The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-04 00:00:00

favour to the claimant, he thought that the investigation of such claims would be attended with great inconvenience. After a few words from Lord ALTHOIi P, which welt: inaudible in the Gallery, Sir R. PEEL said that the Act alluded to regarding Norwich was passed when party spirit, ran very high in that town ; but whether the Act was applicable to the case, or afforded every proof of the benefits to be derived frt.m the clause in the Reform sill under dl , cussion remained to he seen. The Norwich Act was passed solely with a view of assessing the houses to the poor rate, and he had not heard the Noble Lord opposite say that the inhabitants of Norwich voted according to their contribution to the poor or county rate. If there was to he one criterion for the franchise and another for the contribution to the rates, and if_ they agreed, it would be well, but if they did not, in what state would the qualification be. He advised the Noble Lord to get rid of these annusl rates, and tix it for three or five years, and for God's sake to get rid of the difference of value.—(Hear.) Lord J. _RUSSELL would be glad to take the assess ment to the poor or county rate as a criterion, if he possibly could ; but it was so irregular, that it would be impossible to adopt it. The question to decide was, whether the House would take on one side, a rule for the franchise that would lead to many inconveniences, or whether they would exclude from the franchise a great many house holders. The Government preferred incurring those incon veniences which would exist but for a time, and to give to the constituency a large proportion of respectable house holders. Sir R. PEEL asked why Government did not at once have a new and complete valuation of property; that was the best mode of doing justice, for the overseers would be anxious to make the rate as high as they could, and the rate-payers would have an interest in making it as low as they could, so that in the conflict between them justice would be done, besides the creating another benefit, that of making all persona pay their just proportion to the poor rates. Lord ALTHORP thought that the Right Hon. Baro net's proposition, if acceded to, would tend in a most mate rial degree to increase the obstacles opposed to the right progress and well-working of the Bill. The Noble Lord then alluded to the difficulties which invariably occurred in ascertaining the real present value of property at the quarter sessions, and, in conclusion, maintained that the mode of inquiry, and the criterion of value, proposed to be adopted in the el:use then under their consideration, was infinitely the best and the fairest. Mr. C. W. WYNN repeated his argument against this part of the clause. Mr. BEST offered a few observations, which were to tally inaudible. Lord SANDON had no doubt that the effect of the Bill would be that, in all parishes in which any political difference of opinion existed, a re-assessment of the whole would take place, and thus all disputes and all difficulty be for ever put an end to. Mr. WARBURTON thought it would be a matter of great difficulty to arrange a new plan for assessment, and Ministers, it was well known, had difficulties enough on their hani!s at present He had heard an illustration of that argument the other day. On assessing some property in the Tower Hamlets an attempt was made to under value it, for the purpose of preventing the possessor from voting. Sir ROBERT PEEL, notwithstanding what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman, was still convinced—and, in deed, the argument of the Hon. Member helped to convince him—that the plan he proposed was the best. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL contended that tl:e poor-rates could not be safely trusted to, as they were placed on a different footing in different parts of the country. Mr. MASON objected to the poor-rate as a criterion. After a short conversation between Mr. GRANVILLE VERsos, and Lord Jolts RUSSELL, as to the time for the Hon. Member moving his resolution, of which he a y e no tice on Thursday, Mr. G. VERNON proceeded to state the nature of it The great objection he bad to the plan of the Bill, arose from the difficulty of getting parish officers to act impar tially. It was a matter of great difficulty at present to get persons to discharge the duty of overseers, and it would he still more so if such a power as that proposed should be granted to them. Indeed, it was so difficult to procure a fair test, that he would almost prefer payment by scot and lot as a criterion, and he was induced to think that in four times out of five that would be the safest way. The Hon. Member, after m iking some further observations, which were very indistinctly heard, moved the following resolu tion :—" That after the word landlord' these words be inserted, rated to she relief of the poor, or, in places where there has been no such rate, to the county.'" Mr. FRESHFIELD had an amendment also to pro po.e, which if the Hon. Gentleman would now permit him he would move. It would precede ti e motion of the lion. Gentleman, if he would waive his priority, as the would which he wished to have inserted in the clause came before the word " landlord." After a few remarks from the Chairman of the Com mittee, Sir C. WETHERELL, and Mr. Otos:En, Mr. VERNON consented to waive his proposition until that of Mr Fri-shfield should be disposed of. Mr. FRESHFIELD then proceeded to move his amendment, viz., to leave out the words after the word " tenant" in lines 32 and 33, i lause 27, in order to insert these words, "under the same landlord." Lord ALTHORP considered the amendment would be detrimental to the Bill, and therefore he should oppose it. After a few observations from Mr. C. PELHA3f, the amendment was put and negatived without a division. Mr. VERNON then moved bib amendment, as above given. Mr. C. FERGUSSON oljected to it, and declared his intention of supporting the clause as it originally stood. Colonel WOOD should certainly support the amendment. After a few word, from Colonel biviEs, Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment, as it would prove an additional obstacle to the Bill if it were adcpted. _ _ _ After a few words from Mr. P. HOWARD and Lord SANDON, Mr. S. WORTLEY suggested that the statement of the value of houses should be taken from the assessment of the poor rates. Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, that if such a suggestion were to be adopted, great dissatisfaction would be created, for the assessments to the poor rates were bad!ymade. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said that out of doors this clause had excited great attention. He was himself opposed to the motion made on the previous evening by the Hon. Member for Preston, but he could not conceive upon what principle it was the advocates of this clause should have on that occasion voted against the Hon. Member ; for he believed, partially speaking, this clause would give a vote to every person who would have been comprehended in the motion of the Hon. Member for Preston. No houses under the value of 10/. were rated to the taxes, and therefore all householders paying taxes must be househol ders to the value of 101., and entitled to a vote according to the clause as it now stood. The value was so open to litigation and disputes that the Legislature ought to make rent the standard. He again contended, the effect of this clause would he to produce universal suffrage. The Noble Lord admitted the respectability of the inhabitants of the rural districts, but he said they wanted the political knowledge which was to be found in towns. The inha bitar.t• of towns, then, had political excitement and Poli tical Unions to recommend them to the consideration of the Noble Lord.