;Debates anb 1Drotetbings Varliantent.

PABLT MENTARY VOTERS IN IRELAND.

On Monday, the House of Commons went into Committee on the Irish Parliamentary Voters Bill. The first clause declared that upon the expiration of one month after a poor-rate shall be established in any county or borough, the act shall come into operation ; after which, DO person is "to be entitled as a freeholder or leaseholder to be regis- tered as a voter for such county in respect for any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, save as herein provided." On this clause Lord HOWICE proposed an amendment, declaring that no person "claiming under any act or acts now in force, to be entitled to be registered and vote as a Parliamentary elector for any county, in respect of any freehold or leasehold property in his actual occupation, shall be deemed to have a beneficial interest therein of the clear yearly value required by such act or acts, except as hereinafter provided." Lord Howick disavowed any intention of hostility to the Government in bring- ing forward his measure. No one desired more than he did to see Ire- land in the enjoyment of a bond fide popular constituency ; but he did not think that Lord Morpeth's bill would attain that object. The right of voting in counties in England as well as Ireland had hitherto been based upon property : the sole apparent exception to that rule was the fifty-pound tenancy ; but the fact of a tenant being able to pay 50/. ne- cessarily implied that he was in possession of capital fully equal to the property which the freeholder was required to possess. Now Lord Morpeth's clause entirely set aside that principle : according to that clause, if a person held a lease of fourteen years and were rated at the amount of 8/., he would be entitled to vote; even though the rent which he actually paid amounted to 16/. instead of a, and his farm were actu- ally a burden instead of a profit to him ; for in Ireland the payment of 8L rent afforded no proof of the possession of capital to a correspond- ing amount. The fault of the existing system lay in the want of agree- ment as to what constituted a "beneficial interest"; and supposing that were agreed upon, the only test of its amount was the opinion of persons strongly interested one way or another. He proposed a mode of obviating both those difficulties— He proposed that the value of the property should be ascertained by the valuation taken for the purpose of assessment to the poor-rates. Having thus ascertained the value, he examined the lease of the claimant, which, according to the existing law, must be produced at the time of registration. By deduct- ing the value of the rent reserved for the lease, a test of the interest of the voter was obtained which appeared to him liable to no objection. This was the principle recommended by the honourable Member for Monaghan during the last debate ; and it appeared to him to present every possible ad- vantage. It bad been said that the imperfect reports which had been laid on the table of the House showed that hitherto the valuation had not been so correctly obtained as to enable them to proceed on it. It certainly did not appear altogether satisfactory ; but machinery had already been provided by Parliament by which its correction might be accomplished, and in a short time & valuation would be obtained which might be relied on. The interest of parties to avoid too high a valuation would always prove a much stronger motive on men's minds than the desire to obtain the right of voting by raising the valuation. It was for this reason that the Poor-law valuation was to be relied on.

It then became a question what was the amount of interest which should give the franchise— He could not but think, that if so high an amount as 10/. excess of value above the rent paid, as shown by the assessment to the poor. rate, were taken AB the qualification, it would raise the franchise even almve the amount con- tended for by those who took up what was called " the solvent tenant test." He thought that in adopting any measure of this kind they were bound to look a little further. He agreed with honourable gentlemen opposite, that as the act of Parliament was drawn according to the strict technical interpretation of the Reform Act, the terms of the solvent test might be the proper construction of those words; but he was equally convinced that if they looked back to the history of the act carried in 1832, they would find that it was the intention of Parliament to make some extension. of the right of voting as it at that time existed. He should not think himself justified in proposing his amendment if he were not prepared at the same time to recommend a considerably lower amount of qualification than 10/. He believed that the moment the test was applied, its practical severity would be such that all fraud would be most com- pletely and effectually excluded. He proposed, therefore, in the amendment which he was about to move, that the sum of 5/. excess of value beyond the rent and charges to which the person who claimed the right to vote was liable, of his Presidency. The decease of the chief officer of the Republic, 1 should be considered a sufficient qualification. He thought that a "beneficial His amendment would admit a large class of persons, who claim a right to vote interest "of 10/ would be not unfairly construed by an excess in rating of 51.

from freeholds in fee,—that is, from bond fide property, but who not being- rated at 5/, would be excluded by Lord Morpeth's clause. Those industrious tenants n ho paid but a very low rent for reclaimed or greatly-improved land would also be admitted.

This led him necessarily to explain another amendment, to be moved subsequently. Lord Morpeth proposed, as a 9ualification for the fran- chise, a lease of fourteen years, and a low rating of Si. : Lord Howick proposed that the yearly tenant should be admitted to the franchise in common with the holder of a lease for fourteen years. He concurred with Lord John Russell in deprecating frequent political changes of this kind ; and therefore he thought it very necessary that any change now made /tor Ireland should not lead to further changes. Now Lord Morpeth's clause introduced an entirely new class of voters ; while Lord

Howiek proposed merely to extend to Ireland a provision in the spirit of the English Reform Bill, by establishing a class of voters similar to the

fifty-pound tenants of England. Of course the amount of rental should be less in Ireland; but that might be fixed hereafter : at present he should only ask the House to adopt the principle of his amendment.

It was a popular objection to tenants at will, that they are less inde- pendent of their landlords than those who hold leases. Lord Howick argued to show the fallacy of that assumption—

In point of fact, all tenants were usually disposed to vote with their land- lords; but in times of excitement such as that of the R,efonis Bill, the tenants at will threw off the influence of the landlord. This was confirmed by what bad occurred in Scotland at the last contested election, that for the county of Perth ; which had perhaps more than any other since the Reform Bill given rise in charges of undue influence, and he believed that the tenants

over whom that influence was exercised held leases almost without exception for the long term of nineteen years. A mere lease, therefore, did not secure

independence. But Lord Morpeth's test of independence was still more falla-

cious; for it is the fact that the competition of tenants in Ireland is for small holdings, which obtain a rent much above their real value ; and the consequence is, that so low a rating as 5/. would include a very low class of tenants. A secondary consequence also flowing from this would be, that landlords might create votes to a very great extent. But the indisposition on the part of land- lords to grant leases was notorious; and it was not confined to any party, but arose merely from the desire for the improvement of property. He believed that Lord Morpeth and members of the Cabinet who held property in Ireland shared in that indisposition. The tendency of the original clause therefore

was to extend the franchise only on ill-managed estates ; creating a class of voters of the lowest grade, and most under the influence of the least substan-

tial and least opulent landlords. Lord Howick entered into some details to show that out of the present number of voters, 57,103, no fewer than 41,700 derive the franchise from lease, and are therefore subject to the disfranchising disposition not to renew leases.

Lord Howick concluded by urging the advantage to parties on both sides of the House of effecting a settlement of the question, which either could resist, but which neither could carry in spite of the other.

