, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to put a question to him on a matter of great importance. On the 3rd or 4th of May, he had presented to the noble Lord a memorial from some fishermen of Brighton, complaining of having received considerable damage from some French fishing boats, and praying that means might be taken to obtain for them indemnification. The noble Lord had, on a former occasion, received a memorial having reference to a similar occurrence, and of a still more aggravated nature. On that occasion, the noble Lord had intimated his intention of referring the case to the consideration of the King's Advocate, for the purpose of ascertaining its bearing on international law, and if he found that he should be borne out in doing so, of making an application on the subject to the French Government. He (Captain Pechell) now wished to ask how the question lay between the French and English Governments, a matter of the greatest importance, as only two days ago a similar aggression had occurred.

observed, that a difficulty had arisen from the circumstance of its appearing to be the fact, that the collision which had taken place between the French and English boats had taken place on the high seas, and not within the territorial jurisdiction of either the English or the French Government. With regard to the question which the hon. and gallant Member had put as to the present state of the arrangements on the subject, he was happy to inform him, that the British ambassador at Paris had been instructed to make two propositions to the French Government, which, if adopted, would obviate the recurrence of any unpleasant circumstance. The first proposition was, that the fishing of each country should be exclusively carried on within the territorial jurisdiction of that country; the second proposition was, that a code should be agreed to by both countries, regulating the conduct of the fishermen when they met out of the territorial jurisdiction of either country. These were the propositions which had been made to the French Government; but circumstances had hitherto prevented an answer from being given to them.

Subject dropped.

said, he would take that opportunity of reading a letter to the House which involved a charge of the most serious description against the Irish Government; and for the purpose of putting himself in order, he would conclude by a motion. The Irish Government was accused, and not in a secret manner, but by a person who avowed his name, and who was a county magistrate, with having encouraged persons to commit outrages and acts of violence, by withholding the rewards due to the individuals who gave information respecting these illegal proceedings. The letter was as follows:—

"My dear Sir Frederick,—You have, of course, heard of the assassination murder of Mr. Cooper, and the reward offered for discovery by Government, 300l. I have no doubt but half the sum offered would procure the necessary information and conviction, were the persons who can give the information satisfied that they would be paid the money offered, there appears to have been so many witnesses of the fact. But I am sorry to say, that the Government do not keep faith with persons who risk their lives by giving information."

[Mr. O'Connell: No, No.] He would tell the hon. and learned Member, that he could state an instance of a man who had been denounced from the altar for giving information, and the next morning he was found murdered, his head being cut off and placed under his arm, and in his mouth a paper was found, on which it was written, that "that was the way in which informers ought to be treated." [Mr. O'Connell: Name, name.] He would give the name to the noble Lord opposite, but the hon. and learned Member knew that there was great danger in publishing names in such a case.

observed, that according to the rule of the House, the hon. Gentleman could not proceed, unless he intended to move an order of the day by way of amendment.

would do so. The hon. Gentleman then continued to read the letter:—

"I can state a fact to you that I think should be brought before Parliament. As I was a great enemy to tithes, when they did exist, and have always thought more favourably of the Whigs than the Tories, it cannot be supposed that I mention the matter from party feeling, but merely as I think that such conduct on the part of Government will prevent such murderers as Mr. Cooper's from being punished. Gilbert Carter, who lives within a few miles within this place, in the county of Tipperary, was engaged in the collection of tithe composition, in consequence of which, as it appears, his house was broken into at night, his family ill-treated, and tithe valuation books and securities destroyed. Government, in the usual way, offered a reward of 50l. for information and prosecution to conviction. A son of Gilbert Carter did give information, and prosecuted to conviction, and received 25l. instead of 50l.! I wrote to the Secretary on the subject, and was referred to the stipendiary magistrate (Major Carter, of Nenagh) of the district; for the reason of withholding half what was promised. I did apply to him in person. The magistrate said, that he did not approve of the manner in which he (Carter) gave his evidence on the trial, that '25l. was enough for him.' I urged that the terms on which 50l. had been offered were complied with; he admitted that, but repeated that he had got quite enough. I leave to you to make the comment, only remarking that I believe the certainty of reward, as well as of punishment, is of more consequence than the amount. I will trouble you with no more. Henry can tell you more on the subject. He, as a magistrate, did more than I to show the Secretary that Government should keep their word.

"Yours; ever most truly,

"W. TRENCH."

The hon. Member said, that the writer of the letter was a gentleman of considerable age, and a kinsman of his own; and having written to the son of his correspondent to ascertain whether he might make use of his name, he received the following letter in reply:—

"En route,

"Weedon, near Daventry, May 8, 1838.

"Dear Sir Frederick,—I am sure my father would have no objection to his name being mentioned. I see little more to add to the facts he has given. I received the informations, and with much difficulty prevailed on young Carter to follow them up, at inconvenience and considerable risk to himself and his family. Had the neighbourhood been, generally speaking, a disturbed one, the Carters could not have remained in the neighbourhood; but they lived within a mile of Cloughjordan. Major Carter was the stipendiary magistrate; but I believe he thought Carter was ill-used by half the reward being withheld. Perhaps, if the balance was sent to Carter, it might be a step towards the discovery of Mr. Cooper's murderers. Yours, sincerely,

"H. TRENCH."

