The Sun. — London, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION popular objection, that a tenant without a lease did not possess the independence which should qualify him for the franchise. Many gentlemen attributed a ptejudicial ope ration to the clause introduced into the Reform Act by the present Duke of Buckingham ; but he confessed that, in his opinion, the objection was one to which very undue force was attached. As far as he had observed the work. ing of the system in England, it certainly appeared to him that the tenant was in general disposed to vote with his landlord, unless on occasions of extraordinury excite ment, such as that which preceded the passing of the Re form Bill, when tenants. in spite of threats, acted in opposition to their landlords. He remembered very well that at an election at which complaints of intimidation had been made most loudly, namely, at the election at which his Hon. Friend the Under- Secre'ary for the Home Depart ment had been defeated in Perthshire, that intimidation bad been used principally in regard to tenants holding leases for a longer period than nineteen years. In the case of Ireland, he found it stated as a universal fact in the Reports laid before them, that that land for which there was the highest competition was that which was let to small holders. It had been stated that such land was sometimes let at four or five times the rated value, and this circumstance would show, that in general this class was in a much lower condition than those who held larger farms. But there was another consequence which ought to be looked to—the multiplication of small tene mente.—( Hear, hear.) What would be easier than that a landlord should create a number of small tenements at nominally high rents, with the understanding that there should be an abatement if the tenant voted according to the landlord's bidding 2—( -leer, hear.) Such was the case under the old forty-shilling . freehold franchise, notwithstanding the many guards with which that franchise was surrounded, for the purpose of preserv ing the tenant totally independent of the landlord. In the present measure of his Noble Friend there were no such contrivances to prevent evasion. The lease so far from adc.ing to the independence of the tenant would ren der him truly and irretrievably at the mercy of his land lord. Still more, by imposing the necessity of a lease, his Noble Friend was driven to the necessity of going down to a much lower grade in society than would other wise be necessary for extending the right of voting to a large body of the people. But that was not all. Would his Noble Friend by these means attain his object of suffi ciently extending that right ? He (Lard H.) doubted that he would. Such might be the effect of the measure at this moment, but it would not be so in future. It was admitted by his Noble Friend—it was a matteieof notoriety, not denied on either side of the House—that there was a growing indisposition to grant leases. In the Report of the Poor-law Inquiry Commission, it was expressly stated as a fact, that when leases expired they were not re newed, and in that way whole districts were unrepresen ted. He (Lord H.) believed that the great motive for the lendlords'conduct in refusing leases was the improvement of their lands. He thought that in the present state of rgri culture in Ireland, it was a very great advantage to that country that the landlords should keep the land in their own power.—(Hear.) His Noble Friend ( Lord Mor peth) had great interest in a large property in Ireland— some of his colleagues in the Cabinet, were large proprie tors of land in that country, and were they not, or most of them, acting on that policy of allowing leases to fall in as they expired ?—( Hear, hear.) But the effect of his Noble Friend's Bill would be to extend the franchise only on the ill-managed estates on which that policy was not pursued, encouraging landlords to cut up their property in small holdings, and giving the franchise to the class of voters who were the most dependent on their landlords. He thought it would be far more expedient to take a larger amount of value, and dispense with the lease. Whilst he objected on these grounds to the proposition of his Noble Friend ; he thought there were reasons no less pressing for now granting a new franchise.—( Hear, hear.) It was of great importance to the tranquillity of Ireland that there should be an ample representation of that country, not of a class, not of that class only which almost exclus vely consisted of the owners of the soil, but an ample representa tion of the great bulk of the people. His Noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, admitted that, and said that the constituency ought not to be reduced to too small an amount. But his Noble Friend also said " wait till the evil arrives, before you attempt a remedy by altering the franchise." He (Lord H.) thought the evil had arisen.— ( Hear, hear.) Returns this day laid on the table showed to a demonstration that the evil was in progress. It was true that the actual diminution of the county franchise, from the year 1335 to the present year, was only 7,563 ; but the same return clearly showed that it was progressive, and that, in consequence of the non-renewal of leases, it was likely in the course of time to affect the whole of the 101. and 201. leaseholders, who constituted two-thirds of the whole county constituency, being 41,711 out of 57,103. —( Hsar, hear.) If, therefore, it was not intended to allow the electors to dwindle away, and to restrict the fitenchise to the owners of the soil, the House should not hesitate to take without delay a decisive step to put an end to the evil, by altering the franchise.—( Hear, hear. ) Oa this ground be proposed an occupation franchise, simi miler to that which was possessed in England. Its Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) proposed to wait until the evil was felt ; but was it safe thus to deal with the discontent of a whole people, and to wait until it arose to the point at which it was no longer tolerable ?—( Hear, hear.) He thought that the future effects of their delaying a re medy had been too much and too recently felt, in the case of Catholic emancipation, for any gentleman now to ad vise this Parliament to return to the principle.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, his Noble Friend ( Lord Stanley) must surely feel the importance of reforming the registration of Ireland with the consent of the Irish people themselve'. The working of ether that measure or Lord Morpeth's must particularly depend ore the spirit in which it might be received by the people.---( Hear, hear.) In putting an end to fraud, which was not denied on that (the Liberal) side of the House, their measure for its suppression should bo accompanied by the admission to the franchise of those who were unjustly excluded from it.—(Hear, hear.) It was possible for the Noble Lord to force his measure through the House without such an accompaniment; but his chance of doing so was not more encouraging than the prospect of its being afterwards attended with benefit.—( Hear, hear.) In addressing such remarks to his Noble Friend, he would also urge upon that (the Li beral side) of the House the necessity of not asking for too large concessions. He hoped that gentlemen on both sides of the House would sec the importance of coming to some agreement on this subject. Gentlemen opposite would find it impossible to carry a measure for reforming the representation unless they coupled with it a measure for enlarging the franchise, and gentlemen on his (Lord Howick's) side of the House would find it difficult to enlarge the franchise, without at the same time reforming the system of registration.—( Hear, hear.) Even if the franchise could be enlarged without reforming the regis tration, it could only be done at a loss iii public opinion. The frauds which existed were such that, even though they failed to obtain an extension of the franchise, the people of England would not join in an attempt to resist an im provement in the registration. An agreement which would secure both objects would confer inestimable benefit upon Ireland. Let him remind Honourable Gentlemen on that side of the House of the necessity which existed for such an agreement.—( Hear, hear.) They had now no chance of enlarging the franchise except with the concurrence of their political opponeats. They l i might carry it through that House, but in the other House any measure which was resisted by so large and powerful a party must inevitably fail. They were not in the posi tion which they occupied at the time of passing the Re form Act ; and a measure for greatly altering the foto chise would not have that support out of doors to which the Reform Act greatly owed its success. These were rea sons is bids should weigh powerfully with all parties, and lead all to endeavour if possible to effect a settlement of this question. The mode of settling the Irish franchise which h e (L or d H ow i c k) p ropose d', would be found just and fair to all parties ; and even if the House should differ from him as to the propriety of creating an occupa tion franchise, that was a question which arose upon a subsequent elanse; the whole scope and purport of the first amendment which he now proposed was that of re taining, subject to a better definition, that franchise which now existed by virtue of a beneficial interest. Lord MORPETFI said it was quite needless for his Noble Friend to repudiate the notion that in bringi ngfor ward the amendment of w hi ch he had given notice, he was actuated by a desire to em G b o ar v r e a r s ne a l nd impede the move ments of her Majesty's t with seb regard f to f the Bill which they had introduced on then he t d o the fran chise. c hi ste His Noble Friend had stated that j i t e t a k ire seeing that measure brought to an amicable settlement, or to any settlement at all, if ether of the partieSmienntt, which that House was chiefly divided should stand upon o extreme opinions. They had certainly done their hest to demonstrate that they were not disposed to st an d upon ex treme opinions.—(" Hear, hear," and laughter from the Opposition benches.) Ever since the expiration of the recess, though they were convinced that the original pro posal was amply borne out by ad the infermation on thia subject, they had net hesitated, within the limits of fair justice to the Irish people, to conciliate their opponents by raising the amount of qualification for the fianchise. His Noble Friend had told them that they could net look for any great support out of doors. He begged to assure his Noble Friend that they sought no such aid or reinforce ment in what they proposed ; they were content to leg their proposition upon its abstract justice. He perfectly agreed with his Noble Friend in wishing to see the fran chise in Ireland placed upon a simple test of rateage ; and he trusted that whatever alteration might be proposed in the Committee on this Bill, 11 test would be fixed upn, at once easy of access , an d eas y o f p roo f . Hi s N o bl e Friend had also expressed a wish that the constituency of Ireland might not be indirectly diminished by any mea sure which might be adopted by this House. Whilst he (Lord Morpeth) entirely sympathised with him in that w ish, he found that the amendment, taken by itself, ws.s calculated in a most striking and startling m inner to counteract that result. The amendments pro posed by his Noble Friend were t h ree in slumber two substantial and one chiefly verbal. The Noble Lord then read the first amendment. It appeared to him that his Noble Friend, equally with the esovernment, proposed a material change in the definition of beneficial interest.— ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then read the second wards, tho ug h i t was not openly amendment. By those stated, a change was in reality made.--( H ear, dear.) fle (Lord Morpeth) preferred the words in tie Government Bill as being the simplest and the most straightforward. His Noble Friend proposed that a person, in order to be qualified to vote, should be rated at a net annual va l ue which should exceed the sent and charges to which he was liable in respect thereof, by the sum of 51, per annum. If his Noble Friend had brought this forward as ee addition to what be (Lord Morpetb) proposed, namely, that a person should be put upon the register who was rated at the net annual value of 81. he (Lord Morpeth) would not perhaps have ob jected to the proposal ; be would then have considered it as only an en l argement and relaxation of the franchix ; but considered as a substitution for that, and as the staple for the elective franchise in Ireland, he thought that the proposition of his Noble Friend, when carefully examined, would turn out to be a mere deltvion. The proposition should be very carefully scrutinized before it was adop ted by the House. His Noble Friend had concluded his speech by saying that the proposition upon ele'ch he then ailed upon the Howe to ro nounee judgment was that of adopting a franchise to he tested by the rent after the !deduction of all rates and charges. He had not yet fixed upon the amount of rating. It was a proposition which on every account demanded great consideration before the House consented to its adoption. They had been cen sured by his Nobles Friend for introducing an entirely new form and condition for the elective franchise in Ireland, introducing a change which was inconsistent with the Re form Bill. He begged to remind him that in the Reform Bills for England, Ireland, and Scotland, as originally in troduced, the authors of those Bills actually sought to confer the elective franchise upon a voter paying a certain amount of rent, whether there was or was not a profit. This proposition, therefore, was not so utterly at variance with the principles of the original Reform Bill as had been stated by the Noble Lord. Neither was the proposition inconsistent with that Bill as it actually stood, for it con ferred the franchise upon tenants wino paid a rent of 50/. It was upon this ground that he (Lord Morpeth) rested his proposition—that it would include as voters that class of persons upon whom it was the intention of the Reform Bill to bestow the franchise ; and he contended therefore that they were acting in thorough conformity with the spirit and the principles of that Bill. His Noble Friend first assumed that his proposition of a 51. rating above the rents and charges could be liable to no objection ; in the nsxt sentence he proceeded to tell them that it would be found to operate with great practical severity, and ex clude many who now enjoyed the franchise, and who under went a rigorous test. He thought his Noble Friend had in this respect taken a leaf from the Noble Lord opposite ; and that to this extent he could have proved himself a useful pioneer.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, proposed the solvent tenant test ; but his Noble Friend (Lord Howick) would give them not only the solvent te nant test, but would add to it all the stringency which would follow from an assessment under the real value of property. They learned from the returns on the table, in the plainest terms, that the valuators were of opinion that the valuation was in most cases 10 per cent. below the rent paid, as both landlord and tenant were desirous of lowering the valuation. In Bandon the-e was a valuation for municipal purposes, which was considerably above that under the Poor-law rating. In Castledermott the valua tion was, in sixty instances, below the rent paid, and in ten only above it. In Clonmel the estimate was lower than the rent, with very few instances to the contrary. In Cashel the valuator was of opinion that his valuation was from 3 to 5 per cent. below the rent required, even by the most indulgent landlords. In Cork it was from 4 to 5 per cent. under the rent. In Roscrea it was from 10 to 15 per cent. below the rent at which an occupier would still have an interest in the land ; and it was on the average of cases 15 per cwt, below the rents usually paid. In Sligo it was about 15 per cent. beneath the rent, which a solvent tenant, making a prudent arrangement would give, and 25 per cent. beneath the actual rents. In Tipperary the valuation was 25 per cent, below the rent. In Fermoy the number of 10/. electors on the registry, whose rent was ascertained, was 174, and out of that number 118 would be disfranchised if they were required to have an interest of a farthing above the rent ; by requiring an in terest of Si. 132 would be disfranchised ; by requiring .5/. 140 would be disfranchised, and by requiring an ex cess of 10/. above the rent, the constituency would be re duced to fifteen persons only.—( Hear, hear.) Of these parties, however, two paid upwards of 2001. rent, fourteen paid between 100/. and 2001., thirty-seven paid between 50/. and 100/. and ten paid between 30/. and 50/. These facts he thought would show that these parties were not men possessing little or no means to qualify them for the right of voting. In Cashel the number of 10/. electors ascertained was 142; but of these 112 would be disfran chised by requiring of them an interest above the rent, 116 by requiring an interest of 2/. 120 by requ'ring an interest of 3/. 121 by requiring an interest of 4/. 123 by requiring an interest of Si. and 133 would be disfranchised by requiring an interest of 10/. above the Poor-law valua tion. In Listowel, out of 265 electors 125 would be disfran chithed by requiring any interest above the rating ; 127 by requiring an interest of 1/., 172 by requiring an inte rest of 2/., 188 by requiring an interest of 3/.. 202 by re quiring an interest of 41., 220 by requiring an interest of Si., and 250 by requiring an interest of 10/. In Tippe rary out of 100 101. occupiers 82 would be disfranchised by requiring any excess above the rest, 66 by requiring 1/., 88 by requiring 2/., 91 by requiring 3/., 92 by requiring 4/., and 97 by requiring 10/. In Armagh—Protestant Armagh—out of 96 electors 22 would be disfranchised by any interest above the rating, 27 by an interest of 11., 36 by an interest of 2/., 45 by an interest of 3/., 53 by an inte rest of 4/., 66 by an interest of 51., and 81 by an interest of 10/. In Catehill, out of 255 ascertained electors, 86 would be disfranchised by requiring of them any excess above the rent, 151 by requiring 51., and .213 by requir ing 10/. He thought that those would show that the amendment of his Noble Friend (Lord Howick) was un tenable and inapplicable; and that it would not carry out the principle of popular representation in Ireland.— (Hear, he ir.) Those were the grounds on which he certainly felt himself bound, with whatever re luctance, to offer his strenuous opposition to the first proposal which his Noble Friend had made. With regard to the arguments which might be urged in favour of establishing a franchise without a lease, and with re gard to the amount of value which should be required, he would be prepared to state his opinions when the questions came immediately under the consideration of the House. All he wished for the present to show was that the first proposition of his Noble Friend could not be carried if they were determined on maintaining any constituency— he did not merely say a sufficient constituency, but any constituency whatever worthy of the name.—(Hear, hear.) He would be prepared at the proper time to contend that the proposition they (the Government) had brought for ward of ascertaining the franchise by the amount of rating, was the safest, the simplest, and the plainest they could devise, and, at least, until he had heard I seine counter proposition brought forward, which he could think more feasible and expedient than any which had as yet been submitted to them—by that measure ho should be content to abide.—(Cheers.) Mr. C. WOOD said that the proposition of his No ble Friend bad not been brought forward as a substitute for the Government measure, but as an amendment on it. He did not mean to say that he approved of the franchise which his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland bad pro posed, but whether the franchise were to be leasehold, as proposed by the Noble Lord, or a franchise to be de.er mined by occupation, as suggested by his Noble Friend, the amendment would clearly be so addition to the franchise, whatever it might be. Th . 's, object of his Noble Friend was to enlarge the franchise which might hereafter be establisbed. The proposition of his Noble Friend viewed as an addition, not as a substitute, would be a clear extension of the fran chise to one of the most independent classes in Ireland, and as it was so be trusted after that explanation his Noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, would withdraw that opposition which be had threatened to the amendment of his Noble Friend. The Bill introduced by his Noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) proposed to rest the franchise in Ireland upon occupation alone; in his opinion that would be most objectionable, because it would destroy the oldest and most independent qualification which had ever existed in that or any other country—the qualification founded upon property. It would be a great matter gained, if that qualification were preserved. lf, as he sincerely trust e d it would, the present prosperity of Ireland continued, there would be a vast accumulation of small proprietors who, by the Bill of the Government, would be excluded from the franchise, but th t class would be admitted if the amend ment of his Noble Friend were successful ; as the object of both was to preserve the constituencies of Ireland, he sincerely hoped that the threatened opposition would be withdrawn. It was necessary to hive different franchises for the state of property, and holdings were entirely differ ent in the South to what they were in the North. The leasehold franchise alone could never maintain the present numbers of the Irish constituencies, and that was one very groat objection to the measure. He was most anxious to maintain the slumbers of the independent electors in Ire land, and he was well assured that that was also the aim and anxious desire of the Government ; then he fully trusted that they would withdraw all opposition to the amendment of his Noble Friend, which would have the effect they desired. He would take the state of the con stituencies in Ireland in 1835, and that he considered as a year in which every thing was fair, it was before the sys tem of double entries was resorted to ; as for the imputed perjury and fraud, he cared nothing—( Hear, hear)—he considered it was very much