should be fully investigated, and consider-| ing also that there was no prospect of coming to a definite conclusion upon the question before the recess, he was quite willing to accede, on the part of the Government, to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that both the Bills, namely, the Bill of the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee), should be referred to a Select Committee. He did not understand that there existed the same objection to the Land Improvement Bill and the Leasing Powers Bill; he thought they should pass as rapidly as possible, and not be referred to a Select Committee.

MR. KEOGH supposed his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Shee) would be allowed to name the Committee as early as possible.

MR. WALPOLE said, he should of course communicate with the hon, and learned Gentleman upon that point. His desire was that the Committee should consist of a fair proportion of Irish Members on both sides of the House.

MR. LUCAS thought the Leasing Powers Bill should be referred to the Select Committee. It contained an important principle connected with compensation. He also thought it would be of great importance that the Committee should have the power of hearing evidence to show what would be the exact operation of the various clauses of the two Bills. If they did not, they would be legislating in the dark.

MR. GROGAN objected to sending Mr. Crawford's Bill to a Select Committee, on the ground that it had been already rejected by the House because it involved a violation of the rights of property.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till Wednesday, the 15th December."

MR. R. M. FOX regretted that the Irish Members had consented to send the Tenant-right Bill before a Select Committee at all. He was convinced, from what he had seen of other Select Committees, the whole thing would end in nothing being done. Some explanation was due to the House of the extraordinary silence preserved during the debate by Her Majesty's Ministers.

MR. NAPIER said, he had intended to follow the hon, Member for Carlow county (Mr. Ball), but that the adjournment of the debate was moved just after he sat down, and he (Mr. Napier) thought that, having spoken at length on introducing the Bill, it would only be fair to give hon. Members an opportunity of stating their opinions. He was quite prepared to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman in his remarks on the Tenant Bill. He might add, before he sat down, that having prepared abstracts of the Bill for the better comprehension of it, he found, on looking to one of them then in his hand, that the printer's error had not crept into it.

MR. KEOGH remarked that it was a very extraordinary circumstance that the same mistake should have crept into all the right hon. Gentleman's Bills. The Bill would in effect be found a delusion, for when the right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that thirty-one years should be the compensating period of enjoyment, he sent the tenant who might be evicted before a tribunal which was limited in jurisdiction to four years' clear yearly value of the lands. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the preparation of those Bills had added many an hour of toil to a life not professionally unemployed. This certainly was the great age of concession and appropriation. The House would hear with surprise that the materials which had added those weary hours to the right hon. Gentleman's life, had been supplied by the pigeon-holes of Dublin Castle. Why did he say so? Because an hon. Member now in the House had a

MR. O'FLAHERTY regretted that the hon. Member opposed the moderate, conciliatory, and equitable course proposed by the Home Secretary. It would be a very one-sided proceeding to send up one Bill to the Committee, and to reject the other. As to examining witnesses before the Committee, he was of opinion it would be useless, as very few witnesses could be found who would fully understand the sub-pamphlet in his pocket written by Mr. ject.

The SPEAKER reminded the House that the debate had been adjourned, but that no day was named to which the adjournment was to take place.

MR. WALPOLE suggested the 15th December.

Tighe Hamilton, formerly Assistant Secretary at Dublin Castle, and dated at Nice on the 2nd of last month, which, when compared with the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, was almost section by section, and in every principle and proposal, the same. The labours of the right hon. Gentleman,

united with those of his hon. and learned trusted that, after the statement he had Colleague, who was so rigidly observant of made, he should stand in that House as it nothing but sober facts, had terminated in had always been his pride and privilege putting into form the suggestions, the to stand, as a Gentleman whose word and ideas, nay, the very words, of a gentleman honour were unimpeached. who, far distant from England, felt bitterly, as others had done, that his literary efforts had been plundered without acknowledgment.

measures for the settlement of this question | power were given to the Committee to of tenant-right, if it could be settled by a send for witnesses and papers. Government measure. He was not under- MR. GEORGE protested, as an inderating the exertions of the Attorney Gene-pendent Member, against its being supral. Three of his Bills he believed to be posed that he assented to the principle very good ones; but at the same time he of the Bills of the hon. and learned thought the hon. Member for Athlone was Member for Kilkenny, many of the clauses justified in saying that the right hon. Gen- in which were not to be found in any of tleman had made use of the pigeon-holes. Mr. Crawford's Bills. As to referring these Bills to a Committee of the House, he was sure there would be disappointment felt at the result of that Committee.

