The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-19 00:00:00

Bristol Magistrates, we have already hinted our sentiments with regard to their selfish, sneaking, and unworthy conduct ; nor shall any aid of ours be - wanting to procure for their Worships a proper kind and amount of retribution.—Times. We cannot help thinking that the retirement of Lord Ashley from Parliament, occasioned as it has been by the defection of his party, or of certain Tory or Anti-Reform Lords, from the ranks of his subscribers, is an indication of a Growing opinion amongst the Tories themselves ° that the cause of the rotten boroughs is a losing one. We describe the cause as that of the rotten boroughs rather than that of Anti-Re form, because it is more definite in its meaning, for now-a-days we are all Reformers. There is no such thing as an Anti-Reformer, we believe, not even excepting the Duke of Wellington himself, to be found in the whole country. The name, therefore, by which we can best distin guish, and the test by which we can most con veniently try, the pretensions of all Reformers is this very touchstone of the rotten boroughs. Reformers may differ as to the extent to which the elective franchise ought to be enlarged, but they cannot differ upon one point—namely, that the rotten boroughs, one and all, tag-rag and bobtail, ought to be, and must he, got rid of. That this impression is now gaining ground amongst the borough faction themselves we infer from the desertion of Lord Ashley by his former supporters ; for does any man believe that, f they felt they had the slightest chance of success, they would relinquish a tri• umph such as the return of that young Nobleman for an important county ? Pride and prudence—that is, political prudence—for bade it ; but there is a prudence of another sort, which, as some men, at least some Noblemen, think, may fairly put in its claim when the higher attribute is about to yield to the force of circumstances. The old adage exhorts us to " let well alone ;" but it is sometimes the part of wisdom to let had alone, when it happens to be too bad to afford any prospect of becoming better. Upon this principle it would seem that the Com mittee of Charles-street resolved to drop Lord Ashley at the door of the House of Commons and then to take to their heels as fast as they could. There are other indications also, such as the good-humoured tranquillity of the public mind, from which a similar inference may be drawn in favour of the success of the Reform Bill. The present temper of the public is the result of confidence and hope. They find the Ministers firm ; they find the King also firm in the support of those Ministers ; and Leven the special pleading of Mr. Croker cannot move their gall, when they see such a union of power in support of the great cause of political and, we may add, of moral improvement. It is not in a blind reverence for all the provisions of the Bill that we hail its probable success with pleasure. Any • -lan who can dispense with the sweet flavour of the rotten boroughs is a Reformer to our taste, and the more he can improve the other provisions of the Bill, the more he may com mand our humble support and approbation.-- Morning Herald. A practice is growing into use in our Crimi nal Courts, especially at that of the Old Bailey, alike discreditable to those who introduce, and to those who permit it : we mean the practice of some hamsters, after having taken briefs to defend prisoners, advising their clients to plead guilty, and throw themselves upon the indulgence of the Court. We wish we could, generally speaking, assign a good motive for this. In a solitary instance or so the course may be advis able ; but such instances are very rare ; and the barristers who adopt such a course at any rate, lay themselves open to the imputation of first pocketing the client's money for defending him, and afterwards avoiding the trouble. The very reverse of this was formerly the practice ; and we can see no reason for rushing from one ex treme to the other. When prisoners have been inclined to plead guilty, the most eminent Judges have invariably hesitated, if not refused, to receive the plea, recommending the prisoner to retract and reconsider it—advising him, at any rate, "to take the chance" of a trial. Whether a recommendation of this kind of moral and judicial falsehood be altogether advisable is one thing—at any rate it has the best of motives for its apology ; but that the " chance of trial" should be denied to a prisoner by the very advocate he has em ployed to convert his fears of a blank into hopes of a prize is unjust—we had almost said disho nest. The Court, too, in making itself a party to such arrangements, is a party to the same in justice. The practice is generally excused or glossed over, under a notion, alleged or implied, that the Judge will deal more leniently with a prisoner who saves him the trouble of trying him. The very notion, however erroneous, that justice is thus biassed or bartered away for con venience, is highly objectionable in itself, and calculated to degrade and scandalize, in the eyes of the public, that, the purity and integrity of which is of the highest national and indivi dual importance. We trust, then, that barris ters will not lend themselves to a practice which throws, whether justly or not, an imputation upon their honour and integrity ; but that if it should be persisted in, Judges, and persons placed in the situation of Judges, will not per mit the stream of public justice to be blackened by what its administrators should firmly and in variably set their faces against.