Lord Tenterden had no objection to the extension of the principle of this measure to Ireland, but he could not take upon himself to introduce a clause to that effect into the present Bill without consultation with the Irish Judges. He had a vague recollection that when this and some other Bills relating to the administration of Justice were formerly before the House, he had applied to Lord Plunkett for his opinion, as to the propriety of extending their provisions to Ireland, when the noble and learned Lord replied, that he thought it would not be advisable without further consideration. The Marquis of Lansdown said, it was impossible that the House could acquiesce in so important an alteration of the Bill as that suggested by the noble Marquis on its third reading, and without any previous notice. measure, from the owners of freehold and customary lands in the town of Brampton, in the county of Cumberland, and its vicinity, stated, that these petitioners objected to this Bill, as well upon general grounds as upon the inconvenience which it must of necessity impose upon them, by entailing an expense on all lands held by customary tenures much beyond what would be borne by any other description of landed property, by subjecting them to a double registry, viz., the court-rolls of the manors, and the proposed registry in London. He regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Stafford, who had but that moment left the House, for he felt assured that this subject was worthy of his serious consideration. Certainly it was absurd and preposterous to exempt the copyholder from the operation of the Bill, and to bring the owner of customary lands under it; and, indeed, he had hoped, in consequence of what had passed before, that the hon. and learned Member would ere this, have altered the Bill in that respect. The only difference which existed, he believed, between copyhold and customary tenure consisted in the different modes by which the lands were conveyed. In copyholds, the copyholder, when he sells or mortgages, is obliged to appear personally in the Lord's Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. CROKER, of the Court, or depute another in his stead, by Population in, and Assessed Taxes paid by all Towns not letter of Attorney, under hand and seal, to 5,000 Inhabitants; and of the number and amount of Ex-appear personally in Court, and surrender emptions from the Assessed Taxes on account of Yeomanry into the hands of the Lord, in the presence Cavalry Horses, for the year 1831, in each of the 110 Bo- of the Jury, the tenements sold or mortATTWOOD, of Bank Notes, and Bank Post Bills in circula-gaged, to the use of the purchaser or morttion in every week from 31st July, 1851; of the Monthly Return paid by the Commissioners for the redemption of the National Debt, from 6th November, 1830; of the * Value of Gold and Bullion received into the Mint, and the amount of Gold Coined from 6th August, 1831, up to the latest period all the Accounts can be made up to :-On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, all Correspondence relating to Canal Communications in Canada, with the Expenses Bill read a third time and passed. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, February 3, 1832. MINUTES.] New Members sworn. Lord HOTHAM, for New Writs ordered. For the Ayrshire District of Boroughs, in the room of THOMAS FRANCIS KENNEDY, Esq., who Bills brought in. For Regulating the Care of Lunatics. land.) sending Members to Parliament, and having more than roughs in Mr. Drummond's List :-On the Motion of Mr. attendant thereon. Petitions presented. By Mr. HUNT, from the Reform Association of Paisley, against the Anatomy Bill; from the Members of the Manchester Political Union, in favour of Reform. The Petition prayed for Householders' Suffrage, Annual Parliaments and Vote by Ballot; and gagee, who must also, in like manner, appear personally, or by some other person lawfully deputed, and accept from the Steward by rods the premises in question. These Acts are entered on the court-rolls of the manor, and a copy (called an admittance) is granted to the purchaser or mortgagee; but the courtrolls are the title of the copyholder notwithstanding. In customary or tenant right lands, the mode of conveyance is this: the customary tenant executes a deed called a bargain and sale, directly from himself to the purchaser or mortgagee. This deed is presented to the Court of the Lord, and the Steward, under the sanction of the Jury, takes down an abstract of the deed into the Lord's court-roll, a copy of which being given to the purGENERAL REGISTRY BILL.] Mr. Bla-chaser or mortgagee, is called his admitmire, in presenting a Petition against this tance. But the court-roll is his title, as from the Members of the Manchester Political Union, praying for an Inquiry into the Manchester Affair of 1819: By Mr. WALTER CAMPBELL, from Campbelltown, -By an HON. MEMBER, from Inhabitants of Calverly for Collessie, Dunoon, and Bournere, in favour of Reform: restricting the Hours of Children working in Factories:By Mr. ROBINSON, from Householders of Worcester, for an Inquiry into the manner in which public Hospitals are con ducted in England; and from the Master Silk Throwsters of Sandbach, for an Inquiry into the Causes of the Dis tresses in the Silk Trade. proceeded from men of that description; all living upon their own properties; and though their possessions might not be very large, yet that their intelligence and independence were very great he could himself bear ample testimony; and they to a man, looked upon this measure as being most obnoxious and unconstitutional, and declared that though they were warmly and devotedly attached to the cause of Reform, yet still they would not purchase the safety of that great and important measure at the cost of having this Registration Bill become the law of the land. Mr. Hodges presented a similar petition