The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-15 00:00:00

VOTE BY BALLOT.

Mr. HODGE S presented several petitions from the West-
ern Division of the County of Kent, in favour of Vote by Bal-
lot, and a similar petition from the Eastern Division of the
same county.
Mr. WILLIAMS presented four petitions from parishes
in the county of Carmarthen, in favour of the Vote by Bal-
lot. The Hon. Member said that one of the petitions was
signed by sixty-four out of sixty-seven electors, and another
stated that during the last election they had been subject to
coercion and intimidation, and strongly urged the House to
prevent a recurrence of such practices.
Colonel SALWEY presented petitions from Stone-ward,
Castle-ward, and Welsh-ward, in the borough of Shrewsbury,
praying for Vote by Ballot. The first was signed by 156
persons, the second by 189, and the third by 128. The Hon.
Member said, that entertaining a strong belief that Vote by
Ballot would be the means of diminishing corruption, he had
great pleasure in presenting these petitions to the House.
Captain WE Al YSS presented a petition from Fifeshire in
favour of the Vote by Ballot ; also a petition in favour of Mr.
Hill's plan of Post-office Reform.
Sir W. SOME R VILLE presented a petition from the
town of Drogheda in favour of Vote.by Ballot.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from Shefferton, in
Bedfordshire, in favour of Vote by Ballot; also a petition
from a numerous body of the inhabitant householders of Guis-
borough,
in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The petitioners
prayed for Vote by Ballot, and also for an Extension of the
Suffrage, and they complained of the great bribery and cor-
ruption that had prevailed at the last general election.
Mr. W. DUNCOMBE begged to ask the Hon. Member
whether the petition referred to the late election for the North
Riding of Yorkshire.
Mr..W A KL EY said if the Hon. Member wished it, the pe-
tition might be read at length by the Clerk. There was a ge-
neral charge of corruption during the late elections, which no
one would venture, he believed, to deny. The Hon. Member
then presented a petition from St. George's and St. Giles's,
Bloomsbury, in favour of the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. ETWALL presented a petition from Andover to the
same effect.
Mr. B A RNA R D presented a petition from Deptford against
the Negro Apprenticeship System.
Mr. DIVETT presented a petition from the city of Exeter,
signed by 1,600 inhabitants of that city, in favour of the Vote
by Ballot.
Lord HENNIKER presented a petition from the ship-
owners of Southwold, praying that the Shipping Gazette
might be transmitted free of postage.
Colonel DAVIS presented a petition from Worcester, in
favour of the Vote by Ballot.
Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from Monmouth,
signed by 880 individuals, in favour of the abolition of Negro
slavery.
Lord CHARLES RUSSELL presented a petition from a
cins s
ut hned countyer7l.
a-
yoef a
r Bedford,might
be ppraaiydi nbgy
tthheatl
atnhdel 0
rrda
ste. s o n
cP
°a
rtArti fas rig'. MILES presented a petition from Somerset to the
same effect.
Mr. BARNEBY presented a petition praying that the
Housethe
andMan.for Bishopric
Mr. SANDFORD presented petitions from two parishes
in the county of Somerset, praying for the vote by Ballot.
Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from the clergy of
Berks and other places, against the suppression of the
Bishopric of Sodor and Man.
Mr. WALKER presented petitions from the merchants
and shipowners of Wexford, praying for a reduction of the
duty on Marine Insurances, Corporate Reform, and the Vote
by Ballot.
Captain MIND A S presented a petition in favour of the
Vote by Ballot.
\
Lord SANI)ON presented a petition from Liverpool, prny-
ing fur a reduction of the rates of postage.—Referred to the
Committee on the Post-office.

