The Sun. — London, England, 1831-12-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The new measure of Reform is now before Par- 1 lament. It was introduced last night by Lord John Russell, who in a manly and perspicuous statemew, explained the nature of the alterations by which the present is distinguished from the former Bill. The first question that naturally sugeests itself is,whether the principle to which Ministers were pledged have been compromised by those changes'? Our answer is ut once that it has not. The schedules A and B are preserved—the disfranchising and enfranchising clauses are preserved —the right of the 101. house holder is preserved ; in short, not only is every thing preserved which principle required, and the express declaration of Lord Grey taught the country to ex pect, but more has been done with that view (as if to avoid the possibility of an imputation) than, in the judgment of moderate men, was required by the circumstances of the case. It is not, how ever, as we conceive, to be inferred, either from the speech of Lord John Russell, or from the fact of the Bill having been introduced in its present shape after much previous discussion and arrangement, that further alterations may not be made in it, even with the consent of Ministers, before it passes into a law. At all evehts it is likely to be much debated even in the House of Commons, where the symptoms of resistance, though they may have some xhat diminished in tone and language, have certainly not disappeared in reality. As to the specific alterations by which the present Bill is distinguished from the former, they appear, on the hasty consideration to which we are necessarily restricted at this moment, to consist chiefly in arrangements for simplifying the practical operation of the measure, the most important of the new Clauses being that which continues the Iran tiliw possessed by right of birth and service to free- Inns, with only the condition of residence attached to it. This concession will probably satisfy the cor porate bodies, some of whom resisted the Bill in consequence of its interference with those rights. It is with pleasure that we notice the difference which appears in the tone of last night's debate, as compared with the discussions to which we were before accustomed. There were no threats of hos tility, to be persisted in through every stage—there were no violent attacks or recriminations; a little of the vituperative spirit might have appeared now ;said then, but it was evidently under great restraint, e - titi on its good behaviour. Even Sir Charles Wetherell spoke in a subdued and chastened style. W e may therefore look forward to proceedings more in the nature of a deliberative assembly within the House; and it is to be hoped that the example will extend to other quarters, where a still greater lack of temper was manifested, and where not only good manners, but good sense, were often sacrificed to what was erroneously considered strong writing. Ns we stated yesterday, the Bill is to he read a second time before - the holidays. Friday is the slay named, and the Committee is to be postponed until after Christmas. It does not appear that the Mini sters expect any very obstinate resistance to the im portant stage of the second reading, when they seem to think it unlikily to produce an adjourned debate. Still, as most of their opponents have declared , themselves adverse to the new measure, the prin ciple of which they considered to be exactly the same as the former, the tactics, therefore, of the last ses sion are to be preserved, eo far as the House of Commons is concerned. Those tactics were to op pose the measure in detail, and endeavour, as it were, by a side-wind, to upset the principle. We are now speaking of the uncompromising enemies of Reform ; but there are many of a different class, who will, no doubt, seeing the importance of Re form to the prosperity and happiness of the country, endeavour to make the Bill as perfect as possible, not that it may be defeated, but that it may be passed with every advantage of consideration. Upon the whole we conceive that the country has reason to be satisfied with what has already taken place ; and the prospect of a more temperate discussion in its future stages holds out the best security that can be given for a final satisfactory arrangement. — Morn ink; Herald. On the part of a considerable number of advo cates of Reform there has been, hitherto, too much menace and declamation, and too little calm reason ing and argument, in supporting a question that can so well hear to be reasoned, and which the inter ference of the passions can only impede and em barrass, and which, indeed, that sort of interference has already deeply and seriously prejudiced. It is in the recollection of the public, and the public have cause to remember it, that, for several weeks before the second reading of the late Bill in the House of Lords, a constant fire of intimidation and menace was directed against that assembly through intem perate pamphlets and the fierce columns of a portion of the daily press. We protested, at the tune, against attempting to carry a question by vulgar ap peals to servile fears and sordid feelings, which stood 011 the high ground of just policy, and, like every question founded in justice and sound principle, could only gain strength, not in the degree in which the passions are inflamed, but in proportion as the understanding is enlightened. There can he no doubt that the course and vulgar attacks made from day to day upon the House of Lords—the arro gant manner in which the intemperate portion of the Reform Press denied to the second branch of the Legislature the right to exercise the privileges of a deliberative assembly—the insulting calculation upon the effects of their fears in counteracting their inclination—there can be no doubt, we say, that such injudicious attempts to secure a majority of the House of Lords in favour of the Bill produced ex actly the opposite effect. As Legislators, the 'Mem bers of the Upper House ought to have taken into their consideration nothing but the merits of the question they had met to discuss ; but as men of high rank, not treated with common respect, and, us men of spirit, now allowed to be capable of deciding a great measure of national policy on any higher mo tive than what resulted from casting up the balance between sordid interest and vulgar fear, we can not wonder that they were put upon their mettle, and that they rejected at once, and indignantly, a measure, the success of which was anticipated by its more clamorous advocates, not from the wis dom and justice of the House of Lords, but from their passive terror and political cowardice. We hope that such an offensive and injurious mode of appealing to the House of Lords on Reform will not be renewed. We hope all sincere Reformers will `cc that their cause has already been injured by in temperance, an d th a t it never can be