The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH ,51 1850

Mr. REYNOLDS thought the amendment fiir and
re:isonable, and it the Right lion. and Learned Gentle-
man divided he should vote with him, as it would be
some protection a.;ainst the manufacture of fictitious

vote?.
Mr. SCULLY would support the chase as it stood,
as the object was to increase the franchise. He sug-
gested that the amendment should be altered to these
word.:—" Provided that all rates due upon the premi-
ses shall be paid."
Mr. HAMILTON said the objection to that would be
that if the tenant in possession did not choose to pay be
might disfranchise the owner. Might it not be provided
that payment should be made from all occupiers who
were owners ?
Mr. SADLEIR thought that would be a reasonable
provision.
Mr. F. FRENCEI objected to the vote being made
conditional upon the pa) meat of rates, when there were
legal means f enforcing their payment.
Sir F. TIIESIGER suggested the postponement of
the matter until the Government had had an opportunity
of considering his suggestion.
Sir W. SO NIEitVILLE said the law officers of the
Crown would take the matter into their consideration.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 4.
On clause 5 being read.
In answer to Sir R. FERGUSON,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the clause wrnt
furthor than the former Act of Parliament, and provided
that parties residing and having property within the
limits of the borough should also have a vote for the

county.
After some desultory discussion as to the interpreta-
tion t f the clause
Mr. lIILDYAD thought no person should be en-
titled to interfere in the county electicn if his property
was situated within the borough.
Sir G. GREY objected to narrowing the provisions of
the Bill to that extent, as it would be a very important
alteration. The effect would be to disfranchise parties
residing within the limits of the borough, and would be
introducing a new principle altogether.
Sir D. NORREYS having declined to press his
amendment,
The clause was agreed to.
On clause 6, relating to occupiers of lands or premises
rated for the poor-rate, being proposed,
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON moved the insertion of cer-
tain words to secure the rights of existing voters.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was opposed to the amend-
ment, as it would have the effect of conferring the
franchise upon many who might not be subject to the
poor-rates.
Mr. F. FRENCH supported the amendment.
Lord J. MANNERS wished to understand distinctly
what were the intentions of the Government on this
point. If the Bill was to be framed in such a way as to
dish anchise the existing voters, the authors of it ought
to say so at once, in order that the Committee might
know how to proceed in the matter.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. REYNOLDS asked whether it was the intention
of the Government to throw the freemen overboard?
The Right Hon. Baronet said it was not. It should be
observed that by the first clause, which had already
passed, the Bill had deprived a large and respectable
class of householders of the franchise—namely, those
who were registered under the 101. beneficial interest.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY supported the amendment.
Sir F. THESIGER said that it was his object to pre-
serve the existing franchise. He did not think this Bill
ought to be viewed as a substantive Reform Bill, but
rather as a supplemental Bill.—(Hear, bear.) He was
desirous that the principle involved in the amendment
should have been recognised in the first clause.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that the same principle
which had been recognised in respect to counties he pro-
posed should be adopted in rtference to boroughs.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said that all he desired was
a declaration that they did not intend to disturb the
existing franchise.
In answer to a question from Mr. SADLEIR,
Sir G. GREY said he apprehended that the existing
rights of the mere occupiers of 101. houses were to be
swept away, and the franchise to be henceforward de-
clared upon the basis of poor-rate liability.
The amendment, as we understood, was then agreed to.
Mr. GROGAN proposed in line 25 to omit the words
any land', tenements, or hereditaments." He thought
that these words, if allowed to pass, would lead to
much doubt, uncertainty, and litigation. A claim might
be said to arise out of mere waste land by the clause as
it stood.
Sir F. THESIGER asked whether it was proposed,
under this clause, to confer a title to vote from two or
more houses, warehouses, or shops ? He presumed
it was not. He thought it better to omit these words,
or to explain these general words by specific words to
follow them.
Sir D. NORREYS deprecated the idea of leaving out
these words.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that the English Act
differed from the proposed Bill by the addition in the
former of the very remarkable words " or buildings."
If be could get the amount of rate reduced low enough
for the franchise, he should no be disposed to object to
the addition of these words in the proposed Bill.
Colonel I)UNNE thought that this Bill as it stood
would restrict the franchise considerably. He hoped
that the Government would alter the union of different
tenements to make up the franchise. There might be,
for instance, a little land in one place, and a house or
other tenement in some other place. He should be
inclined to propose that the words " same land" be
struck out.
After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY,
Mr. GROGAN withdrew his amendment.
Sir D. NORREYS moved to omit in clause 6, all
the words from "or any," line 25, down to " owners" in
line 29 inclusive, and in the same clause to introduce a
provision, that, where an occupier shall be separately
rated fur several premises of the value of 81. and up-
wards, the payment of poor-rates for any one of such
premises (being of the required value) shall be sufficient
payment of rates for registry.
Colonel RAWDON said that instead of striking out
words he wished to add some to the clause.—(Laughter.)
He was desirous to have added these words, " office or
other building."
Mr. REYNOLDS thought that if they adopted the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Mallow: they would
be creating a scene of doubt and litigation. He protested
against such a provision being introduced into the Bill,
as it would prove most injurious to the rights of larger
constituencies.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the Committee
would refuse its assent
.to this amendment, as it would
have the effect of making the question they were con-
sidering one of great uncertainty. The clause was drawn
so as to comprehend the two kinds of franchise proposed
to be given. If the Committee would be kind enough to
pass this clause now, so as to enable them to get on with
the Bill, it could be reconsidered on bringing up the
report.
Sir D. NORREYS asked whether it was the intention
to allow the occupiers in a borough, of two houses of the
value, he would suppose, of 41. 10s. each, and rated there-
upon at 9/., to register a vote?
Sir G. GREY said that it certainly was not the law in
England, and he apprehended that the Bill did not pro-
pose to do anything of the kind in Ireland.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know if a person who held
a shop worth 41. under one landlord, and a stable worth
5/. under another landlord, would be in the same situa-
tion with a person having a holding of 8/. alone?
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL replied that if no
words were added to the words " lands, houses, or hero+
ditaments," then the person would have a right of voting
though he held under a hundred diffetent landlords. It
was not so under the English Reform Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK understood that this would be the
effect of the clause as it now stood ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied it would be

