The Sun. — London, England, 1841-02-24 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION tics of the law, might conscientiously take the oath imposed upon him with the very smallest holding. Even were the con struction which required the peasant to be capable of paying 101. in addition to the rent universally. recognised, that could not get rid of the contradictory ssveann_g which then existed. It would not do so for this simple reason, that after all, value of this description was a matter upon which opinions might honestly differ. All experience proved that they could not expec t oaths to be taken in what they might believe to be a proper manner. He for one would never repeat those changes against the Irish people and against their religion—(Hear, hear)—which upon former occasions he had heard with great disgust, and he was happy not to have heard repeated in that debate. He for one would never at tribute the false swearing which avowedly had taken place in Ireland, to any disregard of veracity pecuhar to the Irish, or to any sanction which was given to falsehoods of this description by the religion which the majority of that people professed.— (Hear, hear.) Such illiberal opinions he disclaimed with the utmost disgust. But he must say that not only in Ireland but in England, and not only in England but in all countries and in all times, in those cases when the passions and interests, not of individuals but of large classes and bodies of men were at stake, oaths and promises the most stringent that could be devised wore barriers easily overleaped or broken through. All experience proved that this was the case even amongst men in other respects of the highest character, honour, and integrity. Was there any class of men who stood higher in the estimation of the whole world for their veracity and up rightness than the British merchants ?—( Hear, hear. ) Was not their character for these virtues recognised from one end of the globe to the other ? Did not even barbarian nations rely upon the good faith, the honour, and integrity of British merchants ? Yet even this body of men, when, by a mistaken policy, they imposed absurd restrictions upon their trade, which were only to be got rid of by false oaths being taken at the Custom-house, broke through the trammels of those oaths, so that the Custom-house oaths came to be a bye word of all that was worthy of discredit. Those ill-judged oaths, were, he believed, now dispensed with ; and no oath was required at present, either from an exporter or importer, where it was his direct and palpable interest to swear a false hood. He might illustrate this by a still stronger case. There was no class of men amongst whom a high sense of honour was more universally prevalent—perhaps that sense of ho nour carried them almost to excess—than the officers of the British army ; and yet, was not every gentleman aware of the fact, that when officers of the British army, purchasing commissions, were required to declare upon their honour, that neither directly or indirectly had they given more than the regular price for those commissions, it was found that the imposition of the oath did not check the prac tice against which it was directed, that the practice still con tinued, and the wiser policy was adopted of endeavouring, by other means, to put an end to the evil. With these examples before their eyes, bow could they desire to rest the right of voting in Ireland upon declarations with respect to the 10/. property ? Was it not clear, that even if they returned to the test which formerly existed, the man would be thought not a perjurer, not a person disgraced and to be avoided, but a patriot standing up for the rights and liberties of his country men, who should swear with an easy conscience as to the value of his own and his neighbour's occupation ? If they arrayed political interests and party passions against the sanctity of the oath, they could not be surprised if its sanctity were destroyed. Of this they had an illustration in that very House. Did they not know that Election Committees, though sworn solemnly to do justice between party and party, were not to be trusted where their own party was at stake, and that they viewed the facts and evidence brought before them through the medium of their political partialities ?—( Hear. ) If the arguments he had addressed to the House were good, then it clearly followed that they must find out some more easy and more simple test of fitness for the franchise. He knew that he would be told that the law in England was found to work well enough. But the circumstances of the two coun tries were so very different, that that was no argument against his position. In England the great majority of the consti tuency, derived the franchise from occupation, and that was measured by the amount of rent paid. When the franchise was obtained upon a leasehold qualification, it was generally upon a lease for a period of time, or upon lives, when it was well known that the holder had a beneficial interest. It was then admitted that it was absolutely necessary to get some more easy and yet efficient test. The question then arose, what °me•t that test to be? No one' had been proposed or even suggested, which could be so little liable to abuse as the plan of coupling, under certain restrictions, the right to the franchise to the assessment to the Poor-law. By that means a nerson claiming the franchise, showed the 4 grounds upon which the franchise arose, and that he was bearing corresponding burdens. When he stated that the principle was the most simple . and obvious one which had been poin'cd out, he felt bound at the same time to state. that the information before them the House was not in a polition to adopt the measure as proposed.—( Tory cheers. ) He had relit the Report which had been laid on the table, and he confessed that he had been much disaapointed—it was very unsatisfactory.—( Hear, hear.) But although he made that a latissien, he did not think that they ought not to give the fill a ecteetti reading. —(llear, hear.) It was perfectly true that upon data so vague he could not support the Bill. suttpese it were agreed to, the right of voting would be very different in different parts of Ireland—it would be very diffe rent in the union of Searrig to what it would be in those of Lurgan and Longford. —( Hear, hear.) There was scarcely two of the , ansations in conf 'lnity with the law of the land ; they tnigl t therefore, tie set aside, and the result would be that while they had given the right to the franchise on the a.sstreption that it would be wore widely extended, they wig`a find by an alteration in the valuation a very great change had taken place which they had not intended. But still he di.t not think thet was a reason for not reading the Bill a 9Ce }ud tine. fsr it was in the power of Parliament to obtain a fair val tat ion threughout the whole country. If they agreed upon the principle, then it would be the duty of the House to introduce chines for the purpose of causing a new valuation in all the 11.1i1119 of Ireland, and upon one universal principle. He would have such a valuation conducted by the sanction and and m the authority of tee Poor-law Commissioners ; he would not allow the local authorities to interfere, because they had shown that they were not fit to be trusted with the duty. They might take advantage of the provision in the Irish Poor hw hilt. which zerrulated the manner in which the burden of the poor- rate was to be divided between ttle landlord and the tenant, awid the right of 'n,.,e might depend upon the pay ment of a certain portica *c poor-rate kept back from the landlord. hut the pre was not the time to discuss the manner in ;which, it they agreed to the principle of coupling the right of voting with.the payment • f poor-rates, that plan was to be tarried into-effect. He for one saw no reason why in the prestx at Session they should not, carry that principle into effect. Ho was convinces that Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if th cy were going to apply their minds to the subject, would have :no difficulty in devising the means by which that object mig... - - be carried out. The object should be to maintain as nearly acs possible the number of voters at the same amount as p.t the p rising of the Reform Bill, and he thought it essen tially neces s try that they should do so at the present mo ment. La se: night he had heard with great pleasure from the Noble Lord opposite that he was not one of those who wished: to restrain within very narrow limits the right , or voting i a Ireland. It was only what he expected from his Noble F riend, when he recollected that for three years, dining which he had sat with him (Lord Howick), he had been the st tenuous advocate and supporter of the principles of the Catholi e Relief Bill, and of the Reform Acts for England and Ireland. When he recollected that, he never doubted that the Noble Lord would be averse to any great restriction or nar rowing of •1 e franchise. The Hon. Member for Cavan in a speech, in vs eist of which he (Lord Howick) concurred, showed • that nothing could be more detrimental to the prosperity of Ireland, as ;so to narrow the right of voting as that it should be possess/ el by the class who held property in Ireland ; and that, in thee present state of the country, nothing could be more Bang a •ous than to allow the franchise to fall into the hands of tie. t owners of the soil only, and not take in such a proportion • ,f the occupiers as would enable the Irish represen tatives to e 3 press the real feelings of all the inhabitants. If they were s ;reed that it was desirable to avoid restricting the franchise, a nd that they were of opinion that the most substan tial of th a tenantry should exercise the right of voting, and that -the Honourable Member for Cavan only dif fered as for the extent to which that should take place— if that a ere the only question between them, he could not avoid the conclusion that the time had at length arrived wh eta that remedy must be applied. His Noble Friend in trying h) prove that the time had not arrived had referred to returns - which had been laid upon the table of the House on the met:iota of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and had shown from them that there were a considerable number of voters on the registry 131 Ireland. If that were really so, and that there had been no abridgement of the franchise, he for one would be satisfied. H a adhered to the opinionhe hadformerly expressed of the impoiie: v of disturbing the franchise as conferred by the Reform Bill. it f the number of voters on that paper were really to be found there , he certainly should net advocate any change in the franchise as at present established. But what were the facts ? His ig oble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had shown 'that the mural ter was by no means so large as was represented, and that seve rol of the names were twice entered, having lapsed on the old re; listry of 1832, and that a large deduction was to be , made on t Gat account. It was distinctly shown last 'night t ( p ui • tin the c aunty of Cork the number entitl r e a d n t t o tliei t ias h lato e iernys f ile r t a arw nchise -not es .ceed one-half of that on the face of the paper. As the lease s fell in they were not renewed ; the consequence was a considerable reduction of the number of persons entitled to claim the franchise. He was only vrhaenn indisposition li e said that the tn first s w t appearanceatsvasnoto-nf rious to ever,y man, those causes creating w a t s h h , a a in t t the year 182 3. It was at the general elections the first g,rea t stand was made by the tenantry he considero i the improper influence of the Ln a shortest period for which a lease could be granted, that The gave -the elective :franchise , under the existing law was 14 y ear . Mr. O'CONNELL—Fourteen years by the present Bill, but twenty,by t he existing law. Lord HO WICK—WeII, the existing law required leases of considerable duration to confer the right of voting. It was of course perfectly obvious that the vast number of those leases which were, granted before the year 1836, could not yet h ave fallen in ; they were in process of falling in, but that process could not have reached its fullest extent. But more than that, the first appearance of those causes which created an indispo sition on the part of landlords to grant leases, though com mencing from the year 1826, did not, till after thebassing of the Reform Bill, about nine years ago, acquire the strength which they now possessed. It was not till after that period that the feeling became so strong and so general as it had lately shown itself to be. It was comparatively only within a few years that that feeling had gained its present strength. —( Hear, hear.) That being the ease, when they considered how long the previous system was in ope ration, and when they also considered the length of the leases i necessary to grant