The Sun. — London, England, 1831-10-07 00:00:00

' 1 no longer governed by that rudder wbi u ch s d to the most oken the lines of the enemy, and guide with barnacles, lOtious triumplisbut till it is covered has so often the td can no longer make its way in triump "n --(Cheers.) They will cling to it i t l i_l t . l h e r n t ( heeleheeoh'i; ,toetions mak e it linger behind the breeze h 'kle before the storm, and till the vessel itself ' 'Ptlis unfathomable, never, never to float two ',liters.) If that should be the fatal result of these sinks into ;Misters have peditions I fear that h will be seen the o .t . of the em ken on board with the m the whole proslier.i,e}m re. When they have dune this, I a s k them pilot who 'ry will not wish to see once more the cautious eines at Si. ould have kept them at their comfortable moo naut whether elen's?--(Hear, hear.) In almost every .ne.p,tonsenrthenyf ,is 13ill they have departed from the principles 1 I I population A down as its basis. W e now know ° for the first time made the basis of the t c l o l . n o s re tri a i ( e i i. m io i n tt : , i d f plan of Reform a basis that was never be l l had taken go the Constitution. If the Noble Eat taxation as ruperty as the basis of his measur e , or adopted an Ike standard of ... he would have a tad . . , n PloPtrtY, but the principle. - principle or the Constitution; lion alone is one which must lead to revolts on ; n is that in which the enemies f . o .e f s t o h f e n ettaayt trfiumph in the opposition of the forces i i pain that I ,. see Ile 4,,,1,41,,i1unerty..--(No, no.) It thus lA in i n e l ' i l e a r r s eh t to the I 'E r 1 and his colleagues uuntt,ieinyglhYalvients`l,l:lgd se Yes forward in such a career. 1' the klernselves to the spirit of discord, and th a t, too, art.n .e. iti)enndditi°ttsion whicph such bargains are . always made I „la_ to,.arY tar es, that the spirit shall toil for them_f ( o ( r m a ee s rs. ) a.nd that they shall be its slaves ever measure than that it 4! uno other objection to this meal should oppose it. fed not be dealt with in Committee,. Bill is upon the.. tgreat point of attack made by this no f r i en d . of It that °f the ootnination boroughs. I am m out by which th e r.,ystertno, and if any mode can be ld fio)eund effectually carried grate en, l'azynywhitTeolt of the coi.intry of the three orders ( ~on.t. ,:tll4teli cainel.d_i.et.pleerpeeetnunaeteetille:itehout its assistance, ( l e should propose to Ipr e , enr 8 ~:r ituopting that mode to the continuan • that you wee I8`eio• My objection is, see whether you . the 'call,)eta'sY the whole at once, before youuvery authority in the e0414,.4ny Part with advantage. rain this 'nation is connected with all E the ui r )s e o s s,ry i'onnection these boroughs are the sooner the bora„eflke first place, I admit that the centroul of these absolutely n m e a c i e n s - - laY fa is 4 °diulis, and I should say that the if your Lord- I ship,' / j o t get rid of them the better; _ t.O giv e , tl 'e has any interest in them, em0e,.,`.11) that interest in them. But then the question . I a should advise you ttienyl°,, van you provid e for the wants h a y Ai itii,t„,, 4l You have not some secure means of one or oth er i s;" of the Crown can always be Members "` to exist. I the tvh i C c ll' n s t the l - may Ouse, their responsibility will ceasel answer, that it ~4t`stold of the power of impeachment—eidom applied, anq n (i nlY f 0 terroron, because it is seldom It never I . . CP, itV" Produces the good expected from ti :'e 4 Ppli d - the ambitious Minister means . snit ac e to arrest , as a °r 1' ode - his power, but almost always ) Can any in the 'llt '4l'ariee a gainst the fallen.—(Cheers.,' „d arlibi ti,),:" Your Lordships believe that the atu!fellow ito,;t„lll..so, plotting against the liberties h ot . ms the fear of 011:'s, .v(r was arrested in his career y can you ex- Ptct Which might he rapid? Then haonwimpeachment, ithiehl to be seared by the fear of . -- _Lear, hear.) tut t h , necescarily, slow and uncertain.—(l ever sat on the other !I,lllust ambitious Ministers that ,ioterrti4 ,most of the table could not stand against would be sub- Je t P vi l l ° 4 and discussions to which they . I, there and the .trt, they forted,as„, e they remained in Parliament , •inst the daily eoentr that it i 8 for the advantage of nild always be ld seeured ( Y seats in Parliament . the liberty of la d , 11 ', or Ministers. It has been sai s d h( thatthey p w o o w u er u t f t i` i %.,11. waY into Parliament through the elastic It is precise)e '-onatitution. What is that elastic power? It y that which ~ ..i.• i- s propose to abrogate. responsibility i' b y th e til . - ""le" :On ' h s that in th e ... ! d os of nomination boroughs e in Parliament litirt tntinister is secured by that the inte . - ests a_rered certain ; and it is by that that There is his presence aorta dlivherties of the people areofsel the country 'Oven heean ea`idt'atanli'te'•edThh libertien o e f s great ability, t b . u n t ow it d ' o e ,. she!ti o ut of his power y an ni d out of Way .1 haPPen that every one of these men has there the battiellat_Q, !he HoUse of Commons, and wed the country Parlian . r a n s found w wwnich otherwise might have deluged the country ad teo bloodlessly fought upon t arena of that licsdd, Las been b loodlessly (ought is not all. Maine,' na.' e power s o But that than by It is h ) , a Inlttred--(Hear, hear.) it'usk. a" th f the by man been htooti:t provided, that h as wc.l°derful c ontrivance, less has Constitution have re ever 0 • when once such a person____ns, what- Ts the arena of the House of Comm" laaa PI41" he 'flay ent rtain about the the theatre of tis nwever been foolish "Hough e to overturn twh. and TOry°, illiar?4los9l but he with all Constitution, he the re,n' Whig "Tr 4td b, • ' aIW4YB united in anything l a g nd in doing so ih."s,otaila the privileges of parliament; real liberties of th e ti t e Y have Maintained and preserved theto sup t tend ° tittle tai Ple ' If we could diminish the evil w there is no Mai l Chbe Putting an end to the advantage, the Ministers— there is ° Would more cordially support ready than myself to ithout at the meet th no.rnari who would be more cannot do so r spec, e Wishes of the peopl e • but I d measure. It Ministers— is 'to Ns hasty, ill-timed, ' and ill-advise l islation. I prec.p.tate do rle.Peelliar prov to arrest ' i eg t o op ' Wish that yokehould have the with hut I i,dt°l,4 the Wishes and feelings of the coun try ) to have Inean:o reflect tiro, ."at More time was allowed for the co.udne_ay, 1 as the power permanently tr4_. upon this measure. I call for from Philip. dr uak °I calm consideration. " I appeal • this Bill not io triliP s ober." I wish to stzr-aleg,ative Reform, but to affirm it-1 ' I time to con sider wh ; I . r ' ° that when the people have this Bill shall by negativln l g v.s. I say, ha l ., he e.uer, When all the enactments of existence of the Which rs',,a,lopted, W 0 shall not have adopted that change coutrcu's in risk upon one (lie the whole be rei ;-(Hear) I d not believe that of pro er' ti ed with 0 object than that implore ring tittle rot any other 0,. it. I the the Bill will .1 : 4 1 to Rraa ' r .. the people to consider ' them from Ali -o,,equerie., theta this time, and save When an able peak 'ilti'gteoro,lt,r'''aneuel tilvir.,lAslliaret?ccnisteem) esnotnetime ago asked wa :v s h - ether Le th, he subject of th ' harter, he was . ed • and h„ tit" the Ch us to maintai place 6 :', B ‘'ered, , Char the c e ould be ' iner maintain n ," er , ni „, °My is it possible ) for s . - to take the I ' You r el _s we can create something both sides.) ; I slt, i o tiise boroughs ?--(Hear, hear, from . ' ' n the the Privt -1 orouthl e ,same manner, whether, without these close •PR hie, can be , th e r . prerogatives of the Crown, profPeaur,. eers, anti the liberties of the Commons examine the old 11 . ,,„ en co-existent ? I believe not. If we there were Perittis'itY of the try' shall find that when W" 11-?e° vigorous kig ' : e svere absolute despo e '!