Lord Monerm freely exonerated Lord Howick from the suspicion of being actuated by a wish to embarrass Ministers. In reference to Lord Howick's closing exhortation, be said that Ministers had done their best to show that they would not stand on extreme opinions—

Even since the expiry of the recess, though they were convinced that the proposal they had originally made of planting the franchise on a rating of 51. could he borne out by the information supplied to the House, and by all that was known on the subject in Ireland, they yet had not hesitated, acting within those limits which they considered admissible in principle and in justice to the people of Ireland, to consent to raise in a slight degree the amount at which the franchise was to be conferred, in order to remove the scruples which any

one could reasonably entertain. His noble friend had told them, that in alter-

ing the franchise of Ireland they would not be warranted in looking for any great support out of doors in this country. Now he could assure his nobk

friend, that her Majesty's Government sought for no such aid or reinforcement in what they had proposed, and were content to rest their plan on its own in- trinsic justice and reasonableness.

He sympathized with Lord Howick's desire not to diminish the consti- tuency of Ireland ; but he thought that the proposed amendment would

tend in a very startling degree to defeat the mover's wishes : the first,

equally with the original clause, proposed a great alteration in the de- finition of the "beneficial interest," only in more doubtful terms ; and therefore Lord Morpeth would retain the words of the clause, as more straightforward. Had the second amendment, to fix the rating on tenancy at will, been moved as an addition to the original bill, Lord Morpeth would not have opposed it ; but) viewing it as a substitute for the qualification of the bill, it was to be feared that any expectation of an increase to the constituency resulting from it was merely delusive. Besides, he knew that Lord Howick meant to propose a further restric- tion, by requiring actual oocupanoy on the part of the tenant ; a propo-

sition which the House ought jealously to examine. Lord Howick went further than Lord Stanley, who did not propose to go to the length of a solvent-tenant test, while to the stringency of that test Lord Howick

would add the further rigour which a valuation for assessment always carried with it. Lord Morpeth then entered into a great number of de-

tails, derived from the Poor-law returns, to prove that the rating under the Poor-law was generally .below the real value. He then quoted similar returns from several counties, to show the number who would be disfranchised by Lord Howick's amendment. We copy the first of the returns quoted— In Fermoy, the number of ten-pound electors, whose rents were ascertained, were 174. Of these there would be excluded, by a test requiring any excess of

rating above rent, 118. By a test requiring three pounds excess, there would

be excluded 132; by a test requiring five pounds excess, there would be ex- cluded 140; by a test requiring ten pounds excess, there would be excluded the

whole except 15. Now, with respect to the character and station of thine who would be so excluded, the 118 who would be excluded by a test requiring any excess of rating above rent, pay rents as follows : there are 2 who each

pay rents exceeding 2001.; 14 who each pay rents between 100/. and 2001.; 37 who each pay rents between 50/. and 100!.; 10 who pay rents between 40/. and. 501.; 23 who pay rents between 30/. and 401.; 25 who pay rents between 20/ and 30!.; 5 who pay rents between 101. and 20L; and 2 who pay rents between 5/. and 10/.

In short, Lord Howick's scheme would have the effect of almost entirely disfranchising the present occupying constituency of keen&

Lord Morpeth thought that there was DD plan so likely to correct the electoral abuses of Ireland as some simple and fair test of rating, such as that proposed by Government. Mr. CstaaLEs WOOD explained, that Lord Howick's amendment was meant as an addition to the Government plan. Mr. Wood gave a few figures to show the necessity of the change to counteract the present prac- tice of not renewing leases: taking the year 1835 as that in which the Reform Bill might be considered as fairly carried out, he found that since then the decrease of voters had been about 7,500, besides those who had been taken off by the system of not renewing leases. The constituency was diminishing at the rate of 5,000 a year.

Sir CHARLES GREY opposed the amendment.

Lord STANLEY called upon the House deliberately to ponder the several propositions before it—

The proposition of the Government,—their last proposition, made at the last moment, brought forward two months after the introduction of their bill, and upon evidence obtained, not for the purpose of framing the bill, but for the purpose of boltstering it up,—the proposition of the Government was to establish, as the franchise for Ireland, the being rated to the relief of the poor to the amount of I., without reference to the amount of the tenant's beneficial interest—without reference to the fact whether he was a person hav- ing a beneficial interest—whether he was a solvent tenant and possessed of any property whatever. That was the principle for which the Government con- tended. In opposition to that principle, the noble Member for Northumberland had come forward, and said, "I propose to define the existing franchise in Ire- land—to define it, certainly, with some modifications and limitations ; but I will take rating as a test; and taking rating as a teat, I propose that a certain amount of rating (not simply per se, but a certain amount over and above the rent) shall be deemed and taken to be, not a new qualification, but the legal and correct interpretation of that for which I contend, in common with honourable Members on the other side of the House, namely, the beneficial Interest on excess of value over the burdens upon the holding." That was precisely in accordance with the principle of the Reform Act, which Lord Stanley wished to maintain, but which the Government desired to abolish. However, therefore, it might suit the views of Ministers to represent the noble lord's amendment as merely a verbal one, he could by no means agree in the correctness of that description. The amendment distinctly brought before the House the question, "Will you or will you not maintain the beneficial interest as a test of the right of voting?" Upon that ground he would vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble lord.

He should regret to see the constituency of Ireland diminished ; but there was no proof that that was the case at present, compared with the number of voters at the time of the Reform Bill— When he had the honour to introduce the Irish Reform Bill, he calculated the then existing county constituency of that country at 52,000. Upon that occasion he was very properly checked by Mr. O'Connell ; who said, " Trite, there are 52,000 names on the register : I and my sons are on it ; but so are my uncle, my father, and my grandfather; and from my knowledge of the country, so far from there being now 52,000 persons entitled to vote, I take on myself to my that there are not 30,000; and your bill will not add above 1,200 to them." And indeed Lord Stanley himself did not expect that it would add many : there was no alteration in the freeholder's franchise, there was no great increase amongst the leaseholders, and therefore on the whole the county constituency had not been materially increased. A new registry soon afterwards took place, and many votes were put on the registry without sufficient examination. There was great excitement at the period, and on one side there was very little struggle ; yet the Irish county constituency did not even then exceed 57,000; and this remained the nominal number for some time. in. 1835 the county constituency became 64,000; in 1837 it increased to 74,000; and in 1839 to 99,000, and even among that 99,000 a great many yet remained of the old 57,000. In the present year, by one sweep, the county constituency was re- duced to 42,000; and therefore he was justified in saying that the present con- stituency of counties was 6,000 or 7,000 less than the nominal constituency of 1832. But it was to be observed, that the decrease took place in those coun- ties principally in which at the last election there had been no contest : for example, in the following counties the diminution was principally to he seen, namely, Antrim, Armagh, Clare, Wexford, Galway, Down, Limerick, London- derry, Mayo, Roscommon, and Waterford. In those counties they had no mo- tive to press for registration, and there was therefore a deficiency to the extent of 11,000 or 12,000 voters ; while in the other counties there had been an increase to the extent of perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 electors. In the South of Ireland, indeed, he understood that leases were withheld; but for that Lord Howiek's amendment was the proper remedy.

