The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-14 00:00:00

belongs to the people of that country, and the right
of property in it, given to individuals, is merely in
trust for the community. The. trust involves the
responsibility of maintaining the pelple ; and this
principle is recognised in the English poor laws,
which tells the landholders—you may exercise your
discretion with respect to the mode of administering
your estate—but do what you will with it, still there
are the people, who be fed. In Ireland the
principle has been lost sight of; the owners of the
soil have been allowed to conceive themselves freed

from all accountability towards the people; and
hence the funds which ought to have been dedicated
to the providing employment for the people,
and thereby preserving the proportion between po-
pulation and employment, have been wasted by the
Landlords in luxury and sensuality. " But whenever
it has been proposed in Ireland (says Dr. Doyle), to
ease the occupier of land, by removing from him a
part of the burthen he now suffers, by placing such
part ❑pon the owner of the and, then a cry is
raised 6 that the tvital of the landholder is to be
diminished, and productive labour narrowed.' No,
it is not so. The princely absentee, the unfeeling
landlord, the gorged prelate, the spendthrift, and
the sensualist, may, for a moment, suffer some draw-
back from their excessive profits; but capital in the
hands of those who really employ it as an instrument
to enrich nations and render Men happy, will suffer
no diminution." But moreover, the preservation
of the connection between the people and the land,
through the instrumentality of a poor law, is a con-
dition without which there can be no security to those
who wish to invest capital in expeeta.ion of a pro-
fitable return. " Will a nation (says Dr. Doyle in
his eloquent way) covered with pauperism as with

. .
a leprosy, and thereby constantly tempted or led
into acts of outrage, offer good security to the
owner of capital ? Or can such owner expect a
steady and well-paid profit from a country in which
one half of the population not only have no intereA in
the preservation of order, but who have no provi-

sion secured to them, even in cases of extreme want,
except in the benevolence of the rank next above
themselves, or in the, tread-mill or gallows prepared
for all who invade the rights of property, even when

impelled thereto by the rabid bite of hunger ?" Far
better would it have been for the Irish to have been

in a state of predial slavery than cursed with a liberty
entailing on them the most helpless poverty, with
the horror of destitution constantly present to them.
The predial slave has a home, whence he cannot.ba
detruded, and an unfeeling master must provide for
him when no longer able to labour. The Irish
landlord consigns, without compunction, his worn-
nut labourer to the next friendly ditch, where typhus
may relieve him from his misery. The owner of the
predial slave has power with responsibility; the
Irish landlord has power without responsibility. Mr.
Stanley admitted that the state of the country was,
as had been represented by the Hon. Member, most
deplorable : but it originated in no religious or po-
litical feeling; it was the war of the lower classes
against the higher—of the poor againq those who
were possessed of property.—Morning Chronicle.
• Some farther information was afforded last night
with regard to the alterations in the Reform Bill,
announced by Lord John Russell. The subject was
first touched on by Mr. Western, who, on present-
. . .

_ .
ing a petition from the freeholders of Essex, took
occasion to declare that he considered " the asivo-
cat( s of moderate Reform to be dangerous enemies,
against whom the friends of Reform must be on
their guard. He was for the whole Bill, and no-

thing less than the Bill; and, therefore, he wus
sorry to hear that the Noble Lord (Lord J.Russell)
had announced an intention of altering the measure,
though he was satisfied that the Noble Lord would
make no alteration in the essential principle of the
Bill." The essential principle of the Bill, as we
yesterday observed, is the disfranchisement of the
nomination and rotten boroughs, and the conversion
of the representation from nominal to real. We
could see nothing in the retaining the present num-
ber of Members or in the reducing them, which
either way affected the principle, provided the suf-
frage was in no case bestowed in such a way as to

change the representation from real to nominal. Si

E. Sitgden, with that sort of spurious logic to which
lawyers too often resort, endeavoured to stow that the
principle of theßill was in the working of its detaik and
the details being altered, therefore the principle wai
altered. The principle of the Bill is in. some. of
the details, but not in all of them. You may cut
off a man's ears without affecting the principle of
life, but you cannot cut off his head. You may, on

dittenvering that one borough contained in 1821
more than two thousand inhabitants, allow it to re.

