The Sun. — London, England, 1832-04-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF TilF, PUILIC JOURNALS. The Duke of Buckingham's speech on Wed ,neday evening was worthy of his projected Re. form Bill. The animus of both was character. istic of the Duke of Bucking ha It shewen a deadly enmity to all Reform, as well in w h a t his Grace proposed as in what he reprobated. The excellence of the measure rekoornmended by the Noble Duke consists, according to his view of things, in the minuteness and insignificance of the Reforms which it would tolerate. Yet he confesses that nothing should induce him to suggest or promise any Bill whatever, but the necessity of pacifying public feeling throughout the country; as if the mockery—the mummery —of a Reform, which in vagoe phrase he has shadowed out, Nrould be received as any thing short of direct insult by the people. The Duke of Buckingham is not the only politician of this day, who seems to have extracted from English history more of poison than wholesome diet. The period of Charles I. speaks different lan guages to various cars. The hot and 'shallow partisan draws one lesson from it—the reflecting statesman another. Whilst Lord Grey would caution the advocate of old abuses to concede in time, and with a good grace, that the harmony between Government and people may remain unshaken by a sense of injury not atoned for until redress has been extorted by terror, such profound politicians as the Duke of Buckingham, and such gentle pastors of the church as Dr. Phillpotts, can find nothing in the tragic page of the 17th century but examples of the wisdom of ruling a brave people by the acourge,—of reigning for a dozen sears without any House of Commons of levying money by Royal warrant instead onoy act of Parliament, —of screening and encouraging tyrannical mi nisters in the most lawless oppressions ) —of pro i-noting slippery and selfish adventurers into tur• bulent and obtrusive prelates. Such are the ductions drawn from the fate of Charles by men who, had they lived in the age of that unhappy monarch, would too surely have ranked with his most inauspicious eounaellers, and figured among the most active causes of his errors, crimes, and downfall. It is monstrous in these abettors of civil wrongs to pretend that the cala mities which befell Charles 1. had any general origin but the King's pertinacity, for nearly fif teen years, in refusing to move forward with an advancing world, and in imposing upon the ge nerations of the 17th century those political in stitutions which even their fathers of forty years receding i had F outgrown. If the lords t e mp ora l and the bishops of that day were degraded by an act of unprecedented power in the House of Commons, they were first disgraced in public opinion as instruments of tyranny and enemies of the people. Then a touch sufficed to throw them down. When, therefore, so much is said about the dangers and violences of those disas trous times, let noble Lords and pious Prelates learn, and inwardly digest, the matter of history, and neither deceive themselves nor try to deceive others (by far the more difficult task of the two) respecting its real signification. Grant ) not grudgingly nor sulkily, but promptly and grace f illy, that which, if you are shrewd, you must he conscious of your incapacity to keep,—that which, if you are wise, you must know that to retain would be an injustice. That, my Lords, is no humiliation, and no rashness,—it is dignity, security, public virtue, and good sense. But if the Duke of Buckingham was not too fortunate in his allusions to English history, so neither was the Right Rev. Dr. Phillpotts in the cons.ruc tion he put upon that of trance. We thought that the Right Rev. Prelate knew better than to confound names with substanc es . T o prove that a revolution may be effected through the forms of the constitution, he tells us that the vast chancres which had occurred in France from 1787 to 1792, and which it is admitted on all sides did actually amount to a revolution, were carried into effect by the regular authorities, and under the constitutional powers of the Government. That statement is not really true, though it may have the semblance of truth. The real and substan tial Government of France had been for ages an absolute monarchy, the ancient institutions, as Bishop Phillpotts calls them, had become as obsolete and imaginary. The States-General, for instance, through which the vast changes before 1792 were brought about, had possessed no more validity or reality in prance, as an as sembly invested with any tangible control over the French Government, or any other than a mere historical existence, than the convocation of the clergy (as it once flourished) has now in England, or than the Cortes of Arragon have at this moment in Spain. The States-General were nominally summoned by Louis XVI., but they were in truth called up from the tomb by the na tion. 1 hey were a new and democratic power, assembled under a traditional name ; the actual Government, namely, the despotism; was substan tially overturned by the act which called legislative assemblies of Frenchmen into being: that one step was in itsey - thrarevolution. In this, therefore, although no more than an episodical attack upon Lord Grey, it is as well to remind my Lord Bishop Phillpotts, that, however confident 'and plausible, and exulting, he was most egregiously mistaken. It was but prudent in the Learned Prelate to abstain from any further references to the French revolution, an event of which, as of the long course of calamities which marked the fate of Charles 1., the moral is—" Persist not in withholding justice from a nation, lest it wring from y o u more t h an j ust i ce. " As f or the Bishop of Exeter's rebuke to Lord Har rowby, for turning round white truth and reason stood immovable, it came with an ill grace from that reverend personage, who ought to have re membered that on the Catholic question truth was no less stationary than with regard to Re form. Nevertheless, there were those who, at that period, did not stand still upon the pedestal of truth. Dr. Phillpotts for instance, unless we are mistaken, spun completely round, and never ceased from turning till he settled into a Bishop.