The Sun. — London, England, 1832-04-17 00:00:00

. . . . ftiabcr advocated to produce the documents called for by his motion. While he expressed: thus opinion, he begged to say that lie did trot steiaii tha;te to undertake the defence of the Brazilian Goveinment. A memoranduen had been drawn up between the two Countries for the purpose of effecting a settlement of the claims ques tion, and the Brazilian Government had certainly not shown a disposition to adhere to the spirit of that memo randum. With respect to the mode in which the claims had been urged, he submitted to the House whether more forbearance ought not to be exercised in a case of this kind, than in circumstances where the parties were on greater terms of equality.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever forbearance had been shown, was far from origi nating in indifference to the demands of British subjects. It lied been the desire of Government to abstain as long as possible from compulsory measures, while there appeared to be other methods of attaining redress. He had no reason to believe that there existed any indisposition to take proper steps for obtaining a speedy and final settlement of the alarms ; and conceiving that the production of the papers moved for by the Hun. Member would tend to no useful purpose, but would prove inconvenient in the present state of the transaction, he should request the House not to ac cede to the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL did not see that the relative strength of the two countries was a substantial plea for forbearance in the present case. It had not, at all events, been acted upon i❑ the case of Portugal ; on the contrary, there had been a❑ endeavour to cast censure upon his friend, Lord Aberdeen, fur al lowing an interval of thirty or forty days to elapse before he demanded satis•actien from that country. But, even admitting the force of the plea, the reasonable time for exercising forbearance had long since expired—(Hear)—for the property had not been con fiscated by mistake, but for the purposes of plunder.— (Hear.) He could unhesitatingly declare that if the whole history of the affair were laid before the House of Com mons, they would come at once to the conclusion that delays were no longer admissible, but that England was justified in demanding instant reparation. So far from the injury having been exaggerated, he believed that the Government had understated its amount. There was, moreover, great ground for suspicion, that these injuries had been committed contrary to the wishes of the Mi. nisters of Brazil, through the agency of the Admiral on the station—( Hear, hear)—whose power was sufficient to enable him to counteract the Ministers. He believed that this could be substantiated by facts. He hoped that the existing Government of Brazil would display a greater disprieition to afford redress than was evinced by the last, at the head of which was that individual—that Don Pedro—(Hear) —the Emperor of Brazil, who, under the sanction, and, as he suspected, the connivance of Govern ment, l,ad been permitted to trample on our municipal laws, had been allowed to recruit for British soldiers toe the British territory, so that he had now in his service a body of troops called the " British Battalion." Under the banners of this individual British officers, holding the King's commission, hail been permitted to ranee them selves in direct violation of the law.—(Hear, hear, hear.) What injuries, he would ask, had Portugal inflicted on Britain, that she should tolerate such proceediugs ? What insult had Don Miguel offered to our power, that we should take a hostile part against him? What infatuation had induced us, not nominally, but in fact, to lend our countenance to that person who was direct. ing his views towards the throne of Portugal ?—(Hear, hear.) If the people of Portugal were determined to acquiesce in the choice of Miguel ras the King of that country, he (Sir Robert Peel) could not see on what prin ciples we lent the authority of our name (for the autho rity of our name we did lend) in promoting a contest. He had the deepest impression of the injustice of our in terference, at the same time he was advocating the cause of .Miguel, although be must admit the presumption that the Por uguese preferred him as their Sovereign to Pedro. And in what respect was this claim to a throne less substan tial than that of Louis-Philippe's to the crown of France ? Assuredly not on the score of legitimacy. He would maintain that the attack on Portugal could not take place without the assistance of France and England, nor could it succeed if unaided by the skill and courage of British offi cers, seconded by recruits drawn from our soil. On what motives of policy such an interference could be baied he could not understand. It was obvious that Miguel could not have maintained his position for three years as King of Portugal unless his authority had been sustained by a majority of the Portuguese people. Had Charles X. or Henry V. endeavoured to raise a military force in this country for the purpose of invading France, would not Government have said that they possessed the power of en'orcing the law against any attempt of the kind—and would they not have exercised that power? It would not Au to return in answer, that France was a powerful nation and Portugal a weak one. It was not only the interest of Portugal, but the interest of Spain also, that was compro mised ; and notwithstanding the character of the Govern ment of Spain, no country had of late shown a greater disposition to draw closer the bonds of amity and alliance with Great Britain. He believed that for the last seven years Spain had considered a British alliance as most fa vouratile to its interests, and he was persu tded that if the last Administration bad continued in office, Spain would by this time have recognized the independence of the South American States.—(Hear.) The consequences of Pedro's expedition, whether it were successful or not, would extend to the whole Peninsula, and would endanger our pacific relations with that portion of Europe. If the people of Portugal wished to retain Dun Miguel as their Sovereign, the principle of non-interference would be de parted from should this expedition be permitted to pro. Geed in the manner in which it had set out.—(Cheers.) Mr. G. ROBINSON regretted that the Noble Lord (Palmerston) had replied in a way which showed that the Government were not inclined to display more vigour in following up the claims than had been heretofore exhibited. Fur his own part lie detested a tortuous policy, sod con ceived that it would be much better to declare at once, that if redress were not granted, we would proceed to make reprisals. It was, no doubt, the interest of Eng land to cultivate amicable relations with Braz:l, but he could not admit that this formed any excuse for delaying she call for reparation of wrongs like those complained of. Sir C. WETHERELL said that these claims ought to have been long ago urged, and long ago settled. He did not see why Great Britain should be put last, after Ame rica and Prance had been successful. If a relaxation of the rights of nations towards England were once admitted by us in the South American seas, we should afford an example that would be imitated by the other American States.