The Sun. — London, England, 1831-03-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The unanimous voice of the people of England +-has obtained from their county and city represents ''fives, and from the nominees of borough-owners, a 'majority of one. Do we despise this patriotic unit ? No; for we consider that on a question involving personal int eres t s — ren d ere d, suc h i s the perversity of human nature, more dear by their character and profligate fruition—the truth must be clear and irresistibl e ind ee d w hi c h co uld prevent a decided negative. But let us see how the question stands at present. Will the 301 Members who have re- posed such unlimited confidence in the Member for Cornwall, and have pr e ferred his promise of vouch safing a resolution, d ec l ara tory of an intention to do something in the way of tnoderate Reform, to the consideration of a detailed plan brought .. forward on the responsibility of his Majesty's Ministers —will they not despise this patriotic unit ? Will they not confidently endeavour to destroy the principle of life itself in the Committee? Will they not gradually smother that which they have used every effort to strangle at once? Is their confidence of ultimatesuccess diminished ? We know that it is not. There is but one measure that can destroy that confidence, and defeat these machinatiene—a dissolution of the pre sent House of Commons. It is idle to imagine that a measure, the sudden extinction of whieh was only prevented by a majority of one, este retain any iden tity of principle through the Indian warfare that will be carried on against it in the endless coverts of a Committee, swarming with three hundred and one opponents, who are animated with al! the deadly animosity of the red warriors, retreating before the advancing civilization of Amerita. It is singularly fortunate that with our present patriotic Monarch there is no reason to apprehend the possible inter ference of irresponsible advisers to counteract the just influence and counsel: of his Ministers. Great offence has been taken at the mention of the King's name on th'et occasion, but we say that the King's name is a tower of strength. Surely, if ever there were a question to which a King of England might be supposed to have applied the most rigorous personal examination, it is that of Re form in the representative body. On the acceptance by the House of Commons of a plan of Reform :satisfactory to the people must hereafter depend the stability and efficiency of the Government of Eng land. The adoption of remedial measures does not admit of delay ; and it is not to be doubted that every constitutional means for carrying those mea sures into effect will readily receive the Royal sanc tion. The promoters of the Bill have been accused of trying to obtain success by intimidation ;—our experience would transfer the accusation to the op ponents of the measure. In private society, and in public, no individuals stained ‘vith the worst crimes that degraded human nature could have been treated with more intemperate revilings than have been ap plied to his Majesty's Ministers for having pre sumed to prefer the rights and the demands of the people of England to the usurpations of individuals. What is to be apprehended from a dissolution ? The disturbance of the internal peace of the country ? Nonsense !—the people of England, sedulously and soberly engaged in the improvement of the most irnporant part of that part of our social institutions eepecialy applicable to themselves, disturb the pub lic peace !—we ty again, Nonsense ! The power to do mischief, now possessed by individuals who hoot and revile the Ministers of the King for their patriotism, will indeed be disturbed and destroyed. The sooner the better. The indefeasibly-seated no minees of some very close boroughs may not be re moved, but large towns and counties will assert themselves, and will prove a truly British spirit by dismissing the opponents of a measure, which, teem the extinction of various franchises, will make the Members of the House of Commons, not in name, but in fact, individually and collectively re presentatives of the people of England.— Morning Herald. The all-engrossing object of conversation yester day was the di vision on the "Reform Bill. The prevail ing opinion was, that a great victory had been gained; because, although the majority was small, as that majority could be greatly increased by a dissolution, the success :of the measure became demonstrably certain. Several Members divided in favour of the second reading with the intention, as they expressly stated, of endeavouring to alter it materially in the Committee. It was, however, significantly observed by Lord John Russell, in his reply, that " he did not say the plan of Ministers might not be altered, but he ‘sished to give those who would consent to go into the Committee, with a view to alter it, no tice, that if they were to make the smallest altera tion in the Bill, neither he nor any one else would think himself precluded, by the measure so altered passing, from bringing forward, at any future time, that part of the plan which might be rejected." In fact, Ministers are determined that the measure shall not be altered; and perhaps the wisest course would be to proceed forthwith to a dissolution, in order that no unnecessary prolongation may be given to the excitement of the country. It is, we believe, in con templation, to dissolve with as little delay as possible. We have heard it said,that several leading individuals had determined to be gorerned in their future conduct by the division on the second reading, deeming all further opposition, in the event of a majority, to be without an object; and that it might be prudent, therefore, to wait a little, to see how far the result may correspond with the anticipation. But we doubt whether there is any good foundation for expecting any material diminution of the number of opponents of the Bill ; and, as time is of conse quence, it mi g ht b e as we ll not to waste i t on dis cussions, from the result of which there is so little to hope. In the House of Lords, last night, in spite of the determination to aroid discussion as much as possible on th e p resentat i on o f pet i t i ons, some o f their Lordships, agitated, no doubt, by the vote of the preceding evening, were unable to contain them selves. Lord Roden, in particular, said he was " not one of those who were hostile to all Reform ; but he was for a safe change, and not a revolu tionary Reform, and it would be a revolu tionary Reform that would be effected if Parliament were to pass the present measure." This called up Lord Grey, who said , " he could not hear that asser tion—for assertion it was, and not argument—with out meeting it with a contrary and most confident assertion, that the measure in question had no such tendency." His Lordship observed, also, " that if this measure were to fail in his hands now, and the present Government should be dissolved on that principle, the consequence would be, that Reform would be afterwards forced upon men in office ; and such a Reform, and under such circumstances, that there was great reason to fear that then the Reform would, indeed, be revolutionary." By the present plan Ministers have rallied around them almost every man in the country who has not an intelligible sinister interest prompting him to opposition.