fechatrd mat lerotrebingiIn Partiment. IRISH MUNICIPAL REFORM.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord MELBOURNE moved tint the portion of the King's Speech which related to Ireland should be read by the Clerk. This having been done, Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. Passing over the commonplaces of the speech, we quote some of its more di,. racteristic passages.

"My Lords, I cannot but feel hope, I cannot but flatter myself, that we come to the discussion of the question in the present year under more favourable

auspices ; that we come to the discussion of this question in the present year in a better temper of mind ; that we come to the discussion of the question in the present year with a calm consideration, calculated to produce a fairer Una. tigation of its merits, and a more impartial and judicious decision with leaped

to them. Last year we were somewhat in a state of irritation from the result of the municipal elections in this country. In the course of those elections,

strong patty feelings had been generally excited, and erroneous views were taken by the noble lords opposite of the manner in which they supposed the power of the Crown had been exercised on the occasion. I apprehend that all this irri-

tation is now subdued. Nay, I understand that it has been stated, on great authority, in the House of Commons, that these Town-Councils of ours have become very good Conservative assemblies. Is appears, therefore, that the English Municipal Bill, notwithstanding the fears of its opponents, has bees

productive of no bad effects; but, on the contrary, that when it becomes ma- tured and mellowed, it will prove to be a measure of the most salutary character. But I think that, employed as we now are in considering the merits of a new Municipal Bill for Ireland, we should rather neglect our duty if we did not look a little to the effect of the Municipal Bill in England—if we did not examine hose far it has succeeded in working out the objects for which it was passed, and especially in producing a greater harmony of feeling in the various'cor. porate towns than that which previously existed. On that subject I have received several reports of the most satisfactory nature. With your Lordships' permission, I will read one that has reached me from Bristol, because it is Mgt clear and distinct with reference to the beneficial effect which the Municipal Bill of this country has already had on local relations and altars."

This report stated, that in consequence of the Municipal Reform, justice in Bristol was more accessible, cheaper, and more efficient; that the town was better watched at less expense ; that the local taxes and expenditure bud been reduced ; that confidence in the honest ad- ministration of local affairs had -succeeded to distrust ; and that party virulence bud been softened down. Similar reports had been received from Leicester, Norwich, Liverpool, Cambridge, Ipswich, and other places. Great good had been effected by Municipal Reform in Eng. hind, and that benefit ought to be extended to Ireland— " It is on the working of the English that I recommend to your Lordships the adoption of the Irish measure. It is not necessary to go back to the ex- amples of Greece or Rom, or the more recent ones of the Netherlands and other parts of the Continent. All these are in favour of the plan which I re. commend ; but the success of the English measure is a much more powerful motive. At present the members of the Irish Corporations are too much in the habit of looking to the Castle, and of doing nothing far themselves. But there is nothing which unfits the Irish people for taking upon themselves the duties which this bill will impose. Thus to employ them, thus to give them important duties, may prove a balance to what is at preient considered deficient in the Irish character. Really, may Lords, the question is reduced into a very narrow compass. It is contended by the opponents of this bill, that it is not applicable to Ireland, in consequence of the different position in which that country and England are placed—in consequence of the difference of religion in Ireland— in consequence of the violence of polities in Ireland, and of the social bitterness which that violence engenders. It is said by die opponents of the measure that we only propoae to transfer power from one body to another, from the Protestants to the It an Catholics. My Lords, leather doubt that from all I know, from all I see, awl from all I have heard, 1 very much doubt if such will be effect of the adoption of the bill under your Lordships' consideration. But supposing that you give up some power to these new Town-Councils, let me ask your Lordships, what is the nature uf that power? It can in nowisebe dangerous. It is said that hope tells a flattering tale ; but fear tells as intimi- dating a one. It has been alleged that these Town-Councils will become nor- moat bellools of agitation. Possibly political mattets may be agitated in these Town-Councils; and on those matters they may he induced to present addresses to the King and petitions to both Houses of Parliament. If that be the I hanger apprehended, I hold it very cheap indeed. If they step out of their 'There, depend upon it their influence will be very small. None are so weak as those who endeavour to go further than they have a right to go. There is, therefore, no danger that they can have any such bad effect as is anticipated. Public opi- nion would diveet of all weight their proceedings ; and if they stepped beyond the bounds of their duty they might be safely left to bring forward measures which would be only a proof of their own weakness and imbecility. With respect to the influence of Town-Councils, I do not consider that even of such importance. But are there no other assemblies at present? Are there no general associations? And I mention not these for the purpose of proving that they may have much effect on Parliament, but I point them out to show that these associations have the meant, of influencing the return of Members of Parl lament. I mention them to prove, that by correspondence, and by raising funds for .sur porting candidates, they may act even more efficiently than Town-Counc.ils in retutning Members either ot Conservative or Radical principles. That is the real object in view, and it therefore becomes your Lordships to take that cir- cumstance into your consideration."