served by it. 11'e think that, after what has passed, if any writers have recourse to abus e , i nv ective, and threats, in treating of Reform, in preference to argument and reason, the public will have good reason to suspect they are not the sincere friends of the cause which sue h violence prejudices and degrades. We have looked into two pamphlets lately published by Ridgway, which arc in a better tone and spirit, be cau•e they are more calm and argument at i ve , t h an lowly previous publications which were (rioted and praised by the Ministerial Press. One of them i. " What hare the Lords done ? and what will they do next ?" From the title it is obvious that the subject of the ptiblicatton is the conduct of the Lords with regard to the lisform Bill, It is written with fr;edorn ; but it is the chas tened freedom of sound judgment and good taste, The following passages will show that its tone, though firm, is more persuasive than dogmatic, and that it treats with becoming respect the patri cian order of the State :—" That the House of Lords was entitled t o reject the Bill sent to them from the Commons no one of common un d erstan di ng de- Nits. The power of using a right or privilege alone bestows a value upon it ; that tt must cease t o b e valuable when the liberty of exercising it is with held, is perfectly dear. Hence the natural and allowable jealousy of all men, at any seeming at tempt to coutt ou l th e exercise of the rights, privi leges, or prerogatives they enjoy. But the Peens had been treated for some time past as if they were inaccessible to any such jealousy—as if they were nut endued with the common feelings of human pa tore, for the protection and defence of their rights. These rights were challenged, as opposed to those of the people, though all rights are distributed by the Constitution equally, for the benefit of all. The conduct of many Noble Lords on the late occasion, there is every reason to believe, might be traced to displeasure at such rash attempts to interfere with their prerogative. It cannot be imagined, indeed, that any of the majority were favourable to the I3:11; on the contrary, all were, more or less, and many irreconcilably, adverse to it; some, how ever, hesitated as to the policy of voting against it, and powerful motives concurred to overcome the hostility of its less violent and less interested opponents. Had these been allowed to operate, the result might have been different. The unfortunate attempts alluded to raised up a counteracting influ ence, and turned the balance against the Bill. In the course of these attempts the House of Lords were treated with far too little consideration—in some instances with determined disrespect. It is natural that men imbued with a high sense of honour and personal courage should shrink from the suspicion of being intimidated in the discharge of a great public duty—that, filling the most exalted station, as the hereditary Judges and Legislators of the land, they should recoil from the thought of becoming mere instruments of the popular will—that, proud of having a sacred trust committed to them by the Constitution, they should revolt at the efforts to render it nugatory in their hands. While we can reasonably ascribe honourable motives to men, we must refrain from charging them with others. Many Noble Lords may have voted in the majority without meriting the odium so justly and discriminately la vished upon all. To believe this is not only an act of duty to them, but it is a strong eround of hope and confidence for the country. Honest men are ever prompt to acknowledge an error and repair a wrong. The whole stare of things is now changed. The Lords have maintained their rights—they have asserted their authority and prerogative—they have upheld the dignity of their House,—can they re quire any thing more to satisfy their sense of what is due to themselves? Can any extenuating motives be urged in defence of those who are prepared for further resistance ?" The other pamphlet to which we have alluded is in the form of " A Letter to the Earl of Harrowbv, on the present State of the Reform Question." Its tone is calm and temperate —its remarks judicious and sensible—and such as might be expected from a reasoning and cultivated mind. We have only space for one or two short ex tracts. Ai' ith regard to the mutual forbearance which ought to be practised towards each other on this great and stirring question of Reform, the author says—" If the Peers have any wish to conci liate the people, they will for the future admit their pretensions to the possession of intelligence sufficient to understand their rights and interests, and of pa triotism enough to forbear the full exaction of them, if the greater interests of the commonwealth should require the sacrifice—for the future they evill forbear from taunting the middle—that is the most im portant—class with the epithets of a fierce, a sweep ing, a furious democracy ;—they will forbear to identify them with incendiaries, and to charge them with schemes of revolution and blood. On the other hand, the people are bound to concede to the Peers, in their places, the deference due to the highest legislative assembly, venerable for its anti quity, exercising an undoubted right of judgment on the decisions of the Lower Assembly—loyal, in op. position to the Crown, and bold, perhaps, to a fault. Menace, the people should recollect, hazards more than it can possibly gain, since courage is a much more common property than either good sense or good temper." Again :—" To the present mo ment the Peers, as a conservative assembly, may be conceived to have acted a conscientious, and, on the score of caution, a meritorious part ; but on what ground a further opposition could be justified, with the certain conviction that the people will not relax their chief demands, and that ultimate resistance cannot avail, is inconceivable. 1i it not, then, the part of every genuine patriot, whose judgment still resists the importunities of the friends of Reform, to retire, at least, from a conflict, the prolongation of which must add to the calamities of his country, and, in private, to devote his talents to the miti gation of evils which cannot be prevented.— The people, on their part, will appreciate the sentiment, and respect the opinion they cannot approve. They will more than ever learn to love a Constitution which provides ample re dress for every grievance, and abundant re sources for every exigence. In the possession of moderate but substantial good, lawfully ob tained, and certainly secured in the enjoyment of more settled order and tranquillity, they will be less disposed to incur the risk of uncertain changes. They will commit the idle bubbles of the specula tists and, with them, the gloomy auguries of the alarmists, to the winds." We cannot but ex press our concurrence in the sentiments of a writer who, without any sacrifice of principle, treats the question of Reform in that tone of moderation and sober argument which we had from the beginning recommended. Let the agitators, who desire change for the sake of convulsion, still wing their ominous flight on the turbid elements of the passion, but be it our task, arid that of all the sincere friends of be neficent Reform, to conquer by the weapons of rea son alone.