The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-05-10 00:00:00

wild poultry. Tbrowingepso allim dot via earatia. ffla pat miss I lied ma of a aumber Of Lass. thersiadl Imo ea balsas so dim Solimarar bad am die sawn Is w Weir sere as a aulaihrom for h. advocated dal me ma. wadi . .7 aintr at cahasidace , Imessmilled in a smutty when there Ord be email hear witness that no lapin it could be made. =2 . 6 .11 4 were salted to the then -Ist whit of the Hebei of the country het now, when the immetwe class who could parelimme any 1 ; and be abonhi vete fee the measure was not, as had been clamour, for he begged leave to other evening presented ri pe_ was signed by most of the proprietors revision of these flame Laws might cotaidered as a most fertile source the country gentlemen to say, 1 this alteration of the Game them to reside on their estates. the higher duties they were think that the passing of this ;ame ; but even if it did he could consider woithy sacrifice to diminish the load of crime which the present laws occasioned. It had been asserted that deer were still stolen, but he was justified in asserting that they were not stolen generally for sale, but when at all by very poor persons, who were reduced to the most absolute state of want. He should vote for the Bill. - The Xarl of IMIINLEY explifir.ed. The House then divided, when their appeared— For the Amendment - . 38 Against it - 23 Majority . --18 The Bill was iiinsequently thrown ote. The House adjourned at Nine o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1110etaar, Mass 1 IRISH FREEHOLDERS. Mr. Johnson, from the Ofßee of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought up an account of the number of forty shilling freeboldas at present registered in Ireland. LIVERPOOL DOCK BILL. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from certain Magistrates of Lancashire, praying to be heard by themselves, counsel, or agents, against some parts of the said Bill. The Noble Lord also presented a similar petition from certain owners and occupiers of I}r.d in the parish of Walton, near Liverpool.—Referred to the Ckeemittee upon the Bill. PORTABLE GAS. On the motion of Alderman WOOD, the Portable Gas Bill Was read a second time. BRITISH GAS CO3IPANY. Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from the Brighton Gas Go:nosey, against the incorporation of the British Gas Company. Laid on the table. CANTERBURY RAILROAD. The Whitstable and Canterbury Rail-road Bill was read a third tifne and passed. BIRMINGHAM GAS BILL. The Birmingham Gas Bill was real a third time and passed. BRISTOL TOWN DUES. • Mr. 11. DAVIS presented a petition from 621 merchants, mann facturers, anti ship-owners of the City of Bristol, against the Bill slow before Mr House, for regulating and modifying the Town Dues of Bristol.—Referred to the Committee upon the Bill. MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL RAIL-ROAD. General GASt.'OYNE presented a petition from the manufac turers of Manchester, in favour of the Liverpool and Manchester Hail-road Bill.—Laid on the table. COMBINATION LAWS. Sir R. FERGUSON presented 'petition from the seamen of the Part of London, praying that certain persona of that body be exa mined before the Committee upon the Combination Lawc—Re terred to the Committ.e. 31r.HORHOUSE presented a similarpetition from the operative starers of the City of Westminster. Mr. T. WILSON presented a petition from the woolataplers of London, praying that no alteration be wade in the Combination Laws.—Laid on the table. Alderman TfIOMPSON presented apetition from certain ship wrights and sawyers of the River Thames, complaining that they were subjected to serious vexation and annoyance from their refusal to join the Union of their respective trades.— Referred to the Com mittee. ROBERT COUR LAY. Sit R. FERGUSON presented a petition from some persons in Fife. praying an vicinity into the case of Robert tiourlay.—Ordered to be printed. Sir J. ASTI,EIf, and Mr. J. BENE TT, presented similar pe titiaua parishes in Wiltshire.—Laid on the table. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. SIT. M. . RIDLLI presented a petition from the inhabitants pt Newcastle-upon-'fyne, in favour of the Cruelty to Animals' Bill. ihdsred to be minted. JURINS' CONSOLIDATION BILL. On the ritiOn of Mr. DA %VSON, the further consideration of the Jurles Bill was postponed till Friday neat. BUTTER LAWS. Sir A. CHICHESTER presented • petition from the Chamber ol Commerce of Belfast, praying that no alteration may be made in ' present Butter Laws, Wilier than may be necessary to compel u mare strict performance of the duty of an inspector —Laid on the table. ROMA N CATHOLICS. M. D. S. IHYGDA IX presented a petition from the Vicar, Ai:nester. and Churchwardens of the pariah of Aston, near Bir mingham, paying that no further concessions be made to the Ro man Catholics. Mr. BERRIES presented a similar petition from the Inhabi tai:ts of Ilarwich.—Lsid on the table. OPPRESSION IN TAKING TITHES. Sic J. NEWPORT precentod a petition from certain persons of Killmoon, in the county of Cork. complaining of the oppressive torduct or a tithe proctor. The Right lion. Baronet stated several instances of cruelty and extortion, which seemed to make an inv. ptession upon the Douse, but from the noise both in and under the Gallery we were unable to hear them correctly. After a few words from Mr..l. Sot t Tit and Mr. J. BENITT, Mr. A. BARING hoped the Right lion. Secretary for Irel;nd 4 . Mr. Gou!burn) would examine into the truth of the allegations contained in the petition, and suggest some remedy for what he considered a very serious evil. Nothing, lie thought, could be more dry than to introduce prone measure like that contained in the County Courts Rill, which had been introduced by a Noble Lord on his (Mr. Daring's) side of the House (Lord Althorp). At all events, he was sure that the Right lion. Secretary's time could not be better employed than in endeavouring to remedy the grievances detailed by the Right Hon. Baronet. Mr. GOULBURN said, that the present Orverr.ment of Ireland wore exempt front any imputation of neglecting their ditty upon she ftrbject connected with the pmitinn ; for the 'loose must re. collect that a measure, avowedly introduced to do away with the very evils complained of, had been introduced by that Ooverntnent., and although disapproved of at the time by a great many gentle.- men interested in Irish affairs, lie (Mr. Goulburn) had the plea. 64.1te to say, that it was now in active nperetion, and likely to remove all grounds of complaint upon the subject of collecting tithes. Dr. PII I,LIMORE, in answer to Mr. flaring'e observation on the subject of the County Courts Bill, said there was now in Ire land a speedy method of recovering small debts under 101. very much resembling that sought to he introduced by the Noble Lord (teed Althorn) Into England. The petition was then laid on the table. Sir J. NEWPORT presented a similar petition from certain ;tremens in the Queen. Count v.—Lead on the table. COIIN LAWS. Sir A. HOPE presented a petition from the Noblemen, Com mi,,ionera. and Landowners of Linlithgow, praying that there n:ay be no alteration of the Corn Laws.—Ordered to be printed. A similar petition was presented front BotifF.--Laid on the table. .11r. G. LAMB presented a petition from the Inhabitants of 3111 ton, in Derbyshire, aga,itst the present Corn Laws. —Laid on the table. ROBERT G.I.I . THOIIN BUTT. Mr. .1011 N IV I LLIA presented a petition from R. O. Hutt. compleic.ing of his lengthew.4l inirrieunniunt in the King's Bench, and praying the House to take his case into consitteration.