The Sun. — London, England, 1832-05-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. R 0 USE OF L 0 R.7)S, MAY 25. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at twenty minutes past Ave. Mr. Alderman WOOD and other Members of the House of Commons brought up a Bill, entitled a Bill to establish a General Cemetery. Lord FOLEY and others brought up various private Bills. The Report of the Naval Civil Department Bill was brought up, and Wednesday next appointed for the second reading of it. Lord COLVILLE intimated that he had some remarks to offer upon this Bill, which he should make when the Bill came to be read a third time. CHARGE OF TREASON. On the motion for the House going into a Committee on the Reform Bill, The M.irquis of LONDONDERRY said, that as the Noble Secretary for the Home Department was not in his place, he begged to call the atteetion of the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government to a piece of trea son, for he could style it nothing else, which had taken place in that part of the world where the Noble Earl bad possessions —he meant the town of Newcastle. A great meeting of Reformers lately took place in that town, at which Dr. Headlam, the most intimate friend of the Noble Earl, presided. A long discussion took place, but there was one speech, delivered by a Mr. Larkins, which had created so extraordinary a sensation in the north of England, that he bad conceived it to be his duty to bring it before their Lordships, with the view of asking the Noble Earl whether it had fallen under his inspection, and whether it was his intention to prosecute it? The Noble Earl must know better than he did what must be the result of the treasonable language, and of the poli tical Unions, which pervaded the kingdom, especially when they saw the chief of those Unions, on his arrival in the metropolis, feasted as if he had been one of the greatest heroes of the age. Taking this circumstance into con sideration, and that the language which he (the Marquess of Londonderry) was about to bring before their Lordships bad been uttered in the presence of the most intimate friend of the Noble Earl, he thought it his duty to ask whether such language was countenanced by the Noble Earl, and whether be would not take some means to stop its utterance, and also to the progress of unions and meetings at which language was uttered, the only object of which could be to overthrow all the institutions of the country ? The Noble Marquess then read the following extract from the speech of Mr. Larkins, delivered at the Newcastle Reform Meeting, on Tuesday the 15th of May, occasion ally stopping to comment upon it. " It was a mistake, then, on our part, to suppose that the King was interested in the welfare of his people. It turns out that we were satirising him when we were comparing him to Alfred, and classing him with patriot Kings. The hostility of the King to Reform was also ap parrnt in the determined character of the opposition which has been made to the Rofurm 8 , 11 in the House of Lords. It is not in the character of courtiers and debauchees, such as from a large portion of the House of Lords, to oppose a stern and unrelenting opposition to the wishes of a King. I," the King had been sincere in his wishes for Reform, awl determined to use in favour of the Bill every power which the Constitution placed in his hands, that opposi tion would have vanished before the Royal determination, and shrunk with terror before the power of the Royal prerogative.—(Cheers.) Reform would have been carried without the necessity of the creation of a single Peer.— By hie refusal to suffer Lord Grey, to act in con formity with the fervent wishes and aspirations of his people, he has exhibited himself to the nation as the great obstacle in the way of Reform, since even by the mere threat of his determination to exercise the Royal Prerogative he could have overpowered the resistance of the House of Lords, and done justice to a long oppressed nation, which is bent upon regaining its rights and freedom in spite of the selfish opposition of the Peera2e, and even in defiance of the reluctance and obdu racy of a King, of a nation which may, ere long, exchange the tone of humble supplication for that of haughty de mand, and as a last resort, in a moment of indignation, con scious of its strength, wrest with violence from the usur pation of an instilling oligarchy those rights of which she has been unjustly and tyrannically deprived, and this determination on the part of the King to grant no Reform, to place power in the bands of men whom t'ie people detest and scorn, and to support a faction in opposition to his people and the votes of the House of Commons, I can scarce regard in any other light than an act exceeding in rashness, in atrocity and in guilt, the most unconstitutional proceedings of the First Charles, or the ordinances of Charles the Tenth. To this rash step he has been urged by the intreaties of a foreign female, and the importunities of certain bastard s th a t in fest the royal palace. It is said that there is an irresistible power behind the Throne, greater than the power of the Minister, and sufficient to hurl from place the man who has obtained the confidence of the people. Into the truth of these rumours, I trust, an in quiry will be made : for it is rumours of this kind that must make a Court and its intrigues intolerable to a free people. It is impossible to revolve in the mind all the circumstances of the times, and not involuntarily recur to the state of France before the eruption of that tre mendous revolution which overturned the Altar and the Throne, scattered the priests and the nobles of France, as wanderers and mendicants over the earth, convulsed tile world, and made the throne of every European des pot tremble to its base. Like France, then, we are bur dened with a load of debt, which it would seem almost impossible for any thing but a political convulsion to re move. We are oppressed with tars from which we want to be relieved. We are doomed to the support of a church odious from its exactions, and still more odious from the opposition of its mitred heads to the freedom of the people. --(Great cheering.) We possess an aristocracy unparal leled in insolence, haughtiness, arrogance, disdain of the people, and in rapacity. We have a Minister strong in popular support dismissed, like Neckar, by the in trigues of faction, from the councils of his •Sovereign, and like Neckar to be brought back, I trust, triumphant on the shoulders of the people. We have an ux o ri o us King, hostile to Reform, and incited to re sistance to the wishes of his people by the disastrous in fluence of a foreigner, who has been elevated to the dignity and splendour of Queen Consort of England. But above all, we have a people as resolute and determined as ever 'were the French to be free. Such is the state of England. Should not William the Fourth recollect the fate of Louis the Sixteenth ? Should not a Queen, who makes herself a busy, intermeddling politician, recollect the fate of Maria Antoinette ? From this hustings I bid the Queen of England recollect, that in consequence of the opposition of that ill-fated woman to the wishes of the people of France, a fairer head than ever graced the shoulders of Adelaide, Queen of England, rolled upon the scaffold." Some of their Lordships had thought proper to laugh when he mentioned the words " courtiers midi debauchees ;" but whether it was a proper matter for merriment to hear their Lordships described as debauchees, lie would leave to the Muse to determine. But he would ask their Lord ships whether they could hear such language as this with out the utmost horror and indignation ?