might be resumed, for he saw no end of he had, he only followed the views enterhon. Members explaining. Sir H. HARDINGE assured the gallant officer and the House that nothing but his interest for the welfare of his country had induced him to take office. Mr. METHUEN hoped the Honse would take his advice, and proceed with the business of the country. Sir E. KNATCHBULL said the unnecessary animadversions of the hon. Member for Waterford had unfortunately produced warmth of expressions on the part of his right hon. Friend, and had led to the interposition of the Speaker. He expressed the general feeling of the House, he believed, when he said he regretted that the deference the Speaker was entitled to had not been paid him at a more early period than it had. There was no feeling on the part of the Government to bully hon. Members; all it wished for was to maintain its own opinions, and to vindicate them. It knew the firm position it held in the House, and the still firmer position in the opinion of the public, and was determined, as far as possible, to do its duty. An hon. MEMBER thought the Opposition side of the House might find out inconsistency without looking far from home, for he recollected that when the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. D. W. Harvey), on the Catholic question, said he looked forward to Catholic Emancipation, not upon its own merits, but for the opportunity it would open for the better use and direction of church-property in that country, the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Spring Rice) declared he would vote against the measure if he thought it would have the effect of applying church-property to other than its tained by a noble Lord now in office (Lord Mahon), who had a work attributed to him, called, "Three Months in Ireland, or Letters by a Protes ant." In this work there was an eloquent denunciation of the Orange system, and of its ruinous effects upon the condition of Ireland. (Lord Mahon denied being the author of the work in question). He could assure the noble Lord that the book was sold under the sanction of the noble Lord's name; and he would further observe, that in his opinion, the sentiments contained in that book reflected the highest credit on its author. Lord MAHON claimed the indulgence of the House while he replied to an attack which had been made upon him by the hou. Member for St. Albans. (Cries of No, no). He could assure the House that he was not the author of the book in question. He called upon all who knew him to say if he was one who was likely to have swerved from his principles. The hon. Member who thus attacked bin was not himself wholly free from censure, for very serious charges had been advanced against him. (Hear, and cries of Oh.) Mr. WARD said that the noble Lord who had deprecated personal attacks was himself the first to make a most gross and wanton attack upon him. (Hear, hear). He (Mr. Ward) admitted that matters occurred in reference to the Mexican mission that were painful to him. He admitted that he committed an error; but Mr. Canning, in the very last letter that he had from him, said that he (Mr. Ward) stood as high in his opinion then as he had ever done. (Hear, hear, hear). And what was the charge which the noble Lord, who, flushed with his few weeks of office (hear, hear), seemed to take so much offence at? Why, that the authorship of a pamphlet was attributed to him, Mr. WARD was glad that the Govern- the writing in which would have done ment had consented to this Committee; credit to his pen and to his feelings. but he did not see how the object of the (Hear, hear). The noble Lord had made Government could be carried into effect an attack upon him, which he was sure by excluding from the Committee honour-the noble I ord, upon consideration, would able Members who had strong feelings on the subject to be considered by the Com mittee. He had very strong feelings in reference to the state of Ireland; but if then uses. ON A MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE feel sorry for; and if he consulted Mr. Planta he would find that nothing that he had done affected either his personal or his political character. (Hear, bear). Lord MAHON admitted that what had ] tenths of it coming out of the earnings of occured to the Eon. Member affected the working-people. neither his personal or his political cha racter, and he had to express his regret BILL. to the hon. Member and to the House MUTILATION OF THE REFORM that he had been betrayed into expressions that could have given pain to the' hon. Member. We had constantly ringing in our ears, at the time when the King turned out the Whigs in disgrace; we had constantly This should all be read with great attention, and the reader should guard him-ringing in our ears, the