The Sun. — London, England, 1831-03-22 00:00:00

Ive the intentse anxiety with which the people were . L n g to the result of that evening's discussion. fa~aNORREYS had cme into that House to support of Reform ; but friendly as he was to Reform, he il , h il la °t give his support to a measure, which he believed, NI A ,, conscience, would endanger the Constitution. — to t ,i'cli from the Opposition.) He thought that this Bill klii h id e'troy the balance which had so long existed , an d t c Ought always to exist in that Howe between the klt'!•lltural and the manufacturing interest. He thought '1 would give a preponderating influence in that House 'ty k e zianufacturing districts. He would willingly give t il ln APort tri that part of this Bill which gave an exten ikref suffrag e to the middle classes, as he owed his seat e IY to those classes. He must, however, object to the al of diminishing the number of Members in the kk t: sixty-two. The Noble Lord mentioned other ,1, 'ions to the Bill, and then observed that he was pre - k,i 4 1 the discharge of his duty to stand or fall with the math) V. n• STUART bad hoped most fervently that be -11144tt night he should have been enabled to transfer into e nds of another that trust which was at present reposed s it ' Ora. But circumstances, over which he had no had placed him in the painful dilemma either of n le hi • 8 constituents, the corporation of Banbury, without ClreNntative at the moment when their privileges were 4 ees or of d e f e nding their privileges at a sacrifice of ,i l ' ° Ja privat e f ee li n g s . H o wever distressing it might ' 4 ,e'nour demanded that he should make that sacrifice. co nsideration, and that consideration alone, induced li t° vote against the second reading of the Bill. 4 car and laughter.) Having thus pledg T 1 himself of 18 charg e of the point of honour to his constituents, he e t Cht it due to his own character, at variance as a 1 v , 14 with his constituents, to declare that he only 'ai:ts seat until they elected a successor to fill it. He ii afford no stronger proof of his disinterestedness '4 4 4 '6 conduct. His vote lie should give to his con tents, but his opinions were his own. lli t The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was inaudible in the t for some time after he commenced his speech. He hi th a t h e was as grea t an enem y t o an ythi ng of a !to ed t en d ency as any M em b e r in that House ; Ineasure had no such tendency. If we looked th e our e ar ly hi s t o ry, p rev i ous to 1688, we should t " Constitution perpetually changing. There was a ', 4t tiffs! struggle for change ; and no one period of re tal'a% not followed by fresh and violent exertion. When )Is ta ,' l: '' to the year 1688, to the change which then took 14 th ' lie applied the term revolution, for it was a change a 3 / 4 e s uccession to the Throne. The present measure itl i : at a revtionary but a healing measure, beneficial countryolu and was in perfect accordance with the la.. ti Ples of revolution of 1688. That revolution laid t 'a a proper foundation the rights of the throne, of aO s tocracy, and of the people. The Constitution then 4a, l3l ied declared that Members of the Commons House Vr'imalent should not be nominated by Peers and Corn- Qes, but s h ou ld b e e l ecte d b y t h e i r const i tuents . Th e ia ti s therefore, was not devising a new constitution, "vati g upon the principles of the old, but was gin the steps of its predecessors. Six years tac revolution of 1686, an Act of Parliament de- V i t h d that " i n a l l t i nse " the d urat i on o f P ar li aments s h ou ld , r ce years, a nd no l onger . Eith e r this Act was to be .t 'c la d as a mere declaration or interpretation of a former a o cir it was of itself an acknowledgment that the Consti ktti e stablished in 1688 was liable to be altered by Parlia a,', Then c ame th e S e p tenn i a l A c t o f 1715, passed in - "iarnent where sat Lord Somers, one of the oracles of 11t aintion, and one of the framers of the Bill of Rights. t l t herf, was a Parl i ament chosen under the revolution i.. t B , and und e r a st a t u te which d e clargd that electors e 'l°osfe representatives for three years, and no longer, ea ibrelf a P a rliam e nt f or seven years. He would ?. Gentlemen, who imputed to the present measure itionary character, whether the Septennial Act was kl,. -utionary measure? It had never been treated as the contrary, it was always considered to be flail'a the constitutional power of Parliament to make 11, h, 'lterati on . H e wou ld as k t h e H on . an d L earne d ks o -4 " . for Boroughbridge, wha so stoutly defended all lad,? 8.118 , what he would say to the Septennial Act ? Ac- S t 41 t to the argument of that Hon. and Learned Mem. t N tcat A c t must have been completely a revolutionary sy, li tc, far it affected all Corporations wHon.hi it pro tanto alehied. But seeing neither his ` Hon. and Learned C tir nor th e Li on. G entleman on t h e ot h er s id e , cou ld to imput e to the 6th of William and Mary and to a k eptennial A c t a revo l ut i onary c h aracter, t h en it was af, t tld argument to say t h at t h e present c h ange was re -I."ary. It w as a P ar li amen t ary f o ll ow i ng up of the tptieiPles of th e revo l ut i on o f 1688, an d trea di ng i n th e t ees of th ose w h o t h en a dj uste d t h e C onst i tut i on . I t Otorions not only to the House but to the public ge- OIY that there were many boroughs so corrupt that 1 14 an ent itself had endeavoured to disfranchise some SI: 11 ' , when, from tim e to time, the peccant be- L eer Were detected. Now nothing could be more ‘S tt i''as than to m ix the judicial and the legislative Ysid: a lta ; such a necessity ought, if possible, to be L a '—(Hear.)—As an illustration, he would refer to ‘rit-4 Cricklade, in 17E31. Parliament then passed S ti t t " hieh destroyed, or, at all events, which created a Nil, or an a l terat i on i n th e cons tit u tion of that bo la, And how did Parliament proceed in that case ? IN't c ertain electors were proceeded against criminally ; 44 e re convicted, and others were not convicte I. There class who were not proceeded against at all, a ll : a t tics' were innocent. Now, if this case were dealt '''tll,;•nWhere than in that House, it would, according , It lui l 4 clinary principles of law, be considered that those '41 4 111 been tried and convicted had suffered the full : I , 44 a, i t n f their crime; and that those who had been tried thi rd c onvicted were to be considered as innocent. The , e ,, 414 , who were not put upon their trial, were not tasei"'Peeterl. But how did the House deal with that Pr 0i W lIY, after these trials, the House made the s e a 'tam 'flgs the foundation of a legislative measure, which kf r,,eta .- 2 1 Y altered the elective franchise of that borough, 4, 061 Nvoi; . 4 5 55 ;; equally the innocent and not suspected, as well as 4 'llty : l ed and c on vict e d, and who had paid the full pe- L im t 4 f t heir crime. This was done on the ground that Isi l ;` 3 having come to the knowledge of Parliament, it I Ne tti eur nhent up on it to se c ur e the public against the con e" thie abuse of the elective franchise in the bo le, Crickl a d e . It was, therefore, not with a view Lllt 4' ° trea g the guilty, by an ex post facto law, but by ,1 to teat principle, that Parliament , look ilaiee'-uat might in futur e take place in that borough, p,,,_ terl that the people of England had no security , that titti'is returned for Cricklade wculd be returned -tottitutional constituency. Other attempts of a like :ty r } .l l) 7 l been made • but with one or two exceptions 1 144' f ailed and the ' delinquents had escaped ; but the h n ew, it had been stated in that House by the high. 4ll a t , —°rit Y that it was as clear as the sun at noon day h er --4 in the House were bought. In all the cases of fight mentioned in the present Bill, although th e aur not be the same evidence of corruption, there AI; ' la me moral certaint y .