The Sun. — London, England, 1831-10-05 00:00:00

ten sufficiently c h aracter i sed by the Noble Earl, to t it unnecessa ry f or me to say one word.—(Cheers.)lse wond er , t h en, that they are in favour of the Bill, gh, my Lo r d s , i t is obvious that not one in ten tad of them could have read it, and if one in the ousand. it i s scarcely to be presumed that man could rehend mu c h o f it if he did.—(Hear, hear.) It has asked, my L or d s, what we hope to obtain by rejects th e second rea di ng of this Bill? In the first place we to obtain what every man, what every body of men a right to obtain when, conceiving themselves to be it, they folio* thti dictates of their own judgment. hope to obtain the approbation of our conscience.— tar, hear.) If on this subject it is the duty of any a, or kimbent o any set of men, so to act, it is a duty peculiarly n this Hou se. Whatever they may please to i us—wlietber a first or a second Ch am b er —w e are a 5 5se of Peers. As a House of Peers what is our peeu t duty? When any measure is presented to us, the 4ption of - tvl • .1 ! "( ' ute apprehend to be pregnant with dan t. the community, however strongly that measure peep ressed upon us by the House of Commons or by ..e, it is our Primary duty to exet•cke the privilege rlitieh the Constitution has conferred upon us, and to give liteeoudntry time to reconsider the step which we conceive this lt r do'aer°' U ndoubtedly, my Lords, I would ra 4ined the in the preterit instance, after having tacit tlead_ie. Ptacticability of introducing any important ''its into the bill were it not that for the reas as which I have alre .dy ' stated I consider any such ex a- Ilination ho Pe hav e o P ' le es• We are told by the Noble Earl that hlee a pr ° oPtion but to take the Bill as it is ; to adopt at 4 °P "itign which is to con!ign us and our posterity a new forr a of ' red to tell Government, which no one has eve.risleenre ,racticable, %ersoulrld be practicable, and which, if it seeds, h ost ; . ,in nay opinion, be pernicious. My 'aunt ey ea i t s , it possible If author: -e that the Government of this is on if this Bill passes into a law ? If if disft meh . : f it had begun at the other end—if, instead hey ha c i -."`ng boroughs of population and importance, tther boro u ghsdisfranchised Old Saturn and Gat•on, and the k n oppottt lowest in the scale of population and rates, of s uch a NV would have been finale C i t elit and of proceeding further, given of seeing the effect if to proceed Nohle t E atl i heen found advisable. But, I repeat, will the Hops tel a nsever me this question. How do he and his .1".' 1 4 e o l f p g e t to be able to carry on the public affairs in the Will ti ll s-amn ions, if the present Bill pass into a law? these, hot, by the introduction of it, have subjected pon,7'ees and their ' a rata t f rei . successors to the sudden .. impulses . of_ "-jitl Y oh lu g ? It npul , •es which they must either in 'Ace eY, or Which ' uldenl ' drive them from °f grease 'ne • rna ' y as s ' )el ' •11 . great asure is akin to that by N. lic thesalaries s trot of Offiees of State have been reduced. The pos e i :tlit i tri wealth, In y Lords, has not hitherto been, I is Vier , ffi "e r will he an indi:peneible qualification for the iirtdiaus ac4eAs aorf. the ' State. The - measure - . to ayliicbl. i:ltude e ge e4t ~ tstocratteal. By reducing the sal tries , of 44 PO, n 'eers of State, you leave the offices open only to l 'eato 4e4 ,„ er s of wealth. You narrow the choice of Y the 'oto ' xou d • the of Hu gs et,. , eprive country the power of calling s % lee the most brilliant talent which it pos e ao, rid er , u ela will also be the effect of the Bill under our 14'1 t el a i t 'im s if it should pass into a law. Let the Noble 'le to 4 4 , 1 e 11 °W he and his friends will, in that . case, be nun ' '' Y on the affairs of the country ? Again, there lith eilee Yauli ordin t i d e to th e Hoa_te officers of the Government, whose posed alm ost ",e of Commons is highly u-eful, and 1 ,,,) and St , , In dispensible. Should the present Bill CaY, h i , e L e 'd all the nomination boroughs be swept l 'o th e ' what means will it be possible to bring them 'orris, / b ane " s e of Commons, except by bribery ? My ,alitill to done all I could to endeavour to bring my but 1 fi n ,, vote f il . , t l 3.e ger ; h it utt er l y : the secord reading of the Bill ; doPessible. I have a full sense of the . '4ll sous 'el' May attend it re'ection, but I have also a not o il e t hat the respoosib s iiie j f those dangers rests th tia Who 1 yor -..., what hav enc• lilt'" Wh o :.° Our duty b y rejec ti ng the Bill, .but o .t n ,t• done their duty by introducing i to ns' 've- t r'aY be the result—thinking that the t ian, k au ght to have time to reconsider this great ques lira' lie Ilawing that, on n i e npn occasions, during theieta,el,444ti"na as great have Y existed, and have, never my poli - t are h ouri ee l o su ns by order and content—l say we ;11:4 Op inion t() giVe the people an opportunity of qualifyin g e a o „ on this most important question. N e . a t 40144;'11k. give the Noble Earl such an opportu l ni y t; t w et i l t .'et. /II have little hope that the Noble mfi E t a o r I COQOs4,4I' But la m desirous to have the benefit oft.‘i f irs t w l7 , (-._' Chime e calla " the great ruler of "'na us in a ti tutio ut that if this Bill pass, it will place 11, 44 , . 111 „ Il e 11% different from that which we have hitherto . - " l ak o 4-e 'tee Constitution ca d n l v te en different from another . , kls ould t th at if i the proposal that it ‘vkineh 1't441 will throw Ti an country into a state from "ecotoe an never entire! re re c c o over y I cannot consent to ee atitl er ll accomplice in what y it is impossible for me to "o od ie ""Y other light than as a great political crime. .. 4 Viseou:nd continued cries of " bear, hear.") ta i l l'ord ti4ILLBOURNE spoke to the following rffrct d : 1 a„ 1) !, in a ' „',,,ail , most willing to concur with your Lot: - e :, °Ave fr u ding the ability displayed in the speech which i' L l'ot v't;',l heard from m Noble Friend ; although I p!'"le•F ri . think that much ) which has fallen from my fr o theiti e tt ua mi g ht have better suited a Committee on the t r .,,," 1 , tny N e a t °tion for its second reading. In what fell ti e 'Y irgreei.de Friend in an early part, of iris speech I.en greibbeta ' 4 . tta niely, that it is incumbent on the various e or ° etld s on e ' his Alajest 's Government to explain the p o t ,' witho-enieb they support ort the measure ; and there forl44ejt that intimatiopap I should have taken an op tuthe is ‘ te. : stati n tot g the reasons ' which induced me to vote 1'5: 44 4 oa -- readinz f this Bill. To many of the ar -I:4ve: wiiioZY Noble" Friend it aras I du a l ; 1 4aeli „,, fav uhr; for they are arguments which .d. impossible for me to ritk irl ia th e e-o'ilged elsewhere. If ever there was an in i itlg f ore Of t he co n ntr Y More anxious than another that the b mu st m t - a ntry might have gorse on without our e ilo HntetUlt front l ncOr the hazard and responsibility which hho ti- e ° le ao great and fundamental a change in the_ .. sect toe sat I was that person. That great . 0' n lie e „ atate sman Lord Bacon, says that the differ ! I -4 eiVil - was, that while , tooe ern ti , affairs and the sciences l'ity t ' re eat, the",,to should be nothing but change and ti ent II repufarrorrner should rest far support on autho eetita)uttaspeta roots n. s, \serum in rebus civilibus p mutatio "" (even if the change were for the bet tion' eos t , - en e ! oh perturbationern ;in titant -3 "' fama, et o inione, non demonstra teltall• el. ' In • P corn civilia audio. 