The Sun.
London, England, 1806-03-22 00:00:00

TREATING ACT

Mr. TIERNEY moved the second reading'of the
Treating Ad. Upon the Motion being put,
Mr. F,ULLER- expressed his surprise that the
Right Hon. Gentleman should submit such an iin-
portant_Motion without saying ;one sentence 3.lp9ii t he
subjea. To say much in its favour, he thought quite
beyond the power of ..the Right Hon. Gentleman or
any other person. Indeed,:it did not .hpliear to his
mind that such a measure could at all be sustained;
for its tendency would be to disfranchise an immense;
proportion of the Freeholders of the country. In the
case even of the county he had the honour to repro-
' sent (Sussex) what would be the fate of the poor
Freeholders who lived above eighty miles from the
place of polling ?---Why, that such persons, unable
to defray the ekpence of the journey,- would forfeit
theirvotes. The same thing would, no doubt, hap-
penin many, is all other counties., If.was enorwh
that poor Freeholders should be. subjea to the loss
of time and the trouble of going 'to the Hustings,
withotit being called
_upon to submit to the expence
of carriage from distant quarter:. This expence was
no material loss to the Candidates, and it was to he
recollected thatthe piior voters were only treated to
this jaunt once in seven' years. It would be cruel
then to dash thus trivial cup from the poor man's
lips.. The House should bear in mind the Manner
41 which. our agacious enemy akled towards hrs
people, particularly towards his soldiery, to every one

of whom he occasionally , appwled, complimenting
then at once as th,. judgessofhs conduit, the means
of his success, and the,partakers of, his glory.. A. si-
milar, policy should govern this country. Every
Enlishman should be taught to feel a common in-
terest with his Country and its Legislature, and the
beat mode to encourage that feeling was by making
every, even the poorest Freeholder, an arbiter of the
condat of his'', Representative. But the obje& of
this Bill 'could be to deprive the greater part of the
poor Freeholders of this important right. If s;ich a
Bill were to pass, the effect would be to injure in-
dependent Candidates, to exclude distant Voters,
and to leave the fate of an ele&ion generally to the
decision .of•the mob ofthe town where it might take
place. Thns,the man who could best harangue the
mob would probably be the successful CatiOidate,-to
the exclusion of those independent men who were
most worthy. to be. Members, of Parliament—for
those who would not submit to great.trouble would
have 'no. ell,pnce of succeeding. Sir Edward Coke
had observed, that these men 'were most fit to be
Members of Parliament who did not care whether
they Were so or not—and if this Bill were. to be'
adopted, such men would, in all likelihood,' be ut-
terly excluded; for being prevented from paying for
the conveyance of Voters, being too proud to, can-
vass, aild•Unwilling to count the mere mob at the
Hustings, they would have but little chance of any
Voters at all.• •