—(Cheers from the Opposition benches.) A rent of 11., a rate of 1/., and no inhabited house duty, would produce at the election a crowd of witnesses to shew tl at the house was of the yearly value of 10/. He main tained that a reformed Parliament would laugh to scorn the very measure which the Noble Lord was now advocat ing. He contended that the 101. franchise given by this clause was too low, and was generally felt to be so. The etf.ct of throwing so large a proportion of the representa tion of the country into the hands of the 10/. househol ders would be to call into existence a degree of political excitement, which he considered extremely dangerous ; but if that political excitement was considered necessary or de sirable, he could see no good reason for opposing the mo tion made by the Hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hunt). Some lion. Members, be had no doubt, considered the discussion on this subject extremely ttdious, but be beg7,ed to remind the Committee, this clause was the most im portant in the Bill, and it would have to be considered in another place.—(}lear, hear.) He thoug'.t it impossible that it could pass through that other place in its present shape, and it was the less likely to pass if it had not been fully and deliberately considered in the Committee. H. contended that, as the clause now stood, persons in joint occupancy, having a first floor, a second floor, or a base ment story, having a common staircase, and paying 38. 1 01. a week rent, would be entitled to sots. There was another mode in which votes might be multiplied, which be did not believe had been contemplated by the framers of this clause. Six persons might take a house worth 60/. a year, and all six be entitled to vote as tenants in common.—(Cheers.) Lord .ALTHORP agreed with the lion. awl Learned Member who bad just sat down, that the clause now under consideration was one of the greatest importance. It was the clause on which he (Lord Althorp) set the greatest store.—( Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had argued that it was unnecessary to introduce the provision waking it necessary that the bout , holder should be rated to the poor rates, as tl e other test—the 101. value way sufficient. It was well known, however, that many per-1 suns were rated to the poor rates who did not occur, houses of 10/. value ; and, on the other hand, many pi r sons occupied 10/. houses, and were not rated to the poor rates. The clause, tl'erefore, did not go to the length of the proposition of the Hon. Member for Preston, and fell far short of universal suffrage, which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had described it as nearly amounting to.-- (Hear, bear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman ob jected that the alteration made in this clause, as compared with the corresponding clause in the last Bill, would le,d to a grest_extenaion of the franchise, because, in the last Bill, there were several tests necessary, in addition to the value of the house. The intrinsic value of the house, _however, was felt to be the simplest test, and all the others had been dispensed with. Another objection to this clause was that, whilst, in the rural districts, respectable persons occupied 10/. houses, and houses of a smaller value, in large communities houses of that value were generally occupied by persons of the humbler classes. He agreed with his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell), however, that persons occupying 10/. houses in large communities, from the political knowledge, and the information which they often possessed on public matters, were well entitled to vote, and might eserci.e the elective franchise with great advantage to the public. All the information which he was possessed of led him to the conclusion that, under this elause, the franchise would not be extended in large towns to unfit persons or those who would be incapable of exercising it beneficially—(Hear, hear). — Being rated to the pocr rate', was an additional security, as it would give a great facility in discovering who per sons were, and where they resided, upon their claiming the right of voting. With respect to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's objections as to joint occupancy, he (Lord Althorp) did not admit that it was well founded. Per sons occupying the several floors in a house with a com mon staircase, could not vote under the clause unless their holdings were taken as separate tenements and separately rated to tlse poor rates. Mr. BUNT would vote against the amendment, because the effect of it would be to lessen the total number of voters, to which he was opposed on principle. Mr. GRANVILLE VERNON begged tobe allowed to state again why he propos-d the amendment. He was a sincere friend to the Bill ; but he thought the Noble Lord, by this clause, was putting it in the power of the over seers throughout the country to decide who should or who should not have votes. The Committee then divided.—The numbers were— For the original clause °5•2 For the amendment lB4 'Majority for the original clause On the re-opening of the gallery Lord ALTHORP was addressing himself across the table to Mr. Goulburn, hoping, as it was understood, that, as the hour was so late, the Right Hon. Gentleman would not make any opposition to the resolution which he would move in the Committee of Supply on his undertaking that the report should he brought on the first thing on Monday night, when the Right Hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of making any observations which he judged necessary upon it. Mr. GOULBURN would acquiesce in the Noble Lord's proposal, on the understanding that on Monday the report would be brought o❑ at a sufficiently early hour to admit of a satisfactory discussion. The Committee then proceeded with the clause, and the blank was filled up with the words "ten pounds." Mr. DAVIES GILBERT moved an amendment, that after 101. should I e inserted the words " above the value of any part or parts of such property uuderlet in any manner %%hatsoever." Lord ALTHORP opposed the amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of excluding the best etas of voters in the large towns. The amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. WARBURTON should have presented a petition from the 'National Union relative to this clause, if he Lad hail an opportunity. He had not been able to do en, but lie should now state some of the objections contained in the petition, and which occurred to himself. Tiie pe titioners stated that from what they knew in Westminster, the making the payment of rates or assessed taxes, par ticularly of rates. a condition of voting, would lead to bri bery. Every one knew that such things had taken pace as candidates paying rates for poor voters, and he feared that that practice would he resorted to under this provision, in spite of any Act against bribery which might be intro duced. The Hon. Gentleman moved the omission of all that part of the clause which made the payment of rates a condition of voting. Lord ALTHORP objected to the amendment. Mr. HUNT was aware that the practice alluded to pre vailed in the west of England, hut he now heard for the first time that it was known in the city of Westminster. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT did not know what might have been the case in ancient times, but he did nut be lieve that any such practice had prevailed while he was connected with Westminster. Mr. WARBURTON alluded to ancient times, but not so far distant as to be beyond the memory of man. The amendment was negatived without a division. The Committee having got through the several verbal amendments on the clause, The CHAIRMAN put the question that it do stand part of the Bill, when Mr. HUNT should not trouble the House at any length upon the motion which he had to make upon the present question, as it had already been discussed. He should, therefore, content himself with saying that the proviso which he wished to add to the clause was in strict con formity to the principles of the Constitution, which did nit contemplate subjecting any subject to taxation who had no share in the election of the representative who as sisted in imposing taxes. His motion was—" That all persons who should be excluded by the operation of the present Bill from having any share in the election of the representatives in Parliament of the nation, should he exerni , ted from the payment of rates and taxes, and also should not be called upon to serve in the militia, or be made liable to impressment for the army or navy." The Hon. Member declared he should not divide the House upon this proviso. The questio❑ that this proviso be added to the clause was then put from the Chair, and negatived without a division. On the question being again put front the Chair,— " that the clause, as