But it was said that these Town. Councilsmight be so constructed as to affect the security of the Established Church-

" Now I cannot think that much danger is to be apprehended on that account, because the danger, if danger there be, will come not from Town-Councils, but through the medium of Members of the House of Common,. That lathe dominant body ; and I think I ant therefore justified in setting the one against

ht g funds; that there would be a just and efficient superintendence of i he accounts, which are under the control and management of the Town-Coupe:Is elected by the rate-peyers; and that there could be no opportunity of applying the funds to the purposes of corruption, as was done under the old system. As far, therefore, as regards the management of the funds, and the pationage in the

eft of the corporations, I think their importance has been greatly overrated ; that the greater part of the influence arising from these will be withdrawn under a new and well-constituted system; and that, therefore, the arms which may be obtained from these quarters are not so formidable, nor can so much Dm be made of them as some anticipate. I, therefore, call on your Lordships to accede to this measure. It is but a little to give, and a great eeal to with- hold: and I implore your Lordships to consider the subject carefully, and view attentively the large grounds on which it stnnds, before you reject he bill." The Duke of WELLINGTON would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued : venous attempts at improvement had been sucessfully resisted by those corporations, and they ought the i efore to be abolished : but there was a wide difference between putting an end to the existing corporations and establishing new ones of a character equally exclusive. He had several objections to the details of the present measure ; espe- cially with regard to the system of taxation which the new Councils would be impowered to carry into effect By the English measure, the Town Councils were empowered to levy rates of the same description as the county-rates ; but by the measure before their Lordships, the Town-Councils were to tax the householder* agreeably to the 9th of George IV., by which the proportion of the rate increased with the amount of the ;rental. For instance, for houses rated at RV., or below that, sixpence in the pound was the rate, for houses above that and below 201., nine- 00(1 for houses above 20f. one shilling. Now, as that was a clause which related to taxation, and which must be fixed by the other House, their Lordships would see that it could not be altered by their Lordships, however objectionable it might be. He considered such a mode of taxation highly objectionable, because many Town-Councils had nothing else to do but levy rates and expend the money in the same way as before, and almost to any amount.

He would endeavour to improve the bill in Committee ; but was surprised that Lord Melbourne should have thought proper again to bring before their Lordships a measure similar to that which they had rejected lust session.

Lord LYNDHURST agreed to the second reading of the bill ; but he would nevertheless say most distinctly, that he never would agree to pass it—

How far it might he rendered a measure which could lie ailvantageously

paned for the safety of Ireland, the constitution of the Established Church, and maintenance of Protestant interests in that country, would depend on the alterations made in it. All he would say was that in voting for the second eeading, he hoped that it would be understood tfiat he (lid so for the purpose of affording another opportunity for considering the details of a bill to many of which he (lid not agree, and which nothing should induce him to acquiesce in.

Lord 11ELBOURNE was surprised to hear the Duke of Wellington complain that a bill rejected one session should be reintroduced the next—

Why, he could refer to many measures which had been rejected repeatedly by

their Lordships, and were afterwards carried. The noble duke knew that there was a bill which he had always divided in opposition to, and yet he was the very man to introduce and carry that bill—nay, a bill going a great deal further. He hoped, therefore, that he had purged himself of every thing like disrespect, and convinced their Lordships that Ida conduct in introducing a bill which had been once rejected was as respectful as the conduct of the noble duke on that occasion.