. .
Mr. 211011RIS rose, and argued against the men-,
sure with 'considerable force and ingenuity : his oh-
.jedions were so radical, that no alterationor amend-
I
meta could reconcile him to, its adoption, and
therefore he felt this the proper stage to tbakte his
i
stand against it. If it were meant as a declaratory,
LaW to explain. the Aa of King William, he would
resist it as totally unnecessary ; and if meant to go
,f farther than that Ad, he would resist it as improper
I anal unjust. /The'giving meat and drink to voters'
. was already prohibited by the letter of the Statute
of William ; and there, in his judgment, the
-Law went far enough. If it proceeded the length.
of prohibiting the conveyance of voters at the ex-
pence of Candidates, he should sincerely regret it ;
and, among others, for the reasons stated by the
last Speaker. But it was urged, he understood, by
' the Right Hon. Mover of this Bill, whose speech. he
had not the good fortune to hear, that doubts. ex-
isted with, resped to the interpretation of 'the Law
upop the suaje& of Treating, and that therefore a
declaratory Law, was necessary.• Of tlie existence
of such doubts he was not at all aware. In the ,
Worcester case, alluded to by the Right lion. Geo-
tlernao, the argument of Counsel *as evidently
• mistaken' for,the decision of the Committee. . The
taint fa was, that subsequent to, that decision, Bill.
was brought in, as it professed, to remove doubts as
to the Treating Ad. That Bill found its way into
the ,House of Lords, where it was strongly repro-.
bated by Lord Mansfield, who very properly ob-
served, that the.multiplication of Statutes, instead of
adding to the strength of the Law, served to-impair
and weaken it. Such a .remark was always entitled
to 'Consideration, but particularly. where, 'as in this
' case, there was no ground-of neeessity. To prove
the necessity, however, souse endeavours had been
used' by referring to cases of doubt. Among thisse
cases:lpsWicli and Barnstaple had been referred to.
NOw the fad was, that in the former case the sub-
ject shads not, been at-all gohe :into, the EleCtion
having been declared void on other grounds ; and
as to, Barnstaple, the only appearance ,of doubt in
the construCtion of, the 4aw W[l,s by the Petitioners,
who stated, that if their opponent fiUd advanced'
money merely for the travelling expenses ofvoters,
they should not press the Committee to come to
any decision upon that. point. Such a statement,
however, could-avail nothing in arguing the ques-
tion before the House. These Petitioners . might
have declined to enter ilito discussion es to travelling
charges, havingprobably defrayed the same charges
on their own side. But their motive was of little
consequence. The question- was, whether, their
misconstrudion of the Law should. be , taken as- a
proof that any doubts existed as, to tIN fair interpre-
tation of that Law ; whether the mistakes of a ievir .
men as to the meaning of- the Law should be ad-
. mitted as evidence that the Law was doubtful, and
that a' declaratory. A& , was necessary, as was pre-
tended in the case before the House Whereas, in
reality, n 6 doubt existed upon this subject.' The 1
last decision upon the Heiefordshire case was quite
conclusive as -to Treating: The COnamittee there ,
had before them the proof of travelling charges
having been paid by' the' Candidate ; but their de- •
: termination was grohoded distinCtlyoapors this, that
tickets had been given to tlie voters tor meat and
. drink, :and this it was which they pronounced to,be,
within the meaning of the Treating Ad. Of course,
upon :than ground the Candidate was disqualified. .
So far as to the decisions of Committees with regard .f
to thii Law. Now, as to
.the proceedings in the
Cohrts respeeling it, there . were but.a - few cases.
From the actions, however, which were hroright by
Innkeepers against Candidates for the expenses-in-
curred at Elections contrary to, the Treating,AEt, it
appeared that stitch actions could not be kiaintamed: -
In the anion 'Brought against two WriNers of that
'House, ,l'ilessrs. Francis and Moore, Lord Kenyon
did
,not, to be sure, dired a nonsoit, because, very
properly as a .Thdge of Nisi. Prius, perceiving a look
of equity -in the claim, he referred it; at the same time
. pronoithciog an ,agteement which appeared to: have
been entered into by one of the Candidates to indemni-
fy theother fbr his eleation expences tb be totally ille-
gal; 'i because it pledged a. man to pay those expences.
which it was contrary to Law-to incur." There were
other.cases on the books which served to spew that
no doubts prevailed in the Cohrts helow upon
.the
• interpretation of ' the Treating ACI. The point was
. indeed conclusively deterimued by the decisien in-
the Court of Common Pleas, in/the case of Ribbons .
v. Crickett. Upon the whole then, it ,waYobvious
to his judgment that no 'doubt existed-as to the con-
strudion of the Treating Ad ; no Declaratory Lavi
necessary; and that a new law, such as that before
the House, would be highly improper, it required.
very little consideration to-prove. It was impossible'
to say what mischiefs would result from the' adop-
tion of such a Bill. , A vast number of Freeholders
would be disfranchised, not for any improper aft,
but merely in, consequence of their inability to de-
fray the expellee -of their conveyance to the hust-
ings. The . Right Honourable Mover was reported
to have said that the removal -of a voter irons the
:prase where his-right of voting lay was a matter of
oeetion—nt that was not the case. For the trades-