allegation, that, self against wishing to take part on either to amongst other things, the new faction would set to work to "mutilate the Rethat the tax-paying clauses of the Reform form Bill." There can be no doubt Bill were intended to make the number of voters as small as possible; so also the shilling to be paid for registration; and how effectual these provisions have been for the intended purpose, we all know very well. The disqualifications having been so numerous as, upon an average of England, to lessen the number of voters in a degree of one third. IRISH CHURCH-PROPERTY. LORD JOHN RUSSELL brings on his motion next Monday, with a call of the House; and this motion is to determine Lord JoHN RUSSELL has brought in," whether, or not, this present Parliament and is carrying on, a bill, entitled, a will alienate Church-property. I hope it" Bill for the more effectual Registrawill determine to alienate it in any man- tion of Voters." In the preamble of the ner and any quantity that it pleases; though I am satisfied that it must all be alienated before there will again be peace and content in this kingdom. PENSION-LIST. bill, there is not, I believe, a single word about anything but the more effectual registration of voters; but the bill contains a good deal besides mere matter about the registration of voters; and if this bill pass, whether Lord JoHN intend it or not, it appears to me, that there will be a real mutilation of the Reform Bill; and if this should be the case, and proposed by the Whigs, and adopted by the Tories, it will be as curious an occurrence, as perhaps ever took place, even in the history of these wrangling factions. Upon this subject f have received a letter from a very intelligent correspondent, which I shall insert here, and then add a few remarks of my own. MR. CLAY asked Mr. HARVEY on the 23, whether he intended to persevere in his motion (for the 7. of May) relative to the swarms of pensioners; and I was glad to hear Mr. HARVEY answer, that he positively would persevere, and on that day. This is the motion to try the parties. Mr. CLAY wanted to bring on his motion about the Corn Bill. That is very well, too; but it is a mere nothing compared with Mr. HARVEY'S motion; that's the motion which will try the par"London, 21. March, 1835. ties to the quick. That is a motion for "SIR,-My object in troubling you cutting down the apple-tree; and the" with a letter is to complain of a bill' result will show us whether the parties" brought in by Lord John Russell, called, have changed their character; whether "A Bill for the more effectual Regis-' either of them will be for touching of "tration of Persons entitled to Vote those immense sums which these penin the Election of Members to serve sioners now take from the country; "in Parliament in England and amounting in the whole to a great deal Wales.' This bill is printed, and more than all the poor-rates; and nine-“ amongst the orders of the day' it stood "for a second reading, but did not come "jection to the Tories again coming into on, nor will it now be read a second" power, was the assumed certainty that "time until next Wednesday. "they would attempt to mutilate the Reform Bill. "According to the New Reform Bill," "which is now the law of the land, any person (see clause 27) who rents even a 66 Here is not an attempt, sir: here is a reality here is a doing of the thing 66 part of a house in any city or borough" itself: here is an actual mutilation of "to the amount of 107. a year, is entitled" the bill. One would hope that Lord on certain conditions, to vote for Mem-" John Russell does not perceive the effect "bers of Parliament. "of his bill; but whether he do, or not, "that effect must be to diminish the num"ber of voters, and, therefore, to mutilate "the bill; and if once a beginning be "made in this work, who is to tell us "where it will stop. 66 66 According to clause 28 it is not necessary to have lived a year in the same "house, but only that it be of the same "yearly rent and in immediate succes"sion, and in the same city or borough ; "that is to say, that the person claiming "to be on the list of voters, shall, for the "whole year, not have lived in any house "for which he has paid less than 10l. a year. According to clause 29, if I rent a piece of land in any city or borough returning Members to Parliament, and "there be any sort of building on it, and "the rent of the whole be of the value of "ten pounds a year, I, on certain condi"tions (i. e. claiming to be rated to the "poor; claiming to be registered, &c.) "have a right to vote for Members of "Parliament. 