so, it the clause stood as it then was; but what would
be the effect of the clause he could not bay if other words
follower!. The revising barrister alone, who decided
everything his own way, could tell that.
Mr. ANSTEY said then he would propose they
should get rid of all words that were admitted to be am-
plusage.
Sir G. GREY said that what was wished for was time
for consideration; that they should not come hastily to

a vote.
Mr. HILDYARD could not see why property of one
description should have a vote and other property be de-
prived of it. He was opposed to words that were ad-
mitted to be surplusage.
Mr. ROEBUCK was disposed to give the Attorney-
Gene: al full time to consider, it they agreed upon the
principle—viz., that if the 81. was to be made up, no
matter how, he was willing the man should have the
franchise. In such case be would give the Attorney-
General full discretion. •
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if it were the
general inclination for the House to adopt that principle,
the Government had no objection.
Lord C. HAMILTON thought the Hon. and Learned
Attorney-General should state what he meant by the
words which he now proposed to omit from the clause;
and if by omitting them any ambiguity would be
avoided.—(Hear.)
Mr. GROGAN—If the words, "lands, tenements, or
hereditaments," were to include " house, warehouse,
counting-house, or shop," and it would simplify the Bill
and avoid ambiguity, he had no objection to the omis-
sion of the latter words. His wish was that they
should adhere to the Reform Bill as far as they could,
making the present measure a supplemental, not a new
Reform Bill.
Sir F. THESIGER hoped the Committee would be
spared at least one division; and with that view sug-
gested that it would be better, as the Government pro-
posed to omit the words, " any house, warehouse, count-
ing-house, or shop," to agree to that proposition in the
first place, and to raise the question before the Com-
mittee upon the other words.
An HON. MEMBER (who spoke from the Ministerial
benches) said that to strike out the words would make
the clause absolute nonsense.
The words were then ordered to be struck out.
Mr. GROGAN again rose, and moved that, after the
words " lands, tenements, or hereditaments," the words
"occupied by him as tenant or owner" should be inserted.
Mr. ANSTEY appealed to the Chairman whether it
was competent for the Hon. Member f )r Dublin (Mr.
Grogan) to move the insertion of words which had al-
ready been struck out by the Committee; for the words
" tenant or owner" were among those which had just
been struck out?
The CHAIR MAN—I don't see these words.
Mr. ANSTEY—Yes, the word "tenant" was in the
28th, and " owner" in the 29th, line.
The CHAIRMAN—It was perfectly competent for
the Hon. Gentleman to move the amendment.
' The Committee divided, and the numbers were—
For Mr. Grogan's motion . . 83
Against it ... •.. 170
Majority against it ... —B7
On the motion for filling in the blank with the words
" eight pounds" as ithe amount at which the occupier
should be rated to entitle him to the franchise,
Mr. REYNOLDS moved as an amendment that the

blank be filled with the words "five pounds." Referring
to the discussion upon the second reading of the Bill,
the Hon. Member then said that on that occasion the
Hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Hamilton)
admitted that there ought to be a distinction drawn
between the qualification in counties and that in
boroughs. The Hon. Gentleman expressed his opinion
—and that opinion was echoed by many Hon. and
Learned Gentlemen around him—that the rating in the

