The Sun. — London, England, 1832-03-14 00:00:00

ciful tithe-proctor. Do I wish, in saying this, to assert that the landlord should be allowed to profit by the aboli tion of tithes? By no means; but if a new mode of as sessment be proposed for the express purpose of relieving the peasantry, it should be much smaller in amount, or it should be allocated for their advantage, otherwise you leave the evil unredressed, and only increase the unpopularity n! the landlord by making him the tithe proctor. It should alto be recollected that a reformed Parliament would repeal the corn laws, and that agricultural produce would be depreciated, This would lower tithes, were tithes conti nued. The general impression in Ireland is, that after the present incumbents, the clergy should be remunerated in the ratio of services required from them in the first place, anti performed by them in the next. • I wish not to dispa rage the present incumbents, forsome of whom I entertain the highest respect ; but it is a question whether, if the present Church lands were leased, or sold for their full amount, they might not afford ample means for the main• tenance of the clergy of the Protestant religion, and whe ther the residue of the Church property might not be allotted, at a future period, for the benefit of the poor. Mr. SHEIL felt himself bound in justice to the people of Ireland, as well as to his own feelings, to complain of the language used by the Right Hon. Gentleman near him, the Secretary for Ireland. He was sure that that Right Hon. Gentleman had no intention of conveying an idea to the House that he was the advocate of a stern and uncompromising administration of the Government of Irtlland ; hut some portion of his language might he misin terpreted into something of that sort. Now any thing ap proaching to that would, he thought, be most injudicious in the present circumstances of that country. The time had arrived when leniency ought to he resorted to, for every modification of violence and severity had already been tried. It had been alleged in the course of the pre sent discussion, that the Protestant clergy were not to blame; indeed, the warmest eulegiums had been pro nounced upon those gentlemen, and he was as ready as any Member of that House could desire to admit that many amongst them were most excellent and worthy men ; but let the House only look at the plain truth. Could any man acquainted with the condition and circumstances of Ireland, doubt that in many places and on many occasions the Protestant clergy of Ireland have allowed themselves to do and say much which it would have been infinitely better never to have ventured on ? For the pur pose of establishing this position he referred at consider able length to the evidence given by Sir John Hervey on the subject, contending that the evidence of that gentle. man established in the clearest manner that their conduct had been such as by no means to exempt them from some of the charges and same of the grounds of complaint against th e m " , ,d by the tithe payers. Amongst the instances lie mentioned of the conduct on the part of the clergy calculated to distress the rersons from whom they derived their income, there was that of their demanding their tithes in full English currency, when it was univer sally expected that they would have been received in Irish currency. He (Mr. S.) was as ready as any Membet of that House to afford the clergy the necessary relief, hut he should vote for that relief on the same principle as that on which relief had been afforded to the inhabitants of Barba- does—they and their property had been swept away by a moral hurricane, and he would do the same for them that was to be done for those who had suffered by the physical evil of an analogous character, without stopping to inquire whether they had themselves evoked it. He was glad to perceive in the resolutions the words " Revenue of the Church" had not been used ; lie hailed that omission as a most favourable omen, and one which gave a hope that justice might be done to Ireland. It might be convenient to the present Government to wear a Mask, but sooner or later they must come to a new appropriation of that property ; eventually it must come to that. The present Government might rest assured that they would never carry an efficient Reform, unless they set out with executing it in conformity with their original design ; the Bill, they might be assured, would never come back to the House without fifty new coronets on its head. No, they might rely upon this, that the present measure Would do nothing more than call up the scorn and the anger of the peop'e of Ireland. It was impolitic to make the Crown the collector of tithes, if for no other reason, for this at all events, that it would transfer to the Crown the odium which the tithe system had brought upon the - . Church.—(Hear, hear.) But what were those arrears for the recovery of which the Crown was to become a suitor in:every Civil Court in Ireland? Tithes upon potatoes—a tax which was exacted only in the south of Ireland. The north was free from the oppressive exaction; but yet one third of all the arrears now due were tithes of potatoes.— (Hear, hear.) Ile made that assertion on the authority of the Rev. Mr. Langrishe, in the examination of that gentleman before the Committee. Why, then, should the Lord Lieutenant become the collector of tithes in the south of Ireland, which the clergy in the north of Ireland had never claimed.—(Hear, hear.) He implored the House not to legislate hastily upon so vital a question—to wait until the final report of the Committee should be brought np. He concluded by asking, could any gentleman, who had the welfare of Ireland at heart, stand up in that House and say that he could approve of any Bill that should be founded on those resolutions.—(Hear.) Sir R. PEEL began by observing, that in the twelve Years during which be had sat in that House, he had never heard a question discussed there, the issue of which was snore important to the interests of the country, and to the permanence of the institutions of Government. The first resolution before the Committee was to pledge the Rouse that it would en able the Government to recover the sums actually due ; the last resolution likewise pledged the House to take into consideration the expediency of an extensive change in the present system of providing for the maintenance of the ministers of the Church, involving an extinction of tithes, in the mode of a commutation, either for land or for rent chargeable on land. On general prin ciples, he objected to pledges that at a future time the House would do something, because, if the measure was good, a pledge was unnecessary, for it ought to be pre sumed that the House was always prrpared to do what Was fur the benefit of the country. Abstractedly, too, pledg es were liable to be resorted to merely as a mode of relieving Government from present embarrassments ; and he could not c•+ll to mind that he had ever been a party - - to such pledge. With respect to the present question, this was not the first time it had come before the House, or that a pledge had been given upon it ; yet it was to be recollected, that nothing had been done to redeem those pledges. So long back as 1642, the House had referred it to a Committee, to consider what was best to be done for the commutation of tithes, and to re port its opinion ; which opinion had never been reported. And on a subsequent occasion an alteration in the system of Church property had been negatived by 27 to 17. He (Sir R. Peel), however, was content to make an exception, on this occasion, to his general rule of con duct. He did not think that he should be acting with a due regard to the interests of the Protestant Church, or to the interests of religion, if he did not make the excep tion. He was prepared to go into the consideration of a plan for an Jslteratien of the pr esen t system o f prov idi ng for the maintenan ce of the Established, Church. Con sidering, however, the liability of the language used in such cases to misconstruction, he theught it unwise to in troduce the words " extinction of tithes." He feared the consequences of a misconstruction of these words amongst an excitable population ; for the words " extinction of tithes" might be construed by the peasantry of Ireland to mean that tithes were extinguished, and they would refuse to pay them. As two years must elapse before the plan of Government could take effect, he feared that this erro neous impression pervading Ireland would lead to the spreading of the combination against tithes already exist ing,, and tend to defeat the object of Government. He would state the qualifications under which he gave his consent to the resolutions. He gave it on the distinct understanding that it was meant to provide for the Church of Ireland a just and fair equivalent.