Man and the manufa&urer must go ,where his in-
dustry may meet employment—he must shift his
residence to follow the market. In many, if not
most, instances, the change of- residence on the part
of voters is not a matter of choice but of neces-
sity, 'oftentimes painful necessity, and yet this Bill
would aggravate such pain. - • In Comities the Right
Hon. Mover proposed the taking of the poll at differ-
ent- places, in order to obviate one of the most
glaring objections to his such a multiplica-
tion of polling places would be productive of con-
fusion and increased expence even to the Candidate.
Furthermore, he would object to such a proposition,
Because he liked the publicity in which a Freeholder
now gave his vote—in the face of the . County and
of the Candidate. With regard to the independence
of 40s. Freeholders Ms opinion was, that from the
general diffusion of industry and its produetive ca-
pacity, Freeholders of that class possessed as much •
independence of mind as any other description of •
persons. To -deprive a great body of such men, as
this Bill would tend to, of the exercise of their ele&ive
franchise, would 'serve to produce a disposition to •
listlessness and langour among the people, than
which nothing was,more to be dreaded—for nothing '
would be better calculated to 'facilitate the subjuga-
tioreof the Country and to lead to despotism. ;The
French scarcely valued such a thing as the ele6tive
franchise—but any man who had 'ever seen art.
ele&ion in thiscountry`must be sensible; how dif-
ferent the feeling which prevailed among,English-
men—chew eagerly they crowded to the hustings,
and bow little they :Wee in a state to pe reconciled
to • the 'relinquishment pf a right they so highly
prized. He , Was glad to think on the estimation
in which the'People held this important privilege,
and'was always happy to perceive the. enthusiasm
whieh prevailed at popular eleEtions. Since such
scenes had been freed from the tumult and intoxi-
cation • which formerly disgraced them,, the enthu-
siam'displayed must-tie observed .with pleasure by
every man who loved popular libertyc—who' felt as
an Englishman, -The Learned Gentleman conclud- •
ed with stating that he could not coeceive the least
mischief likely to arise to thefreedomof eleCtion
merely from the Candidates paying the expence in-
curred by the carriage of poor voters to the hust-
ing-s;.'while very great evil -was to be apprehended,
if, by disqualifying Candidates for merely defrayincr-
stich expences, a - vast number of voters should be
prechided from the exercise of their frahchise.
Mr. FR/INCIS corrected the statement of-the
Learned Gentleman with regard to the case in' which
his name was ietroduced. He assured the Learned
Gentleman that his information was unfounded, as
no such agreement as that alluded to had ever taken!
place between himself and his Hon. Friend, Mr.
`Moore. 'ln that case, indeed, Lord Kenyon did
We utmost in his power against the DefetAants,
who had to pay full costs, &c. No ohithion was
taken to the Plaintiff's demand on any other ground
than-to its quantity. For whatever the law might
be on the subject, 'he should -in faro conscievia feel
hilnself bound to discharge the claim if it were not
enermeus in its ametint—as the result proved. when
the plaintiff was finally settled v. ith.
,With regard,
to-the- Bill before the House, he wondered that
such an idea as the disfranchisement of any body of
the Freeholders could enter into the mind of the
Right -Hon. Mover of this Bill. He thought his
Right von. Friend did not at all meditate such a,
thing, although such would be the particular result
of his
_proposition. 'ln coneunCtion with his Right
Min:Friend lie—remembered to have fought many
battles in the 'cause of Parliamentary Reform—and
he recolle&ed.thet one of the strongest admonitions
of the Society (the Friends of the People) with
which they acted was—" Not is forget their Prin-
ciples in Prosperity:" Though to be sure if
(Mr. F.) were to' forget his principles, they were
not likely to be driven into oblivion by
prosperity.
But to return to the Association he alluded
great obje& notoriously was to extend the right of
voting to every species of property, but farther than
that not to go. There were many, no doubt, who
would go farther—but he was not one. -He was,
perhaps, censidere'd too moderate,. for he was ale
ways adverse to universal sUffrage, because the, idea
of such a change struck him to be extremely absurd,
and the danger enormous. To be sure this idea had
now grown out of fashion. But even when it was
in some degree popular, his opinion uniformly was,
that power must attach to property, and therefore that
nothing could be gained 'by the change proposed.
For if power were tbansferred from men of -pro- -
pertx to the populace,„ the 'property would soon fol-
low the power. could never,- indeed, reconcile
to his mind that any men who walked the street that
were cbitimey-sweepers' and 'coachmen should have
a right to Vote. In tie t; ',that valuable right was
never carried to such; ari extreme in any Nation.—
Even in the Roman, Republia there were two classes
of men Who were excluded from all civil privileges,
excepting only the prote&ion of the law ; the one
were the capita censi,' who.were merely reckerie&
upon, for servile work ; and the
.other prolatorii,
who were deemed fit only to get children. Ex-
- clusien•froth the privileges of the People_bad .
ways existed in ail well regulated communities; and
they were properfor the security both of
freemen and property. Reverting from the-measure
now under-discussion; the Hon.. Gentleman express-
ed his surprise' that his Right Hon. Friend should ‘1
bring forward a proposition •so eontradieory to the -
principle to which he had alluded; respeding the ex-
tension of the right of• voting, to every species of
property. If it were the -obje&-of the Right Hon.
Gentleman to deprive the 40s. Freeholders of their '
right of' votingeand 'to confine that rightlo all Free- •
holders above 301. he should at once avow it, and
in which he would have a great contradiction to re—
concile ; this Bill was of sech'a nature as to give '
some gound for suspicion; and_if the Right Hon.
Gentleman did not, really entertain the intention al-
lude'd to, he should not leave himself open to rnii--
constrtaion.. ' • •
Mr. Moults eXplained.
. Mr. TIERNEY disclaimed the slightest intention
of proposing to disfranchise any Freeholders under •
301:2 On the contrary, if a proposition of that na-
ture were brought forware he would be among the
first_ to oppose it: ,
Mr. W. DtmnAs and Mr. J9I-INSTON-E disapprov.
ed of any change •in the pee deal systen of the'
Constitution.

