The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 2), 1840.

himself or his agents, was carrying on the
practices of bribery and treating ; and if that fact
should afterwards be proved before a Committee
of the House of Commons then, as in the case of a
party who was not possessed of a qualification before
the election, the votes given for such candidate after the
notice had been served should be void. It was very
usual that when one party had begun these practices,
and a small majority only could decide the election, then
the other party resorted to the same means—the one
party pitted themselves against the other—corrupt
practices wore common, and both parties were so earn-
mated that they found it impossible the one to proceed
against the other, and so the whole transactions were
veiled ever. By his provision he intended to give a
party an interest—if he was not himself guilty of these
practices—an interest to sift the transactions before a
Committee. Those transactions were notorious in many
cases, yet, no one having an interest in them, not a
word was said against the practices on the election, and
thus the representation- in that House became corrupt.
The other clauses in the Bill he had before ex-
plained, and it was unnecessary to trouble the House
further upon them. He was most happy to see the
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wynn) present.
His attention had been gives to the prevention of such
practices during a long period, and he trusted the Right
Hon. Gentleman would afford him that assistance he
was so well able to
give.—( Hear, hear.) What-
ever suggestion came from the Right Hon. Gentleman
would meet with the utmost attention.
Mr. WYNN (who was nearly inaudible in the Gal-
lery) said the Bill should havehis utmost attention, but
the provision last alluded to struck him as being of a
most dangerous tendency. A candidate finding an elec-
tion going against him would immediately resort to the
provision of tbe Bill, and give notice against his opponent,
upon the mere chance of what might turn up in his fa-
vour at a future period. Besides, at a contested elec-
tion, the serving of such a notice would dishearten the
friends of either party against whom the notice was
given. He would be most ready to give his utmost as-
sistance to discourage the practices of bribery and treat-
ing, but he was afraid the danger of such a provision as
the Noble Lord had alluded to would be greater than
leaving the law as it then stood.
Mr. WARBURTON—UnIess the Bill of the No.
ble Lord provided for carrying on an investigation into
bribery and treating, independent of the candidates, and
not at their expense, he (Mr. W.) was afraid that it
would be of but little use.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It does.
Mr. Nie A RBURTON was glad to hear it. He
would not quarrel with the Bill of the Noble Lord if it
would do any good whatever, but there could be no
effectual cure for bribery so long as there was open
voting.
Colonel SI BTHORP thought the Noble Lord
ought to define what he meant by bribery. He (Co!.
Sibthorp) had sat in the House for many years, but he
never could find out what bribery was.—(A laugh.)
Theo as to treating, did the Noble Lord intend to put
an end to the rites of common hospitality ?—( Hear.)
Supposing a tradesman should wait upon him at a dis-
tauce ea, say six or seven miles, to tender him his vote,
the man might be infirm, or the weather incle-
ment, yet was he (Colonel Sibthorp) to refuse
to admit that man into his house, or to treat
him with common hospitality, under the fear of
being charged with treating? 6,- say that he was walk-
ing through the town or, country, and he was to see a
lean lying en a bed of sickness, and surrounded be half-
fentisl;ing children, was he to be debarred from tlte ex-
e: vise of common humanity merely because the man was
a voter ? The Bill altogether required explanation.
:r ROBERT PEEL said the Noble Lord had
omitted to state what course he intended should be pur-
sued in the event of an Election Committee adjudging
upon these matters sent for investigation making a spe-
cial regert to the House that there were circumstances
deeply affecting, the purity of that borouelt—
clot they showed such prevalence of corrup-
tion that some steps might be necessary to punish
the berough. In the event of such a special
report, the House ought to instruct the Committee to
conduct its investigation on public grounds, and at the
public cost. The disclosure of disgraceful facts might
nave a powerful efFect in preventing such practices.
'Vhetever could possibly prevent bribery ought to re-
ceive the support of the House ; and if it could be
defined what a bribe really vies, notwithstanding his
great objection to the multiplication of oaths, he would
agree to require the party coming to the table to swear
that, neither by himself nor his agents, had he been guilty
of bribery. Then, with respect to treating, that
would be found a matter of the utmost difficulty ;
and he agreed with his Right Honourable Friend,
that the provision intended to be in:rodueed by
the Noble Lord required the utmost consideration.
Supposing that prevision were to become the Jew of
the lend, it would lead to almost universal charges of
'v:ribery being made. It would be a bad principle for
legislation, for the inevitable consequence Would be thnt
there would be the charge of bribery, and as n natural
consequence, a counter-charge from the other side.
His objection would not apply if the charge was ho-
nestly made, but without a penalty being attached to a
false charge, they would be civing a legislative sanc-
tion tc indiscriminate charges of bribery. Even where
two candidates were equally conscious of bribery, and,
therefore, each refrained from petitioning, because
afraid of recrimination—any single elector might re-
ject the agreement and expose the corruption.—(Hear.)
It would, however, be hard to entrap within the letter
of the law those who were sincerely desirous of obey
in its spirit.—(Hear.) To any positive prohibition o
treating, he (Sir R. Peel) would not object, i
It were accompanied with a clear and distinct definition,