boroughs ought not to be as high as in the counties.
But they went further, and said it was too high in the
boroughs; and he hoped the Committee would not deem
him guilty of any impropriety in taking them at their
words, and asking their co-operation in inducing the
Government to reduce the qualification from 81. to 51.
(Elean) If the 81. qualification was retained it would
have the effect of disqualifying the constituencies of
several boroughs—such as Portarliegton, Athlone, Car-
low —a result the very reverse of what the Government
professed to effect by the preient Bill. It would also
swrep away a large number from the possession of the
franchise in Dublin. The burgess roll in that city had
15,000 voters upon it, of which 4,000 were freemen who
were not required to be householders, and were not
liable to any taxes or local rates. WAS it fair towards
the property qualification voters to insist upon so high a
rating as Si., which involved also the necessity of the
payment of taxes, whilst they maintained so doubtful a
class of voters as the 'freemen? The Noble Lord the
Member for Down (Viscount Castlereagh) seemed to
think that under the Bill 20,000 voters would be added
to the constituency of that county. He called upon his
countrymen on the other side of the House not to op-
pose the measure further, but to give that support to the
extension et the franchise which it was expected in Ire-
land that they would. In the whole of the boroughs in
Ireland the constituency would not exceed 48,000 voters
under an 81. franchise. lie, therefore, begged leave to

move that 5/. be inserted in the clause.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH said that the R;ght Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds) had completely misunder-
stood what he had stated. He had said that if the Bill
created any increased constituency in Ireland it would
be necessary for the House to interfere so as to increase
_ . . _

the number-of Irish representatives.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE had already stated on a former
occasion that the Government meant to adhere to the
principle of the Bill which they had submitted to the
House, and in accordance with that statement he found
it necessary to oppose the motion of his Right Hon. Friend
the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man asked the Government, when they proposed a libe-
ral measure for the franchise in Ireland, why they
stopped short in the case of the boroughs? His answer
was, that the case of the • boroughs was by no means as
strong as that of the counties, where the proportion of
electors to the adult male population was but two per
cent., whereas in the boroughs it was 22 per cent. By a
return on the table of the House it appeared that there
were upwards of 48,400 borough-tenements rated above
81. in Ireland, and deducting one-fifth from that number
for double holdings, it left 38,750 as the number of
tenements. They could not legislate with reference to
any particular boroughs, but should rather have regard
to the whole country; and it should be remembered that
the boroughs also contained other electors, such as free-
men, 40s. freeholders, which would be retained by the
Bill, and would be in addition to the 38,000, besides the
double occupants.
Mr. F. FRENCEI supported the amendment.
Mr. T. O'BRIEN also supported the amendment of
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds).
Colonel RA WDON said the Government did not seem
to be aware of the great depreciation of property which
had taken place in Ireland. He was satisfied that a 51.
rating would be as fair a franchise for Ireland as a 101.
rating for England.
kr. ROEBUCK asked the Noble Lord whether,
taking 101. as the sum on which to found the franchise
in the boroughs in England, 8/. bore the proper propor-
tion for Ireland, taking into consideration the different
circumstances of the two countries? The great mischief
of the English representation was the small boroughs.
Schedule B was the great blot of the Reform Bill—the
great source of corruption—and if that were the case,
was the Noble Lord going to establish a similar system
of corruption in Ireland? By placing the rating at 5/.
instead of 8/., the constituency would be so enlarged as
to render bribery and corruption more difficult. But
beyond that, it would give something like a fair repre-
sentation to Ireland. Where would be the mischief of
adopting the W. rating—would it make the constituency
dreadfully democratic? Not at all. The really honest
middle classes of Ireland would hardly be included in
the franchise, or certainly not more than included. If
the 101. franchise operated unequally in England, it
would be most unjust with regard to Ireland. He
therefore trusted that the Irish Members would, by their
votes, impress this fact on the attention of the Noble
Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Ad. J. O'CONNELL said the statue-like silence
observed by the Hon. Members opposite was as well
worthy the attention of the Noble Lord as the remarks
of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Reynolds), or those
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck).
If the Bill had consisted merely of this one clause, the
Noble Lord would not have seen eight divisions the
other night.—(Hear, hear.) There was not a single
principle on which the 8/. franchise had been justified,
which did not apply with more force to the 51. franchise
for boroughs. It had been said that a higher franchise
than 81. would remove many persons from the register;
but be could assure the House that if they went beyond
51. for boroughs, the voters would be struck off by hun-
dreds.—(Hear. hear.) The counties of Ireland, with a
constituency of 250,000 persons, would return 64 Mem-
bers, whilst the 39 Members for boroughs would not re-
present a constituency of more than 43,441. Of that
number 19,000 would be found in Dublin, 4,500 in Cork,
and 4,000 in Belt's% The remaining boroughs would
present a wretched minority, and the only power that
could work on such a body would be the power of cor-
ruption.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the re-
duction in towns was not so great as in counties; but he
contended that they were reduced to the lowest ebb.
In Drogheda, with a population of 15,000, the total
number of voters polled in 1847 was 307. In Cork,
with a population, including the rural districts, of
106 000, the number polled at the last election was only
1,377. The clause in its present shape would probably
do little harm in the large towns, but in the small
ones it would effect the complete destruction of the
franchise.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir D. NORREYS said the number of tenements
rated at 8/. and upwards on the valuation three or four
years ago was 48,000, and he would put it to any
one whether, since that time, the value had not fallen
from 25 to 30 per cent. He cordially supported the
proposition cf the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Dublin.

