The Sun.
London, England, 1825-05-13 00:00:00

[BRITISH PRESS.]

Some conversation took place last night in the
House of Commons respecting the Bill for regu-
lating the elective franchise in Ireland. Again
the rights of the forty shilling freeholders, as
they are falsely styled, were ostentatiously put
forward, and the friends of public freedom im-
plored not to consent to the disfranchisement of
the Irish peasantry. It is not denied that the
present system of vote-making is founded in per-
jury ; and, as Mr. Littleton well observed, •G at
variance with all the principles of free representa-
tem)," it is not pretended thatany good, moral, poli-
tical, or social, has resulted from the practice now
proposed to be abolished. On the contrary, one of
the greatest evils from which Ireland suffers may
be ascribed directly to it ; we allude to the minute
subdivision of the landed property of that coun-
try. The opponents of this measure talk of
resisting it on constitutional principles. We
are quite disgusted with this nauseous political
cant. Are we to be told that the Constitution
is in danger because a fraudulent system of mak-
ing false votes is about to be abolished ? Be-
cause the herds of fictitious freeholders will
no longer be driven to the poll, to drown and
stifle the voice of the intelligent and independent
part of the Irish people, will public liberty be
destroyed? What would the apologists and de-
fenders of this system in Ireland say to its intro-
duction into England ? It is impossible that Ire-
land can ever have 46 a peasantry, their country's
pride," until her-condition in this respect be as-
similated to that of England. Sir Francis Bur-
dett, "oho has recovered his speech, said truly last
night, though he was disposed to support the
measure on its own merits, he considered it under
the present circumstances rather 46 as a measure of
conciliation due to the wishes of the Protestants of
Ireland ; for whatever might be said of the
justice of the Catholic claims—and he was one of
those who admitted that justice to its full extent—
still he could not keep out of view the claims of
the Protestants also."—ln answer to a question
from Lord Milton, Mr. Littleton stated that it is'
not his intention to press the Elective Franchise,
Bill further, until the fate of the Relief Bill is de-
cided in the House of Lords.

[MOHNINGr CHRONICLE.]
Sir Francis Burdett observed lait night, that
" having accepted the support of several Mem-
bers on the great question, which support had
been most. honourably given, he should feel bound
to support the minor Bill, which had for object
to increase the qualification of voters in Ireland,
even if he could not find reasons for it in all re-
spects satisfactory to his mind. He looked at the
13ill for the provision of the Catholic Clergy in
the same light ; he was bound to support it,
fur on that condition the support to the great
question, which was not less than that of
religious liberty in the country generally, had
been given." This is certainly viewing the
question like a Statesman. If the minor mea-
sures are necessary to the support of the
greater, to refuse to vote for them, is to say that
we refuse to vote for the greater. We take the
most unfavourable supposition—we shall even
suppose that the regulation of the elective fran-
chise is really per se an objectionable measure ;.
that the pensioning the Irish Clergy is likewise
objectionable—and still we say that, if the good
of the Emancipation appears to outweigh any
evil from them, we are bound to support them.
Jrt this world we cannot often have unmixed
good. We are often reduced to choose merely
that which has in it the least portion of evil. The
amputation of a leg or an arm is always painful,
and often dangerous, but if the refusal to submit to
this operation would be attended with loss of life,
or with such a state of existence as rendered life
a burden, a sensible man would not hesitate for a
moment what course to take. It is an evil
to sacrifice any part of our population on the field
of battle,—but we embrace that evil to escape
from a greater. Nothing is so absurd, therefore,
as to object to a small evil, which secures from a
greater. But fortunately in this case, as Sir
Francis Burdett observed, both the minor mea-
sures were in themselves beneficial, and not in-
jurious to the country. The effect of the Elective
Franchise Regulations Bill, according to those
who are best acquainted with the subject, will be
to add to rather than detract from independence;
and we are sure that the public money cannot
be better employed than in
Clergy.
paying the Catholic

[MORNIN,G HERALD.]
The presentation of a petition from Mona-
ghan, by Mr. Grattan, against the 164.4, Elective
Franchise Lill, lust night, in the (louse of Com-
mons, occasioned an extended conversation as to
proceeding with or postponing that Bill till. it
was ascertained w hat the 11.. use of Lords wound
do with the Roman Catholic Bill. Mr. Grattanalso