amended, do stand part of the Bill," 3lr. HUNT rose fir the purpose of bringing forward th e motion of which he had given notice last night. Why, asked the Hon. Member, was the borough of Preston to he excluded in this measure, and to he disfranchised? He ha! never heard any charge brought against the electors of corruption. If the clause passed, one of the largest boroughs in the whole kingdom would be reduced to a condition as rotten as Old Sarum. For a great number of years the borough of Preston had been equally divided he. tween the Whig and Tory interests. The Noble House of Derby had influenced the return of one Member, and the large manufacturers in the town had returned the other. The people of Preston, however, had emancipated them selves from the former influence, not out of any disregard to the Hon. Member whose return tvas so influenced—the present Hon. Member for Windsor ; but because they had thought proper to select himself for their representative. He should feel it his duty to move that a proviso be added to the present clause to the effect, " that nothing in the present Bill do have any operation on the borough of Preston." Lord ALTIIORP said that the Hon. Member had asked him why Preston was selected in particular for dis franchisement? To this lie must answer, that Preston was by no means selected from any other places, but it happened that a great portion of the electors fell under the general rule which, for the benefit of all, it had been deemed advisable to adopt as the principle upon which the franchise was to be conferred. The lion. Member had asked why the Preston electors were disfranchised by him ? Would the lion. Member allow him to ask, in his two, why the lion. Member wished to disfranchise them him self, when he moved so recently that all who did not be come entitled to a vote under this Bill should he exempted from the payment of rates and taxes ? Mr. nuNT—When I made that motion I hail not the slightest expectation of its being carried.—(Loud laughter.) I said so, did I not?—(Laughter.) After a few observations from Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. NJACKINNON, the Committee divided, when there appeared aK.) For Mr. Hunt's amendment 5 Against it Majority ----:93 Mr. MACKINNON moved that at the end of clause 27 there shall be added as a provis ,, , that in all boroughs, towns, and cities, in whic:i by this Bill the franchise shall depend on a qualification of 101. rental as a householdtr,. the right of voting for such places where the number of voters shall be 500, shall be confined only to such house holders as pay a yearly rent of 15/ and that when the voters shall amount to 1,000 in number, the right of voting shall be confined to those paying a yearly rent of 201. Lord ALTIIORP felt decidedly hostile to the principle of the amendment, as drawing invidious distinctions as to the right of suffrage in different classes. Mr. W. PEEL should support the clause. Mr. BARING suggested that it would be wiser to leave tLe proviso in blank, as to the amount. After a few words from Lord Althorp, Sir J. Scarlett. Lord .Milton, Col. Davies, Mi. Heywood, Lord Morpeth, ird Sandon, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Wason. Mr. iII•KINNON tuid tl:at at tlCia late ll,ur of the night (half-past twelve) lie would not give the G.antnittee the trouble of dividing, but begged leave to withdraw the motion, and he would bring it forward again in an amended shape After some cries of " Divide !" the motion was with drawn. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress, BELGIUM. Lord ALTHORP moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of a supply to be granted to his Majesty. Sir RICHARD V YVYAN felt it necessary to take this opportunity of putting a question to the Noble Lord opposite. The question he had first to propose was, whether the Noble Lord had any hope that the Belgim treaty would he ratified by the other three Powers? and, secondly, whether it eas the intention of his Majesty's Government, and the French Government (Belgium was out of the question), to guarantee all the articles of the treaty to the King of the Netherlands in the same way as by the last treaty they were guaranteed to the King of Belgium ? He had no doubt they would be gurante-d by the King of the Netherlands, provided he executed them. He believed it was unusual to give notice in the King's speech of a treaty not yet recognised. The Hon. Baronet read the passage in the King's speech relative to the treaty with the King of the Netherlands, and concluded by re peating his questions. Lord PALMERSTON, with regard to what the Hon. Baronet had remarked upon as an informality—viz. the presentation of a treaty which had not been signed or ratified by all the Powers mentioned in it—observed that the Hon. Baronet would not find such a course of proceeding so much without precedent as he imagined. Fur the truth of this he need only refer to the treaty of Vienna in 1815, which, though it contained the name of Spain, as one of the contracting patties, was not • ac. ceded to by Spain for two years afterwards. He, how ever, did not mean to take his ground on precedents, be cause he was prepared to say that, if there had been no precedent, it would, in this particular case, have been fitting to have made a precedent ; for a treaty signed by the Plenipotentiaries of the Kings of Europe, and ratified by the King of England, became an engagement fully com plete and binding upon all parties. With respect to Bel gium, he apprehended that it was incumbent upon his Majesty's advisers, to advise him to communicate to Parliament at the earliest possible moment, as soon as they were completed, and tt eaties contracted with foreign Powers. It was not right, because the treaty had not been signed by all parties, to advise a mutilation of it, or have omitted matter apparent on the face of the record. It was proper to accompany the communication of the treaty with a notice that the Courts of Austria, Russia, and Prussia had not yet ratified the acts of their Plenipotentiaries, recorded by their signatures. The Hon. Baronet asked whether he (Lord Palmerston) en tertained the hope that the ratification would arrive? To that question he bad no hesitation in answering that he did entertain the strongest hopes that this ratification would art ive. The distance of the Courts would neces sarily occasion the ratification to arrive at different times, and the nearer the Court the sooner he expected to re ceive the ratification. The Noble Lord also asked whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to ad vise the King, in the event of a similar treaty being con cluded with the King of the Netherlands, to insert a gua rantee similar to that contained in this treaty ? As to that, lie could assure the House that he only performed his duty officially, and as a Member of the House, in saying that he could not answer the question as to what might be the future advice of Government as to a treaty not yet brought up or settled. Mr. ROBINSON asked whether the guarantee of the five Powers, in the 35th article of the treaty could be applied to the obligation in the 13th article, and 2d section, for the punctual payment of the Belgic portion of the debr, by half-yearly payments? He should feel it his duty at some future time to move a resolution that this country ought not to be bound by pecuniary obligations. Unless he received an assurance from his Majesty's Government t: at they would, at some future period, bring the ques tion of the Russian Dutch Loan before the House, he never would consent to vote one shilling in a Committee of Supply. Lord PALMERSTON could not conceive it pos‘ible that, under any construction of the treaty, this country could, under any circumstances, be called upon to make good the payment of the money. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN said that, the treaty being between six Powers, he always understood that time ought to be given to ratify it. Would the Noble Lord advise the King to grant the articles of this treaty to the King of Holland ? Mr. COURTENAY begged to call the attention of the Rouse to the situation in which it was thus placed. From the papers which had been produced it had a right to infer that ti .e treaty had been ratified by the five Powers; hut from the information which had been furnished it appeared that it had been ratified by three Powers only. Now wJs it possible that any motion on the subject could he properly discussed until more definite informAtion had been furnished? .. - Mr. A. BARING iiegged to ask the Noble Lord whether it was his intention to call upon the House to off r any opinion upon the ratification of the Powers ? Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, had only to state that it was not at present his intention to propose any resolution to the House upon the subject of the ratification to which be had allud.d. After a few words from Mr. ROBINSON, which were inaudible, Lord PALMERSTON said that there was a ma terial difference between a national guarantee and a na tional security. By the first, a nation engaged only to use its best efforts to advance a particular object. By the second it engaged positively to effect it. England, in this instance, had given only a guarantee, and was not bound as if she had given a positive surety. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN asked whether any time had been stated ? Lord PALNIERSTON replied, that if the Right Hon. Baronet's question r4erred to any act (lone by the Go vernment, he should feel himself bound to answer it ; but he did not conceive that he had any right to answer the question just put. The conversation then dropped. The other orders of the day were disposed of and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. Sir FREDERICK LAMB left his residence in Arlington-street yesterday morning fur Vienna, as British Amhassador to the Austrian Court. It is said that his Excellency is the bearer of important despatches, arising from the Conference on the 31st ult., for which purpose his Excellency's departure was postpo❑ed from Satur day last. Mr. CHARLES JAMES MATHEWS, Only son of the popular comedian, having recovered from the very severe indisposition which hastened his return to Eng land from his professional studies abroad, has announced himself as a candidate for the distriet-surveyorship of the parishes of Bow and Bethnal-green. We felt rather surprised that Mr. PERCEVA L had an objection to the publication of his pious speech, having imagined that he would be pleased in " having his light so shine before men that they may see his gead works." SUDDEN DEATH OF LORD NORWOOD.- On Monday afternoon, about three o'clock, Lord Non, wool), second son of the late Lord Nortauxv, expired quite suddenly at his lodgings, in FAHRELL'S hotel, Do minick-street, where he had resided for several years past. His Lordship hail been remarkable fir the eccentricity of his habits and the peculiarity of his costume, which gave him the appearance of a mendicant rather than a. Peer. He wa., however, a harmless and inoffensive person. Lordship is succeeded in his title and estates by his only brother, HEcroa Jolts, the present Earl of .NossumY•--- Dablin Morning Register. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY arrived on Friday last from town, to present addresses from Durham, Belfast, and Stockton-upon-Tees, against the Reform Bill. His Lordship did not reach the Palace until the KtN.ci had at down to dinner (nearly half-past seven o'clock), but his MAJESTY immediately admitted the Noble Marquis, who had the honour oh dining at the Royal table. After thinner, his MAJESTY, with the same considerate attention, granted an audience to Lord LONDONDERRY, for the pur pose of presenting the address, the Noble Marquis being anxious to leave Brighton early on the followi ng m o rning. To the Anti-Rearm Noblemen wh om we have already announced as having been honoured with audiences by his MAJESTY, is to be added the Marquis CAMDEN. The whole of these (and as our readers know, they are not few in number), with the exception of Lord WHARNCLIFFE have been suppressed by the Court Circular, as it is called. The object of Lord CAMDEN'S journey Nuts to present the Anti-Reform address from lieut.—Brighton Gazette. The detachment of the 87th Regiment sta tioned at St. Nicholas Island, was relieved on Tuesday last, by an equal detachment, from the depot of the 22d Re giment, and the Garr ison at Pendennis Castle, consisting of a detachment of the 22d depot, will be relieved on Friday by an equal detachment from , the d e p o t o f t h e 87th Regiment, under the comma nd of Captain Lord A aviu CHiCHF,TER, 'FHB REFORM BILL. .1 long discussion took place last night, on the 27th clause, nn the right of voting in boroughs to he enjoyed by owners ol tenants. Mr. J. E. Denison ;o1 Nottinghamshire) moved an amendment, which 'afterwards he withdrew. Mr. Vernon (Bassetlaw) then moved that the franchise should .be enjoyed only by those who occupied houses rated to the poor-rates at 101. Sir Robert Peel, Sir E. Sugden, and others, supported the amend ment ; but, on a division, the Committee decided, by 252 to 15-1, that the franchise should be enjoyed by all persons rated to the poor-rates, and occupying or owning houses of the clear yearly value of 10/. This is one of the most importment clauses in the Bill, and it would have been matter of great regret if the Mini sters had yielded to the proposition, as the number of voters would have thereby been much reduced. We observe that one of the usual supporters of the Ministers voted against the value of the house being taken as the suffrage. The majority of 68 for the clause is certainly a small one on so important a subject, and we cannot think the friends of Reform are wise to allow any di vision to tak— place when, out of 4313 Members present, there shall only be'lS of a majority. If it is expected that the Bill shall be carried through the Lords, the Reformers in the House of Commons must continue their attendance, and carry it tri umphantly through. for the country expects every man sent to the House as a Reformer will not relax on any account in his efforts. Mr. Hunt moved, as an amendment to the clause, that the borough of Preston should be exempted from the clause, stating that the number of electors would be reduced from 4,000 to WU by the present Bill. On a division there appeared '2OO against Mr. Hunt's amendment and only five for it. Mr. Mackinnon then moved as an amendment to the clause that where the number of houses rated at 10/. and upwards exceeds .500, the right of franchise should be only in those paying 151. rent " A long discussion followed, in which Mr. Alexander Baring, Sir James Scarlett, and Colonel Davies recommended the raising the franchise, and Mr. Heywood, Lord Morpeth, and the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, opposed it, and maintained the clause as it is in the Bill. LIST OF THE MAJORITY OF TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY-TWO, With Ministers, for Preserving the Franchise on the Owning or Occupying Houses of the Yearly Rent of 101., instead of their being rated at 101. on the Poor Rates. ENGLAND. Robinson, G. H.—Worcester Althorp, Vis.—Northamptonsh. Hooper, J B.—Huntingdonshire Atherlev, A.—Southampton Rumbold, C. E.—G. Yarmouth Baillie, - J. E.—Bristol Russell, Lord J.—Devonshire Bainbridge, T. E.—Taunton Russell, Lieut.-Col.—Tavistock Baring, Sir T. B.—Chipping- Sanford, E. A.—Somersetshire W ycom b Schonswar, G.—l lull Baring, F. T.—Portsmouth Scott, Sir E. D.—Lichfield Barnett, C. J.—Maidstone Sebright, Sir J.—Hertfordshire Bayntun, S. A.—York Skipwith, Sir G.—Warwicksh. Beaumont, T. W.—Northumb. Slaney, R. A.—Shrewsbury Benett, J.—Wiltshire Smith, Hon. R.—Wycombe Berkeley, Captain—Gloucester Smith, G. R.—Midhurst Blake, Sir F.—Berwick Smith, J.—Buckinghamshire Blamire, W.—Cumberland Smith, J. A.—Chichester Blount, E.—Steyning Smith, M. T.—Midhurst Blunt, Sir R. C.—Lewes Smith, V.—Northampton Bouverie, D. P.—New Sarum Spencer, Hon. F.—Worcestersh. Bouverie, P P.—Downton Stanley, Lord—Lancashire Briscoe, J. I.—Surrey Stanley, Right Hon. E. G. S.— Brougham, J.—WitichiLsea 'Windsor Buller, J. W.—Exeter Stanley, E. J.—Hindon Bulwer, E. L.—St. Ives Stephenson, H. F.—Westbury Bulwer, H. L.—Coventry Stewart, P. M.—Lancaster Burdett, Sir F.—Westminster Strickland, G.—Yorkshire Burton, Henry—Beverley Strutt, E.—Derby Byng, Sir John—Poole Stuart, Lord D. C.—Arundel Byng, Geo.—Middlesex Stuart, Lord P. J.—Cardiff Calvert, C.—Southwark Talbot, C. R—Glaniorganshire Calvert, N.—Hertfordshire Tennyson, C.—Stamford Campbell, J.—Stafford Thicknesse, R.