—Morning Herald. The important disclosure about which so much anxiety has been shewn, and justly shewn, was made last night in the House of Commons. Lord John Russell there brought forward and explained the plan of the new Ministerial Bill for Parliamentary Reform. To us, from the rapid view which we have been enabled to take of it (and we sincerely hope our countrymen will join in our opinion), it is satisfactory. It sacrifices no principle of the old Bill,—it differs but little from it in the details ; and where it does thus differ, the change, we should conceive, is favourable to public rights and the po pular interests. However, the measure must un dergo again an ample discussion, during the conti nuance of which we shall have many opportunities of canvassing its specific provisions. But there is one advantage, produced perhaps by time and reflec tion, in which the new Bill has a decided advantage over the other. It is, we think, likely to be more kindly received. Of this we had almost despaired, from a recent speech of Sir Robert Peel's in the House of Commons ; but his language last night has put us in spirits again, and inspired us with hopes : not that the Ministry were unable to have carried their measure through the Lower House, whatever might have been the opposition of Sir Robert and his friends (Mr. Hunt, of course, in cluded in the number l); but because its second re ception with the Lords will, of course, be much in fluenced by what may have occurred before. Indeed union has now become so paramount an object, that had the Bill at present introduced differed still less from that which was rejected, and the respectable part of the Opposition been able to hang a change of opinion on that minuter difference, for our parts they should have been fully welcome to do so. We would not have reproached them with the identity of the two measures. The public, we hope, would have been satisfied, and they might have " come off" without the imputation of instability, vacilla tion, or timidity. May we again hope, then, to t.ce the nation in good humour, and the people and Legislature, with their excellent Sovereign, recalling their powers and energies from party conflict*, an d app lyi ng them wholly to theim provement of the internal condition of the country t The lapse of a very short time will tell us whether we may answer those questions in the negative or affirmative ; but during that short time there must he no relaxation of zeal and resolution to carry the Reform. NV e proceed to the analysis of the Bill. It will be recollected that the last Bill embraced chiefly three points—the disfranchisement of certain de cayed or nomination boroughs, the enfranchisement of sonic large towns or important and populous district s , and the extension of suffrage both in to‘ln* and counties. The important parts of these provi ions in the old Bill are preserved, or rendered more liberal and efficient in the new, though the mode of arriving at the result is somewhat different. In the framer Bill all the boroughs sending Members to Parliament which had a population below ,000, were disfranchised ; and those which had labove 2,000 inhabitants, but below 4,000, were deprived of their right of any but one Member. Population was tr, by this means, made the basis of represen tation ; but it was conceived that places so unim portant as to have fewer than 2,000 or 4,000 inha bitants, were not entitled to the right of being re presented by two Members in Parliament, while large towns (of 100,000 inhabitants fee in• stance) had none. Nearly a hundred boroughs were either partially or entirely disfranchised by this rule, and a disengaged representation provided for large towns and counties. By the present Bill the process of disfranchisement is somewhat diffe rent. The fiamers of the measure have ordered the numbers of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes, to lie taken of 100 boroughs, which are the least considerable in these two respects. Of these 100 boroughs, 56 are to be totally dis franchised—a number corresponding with that of schedule Ain the former Bill; and to the remaining 4-1 only one Member would have been given, unless the Government had resolved, in compliance with the wishes generally expressed last session, to retain the full number of Members at present in the House. By the Bill of last year 23 seats remained, after adding to the county representation, after giving Members to large town , , and after increasing the deputations from Scotland and Ireland. In dis posing of these 23 seats, it is propo , ed to give ten to the boroughs in schedule 13, one to Chatham, as separate from Rochester, and twelve to the large towns in schedule D, such as Bolton, Brighton, Bradford, Blackburn, Macclesfield, Stockport, Hali fax, and others, which by the last Bill were only to have one Member each. The reason why the number of houses and the amount of assessment are pre ferred to the returns of population in determining the extent of disfranchisement, is, tl:at they are less liable to mistake or exaggeration than the enume ration of inhabitants. The new Bill proposes no change in the relative proportion of the Members given to towns and counties, or in the proportional representation of the different kingdoms of the empire. By the new mode of forming the list of boroughs to be totally disfranchised, and that of those subject to partial disfranchisement, five boroughs which ware formerly in schedule A have been transferred to schedule B ; and five in schedule B have been transferred to schedule A. The follow ing are in the latter unlucky predicameet :—Ald borough (in Yorkshire), Amersham, East Grinstead, Oakhampton, and Saltash; while Petersfield, Eye, Wareham, Woodstock, arid Lostwithiel, are so for tunate as to retain one Member. 