The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-24 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The unanimous voice of the people of England
+-has obtained from their county and city represents-
''fives, and from the nominees of borough-owners, a
'majority of one. Do we despise this patriotic unit ?
No; for we consider that on a question involving
personal interests—rendered, such is the perversity
of human nature, more dear by their character
and profligate fruition—the truth must be clear and
irresistible indeed which could prevent a decided
negative. But let us see how the question stands
at present. Will the 301 Members who have re-
posed such unlimited confidence in the Member for
Cornwall, and have preferred his promise of vouch-
safing a resolution, declaratory of an intention to do
something in the way of tnoderate Reform, to the
consideration of a detailed plan brought..forward on
the responsibility of his Majesty's Ministers—will
they not despise this patriotic unit ? Will they not
confidently endeavour to destroy the principle of life
itself in the Committee? Will they not gradually
smother that which they have used every effort to
strangle at once? Is their confidence of ultimatesuccess
diminished ? We know that it is not. There is but
one measure that can destroy that confidence, and
defeat these machinatiene—a dissolution of the pre-
sent House of Commons. It is idle to imagine that
a measure, the sudden extinction of whieh was only
prevented by a majority of one, este retain any iden-
tity of principle through the Indian warfare that will
be carried on against it in the endless coverts of a
Committee, swarming with three hundred and one
opponents, who are animated with al! the deadly
animosity of the red warriors, retreating before the
advancing civilization of Amerita. It is singularly
fortunate that with our present patriotic Monarch
there is no reason to apprehend the possible inter-
ference of irresponsible advisers to counteract
the just influence and counsel: of his Ministers.
Great offence has been taken at the mention of
the King's name on th'et occasion, but we say that
the King's name is a tower of strength. Surely,
if ever there were a question to which a King of
England might be supposed to have applied the
most rigorous personal examination, it is that of Re-
form in the representative body. On the acceptance
by the House of Commons of a plan of Reform
:satisfactory to the people must hereafter depend the
stability and efficiency of the Government of Eng-
land. The adoption of remedial measures does not
admit of delay ; and it is not to be doubted that
every constitutional means for carrying those mea-
sures into effect will readily receive the Royal sanc-
tion. The promoters of the Bill have been accused
of trying to obtain success by intimidation ;—our
experience would transfer the accusation to the op-
ponents of the measure. In private society, and in
public, no individuals stained ‘vith the worst crimes
that degraded human nature could have been treated
with more intemperate revilings than have been ap-
plied to his Majesty's Ministers for having pre-
sumed to prefer the rights and the demands of the
people of England to the usurpations of individuals.
What is to be apprehended from a dissolution ? The
disturbance of the internal peace of the country ?
Nonsense !—the people of England, sedulously and
soberly engaged in the improvement of the most
irnporant part of that part of our social institutions
eepecialy applicable to themselves, disturb the pub-
lic peace !—we ty again, Nonsense ! The power
to do mischief, now possessed by individuals who
hoot and revile the Ministers of the King for their
patriotism, will indeed be disturbed and destroyed.
The sooner the better. The indefeasibly-seated no-
minees of some very close boroughs may not be re-
moved, but large towns and counties will assert
themselves, and will prove a truly British spirit by
dismissing the opponents of a measure, which,
teem the extinction of various franchises, will make
the Members of the House of Commons, not in
name, but in fact, individually and collectively re-
presentatives of the people of England.—Morning
Herald.