—(Loud cries of Hear, hear, on the Opposition side.) He again asked whether this speech hail come under the notice of the No ble Earl at the head of the Administration, and whether that Noble Earl had directed any proceedings to be insti tuted in consi quence ? The speech contained passages still more horribly treasonable, and even blasphemous, than the passages which he had read to their Lordships ; but he had rather avoid going on to read them, that he might not be the means of giving them greater publicity than they had already gained. He could not regularly move an Address of this Ilouse to the Crown, praying that proceedings might be instituted against the person who bad given utterance to this atrocious and treasonable language; but he did feel that unless the Noble Earl did not distsnctly disavow all approbation of such language— (Hear, on the Ministerial side)—they might say hear, but they ought to recollect that the Chairman of the meeting was a friend of the Noble Earl, and that it might perhaps be believed that the Chairman did not disapprove of this language when be sat and heard it without rebuk og the speaker.—(Hear, hear, on the Opposition side, and some calls on the Noble Marquess to go on with the reading of the letter.) He had avoided reading other most atrocious passages in the speech for the reason he had stated, but some Noble Lords wished that he should go on : he would do so. Lord COLVILLE—If any more such passages were to be read, he would move that strangers be ordered to with d:aw. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY did not wish that motion to be persevered in, and therefore he would refrain from reading any more of this speech. But it was ini - possible to reflect without indignation, that such language had been need at a public meeting without rebuke or censure, and if the Noble Earl did not disclaim all ap probation of such lan;uage, and did not deny that it had any countenance from him, he c er t a i n l y wou ld l ay b e f ore their Lordships a distinct proposition on the subject. Lord GODERICH rose, apparently much agitated, and implored his Noble Friend not to condescend to answer that question. ft was a question that ought not to be an swered by any Noble Lord in that House, and far less by him who was at the head of his Majesty's Administration. For what was the question ? What was the charge ? lII° very qua alon - ilid imply a charge, and a charge of the very worst description. The question was neither more nor less than whether his Noble Friend at the head of hi• Majesty's Government did not approve of doctrines and inguage at the bare mention of which every drop of Eng fish blood must be almost curdled with horror—doctrines and language which were full of the most desperate ant , villanous treason.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," on both aides of the House.) If his Noble Friend could haye been justly charged with approving one-tenth part of such atrocious and treasonable language, he would have de served to lose his head on the scaffold.—(Hear, hear.) e begged of his Noble Friend, for God's sake, not to -answer such a question. He begged of him, for his own sake, and for the sake of the rest of his Majesty's Ministers—for they were all concerned in the matter— not to answer such a question. Persons in their situation were sometimes called upon to bear much, and they bad borne much, hut flesh and blood could not stand this. He would not submit in silence to such a monstrous accusation as appeared to be implied in such a question:—(Hear.) It was surely most unnecessary for his Noble Friend to say, that this was a sort of language which he never could have used himself, and never could approve when uttered by others. It was a question which ought never to have been asked, and which being asked, ought not to be an swered.—(Cheers on the Ministerial side.) Lord WYNFORD was convinced that the Noble Earl could not but regard such language with horror, and he therefore admitted, that an answer to that part of the question was entirely unnecessary. But then there was another part of the question, in the propriety of which he concurred, and which he thought well deserving of an an swer, and that was, whether the speech in question had fallen under the Noble Earl's observation, and whether he had ordered any proceedings to he instituted with respect to it ? He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was not a proper course for this House to address the Throne, desiring that a prosecution should be instituted, since there was a remote possibility that the case might find its way into this House for judicial deci sion. But although he felt this, yet he did think that their Lordships were indebted to the Noble Marquess for calling their attention to the subject, and no one who heard the passages that were read by the Noble Marquess could doubt what the Government ought to do. It had been said, that every libel—that every little disloyal effusion thrown out during a period of excitement, ought not to be subject of prosecution ; and he admitted that every little effusion of disloyalty might not be fit matter for legal proceeding; but here there was ❑ot merely a little effusion of disloyalty, but downright treason.—(Hear, hear.) Where would all this stop if people, who used such language at public meetings, were to be allowed to pass with impunity? The Ministers, it was well known, had issued a Proclamation for putting down Political Unions, and by the law, as it existed at this moment, they might be put down They were most certainly illegal, and if there were no statute law against them, they were contrary to the common law. And yet it appeared that a representative of what was called the Birmingham Political Union had been entertained and feasted at the table of the Chief Magistrate of London— (Hear, hear, on the Opposition side.) When they saw such a scene as that, it was impossible not to call to mind what had happened before the late bloody revolution in France.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted that it would not he proper to submit a motion fur an address to the Crown, but at the same time he must say that the time for the forbearance of the Government was gone by. It was a disgrace to the country to allow such speeches and publi cations to pass with impunity, and something ought im mediately to be done. The Earl of RADNOR—The Noble and Learned Lord had admitted that it would be irregular to make a motion in this House for an address to the Crown, calling on the King to institute prosecutions ; but it was quite as irre gular to be making these speeches without any motio❑ at all.—(Cheers on the Ministerial side.) This practice of making speeches on asking questions, and without any question being before the House, was most inconvenient; and the proceeding of the Noble Marquess was neither right nor Constitutional, nor regular.—(Hear, hear.) The Government was in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible for their acts ; but the Noble Lords on the other side appeared disposed to assume the powers of the Government. What was it but assuming the powers of Government to come down with these scraps of paper, and asking Ministers whether they approved or disapproved of this thing and the other?