applicable to a poor country. He would Members of Parliament, was not to be not, however, discuss the matter further retained with the addition of the rauntil the House went into Committee, and ting under the Poor-law Bill, because the amendment came regularly under con- the effect of that would be to raise the sideration. Those amendments, involving franchise higher than it was in England rents and rates, and value, were rather and Scotland. It was admitted by all puzzling, and it was not very easy to steer who had taken part in the discussions on clearly through them, until details were this subject, that such a qualification arrived at, as they would be in Committee. should not be required. If the same deThen it certainly would be matter for scription of qualification which existed as serious consideration, whether the quali- regarded the voters under the Reform Bill fication as sent up from the other House in Ireland should be adopted with the addiof Parliament, and as it stood now in the tional taxation under the Poor-law Bill, bill, was not the best that could be devised, it would raise the qualification higher than and whether it would not be both wise any one party wished it to be. His noble and prudent to adhere to it. and learned Friend had shown, that was not what he wanted, but that, as it ap peared to him, the rating to the poor, the amount of repairs and insurance, should be added to make up the qualification; but he feared, that it would be difficult to arrive at a perfect knowledge of what the landlords paid for repairs and insurances. He confessed, that he preferred what he considered to be a bona fide qualification, a fixed amount, because, then there would be no difficulty in arriving at the reasons for registering individuals. He wished to see a qualification laid down, about which there could be no mistake; that was to say, if it were nominally below 10., and if such an amount was capable of being made out by those expenses on the premises, whether paid by landlord or tenant, which must be paid, and also the rating under the Poor-law Bill, it would amount to a bona fide qualification. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that the number of towns mentioned in Schedules A and B was too large, but he was also of opinion that the number in Schedule A alone was too small. His anxious wish had been to see all those towns which at the time of the union were considered to be of sufficient size to return Members to Parliament, should at once have Municipal Corporations given to them, and that all the other towns in Schedule B should have the power of applying for the institution of corporations with the consent of a majority of their inhabitants. Upon that point he imagined that there could be very little difference of opinion among their Lordships, and should that point be so settled, there The Earl of Wicklow said, it was most gratifying to him to see that the differences of opinion which had existed on the subject, were now, in so great a measure, removed. From what had transpired here now, and elsewhere formerly, he presumed, that the point of difference was narrowed to the question of franchise. That being the case he should be exceedingly sorry if the present Session were allowed to terminate without such an arrangement of the subject as would insure to Ireland the benefits of municipal reform. Not having heard the proposals intended to be made until he heard them to-night, it was possible he might have misunderstood his noble and learned Friend; but if he were not mistaken, there appeared to be no great difference between the opinions of his noble and learned Friend, and those he entertained on this subject. He held that the establishment of a 51. franchise would, in itself, be monstrous, and in that the Government must acquiesce, when they, in framing the Poor-law Bill, provided that a person possessed of so small a property as a 51. value, was of so low a description as to be entitled to be freed from the payment of all rates under that bill. Ministers having acted so, was it possible that they would now, in attempting to carry this bill, require that the 57. franchise should be maintained? From everything that had taken place elsewhere, as well as from the good sense of the noble Lords opposite, he was led to hope, that they would not make a stand upon this point. The only question which remained as to this bill was, how qualification was to be formed the 107. confessed, that what he considered a bona fide 107. qualification, which was the same as that which qualified persons to vote for would be then little or no difference on the further arrangements of the hill. He must say, that he felt some olijer tist to one proposition which he undrɔny his noble and learned Friend to make, Į taken. The amendment, it was clear, had Lord Portman suggested, that the net annual value being ascertained, certain deductions should be made from it. In considering whether the sum was 81. 