exaggerated. Was it to be wondered at, that when the Judges themselves could not agree upon the question of value, two peasants should upon the same question swear entirely contrary to each other, and yet both swear perfectly according to their consciences and without the least tinge of fraud ? Suppose that Judges Perrin and Crampton were to be brought into the Registra tion Courts, they upon the question of value would swear directly against each other, yet who for one moment could impettes,e.j u ry or I raud to either of the Learned Judges whyeften, not extend their charity to the people also ? r h , e he n a e r io ) rm W A el c l t , then, amo o amounted 8 t 3 0 5 (cieHreatt constituency w a nows u n -38,000 in round numbers—.the dec 4 r ts e h' a eo s o e — am i. amounting to that period. Now on looking at the evi rdinbgefore the House, it was evident that much of d i e ,s o o c o o to the non - renewa l o f l eases b y e o a rds inlrnelsntl— that evidence proved that even There a esrldcendpeerlse was wing political considerati ons did not ot enter into the ques tion, t here was a great relucta nce to reneiwoulendasaetsion w Those reports showed that the renewal of le ases was going out in Ireland, and it followed that if t he franchis e were based which on the leasehold , it was based on a exist—they and wh atever numbers were builst,e4 upon sand, s w h h o i r c t h l y wasw•ougl would a dnoootl gradually y falling t t o o f voters a ol. rn mightg , therebeo waswobtained, nothing even o r cer tai n than th at in five yea-s hence they would not have that number or anything like it. Disfranchisement was going on at a rate of 1,000 a year. In a few years a necessity would arise to revive the whole question. He p i-t,ci pated in the strongest degree in the objections which his Noble Friend stated against 5/. rating. He (Mr. C. Wood) did not believe that the object which his Noble Friend (Lord Morpith) had in view—namely, of securing the independence of the voter—would be obtained by a lease when the amount was so low as Si. or even 81. With respect to what was asserted relative to laedlerd and tenant in this country he believed that great injure preseet itions were made. He did not believe that it ex isted as a general rule that the tenant was driven against his will to vote contrary to his opinion. He did not be lieve that coercion was exercised generally by the land lord. If such a general rule existed he did not think the tenantry, as a class, would be coerced by it.—( Opposition cheers.) lie must say that one of his chief reasons for being of that opinion was, that, taking the occupying tenantry generally, their opinions did not materially differ from those of the landlords. That was apparent, if they con sidered those questions which generally occurred at a county election—such as the Corn-laws. The question to be decided now was not whether leaseholders were a class of independent voters, but whether leases would make them so. His position was that a lease was not ne cessary to make the occupying tenant independent, espe eielly at a low rating, because, so far as occupation at a test of property, and property wa s a high amount was a test of intelligence and education, the occupying tenant had a bettor test as a qualification for a voter than the leaseholder at a mall amount, There could be no doubt that the power of creating fictitious votes, as stated in the extracts which be read from the Report, and as men tioned in the case of the Castlereagh Union, would be extended to a very great extent in the case of leaseholders at a small amount of rating. Indeed at such an amount of rating as 51., it was of no consequence to the landlord whether the tenant had a lease or not. The question, he thought, was not so much whether they should have an independent constituency, but whether they should have a constituency at all. What he had hitherto urged referred to the state of things likely to re sult from the rating of 51., which was first proposed, being established.' It seemed now, however, that the Government had raised the rating from 51. to 8/. Now, even by that rating of Si. he found on referring to the fourteen Unions mentioned in the report from which he had just read ex tracts, tLat out of the existing number of 201. voters one-sixth would be disfranchised. That seemed to him a most extraordinary mode of keeping up the constitu ency of Ireland—to commence by lessening it. Those Unions were taken indiscriminately, and might be taken as pretty fairly representing all the Unions in the coun try, and if so, if the object of the Noble Lord's Bill was to keep up the constituency, it was certainly extraordinary that the first thing which it effected was to disfranchise 6,000 of the existing voters. In the last six years the number of voters diminished to the amount of 6,000, and if upwards of 6,000 more would be disfranchised, those who would re:nain would be left to the operation of the same cause as that which had already eff acted so great a dimi nution in their numbers ; and where then the constituency would ultimately come from, he confessed he did not know. The cause of the diminution, namely, the non renewal of leases, would remain in forcible operation, and would effect a contiuued reduction.--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) That there might be no ques tion about what he stated he would read the names of the Unions. The Hon. Gentleman here proceeded to read the names of the fourteen Unions referred to, and then proceeded to say that the Noble Lord's ( Lord Morpeth's) Bill would undoubtedly have the effect of dis fratichisihg one-sixth of the ten-pound voters of Ireland. The object of his Noble Friend's clause was to preserve undiminished that portion of the Irish constituency which might be said to represent the Irish people. He ( Mr. C. Wood) begged his Noble Friend (Lord Nlorpeth), and the Attorney- General for Ireland, to remember that he protested against their considering the proposal of his Noble Friend near him as one which was to be taken as the whole of the proposal which he made. Ile proposed to retain the property qualification in Ireland, as the best that could exist; he meant as nearly as they could retain it, by relaxing the intention of the Legislature, some years ago, and by preventing that state of things which the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lanca shire, said ho would deal with when it should happen-- namely, the diminution of the constituency of Ireland—if that diminution should be such as to throw power ag,in into the hands of those from whom the Reform Bill re- leased it. lie ( Mr. C. Wood) quite agre:.(l that the effect of any surplus interest above the rent would be to produce that state of things, and he called upon all who thought that at least the farm of representation in Ireland ought to be preserved, to assist them in preierving it, either by the way his Noble Friend proposed, or by an occupation fran chise of higher amount. He called upon them to make up the number that might be required in a Idition to those who might remain, in such a manner as might be con. sidered to form a fair constituency for Ireland. His Noble Friend's proposal had this object, but it did not fully put before the House what his Noble Friend intended to do. It might be considered an omission that his Noble Friend had not given notice of the amount at which he pro posed the tenant to be rated. It was impossible to do that be fore they had the returns in the it hands, and those were only delivered this morning. But the occupation franchise his Noble Friend might consider as a substitute fur the one which he proposed, and the question for the House to consider was whether they would add:the franchise, re taining as mach as they could of the present freeholds in Ireland, and making up the rest in some way or other thereafter to be determined. He hoped his Noble Friend's proposal would be considered only in conjunction with some other to be thereafter delivered to the House. He was sure his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland would acquit his Noble Friend ( Lord How ick) of coning before him with this proposition. They had thought the present interest with the test of rating ought to be pre served, and the deficiency made up by additional fran chises, and for that reason only these words came before the amendment of his Noble Friend.--( Hear, hear.) Their object was the extension of the franchise, to the people of Ireland, which he hoped would be con sidered as one that entitled them to the support of that side of the House. Sir C. GREY wished to say a fovr words on this amendment. He hoped it would nct be considered any impertinent intrusion if he rose for the very natural pur pose, before the question was put, of understanding what the amendment was, and what were the wards it proposed to amend.--( Hear, hear.) Before the speech of his Noble Friend he was almost disposed to vote with him_ ( Laughter)--but as the amendment wasexplained he could not du so. He begged the Noble Lord (Lord Morpeth ) not to consider this as a verbal amendment. —(llunr.) Could his Hon. Friend have overlooked the importance of the words "ie his actual occupation ?" On what ground, then, did he say that the 101. franchise was taken away by the first clause of this Bill / The Hon. Member was in total error in supposing that this clause operated as a dis franchisement of the property qualification. The clause did not affect those who were in actual occupation. Hav ing said thus much, he would state as shortly as he could his reasons for voting against the amendment, notwith standing the words " beneficial interest." He held the omission of there words as one of the main merits of the Noble Lord's Bill. The mode in which the Hon. Mem ber proposed to deal with the beneficial interest would of itself prevent him (Sir C. Grey) from voting with him ; but the insuperable objection he had to it was this, that it would operate to disfranchise a class of voters to whom it was intended to give the franchise in 1832. The Hon. Member had omitted to mention those qualifications in which property and beneficial occupation are required to exist. The amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland would operate most injuriously with respect to those. Although such an opinion had been f(e quently repudiated, his (sir C. Grey's) opinion was, that by law a farmer occupying a farm for a term originally created, having an interest of 101. a year above all rents and charges was entitled to vote. Lord STANLEY said that differing as he did alto gether from the principles c,f the measure introduced by the Government, it was of very little impor►ance to him whether the original clause was carried, or an amendment, which was considered merely of a verbal nature. But it was because he did not consider it merely of a verbal na- tura—it was because he considered it identified with the great principle to which he was attached, that when he was called upon to decide whether the amendment of his Noble Friend, or the clause cf the Noble Lord, the Secre tary of Ireland should stand, that he resolved to give his vote in favour of the amendment of his Noble Friend, which appeared to him to affirm and uphold the prin ciples which he maintained, and which the measure f the Government sought to destroy.