—(Hear.) The only mode of getting reparation front such States was by rept esentation to the Govern ment, not by resorting to similar piratical acts. If Great Britain had the magnanitnily to release the vessels which bad been seized, she ought etill to insist upon retribution and comp-asation. He wished to ask the Noble Lord whether he bad fixed a period for the adjustment of these claims, beyond which other means would be called into action to vindicate the honour of the British flag? The merchants of London had had abundant reason already to complain of the delay, and unless the Noble Lord stated some period when justice was to he done, he should re commend an ad dress to his Majesty, praying him to take maseaures for insisting on retribution.—(Hear.) Lord ALTHORP agreed that the acts complained of were a most genes injustice, and wholly unjustifiable on the part of the Brazilian Government. The late Adini ni*-tration had two courses to pursue,—namely, to send a squadron and make reprisals, or—which was the course they did take—to call Ott the Brazilian Government for aedress, and threaten reprisals if .t was refuse'. He con sidered that the late Government was wise in what they did, in giving the Brazilian Government au opportuuity to make reparation. The case was not one of abeolute refusal, but unnecessary delays had ken interposed; ansi, 4, his Noble Friend had stated, instructions had been Nen , to our Minister in the Brazils, to communicate to the G o e . ernment, that unless those delays were put an era to, reprisal' would be resorted to; and, in consequence, the cases were :n a course of adjustment. He did not see bow we could act otherwise than to declare that if we saw any delays internosed, we should resort to reprisals. Mr. EWAR4 hoped that the Noble Lord would not wirer these claims t o sand over indefinitely, but exact all he could from the Braze; tan Government, and vindicate the national honour. Sir F. TRENCH complained, that whilst minor States could obtain redress from the Brazilian Government, Great Britain was, in fact, treated with ridicule, • Lord MORPETH said, that he had a pstition to pre i.ent from trierchants, who stated that they suffereJ. great distress, through the indefinite delay of the adjustment a . their claims. He hoped that Government tvuuld act as vigorously in the new world as they had don e i n the 0 1d. Lord SANDON said, that two-thirds of the amount of the cairns were due to Liverpool. He should like to hear whether the Noble Lord was disposed to assign a specific time tor the adjustment of the chino', beyond which fri volous and vexatious delays should no longer be tolerated, Mr. HUME regretted that English merchants should be so treated. The British flag, which was once respected in all parts of thew rid, was now mocked every where. Sir H. . p , 1:44/17. that if the statement. of A tt Hon. NI )eoli.' e insitt4S red to the British flag r 14 R were co es;l4 teas incurnAistiißsot e Government to put a stop to the disgrace. He w, ..". to ask whether any steps hid been taken by'b0i',....... , to recall those offi cert in the army and navy ., whis - " 7 taking improperly a part i n th e contest now gonig on -,•,. Colonel VirANS 'rid !t; Wiwi. reed, both at Lisbop : A L 4 ty, 'andiu this country, that there was an officer, high in rank in e British army, who had been in correspondence with the Portuguese Government. Lord PALMERSTON had nut expected this sort of discussion on the merits of the contest between Don Mi guel and Don Pedro. In reply to the question of the Right lion. and Gallant Member, he could only say, there was a person in D Pedro's service who was for merly an officer in the British navy, but he no longer held a commission in the service. If there were any military officers in Don Pedro's service, the stme rule applied to them. His Majesty's Government hail observed a strict neutrality. With respect to the alleged insults and ckety of the British flag, he had no knowledge of the grounds upon which the statements had been made. His Noble Friend had correctly stated that the cases were in a course of investigation. The case of the Henry and Isabella was under adjudication when the last advices came away. Sir R. PEEL thought, that the best course for the Hon. Member for Glasgow to adopt after the declarations which had been made by Mini.ters, was to withdraw the motion, anti leave the question in their hands. Mr. DIXON said he was ready to follow the suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet, and withdraw his motion. . . Sir J. M. DOYLE said, th tt if he did not think it unbecoming a Member of the House of Commons to turn informer, be could point out several British officers who were at the present moment in the service of Don Miguel. He could also inform the House, that a British officer, receiving half-pay, and who was besides in the military service of Portugal, was Don Miguel's diplomatic agent in this country ; but he could not, of course, recollect the name of this respectable individual.—(Much laughter.) The House then resolved into a Committee of supply ; on the motion of Mr. KIN NEDY, the ordnance estimates were postponed till Wedne.day. IRISH TITHE BILL. Mr. STANLEY moved the third reading of this Bill. Mr. RUI'HVEN opposed the Bill, because he thought it was not calculated to satisfy the people of Ireland. Mr. M. O'CONNELL opposed the Bill, and protested against the principle of it. Mr. PETRE said that, as a Catholic, he felt bound, on the faith of that solemn engagement which he had made on entering that House, to support the Protestant Church, and the Protestant establishment, both of Ireland and Eng:and, as part and parcel of the constitution of the country. It was on such principle that he supported the measure of his Majesty's Ministers; anti he denied that he, fur one, had entered into any designs against the Pro testant Church or religion of either country. Mr. SHEIL took that opportunity again to enter his protest against the principle of this Bill ; and he hoped he might be allowed to do so, notwithstanding the conscienti ous declarations of his Hon. Friend the Member for Ilchester. In the course of a former debate on this subject, he had spoken of the effects which might follow the Reform Bill in Ireland, if not accompanied by other conci liatory measures on the part of his Majesty's Govern ment. The language which be then employed, and the prophetic warning which he then felt it his duty to give to his Majesty's Ministers, had been in the recent debate elsewhere, ingeniously turned into an argument against the Reform Bill itself. Now the whole of his statement was that they should prepare Ireland for Reform by con ciliation, and that was no argument against Reform, though it was an argument against the present mea sure. Reverting to the scruples of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Ilchester, he begge 1 to say that according to the oath which he had taken, he would feel bound in conscience and in duty, if a propositio❑ should be made t strip the Protestant church of all its temporalities, to oppose such a proceeding ; but be did not think that that oath prevented him from supporting, like any other Member of Parliament, measures which went to deal with that establishment, or to sett'e it on a more liberal and legitimate basis. Such was his reading of the oath—such, he was sure, would he the reading of it in the eyes of men of common sense; and he was equally certain that it never was the intention of the Legislature in imposing that obligation to prevent Catholic Members from acting like other independent Members of Parliament. Mr. STANLEY observed that the Hon. and Learned Member for Louth appeared to be disposed to resort to sophistry in explaining the obligations of the oath which the Roman Catholics took on ente , ing that House. The plain common sense interpretation of the oath was, that the Catholics would abstain from using the power they pos sessed to injure the property of the Church. The doc trines