5s, or 107., it was most important that the House should recollect that the object was to get rid of this question, that it might not be perpetually brought before their Lordships. He begged to remind their Lordships that the franchise laid down by the 9th of George 4th, which was an Irish act relating to the lighting and watching of the towns of Ireland, every 51. occupier was a rated inhabitant. If they decided, that only a certain number of towns should have charters under this bill, and that certain other towns should have them by the choice of a majority of the inhabitants, they should take care that they did not hold out inducements to those towns to prefer the 9th of George 4th, to that bill which they were about to pass, a preference which their Lordships could scarcely wish to see given. Lord Lyndhurst had thought it better, before going into Committee, to state his general views of the subject, and he now thought it would be better to go into Committee at once, than to discuss the points which would still remain to be contested in Committee. House went into Committee. Lord Lyndhurst proposed to insert, after the words, "in any borough," the words "in the said Schedule A." The Marquess of Lansdowne inquired, whether the noble and learned Lord intended to have two distinct Schedules? He apprehended, that the first thing to be decided was, the manner in which the towns were to be enfranchised, and next, how many? Lord Lyndhurst said, the sole question was, whether a portion, or the whole of towns in the two Schedules was to be Amendment agreed to. On Clause 6, Lord Lyndhurst proposed to strike out the words, "rated to the relief of the poor," for the purpose of adding after the words " of the the words "yearly value of not less than 10l., to be ascertained and determined as hereinafter mentioned." The operative words he proposed were" and that such yearly value be ascertained and determined in manner following and not otherwise; that is to say, such value shall be composed of the net annual value of the premises occupied by the persons, and rated as they are hereby required under an act passed for the relief of the poor in the present Session of Parliament, and of the landlord's repairs and insurance, as estimated and stated in such rate." Viscount Melbourne should certainly take the sense of the House on that amendment. Lord Lyndhurst said, the landlord was obliged to keep his tenements in a necessary state of repair, in order to command a rent for them. The principle was the principle of rating laid down in Poulett Scrope's bill, and that principle would be the test of value under the Irish Poor-law bill. He merely proposed to make the value in Ireland conform to that which was the practical value in England. Whatever dues were paid by either landlord or tenant, the question was, what was the value of the property let by the landlord? What did it fetch in the market? The rent paid by the tenant might include all rates and taxes which were actually paid by the landlord, and all other expenses were included in the qualification, which, according to the phrase of Poulett Scrope's bill, were necessary to enable the landlord to command the rent. The Marquess of Lansdowne thought the plan would operate very unequally. Lord Lyndhurst said, that it was proposed that the franchise should be 107., estimated and tested as it was in England, and placed on the same footing as the parliamentary franchise in England. What | De Lisle more could be required? Ashburton BISHOPS. CONTENT. Lord Plunkett said, the bill, in its London original form, would give the franchise to a large class of persons in Ireland, who ought to be in possession of it; not to a mob as they had been styled, but to a class of not unrespectable persons. He considered that the 51. franchise was not Sheffield too low, and he should therefore support the bill in the shape in which it had come up from the other House. Their Lordships divided on the amendment:-Contents 96; Not Contents 36: -Majority 60. List of the CONTENTS. Bangor Paired off. NOT CONTENT. St. David's (Bishop Hereford (Bishop of) of) Eglintoun Clare Lonsdale Albemarle De Mauley Dacre Suffield Jersey Clifford De Grey Radnor Aylesford Gardner Dorset Middleton Kinnoull Crewe Wellington Sondes Hereford Sutherland Tweedale Boston Camden Salisbury Bagot Hertford Camden (Earl of Manners Aberdeen Bute Brecknock) Westmeath Southampton Devon Grantley Buccleuch Shaftesbury Carteret Limerick Denman Byron Abingdon Montagu Morton Kenyon Maryborough Kinnaird Leven Sligo Home Braybroke Dartmouth Gage Beauchamp Rosebery Harrington Warwick Hardwick Bathurst Stewart of Garlies (Earl of Galloway) Saltersford (Cour Belmore Carnarvon Mount Edgecumbe Burlington Zetland Selkirk Brownlow Malmesbury toun) Calthorpe Powis Mountcashel Wodehouse Sidmouth Wicklow Northwick Ormonde Bandon Dunsany Rosslyn Carbery Sydney Forester Wilton Clonbrock Bradford Charleville Alvanley Harrowby Redesdale Canning Harewood Ellenborongh