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Peel) did not mean to exclude a fair and just con sideration of the state of the Church of Ireland—(Hear) —but he distinctly understood that the revenues of the Church were to be appropriated to strictly ecclesi astical purposes.—(Hear, hear, hear.) That was the meaning of the words in the report of the Com mittee, that the revenues of the Church are thus effectually secured." There were other questions which were to be likewise settled, in order that this question, like that of Catholic emancipation, might be so left as to prevent future agitation.—(Hear.) With this under. Standing and this qualification, he was ready to pledge himself to the consideration of this question. One reason he had was, the support which Government required in consequence of the first resolution, which was of equal im portance to enable them to recover from those who were Justly and legally liable to pay them the arrears of tithes, atondhto reimhuse the sums advanced from the public funds pat eeufferin g clergy of Ireland. He bad heard with Farru om the Hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Moore ell), that his objection to the payment of tithes was, that he felt the! Peel) had hopend,to aft b e e r a badge h of ie c n o ) n en ti t ues o t f . t h H i eS at i h r o l li t i .. ri w u i e th sti on, which Placed the t e Hon. sett Member on ' an equality other Meuibers of that House, that all these irritating topics had m erged in that great measure—(Hear)—and the Roman Catholics themselves had declared that, if theit political disabilitinelewere removed, they would make no objection to the payment of tith e s.—( He a r.) He would adduce evidence 011 this point which would convince the Hon. Gentleman himself. re f er re d to the evidence The Right H on B arone t th e n of the Catholic Prelates, Dre. Ke'ly, Murray, and Doyle, for the purpose of showing that othes were not tczarded as a peculiar grievance by the Roman Catholics, and that their objection to the continu once of the present system was not greater than 'hat entertained by many Protestants. It seemed to be ad mitted on all hands, that vested interests established by law ought to be provided for ; and that the landlords ought not to be gainers by the abolition of tithes. How, then, could any one who admitted these two propositions vote with consistency against the resolutions submitted to the Committee? An Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr Sheil) expressed a disinclination to convert the Govern ment of Ireland into tithe proctors for the Irish Church ; ;and had asked what public inconvenience would arise, if a clergyman failed to enforce his claim? lie answered that the great public inconvenience of an individual suffering wrong would result.—( Hear, hear.) It became necessary for the Government to protect the clergyman in the enjoy inent of his right ; for if once the people were allowed to defeat by combination the legal claim of the clergy, they would succeed by the same combination in defeating the claim of the landlord.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then said that an unjust law should not be enforced. But who, he asked, was to be the judge of the injustice of the law? Was the Irish peasant to be permitted to say, that any particular law, with respect to which he might feel some objection, was an un just one, and he would not obey it, whatever might be the opinion of the Legislature on the subject ? He repeated, that if Parliament, by their connivance or encouragement, al'owed the Irish peasant to succeed in resisting the legal claim of the clergy, he would next endeavour to avoid satisfying every other legal demand ; and out of their apathy and connivance would at last grow the dominion of the mob.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Barnet then proceeded to quote several passages from Plowden's History of Ireland, for the purpose of showing that the different combinations which, under various denomina tions, had agitated Ireland, from IWO to !SOO, though always commencing their operations by attacking tithes, invariably proceeded to not only di , pute the county cess, but also the landlord's rent, and even the dues of the Ca. tholic priests themselves.—(Hear, hear.) It was there fore absolutely necessary that some precaution should be taken in order to check this growing indisposition to satisfy legal claims. One gentleman had proposed that the House should wait until the Committee up stairs had completed its labours befora coming so any decision on the subject. He, however, was of opinion, that if the spirit of combination was to be checked at all, it was true mercy to check it as soon as possible.—(Hear, hear.)-- Any delay would only add wings to its already rapid pro gress. If the adoption of necessary measures was post poned until the close of the session, every tithe-payer in Ireland would suppose that Parliament was indisposed to enforce the legal demands of the clergyman, and the con sequence would be, that before the end of the year the op position to the payment of tithes would have spread from the six counties, in which at present the spirit of insubor dination prevailed, to the whole thirty-two counties of the country. What, then, would he the use of attempt ing to arrange any plan for the commutation of tithes after they were practically abolished ?—(Hear, hear.) If in terference, therefore, was necessary, as he believed it to be, it ought, both in justice and mercy, to be speedy.-- (Hear, hear.) He called upon the Irish landlords, who had disclaimed any wish to derive advantage from the abo• lition of tithes, whether their opposition to the proposi tion of Government was not calculated to produce an effect contrary to their intention. If tithes were abolished, and no power given to Government to collect the arrears, the Irish landlords would, be feared, however repugnant it might be to their feelings, gain a profit from a change of the system. On the understanding that the revenues of the Church were to be applied strictly to ecclesiastical purposes, he would vote for the last resolution.—(Cheers.) Lord ALTHORP rose at the same time with the Right. Hon. Baronet, and he did not regret that he had given way to him, for the Right Hon. Baronet had expressed his sentiments in a more able manner than he could have done himself. He regretted to differ upon this ocsasion with many Hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually acted, but he felt it his duty to stand by the resolutions which had been submitted to the House. Objections had been taken to the tone of the address by which his Right Hon. Friend had introduced the resolutions, but he thought there was no ground for complaint in that respect. It was absolutely necessary that the power of the law should be supported, and turbulence suppressed in Ireland. And Government which hesitated to adopt measures to effect these objects would be unworthy of the confidence of Par liament. Like the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, he sup ported the resolutions on the understanding that the Church revenues were not to be applied to any but Church uses. Lord KILLEEN thought that it was but an act of jus tice to repay the Clergy the arrears of tithe which were due, and he also was of opinion that the rights of the pre sent incumbents ought to be considered as vested rights. He was, however, dezidedly of opinion that the revenues of the Church should be made more suitable to the cir curnstancea of the country. The Church never could be secure whilst it was the object of the antipathy of the people. He begged the House to understand that be would never violate the oath which he took on entering the House never to use the power which be might possess in attempt ing to overthrow the Established Church.