The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-23 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. WATERLOO BRIDGE A meeting of the Proprietors and Annuitants of the Waterloo-bridge Company took place yesterday, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of lowering the foot-toll on the bridge. The meeting was very numerously attended. The following statement was distributed to the share holders present : It is objected to a halfpenny toll, that, if it became neces sary to revive the penny-payment, riots might ensue, as in th year 80, when the toll-gate of Blackfriars-bridge was de stroyed. But that bridge's toll had not been raised, and the riots were solely because of the no-Popery cry ; and there being no attempt to restrain the mob, it wantonly destroyed immense property, and would have broken your gate, if it had then been with either a penny or a halfpenny toll. Then, too, the police was very weak, while now it is very powerful ; moreover, the penny-toll cannot continue, for Hun gerford-bridge will soon open with a halfpenny-toll ; but the reduction now would prevent that rival bridge. The penny-toll deters the workpeople ; for although 80,000 pass the two neighbouring bridges daily, and 60,000 live about St. Giles's, directly opposite your bridge, yet hardly any cross it, except in bad weather, when great numbers come, thereby proving it to be their nearest way. Many clerks, too of Somerset-house, reside in Surrey, yet even they seldom use Waterloo Bridge ; and if they cannot constantly afford a penny for what is only worth a halfpenny, how can workmen afford it ? The experiment of a penny toll has been tried long enough, for the foot-receipts were more, fifteen years ago, although a new street has been since opened opposite your bridge, and the population near it is increased by 30,008 people, while the metropolis has 300,000 more ; but they who have forsaken it would come to a halfpenny toll-gate. A lower toll would cause a row of large houses to be built en the arches, close to your gate ; and other houses would be erected near it, while snore lodgers would reside in that vicinity. When a charge is reduced unreasonably (like the postage to Ireland) it diminishes the revenue ; but when it is reduced about one half (as in the range o f th e l a t e T wo p en ny p os t) it adds greatly thereunto. Forty times more letters pass through the offices of Stroud and Nailsworth, since the postage was reduced from 4d. to.ld. The reduction of duty on spirituous liquors has added greatly to the revenue. There are 140,000 weekly papers at I d. or 2d. each, but there were not 1,000 when each cost a shilling. The railway charge from Ghent to Brussels was lowered half, which increased the revenue threefold. The visitors to the Tower are ten times more, now the charge is only sixpence. The omnibuses carry a hundred times more persons now, than while charging a shilling. The toll-bridge at Rouen pays six per cent. on its outlay, be sides an annual sum for its repairing fund ; and though be tween two free bridges, it has three times more passengers than both of them together, although they are only four hundred yards off; and it is solely because the workpeople can afford to pay a centime. When the penny-toll at Richmond-bridge was lowered, the revenue doubled immediately, and quadrupled in three years. Thus a halfpenny-toll brought eight times more people than a penny-toll. The late improvement at Blackfriars-bridge has rendered its :scent much easier, and you would have lost many customers if your horse-toll had not been lowered ; but since that bridge re opened, your horse-revenue is more than when the toll was twice as much ; and as unloaded vehicles pay only half of the reduced toll, it is clear that the reduction has brought three times snore horses ; and ell are with the same kind of persons as used to pass before : therefore, a reduced foot-toll would bring three times more passengers, and all of the same classes as now pay a penny ; besides which, it would attract the work people, who are far more numerous than all the rest of society, and the dividend would be at least doubled, as well as the capi tal ; and Government, if it makes the bridge free, will not pay the original cost, but only a little more than the market price of the shares, annuities, and bonds. The Irish labourers in St. Giles's average above twelve to a lodging-house. If a halfpenny toll at Richmond-bridge, with only a population at one end, and one labourer to a cottage, prcduced four times more revenue than a penny toll, what will it produce at our bridge, with a population at each end, and twelve labourers to a house ? At one o'clock the Rev. John Rush was called to the Chair, and the requisition convening the meeting having been read, Mr. MORO.; N said, although the meeting was not regu larly convened, it IMINt, net he supposed that it muse from any 'want of respect to the Members el the Com mittee, but it was considered that a special meeting was the only way in which such a question could properly he decided. Several gentlemen were decidedly favourable to rocking a trial °le reduction of the foot toil, but ethers were dee,decily opposed to it. Now there might be pre judices on bath sides a the question, and he trusted that no one would be guided by another, but that er,ch woti i form his 6.en independent opinion. Let each Proprietor, like a good Juryliei, judge from the facts of the case. Li need not refer thorn to the many known instances in which a reduction of :he charge had been followed by an increased revenue—they were set Net in the document which had beets placed in die hands of most of the Pro prietors present, and lie called upon those who knew of any instances to the contrary, to state them to the meeting. He should not trespass further on E , ,,wir time, but conclude by moving, " That from and after the Ist of March, the feet toll be reduced t one halfpenny, and that ativertisernehts be sent to the papers that evening, stating the reduction, and that it is ha order to try whether the Company can benefit the public , Rithout injuring its own revenue." He had net stated any precise time for the experiment, but if the meeting thought proper, they might introduce it. Mr. POIJLTENEY seconded the motion. COPE, Secietary of the Anti-Toll Bridge Associa tioe, begged to say a few worda. They had a double ob ject in view, to obtain a fair remuneration to the share holders, such as they could not get by any other means, and to obtain for the public a boon they could not obtain in any other way. Teere vas no doubt that a reduction of the toll would he a gnat benefit to the public, and he "WgOS disposed to think the reduction would be advantageous to the Company, but upon that he would not hazard any otiluion. There was one point, however, upon which they might rely, that if the Government purchased the bridge, in order to make it free to the public, they would never pay anything like the orijeal cost, but only what the shares would fetch in the market, or a little more.— (fiear, hear.) Now their own Secretary, Mr. Poweil, had stated, that even if the revenue of the bridge was increased ten-fol.?, the original subscribers would not obtain one farthing benefi.. He trusted they would come to the consideration of the question in a fair and candid spirit. He would observe that they had obtained petitions for throwing open the bridge from every parish in the me tropolis, and from every ward in the city, and the signa tures amounted to 70,000 or 80,000. They had been told over and over again that they could not obtain the funds from the Government for such a purpose, but they were still sanguine on that pain`. They thought that from the circumstance of that bridge having been intended for a national monument to commemorate the battle of Water loo, that they had strong claims on the sympathy, if not on the pocket, of the Government.—(Loud cheers.) When the Association was first started it was said that they would not get any grant of the public, money for such a pur pose, as there were no Muds available ; but since then 630,000/. bad been voted for mere local improvements, and for purposes in which there was nothing like the public movement or excitement that had been brought to bear upon the present subject. lie should leave the matter in the hands of the Shareholders, giving his cordial assent to the proposition of Mr. Morgan. He had no wish to interfere with the interests of the Proprietors, and his sole object in advocating the measure was the benefit of the public.—(Hear, hear.) A PROPRIETOR said he had been given to understand by the Chairman that annuitants were not entitled to vote at the present meeting, but ho thought it most unfair to those partice. to prevent them from exercising that right. He had no objection to the reduction of the toll if a cer tain time war specified when they might be able to as certain what the result was. Why not specify that the toll would be reduced for twelvemonths ?—( Hear.) The CHAIRNIAN ,`.llought it would be better not to clog the resolution in that way. If it was found to deteriorate the property another .meeting might be called to return to the present rate. Mr. Weesit wished - to know the opinion of the Diree tor,upon the subject: their experience might; possibly guide the meetin g in coming to a right conclusion. He wished to know from them whether their opinion was, that if the toll vvasredueed, the number of passengers would be doubled. The CHAIRMAN could merely state that the /tied been considered toy the C omm i ttee at the time Mr. and it w as negatived, and whet.her. Morgan was a member,. Mr. Morgan was offe aded or not tie could not say, but from that period he cea ted to be on th e C ommittee One of the DIRECTOW.S said ho thought the experiment ratremely dangerous, and had always opposed it. He euought they bad no HO] t to legislate for the annuitants, who had no voice in the :matter. The only feasible argu ment which had been u.T ed was that it would p revent the establishment of a rival bridge, and if they could by such a step put a stop to the building of Hungerford• bridge, it might be advisable. Ho was as much against the measure now as ever be was in his life. A PROPRIETOR said th at a greater number of annuitants, in n'smber and value of p.roperty, bad signed the requisition than of Proprietors. Mr. KNOWLES said thve great bulk of the annuitants were in favour of the :reduction. It would, in the first instance, stop the progre a of Hungerford Market.