which had been promulgated by th,- Hon. and Learned Member were the severest blow which the Irish Reform could receive. Let the Hon. and Learned Mem ber beware of the course be was pursuing. The principle upon which Ministers had founded their measure of Re. form was not that of universal enfranchisement, but that of giving a share in the representation to as large a portion of the people is possible without danger to existing insti tutions. lie believed the people of Ireland were slandered by those who said that they would return Members to a Reformed Parliament pledged to the destruction of the Protestant Church establishment. If he did not be lieve that a safe constituency would be established by the Irish Reform Bill, he would even now abandon that mea sure. The question at present at issue in Ireland was, not that of tithes, but a question of law and of property. The measure before the House was directed against those per sons who possessed ample means of paying the legal de mands of the clergyman, and who incited the poor peasantry to resist paym.nt, in order that they might themselves escape. These individuals would yield to the power with which the present measure would arm the Government, and which they were determined to exercise ; and when once the leaders in the system of resistance to the payment of tithes should be reduced to obedience, the feelings of the deluded peasantry would return to their proper current, and they would see that their best in terests were involved in the maintenance of the law. Mr. H. GRATTAN defended the course which he and other Irish Members had pursued with respect to this measure. The tithe questio❑ would have been agitated sooner in Ireland, but that the people knew that till Ca tholic emancipation was accomplished, it was useless to at tempt the reform of abuses in that country. But now that that essential condition of the pacification of Ireland had been effected, they might rest assured that they would never cease to hear of agitation, till Ireland and England had but one common system of laws and government. To the passing of the Catholic question, Ireland had been go verned by the bayonet ; but a " change had come o'er the spirit of its dream." Mr. HUME was sure the Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland " stood alone" in asserting that the Church of Ireland should be preserved in its present monstrous form,—alone even as a member of the Government ; for had not the Noble Chancell , r of the Exchequer pledged himself to a remedial measure, and to a measure of " ex tinction" in the same breath, with a measure for enforcing the payment of tithe arrears?—(Hear.) And was not this promise of a remedial accompaniment the only means of reconciling public opinion to a continuance of a rnon• serous system which, do what they would, would soon be withered by the scorching rays of public opinion,—he might say of public indignation ?—(Hear.) . . The House divided - For the third reading of the Bill :," Against it. 7 ._ .. . . . .. Majority for the third reading After which the Btll was passed. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Three o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 16. Alderman WOOD and others, from the Commons, brought up several private Bills, which were read a fug time, on the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY. Lord CLONC[JRRY presented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the city of London, in favour of the new system of education in Ireland. He considered this a most important petition, because if any portion of the people were aware what system of edu cation was the b. st, it was certainly the chief citizens of the capital ; also a petition from the same parties, praying for the abolition of oathe, Petitions against the new system of education were presented by the Duke of Gordon, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Earl of Westmoreland ; and against tithes by Earls Fingal and Radn.>r, and Viscount Clifton and Lord Clon curry. Viscount STRANGFORD presented a petition from the inhabitants of Graveseud and Milton against the Gravesend Pier BM. The Earl of DARNLEY presented several petitions in fas Qv the Bill. The Alarquir. of SALISBURY presented a petition from the inhabitants, boatm en , and. barge-owners of Greenwich and Black wall against th WI. conversation across the table here ensued between Lords Dar;ley„ Salisbury, Winchilsea, and Stiangford, but which, from the noise in the llouse, was nut ht'ard. 4.l:er which The !Marquess of SALISBURY moved that the Graves end Pier Bill be read a second time this day ; ; i x months, which was negativ:a! without a division, and the Bill was re;td a second time. The Niriuess of CLANII,IC4RPE cnmplained that a petition had I,;eta presented by a Noble Earl (Mansfield) as against the new system of education in Ireland. There haying been some hesitation in the reading of the title of the petition, he had been induced to look it over, and he found that no mention wae wade in it of the Pew system of clueation The petitioners only prayed that no plan of education might receive the sanction of that House which would peal up from thirsty souls the fountain of living waters and the word of life (thereby meaning the Bible). The new plan did not seal up that hook, otherwise it never would have been defended by him. After a few words from Lords KENYON and AfAxs- FIELD, the petition was again read by the Clerk, and or dered to lie on the table. The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the county of Devon, signed by between 8000 and 9000 persons, against the new system of education in Ireland. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS presented a petition to the same effect from Taunton. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH presented a petition to the same effect from the presbytery of Lochmaben, in the county of Dumfries. Lord KENYON presented a petition to the same effect from the B)roughreeve, and about 200 of the most re• spectable people in Manchester, agreed to at a meeting held for the purpose of petitioning on the subject. Lord SUFFIELD had no objection to the receiving of the petition, but thought himself called upon to state what was the description of the meeting at which the petition was agreed tn. It was a packed private meeting, to which only those concurring in the object were admitted ; and there was nu aslinission but by tickets. A very respectable individual procured a ticket and attended, and rose to move an adjournment of the meeting. He was asked by the Chairman whether he concurred in the petition ; and was informed that, if he did not, he could not be heard. He (Lord Suffield) had no objection to such meetings, either public or private ; but the present meeting had no right to advertise themselves as they had done, as a meeting of the Gentry, Clergy, Magistrates, and other inhabitants of Man chester. He never saw a more impudent attetr.pt at delusion. Lord KENYON stated, that it was signed by all the clergy of Manchester except three, and the petitioners had found it expedient to meet in such a way, as to prevent disturbance from Roman Catholics and others. The petitions were laid on the table. Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition from the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, against official oaths, as the very common practice of taking oaths, on the entering on office, dimini-hed the reverence and so- lemnity with which the taking of oathsought to be regarded. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from Protestants of Galway, against the Indemnity Bill. Lord CLIFDEN presented a petition from a place in the county of Carlow, praying for an alteration in the tithe system. Lord CLONCURRY presented a petition to the same effect from a place in the county of Kildare. Earl DARNLEY presented a petition from Rochester, against the overworking children in the manufactories. GRAVESEND PIER BILL. The Marquess of SALISBURY presented a petition front shipowners, smack-owners, &c. of BlaL•kwall, Green wich, &c. rgainst the Gravesend Pier Bill, on the ground that it would obstruct the navigation of the river. Earl DARNLEY moved the second reading of the Grave-end Pier Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY opposed it. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. REFORM. Lord DURHAM presented a petition from 15,000 of the inhabitant householders of South and ti,rth Shields, stating that in point of population, property, and tax-rates they were entitled to a larger share of the elective franchise than had been allowed them by the Reform Bill, and they prayed for an extension aceordingly. His LORDSHIP also presented a petition from the Mem bers of the Political Union of Bethnal Green, in favour of the Reform Bill. Lord KENYON, alluding to the petition from Shields, suggested that the allegations of that and other petitions, to the same effect, ought to be referred to a Committee. The Marquess of CLEVELAND observed that the time was approaching when a motion for a Committee might be properly made. But he believed the facts stated in the petition to be true. Lord ELLENBOROCGII submitted to the Noble Earl (Grey) whether the second reading of the Naval Civil Appointments Regulation Bill ought not to be postponed till after the recess, as the matter was of great importance, and there hal been no time allowed for the due consideration of the provisions of the Bill? Earl GREY replied in a whisper across the table, but we understood him to agree to the proposal, and also state that, as a Noble Marquess (Salisbury) had given notice that he intended, on the motion for the cotninittal of the Reform Bill, to move an instruction to the Com mittee, and that as be wished to give the Noble Marquess time to consider what the instructions should be, he would propose that the recess, instead of being for a fort night from Thursday next, as he originally intended, should be for a fortnight from Monday next; and he hoped the Marquess would give timely previous notice of the nature of his intended instructions. Lord ELLENBOROUGH approved of the arrange ment, and said that the answer was what be expected from the Noble Earl's candour. He begged leave also to notice that the Naval Civil Department Regulation Bill made no provision for the mode of performing the duties in case a Lord High Admiral should be appointed. NEWTOWNBARRY AFFRAY. The Earl of WICKLOW rose with regret, pursuant to the notice lie had given, because he was afraid Le might be liable to the imputation of standing in the situation of a public accuser, but he cool f assure their their Lord ships he stood forward in no such character. He might al•o be liable to the imputation of wishing to advert to the circumstances and situation of Ireland, and of taking the opportunity of venting his political hostility against the Government. He, however, disclaimed any such motives, and he should studiously refrain from entering into any circumstances connected with the situation of Ire!and, not involved in the motion before their Lordships. He was happy to see the Noble Marquess (Anglesea) pre sent; for that Noble Lord he professed much respect, and believed that he only desired, by his system of Govern mont, to promote the happiness of the people and the wel fare of the country. While he was ready to do ample justice to the motives of the Noble Marquess he could not ap prove of the system of Government lie had thought it his duty to pursue. The Government to which the Noble Marquess belonged had constantly recommended a con ciliation, and they had followed the system, and all men ought to open their eyes to the consequences. From one extreme they had fallen into another, and they had produced all the evils under which the country was now suffering. He had on former accasions tried, but in vain, to get the Noble and Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland) to enter into the circumstances of that country, and having failed, he was compelled to bring forward the present motion, which would oblige Noble Lords opposite to give them that information for which the country was panting. It was the opinion of a Noble Duke, and ac quiesced in by the Noble Earl at the bead of the Govern. anent, that what the country wanted to insure its tranquil lity. was less a military force than an active and deter mined body of magistrates having the support of the Government. He did not mean that the Government should screen and protect the magistrates when they were guilty of arbitrary acts, but that it should show them some favour i❑ the execution of their arduous duties, and not sacrifice them to gain popularity for every trifling error in judgment.—(Hear.) If the case to which he recant to call their Lordships' attention related only to the individual, he should still think it worthy of consideration, because that individual had no other tribunal to which he ' could appeal ; but the feelings of the individual in this case were nothing in comparison to the interest of the whole magistracy of the country, which was deeply involved in it. The conduct of the Government, he verily believed, had caused that want of energy which was observable in the magistrates. He knew that the magistrates were pa ralysed by the fear of being delivered over by the Govern ment to the vengeance of the deinocratical party.—(Hear.) On this subject he could confirm his own opinion, by stating to their Lordships the evidence of the present Arch bishop of Dublin, who was promoted to his high station by the present Ministry, and known to be of their party. The Noble E al quoted part of the evidence given before the tithe Committee, by the Archbishop, who stated that be had heard of many magistrates who were afraid to afford protection, and who were afraid to act in cases of riot. He also state.' that cases had been mentioned to him of the troops being afraid to act because of incurring the legal penalties. They were crippled with fear. The Nubile Earl then referred to the affair at Knocktopher, to which he considered that of Newtownbarry owed its origin; and stated that the conduct of Government at that time might have led Captain Graham to act as he did. In the autumn of 1830, instructions were sent to all the magistrates of Ireland how to act in case of disturbance. He had received one of these letters, and he would read the concluding paragraph to the House. The Noble Earl accordingly, read 'a short passage from Mr. Stauley' s circular letter to the magistrates, stating that his Excellency the Lord Lieute ❑ant would not fail to Visit thcte magistrates with his severest displeasure who failed to exert themselves, while lie should duly appreciate and acknowledge the ser vicee of those who endeavoured to preserve the public peace ; that was considered consolatory by the magistrates, but it Was not considered sufficient by the Government. Within another month or two another letter was sent by the Secretary tor Ireland to the magistrates of the same tendency, telling them that it was their duty to prevent, as well as enppreee Tiote, and giving them instructions to eall Ota the people for assistaned. Having siated these) circumstances to show on what authority the magistrates had acted, he should proceed to describe the parti• -rulers of the case of