-- at aoh,, ..eltlP were deposed, Sometimes When dine-noPtdreioda the arh:, Aristocracy were the masters—when throwers li c e l : 1 of kip f:-"ies Were the putters }, u n p murde t r er d s_ when the Commons d 4 ,.,Pa t e p oas t' e , oAfter these Limey when e king ti'euri wbeicpeersstiouiliffiegdreateur pot‘oveti:e time or that Rl !here w a ' : l ' We have beep accustomed it) call the . glorious,privi_ was destr v o o y u e . lege, ~,--.,-,t constant at u le betwoen prerogative, end to these st,' it °e Th:bgogrough system has put ne a c n tion be tween tili,!gle,s.--loas maintained a peaceable con-, people /lav e en . '-e tnree powers • and from that time the is to be fod ieJthede p,erf.ec.t lihe'rty. The proof of this Look at th e „ , tirriinistration of justice and the laws. Look man Wit .orninistritiaor, ~,f •• 1 ° goe s hq judge - - rirnina justice , what are Political ~".t e 4 and jury whet cares who, in the ~,In,o.einions of either ? Is there any man_ight will h e 7, migration of civil justice, fears that his i (Hear, ,4, thrieated ort an 1 ii er,) That Y such account ? Certainly of ; a nd s.. , wnt the case in the times 0 ' when these ano,!,C,4e Otily hashes .n. the case from the time ,ed been Call ed lien Lave existed. Anomalies they have Irak__ wt agi l e ` : but I thmk them a perfection which man'. treste litmus legislators might ave vainly endeavonr e e v d e t .. o Aare ---(Cheers from both ) I wish to submit. IY N s ide s I admit that are Measure to a full consideration. and if • you tentsinihr sonie defects in the borough system •; a not be gin by y (We them, do so, in God's name ; but do if you fail, ta destroying the whole fabric. Remember,l hasrike Constitution will be ruined for ever. D o not act ) If ~ ttia;you 1 05 ,, , Jou adopt hasty course at the beginning, aW 4De flurried for 1t • destruction before you are r6ta-fi Yitoll.t. situation tilonnr; aatri( td then when ste it is too late, you it (w` Paetiis dierosePensustsbAeyteortr4trace your p r e-tr 4: easy t ° n but to tied revocare gradum superas." ), ; . a ''s a measure of this description, 44 -e! Leir steps, aind to Wonlldulet and security which now prevailed in the S t d i t t a ed e recover that degree of orde t r, 014 ~ Le rendered dillicult..--(Hear, hear.) l l l , e v a e admitted e" it Was advisable the great towns should a Lad yes, though he could not admit that theiriTinhteerveesrtys pr,ol4lder the existing system, been neglected.. places dia t i„ °f , the nourishing condition of these variouss eone"t!knahed for their commerce and manufactures in this Was a Y' 48 opa.red with similar places in other c d ou i n n tries, the tritis--,Proof that their interests Were not neglected l'rgedu Parlianaent.--(Cheers.) Let it not, therefore, be tatiito, ,„. as , a reason why Parliament should be reformed from - ''' notto h. I ' of the great towns in stto. .untry r neYert e a u t n t r e l ep riensetenrteesz lie did not, were to be „afrat'ela.the rneaaure because the great.towns h. right) however, be e , hired but (if we understood his Lords. 4' The Noble! 11 a their Lordships were to be disfranchised. Lu is 't d that they have excluded Pro lierryfrom . opposi e deny , the e a its due preponderance in tit St t But WIIP e ae. the •40 they pretend to regard the 10/. voters.-- 103. a week voters—as the representatives of wealth Reform. or of poverty ? He implored their Lordships not to pass the Bill; no good result could possibly arrive from it; this would only multiply the evils with which it was hoped to scare them.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lords opposite said, that this Bill would be a final settle ment of the question of Reform. From what docu ments did they arrive at drat conclusion ?—( Hear, hear.) For himself he must say he knew not.—( Hear, hear.) He begged to ask them if they had rend Mr. Cobbett's address to the electoral body, which it was proposed to create umler this new Bill? All persons who knew any thing of that man's writings must acknowledge his inge nuity and talents ; and did he suppose that they would put forward opinions which he knew would give offence to his constituents? Now, admitting this, he asked, could anything be more revolutionary than this address? He wished to draw their Lordships' attention to one other address—it was that of a person whose eloquence all who knew must admire, and who had afforded the Government most mateiial assistance. This gentleman, notwithstand ing the limits fixed by the Noble Lords, declared his ad hesion to ulterior measures—to the vote by ballot, for ex ample. Did they agree with this lion. Gentleman ? (No, ❑o.) Would they hear him out in the pledges he had proposed ?—(No, no.) They might not, but he was sure when the critical time came they would miss his support, and feel the strength of his opposition as they would that of many of the men who, differing with them upon principle, supported them upon the same equivocal grounds. He wished their Lordships particularly to attend to the pledges which had been made by men of talent and influence to these three. and-tenpenny voters. He wished them to look to the baneful power which had been usurped by those Political Unions which now held sway in many of the manufacturing to ems. —( Hear, hear.) He wished their Lordships to avoid the danger of eve❑ tolerating such assemblies. Such assemblies in this kingdom had their origin in the Jecebin Clubs, which spread detestation in another country, and which for a long period, and perhaps for ever, did then nip the bud of freedom; so much so, at least, that all thinking men might well entertain a doubt whether it would ever, with the fullness of hope, appear again. The first specimen upon a great scale that we hail in this country of such clubs was the Catholic Association ; and if men could doubt of the injury which it originally inflicted, let them only consider the dangers which were presented by its ghost.—(Hear, hear.) When the revolution in France took place, who would express a doubt that it was lamentable in its effects ; but still it was a revolution which left the country one and undi vided ; but if this Bill, in connection with the Irish Bill, should be carried, it would produce a revolution more la mentable still. We might, under any circumstances de precate a republic ; but how much more ought we to deprecate a republic, wherein the interests of one part of the kingdom would be set at variance with these of another ; and where discord would alone exist where an unanimity of feeling had before prevailed. If the Reform Bill passed, no man could reasonably doubt that a repeal of the Union roust follow ; and then the inevitable result would be, that at least, one part of the kingdom would be left subservient to the sway of some greater power.