—(Hear.) To forbid all treating whatsoever would evi-
dently be going too far, for it would prevent the com-
mon and innocent rites of hospitality.—(Hear.) But
might not the prohibition be applied, within a limited
period before or at the election, to all treating—allowing,
however, after the polling, to any voters who might wish
openly—(Hear)—to avail himself of it, nmessary SUS-
tenanco and refreshment, accompanied by strict prohi-
bition of anything more.—(Hear.) Bribery, be:Tond all
doubt, was discreditable and disgraceful to all parties
concerned, and tended to lower the character of the
House,—(Hear.) To prevent that was not so difficult

as to prevent treating ; there the difficulty lay between
confounding honest and innocent hospitality with cri-
minal corruption. In any practical measure for the sup_
pression of this corrupt treating he would cordially concur
Colonel WOOD said no measure as to treating
would be judicious which precluded rational and requi-
site refreshment to the voters.—( Hear.) Was it not
going too far to say that country voters, for instance,
fArmers—forty-shilling freeholders, perhaps—who had
walked 10 or 15 miles to vote, should have no refresh-
ment. Might not all danger of corruption be obviated
by providing that after polling the voters should have
tickets from the Sheriff fbr necessary refreshment, to
be charged to the candidates ?
Mr. TURNER said Hon. Gentlemen opposite
seemed to forget that the elector bad a duty to his
country to discharge, which he should be ready to do
with any sacrifice to himself,—(oh, oh, and hear, hear.)
Hon. Gentlemen were not at all aggrandizing their
constituencies by representing that they required com-
pensation in refreshment for the trouble of exercising
the franchise, which, unless they were prepared to exert
with perfect independence, they ought not to have.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time, care should be taken
not to exe!ude such innocent hospitality as a Member
might, after his election, be disposed to afford his
supporters, as he himself had given a dinner to six or
seven hundred of his friends after his return. Still the

I constituencies ought not to expect such things as re-
muneration for their sacrifices in exercising the suffrage.
Colonel WOOD—Why, then, did you give them
the election dinner ?—(Hear.)
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY said it was all very fine
theorizing to talk of the poor voter's losing a day's
work, and walking ten or fifteen miles to support a
candidate, who was not to give him the most necessary
refreshment, hut it was not just nor liberal.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRINES said he thought electors should feel

themselves disgraced by accepting such gratuitiesill
(Oh, oh.) He believed that those constituencies would
feel so, who were yet untainted by the wages of cor-
ruption—(Hear)—of which they, who once partook,
acquired a taste that must be satisfied—( Hear, hear.)
In the large county constituencies it would be impos-
sible to furnish such refreshments—(Hear, hear)—and
he bad never met with these who required them.—
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

RELIEF FROM OATHS.
Mr. HAWES moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
substitute, in the case of persons having a conscientious
objection to an oath, an affirmation. The Bill was
carefully framed to exclude every possibility of fraud,
requiring that application for relief should have been
mthaedpeart
moiNuoirh.
,GwOhiliehLwßaUs
accordingly
ti7yreheadmtoondthespobsee.fore any matter arose on which
Ncordsainidglyheagsrheeodultdo not oppose the
TRADE WIT kV \..
Mr. COLQUHOUN then laidhe lhad to draw the
attention of the House toot the injuries which British
merchants now sustained, of
of redress, fromthenon-fulfilment by the Dutch
t termsi
of the treaty arranginm
Ise
s shouldwerAeu commerceproenlati„eiy
be within introduced.
ro d
uJcaevda.,
h t Britishhe
v e ry
yearand
contravened
r e y:i which
larl,nitild:
i,
,ehsettetwoliennignpircittiive
. the v"io ations complained
the treaty was made. rnHoic:itranco was made in
actld. )?-1, andl irncsntaenwtei
yd
demandedinlB2s
the
eted his re-
monstrance Mr. Canning
of should be remedied. His death
monstrance being effected, but in 1813:7‘ti.
Association in London, by Mr. Larpent b East India
, rought forwar I
energetic remonstrances on the then position of ,•
They called the attention of the tue
Javas.Governmentas
li
the
I,; was 0 favourable op- 1
;u,v-elrlieeltihleinadpetialdkielnlziace, and told them,
hto,,gtohteiatdieuyisy
portunity for settling the quLstion. The Government I
gave no satisfactory answer, but sail they were cm_
played in imports it negotiations with Belgium and
110I:and, and that this subj,ct would be incidentally i!

attralcci to. In 163%3 the remonstrances were re-
nev,ed, but still no answer was given. At the close of
that Year, Use Association aria applied to the Neh!e

