interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman in these details, observing, that the complaints of the petitioners were matters which might, and would, in all probability, be made the subject of an election petition; and, if the petition were now received, the merits of that election petition would be prejudged.

thought the petition was one which might, with propriety, be received.

said, that every Member knew, that it was not possible to present an election petition until the return was lodged in the Crown Office; and after that, the House could not entertain it, the jurisdiction of the House being deputed to a Select Committee, according to Act of Parliament. The question was, whether this petition involved matter which could alone be tried by an election Committee, as in that case it could not be entertained by the House, whether an election petition were hereafter presented or not. He had only waited in hopes the hon. and learned Member would read the prayer of the petition, as, if it prayed for a remedy for the grievance of which it complained, it was clear the House could afford no such remedy, and the only effect of receiving the petition would be, to prejudge a matter which did not belong to the House.

said, that the prayer of the petition was, that the House would institute an inquiry into the conduct of the Sheriffs and their deputies; and also that it would provide, by the bill now pending, that Sheriffs appointed by Corporations should not act as returning officers in the cities or towns where those Corporations exist. If the latter part of the prayer did not, in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, take the petition out of the rule which he had laid down, he (Mr. Crampton) could only withdraw the petition.

was of opinion, that the second or general part of the prayer took the petition out of the rule which applied to election petitions.

observed, that the general prayer was founded on the allegations contained in the petition, and could not be separated from them.

withdrew the petition.

wished to know from the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether, in the statement which he made on a former evening, he meant to deny on the part of Sir William Gossett, that that gentleman had accompanied Mr. Latouche in his canvass?

said, that Sir William Gossett had authorised him to deny the charge made by the hon. and learned Member, that he had canvassed for Mr. Latouche. If the hon. and learned Member desired it, he had no doubt he could procure as explicit a denial of the allegation, that Sir William Gossett had accompanied Mr. Latouche in his canvass, which, after all, was but a repetition of the former charge.

said, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving him an opportunity to defend the Magistrates and the Yeomanry of the county of Wexford. The hon. Member had commented with great severity on the conduct of the Yeomanry of that county; and on this point he differed from the hon. Member as much as one man could possibly differ from another. He held in his hand a statement, signed by forty noblemen, gentlemen, magistrates, and other highly respectable persons, and they held the same opinion with respect to the Yeomanry corps which he entertained. They said, "We, the undersigned noblemen and gentlemen of the county, having seen resolutions published in the Wexford Independent, purporting to proceed from a 'great county meeting' held in Wexford, on the 30th of July last, feel ourselves bound to express our dissent from resolutions so published, and particularly wish to avow publicly our conviction, that the maintenance of the Yeomanry force is essentially necessary to the preservation of the public peace—'to quell insurrection,' and the other purposes for which that force was originally levied." In his opinion, if they gave up the Yeomanry corps of Ireland, the most disastrous consequences would follow. Such a step would, he believed, end in the separation of the two countries. He now wished to advert to the statement which had been made some time since by the hon. member for Wexford, relative to the Newtownbarry affair. He had written there immediately after that statement had been made, and he had collected such materials as would afford him an opportunity of refuting it. He meant not to say, that the hon. Member, in making that statement, intended to mislead the House; but ho was sure that those from whom he had received his information had misled him. The hon. Member had stated, that, at Newtownbarry, two persons had been coolly singled out by the Yeomanry, and shot. He had likewise said, that while the country people were at chapel, offering up prayers for the souls of the deceased who full in that affray, some of the Yeomanry fired shots over the house of God, to terrify those who were engaged in this pious duty. And he had asked, "if such things had happened in England, would it not have excited the indignation of the people?'' No doubt they would have been indignant, had such an occurrence taken place; but no such circumstance had happened at Newtownbarry. In consequence of that speech of the hon. member for Wexford, he had sent to Newtownbarry to have the facts inquired into, And here he gave notice, that he would to-morrow move for a copy of the document which had been transmitted to Government, in consequence of their having sent a special agent to the spot to investigate the affair. But what was the result of the inquiry which he had himself caused to be made? Why, he held in his hand the affidavits òf eleven most respectable persons, with every one of whom he was intimately acquainted for years, and they declared, that they were close to the chapel of Newtownbarry during the time in which the priest was employed in celebrating mass for the repose of the souls of the departed—that no shots were fired—and that they were so near, that if any shots had been fired they must have heard them. He would not quote all the affidavits, but content himself with refering to one made by a gentleman who was a perfectly impartial witness. Lieutenant J. S. Schonswar, of the Dragoon Guards, deposed, that there was a large meeting at the chapel, attending the service for the repose of the souls of those who were slain on the 18th of June last; that he was so situated that he must have heard shots if any had been fired; but that he had heard no shots fired. These affidavits were signed by most respectable persons, and therefore he came to the conclusion, that the hon. Member had been misinformed, and that no such occurrence as he had described took place at Newtownbarry. It was a singular fact, that, until the report of the hon. Member's speech reached Newtownbarry, no person in that place, and this he could positively state, heard of this supposed occurrence. No such report had been previously spread as to shots having been fired over the chapel. The hon. Member had asserted, that two persons were selected by the Yeomanry and shot. Let the hon. Member inform him of their names, or give him some clue that could lead to a knowledge of them, and he doubted not, that he would be able to give as direct and as satisfactory a contradiction to that part of the statement as he trusted he had done to the other. The hon. Member then gave notice, that he would to-morrow move an Address for the production of the Report made by Brigade Major Bush to the Irish Government, after an investigation, by the direction of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, of the charge made against the military, of firing shots over the chapel at Newtownbarry during the performance of Divine service.

said, he was obliged to commence his observations on the slaughter committed at Newtownbarry, in the same manner, he was sorry to observe, that he had been compelled to adopt upon former occasions when that subject had been brought before the House. Here were seventeen individuals sacrificed—in all forty persons killed and wounded—and yet not one solitary expression of regret was uttered for that horrible and most unnecessary waste of human life. It seemed to be treated as nothing but an ordinary occurrence, a mere everyday matter, and therefore unworthy of particular notice. Gentlemen talked of every thing, they spoke of every thing, but not one particle of pity was shown for the agonized feelings of the surviving relatives of the slain. This was the fifth time that the subject was introduced, and still no touch of compassion was manifested for those unfortunate persons. What was more, he would ask, had any effort been made to visit the perpetrators of this cruel deed with retributive justice? No, no; the parties remained in triumph, and the hon. member for Cavan came down with his exculpatory document, signed by nobility and gentry. There never was so false, so atrocious a document as that to which the hon. Member had first referred. In that document they were told, that the Yeomanry were necessary to preserve the peace. Why, at that time, Wexford was the most peaceable county in Ireland. To preserve the peace! There was not a single instance of breaking the peace, until the occurrence of the Newtownbarry affair. O nobility! O gentry! you assert a falsehood, when you say that the peace of that county, or of the country, requires the aid of such a force. Secondly, it was stated in this document, that the Yeomanry were necessary to keep down insurrection. Where was there a particle of insurrectionary spirit to be seen? Who thought, who dreamt, of insurrection? No one but those noblemen and gentlemen. Here were those men, after this slaughter, this massacre, coming forward and charging the people with a tendency to commit a breach of the peace, and with harbouring feelings that pointed to insurrection. Where was the breach of the peace? Where was the tendency to insurrection. If neither took place—if neither were to be traced any where—what, then, became of the hon. Member's highly respectable certificate? But who, he would ask, were on the Grand Jury? The friends and relatives of those whose conduct he reprobated, who made false charges, and who, when human blood was shed—when men, women and children were slaughtered—remembering that they were the friends and relatives of the parties inculpated, would not find a Bill against them even for manslaughter. Where were the people, in such a state of things, to look for justice? Where were they to seek redress? Where could they hope to find protection? If they wanted not to drive the people of Ireland to madness—to despair—let them immediately wrest the arms from the hands of the low Protestants. Could the hon. member for Cavan deny, that he had designated them correctly? Could he say, that they were not low Protestants? He would call emphatically on the Legislature to free Ireland from the scourge of the Yeomanry—to free her from a proud aristocracy, who unnecessarily, by the agency of an infuriated Yeomanry, shed the blood of innocent people. What had occurred, not long since, in the north of Ireland? Here was another specimen of the equal justice which was distributed in Ireland. Two parties consisting of Orangemen and Catholics, had a rencontre; the Magistrates in- terfered, and the Catholics threw down their arms and fled: in their flight these unarmed individuals were fired at; and he had yet to learn whether any of those who had thus assailed them had been brought to punishment.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was partly correct and partly incorrect in his statement. He was present on that occasion, and the Magistrates wished to act impartially between both parties: but one of those parties was too strong for them.

continued. The Catholics stated, and the fact was not denied, that they were fired at when they were running away. Four times had he mentioned the Maghera case in that House, but no mention was made of it—it did not go out to the public at all. He supposed, that it did not suit the purpose of those who were employed on these occasions. On the 17th of December the Orangemen made a complete wreck of the habitations of the Roman Catholics, destroyed their furniture, assaulted the men violently, and even beat the women. With respect to the charge of firing over the chapel while a solemn service was in the course of being solemnized, the hon. Member had brought forward the affidavits of eleven persons in contradiction to that fact. Now he should be glad to know, whether only one religious ceremony was performed for the repose of the souls of seventeen slaughtered persons? Besides the high mass, would there not be a solemn service for every one of them? The hon. Member's eleven witnesses seemed to think that one service only was performed; and it certainly was a very extraordinary circumstance, to find eleven Protestant gentlemen walking close to the chapel, at the identical time when no shots were fired. It was a very marvellous coincidence, indeed; He attributed the whole of the frightful party feelings which agitated Ireland to the Orange magistracy. Why, he demanded, did the Government permit those parties to continue in the commission of the peace? Why should Government fear them? Why should Government, in opposition to the great body of the people, protect, uphold, and support them? Let them but strike three or four of these Magistrates out of the commission, and the remainder would become perfectly calm and quiescent. The Government had said a great deal, the Government doubtless, intended a great deal, with respect to the welfare of Ireland, but still things went on precisely in the same old and objectionable way. Let them refrain from sending forth their instructions and their letters missive; let them, instead of taking that course, dismiss three or four of these exotics—these Orange Magistrates—from the commission, and they might depend upon it that the remainder would be perfectly tame. What was the consequence of keeping up this Yeomanry force, which Government seemed afraid to disband? Why the Ribandmen were again organizing. He understood, that 8,000 of them had assembled together very lately, and of these 200 were armed with muskets. This was an appalling state of things. Would men thus situated calmly suffer themselves to be slaughtered? He feared not. If they did not show their resentment in the day, they would at night. The wild justice of barbaric revenge, if not called into operation in the light of day would perhaps be fatally busy in the dark. The Ministers had not acted with that just spirit which the people expected, and which they demanded. They had, in fact, alienated the people from them, and given their support to a faction, who hated them even worse than they hated those whom they wished upon all occasions to oppress.

