were now discussing could not have arisen. This was not the question of a joint tenancy at all. It was admitted by the Government that, under the first clause, any occupation, no matter whether wrongful or rightful, if a party be on the rate, would give him the right to vote; and it was clear they were now considering a clause by which joint occupiers, who could get rated to the amount of 8l. each, would be entitled to vote. There might be no great mischief in that, while the parties holding as joint tenants were liable to the rent, and to all the liabilities to which the tenant is exposed, and each held a sufficient amount to give him a vote. There would be no difficulty in giving each person in that joint tenancy a right to vote under the English Reform Act. With regard to the Chandos clause in that Act, under a subsequent Act of Parliament, power was given to two persons, holding to the extent of 100 l., to have each a vote under the Chandos clause; but how were they to hold? They were to hold as tenants liable to a rent of 100 l But the question here was, whether a mere occupier, no matter how introduced, should have a vote. He might have been introduced against the will of the landlord; the original occupier might have become a wrongful occupier, and hostile to the landlord; wishing to introduce new occupiers and fresh voters on the land. He would have no difficulty in allowing persons to come into joint occupation with him of this land; and if he happened to get rated at a sufficient value, such persons so occupying would be entitled to vote. He seriously asked the noble Lord to look to the very great inconvenience and mischief that would arise from adhering to this clause; for it appeared to him (Sir F. Thesiger) that it would be very difficult to prevent fraud from being practised by different parties who were not entitled to be rated even in respect to value. Let it be understood that this was not a question of joint tenancy at all, but a question of joint occupa-
326
tion, and a joint occupation as interpreted the other night, namely, an occupier, be he rightful or wrongful.
COLONEL RAWDONsaid, that even taking this as a question of joint occupancy, would not the effect be to increase the representation of Ireland? There were two millions of acres held under those joint occupancies, and they must diminish the constituent body if they expunged this clause. He had no apprehension that property, circumstanced as it then was in Ireland, would suffer by this clause, for the minds of the landlords were now so sot upon their property, that they would see that it increased in value without any reference to political interests.
MR. ANSTEYsaid, it was admitted on all hands that tenancy must be given up as the basis of the qualification in Ireland, and that occupancy must be substituted. As the English Reform Act empowered joint tenants to vote, the same privilege ought now to be extended to joint occupiers in Ireland, provided each of their occupations was of sufficient value. It was no conclusive objection to say this would open a door for fraud; nor had it been held so in the case of joint tenants. As no one could vote under this Bill unless he was rated to the extent of 8l., there could be no great amount of fraud practised. He thought the value was fixed much too high; he would make the simple payment of any rate or tax sufficient to qualify. Still he would not attempt to retard this Bill; and he hoped the Government would not abandon the clause.
MR. SHEILsaid, that at the present there was one great evil in Ireland connected with fictitious votes. The evil arose from a landed proprietor granting five or six annuities to his sons and nephews, who never derived any profit from the land, and did not occupy. They were registered; and when an election came they went to the county town, and voted in favour of their father or uncle's friend. To this abuse there was no check; but under this clause there are two checks—rating and occupation. The check was double. The rate is sot down in the rate book, and in order to be entered in the registry, the chief constable must certify the fact of occupation. Consider what the evil would be, on the other hand, if you denied the right of voting to joint occupiers in towns. In towns there was nothing more common than for three persons to enter into trade. [An Hon. MEMBER: This is the county franchise.]

327
He know it was the county franchise, but they were giving to the inhabitants of towns that did not return Members to Parliament the county franchise. He was glad he was put in mind of the fact, that in Ireland there were abundance of towns containing from 10,000 to 12,000 inhabitants that do not return Members to Parliament. There was, in the county of Tipperary, Thurles, with about 8,000 inhabitants, Nenagh with 8,000 inhabitants, and Carrick with 8,000 inhabitants, without representatives; was it not just that those towns which did not return Members to Parliament as boroughs should have votes for the county? In those towns where there were joint occupiers, carrying on trade together, and in common occupation, each person was liable for the rates—would they deprive every one of those men of their votes? He did not deny that evils might result from fictitious votes, but he would say the preponderance of evil lay in small constituencies. The noble Lord the Member for the county of Down had called their attention to the probable amount of the constituency of that county after the passing of this measure; but he would suggest to the noble Lord that the only effect would be, that in future the noble Lord would have to fish with nets instead of with lines for votes.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that if the clause was rejected, the result would be to disfranchise joint occupiers generally. At present there was no mention in the Act of joint occupiers in boroughs; some barristers held that they were disfranchised thereby; and he had known a man occupying a 40 l. house disfranchised, because a party was joined with him in the lease, for the purpose of securing the rent. If this clause were rejected, any landlord who chose to do so might disfranchise his tenants, by insisting on nominal parties being put in the leases as security. He did not think that the practice of splitting occupations would be diminished by refusing the franchise; that system was to be got rid of by other laws., If there was any need for protection against fictitious votes, it would be for the House to adopt other measures.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, that if, as had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for the county of Down, the retention of this clause would give to any particular class of voters an undue influence, no person would more strenuously oppose it than he would; but he believed that no reliance could be placed on the
328
Parliamentary returns that had been furnished, for they presented a fallacious view with regard to the nature of the constituency that might be created by this Bill. He had looked with some care to the probable amount of the constituency of the county of Tipperary under this Bill. He took into account the arrangements which within his own personal knowledge were made for further and increased emigration from the south of Ireland; the numerous evictions that had taken place even since the date of those returns; and the measures, by means of notices to quit, which were now taking to carry out further the system of extermination and the consolidation of farms; and he could assure the Committee there would be no such number of voters under this Bill as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think. The class of 8l. occupiers would not be so numerous as hon. Gentlemen thought they would be. He could give an accurate return with respect to the borough of Carlow. A short time since the constituency of Carlow amounted to 471 voters. By an alphabetical list up to the 1st of February, 1850, the number of persons who would appear to be entitled to vote if this Bill should pass, amounted to 445; but that alphabetical list was utterly worthless for a guide as to the constituency under this Bill. There were numbers of persons named two, three, four, and five times over; there were numbers who had either died or emigrated, and the actual number of voters at that moment in the borough of Carlow entitled to vote at an election was 235, being 210 less than the actual number represented by the alphabetical list. He had taken pains to ascertain the numbers that would be entitled to vote after the passing of this Bill, and in Carlow the utmost extent of the constituency would only be 300.
SIR R. PEEL: Sir, I am disposed to concur in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government at about a quarter past five this evening, in favour of the omission of this clause. I am one of those who are in favour of an extensive franchise, and if I had had the opportunity of giving my vote on a former occasion, I should have given it in favour of an 8l. as against a 15 l. qualification. At the same time, while I am desirous of establishing an extensive franchise, I am equally desirous that it should be a bonâ fide one. I should support any plan which appeared effectual for obtaining that end,

329
and for fulfilling that which the Legislature intended; but, above all, I should attempt, as far as possible, to discourage that abominable system of creating fictitious votes—to the prevalence of which system, while the 40 s. freehold franchise existed, I attribute not only much of the perjury and corruption which have prevailed in Ireland, but also many of the social evils of that country. Now, this I am willing to admit, that if there be a bonâ fide tenant or bonâ fide joint-tenants—for instance, if three persons take a farm, and contract to pay 60 l. a year rent for it, and that each of these three persons are equally bonâ fide responsible to the landlord for the rent which they jointly undertake to pay—I am willing to admit that in that case each of these persons should be entitled to be placed on the register, and to vote at elections. I am also willing to admit that if there be two or three partners in a concern, for instance a paper manufactory, or any other manufactory—each of those persons bonâ fide contributing a certain amount of capital for carrying on the concern, each of the partners being duly rated, each responsible for the engagements of the concern—in that case, also, each of these persons should be entitled to vote. But I am apprehensive of great abuse from the effect of this clause, which makes each person upon his being rated entitled to vote. When hon. Gentlemen opposite argue in favour of the clause, they cannot help using the words "each tenant." Tenancy is the test which their own good sense and discretion suggests for determing the qualification to vote. Now, I admit that each tenant—each bonâ fide tenant equally responsible for the rent—ought to have the right of being registered as a voter. That is the law both of England and Scotland. But you are not about to impose that restriction of tenancy or joint tenancy, which in your speeches you unconsciously suggest as the proper restriction, in addition to that of simple rating—on the right to vote at elections. Hon. Gentlemen say that the payment of the rate will be of itself a sufficient security against abuse. That I greatly doubt. What will be the amount of rate actually payable upon an 8l. rating? It may be manifestly the interest of the landlord, particularly upon the approach of a general election, to make himself responsible for the rate due from the occupying tenant; that is, for the payment of 8s. or 10 s. at
330
the utmost. That will be the entire amount of the security against abuse, if your qualification rests simply on rating. We all know that under the old system of "scot and lot" voting, it was the constant practice for candidates to pay the rates due by poor electors, not only the amount of current rates, but also of all arrears of rates, in order to qualify the voter. I have no doubt that the same will be done if this clause were agreed to; that in many counties, during a close contest, the landlords will undertake to provide the necessary funds for the payment of the rates of tenants unable or unwilling to pay for themselves. Will it not be possible, under this word "occupancy," for a landlord wishing to increase his electioneering influence, to say to his tenants, "I will accept your sons as joint tenants with you; they shall be rated, but for the payment of the rate I will be responsible." If that practice can be established—if you can place on the rate the son of the tenant, as well as the tenant, the labourer as well as the employer of labour—you are about to introduce great abuses in the representative system—you are about to give encouragement to the landlord again to resort to practices similar in nature to those which so unfortunately divided Ireland into a vast number of 40 s,. freeholds—effectual for their purpose, in the eye of the law—but as perfectly different from the bonâ fide 40 s. franchise which we have in England as it is possible for any two franchises to be. If the word "tenant" had been introduced in the clause, and the right of voting had been given to bonâ fide tenancy with rating, the case would have been different. But if the word "occupancy" be alone retained, I consider that grave abuses are likely to result from it; and, while I am perfectly prepared to support any clause which will enable bonâ fide tenants, each of whom are responsible for the payment of the rent, to exercise the right of voting, I must, as at present advised, take the course which, about an hour since, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) professed his intention to take, and vote for the omission of this clause.
MR. REYNOLDSthought that some difficulties would arise in cases where several partners participated in the profits of the business, while the lease was held in the name of one person only, but all of the partners were liable to the payment of rent.
MR. HENLEYconsidered that under