Lord, who, instead of acting with the promptitude of
Mr. Canning, said he must consult the Crown Counsel
on the subject. He afterwards informed them the opi-
nion of the Crown Counsel was adverse to their claim, but
the Association were not satisfied with his decision, and
subsequently he believed the Noble Lord himself had
come to a different conclusion. The subject was sub.
sequently brought before the House, when the Noble
Lord promised that Government would exert themselves
on the subject, and that the treaty should be strictly
enforced. He was sorry to say these promises were not
fulfilled for a 41111 year afterwards. The Association
informed the Noble Lord they were in a worse condi-
tion than before, from subsequent infractions of the
treaty. The Dutch had previously admitted the
violation of the treaty by a change of tariff, and
the Association again asked the Noble Lord how
long, be would allow these violations to be continued,
and the promises of redress were again repeated. In
1837, our negotiations being again going on with Hol-
land, the Association again renewed their application,
and inquired what steps had been taken in the ques-
tion, when the Noble Lord informed them ho had no
further information to give them. This was the sole
result of his brilliant promises. Another application
was made in 1838, when the Noble Lord informed them
that the Dutch complained of violations of the treaty
by the East India Company. On the sth March that
year, the Noble Lord, in answer to a question by the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said the Dutch
Government complained of the East India Company,
but had promised to observe the treaty in future, though
he had read no official information on the subject. No
step, however, was taken to compel the East India
Company's observance of the treaty. The Noble
Lord told the Association this was a bar to the
settlement of the question, but took no steps
whatever for its removal. But were one set
of merchants to suffer a great loss in consequence of
the misconduct of a totally different set of men ? What
was the effect of this on the trade with Java ? He
would satisfy the House of the importance of the trade
by stating that our trade with Java, in the article of
cotton alone, was, in 1835, 115,0001b5. of cotton, while
that of the Dutch was 72,0001b5., ours being seven-
eighths of the whole ; hut in 1838 the case was much
reversed, the trade then being 695,0001b5., but our
imports to Java were only 270,000, being but one-third
instead of seven-eighths of the whole. In 1837 the
Dutch issued a new tariff, by which augmented duties
of 25 per cent. were placed on British imports, which
was the sole result of the interference of the Noble Lord.
The Hon. Gentleman then read extracts from the treaty,
and proceeded. On the south coast the Dutch had in
1835 raised the duties to seven per cent. on the impor-
tations of goods from Singapore, and now they had pro-
hibited them altogether. They had also concluded a
treaty with the native Princes, which had almost en-
tirely excluded British goods. Then with regard to
Sumatra, the trade of which was of great impertance to
Singapore, the Dutch had concluded a treaty with the
native powers, excluding many British manufactures,
and laying an eeiormous duty upon salt ; and another of
the native powers had complained that unless he were
supported by elle British, he must succumb to Dutch
interference. The consequence of all this had been an
enormous decrease in the importation of British goods
into Sumatra. Encroachment had followed encroach•
ment on the part of the Dutch, and our trade hid
become rests ii ited in ell parts of the Eastern Archipelago.
Ho knew not what hopes the Noble Lord intended to
hold out, but he trusted they would be realized in a
mere efficient. manner than those formerly held out had
been. The Hon. Member concluded by moving--
" That an hull-able Address be presented to her Majesty
praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct
that there be laid before this House, copies of all corn.
munications from' British merchants addressed to the
Board of Coateer or the Foreign Office, on the subject
of the British trade with Java, with the answers to
them, from the •-year 1832 to the year 1`839
Also—Copies of any communications on the same sub-
ject from tlie Foreign Office to the Board of Control,
and from the -Board of Control to the Directors of the
East India Company, with the answers, during the
same period t. Also—Copies of any communications
from British . merchants, or from the authorities in Sin-
capore or el where, addressed to the Foreign 011 ice, on
the subject of any interference with British or native
trade to tae island of Sumatra, or throughout the
Eastern Ar eb ipelago."
Sir E. K N,ATCHBULL seconded the motion.
Lord PAL, MERSTON had no intention of °Grime
any oppositiora to the motion, and therefore he did not
feel himself eeal'ied upon to follow the Hon. Gentleman
through all hi s details, although he must say that it ap-
peared to hirni that the lion. Gentleman had very im-
perfectly Linde rstood what had passed on the subject ;
but as a goner al remark he would call the attention of
the House to the course pursued on those subjects in
general by the political party to which the Hon. Gen-