—(Cries of hear, and no.) ~al- was th e conviction out of doors, founded upon a 4 1 4 :tail:Ay of the fact. The present Bill was founded Oltl ed ßa t i ne conclusion that Parliament came into the e case, that the people had not adequate security Nl' roper exercise of the elective franchise—(Hear) ael 'e contend e d t h a t i t was as much in the power of kf t , r e t to disfranchise all these boroughs at once, as clor eo . another. W ou ld M em b ers say t hat it was in by , I ,'Y to the C ons ti tut i on th a t sea ts should he filled th 'ection but by nomination? Either the mode e, of "e seats by nomination was not known to the t e nd yhe eo wast therefore, a mystery, or if known, had 1 di et p tk Ple a right t o complain ? When gentlemen t is ci tn ett tere Why a temporary excitement out of doors , ieg i ,: t • Look at the petitions; look at the public po ' and what w ou ld b e sa id of that more still, but areArerful voice, of which no Member could be un -1,1t11,e 1, : t o gentl eman cou ld h ave m i xe d i n an y co mp a ny, l ti t .tteed s ix or seven years, where politics were not ~( 411 1 fro m, without knowing that Parliamentary V. eat W as a predominant topic. Was there not Vi l tne eio P r ePonderati ng body which declared that 1i ht th re sho u ld b e carr i e d , if not now , a t some t i me ? O t w ae e House was dealing with Reformers, it was dealing 11 4 14 4 e l tiV e body of men, who were not to be put down Vet ere The House knew that on this subject it had t t% llst l4 u pon it to the utmost extent consistent with law. o ee e " I l embers wish for stioneer pressure? If the kt lt 4t tlitie t,hoQU'd not be put down by resistance to it, the tie- Et~would become much stronger, and would en e Public peac e . Th e p re sent meas ure would se- Yee e tb r i eds onable portion of the Reformers from those ug would satisfy • whereas, if it be withheld, with them. Could those gentlenien,..wh Were in a condition to resist the claims of t h e kt o r ;h l , l 7 believe that we should fail in resisting that 4iludwould not be satisfied, when we had all well ved t reasonable men with us ?—(Hear.) The 'lNZeteereearned Gentleman concluded by saying, that i Nigtie„ , Was safe and constitutional,—that it was no Ithtte ad but a reiteration of the Constitution, and calcu- A,eoe 4t the security of the throne and the happiness tai ls tHear.) ,"DEN rose amid loud cries of " Adjourn "kp >' Akfter l '" ) tihl be sorry if the House adjourned Mime " - th e No sptech of the Hon. and Learned Gentle 'et.} ti " e u nconstitutional speech he bad never heard. e bad been desirous of establishing what no one denied—the power of Parliament to alter the Constitution ; and he bad gone through the history of the Constitution from youth to manhood, to the change in 1688 ; but did he not then find it in a state of perfection 7—(" Hear, " "Oh ) Then the Hon. and Learned Gentleman asked if the Triennial and the Septennial Acts were revolutionary measures. No ; but the last was a highly unjust and im politic measure, introduced by persons of the same princi• pies as those with which the Hon. and Learned Gentle man had connected himself, by which they extended the Parliament to seven years, in order that they might not lose their places ; and the present Administration were willing to grant the privileges which the people asked, in order that they might keep their places.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had told the House that it was improper to mix the legislative and judicial capacities, and that though there was in. justice in the case of Cricklade, where there was evi dence of corruption, therefore it was prop,r to dis franchise all the boroughs without ar.y evidence at all. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman talked of moral evi dence when he should talk of legal evidence. They talked of the agitation which prevailed, and of the univeral cry which was made for Reform, but the agitation bad been the work of the Ministers themselves. The petitions which were now presented from the people were very dif ferent from those which had been presented previous to the introduction of the Bill by the Noble Lord. Again, he repeated, that the Ministers had agitated the courtry for the purpose of carrying this measure.—(Hear, hear.) —They acted upon the advice of the Hon. Member for Waterford. His language was " agitate England for Reform, agitate Ireland for the repeal of the Union." His Majesty's Migisters had done so,—they had agitated the country, nikiftdfify now came forward and called upon them to pitaliela r speasure which went to destroy the Con stitution of liaeq:puntry. The Ministers were forcing this Reform on the country,—the people of England did not want it.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")—Ile maintained that such bad not been the object of the petitions which had been presented to tha,t House pre% ions to the introduction of this Bill, and Ulrich, while nominally calling for Re form, had very different objects in view. He would defy any Hon. Member to point out any of those petitions in which the people asked for such a measure as this. All their petitions, before this Bill was brought forward, called for the vote by ballot and universal suffrage.—(Cries of " No, no.")—They all asked far the destruction of tithes. —(Reiterated cries of " No, no.")—He would maintain it, notwithstanding those cries from the benches opposite, that at least a great proportion of those petitions did make such a demand. All the petitions to which he alluded only asked for Reform in vague and general terms, but they distinctly demanded the redress of what they seemed to consider more pressing grievances.—(Cries of " name, name.") He could not at this moment name the particular petitions which made such demands, but lie would contend for it, for he had read all those petitions over carefully, that the petitioners only asked for Reform, coupling it with the reduction of tithes, and rents, and taxes, and the redress of other grievances which they supposed existed.— (" No, no.") It was very easy to say No" to that as sertion ; but he would maintain, that the petitions which were then presented had totally different objects in view from those which were now presented to the House.— (Cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition, and of " No, no," from the Ministerial Benches.) The peti tions which were now presented did not contain a word about universal suffrage or the vote by ballot. The people, who, but a few months ago, called out so lustily for universal suffrage, and the vote by ballot, received any one who came forward —with such propositions now at any public meeting, with execration. They put down discussion upon all such points—they would not listen to any such propositions—their cry was, " do not damage the measure by the introduction of such matters." They acted, no doubt, upon the impression, that having once succeeded in getting such a measure as this carried, the other measures which they had in view, the ulterior objects which they contemplated, would of necessity speedily follow.—(Hear.) He must say that he was greatly sur prised that none of the Hon. Members who had spoken in support of this measure had expressed an opinion as to the meaning of the Bill which they had now upon the table of the House. Having read the Bill over most at tentively and carefully, he professed that he found it utterly impossible to understand a great portion of it.