signed by 100 solicitors of the county of Kent. From an intimate knowledge of many of these gentlemen, he was certain that their motives for opposing the Bill could not be impugned. They were connected with the most respectable persons in the county, and were intimately acquainted with the landed interest. But an additional reason for the feeling in the county of Kent being so decidedly against the Bill was, the custom of gavel-kind which prevailed there, by which tenure land was divided among all the brothers of a family, and of course was split into small portions. The operation of such a mea well as in the case of the copyholder. In customary tenures neither the seller nor buyer need appear personally, and there is no surrender into the Lord's hands as a preliminary step, which alone constitutes the great distinction between copyholds and customary lands; but in both cases every change which takes place must be entered upon the court-roll in open Court, and no proceeding affecting the property is valid unless so entered; and to these court-rolls all the world may resort for information. And, so far as regards publicity, the titles to both tenures are exactly upon a footing. In many manors you find lands of both tenures, and the court-roll for both is to be found in the same book. What a strange anomaly it would then be that the copyholder should be exempt from the Registry Act on the score of its title appearing for centuries back upon the court-roll, and that the customary tenant should be subjected to its operation, when his title during the same period was to be found in the same book, in the same office, and with the same exactness in every respect; but the most iniquitous thing with respect to the customary tenant would be this, that he would be subjected to the cost of a double registry, whilst the one in London would be useless and inoperative, for every in-sure as a General Registry would, therefore, tending purchaser or mortgagee would search the court-rolls of the manor, where he would find the title as far back as he Sir Francis Blake presented similar pemight wish to go, which would be more titions from the Mayor, and several Maconfined and limited in London. Besides, gistrates of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the registry in London would be nothing from the gentlemen acting on the Grand more than what is entered in the court-Jury of that town. With the prayer of rolls of the manor. In his opinion the customary tenant, whose possessions were held by a less base tenure than those of copyholders, had never been fairly used by the Legislature. For example, he had never had the power given him to devise his property, as the copyholder had. This distinction was absurd and preposterous, and he trusted the hon. and learned Member would yet propose to place both tenures upon the same footing. The hon. Gentleman also presented a petition from the parishes of Plumbland, and Alpatria in the same county, with the same object in view, and also from Dalston and Castle Sowerby, and in doing so said that the hon. and learned member for Stafford had the other evening spoken contemptuously of the poor little statesmen in the north of England. Now, these two last petitions press with greater severity on that county than on any other in the kingdom. these petitions he fully agreed. He assured the hon. and learned member for Stafford, that the hostile feeling against the Bill in all the northern counties continued to increase, and he suspected the same feelings would become general among the landed interest throughout the country. Such an impalatable measure could never be forced upon them. The Bill was an innovation upon established usages and its effects would be to deteriorate the whole rights of property. Mr. John Campbell said, if the Registry Bill were really understood by the public, and a strong opposition to it were then manifested, he should consider it to be his duty to withdraw it. But he believed that it was not understood, and therefore he did not think that he ought to withdraw it. He was anxious that it should be Petitions laid on the Table. thoroughly discussed in that House. By such a discussion he would appeal to the good sense of the English country gentlemen; by that good sense the question ought to be decided, and not by feelings of prejudice. Sir Francis Blake said, the framers of this measure seemed to think that the landowners did not know what was conducive to their own benefit. Now he, as a landowner, believed that he was just as well acquainted with his own interest as the promoters of the Bill were. Mr. Bayntun presented a similar petition from York, and stated, that his constituents felt the greatest alarm at the proposition of the hon. Gentleman: they felt this Bill would tend to increase, rather than diminish the expense and difficulties incident to transfers of landed property, and would entirely preclude the loan of money on the simple deposit of deeds; for by the law of lien, money was now frequently borrowed at a trifling expense, and without delay, by the mere deposit of title deeds. On reading the Bill, he understood all equitable mortgages were to be registered, then liens were to be registered. If that was the case, then a search must be made in London before money could be lent on the deposit of deeds, and the equitable mortgage actually completed in the Register-office, which would increase the delay and expense in a great degree. From what other hon. Members had stated in that House, and what he himself knew, this Bill appeared to be opposed to the wishes, intentions, and transactions, of the greater part of the community, and pressed most hardly on those unable to bear the expense incident to transfers of real property, frequently of small amount -namely, the lower classes of society. Mr. Croker said, his opinion in favour of the principle of this Bill still remained unchanged, but he