331
this clause the boards of guardians would have, not only the power of creating a considerable number of fictitious votes, but also of destroying a great number. In the case of a joint occupancy of 80 l, there would be ten votes; if a board of guardians chose to strike off 1l. off the 80 l. rating, the whole of the ten votes would be disfranchised. Any board of guardians disposed to exercise this power, could easily say that the tenement, not being in so good a state of repair as they expected, the amount of rating ought to be reduced, or numerous other excuses of a similar kind.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 104: Majority 40.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that as he understood the proposition of the Government, it was not their intention to interfere with the existing franchises, except so far as they depended on occupation; but that it was intended to create a now franchise, which was in fact created by the first clause of the Bill. He would therefore suggest, in order to make the matter perfectly clear, that there should be introduced in the clause then before the Committee, after the enacting words, the words "in addition to those qualified by law to register and vote at any election upon rights acquired in virtue of any qualification not requiring occupation."
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that as the words were the same as those introduced in the first clause of the Bill, and for the same object, he had no objection to their insertion.
MR. REYNOLDSconsidered the whole of the clause as a most dangerous one—one which was a departure from the principle of the Bill, and was of opinion that it ought to be expunged altogether. As he did not think, however, that he should succeed in dividing the House on the question, he should merely content himself with protesting against the clause.
The words to be inserted in the clause.
SIR F. THESIGERthen moved the omission of the words in the clause giving the right of voting to persons possessed of estates for life of the value of 5l.; the words proposed to be omitted being "or for his own life (such tenant for life) not being a lessee or assignee of a lessee at a
332
rent." In 1844, when the Bill of Lord St. Germans was before the House, proposing a 5l. freehold franchise of inheritance, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated that he had great objection to a franchise founded upon a 40 s. freehold for life, on account of the abuses to which it might lead, but saw no reason why a freehold of inheritance should be retained so high as 5l. Now, the proposed franchise was not one of the value of 5l., but a freehold "rated as of the value of 5l. A person, therefore, who held a freehold for life, though not of the value of 5l., or perhaps not more than 40 s., would, if he could get his freehold rated as of the value of 5l., be entitled to vote, thereby opening the door to abuse, which would, in his opinion, be prevented if the franchise were confined to a freehold of inheritance.
MR. GRATTANsaid, that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the powers of the boards of guardians in creating fictitious votes. In point of fact, the guardians had not the power to put a single amendment on the rate.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLexpressed himself anxious to hear the opinions of the Government on the subject of the proposed Amendment.
MR. HATCHELLconsidered that the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, with respect to under value or over rating, went to the entire principle of the Bill, and applied equally to the question of the 8l. rating as to this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not object to persons voting who were possessed of estates in fee or in tail, but confined his objections to possessors of estates for life, and appeared to think that the clause referred to leaseholds for life. That, however, was neither the object nor the meaning of the clause. The true construction of the clause was, that a party to be entitled to the franchise should be possessed, as tenant for life, of an estate of a certain value, which estate was to be carved out of the inheritance. If there were any words which would appear to the hon. and learned Gentleman better calculated to remove the ambiguity, he would have no objection to their insertion.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR F. THESIGERthought at first that the wording of the clause could be made to bear the construction which he had put upon them; but from the ex-

333
planations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland he was satisfied of its true construction, and he had therefore withdrawn his objection. However, he now begged to call attention to the Amendment which he was about to propose, which was to omit all the words after the word "hereditaments" in the 33rd line, down to the words "or upwards." At present they stood, "which shall be rated in the last rate for the time being under the said Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland as of the net annual value of 5l. or upwards." He proposed to insert in their stead the words, "over and above all rents and charges payable out of or in respect of same." The Committee would understand the object he had in view in omitting these words, and inserting the substituted ones. They had now come to an important question. Agreeing, as they all did, in the necessity of making up for the deficiency in county constituencies in Ireland, and agreeing that for such purpose it was necessary to create a new class of voters, the question then arose whether, in creating a new freehold constituency in the counties, they would take rating as the test of bonâ fide freeholders of a certain value. Now, hon. Members were aware that at present, under the 10th Geo. IV., there was no freehold franchise under the amount of 10 l. in Ireland, and that every person holding to that amount was required to occupy, in order to entitle himself to the franchise. Hon. Members were aware that at the present moment, with one slight exception, there was an invariable distinction between the franchise as it existed in counties and boroughs; and that as regarded the franchise in the county, it was invariably based upon property. The 40 s. freehold in England was a freehold under which a man possessed value to that amount, whilst the freehold that gave the party a right to vote in Ireland was one under which the party had a beneficial interest; and the distinction had been preserved between the franchise as it existed in counties—being based on property—and boroughs, which rested on occupation, since the Reform Bill. They were then about to make an extraordinary change in their system, and to create an entirely new class of freehold voters. They were about to declare that property should no longer be the basis of qualification; and by that clause, if adopted, persons who did not hold a shilling beneficial interest in freehold would be entitled to the franchise.
334
He was particularly desirous of following the course on the present occasion which he had ever pursued since he had had the honour of obtaining a seat in that House, with regard to questions similar to the present. In 1844, as the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government was aware, the Government with which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had the honour to be connected, introduced a Bill for the purpose of supplying the deficiency which arose in the county constituencies in Ireland, and proposed to create a new class to supply that deficiency, who were to be rated at 30 l., the other class being, where parties held by freehold tenure an inheritance of 5l. over all charges. To that principle the noble Lord, as far as he (Sir F. Thesiger) was able to watch his course, had hitherto adhered, and at different times had strongly contended for it. In 1841 the noble Lord objected to the introduction of the Chandos clause, not because it was calculated to load to abuses, but because it violated a principle. He had not before heard sentiments from the noble Lord which differed from that view; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) conceived that up to the introduction of the Bills introduced in the last and previous Session, the noble Lord sustained the same views which he had previously done in that House. But at present he came forward with a Bill which sweptaway all such instructions, and in which it was proposed to base the county constituency, not on property, but on rating. Now, let them consider the question before them. It was clear that any person who could get his name inserted upon the rate as of the value of 5l. would be entitled to be registered, and would be registered, although he might not have paid a single rate at the time of registration—because the six months' possession or receipts of rents previous to the 6th of July was the ground on which he was entitled to be registered. A party was entitled to be registered although he had not paid his rates between the 5th of January and the 6th of July. The party might never have been on the rate before the 5th of January, and therefore although bound to pay all rates before that date, yet, inasmuch as he might not have been rated at all, no rates might be due from him, and therefore he would be entitled to be registered. Well, was the condition of such a party, a person possessing property? He took the case of a party who held for lives renewable for ever. That party might be rated for the full amount

335
of property without possessing one shilling beneficial interest; yet it was clear if he paid a rate of 5l. he would be entitled to be on the rate. He would suppose the case of a person who borrowed money to buy, and afterwards mortgaged his freehold: that person would be in receipt of no profit, yet would be entitled to be a 5l. freeholder under the present clause, though he had not a farthing beneficial interest, being obliged to pay it away to the mortgagee. Thus they introduced persons who might be paupers. They afforded the opportunity to persons to register who had no property and no independence. At a general election, forinstance, the landlords might be ready enough to pay rates for these parties; and thus, instead of creating what they all desired, a free constituency, they were creating a low dependent class, that would be entirely at the mercy of those who had advanced money on property, and were thus destroying the principle on which the franchise ought to be conceded; and that was the question they were then to decide. The question was, would the noble Lord bestow the franchise on such persons when he considered what the effect would be? Of course he might assume from the introduction of similar Bills in previous Sessions, that the noble Lord had now changed his views on the subject. It had been said, that from the constant waste and renewal of our bodily particles, at the expiration of seven years not a single atom remained of those which constituted our bodies at the commencement of that period; but he must say that the mental changes were still more extraordinary than the bodily, because he had seen them effected all in one night. They had seen the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government throwing the shield of conservatism before the Reform Act when assailed last night by the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose; whilst immediately afterwards they had the same noble Lord coming down and supporting a Bill infinitely more destructive to the Reform Act in Ireland, than the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He assured the noble Lord he viewed with great fear the course he was pursuing; because he was satisfied there was great danger in it to their existing institutions, and that if he proceeded in such a course—at one period letting the reins loose, and then tightening them, according to the exigencies of the times—he would be ultimately dragged headlong by
336
those who were desirous of a downward tendency in our institutions, and who were anxious of introducing more of the democratic leaven into them. He could assure the noble Lord these Gentlemen were fully satisfied that he was playing the part which would assist the object they had decidedly and unmistakeably in view. He (Sir F. Thesiger) viewed the present measure with considerable alarm, because he saw it would naturally entail a similar measure for England. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard the sentiment cheered, and adopted by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side, who felt it was the first movement in the direction which they wished to pursue. He called on the noble Lord not to deliver himself over to the views of those Gentlemen, who differed so widely from him as to the preservation of their ancient institutions. He called on the Committee of that House to adopt his (Sir F. Thesiger's) view of the clause, and decide if they were to create a new 5l. constituency, to make it a bonâ fide freehold to that amount, instead of adopting the noble Lord's fictitious and colourable project of placing parties' names on the rate, and not requiring payment to entitle them to be placed thereon.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 33—
"To leave out the words 'which shall be rated in the last rate for the time being under the said Acts for the more effectual relief of the destitute poor in Ireland." '
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the proposal was to give the right of voting to persons who held property of the value of 5l., and who were owners in fee, or in possession of an estate for life of that amount. He declared the proposal was not open to the hon. and learned Gentleman's objection. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that a party might have no property whatever, or if in possession of property it might be mortgaged to such an amount as would render it valueless to him; but it struck him (Lord J. Russell) that the hon. and learned Gentleman failed in making out his case. In his opinion the occupiers of 8l. ratings and those holding property of 5l. annual value, were persons that might safely be entrusted with the franchise. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had said "Do not touch the Reform Bill, which provides a sufficient constituency," then he (Lord J. Russell) could have understood his proposition; but half the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman went to show that he concurred with the

