asked if Government had taken the arbitration in the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King into consideration?

said, that in moving the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The House was aware that the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King had been referred to the arbitration of two persons by the late Government, but he understood that they nevertheless would not feel themselves bound by the decision of the arbitrators. Now he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman if he considered that the late Govern- ment would have been bound by the award, for if so he should consider himself bound by it?

said, that at first, he had objected to the reference proposed, but had afterwards changed his opinion, and in agreeing to the arbitration, had appointed an officer belonging to the Government to watch its interests. In reply to the noble Lord, he had to say, that if he had remained in office, he should have felt himself bound by the decision of the arbitrators, and would have recommended the House to pay the sum specified.

said, that Lord Leveson Gower had stated to him, that the Government was bound to pay the award, and that, if in office, he would have resigned if the payment was refused.

said, the conduct of his noble friend would have been perfectly correct. The Government would have been bound by the decision.

, though he originally entertained a different opinion, now thought that the present Government was bound in honour to abide by the decision of the arbitrators.

, after referring to the subject of admission to the Inns of Court, which had formed a part of the discussion last night, wished to know if it would be necessary for him again to bring his motion in form before the House."

said, that it was within the power of the Crown to recommend to the Law Commissioners the consideration of the subject alluded to. He was confirmed in this opinion by that of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Huntingdon, who was at the head of that Commission. The discussion of yesterday would probably direct their attention to the subject, but if it should not, he had no hesitation in saying, that he should advise the matter to be recommended to their consideration.

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay upon the Table the papers in his possession relative to the existence of Cholera?

said, that there were rumours about town that the Cholera was becoming prevalent,

that there were rumours of such a nature, but he was happy to be able to say, that they were very much exaggerated. From the best accounts he had been able to obtain from the Central Board of Health, there were not more than from thirty to forty new cases daily throughout the whole of London and its neighbourhood, and that the deaths amounted from twenty to thirty. He had no objection to give the hon. Member past returns, but he thought that there would be no advantage in issuing daily bulletins, as if the cholera were really prevalent as a disease here. The result of such a publication would be, to put the whole trade of this country under restrictions with regard to the south of Europe; and he did not think that circumstances at all required such a sacrifice. Undoubtedly, if the port of London was in a state in which the cholera was at all prevalent, there would be an absolute necessity to state the fact to the world, but such was not the case. There were no cases in the hospital ship, or in the hospitals on the shores of the river. He had had communications, which showed that the cholera was in existence in some parts of the back portions of the Metropolis, but, that what was properly called the Port of London, was by no means under the influence of the cholera. If the hon. Gentleman wished, for his own satisfaction, to see the Returns, he would have no objection to shew them to him, but he could not consent to their being published.

said, that the medical men in distant parts of the country complained that, from the want of this information, which the Board of Health and the Government alone could give, they were without that knowledge of the disease which might be communicated to them, and the want of which would leave them to make experiments that a knowledge of the disease would render unnecessary.

said, that there was a publication called The Cholera Gazette, which he understood had a very extensive circulation, and which contained a statement of the cholera cases.

thought, that would sufficiently remedy the evil of which he complained.

observed, that there had appeared in the public papers a statement directly contrary to that made by the Board of Health. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would pay his best attention to the subject.

