The Sun. — London, England, 1831-07-13 00:00:00

only brought discredit upon the teachers of the sublime principles of Christianity. Colonel CONOLLY knew of many clergymen who were labouring under the most serious privations ; indeed so much so that several were compelled to borrow money, without having any very immediate prospect of its re-pay ment. In many cases he knew that clergymen were de prived of their tithes, and such was the system of organi zation to prevent their payment, that even those who were willing and able to do so would not be permitted sinless at the risk of their lives.—(Hear, hear.) In Kilkenny and a part of the Queen's County he knew this system pre vailed, and he now spoke from his own knowledge. Lord DUNCANNON could not admit that there was any organised resistance in the county of Kilkenny against the payment of tithes. One lamentable murder of a tithe proctor in the service of Dr. Butler bad taken place, and, much to the credit of the surrounding inhabitants, a sub scription was entered into to discover and punish such an offender. But the truth was, that the Tithe Composition Act, having come too late, did not lead to any practical benefit for the church or the tithe payers. Mr. GOULBURN said that the averages upon which the amount of commutation was founded took place every seven years. It was at a fixed rate, as the Bill itself would prove. As soon as lie was convinced of the neeessiry o f the measure, it was not delayed beyond the time necessary for going through the ordinary forms of the House. Mr. S. RICE said that however the Tithe Composi tion Act might have been intended to confer a benefit upon Ireland, it was yet an very reluctantly granted that it failed in its effect. The wishes of Ireland were scoffed at by the very gentlemen who subsequently found it neces sary to pats it.—(Hear.) This delay of the necessary re form had produced all the difficulties of which so much complaint had now been made.—(Hear.) Lord INGESTRIE, in moving that the petition of the Clergymen of the county of Wexford be printed, had not complained of any organized system to resist the payment of tithes. All he said was, diet they were very reluctantly paid to the Clergymen of the Established Church. Mr. O'CONNELL said the fact was incontrovertible that the Bishop of Derry had possession of ninety thou sand acres of land. The affray at Newtownbarry. should have excited sympathy rather tiein be treated as it had been on this occasion. Mr. GOULBURN dcnie.l that he had improperly re isted bringing forward the Tithe Commutation Act. The fact was, that the Irish Members wished for delay upon the 19th of June, being 14te in the Session, and in acceding to their wishes he could not he considered as denying the necessity of some proper commutation of tithes. He neither scoffed nor sneered at such a proposition ; and a reference to the spe*th which he had then made would prove satisfactorily to the House that he had acted pre- cisely as be had stated. Dlr. S. RICE said that previous to Mr. Daly's motion the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had opposed it, although in the subs* quent session be had agreed to it. The Church felt a great disinclination to agree to the mea sure when brought in, and he still considered that a mea sure of tardy justice could not produce the benefits to which it would otherwise have been entitled. After a few words from 'Mc. GottLaureN tl c petiticn was ordered to be printed. PROVISION FOR THE QUEEN. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR. of the ExcliKQuE the House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration his Majesty's gracious Message to make suitable provision for her Majesty the Queen. He did not feel it necessary upon this occasion to add a word to what he had before stated upon this sub ject. The dignified and amiable character of the Illus trious Personage for whom suitable provision was to he made was known to the House and the country—her character and conduct required no eulogy—( Hear, hear) —and his proposition, therefore, would now be, as it hail been in the last Parliament, that her Majesty, in case of surviving her Sovereign and her husband, should be allowed to receive 100,0001. a year, and be entitled to the pcsse•sion of Busby Park and lands for a country, and Marlborough House, or some other, for a suitable town residence. Sir R. INGLIS thought that this subjyet would require the further consideration of the Noble Lord. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had on several occasions explained Low it was that the omissions alluded to had taken place ; and he could now only repeat, that the House and the country should feel deeply in debted to our gracious Sovereign for not wishing to burden the country to a greater extent than was absolutely neces sary for the comfort and dignity of himself and his illus trious consort.—(llear, hear.) Mr. C. PELHAM made some observations, which were totally inaudible in the gallery. . The resolution was then agreed to, and the report or dered to be received to-morrow. REFORM. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the reading of the order o the day for the House to go into a Committee on the English Reform Bill. On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, Lord MAITLAND rose to move, as an amendment, that the petitioners of the borough of Appleby be heard at the bar by Counsel, &c., for the purpose of sho S ing that it was unjust to include that borough in Schedule A. In the census of 1911 the population of the borough of Ap pleby was stated to be, for the parish of St. Michael 1,100, and for the parish of St. Lawrence 1,060 ; making together a population of 2,160 ; but in the census of 1821, which was the standard adopted by the Government, the parish of St. Lawrence was altogether omitted, and the population of Appleby stated to consist of 1,341, which was, in fact, only the population of St. Michael; and in consequence of this omission the borough had been in serted in Schedule A, when the real truth was that the population of the two parishes amounted to 2,616.- 0-fear, hear.) He would only se,y further, with respect to the general measure, that he bad been extremely anx ious to give his support to the present Government, but the proposed measure appeared to him to be so subversive of the Constitution that he found it to be impossible to vote for it.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded be moving " That Counsel be heard at the bar of the House in support of the petition." Colonel CONOLLY seconded the amendment. Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the Noble Lord had not made out a sufficient case for the calling in of Counsel, as the Bill was not one of pains and penalties.— (Continued cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition, answered by cheers from the other side.) Ile did not see on what ground they were to call Counsel to the bar to snake a statement as to whether the borough of Appleby thought it expedient to correct general abuses, or to de prive particular places of their franchise.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord said that the borough of Appleby was not correctly represented in the population returns; but he (Lord J. Russell) thought that that was a fact in which the Noble Lord, and the other Member for Appleby, would have an opportunity of stating their opinion when in Committee. It was then they ought to show (if they could, to the satisfaction of the Ilouse) that Appleby ought not to be included in Schedule A—(Hear, hear) — but he could not think that, on this general Bill, it was at all necessary to open their doors to Counsel—(Cheers) —and, if unnecessary, he could not see why—once having admitted Counsel for Appleby—they were to re fuse to admit the Counsel for any other borough that might be supposed to be interested in the clauses of the Bill. On these grounds he must give his decided oppo sition to the amendment. Sir R. PEEL trusted that the House, in taking care to guard against any dangerous precedent, would fully con sider what it was that the petioners requested. The Noble Lord had said, that what they had to decide was—whe ther they should proceed on the preamble laid down in the Bill. But that was not the question raised in the petition. (Hear, bear.) The petition recognised the principle of the Reform Bill ; but it urged that, admitting that the principle was correct, they could show that it did not apply to them.