The Sun. — London, England, 1832-05-24 00:00:00

was, by law, as much bound to pay them as he was beu►ytl to pay his rent. . . Tl: , e Bishop of LONDON would not argue the question at present, whether tithes were a tax or not ; but as to the matter of cots, the Noble Barfsn ought to consith r that these costs were occasioned by the resistance made by the tithe-payer to the payment of a legal demand. Lord KING—The Right Rev. Prelate argued the istat t,r as if the que.tion related to the payment of tithes in England. The collection of tithes in Ireland stood on a quite different footing, for the proctor intervened, and valued and enforced payment of the tithe in a most op. pressive manner. The Noble Marquess denied that tithes were not a tax, because they were a legal assessment; hot were not the Government taxes alao a legal aspesnment ? Ai to the question of rents, if they were ton high, they must he oppressive ; but if the Nobls Marquess's tenants were as moderately rented as his were, he need not be under much apprehension that the rents would be consi• tiered by the tenants an oppressive tax. The Marquess of SALISBURY repeated his ti.saertion, that the clergy were as well entitled to their tithes as the Noble Lord was to his rent ; at all events, the clergy could not be charged with exacting payment in golt!. Lord KING would explain the matter to which the Noble Marquess alluded when he talked of payments in gold. A motion bad been made and agreed to in another place, declaring that bank-notes were, for the amount for which they circulated, as valuable as gold. He t:vithed put that to the te,t, and demanded gold.-.-not of a poor tenant, but of a Rank Director, for the purpose of tryin the question. As to tithes, they were not only a mis chievous tax, but it was an egregious error to treat them otherwise than as public property—private for the life of the individual, but otherwise public property. The Bishop of LONDON denied that tithes tc^ ere poiplie property. Lord BEXLEY did nr:t doubt the tspitahle intentions of the Noble Lord ; b.ut heronsidered himself entitles+ to make reflections unless ire paid all his debts ;Is Sold. The petition was laid on the table. CIVIL DEPARTMENT (NAVY). Lord AUCKLAND then moved the second reading of the Navy Civil Dep Irtmenti Bill, stating the provisions of that measure, AS already before the public, observing that the operations of the Navy would now he carried on at much less expense than before. In th, future progt•eNs of the Bill he should Lave opportunities of discussing it more at length. Lord ELLENBOROUGH doubted that the 13111 would produce all those beneficial results which its promoters an ticipated ; his apprehensio❑ was that the new system %rould diminish responsibility, and render the service of the navy much less efficient than before. Lord NAPIER considered that further di,cussion had better he postponed until they got into Committee. There was a subject connected with the motion to which he wished to advert very shortly ; a charge had been made against Captain Symonds, in another place, than which nothing could have been more void of founda tion—there was not a man in the navy, having had op- portunities of seeing the conduct of Captain Symonds, who would not he ready to testify to his high professional cha racter and abilities, and he was an officer who had some reason to complain of the treatment he received at the wavy Board—it was not till after much solicitation and after large securities had been entered into, that he was allowed to superintend the building of an experiment.l 'v , ssel, which sailed with the experimental squadron in the year 1827, and in a high degree excelled all its rivals. He thought it due to the Gallant Officer to state thus much, remembering the attack made upon him in another quar ter, and made se unwarrantably. Lord COLVILLE, though no enemy to Reform, thought that the present measure went too far. Lord OAKLEY said a few words in approval of the ifieasu re. The Bill was then read a second time. REFORM BILL, The House went into a Committee on this Bill. On the question that Dudley return a M mber, Lord ECLENBOROUGH objected to it, in consequence of the number of places in the immediate neighbourhood that were to be enrranchised ; and protested against any tendency to the formation of district representation. Lord RADNOR thought Dudley was well entitled to Member. Lord KING contended that the wealth of such places as Dudley fully entitled them to Members, and that there was no desire to establish a district representation. He thought the towns were not adequately represented in pro_ portion to their wealth, which was much greater than that of the landed interest. The Earl of AIALMESBURY contended that the manufacturing interest was neither superior in wealth nor importance to the agricultur#l interest. He considered that the agricultural interest would suffer materially by the Bill. The Earl of CARNARVON thought the whole ten dency of the Bill was to give a preponderance to the manu facturing interest. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that Dudley was to the iron trade what Leeds was to the woollen trade, and therefore entitled to representation. It was then agreed that Dudley should stand part of the schedule. Afterwards the insertion of Frome was agreed to without observation. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY objected to the arrangement with respect to Durham, to the prepon derance which was given to the property of the Noble baron and the Whig interest. It was impossible not to feel some surprise at seeing the Noble Earl opposite showering on his own family offices of the highest rank ; valuable bishoprics, blue and other ribands, &e. Those were by no means palatable appointments to the country ; by whom also it was doubted whether, in some of the arranzements of the Bill, a view was not had to the local interests of the Noble Baron opposite. He would now, however, proceed to state his objections to the proposition immediately before their Lordships. The county of Durham was divided by the new arrangen.ent into a northern and a southern part ; the latter being larger than the former. By that new arrangement, of ten additional Members, eight were given to the northern, which was the smaller part of the county; and two to the southern, which was the larger part of the county. Now where was the property of the Noble Baron situated ? In the northern part of the county. It was clear that the Noble Baron must have a great influence in the return of the Members for Sunderland, South Shields, and Gateshead. Nor was that all. If by the Bill the voters for towns were also to be made voters for counties, it was clear that the Noble Baron would also have a great influence over the votes for the northern part of the county. It was his firm belief that out of the eight Members which by this arrangement were to be given to the northern part of the county of Durham, the Noble Baron would have the power of procuring the return of s e ven. And why was Gateshead to have a sep irate representation ? Gateshead was formerly a suburb of Newcastle. The population of Gateshead was of an inferior description—a fact of which the great ravages lately made in that place by