—Morn. Herald. We yesterday alluded to a blunder of the Quarterly Revtew, in supposing that the agra rian law proposed by the Gracchi had reference to private property. The ideas of modern Europe, with regard to property in land being so different, not only from the ideas of antiquity, but of all other quarters of the world, the sense of the ancient authors was utterly misunderstood till of late years. The first who discovered that the question had reference to public lands was the learned Heyne, but it was not till after his time that it was ascertained that the lands of which it was wished to limit the possession were public lands, let for a longer or shorter term, and paying rent to the Treasury. In the report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the affairs of the East India Com pany, ordered to be printed 11th October, 1831, Mr. James Mill, who is the head of the office which has the principal charge of the Corre spondence with India on the Political, Revenue, Judicial and General Departments, describes in his evidence a state of things in India precisely similar to that of antiquity with regard to public lands. " I conceive (says Mr. Mill) that the peculiarity of India, in deriving a large propor tion of its revenue fom the land, is a very great advantage. Nine-tenths, probably, of the re venue of the Government in India is derived from the rent of land, never appropriated to in dividuals, and always considered to be the pro perty of Government ; and to me that appears 544 be on of the most fortunate circumstances 1 / 4 `,., 41184 e 41 1; •‘, 'any country ; because, in conse i ;-"1: 1 1 4 444 44 0 1 +ants of the State are supplied, really and truly, without taxation. As far as this source goes, the people of the country remain un taxed. The wants of Government are supplied without any drain either upon the produce of any man's labour, or the produce of any man's capital." Till recent times the property of land in Europe was quite the same. The land belonged to the people. It was portioned out among indivi duals, on the condition of their rendering the various services necessary for the defence of the State and its internal tranquillity ; but though the son often did succeed to the father, the State might resume the grants. Nothing is better un stood in the history of property than that the possession of land was long held only for terms in Europe. The custom of son succeeding father was in latter times construed into a right, and the various offices, such as Duke, Count, &c., at first personal, came in time to be heredi tary, and at length to be merely honorary. The services to be performed in return for the pos session of land, from various circumstances, be came illusory, and we have now in most parts of Europe a class of men unknown in any other quarter of the world, living on the share paid by the cultivator for permission to cultivate the soil and dispose of its produce. We are all apt to be unduly influenced by the circumstances to which we have been accustomed. The writer of the Quarterly Review almost supposes property to be identical with the possession in perpetuity of a right to the produce of land. There may, however, be many kinds of property in land. If we were to suppose the State the universal pro prietor, as the King is by fiction under the feudal system, the cultivation of land could be conducted with as much benefit by tenants for terms of years paying rent to the State, as by tenants paying rents to individuals. The sub stitution of individuals to the State as owners of the soil, therefore, so far from being an advantage, is a great calamity, which cannot now be re paired. Let us only take this metropolis as an instance. Two hundred years ago the popula tion of the metropolis was about one-eighth part of what it is now. From the accidental circum stance of one million and a half of individuals requiring ground for their habitations, the owners of that ground have been put in possession of an enormous revenue—which, had land been in all cases public, might, as in India, have been made available to the wants of the State. The evil is now of course past remedy. But it is an evil. And nothing but the habit of consider ing the state of things around us as the natural state of things could have prevented us from seeing this in the light of an evil. All that the people of a country are interested in, is that the land shall be cultivated in the most advantageous manner ; that the occupier of the soil shall re ceive the degree of protection which is necessary to his obtaining from it the utmost possible amount of produce. In this country, all the se curity required by those who invest capital in land, is that the term shall be sufficiently long to enable them to repay themselves their outlay with a sufficient profit. A tenant for a term of years builds houses and improves land with as little hesitation as if he possessed the ground in perpetuity. It is a very delightful thine, to an individual that he should receive 20,0001. a year from the cultivators of 20,000 acres ; but if the cultivators were to go on equally well if the 20,000/. were paid to the public, it is clear that the nation would be a gainer, were there no intermediate class between the cultivators and the Treasury. Led away by European no tions, the English took it into their heads that there ought to be proprietors of the soil in India as in Europe, and they made the Zemindars, or collectors of the Government rent, proprietors, subject to a fixed rent. By the extension of cultivation, many of these Zemindars have ob tained a valaable property after deducting the permanent rent. But all that the Zemindars have gained has been lost to the East India Company. The Ryots, or cultivators, have not gained ; on the contrary, they are best off where they are immediately under the Government. Of late years the India Company have taken care to avoid the mistake of making proprietors o the soil,--" I believe (says Mr. Mill) the per. manent settlement was introduced with the best of all public motives, with a view to the protec tion of the whole mass of the agricultural popu lation. That appears to me, from the proclama tions of Government at the time, and other do cuments, to have been the object in view. From our want of experience, great abuses had before that time been practised by the different sorts of people whom we employed in the collection of the revenue. The detail of the business was so great, that it frightened Lord Cornwallis and ' the Government of the day, and they conceived that no better method for the protection of the Ryots could be invented, than to create a species of landlords, from which they ex pected much benefit to arise. The ground upon which their reasoning principally went was this, that these Zemindars, having a perma nent interest in the land assigned to them, would feel an interest in the prosperity of the Ryots, in the same manner as a landlord in England feels an interest in the prosperity of his tenants. This was expected to produce two good effects —to create a landed aristocracy in the country, and, above all, to afford protection to the Ryots from this kind of paternal feeling that was ex pected to pervade the Zemindars. Unhappily, that last expectation has been found to be very far from corresponding with the facts; they little understood the nature of the men with whom they were transacting." If instead of England, we take a country like Ireland, the case becomes more simple. In Ireland we have the owner in chief, who stands in the place of the Govern ' inent in India. Between him and the actual cul tivators of his estate is placed the middle man, who receives the full rent, and after deducting an allowance for his risk and trouble of collecting, pays over the residue to the owner. If the con fiscated lands of Ireland had been retained by the public, instead of granted in estates of 1 and 200,000 acres to courtiers, the ten and eleven millions of rent now paid to individuals might have been paid into the public Treasury, and precluded the necessity of imposing any burdens on the capital or industry of the inhabitants. The question now, as far as this country is con cerned, is merely a matter of curiosity ; but in the case of our colonies, it may be well to make the land available to public purposes. In the infancy of colonies, labour is everything, and the ack nowledgment would be small. But, in time, an increasing population would add to the value of land, and diminish the value of labour ; and the State might avail itself of such circumstances to increase the rent from time to time. In this way it ould not be necessary to add to the burthens of the people by taxation when the diminished . - value of labour impaired the ability to support it. We consider the security of property as essential to society, and all the dangers to property from popular suffrage we hold to be creatures of the imagination. " During the first French revolution (says the Quarterly Review), there was au al•, most entire overthrow of all existing proprietary rights. The possessions of the Church were the first subjects of confiscation ; the virtual ex tinction of all claims upon the Exchequer was then easily accomplished by the stratagem of the assignats ; before the revolution had run its course, there were not many landed estates in France which had not been transferred by vio lence to new occupants ; under the Convention the very possession of property—the mere dis tinction of wealth had been as dangerous to the possessors as ever it was under the worst Asiatic despotism—and it is plain, that to the accumu lation at least of property there must, therefore, have been an end, had it been possible for that democratic anarchy to have preserved its exis tence." It is curious enough that almost the only States in which much capital has been em barked have been democracies ; witness the splendid works of Athens and its colonies, the edifices, the canals of irrigation, the splendid aqueducts of the republics of Tuscany and Lom bardy. As to France, the cheating of the public creditors by assignats was no doubt unjust ; but Austria and several other Monarchies have done the same. But it is not true that the estates of individuals were confiscated to any such amount as stated. Niebuhr, a man who took immense pains to obtain accurate information, says, vol. 2, p. 317--- ,, The far greater part of the landed estates which belonged to the nobility in France before the revolution are still in their hands, not withstanding the confiscations." Of course, the estates belonging to those who were not loyalists, and remained in the country, whether Nobles or Roturiers, were not confiscated. These exag gerations are ridiculous.—Morning Chronicle. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock, IM PERIAL P A RUA MEM' OF THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat a few minutes liter Five o'clock. Lord DUREIAM moved that the evidence taken before the Irish Tithe Committee be printed.—Ordered. The Doke of RICHMOND presented a petition from the operatives engaged in the glove trade at Mil hourne Port, praying that the importation of foreign gloves be prohibited. Lord BEXLEY presented a petition from the mer chants of Bombay against Puttees. Lord ELLE , NiBoROUGH hoped that whatever it might be considered necessary to do in relation to that question, would be considered without reference to the great question of the charter. Mr: BERNAL and others brought up a Bill for consoli dating the office of Surveyor-General with that of the Woods and Forests, and another Bill, the name of which we could not catch. Mr. Tomlins, from the Treasury, presented papers. The Earl of ABERDEEN said his Majesty, on the first day of the session, had told the House a treaty had been concluded between the five Powers, relative to the affairs of Belgium, and it would shortly be laid before the House. That had never been done, and it was a matter of general notoriety, that though that treaty ought to have been ratified on the 15th of the present month, it had not yet been done. He gave notice that on this day week he would bring the question before the House. Viscount STRANGFORD gave notice that he would take an early opportunity of bringing forward a motion, which would bring the question of the depressed state of the shipping before the House. He was sorry to see that the Ministry were entering into other relations with France before that Power concluded those which they had entered into before, by which the shipping inte rest of this country had suffered so much. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had moved for papers relative to our present position with Canton, five weeks ago, and then was told by the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, that important information had only recently been received, but it would he laid before their Lordships on an early occasion. He now wished to know when that information would be produced ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in the absence of Earl Grey, could only say that very important informa tion, connected with that subject, had been received within the last forty.eight hours. There was no wish to withhold any of that information, and it would early be laid on the table.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took his seat at Four o'clock. Lord SANDON brought in a Bill to enable the Liver pool Marine Insurance Company to sue and be sued in the name of the Chairman for the time being, which was read a first time. Mr. KNIGHT moved for, and obtained leave to bring in:a Bill to enable the Master of the Rolls, in Ireland, to try his right to appoint the Secretary to the Rolls Court. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said he had given notice of this motion, and he understood that the Attorney and Solicitor-General had no objection to the Bill. Mr. STRICKLAND presented a petition from the in habitants of a town in the East Riding of the county of York against the General Registry Bill. Sir E. SUGDEN was formerly of opinion that this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass. At all events, it should not be forced on while the time of the House was so much occupied with the Reform Bills. The House was not in a frame of mind to enter calmly into the dis cussion of such questions as this Bill involved. Besides there was no cause why this Bill should be hurried. Mr. CAMPBELL was anxious that the Bill should receive a full and calm discussion, but he did not antici pate that there would be any difficulty in obtaining that attention to it which the subject deserved, without post poning it until the Reform Bills were disposed of. He was confident that the great and comprehensive mind of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir E. Sugdea) could embrace not only the Reform Bills, but the General Registry Bill, at one and the same time. After a few observations from Mr. C. Pelham, Mr. Hume, Mr. C. Ferguson, Mr. D. W. Harvey, Mr. Sand. ford, and Sir R. Vyvyan, the petition was read and or. deed to be printed. THE GLOVE TRADE. Mr. CRANIPTON presented a petition from certain glove-manufacturers in the town of Milhorne Port, Somer setshire, complaining of the flee importation of French gloves, and stating the distress to which the trade was in consequence reduced. Mr HUNT observed that the distress in the glove trade in Worcester, Woodstock, and Yeovil, was very great. He was sorry that the Members fur the former places were not present. Mr. HUME denied that the distress in the glove trade was attributed to the removal of the prohibition. All other branches of manufacture were equally distressed, but it was absurd to suppose it was the result of the free trade system. After a few words from Mr. WAttauaxolsr, Sir R. VYYYAN and Mr. SaNnvoan, Mr. S. RICE said he had had the honour of receiving a deputation of glove-manufacturers, who stated the difficulties under which that trade laboured, and un doubtedly from all that they suggested they propo se d no plan that could remove those difficulties unless the sys tem was again re,orted to. He had hoped the nam e of the word prohibition was for ever banished from our com mercial code of this country—(Hear, hear)--and he was sure that it would be impolitic to resort to it in this ease. Even if it were resorted to, would it put down smuggling? He was sure no person who paid any attention to these matters would answer in the affirmative. The dep utat i on suggested that licences s h ou ld b e granted as a means of preventing smuggling, but great pains wet.. taken to con vince them that th it mode would but increase the diffi culties at present existing. They also proposed that gloves should be stamped, but then by at any time forging the stamp every facility would be afforded to injure the fair trader.—(Hear.) His Majesty's Go vernment had every disposition to remedy th e ev il s if they could do so, but the result of the conferenc e w i t h the de putation w as , th a t n o thing which they sug gested would operate as a remedy. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, so far from believing that 4d, a large re. the evils complained of arose out of the flee trade system, said he would tell the hard working and industrious poor that there were but three retnedies,. and those i w ert _ ht, greet T e p v e y ia m d g itu a r p e: operty_tui and dutioe:ionrtnaYxttituiottht the dbtlbice 3d, a free trade in corn. It was a mere waste of time and of parchment to attribute the distress to a free trade. The petition was then read, and ordered to be printed. The HUN. Alrmszit also presented a similar petition from a place, the name of which we did not hear. Mr. ROBINSON, who had but a few minutes before entered, observed that he understood it had been stated that his Majesty's Government after taking the subject into their consideration were not prepared themselves to come forward with any specific charge. Mr. SPRING RICE stated, that the Hon. Member had been totally misinformed of what he did state. What he bad said was, that he had been waited upon by se►eral gentlemen in the trade, who had proposed to him certain retnedie., which they thought would be the means of eradicating the evil they complained of; but which he (Mr. S. Rice), after great consideration, was perfectly satisfied would rather aggravate than diminish the disease. Mr. ROBINSON would not then press the matter fur ther upon the attention of the House, as an Hon. Col league of his intended, in a few days, to bring the subject forward. He, however, had been in hopes that Govern ment would, by this time, have been prepared to state whether they had any remedies to suggest, or were prepared again to adopt the prohibitive system. Mr. WEYLAND though that those who were the greatest advocates for free trade, ought to make an excep tion on the part of this particular branch of commerce. On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, the Limitation of Actions Bill ; the Fines and Recoveries Bill ; the Curtesy of England 8.11, and Dower and Inheritance Bill, were ordered to be committed en the 25th January, and the Genets! Registry Bill, to be read the second time on the lst of February. Mr. HUNT presented a petition from the Political Union of Manchester, praying f. r Parliamentary Reform, Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. On the Hun. Member's moving that the petition be brought up, The SPEAKER wished to know in ►hat manner the petition was subscribed? Mr. HUNT observed, that it was subscribed as the pe tition of the members of the Manchester Political Union, in public meeting assembled, and that it was signed by a Mr. Grieves, as the chairman. The SPEAKER observed, that no petition could be received in that House presented from petitioners in the plural number, unless it was signed by the petitioners. If the petition came from a corporate body, and signed on behalf of that body—that body being a legal body—the petition would be received; but in the present instance, it being signed by a single individual for a body, of which the law took no cognizance —it could not be received. Mr. HUNT then said he would withdraw the petition in order to have it regularly signed. The Hon. Micatuita then presented another petition from the Members of the North Western Metropolitan Union of Marylebone and St. Pancras, praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. STANLEY stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Leader, that he had received yesterday a paper, which would give that gentleman part of the information he de sired, showing the total population of Ireland, according to its present census, to be seven millions seven hundred and thirty-four