The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-24 00:00:00

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.

Major MACNAMARA presented a petition from the
tenantry and landed proprietors of several parishes in
the county Clare, complaining of the state of distress in
that county; also a petition praying for a system of rail-
ways for Ireland.
COMPLAINT OF UNJUST IMPRISONMENT.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
working men of Warrington, in Lancashire, complaining
of the unjust imprisonment of two men in that town ;
that no notice had been taken of the petition Presented
to the House in reference to that imprisonment; that the
prisoners had not had a fair trial, and that the tyranny
of the magistrates in the manufacturing districts was
extreme.

RATEPAYING CLAUSE OF THE
REFORM ACT.

The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition which
had been agreed to at a public meeting of the inhabitants
of London, at the Crown and Anchor, on the 17th inst.,
presided over by his Hon. Colleague, the other Member
for Finsbury, erasing for the abolition of the rate-
paying clauses in the Registration and Reform Acts,
which they designated as unconstitutional in their nature
and vexatious in their operations. The Hon. Member
also presented a petition to the same effect from the
city and borough of Leicester.

TEN HOURS' BILL.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition from
Warrington in Lancashire, in favour of the Ten Hours'
Bill ; also a petition for the Hon. Member fur Devon,
from the merchants and shipowners of Brixham, Devon,
against the light dues ; also a petition from Tenbury,
Devon, against the law of settlement.
CHARGES AGAINST THE MEMBERS FOR
CLARE.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented a petition,
signed by 14 members of the relief committee and others
in Liscarron, county of Clare, complaining of the reports
made by Captain Wynne, an officer of the Board of
Works, with reference to the character of Mr. O'Brien
and other members of that committee, and praying
for a Select Committee to inquire into these charges,
for which, the petitioners asserted, there was not
the shadow of a foundation. Petitioners also expressed
a de: ire that Captain Wynne should not be promoted
(which it was rumoured was intended by Government)
till this Committee should be appointed and the charges
investigated.
CEYLON—DISMISSAL OF MR. LANGSDALE.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said he had a petition to present
from Mr. Langsdale, complaining that he had been. dis-
charged by the Secretary of State from a jedgdeostiae pin
s of
one of her Majesty's courts of Ceylon, th
which he had discharged with satisfaction totehe bar and
L (
to all interested in the administration f'
justice;t
that the grounds on which he was dismissed were
not
stated to him, and an opportunity given for his replying
to them ; that his professional prospectso bad been
ruined, and praying the House to aff him redress.
He should move to-morrow that the petition be printed
with the votes.

SUGAR.
Mr. FORBES presented a petition from farmers,
brewers, and others, praying that sugar might only be
admitted into breweries at the same rate as malt.
POOR-LAW REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. O. STANLEY presented a petition, complaining
of the Poor-law Removal Act, and setting forth that the
rates had been already doubled in many cases in con-
sequence of it.
RATE-PAYING CLAUSE OF THE REFnR VBILL.
Sir B. HALL presented a petition, agreed to at a
public Meeting held lass evening in St• rocras, praying

that the rate-paying clause of the Reform Act might be
abolished.

TRAVELLING ON SUNDAYS.

Lord BROOKE presented a petition from Kenilworth,
praying that a clause which had bee,' inserted in a rail-
way Bill, which would run through that town, giving
the directors power to stop travelling on the line on
Sunday, might be expunged.
REGENT'S CANAL (PADDINGTON AND
LIMEHOUSE RAILWAY BRANCH).
Mr. ALDAM moved that the debate on the second
reading of this Bill be resumed, for the purpose of
moving that the second reading be deferred for a fort-
night.