turn one Member, and you may strike out another
place, which you find in 1821 contaitie,l less than
two thousand inhabitants, without affecting the prin-
ciple of the Bill; beet you cannot insert in the Bill,
boroughs with less Than two thousand inhabitants,
as having the franchise continued to them, or give a
list of other boroughs with less than two thousand
inhabitants, to whom the franchise shall he trans-
ferred, without affecting the principle of the Bill.
Now it appears from what fell from Lord Althorp,
that from some misapprehension or other, more
has been made of the announcement of a readi-
ness not to reduce the number of English Members,
than ought to have been made, and at all events that
the Members not to be reduced are to he assigned to
counties and populous places, in strict accordance
with the principle of real representation. In fact,
the discovery of errors in the lists renders it necessary

that Ministers, in ordtr to be true to the rule of
disfranchisement laid down by them, should have a
fund to draw from—" Looking (said Lord Althorp),
and having examined the returns with respect to
some of the towns contained in them, the Govern-
ment had satisfied themselves that there were some
errors in the calculations, and that it would, there-
fore, be necessary to make a slight addition to the
number of the Members; but there was no
intention to depart in the lea-t from the rule
they had laid down to themselves and explained—
namely, that if inaccuracies could be pointed out
which would give ground for .exemption from dis-
franchisement, they were prepared to admit it. By
these means the original number would be increased
to a certain extent, but not so far as to embrace the
whole number which they had thought it fit to take from
the House. With respect to i his question of numbers,
he was bound to say that the Government had never
catisith red it to beartessential part of their Bill. They
believed it, however, to be a great advantage to d:-
minis!' the number of the Representatives of the
Ilnuse, and they were determined to carry it if they
could, although not to the extent they originally in-
tended. Supposing, however, that the House, on
consideration, came to a decision not to diminish its
Members, the Government would not think that
such an inroad was made on the principle of the Bill
as to induce them to throw it out.—(Hear, hear.)
In that case they would be prepared to give the ad-
ditional Members to populous districts, but in no
case to the disfranchised boroughs, as they would
consider that a complete dereliction of the principle
which they maintained in the Bill." It appears,
then,. that Ministers will not of themselves add to
the number of Members, but that in case such an
addition is forced on them, they will make the best
of it, by giving the Members to populous places,
and not think of abandoning the Bill. Mr. O'Con-
nell made a few pithy observations, which Sir Ed-
ward Sugden will hardly forget for some time.
" The fact (he said) had gone forth. The Govern-
ment and the people were alike determined to put an end
to their (tbe boroughmongera') traffic, and resistance
would be useless. Objections might be taken to minor
details; but the great, the paramount object of the
people—the destruction of the nomination boroughs—was
not to be departed from; and art end was to be put for
ever to that execrable system, by which the rights' of the
People were bartered fur place, and justice it,,elf sold by
those who were entrusted with the power to administer it.
—(Hear.) )f
:lit.::ydsipdt,einrne,oh:ta.nr.:,d'eonn der much that there were
menii still found who endeavour to lend their feeble aid in
—(fleas)—who sweat)
btryaffiperkoedmisesin boofrouusginhgs
their influ,nee, when they
;ftra
aey theb sedethe destination of a
judicial ',ration, to procure
traffic —(Hear)--and who
1,,
n proceedsmt oft.
wouldthe
be p
ceding
n at hoenceo. costa
one.—(hear.} election b
The pre-nt

an end to, and the House redeemed from the imputatina
which now pressed so heavily on the character of its
Nlernhe rs. —Morning Chronicle.