said, he wished to call the serious attention of the House to the subject of the salary paid to the Governor of Londonderry Fort for doing nothing whatever, and which money, he thought, might be appropriated to a purpose of public benefit. The motion which he intended to submit to the House on this subject was, "That an address be presented to his Majesty to release the Irish Society from that part of their charter, which obliges them to pay 200l. a-year, and the rents of certain lands, to the Governor of Londonderry and Culmore forts, on condition of their applying those sums to the building of a stone bridge over the river Foyle, or any other improvement in that district." At present the Governor of Londonderry and Culmore Forts, who had really nothing to do, for the office was an entire sinecure, received his salary partly from the Crown, and partly from the Irish Society. He received 318l. a-year of the public money by an annual vote of that House; 200l. a-year from the Irish Society; and he was also invested by the Irish Society with the property of certain lands about Culmore, producing an annual income of from 600l. to 700l.; so that the whole of his income amounted to very nearly 1,200l. a-year. He would now inform the House of the purpose for which the Irish Society had been empowered to grant these sums of money to the Governor of Londonderry Fort. This society existed in the town of Derry, and had been incorporated by charter in the time of James 2nd, and had been put in possession of almost the whole of Londonderry, with this condition, that they should manage their estates for the civilization and improvement of that part of the country. But besides the improvement and civilization of the country, King James had another object in view, and that was the Protection of the Protestants who had settled in the county of Londonderry; and he therefore appointed an officer, under the title of Governor of Londonderry and Culmore Forts, to watch over the safety of the Protestants, and directed the Irish Society to give him a stated yearly salary for the performance of that duty. But, whatever services this officer might have rendered to the inhabitants of Londonderry in former times, at present he undoubtedly did no service at all. The soldiers were not placed under his command, and he was never looked to by the people for any protection. Such being the case he proposed to appropriate the money now paid to the holder of this sinecure office, to the purpose of defraying the expense of building a stone bridge over the river Foyle. At present, the only means of communication between the counties of Donegal, Tyrone, and Londonderry, was an old wooden bridge, for the privilege of passing over which very heavy tolls were exacted from the people; and he did not know of a greater benefit that could be conferred on the inhabitants of those counties, than the erection of a stone bridge, free of toll, without the expenditure of a single shilling of the public money. He could not imagine what objection could be made to the motion which he proposed, except that it might be urged, that the abolition of this sinecure would be taking away a means of rewarding such men as had distinguished themselves in the military service of their country. Though he admitted that there was some weight in this objection, still, as these funds had been given to the Irish Society for the specific purpose of introducing civilization and improvement into that part of Ireland, the people had a just right to expect that the money should be employed for the advantage and benefit of the district, in preference to being paid to any officer, however distinguished or meritorious. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had pledged himself to the abolition of all sinecures, and he was now called upon, in fulfilment of his own pledge, to do away with this sinecure office; and the Government, who had expended vast sums of the public money in the improvement of the southern part of Ireland, were bound in fairness to assist in forwarding an undertaking which would prove highly advantageous to the northern part. The people of the north of Ireland were particularly entitled to the consideration of Government, for while the southern parts of Ireland had broken out into a state of insurrection, they had continued peaceable and obedient to the laws. He understood that it was intended to give the office of Governor of Londonderry Fort, which was now vacant, to an hon. and gallant Officer, a Member of that House (Sir J. Byng), and he most readily admitted that, if the office were to be continued, that hon. and gallant Officer fully deserved to receive such a reward. But he certainly did not expect that the hon. member for Middlesex would vote for the continuance of that sinecure. He did not know how the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Hume) would vote; for he had confessed, that on the division on the Russian loan, he would vote that "black was white." But he supposed that he should have the support of the other hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng), for he did not believe that that hon. Member had solicited Government to give this sinecure situation to his gallant relative.

said, it was true that he had stated himself to be opposed to all useless sinecures: but he had never expressed an opinion that those offices which afforded the means of rewarding distinguished and meritorious military officers were useless sinecures. The granting of such situations to undeserving individuals was not certainly to be justified; but he thought that they were, when properly disposed of, most useful and beneficial. He had no doubt that the present Motion would be very popular with the Corporation of Derry. They would, no doubt, be highly pleased to be relieved from the payment which they were bound to make to the Governor of Londonderry Fort, but he thought that the House would be of opinion, when they recollected all the circumstances of the loan of money which was made to the Corporation of Derry for building a bridge over the river Foyle, that that Corporation had not any very strong claims on their consideration. He should hardly have believed it possible that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) would, in his peculiar situation, have stood up in that House, and made the present proposition. The object of it was too clear to escape the notice of any person—it was to gain popularity in that part of Ireland; and he could not avoid again expressing his astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman should have put himself forward in the matter. It was not a public benefit that was sought to be obtained, but only the advantage of a particular district and town, and, in his opinion, it was impossible for the House to support the proposition.

had heard with great regret the statement made by the noble Lord, that such places as the one under discussion ought not to be abolished. How could any reduction in the expenditure of the country be effected, unless the expenses of the military establishments were cut down? He thought it would be far more honourable for those officers who were entitled to rewards, to come before that House and receive them from the people, instead of drawing incomes from sinecure offices. His vote on the question of the Russian loan had been commented upon by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he voted against that motion, because he believed that it was brought forward from factious motives, and not from any desire to benefit the public.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) was quite right in stating that he had not applied to give this sinecure office to his brother; though, had he followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice, which he was not in the habit of doing, he should have made such an application; for the right hon. Gentleman had frequently told him, out of the House, that he would not be acting like a brother, if he did not try to get the situation for his hon. and gallant relative.

supported the Motion. The hon. member for Middlesex, whom he had no wish to resemble, displayed his love of economy in the saving of sixpences, while the economy of saving millions was far above his care.

contended, that the bridge over the Foyle was an object of great importance, and said that he would vote for the Motion. He could assure the House that the Irish Society was disposed to do all in its power to promote the object for which it was instituted—the benefit of Ireland. The office in question ought, in his opinion, to be abolished.

