The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-05 00:00:00

//,.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 5, 1831.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMtNt

HOUSE OF. LORDS, OCTOBER 4.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack precisely at Four o'clock.
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN presented a petition
from the owners anal occupiers of land in the town and
pari,h of Barnsley, in favour of the Reform Bill, and
in so doing he took that opportunity of denying most
explicitly that there had been any reaction Upon the
question of Reform in that part of the country.—( Hear.)
The Noble Lord said he had twenty-two other petitions of
a similar nature to present from various parts of Scotland,
and fallowing the example set by Noble Lords last night,
be should take this method of presenting teem,
not, however, from any disrespect towards the
petitioners. but for the convenience of the House ; they
were all numerously and respectably signed, and couched
in respectful language. Upon one petition, however, be
wished to make a few remarks. It was from the import-
ant town of Aberdeen, and signed by 5,000 of the in•
habitants. As a proof of the feeling that pervaded all
classes, he would observe that the Principal of the
University proposed one of the resolutions, and another pi
the speakers was a person who had formerly petitioned
for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage. The peti-
tioners declared that it was a gross and false libel to say
that the people had become indifferent to Reform—
(Hear, hear, hear)—they stated that the people
were as anxious for the passing of the Bill as ever, and
they looked' with dismay to the consequences that
would result in Scotland from its rejection.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord then presented petitions from the in-
habitants of Kirkaldy, signed by 1,353 persons, from the
Town Council and Magistrates of the same Royal Burgh,
from Markhill, Blackford, Cornwath, Haddington, Ken
muir (signed by 1,000 persons), Abernethy, Ailie, front a
Society of Precurators, from Renfrew, from a Political
Union in Fifesliire, from Lawrence Kirk (signed by 700
persons), from the Incorporated Trades. of Aberdeen, Eas-
tern Anstruther, the Trades of Dundee, and various other
places.
Lord MINTO confirmed the statement of the Noble
Lord as to the state of feeling in Scotland for the success
of the English Bill of Reform. The people of that country
were infinitely too intelligent not to know that their
prosperity was bound up with that of England.---(Hear.)
The Noble Lord presented petitions from Howick, signed
by 1,100 persons, and from Melrose and Jedburgb.
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE presented a petition from
the coun'y of Derby, agreed to at a public meeting on
Saturday last, in favour of Reform. It had lain for signa-
ture only seven hours, and during that short period 2,558
persons signed it. The Noble Duke also presented a peti-
tion from the town of Derby, signed by 4,417 inhabitants.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he was wholly
unknown in Derby, but he had received a letter from a
la ighly respectable solicitor, residing in that town, Mr.
Thomas Mosely, stating that the resolutions and petition
were drawn up by one or two violent democrats,
and were couched in such strong language that the
Mayor left the meeting, at which not more than
700 or 800 persona were present ; with " customary"
irregularity, one man boasted he had signed the petition
ten or twelve times, that children had signed it, and
that one man guided the band of a child three years old to
sign it. The writer also stated that those individualswho
usually attended such meetings absented themselves upon
that occasion. When Noble Lords stated there had been
no re-action in the country, he begged to d. ny that state-
ment ; he had a petition, signed by one bun fired of the
most wealthy and respectable inhabitants of Derby, against
the Reform Bill.

Toe Duke of DEVONSHIRE, in reply, said he had
received a letter final a most distinguished individual in
Derby, stating that many foul attempts had been
made by two or three Anti-Reformers to make chil-
dr-n sign the Reform petition—(Hear, bear, bear)--
and that one person had succeeded, but that those
pitiful attempts would defeat themselves. The Noble
Duke then adverted to a petition which be had presented
from Derby on a former night, but withdrew it from its
having been addressed to the last Parliament, and stated
that the present one was signed by 169 more persons
than that.