—(Cheers.) And would any majority of that House, however powerful it might be, refuse those parties an opportunity of showing this?—(Cheers.) Such a thing could not be proved without details ; it must be made out by evidence; and the allegations of Members interest e d ii in th e f ac t cou ld not, be received in such a case. Ile therefore contended, that if the House of Commons re fused the petitioners his opportunity,it would be esta blishing a precedent most d- g (ellee The ATTORNEY -GENERAL - ..71t impossible ".) not to see that, under the mask of a petition it from a particular borough— (Immense cheering)— intended fh to make an attempt to impede the further progress The Right Hon g ("3 B: i v- t o:n e e e Bill. (Renewed cheers.) t said that the petitioners admitted the principle . Bill—they were much obliged to the petitioners—(Loud laughter)— as if the Bill was t o sto p till A ppleby and every e o r t ) .her borough admitted its principle.—(Continued cheerin g .) What had this to do with the q uestion? Once e st ablish the precedent, and then they would have counsel from other borough.; that did not admit the principle, disputing, perhaps, whether a po i inlation under two thousand was the right standard for schedule A, and entering into a legislative discussion with the House as to what prin ciple of Reform ought to be adopted.—(Cheers.) Allow him, however, to say that was neither the province of If the borough nor the du t y of the House of Commons_ hie borough of Appleby was admitted, would . not every ot e ) r borough be tempted to ask the same thing.--(Cheers. As he understood the matter, of course every borough would be able to make out tome sort ofa cwe, fur the pur- pole of showing that it was not within the reach of the Bill. But the public would not be satisfied, if they found that by this means the progress of the Bill seas to be checked. The country had, from one end of it to the other, adopted the principle of the measure.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") Did Hon. Gentlemen think that they could check public opinion by saying " No, no I" Ile could assure them that something more powerful in the way of argument would he required. He therefore begged leave also to resort to the majority of the House, and to ask them whether they were disposed to be trifled with on this subject—(Loud cheers) —or whether they were de termined to proceed, and do their duty to the public. Mr. C. WYNN—The objections made to the amend ment of the Noble Lord were such as in the experience of thirty years in that House he had never beard before.— (Loud cheers.) There had never even been so much as an attempt to answer the Noble Lord's case.—(Cheers.) In the first place, it had been said that this was not a Bill of Pains and Penalties—(Cheers) —and therefore those parties who were directly affected by the meisure—who were by name deprived of their valuable franchise—had not established a right to be heard.—(Cheers.) He was glad to hive it in his power to in'orm the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had spoken last, that he need not be under any great apprehension that if thi s petition was acceded to, every other borough would petition against the pi inciple of the Bill ; it was the first A B C lesson of the House, and known, he should have thought, to all hot the very youngest Members, that it was only on the second reading of a Bill that parties could petition against the principles of it, the time to petition against any par ticular enactment of the Bill being when it was going into Committee.—(lllear, hear.) The statement made by Government was not sufficient for that House ; and if it were to act on such a statement it would do so for the first time. Take the case of a borough, which the Go vernment said should be considered the same as the parish, er the case in which the Government decided that the limits of a borough were not the same as time of the parish ; either of these was a case in which they had no principle to guiele them—at least no other principles than those laid down by the Government, and enforced by a majority. And was it to be said, that by such a decision the House was to be entirely precluded.— (Hear, hear.) Admitting the principles of disfranchise went, as laid down by the Government, was it not better to allow each borough which chose the opportunity of dis proving that it came within that principle.—(Cheers.) Would the majority stop all inquiries? Would they say at once that they were prepared to give their votes to the propositions of the King's Ministers ?—(Cheers.) What would be said if a Jury were to act so?—(Cheers.) Here there were forty-seven boroughs arraigned before them, and there was a call for a verdict without the Jury being allowed to hear the evidence, though they knew not how the evidence applied—though it was offered to be shown of some of these boroughs that they were not guilty. No; they were told that they must give a general verdict, and must not examine the evidence of each particular case.—(Cheers.) They were to disfranchise 47 bo roughs—they were to pass sentence, taking no time for consideration, not allowing them to be heard in their own defence, and not even asking them why sentence of death should not be passed on them.—(Cheers.) Once grant the principle contended for by his Hon. Friend the Attorney- General, and let the House see the great injustice to which it would lead.—(Cheers.) Mr. ATTWOOD had never witn .ssed, since he had been in that House, more impro},er, more unjust, or more unfair conduct than that which was, then advocated by the Ministers. He would for one thing tell the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Au( rney-General,) that lie had no right to charge the petitioners with assuming for their own purpose a mask.—(Cheers.) He had no right to impute to them that they meant to throw obstacles in the way of the Bill, when they distinctly disavowed any such thing. If the proceedings of the petitioners were calculated to obtain in their case the just application of the principles laid down by Ministers, it would not be denied if those proceedings were an obstruction to the progress of the Bill, that the fault was not in the petitioners, but in those who proposed an incongruous measure, which they could not, without committing injustice, carry into execution. Those who brought forward the Bill should be blamed, not those who petitioned for justice; and the fault princi pally lay, he believed, with the Hon. and Learned Gentle man himself. The Bill proceeded, as he understood, on the principle that when a borough kad more than 2,000 inhabitants, it was not to be totally disfranchised. The Minister, however, had inserted Appleby in the schedule of total disfranchisament,—and on what authority? That of the population returns, by which it appears that Appleby has only 1310 inhabitants. It was on that account placed in Schedule A. But the inhabitants of Appleby i.ffer to show that the borough contained 2611 people, and they offered to show that the return of 1340 was an error in the population returns, arising from a parish having been left out in 1821, which was not !eft out in 1811. The case was clearly an error, and the population was under-rated. Why then would the Ministers not allow the error to be rectified—the Ministers who professed liberality, to whom was ascribed a love of liberty, but who were behaving most tyrannically ? If the House sanc tioned this measure, there was no injustice, no tyranny, which a vote of the majority of that House might not sanction.