for a moment questioned, had been disfran- | refusing to assess them; but it was comchised under the operation of the cause in petent for the party, whether landlord or question; and it was clear, therefore, that occupier, so treated to apply to the overthe restriction as at present limited was a seer, to have his name inserted in the rate useless and vexatious one, which very much list; and if he tendered the rates and paid tended to defeat the intentions of the Le- them, the overseer was bound, as of necesgislature as evidenced by the Reform Act. sity, to comply with the application. In He could not understand what valid objec- fact, there was a special provision in the Act, tion there could be to adopting a more libe. by the 76th section, that the overseer who ral policy, by extending the time within neglected his duty in this particular, subwhich the taxes should be paid. There jected himself to a penalty of 500l. Under was another provision in the Bill now these circumstances, he could not underbefore the House, which he also thought stand how it could be said that the should be regarded as an emendation of privilege of the elector was endangered or the present system, which was, that every jeopardised. The hon. and gallant Memperson claiming to be rated to the relief of ber proposed that the party seeking to be the poor shall, for the purpose of registra- registered should be permitted to be in tion, be deemed to have been rated from the arrear, not from the 6th day of the April period at which the rate shall have been preceding the period of his application, made in respect to which he shall have but from the 11th day of the month of claimed to be rated, notwithstanding the October in the year previous; but no argumaking of any subsequent rate from which ment of a satisfactory nature, that he had his name might be omitted. This he consi-heard, had been adduced to justify the indered a fair and equitable arrangement. The Bill also contained a provision for the abolition of stamp duty on the admission of freemen. He believed that the proposed Bill would have the good effect of leaving the rights and privileges of electors less at the mercy of collectors and overseers than they were at present, and concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. troduction of a change so sweeping. In the year 1843 an Act was passed which in some respects altered the mode of registration. The Act provided that the overseers should give a public notice to the parties claiming to be put on the registry, so that no party should lose his right. Notwithstanding the complaint of the hon. and gallant Member that a number of persons in a very populous parish The ATTORNEY GENERAL felt had forfeited their right to vote, because bound to offer his opposition, and opposi- of the shortness of the time allowed under tion too of a strenuous nature, to the second the Act for paying up the taxes, it cerreading of the Bill. He was not aware tainly did appear to him that there was that the sanction of the House of Com- ample time between the 6th of April and mons had been given (as was asserted by the 20th of July to pay all the rates due the hon. and gallant Member) to any mea- up to the former period. Most assuredly sure similar in principle to the present. there was ample time, if the parties cared On the contrary, the sanction of the Legis- for exercising their privilege, and unless lature had been given to an Act which was there was very great negligence indeed no in its principle essentially dissimilar to the injury could possibly result. The hon. present Bill-he meant the Reform Act. and gallant Member had proposed to effect Although the present Bill was a short one, another alteration, to the effect that a it was an important one, and appeared to party claiming to have his name inserted him to make a very formidable inroad on in one rate, without any tender or paythe Reform Act, which provided that no ment of money, should be entitled to have party could be registered unless he had his name inserted in the registry. [Sir occupied his house (value 107.) for twelve DE LACY EVANS: Provided the rate be months previous to the last day of July in actually paid.] He was commenting on the year in which he applied to be regis- the Bill as it at present stood, and not on tered; and unless he had been rated for, alterations which were proposed to be and had paid, all the rates and assessed effected hereafter. He objected to the taxes due up to the previous 6th of April, Bill as opposed to the principle laid down such payment to be made before the 20thin the Reform Bill, without any necessity of July. It might be supposed that the being shown for its introduction. On these overseers had virtually the power to de-grounds he should give his decided opposiprive parties of the elective franchise, by tion to the second reading, and would move as an Amendment that it be read a second | stances could be expected, and he was actime that day six months. MR. HUME expressed a hope that the House would affirm the principle of the Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member, and permit it to go into Committee, in order that the alterations of detail that might be deemed essential might be inserted. He for one went further than many in that House, and objected altogether to the payment of taxes as the ground upon which a party should claim the right to exercise the franchise. But on this he need not now enter. The whole question in the Bill was whether they