—(Hear, hear, on the Ministerial side.) The Noble Marquess, and the Noble and Learned Lord who spoke last, talked of treason and traitors; but on what authority did they make those charges? On the authority of a newspaper speech. How did they know the speech was authentic, or whether such a speech had ever been made by Mr. Larkins or any one else? The Noble and Learned Lord had said that Mr. Larkins was a traitor ; but on what authority did he hold up Mr. Larkins, or any one else, as a traitor? How came the Noble and Learned Lord, who bad been a Judge, and with his judicial character still hanging about him, to designate any one as a traitor before he was tried ?---(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear," on the Ministerial side.) He did not distinctly bear the words which had been read by the Noble Marquess, but from what he did hear, be admitted that the words were bad enough. But on what authority did the Noble and Learned Lord call a particular person a traitor before he was tried ?—[Lord WYNI ORD —No, no; he did not call biro a traitor; he had ❑ever mentioned the name of Larkins.] But the Noble Mar quess had named Mr. Larkins, and the Noble and Learned Lord, although he had not mimed him, had called him a traitor. What right or authority had they to call upo❑ the Noble Earl to say whether he approved of the lan guage which they found in these scraps of papers, or whether he intended to direct any proceedings to be in stituted? Suppose the Noble Earl had had this speech in an authentic shape, and suppose he did intend to institute proceedings upon the subject, was. lie to come down to this House to state every thing that he knew, and every thing that he intended to do? Such questions ought not to be put, because they were most ir regular ; and such speeches ought not to be made upon them, 'iecause they were not only most irregular, but most unconstitutional and most illegal.—(Cheers o❑ the Ministerial side.) Then the Noble and Learned Lord strongly recommended prosecutions to be instituted, and conducted with zeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord said that be had no doubt they would be conducted with ability ; but then his great object was to have - them carried on with zeal; and be said that if they were conducted with such zeal as to show that the Government wished for convictions, he had no doubt that Juries would convict. Was that the spirit by which a Noble and Learned Lord, who bad been a Chief Justice, ought to be actuated ?—( Hear.) Was that a mode of speaking fit for the judicial bench ?—(Hear.) He would not further prolong this most irregular conversation. The observations of the Noble and Learned Lord were most unjust, because they were most irregular ; they were most unconstitu tional, and therefore most unjust; they were most illegal, and therefore most unjust; and in every view they were most unjust from beginning to end. He (Lord Radnor) had no acquaintance whatever with Mr. Larkins; but he knew that it was most improper to designate Mr. Larkins, or any one else, as a traitor, before he was tried and con victed. A speech appeared in a newspaper, and without any proof whatever of its authenticity, the Noble and Learned Lord at once called the person, to whom it was attributed, a traitor. This was most unjust, and most unbecoming the character of a Judge.—(Loud cheering.) Lord WYNFORD—The Noble Earl seemed very much inclined to attack him on every occasion; and on the pre sent his attack on him had been most unjustifiable.— He had never mentioned Mr. Larkins; he had never heard his name till this night; he had never accused him of anything, nor did he ever call him traitor, or connect his name with treason or any other crime. He called upon the Noble Earl to do him the justice to hear him. He did not say the speech was made by Mr. Larkins or any one else, or that it was ever made ; but the speeth had been ushered into the world by somebody, and what he said was, that the speech was treasonable. If he had been then a Judge (and he was most happy that he was not)—(Hear, hear)—he would perhaps have to deal with the Noble Earl in a different manner. He did not wish to be a Judge, and certainly did not wish to accept the situation of Judge from the Noble Earl at the head of the Administration ; and he did not think that he deserved the sneer with which that Noble Earl appeared to hear him when he had so amply acquitted the Noble Earl of all idea of approving the language contained in that paper. That sneering manner was most indecorous in the Noble Earl, who, from his situation, ought to set them all an example.—(Hear, hear.) He had never used expressions which were improperly personal to another, and he had a right to expect that he himself should be treated with equal forbearance. If he should not be treated with the same forbearance that he used with respect to others, he should know bow to conduct himself. The Earl of RADNOR—He did not say that the Noble and Learned Lord had named Mr. Larkins, but the Noble Magness had named Mr. Larkins as the author of the speech ; and the Noble and Learned Lord did say that the author of the speech was a traitor. Earl GREY—I cannot suffer such a conversation as the present to pass wit , out some observations, though no one can be more unwilling than myself to prolong a con versation of this irregular character. I think that most of your Lordships will agree with me, that a more irregu lar question was never before put ; and I think it will be as generally couceied that I am under no obligation to answer such an interrogatory. On what grounds a late Judge feels hi mse lf j us tifi e d i n com ing forward in thi. House to designat e that by a p ar ticular appellation which he may be required hereafter to pronounce upon as a Judge in th e last reso rt, I s h a ll no t no w s top to discuss ; but I am unable to refrain from expressing the utmost istonishment that any Noble Peer, after pronouncing a speech to be treasonable, should then gravely inquire of me if I concur in the sentiments of the speaker. I nee,: scarcely remind your Lordships that it is contrary not only to all the rules and practices of this House, but to those of common decency and decorum. A Noble Lord comes down to the House, and, with a newspaper in his hand, says, here is a treasonable speech—do you concur in the sentiments which the speaker has expressed ?. I need scarcely suggest to your Lordships that such con duct is totally unjustifiable, contrary to order, and against every sense or feeling of propriety. In the whole course of my life I never heard of any such question having been put to a Minister of the Crown, or to any private indivi dual. I beg to ask the Noble Lord what there is in the course of my life which gives him the right to put such a question to me ? What is there that can give any man the right to inquire of austher if he approves of language, which I should be afraid more particularly to characterize— language which, as appli2d to the King and the Queen, there will, I trust, be found no one here to justify? I again ask, upon what dog s the Noble Lord found his right to put such a question ? It would seem as if he rested it upon the fact that a friend of mine presided at the meeting where the speech is reported to have been delivered. I am not going to disclaim the friendship of Dr. Ileadlam, of whom I will venture to say, that there does not exist a man of more honourable feelings, or one who I believe would be more steadfast in what he conceived to be the strict line of his duty. lam