—(Cheers.) Mr. C. WOOD denied that tl.c Ministers were entering into the question without having made inquiries, though they were treated as if they had, and as if they had refused to receive the information. The question before the House was should the petitioners be beard by Counsel at the bar ? He begged to remind the House that the Speaker, in the last Parliament, bad declared that the question should he put on each borough, and that was the time to determine whether the borough should he kept in the schedule or not. He be lieved that there was a mistake in the population returns as to Wareham—(Cheers from the Opposition.) He was prepared for those cheers, but if he appealed to the House, it should be to its reason, not to its passions.— (Cheers.) They would not talk every thing opposed to them down by a majority.—(Cheers.) If he brought the question of Wareham—(Laughter)—before the House, he should not wish to succeed unless he had the votes of the Gentlemen opposite, and unless the House was fully satis fied of the justice of the claims. He would confidently appeal to the majority which, thank God ! they (the Mi nisters) enjoyed, because he was persuaded that the ma jority would do even-handed justice both to Appleby and Wareham.--( Hear, hear.) He denied that Ministers re fused inquiry. Ministers had declared, that if any borough could make out a case which entitled it to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, it should be exempted, and to that declaration they would adhere.—(Cheers.) That was not a new question ; but the question before the House was a new one ; for that was, whether the peti tioners should be heard by Counsel at the bar ? The con duct of the Ministers had been described as unfair, and it was said that they refused inquiry. The answer was, that it was not unfair, fur they had not refused in quiry. —(Bear, hear.) Sir GEORGE WARRENDER contended, as the House always heard Counsel in case of boroughs accused of bribery and corruption, that it ought with much more reason to hear Counsel on behalf of those boroughs which were to be punished without being accused of either bribery or corruption. He was decidedly in favour of the motion, and thought the House would act very unjustly if it did not hear Counsel. llis views could not be ascribed to party purposes, for he was generally willing to support the Ministers ; and though he wished to see some amend ments introduced into the Bill, he had voted for it. But if he saw injustice done, he should be inclined to oppose it. Above all things, he recommended the House to deal justly with the petitioners. Lord MILTON was decidedly against hearing Counsel at the Bar in the case of Appleby. lie wished, however, to get some information from the Noble Lord (Lord Maitland). Lord JOHN RUSSELL here said something relating to the peculiarities of Appleby not being then under dis cussion ; but his Lordship was not distinctly beard. Lord MILTON went on. He wished to know from the Noble Lord whether the town and borough of Ap pleby were distinct.—(Cries of " Question.") Mr. PRAED was prepared, from what he had already seen in that House, to expect much party feeling, and much political violence; but lie was astonished at the op position which was given to the proposition of the Noble Lord. The borough claimed to be heard in defence of a right, and was it contrary to the practice cf that House to grant the prayer of such petitioners? In case of the accu sation of corruption, such a prayer was granted, and why not, then, in this case? It was said that the Members might defend the borough. That was a new argument. Whether the petitioners claimed the franchise as a valuable Property, or as the exercise of a duty, which they had never hitherto neglected, they had a right to be beard. — Their claims were founded in equity and justice, and he would support them. Mr. D. W. HARVEY said it was not for the innocent but only for the accused or the guilty, to ask to be heard at the liar. It was the first time, he believed, that ever that House was asked to decide a great an d constitutional tion by the advice of gentlemen of the bar.—(Cheerr)es- Fo his part he disclaimed being one of that marshalled majority which had been alluded to, and he was prepared to deal fairly and justly with any borough, whether belonging to the Whigs or the Tories, which came before tie House. it was absutd to sill Counsel before them to prove at the bar what any of the inhabitants of Appleby could prove. What was there doubtful in fact, or what was there doubtful in law, relating to Appleby, which Counsel could prove at she bar? The question of Ap pleby might be the question of all the boroughs in the • kingdom. If they allowed Counsel to be heard far Ap pleby, they must allow it for every other borough ; then tl ese would he 150 boroughs, each to be heard by Counsel ; and suppose the Counsel were to be contented each with one day, there would be 150 days before the House could go into a Committee.—(Hear, and a laugh.) The only question was, if the borough could redeem itself by show ing that the amount of its population was alc n e tio 2 n , , oo a o m : and if the Noble Lord could prove that tact, the Hou se would be very ready to give bias every attention, allow the borough either to seal its extinction or secure its perpetuity.—(lleac, hear.) Sir E. B. SUGDEN was surprised at the Noble Lord (Milton) declaring that his mind was mole up not to hear Counsel, the only means by which information could he properly and legally obtained, and yet asking for informa tion.—(Hear, hear.) If they did not bear those who ob jected to be disfranchised, they would not do justice to the people. —(llear. ) Ills Mai' sty's Ministers were the only persons who could take a borough out of schedule Aor out of schedule B, without explaining why it was done. They could alter the Bill, but no person else was to touch it. There was not one essential part of the Bill which had not been altered over and osor again ; every clause had been altered, and the Bill was a different Bill. He cautioned the House that it was acting judicially as well as legislatively, and they ought not to act except on the best evidence. It was the duty of the Ministers to get the best information—and what had they done ? They had not, during the three months that they Lad the sub ject in hand, obtained information even to satisfy them. selves.--(Hear.) They were prepared, however, to carry the Bill through, not to support it by argument. Let the majority then at once declare that they would has? it so ; and let the people of England know how the thing was carried.—(Hear, hear.) Certainly, as the princip'e of the Bill was carried, if the gentlemen on the opposite side would receive his advice in good part, and would listen to arguments, he would endeavour to make the Bill as per fect as possible in Committee; but if they were deter mined to bear down all argument by their majority, he for one would retire from the discussion—would give a silent vote—and would let the people of England know why it was he did so. He did not care if his time were occupied ten, fifty, or hundred days; he would rather be so occu pied than not do jnstice ; and justice would not be done if Counsel were not heard for the petitioners.