The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-24 00:00:00

IRISH TITHE BILL.

Viscount MELBOURNE moved the order of the day
for the House going into Committee on the above Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW begged to make a few ob-
servations before the House went into Committee.—
He complained of the manner in which the Bill
had been 'delayed, and in which the whole subject
of Irish Tithes had been neglected. The Committee,
which has sat ever since the 16th of February, has had
no other evidence before them than the witnesses
examined in one week. One effect of this delay had
been, that the recommendation of the report totally
to extinguish tithes had been effectually accomplished
in Ireland, where there was a total suspension of !heir
payment ; and he had been assured, upon the hest
authority, that when application was made for pay-
ment, the people expressed their astonishment, and asked
whether the Legislature had not declared the extinction
of that impost. The consequence was, that it every
individual who could not recover his tithes, were
to make application under this Bill for relief, the
amount granted by it would not furnish one day's
victuals to their families. Even in some of the
most peaceable districts, and in nearly all the disturbed
ones, preparations were made by the people to re-
sist the authority of the Government and to establish
an organized system which would enable them to refuse
payment when demanded of them. He trusted therefore
that the Government would not, from any mistaken notions
of leniency or conciliation, be induced to forego the
powers given them by this. Bill, or neglect the duty im-
posed upon them, of enforcing the. payment of the ar-
rears. He would not take upon himself the responsibility
of preposing an amendment, but would suggest one, of which
he trusted the Noble Lord would see the propriety, it was
to introduce a clause giving the Government the same
power, with respect to the reoovery of costs which
the clergy now possessed, fer if the Bill did not give the
Government that power, resistance would be made for the
purpose of putting the clergy to expense.

Viscount MELBOURNE said that the Bill had
been introduced into the other House and passed
through it with all the speed its forms al-
lowed. He had been anxious to expedite it in
their Lordships' House, and what delay it had met
with was occasioned by the amendments proposed
by Noble Lords opposite. With respect to the re-
sistance which was intended to be offered to the
claim which the Government was impowered to make under
this Bill, Noble Lords might be assured that the Govern-
ment would exert all the powers given them by this Bill,
and IA for othars, if they were necessary, to maintain
the due authority of the law. With respect
to the recovery of costs, the Crown never paid or received
the costs, so that the Bill on that point only followed ►he
analogy of the common law.

The Bill, after a few observations, passed through Com-
mittee, and was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
Lord KING presented a petition from Queen's County,
against the Tithe System. The petition stated, that the
petitioners considered it extremely hard that they should
hive to pay to assist a measure which had been produc-
tive of the greatest misery.

Lord WYNFORD said it was not true, as the
petition alleged, that any Ecclesiastical Court, either in
England or in Ireland, bad jurisdiction over a Civil Court.
Lord KING—The tithes were manifestly a most Op-
pressive tax, and one of the worst kind, since a great
deal more was paid by the occupier of land than came into
the pockets of the clergy. The proctor intervened, and
had an interest in enforcing the payment of tities in the
most oppressive manner.
The Marquess of SALISBURY—
Ttie Noble Baron
called tithes a tax; but it was no trier- s tax than the
Noble Baron's rents were a tax. They were a property o
n.
which the clergy we
• as much entit:ed as the Noble
Ba-
ron was to bis rents; and if he called tithes anodious
,nd oppressive tax, bis tenants might b. apt to imagine
hit his rents w, re a most odious mid oppressive tax.
Tithes were a legal burden on tilt: laud; and the occupier

was, by law, as much bound to pay them as he was beu►ytl
to pay his rent. . .

Tl:, e Bishop of LONDON would not argue the question
at present, whether tithes were a tax or not ; but as to
the matter of cots, the Noble Barfsn ought to consith r
that these costs were occasioned by the resistance made
by the tithe-payer to the payment of a legal demand.
Lord KING—The Right Rev. Prelate argued the istat-
t,r as if the que.tion related to the payment of tithes in
England. The collection of tithes in Ireland stood on a
quite different footing, for the proctor intervened, and
valued and enforced payment of the tithe in a most op.
pressive manner. The Noble Marquess denied that tithes
were not a tax, because they were a legal assessment; hot
were not the Government taxes alao a legal aspesnment ?
Ai to the question of rents, if they were ton high, they
must he oppressive ; but if the Nobls Marquess's tenants
were as moderately rented as his were, he need not be
under much apprehension that the rents would be consi•
tiered by the tenants an oppressive tax.
The Marquess of SALISBURY repeated his ti.saertion,
that the clergy were as well entitled to their tithes as the
Noble Lord was to his rent ; at all events, the clergy
could not be charged with exacting payment in golt!.
Lord KING would explain the matter to which the
Noble Marquess alluded when he talked of payments in
gold. A motion bad been made and agreed to in another
place, declaring that bank-notes were, for the amount for
which they circulated, as valuable as gold. He t:vithed
put that to the te,t, and demanded gold.-.-not of a poor
tenant, but of a Rank Director, for the purpose of tryin
the question. As to tithes, they were not only a mis-
chievous tax, but it was an egregious error to treat them
otherwise than as public property—private for the life of
the individual, but otherwise public property.
The Bishop of LONDON denied that tithes tc^ ere poiplie
property.

Lord BEXLEY did nr:t doubt the tspitahle intentions
of the Noble Lord; b.ut heronsidered himself entitles+ to
make reflections unless ire paid all his debts ;Is Sold.
The petition was laid on the table.
CIVIL DEPARTMENT (NAVY).

Lord AUCKLAND then moved the second reading of
the Navy Civil Dep Irtmenti Bill, stating the provisions of
that measure, AS already before the public, observing that
the operations of the Navy would now he carried on at
much less expense than before. In th, future progt•eNs of
the Bill he should Lave opportunities of discussing it more
at length.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH doubted that the 13111 would
produce all those beneficial results which its promoters an-
ticipated ; his apprehensio❑ was that the new system
%rould diminish responsibility, and render the service of
the navy much less efficient than before.