rose for the purpose of supporting the same principle out of office which he had always maintained while in. He thought these offices ought to be maintained for the purpose of rewarding officers who had well served their country. He was not a little surprised at finding his right hon. friend (Mr. Dawson), who had always supported him in this principle through thick and thin while in office, now bringing forward a motion inconsistent with all his former votes. His right hon. friend had formerly declined to vote with the hon. member for Middlesex when he attacked these military rewards for past services, and he was sorry to see him now pursuing a course so inconsistent with his then conduct. He thought the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex, as to officers coming to that House for rewards very unconstitutional, for it at once took the power of rewarding merit out of the hands of the Crown. Besides, if they were to come to that House for rewards, it would be opening a dour in endless intrigue to procure them by their interest with individual Members.

said, that he would propose no vote which was likely to occasion discussion.

took occasion to state, that the sum which had been due from Sir George Hill, the late Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, to the Government, had all been paid up. On its being proposed to grant a sum of 24,937l. to defray the expense of the police and watch establishment of the city of Dublin, for five quarters, from the 31st of December, 1831, to the 31st of March, 1833,

said, that in this grant was included the sum of 1,600l., paid to the Recorder of Dublin, in addition to 1,200l. paid him by the corporation of that city. As he understood that the Recorder was not bound to attend to his duties in person, he did not think the House was bound to pay him. He did not think the hon. Recorder could be in his place in that House, and discharge his duties as Recorder at the same time. He should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the gross sum be reduced by the amount of the sum paid to the Recorder.

supported the Amendment.

said, that his hon. colleague had not neglected any of his judicial duties in attending that House.

would not enter into the question, how far the duties of a Recorder were compatible with a seat in that House; but he would say, that the Amendment, if carried, would not effect the reduction of the salary of the Recorder, as that salary was paid under an Act of Parliament, which allocated it upon this grant.

supported the Amendment. It was impossible, he thought, that individuals who had important public business could attend to that while they were busy in Parliament.

suggested to his hon. friendly the member for Middlesex, to withdraw the Amendment, and to move tomorrow for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the Recorder of Dublin from sitting in any future Parliament.

agreed to withdraw his Amendment; but stated, that he would take an early opportunity again to bring the subject under the consideration of Parliament.

moved the third reading of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.

proposed two clauses, for the better regulating the mode of registration, which were agreed to, and added as riders to the Bill.

moved the addition to the first clause of a proviso to the following effect:—That the lessee claiming to register shall not be disqualified by reason of any abatement made by the lessor, of the amount of rent payable by the said lessee for the lands or tenements out of which he shall so claim to register, provided the rent payable by said lessee for said lands or tenements, after such abatement, shall not be less than a solvent and responsible tenant could afford at the time to pay for the same."

assured the hon. Member that the Bill as it stood would effect all the purposes of his Amendment.

then moved the insertion of a clause to the effect, "That joint occupiers of lands or tenements in counties, shall be entitled to vote in the election for counties, in case the clear yearly value of such lands or tenements shall be of such an amount as, when divided, shall give a beneficial interest of not less than 10l. for each and every occupier."

opposed the clause as uncalled-for and unnecessary. It was also much too important to introduce at that stage of the measure.

wished, that the laws which affected the 40s. freeholders should be done away with, as they had been disfranchised.

suggested, that the best way for the hon. Member to accomplish his object was, to move to repeal the Act of 1823.

supported the Motion. He did not see why the restrictions laid on the 40s. freeholders should be extended by this Bill to other freeholders. His hon. friend had, he thought, no other alternative than to press his Motion.

moved a clause for the division of the larger counties into districts for polling.

opposed the clause, which was, in fact, a species of new bill. He was convinced, that the additional legal agency which would be rendered necessary by the operation of the clause, would create more expense than would be incurred by bringing the voters immediately to the ordinary place for polling. It was assuredly too late, on the third reading of the Irish Reform Bill, to discuss the propriety of a clause which was at variance with the provisions of the English and Scotch Reform Bills.

supported the clause, which would, in his opinion, have the effect of reducing the election expenses at least by one-third.

was inclined to think that it would increase the expense, for if such facilities were given, not only the voters, but their friends and families, would proceed to the polling places before the election began, and stay there until it was finished.