The all-engrossing object of conversation yester-
day was the di vision on the "Reform Bill. The prevail-
ing opinion was, that a great victory had been gained;
because, although the majority was small, as that
majority could be greatly increased by a dissolution,
the success :of the measure became demonstrably
certain. Several Members divided in favour of the
second reading with the intention, as they expressly
stated, of endeavouring to alter it materially in the
Committee. It was, however, significantly observed
by Lord John Russell, in his reply, that " he did
not say the plan of Ministers might not be altered,
but he ‘sished to give those who would consent to
go into the Committee, with a view to alter it, no-
tice, that if they were to make the smallest altera-
tion in the Bill, neither he nor any one else would
think himself precluded, by the measure so altered
passing, from bringing forward, at any future time,
that part of the plan which might be rejected." In
fact, Ministers are determined that the measure shall
not be altered; and perhaps the wisest course would
be to proceed forthwith to a dissolution, in order
that no unnecessary prolongation may be given to the
excitement of the country. It is, we believe, in con-
templation, to dissolve with as little delay as possible.
We have heard it said,that several leading individuals
had determined to be gorerned in their future conduct
by the division on the second reading, deeming all
further opposition, in the event of a majority, to be
without an object; and that it might be prudent,
therefore, to wait a little, to see how far the result
may correspond with the anticipation. But we
doubt whether there is any good foundation for
expecting any material diminution of the number of
opponents of the Bill ; and, as time is of conse-
quence, it might be as well not to waste it on dis-
cussions, from the result of which there is so little
to hope. In the House of Lords, last night, in spite
of the determination to aroid discussion as much as
possible on the presentation of petitions, some of
their Lordships, agitated, no doubt, by the vote of
the preceding evening, were unable to contain them-
selves. Lord Roden, in particular, said he was
" not one of those who were hostile to all Reform ;
but he was for a safe change, and not a revolu-
tionary Reform, and it would be a revolu-
tionary Reform that would be effected if Parliament
were to pass the present measure." This called up
Lord Grey, who said, " he could not hear that asser-
tion—for assertion it was, and not argument—with-
out meeting it with a contrary and most confident
assertion, that the measure in question had no such
tendency." His Lordship observed, also, " that if
this measure were to fail in his hands now, and the
present Government should be dissolved on that
principle, the consequence would be, that Reform
would be afterwards forced upon men in office ; and
such a Reform, and under such circumstances, that
there was great reason to fear that then the Reform
would, indeed, be revolutionary." By the present
plan Ministers have rallied around them almost
every man in the country who has not an intelligible
sinister interest prompting him to opposition.—
Having thus secured the nation, it would be the
height of imprudence to submit to any such altera-
tion of the measure as might render it generally
unacceptable. They have wisely, therefore, deter-
mined to carry through the measure in its integrity.
With the support of the nation they have nothing
to fear from political opponents; for no Ministry
can be founded in this country on a principle hostile
to Reform. Ministers have, therefore, firm ground
to stand on, and mt.y confidently set their enemies
at defiance. The bait of offering an illusory Re-
form, now that some Reform must be conceded,
will not take place—" If alterations," said Lord
John Russell, " were made essentially altering the
character of the measure—if those interests were
excluded which the Bill admitted into the represen-
tation, it would only lead to a prolonged struggle,
and would end in securing the triumph, while it,
alienated the affections of the people." But
Lord Caernarvon, last night, was ready to reform
the Constitution,bii by bit, as he phrased it. To gra-
tify his Lordship we must be constantly tinkering the
Constitution. His Lordship forgets that the people
have to live and to find the means of living, and that
the whole nation cannot be constantly bestowing their
attention on organical Reforms. Lord Lansdowne

protested against the keeping the eonntry in a con-
stant state of excitement with a question of so en-
grossing a character. The Lord Chancellor; in the
happiest manner, characterised the opposition of
Lord Caernarvon, and we are much mistaken if
more is not meant than meets the ear in his men-
tion of a" disposition he had seen in the Noble E rl
to attack Ministers ever since they came into office."
0 ambition, ambition—lllustrious Princes are not
the only persons who mistake themselves. The
Lord Chancellor added—" He, Lord Caernarvon,
had opened his fire upon them not by platoons, but
b) a pop—pop from his pop-gun. It was a bit-and-
bit attack—(A laugh.) „
He had rather be opposed by those who openly and
frankly avowed that they wanted no Reform, than
by by the bit-and-bit Reformers. . . .
He was, he confessed, very suspicious about those
who now qualified their opposition by saying, that
they approved of some Reform, although, before,
they had been against all Reform." The people
are not to be deluded by these paltry artifices. Mi-
nisters may fearlessly insist on the whole Bill, and
nothing but the Bill, and if they cannot now obtain
that, throw themselves then on the country.—
Morning CA:,:midc.

