any property, they should be rated equally: and, further, that there was no reason in principle, and no authority in the law of England, why, for the relief of the poor of England, all its visible property should not be rated. He might go further; but he stopped here. And as to the alleged difficulty or impossibility of ascertaining the value of stock in trade, he could only say, that, when by Schedule D they had ascertained the profits of trade under the Property Tax Act, there could be little further difficulty in establishing a mode by which the visible property of trade in a particular parish might be assessed to the relief of the poor in such parish. With this, however, he did not at present mean to interfere, though it bore more directly on the Bill before them, than the inequality of which he rose to complain: but he did not propose to add any species of property to those which were already rated. He did, however, propose, that those which were rated should be rated equally; and should be rated upon the same relative proportions which, when the general security of the tithe of England was exchanged for the present rent-charge, were specifically established for the protection of the weaker party. He knew that he could not hope to effect this in the course of the present Session, or by any proceedings in reference to the present Bill; but he did trust that his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) would be able to state that he would take into full consideration the whole question of the rating of England for the relief of the poor; and would be prepared, in the next Session, to bring in a general measure to effect that great purpose. SIR G. GREY agreed with his hon. Friend as to the inconvenience of these annual suspensions. He hoped his hon. Friend would not overlook the fact that the present Bill did not affect tithe; and was one of those measures which just at present could not be placed upon a permanent footing. Still he was perfectly willing to admit that, at an early period of the ensuing Session, the subject ought to occupy the attention of Parliament. But it was a matter upon which he could make no distinct promise. DERBY WRIT. MR. NEWDEGATE was sorry to find the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) disposed to delay the issue of the writ for Derby. The conduct of the Government upon this question had beenvery extraordinary. On the 17th of April they opposed the issue of the writ; on the 1st of June, with the single exception of the Solicitor General, the Members of the Government then present supported it, the Home Secretary and others who had before voted against it voting for it; on the 16th of June the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government voted against it; on the 23rd of June the Members of the Government then present, with the exception of the Solicitor General, voted for it. New writs had issued for other boroughs which stood on the schedule to the Corrupt Practices Bill, and where the Members were unseated for treating or for bribery, under much more aggravated circumstances. Derby ought not to be made an exception; the report merely suggested that a practice had prevailed there of appointing and paying freemen as messengers, which might come within the terms of the noble Lord's Act-an Act he had himself admitted to be so strict as to need explanation, if not modification. The Corrupt Practices Bill, if passed, would not suspend the writ; and that borough ought to have its representatives to defend it in the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving that a new writ be issued for the electing of two burgesses to serve in Parliament for Derby, in the room of Mr. Strutt and Mr. Gower. LORD J. RUSSELL would not occupy time by defending the votes of the Members of the Government on this subject, but would content himself with saying, that having twice voted for issuing the writ, he could not be supposed to be prejudiced against that course. But the House having several times decided that the writ should not be issued, it was a question proper to be considered, what ought to be done in conformity with those decisions. Now, there was a Bill before the House for instituting an inquiry with respect to this borough; when that Bill had passed, it would be settled what mode of inquiry was to be adopted, and there would then, as he thought, be no sufficient objection to the issue of the writ. In the mean time, he would move that this debate be adjourned till Thursday next. MR. G. BANKES reminded the House that one borough was rescued from the schedule of the Corrupt Practices Bill by the interposition of a Member for that place; Derby ought to have the same opportunity. It was not certain that the Corrupt Practices Bill would pass this House; and there was a moral certainty that it would not pass the other House this Session, unless, indeed, there was to be an adjournment instead of a prorogation. Some of these boroughs would demand to be heard at the bar of the other House before being condemned. The SOLICITOR GENERAL understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to mean, that in case the Bill should not pass, the writ ought to issue, the only object in the postponement being to ascertain what course the House would take with respect to an inquiry. It was not proposed to wait till the Bill had the assent of the other House, which, however, would not be likely to