Mr. PEASE presented a petition from Enniscorthy, and
other places, praying the House to adopt measures for the
purpose of doing away with the Negro apprenticeship system.
CALL OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HINDLE Y gave notice that he should to-morrow
move a Cali of the House on the debate upon the Poor Laws
next Tuesday.
EXTENSION OF THE SUFFRAGE.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Bo!ton-le- Moo! s and its vicinity, in the County Palatine of Lan-
caster. It wa‘ signed by 4,800 persons, and the petitioners stated
they had been accustomed to look on the Reform act as an ex-
perimental measure, which from time to time would recitire-to-lacr
amended, to keep pace with the improved condition of society.
They had waited patiently in the hope that the House would effect
those reforms that were considered necessary ; and that they
had learned with regret those amendments had virtually been
denied by the recont declaration of Lord John Russell.
They considered that the principle of a property qualification
ought, if admitted at all, to be carried out; and that all house-
holders should be entrusted with the franchise.
CRINDING FOREIGN FLOUR IN BOND.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG presented a petition from merchants,
millers, and factors, sta'ing thnt they could prove that the
landed interests had sustained an immense loss in consequence
of refusing to admit foreign corn to be ground in bond ; and
praying the House to grant an inquiry into the subject, and to
pass a Bill, of which notice had already been given by an Hon.
Member, for admitting foreign corn to be ground in bond.
IRELAND.—BALLOT—UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

Mr. O'CONNII.I. presented a number of petitions from
various parts of Ireland in favour of the Ballot, the extinction
of Tithes, and the extension of the Suffrage. Also a peti-
tion from the fishermen on the Suir, complaining of encroach-
ments on their privileges.
BALLOT.
Sir H. VERNEY gave notice that he should not move,
on the motion of the Iron. Member fur London (Mr. Grote)
for the Ballot, an amendment, that it be experimental, and nut
permanent ; because it would prevent the opinion of the Howe
from being taken on the Ballot. If, however, the motion was car-
ried for the Ballot, he should move an instruction to the Com-
mittee to the off. ct he had stated. If not, he should give
notice of a motion for establishing the Ballot pro hoc vice, as
an experiment.
Mr. PRY NIE presented petitions from the towns of
Bolton and Chester, in favour of the Ballot.
LONGFORD ELECTION.

Mr. CA YLE Y, the Chairman of the Committee appointed
to try the merits of the Longford Election petition, appeared at
the bar with the report of the Committee, which declared the
sitting Members, Luke White and Henry White, Esqrs., duly
elected, and that neither the petition or the opposition to it was
frivolous or vexatious. The Hon. Member said he was further
instructed by the Committee to report, that although they felt
the fullest confidence as to the justice of their own decision
against opening the registry in Ireland, they could not but
perceive with regret the many conflicting decisions which
had been given on this point, and begged to call the early atten-
tion of the House to a matter of such pressing importance.
The, lion. Member also presented two petitions to the same
effect from the counties of Armagh and Galway. The Hon.
Member presented a petition from an individual named
of Manchester-buildings, Westminster, who stated
tShtaehtPfoernseveral years he hid paid great attention to the Poor-
la‘is at Mile-cnd and in Essex, and he prayed the House not
to make any alteration but what would improve the Bill.
He stated several facts in support of the prayer of the petition,
in which be (Mr. Cayley) entirely concurred, and which he
considered deserving the attention of the House. The peti-
tion was referred to the Poor-law Committee.
on from an indivi-
dualeMr. CRESWELL presented a petition from Liverpool,
complaining of the high rate of postage, and praying that a
lossr .
i named
r ‘ateAe
mightKi sIN
b Goulburn,e substitutedo
onthe presented
subject
a
foru b
jc
it.
e
irpt
titiwhich was ordered to be printed with the Votes.
of the French claims,lot.
mr. LA NIBTON presented petitions from the counties of
Durham and NorthumberCANADAland, in favour of the Vote by
Ballot.