Newtuwnbarry. The Noble Earl accor tingly entered into a long description of the whole of the circumstances of that case, which have been repeatedly stated by both parties. He described Captain Graham, as the senior magistrate, as having been informed that the distraint for tithes was to be resisted ; that the people had been summoned for forty miles round ; that the most inflammatory placards were issued ; and that he had only, in the proper execu tion of his duty, collected the police and the yeomanry when he found he could get no millitary assistance to repel these riotous proceedings. For his conduct he had incurred the anger of Government, which must be traced up to one of three causes. First, the Government must have thought that calling out the yeomanry at all was improper and unjustifiable; Second, that admitting that it was proper in some cases to call out the yeomanry, it was not proper to call them out in this case; or, Thirdly, if it were proper to call them nut, yet the Magistrates had not acted prudently and judiciously. To prove that the magistrates were justified in calling out the yeomary, the Noble Earl quoted part of the judge's charge at Wex ford, who stated, that the magistrates were authorized to call them out as subjects, and that as yeomanry they had no particular authority. If the magistrates had the sanc tion of such authority for their conduct, he contended that, admitting they were to blame at all, it could only be an error of judgment, which did not deserve any punish ment. Even if the Government thought otherwise, it ought to have treated the offence with great lenity. The Noble Earl also quotted a similar case which had occurred some time before at Tarra-hill, when the magistrates who had called out the yeomanry and prevented a riot, had re ceived the thanks of the Government. That was one of the cases of the resistance to the law, which was spreading in a most alarming manner. Another similar occurrence took place at Ardrie, and the magistrates sent to Mr. Stanley to know if the yeomanry should be called out. The Noble Earl quoted the account of a conversation held between Mr. Stanley and Captain Owen, the gentleman deputed by the Magistrates to wait on that Right Hon. Gentleman, who stated that Mr. Stanley asked why the yeomanry were not called out; and that his impression from the conversation was, that if the yeomanry were called out, it would meet the approbation of Government. The Noble Earl next referred to a letter from Mr. Stanley to certain magistrates, dated September 18, 1831, in which the Right Hon. Secretary referred to his circular letter of instructions, recommended that it should be followed, and pointed out the propriety of swearing in the yeomanry as special constables, in order to insure their service, and make them in that capacity more available for the suppres sion of illegal meetings. If Noble Lords thought the re commendation to swear in these men as special constables gave them any advantage in argument, they were welcome to it; for his part, he did not think the oath of the special constable was any additional obligation for men by whom the oath of allegiance had been already taken. He con tended that the magistrates were justified in what they had done, both by the authority of the judges and the Govern ment. They had behaved with great prudence and die cretion—they were justified in calling out the yeomanry, and he thought they deserved the approbation of the Go vernment.--(Hear.) Similar conduct had previously re ceived its approbation, To show further what had been the conduct of the magistrates, the Noble Earl also referred to the trial at the assizes, and quoted the evidence of Mr. Ralph, Mr. APClintock's agent, to show that the people were extremely numerous and violent, and Captain Gra ham forbearing. The Noble Earl also quoted the evidence of Dr. Hyde, who stated that 30,000 people were present, who greeted the police with loud groans and opprobrious language, and hurled showers of stones upon them as large as paving-stones. One yeoman was wounded in the heel by a slug. He quoted that particularly, because it was said that the yeomanry were not assaulted before they fired. The same witness also stated that another yeoman was wounded in the heel before the yeomanry fired. He knew that evidence was contradicted, but it was by persons not worthy of credit. The words " fie, fie," used by Cap• tai's Graham to warn the yeomanry, bad been interpreted by some witness to be "fire, fire." He was sure, from all the circumstances, that Captain Graham acted with the greatest resolution, and the most perfect coolness and dis cretion. The judge at the trial had described the conduct of the magistrates as prudent, moderate, and humane. These gentlemen were acquitted by two grand jn ries ; and after all these investigations, with such testi monials to their character, he thought these gentlemen, notwithstanding she anger of the Government, had reason to be proud of their situation.—(Hear, hear.) Up to a certain period, as he had stated, the Government had acted well; it did not give way to clamour, but subse quently it had acted differently, and given way to an ex ternal influence. The demagogues had goaded on the Government, and it had not been able to resist their factious influence. In the month of August, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland wrote, by the Lord Lieutenant's order, a letter of censure to these ma gistrates. As might be supposed, those gentlemen immediately sent in their resignation, as became them. In accepting their resignation, Mr. Stanley bad expressed the surprise of the Lord Lieutenant that they should have regarded the former letter as such a censure as justifying their resignation. Capt. Graham did not resign, because he was the agent of a Noble Lord in that part of die country, who, he regretted, was not in his place, as the duty he was then performing would have been then done by abler hands than his. Captain Graham was soon afterwards withdrawn by the Govern ment from the Commission of the Peace. The Govern ment had expressed its surprise that the other Magistrates had resigned ; Captain Graham they removed. But there was no difference between his conduct and that of the other magistrates. They had all co-operated to gether, and ought all to have been treated alike. Inde pendent of all these proceedings, vexatious as they were, Captain Graham having applied to the Government, through his solicitor, to learn if any other prosecution was in progress, received a reply in the negative, but yet bills were afterwards preferred against him before the Grand Jury, and, like all the others, itnrnediately ignored. Tile Noble Earl, after detailing some of the other circumstances connected with the case of Captain Graham, concluded by apologising to the House for having trespassed so long on its attention, but expressed a hope that he had already stated enough to warrant the production of the documents which preceded the removal of Captain Graham from the commission of the peaCe of the county of Wexford. The Marquess of ANGLESEA concurred in the course pursued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and shared with him the responsibility. The Noble Earl who had inveighed so strongly against the removal of Captain Gra ham, should recollect that there was a great difference be tween placing a gentleman in the Commission of the Peace, and removing him after he had been appointed— Captain Graham had not been dismissed. He had been merely removed from the magistracy by not being included in the reappointments ; and he (Lord Anglesea) appre hended that the conduct he pursued while in the capacity