337
Government with which he had been connected in altering the Irish Reform Act. The question, therefore, was not whether the Irish Reform Act should be altered, but whether the 30 l. occupation and free-hold qualification, mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the franchise proposed by Her Majesty's Government at present, would be the better for Ireland. They adopted the principle of the present Bill, which assumed that the franchise would be conferred on a sufficient number of electors, and that these electors would be possessed of the required amount of property. That cases of fraud might arise, he was not prepared to contradict, because in England and Scotland parties were fraudulently placed on the franchise who had no right to be on it, and, therefore, he was not going to maintain that such would not occur in Ireland. However, the system was not open to general objection; on the contrary, he believed the electors would have sufficient property, and would possess a degree of intelligence and respectability, sufficient to enable them to exercise their right. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had asserted that by acceding to such measures as the present, they were incurring dangers of a more serious nature than could be expected to result from the adoption of the measure of the hon. Member for Montrose. He (Lord J. Russell) would not stop to institute a comparison between the two measures; but he would say, he did not conceive it to be the best way to preserve their institutions, to adopt on all occasions conservative courses, and deny all reforms which, even in themselves, were useful and capable of being defended on sound principles. He had been told at the time of the Reform Bill, that reform should be refused, and conservation adhered to. But he had lived to see the day when he heard hon. Gentlemen who entertained these views ejaculate, "Thank Heaven, our objections to the Reform Bill were ill founded, and not adopted; because in these revolutionary times neither we nor our institutions have been exposed to the perils with which we have been surrounded." Therefore he was of opinion that those who called themselves "conservatives" were most revolutionary, and that the best way to preserve their institutions was to do away with the exclusiveness that heretofore prevailed.
LORD J. MANNERSbriefly expressed his dissatisfaction at the reply of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government,
338
which did not meet the able statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon; and therefore he hoped the Committee would adopt the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the effect of his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would be to give the franchise to freeholders possessing what was now called a beneficial interest, which would occasion considerable doubt, and revive the old mischief occasioned by raising the question of beneficial value before the barrister. In lieu of that the Government took the simple criterion of rating.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONthought that, without reference to party questions, it would be most desirable to have bonâ fide and not fictitious votes. The test adopted in the clause was rating, but he was of opinion that a beneficial interest was a better criterion.
MR. REYNOLDSdeclared that, if the words proposed to be omitted were left out, the landlords would be enabled to make voters by wholesale. Even as the clause stood it would enable the landlords to swamp the ratepayers with 5l. voters. No residence was required, and only six months' receipt of the rents and profits, and if he were to give the clause a name, he should call it "a clause to enable the landlords of Ireland to manufacture, without limit, as many fictitious votes as might suit their purpose."
MR. SADLEIRhad also a very great objection to the clause as it stood, because it created a right of voting wholly irrespective of inhabitancy, and would add very much to the number of fictitious votes. But if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon were adopted, it would open the door to the greatest frauds. The plain result of the Amendment would be, to substitute the test of swearing for the test of rating.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 36: Majority 70.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that he did not think it was reasonable that parties should be rated, and not required to pay rates, as was the case under this clause. He should, therefore, propose a proviso to the effect—
"That no person should be registered under this clause unless all rates made up to the 1st of

339
January in each year should be paid by the 1st of July."
This would place them on the same footing as the 8l. voters.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when a party was not an occupier under this clause, he would not be rated, but the rates would be paid by the occupier. If the owner was the occupier, he would be rated.
MR. REYNOLDSthought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon was reasonable, and he should vote for it if it was pressed to a division. An owner of property might let it to parties who might get greatly in arrear with the rates. He feared this clause would tend to the manufacture of fictitious votes.
MR. SCULLYargued that care should be taken that all rates due should be paid before parties under this clause should be entitled to vote.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, as was Clause 4.
Clause 5.
MR. HATCHELL, in answer to a question from Sir R. Ferguson, said that the object of the clause was to prevent a person having the franchise for a borough, possessing also a vote for the county arising out of the same property.
MR. C. ANSTEYthought the two last lines in the clause, "in respect of which he would be entitled to vote at an election for such city, town, or borough," should be left out, as inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill.
The ATTORNEY GENERALexplained that, in England, if a person had half a dozen franchises in a borough, all of which were borough franchises, he could not vote for the county; but if he had an occupation franchise in a borough, and also other freehold property within the limits of the borough, he could vote for the county in respect of that freehold.
SIR D. NORREYSproposed leaving out the words "in respect to any lands," in order to define more clearly that the voter might vote, having a freehold of which he had not the occupancy.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that a man might possess two descriptions of property in a borough, and with respect to one he might be entitled to vote for the borough or for the county, but was registered for the borough and not for the county; but with respect to the other was entitled to vote for the county and be registered for the county.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that an individual could not be registered for county and borough on one property; and the object of the clause was to prevent any one from voting for both county and borough on the same property.
MR. R. C. HILDYARDdid not see why a party happening to live in a borough should be placed in a better position than one living in a county, by having a double vote. The simpler and juster course would be to enact that no one should be entitled to interfere in a county election if his property was situated in a borough.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would be to disfranchise person now having a county vote because they happened to live in a borough.
MR. R. C. HILDYARDexpressed his opinion that the clause would give an undue influence to the boroughs.
MR. HAYTERsaid, it was clear that a person having freehold property in a borough was entitled to vote for the county in respect of that property. What was done was to make the alteration with respect to Ireland.
SIR F. THESIGERcould not see anything undesirable in a man having two properties in a borough voting for the county upon one of them. In this respect he was content with the law as it was in England.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
On Clause 6,
Mr. G. A. HAMILTONproposed the addition of certain words with respect to the borough franchise, to preserve the rights of the existing 10 l. voters.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEobjected to the addition.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, if these householders were not to be disfranchised, the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin ought to be added. But if they were to be disfranchised, let the intention be declared at once.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the first clause of the Bill had deprived a large and respectable class of the franchise who were registered under the 10 l. qualification. He presumed the same would be the effect of the present clause, and that those registered as leaseholders would be swept away.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that his object had been from the first to preserve the existing franchise, and to make this Bill,

341
not a substitute, but a supplement—to use the words of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—to the Reform Bill. He had been desirous that the words proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, at the end of the first clause, should have extended further, and included the case of every existing county franchise. However, the committee had decided otherwise, and now the question was, how far they should preserve the existing rights of the boroughs. He was disposed to preserve every existing right.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEobserved, that it was proposed to do the same thing with regard to the boroughs that had been done in reference to the counties.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, all he desired was, that the Committee would accept the words he proposed, in order that the existing occupation franchise might not be disturbed.
MR. SADLEIRwished to understand what the intentions of the Government were. The question was important, as the clause would operate extensively in cities and towns.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that the question was not raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin University, who proposed that all franchises should be preserved which did not require occupation.
SIR G. GREYapprehended that the 10 l. qualification for mere occupation was to be swept away, and a rating to the poor substituted.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GROGANthen moved to omit, in line 25, the words "any lands, tenements, or hereditaments," as leading to doubts and litigation.
SIR F. THESIGERwished to know if by this clause a person should be entitled to vote for two houses, or counting-houses, or warehouses, or shops? He presumed he did not, but that it was intended by the clause that a man should vote for a house and land, or a warehouse and land, or a counting-house and land. But the preceding words were "in respect of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments," which any lawyer would tell them that two houses or twenty houses would be included in them. It would be desirable to omit the words, or explain them by specific words.
SIR D. NORREYSsaid, that nothing would be more mischievous than to leave put the words. If this Bill were to receive
342
the interpretations of the hon. Members for Abingdon and Dublin, it would disfranchise a large portion of the constituency of Ireland. But he hoped the Government would be firm in resisting the insertion of the clause.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLargued that if the words proposed to be left out were omitted, the Irish franchise would not thereby be assimilated to the English franchise, inasmuch as the English Act contained the words "or other building."
COLONEL DUNNEhad not the slightest doubt that the Bill, as it stood, would have the effect of restricting the franchise beyond the intentions of Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would interpose no objection to the union of different tenements in order to make up the franchise.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, that was the very point of discussion. In a Bill which changed the franchise from tenure to rating, they ought to follow the analogy of the Irish poor-law, to which this measure was a supplement. In the rating under that law every description of property was taken into account, whether occupied under one or under various titles. As, therefore, occupation and payment of rates were intended to confer the franchise, the analogy ought to be strictly carried out, and no words be introduced which would deprive a qualified occupier who had paid his rates of the right to vote, by creating a distinction not recognised in the Poor Law Act. With regard to the Amendment for leaving out the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," he hoped it would be unanimously rejected, for it would materially add to the hardship and inconsistency of the Act.
MR. GROGANsaid, the sense of the House appeared to be against the Amendment; and, therefore, he would not press it.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR D. NORREYS, after the above words, "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," moved the omission of the words "or any house, warehouse, counting-house or shop, either separately or jointly with any land within such city, town, or borough, occupied as tenant under the same landlord, or occupied as owner," for the purpose of introducing a provision that, where an occupier shall be separately rated for several premises of the value of 8l. and upwards, the payment of poor-rates for any one of such premises