Lord Stanley thought that Lord Howick had successfully exposed the absurdities or mistakes of the Government measure, and that Lord Morpeth had successfully argued against the details of Lord Howick's plan : he could therefore vote for neither scheme; but he should vote for the principle asserted in Lord Howick's amendment.

Mr. O'Coirrutr.t. rose to observe, that when he had made the calcula- tion in 1832, to which Lord Stanley had referred, the latter had not introduced his ten-pound occupation clause. Mr. O'Connell affirmed that the county constituency had decreased by the number of 20,000 since then ; and he went on to compare the proportions between popu- lation and the number of electors in Ireland and Great Britain.

Lord Jor.ux RUSSELL was sorry to find, from what Lord Howick and Lord Stanley had said, that there did not appear to be any prospect of settling the franchise of Ireland on a satisfactory basis. He had thought it the duty of Ministers to subject themselves to the taunts which he knew they would receive on departing from their original proposition, in order to bring the question to a close, and procure for Ireland the tranquillity which would turn attention from political contests to the encouragement of industry, agriculture, and commerce. But it ap- peared to a great party that this was a course not to be taken. Lord Stanley supported the amendment because it maintained the principle of requiring an interest above the rent : for that very reason Lord John opposed it. Although the sense of the words introduced by Lord Howick might be completely changed by a subsequent clause, yet they appeared to sanction a definition of the franchise which would be utterly destructive of it. He repeated some of Lord Morpeth's argu- ments, tbr the benefit of those Members who were absent when Lord

Morpeth spoke. If the House meant to let the people of Ireland have a real representation, they ought to do it now : if not, let them say so in direct terms, and take their stand upon that declaration-

" After-all I have heard tonight, I can only gather that it is intended to proceed in that indirect and tortuous way of disfranchising the people of Ire-

land which I saw attempted in the last year—(Loud cheers)—a way that will

not be the less effectual because it is indirect, but which I certainly shall never cease to denounce and oppose—(Renewed cheering); and I trust the people of Ireland will believe that, if these attempts should unhappily make any pro-

gress, it is not that the people of England wish them to be treated with this injustice and this wrong, but that, on the contrary, the people of England wish to see them honestly 4nd fairly represented—( Great cheering from both aides of the House)—and not defrauded of their rights by withdrawing from them those privileges which even when you took away the right of voting from the forty-shilling freeholders, you granted in a manner that showed considerable generosity and a great sense of the value of the privilege of voting for Members of Parliament. (Cheers.) Do not imagine that you can without remark, without exciting great indignation, withdraw the privilege which in 1829 you granted to the people of Ireland. My belief is, that by acceding to the bill of my noble friend, and by adopting the franchise which he has proposed, you will act in the spirit of the bill of 1829 and of the bill of Reform of 1832 ; and that if, on the contrary, you take an opposite course, it will not be long before you will wish that you had not interfered to excite a spirit in the people of ire land which will justify them"- [ The remainder of the sentence was lost in the cheers of the House, which con- tinued for several minutes.] Sir ROBERT PEEL said that Lord John Russell had pursued the course which he invariably pursued when he had some defective cause to advocate—(Great cheering)—trying to divert the attention of the House from the subject properly under its consideration by some de- clamation about political rights, to raise a cheer from those who sat behind him, under cover of which he fancied himself triumphant. (" Tremendous cheering," says the Times, from the Conservative side of the House.) Sir Robert exposed the inconsistency of the Ministerial plan to revive a constituency which is perishing through the refusal of leases, by rendering a lease indispensable to the qualification of the voter. And how long would they maintain the principle that the right of voting should be derived from the profit of the land in England, after adopting the test of mere occupancy and rating in Ireland?- " Why, what confidence could we place in you as legislators fit to deal with this subject ? ( Great cheering.) You had the whole of the recess to prepare in ;.you had notices of this subject under consideration ; you had the means of gaining official information, and every element to enable you to bring forward a measure to conciliate public opinion : and you brought forward a measure destroying the existing franchise and substituting a five-pound occupancy. We remained under the impression that that proposition was to be discussed ; and two or three nights before the consideration of the question came on, without a reason being assigned, the noble lord increased the franchise from Si. to 8/. And what does the noble lord tell us now? That he could support his five-pound franchise by reference to facts and evidence, which show that it was a provision which ought to have been made. Then why has it been abandoned ? whence came the suggestion of objection ?—Not from this side of the House. The noble lord says, I made this alteration in the hope of conciliating your favour, and now you reject it.' We never objected to the amount, but to the principle. What can be more unfair, then, than throwing out ;his insinuation against us ? We said, we object to a uniform franchise for Ireland. You are, in point of fact, making no settlement of this question if, when there is a disposition to withhold leases, you insist on it that the future voter shall be a leaseholder. You have offered no remedy by raising the franchise from 5/. to 8/. Our objection is to the principle of this franchise." Like Lord Stanley, Sir Robert said he would vote for the principle of Lord Howick's amendment ; which he regarded so far in the light of an abstract resolution, declaring the opinion of the House that the profit of the land, and not occupancy, ought to constitute the franchise. The vote on the clause, said Sir Robert, must decide the fate of the bill. He denied that there was any compact at the time of the Catholic Re- lief Bill ; and quoted the authority of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shell, Mr. Blake, and other Roman Catholic gentlemen, justifying the disfran- chisement of the forty-shilling freeholders: according to Mr. O'Con- nell, Mr. Dominic Browne had declared that when there were 25,000 voters in Mayo it was a nomination-county, but that when the number was reduced to 800 or 900 its independence had been secured. Mr. O'Connell now referred to the amounts of population : Sir Robert sup- posed that Government would not adopt that as the test of a free consti- tuency. The question before the House, however, was of another kind— It was not whether or not the franchise should he coextensive with the population : the question which arose was this—whether her Majesty's Go- vernment had made a provision which entitled them to the public confidence of the House ; and he must say that the course they had pursued on the Irish franchise appeared to him to disentitle them to the confidence of the House or of the country. ( Vehement cheering.) Mr. O'Comena, admitted that there was no compact at the time of Catholic Emancipation : had there been, he would have refused to dis- franchise the forty-shilling freeholders in fee ; who were disfranchised because they burst their shackles, and threw the Beresfords out of Waterford and the Fitzgeralds out of Clare. He did not demand to make population the sole test of the franchise : it should be taken in conjunction with property. It was so in England ; why should it be otherwise in Ireland ? Ireland, however, would not despair ; she was too peaceable, too well organized. (Ironical cheers.) Those who doubted hint knew not the country which contained five millions who never tasted the liquor of intoxication. But to his opponents he said, "Go on in your career ": they did not disappoint him ; on the contrary, they animated his hopes. On a division, Lord Howick's amendment was carried, by 291 to 270.. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not prepared to say to what extent the alteration affected the bill ; and he therefore proposed to postpone its further consideration in Committee till Monday. Lord STANLEY sug- gested that the Committee should resume on Wednesday. To that Lord Joins agreed ; and Lord STANLEY postponed his own bill, which stood for Wednesday last, until Wednesday the 5th of May. Before proceeding with the Committee on Wednesday, Lord Joan RUSSELL explained the course which he meant to pursue— He had asked the House to adjourn after the division of Monday evening, because he believed the words which had been inserted in the first clause to be