'With regard to the qualification, some changes are introduced into the new Bill. It will be recollected that a great many difficulties were encountered during the former discussions, in determining the question of a 101. rent, whether the house was to be valued, or taken as rated in the parish books. By the present Bill ail these difficulties will be removed. A return will be made of all the houses of 10/. annual value within a borough, and the occupant or owner will have a vote, if rated to the poor, at whatever amount he is rated. If not rated at all, he can acquire the power of exercising his electoral rights by demanding to be put on the parish books for his contribution to the poor, and becomes a voter when that formality is complied with. The questions which divided the House in former discussions of the borough qualification, are thus much simplified, and the rights of the citizens more infallibly secured. But besides this change, the constituency of boroughs and cities has undergone an other alteration in the present Bill, as compared with the last. It will be remembered that freemen, if resident, or living within seveN miles of their re spective boroughs, were allowed by the former measure to exercise their rights during their lives, but it was provided that their privilege should not descend to their children. By the pre sent Bill, the right of voting conferred on freemen along with their other rights by birth or servitude, ' is to be continued on its present footing, and not to be terminable with the present generation, as in the late measure. A third change determines that free holders in cities or boroughs which are counties in themselves, shall retain their votes either for the bo rough, city, or county, as heretofore, without being subject to any of the proposed regulations of the late Bill. These are the only alterations which the Bill has undergone worthy of being enumerated in a short summary like the present. Some of them, we admit, are of considerable importance in simpli fying its machinery, and others in increasing its efficiency ; but at the same time, as friends and supporters of the late measure, we must repel the charge brought against it of such imperfections as justified its rejection, by persons who are opposed to its successor.—Timcs. The new edition of the Reform Bill, revised and corrected, was introduced to the House of Commons last night by Lord John Russell, and the altera tions or improvements, for in this case the terms are nearly synonymous, are, it must be confessed, neither few nor unimportant. The principal of them are these :—Five of the proscribed boroughs, including the much-disputedAldborough, escape from schedule A to schedule B ; eleven of the mutilated boroughs will be released from schedule B, and will regain their two Members; and two will be given to several of the towns in schedule D, to which one only was allotted by the former Bills. These two latter objects are attained by the restoration to the House of, its original complement of six hundred and fiftpeight Members. Caine, Horsham, and Northallerton are to lose one Member each. Mr. Mackinnon's plan for taking the census of 1831 instead of 1821 is adopted with regard to the num ber of houses, by which the boroughs are to be esti mated, instead of by the population. With regard to the qualification, the 101. householders must not only pay that rental, but be assessed at that amount to the poor's-rate and taxes. Again, by the former Bills the elective franchise in corporate towns was to be secured only to the freemen now living, and was afterwards to become extinct ; according to the present plan the rights of freemen, by birth or servitude, will be permanently maintained. Such are the leading changes in the Mt. nisterial Bill, and the first commentary which suggests itself on viewing them is that so well applied by Sir R. Peel and Mr. Croker, that there is not one of them which was not strenuously urged by the Opposition during the late discussions, and as strenuously resisted by those Ministers who now are forced to acknowledge their justice and expedi ency. Taunted and vilified as the Opposition have been with the odious charge of factiously seeking to delay the progress of the B;ll, the measure now pro posed is indeed a triumphant vindication, and an un willing tribute to that honesty, patriotism, end sound judgment which guided their conduct. Nay, one remarkable alteration, that, namely, which restores the original number of Members to the House, is, with an immaterial variation, the very altera tion for venturing to approve of which the last Par liament was exposed to the unlimited abuse, and in curred the final penalty of a dissolution. The friends of Ministers will probably not impute to their pa trons the adoption of these changes against their own conviction and sense of right ; how then can it any longer be denied by the Ministers or their adhe rents that the House of Lords essentially served the country by rejecting a project so full of errors and incongruities as the late Reform measure is now admitted to have been ? It may be asked, why, then, (lid not the Lords improve the Bill in these particulars, and return it so amended to the Commons, instead of utterly rejecting it on the second reading ? We may answer, in the first place, that suggestions embodying the improvements in question having actually emanated from the Oppo sition in the Lower House, and Ministers having there refused to entertain them, it is reasonable to conclude that tl ey would not have been accepted from the Lords. In the seeprid place, these amend ments in the detail have left the principle of the measure as objectionable as ever. Numbers will still overbear property ; the preponderating power in the State will still be vested in the hands of the meatiest, the most cotitemptible, and the most dis reputable class of the community ; the influence of the great towns is still destined to overwhelm the agricultural interest, and, in fact, those principles are still maintained in nearly all their former mons trocity, which the sober and enlig-hterted part of the nation regard with di , trust, with aversion, and with dread. The Constitutional party will there fore feel it their duty to resist the present Bill as perseveringly, and we trust as successfully, as the two former.—Akrning Post. At length the new Reform Bill is before the country. The parts of the late Bill which recom mended it to the nation were the disfranchising clauses. Through the instrumentality of the rotten boroughs, the Members of the House of Commons ceased to be the representatives of the nation. The attention of the country will, therefore, be first di rected to the boroughs included in schedules A and B of the last Bill. The number of boroughs included in schedule A was 56. The rule accord ing to which boroughs were included in that sche dule was in possessing a population under 2,000 by the census of 1821. Since that time the census of 1831 has been nearly completed. But then there existed ;t motive for resorting to improper practices in taking the census of 1831, in the case of the small boroughs, which did not exist in 1821. Lord John Russell observed, that to guard against such practices—as the test of population might not in all cases be perfectly accurate—it would be better to take houses than persons, it being less likely that improper practices should be resorted to with regard to the number of houses than with regard to the number of persons. By adhering to the rule, however, modified as it is by taking the number of houses, the changes, as as far as they extend, are disadvantageou.. Instead of fifty-six boroughs totally disfranchised, there will now be fifty-one. The number of boroughs is eluded in schedule B, subject to partial disfran chisement, is next to be considered. The rule was a population under 1,000 or above 2,000. Schedule Bin the last Bill contained forty-one blrougLs. By the present Bill it contains thirty boroughs, that is eleven fewer than in the former. We need not say that in respect of both these schedules, the Bill has been anything rather than improved. Whatever adds to the proportion of small boroughs returning representatives is an evil. 