lamented, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had, in the course of his speech, entered into the discussion of every subject that could create party feeling, and keep alive that spirit of irritation which every thinking man must wish to see extinguished. It was a most unjustifiable speech; and it was the more unjustifiable, and the more uncalled for, when they considered the calm and proper manner in which the hon. member for Wexford had introduced the petition. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman formed an extraordinary contrast with the temper and moderation with which the hon. member for Wexford had conducted himself—a gentleman, it should be observed, who was connected with the county, and who, therefore, in speaking on this subject, might fairly and justly be excused, if his feelings had been excited, and his passions exasperated. He, however, with singular propriety, had abstained from the use of a single violent or offensive expression. The hon. and learned Gentleman declared, that his great object was to secure the peace and tranquillity of Ire- land; but most assuredly nothing in the world could be conceived more directly opposed to that object than the violence and vituperation in which the hon. and learned Gentleman indulged in that House. The hon. and learned Member certainly had no right to attack others, on account of what fell from them, because no man within those walls indulged so much in strong language, and in the display of overstrained feeling, as the hon. and learned Member did himself. Could the hon. and learned Member imagine, that those who were in any way connected with Ireland, whether in the government of that country or not, could look with anything but unmixed horror and grief at the unfortunate occurrence of Newtownbarry? If, as the hon. member for Wexford had said, it was most desirable to forget the past, to cast it into oblivion, and to look forward with cheerful hope to the future, unquestionably the mode which the hon. and learned Gentleman took to second and secure that all-important object, was the most extraordinary that could be imagined. In consequence of what had occurred on a former occasion, he had this day brought down an official document, which the hon. Member had given notice of his intention of moving for to-morrow. That document related to the inquiry which had been instituted by the Irish Government, with respect to the charge which had been made against the Wexford Yeomanry—that of having insulted the people at the chapel of Newtownbarry, by firing over that chapel while a solemn service was performing for the repose of the souls of the slain. Without further preface he would read the communication to which he alluded. It was dated Newtownbarry, August 17th, and was addressed by Brigade-Major Bushe, who had been directed to inquire into the circumstances, to Sir William Gossett. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to read the report as follows:

Newtownbarry, 17th August, 1831.

Sir,—On receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, I immediately set out for this place, for the purpose of procuring the information you called for; and am able to state, that after having made the most minute inquiry, I find the representations made to Government, of the Newtownbarry Yeomanry, to be totally untrue, and without the slightest foundation. On my arrival here, my first inquiry was of some wealthy farmers, and of the lower class of country people and town inhabitants, all of whom declared they never saw anything more quiet and well conducted than the conduct of all parties on the day of the celebration of mass, and that a Yeoman had not appeared as such since the affray. My next inquiry was of the most respectable and distinguished persons of the town and county—namely, Major Irvine, Major Devereux, Mr. Ralph, and others, all of whom declared, that they heard of no offence having been offered, or saw or heard of the disturbance or disorder on the day alluded to; and the Yeomanry did not appear as such on that or any other day since the affray. They heard no shots, nor heard of any shots having been fired, except one, said to have been fired by Lord Farnham's Gamekeeper, in his Lordship's demesne. My next inquiry was of the cavalry and infantry officers who were in the town at the time, and who fully corroborated the foregoing statements. My last and conclusive inquiry was, of the Rev. Mr. Walsh, the priest of the town, who celebrated mass upon the day alluded to, and who stated to me, that, on the morning of that day, it had been (as since appears) falsely reported, that it was the intention of the Military and Yeomanry to parade the streets that day, to the great annoyance and disturbance of the friends and relatives of those who had fallen; that, upon receiving this report, he communicated the same to Major Campbell, the commanding officer, who immediately called upon the Rev. Mr. Walsh, and assured him, that there had not been the most remote intention, on the part of the Military or Yeomanry, to offer the slightest interruption or offence; and that, lest the appearance of the Military might have that effect, he had, before he received Mr. Walsh's communication, withdrawn the troops into Lord Farnham's demesne, where they should remain until the people left town. Mr. Walsh told Major Campbell, that a shot was heard in the direction of the troops. Major Campbell said, he heard the shot, and that it was at a considerable distance, in Lord Farnham's demesne, and that he did not know who fired it. Mr. Walsh stated to me, that, some time after his interview with Major Campbell, he heard that the shot was fired by a Yeoman, and afterwards heard that it was fired by Lord Farnham's Gamekeeper. Mr. Walsh also stated to me, that, at the funeral of one of the persons who had fallen at Newtownbarry, a shot was fired at a distance, at the opposite side of the river from whence the funeral proceeded, and which was said to have been fired at or near the house of a Yeoman who lived in that direction. This was all (he said) he knew of the subject alluded to, and upon which I required information; and, upon the whole, disclaimed any knowledge of any disturbance having taken place, or the slightest interruption or offence having been offered by the Yeomanry on that day, or any other day, since the affray. Considering the Rev. Mr. Walsh's statement quite conclusive, I do not think it necessary to trouble you with the detail of any further inquiries which I might make, and which could only be a repetition of those circumstances already stated.

He had thus (the right hon. Gentleman continued) from an official document, contradicted the assertions which had originally been made relative to the conduct of the Yeomanry. And that contradiction, so full and clear in all its particulars, ought to show Gentlemen the necessity of making the most accurate inquiries upon subjects of this nature, before they ventured to make statements which were calculated to produce the most injurious consequences to the parties who happened to be implicated. His hon. friend, the member for Wexford, knew very well, that Government wished to place the Yeomanry force of Ireland on a less objectionable footing than it at present was in different parts of that country; and he must also know equally well the difficulties which stood in the way of such an arrangement. Government, he would fairly state, was not ready, on account of the fault of a few individuals, to pass a sweeping censure on so large, and, in many instances, so respectable a body of men. But, let a single instance be clearly brought before Government, in which it should appear that any corps of Yeomanry had exceeded its legitimate duty, and he would assert, that on the instant, Lord Anglesey would take the most prompt and effectual steps to correct or punish the abuse. He was extremely sorry, that such an occurrence should have happened in the county of Wexford, as it certainly laid the yeomanry there open to considerable objection. But that circumstance did not form a sufficient reason for disbanding a very large body of men, which could not be done unless general misconduct and utter want of discipline could be proved against the Yeomanry. With respect to the Yeomanry of Newtownbarry, he had stated over and over again, that the Lord Lieutenant would not adopt any step with reference to them, until the proceedings at present pending were brought to an end. When those proceedings were finished, such a course would be adopted as the Government might conceive that the case demanded; and he would then be ready to justify any steps which the Irish Government might deem it proper to adopt. The Lord Lieutenant had felt that the calling out of the Yeomanry at Newtownbarry by the Magistrates was wrong. That opinion had been communicated to them. Two of the Magistrates had, in consequence, sent in their resignations, and those resignations had been accepted. Further than this the Lord Lieutenant was not disposed to go. He must in conclusion say, that he hoped the House would not suffer itself to be drawn into a discussion of all the topics touched on by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, and, above all, would not discuss them with the same spirit in which that hon. and learned Member had delivered his speech.

had heard with the greatest satisfaction and pleasure the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he knew, that that speech would be received in Ireland with a pleasure and satisfaction equal to his own. He had just returned from Ireland, and had witnessed the effect of the excitement occasioned by the unmerited aspersions cast, in that House, and particularly by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, upon that most useful, most constitutional, and most patriotic body, the Yeomanry of Ireland. He fully acquitted his Majesty's Government of participating or taking any part in an endeavour to degrade that most respectable body, and he was happy to find, from the speech of the right hon. Secretary, that he was also of opinion that they had done nothing which deserved degradation. He felt the greatest indignation, which he believed would be shared by a large proportion of the people of Ireland, at the extraordinary speeches and statements made by the hon. and learned member for Kerry—a feeling which had shown itself throughout the country. The honourable and learned Member and his friends had adopted every means in their power to put down his Majesty's Government, for the purpose of effecting their own objects. He had heard the present speech of the hon. and learned member for Kerry with indignation, and the same feeling would be excited in Ireland when it should reach that country ["hear, hear!" from Mr. O'Connell]. He heard the significant cheer of the hon. and learned Member; but he neither regarded the cheer of the hon. and learned Member, nor did he fear the attacks which that hon. and learned Member might make upon him. He would assert, that a vast proportion of the wealth, the respectability, and the intelligence of Ireland would join in resisting any attack that might be made upon the Protestant institutions, or on the character of the Yeomanry of Ireland. The speech of the hon. and learned Member, as far as related to the affair at Newtownbarry, had met a complete refutation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and, as he had no connexion with the county of Wexford, he was not called upon to enter into that question. He must, however, say, that when he heard of what were called the atrocities of the Yeomanry in that county, notwithstanding the respectable authority from which those statements came, that he did not believe them. He thought, that the hon. Member opposite who made those statements in the first instance, was completely deceived; and was happy to find his opinion confirmed by the decided refutation given to those statements by the most competent authority. His disbelief, in the first instance, did not arise from any information he possessed, but from the suspicion with which he listened to any story of this kind coming from one side or the other. When anything of this nature occurred in Ireland, the statements concerning it were always so much exaggerated, that there was a very great difficulty, nay, very often an impossibility, in ascertaining the real facts, even when both sides had stated their case, and those who decided after hearing only one side, would certainly form an incorrect judgment. He should be very much deceived if the House were not satisfied of the truth of this observation, when it should be in possession of the report on the Newtownbarry affair, and if that should turn out to be what the hon. and learned Member had termed it—"a deliberate massacre." As the report, however, would shortly be laid before Parliament, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be only fair and right for the House to suspend its opinion on that particular transaction. He would say a word on the cabal, as he must call it, which had been formed of Members of that House, to beard the Government, and force it to enter into their views with respect to disbanding the Irish Yeomanry. He alluded to those Members who thought it necessary to wait on the noble Earl at the head of the Government, on this subject. When he was in Ireland he read the account of this transaction with the greatest surprise. It was nonsense to talk of living under a Constitution—of having a mixed Government with the King at the head of the executive, and two Houses of Parliament to check and control each other, if a set of men chose to arrogate to themselves the character of the Members for Ireland, though they represented only a small portion of the wealth, the intelligence, or the respectability, of that country; and, having formed themselves into a cabal, forced themselves in a body to the chamber of the chief Minister of the country, to dictate to him the measure he should pursue, and to beard and overawe the Government.

having called the hon. Member to order; said the expressions he had used were most disorderly in calling another hon. Member to order.