—( Cheers.) The proposition which had been mace at the very latrat mo ment, two months after the introduction of the Bill, and upon information which was not obtained for the purpose of framing the Bill, but which was obtained fur the pur pose of bolstering it up—( Loud cheers)—the last proposition of the Noble Lord and the Government, was the insertion of a franchise, one simple, sole franchise for Ireland, that franchise being the being rated to the re lief of the poor to the amount of 8/., without reference to the amount of beneficial interest—without reference to the fact of whether the person claiming had any beneficial in terest as a solvent tenant, or possessed of any property whatever.—(Cheers.) That was the principle the Go• vernment contended for in opposition to that of his Noble Friend the Member for Northumberland, who asked them to define the existing franchise, undoubtedly with some modifications, with some limitations, and some alterations ; but he proposed to take the rating as the test, and in addi tion to a certain amount of rating, not simply per se, but over and above the rent, and that that should be deemed and taken to be not a new qualification, but the legal and correct interpretation of that for which he was contending in common with the gentlemen on his (Lord Stanley's) side of the House, namely the beneficial interest being an excess of value over the burdens affecting the land, as was required by the Reform Act, but which the Government now sought to abolish.—( Hear, hear.) Therefore, how ever it might suit the views of Hon. Gentlemen opposite to represent that as a verbal amendment—and it was upon those grounds that be should vote in favour of the amend ment proposed by his Noble Friend to the first clause—he did not conceive that that would be the pro per time for entering into the discussion of the detail-, either of his Noble Friend's amendment, or the proposition of the Government. for that would naturally and neces sarily arise in discussing the second clause ; but they were now called upon to choose, if compelled to adopt any change—if they were to make any alteration—if they were to legislate at all, they were called upon to say, would they legislate upon the principle of a beneficial interest, or of no interest at all ?—( Hear, hear.) Ho must say that it would require some ingenuity to persuade him, and it would require some ingenuity to persuade the country, that the division on the present question was a division on a merely verbal arnmendment. He was bound to say, without discussing the details of his Noble Friend's proposition, that he was disposed entirely and cordially to concur in it. He should regret to ace the fran chise of Ireland, and he was sure he spoke the sentiments of that side of the House, unnaturally and unduly diminished. —( Hear, hear ; Cri,'s of "Oh 1' and Laughter.) He should regret to see persons possessed of a proper qualifi escattaiisouenlsd,,aarnneddgrotetett Irelandohsese of Ireland dwindled property and the same benefi c i a l interest either by the state of the law, or from any inade qlaueadelyordis of nthelaw, n r from refusing the t o grantconductleases—he of h e those ed to of chises, a e n r y small am ount ; and - constituencywhen again, t h at he ;Nould be prepared to consider, and that might emanate e o r oistiriauhile issue. attention, u e with the most m the Executive, with whom ques tions of that momentouswouldan e p o r n o s i t s , proposition that nature must emanate in order to be brought to a successful vourably any proposition to meet those had been proved to exist.— h evils those (Hear, asked whether it was the intention ' of ar ) lt ha 1 been Reform Act to restrict the county the Constit framers of the and it had been urged that in point of u fa c c u t ey hine IRrelfand, Ac', so far as the count.es were concerned, wa s a delusion orm upon Parliament and the public,fand it. was assumed tha • t the county constituencies.o Ireland were at the present moment in a state of rapid dece and of progressive di- When he had the no h proof whatever for the opinion. of introducing the Irish Reform Act, he unour asked at what be calculated the then was constituency of the country, and he replied 52.000—thii was to say, he took the exiting regis try, and he found on it 52 000. Ho had been very prop crly met by the H on. and Learned Nlamber for Dublin, w ho told him, "Tru e there are 52,000 on the registry—i am on it, and my sons are on it ; but my father is also cm it, and my uncles and my grandfather are on it ; and f•som my knowledge of the country," said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, " v o far from 52,000 being on the registry, I will take upon ray. ! . 4THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 27, Nil. self to say that at the - outside there are not 30,000. That year only 1,200 had been added to the constituency, and it requires no exorbitant stroch of the imagination to conceive that, under your Bill, the county constitu ency can scarcely reach 30 000 " These were the ex pressions of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, and of the Honourable Member for Kilkenny. He ( Lord Stanley) admitted to the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman with regard to the county constituencies the Re form Act introduced a very great change. But he looked to the borough constituencies and the canstitucncies of counties, of cities, and of towns, for the great increase of the constituencies. His Right Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin and the Hon. and Learned Recorder for Dublin, both of them in opposing the Bill said that they did not calculate upon much increase in the county constituencies, but they did with regard to cities and boroughs. Those were the anticipations of both parties of those who supported and those who op posed the Reform Bill, and neither side anticipated any great increase in the county constituencies of Ire land. The result was that in 1833 under the excitement of the Reform Bill, when all parties were rushing to the booths to assert their claims, sod when their claims were admitted with very little considera tion and very little opposition, because there was little of a political struggle on one side, the number of the county constituency in Ireland was 57,000. From that period up to the present time it was impossible it should have happened without any double registration—without any person being registered over again —without any voter being struck off over and over again —it was quite clear that the nominal constituency must go on increasing till the first octennial revision. It was 57,000 in 1633 ; it was 64.000 in 1835; it was 73.000 in 1837 ; and it was 99.000 in 1839. But from what did this arise? From the constant succession of names put on during the course of these years, while not a single name could be struck off. Moreover, a great number of the 57,000 who were on the registry in 1833 reappeared in 1830, and swelled the constituency to an enormous amount. Ia the course of last year, in consequence of the lapse of tim-, at one swoop 57.000 were struck off, and the constituency reduced to 42,000. At the present moment the consti tuency exceeded what it was the first year after the pa-s -ing of the Reform Act, and fall only 6 000 or 7,000 short of the number it was after two years working, namely, in 1835. Looking at the places where a great decrease in the number of voters had taken place he found that on the falling in of the first batch of voters parties did not rene.v, inasmuch as there was no contest and no political excite ment to lead men to renow their votes. He found that in eleven counties where a decrease had taken place no contests had taken place of late—namely, Antrim, Armagh. Cla e, Down, Galway, Limerick, Londonderry, Mayo, Roscom mon, Waterford, and,Wexford ;—in those counties neither one party nor the other being in the ascendant. In these counties there was a deficiency of 11,000 voters, and consequently in the remaining counties, as compared with 1835, only two Sessions after the passing of the Reform Bill, there was an actual incre sac of 4,000 or 5,000, comparing the numbers at present on the registry with the numbers on it at that period. He did not mean to say that a diminution of the consti tuency in Ireland was not g ting on—what he said was, there was no proof of it. He had reason to be lieve that many landlords were withholding leases, not on political grounds but for the purposes of improve ment. It' that cause were decreasing the constituencie then the amendment of his Noble Friend was the proper remedy; it was the legitimate and proper mode of nieet ng what he would consider a great evil. He concurred es most of the opinions enunciated by his Noble Friend, and when it was shown to hint that there was any alarming decrease in the constituencies of Ireland from such a cause, he would seek a remedy, but most certainly not that of the Government, who seemed to say, that because one gentle man refused to grant lea.ee they would give the power to six other proprietors to give the franchise to persons with out any sort of property.—( Cheers.) As at present ad vised be could not assent to the necessity of any augmen tation or alteration in the constituencies of Ireland. His Noble Friend had been very successful in exposing the ab surdity, he might say, at all events, the want of consideration shown in the plan of the Government, and his Noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had had some success i exposing the proposition of his Noble Friend the Member for Northern berland.—( A laugh.) He would vote for neither the one or the other proposNon, but if he were called upon to do so, he was prepared to give his voice for the amendment, in opposition to the undigested plan of the Government.—( Loud cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL bad not intended to take any part in that discussion, because he thought it was merely a question of detail ; but he had been driven from his envied silence by some observations which had fallen from the Noble Lord. Although there were 52,000 voters on the register in 1833, yet he had before stated that only from 26,000 to 28,000 would be available as substantial voters, and he had stated that the Noble Lord's Reform Bill would not add more than 2,000 to that number; but it was to be remembered that that was in 1832, and before the 10/. chattel occupation was introduced—that clause accounted for the augmentation which had taken place. The Noble Lord had talked of the constituencies of Ire land not perishing in Ireland. Why, the county constituencies were now 20,891 fewer than in 1835 ; the city and town constituencies had increased, and by that means the loss on the aggregate was reduced to 7,500. The Hon. Gentleman then entered into a comparison and contrast of the population and constituencies of counties in Ireland with those of Ene'and, which bas often appeared in our columns. He had sbown that there was no equality whatever between the two countries, and he would ask why they did not restore the 40s. freehold franchise to Ireland, and so far put her on an equality with England They might go on insulting Ireland as they pleased, but he would tell them that Ireland perfectly understood the injustice done her, and fully felt the contempt with which she was treated by that House.