Lord NAPIER considered that further di,cussion had
better he postponed until they got into Committee.
There was a subject connected with the motion to
which he wished to advert very shortly ; a charge had
been made against Captain Symonds, in another place,
than which nothing could have been more void of founda-
tion—there was not a man in the navy, having had op-
portunities of seeing the conduct of Captain Symonds, who
would not he ready to testify to his high professional cha-
racter and abilities, and he was an officer who had some
reason to complain of the treatment he received at the
wavy Board—it was not till after much solicitation and
after large securities had been entered into, that he was
allowed to superintend the building of an experiment.l
'v,ssel, which sailed with the experimental squadron in the
year 1827, and in a high degree excelled all its rivals. He
thought it due to the Gallant Officer to state thus much,
remembering the attack made upon him in another quar-
ter, and made se unwarrantably.
Lord COLVILLE, though no enemy to Reform,
thought that the present measure went too far.
Lord OAKLEY said a few words in approval of the
ifieasu re.

The Bill was then read a second time.
REFORM BILL,

The House went into a Committee on this Bill.

On the question that Dudley return a M mber,

Lord ECLENBOROUGH objected to it, in consequence
of the number of places in the immediate neighbourhood
that were to be enrranchised ; and protested against any
tendency to the formation of district representation.
Lord RADNOR thought Dudley was well entitled to
Member.

Lord KING contended that the wealth of such places
as Dudley fully entitled them to Members, and that there
was no desire to establish a district representation. He
thought the towns were not adequately represented in pro_
portion to their wealth, which was much greater than that
of the landed interest.
The Earl of AIALMESBURY contended that the
manufacturing interest was neither superior in wealth nor
importance to the agricultur#l interest. He considered that
the agricultural interest would suffer materially by the Bill.
The Earl of CARNARVON thought the whole ten-
dency of the Bill was to give a preponderance to the manu-
facturing interest.
The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that Dudley
was to the iron trade what Leeds was to the woollen trade,
and therefore entitled to representation.
It was then agreed that Dudley should stand part of
the schedule. Afterwards the insertion of Frome was
agreed to without observation.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY objected to the
arrangement with respect to Durham, to the prepon-
derance which was given to the property of the Noble
baron and the Whig interest. It was impossible not to
feel some surprise at seeing the Noble Earl opposite
showering on his own family offices of the highest rank ;
valuable bishoprics, blue and other ribands, &e. Those
were by no means palatable appointments to the country ;
by whom also it was doubted whether, in some of the
arranzements of the Bill, a view was not had to the local
interests of the Noble Baron opposite. He would now,
however, proceed to state his objections to the proposition
immediately before their Lordships. The county of
Durham was divided by the new arrangen.ent into a
northern and a southern part ; the latter being larger than
the former. By that new arrangement, of ten additional
Members, eight were given to the northern, which was
the smaller part of the county; and two to the southern,
which was the larger part of the county. Now where
was the property of the Noble Baron situated ? In the
northern part of the county. It was clear that the Noble
Baron must have a great influence in the return of the
Members for Sunderland, South Shields, and Gateshead.
Nor was that all. If by the Bill the voters for towns were
also to be made voters for counties, it was clear that the
Noble Baron would also have a great influence over the
votes for the northern part of the county. It was his
firm belief that out of the eight Members which by this
arrangement were to be given to the northern part of the
county of Durham, the Noble Baron would have the
power of procuring the return of seven. And why was
Gateshead to have a sep irate representation ? Gateshead
was formerly a suburb of Newcastle. The population of
Gateshead was of an inferior description—a fact of which
the great ravages lately made in that place by the cholera
afforded a strong proof. Why not join Gateshead to
Newcastle? All the property was in Newcastle. But if
the question were fairly stated, why had not the right of
representation been conferred on Stockton-upon-Tees;
full as that town was of wealth and intelligence ? Of
course he did not hope for any success in the proposition ;
but be felt that he should not do his duty if he refrained
from proposing, although he would not press it to a divi-
sion, that Stockton-upon:Tees be substituted for Gates-
head. With this proposition, after sonic further remarks,
the Noble Marquess concluded.
Lord DURHAM begged to return his best thanks to
the Noble Marquess who bad just sat down for the oppor-
tunity he had afforded him (Lord Durham) of giving an
eat lanation with respect to Gateshead, with a view to re-
move an impression which was not only prevalent amongst
a portion of the public, but which seemed to pervade the
mind of the Noble Marquess himself ; and he trusted that
be should be able to make the Noble Marquess himself
confess that the information on which he had made his
statement was extremely incorrect. At the same time he
could not hut congratulate the Noble Marquess on having
followed the example of the Noble Lord near him (Lord
F.llenboroueh) in the tone and tenour of his observations,
and particularly of having at last become a Retorrner.—
(" No," from the Marquess of Londonderry.) The Noble
Marquess had commenced his observations by remarking,
that the proposed increase of Member-it for towns in the
counts' of Durham would give an increase to the Whig
party is that county, and had insinuated that this had
been done at his (Lord Durham's) instance. He (Lord
Durham) felt ashamed in being thus compelled to declare,
that as he felt no man embarked in public life ought
to introduce into any measure feelings of a private
or personal nature, or from which he could achieve
his own aggrandizement, so he would rather have
vacated the station he so unworthily held in the Governs
ment of the country than be accessory to such an act,
even should his colleagues have been base enough to per-
mit it —(Hear, hear.) He was, however, free to admit,
that in framing the measure before their Lordships he had
taken a considerable share, and hail devoted much time
and attention to it, and he had in that capacity decided
that no plan of Reform could be satisfactory which did
not do away with the nomination boroughs; and after
having disposed of them, it bad been the matter of considera-
tion how the representation of the country could be fully
and ftirly extended ; and he could venture to assert to
their Lordships, that every one of the boroughs to be
, in the county of Durham, as well as elsewher^,