Mr. SADLEIR, was of opinion that a 51. franchise in
boroughs would be equivalent to one of 8/. in counties.
The only protection against a wide-spread system of
corruption would be to enlarge the numbers of the
borough constituencies, and he believed that it would be
impossible to preserve the purity of constituencies under
300. He was astonished at the silence of Honourable
Gentleman opposite. They ought to rise above the
paltry considerations of party, and on broad, national
grounds, ought to unite with their countrymen in de-
manding of the Government a broad and generous
franchise, compatible with the exigencies of the
country, :consistent with the wants of the boroughs,
and proportionate to the amount of intelligence for
which the inhabitants of these boroughs have ever been
remarh ahle.
Lord C. HAMILTON said that many towns in Ire-
land had risen in importance whilst others had fallen
into comparative insignificance ; and he regretted that
nothing .had been done to revise the borough registra-
tions.—(Hear.)
Mr. M. O'CONNELL said that a rating of 81. in
Ireland was equal to a rental of 121. So that, instead of
extending the franchise in boroughs, this Bill would
render the franchise difficult of attainment. He believed
that the franchise proposed by the Right Hon. Genre-
men (Ur. Reynolds) would be as nearly equivalent to an
81. franchise as possible.
Mr. SCULLY said that or. of the arguments of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was,
that the franchise in boroughs in Ireland was equal to,
if not gre tter, than that of England. Now, the borough
voters in England amounted to 314,000, in Ireland to
48,000. In England the number of voters was as one
in five, in Ireland as one in twenty-one. He considered
the 8/, rating equal to a rental, not of 121., but of 151.
If a 51. rating should be carried, the entire number of
voters would amount to 50,464; and as the population of
these boroughs amounted to 800,000, the population
would be only as one in sixteen.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON did not think that the pro-
posed reduction of the franchise would lead to any
great extension. lie had made a calculation with re-
al ect to the English boroughs, and found that, so long
as the payment of rates was made the condition of the
franchise, very little extension would take place.
Lord CASTLEREAGH hoped that some member of
the Government would state their views on the subject
of the amendment before the Committee went to a divi-
sion.
Colonel DUNNE said the Hon. Member for Dublin
(Mr. Reynolds) bad stated that the constituency of
t'ortarlington would be reduced by the present clause to
170. If the Hon. Member in his calculation had left
out the 100 and taken the 70, he would have been
nearer the mark.
Mr. MONSELL hoped the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, after what had been stated by seve-
ral of the Irish Members, would allow the Chairman to
repo!t. progress. Unless the amendment was adopted, a
considerable diminution of the borough constituency
must be expected.
c a t ion hi
Mr. S. ADAIR thought any decision as to the pre-
cisecom termsun of the franchise
he had receivedwouldanehise from he proem amature.A
mhighly
respectaole party warranted him in saying that in the
town of Armagh the 8L franchise now proposed would
be equal to one of 161. value. According to the Poor-
law Investigation last yeae, property in Ireland had
been represented to the extent of between 20 and '25 per
cent. Property which, under the old Act, was rated at
101., was not now valued at more than Si, He wished to
see a full and fair franchise extended to the people of
Ireland, but doubted very much whether an 8/. rating
would extend the franchise in boroughs.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Bill had been framed
with a view, if possible, of benefiting practically the
people of Ireland, by reme lying the deficiency in the
constituency and placing the franchise on a satisfactory
footing. If they failed in effecting that object the fault
would not rest with the Government. With respect to
the county franchise, the number of voters had dimi-
nished to an extent that rendered a consideration of the
whole subject necessary. The Government had consi-
dered the whole matter, including the various proposi-
tions made more than ten years ago, and they had come
to the decision that it was necessary to
.change the basis
of the franchise to a tenure of occupation. There had
not appeared the same reason for making any consider-
able alteration in the borough franchise. It had been
placed, like the English franchise, at a value of 10/., but
having taken 81. rating for the county it bad been