—Wigan Carter, J. a —Portsmout h hornson, Rt. Hon.C. P.—Dover Cavendish, Ld. G.—Derbyshire Throckmorton, R.—Berkshire Cavendish, C. C.—Yarmouth, Tomes, J.—Warwick Isle of Wight Torrens, R.—Ashburton Cavendish, H. F. C.—Derby Townley, It. G.—Cambridgesh. Chaytor, Sir W. R.—Durham Tracy, Charles—Tewkesbury Chichester, J. P. B.—Barnstaple Troubridge, Sir E.T.—Sandwich Clive, E. B.—Hereford Tynte, C. K. K.—Bridgewater Cockerell, Si r C.—Evesham Uxbridge, Earl of—Anglesey Cradock, S.—Camelford Venables, Ald.—London Crampton,P.C.—MilbournePort Vere, J. H.—Newport, I. of W Creevey, T.—Downton Vernon, G. J.—Derbyshire Currie, J.—Hertford Villiers, I'. IL—Bletchingly Curteis, H. B.—Sussex Villiers, F.—&altash Denison, J. E.—Nottinghamsh. Vincent, Sir F.—St. Alban's Denman, Sir T.—Nottingham Waithman, Ald.—London Duncombe, T. S.—Hertford Walrond, B.—Saltash Dundas, Sir It. L.—Richmond Warburton, 11.—Bridport Dundas, Wason, R.—lpswich Easthopc, J.—Banbury Ebrington, Visc.—Devonshire Ellis, W.—Leicester Evans, Col. 1)c Lacy—Rye. Evans, W.—Leicester Evans, W. B.—Leominster Ewart, W.—Liverpool Fazakerley, J. N.—Peterboro' Fellowes, H. A. \V.—Andover Fergusson, Sir IL—Nottingham Foley, J. H. H.—Droitwich Foley, T. H.—Worcestershire Folkes, Sir \V.—Norfolk Fordwich, Lord—Canterbury Gisborsic, T.—Stafford Godson, IL—St. Alban's Gordon, IL—Cricklade Graham, Sir J. It. G.—Cumber]. Grant, Rt. lion. R.—Norwich Guise, Sir B. W.—Gloucestersh. Handley, W. F.—Newark Harvey, D. \V.—Colchester Hawkins, J. 11.—Tavistock Hcathcote, Sir J.—ltutlandsh. Heneage, G. F.—Lincoln Heron, Sir R.—Peterborough Heywood, B.—Lancashire Hodges, T. L.—Kent Horne, Sir W.—Newtown Howard, H.—Shoreham Howick, Ld.—Northuruberland Hudson, T.—Evesham Hume, J.—Middlesex Hunt, Henry—Preston Ingilby, Sir W.—Lincolnshire Jerningham, IL V.—Pontefract Kemp, T. K—t.ewes King, E. B.—Warwick Knight, H. G.—Malton Knight, R.—Wallingtbrd Labouchere, I-L.—Taunton Langston, J. H —Oxtbrd Lee, J. L.—Wells Lefevre, C. S.—Hampshire Leigh, C.—Wallingford Lemon, Sir C.—Cornwall Lennard, 'l'. B.—Maldon Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Lennox, Lord J. G.—Sussex Littleton, E. J.--Staffordshire Lopes, Sir R. F.—Westbury Lushington, I)r.—llchester Macaulay, T. B.—Calne Macdonald, Sir J.—Hampshire Mackintosh, Sir J.—Knaresbro' Mangles, J.—Guildtbrd Marjoribanks, Marshall, W.—Beverley Mayhew, W.—Colchester Milbank, M.—Carnelford Mildmay, P. St. J.—Winchester Mills, J.—Rochester Morpeth, Viscount—Yorkshire Morison, J.—lpswich Mostyn, E. M. L—Flintshire North, F.—Hastings Nowell, A.—Westmoreland Nugent, Lord—Aylesbury Paget, T.—Leicestershire Palmer, C.—Bath Palmerston, Vis.—Bletchingley Pendarves, E. \V.—Cornwall Penleaze, J. S.—Southampton Penrhyn E.—Shaftesbury Pepys, C. C.—'Balton Petit, L. 11.—Ripon Phillips, C. M.—Leicestershire Philips, G. IL—SteyWng Ponsonby, lion. J. B.—lligham Ferrars Poyntz, W. S.—Ashburton Price, Sir IL—Herefordshire Ramsden, J. C.—Yorkshire Rider, I',—Kent Robinson, Sir G.—Northampton Waterpark, Lord—Knaresbro' Watson, Hon. R.—Canterbury Wellesley, W. T. L.—Essex Weyland, Major IL—Oxfordsh. Whitmore, W.—Bridgenorth Wilbraham, G.—Cheshire Wilde, T.—Newark Williams, Sir J. H.—Carmarth. J.—Winchilsea Williams, W.—Monmouthshire Williamson, Sir H —Durham Wood, C.—Wareham Wood, J.—Preston Wood, Alderman—London Wrightson, W. B.—Hull Wrottesley, Sir J.—Staffortish. SCOTLAND. Adam, C.—Kinross, &c. Campbell, W. F.—Argyllshire Dixon, J.—Glasgow, &c. Ferguson, IL—Dysart, &c. Fergusson, IL C.—Kircudbright Dillon, W. D.—Selkirk, &c. Grant, lit. Hon. C.—lnverness shire Haliburton, Hon.—Forfarshire Jeffrey, Ht. Hon. F.—Perth, 8:e. Johnston, &c. JohnstonC, J. J. H.-:-Duinfrici. shire Loch, J —fain, &c. Mackenzie, J. A. S.—Ross-,hire M'Leod, R.—Sutherlantishire Ross, H.—Aberdeen, &c. Stewart, E.—Wigton, &c. Traill, G.—Orkneyshire IRELAND. Belfast, Earl of—Co. of Antrim Blackney, W.—Co. of Carlow Bodkin, J. J.—Galway Boyle, Hon. J.—Cork, City of Browne, J.—Co. of Mayo Browne, D.—Co. of Mayo Burke, Sir J.—Co. of Galway Carew, R. S.—Wexford County Chapman, M.—Westmeath Co. Copeland, Alderman—Coleraine Doyle, Sir J. M.—Carlow Co.: French, A.—Roscommon Co. Grattan, H.—Meath Co. Grattan, J.—Co. of Wicklow Hill, L ,rd Arthur—Co. of Down Jephson, C. D. o.—Mallow Killeen, Lord—Co. of Meath King, R.—County of Cork Knox, J. H.—Newry Lamb, G.—Dungarvon Lambert, J. S.—Co. of Galway Leader, N. P.—Kilkenny Macnamara, W. N.—Clare Co. Mullins, F. W.—Co. of Kerry Musgrave, Sir IL—Waterford Co. O'Connell, D.—Co. of Kerry O'Connell, M. D.—Co. of Clare O'Connor Don—lloscom Co. O'Ferrall, R. M.—Co. of Kildare O'Neill, Ho. Gen.—Antrim Co. Ossory, Earl of—Kilkenny Co. l'arnell, Sir H. B.—Queen's Co. Ponsonby, G.—Youghall Power, IL—Waterford County Rice, lit. lion. T. S.—Limerick Iluthven, E. S.—Downpatrick Sheil, R. of Louth Walker, C. A.—Wexford Wallace, T.—Drogheda Westenra, H.—Monaghan Co. White, fi —Co. of Dublin White, S.—Co. of Leitrim Wyse, jun.—•Pi•Arerary Co. TELLER. Duncannon, Vis.—K ilkenn y Co LIST OF THE N Who usually vote with Minister! voted with Mr. Pracil on the holders of Boroughs from voti Adeane, H. J.—Cambridgesh. Bent inck, lAL G.—King's Lynn Fergusson,R.C.—Kirkcudbright Davies, Colonel—Worcester Guise, Sir \V.—Gloucestershire These formed part of the Mil; Praed. TINE MEMBERS 's for the Reform Bill, but who Ist of February to prevent Free ing in Counties. Spence, G.—Ripon lyrell, C.—Suffolk Watson, Hon. R.—Canterbury Willoughby, Sir H.—Yarmouth, Isle of Wight [foray of 90 who voted with Mr. LIST OF FOUR] Who voted on the tld of Febru in favour of the Franchise der Poor Hate. Adeane, H. J.—Cambridgeshire San,lon, Viscount—Liverpool Bentinck, lif. G.—King'sLynn Tyrrell, Charles—Suffolk Burrell, Sir C.—Shoreham Harcourt,G. V. G.—Oxfordsh. Davies, Colonel—Worcester Western, C. C.—Essex Howard, P. H.—Carli4e Willoughby, Sir H.—Yarmouth, Johnstone, Sir J.V.—Yorkshire Isle of Wight Langton, W. G.—Somersetshire TELLER. Milton, Visc.—Northamptonsh. Venion, G. IL—Bassetlaw 'EEN ME ‘IBERS Lry in the Minority of 184, and ending on the rate of 101. to the POST OFFICE REVENUE IN IRELAND. (From the rotes and Proceedings of the House of Cninnions.) POSTAGE OF LETTERS (IRELAND) ACTS.—ReSoliitiOD3 reported : I. " That it is expedient that the several Acts for regulating the Post Office Revenue in Ireland should be ammded." 2. " That his Majesty's Postmaster General be authorized to establish a Post Office in any town or place in Ireland, and to re ceive the sum of one penny for the Postage and Conveyance of all Letters and Packets conveyed thereby ; and also, to regulate the Port and Conveyance of Letters and Packets to and from towns and places in Ireland, (not being P os t towns,) upon such terms as may be agreed upon." Resolutions agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rice and Loud Viscount Althorp. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. CLERKS IN CHANCERY. - - ABSTRACT of the RETURNS of the AMOUNT of FEES received by, or due to, the SWORN CLERKS of the COURT of CHANCERY for the TAXATION of COSTS for the last Three Years, namely, 1839, 1830, and 1831. Total Amount of Fees during the Year 1829 £5,753 13 4 Total Amount of Fees during the Year 1830 Total Amount of Fees during the Year 1831 The largest Amount received for one bill during such Three Years was 541. 13s. 4d. N.B.—This gill included the proceedings of a suit, from its commencement to its termination, embracing a period of "4 years, and amounted to nearly 8,000/., from which was taxed upwards of 2,0001. Hors.—By an account presented to the [louse of Coonnons it appears that 47,129 acres of land have been cultivated with Hops in the year 1831, and that the total amount of the duty was 301,139/. 4s. Bd., viz. Old Duty of Id. 12-20th; per lb., 171,880/. ls. 2d. 16-20ths ;New Duty of -id. 8-20thsper lb., 1 2 9 , 259 /. 