—(Cries of It is stopped.") He 'br ilieved it would be found that the works were still progress jug. Now, he would refer them to tha fact, that is ithin the `L-ast few years the dividend paid to the annuitants had becat considerably reduced, notwith standing the increase in elho population. The fact was, the ell amounted to almost et prohibition.—( Hear, hear.) It was disgraceful to the Goe:ernment that they had not long since purchased the tells and made the bridge free. He should give his cordial sup port to the motion of Mr. Mor gan, who was one of the" largest Shareholders and annui tants in the Company. Mr. WaLsu said it would be time enough when Hunger tiord-bridge was opened at a half-penny toll to reduce toeirs.—( Cries of Too la';e then.) He thought it would be time enough to proce, d upon such a course of folly when they were driven to do so. A PROPRIETOR said he - understood the toll on foot pas sengers was about 9 001)i. or 10,000/. per annum ; he would take it at that sum in round numbers. Now, his opinion was, that the redaction could not have the desired effect of increasing the revenue, and unless they had double the number at present creasing the bridge, (which be did not believe would be the cast?) they would be in a worse position than before. Tizi.y were at present in a scrt of negoiletion Ge..erne..re-iit, and it would be most unwise to depreciate their prep arty under such circumstances. The opinion of the Directors of the Suuthwark-bridg e Company, among wberrx the question had been discussed, was decidedly against arty reduction of the toll, and he would say the same c,f their late. Secretary, who was a man of great experience, and who n . a, decidedly opposed to such a measure. On the wh ol:, he thought the motion very unadvisahle, and should oppose it. He had on one occa sion suggested that if the adjoining counties would raise a county rate, to purchme the three bridges, it would be the best way of getting cite value of the property. Anether Pitopuivron said the whole question they had to consider wee, whether looking at the class of persons who used, the bridge, ey th would be able to double the and no proceedings could compe them to perform the duties assigned to them under the present Charter, and as the facts stood upon the record, the formation of the body corporate was not the formation of the Crown, but of some persons nominated by the Crown, and great abuses might easily creep in. Another objection taken by the Counsel for the plaintiff was this, and it was well deserving of remark, that in order to make out these lists a Court was established, and oaths were administered, which were not binding in law. He could not escape from that difficulty, and he thought that judgment ought to be given for the plain tiff in error, but the majority of the Judges being of a different opinion, the judgment would be for the de fendant. Lord Chief Justice TINDAL said, this was an action brought by one of the six coroners of the County Palatine of Lancaster, in which was in volved the question of the validity of Charter of In corporation granted to the Borough of Manchester. The objections taken resolved themselves into three distinct heads. The first objection was from mis-direction on the part of the Learned Judge. The second objection was against the Charter itself, and the third was against the legality of the nomination of the defendant to the office of coroner. The sum and sub stance of the first objection amounted to this, that in order to enable the Queen to grant a Charter of Incorporation, there must be a pe tition from the inhabitant householders of the town or borough for that purpose. Now the fact of a I petition being presented was a question for the Jury, and the Learned Judge would be open to blame if he de cided it as a matter of law. He entirely agreed in the opinion that the petition was a preliminary to the granting of the Charter, and the fact of there being two petitions in this case was a matter which was peculiarly with him a matter for the Jury to consider. The ques tion of fact was submitted to the Jury, and the excep tions taken were not pointed enough to raise the objec tions which had been urged in argument. The evidence laid before the Jury was that at a public meeting of the rate-payers called ►ogether by public notice a petition was adopted, and signed by 4,000 inhabitants, praying for a Charter, that after that petition was presented another petition was got up, and signed by QOOO persons, but it was not agreed to at any public meeting. Neither was signed by a majority of the inhabitant house. holders. The question then was whether under these circumstances the inhabitant householders had petitioned for the Charter or not. The Learned Judge who presided upon the trial, being applied to, stated his opinion to be, that her Majesty had power to grant a Charter according to the prayer of the first petition. There was no authority for this, ►.or did he think there was any reasonable ground. They were bound to take into consideration the publi city with which the first petition was got up, and the non publicity of the second. In point of law, in his opinion, the second petition did not take away the right of her Majesty to attend to the recommendation of her Privy Council and grant the Charter to the prayer of the first petition. After considering the other objec tions, the Learned Judge said that although the case was one of great doubt and difficulty, still he felt bound to say that the plaintaiff was not entitled to recover, and therefore the judgment for the defendant in the Cou r t belo w ought to be affirmed. The other Judges delivered their opinion seriatim, Mr. Justice Williams and Coleridge adhering to the judg ment delivered by Lord Denman, Justices 13osranquet, PaLtison, and Coltman agreeing with the Chief Justice The judgment was accordingly in favour of the de• enciant, thereby establishing the validity of the Charter. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEB. 22. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. A message Irom the Commons brought up the Ex chequer Court (Ireland) Bill, and flit) 'l'ithe•composi tion Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented petitions from Scotland for the better observance of the Sabbath, and a petition from the Mayor and Common Council of the Borough of Leeds for a better mode of taking votes at corporation elections. THE CASE OF LORD CARDIGAN. with this country, had sent a Minister here to dis cuss with the British Government in this country, the matters which had been in discussion between the Persian Government and the British Minister at the Court of Teheran. Her Majesty's Government had thought it their duty to state to the Persian Government and to that individual that he would not be received as an envoy, unless ho were empowered to make all the concessions which Mr. M'Neile had required of the Shah, and more es pecially in the business relating to the courier. Her Ma jesty's Government had directed her Ambassadors at the Courts of Vienna, Constantinople, and Paris to make a communication to the P ers i an E nvoy, s h ou ld they meet with him, that except those conditions were complied with he would not be received. That individual came to this country in the month of June, 1839. He was not recognised ; he managed, how ever, by some means, to penetrate the recesses of Downing-street--the same conditions were insisted on ; he had, however, some conferences with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but after a short residence here he had returned to his own country, and from that time all communication between the countries had ceased. He left this country on the 7th July in the same year, and her Majesty, at the termination of the Session, bad announced in her Speech from the Throne that she regretted to say that the differences between the British Government and the Court of Teheran conti nued to exist, but she expressed her confident hope that the differences between this country and Persia would be speedily and satisfactorily adjusted. Nothing more transpired in the course of this last Ses sion upon the subject. There were many reasons which had deterred people from pres s i ng h er M a j esty ' s Go vernment for explanation, and fro m ma ki ng i nqu i r i es, and he for one had been inclined to hope that at the close of the Session they would have been informed that :all those matters would be satisfactorily settled. But her Majesty's speech a t t h e term i nat i on of the Session took no notice whatever of it, and those who took an interest in the matter were driven to hope that at the commencement of the present Session that explanation would be furnished. It was with great surprise and regret he found not one single syllable, good, bad, or indifferent, was said in the Speech at the opening of the Session.—(Hear, bear.) So that for upwards of two years and a half this affair had been going on, and all the interests of British subjects in Persia, personal and commercial, all the public and political interests of this country from that period had been left to the chapter of accidents, without the support or the presence, or the authority, or the superintending vigilance of any resident efficient Minister at that Court.