tame within the lint of demarcation which had been laid
down by the Government. The number of Members al
located to the county of Durham was not greater than i.
was entitled to by e present amount of population ; and
the Noble Mar guess would find, on reference to works of
authority, that in tlie reign of Charles It., when the po-
pulation of the county ono not any thing approaching to
what it wes at preFent, it was even then proposed that the
county of Durham should have ten Membert, and, what
would perhaps be thought snore reinarieahle, the town of
Gateshead was among r!:e. number of those towns it was then
proposed to enfranchise. The proposition, certainly, had
never been carried into effect, a dissolution having inter-
vened. He felt he also ought to mention) hlt when the
applicatien vas made by the inhatlta'ats of Walsall, repre-
senting their claims, he (Lord burham) was perfectly ig.,
norant of teen having been preferred. The application
was sett to the Chancellor of the Exchet-iuer on the 31st
'of January, 1831, and Of such a coinunication he (Lord
Durham) was perleetly ignorant. This, however, he
could say, that the town of Gateshead contained a popula-
tion or 1'5,300 inhabitants, paying assessed taxes, td the
amount of 2,0001. annually, and containing 'iso 101.
houses ; and he begged their Laif'altips to consider how
the town stood with reference in point of population, the
amount of assessed taxes paid, the number of 101. houses,
and Litutenant Drummond's test to other towns contained
10 schedule D, and which would, on one of these points
or the other, be inferior to Gateshead. Under every cal-
culation be contended that Gateshead was entitled to a
Member, and no comparison could be maintained between
its claims and thoireof Stockton-upon-Tees. Stockton con-
tained only 7,991 inhabitants, not half the population of
Gateshead, and it was equally deficient in every other re-
spect of qualification.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Much as the
No'nle Marquess had Urged with respect to the increase
of Members to the county of Durham, the increase was
applied to districts which had risen in population
and other respects from commercial establishments,
which had been the consequence of the collieries, to
which allusion had been made, but that increase
was in no respect equal to that made in the county of
Lancaster, where, in the same area as that named
by the Noble Marquess, it would be found that nit less
than seven places were enfranchised, by which twelve ad-
ditional Members were given. This increaae, in both in-
stances, had arisen from the accident that those towns had
increased in population, trade, and wealth ; and he
thought—and be believed it also to be the opinion of the
majority of their Lordships—that it would be too much
to resist the claims of such towns, merely because they
might stand on the property of any individual —(Hear,
hear.) He also would venture to defy the Noble Marquess,
even if he changed pl yes with him (Lord Durham), to
return a single Member for any one of the towns in the
county of Durham to be enfranchised. He begged to deny
that Gateshead was a mere suburb of Newcastle ; on the
contrary, ever since the year 1100 constant efforts had
been made by the Corporation of Newcastle to attach
Gateshead to Newcastle, but in vain. Gateshead was in
a different county, and paid different rates front those of
Newcastle ; and as a proof that it was distinct from that
town, there was a law of the Corporation of Newcastle,
which provided that, any freeman of that borough resid-
ing in G iteshead should nit have the power of enfran-
chising his apprentices. Efforts, as lie had already
remarked, had been constantly made by the Corpora-
tion of Newcastle to attach Gateshead to that bo•
rough, which were constantly resisted by the Bishop
of Durham, and by the people of Gateshead.
When Dudley, the celebrated Duke of Northumber-
land, usurped the revenues of that see, he attached Gates-
head to Newcastle, but that arrangement did not last more
that six months. It was repealed by the Ist of Mary,
and the wording of the act proved that Gateshead was al-
ways looked upon as distinct and separate from Newcas-
tle. Its trade was perfectly different from that of New-
castle. There were great iron and brass founderies in
Gateshead, which did not exist in Newcastle, and, as a
proof that the poverty in Gateshead was not greater than
that in Newcastle, he could state that the average amount
of its poor-rates was always infinitely less than that of
Newcastle. The Noble Lord here read an extract from
the Report of the Commissioners, in corroboration of his
statements with regard to Gateshead. With regard to the
division of the county of Durham, he begged to say that it
had been made by independent and impartial Commis-
sioners, with whom neither he, nor any Noble Lord, nor
any Member of Parliament, had any communication with
regard to the division of that or any other county. The
division tin it had been made of the county of Durham, was
the only one that could with fairness and propriety have
been made. It was a matter in which he (Lord Durham)
had no personal interest. He had no relative or friend to
recommend, and, even if it had, he should consider that
the county was fully competent itself to judge who should
represent it. He was sorry that he should be obliged
to take up their Lordships' time in disclaiming any per-
sonal motives connected with the matter, but the Noble
Lord had put it upon him to do so.—(Hear, hear.) The
only motive that he had in supporting this measure was
the good of his country.—( Hear.)
After a few wards from the Marquess of LONDONDERRY
in explanation, and from the Earl of CARNARVON against
the proposition, the question was put and agreed to.
Huddersfield and Kidderminster were then ordered to
stand part of schedule D.
On the question being put as to Kendal,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that Kendal was cer-
tainly a respectable place, and there was a manufacture
there ; but he entertained great doubts as to the expedi-
ency of enfranchising Kendal by the disfranchisement of
some other place. It WAS most unjust, for instance, that
Appleby should be entirely disfranchised.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that when the proper
time came to discuss the case of Appleby, he should be
ready to show that in every respect it bad a right to be
placed in schedule A. With re.'ard to Kendal, he had to
observe that it was a considerable manufacturing town,
and that it was peculiarly well adapted for representation.
The question was then put and carried.
Rochdale was then placed in schedule D.
On the question being put as to Salford,—
Lot d ELLENBOROUGH said that there was much
less reason for sep irating Salford from Manchester than
there was for leaving Toxteth-paik connected with Liver-
pool : while there were only 1,200 101. houses in Salford,
there were 3.300 101. houses in Toxteth-park.
Lord SUFFIELD contended that Salford was a per-
fectly distinct place from Manchester, and that it possessed
interests altogether different and distinct from it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that Salford was
entirely distinct from Manchester, and was under a dif-
ferent municipal government, whereas Toxteth-park was
a mere prolongation of Liverpool, and was as much a part
of Liverpool as any part of Westminster was of Westminster.
The question was then put and agreed to.
South Shields, Tynemouth, and Wakefield were then
ordered to stand part of schedule D.
On the question being put as to Walsall,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH opposed its enfranchisement,
on the ground that it was a district spread over a large
space, and not a distinct town.
The Bishop of LICHFIELD contended that on acconnt
of the wealth possessed by Walsall, and the peculiar inte-
rests existing there, it was entitled to the representation.
The question was then agreed to.
Warrington, Whitby, Whitehaven, Merthyr-Tydvil, and
Aberdare, were then agreed to.
The next clause was then agreed to as part of the Bill.
The next clause, that Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury,
and East Retford, shall include certain districts, was agreed
to, after a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the
LORD CHANCELLOR.