The hon. Member concluded by stating that he knew nothing was so difficult in Ireland as to obtain information respecting the perpetrators of crimes, and he thought the course pursued by the Government, unless it could be satisfactorily explained, like to have a most pernicious tendency.

said, he had not heard of the circumstances of the case before they were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He had written to Ireland, requiring the fullest information on the subject but, from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, it appeared that the whole of the proceedings had been taken by a stipendiary magistrate.

Subject dropped.

said, he wished to suggest to the noble Lord opposite the propriety of introducing a clause giving the revising barrister the power of imposing a fine in cases where the lists of electors were not duly returned.

said, that there were many cases in which, from the ignorance, wilful inattention, or from corruption on the part of the overseers, whole townships were disfranchised on account of the lists not having been properly filled up or returned; and he thought it most important that in a bill like the one under consideration some provision should be made for guarding against so serious an evil.

fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, and thought some measures ought to be taken to prevent whole townships from being disfranchised through the ignorance or inattention of overseers. He had himself prepared an addition to the clause under consideration, which he proposed having inserted, if it could conveniently be done.

feared, from the way in which the clause was framed, doubts might arise as to whether the "chapels" referred to in the clause did not mean exclusively those chapels in connexion with the Established Church; and he thought it important that all ambiguity on the subject should be removed. He quite agreed in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Wynn), and thought it would be highly improper to allow the clause to pass without some provision being inserted to guard and protect the constituency against the ignorance, wilful inattention, or corruption of overseers. It was highly important that large bodies of electors, perfectly qualified to vote, should not be disfranchised through the wilful inattention of either revising barrister or overseer.

heartily concurred in what had fallen from his right hon. and learned Friend, and should be glad to co-operate with him for the attainment of the object he had in view.

thought a sufficient remedy against the evil complained of was provided by the bill. Particular notice was required to be given to the overseer of all he had to do, and corruption was also guarded against by the imposition of a fine when improper conduct could be proved.

agreed with what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite, and thought sufficient precautions were taken in the bill to guard against carelessness on the part of overseers.

thought their legislation would be defective if they left it in the power of an overseer by wilful inattention to disfranchise a large number of electors. Where parties were nearly equal, such conduct might turn the scale of the election, and he thought it possible to prepare a clause calculated to give perfect protection to the voters. In the first place, in his opinion, a heavy fine ought to be inflicted on overseers who neglected their duty. If the overseer did not do his duty on the first Sunday, some power ought to be given to two or more parishioners to appoint another pro tempore, for the purpose of securing the franchise of the parish; or the fact might be communicated to the Secretary of State, who should direct such steps to be taken as he might deem necessary.

mentioned, that two years ago the whole of the freemen of the city of Carlisle were disfranchised in consequence of the overseer neglecting to affix the list to the church door.

Clause postponed.

On Clause 18,

moved, as an amendment, "to omit so much of the clause as requires freemen of cities and boroughs to give notice to the town-clerk of change of residence."

supported the amendment.

said, his own private opinion was favourable to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick; but he did not see why an exception should be taken in favour of freemen which voters of property qualification had not the advantage of. He regretted the Legislature had not altogether omitted the third question; but as he saw no hope of that, he should oppose the amendment.

thought, that the tendency of the clause was to entrap freemen.

thought it peculiarly necessary to have the fact of residence ascertained in the case of freemen, as it was part of their qualification that they should reside within a certain distance of the town or borough for which they voted.

supported the amendment, and thought the clause very improperly worded.

said, that the clause was not the invention of the Government, but had been introduced into the bill on the representation of various town-clerks, and at the suggestion of the committee who had sat on this subject.

Committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill:—Ayes 76; Noes 69: Majority 7.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 43, a conversation took place as to the power to be given by the clause to revising barristers to fine for groundless objections.

objected to the clause. The only mode of investigating rights to be placed on the register was by raising objections. There should, therefore, be no fine, unless there was some mode of previous inquiry as to the validity of claims.

said, the revising barristers ought to have the power to fine, but the fine should be moderate. He was inclined to agree in the view taken by the hon. Member for Bridport; but still there were cases of frivolous objections in which the barristers ought to have a discretion.

said, there ought to be every facility given to question claims; but after the votes were once decided to be good, every person questioning them a second time ought to be fined on failure.

proposed, as an amendment, that a penalty of 5l. be substituted for 10s. in the clause.

said, that he should prefer omitting the clause altogether to acceding to the amendment, which would have a direct tendency to injure the 40s. freeholders, and to confer advantage on the large proprietors.

The Committee divided on the question that the blank in the clause be filled up with the word ten shillings. Ayes 77; Noes 29: Majority 48.

The Committee again divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Ayes 64; Noes 36: Majority 28.

Clauses to the 49th inclusive agreed to. The House resumed. The Committee to sit again.