—(Cheers.) Lot d PLUNKETT then rose, but, in consequence of the al , sence of the Lord Chancellor, was prevented from addressing the House for some time ; when the Lord Chancellor had resumed his seat, his Lordship commenced his address to the House in a tone of voice which was only upon occasions, audible below the bar. The Noble and Learned Lord proce-ded to compliment the Peers who had spoken upon the Opposition side of the House, on the able and eloquent speeches they had delivered, and to observe, that when he heard the Noble Earl declare that he had only of late made up his mind to oppose the Bill, he could not avoid wondering at the degree of severity and sarcasm he had brought to the discussion. He admitted the ability which had been displayed by that Noble Earl ; but he really could not reconcile his indecision respecting this measure with the very great severity be exercised against those who introduced it. On the principle of the question, however, be could not find one new objection from the Noble Earl. It was said this Bill went to make a new Constitution ; and that the Government, as consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, could no longer be carried on. These were the only two positions of the Noble Earl—they were not new ones. Since the commencement of the discussions on this subject they had been frequently re iterated, and they now remained precisely in the situa tion that they did before, and would after the discussions. They were, in fact, mere assertions. It had been as serted, upon the authority of Noble Lords opposite, that the Ministers proceeded upon a fanciful theory, and that the grievances of the people were merely ideal; and that in pursuance of a mere speculation, Minis ters were destroying the established system, without any true regard to the public good ; that they were injuring all the great interests of the country, and com mitting excessive injustice towards individuals. To all these propositions he begged leave to offer a denial. He would not, however, be content with this ; but would say farther, he did not rest upon this denial, but would endea vour to show the grounds upon which he made it. It had been observed, that this Bill went to confiscate the rights of the people. He was entirely at variance with this opinion ; and he considered that the persons who made the objections were themselves the usurpers of the people's rights. He regarded the measure as purely remedial and reconstructive, and that the rejection of it was attended with danger, not imaginary, remote, and transitory, but I real, immediate, and overwhelming. When the Noble Earl stated his hesitation in arriving at any conclusion upon this question, he could help suspecting from his speech that there was something more than a mere desire to acquire information in his breast. The Noble Earl, however, had not brought forward one single argument against the principle of the Bill. But he thought that at this stage the question ought to he solely put to the test of reason and argument. With their Lordships' permis sion, and be assured them he would not trespass long on their attention, he would proceed to argue the asser tions he had ventured. There was one great satisfac tion in defending this measure at the moment that there was nobody who had spoken from the opposite side, except one Noble Earl, who declared himself altogether opposed to Reform, or who did net consider that some Reform was necessary.—(Cries of " No, no, no.") He believed that there was only one Noble Earl who had declared himself positively opposed to Reform.—(No, no.) It was impossible he could know what was passing in the breasts of Noble Lords; but he did not think any Noble Lord had given utterance to any positive objection to Re form. The Noble Earl to whom be alluded, too, had taken rather a whimsical course. He said the measure proposed was neither beneficial to the Sovereign nor the people, but was simply brought forward to keep the pre sent Government in their places—(Hear, hear, hear) — and that then many evils would result from this; of which the first would be war with Portugal; and the next and greater evil would be, that then we should have no war with France.—(Hear, hear.) Then all hereditary titles and property were to be destroyed, and all funded property to boot ; in short, all things fostered by the French Go vernment before the revolution. Every Noble Lord who spoke was, in his mind, excepting one, disposed to some degree of Parliamentary Reform. The Earl of FALMOUTH—No, no. Lord PLUNKETT begged his pardon. He did not wish to fasten upon the Noble Earl so odious an imputa tion. He might he permitted, however, to observe, that very many of the Noble Lords who had spoken on the other side were favourable to some degree of Reform, and yet it was strange that in their declarations of hostility to this Bill, they made declarations which were equally hostile to all Reform.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He did not think that the Noble Lords who opposed the measure had generally been very happy in their argu ments against it, or in the way in which they brought them forward; hut there was one Noble Lord whom he regretted to find against the measure. That Noble Lord had spoken with peculiar ability, and great force and elo quence; and when the Noble Viscount observed that the Noble Marquis behind had not answered the arguments of that Noble Earl, he admitted the fact. He admitted the Noble Viscount was correct in his argument; but he con tended, that from the very extensive admissions made by the Noble Earl, he had not the means of answering hi s arguments. The Noble Earl gave up the nomination boroughs—he would grant representatives to the large towns—he would increase the constituency of die ennet i ee —he would have no objection to a measure, and by no means an inconsiderable measure, of Reform--he consi dered that such a measure must be granted to the country; and in a word, the Noble Earl had offered no objection which -night not be satisfactorily met in the Committee. —(No, no.) He thought, however, notwithstanding this expression of dissent, that, after the admissions of tha Noble Earl, he was correct in his conclusions.—(NO, no.) He must say that, considering the way in which the mea sure came before their Lordships, it was entitled to their most deliberate and indulgent attention. It had been in troduced by a set of persons than whom none were less exposed to the charge of personal motives. Session after session, year after year, they had supported the Noble ])uke with a degree of self.devotion which was beyond example in his measures for the improvement of the country, and especially in the great question which con ferred their rights upon the Roman Catholics —a measure which, he admitted, entitled the Noble Duke to the inter !' minable gratitude oh the nation. In the month of No. veinher last the Noble Dulie, he believed, retired, and his retirement was connected with the subject of Parliamentary The Duke of WELLINGTON—No !. Lord PLUNKETT said he did not wish to misrepresent he Noble Duke. But he believed the Noble Duke had said, that Feeling he had not the confidence of the House of Commons, and apprehending that if the question of Reform was brought forward, upon which he I,ad ex pressed a decided opinion, he would he left in a minority. The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble Lord misrepresented him. What he had said was, that finding he did not possess the confidence of the House of Com mons he had decided upon retiring from his Maj,sty's ser vice, and h had fixed upon the day of his retirement, on ziecount of the vote which had been given against his Ad- • ministration upon a particular day. He had stated over and over again, and in the presence of the Noble Lord, and he stated it again to-night, that he bad retired because he did not thiok it expedient that he, not possessing the con fidence of the House of Commons, should attempt to go on. He saw, from a vote of the Ilouse of Commons, that he did not possess its confidence, and he did not, with this knowledge, think it becoming his character, either as an individual or a Minister of the Crown, to at- mpt, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to carry on the Government. Lard PLUNKETT said that he understood the Noble Mike had accompanied that statement by the expression of his apprehension, that in consequence of the want of con fidence which the House of Commons had shown in his Government, he should be defeated on the question of Par liamentary Reform. The Duke of WELLINGTON repeated, that he had no intention of resigning until after the decision of the House of Commons on the question of the Civil List. He fixed on the day upon which he had resigned, because there was a great question, whether relating to Parliamen tary Reform or any other subject, coming un in the House of Commons, and he did not conceive that it would be advantageous to the public that that question should be debated by a Government which had lost the confidence of the Hous,. Lord PLUNKETT resumed, and said that the impres sion on his mind had certainly been that the Noble Duke had resigned in consequence of his apprehension that he should be defeated on the question of Parliamentary Re form. Nay, further, he had understood the Noble Duke to have declared, not only that he was not prepared him . . self to bring forward any question of Reto:m, but that he could not consent to form a part of any Administration prepared to bring forward any plan of Reform.