The division on the Reform Bill, and the general
position of the question, are certainly not such as the
public can entirely rejoice in. The second reading
has been carried, indeed ; but unwillingly, scantily,
and with still sinister purpose and increased hope in
those who are hostile to the measure. We know
not that the public can derive much consolation
from the circumstance that no one in the House of
Commons hes dared to say that Reform was not
necessary or expedient. All were for some Re-
form ; but when it is considered how many of those
who have been brought to this concession have
hitherto, with all their might, resisted every, even
the slightest change, every cotreetion of the grossest
abuses, we cannot doubt that they will still go on
infesting the course of the Bill, and only suffering it
to reach its home in a tattered and debilitated state.
To hear the enemies of Reform talk now, one
would suppose that they had been always
friends to granting the elective franchise to
Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds. Oh, yes;
now they wish it—they desire it : it is of all
things proper ! Why, then, we ask, has it not been
granted before ? Why, indeed, but that by every
species of chicane, opposition, and menace of ab-
surd consequences, they prevented it. How, then,
can we trust to their professions now, when they
pretend to advocate some minor species of Reform*?
The object of all those who affect now for the first
time to be ready to grant something to the just de-
mands of the people, is trick, deception, humbug.
What they really mean is, to render the Bill a nul-
lity, and to preserve the old corruption. Some of
the friends of Reform think the division of Tuesday
night a triumph. We understand it was so received
in the House. No doubt it is better than if the
unit had been on the other side ; and it must also
be observed, the majority, such as it is, has been
obtained in a House elected during the last Ministry.
Rut still it is a majority of that character, that it
must be upheld by the unabated zeal of the people,
and the unshaken resolution of the King and his
Ministers to dissolve the Parliament, in the case of
any successful attempt to deprive the Bill of one
atom of its efficacy; or else corruption within the
walls will have a temporary triumph, and the whole
nation will be thrown into commotion. His Majesty,

indeed, has shown most unequivocally, and in refute-
don of the base slander which would cast upon his
open nature the imputation of a cowardly desertion
of those who have been induced to undertake this
grand measure by his recommendation and under his
auspices,—hie Majesty, we say, has shown to the
whole world, the sincerity of his profession, by
forthwith thrusting two officers out of the Royal
Household who had voted against the Bill—Mr
Horace Seymour and Captain Meynell. On Tuesday
afternoon they were servants of the Crown,—on
Wednesday morning they were at liberty to go
where they liked. And surely this should be taken
as a hint, not by courtiers only, but by all those who
hold Government boroughs tinder the present rotten
system, and are guilty of the dishonourable conduct
of retaining their seats, and voting against the patrons
of the boroughs which they represent. But it is to
the people—to the people—that we appeal. To
them we say,—" Support the Crown !—sepport the
King and his Ministers ! or be prepared for what
must follow. The immediate loss of those rights
which are now within your grasp, and a future
struggle for them,—an universal and fearful struggle
for them,—a struggle which, though it will over-
whelm your enemies, cannot fail of disturbing your
own domestic comforts, and putting the public tran-
quillity to the hazard." It will be observed that
Ministers pressed forward the Supplies last night.
This is not, to be sure, an actual proof of approach-
ing dissolution of Parliament ; but it is a prepara-
tion fir it, f necessary. This is clear to all the
world ; and we would drop a hint to those worthy
borough-patrons who are disposed to turn their no-
minees out for not voting against that Reform Bill
according to their dictation, that they may save
themselves the trouble, for, undoubtedly, if their
counsels prevail but upon one single division, they
will soon have th&r boroughs empty apin, and that
without the aid of the Chiltern Hundreds. We
will here note the conduct of a man of very different
character from these. Sir Sandford Graham, with-
out saying a word, or claiming any merit whatever,
gave a vote on Tuesday night which tended to de-
prive himself of 35,0001.,—the sum, we have
heard, paid by him for the borough of Ludgershall !
—Times.