said, that the mode of calling to order adopted by the hon. Member, was the most extraordinary he had ever known. It showed the way in which the business of that House was sometimes conducted. He had made no allusion whatever to the hon. Member: he had said that a cabal had been formed to beard his Majesty's Ministers, when the hon. Member got up, and avowed himself a member of the body he had so described. He thought it most extraordinary in the hon. Member to interrupt him in the course of observations which, as a Member of that House, he thought it his duty to address to their consideration; the language the hon. Member had used on the occasion, was not according to the usage of Parliament—it was not a parliamentary phrase, nor such as would be used in private society. He would, notwithstanding, say that those Gentlemen who had gone to Earl Grey, appeared to be actuated by a desire to intimidate his Majesty's Ministers. The answer which they received from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, must have been felt as a strong reproof. He (Mr. George Dawson) might have been mistaken in what he said—there might have been no cabal—but the matter he alluded to had very much the appearance of being a cabal, and he had a right to express his opinion. He would now, in the most friendly manner,—yes, in the most friendly manner towards the right hon. Gentleman opposite—beg him not to encourage the idea that the Yeomanry were to be disbanded. Such a measure would excite the indignation of the whole of the people in the north of Ireland. He would express in the most intelligible language his conviction, that nothing was wanted to induce them to join the bands of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, in demanding a Repeal of the Union but such a measure. He knew, that such was the object which that hon. and learned Gentleman had really at heart. In the pursuit of that object, he had vainly appealed to the people of the north of Ireland; they did not trust him; but if the Ministers should come to the unwise determination of disarming the Yeomanry, they would excite a feeling which would induce these men to throw themselves, for this purpose, into the arms of their enemy. It was easy to say "disarm the Yeomanry;" but that would be no sooner done, than the Protestants would arm themselves at their own expense. He had heard from hundreds, that the disarming of the Yeomanry would be the signal for the men to arm themselves, which they would find no great difficulty in accomplishing: the arms and accoutrements of each man might be purchased for 25 s., and if the Government wished to precipitate the two parties into immediate collision, they would disarm the Yeomanry, and thus hold out encouragement to the individual arming of the Protestants. That would most assuredly be the case in the north of Ireland. There was no part of Ireland, nor, indeed, of the British dominions, at present more loyal than the north of Ireland, which the hon. and learned member for Kerry, called the focus of Orangeism. In confirmation of this fact he might quote the charge of Mr. Justice Jebb, to the Grand Jury of Derry, which might safely be taken as a just description of all the northern counties. The charge was very short, and he would read it. "Gentlemen of the Grand Jury—It is highly gratifying for a Judge to meet so large an assemblage of gentlemen, composing the rank and respectability of this truly happy and prosperous county, to witness and partake with him, the pleasure which such a happy prospect must afford. The present calendar is unexampled in lightness, not merely in the annals of this county, but will bear a comparison with that of any county in the empire. From the long experience I have had in travelling this circuit, I am able to say, that your county yields not to any in Ireland for peacefulness and respect to the laws; and this is to be attributed to you, gentlemen, who are most deeply interested in the peace, happiness, and prosperity of the country. It would be needless in me to dwell on this subject, but it affords a cheering contrast to other parts of the kingdom, from which I have just returned, where I also found the gentry rally round me, to support the laws, and endeavour to promote a restoration of the public peace; yet these gentlemen have been exposed to hazard, not only in their property, but even in their persons, in some cases, in discharge of their duty. I trust you will never be called upon under similar circumstances, and, indeed, I am sure you never will." He would then advert to the speech which Mr. O'Connell had attributed to him, as having been uttered by him on a former occasion, and said, that both Orangemen and Catholics, had on the occasion alluded to, been armed, and had come armed to the battle, and that a loss of life had been the consequence; but that had nothing to do with the conduct of the Yeomanry, for on that occasion the contest was between the Catholics and the Orangemen, and the Yeomanry, as Yeomanry, took no part in the affray. Both Catholics and Orangemen had been afterwards tried and convicted for the offence, and both had been imprisoned, and, after some time, not one only, but both, had been released from confinement, before the regular term of their imprisonment had expired. That, he hoped, was a sufficient refutation of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member. He was sure, that almost every Member from the north of Ireland would agree with him, and would be ready to get up in his place to defend the Yeomanry against the aspersions cast on them by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, and Gentlemen at his side of the House, who ought to pause before they made unfounded statements, and inflicted such wounds upon the feelings of this body of men. He hoped the Government entertained no notion of acceding to the demands for the disbanding the Yeomanry. That force was as loyal as it was constitutional. It had rendered great services in preserving the peace and tranquillity of the country in the worst times, and he hoped that it would not be disbanded upon the suggestion of interested persons.

felt that some explanation was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) was at perfect liberty to lecture the Government, which perhaps did not want his advice, yet he did not conceive, that he had any right to make observations, in the terms which he had used, on a body of Gentlemen as independent as any in that House, who thought it their duty to wait on the noble Lord at the head of the Government, on a subject, as they conceived, intimately connected With the preservation of the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman described that independent body of Gentlemen as a cabal, going to Lord Grey's house for the purpose of bearding and intimidating the Government. He was certainly one of the body who waited on Lord Grey; but he had no such object as the right hon. Gentleman imputed to him, and thought it necessary to give the statement an unqualified contradiction. If such an object was attributed to him, he repeated, that it was an utter falsehood.

had great hopes the hon. Member rose for the purpose of retracting the offensive expression he had previously used, and not of repeating it. From the explanation which the hon. Gentleman had previously given, it was quite clear, that he had not intended to use the term "false" in an offensive sense; but it would have been as well if he had stopped at the explanation.

said, his only object was to refute the calumny thrown out against him and the other Irish Members who had waited on Lord Grey. He believed the pacification of Ireland could only be effected by the gradual reduction of the Yeomanry in those parts of the country where collisions had taken place between the Yeomanry force and the people: and, entertaining this opinion very strongly, he and other Irish Members waited on the head of the Government to communicate their sentiments on this subject, and to avoid hostile discussions in that House. He was as well aware as any man that the Irish Yeomanry contained many respectable individuals, and that it was a constitutional force; but it was not properly organized. It consisted chiefly of Protestants, and its members were imbued with strong religious feelings, and were not subject to proper military discipline. He had heard nothing which in- duced him to change the opinion he had formed, that the transaction at Newtownbarry was a most wanton murder, and that a well-disciplined military force would be advantageously substituted on every occasion where the civil power was not sufficient.

would have complied with the recommendation of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, but for the intemperate and exaggerated statements of the hon. member for Wexford. The affair at Newtownbarry was by him designated as "a most unprovoked and deliberate massacre," which he considered a most exaggerated and unfounded statement. He would not go through the history of that transaction, but he never could patiently hear it called "a massacre." The hon. member for Kerry had talked of some Yeomen having fired over a Catholic chapel, but the fact was never proved; on the contrary, it was denied; and yet no retraction of the charge had been offered by that hon. Member.

I will not permit myself to be thus alluded to, in adding to a great misinterpretation of what I did state.

The hon. Member had burst out into a fit of great indignation, because the House, as he said, evinced no sympathy, or put on no mourning, for the sufferers at Newtownbarry; but that hon. Member himself exhibited no feelings of sympathy for the streams of blood which were flowing in the south of Ireland, where assassination and murder were daily and nightly committed against the Protestants. The sympathy of the hon. Member was all at one side of the question. The hon. Member said, that Ireland should not be governed by a party—and so said he; and, above all, not governed by that most degraded party in Ireland who wished to dictate the course that ought to be pursued by Government, and employed themselves, night after night, in bringing forward discussions tending to the separation of the two countries. The hon. Member said, and said truly, that the Government were now making an experiment; they had gone into the tiger's den to soothe him down, but the tiger had turned round upon them. The hon. Member said, that the Orange Magistrates should be displaced, but, if they were, he hoped that many Magistrates in the county of Wexford, whom he could name, would be also dismissed. The Orangemen were next called exotics, although Orangeman was almost the distinctive appellation for Protestant. [Mr. O'Connell: I deny that to be a fact.] He really believed the wish expressed for the introduction of the King's troops into Ireland, had no other object than to put down the Orangemen and Protestants; and thereby accomplish the ulterior designs of the hon. Member. He would not further enter into this subject; but once for all say, that but for the inflammatory topics introduced into this discussion, notwithstanding the beseeching exhortation of some hon. Members, he should not have said a word. But he could never consent to have the House made the organ of that delusion, which, through the Press, would find its way into every town, village, and hamlet, in the United Kingdom; and he never could sit still while mis-statements were made, without giving them a contradiction. He would only for a moment advert to the statement made by the hon. Member a few nights since, as to the Grand Jury of Carlow having drank certain toasts. He denied the statement at the time, and he then held in his hand a written document, containing a voluntary disclaimer of the Grand Jury, that no such toasts were drank whilst any member of the Grand Jury remained in the room. After that, he thought, no doubt whatever could remain on the mind of every Member, that the assertion he had contradicted was totally without foundation.

would put it to hon. Gentlemen, if they ever heard in that House a speech more calculated than the speech of the right hon. member for Harwich to revive and encourage discord. That right hon. Gentleman accused him (Mr. Jephson), and some other Members of that House, of forming a cabal for the purpose of brow-beating his Majesty's Government. But, he asked, was not the speech of that Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) himself remarkable for a disposition to brow-beat the Government? The Irish Members who waited upon the Prime Minister, would have been unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their constituents, if they dared not represent to any Government their feeling as to its measures. He complained not only of the right hon. Gentleman but of the noble Lord himself at the head of the Government, who had so expressed himself as to appear to coincide with another noble Lord, who put some questions respecting the Prime Minister's intention with those Irish Members. If those Members did not meet that noble Premier's dignity, as he himself might call it, or, as they would say, his pride, with the pride becoming such a body as they formed, he would not have felt as he did feel, that it was a high honour to him to have made one of that body. As to the imputation which had been cast upon them by another noble Lord, he would not say one word, because he considered anything that fell from that noble Lord to be beneath his notice. He concluded by stating, that the object of the Gentlemen who waited upon Earl Grey was friendly to the Government.

could not help expressing his surprise at the complacency with which right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, received the clouds of incense which were poured upon them on some occasions, from the Gentlemen opposed to them. He would admit, that the evidence of Gentlemen connected with Ireland could not, perhaps, be relied on implicitly on the subject of the Yeomanry; because "we come here," said he, "bribing with faction." But surely, the evidence given against that body by its friends and defenders—nay, by some of its own members—might receive some credit; and, according to their testimony, what was the constitution of that force? Colonel Verner himself, the Grand Master of the Orangemen of Ireland, stated, in his evidence before a Committee of that House, that no Catholic would be received into a Yeomanry corps in the north of Ireland. He referred to all the evidence taken before the same Committee, to prove the systematic exclusion of the Catholics from the Yeomanry, especially in the north. When a number of Gentlemen connected with Ireland waited upon the Prime Minister, to express their feelings with respect to some of the measures of the Government towards that country, they did not go to beard him, as had been said, but to tell him honestly, candidly, and respectfully, their opinions, so that they might avoid making that House nightly the theatre of irritating discussions, by which the public business was impeded. The right hon. member for Harwich said, that the Members for Ireland did not agree with the Gentlemen who waited on Earl Grey; but he would beg leave to remind the right hon. Gentle- man, and his Majesty's Ministers, that all those Members for Ireland, who usually support the Government, were present at that interview. As to the affray at Newtownbarry, he wished to God that the question were set at rest for ever by a full and impartial investigation.

