hon. Member for Montrose, and said he thought it would be better to continue the duties as they had previously existed; but he did not think it necessary to give any reasons to the House for his acquiescence in that proposition. He must say, for his own part, on reconsidering the subject, and hearing the opinions of persons interested in the trade, and those who had the best means of information, and knew the advantage that would be gained, not only by the trade, but by the public, by this reduction of 3s. 6d., they should have the Bill with the advantage of the reduction of duty to 3s. 6d. ; and he hoped that no off-hand acquiescence in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would prevent him from reconsidering the subject, and in this Bill for a month reducing the duties by 3s. 6d. MR. HUME explained, that his motive in making the suggestion, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acquiesced, was to avoid having a topic introduced which would necessarily open the door for a long discussion on the sugar duties, before the general question had been formally submitted to their consideration. It appeared to be the general desire that there should be but one debate on this question, and that when it arose all the Amendments which were on the book on the subject should be discussed together. With respect to the proposed reduction of 3s. 6d. a cwt., its effect just at the present moment would be to throw that amount into the pocket of the importer, without benefiting the public. He was for the abolition of differential duties on colonial and foreign sugar; but some time must elapse before it could be done, in order to enable the Colonies fairly to compete. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he had postponed the reduction alluded to entirely from considerations of convenience, in respect to the peculiar circumstances in which he had found himself, and thinking it would be more advisable to have the general question discussed altogether at one time; he did not at all agree with the hon. Member for Montrose on the subject. The Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in. Bill brought in and read a first time. THE PUBLIC RECORDS. MR. CHARLES BULLER, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, respecting the Record Office, said he did not mean to detain the House at any length on the subject of the Resolution, for it was one the importance of which was so obvious as to render comment unnecessary. His object was to procure the appointment of a Select Committee, to consider and report on the best means to provide a general Record Office in which to deposit the public records of England and Wales. A Committee, over which he had presided as chairman, had directed the attention of the House to this important subject on a previous occasion, and had strongly recommended that no time should be lost in providing a suitable office. Those hon. Members who had served with him on that Committee would remember the annoyance to which they were subjected, in having to go about from one place to another in visiting the various receptacles of the State Papers; and, indeed, it must be obvious to all that great inconvenience and disadvantage must necessarily result from having the records of the country distributed through a great many depositories. This consideration was independent of the yet more important one that the documents themselves were exposed to very great danger where they were at present placed. This matter had engaged the attention of the Master of the Rolls, who, in virtue of his office, was charged with the custody of the records, and by whom the subject had been repeatedly brought under the notice of the Treasury. It was unnecessary that he should enter into any detail of the mode in which the correspondence between the Master of the Rolls and the authorities of the Treasury was for a length of time carried on, without anything having been done with a view to the settlement of the question; but he was sure that hon. Members on all sides would concur with him in thinking that the time had arrived when that House should take some step in the matter. Various suggestions had been made from year to year, and amongst others was one to the effect, that in the New Houses of Parliament a compartment of the building should be especially set aside for the reception of the records; but the result of the consideration given to this matter by the Master of the Rolls was, that none of the suggestions offered appeared to conform with his views of the public interests. These were considerations, however, which would come under the special cognizance of the Committee he was moving for, the Members of which, no doubt, would devote their best attention Committee. to the subject, and recommend that course | heard him; but it was, notwithstanding, which appeared to them the most desirable the fact, that the riding-house at Old Carland the most beneficial for the public. The ton House was at present the principal, alhon. and learned Gentleman concluded by most the only, place of receptacle for the moving for the appointment of a Select public records. He would have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, but could not say that he felt equally disposed to favour the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire. They ought certainly to pause before they undertook to publish the records at the public expense, and at all events it would be vain to undertake the task before the documents had been arranged and classified. Moreover, he was inclined to think that it was an objectionable proceeding to impose upon one Committee two classes of duties so dissimilar, and in each case so important. MR. WILLIAMS WYNN expressed his concurrence in the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, and suggested that the