66 "Now, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in the "30th clause of his proposed act repeals so much of the Reform Act (being 2. of "William IV., cap. 45) as gives persons "like myself the right to vote, on account "of renting a part of a house to the "amount of 10l. a year. "And in the 31. clause of Lord John "Russell's proposed act, the right to vote "is taken from a person, unless he have "lived the whole year on the premises "for which he claim. "And by the 32. clause of this proposed act, a person now having a right to vote on account of a piece of land "and a house, rented by him to the "amount of ten pounds a year, will lose "that right unless the house, or such "land be worth 51. So that if the land "be worth 97. 10s. a year, and the house "be worth only 41. 10s., such renter will "not have the franchise if Lord John's "bill take effect. "I am, Sir, "Your most obedient humble servant, "A. B." I agree with my correspondent with regard to the tendency of this bill. With regard, indeed, to the inevitable effect of it; for it must diminish the number of voters, and it must, therefore, be considered as a mutilation of the Reform Bill. I agree with my correspondent also, in hoping (and, indeed, I must believe the fact) that Lord JOHN RUSSELL does not perceive the tendency of this new bill; for, even if I entertained, which I do not entertain, an opinion of his total want of sincerity; still the thing is so flagrant, that I must believe him to be destitute of common sense, before I could believe him capable of intending to produce the effects which this bill will inevitably produce; and I should hope, that his lordship, being made to perceive the real tendency of his bill, will be induced so to alter it as to remove the solid objections, so clearly stated by my correspondent. I I cannot, upon this occasion, omit to make an observation or two, of a more general character. The Reform Bill proceeds upon the principle, that property is to be represented, and not persons. will not, in this place, enter into an argument to show that the single journeyman, or labourer, whose earnings amount to probably forty or fifty pounds a year for himself, besides as much more as he earns for his employer to add to the wealth "I will only add, that Lord John be- of the country. I will not, in this place, "longs to that party, whose great objec-enter into this argument, which, however, is so firmly placed on principles of rea-| "Mr. Tilly: Then I am to understand son and justice, that it finally must pre- "that it is the non-existence of a streetvail; but I will, for the present, confine" door to a house that gives the right of myself to lodgers, who, in hundreds of " voting to 10. lodgers, and that, if I thousands of instances, have, upon the" can only persuade my landlord to get property-principle, a much clearer right "rid of the encumbrance of a street-door, to vote; a much greater stake in the" that will confer on me the elective country; are much more valuable to the" franchise? (A laugh). country, and are much more interested "The learned Barrister said that such in its welfare, than the mere renters of" was his opinion at present, and that be houses. "had no doubt, if houses were built after Some time ago, there was an applica- "the manner of the chambers in the inns tion made by Mr. BENJAMIN TILLY" of law, the franchise must be extended of St. BRIDE's parish in FLEET STREET," to lodgers. " an account of which application, and of "The Vestry-clerk, who appeared on the result of it, was published in the" the part of the parish for the purpose of newspapers, and which account I thought resisting the claim, said that the claim so valuable that I preserved it, and it was was resisted on different grounds than as follows: "that of the claimant being a 107. "lodger. LODGERS-HAVE THEY A RIGHT REVISING BARRISTERS' COURT, Oct. 4. Extension of the Franchise. "The Barrister inquired if Mr. Tilly "had given the proper notice. The vestry clerk stated that he had given the proper notice as specified in "the Reform Act, but that the parish of "St. Bride had a local Act, by which "On the list for the parish of St. Bride" the parish-officers were compelled to "being submitted for revision, "make the rate for the poor quarterly, "Mr. Benjamin Tilly claimed to be" which was always done by the third or "placed on the list, his qualification being " fourth of the month, commencing the "the occupancy of a first-floor at No. 19," quarter, which, when once made, can"Primrose-hill, Salisbury-square, for" not be altered, and that, therefore, the "which he paid a higher rent than 10%." officers could not put him on the rate "then due. 66 a year. "The Barrister inquired if the floor, "occupied by the claimant, was separate "and distinct from the rest of the build-" "ing in short, were the doors of his 66 apartments the only ones between such 66 apartments and the street? " "Mr. Tilly denied that it was necessary for him to be absolutely rated; for