for the purpose of conferring the franchise— when they considered these two things, it was obvious and iralpable to the most cursory observer, that they were only at the very beginning and outset of that process of diminution which, under the influence of that feeling on the part of the landlords, must necessarily take place. Every year that went by—he might say every month that passed —every life that dropped—every lease that expired, increased the extent of the disfranchisement. But that was by no means the whole of the case. Under the operation of any good system of registration—under the operation of the system or: p ofro posed by his Noble Friend on th a t s id e o f t h e H ouse, that proposed by his Noble Friend on the opposite side of the Nouse—under the operation of any good system of registra tion, he would say that it was perfectly obvious, on the face of the papers laid before Hon. Members, that there must be a vast diminution in the number of persons entitled to the right of voting. It was perfectly clear that, admitting the valuations which were lately made upon the Poor-law unions, to be ever so imperfect—admitting them to be even more .be low the true value than they were represented to be by the gentleman who conducted the examination —even admitting hat it was perfectly obvious that a vast proportion of t h e tenements in respect to which the right of voting was now en. joyed was of such a description that under a more effective system of rq ieration the right of voting would, to a great extent, cease to exist ( Hear, hear, hear) —at the end of a given number of yea's, according to the pro posal of his Noble Friend, these cases would all come for re consideration or revision. According:to the plan of the Noble Lord opposite they would be immediately subjected to reinves gation. But it was perfectly obvious that under the operation of a really effective scrutiny of the right of voting by any good machinery of registration, there must be a very large deduction to be made from the number of persons entitled to exercise the right of voting in I re l an d. B u t if t h at was t h e case, if t h e direct and necessary effect of passing a measure upon that subject w ou l d b e to reduce the number of voters—if there was alto to be taken into account the feeling on the part o f the landlords which induced them to withhold leases—if all these various circumstances were to be taken into consideration and to be coupled with that which they knew to be the state of Ireland from all the most authentic information before Hon. Members —from the information contained in Reports upon the subject, and from previous Reports of Mr. Nicholls, written without any reference to the subject at present under discussion—if that, he (Lord Howick) said, was clear, surely it was perfectly obvious, in justice to the people ,of Ireland and in sound policy, with respect to the interests of the empire at large that they ought at they same time that they established a stricter and severer system of scrutiny of the right of voting in Ireland they ought at the same time to make the definition of that right clearer and plainer, and also so shape it that it would prevent the diminution in the number of voters, which was to be ap • prehended. That appeared to him to be the course which it became them to adopt, and he must, before he brought to a close his observations, which had already run to a greater length than he had intended—before he drew those observa tions to a elose he must refer particularly to one of the argu ments which he meant to advert to, and which it was most im portant the House should consider. In speaking of the incon venience and mischief which resulted from uncertainty in the right of voting, and from the difficulty of applying a test of value according to the existing law, even if the con struction were more clear and more certain than it was—in speaking of that he meant to have called the attention of the House to that fact, that in applying that test by means of the Assistant Baristers they produced very serious evils in Ireland. His (Lord Howick's) argument was, that if they continue to have, as in time past, extremely conflicting evidence on the subject of value on every occasion of registry in Ireland, to call on the Assistantßarrister to decide upon his own judgment, or on the evidence so tendered to him, —to call upon him to pronounce a decision which might materially affect the political interests of the contending parties was attended with this disadvantage, that it threw suspicion upon his character, and upon the due administration of justice.—( Hear, hear.) Every man knew how important, in the administration of justice in Ireland, had been the system of Assistant Barristers. This institution he believed well cal culated to provide for the satisfactory adjustment of all those disputes which in every country arose between man and man. It would, therefore, be the foundation of improved order and tranquillity in Ireland. But if they threw ,a doubt on the impartiality of the Assistant Barrister,—if they mixed him up in politics, by imposing on him the duty of deciding on the right of persons to vote, they would do all they could towards going back to the state of things that before existed, and de stroying the benefits of valuable institutions. And this was not his (Lord Howick's) opinion only. Those Gentlemen on the other side of the House who were Members of the Committee on fictitious voters in Ireland, could not fail to recollect that the Assistant Barristers who were examined on that occasion, and had also been employed in registration, expressed the strongest opinion, derived from their own experience, of the inconvenience and mischief of uniting in their persons these duties. They said, that if they were to perform the duties of registration it was necessary, for the satisfactory administra tion of justice, that they should not be called upon to do so upon an indefinite title of voting.—(Hear, hear.) The estab lishment of the clear right of voting, therefore, was coincident with the due administration of justice. His Noble Friend had said that he had a great objection to impose the task upon them. Could it be imposed upon the Judges? In his (Lord Howick's) opinion, still less. Upon the executive Govern ment ? Hon. Gentlemen had stated distinctly, No ; and as he was willing to admit, with every appearance of justice. Could they allow the right of deciding upon matters so vague and uncertain as the value of property to be given, without appeal to any Barrister, let him be chosen by whore he might ? Could they give such an extent of power, so liable to abuse, to any man in such a situation? In his (Lord Howick's) opinion, decidedly not. On this question of value, to what tribunal was to be their appeal from the decision of the Bar rister ? To what other authority were they to refer this question ? Were they to give it, as at present, to the Judges and Juries ? He was sure no friend to Ireland would recommend such a course. Party political animosities had al, early, in that unhappy country, gained too much admission within the ssnetuasy of justice.—(Hear, hear.) But no man who had the slightest regard to the interests of Ireland would ag gravate and extend so injurious a system. Was it a Court of Appeal, such as was proposed by the Bill of his Noble Friend, now before the House ? Such a Court might by possibility decide, as proposed by that Bill, on disputed questions of law, but on questions of value, which turned on the nice balance of conflicting evidence, which, to justly estimate, must be heard and not read, such a tribunal would be utterly inefficient ; it would be impossible for it even to attempt to perform such task. Were they to leave questions of value open for the con sideration of a Committee of that House ? Were they in every case of contested election to allow a person to be brought over, at a vast expense, before a Committee of that House, to give evidence whether the property of a person in Kerry or Cork was worth ten pounds a year beyond what a solvent tenant would give for it? Could any man continue a system of this kind by the effect of which, when parties were equally divided, the representation was virtually placed at the command of the longest purse ?—( Hear, hear)--for that was the effect of leaving those questions to be decided by Election Committees. He had now nearly concluded what he had proposed to be addressed to the House. He had stated the grounds on: which it ap peared to him, that it was in the highest degree expedient, they should endeavour, if possible, to couple the right of voting with the assessment for the Poor-rate.—( Hear, hear. ) In stating the grounds of his opinion, he was aware that he was making admissions' which would be greatly disapproved of by gentlemen around him, and that the conclusions to which he had arrived, would be equally disapproved of by the oppo site side. It was a painful position for any man to be placed in, to find that in no quarter of the llouse, could he look for approbation of the course which he had adopted. Yet, although it were ea'ier to go with the stream, and vote with a party, that should never be his course of conduct. On a question like this, on which the peace, happiness, and stability of the empire de pended—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. O'Connell)—he would act on the dictates of his own independent judgment.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to those Gentlemen opposite who agreed with him in wishing this question to be settled on a fair hass for all parties, and he entreated them to ask themselves, whe ther:this Bill did not hold out a prospect of arriving at such a settlement ? and if so, whether it was not their duty to sup port it ?—( Hear, hear.) He did not propose Utopian views of a man voting _always in that House on the dictates of his own opinion. No. From the form of our Government:and the nature of popular assemblies, no great object could be car ried out without the co-operation of many minds ; which could only be obtained by sacrifices of one's own opinion to that of others upon minor points. He knew that was the case, and he had always acted on that conviction But there were cases of too deep an importance to allow that rule to be acted upon. That co-operation and that sacrifice of opinion of which he spoke were always understood, with this reservation, that they can only be required on questions not of vital and paramount importance.—(Hear, hear. ) On all questions, when great interests of the country were at stake, every man should act on his own independent judgment ; and he asked, was not such the case of the present Bill ?—( Hear, hear.) Let any man look to the present state of Ireland—( Hear, hear)—and say was it consistent with the safety of the empire—(Cheers)—that this question should be any longer left the subject of agitation and of angry and acrimonious discussion ?—(Cheers.) If they looked not only to Ireland, but to Foreign affairs, would any man say that the importance of this question was not greatly increased by the aspect which they bore ?—(Hear, hear. ) Was not the temper of men's minds in other countries such as to lead to doubts of the permanence .of that peace, which had already lasted longer than any other, per haps, which this country had ever enjoyed ?—( Cries of " Hears hear.") He feared that its length added to the danger • for he believed that a generation was arising, by which the miseries of war were to a great extent unknown and forgotten, and that the animosities which in former times de solated the world with war and bloodshed might again lead to similar results. If they looked to the state of the country at home and abroad, could they reconcile themselves to regard this question as one of minor importance, and one on which they could vote for party purposes ?