3s. bid.l.2oths. The ringleaders of the late Manchester meet ing were brought up for examination on Tuesday hi't, and remanded to ant Tuesday. COURT-MARTIAL ON CAPTAIN W. H. WARRINGTON. Rh:187'01 0 THURSDAY, FIT. The Court was this morning crowded beyond all former pre cedent. With much difficulty the President and the other members of the Court reached their respective seats, and their names having been called over and answered to, by the Deputy Judge-Advocate, Captain Warrington was summoned into Court. The President then announced to the Court that Cap tain Warrington wished, with their approval and the sanction of the prosecutor, to submit to them an addition to the docu mentary evidence already produced, and which had been. mis laid on a previous occasion. It was an order from Major-Gene ral Sir Colin Campbell, the General commanding the south west district during the disturbances there in the latter part of 1830, which enjoined that any officer, when his services a w l' those of the force which he commanded were requested by4lithe civil authorities, should demand to be accompanied by a Miigi strate, and receive a written requisition authorising him to a copy of which was to be immediately forwarded to the General at his head-quarters at Winchester. The above order was signed by Lieut.-Col. Gurwood, Brigade-Major of the district. - Sir CHARLES DA LBIAC had not the slightest objection to the document in question being received, and stated that the prisoner would find he had done him ample justice on that point. The Gallant General then delivered, in the most impressive and I feeling manner, the following address, the utmost silence and attention prevailing throughout the Court during the entire period of its delivery : " Mr. President, and the members of this Honourable Court, —I now approach the last stage of the painful duty which I have to sustain during this trial. The tragical event which brought the recent proceedings of a former Court to an abrupt termination, has, unhappily for Captain Warrington, deprived him of a witness, whose testimony might have been most im portant to this cause, and I am not only willing but most de sirous that the loss which he has sustained may be steadily kept in view by his judges. I must, however, with perfect freedom confess that this disadvantage does by no means appear to me so severe as the prisoner himself may have been tempted to imagine. My honest impression upon a dispassionate survey of the evidence is, that the points of his defence which have been weakened by the removal of his commanding officer are not of essential and vital importance to his case. It might, on certain points of subordinate moment, have strengthened his vindica tion ; but in my conscientious belief it could by no possibility have protected him against the main force of the charges pre ferred in the accusation. It must be remembered, that were that witness at this moment amongst us, on many points he could scarcely open his mouth in exculpation of the prisoner without pronouncing to the same extent his own condemna tion. The prisoner has pleaded in extenuation of his conduct throughout Sunday night, the 30th, and part of Monday morn ing, the 31st of October, that during that awful period of the Bristol riots no Magistrate or peace-officer ever made Isis ap pearance at the quarters of his troop, to require, to direct, or to enforce the employment of the military in any attempt to put down the riots, until Mr. Alderman Camplin arrived be tween four and five o'clock on Monday morning at the Horse bazaar, and that until the receipt by Captain Warring ton of the Mayor's letter, dated three o'clock that morning, no Magistrate was to be heard of. I trust I shall com mand the credit of the Court when I assert, that from the mo ment I commenced the task of prosecutor on this trial, my sole aim was to prove, by every fair and equitable means, the charges which were preferred against the prisoner to the extent to which I deemed him culpable, and that, in pursuing this task, it was my earnest and invariable endeavour to avoid (no less indirectly than directly) the implication of the conduct of other persons, who, not being before the Court, were with out the means to defend themselves against accusation. And I feel well assured, that had I, in any one instance, at tempted to swerve from this course of proceeding, I should have been checked immediately by the Hon. President. The plea, however, which the prisoner had set up, of a want of ac tivity on the part of the Magistrates, has been justified by evi dence produced before the Court—first, incidentally in the re_ ply of a witness to a question put by the Court in the course of the prosecution, and again in the general statement of a wit ness examined on the defence. Although, therefore, Ido not stand here to impeach the conduct of the Bristol Magistrates, 1 conceive it would be utterly at variance with the impartiality which I have professed to maintain between the King and the prisoner throughout this trial, were Ito decline admitting that the absence of all civil authority from the station of the military during the awful night of Sunday, and until the arrival of Mr. Alderman Camplin at the Horse Bazaar between four and five o'clock on Monday morning, was a circumstance calculated in a variety of ways to prove prejudicial to the small military force then employed in Bristol; and in full justice to the prisoner I must also remark, as the document is recorded . by the Court in evidence against him, that the letter of the Chief Magis trate of the city is dated simply "Bristol, three o'clock, Monday morning, Oct. 31st," without any designation of the house or the spot to which reference could be had to the said Chief Ma gistrate in case of urgent or further necessity. It appears to me, however, that no circumstance of this kind can relieve the pri soner of any material part of the accusation against him. In reviewing the evidence produced in support of the first charge, I may be permitted, I trust without impropriety, to separate certain of the premises, and of the coincidences as to t.l.ne and circumstance (attached to the accusation), from the substance of the charge or the offence itself. First, then, as to certain of the premises and coincidences as to time and circumstance. It has been shown that Captain Warrington was in the personal com mand of a troop of the 3d Dragoon Guards in Bristol on the night of Sunday, the 30th of October, 1831, at a time when the city was the scene of most outrageous and alarming riots—that the said troop had been repeatedly called out by order of the Magistrates to quell the rioters—that several of the public and other buildings in the city, had been fired by the rioters, some of which buildings were already consumed, and others still in flames ;' and finally, that the Custom-house was left by the prisoner, as far as in bins lay, to the mercy of the rioters, by whom it was shortly after set en fire, and totally destroyed. Another coincidence ' attached to the accusation is, that the troop of the 3d Dragoon Guards was then the only military force in Bristol. Now though it has been shown that the said troop was the only portion of his Majesty's regular troops then in Bristol, it has also been shown that in the course of the night of Sunday the 30th of October, the Doddington Troop of Yeomanry Cavalry was for a certain time within the city. Its services, however, from some cause or other (which is not within my province to investigate) were never rendered available. I shall leave to the Court to consider how far the circumstance of the said troop of yeomanry cavalry having been for a short time in Bristol in the course of the said night, can affect the mails substance of the offence. Furthermore it has been laid in the general accusation that the offence, as far as it relates to the prisoner's refusal to turn out his troop or any part thereof, was committed between eleven and twelve o'clock on the said Sunday night, and upon this point there has certainly been considerable variance in the evidence before the Court. In my opening ad dress, I ventured to prepare the Court:for discrepancies of this kind, observing, at the same time, that I should have it in my power to reconcile all such discrepancies as to every essential point. Nor do I know that I can more fully illustrate the expediency of due allowance being made for discrepancies of this nature, or for miscalculations into which all of us may be carried, under similar circumstances, than by observing that althought the hour " between eleven and twelve o'clock" was laid in the charge solely in consequence of a deposition made by Mr. Kington within a few days after the Bristol riots, yet, upon snore minute inquiry, at some short time preceding this trial, the impression of Mr. Kington was, that the time might have been fixed