—Or skied to be printed. • COI NTE COURTS BILL. F. M. 01131 A NNUiI presented a petition from Andrew Kdge. of Essex-street. praying compensation fur losses under the operation of the Quiet) , Courts Bill—Laid oo the table. 1f) lA N SCARLETI' presented a petition from the Barristers. and honor's connecipd , with the profession of die law in Newcastle ltinsti-Tytie. praying t hat Rottim Catholics be relittiTS from their Mr. JOHN WH.1.1131S said the petitioners were ar respeci. ' , Ws. and held as high a rank in society, as an y mien who had ere, !dried a petition before that H ou se; an d that they had been L., known as men of distinguished attaininerds upon the Neuttimn I.:treu,t. Ile pariitularly eulogised the character of the person whose name appeared at the head of the sigoatures. air 4CARLEI"f said, that ss Iris Learned Friend Lad not 'entic'ed the name of that ' , crew , . he thought it his duty to say that it was the Recorder of Newcastle. 'Lhe petition was thee Wel un the table, aud ordered to be printed, Sir N. COLTIIURhT presented a petition from Cork, com- Plaitiing of the high and irregular rate of postage. Mr. BERRIES said that the subject was under the Tntisidera. Lion of a 4.:otninittee. Mr. S. RICE complained that a similar answer had been given last year. mot not the grievance was unabated. At prescat the poorest part of this cour.iry was made subject to the highest rate. Ordered to be p r i n t e ,t. pie T. I,KTII BRIDGE presented a petition from a parish in Sornersetshire, egsin t at y futility concessions to the Roman lintholica . . n. nut RWE was desirous of calling the attention of the How. =Tlnd statement which he had made on a former night, re o certain notes which had been introduced into the edition of die Holy Scriptures published in Dshlin, under the sanction of 1 Troy. The sanction of that Rev. Prelate had Wen ob incautiously ; but as soon as he discovered that the notes which the lino. Baronet had quoted were contained in it he with ,m7 drew his approbation, as did also the other Roman Catholic Pre lates of Ireland. He was anxious to make this statement, in o der to prevent the statement of the Hon. Baronet from having that prejudicial effect upon the question of emancipation, which, if un contradicted. It was calculated to have. (Hear, hear.) Sir T. LefrfteßlDOE said that he had quoted the passages to which the Hon. Member alluded, from a conviction that they were authenticated by the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland. He goosed them amongst a variety of other quotations, and he was well posed to withdraw that portion of the passages he cited Atm times notes, satisfied that they were condemned, according to the statement of the lion. Member, by the Roman Catholic Pre. Bites of Ireland. He was, however, of the same opinion arise had elegy's been, that the tenets of the Roman Catholics were such now 1 lea they had ever been. General GASCOVNE believed that the annotations had been actually published in the Lousy Bible. Mr. S. RICE said the facts connected with the publication of these notes were these :—The notes were published in the foreign edition of the Bible ; they had been transcribed into the edition which obtained the sanction of Doctor Troy incautiously ; hut as soon as they appeared they were disapproved of by the Roman Catholic prelacy. Mr. V. FITZGERA LD said that at the time of publication the withdrawing of the approbation of Doctor Troy was more gene r rally and exteusively given than the incautious sanction in the first instance. Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the Unitarians of Brighton. disclaiming any participation with any members of their communion who presented petitions against concessions to the Ro lrafi Catholics.—Ordered to be printed. The lion. Member presented a similar petition from a Unitatinw congregation of South-place, Finsbury. Mr. Ht! 11.1 presented a petition from Dumbarton, against any alteration in the Combination Laws. Mr. BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Unitarians of Saffron Walden, in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims. The petitioners spoke the sentiments of the great body of the Protestant Dissenters of England. On the motion of Mr. HER RIES, the House resolved itself Into a Committee on the Thrown Silk Act. The Report was ordered to be received to-morrow. On the wo it n if Mr. DAWSON, the Transports' Colony Bill was read a second time. CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL. Mr. BROUGHAM moved the further consideration of the Re port on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Mr. H. MAXWELL complained of a misrepresentation in the Newspapers, which was not distinctly audible in the Gallery. Lord G. CAVENDISH, seeing an Hon. Baronet (Sir T. Leth bridge) in his place, was desirous of obtaining from him an expla nation of what had fallen from him on a former occasion, relative to an expression which had been imputed to a Roman Catholic Gentleman in the neighbourhood of Newbury, " that the ancient Roman Catholic churches were profaned by the solemnization of the Protestant mode of wor.hip."—(llear.)--He knew the two principal Roman Catholics who resided in the neighbourhood of that town, and he could ensure the House that neither of them had lured such language as had been imputed by the Hon. Baronet.— The assertion, he believed, was contained in a paragraph in a country newspaper; and he regretted that any Member, on such a statement, woold ground a charge in the House of Commons against any persons who were not Members of it. Sir 'l'. LETHBRIDGE complained that he was a second time In the course of that evening called upon to give an explanation of the line of argument he thought proper to adopt on a former °tea. lion. He did not allude to any particular persons, neither had the Noble Lord stated the names of any person who complained of an allusion to him. Ile was informed that suet language had been used, and he used it in argument; he would stand upon his Parliamentary privilege of using whatever argument he thought conducive to promote or defeat any mea.ure he either advocated et opposed. N. CALVERT said, that the Hon. Member might adopt any line of argument he thought proper; but this was a question of fact, and the House had a right to expect he would support the accuracy of his statement.—( Hear.) Mr. FORD complained of an inaccurate attributed to him re specting the second reading of the Bill. He voted for it—not on the same grounds as his Hon. Friend, the Member for Atmagh. It was not on the evidence of dlr. O'Connell. or Dr. Doyle, that his vote was grounded ; he was induced to vote for the measure because he thought it would serve to tranquillize the country, and be productive of beneficial results, if accompanied by the two mea sures of a Provision for the Clergy, and the proposed Regulation of the Elective Frariehlea. lie would therefore continue to vote for the measure. Lord 0. CAVENDISH complained of the withholding of the name of :he person alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, and stated that the persons on whose behalf he disclaimed the language imputed by the Honourable Baronet, were Lord Stourton and the lion. Mr. Pette. Sir J. NEWPORT thought the Gentlemen mentioned by the Noble Lord had quite exculpated themselves, but tint the lion. Baronet had not so satisfactorily exculpated himself. (Hear, hear.) Eery Member of that House was certainly entitled to use any ob servation consistent with decency of debate ; but no Member had a right to make a statement, the truth of which he was not pre pared to substantiate. If the Honourable Baronet failed to sub stantiate bis statement, lie should be regarded as having abandoned it from an inability to maintain it. (Hear, hear.) The amendments to the Roman Catholic Bill then passed through the Committee, and the third reading was ordered fur to-morrow (Tuesday). 