—( Cheers.) For himself, he gave his vote under a sense of the highest responsibility, but without the slightest hesitation, that it was his duty to support the Bill. Dr. LEFROY said, that if the Bill were calculated to put an end to doubt and uncertainty, it should have his most cor dial support. But it would do no such thin;; and its honest title ought to be, " A Bill to abolish all the honest country voters established by the Reform Bill." It was such a mea sure as they ought to take the first opportunity of putting out of the House. If the Parliamentary qualification were reduced to Si. the municipal qualification could not be maintained at 101. and the question of corporations would be agitated anew. The main provision of the Bill was one which had never been heard of in the House, except from the Hon. Member for Kilkenny and those who acted with him ; and it was melancholy to find the Government going so far with that party. The fact was, that the qualification under the proposed law would be less than that of the 405.. freeholders, for those were required at least to have some profit in their holdings. In England a 101. tenantey was the qualification which entitled a pauper to parish relief, while in Ireland a Si. tenement was to entitle its possessor to a vote for the county,—( Hear, hear.) He found that, before the passing of the Reform Act, the voters in Ireland amounted to 70,408, while they were now raised to the number of 154,687, showing an increase of more than two to one. There was, therefore, no grounds for saying that the constituencies of Ireland had been so diminished by the pre sent system as to render it necessary to have recourse to the desperate expedient then proposed for the purpose of keeping it up to a reasonable proportion. Previous to the Reform Act, the Liberal party in Ireland returned 63 Members to Parlia ment, and the party opposed to them returned 33; while the Liberal party now returned 75, and their opponents 35. That was another reason for inducing him to think that the power of the party opposite had not of late years been unduly dimi nished. It was a serious objection to the measure that it would tend to the subdivision of property, and the general im poverishment of the country. The Bon. and Learned Mem ber for D u bli n hi mse l f had expressed that opinion on an exami mreetianrotnnoerfore a C omm itt ee of the House. The Ho n . an d Member on th a t occas i on reco mmended the establish ment 10/, constituency, stating that . such a measure would tend to raise the condition of the Irish fa rmers, and to give would what its mucho oyesotmt u v a e enn t r li cyy e country,yeomanry. measureTheetend d w an t e d , tocorruption a . substantial the n e itself, by creati ng a pauper cons tituency. The measure was not only an infring ement of th e R e f orm Act, but a b reac h o f the compact entered into in 1829. Th It Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin had been a party to that compact, as was proved by his evidence, which h e h a d b e f ore quo t e d, and so lately as the month of February, 1839, h a i d admitt e d that 'a measure for the abolition of the 101. franch rise would be a vio lation both of the Reform Act and of the ( latholic Emancipa, lion Act, and yet he was now advocating such a measure. Should this measure be carried the eonsti tuency of Ireland would be so thrown into the hands of th e Repealers as to make it exceedingly difficult for the 1101 use , to resist such a measure. He would therefore conclude b y giving his h ear t y c oncurrence to the amendment of the IN oble Lord that the Bill be read a second time that day six mot tliss. Mr. PIGOT said that as the discussio ts had proceeded it appeared to him that it had been gradually narrowed to what appeared to him the essential part of the pro jest of legislation which had been submitted to the attention of the House. That question was whether the franchise in Ireland ought to be con tinifed on the basis on which it rested at present--'and to the consideratio n o f th a t q uestion all the topics: which had been urged in the latter part of the debate seer 1€ d to converge. The main question for consideration was thds , whether they should retain that property qualification, le,r, ing the test of value what it was at present in law. He would ask the House to consider what was the present state of things with reference to the test of value in relation to the franchise.. He was now speaking peculiarly with reference to the county' franchise, and on that question they had not only to combat with the difficul ties which must always arise when a questi. Mt of value was to be'discussed, but there was this additional di &lenity, that they had to contend wish a contested question of la r. ome differ ences might arise even with respect to a question of fact, but with respect to a question of value there mt tst necessarily be All, thes e subjectsthree the of difference. The elements of q u alification were th ti e tolf t e itle, the occupation, and the value *of the tenement. questions had to be discussed merely • as a question of fact, with the exception of the element of v ue. The ques tion of inquiettsetidon o f eleoa7 proved by a production of the lease, the 013ar p to a ,ov t fa i , o s n bduet w ei as Idvehde al lny so tnhoc a ty matter a f fact, and ad the considera tion of value, Cheers an acatimueestti(c: quest ion of opinion—( of fact but a the evidence would alway s uheet to the greatest p plexi'Y' They be e )— so co d nt o li n ct al in l g m as a A t c o rs le o ad f o o p n in t i h 7 sonsideration of the s blew that ou questions relating to matters p er fact, to what' THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1841. had passed before our senses, to matters which parties might I have seen or heard, prejudice or passion would frequently so warp men's minds as to make them give versions of the same occurrence perfectly different the one from the other-- and if this were the case as to matter of fact what must it be as to matter of opinion ; why, the differences in that case caused by interest or passion were so great, hat in many cases of matter of opinion it was impossible to rely on human testimony. This was the case in all matters of opinion, more particularly must it be so in questions of opinion af fecting the franchise, where there must necessarily be so much conflicting testimony, and this was more par ticularly the case with respect to the Irish franchise, than to the English one, because the Irish franchise was prin cipally a 101. leasehold one, while in England the greater part of the constituency consisted either of freeholders or tenants at will, the leaseholders constituting but a small portion of the electoral body. With respect to the 40s. freeholder, the free hold must indeed be of little value if it was not greatly above that required by law, but in Ireland the Legislature had thought proper to give a 101. leasehold franchise instead of a 40s. freehold one, and the 101. leasehold franchise, which was not a common one in England, was the most common one in Ireland, and that was the reason why the defects inherent in the nature of the franchise itself appeared so much more glar ingly in the one country than in the other. That was in itself an evil, but to that evil was superadded the still greater mis chief of an ambiguity in the law.—(Cheers.) By the Act of 1829 the test of the franchise had been determined to be what a solvent tenant could afford to pay over and above what the tenant paid. By the second clause of that Act, and by the oath in the third schedule of the Act, that definition of the test had been distinctly laid down by the Legislature : amongst the tests which Parliament in its wisdom had at that time thought right to apply to the investigation of the franchise, was a form of oath to be administered to the Jury appointed at the Assizes to try questions of appeal relating to the franchise. That oath was altogether omitted from the Reform Act, and all clauses relating to it were withdrawn from the body of the Bill. A question then arose not only with respect to the free hold franchise but with respect to the leasehold franchise, which had not existed under the former statute, but which owed its existence entirely to the Reform Bill.—(Hear, hear.) The question was raised before the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench ; he had previously ruled that the oath ought not to be put. Other Judges had held a different opinion, and pressed by their authority he had permitted the administration of the oath, but at the same time reserved the question for consideration with his brethren. The Judges met and considered the questions submitted to them. The first question raised was whether the oath was lawful. On that question four of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench and one Baron of the Exchequer, five out of the eleven, were decidedly of opinion that the oath was unlawful. six were of opinion that the oath had been properly admini stered, and one other Judge, who was absent from the consul tation, was understood to agree with them in opinion. An other question was, whether it was proper to direct the Jury to apply the test ? There were ten to two in favour of the test. If it stood thus alone, and he could show the House that ' a difference in opinion existed amongst the Judges, on such an important question as the mode in which they should appeal to the consciences of a Jury, he thought he should be enabled to call upon them to pass some legislative enactment to remove all doubt upon the subject. But it was not a difference of sto7oroflo to 2 ; the practical result had been that the two Judges who differed in opinion from their brethren still retained their own opinions, and declared that they felt bound by the solemn obligations under which they were acting to state the law on both subjects according to their own opinions, and against the opinions of the majority, and to act in accord ance with the opinion of the law. Such had been the case in 1837, but what was it at present? Two of the Judges belonging to the majority had since been replaced by two holding opinions in accordance with thole of the minority ; so that on the question of the administration of the oath the minority had been converted into a majority of 7 to 5, while on the other quest ion the minority had been increased to 4, and at that moment one third of the Judges of Ireland felt that they were bound by the solemn sanction of their oath, to administer the law as they believed right, in opposition to the opinion of their brethren. Now, how was this question to be determined ? were they to have the question renewed, the Judges again to be called together, and to wait until those discus.ions should be renewed ?—( Hear, hear.) It was a state of things calling loudly fur legislative interference ; The Legislature was called upon to settle the question, and remove the doubt altogether. If such a difference of opinion had taken place upon the smallest question relating to pro perty, upon an individual right of the smallest possible value, the Legislature would be bound to interfere. It was the business of Parliament to review the laws, to see where they were defective, and to take care that they were rendered clear and unambiguous. Was it not, therefore, essential that they should in some r. ay remove the doubts that at present existed in those parts of the law. There were two projects now before the House, and be tween them the House must choose. He would assume that some alteration must be made, and would now address himself to the main features of the measures before the House. The Noble Lord opposite said his Bill was a Bill for registration merely ; now, if ever that was so, he considered it a sufficient ground for the House not to enter into its consideration, as it only aggravated and exasperated the evil, because its very vital pnnci, le and essence was to give an appeal against the the franchise to the Judge, to settle a question —of what? Not to settle a question between parties, according to the law as it was known and acknowledged, but to give them an opportunity of adding further question, and making the doubtful law more doubtful.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what was the consequence of such a state of thfigs? He would suppose that an Assistant Barrister had admitted five hundred votes—or rather, he would suppose that he had rejected them. There was an appeal to the Judge. and he, acting according to his interpretation of the law of beneficial interest, placed those 500 voters on the register. An election then took place ; an intervening registry afterwards occurred, and the same voters were objected to as being improperly left on the registry, and the Revising Barrister left them on the registry. Now he would suppose another Judge had gone that circuit holding different opinions to the previous one—what would be the result ? Why probably those very electors would be re moved by the Judge holding different opinions. Such would be the effect of the provisions of the Noble Lord's Bill, and he would leave it for the House to say whether that was a remedy for the evil or an aggravation of it.