— Having thus secured the nation, it would be the height of imprudence to submit to any such altera tion of the measure as might render it generally unacceptable. They have wisely, therefore, deter mined to carry through the measure in its integrity. With the support of the nation they have nothing to fear from political opponents; for no Ministry can be founded in this country on a principle hostile to Reform. Ministers have , therefore, firm ground to stand on, and mt.y confidently set their enemies at defiance. The bait of offering an illusory Re form, now that some Refor m must be conceded, will not take place—" If alterations," said Lord John Russell, " were made essentially alt er i ng t h e character of the measure — if those interests were excluded which the Bill admitted into the represen tation, it would only lead to a prol onge d struggle , and would end in securing the triumph, wh i le it , alienated the affections of the people." But Lord Caernarvon, last night, was ready to reform the Constitution,bii by bit, as he phrased it. To gra tify his Lordship we must be constantly tinkering the Constitution. His Lordship forgets that the people have to live and to find the means of l iving, and that the whole nation cannot be co nstantl y bestowin g their attention on organical Reforms. Lord Lansdowne protested against the keeping the eonntry in a con stant state of excitement with a question of so en grossing a character. The Lord Chancellor ; in the happiest manner, characterised the opposition of Lord Caernarvon, and we are much mistaken if more is not meant than meets the ear in his men tion of a" disposition he had seen in the Noble E rl to attack Ministers ever since they came into office." 0 ambition, ambition—lllustrious Princes are not the only persons who mistake themselves. The Lord Chancellor added—" He, Lord Caernarvon, had opened his fire upon them not by platoons, but b) a pop—pop from his pop-gun. It was a bit-and bit attack—(A laugh.) „ He had rather be opposed by those who openly and frankly avowed that they wanted no Reform, than by by the bit-and-bit Reformers. . . . He was, he confessed, very suspicious about those who now qualified their opposition by saying, that they approved of some Reform, although, before, they had been against all Reform." The people are not to be deluded by these paltry artifices. Mi nisters may fearlessly insist on the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, and if they cannot now obtain that, throw themselves then on the country. — Morning CA:,:midc. The division on the Reform Bill, and the general position of the question, are certainly not such as the public can entirely rejoice in. The second reading has been carried, indeed ; but unwillingly, scantily, and with still sinister purpose and increased hope in those who are hostile to the measure. We know not that the public can derive much consolation from the circumstance that no one in the House of Commons hes dared to say that Reform was not necessary or expedient. All were for some Re form ; but when it is considered how many of those who have been brought to this concession have hitherto, with all their might, resisted every, even the slightest change, every cotreetion of the grossest abuses, we cannot doubt that they will still go on infesting the course of the Bill, and only suffering it to reach its home in a tattered and debilitated state. To hear the enemies of Reform talk now, one would suppose that they had been always friends to granting the elective franchise to Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds. Oh, yes; now they wish it—they desire it : it is of all things proper ! Why, then, we ask, has it not been granted before ? Why, indeed, but that by every species of chicane, opposition, and menace of ab surd consequences, they prevented it. How, then, can we trust to their professions now, when they pretend to advocate some minor species of Reform * ? The object of all those who affect now for the first time to be ready to grant something to the just de mands of the people, is trick, deception, humbug. What they really mean is, to render the Bill a nul lity, and to preserve the old corruption. Some of the friends of Reform think the division of Tuesday night a triumph. We understand it was so received in the House. No doubt it is better than if the unit had been on the other side ; and it must also be observed, the majority, such as it is, has been obtained in a House elected during the last Ministry. Rut still it is a majority of that character, that it must be upheld by the unabated zeal of the people, and the unshaken resolution of the King and his Ministers to dissolve the Parliament, in the case of any successful attempt to deprive the Bill of one atom of its efficacy; or else corruption within the walls will have a temporary triumph, and the whole nation will be thrown into commotion. His Majesty, indeed, has shown most unequivocally, and in refute don of the base slander which would cast upon his open nature the imputation of a cowardly desertion of those who have been induced to undertake this grand measure by his recommendation and under his auspices,—hie Majesty, we say, has shown to the whole world, the sincerity of his profession, by forthwith thrusting two officers out of the Royal Household who had voted against the Bill—Mr Horace Seymour and Captain Meynell. On Tuesday afternoon they were servants of the Crown,—on Wednesday morning they were at liberty to go where they liked. And surely this should be taken as a hint, not by courtiers only, but by all those who hold Government boroughs tinder the present rotten system, and are guilty of the dishonourable conduct of retaining their seats, and voting against the patrons of the boroughs which they represent. But it is to the people—to the people—that we appeal. To them we say,—" Support the Crown !