The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

then proceed with the regular business. If they stopped at a certain hour they must begin earlier. When the debates were by day they were shorter and more effective, and more business was done. He had no objection, if the House pleased, to change the hour from eleven to twelve. Mr. O'CONNgLL said that motions represented as mat ters of form were often cf a substantive nature. Bills relating to capital felonies were often considered as matters of form after midnight. In 1792 they went to business at three o'clock and it was then considered a late time. The present House was most inconvenient. In most places it was too hot, and when not too hot it was too cold, and it was highly prejudicial to the health of Members to sit up there to a late hour. One great corrective of the misdeeds of Members was public opi nion, which was influenced by the fourth estate, as it was called, the press. At a late hour the reporters were worn out, morn ing was approaching, there was a necessity for an early publi cation, there might not be space for a full report, and the con sequence was that the late debates were seldom given. The House then divided, when there appeared : For the motion Against it _ 121 Majority WILLS EXECUTION BILL. - 60 Sir J. CAMPBELL moved the second reading of this Bill. The ATT ORNE Y-G ENE RAL did not mean to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but begged to notice some errors in it. First it was provided that minors should be in capable of making a will ; that was a harsh and impolitic measure. Suppose an illegitimate minor died intestate ;if no one could establish a rightful claim to his property it would, under the Bill, go to the Crown. There was no good reason for confining the power of making a will to twenty-one. Wo men who married and became widows before twenty-one were, in point of law, looked upon as if they were not mar ried. To deprive them of the power of making wills was un wise. Mr. HUME rose to order. The principle of the Bill was discussed already. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman did not object to the principle, but entered into details which should be reserved till the Bill was in Committee. _ _ Mr. C. FERGUSON said the principle could only he col lected from the details, and it was fair and useful that the House should be made acquainted with its provisions. The SPEAKER was understood to say that the principle was to be collected from the details, and the question was, whether it was desirable that the details should be explained. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed. Another ob jectionable provision of the bill was, that a will could only be revoked by marriage and issue; it was better that marriage alone should cause the revocation. A gentleman who had been many years married without issue made a will ; afterwards he had a large family, and died without using the precaution of altering his will. . The consequence was that his children were deprived of the property which he intended for them. It was a much safer course in legislation to protect those who had natural ties on the owners of property. Mr. O'CONNELL thought the entire scheme of the Bill deserved the approbation of the House, and although there were some minor points in which it was capable of amendment it was his intention to give its leading details every support. Dr. LUSIIINGTON also expressed his approval of the measure, for the introduction of which, as well as for the se veral other Law Reforms he had effected, he thought the public and their Represematives owed a debt of gratitude to the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh. For the pairs he had taken in smoothing difficulties—in correctly explaining doubtful principles—in removing ano►ralies ; and, lastly, in rescuing the profession to which he belonged from the imputa tion of supineness, by showing that those Members of the House who belonged to it were determined to remove all that was really objectionable in the administration of the laws, he for one begged to tender him his humble tribute of praise, and sure he was, when his measures came into active operation, the public at large would follow his example.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. C. FE RGUS SON expressed his approval of the Bill, which he thought was calculated to introduce most important and wholesome reforms in the law to which it related. Mr. PR YME alluded to the difference of the period when first- three witnesses were considered necessary for passinc , freehold estates, which, being in the time of Charles 11., the property of the country was chiefly in possession of land-owners, and an opulent fundholder possessed of 100,0001. was not then known, as at present. He considered that the law should alter ith altered circumstances, and other property receive pro tection equal to the landed. Mr. JACKSON contended for the necessity of three wit nesses to the attestation of a will whether of freehold or per sonal property; as a confederacy for a fraudulent purpose was more easily detected by their cross-examination. Mr. ROLFE agreed to all the principles of the Bill which had been adverted to by Hon. Members, but there were some that had been omitted, and to which he would for a moment call the attention of the House. They were a series of clauses, and they enabled Courts of Justice to decide a priori what illiterate people meant. Lord Mansfield had said that no task was so difficult as to give a meaning to a party who themselves knew not what they meant. He alluded particu larly to clauses 34, 35, and 36, which appeared to him likely to lead to endless litigation and dispute. Sir J. CAMPBELL rose to reply, and thanking the At torney-General and the Member for Dublin for the support they had afforded him, proceeded to contend, though in oppo sition to the opinion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, that the act of executing wills could not be accompanied with too great a solemnity. In this opinion he was strengthened by the testimony of the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, of the Bishop of Durham, the Ecclesiastical Judges, and the Judges of Westminster Hall. The present Lord Chancellor also entertained the same sentiments, and he was happy to be able to state would carry on this measure elsewhere, so that like many other pieces of legislation it might not be lost when it left that House. Indeed the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack had expressed his willingness to introduce himself a Bill founded on the principles of the present, if he (Sir John Campbell) bad not been able to bring it forward. He was happy to find the House unanimous in its condemnation of the mischievous ten dency of the present law--for mischievous it was in the extreme. Why, it was well asked, should that form of executing wills be void with regard to reality which was valid with respect to personality ? The distinction was unknown to the civil law, and it ought to be abolished. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after alluding to the im perfect wording of wills, and testators giving only a life in terest, as the law was now interpreted, when they evidently intended to give an interest in fee, concluded by saying he should defer entering further into details until the Bill was in Committee, convinced that the more it was investigated the better would be the appreciation of its previous provisions. The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to the following Select Committee:— _ _ _ Campbell, Sir J. Pollock, s.r N. Follett, Sir W. W, Aglionby, H. A. Blamire, W. Brodie, W. D. 11-ntherton, J. Buller, C. Carter, J. B. Carruthers, D. Clay, W. Crip ::, J. DiveLt, i. F.wart, W. Fergthisfm. R. C. Finn, FresWield, J. W. Graham, Sir J. Grey Sir G. Grote, G. Hawes, B. Hogg, J. W. Lushingtnn, Dr. Lynch, A. H. Morpeth, Viscount Mui ray, J. A. Nichol, .1. O'Connell, D. ("'Dwyer, C. A. O'Loughlin, M. Ord, W.ll. Pemberton, Ponlier, J. S. Perrin, L. Pilme, G. Huller, Sit M. W. Rlchar 8, J. Roe:nick, J. A. Rolfe, J. M. Shaw, F. Shell, H. L. Smith, J A. Talf,urd, I'. Noon Tarered, IL W. Tooke, W. Wirburton, 11. Jackson, J. D. Hardy,J. Fle'eiw•ood, H. 1 The House then went into Committee on the Newspapers Regulation Bill, when clause one and two were agreed to. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. The House then resumed. SABBATH OBSERVANCE BILL. Mr. POULTER should detain the House as short a time as possible. A measure similar to that Ale now had the pleasure of introducing had been honoured by no less than 12 divisions, and hence a majority of that House had sanctioned a Bill of a like tendency on one occasion by a majority of five to one; and on another by a majority of two to one, although ultimately lost, in consequence of a misconception that had been entertained with regard to it. He should be ablo to prove, however, when the proper time came, that the present Bill was only intended to restrain trade on the Sabbath, and cor rect some gross evasions of the law. There were those among them who thought that legislation ought not to be extended to every act of ott 7 't . :ocial and political lives, and that we could not have a specific le i remedy for every evil. But even they would find that there was no desire betrayed in the pre sent measure to:do anything but promote rational liberty. The moderation of its aim was sufficiently proved by the assistance that had been voluntarily afforded by Members of both Houses, who were previously hostile to its introduction, but upon be coming acquainted with the modoration of its tone and the general mildness of its character, had foregone their hostility. The anxiety of the public on the subject was sufficiently dis played by the number of petitions that had been presented to this House, and from the number of societies now in existence which were instituted for the furtherance of the object he had now in view. No less than 1,065 petitions had been pre sented, containing in the whole twenty thousand signatures. The Honourable Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to promote the better observance of the Lord's day. Mr. WA RBURTON did not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill. But he should reserve to himself a right of opposing it in any stage he thought proper, if he saw that it was of such a nature as trenched upon the enjoyments of the poorer portion of the community. The conduct of several Hon. Members at various periods during the last Parliament in respect to Sunday legislation reminded him forcibly of oc currences exactly similar in the Parliament of 1640. For instance, one Member of that time brought in a Bill " to pre vent walking in the fields on the Sabbath," and another a Bill " to prevent people regaling themselves in porches (of houses) on the Lord's Day." He was sorry to be obliged to say that many clauses in the Sabbath Observance Bill of the last ses sion were analogous to these, and very much to the same ge neral effect. He trusted that the Bill of the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury contained no clauses of that nature. He (Mr. Warburton) was not one of those who believed men could be made religious by Act of Parliament, and therefore he was opposed to any legislatorial interference whatever on the subject.—( Hear. ) Mr. POTTER felt great surprise that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had gone into no details whatever re specting the Bill he proposed to bring in. That was pre cisely the course adopted by the Hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire, in introducing his Bills, both in the session of 1833 and 1834, and,the consequence was, that the Bills he brought in were Bills of Pains and Penalties against the working and middle classes, but gave perfect licence to the rich and powerful--that he was ready to prove by a reference to the Bill of last year, a copy of which he held in his hand.' Now, as the Hen. and Learned Gentleman had given no ex planation of the details of his Bill, he (Mr. Potter) supposed one brought in last year, which revived an Act passed in the 29th of Charles the Second, 170 years ago. He had referred to that Act only that evening, and it contained many restrictions which ought not to be revived. There was an express prohibition against any person entering au inn or lodging-house on Sundays. The sale of several articles was forbid, which at this day would occasion much inconvenience. He would only mention one—fruit : he begged to say that the prohibition of the sale of ripe fruit during the summer months would be most improper, and a very great hardship upon th 3 inhabitants of large towns. He would not trouble the House with any further allusion to that Act, but begged to give notice, that if prohibitions such as he had mentioned were introduced into the Bill of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it should have hisdecided opposition. Mr. HARDY defended the Bill of the last session of Par liament. • Mr. NICHOLL should oppose any clause in the BiH which would have the effect of restricting the rational enjoyments of the poorer classes of tho community ; but he admitted that a measure which would prevent desecration of the Sabbath was necessary. Mr. H. THE VOR (as we understood) should not oppose the Bill if it did not trench upon the enjoyments of the poorer classes ; otherwise he should, as far as in him lay. Mr. O'CONNELL would not oppose the introduction of the present Bill if it were the same as that of the last session, as that measure contained no one clause which gave the rich a preference over the poor. He, - however, thought that the House could not be too cautious of legislating on the subject of the Sabbath, or of interfering at all in what was, after all, a mere matter of conscience. Legislatorial interference was generally more detrimental to th best interests of religion than any little infringement of the sacred solemnity of Sabbath could be. Sir A. AGNEW could assure the House that his Bill was more objected to by the rich than by the poor, and moreover, that if he put it to the opinion of the country he would have a majority of the latter in its favour. Sir J. CAMPBELL believed the motiveq of the Hon. Baronet in respect to the Bill of the last session to be most pure, but he was bound to add that nothing could be•more mis chievous than it was calculated to prove had it been permitted a trial. It interfered with all classes of the community, high and low, rich and poor. It afforded enjoyment to none, and it was moreover inquisitorial in its nature, and capable of being made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression to all. With respect to the Bill before the House, he ( Sir J. Camp bell) saw nothing to object to in it. Therefore it should have his support. Sir A. AGNEW suspected the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh, in common with many other cavaliers against his Bill, had never read it. _ _ _ Mr. HA WES would simply ask the Hon. Member for Shaftesbury a plain question respecting the object of his mea sure. Was the Bill intended to put down Sunday trading solely, or was it intended to revive the whole of the odious Act of 29 Charles 11. ? Mr. POULTER replied that it referred exclusively to the suppression of Sunday trading. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS. Mr. HUME brought forward his motion, " To call the astei.tion of the House to the Report of the Committee of last Session on the expenses attendant upon the elections of Mem bers to Parliament." After some discussion, chiefly in fa vour of the measure, _ Leave was the given to bring in the Bill with a proviso that it was to extend to Ireland. CONVEYANCING IN SCOTLAND. The LORD-ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the sequcstration of the estates of bankrupts in Scotland. Mr. MURRAY expressed his satisfaction at having this measure brought forward again. He should be most happy to see it rendered more effectual than that before proposed. Sir J. CAMPBELL said such a Bill was much wanted. Mr. WALLACE expressed a hope that the Learned Lord would introduce some measure for improving the system of conveyancing in Scotland. At present the system was ex pensive and every way disgraceful to the country. Mr. C. FERGUSON hoped the measure suggested by the Learned Lord would be persevered in and carried through Parliament. As to the system of conveyancing, it was most oppressive in Scotland. Major,G. BRUCE said Scotland was much indebted to the Learned Lord for his valuable suggestions. He hoped such measures of improvement in the law would be introduced as would prove satisfactory to Scotland. The LORD ADVOCATE said his wish was to have full information on the subject of conveyancing before he proposed any measure. It had been referred to the Law Commis sioners, and it was better to wait for their report. Leave was given to bring in the Bill. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Sir G. GREY rose to move for a Select Committee to consider the most effectual means of preventing bribery, cor ruption, and intimidation in the election of Members of Par liament. A Bill had been brought in last session upon this subject, but it did not pass the other House, and in his opinion it would be better to wait for the report of the Committee he now meant to move for before any similar Bill should be pro posed. His object in moving for this Committee was to inquire into a different matter, that to which he alluded was intimidation at elections.