MR. WHITESIDE said, he would not detain the House one minute. He regretted nothing so much as that those measures which had been laid on the table with the best intentions towards Ireland,

Motion, by leave, withdrawn;- Debate adjourned till Wednesday, 15th December. The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

1mmmma

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Wednesday, December 8, 1852.

MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Bury St.

Edmunds, James Henry Porteus Oakes, esq. PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Stamp Duties on Patents for Inventions.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.

should have been made the subject of personal attack. He wished to state one fact, and he hoped he should be believed; he had been present last summer at the preparation of a great portion of these four Bills. They had been prepared in a great degree under his own eyes, and those of SIR DE LACY EVANS, in moving the his hon. Friend the Attorney General. second reading of this Bill, said, as it had With regard to the pigeon-holes of the been before the House upon several occaCastle, he was not in the habit of rumma- sions, he would not now enter into any ging in pigeon-holes. But he could state explanation of it. He would merely obthat neither in the pigeon-holes nor out of serve, that five or six years ago he had the pigeon-holes had they found any Bill introduced a Bill which dealt with the of the late Government, to enable him to question now under consideration, and the prepare the Bills before the House. He present Bill was necessitated by a decision staked his veracity on that statement. of the Court of Common Pleas upon the He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen had 13th of last month. The original reason taken the course they had done on the for introducing the Bill was the great dislarge constitutional question to which they parity which existed in the ratepaying had addressed themselves. Not one word clauses of the Reform Act, which were inhad been said on the merits of the Bills, tended to exclude insolvent voters, but with the exception of the quibble raised on which really excluded a great many others; the omission of one word. The hon. and to remedy that defect he had introMember for Middlesex regretted that the duced the measure which received the Bills had been refered to a Select Com-sanction of the House four years ago. The mittee. So did he. It was admitted that three of the Bills were unexceptionable, and regretted that the friends of Ireland had been the cause of preventing them becoming law.

original date of payment was the 11th of October; but that had been subsequently altered by the House of Lords to the 5th of January.

This alteration had given rise to many conflicting decisions by the MR. R. M. FOX protested against the revising barristers; and therefore he had Bills being hung up in a Select Committee, waited until the question was decided by a The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-Court of Appeal. But the Lord Chief QUER thought the discussion had become Justice of the Court of Common Pleas somewhat irregular. At that late hour, last month had stated that the law was and after the arrangement which had been uncertain, and that its practical effect was agreed upon, he thought the discussion to disfranchise a great number of voters. should not proceed further. In Westminster a great number of voters had been disfranchised; and he believed that no fewer than 100,000 to 150,000 solvent voters throughout the country had becu disfranchised in consequence of the

MR. SERJEANT SHEE admitted that he had agreed to the proposal to refer the Bills to a Select Committee; but he thought it would be of great advantage, if

present state of the law. This Bill was proposed to remedy this inconvenience; and as he did not know what date the Government would think most convenient, he would merely move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

MR. FREWEN said, it was his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, as he thought it was a little too soon after the alteration had been made by the House of Lords, and acquiesced in by this House, to come to this House for a restoration of the date that was in the Bill when it was sent up to the House of Lords.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he thought the payment of rates and taxes as a qualification to be placed on the register should be altogether abolished.

LORD STANLEY said, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) had placed those who opposed the Bill in some difficulty, as he had really given them nothing to oppose. In 1848 the hon, and gallant Gentleman obtained an extension of the time of payment of rates and taxes from three months to six months, and he (Lord Stanley) did not think there was any necessity for a further extension. The hon. and gallant Member had not laid before them a statement of any practical grievance arising out of the existing state of the law; yet he (Lord Stanley) thought some such grievance should be shown before any alteration of the law was proposed. The hon. and gallant Member had not brought forward one single reason, stated one single fact, or alleged one particular grievance, upon which he could justify the introduction of this measure. Those who had lost their votes had lost them through their own fault. If they were disfranchised, it was because they had not paid their taxes. Had they been disfranchised through the operation of the law, recollecting the number of contested elections that there had been throughout England, recollecting how evenly balanced the state of parties was in many places throughout the Kingdom, the House of Commons would not have been left to learn the fact from the simple statement of the hon. and gallant Gentle

man.

Was it probable, he would ask, that if any serious inconvenience had been found to result from the present law, public meetings would not have been held on the subject, of so large a body of persons as the hon. and gallant Member had mentioned being disfranchised in consequence of it? The only case where a solvent man could be disfranchised by the law as it now stood was, that when the collector did not call, the voter was so careless as not to tender the payment of his taxes, and that was a case for which the House could not legislate.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, if the noble Lord wanted a proof that a grievance was inflicted upon a large class of voters, he would refer him to the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who, in delivering his judgment, said—

"No doubt this was a case of great importance, because the general impression, when these taxes number of household voters, because a housewere payable, might have disfranchised a great holder's attention was not directed to the payment of these taxes until they were demanded, and they did not pay the tax quarterly as it was due."