—( Cries of " Divide.") Lord JOHN RUSSELL was anxious to say a very few words before the House went to a division. He was ex tremely sorry, fr mi the tone of the debate, to see that there was no prospect of the House coming to an arrangement for deciding the important question of the franchise in Ire land. Their position was this—ln the discussion respect ing the Irish registration there was a very general impres sion that noregiitration would place the franchise in Ireland upon a satisfactory footing unless it was properly defined so as to settle the contradictory decidons, and the extremely irregular practices which prevailed in consequence. The Bill of the Government proposed to define the franchise. His opinion was the same as that of his Noble Friend who introduced the Bill—that a tenure of fourteen years, with a 5/. rating to the Poor-rate, was a franchise which would have given the right of voting to persons of pro perty in Ireland, and, at the same time, would have been so extensively diffused as to have given general sari-fac tion. He did think, and he had stated to the House when he proposed to adjourn the Bill, that it was of such immense importance to obtain, if possible, an agreement on questions of this kind, and not to continue for another year the discontent which, he said at the time, naturally arose from the menace held out last year to disfranchise the people of Ireland.—( Hear, heir.) He then said that he thought it was worth while to be subject to the taunts which were made against Ministers, and in which -sea his Hon. Friend the Member for indulged— ( Hear, hear)—and to depart from what they had origi nally proposed. They had thought it worth while to incur those taunts, and to indulge the hopes-- illusory as they now seemed to be..-_( Ch. ecirs)— that they might bring the contention to a close. —( Cheers. ) Although the attempt had failed, he did not regret that he had made it.—(Hear, hear.) He had thought it his duty to subject himself to any sarcasms of the kind. with which he had been visited, in order, if possible, to retrieve what he conceived to be the unfortunate error committed by a great party in that House.—( Cheers.) It had been his opinion, and still was so, that the people of Ireland had suffered much, that they had suffered things which he would not now attempt to describe, but which had been described in stronger terms, than perhaps he would use, by the Hon. Member for Newark.—( Hear, bear.) He had thought that if over it could be possible that a time should arrive in which they should have no question before Par liament which should put in conflict the passions of differ ent parties in Ireland, if it could arrive at an interval of tranquillity, to enable men, intent on the gains of industry, on the improvement of agriculture, and the ex tension of commerce, to give their attention to those pursuits, and to i.e diverted, for some time from politcal contest, he thought he would obtain for that country a great benefit.—( Hear, hear.) But it now appeared to a great party in the House, that this was not the course which should be taken.—(Cheers.) It appeared to them better to raise questions which gave them party majorities—(Cheers)—and gave them triumphs in the coulee of the Session—( Cheers)—which majorities and triumphs, everyone, excited more and m 're the ange , the indignation, and the feeling of wrong dune in the minds of the people of Ireland.—( Cheers.) He had been in hopes, however, that by sacrificing something of his own opinions, that the House generally, or a great part of it, would concur in some law which would again alit), the storm that had been raised. It appeared that in that hope he was entirely disappoinied.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared from the speech of the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, that if he voted for the amendment it would be with a different view of its operation from that taken of it by his Noble Friend who moved it, and because it would promote the principle to which he (Lord Stanl e y) adhered, namely, that of an inteiest above the rent. Now, it was for that very reason, that he (Lord Johu Russell) would oppose the amendment, for be considered that if the House gave its sanction to that construction of the franchise, the constituency would he destroyed.—( Hear, hear.) What his Noble Friend in tended afterwards to ground upon this clause was, that the in the passing of the Reform Bill, he believed that that rent. who paid wli a certain aevm ntgrhetbeshotuhled te r n a t t i ed on 5 0 / beyond l Parlia ment the introduction of such a test at present would deprive a large majority of the present electors of the right of voting. Tne Noble Lord adhered to the definition given by the Judges. Now be (Lord J. Russell) found it° fault with that definition. The Judges said it was not for them to look to what might have been the intention of Parliament, but what appeared to them t o b e e aiintend, o f the legal interpretation of the wraerd the Act, It was their duty to give that in t e r pretation ; but this he thought was manifest, if that sense was to he wouid g adopted, as touchtli e further Noble proposition d to appeared of his N o bl e Friend the Member fir Northumberland to destroy the franchises of at least one-half the present voters. Th e Noble Lord had said, look to the state o f the r egistry, for the effect which the interpretation given by the Judges had ° had in reducnie the constituency ; but it was to be recol the' judges had decided gevisime B arr i sters lected that the decision of the Judges had not affected the registry in every case. Some of i in opposition to the majority, and the had retained many votes which the majority of the Judges would have struck off if they had come bef ire them. The and defini'ive franchise.—( Hear, hear.) They would not, question now was whether the House shoul d ado p t s ome clear in fact, be able to maintain the Judges' interpretation w i t h_ out destroying the existing Ceincei.e. He could not ag that the introduction of these words by his Noble Frielid the Member for Northumberland would be introductory of his plan ; on the contrary, they would only serve to intro duce the plan of the Noble Lord opposite...(Cbeers.) Nor could he derive any consolation from the hope held out that when the franchise was destroyed some Bill would be: introduced to restore it, when they had changed the character of the representation, and round that the people nominally represented actually had no voice it it In fact, it would be, according to the desei ip tion of his Noble Friend, a representation of tae owners of the land from which the people were ex cluded.—(Cheers. ) He thought that if they wished the people of Ireland to have a real representation, the time to give it them was now. If, on the contrary, it was their determination that the people of Ireland should not be re presented, he thought it would be better to take a clear and direct means of effecting that object, and to declare that they were not fit to he entrusted with the right of voting for representatives. If that were the iiitention of a great party in that Houie, let them take their stand upon that ground, and declare that they intend to adhere to that principle. From all that he (Lord J. Russell) had heard that night, he could only gather that it was intended to persist in that indirect and tortuous way of disfranchis ing Ireland—( Loud cheers from the Liberal benches) — which he saw attempted last year —a way which would not be the less effectual because it was indirect, which he certainly should never cease to denounce and op pose ( Hear, hear) and he certainly did trust that the people of Ireland would believe, it' these attempts should unhappily make any progress, that it was not because the people of England wished to see them disfranchised, but that, on the contrary, the people of England wished to see them honestly and fairly represented—( Loud cheers from both sides of the House) —and not defrauded of their rights—( Hear, hear)—and by withdrawing from them those privilcgss which even when they took away the right of voting from the forty_ shilling freeholders they granted in a manner that showed considerable generosity and a great sense of the value of the privilege of voting for Members of Parliament. "Do not, do not imagine," said the Noble Lord, " that you can without remark, that you can without exciting great indignation, withdraw the privileges which in 1829 you granted to the people of Ireland. My belief is, that by acceding to the Bill of my Noble Friend and by the fran chise which he has proposed, you will act in the spirit of the Bill of 1829 and in the spirit of the Bill of Retorra of 1832 ; and that if, on the contrary, you take an unwise course it will not be long before you would wish that you had not interfered to excite a spirit in the people of Ire land which will justify them in —(The remainder of the sentence was lost amid loud and long-continued cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) Sir R. PEEL rose and said—Sir, the Noble Lord has on this occasion pursued the course which he almost uni formly pursues when he has some very defective measure to defend (Load cheurs)—that of trying to divert the attention of the House from the subject properly under its consideration, and by some general declamation about popular rights in some charges against his polit!cal oppo nents, to raise a cheer in the behalf of those who sit behind him, under the cover of which cheer he himself retires from the discussion, and fancies that he has been tris umphantly successful.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord charges my Noble Frigid with an intention so to reduce the constituency of Ireland that the counties of Ireland may become nomination counties; and then the Noble Lord says that my Noble Friend proposes an intention to condescend to introduce a Reform Bill. The Noble Lord charges us with an intention to defeat the expectations which were encouraged by the Act for the Relief of the Roman Cetholic;, and by the Reform Bill. I utterly re pudiate arty such intendun.—(Great cheering). Ido not think there would he any advantage to any interest, to any party, in defeating such an intention. My Noble Friend distinctly stated, and 1 repeated, " If you will prove to us by conclusive evidence, that the constituency intended by the Reform Bill has been materially diminished, we will then consider a proposal for increasing it, if brought forward by those only who can suggest it with advantage, namely, those who fill the executive offices of Government, and have the means of information in their power." But the question arises, has the constituency been materially decreased beyond the measure that was contemplated by the Act of Reform ? Sir, the Hun. Gentleman, who was better qualified to judge of what was the constituency immediately after the Reform Bill, or the constituency that would be given by the Re form Bill, than the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Sir, I have his own words—he is speaking on the 18th of June 1832, and the lion. arid Learned Gentleman distinctly states, " The Member for Kilkenny has made a calcula tion of the number of persons who polled at contested elections in 1818 ; that number amounted to 15,211. There then remained fourteen counties unpollcd. But it should be obacrved that the contests took place in those places where there was the greatest number of voters." Now, let any man calculate on this data, and I fearlessly ask him whether, in giving a constituency of 26,000 to Ire land I have woe-placed the number infinitely too high. Make the number caused by the additional franchise to be 26,000, and can the Hon. Gentleman show that the con stituency, as it at present exists, is diminished beyoud the expectations excited in 1832 ? But what is the proposal of the Noble Lord ? I will assume, for the sake of the argument, that you have afforded us that proof and demonstration, that you have shown that from the operation either of laws, or of social causes beyond the control of laws, there is a considerable decrease in the constituency of Ireland, and a tendency to further de crease. I wilt assume that you have proved that. Then I say, even if I grant that that has been proved, the No ble Lord has provided a most indefensible and inefficient remedy. That is the question which we are considering. to-night.