343
(being of the required value) shall be sufficient payment of rates for registry.
COLONEL DUNNEobjected to the omission of the words, and suggested that "or other building" should be added after "counting-house," as a means of assimilating the Bill to the English Act.
MR. REYNOLDSopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would give rise to litigation. It might do very well for a small borough like Mallow, where the difficulties which he foresaw could never occur, becauses the houses there never attained to the elevation which they reached in the city of Dublin, but it would be impracticable in large constituencies.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," were large enough to include everything; but the following words specified particular premises, restricting their occupation to be under the same landlord. There was therefore an apparent difficulty in the construction, which it certainly would be better to avoid. But he did not think the Committee would assent to the Amendment. The reason for inserting "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," was to comprehend every species of franchise. The clause certainly might be more clearly put, and it might be reconsidered upon the report. As the clause stood, the voter would have the right to vote, though he held under a hundred different landlords; but if the words "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," were struck out, he would not.
MR. R. C. HILDYARDreminded the House that the general words, "lands, tenements, or hereditaments," had been passed, and the question was whether words should be inserted to qualify them. If such words were inserted, he thought the clause would be inconsistent.
MR. ROEBUCKunderstood that the Attorney General acknowledged the principle contended for, but only wished to guard against proceeding in a hurry. If the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the principle, he (Mr. Roebuck) would give him the discretion he asked.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if the Committee were agreed on the point, he was willing that the words after "lands, tenements, and hereditaments" should be left out.
MR. ROEBUCKsuggested that the words should be struck out at once.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwas
344
quite willing to do so, but was in the hands of the Committee.
SIR F. THESIGERsuggested the advisability of taking the portions of the clause separately. If the Government would consent to omit the words "house, counting-house, or shop," the hon. Member for Dublin might then raise a discussion with respect to the occupation of tenants and owners.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. GROGANthen moved the insertion, after the words "hereditaments," of the words "as tenant or owner."
MR. C. ANSTEYwished to asked the Chairman whether it was competent to the hon. Member to move the insertion of words which had just been struck out of the clause?
The CHAIRMANconsidered that it was perfectly competent to the hon. Member for Dublin city to propose his Amendment.
Amendment proposed, page 3, line 25, after the word "hereditaments," to insert the words, "as tenant or owner."
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 170: Majority 87.
Same Clause, page 3, line 34. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'eight pounds.' "
MR. REYNOLDSmoved that the word "eight be struck out, and the blank be filled up by "five." His object, he said, was to reduce the borough qualification from 8l. to 5l. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side had admitted that the county qualification ought to be higher than the borough qualification, and as they had fixed the county qualification at 8l., he asked for their co-operation to induce Government to consent to his proposition. If the 8l. qualification were maintained, some of the boroughs would be virtually disfranchised. Portarlington, for instance, had 170 Parliamentary voters in 1847; and if the franchise were confined to those rated at 8l., the number would be reduced to 110. The case would be the same at Athlone. As the intention of the Government by this Bill was to enlarge the constituencies, he hoped they would not allow it to pass in such a form that it should have an opposite effect. In Dublin there were nominally on the burgess-roll 15,000 voters, including a class whom he was not quite in love with—the freemen—whose numbers were 4,000, who had no property

345
qualification, and were not required to be ratepayers or householders. Was it fair towards the voters with a property qualification, while the freemen were maintained, to insist on so high a franchise as an 8l. rating? A great principle was involved—were the parties who were rated to the poor, and paid their rates, entitled to a voice in the choice of their representatives? He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not oppose his Amendment, but give up all unworthy suspicions of the people, and identify themselves with the people in feeling and interest. If they acted otherwise, and the Bill was carried in spite of them, they would have to admit, on returning to their constituents, that they had done all in their power to prevent them having the franchise. With the 8l. qualification, not more than 24,000 voters would be given to all the boroughs; hence the state of the franchise would be made worse instead of being improved. At present the qualification was a 10 l. value, which was lower than an 8l. rating, the latter being equal to 12 l. in rental.
Afterwards proposed, "That the blank be filled with 'five pounds.'"
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid, he had no wish to limit the constituency in the county he represented.
MR. REYNOLDSexpressed his belief that the noble Lord would be returned for the county Down, even if they had universal suffrage.
SIR W. SOMBRVILLEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to maintain the Bill as it stood; he must, therefore, oppose the Amendment. The franchise proposed for the counties was much more extensive than the present one; but it was said it would not be so in the boroughs. His answer was, that the case of the boroughs was not so strong—so largo an extension of the suffrage was not necessary. The county electors in Ireland were not more than two per cent of the adult male population; while in this country it was 29 per cent. The borough electors in Ireland, on the other hand, bore a larger proportion to the population than it did in this country, being 22 per cent. There were 48,421 tenements in the different boroughs rated above 8l.; deducting one-fifth for double holdings, and holdings by minors, there remained 38,753. In some boroughs, the constituency might be diminished, but it was impossible to legislate with a view to particular boroughs; the House could only
346
proceed on general principles. In addition to the 38,753, there would also be the freemen, whatever might be their numbers. He would repeat, that the case of the boroughs was not so strong as that of the counties, and that it was the determination of the Government to support the Bill as it stood.
MR. P. FRENCHbelieved, if the 8l. rating standard were adopted, the Bill would operate as a restriction instead of an extension of the present franchise. The Reform Bill established an occupation franchise of 10 l.; but many of the tenements which conferred that franchise were rated at 5l. and 6l., and that was before the depreciation of property which of late years had taken place.
SIR T. O'BRIENconsidered that the 8l. test would virtually disfranchise many towns.
COLONEL RAWDONdeplored the decision which Government had come to in this matter. They could not be aware of the great depreciation of property in Irish towns. He thought that a 5l. rating for Ireland would be fully as high as a 10 l. rating in this country.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that admitting a 10 l. rating to be the proper test for the possession of the suffrage here, he wished to know whether an 8l. rating for Ireland bore the same relative proportion to the wealth of Ireland as a 10 l. rating did to the wealth of England. He found that in this clause they were going to pass another Schedule B—that great blot in the Reform Bill. It was now generally admitted that small constituencies were the source of great corruption in England; but were we not now about to call into being a series of small boroughs in Ireland in which the probability was that bribery of all kinds would most flourish? Now, he believed that corruption would, in a great degree, be put an end to by taking a 5l. instead of an 8l. franchise, and thus enlarging the constituencies. But, even apart from that consideration, was there not something in having a fair representation of the people of Ireland? A 10 l. qualification in England was grossly unequal; in some places in the north it would not do more than include the first houses in the town, and in London it hardly gave a vote. But how much more inequality was there between a 10 l. house in London, and an 8l. rating in Portarlington. Could anything be more unjust? and what would be the harm of adopting the proposition

347
of the Lord Mayor of Dublin? It appeared to him that the 5l. rating would hardly include the real honest middle classes of Ireland. Certainly, it would not do more than just include them. He trusted the Irish Gentlemen on both sides the House would press upon the noble Lord the adoption of the 5l. rating, as being only equivalent to the 10 l. rating in this country, and fairly expressing the difference in the manners, habits, and wealth of the two countries.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLwas of opinion that there was not an argument which had been used to sustain the 8l. franchise in counties, that would not go to support the proposition for a 5l. franchise in boroughs. The counties returned 64 Members, and the boroughs 39, and the 64 Members would have a constituency of 250,000, while the constituency of the boroughs would amount only to 48,441. Of that number Dublin would have 19,000, Cork 4,500, and Belfast 5,000; and what then would they have for the remainder of the boroughs?—a wretched minority, on which it would not be in the power of public opinion to act. To show the reduced state of the borough constituencies, he referred to the place represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In the borough of Drogheda, at the last election, 307 electors only were polled; and in the city of Cork, with a population, including the rural districts, of 106,000, the number of voters polled at the last election was 1,377.
SIR D. NORREYScalled attention to the fact, that the valuation on which the calculation was made respecting the borough franchise, was made some years ago, and no person could deny that, in the intermediate time, the valuations of tenements in towns had fallen 25 per cent.
MR. SADLEIRconcurred in the observation that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that the only real protection against a wide-spread system of corruption would be to increase the numbers of the borough constituency in Ireland. As the Bill at present stood, very few constituencies would exceed 300, and it was idle to expect that purity of election could be preserved in those boroughs where the constituency was under 300. He was surprised at the course taken by Irish Members at the opposite side of the House. They should have risen above the paltry considerations of party on this occasion, and called upon the
348
Government to confer on the boroughs a franchise sufficiently extensive.
LORD C. HAMILTONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that he very often sat at that side of the House himself, and was constantly changing his seat. He agreed in the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon with respect to the propriety of assimilating the practice in regard to boroughs in Ireland and Scotland.
MR. M. O'CONNELLsaid, there was no one acquainted with rating in Ireland who must not know that an 8l. valuation, if not more, was certainly not less, than 12 l. value, and the amount proposed by his right hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin would bring the amount as near as possible to an 8l. franchise.
MR. SCULLYbegged to say, in reference to an observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Seccretary for Ireland, that the number of borough voters in England was 314,000, while the number for Ireland, according to this return, would be 48,000; and was that, he asked, a fair proportion? If the 5l. franchise were adopted in Ireland, it would give, according to a calculation he had made, a proportion of about one vote in every sixteen of the population. He trusted the Government would attend to the suggestion made to them, for there were loud complaints from all quarters of the country against the Bill,
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, that there was not much cause to apprehend a very great extension of the franchise, whether they allowed all persons rated to the poor to vote, or limited the number to those who were rated at 5l., 6l., or 8l, so long as the payment of the rates was made a condition. Some rated at 5l. would pay, but many would not.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHhoped that some Member of the Government would condescend to state to the House the reasons why a measure was to be persisted in which evidently placed the Irish boroughs in such a dilemma.
COLONEL DUNNEbegged to say, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin had said, that there were only 170 voters in the borough which he (Colonel Dunne) had the honour to represent. But if his right hon. Friend were to take off the odd hundred, and leave only the seventy, he would be really nearer the mark. And if the present measure were passed in the form in which