—( Hear, hear.) He would mention another illustration which was given in the course of the discussion in the last year by his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary at War, with reference to the appeal in Dublin. In Dublin the appeal was to any one of the , Judges who sat at Nisi Prius : he would suppose the Lord Chief Baron entertaining one opinion in ac cordance with the minority of the Judges, and the Lo.:11 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, holding another opinion in accordance with tip, majority of the Judge.. Now, was it not plain in such a case, that if the party appealed, he must succeed, because he had only to choose the Judge before whom he would go ? Was it not indispensable, therefore, that in some way or other, the question should be settled that was tried in 1835, 1838, and 1840, and it was then found that, upon the mere definition of the words of the Reform Bill, the difficulty could not be removed. He would appeal to every reasonable man, whether, adopting the plan to remedy these evils—whether ' it was not necessary to consider what would be the qualitieS that were required as a test, and whether that test should not prevail in the whole Island. Such was the case in the Poor law ; there the test pervaded the whole Island. The next thing to consider would be, whether they could obtain a test that would comprise every species of property ; and with refer ence to that he thought, with very few exceptions, that the Poor-law test would be applicable to every species of proper.) , that would give the franchise. It was not necessary that the test should be uniform over the whole Island, it was quite sufficient that it should be uniform in large districts ; but then it was said that there must be some check to fraud ; he thought that check was given under the system of the Poor laws. Now what was the case with reference to the Poor-law ? Why, before it was tried, so satisfied was Parliament of its adequacy as a proper test, that they adopted it for the purpose of establishing the municipal franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Had any other mode been suggested by which this difficulty could be got over, or had any other mode been suggested by which they could get a better test? He had heard of none in that debate or in former discussions, and he owned that it appeared to him if they were to retire from that experiment, without fairly trying it, the case might be looked to as utterly hopeless. But then it was said that the valuation was not uniform ; that argument was to stand good, and if it was to be urged that the tested valuation must be uniform— that they must abandon all notion of obtaining any test whatever, because to suppose that they could obtain an uniformity of value was utterly out of the question. If they were to take rating as a test at all by which the fran chise was to be made stable, it was impossible to suppose that in some parts there would be a difference to what took place in other. It was enough to be certain that they could never ex ceed the real value of the property, because, if the rating was too high, the party had an opportunity of appealing against the rate. It appeared, therefore, to him that the great and essential quality which was required, in the first place, was that the basis of the test should be ascertained before the parties went to the conflict in the registry; and next that there should be a uniformity of that test as near as possible. The question of the amount of the franchise was one that would require great consideration film the House, but that was a more tit subject for the Committee than the second reading. The exact amount of the franchise was not now the question, and if he was asked why 51. had been taken as the test, he would refer to the statements of his Noble Friend who introduced the Bills. He begged the House to recollect that they were not nowdealing with a recent question—they were not now deal ing with men that for the first time came forward to claim that which was the subject of doubt—but they were dealing with a mass of men who had acquired the franchise, and who had enjoyed it for eight years. In the present Bill the rights of all parties were defined, which was not the case under the provisions of the Reform Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He had incontestible witnesses to prove that in 1832, when the the Barristers went about administering the law, they ap. plied it in the manner in which the people now understood it —(Hear, hear.) He would just call the attention of the House to the state of things which existed prior to and under the Reform Act. The Act of 1829 required that all the 101. freeholders of Ireland then created should be registered under that Act. By a return which was made to the House of Comm/11s in May, 1431, it appeared that there were then registered 20,109 voters. It was said that the freehold qualification was not intended to be altered by the Reform Bill. Now what was the operation of that law ? In 1832 the 101. franchise was registered under the Reform Act. What was the number of freeholders registered under that Act? If the law were the same—if it was administered in the same manner—ought that franchise to have been enlarged? should it h ave b een cons iderably increased? Wh y , he found that, in the summer of 1831, the freehold constituency of the counties was 20,000 ; in the autumn of 1832 there were regis tered under the Reform Act 37,732, making an addition to the freehold constituency of 17,000. He mentioned that sim plyte andndf c o ud r p t o h tn e h ipwtu what principle s e e p r o ri f tn, s 4c h wi p o n i g t A h ew:. aws wasathe e ß ai e sdt f me o r r i e m ndi s. t e A r c e t ild w o o r uae k p e on d i: , m the extended construction, and he proved the fact by showing that the constituency, which according to the allegation, was left unchanged, was nearly doubled under the Reform Act.--(Hear, hear.) At this time the Noble Lord was /Secretary for Ireland ; and it was proved upon the evidence that the Barristers were in constant communication with hint, and that he gave them all the information which they required upon the construction. An election soon afterwards took place, and after that the attempt was made to introduce an opposite construction. The Longford Committee, which was com posed chiefly of Members of the other side of the House, de termined in favour of the more extended Construction. Another election took place in 18.35, and another in 1837. Upon these three occasions men who had acquired the franchise also ex ercised it upon that construction, and until the last Session of Parliament its propriety had never been called in question. reference entitled t 0 0 0 these understandintentions f from ? There was one point upon which he felt anxious that the House should be set right. It was important to look at the inten tions of the framers of the measure in introducing it to Parlia- What were the poop discussion 1829, the effect of which was that passage from a discu Irelandfa in their language ? The Hon : b fl e le t na o. bedrenthanedn_pprrooeoefedoefd atobreelaidas that the best course would ment. Now what wa i s e t o h f e e of the Noble Lord the Memb er f or m a n, was the language Lancashire.—(Loudof cheers from the Minist er i a l fide 101. interest and no more. This, said the Hon. Gentic_North tidal interest. But he had gone furthe r , very expression bene by the ;cud and col_ he had said that it should not be tested Benches.) The Noble Lord on that occasion had used th e vent tenantry. The argument was applied against those who contended for the adoption of such a test.--( Hear, hear.) The. Noble Lord was in favour of a beneficial interest, but not a good and solvent tenant test. That was what the Reform Act bad done, and they were bound to take that Act according to the intention of its framers. He called upon Parliament to give its sanction to a distinct and intelligible measure for the purpose of settling the franchise upon a sure and solid footing. He called upon them not to look upon this question under the influence of party feelings or political excitement.—( Hear. ) He called upon those who desired the future peace and tran quillity of Ireland, who desired to see it progress in that rapid career of improvement which was now unquestionably developing so much of the resources of Ireland, who wished to extend to that country the blessings which distinguished this country, to come to the consideration of this question with unprejudiced minds, and for that purpose to go into Commit .the on this Bill.—( Cheers. ) Sir W. FOLLETT said he quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman, that the details of this measure would be best dealt with when discussed in Committee. It was upon the prin ' ciple involved in these clauses respecting the elective franchise, that the question now arose, and he could not avoid express ing his surprise that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, under whose auspices this Bill was mainly introduced into Parliament, should have con cluded his speech without addressing a single word to the House upon the great and sweeping change which these clauses introduced in the elective franchise of Ireland. He could not but suppose that the Right Hon. Gentleman was quite aware of the full scope of this Bill; and yet the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had treated it as if the whole principle which they were discussing was the application of a par ticular test. Did the Hon. Gentleman suppose that Hon. Members on that side of the House were opposed to the ap plication of a test? We (Sir Wm. Follett) perfectly agreed with the Hon. Member for the county of Northumberland that some test arising from the relief of the poor, or some other public burthen, should be applied, and that they should not rest solely on the oath of the claimant ; and he was surprised that it should be supposed that any opposition would be offered to the application of a proper test. But then, under the pretence of applying the Poor-rate as a test of value, there was an attempt to sweep away the existing franchise in Ireland. Acting entirely contrary to the princi ple laid down by the Reform Bill, it was thought to substitute another constituency, based upon a different principle and upon a different qualification.--( Hear, hear.) It was a violent interference with the very principle of the Reform Bill. Be fore he proceeded to speak of the general principles of the measure, the House would allow him to say one word upon the difficulties which it was supposed to meet. He perfectly agreed with the Right Honourable Gentleman that the scenes now existing in Ireland were a scandal and reproach, and no one could more regret that state of things. But he was not prepared to admit that the blame of those scenes was to be attributed to some deficiency in the Reform Act. As an English gentle man and an English lawyer, he could not understand the doubt or the difficulty. The elective franchise in Ireland was given in precisely the same terms as in England ; the two great classes of voters, the freeholder, and the 101. occupier, were the same. With respect to the term " beneficial inte rest," he was satisfied that no English lawyer could rise in his place, and say that the introduction of those words created the slightest doubt.—( Hear, hear.) They had heard of discord ant decisions. He (Sir W. Follett) never heard of a Revising Barrister in any part of England entertaining the slightest doubt as to the meaning of those words ; that part of the Re form Bill had in this country been carried into effect without doubt and without difficulty. —( Hear, hear.) Now, what had occurred in Ireland? l'he Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Barristers gave a large and liberal construction to the words. Did he know how far those Barristers went—not as regards freeholds, not as regards leaseholds, but as regards oc cupiers of 101. tenements ? It had been proved, before Com mittees of the • House of Commons, that in some cases the occupier of a cellar had been admitted on account of his trade, or something else, which was called a beneficial inte rest, to be placed upon the register.—( Hear, hear.) They took the same fanciful mode with regard to the freeholds. It doubts and difficulties existed, there was an easy mode of set tling them. 'There was an appeal to the Judges; and he could conceive no course more proper than to assemble the Judg• s of Ireland, that the matter might be properly di-cussed, and when that tribunal had made its decision, he could not conceive how any further doubts could exist. But what had actually occurred? Why, ten of the Judges of Ireland had given the construction to the Act which had been put upon it in England. There were two dissentient Judges, and they had advised the Barristers to act upon their own authority. He hoped that the House would not suppose that he meant to impute improper motives to those Learned Judges. He believed that there was no Member of the English bar, who had obtained a seat on the bench, who once allowed himself to be influenced by political feelings; he believed the same of the Iri,h bar ; but, for this reason, he the more deeply regretted the course which the Learned Judges in question had pursued. It was said that the opinion of the majority was not binding. lie admitted that it was not, but he would ask what man's life or fortune would be safe if the Judges of England were to choose to act upon their individual opinion instead of yielding their opinion to the Cogrts of Appeal. The Judges invariably yielded to the majority. They knew that even the Govern ment acted upon the opinions of the majority of the Judges. They had, in a recent case of high treason, carried into effect the decision of the majority of the Judges, He could not help thinking that it would have been much bet ter for the two Judges to have conformed to that of teeir ten brethren. He would have said so in any case of a non-politi cal nature—how much more so, then, in a case relating to the franchise.