Mr. lIU -I
1 E gave notice that on Tuesday next he would
for copies of all letters that had passed between Messrs.
movellume' Roebuck, and others in Great Britain, and Mons.
Papi,i,au M Kenzie, and Dr. Duncombe in Canada.—
ies of " Henr, hear.")
(Loud cr SLIGO ELECTION.
The Order of the Day for the further con-dderation of the
P P. Somers, Esq., having been read,
SHFIELD contended that the preliminary
objection fiZwjE.hich had been taken to the petition could
Ileri. 1
n
ttNilt° b ?‘
sustained ; and he would show that the
by the lion. Member for Roscommon. In one
tice of the ,
house had been contrary to that
a petition bad been signed by six persons, and it was
admitted by a witness, whom the sitting Member intended to
all, Oct the pm tition was not bona fide, but had been signed
act the instance of others. The Committee, however, had de-
cided that, with respect to the five to whom that charge ap-
plied, tliey were not petitioners; but, as a witness had seen
the sixth petitioner within two days of the sitting of the
when the petitioner had expressed his hopeb that
Committee,
petition would succeed, that was held by the House
the
i-icirsgatc6a'necsteed
to be a sufficient interest in the subject.—( Hear, hear.)
In the Nottinghan case a similar judgment Was entertained.
In two cases objections were made that there was not a suffi-
cient description in the petition of the character in which the
petitioner claimed to have the right to petition, and in those
cases the Committee decided that inasmuch as the petitioa

had been received by the House, they were bound to proceed
upon it ; and they therefore decided against the preliminary
objection. Mr. Fox afterwards in that House, upon petition,
having seen a defect, moved that the petition should
not be proceeded upon. A long debate took placo.
The Attorney-General objected to the House taking
the discussion, on the ground that the subject was one for the
consideration of an Election Committee, and the House de-
cided in favour of Mr. Fox's motion. He would not detain
the House further, except to say that if ever there was a case
that was proper to be brought before an Election Committee
it was where the signatures were disputed, because the House
did not allow election petitions to proceed, unless they were
properly subscribed.
Mr. F. FRENCH was sure that the Hon. Member oppo-
site would do him the justice to say that he had made no
such statements as he had alluded to. He had never
stated that a Committee could not take cognizance of tha sig-
natures to a petition. He was quite aware of the Nottingham
case, and of the other cases to which the Ilon. Member had
referred ; but he felt satisfied that the proper course to adopt
was to bring the subject under the consideration of the House.
Mr. W. W. WYNN said that it appeared to him that the
present was not only an investigation which a Select Com-
mittee might entertain, but he thought the House was
absolutely bound to send the subject to such a tribunal.
Nothing could be gained by an inquisition before the House.
The Committee was to be balloted for to-morrow, and it must
at once take cognizance of the allegations made against the
genuineness of the signatures. If it was not the petition of
the parties, then the Committee would give the sitting Mem-
ber the costs of his defence.
Mr. O'CONNEL I, thought the petition had better be
referred to a Select Committee, because the whole House
would be as clumsy a jury as it was possible to invent.—
( llear, hear, and laughter.) He himself had never desired to
be a judge.—( Renewed laughter.) If the signsture
was not the signature of Mr. Tyler, an elector, but the
signature of somebody else who had assumed the name
of Tyler, it was a signature that could not be recognised.
If the matter were referred to a Select Committee, the real
merits of the case would be thoroughly investigated.
The SPEAKER thought it would be admitted by all
parties, that if an individual's name was forged in any
petition presented to the House, that was a breach of the pri-
vileges of the House ; and if a petition was presented to the
House containing such an allegation, it stated that which the
House would recognise as a breach of privilege. This was a
petition on which discussion could not be refused, inasmuch as
it complained of a breach of privilege; but it was a very different
matter when looked at in connection with the Grenville Act, be-
cause, according to the Grenville Act, no cognizance could be
taken of an election petition, except by law, as Minis-
terial—for the purpose of transmitting the petition to
the tribunal appointed by law for deciding on the
petition. If it was laid on the table without any no-
tice at the time, it was afterwards looked at for the purpose
of ascertaining on whom notice of it had been served, and the
House fixed a day on whijh it should be taken into consideration.
If a Committee found that the name of one individual was
forged in a petition, they would report that circumstance to
the House ; and on the report being made to the House,
a Select Committee would probably be appointed, before
which evidence on oath might be taken, to establish
the fact. If a Committee found that all the names were for-
geries, they could not proceed to try a petition which was not
signed according to the provisions of the Act. The House was
in this case placed in this situation. On the one hand a peti-
tion was presented, discussion upon which could not be refused ;
and on the other band it was a great inconvenience to have
such a petition discussed within forty-eight hours of the sitting
(we believe) of the Electron Committee.
Mr. FRENCH said it had always been the usual course, in
cases of this nature, to refer them to a Select Committee.