adverted to the.principle of the measure. He de-
clared it to contain a monstrous proposition, and
to ask the House most materially and injuri-
ously to limit the elective franchise. Mr. S.
Rice denied that it would do any thing of the
kind : so far from limiting the real and honest
franchise of the freeholders, it would strengthen
and extended their influence, but it would limit
the fraudulent votes of leaseholders. Lord Al-
thorp supported this view of the Bill, and said it
would prevent the counties in Ireland from being
controuled like so many close Boroughs. Mr.
Littletop lamented that the principle of the Bill
had in fact been so much misrepresented in that
House ; but he felt assured, that when it came to
be completely understood, it would be sanction-
ed by the whole country. Mr. Monck replied,
that the principle of the Bill was not misunder-
stood by the country, nor had the disfranchising
character of the measure been misrepresented ; had
not the voters, who, perhaps, might have been
created, in many instances, for corrupt purposes,
been found too strong, this effort to deprive them
of power would never have been attempted. But
supposing the 40s. freeholders were all that had
been represented,' he wished to ask why the
measure was not made general, and extended to
the " pot walloping" voters of the English
boroughs? Lord Milton then asked Mr. Littleton
whether he would not agree to the propriety
of postponing, all further proceedings on this
Bill, at least till the fate of the second reading
of the Relief Bill in the House of Lords was
known ? Mr. Littleton replied that he was in the
hands of the House ; if it were desired that it
should be so postponed, he had no objection, but
he would not take on himself the responsibility
of postponing, this Bill. Colonel Forde and Mr.
Brownlow (of Armagh) were understood to
favour such postponement, but the latter, in par-
ticular, spoke in an unusually inaudible tone.—
Sir F. Burdett said he was prepared to defend
the Bill as a Reformer, and contended that its
principles might be advantageously applied to
this country. Throughout this arduous struggle
he had felt that though the Roman Catholics
were entitled to civil and religious freedom, some-
thing ought to be done to conciliate the Protest.
ant mind, and he therefore had agreed to these
accompanying measures; but on other grounds;
on principle, he had satisfied his mind of
their propriety. Mr. R. Martin urged the ne-
cessity of postponing this Bill. It' it passed
without the Relief Bill, it would be viewed as a
most unjust visitation ; in such cases he doubted
not that it would produce a Rebellion in Ireland.
The conversation then dropped, and Mr. Little-
ton withdrew from the House; but in a subse-
quent part of the evening Dr. Phillimore, without
any remark, or mentioning that he had been re-
quested by Mr. Littleton to submit such motion,
moved that the further consideration of this Bill
be " postponed till the 27th instant," which is,
till after the Whitsuntide recess ; and that mo-
tion was adopted, and the postponement agreed
to accordingly, without any comments.

[NEWTIMES.]

Petitions to both Houses of Parliament are now
in a course of signature by the merchants in Lon-
don, for an linvrovement in the law respecting
purchases made from factors or agents, and ad-
vances of money on goods to persons appearing
ostensibly to be the owners. Among the nume-
rous signatures to these petitions are those of the
most eminent general merchants ; such at Messrs.
Baring, Brothers and Co. ; Read, Irving and Co.;
Bainbridges and Brown; Wilson and Blanshard :
Of East India Houses, as Fletcher, Alexander and
Co.; Fairlie, Bonham and Co.; Cockerel', Trail
and Co.; Inglis, Forbes and Co. ;—West Indian, as
Manning and Anderdon ; Boddington and Davis ;
Plummer and Wilson :—North American, as
Samuel Williams, Thomas Wilson and Co.:—
South American, as Barclay, Brothers and Co. ;
Anthony Gibbs and Son ; Samuel Winter :
North of Europe, as Thomson, Boriar, and Co.,
Stephen Thornton, Brothers and Co. ; Samuel
Thornton and Co.; Garry and Curtis :—South
of Europe, as Haldimand and Sous ; Heath,
Son, and Furse ; James Cazenove and Co.; G.
J. and G. Ranking, &c. &c.—[n short, there are
all the principal merchants of London, trading to
all the parts of the world—and iL is to be observed,
that the petitions are pprely mercantile, as it has
been thought proper, on the present occasion, to
confine them to that branch of occupation. It may
be remembered, that in the year 1823 we called
public attention to a bill then in progress through
Parliament, which afterwards became law, un-
der the title of "An Act for the better Protection
of the Property of Merchants and others, who may
hereafter enter into Contracts or Agreements in
relation to Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, en-
trusted to Factors or Agents." (Stat. 4, Geo. I V.
c. 83.) The enactments of that Statute. how-
ever, were not quite so comprehensive as its title,
for they were confined to the case of advances
made to an ostensible owner, on goods shipped in
the name of the person appearing to be such owner
by the hill of lading.—The object of the present
petition is, to pray that the equitable principle
of that Bill may he extended to the general pro-
tection of bona fide purchasers of goods not sold
in market overt, and of persons making bona fide
advances on goods. As the law now stands (in-
dependently of the Statute of 1823), the general
principle, " that a factor or agent has no right to
pledge the goods of his principal," is held to inva-
lidate such a pledge altogether ; insomuch that a
party making advances on goods actually put into
his possession by 'a person n horn he has every rea-
son to regard as the owner, may nevertheless be
forced to give up such goods to a real owner,
of whose existence he was wholly unconscious.
This rule is unknown to the laws of almost all
the neighbouring States, and even to the law of
Scotland, and it is peculiarly injurious to the
English merchant, inasmuch as the present ex-
tended state of trade renders investigation the
less practicable to him,
and exposes him the
more to. fraud. The Committee of 1823 pre-
sented a very valuable report, founded on the
evidence of more than fifty
witnesses of the first
experience and respectability ; and the statute
past in that year was considered as only part of ,
a system to be adopted in consequence of that re-
port. In 1824, a more cnul.prehenstve i 3,111 was

brought.in, and passed through the ,House of
Commons, but was thrown out in the Lords,
chiefly on the ground of a want of fuller informa-
tion. The bare signatures to the present petitions
afford a sufficient answer to any suggestion of
that sort ; for it is impossible to suppose that so
many merchants, of the very first weight in every
branch of commerce, comprising, in fact,. ,the
mercantile experience of the whole country, and
including many foreign Consuls carrying on trade
here, can be ignorant of the effect of the principle,
which they recommend, or have not fully weighed
and examined it in all its bearings.