Lord BROUGHAM said, it appeared that they were to go into Com- mittee on the hill— He must say that he was rather sorry for it, because he was led to believe, from the tone of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst, that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and in the cud find themselves in the mine situation in which their Lordships and the other House of Parliament and the country were at the close of the last session. If he had any reason to believe that any thing had occurred to lead the noble duke and his noble and learned friend to take a dif- ferent view of the subject than they entertained last year, Ile should indeed take their agreeing to the second reading as a most blessed event, both to this and the other country. But until he heard something more from noble lords oppo- site of a kind to lead hint to this conclusion, be must say that his expectations were not only not sanguine, but that in fact they were nothing at all, and that nothing probable or possible was to be gained by going through—what he was going to call a farce, but he would not use that term' but what he really thought must prove a very bootless proceeding indeed, both as regarded this measure and the country.

The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed next Thursday.

THE Ialsit POOR.

-

On Monday, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second read- ing of the bill for the Improvement of Lands in Ireland. He said that all previous bills, with a similar design, had failed in consequence of giving too large a share of the waste lands proposed to be brought under cultivation to the landowners— It was provided by this measure, that Commissioners should be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant in Council to examine and report how far, and where, works could be undertaken, and to decide to what extent the lands should be chargeable on account of them. Ile believed that it had been objected to this bill, that it gave too much power to the Commissioners; but they were bound to give notice to the landowners of their operations, and also to apply to Parlia- ment for a specific bill to carry into effect those public works which they might think desirable. He thought, therefore, that no arbitrary power was given to the Commissioners. On the other hand, it had been said that the bill did not go far enough, but that the Commissioners ought to have power to proceed with the works themselves, without taking any previous step. But that, he thought, Would be carrying their power too far.

This subject, Lord Clanricarde observed, was closely connected with that of a Poor-law for Ireland ; and he took occasion to express his general concurrence with the recommendations of the Irish Poor.law Commissioners. With regard to the workhouse system, he agreed with the Commissioners, who said it was not applicable to Ireland ; for the real state of that country was not to be gathered from the report of Mr. Nicholls, who went to Ireland in the month of August, at the most

favourable season of the year, when the people were more generally employed than at any other season. The workhouses proposed to be erected would be quite insufficient ; and the establishment of the work- house system would check emigration— The first step to be taken was to provide relief for the infirm and the helpless, and next to assist emigration, which had been going on to a considerable degree in Ireland of late years. Let them do that, and suffer the bill which he now brought before the attention of their Lordships' House to come into operation, and he thought that in two or three years they would perceive something like an efficient system of relief at work in Ireland. But he must illy that their first step certainly was not to relieve the sturdy mendicants of Ireland, but to provide for the unfortunate and disabled poor.

The Earl of LIMERICK was strongly opposed to the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland. Poor-laws would not relieve the people, but in two years would pauperize the whole country. They were the idle speculation of persons with little property and nothing to do.

The Earl of Devote approved of Lord Clanriearde's bill, as a link in the chain of improvement. With respect to a Poor-law for Ireland, he differed from Lord Limerick. Men of all parties must see the neces.. sity of reducing the mass of poverty that existed in Ireland. The Re- port of the Commissioners was very able, but it bore the marks of haste, and of imperfect knowledge of Ireland.

The Earl of WICKLOW said that Ministers had acted hastily and injudiciously in setting aside the Report of the Commissioners, and acting upon the single opinion and evidence of Mr. Nicholls. He had determined, however, to give his support to any measure for the relief of the Irish poor that Ministers would send up from the other House.

The Earl of RODEN was in favour of a Poor-law for Ireland, where the mass of wretchedness was appalling.