thought advisable to take the same amount for the bo-
roughs.. If they had proposed to take it below 8/., the
argument used with respect to having a similarity of
franchise in the two countries would not have had the
same force. With regard to the amendment proposed,
if they took 5/. as the amount of the borough franchise
in Ireland he saw no reason why the same sum should
not be taken for England.—(Hear.) But that would
be going far beyond the proposition !adore them.
Various parties in Ireland had given their opinion that
that proposal would be for the interest of the people,
and it had struck him that their opinion was well
founded. He believed that the proposal they had made
would enlarge the franchise, but that if they had pro-
posed 5/. there would have been little chance of such a
proposal being agreed to. On the present occasion the
Committee must deal with the proposal as it thought fit,
but the Government had not made their proposal with-
out great consideration.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER was surprised that Hon. Mem-
bers on the other aide connected with Ireland should
stwe boldly that an SI. rating in Ireland was equivalent
to one of 161. or 18/. in England. He had often heard
the Irish Members complain, when the poor-law ques-
tion was before the House, that Ireland was grievously
oppressed by overrating. How did they reconcile the
two statements?—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said they were not now discussing
the poor-law. He could not avoid feeling astonished at
the statement of the Noble Lord the First Minister.
The Noble Lord left the Committee to deal with the
proposed measure as it thought fir, saying that the Go-
vernment had made inquiries of certain parties in Ire-
land before making up their minds on the subject. But
why did not the Noble Lord take the opinion of the
Irish Members, every one of whom who had spoken had
told them that the Bill would greatly reduce the borough
constituency. He hoped the Noble Lord would post-
pone further consideration of the question. He would
appeal to the Secretary for Ireland, as the Noble Lord
seemed unprepared to deal with the question.
Mr. M'CULLAGH, in reference to the remark of the
Hon. Member for North Lincolnshire, said the Hon.
Member seemed to forget that the lower the re luction
the greater was tl e amount of rates levied. If the
Noble Lord would refer to the report on the reduction of
the franchise commission, he would see it stated that—
even before the period of depreciation—not only would
an SI. franchise strike off a great many 101. occupiers,
but that even a 51. rating would have the same effect.
Mr. KERSHAW hoped the Committee would not at
present divide, and that the Government would not con-
sider the question.
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY thought that
if the Government would give any hope that they would
re-consider the question the debate should be adjourned,
but if they gave no such hope the sooner they divided
the better.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. GROGAN said it would be impossible to increase
the constituency much below an 8/. rating without going
to the poor-house.—(Divide.)
Mr. REYNOLDS thought the Chairman ought to re-
port progress.—(Divide.) He would suggest the atten-
tion of the Government to one fact. The aggregate
number of Irish boroughs was 33, the population in
round numbers being about 700,000, while the whole
number of voters was not more than 40,000, of which
number Dublin, Cork, and Belfast claimed 30,000, leav-
ing about 10,000 voters to the thirty boroughs.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—

For the amendment ... ••• ... 90
Against it ... ... 142
Majority against the amendment... --52
Mr. GROGAN then moved in the same clause to in-
sert after the words " poor rates, the words " grand
jury cess and police rates."
Mr. FORBES thought it was unadvisable to proceed
further with the discussion at that late hour (then near
one o'clock).
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not think the propo-
sition of the Hon. Member would be an improvement to
the Bill.
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
After a few words from Sir R. FERGUSON, the 6th
clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
It was then moved that the Chairman should report
progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, in reply to an Honourable
Member, that he proposed going on with the Bill again
on Monday next.
The House having resumed, the CHAIRMAN re-
ported progress, the report was received, and leave was
obtained to sit again on Monday.
Mr. WAWN moved for returns respecting the
management of the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Mr. HEADLAM opposed the motion, as the produc-
tion of such a return would serve no public purpose.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... 6
Against it ... 16

Majority ... ••• ... —lO
There not baring been 40 Members present, the
House adjourned at a Quarter past One o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.
TATTERSALL'S.—YESTERDAY.
THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE STAKES.
6 to 1 agst Mr. Halford's Harriott, 3 yrs, sst 10113—t
7 to 1 agst Mr. H. Hill's Osterley, 4 yrs, 7st
12 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Fernhill, 5 yrs, Bst 41b
—taken
15 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Belus, 4 yrs, 7st slb
20 to 1 agst Duke of Bedford's Mahratta, 4 yrs, sst
Illb
Harriott was backed for a large stake at 6 to 1, and
jointly with Osterley at 5 to 2, for two ur three hundred
pounds; 700 to 200 was also laid agst them, the layers,
however, refusing to go on.
METROPOLITAN STAKES.
5 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's Cheerful, 4 yrs, 6st—t
25 to 1 agst Mr. Carew's Eve, 4 yrs, 6st 121 b—taken
We ha►e quoted the only horses backed; the outlay
on each amounted to about 3001.
NEWMARKET HANDICAP.
20 to 1 agst Mr. Frankum's Dolly Varden, 4 yrs,
6st 71b—taken to 20/.
TWO THOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES.
9 to 4 agst Lord H. Lennox's Beebunter—t.►ken
11 to 2 agst Mr. Bowees Mickleton—taken
CHESTER CUP.
The only bets on this event were 1,000 to 50 agst El-
lerdale, 2,000 to 30 agst Horn of Chase, and 1,000 to 15
agst Sir Richard.

DERBY.
7 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Ghillie Callum—t
15 to 2 agst Mr. W. Edwards nn Bolingbroke
12 to 1 agst Mr. Gratwicke's The Nigger—taken
15 to 1 agst Lord Zetland's Voltigeur —taken
20 to 1 agst Lord Airlie's Clincher-22 to 1 taken
freely
25 to 1 agst Lord Eglinton's Mayors—taken to 100/.
25 to 1 agst Mr. Jaques's Mildew—taken
33 to 1 agst Mr. Bowes's Mickleton—taken
50 to 1 agst Mr. Dixon's Blarney—taken
Ghillie Callum was in general favour this afternoon,
and on a considerable outlay again became first favourite;
7 to 1 was scarcely obtainable at the close. Clincher was
backed freely at 22 to 1, and the horses returned, for
small sums, at the prices quoted.

