The Sun. — London, England, 1831-08-31 00:00:00

of applying the same principle to the non-resident and the resident freemen. And then the monstrous inconsis- open to male such a sacrifice. The Hon. Member for Colchester had said that all his constituents were good and honourable men ; and yet all the reward they were to get was a forfeiture of their corporate rights. The Hon. Members for Gloucester and Newcastle had said that so disinterested were their constituents as advocates of the Bill, that they would forfeit all their corporate rights ra ther than risk the loss of the Bill. Now he would tell these disinterested advocates that they were reduced to no such alternative, for it was not inconsistent with the Bill that the corporate right should he preserved inviolate; and, moreover, Ministers would not feel themselves justi fied in withdrawing the Bill if they were defeated upon this clause. The amendment proposed steered clear of the objection, that out-voters of boroughs were opposed to bribery ; for it gave no freedom, but only confirmed it to those who by the existing law were entitled to it by birth, marriage, or service, and who resided within seven miles of the town. The time would come when all who had held corporate privileges would not be satisfied with their being utterly excluded from their rights, and that, too, in a Constitution where all other hereditary rights are main tained. The ten-pound a year householders in small towns from the value of property would be more educated and respectable than the same class of persons in large towns, and this inequality might be corrected by continuing the corporate rights. The existing race would not be con tent with retaining their privileges for themselves, for they held them to be valuable only as they were descendible to their children. He should support the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was necessary that some limits should be placed to numbers, and Ministers had taken their stand upon giving privileges wherever they could be safely given, and in withholding them only where the balance of public convenience re quired it. Because independence was secured by num ber., it did not follow that all numbers were to be ad-. mined ; and the question was, whether Ministers had drawn a judicious line. Ministers well knew that if their Bill had not received the sanction it had met with, their proposition respecting out-voters would have lost them their elections, at least such of them as were returned for large towns, and therefore it ought not to be said that they had sacrificed any thing to popularity. The Right Hon. Baronet had declared that taking away the elective franchise from corporate voters was but a bad requital for the public spirit which those privileged persons had exhi bited ; but he could tell the Right Hon. Baronet that those people would justly have treated Ministers with scorn, had they violated the principles of the Bill out of any regard to their interests and feelings, or under a plea of rewarding their conduct. A triumphant appeal had been made to the people, and all classes bad accepted this clause among the rest of the Bill. Every man knew that the practice of non-resident freemen voting for borough towns did lead to great corruption, and that that corrup tion bad its most baneful influence upon every public mea sure. The people had not petitioned against the Bill, nor against the present clause, though his Learned Friend op posite (Sir Charles Wetherell) had sounded the tocsin of alarm, and had called upon them to rise and resist the spoliation of corporate rights. He (the Attorney-Gene ral) had never heard a single murmur of complaint against this clause in the town of Nottingham, and the whole country was aware that the Bill deprived no freeman of his participation in the charitable funds and other benefits of the corporation to which he might belong. Sir C. WETHERELL was anxious to know on what grounds, moral, political, or legal, Ministers could take it upon them to defend the 22d clause. That clause was contrary to the principle of the preceding one, for the 2lst clause went to extend the franchise to those who at present did not possess it, while the 22d actually disfranchised those who, as freemen, now enjoyed the right of suffrage. This disfranchisement of the rights of freemen of corpo rate towns was a violation of one of the most important articles of Magna Charta,—that which secured boroughs and towns all their " privileges and free customs"--and it involved a principle which went equal y to subvert every other species of privilege enjoyed under the Constitution. He might perhaps be told by some constitutional antiqua rian, that when Magna Cbarta was granted boroughs and towns did not possess the right of suffrage ; for besides that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, was not then in being, the first corporation which received the right of returning Members of Parliament was that of Wenlock, in the reign of Edward IV., and that therefore there was no violation of Magna Charta in the present clause, as it attacked none of the " privileges and free cus toms" then possessed by boroughs. The answer was plain : it was the law of the land,—at least as he interpreted it, —and as expounded at our legal tribunals that the article in Magna Charts not only secured boroughs and corpora tions the privileges then enjoyed by them, but also every other acquired right which they might receive in their cor porate capacity—(Hear)—of which newly-acquired rights he need not say the franchise was the most important. To deprive the freemen of England of their long-established right of franchise, was to subvert the institutions of the country, as confirmed by Magna Charts ; and in this light the country was beginning to regard the disfranchise ment portions of the present Bill. Indeed lie had reason to know that the circle of dissatisfaction with the Bill was daily becoming wider and wider, and would ere long include every man in the empire who valued the rights of Englishmen. He might with ease quote cases in point of this important fact ; but could not take it upon his memory to cite all the towns and boroughs which had already ex pressed their dissent from the Bill by returning Anti-Re formers, or approving of the conduct of its opponents. or this purpose lie should have to construct a schedule A of the towns against the Bill, in which would be found Great Grimsby, Durham, Beverley, and Dublin, and se veral other large and populous towns and cities. He be lieved also he might include Colchester, the Hon. Repre sentative of which would find it to be his interest to sup port the present amendment. Unless, too, he had been very much misinformed, be might, he believed, include the liverymen of the city of London as dissatisfied with a Bill by which they would lose more than they possibly could gain. The country knew that the rights of freemen to vote for the representatives of towns and boroughs was, as his Right lion. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had observed, all hereditary right, and that the principle once adopted of attacking and spoliating hereditary rights, no man could take it upon him to say where it would end.--(Hear.) There were two modes of destroying hereditary rights— either to begin at the top and go down to the bottom, or to begin at the bottom and go up to the top. If they looked to the proceedings of a neighbouring state,—that is, to the Reformers of that country,--they would see a striking illustration of the former mode of attacking here ditary rights and privileges : the present clause, by which the hereditary rights of the freemen of England were to he at one fell swoop destroyed for ever, was an instance of the attack from the bottom to the top, preferred by the popular Reformers of this country.