The Sun. — London, England, 1840-02-26 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. contending interests, which, if they could not influence, would at least embarrass the Right Hon. Gentleman. Though his (Mr. Hogg's) Parliamentary experience was not great, he knew that when a Minister was thus circusn stenced—when he could not summon resolution enough to accede to the motion, and when he did not wish to defeat it—he generally sought for refuge in a Committee of In quiry. He hoped, however, that his Hon. Friend would not accede to any proposal for a Select Committee, and that he would, if necessary, pray for a division on the subject. He (Mr. Hogg) would rely with entire confidence on the justice of that House, and that confidence was increased When he made his appeal, not on behalf of any party, or of any particular interest, but on behalf of the inhabitants of a mighty empire, whose destinies had been committed to their care. He believed that the House of Commons would show itself regardless of distance, or climate, or colour, and would ever be ready to uphold the just claims of all the subjects of the Crown, no matter whether in the West or in the East.—( Cheers.) Mr. L A BOUCHE RE said that he certainly did not rise for the purpose of expressing any difference of opinion with the Hon. Member who had introduced the subject to the House, either as to the importance of the question he had brought forward, or as to the weight which the subject derived from the petitioners who had appealed on the occa sion to the House. He would beg leave to say that the subject was further recommended to their notice by having bees brought before the House by a Gentleman uniting so many claims to their attention on the subject—a Gentle man who, after having passed through a most eminent and distinguished career—( Hear)—was now sitting among them while Chairman of the East India Company, and their Representative in the House. He would, therefore, assure the Honourable Member that he approached the subject in any thing but a hostile spirit, either towards him or towards the petitioners.—( Hear.) He trusted, however, that it would not be considered that the Govern ment, with whom he had the honour to act, could not be thought to have come to any unfavourable conclusions with regard to the arguments of the Hon. Member, when it was remembered that it had been the good fortune of the Go vernment in the year 1836 to have been able successfully to propose to the House that first great and important step towards placing the interests of our East India subjects on the same footing with other Colonies through the rest of the world. He meant the Bill which allowed coffee and sugar to be i m p orte d f rom t h e E ast on th e same terms as from the West Indies. It he (Mr. Labouchere) felt it his duty on the present occasion to urge on the House the strong objections which he felt to their pledging them selves to the resolutions of the lion. Member, he trusted that it. would not be imputed to him that he had been ac- Mated by any h ost il e sp i r i t towar d s t h e i nterests o f the East India Company. But it was impossible to look to those resolutions and! not to see on how many points they affected the political, manufacturing, and colonial policy of the country. The House would not, he thought, be acting with the deliberation and the care which the importance of the subject required, if they were on the motion of the Hon. Gentleman to accede to his resolutions. He should say in the outset that he thought that many of the points to which he had objected, though they might appear at first sight to show an unfair treatment as regarded our East Indian possessions and other colonies, did not, when closely looked at, bear the same construction. Before he Called the attention of the House to the resolutions in question, he wished to allude to that step which had been taken in 1836, of allowing the introduction from the East Indies of the great staple articles of coffee and of singer, The Hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion bad read returns to the House which showed the great increase which had taken place in the importation of toffee in consequence of that measure. In 1832, the sugar imported from India was 83,000 ewt. ; the quantity en tered for home consumption, 79,000 cwt. In 1833, im ported, 120.000; home, 98,000. In 1834, imported, 77,000; home, 98,300. In 1836, imported, 125,000; home, 110,000. This was the year the alteration took place. In 1837, the quantity imported was 297,000 cwt, ; entered for home consumpfion, 207,000. In 1832, im- Ported, 440,000; entered for home, 480,000; and in 1839, the quantities were yet more increased. Was not the re sult most satisfactory ? ( 'leer.) The Government was really desirous of remedying any anomalies or inconve niences unjustly imposed on the East Indian trade. But then they would look carefully into the grounds and the reasons of the complaint, and complaint had been made that the East Indies had not been treated in the same manner as the West Indies.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what was the real case with regard to the West Indies ? By an ,Act of the Imperial Legislature the West Indian possessions were prevented from export ing coffee or sugar into foreign ports, but under the same provision they were allowed to import all those articles into this country. But the regulation as to India was, that it should be reserved to the Queen in Council to decide whether the prohibition of the importation of foreign sugar had been sufficiently complied with before the exportation allowed to this country on the equalized duties. It was now asked that that should be reserved for the Governor in Council. All he (Mr. Labouchere) had to say was, that the question was one that ought to be confined to the direction of the Executive Government—to the superin tendence of the revenue officers at home. He thought it right that they should receive instructions and directions by an announcement, not from the Government of India, but from the Government at home. With regard to coffee, the Hon. Gentleman allowed in his statement that the present system was working well, but still the Hon. Gen- Oman complained that they did not admit as British cof fee that produces in tributary possessions or allied states. That was an important question, and he counselled the House against rashly committing themselves. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought, as regarded that question of coffee, that the West Indian colonies had a right to expect that care should be taken to ascertain, when you were admit ting the produce on an equal footing, that the produce was bona fide British, And ha much doubted whether, if the door was opened for the produce of these territories, ground would riot be afforded fer the claim of a similar privilege on the part of those foreign countries with whom they h a d rec i proc i ty treaties. Now as to tobacco. It was undoubtedly true that there was the difference be tween 3s. and 2s. 9d. per pound in the duties on East Indian and our American Colonial tobacco, to the disad vantage of the former ; but he held in his hand a return showing that the real disadvantage had been very slight, and in fact a nullity. The quantities imported from our American colonies were : MAN UF ACTURED. UN MANUFACTURED. 1832 1833 1834 1835 1 836 ...... 1,200 1837 1838 1839 None, either manufactured or unmanufactured. So it was evident the East India colonies had not suffered much prejudice from this.—( Hear, hear.) But when he was asked if he would consent to admit all East Indian to bacco at a duty of 2s. 9d., he must say it was a most im portant financial question, for tobacco was an article in which an immense revenue was easily collected on a very loan prime cost. Then as to cotton and silk manufac turers he must say that he believed the alteration in the export cotton trade of India, and the substitution for it of the immense cotton trade of this country, was owing, not to the duties, but to the progress of machinery and the ex penditure of capital in this country. The duties looked formidable upon paper, but he believed there were but very few articles on which there was 20 per cent. duty, and that the general average was 10 per cent. only on all goods likely to have a sale in this country. On this, as ou all other subjects, the Government were sincerely de sirous of doing substantial justice to India. Now as to the tea trade.—( Mr. Hogg, "Rum.") Yes, as to rum, and this was one of those instances in which gentlemen were too apt to say, " Oh, it is all very simple, very easy," but upon which there was very considerable difficulty. Un doubtedly he admitted, the general principle having been *quilled, the same ought to be conceded to rum. But there would be great difficulty in carrying this into effect, for it would be almost impossible to prevent the exporta tion of arrack, which might be disguised so as to render it impossible to be distinguished. With regard to tea, the consumption of Assam tea had been very trifling, but, ad mitting the justice of conceding to it the encouragement asked, there was the same difficulty here as in the last Cue, for it would be difficult to prevent the importation of Chinese tea into the Indian ports, and the exportation of it hence a,s Assam tea.—( Hear, hear.) With regard, nee to the last point, that of the Lascars, all he could say W•l9, that it was a point of very great difficulty, and one which he hoped the House would not pledge itself rashly, who ther a principle should be recognised which would go to place the Lascars on the same footing as British seamen. Indeed, on all toese points he entreated the House to pause before they pledged themselves to measures that would have a most important effect upon our empire in the East. Not being prepared to consent to these resolutions he should oppose the Committee, but at the same time he assured the Hon. Gentleman that the Government would give to the subject their best consideration. All he en treated of the House was, that they would look to the maintenance of the revenue—that they would look to con flicting interests,—in one word, that they would in their zeal to do good do as little harm as possible.