The Earl of MULGRAVE said that the Marquis in all
his continental tours, never in his life found so perfect a
mare's nest as he had now found —(Laughter.) He begged
merely to remark, that the Noble Marquis's petition was
signed by only 100 persons, while that of the Noble Duke
was signed by 4,469.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY complained that
the Noble Duke had not furnished the House with the
name of his correspondent.
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE said it was Joseph
Strutt, a Magistrate, and one of the wealthiest persons in
Derby.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Duke said that among
the signatures to the petition of the Noble Marquis he
found many of them were of persons who did nut reside in
Derby.—(Hear.)
After a few words in explanation from the Marquis of
LONDONDERRY,
The Duke of DEVONSHIRE rose to present petitions
in favour of Reform, from the towns of Bakewell, signed by
2,200 persons (being 400 more than signed a former peti-
tion), from Worksworth, Brampton in Walton, and from
eighteen different districts in Derbyshire, signed by 5,415
persons.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then presented the
petition from 100 persons in Derby, against the Reform
Bill.
The Earl of ABINGDON, considering that discussions
on petitions infringed on the business of the House, would
merely present a petition from the Nobility,Gentry, and cer-
tain freeholders of Berkshire against the Reform Bill.
Earl ROMNEY presented a petition from Maidstone,
in favour of the Bill.
Lord GOWER presented petitions from Newcastle-
unoer-Lyne, from the Staffordshire Potteries, from Stoke.
upon-Trent, from the Royal Burgh of Dingwall, and from
Wick, praying their Lordships to pass the Reform Bill.
Lord YARBOROUGH presented two petitions in fa-
vour of the Biil. . .

Lord KING had a great number of petitions to pre-
sent on the Reform Bill. He would only allude to the two
first particularly, as they would speak the sentiments
of the whole. The first was from Surrey, expressive of
the hope that their Lordshps would pass the Bill for
the peace of the country, unmutilated and entire ;
while the other petition from St. Andrew's,
Holborn, expressed the same wish with this addition, that
if the Bill were not passed, if military measures were
not resorted to, the taxes would never be paid.—(Hear.)
The NOBLE Loan then presented forty petitions in fa-
vour of the Bill.

Lord SEFTON presented a petition from the town of
Liverpool, signed by 17,690 persons. 'He could bear
testimony to the respectability and intelligence of the pe-
titioners. It was well known that as Liverpool bad
grown in commercial importance, its inhabitants had
increased in knowledge and intelligence. Out of 800
frequenters of the Commercial Exchange-rooms, the names
of 600 were attached to the petition. The next petition
was from the township of Toxteth Park to the same effect,
signed by nearly 6,000.
The NOBLE LORD alQo presented a petition from Bolton,
Lancashire, signed by 10,900, end a similar petition from
a parish in Leicestershire. _ _

Lord DACRE presented petitions from St. Aubyn,
Sudbury, Wisbeach, the weavers of Perth, and from the
town of Hertford, in favour of the Bill.

Lord SALISBURY presented a petition from Hert-
ford, praying that their Lordships would not suffer
the Bill to pass without mutilating the principle. He took
that opportunity of stating that a most unconstitutional
advantage had, in the Noble Earl's speech, been taken
of the Sovereign's name relative to his assent to the Re-
form Bill. He had no doubt that his Majesty had
given his assent to the Bid, but it was rather new
in the history of Parliament, that the Prime Minister
ehould come down to the House, and, for the purpose
of influencing their Lordships' votes, make a declara-
tion that the King had sanctioned the Bill which
pended their Lordships' consideration. He .did not see
bow the Bill, in such a state of things, could meet with
the legitimate consideration of the House.
The Duke of SUSSEX was anxious to set the House
right on the point alluded to by the Noble
Marquis. He meant the reference made to the
speech last night of his Noble Friend at the bead of
the Government. The Noble Earl, he would state,
in the manner in which the allusion was made to
the sanction by the Sovereign of the Reform Bill, was
perfectly constitutional, because in mentioning the Sove-
reig4's lame he explained at the time that the allusion