— Times. An important meeting of the proprietors of Bank of England stock took place yesterday. It was summoned by the Directors, without the usual form of requisition by any part of the pro prietary, on account of the peculiarity of the crisis in the relation of the Bank Charter. On the lith instant, a Committee is to be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on banking concerns generally ; an d as i t is thought very naturally that the report of the Committee will direct the determination of Government with respect to the renewal of the Bank Charter, it behoved the Directors to consider immediately . .. what steps were to be taken. A draught-Of apeti tion to the House of Commons had . been - accord. inglv prepared, and was . now read. It was neither approved nor disapproved, but was ordered to be printed ; and, on account of the urgency of th e occasion, the Directors were vested with the discretionary power of presenting it to the House when and how they pleased. That petition, we observe, states simply i and neatly, " that the privileges hitherto pos sessed by the Bank of England had been " beneficial to the country; How much i s taken for granted in this broad assertion ? Has , he stoppage of pai ment at dln naiik, by the simple order of the 11Iinkter Pitt, in the year 1797, been " !•,zneticial to the country ?" If so, it is r. 'aenefit which has as much the appear ance of an evil at the present time, as an': benefit can well be conceived to Itarr.:-. But, in any case, we assert that no monied corporation should be allowed, er should have been allowed, to rise to such 'consequence through exch , sive and guarded privileges, that the counnt , ls of the nations should depend upon thr, of that corporation, be the power renlly exercised beneficial or injurious. The next object of the meeting related to a mat ter of their own routine. Various conversations having taken place betwetn the present governor and deputy gotTrtior of the Bank with Lord Althcrp, respecting the renewal of the Charter, it was proposed that the powers of those gentle men, to finish the afol'esaid conversations, should be continued for any period not exceeding six months after the election of the fresh authotities for conducting the general concerns of the corpo ration.— Times. This night will determine whether the Re form Will shall go into a Committee, or the work of Reform must be bern i - Ce novo. It is stated confidently in high quarters that the second reading ‘vir.l be carried by a majority of from three to live. This is close work, and we do not ex actly see how in a body of 400 and upwards, the allowance for even unavoidable accidents can be calculated to such a nicety as to make the decision either way a matte~ of certain antici pation. It is well, qiel - efore, to be prepared for the worst, if it can be considered the worst, that thsi sill should at once be rejected, instead of being suffered to live a rickety life of a few days or weeks, to be " Burked " in due season. We are not quite sure that the people would not gain by haeing the Bill thrown out at once, in steatt, of being carried by a small majority of from three to five ; for in the former case the Ministry would be obliged to decide without delay on the adoption of the only means by which the Bill can be carried without mutilation. We think it hardly worth our while to argue with the matt whose mind is so constituted that he can seriously believe, that, without a large addition of honest Peers, the Bill can ever be come law. This Lord Grey must know ; for we have a better opinion of his understanding than to suppose his hesitation to create Peers arises from any delusion with regard to the pos sibility of carrying the measure without them ; and we are disposed to attribute his reluctance to avail himself of the power with which it is well known he has been intrusted by his Majesty to some secret understanding or pledge, not to avail himself of it till the necessity should be demonstrated. From whatever cause such a pledge has been ex acted, it is better that the question should be at once brought to an issue than that further delay should take place. If the Bill be thrown out, one of two things must take place either the Ministry must resign, or they must at OTICC prorogue Parliament, make a large batch of Peers, and bring in a Bill similar to that which has been rejected into the House of Lords. No Ministry would think of insulting the nation by hesitating to adopt either of these cours es . W e canno t bring our selves to believe, notwithstanding the insinua tions thrown out by the Duke of Wellington, that his Majesty is not perfectly sincere. His Grace wished it to he believed, that his Majesty had no choice, when the Whig Ministry entered on office—that the events in France and Belgium had created a desire fbr Reform in this country, which could only be successfully opposed by the interposition of delay,—that, under such circumstances, the Tory Ministry were obliged to quit the field for a time, but that the King, in naming Whigs for their successors, merely yielded to necessity, and in no way identified himself with their mea sures. This is not certainly the general belief; for his Majesty receives credit with the people for a constancy of purpose and sincerity, which would not allow him to give his confidence to any man of whose policy he did not approve, merely to allow a breathing-time to their enemies. Indeed we deem the declaration of the Duke of Wellington, that the King, in a mat ter involving so essentially the happiness of the people, had no opinion of his own, but was a mere passive receptacle of the opinions