--(Hear.) Sir. B. GRANT defended the course adopted by the Ministers. He contended that it was not unusual to refuse the prayer of such petitioners, and he instanced the case of the Catholic Association, which petitioned to be heard by Counsel, but was refused. In this case there was no question of fact, no question of law, to make it necessary to bear Counsel. There was certainly no ques tion of law, except that which was stated in the Bill brought in by Mr. Curwen, which declared that it. was contrary to ancient usage, and to the real purpose of It presentation, when populous places which were represented in Parliament had their Meinbeis elected by the influence of individuals. The question would be fully and conve niently discussed in the Committee, and he, therefore, should support the views taken by his Noble Friend. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL had heard no argu ments from the other side, which convinced him that Counsel ought not to he heard, but many which seemed to him explicitly to prove that they ought. There was the case of Appleby, and the case of Wareham ; both were the same, and both required inquiry and information. He wished to know who it was that had an uncontrolled license to make mistakes, and set them right?—(A laugh) —That was his question, and he would answer it himself. It was the King's Government which could make mistakes ad libitum, and which had a power of curing them ad libitum. They shambled one borough out of Schedule A, and they shambled another into Schedule B, just as they liked.—(Cheers.) He must say, that on this subject his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, seemed to have forgotten that amenity which usually distinguished him, and spoke with somewhat of that asperity he had lately been accustomed to use in certain Courts, where be had not been very successful.—(Cheers.) But whether his Learned Ftiend had arguments or not to support his views, he was sure to succeed in that House with the large ma jority possessed by the Ministers. He repeated his con viction, that the Bill was a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and he called on the Government to disclaim the assertion of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), that it was not so, and to proclaim it himself to that House and the country. The Members of that side of the House had been charged with going into a premature discussior on this petition. The Attorney-General had, indeed, complained openly that they had done so, and entreated them, fur God's sake, ta keep to the question. It was, how ever, that lion. and Learned Gentleman and his friends who had travelled out of the record.—(Hear.) The At torney-General said, keep to the petition. The House is agreed on the principle of the Bill, as well as on its details, and you need not argue them,—(Heir, hear, from the Opposition.) The Hon. and Learned Member hail been much occupied of late.—(Hear, and a laugh.) His time had been employed much on other matters—(A laugh)— and lee probably had not looked into the journals and or. ders of that House, or he would have found that the Mem bers were anything but unanimous on the subject of the details of the Bill—(Hear, hear)—and there were not a few of them who had given notice of their intention to modify or oppose them.—(Hear.) There was the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire—he had a motion on the subject of one of the details; and although one might suppose the two Noble Lords were so well agreed on the Bill as to make but one—(A laugh)—yet it seemed they differed on the details which the Attorney-General called on them not to discuss. The Learned Gentleman, how ever, said, and he was supported by his friends—do keep to the question, we are all agreed. Yes, they were pro bably as much agreed as twelve Jurors who had not given their verdict.—(Hear, and a laugh.) That was their state of unanimity.—(Heir.) Some one said, however, wait until we go into the Committee, and see how the case stands. Why that was just what he wanted. He wished to see how the case stood, and he demanded inquiry for that very purpose. He wished to hear witnesses on the facts, and therefore he supported the prayer of the peti tioners. He knew that the Parliament which was to succeed them, when the Reform Bill passed, would adopt a new course ; and that they would say to those who brought their prayers for redress or inquiry, "No; we can't hear you ; we are a Parliament strong in numbers—(llear, hear)—we are come here delegated to fulfil a particular trust, and we will not listen to you."-- (Cheers.) If it were possible to look with a telescopic vision into futurity, they would probably find that such would be the language of their successors; but, as that time was not yet come, he implored them to support the character for justice and impartiality which had belonged to that House for so many centuries; and, by agreeing to the prayer of the petitioners, fulfil even their own declass. tions with respect to the principle of the Bill. The Noble Lord says, that the rotten boroughs should not be heard by their representatives in that House, for they are inte rested. Well, then, if they were not to be heard by their representatives, nor by counsel, on their petition, be would ask the Noble Lord how they were to be heard —(Cheers.) In what way were they to be heard against that act of injustice of which they had complained? Did the Noble Lord mean to say that the arguments of the two Members for Appleby, wh ch are pronounced partial and unworthy of attention, would be sufficient to induce the House to take the borough out of Schedule A and to p u t it in Schedule B.—(Hear.) The question was not a matter of argument; all that was to be decided was a mere fact to be gathered from evidence; and he implored them to hear it, and not lay themselves under the aspersion of declaring all discussion unnecessary when they were able to carry their point by numbers.—(Bear.) Lord ALTHORP said the Hon. and Learned Member bad, as usual, allowed his imagination to lead him into much exaggeration. The Hon. Member had charged the Government with a desire to overbear all argument by numbers, and to stop all necessary discussion by force. Was there any evidence of such au intention in the course they had pursued ? Had not his Noble Friend distinctly declared that the whole question would undergo discussion in the Committee ? and he would say now, in God's name, let the House go into a Committee, and then let the case of each particular borough be taken on its own merits, and fully discussed. The Hon. Member had charged the Government with partiality. Now the Government had laboured by every means in their power to deprive them selves even of the means of being partial, and in order to do so they had bound themselves by a fixed rule, front which they were determined never to swerve.—(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had called the Bill a Bill of Pains and Penalties, and he had called on the Government to acknowledge that it was. Now he had no hesitation in saying that it was not a Bill of Pains and Penalties, but a Bill which, he was satisfied, would prove most beneficial to the whole country._(llear.) The Hon. and Learned Member asked how they were to know the population of the borough of Appleby unless they agreed to the amendment of the Noble Lord? He an swered, by the population returns ; he would add that no other information could be procured, even if wit nesses were sidled. They could not take the evidence of those who had not taken peas in making a popu lation return ; if they took the evidence of the person who had, that would be unnecessary, for his evidence was already before them in the return itself.