It is greatly to be regretted that Ministers did not
accede to the recommendation of the Select Com-
mittee on the Civil List,. to reduce the amount by
12,0001. The smallness of the sum thus recom-
mended for reduction proves that the Committee
did not apply the pruning-knife in a very sweeping
way to this large branch of State expenditure. The
cutting off so small a sum could certainly have no
sensible effect in relieving the burdens of the Country,
but thesmaller it is the more easily could it be given
up, while the obstinate refusal to part with it is
calculated to shake the confidence of the tountry
in the sincerity of the professions which Minkers
have made on the subject of retrenchment and
esonomy, Let it be recollected that it was open
the question of this very Civil List that the late
Ministry were turned out, and aat the members of
the present Administration, who had then seats in
the House of Commons, considered the Civil List
so large that they insisted upon the appointment of
a Select Committee to inquire into its details, with
a view to report upon what amount of reduction
was practicable previously to its being submitted for
the approbation of the House. The late Adminis-
tration opposed the appointment of a Select Coln-
initter, on the ground that they had framed the
Civil List on the lowest possible estimates, and
could not concur in sanctioning any reduction below
the amount which they thought it necessary to pro-
pose to Parliament. They acted upon that determi-
nation. The House decided against them, the motion
for the appointment of a Select Committee was car-
ried, and Ministers resigned. The present Ministers,
after some time, introduced their own plan of a
Civil List. The intricate confusion in which Mr.
Goulburn's talent for converting finance into a
sort of cabalistic art, had involved the subject,
was got rid of. The new civil list presented, there-
fore, a superior arrangement, but as to amount, it
was only a trifle under that of the late Ministers.
It was submitted to a Select Committee, who, hav-
ing examined the details, reported to the House that
it ought to Je reduced by the sum of 12,0004—
that is, that the sum of .510,0001., proposed to be
granted out of the consolidated fund for the support
of his Majesty's household, be reduced to 498,0001.
This reduction was, of course, in reference to the
large salaries which many officers of the household
enjoy, and not in reference to the amount of the
sum required for the more immediate maintenance
of the dignity and personal comfort of the Sovereign.
It should be borne in mind that the salaries of those
officers, which were always liberal, or, we should
rather say, munificent, have, by the change which
" Peel's Bill" made in the value of the currency,
become absolutely extravagant, and ought to be re-
duced in a much greater proportion than the Select
Committee recommended. The Ministers, how-
ever, though they thought proper to submit their
plum of a civil list to a Select Committee, have re-
fused to carry their recommendation into effect by
reducing the amount one farthing. Why then sub-
ject it to the revision of a Select Committee at all ?
Would it not have been more consistent to have
acted as the former Ministers did, and refuse to submit
it to a revision, which they were predetermined should
have no results, and which must produce bitter disap-
pointment to the expectations of the country ? For
this they have the insidious praise of Sir Robert
Peel; and naturally enough, as he would rather see
Ministers losing the confidence of the country than
strengthening themselves in the support and affec-
tions of the people. He naturally imagines that
every false step which Ministers take removes an
obstacle between him and .a return to power, for
which his " many cousins" must by this time be
somewhat impatient. Mr. Goulburn has gone far-
ther than merely giving the Ministers treacherous
praise ; on his..proposition, the sum of 510,000/. has
been increased to 520,001., the Chancellor Of the
Exchequer stating that he could have no objection.
to the additional sum, if the House agreed to it.
Thus Lot d Althorp fell into the trap which the most
inefficient, but not the least cunning, of all finan-
ciers, most craftily laid for him. Thus the Civil
List, instead of being diminished by 12,0001., has
been augmented by 10,000/. But we hope, when
this most objectionable vote is reported to the house,
it will be opposed, by every Member who really
wishes to deserve the good opinion of his constitu
en ts, not with feeble protests and tame remon-
strances, ending in nothing, but with the uncom-
promising determination which the subject de-
mantis. It is the interest of Mr. Goulburn and the
Ex-Ministers that the new Civil List should be
equal in amount to the one proposed by themselves,
because it would thereby appear that public opiniim
and their opponents in Parliament had done them
grievous wrong by charging them with having
framed that memorable Civil List without any re-
gard to the considerations of retrenchment and
economy. —Morning Herald.

S 'CON 1) EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock,

PERIAL PA IMAM ENT

THIS EVENING.

iIOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. Fennell, from the Admiralty, brought up an ac.
count of the number of Seamen in the Royal Hospitals.
Lord STANLEY presented petitions from Warrington
against negro rlavery ; from the Cotton Spinners of Lan-
cashire, praying that their hours of labour might be rt..-
duced ; and from the Magistrates of Bolton-le-310m.,
against the Beer Bill.
EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.