certainly honoured with the ;acquaintance of Dr. Headlam, but his intimate friendship I cannot claim ; but, surely, if I even were his intimat e friend, th a t wou ld g i ve no r i g h t to d eman d o f me if I con curred in the sentiments of a public speaker at a public meeting, merely because Dr. Headlain presided at that meeting. lam aware, that in the extraordinary scenes in which we are now engaged, it behoves us to act with cau tion and circumspection ; but I scarcely think it is neces sary to puree myself from the charge sought to be cast upon me by the imputation conveyed in the question which the House has just now heard. Were I to treat such a matter seriously, I should say, that this is a case in which the whole tenour of my lifemight be set against the charge implied by the Noble Earl at the table. If it be necessary for me to say anything upon the subject at all, I should say that I have no hesitation in declaring, that I heard with regret, indignation, and digust, the unjust and indecent attacks made against those illustrious personages, whom I am hound by every sentiment of duty, loyalty, and aff ction, to respect and love. I say, my Lords. I will not endea vour to repel the sort of insinuations that have been cast abroad, and of course I will remain silent respecting the intentions of Government, if we can be said to have formed any in respect to this matter. If the Noble Earl at the table thinks proper to bring forward any motion upon this subject, I shall, at the proper time, be prepared to discuss it with him ; but I beg, at the same time, to re mind him, that it has been admitted by the Noble and Learned Lord that this House is not the public prosecutor: and let me, at the same time, remind him, that it is not because a publication is indecent and libellous that it is therefore expedient to prosecute its author. There are a variety of other considerations to be taken into account before such a resolution can be adopted. The persons who are intrusted with the Executive are undoubtedly bound to enforce proper respect towards the Sovereign, and to maintain the authority of the Government; and if they neglect to use the powers intrusted to them for that purpose, they are responsible for the result, and may be called to account for their conduct ; but it surely will not be contended that we are bound to prosecute every case that appears to be of a libellous character. To decide upon a public prosecution, is a matter of great difficulty and delicacy, and with embarrassing considerations of va rious kinds. Noble Lords would bear in mind that this was not the first occasion in which it became necessary to consider the expediency of prosecuting for a libel ; and I would beg a Noble Lord who has filled the office of Pub lic Prosecutor to remember, that he made it his boast that he had not instituted any prosecution for libel. A libel might be of the most atrocious character, and yet it might be highly inexpediant to institute a prosecution against its author. 1 must not close these few observations without taking credit, in the name of his Majesty's Government, for as much anxiety as any Government to put down sedi tious publications ; but, as I have already said, there are many considerations dependent upon such a proceeding, which, under no circumstances, are easily decided. I have felt it necessary to say thus much, and I sincerely hope the discussion may not be revived. The Duke of CUMBERLAND was not desirous of pro longing the present conversation, but he wished to say that he did not believe that there was a man in the country, much lees any Noble Peer in that House, who for a single instant entertained the idea that the Noble Earl opposite could partake of the sentiments contained in the speech, an extract from which the House had heard read. The fact being so, he hoped that the conversation might then end, and he hoped that they would proceed with the business of the evening coolly and deliberately. He would repeat, such an idea as that which the Noble Earl thought it necessary to disclaim had never entered into the mind of any one present; his character was too well known for such an imputation to rest upon it. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY explained, and ex• pressed his satisfaction at the disclaimer of the Noble Ear, at the head of his Majesty's Government. REFORM. The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill in Parliament (England) Bill. The question having been put on the 27th clause, that relating to the 101. franchise, The Earl of HADDINGTON intended to have sub mitted a motio❑ to the Committee on this clause, hut cir cumstances had occurred which left him unprepared, and he should therefore defer his intention till the consideration of the report. Lord WHARNCLIFFE, when he first turned his atten tion to the subject of the 101. franchise, thought that it had been fixed too low ; but upon reflection, he thought that if it were really rendered a bona fide franchise, it might yet be rendered unobjectionable. The Noble Lotd then went on to urge objections to the qualification by rent, observing that it had been tried and rejected. That which the present Bill went to establish was, he thought, equAlly objectionable, as leading to interminable confusion and litigation ; whereas, it was his opinion that the most advantageous plan for ascertaining the value would be, the amount at which the houses were estimated for the pur poses of the pnors-rates. If the qualification could be made a bona fide qualification, he should have no objec. tion to it. The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that there was some difficulty with respect to ascertaining the qualifies tion, but contended that nothing had yet been proposed bet ter than the plan which the Bill provided. The 40a. free holds were, as to the mode of ascertaining their value, open to the same objection. It was not practicable to devise any plan which at the outset would work with the same facility that, after a short time, might he expected. Ac cording to the mode of proceeding established by the Bill, a very simple practice would prevail at elections, for all that would be required was that the elector should esta blish his identity. The mode of ascertaining value by means of the poor-rate valuation, would be open to this amongst many objections, that the mode of making the poor -rate valuation varied exceedingly in different places; again, such an arrangement would have the effect of dis franchisim; no fewer than 107,000 electors. He approved of that provision of the Bill which continued to a man the right of voting, even if he did not continue to reside in the same house, provided he did not remove to a house of less than 101. value. Lord ELLENBOROUGH maintained, that, as the clause stood, the overseer had the power of disfranchising any man to whom he objected. The Earl of MALMESBURY insisted on the same objection. The LORD CHANCELLOR contended the objection was unfounded, and that the clause would work well. The Earl of MALIIIESBURY thought that, in conse quence of the trouble imposed on overseers, respectable persons would decline the office of overseers. It would be sought after by electioneering demagogues, and the poor would be neglected, and he took occasion to observe, that if there were to be one happy corner in this country after this Bill was passed, it would be that i❑ which there was no local representation, no extensive manufacture, and no political union. —(Cheers.) The LORD CHANCELLOR contended the overseer was the only proper officer by whom the registry could he made. _ Lord WY FORD tvas of opinion that this arrange ment would lead to false swearing as to the value of property. The Marquess of BUTE supported the amendment, and the Marquess of LA ssoowNE opposed it. Lord ELLENBOROUGH recommended the postpone ment of the clause. After a few words from Lord W HARNCLIFFE, the Ain•endment was negatived. Several verbal amendments were then introduced into file clause, which, so amended, was ordered to stand par , if the Bill. The 28th and 29th clauses were then ordered to stain parts of the Bill. Lord ELLENBOROUG H, adverting to the 28th clause observed that it was in direct opposition to a clause whicl had appeared in the first Bill. The clause was then agreed to after a few words from the Lord CHANCELLOR. Clauses 29 and 30 were also agreed to.