in clause 30 of the Reform Act it is said, 'that if the overseers shall neglect or refuse to put the name of such "claimant on the rate, such occupier 'shall, nevertheless be deemed to have "Mr. Tilly said that there was cer- quired whether his claim was not as "The Barrister said that that was true, good as that of a person renting cham-" but it could not have been intended "bers in the Temple and other inns of" that the parish-officers should be called "law, they being lodgers like himself," on to do that which a local Act of their " and yet they have the franchise? own prevents the possibility of their doing. " "The Claimant expressed dissatisfaction at his notice being frustrated by a The Barrister said that the absence" "of an outer door at the entrance of the building in the inns of law made each "chamber, or set of chambers, a sepa-" local Act, about which the public never rate house; that they were, in fact, so "heard before. If there should luckily many houses built one on the other," be an election within the year, I shall and became, by that means, separate certainly tender my vote before the "habitations. "returning-officer.. " LETTER III. * The Barrister : You can do so, and I argumente in suppert of this my proposi“would advise you to do it; and if a tion, to every part of which letter I Committee be appointed, I think you beseech the attention of my readers, it will have a right to be heard before being clear to me that, if we do not come *** them. But I must dismiss your claim to a just decision on this point, very great on the ground of insufficiency of notice; mischiefs urust speedily arise. “and, as I see that your object is to try "the question of the right of the 101. *lodgers (which is a very important question, and one about which I would give you my advice how to act were that the question before me), I would advise you to give notice immediately to "the overseers of your claim to be on the list for the next year, and then that question must be decided." Now, can it be pretended that the Reform Bill meant to shut out persons like Mr. TILLY? If it did intend it, its intention was most fraudulent and infamous; but if we take the proper words, and the fair and natural construction of the bill, it did not intend it. Even this case, however, show's, that there wanted a correction and explanation of the bill. It was, therefore, very right that a bill should be brought in for the purpose of more effectual registration"; but if this bill, when passed, shall be found actually to tend to diminish the number of voters at elections, what shall we not have a right to presume, to think, and to say, of the author of that bill? However, I have no doubt that Lord JouN RUS SELL, when he sees the tendency of the bill, will either alter it, or drop it altogether; though that something ought to be done is very clear. "NATIONAL DEBT." Boll-court, 25. September, 1833. Sir, In the preceding letter, I took you off the red herring scent, and, in putting you on the true scent, showed you, that it was the bushel of wheat; that it was the gentleman's standard, and not the Jew's standard, the market price of gold, that you ought to have been guided by. There now remains to be proved the third and the fourth proposîtions, stated at the outset of the aforementioned letter; namely, That the nation has paid the fund- Beginning with the THIRD, it is, in fact, already proved to all those who do not think that good faith requires that a man who has borrowed a bushel of wheat should give two bushels of wheat in return; and to those who are unjust enough or unflinchingly stupid enough to entertain such an opinion, all fact and all argument must be thrown away. But, the Jews endeavour to puzzle us, and they do puzzle stupid and besotted persons, by I HAVE given notice of a motion in the telling us, that those who lent their moHouse of Commons for proposing an ney, before the depreciation began, lent equitable adjustment with regard to this it in sterling gold, and not in vile and indebt; or, at least, some measure to famous paper. I shall by-and by havė exempt from the payment of the interest of it, all persons, except the holders of real property. I perceive that there is a petition coming from MANCHESTER, and one, I believe from OLDHAM, in accordance with my intended motion. I, therefore, republish, in the present number of the Register, my third and last letter to Mr. STUART WORTLEY, containing the enough to say upon the nature of this lending; upon the fraudulentness of the transaction from the beginning to the end; of the base usuriousness of the whole affair: I shall have to show and shall show that, even supposing the loan to have been a bona-fide loan; and supposing that the nation, a hundred years ago, had a right to contract debts to be |