punish the parties who had been guilty of that offence. He therefore seconded the Motion of the noble Lord. LORD MONTEAGLE thought it likely that the persons who had been named were mere instruments employed by other parties; and full justice would not be done unless the latter were discovered and brought forward. LORD STANLEY said, the House would hear on Friday, when the parties were placed at the bar, what they had to say in their own vindication or palliation; and if it then appeared that other persons were implicated, they would be in a position to decide what course ought to be taken. Motion agreed to. ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL. Amendment reported, according to order. MR. J. L. RICARDO moved that the The EARL of MOUNTCASHELL clause be postponed on the ground that, as moved the insertion of a clause for re- it now stood, the shipowner could have no straining the undue influence of clergy-remedy before the magistrate. He thought men and ministers of religion at elections, at a future stage words might be introand proposing separate polling-places at duced into the clause to obviate the difwhich they should record their votes. ficulty. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he could not consent to the postponement. He hoped, when the report was brought up, to be able to propose such an Amendment as would obviate the objection. The clause had the sanction of the magistrates of the Thames Police Court, and of Mr. Rushton, of Liverpool. MR. FORSTER said, that in nine out of ten cases of sailors being left behind, it was their own fault. It would be a great hardship to make the shipowner pay wages to a sailor, as the ship had sailed, and he could not produce the captain. MR. CARDWELL felt assured that the best course would be, to leave the decision to the discretion of the magistrate, for there was nothing in that Bill to compel him to give judgment upon a mere ex parte statement. He did not think it was reasonable at that period of the Session to require the postponement of the clause. LORD J. MANNERS thought it was only reasonable to ask for the postponement of the clause, to give time for the consideration of the Amendment to be introduced into it. MR. CLAY said, they could not always. depend upon a fair decision upon the part of the magistrate, for he had heard of in stances where sailors took care to wait until they could state their case before a particular magistrate, as they felt pretty sure of a decision in their favour. Question put, "That Clause 49 be postponed.' The Committee divided:-Ayes 19; Noes 48 Majority 29. MR. WAWN strongly protested against proceeding with this clause in its present shape; he should therefore again divide the Committee on the subject. MR. LABOUCHERE said, that under those circumstances he would give way as the best means of saving time. Clause postponed; Clause 50 agreed to. MR. MOFFATT moved that the latter part of the clause be struck out. He could not see why they could not leave the matter of wages to be settled between the sailor and the shipowner, as they did between the employed and the employer in all other trades. MR. LABOUCHERE could not consent to the Amendment, as the effect of it would be to abolish altogether advance notes. He knew there were many objections to them, and he trusted ultimately the system might be got rid of, but he was informed by persons well acquainted with the subject that they were absolutely necessary at present. MR. MOFFATT agreed to withdraw his Amendment. ADMIRAL BOWLES: The great object of those who are endeavouring to improve and elevate the character of British seamen, is to reclaim them from those habits of intemperance, debauchery, and improvidence, which are the causes of so much misery to themselves, and injury to those who employ them. If these failings could be corrected, no set or class of men in the world would be so easy or so agreeable to command. Now, the system of advance notes tends to defeat all these endeavours, and to promote, as far as possible, recklessness and improvidence. Those who otherwise would not trust them for a farthing, or give them a single meal on credit, are the very persons who now encourage them to incur debts of all descriptions; to sell or pawn their clothes, bedding, and property, speculating on the profit to be ultimately obtained by these advance notes, which the seaman, in most cases, makes over to these crimps, who take them, charging a heavy discount, and perhaps supplying him with a few articles of inferior clothing at an extravagant price. If, on the other hand, the seaman receives the advance himself, the possession of four or five pounds, which he has not earned, is often too strong a temptation either to violate his engagement, or, at all events, to squander thoughtlessly or improvidently these anticipated wages. If he is a married man, he leaves himself without the power of making any allotment to his family, for he is already in debt to the ship; and if the voyage is not a very long one, he arrives at a foreign port without a farthing to purchase the smallest comfort or indulgence, discouraged and disconcontented, and consequently ready to give way to any temptation which may offer, either to desert, or otherwise misconduct himself. Such are the evil consequences of the system of advance notes to our mercantile marine. All friends to British seamen are unanimous in their earnest desire to abolish them; and I make my present proposition for their limitation to one month's pay only, in the full hope that the time is not far distant when they may be altogether discontinued. MR. LABOUCHERE objected to the proposition, as due allowance could not then be made for the length or the nature of the voyage. MR. CLAY said, that a ship's carpenter would require an advance of considerably more to obtain tools. If they restricted the amount in the way proposed, the sailors would be induced to sell their kits. SIR G. PECHELL could not assent to the abolition of advance notes; for, however bad the system, they were at present necessary for seamen. The gallant Admiral, surely, must remember that in the Royal Navy an advance of two months' wages were made to the seamen. Amendment withdrawn; clause agreed to; as were clauses up to 62 inclusive. House resumed. Committee report progress, to sit again on Thursday at Twelve o'clock. THE LATE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE. MR. F. SCOTT moved that the House adjourn until to-morrow. He was induced to move this from motives of respect to the worth of the illustrious Prince, whose loss they had to deplore. The House was aware that on that day his