would enlarge the time for the payment of the taxes from three to six months, and that did not appear to him an unreasonable demand. He hoped, therefore, that the House would assent to the second reading. MR. WILLIAMS objected as much as the hon. Member for Montrose to the payment of taxes being connected with the exercise of the franchise. He thought the franchise was limited enough already, and the principle of making it dependent on the payment of taxes was decidedly objectionable. He should have great pleasure in supporting the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, and he could not understand on what grounds hon. Members could object to its principle, which was simply that of extending the period of paying the taxes from three to six months. MR. ESCOTT supported the Bill. He thought the present system afforded great opportunity for the exercise of bribery, and he objected to it accordingly. He hoped the House would not object to going into Committee on the Bill. cordingly opposed to any alteration in those. clauses. The extension of the period of payment from three to six months would not decrease the opportunities of bribery: it would only cause a greater amount of arrears to accrue. In 1843 the subject had before come under the view of Parliament; and after a lengthened discussion the result was, that it was determined that credit should be limited to three months. If there were any neglect upon the part of the overseer or tax collector, that was fully provided for by the Reform Act, which enacted that any overseer or tax collector refusing to give to the claimant the full benefit of his claim, should be liable to penalties to the extent of 500l., to be obtained by trial by jury. If it were objected that that was an expensive and difficult remedy, it would be found that by an Act lately passed, a summary process was given before the revising barrister, by which penalties to the amount of 107. could be inflicted. No doubt the mere claim would not be sufficient. It must be accompanied either by the payment or by the tender of the rate, and he thought that such a provision was extremely necessary as a test of the solvency of the voter. did not think it expedient to extend the period of credit. He thought that the claimant should not only repeat his claim, but that a tender of the rate should be made at the same time; and with respect to intermediate rates, he was also of opinion that there should be no omission either of claiming or of payment, or tender of payment. For these reasons he should support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. He SIR G. GREY agreed with the hon. Member for Winchester, that there was no question of principle involved in this Bill, but that it was merely a question of degree. It professed to meet a practical evil, which no doubt existed, for it could SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, that if any alteration in the details of this Bill could remove his objections to it he would not oppose the second reading, but at once assent to the House going into Committee on it; but his great objection to the mea-not be denied that many persons were not sure was one of principle, and under these circumstances he could not support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He objected to any enlargement of the time fixed by the rating clauses of the Reform Bill with reference to the credit to be given for the payment of rates and taxes. He did not mean to contend that the clauses in question afforded an infallible test of the intelligence and independence of voters; but they afforded the best test that under all circum placed upon the register because they had not paid their intermediate rates, but of whose solvency there could be no doubt, and who had not been called upon to pay up perhaps on this very account, that the collector knew them to be responsible persons. Others, again, might be absent from town, and, being known to be absent, might not be called upon, so that the consequence was, that they also would be omitted from the register. The question was, whether or not they were to affirm that there never should be an extension of the time of cre- | ten-pounder. He contended that borough dit. His own opinion was that there should electors were quite as respectable as the be; and if the Bill went into Committee, it county 50l. freeholders: they were cerwould be a fair question for argument whe- tainly much more independent, and had ther nine months or six months should be quite as good a right to vote. This Bill given. He should therefore support the was good as far as it went, and he should second reading. vote for it; but it was only bolstering up a bad system. He contended that the borough electors should be put upon the same footing as the 501. freeholders. When the Whigs were in office, he succeeded in introducing a Bill for the repeal of certain injurious clauses of the Reform Bill; but it was unfortunately defeated in a subsequent stage. The present Bill did not go nearly so far as that one, yet it was likely to be thrown out upon the second reading. It only showed that that House was becoming too aristocratic, and that they were retrograding instead of advancing in the principles of reform. MR. BERNAL supported the Bill. The extension of the period of credit would be very beneficial in this way: the tax collectors had very arduous duties to perform, and it often happened that persons whose solvency could not be doubted were not called upon within