additional duty should be assigned to the Committee of providing for the classifying the records and procuring the publication of such of them as possessed historical interest. This was a task which had been undertaken, in compliance with a vote of that House agreed to as far back (as well as he could recollect) as the year 1821 or 1822; but it was very much to be regretted that the project had not been completed, but remained still in abeyance. It was very little to the honour of the country that such an undertaking should not have been prosecuted to completion; and he trusted that the House would take measures to have the reproach removed. The Scottish Acts of Parliament had been carefully collated, and were published under the authority of the Commission, with the exception of the first volume, which was to contain the introduc-ingly have great pleasure in supporting it. tion; but the work had been suspended for the last ten or fifteen years, which could not but be a matter of regret. He trusted, however, that the publication would be soon resumed, and that the general task of supervising the publication of such of the records as possessed an historic interest would be committed to the charge of some persons of taste and erudition, and in all respects qualified for the task. MR. PROTHEROE fully approved of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, and hoped that the Government would perceive the necessity of setting about building a proper Record Office at once. It was little less that a reproach to the state of civilization in this country that so little attention should be paid to this matter. No nation that had a history, and valued it, would be careless or negligent of such documents. They were, in fact, its history. A building should be erected specially and exclusively for the reception of these documents, and they ought to be classified with the utmost care. Some thing ought, certainly, to be done in this matter, and that too without delay; for the present state of things was positively disgraceful. It might not perhaps be within the knowledge of every hon. Member who The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER thought it would be inexpedient to adopt the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire; but the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard appeared to him to be one, the object of which was exceedingly desirable, and he would accord one The question of how far it was desirable MR. C. BULLER observed that the work which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn) proposed to be done by the Committee was not only alien to its duties, but it was hardly a work to be left to a Committee of that House at all. It was a matter of literary judgment and knowledge, and required to be conducted with the greatest amount of literary and historical taste. He thought a selection should be made of those historical works, and that the public would be better satisfied if the matter were referred to some commission of men conversant on the sub- | 6th of April in each year, in order to ject than to a Committee of that House. Motion agreed to. SUPPRESSION OF VICE. MR. SPOONER rose to move, pursuant to the notice he had given, for leave to introduce a Bill for the suppression of trading in seduction and prostitution, and for the better protection of females. He believed the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not intend to make any objection to the introduction of the Bill; and as he dared say no hon. Member would object to the introduction of it, he thought it unnecessary to detain the House by entering into the question. He was sorry to understand from the hon. Member for Montrose that it was necessary to explain the measure to the House, and also to explain why it was that he had presumed to bring forward this Bill. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding with his statement, when entitle electors to be placed on the registry; but this regulation was extremely inconvenient, and had been found to operate so disadvantageously for the electors as to amount to a serious interference with the privilege of franchise. Some years ago he presented a Bill to remedy this defect, by extending the period within which the taxes should be paid; but this Bill, as well as a similar measure submitted by the noble Lord the Member for London, in the year 1836, was stopped in its progress through the other House of Parliament, notwithstanding that both measures had received the sanction of the House of Commons. He did not mean by the present Bill to interfere with the principle of the Reform Act. His object was merely to effect an alteration in the period allowed for payment, by enacting that for the future, instead of the rates and taxes which were due on the 6th of April in each year being necessarily payable on the 20th of July, before the elector could be registered, it was to be understood that no elector should be required, in order to entitle him to have his name registered, to have paid any rates or taxes except such as should have become payable from him previously to the 11th of October in the previous year. In other words, he wanted to enlarge the period for payment by giving the electors a few Convey-months more time, in order that the inten An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, and there being only thirty Members present, The House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, June 24, 1846. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.—1o. Real Property ance; New Zealand Loan. 20. Sugar Duties; Bankruptcy and Insolvency. Reported. Service of Heirs (Scotland). PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from various places, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for Free Churches (Scotland).