31r. BROUGHAM was desirous of informing the House that the third reading would certainly take place to-marrow, and he was desirous of knowing whether the Honourable Member for Code Castle (Mr. Banks) intended to press for a division upon a clause which he understood it was intended to propose—for the ex clusion of Roman Catholics from seats in that House—an import. ant part of the Bill certainly—or whether he would confine himself to s division on the general question on the third reading? Mr. BANKES said that it was his intention to propose two amendments in the Committee; the first was, for not admitting Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament; and the second was, that the appointment of Commissioners should be optional. Ile would propose these amendments. lie would not however press a divi sion-, but would be satisfied with the sense of the Hone on the general question on the third reading. (Hear. hear.) ELECTIVE FRANCHISE—IRELAND . . . Mr. mused that the H ousel-e;cifireitself into a Committee on the Elective Franchise (Ireland) Bill. Mr. GRATTAN, before the House went into a Committee, was desirous of expressing his opinion in support of the vote which he gave on a former occasion against this measure. '1 h i evidence before the Committee had been referred to in support vf it ; that evidence did not by any means go to recommend the menstire. There teas a great diversity of opinion amongst those best ac quainted with the state of Ireland on this subject, and if there was a difference amongst pemorts of that country, how could English men be prepared to come to a satisfactory decision upon the guts . ion If the people of Ireland were capable of misusing the t elective franchise, in the way it was supposed. lie email rot eon- I sent to emancipate the Irish. Emancipation was no boon if the elective franchise was taken away. Ile would grant Emarcipation and allow the Irish to retain the elective franchise too. He denied that it was clearly made out that the subdivision of lands Rome from the 41)a. freeholders. He maintained that there were not too many freeholder in Ireland ; but when the Legislature destroyed popular feeling it would destroy popular rights. Mr. V. FITZGERALD supported the motion, in conformity to the opinions he had formerly expressed. He denied that the Bill before the House contemplated the destruction of any po pular rights; is only usurped the rigbts of the great body of the people The Bill did not mtertere with existing rights ;it served rather to confirm them. It could not be denied that great abuses were practised in the use of the Elective Franchise in Ireland ; but in his (Mr. Fitzgerald's) opinion, the Bill before the House I was well calculated to correct those abuses. His approbation, however, would be qualified, as he understood it was intended to propose some very important amendments in the Committee, which he cmtld not fully approve. lie would recommend his lion. Friend not to make the change which was proposed, but to leave the Bill as it was first introduced. 3lr. LITTLETON deprecated the premature discussion of clauses which may or may not be proposed in the Committee. He never would consent to extend the disqualification to its other species of freeholders but those contemplated by the Bill, as originally submitted to the House. The object of the Bill was to disqualify fraudulent keeholdete, and prevent them front over powering bona fide freeholder. 31r. L. FosTER thought the Bill, as originally introduced, would give rise to a new muss of perjury—it held out a new buses to the fraudulent manufacturer of votes. Greater abuses will take place than thine which are now practised. Instead of multi. plyir.g freeholds, cottages would be given as gifts, sod the tenants would stand as fee-sintule freeholders. lie would recommend his lion. Friend (31r. 1..) to strike out the exception that limited the disqualification to forty-shilling leasehold freeholders. The niaqualitication, he thought, should extend to all forty-shilling freeholders. This was the only effective method of deatroying fraudulent and fictitious votes. It might be asked why he had not stated all this before the Committee of the House of Lords, where he had been examined. To that his reply was simple : lie had not been given an opportunity of making any such statements. for no questiuns calculated to draw then) forth had been pot to hint. if they had be certainly would have made some suggestions on the subject. The law, as it stood, required correction. and he should regret to vote against the present measure it no other alternative were left him. Ile gave full ercelit to the motives which had in fluenced the lionoutable Mover. but as he was not personally ac tin:dated with die country which the present Bill was intended to :Nett, be perhaps did not are the measure in all its bearings. Sir J. NEWPORT was against continuing the discussion any longer. lecould lead to nothing but mis.statements. What had fallen from both the Honourable 31entbers attic had then spoken would have !ie.::: much better if addressed to the Committee. They ought at once to go into Committee. and in discussing the separate clauses, they night succeed in obmining such views of the subject ea would enable them to frame an Act calculated to give general sa tinfaetion. Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that although an many petitions had, front time to time,been presented to that House„praying fur par filamentary reform, and although these petitions had beet el taregarded and spurned, yet here they were willing to enact a lew widen would ~. . • , 0' .. ~ Jr effeet of Makin` them dealers i *elide of game weeldha notbars tb: 1 1 deer, whose sale was legal, were yet all commitments under the Game look bie knOldeng• in which engird( of 4 lig. He wee firmly of opiates - thee ' be. the present measure would not ter The Earl of DARN. LEY 'dime glee the proptletor tip seas Power < t i ll heretofore. It was a pei*et d Acsnained so lewesereviewL Be reeding. ,Lord CA LTHORPZ said Imeeesid Iv was great abundant... of gersie v eod be l' exaggeration of the mime seaseque When the Game Lava woe peewmi el sour of society, when neetly tie wboi was centered in landed pripriews : I octant of our commerce had raised • c thing but game, they were eidiculous second reading of the present Bill. . Lord SUFFIELD said that this m ••stated, brought tot ward by popular cl retair.d the House of his baring the o town from Norfolk, which was signet; of the count] , praying that a revision be made. The present laws he consui of crime. He thought it an insult to i at. had been said that evening, that i Laws would be a discouragement tor t ife thought they were influenced by t there called to fulfil. He did not Chit would diminish the quantity of game not but consider it as a worthy Kuril . effeet a most !ke IP °4e o f e.ise4 ::°,4l len?basql reellsesent liire objedis tart in Imbed w Weir seriedwrodeng