—(Hear, heir.) The Hon. Member had observed on the difference of opi nion between him and his Noble Friend. Ile was con nected with that Noble Lord on the most friendly terms, and had been so during the greater part of his life, but those who marked the proceedings of that House must see that they frequently differed in their political opinions. The Hon. and Learned Member had asked, was this the way to get the confidence of the country ? He (Lord Al thorp) would answer that question by asking. was it the way to deserve the confidence cf the country to persist in motions of this kind, which were purely put forward for the purpose of delay, end in order to place impediments in the way of the passing of that 13111 which the country se ardently desired ?—(Hear.) Mr. CHOKER rose amid cries of " Question," and commenced by observing, that the Noble Lord had quite passed over the real question before the House. The question was, whether they would consent to allow the borough of Appleby to prove that it was entitled to be placed in the same condition as Buckingham, which bad also represented its case, and received immediate attention from the Noble Lord (Russell) and the Government.— (Hear.) The borough of Appleby was, it appeared, com posed of two parishes--St. Michael's and St. Lawrence. In the census of ISII, they were taken together, and the number of inhabitants found to be above 2,200, In the return of 1521 one of the parishes WAS left out, and the petitioners now prayed they might be allowed to state that it had been left out, and that the borough, according to the rule laid down by the Government, was entitled to be taken out of Schedule A, and placed in Schedule B. He cert duly did expect, from what had taken place with respect to other boroughs, that the Noble Lord would have risen at once in his place, avowed it to he a mistake, and expressed his willingness to amend it. He confessed he was disappointed that such a course had not been adopted. What they proposed was to get evidence ; but the Noble Lord said, wait till the House goes iato Committee. Now he was in the correction of the Chair when he said that no evidence could be taken in Committee, except that Committee had the previous sanction of the House, and that was what they now required.—(Hear, hear.) The Attorney-General said, however, that the proposition was a mask for something else ; and the Noble Lord said it was intended to produce delay. The memorial of tl e pe titioners had been presented to the Secret try of State weeks ago, and the Government had thought proper not to comply with,their prayer, but it was impossible for them to have brought their case before that House a mo ment sooner than they bail done. This was the mask and delay of which they had been guilty. The lion. Member concluded by obeervicig, that the case of Appleby was the same as that of Buckingham and Truro, and se veral other places, with regard to which the Government had acknowledged its error, and he hoped the house would new compel them to hear the case, which the people of Appleby believed they could make cut.—( Hear.) Colonel TORRENS observed, that the people of Ash burton were in the same position as the people of Appleby. They had memorialised the Secretary of State, and their prayer was refused, but thty did nut insist on being heard by Counsel. Mr. CROKER said, if they did, he was cn the same grounds prepared to support them, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON rose amid cries of ques tion. He happened to be more intimately acquainted with the borough of Appleby than perhaps any of the Members of that House, and he must say, from what be knew of the allegations of the petition, that lie thought the House was bound to accede to its prayer —( Hear, leer.) The jurisdiction of the Mayor of Appleby extended over both parishes ; as it could not be denied that they con tained more than 2,000 inhabitants, he thought that the borough was entitled to retain one of its Members, and he must say he knew the petitioners to be all highly re spectable men, and as little at the heck of any patron as any voters in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. C. FERGUSSON, amid cries of " Question," said he could not vote for hearing Counsel, but be cer tainly required further information. He did nut wish to hear Counsel, fur they could not explain to him the law better than he knew it already, nor satisfy him with res pect to the principle of the Bill more than be was already satisfied, but be bad occasion for information on the sub ject of the parishes, and he wished to know if Bondgate was in the parish of St. Michael's. Lord LOWTHER was able to satisfy the Hon. Mem ber on that point in one word. Bondgate was in the parish of St. Michael's. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Government admitted the allegations of the petitioners, but that did not affect the principle on which they professed to act.—(Hear, and loud cries of " Question.") The House then divided— For the amendment Against it :2S4 Majority On our return to the gallery eve found Mr. CONOLLY speaking to the main question ; and objecting to a measure which, in his opinion, went far to endanger the most valuable institutions of the country. It was absolutely unnecessary. At no perked since the Revolution was that House a more faithful representative of the sentiments of the country—at no moment was Re form less called for; of which fact, the conduct of the last and the preceding Parliament afforded numerous proofs. He was far from saying that the large and con siderable towns of the kingdom ought not to enjoy the elective franchise. Butt he deprecated the mode in which it was proposed to affect this object; and he *till more strongly deprecated the extent to which it was proposed to go. It was repugnant to the principles of justice ; it was incompatible with the integrity of the British Consti tution ; it was destructive of the security of property. To him the measure appeared to be a flagrant insult to the moral sentiments of the nation ; and be was persuaded that when they understood it, they would not tolerate so sweeping a confiscation. The elective franchise was as valuable to any man as any property be could possess ; and nothing could justify its spoliation. It tended to de stroy all that just influence of rank and property which had hitherto been productive of so much national benefit. He had been sorry to bear a distinction made, and that by persons for whose talents he entertained the highest re spect—between property and franchise. To him they appeared to be so incorporated, to emanate so completely from one another, that be felt it impossible to make any distinction between them. They were, in fact, identi cal. Those who impeached the validity of the elective franchise, deteriorated property, destroyed prescription, usage, and ancient tenure, and overlooked the sanction which the Legislature had repeatedly given to those par ticular rights to which they were desirous of putting an end. At the Union with Ireland the rights of those in dividuals who were now called boroughmongers, those persons who by their property and their station in life, possessed a just influence over the tenantry and neighbours, were fully and fairly acknowledged. If it were possible that the spoliative principle of the Bill could be rendered worse by any circumstance, it would be by the excite ment, and by the extravegant speculations to which it had given rise. They reminded him of some of the occur rences which preceded the French Revolution; when the destruction of the church was threatened. At that period it had been well said by Mr. Burke, that " nothing was more easy than to vilify those whom you intend to rob." At that period the higher classes were held up by the Press to the execration of the people at large. The same game was playing in this country at the present moment. The Press was actively engaged in vilifying those echo held property, who held it long, and who held it for the benefit of others as well themselves. They were held u p as dangerous to the rights, and as desirous to supplant the liberties of the country. Surely some doubts might reasonably be entertained of the justice of a measure, the friends of which were obliged in its defence to resort to defamation, and to st aements incompatible with com mon truth, and irreconcileable to common honesty.