tleman belonge because they at one time came down
to the House r aid accused the Government of apathy,
indifference, al id inattention to the Commer;:ial interests
of the count! y in not enforcing against every country
in the world, the different claims for redress of
individuals who. considered themselves aggrieved ; and
when at last the British Government, having exhausted
every means of -remonstrance and negotiation, ,thought
it their duty to ettake strong measures to obtain redress
from Foreign - Powers, who were the first to come dawn
to the House ; Ind turn round and accuse them of rash-
ness, want of f aresight, and precipitation ? Why, those
very gentleine a who before had accused them of apathy
and indifferenc s. Ha meant that as a general observa-
tion with rega rd to this motion. There were, as he un-
derstood the I feel. Gentleman, two grounds of accusa-
tion against ti e Dutch Government. Ist. That they
had not adhered to the stipulations of the Treaty of
1824, by which it had been agreed,-with regard to the
subjects and ships of the two nations, that the duties
to be levied es a the subjects and ships of foreign
nations, should be double those levied on the ships
and subjects of the nation in which the port
was situated. I hat complaint had been remedied. The
stipulations o f tile treaty had not been observed in the
Dutch tariff, hut on a representation being made on
the subject, negotiations had ensued, which ended in
the adoption. .of a tariff, by which the stipulations of the
treaty had toeen observed as regarded Java and its de-
pendencies. The Hon. Gentleman said that the
parties concen led had not derived all the benefits from
:hat change w hich they anticipated, which he believed
to be the cast a ; because, in the apportionment of the
duty accordire s to the provisions of the treaty, although
it had been di: ;minished on some articles, it had been in-
creased on o'a hers. With regard to the other point, the
British Goviernment had certainly construed the treaty
in a manner' which led them to consider that the duty
should depei id upon the origin of the goods, and not
upon the cot entry of the ships in which they were im-
ported ; but that was a mere matter of intetpretation,
and was, con te.quently, not so clear as the other ground
of complaint„ .and when it was stated to the Duteli Go-
vernment t'nat such was the interpretation placed upon
the treaty by the British Government, the Dutch Go-
vernment stater 1, that so far from that being the inter-
pretation whiith had been hitherto placed upon it, the
East India C, impany had within their territories, imme-
diately on the ratification of the treaty, adopted
the interpret etion put upan it by the Dutch
Government. He ,'found, on application to the East
India Compan y that such was the case, and that they
did not feel tht enselves called upon to alter their tariff ;
and such being the case, he felt himself precluded from
pressing that in te rpretation any further on the attention
of the Dutch Go vernment. On this subject, when pro-
duced, the paper 's would speak for themselves. With
regard to the et croachments of the Dutch authorities
in the Indian sees, he was not aware that the case had
been hitherto b naught under his attention. It was per-
fectly true tba.e the Government of Java had been ex-
tending their c' anquests, but that was not in violation of
the treaty. By the treaty it was stipulated that neither
party should ma doe any new conquests without the sanc-
tion of the Gov ernments at home ; and on application
to the Court of the Hague, he had found that the con-
quests of the (3 overnor of Java had been sanctioned by
the Dutch Gov ernment at home, and that, conse-
quently, there -was no ground for making any complaint
on that sut,ject. He felt quite assured that he should
he able to offer a satisfactory explanation of every one
of these points when the papers should be produced.
The motioa was then agreed to.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. LAN GDALE felt it necessary to address a few
observations t o the House regarding the Act for regu-
lating Marriae :es in England. By that Act there were
two modes by which marriage might be contracted ; one
by which, on etpplication to the Registrar, a certificate
was granted in which it was only necessary to state
where the ma Tinge was to be solemnized ; and by the
other, which was by licence, the parties could only be
married at some place of worship within the district in
which one of the parties desirous of beingmarried resided;
but by a rceent legal decision, it appeared that in the
first case it was also necessary for the parties to be mar-
ried in a place of worship situated within the district in
which they resit led. Nov it so happened that frequently
there was no pla ate of worship belonging to the religion
professed by the e parties within the district where they
waats,thtehatitmeganisytrDartssseonflitecres resided.
were obliged be !Ibmesemcitiaerrniceed
without any religious ceremony whatever ; and with re-
gard to the Catholics, who were obliged to be married
by their own ,olergy, they were placed in a worse
situation than: they were before the passing of the
Act. He pre posed to remedy this by introducing a
Bill enacteq ; that no Registrar shalt give
a certificate tar the solemnization of marriage out of