WARBURTON wished to know from the Go
vernment what was intended to be done with this Bill.
He had teceivect information on which he believed he
might rely, that the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests had advised her Majesty not to give her
consent to the Bill as it stood at the present mo
meat. From this he inferred that the Bill was not to
be assented to if it interfered, in any way, with the pri-
vacy of Regent's Park. Those who had. built villas
in the park had done so on the understanding that
their property would not be interfered with, and it was
most unfair that they should be subject to annoyance,
and obliged to spend money from year to year for the
purpose of protecting their property from aggression.
Lord MORPETH said that it had been intimated to him
that the promoters of the Bill were anxious to propose some
modification of their scheme in order to satisfy the objections
of their opponents, and under these circumstances he was not
unwilling to grant them the delay which they sought
for. He could only deal with the Bill in the shape in which
it was submitted to him.
Sir BENJAMIN HALL was anxious to know what was
the definite intention of her Majesty's Government with re-
spect to this Bill. He represented a great number of the
lessees of the ground through which the railway ran, and to
whom the faith of the Crown had been pledged, that the pri-
vacy of their dwellings should be respected.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, no matter what modification
was proposed, it would not meet the objection which was urged
against the Bill. He would desire that her Majesty's Govern-
ment would at once declare that they were not prepared to
assent to the Bill.
Mr. HUME said he was very much surprised that the
Noble Lord did not at once negative the Bill. The Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests had spent 2,0001.
or 3,0001. in beautifying the parks, which money was
very properly expended, and a railway would perfectly destroy
the villas which were erected in the neighbourhood of the
Park. The nobility would not wish to ride out. having a rail-
way about 40 feet off from them, the noise of which would be
most disagreeable. The House should recollect that the faith
of the Crown was distinctly pledged that their privacy should
be respected. He hoped the Noble Lord would not postpone
the consideration of the measure, but at once reject it
Lord MORPETII Said that he did not wish to use any de-
ception upon the matter. He could not advise that her Ma-
jesty's consent should be given to the Bill under its present
circumstances. But the promoters of the Bill had some
scheme on foot by which they hoped to satisfy the objections
of the opponents. They only asked a fortnight, and he con-
sidered it would be rather hard to refuse it to them.
Dr. BOW RING quite agreed with the Noble Lord, thht it
would be an ungracious thing to reject the Bill. A fortnight
was but a reasonable delay, and he did not see why the House
should refuse to grant it.
The second reading of the Bill was then adjourned for a
fortnight.
PRIVATE BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HUME moved for a Select Committee,vto continue
the inquiry into the private business of the House, the expenses
attending the obtaining of all Private Bills, including all the
expenses of the opponents'as well as the promoters of Bills,
and the taxing of expenses thereto. The Committee to con-
sist of Mr. Hume, Lord Granville Somerset, Sir George
Grey, Sir James Graham, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Greene, Mr. Gibson Craig, Sir William Clay, Sir WilliaM
Heathcote, Mr. Esteourt, Mr. Loch, Mr. Home Drummond,
Captain Jones, and Lord Courtenay. The object which he had
in view in making the present motion, was to save time,
money, and facilitate business in regard to these Bills.
Dr. BOW RI N G seconded the motion.
Sir WALTER JAMES wished to know if the retrospective
operation of Bills already passed would be inquired into. Many
of these enactments were quite contradictory in their provision,.
In the town which he represented there were several local
Bills which clashed with each other.
Mr. HUME replied that cases of this kind had been already
provided for. In cases where a new Bill was soueht for any
locality it was arranged that a general Bill should be passed
to repeal all previous enactments, and thus get rid of every.
thing of a contradictory character.
The motion was then agreed to.
LOAN TO IRELAND.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished to ask a question. He had under
stood from the Noble Lord at the head of the Government,
that the 15,000,000 for the. relief of Ireland was to pass the
House p lii pussu with the Irish poor laws. He desired now
to know how the grant of that sum had been settled.
Sir GEORGE GREY W 33 understoo.l to say that a Bill
must be brought in on the subject.
Mr. POULETT SCROI'E was proceeding to make a
statement to the House, when he was called to order.
RAILWAY BILLS.