of his Ministers, to be a very strong insult to his Majesty. We think better both of the head and heart of his Majesty than to suppose he would affect to re pose in any set of men a confidence he did not feel ; that he would choose for an instant to ap pear to sanction measures fraught with ruin to die country. The Reform Bill is one of those measures which, if a man possess a vestige of understanding, he cannot view with indifference. The Duke of Wellington, with all his apparent bluntness, is an exceedingly cunning man, or his physiognomy greatly belies him. The insi nuation against the sincerity of the King had in all probability no other motive than to detach from Ministers a few of those adheres s, who support them not from principle but expe diency. Indeed, if' the Duke had really known that the sentiments of the King with regard to Reform were different from those of his Minis ters, he would have taken care but to proclaim his knowledge in so public a manner.. The people of England have great faith in the honesty and sincerity of the King. They derive that faith from the conduct of his Majesty throughout a long life. They will not readily believe that so open and honest-hearted a Monarch can sport with important principles, approving one day of Reform, and opposing himself to it the next. Were the people to see in his Majesty any such heartlessness as is implied in - such a con duct, great indeed would be their grief. He is now unquestionably the most popular Monarch who has sat on the throne of this country since the revolution. What he would be after such an evidence of insincerity, we cannot trust our selves with expressing. But the insinuation is a mere ruse de guerre. Believing then the King firm, we take it for granted that he will enable Ministers to resort to all means necessary to carry an efficient Reform Bill, when it has been demonstrated that they are required. The instant rejection of the Reform Bill, would not, therefore, lead to the resignation of Ministers, but to the creation of a sufficient number of Peers with Out delae, and the re-introduction of the RefOrrit" Bill into the House of Lords un deilietter auspices. But if it should happen that the fate - of the Bill were to determine the fate of the . Ministry, theri'the people ought to he prepared for the course necessary to be pur sued. \%e would enjoin them to do nothing rashly. The rejection of the Bill ought not alone to determine their conduct. Let them ob serve what follows. If the resignation of Mi nisters follow, that is a signal there is no mis taking. The must ,effectual opposition in our times is that which is conducted by fiscal means, or, in plain English, by closing the purse-strings. Within the limit of the law an Englishman has abundant means of giving effect to his wishes. We need not express ourselves more explicitly. All violence is to be avoidtd, as only calculated to forward the ends of the enemiet, of the people. dzrotticea. Lora Wharneliffe hit upon the cause of the blunder or th Duke of Wellington with re g ard to Reform. Th e greatest part o f hi s lif e had been spent abroad, and his information with re spect to the state of the country was necessarily defective. We have no doubt whatever that his Grace was 3incere when he observed— " I hold there can be no doubt whatever, that from the close of 18zd to the beginning of 1831 there existed no opinion in faCoUr of Reform in this country.—( Hear.) I mean, my Fords, no opinion generally prevalent amongst the people. The fact was fully admitted in the discus sions on the subject in the House of Gwamons, and has since been published to the world. But when the Revo lution took place in France, and when Belgium set an other example of the same nature, then a sentiment in favour of Parliamentary Reform began to spread —( Hear. ) That feeling was called into existence by the events which bad occurred abroad ) and it had a great influence on the elections which were thtn about to take place, and had, consequently, considerable influence on the Parliament, which met for the first time in 1830." We have no doubt that his Grace believed all this, for we can in no otherwise account for the outrageous insult he offered to the people on the opening of the Parliament of 1830. The Noble Duke supposed, that because there was no agitation, there was no feeling. He sup posed, in like manner, that the 'Dissenters were indifferent about the repeal of the Test and Cor poration Laws, because for many years they made no attempt to obtain the repeal of them. The truth is (and that by the way is the best answer to those who contend that the Reform Bill will be but the first of an endless series of Constitu tional changes), that men cannot afford to be constantly occupied with organical changes, and without surrendering their opinion as to the ne cessity of such changes, by a sort of common consent, agree to postpone the agitation of them till a favourable opportunity, and in the mean time to content themselves with practical im provements under the existing Constitution. A man cannot be always pulling down and rebuild ing his house, for though he may be satisfied of its defects, on casting up the accounts, the in convenience attendant on an alteration may in duce him to submit as long as possible to these defects. In this way, for instance, the Reformers, aware of Mr. Canning's sentiments with regard to Reform, agreed to wave the agitation of question, in order not to throw difficulties in his way at a time when they believed that his Mi nistry would be highly beneficial, not only to this empire, but to Europe in general. The Reformers did not renounce their opinions be cause they did not choose to press the question at that particular time, and the Dissenters had not become indifferent to the stigma of the Test and Corporation Laws because for about forty years they remained silent. When they con ceived themselves affronted by a declaration of