the cholera afforded a strong proof. Why not join Gateshead to Newcastle? All the property was in Newcastle. But if the question were fairly stated, why had not the right of representation been conferred on Stockton-upon-Tees; full as that town was of wealth and intelligence ? Of course he did not hope for any success in the proposition ; but be felt that he should not do his duty if he refrained from proposing, although he would not press it to a divi sion, that Stockton-upon:Tees be substituted for Gates head. With this proposition, after sonic further remarks, the Noble Marquess concluded. Lord DURHAM begged to return his best thanks to the Noble Marquess who bad just sat down for the oppor tunity he had afforded him (Lord Durham) of giving an eat lanation with respect to Gateshead, with a view to re move an impression which was not only prevalent amongst a portion of the public, but which seemed to pervade the mind of the Noble Marquess himself ; and he trusted that be should be able to make the Noble Marquess himself confess that the information on which he had made his statement was extremely incorrect. At the same time he could not hut congratulate the Noble Marquess on having followed the example of the Noble Lord near him (Lord F.llenboroueh) in the tone and tenour of his observations, and particularly of having at last become a Retorrner.— (" No," from the Marquess of Londonderry.) The Noble Marquess had commenced his observations by remarking, that the proposed increase of Member-it for towns in the counts' of Durham would give an increase to the Whig party is that county, and had insinuated that this had been done at his (Lord Durham's) instance. He (Lord Durham) felt ashamed in being thus compelled to declare, that as he felt no man embarked in public life ought to introduce into any measure feelings of a private or personal nature, or from which he could achieve his own aggrandizement, so he would rather have vacated the station he so unworthily held in the Governs ment of the country than be accessory to such an act, even should his colleagues have been base enough to per mit it —(Hear, hear.) He was, however, free to admit, that in framing the measure before their Lordships he had taken a considerable share, and hail devoted much time and attention to it, and he had in that capacity decided that no plan of Reform could be satisfactory which did not do away with the nomination boroughs; and after having disposed of them, it bad been the matter of considera tion how the representation of the country could be fully and ftirly extended ; and he could venture to assert to their Lordships, that every one of the boroughs to be , in the county of Durham, as well as elsewher^, tame within the lint of demarcation which had been laid down by the Government. The number of Members al located to the county of Durham was not greater than i. was entitled to by e present amount of population ; and the Noble Mar guess would find, on reference to works of authority, that in tlie reign of Charles It., when the po pulation of the county ono not any thing approaching to what it wes at preFent, it was even then proposed that the county of Durham should have ten Membert, and, what would perhaps be thought snore reinarieahle, the town of Gateshead was among r!:e. number of those towns it was then proposed to enfranchise. The proposition, certainly, had never been carried into effect, a dissolution having inter vened. He felt he also ought to mention ) hlt when the applicatien vas made by the inhatlta'ats of Walsall, repre senting their claims, he (Lord burham) was perfectly ig. , norant of teen having been preferred. The application was sett to the Chancellor of the Exchet - iuer on the 31st 'of January, 1831, and Of such a coinunication he (Lord Durham) was perleetly ignorant. This, however, he could say, that the town of Gateshead contained a popula tion or 1'5,300 inhabitants, paying assessed taxes, td the amount of 2,0001. annually, and containing 'iso 101. houses ; and he begged their Laif'altips to consider how the town stood with reference in point of population, the amount of assessed taxes paid, the number of 101. houses, and Litutenant Drummond's test to other towns contained 10 schedule D, and which would, on one of these points or the other, be inferior to Gateshead. Under every cal culation be contended that Gateshead was entitled to a Member, and no comparison could be maintained between its claims and thoireof Stockton-upon-Tees. Stockton con tained only 7,991 inhabitants, not half the population of Gateshead, and it was equally deficient in every other re spect of qualification.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Much as the No'nle Marquess had Urged with respect to the increase of Members to the county of Durham, the increase was applied to districts which had risen in population and other respects from commercial establishments, which had been the consequence of the collieries, to which allusion had been made, but that increase was in no respect equal to that made in the county of Lancaster, where, in the same area as that named by the Noble Marquess, it would be found that nit less than seven places were enfranchised, by which twelve ad ditional Members were given. This increaae, in both in stances, had arisen from the accident that those towns had increased in population, trade, and wealth ; and he thought—and be believed it also to be the opinion of the majority of their Lordships—that it would be too much to resist the claims of such towns, merely because they might stand on the property of any individual —(Hear, hear.) He also would venture to defy the Noble Marquess, even if he changed pl yes with him (Lord Durham), to return a single Member for any one of the towns in the county of Durham to be enfranchised. He begged to deny that Gateshead was a mere suburb of Newcastle ; on the contrary, ever since the year 1100 constant efforts had been made by the Corporation of Newcastle to attach Gateshead to Newcastle, but in vain. Gateshead was in a different county, and paid different rates front those of Newcastle ; and as a proof that it was distinct from that town, there was a law of the Corporation of Newcastle, which provided that, any freeman of that borough resid ing in G iteshead should nit have the power of enfran chising his apprentices. Efforts, as lie had already remarked, had been constantly made by the Corpora tion of Newcastle to attach Gateshead to that bo• rough, which were constantly resisted by the Bishop of Durham, and by the people of Gateshead. When Dudley, the celebrated Duke of Northumber land, usurped the revenues of that see, he attached Gates head to Newcastle, but that arrangement did not last more that six months. It was repealed by the Ist of Mary, and the wording of the act proved that Gateshead was al ways looked upon as distinct and separate from Newcas tle. Its trade was perfectly different from that of New castle. There were great iron and brass founderies in Gateshead, which did not exist in Newcastle, and, as a proof that the poverty in Gateshead was not greater than that in Newcastle, he could state that the average amount of its poor-rates was always infinitely less than that of Newcastle. The Noble Lord here read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, in corroboration of his statements with regard to Gateshead. With regard to the division of the county of Durham, he begged to say that it had been made by independent and impartial Commis sioners, with whom neither he, nor any Noble Lord, nor any Member of Parliament, had any communication with regard to the division of that or any other county. The division tin it had been made of the county of Durham, was the only one that could with fairness and propriety have been made. It was a matter in which he (Lord Durham) had no personal interest. He had no relative or friend to recommend, and, even if it had, he should consider that the county was fully competent itself to judge who should represent it. He was sorry that he should be obliged to take up their Lordships' time in disclaiming any per sonal motives connected with the matter, but the Noble Lord had put it upon him to do so.