Mr. ELLICE proceeded to move that all Railway Bills in
the present session be referred to the Railway Commissioners,
for their report to this House, upon the following points, pre-
viously to such Bills being considered in Committees of this
House:—That every report so to be made upon each 1313
should s'ate the amount of the capital proposed to be
raised, and of the loans proposed to be authorised by the
Bill ; an 1 if, under the provisions of such Bill, any powers were
to be given to any company already incorporated, of raising
further capital or loans, or of making alterations, branches, or
extensions of their existing lines, or of purchasing or leasing
any other lines made or to be made, or of subscribing to the
capital, or guaranteeing the capital of, or amalgamating will,
other companies ; such report should also state the
powers granted by any former Act or Acts to such companies
already incorporated for any of the above purposes, and of the
manner in which, and extent to which, such powers had been
exercised ; and the report should further state the opinion of
the Commissioners thereon, and also their opinion as to any
special provisions with which it might in any case be expedient
to accompany the grant of any powers for any of the above men -
tioned purposes. That every such report be:referred to the Com-
mittee of this House appointed to consider the 8.11 to which the
same may relate. He found that the North-Western Corn, any
had raised 11.000,000/. of money, and they had power to raise
16,000,0001. by way of loan, making 27.000,000/. of a total sum
for this railway. The Great Western Company had rais d
4,b00,000/. of capital, and they had power to raise 4,500,000 .
more by way of loan, which, with the other em-
powerments in their Act, for the purpose of entering
into guarantee leases, would enable them to raise
upwards of 30,000,000/ He found that the Eastern
Counties' Railway Company had a capital of 4,2/0,0001.,
and powers to raise 3,400,0001., and they also had in
addition other powers of raising money. The fourth company
to which he would refer was that of the Manchester and Leeds,
where they had 2,000,0001. of capital, and a power to raise
1,800,000/. more, but with additional powers the sum
to which they might extend leached some 10,000,000.
He thought that these circumstances ought to be reported to
the House, together with the respective cases in which the
several powers were to be exercised. There were cases were
the capital stock of the company was' in 100'. shares,
and yet the intere•t paid was upon ISO .—( Hear, hear )
He thought that it was necessary that the capital, together with
the loans proposed to be raised should be stated, and that the
House should be put in full possession of all the circumstances
before the Bills were read a third time, as well as all the powers
which each company sought of making grants to other com-
panies, together with all amalgamations, loans, lea-es, and other
engagements into which they proposed to enter. There was one
company which proposed to raise a capital of 5,000,000/. in
addition to that which they already possessed. There were
several other companies who were acting in the same way_; and
he wished to draw the attention of the House to the number of
these Bills now lying on the table, with a view to impose some
restriction upon them. He might take as an ins' aoce
of the extensive powers sought by the old companies, that
of the Cheltenham and Oxford Railway, which was
promoted by that enormous company the Great Western.
They proposed to raise a capital of 1,000,0001., with
the power to raise a loan of 330,0.'01., giving a
guarantee of five per cent, to their original subscribers.
It would be advisable to inquire what amount of funds were at
the disposal of the great Western Company, over and above
the means required for the fulfilment of their present engage-
ments. There was also the Eastern Union Railway and
several others of a like nature. Then there was the Shef-
field, Rotherham, and Doncaster Railway, the subscription
deed of which was signed by three solicitors, two engineers,
and twelve directors, who had subscribed together 192,000 ~
while the public subscribed only the sum of 30,000/. The
Bill proposed to give authority to the promoters to sell
this railway to five different companies, or to any person
or persons who might be willing to purchase it.
There were as many various conflicting propositions for borrow-
ing money as the House could very well imagine, and it appeared
to him that it would be desirable that each dill should be inves-
tigated by the Railway Commissioners previous to coming before
a Committee of that House. Then with respect to amalgamating
there were as many different principles of amalgamation and
powers of leasing as of borrowing, while there was a vet}, den.
serous practice in existence to creating fictitious capitals.
That was another question which required to be examined
into, and he thought it ought to be ascertained whether
the public had to pay interest upon this fictitious
capital as well as upon the cost of construction. There
was one case which would illustrate what he was contending
for. The new North-Western Company had several Bills for
branches and exteusions, in which the directors had pledged
the capital of the company for that purpose. In such
a case it was desirable to inquire how far such a
proceeding was in agreement with the standing orders, which
required that no pledge of the company's credit should take place
beyond the actual capital' raised. He would offer no opinion
on the case, but thought such a matter ought to be referred
to the Railway Commissioners. Some better system should be
brought into operation than the one which at present prevailed.
He would not trouble the House further on this subject, but he
must say that, in the committee on which he was engaged
himself last year, they declined .to assert the supe-
riority of one gauge over another. They left that
question to the Board of Trade, although there were witnesses
that He
parties
himself
there to have occupied them for two or
rthkov‘
three days.
was the more inclined to do this,
promoting a railway had expended 150,00011efore a Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and had afterwards the mor-
tification of losing their Bill before the House of Lords, the
effect of which would be, that these matters would be referred
to the House, or decided by an authority responsible to the
House.
On the motion being put,
Mr. HUDSON said he meant not to take the least objec-
tion to the proposition made by the Hon Member, nor
would ho enter into the details which the Honourable
Member had laid before the House ; but he
woald make one or two observations on points noticed
in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman ; and, first, as to the capital
involved in the railway projects of this year. He said that last
session the capital of proposed rail ways amounted to 300,000,060/.
He at that time mentioned that the capital of the lines which would
be sanctioned by Government would not exceed 100.000,000/.
and in that he was quite right, for Parliament had not
sanctioned lines to a larger amount than 90,000,0001.
He .
was not of opinion that this session the projects passed
would involve any large amount of money, sod would
bring no extraordinary pressure on the money market.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had particularly referred to two
companies, over which he had the honour to preside, and had
he been aware that these charges were to be made he would
have come provided with the necessary information, but as it
was, he believed that he should be able, off hand, to reply to
these charges. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated that
the capital of the Midland Company amounted to something
like 30,000,0001.
A notice of dissent was here made by Mr. Ellice.
Mr. HUDSON was quite willing to give the Right Hon.
Gentleman full credit for the candour and fairness with