---( Hear.) Mr. HUME considered that this country had shackled India by the exorbitant duties it had placed on their pro duce. He agreed with every proposition of the Hon. Bart. opposite, except two ; the first, that of increasing the duty on tea; and the next, interfering with the Colo nies in laying on their own duties. With regard to the duty on spirits, Ise could lee no reason why spirits, the produce of India, should pay a larger duty on importation than those which were the produce of the West Indies. Ile had no objection to the utmost duty on spirits, in order to pre vent smuggling ; and looking upon them, as he did, as the opium of this country, he should be always anxious to place as great a duty as possible on that which he considered de leterious to the human constitution. With respect to tobacco, if the Government wished to increase the reve -1 nue of the country. they would reduce the duty on all tobacco to 18d. With respect to coffee, he thought the resolution of the Hon. Bert. was most essentially called for. He did not think that the Right Hon. Gentleman had treated India fairly with regard to its cotton manufac tures. He did not see how with respect to cotton one duty should exist in one place, and another in another. He trusted that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President o! the Board of Trade, would think it but fair and just that the duty on the manufactures of India should be placed on the some footing with those of other countries. He hoped that the Hon. Baronet who had brought forward this sub ject would persevere. Mr. A. CH APM AN trusted that the Government would go on, not stopping at the particular duties that had been adverted to in the petition, but would equalise every duty that tended to effect free trade between this country and India. Mr. EW ART rejoiced that this question had been brought before the House, because it was a question in which these Members who advocated free trade took a great in terest in. Whichever way they looked at the question, there were two points that presented themselves—justice arid self-interest ; justice as far as India was concerned, and self-interest with respect to this country. He ( Mr. Ewart) could not accede to the arguments adduced by the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, with respect to pledging the liouse to the reso- lutions proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite. The Hon. Member, the Chairman of the East India Com pany, did not ask to pledge the House to the resolutions, but only to go into a Committee upon them. The Presi dent of the Board of Trade had attempted to justify the course pursued with respect to coffee. He could not agree with him in that,for he could not see why thesame rule should not be applied with respect to Indian as to African coffee. Tobacco was now imported even at the high duty ; si for tiori, more would be imported if the duty were lowered, and low duties were good because they prevented the de moralizing effects of smuggling. It would be useless for them to equalize the duties upon sugar without, at the same time, equalizing those upon rum. With respect to the question of the tea duties, he would be most sorry to see any difference made even in favour of our Indian posses sions ; it would be giving her a false protection, which would rapidly desert her, and he must oppose it as it would be retrograding from the pure principles of free trade. He rejoiced to see the increasing importation of cotton from India. India could produce almost any quantity of the very finest cotton, and if permanency were given to the pos sessions of the Ryots, as in the case of the indigo planters, that country would be enabled to supply the increasing demand of this country. In considering that question, it was most important also to consider the question of transit. He understood that landing duties were still exacted at Madras. It would be almost useless to lower the duties unless they facilitated at the same time the transit of goods, by remcving all landing duties, and greatly improving the roads in India. Care ought also to be taken for the permanent settlement of British subjects in India, so that British skill and enterprise might assist and regulate the natural productions of the country. They would also have a rising English population ready at any time to check aggression, come from what quarter it might. In Van Diemen's Land we supplied the inhabitants to the amount of 201. each per annum. In Sydney they took of our manufactures to the amount of 121. each. None of our Colonies took less than to the amount of 1/. 10s. per head. But our supplies to India did not average 7d. per head. Let them develope the resources of India, and she would make a large outlet for our manufactures. He could not withhold his consent to the House going into Committee, not pledged to the resolutions of the Hon. Gentleman, but with the intention of examining and pass ing those that were approved of. Sir J. C. HO B HOUS E said the Hon. Chairman of the East India Company, and the worthy Director who seconded the motion, had done him no more than justice in saying that he had, to the best of his abilities. endeavoured to do what he could for the advancement of the mighty empire of India. The Directors of the East India Company had requested him to support the prayer of the petition, and he thought be should be fulfilling not his pledge, for he had given none, but he thought he would be showing that his inclination now was such as it had always been, by the proposition which he would shortly submit to the House. It was very true, as stated by the worthy Director, that he found himself in that situation which every President of the Board of Control must find themselves in—that was, that between two attractions, that of his Hon. Friend's opposite, and his colleaguee on the other. His connection with the Go vernment obliged him to consider other interests, while he was only anxious to consider those of India, but on the present occasion he would be enabled to satisfy his Honourable Friends that the course to be proposed by the Government was the best that could be taken. The same petition which had been presented by his Hon. Friend to that House had been pre sented by his Noble Friend the President of the Council in another place, and there the Government had con sented to a Committee, which would be presided over by the Noble Lord who was his predecessor at the Board of Control, all of which was a proof that the Govern ment were fully alive to the claims of Mid. The pro posal of his Hon. Friend was that the House should on Wednesday next be called upon to affirm or deny the propositions he had made. He believed it was the first time that it had ever been proposed by a series of resolutions, to make a total change upon the mode of levying the duties upon all articles of importation. It would be impossible to come to a proper decision—it would be, indeed, taking a leap in the dark ; he should not like to give a positive negative to any one of the re solutions ; but he was quite certain, that if they were to go into a Committee of the whole House, there would be a great chance of some of those resolutions receiving a negative which it did not deserve. With respect to the question of coffee from Mysore, the English Government certainly had the administration of the civil affairs, and, to all intents and purposes, they were the masters of Mysore; but they held it only as trustee for the Rajah, and he was compelled, after having taken a legal opinion, to come to the conclusion, that by no technicality could that country bo called a British possession. This subject ought not, with reference to many things, in deed could not, be decided in an open Committee. H e mentioned this, to show, in his opinion, to refer these re solutions to an open Committee, and come to a regula r aye or no on general principles of taxation, would not only not insure the object, but would be:a violation of the forms of the House. Now he was quite prepared to propose, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to his Hon. Friend, and show him he was equally interested in the great interests of our Indian possessions, to adopt the same course pur sued by the House of Lords, and was willing that a Select Committee should be appointed of that House, the selec tion of which he was quite willing to leave to his Hon. Friend the Chairman of the East India Company, and that an investigation should be gone into of all the allegations contained in the petitions and resolutions. He thought this proposition was just and fair, and would meet all rea sonable wishes, and do all that could be done by a Parlia mentary inquiry. But if the Committee were assembled, he must suggest that they would not attempt to embrace several topics. He thought it right to say that the pe tition itself would be referred to the Committee, and that no foreign proposition should come before it. But, however, he would take the liberty of saying, as it had been alluded to by his Hon. Friend behind him, that neither the Go vernment in India nor the home authorities had at all neg lected to pay attention to the several parties alluded to. Take as an instance the great improvement that had taken place since the appointment of Lord Auckland in the transit duties, which in Bengal and Bombay had been entirely abolished, and in Madras partially. Another thing that would be inquired into, was cotton His Hon. Friend was aware that Government had paid the greatest attention to this important matter, not merely with respect to duties, but as to cultivation. In consequence of information given by several deputations, and in consequence of the enlightened views of the Board of Directors, this object had been greatly facilitated. They had also endeavoured to get the best information from America, and when the time had arrived he would lay before the House a valuable docu ment respecting the improvement of the cotton trade, which, he believed, was in partial circulation, and which alone would show that the Government had neglected no means with respect to the improvement which the in. creasing demands of the Indian and British public ren dered indispensable. His Hon. Friend had alluded to another topic which would not come before the Com mittee, that of a permanent land-settlement. He objected to a subject of this sort being referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, but this went to show that the Indian Government had not neglected its duty, and that in the north-western Provinces, steps had been taken for improving that settlement, and for promoting the land assessment, which had been perfectly successful, notwithstanding the difficulty of the circum stances (he alluded to the drought which had taken place in 1837) under which the experiment had been made, which also proved the Government had shown itself sensi ble of the great charge committed to their care. His lion. Friend had alluded to other points, which he thought it unnecessary to enlarge upon, but in talking of the care which Lord Auckland and the Government had given to these great subjects, he might speak of the attention they had given to the collection and amount of the salt revenue, and, if time allowed, should be able to show what had been done by the Court of Directors and the whole government of India with respect to that most important branch of pub lic improvement—he meant steam navigation, to which Lord Auckland had devoted his most careful attention, and which, in unison with the Home Government, he thought would tend to the improvement and add to the prosperity of the country beyond the most sanguine expectations of the most ardent imagination. If his Hon. Friends opposite were prepared to accept the proposi tion he had made, it would be unnecessary to enter upon further topics. He wished it to be established in the most formal way the forms of the House would allow. He would not trouble the House further, having made this suggestion to his Hon. Friends, than to say they had done their duty to their constituents, the Court of Proprietors, and also to that large and important body of men—he meant the hundred millions whose happiness, he thought, were happily entrusted to their care.