In the present stage of discussion at which the
Bill for Parliamentary Reform has arrived, it would
be altogether ludicrous to argue upon its general
merits as a real and great improvement upon the
constitution of Parliament. The impression of
both parties is by this time fixed as to the bearing
of the measure upon public affairs—end, what in the
minds of many persons is of far deeper moment—
upon individual and selfish interests. The impres-
sion among the favourites of Reform need not be
strengthened : among the class of Anti-Reformers
last alluded to, it is such as no argument drawn
from reason, justice, or the good of the country,
would efface. There are points, however, not in-
volving the principles of the Bill, though closely
connected with the eventual or at least the speedy
success of it, on which it may be useful to make one
or two observations. A frequent complaint with
the enemies of Reform is, that the question has not
had fair play, and that the most reprehensible system
of " intimidation" has been resorted to for the
purpose of procuring a majority in support of Mi-
nisters. When the complainants are hard pushed,
and required to specify what it is they mean by in-
timidation, the answer is, " You threaten us with
all manner of evils, and at the head of them a na-
tional convulsion, if we do not pass this Bill."
Those who remember the course of the proceedings
with regard to the Catholic Bill, during the Session
of 1829, cannot fail to find a parallel for the above
accusation, in the language of its opponents. The
friends of that wise measure were for ever taunted
with the use of arguments amounting to menaces,
and with a design to carry the Bill into a law by the
agency of pure terror. Because they said that the
injustice of Catholic exclusion was intolerable, that
the people of Ireland could not and would not en-
dure any longer to he out-casts from the fold of the
Constitution, and that disorder, tumult, and civil
war, must be the consequence of a perpetual disre-
gard of their reasonable expectations, they—(the ad-
vocate% for a Reform of the penal code)—were then
charged with a reliance on threats and popular out-
rage., rather than on truth, for the success of their
cause, just as the same reproach is now cast upon
those who, in reforming Parliament, would amend and
purify the source of every civil and ecclesiastical
code, and the instrument of all legislation. Let us
ask, then, these murmurers, why are laws made ? and
what is the proper business of a statesman ? Why,
to secure whatever good may be endangered, or to
avert whatever evil may appear to impend; and thus
to protect the commonwealth, and to preserve it. If