— (Ilear, bear, hear.) These reiterated attacks on the motives of the boroughmongers, as they were called (with not one of whom he was acquainted), were all in aid of the projected violation of their rights, and spoliation of their property. He resented those attacks, because he saw no reascrn to believe that those against whom they were directed were justly liable to them ; and because they appeared to him to he the efforts of a weak party to main tain themselves in th e absence o f an y other su pport. -- (Hear, hear.) One of his greatest o b j ection s to the Bill w a s the extremely extensive way in w hi c h it admitted the and in that his opinion democratic piath principle e lower orders to the elective franchise. He had seen too m uch of the lower orders to spe ak d isr e s pectfully of them. He was proud of his own privileges , and he sh ou ld h e happy to share them w i th an y classes of his countrymen He s tated this to show that he did not want to ride over the rights 'e c n arie ; r b d ut to l o far, wknew pr oposed measure so carried it. — (Hear , hear.) By that igh t s might u: any be n Bill the spoliation principle would be in full action, and backed, as it would be, by the democratic principle, it was doubly dangerous, and would probably lead to consequences of the most fatal kind.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FAINT: maintained that his Majesty's Government t had introduce d this Bill solel y to relieve th emselves from the difficulthis in which their imbecility us Ministers had involved them. For the attainment of their selfish pur poses, and the gratification of their own t e in rested views they had wickedly and delusively appealed to the people. —(flaugli.) They had kept the whole country for several months in a state of uproar about a measure which they were now compelled to acknowledge was one of pe culation.—(Hear, hear.) The House of Commons, evi as at present constituted, engrossed almost all the powers of the State. Whit would be the case when the present Bill was adopted? The result must he popular tumult, and national calamity.—(Hear, hear.) In answer to a question from an HoN. MEMBER, whose name we were unable to ascertain, Lord JOHN RUSSELL (we understood) stated that the information on the table, respecting the population of the various towns and districts, was OA tined from various p e rsoes, in order to show tl:e practical operation of the Bill ; but that certainly it might be liable to correction. Mr. C. PELHAM opposed the Bill, and dwelt espe cially on its complexity. Ile appealed to all tb a Members in the House whether what was comorehended in this Bill did not extend over at least a hundred Statutes? Mr. ATT WOOD could not allow the occasion to pass without again entreating the serious attention of the House to a measure unprecedented in the history of Parliament and of the country. Since the origin of representative power and delegated legislation, there was no precedent of such a proceeding. Was it ever before preposed to the Commons of lan; land to take away the rights, not, as in the present Bil!, of a third of the electoral body, but even of a single set of electors, except after compiles &on, or as the punisiment of convicted crime? He defended the system of our representation ge nerally, and contended that s. in every great system there must be individual instances of venality. For these special, particular eases, the Bill provided no remedy, while it unsettled all our established institutions. The advantages of the borough system, he maintained, were evident, front the illustrious Members which had been returned under its influence to Parliament. To the boroughs the country was indebted for the ser vices and talents of Lord Eldon and Lord Mansfield, and for the eplendid eloquence and deathless reputation of Mr. Pitt. In answer to the claim preferred for the King to withhold the writs to boroughs, he contended that it ii.il always been the opinion of the best constitutional lawyers and greatest authorities, that every borough which had once enjoyed the privilege of sending Members to Par liament, was entitled to a continuance of the tight, and he protested against the Reform Bill in tl:e strongest terms, as a measure of confiscation, and as a thing uncalled for, inopportune, and dangerous. He would ask whether it was supposed that the new constitueocy would furnish to that House a body of representatives of greater talent, consideration, and integrity, than those who now composed it ? The increased number of voters would not aeld to those qualities in the persons whom tiny • elected. What, for the lest forty years, had caused tl e evils of France, but the ambition of the people to have the guidance of the country in their own hands ?—(Hear.) It was the same with all other countries of Europe ; they were nearly all endeavouring to establish the Sovereignty of the people. But that sovereignty was utterly incon sistent with the Sovereignty of the people. It was that struggle which had been going on in France during the last fifteen years—and what was the result? Why that the elder branches of the Bourbons had been banished. It might be sail that they were weak, and had governed France badly ; but who was there that could tell what would be the result to other Governments if the popular will became so strong? Were they to follow the example of France, and throw the British Constitution into the general furnace of revolutions ? If they did, how could they tell what might be the end of it ? He did not mean to deny the general doctrine of the rights of Parlia trent. There were two distinct rights of Parliamt nt. In the more enlarged sense of the word, it was the right of Parliament to abolish any of the prerogatives of the Crown, and all but give a new Constitution to the country ; but that was not the case here. The King, in his Speech from the Throne, called on the Parliament to inter on the consideration of this question with reference to the general and acknowledged principles of the Constitution. In that sense he denied the right of Parliament to make these changes in one of the three gloat constituent bodies of the Imperial Parliam n'. On the same principle adopted by the Ministry, with r ference to this Bill, as affecting the Commons' House of Parliament, the constitution of the other House of Parliament ought also to be altered. At present, the only constituency of that House consisted of the fifteen Cabinet Ministers. There was a rumour that they intended to elect a number of new representa tives into the other House (for so he must call the creation of new Peers), for the purpose of carrying this measure. He did not believe the rumour. Solely they could not hive the audacity—the profligacy—to do this.---(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) When they were called on to reform the state of the representation in that House, inertly because the number of the electors was small, were they to have the spectacle of him or his Cabinet electing new representatives into the other House of Parli tment when that constituency was so much smaller ? That would indeed he a violation of all the principles of the Constitution. The power of creating Peers was given to the Crown to enable it to reward men who had distin guished themselves, or to elevate to high honours the first men among the Commoners of the country : but it was not given for the purpose of enabling it to carry a measure in Parliament.