of very great importance; inferring from what had been stated in debate, that it was intended to exclude the franchise proposed by Lord Morpeth. Govern- ment, however, would not be justified in considering the vote as conclusive : the principal clause of the bill, that containing the franchise, had been affirmed by the House on the second reading of the bill; and it must be considered that Lord Howick's franchise was proposed, not with the view of negativing any

other, but as an addition to the franchise contained in the bill—an addition which Ministers would be quite willing to accept if the House would adopt their franchise.

Lord Howlett explained his intended coarse— Nothing which had occurred had altered his opinion as to the expediency of retaining a franchise founded on a beneficial interest, checked by a simple and easy test, and of creating besides an occupation-franchise, analogous to the fifty-pound tenancy of England : the House had affirmed the principle of retaining a property-qualification, and Lord John Russell bad now said that he had no objection to it. He had never thought of proposing it except as an addition to some other franchise ; and if some other franchise, which admitted a considerable number of electors to the right of 'voting, were agreed upon by the House, he should in that ease, and in that case only, propose the franchise of which he had given notice. But the amendment which he had intended to

propose, to do away with the necessity of a lease to give the franchise on occu- pation, was more important. No attempt had been made by Ministers to show how they could obviate the effect of the existing law in diminishing the number

of voters by the disallowance of leases ; and on the other side of the House it had been intimated, that if the principle of his amendment bad been proposed by Government, it would have been acquiesced in : Lord Stanley said it would have received his " respectful consideration " But, unable as Lord Howick was to expect that the details as proposed by himself would receive consideration on the opposite side, or support from those on his own side—even from those who concurred with him in opinion—it would be manifestly fruitless for him to press the amendment which he had intended.

Still, he could not support the Government clause. He was indeed surprised that Ministers could call on the House to decide upon it ; for every one who knew any thing of public affairs or of the state of parties

knew that if the clause did pass that House, there was no human pro- bability that the proposed franchise would ever become law. The only consequence of further discuSsion must be to keep up the excitement in the House, and the still more mischievous excitement in Ireland ; leaving the franchise for another year in a state of uncertainty, and re- taining for another year all the evils of the registration which arose from the undefined state of the franchise.

Sir ROBERT PEEL explained his understanding as to the actual posi- tion of the question between Government, Lord Howick, and the Oppo- sition, on Monday night. First the position which Government had taken— Re understood that the Government—as a Government, as the Executive, as the Administration intrusted with the confidence of the Sovereign, on the

responsihility of a Government—undertook the adjustment of this great ques-

tion. (Great and prolonged cheering.) The abuses of the existing system of registration they themselves did not deny ; they admitted them to be gross and indefensible : but they took this ground, that there was a risk of narrowing

the franchise by improving the registratani, and that great evils had arisen from the conflict which was going on het, een judicial authorities, and there- fore that it was necessary to bring both questions to a settlement together.

The franchise they maintained must be first defined, and then these abuses might be corrected. In attempting to define tte franchise, the Government ha made a proposition for its subversion. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) In

the preamble to their bill they stated that doubts and difficulties had prevailed with respect to the present franchise which it was desirable to clear up; and

the mode in which they did clear them up was by subverting the existing fran- chise and substituting another—namely, occupancy as tested by rating to be the franchise of the county constituencies, and a five-pound rating to consti- tute the franchise in all cities and towns in Ireland.

Then Lord Howick's position— Now, he bad understood Lord Howick as objecting decidedly to the prin- ciple of that franchise : he objected to a uniform franchise as applicable to Irish

counties and towns ; and in the next place, he insisted on a profit on the land as an element of the county franchise. The noble lord therefore proposed amend- ments to the bill, the first of which, as far as the first clause was concerned,

was simply this, that a beneficial interest, or profit on the land, should be a sine qua non. It was that question that the House had proceeded to discuss; and Sir Robert hail distinctly understood, the other night, that they were dis- cussing the main and essential principle—(Loud and continued cheering)---the principle which was to regulate the future constituency of Ireland.

Next the relative po-ilions of Government and Lord Howick-

Lord John Russell stated, that he had discovered subsequently that the sug- gestion of the noble lord with respect to the beneficial interest was an addition

or supplement to the principle which he himself had proposed, and that there- fore there would be no inconsistency in admitting that additional franchise which would extend the constituency of Ireland and at the same time add

to its respectability Why, that was clear from the first: if there could be one thing more clear than another, it was Lord Howick's explanation, when he brought forward his proposal, that the beneficial-interest franchise was in addition to any other kind of franchise. And Lord Howick's explanation had been further explained by Mr. Wood, with pains which had surprised Sir Robert.

Then the position whiel he himself had occupied— He had said, that if it could be proved that the borough or county constitu- ency established by the Reform Bill was undergoing such a diminution that

there would not remain an intelligent constituency according to the fair intent of the bill, be should not be indisposed to take a remedy into consideration; but that he should contend for the principle urged by Lord Howick, that in respect to counties a profit on land should be tie essential qualification. Be was perfectly convinced that no authority short of the Executive was able to -deal with so important a matter as defining the franchise, or rather granting a new franchise. He felt that Lord Howick was acting as an individual without

any responsibility, and unconnected with any powerful party. And what he lad defined as a good franchise rested on information furnished for an entirely different purpose—namely, to set up a five-pound rate. For those reasons, Sir Robert despaired of seeing the House arrive, on the information and details so communicated, at a satisfactory conclusion. The House must see, that if he assented to a definition of the franchise, he ought to be in a condition to give a reasonable assurance that there was a probability of the bill passing the Lords : would it then be fair in him to be guilty of any collusion in assenting to a measure which he did not think could pass their Lordships' House ?