—(Hear, bear, hear.) That was in itself a very unfortunate circumstance as regarded any country with which we might have been on friendly and close relation, and it was par ticularly so with respect to Persia, because it had been the policy of this country for many years to cultivate the closest connection with that country. The cessa tion, for upwards of two years, of an alliance of that sort, was no light matter, more particularly when it had been accompanied with some circumstances of irritation and alienation of feeling, because, though this country might recover the connection, though it might get back into what might appear to be a state of friendship, it was not certain that the alliance would be recovered with the same feelings, and with the same advantages. There was another circumstance that made it peculiarly unfortunate there should have existed this alienation, which was the time and cir cnmstances during which it took place, for it was con temporaneous with the undertaking of gigantic opera tion beyond the Indus, upon which he would express no opinios then, except that it was an operation the results of which were not fully developed, and with respect to which no one would venture to pronounce when they were developed, whether they were for the benefit or the detriment of this country. He hoped they would prove to the advantage of this coun try, but it was clear that any interruption of our ref &oils with Persia during the time that was going on must greatly a44ravate the difficulties of the case. Besides which their Lordships would recollect that one of the many grounds on which the expedition was undertaken was to meet certain assumed dangers arising out of alleged intrigues ansi designs on the part of Russia. It was obscurely stated in the declaration that the allusion was obvious. The same allusion was made with respect to the conduct of Persia, and it was represented that some designs were entertained with respect to Persia, and the same intrigues carried on. It was true that when the Russian Government ex plained the matter to the British Government here they expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with that expla nati:jn. There was something in the state of our rela tions with Persia which he could not understand. He really did not know whether we were at peace or war. He should think we were at war, and he would show their Lordships why he thought so. He did not mean to say that any prohibition of intercourse—that any threats held out—that any abrogation of existing treaties were war; but he thought that if they forcibly took possession of a por tion of the Persian territory, without the assent of the Persian Government, and continued to hold that portion, that was, he thought, an act of war. It might be just or it might be unjust—it might be wise, or it might be the height of folly, that was nothing at all to the point of view in which he was putting it, but it was to all intents and purposes neither more nor less than an act of war. Their Lordships, then, would not wonder if any person wished to have more specific information on this subject than ex isted, or was at least laid before their Lordships. Another thing in addition to this unintelligible state of things, was that notwithstanding Mr. M'Neile withdrew himself from the mission—notwithstanding the cessation of intercourse, and that act of hostilities to which he alluded, her Ma jesty's Government appeared to him to consider the ab sence of Mr. M'Neile as an oruinary case of leave of ab sence. So they stated it when the question was asked last year. It was unaccountable to him when an Envoy was sent to this country to endeavour to restore harmony, he was not received, but sent about his business. It might be,:to be sure, that it was not worth while to attend to the matter, but in his opinion it was very inconvenient to have such a state of things, as far as the East India Company was concerned. The East India Company engaged to pay 12,000/. a year for the support of that mission, but in condition that they would not be called upon to pay unless there would be an efficient mission Sir John M'Neile was either in England or Scotland, and Colonel Shcil, a very active and excellent officer, and well calculated to transact whatever business was en trusted to him, was in Canada ; how, then, could any person say that there was an efficient mission ? He wou ld beg for a moment their Lordships' attention to the circumstance of Sir John M'Neile's departure, and the story of the courser. Sir John M'Neile was wrong no doubt on that occasion, however he did not bring that mat ter against him. He ( Sir John M'Neile) did what he thought was best to be done ; but what he complained of was, that her Majesty's Government adopted his course in the transaction to which ho was calling their Lordships' at tention. The Noble Lord here proceeded to detail all the circumstances connected with the taking of Herat, in the year 1837, by the Shah of Persia, and the ill-treat ment received by our Envoy sent to the Shah by the Prince of Herat to endeavour to prevail on him (the Shah) to cease hostilities. Some letters which the En voy had received from the British Resident were taken from him on that occasion, but were immediately returned on its being found by whom those letters were given. This act was considered by Sir John M'Neile as an insult to himself and to her Majesty's Government, and he de imanded not merely a general apology and repara :ion, but also reparation in a particular man nee__.( Hear, hear)—and when he could not get that particular reparation, he felt it his duty to quit the mission, and thus ended all intercourse between that nation and us. Now he contended that was not sufficient ground for breaking off that intercourse. The Persian Govern ment offered to remove, and did remove, the officer whose conduct had been at fault, and yet because they did not make the peculiar specific apology which was demanded, Sir J. M'Neile quitted their territory, and, as he had stated before, all intercourse with that nation was thus broken off. That was deeply to be deplored. There was not, he in sisted, sufficient ground for such a proceeding. He did not see that the honour of the country required that that course should be adopted, and some explanation of the circum stances to which he adverted ought, be thought, to be given to their Lordships by her Majesty's Government, the more so as that state of things was going on now for two years. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying fur the correspondence, or extracts of the correspondence, between her Majesty's Government and the Government of Persia on that subject. Viscount MELBOURNE would not take advantage of what was considered the general prudence of Parliament, and oppose the producing of the correspondence moved for, on the ground of the present state of the negotiations to which that correspondence related. The Noble Lord who had last addressed the House, had fairly stated all the circumstances relating t o th e transactions which were now under discussion. The Noble Lord seemed to state that Sir John 114`Neile had acted wrongly, and that the Go. vernment had also acted wrongly in supporting him. When their Lordships would read the whole of the documents relative to that affair, they would see that it was a studied insult offered to her Majesty's Ambassador, which it was impossible to pass over with less notice than had been taken of it. His Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs saw tho Ambassador sent by the Shah of Persia, but he did not see him in his official character; he saw him in private, a►nd in that private interview grounds were laid foean accommodation of the differences in ques tion, and in fact they have been, in a great degree, settled. But we have secured Herat, which we did in consequence of that expedition, and which was the real ground of dif ference between this country and Persia. The expell tion which the Shah had undertaken against this great l important station and fortress of Herat, that was the real ground of difference. His Noble Friend had stated, that in the original conflict between the Shah of Persia and the Shah of Herat, it was admitted the Shah of Persia was in the right. On some matters it wa3 undoubtedly admitted that he was. It was admitted that the Prince of Herat had committed aggressions on the Persian territory —that he had made slaves of Persian subjects, and had cJaimitted other aggressions, and therefore the Shah of Persia demanded satisfaction of the Shah of Herat. Un doubtedly the Shah of Persia had a ground for that demand of satisfaction, but it was never admitted by any man that the Shah of Persia had a claimto the sovereignty of Herat, and therefore it was of the highest irnpoi tince to our Indian territory to maintain the independence of Herat. There fore when the Shah of Herat offered as he did satisfaction to the Shah of Persia, for the aggressions which he had committed, it was then stated most clearly and distinctly, that the justice of the war had ceased, and Sir John M‘Neile did distinctly state to the Shah of Persia, that if traffic. Now, the horse t o ll was sa id t o be no criterion, but it was the only one i n p o i n t, an d th e on ly practicable application of the plan of reduction, and it had been success ful. He would refer them to the recent reduction of tolls on the bridge of Rouen, where, after the toll had been brought down to one centime, the shareholders were being paid 6 per cent. upon their capital. He would also instance the case of omnibuses. A DIRECTOR said tho question had been repeatedly mooted in the Committee, and he must admit it had been always negatived. At the same time he thought the ex periment well worth making. Looking at the immense passenger traffic on Blackfriars and Westminster-bridges, as compared with theirs, he really thought the reduction to a halfpenny would at leat double their present income. —( Hear, hear.) Now, was it likely that Mr. Morgan, who was one of the largest annuitants and shareholders in the concern, would advocate such a step, if it was to be so ruinous as some persons imagined. He was of opinion, on the whole, that the experiment was, worth making, and that it should be made at once.