Lord BROUGHAM observed that there was very great difference be- tween England and Ireland as respected the applicability of the work- house system-- In England there were labourers, but experience had shown that there were work arid wages for them if they wished to avail themselves of them ; but in Ireland, he grieved to say, according to the first Commissioners' Report, there seemed to be a want of work and a deficiency of reward for it when it Was to be haul. The unhappy state of the working classes formed the most heart- rending picture that language could paint. It appeared that breaches of the peace were often likely to arise front the fact of strangers coming to a village or town where the labourer( were scarcely able to earn the smallest pittance from those who had work to give them, and attempting to procure employ- ment. The Report to which be alluded also stated, that in many instances the Irish labourers had declared they would be content if they could have fiat. a day secured to them all the year round. lie did not think, therefore, that the workhouse test was likely, in A country where such a state of things existed, to be attended with the same beneficial effects as in England.

With respect to emigration, it should be encouraged by every safe and possible means— Ile looked upon it as a sovereign remedy, and one, therefore, that ought to he kept asunder from that of poor-laws. lie feared they were beginning at the wrong end. Tiwir measure of relief should only extend to the lame and impotent, while the plan of emigration might be promoted for the advantage of the able-bodied. Ile apprehended that the introduction of a measure of a differ- ent nature would create exaggerated hopes and expectations of the right to relief, and of effectual relief being given from those poor-houees—a circumstance which would considerably mar their plan of emigration.

Lord MF.I.BOURNE said that be considered it a wise and prudent step to take the opinion of Mr. Nicholls respecting the introduction of a Poor- law into Ireland— Ministers had founded the general principles of the measure on the Report of the Cummissioners; but they had thought it wise, in addition, to have the opinion of a person with regard to those principles who, speaking with all respect for the Commissioners. fr0111 elle station he held in this emintry and front the occu- pation in which he had been engaged—that of carrying into effect the English measure—was likely to assist them in coming to a proper conclusion. He would not now go into the details of the measure ; but objections having been made to its connexion with a system of emigration, he would observs, that emigration did not appear to him to be inconsistent with giving relief at home. Emigration in this country went on to a considerable extent, notwithstanding that there was a right to relief already establielled for every member of the com- munity who might stand in need of it.

It had been said that the workhouse system was not applicable to Ireland, in consequence of the great extent of pauperism in that country— Now, upon that point, he would remind his noble and learned friend, that some objections had been taken respecting those counties in England in which poverty prevailed to an extreme degree. It haul been said that the number of paupers was too great, and that it was impossible they could find employment for them ; but somehow or other it had been found; anti persons who had opposed the system which hail been applied to England uin those grounds had said, that since it had been carried into effect in Sussex, Kent, and Hampshire, labour and wages haul been found in much greater abundance in those places. He did not mean to say that the case of Ireland was not much more appalling, and that this effect could not be relied upon to the same extent ; but he con- ceived the measure could be worked cut in seine degree, and that perhaps when they came to grapple with its difficulties they would not find thena.of so for- midable a character as flout the first view of the case they were inclined to imagine them.

The discussion was then closed, and Lord Clanricarde's bill wag read a second time.

COERCION OF CANADA.

The House of Commons, on Monday, on the motion of Lord Jonis RUSSELL, went into Committee on the Canada Resolutions.

The 7th, which declares the expediency of repealing the Canada Tenures Act on certain conditions, was opposed by Mr. GROTE, Mr. ROEBUCK, arid Mr. HUME. Mt. GROTE said— The complaints (if the people of Canada with respect to the tenuses of land had been recuguized and :Armed by the Commissioners themselves in the fourth section of their General Report; anti yet, although they had stigmatized the passing ofthe Tenures Act zie a measure at once unjust and impolitic, this reso- lution did not propose to repeal it until certain things should have been done by the House of Assembly in Lower Canada, which, owing to the unfortunate due. sensioes prevalent in that country, there was very little probability of carrying for some time to come. Such a proposition would only have the effect of poet—

polling indefinitely the repeal of a most unwise enactment, which ought at owe to be abolished. Sir GEORGE GREY briefly and inaudbly defended the resolution ; and it was carried, by 73 to 14. •

The Sth Resolution was then read t it empowers the Governor of Lower Canada to take the sum of 14.2,160/. 14s. ful. out of the Cana- dian Exchequer, without a vote of the House of Assembly, for the purpose of paying arrears of salaries to the Judges and certain officers of the Civil Government.