which he intended to bring the matter before the House, but
he had understood that assertion to be made, and was prepared to
say that the capita; was nothing like that corn. The whole
amount of iue ongilial capital of ihe Cualpany was
5,000,0001. In 1545 they had übtained Acts which empowered
them to rain 23000,000/. more. That would make 7,000,000/,,

and the last year they had obtained Acta which empowered
them to raise 2,000,6 0/. more, and this money was to be
raised in shares. There IN as then the additional power to
raise 1,700,0i1i /. on loan, making something more than
I0,000,0:70!. In addition to this, they had leased the
Bristol and Gloucester line, with a capital of 2,1,00,0001., and
the Leeds and Bradford, the capital of which was 1,000,000/.,
so that the whole capital was not more than 14,000,000!.

Mr. ELLICE-111.n there was the Northern line.
Mr. HUDSON—That is a property entirely and perfectly
cLidinct. The capital then was something like 14,000,0001
and it should be recollected that when any company leased
a line they did not undertake to find the Capital; they
only engaged to carry on the line when the capital
was raised. It would be very unwise in Government to
interere with the raising of their capital. When they had
imposed all the necessary limits they might well leave the
raising of the money to the discretion of the companies. A;
to putting on any direction for raising the money, he thought
it would be quite futile, for the directors were obliged to act
according to the state of the money market. Sometimes they
raised it in one way, sometimes in another, and it was a matter
well known that in the early stages of railway enterprise the
directors had frequently put themselves into positions of great
anxiety and peril, anti Set had they not done so the works would
have been stopped and the public -would have lost the benefit.
When the late President of the Board of Trade brought in his
Bill two or three years since the question of loans was most
fully and fairly discussed, and the conclusion was that the dif-
ferent companies were to be confined to the terms of their Acts.
He took an early opportunity of providing for the debts of
every company with which he was connected. With refe-
rence to the subject of the execution of the railways, he
begged to say that the House need be under no apprehension
upon that subject, for in all his experience he never
found the calls more readily and freely paid ups
than they now were. He had made calls to the amount of
three millions within the last three months, and he never saw
them paid up so readily as they were, even to the present
week. The duty of the House was to take care
that the public were protected, and that the
shareholders were remunerated for the outlay of their capital,
and having done that, the House might depend upon it that
the less they interfered in the management of rail-
ways the better it would be for the undertakiugs,
or the public, and for the House itself. With respect
to the guarantee fund, he would say that it was
necessary for the railway companies to have the power to,
borrow money under a guarantee fund. In the year 1841,
the greatest difficulty existed to get the public to invest their
money even if under the guarantee of six per cent.
France was quite ready to find employment, and give good'
guarantee for the capital of this country, and he therefore
warned the House not to be too ready to Interfere with the pri-
vate enterprise of England.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. ELLICE,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said he understood the object of the reso-
lution was to revive the same jurisdiction of the Board of Trade
that it possessed two years ago in reference to railway Matter,.
He, therefore, saw no objection to the proposition. His object
in rising had mainly been to bear his testimony to the efficiency
of the labours of the former board, which had been he thought
unfairly underrated.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to the motion's
and thought considerable benefit might arise from the arrange-
ment proposed. The inquiries would, ne doubt, be much
assisted by the ref:nada of the Commissioners, but
it must not be supposed that the results would se-
eersede the labours of the Committees. It would
be for the latter to take the inquiries forwhat they thought
them worth and act accordingly. He supported the motion.
und. r the impression that no delay would be imposed, in cense-
quence, on the railway Bills of the present session.