thousand ; being an increase of 13i per cent. on the census of 1821. Mr. LEADER then moved that there be laid on the table, a comparative abstract of the population of Ireland, taken in 1921 and 1831. IRISH REFORM BILL. Mr. STANLEY having presented a petition relative to the Galway franchise, said, I now rise, Sir, to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of Ireland. In doing so I feel it is un necessary, and therefore inexpedient, that I should at any length enter into a discussion of the various topics that might naturally suggest themselves to the consideration of the House during the progress of the Bill. And I think it the more necessary to do so, because I have no reason to sus pect that the House will refuse me that indulgence which it formerly granted to bring in such a Bill, and partly because I consider the principles on which it is intro duced and supported to be the same which were so Lilly the ec ted b E y n l g o l c i 1 1 l r ßeform cumst a n ß e i e l b a u n t d ui n u o s t t r e a m t I l sou, of justice, and of the constitution of the United Empire. (i t li b iks e eci s uy a s r ste n o e db u e nchanged, because they are the principles of rea odin For this reason I do not think it necessary to enter into a discussion on the principles which I imagine to have been adopted and recognized by this House, and which, being recognized with regard to England, must be recognized with regard to Ireland, unless it can be shown that there are specific reasons for not applying the same rule of con duct to one country as the other. We have admitted that eised fo that ha thet the ben corporations ;efi t of al l o f towns should ewn have s it is repugnant to the pri nc ipl es o f t h e C onst i tut i on, that ti o rta n es representativ e s for b oroug h s s h ou ld b e returned by nomina n n e tion ; ffi d o c e r w a d oo t o r h no a u b: vg e rc have ht hs e x ; admitted should n o t take to them se l ves a monopoly of those right, r w e g e a h rd a ve t a d op m m i p t t e e r d t y , a l o s u o g t h h t a t t o a b c e e rt rt qti , admitted th a t residence is an essent i a l qual i f i cation of elec. con sidered as the rule, upon which the representative system should be established. Now, if there be any who contend that these principles, in themselves true in Eng land, are false in Ireland ; if there be those who contend that we must have the reality in England,and must be content in Ireland with the mockery and delusion ;—on them, and not on me, rests the onus of proving that there are those circumstances which justify a deviation from the rule we have adopted. At the same time, Sir, I am quite aware that I am exposing myself to no contemptible argument on the part of those who, admitting the general principle, yet contend that neither the tim e nor circumstance in regard to Ireland have come when it is expedient to agitate such a question. I shall he asked whether this be the time to extend popular rights in a country when the authority of law has been set at defiance, where contention has been in troduced, and excitement prevails that have led to the most frightful excesses. Sir, I feel the force of that argument, and I am not insensible to the additional difficulty thrown in our way by the conduct of those who have excited that easily excited people, and who, professing to mean well to the cause of Reform, hare by every step they have taken, thrown the most serious impediments in the way of a Re forming Government. At the same time it is not because of the agitation that prevails, but in spite of it, that I feel see are not justified in refusing at this time to do jus tice to Ireland.—(Hear.) I am ready also to admit that the Reform Rill for Ireland need not be so extensive as that for England. And for this reason. That much of what has been done by the present Bill for England, has gradually, progressively, and at various intervals, been already effected for Ireland. If we look at the representation of that country in its present state, bad try as it is, and turn hack to the description of it which was given in 1793 by Mr. Grattan, it is impossibl e that any man should say that a r ea l su b stantial Reform has not already taken place in the representative system of the county. In Ireland you hav e no Gatton, no Old Sarum, no boroughs incapable of furnishing a decent constituency. You have nothing to which it is not pos sible to fix the title of a respectable constituency. Wh en Mr. Grattan, in 1793, brought forward his motion for Referw, according to the statement he then made, of 300 Members, 200 were returned by individuals, Irons forty to fifty were returned by ten persons ; several of the . . , , .... boroughs had no electors at all ; some had but one ; and, on the whole, two-thirds of the representa tives of the House of Commons were returned by less than a hundred persons.—(Hear.) This is not, says Mr. Grattan, that ancient Constitution of King, Lords and Commons: it is nut even an Aristocracy; it is an Oligarchy ; it is an Oligarchy, not of property, but of accident ; not of prescription, but of inno vation. The Reform, however, in Parliament, in a great measure which is now adopting with regard to Ire land was adopted at the Union, because they proceeded on a principle of disfranchising the rotten and nomination boroughs. lam not now entering into the consideration whether Ireland should have, 399 or 200, or 100 Mem bers, and still less on the mode by which the Union was carried, and the Reim in effected. But representation has by tbat means been put on a different footing, by the cutting off of the the rotten and decayed ports : in short, that system which we recommend with regard to England, was adopted in reference to Ireland, at the Union. Instead of 300 M,rnbers, 100 alone were left ; of these, 62 were county ;Members ; two representatives more were given to the principal cities, and the remaining 31 to the prin cipal boroughs ; thereby we ars doing for Ireland what now we are doing fur England.