—( Loud cheering.) The House had before recognised the principle as regarded bribery and corruption. There was no statute that had reference to intimidation, though there were some which provided against violence at elections. Now it seemed to him that it was the duty of the House to take steps for the prevention of violence as well as intimidation. It ought to be equally criminal in the eye of the law to influence men in their votes by threats, by placards, or by emblems of any kind-- ( Cheers)—as by open violence. He did not mean to say that anything of this kind had actually taken place, but whether it had or not no person could deny that means ought to be taken to prevent anything of the kind in future. There were other species of 'intimidation perhaps not less criminal, that which men possessed of property, of office, or station in society might exercise over those who were dependent on them. This he regretted to say was upon some occasions had recourse to. He meant to propose that a seat in that House should be as much endangered by intimidation as by bribery. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for the Committee. Mr. HARDY should have brought forward the measure he proposed last session if this Committee had not been moved for, and he was glad the Hon. Baronet had taken the business off his shoulders. Sir E. CO DRINGTON cordially supported the motion of his Hun. Friend. Mr. O'CONNELL entirely concurred in the motion, and he hoped that one part of it, namely, that which related to intimidation, would not be left undefined.—( Hear.) Those very men who were most guilty of intimidation were the very first whenever Parties thought it their duty to propose amelio rations, and raise their voices in support of public opinion, to calumniate all individuals who tcok the prior er mode to bring the public mind to bear on individual cases. He trusted that such men would be remembered by the Committee. For his own part he thought the ballot was the only effectual remedy for intimidation; it would prevent it effectually, and they must in time be driven to it, since it would check all the evils attendant on the present mode of voting at elections. Sir J. CAMPBELL hoped that the Committee would render the ballot unnecessary. He had seen at the late elec tions so much intimidation made use of, that unless some effec tual means were devised to check it, the ballot must ultimately be resorted to. Though the ballot should become necessary, he could not help considering it an evil. Mr. R. STEWART (we believe) begged to add his sup port to the motion of the on. Baronet. He had seen much of elections in Scotland, and he agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh that unless some other means were devised to protect the electors from intimidation, they must have recourse to the ballot. _ _ Mr. W. FORBE S was much obliged to the lion. Baro net for propo , ing a measure, by which intimidation and cor ruption would be hereafter punished. Mr. SHE IL begged to state to the House two remarkable instances of intimidation that had come under his own obser vation in Ireland. The first was that of a man who voted for him at the election for Tipperary in 1830. The man's name was Bryan, and he told him (Mr. Sheil) that he could not vote for him on account of the threats of his landlord. Then he (Mr. Sheil) told the man not to vote for him at all ; but the man did vote for him, and the consequence was, that he was waylaid and thrown into a bog, and there left for dead. The other instance was that of a person of the name of M'Donnell, now starving in the streets of Dundalk. This person came of his own accord, and said he should vote for him (Mr. Shell). He understood that M'Donnell's landlord was opposed to this, and he advised the man not to vote for him. He neglected the advice, and the consequence was that his landlord immediately ejected him, and he and his family were now starving in the streets of Dundalk. Hon. Gentle men would be very ingenious if they could find out any other means except the ballot to prevent such occurrences. Mr. GROTE could not suffer so useful a motion to pass unanimously, without expressing a few words of satisfaction at it. It was well known that he entertained strong opinions in favour of the ballot. He thought no acuteness could de vise any other remedy to prevent bribery, corruption, and in timidation at elections ; yet he would go into the present Committee with the fullest disposition to yield his support to any measure gentlemen might suggest, or any remedy they might propose, provided they could prove that it would be efficient. Having said this, he hoped that Hon. Gentlemen who went into the Committee, and whose opinions were op posed to the adoption of the ballot, would in their turn, if they should see that no other remedy could be employed but the ballot, follow the example recommended by the Hon. and Learned Member for Edinburgh, and that they would get over their scruples and their objections to the ballot.—( Hear.) Mr. O'DWYER wished to state a fact that had occurred recently at his election. In more than one instance, more than a silent intimation had been given by landlords to their tenants as to how they were to vote. In one instance he had seen the usual oaths administered to an elector, when the land lord caught up the book just as it had passed the lips of his tenant, and said, " I swear by the contents of this book, that I will turn you out at the earliest opportunity, unless you vote as I wish you." That was but one out of a thousand similar instances. There was another fact of which a Gallant Friend near him was aware, and in which a Member of that House whose name he would not mention was chiefly concerned. That Member said to his tenants, " You will understand that any tenant of mine who votes against my friend shall be in stantly turned off my land." To the credit of one voter, not a tenant, but yet in some degree a dependent of that landlord, he voted against the landlord's friend, and moreover told him that his conduct was so unconstitutional and ungentlemanlike, that he should never have a vote of his. _ An 110.;. MEMBER expressed his most earnest and sincere hope that the Committee would enable electors to exercise their franchise with perfect liberty. Mr. S. RICE thought it would be a great advantage if the THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1835. motion should be carried, as it now appeared it would, unani mously. In the Committee he hoped that the questiln of the ballot would be fairly met, and that the report of the Com mittee to that House would fully determine whether the ballot was necessary or not The motion was I . mittee named : Grey, Sir G. Russell, Lord John ten agreed to, and the following Com- Hae, Sir W. Perrin, L. Gisborne, T. Dalmeny, Lord Clery, Sir G. Jackson, J. D. Afa•l,enzie, J. A. S. Morpeth, Viscount Lefroy, A. Shell, It. L. Buller, C. Forster, C. Estcourt. T. G. B Carer, J. R. Fremantle, Sir T. Tooke, W. Becket, Sir John Murray, J A. Stuart, Lord James Lefevre, C. S. Warburton, 11. Wortley, J. S. O'}errall It. M. J Parker, J. Peel, Sir R. Wynn, itt. Hon. C, G H, Hardy, J. Poulter, J. S. Graham, Sir J. Ord, W. FoUett, Sir W. W. Campbell, Sir John Clements, Lord Grote, G: I - Mr. RUTHVEN moved by way of amendment to the ques tion, that the Hon. Gentleman named be appointed on the Committee, that the names of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Fitzsimon, and another Irish Member be added.—( Oh, oh, no, no.) Mr. O'CONNELL—I beg to decline. I have not leisure to attend. Sir C. GREY begged to assure the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin that the reason his name had not been in cluded arose from a desire to afford him an opportunity of vin dicating himself from certain charges of intimidation made against him in consequence of the last Dublin election. Otherwise he could assure the House the Committee was fairly and impartially formed. Mr. O'CONNELL knew that three petitions were lodged against his return, but he heard now, for the first time, that any charge of intimidation or bribery was contained in either of them. He begged to disclaim any such charge. Mr. RUT HVEN must be perfectly candid with the Hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport, and say that the Com mittee was by no means fairly constituted as regarded Ireland. . < Sir G. GREY—There w are six Irish Members on it.— ( Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL wished to ask the Hon. Baronet, tho Member for Devonport, from what source he had obtained tho information with respect to the charges to which he had al luded? Sir G. GREY—From no private individual, ncr in any per sonal communication. I obtained it from those channels through which such statements usually come. Mr. O'CONNELL—What public channels? All I can say is, that I never saw any such allegation in any public print, nor do I believe any such to have been made against me in the newspapers. Mr. HUGHES HUG HES—We have heard, Sir, a great deal of death's-heads and cross-bones. Mr. O'CONNELL—We have heard a great dial of calves' head.---(A roir of laughter.) Sir G. CLERK hoped that the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) would withdraw his motion, and that the mo tion of the Hon. Member for Devonport would be agreed to. After a few words from Mr. O'DWYER, Mr. RUTIIVEN withdrew his amendment, and the Committee, as originally named, was appointed. After some observations from the Speaher, the other orders of the day were disposed of, and the House adjourned at one o'clock. SECOND ItAAJITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. THE PARLIAMENT. (THIS. EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack a few minutes after five o'clock. SCOTCH CHURCH. The Duke of GORDON presented petitions from Loch winnock, Buchan, Renfrew, and other parishes in Scotland, in support of the Established Church. EAST INDIA COMPANY. On the motion of L'ord ELLENBOROUGH, the House went into Committee upon the Bill for compensating certain maritime officers in the East India Company's service, which was read a second and third time, and passed. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER tock the Chair at three o'clock. CITY OF DUBLIN ELECTION. The SPEAKER intimated that the sureties in the petition of Mr. Walker against the returns of the present Members of the City of Dulin having failed to enter into the required re cognizances, the order for detaining the petition must therefore be discharged. Sir R.,BATESON presented a petition from the inhabi tants of Londonderry, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to erect a now bridge in that town. NORTH AMERICAN COLONIAL ASSOCIATION. . Mr. BARRON presented a petition from certain Members of the North American Colonial Association, the purport of which we could not catch. RAIL ROADS. Sir CHARLES D'ALBIAC presented a petition from the inhabitants of Monkwearmouth for the extension of certain rail roads in the county of Durham. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the Mayor, Corpo ration, and Burgesses of Truro, praying for leave to Lring in a Bill for paving and lighting that town. SMITHFIELD MARKET. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from the inhabitants of St. Andrews, Holborn, signed by between four and five hun dred most respectable inhabitants, for the abolition of Smith field Market, and complaining of the inconveniences to which they were subject from its present site. Mr. MURRAY presented a petition from the inhabitants of Edinburgh, praying for leave to bring in a bill to improve the harbour of Leith. On the motion of Mr. WILSON PATTEN the Grand Junction Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com mitted. ISLINGTON MARKET. Colonel DAMEN presented a petition from .a hundred and twenty-four butchers, praying' for the removal of the market at Smithfield to Islington. Lord A. CONYNG HA M presented a petition from the Caithness Railway Company, praying for leave to bring in a bill. Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from the Newcastle Railway Company to the same effect. Mr. J. Y. BUL LE R presented a petition from the Trustees of the Ashburnham Road, praying for a bill to extend their powers ; also, a petition from the Mayor of Exeter, praying for leave to bring in a bill to empower the inhabitants to build a bridge. Mr. LYNCH presented a petition from the Vice-Chancellor and the Members of the Inns of Court in favour of the esta blishment of a Market at Islington (as we understood the Clerk.) Mr. ROLFE presented a petition from the inhabitants of the Liberty of the Rolls, praying for an abolition of Smithfield Market, and for the establishment of a Market in Islington. The petition entered into a detailed statement of the inconve nience and danger that persons are exposed to from cattle passing through the streets. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition, signed by the Churchwardens and parishioners of Clerkenwell, praying the removal of Smithfield Market. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition for the same pur pose, from the parish of Clerkenwell, and from another place the name of which was not heard in the gallery. An Hos. MEMBER presented a petition from the parish of St. Dunstan, with the same prayer. Mr. HURST presented a petition from the farmers and other inhabitants of Norfolk for the'establishment of a market at Islington. They were all ordered to lie on the table. Lord CASTLEREAGH presented a petition relative to the Port of Bristol, the prayer of which was not distinctly heard. Ordered to lie on the table. Sir J. CAMPBELL presented a petition in favour of the Local Courts Bill. Ordered to lie on the table. &r F. BURDETT, presented a petition in favour of re moving the market now held in Smithfield, and establishing it in Islington. Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. PATTISON presented a petition from the trustees of the Bedford Charity, praying for the improvement of Smithfield market. Mr. HANDLE Y presented a petition, signed by many of the most respectable graziers of the county of Lincoln, pray ing for the removal of Smithfield market. Also a similar petition from the town and neighbourhood of Grantham ; and a similar petition entrusted to him, in the absence of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) signed by 1060 of the merchants, bankers, and tradesmen, of the city of London, to the same effect. _ _ Sir J. A STLE Y presented similar petitions from the Tower Hamlets, from High Holborn, Stepney, Hackney, and Mile- End. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from several butchers in Finsbury, praying► for the improvement of Smith market. Alderman WOOD said that many petitions had been pre sented on both sides, signed, he had no doubt, in many in stances by persons wholly unacquainted with the subject. He had himself presented many petitions on this subject, and he bad now to present one signed by 1,000 persons, inhabitants 9f Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, who had been many years connected with Smithfield-market, praying that it might not be removed ; and many of whom had given evidence in the Committee on this subject, that a more desirable spot than Smithfield-market could not be found. In the Committee of last year, there were graziers from all parts of the country gave evidence in favour of the Smithfield Bill, while the Hon. Gentleman who bad the Islington Bill (Mr. Handley) could get no more than three or four to favour his project. He understood that alawyer who lived at Isling ton was the projeCtor of the other Bill, and he was using every sort of means to carry his project into execution. He then presented the petition, and rr.oved the second reading of the - -...- SMITHFIELD MARKET IMPROVEMENT BILL. Major HANDLE Y said that he was truly surprised at the hardihood of the worthy Alderman—(Laughter)--who could come forward and move the second reading of such a Bill in the Reformed Parliament. The Bill shewed how fair an outside fraud could put on, for the preamlle stated that it was f or th e p u blic benefit, &C., &c., wile the Bill contained a clause imposing a new tax upon the graziers of the whole country for the purpose of making the coffers of the city of London run over—it was in fact a Bill to perpetuate a nuisance which' the market had always been, and which it would always be. He had a document in his hand, dated in 1809, which stated that a Committee of the citizens had been deputed to wait upon the President of the Board of Trade, and to state to him that the market was a nuisance, and ought to be removed to same place where there was an open space of at least twelve acres.