was very unwilling to prolong this discussion, but after the speech of the right hon. member for Harwich, he could not refrain from saying a few words. The right hon. Member had been pleased to call those Gentlemen who went to Earl Grey, a cabal. If the right hon. Member meant to impute to him any of those motives which were supposed to influence a cabal, he must tell him that the imputation was unjust and unfounded. The right hon. member for Harwich was greatly mistaken, if he supposed that he, and the other gentlemen who had had the interview with the Premier alluded to, waited on that nobleman, for the purpose of bearding the Government. He had not signed the paper which was first sent to Earl Grey, because, like the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, he did not quite agree with some expressions which it contained. But when the interview was appointed, he felt that he should not do his duty were he to absent himself on the occasion. Many who attended there differed essentially from the hon. and learned member for Kerry on one great question regarding Ireland, and he (Lord Killeen) must say, that he was one of those. It had been before stated, that the interview was sought in a friendly spirit; and indeed, if it were otherwise, he should not have attended it. The object was, as they stated to the Prime Minister, to prevent the interruption of the important business now before Parliament, by discussing in that House the subject of their application. The right hon. Gentleman was very sensitive about the annoyance which they had given to the Ministry: indeed, he complained as if he thought that they were poaching upon his manor. As to the Yeomanry, it had been admitted by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that they were a party force; and surely no member of the Government or of the House would say, that such a force ought to be maintained in Ireland.

was satisfied to leave it to the Ministers to make such modifications of the Yeomanry force as, upon consideration, they should see to be expedient. He thought it inconsistent with propriety and with parliamentary usage to speak of any body of Gentlemen in the language applied by the right hon. member for Harwich to the deputation which waited on Lord Grey. It was unbecoming to taunt those Gentlemen with having gone to beard the Minister, whereas, in fact, they waited on him in a respectful manner, and with the most friendly intention, to prevent angry discussions being continually renewed in the House. He had no doubt that it would have better pleased many Gentlemen below him (on the Opposition Benches), had the deputation been conducted with a factious spirit; but because the Gentlemen who composed it came back to that House to give the Ministers their support in measures which had the good of the people for their object, the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, was disappointed and displeased.

said, that the manner in which he had brought up the petition seemed to have given very different satisfaction to different Members. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland praised his moderation, whilst the hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon) accused him of having made an immoderate and violent speech. He could not hear the attacks which had been made upon the hon. and learned member for Kerry, without expressing his deep sense, as an Irishman, of the services which that gentleman had rendered to his country. He had expressed no sweeping censure of the Yeomanry, nor cast upon them, as had been said, any insult as a body. But he agreed in the opinion of the most experienced friends of Ireland, that it was the very last species of force that ought to be employed in Ireland; and he hoped that the Government would place it in a state of what he would call (to use an Irish phrase) wholesome decay, and that they would begin its gradual abolition with the reduction of the Wexford corps. As the hon. member for Dundalk was indignant that the affray at Newtownbarry should be called a massacre, he felt himself compelled to lift up the veil which had been thrown over this transaction, and he would mention to the House only one incident, which he had learned from a Protestant gentleman of the highest respectability, and of extensive property, who, however, was not a relation of any of the Yeomanry or Magistrates who had been connected in the transaction. Immediately after the horrible occurrence, that gentleman saw a wretched husband leaning over the body of his wife, whose womb had been torn by those butchers—her murdered child protruding from it. There were several persons who had seen that woman deliberately aimed at by a Yeoman, who fired at her, disregarding the cry of shame that burst from the bystanders. There could be no doubt of the fact; and yet, whilst the Judges were sitting almost upon the spot, the assassin was walking abroad in open day unmolested, and the murder was to this hour unpunished.

said, that as he had been personally assailed by the hon. member for Dundalk, he must say a few words in vindication of himself. Because he had complained that some Gentlemen had expressed no pity for the unhappy persons who had been killed by the Yeomanry, the hon. Member had turned round upon him and said, that he never expressed pity for those who were waylaid and murdered in Ireland; and that he seemed to desire that all the commiseration should be on one side. Now, was that fair? He would tell the hon. Member, that he had never spoken but in terms of execration of the miscreants who had committed the foul deeds of which the hon. Member had spoken. The hon. Member complained of his having called the Orangemen "exotics." But the hon. Member was himself a proof that it was not considered a crime in Ireland to be an "exotic;" for if it had been, how could the hon. Member, speaking a dialect which few Irishmen could understand, have won his way at Dundalk? It could not have been by the bewitching accents of his tongue—he must have gained their hearts by the sweetness of his countenance. He had another charge to make against the hon. member for Dundalk, and he should like to hear his answer to it. That hon. Member some time ago read a letter to the House, which he stated had been written by the Rev. Mr. Murphy, a Catholic clergyman in the county of Clare. Observing some Scotticisms in the letter read by the hon. Member, his suspicions were awakened, and finding, that the document which the hon. Member read was not in the handwriting of the Rev, Mr. Murphy, with whose handwriting he was well acquainted, he asked the hon. Member for the original. The hon. Member then said, that he had read to the House a copy of the original letter, and that he would produce the original. He repeated the same promise to his friend opposite, the hon. member for Ilchester, who put a similar question to him on that occasion. It was about two months since the hon. member for Dundalk had made that promise, but had never fulfilled it, and he therefore defied the hon. Member to produce the original of that letter, which he stated had been written by the Rev. Mr. Murphy, and which he had promised to produce. There never was a grosser mistake than that which had been committed by the hon. member for Dundalk, in attributing to him the statement, that if the Yeomanry were disarmed, the people would attack them. What he meant, and what he had said was, that the Government, while they pursued the system that they did, durst not disarm the Yeomanry. The right hon. member for Harwich had, in fact, in the course of his valorous speech, told his Majesty's Government, that if they disarmed the Yeomanry, they would get arms themselves; and he had put it to the Government, whether they would put those poor Orangemen to 25 s. a head expense. The Government ought to despise such threats from the Orange party in Ireland. There never was a Government which was so capable of meeting, if it chose to do so, the threats of the Orangemen of Ireland with utter contempt and defiance, as the existing Government of this country. While the Government had the people of both countries with them, they surely should not experience any alarm from the impotent threats of such a miserable faction. Let the Government take the King's arms out of the hands of the Orange Yeomanry, and then if they should dare to beard the Government, the unarmed peasantry would be able themselves to preserve the peace, and to defeat the efforts of the faction. The shedding of blood daily and hourly in Ireland was a sufficient excuse for the Government to put an end to such a mischievous force. Why not disband this Yeomanry force, and in its stead augment the number of the King's troops in Ireland? Or why not send over 20,000 or 25,000 of the English militia to Ireland, to take the place of such a justly obnoxious, long censured, and most mischievous body? For his part, he for one would be ready to vote that the whole expense of maintaining that militia should be thrown upon Ireland, if the Yeomanry were put an end to. It was absolutely necessary for the peace of Ireland to get rid of such a party-prejudiced and factious force as the Orange Yeomanry presented. They wanted a force in Ireland, that while it had arms in its hands, should not be mixed up in village feuds and party animosities, which were still further enhanced by the infusion of religious discord. They did not, at the same time, require that this force should be cut down at once. All they asked for was, that it should be gradually abolished. During the preceding Administration, and up to the time when the present Ministers came into office, this force was a perfect nonentity—the very shade of a shadow. But the present Ministry had put arms into the hands of 28,000 of those men, and they had been ever since affrighting and alarming the people, and, he would not say murdering, but, at all events, blood-letting in Ireland.

said, that he was astonished that the authenticity of the letter which he had read to the House on a former occasion, had been called in question. He certainly had not the original by him, but when he read the letter he said that the original should be forthcoming. He made the statement which he laid before the House, with regard to the letter of the Rev. Mr. Murphy, on the authority of an individual who had transmitted a copy of it to him from Ireland. It had quite escaped his memory, and he had never thought of sending for the original until the hon. member for Kerry had referred to the matter a few days ago. He then immediately wrote for the original to the gentleman in Ireland who had transmitted the copy to him. He had since understood, that that gentleman was in England, but he had no doubt that as soon as his (Mr. Gordon's) letter should reach him from Ireland, the original document would be forthcoming. The fact was, that the letter in question had been published in the Ennis paper a year ago; it had since gone the round of all the papers in the empire, and it had not been contradicted by the Rev. Mr. Murphy, who resided within seven miles of the town of Ennis.

said, that the right hon. member for Harwich had thought proper to read a lecture to the Irish Members, for threatening, as he had accused them of doing, the Government of the country. Now he (Mr. Wyse) would refer that hon. Member to a meeting of the Irish Members, which took place during the Liverpool Administration, to denounce the Still-fine system, and to insist upon its abolition. Very strong regulations were passed by that meeting, and a deputation from it was appointed to wait upon Lord Liverpool. If his memory served him right, the right hon. member for Harwich was one of those Members who got up that meeting, though he now objected so violently against a meeting of Irish Members, upon a similar principle. The hon. Member had accused them of using threats towards the Government. They had used no threats, but the system of threatening was one that had been adopted by the right hon. Member himself, for his speech was a series of threats against the Government. He menaced the Government with a separation if they disarmed the Yeomanry. If the Irish Members, whose conduct had been subjected to the censure of the right hon. member for Harwich, had talked about a Repeal of the Union, what would he have said?

said, that when the hon. member for Dundalk read the letter to which allusion had been made, he asked for the original, and the hon. Member then promised to send for it. If it should turn out that such a document had really proceeded from the pen of a Catholic Priest, he should be as ready to disavow the sentiments which it contained as any Member of that House.

observed, that the Rev. Mr. Murphy was upon the bed of sickness at the period when this letter which was attributed to him, was dated.

wished to take that opportunity to put a question to the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Under Secretary for the Home Department. He was encouraged to do so from the courtesy with which the hon. Gentleman had answered his question on a former evening, with regard to the melancholy subject of the loss of life occasioned by the disasters of steam-vessels. He had that morning received several letters from individuals in Liverpool interested in this distressing catastrophe, and in those letters, a circumstance was mentioned, to which the writers were desirous that the attention of Government should be called. It was stated, in those letters, that the office from which this vessel (the Rothsay Castle) sailed, was an office that had assumed the sanction of his Majesty's name, and that the vessels which sailed from that office, this Rothsay Castle amongst the rest, were described as "his Majesty's War-office Steam-packets." Such a circumstance as that induced strangers to place greater reliance upon such vessels. He wished to know, whether offices of this kind had any right thus to assume the sanction of his Majesty's name. He begged to ask, especially with regard to this office in Liverpool, whether it was a fact, that it assumed the sanction of the name of his Majesty, without the authority of Government? If that were the case, such a practice should at once be put an end to.