If he felt a difficulty about the details of either measure on Monday, what must he think on Wednesday, when the intervening day had furnished additional information ?— o Here is the second general report of the Commissioners empowered by the Attorney-General for the purpose of collecting information. I have been engaged in reading it, but I must say it is very (1.1Ecult to keep pace with all these documents. I found in the 24th page this passage—observe, they are gentlemen appointed by the Attorney-General who make the statement : There are not materials before us to form any calculation as to the probable amount of electors which the adoption of a franchise regulated by any given amount of rating combined with tenure would produce.' (Loud cheers from Members on the Tory benches.) I look, then, to another paper, which involves details embracing some thou-ands of figures; and I find that in the year 1837- a sear that I purposely select, because that was the year which it is supposed produced the greatest number of constituents—th, re were often-pound lease- holders in counties, 13,482; of ten-pound householders in boroughs, 9,408; making altogether. 22,890. I then turn to a paper of which I have just got possession, and in it 1 find an account of the number of five-pound tenements In eighteen different unions; and it also contains cities and boroughs. I find that there are 113,932 tenements rated at and above W. in these eighteen unions. (Cheers from Tory Members.) Now I am perfectly aware that the limits of cities and boroughs are not conterminous with the unions. Before, however, I come to a definition of the franchise, must I not know the number of five- pound tenements, or a hat will he the probable number of voters existing within the electoral districts ? 1 require that knoaledge; but here there is nothing that can inform me. The noble lord told us, at the commencement of this discussion that it was not his intention materially to increase the fran- chise : he distinctly said that the five-pound franchise would not lead to a great increase of the franchise."

Under all these circumstances, Sir Robert asked, was he not justified in insisting that those having the responsibility of Government could alone undertake such an important change ? Viscount MORPETH, to prove that the Government did not consider, on Monday, the vote of that night as involving the principle of the bill, reminded the House that he had treated Lord Howick's first amend- ment as a mere matter of form and verbal expression ; for he thought that it would be quite consistent with the words which Lord Howick had introduced afterwards to define the franchise as would seem best to the House. Though he did not concur in Lord Howick's alteration, yet regarding it as a mere addition, Ministers would be happy to adopt it. What Government did insist upon was, that the franchise should be based upon a rating of the net annual value of Si.; and upon that, whether considered simply as the sole proposition and condition for the construction of the franchise in Ireland, or taken as an additional and alternative qualification upon it, they were determined that the sense of the House should be deliberately and fully ascertained. Upon Sir Robert Peel's remarks on the new information laid before the House, from which he seemed to infer that the five-pound franchise would have caused a great extension of the constituency, Lord Morpeth observed, that it was impossible to calculate what would be the increase to the franchise, because no man could form any calculation as to what land- lords would give or refuse leases to their tenants; and Sir Robert forgot that all the holders of the tenements mentioned in the return which he had quoted might not be adults. Government, however, had never had any desire for a premature decision of the question.

Mr. HENRY Grua-rats made a fierce attack upon Lord Howick for obtaining a majority against Government, and afterwards backing out. The House then went into Committee.

The first clause was agreed to as amended. On the motion to fill up a blank in the second clause, so as to require the holder of the franchise to possess a lease of fourteen years' duration, Mr. HUME moved to re- duce the term to one year. He accused Lord Howick of inconsistency, for acting as be did, after having said on the 4th February that the great body of the Irish people should be represented, and on another night that it was not safe to trifle with the discontent of a whole nation. Lord MOH-. PETH opposed the amendment. Mr. O'CONNELL said it would be attended by this difficulty,that the tenant would be under perpetual apprehension of a notice to quit ; and would be compelled to quit unless he voted as his landlord wished. Be intended himself to propose to insert, instead of the word "fourteen," the words "for any time for a period not less than, if the tenant were resident in England, would have entitled him to register and vote." This would raise the question of identifying the franchise of the two countries.

The amendment was supported by Mr. Casitims WOOD, Mr. HAWES, MY. W. S. O'BRIEN, and Mr. D. CALLAGHAN. Mr. PIGOT said it would not extend, but would entirely change the franchise and the distribu- tion of power. Sir C. NORREYS would support the higher franchise.

Mr. WARD thought that, amid so many conflicting opinions and amendments, it would be well to adhere to the original bilL

Mr. HOME rebuked Mr. Ward for his lecture— His honourable friend talked about their understanding what they were to do. Now, there had been a meeting on Monday of the Opposition Members, at which the policy of that side of the House was decided on ; and no honour- able Member belonging to that side would dare to act counter to it. But a man in Dublin, or any other part of the empire, knew just as much of what the Government meant to do as he, Mr. Hume, did. The fact was, the Go- vernment itself did not know what it meant to do. (Laughter.) Every day some new change was proposed.

Mr. Lucas should know how to vote when something tangible was brought forward.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Mr. Lucas, who wanted something " tangible " to support, was the one who last year urged the necessity of defining the franchise ; and yet, in the present session, he had argued against defining the franchise : no two Members could differ more from each other than Mr. Lucas differed from himself. Lord John stated his reasons for preferring the term of fourteen years for the lease. Th-re are immense difficulties in the way of applying to Ireland the freehold franchise of England— In England, freehold tenure is never for a less term than the life of the holder. It would be found that a considerable farmer, holding lands to the amount of 200/. or 3001. a year, would also in some instances be possessed of a forty-shilling freehold; farmers with lesser holdings would be possessed of the same; and artisans in villages, pursuing the occupations of tailors or shoe- makers, would have in addition, perhaps, to other small holdings, a forty- shilling freehold. A day-labourer, perhaps on the verge of seeking parish-relief, would struggle with his distress for the purpose of preserving the forty-shilling freehold which was transmitted to him from his ancestors. Now, this class, taken altogether, formed a body of exceedingly independent electors, many of them gaining their livelihood by honest industry, and not at all dependent on or connected with ti e landlord. A small freeholder in very humble life, who was asked at a late Devonshire election whether he had his freehold for a year, answered proudly, that he and his family had held it ever since William the Conqueror. In Ireland this class of people does not exist. The freehold there is generally on lives, and often on the lives of others than the holders, people of advanced age. In England the landlords and their tenants hold very much the same opinions : but in Ireland the differences between them are very wide; the aristocracy being rigidly attached to the Protestant Establishment ; while the lower classes, holding the Roman Catholic faith, are eager to redress a state of things by which they deem themselves to have been long and deeply injured. The landlords, who had created the forty-shilling freeholders in vast numbers, were at length opposed by them : as Sir Robert Peel had said, that weapon of the landlords had snapped in their hands. Lord John had heard no other authority than that of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Blake quoted for raising the franchise from forty shillings to ten pounds ; and in doing so, the differences to which he had alluded had been overlooked. The circumstances of the tenure in Ireland had given rise to a multiplicity of legal difficulties in ascertaining what the ten pounds should represent ; clear profit, for instance, or the sum for which the holding could be let to another : and in any case the ten- dency of the decisions was to restrict the franchise. The present Ministry had been reproached with acting upon imperfect information; but the mistakes in the Registration Act and the Reform Act of 1832

proved the ignorance in which Parliament had acted when it confounded the cases of England and Ireland. Mr. Croker reproached the Go- vernment of the day for acting without information; observing, that he supposed it would be produced the day after the debate ; and Lord Althorp admitted that no satisfactory information could be given to Parliament. There certainly was less information then than now. The only remedy was to define the franchise. With respect to the lease, Lord John had consulted several persons, who all agreed, that though it did not give a tenant complete security, yet it provided some security, and might insure a tenant against being turned out imme- diately after the heat and passion of a contested election. In periods of tranquillity, tenants-at-will would no doubt vote in most cases with their landlords ; but in different times, the conflict in the voter's mind would be aggravated by the circumstance that a question of religion would be often involved in the dispute between the Irish landlord and tenant. Taking the occupancy of fourteen years with the eight-pound rating, Government thought that a very respectable class of voters would be secured.