—(Cheers.) To that document he found the very honest and respectable, though not consistent, name of Matthew Wood. ( Cheers, and loud laughter.) He took up the Bill of last year, without knowing any of the projectors of the Islington Market—. first, because as the representative of a large grazing district, he thought it would benefit his constituents ; and also because having for some time been in the habit of attending Smithfield market for his own pleasure, he there saw the cattle used in the most brutal manner. He would just state one circum stance, which he thought would be sufficient to convince the House that in what he had stated as to the cruelty practiced, there was no-exaggeration. A butcher of Sheerness had as sured him that he was in the habit of buying bullocks in Smithfield market on Monday, and of driving them down to Sheerness on Tuesday, and that those bullocks were found to be fresher and in better condition for this cruel exertion. As to the proposed enlargement to four acres and three roods, it was well known to every body that this was much less than was necessary, and it was a very grievous imposition that a tax should be imposed on the cattle, for the purpose of raising the supposed cost. He knew they would say, what was the, object of charging a penny or twopence ? but he cared not whether it was only a farthing. He objected to the principle ; and it was on these grounds alone, that he should move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months. The SPEAKER having put the question, WILLIAMSM r . wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman (Alderman Wood) on what grounds they proposed to raise the required sum ? Alderman WOOD, in reply, said that the Corporation were to grant a sum of 50,0001., and that the remainder was to be raised by a toll on the cattle. Fllr. WILLIAMS said that as a member of the Corpora tion' of the City of London, he should oppose it on the ground of the enormous expenses that would be incurred. The Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lincolnshire, had stated that not more than six petitions had been presented during last Parlia ment. Now he could recollect eleven having been brought forward, all of which concurred that the present site could not be sufficiently enlarged.—(Hear, hear.) The worthy Alderman had declared that 50,0001. was to come out of the Corporation. Now he should like to know where he would find the 50,0001., for it appeared they were deficient not less than 20,0001. on the receipts of the last year ? lie would endeavour to make out that the funds of the Corporation were of great extent. He (Mr. W.) however could assure the House that its funds were of a very limited character, except as arising from taxes on. the citizens. He did not exactly know the extent of them, but he could make out something like 400,0001., only 48,0001. of which came out of its actual property, the rest having been derived from the source he had already described. He had himself seen too much of the market -jobbing in the City of London, so that the very idea of the Corporation having anything to do with it, was a sufficient ground for his determined opposition. Il e would state one circumstance, that of Farringdon-market. It was calculated that the estimates for building that market would have been about 150,0001., whereas the removal alone amounted to that sum, and it cost altogether upwards of 250,000/. This was proposed to be defrayed by a tax on coals, not on the City only, but on the whole of the metro polis ; and now, after all, the net rental had not amounted to more than 1,4141. and this year he was convinced there would be an actual loss to the Corporation—( Hear, hear. ) Was it fair that the public should be called upon for so enor mous a sum for such a trifling advantage? Several years ago the incapacity of Smithfield market was admitted, and it was then suggested that two acres should be added to the area, while: it was publicly acknowledged that the addition of ten acres would not give ample space enough. The Hon. Gen tleman made some other remarks which were quite inaudible in consequence of the cries of " Question," and " Divide." Alderman WOOD in reply, said the Hon. Gentleman had amused the House with a long story about the Common Council, charging the Corporation With extravagance, but which he could have a full opportunity of repeating before the Court of Common Council if he chose. The present market of Smith field could be made more eligible by the suggested im provements than by removing it two miles off to a swamp, which could scarcely be drained. He had received letters from graziers in Northampton, Leicester, and Mr. Coke (of Norfolk) stating that no market in the country was equal to Smithfield. It had been said that the Corporation of London would be be nefited ; he denied that proposition ; all that he wanted was that the public should be accommodated according to the wish they had expressed, and that the Bill should be read a second time, in order that in Committee the whole subject might be properly investigated. Mr. DUNCOMBE said that the worthy Alderman had stated that the site of the new market was a. swamp; in answer to that, all he had to say was that its site was up wards of 13 feet higher than Smithfield. After some observations from Sir E. KN ATCHB U L L, strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared-- Noes 142 Ayes 27 _ _ _ Majority against the 8i11,.. -115 PETITIONS ON RETURNS. The SPEAKER then called the attention of the House to a letter from a Mr. Wallace, complaining that the Clerk of the Crown Office in Dublin, had not duly forwarded to that House a petition against one of the returns at last election. We understood the Speaker to say, that the reason why the peti tion alluded to had not been laid before that House as usual, wa3 that no copy of it had been transmitted at the same time. Mr. GRATTAN observed that he had never understood it was necessary to forward a copy of 4 petition in such a case ; and that the only way, therefore, would be to inquire into the practice of the House on similar occasions. Mr. S. RICE said that no omission on the part of any pub lic functionary ought to,-be.suffered to act as a virtual preven tion of the right of petitioning. He had been an Irish petitioner himself, and in his case no copy was required with the peti tion. He would propose to defer the discussion until they could ascertain what, had been done on former occasions, and they could then deal with this case as might seem just and expedient. He hoped that view would meet the assent of his Hon. Friend the Paymaster of the Forces, and that it would be adopted, as there would be great inconvenience in adopting such a course. The SPEAKER said, that in all probability the better way would be for some Hon. Member to move that the letter be read, and the question could be raised. Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that it would be as well to have the letter printed. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that he concurred in what the Hon.. Member for Cambridge had stated, and thought it would be better to postpone the discussion. The Hon. Mem ber then moved that the letter be printed, which was agreed to. NATIONAL EDUCATION, (IRELAND.) Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON rose to move, pursuant to notice, for certain returns respecting National Education in Ireland, in pursuance of an order of the 13th of May, 1834 ; and, in addition, a list of all such books as are distributed or used under the direction of the Board with the full titles thereof; and a list of the schools in which the whole, or a.iy of such books, are used as class-books; also the returns of the number of Roman Catholic children, of children of the Church of England and Ireland, and of the Protestant children of the other denominations in each of the schools under the superintendanee of the Board, and that the Commissioners state the amount and particulars of any grants made by them to schools connected with, or under the superintendence of any nunnery, monastery, or other religious institutions ; and also of any grants to schools kept in the Roman Catholic chapels, or buildings forming part thereof, or contiguous thereto, or within the precincts of said chapels, with the places where such schools are situated. The lion. Member stated that this motion was similar to one which had been made in the other House. Mr. O'CONNELL did not mean to oppose this motion, but wished to make a few observations. He did not think it quite right to separate the Catholic and Protestant children of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—and any thing which tended to make the least distinction, except in their respective places of worship, ought to be:carefully avoided by the House. Then, with regard to the particular inquiry as to " schools con nected with, or under the superintendence of any nunnery, mo nastery, or other religious institutions," be could not allow that to come before the House, without informing it of the fact that there was not in the world any thing more :,useful than .schools under the care of the nunneries in Ireland. In all the towns in Ireland where there was a population of six or eight thousand persons, there was a nunnery.