—(Hear.) Mr. RUTH YEN moved that the Chairman do report progress.---(Cries of "Go on," and " Adjourn.") Lord ALTHORP and Mr. STANLEY besought the Hon. Member not to persevere in his motion. Mr. H. GRATTAN intended to divide the Committee on the third resolution, and to move an amendment on the last. Under these circumstances he put it to the Noble Lord whether he had not better consent to adjourn the dis cussion. Lord ALTHORP would consent to the postponement of the last resolution. Mr. WYSE meant to divide the Committee on each of the resolutions. Lord ALTHORP said, that in that case the Chairman must report progress. _ The House then resumed, and the CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday. The other Orders of the Day being disposed of, the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, MAicir 13. The LOAD CIiAIiCELLOIS took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. The Earl of ELDON presented a petition against the new system of education in Ireland. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Bishopsgate-street, in favour of the Factories Bill. The Right Reverend Prelate said he had heard of a case which would shOw the absolute necessity of legislating upon this subject. He was informed there was a person who had made a large fortune by a factory, and employed in it upwards of 1200 children, who not only worked fourteen hours a day for six days in the week, but two days, out of the six, had to work both day and night. Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from Paisley to the same effect. Lord ELLENBOROUGII presented a petition from the Directors of the East India Company. praying to he heard by Counsel at the Bar against the Zemindar of No zeed's Bill. After a discussion on the subject between the Noble Lord and Earl Grey, it was settled that the prayer of the peti tion he taken into consideration on Friday next. THE FRENCH EXPEDITION TO ANCONA. The E trl of ABERDEEN, in putting his promised ques tions to Ministers, relative to the expediion to Ancona, protested against the irregularity of proceedings introduced by the Noble Earl (Grey) into that House, as he had yet to learn that Noble Lords had not a right to call upon Mi nisters to give explanations of any important transactions. It was but recently that he had endeavoured to obtain from Government some explanations relative to an expedition which had sailed from the ports of France.— ( Hear, hear.) At that time the Noble Lord was not very explicit, but he accompanied the state ment he then made by his customary eulogy of the French Government, by which the House was led to suppose, that the communications which had been received from that State were of a satisfactory na ture. He would not, however, do the Noble Earl the in ju•tice of supposing it possible that he felt satisfied with what bad taken place in Italy, and the capture of Ancona. It had ever been the established policy of this coun try to watch the external proceedings of the,French Court, with a view to prevent any extension of its dominions; and he saw nothing in the present condition of France that would induce this country to deviate from that established principle. In his opinion what had lately taken place there was a strong argument for the House more perseveringly to adhere to it, as it was his firm conviction the course which bad been pursued by the Noble Lord would endanger the peace of Europe, and the measures he had adop•• ted were likely to lead to those calamities which he was sure it was his object to avert. He believed that he was himself about the first public functionary in Europe who had received the commands of his Sove reign to acknowledge the Duke of Orleans as the King of the French. The motives that had induced Government to adopt that plan had been fully communicated to the allies of this country, and to the whole of Europe. No man was more desirous to preserve the peace of Europe and the friendly relations of this country with France, than himself. But he never could forget thst it 4r44 the duty of a British Minister es use every endeavour to prevent the commission or 1 tete, which would be injurious to the honour of bi eountry, and it was equally the duty of every Member o that Howse, not being a mini-ter, to stigmatise are epudiate such acts.--( Hear, hear.) As far as he coule form any opinion of the expedition to Ancena, it was worthy of tire time of the revolution ; and looking at what had taken place, he could not but th ink it founded on trickery, perfidy, and deceit.--alear, hear.) He held in his hand a translation of the letter from the Italian Minister of State to the French Ambassador, from which it plainly appeared, that on the 22d February a French squadron was in the port of Ancona. The captain of the fort went or hoard to the French Ambassador, and offered, in the name of his Holiness the Pope, all the assistance he stood in need of. The ceremony of etiquette was dispensed with, and it was settled that the French squadron should be allowed to enter the port the next morning, In ti e middle of the night, however the French troops forcibly entered the town, proceeded to the residence of the com mandant, disarmed the garrison, made them prisoners of war and insisted on the surrender of the city. To pre vent the shedding of blood the place was surrendered. The Earl of Aberdeen, when first lie read the statement could hardly give it credence, but subse quent facts had firmly established the truth of it. However fir the Austrians might be justified in the course they had pursued, he could see nothing what ever to warrant the conduct that bad been pursued by the French. According to M. Perier, the expedition had been undertaken for the interests of the Catholic religion and that of the Holy See, and for the purpose of preserving peace. He read over two or three times what M. Perier communicated on the subject ; and he confessed to their Lordships that he was just as wise as he t as before.— (Hear, hear.) There could be no doubt that the Noble Earl opposite had likewise considered it his duty to read over the passage of M. Perier's speech relating to Italy ; and if he comprehended it, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) gave the Noble Earl credit for possessing a greater share of sa gacity than himself. He found a great number of fine words in the speech ; but he was able to discover very little sense. The expedition was described as haying been undertaken " in the interest of the Catholic religion"— " to maintain the integrity of the Holy See"—" in the interest of national institutions and of civilized states"— " and above all, in the interest of peace, and for the pur pose of guaranteeing Europe against all collision." In hie opinion, however, the only effect of the expedition would be to produce all those evils which M. Perier said it was his object to avert.—( Hear, hear.) He begged their Lordships to understand, that his account of the expedition was given by the French Minister, at the very time when he had in his possession the statement and protestation of the Papal Government.