The Sun. — London, England, 1831-07-20 00:00:00

might have answered, because it tv, s his will and pleasure. —(Hear.) He was accountable only to the King and to Parliament; and if he made it a constant rule to consult the Lord Lieutenant, it was• not because he was obliged to do so, but because of his own responsibility. If, for in stance, an improper person was appointed, he was account able—he admitted it; bat if he consulted the Lord Lieu tenant he shared that responsibility with him. He must say, however, that the mode of discussing the question, as well as the question itself, was the most inconvenient that could be imagined, because it resolved itself into this: that an officer of the Crown, bolding a high and delicate trust, before he had exercised that trust, should be called to an count by a previous discussion in Parliament. The very same course might be adopted on the appointment of a Judge; and the Lord Chancellor, who was supposed to re• commend individuals as fit persons for the Bench, might as well be called over the coals for such a recommendation. It ought, in addition to this, to be remembered that the appointment had not yet been made, for as soot as lie had received his predecessor's letter, stating that there was an indictment against Mr. Storks, he stopped the commission at once. The Earl of HAREWOOD explained. The Duke of WELLINGTON said be rose only to justify the conduct of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in his absence. He would not, of course, enter again into the question, but content himself with stating that he had seen a letter, from which it appeared that the son of Mr. Storks who communicated with the Jury was not the coal-merchant, as had been represented, but the attorney—(Hear)—independent of that, however, he thought his Noble and Learned Friend was justified in striking him out of the lists. The LORD CHANCELLOR said lie had ra) intention of bringing on a new discussion on the stbject, during the absence of his Noble and Learned Friend, and certainly should not hare done so, but in order to render justice to the individual in question. The charge against this gentle man had been stated in that House—it had gone to all the ends of the earth ; and he must say that he should con alder him ill-used, if his character should, for a day, re main unvindicated, if any satisfactory vindication could be produced. Such a vindication bad been brought for ward, and he, therefore, thought it his duty to give it to the House. The Noble Duke had alluded to a letter which stated that the son of Mr. Storks who communi cated with the Jury was not the coal-merchant, but the attorney ; and, from the cries of " Hear," with which seine of their Lordahipa bad followed that statement, lie bad no doubt but that they were ready to divide and re. solve that it was not the son the coal merchant, hut the son the attorney, who communicated with the Grand July —that they knew this better than the mother who bore him, or the father who begat him, or the individual hini self.—(Laughter.) He had also sear a letter, written by the attorney, in which he declared that he never communi cated with the Grand Jury either directly or indirectly— that he was in London at the time, and knew nothing of the subject till his return. He concluded by stating that his brother, a coal merchant, had given a slip of paper to the Foreman of the Grand Jury. It might be necessary for him (the Lord Chancellor) to state further, that the prosecutor of Mr. Storks had made a declaration, in writing, that he had brought forward the charge against Mr. Storks on purpose. Lord WYNFORD could not look upon the charge against Mr. Storks as one of a venial nature, for he had known a circumstance of an individual being sent to gaol for •ix months for a similar offence. The Earl of ELDON thought the best way to regulate appointments of this kind was, for the Keeper of the Great Seal to he guided by the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant; and he hoped this practice would be adhered to for the future. During the period that he hail the Seals he recollected only three cases in which this rule had been departed from. Two of these occurred in the county of Durham. On finding that the names of gen tletnen who had been on the commission had been struck out by the Bishop of Durham, lie made inquiry into the case, and that inquiry satisfied him that be should be jus tified in continuing them, and*he did so, notwithstanding the omission of their names in the list. I❑ the third case, the individual whose name had been struck out, after some enquiry had been made, thought proper to retire of his own accord. As regarded his own conduct in appoint ments of this kind, he was bound to say that he generally took the advice and assertion of the Lords Lieutenant, be cause they were much more competent to judge than he possibly could be. With regard to the charge against Mr. Storks for perjury, it was only justice to state that, till he was convicted, he must be presumed innocent ; and when he was acquitted by the Grand Jury it would have been unjust, supposing during the trill he had chosen to retire, not to have immediately restored him. It was a serious offence, however, to tamper with a Grand Jury ; bnt that part of the question he would not enter into in the absence of the Noble and Learned Lord, but more especially because the facts of this case were not before them. If the charge, however, were made out, in his opinion be ought to be struck out of the list. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that communicating with a Grand Jury might vary from a case of great guilt and corruption to one of a venial aspect. He was inclined to think that their Lordships, if a discarded servant were to come forward and offer evidence against any of them on a Grand Jury, would not look upon it as a great crime to point out such a circumstance to the Jury. At all events, till the individual was indicted and convicted, he should not think he was deserving of the blame imputed'to him. The Marquis of CLEVELAND WWI understood to say that he recollected the cases alluded to by the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon), and he believed his Lordship's at tention was first called to the subject by the sensation which the omission caused in the county. Earl GREY said he recollected the cases alluded to by his Noble Friend. The names of two gentlemen bad been struck out of the list by the Bishop of Durham, because they had licensed a public-house against his wish. The circumstance caused a strong sensation in the county, and a strong representation was made to the Noble Lord on the Woolsack. The Noble Lord, in consequence of this re presentation, took the subject into consideration, and re instated the Magistrates, notwithstanding they had been struck out of the list by the Bishop of Durham.