'Whether the population or the assessed taxes of the boroughs formerly in eluded in schedule A and B be considered, they are so insignificant that we can hardly help regretting that any of them should have escaped partial dis franchisement. " The boroughs (said Lord John Russell) in schedule B were placed there originally more with a view to the general form of the representation than with any other particular object ; and, in the first place, not to give to the smaller boroughs such a large share in the repre• sensation as they would have if they were allowed to have two Members, and also with the view to diminishing the Members of the House. With respect to the propriety of all these boroughs not having two Members, the opinions of the framers of the Bill remain unchanged. With respect to the number of the Members of the House, it has been matter of serious consideration whether, after the number has been enlarged from that paint at which it was pnt in the last Session, so as to be only twenty-three less than it is at the present moment—whether, after that enlargement of numbers, it might not be more ad vantageous to retain it at that point, and whether the ob jection to that diminution of numbers might not be con ciliated without neglecting the great principles of the Bill. In considering that question another advantage was perceived ; namely, this :—lt had been one of the most constant objections to the measures of Government, that many of the large towns, left with only one Mem ber, would be in a state of discontent tid they had obtained two. Without yielding to that argument, for I think that in many instances one Member would be fully sufficient to represent the particular interest of these towns, it was evident that there would be a great advantage, if, by giving them two Members, these objections might be in some degree obviated, and the larger among these towns would be placed in a better situation ; but at the same time it was evident, that if we proposed to give the whole number of vacant places created by the schedule B to these large towns, we should be giving a degree of weight to the manufacturing towns, which, without some balance or counterpoise, would be considered objectionable. It then came to a question whether we should give that num ber to the large counties. It appeared to us that it would not be an advantage to adopt a farther division of counties for that purpose, or to give three Members to those counties which now possess two. The only way, there fore, to avoid the difficulty was, to give a certain number of these Members to the highest towns in schedule B, sup posing that we took the list of forty-one towns in schedule Bas it stood last session. That course it was resolved to adopt; and it is, therefore, proposed, that of the twenty•three Members whose seats, after the arrange ments I have mentioned, will remain to be disposed of, ten shall be given to the more considerable towns, that, under the last Bill, would have returned but one Member each to Parliament." _ _ Here we have the explanation of the grounds for partially disfranchising only thirty boroughs, in ad dition to the fifty-one totally disfranchised. The next part, in point of importance, is the enfranchise ment. Our readers will have observed, from the above passage, though somewhat obscurely worded, that the twenty-three Membt ra, by which the pre sent number of the House exceeds the number in the last Bill, are to be retained. Of these, ten Members are to be given to ten large tons having only one Member by the former 8 , 11. These large towns are Bolton, Brighton, Bradford, Blackburne, Macclesfield, Stockport, Stoke-upon-Trent, Halifax, Stroud, and Huddersfield. One Member is to be given to Chatham, which in the former Bill was joined to Rochester (which will now be left to itself), and one is to be given to the county of Mon mouth, now possessing only ono representative; and the eleven to boroughs taken out of schedule B. The number of Members for Scotland and Ireland will remain as fixed in the last Bill. With regard to qualification, some important alterations have been made. In every city or borough persons of full age, and not legally disqualified, occupying a house, warehouse, or shop, separately or jointly with land of the yearly value of ten pounds assessed to the pours' rate, should, on the same being duly re gistered, be entitled to a vote. The former Bill continued the franchise to all existing resident free men, and apprentices, and others with inchoate rights. The present Bill continues the franchise to all freemen possessing it by birth and servitude, for ever, provided they reside within the city or bo rough, or within seven miles of the place of voting, The mention of this last alteration was loudly cheered by the Opposition, and we need not say that we look upon it as tending greatly to dete riorate the Bill. It is evidently a sop to those rich men who cannot support the idea of parting with the power of bribery and corruption. We foresee that it will in time open a door to jobbing in free men, thereby to swamp the independent voters. Some other minor regulations are introduced, but the above are the essential variations. The limits of the boroughs will be settled by the Bill and not by Commissioners, Ministers being now in possession of sufficient materials to guide them. The rule of requiring three hundred electors in every place is to be departed from. It would seem to be in contemplation to give to all the towns now destitute of municipal authorities, charters with rights assimilating them to the city of London; where the Mayors or Chief Magistrates are to be come the returning officers, in place of the return. ing officers named by the Bill. The Bill is, in mat ters of detail, superior to the last ; but it is inferior, in so far as it gives a greater number of Members for small towns liable to be unduly influenced, and in so far as it continues the franchise to freemen for ever. We are not insensible to the immense improvement which this Reform, if obtained, will be upon the former state of the representation, but it is not e qually efficient with the last. We can make every allowance for the difficulty with which Ministers have to contend, and only hope that the Opposition will he propitiated by the concessions made to them. We observe that Lord .lohn Russell and Lord Al thorp do not defend the new B:11 on exactly the same grounds. Lord John, somewhat casuistically we think, endeavoured to show that Earl Grey was under another engagement when