—No opposition On clause 31 being read, Lord WYNFORD said it had been his intention to move an Amendment, excepting voters for burgage te nures from its operation ; but after what he had seen of the opposition to improvements on the part of the Go vernment, he should reserve his objections for another occasion. The clause was then agreed to. Clause 32, being read, The Marquess of LONDONDERRY objected to that part of it which limited the right of voting in boroughs to those persons who resided within a circuit of seven miles. The effect of the clause would be to deprive many of his tenants of a vote for the city of Durham, while it gave new votes to the Noble Baro❑ opposite (Lord Durham), and added to that alarming preponderance which other p irts of the Bill conferred on that Noble Lord in the re presentation of the county. He had already alluded to this most disgusting partiality displayed towards the pro perty of the Noble Baron in the county of Durham, and although the Noble Baro❑ had attempted a reply to his objections, its flimsiness was obvious to the House. It was said, that the arrangement was the result of the un biassed judgment of Commissioners, but those Commis sioners, it should be borne in mind, were appointed by the Government. The Marquess of CLANRICARDE thought the Noble Baron should not condescend to reply to such allusions. As to the charge brought by the Noble Marquess against the Commissioners, it was equally unworthy of refutation, and he believed there was not an assembly in the country, in which an individual could be found, who would throw out such insinuations against his fellow-labourers, or im pute to them such motives.—(Hear, hear.) Lord DURHAM did not recognise the right of the Noble Marquess to ask such questions, nor, but for its being mixed up with other matters, would he have noticed them. The Noble Marquess, presuming, pro bably, on what would have been bis own course, had he had taken leave to suppose that he (Lord Dur ham) had turned the power of the situation in which he was placed, to the purposes of private jobbing— he trusted it was not necessary for him to say that he was not one of those.—(Hear, hear.) Everyone was not of the same frame of mind on such subjects, and he had never felt an inclination to traffic with the liberties of his country.— ( Hear.) With respect to the boundary of seven miles, lie knew nothing of it till long after it was fixed ; but lie cared so little for it, that if the Noble Marquess moved that it should be only one or two miles, he might command his vote; for he had ❑o desire to drive his voters to the poll, whatever might be the practice or the wishes of other Noble Lords on such subjects. The Earl of RADNOR observed that the Noble Mar quess had quarrelled with a number which was generally considered peculiarly fortunate. There were seven days in the week, and there were seven wonders of the world— (Hear, and a laugh)—and there were seven wise men— (laughter)—and seven was the favourite hour for dinner— (lauahter)—and it was now three hours after dinner_ (continued laughter.) The Marquess of LONDONDERRY, after the expla nation of the Noble Baron (Durham), would not say more on the subject, although he still thought it very ex traordinary. The Noble Earl had been very facetious at his expense ; and he had, as usual, been supported by the cheers and yells of the Noble Lords opposite.—(Order, order)—whenever fault was found with a colon or semi colon of the Bill. He had not the ability to answer them ; but if the unconstitutional exercise of power had not driven from his side the phalanx that could have put them down, there would nat have been so many shouts of triumph. He, however, was determined to hold out to the last. The Duke of RICHMOND felt himself called on to say, that he was the person who proposed the boundary of seven miles; and he could add that the Noble Baron (Dur ham) was utterly ignorant of it, for he was not at that time in England. The Noble and Gallant Marquess (Londonderry) had said that he, at least, would hold out courageously to the last. He (the Duke of Richmond) had never doubted the courage and gallantry of the Noble Marquess ; but he certainly must say, that he had some doubts of his discretion. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY could also say to the Gallant Duke that he bad no doubts of that Noble Lord's courage, but he had some doubts which would pre ponderate if the Noble Duke's gallantry and his indiscre tion were put into opposite scales. The Duke of RICHMOND said that the Gallant Mar quess was unable to challenge him with indiscretion. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY—I deny it.—(A laugh.) The Duke of RICHMOND challenged the Noble Mar quess to point out an act of his life in which he had been guilty of indiscretion. The clause was then agreed to. The 33d clause was next agreed to, after a short conver station. The question having been put upon the 34th clause, Lord WYNFORD suggested an Amendment, the purpose of which could not be collected below the Bar. A conversation was then carried on across the table, in the course of which, The Duke of RICHMOND did not think the Marquess of Londonderry could be, in the question respecting Sea ham, quite an unbiassed judge, as he had a considerable interest in that place. The Marquess of LONDONDERRY spurned with contempt the Noble Duke's attack upon him. The Duke of RICHMOND thought that such language ought not to be used in the House of Lords. Their Lordships could scarcely wonder that people out of doors should say that the Lords were guilty of atrocious acts, when, in that House, one Lord was heard to charge another, in the face of their Lordships, with atrocious conduct ; nor could they blame people out of doors for saying that their Lordships were worthy of contempt, when a Noble Marquis spurned with contempt another Member of that Hou-e.—(Hear, hear.)—The Noble Mar quees was one of the last persons whom he should choose to insult at any time ; but if he had any wish to insult him, he should certainly not do so in that House, where I their Lordships' rules would prevent him from repelling an insult.—(Hear.) The Marquess of LONDONDERRY acquitted the Noble Duke of any wish to insult him, and he apologized to the House if he had fallen into any error.—(Hear.) The 34th, 35th, Stith, 37th, 38th, 39th, and 40th clauses were then agreed to without dissent. The question having been put upon the 41st clause, Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected to the appointment of the Barristers being vested in the Judges. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the power must be vested somewhere, and be thought that the Judges were the persons best fitted to exercise it. That clause, and the 42d, were then agreed to. All the other clauses up to 80, were then agreed to. Lord WYNFORD gave notice that, on bringing up the Report he should move certain clauses against bribery and corruption. The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was a separate Bill for that object. The Marquess of SALISBURY gave notice that on entering in schedules A and B, he should move that the electors for those places should have the right of voting for the adjoining town or county. The CHAIRMAN then moved that schedules C, D, E, and F, should stand part of the Bill, which were agreed to , and to ndth \ e ved Ho n u es s d e ay ael n j e n x ti t. rned at a quarter past Twelve o'clock, HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 25. FINCHETT MADDOCK, Esq. the newly elected Member for Chester took the oaths and his seat. Mr. BULLER brought up the amendments of the Com mittee upon the Exeter Railway Bill, which were ordered to be read a second time. Sir W. GUISE brought up the amendments of the Committee on the St. Jamey's (Bristol) Improvement Bill. Lord STANLEY brought up the amendments on the Chorlton-row Improvement Bill, which were read a second time. ..... Mr. BAILLIE presented petitions from the High Con stables of the wards of St. Michael, St. Nicholas, and St. Stephen, in the city of Bristol ; and also from a Mr. William Newton C'ark, all against the Bristol Compensa tio❑ Bill.—Referred to the Committee. Mr. Alderman VENABLES postponed the third read ing of the Golden-lane Burial.ground Bill until the Sth of June. -- - mr. HUME presented a petitio❑ from the Rector and certain inhabitants of St. Luke's, against the Golden-lane Burial-ground Bill. Mr. COLE presented three petitions from the Protestant clergy, &c. of the county of Fermanagh, and from certain Sunday-school teachers, against the proposed system of Irish Education. Colonel PERCEVAL presented two similar petitions rrom two parishes in the county of Sligo. Mr, GORDON presented several similar petitions from rl t a w n o d Bri s st ir ol E an . dsTceErt‘avinAßpaTrishe presentedl in Ie , pe o t n i e tio o n f s f w ro h l i n ch w tv i s: ilso against the Irish Bill of R e f orm . town and another Royal Burgh, praying the House not to grant any further supplies until the Reform Bill be pass , d. Sir S. GLYNN presented a petition from the counties of Flint and Denbigh, against the system of Education in Ireland. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented petitions from Drum condra, Walterstown, and other parishes in the county of Meath, on the subject of tithes. Also a similar petition from a place in Limerick. The Hon. Member also pre sented a petition from Youghal, complaining of the great exaction of tolls at markets and fairs in Ireland, and pray ing the House to make some corrections in the system. The Hon. Member hoped, in a reformed Parliament at lea.t, this matter would be inquired into. Mr. O'CONNELL, in supporting the prayer of the pe. tition, observed, that if the late Secretary for Ireland (Lord L. Gower) had continued in office, he would have put an end to Foch an impost. The Hon. Member regretted that the present Secretary had entirely passed by so important a subject. Mr. CHAPMAN presented a petition from Baltimore, praying for the extinction of tithes. Also from a parish in Westmeath, against the punishment of death in cases of forgery. Mr. YOUNG presented a petition from the diocese off Kilmore, against the plan of education in Ireland. Colonel LINDSAY presented a petition from Auchter muchty, in the county of Fife, praying that that place might be added to the eastern district of burghs in that county. Mr. GILLON presented a petition from Musselburgh, praying the House to stop the supplies till the Reform Bill became law. Also from the Shetla - nd Isles, praying that under the Reform Bill they might be separated from the Orkney Isles. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the brick and tile burners of Dorset, praying for the removal of the duty on tiles. General PALMER presented petitions from the city of Bath, the parishes of St. Paul and St. Michael, in the same city, praying the House not to grant any supplies till the Reform Bill be passed into a law. Mr. BALDWIN moved for an account of the number of appeals and rehearings that were beard before the Lords of the Privy Council, also the number of decisions come to by their Lordships within the last year.—Ordered. Sir M. J. STEWART presented two petitions from Greenock, praying for protection to the West India colonies. Mr. BAILLIE presented a petition from Bristol, in favour of the General Registry Bill ; and one from the same city, praying the House to stop the supplies till the Reform Bill was pissed. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the Rev. Thomas Smith, of Shooter's-hill, in the county of Kent, in favour of a measure of Reform in the Church of Eng land. The petitioner complained that by the law every Bishop was obliged to take an oath that be did not wish for the honour, when it was well known that no one who was made a Bishop, but coveted it. He also thought that the Right Rev. Bench was overpaid, and that no Bishop ought to have more than 10001. a-year. He also prayed for the abolition of tithes, as they had been the cause of much bloodshed in Ireland. Mr. FOLEY presented a petition from Kidderminster, for the stoppage of the supplies. Lord ALTHORP moved that the House, at its rising, stand adjourned till Wednesday next, in consequence of Monday being the King's Birth-day, and Tuesday the Anniversary of the Restoration of Charles the Second. —Agreed to. Mr. STANLEY rose to move the second reading of Irish Reform Bill, but before doing so he was anxious to bring under the notice of the House, a gross breach of its privileges. On Friday last the Committee on Irish Tithes agreed to the draught of a Report to he made to that House—the usual course was, that the Re port should be printed for the use of the Mem bers, but there was a general understanding that no Member should publish e►en extracts; then how much would the House be surprised to hear that a verbatim copy of that report appeared in the Dublin Evening Mail of Monday last ? Here was this document going the round of all the Irish Papers, inviting discussion, and rousing angry feeling, before even that House was acquainted with it. He did not mean to pursue the matter any further at present, but as the House was to adjourn over two or three days, he was anxious to bring it before the House, in order that the public might be made aware that the report had not been made public by any authority emanating from either the Committee or Go vernment. The Hon. Gentleman then moved the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill. Mr. LABOUCHERE felt that the House could be scarcely doing its duty, unless it had some assurances from his Majesty's Ministers respecting the salary to be given to the new Governor who was about to proceed to Madras. He therefore asked whether that officer was to receive the same salary as the former Governor, or whether he was to go out at a reduced salary? He (Mr. L.) was one who was far from wishing that the salaries of such persons should he reduced below what was large or liberal, but he certainly conceived that the salary hitherto enjoyed of 16,000/. a year was somewhat too large. Ile therefore wished to ask what arrangements had been