—(Hear, hear.) The French Chambers, in abolishing the hereditary privileges of the Peers, began in the reverse mode—that is, they com menced with the drawing-room , while Ministers com menced their spoliation of hereditary rights at the ground floor, by and by to mount up to the higher portion of our constitutional edifice.—(hear, hear.) tie should like to know on what ground Ministers, having once admitted and acted upon the monstrous principle of robbing the freemen of England of the elective rights which they had enjoyed and inherited for centuries, they could refuse their " movement " reform allies, to join in the spoliation of the other hereditary rights and privileges which were at pre sent part and parcel of the Constitution? The Paymaster of the Forces and the Chancellor of the Exchequer be longed to the hereditary Peerage of England, and if they, by the twenty-second clause of the Bill, remorselessly wrested from the boroughs and corporate towns their most cherished hereditary rights, on what ground could they re fuse their assent to a proposition which would reduce them to Citizen Russell and Citizen Spencer ?—([Tear.) If they, he repeated, thus decimated the corporations of the country, and robbed the freemen of England of their long-inherited rights—if they thus laid down standard of 'social outrage, hereafter to be appealed to by their more eager and mor e consistent allies, how could they attempt to withhold their aid from some more ex tensive scheme of spol i a tion which by and by will be proposed, and which most probably will embrace not only the hereditary principles of the Euglish aristocracy, but may attack the very basis on which our monarchical in stitutioce at present rest ?--(Hear, hear.)—Are they so blind as not to see the fatal consequences of the principle they are now a c ti ng upon ?— or s o conceited, so isfatuatad in their feeble self-complacency, as to imagine they can prevent their occurrence? No doubt Lords Althorp and Russell wish to rem a i n so , an d not s i n k to th e l eve l o f th e i r domestic allies ; but do they imagine that their wishes will b e the goal to which all the efforts of the " movement" The next relay of Reformers l Reformers will be directed ? spol t i ii atnprinci . p e will take up the hereditary privilege it down, andthankin g when they shall lay for having so skilfully pioneered the way—for having o p ene d a new road to the hereditary rights of the Constitution —will of t : hemeelves in course stop at their ullima Thule. S. tion t.ay is monst rous . their course at their bidding ! the supposi The Hon. and Learned Gentleman repeated m that t ralhe 22d clause was not, in his mind, justifiable on !y t he , po litical, or legal grounds. Mi nisters disfranchised the . smaller boroughs fur no reason but because they weresma , n ow most inconsistently proposed t o disfranchise the cor porations of the large towns merely because they were large. Then let them look to the monstrous inconsistency tency of a Ministry vaunting itself upon its attention to popular rights, beginning the system of spoliation of the hereditary rights of the democratic portion of the commu nity ; but let them beware, the principle of spoliation once acted upon, those corporate privileges which were expressly secured by Magna Charta being thus trampled upon, they might soon be called upon to join the present opponents of the Bill, in defending not only the hereditary rights anti privileges of the Peerage of England, but of the Monarch himself.—(Hear.) Yes, in this clause was planted the seed of the destruction of the monarchical institutions of this country ;—(Loud cries of " hear, bear")—for the right on which the hereditary succession to the throne was founded, and by which the Peers enjoyed their titles and property, was the same in kind and degree as that which the freemen of England enjoyed the right of franchise in cor porations.—(Hear, hear.) This important fact did not escape the sagacity of the levellers who figured in the early periods of the French revolution, for their first act was the destruction of all corporate and municipal privileges, as the surest means of successfully attacking the throne and the altar, and thence those institutions which were their main stay. He would not then pursue a parallel between the progress of the Reform Bill and of the French revolu tion ; but lie would call upon the House to bear in mind, that amid the vicissitudes, and feuds, and intestine commo tions, which made the reign of Charles I. and of Crom well so remarkable to the annals of this country, the most sedulous care was invariably bestowed upon the preservation of all corporate privileges. In conclusion, he called on Ministers to pause in their ruinous course. If they did not, God grant that the majority out of doors would have more prudence than to follow the example set them from within—of acting upon a principle of spoliation, without crime, or any moral, political, or legal ground of forfeiture.—(Cheers.) Mr. STANLEY could not but congratulate the lion. and Learned Gentleman, after his six weeks' respite, on refreshing their memories with the almost-forgotten tales of corporation robbery—Cromwell--the French Revolu tion, and the hereditary privileges of the Peerage and the Monarch.—(Cheers, echoed by the Opposition.) He could not but remark on the discrepancy in the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel); one of whom contended that the amendment would not affect the principle of the Bill, while the other supported it on the ground that it would affect the principle. What was that principle ? Simply the extension of the franchise to the wealth and intelli gence of the people of England ; and so far from Ministers departing from it in the present clause, the fact was, the departure from the principle consisted in their anxiety to preserve the life-interest of all resident freemen. His Hon. and Learned Friend had clearly shown that the for feiture which the clause would effect applied to the class, and not to the individual, and that it was justifiable on the principle that it was essential to the promotion of the great object of the Bill—a sound and bona fide system of representation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was greatly in error in stating that the circle of dissatisfac tion on the part of the people as to the Bill was on the increase. The fact was, the only dissatisfaction against the Bill arose from the very slow progress which, thanks to the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, the Bill had made.—(Cheers.) The feelings of the people as to the Bill had been too clearly evinced on the late elec tion. Witness the large majority which had been returned pledged to the Bill—witness the fact, that in all the large towns the enemies of the measure were obliged to with draw.—(Hear, hear.) Indeed, if he had not been greatly misinformed, the Hon. Mover of the amendment (Mr. E. Peel) was indebted for his return for Newcastle solely to his assurance that he would support the Bill.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") It would be for the Hon. Gentleman to reconcile to his constituents his professions and his practice, and if there was any faith in figures, the large majority of the freemen of large towns were friendly to the 13i11.