of a magistrate fully justified the Government in omitting his name. Captain Graham bad no power to call out the yeomanry on such an occasion, nor indeed on any occasion in such a manner, except in case of invasion, or well•cle fitied insurrection. Captain Graham had a right to call on the yeomanry as individuals, to assist the civil power, hut he had no right to call on them as an organised power in the manner he had dune. There could be no ques tion that Captain Graham had acted most indiscreetly in calling out the Yeomanry, and the more so, as they were known to be connected with the Orangemen of the county. If troops were nece-eary, too, for the preservation of the public peace, there was a garrison of the King's troops at Wexford, which might have been more safely employed on such an occasion. He (Lord Anglesea) did not mean to cast any undue reflection on the inefficiency of the yeo manry corps. He believed they were, as a body, men to be trusted in the most trying s er v ice; that in the event of f or eign invasion, or of anything which would call for their services from without, they would prove loyal, zealous, and indefatigable, and prove themselves worthy of their country's gratitude ; but he doubted much (and he wished some of them were present to hear )aim), he doubted much t h e propriety of employing them tinder circumstan ces where their pas , ions were excited, and when that excite ment was increased still more by hearing it frequently stated in that House and elsewhere, that the Government of the country were hostile to them as a body. He (Lord Anglesea) would not enter at that moment into the question, of whether Captain Graham had or had not ordered the yeomanry to fire; but thei r L or d s hi ps woul d s ee how difficult it was fur a body called out in such a manner, and under such a state of excitement, to dis tinguish between the words "fire" and "fie;" and they would also recollect, that Captain Graham had made uo exertions to 'stop the yeomanry when they did fire; and that many of them absconded after the events of the day. The Noble Earl had alluded to a letter of thanks to a yeomanry corps, on a similar occasion. The Earl of WICKLOW—Yes. To a letter addressed by .oolonel Grossett, in 1830, to Captain Feltus ; in which he, by order of the Government, thanks the yeo manry fur their services in the county of Cavan, and ex presses his regret that there was no fund from which the men could be remunerated for their services. But after that, Captain Feltus had also been dismissed from the commission of the peace.—(Hear.) The Merqueet of ANGLESEA was uuderetood to dopy the resemblance between that case and the affair of New - townharry. Wherever military force had been demanded, it had been given ; but the fact was, that even where complaints of inefficiency had been made, no such request had been proffered to the Governtnent; and he ;night, perhaps, be here permitted to observe, that in his opinion the Noble Marquess (Westmeath, we believe) did not take a course likely to promote tranquillity, by writing angry letters to factious and ungrateful agitators, for the pur pose of vilifying the Government. The answer of one of the witnesses at a late Assize in Ireland was worth re peating to their Lordships, as showing the feeling of the people of Ireland. The witness, who was a farmer, was asked if he and his son had looked on at these outrages, and had made no attempt to repress them ? to which the answer was, " Why, if you who call yourselves gentlemen, and the magistrates of the county were to come forward and call upon us to assist you, instead of skulking out of the country in the very hour of danger, this business would soon be at end."—(Hear.) The Marquess of WESTMEATH begged to say, that he was in nowise actuated by any hostility towards the Noble Marquess, although the Noble Marquess seemed to think that he was. The address to which the Noble Marquess had alluded was not altogether his (the Mar quess of Westmeath's) ; for, although he had written it, it had been submitted to a committee of the magistrates, and adopted by them with very little alteration.—(Hear.) As to his bringing forward the subject during the absence of the Noble Marquess, he certainly had been asked to postpone the question by the Noble and Learned Lord (Plunket), but this he had declined, on the ground that the second reading of the Reform Bill was now at hand, and no one knew what might take place on that, or whe ther he should be able to find an opportunity subsequently of attending to the matter ; besides which, on general grounds, be felt that the acts of Government were always open to discussion, and that any Member of Parliament bad a right to advert to them whenever he pleased.— ( flear, hear.) He was ready, however, to say that the Noble Marquess, whenever he had been applied to, had always shown his readiness to send the King's troops where necessary; but he (the Marquess of Westmeath) for one objected to seeing the troops marched back ward and forward, and exposed to the comments of the inhabi tants, who were cunning enough to know just how far they might go in provocation without incurring any risk. It would he much better, said the Noble Marquess (An elesea) if the people would stay at home and mind their duty. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) wished to God that he was at home—(a laugh)—but he was here, and no man could be in two places at once.—(A laugh.) The Earl RODEN thought that the charge of injustice on the part of the Government was fully made out ; and he had a ri,,ht to say eo, because he had heard no anewer given to the statement of the Noble Earl who had intro duced this subject. He agreed with the Noble Marquess ( Anglesea) that Captain Graham had been turned out of the Commission of the Peace, because he bad called out the yeomary, which, according to the Noble Marquess, was an illegal act. If this were so, it was certainly a little extraordinary that Mr. Stanley had written a letter to Mr. Moore, a gentleman of the county of Wicklow, in which he stated that he would certainly be justified in calling out the loyal yeomanry.—(Hear, hear.) Was not this a strange contradiction between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary of Ireland ?—a contradiction which he must leave that Nobleman and Right Hon. Gen tleman to reconcile between themselves. He meant to contend that Captai❑ Graham's dismissal had nothing to do with his conduct at Newtownbarry, but had taken place in obedience to the dictates of the demagogues of Dublin. Under these circumstances, every Protestant gentleman in Ireland felt that Captain Graham's case was their case; and they therefore felt that his dismissal was a personal insult to themselves.