no inconvenience were to be felt, or no disaster to be
anticipated, we, at least, cannot conceive any motive
for legislating at all. Governments are seldom if
ever made sensible of any wrong inflicted, or per-
' mitted by them, but through the discontent of the
people. The mote inveterate the wrong, and the
more aggravated its pressure, the more angrily will
the nation cry out ; and if its cry be not attended
to, the greater likelihood exists of clamour and in-
dignation ripening progressively into action. But
if the Government, or other wrong-doer, be insen-
sible to all this,---if the blind or insolent oppressor
cannot detect with his own eves the injury which he
has perpetraterl,the resentment which it has produced,
or the public disturbance to which, if longer unre-
dressed, it may provoke an exasperated people,—is it,
let us ask, consistent with common sense, or common
honesty, that the party who is to blame for all
this present and approaching mischief, should fly
into a passion with any sober-minded friend who
warns him of the peril; which await his continued
obstinacy, and, instead of promptly and gratefully
acting upon his advice, turn round upon him with
some such gross folly as this,—" Why do you dare
to bully me? Do you flatter yourself you can
frighten me into concession ? Go about your busi-
ness, and leave me to choose my own time for yield-
ing to the multitude, if I yield at all ?" Even so
was it with the enemies of ernancipaticn; even so is
it with the boroughmongering crew,—the only
enemies (with here and there an exception) of Re-
form,—they being themselves, moreover, the parties
whose offences and usurpations the measure has
been calculated to restrain. There is, in fact, no
arguing a public question by which great objects of
any description are embraced, if the advocates for it
be precluded from stating broadly what evils it will
avert, and what dangers are incurred by its rejection.
Since, besides, the most serious national discontent,
arid the most imminent risk of convulsion, are most
likely to result from the most inveterate and deep-
felt wrongs, it follows that where the greatest
danger exists from a refusal to conciliate the
country,—that is to say, where the grievances are
most insufferable,—we must abstain with tenfold care
from representisig their true nature or tendency, be-
cause there, to speak the truth carries with it una-
voidably a tenfold weight of intimidation. The
Duke of Wellington was not afraid to confess the
appalling force of those probable disasters which
made him a timely convert to the necessity of eman-
cipation ; but with Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr.
Attwood, and the Duke of Newcastle, it is a very
different matter. Now, in the face of all the bluster
of those great men, who talk of despising the at-
tempt to frighten them, and so forth, we tell them
plainly that their wisest course is to be effectually
terrified, aye without a Ininute's delay. We tell
the et, that for the fees of Referm the cri-is is a
frightful one—that if the people should unhappily
act otherwise than through petitions, resolutions,
and the press, it is against the refractory borough-
patrons and their " lacquies" that the storm of
violence might be first directed—and that if a dis-
solution of Parliament were not to be resorted to,
as a free vent and channel for the public effer-
vescence, not unnaturally excited by this unprin-
cipled resistance to a national goad, the ex-
tent of which cannot be questioned, however the
consequences might be deprecated or deplored, they
(the enemies of Reform) would in all human proba-
bility see reason to regret that they had made so
light of the well-meant warnings of those who
sought to preserve them from calamity by a little
seasonable " intimidation." And now a word, and
but one word, with respect to a dissolution of Par-
liament. The enemies of the Bill, as is usual in
such cases with a party which feels itself to be
odious throughout the kingdom,—the enemies of
the Bill, since last night's division, exclaim—
" What ! dissolve the Parliament, and convulse the
country from one end to the other? How atro-
cious 1" Atrocious as it may be, we trust the Mi-
nisters will have confidence enough in a good cause,
and in the spirit and wisdom of the people of Eng-
land, to appeal to them, if necessary, without an
hour's delay. The way to avoid convulsion is to
put it in the power of the nation to return a Parlia-
ment more decidedly favourable to Reform. Con-
vulsion implies struggle, struggle implies two par-
ties so equally or colourably matched as each of
of them to risk a contest. Now where is the second
party in England to maintain one day's struggle
with the nation ? We see all the counties, towns,
half the corporations, 19-20ths of the property, as
much of the intelligence, 99-100ths of the popula-
tion, enthusiastic for the Bill. Whence, then, we
repeat, is to come any convulsion,—unless, indeed,
the ousted enemies of Reform shall be convulsed
with mortification and dismay ?—Times.
The defeat of the revolutionary measure (for
there can be no doubt that in the division of Tues-
day this jacobin project sustained a defeat of the
most complete and decisive character) has, as might
have been expected, led to an analysis of the parties
forming respectively the majority and minority, and
furnished the occasion for renewed torrents of ribald
invective against such of the latter as have not been
seated in Parliament by the ♦otes of a numerous or
popular constituency. We do not scruple to say
that those who resort to this method of inflaming
the passions and imposing upon the ignorance of
the multitude must of necessity be regarded as
entirely incapable of reasoning, if we might not
indeed be justified in considering them rather as
deliberate and artful traitors to their country, the
embittered and relentless foes to all her laws and
institutions, the wilful and dangerous assailants of
her safety and her peace. Is the present House of
Commons competent to legislate upon a great con-
stitutional question, or is it not ? If it be, then the
attempt to invalidate in public estimation the vote
of any class of its Members is a gross and revolting
absurdity. If it be not—and this is indeed the only
opinion that can rationally be held by those who
would distinguish at this period of excitement the
borough from the county Member—then it follows
of necessity that all past legislation, isicluding the
Act of Settlement, has been vicious in its origin, and
is worthless as an authority—that the people of Eng-
land are at this moment without a Statute which it
is their duty to obey, without a Monarch whom they
are bound to honour as their legitimate Sovereign.
We trust that the House of Commons will assert
its own dignity, and manifest fidelity to the great
constitutional trust committed to its hands, by the
prompt and condign punishment of all, whether
within or without its walls, who shall henceforth
dare to promulgate doctrines or to draw lines of
distinction, unknown to the Constitution, between
its various classes of Members, the direct effect of
which are not only to incapacitate that House from
its present legislative duties, and to render the set-
tlement of the Reform question, or any other im-
portant constitutional question, impossible unless
by the sword, but to impeach the authority of
all the existing statutes of the realm, to reduce
the duty of obedience to every existing autho-
rity in the State to a matter of individual dis-
cretion, and to make the Crown itself shake upon
the Monarch's brow. This we say is the impera-
tive duty of the House of Commons, now that
the Throne is surrounded by Ministers who encou-
rage by their favour and patronage such doctrines
and such language. We do not of course, after
what we have said, mean to extol one class of
Members of the House of Commons at the expense
of another; but it should be understood that we do
not deprecate the comparison from the apprehen-
sion, which it would be impossible indeed for any
one possessed of the most ordinary information to
entertain, that the Borough Members have been
found by experience less able, less honest, less valu-
able representatives of the nation, less earnest
in the promotion of its interests and the main-
tenance of its rights, than the most virtuous,
enlightened, and patriotic of those who have
owed their seats to popular election. Experience
upon such a subject is, however, the only test to
which any other than a crack-brained theorist, or a
plausible traitor, would think of appealing; and ex-
perience would show, we believe, that if a compa-
rison is to be made between the Borough Members