The next clause, that Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
return two Members jointly, was agreed to, as well as the
next clause, enacting that the boundaries of certain existing
boroughs be settled.
The next clause, and the schedule E, specifying the
places in Wales which are to have a •hare in elections for
the shire-town., were agreed to as part of the Bill.
On the clause enacting that the boundaries of certain
places in Wales be settled.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that it seemed impos-
sible for the House to consider the boundary subject, when
the Bi►l came down here, and that the whole subject was
more proper for a committee up stairs : it was of the
deepest importance to the future operation of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that when the Boun-
dary Bill reached this House, they would have had the
experience of the other House. The remark of the Noble
Baron was, however, entitled to attention, though there
was much greater difficulty in discussing the details of such
a Bill in the other House than in this. It might be a
matter of future consideratien : in the meantime, there was
no difficulty in disposing of all the arrangements, which
were only provisional.
The clause was then agreed to.
The next clause, that Swansea, Loughor, Neath, Aber-
avon, and Ken-fig form one borough, and the electors not
to •ote for Members for Cardiff, was then agreed to ; as
well as the next, the description of the returning officers
for the new borough T..

On clause 12, that there shall be six knights of the
shire for Yorkshire,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE inquired why York should be
the place ~f election for the North Riding: Northallerton
would be mere convenient.
The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that Northal-
lerton would be a more convenient place. York was re-
tained, be supposed, because it was the customary place,

and, ceteris pctribus, wool I be the best; but its position
rendered it as inconvenient as a place of election for thi
North Riding. There was one circumstance in its favour,
—1 hat there was all the appurtenances of courts there, and
not at Northallerton.

After some observations from the Earl of AloLonAve
and Lord Wit A htiCLIFrE, we understood that the subject
was to be considered.
The clause was agreed to.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH then proposed a clause
giving six Knights of the Shire to Lancashire, two to each
of the southern divisions Which were manufacturing dis-
uicts, and ttvo to the northern division, which was agri-
cultutaL It was framed on the model of the clause just
agreed to:
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this clause'
would render it necessary to disfranchise other boroughs.
—(" No.") He thought the clause unnecessary. A large
proportion of agricultural voters had been carved out from
the counties for boroughs. As the Bill now stood, the
Member: fot Lancashire would be more agricultural than
at present. This was, however, not the proper time to
consider this question, but when they came to divide the
counties with reference to repres.ntation.
Lrrd ELLENBOROUGH said, it was perfectly im-
possible to divide Lancashire so as not to give an unequal
preponderance to the manufacturing over the agricultural
interest. He should press his motion.
The Marquess of SALISBURY said that under the Bill
he could undertake to say that it was totally impossible
that the agricultural interest in Lancashire could have a
single member.
Earl GREY said he was not so apprehensive as the
Noble Lords that this Bill would exclude the agricultural
interest in Lancashire. If it were true that the manufac-
turing interest was so power ful there, how was it that now
the two Members were generally agricultural ? He saw
no reason fer the introduction of the clause ; but it was a
question that might be left till the boundaries came to be
discussed.

After some further ob-ervations from Lord Wynford, the
Marquess of Salisbury, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord
Wharncliffe, the Committee divided on the motion, when
there appeared—
Content l5
Not content 7O
Majority againbt Lord Ellenborough's clause —55
. . . . . . .

Clause 1-I, certain counties shall be divided, and
return two knights for each division, with schedule F,
wall then agreed to.
Clause 15, that there shall be three knights of the shire
for certain counties, enumerated in echedule F 2, was then
put, when
The Marquess of SALISBURY moved that the number
he four instead of three, which was negatived without a
division, and the clause was agreed to.
Clause 16, that the Isle of Wight be severed from Hamp-
shire, and return a Member, was agreed to, after a remark
from Lord ELLENROROUGIi, that five Members were given
to Hants, aft r six had been refused to Lancashire.
Clause 17, that towns, which are counties of them-
selves, be included in adjoining counties for county elec-
tions, was then agreed to, after a few remarks from Lord
Elleuborough, Lord Durham, Lord Wynford, and the
Lord Chancellor.

On clause IS being put, which enacts that no freehold
for life shall give a vote for a county, unless it be worth
101. a year, excepting present 40s. freeholders during life.
The Marquess of SALISBURY observed that the object
of the clause was to give a right to vote for counties to
persons who had no property in the county for which they
voted, and towards the burdens of which they contributed
nothing. He begged to ask the Noble Earl, and he hoped
that, as was usual with the head of the King's Govern-
ment, he would have the courtesy to give him an anew' r,
on what ground he proposed to take away the franchise of
the 40s. freeholders for life.