Mr. Lucas reminded Lord John Russell, that the remarks to which he had alluded arose entirely out of the question of the voter's oath : he had never proposed a rating-test irrespective of value.

Sir ROBERT PEEL recommended that Ministers should be allowed to fill up the blanks in the way which would bring their measure into the shape they intended; and that the vote of the House should then be taken for or against the measure so shaped. To that end, he should -vote with Government now ; the details of the bill being a matter of perfect indifference to him.

After a little more debate, Mr. O'CONNELL took occasion to deny that the forty-shilling freeholders were abolished in consequence of repre- sentations by the advocates of the Catholic claims : he had expressly vindicated the rights of those who held by a tenure similar to that of England.

The House then divided ; and the Government proposal, fixing the term of lease at fourteen years, was carried by 513 to 47. On the pro- posal to fill up the next blank so as to fix the rating at 81., Mr. HUME moved an amendment to make it 5/. The original motion was carried, by 434 to 126. On the question being put from the chair, that the clause do stand part of the bill, Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the Chairman report progress. That amendment was rejected, by 428 to 98. Amidst much confusion and talking, Mr. O'CONNELL then moved "that the Chairman do leave the chair." Immediately afterwards, he moved that the Chairman report progress. Mr. BERNAL, however, said that he could not substitute the one motion for the other. Mr. O'Cox- NELL then asked leave to withdraw the former motion. The gallery was cleared for a division ; but none took place. Amid the tumult, Mr. WAHLEY taunted Ministers with their vacillation ; which, he said, put those desirous of supporting them in a very awkward position, voting first for one proposition and then another. Had he occupied a seat on the Ministerial benches, after the defeat of Monday night, which completely subverted the principle of the bill, he could never have faced the House again as Lord John had done. And he called upon Lord John to explain what was the course he meant to pursue.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the position of Mr. Wakley was owing to nothing that Government had done : the change from the 5/. to the Si. had nothing to do with the present state of the question, which did not turn upon the difference of rating. Nor had Lord John ever heard of any Government in this country which had always maintained, without bending, every proposition which it had brought forward— Sir Robert Peel and other gentlemen opposite, who had held positions of high trust in this country, had never done so; and he did think that a mixed Government like that of this country, which must always be more or less dependent on the support of the Popular branch, could not be carried on if the opinions of the Members of the House of Commons were set at defiance, and if the Government were to declare that they would never, under any circum- stances, bend to the views of those who were endeavouring honestly to give them advice to the best of their power. In acting upon this view, he did not think he was departing from the course taken by other Governments, or that he was adopting one that was not strictly honourable. What change they would see when the honourable Member had an opportunity of exhibiting his inflexible adherence to principle, he could not pretend to determine.

Lord Joan replied to a question from Mr. HUME, that if the House rejected the clause, he should abandon the bill.

Mr. Jorni Juitvis and Sir Mosses Amen]) recommended that the House should divide, not upon a technicality, but upon the main question. Sir ROBERT PEEL had thought the vote of Monday night was decisive as to the clause ; but it seemed that he was mistaken. He thought it very desirable that a conclusive vote should be taken on the clause ; and therefore, those with whom he acted would waive the advantage which Mr. O'Connell had given them, and would resume the discussion on the following night.

The amendment was withdrawn accordingly ; and the Committee adjourned.

The Committee resumed on Thursday ; when the question was again put, that the second clause stand part of the bill. This led to a re- newed but not very connected debate upon the general merits of the question.

Lord Monprrn began it ; contending among other things, that in passing the second reading, the House had affirmed the principle of his bill; vindicating the substantial fidelity of the Poor-law returns upon which the Government rating-test had been framed ; and expressing regret that Sir Robert Peel had thrown himself without reserve into the impetuous course chalked out for him by Lord Stanley- " I cannot refrain from stating that, whatever may be the temporary triumph that attends the course in which he has embarked, I certainly do anticipate that no very long period of time will elapse before he regrets that he has given his adhesion to the policy that has now been pursued, or that he has afforded his sanction to its adoption. Or if I, Sir, do look forward to the future with feelings of statisfaction, it is to that day when I shall hear him—and such things have been heard before—not only without dishonour to the right honour- able baronet, but greatly to his credit—when he will come forward to propose the adoption of some such proceeding, and to sanction some such principle as that which has now encountered his condemnation."

Lord STANLEY would venture to tell Lord Morpeth, in spite of his sneers, that a great majority of the people, in common with a vast majority of the Opposition side of the House, but much more in common with many on Lord Morpeth's own side—a vast majority indeed on both sides of the House, and an incalculable majority out of doors— considered the Government policy as characterized by a reckless and rash want of statesmanship. The House, in affirming the principle of the bill, argued Lord Stanley, had affirmed that they would permit Govern- ment to submit to them the details of a measure which it was assumed had been maturely considered : but the details of the bill were incon- sistent with its professed principle ; which was to base the franchise on the value of the property in respect of which it was claimed ; while Government refused to apply such a test as would ascertain, not the abstract value of the property, but its value to the occupant who claimed to vote. Lord Stanley gathered from the returns before the House, (upon the unsatis"Ptory nature of which he dwelt at some length,) basing his calcul. • upon 49 unions, that the whole number of unions, 135, would givi cnstituency, under the proposed rate, of

450,805 ; whereas the oh onstituency of forty-shilling freeholders amounted to but 196,000.

Mr. CHARLES WOOD sail, that twenty-pound tenements, taken as the base of a franchise, would give a county constituency of 135,000; the present number being 57,00t. Amid the beginning of cries of " Ques- tion !" which were afterwards renewed from time to time throughout the debate, Mr. Wood announced his intention of opposing the clause ; while he called upon Lord Stanloy to withdraw his bill : expressing his wish that an amicable settlement of the question might be effected.

Mr. HUME exposed the demerits of the clause ; for which he declared his intention of voting. He recomn ended Government to bring for- ward measures which would satisfy Ireland. "He knew they would be in a minority ; but let them be in a minority, that would be of no consequence. He saw gentlemen opposite were ready cock-a-hoop to seize office ; but he trusted there would be no foolish play of that kind."

Mr. O'CONNELL saw clearly that the bill would not pass ; but it would "do Ministers much good service in Ireland." He asked the Opposition if they would persist in refusing a franchise to Ireland ? "How could they prefer to the peace and good will of Ireland, that spirit of faction, bold and virulent, now ready to be reanimated into scorpion life?" He immediately retracted the word, however.