Was .to the words id his Majesty's Speech from tie Throne.
Tha(decumerit b, ing on the reword of the House, the
Noble Earl caul(' not but be regular in his reieteoce to it.
The Martjuii of BRISTOL said, that the Noble tit?
(Grey) hail said they stould have no Reform but his, be
believed that as.true as heaven lind earth existed, he had
s tid this, and he heard it with indignation.
After some desultary conversation between the fluke
lirctratoNo and the Marquis of BRISTOL,
Lord HOLLAND said that the reference to the Noble
Earl's speech last night Was very uncalled for indeed. He
had only stated that if the gill Were rejected, he
never would propose a less ekted3ive irieasute.
that did not imply that the Dill shad(' not take the
ordinary course of passing through CoMmittee, that any
alterations not affecting its principle might not be suggested:
Lord KENYON deprecated the turn which N,ble
Lords had taken in presenting petitions; discussion, he
submitted. should he deferred till another opportunity.

, Lord SUFFIELD presented petitious from Sudbury and
Salford, in favour of the Bill.
Lord HOLLAND presented several petitions to
the same effect, and amongst them was one from
a 'person named James Wright, stating that he had ten
votes for different places Sending Members to Parliament,
and expressing his willingness and anxiety to relinquish
thertv.m order to facilitate the passing of the Bill.
Lord SEAGRAVE rose to present 30 petitions from
various towns and parishes in the county of Gloucester,
and declared that in that large and populous county no
change in the minds of the people upon the measure
of Reform had taken place.—(Hear, hear, hear.) It
had been said that if the people did nothing, they were
charged as having received Reform with indifference, and
that it they did do anything they were charged with inti-
midation.—(Hear, hear.) Each of those charges was
unfounded.—(Cheers.) Those who thought the people
were indifferent to Reform were ignorant of the people's
sentiments, and those who stated they were guilty of
threatening that House, wilfully misrepresented the people's
actions.—(Cheers.) If unhappily the present Bill should
be rejected, their Lordships might be sure that
a Bill to the same effect, sooner or later, must
pass. The Noble Lord then read a list of the petitions
he had to present. Among which were those from
Wootton-under-Edge, signed by 1,500 persons ' - from
Dursley, signed by 320; from Stroud, by 2,225 ; Disley,
by 413 ; from Stonehouse, by 297 ; from the Mayor,
corporation, and inhabitants of Berkeley, signed by 434 ;1
from Tewkesbury by 770; from the Mayor, corporation,
and inhabitants of the city of Gloucester, and from the
county of Gloucester, signed in three days by 1,828 persons.
The Bishop of CHICHESTER presented a petition
from St. Ives, in favour of the lieform Bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions to a
similar purport from 158 inhabitants of Battle, in Sussex;
from Ashbourn, signed by 350 ; from Halesworth ; from
Chichester; from the borough of King's Lynn, signed by
1399 ; from Daintree ; from the Mayor, corporation, and
inhabitants of the borough of Higham Ferrers, (which
was one of the boroughs place.l in schedule A) ; from
Bramston ; and from a gentleman residing in Brighton.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions from
the following places against the Reform Bill:
Preston, Canterbury, town and port of Sandwich, in Corn.
mon hall assembled, non-resident freemen of Dover, Rye,
in Kent, Lincoln, Ramsgate, gentry, clergy, and freeholder,
in the county of Sussex, freeholders of the county of Dor-
set, freeholders, freemen, and inhabitants of Dover, Deal,
and Walmer.

Lord GRANTHAM presented a petition from Cambridge
praying their Lordships not to pass the Reform Bill
without certain alterations, more particularly in that
clause regarding the 10/. freeholders.
The Earl of HAREWOOD presented a petition from
the town of Leeds, which he stated was very
numerously and respectably signed, against the Reform
Bttl. The petitioners stated that they did not
object to some Reform, but they reprobated the present Bill
as one that would be ruinous to the Constitution of the
country. They prayed their Lordships to do their duty
in that House without being influenced by threats
from out of doors, or any that might be made within.
The NOBLE LOAD also presented similar petitions from
the towns of Wakefield and Doncaster,and from the minister,
churchwardens, and inhabitants of Shotover, in the county
of Oxford.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from Bridport, and another from a parish in Cornwall,
against the Reform Bill.

