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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

H 0 USE OF LORDS, Minor 2:3.

Lord HARDWICKE presented a petition from Wis-
beach, praying that that town may have representatives ;
also from the same place against the Registry of Deeds Bill.
Lord KENYON presented a petition from Wrexham in

favour of Reform. He could not accede to the petition,
for he thought there never was a more mischievous mea-
sure introduced into Parliament than the one proposed by
his Majesty's Ministers.
The Earl of ILCHESTER presented petitions from
Blandlord, and other places, in favour of Reform.
Lord DACRE presented similar petitions from Hert-
.

ford, Ware, and Ely.
Lord SUFFIELD presented a petition from Manchester,
complaining of the unseasonable hours at which chil-
dren were compelled to work in cotton factories ; also
from Preston to the same effect.

Eirl GREY presented petitions from Blackburn, Kid-
derminster, Bread street Ward, the proprietors and occu-
piers of iron and coal works in Staffordshire, St. Mary-
le-Strand, and other places,. in favour of Reform.
Lord DURHAM presented a petition from St. Georges's,
Southwark, in favour of Reform.

Mr. S. RICE and others, from the Commons, brought
up the Sugar Duties Bill, the Colonial Trade Bill, and
four private Bills.
Lord FARNHAM presented petitions from the She-
riff, and Commons of the Corporation of Dublin, and
front the Master, Wardens, and Brethren of the Guild
of Merchants of the same place, against the Reform Bill.
Lord RODEN supported the petition. He was not op-
posed to all Reform, for he thought a change must be
made in the House of Commons. He was, however, op-
posed to revolutionary measures, which he certainly con-
sidered were those of the present Bill. With respect
to Ireland, he believed the Bill, as it now stood, would
annihilate the Union. He considered the Bill full of

theories and rocks, on which the Constitution would be
split. It was his opinion that the inconsistencies of public
mess had led to all the disturbances in the country.

Earl GREY, although he had always thought and said

that it was a most inconvenient course to be discussing
this measure incidentally on the presenting of petitions,
yet he could not sit silent and hear it said that the measure
of Relorm proposed by his Majesty's Ministers was a re.
volutionary measure, and one which would end in the de-
struction of the Constitution. He did not mean at present
to enter upon the discussion of the subject at length, but
he could not hear that assertion—for assertion it was, and
not argument—without meeting it with a contrary and
most confident assertion, that the me sure in question had
no such tendency. He asserted that its tendency was di-
rectly the reverse of that which had been ascribed to it
by the Noble Earl, and it was on that account that it had
been introduced, and it was for that reason that he would
support it to the utmost of his power. The Noble Earl
said that the petitioners had made out their ease; that this
measure had a tendency to lead to a repeal of the Union.
But they had only made it out in the same manner as the
Noble Earl bad made out his case ; and that was by con-
fident assertion, but by no argument. When the measure
should be assailed by argument, he should feel no difficulty
in defending it, and showing that it was liable to none
of those impuations that had been cast upon it. As to
the assertion that it would have a tendency to produce
a dissolution of the Union between Great Britain and
Ireland, he felt so powerfully the necessity, for the sake of
both countries, to maintain that Union, that if the mea-
sure in question had that tendency, he should think that
circumstance a strong objection to it. But, on the con-
trary, as the Bill was calculated not to promote, but to
prevent revolution here, and to allay, if not to extinguish
the discontents, and to calm the irritation which
threatened to produce revolution in Ireland—its tendency
would be, not to lead to the repeal of the Union, but to
allay those discontents and that irritation which occasioned
the clamours for the repeal. Such, he was persuaded,
would be the effect of the measure in Ireland as well as in
England. With respect to the observation of the Noble
Earl that it was the inconsistencies of public men that led
to these measures ; from that imputaticn of inconsistency
he was not called upon to defend himself. It was well
known that he had retained the principles which he had
always held with reference to another measure of Reform,
when for these principles he had been driven from office
twenty-six years ago, and yet those by whom those prin-
ciples had been most ardently combatted, had been com-
pelled at last to pass these very measures which he had
then so strongly advocated, and to pass them under far
less favourable circumstances than then existed, and with
far less beneficial results than would have attended their
adoption at that time. As to the question of Parliamentary
Reform, which more immediately concerned the present
subject, it was well known that he had, from his earliest
years, supported it, and that at the commencement of
his Parliamentary career he had introduced into the other
House a measure on the subject. He had always retained
the same opinions on that question; although be bad failed
in effecting his object. But 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. Perhaps he had said more than
enough en a question raised in this incidental and irre-
gular manner. But he felt himself called upon by the
observations made by the Noble Earl to maintain that the
measure of Reform proposed by hie Majesty's Ministers,
was a measure of constitutional Reform, in contradistinc-
tion to a revolutionary measure—a constitutional Reform
which had given general satisfaction, and which would
contribute equally to the strength of the Government and
to the prosperity of the country.—(Hear.)
The Earl of RODEN, in explanation, said that he bad
given no occasion to the Noble Earl to suppose that when
he spoke of the inconsistencies of public men, he had
alluded to him. He certainly did not allude to whether
his opinion of the measure was right or wrong—he meant
no disrespect to the Noble Earl. When the time came
for arguing the question, he would state his reasons for his
opinion.

The Earl of CAERNARVON hoped that the mea-
sure, if it came to this House at all, would at least be so
altered that their Lordship would find that it was not re-
volutionary. But that, as it stood at present, it bore the
impress of that character, was, he believed, the opinion