--4 Hear, hear, hear.) They instructed the female children not only in all the literature necessary for their situation in life, but in all the species of plain work, and according to their abilities-in works of a fine nature. They were also most attentive to their morals and religious education.—( Hear,hear.) Sir E. KNA - TCHBULL here stated that there was some irregularity in the form of the motion, but we did not distinctly hear, owing to the low tone in which the Hon. Baronet spoke, in what it consisted. Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Right Hon. Baronet would perceive it was not his fault that the motion had been brought forward irregularly. The motion was then withdrawn for the present. TITHES IN IRELAND. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition from the parish of Drumboe, in the county of Down, praying for the total extinction of tithes, and of the Regium Donum. The petition emanated from one of the most Protestant parishes of the most Protestant county in the North of Ireland. —( Hear, hear.) He should take the liberty, with the per mission of the House, of reading a few extracts from the petition. It contended that every religious community should supply its own ministers, and that it wal contrary to every principle of justice that the people shou d be compelled to give away their property without any equivalent. The petition was signed by 1,396 individuals, and it further set forth that out of 7001. paid annually in the shape of tithes by the parish, not less than 6001. went to a non-resident, sinecured clergyman. This he (Mr. S. Crawford) maintained was quite inconsistent with his views of religious liberty, and lie agreed with the pe titioners also in their opinion that the ministers of the Pres-. byterian body should be no longer paid by the Crown. He could state with confidence that there was a general, if not unanimous feeling in the county Down against the payment of tithes, and he wished to draw the attention of the Noble Lord opposite, the Member for that county, to this fact. In proof lie would observe there were several petitions from the County Down praying for the extinction of tithes, while not one had been presented in support of this obnoxious impost. The prayer of the petitioners met his most hearty concurrence ; and as a Member of the Establishment he was most desirous to see this odious mode of paying the Church abolished, for it had most materially injured the interests of that Church, and prevented the extension of the Protestant Religion in Ireland. On the ground of_ justice, also, he wished to see the tithe system abo lished, because he believed with the petitioners, that the Members of one Church had no right to support the Ministers of another. He thought it inconsistent with the principles of Christianity that any Church should be supported by the bul lets and bayonets of the soldiery. He hoped the time would shortly arrive when tithes would be totally extinguished in Ire land, not only in name but in reality. Lord CASTLEREAGH denied that, the people of the County Down were in favour of the extinction of tythes. On the contrary, so far as he knew, there was a very general inclination on the part of the Protest arts and Presbyterians of that county to pay tithes. SCOTTISH CHURCH. Mr. C. BRUCE presented a petition from the Synod of the Mearns, praying that some provision might be made for the Ministers of Chapels of Ease which had lately been erected into parish churches. These chapels were generally in debt, and not able to provide for the minister. Also one from the Presbytery of Forfar, praying for funds to make an extension of Church accommodation in the district under their charge. They stated that in one parish the inhabitants amounted to 7,950, while the church accommodation was for no more than 1,800. Also petitions from tlensheil and another place to the same effect. Mr. FOX MA ULE said he would embrace that opportu nity of refuting some calumnies which had gone forth relative to what had fallen from bitn upon the subject of the Church. It had been stated that he was an enemy to the Church Esta blishment—he denied that any one could fairly make such a deduction. lie was as good a friend to the Establishment as the Hon. Member for Inverness, but still be did not see the justice of making Dissenters put their hands in their pockets in order to provide accomodation for the Churchmen. Mr. C. BRUCE said it was stated in the petition from Forfar that they had been trying for years to raise a sufficient sum for the purpose of making the necessary repairs and altera tions by a voluntary subscription, but had failed. Mr. H. GRATTAN said it was singular that the poorest people in the empire could build churches without any such help—he meant the Irish Catholics, who flourished without it. Lord J. SCOTT (as we were told) presented three petitions from Roxburghshire in support of the Church of Scotland. Major BEA UCLE RK said that a more absurd proposition he had never heard introduced than that a rich people should come, at a time %I hen they were talking of Church Reform from one end of the country to the other, and ask to put their bands into the pockets of the people of this country to build churches for them. Mr. FINN said he also must condemn, in the strongest terms, this call upon the country. It would give rise to dozens of similar calls. If gentlemen were anxious to increase the number of Churches in Scotland, let them put their hands into their own pockets.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. C. BRUCE said that he would only remark that Scotland contributed their share, and more than their share, to the exigencies of the empire, and there was no part of the empire that cost so little. Ile therefore put it to the House i .~A whither they ought not to adopt the recommendation of Ms Majesty's Ministers. The petition was then laid on the table. SUPPLIES—MR. HUME'S MOTION. , Mr. HUME said, the Right Hon. Bart. ( Sir R. peel) I put a question to me la s t n i g ht re sp ec ting the motion of whichhad given notice, lam now able to state to the Right Hon. n ail. that having consulted with my friends on this side of the House, I regret to state that I find they do not concur with me in consi dering the question sufficiently decisive ; and I have therefore been induced to postpone the determination I bad come r e of opposing the Supplies with the view to a subsequent mo tion, tending to show that this House has no confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. Sir R. PEEL—Is this, then, the motion of which th e Hon. Gentleman g l ave solemn notice some weeks si nce (Loud cheers.) Of which he found it incumbent o him t° ask° give notice a week before.—( Repeated cheering.) the Honourable Gentleman, last night, if he meant to bring forward his proposition of limiting the supplies; an, he says he gave me a conditional answer. That cond itional answer was that the motion would be certainly brought on-- ( Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)—e ither y by himselt or by some other Honourable Member. I n cl% ask the Honourable Members this question, whether th e other Honourable Members who was to have taken his plaeoph t ag f also abandoned his intention?—(loud cheers) —and whet" . , his motion of want of confidence in his Majesty's :Minis ters to be brought forward to-morrow ? Mr. HUME, as far as he was concerned, had no hesitation in saying, that it would not ; and although he considered that, granting limited supplies would be tantamount to a vote o no confidence in Ministers, yet as his friends on th at Sid of the House thought that theat would not be a deeisl :o indication of the opinion of the House he had consented alter the course he intended to adopt.—(Cheers.) Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask' whether or not the motion of which the Hon. Member bad given notice was ic t it be brought forward to-morrow or not.—(No, no.) was not intended to bring it forward, he thought it but rig . 0 after what had taken place, that no time should be lost 11 , t naming the day on which the motion would be made.