Earl GREY—My answer is, the rights of freeholders
are preserved for life.—(A laugh.)
The Marquess of SALISBURY asked what became of
the rights of freeholders which were for three lives, and
whether such property was not materially deteriorated ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR read and explained the
clause to the Noble Marquess. If the freehold was for his
own life, it was preserved to the existing freeholder ; if it
was for the lives of other persons, he retained the right to
vote during his own life, exactly as if the Bill had never
passed. The object of the clause was to prevent the M -
nufacturing of vote.t.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the clause should
have been differently worded. In his neighbourhood com-
mon fields have been divided into freeholds of 21., 31., and
41. a-year. The population was very industrious and par-
simonious, and desirous of possessing freeholds. In one
parish there were .1,600 persons, and 100 freeholds of this
description, not one of the holders of which would find
that his son was not disfranchised. A great portion of that
part of the country was in the same circumstances. lie
entreated that the subject might be reconsidered.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE understood the object of the
proviso to be the disqualification of what were called
annuity 40s. voters, at the same time that it was intended
to preserve the rights of bona fide 40s. freeholders ; but
he apprehended the clause was so worded as to disqualiiy a
great number of bona fide voters; and that he considered
extremely objectionable.
The Duke of RICHMOND felt great satisfaction at the
virtuous indignation expressed by Noble Lords opposite,
at the idea of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders.—(llear
and laughter.) He could have wished, however, that they
had not united in disfranchising 250,000 Irish 40s. free-
holders in 1829. But be that as it might, he congra-
tulated Noble Lords on having at last come to their senses,
even at the expense of a sactifice of political consistency—
(A laugh.)
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY—What the Noble
Duke refers to was done to accomplish a great object, in
the necessity of which almost every body was agreed—
(" No, no") : but what were we to gain by this measure?
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, there was a great dif-
ference between the Irish and English 40a. freeholders,
the latter being a much mere respectable class than the
former.

Lord HOLLAND had voted for the disfranchisement of
the Irish 40s. freeholders, but it was o ith the utmost
reluctance—his vote had been wrung from him by an
ardent desire to pass the great measure by which the dis.
franchisement was accompanied. He was sure the object
of this clause was not to disqualify bona fide voters, but
the contrary ; and if there seemed any doubt on the
subject, he, for one, could have no objection to introduce
some words by way of amendment, which should sat the
matter at rest.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said it might be well to
add one or two words to the proviso, in order to Remove
all doubt, and render it clear that no bona fide voter was
to be affected by the clause. He had nu objection to
postpone the clause for the purpose of adding such words.
Meanwhile their Lordships could proceed with the next
clause if they were disposed to go further to-night—(Cries
of " No: adjourn.")
Lord WYNFORD also wished to exclude fictitious
votes ; but that could be easily done without affecting
bona fide freeholders.
The clause was postponed.
The House resumed ; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Adjourned at half-past Twelve.

HOUSE OF COM2IONS, Mil' 23.
Mr. GILLON presented a petition from the Commis-
sioners of Police in Edinburgh against the Edinburgh
Police Bill.—Referred to the Committee. _ _ .

Mr. DUNDAS brought up the report of the Committee,
with amendments, on the Insurance Company of Scot-
land Bill. _

Sir W. FOLKES presented a petition from Diss, in
Norfolk, praying the House to withhold the supplies
until the Reform Bill had passed ; also a petition from
Norfolk, for a repeal of the duty on Marine Insurances.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition, to which he
begged leave to call the attention of the House. It was
signed by the chairman on behalf of the meeting, and, of
course, could only be receiv-d as from that person; but it
was agreed to at the largest meeting ever known, com-
prising the inhabitants of Plymouth, Devonport, and
Stoneheuse, to the number of 20,000 persons. The
petitioners, aftor expressing their regret at the late resigna-
tion of Ministers, concluded by a prayer to withhold the
supplies from any Ministry who would not produce a Re-
form Bill equally efficient in all its parts with the present
one. The Noble Lord next presented similar petitions
from Totness, Ashburton, Leith, Paisley, and Dudley.
Mr. LITTLETON bore testimony to the respectability
of the meeting at Dudley, and said that the feeling mani-
feited there in favour of Reform was greater than was ever
known upon any subject.
Lord EBRINGTON next presented a similar petition
from Reading, signed in one hour by about 5,000 persons.
Mr. F. PALMER supported the prayer of the petition.
The NOBLE Loan then presented similar petitions from
Middleton, in Lancashire, and from the English visitors in
Jersey. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said, that although
all those petitions prayed that the supplies might I.e stopped
until the Reform Bill was passed, he hoped it would be
long before an occasion should arise to call upon the re-
presentatives of the people to exercise the right which they
undoubtedly possess of withholding the supplies.
The petitions were ordere;l to be printed.
Sir H. WILLIANISON presented similar petitions
from Gateshead, signed by 8,000 persons, and also from
Darlington and Mahon, in Yorkshire.
Mr. LEADER rose to present several petitions from the