-Ey Mr. Hawes, from Limps and Chelmsford, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Tyas and Cartworth, against the Highways Bill.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Lunatics Friend Association, for Inquiry into the Treatment of Lunatics.-By Mr. T. the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. Hawes, Duncombe, from Hanley and Shelton Potteries, against tions of the Reform Act might not be defeated, as he believed them to be under the operation of the present system-a system which was very inconvenient, and resulted field, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day. By in a positive interference with the privilege Lord John Manners, and Mr. Watson, from Netherton of the electors. In the parishes of St. Bill.-By Mr. P. Scrope, from Saffron Walden, against George and St. Margaret, Westminster, the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Mr. T. Duncombe, no less than 684 persons had been de- : from Huddersfield, for Inquiry into the Anatomy Act.-prived of their franchise under the operaBy Mr. B. Denison, and Viscount Morpeth, from Farnley tion of the clause in the Reform Act to which he objected, because they had not paid their rates and taxes within the prescribed period; but of these only one had subsequently failed to pay those taxes-a fact which showed that the non-payment before the day stated in the Act did not result from any inability on the part of the electors to satisfy the demand, but, very possibly, from the negligence of the collectors in applying for the taxes, or from carelessness on the part of the electors themselves, who were not aware that the taxes should be paid within a period so brief as that prescribed. A number of citizens who resided in the most opulent localities of London, and whose ability to pay could not be from John Woods, for Inquiry. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS AND FREEMEN BILL. SIR DE LACY EVANS moved the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Electors and Freemen Bill, and stated that the principle affirmed in the first clause had, on a former occasion, received the sanction of the House. One of the clauses of the Reform Bill required the payment, before the 20th day of July, of all rates and assessed taxes due on the 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 Aet, 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 5001. 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 argu making 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. troduction of a change so sweeping. In The Bill also contained a provision for the the year 1843 an Act was passed which abolition of stamp duty on the admission of in some respects altered the mode of refreemen. He believed that the proposed gistration. The Act provided that the Bill would have the good effect of leaving overseers should give a public notice to the rights and privileges of electors less at the parties claiming to be put on the rethe mercy of collectors and overseers than gistry, so that no party should lose his they were at present, and concluded by right. Notwithstanding the complaint of moving that the Bill be read a second the hon. and gallant Member that a number of persons in a very populous parish had forfeited their right to vote, because of the shortness of the time allowed under the Act for paying up the taxes, it certainly did appear to him that there was ample time between the 6th of April and the 20th of July to pay all the rates due up to the former period. Most assuredly there was ample time, if the parties cared for exercising their privilege, and unless there was very great negligence indeed no injury could possibly result. The hon. and gallant Member had proposed to effect another alteration, to the effect that a party claiming to have his name inserted in one rate, without any tender or payment of money, should be entitled to have his name inserted in the registry. [Sir DE LACY EVANS: Provided the rate be actually paid.] He was commenting on the Bill as it at present stood, and not on alterations which were proposed to be effected hereafter. He objected to the Bill as opposed to the principle laid down in the Reform Bill, without any necessity being shown for its introduction. On these grounds he should give his decided opposition to the second reading, and would move time. The ATTORNEY GENERAL felt bound to offer his opposition, and opposition too of a strenuous nature, to the second reading of the Bill. He was not aware that the sanction of the House of Commons had been given (as was asserted by the hon. and gallant Member) to any measure similar in principle to the present. On the contrary, the sanction of the Legislature had been given to an Act which was in its principle essentially dissimilar to the present Bill-he meant the Reform Act. Although the present Bill was a short one, it was an important one, and appeared to him to make a very formidable inroad on the Reform Act, which provided that no party could be registered unless he had occupied his house (value 107.) for twelve months previous to the last day of July in the year in which he applied to be registered; and unless he had been rated for, and had paid, all the rates and assessed taxes due up to the previous 6th of April, such payment to be made before the 20th of July. It might be supposed that the overseers had virtually the power to deprive parties of the elective franchise, by 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. as an Amendment that it be read a second | stances could be expected, and he was actime that day six months. 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. He 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. 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. IIe 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. 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 |