—sepport the King and his Ministers ! or be prepared for what must follow. The immediate loss of those rights which are now within your grasp, and a future struggle for them,—an universal and fearful struggle for them,—a struggle which, though it will over whelm your enemies, cannot fail of disturbing your own domestic comforts, and putting the public tran quillity to the hazard." It will be observed that Ministers pressed forward the Supplies last night. This is not, to be sure, an actual proof of approach ing dissolution of Parliament ; but it is a prepara tion fir it, f necessary. This is clear to all the world ; and we would drop a hint to those worthy borough-patrons who are disposed to turn their no minees out for not voting against that Reform Bill according to their dictation, that they may save themselves the trouble, for, undoubtedly, if their counsels prevail but upon one single division, they will soon have th&r boroughs empty apin, and that without the aid of the Chiltern Hundreds. We will here note the conduct of a man of very different character from these. Sir Sandford Graham, with out saying a word, or claiming any merit whatever, gave a vote on Tuesday night which tended to de prive himself of 35,0001.,—the sum, we have heard, paid by him for the borough of Ludgershall ! —Times. In the present stage of discussion at which the Bill for Parliamentary Reform has arrived, it would be altogether ludicrous to argue upon its general merits as a real and great improvement upon the constitution of Parliament. The impression of both parties is by this time fixed as to the bearing of the measure upon public affairs—end, what in the minds of many persons is of far deeper moment— upon individual and selfish interests. The impres sion among the favourites of Reform need not be strengthened : among the class of Anti-Reformers last alluded to, it is such as no argument drawn from reason, justice, or the good of the country, would efface. There are points, however, not in volving the principles of the Bill, though closely connected with the eventual or at least the speedy success of it, on which it may be useful to make one or two observations. A frequent complaint with the enemies of Reform is, that the question has not had fair play, and that the most reprehensible system of " intimidation" has been resorted to for the purpose of procuring a majority in support of Mi nisters. When the complainants are hard pushed, and required to specify what it is they mean by in timidation, the answer is, " You threaten us with all manner of evils, and at the head of them a na tional convulsion, if we do not pass this Bill." Those who remember the course of the proceedings with regard to the Catholic Bill, during the Session of 1829, cannot fail to find a parallel for the above accusation, in the language of its opponents. The friends of that wise measure were for ever taunted with the use of arguments amounting to menaces, and with a design to carry the Bill into a law by the agency of pure terror. Because they said that the injustice of Catholic exclusion was intolerable, that the people of Ireland could not and would not en dure any longer to he out-casts from the fold of the Constitution, and that disorder, tumult, and civil war, must be the consequence of a perpetual disre gard of their reasonable expectations, they—(the ad vocate% for a Reform of the penal code) —were then charged with a reliance on threats and popular out rage., rather than on truth, for the success of their cause, just as the same reproach is now cast upon those who, in reforming Parliament, would amend and purify the source of every civil and ecclesiastical code, and the instrument of all legislation. Let us ask, then, these murmurers, why are laws made ? and what is the proper business of a statesman ? Why, to secure whatever good may be endangered, or to avert whatever evil may appear to impend; and thus to protect the commonwealth, and to preserve it. If no inconvenience were to be felt, or no disaster to be anticipated, we, at least, cannot conceive any motive for legislating at all. Governments are seldom if ever made sensible of any wrong inflicted, or per ' mitted by them, but through the discontent of the people. The mote inveterate the wrong, and the more aggravated its pressure, the more angrily will the nation cry out ; and if its cry be not attended to, the greater likelihood exists of clamour and in dignation ripening progressively into action. But if the Government, or other wrong-doer, be insen sible to all this,---if the blind or insolent oppressor cannot detect with his own eves the injury which he has perpetraterl,the resentment which it has produced, or the public disturbance to which, if longer unre dressed, it may provoke an exasperated people,—is it, let us ask, consistent with common sense, or common honesty, that the party who is to blame for all this present and approaching mischief, should fly into a passion with any sober-minded friend who warns him of the peril; which await his continued obstinacy, and, instead of promptly and gratefully acting upon his advice, turn round upon him with some such gross folly as this,—" Why do you dare to bully me? Do you flatter yourself you can frighten me into concession ? Go about your busi ness, and leave me to choose my own time for yield ing to the multitude, if I yield at all ?" Even so was it with the enemies of ernancipaticn; even so is it with the boroughmongering crew,—the only enemies (with here and there an exception) of Re form,—they being themselves, moreover, the parties whose offences and usurpations the measure has been calculated to restrain. There is, in fact, no arguing a public question by which great objects of any description are embraced, if the advocates for it be precluded from stating broadly what evils it will avert, and what dangers are incurred by its rejection. Since, besides, the most serious national discontent, arid the most imminent risk of convulsion, are most likely to result from the most inveterate and deep felt wrongs, it follows that where the greatest danger exists from a refusal to conciliate the country,—that is to say, where the grievances are most insufferable,—we must abstain with tenfold care from representisig their true nature or tendency, be cause there, to speak the truth carries with it una voidably a tenfold weight of intimidation. The Duke of Wellington was not afraid to confess the appalling force of those probable disasters which made him a timely convert to the necessity of eman cipation ; but with Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr. Attwood, and the Duke of Newcastle, it is a very different matter. Now, in the face of all the bluster of those great men, who talk of despising the at tempt to frighten them, and so forth, we tell them plainly that their wisest course is to be effectually terrified, aye without a Ininute's delay. We tell the et, that for the fees of Referm the cri-is is a frightful one—that if the people should unhappily act otherwise than through petitions, resolutions, and the press, it is against the refractory borough patrons and their " lacquies" that the storm of violence might be first directed—and that if a dis solution of Parliament were not to be resorted to, as a free vent and channel for the public effer vescence, not unnaturally excited by this unprin cipled resistance to a national goad, the ex tent of which cannot be questioned, however the consequences might be deprecated or deplored, they (the