county of Kilkenny in favour of Irish Recorm. The
Hon. Member said there was one front the city of Kil-
kenny, praying for an additional Member under the Re-
form Bill. That town had a population of upwards of
twenty-five thousand inhabitants, and was the an-
cient seat of learning in Ireland ; it also returned
four Members to the Irish Parliament. The Honourable
Gentleman thought that it would be more in accordance
with justice to give that town an additional Member, than
to givo ono to the University of Dublin. lie then pre-
sented his petitions, which were from the city of Kilkenny,
Kinsale, Knocktopher, Powerscourt, and several other
places.
Mr. LEFROY hoped that the House would confirm
what was proposed to be done under the Reform
Bill, viz. to give another Member to the University
of Dublin, which, though it had not 25,000 inhabitants,
was still the only seat of learning in Ireland for the ede-
ration of the gentlemen and clergymen of that country.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. and Learned Member
had justly said that the University of Dublin was the only
seat of learning in Ireland, but it was distinguished only
for its wealth. It was the most richly endowed of any
University in this or any other country, having 1,000 acres
of the best land and upwards of 40,000/. a-y ear. But having
only a constituency of 96, and having at its elections,
he would not say the last, or the one before, but at former
ones, having exhibited the grossest perjury that had ever
disgraced any election, he could not believe, till he read it
in the Reform Bill, that any man could propose that it
should have another Member, especially when its constitu-
ency was only to be extended about 100, and there were
so many other places in Ireland that had a better claim.
Mr. H. GRATTAN spoke to the same effect.
The petitions were then ordered to be printed.
C 4onel CAVENDISH presented a petition from Derby,
praying the House to stop the supplies till the Reform
Bill was passed into a law.
Mr. STRUTT was instructed to support the prayer of
the petition, which he did with pleasure.
Mr. HEYWOOD rose to present a great number of
petitions from Lancashire to the same effect. Though
the cause which had given rise to them had been re-
mos ed, still he was desired to present the petitions, that
there might be no mistake as to the sentiments of the
people of that county. The Hon. Member then pre-
sented petitions from Manchester, Warrington, Roch-
dale, Oldham, Royton, Heywood, Todmorden, and Ware,
in Herefordshire, which were ordered to be printed.
Captain GORDON presented petitions from the parish
of St. Paul Essex, front Yalding, Tynemouth, Shaftes-
bury, Cropper-street, Manchester, Brighton, and ten other
places, against the new syst,-nt of education in Ireland.
Mr. 11. ROSS presented two petitions from Montrose,
and one from Dundee, in favour of Reform, and praying
the House to refuse granting supplies till the Reform Bill
became the law of the land. The Hon. Member presented
a petition from Arbroath, in favour of the Factories Bill.
Lord CAVENDISH presented three petitions from
Belper, Guildford, and another place, all in the county of
Derby, in favour of the Reform Bill, and praying the
House to withhold the supplies until it he passed. Also a
petition from Derby anti its vicinity in favour of the Fac-
tories' Labour Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the Vicar,
Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of Abergavenny, in favour
of Reform, and praying the House to repose confidence in
the present Ministers, and to address his Majesty, to re-
quest the dismissal of all evil counsellors.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Birming-
ham, agreed to at a meeting of upwards of 100,000 per-
sons, but signed only by the Chairman. It insisted on the
right of every British subject to carry arms, and prayed
the House not to grant a.ty supplies until the Reform Bill
be passed.
Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. O'CONNELL then presented two similar peti-
tions from the Kidderminster and Bristol Political
Unions, botll of which strongly urged a stoppage
of the supplies my il the Reform Bill be passed—a measure
which should have his hearty coni•urrenceAii it: were not
soon passed into a law. The Hon. Member then pre-
sented a petition from Glasgow, in favour of the grant to
Maynooth College, signed by Sir Daniel Sandford, and
many other respectable persons.
Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from two
parishes in Limerick, relative to vestry assessments,
and took that opportunity of asking if the Bill for the re-
gulation of Special Juries had been abandoned ?
Mr. STANLEY said the Bill had gone up to the other
House, and he was not aware of any intention to abandon
it. As soon as the state of public business permitted, the
Bill would no doubt be proceeded with.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought it ought to have passed
before now.

Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from Cork,
complaining that notwithstanding the passing of the Re-
lief Bill, Catholics were still excluded from the corporate
offices.

Mr. O'CONNELL supported the prayer of the petition,
and said that it limited a number of persons, as the cor-
poration of Cork had the disposal of the intmen,e sum of
70,000/. an nu,dly,—a sum large enough to defray the ex-
pensis of the Government of the United States.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN said the same practice prevailed in
the corporation of Dublin, and he trusted the attention of
the Law Officers of the Crown would be directed to it.

Mr. CALLAGHAN next presented two petitions from
Cork, for an alteration in the duties on coals and soap.

Sir R. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Had
dington, in favour of Reform. _ .

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE presented a petition from the
pre,bytery of Hamilton, against the new system of edu-
cation in Ireland.

Capt. GORDON supported the petition.
Mr. DIXON would take that opportunity of stating
that from his own knowledge the great majority of the
people in the west of Scotland were in favour of the Go-
vernment plan of education.
Mr. CAMPBELL concurred wi h the Hon. Member;
he could not but think that the clergy of the Church of
Scotland were acting under a de!usion, when they pe-
titioned against this system.
Mr. DUNDAS would contradict the statement of the
two last speakers. He believed a great majority of the
people belonging to the Church in Scotland were against
the system. The clergy did not deserve the odium cast
upon them by the Hon. and Learned Member. He (Mr.
Dundas) knew the Presbytery of Scotland had not taken
up the question till after mature deliberation. A Commit-
tee had b en appointed, one of the members of which was
Dr. Chalmers, the most liberal-minded man in Scotland, yet
he had refuted that they could not support that system.
Mr. HUME said the Honourable Member for Edin-
burgh had alluded to a public document and a
public character in the person of Doctor Chalmers.
He regretted that that man had put his name to such a
document, for it tended materially to hurt the character
lie had so well deserved up to this period for liberality.
Mr. A JOHNSTON presented a similar petition from
the Presbytery of Edinburgh.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from Hyde,
praying the House to use all constitutional means for pass-
ing the Reform Bill.
Mr. HAWKINS presented a petitio❑ to the same ef-
fect from the borough of Tavistock.
Sir G. MURRAY presented a petition from the Synod
of Perth, against the Ministerial plan of Education in
Leland.