—(Hear, hear.) It might be, therefore, after all, not such matter for astonishment that no Mem ber of bis Majesty's Government had ventured to favour them with an explanation of the meaning of its provisions. One part of the proposition of the Noble Lord was to disfranchise 62 boroughs at present sending Members to that House. Now he (Sir E. Sugden) de nied that the House possessed the moral power to make such a change, and to effect such a sweeping measure of disfranchisement. At what time too were they called upon to cut off such a number of the representatives of the people? At a period when the population of the country was increasing at the rate of a quarter of a million in the year?—(Hear, hear.) At such a period were they called upon to adopt such an unconstitutional measure, for which no reasons whatever had been offered. Why not cut off 152 Members as well as 62 ? Where was the measure for their guidance, if they sanctioned such a pro ceeding as that ? The whole Bill was one of pains and penalties, of wide-spread confiscation and desolation, introduced through the mere love, and for the mere pur pose of change, without a single substantial reason being offered for its adoption. The Constitution, by bending and accommodating itself to the circum stances of the times, bad become a Constitution which we could never at once create—a Constitution under which all classes and interests were fairly and fully repre sented. He would tell the Hon. Member for Preston that the whole of his constituents would be disfranchised by this Bill, and that in voting for such a measure, he would vote for the disfranchisement of those who had sent him to that House. The ground of population was the wildest and most absurd ground on which to rest the proposed disfranchisement - of the boroughs in ques tion ; and, indeed, it would seem that even upon that point Ministers had not acted upon sufficient information. He could not conceive any terms too strong to condemn the precipitancy with which this measure had been brought forward.—lllear.)—Before such a measure had been in troduced, it was the duty of the King's Government to in quire into the population, the circumstances, and the state of every such borough, and to let the people of England know the result of such inquiries. They were told that the people were knocking at their door for this measure, and upon such grounds they were called upon with indecent haste, to sacrifice the Constitution of the country. He felt as warmly as any man in that House for the interests of the lower orders, and the middle classes, in this country. He had sprung himself from the middle classes, and he should always remain in the middle classes, and there was not an individual in that House who felt snore affectionately to wards them than he did. But he never would consent to sacrifice the people of England to their prejudices and pas sions ; he never would consent to abandon their real inte rests; and, he trusted, that when the period of feverish excitement should have passed over, the people of this, country would see who had been their real friends.—(Hear hear.) This Bill had been expressly framed with a view to bribe a large portion of the people to support it. It was described by its advocates in different terms to different classes in society. To the people of England it was said that this measure would give to them the exercise of their natural tights, while, on the other hand, the aristocracy were told that here was a measure which would make their power and influence more secure than ever, — that here was a measure by which the people of England would be laid entirely at their mercy—(Cries of " Oh") — and that they might depend upon its working better than the existing system. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, whose very eloquent address he (Sir E. Sugden) had beard with so much pleasure that evening, but whom be could with difficulty bring himself to suppose was the represen tative for Milburne Port, and whom he could scarcely imagine it possible to have come from such a place in a crusade against boroughs,—that lion. and Learned Gentle man told the aristocracy that this measure would give them additional strength. That Hon. Member talked of the fifty-five additional county Members which this Bill would give to the aristocracy, but he could not have read the Bill, or if he had read it, he must have misunderstood it. The effect of such a measure as this would be, that the county Members who would be returned would be very different from the Members at present returned there.— (Hear, hear.) --The effect of this Bill would be to cut up England into paltry and petty districts, and to give to them the power of returning the Members to that House. The counties to which two additional Members would be given would be thus cut up into two, and the polling dis tricts into which they would be divided would virtually constitute so many small boroughs, which would actually return the Members. The county Members at present derived their weight from being the representatives of the whole county. But this measure would destroy that, and thus tend to destroy the weight and influ ence of the Aristocracy.—(Hear, hear.) —The Govern ment, by this Bill, was asking a British House of Commons to vacate its functions, and to leave to the Privy Council a riding commission to shift and change the consti tuency. The House of Commons that should give such a power to any Administration would vacate its functions and disgrace itself. He could never consent to allow his Majesty's Ministers to parcel out the constituency ofEttg land in the manner which this Bill proposed. The whole I Bill was full of inconsistencies. It was provided that the same property should not have a double right of voting, and yet leaseholders were to vote, though their landlords were to have their votes likewise. The powers given to the King by the Bill were n ot compulsory, and he tnight execute them or not as he pleased, and thus the Bill might be only partially operative. The Bill sunk all the rights of all corporations, although the preamble said not one word about bribery or corruption, nor did it point out how the scheme was to work. Ile defied any constituency to be able to understand the Bill, and thus the whole Constitution of England wan to be changed by a Ministry that were unable to state their own meaning upon paper. He would now point out one part of the Bill which was artfully contrived to give a rich boon to the landlords. People were re quired to register their votes even six years before any elee and, to entitle them to this act of tion might take place ; registration, each man must pay up all his rates, rent, and taxes. What a boon was this for landlords, tithe-owners, and tax-receivers. Judges of assize were to appoint bar risters to ascertain the registration, and these appointments were to be approved of by the Lord Chancellor, an officer of the Crown ; and the only appeal against the decision of the barrister was to that House. What an immense power did this throw into the hands of an Administration ! The lion. and Learned Member, after observing that the Bill gave three additional Members to Ireland, while it took away sixty-two from England, went on, amidst loud cries of " Question," to speak of the repeal of the Union, and to contend that their had been a com promise between the Government and the Hon. and Learned Member for Waterford (Mr. O'Connell). The Government could not bring the Hon. and Learned Member for Waterford up for judgment, after having applauded and cheered so loudly the speech which the Hon. and Learned Member had made upon this Bill.