It was the duty of the House to put the voter out of the power of the tax-collector as far as possible, and it had been proved that 118,000 voters had been disfranchised by the present operation of the law. It was quite preposterous that so much power should be placed in the hands of the taxcollectors, practically to disfranchise electors with whose political opinions they might not happen to agree.

The

The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he was far too much occupied to be enabled to attend to all the decisions of the assistant barristers, and to be also ready to explain them. He understood, however, the case to be this: The question in the Common Pleas arose as to the time when certain taxes became payable-whether particular taxes became payable at a certain time or at a different time. hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir De L. Evans) now proposed to introduce a law to amend the existing one, on the ground of the hardship and inconvenience it inflicted upon the voter. He (the Attorney General) did not understand how this measure would effect that object. The same question must arise whatever limit was affixed for the payment of the rate as qualification for being put upon the register. These 118,000 voters had been disfranchised, not by reason of qualification, but by reason of not having paid in sufficient time the taxes

he would have nothing to do but to go to the tax-gatherer before the 20th of July, to put himself fully in possession of that right, which, if he did not do, showed he did not value it, and that he was not of that class for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite were so anxious to introduce the ballot. Rates and taxes were high-sounding terms; but the arrears only amounted to a few shillings after all, and the House would consider what was the state of that man who was unable to pay a few shillings due for rates and taxes in order to obtain the franchise. He really did submit that it was not a desirable thing without any reason at all, without any grievance being shown to exist, that from time to time the House should be tampering, as he had already said, with this question, and giving a benefit to insolvent persons. He trusted, therefore, the House would agree to the Amendment, and postpone the second reading to this day six months.

required. Therefore, the grievance which arrear; and if he had the slightest value had been pointed out was a grievance for that important right, if he was in arrear, which stood on entirely different ground. Then the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) said his (the Attorney General's) noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had offered no answer to what had been adduced in support of the Bill. His noble Friend said no argument had been offered; therefore, if no argument had been offered, no argument was necessary in answer. But the House would just consider what they were asked to do. It was proposed, for no apparent reason, to extend the time within which parties should be bound to pay their rates and taxes in order to qualify themselves to be put on the register. And why? In 1848, the three months which existed under the Reform Act was extended to six months, by carrying the time back to the 5th of January. One would really think, that allowing a person to be in arrear six months for rates and taxes was sufficient indulgence, and that there could be no reasonable ground for extending that period, and allowing a person to be in arrear, as now proposed, for nine months. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster objected to all ratepaying clauses; and though he (the Attorney General) might differ in opinion with him, he would rather see the ratepaying clauses abolished altogether than have them tampered with from time to time by proposals to extend the time within which payment should be required. The object of those clauses was to prevent insolvent persons being on the register and entitled to vote. Hon. Members on the other side were constantly saying it was their desire to have an independent class of voters, and those who were in favour of the ballot placed it entirely on the ground that it would secure the independence of the voter. Insolvent persons were not likely to be independent, and, therefore, it really seemed most important not to extend the term beyond six months, because it would be only making a man worse and worse, by allowing him to be in a lower condition. It was said the not extending the time would be a hardship, and that many might be disfranchised because the tax-gatherer had not called within six months for the rate. They all admitted the elective franchise was a very high privilege. [Sir J. SHELLEY: No; a right.] Well, then, a very high and important right. He took it for granted, that whether the tax-gatherer called or not, every man knew perfectly well whether he was in

SIR DE LACY EVANS said, the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had charged him with having adduced no argument in favour of this Bill; but that was rather a proof that he wished to spare the time of the House, having full confidence in the merits of the Bill. The noble Lord, he believed, admitted, that in 1848 he did use arguments of weight and importance, and that he did show on that occasion that a large number of persons had been disfranchised, a large majority unfairly and unjustly, because they were not insolvent, and had no intention of evading the payment of rates.

LORD STANLEY said, he wished to explain to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, what he had said was, that in 1848 the hon. and gallant Gentleman made out a case for the extension of time from three months to six months, but that there was no necessity for further extension.

SIR DE LACY EVANS said, he was glad to find that at all events the noble Lord admitted his argument on that occasion was a strong one. There had been no attempt to inquire what number of persons had been disfranchised since, because the judgment passed on the 13th of last month in the Court of Common Pleas was considered the most conclusive reason for a change in the law which could by possibility be offered. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he really must assume, unless he were corrected, that the hon. and