with more accuracy at from ten to half-past ten o'clock. Upon this point Mr. Stevens deposes that he met Mr. Kington at half-past ten, and they subsequently proceeded to College-green, thence to the Bishop's Palace, thence to the Boar's Head-yard, which latter is the same as the Horse Ba zaar. The third evidence which deposes as to the time is John Caulfield, the waiter at Itaves's Hotel. Lastly, troop-ser geant-major Martin's evidence wouldlicarry the time to about twelve o'clock, because he fixes that hour (though inaccu rately) as the period when the troop turned out in consequence of the aforesaid attack on Reeves's Hotel. Were it really es sential to establish in the minds of this Court that Mr. King_ ton's application to Captain I'Varrington was positively after rind not (n ore the hour of eleven o'clock on Sunday night, 1 should say that John Caulfield's evidence upon this point was the one most to be relied upon. The premises and the coin cidences as to time and circumstance attached to the accusation in the Ist charge having thus been disposed of, the essence of that charge resolves itself into a narrow compass,—namely, " that he, Captain Warrrington, did not only refuse to order out the said troop, or any part thereof, or to take any step for the purpose so stated, but used no means of conveying the information so received by him, or the purport thereof, to Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton, who then held the chief mili tary command in the city, or of obtaining from the said Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton any order applicable to the occasion." And here I must observe, its answer to the appeal made by the prisoner to the Court, as to whether he was bound, in the words of the charge, "to order out the troop, &c." that the accusation is not to the effect of his having disobeyed the order of the Magistrate, but that being informed by a person of respectability of the danger to which his Ma jesty's Custom-house was exposed, and knowing, as Captain Warrington well did, the enormities committed by the mob throughout the day, he did not take those measures which a re gard for the public safety, the honour of Isis Majesty's arms, and his own character as an officer, desnanded of him. I shall here assume those terms of the prisoner's refusal which, in my humble judgment, appear the most appropriate, at the same time that they are the most favourable to the prisoner. They are the precise terms given in Mr. Kington's reply to the last question put to:hisn by the Court, namely, that he, Captain War rington, " could not move without the express orders of Lieu tenant-Colonel Brereton ;" the prisoner having previously stated to Mr. Kington, that he did not know where the Lieutenant_ Colonel was to be found. If the command which the prisoner received, not to move from his quarters without the express or. ders of his superior officer, were so very peremptory, there should at least have been consistency in the prisoner's obedience, He should not have adhered to those commands upon some oc cadons, and have departed from them upon others. An officer has no right to blow hot and cold, in the same breath, upon questions of duty. He has no right to play fast and loose with Isis command at a time when the public safety and the honour of his Majesty's anus are set at their highest stake. It is distinctly shown by the testimony of Mr. Gresley, pro duced in support of the first count of the 3d charge (to which I shall have occasion again to revert), that the prisoner at three o'clock ms the same afternoon of Sunday the 30th of October, had of himself ordered out a detachment under Cornet Kelson, to proceed to the New Gaol, without any previous authority for to doing, B u t the most remarkable eirctimstatice attending the prisoner's refusal to comply with the entreaties of Mr. Kington is, that at the very moment when he did refuse to comply with the said entreaties, the prisoner was in the act of violating, and did then absolutely violate, the express orders which he alleges to have received from the commanding officer. Moreover, the prisoner thought fit to repair with his troop to Reeves's Hotel without a Magistrate, anti yet the rioters had committed acts of outrage, and (for aught the prisoner knew to the contrary when the troop turned out) he might just as readily have been brought into collision with the rioters there as in any other quarter of the city. 1 can quite appreciate the feeling that would prompt an officer to afford protection to the owners of an hotel where he had been courteously entertained, and whence he had just before escaped from the attack of the rioters, but I cannot comprehend the feeling under which an officer, after having ordered out and headed his whole troop for the protection of the private property of an. individual (upon an occasion where the number of the rioters positively fell short of the number of the Dragoons), could, in the very same moment and in the very same breath, declare that he " could not move" any of his force to that quarter of the city where he knew that the rioters were proceeding in the destruction of property, with systematic progression and with most appalling rapidity. t With respect to that part of the first charge which imputes to the prisoner his having used no means for conveying the infor. mafiosi received by him to Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton, or , of obtaining from the said Lieutenant-Colonel any orders appli cable to the occasion, I have to submit the following observa tions. The prisoner has admitted, in his defence, that lie knew Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton was to be found at the Ad jutant's quarters, at No. 2, in Unity-street, 160 yards distant. It has been shown, by a variety of replies to questions put on the cross.examination, that the Recruiting-office in College green was known by the prisoner to be the public office for reciving official communications for Lieutenant-Colonel Brere. ton; and Lieutenant and Adjutant Francis, in a reply upon his cross-examination, states that the Recruiting-office was kept open for that purpose during the whole of Sunday night and Monday morning. That officer further states, that no des. patch, or letter, or message, from any officer or other person from the 3d Dragoon Guards for the officer commanding in Bristol came through him between ten o'clock on Sunday night the 30th, and half-past four on Monday morning, the 31st of October, either at the Recruiting-office or at No. 2 in Unity street. The joint testimony of Sergeant-3fajor Macleod and of Sergeants Platt and Dinage, of the recruiting staff; distinctly shows that the Recruiting-office was never left without one or other of those non-commissioned officers from half-past ten on Sunday night till half-past four on Monday morning. The proof of the attendance of those non-commissioned officers at the office (that is, of one or the other) is completely dove-tailed from beginning to end, and there is no doubt whatever that the officer then commanding in Bristol had made due provision for the conveyance to him of all official communications which should be properly addressed or directed to him at the Recruit. ing-office during the period in question. Nor has the prisoner at tempted to show that any one effbrt was made on his part, or on the part of any individual of the troop under his command, to communicate with the officer commanding, between the hour when Mr. Kington informed him of the danger to which the Custom-house was exposed, and tile time when Mr. Al derman Camplin applied for the services of the troop, between four and five o'clock in the morning of the 31st of October, ' although the residence of the officer commanding in, Bristol and the office for official communication were neither of them further distant from the prisoner's quarters than 200 yards. I may venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the testimony with respect to periods of time, produced in support of the second charge, has been given with most singular, but with most unquestionable precision. The chief Magistrate of the city addresses a letter to " the Officer commanding his Majesty's troops." He puts his own signature to it, and he dates it " three o'clock, Monday morning, Oct. 31, 1831." 