his own (listrc t, but if the parties proved to him that
there was no ;dace of worship within that district of
the persuasion to which they belonged, that then he
should grant a certificate for the solemnization of the
marriage the place of worship belonging, to the re-
ligion professc d by the parties nearest to the district
in which the p'zties resided. He, therefore moved for
leave to bring is a Bill to explain and amend an Act of
6 and 7Williaaa IV., iutituled an Act for Marriages
iu England:'
in 'Null re.
Bill,Go Ub
uLtßt
tI,JoRu wouldt
enaoutt
ooppose
ebsrsianrgy i
i ngn
lcoisl;iting
on the, subject.

Mr. SHAW thought if the law were changed for
the future it might, perhaps, affect the validity of mar-
riages heretofore contracted. He merely threw this
out as a suggestion.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said that although parties
might be punished for violating the Act, the violation
of the Act did not affect the validity of the marriage.
If he had the slightest conception that the Bill would
affect the validity of marriages formerly contracted,
knowing the tremendous effects that might be pro-
duced from any doubts of that sort, he should have felt
it his duty to come down to the House and state that
effect, let the Bill have proceeded from what part of
the House it might.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he thought it
was certainly necessary that no doubt should be thrown
on former marriages by any provision of the Bill. He
therefore wished that the words " residing in or near,"
should be more exactly defined, as the word " near "
was too vague in its present form. He had, however,
no objectian to the bringing in of the Bill.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
DEFINITION OF THE FRANCHISE (IRE-
LAND).
Mr. PIGOT moved for leave to bring in a Bill " to
remove doubts with respect to the qualification of
voters -in Ireland, for the election of Members to serve
in Parliament, and to create a Tribunal of Appeal."
The Hon. Gentlemen then proceeded to say that the
object of the Bill he was about to introduce, was first to
ascertain and settle by a distinct definition the law
with respect to the value of tenements to which the
Reform Act had annexed the franchise in Ireland ;
and, secondly, to establish a Court of Appeal
corresponding, in a considerable degree, to that which
was to be established is this country. With respect
to the first of these objects doubts had existed from the
period almost immediately following the passing of the
Reform Act, which rendered it indispensably necessary
that the law should be settled on the subject. Differ-
ences of opinion had arisen on the question among
those who had charge of the administration of the law,
and those differences still continued to exist. That the
construction which some had put on the Act was op-
posed to the intention of at least many of those who had
taken an active part in the framing of it, and passing it
through both Houses of Parliament, was a matter
which, he believed, had been abundantly proved. In-
deed the very phraseology of the Act created an absolute
impossibility of reconciling the construction put upon
it, with the manner in which it had been framed.
It follows in its provisions, and almost in its
very terms the section of the Act passed
in the year 1829, and which accompanied
the Act for the relief of Roman Catholics. That Act
contained two distinct sections, prescribing, in the first
place, what the claimant for the franchise must prove ;
and, secondly, what the Judge was to do in examining
into the claim. In each of those sections, after direct-
ing that the claimant was to bring forward his title, the
Statute went on to say, that he should prove that the
property which he held, and out of which he was to re-
gister, was of a value which a solvent tenant could ply
over and above that rent. In a schedule to that Sta-
tute there is an oath which is prescribed as part of the
process of registration, which it would be incumbent on
the claimant to take. After swearing that be was a
possessor of a certain amount of property, the oath
contained a distinct passage to the effect that a solvent.
and responsible tenant could afford to pay the amount for
which the claimant registered over and above the
rent.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Thus there were
three passages in the Act which contained the
provision to which he had alluded. Then in a distinct
schedule of the Act there was a prescribed form of an
oath which is to be administered to the jury who are to
try the claim, for, by the Act of Parliament, whenever
a claim was rejected by the original tribunal, he was en-
titled to appeal not to the Judges, but to a jury over
which a Judge presided. Tee oath in question was to the
effect that the jury should well and truly try whether
the claimant had the property in respect of which he put
forward his claim. Instead, however, of directing that,
he was to establish a value which a good and responsible
tenant could afford to pay over and above the rent ; he
was directed to establish that he hail a beneficial interest
in the property according to the value prescribed by the
Act, which value is a beneficial interest to the amount
of 10/. per annum. An oath is prescribed in a schedule
to the Reform Act corresponding to the oath pre,cribi d
by the schedule of the former stet Lite. In the Act
of 1829 the juror's oath is prescribed in a distinct
schedule ; and what is the nature of that oath ? In
that oath no form is prescribed by which that particular
cviestion at issue is to be tried by the jury. There was
a variance between the freehold and leasehold tenures
in the two Acts. Great difficulties thus arose, and
though he was far from wishing to impeach the inte-
grity or capacity of those who had charge of the admi-
nistration of the law in Ireland, ho could not but feel
that when the law relating to the franchise was left un-
defined, it was impossible to say what results might fol-
low.—(Hear, hear.) No one could deny that it was
of the utmost impertan.:e that the question should be
finally settled, and he certainly thought that the pre-
sent utatc of the law, as it regarded the franchise, was a
dishonour to the nation. In 1835 an attempt was
made to introduce a Bill on the subject, but it was not
sent up to the other House. In 1836 a measure was
also introduced into that House, but did not pass
into a law. That last measure had been introduced
by a Noble and lamented Friend of his (Lord Ce-
ments), who enjoyed the esteem of every one, and who
certainly could not be accused of any desire to intro.
duce a measure which could do injustice to any parties.
In the Bill which he (Mr. Pigot) was about to intro-
duce, he proposed to remedy the evil to which he had
alluded. Another portion of the Bill related to the
tribunal of appeal. In the Bill which the Noble Lord,
the Secretary for the Colonies, was about to introduce
for England, the appeal was to be made to three bar-
risters ; and a very serious question arose with respect
to the establishment of a similar tribunal in Ire-
land. The laws in both countries are essentially
and almost distinctly the same as it as regarded
real property, on which to a large extent the franchise
depended. It would, therefore, be certainly most de-
sirable, with a view to securing en uniformity of deci-
sion in both countries, that they should have one com-
mon tribunal. He would, therefore, propose that two
barristers should be appointed for Ireland, as a
court of appeal—that they should sit in Dublin—and
that they should have the assistance of one of the three
Judges of Appeal in this country. If the proposed
system would work well for England he thought that
they had every reason to expect that it would week
equally well in Ireland ; and he, therefore, begged leave
to submit it to the consideration of the House.
Mr. SH AW wished to know by whom the tribunal
was to be appointed ?