Earl GREY presented, on the part of a Noble absent
Friend of his, petitions from the inhabitants of Monmouth,
and from a vast number of towns in Wales, England,
Scotland, and Ireland, all in favour of Reform.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented 117 petitions
from corporations and persons of different parts. One
of the petitions from Birmingham was agreed to at
a meeting at which 150,000 persons were estimated to
have assemb'ed, and they were stated to have dispersed
to their homes after the meeting was over, as orderly
hanoudsem;
foin
oid Stanhope
peaceably as children returning from a village
school.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Noble and Learned
Lord also presented thirty-eight other petitions from dif-
ferent places; and among others, from St. Ann, Lime-
the h
toWardn.o nodfe
rA.Lldi enrer
St.t e ;
thoiltpeh-
terhviravitheno,u
Preston Pans,
; a
AoPrDewsbury,nrcas, Cardiff, Bridgnortb, Houn-
slow, An,
The Earl of BELHAVEN presented a petition front
Renfrew, in favour of the Bill ; and also one from two of
the Corporations in Glasgow.
Lord PLUNKET I' presented a petition to the same
effect from an inhabitant in Cashel.
Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions to the
sameeffect from Sr. Paul'-, Covent-garden, and from Truro.
s tne effect
effect, ff e
E c
at
The Earl of POMFRET presented a petition to the
same
Towcester.
The Iff:of:LICHFIELD presented a petition to the
s
Great Yarmouth, and took that oppor-
tunity of stating
that he entirely concurred in the prin.
ciple of the Bill,
foprresewhnictedh
akepefteilttiongrfarteom yo
grateful to his
Ma-
jesty's Ministers.
Lord
effect.
Viscount rktothe
same
Viscount LORTON presented petitions against the Bill
from two Companies in Dublin ; and also from Bally-
etU.
mena, in Antrim.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE presented petitions in favour
of the Bill from Thetford and Wymoodham. In present-
ing the next petition, he begged to advert to what had fallen
from a Noble and Learned Earl on the previous evening.
The Earl of ELDON wished tb make one remark. He
found, that in stating that the petition which he had pre-
sented on the previous evening from Norwich was signed
by 13,540 persons, be was in error : he bad this morning
referred to the instructions he had received, and he found
that he should have s iid 3,540, and not 13.540.
(Hears hear.) He telt grateful to the Noble Earl for hay •
ing given him an opportunity of rectifying his mistake.
It was entirely his error, and not at all to be attributed to
those who had sent him the petition.—(Hear.)
thnui
hnei
oti
fetirrhioe
otamyt
city,o Nrespectably
ikori satisfactory.wrioirhs tai
AnthonyntoHi nowrnfegam ooturhoHratioineverdf beggedsothen
The Earl of ALBEMARLE said, that the Noble
lEaßhe
aagai
dl
vrellen:hsttel
soee
nsxmopdpearlu:hal
present
%aeon,
hadete
Common-hall
ol
anmktpnwhi
neoetaowi satuinuq:
nume-
rously attended than that in which this petition had been
agreed to. The former petition in favour of Reform from
Norwich, had only been signed by 6,100 persons ; but the
present one (and he sta•ed it to show how the desire of
the people for Reform had increased), was signed by
11,570.—(Hear. )
The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented a petition from
Nottingham against the Bill, and he believed he might
say, that a very strong feeling existed in that town against
the Reform Bill.

Lord HOLLAND bad presented a petition the other
night from Nottingham in favour of the Bill, which was
not only signed by 13,000 persons, but which had had the
official seal of the Corporation attached to it.—(llear.)
He was ready to admit that it would be bad taste for their
Lordships to look too closely at the signatures attached to
these petitions, and he would not dispute the respectability
of the individuals who had signed the petition just presented
by the Noble Duke ; but when the Noble Duke asserted in
the face of the petition of 13,000 persons, which he (Lord
Holland) had presented, that the feeling of the town of
Nottingham was against the Bill, he thought that he had
a right to ask whence the petition of the Noble Duke bad
ern' nated ?.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE did not give it as his own
opinion that Nottingham was averse to the Bill; but he
had been instructed so to state by the petitioners. He
believed that the petition had lain at the County-ball for