—(Hear; hear.) If ten Peers might lie created for one purpose, twenty might be created for an other. If so, that portion of the Legislature would be absorbed by the Crown. If, on the other hand, a system of deciding merely by numbers was to go on from the people, and not from them, would this question receive its final adjudication ?—(Hear, hear.) If they adopted this measure they would open the flood-gates of revolution, which would overflow every prerogative of the Crown— every privilege of Parliament, and every right of the people.—(Hear, avd " Question, question.") Captain GORDON (as we understood) rose to move an adjournment of the debate. Lord ALTHORP said, that if it was the pleasure of the House to adjourn the question, the adjourament must take place, but lie must say that this discussion was completely unexpected. He appealed to the Right lion. Gentleman opposite, whether he had not agreed that on e full discus sion on the principle of the Bill would be sufficient.-T(No, no, from the Opposition ; bear, hear, from the Mon-aerial benches.) He was not surprised that there were Hon. Gentlemen who did not agree with him on this subject. He rose now for the purpose of opposing this adjourn ment.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that it would he impossible at that hour for the House to do more than re solve itself into a Committee for foim's sake; but after the discussion this question had undergone, he thought he did not ask too much in urging them to adopt that course.— (Hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentleman wished to speak on this question, he should not o b j ect to his doing so. He would oppose the adjournment, zianl take the sense of the House upon the question. Col. WOOD observed, that although the principle had been discussed on the second reading, there were several Members, and he amorg the number, anxious to deliver their sentiments on the general details of the measure. At this late hour of the House, he meant at this late evening of the night—(Cheers and laughter)—at this late night of the evening—(Laughter)—or rather at this late hour of the night, he thought enough had been done, and he should, therefore, vote for the adjournment. Mr. WYNN was of opinion that the discussion ought to proceed for the present, and that the farther discussion of the principle, on this occasion, was nut irregular. Sir R. PEEL agreed with the Noble Lord that it had been understood that one discussion on the principle on the second reading would be sufficient. At the same time Hon. Members were at perfect liberty to speak at large on the principle. It was only at present twelve o'clock, and the debate might be continued yet for some time. He for one would be no party to anything like a vexatious delay.— (Cries of " Adjourn, and " No, no.") Lord ALTHORP repeated that he should divide the House. Sir E. B. SUGDEN urged that the true way to shorten the debate was to give every Member a fair hearing. Mr. C. PELHAM said that several Members yet wished to be heard. Captain GORDON adied, he should persist in his mo tion that the farther debate be adjourned. The question was then put, and the House divided — For the adjournment lO2 Against it 128 Majority After some farther diseu-sion, from which strangers were excluded, the House divided again on the question, as we were informed, that the Speaker leave the Chair— Ayes -8 , J ' 1 3) Noes - Majority The next division, as we understood, was on the motion of Sir C. Wetherell, that the debate 13a adjourned to Thursday. For the adjournment ........................... 63 Against it... ......................................... V:33 Majority ........................ -172 From twelve o'clock till half past three the gal!ery was kept shut, and strangers were excluded, during which we understand the Members were engaged in a long and de sultory debate on the course of their proceedings, which ended in the two parties e ndeavouring to persuade each other that the faults were all on the side of their oppo nents. At that time we were again admitted into the Gallery, and found the Speaker then putting the queition " that I now lave the Chair ;" on which Lord STORMONT moved that the debate be adjourned till this day, at five o'clock. lie did that to show the other side that they were nut to be ltt ow-beaten. If he were defeated, he would st there till five o'clock the next day. The motion being seconded, the question was put. Lord ALTIIORP said, that the object of the Noble Lord, to make the House hear the debate, having been gained, he hoped that the Noble Lord would then allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. A short conversation ensued. Colonel WOOD reminded Lord Althorp that the Government had always, after such a strugele, given way, and suggested the propriety of its then giving way, though he declared that he would vote with the Noble Lord, should he resist the motion for an adiiurnment. Mr. STANLEY recommended the minority to consi der whether they might not strain their opposition and their, valuable privilege of moving the adjournment too Th, only difference between them was as to a point of form, and not to any su!istantial advantage on either side. Ile thoutilt the minority of 63 should give way to the majlrity of 235. Th. minority would lose nothing, and the majority would grin nothing but the advantage of not yielding. If the minority would consent to the House going into a Committee, pro foram, the House would be as ready to heir the opp .nints of the measure when it came next before the House, as if they were n it to go into a Committ"e at that time. Sir C. WETHERELL said a few words in favour of the adjmn mnent. He thought the motion might stand adjourned till five o'clock. Such motions were frequently m vie by the Ministers when they were in opposition. Lord ALTHORP had never moved an adjournment when in opposition, and had seldom supported such a motion. Ile had seldom seen a case important enough to wai rant a minority in insisting on an adjournment. He could not, consistently with his duty to those gentlemen echo supported him, give way. Mr. S. PERCEVAL would support the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Altliorp) with the understanding that the Omeisition should have a right to address the House again on the hill in Committee. Mr. PR AED said a few wor Is against agreeing to the motion of the Noble Lind. It appeared that at that time they were only required to cousint to the moti in for going into a Committee, to satisfy the dignity of the op po,ite p ,rty, which he, for one, could not agree to. There were loud calls for Question ! before the Hon. Wolter concluded, and on his sitting down strangers were again ordered to withdraw. On a division there apyeared— For the adjournment. Against it 2ll Majority -174 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL expressed his hope that his Noble Friend would persevere. The conduct of the Opposition was a great abuse of the important privi lege of the minority ; and he trusted, therefore, that all who were of his opinion would determine to keep their se its to the last. For the consequence of yielding would be, that the same course which the Opposition had now t iken they would take on Wednesday, and on Thursday ; that the same course which they had taken on the 12th of July, they would take on the 12th of August, on the 12th of September, and so on, until by these repented de lays, on affect d pretexts, they would defeat the great and important mea-ure which had been brought forward by his 1114j-...sty's Government. 