--( Hear, hear.) Mr. HODGES said the great question was, whether the reduction would benefit their property. Now, the num ber of daily passengers was 6,400, and unless they had upwards of 12,000 daily their position would be no better than it was at present. Now, the proposition he meant to submit to the meeting was, that pass tickets should be given between six and ten in the morning at Id. each, which would allow the holder to return free if he came to the bridge before seven in the evening. One of the fool gates might be used at either end of the bridge to permit the ticket holders to pass. Mr. BEDENELL thOught the plan would be altogether impracticable. It would lead to endless confusion and fraud, and they would also require additional toll-takers at the bridge to carry it into effect. The CHAIRMAN was also of the same opinion. Mr. HEDGES' amendment having no seconder fell to the ground. Several Shareholders thought a specified time should be stated in the motion for reducing the toll. The CHAIRMAN said if twelve months was inserted they would be bound, even if it entailed a serious loss upon them, to continue it for that period. Mr. JENKINS observed that they would have a meeting in June, when it could be ascertai ne d w h et h er t h e reduc ,... tion would affect their revenue injuriously or not, and if the former, then they could call another general meeting. A PROPRIETOR thought it was quite sufficient to state that they would reduce their tolls without giving the public to understand that it was merely a temporary measure. Mr. WALsu said ho would bring the discussion to a close by moving, as an amendment on the original resolution, that the charge for foot-passengers remain at one penny. Mr. HEDGES seconded the amendment. The question was then put, when there appeared— For the amendment l3 For the original motion Majority Mr. STUTELY moved the omission of the concluding words of the motion, which stated that the reduction was an experiment. The amendment, on a division, was negatived, and the original resolution carried amidst cheers. After some further routine business was disposed of, the meeting adjourned. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE-CIiANCELLOR'S COURT, FEB. 22. His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR took motions today, it being the second seal after Hilary Term. DAVIS AND OTHERS V. BRYANT.—INJUNCTION. A CASE OF PICKLES. Mr. KNIGHT BRUCE applied to-day in this case, upon no tice for a special injunction. restrain the defendant from using labels which were counterfeits of those used by the plain tiffs. The plaintiffs are Messrs. Hesketh Davis and Co., the eminent oil and pickle dealers of Leadenhall-street, and the defendant is the Superintendent of St. James's Workhouse. From the statements of the Learned Counsel it appeared that the pickles of the plaintiffs having acquired considerable repu tation in India, the defendant, who had a son there, had been in the habit for sometime past of sending articles to him, the bottles of which were labelled with an exact imitation of the labels used by the plaintiffs. This was not discovered by the plaintiffs till a short time ago, and the manner of that discovery was rather singular. A note was sent to the plaintiffs from an engraver, stating that he thought it would be a great improvement if they would have the plate of their labels touched up a little, as it hail become time worse for use ; this communication surp-ised them, knowing that the party who had written to them was not the engraver they employed, and they immediately waited upon the engraver, when, to their astonishment, they discovered that the pi ate was a spurious one, and that it had been sent to the engraver by the defendant. Upon this a remonstrance was sent to the de fendant, but without effect, and the only course left open to the plaintiffs for the purpose of putting down this simple and modest use of their labels by the defendant, was to apply to that Court for the injunction. Notice had been given to the de fendant of the application, but he had very wisely thought proper not to appear. The VICE CHANCELLOR, without the least hesitation, im mediately granted the injunction. Lord W HARNCLIFFE then said that seeing that the publication of the proceedings in the recent trial of the E irl Cardigan had been ordered by their Lord ships, he wished to ask the Noble Lord on the Wool sack (Lord Shaftesbury) whether there was any record of what had been said by the Learned Lord the Lord High Steward. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY did not know whether there was any such record. He did not think it was usual, but he would make inquiry. Lord W HARNCLIFFE thought it important that the address of the Lord High Steward to their Lordships should be published, as it would put an end to a great deal of the nonsense that was talked of on the subject. The Noble Lord then gave notice that immediately after the holidays, it the muter were not taken up by some other of their Lordships, he would bring in a Bill to clear up all doubts as to a Peer pleading his privileee in case of con viction for felony. He thought it would be very much to the discredit of their Lordships if that matter were EXCHEQUER CHAIIIBER, FEB. • 22. not cleared up, after what had been said in respect to JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE MANCHESTER CHARTER, the late trial. The Judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench and The Marquis of NORMANBY said that a Noble Common Pleas sat in error this morning, upon the case of Friend of his had intended to take the matter up, but RUTTER V. CHAPMAN. would not, of course, take it out of the hands of the Their Lordships delivered their judgments seriatim. Noble Baron opposite. The Noble Marquis then laid Lord DENMAN said the case was one of the very upon the table the Report of the Hand-loom Weavers' utmost importance, not only to the locality concerned, Commission. but also to the general administration of the law, and he The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition could not but regret that he had been unable to make from Somersetshire for the better observing the Sabbath, up his mind to agree with his brother Judges upon the especially upon railways. case. They had taken every pains to come to an THE CHARTISTS.—REPEAL OF THE unanimous conclusion. They had attended earnestly UNION. to the arguments which had been so ably advanced at Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the the bar. They had many consultations amongst them- National Charter Association of Bloomsbury, praying selves, but he had not been able to bring his for the recal of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Formerly mind to the same conclusion as the majority in presenting a petition from the same Association for of his brethren. He thought it right to the release of persons confined for mere opinions and state that he could not regard the plaintiff in the pre- not acts, he had taken occasion to refer to the unfor sent case as a stranger, as he had been denominated by tunate conduct pursued by her Majesty's Ministers some of his brethren. He was a coroner who might with regard to the Repeal agitation in Ireland, exercise his functions throughout the county, and even but he had since heard that the Government had put a in Manchester itself, unless another person was legally sort of mark upon every person who took part in this appointed to supersede him. The question resolved question. He was told that a gentleman named Roche, itself into this—Whether the inhabitants of Man- who stood first on the list selected by the Judge for chester had or had not properly petitioned for persons to fill the office of High Sheriff for the county a Court of Quarter Sessions. The first point of Cork, had been rejected on the ground that he was raised was whether the Learned Judge had properly favourable to the repeal of the Union. He was told left the case to the Jury. The facts appeared to be that that gentleman had been asked whether, in case these :—On the '2d of February, 1837, a requisition of his being selected to fill the office, he would pledge was presented to the Boroughreeve requesting him to himself to abstain from giving any opinion on the sub call a public meeting, for the purpose of considering ject. Mr. Roche refused to do so, and on that ground the propriety of petitioning for an Act of Ineorpora- ho was rejected. He (Lord Brougham) now wished tion. The meeting was held on the 9th of to ask his Noble Friend (Lord Normanby) whether February, and rate-payers to the number of that statement was true or not ? one thousand attended. A resolution was pro- The Marquis of NORMANBY had had no direct posed and carried by; a large majority, that the peti- communication on the subject with his Noble Friend tion should be presented—it was then proved on the the Lord Lieutenant for lrelend ; but from what he part of the plaintiff, that a counter petition was got up had heard ho had no hesitation in saying that —that it was signed by 6,000 inhabitants of the a correspondence did take place with Mr. Borough of Manchester—that it was presented Roche, in consequence of which his Noble Friend after the former petition, but before it was (the Lord-Lieutenant) had selected for the office of taken into consideration by the Privy Council, Sheriff the gentleman whose name was second on the list. and that it was signed by more inhabitants than the Lord BROUGHAM—I believe, my Lords, that previous petition, but still neither of them by a majo- no one will think that I hold different opinions on rity of the inhabitants—that these facts were laid be- the subject of the repeal of the