Mr. Wesosr moved this amendment-

" That the House of Aesembly in Lower Cana, by withholding the supplies neceasary for carrying on the government, have adopted the only constitutional means of obtaining a remedy for their complaints ; the reasonableness of which this House has recognised by affirming the 4th and 5th Resolutions ; and it is therefore expedient to await the result of the plan about to be proposed by his Majesty's Government for redressing the grievances coniplained of by the Canadian Parliament."

Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. GAILY KNIGHT, and Mr. ROBINSON, sup- ported the original resolution ; Mr. O'CONNELL, Major BEAUCLERK, and Mr. ROEBUCK, the amendment. Mr. ROEBUCK referred to the charge of breach of faith made by Lord Stanley against the Assem- bly of Lower Canada, but subsequently retracted. Ile wished to show by reference to dates how unfounded it was On the 24th of December 1830, Lord Goderich had sent a despatch to Lord Aylmer, offering conditions to the Assembly of Lower Canada for the purpose of rendering the revenue permanent. On the 15th of March 1831, Lord Aylmer wrote to Lord Gorlerich, informing him that the proposals made by him had bees rejected. on the 13th of May, Lord Goderiell returned for answer, that he hoped the people would see that there was a desire to serve them, and that the rejection of his proposals should not prevent that desire being fulfilled, consistently with the interests of the colony and the dignity of the King. Subsequently to this and to the rejection alluded to, in September 1831, Lord Goderich passed the bill. This was his answer to what had been said in gross ignorance by the noble lord, and reiterated by the press; and which proved that there had been no breach cf faith committed by Canada. The Under-Secretary for the Colonial Department said that this was a dispute between England and Canada : he denied that. The contest was between the Colonial Office and the house of Assembly. The 10th of George the Third declared that the net revenues of the Colony should not be applied without the consent of the representatives of the people. What had lost us thirteen pro- vinces in America? The levying and applying of funds without the consent of the inhabitants of them. The breach of contract would be in us, if we broke stipulations made in fear and in consequence of defeat and disaster. On the head of the noble lord would fall the penalty of that violent and disgraceful breach of faith.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, there was no use in addressing argu- ments to the House— The Resolutions had not gone through the House without discussion, and the opinions and reasonings of both sides were before the public ; and therefore no good could result from prolonging the debate. In his opinion, however, the whole responsibility of this step rested with his Majesty's Ministers; and he believed that the public would on cool reflection agree with those who, in spite of large majorities, had ventured to lift up their voices against a proceeding which he considered to be the most unwise that the House had ever entered upon.

Mr. HomE and Mr. EWART spoke a few words against the resolu- tions.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that all the arguments used by Mr. Roe- buck, and the gentlemen who followed in his wake, had been answered over and over again ; and he would not detain the House by a reexa- mination of them.

The Committee rejected Mr. Wason's amendment, by 116 to 32. The resolution was then passed.

The 9th and 10th Resolutions were agreed to with little discussion, and the Committee rose.

ADMISSION OF FREEMEN.

On Wednesday, Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS moved the second reading of the bill for the abolition of fees on the admission of freemen to the electoral franchise in cities and boroughs.

Mr. BENETT strongly objected to the bill, and would divide the House against it.

Mr. Jesters, Mr. WASON, and Colonel THOMPSON, supported the bill; on the ground that it was a step towards the abolition of bribery at elections. Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR would vote for it, because he considered the freemen a most respectable and valuable class of voters.

Mr. THORNELY could not support the bill ; for he had always con- sidered the retention of the freemen a blot on the Reform Act.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that an enactment which required pay- ment of a certain sum for the purpose of taking out the freedom of a borough, rather tended to promote bribery and corruption_

The 101 before the House was introduced for the purpose of placing freemen in a better condition than they were before the Reform Bill ; and though it was true that they were subjected to a tax for the right of voting, still it ought to be recollected that there was another class of voters who suffered intmitely more on that account,—he meant those electors who could not vote unless they had paid up all their taxes due the 6th of April before the 20th of June. He did not think the payment of taxes on a particular day was a fair imposition. because it was likely to deprive many 10/. voters of the franchise, from inability to pay, or accidental circumstances. He therefore thought, if there was to be a relaxation as regarded freemen, a similar relaxation ought to be granted to the 10/. householders, perhaps some such relaxation as that pro- posed by General Evans, that the period of payment should be extended to the 1st of October of the succeeding year. Ile did not think, therefore, that the one class should be placed on a more favourable footing than the other. It was his intention to vote for the second reading of the bill ; but at the same time he would state, that as there ought to be some relaxation with regard to the pay- ment of taxes by 10/. householders, he would, when the bill went into Com- mittee, endeavour to frame a clause for that purpose.