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and laughter.)—He contended that they could not, and that they could nut have any intention of doing so, or they, and particularly the Attorney-General, would not have cheered the Hon. and Learned Member so loudly. (Cries of " Question.")—lt was evident to him from this conduct that there had been a compromise between the Government and the Hon. and Learned Member for Wa terford.—(Cries of " No, no," from Mr. Stanley and Mr. O'Connell.)—He said " Yes," and he should shortly bring the question regularly before the House.—(Herr, hear.)—The lion. and Learned Member, in the letter which he bad on a late occasion read to the House, had said that he wished, as a part of his terms, that the Lord Lieutenant should withdraw his proclamations,—and for a subject to be allowed to mate thus to the Government was, he (Sir E. Sugden) contended, most improper. Mr. STANLEY said that he could not allow the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to go on misrepresenting so im portant a matter. That letter was not written to the Government.—(Hear.) Sir E. SUGDEN said that if it was not written to the Government, it was written to be shown to the Govern ment, and that it was evidence of a compromise.— (Laughter, and cries of " question.")—He contended that i❑ the present state of Ireland the representation of that country ought not to be increased, especially while that of England was diminished. Was he to be curtailed of his own just proportions—(A laugh)—for the benefit of others ? He would not detain the House any longer upon the present occasion ; but he must say in conclusion that he should never give a vote upon which he should reflect with more satisfaction than up.m the vote he should give in favour of the amendment of the Hon. Member fur Cornwall. An HON. MEMBER. moved that the debate beraadjourned till this day at five o'clock.—Agreed to. A vast number of petitions, to the amount of some hundreds, were presented in favour of the Reform Bill, and eight petitions were presented against it. Adjourned shortly before Four o'clock. MOUSE OF LORDS, MARCM 21. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord PLUNKETT) took the oaths and his seat. Sir ALEXANDER GRANT, and others, from the Com mons, brought up the Prohibition or Mandamus Bill, and several private Bills. Petitions were presented by the Duke of Grafton from Suffolk, in favour of Reform, and from Woodbridge and Aldborough to the same effect; by Earl Spencer from Northampton, in favour of Reform, and similar petitions from Daventry and from Upton-upon-Severn ; by Lord Kinnoul, from Perth, in favour of Reform ; by Lord Radnor, from Goodehurch, and several other places, to the same effect ; by the Earl of Eldon, from a place in Galway, for an extension of the elective franchise; by Lord King, from Axminster, Dunfermline, Dumbarton, and several other places, in favour of Reform ; by Lord Montagu, from Selkirk, against Reform. The Noble Lord addressed the House at considerable lsngth,not a word, how ever, was heard below the bar. Several petitions were presented by the Earl of Roseberry, from Linlithgow and Queen's Ferry, in favour of Reform : by the Earl of Dudley, from Sedgley, in Staffordshire, in favonr of Reform ; by Lord Goderich, from Lincoln, to the same effect ; by the Duke of Norfolk, from Cove and Horsham, to the same effect; also similar petitions from Waterford, the barbers of Glasgow, Perth, and several other places. Lord FARNHAM observed that as several of the peti tions presentA by the Noble Duke (Norfolk) came from Ireland, be felt himself called upon to say a few words upon this ail engrossing sulaject. Their Lordships would recollect the Bill brought fOrward by his Majesty's Ministers, with respect to a Reform in England, stood for a second reading in the House of Com mons this evening, and, strange to say, no details had as yet been brought forward with reference to Ireland. The measure, as opened by the Paymaster of the Forces, was to be looked at as a whole one. He wished, therefore, to be informed by his Majesty's Ministers when it was their intention to bring forward the details of the measure with respect to Ireland, as he (Lord Farnham) considered the subjr ct could not be discussed as a whole measure unless the details of the Irish Bill were before the House as well as those of England and Scotland.— He had several petitions from Ireland on this subject, but he had deferred presenting them till the details of the measure were brought forward. He, however, thought any Bill bottomed on the same principles as those on which the Irish and Scotch Bills had proceeded, would not be of much good to Ireland. Earl GREY considered it an irregular course for the Noble Lord to ask when a Bill was to be introduced into the other House, in which it could only be properly introduced. It was a question to which it was utterly impossible for him, consistently with his respect to the other House, to give any answer. Whether a measure, such as that contem plated in England, was applicable to Ireland, whether it would be productive of advantages or not, would be discussed when the matter came before the House. But this was the first time that he (Earl Grey) had ever heard it stated that a Bill for Re form in England could not be discussed until Bills of ti similar nature were brought in for Ireland. As far, how ever, as he could speak in answer to the Noble Lord's question, lie certainly could say the Bill for Ireland was prepared and would be produced at the first convenient opportunity. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the question was at all events a very natural one. REFORM GENERALLY. The LORD CHANCELLOR had a great many peti tions to present in favour of this important measure, which at present almost engrossed :be attention of all, and he begged leave to make the same apology as he had done on a former occasion, for presinting these petitions in the shorts. It was certainly not out of disrespect to the peti tioners that he did so, hut because they were so very nu merous that the presenting them in the ordinary way would very much interfere with the other business of the House. He had thirty petitions to present, almost all of them from public corporate bodies, whose interests were affected by the measure, but which interests they were glad to sacrifice for the good of the community. The petitions were from the Incorporations of Hammermen and Tailors of Edinburgh ; from the Incorporated Can dlemakers of Portsburgh, near Edinburgh ; from the Corporations of Jedburgh and Newburgh ; from the Cor poration of Fleshers of Edinburgh ; from several Incor porated Bodies of Stirling and Perth ; from the Corpora tionStewartry of Kirkcudbright ; from m G e a Gatehouse, s Incorporated, in t Bodies in Edinburgh ; from the Magistrates and Inhabitants of the Canongate, and from other places. He had six other petitions to present— from the county of Renfrew, from the Gorbals of Glas gow, from the county of Lanark ; and 20 other petitions, making in all 54, from corporate bodies, who gladly sa crificed their own interests far the g oo d o f t h e commun i ty. Among these were petitions from the towns of Ayr, Dum barton, Haddington ; from the Dean and Faculty of the Law Practitioners of Glasgow; from the Magistrates of Glasgow ; from the Incorporated Masons of Glasgow ; from the Seven Incorporated Trades of Stirling, &C. He had about eighty or ninety more, with which he would not at present trouble their Lord ships; but he could not help remarking the generosity and disinterestedness which had been displayed on this mo mentous occasion, by persons in comparatively humble situations in life. When they awarded due honour and praise to the Noble Lords in this House, and to the Hon. Members in the other, who readily sacrificed their own interests and political influence to the public good, it was impossible to refrain from awarding a similar mood of praise to those of a humbler—he would not say a lower— class, who had evinced equal disinterestedness. He had one more petition now to present, ansl that would show how grievously individuals were mistaken who tried to excite discontent among the humblest classes of society.