—(Cheers.) He called upon the Right Hon. the Attorney-General fur Ireland to look again at, and compare the provisions of the 10th George IV., with these contained in the Reform contended they were identically the same. Well, they introduced a Bill into the House, but not containing the same provisions as the Bill is hich had formerly been intro duced by the Right Hon. Gentleman. It was quite clear that if that Fill had passed the only elect of it would have been to increase the evils now existing in Ireland ten-fold. Had it passed the same. difficulties would have existed now. But what was the Bill of the Noble Lord ? Why was it rendered neces sary under a pretence of removing doubts and difficulties? re they going to introduce such a clause as the Si. rating one ? (Cheers.) He could not characterise that as fair—he had al most said not honest. The efeet of the clause would be not only to destroy the franchise introduced by the Reform Bill, but it would introduce quite a new one. Under that Bill the 10!. freeholders, lea-eholders, would have a beneficial interest fair certain terms of 60, 20, and 14 years, the beneficial interest varying from 101. to 20/, according to the time of the lease. The franchise was also given to copyholders ; he believed none of that class existed in Ireland. That was the franchise, as settled l,y the Reform Bill ; but what was the principle of it ? Was it not that the right of voting in counties shpuld be based upon property.—( Loud cheers.) And that in burghs the right of voting should be founded on occupation. The Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies objected strenuously to the in sertion of the 50/. clause to the Reform Bill, upon the very ground that it was an interference with the right of voting in counties, which was distinctly based upon property, and not on occupation.—( Cheers. ) What then did the Government propose to ilo by this Act ? In effect they would take awarthe necessity for any property whatever being pos sessed by a county voter.—(Cheers.) He repeated it, that no - party would be bound under this Act to have any property whatever, to entitle him to vote under this Act. He was re quired to be an occupier for 14 years of a tenement rated to the poor at 5/.—( Cheers.) Was not that a complete altera tion of the principle of the Reform Bill ? The effect of it would be, that every occupier of any cottage, stable, tenement, or hovel in Ireland, paying - even more than the full value of the cottage, garden, or other possession, if he held it for 14 years, at a rack rent under any and every restriction by his landlord still he would be entitled to vote for any county in that country. Was not this, he would ask, almost admitting the principle of Universal Suffrage in the counties of Ireland?—( Cheers. ) The lion. Member for Kilkenny had said that he expected soon to see the principle of the Bill applied to England; and supposing that the House were now to agree to the Bill then before them, how were they to refuse such a demand upon the part of the people of England, supposing it to be made ; and if .t were agreed to, let them sweep away all Revising Barristers and Courts of Appeal, because there would be no property qualification to inquire into. He contended it was not only an alteration of the principle contained in the Reform Bill, but it was a direct violation of the conditions which accompanied the Catholic Relief Bill of 1 839—(Cheers)—which required the franchise to be lodged in the hands of the 10/. freeholders of Ireland. The Noble Lord cheered him, but did he not only last session strenuously oppose the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that it would interfere with the settlement made by that Bill. It was true they did not intend to restore the 40s. freeholders, but they were about to establish a much worse franchise. The great objection made to that class of voters was that the system led to a division and sub-division of tr e land to a degree which was most destructive to the welfare of the population, and detrimental to the landlords. Many serious attempts had been made to counteract the evils of that system, but the Bill under consideration would bring them all back in their full malignity. They would again have the land lords dividing and sub-dividing their lands into 5!. holdings for fourteen years.—(Hear, and cheers.) The Bill provided no check upon the landlord whatever ; he would grant a 14-year lease, but he could require any rent he pleased; he could put his tenant under any restrictions he thought proper ; yet under the provisions of the Bill he would be enabled by that Bill to enforce that rent, and enforce those restrictions which he could not do when he made 40s. free holders ; it was putting an immense power into the hands of landlords who were of an exacting nature ; as long as the te nant voted as he desired, he might retain his lease, but the moment that he thought proper to vote in opposition to him, that moment he could be removed. These were the consti tuencies which the Noble Lord proposed to introduce into Ireland, by means of a Bill which only, professes to clear up doubts and remove difficulties.—(Loud cheers.) But where were they to rest ? how resist a demand of the same nature if Riede by the people of England ?—(Cheers. ) They could not look at what was now taking place out of doors with out seeing that there was a large party in the coun try who hailed this Bill as the first step to House hold if not to Universal Suffrage.—(Cheers.) The Noble Secretary for Ireland as well as the .Attorney-Gene ra l f or th at eouotry stated that the information upon which they called upon the House to legislate was both meagre and unsatisfac tory. In his opinion it was much worse. It was founded upon aldirect violation of the directions of an Act of Parliament. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman here read a section of the Poor-law Act for Ireland, and in contradistinction a passage f prin ciple orderto show from the clause contained in the Act. He would ask was thevaluations w takeni inpn founded, a ded , in different there no mode of compelling obedience to an Act of Parlia ment in Ireland ! ?—( Cheers.) Were there no Courts in Ire landthatßeportupontheproceed Billwas ? These Gentlemen state that the parties who had rated under the Poor-law have done so most imperfectly and im_ properly, and in direct violation of the terms of the Act ; and yet the Noble Lord came down and called upon the House to legislate upon that which even the A ssistant Co mmissioner stated was altogether wrong and illega l . He ob j e cted to the principle of the Bill because neither the Noble Lord nor the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had shown the slightest reason why its provisions should be extended to luisssholders in towns, .ast Session he had fixed the municipal franchise at to be Members of Parliament whom he proposed reduced to a an -10/. upon a rating to the poor - rate ; he had now voters for rating of only 51.; nor had any reas on been shown why the fr chise should be reduced to Si. in Ireland and retained at 101 and lie would ask the House wheth er he had not redeemed the pledge he gave--(Cheers)—when he said that he would show in Scotland and England. Such wa s the Bill of the Noble L o rd , that neither the Attorney-General nor the Noble Secretar y had at all alluded to the material par t of the Bill, which would alter the provisions of the Reform B ill, and be g uided b y the prix ciple of the Bill of 1829.—(Loud cheers.) He would o e u p ti peal to Gentlemen sitting on both sides of th House—h e would appeal opposed wild and visionary whe ther when they had so frequently f .t . f th schemes which had been the production o a sec ion o e —(Loud cheerine appeal more particulsrly to her Majesty's Government, supporters of her Majesty's Government e ) introduced ? He would he asked if they were prepared to objec tionable than any that had ever been intro motives venture to hope that whatever might be the and suppm t a Bill more ob jects of the Government in introducing the present Bill, that a majority of the House that night would show them and the th e Re form aside Re form Bill for the three and allow new claimants countries, country that they would not attempt. under t he g u i se of a Bi l l for amending the r egistration in Ireland , to se t in the constituencies of the empire, which must be attended if not to th e C ons tit u ti on itself.—(Loud cheering .for s o m e with dang e r t o a ll the es'ablished institutions of .the country, minutes.) Mr. Al A C A TM A Y-- ir, if this were a legal question purely, I should think i it most presumptuous n me to inter- ere, or intrude myself between the Hon. and Learned Member who has just sat down and my Right Hon. Ffiend behind me. If this were a f i liation to be decided by local knowledge, I should be equally disposed to leave it to the numerous Representatives of the Irish constituencies, who had shown an inclination to address the House. But as it appears to me that at this stage of the Bill, at least, it is pos sible, from one who pretends to neither legal nor local knowledge to form an opinion, I shall venture to state what appears to me to be the grounds on which a representative in this House, bringing to the subject no knowledge beyond that general in formation which is common to every Hon. Member, may feel himself justified in supporting the second reading of the Bill. Sir, in what I have to say, I shall attempt to follow the pre cept rather than the extimple of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman who has just sat down. The Hon. and Learned Mem ber began by declaring his intention to go into none of the questions which might, with more advantage, be regularly discussed when you had left the chair ; but I must say that it appeared to me that the greater ptart of his observations did relate to questions of detail—( Oh li—to important ques tions of details I admit ; but I never can consider that whether the time be fourteen years, or whether the sum be 51. are other than qu es ti ons of detail.—( Oh, oh, from the Opposition benches.) Sir, Ido conceive, however extraor dinary that avowal may seem to Hon. Gentlemen opposite— I do conceive that if any Hon. Gentleman in this House was convinced that the test of my Noble Friend was the best test—then, although he might be disposed to think that the sum of 51. was too low—then although he might be disposed to fix it at 61., 71., 81., or 101., he should still be acting in a re asona bl e and arliamentary manner if he voted for the second reading.—(Oh, and loud cheers.) For my own part I believe, for I had not then the honour of a seat in this House, that this was the case in discussing the Irish Municipal Bill—that the general principle of the Bill being ap proved of, it was brought in, although several divisions were subsequently taken upon its details.--(Hear, hear.) Sir, I have no hesitation in stating that I do apprehend that the evils which are to be apprehended from the re striction of the franchise in Ireland are greater than those which are to be dreaded from its extension.—( He ar, hear.) Sir, I think it best that the test of my Noble Friend should be adopted, that a greater proportion of votes should be given to the large counties of Cork and Louth. I think it better that they should have 8,000 rather than 2,000 voters, but whether they are to have 8,000 or 2,000, still I prefer the test of my Noble Friend near me.—(Cheers.) Sir, I shall at present, upon the question of the amount of the fran chise—l shall confine myself to the principle of the Bill, and it will be necessary for me to follow the example of the Noble Lord, and look not at it alone, but also at the other Bill that accompanies it on the table of the House. The case is cer tainly a grave and important one. Serious evils are admitted to exist with regard to a precious and important right ; both par ties in the State admit the existence of those evils, and both have come forward with remedies which are now lying on your table, and it is for the House to decide between them. Sir, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that it is not on these two Bills we are sitting in judgment.—(Hear, hear.) I say that each of these Bills appears to me to be strongly marked by all the great and characteristic features of the party from which it proceeded. Those who with so much zeal and perseverance support the Noble Lord near me will not be disinclined to ad mit that his measure involves those great principles upon which the legislation of the country should be carried on. ( Hear, hear.) Now what is the end and object of legisla tion? If there be any person who thinks that a Bill of Regis tration should be a Bill of Disfranchisement in disguise—( Cheers for the Ministerial benches)—if there be any person who thinks that we ought so to frame the law as to take away from the people as much as possible of that power which the liberality of the. law has given them, there are many who may think fit to act upon that suggestion, but there are few who will avow it.