—(" No, no," from Colonel Sibthorpe.) Lin coln might perhaps be the exception, but only an excep tion. The present clause, he begged Hon. Members to bear in mind, left untouched the rights at present enjoyed by resident freemen, anti only put an end to the system of non-residentship, the fruitful source of bribery, expense, and corruption. Mr. GOULBURN was convinced of the necessity of supporting this amendment by the speeches which had been made against it. Mr. PROTHEROE could not support the amendment. Mr. GREENE complained that without this amend ment the constituency of the country would be much di minished. Mr. ROBINSON considered this amendment an im provement on the Bill. Mr. T. DUNDAS opposed the amendment. At the last election be was asked by his constituents, whether he intended to support the rights of freemen, and was told by them not to do it if it interfered with the principle of the Bill. He thought that this amendment did interfere with that principle. Whether his vote on this question would be gratifying to his constituents or not, he could not tell ; lie could only say, that it was given according to the dic tates of his conscience. His Hon. Colleague had stated on a former night that there was a strong feeling among his constituents on this point; but he had not heard of their wishes regarding it being expressed either by any public meeting or petition, or even private letter. So anxious were they for the success of the Bill, that be was certain that they would not consider themselves injured by this clause, which supported their existing rights, and provided for a future uniform right of voting in all cities and boroughs in the kingdom. Sir F. BLAKE thought that the issue of all freemen whose marriages should be solemnized before the passing of this Bill, should retain their franchise. Mr. WRANGHASI and Mr. CHICHESTER both sup ported the amendment. An HON. MEMBER asked whether persons in the army, navy, and militia, who were freemen, would retain their votes. As they were engaged in the service of their country, their non-residence ought not to act against them. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the militia would retain their votes, even though they were called out, if they possesed a sufficient residence. Those freemen who were in the army and navy would certainly lose their votes with other non-resident freemen. Mr. PHILIP HOWARD opposed the amendment. The present clause deprived no one of his rights ; the 21st clause, which bad received the sanction of the Committee, conferred political power on modest independence ; it would act as the incentive to and reward of industry, stimulated by honourable ambition, the sons of freemen raised to the rank of ten-pounders, would still continue to discharge volleys against the strong holds of corruption. He had always to his constituents explained without dis guise the bearings of this Bill; they felt convinced that by the destruction of the nomination boroughs, they would be amply compensated for any sacrifice they had made, and were like Regulus prepared to devote themselves for the salvation of their country. He (Mr. Howard) con curred with the Hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that granting the elective franchise to the issue of all marriages aelemnized previously to the passing of the Act, would remove many invidious distinctions in the families of freemen which would otherwise exist. Mr. TREVOR should certainly support the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Newcastle, as lie consi. dered the freemen a most injured body of men. Mr. C. PERGUSSON should oppose the amendment, which he conceived no Member who had voted fbr the second reading of the Bill could support consistently with that recognition of the principle on which Government were acting. Ministers had gone a great way iu con sideration of what was due to existing rights, and he thought that they would not be justified in going a single step further. Colonel SIBTHORPE supported the amendment. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN denied that there was any change of opinion in the country generally, and more especially amoogs the Livery of London, on the subject of the Reform Bill. The Livery, he could assure the lion. and Learned Member for Boroughbridge might have got up a meeting had it been deemed eligible to do so. The delay occasioned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's 73 speeches was the great grievance that the public com plained of. Mr. CRESSET PELHAM expressed his abhorrence of the Bill on account of its being an infraction of the Constitution as settled by Magna Charta. After a few words from Mr. PEARSS, which were in audible owing to the noise which pervaded all parts of the House, the Committee divided. For the or i g i n al motion 2lO For the amendment l3l Majority —79 The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to read " Provided also that every person now having a right to vote in any election for any city or borough in virtue of any corporate right, and every child of a freeman, such child being born previously to the passing of this Act, and every apprentice bound to any freeman previously to the passing of this act, which child or apprentice would have e had beennat been ent passed,itledto vote in spell election if this and enjoy su c h r i g h t of votsib ng al d l u r r e i s . p g ec t t h iv e - i e r ly res re pe ta c in ti , ve ac l qui iyes r . e , , , Mr. WILKS owed that in some boroughs a custom prevailed, whereby a female had power of g conforti t the franchise on her husband. Such rights, accor ding l to analogy of principle, ought to be equally respected, and he should therefore move the insertion of a sentence ex tending the provisions of the clause to those who, previous to the passing of this Act, had married the wife or daugh ter of a freeman, and thereby acquired a right of fran chise. The Hon. Member accordingly moved the inser tion of words to that effect. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had no objection to the introduction of the words proposed, bat he rather ima gined that the custom alluded to only applied to a widows' first and second husband, and did not extend to her third or fourth.—(Laughter.) Mr. LENNARD was happy that Government intended to sanction the amendment of the Hon. Member for Bos ton, as he knew many cases in which the Bill would have otherwise operated as a hardship. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. TREVOR rose to move that the right of voting should be continued to non-resident freemen fort he term of their lives. The Hon. Member said, that he had pledged himself to his constituents, on the hustings at Durham, to bring forward this motion. He was at a loss to conceive bow ten-pound householders could be more free from the influence of bribery than independent non-resident free men. He admitted that there was an expense attending the conveyance of non-resident electors, who must be brought to vote at the cost of the candidate ; but he hoped that, from the measures adopted by his Majesty's Ministers to obviate abuses from this source, a plea of this kind was not possessed of any weight. If there was any class more injuriously and cruelly treated than another in this Bill, it was that class denominated freemen. The people had not been fully alive to the Bill; when the ap peal was made to them, they were in an extraordinary state of excitement and agitation, and gave their attention only to the AB C part of Bill. If their attention had been more carefully directed to it, they would have been less eager for it in its present state. The persons for whom he pleaded had strong claims on the justice of the House, and he was determined to take the sense of the Committee, for the purpose of doing an act of justice, and of redeeming the pledge he gave to his constituents. Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was sufficient for him to ob serve, that the Hon. Member had admitted that non-resi dent voters must be brought to the poll at the expense of the candidates.—(Hear, hear.) After a few words from Mr. CROKER, Colonel Bears- FORD, and Sir G. WARRENDER, the Committee divided, when the numbers were— For the amendment . 