— (A laugh.)-11 those who had set up that laugh had waited till he concluded, they would have seen that it was one of those laughs which hid better have been post. poned sine die. His object was to show that a moral lesso n might be drawn from this interesting passage in the history of the people. This petition showed that they la houred under a great delusion who attempted to excite a hostile feeling against this great me a sur e of Reform in the minds of the humbler classes of the people, who had proved, however, bow much they were exalted above their tempters. Me called them the humbler, but not the lower classes, for they had resisted the temptation when appealed to on the topics so apt to delude. They were told " you will have no votes by this plan, for it is founded on pro perty from the beginning to the end." The people showed that they were not to be so deluded, and they replied, " This is the first time that men of your kidney thought of the people." The people saw that the measure would give them the object for which alone votes could be useful or desirable, a nd that was that it would secure them a good representation.--(Hear.) The argument, however, was as old as the Christian Religion ; and he who first used it was a character well known in Sacred History._ He would read from Sacred History what the historian bad said of him who first made use of the appeal. " And Judas, whose name was Iscariot, answered and said, ' Why are nut these things sold for so much money to be given to the poor ?' " Upon which the Sacred Historian re marks with indignation, in his simple but powerful lan guage—" Not that Judas Iscariot cared anything for the poor, but that he was a thief"—. • The Duke of WELLINGTON rore to order. It had before been proposed, and, as he understood, agreed to, that the measure should not be discussed till it came regu- larly before their Lordships. But the Noble and Learned Lord was irregular in referring to arguments that had been used in the other House. The LORD CHANCELLOR had not referred to argu ments used in the other House, but to arguments held out of doors at county meetings. The Duke of WELLINGTON—The Noble and Learned Lord hail at least referred to arguments used, to show the people that the measure would not be beneficial but in jurious to them, and since he had done so he ought to have gone further, and adverted to the arguments used to the people on the other side—the arguments to persuade them that this measure must lead to ulterior measures—to Radi cal Reform and Universal Suffrage—(Hear, hear).—and since the Noble and Learned Lord referred to the one set of arguments, he ought to have referred to the other, for there was no doubt but that great support to the measure had been procured from the people in consequence of the hopes thus held out to them. He would not, however, now enter further into the discussion of the measure, but reserve himself till it came regularly before them. The LORD CHANCELLOR quite agreed with the Noble Duke, that it was far better that the discussion of the measure should be reserved till it came regularly before them. That had been stated as a rule, and from that rule he had not deviated. Ile had not entered into the discussion of the question, but having fifty-four petitions to present from Corporate Bodies, in addition to twenty five before presented from such bodies, in which they in the strongest and most disinterested manner, supported a measure which trenched on their own peculiar privileges, out of regard to the goad of the community, he had only said that a great moral lesson might be drawn from that circumstance. This was germane to the matter, and not irregular. He differed from the Noble Duke when he slid that the people were induced to support the measure by the hope of its leading to ulterior measures, for he had presented petitions signed by thirty-three thousand names, hundreds and thousands of whom would have no votes, but who expressed their approbation of the measure from the knowledge that it would give what was the only real use and object of votes—namely, good representation. The petitions were then presented, and the whole of them laid on the table. _ . _ The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented petitions for the 11 , -form Bill from the Liberty of the Rolls, in Mid- dlesex ; from Darlington, in the county of Durham ; and from the Mayor and Corporation of To tness. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition against the Ministerial plan of Reform from a place in Devonshire, but the petitioners stated that they were not hostile to moderate Reform ; also a petition from Had dington, in favour of the principle of the Ministerial plan. He, himself, gave no opinion on the subject at present. The Earl of MANSFIELD presented a petition against the Reform measure from the Merchants, Bankers, and the College of Justice, of Edinburgh. The Earl of CARLISLE presented petitions from Cum berland assembled at a meeting where the High Sheriff presided ; and from the town of Carlisle, in favour of the measure. Earl GREY presented a petition from Greenwich, in Kent, numerously signed, in favour of the measure; also a petition to the ssme effect from Birmingham, signed by 21,000 persons, and agreed to unanimously at a public meeting, and that upon the principle of the plan, without reference to ulterior measures. His Lordship observed, that he felt the inconvenience of discussing the measure before it caine immediately before them ; but he was him self anxious for that discussion, in order to show the smight nto osay, ulterior tll grounds ou which the measure rested. But this much he any persons supposed that this would lead a ifm easures they were mistaken ; for there w person at more decided against Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the Ballot, than he was. His object was not to favour, but to put an end to such hopes and projects, and for that purpose to produce a system not liable to the objections to which the present system was liable. The measure was introduced as the best security against such schemes ; and in that view the proposed measure had been eminently successful. His Lordship then presented a petition from Alanches ter, signed by 20,090 persons, in favour of the Reform measure. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitions to the same effect from Warrington, signed by 1,600 persons ; from Girvan, in the county of Ayr ; from Rumsey infra and extra, in the county of Northampton; from the town of Ayr; from Newburgh ; from Dover, and from Bervey. The Duke of SUSSEX presented petitions to the nme effect from the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea ; from Holy well; from the borough of Renfrew; and from certain merchants and other inhabitants of a town in the county of Meath, who prayed that the same plan of Reform which was introduced for England and Scotland might be ex tended to Ireland : this was material in reference to the observations of a Noble Lord opposite (Farnham). Lord MELBOURNE presented petitions to the same effect from Glasgow ; from the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn; from Monmouth, and four petitions from dif ferent parts of the county of Durham. All the petitions were laid on the table. ENGLISH AND SCOTCH MARRIAGES. The Earl of ELDON had been requested by a Noble Lord now in Scotland (probably Lauderdale) to lay on their Lordships' table a Bill on the subject of English and Scotch marriages. Within these last five years cases had come to their Lordships' bar relative to children born in England of persons not married, which persons went to Scotland and got themselves married there, and by three or four judgments it had been decided that such marriages did not legitimise the children. In the course of the addresses of the Counsel, it became necessary to consider what degree of residence in Scotland constituted a resi dence so as to entitle married persons to call upon the Scotch Courts for a divorce a cinculo matrimonii. Per sons who had been married in England sometimes took it into their heads to go to Scotland to be divorced, and the question was, what degree of residence constituted a domi. cite so as to entitle them to call on the Courts for that kind of divorce? He at present gave no opinion as to the validity of these divorces; but he knew that it had been solemnly agreed by the twelve Judges of England that an English marriage could not be dissolved in Scotland or anywhere else, without an Act of the British Parliament. He gave no opinion as to which were right, the English or the Scotch Judges; but his opinion was, that they must not leave the subject in England or Scotland in this state. A man who had married in England, and had gone to Scotland and got a divorce, and then married again i n England, had been indicted for bigamy, and had been convicted and ordered to be transported, although the mercy of the Crown had been extended to him in conside ration of the circumstances. The object of the Bill was to settle that matter, either one way or the other. H e hoped that their Lordships would allow it to be read a first time, and the Noble Lord who framed it expected to he i n town himself, to propose a time for the second reading. The Bill was accordingly read a first time. The Earl of ELDON presented a petition from certain Roman Catholics of Galway, praying that the elective franchise might be extended to them in the same manner as to Protestants. Lord BELHAVEN presented a Bill relative to landlords and tenants in Scotland.—Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented three petitions from •hip-owners against the additional duties on Canada timber. BANKRUPTCY JUDICATURE REFORM BILL. The Earl of ELDON requested of his Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack to allow the second reading of the Bankruptcy Judicature Reform Bill to stand over till the return of the Noble Lord Chief Baron from the Circuit. He disclaimed all intention of making this proposition as a party-handle to defeat the measure. The LORD CHANCELLOR was satisfied that his Noble and Learned Friend was above such conduct. He was not particular as to a thy, and admitted that it was fitting that the measure should be discussed with all the professional assistance that they could procure. He had written to the Noble Baron to ascertain at what time he would be in town, and expected an answer to-morrow, and he would then fix a time for the second reading. Lord ELLENBOROUGH had received a letter from the Noble Lord Chief Baron, in which his Lordship in formed him that the earliest day on which he could be in town would be Good Friday. The LORD CHANCELLOR would fix the time to morrow, and in case the Noble and Learned Lord Chi 4 Baron should not be able to come to town till Good Fri day, lie should propose the first Monday after the recess. Order for the second reading this night discharged.-- Adjourned. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. It will be seen by our Parliamentary report of last night that this Journal formed the subject of a considerable die-. mission in the House of Commons. To that discussion itself, we are content to refer our readers and the country for our justification—that is, for our public justification. Our own heart and conscience inform us, that, however feebly or inadequately, we have never written one word— we have never given circulation to one sentiment—but in the sincere hope and design of serving our country, and defending its liberties against all enemies, foreign or do. mestic ; and no man has a right to assume to himself ex clusively ouch a monopoly of patriotism as shall qualify him to say that he only has his country's good at heart, and that those who differ from him, and support their difference by such means as the free institutions of the country put within their reach, are traitors or rebel,. What ! are we not English as well as the Member for Oxford ? Aye, and perhaps have taken as much pains to study the British Constitution as he, and should be as painfully affected if any serious ill were to happen to it in this attempt to purge off its foul impurities. It is an error in Sir Robert Inglis to say that " we arrogated to ourselves the title of the leading Journal.' " We never arrogated to ourselves any such title, though we see no great reason why we should bestow much pains in reject ing it now. Upon the whole, it would have been much better to refute our reasoning, or invalidate our facts, if it were possible, than to endeavour to institute penal proceedings against us for asserting what every ►oan knows to be true, and building upon that basis of truth those arguments, in which it is but too sensibly felt by some that the whole world, British and foreign, coincides. We have been given to understand, that the first notion was to "take up" that letter signed " Anti ' Sclavonicus," and our reasonings upon it, wherein it was asserted that the nominees of the Treasury boroughs ought to retire, as is the case wherever the nominees of borough-patrons find themselves in opposition to their pa trons. Can it be denied either that this is the universal practice among men of honour, or that the representatives of the Treasury boroughs are now violating that practice ? If neither of these things can be denied, would a proceed ing of terror, that should impose silence, or should be meant to impose silence, be anything else but an additional grievance ? Would it not be heaping wrong upon wrong ? It will be seen that Sir Robert Inglis's motion was with drawn, after a discussion of some length, in which Sir Francis Burdett's eloquent and manly vindication of the right of free discussion is worthy of particular attention. Times. We devote a considerable space in this day's journal to a report of the proceedings of the French Chamber of Deputies on Friday last, when the President of the Council, and the chief Members of the new Adinini stration, made their expose of the system on which they have resolved, conjointly and severally, to act. The declaration of the Prime Minister will be reckoned both among the friends of order in France and in this country, as firm, dignified, manly, and tranquillizing. It speaks in a tone and language which have not been beard in France since the Revolution of July, and contains almost in every word a bitter satire on the conduct of his predecessors. It expresses at last the determination of the King's Government to act upon a vigorous system,—to show that the Ministers are united in one aim and object,—that they can exercise the power given by the laws for the protection