Mr. W. W. WYNN wished to explain that neither
directly nor indirectly had he any communication with
the Honourable Member for Sligo, or with any other
Honourable Member, as to the course which he pursued;
for he was not aware that the question would come on, and
did not therefore come down to the House till near six o'clock.
He would not have taken the objection, but that he felt a judi-
cial question of this kind ought not to be left to the considera-
tion of the House, and that he was bound to state the point as
it occurred to him at the time.

Colonel PERCE VAL felt it his duty to state, for the
information of his Honourable Friend the Member for Ros-
common, and for the information of the House, that he
never was more astonished than by the speech of the
Honourable Member for Penryn, and never regretted
anything more than that he should have interrupted
the course of proceeding last night, or indeed that any propo-
sition of the kind should emanate from that side of the House.
He felt, however, that there was a difficulty in bringing this
matter before a Select Committee ; and for this reason he was
anxious that the witnesses should be called to the bar of the
House, and a decision given upon it forthwith. He hope d
that his Hon. Friend did not think that he was capable of
going about to canvass Hon. Members, to screen him against
the consequences of any proposition which he thought proper
to make to the House.

Mr, WARBURTON hoped the flon. Member would
withdraw the petition, as he thought it would be a far more
convenient course for the Election Committee to decide upon
the question at issue.
Lord MORPETII concurred with his lion. Friend, that
if the Election Committee had a jurisdiction to inquire into
the signatures of the petition, that the matter had better bo
referred to it,

Mr. P. FRENCH said, that as it seemed to be the
wish of the House, he would withdraw his motion.—(Loud
cries of " No, nu," from the Tory benches.) As he had been
advised to do so by so many Members, he hoped the House
would allow him.—(Cries of " No, no," " Divide, divide,"
from the Tories.)
Mr, Sergeant JACKSON hoped the house would not
allow the motion to be withdrawn, " as we" (said the Hon.
and Learned Member) " are prepared to prove the genuine.
ness, by witnesses who saw every witness sign the petition,
arid the inquiry would not take ten minutes."
Mr. W. W. WYNN moved that the Order be discharged ;
wh.ch being seconded, the House ided—
For discharging the order
Against it
Majority against discharging the order —l4
Mr. WARLIURTON thought th greatest inconvenience
would arise from adopting the course proposed. The deci-
sion of the Election Committee would be that on which the
final judgment would turn. He entirely agreed in all the
objections urged by the two Hon. Members opposite, and wished
again to point out the inconvenience which alight at ise from
having two contradictory decisions—one of the House, and
the other of the Committee. He therefore moved that the
witnesses be not called in.—( Cries of " Question," and
" Divide."

Mr: FRENCH trusted the Hon. Member for l3ridport
(Mr. Warburton) would not persist in his motion. The in-
convenience would not be exactly as he had stated, for if the
House decided these names to be forgeries, the petition would
fall to the ground.—( Hear. )
Mr. WYNN believed it would not fall to the ground.—
( Hear, hear.)

Mr. FRENCH said a few words amidst loud cries of
" Question."

Mr. O'CONNELL thought it would be a waste of the
time of the House to divide again. He submitted to the deci-
sion which had taken place.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WYNN said the House had made an Order,' and
if it was not acquiesced in, the greatest inconvenience might
arise hereafter.—( Hear.) The great inconvenience he
ap-
prehended was, that if the Houso determined that the signa-
tures were not forgeries, a Select Committee might then
en-
quire
into the matter, and afterwards report that they were
forgeries.—( Cries of" Question.")
The SPEAKER then dheeted the Serjeant-at-Arms to
inquire if the witnesses were in attendance, and shortly after-
wards the witness appeared at the bar.
The SPEAKER—What is your naroc 7—Michael Gallagher.
What is your station in life 7.—A merchant.
By Mr. F. FRENCH—Where do you reside?—in the
town of Sligo.
How long have you lived there ?—I have always resided
there : I was born in Sligo.
I suppose for 20 or 30 years ?—For 30 years.
Do you know Robert George Tyler 7—Yes.
Have you known him long?—_l suppose for seventeen or
eighteen years.
Can you tell me, is he an elector fur the borough of Sligo 7-
-Yes, I know him to be so.