38 Against it Majority in favour of Ministers —ll3 A conversation then took place as to the mode in which the seven statute miles from the place of election within which space it should be necessary for the freeman to re side in order to give him the right of voting, should be counted. Mr. NORTH recommended that it should be measured iu a straight line from the place of election, and not by either pathways or turnpike-roads. Mr. A. TREVOR then moved to leave out "seven miles," for the purpose of introducing " residing within the county in which such borough or city is situated." The amendment was withdrawn, after a few words from Sir C. WETHERELL and Colonel SIBTHORPE. Mr. POYNTZ moved as an amendment, thxt the fol lowing words be introduced—" And any minor, in whom any freehold tenement is now, or may be hereafter invested, such minnr being born previous to this Act, and who, on attaining the age of twenty-one years, would have been en titled to vote, if this Act had not passed, shall have the right of voting in virtue of such freehold." Lord J. RUSSELL had not had an opportunity of in quiring into the effect which this amendment would pro bably have, and therefore he requested that the Hon. Member would withdraw it. The Hon. Member must, however, be aware, that a ♦ery considerable difference ex isted between minors the sons of freemen, and freehold minors. The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. RUMBOLD moved " That all non-resident free men at present exercising an elective franchise in places not named in schedules A and B, shall be permitted to vote, by virtue of their present corporate right, for Mem bers of Parliament, in such cities and boroughs where they are resident." Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the Hon. Member would not persist in an amendment, the operation of which would be so extremely inconvenient. It would hardly be fair, if he lost his vote for Bedford, that therefore he should claim a vote for Westminster, merely because he had once been free of the former place. Colonel ANSON recommended his Hon. Colleague to withdraw his amendment, with which suggestion he complied. On the CHAIRMAN proposing the last part of the clause, rendering it imperative on every person claiming to ♦ote under it, that he shall have " owned, occupied, or inha bited," in the city or borough for which he sets up the right of rating for six calendar months, in default of which owning, occupying, or inhabiting, be shall not be entitled to be registered, Mr. FRESHFIELD said, the effect of these words would be, that a man who had complied with all the ne cessary forms and customs to constitute him an elector for a city or borough would forfeit his rights unless he had " owned, occupied, or inhabited" for six calendar months. Lord J. RUSSELL though it might be a hardship o n some particular boroughs, still thought, that as a general arrangement, it would be desirable. The CHAIRMAN then put the question " that the clause, as then amended, stand part of the Bill," which was agreed to without a division. The House then resumed, the CHAIRMAN reported pro gress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock. 110 USE OF LORDS, .Auousr SO. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY officiated in the absence of the Lord Chancellor. Several Bills on their Lordships' table were advanced a stage. On the motion of Earl SHAFTESBURY, the Tithes on Barren Land Bill went through a Committee. Ou the motion of Lord WYNFORD several clauses were added. Earl GREY moved that the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill be committed. The Bill went through the Committee without amendment. The House then resumed, when the report was received, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, the Judges to be summoned to attend. PLURALITIES' BILL. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved the second reading of the Church Livings Pluralities' Bill. His Grace stated that the holding of pluralities was struck at by the Canon Law, under penalties of suspension and even of ex communication. But the practice was in time introduced of granting dispensations to hold pluralities of livings, and by this means abuses began to be introduced, which gra. dually increased to so enormous an extent, that in 1283, as many as seventeen livings in the Diocese of Winchester were held by one person. To apply some remedy to this abuse a statute of the Ist Henry VIII. was introduced, by which dispensations were confined to the holding of two livings, with exceptions in favour of his Majesty's chap lains and ecclesiastical men holding offices under the Crown. But still abuses continued to exist ; and to re medy this evil was the object of this Bill, which went to repeal certain portions of the statute of Henry the Eighth, as to dispensations, with an exception in favour of Arch deacons. It was provided that no two livings should be held at the distance of more than thirty miles from each other, which would put an end, perhaps, to two-thirds of the pluralities. The power of granting dispensations was to be placed under the controul of the Archbishop of Can terbury, with some qualification of his discretion. His Grace stated the nature of the various clauses of this Bill more particularly, but could not be distinctly heard at the bar. Lord WYNFORD observed, that the Bill ought to be well considered before it passed into a law, as they were legislating not for the day, but for futurity. As he under stood the provisions of this Bill, he could not but suppose that the law, as it stood at present, was sufficient to answer all the purposes of it ; and if such was the case, it was ennecessary and would be improper to pass this Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury had already a large discretion, and by the exertion of the powers already existing, the whole object of the Bill, as he conceived, would be attained. It was possible, however, that he might be wrong in that opinion, as, although lie had considered the subject a good deal, he had not had any communication with any one upon it. However, it was necessary that time should be allowed for consideration. In the meantime he must ob serve, that the thirty miles' distance which the most Rev. Prelate had mentioned, had in practice, been considered as forty-five, and he was of opinion, that if the matter of dis tance was to be taken into account, the forty-five miles ought to be considered as the limit. According to the present law, it was necessary that an incumbent should reside during a certain part of the year on his livings, and that was a better provision than the distance. He should not have objected to a distance of five miles, or thereabouts, because then the Clergyman could do duty every Sunday at each of his livings, but as to any efficiency in this re spect, 30 miles was as objectionable as 45 ; and for the security of existing property, he thought the distance of 45 miles ought still to be retained. The Bishop of LONDON was of opinion, that the existing iaw was not sufficient to remedy the evil, as it depended in a great measure on the criterion of the value ' of livings in the King's Books, which was far from being a proper criterion. With regard to the question of distance he would support the proposed distance of thirty miles, merely on the principle that it would considerably dimi nish pluralities. The Earl of CARNARVON thought the plan of the Most Rev. Prelate worthy of the best consideration, but it ought not to be adopted hastily. He wished, for his part, to have the law put in force, which would compel the incumbent to reside at least six weeks in each parish he possessed. The Elul of HARROWBY, upon looking to the pa pers, found there were about 2,000 parishes in England deprived of a resident incumbent. This depended upon, and could, of course, only he corrected by diminishing the number of pluralities. Now, he found that the num ber of persons entitled to bold two livings, and, therefore, of those likely to obtain them, was ten times greater tt present than it had been formerly, and it was accordingly necessary to devise some means for lessening the extent of a system which was felt to be injurious. Among the va rious modes recommended, he considered that proposed by the Most Rev. Prelate as, perhaps, the best. He did not consider that residence for a certain time at each pa rish, or the limit which might be placed on account of population, was so good as the limitation in respect of dis tance, whether it be 30 or 25 miles. He decidedly ob jected, however, to having it reduced so low as five miles. He thought, indeed, this limitation ought to be deter mined in the first instance, and then they might proceed with the other parts of the Bill. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. SUBLETTING (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion that their Lordships resolve themselves into Committee on this Bill, The Earl of WICKLOW said, when the question was brought before the House last Session, he (Lord Wick low) had decidedly declared himself hostile to the Bill in troduced by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne). But he did not entertain the same feelings towards the Bill at present before their Lordships, because, although the title was the same, yet was it completely changed in the prin ciples and in the details. And this simple fact of the Noble Viscount's having now brought in a Bill so different from that against which he (Lord Wicklow) had declared his opposition, was in itself a complete refutation of the assertion of an anonymous and mendacious scribe— (Cheers)—who, in a pamphlet which he presumed to call Friendly Advice to the Peers, but which was really written solely with the purpose to insult and to intimi date their Lordships—(Cheers)—had stated that his (Lord Wicklow's) opposition to the Subletting Act was dictated by factious motives, and the desire to thwart his Majesty's Ministers in their proceedings with respect to other measures. These circumstances and this charge, and the clamour directed against this Bill in Ireland, made it necessary that he should offer a few words. When he stated that clamour had been raised against the Bill in Ireland, he did not mean to say that this clamour should be disregarded ; for it was necessary to apply a r remedy whenever a popular cry was raised with just cause.—(Hear, hear.) But he did positively assert, that never was there a case in which clamour was so little the interpreter of public opinion as in respect to this Act. He did most positively assert, that in the Bill of 1826 there was not one clause which militated against strict justice. There was not a single clause which could produce any one of the evils which some would fain attribute to the measure.—(Hear. hear.) He declared that the Subletting Act was not only beneficial to the landlord in its opera tion, as enforcing the obligation to observe the different covenants of the lease, but actually, for the same reason, conducive to the interests of the poor. It was a measure which had been well weighed and well considered. It had emanated from a Committee of the House of Com mons, where it had received the most deliberate attention ; nor was it afterwards hurried through the House. It was introduced in one Session, and only carried in the next. It was, as he had already remarked, beneficial alike to the landlord and to the poor man ; and now he might be asked from whom did the clamour proceed ? He conceived that it proceeded from a party who did not themselves possess any landed property, except what they held upon leases, either granted to themselves, as was generally the case, or else inherited from their fathers. These men, then, had taken or inherited farms with certain covenants and agree ments, which compelled them to take care of these farms. But preferring to the honest occupation of cultivating the soil, the more idle and more consequential business of country politicians, they, in violation of the covenants of their lease, subdivided the land, and let it to a set of pauper ten into, from whom they extracted the last farthing to maintain the rank which they assumed as landholders and country gentlemen. Having thus, under the pre tence of taking their proper position in society, violated their contracts to their landlords; their next step was, to raise a clamour against this Act as the cause of that misery which, by their false and profligate conduct, they had themselves occasioned.—(Cheers.) They wring the last farthing from their wretched tenants, and when dis tress bad reached its height, and extreme misery had pro duced disturbance, these men exclaimed against that law for producing those evils of their own creation—evils, to prevent which was the prime object, the almost exclusive intention, of this act of legislation.—(Hear, hear.) Those very individuals, who have by their own heartless pro ceedings occasioned all the mischief, when it becomes galling almost beyond endurance, denounce their own landlords, the owners of the soil, as the moat barbarous men in the world, because there is distress on their estates, although they are by no means to blame for it— some being absent, and others, though present, unable to apply the slightest remedy ; and then, as delegates at some illegal assembly, or as, perhaps, leading members of it, the persons who have themselves done all the wrong, alike to the gentlemen above and the peasant below them, raise a clamour against the Sub-letting Act, as the origin of every evil.—(Hear, hear.) He positively asserted, in the presence of their Lordships and of the country, that no evil could possibly result from the Sub-letting Act. The distress prevailing at present amongst the Irish poor arose from a combination of circumstances. Amongst those he might particularly mention the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders, and the view taken by the pro. prietors of farms of the mode of cultivating them. The proprietors crowdshado of paupersflatebee nanxuit that before to disembarrass m m c l o aa n r s r u ass ed their land of the its produce, without any adequate return; and this he admitted, had to a certain extent been the cause of the distress throughout the country. But that this Bill had been the cause of ejecting a single tenant from his holding, upon the faith of anxious inquiry and full investigation, be positively denied. Of the present Bill he entirely approved, as far as it went; but he thought it ought to be extended a little farther. He considered, that as its object was to prevent the subdivision of lands, that protection which it gave to the farms let by the proprietor of the soil ought to be continued beyond the life of the lessee. According to this Bill, if the lessee died intes tate, or if he willed it to his children in any number, that very subdivision would take place which it was the object of the law to prevent. Ile maintained, too, that this would be no hardship, because, if a man took a farm with a clause absolutely prohibiting subdivision now or hereafter, or under any circumstances, he could not com plain of being compelled to adhere to an engagement into which he had knowingly and willingly entered. He was especially desirous to have this addition made to the Bill, and he was anxious to send it to the other House as free as possible from blemish, knowing the troubled sea on which in its manumission there it was sure to be cast—the clamour with which it would be met, and the desperate opposition it would encounter from certain individuals, and the little chance it had of obtaining from the:a at least a fair bearing.