4 iht a , i f odi . attibus autem et scientiis t tanquain ulteri ttily the . revs ,°") °lmola novis operibus , atop `"e ... ' Qua eir cumstrepere debent.' e Undoubt- L e med. , e ti v t rt 0 , , bto Q t is —at inu arising from change is to be he 4 , 4 `t:t e d . Leh the other terms of the proposition must ttl.tai.PPorteci Lyhal.t,,tvh.ich it is proposed to change must I 9p ed es we c_stnority, consent, reputation. and opi. i Il tY, L b and 17 c .'g that the columns of that support are 0 it nite. e te i d ling --if we find that, instead of autho ill 4(1 of '4 disrespect for . all authority--if . w e e fi fi n n d d t t h h a a t : i 4' 1) 4 " °I e"8"814 s there p i •) _udi 4l ,_ repotati_ is clissensus— f w II ' e t th e '°O, i t i ti ' E n and opinion, there are l aversion and 0 , to e t , altuatia t.oen time to look about us, and to consi -1 We n h er t to the 4 'n Which we are laced ;it is then time 4, -1.4 first principles of placed Constitution. that 14 nett NI. th . I told h Its., e edifice which is tottering and crumbling , 1N„ y o n _ (Hear hear.) ,i 7 s teno e ot• My Lords, we have been • steno " ork er f. Your, Lordships that we d• to the % the duty Popularis aurce • and that it frequently ought not to be i . , tl - ''t th of legislative an ' i re resentative bodies h will P ''',l del:,:r-Y hav e of the eeople. I perfectly I, $ 4 , rst tin " representative body at all? The wildest admit it. 1) wiiCY ...ordemhitenee would hardly deny the proposition. te e , .;". Old p 0: ,alth°Ugh it me n"y be our duty to resist the eh Hat e, ' Le f Or atii 't ' ossible to resist it f to ut., / , e ~. s i imp . .•. l ong eas,,r---.0. /e ' Out in this case resisted it ie., ih I 1)... 'et bear ) I this the more freely, be -0,,1 te a . .•••c o n f • say Iti h a , sti n thu . Willer occasions been in the foreground 0 , , 1 . e / er g rhasoee, 0 so ot sied i t : "'my Reform. Ni ht after nieht ' ef l 4 1e 00 ' tln,„ wh 'll another place, going' far beyond b e t l'aii sore 1 al t s u are now adverse to the present s7, lAlaterl_:.lit the :xl'earropposed in the other House of ai wa c ter at , d 111. . sion of the elective franchise to o d ' Whi ell Y ti tt t. look I,4,.krnwintghharn. With reference to that period, efler °l ' Alp Pti ved tl great regret to the circumstances , fo r 1 • /t usk . le Administration of that day of the services 'di ll ° ad i' ow all aiwiaTsx'so!, think all never cease to regret them in ti, Iltii ht . 11 i nk' that h e was not fairly treated ildt , e I lobl ' e occurrence first shook my confidence I te se e Utike opposite. On that . occasion, hor.v -1 i lbghe ."Nnaed the tran 1 Ptopo,i,lN because . btr of the elective franchise to Bir- I hea„ o _ "(in was adopt '° toy .own heart I knew that if that i r te, kit re, por ed, it must necessarily lead to a large I Lkesoa le 'oi ng„a arn w a l n .. a v il t iny Lords, give the elective franchise irti w eilth treat empori to Manchester . Because . they . have e, o vule_ k id i n. ,,, 01.., urns of commerce, daily increasing in j tiy, d n ee, Kpi,rt andt` l'lc.e. Becaus e they are full of men of o f, i l i fi __ 4 110 0 , ,', l.ntelligenee. Because they have ar ;t: o,o‘!Nee. at imper i al grandur, and metropolitan mag waol hoe 't they . U would give the' tl l •t've franchise he 4i! au • have hits • nme e ec 1 a l , f or , 'fler,a.,,, increased. But the whole country oi l th , t , ) b . 7"•-•-(Hear, hear,) It semi to me, there rise. ,_ e ire (Hear, len "4 °, cea,i t r Insa,ure. „,tie ger to resist the adoption of I oil', bee," when the obte Earl says that on former 0,4 te_, wishes ot the people on this subject if 4' 1 : 4,1. :isted, every thing has returned to a peaceful 01 4' hey( .. " r a certain time that 'nay be so, but not ise,o ' , ar e r ''• Two of the re and that e that ifef ,._ m .3 great that against the urea ,o ; el a , Nit the r,•""Pu"rlar di em in ab er e d l y fo u r se i d t a i s s a tvea l pon of par . ty, , ' 1 i mo or that sprin . mere.y a tempo' all Vl b gs up Whenever any general calamity occurs, and subsides when that calamity is at an end. Ad. mining - both these arguments to be well founded, is it not desirable to deprive party of so formidable a weapon ? And when your Lordships see that, on every occasion of public calamity and distress, from whatever cause arising, the people c mil for an alteration in the representation, and that the call is accompanied with a deep. rankling sense of injustice suffered, and of rights withheld, can you be in sensible of the danger of pi olongirig such a state of things? What constituted the great danger which attended the continuance of the system formerly pursued towards the Roman Catholics in Ireland? That it gave opportuniths to those who, as has been well observed, " were always lying in wait to take advantage of time distresses of the country." My Lords, the popular feeling on the subject of Reform extends, your Lordships do not know how far; it penetrates, your Lordship- , do not know how deeply; it will break forth with irresistible violence when your Lord ships are flattering yourselves that the country is enjoying general repose • and perfect tranquillity. I have already observed, that my Noble Friend who has just spoken stated many things which would have been better stated in a Committee. Why will be not allow the Bill to go into that Committee? lam sure my Noble Friend did him self great injustice when he said that his right hand had so far forgot its cunning, that he should be unable to adapt any amendments to the Bill. Undoubtedly the measure is an exteneiee one. It does away with the nomination boroughs ; it takes away one Member fm oat the represen tation of a number of other boroughs ; it alters the consti tuency of boroughs ; it generally augments qualifications, I allow that these are great changes. I cannot concur in the popular censure on the Hense of Commons for delay in considering them. They are of great importance, and they mlemend consideration But :deer so much deliberate con sideration, when your Lordships find that the House of Commons has persevered in bringing down this Bill, will you at once, and without any consideration at all, reject it? Will you get rid of the whole proposition, on a promise of 1 know nut what,—on a something to be in troduced liere:lter ? I implore the House to pause be fire they come to such a decision. I implore your Lord ships to consider the question as it now sands before you. I implore your Lordships to ask your selves why the mea sure was introduced by his Majesty's Ministers,:-..why it has been adopted by the other House of Parliam.nt? I implore your Lordships to ask yourselves if the present state of things can long continue? When the Noble Earl said that it had been declared that the Bill must not be touched or modified ; that it must either be taken and registered by their Lordships, or thrown out intact, he misunderstood my Noble Friend. My Noble Frieed's language by no means admits of such an interpretation. There was nothing in the statement of my Noble Friend to warrant the supposition that he was adverse to delibe ration. But even if there were, would that justify the Noble Earl in rejecting the measure without deliberation? The Noble Earl had talked of population as the basis of the measure, and has contended That that basis is erroneous. population I admit is made the tale of the disfranch se ment ; but that it is the basis of our plan of represent:- tion, or that it is our intention ever to make it the leisis of the representation of the country, I deny. The Bill comes in to effect an extension of the present system of representation, and adapts it more completely to the circumstances and situation of the country. The question is undoubtedly an exceedingly large one, and the Noble Earl has argued it at great length with an ability and ca• pacity such as he always displays ; but he has argued it incompletely. It is impossible, on a debate on the second reading, when the general principle of Reform is the ques tion.—(`` No, no," from the Opposition side of the House, cheers from the Ministerial side, and repeated " No, no," from the other side.) Everybody who had spoken had • been anxious to make a declaration on that subject— (Cheers) —and it was hardly possible to mike any state went in favour of the principle of Reform, which slid not call forth an indignant denial from these who, a few mouths before, adniii.ted the necessity of Reform. When that is the case, 1 put it to your Lordships whether Reform is not the general principle of the Bill, and whether that is not now the question for discussion ?