the three months. It was a very hard case that the only alternative which such persons had, was either to run about the town after the collector and pay him, or to have their names omitted from the register. MR. HENLEY opposed the Bill. He thought that no benefit at all would result to the poorer classes by extending the period of credit. On the contrary, it would only tend to embarrass them, and to get them into difficulties. COLONEL SIBTHORP said, this was a very late period of the Session for entering into any discussion as to alterations in the Reform Bill. He could not consent to any such alteration just now, and he should therefore be compelled once more to go into the same lobby with Her Majesty's Ministers. He didn't think the Bill at all necessary. It tended to increase the borough voters. He considered that a 107. Lincoln voter was as good as a 201. voter in St. Giles's any day. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, as he had the honour to represent the parish of St. Giles, he must say a word with respect to the last observation of the gallant Colonel opposite. Perhaps the gallant Colonel did did not know what the parish of St. Giles was. He would tell the gallant Colonel, then, that it included part of Lincoln's-inn Fields, the principal inns of court, and the chambers of many eminent lawyers. Did that make the gallant Colonel think any higher of it? Perhaps, then, the gallant Colonel had been so unfortunate as to be acquainted only with the lowest purlicus of St. Giles's. He had never had the honour of seeing a Lincoln ten-pounder; but if he might judge of them by their representative, he must say that from one end of Finsbury to the other, from St. Giles's to St. Luke's, he had never seen anything, whether as regarded mental accomplishments, elegance of diction, or personal adornment, the least like a Lincoln MR. WALPOLE was understood to say that the tendency of the Bill would be to change the principles of borough voting. MR. P. HOWARD thought that the proposed Bill would tend materially to complicate the present law. It was the duty of householders to assist their poorer brethren by the prompt payment of the poor rates, and he considered that they might fairly hold out the Parliamentary franchise as a reward for their punctual payment. The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:-Ayes 53; Noes 94: Majority 41. Bernal, R. List of the AYES. Baine, W. Cowper, hon. W. F. Langston, J. H. Marsland, H. Russell, Lord J. Scrope, G. P. Worsley, Lord TELLERS. Evans, Sir D. L. Hume, J. Arbuthnot, hon. H. Austen, Col. Baillie, Col. Baring, rt. hon. W. B. Bateson, T. Beresford, Maj. Blackburne, J. I. Borthwick, P. Bowles, Adm. Holmes, hon. W. A'C. Howard, P. H. Inglis, Sir R. H. Lennox, Lord G. H. G. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. TELLERS. Young, J. Cripps, W. Main Question as amended agreed to. Second reading put off for six months. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. House in Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. On the question that the Preamble be postponed, SIR R. H. INGLIS said it was very true that the Bill was so altered from what it was when he had first urged his objections against it, that its parent could hardly recognise his own child. Bad, however, as it originally was, and mutilated as it now was, it still retained sufficient substance to justify him in continuing his opposition to it. The very first clause of it recited the expediency of repealing almost all those provisions which in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill gave security to the Established Church. The general tendency of the Bill was to forward the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which was at the present time seeking its own aggrandizement throughout the whole civilized world, and to remove that security which they had provided in this country for upholding their Protestant Constitution. He had no doubt the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was fully aware of the attempts which were now making to introduce into this country the question of mixed marriages. That question, which had disturbed the peace of a large portion of the Continent of Europe, was now sought to be introduced into this kingdom. He wished to call the attention of the Government, as well as that of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to this subject. By the documents which he held in his hand, it appeared it was peremptorily enjoined, that no Roman Catholic priest should solemnize a mixed marriage, unless he obtained a written engagement that all the children of such marriage shall be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. He did not blame the Roman Catholics for this-that was not his point-but he felt that this fact was sufficient to fortify him in his determination not to yield to the demands made for the withdrawal of those securities which the Protestant faith at present enjoyed. In France it appeared that this system was now in full vigour, and where marriage was contracted, as a religious ceremony, the Roman Catholic priest was required to obtain a written contract, by which the parents were bound to bring up their children according to the doctrines of the Church of Rome. This fact was verified by the correspondence which he held in his hand, and was particularly dwelt upon in the letter of Cardinal Bishop of Arras. Whilst the Roman Catholics were seeking to remove disabilities from themselves they were imposing