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord says, in conse quence of the refusal of landlords to grant leases the con stituency of Ireland is undergoing a considerable diminu tion. And what does the Noble Lord propose as a re medy ? He proposes a measure which makes a lease in oispensably necessary.._( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, in providing for the increase of the constituency, what course does lie pursue? lie subverts altogether the ex istir g franchise in Ireland. In England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, with the exception of the .50/. clause, the main element of tie constituency is interest in the land and profit from it. It always has been so. Is it right in tee case of Ireland, mainly dependent for her prosperity on the success of agriculture—is it right, in the case of Ireland, that profit from the land should be alto gether excluded from the franchise ?—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord proposed that the right of voting for 32 counties in Ireland shall be exectly coincident to the right of voting in boroughs and towns—namely, that occupancy alone, as tested by the rating, should constitute the fran chise. Has the Noble Lord given us any argument in fa vour of such a substantial alteration? Has he considered the effect of tha. alteration upon the franchise in England? How lung wilt the Noble Lord maintain profit from the land as an element of the franchise in England, alter he has subverted it in Ireland, and substituted merely occu pancy, as tested by rating in Ireland ?—( Hear, hear.) It is an important principle which the Noble Lord recom mends us to adopt a principle of very extensive application. He will find it exceedingly difficult to main tain one franchise in Ireland and another in England. If the one invariable franchise in Ireland is to be mere occu pancy as tested by rating, the effect, I believe, will be to place the return of the Irish Members very much in the hands of the same class of constituency as now return the Members for the boroughs. Well, then, I object entirely to the principle upon which the Noble Lord proposes to alter the franchise. And am I not at liberty to make that objection without being immediately met by the declara tion of the Noble Lord telling us, " Your object is not me ely to defeat my Bill but to reduce the counties of Ireland to the lowest point of representation?" The Noble Lord charges us with reducing the franchise. Why, the Hun. Member for Halifax told him not merely that he was taking a leaf out of the book of my Noble Friend, but that he was constructing his franchise upon a shifting sand ; that he went infinitely further to wards reducing the franchise titan any reduction which icy Noble Friend have made by the amendment of the re gistration. The Hon. Member for Halifax showed the Noble Lord that the affect of the franchise which he pro poses in fourteen unions in Ireland, would be to reduce the number of electors now entitled to vote by one-sixth. That is the allegation which the Hon. Gentleman made against this well-considered plan of the Noble Lord. Why, what confidence can we place in you as legislators fit to deal with this subject ?—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) You had the whole of the recess; you had notice that this sub. ject was undergoing consideration ; you had the means of gaining official information ; you had every element which could enable you to bring for ward a measure which was likely to conciliate public opinion in its favour, and you brought forward a measure destroying the existing franchise in Ireland and substitut ing a 51. occupancy. We remained under the impression that we were to discuss the question of 51. occupancy, and two or three nights before we enter upon the considera tion, without a reason assigned, the Noble Lord changes his proposal from 51. to 81. And what does the Noble Lord say now? The Secretary for Ireland tells us now that he could support his 5/. franchise by a reference to facts and evidence, which shows that it was a proposition that ought to have been made. Why had it been aban doned ?—( Hear.) From whence came the suggestion of ob jection ? Not from this side of the House. The Noble Lord said—" I have made this alteration in the hope of con ciliating your favour, and now you are so unreasonable as to object to it." We never objected to the amount, we objected to the principle. ( Hear.) Now, what can be more unfair than the course which the Noble Lord took in throwing out these insinuations against us ? We said, " We object to a uniform franchise fur all Ireland." We said, "If you make leasehold the only element of franchise there is a tendency on the part of landlords to withhold leases ; you make no settlement of this question, because, if a disposition to withhold leases exists, you are not affording any sufficient remedy for the evil " And then the Noble Lord changes the qualifi cation from 5/. to 81. He does nothing to remedy our objection to the principle of his franchise; but he charges us with being unwilling to effect a conciliatory settlement because he has no: gained our favour by making an altera tion in degree without the smallest alteration in principle. These ere the grounds why we object to 8/. equally that we object to 5/.—namely, th a t th e main objection. in point of principle, remains entirely unchanged by the alteration in the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) But we have another proposition to consider in addition to that of the Noble Lord, the amendment proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Northumberland. The Noble Lord, as I apprehend, brings forward a distinct and specific proposition in opposition to that of the Govern men,. The Noble Lord's proposal I apprehend to be this—that the Noble Lord will retain the beneficial in terest, that he will require as An essential condition for one franchise, and that, perhaps, the main franchise, a profit derived from the land, that profit not to be ascertained by the oath of the party, but to be determined by rating. The Noble Lord did not propose that as an exclusive franchise, but theNobleLord objects altogether—as I under stand him—to the proposal of the Government, end_pro feeses to substitute for that proposal something of the na. cure of that clause in England, which has been called tae Chandos clause, that i. to say, he will require the p ay _ inept of a certain rent, but he wilt infer the rent from the amount of rating. The extent of the requ red rent be eas not defined, because he says he has not acquired the information on which he can safely proceed. Now, from the principle of the Noble -Lord I 'do. not dissent. I think it is desirable to retain the beneficial interest ; I think it is desirahle to maintain a profit from the land as an element of the county franebie —(H ar, hear.) If it should he shown to me the, in the propp'e'd chartee in the Irish constituency a profit voted by ra . ing is es,ee ' Oral, I should not be indisposed to take into considerwi re that other preposition of the Nehle Lord—namely, not to require a lease, but to require the payment of a certain amount of rent by a tenant-at-will, and thus to counteract that objection which is made at present from the unwilling ness of the Irish landlords to grant leases ; but I am not prepared to adopt the details of the Noble Lord's measure. I will, however, vote with his amendment, be cause it recognises the beneficial interest and an element of the county franchise. —( Che rs). I consider the N.rbie Lord's amendment to the first clause to be exactly tanta mount to an abstract resolution of that kind. Suppose we had met the Noble Lord's Bill on his motion for going into Committee by a resolution to the eff,ct that mere occe. parley could not entitle to the franchise, but that a profit from the land was indispensable in the county franchise— suppose we had made such a motion, I consider it would have been exactly tantamount to the amendment of the Noble Lord. A great principle was thus at issue between the two Noble Lords. The Noble Lord, the Member fur North umberland, wished to maintain an essential element in the county franchise, a profit from the laud or a beneficial interest, while the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland proposed to subvert the existing franchise, and to take occupation, as tested by rating, as the only element of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) I give my preference to the principle involved in the amendment of the Noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland. Why, then, do I not support his measure ? Because I do not think the Noble Lord is in a position which will enable him sufficiently to adjust this question. It appears to me that the simple substitution of the first franchise he proposes, namely, to require a certain amount of rating above the rent, would give a very extensive franchise. I think that simply to require rating above the rent would confer a very extensive franchise. It would be impossible, however, to propose what the required amount should be. lamat a loss to ascertain it, and while I admit the principle I am not prepared to accede to the details of the measure of the Noble Lord, or approve of the machinery by which he proposes to carry his Bill into effect. In point of fact he admits he is not prepared to specify the amount of rent which should be required. I appre hend we are about to come to a vote which is de cisive of the fate of the Bill ; at least to a vote which, if it be carried against the Noble Lord, will render it neces sary to proceed with a measure directly at variance with the present. I am glad an opportunity has arrived of taking the sense of the House on the point. lam glad the Noble Lord does not now consider this a mere verbla amendment. lam glad he considers that a great question is now at i sue. lam glad that before we proceed fur ther with the details of the Bmll the sense of the House shall be fairly taken as to whether a profit should be con sidered a distinct mark of the county franchise ; and I do entreat Hon. Gentlemen carefully to consider what will be the effect on the constituencies of England, and on the f , an chises of England, if they