signatures.' lie hid thought that he 6atl n petition to
present from Worksop ; but on looking at it he foutr2 that
it was a declaration, and not a petition, and he therefofe
Tiontd not trouble th,ir Lordol7ips with it., •
to PNAe of NORFOLK begged to remind' IS! Rougr.
that he had, Oil tl.. previous night, presented a petit:ty:t,
very numerously signed, frnnV.rorksop.
The Duke of NEWCAOLt .Na 4 of that the
petitioii was signed only by Dissenters.
The Duke of 119TIFOLK said, that tilt, very f.affet
niture was that of the tic'et tf Worksop.—(Cheers •)

The Duke of NEWCASTLE thee 7.,! t-rtn4 further obser-
vation, which was inaudible below the bat;

, _ .....
The L'arl of ROSEBERY presented a petition from
Leith, in favimr a the Bill ; also, from the Deaconries of
the Trades in Edinburgh, Own Dunfermline, from some
place in Linlithgow, from the WeiVeh of Selkirk, froth
some place in Dumfries, from Dunnino, in Perth; from
the Royal Burgh of loAkirk, from Portobello, from inter-
keithing ; and he had likewise been desired by Lord Errol
to present a petition to the same ettes from Kilmarnock,
in Ayr.
Lord f!OWDEN presented a petition from Tatiditster,
to the same effect.

Lord LILFORD presented prtitiimi from Warringted
and the parish df Llyten, in Lanc.shite; thel.ameeffect.
The Ma,qui. of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from the county of Wilts, which, though signed b 7 the
High Sheriff Acme, had been agreed to at a most respect-
' Ale meeting. He himself bad been no party to the meet-
ing, but it had been called by the spontaneos feeling of
the county, and was numerously attended. lie htgge,l
leave further to state, that all the petitions which he had
to present were specifically in favour of this Reform Bill, '
and did not contain applications for other privileges or
.extension that were not contained in the Bill. The Noble
Mtrquis then presented petitions. from Trowbridge, Chip-
iientam, Waltham, Swansea, East Stonehouse, Learning-
ton, Deviz s, Gosport, Halverstoke, St. John (Middlesex),
.ind other places—twenty in all.
Lord ROLLE, in reference to the petition from Stone-
house,. said, that when petitions were presented to that
House, some communication ought to be made to Noble
Lords connected with the district, that an opportunity
might be"afforded of estimating the value of such petitions.
He knew that in one case persons came to men in his em-
ployment, and procured them to sign petitions, of the
purport of which they really knew nothing.
Lord DE CLIFFORD said, that the petition which
had been forwarded to that House as expressing the senti-
ments of the people of Devon, and certified by the High
sheriff of the county as such, ought to be received; and
no man could reasonably deny that such a petition was de-
serving cf attention. A misapprehension had arisen re-
specting what fell from him on a former night. What
he said was, that to the best of his belief, the sentiment
contained in the petition were the sentiments of the
people of Devon, and were worthy of the people of that
county.

Lord ROLLE spoke of the county meeting of Devon not
having been numerously attended.
. _

Lord MORLEY attributed that circumstance to the
anxiety to get up the meeting, and ft)? ward the petition
before the second reading of the Bill in that House.
A NOBLE Loan (name unknown) regretted that those
who under-valued the petition had not attended the meet-
ing, and stood forward as the opponents of Reform. He
was sure that any Anti-Reformer who attended that meeting
would have been completely floored.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that thirty Noble Lords
were still on the list ; there, therefore, must be a consi-
derable number of petitions yet remaining to be presented,
and they could have no hope of getting through them be-
fore a very late hour. He therefore recommended that
they should proceed to the order of the day.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was averse from any
unnecessary delay ; still he thought al) petitions ought to
be received, though with as little loss of time as possible.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented a petition from a
place in the county of Kent, praying that the Bill might
not pass into a law. He observed that the Kent county
meeting at no time exceeded three thousand persons, and
began with not more than eight hundred, though lie re-
membered a Kent meeting where not fewer than thirty
thousand persons were present. But the people of that
county took but little interest in the business of petition-
ing the Legislature, having found that the most important
petition ever forwarded by them did not meet with the
attention to which it was entitled. As one proof of the
re-action which be really believed to prevail throughout the
country, there was Sandwich, which hid returned two
Members favourable to the Bill, was now petitioning
against it.