said, that no one was more impressed than he was with the necessity of having the fullest investigation instituted with regard to the melancholy transaction to which the hon. Member had referred. He (Mr. Lamb) had also received several communications from Liverpool on the subject. As to the circumstance to which the hon. Member had called his attention, he believed it was a fact, that the office from which this vessel had sailed, was one of those that had assumed the sanction of his Majesty's name. There was no doubt, that such a practice as that was wrong, and ought to be discontinued. Such a practice was highly objectionable in the steam-packet offices in Liverpool, and in other ports, which offices had no connexion with the Government, for strangers were thereby induced to believe, that the vessels from such offices, being in the service of Government, were of a superior description. The circumstance had arisen from the practice of the War-office contracting with such steam-packet offices for the transport of troops, but it was a thing that should be put a stop to.

said, the question before the Committee was, that, at line sixteen of the old print of the Bill, and at lines thirteen and fourteen of the new print of clause twenty-one, the following words should be omitted—"Shall, by reason thereof, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, if such rent shall be payable more frequently than once in every half year."

said, that there was a local Act in Liverpool, under which the landlords of houses of a certain class compounded with the parish for the poor-rates to which such premises were liable, the tenants paying a nett rent. As this clause stood, the tenants of such houses would be deprived of their right of voting.

said, that it was absolutely necessary to make the payment of the rates the distinctive qualification, in order to avoid still greater difficulties which would arise were the clause otherwise framed. If the landlord paid the rates, it must be left to him and his tenant to make their own arrangements with respect to any alterations that might be necessary.

By the clause, the tenant must pay the rates to the parish, but as the landlord has already paid them, they ought to be paid to him.

If tenants themselves paid their rates, they must pay the full sum charged, but where the landlord paid them, the parish usually compounded with him for a certain sum, sacrificing a part in order to ensure the remainder. The doubtful responsibility of persons in such situations formed one reason for excluding them, and the difficulty of ascertaining the particular parties another.

said, there would be 3,000 voters in Liverpool, who were affected in this manner by the local Act. The Attorney General, whom he had consulted, was of opinion, that they would not be injured by the clause before them.

No individual among these persons could know the amount of rate to which he was liable, as his landlord compounded for houses in the gross.

said, that there were premises in parishes in Southwark similarly situated to those of which the hon. Member had spoken. The parishes had been compelled, in self-defence, to procure an Act authorising the practice. It would be only necessary, however, for persons so situated to go to the Overseer, and get themselves rated, in order to be entitled to vote.

said, as many large towns were similarly circumstanced, he would propose, as an Amendment, that the clause should be so framed, that those who had a claim to be rated, should have only to go to the Overseer and be rated, in order to establish their right of voting.

had no objection to such an Amendment.

found much difficulty in understanding the clause relating to joint occupancy. He desired to know, if more than one person could vote for a house, and by what qualification they were to do so? Was it because they were all liable to contribute to the poor-rates, or pay a portion of the assessed taxes which the whole premises were rated for, or because they were all liable to the same landlord?

said, that either of the three qualifications mentioned would give the right of voting, to which he would add a fourth, and that was the payment of such a proportion of the rent as amounted to 10l. He had thought all those qualifications had been well understood.

took an objection to the wording of that part of the clause which related to the joint occupancy of houses, which he thought liable to abuse. For instance, in a house rated at 100l. a year, nine persons might obtain a right of voting without paying any rent whatever. A person desiring to advance the interests of a particular party at an election might take a house of that value, of which he paid the rent alone, but into which, as occasion might require, he could introduce nine other inmates, each of whom, by the provisions of this clause, would thereby obtain the right of voting, even if they were not rated to any parochial or other taxes.

did not conceive the objection of the learned Member valid; but, to remove all doubts, he would insert the words "owner or tenant." instead of "occupier," as an Amendment.

wished to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether each proprietor of a counting house was—quoad the counting-house, and without reference to his paying taxes—to have a vote for the Representative of the town or city in which the counting-house lay? This was important to know; because, in the city of London, it was a common practice to let out one large mansion in chambers, each chamber ranking as a counting-house, the proprietor of the mansion paying all taxes and pa- rochial rates; so that if, according to the clause as it stood, each proprietor of a counting-house, for which he paid more than 101. or 20l. per annum rent, was entitled to a vote, though he paid no taxes, it could only be to the detriment of the resident Liverymen who paid taxes, and unless such persons were made liable to the taxes for the city, he must, in performance of his duty, move an amendment to the clause.

said, the Bill would not disturb the existing law with respect to the right of the proprietors of counting-houses to vote, apart from the consideration of paying or not paying parochial rates.

in this case, understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to affirm, that the holders of such counting-houses, not paying parochial rates, as he had specified, would have votes in the city of London. He objected to this, and as a remedy, therefore, he would move as an Amendment to the clause, when the report of the Committee was brought up, that no counting-house, not paying taxes and parochial rates, should entitle its holder to vote under the present clause.

conceived, that the hon. Alderman's Amendment would be supererogatory, inasmuch as the Bill provided, that no holder of a premise to receive the right of suffrage could exercise the right, without paying a certain amount of parochial rates.

professed himself ready to agree to the clause, as amended at present, if it would have the effect of making it necessary that persons should pay a portion of the rates and taxes to entitle them to vote, as in the case of partners. Otherwise he should certainly support the Amendment of his worthy colleague.

contended, that the clause was most unsatisfactory in the wording, and he should certainly, as he had already stated, on the bringing up the Report, move an Amendment which would meet the difficulties he complained of.

said, he felt much gratified at finding two Aldermen of the city of London who were not so thoroughly satisfied of the merits of the "whole Bill," as to give their assent to such a clause as this, and he congratulated one of the worthy Aldermen (Alderman Venables), upon having manfully and honourably asserted his independence before the London Committee of Public Safety, who had laid their sapient heads together, and professed to keep a watchful eye upon the Reform Bill, the House of Commons, and the Ministry. He was glad also that the Committee of Public Safety had found, that the "whole Bill" would introduce a class of voters into the city of London which they were not desirous of having, such as lodgers and the holders of smaller parts of houses.

begged to know, whether every person who was to have the right of voting must be rated to the poor as a necessary qualification?

certainly not.

said, this part of the clause, if that construction was put upon it, was wholly at variance with the provisions of the previous part of it, by which they had provided, that none but rate-payers should be entitled to vote.

said, if the clause remained as it stood at present, it would cause the greatest abuses. At a general election, nothing would be more easy than for persons who occupied some of the very large old mansions which remained in the city of London, and which were perhaps rated at 200l. a-year, to create a number of fictitious votes, simply by inviting their acquaintances to live with them for a time, and by this means give them the right of voting as joint occupiers, although, in point of fact, they paid neither rents nor taxes. Under such a system, it would be impossible to calculate the extent to which corruption would be carried. The ostensible object of the clause was, to allow partners to vote. He was ready to acknowledge that was proper, but he strongly objected to give the right of voting to mere lodgers under the guise of joint-occupiers.

said, it was clear, as the clause now stood, that any man who occupied a floor in a house let into compartments, if he paid at the rate of 10l. a year, would thereby acquire a right to vote.

said, that a very slight alteration would render the clause satisfactory. What was wanted was, to give joint-occupying tenants the right of voting, and he thought every difficulty would be overcome by substituting the words "joint tenants of "the same landlord," for the words proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General.

said, the alterations proposed would only add to the difficulties. The clause was monstrous as it stood, and its evils would only be increased by the alteration. It would, indeed, be almost impossible to determine correctly who were entitled to a vote, and the consequence would be, that the splitting of votes would be carried to an unlimited extent.

defended the view he had taken. He did not think the alteration recommended by the hon. and learned member for Newark would be an improvement, because every object proposed would be obtained by the words "owner or tenant." His object was, to secure the right of voting to occupying partners, and not to occupying tenants. And if the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite would be content to take the common meaning of words, they would see there were no difficulties but of their own creating.

said, that the clause, then, as amended, would, upon the Attorney General's shewing, enable persons holding houses to make an indefinite number of voters.

said, he wished an answer to this question:—If a speculator in houses took a house, and paid the whole of the rates and taxes himself, and let that house to several tenants, were those tenants to have votes? Again, as there were several thousand persons non-residents in the city, but who occupied counting-houses there, for which they paid no rates, and who would be entitled to vote for the places in which they actually resided in the vicinity of London, he wished to know, were such persons also to vote for the city? He believed (notwithstanding all the attempted explanations of all the lawyers in the House, which were so conflicting and obscure as to prevent him being satisfied), that all such persons, provided they paid 10l. a-year for such counting-houses, would be so entitled, and as it would be exceedingly unfair to the actual rate-payers to have such an influx of voters, he must endeavour to remedy it.

said, the worthy Alderman would be perfectly justified in taking any steps to prevent such an abuse, if the clause really bore such a construction as had been put upon it.

said, as he understood the clause, tenants so situated would not have a vote unless they became ratepayers.

would wish thoroughly to understand if such was really the case, for not one in ten of the occupiers of the larger houses in the city paid rates. They were generally let out in chambers, and the person who hired the house, on the speculation of letting them to commercial persons, usually paid all the rates.

said, the clause as it stood at present, would admit the manufacture of fictitious votes to an enormous extent.

begged leave to direct attention to the extraordinary discrepancy between the version which the hon. and learned Attorney General, and the noble Paymaster of the Forces, gave of the present clause. The former said, that all the proprietors of counting-houses, or chambers styled as such, would have votes even though they paid no parochial rates, while the noble Lord flatly contradicted his fellow-labourer in the cause of the Bill, and said no, unless they paid a certain amount of taxes. Was ever such a thing witnessed before, that members of the same Government should thus flatly contradict each other on a simple question of fact? It was insulting to the proceedings of the Committee, after two Ministers had put a certain construction on a clause, for a third Minister to get up and contradict that construction. Was it not a glaring instance of the crude and unstatesman-like mode in which the whole measure was concocted?—in other words, a proof of the necessity of its being thoroughly revised before they proceeded further?

said, there was no contradiction. He had said, that being rated to the poor was not necessary to obtain a vote, for, although a tenant might occupy, yet, if there was any collusion or contrivance by which the landlord became liable to the rates, the mere occupancy did not give a vote. When these circumstances were considered, it would be seen, that he was precisely of the same opinion as the noble Lord.