did not consider himself pledged to support all the details of it. In the Committee he should think it his duty to offer such suggestions as might appear calculated to obviate any serious objection against the measure. REFORM (SCOTLAND).] Mr. Walter Campbell presented a petition from the Magistrates, landowners, and Commissioners of Supply of the county of Argyle, against the Scotch Bill of Reform. The petitioners were favourable in general to Reform, though they disapproved of some of the details of the Scotch Bill. Sir George Murray admitted that these petitioners were not Anti-reformers, and indeed he believed that there were very few Anti-Reformers to be found in Scotland. He was himself favourable to moderate Reform, though, like the petitioners, he did not approve of the Scotch Bill. In Argyle it would be particularly pernicious, as it would take away the influence of the great landowners-the county being in general divided into large sheep farms-and throw the power of electing Members into the hands of the inhabitants of small towns on the coast. Much dissatisfaction, he must also observe, had been expressed at that provision of the late Bill, by which the borough of Rothsay, in the county of Bute, was to be done away with, and in the matter of elections, was to form part of the county of Bute. He strongly objected to such a system of dismemberment, and protested against such a wanton violation of ancient feelings, and associations. Mr. Walter Campbell admitted, that what the right hon. Baronet had stated was correct. He hoped that the Government would take the details of the Scotch Bill into further consideration, and would make an alteration that would adapt the Bill to the county of Argyle. Petition to be printed. CORPORATION REFORM-IRELAND.] Mr. French presented a Petition from Roscommon, in favour of Reform of Corporate Bodies, and of giving Ireland an additional number of Representatives. Mr. O'Connor supported the prayer of the petition, which he knew to be agreeable to the feelings of the great body of the Mr. John Campbell would be very people of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, proud of the right hon. Gentleman's as- that the details of the Irish Bill would be sistance when the Bill went into Com-reconsidered, and Ireland receive a greater mittee. In answer to a doubt which some share of benefits than was now promised Gentlemen expressed, as to the probable her by the Bill. operation of the measure, he begged leave to say, that the Bill would greatly facilitate the raising of money. Mr. James Grattan was of opinion, that the Irish Bill was not extensive enough, and he thought the benefits of the English Bill, as far as regarded the machinery, SALE OF BEER ACT.] Lord Granville Somerset wished to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to bring in a Bill, in the course of the present Session, to remedy the evils complained of in the Beer Bill? anticipated so much delay or whether he did not intend to introduce some measure pending the inquiry? Lord Althorp could only repeat what he said before, that he did not think the inquiries of the Commission would occupy much time, and that then the Government would be prepared to state the course it intended to adopt. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-BILL FOR Lord Althorp said, that at present he ENGLAND COMMITTEE SEVENTH was not prepared to bring in any measure DAY.] The House went into Committee on of the kind, and he did hope, that when- the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill. ever the House should take that subject The Chairman having read the comup again, in any measure which it might mencement of Clause 27 (the 107. Clause), think it right to adopt, it would not de- Mr. Evelyn Denison rose to propose his part from the principle of the existing Beer Amendment, the consideration of which Bill. That bill deserved a longer trial, had been postponed last night. This proand he was not, therefore, prepared at pre-position, he said, would go to fix the fransent, as he had already said, to propose any alteration in it. Lord Granville Somerset said, that if no member of the Government would take the matter up, he should think it his duty to propose that some inquiry should be instituted into the working of the measure. Mr. Robinson said, if the noble Lord when he talked of the "principle" of the Bill, alluded to the license to drink beer on the premises, he could assure him nothing could be more mischievous than the operation of that "principle," particularly in the rural districts. Mr. Hume observed, that he had no doubt that magistrates, who felt their consequence somewhat abated, and monopolists, who found their profits decreased, made loud complaints, and probably also the liberty given to the poorer classes, might in some instances have been abused, but he knew, generally, that the Act had operated in a most beneficial manner. chise on the rates, and on the houses themselves, instead of on the rent, which he conceived was the preferable way for determining it. If they sent forth the 107. Clause in its present state, so encumbered with machinery, and so much calculated to give rise to squabbles and litigation, it would do away with any good that might be otherwise expected from it. This proposition, while it freed the Clause from those objections, was based, at the same time, exactly upon the same foundation. By this means the necessity of an annual registry would be obviated, and the value of the houses might be ascertained in the same way as was done by the Commissioners for the inhabited house duty. He begged, therefore, to move, that all the words after the word "city or borough," in line twenty-eight, down to the words "ten pounds," in line thirty-three, should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the following words-" any premises answering the description hereinafter to be The Amendment having