—(Hear, hear.) The only motive that he had in supporting this measure was the good of his country.—( Hear.) After a few wards from the Marquess of LONDONDERRY in explanation, and from the Earl of CARNARVON against the proposition, the question was put and agreed to. Huddersfield and Kidderminster were then ordered to stand part of schedule D. On the question being put as to Kendal, Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that Kendal was cer tainly a respectable place, and there was a manufacture there ; but he entertained great doubts as to the expedi ency of enfranchising Kendal by the disfranchisement of some other place. It WAS most unjust, for instance, that Appleby should be entirely disfranchised. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that when the proper time came to discuss the case of Appleby, he should be ready to show that in every respect it bad a right to be placed in schedule A. With re.'ard to Kendal, he had to observe that it was a considerable manufacturing town, and that it was peculiarly well adapted for representation. The question was then put and carried. Rochdale was then placed in schedule D. On the question being put as to Salford,— Lot d ELLENBOROUGH said that there was much less reason for sep irating Salford from Manchester than there was for leaving Toxteth-paik connected with Liver pool : while there were only 1,200 101. houses in Salford, there were 3.300 101. houses in Toxteth-park. Lord SUFFIELD contended that Salford was a per fectly distinct place from Manchester, and that it possessed interests altogether different and distinct from it. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that Salford was entirely distinct from Manchester, and was under a dif ferent municipal government, whereas Toxteth-park was a mere prolongation of Liverpool, and was as much a part of Liverpool as any part of Westminster was of Westminster. The question was then put and agreed to. South Shields, Tynemouth, and Wakefield were then ordered to stand part of schedule D. On the question being put as to Walsall, Lord ELLENBOROUGH opposed its enfranchisement, on the ground that it was a district spread over a large space, and not a distinct town. The Bishop of LICHFIELD contended that on acconnt of the wealth possessed by Walsall, and the peculiar inte rests existing there, it was entitled to the representation. The question was then agreed to. Warrington, Whitby, Whitehaven, Merthyr-Tydvil, and Aberdare, were then agreed to. The next clause was then agreed to as part of the Bill. The next clause, that Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East Retford, shall include certain districts, was agreed to, after a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the LORD CHANCELLOR. The next clause, that Weymouth and Melcombe Regis return two Members jointly, was agreed to, as well as the next clause, enacting that the boundaries of certain existing boroughs be settled. The next clause, and the schedule E, specifying the places in Wales which are to have a •hare in elections for the shire-town., were agreed to as part of the Bill. On the clause enacting that the boundaries of certain places in Wales be settled. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that it seemed impos sible for the House to consider the boundary subject, when the Bi►l came down here, and that the whole subject was more proper for a committee up stairs : it was of the d e epest importance to the future operation of the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that when the Boun dary Bill reached this House, they would have had the experience of the other House. The remark of the Noble Baron was, however, entitled to attention, though there was much greater difficulty in discussing the details of such a Bill in the other House than in this. It might be a matter of future consideratien : in the meantime, there was no difficulty in disposing of all the arrangements, which were only provisional. The clause was then agreed to. The next clause, that Swansea, Loughor, Neath, Aber avon, and Ken-fig form one borough, and the electors not to •ote for Members for Cardiff, was then agreed to ; as well as the next, the description of the returning officers for the new borough T.. On clause 12, that there shall be six knights of the shire for Yorkshire, Lord WHARNCLIFFE inquired why York should be the place ~f election for the North Riding: Northallerton would be mere convenient. The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that Northal lerton would be a more convenient place. York was re tained, be supposed, because it was the customary place, and, ceteris pctribus, wool I be the best; but its position rendered it as inconvenient as a place of election for thi North Riding. There was one circumstance in its favour, —1 hat there was all the appurtenances of courts there, and not at Northallerton. After some observations from the Earl of AloLonAve and Lord Wit A htiCLIFrE, we understood that the subject was to be considered. The clause was agreed to. Lord ELLENBOROUGH then proposed a clause giving six Knights of the Shire to Lancashire, two to each of the southern divisions Which were manufacturing dis uicts, and ttvo to the northern division, which was agri cultutaL It was framed on the model of the clause just agreed to: The LORD CHANCELLOR said that this clause' would render it necessary to disfranchise other boroughs. —(" No.") He thought the clause unnecessary. A large proportion of agricultural voters had been carved out from the counties for boroughs. As the Bill now stood, the Member: fot Lancashire would be more agricultural than at present. This was, however, not the proper time to consider this question, but when they came to divide the counties with reference to repres.ntation. Lrrd ELLENBOROUGH said, it was perfectly im possible to divide Lancashire so as not to give an unequal preponderance to the manufacturing over the agricultural interest. He should press his motion. The Marquess of SALISBURY said that under the Bill he could undertake to say that it was totally impossible that the agricultural interest in Lancashire could have a single member. Earl GREY said he was not so apprehensive as the Noble Lords that this Bill would exclude the agricultural interest in Lan c a s