wished to change one word in the Bill, the word "ten" to the word "five," or, in other words, to make a 5l. qualification in boroughs instead of a 10l. qualification. He had often heard Gentlemen express anxiety to know what was required to tranquillize Ireland. He had always stated in answer, that the two grand requisites were Parliamentary Reform and Church Reform. It behoved them, therefore, to make the Parliamentary Reform as complete as possible. The county qualification had been much improved by giving leasehold property its due weight. Under the present system, Ireland had 100 Members, and the sixty-four county Representatives were returned by a large constituent body, ten others were returned by cities having a popular constituency, and eight from open towns, which, with a member for the University, would make in all eighty-three Representatives returned to Parliament by the voice of the people. In truth, at the present moment, there were only seventeen boroughs in Ireland to which it was necessary that Reform should be extended, and of these there was little doubt that popular exertion would have emancipated at least seven. With respect to the remaining ten nomination boroughs, there was no doubt that the proprietors would have gladly surrendered their monopoly on receiving 15,000l. each, which was the standard of value fixed at the Union. He mentioned these circumstances to show how small was the boon which Ireland was to receive. She should not be put off by a miserable bit-by-bit Reform, if the people were to be satisfied, but the constituency of the towns should be so extended as to render the electoral body perfectly independent. If that result could not be obtained by the 10l. qualification, the qualification should continue as it was settled by statute, in the cases of Newry, Downpatrick, Dungannon, and other places. He would take Belfast out of the number of boroughs, because its wealth and commercial importance gave it a sufficient constituency. But what were the circumstances of the other twenty-four towns? It appeared, by the official returns on the Table of the House, that they possessed a population exceeding 200,000 inhabitants, that the number of houses exceeds 32,000, and that the number of rate-payers was more than 18,000; and yet the whole of the constituency of these twenty-four towns would not, under the Bill, exceed 7,500. That was a mere mockery of Reform, which would never content the country; and of what value would be Reform if it did not inspire confidence and fill every heart with exultation and gratitude. Was it possible that these towns could possess an independent constituency when it was so limited? In Athlone, the number of electors would be 220; in Coleraine, 188; in Bandon, 240; in Portarlington, 185; in New Ross, 246: in Cashel, 200: in Mallow, 200; in Ennis, 250; in Downpatrick, 220; and in Dungannon, 210; making for ten towns a total of 2,159 electors. These were indisputable facts, and, under such circumstances, was it unreasonable to call for a 5l. constituency, in order to extend the suffrage? He would enter into no comparison besween the two countries; what was attainable in England could not be accomplished in Ireland; the one was a wealthy nation; and if the qualification was large, the means of the people were proportioned to the amount. The qualification proposed, however, was too high for Ireland, and the day of election would not be a day of exultation and joy to the people, who were precluded from becoming co-partners in the advantages of the Reform which had been obtained for the other partners of the empire. He moved, that the word "ten" be left out, and the word "five" inserted instead thereof.

seconded the Amendment. An equally substantial Reform ought to be given to Ireland as well as England. The proposed amendment, looking to the circumstances of the two countries, would not do more than place Ireland on a level with England, and he, therefore, should support the Amendment.

said, that his Majesty's Ministers had proceeded in this instance, with regard to Ireland, precisely on the same principles as they had acted upon with regard to England and Scotland, in their respective Reform Bills. An uniform constituency was established throughout the three kingdoms, which was one of the great objects of the Reform measure. If the hon. Member had shown that the number of 10l. householders in the towns of Ireland was smaller in proportion than in the towns of England, he would have established something of a case, though not a sufficient one to justify the House in departing from the uniform rule which had been applied to the whole empire. He had taken some pains to inquire, and he found that the number of 10l. houses in the towns in Ireland, was as large as in the English boroughs. The assertion of the hon. Member who brought the question forward, that the Bill made no addition to the borough constituency of Ireland, was really monstrous; for every one knew that, at the present moment, the Irish boroughs possessed no constituency whatever. It was true, that in some of the boroughs, the constituency, under the Bill, would not be very large, but it would bear the same proportion to the whole number of houses as it did in England, and Scotland. He would prove that to the satisfaction of the House. The boroughs in schedule C of the English Bill possessed 142,000 10l. houses out of 369,000, or about two in five. In the boroughs contained in schedule D, the number of 10l. houses was 16,000 out of 60,000, or one in four. In the smaller places of England, the number of 10l. houses was only 6,000 out of 29,700, or about one in four and a half; whilst, in the small boroughs in Ireland, the number of 10l. houses was 10,075 out of 32,500, or one in three. In this respect, therefore, Ireland possessed an advantage over England. In the larger places, however, the advantage which Ireland obtained was still more manifest. In Dublin, for instance, out of 19,000 houses, 16,000 would qualify their inhabitants to vote under this Bill. Could it then be said, that the Ministers had not done justice for Ireland? It was very easy for the hon. Member to talk of satisfying the people of Ireland. He would take upon himself to assert, that the main body of the people of Ireland would be satisfied with the measure proposed. They were bound to do justice, and to give fair play to Ireland; but when claims were made for Ireland which had not been conceded to England and Scotland, they would betray their duty if they were to yield to them. He opposed the Motion.

said, that Ireland had been as fairly dealt with in this instance as England and Scotland.

stated, that he should not trouble the House by dividing.

said, that under the statute, the Vice Chancellor possessed the power to appoint Commencements at any time he might think fit, for the purpose of conferring degrees so as to be in time to give a right to vote.

said, that he much doubted the accuracy of this statement by the hon. Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and, therefore, it was, that he thought that means should be taken in this measure to put the question beyond doubt.