AN AMERICAN on the ENGLISH
ARISTOCRACY.
" Your opinion of the upper classes, I am afraid," ob-
served Richard, "is not very favourable."
" I think they beat us hollow in the soft-sawder line,"
replied Mr. Trumbull;
" -. er
0 can't come up to them, no
how, there. When you squat down in a grand house
here, you live at your ease, as if the whole concern
belonged to you; but it requires a windlass to draw a
natural man up to the top of their ceremonials. I've
been taking notes of their modes and habits, and there's
no end to 'em. It strikes me, Mr. Rawlings, that though
they have their feet in the clay, like other people, they
carry their heads out of sight up in the clouds. I calcu-
late, your aristocracy will take a long time a-drowning."
lint upon the aristocracy after all," RL-hard ventured
to interpose, "depends the solidity of our institutions."
That's a remarkable observation," rejoined Mr.
Trumbull; " it's just like building a house upside down.
That's not the way we go to work in America. We
make our foundations in the c arth ; we base everything
in the people; and it will be an immortal tempest that
will shake the eternal institutions of the Union. The
thing's impossible, by no means whatever; and when
your monarchies and nobilities ere scattered like wrecks
upon the great ocean of time, the banner of the Stripes
and Stars will float sublimely over them, and the Re-
public will be heard through all eternity, singing out,
• Hail. Colombia, happy land!' "
" You really think so?"
" I'm c!ear convinced of it. What can coma of a
country where the principle of representation—the first
law of the universe—is a mere sham?"
" Will you be good enough to explain yourself, Mr.
Trumbull?" said Richard.
" Square yourself then, Mr. Rawlings, for I'm coming
to the clock-works. His Lordship tells me you're going
to have a general election, and being curious to get all
the information I can on the machinery of your com-
plicated society, he lets me see how the wheels are
greased beforehand. Now it's quite transparent to me
s. 're clawed up and bowled
that
ytshpea
deel
se eatn)dr ss
hhoavveel n oTmh
eoyr e to do with it than so
out long before you come to the poll. That's my specu-
lation on the case. While men like you, Mr. Rawlings,
are waiting to get in-at the reg'lar time, when the doors
of the Constitution are to be opened to the public at
large, the aristocracy are letting themselves in at the
private entrance with a latch-key."—The " Ladder of
Gold," in Bentley's Miscellany for March.

THE ROCHDALE SAVINGS BANK.--The number of
depositors who have fetched their pass-books is 2,697,
39 of whom refused to sign the proposition of the trus-
tees, but several of them have since called at the bank
and signed it. The trustees at present intend to pay the
first dividend about the 11 th jest. The e petition to Par-
liament, praying "that the deficiency in the funds of the
bank be paid by Parliament, and that a grant be made
for that purpose," has been sighed hz 2,470 depositors,
and has bt en sent to Loudon for pregntation. There is
little doubt that the rest of the depositors will very
shortly sign the proposition of the trustees, and in that
case, the affairs of the bank will be settled without the
intervention of Mr. Tidd Pratt. The amount of the
subscription is 17,0001., and the trustees are yet using
every exertion to increase the amount.—Manchester
Courier.
[ADVERTISEMENT:I—An Abscess in the Breast
.
Cured by Holloway's Ointment and About three years
since Mrs. O'Flaherty of Mill-street, Cork, accidentally
bruised her breast, for months afterwards the pain increased
and the part became fearfully swollen.; various applications
were tried without giving the least relief. Ultimately an ab-
scess formed, discharging a great quantity of humour, which
debilitated her constitution to an alarming extent ; at this
stage a lady strongly recommended her to try Holloway's
Ointment and Pills, having witnessed their good effects on
former occasions, which advice she followed, and these fine
medicines answered most satisfactorily, for the wound was soon
`healed, and her health is now completely renovated.—Sold by
all Druggists and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 214,
Strand, Louden.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
'HOUSE OF LORDS, March 4.

BOYLE AND OTHERS V. SIR J. INGLIS COCHRANE.

At the close of the arguments,
The LORD CHANCELLOR intimated that their L)rd-
ships would take time to consider the case, and
deliver judgment on Monday next.
The House then adjourned.

ROLLS' COURT, March 4.
THE LONDONDERRY AND ENNISKILLEN RAILWAY

COMPANY V. LEISIIM AN.

This was a demurrer by James Leishman, the de-
fendant, to a bill filed against him by the plaintiff,
praying for a declaration of the Court that the award
and final certificate of completion of the railway and
other certificates had been procured by fraud ; that
the defendant be decreed to deliver them up to the
company, and that the accounts of all the works done
and materials supplied under the eontract between
the parties might be opened; for account of all the
works done and materials used, with the prices which
ought to have been allowed fur them in accordance
with the terms of the contract; and for an ac-
count of all moneys paid to the defendant on ac-
count of the contract, &c. The bill stated an
Act of Parliament of the 9th of the Queen, for
making a railway from Londonderry to Enniskillen,
and that the plaintiffs appointed under that Act Alex-
ander M'lCeozie Ross to be the principal engineer;
and the bill then charged that the difference of the
prices of the works executed by the defendant and the
prices charged by him was so large that it would be
found not only that the defendant had received the
full amount of all the works he had done for the com-
pany, but that he had been considerably overpaid, and
that a large debt was due from him to the company.
The, bill also charged that the accounts were extremely
intricate and complex, and that the correctness of the
items of the account depended upon circumstances
which could be ascertained only by way of discovery
from the defendant, Leishman ; and it prayed for an
injunction to restrain the defendant from issuing any
attachment, or enforcing the award, or taking pro-
ceeding under a rule of a court of law which had
been obtained by the defendant.
Mr. Roundell Palmer, Mr. Selwyn, and Mr. Mel-