—(Hear.) When Mr. Grattan brought forward his proposition for Reform, b e stated the principles on which at that time, he recom mended his measure, and I beg that these will be borne in mind, because in a large proportion his views hare already been carried into effect, while at the same time the other portion are being carried into e ffect. "We agree, I apprehend, that twelve burgesses should not return Members to Parliament ; we cannot differ about the propriety of residence. We agree that close boroughs should be disfranchised, and on ex tending the right of franchise, of the close corpora tions, to freemen by birth, marriage, or servitude ; that is, to the respectable resident inhabitants ; perhaps we shall not differ as to the right of voting, of a universal re- ..... - giltry, election to be limited in time, and carried on in different places." Now a considerable . portion of this has been already effected by various Reforms in Ireland. Nearly the whole of it is to be effected, both with regard to England and Ireland, by the Bill about to be introduced to the House. But if there be any distinction to be drawn between England and Ireiand, those cases must rest on our showing particular circumstances, either with regard to the terms of land or considerations, to justify us in making aay alteritiou between the two cases. One of the great mistakes of carrying on the system of Reform at the Union, in cutting off the other decayed boroughs, appears to be this, that while they struck off the rotten boroughs, and left the large towns, little if any attention was paid to what must be considered the vital principle, namely that of those towns which were left what should be the constituency which the interests or the Members of those towns had in sending Members of Parliament. It is nothing to say that Belfast in Ireland, or Bath in England, returned a Member to Parliament, but the question is whether the retur❑ of that member is satisfactory to 50,000 persons, or whether the interest is confined to about thirteen persons. Now we propose to follow up in Ireland the system adopted at the Union —that the great boroughs shall send Members to Parlia went, and to go this step further, viz., to see that they shall not only in name, but in reality, be the Members of those boroughs. With regard to residence, we make that point both in the Bill for England, and in the Bill for Ireland, a■ essential requisite in the right of voting to send Members to Parliament. Let it be well understood that I take the liberty to follow the laying down this broad principle, that we are to du by Ireland as we do by England, unless we can show that those peculiar circumstances exist which render it necessary to alter our conduct in re spect to the one and in respect to the other; and with this proposition I shall take the liberty of comparing the franchise we propose to establish, with the fran chise the English Bill proposes to give. But be fore I proceed to that I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject, which has excited consider able attention, and upon which I have the mis fortune to differ with some gentlemen, whose opinions I du very greatly respect, but have the good fortune to agree with those whose opinions I more highly esteem. He proposed by the last Bill to augment the representation of Ireland, by giving five addi tional Members—we propose that it shall be the same now; at the same time I am sure that we many gentlemen here who think Ireland has in that have respect been unfairly dealt by. In introducing this Bill to Parliament, we are not revising or discussing the terms on which the Union was formed between two in dependent countries ; and I am aware that we should have escaped all this difficulty and not been liable to all the attack to which we have been exposed had we laid down the broad rule, that -with the proportions fixed at the Union, as regarded Ireland, we would not depart. At the same time I am aware this is a difficulty which we have to meet, and is an argument furnished to our opponents, that it will be our duty to combat with, while at the same time the benefits intended to be given to Ireland are complained against, because we do not give a sufficient number of Members to Ireland. But if any one will look back to the discussions and the debates which took place in the year 1831 and 1832, he will fiud that there was never any such thing pro posed as that the number of representatives for Ireland should bear an exact proportion to the number of British representatives, as compared with the re spective wealth, and the respective population of the different countries. It will appear that at that time a proposal was made and accepted, founded on very loose basis, that the number of Members fur Great Britain should be 558, and tke number fur Ireland 106 to serve in Parliament. And here, I would observe, that there is no injury done to the kingdom of Ireland by the number of additional Members that are given to Scotland, because the arrangement at the Union was not made between England, Ireland, and Scotland, as a party tripartite, but between England and Ireland alone ; and whatever arrangement now takes place be tween England and Ireland does not affect the Irish and English arrangement in any way. Supposing, for in stance, that a number of Members were taken from Ireland and given to Scotland, why then there might be the same argument raised against such an arrangement. Mr. Pitt, in moving in Parliament, at the time of the Union, that the proposal from the Irish Parliament should be acceded to, considered the proposal one of justice, and so reasonshle that he could not think the English Parliament could object to it. It appeared to him difficult to form a fair plan as regarded Members, at the same time he was not aware that exact numbers were very material—nor . . could be think any proposition could be more proper to be adopted than the tnelrishparlia proposal ment;n which bad come othing,however,cn from uldbe more satisfactory than such a statement as this from supposed d n t li n at e the r number ; () It o! and that again cp l P i r ad i i :t ea t !: R ay a el e n p s d t t r oa e w t s e e c a n i sort:a circumstances property t p s t l e a nr v b e tc a ye s awtsnouhd which population no o ; could be the intention of the Imperial Parliament. never foresee. This to depend upon the jarring affairs of the two countries, in- It is for this reason, and feeling that it could have been Ireland any t a s y t r o f r n o g e n r rather that there should be an augmentation from the a n d y e n an o ta m ge ea s n s s be pr b o a p d er tu to be ha g v iv e en tak tu en tb a e w stronger to the weaker, that his Mrjesty's Government proposes to give to the different parts of Ireland the addi tional five representatives now proposed to be give n . In looking at the various qualifications which w e h ave thought it right to adopt with regard to England and Ire land, and to the various provisions relating to them, we found it unnecssary to adopt the principle of disfranchise ment in Ireland to any very great extent. There are few towns in Ireland is now returning Members