—(The Duke of WELLINGTON, across the table—" No, no.") He (Lord Plunkett) was in the judgment of the House whether that was not the impression made by what had fallen from the Noble Duke on the occasion to which he alluded ? (Several Noble Lords exclaimed, " No, no, no.") The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to order. He should neglect his duty in the situation which he had the honour to hold as the Speaker of that House, if he did not tender to their Lordships his suggestion and advice as to what ap peared to him to be an undoubted point of order. That suggestion was, that there was one, and but one, orderly mode of setting a Noble Lord right with respect to any erroneous statement which he might be supposed to make. If a Noble Lord misrepresented another Noble Lord either wilfully (which, however, was not to be presutmd possible) or inadvertently, and the Noble Lord so misrepresented chose to set himself right with their Lordships, the only time to do so, according to the strict order of the House, was after the Noble Lord had sat down in whose speech the al !edged misrepresentation occurred. But it constantly hap pened, and it was a most convenient practice in order to prevent a long argument founded on an involuntary misre presentatation, that in such a case a slight interruption of the Noble Lord who was speaking was permitted. Such a practice, however, must have its limits. After one or two such interruptions, any further interference could be productive of nothing but confusion. The time would ar rive at which a correction of the shtement might be made • with strict propriety. He was sure that the Noble Duke's good sense would show him the propriety of this rule. He would only state further that there was one species of setting a Noble Lord, who was speaking, right, that was contrary to all order ; he meant the interruption of mere bystanders, of Noble Lords who were not misrepresented, and who were not parties personally interested on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that if the' Noble and Learned Lord chose to go into a chain of reasoning founded on a mis-statement of the fact, he (the Duke) could not help it ; hut he would assure the Noble Lord that he should proceed without any further interruptionfrom him. Lml PLUNKETT declared that nothing could be further from his wish or intention than to mis-state anything which had fallen from the Noble Duke. Undoubtedly there was a marked difference on the occasion to which he had alluded, between the sentiments of the Noble Duke and the senti. ments of a Right Hon. Colleague of the Noble Duke's. The Noble Duke had stated not only that he was not pre pared to propose any measure of Parliamentary Reform, but that so long as he held office he should strenuously oppose such a measure. But the Noble Duke's Right Hon. Colleague had stated in the other House of Parlia ment, that— The Earl of HARROWBY rose to order. It was not in conformity to their Lordships' rules to support any alleged difference of opinion between a Noble Lord and any other individual, by a reference to what that other individual might have been supposed to have said in the other House of Parliament. Such a practice was con trary to the orders of both Houses. Lord HOLLAND, on the contrary, maintained that it was not disorderly to allude to what the Right Hon. Baronet in question had said in a former Parliament, because that had now become matter of history. Lord PLUNKETT observed that if it was disorderly to make such allusions, he was surprised that the Noble Earl who had last spoken had been allowed to make them so copiously. The Right Hon. Baronet to whom he alluded had declared, not loosely and vaguely, but in a steady cau tious manner, that the then Cabinet was not prepared with any plan of Reform ; and that, therefore, having been beaten on the question of the Civil List, he felt it his duty to resign. The Noble Duke had declared not only that he was not prepared with any plan of Parliamentary Reform, but that while he remained a Minister of the Crown he should feel it to be his duty to resist any mea sure of that nature that might he proposed. The result which he (Lord Plunkett) drew from this was that the late Administration broke up under the impression that in the circumstances in which they found themselves placed, they would be unable to meet the question of Parliamen tary Reform in the House of Commons. The present Administration was then formed, avowedly on the principle of Parliamentary Reform, and with the conviction that the Government of this country could not go on without it. The late Administration had no option but to resign. Was it any ground for attack on his Noble Friend that, being called upon by his Sovereign to carry on the Go vernment of the country, he had felt it his imperative duty to obey that call, and that he did undertake to carry on the Government of the country under the very difficult and arduous circumstances of the time? His Noble Friend, immediately on the acceptance of office, had stated to their Lordships and the country the prin ciples on which alone he felt that he could carry on the Government. The prime and chief of those principles was Parliamentary Reform, and accordingly, with as much speed as the circumstances of the case would admit, the question of Reform was brought under the consideration of the late Parliament. A Noble Lord had asserted, with reference to the feeling of the people at that period on the question of Reform, that it was only a breeze, which his (Lord Plunkett's) Noble Friend and his colleagues bad fanned into a hurricane. Now, he (Lord Plunkett) did not think that a breeze could have driven the Noble Duke from his post. He was sure it must have been a hurricane. That hurricane his Noble Friend had adopted the only rational means of allaying. A measure had been introduced into the House of Commons in the late Parliament substantially the same as that now under the consideration of their Lordships. The measure had been canvassed in all its parts by both sides of the House. It had undergone a severe scrutiny on the part both of the friends and of the enemies of Reform. On the first divi sion upon that Bill the majority was only one ; and Mi nisters, finding that they could not carry it through that House of Commons, took the opinion of his Majesty on the expediency of appealing to the sense of the people on the subject. It was an undoubted prerogative of the King to dissolve Parliament for that purpose ; and it was accordingly dissolved for the express and avowed purpose of ascertaining the sense of the people on the question of Parliamentary Reform. That sense the people expressed almost with unanimity; and they expressed it with refer ence not only to Parliamentary Reform generally, but to this particular measure, which , had previously been so closely canvassed in the late Parliament. They had even delegated Members to support that particular measure. lie appealed to their Lordships whether the late elections had not been conducted with a degree of order that—(A laugh)— perhap s the Noble Lords who interrupted him alluded to Ireland; but none of the