—(" No, no," from the Opposition.) is it agreeable to the course of youm Lordships' proceedings to discuss the principle of a Bill before going into a Committee ; and if you epprove of that principle to go into a Committee ? Or are pito Lord-hips prepared to say that you approve of the Re form and will nut go into a Committee l'—.(Cheers.) I ap peal to the Nob e Earl who spoke early in the debate, and who introduced a Bill in the beginning of the Session, ie which he took a considerable interest, but which I ultimo say was of very trifling importance as compared to this Bill, and was as inconsistent as a Bill could well be, and the Noble Lord pressed your Lordships to allow him to go into a Committee, merely on account of the excellency of the object he had in view. If your Lordships object to the principle of Reform, you will not allow the Bill to go to a Committee, but if you do not, you will ; and there, as the Bill is made to your hand, you will amend and change it according to the reason and sense and justice of the House.—(l-lear.) If not, what elterna tive is there? What course will your Lordships pursue ? What do you propose? If you will not allow the Bill to go into a Committee, and there is no other Bill, wham have you to give ? If it is necessary, us is stated, to ap pease the spirit of the people—if it is necessary to propi tiate them, your Lordships will allow the Bill to go the Committee, as you will spare yourselves the mortification of retracting or of presenting some other Bill. The arguments which had been directed against the details of the Bill are fit for the Committee, and I should wish to spare your Lordships' time by not now discussing them. I will not go, therefore, into all the questions mooted by the Noble Earl. Ido not deny that this is a measure of great importance—that it causms a great change—that it • will he followed by other great changes—(Hear)—that other measures will be necessary to carry it into complete effect. There must be a change in the Constitution in re spect to Ministers having seats in another place. There are some defects which may lead to other changes. I would not exclude Alinisters from that House, nor allow them to obtain seats by any other means than the voice of the people.—(llear.) I should be exceedingly sorry to see such a change, but the Bill will make changes necessary to adopt it to the working of the Constitution, and to the circumstances of the country ; but to effect these changes, I rely on the elasticity of the Constitution, on its adapting power, which has preserved and improved it in times past, and will not fail, 1 hope, on future occasions. —(Cheers.) I am depaiting, however, from the rule I laid down ros to go into the details, which demand more discussion than I can now give them. 1 must abstain, though that is doing the measure injustice, because it is not possible for me to go the length I wish. I implore your Lordships to con sider it well, and not now to touch those topics which will best be considered in the Committee, but to recollect the scenes into which you are about to enter. It is a great que-tion you are about to decide—a question involving the peace and happiness of the empire. I beg leave to observe to your Lordships, that there is a great difference between this Bill and that for the relief of the Roman Ca tholics, to which it has been compared. You have it now in your power to grant what will be considered a boon, on which the repose of the country depends, and which is looked for with impatience. But in this Bill you are not bound in any manner. You have never rejected this, or any similar Bill. Some of your Lordships tray in the other House of Parliament have expressed an opinion on Reform ; but as a body—as a House of Peers—you ate unbound and uncompiomised. Your Lordships have free liberty and power to decide as you think fit, and you will come to the decision free from the influence of fear, free from all apprehension, free from all menace, free even from that fear which a noble and generous mind sometimes leads to rash and untimely acts—free, my Lords, horn the imputation of fear. The Noble Duke stated at the begin ning of the debates on the subject of Catholic emancipation, that he did not consider that he was addressing himself to vour Lordships' fears. lam not of a different opinion. • It is said that the great measure of Catholic emancipation has not accomplished all that it promised. I admit that --hut I would beg leave to ask, what would have been now the state of Ireland had it cot been passed into a law? If the want of complete success is to be ascribed to the conduct of one man, if lie has had the power to a pp (ee the beneficial workings of the measure . and delay its ad vantages, I must - say that man no the creature of your Lordships' 'hands; your obstinacy gave hint influence, and created the power which he possesses to impede the heal ing effect of a beneficial law. That he should have had the power to raise obstacles to the peace and tranquillity of the country, is a circuinstance I deeply aid seriously lament. Whateve r other motives may actuate your Lord. ships, I implore you not to be guilty of the rashness of fear ; I implore you not tobuegnuirletymionfd y theeugr Lordshipsreate rrasli ness of del ay.—(Hear. ) I will of the address of the Roman Consul to his Council on going to war, when he planned that masterly march which overthrew the Carthaginian General before he could unite himself to his other forc es—a march which, perhaps, chang e d the destinies of the world. • The Roman army used then not to procrastinate ; and assured thin that their safety depended on the adopting his . plan immedi ately, an-1 that there would be danger 1n delay—ey e "71'i/inn' sue quod tutus celeritas feci ss.t, temera rium moranda facerent.—(Cheer s.) Time Doke or WELLINGTON ---I concur, my Lords, entirely with the Noble Lord who spoke last, in the opi nion that this measure is a most extensive one• . It goes to overturn th e w hol e system of our representation ; . affects the counties, town:,, and boroughs ; it affects every thing ; and, as the Noble Lord said, it will require fur ther changes. It alters all the relation , of representation, and even the proportions of representatives of the different parts of the Monarchy. It i the most considerable alte ration and change ever proposed. The Noble Lord says it would not lie sufficient unless it went to a great extent; and he tells your Lordships it ought to go to a Committee, and that we should not reject the measure now, but pro ceed to consider its details in a Committee. • Notwith standing all the changes it is to effect, it will be followed by other changes---(Hear, hear)- , -in order to render it fit for working, and adapt it practically to our Constitution. Before I go any further, I wish to observe on a statement made by the Noble Earl when he introdticed the measure. He did me the honour to notice my conduct. The Noble Earl, when lie opened tl e measure to your Lordships, made some observations on me ; and the Noble Earl generally manages, when be makes a speech, to attack those who he supposes are his adversaries. He seems to prefer that to explaining or defending his own mea sures. The Noble Earl seemed to forget that there was any necessity to defend his own measure or ex p'ain it to the House, and chose rather to criticise me and my language, and the langu tge of my Right Hon. Friend, and our conduct and language in Parliament during the last Session. The Noble Earl thought proper to find fault with my language relating to the constitution of Par liament. The Noble Earl found fault with my opinion of Parliament; but what had the Parliament done up to the moment when I was speaking to make it undeserving of our .iprobation ? My Noble Friend who has spoken with great ability, regretted that I should have made the state ment I did make to your Lordships of the character and conduct of Parliament. My Lords, I beg my Noble Friend and the Nobl, Earl to recollect that when I spoke of the Parliament I spoke as the King's Minister, and it is the duty of a King's Minister to support the institutions of the country.