349
it then stood, there would be some even of them taken off.
MR. MONSELLwished the noble Lord at the head of the Government would, after the strong and almost unanimous opinion expressed by all the hon. Members for Ireland against the Government proposal, allow the Chairman to report progress. It was admitted on all hands that a very different measure of justice would be dealt to the boroughs from that which was dealt to the counties if the clause were allowed to remain.
MR. S. ADAIRthought that a decision taken then by the House upon the question before it would be premature. He had received letters from persona of the highest respectability in the borough of Armagh, in which it was stated that the 8l. franchise, as it was proposed to be based, would be equivalent to a 16 l. value, taking into account the depreciated value of property, which was 20 to 25 per cent, at the very least. Of that depreciation there could be no doubt, and he felt that there would not be an equal measure of justice dealt to the boroughs and the counties by the original clause proposed. They ought to give the boroughs a free, fair, and bonâ fide franchise, and he confessed he had his doubts that the 8l. franchise would do that. In order to give the Government time to consider the question, he would be prepared, if the House thought fit, to move that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the Government had endeavoured to carry this Bill with a view to give, if possible, a real and practical benefit to the people of Ireland, to extend the number of electors where they were at present exceedingly deficient, and to make the franchise more satisfactory to the people of that country. If they should fail in that endeavour, they could not continue to take charge of the present Bill. With regard to the county franchise, it was obvious that the value hitherto required, and the mode of obtaining the franchise, had diminished the number of voters very greatly, so greatly that it was necessary to consider in what way the number could be best increased. They had considered the various propositions made during the past ten years upon the subject, and, upon the whole, they had come to the decision that it was necessary to alter the basis of the franchise from tenure to mere occupation. It was not thought necessary to make any consider-
350
able alteration in the borough franchise. It was made like the English borough franchise, which was fixed at 10 l. And, as it was an obvious proposition that they should no longer take the 10 l., it was resolved that they would take 8l. only, adopting rating as the amount instead of value. The 40 s. franchise having been abolished in Ireland, it was necessary to take a different franchise entirely from that of England with regard to the counties. But with regard to the boroughs it was not necessary to take another. There was not there the same dissimilarity. The 10 l. franchise remained in England, and if a 5l. one were taken for Ireland—if the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin were adopted, he certainly could see no reason why a 5l. one should not be taken for England. He had had an extensive correspondence upon the subject. He had received various letters from persons well qualified to form an opinion upon it, and they gave as their opinion that such a change would be entirely fatal to the Bill. Having received the opinion, and considered it, it certainly struck him that it was well founded. If they placed the Bill before the House as they had done, they would have a good chance of making a large and practical extension of the franchise. But if they made a proposal such as that which was then before the House, there would have been but little chance of such a Bill passing during the present Session. Those were the grounds upon which they had made their proposal. Of course, the House would deal with it as it thought fit. But it was not for want of discussion and a great deal of consideration upon the subject, that they had come to the decision they had of proposing an 8l. franchise.
MR. CHRISTOPHERbegged to make one observation as an English Member. He was very much surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the Channel state broadly and frankly that an 8l. franchise upon the rating in Ireland was equivalent to a 16 l. holding, when upon the poor-law debates they complained of the excessive pressure, in consequence of the rates being too much for them, so much higher than they were in England. He really could not reconcile the two propositions. If the 8l. franchise, according to the rates in Ireland, were equal to a 16 l. franchise in England, then hon. Gentlemen had no right to come forward to say that they were grievously oppressed.
MR. ROEBUCKthought that the question which the Committee had to discuss was entirely confined to the suffrage, and had nothing whatever to do with the question of rates as referred to by the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire. He (Mr. Roebuck) disapproved of the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Government with respect to this Bill, and his threatening no longer to take charge of it if any alteration were made in it by the Committee. The noble Lord had said, that he had made inquiries with respect to the case of Ireland; but what more information could he have desired than had been furnished to him by hon. Members for Ireland? There was not a single Irish Member who had spoken on the subject who had not said that the effect of fixing this amount of franchise would be to reduce very considerably the borough constituencies. The noble Lord had not stated how he had obtained his information from Ireland; but could he deny any of the statements which had been put forward by hon. Members for that country, one of whom, the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, had said, that if this amount were adopted, his constituency would be reduced to seventy electors. In his opinion the noble Lord was not dealing fairly with Ireland, and his councillors had not fairly informed him of the state of the country.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHcalled the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the report of the Commission appointed in 1840 to inquire with respect to the valuation of property in Ireland, in which it was stated that an eight pound franchise would strike off a great many of those who were then rated at 10 l., and that a 5l. franchise oven would have the same effect.
MR. KERSHAWsaid, that as he had always supported liberal measures for Ireland, he hoped that the Government would consent to reconsider this question with respect to the borough franchise.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYsuggested, that if the Government would not give the Committee any hope of their reconsidering the subject, the sooner the House divided the better.
MR. GROGANsaid, that in his opinion it was impossible to increase the borough constituencies, unless they obtained voters from the poor-houses.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid that, as he believed the Government might probably be induced to change their minds on the sub-
352
ject, he thought the better course to adopt would be for the Chairman to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
Question put, "That the blank be filled with 'eight pounds.'"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 142, Noes 90: Majority 52.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.

Halsey, T. P.

Adderley, C. B.

Hamilton, G. A.

Anson, hon. Col.

Hamilton, J. H.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Arkwright, G.

Hatchell, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hawes, B.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Bankes, G.

Headlam, T. E.

Bateson, T.

Heald, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Heneage, E.

Bennet, P.

Henley, J. W.

Beresford, W.

Herbert, H. A.

Berkeley, A dm.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Birch, Sir T. B. M.

Hildyard, R. C.

Boldero, H. G.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bowles, Adm.

Hood, Sir A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Howard, Lord E.

Brockman, E. D.

Jervis, Sir J.

Bunbury, W. M.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Jones, Capt.

Cayley, E. S.

Kildare, Marq. of

Chatterton, Col.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Childers, J. W.

Legh, G. C.

Christopher, R. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lewis, G. C.

Clive, H. B.

Lindsey, hon. Col.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Locke, J.

Coles, H. B.

Lockhart, W.

Conolly, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Manners, Lord J.

Cotton, hon. W.H. S.

Masterman, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Dodd, G.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Morris, D.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Dundas, Adm.

Mullings, J. R.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Mure, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Naas, Lord

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Newry & Morne, Visct.

Farrer, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Paget, Lord C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Paget, Lord G.

Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. J. W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Foley, J. H. H.

Parker, J.

Forbes, W.

Patten, J. W.

Freestun, Col.

Peel, F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Portal, M.

Gooch, E. S.

Price, Sir R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Ricardo, O.

Greene, T.

Rice, E. R.

Grenfell, C. W.

Rich, H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Romilly, Sir J.

Grogan, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Guernsey, Lord

Russell, hon. E. S.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Russell, F. C. H.

353

Rutherfurd, A.

Tufnell, H.

Seymer, H. K.

Turner, G. J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Shelburne, Earl of

Vane, Lord H.

Simeon, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Spooner, R.

Waddington, H. S.

Stafford, A.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Stanford, J. F.

Watkins, Col. L.

Stanley, E.

Williamson, Sir H.

Stanton, W. H.

Wilson, J.

Stuart, H.

Wodehouse, E.

Stuart, J.

Taylor, T. E.

TELLERS.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hill, Lord M.

Townley, R. G.

Grey, R. W.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Marshall, W.

Armstrong, R. B.

Martin, S.

Arundel and Surrey Earl of

Matheson, col.

Milner, W. M. E.

Bass, M. T.

Milton, Visct.

Blake, M. J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Monsell, W.

Brotherton, J.

Mowatt, F.

Brown, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Bunbury, E. H.

O'Connell, M.

Caulfeild, J. M.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clay, J.

O'Flaherty, A.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Osborne, R.

Cobden, R.

Pilkington, J.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Power, Dr.

Collins, W.

Power, N.

Dashwood, Sir G. H.

Rawdon, Col.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Rendlesham, Lord

Dovereux, J. T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Duncan, G.

Sadleir, J.

Dunne, Col.

Salwey, Col.

Ellis, J.

Scholefleld, W.

Evans, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Fagan, W.

Scully, F.

Fagan, J.

Smith, J. B.

Forster, M.

Spearman, H. J.

Fortescue, hon. J.W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fox, R. M.

Sullivan, M.

French, F.

Talbot, J.

Glyn, G. C.

Tancred, H W.

Grace, O. D. J.

Tenison, E. K.

Grattan, H.

Tennent, R. J.

Greene, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grenfell, C. P.

Thompson, Col.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Thornely, T.

Hastie, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Henry, A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Heyworth, L.

Wawn, J. T.

Hodges, T. T.

Willcox, B. M.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Williams, J.

Jackson, W.

Wilson, M.

Keating, R.

Wood, W. P.

Kershaw, J.

Wyld, J.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

TELLERS.

Meagher, T.

Reynolds, G.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Adair, R. S.

MR. GROGANthen moved, that in the first line of page 4, after the words "Poor-rates," there be inserted the words "Grand Jury Cess and Police-rate." He moved this, on the principle laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government,
354
of assimilating the qualification in Ireland to that of England, inasmuch as the poor-rate in the latter country included taxes analogous to those the payment of which he proposed to make indispensable.
MR. FORBESobjected to going further, as it was now within a few minutes to One, and moved that the Chairman do now report progress.
LORD J. RUSSELLhoped the Committee would not refuse to go on till they had finished the clause. With regard to the proposition before the House, he did not think that it would be any improvement, as it would add to the number of taxes which the voter must pay; and it was desirable that he should pay them, if possible, in one amount.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.
The House was adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Lieutenant General Lord Gough, G.C.B., having been created Viscount Gough, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
1a Railway Audit.
3a Ecclesiastical Commission.

RAILWAY AUDIT BILL.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in reply to a question which had been put to him by a noble Lord at the commencement of the Session, as to the intentions of Ministers with respect to the introduction of a Railway Audit Bill, he had stated that Her Majesty's Government was waiting to know what course would be adopted by the great body of railway directors, or of other persons representing the great aggregate of railway proprietors, in proposing a measure of that description. As it did not appear likely that the railway directors would introduce the measure which, in the course of last Session, they declared their intention to introduce, and as it did not appear likely that any large number of railway proprietors would combine to bring in any Bill of that kind during the present Session, it did not appear right to the Government to delay any longer the task of informing the public of the
294
course which Her Majesty's Ministers proposed to pursue. He now proposed the first reading of a Bill to provide for the Audit of the Accounts of Railway Companies. It was usual for their Lordships to assent to such Motion as a matter of course. It would be very inconvenient if he were at that moment to enter into any statement or argument to show either that the mode of railway audit formerly proposed was not a good one, or that the mode now proposed by the Government was the best. He should therefore confine himself to the explanation of the principal provisions of his Bill. The object of it was to secure, with the smallest amount of interference, an independent and continuous audit of railway accounts. Instead of the present system, by which each company selected its own auditor, it was proposed to establish a permanent central board, which should make a continuous audit of all the railway accounts in the kingdom. The machinery to work the board would be as follows:—Each railway company should, at the first special general meeting of its proprietors, after the 1st of January, 1851, elect one delegate. These delegates, after due notice given, should proceed to elect their chairman. Their votes should be in proportion to the capital paid up by the respective companies which they represented. The company which had not paid up 2,000,000 l of capital should have one vote; the company which had paid up above 2,000,000 l., and not less than 5,000,000 l. of its capital, should have two votes; the company which had paid up above 5,000,000 l., and not loss than 10,000,000 l. of its capital, should have three votes; and the company which had paid up above 10,000,000 l. should have four votes. These delegates would, as he had before said, proceed to nominate their chairman, and also two other members of the Board for Auditing Railway Accounts. When elected, the members of the board would be irremoveable, except by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates, sanctioned by the Board of Railway Commissioners. It was proposed that this Board of Audit should be obliged once in every half-year to make a report to each company on these points—whether their financial transactions were regularly organised; whether their accounts of receipt and expenditure were rightly set forth; whether the heads of capital and of dividend were distinctly set apart; whether the dividends declared were or were not injurious to the railway

295
companies; and whether the law charges were correctly taxed or not. It was also proposed that they should place their reports before Parliament at the beginning of each year. Powers would also be given to this Audit Board by his Bill to make a continuous auditing of the different railway accounts, and to call upon all the railway officers to give them every assistance in the execution of their duties. Powers would also be given them to inspect all books, papers, documents, and vouchers to enable them to form a perfect balance-sheet of the receipts and expenditure of each and every company. It was proposed that the expenses of the Audit Board should be repaid in this manner: 10,000 l. was, in the first instance, to be subscribed among the various railway companies, and would be paid into an account opened for it in the Bank of England. It was proposed that the expenditure of the board should be audited in the same way as the expenditure of the country. The members of the Audit Board would have to prepare an account of their expenditure for each half-year, to be audited by the Auditors of Public Accounts. It would be open to the different railway companies to object to that account through the medium of a majority of the delegates; and the appeal was to be to the Board of Railway Commissioners, whose decision on all points would be final. These were the principal features in the Bill to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. He had not entered into any argument on the various provisions which he had announced to their Lordships, because he did not want to do anything which might promote discussion prematurely on the merits or demerits of his measure. He concluded by moving that it be read a first time.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he was much gratified to find that his noble Friend and his Colleagues had at length undertaken the task of solving this difficult problem. It had been stated that he was in favour of a Government audit. He was only desirous that an entirely independent audit should be established.
Bill read 1a.

THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.
LORD STANLEY, in presenting a petition from the promoters of the erection of a school of the National Society at Rockfield in Monmouthshire, intimated to the Bishop of Chichester that, in his opin-
296
ion, it would not be for the general benefit that a full discussion should take place that evening on the question of the management of the grants of public money for the purposes of education by the Committee of the Privy Council. In the parish from which the petition came which he then held in his hand there was at present no school for the education of the children of the poor labourers. The promoters of a project for erecting a school in that parish were all members of the Church of England; so, too, was the donor of the site for the school. They had furnished a title for the school, which the legal advisers of the Committee of the Privy Council for Education had declared to be unobjectionable, and had prayed the Committee to make them a grant for a school on the basis of the National Society. They had complied with all the preliminary conditions required before a grant could be made; and the only distinction which he could see between the case of these petitioners and the case of other petitioners to the Committee of Privy Council was, that they, being all members of the Church of England, were desirous that in all cases where any difference might arise among themselves, that difference should be left to the bishop of the diocese as arbitrator. He thought that no reasonable objection could be made to this proposal; and yet upon that proposal they had been told that they could receive no assistance from the Privy Council.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEobserved, that with regard to the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, he would follow the judgment of the noble Baron opposite, and would abstain from entering into details at present. He would simply state that, in his opinion, the objections taken by these petitioners against the ordinary course of proceeding, did not entitle them to partake of the public grant. The noble Lord had said that he was of opinion that it would not be convenient now to enter into a full discussion on the education question. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not desirous of entering into that full discussion that evening, if no one else was; but notice had been given in the usual way, by a right rev. Prelate, of his intention to make some general remarks on the subject in presenting a petition; and he should feel it to be highly inconvenient to the public service to allow vague statements to be made on one side, without entering, on the other,

297
into a full exposition of all the erroneous opinions and facts which had recently been propounded to the public. Into that exposition he was then prepared, if necessary, to enter, in order to refute the misrepresentations and falsehoods which had been so sedulously propagated to the injury of the Committee.
The BISHOP of LONDONwas induced to address their Lordships in consequence of the concluding observations of the noble Marquess. He hoped that he might be instrumental in preventing that full discussion on the merits of the conduct of the Committee of the Privy Council which the noble Baron had just deprecated. Their Lordships would remember that when, in the year 1839, the constitution of this Committee was under discussion in that House, an address to Her Majesty on the subject was moved by his venerated Friend the late Archbishop of Canterbury. He had at that time expressed his opinion strongly in favour of the Address; but though their point was not then gained practically—for the Government of the day had disappointed their expectations—he had ever since exerted himself to the utmost of his ability to promote a good understanding between the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society for the Education of the Poor. The noble Marquess was no doubt aware of his desire to put an end to the dissatisfaction and discontent which then existed. He would not say how far he complained of the partiality of the Committee of Privy Council in the distribution of these grants. Certainly he did not go the length of the petitioners; but he had always understood that the process by which the Committee distributed the public bounty in aid of education was, to a great extent, merely experimental—it was then a new process. He thought that the time had now come in which, after the experiment had been so long in progress, we might fairly hope that a calm and dispassionate inquiry might be instituted into its results. He admitted that many misrepresentations were abroad on that subject; but he hoped that by inquiry we might at last come to the truth in an undoubted form, by hearing the evidence of persons on both sides of the question; and he believed that no tribunal was better calculated to elicit the truth on this question than a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. Such a Committee ought, in his opinion, to be appointed forthwith
298
by their Lordships; for, considering that it would have great national objects in view, inasmuch as the political interests of the State were inseparably bound up with its religious interests; and that a strong opinion prevailed among the great body of the clergy as to the mode in which this grant was disposed of, it imposed on their Lordships the responsibility of granting inquiry; and, therefore, he trusted that the noble Marquess would hold out some hope of the appointment of a Select Committee, as such a measure would greatly tend to quiet the apprehensions now existing in the public mind. Such an inquiry was rendered the more necessary by recent proceedings which had taken place elsewhere, and which must be known to their Lordships. Looking at the proposition which had recently been made in the House of Commons—comprehending, as it did, all secular education in its grasp, and proposing means for carrying it out, to which he would not at that moment further refer—he must say that it imposed on their Lordships the duty of instituting an inquiry without delay into the whole subject, so that, if that Bill, in any modified shape, should find its way into their Lordships' House, they might be prepared with information which would enable them to judge of its probable results. It was impossible to overstate the extent of the feeling upon the subject of education which existed not only among the clergy of the Established Church, but also among the laity connected with it. He held in his possession a number of petitions regarding it, one of which was signed by ninety-two members of the Stock Exchange, and which requested a Committee of Inquiry. Before he sat down he must say one word on the subject of female education, which he considered to be of first-rate importance. There was a great and, he believed, a well-founded apprehension, that with regard to female education, the system of inspection had not been so judiciously carried out as to answer what he believed to be the intentions of the Government. This subject in particular deserved inquiry. The right rev. Prelate concluded by declaring that he had endeavoured to carry out the views of the Privy Council of Education, so far as he had been able conscientiously to do so.
The ABCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYobserved, that the measure which had just been proposed by his right rev. brother the Bishop of London did not require any

299
additional support from him. It had not, perhaps, been suggested to the noble Marquess before, but he trusted that the noble Marquess would take it into consideration. The state of popular education in England at present was quite anomalous. There were two parties, both equally anxious to promote education. It could only he successfully promoted by their co-operation; and yet there was danger, lest they should impede rather than assist each other, and so defeat their own purpose. These two parties were the clergy of the Church and the Committee of Privy Council. No one could doubt the anxiety of each party to promote the good work. No man could doubt the anxiety of the clergy, who knew, as he did, the pains and efforts, the personal sacrifices, and he might even say the personal embarrassments, to which they subjected themselves in this cause. On the other hand, no man could doubt the earnestness of the Government, and especially of the noble Marquess who was at the head of the Privy Council. The la-hour which the noble Marquess had undergone in devising plans to carry his objects into execution were above all praise; and at a moment when the national finances were not at all flourishing, but in some embarrassment, the only grant which was neither grudged nor retrenched was the liberal grant for the purpose of education, in which men of every political creed cordially concurred. No one, then, could doubt the sincerity of both parties. And these two parties, thus engaged in the same cause, and desiring the same end, could only promote their common object, as he had before said, by co-operation. The Church could never, from its own funds, provide accommodation for its daily-increasing population. Even those institutions which were in existence at present could not have been raised without the liberal aid of Parliament. On the other hand, the State could not carry out its objects without the assistance of the Church; for, let men do what they would, the success of the parochial school must depend on the assistance and supervision of the parochial clergy. It was by their activity, energy, and influence, that parents were stirred up to send their children to school; and the education of the school was either efficient or worthless according to the degree of care bestowed on it by the clergy. We do not undervalue the assistance of the laity; we court it, and desire it; but it is not regular, it is not certain, it cannot
300
be commanded; whereas the clergyman was always on the spot, and the number of the scholars, and the usefulness of the school, alike depended on the attention of the clergyman. It would be just ground of regret if, between these two parties, animated by the same desire, and necessary to one another, there should be any jealousy or suspicion, hindering that co-operation which is needful to their success. There had been much jealousy on both sides, and not, perhaps, without some grounds. Claims had been set up on the one side which had no foundation either in the civil or in the ecclesiastical constitution of the land; and, on the other, concessions had been refused which would have given confidence to the clergy, and which seemed to be refused through an apprehension of adding weight and influence to the Church. Any measure, therefore, like that of his right rev. Friend, which might tend to bring these parties to a better understanding, was well worthy the attention of the noble Marquess, as likely to promote the success of a cause in which he was so earnestly engaged.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it was well known he had always taken the deepest interest in the cause of education. It was now thirty-five years since he commenced his labours in that cause, and his only sorrow was, that they had not been so successful as he could have wished. It was impossible to over-estimate the high importance of education to all the religious, moral, and (to borrow a phrase from a neighbouring country) material interests of the country—to the interests of our worldly prosperity, and to those of our immortal happiness. He had laboured long in this cause; but he had been doomed to perpetual disappointment in the prosecution of his plans. The first Bill—a measure which he considered the most innocent and moderate step that could be taken in the cause of education—which he introduced in 1820, had been thrown out—not by the Church, for the members of the Church had been the supporters of his Bill as often as it was urged upon Parliament—but by the Dissenters, who took up an unfounded alarm; and, because there was a veto given to the pastor of the parish on the appointment of the schoolmaster, declared that religious liberty would be at an end in case that veto should have the sanction of the Legislature. He had then, as a Member of their Lordships' House, brought in two or three other Bills for the promotion of education,