disturb . ances which had occurred in that country had been connected with the elections. — (Hear, hear, oh, oh.) Really these interruptions were very disorderly, and if they were persevered in, he should feel it impossible to go on. A Noble Lord had made an . attack upon this subject not merely on the Government, but on the people. He had declared that they were in- capable of forming an opinion on the measure. Yet the tranquillity and propriety, although at the same time the firmness and determination with which they had conducted themse;ves at the late elections, proved that they were capable of forming an opinion on it. If the elections were conducted with the greatest tranquillity and propriety, the discussions in the House of Commons were carried on with equal delib;ration and perseverance, and the proposed measure, after some a mendments were made in it, passed through the House of Commons by a majority approaching as nearly to unanimity as could possibly he expected in a litigated proceeding. Such being the facts, it appeared to him to he most extraordinary, that a Noble Marquis should assert that the petitions of the people were for Reform generally, and not for this specific measure. Having passed through the House of Commons, the measure was now before their Lordship ; and surely it was entitled to some consideration. Their Lordships were only exercising their just rights and privileges in investigating the merits of the measure. Bot still they ought to look to the consequences which might ensue from its ri-jec tion. Although their Lordships were only exercising their just rights and privileges us investigating the merits of the measure, it was no light recollection that they were sit ting on a measure upon which the judgment of the people of England had been already pronounced; on a measure which related peculiarly, and indeed exclusively to the rights and privileges of the people. And, therefore, Ile could not too anxiously implore their Lordships, before they adopted the desperate resolution of rejecting the Bilk to reflect upon the consequences which might follow such a step. Whatever might be the fate of the Bill, every thinking ma❑ must be satisfied that it was entitled to their Lordships' most respectful attention, supported as it was by the wishes of the whole people of England. It was true that he bad beard some smart sarcasms thrown out upon the people of England.—(No, no.) Yes ; some smart sarcasms, and polished epigrams. But be must beg leave to say, that the people of England, to judge from their conduct on this occasion, wore not a light, giddy, fantastic multitude—that they were not a wild rabble .i.ctlng under the influence of a temporary delusion. On he contrary, they had shown themselves to be a great, a moral, a virtuous community ; as much entitled to re spect, and having as strong claims to the consideratio❑ of their opinion, as any nation either in ancient or modern times: When, therefore, it was asserted that the presem measure must not be carried, because, if it were, carried, the people would overturn the throne, the altar, and the church lie denied the truth of the assertion. The people of Eng land were tea wise, they were too sensible of the value of the blessings which they enjoyed, to be guilty of any such rash and foolish conduct. If our institutions were such s taasionutghlt e i oi t . o beTshuestain assertion the rtiot lt people olvi,iei of England , heal s fo i r i was not only a libel upon the people of England, it was also a libel on our iustitutions. Had their Lordships any reason to believe that the feeling of the people on this sub ject would die away? Had they any reason to believe that the opinion of the great majority of the House of Commons respecting it would change ? If not, and they rejected the Bill, they would lock the wheels of the two Houses of Parliament in such a manner that the machine of the State could not go on. What would be the conse quence of such a state of things ? A Noble Lord had told them that lie did not regard the consequences ; but that feeling certain inconveniences attendant on the measure, be would shut his eyes to the consequences of rejection, and reject it. Such, however, he (Lord Plunkett) hoped was not the general feelings of their Lordships. They would regard consequences ; and he therefore called upon them to consider how the affairs of the country could be conducted after the rejection of the Bill. Where was an Administration to be found with strength and means to carry on the Government of the country? The Noble Duke opposite would undoubtedly be the first person to whom the eves of the public would be turned under such circumstances. But if the Noble Duke found it impossible to carry on the Government at the period at which he bad resigned office, was it possible that he would be able to carry it on under the circumstances which the rejection of the Bill by their Lord ships must necessarily create? If, at the former pe riod, feeling be had lost the confidence of the then House of Commons, the Noble Duke had resigned from an ap prihension that his Government would be defeated in the approaching trial of strength in that House, did he think would have a better prospect with the present House of Commons? What the Noble Duke's views of Reform were, be had openly stated. What might be the course pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet, recently the Noble Duke's colleague, it was indeed not so easy to determine, anibiguoua as had been that Right Hon. Baronet's decla ration with respect to the extent of Reform in which he was disposed to concur. It was not the threat of violence or of insurrection which he felt assured was likely to influ ' ence their Lordships. He was well assured that there was not one of the Members of their Lordships' House, whe ther a supporter or opponent of the Bill, who would not with heart and hand join the Government in every exer tion to repress any attempt at violence or a disturbance o the public tranquillity. The danger was not that th e people would be guilty of any acts of violence ; for they r seemed to posses too much temperance and discretion fo . a course of that kind ; but the danger was that the Go vernment could not go on ; that public confidence would be withdrawn from the authorities, and that the country would be reduced to utter anarchy—a condition much more fearful and more formidable than any in which they could be placed by ill-concerted popular disturbances. The danger was, that the feelings of intense disappointment which followed the delay of the measure which they had so much at heart, would, if not allayed by prompt con cession at the present moment, burst out at the hour of difficulty and distress in such a manner that the Government would cease to be respected, and the State reduced to anarchy and confusion.—(Hear.) He knew well there was a considerable number of their Lordships, who would be glad to discover any reasons which could induce them to think the safety of the institutions of the country could be reconciled with the provisions of the Bill. (H e ar, hear.) He should therefore take leave to direct their attention more particularly to the question be fore th e m, and lie would ask them what it was they were called on to do? Ott what point they were called to com mit themselves with respect to the national institutions.-..., (Hear.) In the first place, then, he would ask them, were they in their proper place when they threatened to commit themselves in a dissension with the Commons on the subject of a Reform of their system of representation? The House of Lords was invested by the Constitution with high and important privileges, and possessed an undoubted right to exercise their independent and un biassed judgment on every question which could be pre sented to them. They were the hereditary Counsellors of the Crown, Judges in many criminal and civil coos's, en joying a well understoodt espe e place tn and d in r reverence eSoteaote, of aand great en entitled to and receiving the respect ma jority of their fellow-subjects.