consent that mere occupancy in Ireland shall determine the county franchise. One word as to an observation made by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. I did not state on a former occasion that there had been any contract in 1829, be tween the advocates of the Roman Catholics and those who proposed the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. I admit to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that there had been no such contract in existence. But this I stated, and this I repeat, that the evidence given by the advocates of the Roman Catholic claims in 1 .825 did fully justify the dis franchisement of the 40s. freeholders in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) I stated that the Hon and Learned G-ntleman, as well as the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary, and Mr. Blake, a Roman Catholic gentleman of great eminence, had all given it as their opinion that it was essential to the interests of Ireland that an intelligent arid respectable yeomanry should be formed and invited to the exercise of the franchise, and that those results were more likely to be obtained under a limited and indepen dent constituency then with such a constituency as that of the forty shilling freeholder:. I stated that Mr. Dominic Browne, the Member for Mayo, had declared that when there were 25 000 voters in the county, it was a nomination county, :led that when the constituency was reduced under the Reform Bill to 9 000, the independence of the constituency had been secured, and no one could nominate for the county. I stated that when the elec tors voted formerly against their landlords they were sub ject to so much oppression, that in order to rescue them from their condition it was found desirable to modify the franchise. That was what I ststed ; but I never stated that there h d been a compact between the advocates of the Roman Catholics and the Members of the Government. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had again referred to the amount of population. I apprehend that her Ma jesty's Government will not concur with him in looking on population as a test for the franchise.—( Hear, hear. ) The question is not, I apprehend, as to the amount of population, but as to the amount of intellig,oice and respect ability, free from all external control, which we can com mand. That was avowed to have been the prin ciple of the Reform Bill—that I apprehend is still avowed to be the principle of her Majesty's Government. The question then does not now arise as to whether or not the franchise should be co-extensive with population; the question in dispute is this, whether her Majesty's Govern ment hare made a proposal which entitles them to the con fidence of Parliament, and whether they are capable of dealing with this great question ; and I must say that the course they have pursued on the subject of the l!i,11 fran chise appears to me to discntitle them to the confidence of this House.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL said he wished briefly to notice that speech of his to which the Right Hon. Baronet had alluded. The Right Hon. Baronet had quoted it as if he ( Mr. O'Connell) had made the calculation of what would be the franchise after the Reform Bill, whereas the speech he read related to a calculation of the state of it before the Reform Bill, namely, 23,000. On that point he (Mr. O'Connell) could not be mist. ken, what- ever he might have been before—( oh)—because he had published that statement in a letter, bo h in the news papers and in a pamphlet. The Hon. Baronet who had taken an active part in the Emancipation Bill, had done them the justice to say that they made no bargain, nor any compact, but that was but doing them half justice, because they had expressly called upon the House to reject the Emancipation Act rather than disfranchise the 40s. free holders. Petitions were presented to the House on this subject by sixty.three gentlemen who came from Ireland expressly for Chit purpose. They spurned the distrane chisemcnt which accompanied the Bill, and petitioned the House rather to reject both than to pass both. So that they not culy made no compact, but they protested against this disfranchisement.-4 Hear.) Ira 1825 there existed objections to the 40s. freeholders. They were then dependent on their landlords, and obliged to vote as they pleased. There were many difficulties con nected with them, but he ( Mr. O'Connell) for one never consented to the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders who were seized in fee. In 1825 they threw off their shackles, and evinced their patriotism. They turned the Beresfords out of Waterford, the Fosters out of Louth, and Mr. Vcscy Fitzgerald out of Clare. Having given these proofe of their patriotism in 1825, when they were dependent, in 1829 they were disfranchised. This was the history of their disfranchise ment, and what did the Reform Bill? Did it uive thorn additional franchises, or restore to them that they bad lost ? Would it have been taken away in England ? Would the people of England have suffered it? Very properly they would not, yet it was taken from Ireland where it was more needed than ever in England. When the Right Hon. Baronet told him that population was not the basis of the franchise, he admitted that it was not the sole basis, but the basis was population and property. But how was it estimated in Ireland ? Why, by population and the forty shilling freeholders. The Noble Lord taunted him, (Mr. O'Connell) and his party with driving Ireland to despair. He told the Noble Lord they were not driven to despair. They were too many, too peaceable, too intelligent, and too united for that. What had occurred among them recently ? He stated it with satisfaction and with pleasure, because it supplied them with a new remedy. He had stated it before, and he stated it again, that they did not know that country. There were five millions there who never tasted the liquor of intoxication. They had calculated on their pas sions and their vices, but they could be oppressed through these no longer. How could the Noble Lord say that he did not intend to place the people of Ireland in the hands of the landlord? Why did not the Noble Lord avow it ? Did not the Noble Lord say that he intended to assimilate them to those in Eng land ? should he be told after that it was not intended to disfranchise them? The House had done nothing but base injustice to Ireland. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that he (Mr. O'Connell) gloated in looking back at the crimes that England had perpetrated against Ireland. It must be admitted that no one country had ever perpe trated so many crimes as England had to Ireland. Why did he mention it? Because that spirit existed still. They had not the same means—they had not the same power; they could not do'it now, but they were as willing to do it as ever their ancestors were. The Noble Lord had exhibited that spirit to-night. He told the House there was little chance of their getting the Bill through that or the other House. Let him proclaim that to eight millions of people. It had been proclaimed, and it would be proclaimed again. He ( Mr. O'C.) remonstrated against their continued in justice, in asserting that whatever might be the population, it was not to be the basis of representation. - He did not know what was meant by this paltry distinction between man and man, between Englishmen and Irishmen, but he knew that a 501. franchise was not a anchise, and he knew again that a 40s. franchise was an ancient franchise, not depending upon property. To talk about a 40s. franchise as a franchise by property, was insulting common sense. He had shown them a po puiation of 366,000 with only 925 voters. They had de prived Ireland of her fair share of representation. On the basis of property and population she ought to have 150 or 170 Members in that House. Ireland felt the indignity that was done to her. It was called a representation, out it was not. No ; let them go on. They would not di.- appointment him ; on the contrary, they would but ani mate his hopes. He trusted he should yet live to see a Parliament that would do Ireland justice. - Lord HO WICK explained. He was greatly surprised that, that, after his explanation, the Noble Lord should yet state that his proposition was one of disfranchisement. Its object and tendency were most directly the contrary, Sir R. PEEL ssid he was very sorry the El n• and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Conre 1 1 ) sh ould think that he had any intention to misrepresent an) thiNLthat fell from him on a former occasion. He (Sir R. Peel) h a d stated that in what the How. and Learned Gentlem an said, in 1832, he had been making !L prophecy of the f u t ure o peration of the Relorm Bilt, and he wished to show that he was unwarranted in attri buting those words to him, according to the report r f his speech in Parliament. In 1832 the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, " Now let us see what the present Bill wilt effect, and I will give the Ho use a f ew epecirnens of the numbers who will have a right to Vie a .c,rding to this measure ;" and then the neght Hon. and,Learned G. ntle man went into details, with which he (Sir R. Peel) would not trouble the House. He went on to say, " I therefore say the same principle runs through th e w h o l e Bill, and that the whole Bill is as Conservative al the MORNING EDITION. bi!!erest Concervat've could desire.".— he ar ' from Mr. O'Connell.) The H.mour,ble and LearrYY• Gentleman certainly g.,v , a hit to the Conservatives , bil l he was no 1`53 acv re upo:i the Ds, for he went on to " Ireland has ever suffered from the Whig,s. Th e Whigs hate given penal to Ireland, and much 5,4 - they respe et publ c liberty, in Ireland they exerciic their power as if they sought only to exercise that vulgar pre" judice and rancour against Ireland which I am sorry r° say is not confined to the lower orders."—( Cries of " He ar ' hear," aid laughter from the Opposition Benches.) And the Hon. Gewlernan went on to say—." Alter the stitement 1 have made I may venture to say that the tit' most number of voters in Ireland will not exceed 30,0 00 ; even that requires an exorbitant stretch of the imoginieioe; and et this number is said to be an adequ a t e con stituen c y for eight millions of people.'—( Hear, hear, and ebe` r3 from the Opposition.) Lord J. RUSSELL said that he only representedi what the effect of the Noble Lord's resolution would be that he did not impute to him the intention of disf.anch is i ing the people of Ireia d. He would not say the Noble Lord's proposition were adopted h°_,," far it would go to form the basis of a go(-- constituency in Ireland ; but the Noble Lord should re' collect that the part of the amendment which he (Lord . 