—( Hear.) It had never, when I was in office, been the practice for the King's Ministers to give up the institutions of the country and abandon them the moment they wine attacked. But, my Lords, if I wanted an example of the opinions of the value of the House of Commons, I should find it in the opinion of the Noble Earl the last time, I believe, that he spoke of the House of Commons. In the month of February, 1817, the Noble Lord said, " Constituted as it now was, he in his conscience believed that the House of Commons was of all other institutions in all the other countries of the world, the institution hest calculated for the general pro tection of the subject. Supported by the people in temperute and firm claims for redress, it was not only able but certain to remedy every wrong. It was capable to act as the most efficient controul upon the executive, by diminish ing the means of corruption and reducing the pressure of a severe and grinding taxation." That was the opinion of the Noble Earl himself in 1817; and what, I would ask, had the Parliament done subsequently to deserve th, disapprobation of the Noble Earl—what had it done be tween 1817 and the moment when I pronounced it, of which my Noble Friend arid the Noble E irl have expressed so much disapprobation? When tire Noble Earl quotes what I said not quite a twelvemonth ago, he might, I think, quote it correctly. What I said was, that I ap proved of the constitution of Parliament. I said that if I had to create a constitution of Parliament, I would not say that I should be disposed to make our Constitution over again, because I did not believe the wit of man could invent it, but I said that I would do my endeavour to establish one like it, in which property should be pre ponderant. That was what I said, and I afterwards bad the satisfaction to hear the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne) deliver a similar opinion. He had stated that in any ,ystsin of representation which he could supprt property must be preponderant. I said that also as a Minister of the Crown ; and as a Minister of the Crown that I should resist Reform. I spoke as a Minister of the Crown, and as a Minister of the Crown I meant to resist Reform. The Noble Lords say that this statement of mine created a great dislike to roe, and created that spirit of Reform which has since pervaded the whole country. I beg the Nolle Earl s pardon; but the spirit of Reform in this country was the consequence of the French Revolution. It is partly true, that ever since the American war, from time to time, there has prevailed in this country a demand for Parliamentary Reform. When there has been distress or difficulty the people have demanded Parliamentary Reform. At the sante time, I believe that, from year to year, the manifestations of such a desire have been less frequent. I have, indeed, the au thority of those most friendly to Reform for saying, that the manifestations of the desire for Reform were less fre quent till the period of the Revolution of July, 1830, than they bad formerly been for a number of years. It nappened, unfortunately, that a few days before the Ordi nances were issued at Paris, his Majesty had dissolved the Parliament here. At the elections, my Lords, no doubt, a strong spirit of Parliamentary Reform was exhibited, ind many candidates for seats in Parliament were obliged to pledge themselves in favour of Reform. At several contests the question was decided by the candidate declar ing himself a Refortner. The Noble Earl also referred to what had occurred in relation to the city of London. In the month of November there also occurred the resignation of Ministers, and it was attributed, like other things, to my opinions on Parliamentary Reform. With respect to the city of London, I was acquainted with these circum stances, as I stated myself on November 2. My Lords, the Lord Mayor further explained to us the situation of the city of London, as regarded myself on Nov. 5. We repre sented the state of the city to his Majesty, and we received his Majesty's commands on Sunday, Nov. 7. He had made the same statement in the House. To state that the de sire for Reform arose out of what I said, or out of the King's not going to the city of London, was inconsistent with the fact. My Lords, the state of London was then very bad, and the state of England in every part in the South and the North, was bad, and it was all owing to the French revolution and the revolution in Belgium, and not to the King's visit to the city of London, and not to what I said in Parliament. The Noble Earl has cast the blame on those of us of his Majesty not attending in the city. My Lords, I beg to know if his Majesty has yet visited the city of London ? The question was, whether we were right or wrong; and if we were wrong, I beg to ask why his Majesty has not yet visited the city of London ? As to what has been said about Parliamentary lit form having caused the fall of the Government, on that I will say a few words. I have stated before, in reply to the Noble Earl, and I now repeat, that the question of Re form had nothing to do with the breaking up of the Go vet nment. The Government retired because it had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. I know that many of those who decided against our Civil List also de.. tided against the second reading of the Noble Lord's Bill, which they brought into Parliament. lam right, then, in saying the question of Parliamentary Reform was not the cause of the House of Commons withdrawing its con fidence from us. If it had been only the question of Par liamentary Reform, we might have stood. We were beaten on the Civil List—we found we no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House of Commons—and we re signed the next day.—(Hear, hear.) I preferred the following day above all others, because on that day a question of Parliamentary Reform was to come on, and I did not wish that a question of that kind should be defended by a Government which had lost the confi dence of the House of Commons.—(Hear.) That is the real state of the case, and not as it has been stated by the Noble Earl. The Noble Earl stated at the time of his as suming the Government that it was the general spirit of Reform which had deprived the Government of support. He stated that on the 22d Nov. last year, when he took possession of the Government, and then the Diable Earl came before your Lordships with several propositions. His first proposition was, that it was his intention to propose a plan of Parliamentary Reform, he having obtained the consent of his Majesty for that purpose, and that he meant to bring it forward as a measure of Government. The Noble Earl then made a remarkable declaration. The Noble Earl said, " I wish to place such a Reform on the basis of the settled institutions of the country."