Mr. LEIGH copSidered this.a rneasure, "rihe,ap-
propriate'title of which would be " A Bilt to lege i
'the. number a Voters." It 'was calculated, h

~',

•)

• .
thought,. to _deprive .a class of meteor the' right et,:
voting; who, although poor, were capable of exer- •
rising-that right as independently and as free from
Corruption as persons of affluence: He could never,
relish the. idea of disfranchising a man for his povcr-.
tY, and that would be the efrea of this Bill. In
fah},' the proportion of Freeholders which it would
disfranchise would be enormous. In .COyentry alone
upon a Committee with- respe& to which he was
With the Right Hon. Mover, the Freemen disfran-
chised by such a measure, who reside in Lenden, •
Would amount to several thousands.• Another ob- •
leaion he had to the measure before the House
Was, that it proceeded upon 'a principle of partial
Legislation, by enacting one law .for EnglaOd and
leaving the law of Ireland upon the sarrf subje& in
statu quo. The law, ought,• in his -opinion, to be in
all cases general, as far. as was consistent with the .
difference of local_ circumstances.
Sir R. BUXTONentreated the House notlightly
to reject a measure which •he thought perfealy con-
genial with the spirit of the British Constitution.—
According to the 'principles of. that Constitution a
man should come into that House free and hide-
Pendent, and the constituent who sent him there
Should be free and independent also. Now the
former could not be so if he were to •pay an enor-
mous sum of money for his- eleaion—enor could the
latter be so if he were to receive money for hiavote;
and disguise it as Gentlemen please, the expence of
carriage was\ a species of payment to the votere—e-
there was a .time when, instead of Members pay-
ing -for their election, they were paid for their at-
tendance.; and' he • would be glad to see the same
praaiee. again—(a laugh). The. Honourable Ba-:
ronet repented hiS wish. Members would be likely
to.enter that House not with a view to derive any
emoluments frorri the State, but for the benefit of
the Country.
Mr. G. ROSE said, that he never understood it
to be the fixed general Opinion of the La,vyers, thit
defraying the travelling: charges of the Voters was
not a violation -of the Treating Aa. All dqubts
Upon this'subje& would be removed, by the measure
under discussion. He trusted that the House would
Pause before-. they rejected such a proposition, and
begged.them to consider that if the expence of car-
riages were allowed, it was nonsense to suppose that
refreshment and treating' by the way would not fol..
low ; also whether compensation for loss of time,
Ville!' would lead to complete bribery, might not be
the ne:tt proposition.
Mr. COURTENAY remarked, upon the purity
of, the principle and the refinement of the notion
Xtvhich the House had witnessed in the -Speech of
The Hon. Baronet over the via*, and the Right Hon'.
Gentleman who had just followed kin. rteally'those
two Gentlemen were not only so pure themselves,
but they seemed to think they were addressing them- •
Selves, to an angelic audience. No doubt the Hon.
liaronet came into that House with the purest and
most disinterested views, and had nothing in view
but the good of his Country--and the Right Hon.
Gentleman who followed him was inspired with
equal purity, and equally discarding' very considera-