Mr. Canning, they determined to make one great effort to remove the grievance. The Reformers were not created by the events of 1830, as the Duke of Wellington foolishly imagines, but a number of circumstances concurred at that time to impress them with the idea that Reform ought no longer to be delayed, and that it behoved them once for all to encounter all the incon venience attendant on the agitation of so mo mentous a question. The nation went into it heart and soul ; and it speaks highly for the in telligence and good sense of the people-of Eng land, that they determined to urge the question in such a manner that it could no longer be re sisted. Lord Wharncliffe observed that— " The Noble Duke had passed a great part of his life in the service—in the glorious service of his country, and therefore he had been unable to watch tl e progress of public feeling in the same manner as men at home had dune. He poke with all deference of the Noble Duke, but he must say that there were circumstances in the Noble Duke's life that prevented him knowing the changes that hid taken place in the feelings of this country. On that subject he (Lord Wharnclitfe) was a better witness. He had been in Parliament fur many years, and lie had had the honour of representing large holies of people ; and from the time he first entered Parliament to the pre sent moment, he was convinced that the wish for Reform had been a growing desire with the people."--Morning Chronicle. In the debate of last night, the Duke of Buckingham gave the country a sample of the sort of legislation, in the way of Reform, they may expect from him. It is said that even the devil can be compelled to speak truth. It says something for the Reformers, that they have been able to compel so very untoward a subject as the Duke of Buck ingham to take up the cau•e of R-form. After a great deal of rhodomontad e about the cauldron of Reform and its venomous contents, and the forgetfulness of what was due to the King in the Minister who went about boasting of his authority to mak- Peers, the destruction of the Con st:tution and so forth, the Noble Duke treated his auditors to a sample of what he understood by Constitution : tt He would not (he said) recur to the thrice-told talc of the French Revolution; but he would beg leave to remind their Lordships of what took place in this country in the time of Charles the First. The first thing which the Commons did was to pass the Triennial Bill, to which the unfortunate King gave his consent. He was then called a Patriot and Citizen King.— (Hear.) But, what followed ? The next year he lost his Mini. stern; and then what followed ? Then came the abuse of the Peers and the Bishops ; and then, after a short period, that ruin ensued which their Lordships were well acquainted Then, according to his Grace of Buckingham, all that betel Clarks the Fiist and the country was caused by his passing the Triennial Bill. If his Grace ltad been his counsi llor, be would have advised him not to consent to the Triennial Bill. The Triennial Bill was a had measure. Now what was the Triennial Bill ? The King had endeavoured to govern without Parliaments, and at one time had allowed eleven years to pass without sum moning one, falling in the mean time on all manner of illegal courses, such as ship-money, &c. to obtain funds. By a Statute of E!ward 111. it had been enacted that Parliaments should be held once every year, or oftener, if necessary, but the means of giving effect to the law had. not been fixed. All that the Triennial Bill did was to secure the assembing of Parliament every third year ; and as Glades had hitherto dissolved every Parliament almost immediately after its meeting, there was a provision that it should not be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved with out its own consent during the space of fifty days. Even the Tory Hume admits that " nothing could be mor e necessary than such a Statute for completing a regular plan of- law and . liberty." Hume adds, that " During long intermissions of Parliament, grievances and abuses, as was found by recent experience, would naturally creep in ; and it would even become necessary for the King and Council to exert a great discretionary au thority, awl by Acts of State to supply in every emergency the legislative power, whose meeting was so uncertain and precarious." Without the Triennial Bill, then, it appears that the King might have dispensed altogether with the Parliament; and, in fact, he had only called the Parlia ment which extorted that Bill from him, in consequence of the difficulties in which he had involved himself by his mad interference wits the Scotch, which led to their en trance Into England. We may easily see from this, that if ths.. Duke of Buckingham disapproves of the Triennial Bill, and thinks it h:tter that money should be raised by a King without than with the consent of Parliament, he must have small relish now fur any change, however slight, in the boroughmongering system. Earl Radnor called upon the Bench of Bishops, " imploring them, as they valued the morality of the country, to aid in putting an end to bribery, corruption, drunkenness, perjury, and the Alter vices which the ancient system occasioned." But the Bishop of Exeter glories in the shame. " Shameful parts of the Constitution," said the Right Rev. Father in God, " they might be, but nut the less necessary to the sound ness of the Constitution. (Cheers.)" The Bishops of Lincoln and London supported the Bill. The latter de clared, " that he had made up his mind to vote for the second reading of this Bill, not because he approved of it entirely, but because it appeared to him the more prudent in. Recommended, as it WV, by a large majority of the House of Commons, whose opinions bad b een tw i ce declared on the subject—supported as i t was, if not by great majority, at least by a most formidable minority of the people, it seemed to him the most prudent plan to deal with it as they could; to modify what alas objection 'lsle, yet not to trench on the principle of the Bill, so as to •ndanger the speedy settlement of this question.