and other classes of Senators, the former are net
the meta who, either in respect to talents or inte-
grity—who, either in their public or private cepa-
c ty--would have any thing to fear from the result.
In this respect the facts are rather remarkable. If
we find any man, either of past times or of the pre-
sent day, to have acquired a brilliant Parliamentary
reputation, we almost invariably find also that this
particular man was introduced to Parliament and
passed the greater part of his public life as the repre-
sentative of a borough. If, on the other hand, we find
any man distinguished for fluent ignorance, for gene-
ral inattention to his Parliamentary duty, inadequately
redeemed by a set speech now and then upon some
grand field-day, by conduct personally disgraceful
to him as a man or a Senator, so sure as we refer
to the contemporary list of the House of Commons,
that person is found to be the chosen representative
of some such body of electors as those who, by the
Ministerial Bill, were henceforth to have enjoyed
the absolute monopoly of the elective franchise.—
Fortunately for the country this revolutionary mea-
sure has received its death-blow. Fortunately for
the national welfare and the national morals the
wicked and desperate attempt is defeated, which
would have given us a body of legislators, most of
whom would have been chosen as the demagogues
of denmerazy, and all the rest—all the men of pro-
perty in the House—could only have found their
way there by the bribe, y of the miserable ten pound
renters.—Morning Post.

SECOND EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock,

IMPERIAL PA RUAM ENT

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER. took the Chair this afternoon precisely a
Three o'clock.