—(Loud cheering.) I shall, therefore, in what I have to offer to the House take the proposition for granted, that the object of a Registration Bill is to keep out bad voters and let in good ones.—(Cheers.) This is not a simple object—it aims at two things quite distinct, and which may be incompatible. It is possible to conceive that there may be a law giving ample facilities for the ad mission of honest voters, but at the same time permitting a crowd of dishonest voters to press in. It is equally obvious that there may be a law enacting such severe scrutiny that the dishonest voters cannot pass muster, but that such a law will keep out many honest voters. --( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, it is the severest trial of legislation to deal with such cases. When there is only a single object, the case is comparatively easy ; but when there is a double object, both cannot be enjoyed in perfection. Now, if the Bill of my Noble Friend was superior in any respect to that of the Noble Lord opposite, it consists in giving facilities to the re gistration of voters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the danger is greater from an undue extension of th e f ranc hi se , but i think the danger is greater from an improper restriction of the franchise.—( Hear, hear.) Argument upon that sub ject is almost unnecessary ; but it is clear to me that in both respects the Bill of my Noble Friend is superior to the Bill of the Noble Lord, and more efficient for keeping out bad, and letting in good, voters.—(Chee s.) / Take the machinery provided for keeping out dishonest voters. My Hon. Friend's machinery is this : he employs a test to ascertain the franchise,_ which is inseparably connected with a check, acting without any object to put it in motion, and without any sum mons, subpoena, assistant barristers, or judges of assize. He strikes at the motives—he attacks the principles upon which men seek the_franchise—he dives into the nature of things in the heart of man, at the same time without in the smallest de gree impeding the honest voter • without dragging him from his home, Without causing him the slightest anxiety, levying on him no pecuniary charge. Now I say that such a test as that ap proaches as nearly as possible to that at which we should aim. Sir, when I turn to the Noble Lord's Bill, what is the check to keep out dishonest voters. I have looked through the Bill, and I find absolutely only this one against the intrusion of frau dulent voters—eternally trying men over and over again at the same question ad infinitum.—(Cheers. ) Now if the object be to reduce the constituency—if the object be to leave it only the mere name and shadow of a constituency—then I say that this plan has been well concerted for its aim, and it is worthy of the abilitibs which no man has denied to the Noble Lord.-- ( Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, I look at it as a measure presented in good faith to prevent fraud and perjury, then I can designate it by no other nam e th an c hildi s h_(" Oh , " and laughter)—cs childish, for it is a system of preventing fraudu lent registration, but making the registration of good voters in the highest degree impossible. No doubt it will keep some impo,tors out of the registry, and if we were to select every tenth man in London there is no doubt that some rogues would be punished. But I call that childish legislation. Sir, Ido not call that a preventive of fraudulent registration which is not directed against the fraud, but which is directed against all voters, the long and short, the blue-eyed and black-eyed, honest and dishonest.— ( Great laughter and cheering.) Sir, the Noble Lord's test is one which has no reference either to honesty or dishonesty. I speak in the presence of many eminent lawyers, in the presence of many men well acquainted with the law of this country and of Scotland, with our civil law and our Oriental dependencies, and I ask them what they think of this system of eternal revi sion ? I ask the Honourable and Learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and I should be glad to have his opinion upon the point, what does he think of this as the only check upon fraud ? What does he think of a system, in which, every year, objections may be brought before the Assistant Barrister, and if the Assistant Barrister approves of the vote, an appeal may be had to the Judge of Assize ; next year, precisely the same objection may be taken in the very same words, he may be again compelled to go before the Judge of the Assize, and so on for ever and ever. In order to keep his franchise during one Parliament, in order to give one vote the elector is exposed to tkis vexation that he may be seven times compelled to go before the Assistant Barrister, and seven times before the Court of Appeal, and if a man requires the franchise when he comes to the years of discretion, and lives to the ago of 70, he may have 100 law-suits to keep his name on the register ; he may spend 1,0001., and not less than six months of his time in pursuit of his vote.—(Cheers. ) Unless gentlemen could by that interruption remove the words from the Bill of the Noble Lord, or distort those words out of their plain meaning, I conceive they may as well give up the subject. These are the words—that is their meaning. If it be said that the right or power which the Noble Lord gives the objectors—if it - be said that it will not be abused, I answer that I believe it will. I again ask men of both sides of the House--men of eminent legal know ledge—such men as the Honourable and Learned Gentle= man who has just sat down ; I ask him what he thinks of such a principle as this, and what he thinks of those arguments, by which the Noble Lord has attempted to vindicate his measure, and which he repeated whenever the subject was discussed, and which he repeated last night? He (Lord Stanley) said, I will never agree to part with this portion of my Bill, for if I do then the person whollas once established himself upon the register, by fraud or perjury, can never be removed. Does the Noble Lord say that that argument will hold good in all cases ? (Hear, hear, hear.) What says the law of England? "If a man is once tried for a crime and ac quitted, then, although he be acquitted through perjury or any fraudulent cause—although you may have evidence by which you can bring the matter home to him —you can not again put him in jeopardy for the s ame case. ' What says the law of England in civil cases ? "If a man bring an action for debt or damage—if in that action judgment goes against him from any such cause as that a witness breaks his leg, and is, therefore, unavoidably absent, he shall not be again suffered to bring an action in the same case." If that be the law of England in criminal matters—if that be the law of England in civil matters, on what principle ought we to depart from it in the elective franchise The Noble Lord is bound to make out distinctly such a case, and tell us why we should not proceed the same way in the one instance as in the other.—( Hear, hear, hear.) When we do not go on in this manner, hearing and re-hearing in the case of the fraudulent debtor, who has ob tained an estate to which he has no title, why should we go on hearing and re-hearing for'ever in the elective franchise ? " lam asked why the law of England is framed in a different manner from that in which the Noble Lord proposes in his Bill for the registration, I answer, that the law was framed in that respect by men who took general views of tke subject on which they legislated—who did not fix their eyes pertina ciously upon individual cases that might happen at times to arise in the course of events. They say it may be an evil that the assassin should go about the streets bearding the family and friends of his victim with impunity; but it would be a vastly greater evil that all the families in the community could not live in peace and security. It may be a great evil that the fraudulent debtor should keep possession of the estate which he has unjustly acquired, but it would be by far a greater evil that all honest men should be insecure in their property, and that all society should be kept in a ferment of litigation. So you bear with the felon and the debtor, who is dishonest and successful in the Courts of Law, and who has resisted just claims, and even so ought you to bear with him while the system remains as it is —while the voter, if he has got on the list of voters by perjury or fraud, is to be tried again and again. ' If your object be to prevent crime, you must know that this litigation is a fertile source of crime—a fertile source of perjury. This litigation would produce more inconvenience in a single year than all the wrong decisions pronounced according to law would produce in a century.— (Ministerial cheers.) As, then, thus stands the case, I con ceive my Noble Friend has proposed a remedy for existing abuses, which will certainly keep out those who have not a right to vote, and let in without trouble or inconvenience those who have the right. I con ceive that the Noble Lord (Stanley) has proposed a system which will not have the effect of keeping out those who have not a right to vote ; but every body without distinction who dislikes vexation, and expense, and trouble, and anxiety—who dislikes feeing Counsel—who dislikes incurring the risk of having to pay costs—these perms the Noble Lord's Bill will dis franchise. That the Noble Lord's Bill will disfranchise whole sale men who lave a right to vote, Ido not at all doubt. One reason why I believe his system will disfranchise many who have a right to vote is this, that I am certain it would disfran chise myself. I possess a vote for the University of Cambridge; now the vote of an elector of an Irish county is not, I think, as important as that of an elector of the University of Cambridge. His vote is given for two Members of Parliament. He also votes for dignities and situations which are objects of im portance to great men, and even to Princes of the Blood. A vote then in an University is surely a more valuable posses sion than a similar one in any Irish county. The member of the Senate of a University is generally more able to assert his right than an Irish voter. Yet, I declare that if a system like the Noble Lord's were established to register my vote in Cambridge —if I were liable by any Master of Arts, who differed from me in politics, to be compelled to go down to Cambridge a n d d ance attendance on the Senate House for two days, how long think you should I retain that vote ? Indigna tion might support me under such an insult for some time, I might go down once or so for the purpn-e. not indeed of lend ing much assistance to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn)—l might go down on some pressing occasion, but disgust would soon w ear y me ou t. A n d now , w h a t mus t the Iris farmer do, who is much more - helpless than I am, when he finds himself exposed to these great vexations and obstacles, which the Noble Lord's Bill throws in the way of his acquiring the franchise.—(Ministerial cheering. ) I think, Sir, however imperfectly I have explained myself, that. it is my duty to give areason for my belief that the great object of a Registration Bill is the keeping out of voters that ought t o be kept out, and the letting in of voters who ought to be let in. The Bill of my Noble Friend is decidedly superior to the Bill of the Noble Lord opposite for this purpose. But is there anything in the means employed by the Noble Lord which does serve the useful purpose of making a salutary Registration Bill, and which ought to be adopted ? My Noble Friend de fines the franchise. The Noble Lord proposes to leave the franchise undefined. Is it possible to doubt there is anything more important in this subject than that definition of the Irish franchise? I will not go into the ques tion whether the minority of the Judges ought to be bound by the majority.--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Ido not pretend to speak of it as a lawyer. I might ask some ques tions ; I might make some distinctions which I would be glad to hear solved ingenuously by the Hon. and Learned Gentle man who has just sat down. But I will not go into the ques tion. We have the plain fact that eight Judges are for one re presentative system, and four for another ; twelve or fourteen Assistant Barristers are for one representative system, and eighteen or twenty for another. What was the law in Itl4o is not the law in 1841 ; what is the law on one side of the stream, is not the law on the other side ; what is the law before the Chief Justice, is not the law before the Chief Baron. Is it possible to conceive a state of things more scandalous than this ?