—(Great •heering.) He fell the most perfect conviction that a 'neasure of Reform of some extent was required." The hest speech on the Opposition side last night, on the whole was the Bishop of Exeter's, though the merit con sisted more in its vehemence than its force of argument. The Marquess of Lansdowne very successfully exposed the thsurdity of the cuckoo cry of Revolution set up against th e Bill. " Of all the absurdities which it was possible ro conceive, the greatest was, that there .hould be a per fectly immutable state of the law in a mutable state of thing.. There *ere great changes incident to the condi tion of society, and there were great changes incident to the stare of the world. There was no safety for society unless those great natural changes were met by artificial changes." And his Lordship instanced the United States of America, observing, that " if the great men who had framed the Constitution of the United States, and whose memory the world would ever hold in veneration, had had th e folly to exclude from that Constitution the means of receiving the accession of new States to the Union, with out any ostensible change in the law, there would have been an end to the American constitution." Upon the whole, the Debate of last night was heavy. —Morn/ ng Chronicle of Thursday. The Reform Bill was again the subject of dis cussion in the House of Lords on Wednesday night, and gave rise, in the early part of the evening, to no small portion of recrimination and personal invective, between some of those who took part in it. It must not, however, be wondered at that no new argument, for or against, was brought forward, and that the debate, but for some small portions of personality, was dull and uninteresting ; for what is there in the shape of novelty to be said, either on the general question of Reform, or on the Bill which is now before the House ? Nothing—absolutely nothing. Every thing that can be said has already been said upon it, and those who either speak or write upon it, can only give an appearance of novelty to their reasonings by clothing them in different language, and using them for other pur poses than they had previously done. We are, however, notwithstanding these deductions from the interest of any observation's which we may make, inclined to notice briefly the discussion of last night. Its main feature was the appearance of the Bishops in triple array, as became the well-known prudence of the body—the Bishop of Lincoln being for the second reading, for no reason, that we can well comprehend, but that he voted last time against it—the Bishop of Exeter, Phillpotts, of Catholic emancipation memory, declaring, in the spirit of the hero of Waterloo, that he was opposed to the Bill in toto —and the Bishop of London boldly declaring himself in favour of the whole Bill, and express ing his hope that it would not only be read a second time in the Lords, but that it would stiffer no material alteration in the Committee. To the Bishop of London the Reformers owe their united thanks—with Phillpotts there would be as much reason in arguing as with a native of the South-Sea Islands ; but with the Bishop of Lincoln, who appears to have a glimmering of light in him, but has not yet arrived at the full and perfect day of a thorough understanding, either of the meritsof the Bill or of the feelings of the people of England, on the subject, we must have a word or two. His Reverence says, that he voted against the Bill because it was, in his comprehension, a Bill of that character, the rejection of which was less dangerous than its reception ; and that he will vote for the second reading of the present Bill, not because it is different from the last Bill, which, if it were 'different or less efficient, would be a good reason ; hut first, because there is no other Bill before him, for which he can vote, and because the public mind being more made up to have the matter settled, than to have the whole Bill, the plan of Reform may be safely consi dered in a Committee on its own merits, and without any reference to public feeling ! We trust that we state the Bishop's arguments cor reedy, though in different and more brief terms than he employed, for we have assuredly as little desire, as we have need, to misrepresent him. But if what we state be true, what a foolish and inconsistent speech was that which he made— what a parleying did it exhibit between the spirit of good and evil—what an ignorance of the real state of public feeling ! His Reverence would not vote for the second reading of the Bill when it was last under his consideration, because the public mind was excited, and he thought that there was less danger in the rejec tion than in the reception of the Bill !—but he will vote for the second reading of the present Bill, which is equally efficient with the last Bill, and of which the people of England approve ill an equally warm spirit, because he thinks that the minds of the people are not ex cited, and that it may be safely considered, that is, mutilated, in the committee ! Where has he been living ? With whom has he had converse ? From whom has he learned that the people of England were less solicitous now than on a former occasion, for the Bill and th►e whole Bill? Let the people of England answer him, as they will answer, if the Bill be either rejected or mutilated, in a a voice of thunder. For ourselves, we know of no change in the public mind respecting the Bill, except that quiet, and calm, and silent de termination to carry the Bill, which, like the calm which so frequently precedes the stonn, forebodes the destruction of those who may be insane enough to thwart its fondest and most earnest wishes. Of the speaker who followed, we have only space to observe, that Lord Lans downe made a brilliant reply to Phillpotts, the Bishop of Exeter, and that the debate was ad journed to Friday, when it is expected that it will terminate.