he made the pledge that the new measure should not be less efficient than the former, and that the pledge could only be interpreted with reference to such prior engagement. " If (said Lord John) my Noble Friend at the head of his Majesty's Government has said—nay, has entered, as he undoubtedly has, into a voluntary engagement—that the new measure shall not be less efficient than the fitriner, there can be no question that he made that engagement, bound by another engagement, not less in force, and to which he must have felt himself under the necessity of re conciling it, and in conformity with which the public must receive it. [however anxious his Noble Friend might he to concur in laying before Parliament a measure not less efficient than the former, yet he would never lose sight of that oilier obligation, which compelled him to give support to no proposition which did not respect fist privileges of the other House of Parliament, and go to uphold the Just prerogatives of the Crown. If there are those, who, in ferring solely to the voluntary engagement of my N 011,2 Friend, would require him to go farther, he hoped they would bear in mind that he was bound by both engage ments." This defence amounts almost to an insinuation that Earl Grey, when he proposed the former Bill, had lost sight of the obligation alluded to by Lord John. The obligation existed when the former 1111 was proposed as much as it exists now; and the pledge supposed the obligation taken into account when an assurance was given that the new 13:11 should be equally efficient with the former. Lord John would open a door to indefinite evasion, for it might always be easy to get rid of a pledge by alleging a prior engagement of an indefinite nature to respect the privileges of the other House and the prerogatives of the Grown. Lord Althorp, how ever, alluding to the triumph at the alterations in the Bill displayed by Sir Robert Peel, observed, that Ministers looped upon all the alterations, or nearly all of thtun, as improvements, " but at the same time," said his Lordship, " I have a right to remark, that where objections have been made that did not seem to involve points of any material consequence, it seemed to us wise to adopt them in the spirit of conciliation ;" and that the points on which the Bight Honourable Gentle man congratulated himself and his party " plainly showed him that the Right Honourable Gentleman is fully aware that the principles of the Bill really remain the same, and that those points, which, du ring the last session, occasioned the warmest discus lion, have undergone no alteration." The Irish Members present expressed dissatisfaction with re spect to the Reform to be given to Ireland. The second reading is to be opposed ; but, from the tone of Mr. Baring and several other Members, there seems little rervion to doubt that the Bill will not he strenuously opposed. The second reading is to take place on Friday next; and the House is to sit on Siturday, so that the division will take place on Saturday night. The House will then adjourn over the Christmas holidays, to meet again early in January.—Morning Chronicle. SECOND Et )ITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT OF THIS EVENING. HOUSE OF COMMONS. At Four o'clock, there being only Thirty-four Members present, the .flouse adjourned until To-morrow. HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Five o'clock. On the ni otion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the Agri culturers Labourers' Bill was read a first time, and ordered to lie on the table. The Duke of RICHMOND moved for returns, the nature of w hich we could nut hear. REFORM. The Earl of COVENTRY presented a petition, signed by several Noblemen, and by some hundreds of the trades people of the county of Worcester, praying their Lordships that any 114:form that met with their Lordships' approba tion might have for its object the safety of the Church, State, and Constitution of the country, and also of their properly. In presenting the petition, the Noble Earl observed, that there never was a moment more essentially called for concilliation than the present, and he hoped and trusted, th;tt when the Reform Bill came into that House there tvoul3 be an union of sentiment throughout it. AFFAIRS OF INDIA. _ Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, for copies of the Correspondence between the Factory of Canton and the East India Company, relative to existing differences be tween than, observed, that he was perfectly aware at the pr.tssnt moment that their Lordships, like the rest of the country, were very much indisposed to attend to any thing hut the all-absorbing subject of Reform, but nevertheless, in the present state of the affairs of India, he felt that he should fail in his duty if he did not bring 89 important a subject under the consideration of their Lordships. He could not, however, but admit that the state of things in India had somewhat altered since he had given notice of the motion. At that time he entertained great apprehensions from the notice he had seen published by the Select Committee at Canton, that the commercial interests of the country would be greatly injured. Happy, however, was he to be enaided to say, that ht had seen another notice, in which the previous one had been withdrawn, but still he was very much afraid that; the difficulties attending our commerce with China were not in any way, or in any shape, dimi nished. The Noble Lord here read the two notices he had referred to, and observed, that it was impos sible for any person to look at. those two papers with out feeling satisfied that there never was a moment at which the interests of this country, connected with Chins, were in greater peril than that he had referred to. The Select Committee had called upon the Indian authorities to support their demands by armed interference, and he (Lord Ellenborough) trusted that before Ministers acqui esced in such a step, or moved one soldier, they would calmly take into consideration all the transactions that had occurred. He did not think that aggression would be just under the circumstances of the case. Ix November 29, and May 30, the Chinese Government re laxed to a considerable extent the duties taken on the importation of British goods. They had relaxed it to an extent equal to one-third of the whole duty. They had likewise considerably reduced the duty on cotton, and they had extended to all British merchants unconnected with the Company that privilege which they greatly prtz.d, namely, addressing the Chinese authorities in the Chinese language. After a few observations, his Lordship went on to say that all these restrictions appear very trifling in the eyes of the people of this country, but in China great attention was paid to them, and he considered that it was the duty of merchants to pay attention and obey all the laws of a country in which they were permitted to reside and trade. The history of that