—(Hear.) When, therefore, it was said that their Lordships were bound to maintain the rights and privileges of their station, he would ask, were there any of them endangered by the Bill ?—( Hear.) What was it, then, that the Members of that House clai me d ? Why they claimed also to retain the power, to i of f the the I louse throne, f Commons or o f tthe share in the representation of th e people.—(Hear, hear.) claimedT her might to becases in share in the which, rights House of Lords, that their Lordships would be bound to resist, at whatever risk, or whatever cost. But was this a case of that kind? Was it fitting that the House of Lords should enter into a struggle with the House of Commons, in order to retain the right of controulling a portion of the representatives of the people ?—(Hear.)— Do as you would be done by, was a maxim at once s imple and sublime, and bearing distinctive marks of the sublimity of its origin.—(Hear, hear.) If the House c f Lords found it necessary to regulate the concerns of their own House, and the distribution of the titles of a hereditary Peerage, and to send an Act of Parliament for that purpose to the House of Commons, would nut the M e mbers of the House of Peers think themselves very un fairly treated if the Commons rejected that act, or if they introduced such modifications and amendments as totally altered its nature, and nullified the advantages expected to be derived from it—modifications to which their Lord ships would feel themselves bound to submit ? The two case s, he admitted, were violent ones, but, in point of prin ciple, they were the s ame as t h at now presente d to t h e i r Lordships attention. The principle, in fact, which their Lordships claimed, to retain a power over the representa tion of the people, was an un i ntellig ib le pr i nc i p l e. I t was a claim on the pa r t o f the ol i garchy to reta i n a port i on of the democracy, a n d h e confessed he cou ld not un d erstand t, e defied en the professors which h f phrenology oleoigt enable ltoo manfinti an g of fcomprehensiveness to u nderstand it. There was, however, another point con nected with th e Principle which deserved to he mentioned. The Members of the House of Lords did not possess the privilege of sharing in the representation of the Commons. There was many who hail no part in it. Those who did not possess the power were, therefore, thrown into the Aristocracy or w ords w with n ti ving shownic'ot he the should g respect t t shade of the other s , an d i t was one o f t h e mer i ts of t h e Bill that it pla ce d all their Lordships on an equal footing that in this respect, an d put an end to those privileges which were odious to th e people and unjust with respect to their claimedno, by Lordships say a themselves. fewthe t he Bill would pro d uce on the rights of the throne . Those rights we re we ll known to their Lordsh i ps. H e were e tenable,i the effect which roub dlt' need not, therefore, explain them ; but he contended that the Bill did not in the slightest degree interfere with them. He believed that no doubt was cast on the right of the King to call up whom he pleased to share in the hereditary honours of that House. Into that question, therefore, he should not enter. He had beard no one either express a doubt that the King had a right to make himself known to his people, and to prove his title to reign in the hearts of his loyal subjects. He knew that a great deal of constitutional trash had been put forth on this subject. That the King's name was not to be used to influence the debates of either House, was a maxim not to be qu,stioned ; that the King could do no wrong Was a principle of the Constitution ; but tn hear it as serted, as they had frequently done in the course of the I debates, that the King of Englanda descendant of the House of Hanover, of that family which had been brought to this country to secure the tights and liberties of the people—to hear it said that such a King was not at liberty to make himself known to his subjects ss their patron and the defender of their privileges, was a kind of trash not to be listened to for an instant ,—(Hear, hear.) His tory had been ransacked in the course of these debates ; hut it seemed onl7 for the purpose of perverting the facts which were to be found its it. They had heard of the times when boroughs were suits:semed to send Members, and when they ceased to exercise that right ; but he ap prehended these were stal*cts much fitter for the antiqua rian than the statesman, and not at all connected with the question under their Lordships' consideration. There seemed indeed to be no doubt that the King issued writs at his pleasure, in the earliest times, in order to false the opinions of his people with respect to the measures to he executed ; but lie should like to know how the practice of selling seats could have any connection with the preserva tion of the Government. He could conceive a case in which a measure demanded by the unanimous voice of the people, and recommended by the King, might be resisted by those t , lits possessed the power of :selling seats. He coul conceive a cane in which the King might wish to choose the persons who ttere to form his Government, • and the measures they were to carry into effect, and yet that the 150 persons who traded in or purchased these seats might nay that they could not consent to this, • because it would endanger the Monarchy anti the national F institutions. The argument of these persons is, that if the people were fairly represented, and their power taken : away, the Government could not go on. Pot what does that amount to? Why, this—that the Government of England is not a representative Government.—(Hear.) In a representative Government the people have no right to interfere personally in the affairs of that Government, for that would be democracy—but then they are excluded only because they are fairly represented.—(Hear.) if the • people were altogether excluded, that would be aristo cracy—if admitted to interfere in the affairs of Government without restrictions, that would be democracy ; but the representation of the people, a full and fair representation, united with the aristocracy and the Sovereign, formed that mingled system which was the Constitution of Eng. f land. A Nobi Earl opposite (we believe Carnarvon; contended that the strengthening of popular representation would destroy the Constitution. He (Lord P.) contended that the Constitution is destroyed the moment it was de clared not to be representative. What could be more monstrous in the present state of public feeling than to hear it asserted that these boroughs are retained as a part of the Constitution, because they do not represent the people, and that there would be an end of the. laws, of our insti tutions, of Church and State, and of the Whole Constitu tion, if that representation was to be rendered perfect by the destruction of such boroughs? He confessed he felt ashamed that night in hearing the name of the Divine Author of our being made use of by a Noble Earl in de fending a system of so touch hypocrisy ; and he trusted that the Right Reverend Prelates, who had been so often appealed to, would feel it to be an additional reason for putting an end to the juggling system which called that hypocrisy into action. If the theory of the Con stitution supported the arguments used on that sub ject, he should like to know where that theory was to be found ? In what treaties, in what author, were they to look for it? The system, as far as he could understand it, was this—a Noble Lord had a borough, for which he re ceived either 5,0001. or 1,000/. a year, as need be ; or i , nominated for some other consideration