tion but that of patriotistn. 'T hat Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated, that it was nonsense to suppose
that a voter would go from one place to another to
give his vote without receiving something more than
the law would allow. No doubt the Right Hon.
(3-ehtleman spoke from his experience.. He was, it
Haight be presumed, tolerably competent to judge
Upon such a subjea—and so, perhaps, Were: others
also. /I in reality, every Candidate were disqualified
Who paid the travelling expence of poor Voters to
the hustings, nay, something more, the Right Hon.
Gent. would admit, that the benches on both sides
Would be rather thinned. :Far himself, he would say,
that he did not-like this extreme solicitude to exclude.
the peor•from the gratification usually enjoyed at.
popular 'Eleaions. They seldom had such 'oppor-
tunitiese and when they offered they ought not to
be shut out from 'them, merely on the pretence of
seeking for 'purity.. Ile could not approve of the
• ease of a filtering stone to clear away all the mud of
povert), vulgar mirth, Elec. from popular Eleaions,
and let nothing but the PURE water of affluence,
good order, &c. trickle.. down to invigorate the Mem-
bers of that House.---The Right Hon. Mover had
said, that he would not introduce a Bill -to disquae
lify Freeholders under 301. But it would not per
haps be amiss to call to mind, that the Bill of
Henry VI. confining the right of voting to freeholds
of 40s. • was itself a Bill of disoualification ; and. it'
Was one advantage resulting from the depreciation
of money, that the obje& of that disqUaliftcation Law
had in a great measure beeti defeated. But to re-
turn to the Bill before the House, which he felt it
his duty to resist; notwithstanding the high degree
of regard which he entertained for his Right Hon.
:Friend with whom it originated, he should get rid of
it with'a couplet of Drtyden's, which was applied in
the days of Charles 11. to a measure similarly cal-
culated to interfere with the popular enjoyments at
tleetions—
., Where every man enjoys •
His liberty, his property, and noise."
Capt. HERBERT disapproved of the Bill, be-
cause it .have the effea of disfranchising by
much the • greater portion of the Electors of this
Country-e--natnely; all those who resided at a distance
from the place of election. This Bill, if it passed iu
' its present state, would have the effea, in a great
County, of making it the Ele&ion, not of the Coun-
ty at large, but of the County Town ; and instead
of operating in faVour of Gentlemen of small for-
tune getting into that House, aS the Right Hon.
Mover alledged, would completely defeat - that
end, if they resided in any remote part of the Coun-
ty, by depriving them of the power of bringing
forward their friends.
Mr. FOX rose to assure his Right Hon. Friend
\who brought in the Bill that his voting for the Bill's
going into a Committee by no means proceeded from
his obje&ions to the Bill being done away, but from
a desire to see if it might not be there rendered more
palatable, if not entirely acri:ceable to the wishes of
Gentlemen on all. sides. t',lt was not for him to
Pay, whether it might ,be possible to do away the
objeftions which had been alluded to by the Hon.
lember who spoke last, - and by another Hen.
Member behind him (Mr. Morris). if these should
filet be removed, lie could not ultiMately -vote for
the Bill