--(Hear.) To the subject before their Lordships he had given the best attention in his power, and he must say that nothing could he more satisfactory than the conduct of his Noble and Learned Friend. There was great objection, however, to the desultory mode of discussing such a question, and be hoped the conversation would drop. Some of the Bills were then advanced a stage, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 19. On the SPEAKER taking his seat several new Members were introduced and sworn in, among whom, were Mr. Crompton, Solicitor-General for Ireland, and Lord Pal merston. . Mr. Lamb brought up some returns of the population. Mr. W. WYNN objected to the time that was chosen to lay those returns before the House ; they ought to have been presented earlier, so that every Member might have had a copy. The SPEAKER said a few words, which were inaudible in the gallery, and the 4ubjf-ct dropped. The SPEAKER acquainted the House that Sir Robert Gunning had failed to enter into the necessary recogni zance, to prosecute his petitisn against the seturn for North ampton. The order was then discharged. At the suggestion of Lord STANLEY, Lord MORPETIL postponed his motion of which he had given notice, rela tive to the proceedings of Private Committees from to morrow until Monday. On the motion of Mr. Alderman Tuomrsos, the House resolved itself into a Committee on Trower's Divorce Bill. This occasioned some discussion, in which several Members, including Mr. Hutne, Alderman Thompson, and Lard G. Osborne took part. Mr. HUME strongly reprobated the manner in which Divorce Bills were smuggled through the House, but said that he would not oppose this Bill, be cause it would be punishing an individual for the evils of a system.—(Hear.) He should however on a future occasion oppose every Bill of this kind, and that would perhaps have the effect of inducing his Majesty's Ministers to introduce some remedy. On the motion of Lord MORPITH, the Sheffield and Manchester Rail-road Bill was read a third time and passed. Col. EVANS gave notice, that to-morrow he would move that an address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to lay before the House copies of the indictment against Mr. and Mrs. Dewle, (who recovered damages a few days ago against Mr. Bingham Baring and others at the Hamp shire Assizes), of the record, and of the Judge's notes. Mr. BURGESS presented a petition from the freemen of Hyde (we beieve) against such parts of the Reform Bill as affected their rights. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented two petitions, one from the borough of Aldborough (the first in Schedule A), the other from Hat wicb, in favour of the Reform Bill, which we re read, and order ed to be printed. The Hon. Me mb er then moved fur a return of the amount that was in the hands of the Treasurer to Queen Anne's Bo rituntyhe at the e time of his decease, and whether the security bl g was applicable to the te-payment of that a ance; also a retur w hichh number of cases (and the names of parties) in the Crown bad adioinistertd to the vit,ites of testator having no heirs since the year )800, the nature of the property, and what proceedings had been taken thereon in the courts of law. Mr. JEPHSON presented a petition from the borough of Mallow, in Ireland, in favour of the Reform Bill ; a peti tion from the parish of Whitchurch, in the county of the city of Cork, praying that a fund might be made appli cable to support the aged and infirm, and thereby afford employment to the poor, and that that fund might he raised out of church property, and a tax upon absen tees. The Hon. Member also presented petitions from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the parish of Churchtown 3nd other parishes in the diocese of Cloyne against the grant to the Kildare-street Society. Nit.. HUN presented a petition Thom some place in Lancashire praying fur annual Parliaments, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and a repeal of the Corn Laws. The I-ion. Member also presented a petition horn the in habitants of Stockport, for universal suffrage and annual Parliaments. Captain GORDON, presented a petition from the shipowners of Dundalk, against the tax on marine insurances. . Also a petition from Glasgow and its neigh bourhood, amongst whom were twenty-eight ministers, one hundred and eleven elders, and a number of other subscribers of respectability, against the grant by Govern- ment to Mtynootb College. The petition being read, Mr. O'CONNELL asked whether its gross and unmiti gat< d indecency in describing the Roman Catholic religion as ' 6 an idolatrous and anti-christian system," was re spectable to that House, and whether it should be received. Mr. FERGUSSON rejoiced that there were now few who would put their names to a petition like the pre+ent ; and he trusted th•tt few would be found in that House to sanction it. In place of withdrawing this grant by Government to the Maynnoth Institution no distinction ought to be made between Protestants and Roman Catholics ; the latter should enjoy every pri • vileee, and their education as Roman Catholics ought to be protected, subject only to these restrictions of the the Bill for imparting to them the rights and pri vileges of British subjects. He regretted much that the petition bad come from Glasgow; it wae, he felt assured, inconsistent with all that was liberal, enlightened, and charitable in that part of the country. Lord MILTON was anxious to make peace between the different parties rather than to enter into those feelings of indignation which had already been expressed. He would beseech the Hon. Member (Capt. G.) to give the petition his most sober and Christian consideration, and would entreat him to consider whether the expressions it contained were not a great deal more consistent with sectarian zeal than with Christian charity.— It would not conduce to the peace, either civil or reli gious, of the country, to encourage the promulgation of sectarian opinions. Mr. DIXON said that be participated in the feelings which had been expressed regarding the petition by the Noble Lord (Milton) who had just sat down. and he would take the sense of the House, whether the petition should be brought np. Sir GEORGE CLERK said it would be the first time that the House had ever been called upon to reject a petition merely because the individuals differed upon speculative opinions with the great majority of that House. After a few word.; from Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM :Ind Sir R. Nous, _ . . Mr. O'CONNELL said he put the whole matter ❑pon the question whether it was expressed respectfully to that House. Would it be civil and re.pectful to address him, and say that his religion was complete idolatry. It was as little idolatrous as the religion of the Hon. Member for Oxford, and ought to he respected as much in that House. It was the religion of at least one-third of the British empire, and was it therefore respectful to upwards of three-fourths of the Christian inhabitants of the empire, to call them idolaters? Would it not be disrespectful in a Roman Catholic to call a Protestant a heretic? He considered the grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynnoth as legitimate a sub ject of petition as any other, but those petitions ought to he expressed respectfully to the House. Mr. HUME said he had read the petition, and the only feeling it excited in his mind was that of pity and regret that there should have been so many people found in Scotland to express ouch sentiments as were uttered by the petition. But what did it avail?—(Hear.) Would it affect him if any man called him an idolator or enthu,iast? —(Hear, hear.) So long as people kept their hands off his person, he cared not a single pin what they said.