said, that was the way he had understood the clause, until doubts had been thrown over its operation, which doubts had not been removed, as no distinct answer had been given to the objection of his worthy colleague.

contended against the construction put upon the clause by the noble Lord. It provided, that if the landlord, of any premises was liable for the rates, the tenants had no votes, but the tenant could claim to pay the rates, and, by so doing, obtained the right. This question then followed, was the landlord liable for the rates by Act of Parliament? He considered he was so, but not in the sense this clause gave. Suppose a house was let for 10l. a-year rent, and the landlord was liable for the rates, the tenant by claiming to be rated himself, established thereby a right to vote, but according to this clause, hereafter a man might have a house worth 200l. or 300l., and let it out in floors or chambers, each tenant paying more than 10l. rent. How were the rates to be paid? Was each tenant liable to the whole, or only a part, and how were they to be divided, and into what portions? As neither of these plans could be effected, the man would lose his right to vote, and this was the way the noble Lord and his friends contradicted each other, one said, persons so situated would have votes, the other maintained they would not.

said, their object generally was, that when a tenant only occupied without paying rates, he could have no right to vote, but as there were local Acts of Parliament, by which the landlords of houses under the value of 18l. per annum, were liable to the rates, it was in such cases only, that they wished to give the tenant the privilege of voting on claiming to pay the rates.

must repeat, that the clause was very obscure. How would it operate, he requested to be informed, in such cases as the landlord paying all the rates upon a large house divided and let to separate tenants? There could be no appertainment of rates to each, and such a case was very different from Chambers in Inns of Court, where each set was a distinct tenement, and distinctly rated.

said, as he understood the question, it was, that if a man paid 10l. a-year rent and upwards, that gave him the right to vote, but this general right was qualified by certain local Acts of Parliament, which rendered the landlords of houses under the value of 18l. liable for the rates. Whatever these might amount to, the tenant ought to have a corresponding reduction of his rent. If he claimed, by the payment of these to be entitled to vote, and if he did not obtain this, he was hardly treated. Considering these circumstances, he wished to suggest the propriety of adopting the system pursued with respect to the qualification for jurors, which was assessment to the poor-rates at a certain sum. If that were done, great difficulty would be overcome. He said this, however, assuming one uniform qualification for voting to be desirable, which he certainly did not think. God forbid an uniform right of voting ever should be established—but if it were, liability to the poor-rates was the simplest and the best criterion. Another test might be had in the number and size of the windows of a house. The clause, as it stood, would give a man who paid a certain amount of rent and taxes, a vote; but another who paid more to his landlord in rent, than his neighbour paid in rent and taxes, would have no vote because his landlord paid his rates.

could not see the utility of the suggestion. The landlord and the tenant had the power of making their own arrangements.

said, that in Southwark, Liverpool, and other places, the landlord was compelled to pay the rates for all houses let at a rent under 20l. a-year, and therefore the tenant would have no means of acquiring a vote.

said, there was no local Act of the description alluded to, that did not allow a tenant to deduct the amount of his rates if he paid them.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error, for there was nothing in the present Bill to authorize a tenant to subtract the amount of his rates from his rent. Ministers, according to their version of the clause, said, the tenant must pay a premium for the right of voting in the shape of poor-rates, the hon. Member said the contrary, he wished to know which was right.

said, he had asked the question before, whether a tenant would become liable to extra payments on obtaining the right to vote; he had received no answer, but now it appeared, the tenant was to pay, and the sum taken from the pockets of the poor was to go into those of the landlords.

asked what the question was which was then before the Committee. He believed, that they were upon the last provisor of the clause; but he was not so certain, as a multitude of topics had been introduced, which were quite irrelevant to it.

said, that upon a clause, by which they were constituting a new election system for the country, it would be very hard if they were to be tied down, during the discussion, to the strict letter of it. He wished to know whether the noble Lord, in framing this bill, had at all considered how far the 59th George 3rd c. 12. operated upon this particular clause. This clause gave a right to vote to every 101. householder, on the ground that such individuals formed a sufficiently enlightened part of the community to entitle them to that privilege. The preamble to the 19th and 20th clauses of the 59th Geo. 3rd expressed a very different opinion of them. He would take the liberty of reading it to the Committee. It was as follows:—"Whereas in many parishes, and more especially in large and populous towns, the payment of the poor-rates is greatly evaded by reason that great numbers of houses within such parishes are let out in lodgings, or in separate apartments, or for short terms, or are let to tenants, who quit their residences, or become insolvent before the rates charged on them can be collected; and it hath been found in many instances the persons letting such houses do actually charge and receive much higher rents for the same, upon the ground and expectation that the occupiers thereof cannot be effectually assessed to the poor-rates, and will not be charged with, or required to pay, such rates, and do thus obtain an advantage to themselves, &c. &c.: for the remedy thereof, be it enacted, that the owner or owners of any house being the immediate lessor of the actual occupier, which shall be respectively let to the occupier thereof, at any rent or rate not exceeding 20l. nor less than 6l. by the year, shall be assessed to the rates for the relief of the poor." The Act of the 59th George 3rd which was a deliberate act of the Legislature, evidently looked upon those 10l. householders as anything but an intelligent and a respectable class. The very next clause of that Act was as follows:—"Provided also, and be it further enacted, that the goods and chattels of every occupier of any such house, &c., which shall be found in and about the same, shall be liable to be distrained, and sold for raising so much of any such rate or assessment, being in arrear, as shall have become due during the occupancy of the person or persons whose goods and chattels shall be so distrained, &c. Provided also, that every occupier who shall pay any such rate or rates, or upon whose goods or chattels the same or any part thereof shall be levied, shall and may deduct the amount of the sum which shall be so paid or levied out of the rent by him and them payable, and such payment shall be a sufficient discharge to every such occupier for so much of the rent payable by him as he shall have paid, or as shall have been levied on his goods and chattels of such rate, and for the costs of levying the same." So that the law of the land was, that if the occupier claimed to pay the rates, or paid a sum of money to redeem the goods distrained, he could clearly do it. Now, if the occupier of a 10l. house paid the rates, he had the right by law to deduct them from his rent; and if he did deduct them from his rent, he ceased to be a voter. There was evidently a collision between this clause and the 59th of George 3rd. He was convinced that, unless some arrangement was made between these two conflicting clauses, much confusion would arise. He hoped, that before the noble Lord brought up the usual report on this clause, he would make some arrangement which would remedy this anomalous condition of the Bill. The rates of course must be paid, but he was inclined to think, that the tenant who, on the faith of such an understanding as that supposed by the hon. Member opposite, paid paid the rates for the purpose of voting, would have a right to recover from his landlord, or the poor tenant would have no protection; and if he made the deduction in some cases he would lose the right of voting. Suppose, for example, a tenant had a rent of 13l. a year, for a house on which his landlord was liable to 41. a year rates; if he deducted these he would lose his right of voting. Another difficulty appeared to him to be this. A case might arise in which a landlord had made a general composition for paying the rates for an entire row of houses, so that it would become a hard matter to ascertain the amount of rate which had been paid for any particular house as a portion of the whole.

said, that, as the clause was now worded, the rates must be paid in order to entitle the tenant to claim his vote: but the tenant of a 10l. house, as well as the tenant in joint occupancy, would be entitled to recover from the landlord, if he paid the rates beforehand for the purpose of voting. It frequently happened, however, that there were a number of small houses, of different sizes, of which the landlord paid the rates of all in one sum, by composition. Now the only difficulty he felt was, as to the ascertaining of the proportion of rates in such cases, so that the tenant might be able to recover his vote, for he was inclined to believe, that in all cases the tenant could deduct the amount from the landlord, or recover it at law.

was afraid, that this Bill, which used the words of the 59th George 3rd, would give the tenants who paid their rates to secure a right of voting, a title to deduct that sum from their rent. It would be better, therefore, to give them this right of voting on payment of the rates expressly under the present Bill.

said, the true statement of the case was really this: The clause, as it at present stood, allowed the tenant to vote on paying his rates; but at the same time (and the noble Lord (Althorp) admitted it) the tenant, when he had so paid, was not entitled to recover the amount of the rate from the landlord, or empowered to deduct it. He really thought, that, after differences of opinion expressed by all the Gentlemen connected with the law, respecting the true bearing and effect of the clause, the noble Lord should not press it, without having previously attempted to make it somewhat more intelligible.

observed, that the clause was undoubtedly not very clear; but he thought it better it should pass than the tenant be deprived of the chance of a vote.

said, that if the clause was permitted to stand, they would be compelled to pass an Act to declare that it was not intelligible as it at present stood, and to make it intelligible. The Ministers were, however, deceiving the people with hopes that could not be realised. They proclaimed to the people of Manchester and Birmingham, that they were giving them a great boon in the 10l. qualification, but it would be found, when the Act came into operation, that few or none of that class of persons, it was so worded could take advantage of it. It would deceive people into the belief, that they became entitled to a vote under its provisions, but neither layman nor lawyer in that House was able to say how this was to be accomplished, or by what means they were to become enfranchised. Under the clause, as it now stood, the tenant might gain a vote by paying his rates, but then he could not recover from his landlord, so that he was driven to the necessity of losing his vote or his money. The Government expressed a great respect for the rights of the operatives, and he admitted, that they were a highly intelligent, respectable, and trust-worthy class of the community. But how did the Government treat that class, with all their popularity-hunting professions of regard to their interests? Why, they deceived and deluded them with the prospect of advantages which they were not to enjoy. Although he did not profess so much, yet he would deal more fairly with them. He would not say to them, "You are to have a vote," and afterwards leave them to pay a pound in the shape of rates, which it appeared they had no power to recover. The opinion which a learned Serjeant and eminent Pleader gave on the subject was, that the tenants might pay their rates, and he was inclined to believe (a style of language very common with the learned Serjeant's profession, when they gave an opinion)—he was inclined to believe they might afterwards recover by an action at law. The noble Lord had much better deal fairly and openly with the numerous and respectable class of operatives who would be affected by this clause, and tell them, "You may be very respectable persons, indeed, but, gentlemen, give me leave to tell you, you must, in order to become entitled to your votes, not only be assessed for 101. but you must also pay a rate of 11. in order to become possessed of your vote." If the noble Lord were to send down word to the operatives of Birmingham and Manchester, that such was the condition under which they were to be enfranchised, and that clause twenty-one was thus found to be a gross delusion on the people, he believed, that the Ministerial excitement would he much less vivid and animating than it now was. He had been always opposed to the avowed principle of this clause; but then he would not as an honest man, practise any delusion to de- ceive the people, or to give effect to his opinions. The whole clause seemed to him to be contrary to parliamentary good faith, and he should have been wanting to his own conscience had he not expressed his opinion of it.

said, that by the first part of the clause the elective franchise was given to the lowest class of voters, and by the latter part of it a most respectable class of persons were excluded from voting. He differed from the hon. member for Boston inasmuch as he thought, that unless the clauses were amended, it would be unintelligible, and not to be executed.