civil disabilities on others. He thought the Bill retained sufficient evil as it now stood to warrant its rejection absolutely and entirely. He therefore moved that the Chairman do now leave the chair. MR. WATSON said, he had no objection to test the Bill by another division. It had already been tested three times, and he was rather desirous to see its principle again tested. He maintained that the Bill was called for, inasmuch as the provisions which it was intended to repeal, were provisions which ought not to be allowed to remain on the Statute-book. He was desirous that the Bill should pass, and therefore he was ready to agree to any alteration in the clauses which could be made consistently with the present form of the Bill, for he was only desirous to see it rendered effectual. The first clause, relating to the assumption by dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church of titles now enjoyed by the dignitaries of the Protestant Church, had been objected to; but it did not involve as important considerations as those which followed, He introduced a clause to the effect that nothing in the Act should be construed to enable any person or persons to exercise the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church in any public street or road; and he did so because it might not be agreeable to many persons to witness the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church in the public streets. The last clause which he proposed to introduce was, however, the most important, affecting as it did the regular clergy of the Catholic Church. When it was recollected that there were in England and Ireland considerable bodies of persons of the Roman Catholic religion, who devoted themselves to the education of youth, and reflected that those persons where they belonged to the regular religious orders of that church, coming into the country after 1829, were subject to banishment, he was sure the House would agree with him that the law which subjected those religious orders to punishment ought not to be allowed to remain on the Statute-book. All the regular clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, who came into the country after the passing of the Act of 1829, were subject to banishment; and that was a state of the law which ought not to be allowed to continue. It had been asserted by those who were in favour of the provisions which he was desirous to see repealed, that some of them were safeguards of the Church; but he could not conceive that any such means were requisite as a safeguard to the Church. But in order to remove objections to the clause permitting the residence of the regular religious orders, he had provided for a registration. SIR J. GRAHAM: Sir, I, in common with the hon. and learned Gentleman, have laboured under a misapprehension as to the course which would be taken by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford. I had understood that before the Speaker left the Chair, the hon. Member would have made a Motion that this Bill should be committed this day six months; and if the hon. Member had made that Motion it was my intention to have given him my support. The House, however, is now in Committee, and a Motion having been made, which is equivalent to the rejection of the Bill, if that Motion be pressed to a division it will be my duty to divide with the hon. Member for Oxford University. Sir, the present Bill consists of four enactments; and the hon. and learned Gentleman has noticed only three, leaving out one, not the least important. The first clause enables the archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church to assume the titles of the sees of the Protestant Church; and, dealing with a subject of great gravity, the hon. and learned Member attaches so little importance to his own Bill that he says, if there be any great objection to this clause, he will withdraw it. There is, Sir, I confess, something which appears to me like levity in dealing with a matter of such importance, and then in declaring it to be of little importance whether the clause as it stands shall become the law of the realm or not. Sir, I do not regard this as a matter so trivial and so unimportant. I concede frankly and freely to the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church the orders and the titles of archbishops and bishops according to their sacred ordination; that is frankly conceded by the people of this country, the law allows it, and custom has sanctioned it; we have conceded them that rank and station; but the question is, whether we allow them to assume the titles of the provinces and sees of the Protestant Church? And if we are to have an Established Church in the full possession of its rights, titles, and privileges, I do not think that titles coterminous with the rights and privileges of the prelates of the Established Church, and that the same designations, can or ought to be conferred on any prelates who are not of that Established Church. Nor do I see any advantage, so far as the Roman Catholics themselves are concerned, in the use of those titles. In this country the Roman Catholic Church is in possession of its power and privileges, and is in the full performance of its duties; yet I am not aware that any bishop of that church has preferred any such claim. In Ireland the districts are not coterminous, and the particular designation of the locality is not, therefore, necessary to be precisely the same for the Roman Catholic archbishops and bi |