—(Hear, hear.) He had not read to their Lordships the note of the Cardinal Secretary of State, because he conceived they were acquainted with its contents ; but ire felt it his duty to read the passage with which the note concluded, being the protestation of the Pa pal Government against the French expedition. It was as fol lows; " His Holiness formally protests against the violation of the Papal territory, which was accomplished on the morning of the 23d of February by the French squadron, against all the attacks committed at the same time against his sovereignty, and against the infraction of the sanatory laws by the squadron; and declares the French Government responsible for whatever may be the result of three acts. His Holiness demands that the French troops, who have entered in a hostile manner into Ancona, do de part from that city immediately. Amidst the deep dis pleasure which his Holiness derives from an unhappy event, he feels confident that he will obtain from the French Go vernment the just separation which he demands." Such was the nature of the document which the French Mi nister had in his possession when he told the Chamber of Deputies that the expedition was undertaken " in the interest of the Holy See." In what position, then, did these two Governments stand with regard to each other? They were in a state of actual war. For what signified it whether the French commander found it necessary to open trenches before Ancona, and take it by a regular siege, or whether he entered the place by force after breaking down the gates?—whether he made the garrison prisoners after fighting a regular action, or induced them to surrender to prevent the effusion of blood ? One was just as much an act of war as the other. It was true that the Papal troops surrendered without striking a blow ; but still the whole proceeding was characterized by violence, and the violation of every principle of international law. There was one passage in the Cardinal Secretary of State's note, in which " the violation of the sanatory laws" was complained of. It was almost impossible for people in England to understand the importance attached in Italy to the observance of those laws ; and an additional character of outrage had been given to this most extraordinary and unprecedented proceeaing, by their vio lation on the part of the French. Part of the force which landed on the coast has disembarked from a frigate recently arrived from Algiers, and which was at tie time under quarantine ; and, by the laws of th wountry, every indi vidual belonging to that ship had renMred himself liable to the punishment of death. He was sure that the violation of the sanatory laws would, of itself, create throughout Italy more alarm than it was possible for the inhabitants of this country to conceive. This, then, was an adeli tional outrage committed by the French ; for to the anarchy and confusion which the unfurling of the tri- Icoloured flag could not fail to excite in Italy, they had added the risk of pestilence.—(Hear, hear.) He men tioned this circumstance, to show the total absence of all consideration and just feeling which prevailed in the con ' duct of this enterprise, even supposing that the enter prise was necessary.—( Hear, hear.) The case was really so unparalleled in the history of civilized nations, and con stituted so striking and flagrant an outrage of all the fun damental principles of public law, that he could not but entertain a hope of the impossibility of the French Govern ment being responsible for such conduct.—(Hear.) Earl GREY knew it was the usage and undoubted right of every Noble Lord to put such questions, with re ference to public affairs, as it was the duty of the respon sible servants of the Crown to answer ; but he felt that be was not introducing a new species of discipline, and was only enforcing the standing orders with respect to the re gularity of their proceedings, when he deprecated the practice of the Noble Earl of making a question of explana tion the mere pretext of expatiating at length, in unmea sured language, on topics with which he was necessarily imperfectly acquainted, and which Ministers could not consistently with their duty in the then stage of the tran saction explain—assuming for indisputable and acknow ledged facts what could not be satisfactorily gainsaid without probably embarrassing Ministers, and certainly could tend to no useful purpose whatever.—(Hear, hear.) This it was that he had protested against on a former occasion, and would so then, though he feared with as little chance of success. He would not, however, be provoked by the Noble Earl into a prema ture discussion, and would confine his reply to a simple statement of facts. Tne Noble Earl hoped the explana tion of Ministers would be of a character calculated to alle viate his fears for the preservation of the peace of Europe. If the Noble Earl was sincere in that hope, it struck him that it would be just as well if he had abstained from ex citing a discussion which was eminently calculated to disturb that peace,—from aggravating every circum stance connected with the transaction at Ancona likely to irritate one of the parties,—and, in fact, from studiously and pertinaciously inflaming every feeling against the French Government that had a tendency to create hosti lity between the two Powers, and thus compromise that general tranquillity which the Noble Earl professed to have so much at heart.—(Hear.) If the preservation of the peace of Europe was so anxious an object of the Noble Earl's wishes, he asked hirer how could he at this moment or stage of a transaction, seek to provoke a discussion, when he himself was ignorant of its circum stances, and Ministers were in a manner tongue-tied by considerations involving their official character and re sponsibility ?—( Hear.) The Noble Earl bad indulged in harsh and most unfounded remarks on the recent speech of the French Prime Minister, and yet told them his object was to preserve inviolable our amiable relations with the French Government. The Noble Earl might find pas sages in M. Perier's speech but little palatable to him, from their lofty views and liberal policy—(Hear)—might, perhaps, detect sentences open to his criticism on the head of indefinite and unintellgible phraseology; but surely such criticism and such censure could lead to no good purpose whatever.—(Hear, hear.) Besides the Noble Earl's criticism eves so obviously partial, so one-eided, that he could not—that is, would not—see that if the passage with respect to Ancona was not very translucent, the tenour of the other parts of the speech made it perfectly intelligible, and must satisfy him tnat peace was the guid ing object of the policy of the French Government-- (flear)—and that that Government spewed itself honestly intent, that, while it was conscious of its power to assert the independence of France, it carefully respected the in dependence of other States, and discouraged every attempt to excite insurrection or disunion in thein.—(Hear, bear.) Having been unwittingly induced t o snake these remarks, in answer to the Noble Earl, he would now confine him self to his immediate gut-name —to proceed further would not be prudent in the present stage of the transaction. The Noble Earl taunted him with an alacrity to seise hold of every opportunity to eulogize the French Government --(Hear)—and particularly referred to what he (Earl Grey) had said on a former occasion with respect to the , r,ood faith of that Government. Now he had no hesita ion to confess to the Noble Earl, that it did afford hi leasure, whenever the opportunity presented itself, to ex tress the conviction that the conduct of the French Govern. 'pent was entitled to the approbation of every man who was anxious to promote a good understandiug between the *wo countrie , , as a—perhaps the only—means of moonlit , , he peace of Europe.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") On the A:casino to which the Noble Earl referred, he said tha -here was nothing in the transaction of the French expedi ton to Italy,—that is, that nothing had transpired with respect to its character and object calculated to shake his confidence in the good faith and sincerity of the French Cabinet.—(Hear, hear.) He then repeated his declaration —(Hear)—and that the French Government officially communicated to the English and Austrian Courts the fact of their intention to despatch a force is Italy in case the Austrian Government should again interfere with her armies in the affairs of the Italian States, over which she claimed no sovereignty.