on the same footing with their
brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen
perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing,
as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr.
Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a
different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by
the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read
a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the
Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which
were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee
in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance
was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the
rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in
the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining
them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the
bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that
he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed
to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had
received the royal assent.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled
with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive
disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the
English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of
July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect
of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and
the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new
constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of
August, moved for leave to bring in a bill "for allowing further time
for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the
present session to amend the representation of the people in England and
Wales." This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause
allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the
proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully
discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive
change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone
forth to the country as bein