made upon:that subject ? There was another point of even greater import ance than that : the House was aware that the East India Company's Charter was about to expire, and that it was the intention of Ministers to institute an investigation, with the view of making some new arrange ments—he wished to know whether the new governor was to proceed to Madras, with an understanding that be was liable to such alterations in the salary and duties as might appear necessary to be carried into effect. Mr. GRANT, in reply, stated that the pre sent opportunity had, indeed, been taken to make a reduction in the salary to be given to the new Governor. The present salary had been stated to be 16,000/., but from a difference in the rate of ex change, it was really not more than 14,000/., and it was proposed to reduce that sum to 10,000/. With respect to the second question, he could only state that the new Governor, like all other officers, of course took office subject to such arrangements as might at any time be made by Parliament. REFORM IN PARLIAMENT (IRELAND) BILL. The Order of the Day for the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill was then read, Mr. STANLEY rose—lt was unnecessary for him to occupy the attention of the House with any ob servations upon the general topics of Parliamentary Reform, as its necessity had in the strongest mea sure, and in various instances by discussions of both Houses of Parliament bean exemplified ; and if any per sons were of opinion that the principles of Reform in England ought to be different from the principles of Reform in Ireland—that the nomination boroughs in England were injurious, but in Ireland a blessing; it was not for him to combat such arguments ; at present he would leave the vindication of them to those persons who entertained such opinions.— (Hear, hear, bear.) In answer to perhaps a nume rous class of persons who objected to the Bill, because they believed the principles of it were not carried to a sufficient extent in Ireland, he would only say that if any amendments to extend the principles further were proposed, he would give them the greatest attention ; But those gentlemen who entertained such opinions would, of course, be expected to vote for the second reading of the Bill, from the views which they entertained of Parliamentary Reform.—(Hear, hear.) While upon this subject, he would just advert for a moment to a letter which had appeared in one of the daily papers, containing objections to the principles and provisions of the Bill, and which bore the signature of the Hon. Member for Kerry ; he would not, however, impute the letter to that Hon. Member, but he should like him to attempt to prove two assertions contained in it ; one was, that the Bill, instead of being called a Bill to amend the representrtion of Ireland, ought to be called a Bill to restore the Irish Protestant ascendency. The Hon. Member would fail to convince him that such would be the tendency of the Bill, but lie would be much obliged to him if he would convince the Hon. Members on the other side of the House, of that tendency.—(Hear.) So to the second assertion, viz., that be (Mr. Stanley) had received assurances of support from all the Tories, he could only say that of all the three Bills, the one against which the hot test opposition of the Tories was expected to be manifested was the Irish Bill. These were the two assertions made very boldly, but this he would forgive, if the Hon. Member would undertike to prove them.—(Hear and laughter.) The Rijit Hon. Member for Aldborough (Mr. Croker) had stated as his reason for voting for the second reading of the Bill, that he did not do so be cause he approved of the Bill, but that having sanctioned the second reading of the English Bill, with a view of having it discussed in Committee, he would adopt the same course on the present occasion. Another Hon. Member had gone further, and stated that Ireland had been treated with great injustice in not having enough done for it. He (Mr. Stanley) therefore confidently re peated that these Honourable Members would not op pose the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill, because that would be preventing a single step being taken towards accomplishing the object which they entertained. The objections to this Bill were chiefly on religious grounds, from the fear of its giving an immense oreponderance to the Roman Catholics. tre denied h : but even if he admitted that argument, he would meet it in limine by the assertion that it was no argument in 1832 : The Right Hon. Gentleman proceeded to quote extracts from speeches delivered on the occasion of passing the Catholic Relief Bill, and contended that the object of all chose was to destroy the distinctionbetween Protestants and Catholics, and declared that the objections to the pre sent Bill on religious grounds would be the means of sow ing dissension, and recreating the distinctions of religion. In the first place, he would take the liberty of turning to the representation of the counties in Ireland, and the House would have the goodness to recollect that out of the one hundred members, sixty-four were returned by the county constituency, and the Bill, as far as it extended the elective franchise, could not, by any possibility, have any effect against the Protestant religion in Ireland. Accord ing to the last returns laid before the House, the popula tion of Ireland at the present moment amounted to 7,700,000, and excluding the 700,000 included in the counties of cities, there would remain seven millions to return members generally for Ireland. Accord ing to the last returns laid on the table of the House, the total number of the county constituency of Ireland was 52,162 persons. Of that 52,162 there were only about 20,000 who were so low as the 101. franchise. How, therefore, could such a constituency be unsafe or dangerous to the Protestant religion ? Hon. Members who thought so had better have no constituency at all. He would state still further, that only 20,000 of that number of the 101. and out of that number in the Protestant province of Ulster alone there were no less than 8,500 persons, leaving only a very small proportion to the other three provinces. —(Cheers.) He might here mention an addition which was intended to be proposed in the present Bill, which was not in the last —it was intended to give the right of voting to 501. freeholders, the same as in England, nrovided their _ lease was not for a less term than sixty years.—(Cheers.) This was necessary to be done, because, owing to the for mer laws against the Catholics, they could hold no free hold property, and it became a custom to purchase for the term of 99 years. There were in some parts of Ireland a great number of such holders, who were not freeholders, but who were, notwithstanding, quite as independent, and in every way as well qualified to exercise the elective fran chise. He believed there was only one place in Ireland in which the extent of the constituency under this Bill could produce any inconvenience, and that was Dublin. If all who might qualify under this Bill should register, he be lieved there would be as many as 16,000 voters. At pre sent there were 3,500 freemen and 2,500 freeholders in that city; but he thought it would scarcely be contended that the freemen formed a more respectable constituency than the 101. householders under this Bill. For all the other seven great towns of Ireland there would be left a constituency of only 15,000, and no one, he thought, would contend that it was unsafe to trust the franchise to such a constituency. Was it right that the great town of Belfast, with a population of 44,000 inhabitants, should have the mockery of a representation in a constituency of only 13 persons ?