singular country, even so far back as 1769, showed that these restrictions had always been the laws of the land, and had been acted upon in that country. The N o bl e L o rd said, it appeared by a paper which lie held in his hand, that not satisfied with acting in defiance of the laws of the country in which they were situated, the Select Committee sent up a force of 100 men to Canton for the protection of the Factory, and notwithstanding that provocation , ( than which the N o bl e L or d conceived none could be greater) it did not appear that any steps were taken by the Chinese authorities to punish that aggression. It also appears that a proclamation was issued by the authorities at Canton, warn ing the Committee that such acts would not be tolerated, yet in defiance of that the same system was pursued, and not only that was carried on, but a paper which was esta blished at Canton, first as a Price Current, but which after wards turned its attention to politics, lauded the conduct of the Committee, and called upon them to continue the same line of conduct, and apply to the Government at home. This was a sort of publication which could be tolerated by no Government. The Noble Lord then adverted to the petition which was presented to the House of Com mons in June last year, from the merchants in Cantors. He did not find fault with their petitioning, but he consi dered that it was most injudicious in them to have published the contents of that petition in China, when they signed it. That petition spoke of the Chinese Government as the most arbitrary and cruel, of the authorities as venal, and of the laws as absurd. It further stated that the present moment was fitted for sending out an Ambassador to China, to obtain further advantages, and the reason assigned for that was, that our arms had been suc cessful against the 13nrinese, and therefore we would stand higher in the opinion of the Chinese Governini nt through their fears. It also called upon the Government to take possession of some of the Chinese Islands, in older to stand in a better position. These were all Canton before the petition was even sent off, and ask Noble Lards, was this conduct that ought to pursued on the part of the residents there, t by the Government of the country. The Noble read several extracts from the Canton Rer fleeting on the conduct of the Chinese author he contended were great provocations. He felt as any one for the scenes which followed. T' was taken possession of by the Chinese aut: no doubt but a great insult had been offered . jesty's picture ; hut he wonld ask, had these alit no provocations before these outrages had been He believed it was wholly unnecessary for him the attention of the Idolise the importance of which was periled by such conduct as he had Should such a state of things continue, and be thereby suspended, very serious would resu't to this country. In the first the revenue would lose about three and a Iv being the amount of the tax upon tea. indeed that, but the East India Cot be incapacitated from paving the interests bends, and the other enormous expcnces establishment. There would also necessat suspensinn of trade in the Chinese market for. fac toyed goods, and also of the trade of the East a The revenue from opium of more than a wi. would he lost, there would be a depreciation in of cotton, which would destroy the ad. trade, and the revenues of the Indian PresiL be greatly detrimented. In this country it impossible for the Company to raise money own property, which would be depreciated and in India, while the cessation in time of the interest on the bends of their and of the pensions to officer, would c iuse seri , nience. It was the feeling such great distress wie that induced bins to press this matter on the of the House, and to desire an official statement taken place, as well as to know if any remedy plated. What he would wish to see done so far from ordering as madmen to d: of the country, orders should be given to He was quite satisfied that the Directors of the Company would visit with their severe disc' son at the head of their factory there, who—. the Chinese law was the occasion of what had Further it was incumbent on the East India ' only to command that their servants should not Press under their influence, so as to bring lity of the Chinese Government, but that they vent the publication of such documents as could to provoke that hostility. On all these grounds to ask for the requisite information. Earl GREY telt the deep importance of tl and the dangerous consequences which might such a state of things as had ben described by Lord ; and when the time arrived, there objection on the part of the East India certainly there would de none on the part of his Government, to put the House in full purr a particulars of this important case. Under the circumstances while arrangements might possibly and before the case was completed, :he hoped ' would pause before they agreed to the motion of Lord. The intercourse with China was dally under the controul of the East piny, than under that of his Majesty's meat. As he was informed, for he was possession of sufficient information to follow I Lord in his statement; it was only very however, that the information had reached so recently, that it had no , yet been laid Directors. With respect to the conduct of that Co' that there would be no disposition to it eTecially by an armed force, without being fa of the necessity and justice of their cause. could not pretend to say whether or not ei_ be made on the opposite aide which might degree counteract the statement of his Noble t But he was ready to admit, that according ,0 statement, there certainly appeared to him . great deal of improper conduct, which, f tJ true, it was fitting that the . ..Court of Director s d e as sive giving no to n o correct; opinio lu t opinion whatever,he lgged to im t be la u vla, materials in which he could form an opitatn:, e , was the :proper course to pursue was the 000 0 , consideration ; first, by the Court of Direetti . hen by his Majesty's Government. At pressor fo r , m stion was not in such a state as could be bad ba l ", House hoped his Noble Friend would not persevel l motion. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, after a few ohserS withdrew his motioa. The House then adjourned till Thursday. rHE LONDON GAZE THIS EVENING. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. CHARLES ELWORTHY MARTIN, New-stree t ' square, St. Marylebone, linen-draper. EDWARD REDMAN, Worthing, Sussex, shopke t BANKRUPTCY ENLARGED. JAMES HERITAGE, Uxbridge, draper, from W C ' at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. BANKRUPTS. 