Mr. PICOT—By the Speaker (as we understood).
Mr. LITTON objected to the provision of the Bill
of his Hon. and Learned Friend. He believed that
under any circumstances the Judges of the land would
form the fittest tribunal for trying cases of ap-
, peal.—(Hear, hear.) He was also of opinion that
the very title of the Bill was an insult to the adminis-
tration of justice, for it was introduced on the supposi-
tion that the law was at present unsettled as regarded
the beneficial interest of claimants. It appeared to him,
however, that the law on the subject had been definitely
arranged by the decision of the l Judges, who had come
to the opinion that the beneficial interest was such as a
solvent tenant could pay over and above the rent.
If, therefore, the decision of ten Judges to two be the
law of the land, he was justified in asserting that the
present Bill was an insult upon the administration of
justice.—(No, no.) An Hon. Member said that was
not the decision of the Judges, but he asserted that it
was ; and if the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
had been in his place, he was prepared to show that
that Hon. and Learned Member had mis-stated the
judgment of the Judges. If they thought that the mi-
nority of the Judges were not bound to abide by the
decision of the majority, he would refer Hon. Members

to
")If
opinions
, pt
ihneio thatin House
theout o the m
did minority
mo
ary
were
nji
ot
_t o
the letter which had Yu
been written on that very s b-
ireitcyt....4by Chief Justice Bushe to Lord Denman, and his
reply,
bound
ei ns gt
00
ft
ghiav,,te
Rtwehaaeyd
thewwae
think it too great a trespass upon its time, he would
read the correspondence with great pleasure. [The
Hon. and Learned Member then read the letter of
Chief Justice Bushe, with the answer of Lord Den-
man, in which the Noble and Learned Lord stated
that the Judges of England were of opinion that the
minority were bound by the opinions of the
majority.] The Irish Judges, cn the receipt of
that letter met in Easter Term, and again decided by
a majority of 10 to 2, that the same rule should be
observed in Ireland. Now, he would remind the House
of the case of the unfortunate Mr. Frost, and the deci-
sion which had been come to on that point, In chief
Justice Tindal's letter to Lord Notmanby, the principle
that the minority were bound bv the decision of the
majority, was fully borne out. Hon. Gentlemen could
not after such instances venture to say that the Bill now
before the House was anything but an insult upon the
administration of justice in Ireland. He contended
that if the law was thus decided and laid down, the
House should at one reject the Bill. Under these
circumstances, although he did not mean to divide the
House against the Bill on the present occasion, lie
should give his humble oosition to it. If the Hon.
and Learned Member forp Clonmel proposed openly
and fairly to alter the Reform Bill, let him do so, but
let him not in that underhand way atterept a blow at
the administration of justice in Ireland.
Sir DENHAM N ORREYS feared.that the Bill of
his Hon. and Learned Friend would leave th
franchise in Ireland still in doubt and obscurity.
Tile same harrassiug, and vexations' and contra-
dictory evidence would be resorted to, and the
tenantry would still be inclined to consider their land-
lords as their enamies and their opponents.—( Hear,
hear.) He regretted that the Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen who hod devoted himself to the considera-
tion of Irish affairs with a zeal which he had never seen
evinced by any other Solicitor-Geeeral for Ireland, had
not grappled fully with the difficuties of the case. Now
that the Poor-law Act had been introduced into Ire-
land he would suggest to the Hon. and Learned Gen- ,
tleman whether it would not be advis.lble to adopt some