Union from fore the Jury, but that the Judge took it upon him- those of my Learned Friend, or of the Lord -Lieu self to decide th a t h er M a j esty h a d t h e power tenant of Ireland. But I must say again that to grant the Corporation according to the prayer Ido not think this the way to expose the error, or to of the first petition, and that to that leaving a bill of put down the discussion of that question. I cannot see exceptions was offered by the plaintiff's Counsel. Now, why the repeal of the Union is to be excepted from no doubt existed but that a meeting way called, but other questions, and why men should be prevented from the majority had no power to bind over the minority, taking part in this discussion just as much as any far less th en cou ld t h ey b e supposed to bind the very large other, the discussion being no offence known to the law. majority of the inhabitants who were absent. The Lord GLENGALL moved for the list of persons petition signed by 6,000 inhabitants was afterwards pre- sent into the Lord Lieutenant to be selected for the rented--that ought to have been left to the Jury, and office of Sheriff for the year 1841, with the names of the mere balance of numbers did not authorise the those who had been selected. Learned Judge in leaving the case, as he did, to the PERSIA. Jury. In reply, the plaintiff's Counsel contend- The Earl of RIPON then rose to bring ed that no judicial power was conferred by w ar d the motion of which he had given notice, with for the Municipal A ct on the Privy Council ; and respect to the state of our relations with Persia. although they: were comm an d e d to consider petitions He thought that the circumstances of the case. ji; sta. presented, and would not recommend that the prayers fled him in making the motion, and he could not, when of them should be acceded to unless they were of opi- he had first given notice of it, imagine that an y pub nion that it would be for th e b ene fi t o f t h e town that lie inconvenience could possibly result from complyng the prayer should be granted, still that was not con- with it, or from his giving such notice, for had he irna elusive evidence against all parties Concerned ; and gined that any inconvenience could have possibly arisen the defendants, acting upon the best opinions he certainly should not have given such notice. There y, was something peculiar, something very little under of Counsel, had argued the case most learned! and at great length, The Plaintiff's argument, how- stood, with respect to our relations with Persia, ever, appeared to him to be well founded. Supposing and he would now draw their Lordships' attention the petition of the 4,000 to have given power to the to the manner in which those relations appeared Queen to grant the Charter, the petition of the 6,000 to stand. At the opening of the Session of 1839, did not revoke it in point of law. That was assumed her Majesty, in her speech from the throne, had by the L ea r ne d J u d ge . Th e seco n d objection stated that an interruption in our friendly re la taken, was as to the validity of the first peti- tiona with the Court of Persia had taken place; tion, and that they did not proceed to incorpo- and a hope was also expressed that such interruption rate those persons who had petitioned for the Chaeter ; would not be of long continuance. Soon after the coin and it was said that a 3 those who petit:oiled for the mencement of tho Session a mass of papers had been Charter might be excluded from its benefits, and the laid before ParliaMent, for the purpose of show- Charter only granted to those who were opposed to it. ing the cause of that interruption in our That was an exaegerated view of the case, and it might friendly relations, which had been alluded to be said that in such a case the Charter would not be at- in the Speech, and why our Minister at Teheran had cepted. He had no doubt of the power of :the withdrawn from that Court. It appeared that those Crown to grant a Charter to any part of a town grounds were principally connected with the conduct to incorporat e certain districts and leave out others --it which had bee.) pursued by the authorities of Persia was quite clear that this could be done by the Croli n, towards a courier. There were other matters in ~ vhich and by no ot h er " t h or i ty except' Parliament. 'rho the two Governments were more or less implicated,. but Crown had delegated to Messrs. Price and Rushton the immediate cause of difference appeared to be the those prerogatives which could only be exercised by circumstances attending this matter of the courier, to itself. Could it be said that it would be Lim- which he should presently direct their Lordships' att 2n- Crown to delegate to any one the tion. It appeared that our Minister had quitted the power to nominate Mr. A. or Mr. B. as an . Court of Teheran, and had directed those attached to Alderman or a Mayor ? Such an argument would mot the embassy to retire to Erzeroum within the Turkish in he put forward, and lie thought that it applied equ 54'ly territory while he had directed Sir Henry Bethune the present case. The parties nominated might and the military officers to proceed to the city of have declined to act. Had the Crown any power, k y Bagdad. The Ambassador himself came to England. mandamus, or otherwise, to compel them to perfore n It appeared that the Shah of Persia alarmed at the those duties. They were mere voluntary agent s, nospect of the interruption of the friendly relasions ROLLS' COURT, FEB. 22. DUNCAN V. 3I`CALMONT. The MASTER, of the ROLLS delivered judgment in this case,. which was argued last Michaelmas Term, when the circum stances of it were fully reported in The Sun. The case came before the Court upon a motion that the de fendants might be restrained from prosecuting their suit in the High Court of Admiralty against the cargo of the ship Lord Cochrane, in respect of a bottomy bond. His LORDSHIP, in giving judgment, observed that the cir cumstances relative to the bottomy bond were open to suspi cion, and required much explanation. He was of opinion there was sufficient in the case to entitle the plaintiffs to have their case investigated in a Cou r t o f Equity, a...d it did n o t a pp ear to him the Court of Admiralty could so conveniently compel the defendants to do all that a Court of Equity cov.ld do for the right determination of the rights of the parties. The in junction asked for must therefore be granted. The Court then took motions. THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1841. . he persevered with the siege of Herat, it would be war , with England, and upon that ground it was that the Shah of Persia abandoned that siege of Herat, and retired from , it. But the state of the case at present was, that, upon all the minor subjects of difference—with respect to the courier, and so on—ample satisfaction had been afforded, and there was only one point which remained un settled between the two countries, and which pre vented the establishment of a diplomatic in tercourse, and our sending out an Ambassador. That remaining point of difference between the two coun tries was that relating to the fortress of Gourcal—that was a fortress belonging to Herat. It was most important to Herat as a military station, and also most important in a financial point of view. The Shah of Persia had said that he would restore Gourcal to the Shah of Herat ; but until the restoration should have actually taken place it had not been thought right to direct the return of our Ambassador to the Court of Teheran. We had sent out an officer to see the restoration of that fortress—as soon as that fortress should be restored Col. Sheil would proceed to Teheran, and the diplomatic relations would be restored between the two countries. No one could feel more than he did the importance of the subject, and the necessity there existed of securing peace in Central Asia. He could also state that he had every reason to hope that the Emperor of Rus sia was actuated by the same feelings as ourselves, and that his aid and assistance would be rendered in composing the differences which had taken place between this country and the Shah of Persia. He had no objection to the produc tion of the papers. Tho motion was then agreed to. THE CANADA ORDINANCES. The Bishop of EXETER wished to draw their Lord ships' attention to a question which he considered of im portance, as affecting their Lordships' House. It would be recollected that certain ordinances relating to Canada had been laid on their Lordships' table, on the 29th of January, and were ordered to be printed. Now, if before the lapse of thirty days from this period those documents had been laid on the table, an address were presented, praying the disallowance of any of them, such ordinance could not become law--the thirty days would elapse on Sunday, the 28th of February. Now, although those or dinances had been ordered to be printed on the 29th of January, they had not been printed until the 26th of February. This delay was most extraordinary and on asking the Queen's printer the reason for the delay, the reason given struck him as being still more extraordinary than the delay itself. It was that one of the ordinances had been sent to the Colonial-office for revision, so that their Lordships were to wait the pleasure of the Colonial office. He would put it to their Lordships whether they would have the printer to the bar of the House, to question him on the subject. After r few words from L-rd DUNCANNON, which were inaudible in the gal It ry, ThO Bishop of EXETER said he should ask the Ne ble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government fur all explanation before he presented the petition of which he had given notice for to-morrow. Their Lordships then adjourned at a Quarter past Six o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRB. 22. Tile SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before Fcur