--(ure cheerin Mr. HUME said that if it rested with him he should bring it forward at the very first moment. N . Mr. CUTLAR FE ELECTI R O GUSSON FORSPEAKER wished to detain tt e o House a few moments while he explained the course of condut e had pursued in the election of Speaker and the address. "0, had received that day by the post a letter from the nor 1 , which he represented, stating that rumours bad nor circulated there that he had, upon the occasion of to nomination of the Speaker, although he had prornise‘• A ,_ vote for Charles Manners Sutton, voted for Mr. Abercronr and that he had received a communication from Sir ell v , Manners Sutton on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) '°.: he would unhesitatingly say that he had arrived in l'e!'t don on the very day of the meeting of Parliament, withoan thanhaving had any communication whatever with any person nro the subject. Unfortunately for him there were no less t five persons bearing his name in the House ; hi s name ; 3 , (1 been rightly put down in the vote of Speakr, but he "' cut, left the House previous to the vote on the amondl n Lt His Hon. Friend, the Member for East Lothian, ha d voted on that occasion, and as he (Mr. C. Ferguson ) been mistaken for his Hon. Friend, it was that which h ad had 1, to the error he had alluded to. He would repeat that he 'I no communication whatever with either of the ca ndidate s t the Chair. p re- The SHERIFFS of London were then introduced, and sented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Alderm en ' - Or Common Council of London, praying for relief, to r e debtors in England. ve Mr. G. BERKELEY gave notice that he should mei, on the 12th of May, that a part of the strangers' that House should be set apart for the accommoda tion ladies.--( Great laughter.) c od, The Sheriffs of the City t h e ondon were again annotin and on appearing at the bar presented a petition frm n t f Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the C it 11°0 London, in Common Council assembled. The petition, the nature of which we could not hear, was ordered to lie en table. gallery of REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. Mr. R. STUART—Pursuant to a notice of a m otion _ a , had given, now begged leave to bring in a Bill to es:b, blish a uniform registration of births, marriages, and deaw'ed in Scotland. The deficiency of registration in Scotland , g b %itei the necessity of this Bill, and h e did not think it r e q ui t ion to enter into the details of it. There did exist a registration of births, but it should be more properly called a reg is" , l :b• of baptisms than of births ; there was a registration of the P re , lication of bans, but not of marriages, nor was there allYeey, gistration whatever of deaths. To demonstrate this defiejewere of 1,800 in one parish, only 400, the number baptized, ilea, registered. Under these circumstances he hoped 11 °, fie Gentleman would oppose the introduction of the s hoped the registration would be compulsory, and be M'''" civil registration. On the question being put that leave be granted, Sir G. CLERK said he did not mean to object to the P t i a t ciple of the bill, but he certainly was mainly opposed to of making registration compulsory. He was willing to admit that the registrations in Scotland were deficient, but ther e o r one part of this bill, which makes it necessary that the qto man, when an increase of hisramilAtcok place, was o blige er go to register his child, and pay a fee for it, at a time' This haps, that he could least afford to pay it with his megos. l,o has would be an extreme inconvenience to a poor man , w ",bee not perhars bread for his family, more especially too the penalty was to be exacted within forty-eight hours. Mr. STUART made ari observation of dissent. the Sir GEORGE CLERK—Such he considered wer.etbat principles of his Bill. He was perfectly ready to Oren ba d there ought to be some registration for those persons :1 in property to inherit ; but h did think it would be hi selsob Yo,a jurious that those who had no expectations should b pelled to pay a fee if they neglected to register them e-0, Sir J. CAMPBELL, on the contrary, thought it Woo expedient that it should be compulsory. If its operati oll o bjell intended, it must be general, and it was this part of it to but he felt in favour. He did not like to burthen the poorly'inte considered it was one in which rich and poor were eq wen; rested, because it frequently happened, if a poor Met e a as abroad and died without children, disputes arose as t o the heir, and the whole property was then wasted a n f - ti se, lawyers. He thought the Bill would be of the gre ate.t and hoped that it would be carried. It was a mistake to ha d pose that Dissenters alone were interested in it, as ue known many members of the Church of England, ° d property from dissenting families, who had experien ce n the moose difficulty in obtaining the necessary evidence death f the rties. Dr. o BOWR pa ING cordially concurred in what had f3 t i l i fit from the late Solicitor-General. He likewise tho u g ht io rY , the system of registration should be general and co m b and it was with great pleasure that he gave it his supporr.do, Dr. BOWRING considered there would not be anY i j o ced -culty in applying this principle of registration. He b e c ho that in many places on the Continent there would be 110 culty in tracing the history of any individual, from the P. ha d of his birth to that of his death ; and he was certain e'heYoof the same means in this country, of removing a gr eat ,,,striv embarrassments which accompanied all questions of re Nere' tion. He cordially concurred in the object of the 1 1 ° 9 ' ber who proposed bringing in this Bill. d Mr PRINGLE thought great difficulty would attend tbJ application of the principle of compulsory registration. 000 Mr. HUME hoped his Hon. Friend would not let the b that had been thrown out have any weight Nit v ie 10 because the Bill was important in a national point ° ld Pc .4 He hoped that when the Bill should be brought in, it vc t ! e sure; submitted to a Committee up stairs, where he was (1° 1 "., oe` all those doubts and difficulties which had been throretaied and suggested would be dispelled, and those who ente a l e arj them become converts to the principle of reg i s tration. --- w oe The LORD ADVOCATE thought the meas ure if tlO be a most beneficial one • but it would be quite defieie n `; fl* registration was not made compulsory.—( Hear, b e u ar r opP r d would feel much pleasure in affording the Hon. Meow e eo antri site every assistance, because he thought that in a rea pol o '; where marriage was performed without any religious f such a measure would be peculiarly necessary. He r these reasons, give the bill his most cordial suppo rt. ta ils ° f Mr. R. STEWART had not entered into the l e vie' his measure, but this he would say, that u nless jae o ', ciple of compulsi o n w as uph e ld, it would be totaq f fee; cient. It had been' urged that the payme nt b n'e °l o was objectionable, but he hoped that those whieisrotiot, arise from furnishing extracts from the central reg su peer e office, would in a very short time be sufficient for the.., ail e ntelnyre_ of the whole establishment. He had avoided details, and if the Hon. Baronet, the Secretary for to;,, wou". 0 sury, had read it but a little more attentively, bar discovered that it did not contain those cases of ha I . a birds which he had alluded. The charge for the registry of the r e ; was only six-pence, and the time allowed for maknlg_,ere f gistry was fourteen days, and he thought that tiler to .rregistri who could not, once a-year afford to pay six-penc e the birth of their child—( Hear.) airS' The Bill was then read a first time. rOL T ' le JURISDICTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL - b r ing,a Mr. C. BULLER then rose to move for leave to_ rts in ,a bill to abolish the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Co n or tanr: matters relative to tithes. The matter was of great 11?1 : _' o f ver! , for it was a very great grievance, and often nroductir% Abe great t n th s great injustice. H e had communicated wi th u torney General, who had given notice of a - g o o same subject, and he had been assured by . that a LAI r , t i ti s and Learned Gentleman that his Bill would giv e ju- detei n C. to the whole of the abuse—therefore he would nc't ( gr. 0 House by goi ng i n t o th e d e tails of the Bi l Vb e re Buller) proposed to bring in.