—(Hear, hear.) The ob ject of the present Government seemed to be to put down Protestantism in Ireland ; and he thought that be had a right to sty so, both from the language of Mr. Stanley, and from the difference between the English and Irish Re form Bills; the children of English Freemen preserving their franchise according to the former, and the children of Irish freemen losing theirs according to the latter. He had already said that the Government was under the die. tation of the demagogues of Dublin ; and that, he con tended, was proved by Mr. O'Connell nominating at a public meeting in Dublin a gentlema❑ to the Sligo Com mission of the Peace, who possessed little or no property in that county; and within a very few days after, it was a most remaricable fact, that that nomination had been confirmed by the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquess of ANGLESEA, in explanation, denied that he had ever thrown any imputations on the Magis tracy of Ireland; and in order to show that the Irish Go vernment had not been lax in the discharge of their duty, read a list of the persons recently tried in Ireland, enume rating those of the convicted who had been sentenced to transportation, and those who had been left for execution. The Marquess of CLANRICARDE disclaimed any in tention, in what he was about to say, to throw any impu tation on the character of Captain Graham, who, on the contrary, was, he believed, a very honourable man ; but he must defend the conduct of the Government of Ireland in dismissing him. The Noble Earl had spoken of the oc currence in question as a trifling matter. But could it be called a trifling matter when two or three and twenty people were killed? Had Captain Graham not been dismissed from the magistracy, Government would have abandoned their duty, and would have brought the law into hatred and contempt. Adverting to the various associations in Ireland, he maintained that of all the societies in that country not directly illegal, the Orange ledges were the most injurious. Allusion had been made to the evils oc casioned in Ireland by demagogues. Those evils were doubtless . great ; but after balancing the evils which resulted from demagogues and the evils which resulted from the Orange Lodges, he should certainly prefer the demagogues. The Marquess of WESTMEATH explained. • The Earl of WINCHILSEA denied that any case had been made out against Captain Graham and the other magistrates of having acted injudiciously. It had been said that the yeomanry ought not to be resorted to, except in case of invasion or of well-defined insurrection. As a proof that that was not the case, the assistance of the yeo manry whom he had the honour to command in the county of Kent, had, only a few weeks ago, been required by the magistrates for the protection of property. In the instance in question, Captain Graham was complimented by the judge before whom the case was tried, for the discretion, humanity, and kindness with which he had acted. As to the Orange lodges, n otwithstanding the attack made upon them by the Noble Marquess who had last spoken, he (Lord Winchilsea) was proud to say that he had enrolled his name rmong them. Their principles were the main tenanc • of the laws of the country, the succession to the Crown, and the Protestant Lord TEMI'LEMORE stated that the sole reason which had induced the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Wexford, whose opinion as to the conduct of Captain Graham was as strong as his own, not to omit his name in the next commission was because, as the case was going to the assizes, such a step might have the appearance of prejudging it. The Earl of ELDON contended that the statement of the Noble 3larqueis (Anglesea) was not agreeable to law. Lord CLONCURRY said the particular cirtumatances of the case had not been explicity stated to their Lord ships. This was a general question, relating to the con duct of all magistrates. It appeared by the evidence on the coroner's inquest, published by the House of Com mons, that the tithe was not due. The people who lost their lives by the imprudence of Captain Graham said they would leave the question in dispute to two country gentlemen, the sons of clergyman. Mr. M'Clintock was ready to leave it to two lawyers. The Clergyman was willing, also, to consent to having the Composition Act, if the people would make him an advance to pay his tithe proctor. They did pay him in advance, and afterwards the clergyman wanted them to continue to pay in advance. This only part of them agreed to. The point in dispute was whether what they had paid in advance should be set down to their credit or not. Then came a magistrate, who issued his orders as a magistrate to himself as a yeo mon, and he went forth as a tithe proctor, driver, and yeoman, to execute the orders he gave as a magistrate.— (Hear, hear.) He admitted that the laws were not re spected in Ireland. but the reason was, that the gentry were guilty of breaches of the law. They were the first to break them. It was the duty of magistrates to call out the yeomanry and military in certain cases, but the magistrates ought never to leave them to themselves. Much of the evil of Irelaud arose from the destitution and want of ern. ployment of the people ; only find them employment, and double the population, and the people of Ireland would be a blessing to the empire. But certainly there could be no peace in that country while a magistrate could go out an d shoot peopl e f o r something like amusement. — (Hear.) Captain Graham :ought, in his opin i o n, to have been re• moved the instant the actwas comrnitted which had g i ven rise to th e d e b a t e .—(Hear, hear.) The Earl of ELDON admitted that the people could Ye° ;liey , nanrtYve but they would h ave been liable b e to called bein out dit re not to com e f ort h when called o n h a that subjects,if thefurther,udges of England wer e r i g h t that the t , character of a soldier did not annihilate the duties of a subject, the magistrates were authorised to call the mili tary out and the yeomanry out, as subjects, to preserve the peace.—(Hear, hear.) The Marquess of WESTMEATH explained, that he had stria that to recommend use mogistiatto to go out at mient to maim the poet, II sa dicknlt causure, of a mere farce. Viscount MELBOURNE warned their Lordships against encouraging such motions as the present, which would trespass on the prerogatives of the Crows, in which was vested the power of appointing magistrates. The motion was most inconvenient, and to persevere in such motions would give into the hands of Parliament that power which was now vested in the Crown. The Lord Chancellor might not always be able to state the reasons why he had removed a magistrate from the Commission. He warned their Lordships, therefore, not to consent to such motions as this, which would lead to most incon venient interference with the prerogative. With respect to this particular case, Captain Graham had been wanting in prudence, discretion, and moderation. In the first case, he called out the yeomanry, being all Protestants, to act among a population of Catholics. Next, they were called out by the person who commanded them, and on a question of a doubtful and difficult nature—a question of tithes. He might and ought to have called out the military. He was imprudent also in ordering the sale on a fair-day. This was sufficient reason for net re-in serting his name in the Commission of the Peace when it was renewed, which was very different from taking his name out of the Commission while the Commission was yet existing. As to the opinions of the judge, quoted by the Noble Earl (Wicklow), he thought they were of no authority, except on a point of law ; and in his political opi. nion he did not concur with the judge. At the same time the judge had only stated, if the witnesses for the defend ant spoke true, the conduct of Captain Graham was praise worthy. The other cases quoted by the Noble E ,r 1 (Wicklow) did not bear on the point; because the Noble Earl had not stated what were the circumstances of these other cases; and unless these circumstances were stated, no correct opinion could be formed. He admitted that the description given of the affray at Newtownbarry, by the Noble Earl, was correct; but he must say, that the whole of the evil at Newtownbarry was caused by the yeo manry. The firing was begun by the yeomanry--(No, no)—and continued much longer than it ought to be, and that it would be, if they had been military. He was apprehensive - that there must be some mistake in the assertion that Captain Graham