Lord STANLEY said, he had been misunderstood if he was thought to have stated that he could under no circumstances consent to any other franchise than the beneficial interest. If the necessity should arise, he might be prepared to consider the adoption of a certain amount of rating, such as that proposed by Lord Howick. Lord JOHN Roseau. could not understand, after all the discussion, why Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel were going to vote against the clause.

The House then divided ; when the clause was rejected, by 300 to 289.

Lord Join; RUSSELL did not complain that the clause had been rejected, but he did complain that it had been rejected on no intelli- gible grounds. He could understand opposition to a leasehold tenure, or Members taking their stand upon the principle of a beneficial inter- est; but the opponents of the measure had said things which were in- consistent with either of those positions. If they were neither prepared to alter the existing franchise nor to accept the Government plan, they ought at least to carry out the intent of the Reform Act. That act was introduced at a period of great agitation ; the franchise was granted to Ireland under great restrictions; but at the same time it was laid down, that the right of the voter, once admitted, should be made secure. Lord Howick and Mr. Wood had charged Government with not having evinced a sufficiently conciliatory disposition in regard to objections to the bill : on the other hand, Mr. Hume, Mr. Wak ley, and other Mem- bers, had taunted Government with vacillation and want of firmness : but the endeavour of Government had been to steer with justice be- tween all parties. Before they had acted, they had submitted the ques- tion of the leasehold tenure, which was chiefly disputed, to the con- sideration of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Secretary for Ireland, and the Attorney-General for Ireland. He would put it to Lord Howick, whether Government, in the face of such authorities, would be justified in adopting a franchise based on any other foundation ? After what had occurred, further discussion of the bill would be useless ; and therefore Lord John moved that the Chairman do leave the chair.

Sir ROBERT PEEL sought no lengthened discussion on the motion ; but he reminded Lord John that he had endeavoured to secure a fair division on the merits of the clause. Lord John seemed to complain that his opponents had nothing to propose instead of the provisions which had been rejected : why, they were matter of detail, and none but a Government could deal with details of that kind—none but a Government could undertake a measure amounting to a new Reform Bill. He was willing to make some allowance for Lord John's asperity, after what he felt on Wednesday night, when he contemplated the position in which he was placed. When Lord John saw Mr. Sheil and Mr. Hume and others of his supporters indulging in mutual recrimi- nation with respect to the policy of Government, he must have felt annoyed at the contrast with the unanimity on the other side. To show the want of purpose with which Government had acted, Sir Robert observed, that to conciliate one or two individual Members, they had raised the rating-test of the franchise from Si. to 8/.—a change which, judging by returns from thirty-one unions, swept away 76,000 out of the proposed constituency of 103,000. Such uncalled-for concessions must destroy all confidence in a Government's adhering even to its own propositions.

During the noise of persons leaving the House, Lord HOWICH said, that his complaint against Government had been, that they had acted without sufficient attention to the real state of the case, and without a sufficient statement of facts and reasons for their proposition. He felt the utmost respect for the high authorities in the Irish Government, quoted by Lord John Russell ; but he could not forget his duty as a Member of Parliament, to look at facts and reasons.

The House then adjourned.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS.

Upon the second reading of the Metropolis Improvements Bill, on Monday night, the Earl of WicirLow asked whether the Regent's Park was to be opened to the public, and whether there was to be a park at the East end of the Metropolis? Viscount DuricANNoN replied— Government were prepared to open the whole of the grass part of Regent's Park, as far as it could be done with a due regard to the rights of those who had laid out large sums in the purchase of villas in the neighbourhood. The whole of the Park would be thrown open to the public, except the private en- closures; and there would be a communication from Hanover Terrace into the grass part, as well as two entrances on the Northern road by Macclesfield Bridge, and two others in the broad walk. It would, however, be necessary to protect by a slight palisade those grounds in which persons had, under the au- thority of an Act of Parliament built villas, in the full reliance that they would be protected from intrusion. With regard to opening a park at the Eastern end of the Metropolis, he could inform the noble earl and the House, that there was extreme difficulty in procuring in that part a piece of ground sufficiently large for the purpose in a fit situation; but every exertion had been made, and would be made on the subject, as Government were most anxious to effect the object with as little delay as possible.

Lord ASHBURTON thought it was a great mistake to suppose that throwing open every part of the Parks was the best way to consult the pleasure of the public ; for the preservation of the ornamental gardens was as necessary to their enjoyment as the access to the open parts.

The Bishop of LosaioN took occasion to call attention to the bad state of the churchyards in the city of London— Only the day before, he had been called upon to officiate in a parish in the City where thirteen skulls were thrown out of a grave in which a corpse was to be buried. And often worse things occurred than the mere exposure of human bones. He thought that it would be possible to frame an act for the general establishment of cemeteries in the neighbourhood of the Metropolis, without injuring the pecuniary interests of the Metropolitan clergy; one of whom had suffered a diminution of Mt a year in his income in consequence of the in- terment of his parishioners in the cemetery at Kerma] Green. A general mea- sure might rem9dy several of the existing objections to cemeteries. In one, the tenure of the places of interment was not sufficiently lasting to answer the objects of the institution ; and there was another which was unconsecrated.

The Bishop hoped also that the Legislature, in their provision for the public, would not confine their acceptation of the term merely to the upper and middle classes— Ile hoped that they would also take into account the wants of those other classes who, while they were quite as important, if not more so, were less pro- vided with the means of healthful recreation. There was a great want of public walks in Bethnal Given, Spitalfields, and other of the Eastern parts of the Metropolis ; where the condition of the population, in respect to the want of exercise in the open air, was such as could not be conceived or believed unless witnessed.

The Marquis of NORMANDY was desirous to frame such a measure as the Bishop of London had alluded to, for the prevention of interment in the Metropolis, and for providing cemeteries. But he had found the subject so beset with difficulties that he had as yet made no progress with it. However, he did not despair ; and he would be very happy to assist the Bishop, if he would take the question into his own hands.

The subject of the Regent's Park was brought forward in the House of Commons, on Wednesday, in a question by Mr. EWART ; when Mr. E. J. STANLEY gave a similar explanation to that of Lord Duncannon.

On Tuesday, Sir bIzrraaw Woon obtained a Committee to take into consideration the several plans before the House for the improve- ment of the Metropolis, and also the petitions for the opening of Water- loo, Southwark, and Vauxhall Bridges.

REMOVAL OF THE LAW COMITS.