standard of rating under that Bill, and thereby do
away with the doubts and contradictory decisions which
had so frequently occurred on the subject of the fran-
chise.—(Hear, hear.) He merely threw out these re-
marks for the consideration of his Hon. and Learned
Friend.
Mr. LUCAS did not think the present stage of the
measure the best fitted for discussion, but he would
just observe that the mode of determining the franchise
was a question of the utmost importance to the elec-
tors, the candidates, and the country at large. He
fully concurred in the observations of the Ho-
nourable Member for Mallow, and he feared that
the Honourable and Learned Member for Clonmel
was about to give his sanction to a definition of
value which would create mischief and occa-
sion injury to all parties in Ireland.—(Hear.)
The clause opened the door as widely as possible to
temptation on one hand and to intimidation on the
other. It would not be possible for the Right Hon.
Gentleman to propose in his Bill any means of fairly
ascertaining what was called the beneficial interest.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that as far as he un-
derstood the letter of Chief Justice Bushe to Lord
Denman, the first inquiry was what was the course of
the Judges in England in criminal cases when points
were 7.'aserved for the consideration of the twelve
Judges? The second question was what was the course
usually pursued in cases of appeal from the Assistant-
Barristers ? In the first place, Lord Denman gave a
positive answer, which agreed entirely with that given
by Chief Justice Tindal ; but he (Lord J. R.) thought
that in regard to the second part of the question the
Learned Lord did not give any answer whatever. The
Learned Lord did not at all touch the question of the
franchise, in which the House was more con-
cerned than the Courts of Law. He would not assent
to any settlement of the question of the franchise, which
would leave to the Judges of England and Ireland the
power of determining who were to be voters for Members
of that House, without reference to the opinions of the
House it-elf. With respect to the question of the bene-
ficial interest, the decision of the Judges seemed to him to
be opposed to the intentions of Parliament in passing the
I.w under which the decisions were given. In the House
of Lords, the Duke of Richmond and the Marquis of
Lansdowne stated their views of a beneficial interest, in a
sense quite cpposed to that of the Judges; and there
was another authority, very soon after the passing of the
Reform Act, when the question of the franchise was tried
before a Committee of the House on the question of the
election for Monmouth county. In that case, the decision
of the barrister against the voter was put aside, and the
vote of Laurence Farren wis declared to be a good vote.
Supposing that the Judges in Ireland had been unanimous,
he did not think that would be sufficient to take the question
of the Parliamentary franchise out of the hands of that House;
nor could he see why the House should be less ready on
the present occasion to determine what its own views of
the franchise were. It was the object of the measure of
his Learned Friend to bring into effect the original inten-
tions of the Reform Sill.—(Hear.) An Hon. Friend of
his behind him had said, and he thought with good
grounds, that there should be a certain instead of an un-
certain test, so that there should be no doubt upon one side
or the other. He thought that in a case so important as the
claim fur a vote for a representative in Parliament, the law
ought not to be pushed beyond a fair interpretation. He
thought, however, that the interpretation ought not to be
such as would reduce the franchise too much within the
limits to which it was the intention of the Reform Act to
extend it; and he thought that, • from all the facts before
him, he could advise his Learned Friend to go further
than he had done.
Mr. SHAW did not mean to offer any objection to the
introduction of the Bill, but be could not help protesting
against some of the doctrines of the Noble Lord who had
just sat down. Ile wished the questions submitted by Chief
Justice Bushe to Lord Damian, being in themselves per-
fectly distinct, should not be confounded. He would ask,
did the Noble Lord mean to say that the judicial tribunals
of this country were not bound by the decision of the
majority of the Judges? As a Judge of an Inferior
Court, he would just as readily make a decision
against a statute as against an opinion of a ma-
jority of the Judges. He agreed with the Noble
Lord that it was right for the House to retain in its
own hands the power of deciding all questions relating to
the election of its Members ; but the House having passed
an Act of Parliament, must leave to the Judges of the land
the discretion of construing that Act. He had the
greatest possible objection to the measure, arid the time at
which it was :introduced.—( Loud cheering.) Nothing
could be more unfair or uocandid than the manner of its
introduction. Toe objection made by the other side to the
Bill of his Noble Friend the Member for North Lan-
e zshire, was that it contained no provision for regulating
the franchise. The same objection applied to the Bais
(:.f the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General for Ireland.
Ha brought in two Bilis—one of which hsd relation to the
registration alone, as was the ca..e with his Noble Friend's
Bill. Then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman brought in
another and distinct Bill on the subject of the franchise.
—( Hear, hear.) That was not fair conduct. It convinced
hint that neither of those Bills was brought in for the
sake of itself, but that they were both brought in for
the sake of impeding the Bill of his Noble Friend.--
( Cheers from the Opposition.) There could have been
no objection to this Bill, as a Franchise Bill, if it. had been
brought in separately ; but if it was to effect so great an
improvement, why was it not brought in sooner? If it was
important to regulate the question of appeal, why, he
would ask, was not that regulation put into the Registra-
tion Bill ? Why should it be coupled with another mea-
sure that was likely to ensure its defeat ? To the provi-
sions of this Bill he had the greatest objection, as he be-
lieved sleet it was impossible to give so good an appeal as
the We which at present existed in Ireland, if it was only
p-operly carried out. He thought it far better to give
die decision in these cases to the Assistant-Barristers, with
an appeal to the Judges, than to adopt tny other course.
In conclusion, he must rrotest against a Bill like the pre-
sent being brought forward at the present period of the
Session.
Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL hoped the Bill
would be showed to go on, as he was convinced the more
it was discussed the more the House would be convinced
that it carried cut the true intention of the Reform Bill.
Mr. WAKLE Y expressed a hope that the Noble
Lord would reconsider the subject, with a view of
adopting the suggestion thrown out by the Honourable
Member for Mallow. The Noble Lord in the first part of
his speech had stated his conviction that the question
ought to be settled, and it was not consistent with the
high bearing of the Noble Lord to shrink from introducing
that which he believed would put an cod to all dispute,
merely because he was afraid it might not be adopted. He
trusted the Noble Lord would come manfully forward and
adopt the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Mallow,
leaving those who opposed him to bear the contumely they
deserved. He trusted the Bill would net be brought in
that night, but that the Hen. and Learned Gentleman
would delay its introduction, for the purpose of intro-
ducing a clause to meet the suggestion which had been
thrown out.