Lord TEMPLEMORE presented a petition from
Goree, in the county of Wexford, in favour of the Bill.

Lord WYNEORD presented a petition from Guild
ford against the provisions of the Bill, by which that town
was put in Schedule B.

Lord SHERBORNE presented a petition from Chel-
tenham, in favour of the Bill.

Lord SEAGRAVE supported the petition, saying that
it was signed by five-sixths of the male adult population
of the place.

The Duke of HAMILTON presented petitions to the
same effect from Selkirk, Lismahago, and the borough of
Hamilton.

Lord DYNEVOR presented a petition from Cann--
von, against the Bill.

The Earl of WESTMORLAND presented a similar
petition from Northampton, signed by 500 persons.
Earl DARNLEY presented a petition in favour of the
Bill from Gravesend.

The Marquis of BUTE presented some petitions—(For
what placrs we could not learn, owing to the confusion
at the bar, in consequence of clearing it for a message from
the House of Commons.)
Mr. HYDE VILLIERS, and others from the Commons,
brought up two Bills, one of which was the London and
Westminster Coal Bill.

Lord FOLEY presented petitions from the town of
Buckingham and the city of Worcester in favour of the
Bill. The latter petition had, he said, been addressed to
their Lordships in consequence of an attempt made by the
Mayor and some of the Corpuration of Worcester, to get
up itpetition of an opposite character.

_
The Earl of RAYINOR presented several petitions in
favour of the Bill :• one signed by 6.600 inhabitants of
Oldham, in Lancashire; from Christchurch, in Surrey ;
from the ward of Coleman-street, in the city of London ;
and from the Political Union of Edinburgh. As the last
mentioned petition was signed t.y the Chairman and S.cre-
tary on behalf of the Society, it could only be received as
the petition of those two gentlemen.
Earl BATHURST presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Tewkesbury, and the vicinity, praying that the
House would give their most serious consideration to the
Refor.n Bill now before their Lordships.
A • Noat.a LORD, whose name we could not learn,
begged leave to mike one observation respecting the peti-
tion which had just been presented. He had himself a
petition to present from Tewkesbury in favour of the Bill,
and signed by upwards of 700 inhabitants of that town,
whereas the Noble Earl opposite acknowledged that the
petition against the Bill bad been signed by persons who
were not inhabitants of Tewkesbury. He hoped, haw-
ever, that the Noble Earl would accede to the prayer of
the latter petition, and enable the House to give the Bill the
most serious consideration, which could only be done in
Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
Earl BATHURST was understood to reply that he
could not give his vote for going into a Committee upon
the Bill.

The Duke of GRAFTON presented a petition from
Woodbridge, in the county of Suffolk, and from the parish
of St. Mary's, Whitecbapel, in favour of the Bill.
A Norms LORD presented a petition from Coventry in
favour of the Bill.
Lord KERR presented a 'Petition from the Mayor and
Aldermen of the borough of Huntingdon, in favour (as
we understood) of the Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER bad several peti-
tions to present in favour of Reform, all worded (he said)
with ability and eloquence, and stating generally that the
anxiety of the country on the subject of Reform • had in-
creased. He would not detain the House longer than by
reading the titles of those petitions. They were from the
inhabitants of St. Martin's-in-the-fields; from the bo-
roughs of Shaftesbury, Congleton, and Nantwich; from
the inhabitants of Holywell, in Flintahire; and from the
town' of Limerick in Ireland. •
A Marx LORD presented a petition frem Falkland, in
favour of the Bill.

Lord POLTINIORE presented similar petitions from
Oakhampton and another place, to the same-effect.
The Duke of LEINSTER presented petitions also is