obvious that a registration four times ayear gave the claimants for the elective franchise a much greater facility of obtaining their rights. It had been said, that the hon. Member for Bridport had himself complained of the frequency of the revision of the list of voters in this country, but he thought the observations of the hon. Member went to complain of the frequency of the investigation of the claims to the franchise, and not to the frequency of the opportunity to make those clauses. But he objected to the period of the year at which the noble Lord opposite proposed the annual registration should be made-namely, the months of September and October. This was precisely the season at which the persons of that class of life most affected by this bill would be occupied by other engagements. He repeated, that the period he had mentioned was extremely inconvenient. But what still remained? In England the personal attendance of the claimant at the registration court was not necessary, his admission to the registry was secured on the mere service of the notice of claim, whereas in Ireland, whether the claimant was or was not objected to, he must attend the court, produce his lease, or prove the value of his holding. But he (Lord Morpeth) looked upon the court of quarter sessions as peculiarly the court of the farmer, the yeoman, and the poor man. It was the court he was in the habit of attending as juror, prosecutor, witness, or as plaintiff in civil matters -it was, therefore, the court which of all others presented to him the facility of securing his right to the elective franchise. He, therefore, contended, that these quarterly sessions gave to the poor man those facilities of acquiring his right which the bill of the noble Lord would tend to take away and destroy, and expose him to great expense, inconvenience, and embarrassment. At the quarter sessions he would have the certainty of the attendance of competent professional persons to urge and defend his rights, whereas at the registration court all his rights would be thrown into the hands of rich associations formed to meet such cases. He maintained, that the period for registration ought to be changed, but he could not consent to change the authorities by whom the registration was to be made. It was not to the rich associations that to the interests of those independent voters upon whom it had intended to confer the franchise. On the score of convenience annual registration ought to be avoided. He would not trouble the Committee with the details, but a return moved for and obtained by the hon. Member for Belfast, showed, that in one year in the city of Dublin alone there had been no less than 7,750 notices of claims, and what, he begged to ask, would have been the state of things if those claims, instead of coming on at one court, had not been disposed of at the quarter sessions? The right hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden), on a former occasion, and the noble Lord opposite to-night had asked for some time to be allowed to the people of Ireland for breathing and repose. He desired repose for them whose right to vote had been solemnly adjudicated upon. The effect of the present clause would be to put four or five months between the time of a man entering into possession of his property and the period of his attaining the right to vote in respect of that property. He objected to the clause, on the still larger grounds of the expense, the embarrassment, and the inConvenience to which the voter under it would be exposed, and he trusted the Committee would retain the quarterly registration, and resist that innovation upon the system the people of Ireland now enjoyed, which the clause proposed. The Committee divided on the original question, that blank be filled with the words, 20th of July:-Ayes 275; Noes 271:-Majority 4. List of the AYES. Acland, T. D. Ashley, Lord Bramston, T. W. Broadley, H. Broadwood, H. Brownrigg, S. Burrell, Sir C. Burroughes, H. N. Calcraft, J. H. Campbell, Sir H. Canning, rt. hn. Sir S. Cantalupe, Viscount Cartwright, W. R. Castlereagh, Viscount Chapman, A. Cholmondeley, hn. H. Christopher, R. A. Chute, W. L. W. Clerk, Sir G. Clive, hon, R, H. Cochrane, Sir T. J. Codrington, C. W. Cole, hon. A. H. Colquhoun, J. C. Compton, H. C. Conolly, E. Corry, hon. H. Courtenay, P. Cresswell, C. Cripps, J. Dalrymple, Sir A. Darlington, Earl of De Horsey, S. H. Dick, Q. D'Israeli, B. Dottin, A. R. Douro, Marquess of Duffield, T. Dugdale, W. S. Dunbar, G. Duncombe, hon. A, Dungannon, Viscount Eastnor, Viscount Ingestrie, Viscount Inglis, Sir R. H. Jackson, Sergeant Egerton, Sir P, Eliot, Lord Jones, J. Ellis, J. Jones, Captain Estcourt, T. Kelly, F. Farnham, E. B. Feilden, W. Fellows, E. Peel, right hon. Sir R. Verner, Colonel Peel, J. Perceval, Colonel Perceval, hon. G. J. Pigot, R. Planta, right hon. J. Plumptre, J. P. Pollen, Sir J. W. Powerscourt, Viscount Praed, W. T. Pringle, A. Rea, rt. hon. Sir W. Reid, Sir J. R. Walsh, Sir J. Welby, G, E. Wodehouse, E. TELLERS. Fremantle, Sir T. Baring, H. List of the NOES. Filmer, Sir E. Fitzroy, hon. H. Fleming, J. Foley, E. T. Kemble, H. Kerrison, Sir E. Kelburne, Viscount Knight, H. G. Knightly, Sir C. Lascelles, hn. W.S. Lefroy, rt. hon. T. Lennox, Lord A. Lincoln, Earl of Follett, Sir W. Forrester, hon. G. Fox, S. L. Litton, E. Howard, hn. E. G. G. Pryme, G. Collins, W. Howard, F. J. Corbally, M. E. Howard, P. H. Cowper, hon. W. F. Hume, J. Craig, W. G. Hutchins, E. J. Currie, R. Hutt, W Dalmeny, Lord Hutton, R. Dashwood, G. H. James, W. Denison, W, J. Jervis, J. Dennistoun, J. Jervis, S. D'Eyncourt, rt.hn. C. Johnson, General Divett, E. Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Duff, J. Langdale, hon. C. Duke, Sir J, Lemon, Sir C. Duncombe, Viscount Lennox, Lord G. Duncombe, T. Lister, E. C. Dundas, C. W. D. Loch, J. Dundas, D. Lushington, C. Lushington, rt.hon. S. Macauley, rt. hn.T.B. Melgund, Viscount Murray, A. Nagle, Sir R. Norreys, Sir D. J. O'Callaghan, hon. C. Somerville, Sir W. M. Stanley, hon. W. O. Stansfield, W, R. C. Staunton, Sir G. T. Steuart, R. O'Connell, D. Stewart, J. O'Connell, J. Stuart, Lord J. O'Connell, M. J. Stuart, W. V. O'Connell, M. Stock, Dr. O'Ferrall, R. M. Ord, W. Oswald, J. Paget, Lord A. Paget, F. Pattison, J. Pechell, Captain Philipps, Sir R. Ponsonby, C. F. A. C. Philips, G. R. Palmerston, Viscount Pendarves, E. W. W. Strangways, hon. J. Strickland, Sir G, Style, Sir C. Surrey, Earl of Talbot, C. R. M. Tancred, H. W. Townley, R. G. Strutt, E. Phillpotts, J. Pigot, D. R. Pinney, W. Ponsonby, hon. J. Power, J. Power, J. Talfourd, Sergeant Tavistock, Marquess of Thornley, T. Troubridge, Sir E. T. Tuffnell, H. Turner, E. Turner, W. Verney, Sir H. Vigors, N. A. Villiers, hon. C. P. Price, Sir R. Protheroe, E. Vivian, Major C. Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. Ramsbottom, J. Wakley, T. Rawdon,Colonel J.D. Walker, R. Redington, T. N. Wall, C. B. Rice, E. R, Rich, H. Roche, E. B. Roche, W. Roche, Sir D. Rumbold, C. E. Rundle, J. Russell, Lord J. Russell, Lord C. Salwey, Colonel Scolefield, J. Smith, B. Smith, G. R. Smith, R. Somers, J, P. Sanford, E. A. Scrope, G. P. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Wallace, R. Warburton, H, Westenra, hon. H. R. White, A. White, H. Williams, W. Winnington, Sir T. E Winnington, H. J. Wood, C. Worsley, Lord TELLERS. Stanley, E. J. Several verbal amendments having been agreed to, the clause was ordered to stand part of the bill. Mr. O'Connell moved," that the Chairman report progress," Lord Stanley said, that although it was Wilbraham, G. Rutherford, rt. hon.A. House resumed.- Chairman reported progress.-Committee to sit again. Committee was accustomed to adjourn, he | founded his opinion. It appeared to him would not after the division, proceed fur- that amongst the great improvements in ther with the bill that night. manufactures by which late years was disColonel Sibthorp observed, that as he tinguished, no manufacture was more imperceived the noble Lord, the Secretary proved than the manufacture of petitions. for the Colonies was anxiously expecting And a most signal example of the perfechim to say something on the present occa- tion to which that manufacture was carsion, he felt it his duty not to disappoint ried was to be found in one of the petitions the noble Lord or the House. He would, to which the noble Marquess had referred. however, be very brief. He wished sim- That petition, which was from Edinburgh, ply to observe, that the noble Lord would and of which he had heard some account, be acting with more decency in the eyes was described as being most numerously of the country, if, after the repeated de- and respectably signed. On this matter, feats which he had recently sustained in one or two gentlemen had written to him, that House, and seeing how futile it was but he would not trouble their Lordships for him to attempt any longer to conduct with much that they said. It would apthe affairs of the country-that it would pear, that in consequence of the improvebe much more decent for him at once to ment of the times, petitions were now carresign. If the noble Lord possessed not a ried about by the ladies-the younger and political virtue, let him for once in his life handsomer, he supposed, the better. The assume it. writer of the letter to which he alluded stated, "that the petition was brought to his house by two ladies. The parties inquired, was his wife at home? They were told that she was not. They then sent the petition up to the nursery, accompanied with a message that all in the house belonging to the Established Church were to sign it. It was accordingly signed by one servant and two children, without their knowing more about what they signed than what they had learned from the message of the ladies. The elder of the children was twelve years of age, the other ten." He had received other letters of a similar character. He did not object to the petitions of the people being fairly and fully laid before their Lordships; but he confessed, that he thought the unsophisticated article was rather better than the manufactured article which he had described. As to the assumption, that all those who petitioned in favour of nonintrusion were, therefore, to be set down as favourable to the monstrous pretensions set up by the Assembly, it was no such thing. There were various shades of difference amongst the non-intrusionists. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Sugar Duties; Chimney Sweepers; Glass Duties.-Read a third time: -Colonial Passengers; Protestant Episcopal Church (Scotland). Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Normanby, from various places, against the Irish Municipal Corporations Downshire, from Belfast, against certain Clauses in the CHURCH OF SCOTLAND-NON-INTRU SION.] The Marquess of Breadalbane, in presenting several petitions in favour of non-intrusion, said, that the number of signatures attached to petitions in favour of non-intrusion amounted to 166,734, while those to petitions in favour of intrusion amounted only to 4,161 from this their Lordships might gather what was the general feeling in Scotland on the subject. The Earl of Aberdeen said, that on this, as well as on several previous occasions, the noble Marquess had referred to the number of petitions and to the signatures which were affixed to them that had been presented in favour of what was called the principle of non-intrusion, and the noble Marquess had pointed to these petitions as a proof that the principle was universally adopted in Scotland. Now, he would endeavour to show the very fallacious testi The Marquess of Breadalbane said, that notwithstanding the statement of the noble Earl as to the manufacture of petitions, he could assure their Lordships there was one general feeling throughout Scotland in favour of non-intrusion; and the very announcement of the noble Earl that these petitions were to be found in nurseries, and that ladies were engaged in procuring signatures, showed that that feeling existed MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRE LAND.)] On the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, having been read, The Marquess of Londonderry said, he rose to state his sentiments on this mea sure. Lord Lyndhurst: Does the noble Marquess mean to oppose going into Committee on the bill? did. establishment. In almost all petitions, down to the Commons a similar bill, ergo, some legal remedy had been asked for, it was their duty to send down this. Beand yet the noble Earl took credit to him-fore they passed such a measure, let them self that his bill made no alteration in the look to the effect which had been proexisting law. duced by measures that had already been enacted with reference to Ireland. Let them well consider the power which those measures had unfortunately thrown into the hands of one individual, who actually wished to overturn the connection between the two countries. That person had disseminated his proposals for a repeal of the union, and for the course which should be pursued afterwards through all the towns and cities of Ireland. His object evidently was, to place the Roman Catholics in full possession of the whole power of the country. When he saw such projects disseminated far and wide, he felt it to be his duty to raise his Irish voice against such proceedings, and to give the utmost opposition to every measure that was calculated in the smallest degree to foster them. Had the noble Viscount taken any measures for urging the Lordlieutenant of Ireland to put the law in force against such proceedings as he had described, and which in his opinion were decidedly illegal? When the individual to whom he alluded told the people of Ireland that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was formerly favourable to the Repeal of the Union, and that probably he held the same opinion still-when he declared, that unless he attained all that he demanded, he would, by every means that he could command, endeavour to effect a Repeal of the Union, it was time that an end should be put to such proceedings; and, above all, their Lordships ought to take care not to tolerate any measure that would throw additional power into such hands. On this point there was a passage so true and so strong in the speech delivered at their Lordships' Bar by a learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt) a short time since, that he begged leave to read it. The noble Marquess read an extract from the speech of Mr. Butt, in which the learned Gntleman, after alluding to the conspiracy which was proved before a Committee of their Lordships' House to exist in Ireland, emphatically called on their Lordships to say, "whether they would intrust the peace of the towns of Ireland to men who were notoriously connected with that conspiracy?" There were other parts of that speech, one particularly, that referred to taxation in Dublin, that were no less wor The Marquess of Londonderry certainly After the unanswered and unanswerable speech which they had heard from counsel at the bar against this bill, he could not reconcile himself to consent to the further progress of the measure under any circumstances. He admitted the abilities, the zeal, the perspicacity, of his noble and learned Friend who intended to propose amendments in this bill; but, in his opinion, nothing which his noble and learned Friend could propose could so alter the bill as to justify their Lordships in passing it. When they found petitions pouring in from every part of Ireland against the measure, he trusted that their Lordships would not sanction it. What would be the effect of the bill? It would take power out of the hands of those who were properly intrusted with it, because they had always used it wisely, and would throw it into the hands of a party who were adverse to the British connexion. He had expected when the bill was brought forward to hear from the noble Viscount opposite some answer to the statements contained in those most able and eloquent speeches that were made at their Lordships' Bar against the measure. But what was the sort of argument that the noble Viscount urged on the House? All they heard from the noble Viscount was, that their Lordships had already passed two such bills for regulating, or rather for subverting, municipal corporations in Ireland, and therefore that they ought also to entertain the present measure. He could not consider that to be any proper ground for agreeing to this bill. The argument, if argument it could be called, amounted merely to this-that because they had in two sessions sent |