which do nut furnish a very respectable constituency. WW I regard to the freehold qualification for voting in counties, we pro. pose to extend to Ireland the same principle as that adopted with regard to England—i.e., we consider the propriety of adding to the freehold constituency a leasehold, constituting having an adequate share of pro perty, and if any Hon. Gentleman will compare the quali fications of one country and the other, it will be found that the leaseholders of Ireland will not have the the slightest reason to complain. In England, if a person either have a lease of 60 years with a beneficial interest of 101. or a lease of 20 years with a bennficial interest of 501. or, if he be a tenant at will, at a rental of not less than 501. a year, he is entitled to a vote. In the former Irish Bill the alter native was taken of the amount of rent, but, as unfortu nately in Ireland, the amount of rent on a lease does not prove the respectability of the voter, and as that Bill embraced the objectionable clause via. that of paying up the rent. We have in the present Bill struck out the criterion of rent, and adopted that of the beneficial in terest arising from the lease. We originally intended to take twenty years as the term, but upon consideration and enquiry, it was proved that, that period would ex clude a great number of persons who holding under leases we considered ought to he fairly entitled to a vote. We found there were so many leases existing for a term _ _ _ of 21 years of which the occupying tenants held in many instances but for six or seven years. We therefore adopted a medium by taking a lease for fourteen years, with a be neficial interest of 20/. Now, if lion. Gentlemen corn- pared the twenty years lease and the 50/. beneficial in terest in England, with the _ fourteen years lease and the beneficial interest of 201. in Ireland, it would be seen as far as the leaseholders in Ireland was uoucerned—he was put upon as good, and indeed better terms than the leaseholder in England. In England you have the lowest class of constituency, viz., the 40s. t, - eeholders, which class is exempted from the constituency of Ireland. I will now refer to some returns which have been presented eo this House for the purpose of showing the proportion in which the property of some of the counties in Ireland are represented.— By a paper, which is dated 1830, containing a list of the . . _ _ Freeh - olders of all the counties in Ireland, it appeared that there were 53,152 freeholders, not leis than . 22'000 of whom were registered as 50/._ freeholders; 10,000 more as 20!. freeholders, leaving the lowest class of 101. free holders at only about 21,000, and that in a country where the bulk of the property belonged to Protestants. In the county of Munster there were 15,382 Catholic free- holders, of which 7,382 were of 501. ; 3,113 of 20'., and 4,900 of 101. In the province of Ulster, where the Pro testant interest was the strongest in Ireland, and where a large proportion of the lower classes were Protestants, and not Catholics, the 101. freeholders were in number 8,535 out of a total of little better than 16,000. So that it appears that where the Pi otvotant interest is the greatest, the 101 freeholders are the most nume- ... roils, but wher e t h e C at h o li c i nterest -is the greatest the 50/. freeholders were the most numerous. Ido not state these facts for the purpose of creating a distinction between the Protestant and Catholic interests, nor do 1 wish to set those two interests at variance with each other. I wish to sliew, that all interests will be fairly re preseated, and if there is any one wish nearer to my heart than another, it is, that I may never again hear the terins of Protestant interest, or Catholic interest.— I am told that by this extension of the ecustituency. 1 am wishing to overthrow the Protestant interest, I show that 1 can have no sue!' ife.sire, I wish to see all interests fairly represented, but I wish to overthrow the political power of those who, witu religion ou the one hand, and politics on the other, inflame the minds of the people by their bigotry.—(Hear, hear.) I have dow stated the only additio n to be made with respect to the county Constituency. I will now address myself to the borough representation, in which we propose to make a more ex tensive, but I trust it will not be considered an uncalled for change, I have been told that the whole strength of the Protestant interest depended on the existence of seventeen r• eighteen rotten boroughs. I will not believe that Protestant property, Protestant wealth, and Protes tant influence, will be deprived of their due share in the representation, by the nonexistence of a few rotten boroughs. When the Union of Ireland was effected, it was argued by the Protestants that the measure was dangerous, for it would destroy the rotten boroughs, the only stay of Protestantism. Perhaps at that time it was so, for it might at that time beeen necessary to con tinua and keep up the system of exclusion and of Pro testant Ascendancy. But that day is gone by—tbe Caatholic Emancipation Bill has passed, the system of exclusive knowledge exists, and Protestant genflemen are now admitted to sit in this House. I will now address myself to the proposed qualification for voting in boroughs. What, therefore, we propose is, that where there is a legal tax, and persons rre rated to that tax, that they should prove they have paid it before they have a right to vote. There are also, Sir, threa other classes, the counties of cities and counties of towns, this embraces not only the borough itself, but a considerable district of county, and there are separate cuonties, to these, Sir, wa propose to give a right of voting as a ten pound house holder, with a right of voting also for the town, We have felt it would be injustice to substitute the right of voting for one for the right of voting for the other. I have now Sir, I believe, stated the line that is proposed to be followed by his Majesty's Ministers with regard to the Irish Bill, but there are one or two other points to which I wish to allude. We have not thought fit to be introduced into this Bill that provision which was introduced into the Eng lish one, by which the rights of freemen are preserved to them and to their posterity for ever. We have not thought it expedient to adopt that course in the Irish Bill.—(Cheers.) And our motives for not follow ing that course are that there are objections to that class of votes in Ireland, which does not exist in England, namely, that freemen in Ireland mix up their religion and party spirits.