o'Clock. The Strangers' Gallery was crowded. NEW MEMBER. The Hon. WENTWORTH FITZWILLIAM, the newly elected Member for Richmond, Yorkshire, took the oaths and his seat. The Hon. Member was introduced by Mr. Dundas and Mr. Byng. PRIVATE BILLS. The South Western Railway Bill, the Eastern Counties Railway Bill, the Manchester and Salford Waterworks Bill, and the York and London Assurance Company Bill, were severally read a second time and referred to Committees. Colonel BAILEY presented a petition against the Poor-law Amendment Act. Colonel BRUEN presented a petition from Carlow in favour of Lord Stanley's Irish Registration B 11. Sir CH ARLES COOTES presented petitions from several places; in the Queen's County to the same effect. Mr. SOMERS presented a petition from the Bo rough of Sligo, signed by 2,700 inhabitants, in favour of the Governmeat Bill for the Registration of Voters in Ireland, and against Lord Stanley's Bill. CORBALLY presented a petition from a place in Meath, praying that the Elective franchise in Ire. land might be placed on a more clear and extended basis. Colonel VERNON presented a petition from a place in Armagh, in favour of Lord Stanley's Bill (on Irish Registration), and against the Bill of Lord Morpeth. Colonel RAWDON presented a petition from Newry, Carrickfergus, and various places in the county of Dow❑ and Armagh, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill. Colonel PE RCE VAL presented petitions from Mel lingar, and other places, in favour of Lord Stanley's Bill. Mr. LUCAS presented a petition from a place in the county of Monaghan, against the B:11 of Lord Mor peth, which the petitioners stated would alter the elective franchise as established by the Reform Bill. The Earl of LISTO WELL presented a petition in favour of Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill. We could not, however, hear from what place, in conse quence of the noise which prevailed in the House. Mr. FORTESCUE presented a petition with a sitnil it prayer. Mr. TOWNELY PARKER presented three pe titions from places in Lancashire against the Poor Law Amendment Act. Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented petitions from the Manchester and Birmingham Railway Company, pray ing that the duty upon passengers on Railways might be reduced. Mr. LITTON presented petitions from Ennis corthy, and several other parts of Ireland, hgainst the Ministerial measure for the Registration of Voters in Ireland, and in favour of the Bill introduced by Lord Stanley. Mr. DARBY presented a petition from the Guar dians of a Union in Sussex, against the Poor•law Amendment Bill. Mr. PHILLPOTS presented a similar petition from Gloucester. Mr. HALL presented a petition from Monmouth i❑ favour of Lord Morpeth's Bill for the Registration of Voters in Ireland. Sir R. BATESON presented petitions from Dun : garvon and several other parts of Ireland, in favour of Lord Stanley's Bill for the Registration of Voters in Ireland. Mr. AINSWORTH presented a petition in favour of Lord Morpeth's Bill, from Bolton.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL presented a pe tition from Stourport, praying that the rate-payers in vestry assembled, might have the power of ordering out door relief to able-bodied labourers in certain cases, and that if such provision were not introduced into the New Poor-law Bill it might not pass into a law. Mr. E. ROCHE presented petitions from Kanturk, and two other places in the county of Cork, against Lord Stanley's Bill. Mr. E. TENNENT presented petitions from Rath down, and some other places in Ireland, against Lord Morpeth's Bill, and in favour of Lord Stanley's. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON presented petitions from Bandon, Clonmel, and other places in Ireland, against Lord Morpeth's Bill. Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from the counties of Antrim, Westmeath, Cavan, and other places, praying that the House would not support the Bill which had been brought in for the extinction of the franchise in Ireland, but, on the contrary, support that which had been brought in for tho extension of the franchise. Sir ROBERT INGLIS presented petitions from places in the counties of York and Norfolk, praying for Church Extension. Mr. CLAY presented a petition from Shoreditch, praying for the repeal of the Window-tax. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from the county of Antrim, signed by 12,241 persons, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill. Mr. KELLY presented petitions from Manchester and Kidderminster praying for the liberation of Frost, Williams, and Jones. Sir F. TRENCH rose to put a question to the Speaker as to the regulation which made it necessary for Parliamentary papers to be posted in the House of Commons. His principal object in rising was to ask whether Members residing at a considerable distance might not be permitted to send papers instead of at tending personally ? The SPEAKER said that members were required to post the papers in the House, to prevent other per sons from availing themselves of a privilege which was only intended for Members. Oa the motion of Lord STANLEY the Liverpool Gas Bill was read a second time. The Noble Lord pre sented a petition signed by 27,000 inhabitants of theitown of Liverpool, expressing his gratification at finding the House were determined to legislate upon the sub ject ‘f the abuses of the rc , ;istration of Ireland, but th© petitioners objected to the alteration of the franchise proposed. by Lord Morpeth, and considered that the . . lovwring of the qualification would lead to practices as corrupt as those which it was the object of the Noble Lord's Bill to prevent. They therefore hoped that the House would reject Lord Morpeth's Bill, and give its assent to that of the Noble Lord the Member ior North Lancashire. Mr. F. SHAW presented petitions from Dublin and other piirts'of Ireland, in favour o:1 Lord Stanley's Re gistration Bill Major MACNAMARA presented three petitions from Clare, in f.tvour of Lor d Alorpeth's Registration Bill. COLONEL STO- DDART. Mr. MILNE , seeing the Nobl c's Lord, the Sceretary for Foreig n. Affairs, i n hi s place, w, )uld take that oppor tunity of askin g hi m a que, stic qa relative to the imprisonment of Col. Stoddart. Ti le House would re member that last year the Noble Lo. 'II was good enough to state that Col. Stoddart had been unjustly detained at Bolchara, and that the Governmer \t would use all the means in their power to obtain repa ration and the re lease of Colonel Stoddart. He would be glad to know whether these objects had been attained. • Lord PALMERSTON was sorry t 9 say that the exor!ions or Ler Majesty's Government to obtain the liberation of Colonel Stoddart had not as yet been suc cessful. Still he had hopes that they would eventually succeed in obtaining it. Colonel Stoddart had been subjected to very severe and unjustifiable treatment during his confinement. He would not - now go into the details, but he might state generally that he had reason to believe that during the time he was confined, Colonel Stoddart might have obtained his release at the intercession of the agent of a foreign power, but Colonel Stoddart not knowing that the intervention of that agent was sanctioned by his own Government very honourably and nobly declined to avail himself of that offer. He said that he was employed by the British Government, and that it was only to his own Government he would be indebted for his release. Meantime the Government was employing all the means in its power to effect his liberation. Captain HAMILTON gave notice that, on Wed nesday, he would ask the Noble Secretary for the Co lonies a question respecting, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, in taking evidence of witnesses in private. Mr. LABO UC HERE gave notice, that on the Bth of March he would move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon the Customs duties of the pro duce of the West Indies and our North American Colonies. Sir E. KNATCHBULL moved for an account of all sums of money paid to the Poor Law Commis sioners in the years 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840, and also an account of all suits to which the Poor-law Commissioners were parties, the costs incurred, and the results of such suits.—Ordered. Lord MAHON begged leave to renew a question which he formerly put to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He wished to know what progress had been made in the negotiations with foreign countries respect ing an international copyright law ? Lord PALMERSTON said that propositions had been made to the Government of France, the United States, the Germanic Confederation, Saxony, and Prussia ; but not one of those efforts had led to any satisfactory result. Lord ELIOT begged to ask the Noble Lord whe ther he was aware of a document lately published in a newspaper purporting to be a communication from the Austrian Minister to the Diet of Switzerland, respecting the suppression of convents in the latter country. Lord PALMERSTON would not undertake to pledge himself to the accuracy of any documents which might appear in a newspaper, but he had reason to be lieve that a note had passed between the authorities named by the Noble Lord. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND). Lord MORPETH presented petitions in favour of the Bill introduced by his Lordship, and against that brought iu by Lord Stanley, from Dunderry, in the county of Antrim; from Arderry, in the county Down ; from Balcurry, in the same, and from several other places in the counties of Antrim, Down, London derry, and the greater portion of the counties in Ireland. Lord STANLEY presented petitions in favour of the Bill brought in by his Lordship from places in Ire land, and said that he took that opportunity of stating that one of the petitions which he then presented in favour of the Bill which he hat the honour to introduce into that House was signed in conse quence of a public meeting held in the town of Bel fast about a month ago. That meeting was at tended by 40,000 persons convened by a requisition, signed by 1,607 individuals, which 1,607 individuals, he was instructed to state, represented the commercial and landed proprietory of that part of the country to the amount of one million one hundred and sixty thou sand pounds. Lord MORPETH then moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said he would defer a question to the Attorney-General for Ireland, of which he had given notice, until to-morrow. Lord STANLEY then rose and said—Sir, if the objections which we on this side of the House entertain to the Bili which has been introduced by the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, were confined to matters of mere detail, if agreeing in the main ob jects to be sought for, and in the principles with which these objects were to be followed, we differed as to the machinery by which those principles were to be carried into effect, or the subordinate provisions by which they were accompanied, should on my own part, however wide the difference between us, or however important the points on which we differed, have been well content to have given to the Bill of the Noble Lord a more fair consideration than was given to my Bill last Session, and, reserving all discussions for a subsequent stage of the proceedings, have offered no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but have reserved the opposition which I felt it my duty to make, and to have discussed seriatim and tem perately the different amendments I felt disposed to suggest in Committee.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But the course the Noble Lord has pursued has ren dered it impossible for those who feel with me, and I should have thought would have rendered it impossible for many of those who habitually act with the Noble Lord—(Hear, hear, on the Opposition benches) — to assent to the second reading of a Bill which tacks to the Registration —a subject important enough in itself—which tacks to that, by way of postscript, a subject of infinitely more importance than even the system of registration, which tends to alter the whole principles on which the representative system of these countries was based so lately as the year 183=2—(Op position cheers)--which does not aim at any slight modification or alteration in the machinery of the Reform Bill, but which, with regard to Ireland, and Ireland alone, of all parts of the empire, applies a principle altogether new, at variance with that which we have applied to other portions of this great empire.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, with regard to the details of the Registration Bill, the points on which the Noble Lord and myself differ, I mean the material points, are not very numerous. They are of more or less importance ; but I see with satisfaction that though ' there is still a considerable difference between us, the Noble Lord in his Bill of this year has approxi mated in no inconsiderable degree to those principles which I introduced last year, and which were made the subject of so much vituperation against me on the other side of the House. Sir, in the course of last year the leading objection taken by the Right Hon. Gentle man, the then Solicitor-General for Ireland, was stated by him to be, that he frankly and plainly objected to an amended revision at all. The Noble Lord, however, has consented, in the course of this year, to introduce an annual revision of voters ; but, at the same time, the Noble Lord has coupled with that annual revision, which I propose to associate with an an:nual registration. The Noble Lord proposes to couple that an nual revision, considerably restricted also, with a provision not for an annual but for a quarterly re gistration. The Noble Lord thus, instead of applying the system pursued in England and Scotland to Ire land, while he allows the annual opportunity of purging the register of claimants who may have ceased to have any right of vote, keeps up a quarterly machinery of registration, and renders it impossible that any per fect registration as a test and criterion of votes should exist from year to year, mixing up the business of the registry in a most inconvenient manner with the or dinary business of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland,— (Hear, hear,)—and by the introduction of perpetual notices of claims and notices of objections, and attend ance to substantiate claims, and attendance to substan tial objections, in point of fact makes the whole year, from the commencement to the end, one continued scene of registration and election, leaving no single month, and hardly a single week, of breathing time from Session to Session, keeping the whole country perpetually engaged in election conflicts and disputes. The Noble Lord has consented to annual revision, but he has clogged it with restrictions which will open a wide door for fraudulent and fictitious voters. Because the Noble Lord tells you he will admit annual re vision, yet if a voter shall at any time, or under any circumstances, succeed in getting his name placed on the registry, it shall not be sufficient for the registrar to show that he has no qualification at all, but he is bound to prove that the man bad that qualification when he was placed on the registry, but circumstances had taken place since by which he had lost it. The consequence therefore is this, to give a per , petual immunity to fraud,where a party has had his name once placed upon the registry.—(Great cheering.) Now I proposed last year that an appeal should be given as against the claimant who might be admitted, and also as against the claimants who might be re jected. But this was decreed a great hardship. It was said it was inconsistent with the franchise, and that it was throwing obstacles in the way of the political rights of parties ; and yet notwithstanding all this, in the present year that principle has been adopted, for by the ' Bill of the Noble Lord an appeal will lie to the Appellant Tribunal in favour of the admis sion to the franchise, as well as against it. The appellant tribunal which the Noble Lord proposes, s'if fess, howe%er, from that which I have suggested. I confided in the Judges of the land, but the Noble Lord thin ks itexpedient to t ake the power away from the Judges and give it to threa Barristers of the Irish Bar, whose de cision is to be checked only by the Speaker of this House. y h o av u e r per- s N on o a w ce S h i a r r , ac th te e r, g a rt n a d t t respect a i c in h w I h b i e e ahr youfer per formed your duties—(Great cheering)—in the situa tion to which you were elected by the votes on one side ®f the House, but in which you have suc ceeded by your dignift d conduct in gaining the esteem of both sides of the House, impose upon me the duty, if possible, of taking away from you that arduous duty.—(Great cheers.) he more I think upon this subject, the more strong are the objecti ons which I entertain to impose upon you a duty which almost subjects you to misconstruction, misapprehension, and suspicion of the feelings of parties, because however impartially you may act, you will be subject to that species of suspicion which I should be most unwilling to subject one in your high and dignified station to. But. upon the Bid which I proposed last year a very great objection was taken to the provision of which I suggested the introduction, with regard to the costs to E VENING EDITION ss given by the appellate tribunal, as well against .so person seeking to substantiate as against the Peas, seeking to overthrow the franchise. There, as nothing to which so much of objection was taK e .Pf ea . to that provision, and I recollect wel the Right 1-I , e and Learned entleman the Vice-President of tu e Board of Trade, having represented upon one occasioa, that the apre'late tribunal was bound to against the party claiming the franchise, being correct. ti d . from this side of the House, and being told t h: it was only left to his discretion to do so i cc e a n i cases—l recollect the Right Hon. and Learned ( 31 ,„ tleman taking up that answer, and saying, " Y d e js , that is to say, you are to confide it to the t . a cretion, or " pardon me for saying," added Learned Gentleman, " the caprice of the Jed, whoever he may be whether he will or will not i n Tn, pose costs." Sir, I believe the Right Honourable ai, Learned Gentleman is not in his place.—(Hear, heti:a give costste, from the Ministerial Benches.) Well, then, I hop e „. Right Hon. Gentleman has turned his attention tootl; two clauses upon that subject in the Bill of the Nita Lord the Secretary for Ireland, because if he has , will find that whereas in the appellate tribunal 1 7 ,, stricted the costs to the amount of ten Ivu° i1)00 whereas I res t r i cte d it t o the amount of incur s th e p ar t y m i g ht actually have rho red, whereas I imposed the obligation upen_eici s Judges on ly t o g i ve cos t s w h ere the pet ition " manifestly a pp ear t o h ave b ee n of a frivolous ch aracter the Bill o f th e N o bl e L or d f o ll o ws up this y ear same principl e w hi c h l as t y ear he so much rep udiat d ed (Laughter from tie Opp o sition benches) —be () • P es t my practice o f g i v i ng cos t s t o the respondent agaltbe the appellant, whether that appellant be ss claimant o f th e f ranc hi se , or the succe all objector to the franchise ; but he rern °r t es b a d those restrictions as to amount which s not , imposed upon the granting of costs by an aPP e •fajog tribunal, and the Noble Lord, after sPe el l oo s n the 60th clause that the Assistant -Barris shall endorse the name of the appel lant s to the party whom he shall be directeuvides treat as respondent, in the 67th clause Pro , o f that it shall be lawful for the said Court% of Appeal to make such, or, respecting the Per nen f s ay tl.