enemies of Reform) would in all human proba bility see reason to regret that they had made so light of the well-meant warnings of those who sought to preserve them from calamity by a little seasonable " intimidation." And now a word, and but one word, with respect to a dissolution of Par liament. The enemies of the Bill, as is usual in such cases with a party which feels itself to be odious throughout the kingdom,—the enemies of the Bill, since last night's division, exclaim— " What ! dissolve the Parliament, and convulse the country from one end to the other? How atro cious 1" Atrocious as it may be, we trust the Mi nisters will have confidence enough in a good cause, and in the spirit and wisdom of the people of Eng land, to appeal to them, if necessary, without an hour's delay. The way to avoid convulsion is to put it in the power of the nation to return a Parlia ment more decidedly favourable to Reform. Con vulsion implies struggle, struggle implies two par ties so equally or colourably matched as each of of them to risk a contest. Now where is the second party in England to maintain one day's struggle with the nation ? We see all the counties, towns, half the corporations, 19-20ths of the property, as much of the intelligence, 99-100ths of the popula tion, enthusiastic for the Bill. Whence, then, we repeat, is to come any convulsion,—unless, indeed, the ousted enemies of Reform shall be convulsed with mortification and dismay ?—Times. The defeat of the revolutionary measure (for there can be no doubt that in the division of Tues day this jacobin project sustained a defeat of the most complete and decisive character) has, as might have been expected, led to an analysis of the parties forming respectively the majority and minority, and furnished the occasion for renewed torrents of ribald invective against such of the latter as have not been seated in Parliament by the ♦otes of a numerous or popular constituency. We do not scruple to say that those who resort to this method of inflaming the passions and imposing upon the ignorance of the multitude must of necessity be regarded as entirely incapable of reasoning, if we might not indeed be justified in considering them rather as deliberate and artful traitors to their country, the embittered and relentless foes to all her laws and institutions, the wilful and dangerous assailants of her safety and her peace. Is the present House of Commons competent to legislate upon a great con stitutional question, or is it not ? If it be, then the attempt to invalidate in public estimation the vote of any class of its Members is a gross and revolting absurdity. If it be not—and this is indeed the only opinion that can rationally be held by those who would distinguish at this period of excitement the borough from the county Member—then it follows of necessity that all past legislation, isicluding the Act of Settlement, has been vicious in its origin, and is worthless as an authority—that the people of Eng land are at this moment without a Statute which it is their duty to obey, without a Monarch whom they are bound to honour as their legitimate Sovereign. We trust that the House of Commons will assert its own dignity, and manifest fidelity to the great constitutional trust committed to its hands, by the prompt and condign punishment of all, whether within or without its walls, who shall henceforth dare to promulgate doctrines or to draw lines of distinction, unknown to the Constitution, between its various classes of Members, the direct effect of which are not only to incapacitate that House from its present legislative duties, and to render the set tlement of the Reform question, or any other im portant constitutional question, impossible unless by the sword, but to impeach the authority of all the existing statutes of the realm, to reduce the duty of obedience to every existing autho rity in the State to a matter of individual dis cretion, and to make the Crown itself shake upon the Monarch's brow. This we say is the impera tive duty of the House of Commons, now that the Throne is surrounded by Ministers who encou rage by their favour and patronage such doctrines and such language. We do not of course, after what we have said, mean to extol one class of Members of the House of Commons at the expense of another; but it should be understood that we do not deprecate the comparison from the apprehen sion, which it would be impossible indeed for any one possessed of the most ordinary information to entertain, that the Borough Members have been found by experience less able, less honest, less valu able representatives of the nation, less earnest in the promotion of its interests and the main tenance of its rights, than the most virtuous, enlightened, and patriotic of those who have owed their seats to popular election. Experience upon such a subject is, however, the only test to which any other than a crack-brained theorist, or a plausible traitor, would think of appealing; and ex perience would show, we believe, that if a compa rison is to be made between the Borough Members and other classes of Senators, the former are net the meta who, either in respect to talents or inte grity—who, either in their public or private cepa c ty--would have any thing to fear from the result. In this respect the facts are rather remarkable. If we find any man, either of past times or of the pre sent day, to have acquired a brilliant Parliamentary reputation, we almost invariably find also that this particular man was introduced to Parliament and passed the greater part of his public life as the repre sentative of a borough. If, on the other hand, we find any man distinguished for fluent ignorance, for gene ral inattention to his Parliamentary duty, inadequately redeemed by a set speech now and then upon some grand field-day, by conduct personally disgraceful to him as a man or a Senator, so sure as we refer to the contemporary list of the House of Commons, that person is found to be the chosen representative of some such body of electors as those who, by the Ministerial Bill, were henceforth to have enjoyed the absolute monopoly of the elective franchise.— Fortunately for the country this revolutionary mea sure has received its death-blow. Fortunately for the national welfare and the national morals the wicked and desperate attempt is defeated, which would have given us a body of legislators, most of whom would have been chosen as the demagogues of denmerazy, and all the rest—all the men of pro perty in th e H ouse — cou ld on ly h a ve found their way there by the bribe, y of the miserable ten pound renters.—Morning Post. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock, IMPERIAL PA RUAM ENT THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER. took the Chair this afternoon precisely a Three o'clock. Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from the county of Wicklow, in which the petitioners, after alluding to the agitation that exists in that county respecting the Repeal of the Union, state that they are ready to support his Ma jetty's Ministers in carrying into effect the extension of any law for the suppression of illegal associations in Ireland. Sir JAMES SCARLETT presented a petition from Mahon in favour of the plan of Reform. He must ob serve, however, that he could not support the prayer of the petition.—(Hear.) He could not agree with the views of the petitioners in favour of the Bill—(Hear) —but as the measure had the approbation of his constituents (not his) he was ready to resign the trust reposed in him into their hands.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUNT highly approved of the determination of the Hon. and Learned Member to resign his trust int, the hands of his constituents. It was no more than what every Member should do, when he could not agree with those who returned him to the House.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hunt) would only now observe that he was happy he had lived to see the day when not a single Member of Parliament was bold enough to get up in his place and state that he was opposed to all Re form. It was admitted on all hands that some Reform might take place, but he had never found seen amongst the humblest classes the slightest desire for a re publican form of Government. Every individual, high or low, would be satisfied with a House of Commons freely chosen by the people. Mr. G. DAWSON was sitting the other evening close by the side of the Hon. Member for Preston, and distinctly heard him declare that he should prefer a Re public to any other form of Government. Mr. HUNT (with great warmth)—l declare most po. sitively I never said any such thing. The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order. Mr. DAWSON certainly understood the Hon. Member to say so, and could only imagine that from the extensive plan of Reform proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, he now thought proper to forget his declaration. He could only repeat that he well recollected hearing the lion. Member make use of such an assertion.—( Hear.) Mr. HUNT again, and in the most positive manner, denied that he had ever expressed himself more favour able to a republic than to the British Constitution, and he appealed to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, whe ther he had ever beard him express himself in favour of a republic. He was sure the people of England had no wish for revolution ; all they desired was a restitution of their right, and a cheap form of Government. In these wishes he cordially agreed with them. Mr. HUME, as he had been appealed to, must say that the charge against the Han. Member for Preston must have arisen in mistake. He had never heard that Hon. Member express himself in favour of a republican form of Government. THE PRESTON AND WIGAN RAIL-ROAD BILL. Alter some discussion, in which some 'Members took a part, this Bill was read a third time, and passed. Captain MAITLAND presented a petition from Ber wick against the Ministerial plan of Reform. Sir J. BRYDGES supported the petition. The plan of Reform proposed by Government would change a British House of Commons into a Chamber of Deputies ; a British House of Lords into a Chamber of Peers ; and a British King into a King of the British.—(Hear.) Captain MAITLAND said the petition had been agreed to at a public meeting regularly called, and no amendment was proposed. . . Lord EDWARD SOMERSET presented a petition from the county of Gloucester in favour of the Reform measure brought in by his Majesty's Government. But though his Lordship felt it his duty to present the petition, yet for his own part be could not concur in that measure, which he considered calcu lated to overturn the best institutions of the country therefore he had not given, nor would he give, his vote in favour of it. Sir WILLIAM GUISE said that if he had thought the measure a revolutionary measure, he would not have supported it as he had done; or a measure calculated to overthrow the best institutions of the country. He did not mean to say the Bill ought not in a Committee to be materially modified. Mr. CHIN'S had voted for the second reading of the Bill ; but he certainly should not have done so had he not considered that it would undergo considerable alterations in passing through the Committee. Sir E. SUGDEN considered that the Honourable Member who had spoken last must certainly have given his vote under an entire mistake, because the Noble had who had introduced the Bill, had declared he would submit to no alteration in it. lie had said there the Bill was, and told the House it must either accept it or reject it altogether. Mr. DAVIS said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was wrong in point of fact. The Noble Lord had not said that he would permit no alterations—be had said that he would permit no alterations in the principle of the Bill, but that if the measure was thrown out another should afterwards be introduced, with a view to carry into effect the principle of the present Bill. A considerable discussion followed, in which 1 number of Members took part. Many of them had voted in favour of the Bill, though they hcped it would be materially modified and altered in pausing through the Committee. I }. Cr IRISH REFORM BILL. Mr. STANLEY rose to bring in the Irish Reform Bill, and in doing so the Hon. Member observed, the course I am now about to pursue is somewhat unusual in not offering some observations at length on the reading of the first Bill, yet the House will do me the jus tice to recollect, that I said if leave be given for me to bring i n this Bill after what had passed, I should not enter into the minutiae of this Bill. I shall confine myself to the main objects of the Bill, for I think every gentleman will agree with me that, after the very long discussions— ' ma y say, after three very long discussions on t h e general principles of Reform —any observations from me now on those general principles would be mis placed, I shall th ere f ore go i nto the pr i nc i ples of the Bill as it affects Ireland only. There is one circumstance to be observed in bringing forward this Bill, that from the first to the concluding paragraph in it there is not one disfranchising sentence.