vow cone seeded en to a highly injurious esient, cwt be wail eel the Beene, ens set the seissiesturieg of votes siesiellspost Woe set feeds pet isle lessor so se to pay 1.1 is RI thatASl, bare i boionghe ? It wan Migod Ant litat present me woo Minded futo nupo the evidence of these who were aides be well oupeednted with the state of Ire land' cwt what was Bly. Blake's Oen of the measure? He was tine to whose authority he &ought ono attention would be paid, and yet what was hut opinion ? It sem, that it the present mea sure were enacted without the aenompanintent of emancipation. it would be received with abhorrence and lie would ask, was i: not in human nature to set gettat ilidi Ze n t poliiical privi, leges, arid was it possible that the Irish posentry could feel other wise than proud of the privilege of voting fete a Member of Par liament ? Mr. DAWSON would avail himself of that opportunity of undressing his dissent from the principle of the Bill. It was a ! re. he thought, of t h e ut most importance—next in importance Fps to the Cath o li c Q u - st i on it se lf. The Bill then before the ' oust had been brought in uoder very inauspicious circumstances, appearing, as it confessedly did, to have been brought in for the purpose of aiding obje:ts of the Roman Catholics. The same was true of the Bill for making a provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy. These three great measures, separated, as they ought to be, were precipitately blended, were so connected. that they must either stand or fall together. The course that had been taken placed him and other Members in such a situation as that they n.ust vote against this measure, of which, In principle, they approve, lest they should, by agreeing to it, be wondered as giving an indirect support to that of which they were most strenuous opposers—hs meant the Catholic question, or, on theother hand, by acting on the abstract principle, which eta hold, vote for the Bill, and so yield acquiescence to the Cat claims. For his part, he preferred voting against the present Rill, rather than even by implication give any anent to the measure of I Emancipation, as it was called. Yet he confessed that he was lest decidedly opposed to the system of freeholds as it existed in Ireland. As to the disqualification proposed, he would view it without reference to any calculation of the number of Protestant or of Catholic Members who might be remained, but he would consider it as an Irish Member of Parliament and as an Irish landlord. He thought that by mixing up this Bill with the Catholic Question, it lost much of the support which it might otherwise have had, and accordingly the Honourable mover was thrown tot assistance into the hands of those whose propositions on this subject he ought well to consider, and see how far they could be made to accord with his objects. The landlords would hail this measure as one of the highest value, while the House was told that the tenants would receive it with indignation and abhor rence. How did that appear ? Were there any petitions against it ? Did any remonstrances against it reach Parliament? Nut one. To all the inquiries which he had made in Ireland, he re ceived not one adverse c er.munication. He applied to several gentlemen well acquainted with the people, and requested them to make inquiries, yet they were able to discover no feeling ot hos ility ; and even in the Protestant county of Derry, the lower el:Asses were touched on a point where they felt most sensitive—the probability of this measure's assisting to fulfil the expectations of the Roman Catholics ; still no opposition to it was excited. The people felt, and justly, that they were more degraded by the pos. session of a privilege which they were compelled to prostitute at the desire of their landlords, than they could possibly by the de privation of it. He would be for raising the qualification to 201. hich he thought would ler only sufficient to prevent the system of fraud and perjury which now so evidently prevailed, and lie hoped that, ultimately, there would be introduced in Ireland a respecta ble and substantial yeomanry to stand between the higher and the lower classes. Upon every view of the subject which he could take, he would have been much better pleased to have been called on to vote respecting this measure without reference to any other. Lord E BR INGTON. in supportiong this Bill, considered that ' he was assisting to confer a great boon upon Ireland ; fur he was persuaded that the system of making forty-shilling freeholders had been used as a great instrument of tyranny and oppression. and though n friend to Reform, he would cordially support this measure as a means of conciliating the opposers of Catholic Emanci pation. Lord CORRY thought that although this would be by no means • sufficient security in the want of concessions being made to the Roman Catholics, vet he would admit that it might be sonic mitigation of the evil. A sufficient security it could never be can sitlered, for the one measure would come into immediate operation, whereas the other might not produce its effects for several years, as many of the leases from which votes were at present derived, might not expire for 8 or 9 or 10 years ; It was clearly, therefore, no se. curity. Alr. (ARCS WILSON briefly supported the motion. Mr. HUM E considered the Bill to interfere with a most import. aat privilege. It was a subject on which they should seek for still further Information, and one too on which they should deliberate calmly and cautiously. Ile could not but think that if it were poor. Bible for any thing of the sort to have such an effect, that the con. nection sought to be established between this and the Catholic Relief Bill wouhl do much injury to the latter. What proof had the House that the evils stated in the Bill had their rise in the causes to which they were ascribed ? What proof had they that the minute subdivision of land arose from that cause? Without having any evidence to this effect, the Honourable Mem ber for Louth (Mr. Foster) would go a greater length, would in novate still further, and destroy the franchise of the tenants in fee ; and the Honourable Member for Clare (dr. V. Vitsgerald) would modify part of the Billet but did not state how he would effect that modification. If we looked to the evidence of the Catholic Bi shops--to that of Dr. Doyle for instance—was there one opinion ex pressed by him in favour of this Bill ? That was a strong reason wt:h him why the measure should not be carried. There was rot in the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee, a single word in favour of the Bill, and yet most of the questions were put in the alternative, whether they would prefer this Bill with Eman cipation, or the continuance of the 40'. freeho'da. without Etnan c.pation ? He would say, that such was not a fair way of interro. gating witnesses on so important a subject, where it called upon them to give, as it were,: colourable approval of a measure for the sake of securing a benefit with which that measure was linked. al though they might, at the rime time, be most strongly opposed to that particular measure, if taken by itself. If Emancipation was • good, ought we not to give it as • boon, wahackled by any thing which was oat all calculated to depreciate that good that it would confer ? But what were we doing ? We were professing to hold out conciliation to the Cohdics, when by one act we were giving an extension of power to the lkher orders, while