1 WILLIAM HENFREY, Northampton, wine-mer e JOHN WELL, Kingston-upon-Hull, merchant., JONAS BENNETTS and NICHOLAS ROBINS, JAMCrnwall, granite-merchants. , 30 0 ES 1 - 101,M AN, Baalzephon-street, Long-1 JOHN' 13ULL, - Mitcham, Surrey, brewer. t i ; HENRY -WILLIAMS, Droitwich, Worcestershircy , THOMAS BENBOW, Tcnbury, Worcestershire.l i re RICHARD TA RLETON, Liverpool, hat-manufa C JOHN GUNTON, Cheltenham, confectioner. t er , BENJAMIN GLOVER, Watling.strect, calico-pr in „itE , JOHN WILSON ANDERSON, Bradford, York sv paint dealer. RICHARD CHAPMAN, Newort, painter. GEORGE GODDEN, Havant, p Southampton, chcipitgg SUSAN SAUNDERS, Great Coram-street, RUS O " boarding-house-keeper. JOHN HERBERT, Hatton-garden, builder. MICHAEL MOLINEUX, Hertford, cabinet-maNC;" THOMAS WILLIAM WARD, Bishopsgate-strci draper. CHRISTOPHER FULLER, I'aradise.row, Islinf chant. LONDON MARKETS. PRICE OF BREAD. P The highest price of Bread in the Metropolis is 0 ,4 1 lib. Loaf. There are others who sell from }; i d. to IN i that price. -----''' PRICE OF SEEQS.—Dec. 12. ~A, 1 ,:ew English Red Clover Seed (per Cwt.) —s. 70s. fin`,,,s' t Old Ditto Ditto-- —s. —s. Am' .ccw Foreign Ditto _ Old Ditto —,. ....., —s. fine New White Clover. Old Ditto Ditto..._... New Trefoil —....... C 5 11;5: . . p i n np e. --s. Sbs. fine' 3k! Ditto -5. 15S: fine Rib Grass 10s. ane English Carraway Foreign Ditto Voriander s..—e: 535. •••3„ --8. 6 4 5 . , 1 —S. fine., .(per —s. ;56, fine' re , 40s. 45t.' - .7(25. fine —... 465. 48s. --s, SOS. tY2i 'la° Old --s.—s. ---s. White Mustard Sced....,—.(iwr Bushel),., .. —s, 10 6 . Brown Ditto—. loi, 15s. St. Foin . . Rye Grass Pacey Ditto -. Linseed, for feedin Ditto, for crushing. Canary Seed, New 0' Turnip Seeds, 'Rounds Green and Red Ditto ."..S. ....14., ....S' Tares, Old Ditto New Ita:eSeed, English, tine (per Law 4 1 --s. —s. fine it) 22/. V' —.... Foreip> COAL MAR Ad i •••••••••••••• 9d. Beatunont.----s—s 27 0 Bensham Main 27 0 Bell, Robson, and Co. Low Main 24 6 Dean's Primrose27 0 East 25 3 Felling Main. '26 6 Forrest Stain --, 26 6 Garesfield ---__.— '25 9 27 6 Howard Main—_.--.. 28 9 li ill ing wort h 27 9 Orti's Redhugh 25 0 Pontop Windsor . 25 0 Shipeote 26 6 South Holywell —24 3 12:infield 27 6 27 9 Walls End Bell & Co.— 28 9 Dittoßell,Robson,&Co. 28 3 Ditto Bewicke and Co. 29 0 Walls End Brown's— 29 6 Wall- En.l Callerton 25 9 CET.—Dec. Walls End Carr and Ditto Clarke and Co.'' Walls End Gosforth." Walls End Heaton. , e' Walls End Hilda Walls End Newinarcl",ll-`. Ditto Northumbcrla P Ditto Pearetli... Walls End Russell's./ 0 Walls End Walker Bden Main Bell's Primrose Lambton's Primoser . "' yl Walls End Hetton Walla End Lyons Walls End Lambton,e' Walls End Stewart's •';1 Hartley Llangebnech Merthyr New Flockton, Dlilnei and d C° Walla End Hendergl Lawrence Main smal l Townley small I'ow•nley. Wylirn at tr.rkct. 170N-Shit)m soid, BIRTHS. rtl f On the 9th inst. the lady of G. Simpson, Esq. of Bed. , ° t it Bedford-square, of a daughter. l a d , On the 3d inst. at Lakefield, near Inverness, the C. Mclean, Esq., of Calcutta, of a daughter. ~ reql On' the I lth inst. in Manchester-street, Manchestcr- 64 ", lady of C. Rogers, Esq., M.D. of the East India Coral''' . dras Establishment, of a daughter. 4) MA 11 111 ED. 1,1411,1' 4 On the 7th inst. at Cheltenham, J. Clendinning, „i , of Wimpole-street, London, to Anna Maria, eldest ( 13 " 1 ,f . , the late Rev. H. Palmer, Rector of Oare, Sussex. , rid On the 10th inst. at Falmouth, Harriet, second 03 ,,y Wm. Lake, Esq., of this town, to Lieut. W m. Do o- mandcr of his Majesty's packet Plover. ..fr _ . . DI ED. 11 al't, On the 12th inst. at Camden-toINn, S. Ogilvy, —• I ,i ter of Old Aberdeen. • . vArl • On the Ilth inst. Mr. James Hooper Grocock, of .. ) Soho, aged 51. _......": i) PUBLI.4IED 1 4 1,illuftl)l) ] ILJUN t SUN OFFICE, 112, STRAND, LJNDON. TO N 00u: su E it o an f y t : and SEI i 'ing sufficient ti rhery Stock, 4 Pply for pal •c , b, Strand ; ~, ,_" ke, Macias.] VIERCEI ,• are reap I noriated at all I ` 4 l, fin6ible h ouser 4 te, or longer 44 (1 also paid b' called upon ttY Will b e ex : due. The it banker's it e lr e'l• As ho aait is requer 44 'es and atltlr t?I) to X. ° ' l ° l l which PrENDE sUt and per Denti celebrated / s tithe most ei , t remedy e v i t e4 Yed TEII least heat a 4111 e'l hard an( Artid .* a 1 Te Pi qt let, on a At Home fr eU EEN ANI petal H ome ] t°11 ) Wing t he Lease of 8b 14 ' 41 1 Cellar &c. TC (Of itußsoa' . clu c k , on C,4vendiNh-e , p...pli ng , Es inn G f tti eapital . . tla tt ' , ells an 1 , 4 i! tables, ani i ti "ory-curtai Chli li r t7 l " 111 rose t tib r arY, and so g library, 11. 'l and gh v: 4 ! ll l.rug s , 1 4 ,U other 4 b t " I4 Y be vie Itithti i ltd on t 70, f T STRANi tri m, Posti Ti A t Mr. N i; tawny' trlNasnit pi.,4!ecuto rs c 4 1E L L i pired) aped STRAN 11' , 1 11 C onsists v,7_lvdell end lit ceat apa tv t b i'°B T- H good st, Q s l .- w ocnA th trk et, whir 1 1 ; 1 holeP re v , 4. QNEss , of fifty it v " Curio Ince "' ot Y o sin ' lost rec t ow reserve. t „ i i ‘ l aY be r of Ai r , owl" eat Cnrtrr 6 _ , : et c l _tE ecuto t boron '''32lthaeld. ( s/e%Lf.4.--1 , °r o t nv ICE . AND FO e'tuohgffaebl,rl eta : nttod'bbil l .4l - 41 : aI?' E raE A E R os L CF OFFAL :! d RHu. t He Noble ioif The ilt h ttei Leee 'O, ' i s y t LirT :l Aß C is, T iojeA LTA yt, L bse L l e authoriti "! ready to receis . offered to , t reat with such I ese author iSki remove from ti , I been cool eOFFAL,consis , or him to Il fr i '• , ALN, produced ,nee of the l turt the Ist day Ise had de° . l atch, 1833. Al ie, and the i: PEARL BARI IS 11101 ' 9 LINA RICE, • the the first I , 1 Contract until I a half et I t t f h o ly r p 6 r0 0 p 0: 6 1 0 1 tea. 1 0 W igs), to be del St o Company / 1 111 re` at Deptford interests ''' • f simples O expcnces o. the oeoessarilf , I r l Y tendering ; I for British, ,° 4 Carolina Rict Eastlndia l " 14 tracts, may be i a tuillios' , each Tender m i a m t i o o n n e y in o th: '"d be delivered b ti phis o (ivantagei ?residence' . behalf, mu otry it tt' ..,_ %I th e 15th of I) eciated bot h n in o be Quarto, price )f their as' ing Thirty- serious i ress would BOOK ; v; t the consist" ement of 11 41 Gifts arc Whereof medy wase` , Of frier done we! , London : Fish disobey toe `hall. en to olsel ; of the Es ti Just publ ispleasure t h/ RISTOW l ose disobsei I of ENGL Lt had takeS n l risdiction of tl idia Comp° the Represents mid not h t: By I ig down tb e q Condon: Loot .t they she as could oel Just pub grounds be PRACTI( • the IWU ce of this e ‘ 1 ,) )1 1 Emergencie Ll h rm i r) e ot h d i r g , c o e : dh fir t c h o yit y l i e u ib t' e l i ue hu d le i l , 1., . <O2 _l4. ..4 : l , : t ; Ep i tdaßuixonobtlindirviae:'s Extra-Lice; cl eratt t India put; a . 01 00 hoped tb e s otion o f the pp • was mor e t• 11 E .".! . .ast Inds, o Lajesty's u 4 1 , Edited he was "' ~:t.tabellished a follow the: C:Ptted by at ly very MALES HI chest this e ° radon : Lon/ before the f tai lom may ' ,at Courtbe f t nsescoloured to interfer e, , , ! . , 1 . 10s. ing fully 0 11 , t! III . ATH ' S I CP - ‘ l lta • use. He , . , ut Inlng Tot t statements f r , ttl under the h might 1 1 4 IW. r n, Drawings tis Noble ' 444 Travellin according w • '` ol, cad on tl to him tt " -------- - - . , it TO N