Mr. DENISON presented petitions praying the House
to use the powers vested in it by the constitution for car-
rying the Reform Bill, from the following parishes in
Surrey :—St. Mary, Newington, Lambeth, Camberwell,
and Christchurch ; and similar petitions from the town
of Dorking, and the masters and seamen of the Trinity
House.
Mr. BRISCOE expressed his entire concurrence in the
prayer of the petitioners.
The petitions were ordered to be printed.
Mr. STRICKLAND presented similar petitions from
Sheffield, Morely, Holrnfirth, and a parish in Waterford.
The Hon. Member said that the petition from Sheffield
bore the signatures of 20,000 persons.—Ordered to be
printed.
The same Hon. MEMBER presented a petition from
Halifax, with 10,000 signatures, in favour of the Bill for
restricting the labour of children in factories.—Referred
to the Committee on the Bill.
The LORD-ADVOCATE rose to present a petition
emanating from a late public meeting at Edinburgh, call-
ing on the House to use the most efficient Constitutional
endeavours to secure the success of the Reform Bill in
unmutilated state. The petition had been signed,
within the short space of two days, by more than
ge,ooo persons, with the additional designation of their
professions and places of residence. It was worthy of
remark, as indicative of the spirit of the people, that the
day after the public meeting at which the petition had
been agreed to, there teas not a single police case for
Magisterial cognizance in Edinburgh.
Mr. C. DUNDAS did not doubt that there existed a
strong feeling in favour of Reform in the city he had the
honour to represent ; but he believed that the most Con-
stitutional means had not been resorted to in getting up
the meeting at which the petition was agreed to. He
had also good reason to doubt the alleged numerical
amount of the meeting. Engineers had measured the
ground, and they calculated that there could not have
been more than 9,000 persons present. It was with pain
that he bad learned that an Hon , Friend of his, whom

his Majesty had lately appointed to the command of one
,f the most repectable regiments in the service,—he al-
luded to the 92d,—had taken a prominent part at a
,nesting, where he was surrounded by decided emblems
of republicanism, such as banners displaying the figure
of the King without his head, and the revolutionary
symbols of France, with placards bearing the most sedi•
tious inscriptions. He believed that there was not a
soldier in the 92d Regiment that would nut have torn
down these revolutionary banner,. It was solely owing
to the good sense of the lower classes in the city of Edin-
burgh that they had not committed the most atrocious
acts of violence.
Colonel EVANS thought that the course adopted by the
Hon. Member was calculated to injure an individual with-
out accomplishing. the least public good.—(Hear.)
Mr. T. F. KENNEDY had never heard a more un-
warrantable attack than that made by the Hon. Member
for Edinburgh on the gallant officer who had taken part
in the proceedings of the meeting. He , thought that all
Scotsmen should be proud of the character of the meeting
in question, arid should rejoice that the peace of their
country bad not been broken.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS denied that at this meeting, or any
similar meeting, had the question of Reform been the sub-
ject of dispassionate consideration.
The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the conduct of the
gallant officer who had been censured by the Hon. Member
for Edinburgh. He had not only acred in a blameless,
but in a very creditable manner. The gallant officer
could not be fairly held responsible for the proceedings of
all persons that chose to attend a large public meeting.
From information which he (the Lord-Advocate) bad re-
ceived, he believed that the description of the banners had
been over-coloured.
The petition was then laid upon the table, and ordered
to be printed.
The LORD-ADVOCATE presented a petition in favour
of the Scotch Reform Bill, from the county of Perth. The
Noble Lord said that the petition bore 27,000 signatures,
among which were the names of seven Scottish peers, and a
large proportion of the magistrates of the ci unty.
Sir G. MURRAY made several observations, for the
purpose of showing that the number of persons who at-
tended the meeting from which this petition emanated had
been greatly over-rated. He read an extract from a letter
addressed to himself by a relative of his own, who was,
however, a supporter of the Reform Bill, in which the num-
bers were estimated at not more than 6,000. He should
not have risen, however, upon this occasion, had he not
seen in the Times, of the 27th of January last, a
calumnious article against the people of Scotland, which
was inserted in that Journal as part of the speech of a
Noble and Gallant Friend of his—Lord Lynedoch. His
Noble and Gallant Friend was represented to have spoken as
follows:—" At the time their Lordships were discussing
the question whether the Reform Bill should he read a
second time, a great number of weavers assembled every
day at Perth to see the south mail come in, and to learn
the intelligence which it brought. After the news came
down that the Bill was rejected, they stopped the wail to
know whether there had been any disturbances in London.
The guard replied in the affirmative, an l sail that the
Duke of Wellington and another illustrious individual had
been shot by the mob. This intelligence, which ought to
have excited general disgust and indignation, was hailed
with satisfaction by the assembled multitude, and in the
vehemence of their indignation against the rejecters of tl:e
Reform Bill, they so far forgot the humanity of their nature
as to go to a no'ile and gallant friend of his, and ask him
whether they ought not to celebrate the fate of the Duke of
Wellington and his colleague by a general illumination."
Now he considered that statement to I e most calum-
nious to the people of Scotland. There was no people
in the world less likely to indulge in such conduct. There
was not a more humane, a more religious, a more moral,
a better conducted people on the face of the globe than the
people of Scotland. What, then, did he infer from this
statement ? Either that this statement was unfounded,
and that his Noble Ft iend had been deceived in making it,
or that the people of Scotland had forgot the character
which once belonged to them, and which he believed still
continued to belting to them; or that they had been ex-
cited to a degree which rendered their petition valueless,
when they could rejoice in the perpetration of an act of
murder in the streets of London, and an act of murder
committed upon an individual who had rendered the
greatest services to his country of any man now living in
it.—(Cheers.) Yes, the Noble Duke had rendered the
greatest services not only to his own country, but also to
Europe at large, since it had been his good fortune not
only to vindicate the independence of his own country,
and to exalt its character, which had been calumniated
by an usurper elated by the success of his arms as in-
capable of martial achievements, but also to rescue the
whole Continent from the iron grasp of tyranny, in which
that usurper in an evil hour bad unfortunately enfolded
it.—(Cheere.) Nor was this the only merit; besides rais-
ing the arms of this nation of shopkeepers to a glory
hitherto unparalleled in its annals, he had, by his
counsels in peace, redeemed the land of his birth
from religious intolerance—a feat which, in his (Sir
George Murray's) opinion, was a feat of much
gre ,ter importance and value than all his feats of
war.—(Great cheering.) And yet, by this calumny,
which he could not believe that his Noble and Gallant
Friend had ever uttered, it was represented to the world
the people of Scotland bad intended to celebrate this Noble
Personage's assassination by rejoicing and public illumina-
tion.—(Hear, bear.) If it were true that the people of
Scotland had so far abandoned all feelings of humanity, all
principles of morality, and all regard to religion, as to
think of acting so ungrateful a part, he would only say
that their petitions, no matter whether they were signed by
27,000, or 27,000,000 persons, were unworthy a mo-
ment's consideration.—( Hear. )
Mr. HALIBURTON said, that when he entered the
House that evening, he was not aware that the Learned Lord
was about to present this petition. However, as he bad
been an eye-witness of the meeting, he thought that he
should not be trespassing unjustly on the notice of the
House, when he stated that there appeared to him to he,
within hearing of the hustings, about 7,000 or 8,000
persons, and out of hearing of them, about as many more.
He should calculate the numbers on the ground to be
somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 persons.
Mr. J. JOHNSON was almost inaudible in the gallery;
but was understood to palliate the conduct of the people
of Perth under the circumstances mentioned in the speech
of Lord Lynedoch.
thethe
rDe
tuokreo ofof
oerldl i WellingtoGreyn
to
no po
ffio ictei sh,
ethough ho eo
t rejoicedallow
Lord W. LENNOX said, that though he differed from
thaet
attack of the Hon. Member for Dunfermline to go unno-
deed. The Hon. Member palliated the conduct of the
utrhdaetr
wasof the o
go Dukefo r
tot!
tNoV esl Ici
on
tgl taound. ?
He vi.thaiss
suretb
the
Scotch, who had been stated to have rejoiced at the sup-
posed
thatdoctrine
countryn would disown such a sentiment as the
pallia-
tion for murder on any ground.--(Hear, hear.)
Colonel EVANS said, that as he had had the honour
of serving under the Duke of Wellington, he could not be
suspected of any wish to underrate the military services
which that illustrious commander had rendered to his
country. At the same time he could not help expressing
his opinion that his recent conduct as a civilian bad rather
withered than increased the brilliancy of the laurels which
encircled his brow.—(Hear, hear.)
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
NORFOLK ASSIZES BILL.