Mr. HOWARD presented a petition from the county
of Wicklow, in which the petitioners, after alluding to the
agitation that exists in that county respecting the Repeal
of the Union, state that they are ready to support his Ma-
jetty's Ministers in carrying into effect the extension of any
law for the suppression of illegal associations in Ireland.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT presented a petition from
Mahon in favour of the plan of Reform. He must ob-
serve, however, that he could not support the prayer of
the petition.—(Hear.) He could not agree with the views
of the petitioners in favour of the Bill—(Hear)—but as
the measure had the approbation of his constituents (not
his) he was ready to resign the trust reposed in him into
their hands.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUNT highly approved of the determination of the
Hon. and Learned Member to resign his trust int, the hands
of his constituents. It was no more than what every
Member should do, when he could not agree with
those who returned him to the House.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Hunt) would only now observe that he was
happy he had lived to see the day when not a single
Member of Parliament was bold enough to get up in
his place and state that he was opposed to all Re-
form. It was admitted on all hands that some
Reform might take place, but he had never found seen
amongst the humblest classes the slightest desire for a re-
publican form of Government. Every individual, high
or low, would be satisfied with a House of Commons
freely chosen by the people.
Mr. G. DAWSON was sitting the other evening
close by the side of the Hon. Member for Preston, and
distinctly heard him declare that he should prefer a Re-
public to any other form of Government.
Mr. HUNT (with great warmth)—l declare most po.
sitively I never said any such thing.

The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order.

Mr. DAWSON certainly understood the Hon. Member
to say so, and could only imagine that from the
extensive plan of Reform proposed by his Majesty's
Ministers, he now thought proper to forget his declaration.
He could only repeat that he well recollected hearing the
lion. Member make use of such an assertion.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUNT again, and in the most positive manner,
denied that he had ever expressed himself more favour-
able to a republic than to the British Constitution,
and he appealed to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, whe-
ther he had ever beard him express himself in favour of a
republic. He was sure the people of England had no
wish for revolution ; all they desired was a restitution of
their right, and a cheap form of Government. In these
wishes he cordially agreed with them.
Mr. HUME, as he had been appealed to, must say
that the charge against the Han. Member for Preston
must have arisen in mistake. He had never heard that
Hon. Member express himself in favour of a republican
form of Government.

THE PRESTON AND WIGAN RAIL-ROAD BILL.
Alter some discussion, in which some 'Members took
a part, this Bill was read a third time, and passed.
Captain MAITLAND presented a petition from Ber-
wick against the Ministerial plan of Reform.
Sir J. BRYDGES supported the petition. The plan of
Reform proposed by Government would change a British
House of Commons into a Chamber of Deputies ; a
British House of Lords into a Chamber of Peers ; and a
British King into a King of the British.—(Hear.)
Captain MAITLAND said the petition had been agreed
to at a public meeting regularly called, and no amendment
was proposed.

. .
Lord EDWARD SOMERSET presented a petition
from the county of Gloucester in favour of the Reform
measure brought in by his Majesty's Government.
But though his Lordship felt it his duty to present
the petition, yet for his own part be could not
concur in that measure, which he considered calcu-
lated to overturn the best institutions of the country
therefore he had not given, nor would he give, his vote
in favour of it.

Sir WILLIAM GUISE said that if he had thought
the measure a revolutionary measure, he would not have
supported it as he had done; or a measure calculated to
overthrow the best institutions of the country. He did
not mean to say the Bill ought not in a Committee to
be materially modified.
Mr. CHIN'S had voted for the second reading of the
Bill ; but he certainly should not have done so had he not
considered that it would undergo considerable alterations
in passing through the Committee.

Sir E. SUGDEN considered that the Honourable
Member who had spoken last must certainly have given
his vote under an entire mistake, because the Noble
had who had introduced the Bill, had declared he would
submit to no alteration in it. lie had said there the Bill
was, and told the House it must either accept it or reject
it altogether.

Mr. DAVIS said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was
wrong in point of fact. The Noble Lord had not said
that he would permit no alterations—be had said that
he would permit no alterations in the principle of the
Bill, but that if the measure was thrown out another
should afterwards be introduced, with a view to carry into
effect the principle of the present Bill. A considerable
discussion followed, in which 1 number of Members took
part. Many of them had voted in favour of the Bill, though
they hcped it would be materially modified and altered
in pausing through the Committee.