The motion was then agreed to.
COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT

AND POOR REMOVAL.
Mr. BA NK ES postponed his motion on the report of thie
Committee, as the report had not yet been printed, till that
day week. The Honourable Member said he would give no-
tice on the same day, of his intention to call the attention of
the House to a case which hail been submitted to the lap
officers of the Crown affecting the construction of a clauseol
the Act.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
Mr. EWA RT gave not ice that he would on the 9th March
move the abolition of the punishment of death.
DIRECT TAXATION.
The HoN. AIEMBEIL also gave notice that on the same dat
he would call the attention of the House to the expediency ow
direct taxation.

RAILWAYS.
Lord GEORGE BEN TINCK gave notice of his intentions
to move to-morrow fur certain returns which would form la
basis on which he meant to found certain observations in re.. •
spect to the figures and statements of the Chancellor of the Ex'
chequer last night, viz., a return of all the sums of money ex'
pended by certain English lines of railway previous to the yeseja.
1845, including the South Western, the South Eastern, an
'spondee
by Midland Companies ; and a return of all the sums
by the railways of Great Britain and Ireland on carriages, loco"" 1
° motives, and waggons, made up in triennial periods previous tee e
the years 1811,1814, and 1847 respectively.
COPPER ORE.
Mr. SPOONER said that in the absence of his Hon. Cole'
league, he should move that the petition presented by hire tb
other evening be printed with the votes. •
JAMAICA.
Mr. HUME begged to ask a question whether any Idea'
sure had been adopted to put an end to the disputes between'
the House of Assembly and the Judge of the Supreme Cowl°
by which the public business had been suspended for one year.
Mr. HA WES said that he was aware that such interruptiota
had taken place, but means had been taken to reconcile
b te
differences, and• he had great pleasure in stating that pu°
business would at the earliest period be resumed- •
NUMBER OF DEATHS, IRELAND.
Mr. S. O'I3RIEN postponed the motion of which he b
given notice, respecting the return of the number of deatho
which had taken place in Ireland from starvation since the fate
of November, 1846
Mr. P. SCROPE had heard that the workhouses of Ireland.
were already completely filled with inmates, he saw that a pro-.
vision was made in the Poor-law (Ireland) Bill of the Ist an
a
2nd Vic., for the purpose of extending the means of aceornnere
dation fur the people by either enlarging the buildings or hirie4..
others. He wished to know whether it was the intention of
the Government to lay upon the table of the House any returns f.„.
respecting the workhouses in Ireland and their number of i
mates.
sir G. GREY—In a few days a series of pipers will be laid
on the table of the House, which will contene . the corres-
pondenee with the Board of Guardians, as well as the Acre
which have been taken in consequence. •
DRAINAGE OF LANDS.
Mr. BAILLIE wished to know whether it was the inten-
tion of her Majesty's. Government to introduce any measurepr
the improvement of the Drainage Act of last session,. f!e_:ietecte"
ther they intended to introduce any new Bill that miene
the principle of that Act.
the Sir
amendmenter GREY o sf
tahi thate
Aet new
fir th Bille
drainageliadbean f pi:574:1 foolf,
though he could not go to the length of baying that the ew
Bill would alter the principle of the Act of last year.
Mr. HUME wished to ask whether it was the intention
enableor
Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure to
the proprietors of entailed estates to dispose of part of their.
property for the improvement of the rest of it, cr whether le
was intended to burden the couutry, with the expense.
Sir -G.- GREY said that his reply to the question o, t_heee
Hon. Member fir Inverness would have intimated that tdeL
was to be ne change in the principle of the measure, but stoe
e
might add that. it was the intention of the Governmene.
'pply to Parliament far no inure than the sanction of part
the 2,e00,0e0/. grai t3l last year unt,e, the Drainage Act.
0.
Mr. 130UVERIE wished to know whether the Geyel..
merit had eny bhp ction to lay the correspondence respectnee:
Seotlaud on the table, as well as that which concerned Ireland
Sir G. GREY—None at all, it would he included.
nth
Mr. COLLETT wished to ask whether there was any troth
in the statement that the Government were about to estabeia
a bishopric in elanchestar, and whether the Noble Lord eiee
give any information on tite subj,ct?
Lord JOHN. RUSSELL thought the best way of gieil
information on this subject, was to lay a copy of the commt's!°_,
issued by h, r Majesty for the founding of the new bishoprieeo
on the table. This he had done a week ago, and it bad bee
ordered to be print, d, and hen it was in the hands of the Bell; ~
Member, he woe(' find that it was intended to found •
bishopric in Manchester, as well as three other bishoPeigs.t `
From the present st ate of the Episcopal revenue, it would ee
be necessary to add any new charge to the country for the
port of these be.hopries. He might add, that it was not the
lion of her Majesty to summon the new bishops to sit in Par;
liament, but-they won take their turn, as any casualty alley'
the bishops eceasioned a vacancy.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked if the arrangement would be careie4
out without an Act of Parliament?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it would be impossible 1°
carry it out without an Act of Parliament. So soon be /3:
received the report of the Commission, he should ask for lea„
to introduce a Bill urn the subject.
THE FRANCHISE.
Mr. T. DUNCUMBE said he was in a difficulty
to the course he should take with reference to the notice to
had on the paper. He did not know what was the intentiod
of the House or the Government in reference to it. He upY
derstood the Government had no objection to his introdneieti
the Bill, but there were some gentlemen opposite might. Neviej •
if Government could give him permission to introduce the fit".,
upon the understanding that they approved of the principles but
did not p,edge themselves to the details, he would postpone t"" •
discussion till the second reading . If, however, Government
did not object to the Bill now, because they would have an e
portunity of strangling it hereafter, he must go at once into eh -
matter.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, if the Hon. Gentleman meal);
wished to bring his Bill before the House, he shodlue
offer no objection to his doing so. He certainly shad' .)2
offer an objection to his laying it on the table -
but if the Bill was, as he had stated, morel
proposed to repeal that clause of the Reform Bill which be`"
reference to the day on which taxes should be paid to secure :-
a a vote, without proposing any new provisions or other contly •
tions, he thought it right to state at once that be was °preen
to the spirit of such a Bill. If they wished to have the P"" •
discussed now, lie thought it right to state to him at the out'