—Morning Advertiser. Of all the speeches delivered in the House of Lords, during the present discussion on the Reform Bill, that of the Duke of Wellington is, beyond all comparison, the most important. The change in the opinions of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had acted as leaders in the rejection of the former Bill, had been for some time known to the public. The announcement, therefore, of their intention, during the debate, to support the second reading, created no sur prise, and did not alter the position in which t he question was previously supposed to have .stood. The arguments on which those Noble Lords justified their altered line of conduct m i g ht have been easily anticipated. Nobody could have presumed they would have so stulti fied themselves as to support, upon its merits, a Bill essentially the same with one which they had denounced and rejected as subversive of the best institutions of the country, if not of the self-contradiction :nilar po s iti on to t h at w hi c h tCohlolellnyns from up psi such a s c e isl l the Duke of Wellington himself took when he carr i e d that question of " Catholic Emancipa tion" which he had always previously opposed, and which he and Sir Robert Peel deserted, and bitterly persecuted Mr. Canning for only being suspected of making his influence as Premier auxiliary to its success. The position which the Duke tuuk upon that occasion rested entirely on o t lr w ground lhold i n n o. f co tl: l e ces i s n i e o x n pe a c i l l i y en l c o y ng a e n r and B danger oth, hie and Sir Robert Peel expressly and repeatedly declared that the opinions which they had always maintained touching the merits of the question were unchanged, but accounted for their change of conduct by pointing to the state of Ireland, torn and distracted by civil faction, and by re p'resenting the popular demand for concession so strong m that country that it could not be further resisted without a manifest danger of ci vil war. The arguments of Lords Harrowby and Wharneliffe, for supporting the second read ing of the Reform Bill on the present occasion are, inutatis nominibus, the same as those on which the Duke of Wellington rested his de fence in the case to which we have alluded. This being the fact, whoever accuses those Noble Lords of inconsistency, certainly his Grace has no right to do so ; for much stronger is the ar gument of expediency in relation to the Reform Bill than it was in reference to the Catholic question. If the majority of the people of Ire land were in favour of emancipation, as there is no doubt they were, it is as certain that the majority of the people of this country were either against it, or so passive as to care nothing at all about the matter. Undoubtedly the ~ phy sical force," taken any side on that question, would have been against emancipation. Mr. Can ning had admitted that, and expressed his ap prehension of arousing the inert mass of popular resistance. Yet the Duke of Welling ton conceded the Catholic claims, not because his reason was convinced, but because Ireland was dissatisfied. How is it with respect to the Reform Bill ? :England, Ireland, and Scotland, by overwhelming majorities, demand it. How can the Duke, who abandoned his cherished opinions on one great question, in deference to popular clamour in Ireland, still oppose his own opinions, on another and greater question, to the collected sense of public opinion throughout the whole empire ? We said the Duke of Welling ton's speech was the most important one deli vered during the present debate ; and we said so for this reason, that it is a speech which conveys the first intimation on his Grace's part that sonic reform is necessary. Is not this a contra diction of his memorable declaration against the necessity for any reform ? He now professes his willingness to consider the provisions of the Reform Bill of which the Duke of Buckingham has given notice. Thus he has descended from his high ground of stern and unqualified opposi tion to all reform. But, as the Duke of Buck ingham's Bill can never satisfy the public, would it not be more wise, and just as consistent, in the Duke of Wellington to vote for the Minis terial Bill going into a Committee, lest a worse Bill may follow ?—Morning Herald. The speech delivered by the Earl of Shrews. bury on Tuesday evening affords an apt illus tration of the spirit actuating that party to which his Lordship belongs in their support of the Ministerial measure. The Noble Earl is the bitter enemy of the Protestant religion and of the Established Church, and therefore he is the ardent friend of Lord Grey's Reform Bill. He abuses and vilifies the Ministers of that Church, and in the same spirit he upholds and praises the Ministerial project. The class of Reformers which his Lordship represents are virulently hostile to the temporal power and dignity of the Church of England, holding in abomination, and determined, upon principles the most rigid and inflexible, to dissolve at the earliest possible mo ment, all connexion between the Church and State, or, in other words, to annihilate the Pro testant Establishment. But if those who desire to see the overthrow of the Protestant Church are, with that view, warm friends to the Bill, those who regard all religion, under whatever denomination, with feelings of deadly hatred, are no less so. All scoffers at religion, all Deists and Atheists throughout the kingdom, are, without a single exception, Reformers. To this class also many Members of both Houses of Parliament who have the words civil and religi ous liberty most frequently in their mouths are known to belong. This class of persons in every country manifest their enmity to all reli gion, by uniting themselves to any sect or party who happen to be for the time the most formi dable assailants of the predominant religion. At the present moment the attack is made under cover of a scheme for Reform of Parliament, and therefore the authors and supporters of the Re form Bill rank all the Atheists, Deists, and scoffers at religion throughout the country among their most zealous adherents. In the same manner all the enemies of the aristocracy and the throne, all the republicans and levellers in the kingdom, are to a man loud in their approbation of the Reform Bill. It rests with the House of Lords to say whether or not these classes of per sons shall be prOvided with the means of accom plishing their purposes. Aye or no on the second reading will determine the question.