—(Cheers.) The petition was worded in a respectful manner as regarded the House, and he entertained not a doubt that the opinions it expres.ed were sincere. He hoped the Hon. Member, under such circumstances, who sat near him, would not think of rejecting this petition. If such a petition were to be rejected, it would be as much as to say no petition should hereafter he received but such as in the discretion of the few who sat in that House ought to he presented. Every man had a right, especially in these times of liberty, to express his opinions, and the House undoubtedly ought to receive the petition. Lord ALTHORP regretted, as much as say man could regret, the language that had been used by the peti tioners ; but he had always laid it down as a rule that if petitions were respectfully worded, they ought to be re ceived. When petitions contained language reflecting upon individuals, or upon any sect or party (which this petition certainly did), he thought it perfectly right that such a petition ought to go no further than merely to be laid on the table. He (Lord Althorp) would therefore give his sanction to the petition being laid on the table, hut he should certainly object to its being printed, should the Hon. Member propose that it should be printed. Mr. WYSE said that he should object to any course of rejection being taken on this occasion, which might hereafter prove to he a precedent. The times were too free and enlightened to regard whatever might be said by any person or persons respecting their religious tenets. He thought it quite right that every individual's opinion should be received in that House, when it was presented to the House in respectful language, therefore he hoped the peti tions would not only be received, but be printed. If the House attempted in this instance to controul the expres sion of opinion, there was no knowing where the conse quences would end. Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL hoped the House would recollect that a few nights ago a petition was rejected, presented, he believed, by the Hon. Member for Preston, from Stockport, which certainly was worded in much more respectful terms than was the present petition. Lord MANDEVILLE considered that, constituted as the House and society now were, this petition could not safely be rejected. He for one, as a Protestant, could certainly not give his support to this grant, which was to be made for the purpose of disseminating principles that he in his conscience believed to be erroneous. Mr. KENNEDY regretted that individuals so re spectable, Ministers of religion, and men of education, should express such opinions as these petitioners had, and object to the grant at a time when the Protestant inha• bitants of Ireland bad so misconducted themselves. He deeply lamented the annual scenes which took place in Ireland produced by the Orange Protestants, from which the most calamitous results flowed, and he also lamented that individuals should he found to hurry the people on to such conduct- He was led to make these remarks from having been absent during the discussion of last night upon this subject, to which he intended on some future occasion to call the serious attention of this House. After a few words from Mr. LEFRoY, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said the question was not whether the grant should he voted or not, but whether the petition should be received. The petition had evi dently calumniated the religion of a large number of persons, and it was impossible but to believe that that insult had been * intended. The Hon. Baronet then ob served that he had a petition, which he intended to pre sent on the first opportunity, from the Rev. R. Taylor, who was under a severe sentence in Horsenaonger-lane for uttering words insulting to our religion, and if the facts in it were true, they would require the serious Interposition of the House. The Hon. Baronet suggested that the petition should be withdrawn. The petition was read and laid on the table. Captain GORDON, in rising to move that the petition he printed, bad to perform a sacred duty.—(Laughter.) It was admitted on all hands that the petition was worded in respectful language.—(No, no.) So that if there was any fault found with the petitioners, it was for having expressed their opinion as Ministers of religion on a sacred subject. Lord MANDEVILLE seconded the motion, that the petition be printed. ' Mr. JOHN WOOD said, that this petition came from the Presbyterians of Scotland, whose ancestors in Crom well's time spoke of the Episcopalians as persons who wore the rags of the Scarlet Whore of Babylon. Now he would ask the Hon. Member for Dundalk, whether he would have presented this petition, if, instead of spending their poor, pitiful, miserable spit e on t h e Roman spending their they had, after the manner of their ancestors, - vented it on those who wore the rage of the Scarlet Whore of 1 Babylon.—(Cheers and laughter.) Sir JOHN BOURKE objected to the motion for print ing the petition. Mr. VESEY FITZGERALD did net object to the reception of the petition, but be should vote against the printing it. He would not lend himself, nor should the House, in his opinion, lend itself to casting odium on any religion. If they consented to printing that petition, it would show to every man a ready way by which he might !cal out censure. After a few words from Sir G. WARAENDER and Sir G. CLERK, Sir ROBERT PEEL would have voted for the recep tion of the petition had the House come to any division on that question, because be thought in general that all peti tions which did not contain sentiments calculated to lower the dignity of that House ought to he received ; but the question of printing the petition was of a totally different nature. It was a question of expediency. He thought. the House in general acted unwisely in printing so many petitions, and as he knew that they were not much read, could not conceive a more useless waste of the public money. The only excuse for it was, that it tended to save the public time by preventing the necessity for read ing the petitions. In general, he thought the cost of printing petitions greatly preponderated over the good. I n this particular petition there were some words which he regretted had been used. That a similar petition had for merly been printed was not a precedent that ought to guide the House in printing this. The petition imputed idolatrous worship to seven millions of our fellow subjects, and should it he printed, would not the seven millions have a right to be heard by counter petitions? He should oppose the printing of the petition, therefore, as inexpedient. Mr. STANLEY concurred entirely in what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet. He would not oppose the reception of the petition, but it would be most unjust to a large part of his Majesty's subjects to allow it to be printed. Mr. O'CONNELL could scarcely regret that the peti tion had been presented ; for any unpleasant feeling which might have been excited by the petition itself had been fully allayed by what had passed in the discusion.—(Hear.) .•.• It Was ft:om discovering the nature of the former petition alluded to by the Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) from the votes, that he had asked the Hon. Member who presented the petition if he had read it ; and the lion. Member re plied that he had, and assented to every word of it. As to the principles on which the Hon. Member defended and vindicated himself, they were not novel, .for they had been carried into effect by the Inquisition in Spain and Italy. —(Cheers, and a laugh.) Lord MANDEVILLE explained. Mr. HUNT disclaimed the principle, that Members were responsible for the sentiments of the petitions they presented.—(Loud calls for question.) Captain GORDON said, however willing to defer to the opinions of Hon. and Right lion. Members, he bad been placed, by the turn the discussion had taken, at the post of duty, and there he would remain. —(The Hon. Member was proceeding to address the House, but was met by loud cries of " spoke, spoke !" from all sides of the House. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but none took place.) Motion rejected without a division. JURY LAWS.