. .
• Mr.,FULLER thought when they had the high
2lithoritiee of the Lords Chief Justices of the King's
tench ar.d Common Pleas ae,intr counter to each
other, it was but proper that all dQubt6 on the sub-
jee. should be rear.;:ed.

Mr.,LE:CESTERW.,,Isi to Dui tho 14ouse right
as to the supposed Coutrariety :A_ opinion between
the jedgMents of .the too Courts. 'the decision in
the Common, Pleas was the only one that could
be
calculated op, as th-at in the King'S Bench, which was
not a solemn Judgment, bin merely a verdi& at Nisi
Priu, did not at all proceed on the Aft of King
William, but was founded on the Statute of George
11. imposing penalties, where the Judge necessarily
left'it to the Jury to find Quo 'Mina), the 301. was

given.
The ATTORNEY-GE. NERAL hoped to be for-
given while he in as few words as possible stated the
situation in which the law of the case at present
stood. The only instance in which a solemn de-
ciSion on the point had taken place was that before
alluded to, in the Court of Common Pleas, in which
the law was laid down as stated by his Right Hon.
Friend who introduced the Bill ; as towhat had
passed at Nisi Prius, that he did not 'pretend to
know. .And as to the state of the praCtices before the
Committees of the House of Commons, that, he
copfessed had been in general contrary to the deci-
sion of the Court of Common Pleas. He had had
considerable prhaice in matters of that kind, and he
had seen several Committees find that the providing
of carriages to. Electors who resided at a distance, or
supplying them with the means of providing such
carriages, were not violations of the A& of King
William: Other Cominittees he had seen find, that
supporting such EleCtors while absent from home,
and enabling them to return to the place from
whence they Came, were also not to be esteemed as
filling under the Aer. For 20 years, he was certain,
that had been the general plan pursued by Commit-
tees. That was, to say, Elections were not declared
void on account of such practices. But the difficulty
had always been what was properly to be ascribed to
those motives, and if under the pretence of such al-
lowance, any corruption had been exercised. Where
no such excess was found,, the fads already stated
were not esteemed grounds on which the Eledtions
should be declared void. ThiS was an extremely sin-
gular state of the law between our Courts of Jus-
tice and our
.Parliamentary Judicature. In the,
Courts of Law an aCtion for these expences could
not be entertained ; in our Parliamentary Judicature-
they were held to be perleally legal. He he in-
deed sequ Committees who thought otherwise, and
who had esteemed such furnishings to come within
the Statute of William. But what mu4s. be the case
of the Candidate in such an uncertain state of mat-
ters ?—Or what could a person to whom ..he ap-
plied for advice say to him ?—He might tell him—
I cannot advise you, the general turn of the opi-
nion of the Committees' is so and so—that, by the
/I.ei of King William, it was, at least, extremely
questionable how far he was intitled to grant any of
those furnishings—but still he could give him no
precise advice by which he might not be injured
either in a Court of Law or by a Parliamentary Ju-
dicature. Miserable, in such 'a state as this, must
the case of the Candidate be. For these reasons he
wished the Bill might be, allowed to go through a
Committee, where it would be in the power of the
House to determine the general rule, or admea-
surement by 'which conveyances for Ele&ors was
to be regulated. He could -t ot approve of the
Bill as it now stood. If it were to be laid down, that
a Canditate, by conveying an Ele&or on a coach-box
from tae place of his residence to the scene of the
election forfeited his seat, he should esteem it, not
the disfranchisement of the Electors, but of the
Candidates.
Mr. TIERNEY replied to all the Members who
had thrown.out any ohjeaions to the Bill, princi-
pally recapitulating what he had said on a former
night.
Lord PORCHESTER opposed the Bill ; when the
House divided on the Question for the Second Read-
ing-7-Ayes-73—Noes7— 7—Majority 57.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed.
Sir J. Stricemit moved, that there be laid before
the House an Account of all Grants already made
out of the Forfeited Estates in Scotland.—Or-
dered.
Also an Account of all Balances arising from the
said Estates,. with the interest due thereon, and
the Persons in whose , hands the same are.—
Ordered.,
Mr. HUDDLESTONE was about to bring forward a
Motion for Papers, when
The SPE,AIiER informed him, that he understood
it now to be settled by the House, till they, should
instru& him otherwise,' that notice of all Motions
for produaion of Papers must be given, except in
the following cases—ist, Where annual and other
ordinary Accounts were to be moved for=r-2dly,
Where any of His Majesty's Ministers moved for
Papers on the PublieService—and, 3dly, Where any
Papers were inoved,for of which premonition had
been made to the Department by which the produc-
tion was to he, made, and no obje&ion was made.
Beyond these lie understood it to be the rule of the
House that a notice -was necessary.
After some explanation, Mr. HUDDLESTONE gave
notice of a Motion for Tuesday for Papers relative to
the Affairs 3f Ousle.
Mr. W. Smux brought up the Report of the
Committee to whom the Petition of Messrs. Chal-
rrierE and Cowie was referred ; which was ordered to
lie on the Table, anti to be printed.
The proper_Officer presented the first Report of
the Commissioners of Military Inquiry ; which was
ordered to lie on the Table, and be, printed.—
Adjourned.

i'XICE OF STOCKS
THIS DAY AT TWELVE O'CLOCK.
Conso6 - - - - -

MAILS.
ARRIVED--1 Gottenburgh, 4 Waterford. nvE— i Lisbon,
Dublin, z Watertotti. '

TII E S

80LIGH Q.UIS DICERE AUDEAT ?

L J N 1) 0 N; •

SATURDAY, INIARCH 22, :1806.

NOTI GE-was this day given at the Stock Exchange
that the persOns who mean to bid for the Loan should
attend -the Cli4N CELL 0 R of the EXWEGLITER on Tues-
day nexty in order to knew the terms upon which
the biddiags are to take place.