lish were for the defendant, in support of the de-
murrer ; and Mr. Hetherington, contra, was for the
plaintiffs, the company.
Lord LANGDALE said he must allow the demurrer.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
William Bradley, a young man of respectable ape
pearance, surrendered to take his trial upon a charge
of stealing three yards of velvet, and 17i yards of
silk, the property of George Stagg and another.
Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Huddleston were for the
prosecution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Clark-
son and Mr. Parry.
This case occupied the Court several hours, and
the circumstances under which the charge was pre-
ferred appeared to be of rather an unusual character.
The prosecutors of the indictment are Messrs. Stagg
and Mantle, who carry on an extensive business as
drapers and silk mercers in Leicester-square; and it
appeared that on the 24th of Deecember, the day on
which the alleged felony was said to have been com-
mitted, the prisoner had been in their service as shop-
man for a period of four years. Upon the day in
question, according to the evidence for the prosecu-
tion, in consequence of some suspicion that was en-
tertained of the manner in which the prisoner con-
ducted himself, a watch was set upon his proceedings,
and he was observed to cut off a portion of a piece of
velvet, and also to take a silk dress, and he then placed
both the articles between some boxes under the coun-
ter. It seemed that among the customers of the prose-
cutor was a French milliner and dress-maker named
Madame Routens, who carried on her business
in Charles-street, Soho-square, and this lady,
it appeared, had a credit account with the
firm, and on the morning of the 24th of
December a little girl was sent by her to the shop for
some trifling articles, which were furnished to her by
the prisoner, and duly entered. Later in the day a
boy, also in the service of Madame Routens, went to
the prosecutor's shop to fetch two pairs of gloves and
some muslin lining, and the prisoner served him, and
when he had packed up these articles he was observed
to place the velvet and the silk in the parcel, and the
boy left the shop. It appeared to be the custom of
the prosecutor's business that the shopman selling any
article on credit to a customer should immediately
cause an entry to he made by a clerk employed for
that purpose, and it appeared that the prisoner had
cause the gloves and the lining to be entered, but
made no mention at the time of the other articles. Im-
mediately upon the boy leaving the shop he was fol-
lowed and brought back, and the silk and velvet were
found in his possession, and it appeared that almost
at the same moment the prisoner went a second time
to the entering clerk, and required him to make
an entry of the silk and velvet being sent to
Madame Routens on approval ; and it was al-
leged on the part of the prosecution that the
prisoner did not do this until he saw that the boy had
been brought back with the property. Upon the
prisoner being questioned, he asserted that he had
caused the entry of the goods to be properly made,
and also said that Madame Routens had given him
the order for the velvet and the satin on the previous
day at her own house ; but the prosecutors not being
satisfied with the explanation given to them, gave the
prisoner in charge, and he was examined at Marl-
borough-street police-court, when the magistrate, upon
hearing the defence set up by the prisoner, directed
that Madame Routens should be sent for, and upon
hearing her evidence he dismissed the charge against
the prisoner. It appeared that after this Mr. Hum-
phreys, the solicitor for the prisoner, wrote to the
prosecutors, and applied on his behalf for some wages
that were due to him, and at the same time required
that they should make a written acknowledgment that
there was no foundation for the charge they had pre-
ferred against him, and stating that unless they did so
the only alternative the prisoner would have to clear his
character would be to bring all the facts before a jury.
The only notice taken of this letter by the prosecutors
was to refer Mr. Humphreys to their solicitor; and
it appeared that shortly afterwards the present in-
dictment was preferred before the grand jury; but
on reference to this part of the case, Mr. Stagg
stated that before Mr. Humphreys' letter had been
received, directions had been given to his solicitor
to proceed with the case by preferring a bill before
the grand jury notwithstanding the charge having
been dismissed by the magistrate. The counsel for
the prisoner cross-examined the several witnesses
for the prosecution at considerable length, and en-
deavoured to show that the prisoner had given the
prosecutors warning shortly before the transaction,
and that he was about to set up in business on his
own account in the neighbourhood of the prosecutors'
shop, but the evidence did not show either of the
allegations to be founded on fact.
Mr. CLARKSON, in addressing the jury for the de.
fence, complained of the manner in which the prose-
cution had been got up, and urged the .unfairness of
Madame Routens not being called as a witness, when
it was well known that the prisoner had all along
asserted his innocence, and that his lady had actually
engaged him to supply her with the articles in ques •
tion. The Learned Counsel then commented at con-
siderable length upon the facts of the case, and said,
that:it appeared perfectly clear, that this prosecution
was only instituted by the prosecutors in order to
shield themselves from the consequences of the legal
proceedings with which they were threatened on be-
half of the prisoner.
Madame Routens, the lady referred to, was then
called as a witness for the prisoner. She stated that
she had been a customer at Messrs. Stagg and Man-
tle's for nearly five years, and as the prisoner spoke
French he generally served her with the articles she
required, and Mr. Mantle had himself requested him
to pay particular attention to her, and during the last
year and a half the prisoner had been in the habit of
visiting her and her husband, and they were on
friendly terms. The witness then said that on the
Friday before the 24th of December the prisoner was
at her house, and she requested him to send her the
velvet and silk, the former being required for the
approved
of. She also said that the prisoner came. again to her
bp uo
tr ptoi
silke of mwaaks i
to
og b
es o
iftsitthwaast weeorteordered,
d of his not
house on the Sunday, and she complained
having supplied the articles in question.
returnedn
This testimony was confirmed by two other wit-
nesses.
Mr. BiLLINTINE having replied upon this evidence,
The RECORDER summed up, and the jury almost
immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner was ordered to be immediately dis-
charged.
Owen Swift surrendered to take his trial for com-
mon assault.
It was intimated to the Court that some arrange-
ment had been effected between the parties, and that
the prosecutor did not intend to appear to support the
charge.
Under these circumstances the RECORDER directed
that a verdict of Not ir 'Lilly should be entered, upon
an affidavit being made of the service of notice upon
the prosecutor to appear and prosecute.
Joseph Leney and Henry Leney were indicted for
wounding Ephraim Jacobs with intent to do him
grievous bodily harm:
Mr. Meller prosecuted ; Mr. W. Cooper was for
the defence.
The prosecutor, who is the landlord of the White
Horse public-house, Spitalfields, proved the assault,
but at the same time said he believed the prisoners were
a little excited by liquor at the time, and that they
did not intend to do him any serious mischief. He
added that he bad known them a great many years,
and they had always been on friendly terms up to the
time of this transaction, and he had no desire to press
for a severe punishment upon them.
The jury found the prisoners Guilty of a common
assault, and they were sentenced to be imprisoned in
Newgate for 14 days, and at the expiration of their