refuse its sanction to such a Bill when sent up from this House. SIR R. H. INGLIS said, that the opposition of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) would have surprised him less, if the grounds on which it rested had been different. He could well have understood, if the Bill to prevent corrupt practices at elections had not only passed this House, but had been sanctioned by the Upper House, and was proceeding regularly and successfully there, that his noble Friend might fairly have said, that a measure affecting, it might be, the future constituency of Derby, or, at all events, the exercise of the elective franchise there, was so far advanced in its stages, that it would become the law of the land in another week; and, therefore, till the expiration of that week, it was inexpedient to issue a writ for a borough so circumstanced. But the case was here entirely different; the Bill had not yet passed this House; and in its actual state was worth no more than the paper on which it was written; indeed, not so much, since, unless it should become law, it was spoilt for paper, and was good for nothing as a statute. If the resolutions of either House did not constitute law, so in like manner the Bills of either House were absolutely valueless, until adopted by the other House, and enacted by the Crown. Under these circumstances, and believing that the exercise of the elective franchise was a right, a privilege, and a duty, and that no subject who is entrusted with it, ought to be deprived of it for a single day, unless on grounds not of expediency, but of justice; and believing, further, that no such grounds exist in the present case, and that the proportion of the guilty in the late election was a mere fraction compared with the guiltless, he was prepared to vote for the issue of the writ. MR. ROUNDELL PALMER could not see any connexion between the question before the House and the Corrupt Practices Bill; that was not a Bill to do anything to Derby in particular, but to institute an inquiry into the case of eight or nine boroughs, new writs having been issued for all of them except Derby and Leicester, and issued for some of them under circumstances much worse, so far as they yet appeared, than in the case of Derby. The passing of the Bill would be as safe if this writ issued, as if it did not. MR. W. P. WOOD thought the question had a great deal of connexion with the Bill. It was not impossible that the same course might be taken in this instance as in that of Yarmouth. The passing of the Bill would have a moral effect on the conduct of the freemen at the next election. LORD G. BENTINCK was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford did not perceive that the cases of Great Yarmouth and Derby were quite dissimilar. In the case of Great Yarmouth, a Bill was introduced for the disfranchisement of the freemen, and that Bill had passed into a law; but nothing of the kind had been proposed with respect to Derby. It was futile to talk of the passing of the Bill having a moral effect upon the freemen of Derby, because the inquiry which would take place would have reference only to the past. The Solicitor General contended that the House was justified in suspending writs when Committees recommended that course to be taken; but the Committee on the Derby case had not recommended the suspension of the writ, and, therefore, he was justified in claiming the hon. and learned Gentleman's vote in favour of the Motion. The House divided on the question that the debate be adjourned:-Ayes 85; Noes 43: Majority 42. Romilly, Sir J. TELLERS. Hume, J. List of the NOES. Bentinck, Lord G. Hotham, Lord Pinney, W. Tollemache, hon. F. J. TELLERS. Newdegate, C. N. CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL. afterwards it was necessary to appoint a Post-office messenger to carry letters between Market Harborough, and the village of Kelworth. The inhabitants of the village unanimously recommended a person named Brent, in whom they had confidence, to the Postmaster General, requesting he would appoint him to the situation. An answer was received from the Postmaster General, stating that the appointment was in the hands of Mr. Gard ner. Mr. Brent was superseded in favour of William Newby. The inhabitants of Kelworth addressed the Postmaster General on the subject, and received a reply, which he held in his hand; it was sealed with Lord Clanricarde's seal, had his name in the corner, was dated the 24th of July, and was couched in the following terms: "Lord Clanricarde has directed me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated the 13th inst., and to inform you that the situation to which you refer was placed at the disposal of Mr. Gardner, and filled up by the appointment of William Newby upon his recommendation.