was informed, on an application to the Attorney-General, that no further proceedings should be taken against him. The Attorney- General could not have made such a promise, because he could not tell what additional evidence might be brought to light. A second prosecution might be the result of such evidence, and showed no particular asperity on the part of the prosecutor. With respect to the motion, some of the papers moved for were already published : the re port made by Mr. Green was intended solely for the Lord Lieutenant, and he hoped that the Noble Earl would not press for that document. - The Earl of WICKLOW replied, and having restated his objections to the course pursued with respect to Cap tain Graham, concluded by declaring, that after what was stated by the Noble Viscount (Melbourne), be should not press his motion to a division. _ The motion was then put and negatived, and the House adjourned at Half-past Eleven. COURT CIRCULAR. The Duchess of Gloucester, accompanied by the Prin. cm Sophia, took an airing in a carriage yesterday afternoon in the Parks. The Duke of Sussex visited the Royal Duchess on Sunday evening. A deputation of the South Australian Land Company, among whom were Colonel Torrens, M.P., Mr. Whitmore, M.P., Mr. D. Browne, M.P., Mr. J. S. Lumley, M.P., Mr. S. Mackenzie, M.P., Major Bacon, Mr. Heathfield, and Mr. Strickland, had a long conference with Viscount Goderich, at the Colonial-office yesterday. Viscount Granville, Viscount Althorp, and the Lord Mayor of London, bad interviews with Earl Grey yester. day, at the Treasury. The Baron de Wessenburg, the Austrian Minister, on a special mission, and the Austrian Charge d'Affaires, visited Viscount Palmerston on Tuesday, at the Foreign-office. The Earl of Mulgrave, the Governor of Jamaica, trans acted busine•s at the Colonial-office yesterday. Count Mastuchevitz, the Russian Minister, on a special mission, visited Prince Lieven yesterday, at Ashburnham Home. PROTEST AGAINST THE SECOND READING OF THE REFORNI BILL, ENGLAND. DISSENTIENT, 1. Because in providing for the correction of abuses in the election of members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament, we are bound, above all things, t,) bear in mind that the Government of this country is, what from the earliest period of our history it has ever been, a Mo narchy; that this Monarchy, limited by the laws and cus toms of the realm, and by the necessity imposed on the Sovereign of having constant recourse to the advice and aid of Parliament, is the form of Government best adapted to the habits, wants, and wishes of the people, and conse quently that no changes, however specious, can be worthy of adoption which would either strike at the principles of the Monarchy itself, or would leave the Sovereign without the power of performing the high duties required from him, without the free and independent exercise of his law ful prerogatives in guarding the general interests of the State, in upholding its ancient institutions, and affording due protection to the rights, liberties, property, and lives of all his subjects. We feel it, therefore, to be the duty of Parliament, more especially of this House, to refuse to consign the country to so vast an untried change as is em bodied in the present Bill—a change, of which it has been justly said by one of the most distinguished advocates for the second reading, that it is in truth " a new form of Government of which no one has ever pronounced that it would be practicable, and which, if practicable, would be perniciou.." 2. Because, admitting it to be expedient to correct abuses which may have grown up under the present sys tem of Parliamentary election, and to extend to large po pulous and wealthy towns the privilege of returning Mem bers to Parliament, we are bound to bear in mind, that it bas been also admitted by the authors of the Bill, that, notwithstanding any abuses and any deficiences, " the House of Commons, as at present constituted, is above all other institutions, of all other countries in the world, the institution best calculated for the general protection of the subject." ocmeApaltpa rep avowed 3. Because by thi s Bill, t h at scrupu l ous regard to tie sacredness of charter e d r i g h ts an d vested interests, which has always hithert o b een d eemed part of the essential policy of the B r iti s h C onst i tut i on, and a fundamental principle of Briti s h j ust i ce , i s now, for the first time, utterly abandoned. Th e mos t anc i ent charters and the most valued interests are t rea t e d w i t h a reckless indiffe rence, which, whilst it is un necessary to t h e attainment of the proposed objects, the correct i on o f a b uses, and the improvement of the exi s ti ng system, s h ocks every feeling of justice, and cann o t f a il t o b e ma d e a precedent for still more fatal violati ons o f th ose pr i nc i p l es i n f uture. 4. Because, in contempl a ti ng th e v i o l ence d one b y t hi s Bill to the great principle o f p rescr ipti on , we canno t dis guise from ourselves the dangers which m us t ar i se t o th e most venerable of our institutions, whi c h ma i n l y rest on that principle ; above all, to the highest o f a ll, t o th a t one on which all others depend. 5. Because, ev e n if th e p r i nc ipl es o f t h e Bill were con sistent with the stability o f th e M onarc h y , an d w i t h the on safety of our most va l ue d i nst i tut i ons, yet the provisions by which mostiat sle;;;Ikr t anomalous u s ton u n just in in carry inthose theirthm character,e e principles s le s, ppartial intort illia l in adapted effect, their to are their r for the : ted p onderating influen ce i n t h e election of the House c o a on, we anti purpose, and s till more to the extensive Ana interests of this m i g h ty empire, tieenat , of otfh giving i greatving to commercial it an increase of representation com of Commous is conferr e d u p on the lowest class of inhabi tants in towns, thus vi r t ua ll y closing the doors of the House of Commons to th e vast monied and colonial inte rests, and leaving but f ew opportunities of admission to the id i The landed i n t erest, notwithstanding the professed in oninensurate with th at g i ven to the great towns, is left ex posed, eve n i n t h e elections for counties, to the influence of the tradi ng and manufacturing classes of the very places which are themselves to return Members to Parliament,-- an influence so great as must leave in many instances the representation of counties and divisions of counties, in the power of voters from the towns. . The p o p u l ous su b ur b s of the metropolis have been sub jected to the same innovating spirit which marks the gelation of this Bill in every other particular. Though it is manifest that this vast district, being connected in interests with the metropolis itself, and being the seat of Government and of Parliament, must command attention whether immediately represented or not, and equally manifest that the only real danger must be, lest the in fluence of the popular voice of the metropolis would ise too powerful ; yet it has been thought fit to aggravate this danger in an incalculable degree by creating new districts for representation, and virtually consigning the elections to universal suffrage, thus insuring a perpetual recurrence of popular excitement in a quarter where, above all others , it is most to be deprecated, as injurious to the best interes t of the industrious orders of the people, dangerous to the public peace, and hardly compatible with the free and co dependent exercise of t h e hi g h f unct i ons of Parliament itself. Of because the exorbitant increase of the derpociAtiE