—(Cheers.) — So far as the Bill goes, it is confined only to the extension of the franchise. There is no taking awa y of franchise, excepting as regards a few non-resident freemen. As regards the county representa tion, it is proposed by this Bill to follow the principle that has been adopted in reference to English county representations, that is leaving the right of voting in freeholders, and adding to them a most respectable and independent class of people. I mean leaseholders for 21 years to the amount of 50/. a year. In this step ; we have deviated in one point from the practice to be observed in England, inasmach as we have ex cluded the clause which require: that the leases should not have been renewed within two years previous to the election. I think any gentleman acquaint e d w i t h a large proportion of the property in Ireland w ill a t once perceive the reason that has induced us to do this, because there is a very large class of p o setts who hold , leases for twenty-one years, renewable every year, and who would otherwise be excluded from exercising their vote. I allude to that large class of persons who hold land either under Corporations or under the Church. We have thought it right in this Bill not to introduce that restrictive clause, therefore the leaseholders to the amount of 501. a year for twenty-one years, will not be excluded ' if they should have had their lease renewed within two years of the election taking place. With regard to copyholders, I believe that there is only one copy hold estate in Ireland ; and therefore it was consi , tiered unnecessary to make any provision as to them. There is one alteration, which is this, that the Clergy shall vote, not as beneficed Clergy, but in right of their freeholders, and be registered like any other freeholder— Mr. O'CONNELL—To what amount ? Mr. STANLEY-501. Then will regard to householders renting houses to the amount of 10/. a year, or occupying a honse which, if let to a solvent tenant, would rent fairly an b d rin t g axe l s shall have 01. a year, lleen paid up, sinEngland,theyif their be entitled to vote in their boroughs. We have not thought it right to interfere with the freeholders in cities, towns, and boroughs, but to leave all who have sow a single vote to continue in full posses sion of that right. We hive provided that upon the extinction of 40s. freeholders in towns their right of voting I shall be assimilated to that of householders in towns.— . There will be by this mode three classes of voters in cities . and boroughs in Ireland, namely, freeholders of 201., 101., and 40s. Leaseholders for 21 years of 50/. and house holders paying a rent of 10/. or occupying a house which would let for that sum to a solvent tenant. With regard to that part of th e E ng li s h Bill , aga i nst w hi c h t h e greatest objections have been urged—l mean the power granted to a Committee of the Privy Council, we have not thought fit, however, to grant to the Pi ivy Council of Ireland the same extensive powers as those granted to a Committee of the English Privy Council, and therefore the powers of the Irish Privy Council will be confined to the right of deciding what has been and what shall be for the future the limits of Irish boroughs. It is proposed that they shall, in the first place, take a list of all at present claiming a right to vote, and that that list should he subsequently subjected to the inquiry of a hsrrister of a certain standing at law, of whom eight should be nominated for the whole of Ireland ; and with regard to registration, following the English plan, we propose that every year there shall be a registration of all persons having a right to vote. That part of the business shall be entrusted to assistant barristers. With regard to the duration of the poll, we propose that in towns it should be kept open two days and no more—that in coun ties there shall be fifteen polling places--and that not more than 600 electors be polled at each. In no inconsiderable number of boroughs, although there are no boroughs to be disfranchised, there must be a complete destruction, not of the right of ex isting electors; but of the exclusiveness of their rights. —(Applause.)—They did not mean to go according to the mathematical ratio of population, but they did not wish unnecessarily to interfere with existing rights, in asmuch as there were none of the towns which did not carry with it sufficient weight and respectability to send Members to this House. We do not think it right to adopt a plan which might be more perfect in theory, but which would interfere with and destroy existing rights. With regard to taking away the exclusive right of the corporations, there cannot be taken any fair ground of ob jection. It will not be imputed us that keeping within the same persons who now exercise the right of sending Members to Parliament, we are guilty of following no se volutionary system by extending that franchise which has so long been monopolized by a few, to persons of respectability that did not before possess that right.—(Hear.) • Sir, in looking to the list now before me, the first place mentioned is Armagh, with a population of between eight and nine thousand, the number of voters being only thirteen. In Belfast, with a population of 37,237, the number of voters are only thirteen. In Carlow, with a population of eight thousand persons, still the same mystical num ber of only thirteen voters is there to be found. In Dublin, with a population of 185,000, the number of electors is proportion itely small. In Ennis, with a po pulation of 6,500, we have again only 13 voters. In Kilkenny, with 23,000 inhabitants, only 600 voters ; in Sligo, with 9,000, the right of voting rests with only 13 ; and in Tralee, with 7,517, we find the same number of thirteen, who are qualified according to the existing system, to elect a member of Parliament. Sir, I do not think that there is any thing extravagant in the proportion which we now advance, that the favourite number of thirteen should no longer continue to monopolize the elective franchises of such places as Belfast, even if no larger than Armagh.-- But, Sir, while we propose thus not to destroy existing rights, but to extend their rights and privileges of elec tive franchise, there are other places which stand forward so prominently, not only with regard to their population, but their wealth, commerce, and increasing prosperity, that I am persuaded we exceed not the fair limits of moderation, when we propose to give to four of the principal towns that now send Members to Parliament, each one addi tional representative. Sir, I propose to give to Belfast, to Limerick, to Waterford, and to the county of Gal way, upon this principle, one additional Member each. It is proposed to assimilate the constituency of the Uni versity of Dublin to that of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and for that purpose the right of voting for the University of Dublin, which is now enjoyed solely by the Provost, Fellows, and seventy Junior Scholars, is proposed by this Bill to extend the right of voting to all those who at any time have been Scholars, and who shall at any time within six months from the passing of the proposed Bill place their names on the University books. In doing this, Sir, we cannot be charged with innovation, be. cause, by the original charters of the three Uni• versities, the right of voting for the University of Dublin was confined to the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars during their lives, whilst the right