of the laws themselves,—that they are not to be the mere puppets of contending factions, or the slaves of temporary popularity, —that they are sensible of the evils of vacillation and per petual change, and are resolved to restore confidence by consistency and strength,—that they consider internal order necessary to liberty, if not a part of liberty, and external peace the greatest of blessings, when it can be maintained with national honour. In developing the sys tem of his administration, M. Casimir Perier announced that the principles on which it was to proceed were com mon to him and to his colleagues,—that every measure or proposition which the Cabinet adopted should be the result of general deliberation and concert,—and that the first day of its discord on any important point should be that of a dissolution. The consequence of this united responsi bility and general concert, which forms such a contrast to the conflicting views and contradictory conduct of the members of the previous Ministry, cannot fail to be bene ficially felt in the behaviour of the secondary authorities or lower branches of the Administration. We shall not again see a Prefet of the Seine supported by one Minister or one party in the Cabinet against another ; and contend ing in the Chamber of Deputies for principles subversive of the authority which he was hound to uphold. The President of the Council, in stating the principles of this united Cabinet, gave a version of them as different front that given by his predecessors, as the different interpreta tions of a united responsibility. The principle of the re volution of July, which he professes to maintain, is not one of insurrection, but one of legitimate resistance to the oppressions of power. France resisted illegal aggression, and the triumph which she gained over despotism was the triumph, not of violence, but of law. On the other hand, the party of the late Ministry maintain that a new principle of Go vernment was established by the events of July, and that the illegal ordinances of Charles X. were not the justi fication of resistance, but its pretext; that the declaration of popular sovereignty which then took place was the re sult of fifteen years' conspiracy against the legal authority of the Bourbons ; and that insurrection may be a duty even where power makes no violent encroachment on po pular rights. Hence its favour for clubs and associations —and hence the successive concessions made to mob-so vereignty personified in street riots. The new Ministry will make the preservation of order and tranquillity the chief object of their internal policy. The principle of their foreign policy is equally remote from that of the movement party to which a considerable portion of the late cabinet belonged. This party, distrusting the intentions of the absolute Go vernments of Europe, endeavour to provoke a war of opi nion, in which they expect that those Governments would be overthrown. Its object is to excite insurrections every where, and then to spend the blood and treasures of Frenchmen in aid of the insurgents. Their doctrines of non-intervention, applied to the proceedings of foreign Governments, would be a perpetual intervention, and lead to eternal war. Without reference to the relations of vicinity, or the calls of danger, it would keep the Minis ters perpetually on the alert to observe distant infractions of their darling principle, and would disturb the peace of a whole continent to plant their protecting banners over some remote knot of insurgents. M. Casimir Perier, while he adheres to the principle of non-intervention, where any French interest or duty requires any applica tion, very properly declares that France is not called upon to interfere wherever this principle is violated. Both he and M. Sebastiani refer to the duty of France respecting Austrian interference in the north of Italy, in nearly the same terms as we have repeatedly done in this journal.— Such is M. Cassimir Perier's explanation of the principles of his Government. But on Friday he did not confine himself to his principles alone ; he referred to the new means of their execution, and was succeeded at the tribune by his colleagues, who each confirmed his statement of their unanimity, and produced each his separate contribution to the joint stock of confi dence which they expect to establish. Marshal Soult, the Minister of War, expressed his acquiescence in the views of the Premier, declared not only his wish for 'peace, but his hope in its continuance, and presented a report on what had been done and what was still required in his de partment, to enable him to maintain the honour of the country in the contingencies of either peace or war. The Minister of Finance made a demand on the Chamber, iu execution of the principles just explained, which shows that popularity is not the chief object of the new Cabinet. In order to support public credit, and meet increased de mands on the Treasury, he proposes to double the land-tax and the tax on patents. M. Barthe, the Minister of Justice, agreeing in the necessity of internal order,and the inadequacy of the existing laws to secure it, has laid on the table of the President a new Bill against tumultuous assemblages. Had such a law existed six months ago, Paris w ou d have avoided the disgrace of three separate series of to - mults, and the three dangers of a new revolution. T he observations on the foreign policy of France, made by Ge neral Lafayette, called up M. Sebastiani, who again ex plained the principles of non-intervention embraced by the Government, and separated them from the Quixotism which the old General is desirous of introducing into their application. The documents read by the venerable De puty respecting the intentions of the Russian Cabinet are extremely curious. They prove, beyond the pos-, sibility of doubt, that the Russia❑ armies were to be put in motion, and would have arrived on the Rhine in the spring, had nothing occurred near home to impede their movements ; but it ought to be rem' • lected that all these papers and projects are dated before the recognition of Louis Philip by the Emperor Nicholas. The present Cabinet have thus taken up strong ground. They have shown a bold front to the revolutionary party. They came into office on the express condition of protect ing society against periodical tumults, of maintaining in ternal tranquillity with firmness, and of securing external peace by every means but the sacrifice of national honour, or the surrender of important interests. By the me ,sun s which they propose, both of additional fiscal burdens and of new police regulations, they have ricked their m aster's popularity and their own. They are sure to have the Press against them. They are sure to be branded with the title of the Polignacs of the revolution, and the sedi tion which they banish from the streets will find refuge in the journals : but they are contending for a great stake; and whether they succeed or not, their firmnes', perhaps, offers the cnly chance of saving the monarchy from con - vul,ion.