with the other we were depriving two or three hundred thousand of their poorer fellow-countrymen of their dearest and only remaining right belonging to them—their elective franchise. Were we to be told at this time of day, that the elective franchise was not esteemed by the peasantry of Ireland ? %Vint said Dr. Doyle upon that sub ject ? Ile spoke in the highest terms of the value of this right. It was true, indeed, his words did not appear in the evidence be fore the House, but his opinions were well known by what he had written, and he (Mr. Hume) was anxious that the House should hear what that individual hail said upon thin subject. The Horourable Gentlemen then read an extract from one of Dr. Doyle,. publications, in which it was observed, that " if there were one measure more than another calculated to eradicate the Irish from the soil of Ireland, that was, in 1114 opinion, taking away the elective franchise of the forty-shilling freeholders. —Take away the elective franchise from the Irish peasant, aid you would trot only strip hint of what connected and identified him with his country, but you at once destroyed his every claim to the cha racter of a freeman. Ile was now the image of a freeman, but take away his vote and he would he the very essence of a slave.—Take from him his freehold and you cast hill out of the Constitution." He (31r. Hume) was not aware that it was possible in fewer words to express a more decided opinion against the measure now before the House. And upon evidence was the House called upon to le gislate ? IVe were told that the practice which prevailed in Ire. land at the elections in consequence of the existence of the forty. shilling voters was injurious to the peace of that country. But what was the evidence of this ?—None whatever. His object was to recommend inquiry into the subject, and he should, before he sat down, move for a Committee to make the inquiries necessary. Eyen the Honourable Member who moved this measure had stated. the necessity of having the fullest information. flow often in the course of the debate on the Grameound Bill was it said that the full. at inquiry ought to be made. But what was the Cframpound Bill ? It was to extend die elective franchise, arid not to curtail it. And lie would ask the House whether any evil had resulted from that Bill, or whether there was any instance where the elective franchise bad been extended that any evil had arisen from the mea sure ? He would say, where any abuse was known to exist let the House correct it. But by this Bill now before us., what would we propose to do ? We were going to deprive, by one slrgle net, a large mass of the people of Ireland of a right which they had enjoy ed ever sines the time of Henry VI. Was it an act of justice? Was it fair, after all the speeches that we bad heard, that every thing which passed in this House for the benefit of this country ought equally to extend to Ireland ? Had not this sentiment been stated by 3lr. Pitt himself? And yet it was now contemplated to deprive that very Ireland of almost the only relic of liberty which it possessed. But the evidence, he would repeat, upon which this measure was grounded was altoge ther imperfect and unsatisfactory. He was informed that no such abuses as had been stated ever did rake place, in that extended sense which required a measure of this nature to be applied to re medy _them. finless then we could prove that there were those aim" he would contend we had no right to take away their elective franchise. But we were told that this incavtire was highly approved of by the people of Ireland. An Hon. Member had said that none of the people of 'lreland had petitioned against it. Ile (Mr. Hume) thought Inc couldl give a very good answer to.titis ar gument. Were not all the Catholics of Ireland tied down to the Asso:iation ? Did they not delegate every thing to their leaders? Am' had not the Catholic Asanciation betrayed the interesta of their countrymen ? (Hear, hear.) Had they not entered into a coin- F romise with this House ? In the hope of getting Catholic Eman. cipatioo, they were silent as ,tc this sweeping disqualifying Bill. It was in c insequenee of this resigning of the interests of their poorer brethren, to secure to themselves the greater measure of Emancipation, that no Petitions had been presented to the Heuer against the present Bill. But in his view it was imn sterial as to die principle of this measure, whether the people of Ireland did or did not petition against it ? If there was one measure calculated ' inure than another to work good for Ireland. it WAS the extension of the elective franchise. (Hear, hear, hear.) Ile wanted no evi dence of the disposition and feelings of the people of Ireland, to actuate him with -regard to this Bill ; it was enough for him that it was intended to take away from half a million of men their great privilege of electing their Representatives ; and in thus taking away the popular branch of election, leaving it to exist between the middling and higher cleans. Ile, fur his pats, • ieilid not bud that booesty and good filth were at all confined *the higher classes; on the contrary, if any were more dishonest eid treacherous it was the higher clan, wbo, for political purpose', bad stronger motives to operate with them them than those of an bumbler station. Were we then to reserve the right of voting to a few, and deprive the many of it? On such a principle he would nevi vote; and on that ground lie regretted that the sense of the house lied not been taken upon the first reading of the Bill. Instead of this 11111 being useful to Ireland, ft would be injurious, anti he, therefore, begged the Honourable Member who moved it to rescind his motion. If he should per sist in it, he would but retard the progress of the greet and import ant nic.P.sure of Emancipation, which needed no such accompani ment as was thus proposed to be given it. Take off the two wings, as they were called, and he was qaite satisfied that the important question would be carried. All that he would add to his observa tion was, that every one of the complaints stated by the Honour able Mover of this Bill, were evils which ought to be done away. but at the seine time let not the elective franchise be touched. lie denied, as tar as it had come to his knowledge, that there was any evidence to support the preamble of the Bill. He admitted, indeed, that property ought to bear an influence in the State, thought not at an election ; but let not the peasantry of Ireland be punished for submitting to that influence while the same was known to be done by the people of this country. lie hoped that the House would pause before they took a step in every point of view most serious, and to his mind most objectionable. He would ask the Gentlemen around hint who supported this Bill, whether they did so with a view to the principle of Reform or not ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Those cheers must allude to one of two cases. Either they were Reformers who would lessen the Elective Franchise for the sake of the other measure; if so lie was not a Reformer; (hear, hear) or they were Reformers who fur the sake of principle would forego Emancipation rather than curtail that elective right. The best Reformers were those who acted upon principle, not those who would act on expediency, nut those who would act on compromising to ma. If ibis Bill he passed, lie would venture to say those who sup pn ted t would be without many more votes for Emancipation