—IRELAND. Mr. O'CONNELL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the Jury Laws of Ireland. His only object was to assimilate the laws of the two countries ; and, as the principle of the Bill met, he believed, with the sanction of his Majesty's Government, he would only submit his motion, without any further observations. Mr. STANLEY seconded the motion. He should be happy on all occasions to avail himself of the assistance of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, particularly in any plans connected with the laws, with which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was so well acquainted.—Leave given to bring in the Bill. CLAIMS OF BRITISH MERCHANTS ON THE BRAZILS. Mr. DICKSON rose to call the attention of the House to a case of hardship committed on British subjects, un paralleled, be believed, in our history. In 1827, the Bra zilian squadron, which was blockading the river Plate, had seized a great number of English vessels in a most unau thorized manner. The Brazilians bad no right to cap ture them, and the British Government had subsequently sent Lord Ponsonby to the Brazils to demand reparation, but no reparation had yet been given. When the mer chants saw this, and took all the circumstances into their consideration, they had some reason to believe that the Government had neglected their interests. He would take the liberty, therefore, of stating the circumstances to the House. The first vessel be would mention was the George, [The convers , ition amongst Members here inter rupted the Hon. Member, and he requested such of then as had private business to talk over to retire to some of the many convenient rooms with which the House was provided.] The first vessel he would refer to was the George, which sailed from Liverpool, with orders only to go into Buenos Ayres, if it were not blockaded. The Captain showed his instructions to the Brazilian Admiral, but in spite of that the vessel was seized and condemned by a Brazilian Court. To show the impropriety of that condemnation, he could have no better authority than that of an English Judge. An action was brought in the Court of_ Common Picas to re. cover the policy of insurance, and on that occasion the Judge declared that the vessel had been condemned on no sufficient ground. The next case was that of two vessels bound to Buenos Ayres, which were seized without any cause and condemned, and no reparation could ever be ob tamped. There were two other vessels, which constituted the most flagitious case he had ever heard of. These were the Hellespont and Unicorn, with cargoes valued at 100,0001., which were seized under the direction of the Brazilian Admiral, and adjudged to be good prizes by a petty Court. They were put up to sale, and sold by the Judge, contrary to the law of nations, and contrary to the law of Brazil—for the law of that country declared, that no prize should be finally condemned and sold under the decision of a petty Court, nor unless an appeal bad been made to a superior Court. In this cal* the Brazilian, though quite wrong, would not acknowledge that the Admiral had overstepped his authority. Another case was that of the Nestor, which had lett Brazil with a cargo for the coast of America, and had been carried into Buenos Ayres by a privateer of that place. She was afterwards liberated, and then seized by the Brazilian Admiral, on the pretence that the Captain of the pri vateer had altered the ownership. She was sent to Monte- Video, and the case was thought so flagrant, that the naval Commander on that station gave orders to recapture her, and she was recaptured by a British frigate, under the guns of the Brazilian squadron. It might have been expected that this action would have received the approbation of the authorities at home ; but quite the contrary ; orders had been sent out to restore the vessel to the Brazilians, and the officer was reprimanded. He complained of the British Government for not having explicitly demanded satisfaction for its subjects. The French and American Governments paid more attention to the interests of their subjects ; and it was not till those Governments had obtained reparation that the British Government thought of taking any steps at all to protect its own subjects. Lord Ponsonby was sent out in 1828, and a memorial, or convention, had been agreed to in July 1829. It was called a stringent memorial ; but no man could justly call that a stringent memorial or measure, which only went to make the Bra zilians disgorge a par: of the plunder. Since 1829 nothing, however, had been done. There was complete inaction on both sides. The Hon. Member then entered into a state ment to show that part of the delay had been occasioned by the insincerity of the Brazilian Government and the Commissioners which it had appointed to settle these claims. The Hon.jMember concluded by moving a A n humble address to his Majesty, praying that his majesty would be pleased to order to be laid before the House copies of all communications between the Foreign Office and the Brazilian Legation at Rio Janeiro, in relation to the claims of British subjects for an indemnification for ships cap tured from them in 1826 and 1827. Also, copies of all communications relative to the same subject from the British authorities at Monte Video and Buenos Ayres." Lord ALTHORP said the House must see, from the terms of the motion, that it was impossible he should ac cede to it. It was evident from the terms that negocia• times were at this moment going on. The papers moved for related to that negociation, and embraced the instruc tions given to those who were carrying on the negociation. It would be very inconvenient to grant the papers, and contrary to the course the House always pursued on such occasions. Mr. HUME thou,ght that the Noble Lord had not dealt with the question as the House and the country expected. Claims had been made on the Brazilian Government for more than five years—those claims amounted to upwards of half a million of money, and they were not yet settled, nor in a fair way to be settled. At the same time the Government of the Brazils had settled the claims of the Americans and the French, because they were properly enforced. The Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had that day taken his seat in Par liament, and who knew that this motion was to be brought forward, was wanting in respect to the House, he thought, by not attending in his place. He ought to have been there to explain the conduct of the Government. He con cluded by supporting the motion. After a few words from Lord Althorp, Mr. Wranghaw, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Lord J. Russell, and Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. DICKSON conserved to withdraw his motion, but begged to ask if the orders to make reprisals, which L bad been issued by the late Government, had been with- ? Lord ALTHORP assured him that no means would he legit untried to procure justice for the sufferers. The motion was then withdrawn. Lord J. RUSSELL begged of the Hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) to withdraw his motion respect ing the borough of Liverpool, and suffer the Committee on the Reform Bill to proceed. Mr. BENETT said, that although he had been assailed by the public press without the doors of the House, and the Hon. Member for Preston within, as not being sincere in his desire to bring this motion under the consideratio❑ of the House, he would yet give room for the Reform Bill, and postpone it, on the understanding that he was to have free opportunity to introduce the question that day week, and that no writ for the borough of Liverpool should be previously issued. This proposition was agreed to by his Majesty's Mini • seers, and the motion was postponed accordingly. REFORM BILL. On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the House then resolved itself into Committee on this Bill. Mr. G. BANKES took the opportunity of presenting a petition from Great Beilw in, in Wiltshire, which stated that, by the census of 1821, the inhabitants were only numbered at 1,928, while, by that of 1831, they were numbered at 2,191, and prayed that their case might be taken into the consideration of the House. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the principle on which Ministers proceeded was a right one, he contended that this borough was entitled, by their own doctrines, to a representation. Mr. MACKINNON then moved an instruction to the Committee, ilech.ring that the boroughs in the Schedules A and B, should be considered in reference to the last census (1831), and not to the census of 1821. The Hon. Member objected to taking the census in 1821, as it would give the Bill a retrospective effect, and denied that there was any partiality in the census of 1831. Mr. CRESSET PELHAM seconded the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL did not think it necessary to say many words on the subject. The Bill had now been four days in Committee—some progress had been made, and he accordingly considered the motion came too late. He reminded the House, that when the Bill was first intro duced, the latest true document whereon they could pro ceed, was the census of 1821 ; and he observed, that if Ministers took the census of 1831, they should proceed upon a new basis; because it was not the precise number of two thousand inhabitants to which they addressed their attention, but to the great principle which they wished to establish. He acknowledged that the population of some boroughs had increased since 1821, while that of others had diminished. But this, be contended, afforded no reason why they should change the plan on which they had determined to proceed. If they wok the census of 1531, they should proceed on a new basis ; but the result would be still the same. The census of 1821, too, was desirable; because, unlike that of 1831, it had been taken without any view to the possible consequences. Mr. G. BANKES hosed that many Hon. Members who supported the Noble Lord generally, would vote against him on the present occasion. —(Oh, oh, and laughter.) He observed, these exclamations were rather unusual in that House—it was not unusual, however, with the Hon. Member for Sussex to endeavour, by such pro ceedings, to prevent Members from honestly and in dependently discharging their duty. The question, he contended, had been brought forward at a proper time; it was a new one, and well worthy the consideration of the Committee. lie would not he a party to vexatious delay ; but he would use his best endeavours to amend the Bill, thinking, with the Noble Lord (Russell), that if the people of England were to have a new Constitution, they were entitled to the best the House could give them. He did not consider that any Hon. Member, wheever pledge lie might have given to support the general principle of the Bill, could be hound by that pledge to oppose the present proposition; for by that proposition the principle of the Bill was in no way affected. The instance of Great Bri tain was in itself sufficient to show the justice of taking the present census, inste id of the census of 1821, as the basis of the Bill. In that, and in every other place in which burgage tenure formed the right of voting, the Bill, as at present framed, would disfranchise a considerable number of the labouring classes. Great Bedwin was one of the most ancient boroughs in the kingdom. It had ex isted from the time of Edward 1., and the antiquarian learn ing of the Noble Lord should induce him on that ground to respect a place which had returned at various periods many distinguished individuals to that House, and had ne ver been subject to any imputation of improper conduct. He entreated young Members to refer to the opinions of all the great men of former days, who had uniformly opposed the disfranchisement of any borough, unless due cause were shown for the step. Such was the doctrine main tained by Mr. Fox in the cases of Shoreham and Ayles bury, and up to the latest period of his life. Mr. Pitt, too, although he supported the right of Parliament to dis franchise any borough, did so on grounds very different from those which were alleged at the present day. Mr. Pitt always contended that cases of disfranchi,etrient should be accompanied by compensation.—(A loud and solitary cry of " Hear.") He was really at a loss to know why he had received the honour of this notice from the Worthy Alderman, except it were to show that the Worthy Alder man was in the House, and that he was not asleep : and that his (Mr. Bankes's) speech had not produced upon the Worthy Alderman the " sudorific" effect—(A laugh)— which the Worthy Alderman had complained of the other evening in the speech of tin lion. and Learned Gentleman. The appeal which lie (Mr. Bankes) had been making was to all those who had not pledged themselves to their con stituents to a degree which, in his opinion, was unconsti tution4l.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Of those he was willing to believe that the Worthy Alderman was one. He had a great respect for the Worthy Alderman's constituents, for their intelligence, and for their growth in wealth and splendour. But something of a spirit of despotism had grown up with that wealth and intelligence, which he was astonished to observe, and which lie was not less astonished to find submitted to.—(Hear, hear.) He repeated, he would not yield even to the Wcrthy Alderman himself in respect for the citizens of London. At many glorious pe riods of our history they had taken a glorious position. But there wan something even in the greatness and gene rosity of their character which sometimes hurried them farther than they ought to go. To that he attributed their requiring such pledges from their representatives as no Member of Parliament ought to he called upon to give. He had already observed, that there had been great and glorious periods of our history, at which the citizens of London had distinguished themselves ; but there had been other periods at which they had been hurried too far by the warmth of the moment. For instance, a short time before the establishment of the Commonwealth a petition had been signed by ten thousand of the citizens of London, in the carriage with him , ob served to him, " How spraying h f e t fr e ' r: o w u t a d h r , e , d s s t tlle aboliti on cheers. of citizens Cromwell'sothf eB London ench secretary,roe ef Bishops. ei ve w o CromwellTw ea n s popu lar you are !—how highly you are respected !" " My good friend," answered the Protector, " these worthy citizens would shout just as loudly if you and I were going up Hol born-hill, on our way to Tyburn, to be hanged.".—(A laugh.) And so it was. For, ten years afterwards, the restoration of Charles the Second was hailed with accla mations by the citizens of London, who once more became " his Majesty's most loyal and faithful subjects."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by again strongly recommending the adoption of the census of the present day. Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN, after the notice which the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle had been pleased to take of him, should be wanting in gratitude if he did not say a few words. The cry of " Hear !" which had drawn upon him the Hon. Member's attention, was elicited by observing that the Hon. Member's object was compensa tion to the disfranchised boroughs.