Is there any other person resident in Sligo of the name of
George Robert 'Tyler?-1 know there is not.
Are you acquainted with the handwriting of George Robert
Tyler ?—I have seen him write frequently. I have been a
party concerned in deeds with him.
[The three petitions were then brought by the Clerk froz
the tab!e, and handed to the ttitness.]
Is that the petition of the 27th_that you have in your hand ?
—Yes it is.

Is that petition signed in the handwriting of George Ro-
bert Tyler ?—I don't think it is ; it is not in the style of Mr.
Tyler's handmiting. There is a peculiarity in the way in
which he writes the letter G in George. In making that let-
ter he brings up the hair stroke so as to form the top of the
letter I'.

Mr. O'CONNELL—Is that the way in which he always
writes it ?—Yes, always. This is different to what I over saw
him write.

Mr. F. FRENCH—Have you in your posses,ion any docu-
ment to which the name of Mr. Tyler is signed ?—Yes, I have
a legal instrument in my possession.
Have you any letters ?_Ycs.
I suppose you have them ready to produce ?—Yes, I have.
Well then will you ba good enough to produce them ?
,Ir. Sergeant JACKSON objected to the production of
the letters, on the ground that they were not legitimate evidence.
The witness was ordered to withdraw, and
Mr. Sergeant JACK SON again made his objection.
Mr. O'CONNEL L could nut but remark, that when any
objections were made to the reception of evidence, it was always
made against the justice of the case, and was thrown out for
the purpose of preventing that light being thrown upon the
case which its production would have afforded. It certainly
was a principle of law that handwriting was not to be
proved by comparison. The witness had given his belief
that the handwriting was not that of Mr. Tyler. That was
the only evidence that could be given to negative the
handwriting. The only way to get at legal
.evidence
with respect to the handwriting, was by the witness
comparing in his own mind one handwriting with the other.
—(Hear, hear.) The witness had done so, and he now
proposed to give the House the same opportunity of judging
which he had himself, namely, by the production of the deeds
and documents, which are undoubtedly in the hand-writing of
Mr. Tyler. He saw no objection to the House arriving at a
proper proof by allowing the witness to produce tho docu-
mentsin his possession.