than what they had now. Ile for himself would rut vote fur it. This mea sure was short-sighted, ill.timed, and unjust; and he would say that the man who would rob half a million (Hear, hear!), perhaps the proper phrase would have been to take away (but it was of little consequence), the right of voting, was not a friend to the trite principles of represen.ation. If there were but ten inert in Ireland who would stand up in support of their elective franchise, he would say no power in this House ought to take it away from thrice ten persons, unless they could show that it would do a paramount good to the country. To those who were decided for the treasure he would say, to give value to the proceeding let us have time. As the Bill was against principle, he did trust they would support the amendment he should propose. whatever might be the ultimate step determined upon by the House. The Hon. Member then moved as an amendment, that a Select Committee should be ap pointed to inquire what frauds and abuses existed in the Elective Franchise in Ireland ; and, if any, to ascertain what measures were necessary to remedy them. Mr. MARTIN (ttf Galway) had been always opposed to any measure that hail for its object the disfranchisement of any portion of the people. On the occasion of the Cornwall boroughs, it was agreed that unless corruption could be brought home to a majori y of the voters, nothing could be taken away from those boroughs; and it was laid down as a proposition, that we were not to seek out corruption, but it must be palpable and self- evident. It, then, he who, after all that was said, could not, upon constitutional princi pies, consent to disfranchise those boroughs—if he, who was one of the many that said, punish the individual criminals, but do not disfranchise the whole of the borough and their descendants for over—ought lie to consent to disfranchise the forty shilling free. holders of Ireland ? He agreed that there was a great paucity of evidence as to the evils arising from those voters. The infor mation of Irish Members was relied upon; but he would say that Irish Members were the last that ought to be consulted. He was himself one of the last men that ought to be listened to on lite subject. (Hear, and much laughter.) Ile was as much as they were, and they as much as be. with regard to this question ; and he would say again, that we (the Irish Member) were all incredible witnesses. (Hear, and laughter.) As the elective franchise of Ire land had escaped Lord Claee and the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and all the other men nod adverse to Catholic Emancipation, who had had power in that country, he should claim from this House as much as had been granted by the enemies of Elective Franchise and Catholic Emancipation in Ireland. It had been admitted that the forty-shilling freeholder in Ire land stood exactly upon the same footing as those in England. He asked therefore, in the name of reason, if this were so, why should not the forty shilling freeholders in England be put upon the same tooting as it was proposed to place the Irish voter? If we were to deal fairly with the Irish freeholder, this proposition would be made. If corrupt practices in Ireland were to be made the ground for disfranchisement, similar practices ought to have that effect in this country. But upon another ground lie was compelled to vote for going into the Committee. Great as the evils were that were proposed by this Bill, yet they were not so great but that he would purchase Catholic Emancipation by agreeing to the Bill. He looked upon it that the forty shilling freeholder had consented to immolate their right for the sake of Catholic Emancipation ; he we. ready, then, to act as a Priest at the sacrifice. But if the mea sure of Catholic Emancipation should fail, he never would support this Bill nor any other Bill of this nature. The lion. Member the stated an Instance of what he termed the independence of voters at Galway. In his election for that county, when opposed by the ro., lative of his Hon. Colleague (Mr. Daly) it had been agreed that his' Honourable Colleague should stand neutral, and that none of hi tenants should beallowed to vote on either side. In spite however of all the efforts of his Honourable Friend, there were five fellows, tenants of his Honourable Colleague, who, vagabonds as they were, came to the booth of the opposing candidate, and, although cau tioned not to vote, persisted in voting for his Hotiourehle Col leagues relative. Vs ell, his Noble Friend told him (Mr. Martin) not to mind, as these five miscreants had voted thus, he would in return bring up ten men, who should vote for him (Mr. Martin). Accordingly ten men were brought up, and their Antes were given, but by their doing so they kept open a booth, which it was his sish to have closed, and the consequence was, that upwards of COO votes were polled against him at that very booth, by its being thus kept open. (Muth laughter.) Now, was not this an instance of the independence of the voters of Galway ? (Laughter.) In conclusion he begged to state that it was a very reluctant support which he gave to the present Bill, but he was induced to do so upon the principle that by doing .a little wrong he, was doing a great deal of good. Mr. DALY said, lie was very glad that he happened to be pre sent to hear the observations of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he understood that that Hon. Gentleman had made a similar attack upon him some few days ago ; but which he Thad not expected to heat repeated this night, nit was not a quarter of an hour since that he had asked his lion Friend whether he should allude to him (Mr. Daly,) and the lion. Gentleman said he , should not. He begged now to state, that on the occasion alluded to, so anxious wax he to observe a strict neutrality, that he dismissed every agent and did not ask a single friend to vote for his relative, although he confessed he had strong feeling for his success. He did say on that occasion, that lion) , of his tenants came forward to vote on either side, he would exert as much influence as he could over the others to vote on the other side. He did not mean to deny that there was no such thing as influence in Ireland on the part of , the landlord over his tenant; lie knew there was, and he bel eyed ' the same thing existed in England. (Hest.) He did bring I the ten tenants forward ; but he would ask whether such conduct called for the language of the Hon. Member, or deserved to be de signated and represented as unfair as possible ? (Cries of " no, no, no.") Such at least was his impression of the lion. Mem ber's language, whatever might be the seeming candour with whic't it was expressed. Now that he was up he might perhaps CSITreiS his opinion as to the measure before the House. Ile thought as , long as the present system continued there would be no quiet in Ireland ; but he was also'nf opinion that this Bill was not calm. listed to cure the evil which existed there. Ile was of opinion we I ought to go into a Committee, although he would fairly confess that in his judgment other measures might have been devised better suited to the state of Ireland. Under the chimes of the pre. sent Bill there would be a double inducement to perjury. Ile , could not couple thin question at all with that of emainipation. He considered the two Bills perfectly distinct, and he did not con. I eeive it was a pie, or consistent argument to say. that in order to do justice to five thousand Irishmen we should do a positive in justice to five hundred thousand. Mr. MARTIN explained. lie disclaimed imputing any guilty foreknowledge of what had taken place on the occasion of his elec tion to his Hon. Colleague. Mr. DALY said he should have very improper feelings, indeed, if he were not to feel satisfied at the expltnation of the Honourable Gentleman. Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that it seemed the two lion. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House had lost sight of the main question, and had entered into a long dialogue respecting local transactions; but he congratulated the House at having heard their conversation, as it was the very best illustration of the necessity of the Bill which had been introduced by the Honour. able Member for Staffordshire. If we were without evidence before, we had sufficient evidence now to proceed upon. Before he applied himself to the amendment before the House, he wished to make a few observations on an expression which had fallen from his lion. Friend. the Member for Aberdeen. That Hon. Oe oleman had said that the leathers of the Catholics of Ireland —that the men whom the Catholics had reepected, whose talents they admired, and in whose virtues, and probity, and public spirit, the country had confided—that these men had betrayed their trust, and had compromind the interests of their countrymen. /le would say, that it was not true, that the Catholics of Ireland would not believe this statement, although it came from the lion. Member for Aberdeen. The conduct of those men, he was sure, WAS such as would at least place them above the possibility of so.- picion on the part of their friends in this House. Ile could not conceive any thing that would be more fatal than the propagation of these base misrepresentations, by which the Catholics might be made not only to despair of friends within the walls of PA , Lament, hut by being the dupes of wicked and incendiary leselers, who by propagating these insinuations ' would make them despair of their own countrymen. in whom they hail hitherto firmly confided (Hear, hear, hear). These wicked calumnies had done more to estrange Parliament from the Catholic cause than could possibly haste been contempleted at the beginning of the Sestina'. lie was surprised that the Hon. Member for Aber deen hard given countenance to thaw insinuations which hail been sit basely and wickedly circulatednot basely by him, for his cipi. Ilion was honestly and freely declared, hut by those secret enemies ' wlease attacks were AO much the more to be dreaded because secret. His lion. Friend had said, we had no evidence on which to pro. eeed. Now he would first of all refer the lion. Member to what , hud just been given in the conversation of the Hon. Itlembers fee Galwayshire, and he !cold also refer hint to the evidence which hail been taken before a Committee of this House, and which had be en hitherto most strangely overly eked. The part to which he alluded given last year, and occurred in the evidence of Jud ge B e ,. 3 ,7 ; " at Learned Judge stated that he had known the 400. freeholders oh into the huounffli in drove" that they were AO illiterate and desjetua of what their privilege connoted, that they knew not no what rues.% - they were assembled, or for whom they should vote. The Judge he remembered one bring asked for whom he would vote, answ e r e d,- that he should vote for Lady lampton , . he having b een , ir supposed. a tenant of that lady. !he witness was e duce a the effect of this system was not almost enough t o re d uce the on counties to an oligarchy ? He replied, "Yes," and that he P ig known an innance of one county being thrown i nto th e hands I, one individuate This' brought him to another argume nt of h is Honourable Friend. He said that, as a friend of ref orm, he eoolr ; not /support this measure ; now he (Mr. S. Rice) supported i t b ro. cause he was a Reformer. Again, his Honourable Friend said , he could not support it because it would reduce the tinny ' ' franchise ; he supported it because it would extend the frac ch - se. The affect of the present Bill would b e to tyke the power away from those who possessed It only . as a m oans of we rip ion, and 'o place it into the hands of moss who wou l d b ; ao* . e c eruption. honourable Gentlemen were quite wrong wiles they talked of the forty shilling treeholders in Ireland as beyi ag •he least analogy to those in England. lie cared not for the law b ing the same, wit n he found the practice so :adically different. The lion. Gentleman then alluded to the evidence of al es sra O'Connell, O'Connor, and il'ollace, upon the subject of the a'. vantages to be derhed from putting an end t o these fictitious free holds, assuring the House that he !would not have d etained it by . mentio-ing those Gentlemen's testimony, had h e not heard it So frequently said that there was no evidence to support the Bill. If e trurederhat they had heard would be deemed sufficient by a British House of Commons to put an end to thto system ( *misery ard fraud. Thy had the evidence of Judge Day too, who se ws thu in his opinion the passing of such a measure woul d among,/ many other aivantagem increase the influence of the resident pro. free ... mon ; no t h i ng cou ld be mo g r r e e incorr prin ec c, t p ; le b ol e d ei prieturs, and diminish that of the absentees . icould not that bei at a desirable object, and fully worth the sacrifice of minor consider:. tions ? Some lion. Gentlemen had argued that the lion. M en th e , the whole ie . for Staffordshire ( Mr. ei ea up n om t to n eh g e . f t ra t.ia n t el h ii i o s e none, but leaves them in possession of the full extent of their' rights, that uni . ti c e b n ed •a! p a re u s t en e Hon. Friend would disfr snchise the present forty shilling fr ee h o ld er , now what would be the loss. Why, they had the evidence . .of Mr - Ol'eninell, that very few of the really independent freeholders would be disfrar.chised by fixing a ten pound suenie ebe t ert ' and this they had from a man who went so far as even t o e o n ! came L'aiversal Suffrage. He would ask, therefore, shether they w, old continue to support any but the real 40s. freeholder,? But they might think Mr. O'Connell not an impartial wetness. Would they not trust the evidence of Colonel Curry? liesays. that in every respect, in his opinion, the real 411 s. freeholder will remain the same as before ; so that, by these accounts, even if the Honourable Member tor Staffordshire was to make his Bill operative sow. horn ut those evil effects would follow which Honourable Gentlemen anticipate. If, therefore, the House wished to see a fair and ho. nest constituency in Ireland, they would give ti eir consent ' to go into the Committee ; and that it was the method to produce that fair and holiest constituency, he would maintain; but it' it should affect the fee simple freeholds —if it shosld be brought in any way to injure them—he begged now to be understood, that he would object to it altogether, tither with Catholic Emancipation, or without it ; for ha would rathe less Catholic Emancipation altogether, than see the old fee ample freeholds destroyed. Indirect influence they had and would tare; it was impossible to be altogether free from it as long as bursa nature continued to be what it is ; but when it appeared %ply, and became dangerous, he knew how to deal with it independent of the remedy of a total destrnetion of the fair and honest fee-sinple