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. C. BUL L E R. said he was anxious to follow the Right lion. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, for a few moments, to impress upon those Gen tlemen who represented the Court of Directors, the pro priety of following the course he proposed. He had wit nes.ed nothing in the House more pleasing in any means, than that of the Court of Directors coining forward in that House with an application for a full and free trade for those they were called to rule over, but he must confess he concurred with the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site, in thinking that the form in which the Court of Direc tors proposed it, was one imposing on the House too preci pitate a discussion on a subject of such importance, for till this petition was presented to the House, neither the House nor the country had any notice of the course the Court of Directors were prepared to take; they were prepared to expect from them what could be expected from an enlarged policy, but not for the particular step adopted. What they called for was a Committee of the whole House to inquire into what was rightly denominated an entire change in the fiscal system of the country. He should have great difficulty in bringing himself to vote either way on the proposal before the House ; Ho concurred, as he had before said, in the principle of free trade, and that they should not distinguish between East and West Indian produce. But ho had heard no argument against the principle of the great demand made by his Hon. Friend on his side of the House —nothing against the equalization of the duties on sugar and cotton. He must advert to the argument of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, and begged the House to recollect the impor tant consideration he had mentioned, that they were apply ing the principle of free trade to India, and had brought capital and English manufactures into the market, and had driven the native out of it, and had imported manufactured calicoes into India and refused to apply the principle of free trade to goods imported from India. This was a monstrous in justice, and when he thought of the hardships which every measure of free trade must have inflicted upon those whom it deprived of bread by the competition with British artist., he thought we should give the natives all the protection free trade would confer. Then he had heard no valid objection to a n equalization of the duty on goods imported from British India, but all these were matters of detail, and they did not object to the principle of admitting rum from India on the same principle as from the West Indies, but urged that they should admit other spirits, which would have an im portant thought the course proposed by the Right Honourable Baronet was the right one, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the ctrcumstances of the case. Then take the resolution respecting tobacco, the ,taxation on tobacco was not protection or restriction, but one for the sake of revenue. He understood that tobacco from the West In dies, being little in quantity, we had been able to allow a smaller duty on that than on foreign tobacco. Now the Board of Directors required not that the duty should be equalised on all tobacco, but on that of the East and West Indies—the efect of which would be, that East India tobacco would displace Virginian. This was a mere ques tion of finance, and he could not consent to give up a twelfth of the duty. He thought the subject of the Las cars navigating British vessels should be referred to the Committee ; and the❑ as to the British possessions —how could we say in the fiscal system they were British posses sions, and in diplomacy that they were not ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) All these were difficult matters of detail, and if called upon to vote for such propositions as these, he twist rote against them ; but if to go into a Committee, he should certainly vote for that proposition, in the hope of carrying into effect the laudable object of the Court of Directors in bringing the question before the House.— ( Hear, hear. ) Mr. WARBURTON concurred in the advice given by the Board of Directors, but he thought, on the present debate, they were rather discussing principles than mat ters of detail, and he asked the House whether or not it was not lamentable that they should be discussing ques tions whether or not they should carry on the greatest trade possible with our greatest Colonies. The question was not whether they should use the tobacco of Virginia or the East Indies, but whether, having made a vast out lay to obtain Colonial empire, we should refuse to receive a return for that capital. If we succeeded in establishing a colony—there was a great boasting of the magnitude of this event —of the great armament, and the extensive amount of exports necessary for a first settlement —but when we came to the question, whether or not the mother country should receive a return for this great out lay, nothing but discouragements were heard of, and they were advised not to admit the produce of this country, be cause it might interfere with the produce of some other colony, as that at home. Was it not monstrous that they should be discussing such matters of principle when they had been so long glorifying themselves as being a great commercial country ? It was a disgrace to the House of Commons that they should be debating not matters of de tail but of principle. Whether Mysore could be consi dered a British possession or not, his Right Hon. Friend acknowledged that he had complete civil and military pos session of the country, but did not acknowledge that we could promote the growth of coffee there, and treat it as a British possession, because we were only trustees of that country. What, he asked, were the duties of trustees but to put the estate entrusted to their care in the most flourishing state they could ? Now, as to matters of interpretation ; did they not hold that Madras was situated in the county of Middlesex ; and if so, was not Madras a British pos session ? He remembered reading a conversation between a British officer and Runjeet Sing, in which the officer boasted we had 20,000 men who could march from one end of India to the other. Then were we not bound to give the greatest facility to the produce of that country? What provinces in India were the worst governed ? The tributary states; because they were deprived of the power of rising against their Government. Were we not bound, therefore, to relieve them by giving them an opportunity of sending their produce to this country ? If, therefore, we owed a debt to that part of India, which was immediately subject to our rule, were we not bound in a greater debt to those tributary states which bad suffered more than other countries in consequence of our interfe rence? With regard to those parts of India which were subject to our rule. A great part of their commerce con sisted in the remittances made by officers, residents there, to this country. These remittances were the accumula tions of these officers out of the salaries which were paid them by the natives of that country. It was the duty of this country, therefore, to give the inhabitants of India every facility of making these remittances by the means of commerce. With regard to the question of allowing Lascars to be considered as British seamen, he would beg leave to refer his Honourable Friend, who seemed inclined to dissent from that proposition, to the late Act, by which they been deprived of the privilege which they before pos sessed. It was only as lately as July 1825, that the Act was passed by which it was enacted that natives of places within the limits of the East India Company's Charter, should not be considered as British seamen— therefore by granting the prayer of the petition, they would be only reverting to the former practice—(No, no, from Sir J. Hobhouse)—at all events they would be returning to what had been formerly the law on that subject. He was happy to find that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Whitby, who was generally in favour of the strictest measures for the protection of British navigation, did not object to that proposal. Such a measure would be for the encouragement of the interests of British navigation. The number of ships trading to India would be increased. and the British ship-owner would receive the benefit of the provision. It might cause some diminution in the wages of the seamen, but the shipowner would benefit by it, the trading interest would benefit by it, and the whole empire would benefit by it. He agreed with his Hon. Friend in objecting to that part of the resolution in which the Directors sought for the benefit of a differ ential duty between tea, the produce of Assam, and tea the produce of China, and between tobacco the produce of India, and that the produce of the United States.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the petitioning for such a protection was directly contrary to all the principles by which it was sought to enforce the pre. sent case, and he was sorry to see such questionable prin ciples mixed up with principles which were so worthy of support. With regard to the duty on spirits he thought it would be wise in the Directors to make common cause with the West India interest, and claim a just reduction of those duties as compared with the duties levied on British spirits. This was not the first time that the subject of a free trade with India had been made a subject of debate in that House. Hardly a year had passed, of late, in which many Hon. Members had not contended that the time had arrived when these differential duties ought to be aban doned ; therefore the Right Hon. President of the Board Control ought not to contend that the House had been taken by surprise. Sir J. C. H 0 BHOUS E had not done so. Mr. WARBURTON had understood the Right lien. Gentleman so to say; but if that were not the case one of his arguments against the Court of Directors had been cut from under his feet. He had understood him to say that the House was taken by surprise by this proposition of the Court of Directors. The case might be new as to some of the details, but as far as the principle of the question went, namely, that of putting the commerce with the East Indies on the same footing with the commerce with the \Vest In dies, the matter had been debated again and again in that House, and therefore it could not be said that they had been taken by surprise. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would accede to the proposition of the Right Hon. President of the Board of Control, and that the Committee would go into the investigation as speedily as possible, and that they would not be too long in bringing it to a conclusion, but make a report, so that the House might, during the present Session, be made acquainted with the result of their inqui ries, so as to lead to the adoption of some practical mea sure before the close of the Session. Sir R. JENKINS, after the offer made by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, could not refuse to accede to his proposition. He hoped with the Right Hon. Gentle man who had last spoken, that the Committee would come to a quick decision, and he would say the only ground why he had proposed to bring this question before a Com mittee of the whole Howe was, because he feared if he had moved for a Select Committee it would have appeared like a desire for deferring redress. Tice original motion was then withdrawn, and on the motion of Sir R. JENKINS, the petition was ordered to be referred to a Select Committee, the Members of which are to be named the day after to-morrow. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the lateness of the pe riod at which Bills were sent up to the other House hav ing occasioned many Bills to be lost, he would, in order in some measure to meet that objection, move, that after the Ist day of June next Orders of the Day should take pre cedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays. Sir ROBERT PEEL said that as no special circumstances had been stated on which to rest the motion, he was fearful of its being drawn into a precedent, and made the rule in all future Sessions. He had no wish to throw difficulties in the way; but if the Noble Lord would defer his motion until a short time before Easter, he should most probably support him. Mr. HUME said that, at a later period of the last Ses sion, the Noble Lord had brought forward a similar mo tion, by which he (Mr. Hume) was taken by surprise. He thought that this might be considered as a notice of motion to be brought forward hereafter, which would do away with his objection. He was desirous of enabling the Government to go on with their business if they would go on with it, and therefore should not object to the question. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had brought forward the motion thus early to meet the objection of the lion. Gen. tleman, because he thought it improbable that any Member contemplated a motion after the Ist of June. Parliament had now been sitting six weeks, and only one and a half evening of each week had been given to the Government. Be did not agree with the reasons given for throwing the Bills out in the other House of Parliament ; but still be thought the objection a reasonable one, and ho brought forward his motion in order to obviate it. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought this was a question materially affecting the House of Commons, and that they ought not on light grounds to say that only one day in the week should be afforded to Members for bringing forward independent motions. He would advise the Noble Lord not to bring forward his motion at so late a periud as to intercept any motion, for when a Member had a motion in gestation for a month or six weeks, he ought to be af forded an opportunity of bringing it forward. His only wish was to avoid establishing a precedent. The motion was then withdrawn, on the und.rstanding that it was to be brought forward at a later period of the Session. COMMERCE OF TURKEY. Mr. HUME said that the House would recollect that during the last Session there had been laid on the table a copy of a treaty of commerce with the Sultan. No one could be more anxious than he was for the increase of our commercial connection—every new market that was opened improved the prosperity of the country—but this treaty, he understood, when applied to the provinces which had formerly constituted part of the Ottoman em pire, was more likely to impede commerce than to forward it. Before that treaty, British goods exported to, or im ported from, Turkey, were liable to a duty of 3 per c ent . In Turkey Proper there were various abuses and m onc _ polies, and certain internal duties were, in consequence, imposed, amounting, in some instances, to 30 per cent. These were, by this treaty, done away with, and a fixed duty of 9 per cent. imposed, making 12 per cent., the outside charge ttlat could be levied on British merchandise. This, which was a benefit on Turkey Proper, was otherwise in Syria, Egypt, and other parts where these abuses did not previously e xi st , in.. asmuch as England, by acceding to the treaty, wa s liable to a duty of 12 per cent., while Russia, which had re f use d to object His accedejct i n bringing e t o it,s,as forward subject Duly this t motion o at l t w of 3 per cent. a to aster_ twin from the Noble Lord what was the actual state of the case. France, Austria, and Sweden had agreed to this Convention, but Russia had not ; and England could not lae considered upon the same footing as the most favoured nations, while Russian subjects paid a duty of 3 per cent., and British subjects paid one of 12 per cent. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for copies of any correspondence with the Foreign Office, or the British authority in the Levant, as to the continuance of mono polka agreed to be abolished by the Treaty of Commerce with the Porte; and of any representations made as to the increased duties levied by the said Treaty of Commerce in the provinces of the Danube, or in Egypt and Syria. A comparative statement or return of the rate of duties levied in the Turkish empire, on articles exported and imported by British and Russian subjects under the new Treaty, and under the old one. Return of the rate of duties levied on imports from, and of exports to, Great Britain in Turkey Proper, and in the Turkish provinces of the Danube, and in Syria and Egypt, previously to, and since the late Treaty of Commerce with the Porte. Lord PALMER.STON said that it was not his inten tion to object to the production of the papers that had been called for. At the same time he begged to say in explanation, that there might be some difficulty in fur nishing all the information that had been required. The treaty had led to great changes in the commerce of Turkey, and it might be difficult to furnish the amount of the duties levied under it as compared with former times. There had been different degrees of advantages produced by it to the different provinces of Turkey, and some ' doubts might arise as to whether it would be for the bone fit of Turkey or of British commerce that the treaty should apply to the provinces of the Danube. It was quite clear, however, that if it should not be found advantageous to either, there could be no difficulty on either side in not ap plying it in those parts. The treaty would effect a great change in the trade of Turkey, and some time should elapse before it could be brought fully into operation. That time had not yet come, but as soon as it should ar rive he would give the House all the information he should possess on the subject. The motion was then agreed to. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IN IRELAND. Lord STANLEY rose to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the registration of voters in Ireland. The Noble Lord said, that though he had no reason to appre hend that any opposition would be made to the proposal he was about to make, or that the permission hitherto con ceded to Members on both sides of the House of intro ducing Bills for the improvement of the laws relating to Parliamentary registration of the electors, would be denied him, yet the subject was one of so much importance that he considered it proper to beg the indulgence of the House while he stated, as shortly as he could, the princi ples on which he intended to proceed, and the main oh jects he had in view, and within which alone his motion was to be confined. In the first place he wished to assure the House that it was his earnest desire that the question should be discussed without any reference to party feeling on either side of the House, and he could say that there was no such feeling on that side of the House from which the motion emanated. It had been his fate to have been so much mixed up with'political discussions, and particularly ins reference to the state of Ireland, that if he had folloived the dictates of his own judgment, he should have preferred that the motion should have been brought forward by any other Member but him self, lest the circumstance of his introducing it might lead to controversy or a feeling of excitement, which he must sincerely wish to avoid. He was anxious, however, to undertake the task, because he felt he would thereby be fulfilling a pledge which he aright be supposed to have formerly given, as the organ of Earl Grey's Administra tion. He had stated the grounds at that time on which that Administration did riot contemplate any change in the Irish registration. He was now aware that the mo tion should rest its wily chance of being ultimately agreed to, and could onlj • be received by its being able to bear the test of fear and even of unfavourable criticism. Their English and Irish Reform Bills had been on many account; necessarily different from one another. The English Reform Bill had caused a total abolition of the franchise in many towns in England, and a partial abolition in no ally others. That part of the ques tion, however, as far as: it related to Ireland, had been al ready dealt with at the period of the Union. In the Irish Reform Bill there hart been no disfranchising clauses— there were no boroug' as deprived of the right of sending Members to Parliament. The English Reform Bill had di minished the constituency of England by 13. The Irish Reform Bill had, on the conteary, added five new consti tuencies to those already existing in Ireland. The English Reform Bill had put certain res trictions on the tenure of 40s. freeholders. No alteration ve.;th regard to the 40s. freeholders could have been made :n Ireland. The Irish Reform Bill had given a qualificatkea for a shorter term and for a smaller amount of interest the n the English Bill. With regard to taking the polls at electie ns, a great change had been effected by the English Bill, axed one which had worked very beneficially—he meant the provision for shortening the duration of polling at elections. It was not on one side or the other of the House only that great doubts prevailed at the time, and still p revelled, he be lieved, as to how far it might be expediont to introduce the same provision into Ireland. Lastly, with regard to the registration in England, there had not been before the Reform Bill, any fixed system 'for the registration of voters. It had constantly been in the power of the Le gislature to take what course they pleased upon that sub ject, unfettered by any precedent, and they had made great, and he believed a successful, experiment for intro ducing a new system of registering in England. With regard to Ireland, however, the ca le had been entirely dif ferent. The laws of registration • eith regard to freehold tenures had subsisted for many years in Ireland, and rested on one of the principal si atutes of the country, and the system was one which had been gradually amended at various periods.