-I am your obedient servant, G. E. CORNWELL, Private Secretary." He was informed that Newby was the brother of a freeman of Leicester who voted for Mr. Gardner. Newby was a respectable man; but so was Brent; and no reason was given for displacing the latter, except to make room for Mr. Gardner's nominee. He had been disposed to give the noble Lord credit for being actuated by a sincere desire to put a stop to corrupt practices at elections; but he could not extend the same charitable belief to the Post-office department; and he thought that the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had formerly made on behalf of the Postmaster General was indirect and evasive. He called upon the noble Lord to declare that the Government patronage should not be again disposed of in a similar way. LORD J. RUSSELL said, that, from the inquiries which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made, he had reason to believe that the person appointed to the situation was respectable, On the Order of the Day for further and had nothing to do with the politics of considering the Report, the borough of Leicester. The hon. BaSIR H. HALFORD called the attention ronet now stated that he was the brother of the House to a circumstance affecting of a freeman of Leicester; and he (Lord the purity of election. On the 31st of J. Russell) was of opinion, that if that May last, the two sitting Members for the fact was known to Lord Clanricarde, his borough of Leicester, of whom Mr. Gard- Lordship ought not to have listened to ner was one, were unseated by an Election Mr. Gardner's recommendation in his faCommittee for acts of bribery committed vour. He believed, too, that at the time through their agents. About a month Lord Clanricarde was ignorant that Mr. 201 Diplomatic Relations with {AUG. 17} the Court of Rome Bill. 202 which prohibits the Sovereign of these realms from holding communion with the Court of Rome. In my view, the only meaning of such law must have been to support that principle which, I admit, is the fundamental principle of our constitution-that the Sovereign must be of the Protestant religion; and the communion contemplated by that Act I hold to be a spiritual communion, and not that which is meant in common and vulgar parlance, namely, an intercourse and exchange of communications. But, be that as it may, doubts having arisen, it has been deemed expedient to propose to Parliament this measure to remove those doubts, by declaring diplomatic intercourse and relations between the Sovereign of this country and the Sovereign of the Roman States to be lawful. There can arise, as I conceive, only two questions on this measure. The first is, what objections can be urged against it?—the next is, what advantage would accrue from it? Now, the only objections that present themselves to my mind as capable of being urged against it would be objections founded upon the principle to which I have adverted-objections founded on the assumption that a Bill le Gardner had been unseated, because, in his letter, which was written a month after the report of the Committee, he spoke of that gentleman as the Member for the borough of Leicester. Lord Clanricarde had doubtless pursued the usual course in such cases; and, having received a recommendation from a gentleman whom he believed to be the Member for Leicester, he made inquiry into the fitness of the person recommended for the office, and, being satisfied on that head, appointed him. If the hon. Baronet meant to lay down this rule that after a gentleman had been unseated on the ground of bribery through his agents, the Post Office, being aware of the circumstance, ought not to attend to his recommendations, he entirely concurred with him. If, on the other hand, the hon. Baronet meant to say that the Postmaster General was not to take the recommendation of any Member for a borough, but must attend only to the recommendations of his political enemies, he begged leave to dissent from that proposition. He was fully convinced that in what had taken place, Lord Clanricarde and the Post-office authorities had no wish to sanction the corrupt proceedings which had occurred at the last elec-galising the exercise of diplomatic inter tion for Leicester. Report agreed to. Amendment made. Bill to be read a third time. DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE COURT OF ROME BILL. course between the Crown and the Sovereign of the Roman States, would tend to endanger the observance of the principle that the British Sovereign must be of the Protestant religion. I confess I am at a loss to imagine how any rational person can suppose that there can be anything in VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said: Sir, in the presence of a British Minister at Rome, rising to move the Second Reading of this or in the presence of a Roman Minister in Bill, it is not my intention to go into any London, that would tend to shake the rehistorical details, or to trespass for any ligious belief of the Sovereign of this length of time on the attention of the country. It is, in my opinion, too absurd House. In point of fact, the grounds and ridiculous a supposition to require the upon which it appears to me that this slightest argument to refute it. Diplochange or declaration of the law is neces-matic relations are not considered to have sary, are so plain and so simple, and lie so entirely on the surface of the thing, that it cannot be requisite to have recourse to any abstract or refined arguments for the purpose of showing the expediency of the measure I am about to introduce to the House. Doubts, and doubts only, have existed, whether, upon the interpretation to be put upon words in ancient Acts of Parliament, it is or is not lawful for the Sovereign of this country to hold diplomatic intercourse with the Court of Rome. I believe that the chief doubt has arisen on the construction of the word "communion;" upon the plain interpretation of that section of the law any connexion with the religious faith of the Sovereign of this country. We have diplomatic relations