—(Hear, hear.) Or would any one contend that, in that great Protestant town, a consti tuency of 2,300 respectable householders could not be admitted without danger to the Protestant Establish ment ?_( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He might also direct attention to Dundalk, which had been blessed since the Union with 16 electors and 13 representatives, termi nating fortunately in the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. E. Gordon), none of whom, with two or three exceptions, were in any way connected with the borough. The Bill made one alteration which was calculated to lessen Catho lic influence ; for there were five boroughs in Ireland which had a Si. franchise, and which by this Bill would be altered to a 101. franchise.—t Hear, hear.) It was argued that the Bill would contravene the intention of James 1., who bad chartered 40 boroughs, for the express purpose of giving a preponderating influence to the Protes tants of Ireland. He denied that such was the intention of James, and he was borne out in this opinion by the speech of Sir John Davis, on the opening of the Irish Par liament, in 1660, who said that the Parliament was sum moned to legislate for all classes of the country, and that the forty new boroughs were created, in order that one half of the community might not legislate for the other half without their consent.—(Hear, hear.) In order to show that such could not be its object, the Members re turned of each religion were not very dissimilar, there being 125 Protestants and 121 Catholics. Looking, therefore, at this Bill, even with the eye of one bigotedly opposed to the Catholics, be must come to the conclusion, that it could not add more than six or seven Members to the Catholic interest.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It was cuti ous with respect to corporate and nomination boroughs that their very rottenness was made their merit, for it was said that if the inhabitants could agree with the corpora tions there would be no danger in admitting them, but as it was improbable that they should, they would have no com munications with them.—(Hear.) They were bound to pass the present Bill by every tie of justice to a country to which they were united, he trusted, by inseparable ties. He called upon them to look at the regard paid by the Irish Members towards the English Reform Bill, and to say whether those Members had not taken a deep interest in its success—whether, in fact, their advocacy of it bad not been frank, and open, and generons.—(Loud cheers from all parts of the House.) The principle was the same for England as for Ireland. If it was just in this country, it was equally so in that ; and, independent of the danger of withholding a just measure, they should remember if they refused it to the latter while granting it to the former, they would furnish thereby the strongest argument for a repeal of the Union between the two countries that he had yet heard uttered—(Hear, hear)—for it would be ad mitting that they looked at English interests in one point of view and Irish interests in another—that in England they are determined to legislate according to the voice of the people, while they had made up their minds to legislate for Ireland by stifling it.—(Loud cheers.) The Eight Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time. Mr. LEFROY said it was his intention to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. There were particular dangers affecting Ire land which were not so much as glanced at by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The great point insisted upon by the advocates of Reform in England was the preponderance of borough representation over what was called free and po pular representation. But that argument would not hold good in the case of Ireland. Ireland had 300 Mem bers at the time of the Union ; of these 100 of the most exceptionable were swept away—he begged pardon, the most unexceptionable.—(A laugh.) For his own part, he should n o t o bj ec t t o an i ncrease d representation for the counties if it was necessary to have a Reform Bill at all. (Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.) There were in Ire land eight boroughs which had a free and open constituen. cy, and of the remaining seventeen the constituency, though small in number, was still not corrupt. The num ber for each borough varied from 12 to 94 , individuals. The franchise was given to these boroughs by the consti tution of the land. Now he should like to know upon what ground it could be argued that it was not unconsti tutional to take away, without any crime proved, those rights which the constitution had orignally granted. But then, if no constitutional grounds could be shown, and if nothing could be urged except expediency, he would ask upon what foundation did that argument rest ? Where eighty-three out of one hundred Members were returned by a popular constituency, and where there remained only seventeen that were returned for close boroughs, could it be said that Reform was necessary ? He would put it fearlessly to the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) to say whether, if the borough constituency of England bore no greater proportion to the popular conBtig tuency than the borough constituency of Ireland did to popular representation, be would ever have deemed it advisible to bring forward the question of Reform? But then it was asked by the Right Hon. Gentleman, if, while England was to have a real representation, that of Ireland was to continue a mere mockery? But he (Mr. Lefroy) would ask whether, after what he had now stated, repre sentation in Ireland would be called a mockery ? It was asked by the Right Hon. Gentleman, are we, who would not endure nomination boroughs in England, to suffer them to exist in Ireland ? To this he would reply, that if they were to legislate for Ireland in the same manner as for England, then they ought to go to the whole extent of the principle proposed to be adopted for England, and give to Ireland an accession of county Members. That counterpoise would give to property that protection which its possessors had a right to expect when so sweeping a change was to be effected. He utterly denied the frorrect ness of the doctrine which he had heard advanced in that House, that religion had nothing to do with the political institutions of the Crown. Was not the Crown Protes tant ? Were not all our institutions Protestant ? Did any one imagine that the Established Church of Ireland could resist the increased influence which this measure would give the Roman Catholics?—(Loud ch ee rs from the Opposition benches.) Did any one imagine that the Church of Ireland would fail alone ? Would not the Church of England, in all probability, fall with her; and it she did not, would not the Union between the two coun tries be dissolved? What was the language of the no w reforming Lord Plunket, at the time he was a Member of this House. Lord Plunket said that the Protestant Church of Ireland was the bond of union between England and Ireland, and that for any roan to rob the Church o f her rights would be to seal her doom, and terminate the connexion between the two countries. The Hon. Member then referred to a letter addressed to the people of Ireland