After presenting a petition from the solicitors and attornies of Lon- don, on Tuesday, praying for the removal of the Law Courts from Westminster, the Scuacrroa-GENEue.i. moved for a Committee to con- sider the expediency of erecting a building in the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court for the sittings of the Courts of Law and Equity. The remoteness of Westminster Hall from what might be called the legal part of the town, occasioned serious inconvenience to solicitors, and through them to suitors— Various places had been suggested where the new building might be erected. The attornies had submitted a plan to Mr. Barry for the erection of new Courts ; and it was found that the centre of Lincoln's Inn Fields would afford every facility for that purpose. A splendid building could be erected in that space, which would afford, in addition to all the courts, a place for the preserva- tion of the records, rooms for counsel, for witnesses, and for consultation on the ground-floor; so that the bar would never have occasion to leave the build- ing in passing from one court to another ; and, on another floor, would be a room for the Masters in Chancery, &c. There would remain an area of one hundred yards around the building, to be planted with shrubs and trees. It was proposed that the expense of executing this work should be defrayed from the suitors' fund of the Court of Chancery, and from the fee-fund of the Com- mon Law Courts, of which a surplus of 20,000/. was annually paid into the Con- solidated Fund. Thus the work would be executed without any addition to the public burdens.

Sir EmuiLay WILMOT seconded the motion ; which was supported by Mr. HUME, and agreed to without a division.

THE EDINBURGH BIBLICAL PROFESSORSHIP.

The Earl of HADDINGTON adverted, on Thursday, in the House of Lords, to a statement of Lord Normanby on a former evening, that Mr. Candlish's appointment to the proposed Biblical Professorship in Edinburgh University had been abandoned, and the conflicting state- ment of Mr. Fox Maule in the House of Commons, that the result would depend upon ulterior proceedings. Lord NORMANDY said, that Mr. Made had certainly alluded to ulterior proceedings ; but, at the same time, he said that they could not be expected to influence Lord Normanby's ultimate intentions. If, however, the interdict which Mr. Candlish had broken were pronounced invalid, his character would stand in a somewhat different light. But it was not the intention of the Government, in the present state of the Scottish Church, to follow up the original intention of creating the Professorship. The Earl of ABERDEEN remarked, that the validity of the interdict did not affect the case; for Mr. Candlish was as much bound to obey it in the first instance as an injunction in Chancery : he might have moved its repeal, but he had not done so. The conversation then dropped.

MISCELLANEOUS.

SLAVERY COMPENSATION. On Tuesday, Mr. ROBERT Gonnow ob- tained leave to bring a bill into the House of Commons to facilitate the payment of compensation for claims upon the abolition of slavery.

NEW PENAL Colour. Sir CHARLES GREY gave notice of a motion, to be made on the I 1 th May, for a Select Committee to consider the fitness of the territory of Labrador for the purposes of a penal settle- ment.

Canaan RATES. On the same day, Mr. Earn:tom is to move for

leave to bring in a bill to abolish compulsory church-rates in England and Wales.

FLocorso IN THE NAVY. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, on Wednesday, men- tioned a rumour ot a case of flogging on the Sabbath which bad oc- curred in the Navy : had the Admiralty followed the example set by the Horse Guards in a recent instance ? Mr. Mona O'Fannar.z. said that the Board of Admiralty had issued an order to prevent a recurrence of the punishment on Sunday.

Fara ARTS. On the motion of Mr. HawEs, on Thursday, a Com- mittee was appointed to take into consideration the promotion of the fine arts of this country in connexion with the rebuilding of the new Houses of Parliament.

NEW MEMBER. Mr. WALTER took the oaths and his seat for Not- tingham, on Thursday. He was introduced by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Fielden.

SUNDAY TRAFFICKING. In the House of Lords, on Monday, a Com- mittee was nominated, on the motion of the Marquis of NORMANBY, to inquire into the extent to which goods are conveyed on canals, rail- roads, and navigable rivers, on Sundays. He had no intention, he said, to interfere with the conveyance of travellers ; but the transport of goods on Sundays led to scenes highly detrimental to public morals; and the boatmen and "others employed on the canals were prevented from attending Divine worship. The motion was seconded by the Bishop of LICHFIELD.

PRIVILEGE OF FELON PEERS. On Monday, the LORD Cassicarmort presented a bill to remove doubts as to the liability of' Peers of Parlia- ment from punishment in certain cases of treason and felony.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND. On Tuesday, the Mar- quis of NORMANDY stated the result of the inquiries which he had made respecting Mr. Biddulph's case, at the King's County Lent Assizes. On a former evening, Lord Normanby stated, on the authority of the Soli- citor-General for Ireland, that Mr. Biddulph was satisfied with the com- position of the Jury by whom the two men who had shot him were tried. Lord Charleville contradicted that statement, at the instance of Mr. Biddulph himself. Lord Normanby now read a letter from the Solicitor-General, corroborating his former representations by the evi- dence of five other persons, all the counsel but one who were engaged on the trial ; the other one being at a distance when the Solicitor-General wrote.

hum Poole-Law ADMINISTRATION. The Earl of GLEinaa.m. gave notice, on Thursday, that on Monday next he would bring the falsifica- tion of the Clonmel Union returns under the consideration of the House. The Marquis of NORMANBY said, that Ministers would not have retained in his situation the gentleman who had been guilty of those falsifica- tions; but Mr. Stanley had anticipated dismissal, by tendering his own resignation. Every one who had heard his examination, would pro- bably admit that there was no guile in Mr. Stanley, and that his cha- racter was perfectly unimpeached.

Caniesa WAR. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition, on Thursday, from the merchants and traders of Bombay, complaining of the interruption of the Chinese trade, and of nothing satisfactory having been done to restore it. Upon this, Lord ASHBURTON asked if Govern- ment had any information on Captain Elliot's convention? Viscount MELBOURNE said, they had not : the delay might be accounted for by the despatches being sent by sea and not overland. The Duke of WEL- LINGTON repeated the warning he had given in the year 1837, of the danger likely to ensue from the reduced establishments of the country, when circumstances existed in several quarters that might at any mo- ment lead to a war. Reduced establishments were the true cause of the present state of things in China, and of delay and losses elsewhere. The petition was withdrawn, on account of an informality.

ELECTION PETITION.

The Committee on the King's County Election Petition opened the inquiry on Wednesday. The petition is preferred against Mr. Arm- strong's election, by Mr. Bernard, the unsuccessful candidate. Mr. Armstrong enjoyed an annual compensation or pension, on his retire- ment from the office of Receiver-General in Ireland. The questions submitted to the Committee were, whether the pension was of a kind to disqualify Mr. Armstrong; and whether, if it were so, he actually en- joyed it or not at the time of the election. The election took place on the 20th February ; and at yesterday's sitting, Captain Frederick Romilly, the Private Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, said that he received a letter from Mr. Armstrong, resigning the pension, on that day ; but the resignation was not forwarded immediately to the Treasury. Mr. Armstrong, however, had given up his salary. The counsel for the petition maintained, that under these circumstances the resignation was not valid ; but the Committee decided otherwise ; pass- ing the usual resolution, declaring that Mr. Armstrong was duly elected, and that neither the petition nor the opposition to it was frivolous or vexatious.