with Mahometan Courts, with both Sennaar and Shoa; we have diplomatic relations with Courts of every form of belief except the Catholic modification of the Christian religion; but no one ever supposed there was any danger of the Sovereign of these realms becoming a Mussulman in consequence of the interchange of diplomatic relations with Mahometan Courts; and I cannot conceive any rational person founding an objection to this measure upon such a supposition. Well, then, the question, in my opinion, is whether there is nect us. the Roman States; but in the present state of the law that could not be done. We could not conclude with the Government of Rome any convention for the means of regulating and legalising the transit of our Indian mails through the Roman States. For these reasons, then, shortly, that I am at a loss to see any ground upon which, in the present state of opinion in Europe, it is possible to contend there is any constitutional objection, or any danger likely to arise, from the measure I am proposing, and because, on the other hand, I hold that the impossibility of contracting political connexions with the Roman Government is attended with daily injury to the commer now move the second reading of this Bill. any need of diplomatic relations with the In that case the probability is that our InRoman State, and whether any advantage dian communications would pass through could arise to this country from authorising their establishment? The onus probandi must lie, I think, on those who deny it, because there seems, primú facie, no reason why the Roman State should form the exception to the general rule; and if this House is not of the opinion of the hon. Member for Stafford, that all diplomatic relations should cease with all foreign countries, there seems to be no reason why, if that is not the opinion of Parliament and the country, the Roman State should form the exception to the general rule. It is an exception that must naturally be offensive to that State, and unless it be founded on any real and substantial ground it must be injurious to our inter-cial and other interests of this country, I ests as far as we have any interests to which it applies. Now, the Roman State is not one of the large Powers of Europe. It does not rank among the first class of foreign States; but nevertheless it is a State of a certain extent, and, as compared with the other States of Italy, it is by no means to be deemed inconsiderable. It is a State with which we may in various circumstances have political interests to conIt is a State with which at all times we have commercial interests to conOur commercial intercourse with the State of Rome is certainly not very great as compared with our commercial intercourse with many other countries; but nevertheless it is of growing and annually increasing importance. At present the Sovereign of this land can make no commercial engagement-no commercial treaty with the State of Rome, for the purpose of applying to our commerce with that State those securities which commercial treaties afford to our commerce with almost every other country in the world. We have a great interest in rapid communication with our East Indian possessions. That communication is daily becoming abridged by the introduction of railways in different parts of the continent of Europe. We cannot make use of a railway passing through the territory of another State without having with that State some arrangement by treaty with regard to the transit of our mails through that country. There is at present no railway communication for that purpose in Italy; but there is no reason, I think, to doubt that sooner or later there will be railway communication from every extremity of Italy up to connecting itself with the railway communications of the Rhine, Germany, and France. nect us. MR. C. ANSTEY rose to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down had occasioned him considerable disappointment, for he had expected to find in it a full and temperate exposition of the objects and intentions of the measure, and some attempt to combat the grave and conscientious objections entertained, not by Protestants merely, but by Roman Catholies also, to the Bill now before the House; but upon these several points the noble Lord had either left the House entirely in the dark, or chosen but slightly to pass over them. He must look to the speeches which were delivered upon the subject when it came before the other branch of the Legislature, in order to get these omissions of the noble Lord supplied. The measure was not to be taken as one declaratory of an already existing law, but as one enacting an altogether new law its very title proved it to contemplate not merely the removal of doubts-a "Bill for enabling' Her Majesty to establish and maintain diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, must manifestly aim to effect a change in the law of much greater magnitude than the noble Lord was either willing, or found it convenient, to admit. What was the meaning of the term " Court of Rome" in the Bill? There were two Courts of Rome -an ecclesiastical and a political Court; and with which of these was it intended to enable Her Majesty to hold intercourse? This difficulty the noble Lord had altogether blinked. If Ministers had no higher or profounder motive in bringing forward the Bill than had that night been avowed, then he could tell them that their measure was |