—( Bear, hear.) Under these circumstances, it had be s,n thought advisable to watch the progress of the gee at experiment which had been made in this country, wiice .h had worked so sa tisfactorily, and not engage in a. : tens system till they knew the results of the other expt riment. But it had been intended by Lord Grey's Ges vernment, that after having the advantage of a trial tb ay would take such parts of it as could be adopted in, Ire land. He hoped he would not be unnecessarily troub'.ing ti re House if he pro ceeded to allude to a point on v Jhich it were necessary to enter into some details. He begged to submit to them the many differences between the lawe of England and Ireland, with regard to the s ystem of (registering voters, He should say that the means res proposed .to be introduced should be confined to regulati an of voters, and to that only. He did not propose to deal, in any way with the elective franchise in Ireland, and he e'dd not wish to urge the House to express any opinion with regaird to those disputed points of law; any attempts to sett he which could produce but one result, namely, that of hr rpeding the passing of the Bill. He would hear no question is of the franchise, and of poll ing, for the consideration ofthe House at a future moment. He need hardly tell tb e House that in England the registration of w oters took place annually before a barrister selecte I by the Judges at Assize. while making the circuits throughout the counties for which they had been appri nted. They fixed the place and time for holding the Se ssions, and any person claim ing to be entitled to the ET anchiso should appear before them at a certain time and place. He need not remind the House that in the case o f counties it was necessary for claimants to send notices t o the officers of their respective parishes. The provisions with regard to registration dif fered so little in Counties I ind Boroughs that he might deal with both of them togethr e. The officers of the parish and the Clerk of the Pea, re were required to publish the list by the 31st day of J line. The list then remained open for public observatio a till the 25th of August. The person afterwards objectin g to the claimants, till after the words " objected to " xi been put to his name, had to come forward and pros ee the objection. The Sessions could not commence befi n e the 15th of September. He need not tell the House th at the registry laws were differ ent in Ireland. The Sessions there were quarterly, and were no: held before a Le urristar appointed by the Judges, but before the assist' tant-barrister of the county. The claims should not 1 ie sent in there as in England, six weeks, and sometime. twelve beforehand, but twenty days previous to the per/ ed of registering. The Clerk of the Peace was obliged toe make out a list of the claimants, not for each parish, bu ; for the whole town, ten days pre• vious to the sessions. Ten days only were thus given to object to claims in Ire land, and the lists extended to en tire counties. This m fight be attended with many advan tages. He would sup pose the case of a rich person who, without a qualification, :might be anxious to register, and the House should obs et ve that under the present system he could weary out 11',5 t ,bjectors by appearing to prosecute his claim in different par is of the county. He might pro secute that claim at. -a di stance of fifty or sixty miles from the place at which. 'he riisided.—(Here Mr. Pigot made some observation 'across, the table which did not reach us.) The Nobi.e I oird proceeded to say that the rule did not apply to counties in which there was more than one electoral divi• ion. If the voter in England were registered, now ithstandine the objection made against him, that objection might be renewed after twelve months, whilst, if the o'hjection w ere declared invalid in Ireland, the claim continued go od for seven years.—(Hear.) Those certificates of the d ecision of the Assistant Barister were correct as t:aos law stood, and which it was proved they were, were not ally for eight years, but it might be made perpetual ; because if , se (Lord Stanley) had b een eon . rectly informed, it had been he . ld in Ireland th a t th e pro duction of a certiSicate graneedin 1832, not by the party himself, but another individual, was Prima facie evidence, entitled to another sertifieate, and - so on totie s quo ti es as that in 1840 the i)arty was entitling him to vote till 1 8 e'S , So' that those cert ifi cates were necessity might require. almost in the tie tune of Exci iequer Bills; they wer e ac tually transferrable securities, for there was nothing on earth to prevent him from hams ding ever his certificate to any other person, or, in the es ent of his death, to prevent a ny person who had come into th e possession of his certificate from voting in consequence es` its possession, but the making the atEdavit at the chess ion.—( Hear, and laugh-• ter)—and how was the questie a of the validity of the certificate to be tried, if at all ? Why, by the operose, uncertain, and expensive procees ling o f a P ar li amentary Election Conimittee. It was tru s tint the return might be questioned, and the Committee i might decide not to open t he Registry ; the House of Commons might strike the vote off the poll ; but it had t e en doubted whether the House of Commons had the pow(r to alter the registry, so that when the candidate had f. tone through the process of striking off votes at one elect' on, at the very next the whole of the names struck off by that Committee might appear without the possibility of the returning officer object ing to them.—(Mrs, O'Connell hero made some remarks to an Hon. Member next him in rale er a loud tone, which caused the Noble Lord to observe) that the Hon. and Learned Member opposite, who mart e his observations in so loud a tone, was the last mare in that House whom he should have expected to regret that 1: e (Lord Stanley) in tended to proceed with this measure, .and that from a cause which he would advert to presently. Another instance of the abuses to which the , present law gave facilities was this —a person registered i.n 1832 c ame forward at the expira tion of five years to rat-register his vote—he did so, and then he received a second certificate, but he did not can cel the first or the affidavit lie had made, which had been placed on the records of Oro county. What was the re sult of that? Why, that Live -different persons might vote for the same property, ated t'ae right of the parties could only be settled and inveseig ated before a Committee of the House of Commons as the law at present stood. He thought he was not via ggerating the matter when he stated that it was possible, under the present law, that there might be some single property in Ireland not capable of yielding more than one qualification, of which there might be fifteen certificates, one being taken out every half year.—( Cries of " Ob, oh.") He had no doubt such was the state of abuse under the law in Ireland that there were many properties in that country for which two or three successive occupiers held certificates to vote. In the Irish Bill there was no provision for expunging the names of men that had been dead for years, so that the county registers in that country were literally a growing mass of confusion and absurdity.—(Hear, bear.) The Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin a short time since had moved far a return of the electors in each city and county in Ireland, for the pur pose of showing, no doubt, the small number of electors in comparison with the population. Now he (Lord Stanley) would even admit that the number of per sons appearing on she registry was larger than the real amount, and that was going further than the Hon. Member could expect, bet that only showed the necessity, if it was desired to rescue the county and borough registry from confusion—it was expedient and desirable to alter the law. —( Hear.) He had stated at the outset that he would not introduce political topics, but would only state the abuses which the law bad occasioned. Some of those abuses he had already stated, and he would not now even go into the result that those abuses had effected. He did not impugn the decision of any of the Bar risters in Ireland. He would not say that there had been a system of perjary carried on in Ireland, but this he would say, that the law held out an induce ment to perjury when the registry of the counties did not declare who were the bona fide electors. The abuses and the defects to which he had adverted had been recognized for some time by both sides of the. House; but the first person who took notice of those discrepancies, and proposed their amendment, was the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, who had expressed his surprise that he (Lord Stanley) should have taken up this measure. That Hon. and Learned Member, in the year 1835, gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of elections in Ireland. That notice stood in the books far some time, but the motion never was made. At the latter part of the year, however, a Bill was brought in by Mr. O'Loghlen and Mr. Perrin. That Act actually passed through the eomniittee and all its stages, and on the 29th of August was sent up to the House of Lords. Of that Bill the Hon. and Learned Member spoke in the following terms :—" It was an Act not only beneficial and necessary, as it provided for annual revision, and gave an appeal both ways. The Hon. and Learned Member trusted, therefore, the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee, as it was a measure calculated to save the expense and in convenience of scrutinizing votes before an Election Com mittee." That Bill, however, from some circumstance or other, never arrived at maturity. The measure being beneficial and essential in 1835, in the opinion of ' the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin, he (Lord Stanley) could not conceive upon what ground the Han. and Learned Member in 1840 should regret that he (Lord Stanley) bad taken it up. That Bill never having come to ttstrity it 1836, another was introduced by his Noble Friend opposite s and Mr. O'Loghlen, very similar in its nature. That Bill was read a second time ' without debate, and it was then postponed to the end of the Session, and -nothing more was heard of it, In 1838 the Hon. Member for Limerick announced his intention of bringing in a similar Bill, but he gave it up, Mr. Wolfe, on the part of the Government, taking it out of his hands. That Bill went to a second reading, and then it shared the fate of its predeceaaor. Then his Hon. Friend the Member for Bandon introduced a similar measure, which was given up to the Attorney-General, and that also fell to the ground. Last year the lion. Member for Limerick introduced another Bill, but that was abandone,t at a very early period of the Session. In many of the principles those Bills were agreed, end there was no objection takson to any of them as to their practical effects. But with that universal consent as to the necessity of some remedy, and the amount of the evil, we remained still in the same state.—( hear, hear.) Not a single sebuee had been removed, and that was cer tainly a circumstance not creditable to the House of Com mons. With permission of the House, he was bent on in troducing a measure which would satisfy both parties, and would have neither delay nor unfairness.