—(No, no, no.) Hon. Gentlemen might call out "No, no," but that was evi dently the object at which the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle was driving. This interruption of his had pro duced from the Hon. Member for Corfe Castle a compli ment to the citizens of London, whom, however, before he sat down, he charged with inconsistency. Wearied as he was with the discussion, and anxious to go into the Corn. mittee—for he was persuaded that every man of common intelligence must thoroughly understand the principle of the Bill without any further observations—he begged leave to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the lion. Gentleman. Did that lion. Gentleman mean to say that the various Members of counties and great cities, who supported the Bill, were fettered —that they were not free ? What was the coinmon usage of every candi date at every general election ? Did he not in his cir culars and advertisements pledge himself to the support of certain opinions and measures ? No man living could charge him (Mr. Alderman Waithman) with having got into the House upon such a pledge as that which th e lion. Member had described. At his election he had declared himself the friend of Reform, and on that principle he had triumphed. At the last election, therefore, any pledge was unnecessary. It was necessary, however, that the electors throughout the whole kingdom should understand the sentiments of those whom they chose as their rep re sen t a tives. He begged to ask whether it was becoming or decent in a Member for a rotten borough to say that Members for counties and great cities came to that House in fetters ?—(Hear, hear.) Were Members for rotten boroughs not in fetters ? Did they come to that House free from pledges?—(Hear.) Had the Members for Cot ton, for Boroughbridge, for Marlborough. given A o pledges? An Hon. Colleague of his had been called to account by his constituents, and properly, _ for a vote of his in that House. But if the Member of any of those boroughs to which he had alluded were to come to that House and vote for the Bill, would not the proprietor of that borough call such Member to account for his conduct ; and would 'hat Member continue to represent the borough after such an open defiance of the proprietor ? For himself, he had voted on the eight memorable divisions of last Wednesday morn ing ; and if he had sacrificed his life on that and the thing were to do over again, he -would do it.— (A laugh.) When the Hon. fslember for Corfe Cas , le talked of compensation, what did he mean ? Did he mean to give compensation to electors who were ready to vote for they knew not whom ? No. He meant compens.r_ tion to the slave-owners—to the borough proprietor , —to the men who speculated on public rights, and endeavoured to convert them into public property.—(Hoar, heAr.) Why did those persons want compensation ? Because they obtained undue advantages by their present influence, of which the Bill would deprive them. Their pretensions were those of insolence and arrogance. Mr. BANKES said, the Hon:Alderman had asked him what he meant by compensation. If the Hon. Alderman had not interrupted him in his observations on that sub ject, he would have heard him say, that compensation tea , wholly out of the question in the present ease. He trusted, if farther vexatious delays were attempted, that the House would meet at ten o'clock in the morning, to accelerate• the progress of the measure. Lord GEORGE LENNOX warmly denied that he en tered the House under any fetters. He had been returned by the unbought votes of the freeholders of the county of Sussex ; the Hon. Member had been returned by the bought votes of the burgesses of Corfe Castle. Whenever the Hon. Member made such attacks upon him, he would repel them with the indignation they deserved. Although he was not fettered, the Hon. Member was ; and he had that day, in Pall-mall, rivetted his fetters more closely than or: his election. Lord ALTHORP observed. that if such irrelevant to pics were introduced into the discussion, it would be im possible for the House to proceed effectually with the Bill. His Noble Friend had already most distinctly stated the motives which had induced the authors of the Bill to pre fer as its basis the population returns of 1821 to those which were now in preparation. As to the number of two thousand, they bad adopted that as a general guide, and to prevent the suspicion of p ►rtiality ; but a slight ad dition to, or diminution of that- number, would make en difference in the principle of the measure. After a few words from Mr. RICE TREVOR, and Mr. PRAM), the House divided— For the motion 169 Against it Majority for Ministers . _ . . On our return to the Gallery, we found the House in Contmittee on the Reform Bill, Mr. BERNAL being in the Chair. On the question being put, that the borough of Appleby stand part of the clause, Lord MAITL tND said, that so much had been already stated on the subject of this borough, that he would not trouble the House with many observations on the question beyond those which had been slightly touched on in the course of the former discussions. In the borough of Ap pleby the right of voting, was by burgage tenure, and the borough extended over a considerable portion of the two parishes of Appleby St. Lawrence, and Appleby St. Mi chael. The jurisdiction of the Mayor and Corporation being, however, acknowledged in the whole of the two parishes, and all licenses granted under their authority; with the power to prove these facts to the satisfaction of the House, and with the knowledge that the population of these two parishes amounts to some hundreds over the line of disfranchisement, he thought he was doing his duty to the House and to the inhabitants of the borough by moving that Appleby be taken out of Schedule A, and placed in Schedule B. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was of opinion he should he able to satisfy the House that the borough of Appleby had not been unfairly treated, by being placed in schedule A rather than in schedule B. The Government had endea voured to render the line they felt it necessary to draw as fair as possible ; but there were some boroughs in which it happened that the borough and the parish wereso placed together, they found themselves unable to adhere rigidly to their original intentions. During the last Parliament it was represented to them, for instance, that the Mem bers for the borough of Buckingham were Members also for the p.rish in which Buckingham is situated ; and they, therefore, found it necessary to admit the population of the parish to be included. So also, upon inquiry, it was found that Taniworth, and one or two other places, could plead the same ground of exception, and their claims were allowed. It was extremely difficult, the House must see, to draw a perfect line ; but there was a material dif ference between the ease of a borouzh which formed the principal p art of a parish, like Buckingham, and a bo rough which extended into two parishes, like Appleby.— (Hear, hear.) The House would at once see that there was a material distinction in the preservation of the line between a borough which comprised two parishes, and a borough which extended into two parishes. Wherever any great abuse of the principle could be pointed out, the Government were anxious to acl.now ledge and rectify it ; but he thought the House would agree with him, when they heard the real facts of the case, that Appleby was not entitled to he excepted. If he was rightly informed, the state of Ap pleby was this the burgh extended into two parishes— one part of it was composed of a portion, but not of the whole, of St. Lawrence, and the other extended into St. Michael's, otherwise Bondgate, a very large parish, going in one direction from the borough seven or eight miles, and being altogether 15 miles long.--( Hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, it would be a very great abuse of the principle on which they proceeded, if they permitted a borough of this kind to claim to be excepted on account of the parish in a part of which it happened to be situated, and joining as it did a small part of one, and not comprising within its boundaries the whole of the other. As early as last January the Mayor of Appleby, being applied to by the Government to answer questions with respect to the burgh, wrote a reply to the Secretary of State to say that " the return of 1821 did not state the population of the parishe , , but of the burgh, some part of which extended over the parish of St. Michael, and the remainder of which was in St. Lawrence ; but as the boundaries had not been perambulated in the memory of man, it was not in hi% power to state positively what they were." It would be found, from the returns of 1821, that the population of that part of the borough which was in St. Lawrence amounted to 824, whil e Scareaby or St. Michael's had 108, making 932 ; and by returns in the papers laid on the table, it appeared that the population of the borough in St. Lawrence was 551, and in St. Michael's, or Bondgate, 203, making 1,504 ; and it appeared, also, that the county gaol was situated in the borough ; and that there were in it eighteen prisoners. He did not think it neces sary to make any allusion to the number of ten-pound houkeholders which were to be found in the borough, be cause it was not expedient to take them into account, in considering the situation of a borough which did not come within that lints of population they conceived requisite to establish a qualification for the enjoyment of the elective franchise. an y gonaiod rati inhabitants te e ntd d tois i s d epho, n a f da t pl , however, twooe of v n e te r hN , oe think l i f mden decision, e t so h i d,n t uir A gaA p saig p e t l ell e hi b tel e y wnrmiu h gr a inei d t: and the borough itself had been for a long time a nomina tion on it o s the other House of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) No hardship, therefore, could be done, except to those two in dividuals; and they would merely suffer in being deprived of a right which they ought never to have enjoyed— (Hear, hear)—the borough itself being, from its size, ex cluded from claiming exemption from disfranchisement. He conceived, therefore, from what he bad stated, that the justice of the case had been fully proved, and that as no serious doubt could be entertained with respect to the po pulation of the borough, he hoped the Committee would require no further evidence to declare that Appleby must stand part of the clause.—(Hear.) Mr. CROKER said, there was one expression fell from the Noble Lord in the course of his speech which gave him the greatest satisfaction. The word was " jos tice,"—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord appealed to the justice of the case.--(Hear, hear.) That appeal be se conded most cordially; and he would say more, that if any gentleman in that House had a doubt of the justice of the claims of Appleby, he did not lay claim to his vote. —(Hear, hear.) He rested on the justice of the case, and not on its expediency or its policy. Before, however, he touched on the question of Appleby, he entreated the Noble Lord's attention to a question of some importance which he wished to put to him. The population returns bsa : n i ol i : l i n o s a i o pu g s n r a t y d e rh r i returnsJi ah a t n l , ndh jet Sb'e n veS : Pg i E , called rose,ed nbtuitt of 1831 were most valuable, because they exhibited the e population r of t, u tT t iliploeesrbecoeriroyeuitnuggrhn%tve and e rteli populationparishesenot, i,o woef d v distinct froth con trary to the general rule, to he lumped together as borough icr e hi d Th t l o i satn as ind k g,u,, t ,ih le kte N dw o tbisilieethLpe(o)prddiui,,ltiaiftnihocetni,p)onof distinction. p several on,t an Members swer.” on Thet e Noble Lord, however, said, in a low tone, that he knew nothing about Caine except what he found in the papers on the table, which were signed by a person of whom h knew nothing. Those papers, he believed, were placed there on the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself. Mr. CROKER was surprised to hear that the Nob! e Lord had no information on this subject, and did not know the name of the person who signed the return, although he bad particularly directed the Noble Lord's attention to the subject. if the Noble Lord had not directed his attention to Caine after it had been so particularly called to it, why, in the name of justice, was be an learned on the sub ject of Appleby ?—(Cheers.) Why was the Noble Lord able to define to them the boundaries of St. Michael and St. Lawrence, and to point out the situation of the county gaol in the borough of Appleby, and yet avow himself in utter ignorance of any thing connected with the much stioned borough of Caine.—(Hear, hear-) Lord JOHN RUSSELL made na inquiries with re spect to any of the boroughs He took the population as he found it in the returns ; and if he possessed any in formation on the subject of Appleby, it was derived from the statements furnished at the request of the Hon. Mem ber oppre.ite Mr. CROKER observed, that the Noble Lord's candid and just friends on the other side had counselled him not to give any reply to his question, and yet the Noble Lord had already volunteered, and left the matter jnst as he found it. After expressing an opinion that the course pursued with respect to Caine was the result of gross ignorance, or of blind partiality, the Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that speaking in all honour and sincerity—(Cheers from the Ministerialists)—did the other side object to the language of honour and sincerity?—(Cheers from the Op position.) He would say again, speaking in honour and sincerity, that he believed the Noble Lord had taken his line with respect to Appleby in utter ignorance of the real state of the case.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that the Noble Lord had been misled by the mention of the word Bondgate, and that he had no idea, when he saw Bondgate mentioned in the return in connection with Appleby, that under that nn ord lurked the parish of St. Michael's. (Hear, hear.) This was in. Iced evident, front the course adopted throughout by the Noble Lord with reference to Appleby. When the Noble Lord brought in the first Bill, he stated the population of the boroughs to be disfran chised, and among others he named Appleby as having a population of eight hundred and twenty-four persons.--- Now, this was exactly the number of persons inhabitants of the borough in one parish, the population residing in the other—that is, Bondgate St. Micha 1 1 .—bring altogether passed over.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, indeed, admitted himself thst he had passed over the other part, under the name of Bondgate ; for although he then stated the population to be eight hundred and twenty-four, he now admitted the population of the other part to be near four hundred. There was, however, another poin►, of much greater importance, connected with the course which I ad been } ursued tlwards the borough of Appleby. In the census of 1811, the population was classed according to towns and boroughs. In the census of 1821, it was taken arc ,rdirg t r parishes. Now, if the Noble Lord, when he selected the borough of Appleby for disfranchisement, had taken the trouble to turn to the population returns of 1811, he would have found the fol lowing entry :—" Appleby borough—Parish of St. Law rence, Parish of St. Michael's;" and then followed a re turn of population of these parishes, stated together under the held of Appleby—and, would the House believe in the year 1811 the population was large enough to carry the ho: ough far beyond the Noble Lord's line of disfrav chi•ement.