---(Hear.) The French Govern ment thus communicated the fact ()flier intention to inter i.ere in the event of the interference of another Govern nsent, and subsequently communicated the fact of her having acted upon her pre-announced resolution. He was not then called upon to offer an opinion on the policy of this resolution and its consequences,—nor did he feel that he should be justified, under existing circumstances, in detailing the course pursued by this country on its an nouncement; the rather, as if he stated the course pursued by the English Government, he was bound also to state that adopted by Austria—a statement which evidently would be highly inexpedient, indeed improper, at that particular moment.—(Hear, hear.) He might, however, state, what had been done with respect to the forcible occupation of the garrison at An cona by the French troops, referred to in strong terms of censure by the Noble Lord. It was open to the Noble Earl to state what opinions he pleased as to the character of the transaction, as he was not responsible further than in his general senatorial capacity; but riot so with him (Earl Grey), who, filling a respon-ible situation, was necessarily bound to bG more wary in his language.— (Hear.) He would, however, admit that the account of that transaction occasioned great surprise to Ministers— (Hear)—and had also very much surprised the French Go vernment.—(Hear, hear.) The French Government ins mediately disclaimed in the most emphatic manner all par ticipation with the conduct of the commanding officer of the force at Ancona—(Hear)—recalled that officer forth with—(Hear)—made a statement of the facts to the Aus. trian and Papal Governments, which with its accompa nying assurance would, he trusted, be satisfactory to both ; and which he confidently expected would have the effect of preventing the expedition from affecting the peace of Eu rope.—(Hear.) He entirely agreed with the Noble Earl as to the tendency of such a forcible occupation of the garrison of a foreign State, to disturb the peace of Eu rope; and also agreed with him that no transaction likely to disturb the peace of Europe could be a mat ter of indifference to the English Government. He would also admit that the first appearance or impression of the French expedition to Ancona bore that peace-de stroying character—(Hear)—but would repeat that he had every reason to assert that it would not product a consequence so much to be deprecated..--(Hear.) He had already stated that he did not then feel himself justified to explain the course pursued by Ministers, further than to state, that they had promptly adopted measures which were well taken on the part of France, and which he was confident would be satisfactory to the Austrian Govern ment ; the rather as, since their having been undertaken, a special request had been made by the Court of Vienna for the English Government to act as it had acted.—(Hear, hear.) These were all the circumstances connected with the transactions that he then felt himself at liberty to ex plain, but trusted that they would be considered, by their Lordships, as a satisfactory refutation of the Noble Earl's charge against Ministers.—(Cheers.) The transaction, he repeated, took him somewhat by surprise, but would not, he confidently believed, lead to an in fringement of the general tranquillity which at a first blush it seemed so calculated to endanger. He agreed with the Noble Earl that it was the duty of Ministers to afford every explanation in their power on questions af fecting the honour and interests of the country. He ad mitted their responsibility, and did not shrink from its consequences, but denied that their conduct on the present occasion at all compromised the honour and interests of the country. If, indeed, it was of such a character, no stigma could be too severe, no punishment too heavy; but till it was proved that that punishment and stigma were merited, he thought it not too much to ask the Noble Earl to forbear his censures till the time had arrived when Ministers might, without injury to the public service, af ford such information as would show that their conduct in the transaction was above all reproach. The Noble Earl having again deprecated discussions in the absence of in formation, and under pretexts of merely seeking for that information, said he hoped that the debate would not pro ceed farther, as, in the present stage of the transaction to which it referred, he could not, and would not, be induced so afford any additional information. The Earl of ABERDEEN confessed himself very much satisfied with the Noble Earl's statement, and felt that he was only performing an act of duty in eliciting it. BELGIUM. The Duke of WELLINGTON gave notice, that on Friday next he would move for a copy of the correspon dence between the Foreign Secretary and the British Am. bassador in Paris and the French Government, in October and November, 1830, relative to the affairs of Belgium. His object was to show that the account given by M. Pe rier relative to the interference of France in those affairs was unjust to the ether Powers, and contrary to fact. Lord CLONCURRY said he was authorised by an Hon. Member of an Irish county, who had been repre sented by the Earl of Wicklow as having instigated his tenantry to resist the payment of tithes, to declare that the assertion was wholly unfounded. The Earl of WICKLOW said his statement was founded upon the affidavits of alleged eye-witnesses. Lord PLUNKET had fully inquired into the transac tion, and was convinced that the statement of the Noble Earl was wholly unfounded. The Earl of WICKLOW was proceeding to enter upon an explanation of the matter referred to (which we guess to be Mr. Blackney's conduct at a meeting of the county of Carlow, of which he is a representative), when he was interrupted by cries of " Order," there being no motion before the House, and it being irregular to found discus sions on statements of what might have happened elsewhere. KILKENNY TRIALS. The NOBLE EARL next asked Lord Melbourne whether he was prepared to lay before their Lordships any docu• ments which might enable them to judge for themselves the grounds en which the Irish Attorney-General induced the Court to postpone the trial of the prisoners arraigned for trial for capital offences at Kilkenny. Lord MELBOURNE could not then give an answer to the question. If the Noble Earl gave notice of a motion for such papers, he should be prepared to give him an ansn•rr. Earl GREY and the LORD CHANCELLOR were of opi nion, that ,uch information as that sought for by the Noble Earl could not be produced, as it would be impos sible'to say where it would end. They had it for a fact, that the Attorney-General of Ireland, and the Judges of Assize at Kilkenny, had thought it right to postpone for the present the trial of certain prisoners ; and with that fact they were hound to be satisfied, as otherwise no com munication, however secret, or minute, or confidential, made to, or by, the Attorney. General, but would fall under the scope of the Noble Eras inquiry. The Earl of WICKLOW would not then found a mo tion on the subject, though feeling strongly that some ad ditional information was necessary. AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' EMPLOYMENT BILL. _ _ Lord KENYON moved the order of the day for the Committee of this Bill. The object, he stated, was to re ►ieve the wants and provide profitable employment for the distressed agricultural poor by tl.e cultivation of waste lands, and allotment of small portions of land to the indi vidual wants of the labourer in the manner acted upon so advantageously by two Right Rev. Prelates (the Bishops of Bath and Wells and Winchester) opposite, and so elo quently advocated in the most influential portion of the periodical Press. The object of the Bill was to give to the poor one-seventh of all commons and wastes to be en closed. The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND had no objection to the principle of the Bill ; and so far as Northumber land went, there were large tracts of land which, during the wars had been converted to tillage, and which were now again under grass, that might be usefully employed in this way. There were, however, rights of Lords of Forests and others which would require great care in the wording of the Bill. The Earl of CARNARVON said, that in these Enclo• sure Bills it would be impossible to have allotments of land made to labourers close to their cottages, and in his opinion s mall allotments of good land close to the poor men's hou ses would be far better than greater a ll otments of poor and b irren land at a distance. Lord SUFF IELD said that large port i ons o f l and were not to b e g i ven by to the poor man ' s pottage, and this he conce i ve d would be the Bill, but merely small portions clo se highly beneficial to the cottagers and labourers. 