hire. If it were true that the manufac turing inter e st wa s s o power ful there, how was it that now the two Members were generally agricultural ? He saw no reason fer the introduction of the clause ; but it was a question that might be left till the boundaries came to be discussed. After some further ob-ervations from Lord Wynford, the Marquess of Salisbury, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Wharncliffe, the Committee divided on the motion, when there appeared— Content l5 Not content 7O Majority againbt Lord Ellenborough's clause —55 . . . . . . . Clause 1-I, certain counties shall be divided, and return two knights for each division, with schedule F, wall then agreed to. Clause 15, that there shall be three knights of the shire for certain counties, enumerated in echedule F 2, was then put, when The Marquess of SALISBURY moved that the number he four instead of three, which was negatived without a division, and the clause was agreed to. Clause 16, that the Isle of Wight be severed from Hamp shire, and return a Member, was agreed to, after a remark from Lord ELLENROROUGIi, that five Members were given to Hants, aft r six had been refused to Lancashire. Clause 17, that towns, which are counties of them selves, be included in adjoining counties for county elec tions, was then agreed to, after a few remarks from Lord Elleuborough, Lord Durham, Lord Wynford, and the Lord Chancellor. On clause IS being put, which enacts that no freehold for life shall give a vote for a county, unless it be worth 101. a year, excepting present 40s. freeholders during life. The Marquess of SALISBURY observed that the object of the clause was to give a right to vote for counties to persons who had no property in the county for which they voted, and towards the burdens of which they contributed nothing. He begged to ask the Noble Earl, and he hoped that, as was usual with the head of the King's Govern ment, he would have the courtesy to give him an anew' r, on what ground he proposed to take away the franchise of the 40s. freeholders for life. Earl GREY—My answer is, the rights of freeholders are preserved for life.—(A laugh.) The Marquess of SALISBURY asked what became of the rights of freeholders which were for three lives, and whether such property was not materially deteriorated ? The LORD CHANCELLOR read and explained the clause to the Noble Marquess. If the freehold was for his own life, it was preserved to the existing freeholder ; if it was for the lives of other persons, he retained the right to vote during his own life, exactly as if the Bill had never passed. The object of the clause was to prevent the M - nufacturing of vote.t. Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought the clause should have been differently worded. In his neighbourhood com mon fields have been divided into freeholds of 21., 31., and 41. a-year. The population was very industrious and par simonious, and desirous of possessing freeholds. In one parish there were .1,600 persons, and 100 freeholds of this description, not one of the holders of which would find that his son was not disfranchised. A great portion of that part of the country was in the same circumstances. lie entreated that the subject might be reconsidered. Lord WHARNCLIFFE understood the object of the proviso to be the disqualification of what were called annuity 40s. voters, at the same time that it was intended to preserve the rights of bona fide 40s. freeholders ; but he apprehended the clause was so worded as to disquali i y a great number of bona fide voters; and that he considered extremely objectionable. The Duke of RICHMOND felt great satisfaction at the virtuous indignation expressed by Noble Lords opposite, at the idea of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders.—(llear and laughter.) He could have wished, however, that they had not united in disfranchising 250,000 Irish 40s. free holders in 1829. But be that as it might, he congra tulated Noble Lords on having at last come to their senses, even at the expense of a sactifice of political consistency— (A laugh.) The Marquess of LONDONDERRY—What the Noble Duke refers to was done to accomplish a great object, in the necessity of which almost every body was agreed— (" No, no") : but what were we to gain by this measure? Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, there was a great dif ference between the Irish and English 40a. freeholders, the latter being a much mere respectable class than the former. Lord HOLLAND had voted for the disfranchisement of the Irish 40s. freeholders, but it was o ith the utmost reluctance—his vote had been wrung from him by an ardent desire to pass the great measure by which the dis. franchisement was accompanied. He was sure the object of this clause was not to disqualify bona fide voters, but the contrary ; and if there seemed any doubt on the subject, he, for one, could have no objection to introduce some words by way of amendment, which should sat the matter at rest. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it might be well to add one or two words to the proviso, in order to Remove all doubt, and render it clear that no bona fide voter was to be affected by the clause. He had nu objection to postpone the clause for the purpose of adding such words. Meanwhile their Lordships could proceed with the next clause if they were disposed to go further to-night—(Cries of " No: adjourn.") Lord WYNFORD also wished to exclude fictitious votes ; but that could be easily done without affecting bona fide freeholders. The clause was postponed. The House resumed ; Committee to sit again to-morrow. Adjourned at half-past Twelve. HOUSE OF COM2IONS, Mi l' 23. Mr. GILLON presented a petition from the Commis sioners of Police in Edinburgh against the Edinburgh Police Bill.—Referred to the Committee. _ _ . Mr. DUNDAS brought up the report of the Committee, with amendments, on the Insurance Company of Scot land Bill. _ Sir W. FOLKES presented a petition from Diss, in Norfolk, praying the House to withhold the supplies until the Reform Bill had passed ; also a petition from Norfolk, for a repeal of the duty on Marine Insurances. Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition, to which he begged leave to call the attention of the House. It was signed by the chairman on behalf of the meeting, and, of course, could only be receiv-d as from that person; but it was agreed to at the largest meeting ever known, com prising the inhabitants of Plymouth, Devonport, and Stoneheuse, to the number of 20,000 persons. The petitioners, aftor expressing their regret at the late resigna tion of Ministers, concluded by a prayer to withhold the supplies from any Ministry who would not produce a Re form Bill equally efficient in all its parts with the present one. The Noble Lord next presented similar petitions from Totness, Ashburton, Leith, Paisley, and Dudley. Mr. LITTLETON bore testimony to the respectability of the meeting at Dudley, and said that the feeling mani feited there in favour of Reform was greater than was ever known upon any subject. Lord EBRINGTON next presented a similar petition from Reading, signed in one hour by about 5,000 persons. Mr. F. PALMER supported the prayer of the petition. The NOBLE Loan then presented similar petitions from Middleton, in Lancashire, and from the English visitors in Jersey. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said, that although all those petitions prayed that the supplies might I.e stopped until the Reform Bill was passed, he hoped it would be long before an occasion should arise to call upon the re presentatives of the people to exercise the right which they undoubtedly possess of withholding the suppli es . The petitions were ordere;l to be printed. Sir H. WILLIANISON presented similar petitions from Gateshead, signed by 8,000 persons, and also from Darlington and Mahon, in Yorkshire. Mr. LEADER rose to present several petitions from the county of Kilkenny in favour of Irish Recorm. The Hon. Member said there was one front the city of Kil kenny, praying for an additional Member under the Re form Bill. That town had a population of upwards of twenty-five thousand inhabitants, and was the an cient seat of learning in Ireland ; it also returned four Members to the Irish Parliament. The Honourable Gentleman thought that it would be more in accordance with justice to give that town an additional Member, than to givo ono to the University of Dublin. lie then pre sented his petitions, which were from the city of Kilkenny, Kinsale, Knocktopher, Powerscourt, and several other places. Mr. LEFROY hoped that the House would confirm what was proposed to be done under the Reform Bill, viz. to give another Member to the University of Dublin, which, though it had not 25,000 inhabitants, was still the only seat of learning in Ireland for the ede ration of the gentlemen and clergymen of that country. Mr. O'CONNELL said the Hon. and Learned Member had justly said that the University of Dublin was the only seat of learning in Ireland, but it was distinguished only for its wealth. It was the most richly endowed of any University in this or any other country, having 1,000 acres of the best land and upwards of 40,000/. a-y ear. But having only a constituency of 96, and having at its elections, he would not say the last, or the one before, but at former ones, having exhibited the grossest perjury that had ever disgraced any election, he could not believe, till he read it in the Reform Bill, that any man could propose that it should have another Member, especially when its constitu ency was only to be extended about 100, and there were so many other places in Ireland that had a better claim. Mr. H. GRATTAN spoke to the same effect. The petitions were then ordered to be printed. C 4onel CAVENDISH presented a petition from Derby, praying the House to stop the supplies till the Reform Bill was passed into a law. Mr. STRUTT was instructed to support the prayer of the petition, which he did with pleasure. Mr. HEYWOOD rose to present a great number of petitions from Lancashire to the same effect. Though the cause which had given rise to them had been re mos ed, still he was desired to present the petitions, that there might be no mistake as to the sentiments of the people of that county. The Hon. Member then pre sented petitions from Manchester, Warrington, Roch dale, Oldham, Royton, Heywood, Todmorden, and Ware, in Herefordshire, which were ordered to be printed. Captain GORDON presented petitions from the parish of St. Paul Essex, front Yalding, Tynemouth, Shaftes bury, Cropper-street, Manchester, Brighton, and ten other places, against the new syst , -nt of education in Ireland. Mr. 11. ROSS presented two petitions from Montrose, and one from Dundee, in favour of Reform, and praying the House to refuse granting supplies till the Reform Bill became the law of the land. The Hon. Member presented a petition from Arbroath, in favour of the Factories Bill. Lord CAVENDISH presented three petitions from Belper, Guildford, and another place, all in the county of Derby, in favour of the Reform Bill, and praying the House to withhold the supplies until it he passed. Also a petition from Derby anti its vicinity in favour of the Fac tories' Labour Bill. Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the Vicar, Churchwardens, and Inhabitants of Abergavenny, in favour of Reform, and praying the House to repose confidence in the present Ministers, and to address his Majesty, to re quest the dismissal of all evil counsellors. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Birming ham, agreed to at a meeting of upwards of 100,000 per sons, but signed only by the Chairman. It insisted on the right of every British subject to carry arms, and prayed the House not to grant a.ty supplies until the Reform Bill be passed. Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. O'CONNELL then presented two similar peti tions from the Kidderminster and Bristol Political Unions, botll of which strongly urged a stoppage of the supplies my il the Reform Bill be passed—a measure which should have his hearty coni•urrenceAii it: were not soon passed into a law. The Hon. Member then pre sented a petition from Glasgow, in favour of the grant to Maynooth College, signed by Sir Daniel Sandford, and many other respectable persons. Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from two parishes in Limerick, relative to vestry assessments, and took that opportunity of asking if the Bill for the re gulation of Special Juries had been abandoned ? Mr. STANLEY said the Bill had gone up to the other House, and he was not aware of any intention to abandon it. As soon as the state of public business permitted, the Bill would no doubt be proceeded with. Mr. O'CONNELL thought it ought to have passed before now. Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from Cork, complaining that notwithstanding the passing of the Re lief Bill, Catholics were still excluded from the corporate offices. Mr. O'CONNELL supported the prayer of the petition, and said that it limited a number of persons, as the cor poration of Cork had the disposal of the intmen , e sum of 70,000/. an nu,dly,—a sum large enough to defray the ex pensis of the Government of the United States. Mr. 11. GRATTAN said the same practice prevailed in the corporation of Dublin, and he trusted the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown would be directed to it. Mr. CALLAGHAN next presented two petitions from Cork, for an alteration in the duties on coals and soap. Sir R. FERGUSSON presented a petition from Had dington, in favour of Reform. _ . Mr. A. JOHNSTONE presented a petition from the pre , bytery of Hamilton, against the new system of edu cation in Ireland. Capt. GORDON supported the petition. Mr. DIXON would take that opportunity of stating that from his own knowledge the great majority of the people in the west of Scotland were in favour of the Go vernment plan of education. Mr. CAMPBELL concurred wi h the Hon. Member; he could not but think that the clergy of the Church of Scotland were acting under a de!usion, when they pe titioned against this system. Mr. DUNDAS would contradict the statement of the two last speakers. He believed a great majority of the people belonging to the Church in Scotland were against the system. The clergy did not deserve the odium cast upon them by the Hon. and Learned Member. He (Mr. Dundas) knew the Presbytery of Scotland had not taken up the question till after mature deliberation. A Commit tee had b en appointed, one of the members of which was Dr. Chalmers, the most liberal-minded man in Scotland, yet he had refuted that they could not support that system. Mr. HUME said the Honourable Member for Edin burgh had alluded to a public document and a public character in the person of Doctor Chalmers. He regretted that that man had put his name to such a document, for it tended materially to hurt the character lie had so well deserved up to this period for liberality. Mr. A JOHNSTON presented a similar petition from the Presbytery of Edinburgh. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from Hyde, praying the House to use all constitutional means for pass ing the Reform Bill. Mr. HAWKINS presented a petitio❑ to the same ef fect from the borough of Tavistock. Sir G. MURRAY presented a petition from the Synod of Perth, against the Ministerial plan of Education in Leland. Mr. DENISON presented petitions praying the House to use the powers vested in it by the constitution for car rying the Reform Bill, from the following parishes in Surrey :—St. Mary, Newington, Lambeth, Camberwell, and Christchurch ; and similar petitions from the town of Dorking, and the masters and seamen of the Trinity House. Mr. BRISCOE expressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners. The petitions were ordered to be printed. Mr. STRICKLAND presented similar petitions from Sheffield, Morely, Holrnfirth, and a parish in Waterford. The Hon. Member said that the petition from Sheffield bore the signatures of 20,000 persons.—Ordered to be printed. The same Hon. MEMBER presented a petition from Halifax, with 10,000 signatures, in favour of the Bill for restricting the labour of children in factories.—Referred to the Committee on the Bill. The LORD-ADVOCATE rose to present a petition emanating from a late public meeting at Edinburgh, call ing on the House to use the most efficient Constitutional endeavours to secure the success of the Reform Bill in u nmutilated state. The petition had been signed, within the short space of two days, by more than ge,ooo persons, with the additional designation of their professions and places of residence. It was wort h y o f rem ark, as indicative of the spirit of the people, that the day after the public meeting at which the petition had been agreed to, there teas not a single police case for Magisterial cognizance in Edinburgh. Mr. C. DUNDAS did not doubt that there existed a strong feeling in favour of Reform in the city he had the honour to represent ; but he believed that the most Con stitutional means had not been resorted to in getting up the meeting at which the petition was agreed to. H e had also good reason to doubt the alleged numerical amount of the meeting. Engineers had measured the ground, and they calculated that there could not have been more than 9,000 persons present. It was with pain that he bad learned that an Hon , Friend of his, whom his Majesty had lately appointed to the command of one ,f the most repectable regiments in the service,—he al luded to the 92d,—had taken a prominent part at a ,nesting, where he was surrounded by decided emblems of republicanism, such as banners displaying the figure o f the King without his head, and the revolutionary symbols of France, with placards bearing the most sedi• tious inscriptions. He believed that there was not a soldier in the 92d Regiment that would nut have torn down these revolutionary banner , . It was solely owing to the good sense of the lower classes in the city of Edin burgh that they had not committed the most atrocious acts of violence. Colonel EVANS thought that the course adopted by the Hon. Member was calculated to injure an individual with out accomplishing. the least public good.—(Hear.) Mr. T. F. KENNEDY had never heard a more un warrantable attack than that made by the Hon. Member for Edinburgh on the gallant officer who had taken part in the proceedings of the meeting. He , thought that all Scotsmen should be proud of the character of the meeting in question, arid should rejoice that the peace of their country bad not been broken. Mr. K. DOUGLAS denied that at this meeting, or any similar meeting, had the question of Reform been the sub ject of dispassionate consideration. The LORD-ADVOCATE defended the conduct of the gallant officer who had been censured by the Hon. Member for Edinburgh. He had not only acred in a blameless, but in a very creditable manner. The gallant officer could not be fairly held responsible for the proceedings of all persons that chose to attend a large public meeting. From information which he (the Lord-Advocate) bad re ceived, he believed that the description of the banners had been over-coloured. The petition was then laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed. The LORD-ADVOCATE presented a petition in favour of the Scotch Reform Bill, from the county of Perth. The Noble Lord said that the petition bore 27,000 signatures, among which were the names of seven Scottish peers, and a large proportion of the magistrates of the ci unty. Sir G. MURRAY made several observations, for the purpose of showing that the number of persons who at tended the meeting from which this petition emanated had been greatly over-rated. He read an extract from a letter addressed to himself by a relative of his own, who was, however, a supporter of the Reform Bill, in which the num bers were estimated at not more than 6,000. He should not have risen, however, upon this occasion, had he not seen in the Times, of the 27th of January last, a calumnious article against the people of Scotland, which was inserted in that Journal as part of the speech of a Noble and Gallant Friend of his—Lord Lynedoch. His Noble and Gallant Friend was represented to have spoken as follows:—" At the time their Lordships were discussing the question whether the Reform Bill should he read a second time, a great number of weavers assembled every day at Perth to see the south mail come in, and to learn the intelligence which it brought. After the news came down that the Bill was rejected, they stopped the wail to know whether there had been any disturbances in London. The guard replied in the affirmative, an l sail that the Duke of Wellington and another illustrious individual had been shot by the mob. This intelligence, which ought to have excited general disgust and indignation, was hailed with satisfaction by the assembled multitude, and in the vehemence of their indignation against the rejecters of tl:e Reform Bill, they so far forgot the humanity of their nature as to go to a no'ile and gallant friend of his, and ask him whether they ought not to celebrate the fate of the Duke of Wellington and his colleague by a general illumination." Now he considered that statement to I e most calum nious to the people of Scotland. There was no people in the world less likely to indulge in such conduct. There was not a more humane, a more religious, a more moral, a better conducted people on the face of the globe than the people of Scotland. What, then, did he infer from this statement ? Either that this statement was unfounded, and that his Noble Ft iend had been deceived in making it, or that the people of Scotland had forgot the character which once belonged to them, and which he believed still continued to belting to them; or that they had been ex cited to a degree which rendered their petition valueless, when they could rejoice in the perpetration of an act of murder in the streets of London, and an act of murder committed upon an individual who had rendered the greatest services to his country of any man now living in it.