— Let Noble Lords then, before they give their sanction to the measure proposed to them, con, sitter with what parties they would unite them selves, in what case they would enlist, and what objects they would promote in so doing. They know, they must be conscious, that nothing will satisfy the Reform Bill faction but the unre served surrender of the Church and of the Con stitution. If their own reflections do not lead them to that conviction, the declarations of the Reformers themselves must satisfy them as to the fact. All idea of compromise is, perhaps, for tunately, at an end. The question is reduced by the conduct and language of the Reformers to the utmost simplicity. It is, not whether any arrangements can be made by which Reform would be rendered compatible with the preserva tion of the Protestant Church and State of Eng land, but whether both shall be unconditionally surrendered into the hands of their avowed and deadly enemies. Such is the question on which the judgment of the Peers is so anxiously ex pected by the country.—Morning Post. It is with feelings of deep regret we learn that ro th a e n c , h u ol h e o ra u i_s as as a s c u e m om in i g a any m io o g re a m ga a n li g gi o la f n i t ig a i s i i t , o ec rs t a to t L E y ly o . o, One was taken y i nig an h d t. d i et T l h s e h o la r i t i l d y lo a r f d te r o f h t i s h e arrival a i t t l b ., l i i t c t .l h e to, o u r s t, o, on at Southery, was also taken ill the same day, and died in the course of the night. It was stated by the Board of Health, on Tuesday, that they are in possession of information which fully warants them in stating that the reports of the disease having appeared at Lynn and Wisbecla arc unfounded. Yes terday morning (Thursday) there was one case of malignant cholera at Ely. Every person (we believe eight in number) reported since Saturday, with the exception of one individual, has died.—Cambridge Chronicle. SINGULAR MISTAKE.—A woman, named Brown ; who was committed to prison for ringing the changes on a pawnbroker, made her appearance, on Monday evening, at the Rosamond-street station-house, and demanded some ar ticles which had been taken from her previous to going to pri son, just as the policeman who had taken her into custody was stating that he had been at Clerkenwell all day, and was ulti mately informed that Brown's trial could not come on till twelve next morning. The man, on seeing the woman walk in, was thunderstruck, and in answer to his queries, she stated that she had beer discharged by the governor. This proved to he correct ; but it was discovered that she had been released for another of the same name. She was consequently men ducted back to her old quarters, much to the satisfaction of the governor of the prison. CHESTER ASSIZES, APRIL 10. Joseph Senior, a person who practised as a mr nidwife, was indicted for manslaughter, by causing he death of a child at the time of its birth. The details are of a nature only fit for a medical vork, the main question was whether the child was 'cad or alive at the time when the prisoner, by his own account, did that which would have occasioned o s death if alive. Mr. Baron I3OI,LAND recapitulated the evidence, tnd the Jriry, afrer a short d e lib erat i on, returned a verdict of Guilty. TAUNTON ASSIZES, APRIL 10. Mclsom, Richards, Smith, Marlin, Syntes, Gill, end Earl, convicted, during the present assizes, of iotously assembling and beginning to demolish, the thr ee f ormer t h e W h i te Hart, Bath, and the othels, houses at Yeovil, were placed at the bar. Mr. Justice PARKE then addressed them. He ex horted them to feel gratitude for the mercy shown to them, and to make it apparent by their future lives that they duly appreciated it. Sentence of death teas then recorded against them. Nathaniel Watts, convicted last week of shoot ing his wife with intent to murder her, was then brought up. The learned JUDGE then said—" You have been convicted of a most brutal and cruel attack upon her whom it was your bounden duty to ptctect. Your conduct is the most savage I ever recollect, inas mt c't as you attacked this pOor harmless woman, who had given you no earthly offence, the mother of your child, and merely because she had with kindness and as a good woman, exhorted you to abstain from that course of life you were then pursu ing. Though the unfortunate woman has, with the greatest kindness, endeavoured to prevail upon me to extend mercy to you, yet, as 1 am in a situation not to please one party or another—l sit here as one who is not to bear the sword in vain, and to take care :hit persons 0' wicked minds may hum that the swotil hangs over them—l have come to a resolution that it is my duty to carry the law into effect. I Will ach is you now to resort to that foun tain of mercy (here his Lordship was so affected that he was obliged to stop for some minutes, and there was scarcely a dry eye in the court) where, if pro per application is made for it, it will not be refused, and I do trust that all who hear the sound of my voice will abstain from these things, the end whereof is death." Sentence of death was then passed upon the prisoner, and he was removed. Wednesday, April 11. This day the learned Judges left this for London, as the twelve Judges meet on Saturday in the House of Lords. The three men who have been condemned are eft for execution. THE MARKETS. SOUTHALL MARKET.