—(Hear.) The Noble Earl said that he wished to place his Reform upon the settled institutions of the country, and now he acknowledged that he had brought in a measure which would effect a great change in them. The Noble Earl said, "Sortie Reform is necessary; but the principle on which I wish to see it regulated is to give the people an influence in the great Council of the Nation, because it is necessary to give them a resting place on which they may repose with satisfaction and confidence. The principles the Noble Earl had then laid down he had departed from, and be has introduced a Bill with other principles, and which led to other changes. In consequence of his de claratien, the Noble Earl introduced a Bill into the other House, and which, after some discussion, passed a second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill was proceeded with, but when it was to go into a Committee in the House of Commons, the Committee wished to resist some parts of so extensive a change. It was proposed that the proportion of Members for England should not be di minished; there was a great collision of opinion, and the niajarity of the Committee of the House of Commons was against making such an extensive change. Did the Noble Lords persevere and carry the measure through the House of Commons, as the principle of the Bill had been cm, ceded ? Did they attempt to adapt it to the practice of the Constitution and the opinions of ti.e House, of Con - r"ns ? No such thing ; they dissolved Parliament. From that dissolution I date all our misfortunes. That Parliament was dissolved, and the Noble Lord, perhaps, thought according to the precedents of 1784 and 1807 He, however, appealed to the people not to decide concern ing a by-gone transaction —not to decide concerning the character of Ministers ; but he appealed to the people to know whether or not the Parliament should be reformed, and be reformed by the actual which he had brought in ? I will beg leave to read to your Lordship's the King's Speeeh on the occasion:— "My Lords, and Gentlemen,—ln resolving to recur to the sense of my people in the present circumstances of the country, I have been influenced only by a paternal anxiety for the con tentment and happiness of my subjects; to promote which I rely With confidence on your continued and jealous assistance." flie people then were called upon to consider the details of a measure which had been under the consideration of the Parliament, and Which Ministers intended to refer to it again, and the country was+ also called on to elect Mem bers to carry that Bill into effect. Before 1 proceed fur ther I shall beg leave to refer to the conduct of the Govern ment in dissolving Parliament in 1781 and 1807. In 1781 the King had diff -red with his Ministers, and put an end to the session by the following speech :-- "My Lords and Gentlemen, —On a full consideration of the present situation of affiirs, and of the extraordinary circum. stances which have produced it, I am induced to put an end to this Session of Parliament , I feel it a duty which I owe to the Constitution and to the topritry, in such a situation, to recur as speedily as possible to the sense of my p67lsle, by calling a new Parliament. I trust that this means will tend to obtiate the il chiefs arising from the unhappy division and distractions witch have lately subsisted, and that the various important objects which will require consideration may be afterwards proceeded upon with less interuption, and with happier &tett. I can have no other object but to preserve the true principles of our free and happy Constitution, and to employ the powers entru.ttecl to me by law, for the only end for which they were g iven—to the good - of my people." I will not read his hlajesty's speerh in 1807, but it was to the same purpose. Now the diff tenet between the rises of 1781 and 1807 and the present case is this':—ln those two cases his M ijesty differed from his Ministera. They proposed measures to Parliament to which Parlia ment agreed : but his Majesty thought proper to change his Ministers, and the Parliament would not give its con fidence to the Ministers whom he appointed. It was in favour of his new Ministers that his Majesty on those c ises appealed to the people. In this ease it was not an appeal about Ministers, nor about a measure which they had introduced into Parliament and was disliked, which made Ministers dissolve the last Parliament. On the contrary, the Parliament had approved of the principle of the Bill, and it had the King's support. It was brought forward by the Ministers, though now one of them says it will change every thing, and require further cle,nges. Yet this is the measure about which the people were invited to deliberate. This, then, my Lords, sheds you that there is a great difference between these cases ; and on this ground I charge the Noble Earl with heving created the cry which pervades the country.-- (Hear, hear, hear.) Yes, my Lords, I say created the cry which pervades the country ; and we shall not so soon get rid of those delegates to Parliament who are governed by their constituents— who hold their seats on the principle of accounting to those con stituents fer every vote—whb are watched over by other delegates—who have power placed in their hands only to do as they are bid—and who are called upon to resign whenever they do not obey their constituents. My Lords, this measure, thus debated by the people— ( Heat)—and thus brought forward by the Government which had ex ited the people on this very measure— (Hear) —goes to establish a totally new system of election throughout the country. There is not a single interest of any description—whether in county, town, or borough whether in England, Ireland, or in Scotland—that escapes unaltered, with the exception of the two Universities. I will not enter into the detail of this measure, which has already been gone into by my Noble Friend, because I am unwilling to take up nwe of your Lordships' time at this late hour than is absolutely necessary. But I have one or two objections to this measure which have not been stated by my Noble Friends who have preceded me. One of these objections is the uniformity (though, by the by, this objection was stated by one of my Noble Friends) of the constituent body throughout all the towns of this kingdom ; and I say that you make room by that unifor mity for combinations among the electors, such as will afford ground for the activity of such a Committee as was found in this town last winter, and which, as soon as it was noticed by the Parliament, was discontinued, but which can be renewed, and will he renewed as soon as ever this Bill shall have passed.—(Cheers.) But I object to this system on other grounds. I ebject to the repre sentation that is adopted with respect to the counties. I agree with my Noble Friend, that the landed interest is very imperfectly represented even now by the Members for the counties.—(Bear, bear.) It is a great mistake to suppose that these Members for the counties are elected solely fi tun the agricultural freeholders, for there exist manY of those freeholders in great towns, and who have considerable influence over the county elections—(Hear, hear)—and I beg to observe, that this evil will be much increased by the addition to the elective body in the counties, of copyholders, of leaseholders, and even of simple holders of land to the amount of 501. a ye.sr. By this Bill, my Lords, leaseholders and. copyholders in towns are to be deprived of their corporate rights, and to be allowed to vote for the Members of the counties; so that, so fir as that goes, the election of the Members of counties will be still more under the influence of the freeholders of towns than at present. It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that the additional Members given to the counties to the amount of 62, will be any compensation for what the landed interest will lose by the Bill.—(Hear.) But there is yet another view of the subject to be taken by your Lordships. What we have to consider is, the for mation of a Government. We must take care that a Government is formed in this country—(Hear)—and for that purpose we must not only know what the repre sentation of England is to be, but what also is to be that of Scotland anti of Ireland. Ido not pretend to know enough of Scotland and its representation to pronounce whether it ought or whether it ought not to be reformed ; but I must repeat, in the words of a Noble Friend of mine, whom I must ever lament—l mean the late Earl of Liver pool—that Scotland is the best conditioned country in the world.—(Hear, hear.) I believe I may also say, that it is the best governed country in the world ; and at least, I am sure, that it has been one of the most prosperous for the last 60 or 70 years.