remains were consigned to the tomb. Out of respect to that Prince all places of public resort had that day been closed: he was sure the House would adopt his Motion, and post pone all further business to a future "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the day. Chair.' MAJOR BERESFORD seconded the Mo tion. MR. LABOUCHERE wished some intimation had been made to the Government by the hon. Member of his intention to make this Motion. He was quite sure that it would be admitted that it must be the feeling of every Member of the Government, as well as of that House, to pay every mark of respect to the memory of one so much lamented as the late Duke of Cambridge. He understood that the House of Lords had not adjourned over. He believed, however, that there was no Government business on the paper for this evening, therefore he could not object on that ground. If it was the general feeling of the House that they should postpone the business which stood on the paper, he would not persist in objecting to it. Perhaps, under all circumstances, as the House had been taken somewhat by surprise, the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion until five o'clock, when they would consider how they best could show their respect to the memory of his late Royal Highness. He proposed this because it might be inconvenient to adopt a course for which there might be no precedent. MR. F. SCOTT said, it was not from any want of respect that he had not given notice of his intention to the right hon. Gentleman or the Government. As this was not an evening on which there was any Government business, he thought the subject was one upon which the Members of the Government might feel as independent Members of that House. He should certainly persist in his Motion, and would, if necessary, divide the House. MR. LABOUCHERE said, that as it appeared to be the general wish of the House that it should at once adjourn, he should not offer any further objection. MR. AGLIONBY moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. SIR G. STRICKLAND said, that he was so decidedly opposed to the measure that he should move that the House go into Committee on that day three months. He was of opinion that copyhold tenure should be done away with, and that feesimple tenure should be substituted for it. His objection, therefore, was not to the principle of copyhold enfranchisement, but to the framework of the Bill, as not being calculated to carry out the object in view. If the House would look into the Bill, it would be seen that it would not enforce the enfranchisement of copyholds. Indeed, it was not for the enfranchisement of copyholds, but for the commutation of rents, which it was proposed to effect in a manner most unjust towards lords of manors. He also objected to it on the ground that it was not in conformity with the usages of that House to go into a Bill, the enactments of which did not coincide with its title. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof. MR. MULLINGS seconded the Amendment. He was favourable to the principle of enfranchisement, but he did not think that, under the provisions of this Bill, they would be able to carry its object into effect. The machinery of this Bill did not touch the enfranchisement of copyholds, as it only provided for getting rid of fines and commuting rent-charges. Its provi sions were also most objectionable, as they were perfectly one-sided, and were proposed to be carried into effect in a manner which he thought the House should not sanction. He feared this Bill was brought in to meet a particular case, and not for a general object. The customs also of manors in this country were as variable as possible, and it was impossible a measure of this kind could pass without their looking into the whole character of the various tenures in manors. The major part of the copyholds in this country were for terms of lives; but by the 37th clause they were specially excluded from the operation of COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL. this Bill. He thought this was a question Order for Committee read. rather to be dealt with by the Government Motion made, and Question proposed, than by a private Member. The House adjourned at Three o'clock, on account of the funeral of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, which took place this day. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, July 17, 1850. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-2a Militia Pay. 3a Upton cum Chalvey Marriages Validity. Main Question put, and agreed to. Clause 1. MR. MULLINGS moved an Amendment to the effect that all manorial rights should be commuted by the Copyhold Commissioners. MR. HUME was a cordial supporter of the principles of the measure; he was therefore sorry to hear such objections raised against it. Some years ago an Act was passed to encourage the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, but its operation had been very limited; it therefore was now proposed to extend the principle by enforcement of enfranchisement, with the view of simplifying all tenures. He admitted that he entertained objections to some of the machinery of the Bill; but he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston would let them go into Committee with the view of seeing how they could best get rid of copy-freehold tenures, which could never be done holds. unless all manorial rights were to be commuted. MR. HENLEY felt assured, however much time they might expend on the Bill in Committee that day, that it could not become law during the present Session, attacking so many interests as it did in many parts of the country. He should oppose it as inviting gross injustice. MR. AGLIONBY knew the measure was regarded as one of great importance in many parts of the country, and above all in the north of England. The chief opposition to it had originated in a selfconstituted body calling themselves the Committee of Lords and Stewards of Manors, and who had sent statements to nearly all the Members of that House in which the Bill was grossly misrepresented. The hon. Member for Preston said, there was not a word in it about the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds, but that it only extended to the commutation of copyhold rents. He could hardly conceive that the hon. Baronet had read its provisions when he made such a statement. The Bill not only embraced the commutation of rents, but it extended to a great many other objects. It commuted fines, heriots, rent-charges; and it also com⚫ muted services, which were the most objectionable portions of copyhold tenure. He had appealed to the Speaker as to another objection which had been raised, and that high authority stated that he found the title was in conformity with the enactments of the Bill. He should be perfectly willing in Committee to give every consideration to objections which might be raised against its provisions. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided :-Ayes 49; 40: Majority 9. Noes MR. AGLIONBY objected to the Amendment. The interests involved were so large and so varied that he felt it would be impossible to accede to it. In the case of mines and minerals it would be particularly objectionable. MR. MULLINGS said, his only object was to convert these copyholds into really LORD H. VANE supported the clause in its original form. To assent to the Amendment would be to greatly interfere with the rights of property. SIR G. STRICKLAND should vote for the Amendment, with the view of sweeping away all the remnants of copyhold tenure. MR. HUME looked upon the clause as a step towards the removal of all the annoyances of copyhold tenure which at present existed. He should therefore give it his support, for he thought that by omitting mines and minerals, at all events for the present, they would prevent a good deal of opposition to the Bill. SIR B. HALL said, if the hon. Member would exclude mines and minerals from the Amendment he should vote with him. MR. MULLINGS did not object to reserve the question of mines and minerals. He would consent, therefore, with that view, to add to his Amendment the words except as hereinafter provided." Amendment proposed, page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "That" to the word "may," page 2, line 3, in order to insert the words all manorial rights except as hereinafter provided." Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause." The Committee divided:-Ayes 55; Noes 47: Majority 8. MR. HENLEY then moved an Amendment to provide that the enfranchisement of a property should not take place, except on the application of three-fourths of the tenants in number and value. He was quite willing that the majority of the tenants of a manor should bind the minority, but he should object to individual enfranchisements. MR. AGLIONBY objected to the Amendment. One of the main principles of the Bill was that there should be individual enfranchisements. It would be hard that an individual who wished it should be refused enfranchisement because three-fourths of the tenants did not desire it; and it would be equally hard that a man should be compelled to accept enfranchisement if he did not desire it, because others of the tenants happened to wish for it. MR. GOULBURN would support the Amendment. It would do justice to the lord as well as the individual tenant, and would not introduce the distinction that the poor tenant without capital should not be considered, but that the wealthy tenant who had capital should. SIR B. HALL suggested that instead of pressing his Amendment, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire should allow the clause to stand as it was, and insist upon introducing words into a subsequent clause giving the same power to the lord as this clause gave to the individual tenant. MR. HENLEY replied, that the same power could not properly be given to the lord as was now proposed to be given to the tenant, because, if the lord could claim commutation from one tenant, he could, of course, claim it from all; and the fact was that a large number of the small tenants were so poor that if they were asked to pay the commutation fine it would be absolute ruin to them. MR. MULLINGS said, there was another objection to the proposal. By the 22nd clause it was provided that the expenses of the commutation should be paid by the party making the application. It was useless, therefore, to give the power of making the application to individual. tenants, because, in most cases, it would be utterly impossible that they could pay the expenses of it. MR. J. A. SMITH suggested that the number of tenants who should have power to make the application should be twothirds instead of three-fourths. MR. HENLEY said, he had fixed the number at three-fourths, because the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth had himself fixed that number in case of enfranchisement in another part of the Bill. Same clause. Amendment proposed, line 5, to leave out the words "a tenant," in order to insert the words "three-fourths of the tenants in number and value." Question put, "That the words 'a tenant' stand part of the Clause.' The Committee divided:-Ayes 44; Noes 74: Majority 30. MR. HUME said, he should now move as an Amendment to substitute for the words "three-fourths in number and value," now adopted by the Committee, the words, "the majority in number." Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "three fourths of the tenants in number and value," in order to insert the words "a majority of the tenants in number." 66 Question put, That the words 'threefourths of the tenants in number and value' stand part of the proposed Amendment." The Committee divided:-Ayes 66; Noes 53: Majority 13. MR. SPOONER asked whether the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, upon calm consideration, thought it expedient to proceed with a Bill which it was now clear could come to nothing? MR. AGLIONBY said, that the effect of the Amendments had been, in his opinion, materially to damage the Bill; but still he would not throw it up in a pet. MR. SPOONER suggested that, as the hon. and learned Member would not throw up the Bill in a pet, he would do so upon calm consideration, as there was no chance of its being carried this Session. MR. AGLIONBY said, that he had bestowed already two years of calm consideration on the Bill; and he was determined to press it as far as possible. MR. SPOONER said, he should then move that the Chairman report progress. SIR. J. GRAHAM thought that, as important alterations had been made in the Bill, with respect to commutation and enfranchisement, it would be as well if the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, who had charge of it, would state whether he could proceed with advantage with the other parts of the Bill, without taking time to consider the further alterations which were necessary. It was hardly fair to force the hon. and learned Member to postpone his Bill if he was prepared to make the alterations in the various clauses which had become necessary in consequence of the decision of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member would not, he was sure, embark the House in any useless discussion; and if he thought he could proceed with the Bill with advantage, he |