—ApriI 11. In this day's market, which exhibited an average time of year supply, and was not very numerously attended by buyers, parti_ cularly from London, the trade was very dull throughout, at the following prices per stone of tdb. to sink the oft's : Beet --2 s. 10d. to 3s. 10d. 1 44. to ss. 2d. Mutton 10 410 1 Pork The foregoing quotations are Veal and Pork 2d. per stone lower than on this day ae'nnight ; prices otherwise stationary. Beasts, 154 ; Sheep, 3,504 ; Calves, 45 ; Pigs, 50. A considerable part of the supply left the market unsold. LEWES M A RKET.—April 10. Beet 3s. Od. to 3s. 10,1. Veal 4s. Od. to 4s. Sd. Mutton .... I . 310 4 10 Pork 0 0 4 0 A moderate supply, and a sluggish trade. ItUSIFORD MARKEL-April 11. s. d. to s. d. s. d. o. d. fleet 2 8 3 8 I Veal Mutton 3 4 4 8 Pork 3 8 4 8 Suckling Calves from l4s. to 30s ; Quarter old Pigel2l to 18s. each. Supply rather limited, and trade dull. C..I;NTRY CORN MARKETS DURING IHE WEEK. Wheat. i Barley. i oats. Beans. Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to s. Is.to s. s. Abingdon—. 62 81 31 43 2'2 30 38 Andover 73 80 37 41 23 44 Birmingham—. 56 66 40 44 24 32 52 iSridport _ 56 74 32 36 26 30 54 Cirencester --...... 50 62 26 38 21 26 36 41 aringdon---.... 54 Ati 36 46 26 31 46 Ciuildford —. 49 74 23 32 26 35 .lenley 54 83 30 35 20 30 40 Hereityrd frighworth 62 80 32 42 28 3yt-- 56 Nlaidenhead —.. 56 98 34 44 22 30 36 37 Dlonmoutli 56 61 39 Reading 65 110 31 47 21 27 34 42 Salisbury...,, 44 62 32 37 21 27 36 54 'iouth am liton 54 58 3.3 40 28 32 46 Strolid 64 78 37 38 22 32 4A Tewkeststiry 65 74 30 42 30 38 44 Uxbridge 48 74 37 40 23 33 -- 46 Wantage 5B 80 27 43 21 30 34 42 Warminster-. 45 64 30 43 20 28 34 46 Windsor. 59 -- -- 21 22 -- 52 Worcester—. 65 66 44 51 31 34 50 LEEDS CORN MARKET.—ApriI 10. Wheat, Norfolk and Suffolk, 601 b. York. and Lincoln. 601 b. Barley, Norfolk and Suffolk '12 5 to :15s. to Yorkshire and Lincolnshire 345. to 3415. Grinding Beans 63lb. 34g. to 41s. , Oats, I'otatoe —Healing, For. 124. to hid Eng. 11},i d. to 13d. per Pt. Shelling lls. to 325. per load. Rapeseed, English, ltd. to 241 Foreign, —L to —J. per last. 1.1 V Eft POOL CORN EX CHA NG a—April 10. Though there was rather a numerous attendance of country millers at this morning's market, the transactions generally were very limite I. Had there been any disposition to press sales, lower rates would have been the consequence; such was not, however, the case. What sales were effected in either Wheat or Oats were upon the same terms as last Tuesday ; nor can we vary our quotations for Flour or Oatmeal. WHEAT, English, White, per 70Ib. Red Scotch, Welch, and Manx - Irish, White 8 4 8 5 ---- Red 8 2 8 4 -- Foreign 8 10 9 0 OATS, English, Welsh, and Scotch, per 451 b 3 0 3 3 Irish Foreign BARLEY, English, Malting, per Imp. quarter 35 0 37 0 ---. Scotch and Irish, per 601bs. --- Feeding 3 10 4 0 BEANS, English, per Imperial quarter 36 0 40 0 Irish, &c. Foreign PEASE, English, per Imperial quarter 16 0 38 0 Foreign FLOUR, English, per 2801 b. 46 0 47 0 ---- Irish OATMEAL, English and Irish, p er 2401b 5 . 24 9 26 0 INDIAN CORN, per 4401 b ItvE, per Imperial quarter NIALT, per Imperial quarter IMPORT OF GRAIN for the Week ending April 9. Wheat.' Oats. 1 Barley. Flour. Oatmeal. Qrs. Qrs. Qrs. Foreign, Brls.llrish, &c. Scks. Loads. 10,620 , 9,717 , 15 1,360 I 5,247 6,198 LEWES NIARKET.—ApriI 10. White Wheat (per quarter)—£3 4 0 to £3 6 0 lied ditto _ 2 10 0 3 2 0 Barley--- - 1 0 0 1 9 0 Oats, New -- 1 1 0 1 2 0 Pease —,--...... 1 15 0 1 17 0 Oil Cake. New,. HULL MARKET—ApriI 10. Wheat, Old —s 565. 58s. Nov —.8.514. 56s Foreign —a. 50s . 545. ln bond... —a. —a. —s. Oats, Poland .—s. 20 1 . 225. Old —s. —e. 245. Sinai! or Feed.... —s. 16s. 20s —a. —.3. —a. Foreign —s. 16s. 18s —a. —.B. —a. Barley, Norf. & 5u1.... —a. —a. —s. Lime. & Wold --s. 36s 38s. Foreign Beans 30s. 32a. 345. Foreign —a. 365, 38s, Pease, White..... ........ —s. 38s. 40s. Grey —4 ...S. --s. Fares 40s. 448. —a. Foreign —a. Ms. Ms. Rapeseed, in bond non, ..... .... Free, per last —/. 215/ 274 A RKET.—April 10. Pet lb. d. to d. Beet 6 7 Mutton 6 Nt Veal Pork Lamb to 31. 1.55. Od. per ton RKETS.—ApriI 4. a. d. s. d. Butter, 16or. 0 otoo 0 Egg,, dozen ..... 0 0 0 0 Beef, per lb. Mutton 0 4 0 0 Veal O4 05 QUdrtern Loaf 0 7 0 0 - 44 - 52 - 54 36 41 - 46 43 - 40 - 52 - 56 36 37 CHELTENHAM Per Bushel s. d. to s. d. Wheat Barley 4 0 5 6 Oats 4O 43 Beans Pease Hay 3l. 16 DUMFRIES MA 8. d. 5.(1.1 Wheat, Imp. Bush 6 9 to 7 0 Barley ............ 3 0 4 p 0at5...............- 28 33 141 b. Oatmeal Potatoer,cwt. 1 31liTIIS. At Boulogne-sur-Nler, of a son, the lady of %V. B. Elwyn, Esq. On the 11th inst. at Dulwich, the lady of Edward Fuller Danvers, E.sq., of a son. On the 1:lth inst. at (Alcorn, the lady of the Itev. Dr. Mayo, of .1 son. M On the 7th inst . Mr. Thom A as RRIED. Dale Gulliver,' R.N., to Sarah Thorowgood, daughter of James Brand, Esq., of Kingsland. On the 10th inst. at Walthainstow, Mr. John A. Mackenzie, to Ellen, only child of the late John Ingleby, Esq., of Higham-hilL DIED. On the 12th inst., after a short but severe illness, Wm. John. stone, Esq., of Norfolk.street, Sti and. in the 49th year of his age. On the 9th inst. at his residence, in the Crescent, Minories, John De Bie, Esq., aged 33. On the 10th inst. at Lower Edmonton, Mts. Fanny Stobart, aged 69. On the Ist November, 1831, in the Pacific, on hii passage to England for the recovery of his health, Henry Willoughby, only surviving son of Captain Shirreft; R.N. On the Bth inst. at Brighton, Alice Henrietta, daughter of the . Hon. Colonel and Mrs. Dawson Damar, aged 17 mouths. On the 10:h inst. at Whitehart-lane Tottenham, Margaret, ,widow of the late William Rolinson, Esq. PRINTED AlNPuonLyt;:icLEl: I s I I 2 * , M st U nA R N D D, O L I o ' N O ,O U N. ti GI, AT TIIR