set, that he should oppose a decided negative to the
Sir 1)E LACY EVANS said as he had consented to seco'
him,Bill, atthe ohntadiotiniehorefrsttlillio:u,a,lili,usenium.slG:loyennuitulone‘i:nietaanfi,,fruhtlueeraebveedgagtyo.edintotrosudgugeoestotde
DUNCOMBE said he was perfectly aware that
the Noble Lord was opposed to such a Bill .7.
the one he now sought to introduce. It however,
contained but one clause, and its object simply
to repeal that portion of the Reform Bill which made the,;
payment of rates imperative by a certain day to receive the
registration of a vote. It was entitled " a Bill to repeal
much of an Act passed in the reign of William the Fonrt;
intituled, an Act to amend the representation of the Peqr,-
in England and Wales,' as makes the right to registration 1.
cities and boroughs conditional on the payment of poor's rates
and assessed taxes." As, however, deferring the Bill Won!.
only lead two discussions, he thought it better to have the
discussion then and to fight it out at once.—( Hear.) There.
fore he would state as shortly as-possible the grounds on which
he sought leave to introduce the Bi 1. It provided for vie;
moving one of the greatest blots hi the Reform Bill--e bier
complained of by the whole electoral body whether in cities 0,
in boroughs, and was one which he sincerely believed deservfa
the most serious consideration of the Government and of the.
House. The chief objection to the clause was that it Ivo 111:t
constitutional in principle, vexatious in its operation. and that
it opened the door to all manner of bribery and favouritisu:s
He should prove that it was unconstitutional from the words
of the Noble Lord himself, In speaking of the operation of tan
Reform Bill. The substance of the Noble Lord's opinion .oan
that occasion was that no man should be taxed until he had
voice in the making of the laws which imposed those axes
upon him. The Reform Bill, he contended, had not answereat
the expectations which had been formed of it ; it even had
answered the expectations of the Noble Lord himself.t
At the time that Bill was passed, the Noble Lord stated that
he intended to call into electoral existence half a million of zrerr,
voters; that he would give 100,0J0 to the English counties.
60,0t)0 to Scotland, 40,000 to Ireland, and a considerable
._
number to the metropolis, making nearly 500,000. But wh
had been the result ? In Marylebone, in 1841, there were
32,341 rated householders, but there were only 11'765 °:•atedl the
register, showing a great difference. In Finsbury the
liousttht:ider.: v,ere 11'2,954, Lut th.ie were. out, 3.4,d5t) °" the
register. In the Tower Hamlets there were 64,896,
but only
13,000 on the register ; and in Greenwich 11,536, but only
3,610 ou the register. In Greenwich awl of the houses were

' 1