moved, as a proviso to the clause, that no person who receives rent from lodgers in any house, shall be qualified to vote for such house, if the yearly rent of such house were under 20l. His object was, to exclude persons from the elective franchise who occupied only small houses, and let the principal part of them to tenants, so that, in fact, they paid but a small amount of rent if any, the aggregate being made up by their lodgers.

objected to the proviso. If the principle of the hon. Member's proposition were good, he ought to carry it much further, for many persons who paid 50l. a-year rent and upwards received the whole from lodgers.

said, his object was, to prevent persons of the very lowest class, who might rent a house at 10l. a-year, and let it out in small tenements, at very small sums, to others of their own description, from having a right to vote. He presumed that these were not the class of persons to whom the noble Lord intended to extend the franchise. There was a great distinction between such persons, and those who inhabited large houses, which they partly let out in lodgings.

supported the Amendment, but would be disposed to extend it to the keepers of all lodging-houses, unless they had a clear interest in the premises, or occupied so much of them as was worth at the least 101. a-year.

said, this principle would exclude many most respectable householders, who let part of their houses to lodgers, particularly tradesmen in some of the principal streets, who actually obtained more from their lodgers, including the furniture supplied to them, than their rent amounted to.

said, they were deciding a question, arising out of a certain qualification which the noble Lord himself had fixed at 101., and he considered no person ought to have a right to vote, unless he paid that sum, over and above what he received from lodgers.

said, there were very many most respectable persons, who made a living by letting parts of their houses, and providing for their lodgers. Surely the hon. Member could have no intention of excluding such persons from the franchise.

also moved, as a proviso to the 21st clause, that in all cities or boroughs, which contain from 300 to 500 houses of 101. rent, the qualification to vote may remain as stated in this section, but in those cities or boroughs which have from 500 to 1,000 houses of 101. rent, the qualification to vote shall be 151. yearly rent, and that in those cities or boroughs which have 1,000 houses or upwards, the qualification to vote shall be 20l. rent. The hon. Member observed, that the persons who paid only 101. a-year in large cities or towns, were of a different class in general from those who paid the same rent in small towns; and if the right of voting were given to the 10l. householders in large towns, it would place the election for those towns wholly in the hands of that class, which, in general, consisted of the least intelligent persons.

said, that as this involved the discussion of the 101. qualification, which had been so fully discussed, and on which he had spoken at least twenty times last night, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it disrespectful to him, if he now confined himself to saying, that he saw no ground for altering the opinion he had already given against the principle of the Amendment.

opposed the Amendment, because it would tend to prevent a popular constituency being established.

supported the Amendment, on the same principle as that which led him to object to the whole of the 101. clause.

also supported the Amendment. He must remonstrate against the noise and inattention in the House, which, notwithstanding all the efforts of the Chairman (of the severity of whose task he was fully aware), prevented hon. Members from being heard,

regretted the practical test which Ministers applied, to try the given phantom of respectability and intelligence. A more bungling test could not be devised of giving the franchise than that of uniformity of rent.

would prefer having his Amendment negatived to withdrawing it.

objected to the proposition, the effect of which would be, to give persons a right of voting after they had lost possession of the tenement in virtue of which they were to vote. Besides, one principle of the Bill was, that the voter should be compelled to swear to possession; how could this be done in such a case? He admitted, that there might be some inconvenience as the matter stood; but, upon the whole, he thought that the inconveniences that would attend the adoption of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would greatly preponderate.

did not see any difficulty which, by an alteration of the terms of the oath, or by some other means, might not be obviated. If a tenant was driven out by his landlord, he surely ought not to lose his vote. They were not yet come to the registration clauses, when, if the Committee adopted his Motion, they could alter them, to meet the cases that were likely to arise under it. It had been truly stated, that landlords, possessing large numbers of small houses, occupied by weekly tenants, would either compel such persons to vote as they might direct, by threatening to eject them, or, if they were not disposed to obey, to carry their threats into execution, and so neutralize their votes.

said, this Amendment was different from that of which the hon. Member had given notice, and rested altogether on different grounds. It would take away all qualification whatever. If a man was to have a vote, because he had paid the rent of a house up to a certain time, you must give a vote also to the man who had the reversion of a house, dependant on the death of another. It would be a most dangerous precedent. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment.

next moved, "that all persons who shall be excluded from voting for Members of Parliament, shall be exempt from the payment of taxes and rates, and from serving in the militia, and be protected from being compelled to serve in the navy, under the Impressment Law." The principle on which he made this Motion was, that Taxation and Representation ought to go hand in hand. In our Law Courts it was supposed, that every man should know the law, and no man could be allowed to plead ignorance of the law, as it was presumed he had helped to make it by himself or his Representative. He wished to make this a fact instead of a legal fiction, by giving every man a right to make the law through his Representative, or exempt him from the payment of taxes to which he had never consented.

said, that the principle of the hon. Member did not go far enough, for he ought to hold, that a person who did not vote for a Member of Parliament was not bound to obey the law.

thought the noble Lord was correct, and that was one reason why he wished for Universal Suffrage.

moved, that at the end of the clause there be inserted—"Provided always, that no person shall, by reason of anything herein contained, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, who shall, within twelve calendar months next previous to the 12th of November in the present year, or next previous to the last day of August in any succeeding year, have been in the receipt of parochial relief."

said, he did not object to this Amendment.—Agreed to.

opposed the clause, on the ground, that it would destroy the chartered rights of all the boroughs in England. They had been told that charters and prescriptive rights were usurpations; but he could not take that view of ancient institutions. The present clause was as bad as Universal Suffrage, and he should oppose it.

could not allow the clause to pass without making a few observations. It appeared to him extraordinary that the framers of a new Constitution should have gone so much further than was necessary. The clause under consideration contained in itself proof of the rashness of those who had made it. It was necessary, he was ready to admit, in the formation of the new system, to enfranchise large towns, but the noble Lords had gone beyond that necessity, and proceeded, on the most vague foundation, to change our whole political system. Their proceedings justified the most serious apprehensions. Two classes of boroughs were to be provided for, but it could not be necessary to give the elective franchise to the 101. householders throughout the kingdom. His Majesty's Government were not justified in proposing the 101. clause to Parliament. A great number of houses in large towns were not rated at all. It was said, 101. householders would produce a respectable constituency, but that he considered a complete delusion. He did not know where his Majesty's Government collected information upon which they could say that class of voters would form a respectable constituency. In England and the principality of Wales, the number of houses below 30l. a year amounted to 257,000, whilst those above 301. did not exceed 200,000. The consequence would be, that the dense body of 101. householders would have too great a preponderance, and bear down the interest of the freeholders. There was a woful deficiency of information, in the Ministers. The Committee, acting as Senators, ought to look with great apprehension at the change to be effected in the Representation, and they could not see their way clearly because they had no information to be depended on. The pretence for the measure was, the facilities in the present system for corruption; but the new system would afford greater facilities. It would be unfair and irrational to suppose they could sit in that Committee and suffer such a clause to pass without giving their opinions against it. He had done his duty in opposing it to the utmost of his power, and would continue to give it his decided opposition.

said, the principle of the clause had been repeatedly discussed. He was ready, at the same time, to admit, it was the most important clause of the Bill, and involved considerations of the highest interest. He denied, that his Majesty's Government had gone beyond the necessary provisions required by the state of the country. He was ready to admit they had received valuable suggestions from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, which they had availed themselves of, to make the operation of the Bill more complete. He was convinced it was necessary to adopt some systematic plan of voting, founded upon so extensive a basis as would satisfy the majority of the people. The Ministers had been charged with carrying this principle too far; but in reply he would say, that when the change of Administration took place, a violent excitement prevailed in the public mind, which it was necessary to allay. This was the principal cause why the present measure was submitted to the House, with the hope and expectation that it would be final, and prevent such continued discussions, which caused great inconvenience, not to say danger. With regard to the two classes of boroughs mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and following out the principles he had laid down, they found that one set of them could not be formed so as to have an efficient elective body; these they disfranchised, and to the other, where there existed sufficient materials as a foundation for that purpose, they added adjacent districts, sufficient to make up a good constituency, by measures already well known to the House. A third set of boroughs contained a large and wealthy population, but as the franchise in them was confined to a few persons, they determined to include in it the great body of respectable householders, and he thought there could be no doubt that this was a most beneficial alteration. They had laid down a uniform system of voting for all the places so created, to represent all interests, and to proceed on such a broad basis as to make corruption difficult or impossible. The hon. Gentleman had charged the Ministers with proceeding on vague information. They had not, it was true, provided such minute details as had been required, but they had obtained sufficient to enable them to take a comprehensive view of all the cases they had to consider. They had again been charged that their uniform system would, in large towns, create a numerous and disorderly constituency, and in small ones would so much contract it as to leave out many respectable persons. Probably the latter accusation had some foundation, but he had no apprehensions of the former. The number of towns in which the constituency would be involved in difficulty would in amount be very small. It was a mistake to suppose, that increasing the constituency increased the chance of riot, for, in truth, during an election, riots might be occasioned as well by those who were not voters as those who were. With respect to county Representation, no change whatever had been made in the rights of freeholders, except by adding copyholders and certain classes of leaseholders, which, he thought, was a judicious measure. The Ministers intended, that in the newly-created boroughs all those classes of persons resident within them should have votes for such places, but in consequence of the amendment of the noble Marquis (the Marquis of Chan-dos) having been carried, they proposed that certain classes of such persons, viz: those who possessed freeholds under a given value, should continue still to vote for the respective counties, as a balance to prevent the agricultural interest in the county having the whole influence in the returning of county Members. It could happen only in very few places, that the counties would be injured by the constituency withdrawn to be added to the towns. Nor did he anticipate, that the manufacturing interests could prevail to such an extent, which seemed to be feared by hon. Gentlemen, as would enable them to overwhelm the agriculturists; for the larger number of freeholders connected with towns would vote for such places in consequence of the occupancy of premises within them. The way to consider this clause was, to consider the state of the public mind on the question of Reform, and he did not think they would have given any satisfaction if they had not gone as far as the Bill proposed. To propose a plan short of this would have given rise to many objections, without satisfying the people. They universally called for Reform, and had shown a want of confidence in the House of Commons as at present constituted: that was in itself a sufficient answer to such hon. Gentlemen as asserted there was no occasion for the measure. As to corruption, the difficulty of it would be increased in proportion to the number of voters. There was little chance of corrupting 12,000 or 20,000 voters. The objection applied more strongly to small places, but even there the 10l. franchise would produce a respectable class such as would not be found liable to corruption generally, although individual instances might at all times be expected. As to large manufacturing towns, so far from being an objection, he thought it desirable that wealthy men, or the masters of extensive factories, should enjoy considerable influence in such towns. Property would, and ought, at all times and places, to have such influence.