Mr. PIG OT replied. Ile must deprecate the state-
ments that had been made by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Coleraine against the Judges of Ireland, because
they had acted according to what their own judgments
dictated was the proper course to pursue. The character
of the Judges of Ireland was their best shield from such im-
putations, and he thought it would have been far better
taste to hare refrained from them.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
On the motion of Mr. G. PA LME R, the House wetit
into Committee, and leave was given to bring in a Bill to
continue the Act for preventing Timber Ships loading
upon deck.
CLERGY RESERVES (CANADA).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in bringing before the
House a Bill for the settlement of the Clergy Reserve
question, said it was unnecessary for him to state the evils
which the state of that question had inflicted upon Ca-
nada, in consequence of the uncertainty in which the ques-
tion had been left under the Act of 1791, or the disputes
and dissensions which had arisen in the provinces for the
want of a permanent settlement of the question. With all
these points the douse was familiar. The only explana-
tion necessary was with regard to the present state of the
question, and one or two provisions of his Bill, which
differed from that which had received the sanction of the
Legislature of Upper Canada. The Governor-General
of Canada, acting upon his general instructions, recom-
mended the settlement of that question upon his arrival in
the province. He found strong objections entertained by
one party against the funds arising from the sale of the
Clergy Reserves being appropriated to any other than
Church purposes, while on the other hand there was an-
other equally strong party who were very anxious that
those funds should be applied to the purposes of education.
To reconcile those different parties be proposed a
Bill which bad received the sanction of a considerable

majority, both of the Legislative Council and the Assembly,
belonging to the Church of England. That was the man-
ner in which the measure had obtained the assent of the

Legislature of Upper Canada. When the Bill arrived in
this country doubts were entertained whether the Colonial
Legislature had not exceeded their powers, and the House
of Lords had caused questions to be put to the Judges, their
answers to which showed that they had exceeded their
powers, aeci therefore the Royal Assent could riot be given
to it. Under these circumstances it became necessary to
intreduce a Bill into Parliament to settle the question.
In seine respects he could not follow all the provisions ap-
proved of by the Assembly.—(Hear.) The general
principle of the Bill was that the whole of the
resources should be sold, that one-fourth of the sum
so raised should be appropriated to the Church of Eng-
land, one-fourth to the Church of Scotland, and the re.
mainder to Protestant Dissenters of all denominations.
The Judges were asked other questions, and in their answers
they declared, in the first place, that the term Protestant
clergy did not apply exclusively to the clergy of the
Church of England—that it included the clergy of the
Church of Scotland, and they further stated they did not
intend to say that the ministers of other Protestant
Churches were not included. As far as the Bill passed
in, Upper Canada, it provided for the clergy cf the
Churches of England and Scotland, they conformed to
the spirit of the Act 1791 ; but the Legislature of Upper
Canada went further, and applied a part of the
funds so to be raised to the Catholic faith,
which, it appeared, was intended to be excluded
fro:n any participation by the Act of 1791. The e,qh&ic
clergy in Uppper Canada were pieced upon a different
footing front their brethren in Lower Canada, who wtre
provided for by tithes. That was one reason why they
should participate in these funds; another reason was that
the Roman Catholics had shown themselves very much at-
tached to the Crown of England during the late disturb-
ances, therefore the exclusion under a new law wculd be
considered invidious, and but a poor recompense for their
faith and loyalty under very trying circumstances, and very
few in the Province were found to object to it. There
were some elaums in the Bill received from Canada it would
be inconvenient to follow. The first was the formation of
a Commission for taking a new census of those belonging I
to the Churches of England and Soothed, and, in four
to other denomination:.
years after, one of those belonging