Mr. WOUL FE thought ti:at the witness ought to be al-
lowed to produce the documents.
Mr. LITTON would like to hear from the Speaker what
course in his opinion ought to be pursued. A witness ought
not to arrive at a belief as to handwriting from a mere com-
parison of two documents—though there was no doubt he had
a right to assist his recollection by it.
Mr. F. FRENCH rose amidst loud cries of "Go on."
He wanted to know from the Chair what he was to do. He
had never intended to look at the signatures, and then form
his belief. He was the witness to the document, and
would prove the handwriting of Mr. Tyler to it. The House
would then compare them, and form their own opinion.
The witness was again called to the bar.
Mr. FRENCH.—What is that paper you are prepared to
produce?-_A renewal of a lease.
By whom is it witnessed?—l am a party to it. I saw Mr.
Tyler put his signature to it. I was present on the occasions
being a party to this deed.
In reply to questions by Mr. WARBURTON, the witness
further stated that the date on the back of the petition, td
which the name; which he believed not to be in Mr. Tyler's
waiting, was affixed, was the 27th of November, 1837.
To Mr. O'CONNELL—Mr. Tyler was about 48 years of
age ; and be had not seen him write since 1835.
To Mr. JACKSON—The same individual might write
differently at different times; but he did not think that there
would be a difference between a signature on parchment and
on paper—at least he did not perceive it.
To Mr. FRENCH—The deed of attornment which he held
was on parchment.
The witness then, in reply to further questions from Mr.
FRENCH, deposed that the signature of Mr. Tyler on the
petition of the 12th of December, 1837, and that on the peti-
tion of the 21st also, was in his handwriting, or at all events
much more like it than that on the one of the 27th of Novem-
ber. He then proceeded to explain the peculiarity of Mr.
Tyler's handwriting, and stated, in reply to question; put by
Sir W. FOLLETT, that his disbelief of the contested signa-
ture's authenticity arose from the circumstances of the want of
connection between the last letter of the second Christian narae
of that gentleman and the first letter of his sirname, as we',l as
from the entire name being written in a more cramped. stylo
than that employed by him.
The witness then handed in some notes on business which
he had received at various times from Mr. Tyler, to serve as a
guide to the House in any comparison it might institute in the
course of the inquiry.
In reply to a question put by Mr. LITTON, the witness
went on to say that he had heard of the allegation of forgery
against the petition in December last, while he was in Ireland;
and that, though part of the time a resident in the same town,
Sligo, as Mr. Tyler, and though he had had letters from Mr.
Somers, the sitting Member, and his agent, to call on Mr.
Tyler on the subject, he had not done so, because he did not
meet him during his stay there.—The witness then withdrew.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON then inquired whether the Hon.
Member for Roscommon intended to call any more witnesses;
and, being answered in the negative, moved that John Lockett
be called to the bar on the part of the defence.
John Lockett being called to the bar, accordingly deposed
that he was a solicitor, resident in Dublin, and professionally
concerned in relation to the petition at issue.
The petition (that of the 27th of November, 1837,) was
then handed to him.
In reply to questions put by Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, the
witness proceeded to state that he knew the signature of Mr.
Tyler to be genuine, because he had seen him write it himself,
in his own office, in. Dublin, with a metallic pen.—( Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON then asked the Chair, was there
any question as to the identity of the other signatures to the
petition ?—( Cries of " No, no.")
In reply to questions put by the Attorney-General and Mr.
French, the witness then entered into a. long and very circum-
stantial account of the proceedings relative to the petition,
previous and subsequent to its signature by Mr. Tyler, for the
purpose of proving its identity with the one in question—that
of the 27th of November.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Colonel PERCEVAL then said that it was his intention to
offer evidence of the authenticity of the other two signatures,
if the House thought it necessary, as on the petition theit
tried there were doubts raised of their genuine character.
(Cries of " No, no.")
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that no doubts worth
removing had been raised in regard to the other signatures.
There was certainly a dissimilarity in the writing by compari-
son, in consequence, perhaps, of a steel pen having been used ;
but as a witness, whose character was above suspicion, had
stated that he saw Mr. Tyler write the name in question, he
thought the House should be satisfied.
Mr. FRENCH said that the statement of the witness woo
perfectly satisfactory to him, and under the cireumstances he
should not think of proceeding any further in the case.
Colonel PERCEVAL wished to know what the Hoe.
Member for Roscommon meant to do in the matter of the
other petition then pending.
Mr. FRENCH replied that he had nothing further to saY
to the matter. •