1 1,e Bishop of BATH and WELLS objected to one portion of the Bill,narnely, that which would give to a noor man as large a quantity as two acres of land, which it would be impot-sible fur biro to cultivate with effect He should, however, reserve his opinion for the Committee. After an observation from the Earl of FALMOUTH again- , , 'ow going into Committee, Lord KENYON agreed to its being postponed unti ‘londay week. The Mutiny Bills were then passed through Committe. toil reported, when the House adjourned at a Quarter t( , Eight o'clock until Thurscl iy. FROM THE GAZETTR OF LAST NIGHT. LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S OFFICE, MARCH 13. Notice is hereby given, that his Majesty will hold a Levee at St. James's Palace, on Thursday, tho 2:d instant, instead of Wednesday, the 21st, it being the day appointed for a general ast. WAR-OFFICE, MARCH 13. HOSPITAL STAFF. Surgeon R. Orton, M.D. from half-pay Ist Royal Veteran Batta lion, to be Regimental Surgeon, upon full-pay, for a particular service. Dated March 13. Errata in the Gazette of the 9th instant. 6th Dragoons.—The appointments of Mr. Mervyn Archdall to a Cornetcy in this Regiment, was vice Nesbitt, who retires, and not vice Hopton. The promotion of Second Lieut. C. F. Kerr, from the Rifle Brigade, March 9, was to be an Unattached Lieutenancy, and not to an Unattached company, as stated. For Captain J. Radenhurst, half-pay Sth Foot, who has been allowed to retire by sale of an Unattached commission ; read, Lieutenant John Radenhurst, &c. Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Hereford. E. 'F. Foley, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant. Dated Match 5. Herefordshire Regiment of Militia. J. Yorke, Esq., to be Captain Dated, February 22. 13ANKRUPTCIES ENLARGED. JOSEI'H AIt,\IITKGE, Queen's Head, Clayton, Yorkshire, and JAMES GREENWOOD, Swamp, Northowram, stufr-ma nufacturers, from March 27 to April 11, at twelve, at the Old Cock Inn, Halifax. JOHN and JOSEPH WARING, Lepton, Kirkheaton, York shire, cloth-manufacturers, April 12, at ten, at the Pack-horse Inn, Huddersfield. EDWARD CHANDLER PARKINSON, Eccleshall, Brad. ford, Yorkshire, apothecary, from Much i 0 to April 10, at one, at the Talbot Inn, Bradford. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. EDWARD JONES, Canterbury, grocer. JOSEPH SKIDMORE, Nottingham, bobbin-maker. HENRY WILSON, Sun-street, woollen-draper. DECLARATIONS OF INSOLVENCY. JAMES MERCER,Thrapston, Northamptonshire, innholder. GEORGE LEWIS, Vere-street, Oxford-street, broker. BANKRUPTS. EDWARD MARKS and WILLIAM CHARRINGTON, Mark-lane, malt-factors, to surrender March 23 and April 24, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Palmer and France, Bedford row. JAMES OSBORNE, Ilishopsgate-street-within ' cheese monger' March 26, at eleven, and April '24, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy. 'Filson, Son, and Squance, Coleman-street. JOSEPH CARRINGTON, Seething-lane, bricklayer, March 27, at two, and April 24, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Templer and Shearman, Great Tower-street. WILLIAM PEARC, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, timber-mer chant, March 30, 31, at three, and April 24, at eleven, at the Royal Hotel, Plymouth. Prideaux, Plymouth ; Blake, Essex street, Strand. JACOB FRANCIS, Brighthelmston, Sussex, mercer, March 26 and April 24, at twelve, at the Clarence Hotel, Brighthelms ton. Freeman, Brighton ; Freeman and Bothamley, Coleman street, London. JONAH FOSSITT DEAN, Burton-upon-Trent, provision_ dealer, March 22, at four, T 3, and April 24, at eleven, at the George Inn, Burton-upon-Trent. Mosley, Burton.upon.Trent ; Philpot, Stone, and Philpot, Southampton-street, Bloomsbury square. WILLIAM FRANCIS CAMPBELL, Hatton-garden, jeweller March 23, and April 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Robinson, Hine, and Robinson, Charter-house-square; ELIZABETH EMERY, Great Bell-alley, London, painter, March 2J, at twelve, and April 24, at ten, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Wood, Clement's Inn Chambers, Strand. HENRY FI ANDER, Sloane-square, Chelsea, plumber, March 22, at ten, and April 24, at one, at the Court of Bank rupcy. Allen, Queen-street, Cheapside. RICHARD BROSTER, Stockport, Cheshire, grocer, March 27 and April 24, at two, at the York Hotel, Manchester. Gads den, Furnival's Inn, London; Coppock, Stockport. JOSEPH MILLICAN, Maryport, Cumberland, ironmonger, March 16, 23, and April 24, at eleven, at the Golden Lion Inn, Maryport. Harrison, King's Arms-yard, Coleman-street, Lon don ; Thompson Maryport. JOSEPH 'BARTHOLOMEW, Derby, upholsterer, March 23, at one, and April 24, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Peachey, Salisbury-square, London. WILLIAM THOMAS BINCKES, Great Newport-street, leather-cutter, March 27, at one, and April 24, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Ness, Dyer's-buildings, Holborn. JOSEPH TOMSEY, Little Marylebone-street, victualler, March '23, and April '24, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Thomas and George Selby, Serjeant's Inn, Fleet-street. ANTHONY TIIOMPSON, St. Helen's-place, London, mer chant, March 19, at twelve, and April 24, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Oliverson, Denby, and Lavie, Frederick's place, Old Jewry. JOHN ALLEN, Tiverton, Devonshire, druggist, March 29 and April 24, at twelve, at the Old London Inn, Exeter. Ben nett, leatherstone-buildings, Holborn ; Loosemore, Tiverton. THOMAS TODD, sen., and THOMAS TODD, jun., Bir mingham, factors, March 19, 20, and April '24, at twelve, at Radenhurst's Reyal Hotel, Birmingham. Austen and Hobson, Raymond-buildings, Gray's Inn ; Palmer, Birmingham. JOHN RINGSLEY, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, corn-factor, March 20 and April 24, at eleven, at the Falcon Inn, Hunting donshire. Bays, Potton, Bedfordshire ; Price and Wakeling, St. John's-square, Clerkenwell. JAMES SMITH and CHARLES SMITH, Bath, grocers March 20 and April 24, at eleven, at the Castle Inn, Bath.- Nicholas, Cook's-court, Lincoln's Inn, London; Hellings, Bath. GEORGE BAYLEY, Bristol, silk-mercer, March 27 and April 24. at two, at the Bush Tavern, Bristol. White and Whitmore, Lincoln's Inn Old-buildings ; Bush and Prideaux, and short, Bristol. WILLIAM ROBINSON, Hartley Castle, Westmorland, butcher, March 20 and April '24, at the King's Arms Inn, Rukby Stephen, Westmoreland. Adamson, Verulam-buildings, Gray's Inn, London ; Jackson and Hewitson, Rukbv Stephen. JOHN WILKINSON, Sheffield, tavern-keeper, March 30 and ,April 24, at eleven, at the Angel Inn, Sheffield. Rodgers De vonshire-square, Bishgate-street, London ;• Siddell, Sheffield. WILLIAM VERITY, jun., Birkenshaw, Yorkshire, worsted manufacturer, April 10 and 24, at eleven, at the Court House, Leeds. Flower, Bread-street, London ; Carr, Gomersal, York shire. DIVIDENDS. J. and W. Jackson, Strand, stationers, April 2, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—L. Zachariah and G. Novra, High Hol born, dealers in German and French toys, April 4, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—C. Scott, St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, merchant, April ti, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—G. J. Skilbeck and J. Slater, King-street, Cheapside, Manchester warehousemen, April 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy— R. Upperton, Petworth, Sussex, banker, April 