31r. Alderman Fripp, who is present, looks at his watch. Both these authorities affirm that the said letter was despatched from Berkeley-square, immediately after the hour of three o'clock. Mr. Daniel Fripp, at whose house the Chief Magis trate then was, consigns the said letter to two young mien. These young men proceed with their utmost activity, and by the shortest road, to the Horse Bazaar, distant about 350 or 400 yards, when they delivered the said letter to Captain' War rington, who within two or three minutes after opens the letter and reads La contents. Mr. Hanson most distinctly states that he slid not leave his house at the top of Park-street till a quarter past four, having looked at the house clock as he was about to open the door. He states that Mr. Daniel Fripp's and his own house are nearly equidistant from the Horse Bazaar. Mr. Denson upon leaving his house proceeds first to College-green, where he meets Mr. Alderman Cannella After a short parley, they proceed with three or four other persons to the Horse Bazaar, where there is a parley with Captain Warrington, who, after some little time, but certainly not at the outset, produces the Mayor's letter, dated three o'clock that morning; another short parley ensues touching the contents of that letter. They then proceed, Captain Warrington being of the party, to No. 2, Unity-street, distant about 200 yards, where the officer then commanding in Bristol had taken up his residence. A full quarter of an hour is spent in gaining admittance, .and in a dis cussion within the house. Captain Warrington then returns to the Bazaar, and orders out a detachment of 21 men under Cor net Kelson's command, to proceed to Queen-square ; and we have the closely concurring testimony of Mr. Alderman Camp- , lin, of Mr. Danson, and Mr. Smith, that the said detachment did not arrive in Queen-square till five o'clock, or a very few minutes before that hour. Now, if ever testimony given before a Court upon questions of time was entitled to credit, I maintain that there cannot exist the slightest doubt in the minds of this Court, that Captain Warrington had been in the possession of the aforesaid letter for an hour and ten minutes, at the very least, from the period when it was delivered into his hands by Mr. Goldney, until the production of the said letter by Captain Warrington some little time after Mr. Alderman Camplin a nd Mr. Danson had arrived at the Horse Bazaar. But we must n ot look to this circumstance only, for the essence of the accusation is this---" that by reason of which conduct on the part of Cap tain Warrington, the said troop remained inactive in its quar ters for upwards of an hour after his receiving the said letter." That letter appears to have been put into the prisoner's pocket, and to have been disposed of with almost as much indifference as though it had contained an invitation to dinner, one of the prisoner's replies being, that he should see Lieut.-Colonel Bre reton at six o'clock, and he would then deliver the letter ; nor has there been any thing to show that such might not have been its fate, had not Alderman Camplin called at the Bazaar for the services of the troop between four and five o'clock on Mon day morning. Upon the whole, it is my painful duty to con tend, that with respect to the substance of the second charge, Captain Warrington is entitled to no relief whatever, either from any supineness of the civil authorities or by reason of any command which he could possibly have received from his superior officer. I proceed now to a consideration of the third charge ; and in respect to the first count of that charge I have to observe, that Cornet Kelson admits his being in doubt as to whether Captain 'Warrington ordered him to take up a party in Queen -square, or whether Captain Warrington told hills to tell Lieut.-Colonel Brereton that there was a party in Queen square, which might be taken up to join the party which marched from the Bazaar by Captain Warrington's orders, in order to proceed to the New Gaol. But as, in either case, Capt. Warrington might be the proper person to command the two parties when united, it surely behoved Captain Warrington to take the trouble of accompanying Cornet Kelson for 20 0 yards across College-green, to receive Lieutenant-Colonel ; Brereton's directions; for it is distinctly shown by the testi mony of Lieutenant-Colonel Francis and time staff-sergeants, that the order to turn out that detachment did not emanate from Lieutenant-Colonel Brereton. Not one word has been adduced to shake the unsophisticated evidence of Mr. Gresley, who states that he made the requisition for military assistance to defend the gaol to Captain Warrington, in the coffee-morn at Reeves's Hotel. He details the order given by Captain Warrington to Cornet Kelson upon that occasion, precisely in the terms in which that order was carried into effect; which statement, coming from a person of Mr. Gresley's situation iti life, namely, that of a ship-builder, could not, by possibility, have been conjured up in his own imagination, and may there fore be received as strictly correct. The second and third counts of the third charge, though made to vary in accusa tion, arc so blended in point of time and circumstance, that I shall consider together the evidence produced with respect to those two counts. The collective essence of these two count' is, that in the course of the 30th of October the prisoner air seated himself from his quarters for a considerable time, Rsc,r and that having returned to his quarters during the absence of nearly the whole of the disposable part of his troop, he, ism place of proceeding to join the same, &c., retires to his bed , I shall take the time as stated 'by Cornet Kelson, namely, tha t Captain Warrington gave him orders about seven o'clock on Sunday afternoon, to send to him at General Pearson's, a t in case he should be wanted, and there is every reason to suppose that, at seven o'clock Captain Warrington lett hi° quarters. Cornet Kelson also states, that upon his return with the detachment from duty at about a quarter before ten he found Captain Warrington all but undressed, and in the act of getting into bed at the hotel. Private Dooley states, that C3l" taro Warrington returned to the Bazaar about nine o'clocl , ' It would appear, then, that Captain Warrington was absen t from his quarters about two hours, which absence relates to th e essence of the second count ; and that he was three-quarters °I, an hour in the Bazaar, or at the hotel, after his return, which relates to the essence of the third count. 'With respect to the latter, I must observe, that when Captain Warrington arrive at the Bazaar at nine o'clock, twenty-eight men and horses ou t of thirty-three were on duty—viz., twenty which had proceede d to the Bishop's Palace, anti eight which had been previously sent to Queen-square. Now will it not appear extraordinary l ° the Court, that when the prisoner so returned to the Bazaar at nine o'clock, and found only five men and horses of his tool' left in quarters, and knowing the stature of the duty on w hich the troop had been sent, aware of the appalling state in which Cie city was placed, and observing the conflagrations which were then vomiting forth in different quarters of it, he should hav e had no anxiety, or even curiosity, to cross College-green to io' . quire in what manner his troop was engaged, and whether own slightest t v l a v v a a r i r iL th l n do h Oct entertain feltui,weil l , i t c l e o s ub c t ou t l l ' i l at be Ca o i f ita a i l i l l y some short time previous to the return of Cornet Kelson to th e hotel. But in the full discharge of my duty I must observe , that at seven o'clock that evening Captain Warrington se o ' capable of walking to General Pearson's house at Clifton ; tha t he did not return to the hotel until nine o'clock ; and that i 0 about one hour after he had retired to his bed, he was perfect l y ' capable of appearing at the head of his troop to repel the riot" who had attacked the front of Reeves's Hotel; and, under 01 the circumstances of that awful night, no illness, short of soln i e risk of absolute destruction of health, ought to have restrain & the prisoner from proceeding in search of the force entrusted t' ; hi s c h arge , when, upon his retur n t o t h e hotel, he foun d Troop t o m escaped froth bit cgmmari4 thv point