11r. C. PELIIAM adverted to former occisions which a minority had successfully persevered in a similar course, and trusted they would do so in the present is- stance. Mr. CAMPBELL expressed his hope that the Noble Chancellor of the Exchequer would not yield to this most improper and unconstitutional attempt on the part of the ooeonents of the Bill. Was their object the legitimate one of the protecting the rights and privileges of the mi nority ? Far from it ; as a proof of which they were &screed by their !eider, who had been in bed these five hours.—(Hear, hear.) On the last division the minority bed amounted only to fifty-four. He trusted that it would decline still more, and !hat he should have the pleasure of seeing the S, , eaker leave the 'Chair for the temporary form ition of the Committee on the Bill. A Minima whose none we could not learn, main tained that if those who were opposed to the Bill, and who felt it to be their duty to advocate the rights of the per sons who sent them there, thought proper to take the course which they had adopted, they had a perfect right to do so. Mr. SPRING RICE observed, that the adjournment was proposed at the unusually early hour of twelve. He denied that any interruption 11411 been given to the Hon. Member for Dundalk, whose sentiments would have been listened to with the utmost patience. Lord ALTFIORP, in answer to those who contended that to abandon the motions for adjournment would be to admit one step of the Bill, and to allow that it was proper that the Speaker should leave the chair, observed, that that was not the case. That the Bill should go into Committee was determined immediately after it had been read a second time ; and the only question to decide therefore was, when it should go into the Committee. If the House were now to go into the Committee pro forma, any Hon. Member mi g ht again address the House on the re-commitment of t' e Bill to-morrow, or for whatever day that re-commit m,nt might he fixed ; and as that would he a new motion, the opi.onents of the Bill would enjoy the advantage of havin . 2 - , the opportunity of repeating on that new occa sion the speeches which they had made on the present. Mr. KERRISON expressed his determination to perse vere in supporting the adjoin nment. Mr. MABERLY sail it was clear that one side must give way. Now, when it was known that an arrange ment led been made with the leader of the Hon. Gentle man opposite, that the Bill should go into Committee that night, he thought that, out of deference to that Right lion. Gentleman, his friends might concede the point; a peoceeding which, in his opinion, would be highly honour able to them. If they oljected to do so, it would be in effect to repudiate the Right Hon. Gentleman as their leader. Sir R. INGLIS—As the Noble Lord had said that he should merely move that the Bill should go into the Com mittee pro forma, that put the rase on a different footing ft mu that on which it fin merly stooel. Mr. PRAED said, that whatever deference he might be disposed to pay to the Right Hon. Baronet to whom the Hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded, his conduct could not be regulated by whatever might perhaps have been the opinion of that Right Hon. Gentleman four hours ago. He was justified in maintaining, that by con ceding the present point to them, Ministers would gain a step in the 11,11—the step they were going on discussing. If it were merely a matter of form, he would not at that hour vote for the postponement of the question ; but feeling that it was something more, he considered it to be his duty to persevere. Lord 13RUDENELL thought it very improbable that his Right Hon. Friend should have given each a pledge as that which had been adverted to. Were they to go at four o'clock in the morning into a Committee on a Bill, the discussions on which would last five weeks, mirrely because his Majesty's Government thought it a point of dignity to persevere ? He trusted they would be suc cessfully resisted. Mr. MABERLY had not said that the Right Hon. Baronet had male the pledge to which he had alluded to him (Mr. Mabel - 1y) personally. But the arrangement had been made by a Noble Lord on the other side of the House, to whom he would appeal in confirmation of bis statement. Loril AI,THORP (as we understood the Noble Lord) confirmed the statement which bad just been made by his Hon. Friend. Sir C. WETHERELL said, that if his Right Hon. Friend had acquiesced in allowing the Bill to go into a Committee that night, he had merely expressed his own individual opinion. Mr. FYNES CLINTON said, that as it would be competent to any Hon. Member to express his sentiments on the motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair to-mor row, and as the Noble Lord had pledged himself that no attempt should be made to interrupt any Hon. Member in so delivering his sentiments, he did not see any advantage which would be derived from a further perseverance in opposing the Noble Lord's proposition. At the same time he thought that Ministers would have acted more gracefully if they had conceded the point, and had not shown so much pertinacity upon it.—(A laugh.) They were so elated, however, by their majorities, that it Was not surprising their conduct had not been so judicious as it might have been. Lord STORMONT was sorry that he must differ frem his Hon. Friend who had just spoken, in thinking that the opposition to the course soling: had been so perseveringly pressed by his Majesty's Ministers might now cease; in proof of ;vhich he would move that the debate be adjourned until Thursday, at five o'clock. An OPPOSITION Mosses said, that though Sir R. Peel had been nosy in bed five hours, he was quite sure that the Right Hon, Baronet did not intend to desert his present party.—(Cries of " Oh.") He should support the adjournment, because a question which must be dir. cussed in that House nightly for five weeks to come, ought not to be discussed at all after twelve o'clock at night. A division immediately took place : For the adjournment 37 it 203 t returnl Thursday,to the gallery we found Majority ..—.... 166 jou o o Mr, PRAED moving that the debate should be It being represented to the Hon. Member that he could me:::'‘urgiinst not make that lie moved that five o'clock.— " Divide, divhl Mr. JAMEI divisions on th p r, he reioi , the country th been made to 1 The question publi,! money s borou,tbs, or representaticus Gentlemen see be sold, by she ivas ithficctiv Gla,gow migt ac, they chose.- tion, question, Mr: C. PE her.—(A laug boroughs, wh: hands ?—(Lou Lord TIM numerous div proved that th hear, hear)-1 maintain the a th e important easions like th adoption of t laughter, and they would pe Sir C. WE hA that night and independe Noble Lords a Were placed it to which his t th e number o been successiv wai five or siN beret! a score a motion of a got up to this a score of ti enough for th they had coal illinisters this refusal to give Dundalk—(L Boned. The should have f lik e a comet of the same ( Mr. BUM verbial exprei learned little. entirely ignoi present, and Benches. T often voted, t popular Mini sent ; for no , factious pers( . Lord . ST( remained in so long woul (Cries of OF Mr. C. \I motives of tl anti intellig' object to gait 1111.. PEI feeling of per But as it mu not make flu yet a while, take into cor (pointing to he ought not Hon. Gentle Colonel S shall persist Mr. KM` predate a pi other side ( f Mr. ROI . for Tiverton which he hz tlemen of hi to that poir nevi be at ing. Cries doctrine to E majority Lord KE Mr. FAT A MEMB Captain 4 The Hou For On our again deelir The Al were coma would sup would not The H( Fo Sir C. dared he asked wl accelerate The C: if it was the lion. not go on fered to h and wool( taken wo pro form again. should ha the Bill, be affords The S that I do opinion no—one The R a volley The C then tool forma, a to ait age The the How On was pro( tention N some dis the time a hedge and cryi weeks of the dam limbs, tl where it ceased t( attentim infant it has since to disco