Mr. SHAW said that, as a distinct allegation of forgery
against the petition appeared on the books of the House, and
as that allegation had been entertained by them, it was also
but right that some resolution contravening that charge should
be entered on them likewise. Under these circumstances he
should move a resolution to the effect that the House was of
opinion that the allegations contained in the petition had not
been sustained.
Mr. FRENCH did not know that such a course would be
completely justifiable towards the petitioners.
Mr, SHAW then moved that the petition of John Somers,
&c., had not been sustained by evidence.—Agreed to neer.
con.
Sir W. FOLLETT inquired if the Hon. Member for
Liskeard intended to bring Forward his Bill respecting con-
troverted elections, which stood on the list for this evening ?
Mr. C. BULL ER declined proceeding with this very im-
portant Bill in the absence of the Noble Lord the Member for
Stroud, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tarn..
worth. The business on Wednesday evenings was not very
interesting, and if he proceeded with his, he might have the
mortification of finding himself counted out.,--( A laugh.) Notn
pb Wednesdayoenineg iat Government ei rsnmtoeont m
evenings,
eallns du
importantretl,l eh
tneo emb,
eeu
rsyt
discussedba olidv
ya yssaibdiin.! n‘su c ihth iin)esot
a thin
House."—( A laugh.) Ho felt it to be a great hardship, but
would postpone it till to-morrow, to make some further ar-
rangement for its actual progress.
Colonel PE RC EVA L informed the Noble Secretary for
Ireland that he had seen the last Dublin Evening Post (a
paper known to contain official intelligence) an Irish As-
sizes list, in which no mention was made of the time the Sligo
Assizes commence.
Lord MORPETH: informed him that he had seen that de-
ficiency rectified in the Dublin Evening Mail of the Sltllo
date (a paper which the Gallant Colonel would doubtless
deem of higher authority), a list of the Assizes, in which it
enter Sligo on
was stated that the Judges would ent
the Bth of
March.
Colonel PE RCE VAL inquired when the Attorney-General
for Ireland intended to introduce his Bill for amending the
law for the registration of voters?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland replied, °LI
Tuesday next.
Mr. P. M A HONY moved the second reading of the Cork
Assizes Bill, by which he hoped to give effect to the Acts of
1793, and 1824, and 1836, and extend the power of the Lord
Lieutenant to create additional ridings, and establish additional
Sessions therein, in the county of Cork.
Mr. JEPIISON complained that the county Cork, and all
the other Members returned by it, were taken by surprise, by a
stranger's attempt at legislation. None of them were con-
sulted in the filming of the Bill, and none of them could un-
derstand it. He would rather the Government would take the
matter into their o.vn hands, and divide the county Cork into
districts sufficiently small and numerous for the proper admi-
nistiation of justice.
Mr. SHAW agreed with the last speaker, and wished to
know of the Noble Secretary for Ireland if the Government
sanctioned this wholesale lsgislation for Ireland ? The Hon.
Member for Kinsale had six Bills on the paper to-night.—
( Laughter. )
Mt O'CONNELL explained that the Bill of 1824 divided
the county of Cork into two ridings, with five sessions each.
These were far too few for a county possessing a population of
154,000—exceeding that of four other Irish counties together.
The Bill of 1836 gave power to the Lord Lieutenant to esta-
blish additional sessions in counties, but not to alter the ridings
already established or create additional ones—the thing wanted
in Cork, and the object of this Bill. As matters stood a man
in Bearhaven would have to travel from 45 to 70 miles to settle
a wrangle about five shillings.—(Laughter.) lie proposed
that the second reading be postponed till that day eoek, to af-
ford him the opportunity of convincing the Hon. Member for
Mallow of its utility, and that it was the very thing he wanted.
—( Laughter.)
Lord MORPETH could not reply to the question respect-
inge the wholesale legislation brought forward by the 1-1 e
Member for Kinsale—( A laugh)—and thought that the Housemust decide, for itself on the merit of each as it was brought
forward.—( Hear.) There was, however, sufficient difference,
amongst those who ought to know best, respecting the present
measure, to reader it expedient to refer it to a Select Commit'
tee.—( Hear.)
After some further observations from Messrs. Mahony, Goul-
burn, Woulfe, and Jackson,
Mr. MA HONY said that he would be satisfied if the Go-
vernment would take up the question.
On the suggestion of Lord MORPETH, the further consi-
deration of the measure was postponed for three weeks.
CHURCH PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. M AHONY moved the second reading of the Church
Property Bill fur Ireland, and proposed that if a second read-
ing should be agreed to, the Bill should be referred to a Se-
lect Committee.
Mr. SHAW said that as he totally disagreed from the prin-
ciple of the Bill, he should oppose net only the second read-
in of the Bill, but also the referring it to a Select Comm .
tee. He therefore moved, as an amendment, that it be read a
second time that day six months.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the amendment, as be did
not think the House had any right to interfere with the pro-
perty of the College of Dublin, or of any other corporate
body.—( Cheers. )
Mr. LITTON also supported the amendment.
Lord MORPETII said that he could not sanction any _ a
in-
terference with the property of corporate bodies in such
manner as this Bill proposed, without the consent of the pr.
ties interested r
opposed to the measure, he could not sanction and, as he understood the Provost of Trinity.t
College was
Mr. LEFROY agreed with the Hon. and Learned Metz'
ber for the University of Dublin in the opposition he b
g.iren to this Bill, arid in the grounds of that opposition.
The amendment was then agreed to without a division, and
the Bill consequently lost.