to vote for the repre sentatives of Oxford and Cambridge was extended to all the Masters of Arts, and by the original Charter of the Dublin University it was provided that the election should take place according to the usages of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ; hut, besides re verting to the original Charter, there is another reason for extending the right of voting to the Members of that Uni versity ; and that reason I shall shortly state to the House. Sir, in order to become a scholar of the University of Dublin it is necessary to pass through a very severe examination, and no young man who is not of distinguished talents can obtain a scholarship. By ex tending the right of voting we do away with an anomaly; for according to the present system, a young man of the age of eighteen might obtain a scholarship, and therefore a vote for the University, but at the end of five years that right is lost. Now, Sir, this ap . -1 to me deserving of remedy; for I think a young mao who ob tained a Scholarship at the age of eighteen is more capable at the end of five years, when he is deprived of the right of voting, of exercising a sound judgment as to the fittest person to represent the University, than whilst he had enjoyed that privilege, because at that age he acts upon his own judgment, uninfluenced by and disengaged from the trammels of his tutor, who is generally a junior fellow, and which juniors have a great influence in the election. This limitation is not ac cording to the original Charter, for by that Charter the right of the scholars to vote for the University terminated only with their lives ; but by a subsequent chatter it was provided that the scholars should, after five years' enjoyment, forfeit the stipendia which they en joyed as scholars; by a coarse, and, in my opinion, an un constitutional construction of that clause which took away the stipendia, it was held that the right of voting was also taken away. 1 know that this subject was dis cussed before a Committee of the House of Commons, and that the decision of the Committee was in favour of that construction; but I al s o k now , th a t some o f t h e hi g h est law authorities in Ireland, and among them I nay mention the present Lo r d Ch ance ll or o f I reland, were o f opi nion that taking away the stipendia by the latter charter did not take away the right of voting granted by the original charter, and for these reasons it is thought fit to restore the right granted by the original charter. Sir, as I said befo;e, it is intended to assimi late, as far as is possible, the state of the Universities ofEngland and Ireland, and when I take into consideration that the Scholar, of the University of Dublin were a body of men who had distinguished themselves in youthful days, and who had afterwards filled some of the highest institutions in the law, in the church, and in other professions, I think it is not going too far to say that, whilst each of the English Universities is represented by two Members, the Irish Universities should also have the privilege of sending two Members to Parliament. These, Sir, are the only increase which we mean to make to the repre sentation of Ireland, —namely, four representatives from the large cities, and one from that enlightened body, the University of Dublin. But we propose to make a large increase in the number of the constituent body. I have g one through all the parts of the Bil l, with one or two exceptions, which I shall now beg leave to mention. An Lion, and Gallant Member introd uced a Bill this Session, providing that where a man p ossessed two freehold s , neither one or the other of which was o f t h e value of 10/., but which together were equal to that sum , should P it ar i l s iam c e t n is t t ,: n v ar e y p f r: r po have a vote as a 101. freeholder. Sir, as different terpretations have been put by the Barons as the right of a person so situated to vote for Mernii ratory of that right. In that Bill there was alaL,!, relative to the cautionary notice which . r in Ireland, and we p ro p ose t o do away wi, bower?! the necessity of that notice. I have, fully seated the measure' which it is proposed to bri in with regard to Ireland, an d I s h a ll be re'; to explain the re isons of any difference between t, provisions of this Bill and the Roform Bill of E n g lini ing of the Bill sh ill take place until! give ge r as I do not intend to propose that the second rea( cseandtiodati:trotdouce a clause ded, in order that the people of Ireland may h ave 6 opportunity of judging of its provisions, offer , mere; shali have been printed. I, therefore, shall no. move this tl:e Bill he brought in and read a first time. Colonel ERENCII objected to the Bill. of A ti f ,e r. B o i T , (h)oNtNhoEpLe(Li thatsa ld . tliiecotai:irdeeerdatsivointlithtleie ip.roipn:siTyhl . f at the e 1 e re e c ti e 3 ,l of it would think there ought to be an extension o' Members to the Irish counties. Mr. LEADER followed, and was left speaking• HOUSE OF LORDS. the Sir A. G RANT , M r. R . T REVOR, an d ot hers fro m House of Commons, brought up several private Bil l° o la- Mr. Viz ar d, t h e L or d Ch ancellor ' s secreta ry of by the ruptcies, br oug h t up a return of the fees rec eive Comsnissioner s of 13ankrupts for the last three Yea ts ' e ti- The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented 3,fered Lion from B at h aga i nst t h e B eer B i ll, w hi c h be co n as having a tendency to demoralize the people. to the The LORD CHANCELLOR bore testimony bad effects of the Bill, particularly in the N or thern s O. Western parts of E ng l an d, an d t h oug h t i t e xtremelY t .' on to nary for his Maj es ty' s Mi n i s t ers to g i ve t heir atten ii the effects produced by it. bolde r i Earl GREY presented a petition from the free 30 , 1 0 of Down, si gne d b y upwar d s o f 1,300 persons , in f of Reform. e r The Marquis of LONDONDERRY did not °o l , s ,,ldert the petition a s ex p ress i ng t h e sent i ments of the fre e " b lity, of Down, it was n o t s i gne d b y one person of resnect,' rto n, it had been got up in a pr i vate room i n Dum°7be and though signed by 1,300 persons, yet it ll o lj e rs remembered there were upwards of 25,000 fre e to in Down, and it would not therefore be taken a 5 car t he ing the feelings of the county. Wi t h a ll the re'rAll felt for the Noble Earl at the head of bts t hat jesty , s Government, he must say however, goof , whenever lie introduced his measure to thi s se• he said it was to he an efficient and moderate Ll' form. It certainly was efficient, b u t w h ere to deration was to be found he could not ili acc ' f d vote It was only a resting place toainiversal suffrage a n tyo el , i by ballot. If the measu re even passed, i t 4.00 1 certainly do nothing more t h an turn o ur t in. 1 14 1,1 Constitution, into all th at anarc h y an d m i ser y wh' e t he re deluged foreign countries. He asserted th at , j e ty'l• had been an und ue i n fl uence exerc i se d b y his i ts ` A ' d the Government in s t a ti ng th at t h e measure h a d receip t bet a royal appr u b a ti on . Th e peop l e o f England ha rt o i tl ed deceived by suc h i ns i nuat i on , a nd he M 3in , tt that the thr e at s o f di sso l v i ng P ar li ament w hi c h ilsu t • t ae hell out should th e me sure not pass was un worthy ° oa t Noble Earl at th e L ea d o f hi s M a j esty ' s Gove r°l oa rf. The principle of the measure had been termed revoln t ' ° —(Hear, hear, hear.)