Lothian Verulam Sandys Howe Falmouth Dalhousie Meldrum (Marquess St. Vincent Ripon Strathallan Hawarden Doneraile Glenlyon Ravensworth Stuart de Rothesay Paulett Beaufort Viscount Melbourne stated, that as he considered the opinion of the House to have been decidedly expressed by the late division, it was not his intention to occupy their Lordships' time by taking any farther division in regard to the qualification. The Marquess of Lansdowne concurred with his noble Friend near him, in the inMelrose (Earl of Had-expediency of taking any further division dington) Cowley Heytesbury Clanwilliam in regard to the qualification; but even admitting, that the qualification in the bill, as sent up from the other House was not exactly that which ought to be adopted, | schedule of the bill, instead of having a still he considered, that that which the separate bill on that subject. Such were noble and learned Lord had proposed to the chief amendments which he intended substitute was not the best, and that the to propose, and, if their Lordships agreed mode proposed for ascertaining the value with him in opinion, he should move, that was liable to serious objections, and would they be printed. act very unequally. Clause as amended agreed to. Lord Lyndhurst then said, that as his two principal amendments had been disposed of, he would propose to print the others, and to take the discussion on them on the consideration of the report. Such, he conceived to be the most advisable course, as sufficient time would then be given to allow those amendments to be fully considered by their Lordships. The Marquess of Lansdowne begged to ask the noble and learned Lord what he proposed to do with the schedules. Lord Lyndhurst said, he proposed to retain schedule A and omit schedule B, and it would then be competent for any noble Lord to propose to add to or to take from schedule A such towns as they might see fit. The question would then be opened as to what towns the provisions of the bill should be exended to. By the qualification he had proposed a constituency would be given to some of the towns of not less than 16,000 persons, and in none would the constituency be less than about 700, whereas in many of the towns in England the constituency was so low as from 200 to 300. He would state the authority on which that calculation was made when they discussed the question on the bringing up of the report. His next amendment related to trustees, and in regard to trustees he proposed, that no Catholic should be appointed a trustee for Protestant purposes. The Marquess of Lansdowne saw no objection to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and the only question about which there could be any difficulty was, what were to be considered "Protestant purposes." Lord Lyndhurst said, his next amendment related to the watch. He proposed to omit all the clauses relating to watching and to make the constaba lary force the only police force in the different towns to which the opera tion of the bill would extend, thus placing the appointment and control of the police in the hands of the Government. Then, again, he proposed, that the clauses of the Boundary Bill should be introduced into a Motion agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, July 12, 1838. MINUTES.] Bill. Read a second time:~Public Records. Petitions presented. By Lord G. SOMERSET, from Cotton Spinners and Factory Proprietors, and by Lord ASHLEY, from 500 Women connected with the Cotton Factories, for a Limitation of the Hours of Labour. COAL TRADE.] Mr. Labouchere moved the further consideration of the Report on the Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill. Lord G. Somerset then rose to move, that it be an instruction to the Committee to make provision for the repeal of such parts of the Acts 3 and 4 William 4th., cap. 36 (the Birmingham Railway Act,) 4 and 5 William 4th., cap. 38 (Southampton Railway Act), 5 and 6 William 4th., cap. 107 (Great Western Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap.75 (the London and Dovor, or South-eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 103 (London and Cambridge, or Northern and Eastern Railway Act), 6 and 7 William 4th., cap. 106 (London and Norwich, or Eastern Counties Railway Act), 6 and 7th William 4th., cap. 108 (Thames Haven Railway Act), 1 Vict., cap. 119 (Brighton Railway Act) as imposes a duty of one shilling and a penny per ton, to be paid to the corporation of the city of London, on coals carried on the several railways, sanctioned by those acts respectively, nearer to London than certain points specified in those several acts, and which points vary in distance from the limits of the city of London, from about fifteen to eighteen miles. As this was the first occasion on which the question had been fairly brought before the House since these clauses had been introduced, the House must affirm the principle, that the city of London dues should be rateable at Is. Id. per ton on