term of imprisonment they were ordered to enter into
their own recogniyAnces in 401. each to keep the peace
for one:year.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. BULLOCK.)
John Macarthy, aged 40, clerk, was convicted of
stealing the sum of 401., the property of his masters,
Henry Dolan and others. Mr. IVoollett prosecuted.
the facts of the case were these :—The prisoner
bad been for twelve months in the employment of the
prosecutors, who are the army agents of St. Martin's-
lane, and was sent on the 4th of February with a
cheque for the amount in question to the Commercial
Bank, where he got it cashed and absconded.
Nothing was heard of him until the 15th, when he
went to the police-station in an intoxicated state and
gave himself up, alleging that he had lost the money.
The prisoner made the same &fence this day.
The COURT sentenced him to eighteen months' im •
prisonment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BO W-STREET.

William Stephenson, a cierk in the Gmeral Post-
office, was charged, before Mr. II ill, with stealing
three letters, supposed to contain money.
Mr. Peacock, the Solicitor to the Post-office, pro
secuted.

John Ford, a messenger i❑ the e3tablishment,
proved that he was set to watch the prisoner in the
discharge of his duty, as a clerk in the inland de-
partment, shortly before nine in the morning.
Vernile so engaged he saw the prisoner take up a letter,
examine it, tear off a corner of the envelope, and
shake it; aftet which he put it on a little shelf and
ledge apart from the other letters. Presently he took
up a second letter in the same way, and placed that
aside also ; after which he dropped a silk handkerchief
over the two letters, and then put both handkerchief
and letters into his pocket. Witness saw him take a
third letter, and then gave information to the autho-
rities.

Mr. E. Hobb, a president in the Inland-office, de-
posed that he was on duty at the same time with the
prisoner, who after the above discoveries, was taken
to the Superintending President's room to be ex-
amined. He was accused of having letters in his pos-
session which did not belong to him, and asked if he
had any objection to be searched. He made no ob-
jection, and denied the charge ; but before being
searched he took out his pocket handkerchief and
held it in his hand. Peak, the Post-office constable,
found two letters in the same pocket, one of them
being addressed to " Miss A.. Watkins, 171, North-
street, Brighton," and the other to " Mr. J. Austen,
Rolvendon, Kent." They had both arrived by the
morning mail, and were broken open. On taking the
handkerchief from the prisoner's hand, 'and shaking
it, another letter fell from it, the seal of which re-
mained still unbroken. It was addressed to " Mr.
C. Kinsett, Betchworth Vicarage, near Reigate,
Surrey." (Witness opened the letter in court, and
found it to contain 15. wrapt in paper).
The prisoner who is a young man, reserved his de-
fence, and on the application of Mr. Peacock, his
Worship remanded him for further examination.