—(Hear.) Lord MELBOURNE concurred with the Noble Lord in all the statements he had made, and all the opinions he professed, excepting that which led him (Lord W.) to wish for an additional clause to restrict the lessee from willing the farm to his children, or from its being divided, if he died intestate. He could not agree to a measure so forcible —he could not, however anxious to carry into effect the principle of the Bill, interfere with what were consi dered and regarded as the just rights of all men. This would be paying too dearly for any advantage which might be acquired by the clause. He entirely agreed with him (Lord W.) as to the nature of the clamour which had been raised, and as to the falsehood of attributing any portion of the distress and disturbance which prevailed to the Sub letting Act. He admitted the Bill now before their Lord ships differed in many respects from the last ; and this he accounted for by the fact of his having given the subject more consideration, and from his being animated with the desire to make it as perfect as possible. The Earl of WESTMEA.TH observed, that great cla mour had existed on the subject, a clamour raised for the most abominable objects. Lord PLUNKETT observed, that the object of the measure had been so fully explained by the Noble Earl op. polite, that it left him lit t le to sa y . As, however, he h a d been the instrument of bringing in the former Bill, he might observe, that it was true that a senseless clamour had been raised against it ; but it bad proceeded from those who concealed their private interests under the mask of afford ing protection to the lower classes. The Noble and Learned Lord entered into an explanation of the principles Of the Bill; and maintained, that if the proposition of the Noble Earl to take away the power of devising in portions were adopted, it would destroy the effect of the Bill, and, instead of rendering it, as the Noble Earl imagined, more palatable elsewhere, would have a directly contrary effect. He should feel it his duty, therefore, to oppose any such proposition. After a few words from the Duke of WELLINGTON and the Earl of Wier:Low, the House resolved itself into a Com mittee on the Bill. Various verbal amendments were made on the Bill ; and the House having resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Friday. Their Lordships adjourned at Eight o'clock. THE REFORM BILL. LIST of MEMBERS who voted with MINISTERS AGAINST Mr. EDMUND PEEL'S MOTION, for perpetuating the Rights of Freemen. Acheson, Lord !Hill, Lord G. A. Anson, Hon. G. Hodges, T. L. Astley, Sir J. D. Horne, Sir W. Atherley, A. Hort, Sir W. Bainbridge, E. T. Hoskins, K. Baring, Sir T. Howard, P. H. Baring, F. 'l'. Howard, J. Bentinck, Lord G. Howick, Lord Berkeley, Captain Hudson, T. Biddulph, R. M. Hume, Joseph Blackney, W. Ingilby, Sir W. Blake, Sir F. James, W. Blamire, W. Jefiley, Rt. lion. F. Blunt, Sir C. Jephson, C. D. 0. Bodkin, J. J. Jerningham, H.V. S. Boyle, J. Johnston, A. Brabazon, Lord Johnstone, Sir J. V. Briscoe, J. I. Johnstone, J. J. H. Brougham, James Kemp, T. R. Brougham, W. Kennedy, T. F. Browne, J. Killeen, Lord Burke, Sir J. King, E. B. Byng, George King, Hon. It Calvert, Nicholson Knight, R. Callaghan, a Knox, J. J. Campbell, J. Lamb, Hon. G. Carter, J. B. Lambert, H. Chapman, M. L. Lambert, J. S. Chichester, Sir A. Langston, J. H. Cradock, S. Langton, CoL G. Crampton, P. C. Lawley, F. Clive, E. B. Leader, N. H. Creevey, T. Lefevre, C. S. Currie, J. Lennard, T. B. Curteis, H. B. Lennox, Lord J. G. Denman, Sir Thos. Lennox, Lord W. Dixon, J. Loch, J. Doyle, Sir J. M. Lushington, Dr. Duncombe, 'l'. S. Moberly, W. L. Dundas, C. Moberly, J. Dundas, T. Macaulay, T. B. Dundas, Sir IL L. Macdonald, Sir J. Dundas, J. C. M‘Namara, W. N. Easthope, J. Mackenzie, J. A. S. Ellice, E. Mangles, J. Ellis, W. Marshall, W. Etwall, R. Martin, John Evans, W. B, Maule, Hon. W. Evans, W. Mildmay, P. St. John Ewart, W. Mullins, F. Fcllowes, W. H. Musgrave, Sir R. Ferguson, Sir R. Newport, Sir J. Ferguson, R. Norton, C. F. Fergusson, R. C. Nowell, A. Foley, T. H. Nugent, Lord Folkes, Sir W. J. O'Connell, D. Fox, Lieut.-Col. O'Connell, M. Gilbert, 1). 6, O'Ferrall, R. M. Gillon, W. Ord, W. Gordon, It. Osborne, Lord F. Graham, Sir J. R. G. Ossory, Earl of Grant, Right lion. R. Paget, T. Grant, Right Hon. C. Payne, Sir P. Grattan, James Palmerston, Vise. Grattan, H. Pendarves, E. W. Grosvenor, Hon. R. Penrhyn, E. Handley, W. F. Pepys, C. Harvey, D. W. Petit, L. H. Hawkins, J. H. Phillips, G. R. Heywood, B. Philipps, Sir It. B. Hill, Lord Arthur yonsonby, Hon. G. LIST of MEMBERS who usually VOTI who voted AGAINST MINISTERS i Ponsonby, Hon. W. Power, R. 'Poyntz, W. S. Protheroe, E. Rickford, W. Robinson, Sir G. Hooper, J. B. Russell, Lord J. Russell, R. G. Russell, C. Ruthven, E. S. Sanford, E. A. Scott, Sir E. D. Sinclair, G. Skipwith, Sir G. Smith, J A. Smith, J. Smith, R. V. Smith, Hon. R. Smith, G. R. Spencer, Capt. Stanhope, Capt. R. Stanley, E. G. Stanley, Lord Stewart, P. M. Stewart, E. Stewart, Sir M. S. Strickland, G. Strutt, E. Stuart, Lord D. C. Shed, R. L Tennyson, C. Thicknesse, R. Thompson, W. Thomson, C. P. Throckmorton, IL Torrens, Colonel Townshend, Lord C. Frail, G. Troubridge, Sir E. rynte, C. K. Tyrell, C. Villiers, T. H. Venables, W. Vernon, G. J. Vernon, G. H. Vincent, Sir F. Walker, C. A. Waithrnan, R. Warburton, H. Wason, W. R. Wellesley, Hn. W. T. Whitbread, W. H. Whitmore, W. W. Wilde, I'. Wilks, J. Williams, J. Williams, W. A. Williamson, Sir H. Willoughby, Sir H. Wood, M. Wood, J. Wood, C. Wrightson, W. B. Wrottesley, Sir J. B. Wynn, C. W. W. Wynn, Sir W. W. Wyse, T. TELLER. [Rice, T. S. for REFORM, but favour of Mr. ED- Phillipps, C. M. Polhill, F. Ridley, Sir M. W. Robinson, G. R. Watson, Hon. R. Webb, Colonel E. VII •••-• • v....,... MOND PEEL'S MOTION. Adeane, H. J. Greene, T. G. Agnew, Sit A. Hughes, W. H. Bayntun, S. A. Hodgson, John Burton, H. Marryatt, J. Buck, L. W. Mayhew, W. Chichester, J. B. P. Petre, Hon. E. LIST OF THE MINOR Who voted upon Mr. TREVOR'S AMI Non-resident Freemen should not be Arbuthnot, G. H. Freshfield, J. W. Ashley, Lord Gordon, W Beresford, M. Goulhurn, H. Boldero, F. G. Hodgson, J. Churchlll,Lord C. S. Hodgson, F. Clerk, Sir G. Hughes, H. Clinton, C. J. F. {lnglis, Sir R. IL Davidson, Duncan Lefroy, A. Dick, Quintin Loughborough, Lord Douglas, Hon. C. Lovaine, Lord Estcourt, 'l'. G. B. Lowther, Sir J. Fitzroy, Hon. H. MaitlanJ, Viscaunt Forbes, Sir C. Maitland, Capt. ITY ~ 'NDMENT, disfranchised." IM:iitland, A. Maxwell, H. Miller, W. H. hut ray, Sir G. Pemberton, T. Ryder, G. D. Sadler, M. I'. Sibthorpe, C. D. W, Trevor, Hon. A. Wetherell, Sir C. Williams, T. F. Wrangham, D. C. Vyvyan, Sir R. " That CHOLERA MORBUS. At a time like the present, when universal alarm pre vails, from a fear of being visited by this dreadful scourge, and when the English Cholera was never before known to he so prevalent, it behoves every one, not only to observe the strictest precaution in their diet, to avert, if possible, its uncertain and momentary attack, but to be also prepared with the most efficient remedies, on the first intimation of its approaches. To counteract predisposition to such a malady, and to resist its rapidly progressive effects, Physicians of the first eminence, who have witnessed its ravages, invariably recom mend the use of pure Brandy as an indispensable requisite; and as they have also discovered from practical results, that in every case of Cholera a superabundant accumulation of acid prevails, J. T. Betts and Co. feel it a duty they owe to the Public againito point attention to the superior merits of their Patent French Distilled Brandy, which has the important recommendation of being free from those acids and astringent matter which contaminate the foreign Spirit, while its perfect resemblance in flavour to the finest Cognac his confounded the best judges of Spirits in dis tinguishing