_(Ministerial cheers.) Why resist any attempt that should be made to settle these difficulties. Is there any more sacred debt from a Legislature to a people, than to give definite laws? Is there any part of the law more import ant than that unon which the making of all law depends? In Ireland this part of the law is in a state utterly, undefined, and you leave it in that undefined state, and then you complain of those very offences for which you yourselves are responsible. Well, under these circumstances come forward two branches of the Legislature, the Noble Lord on the one side, and my Noble Friend on the other. The latter as certains the franchise —he fixes the law. The law of procedure becomes simple and efficient—there is no vexa tion caused to the rightful claimant—the wrongful claimant is at once removed. He (Lord Morpeth) guards against per jury. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) comes forward, and he leaves the substratory law in the state of perplexity in which he finds it. He then sets to work on the law of pro cedure, and makes it ten times more embarrassing than it was before, and the effect is what we might suppose—it produces phenomena in his Bill, so strange as was hardly ever paralelled in all legislation. One of these phenomena was alluded to by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-Gene ral, and it is even more extravagant than it was repre sented by him.—(Hear, hear.) In the county of Dublin, if there is an objection established against a vote tried before the Assistant-Barrister there lies an appeal from him to any one of three Courts which the rejected claimant may choose, each of which Courts take different views of the sub ject. The fact is, the Court of Exchequer always decides in favour of the beneficial interest class of claimants, and the Court of Queen's Bench in favour of the solvent-tenant class. The effect of this system is, that whoever is objected to in the Court below seeks for victory in the Court above, and the de cision of the Assistant-Barrister for Dublin must take effect by the rule of contrary.— (Hear hear.) It would be a curious and s t range case of casuistry to point out how the Assistant-Barrister for Dublin is bound to decide on this question. If he decide according to his opinions and the dictates of his conscience—and his deci sion will probably be reversed in the Courts above— will he then decide contrary to his opinions in order to have that de cision reversed, and the effect produced that he felt it his duty to bring about? Is this a mere oversight? No. This is one of the effects of the attempt to proceed with the sub stantive law undefined. All the objections resolve themselves into one—the principle of finality. The question is, will you disturb the Reform Bill ? I will not at present go into that subject generally.—(Opposition cheers.) I will not go into that subject generally, I say, because 1 propose to reason on . this question upon those prin ciples which are held by all those Conservative Gentle men that I have the happiness of knowing. I propose to reason on those Conservative principles, and if on those principles I cannot command the assent of Gentlemen oppo site, 1 will not appeal to the principles of popular rights-and popular liberties. I will admit that the Reform Bill, ought to be continued inviolate, that it ought to be in full force in Ire land. Is it in force in Ireland? Certainly not. If the meaning of the Reform Bill be that the beneficial interest test be applied, then the Reform Bill is not in force, for there are counties where the solvent tenant test is applied. Is the meaning of the Reform Bill that the solvent tenant test be applied? Then also is the Reform Billnot in force, for there are counties where the beneficial interest test is applied. These things are changing backwards and forwards, and the counties in which the beneficial interest test was ap applied last year are different from the counties in which it is applied this year. Now, if any person would define such a principle, is it by leaving all things as they were before ? Such a state of things amounts to finality.— ( Ministerial cheers. ) From an exceeding aversion to change, you uphold a system with a principle which is ever changing.—(" 11 ear, hear," from the Ministerial benches. ) I speak to reasonable advocates of finality—to gentlemen who use the word only in the sense in which any man, Conservative or Whig, ever used it. Wheel they talk of finality, is it not that a certain Act should stand unrepealed in the volume of the Statute Book ? This then is the course pursued, to give to fluctuation such as was never known among a civilized people, the name of stabi lity--( Cheers)—and then if the friends of finality come forward to close this eternal whirl of revolution, to cry out that we are unsettling the stability of our institutions.—( Cheers. ) Sta bility! When your representation may vary from September to May, and one system be upheld in the Court of Queen's Bench, and another in the Court of Exchequer ! Stability ! When, whether the constituency of a county shall be %WO or 4,0110, depends upon such a fact, as whether Mr. Baron This or Mr. Justice That shall have a fit of die out before the next assizes ! (Cheers and laughter. ) The question is not between change and no change the question is between unchange and eternal succession of changes--(Cheers)—between the Legislature and the Courts of Law. Now, I conceive all reasonable Conservatives will acknowledge one change to be better than a hundred. I con ceive we all agree that changes in the Constitution ought to be made in the Legislature, and not in the Courts of Laws— ( Cheers.) Consider in what a situation you place the Courts of Law. Is it possible toim ag i ne any thi ng more shoc ki ng to any person of just feeling, than that when the Judges meet to settle what circuit they shall take, they determine which coun ties shall have a democratic franchise, and which a restricted one ? It is impossible but that it must deprive the judicial body of the respect of society.-(Hear, hear, from Mr. Sh aw .) I am glad to hear the Rigon. Gentleman cheer me, but I fear I shall find him opposing the only efficacious remedy.— (Cheers.) Ido say I can conceive no system more pernicious than that a Government should depend on the feelings of in dividual Judges, and that when a new Judge was appointed it should be said—" We have got a new Judge. We have lost Kerry, but shall have a change in Sligo." Is it pos sible to conceive a system so opposite to morality and to all good feeling? Vote for my Noble Friend's Bill, and you will be out of this situation in three months.—(Cheers.) I say the necessary effect of such a system is this, that our free con stitution and the administration of justice is alike in danger. You have on the one hand the Constitution quibbled away by the subtlety of the bar, :and on the other hand, you have the judicial tribunal agitated with all the violence of the hustings. —(Cheers.) The greatness of this evil is not disputed, and how does the Noble Lord deal with it? My Noble Friend fur nishes a measure which will at once put an end to it. It is impossible after my Noble Friend's Bill passes, that the question can divide the Bench of Ireland longer. The Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) leaves the question unsettled. He only plunges the Judges deeper and deeper into the mire, and gives them a greater number of questions to try to which the pre cise difficulty applies. Of all the persons who cats complain of the Noble Lord's Bill, there are none who can complain so much as the Judges. The Noble Lord, Sir, can feel for your situation. He addressed you in words to the feeling of which every gentleman of both sides of the House will respond, and which I would attempt to repeat, could I give them the same grace and propriety ; but in thinking of your situation, Sir, he forgot the situation of the Judges.—( Hear, hear.) Con sider how different the, cases. The Noble Lord, who scruples to give to a person who ought to be impartial the nomination of the persons who are to decide our causes, has no scruple to give the power of deciding political cases to persons whose re putation, of all others, should be the least unsullied, and the least subject to suspicion.---( Cheers.) To me it see ms b eyon d all doubt that if the N o bl e L or d' s Bill passes there will not be in a short time, a Judge in Ireland, however pure his inten tions, or however great his sagacity, who will not be called an oppressor by the one party, and a disgrace by the other.— (Cheers. 1 Now, to sum up, it appears to me that the Bill of my Noble Friend will exclude those who, under the new system, will not have a right to vote, while it will admit the greatest facility to those who will have that right—that it will substitute certainty instead of doubt, and rescue the Judges from the most calamitous position in which they are placed. The Bill of the Noble Lord will not do this. It provides no sure security against the intrusion of wrong claimants, and throws every imagin able difficulty in the way of the rightful claimant, and it leaves doubt, and change, and revolution where it found them.— (Cheers.) Instead of telling the Judges what is the meaning of the law, it leaves it unsettled, and only gives them another set of questions to decide. I think whatever parts of the evil system the Noble Lord has touched is only to aggravate. He has left it uncertain that it may be made oppressive ; he has degraded the Judges that he may disfranchise the people; he has provided a machinery which, where it detects one per jury will introduce twenty. I hardly know on what principle the Noble Lord can vindicate his Bill.--( Cheers.) This is the Bill which the Noble Lord places side by side with others ; and this suggests to me a topic on which I will say three or four words. The Noble Lord misrepresented yesterday the whole nature of his Bill, and of its relation to owes and their relative relations to the franchise. He said. his Bill and ours considered as Bills of Registration, were not essentially differ ent, but then, says he, " comes the franchise as a tack ;" now that I utterly and altogether deny. I say the rule laid down with respect to the franchise, is the essence of our Bill,` (Loud cheers from the Opposition. ) And I say, wheSi the Noble Lard brings forward a number of clauses of sty Noble in sa yyuso if r Friend's Bill analagous to clauses of his own,.h,aesamd there were oppressions in my Bill, why place ~ own? the answer is, that having that franchise clearly ascertained in the Government Bill from osse end to the other, it turns that which in the Nobl e L or d' s Bi ll would be a source of litigation and mischief into that which may be efficient and useful. As to the feeling, Sir, with which these Bills are re garded in Ireland, though I may regret the warmth with which persons in that country have sometimes expressed them selves, I think it right to make the most ample allowance for 'this, because I am satisfied the question is, Shall Ireland have the reality, or only the name of an electoral system ? In the decision of that question, Sir, public order is as deeply in terested as public liberty.—(Loud cheers.) And 1 was glad to observe that the Hon. Member for Cavan expressed the opinion that any . great restriction or diminution of the number possessing the elective francl i hre in Ireland would be a serious calamity to the country, We have lessons enough to prove it to us—lessons many or Which are not forgotten. It is unnecessary to state, after , th e warn ings we have had, that great bodies of mee t , that all nations, when debarred from those organs which the Consti- tution gives them, will certainly find other organs more for midablv.—(Cheers,) It is unnecessary to loe'a back any great length of time for the effect that would be produced, if Lime rick, Cork, or Mayo, were represented in. this House by chiefs of the Orange Society, or by those of the:, old Dublin corpora tion.—(" Oh, oh," from the Oppositi , Jn. ) Some Gentlemen who make that cry may remember 1820; they may remember that when there was not a single Catholic in either House of Parlia aaent, even the Duke of W e lli ng t on shrunk from conflict w ith the excited population of Ireland. We might learn that lesson from other times. The time when the Catholic Question was settled was a time of peace. There have been times different from that—times whoa England has been. forced to struggle with formidable enemies to maintain her place among the na tions of Europe, It was so during the American Revolution and the French Revolutionary war. During both we endeavoured to govern Ireland like a conquered pro vince, and what was the result ? During the Arlie rican, war they wrung from Sou in your own despite an acknowledgment of the commercial independence of Ireland, During the French war, they engaged in a fatal and E V ENING EDITION: - ,Initous struggle for independence. Happily it failed . :Tb e s t ,i ti Lord Duncan had no t ( a li en in with the Texel fleet--0 ,..11 ' e " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) There was such a te t. such a fleet. If a great French army had landed in ge p r, - .1 that struggle would ha v e t as k e d us t o the utmost. But tee that struggle we were pr eserve d by the great, but ill -10 74 favour of Divine Providence. But still th‘ h e a was not small, it was not a small evil the French armies were co n quering beyond the"? 