been put, POOR LAWS COMMISSION.] Mr. Wey-mentioned." land, adverting to what the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said, the other evening with respect to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor laws, observed, that although the noble Lord asserted the labours of the Commission would occupy but a very short period, a noble and learned Lord in the other House (the Lord Chancellor) had intimated, that the inquiry would occupy so much time, there was no probability of any measure of relief being introduced until late in theSession. He now wished to know whether the noble Lord Lord John Russell did not see how he could possibly admit the proposition made by the hon. Gentleman. That proposition went to attach the franchise to the houses, and not to the persons, and to determine the number of houses that for a certain period were to be entitled to the franchise in a borough. He did not think that such a regulation would be just or fair towards those persons who might build new houses in a borough. Neither would it be fair to the tenants of such houses, for they would be deprived for five Lord Althorp was ready to admit that it was easy enough to imagine a case where such a proposition as that laid down by his right hon. friend might hold; but to legislate, as was said de minimis, had never yet been considered wise. The case put was that where a man might be rejected from a city list; but if regard were had solely to the appeal, the man would have only to appeal against the decision of the Overseer, and then the Magistrates would immediately admit him into the register for the county. It would, in fact, be impossible to find any system that would not be liable to trivial objections. years (that, he believed, was the period | the surveyors not to be worth 107., which, contemplated by the proposition of the nevertheless, might, from peculiar circumhon. Member) of that franchise which stances of business, &c., be worth more to others enjoyed. The argument urged by the occupier; and in deciding upon these, the hon. Member was, that when the value the assessor would have a task of great of a house was once fixed, there would be delicacy. Suppose a doubtful case, of a no further necessity to look to it; and house in a town, for which 81. only was that the franchise would rest upon the paid, and which the owner looked on as house itself, and not upon the occupier. worth 107., this would not be admitted into But the same rule would hold good with the list for the city; and if it were freehold, the plan proposed by the Bill, for when and that he then wished to have it regisonce a House was put into the Registry tered for the county, the occupier would as being of the value of 101, any future have no opportunity of registering it any Occupier would generally be admitted to where until the ensuing year. vote for it without further inquiry. When the registry was completed, therefore, there would be little trouble in keeping it up, and they had an example that the principle would work well. At Norwich there had been disputes of long standing relative to the Poor-rates, and an act had been brought in to enable persons holding houses or lands and tenements of the value of 10l. to vote for guardians of the poor. This bill was revived and amended in 1827, and the qualification was almost exactly that proposed by this Bill. This had been found to act well, though the community of Norwich consisted of 11,000 occupiers, amongst which there were 4,000 houses of 101. value. He also thought that, although there might be difficulties with respect to ascertaining the value of houses when settlements were concerned, yet questions of that nature were not at all similar to those which would arise under this Bill. All questions of value relative to the franchise would be tried with favour, while in cases of settlement there was and would be a leaning against the allowance of fresh charges on a parish. This made the cases materially different, and he (Lord John Russell) had no doubt that the magistrates who divided seven and seven on a case of settlement, would have divided twelve to two in favour of the right to vote. Mr. C. W. Wynn said, that the object in voting for guardians of the poor was very different from that in voting for the election of members of Parliament. At contested elections particularly there would be a very close examination of votes. The noble Lord had said, that the general rule would be in favour of the franchise. But how could that be known, as it must vary with the feeling of the Barrister who had to decide? There were, for instance, many houses which would be declared by Sir Robert Peel doubted much whether the Norwich act would strengthen the noble Lord (John Russell's) argument, for that Act laid down strict rules as to the valuation of property, and enacted that the corporation or the guardians of the poor should assess the rate according to the full annual value of the property within the city, and according to five-sixths of the value of the property in the adjoining hamlets. Of course, this full value having been ascertained, it must be easy, so far as Norwich was concerned, to decide on the qualification of voters. If this change were to be made at all, he still retained his opinion that the Poor-rate would be the best criterion of the value of premises. Even with respect to the county rates, the directions of the statute were, that the full value of all rateable property should be ascertained, and the assessment to the county rate made accordingly. Now if there were to be two modes of ascertaining value-one according to the county rate Act, and another under the Reform Bill, great confusion would ensue. Surely it was absurd for the Legislature to require two different modes of ascertaining the value of the same property. In his opinion means should be adopted for ascertaining the value of property in all those |