two persons to represent him in the Commons House of Parliament. These persons revolved round the great proprietor on his orbit. They, again, had others who, at an humbler distance, revolved round them ; and so the whole per formed their septennial revolutions on the system assigned to them. This was the plan ; but he defied Descartes himself to explain, or reconcile this plan of whirls and gyrations with the order of the system in which it was found. The secret, indeed, seemed to be communicated to but a few. The inhabitants of borough A and B wet e I favoured depositories of this secret of nature, and to them was entrusted the power of sending forth missionaries to propagate the faith, and to oppose all efforts of unbelievers to disturb or to change it. It had been said that the Constitution of the Houses of Parliament had undergone no change, and that no attempt should be made to amend it. Why, the Constitution of the House of Lords was undergoing continual changes. The original right to sit in that House was by tenure of land ; but scarcely a shred of that original right was now left in the present posses sors of that privilege. It was altered when the two mitred Abbots were swept away in the reign of Henry the Eighth. It was altered by the Union with Ireland, which introduced Peers to sit for life; by the Union with Scotland, which brought in Peers for a Session, and by the permission to the Irish Bishops to come in by rotation. Difficulties were, however, raised with respect to the extent of the change introduced by the Bill, and was it contended that having admitted so much, they must go still further. What, he would ask, in measures of thit kind, was the duty of a Statesman? It was the duty of a Statesman to watch the demands of the state—take a high position in ministering to the people's wants—to examine what are their rights, to ascertain what are his duties, and, if he felt it in his power to do good, to raise the standard and advance.—(Hear.) When the end was accomplished, it was equally his duty to moderate the p o p u l ar d eman d s ; and when . he found he had led them to a state of happi ness and safety, to advise them as a friend, or to resist them as a leader, and to insist on their not invading the pro vince of the Li gislature, or continuing to disturb the state of tranquillity and happiness earned by their previous ex ertions. That was the province of a Minister and a Statesman ; and he was confident that, exercised as he knew it would be, they had nothing to dread from the growing good sense of the people of England, or any rea son to apprehend that they would seek to pass the hounds which the Legislature allotted them--(Hear.) After observing that he saw nothing in some of the foolish de mands formerly put forth in Westminster and elsewhert, on the subject of suffrage and the duration of Parliament, to justify him in thinking that the great mass of the people would not be satisfied with the degree of power conferred by the Bill, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to answer the arguments of those who contended that the Constitution worked well; and argued that it was a great fallacy to say, because our institutions were good, that our system of representation must be also good. The laws and institutions of the country deserved far higher panegyrics than be had language to bestow on them. The Judges of the land were honest and learned. The Juries were upright—justice was impartially administered. Our armies were brave—our navies admirably appointed. The finances well regulated—(A laugh from the Opposition) —all the institutions of the country were the most perfect that the wit of man could devise ; but the great good was wanted. The people were not satisfied—(Hear, hear, hear, from both sides of the House)—and it mattered not bow well fed, or how well clothed they might be, unless they were also sensible of enjoyment and content with their share of political rights. If working well was enough, why, he would ask, did not the Parliament of Ireland work well ? There were in that Parliament 200 persons, who were as completely independent of the people of Ireland as if they had been elected in Siberia ; and yet there never perhaps was a Parliament more profligately corrupt. The very profligacy of that Parliament was the cause which made the Union necessary. But although that system of representation was so bad, the country advanced from comparative barbarism to civilization, and from poverty to wealth. She had thrown off her had laws, she had repealed her barbarous penal code. Under the auspices of the ancestors of my Noble Friend, Lord Charle mont, and my Itlustrious Friend, Mr. Grattan, she had ob tained free trade. She had obtained these advantages under a system of representation so grossly imperfect that it was thought necessary to extinguish it. It was the same as to Scotland. It was ludicrous to talk of the Scotch system of representation, and yet Scotland bad made the mosi rapid advance in p ro sperity.—(Hear, hear.) Th e S co t c h people were actually in the enjoyment of a high degree of prosperity and improvement, and still the people of that country were not in a state of quietness ; they were in a state bordering on fury, on the chance even of the Bill theirtv ie ,o d e nrg see ort rights, f ah etxGsp, enlightened,loaavi nenrtnhmalatieitbdne; Government, ixi and lay ttsie.dn d aeTi extended their desire srh u ieer n ie i r a , eb n kryen obolst.vhl nature. endr: In pro- L o i n g rejected.—(Hear, hear.) It needed no great know portion as people were prosperous —in proportion as they re moved, in to obtain permanent security for their t h a t proportion did they become sensible of the imperfee et—ptohrpjoeiupcmssetr ty, on which he should like to address their Lordships, but he would not trouble them any further. The Noble Lord sat down amidst amnia cheers. Earl ORE 7 and Lord Wes:roan rose together; call of the House was for Earl GREY, who went on to state, that it was certain that the debate could not be finished to-night, and certain that it must be continued to-morrow; and therefore he proposed that the debate he then adjourned.—(Cries of " Adjourn," and " Go on," most of their Lordships rose • to go away.) The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question of ad journment. Lord WYNFORD, amidst much confusion, made an effort to address their Lordships. We understood him to soy that he was ready, though he must always feel embar rassment in addressing their Lordships on such a subject, to go on then, and he felt confident that he should ad vance sods facts hearing on the principle of the Bill,whick the Noble and Learned Lord had promised to explain, but bad not, and draw such infere nces from them, as would satisfy their Lordships, and even demonstrate to them, that the II ili ought not to be adopted. If, however, the Noble Earl found proceeding pers onall y inconvenient to he would not then press to continue the debate.— (" Go on," and " adjourn.") Earl GRR could not claim any personal indulgence from their Lordships: He had already received a large share in being allowed to address them at great length, and hoped to meet the same indulgence should a reply be necessary ; but he felt that his attention was then ex hae,ted ; and as there was no hope of concluding the de bate to-eight, he proposed that the House should then ad porn. They might probably bring the debate to a con clusion to-morrow, and he should propose, therefore, that they should begin at an earlier hour. He would say they aright meet as usual at four o'clock, and present petitions . till five, and begin the debate punctually at that t ime, and • he had no doubt that it might be concluded to-morrow (this a Their ). Lordships ) —(‘6 Adsjeoeumrnes.,aattlo assentjourn.") to this proposition, end rose to go away; when the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey, and the Earl of Eldon, entered into a conversation relative to the further proceedings. Earl Grey proposed, we understood, that their Lordships should sit it out to morrow. Some objections were made to that ; and it was finally settled that if the debate could not he conve niently closed to-morrow, their Lordships should meet on Saturday, at ten o'clock, to bring it to a conclusion. Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock till Four o'clock this day. AO USE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER G. Mr. WALKS moved an address for an account of all offices, places, situations, or employments in the army, navy, or civil departments of the State, with all pensions, retired allowances, reversionary grants and ecclesiastical preferments held by each of the Peers of the United King dom of Great Britain and Ireland, having a seat in Parlia ment, and by his family and relations ; specifying the amount of the pay, salaries, fees, and other emoluments of each of such offices, places, situations, and employments, and of such pensions, retired allowances, reversionary grants,and ecclesiastical preferment srespectively.—Ordered. Mr. HUNT presented a petition from John Russell, complaining of misconduct on the part of Mr. Hoskins, a magistrate of Marylebone. The petitioner's son was driving a hoop, when be was taken before Mr. Hoskins, who bound the boy's father in twenty pounds that the boy (ten years of age) should keep the peace for twelve months ; also two petitions from John Joseph Stoekdale, complaining that Lord Vqnferd, when Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, told him in that Court that he might apply to any Court of Justice, but he would get no redress on account of his infamy. Lord INGESTRIE presented a petition against the use of molasses, and one from forty Clergymen in the diocese of Ossory and Ferns, complaining that they could not recover their tithes, in consequence of a combination en tered into by the inhabitants of that district. Colonel CONOLLY bore testimony to the truth of the petition. He knew that many of the Clergymen of Ire land were suffering the severest privations possible to be borne by any human beings, on account of not being able to get their tithes, either by asking for them mildly, or distraining for them in due comae of law—there was a wide spreading combination in that poor county to resist the payment of tithes, and if the Govern ment did not interfere, the landlords would be the next to suffer. Sir JOHN NEWPORT would not deny that such evils did exist, but the Hon. Gentleman had not stated what remedy he proposed to meet them--one of the com plaints was that no person would buy the goods and cattle distrained fur tithes, but could the Government oblige any person to buy against their will, the Hor; Gentleman ought to bring forward a remedy. Mr. WM. YATES PEEL protested against doctrines which be had heard put forth in that House, that the Clergy had not as good a right to their tithes as any Ho nourable Member to the rents of his estate. He (Mr. Peel) contended that they certainly had, and that they ought to be supported both by Government and that House. The system complained of was what was to be looked for on a greater scale under the Reform Bill, and Hon. Gentlemen would yet see, if the days of spoliation and robbery came on, that the system would extend to all kinds of property as well as tithes. Mr. BLAKENEY said that the clergymen themselves were the great cause of the present system, by their mode of collecting these tithes. Captain GORDON attributed the resistance to tithes to the writings of Dr. Doyle, and the speeches of several Ro man Catholic clergymen in the south of Ireland. Mr. H. Grattan, Dr. Lefroy, Mr. Dawson, and Mr. Sheil, made a few observations. Mr. STANLEY expressed his disapprobation, on the part of the Government, of the proceedings complained of. He could assure the House, that so far as the assistance of Government could be given to the assertion of the just rights of the Clergy, they had already left no means in their power untried. He was aware that an extensive combination against the collection of tithes had existed and been carried on for a considerable time; but the peti• tion before the House prayed for that relief which the Go vernment could not give without the assistance of the Le gislature. He did not say that some legislative measure ought to be founded on a full consideration of the whole -object, not as affecting these clergymen only, but as affect ing the rights and interests of the church at large. The Government in Ireland had given, and would give, all the assistance in their power to every class of his Majesty's subjects to enable them to enforce their just rights, but this petition called upon them to do that. which they had no power to do without the assistance of the Legislature. Mr. GOULBURN supported the petition. After a few words from Mr. S. RICE, The petition was ordered to be laid on the table, and to be printed. Colonel PERCIVAL begged to inquire of the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, whether it was intended to fill up the vacancy in the situation of Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland, or to abolish the office. Mr. STANLEY could assure the Hon. and Gallant Member that the filling up of the vacancy, if it should be filled up, would be without prejudice to the abolition of the office, or to the reduction of the fees. Colonel PERCIVAL moved an address to his Majesty, praying that such of the newly-appointed Lords Lieutenant of counties in Ireland as were not resident within their respective counties might be removed. Mr. YOUNG, in seconding the motion, wished to ob serve that the Nobleman appointed to the county of Do negal had not seen the county for twenty years. He had I no seat in the county, and knew nothing of its interes ts or business. Mr. STANLEY complained of the mis-statemente made upon this subject, in order to form the foundation of attacks upon Ministers. Government had selected, as Lords Lieutenant of counties, persons who, if not resident in the county, had property in it, and were residing near it, and the exceptions to the rule were only cases of neces sity. Government had not been influenced by any prin ciples of favouritism or of party. Longford, Fermanagh, Roscommon, Clare, Tyrone, and Wicklow would show that Government had not been influenced by politics, but had filled the Lieutenantcies solely with persons who were most fit for the office. It was only when a Lord-Lieutenant left Ireland that his place was filled up, and Ministers were not bound to confine the appointments to persons actually within the county. In England the Duke of Beaufort was Lord-Lieutenant of three counties ; Lord Lonsdale of two; Sir W. W. Wynn of two, and it was not supposed that these persons could be resident at three places or two places at once. It was complained that Government had appointed Lord Dun cannon to the county of Carlow ; but that nobleman had a property in the county, and was popular and connected with its interests and feelings, and his being in the office Of Woods and Forests could not be deemed an objection, for the Duke of Wellington was Lord-Lieutenant of Hamp shire, whilst he was First Lord of the Treasury, and the Duke of Manchester did not consider it improper that he should be Lord Lieutenant of an English county whilst re sident in Jamaica. In consequence of the peculiar bias in the opinions of Lord Farnham, it was not deemed p ro p er i possessed great pr o p er ty i n to appoint him to the Lieutenancy of the count y of Cavan. In Meath, Lord Fingal did no t feel any jealousy at the ap pointment of Lord Darnley . There was not a Peer resident in n ha p t Co n u eg n a ty l , 32 counties, there w ere onl y five cases in which the but Lord hga the Donreefgsore been appoint e d. Of the