43 nines and the Rhine, the English troops were not rfe% Buonaparte and anticipating Waterloo, but making o'er our own subjects.—( Cheers. ) It was no small evil that 40 1 Massena, Macdonald, and Moreau were marching at the!'„j, of their victorious troops, our own Abercrombie and CoreqA lis were displaying their talents and long the very men whom, under a better system, ;ti , have led to victory. The retribution was Just sea coe r rat, and necessary, for a power greater than the p m e lt of Parliament has decreed, that a Government I , 1 , hall seeks tranquillity and safety though injustice b p tv it in vain. Let not us fall into that error ; let us lis' ot their cry while the people _ are imploring us as one men insult, not to brand them, not to strike the iron deePe' o tte their souls, not to drive them to deipair by . injustice, e tis experience 01;ati subject them to the • worst kind of injustice-o_ol. , ranny of caste over caste and creed over c `. ' „ 4 Let us reject the evil consequences which follow in the 1) , of the oppresso r , an d by so d o i ng , w rest the most forinibilee r , weapon out of the hands of the agitator.—( vehement ing from both sides.) Let us cement the unity of fe elir Tfr tween the sister island, and give a perfect security to tlia gislative Union, which nothing c an endanger but our g oo misgovernment.—( Cheers.) Let us convert that part ° L dip empire which has -so often bee n a s o u rce of weakness iteJ grace into the means of glory and of strength—(Cheered strike terror into the hearts of men in all parts of th e 1 ..4 who envy our g r ea t ness , or wou ld i nsu lt our honour , by ueltjoiti twenty-seven millions of British hearts in one great eaus e ,'oo under one parental Crown. (The Hon. Gentleman 561' amidst loid cheering from both sides of the House.) 0 0 1-• . On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON the debate ivedo )ourned, and immediately afterwards the House adie u° Five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock. FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZE- WHITEHALL, FEB. 22, 1841. The Queen has bee n pl ease d t o no minate, const itute , tbo appoint the Right Honourable the Earl of Chiehesnle Right Honourable Viscount Duncannon, and the B,(Pclefi, nourable Sir George Grey, Bart., to be three of the e astical Commissioners for England. DOWNING-STREET, Fun. Shor t " The Queen has been ple as ed t o appoint Willougn Y land, Esq., to be Colonial Secretary at New Zealand. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENC Y. WILLIAM EDMONDSON, tailor, Liverpool. 11. EDWIN SPARROW, iron -d ea l er , Rush BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED . t. HENRY ROWE, wine -merchant, Great Tower -m.l - WOOD, iron -merchant, Nottinghat e ' BANKRUPTS. h i l J , l ttig • JOHN MORGAN KNOTT, stationer, CamP wickshire, to surrender March 9 and April 6, at,tnosi e ;,,, New Royal Hotel, Birmingham. Chaplin, Gray'V'„ - eo , London ; Ingleby and Wragge, or Arnold and 1131'. mingham. EDWARD YOUNG, scrivener, Newcastle - 151, March 18, at eleve n , an d Ap r il 6, a t t wo , at the p ro dri Commission-roo m , Newcastle-upon-Tyne. De ll ' Newelstio, and Bell, Bow Church-yard, London ; Seymour' upon-Tyne. p , ARBUTHNOT EMERSON, THOMAS 1. i r e vo JAMES BENN, distillers, Brookfield county Antrl'ougl A March 16, at t wo , and April 6, at twelve, tue Bankruptcy. Belcher, official assignee ; James-street, Bedford-row. LOSS* PETER 'BLACKBURN, b u ild er , S a lford, March 4, and April 6, at eleven, at the Commissioners 4 Manchester. Higginbotham, Buckley, and Lord,c;ii, under-Lyne ; Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's London. r ; JAMES GAWEN, Irish provision merchant, Leweeiel:4:. well, March 5, at twelve, and April 6, at eleven , a i , t 1 1. 5 4 ,1' of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basing, r t Jordeson, St. M ar y- a t-Hill, L on d on. F l ` el „ler, WILLIAM GEORGE, mu s i ca l i ns t r ument In - the t" street, March 3, at one , and April 6, at twelve , at lotree of Bankruptcy. G ra h am , o ff ic i a l assignee, 33asingba Starli_tg. :.ackville-street. Metb ROBERT M'GREGOR, grocer , Ch es ter bir April 6, at eleven, at th e G reen D ragon I nn , 4 0 ' 1 at' Sise-lane, London ; Roberts, hester. ....„„b EDWARD BENNETT, b C uilder, Cambric/ April 6, at eleven, at the Hoop Hotel, Car,ibridk. e- etc h, and Son, Cook's-c our t, Li nco l n ' s Inn, ',radon ; g et Sr bridge. ga r 7el. JOSEPH DUCKHASH, carpet des%er, Piccatlilltkrqw at twelve, and April 6, at eleven, at the Court of 1 r it friar s"' Graham, official assigne e , B as i ng b all - street; Itus j' ,04 s. blit JOHN STEPHENS VIRET and THOMAS ' 5 , st y , rr. KITCHING, lineniirapers, Ludgate-hill, IVlar„ u !:„ r t of 71 9 e, rpuapsttctyw. elv lv e, hi a tra nd ore , o r rn il ci 6 a , l a a s t sign elegn i3as at in t g h h e a r t ; re eti and Shaw, Friday -street, Chcmpside. ü bli' THOMAS BARNETT LOADER, m ap p Werth-road, March 2, a t t we l ve , an d • A pr il 6, at elsasiagb.et. h o, 'st er Court of Bankruptcy. Gibs on , o ffi c i a l ass ignee , ha rcl-s ,, t ' i rr street ; Lewis, Ch urc h- c o urt , Cl ement ' s- i nn , Leei, "„ ea r WILLIAM MASON, cott on s pi nner , Heywoe a ' t - the Lancashire, M ar ch 16, and April 6, at eleven , a a ;kliit Hotel, Bolton-le-Moors, Lancashire. Clarke a n up er Lincoln's Din-fields. L.ndon ; Grundy, Bury. co's' STEPHEN GRAINGER WHITEHoUSA - ere o od , chant, Northampton, M arc h 19, an d A pr il 6, a t sher'' the Peacock Inn, No rt h am pt on . Vi ncen t an d vsr Inner Temple. London. r en th e JOHN PROFFITT, jun., b uc kl e -mardiae tu o p, a t or laston, Stafford s hi re , M arc h 5, and April 6, el e le , joe , Swan Hot e l, W o l ver h amp t on . R us h wo rths, Stae , 5 DI don; Watts, Wednesbury. JONATHAN GUNTON, butcher, C a mbritie and April 6, at one, at the Hoop Hotel, Cambridroo. r er , croft, Guildford-street, Russell-square, don' bridge. .1' 33 DIVIDENDS. 10 11 ,, March 18. H. Prior, Sise-lane, , statione r, ' t i t. I) 6i i :c ° eleven, at the C our t o f Bankruptev Y March 111 ;1334 r Old Jewry, linen-factor, at eleven, aq the Court e ' dea ler cve —March 16. H. C oa t es , Colchester, Essex,a t l e twelve, at the C as tl e I nn , C o l c h ester — Marc h 2. •"ti,e Sbe,Flt Boston, Lincolnshire, corn • merchant, at one , d atiirig, a `Tof',t Inn, Bost on —M arc h 17. C . Johnson, Glamfer colnshire, innkeeper, a t one , at t h e Lion t, Y, Briggs--March 23. J. Flet c h er , Liverpcol, the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool—Marc h 16. $ sing, Essex grocer, at one at the Cr Ips Ilet e " ert-d e March 18. , C. Honey, Littlemore Oxf.drdshire, e e- 0 tom twelve, at the Townhall, Oxford—? March • 66 0 '50' Wyton, Yorkshire, merchant, at tw dye, at the Kingston -upon-HUH —Ma rc h 24. E.. ThomP,seT g st oo 4 '. o ce r i upon- Hull, merchant, at the GeOT ge Inn, „'',.l,senlg e Ifull—March 26. A. A yre, Seaham Elarbour , v u „" at twelve, at the Bridge Hotel, Bishop Wegl in , -0 t r oet:: 17. J. Stripling, Liverpool, ship-chandler, at ° , ll j. °o- 'oll e '' rendon Rooms, Liverpool —March 19. W. anu rfo loi ss ' oier Manchester, machine-makers, at eleven, et tb u e ;clie! c te b r e 'lte ili V O Rooms, Manchester—Alarch 20. J. lf ~te ox, i‘jsi , t , chant, at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms , to o, toil et, March 18. J. Goudie, Liverpool, merchant , a n t 0.2 3 ,,,,kra, Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester--March_,. l P t he P T9. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, merchant, at- twelve, at the goo" Commission Rooms, Newcastle-c.pon-Tyne -- d a l Meatyard, Bristol, ironmonger, at the Con ° Bristol, 16. To " CERTIFICATES.—MAacu J. S. Janion, Kingsley, Cheshire, inalt s ' . reircld V , Bristol, scrivener—C. S. Jacicson, Leeds, 11, ° °- •,•11, lioreelt chant—B. Barnsley, Greet's-green, West Breel o - 411 f J. Coleman. Ipswich, builder—G. W00d,,_ . .„1,0 - Z e l . wharfinger—W. J. Simpson, Reading, brieLlso, Canaell, East Dercham, haruess-maker;-T. g ar 9 r 4/ grocer. draP e- PARTNERSHIPS DISSOL VE D eiv Leer f, E. Paul and E. S e ll ers , B a lh am, S u rrey, b , z aar - E. Hugh es an d M. B a t es , Ri c h mon d, SurreY , --T. Powell and G. Parker, Warrington, °lg. K tear`' Longden and R. Ford, Liverpool, victuallers--iits,J.:i and V. L. Chemery, Knightsbridge,' wine-me i : eh : 1 1 . ti SIC and E. M. Williams, Bouverie-street, P rin ` e- ni A. Gill, Leicester, woolstaplers—R. rind T. Infra secl_„,l rock and Orsett, Essex, farmers.- S. Runcir aa idee i rod berts, Hove, Sussex, schoolmistresses--W. Par tc' Chorley, Lancashire, cotton-marau f ac turers -- , E. Marsh, Sp een h am l an d, B er k s hi re , boobsell e ers .--v%, and G. Espli n , Wi gan , Lancashire, clock -tea k ley and E. Parry, Great Guildford-street , S° d, Snr" r 's-11 founders—T. Netherwood and J. Lockwee ufacturif. Upperthong, Yorkshire, woollen cloth ol an ars . " - f a ctar ee) Vergette and Co., Peterborough, woollen-cirkvisalers.--A' and G. Wolf, Moorgate-street, pianofortebooksel err„..6, —R. Nichols and C. Nichols, W a k e ficl ll, _„..tiraP.. far Thompson and Co., Ashton-line,er-Lyne , Co• j i Turner and Co., Woodbridge, Suffolk, coPr e ,rotee: e tt er regards R. Turner and H. Taylor—G. Viaclu i F. ° 1 4 7' Habergham Eaves, Lancashire, Ship carp e nters;pols nFr 1y Co., Maichester, commission agents, as far a i l otc hire or i s bir e ' ter and G. A. Ascoli—Q. Kennedy an ( 1 At S e lby , tol, corn merchants—J. Adamson and Co . 'Lp s t whaxfingers, as far a s r e gar ds J. Ad am son , 4g. aw SCOTCH SEQULSTRA T . .„w eb el Jong GALLIR, Edinburgh, plumbers ildi n burg"; r eb . , o oe li one„ at the Roal Exchange Coffeee-how_Aey AP" THOMAS CLEMIWSON, Annan, e ar lo - neens h " - ' Feb. 26 and March 19, at t we l ve , a t the - Inn, Annan. 51 1 °17180 4 Wre, Join( M'CLuaa, Li nwoo d, R e rcfrews -i sar seen Feb. 27 and March 27, at twelve, at the 1 1/1 Paisley. ap- oe'• ,nit - dealer . te Gr sg ALMMAIMER 11PNAH, Glasgow, $ll Mar o e m h z T2, p at Lu ou m e m , a E t it t , he E o d ffi in c b e u o r fM ; Wedd ell ' vob. 2 -heng e ' Sign e t 'Ave' March 24, at two, at the Old "*. Edinburgh. 1 )4 : o bis, THE NEW PORTA.DLE,, e dressi ll ,g e Or" size of a small Snuff Box, can be placed • 11 t r u e d . ry e and set to ring at any hour that luny be r e e l fro ° Guineas. T. COX SAVORY , ' s e ven o°l6 Watchmaker, &c., 47, Cornhal, London ( . o f Gracechurch-street)' 0 f Bri.„ gite ee s het, soi ree N.B.—A Pamphlet, containing a List Goo ds, w • Spoons and Forks, Silver Plate, Plated. , wort iei i Clocks, &c., may be had gratis, or will be o`, post-paid application. r re ll&- 1 1 W FLAT HORIZONTA L ~Ne. 9 ' 01 A. B. SAVORY and SONS, Watchmaker s, i n silver cs _ je gs 0 Lonchni, opposite the Bank of England. Pric e These w ors ff guineas each, in gold cases 8 guineas er i b t ' os . g Teat , s f e e o liarif waistcoat-pocket Watches are recommend for I % s tet , t f a t • se and durability, the horizontal eseaP e T7 es in a k g suited to combine those important r e q ui ;, an dte 1111r •i s it b dif k they are jewelled in four holes, have the e o rhl_,. toads, and maintaining power to continuit die h r e i a .`" wound. A printed warranty gii" Wat ch e s ' large Stock of elegantly ornamented La s -------------------------- NI 1•1.11„`.. r , . • SUPERIOR LONDON TABLE Carvers, h ye l r vory Handles, 14s. per dozen ; Dessert E: rov_ e : i ' t ', ... 1 : 54. 6d. per pair ; Table Knives, " i,' r :7 , handles, a s. 1141. per dozen , Dessert, 6s. d. ; ' ,sr v 'i p ot per pair ; Globe-shape Tea-urns, 4 quarts , tas• *; ser,,se et o f 39 ; Papier Macke Tea-trays, gothic shape/CO; t` , full sizes. ingCiarthonlomgounegsercyonatnldincinugtlethrye,Pgz!act°,is..f el". , e o,o RIPPON and 111.111 TON, Wells-sirs, t Oiford'" r , Established 1420. ______.........._—..--. t• isteer:-;..T1 ___-- DIR-0. af eeo On the lith inst., at Cheytve- row', -w - Chelsea Anne 0 Wilkie. the wife of W. B. I‘lseslkall,'T ..N., agl`d : 4 °' isto * l' On the 19th inst., at New-grove,, T. 13rown,Esq., Elder Brother of the Trinity bouse. ----- rr_. ''of - . ‘,.h-iiiiC,, °, London: Printed and Published by .lifir 1 11) `' ~...Si 01 1 11 No. IP2, Strand, at The Sun Offset , 1 1 1 o• 1i."'4415113,4" the county of illiddlesex.—Weduestich I iebrw"J - '• article' it s f OW'.