— Tien es. The debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill is adjourned to this day. As so many Members had deli.: vered their sentiments during the former discussion, it was generally expected that a division would take place last ❑ight. In the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor on presenting a number of petitions in favour of Reform, many of them from corporate bodies, who gladly sacri ficed their own interests for the good of the community, " Could not," he said ; " help remarking the generosity. and disinterestedness which had been displayed on this momentous occasion by person' in comparatively humble situations of life. When they awarded due honour and praise to the Noble Lords in that House, and to the Hon. Members in the other, mho readily sacrificed their own interests and political influence to the public good, it was impossible to refrain from awarding a similar meed of praise to those of an humbler—he would not say a lower —class, who bad evinced equal disinterestedness." Allud ing to the attempts to sow divisions between the middle and lower classes by the enemies of Reform—attempts which the good sense of the people has indignantly re pelled—he observed they were told, " you will have no votes by this plan, for it is founded on property from beginning to end. The people showed that they were not to be so deluded, and replied, ' this is the fart time that men of your kidney thought of the people.' " flMs Lordship with great felicity observed, that Sir Rohere Peel (he named no one) had borrowed his tactics from a well-known personage, Judas Iscariot—" And Judas, whose name was Iscariot, answered and said, ' why are not these things sold for so much money, to be given to the poor ?' " Upon which the sacred historian remarks with indignation in his simple but powerful language-- ' Not that Judas Iscariot cared any thing for the poor, but that he was a thief.' " Simple and powerful lan guage, however, does not seem to be much to the taste of their Lordships, for the word thief was no sooner pro nounced, than the Duke of Wellington rose to order. Their Lordships have a prodigious dislike of time pure Saxon. The whole race of public plunderers—the men who throw the maintenance of their mothers, their chil dren, and their mistresses on the public—would at oncc call the direct Saxon terms for their conduct coarse. How ever, nothing could be more apposite than the instance of Judas Iscariot, for it is a never-failing trick of thieves to endeavour to criminate all who seek to bring them to justice. Men who, like Lord Ellenborough and Mr. Thurlow, have their hands deep in the pockets of the people, are usually the most indignant at all attempts which may diminish the respect for property. The debate in the House of Commons was preceded by a motion made by Sir Robert Inglis (as afterwards amended by bins), " That certain passages in the Times Newspaper of the ht, 2d, ith, Bth, and 14th of March, are false and scandalous libels, and that they be handed over to the Attorney- General, with instructions to prosecute the writer." This sort of aid which Sir Robert Inglis and the Honourable House would have received from the Attorney-General before a Jury, may be inferred from the declaration made by the latter—that he could not call the passages false. It is not easy to describe the Honourable House in such a way as shall please the public, and at the same time please Members themselv e s. Si r Robert Inglis's best friends seemed to regret that his zeal should, so far have gotten the better of his discretion, as to seek to make the House punish the Press for stating in plain— coarse if they will—language, at the very time when the whole people are in arms against that House, and loudly approving of the conduct of Ministers in pronouncing sen'ence of condemnation against it. " I am informed (said Sir Robert gravely) that the articles tend to degrade this House in the opinions of the people, and to hold up a large body of those who take part in its deliberations as un worthy of the confidence of the country. Degrade the House in the opinion of the people ! No, that no paper can do. If the House he not degraded already, the observations in question will only provoke the indignat . on of the people. Mr. Sheil made his maiden speech last night. There was not much novelty in the debate. Sir R. Vyvyan, who moved as an amendment, that the Bill be read that day six months, professed not to be altogether hostile to Reform. " He was not in the slightest degree adverse to a measure which would give representatives to the large towns winch were at present unrepresented ; but it was one thing to disfranchise all the boroughs, and another to give repre sentatives to populous towns. Perhaps the Duke of Wellington, upon its being demonstrated to him that such a Reform would be as goad as na Reform at all, as the power of the horoughmongers over the property of the nation would not be at all affected by the giving represen tatives to a few large towns, might come over to Reform, and as all the rest of the late Administration have professed themselves reformers of some sort, we shall at last have no great anti-reformers—his Graee's admiration of the Con stitution as it is, might allow him to admit of a change so perfectly harmless. We observe in the debate of last night, that the speakers against the Bill seemed to have taken their cue to speak at the King. Do thee think they can frighten him ? Lord Valletort, however, did not think the agitation would " proceed the length of endangering the loss of the heal of the Monarch on a scaffold." Sir R. Vyvyan, however, proceeded to the result of the Reform in France. " In three months after, the patriot King— the popular King—was taken to Paris, with the heads of two gens d'artnes, who had stood forth in his defence, raised upon poles, and carried beside his carriage windows !" What a lesson to our Patriot King ! This will not do,— Morning Chronicle. Mr. ALEXANDER, the late editor of a defunct Morning Paper, was discharged from Newgate yesterday evening. His fine was remitted by Government.— Observer The following melancholy affair took place at Stratford-upon-Avon, a few days since :—lt appears that a young woman, named Marty Larwoant, a mantua maker, residing at Warwick, attended by a young woman, named ELIZABETH JARRETT, on their arrival at Stratford obtained some arsenic, and proceeded about half a mile along the Warwick road, where they mixed the poison with water and drank it off. Mr. l'auctraitn applied the stomach pump, which, in a great meisure, dispossessed the stomach of one of the women of its contents; but, notwithstanding this and every other assistance were given, one died at nine the same evening, and the other at three the following morning. An inquest was held on Satur day, when a verdict of Feb de se was returned in the cave Of SARAH JARRETT, and " Lunacy" on that of MARY Larworrn. Disappointment in a love affair has been stated as the cause for the act. FORGERY.—.TAMES KIRKWOOD, and the four other prisoners who were convicted with him last week, at Lancaster Assizes, for forging a 5/. note, pur porting to be a genuine note of the Ashbourn Bank, in Derbyshire, were, at the close of the Assizes, en Thurs• day evening last, put to the bar, awl having been asked what they had to say why judgment of death should not be pronounced, Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE told them, that as DADE, the actual forger (according to the evidence) of the signature to the note, had made his escape out of the Castle, and had not been since apprehended, and as an objection had been taken by the Counsel for the prisoners —athat there had been no evidence to show that the note which formed the, subject of the indictment upon which the conviction had taken place, had been one of the notes given by KIRKWOOD to the witness JAMES AVIDsox, although there could be no doubt it was an impression from the same plate with those notes, and that without such evidence of identity no conviction ought to be ob tained, and as be (Mr. Justice LiarDEDADE) was anxious to ascertain the opinion of all the Judges o otnt g, tioobjneerc. ticn, he should respite the j ud g ment upon e p bi r s l until next Astixes.