—lle, however, was p ot , t ai , posed to give it th a t e pith e t. H e , h o wever, dered that it would be the ruin of the Aristoer acY tios Minister of the Cro wn cou ld f orm an Adolinia i tr- t bo if the Bill was carr i e d i nto e ff ect. H e belieou M ites if the Aristocr ac y did not ra ll y roun d the o : n to they would soon fi n d t h at th e H ouse wou ld be sha i lii be its foundation, an d t h a t t h e power o f t h e C ro wn ri' oo every day ditninished.—(Hear, hear.) Wia lch Earl GREY said, that with r e sp ec t t o the pe tition ets alc the Noble Lord h a d s t a t e d was signed by no one re s P e ,ost' individual, lie had received it a s a petition ing from a county meeting, and held under the rity of the High Sheriff. No opposition Wila teve iti' tt i been made at thi s meet i ng , an d the P - 0 1 8 0 ' was agreed to by upwards of 1,300 persons, e very to do' whom was registered as a freeholder of ten P ° o oo, The Noble and Learned Lord had asserted that 11° P it tie: had signed th e p e titi on , b u t t h ose o f t h e ver y i°W i e- yor° scription. He would at once con t ra di c t the Nob s igne d in that assertion, by s t a ti ng t h at it vissol": by the High Sheriff, by M r . Al exan d er Nr' t oos' a physician of great eminence, and by Mr. Ford, inset' time represented the county o f D own i n Par lia l The noble Marquis had stated that the measure h$ 'lo o ' met with the universal approbation of the country' no ble he most positively asserted in the presence of the , f he Lords who were capable of contradicting bin( , ;M r stated that which w as no t th e f act , h e stsie ° ,', a era , there never did pr eva il i n t hi s coun try e° a sentiment in favour of an y measure --(Hear, lie s eo tsr/ that which had been exp resse d i n f avour o f Parlis i r h ti t Reform. With respect to the principle on 'Il i !: ae s , measure proceeded, he would not be induced On t" t o - r eeP t ° sion to follow the Noble Lord through his at,' Or on the merits of the Bill, as these argumen ts sisted merely in. stating assertions of opinic W tha t t he without foundation. He however, would state fInY "" to tal l Y, principle of the measure was a principle of I I. ; % a rne l Y thing which the present state of things requireoo iin alteration of the representation of the pel le I ts e'e r , ' liament. Among the most strenuous opposition's o w' had not been found a single individual wh ° „ t th s deny that prop os i t i on f or t h e purpose o f b e aring ° t - br argument he would refer to the division 63 p e t taken place in the House of Commons the otberoeie How had that division been obtained hut by t be fie for'd sion of ev e ry c ne p resent o f t h e necess i ty o f sotr ie It had been st a t e d i n t h at H ouse , that if the e ta reading was not carried, that acting upon t' txrii , I's ciple which had b ee n now p ropose d by 3 f in t 1 1,° , ° , r e other measure of R e f orm —th oug h no t the sa , " - t ' be rr at he brought forward in favour of that principle; by he had not only th e d ec l arat i ons o f the pel nr :s the unanimous v o t e o f th e H ouse of Com ul- I t os' ii , both sides, a nd th a t t oo i n one o f the ful le a piol a o that ever was assembled. The Noble La ; 0 , 0; 0 was an advocate for a bit by bit R e forrn-- tu . to tiee v satisfy nobody and disappoint the people. In A . j ,, of t :he himself, he must say, that on the first `',0 1 : 00 session ; so strong was he convinced of the Po: l 7 o pin; e measure, that he there stated it to be 4. be that it was one of the best measure , ' that t a ad_' of could adopt to conciliate the people of the cotint r i s ' t , gres s , store ;hat confidence in Parliament which was o h is P 6, wanted. Acting upon that principle, he had jests, when he was pleased to honour him With ro 'fence, that he could not serve him unless be if3 ! o , to propose to the Parliament that measure 14;j which had been brought forward. The Nu efe r ite , quis had said that undue influence had beell a l by his Majesty's Ministers in the use of the ß°y fe t t r ha t On reflection he had no doubt he ss'r+tl io es to g that observation for it must be n° t°r ; 'O t te rs, when a measure was introduced as a rne ati-e /klilli ° 4 oo with the approbation of his Majesty se n t it could not be introduced without t° vre re. t he of the Monarch, whose servants theY.„ i ji 0 , re such effect would be produced by the P 0 4% 0 , which was apprehended by the Noble I.° r , t aOY to spect to the ball o t. H e d en i e d in tot () tP. • s ter' )ll°' due influence had b een used by / g e ar, , to procure the votes of the other House.---t. v C trs ° n hear.) The Noble Marquis had also o iled Ile threats which had b ee n h e ld out, an d ti bjec t. him to make some declaration upon the e s c ,, q ., t ion beat .,) should at one say, he would make no such d '"t ears trac t this measure he would either stand or de lots Ile would not consent to anything that 7 :ll °ll f e ae ? dip ; from its expediency. There might be _ so oo ,:itbst a e S ths ° , that required correction, but o serti o rts' from its efficiency would do for him. "% ons tio_ ra el it was not a revolutionary measure, but the ar ietoti t he measureohat so far from being subversive 0111'100er of Ass i it would be its best support. He was a lo g ar o se ° aristocracy, but should only remain so o ss r p ot the cAo itn connected Aristocracy a cayld"bv,iyatlnittaakaglieln.ganidrTotiihnneitttendeemawsuitarhpeoawwlleofrtisuroppo rootts to the people. (LEFT SITTING.) 60 . r - On the 2lld inst. Mrs. Wright, BnlT H oPEust,°"ql, qu t:sg are' '' °°f j3° On the 01st inst. the lady of T. T• s ir " Dr. ';‘f` li t r t's , tract, of a son. MARRIED. rte. ,roo , On the lCth inst. at Edinburgh, by the ` ,,;, , of gal° James Gregory Voe, eldest son of Dr. Mary, second daughter of Robert Purdie , yotia p icn a, E.tinburgh. rY, 11" On the thld inst. at St. George's, piste, BloomsbU.guac;_ eldest son of W. Young, Esq., ot lli g hb V. burj eldest daughter of John Hardy, Ey+ , m rie, sell-square. „ iar yieat. On the _2d inst. at All So u ls Church , civi " t of eorge Turner, of Cambridge. to Mary, et Francis Calder. k Mr. A M ( a ) r n ke i tl:t i o n n, t. t: t Eli 4 z7t, r s g e e c 's o ' nrc u la t u h g le-r' °I r ah or Newington, surrey. ra r ylptloo Y ° ' PRINTED IND f' usug ,,, yr SUN OFFICE, 1112, STRAND,