all coals carried within a certain circumference of the city. But how were these clauses introduced? Without imputing anything to the city of London, he was bound to say, that they were much more careful of what they supposed to be Mr. Hume seconded the motion. These Acts had been introduced without the knowledge of the country, or the knowledge of the House, and without due notice. their rights than the House of Commons | increased within the last few years, that was of the interests of the public. He it was expected to expire in the year 1852. might be met by the fact, that the com- He hoped the House, under all the cirpanies had agreed to the clauses; but they cumstances, would support his proposiall knew, that the companies, when they tion; for, if not, they would let slip the were applying for their bill, would do much only opportunity which would be afforded to gain support, and would agree to almost them, of placing the matter in its proper anything to obviate such opposition as position, and of breaking down a monopoly that of the city of London. So lax had which was most injurious to the best inthey been in the performance of their duty, terests of the community. that he did not believe, the attention of the House was ever once called to these clauses. He had no doubt it would be said, why should sea-borne coals be subject to a tax from which inland was exempted? The last time the question was before the House, was, he believed, in 1810. But there was a vast difference between the situation of the question then and now. Then there was a duty of 4s. per ton upon all sea-borne coals, and to protect that duty, inland coals were almost prohibited. The question was now in a very different situation, for there was now no duty to protect, and the duty of 1s. 1d. per ton made all the difference between the possibility of sending up inland coals with a profit, or with none. He might be met by the assertion, that the quantity would be so small, so inconsiderable, that it was not worth discussing. Then he would say, if it was so, it surely was not worth the opposition of the city. The only way to meet that combination, which operated most injuriously against the lower classes, and which was contrary to all principles of supply and demand, was to agree to his amendment. He could not help thinking, that it would be worth the while of the coal-owners in the north to co-operate with him on this object, and to make arrangements with the several railway companies, by which the supply of coals would be conveyed to the London market much more expeditiously and cheaply than by sea. It was the duty of the gentlemen residing in and about London also to assist him in this object; because it was quite clear, that so long as this tax of 1s. Id. per ton was continued, the railroad proprietors would consider it a complete failure. There was one other point to which he would refer. The hon. Baronet (the Member for the City of London), had stated, that the object was, to continue the revenue derivable from coals to the corporation of London, to the time originally fixed (1858), but he had neglected to point out, that the revenue had so enormously Mr. Labouchere could assure the House, that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to see a bill pass that House, the tendency of which would be to reduce the price of coals; but that must be done by fair and just means. He would not go into the regulations of the coal-owners in the north, nor would he attempt to justify them; but if they were illegal, an Act of Parliament ought to be introduced to counteract those combinations, and let that act be fairly passed. If the present bill was not passed, the city would not lose anything, because the city would immediately revert to their ancient dues-to dues levied in an infinitely more inconvenient manner to the public than those that were levied by this bill. Looking at every part of the bill, it must be taken as making a good bargain for the public. He felt bound, in justice to the city, and to all the great interests that were concerned, to resist the proposal made as strenuously as he could. It would be most improper to do anything which would tend to injure the shipping interest, for the sake of giving a partial benefit to another interest. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not consent to the motion of the noble Lord. He believed it would cast a most serious impediment in the way of the bill passing at all-a bill which was calculated to confer so great a benefit on the community. There was one provision in the bill, to which he must for a moment refer. The city, under the present law, possessed the right of levying Is. Id. for every ton of coals brought within a certain distance. Two circumstances had happened, which deserved the serious attention of the House; one was, that coals were becoming more an article of export than they were formerly; the other, that steamboat navigation was going on with a spirit |