—(Hear, hear,) We are, then, bound to look et what is going to be done with the repr e s e ntation of Scotlan d . In Scotland the county repre sentation is going to be treated in the sa m e mintier as the county representation in England ; freeholders, lease• holders, and copyholders (allowing for the difference of the holdings in the two counties), are all to have votes ; and the c ou nty electors are chiefly to be elected by those re siding in towns. Now let us look how it is to be in Ire land. In Ireland we thought, very foolishly, that two years ago we had se ttled th e question between the Protes tants and the Roman Ca t holics : it was at that time hoped that the ques ti o n of representation a s b e twe e n those two classes was entirely settled. But now what is it that is going to be done? Leaseholders of 19 years, and those who hold land to the amount of 501. a year, are to have votes for county Members. Now I believe that there are very few holding land to the amount of 501. a year who have not leases also; but whether this is so or not, the fact will be, that nearly every tenant on every estate will have a vote, and that almost all these will be Roman Catholics. All the close corporations in Ireland (of which, I think, there now remain twelve), which were established in the reign of James the First, pur posely for the support of the Protestant religion and the Church of England, are by this Bill to be inundated with 10/. househo:ders.—(Cheers.) Nor, is this all ? there is another arrangemt nt in this measure with which we refused to interfere at the time of the Catholic Bill, because we would not give advantage to one party over the other. The voters in what are called the counties of cities, are corporaiors admitted without any limit as to number, by the Corporation, and are generally Protestants, and are living at a distance from the place. Besides these, a right of voting is constituted in favour of freeholders re siding within a certain distance ; and these, again, were generally Roman Catholics. At the time of the Catholic Bill, we refused to raise the franchise of those freeholders because we would not give to the Curporators an advan tage over the forty-shilling freeholders. What we tie n sa id was, " You h ave t h e power o f a d m itti n g as many f re emen as you pl ease , an d we t h er ef ore w ill not limit the nu mber of the f orty-s hilli ng freeholders." But what did the present Bill do? It gave to every 10/. householder the right of voting, and at the same time it took aw ay the right of voting from the absent freemen ; so that, in fact, all these Corporations would be turned into so man Roman Catholic Corporations—(Hear)— iiistead of being balanced as we left them. In addition to this, my Lords, the consequence cf introducing this e t; rs description a t inns, ; new class of v o t ers w i ll b e, t h at t hi ou ghout the country pe rsons in a v ery l ow stat i on o f lif e will have a large quan tity of elector a l power entruste d in their hands—such as waiters suchare likely postillions, anlet m ostlers,e ask y and our menial Lordships servants whether o any persons but men of the e returnto most viol violent principles o n i poluesse and Com monsdoon - duct ? Some persons now and then talk of Radical Re form, by which has generally been meant universal suf frage and vote by ballot ; but I declare, that if I was called on to say what was Radical Reform, I should say that it was this measure, neither more nor less, as adopted and proposed by the Government..—(Cheers.) Anti, let me ask your Lordships, is th ere n o clanger that this measure m ay go farther than its proposers anticipate?--(Hear, hear.) r it Noble Friend of mine has already stated the dangers which will result from this measure in con sequence of the principle on which it stands. It stands, with respect to large towns, on the principle of population. Is it then possible that Noble Lords, having adopted the principle of population with re spec: to certain of these towns, by giving those that con tain nine, ten, or twelve thousand souls each a right of representation—is it, or will it be possible in future to resist any town which shall demand to send,Members on the ground of having thirty or thirty-five thousand inha bitants? Such a thing would be absolutely impossible...— W e cannot stop here. We must go on. The system has no limit ; and we shall very soon find that the whole number of the vacancies now existing Must be filled up. —(hear, hear.) I beg to give your Lordships another proof on this subject. If numbers are to form the prin ciple of this Bill, why are thete four or five county towns which pay a considerable taxation, attd which have a con aiderahle population, not only having a respectable inha bitancy, but Jae a respectable neighbourhood near them, aid yet have their name's omitted? Why is this, but because they do not happen to have within the limits, not of their boundaries, but of the ancient chartered borough from which they have Arleen, a population of four thousand. —(Hear, hear.) And yet, after such an instance as this, we shall be toll that this is not a question which turns upon numbers. Taking the whole view cf this system of representation, including the representation of Scotland and of Ireland, I say filet the House of Gimmons can be nothing aut a democracy under it, at el moat lead to all those conse quences which those most cage r for fleform have never ex pewee/ weed f tiluw, cen‘equences that entail with there Radical Reform, -tete by ballot, and other innovations, the effect of which we have fell reason to dread.—(Hear.) But it is said that this will go nn further, because the people are attached to the King, the Lortie, zed the Com mons. If that is so, I want to know why we are not to go to Radical Reform at once? If we can trust the people. why are we not to give them all they ask fur?—(Hear ) But, my Lords, in considering thle measure, it is necessary that we .liould look at what is the meaning of King, Lord and Commons. I have always considered that the King of this country is the head of this country—that he is the bead of the Church—the bead of the law—the head of the armed force—othe protector of the peace of the country— the head of the political negociations of the country—not one shilling or money car be expeteled by the public trea sury without his order and signature—and nothing can be dune without his sanction. But though all this is true. the King eaa do nothing that is contrary to law; and f o e this purpose he is aided by his Ministers, who are not only responsible for the legality, but even for the prudence and the fitness of his acts. And to whit authority is it thee the Ministers are responsible? To this and to the other House of Parliament ; and teore especially to the other (louse, because it has an exclusive rule over the pure. of the country. But the Houses of Lords and Commons however powerful in themselves, are still called togethei by the power of the King ; though when called to gether, lam prepared to say that it is the House of Corn• mons that really has the controul over every act, whether i be civil, military, or religious. This being the case, me Lords, it is highly important for us to know of what the House of Commons is to be composed, in order that we may feel assured that they will exercise their high dude , with discriminative prudence and discretion.