—(Hear.) I shal therefore propose to the House, Sir, with regard to the freemen in Ireland not to continue the rights which they at present enjoy beyond the present possessors. With regard to the Catholic forty-shilling freeholders entitled to registration, we propose still to continue that to the present possessor ; but no longer with regard to taking the poll at elections, a considerable difference has been made in this to the last Bill. We do not, therefore, propose to take it in the manner adopted in the English Bill, but to continue to it as it now exists.—(Cheers.) Having never granted, Sir, through the principal provisions of the Bill, and should not trouble it with the details, as those are a more fit subject for the Committee. Nothing, Sir, could be more detrimental than considering the interests of one country at variance with the other, and his Majesty's Government, feeling convinced that it was only by one as by the others, have. upon that principle sbapsd that Reform Bill which I now moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the'represen tation of the people of Ireland.—(Cheers.) Mr. LEADER rose, and was left speaking. THE MARKETS. COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING IHE WEEK Per Quarter. Abingdon...—.,,_. Andover. .B . !idport , Cirencester F Guildford Henley Hereford Highworth —...„.„ Maidenhead Monmouth— Iteading Salisbury Southampton Stroud Tewkesbury Uxbridge Wantage. Warminster Windsor Worcester Wheat. Barley. 8. tr, a. 63 81 73 80 56 66 56 74 43 64 54 86 48 74 54 83 84 92 62 80 65 86 54 61 65 90 42 63 54 58 64 78 65 74 48 74 58 80 44 62 t 5 66 B. to S. 31 43 37 41 40 44 32 39 30 42 38 40 23 32 30 35 44 48 32 42 32 413 31 47 32 28 37 40 34 38 40 42 27 40 30 43 30 42 44 M Oats. a. to I. 22 30 24 32 26 30 20 29 26 38 26 35 20 30 28 34 22 30 21 32 21 27 28 32 22 32 30 38 29 33 21 30 22 28 21 22 31 32 Beans. e. to s. 38 - 52 --- 54 - 42 - 48 - 43 - 40 - 40 - 58 - 42 - 54 - 46 - 48 - 44 - 42 - 46 - 46 - 50 - 50 HULL MARKET-Jan. 17. Wheat, Old -s. 565. 58s. ......New --s. 565. 58s. - Foreign -s. 50s. 545. ln bond... -s. -s. -a. Oats, Poland -s. 20s. 725. Old -e. -e. 30 s . Small or Feed.... -8. 18s. 20s ....5. ..-S. .....51. - Foreign -s. 20s. 21s -5. -.8. -.-411. Barley, Nsrf. & Suf ... -s. 4.05. 425. Linc. & %Vold -s. 34s 365. - Foreign ......................... ..... ...... ......, -s. 3 2*. 34r. Beans 348. 361. 388. Foreign --e. 388. 364. Pease, White -.8. 38s. Vs. Grey -s. -a. -5. Fares -s -s. -a. Foreign -5. 30s. 365. Rapeseed, in bond n0ne.......... Free, per last -1. 261. 271. CHELTENHAM Per Bushel. s. d. to s. d. Wheat Barley 4 0 5 6 Oats 4 0 4 3 Beans Pease 5 0 7 0 Hay 3l. 10s MARKET.—Jan. 17. _ Per lb. d. to d. Beef Mutton Veal Pork Lamb 0 0 to 31. 15e. Od. per ton LEWES MAR—..lan. 17. White Wheat (per quarter) KET. ...........Z3 4 0 to £3 12 0 Red ditto 3 1 0 3 4 0 1 8 6 1 18 0 110 1 2 0 117 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 per thousand. Oats, , New Oil Cake. New. DUMFRIES MA s. d. 5.14. o. d. s. d. Wheat, Imp. Bush... 7 0 to 7 6 Butter, 16oz Oats Barley „„...„ ........... 3 6 3 3 9 Eggs, dozen 0 0 0 0 ..... 2 28 Beef, per lb. Flour, 141 b. Oatmeal Potatoes, cwt. KETS.—Jan. 11. TRIA JUNCTA IN UNO.—This celebrated motto was curiously verified in a parochial meeting last week, in which a female, brought up to filiate an illegiti mate child, ingenuously offered the parish officers their choice from three gay Lotharioa, two of whom, a surgeon in practice, not a hundred miles from this town, and a farmer of respectability, residing within the same distance, had long since passed the meridian of their days—the third a sturdy labourer, who was more than suspected to be the fortunate hero, escaped the usual punishment, the guilty con— science of one of the other parties having offered a douceur of fifty pounds to the female to place the laurel on another head than his.—Devonport Telegraph. Fops.—There is no order of society which changes so often and so completely as that of the fops. Your miser always looks the miser; your arrogant man the arrogant ; but a fop of 40 years ago was a macaroni ; of 30 a buck ; of 20 a dandy; of ten an exquisite; of to day an exclusive. What folly will come next '--The Opera. MEMOIRS OF CELEBRATED FEMALE SovEßEtaxs.--This werk, by the talented Authoress of " The Diary of an Ennuyee," will be read with great humanpleasure nature. all ur ei w be h e o delightbje object t of in the Authoress , history an in which dt the study of she has proved eminently successful, seems to be a moral and picturesque rather than a political account of the lives of those females, who have presided over the destiny of nations, and to 'hew " qu'elles swat faites pour embellir le monde, plutot que pour le commander." N ot an event of any interest during the reigns on which she has treated has escaped her notice; and the two volumes com bine a mass of useful intelligence, and written with that elegance which will not LH to procure their admission to all the principal public and private libraries in the king dom.— Cheltenham Chronicle. " . ..1.••••• BIRTHS. of a son. On the 18th inst. in Portland-place the Countess of Sheffield, On the 17th inst. at Frederic-house, the lady of J. ti, Cramp ton, of a son. On the 14th inst. the lady of E. Lloyd, Esq., o f a soli. On the 18th i nst. Mrs. James Peachey, of Salisbury-9 lua:e, of a son. MARIED. On the 18th i nst. at St. Jam R es's church, Mr. J. Churchill, the youngest son of the Rev. J. Churchill, of Thames Ditton, to Georgiana, eldest daughter of Joseph Toussaint, Esq., of Pall mall, and of Manor-house, Feltham, Middlesex. On the 18th inst. at St. Andrew's, Ilolborn Warren, youngest son of the Rev. Edward Cooper, Rector of Iliamstall.ridware, Staffordshire, to Frances, the youngest daughter of Joha Pugh, Esq., of King's-road, Bedford -row. On the 17th inst. at Kensington, C. Parker, Esq. of Tavistock street, Bedford square, to Mary Lucy, daughter of Mr. Molteho, of Pall-mall. DIE. On the 18th i nst in Portland-p D lace, the Dowager Counter's of Sheffield, aged 69. On the 17th inst. Sarah, the wife of Mr. Farrance, of Ludgate. street, aged 73. On the 17th inst. in Guildford street, Rebecca, widow of the late W. Dyer, Esq., of Little Ilford, aged 70. On the 15th inst. aged 84, John Mitford, Esq., of Mitford, Northumberland, formerly Captain in his Majesty's 85th Regi ment of Foot. On the 18th inst. at Hackney, W. T. Aird, Esq., aged 30. ______,.................................H...,......, PRINTED AND PLIBLIRRED BY MURDO YOUNG, SUN OFFICE, 112, S TRAND, LONDON. AT THE