Several petitions for and against thi, Bill, which re-
moves the Assizes from Thetford' to Norwich, were pre.
sented from districts of Norfolk locally affected by its pro-
visions, by Mr. Baring, Mr. Weyland, Mr. R. Colborne,
and Mr. R. Grant.

On Mr. R. GRANT'S moving that it be now read a Be•
cond time,

Mr. A. BARING opposed the Bill, and moved, as an
amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this day
six months."

Mr. R. Wagon, Mr. Weyland, Mr. E. Petre, and Mr.
J. Campbell, supported the Bill, as a just and necesary
measure ; Mr. R. Colborne and Lord J. Fitzroy objected
to the Bill, as wholly uncalled for by any circumstances
that had been stated.

a bsSr taiin.LfroSmCAleßgLisElatTinTgwoans otf opinion that they
hesubject,untiihadthtt
eybehaedr
ascertained the opinion of the Judges.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion 44
Against it l3
The Bill was then read a second time.
LIVERPOOL FRANCHISE BILL.
Mr. BENETT moved the second reading of the
above Bill.
Mr. J. CAMPBELL opposed the motion, on the
ground that neither of the Members for Liverpool was
present.
Mr. BENETT said, that the Bill had been long before
the House, and he was anxious to prove his case before
the Committee.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—.
For the motion 44
10
Against it
Majority -34
The Bill was then read a second time.
The Cruelty to Animals Bill was read a second time.
The King's County Assizes Bill was read a second time,

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
Sir H. PARNELL presented a petition from thirty-
.even Magistrates of Queen's County, praying the House
.o consider the state of the law in Ireland for preventing

iireaches of the peace. The Right Hon. Baronet then
moved that a Committee be appointed to inquire into
the dis•urbancrs whiA prevailed in some parts of Ireland.
Mr. STANLEY slid, that he would consent to the ap-
pointment of a Committee, in the hope that it might sug-
gest some improvement of the law ; but he wished it to be
understood that he would consent to no proposition of an
unconstitutional nature.
After some conversation, in which Mr. J. GRATTAN
Mr. °TERRA Lt., Mr. LEADF.R, Colonel PERCIVAL,
Mr. RWE, Mr. SIIAw. and Col. CoNot.t.v. participated.
Mr. RUTEIVEN said he should oppose the motion, 3
Le was desirous that some time longer should be intrusted
to his Maje,ty's Government for the care of Ireland..--
(Hear, hear, hear.) He conceived much blame was to
he attributed to the gentry of the country, who ought,
:nstead of agitating it, as was the case at present, to ap-
ply themselves to that which had hitherto been so much
neglected—namely, to establish peace and tranquillity in
their native land.

After a few worth:, in explanation, from Sir HittertY
PA KNELL,

Mr. WALKER said that he thought the terms of the
motion of the Right Honourable Baronet evinced a dispo-
sition to try to obtain severer laws for Ireland than were
desired for England ; and on these grounds be should op-
pose the motion.

After a short conversation, in which Mr. S. Rice, Sir
H. Parnell, Sir J M. Doyle, and Mr. J. Grattan took part,
The SPEAKER put the motion, when several Hon.
Members called fur a division.

Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when it was found
that there were not 40 Members present, and the House
accordingly adjourned at Two o'Clock.

The following passage was accidentally omitted in our
report of the proceedings of the House of Lords yesterday :
Bury, Lancashire, was the next pl ice proposed to be
enfranctiis,d. On the question being put,
Lord ELL ENBOROUGH said, is was a town described
to P.,rliatnent as ill paved and ill drained ; it was because
it poss,sseil these recommendations, he supposed, that it
was chosen as a fit and proper borough to return one
Menib,r, and that Member was to be taken from some
other place, not having either of these recommendations,
or having done anything which could justify its being
disfranchisi d.

The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that a town
being ill drained and ill paved did not constitute a sufficient
reas.'n to deprive 20,000 inhabitants of the privilege of
sending one Member to Parliament.—Agreed to.

i