—(llear.) He hoped the House would give the measure a full con'idera tion, and that, before the end of the Session, it would be come the law of the land. He first proposed to follow all the Bills to which he had alluded, in making the registration annual. In stating that, he hoped the House would excuse him for touching upon one point, in which it was impos sible not to deal with the existing practice. According to the English law, a twelvemonth's residence was neces sary before the claimant was entitled to be registered ; but upon being registered he was entitled to the franchise. In Ireland the registration took place after a six months' re sidence, but the claimant was not entitled to vote until six months after the registration. Now, if, as in England, the Irish claimant were to : have six months' occupancy before he was entitled to register, there must be a restric tion upon the franchise, as it was at present exercised in Ireland. Because at present, by means of the quarterly re gistration, the clgimant may be qualified to vote in fifteen months, and need never be kept out of the franchise be yond twelve months, which was the period of occupancy which the law contemplated ; whereas in England it might , happen, that in consequence of the occupation com mencing in November, and the registration taking place in September, a man would not obtain the franchise until after an occupation of twenty-two month,. If the prac tice of the two countries in this respect were to be assiwii lated, the Irish roger would lose the advantage which he now possessed. tie hoped Gentlemen would take it as an indication of the fairness with which he sought to deal with the question, that he was not about to curtail the privileges of the Irish voter.—(Hear.) But on the other hand he would not consent to allow the six months' occupancy to be sufficient for the registration, and the lapse of six other months, with or without a continued occupation, to be sufficient for a vote.—( Hear.) Ile pro- , posed that if the claimant had been in occupation less than twelve months, and more than six months, at the time of registration, the barrister should set down opposite to his name the full term at which he would, by a twelve months' occupation, be entitled to vote, so that he should not be kept out of his vote ono single day beyond the time when he became fully entitled to it. That would be provided for by a single clause, and one column in the register would be sufficient to carry it into effect. The question then arose, before whom was the registration to take place? In England it took place before barristers ap. pointed by the Judges of Assize. In Ireland there were objections to that in which he did not participate. But he objected to the proposition of leaving it to barristers appointed by th& Government, as that would be giving to the G s eprernineret a patronage which might be used for politiCal purposes._—( Hear.) But there were in every county in Ireland assistant barristers, and be (lid not see why they eaauld not be entrusted with the charge of the annual, as they now were with that of the quarterly registration. But he thought it would be the best security for the proper dischavge of their duties, if each should have an undivided responsibility, which would not be the case if they were cireulested in rotation through all the , counties of Ireland, as had been proposed by Judge Wolfe. He thought it better that each barrister should be perma nently fixed in one county. lie thought it was necessary that there should lie an appeal, not from the barrister to a co-ordinate tribunal, but to the Judges of Assize. With regard to notices, lk meant in every respect to follow the English law ; with this exception, that in Ireland it would bo necessary for the claitnant, both in town and county, to give notice to the Clerk of the Peace, the latter being required to give the same publicity to the claim as in Eng land. It would be necessary, however, that the re gistration shod take place in Ireland, at an earlier period of the year than in England. The barrister should appoint a place in each district for taking the registry, or he would propose that the Lord- Lieutenant of the county should have the power of fixing places in each district, at which the barristers should regularly attend to make the registry. At present every person was bound to appear in person, and substan tiate his claim. There was one exception made in favour of 50/. freeholders, who could be registered on affidavit in ' any Superior Court. Now he (Lord Stanley) did not say that this had been—he only asserted that it might be— abused. There was nothing except the affidavit to pre vent a person who had not a shilling in the world from registering and votin g . He did not propose that the cx• emption from personal appearance of the 501. freeholders should be taken away. But this he proposed that the affidavit should be revved with the Clerk of the Peace, that notice of it should bo published in the list of claim ants, and that the maims should be equally liable to ob jection with those of the poorest leaseholder —(Hear, hear.) He proposed to do away with the whole system of certificates, thinking that they led to fraud, and afforded a temptation to perjury. He wished to interpo se ano th er and a better check. He proposed that the Assistant Bar risters should have the power of giving moderate costs, limited in the bill, in the case of frivolous claims or objec tions, and that on appeal to the Judges, there should be no hesitation as to the costs which in their discretion might be just to be given. But in what manner should he dealiwith those who had once established their claim to be registered ? Should he deal with them as in England, and say simply, that a person objecting year after year might compel the same party to come forward again and again to substantiate his claim before the Revising Bar. rister ? If this were a hardship in England, it was a much greater hardship in Ireland, where there would be a greater strictness in the original examination. He proposed, therefore, that in all such cases the onus of p-oof should be laid not on the voter, but on the. objector ; that the claimant should have the presumption in his favour, and that the objector should come under the penalty of costs, to be inflicted in case his objection were frivolous and vexatious.—( Hear.) Of course, it would be in the option of parties, as in England, to appear in person, or by deputy, to support their claims. But tho onus being on the objector in these cases, it would be just, and indeed ac cessary that he should be informed, by some registry of leases, of their duration—the nature, the period at which they would expire, and (if on lives) the names of the partieS on whose I-ves they were held. Now, the question had been raised whether there should be any limitation as to the period to which objections should extend. On that point, after great consideration, he had come to eke conclusion that with the chocks he had already proposed,* he we•c:e to restrict objections to pe riods subsequent to ekee last- registry, he should be perpe tuating fraud—he should be doing injustice to the fair claimant—( Hear, hear) —for supposing a case as clear as ila ba r cl tY en o o u i g ig h l t e ansie'a'etrptroesehnatvtehbe?ea'w' srte(gmids-, t d e a r y e l d i g — h t , t w h n a n t tdh bee this should be perpetuated for eight years—but it would be monstrous when, as he proposed to make it, the registry would be final and conclusive, till proved erroneous —and that the vote should be registered for the life of the voter, till it was shown to be bad.—(llear, hear, b ear. ) Therefore he found it impossible to accede to the proposition that the objections Y r —as —( H ear .) t s n ho lN u , l i d ln-h nze i r i t a e a r t ta r in eg ed ist g r great step— elsixeetregnNevdaans Sergeant beyond noo:vL etga ikdi t ea l e ng ean l he proposed that the registry should be bcfere a Committee of the House of Commons, final and conclusive. lie did not propose to e xctude the Committee from going into matters since the registry, but he wiabcd to make the registry final as to matters before it ; and this would be a great concession in favour of the franchise, and would tend much to remove the angry feeling, and the not very creditable litigation, before the Committees of that House.—( Hear, hear.) He had now gone in great, perhaps too much, detail, into the provisions of the Bill. The only remaining point was, how he proposed to deal with the existing registry. He un doubtedly assumed that it was full of fictitious votes ; there could be no question that there were many persons on the registry who had no title at all to be there. Should the registry be swept away altogether ? He thought that would impose considerable hardship on parties who had once substantiated their claims, to be again obliged to prove them. Again, it was suggested that the present re gistry should be good for the periods to which the parties' certificates extended. That might be doing justice to some extent to individuals, but it would be open to grave objection, as keeping gross errors on the registry, and pre venting its purgation for eight years. He proposed, therefore, that the registry should be on the same footing as it would have been, had it been framed under this Act. He hoped that he had stated the provisions of the Bill now, without exciting any acrimonious feeling, or dis playing any party spirit. He would be perfectly ready to listen, either at the present, or at any future time, to arguments on the one side or the other, from those who went along with him in his object—that of correcting abuses on the registry—and he could assure the House that suggestions offered in this spirit, whe ther coming from the other side or from his own, should receive an equal degree of attention, and as respectful a consideration.—(Cheers.) Lord MORPETH did not itatend to offer any opposi tion to the motion, neither had he fcund anything to object to, either in the tone or temper of the speech of his Noble Friend.—( Hear, hear.) It was true, as his Noble Friend bad stated, that several measures for the purpose he had in view had passed that House, but had been rejected by the other House. In every single Parliament since the acces sion of the present Government to power, Bills had been introduced for the purpose of amending the anomalies and inconveniencies, and improving the system of the regis tration in Ireland, yet upon no one of those Bills, though involving changes slighter and more inconsiderable than those contemplated by the measure now proposed, had the two Houses of Parliament been brought to anything like an agreement. The Government had felt that it would be' most desirable to bring the franchise of the three countries under some uniform and united system, although they felt there were great difficulties in doing so ; and they consi dered that, with respect to Ireland, they would be able to come to a conclusion with much more certainty and faci lity when the franchise under the new Poor-law could be ascertained. They had, therefore, felt it would be more judicious to suspend any measure of legislation on this subject with a view to the soundness, success, and permanence of the measure itself. But the Noble Lord for once had merged the character of an ob structor into that of a constructor--( Cheers and laughter) —and had stepped forward upon this occasion to tender his aid for the solving of the difficulties which had hitherto been experienced upon a measure of this sort. He could assure the Noble Lord that his interposition would be re ceived with perfect respect, but as to their confidence in its entire exemption from leaning on one side, was another question.