( costs of the respondent in any appeal, art° shall part of such costs as to the said seem meet." The principle of costs upon appe al ag f the the claimant of the franchise, which was o ne % oda points upon which the strongest objections we re ri o ble to my Bill of last year, is affirmed by the ffinned Lord in his Bill of the present Session, but I the without any restrictions by which I sought el/ f i e st, exercise of the right and to protect it from abuse d p l od hear)—and that power which the Noble Lor r e A O to entrust to judges appointed by the Crowe , _ 00 1 holding their office for lila, the Noble Lord doeisthaut hesitate to entrust—much more ample power o'l%oo the same restrictions—to three Barristers, who su °-- f the appointed under the authority of the Spea ker jo t House of Commons. Now, Sir, I am not s tirP s :Cos Co aitio that the Noble Lord did not at all notice this cl e ` e i g ie of costs in his opening speech. Dealing with the ' d os tration subject, the Noble Lord never ment ippe o ral subject of costs at all, and I think this ela uge ribele perhaps in some degree explain that omission. , t he might be some l•ttl e hesitation upon the par t Noble Lord as t o th e prov i s i ons which he rea l Y he , tended to intr o d uce upon t h e su bj ec t of e °st n s o 'telf cause upon looking at these marginal Lord , which so much disturbed the Noble ,igbt the Secret ar y f or th e C o l on i es , I fi n d the other thot the marginal note to the 4od clause providesaded double costs should be given in cases of w il l Ol e , charges of' fraud, but the n o t e i s a ltered since' 2 ' l oo no double costs are to be given.—(Hear, bea t ' ra tioi Now, Sir, I have contented myself with ene me atabla the principal points of difference between the ° ' f 00 8 Lord and myself, with the exception, howev er ' no se which I shall st a te t o th e N o bl e L or d now, b ee o f it, hope he will be able to giv e me an explanation:ooS and because I really c anno t w ith it uncl j er bo pecl the Bill after careful ex am i na ti on . Sir, 1 "' l n s ee' that the abolition of certifi ca t es was absolut e e" is bed tire, and that no Hon. Member on either sicl e ; • ii to keep up a syste m o f cer tifi c ates v it, r a jole' admitted to be th e f ru itf u l parent Of -test el, The Noble n beforeL or d theabolishes returning officer, t he qualification but 'O r ( bin Clerk of the Peace he can claim a cert ifi c ate° B/1 be entry upon the registry ; an d thi s certificate s il o Its conclusive evidence of the right of that Isersond the placed on the registry, i n an y p rocee ding eg a ' n iape e Clerk of the Peace. Now, Si r , I canno t underst an. what ground that is to b e cons id ere d conclusireeecol dente The possession of the certificate is e videl : l o s l !'; his having been on the registry some time P re p pea l but the fact of his b e i ng c h a ll enge d, and all .!,`bt 4 lodged against his right to vo t e mus t be take n " - e fore proof that he had lost his qualification. And ° II % t ies the certificate will only prove that at some tithe d per on the registry, and that he had been regularly suriah the perly struck off. Sir, I have gone shortly th r :,. - ;raal points without arguing them, on which there " w - bich t h differences between us, but in the mang e ! t . of 11° had the honour to introduce on the sabi e i c l i, ene es ,; alteration of the registration there are other u" —r ta str' Sir, I have already stated that if my objectiet3s t O rr upon the subject of' the revision only, I should of any opposition to the second reading of the Nobl e ! , more Bill ; but I shall n ow proceed to another and Me e , w hid important branch of the subject. So the t ae l3ill o( the Noble Lord has a ffi xe d t o th e Registration dealt the purpose, as I believe, of defeating the t/u ie which is now making by b o th s id es o f the . ":" tro tio ° amend the existing evil s o f the 114 ' 9- 01 i system.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Without Lord , ing anything disrespectful to the Noble it fo r , my first objection t o th e Bill i s t h at h e h a s brought(Losi ward under false c o l ours an d f a l se pretenee s ""iine °l cheers)--and I see in this Bill ano th er s tep in thakoiars' policy which has be en a d o pt e d b y t h e present Adindl tion, which has been i n a manner p ecu li a r to. it , il Obi en b has never been foll owe d by any G overn ment , b a s B ke has never characterised any other, but which „7 0 1$ 1 "; studiously pursued by the present Governmen t ei hste ve j jests from the first moment down to this period , w ar , so this period may be of its political existence.---jjeja 6() ; a laugh.) In 1635, when my Right Hon. Fri en os vernment was thrown out of office, on he n ot that th ere 0 01°1 difference as to the mea su r e t o b e introduced for tbs the vexatious question of tith es i n Ireland (En' . ' i n ' to n ' t- a subject both sides of the House were agreed, minutest details of the measure), but because r evs , !hebe to admit a tack to the measure—(Loud nossdPei of a distinction to which, as honest men, it tva's use that we should accede.—(Cheers.) That, j ' a 0 - 0 00 - declared by the Government of the Noble Lord to be a sine qua n on , w ith out carry i ng which it vg 9 " Tb s ß sible they could, a s h onest men , h o ld t h e ir situations• et o f then, was the com m e ncement by the Gev,e, ll ; l ,rbols te n r ; system which I tr ace aga i n i n t h e p res ent Bill, "s bu t ing up their cre dit, not on t h at t h ey had achiev e hic b th e ! some unattainable and i m a g i nar y performanc e w roo pon' i/ ; professed their d e t erm i na ti on t o carr y, on t he h ieb t he 'l bility of the Government attempting to carry um ber maintained a precarious existence for a certain _ckoolr': years ; but at the end they were compelled to u sioe q ya ledge they w ere una bl e t o carry t h e i r inestima ble d. f r non.—(Cheers.) Th es e t wo resu lts follow e_ lar; remedy of ackn ow led ge d a b uses an d grievances;oooo lieve, in the tithe questi on ; an d if the Gil o . v i s trst i ° P o shall be succe s sf u l, w ill b e i n the re " year system ; and the remedy will be delayed from tak e year, while the pl aus ibl e groun d w hich will be so- • b e, aCe the Government t owar d s t h e i r suppor ters wt.. rt uSt - to what we are dispo se d t o g i ve you . If you de s e •11 whet a prospect you will lose."—(Chests') they gill the more reflecting portion of the community, bacebee say, " We would have remedied these evils, but be {,toil e compelled to abandon the hope of doing so by t cheer! , and pertinacious opposition ofour opponents." ci-what Why, Sir, that pretext has been held out, a" tie , it bas ben the result ? Why, that in the Tithe (I'l c i s trat i° o happened, and I trust and believe that on the r t e C oni sel e r t Question it will happen, that they have M a A (0 aClS compelled to abandon this sine qua non, Be"..,ate re in those very measures which, but for their olostlu a t befe a d tance, we, their opponents, would have Pi" „..(1 . 40 00 , enabling them to carry some four years anti, blicy cheers.) And now let me ask what has bee n ' t he r of this registration system, and how far differs ~aononha pursued upon the Tithe and Appropriation 'f ri in For four long years the Government have bee..eoisters habit, Session after Session—the abuses tion system being forced upon them until $l l unable to resist any longer—of introdueige 0)111'1: but with no other object than that of preventisLoreraeal, of other sentlemen unconnected with the uu o , s yst e on . o f the .b i e 7 who had felt the inconvenience of the p r set b e iog t he ao Why, one Bill whi c h they brought forward , s cot t posed by any member of this House, WaS s ionfr -the o ust House of Lords; at what period of t he Se s thia fl e 29th of August—having been introduce d int°, oat tbe on the 11th of August for the first times int rodu c io g course which the Government have pursued 1 11 __ w ino an- Registration Bills, keeping others out from touvisof until the end of the Session, and then as regsaav ' lop cloning them as they had introduced th en ' . a st Se ssl sy as I was concerned, I was determined that e _ tto of of Parliament should not pass without an encia'ay overoe those grievances, and accordingly, at an c e the G.!)., the Session, the Noble Lord having told istratioll lerit had no intention of introducing iitroduced a Bill which appeared to the P" gP ra e majority of this House also, to hold out s y,te existmsi tr, of remedying the grievances of the co ts' • to r / rot and how did the Noble Lord determineeL ware inl Bill? Not by resisting principles %Vb . ', w ere reading 13, included, but by resisting principles vvn f the .11 eluded in it; and on the second re fl i ng not a word fell from the other side conde i r tln of the co on account of its not containing any -more than t`" - , ' 'tbe isting system—( Loud cheers) —nay , n . accou nt t b . cc .. second reading, the Solicitor-General - ~ Acts ti tar from this being any objection on thia ,tated his o lions to me, that by the inser,ion of the w v" i n trOdU eing t a of m e g , se'grid to the gre:, I stead of " Act," I was not defining, but the jud re t n e ,.. expression which might tend to influence franch i ' e "a l that other parties as to the definition of the _ as fan a ists at the present moment. But when lt w this Fietis f e t , he vd,i,ffrieimreenitltcobeard that th e but heard ° Go amhys e nc ßill e o w f a a s sdueefieneistsiofjol,' then a w bo e ut fir t s: e, s ot one, 1 . 0 , two hills were introduced, one for the pe n ri . , not her rt bill on the subject of Registration, a n ur '_ os , o f roil fsa .. had taken dsi u lu p rsu th ed e . question, nW t PC le 6s: o t e " o f mee h i e ' then Solicitor-General for Ireland, for the o he P ' t eleeti ° , e , ing the onscurity 0f the law respecting chile in Ireland. Here is the 13111 introduced by t".