—( Hear, hear.) f o, vib es , be no harm in g i v i ng hi m l ea ve to bring in bis sts tut r e , d aft ' would be a very short one—it would repeal thre and merely en ac t that the Ecclesiastical Courts cu c on 'eluded by ; u this time, have no power in such cases. mo Theg vin as above. ATTORNEY-GENRAL asswed the , bona tleman and the House, that the Bill which that night would prove a complete remcdy for_a complained of. The Hon. Gentleman's motir t mot! better 44 ,0- better as a clause in his Bill, than as a "" „ e d to Mr. C. BULLER on that condition Conseil ail the s huie clo draw his motion. SITTING 6) of 14 London •. Printed and Published by MI RDO ItUuIII 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Stran d ' of Middlesex. MALT TAX. DIVISION ON THE MARQUIS OF CHAN DOS'S MOTION. MAJORITY. Fonut, .Sir W. W. Fortits, Lord Forbes, W. Forster, C. Dort, John , Fox, C. It. ' Frem ntle, Sir T. Freshfiett, .1. W. Gisborne, T. Gladstone, T. Glathtotie, W. E. G.yuue, Sir S. E Goodricke. F. L. H. Gordon, Hon. W. Goulburn, H. Graham, Sir J. It. G Grant, F. W. Grant, Right lion.C. Greene, T. 0. Greisley, Sir It. Greville, Sir C. J. Grey, Sir G. Grimston, Hon. E. Grosvenor. Lord It. Grote, 0 Halfird, H. liaise, J. Hamilton, Lord C Hamner, Sir J. Hammer, H. Harcourt, G. 0. Hardinge, Sir H. Harland, W. C. Hawkins, J. H. Hay, Sir J. Hay, Colonel L. Hayes, sir E. Herbert, Hon. S. Heron, Sir It. Herries, J. C. Hill, Lord Arthur Hogg, J. W. Hope, Hon. J. Hope. H. I'. Hou!ds • o:th, T. Howard, E. G. Howard, P. H. Howard, It. Howlett. Lord Hoy, J. B Inghs, Sir It. H. Irton, S. Jackson, J. D. Jephso.i, C. D. 0. Jerinyn, Earl Johnstone, A. Johnstone, Sir J. V. Johnstone, J. J. H. Jones, T. Jones, Wilson Kavanagh, T. Kearslev, J. H. Kelly, F. Kerr, D. Kerrison, Sir E. Kerry, .arl of Kirk, P. Knatchbull, Sir E. Knox, Hon. J Labouchere, Lawson, A. Lee, J. L. Lefevre, C. S. Lefloy, A. I efroy, 17r. T. Lennox, Lord J. G. Lewis. W Leyee,ter, J. Lincoln, Earl of Littleton, E. J Loch, J. Lowther, Viscount Lowther, H. C. Lowther, J. H. Lucas, E. Lthhiugton, Dr. Lygon, Colonel Mackenzie, J. A. S. Mackinnon, W. A. M•Leod, It. MiTaggart, J. Mahon, Lord Mannets, Lord IL bl arsland, T. Martin, J. Mathew. Capt. Maxwell, H. Maule, lion. Fox Maxwell, J. Meynell, H. Miles, P. J. Miller, W. H. Molesworth, Sir W. Mordaunt, Sir J. Morgan, C. M. R. Mosley, Sir 0. Murray, J. A. Neeld, Joseph Neeld, John Nichol!, J. Noel, Sir G. Norreys. Lord North, F. MINORITY. Finn, W. F. Fitzgibbon, It. H. Fitzroy, Lord C. Fit zsimon, C. Fitzsiinon, N. Fleetwood, H. Fleming, Admiral Foley, E. T. Folkes, air W. Forrester, Hen. G. Gaskell, 1). Gaskell, J. M. Geary, Sir W., Bart. Gillon, W. 1). Gordon, It. Gore, W 0. Goring, 11. D. Grattan, J. Grattan, 11. imatm, Lord Gully, J. Hall, B. Hallcbin ton, D. G. Handley H. Hardy, J. Harvey, D. W. Hawes, B. Fl ,wkes, T. Heathcote, Sir G. J. Heathcote, IL E. Heathcoat, J. Hector, C. J. Heneage, G. E. Henniker, Lord Hill, Sir IL Hindley, Charles Hodges, J.IT. Hodges, T. L. Holland, Edward Hoskins, K. Hughes, H. Hutne, Joseph Huinphery, J. Hurst, IL H. Hutt, W. Kemp, T. R. Kennedy, J. King, K. B. Lanibton, H. Langton, CoL G. Leader, John Tomple Lemon, Sir C. Leonard, Sir T. B. Lewis, D. Lister, E. C. LOCK e, W. Long, W. Lusnington, Charles M'Cance, John Maher, John Mandeville, Marjoribanks, S. Marsland, H. Martin, T. B. Maxwell, J Miles,- W. N! ilton, Viscount Moreton, A. H. Mostyn, E. . Mullins, W. F. Musgrave, Sir R. Nagle, Sir It. O'Brien, W. Smith 0 Brien, C. O'Connell, I). O'Connell, M. J. O'Connell, Maurice O'Connell, Morgan O'Connell, J. O'Connor Don O'Connor, Feargus O'Dwyer, A. C. Oswald, IL A. Palmer, C. Palmer, IL Adam, Adm . ral Agnew, Sir A. Alford, Lord Alsavr, It chard Andover, Viscount Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Archdall, General Ashley, Lord Ashley, lion H. Attwood, M. Bagot, lion. W. Brunie, H. D. Balfour, T. Bannerman, A. Barclay, David Barclay, Char:es flaring, T. Baring, H. B. Baring, W. B. . Baring, F. I'. Baring, F. Baring, A. Barneby, John Bateson, Sir 11, Beckett, Sir J. Bell, M. Bentitick, Lord G. Beresford, Sir r. Bei keley, C. F. Bernal, It. Be. hell, R. Blackburn, John I. Buldero, Henry G. Bolling, W. Bonham, Francis R. Borthwick, Peter Bradshaw, James Brownrigg, J. S. Brute, Lord E. Fruce, C. L. C. Brudenell, Lord Bruen, Colonel Bruen, Francis Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W. Buller, Sir J. B. Y. Buller, E. Buller, C. Burslett, Sir F. Buxton, T. F. iSyi g, Sir John Calc. ' raft. G. H. Campbell, Sir 11. Campbell, Sir J. Canning, Sir S.: . Carruthers, David Carter, J. 13. Castlereagh, ViscL Ch plin, 'l'. Chapman, A. Charlton, E. L. Chatrerton, C. Chichester, Arthur Chichester, J. P. B. Churchill, Lord C. S. ( lay, W. Clements, Lord Clerk, Sir G., Bart. Clive, E. B. Clive, Visct. Clive, Robert Codrington, Sir E. Colborne, N. W. IL Cole, Hon. A. Conolly, E. M. Cooper, E. J. ('cote,, Sir C. Copeland, W. Corry, 11. L. Crawford, W. Crewe, Sir J., Bad. Cripps, J. Crompton, S. • D'Albiac, Sir C. Danneny, Lord Damer, Dios son Dare, 11. W. H. Davenport, J. Denison, .Evelyt. Divett, E. Dunkin, Sir R. Dottin, Abel Rous Dowdeswell, W. Dundas, R. A. Dundas, J. C. Dundas, T. Dunlop, C. East, James Buller Eastnor, Viscount Ebrington, Viscount Egerton, W. 'l'. Ege-ton, Sir P. de M. Egerton, Lord Fran. Elphinstone, H- En twistle, John Estcourt, T. G. B. Fazakerley, J. N. Vector, John Minet Feilden, W. Fergus, John Ferguson, It. Ferguson, Sir R. C. Fergitsson, Ho. R. C. Finch, G. O'Neill, J. B, R. _ Ord, W. H. Ord, W. Oswald, J. Parnell, Sir H. Pa.ry, 1.. J. P. Patten, Wilson Pattison, Jaime ('ease, J. Pechell, G. R. feel, fir U. Peel, W. Y, P..,e1, Colonel Peel, Edmund Penis-on, John C. Pemberton, Thomas Penruddock, J H. Perceval, Colon 1 Phillips, G. R. Phillips, C. M. Pinnev, W. Paid!, Frederick Po angton. Lord Pollock, Sir F. Powell, W. S. Praed, James B. Praed, W.nthorp M. Price, Samuel Grote Price, Richard Price, Sir R. Pringle, A. Pryme, G. Posey, Philip Rae, •ir William Ramsbottom, J. Ramsden, J. C. Reid, Sir J. R. Rice, T. S. Ridley, Sir M. W. Robarts, A. W Rolfe ' It. M. Ross, C. Rundell, John Russell, Lord Russe 1, Lord J. Russell. Charles Ry:e, John Sanderson, R. Sandra, Viscount Scarlett, R. C. Scott, Lord John Scott, Sir E. D. Sheppard, T.• Sibt borp, Colonel S.nith, A. Smith, R. Vernon Smith ,R. J Smyth, Sir 0. H., Bt. Somerset, Lott' R. Somerset, Lord G. Stanley, E. Stanley, Lord S:anley, H. T. Stanley, E. J. Steuart, R. Stewart, Sir M. S. Stewart, P. M. Stormont, Viscount Strutt, E. Stuart, Lord James Tennent, Emerson Thomas, Colonel Thompson, Ald. Thomson, C. P. Trench, Sir Frederick Trevor, Hon. A. Turner, 'l'. F. Twins, Horace Vaughan, Sir R. Verner, %V. Verney, Sir FL Vernon, G. H Vesey, Hon. Thomas Villiers, Charles P. Vivian, J. 1 - 1. Vivian, C. C. Vyvyan, Sir It. Walker, R. Wall, B. Warburton, 11. Ward, H G. Welliy, G. E. Wemyss, Capt. Westenra, H. it. Wilbraham, R. B. Wi liams„.ll., jute. Williams, T. P. Williamson, Sir H. Wood, Colonel T. Wood, C. Worcester, Marq. of Wortley, Hon. J. S. Wrightson, W. B. Wrottesley, Sir J. Windham, W. H. Wynn, Sir W. W. Wynn, C. W. Young, G. F. P.iumu OFF. rentlarves, E. W. Ferguson, Sir IT. llobhouse, Sir J. C. Acheson, Viscount Aglionhy, H. A. Ainsworth, Peter Alston, Rowland Anson, Sir G. Astley, Sir Jacob Attwood, 'l'. Bagshaw, John Haile, Joseph E Bainbridge, E. T. B rham, J. Barnard, E. G. Barron, H. W. Beauclerk, Major Beaumont, T. W. Benett, John Berkeley, G. C. limes, T. Eiddulnli, It. Binh, 'l'. Blackburne, J. Blackstone, W. S. Blake, M. J. Blamire, W. Blunt, Sir C. Bodkin, John James Bowes, J. Bowring, Dr. Brabazon, Sir W. J. Brady, Denis C. Bram,ton, T. W. Bridgman, Hewitt Brocklehurst, J. Brodie, W. B. Brothert6n, J. Buckingham, J. S. Bulwer, E. G. E. L. Bulwer, ti. L. Burdon, W. W. Burrell, Sir C. M. Butter, Hon. P. Cave, Otway Cavendish, Hon. C. Caylcy, E S. Chalmers ' Patrick' Chandos, Marquis of Chetwynd, W. F. Clayton, Sir W. Cobbett, W. Codrington, C. W. Collier, J. Compton, H. C. Conynghata. Lord A. Cookes, T. H. Corbett, 'l'. G. Cowper, Hon. W. F. Crawford. W. S. Crawley, S. (.urteia, H. B. Curteis, Captain Darlington, Earl of De Beauvoir, Sir J. E. Denison, W. J. Denniston, Alex. Dick, Q. Dillwyn, L. W. Dobbin, L. Duffield, T. D. Dugdale, W. S. Duncombe, A. Duncombe. W. Durham, Sir P. H. Dikes, F. L B. Eaton, Richard J. Edwards, J. Etwall, R. Euston, Earl of Evans, CoLnel Evans, G. Ewart, W. Fancourt, C. S. J. Fellowes, Hon. N. Ferguson, G. Fielden, J. Parrott, J. Pelham, C. A. W. Perrin, Sergeant Philips, M. Pigot, R. Plumptre J. P. Potter, le. Poulter, J. S. Power, James Power, P. Poyntz, W. S. Richards, John Bickford, W. Itippon, C. Robinson, G. R. W. Roebuck, J. A. Rooper, .1. Bontiry Rushbrook, ltobert ltuthven, E. S. Rutliveu, E. Scholefield, J Scott, J. W. Scourileld, W. H. Scrope, G. P. Seymour, Lord E. Sheldon, E. R. C. Simeon, Sir R. G. Sinclair, 41. Smith, B. Spiers, Alexander Speirs Spry, 'S. T. Stewart, J. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, Edward Sullivan ' R. Surrey, Earl of Talbot, C. R. I albot, J. H. Talroash, A. O. Tancred, H. W. Tennyson, C . Thompson, P. B. Thornley, Thomas Tooke, W. Townley, R. G. Townshend, Lord J. Tracey, C. H. Trelawney, Sir W. Trevor, Hon. G. It. Troubridge, Sir E. Tulk, Charles A. Turner, W. Tylite, C. J. K. Tyrrell, Sir J. Vere, Sir C. 8., Bart. Villiers, Fredrick Vivian, John Ennis Wakley, Thomas Walker, C. A. Wallace ' H Walter, J. Weyland, Major R. Whalley, Sir S. White, S. Wigney, I. N. Wilkins, Walter Wilke, J. William., W. Williams, Sir J. Wilmot, Sir Eardley Wilson, Henry Winnington, Sir T. E. Winnington, H. J. Wodehouse, 110 n. E. Wood, Alderman Wyse, T. Yorke, Elliot Thomas Young, Sir W. L. PAIRED OPP. Scale, Colonel Roche, D. Methuen, P. CO : T'