—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord resisted every attempt to advance towards the population of the pt esent day ; he insisted on taking the returns of ten years back ; and how was it, then, when he found himself at fault with respect to the returns of 1821, that be never thought of looking hack to those of 1811 ?—(llear.) But the Noble Lord, to remedy these evils, had recourse to a, riding commission—did lie forget that when he spoke Of the seven miles' distance ? It was possible the riding maw missioners might have exercise enough, for he believed iS some of the boroughs there would lie little hope of cony pleting them in a d stance short of ten or fifteen miles..." (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had called for this i n fors, 'nation, and now he had obtained it what did it shoo' Why, the Noble Lord's inconsistency. The borough of Malmesbury stood originally in the schedule A ; did not happen to have the requisite number of popular ' tion, because the borough was separated in the re" turn from the parish. It was at first returned ° having a population of 1,300. The new returns, bole, ever, showed that both Appleby and Malmesbury execede 2,000. What was done by the Noble Lord upon this Did he reject Malinesbury ? Oh no! He granted th e favour to Malmesbury, which, under the very same cite cutestanees, at the very same time, and upon the vet ) same prineiplus, he retuned to Appleby.—(Hear, bear .) Then there was the borough of Oakhampton ; that 'O 4 stated in the return as having 1,900 inhabitants, but t ° the new papers there was appended a note, stating tII BC the entire parish contained 2,023 inhabitants. Upon th at ", information the borough of Oakhampton was transferr ed from Schedule A to Schedule B, because it had twenty' three inhabitants over the requisite number; while Ar pleby, which had 600 more than the required number' ' was utterly banished frrin the number of represented bo: roughs.—(Hear, hear.) There was another case strong° even than this; it was the case of a borough which kept in all the vigour Of its elective franchise, and Yr . which, if justice was done, would lie transferred to the Schedule A ; and Appleby must be placed in Schedule 1 3 , i It was the borough of Horsham. He particularly call ed the attention of the House to the case of this boroug b j while he informed them that Horsham, which preserv c : its number of Members, was not en ti t l e d t o th a t p r ivileg e in fact, and was only in a situation to retain it by anoth; misapplication of the same rule by w hi c h A pp l e by W i lt a disfranchised. The Noble Lord h a d sa id t h a t h e tvis i t ,' lay down the rule, and th a t h e s h ou ld b e to ld what wets the exceptions. Yes, he s h ou ld b e to ld, hut he should be '', told from that side of th e House.-.-( Hear.) In the cen o A of 1821, the bor o u g h an d par i s h of Horsham were return e , as containing 4,570 members. Oh, that is excellent' thought the Noble Lord ; but then, when he thought s ° ' he omitted to notice what was stated in a little note or pended to the return—namely, that the parish of Horshl: in the population r e t urn s of 1811, wa s r e t urne d as con§i it o ing of three separ a te di v i s i ons . Th a t note oug ht t o bag excited the Noble Lord's attention, and especially he °ago to have co ns id ere d th a t, as H ors h am was k ept b eyon d l b , line by its thr ee di v i s i ons , A pp l e b y oug h t t o b e a ll o wed t same advantage with its two parishes.—(Hear, he'd), This was the return in 1811 :—" Horsham, the 11011 10 part, 1,774 inhabitants—( Hear, hear)—and then other divisions, the northern part containing 1,100 in t a bitants, and the southern part 930, making altogetl -3,800 inhabitants."—(lbAr, hear.) Would any one 0 him that this was a case to be favourably distinguiebed ar Via' that of Appleby? In the one and in the other the pol' u y t tion of the borough was less than 2,000 ; yet Horshanly to have its two Members, while Appl e by was to be n'l l° lo o disfranchised. The return want on to say, " The iner e be of the population in this parish is to b e attr ib u t e d to t r , enclosure of 800 acres of w a ste l an d i n t h e ne iglit' ° %, hood." That waste land was not part of the boro u g o i so that that excuse could not b e set up in fs C° i yi of Horsham ; and it was evident, that if the distance or the parish from the borough of Appleby was a reasoll. b o the disfranchisement of that borough, the distance of 1.,00 waste land from the borough of Horsham was a re a ;io why its population should not be taken into the acC oun', order to secure to that borough the possession of its riec t) tive franchise. What could be said to this by those b o lt were pledged to support the whole Bill, and the A b le mistakes of the Bill ? The case was still more retnarl ai dg b in the instance of the borough of Morpeth. That bore ;tO, was at first placed in the schedule B. The popub ltl y , according to the census of 1821, was the line, the 1l S t ill, ma nthine line, that was t o govern th e N o bl e L or d. ' l e g , however, there were mistak es , an d th ese we r e to be - 0 0 e re cted ; hut these mistakes could only be corrected 0° it) side of the line, not on the other. By throwir t g r e the parish in the case of Morpeth, though it wa g 1 fused to be throw n i n , i n t h e case o f A p pl e by, the P e p lotion of Morpeth was increased to 4,130, and remai t ' e le bi the full enjoyment of its elective franchise ; while APP or e being in precisely the same situation, and with 500 inhabitants than Morpeth, was to he utterly disfrane b ' h ill t —(Hear, hear.) M e n w e re som e times put to saki when they were called on for money they could not 'd i d and so they were when they were called on for r e ason', Or d' could not give. In that situation was the Noble '' o ; Surely he would not think of telling Appleby that it Seger! mere nomination borough, the property of boroughtn ° t tc, —all boroughmongers ; or if he did, would he gi r ,_ g same answer to Tavistock.—(Ch eers .) Why bad e le l, made the same allusion to the b oroug h o f Calne--vi l la t° he not made it to every borough in schedule B, %leo ° , several other borough s tint in army schedule at all ?--I . , o rd' hear.) This cond uc t was not wort h y o f t h e Noble e ft°: the more especially it was not worthy of him as b ea ts fussed to destr o y tlre old burgage tenures, and to cr per fresh franchise of the extensive kind—too extensiv e 'dl e4 3 haps—as in some instances he must travel s even r o ci from the bo roug h to get i t i nto operat i on .—(g ra ;W e laughter.) Th e N o bl e L or d h a d d ea l t w i t h different in a different manner, upon the same circumstance:', tb°, put one bor oug h i nto sche d u l e B , an d t h oug h preei' • t same principl e an d t h e same c i rcumstances apple" to t ,' po h os e boroughs, he continued them in schedule A. r r to a t said, that b ecause t h e sane f acts were applic- ab ' e d t`'htr borough of Appleby, therefore he would not exten borougl exp were u such a would he cod to *hum tively ca situatioi Mr: Ver nan, T he re vt siqe,