—( Hear, hear.) Of the Noble Lord's acuteness and ability to solve the difficulties upon this or any other subject there could be no doubt-( Cheers from the Con servatives)—but whether the Noble Lord was unbiassed, or whether he was anxious to pay off some old score with the present constituency of Ireland—(Laughter) —would be best ascertained when they had an opportunity, not only of deliberately considering the provisions of his Bill, but of ascertaining the manner in which he proposed to work up the details, which they could only do when the printed Bill came into their hands, and till that time arrived he reserved to himself the fullest right of forming any judgment he might think proper with respect to the provisions, the principle, the scope, and the tendency of that measure, and of de ciding what course might be most advisable for him to adopt respecting it. Till that time he should have been content to reserve any further observations on the subject, were it not for one circumstance to which he wished for a',moment to advert. It might be in the remembrance of the House that in the course of the last Session a motion was brought forward by his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for the City of Dublin, for the purpose of assimilating the elective franchise in Ireland to that which now established in England. Be sides the general abstract question of assimilating and identifying the rights of the people of the two countries— to which as an abstract question the members of the pre sent Government had always professed themselves friendly —the Hon. and Learned Member also adduced some very plausible statements, and stated several very striking in stances of the disproportion between the relative number of voters in the two countries. To the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for leave to bring in that Bill, he (Lord Morpeth) gave a decided negative; and he hoped he did so with courtesy. Indeed be believed it was a charge against him that his mode of opposition was too courteous and deferential.—(Laughter.) He felt that he could not contravene the logic of the Hon. and Learned Member, nor contradict his statements ; but he did feel and stated that after a great settlement and adjust ment of the whole representative system, and of the electo ral law of the three countries had been effected, and that question had given rise to so much excitement and ani mosity throughout the country, that it would be expedient not to break in upon that settlement after so short a period, or to introduce any more fundamental changes. But after the remonstrances that had been made to them by the peo ple of Ireland, who honoured them with their generous confidence—(Laughter on the Conservative benches, and cheers fi ore the Ministerialists)—who were not disposed to confide their destinies to the party opposite.—( Cheers. ) If notwithstanding the representations made to them by a great proportion of the Irish Members who gave the Go vernment their support in that House—if notwithstanding the force which he thought did reside in some of the argu ments, and in all the arithmetical and statistical statements that had been laid before them, they did refuse to consent to such an assimilation and extension of the franchise as they required at the hands of the Government, because they thought it inexpedient to alter the law which the Reform Bill had established in Ireland ; so on the other hand they were not prepared to alter the present law or system, if they theugbt the scope and tendency of that alteration would be to limit, contract, impede, or " obstruct," to use the Noble Lord's favourite phrase— ( Hear, and cheers) beyond due bounds and just limits, that confined franchise which the people of Ireland had received at the hands of the Noble Lord.— (Loud cheers.) Reserving to himself the right of ob jecting to the details of the measure hereafter, he had thought it more candid to state at the same ti me , that with whatever ingenuity the Bill was framed, and however plausible the grounds on which it rested, however well it was calculated to effect its own object, whatever collateral objects it might involve, yet, if he was con vinced in his own mind that its tendency and scope was to narrow and obstruct the legitimate franchise of the people of Ireland and their electoral rights, he should give every opposition in his power to the future progress of the measure. He had, however, no objection to the Bill being brought in.--( Hear, hear. ) Mr. Sergeant JACK SON was glad that the Noble Lord did not mean to offer any opposition to the Bill being brought in, because the importance of the measure had been conceded on both sides. He believed the Hon. Membe r for Dublin had made a complaint with regard to the la. tolerable state of the law. The Hon. and Lea:. ned Member then proceeded to state the course pursued by him with respect to the Bill introduced by him in 1838, the object of which was to secure for Ireland a whole some and sound constituency, which be believed to be the scope and tendency of the Noble Lord's Bill. The Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had not acted fairly by the Noble Lord, in repeating the erroneous im pression he had taken up relative to the use the Noble Lord had made of the word " obstruct." What he had said was, that he and the Gentlemen on that side of the House would suggest good and beneficial measures, and would obstruct those which were bad. The Noble Lord was pe culiarly fitted to introduce the Bill, for he had introduced the Reform Bill for Ireland, at the same time stating, that, so far as the registration was concerned, it was a mere experiment. As the Bill was not to be opposed, he would not enter into its details, nor detain the House longer upon that occasion. Mr. O'CONNELL did not mean any offence to the Noble Lord when he expressed his regret that be had. persevered in bringing_ in the Bill. What h o wante d to• express was, that tho Noble Lord was the last person who, from his former conduct towards Ireland, ought to have meddled with it.—(" Oh, oh," and cheering.) The prin ciple of the Noble Lord's conduct was to limit and restrict as much as possible the franchise of the people of Ireland. The Noble Lord had succeeded in giving a most stringent - Reform Bill for Ireland—a Bill which was admitted to be infinitely deficient as compared with that for England.—. (" No, no.") Was 'the House aware of the fact that in Ireland not 5 per cent. of its adult population enjoyed the franchise, while in England it amounted to 19 per cent. Was the House aware that of its agricultural population not 2 per cent. enjoyed the franchise? The people of Ire land attributed that fact to the Noble Lord, and if he were even to introduce a good Bill—one that would Prove beneficial in the eyes of the people of, Ireland, it would have its grace through bein g transmitted to them through the Noble Lorcia&-(Chec.re and cries of " Ob, oh.") There was a manliness in givin g it to the Noble Lord ; it was setting the people of Ireland at defiance, and when the details of the Bill went to Ireland they would not be disappointed in it, for they would know that it came from the same source which be gan the Reform Parliament by a Coercion Bill. —( Cheers. ) The principle of the Bill was trouble, vexation, anti ex pense. Was the flaw aware that the Conservative, party—he would no longer call them Orange posed every motion in the Registration Court by agent and cowslip', with an array of swearers ready to beat down tire value of the franchise— with landlords doing all in their power to prevent the re gistration of their senants ; yet with all this the Noble Lord proposed to,ifierease the trouble, the vexation, the expense attendant %pon registration. Even where the landlords were Weal, their agents were Conservative even the agent of bwd Monteagle was as anxious'to prevent the registration of the tenantry as any other. The title of the Bill eseillf to be, "A Bill for preventing the tenantry of Ireland from remistering, except by th e perm i ss i on an d at the expens e o f the landlords." It would bear out such a tita as lie thanked the Noble Lord for the word " obstrnet." This was a Bill which ought to be obstructed. He wry ; convinced its operation would be to annihilate the Fran - chise. The Noble Lord might say be did a great favoy r in not putting upon the voter a second year to prove h is case. Did he not know he could be obliged to do sea? The agent would compel him, and thus, in every case, the vexation would be continued from year to year. Was I he upholding the present system of registration? He was trot. But he believed they had worked thems Ayes out of it a certain degree of freedom. He would alter it if he could see it improved, but he should resist the Bill of the Noble Lord. Every other Bill on the subject had been favourable to the franchise, but the Noble Lord's re jected it. The House was not prepared for a Bill to I regulate the registration. He objected to its being made a contrast to the course proposed to be pursued in Eng land. He wished to know whether the English system of registration was satisfactory.—( Hear, hear.) W e wished EVENING EDITION. ' the Noble Lord to apply himself to the English registra tion ; but, instead of doing so, he went over the Channel. to destroy the franchise there. He might have attempted it in England or in Scotland.—(Cries of " No, no.") He was not surprised at the vehemence with which that_ was exclaimed. The policy on which it had been to troduced was, that leaving out the facility the tenants had to register, and the intervention of the land lord and agent, a Bill of this Lad should take up the subject for the three countries. It should begin with putting Ireland on an equality with Englaod, by giving it the same franchise. This should be the basis of the Bill, and if the Noble Lord would con sent to that, there would be no difficulty of adopting a proper method of registration. He did not accuse the Noble Lord further than his general principle of restricting the franchise, and depriving the Irish of all ; he did not succeed in depriving them at the time of the Reform Bill. He had complained of the Irish law being defective—that the Election Committee had no power to strike the Irish voter off. Those Committees were universally repu diated, and though he had been reprimanded for speaking of them as perjured, the Noble Lord bad substant'ally condemned them by assisting in their abolition. He did not hesitate to say that the present system of registration required amendment. Many experiments had been made, but were unsuccessful, because they were upon too narrow a basis-"-that of the limitation of the franchise. Ho would not divide the House, since the Noble Lord bad conceded the first reading. In every other stage it should have his most decided opposition. On the whole• he thought it calculated, not for the purpose that appeared on the face of it, but to introduce such detaih would be inconsistent with the interests of the - tenantry of Ireland, put them to a ruinous expense of money and of time, and bring them twice every year under the lash of their landlords, and thus annihilate that franchise, which ought rather to excite the commiseration than the resentment of the Noble Lord, and his attempts to destroy the little of it they possessed.