Mr. MARK PitILLIrs said, that he had intended to vote against the bill • but after what had fallen from Lord John Russell, he would vote for it.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that Lord John Russell took a very un- fair advantage from the proposition before the House— The noble lord smith to Members on the Opposition side of the House, " You are bidding for the favour of the freemen, and I will bid for the good-will of the 10/. householders." There was no connexion between the two questions. If it was right that the 10/. householders should be relieved front the payment of rates before auquiring a right to the franchise, let them he relieved on the grounds of policy or justice; but they ought not to consider the Nem., and the 101. householders as two eilverse and antagonist bodies, :and determine.- that because one body was exempted from a certain charge, the other her right to demand a corresponding relief. Let them ask themselves, in eithelit case, whether the proposed exemption was just or not, and relieve either the freemen or the 10/. householders as they found them entitled, according to the merits of each cage. He should certainly, if there was a necessary conneitioa between the repeal of the tax on the admission of freemen and Lord John Russell's proposition respecting the rate.paying clauses, reserve to himself the right of questioning at a future stage of the bill the propriety of relieving the freemen from that charge, at the expense of breaking down the qualification re. quired by the Reform Act. He hall always defended the rights of the freemen as they were established under the Reform Bill. He had never contemplated any extension of them, and he did not think that they had any right to call for such an extension.

He was happy to hear testimony borne to the excellent and honour- able character of the freemen— He felt assured that private electioneering motives-had nothing to de was that testimony. (" lime! " and a laugh.) It was given upon it comm. hensive philosophical view of the abstract merits of the question. (Lane4te,..1 It was a source of the greatest satisfaction to him to find, on the most win: peachable evidence, that those whose privileges he had always defended were the purest and the most incorruptible body of men in the country. What aa injury. then, what injustice, would the House have committed, if the Rep". sentatwes of the people had had their own way. What a great example of purity would they have lost. And yet they were now told that the kerma Bill was actually carried owing to the virtuous exertions of the freemen. The Member for Coventry had told them so in express terms. He did not tell the House, as the Member for Manchester did, that he had viewed the conduct of the freemen with disgust ; but he declared that the freemen theimelees were so anxious for the extension of the franchise, that with a virtuous disinterestedness " above all Greek, above all Roman fame," they had forced their here-a:on. tiers to vote for the Reform Bill. Why, what ingratitude would it have been if the House had turned round on this virtuous Way, and deprived them of say portion of the rights secured to them by the very bill which they hid been so Instrumental in carrying ? The Member for Ipswich, and the Member for Chester, anti the Member for Coventry, ought to congratulate him on his judgment. They really ought to originate a subscription for him for a piece of plate, for having exerted himself to protect the freemen from the consequences of their own virtue, and thus hold him up as a testimony to all future tuner, that merit would sooner or later have its reward.

Mr. WAKLEY, Mr. BROTHERTON, and Sir LOVE PARRY, spoke in favour of the bill.

The House divided: for the second reading, 75; against it, 21; majority, 54.

REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the following bills were read a second time on Alatiday, sad ordered to be committed on Friday the 19th of May. The Forgery Bill, Offences against the Person Bill, Robbery and Stealing tram the Person Bill, Burglary and Stealing in Dwellinglionse Bill, Piracy Bill, Burning or Destroying Buildings and Shops Bill, Puilish. ment of Death Bill, Transportation for Life Bill, Pillory Punieli- ment Abolition Bill.

THE SCOTCII MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL and the Be liens Or BARONY BILL were read a second time on Wednesday, with elight up. position.

THE CONTROVERED ELECTIONS BILL was read a second time, os the understanding that the whole measure should be discussed in the Committee.