—(Cheers.) Yes, the Noble Duke had rendered the greatest services not only to his own country, but also to Europe at large, since it had been his good fortune not only to vindicate the independence of his own country, and to exalt its character, which had been calumniated by an usurper elated by the success of his arms as in capable of martial achievements, but also to rescue the whole Continent from the iron grasp of tyranny, in which that usurper in an evil hour bad unfortunately enfolded it.—(Cheere.) Nor was this the only merit; besides rais ing the arms of this nation of shopkeepers to a glory hitherto unparalleled in its annals, he had, by his counsels in peace, redeemed the land of his birth from religious intolerance—a feat which, in his (Sir George Murray's) opinion, was a feat of much gre ,ter importance and value than all his feats of war.—(Great cheering.) And yet, by this calumny, which he could not believe that his Noble and Gallant Friend had ever uttered, it was represented to the world the people of Scotland bad intended to celebrate this Noble Personage's assassination by rejoicing and public illumina tion.—(Hear, bear.) If it were true that the people of Scotland had so far abandoned all feelings of humanity, all principles of morality, and all regard to religion, as to think of acting so ungrateful a part, he would only say that their petitions, no matter whether they were signed by 27,000, or 27,000,000 persons, were unworthy a mo ment's consideration.—( Hear. ) Mr. HALIBURTON said, that when he entered the House that evening, he was not aware that the Learned Lord was about to present this petition. However, as he bad been an eye-witness of the meeting, he thought that he should not be trespassing unjustly on the notice of the House, when he stated that there appeared to him to he, within hearing of the hustings, about 7,000 or 8,000 persons, and out of hearing of them, about as many more. He should calculate the numbers on the ground to be somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 persons. Mr. J. JOHNSON was almost inaudible in the gallery; but was u nderstood to palliate the conduct of the people of Perth under the circumstances mentioned in the speech of Lord Lynedoch. the the r D e t u o k r e o of of o e r l d l i Wellingt o Grey n to n o po ffi o i c t e i s h , e though h o e o t rejoicedallow Lord W. LENNOX said, that though he differed from th a e t attack of the Hon. Member for Dunfermline to go unno deed. The Hon. Member palliated the conduct of the utrhdaetr wasof the o go Duke fo r t o t ! t N o V e s l I c i o n t g l t a o u n d . ? He vi.thaiss suretb the Scotch, who had been stated to have rejoiced at the sup posed thatdoctrine country n would di sown suc h a se ntiment as the pallia tion for murder on any ground.--(Hear, hear.) Colonel EVANS said, that as he had had the honour of serving under the Duke of Wellington, he could not be suspected of any wish to underrate the military services which that illustrious commander had rendered to his country. At the same time he could not help expressing his opinion that his recent conduct as a civilian bad rather withered than increased the brilliancy of the laurels which encircled his brow.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was then ordered to be printed. NORFOLK ASSIZES BILL. Several petitions for and against thi, Bill, which re moves the Assizes from Thetford' to Norwich, were pre. sented from districts of Norfolk locally affected by its pro visions, by Mr. Baring, Mr. Weyland, Mr. R. Colborne, and Mr. R. Grant. On Mr. R. GRANT'S moving that it be now read a Be• cond time, Mr. A. BARING opposed the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." Mr. R. Wagon, Mr. Weyland, Mr. E. Petre, and Mr. J. Campbell, supported the Bill, as a just and necesary measure ; Mr. R. Colborne and Lord J. Fitzroy objected to the Bill, as wholly uncalled for by any circumstances that had been stated. a bs Sr ta i in .L fro S m CA le ß g L is E lat T in T g w o a n s o t f opinion that they hesubject,untii had th tt ey be ha e d r ascertained the opinion of the Judges. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the motion 44 Against it l3 The Bill was then read a second time. LIVERPOOL FRANCHISE BILL. Mr. BENETT moved the second reading of the above Bill. Mr. J. CAMPBELL opposed the motion, on the ground that neither of the Members for Liverpool was present. Mr. BENETT said, that the Bill had been long before the House, and he was anxious to prove his case before the Committee. The House then divided, and the numbers were—. For the motion 44 10 Against it Majority -34 The Bill was then read a second time. The Cruelty to Animals Bill was read a second time. The King's County Assizes Bill was read a second time, DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND. Sir H. PARNELL presented a petition from thirty .even Magistrates of Queen's County, praying the House .o consider the state of the law in Ireland for preventing iireaches of the peace. The Right Hon. Baronet then moved that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the dis•urbancrs whiA prevailed in some parts of Ireland. Mr. STANLEY s lid, that he would consent to the ap pointment of a Committee, in the hope that it might sug gest some improvement of the law ; but he wished it to be understood that he would consent to no proposition of an unconstitutional nature. After some conversation, in which Mr. J. GRATTAN Mr. °TERRA Lt., Mr. LEADF.R, Colonel PERCIVAL, Mr. RWE, Mr. SIIAw. and Col. CoNot.t.v . participated. Mr. RUTEIVEN said he should oppose the motion, 3 Le was desirous that some time longer should be intrusted to his Maje,ty's Government for the care of Ireland..-- (Hear, hear, hear.) He conceived much blame was to he attributed to the gentry of the country, who ought, :nstead of agitating it, as was the case at present, to ap ply themselves to that which had hitherto been so much neglected—namely, to establish peace and tranquillity in their native land. After a few worth:, in explanation, from Sir HittertY PA KNELL, Mr. WALKER said that he thought the terms of the motion of the Right Honourable Baronet evinced a dispo sition to try to obtain severer laws for Ireland than were desired for England ; and on these grounds be should op pose the motion. After a short conversation, in which Mr. S. Rice, Sir H. Parnell, Sir J M. Doyle, and Mr. J. Grattan took part, The SPEAKER put the motion, when several Hon. Members called fur a division. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, when it was found that there were not 40 Members present, and the House accordingly adjourned at Two o'Clock. The following passage was accidentally omitted in our report of the proceedings of the House of Lords yesterday : Bury, Lancashire, was the next pl ice proposed to be enfranctiis,d. On the question being put, Lord ELL ENBOROUGH said, is was a town described to P. , rliatnent as ill paved and ill drained ; it was because it poss,ss e il these recommendations, he supposed, that it was chosen as a fit and proper borough to return one Menib,r, and that Member was to be taken from some other place, not having either of these recommendations, or having done anything which could justify its being disfranchisi d. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that a town being ill drained and ill paved did not constitute a sufficient reas.'n to deprive 20,000 inhabitants of the privilege of sending one Member to Parliament.—Agreed to. i REFORM BILL. DIVISION in the HOUSE of LORDS in the COMMITTEE, Tuesday, May 22. On the QUESTION of GIVING MEMBERS to the METRO POLITAN DISTRICTS. For giving Members to the Metropolitan Districts 9l Against it Majority MAJORITY. BAR°Ns. ISundridge (Duke of ! Argyll) ;Teynhain Suttield 'Yarborough herwick (Mary. of Donegall) : Fingall (Earl of Fin : gall) :Sornerhill (Marquess of Clauricarde) Audley Segrave Rossie (Kinnaird) Mendip (Viscount Clifden) Ponsonby, of Imo killy Dunmore (Earl of Dunmore) Sherborne .!Fife (Earl of Fife) Granard (Earl of Granard) :Clements (Earl of Leitrim) Dundas Panmure Liltord Howden Wellesley (Marquess Wellesley) Selsey Clifton (Earl of Darnley) !Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne) !Brougham H. the Duke of Sussex 1 BARONS. Durham Rosebery (Earl of Rosebery) Dormer Godolphin Vernon Ponsonby (Earl of Besborough) Poltimore Holland Dacre Middleton Monteagle (Mar quess of Sligo) Foley Gower Say and Sele Stafford King Mostyn Boyle (Earl of Cork) Dunally Dover Hawke Crewe Petre Sefton (Earl of) Auckland Wenlock Dinorben Amesbury Templemore ARCHBISHOP. York DUKES. Richmond Devonshire Bedford Norfolk St. Alban's Somerset NIARQUESSLS. 'Westminster LanSdOWlle EARLS. Radnor Amherst Mulgrave Derby Minto Lichfield Grey Munster Hillsborough ( Mar. guess of Downshire) Cawdor Huntingdon Thanet On•luw Suffidk Albemarle Camperdown Pomfret VISCOUNTS, Lake Bolingbroke Hood Granville Goderich Falkland BISHOPS. St. David's Hereford ,Chichester H. R. H. the Duke of Cumkerland DUKE. Newcastle MARQUESS. Bute MINORITY. EARLS. Delawarr Harrowtly BA RONS. Douglas of Douglas Redesdale Gage Ravensworth De Dunstanville Boston Bolton Bayning Willoughby de Broke V iscOUN Ts. Sidniout h Sidney Arbut h not EARLS. Aylesford Malmesbury Stamford Carnarvon Selkirk Leven and Melville Orford Powis Manvers BARONS. Wynford Bexley Ellenborough Wharncli fie Melross (Earl of Had dington) Saltoun BISHOP'S. Salisbury' Exeter Carli.le Gloucester LIVERPOOL FRANCHISE BILL. LIST OF Till WHO VOTED IN FA Barry, Alexander Barnett, C. J.—Maidstone E MAJORITY .YOUR OF THE BILL. Lennox, Lord W.—King'sLynn Lennox, Lord J. G.—Sussex Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Miles, Wm.—Romney Oxmantown, Lord—King's Co. Peach, N. W.— I'ruro Perceval, Colonel—Sligo Co. t'onsonby, Hon. J.—Higham, Ferrers Pringle, A.—Selkirshire Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.—Limerick RochMrd, Col. G.—Westmeath Ruthven, E. S.—Downpatrick Thicknesse, R.—Wigan Weyland, J.—Hindon Williams, W.—Monmouthshire liciitinck, IA!. G.—King's Lynn Best, W. S.—St. Michael's Clayton, Col.—Marlow. Colborne, N. W. IL—Horsham Cole, Lord—Fermanaglishire Conolly, C.—l)onegal Crampton,P.C.—MilbournePort Dick, Ouintin—Malden Evans Col. De Lacy—Rye '..'orester, G. C. W.—Wenlock Grant, Rt. lion. R.—Norwich Grattan, J.—Co. of Wicklow Handley, W. F.—Newark Hayes, Sir E.—Donegal Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire Leader, N. P.—Kilkenny Co. Leonard, 'l'. B.—Ma!don TELLERS. Benctt, J.—Wiltshire Wason, LIST OF TH. Baldwin, C. I.l.—Totness Bouverie, Hon. P.—Downton Denman, Sir T—Nottinghainsh. Hodges, T. I,.—Kent James, W.—Carlisle l'arnell, Sir H. B.—Queen's Co. MINORITY. Stephenson, H. F.—Westbury !Wrightson, W. B.—Hull TELLERS. Warburton, H.-11ridport Campbell, J.—Staftbrd ROYAL ASSENT. (From the rotes and Proceedings of thc How of Commons.) Mercurii, 23° die Mail, 1832. Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent—to Barbados and St. Vincent Bill, Friendly Societies Act Amendment Bill, Uniformity of Process Bill, Insolvent Debtors (Ire land) Bill, Equity Process Bill, Nisi Prius Court (Dublin) Bill, Baking Trade (Ireland) Bill, Bankrupt Act (Scot land) Bill, Coin Laws Consolidation Bill, Bristol Blind Asylum Bill, Upton Town Hall and Market Bill, Chester Bridge Act Amendment Bill, Spey (Scotland) Bridge Bill. Bridgewater and Taunton Canal Bill, Largs (Ayrshire) Harbour Bill, St. Leonard's (Hastings) Improvement Bill, Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill, Bodmin and Wadebridge Railway Bill, Festiniog Railway Bill, St. Ka tharine Docks Bill, Holderness Drainage Bill, 'tam worth Roads Bill, Exmouth Road Bill, Little Yarmouth Road Bill, Whitland (Peinbroke) Road Bill, Newcastle under•Lime and Drayton Roads Bill, Berwickshire (Middle District) Roads Bill, Vinehall Roads Bill, Five Oaks and Guildford Road Bill, Shankill (Kilkenny) Road Bill, Car narvonsbire Roads Bill, Bishop Weartnouth and Norton Road Bill, Ightliam Road Bill, Norwich and Fakenharn Road Bill, Shaftesbury Road Bill, Bubwith (York) Inclo sure Bill, Clayton's Divorce Bill, Lockhart's Name Bill. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. XEIVMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING. WEDNESDAY'S RACES. The races this afternoon consist of two or three matches, and a handicap plate, not one of which possesses the slightest interest. It is reported that Mr. Batson has sold Mixbury to Sir M. Wood, but we have not traced it to any authority. Match, 100,11. ft.—Mr. Wagstaff's Landrail received from Mr. Monroe's Ambrosia. Match, 100. T. Y.C. Mr. Forbes's Vic Wire beat Lord Chester • field's Titania; fi to 5 on the winner. Match, ItO. D.M. Lord Jersey's Middleton beat the Duke of Portland's Amphitrite, by two lengths ; 7 to 4 on the winner. Handicap Plate of 501. A. F. Won by Mr. Prince's Amphic tyon, beating Varna, V ar i at i on, P rotocol, Christina, Whiteboy, and Peter Pindar. STAFFORD RACES. TUESDAY, MAY 22.—The Members' Plate of 50 sous., with 10 snvs. for the second. Heats, twice round and a distance. Mr. E. Peel's Cis, 3 yrs 1 2 1 Mr. Painter's br. c. by Smolensk°, 3 yrs 6 1 2 Mr. Cooke's Sally Mags, 4 yrs 2 3 3 Mr. Applewaite's Lindley, 3 yrs 3 0 0 • Mr. Spencer's Bobby, 4 yrs Mr. Beardsworth's b. c. by Middleton Mr. Leek's br. f. by Sherwood 0 0 0 Mr. Williams's b. f. by Champignon, 3 yrs Mr. T. Roberts's b. g. Blue Ruin, 4 yrs 0 dr Hunter's Stakes of 50 sous. for horses not thorough bred. Heats, twice round and a distance. Mr. Robins's Shepherdess, 4 yrs Mr. Sirdefield's Napoleon, by Strephen, 3 yrs ... . 3 '2 Mr. Harding's gr. in Mr. Booth's Grey Leg, 5 yrs • 4dr • The sport on Tuesday was the best that has occurred in StaffOrd , for some years ; every heat being well contested. The day being fine, a vast concourse of people were assembled. Wednesday's sport is expected to be very good ; •there are twelve horses entered for the Publicans' Plate. • This forenoon, u p war d s of 150 Mem b ers o f the House of Commons had a long interview with Lord Aurnonr, at his residence in Downing-street, u pon tirt mubject of Irish Tithes.