said, this 101. franchise was the principal foundation of the Bill, and contained the principle of the new constituency, by which it was proposed to alter all our established institutions. The noble Lord described it as calling into existence a new body, which was to represent the wealth, character, and intelligence of the country, and the test was, the occupancy of a 101. house. The question, therefore, was, the kind of constituency that ought to send Members to the House. Was the foundation solid, or was it built upon a shifting sand, that would not sustain the edifice to be erected upon it? Of what class, therefore, was this boasted constituency framed? What sort of persons were the bonâ fide occupiers of 10l. houses? He never could allow that such persons represented the feelings and intelligence of the people, and he believed even this qualification might be easily evaded. The noble Lord said, the tests were, rent, rates, and taxation. Suppose a person pays a rent of only 5l., if he is willing to pay a rate upon 101. he may vote; and the persons who levied the rates would make no objection to such an arrangement, for it would be advantageous to them. Thus, supposing the rates were 3s. in the pound, a man would have to pay only 30s. a-year to entitle him to vote, in addition to his 51. rent, or even less. A landlord who owned many small houses in a borough, by resorting to a fraud of this character, might influence and control the election. What was to prevent a landlord from drawing up false leases? This had been done, as was fully proved in the case of the Dublin election, which had been brought under their notice a few days before, in which case fictitious freeholds had been manufactured to a considerable extent. It was much easier, however, to commit a fraud as to a leasehold than as to a freehold, and therefore there would be much greater facilities for making pretended voters. It would be impossible to ascertain who paid 10l. rent. It must give rise to endless litigation, and the Bill would become, what it had been described to be, an attorney's bill. In large towns this qualification would amount to Universal Suffrage, and in other smaller places a respectable class of persons would be excluded; and thus discontent and heartburning must be produced. Liverpool and Dublin proved, that numerous voters did not prevent bribery. Indeed, he had been much surprised at hearing the noble Lord, in the face of the evidence that had recently been before them, assert, that numerous constituencies were not likely to be corrupted. Surely the noble Lord could not mean to declare, that those places had not numerous constituencies; and by the Bill the evil must be increased, because attornies, who had local knowledge, and to whom it would be made a matter of advantage, would in future canvass, and frequently be the candidates, and not the aristocracy. Many boroughs which were now open would be made rotten by such means, for the parties who were so much interested would find means to bring the registration under their power. He had stated, over and over again, that he was a friend to Reform, but he was bound to oppose a Bill like this. He regarded this clause as the key-stone of the whole fabric, for suffrage would be extended by it so as to amount almost to Universal Suffrage. It opened the door to frauds of all descriptions, by allowing lodgers, and persons living in particular portions of houses, under the same landlord, and who paid at the rate of 10l. a-year, a right to vote. This part was so extremely objectionable, that he did yet hope the noble Lord would consent to regulate the exercise of this privilege by further restrict- tions, or he was satisfied it would, ere long, lead to Universal Suffrage and the Vote by Ballot. He feared, at all events, that the results would be fatal to the Constitution, and would be deplored by posterity. He would, therefore, oppose it to the utmost extent of his power.

agreed with the noble Lord that this was one of the most important clauses in the Bill. He was sure, therefore, that no surprise need be manifested at the time that it had occupied the attention of the House. The general principles of the clause, as well as its various details, had been debated with great talent by both sides of the House, and he felt assured that his noble friend would admit, that many of the suggestions thrown out were well deserving of his serious consideration. He could not agree in the principle of the Bill, for although he admitted the necessity of yielding to the wishes and demands of the people on the subject of Reform, yet it was altogether unnecessary to go the whole length of the present Bill. He was not an enemy to the democratic branch of the Constitution, but the system of Government to be formed by the Bill gave an undue preponderance to that branch. The House was to adopt this system in the room of one under which all the various interests of the country had flourished and increased—in the room of that which afforded an adequate Representation to all the various classes of the community—the House was to adopt a system of Representation, based on an untried, and, therefore, dangerous foundation, in the place of one which, from its very anomalies, had afforded an accurate Representation of all classes and interests. No reason had hitherto been shown to justify so extensive a change. The noble Lord said, that it was necessary to satisfy the wishes and expectations of the people, and that a measure of less extent than this would not have been sufficient for that purpose. He did not think that such would have been the case, for he believed, that the country in this case, as in all others that had occurred for many generations, would have been led by the Parliament, and would have placed perfect reliance on the wisdom and integrity of the Legislature. The object of the noble Lord and the Government appeared to have been, to adopt that system of Representation which appeared to them best in theory, rather than to have considered how much, and what changes, the interests and feelings of the people actually required. It had frequently been observed, with respect to the population of the large towns, that the lower class of voters were not proof against the influence of corruption, but were open, in a peculiar degree, to the influence of hasty and ill-judged impressions. His noble friend spoke of the intelligence and knowledge prevailing in the large towns; but it appeared to him that his noble friend greatly overrated this, as well as the effect that it would have. It ought to have been the object of Ministers to have framed a measure which would have been most likely to produce the system of Representation best adapted to the present state of the country, and not that which would merely qualify large masses of the people to vote. From the very circumstance of their being constantly engaged together, and congregated in large masses, the inhabitants of the large manufacturing towns were apt to adopt extravagant notions, and to act in an absurd, if not a dangerous, manner—in proof of which assertion, he would merely refer to the No-Popery and Cheap-Bread and No-Corn-law mobs of our own time. It might be said, that the inhabitants of the towns were more intelligent, and, generally speaking, better informed, than the people of the country. He was not inclined to dispute that; but he was well assured, that excitement in the country never bore any proportion to that which existed in large towns. He utterly denied the principle of his noble friend, that an increase of numbers would produce a more independent body of electors. He was sure, if his noble friend referred to the experience of past ages, he would find, that corruption had often prevailed to a greater extent in the larger than in the smaller towns. In the cases of Liverpool and Dublin, the grossest corruption and the most barefaced bribery existed? Was it not recorded in the evidence laid on the Table a few days before, that in the city of Dublin, at the recent election, no less than 150 persons were guilty of the grossest corruption, accompanied with the greatest fraud? Again, in the case of Liverpool, the bribery was not committed with hundreds, but with thousands of the voters, and he believed the hon. Member behind the noble Lord (Mr. Ewart) could furnish very accurate and very serious information on this point. He was old enough to remember the celebrated Westminster election in 1784, when Mr. Fox contested the Representation of that city. Between 9,000 and 10,000 voters were polled, and when the parties were nearly balanced, the bribing was carried on in the grossest and most open manner, and to an extent until then unexampled. After this, could it be contended that corruption would not prevail in large constituencies? In all places where the parties were nicely balanced, however numerous the constituency might be, corruption would exist. It was a very favourite doctrine with some persons, that those who offered the bribes ought to be punished, rather than those who received them, and if persons were prevented from offering bribes, corruption would not prevail. But he remembered the reply of Mr. Windham to the observation of another Member—"That the constituent body was corrupt from the top to the bottom." "You would speak more correctly," he answered, "if you said that the constituency was corrupt from the bottom to the top." It might be said, that this measure would prevent corruption being so great in the small boroughs: he had doubts on that point. For instance, in the paper intituled Further Information, lying on the Table of the House, it was stated, that the borough of Wallingford contained 287 resident householders, and of these 218 were 10l. houses. Now it was notorious, that in this place a single vote had been sold for 20l., and a double vote for 40l. And as there were 210 persons who would be entitled to vote as occupiers of 10l. houses, he wished to ask, even with the addition of the few voters that would be taken from the surrounding districts, whether there was any increase of security against the prevalence of corruption? Would this Bill destroy the present character of the borough, and prevent the sale of a single vote for 20l., or of a double vote for 40l.? or would it prevent the "Miller," as he was there called, from going round to distribute the wages of corruption among the voters? He had never been an admirer of the system of scot-and-lot voting—and he knew that many Members had expressed the most violent objections to it—but he believed the system of 10l. householders would be so near to scot-and-lot voting, that it would be liable to all the objections that could be urged against the latter, with the additional one, that it would induce the occupiers of houses of less than 101. value, to commit a collusive fraud, for the purpose of obtaining the right of voting. He was sure that this would be the case in the large towns; and in places like Wallingford, the very circumstance of having the privilege of returning Members to Parliament, would occasion the rent of every house to be equal to the sum proposed as the qualification. According to the document to which he had already referred in that place, the circumstance of receiving a bribe at the election for a vote, is an inducement to give a higher rent for a house; and thus, houses that in other places would not let for 51. or 6l. a-year, in that town let for upwards of 101. Suppose that in one of the large manufacturing towns, a manufacturer had a number of houses let to his workmen at a rent of from 51. to 61. a-year; if he was desirous of commanding a number of votes, how easy it would be for him to raise the rent of those houses to 101., and, at the same time, give each man 2s. a-week additional wages. A combination of a few masters, under such circumstances, might obtain complete control over the return of Members; and he was afraid, that this practice would be carried to a much greater extent than the noble Lord anticipated. He was satisfied, also, that this system would lead to the utter demoralization of the people in the smaller boroughs; introducing a system of bribery and corruption, that would be attended with the most pernicious consequences. It had been well and truly said, that the money thus received never did any good to the receiver; on the contrary, it did much harm, for it encouraged habits of idleness, and disregard to a man's independence. He was aware that what he had said was not likely to have the slightest effect on the votes of the Members, but he felt, that it was his duty to point out the probable effects of the clause to the House, and to enter his solemn protest against it.

said, he must protest against the whole of this clause, which in its effects would be, he feared, most disastrous to all ranks in the community. He could never believe the Bill would be ultimately satisfactory to the people, and he believed, that the great majority of the lower orders considered it only as a stepping-stone to Universal Suffrage. Nothing could be more unfair than to make the payment of rent the test of independence or property. The man in a small borough, paying 51. or 61. a-year, might be more independent than those who paid 101. in populous places. Persons with 200l. or 3001. a-year in such places lived in houses under that value. Men of limited income were naturally disposed to get a house at as low a rent as they could. Now the tendency of the Bill was, to exclude this class from the right of voting. He knew that many operatives in Nottingham had small pieces of garden-ground near the town, and he was certain they would be obliged, if this Bill passed, to give up their gardens. They could not hold both house and garden together. As he could have no hope of succeeding, he would not propose an amendment: but he must protest against that part of the clause which made it necessary for the voter to have paid up his rent before he voted. The consequence would be, to increase the expense to the candidates; and the rent as well as the rates must, ultimately, be paid by them. In this view he supported the member for Preston, because he thought him right, and he believed him to be honest. By allowing joint occupiers to vote, they opened the door to all sorts of fraud. Returned, as he was, free and independent, by the borough of Great Grimsby, he must enter his protest against this most unnecessary, most revolutionary, and most Republican, measure.