—(Hear, hear.) It was for these reasons that I softie time ago called on the Noble Lords opposite to state on what foot ing the King's Government was to be carried on untie' this new Reform Bill. The first answer that I received was, that it was not to be carried on by corrupt means; but as I never imputed to the Noble Earl that intention, and as I do not think that he meant to say that the Go vernment, when I was at the head of it, was so cat rite on, it was evident that this was no answer to my ques tion. On try again repeating it, the Noble Earl state. that the Government had nothing to do with that ques tion--that Parliament was now called open to decide foe itself, and that the Government was no longer responsible fir proper provision teeing made. I believe there is n. man in the country who will for a moment affirm that it is one of the first duties of the three estat,w of Parliament, conshLred in their collective capacity, to watch over the rights of the people, and to protect the rights and th. property of the subject. Does any one in his senses sup pose that the veto of the King could, from that throne, afford the required protection. No, my Lords, it is only by the influence which the Crown exercises in the Haus of Commons that the liberty and rights of the people can be protected. There is another most important point o view in which we are called upon to consider this ques tion. I mean with reference to the existence of the Church of England in Ireland, which the Legislature of the United Kingdom is bound to maintain by the articles of the Union. Does the Noble Lord suppose that when the new I political system prevails in Ireland, the Church can long survive its introduction ? When so many Members are returned to Parliament by the influence of the Roman Ca tholic hierarchy, who can imagine that the English Church can be maintained concurrently with that influence. This is a subject which comes home to every man ; and 1 would beg Noble Lords, in considering this question, to ask themselves who are the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ire land? and who are the parties who make these attacks upon the Church established by law in Ireland ? I would also entreat Noble Lords to ask themselves what class of Members of Parliament occasion the most trouble and in convenience to the Executive Government ? Assuredly those who come from large towns ; and the greater the num ber of that class of representatives the greater will be the embarrassment attendant on the Councils of the State ; and, I repeat, the more they are increased the greater will be the necessity for such increase of the influence of the Crown, and of this House, as will prove sufficient to counter-balance that sinister tendency. I put it to the Noble Earl opposite, has he not already felt the inconve nience of that sort of interference which the numerous representation of great towns had created ?—nay, has not the Irish Minister, at the present moment, and under the old system, affected merely by the excitement of this occa sion—l say, under the old system, has not the Irish Mi nister been compelled to abandon, in the other House, one of the most important Irish measures of the present Go vernment? Members representing large places have now the power to compel the Government to give up any thing they may demand from them. There is no man who looks at this question but must feel that, under the alterations which this Bill would effect, the 'conduct of the Govern ment would be impracticable. As has been justly remarked by a Noble Earl below me, if we take one step too far, we cannot retrace it—if we go one step too far forward we must proceed—we must advance through all the hor rors of revolution to the military despotism that of course ensues thereen, and to all that follows upon that system of Government.--(Cheers.) At this late hour of the night I shall not trespass much further upon your Lord. ships' attention. I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordship* at any length respecting the advantages enjoyed by this country under the system of government which existed up to the present day. No man denies that we have enjoyed great advantages—no man denies that in no country upon earth has there existed so much of happiness, so much of prosperity, so much of wealth, as have been enjoyed, and universally enjoyed -by all classes in this country—.the safety of property and of 'person, and the largest commerce bare be4-n possessed by this community —for military strength, for the convenience of navigation, for the purpose of commerce, no country could be more favourably circumstanced, and of commerce she enjoys a larger share than all the nations of Europe united ; but it you once establish the democratic assembly which was in the contemplation of the flamers of the Bill, do you be lieve for a moment that you can preserve all these vast ad vantages ? In no place whete such systems have been established have they failed to declare sear against enlarge property, against the payment of public debt, and against every principle that has ever been recognised in the Briti li Constitution. The moment a demvet acy of that kind is established, property is declared to be the common enemy. Do I mean to say, my Lords, that you alone are interested in the preservation of property. I say the whole people are interested in its preservation. Look at the anxiety which prevails in every part of London on the subject of this great innovation. A Noble Lord near tne has been ridiculed for referring to what might he the opinions of the inhateitants of Bond-street or St. Janies's-streetr on the question of Reform ; but I would repeat that they are much interested in the result, and I Would repeat further, th et the amount of property possessed by that class of his Majesty's subjects, has been much under -rated. I know one who employs from 3000 to 4000 workmen in his establishment, and I will ask the /louse is be not interested faithth e andpresent pr?o promoting n h g e t not h interested the s result o upholdingsuch a measure the publicpublic wealth? Suppose the B ill a g reed to, I would ask the Noble Earl how does h e p ro p ose to deal with the p o p ular representatives? Can the Government go on in such a a s - state of things--can a system of that kind continue tee cadet without destroying the authority of the Crown, both in our settlements abroad and in our foreign relations ; in truth, there was nothing which the measure did not go to change. Again, in all those acts of the Executive Govern ment which the House of Commons was in the habit of c ontrouling, see how great will be the change. We have already had experience of a Parliament so con stituted, acting without the controul and against the interest of the Crown. A Parliament which a cele brated person has described as acting with a vigour which engrossed all authority; all questions relating to the tights of property were decided by a Committee of that Rootless; accountable to no law, and governed by no principle ; which perpetrated injustice, and seized property, without permitting appeal from its decisions ; a Parliament whir s declared against its own dissolution, and continued its owis existence until the army interfered—who at last began t feel that it was necessary to resist the cruel despotism thus created ; for the people felt that they bad exchanged only one kind of tyranny for another. This, then, was the st a te in which England found herself after the murder of her King; and this was the consequence of there being no effectual influence to act upon the Commons. I have st ited to you that this is a question of pruperty, and I have given my reasons for thinking so. I think, too, that under this Bill it will be impossible for the Government of the country to be carried on upon any recognized prin iple of the British Constitution --any, at least, that has been acted upon up to the present day. My opinion tlso is, that no good can arise from going into a Com mitte upon this Bill, for I think it cannot be altered so as make it a useful or salutary measure ; and therefore I think the House ought to vote against the second reading. I have now stated the course which I think your Lori ships ought to take, and I have refer red to that which was the state of the country at the momen t when the King de clared from the throne his intention to dissolve the Parlia ment. I must say. that since that time the question has materially effected chiefly by the course which his Ma j est y 's Minis changed its aspect, and that change has been , ere thought proper to adopt. It is quite obvious also to e d r tyr your n c r oo L s , i , d rd erli p o , n to; voteand tahgoauign me, that whatever may come of this measure, not muc h . we time wi ll elapse before the subject will be brought azain l et t l h e e ar se n co es of this Bill, yet I would entreat that your decision be au gwen . as not to pledge you to any other question or propo s tion connected with Reform which may hereafter be proposed by any Noble Lord, wheTher in public or pri ntldy readingr e c o pri vate; your Lordships will, by thus refraining from pledg .ng yourselves, be enaVed, when the question is regularly wrought before you, to form a correct judgment, and to render great service to the country.