1 ; Russell) particularly objected to was the only part whicli would receive the support of Hon. Gentlemen on the e ther side of the House—namely, the proposition for the benefi' cial interest. Lord HOWICK said that his Noble Friend consider ed his (Lord Howick's) amendment without reference t.r ) what followed. He (Lord Howick) might as well consider the clause as it now stood withou - reference to the clays° which followed. If he did so he should say that the Nob le Lord intended to disfranchise the whole of the electors °I Ireland. The Committee then divided, when there a ppearcd-- For the Clause For the Amendment Majority in favour of the Amendment —.21 The announcement of the numbers was received Oitb loud cheers. On our return to the gallery we found Lord HOWICK saying that he merely wished to stat e ; in consequence of what had taken place, for the purpose °f making it abundantly clear that the amendment was icl" tended to be an addition to another franchise, and n ot a° a substitution, he would not move his other amendments for the definition of the beneficial interest until the ques tien of occupancy, with 'rase or without lease, was se ttled. Colonel SIBTEIORP had heard with extr ao rdina r Y -- (Loud laughter, in the midst of which the Members sur. rounding him pulled h;rn down ) A motion was then made that the Chairman rep ent progress. Colonel SIBTHORP again rose. He could not bell s. rising under feelings such as he had never felt before. He was astonished at the political cowardice exhihi!ed by th e Noble Lord, who, holding a high office, attempted to pawn upon the people a measure which t he f did not want.—( Hear, hear.) The Core.ervative benche!; which were undisguisedly filled, showed him that it vroni n .! be idle to attempt to play nicks with them. Why d id n°l ' the Noble Lord show more moral and political courage!, and not shrink away like the galled jade.—( Laughter./ Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that on going int Committee again, he would move a clause for the restore. tion (,f the 40 , . freehddent.—( Oh, on.) Sir R. PEEL did not wish to press the Noble Lo t for any declaration at that moment, but he would ask o'll° he proposed to go into Committee again—did he propos e to go on to-morrow.—(Cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL—The introduction of the wn,rdit would have a very important effect upon the Bill, to wu,s, extent he was not then fully aware. He proposed to au, journ the Committee till Mon:lay next.—( Loud cries No, no ; to-morrow.") He would have no objection to proceed en Wednesday.—(Cries of " No.") Lord STANLEY—Under the circumstances in wh,' e they were placed, he would not feel justified in offe r h in q. any oppo,ition to the Government proceeding with t i l d Bill on Wednesday. It was only fair that they sho e have to. morrow to consider of what had taken place. The Chairman then reported progress, and oboine leave t, sit aain on Wedday. On the motion of Lord nes STANLEY the Order o f the Day for the second reading of the Irish Registration Bill was read, ant . postponed to Wednesday next. g t hrou h The Administration of Justice Bill passed Committee. d oft The other Orders of the Day were then disp ose and the House adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. NEWMARKET—SUNDAY NIGIIT. few . We have had a dull day—showery and windy—and btl_td indeed fe indications of an attendance of fashionable company; in a n d until the close of the afternoon, the arrivals were so w_very far between that no visibe effect was produced upon the er, day aspect of the town. A large influx of visitors, howe , v, i' eci , expected—extensive preparations, as per order, havi n g four made. About a dozen mustered before " the Rooms 3 ' ne d o'clock, but not a single bet was made, and the party adi? ur t his to the dinner table, where the stakes left open closed with following entries : T. Y.C. (Selling) Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. rassier, Myrtle, Langolee, Benedetta, Emotion, and Blanl e 4 Handicap.—Scroggins, aged, 9 st 41 b-11Iuley I ,l l s e t 51b yrs, Bst 71b—emnant, 4 yrs, Bst 31b—Perss, 4 yirst,, et tina, —Joujou, 3 yrs ß , ist 91b—Mona colt, 3yr , gu st 3 yrs, Est 121 b. 501. Plate.—Epirus, aged—Flambeau , 5 y rs —Fitzto. • NEWMARKET FIRST SPRING MEETING. MoNnal-. Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, for three-yrs old colts, Bst 7l b ; fillies, Bst. 41b. 'l'. Y. C. The winner to be sold for 000 1, &c. (6 subs. ) Capt. Rous' Langolee .. .. (Robinson) • ; Fuiwar Craven's Benedetta Mr. Stephenson's Blanche The following also started, but were not placed :—Mr. u' r '4 vale's Myrtle, Sir. Thornhill's Emotion, and Mr. S. Co 4lt ot Cuirassier. Betting-3 to 1 agst Benedetta ; 4 to i. Per. Langolee ; 4 to 1 agst Blanche ; and 4 to 1 agst Won by a length. va t Match.—Lord Exeter's Amurath, Bst 21b (Darline.!, Mr. Gregory's Fitzroy, Bst 91b; 100 ft. A. F. Betti" to Bon Fitzroy, who was beaten by half a length. , for Handicap Sweepstakes of 20 sovs. each ; h ft, if declar e( ' three-yrs old, and upwards. T.Y.C. (7 subs.) 1 Mr. Goodman's Remnant, 4 yrs, Bst 31b (Butle r ' Mr. Boyce's Scroggins, aged, 9st 41b Lord Orford's Bettina, 3 yrs, Est 121 b ....................••••""' Duke of Bedford's c by Taurus, out of Mona, 3 yrs, is t l'"' 4 (carried 7st 31b) ........ .................................. .••• Mr. Greville's Perseus, 4 yrs, Bst 51b... ..................... ' 6 Lord Jersey's Muley Ishmael,4 yrs, Bst 71b ................. ••t); Betting.-6 to 4 agst Mona c. ;4to 1 agst Remnan t Wort 4to 1 agst Muley Ishmael ; and 6to 1 agst Scroggins. by two lengths. are s Sweepstakes of 50 sovs. each for foals of 1838, out 1:" that never bred a winner , colts, Bst 71b , fillies, Se' A. c. those by horses which got a winner allowed 31b. ( 7 Subs.) Duke of Bedford's c Oakley, by Taurus (Robinson) Mr. Batson's c Revel (allowed 31b) .......................... ." 4tol on Oakley. Won easily by a length. Match D.M. 100 h it. Duke of Bedford's King of the Peak, Bst 41b........... resetliad Sir. Osbaldeston's The Mountain Sylph, Bst 71b ...... •••Pasci Fifty Pounds, for four trs old, 7st 101 b, five, fist 91b, six aged, 9st 61b. Last three miles of B.C. I Duke of Rutland's Flambeau, 5 yrs (Robinson) .; Lord Orford's Epirus, aged ......................... 13 to Son Epirus. Won by two lengths. , to I. TIIE DERBY.—Marshal Soult has been backed at I''' f ber and 20 to 1 offered ag s t the Knight of the Whistle. N ° - change of consequence. 2,000 GUINEAS STAKES.-5 to 2 agst Eringo, 3to 1 'll 4 . Ralph (taken), sto I agst Sletternich, 10 to agst MustaP and 13 to 1 agst Joachim. DURHAM RACES—FIuDar. add ed• The Hunters' Stakes of 5 guineas each, with 2.5 sous. -- Two miles. 1 Mr. Maynard's Nimrod, 6 vrs .... Mr. Cookson's Grenadier Mr. Maw's Queen of Pats Two others started. '1 •0 The Durham Stakes of 5 guineas each, and 35 a dded. mile heats. 1 1 Mr. Hesletine's The Shadow ( liesletine) 0 Mr. Mitchell's Lady Liverpool • 0 3 Captain Pott's Master Edmund ........... .. .• 0 4 Mr. G. Dawson's Little Bundle .. HUNTING APPOINTMENTS. go od ; The Craven hounds will meet on Wednesday, at Hens Friday, at Combe Wood—at half-past ten. at The N. F. H. Tuesday and Friday, at Beaulieu Villag e half-past ten. We are glad to learn, in the best informed litt`o.f ters, that there exists no likelihood whatever of the ci s l2 , Mr. M'Lcod leadinr , to any rupture of the friendly te tions between Great Britain and the United States. r ; DIED.—On the 25th instant, after a few hoi illness, Mr. William Pettet, 10, Lancaster-place, Strand. he CHEAP POSTAGE.— A gentleman on t western circuit, during the Cornwall as sizer, sent f ro Bodmiu to his wife its London, a couple of ehicitcP; through the post-office, one of which weighed nine, td, the other eight, ounces, the postage being respectively and Bd. They were wrapped in parchment, a n d r eao c their destination in excellent condition. .—Bristol lifercrg:i The witty Duke.onf i \ g V h . thar Reverendt o n ii a a Scripture story into one of his speeches irithe flou se i r ,, Lords, was asked by would have done preaching ? " When lam made a Bls" - my Lord," was the sarcastic reply. viPnLaitnet:deunkle'r, • $ Tacitus says, "In the r ear.y ages man lised, a life of innocen ce and simplicity." Upon this a critic ; w ho was born into the world killed the second. lith did the times o f sim p li city begin ?" ked A N INFERENCE.—A fellow was once as „And what inferen ce h e could draw from the text in Jo b, the usses s n u ff ed up the east wind I" " Well," h e rep., la .. t h e only inference th at I can draw i s t h is , that it marks, " Whe n was this p eri od of innocence ? The e man be a d--d long time b e fore they would grow fat on it a fr r NOVEL A TTACHNIENT .—A cow exbibite of sale at Monmouth fair, the property of Mr. Adams' e,- Goodrich, a tt racte d the notice of a large numb er ° „,t), sons, from the circumstance of the anii.nal suck lin g a la al to which, upon the lass of her calf, the animal bec.“ . " tacked, a n d h as s i nce nour i s h e d as her own ...- e ff 6 priao• Cardbri«n• „pg TO' DEATH OF THE BISHOP OF WO.• --S o.cfC —Considerable pecuniary embarrassments, wh ich l a tter made ma ter of painful publicity, embittered his sive ! days, and added poignancy to disease. A few Ye,. a /i o g' , certain of his creditors applied to the Court cr trat' °° e, Bench to interpos with a view to obtain a Feques , of the revenues of his see ; and though the ev ' er" - , red by unsuccessful, the scandal was deeply felt a nd del." the deceased prelate. VS A l " How TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT I I c op- TEMPT. —My rule is deliberately to consider befor e __ t fl c , mence, whether the thing is practicable. If it be ,"_,,rd c . ticable, Ido not attempt it; if it be practicable,hai, be•• eAlaplish it, if I give sufficient pAns to i 1 • and, gun, I never stop Lill the thing is done. 11"71 ro f e s' P RO FESSIONS OF HUMILITT.--SUCI II d ) , ; th e sions are the very cream, the very es sence of pri0."..„.51' real humble man wishes to be and not t 9 aPV° r Francis, Moi TNOW ready, ROLL THE Just rea THE LII ' l l • 113 The tnateria a uthentic sours ' , oln the state' kid continued clecl for the in 14titnacy with I nee literary life Ination to.xvhic tv hom ;he hail Colbu H E By th Rich aiS AUS' , l IANTEED o L pIDENDS "er many pons HEINE Are now SELL Persons des 41 „ 4, receive, „ri:CTI:IS ad OUT DELA' or to h The NEXT "I I ED DINE R 25,000 5,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 HEINE 131 ' ) 5,000/. talttion 3,60 qblin : 3,6 a ,' 250 /. to Port w E t% ,, - ' l . to New 64. to Mane „' to Braricc he said Dip The Diyidet Mace Banker': ( .4, 11 of the w rOSTSC 4 k , e the please 1841, TWEN !hand vicini THEA' Q' DER the be rep( . la 3 t i b r e ll cvs aic ri 1 / 4 PLY, Mr. I 3 Adelphu' , s adam e Vesti Pert, Mr%. H kits vhi c h v geaut JO hn Quill, b] 111: t, Bo 10-morrow w ueors to t, e 0 Renee at bs Gallery Tickets and m the Box-o 8 111 ',,,Y De h a d ui 167 . N rrivat B e Bot U NDER T 1 ktounding IN thu Metropolis. Will be ac WAR] The Ch arai t, :c II IY of this old Appointer i' re males tl 4° r 1, 4 the Arm Tfl 1 4 which 3lr. " TI wILL .-Nrami.msnwimnimmi• i . HIGH V 'orning 4 mss, 4 Oki - -• • ' i ..,__. An hill 4 1 the 1-1 Proposed for Ireland. left Min' then wi9 What the 11 Y Sir I Wednest . 1 : 1 1 the B 1 4 the m( The in esolutio lion is fe Party sqi nothing Rovernec mean to t hings. °fl 4 es, The P number repeal ol _ Viscot Put by t' that the duce of „ 11";e1o c n h g y The law eases, a Vas ret y that LeVive 41 0unt. / those "t allrfnee f orms s rigilt to n re „I her MA t or the onsisttc out m o , Lord terest enelosu The Posed gene "Vested Of Our Ittent o That to with vise, lois int( The Rev. 1 and sai Ineasui Prelate The Lonim canals, ~.no•ag( they to the e th ' 0 rail The znotio cou ntx 149X1