301
but all with the same success. He had then addressed a letter on the whole subject of education to his respected and beloved Friend the late Duke of Bedford; and as in that letter he stated all the difficulties of the question, and made some just and liberal admissions in favour of the Church, the author of that letter, as well as the party to whom it was addressed, became the objects of the most unmeasured abuse by the organs of the Government of that day. What had been the result? Nothing could be more zealous or honest than the disposition of the Dissenters in favour of the education of the people—nothing could be more zealous or honest than the disposition of the Church. But there was in all human feelings a degree of perverseness. We do not anything absolutely, but all things relatively; and all this zeal of the Dissenters was overcome by a little wish to get a victory over the Church; and all this conscientious zeal of the Church for education was exceeded a little by another feeling, which was a wish to gain a victory over the Dissenters; so that between these conflicting sects education had fallen to the ground, or if not to the ground was near the earth, instead of winging its way through mid-air and mounting aloft to its kindred skies. The question, then, was, "How are these difficulties to be overcome, and how is popular education to be given to the country?" It could not be said, "Why don't you do as is done in Scotland? and for this reason, that though in Scotland there were Dissenters, there was no difference between them and the Church as to doctrine—the difference was as to discipline. In England the difference was as to doctrine; but, unfortunately, the difference as to discipline was doing in Scotland the very same work which the difference as to doctrine was doing in England. The controversy regarding patronage, which had cleft in twain the venerable structure of the Church of Scotland, was now stunting and dwarfing in Scotland the efforts of the wise for educational purposes. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate opposite, that their Lordships ought to be setting their House in order for the Education Bill which had been introduced elsewhere, and that they should be procuring information, in order to judge the better on what had been done, on what had been left undone, and on what yet remained to be done. Such a subject ought not to be left in the hands of any private individual, however respectable—
302
such a subject, surely, was not unworthy that attention of the Imperial Legislature. He was inclined to think that their Lordships ought to assent to the previous inquiry, suggested by the right rev. Prelate. His difficulty, however, arose from the boundless length to which such an inquiry was likely to be protracted, from the quantity of time which it would occupy, and from a doubt whether it would not give rise to the introduction of much controversial matter, which would mar, and not advance, the common object of all parties. If the right rev. Prelate, on further consideration, should make a deliberate proposal for a Select Committee, he should feel inclined to support him, for we could not stop now where we were. We had either gone too far, or not far enough—we had either done too much, or too little. He ought to apologise for having detained their Lordships so long on this subject; but when they reflected how much of his life had been expended in attempts to gain education for the people, and when they were informed that the average expenditure for schools in this country was about four times less ample than it was in Switzerland, and about half as ample as it was in Scotland, and when they found that there were such scanty funds for the education of the children of the poor in our large towns, where education was most wanted, he hoped that they would agree with him in thinking that no time could be considered as wasted which was spent in the discussion of this important question.
The BISHOP of CHICHESTERsaid, that he had been entrusted with the presentation of numerous petitions on this important subject, and he felt that, considering the number of persons who had assented to these petitions, and the influential character of those who had signed them, he should not have performed his duty had he presented them in the ordinary form, with the mere proposal that they be laid upon the table. He had therefore given notice that he had such petitions, and that he would present them on the present day. He did not thereby pledge himself to do more than represent to their Lordships that the petitions were important, on an important subject, and well deserving of the attention of their Lordships. When the Lord President of the Council inquired of him in private whether the presentation of his petitions would lead to any discussion, his answer had been, he was afraid, too general, and had not con-

303
veyed to the noble Marquess his intention of not entering into any discussion on the management clauses, or on the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council. His intention was to represent to their Lordships on the part of the petitioners that they had something to complain of, and that they were at the bar entreating that their complaints—whether they were right or wrong he would not determine—should be taken into consideration. As this question was before the House, having originated in the presentation of a petition upon the subject by a noble Lord, in respect of which the question, that it do lie upon the table, was not yet disposed of, he trusted he was not altogether informal, and, if he were not, he did not think it unbecoming in him to take the opportunity for stating that he also had a petition to present to the House, and for accompanying it with a few observations, in the hope of obtaining for it that attention which was its due. The friends of education, as represented by the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, and the clergy of the Established Church, were reduced to a condition in which he could not contemplate any successful issue to their efforts; nay, to a condition in which he could not see anything but the chance of a disastrous conclusion. It would require the intervention of some powerful influence to bring the two parties back to that condition in which the Committee of Privy Council and the National Society could co-operate with benefit to the cause of education and to the welfare of the country generally. Since the last communication was made to the National Society by the Committee of Privy Council, he had become convinced that it would be desirable to find some medium by which the difference between them could be readjusted. He rejoiced to hear from his right rev. Brother that an inquiry into these matters by a Select Committee of their Lordships was a thing not to be despaired of. If such an inquiry could be obtained, it would prove a very beneficial and healing measure. In presenting the petition which he then held in his hand—if, indeed, it were not informal to present it before the petition of the noble Baron was disposed of—in presenting that petition, he should do nothing more than lay it on the table, in the ardent hope that due consideration would be given to the proposition of the Bishop of London for a Select Committee of Inquiry. There was much dissatisfac-
304
tion in the country upon this subject. There were now lying by his side nearly 700 petitions emanating from different districts and places, and all complaining, to a certain extent, of the management clauses. Surely that mass of petitions must convince their Lordships that there was a deep feeling in the country. A great portion of those petitions coincided in the prayer for inquiry. He trusted that their Lordships would concede it. He did not accord with the petitioners in all their statements; but he thought that they ought to be carefully heard by their Lordships.
[The right rev. Prelate being informed that it would be informal to present at that time the petition to which he referred, presented it at a later period of the evening.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the suggestion that an inquiry, by a Committee, should be made into all the circumstances raised by the petitioners, and hoped some benefit and advantage might proceed from it. He was sorry to say, however, he could not at all share in the expectations which had been expressed by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London), or lead himself to believe that the inquiry would be followed by any of the consequences the right rev. Prelate anticipated. He had very properly called their Lordships' attention to the unquestionable fact that great excitement and great dissatisfaction existed in the body of the Church of England, among the clergy as well as the laity, with respect to the vital and important subject of education, and had expressed a hope that that excitement and dissatisfaction would be allayed by the labours of a Committee of their Lordships. If he (the Bishop of St. David's) believed that those feelings arose from one source only, he might entertain a similar hope; but it was his belief that they had arisen from two distinct sources, widely different in their nature. The first of these consisted of matters of fact, which fell within a very narrow compass, and had been long before the public in printed documents, so as to render all persons of intelligence competent to form an opinion respecting them. He did not believe the suggested inquiry could throw a great deal of additional light on these facts and documents, or would alter the opinion of any one who had attentively studied them. The second cause of the deep dissatisfaction which was producing the most deplorable

305
consequences by obstructing the course of popular education, and which had inflicted incalculable damage on the Church and on the country, was of a very different character, and of a much larger measure. He referred to the persons who had mainly produced the excitement to which the right rev. Prelate alluded, and who had not contented themselves with an appeal to facts or to arguments grounded upon them, but had largely indulged in surmises, conjectures, insinuations, and imputations of motives—in prophecies of evil for the future, as in misrepresentations of the past, which were adapted to operate on sensitive and excitable imaginations in proportion as they were vague and indefinite, and which, the more unsubstantial and impalpable they were, became the less capable of being made the subject of such special investigation as might lead to a satisfactory result. He did not at all deprecate inquiry on the ground that the question was a large one, but because he did not consider the time and labour of the Committee would be well employed. After a vast expenditure of both one and the other, the inquiry would lead to no result, unless they were able to discriminate between the excitement founded on facts and that which had been raised on the unsubstantial basis he had described, and they would eventually be forced to go back to those great first principles staked in the question, and consider whether or not they were to be, and how they should be, carried into effect. He hoped those principles never would be abandoned, because he believed they were the only barrier against the danger to which the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had adverted, and, in case they should be relinquished, he was satisfied no alternative remained but the admission of measures which he, for one, should most earnestly deprecate.
The EARL of HARROWBYconsidered that Parliament had been experimenting on the subject of education, and that it was time for them to come to some definite result. The Government scheme had never yet been laid before their Lordships in one complete and comprehensive form, and it was full time to see if there were not points which might be settled in some degree, so that the public mind might be quieted as to the uncertainty which existed as to the future course that would be taken respecting the education of the people. He felt the importance of the question to be so
306
great that he would take an early opportunity of bringing it before their Lordships, that some steps might be taken to set it at rest.
LORD BROUGHAMwas apprehensive that his fellow-labourers on the Committee of 1816, 1817, and 1818, in the other House might justly complain of him if he merely enumerated the abortive Bills which had been introduced on the subject of education, and omitted to state that the plan adopted by the Government of Earl Grey in 1833 was founded on the report of the Committee laid before Parliament in 1818.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the course taken on this occasion did not make it incumbent on him to enter into a full discussion, or to make any statement of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. He would, however, observe as to the meeting at which the petition entrusted to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Chichester) had originated, that there was scarcely one single statement made at the meeting, in reference to matters of fact, which he was not able on the most unquestionable evidence—evidence laid on the table of that House—most decisively to controvert, and to prove that persons unacquainted with this subject were induced to sign that petition, by statements which might have been contradicted on the spot. It would be sufficient for him to tell their Lordships that when a clergyman of the Church of England, a manager of one of the Church schools, who was present at that meeting, rose to contradict them, he was told that that was not the fitting opportunity to do so—they wanted no information from him, and he was refused a hearing;—thus showing that those gentlemen who were assembled at that meeting in the spirit of religious liberty, as they said, were disposed to accord that religious liberty to none who ventured to inform the meeting of the facts. He was aware that this was a subject on which the public mind had been much excited, and many various and conflicting views had been formed; but however excited a man's feelings might be, that formed no excuse, in a matter in which the cause of religion and charity was so deeply concerned, for perverting the truth, and for countenancing and disseminating statements which those who put them forward, had they made themselves acquainted with the facts as they might have done, must have known to be wholly and entirely unfounded. He would simply state two or three facts which