--(Cbeers.) Lord MELBOURNE rose to explain. What he had .aid had been overstated. He had not said that the BR .vould effect a great change in the state of the country. but great change in the representation of the House of Commons. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then roue to +peat, but the wish for adjournment appearing to he uuiver•al, Earl GREY moved that the debate be adjourn-d to the following day.— Adjourned at a Quarter past Ooe o'clock. ROUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 4. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a p tition from the 'iankers and others of Brighton, prayin: for the inatitution if a Cnurt of Requests in that town ; also one frim Yar liouth, praying that the law might be altered by which Per*Ong with conscientious scruples might be relieved from aking oaths. The petition was supported by Mr. WILES and Mr. O'Comixtr,, and ordered to he printed. Mr. LAMBF.RT presented a petition from Wexford .tgainst the Kildare-street Society. The Hon. Member was very sorry to appear to throw water on a drowned 'noose, but the petition having been sent to him he was hound to pre,ent it. Mr. CAMPBELL brought in a Bill to amend the liws felative to fines and recoveries, which was read a first name. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman moved that it ue read a second time on the 11th inst. Sir C. WETHERELL complained of the Hon. Gentle ,nan using the terms, " feudal and barbarous" to the fines Lnd recoveries. He stated that, after snaking this objee ion, he would be ready to co-operate with the Hon. and Lturned Member in his attempts to simplify the law and ielsen the expense of suitors. After a few words from Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. &star, the second reading was ordered for the 11th of October. Mr. SANDFORD presented a petition from Somerset 'hire against the Registry Bill. Mr. STRICKLAND and Lord Monmrts contended that Yorkshire should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, as it had had a registry from the time of Queen Anne. Mr. CAMPBELL said that if when the Bill was con .idered in Committee the Noble Lord pressed for the omission of Yorkshire as the wish of his constituents, he of course could not object to it, but he had had letters from that county saying that the including of it in the would be considered es a great blessing. The petition was ordered to be printed. Colonel SIBTHORPE presented a petition to the same offect from Lincoln. In doing so the Gallant Colonel ob served that he considered it a most dangerous measure, and one that he should give his most strenuous opposition to. Mr. WILKS thought it due to his Gallant Friend to observe that he had received instructions from several very large towns to oppose the Bill, but he thought it would be better to let the subject drop for the present Session. Mr. BARING brought up the report of the Com mittee on the Malt Drawback Duties Bill, which was as follows : " That the present system of allowing a drawback on malt spi rits, aflbrds great opportunity for frau d . " That in any manner of reducing or repealing the malt draw back, dile precaution be taken to prevent the revival of illicit distillation." Mr. GRATTAN moved for certain returns relative to the constabulary police of Ireland ; also the expences in curred thereon. Colonel EVANS seconded the motion, observing that he thought double the number of the police of Ireland might be kept up at the same expense, if they were pro perly selected.—Accounts ordered. NEWTOWNBARRY AFFAIR. Mr. H. GRATTAN rose, pursuant to notice, to move that there he laid before the House a copy of the memo rial of Jas. Nowlan and others, of the 16th August, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, regarding the conduct of Capt. Graham and the Rev. W. Morgan, two Mogistra!ts af the county of Wexford, for declining to receive hail, and grant the required information on the charge of firing the house of one of the Newtonbarry yeo tnanry, together with the Marquis of Anglesea's reply; and also for copies of any other communications re ceived by the Irish Government relating thereto. After what had taken place, the Hon. Member did not see how the motion could he refused. Mr. CRAMPTON had no objection to concur with the motion. He, however, bad made inquiries with respect to the conduct of the two Magistrates re ferred to in the notice of motion, and he let bound to state that there was nothing whatever to impute to them. Mr. LEFROY defended the conduct of Captain Gra ham, reminding the House he was not the person who had issued the warrant. Sir R. VYVYAN protested against the time of the House being consumed unnecessarily on this subject. After a few words from Mr. H. OrtarrAts in reply to Sir 13. Barisozr, the motion was agreed to. LORD MAYOR'S DAY. Colonel EVANS rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, concerning certain military prepara tions said to have been made in the city and in the Tower of London, on or about the 9th of November last. The Gallant G.l ,, tiel et ited that I is object in making the present motion was for the better maintenance of the public peace at the present important crisis, ,nd to awaken in the mods of the public the necessity of having a force constituted for the preserva tion of the public peace. He considered that between the question of Re!orm rind insurrection, or civil war, there was no alternative. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on the 2tl of November last the first Parliament under the present reign assetnbled for business, and on that thy his 111,6esty's late Ministers bad made a memorable declaration that no Reform in the repre sentation of the country was necessary. It was no part of his (the Gallant Colonel's) duty to question the wisdom of that declaration, but he strongly objected to the policy that led to it. It appeared that when his Majesty's late Ministers resolved on making that declaration, they deemed it necessary to make preparations for a contest with the people, military preparation , having been made for weeks previously. A few days after that decla ration the annual festival of the Lord Mayor's Day took plac., and such were the fears of his Majesty's 31inisters, who had been invited to dine with the Lord Mayor that day, that all the cavalry within reach of the capital were marched into London, in order to act in collision with the people. Arms were prepared to be distritatted to the police, and reports were abroad that by some secret instructions the Police were to select friends on whom they could rely, to he ready to render assist ance to each other in the event of a struggle, thus increasing the police force, by most unconstitutional means, to nearly double its number. Happily, however, events took place, which put an end to such alarming preparations for the protection of an Anti-Reform Administration. The Gallant Colonel then repeated the object he had in view in the present motion, trusting that the House ',mild see the necessity of acced ing to it. Sir H. PARNELL thought the Moose would see that the Gallant Officer had no ground whatever to support his motion. With reference to the prt.parations nit the 9th of November , C h o y es ere nothing more than what