4, at eleven, at the Half Moon Inn, Petworth—T. Mansfield and J. Hackney, Cobridge, Staffordshire, earthenware-manufacturers, April 18,- at one, at the Albion Inn, Shelton, Staffordshire—T. Evetts, Bir mingham, refiner ofmetals, April 11, at 11, at Radenhurst's Royal Hotel, Birmingham—. W. Hirst, Leeds, merchant, April 13, at eleven, at the Court House, Leeds—J. S. Wood, Leeds, iron. monger, April 14, at 11, at the Court House, Leeds—G. Roberts, Ansford, Somersetshire, innkeeper, April 5, at 11, at the Ansford Inn, Ansford—T. Izon, Handsworth, Staffordshire, merhcant, April 13, at 12, at the Royal Hotel, Birmingham—T. Mousley, Hanky, Staffordshire, scrivener, April 6, at one, at the George Inn, Stafford—l. Swift, Lane-end, Staffordshire, mercer, April 9, at three, at the Eagle inn, Lane-end—T. J. Sayer, Beccles, Suftblk, linen-draper, April 6, at eleven, at the office of Mr. E. Newton, Norwich—W. Coates, sen. and W. Coates, jun., New. castle-upon-Tyne, wine -merchants, April 16, at one, at the Crown and Thistle Inn, Newcastle-upon-Tyne—l. Hill, Brad well, Derbyshire, baker, April 4, at twelve, at the Angel Inn, Chesterfield, Derbyshire—E. C. A. Lenox, Sandwell, Bristol , merchant, April 4, at one, at the Rummer Tavern, Bristol. CERTIFICATES, APRIL 3, :~ t~~~ J. Welsh, Whitehaven, Cumbeiland, tallow-chandler—A. Knight, Basing-lane. City, stationer—W. Wilcox, Walcot, So mersetshire, chair-maker—J. Hunter, Church-passage, City, undertaker—C. Scott, St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, merchant , —P. Nouaile, Star-court. Bread-street, Cheapside, silkman—C. Fuller, Paradise-row, Islington, merchant —T. Mason, Pinner, Middlesex, horse-dealer—A. Clugston and C. P. Chapman, Paul's Wharf, Thames-street, merchant—D. Bretherton, Liverpool, merchant—J. Potter, Manchester, calico-printer—B. Glover, WatliHg.street, calico-printer. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. P. Dalmahoy and E. Jones, London—E. Higgins and J. Da vies, Dudley,Woreestershire, hatters —J, and W. Pearse, Exeter, linen-drapers—A. Payne and W. Barr, Madeira, merchants—J. Hernon, sen., and J. Hernon, jun., Saekville-street, Piocadilly, tailors—A. Birchall and T. Laycock, Leeds, woollen cloth-manu facturers—W. Podmore and Co., Chester, upholsterers--D. Honey and T. Smith, Plymouth, hatters—T. and W. Butcher, Epsom, carpenters—J. W. Robinson and W. B. Hill, Broad street, Ratelifie, ironmongers —J. Williams and W. Bryant, Merthyr Tydvil, Glamorganshire, common-brewers—T. F. Smi thies and M. Orme, Manchester, cotton-dealers—T. Bretherton and W. Bretherton, jun., Liverpool, common-brewers—E. Bentley and J. Fisher, Wigan, Lancashire, glass-dealers—H. 51•Dermott and Co.. Vine-street, Lambeth, linen-drapers (so far as regards H. M'Dermott)—W. Shayle and Co., Oxford, ironmongers—A. Ashworth and Co., Belfield Mill, I ancashire, fullen 1). Harris and Co., Fenny Stratford, Buck inghamshire, whartingers J. Johnston and Co., Milbrook, Hants, patent steam-boiler-inakers (so far as regards J. John ston)—J. Cropper and Co., Liverpool (so far as regards J. Crop.. per, R. Benson, and J. And E. Cropper)---G. Wood and J. Wade, Ludlow, paper.makers. A gross misrepresentation has been put forth upon the subject of a letter, containing the sentiments of the Duke of Wellington on the Reform Bill and on the general policy of the Administration, having been presented to his Majesty at Brighton. The fact is that the illustrious Duke, deeply impressed with the consideration of the perilous state to which the country has by misrule unhappily been reduced, committed his ideas to'Paper at considerable length. Of this paper, than which nothing more argumentative or more conclu. sive was ever penned, his Grace sent copies to several of his private friends, giving them to understand that he did so in the strictest confidence. One Noble Lord, however, urged by his enthusiasm on reading the contents of the letter, impru dently, perhaps, repaired directly to Brighton, and, soliciting an audience of the King, presented it to him, assuring his Ma jesty that it was entitled to immediate and serious attention.— The document was, as we have already observed, of some length. His Majesty did not . honour it with' a perusal, but sent it off instanter to Earl Grey. Able and eloquent as was the reasoning it set forth, his Grace never intended that it should meet the Royal eye nor the eyes of the public; but as his wishes have been frustrated in one respect, we hope the public will be favoured with a copy of the valuable document. _Morning Post. Captain Frankland's narrative of his " Visit to the Courts of Russia and Sweden in 1831," has been pro. flounced more than usually copious in detail s connec t e d w ith society (especially among people of r an k) th an t h e wor k o f an y former traveller. As regards Stockholm, the Author presents his reader with humourous particulars relative to the King of Sweden and his Court, State of the Army, &c., while in his de. scription of St. Petersburgh are given statements relative to the Italian Opera there—private soirees—anecdotes of the Russian Exclusives—presentation of the Author to their Im. perial Majesties, and the Grand Duke Michael—prodigality of the Nobles—war in Poland.--amateur theatricals—state of ELLUaiiC —progress of the cholera—the carnival—ghost stOriee., &c. Ot Moscow, many interesting particulars are given, including visite to the kremlin—Assembly-rooms of the Nobility— theattie4l anecdotes, &c. "I • ' .:4` NI e Ceti SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC We may be charged with " breaking a fly up r f,„ f we de,cend to any further mention of the Anti- •. • oi. • tllieuof Reform which was presented in our Peper ?If l yes e ‘" -ertlay in the guise of two Bills to he proposed to etilatlO;2TltT nent failing that now before the public. The whole scheme ;s a combination of impudence and fraud, such as never had parallel beyond the four wall. of the Old Bailey. We deed not trespass on the reader's time by more than a sin !le reference to this edifying sample of legislation for a •ountry so for advanced in the study of Reform, and in the knowledge of its true principles and object, as England is ind has been for some years past. The preamble sets out eith stating the " expediency" of mating provision for an an extension of representation to populous counties, dis trie.s, and towns; but nevertheless that the number of 11embers to serve in Parliament shall not be increased. Then what says the Tory lawgiver? In order to carry into effect this "expedient" provision, he allows the exiting , oters for every rotten borough in the kingdom to meet and declare whether they choose to disfranchise them.. selves or not; and if they do not acquiesce in this :ct of self-immolation, by a majority of three- fourths of their number, verily they may go on electing Members of Parliament until Doomsday. Now suppose the two or three electors of Old Sarum, and the half dozen conetia tuents of Gatton, being the domestic servants and tool!, of the house of Monson, or of that of Alexander and Co., shall say, as of course they must say, whether they will or not, " Our honoured patrons having paid some certain Bank-notes for these boroughs, and having commanded us to insist on their right of nominating such persons as shall walk into the House of Commons in our name., we are therefore bound to retain and exercise the priv•lege of sla very with which they have honoured us, and we will net he disfranchised." Here is a dilemma for the Mock- Reform-Bill- makers. But it does not end there. In every close corporation —every rotten horoug h —nay.. every inix.'d oorough throughout the United Kingdom, into which any patron, or partnership ot patrons, has contrived to get a footing to the extent of but one-fourri .1 the whole coosti uency, plus a sinele vote, a similar hoverer to the patriotic appeal of the anti-reform-bill-makers roust of necessity be anticipated. So, here is their grand tae! , erste sit Reform. They first pronounce the " expediency" of a more extended representation of populous places ; they next