307
were material as proving the nature of the misrepresentations under which this petition had been signed. It was stated that the Church of England, under the administration of the Educational Committee of the Privy Council, had not received its due proportion of the public money voted by Parliament. Now, he would inform their Lordships, without entering into any argument as to the principles on which these grants have been apportioned, that of that considerable fund, so liberally allowed by Parliament, not loss than four-fifths of the money had gone to the Church of England—that, in fact, he expected if any complaint were made from any quarter on this subject, it would have come not from the Church, but from the Dissenting body, who might undoubtedly have stated that in proportion to the amount of their population they had not received their due. But with respect to the Church of England, their schools, as shown by the paper he held in his hand, had received at least four-fifths of the whole of the grants made for building schools, and, what was not less important, had had a still greater proportion, as he believed, but at least the same of the grants for maintaining the schools when founded. Yet, notwithstanding these facts, it was asserted, and confidently asserted, at that meeting, that not one shilling of the public money voted by Parliament had gone to any school, the congregation promoting which had not been required to subscribe to what were called the management clauses. Now, that statement was perfectly unfounded. He had in his possession at that moment, and could at once lay it on the table of their Lordships' House, a list of no less than 400 schools, which had received for various purposes connected with education out of the Parliamentary grant, sums for books, for masters, and other items of expenditure amounting altogether to a great many thousand pounds which had been so applied, which were being so applied, and which would continue to be so applied. That was a matter of fact which, under the circumstances, their Lordships would agree with him that he was fully justified in stating. It was also stated on the occasion he alluded to that in some part of the proceedings of the Committee of the Privy Council there had been a determination shown to prevent religion from being connected with the education given in the schools aided by those funds. Yet there were at that mo-
308
ment—and the fact must have been known to the person who made that statement, but whom he would not name, and who ought undoubtedly to have acquainted his audience with the minutes on which he was commenting—there were at that time in existence a series of regulations (which he had in his possession, and which it would have been his duty to read to their Lordships had they gone into the discussion of this question)—making in the first year, in the second year, the third year, and even down to the fifth year, examination and instruction by a clergyman of the Church of England in the catechism and formularies of the Church of England an indispensable condition. Yet such was the obliquity of mind—such the peculiar construction of the understanding of this gentleman who made that statement—that he could bring himself to assert that there was to be found in those minutes and regulations only a disposition to separate religious from secular education. Now, these were material facts, these were statements which he could not allow to pass uncontradicted, because such was his feeling on this subject, so deeply was he persuaded that it was indispensable to the course of sound education to connect it, and to connect it inseparably, with religious instruction, that if one tithe of what was stated at that meeting were true, it would have been his duty instantly to have discontinued having any share in the administration of these grants, and, far from opposing, to have seconded any Motion that might be proposed for putting a stop to such a system. It seemed to have been the prevailing opinion that the distribution of the grant, and the proceedings of the Government as connected with it, had not led to a successful issue. Certainly it might not have been as successful as some had expected, but he would not admit that their exertions had not led to any successful issue. He could inform their Lordships that at that moment there were scattered throughout the country upwards of 800 schools founded with the assistance of the Parliamentary grant, in close accord with the Committee of Privy Council, and under the superintendence of the zealous clergymen who were their patrons and managers. From them he was daily in the habit of receiving testimony as to the benefits derived from inspection, and from the system adopted with regard to teachers and masters. All of those communications stated that the

309
schools fully realised the expectations held out, and that being the case, he could not admit that 800 schools, founded on a regular system, were not an improvement, and a very great improvement, on the no system that had previously prevailed. To a certain extent, then, he thought the experiment had been successful; but he earnestly wished for its greater success, and therefore he was more anxious that public attention should be directed to every fact and circumstance connected with the subject. He believed he might say that there had been no indisposition exhibited on the part of the Government to lay upon the table every document and fact that could enable their Lordships to form a right and constitutional judgment. A desire had been expressed that there should be a Committee to inquire into the subject, and an opinion had been stated in favour of that course, to which he bowed with great deference, well knowing the great authority from which it proceeded; but he should be doing great injustice to the most rev. Prelate at the head of the Church, or the right rev. Prelate who sat near him, if he did not state that both had exhibited a constant desire to come to a good understanding with all parties concerned in this difficult question. He should also be doing injustice to his noble and learned Friend on the opposite side of the House (Lord Brougham) if he did not say that that noble and learned Lord had been, for a series of years, unremitting in his exertions in the good cause, and that even under circumstances which gave but slight prospect of an successful result to his labours. But he would remind his noble and learned Friend of the great difficulties he had himself encountered, and would express his hope that his noble and learned Friend would, from experience, be induced to make allowance for the obstacles with which the Committee of Privy Council had to contend. Whether those difficulties could be met by a Committee, was a question which he was not then going to discuss, nor could he decide; but thus far he would say, that he had not heard any Parliamentary ground laid for such a Committee. However, although he could not say that he was prepared, as at present advised, to support such a Motion, he would promise it the most attentive consideration. But he was appalled by the magnitude of the task which their Lordships proposed to undertake—a magnitude arising not only from the importance of
310
the question of education as it affected the habits and morals of the country, but from the various religious interests which must be considered in discussing that question as a national measure. The right rev. Bench must not think that they could enter into such an investigation as regarded the Church of England, and at the same time exclude other sects and other churches. It might be admitted that every religious denomination in the country should share in any public bounty granted for educational purposes, but it was not so easy to settle the proportions in which that bounty was to be distributed, or the nature of the safeguards you were to have from each. He spoke with a knowledge which even the right rev. Prelates could not have—a knowledge derived from the experience of the last three years—of the difficulty of dealing with sectarian scruples in the allocation of public grants. He could assure their Lordships that they would find the task no easy one, either in deciding on the system they should recommend, or in satisfying those classes of the community whose numbers and importance entitled them to consideration. [A Noble LORD made an observation across the table.] He could assure his noble Friend that he had found difficulty enough in dealing with the question in England, without extending his labours to Ireland. Whatever might be their Lordships' decision, he trusted that they would not insist on suspending the present system pending inquiry, because if they stopped the schools until they had hit upon a system calculated to satisfy all parties, he feared that a very serious injury would be done to great national interests. He merely threw out these suggestions for the purpose of showing that the question required the most cautious consideration, and should only observe, in conclusion, that he quite concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl, that whenever a grant was about to be made for educational purposes by the Committee of Privy Council, the amount of that grant, and the principle upon which it was dispensed, should be submitted to Parliament.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table; as were a large number of petitions on the same subject.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My

311
Lords, I was about to state, before you went into Committee, that I object to this Bill. I object to the principle of the Bill distinctly; but I was so unfortunate as to be in a distant part of the country on the day on which the noble Lord moved the second reading, and I had it not in my power to attend in my place then to state my objection. With your Lordships' permission I will state it now. My Lords, my opinion is, that the Bill does not go far enough; that the Bill, as it stands at present will not put an end to the state of disturbance in Ireland which it is the intention of the Government that it should put an end to. From the accounts of the affair at Dolly's Brae, it appears that between the parties engaged in the disturbances which took place at Dolly's Brae, there have been many other occasions of disturbance. Many disturbances have, in fact, taken place, which will not be prevented by the state of the law as it will stand under this Bill. It appears that both those parties are in the habit of burying the dead belonging to the classes composing each of them with great formalities, which it is a common practice for the other party to interrupt, and that those ceremonies give occasion for disturbances as fatal as any of these processions. Now, I confess I never can understand the reason why the Legislature should not at once prevent persons in Ireland from appearing abroad with arms. For what reason is it, that in Ireland the population should be allowed to appear abroad, out of their houses, in arms?—a privilege which I venture to say does not exist for the people of any other portion of the civilised world. Why should any man be allowed to appear with arms, excepting as in this country—as in other countries—for the purpose of his amusement—for sporting? Why should not every man who appears with arms be required to produce his game certificate, or be deprived of his arms, or called upon to account for his having possession of arms under such circumstances? My Lords, what I desire is, that the magistrate, the local magistrate, should have it in his power, by means of the constables whom he has under his direction, to protect these parties in burying the dead from being attacked, during the ceremonies, by others who come out with arms. My Lords, the facility for collecting large numbers of people in Ireland with arms is deserving your attention, and I entreat you to allow a clause to be inserted in this Bill to en-
312
able the justices to disperse any such meeting, and to deprive those individuals of their arms who appear upon these occasions in funeral processions, or in an attack upon a funeral procession with arms in their hands. I am not prepared with a clause this night, but I give notice that either upon the report or the third reading I will propose a clause—I hope the Government will not object to it—which shall have for its object to prevent any person in Ireland from appearing in arms out of his house.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEadmitted, that in the observation which had fallen from the noble and gallant Duke, there was much matter deserving of serious consideration; but he apprehended that there would be considerable difficulty in introducing such a clause into this Bill, which was entitled "a Bill to Restrain Party Processions in Ireland;" and he did not think it would be expedient to convert this into an Arms Bill, though he was very far from saying that it might not be necessary to introduce such a Bill.
LORD MONTEAGLEwas convinced that if there was a point upon which all the well-disposed people of Ireland were agreed, it was that of the necessity of dealing with the question of the possession of arms by the Irish peasantry; and the Government were not doing their duty if they were not prepared both to consider that question and to act upon their consideration. He observed, that under the present Bill the arms would not be forfeited unless the people were commanded by a justice to disperse and refuse to depart. If they obeyed the command, they might carry off their arms, the possession of which was one of the badges of illegality for which the command to disperse was to be given. The prospect of forfeiture of their arms would in many cases, more than any other penalty, deter the peasantry from joining in a party procession; and he would put into the hands of the Government an Amendment he had prepared, which would impose that penalty, that the Government might either adopt the Amendment upon consideration, or return it to him, that he might move it.
The LORD CHANCELLORthought that the noble Lord had excluded the proclamation from his consideration. That document only consisted of a few words—it would only take a few moments to read it—and if the meeting, after it had been read, did not forthwith disperse, it would

313
be competent for the magistrates to seize the arms of all present.
Lord STANLEYthought it would be very desirable if the object could be attained—he would not say of diminishing the possession of arms, but the prevalence of the custom of persons going about the country armed without any reasonable ground. He saw the force of the objection to the noble Duke's proposition, as not coining within the scope of this Bill; but that objection could not apply to this proposal, to enact the penalty of the forfeiture of the arms in the case of persons appearing in these processions armed, as well as persons refusing to disperse. Where the individuals could be identified, the arms might be seized subsequently.
The EARL of GLENGALLhad had it suggested to him, and would mention it for the consideration of the Government, that it was doubtful whether the Bill would touch parties who, wishing to commemorate a party anniversary, met in a field or space near the public road, and there displayed all sorts of party emblems, and had their firearms and their music, provided only they did not "join in procession."
The LORD CHANCELLORthought the words being "who shall meet and parade together, or join in procession," would include such a case.
Amendments made. Report to be received on Thursday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.