Iteehold. lie rejoiced that this Bill was accompanied by /On measures, but great as he thought the good to be obtained 'nom Catholic Emancipmion, still he was of opinion t h at t hi s Bill has • great good in itself, independent of any other good with whin it might be mixed up; and he begged now unhesitatingly to deare that even If the Catholic Bill had not been introducrn, he (Mrff.) was so thoroughly convi iced of the good to be derived from lis measure, that he would hare support al it aloac; for he aisb!to see a pure constitutional body of electors supporting their ruts against the uli4arehies which seek to rule them. The in. :Wernher then *eluding to the unanimity now prevailing in 'raid, and declaring that unanimity to be the surest method of carrpg the ques.ion, and a power against which no Cabinet, united or a. united, could contend, concluded, slier inning some eneour.as upon the conduct of Mr. Brownlow, by imploring the H. Member fur Staffordshire not to allow the tee staiple freeholds toe touched; for if he did, the English ;Members were bound to p forward and defend those tenure, as the only means by which ry could hope to protect their own. To extimmish the fraudulent e nufactured votes was, lie trusted, the object of the lion. (deer. tr. an's Bill, and he therefore gave it I is ut qualified assent. Mr. 31•NAGHTEN objected to the Bill altogether, beau* disfranchised those who were unable to oppose it,. and deprinete children, yet unborn, of thei r constitutional r ights. The au. menu he had heard might be very good, perhaps. when appluto the Roman Catholics, but why eistmochise the Pretsbyterians : hu were not placed in any such situation ? What had they done ?de had heard a good deal of driving voters like nettle, but he Ind . like to see them attempt to drive the l'res iyterians of the nor o f Leland like swine. If they did, be thought it very probableey would turn and rend them. lie would therefore appose altogether, because he thought it unjust to one part of the polo tion, and because the taking away the right o f voting treat manner to benefit the voter was like cutting off a-man's ban to enable him to defend his person. Sir F. BLAKE supported the Bill, because it produced refry, end because it would enable the people to escape from bondage Captain O'GRADY said that he had heard with as nth astonishment as any of the English Menthers, the stories of 'cis driven like cattle to the hustings ; and he could assure the Hot, that in all his knowledge of elections in Ireland, he had never any compulsion of the kind. He thought, however. that this lilt wouLt do away with the unsubstantial freeholds, and et shdld therefore have his support. Mr. DO3IINICh. BROWSE supported the Bill, bent': it would put an end to that system of traud and perjury which,sd hitherto prevailed in elections. Colonel I'IIENCEI agreed with the Honourable 31embeffor Limerick (Mr. Spring Rice), that this Bill deserved suppor on its own merits, independent of its connection with any oner measure,. _ _ Lord 31 [ETON had voted, and would still vote for the /HE rot because it was good in itself, but because it was the areompau ment of that other great measure, for which he was so analog: to procure the consentlof the House. The advantages of this Bill lad been in truth very much exaggerated by the Hon. Member tct Limerick ; fur there was no question that those who now diridtd their properties to make votes at forty shilling'', would be equally well able to do the same at an amount of ten pounds. He *wild vote for the measure r however. because he hoped it would in some measure decrease the influence of the Oligarchy of Ireland at last, and lay the foundation of a sound constitutional body of constituents. lie was as much prompted to that support, how. ever, by the °pp siiion of sonic Gentlemen opposite, as by any ar gument he had heard, and by none more than the Honourable Member for Ortord, (Mr. MeNaghten), who, when he talked of the purity of the Presbyterian voters, and the indepen dence of the freeholders, presented in himself a convincing moot of that independence, and of there being st least one holy place in Ireland free from the abominations of election corruptions, and, as he had expressed it. so little likely to be driven like swine, that they would turn and rend the driver. That Honourable Gentle man had once, he believed, represented the county of Antrim in that Howie, but when the present head and then heir to an alas tennis family found it convenient to succeed him, that Hamm-able Gentleman had quietly retreated to a entail borough in the Lad of England. He wished the Honourable Gentleman joy of the change, and of the purity of those lie had represented, but this was the very kind of representation he (Lord Milton) wished to destroy _-that kind of tystem which placed the county under the control of one or two men of wealth, and enabled Gentlemen to pass oith a bond from Antrim to Ortord. There were various means which might, lie thought, be proposed to .emedy this nil be- Si le those in the Bill. (Inc was, that the freeholder should bt ttt possession of the freehold for a certain number of years: the other. that i: should be registered in lan own name, or that of sonic mere. ter of his family. fir had indeed acme intention of praposing in the Committee a measure to do away with registry altogether, if they could get any means of ascertaining the sabstanuality of the vote! ; but ho hail not yet made up his mind. soil would content himself for the present by giving his vote tor the Bill going into a (lominittee. Mr. hi•NAGIITEN rose to say, in explanation, that hr had not stated the freeholders to be in general independent, but that s part of them were not, in his opinion, to be driven as had been re prraenteel, and he trusted the Member for a Borough was, in that . 'louse, as fully entitled to give his opinion as the Representative et a ('aunty. As for what the Noble Lord had said of oligarchy and men-governing counties, did the Noble Lord recollect his— ( Here the lion. Mettil”r was assailed with such a shout of (ham chair, spoke, spoke," that his voice was drowne , l in the clamour, and he was compelled, atter some violent gesticulations. to sit down.) The SPEAKER unformed the lion. Gentleman that he wss certainly out of order. Mr. hi•NAGIITEN then said, and he hoped that wis in nple• nation, that he had ceased to be a Member for Antrim in 1814. sod that the arrangement connected with his retirement was not for the urpose stated by the Noble Lord, who shouted have known facts better before he attempted to argue upon them. The alteration sas of consequence only to himself, and not at all connected with the Mr. W. BECHER said, that whatever obi.vtions might be to the measure in theory, the practical result evoal.l b: to benefit Ire land. The cries of " Question" were here very general. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House divided — For the amendment . • - 53 Against it - . . Majority in favour of the Committee 11 Mr. LA MIITON: during our absence froni the Gallery Ore understood) intimated hi■ intention of opposing the Roman Bill with the accompaniment of this measure of dam. chiciment. Mr. lionnousr. besought his Ilan. Friend to sconaider his conclusions—to •iew the two nicasures separately, and it he re garded the measure of emancipation. e• it r.o doubt was one of suo siantial and essential justice, to give it his support, independent et the present Bill, front which he may happen to dissent. , 00. .•' ~.r I