—(Cheers.) Lord STANLEY said, after the lengthened speech he; had made at the commencement of the discus&ion, he should trouble the House very shortly in reply. He wal somewhat disappointed by the manner in which the Bill had been received on the other side, but the observations, of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin should not lead*_ him to deviate for a single moment from that lino of argu ment and calm discussion which he had chalked out for himself, in which he should continue so long as he was a Member of that House.—( Cheers.) He was appre hensive that an objection would arise from the part he had taken in opposition to Hon. Members on the ether side on Irish questions, and he was sorry to say he was confirmed in that anticipation, by finding that an As. elation calling itself " The Liberal Registration Associ e►ation of Dublin," had taken the precise course of the Hon. and Learned Member, of course without any concert, and had sent instructions to all the Liberal Members of Ire land to oppose the Bill whenever it might be iutroduced, whatever its principles might be —(Cheers.) This was a society which called itself " deliberative." Anything more unworthy than such a resolution could never have been uttered ; but he trusted the Liberal Members of that House had more liberality and feeling than to fol low such blind leaders, and would not follow the in structions given, but fairly consider the merits of the Bill. But there was one part of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman's statement which it was impossible to pass over. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had over and over again asserted that the franchise, as given to Ireland by the Reform Bill, was more restricted than the franchise given to England, and that he ( Lord Stanley) was the author of that restriction. Now, he could meet the Hon. and Learned Gentleman on both those points with a direct denial—(Cheers)--and would assert that all the franchises conferred on Ireland by the Reform Bill were tnore ex tended than similar franchises were in England.—( Cheers.) He did not refer to the case of the forty shilling free. holders, as that case had been settled some years before the introduction of the Reform Bill. The English Reform Bill had restricted the forty shilling freeholders, but had hot abolished them. The Irish Reform Bill hard not interfered with the freehold franchise at all, but had left it as it had found it. He now came to consider the leasehold fran chise, and while the English Bill conferred the franchise on leaseholders whose leases were for sixty years at a rent of 101., for twenty years at a rent of 50/., and a tenantry at will whose annual rent amounted to 501., the Irish Re form Bill confined the franchise to leaseholders whose leases were for sixty years at a rent of loi., for fourteen years at a rent of 201., and for 20 years at a rent of 101. ; so that on a comparison of the leasehold franchise, a more extended franchise was given to Ireland than to England, and he defied the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to prove the contrary.—(Loud cheers ) The Hen. and Learned Gentleman had said that the object of the Bill was to inflict endless expense and vexation, and had talked about land revenues, and had said, while speaking of the appeal to the Judges, that there were not so many Judges who possessed the confidence of the country. He was sorry to hear that observation ; for his part he had as much confidence in the decision of Mr. Justice Perrin or any Judge of liberal principles, into that of any other Judge who might agree in politics with him self—(Cheers)—and he thought it injurious to the charac ter of the Judges, and of those who were likely to become so on both sides the House, that these allegations should be continually indulged in by the Hon. and Learned Gentlensma against those who differed with him in opinion.—( Cheers.) He was astonished to hear this objection from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, because, when a Bill of this nature had been introduced by Mr. Perrin and Mr. O'Loughlin, the Hon. Gentleman had supported that Bill, and had, mentioned as a reason for so doing, that it granted an sp.. peal to the Judges. —( Loud cheers from the Conservative benches.) Mr. O'CONNELL explained that he had meant to say that the Reform Bill forlcl and, by not having restored the freehold franchise to its former state, had fallen in finitely short of the English Reform Bill.—( Cheers. ) Lord STANLEY had the admission of the Learned Gentleman, that setting aside the freehold qualification, the leasehold and household qualifications were at least as extensive in Ireland as in England.—(Loud cheering from the Opposition.) Mr: b'CONisTELL was by no means prepared to make any such admission.—(Crieaof Oh I from the Opposition,. answered by cheers from the Ministerial Benches.) The motion was then agreed to, and Lord Stanley, Lord Gran ville Somerset, and Mr. Emerson Tennant, were ordemd to bring in the Bill. REGISTRATION RETURNS. Mr. HUME said that as much had been said re:lilting to the Suffrage as regarded Ireland and England., be haped there would be no opposition to the motion 1 , 0 was about to make, for returns showing the actual s o othing of the re gistration in the two countries ; he shevi,d th ere f ore move f or a return of the number of electors o i l the registe r f or eac h county of England and Wales, fP_ .rr the year 1439-40 ; and distinguishing, in classes, the num b er r e gistered a s free holders, copyholders, leas 501. a year rent and ur ...,.nolders, occupying tenants at of a similar nature - ',vards, or as holding qualifications ; together with an abstract of the numbers of eacb in number ur class, showing the increase or decrease .eer each separate head, since the returns of the re g str ..:red voters at the general election in 1835 (as g iven in Parliamentary Papers, No. 199 and 227, of ). Return of the number of electors on the register for each city, town, or borough, in England and Wales, for the year 1839-40 ; and distinguishing, in classes, the numbers registered in each place as 101. occupiers, and the numbers registered under the old qualifications re served by the Reform Act, specifying what such qualifica tions are in each ; and whether the party possesse,4 the old and the new franchise ; together with an abstract of the numbers of each class, and - , of the. whole, showing (as above) the increase and decrease sirice 1835 ; Return of the number of Electors on the register for each county in Scotland, for the year, from July 1839 to July 1840, showing, in columns, those tr.insferred from the old roll of freeholders to the new roll, the 101. life -rent, and those enrolled on the dif ferent qualifications of property, or lease; distinguishing In each class those enrolled as life renters, and those enrolled as a joint qualification, showing a companion of the increase or decrease since 1835 ; Return of the number of Electors on the register in each city or burgh ' returning, or contributing to return, a member or MM. bers to serve in Parliament, in classes of burghs. for the year 1840, showing in columns, the number of owners and occupiers, jcint owners and joint occupiers ; toge ther with an abstract of the number of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835 ; Return of the number of Electors on the register for each county of Ireland, qualified to vote at any election which may take place be fore the let day of January, 1841 • and distinguishing , in c' asses, the numbers registered under the different qualifi cations, in each county ; together with an abstract of the nennber of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 1835. Re turn of the number of electors on the register for the year, qualified to vote at any election which may take place be -tore the Ist day of January, 1841, in each city, town, and lo;rough of Ireland, and distinguishing the numbers in each plp,ce registered under the old qualifications, specifying vhat such qualifications are in each, reserved by the Re f onn Act, and the numbers registered under the new qua -1 ac ations admitted by the Reform Act ; together with an ahs•tract, of the number of each class, and of the whole, showing also a comparison of the increase or decrease since 18 15. Lord ELIOT said, though he had no objection V:, it the House should obtain the information required, that be believed that the returns would be attended with con sid erable expense, which expenseiwould fall on the count) r; , :tes ; and unless some other means could be dovisod cf meeting the costs, he could not give his consent to the rr .ction. Mr. HUME said that there would bo no trouble or I:xpense at',.ending the returns, as lists, such as he de ' 'landed, had already been made out in every county and borough in Ireland. The whole trouble would be con fined to cor.nting up the numbers on the list which already existed, 'and to show how many held their rights by free hold, ar.d how many were tenants. Lore 1 G. SOMERSET did not see how the required inform ,ation could be obtained without great difficulty, and he dr ,übted whether there were any state by which the Mac 'straws at Sessions could remunerate the Clerk of the Pot cc for the trouble he would have to undergo. ,vlr. SHAW also thought that parties should not be c e lied on to make those returns without some remunera t 1 n , and he believed that the counties had not the power (C i remunerating them. Mr. O'CONNELL observed that in Ireland the ' C.:lerks of the Peace were already obliged to have printed lists of every man who was entitled to vote, and the pro posed returns would consequently be attended with very 1 Little trouble. After a few words from Mr. SHAW and Colonel PER. :kVA!, Mr. ESTCOURT observed that the House had at nesent no means of enforcing the returns demanded by he lion. Gentleman, lie wished, therefore, that the Hon. Member would suspend his motion or introduce it m some new form. Mr. 11UNIE said that he did not want any ew list, but an abstract of the lists alroady existing. Capt. EGERTGN objected to the motion in its pre sent form. Lord J. RUSSELL felt that there were strong objets- THl4_: SUN, LONDON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1840. N ava -. ~`}. " .-~'. R~~` t A.`f• •