impose, as a primary condition of all chance, that the existiug numbers of the House of Commons shall not be auemented ; end so, having secured this fulcrum to their plot, they enable the patrons of the rotten boroughs, through their vassal retes e to say that there shall he no disfranckisement e —therefore that there shall be no enfranchisement, and therefore rid reform at all, in spite of the alleged " expediency" of the pteamble ! It is idle to waste words on such insultifsef nonsense. Yet these are the men whom Lord Grey is to be Applauded tor fancying that he can make nee of as sup porters of any real Reform Bill ! Mark the glorious con sistency of his Lordship's humble servants. They first shudder at" the thoughts re carrying the Bill by " force and violence,"—meaning thereby nothing hot a creation of Peers; they next, in the teeth of all p etence to truth end gravity, assure us that an efficient Reform (mean ing, of course, the present Bill), can he carried by Lord Grey and his colleagurs,—then talk in a strain of imposing mystery about his Lordship's " knowledge, judgment, and integrity, in the choice ot his means," tt. , if there were any means but one, and that most simple ; yerf ; in twenty lines after the above -ague fit, " little matters (to the shuddering patient, mark ye) " whether the Bill he earn d by a creation of Peers," that is to say, by the very same force and violence so much deprecated, " or by the fear that the knowledge it can be so carried may in spire." Why the fear that it might be carried by such a creation of Peers existed in the month of October, 1831 e and yet the Bill was not carried. So we are asked whether " the firm attachment of large bodies of inderndent men in both Houses of Parliament" to Lord Grey, ought not to be held " an ingredient in the materials" by which this great measure is to be carried ? Such reasoning is (we beg to say without offence) most unfortunate, inagmucl. as the same ingredients existed formerly, the same bodies of lode-' pendent men gave their confidence 6) Lord Grey during the former session, and yet accomplished nothing more than can at present be expected from them, namely, carry the 13111 through the House of Commons. In the Lords they were outnumbered by those who refusesi their confidence to the Noble Earl. Finally, we hear something said about an " army of reserve," and the Duke of Wel ingtor: What would the Duke think of a Generalmffieer who neg lected to bring his reserve into fire until the battle was irretrievably lost? As for any misconstruction of the spirit in which these our frequent—and to ourselves most repug nant and moat painful —remonstrances have been urged upon Lord Grey, we will not affect to say that we are indiffe rent to the judgments, even where erroneous, of honest and estimable men. Of Lord Grey's integrity we have never breathed a suspicion; nor of his devotion to that great cause which involves whatever an honourable Eng lishman can most value is this werld. Nothing would be to us a subject of more intense rejoicing than the ability to share that bright persuasion with which a respectable evening contemporary winds up his last night's article en Reform, viz.:—That " with a due and even numerous creation of Peers, if necessary; and at any- rate, without delay, mutilation, or compromise, the Bill, and every part of it which forms the theme of popular applause, and the object of popular hopes, will inevitably pass into a law."— Times. Ar the progress of the Reform Bill in the Commons draws to a close, the question, What will the Lords do? is again agitated in the public mind; and an iucreased in terest is now attached to it, since it is at length notorious that the King will not grant to Earl Grey the means of answering that question with certainty. 'What will the Lords do ? Reason and common sense argue that the Peers will boldly support the decision which they gave in October last ; but the perversity of human nature is such, hat even this plain question is involved in a whole host of doubts and surmises and suppositions. And who has created this unfortunate dilemma? Not the avowed enemies of the British Constitution, but, we regret to say, those whose duty it is to defend that Constitution, and to exhibit firmness, energy, and union at this moment of danger. A few words will tend to explain this matter. At the time when the progress of revolution was checked' by the patriotic decision of the Upper House, Earl Grey was advised to protect himself from the calamity of a se cond defeat by a wholesale creation of Peers; and, in ac cordance with this advice, his Lordship applied himself to the task of procuring the requisite authority from his Royal Master. Circumstances, however, which have now be come tolerably well known to the world, soon induced the Premier to discontinue his visits to the Palace ; and, being thus foiled in his designs of intimidation, the Noble Lord next rested his hopes of success upon the chance of conciliating his opponents. Accordingly, steps were forth with taken for the purpose of opening a negotiation with certain Noble Lords, who were supposed to be favourable to a moderate plan of Reform. At the very commence ment the staunch friends of the British Constitution looked upon these consultations between the Premier and his opponents with a feeling of alarm, fearing lest a desire far some species of compromise might lead to a daigerons and 'unconditional sacrifice of principle. For some time, however, the negotiation was carried on with a friendly -pirit ; but as Earl Grey could not yield through fear of the rabble, and as the Tory Peers would cot yield out of regard for their honour, the parties at length separated without coming to any definite agreement. Thus far all had gone well; the Tory cause had escaped the dangers which always attend such delicate and difficult negotiations. Latterly, however, the communications between the Premier and Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe have been renewed ; and we are told that these Noble Lords have so far sur rendered their principles as to have agreed to the second reading of the Reform Bill! This fact it is which has de stroyed the force of ali argument, drawn from the last decision of the Upper House as a precedent, aiid which has in volved the question, What will the Lords de? in so much doubt and obscurity. The oefection of the above Noblemen, and their immediate friends, although at first given as mere rumour, is now assumed as a master of fact ay the whole of the Ministerial Press ; hut still, for the honour of the constitutional party, we hope and trust that the assertions of the radicals upon this point are without foundation. Is it possible that Noblemen, who have hitherto protested against the Ministerial Reform Bill as a most iniquitous attack upon the Gin-titation, and who, in October last considered it so ir , quit , ius, that they deemed it expedient to resort to the mos; summary mode of treatment—is it possible, we ask, that these same Noblemen will now consent to riee,ve the very Bill which they then so contemptuously rejected ? It may be said that the Noble Lords alluded to do not pledge themselves to the principle of the Bill by con senting to a , second reading ; b u t, if t h ey are st ill a s hostile as ever to its principle, why consent to a sec• nd reading at all? , What object can they propose by such an it with gr eater 4 4, et ? underhand proce e di ng ? I t h as b een urge d th at the second reading is a gree d f or t h e purpose o f c onciliating the peope e. the rabble. But e v e n if each were the cast - , are they so exqui s itely simple as to suppose that the ral , ble would thank them for admitting their Bill into C iminittve for if t t i t i e n A l l e i r ,, e i. p te n i zo i f l o iangerous, if it t e unconstitu t ional (dud these hal-converts heave acknowledged such. to be the case,) t h en is It their luty, as honest and upright Member s o f t h e B r i t i s h 1.,..- - ; ;elature, to 1,1 , 110,e that Bill sit Ithit;*,.p, to cast it out at st f ia l D t t . 'l fo ir r 'g raa b e opr ,,, cte, if it he