between them. The following testimonials of eminent Chymists, by whom the Patent Brandy has been analysed, are submitted as sufficient evidence of its pre-eminent claims to universal patronage, and to welcome it as the antidote to the threatened evil, as the concomitant specific by which to escape its frightful consequences. The Patent Brandy, which is of the highest legal strength, may be had, either Pale or Coloured, at 18s. per Imperial Gallon, and will be sent from J. J. Betts and Co.'s Distillery, in Smithfield Bars, to any part of town, in quantities of not less than two gallons, for cash, on delivery. *,,,* A liberal discount to the trade. TESTIMONIALS. " SS, Aldersgate-street, Nov. 13, 18.29. " Sta,—The sample of Patent French Distilled Brandy you sent me I have accurately examined; and having instituted a series of experiments on it, and on the finest French Brandy, I have in these comparative trials been able to discover so little difference, either in their composition or effects, that they may be considered as identical ; excepting that your Brandy is free from uneombined acid and astringent matter, which exists more or less in most of the Brandies imported from France. " I remain, Sir, your's repectfully, " JOHN THOMAS COOPER " Lecturer on Chemistry," " To Mr. Betts." " Long Acre, Nov. 14, 1829. " St a,—Having examined and analyzed several samples of ge nuine French Brandy, and compared them with the Brandy of your own manufacture, I am bound to say, and do assert it with confidence, that for purity of spirit this cannot be surpassed; and that your Patent Brandy is also quite free from those acids which, though minute in quantity, always contaminate the fo reign spirit. " In obedience to your request, I have sealed several bottles of your Brandy, which I shall preserve for the purpose of com parison, should this be required at any future period. " I remain, Sir, your's respectfully, " JOSEPH HME, Chemist to his Majesty. J. T. Betts, Esq." " 39, Upper Gower-street, Nov. 17, 18'29. have carefully analyzed the specimen of Patent French Distilled Brandy which you sent me for examination, and do not hesitate to express m y conviction that it is fully as free from every thing injurious to health, and contains as pure a spirit, as the best varieties of Foreign Brandy. " In accordance with your wishes, I have sealed and preserved s everal bottles of your Brandy, whi c h may b e referred to at any future time if necessary. " I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, " EDWARD TURNER, Professor of Chemistry in the University of London, &c. " John I'. Betts, Esq." The earnestness and agitation of M. CASI PERIER, while unfolding the project of the Peerage, is described as extreme. The perspiration trickled down his face, arid he was more than once obliged to pause. The profound silence with which he was attended to added to the striking nature of the scene. In Dr. PARIS'S little work, " Philosophy in Sport, made Science in Earnest," the three grand laws of motion are demonstrated by a game at ball ; the composi tion and resolution of forces are exemplified in that game at marbles called " ring-taw." The ball illustrates the nature of elasticity, of rotatory motion, of reflected motion, of the angles of incidence and reflection, and of projectiles, while the cricket-bat explains the centre of percussion. A game of marbles assists to convey ideas on the collision of elastic and non-elastic bodies, and on their velocities and direction after impact. The nature of elastic springs is elucidated by the leaping frogs and cats with which the nursery abounds. In this charming manner Dr. PARIS teaches the young to acquire useful knowledge, even while engaged in the most trifling amusements. We are glad to find that this work has found its way into the fashionable seminaries round the metropolis. THE LIFE OF " A LORD. ” —He gets up leisurely—breakfasts comfortably—reads the paper regu larly—dresses fa s hionably—lounges fastidiously --eats a tart gravely—tattles insipidly—dines considerably drinks superfluously—kills time indifferently —sups ele;anily— goes to bed stupidly—lives uselessly.—. Taller. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. FRENCH PAPERS. (From the Censtitutionnel of Sunday.) PARIS, AUGUST 27.—1 t is announced that the Frenc h ship of the line, the Sulfren, some frigates, and lel smaller vessels, left the Tagus on the 13th and 1 4 th this month, this number of frigates being greater th an that employed in the blockade of Lisbon. We are atith ° : rised to believe that among the frigates brought to Br"' by Admiral Roussin are the Portuguese frigates which lo :, long to France by the right of war.—From the Jogro l " du Commerce. A report was pretty generally spread in Paris yesterdtti evening, that Count Appony had desired to make a e oi munication to the Council of Ministers. The object ,°f this communication was to know the intentions of the binet respecting the approaching return of the Austrieo troops into Romagna—a measure which is called for b d the fermentation which prevails in these provinces, O il which threatens to degenerate into anarchy. The Conn after a long deliberation, and conformably to the opiai°, emanating from a high quarter, is said to have approv e the second entrance of the imperial troops into the dolt'' "lions of the Pope.—Revolution. NAVARINO, Jut 30.—We yesterday received the f 0 1" lowing news from Napoli : " A hundred and fifty Hydriots have seized the Hello! frigate, which lay dismantled in the road of Poros. Its . - a mad act, for if the Hydriota had kept within the bowl° of legal resistance, the Governments would never haf t ventured to support the President, but now ntioa becomes legitimate." We believe that, whether legitimate or iaL vernments will not take the trouble to exercise vention. (From the Quotidienne of Sunday, Augus A report was in circulation this evening, it ,he salons of Paris, that M. Le Comte d'Appi formed M. Casimir Perier that the Austrian felt itself again compelled to order the marci the Imperial troops into Romagna, in conseq fresh disturbances which had broken out in of the Roman States. It was further stated intelligence had caused a meeting of the DI Council, and that, alter a very protracted the Cabinet of the Palais Royal had come to the that it could not oppose this second invervention in the affairs of the States of the Church. Private letters which we have received from Madri d come down to the 18th of the present month. They CO municate the intelligence that an extremely active corre' spondence is going on between the Cabinets of Lisbon O l a Madrid. They speak also of the intention of the Spiro'', Government to march several corps of its troops to w e frontiers of Portugal. The Correspondent de Nuremberg states that the Austrian Government is about to break up all its quars° tine establishments in the interior of the kingdom of Ile°' gary. The same print a l so anno u n c es th a t Austria I °' recommenced her war preparations, and that new lei° are about to take place. The Committee of Health at Warsaw has requested the inhabitants of that city to abstain from the use of fruit s ' salad, and cucumbers ; and never to drink water vibe ° they are over-heated ; for it was by such practices th at many persons had been attacked by the cholera. • The reception of th e Dry o f Al g i ers , by M. Cast l' ir Perier, has awakened the suspicion which has a'ready b entertained by many, of the intention of our Governme ° to abandon a colony which had been so gloriously O w quered. We await with impatience the receipt of Ikletr shal Clausel's report, who, having been now some time i ° command in Algiers, is well able to appreciate the i gloo' tages which the colonization of the Regency would pin duce to France, and wou ld s h ow h ow muc h th e honour ° France is engaged to preserve this important point. According to a report of the Minister of Commercei founded upon a declaration of the Superior Council ° Health, an ordinance, dated August 26, 1831, prescribe' several measures to be observed upon the north-east frow tier of France. It orders the establishment of some Pr, ° : visional lazarettos, as a precautionary measure against l°, invasion of the cholera morbus, the spread of which much apprehended, from the circumstance of the 0 0 fair being about to be held at Frankfort-on-the-Mai ne ' These precautionary measures are to cease in a month aft er the fair. (From the Journal des Debuts of Sunday, Aug. 28.) The project of law on the Peerage was presented )C terday. That pr esen t a ti on gave that sitting a charad e, of unusual solemnity. It was neither impatiencen 1 curiosity which seemed to actuate the auditors in the tr y bunes and the Deputies : it was a serious and grave fort possession of the ide a th a t th e f a t e o f t h e coun try part] depended on what was going to be proposed. We ha !' e seen more lively, more a ni ma t e d, an d more d rama tic s' t ' tinge than yesterday's. We never saw one that had t l/ : I Came character of religious expectatio n . E ve ry body f e , that the words that were about to be delivered from t•P'' tribune would be recorded in the history of our country' and that one of those critical discussions which decide tb: fate of a State and secure it, according to the issue, futurity of happiness, or one of commotions and Mil' fortunes, was going to take place. The whole of what has been proposed is to be pro fi ' sional. All that is done without reflection must be Such is the nature of things ; it is but wisdom to re cog' nise it. The denominations definitive, eternal, immutabl.et: might be applied to it; this would be a mere alteration l e the name ; its nature would still be transitory, because tit law is rash and venturesome. On Friday evening the King received the President 10 Secretaries of the Chamber of Deputies, who had the h nour of presenting to his Majesty the project of law on ib e Jury lately adopted by the Chamber. lber, and s ''"'e gentlemen. Was impossibl m uch se. f Ta l .1 : °i : ice : e r s t e . e trl v re le f tr e le r r it ed uC: ne e.) M. G lq. Garcias I L e , Petiti o ' t ion. n waa sP.lcke of 'Per c e4t. .... t ee nl.Co% t C lep e nL IDe 'aka' r" Cent ent— Per c Ann Llak _ en t. 1526 Jan 4-u ne Ann t, Oct . 1 5 , 1860, 1859 .... j4;11: 1860..... A Plll 5 ' 1 % 0 :: latti, rl Poi d r ~tilinth, ~er..onda !,!1 Ali 4:l E or send to'''ata , as •zr. .......... . LOUR -sv, ...... t i t a 'ltctnr, —••• ......... at, ..... It4:te44 ...... ...... itto l a (14 35 7;, . )r4Z.. ...... ........... .. ............. `terb rtorl Nfair 4 cit e ' Na4 effec rthi tiuve cbi ..... clo Wi z ......... • 4 ...... ........... eti o *,;' , ......... a .......... America... Buenos'l Brazil A .' C art!l ag -- blirfenaY Fla nders,,, Fra nce...... '----.. L ..Lernsey : ICH 'VAT ,-,___ 4 &••• 12 m TIN NE , pur, I 'abeed, S ' ° : 4 l , d d b . e ig 1 1 , qkv -`t , sD) In 'ho the the of a~ 4 g of ~i g so, aliti es til er Penal 4111 nicati : °d uced "lit ies of qati to 1 , u( f Year I‘, "wee; )I).' , 1 Pledg e d are exp 'Il even I llcation 4t1 3 7 a sti to '4e---it ' after Y centui diedby eve n t h. scant cl .mes in qu vvll Per k e U njust! "en ti , t oy It 1 " A: °f the tl r i y alter ( a 4 ,11 the r 4 ueen 4 44 tevi s ' li () l ation •-m "a 0 u ps lti lil c , to t el t . an , , Itie ail ha ve kil t , o f tI roue 4,, ssu Pliet. interventiO r e , Z •11 ;; . (i; ............. I , , Lat • ........ t us o es t t , t 2btislsi.e; inter: atilt in several bittt',lrop. hiu pony bad itY GovernmO t ral e ch of some 0 ' toNoiltock 0: luence of O s 41ZStO, 3 k t ie,r k that distrie I p".4, 45 ‘ eff that tbil ......... Ministers i° p — e; io d en e c l o i o b f n e Ac r ro t: 1:t.41j, aet eels per ce Count Pozzo di Borgo, the Ambassador of Russia, the Charge d'Affaires of the flange Towns and Sa%r Weimar, had the honour of b e ing received by the King °o the same day. On Saturday his Majesty granted an audience to Coal, St. Priest, the French Envoy at Parma, and to M. sourd, Sub-Prefect at Sceaux. At eleven o'clock the King presided at the Council ° h i Ministers, after whi c h hi s M a j esty transacte d b us i ne ss Wi t the Minister of Commerce. The last news from Vienna states that the cholera O r bus had broken out in that city with great violence. Several commercial lett e r s , rece i ve d y es t er d a y in PO"; mention that the cholera h a d b ro k en ou t i n Vienna. lbh city was throw n i n t o th e u t mos t cons t erna tion, and t": first effect of the epidemic was to produce a fall in t h o MetalHynes. A great number of the inhabitants had II that capital. It was also reported in Vienna, that several Hungsri l : regiments, forming the sanitary cordon, had gone over the Poles. We do not guarantee this news, but we O r not help remarking that Hungary is placed in a very P re ; carious state. All Germany is more or less alarmed " r , the approach of the cholera, and charge the Great Pool with being accessary in its propagation, for not onpo'i it ., gf , as they might, the present str ug gl e b e t ween the Russia' and the Poles. (From the Meseager des Chambres of Monday, Aug. PARIS, AUG. 28.—The President of the Council 0 ", to-day submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the projec_, of law intended to replace art. 23 of the Charter, the P,‘ viva) of which was reserved for the session of 1831. so, have neither time nor room to-day to show what frau/M hz and sound argument there were iii the development o f 0 - grounds of the single article submitted to the considera"°l, of the national representation. The question was iroP ° o l tant, the difficulties numerous—the Government has n o t dissembled this—placed as it is between the demands of opinion and the necessity of respecting the conditions jo the constitutional system. The idea which p r evailed c o drawing out the project was necessarily an idea of po liti be conciliation. We do not think it was possible to pasd t :c i t bounds that have been fixed in sacrificing a principle Wl' so essentially interests one of the three powers of the s t3 :rif On the other hand, considering the kind of surprise in opinion (which was at least uncertain) of part of the nie,; hers of the Chamber of Deputies at toe time of the o de e lions, the Government, while it respected their eng 3 ;i, ments, has therefore thought it proper Lo leave the Pti( bility of a change of s e ntiment to be produced by t '', - 1 ) e own legislative experience. This is the ground of part which the project prudently leaves to the flit" o f while yielding to circumstances and the actual state opinion, every thing in which appears to us to dernonstritiff that the Government on this occasion gives to the e"" n x and to the Chamber just proofs of its conscientious illl tiality. The debate will soon second this justice, wb Ile' we think we may render beforehand to intentions o ' ll° ol honourable. The Deputies may have already a ppreci l o p them, in the special conferences which have taken pla ce this delicate subject." CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.—SITTING pv Wiwi made a report upon the following pet Toe The Cortes bondholders nailed for the intervention °f em Chamber and the Government, in order to obtain for, o the liquidation of their debts. pi? The Re' 'ter ad - ted ;h, - nnduct if the SP 3 . ;tl° • rporter advert to the condu ie Government, with regard to the subject of the petit He contended that that Government, under the pret e y justifying the existing loan, had effected a new one. speaker was several times inaudible, in consequence 01 l o g vate conversations which the 3lembers were holding .