Mr. R. GRANT siid he would take that opportunity
of saying, that in consequence of the all-absorbing question
of Reform not being yet settled, that it was not his inten-
tion to bring forward his motion for the emancipation of
the Jews, which stood for this evening ; but he postponed
it until the sth of May.
Lord STANLEY presented several petitions from places
in Lancashire in favour of Reform.

Mr. WYNNE presented a similar petition from Sligo.
Sir GEORGE MURRAY presented a petition from
the Presbytery of Scotland, praying that the elective
franchise might be extended to them. The Right Hon.
Baronet thought that if the measure of Reform was to he
carried, more Members ought to be given to Scotland. It
was quite unfair that large counties in Scotland were only
to have a fourth share in returning a Member while
• small counties in England had two, and in some eases
even four. There were towns also in Scotland which
contained from 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants that
were to remain totally unrepresented, whilst towns in Eng-
land, so:r:e containing only 4,005 ishabitants, were to
return two Members.—(Hear, hear.)
After some observations from Mr. ALEXANDER. HOPE,
Mr. HART Davis, and Mr. ROBERT GRANT, the peti-
tition was ordered to be printed.
A new Member took the oaths and his seat.

Mr.. HUNT presented several petitions from Mao-
cheater and its suburbs in favour of Parliamentary Refoim.
The petitioners stated that although they thought the pre-
sent plan of Reform would correct many of the existing
grievances, yet in their opinion nothing short of universal
suffrage and triennial Parliaments would satisfy the country.
They hoped, however, for the reasons they had stated,
the Bill might pass into a law. The Hon. Member en•
tireiy.agmed wish the petitioners.
Mr. O'CONNELL. in a speech of considerable length,
charged' Mr. Hunt as an enemy to Reform, and accused
him of having gone over to the Tories.—(Hear.)
After a few observations from Mr. CAmrestr, and Mr.
Alderman WAITHMAN,
Sir H. HARDINGE said he did not believe that the
measure of Parliamentary Reform was at all popular in the
'country. The Hon. Member for Waterford charged
the Hon. Member for Preston with having gone over to
the Tories. Now, he thOught that charge might be re-
t torted on the Hon. Member for Waterford, for he had
decidedly gone over to the Whigs.—(Hear.) He did not
wish then to enter into the question of Reform ; but he
must say that, in his opinion, the property of the country
was .strongly .oppoyd to it.
Mr. KENNEDY. was confident the feeling of the
country was strongly in favour of Reform.
Mr. HUNT said, some time since the country ran wild
about Reform, but he now was confident that a re-action
had taken place.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.) This

very day he had had two deputations waiting upon Dien to
to take the chair at meetings abut to be called to express
disapprobation -Of the plan of Reform.—(Hear, hear.)
however, refused to do so; as he had quite
enough to do in that House to defend himself
from the attacks made upon bins by the Honourable
Members of Caledonia on the one side, and Hibernia
on the other. He certainly, speaking of the Honour-
Member for Waterford, had used the term blarney ; and
after the speech of „ the Hon. Member that evening, he
thought the term was well applied.—(Laughter.) lie
would boldly tell that Hon. Member to his face, both in
the House and out of the House, that he bad openly
trafficked with the Noble Marquis of Anglesea for the seat
which Mr. Doherty lately occupied.—(Hear, hear.)
Had the Hon. Member got that sent, there would have been
no agitation in Ireland about the repeal of the Union. He
charged him (Mr. H.) with being a sham reformer, and that
he was a real cone. He denied the charge. He had always
been a consistent Reformer. He had always contended
for Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. And he
would alWays do so.—(Hear, hear.) He was only in
favour of the present measure, because he thought if
they obtained it, they should get more.—(Hear, hear.)
He had lately attended a meeting in Somerset, which was
unanimously ,of opinion that all Reform was useless, un-
less accompanied by vote by ballot.
Mr. C. FERGUSON believed the Representation of
the counties of Scotland as pure as the Representation of
any part of the united kingdom, and the Members returned
by those counties were as independent in character and mind
as any individuals in existence. Should the Bill piss, be
for one did not believe that the representative state of
Scotland would be very much changed. He felt satisfied
that throughout Scotland there was no differentce of opi-
opinion respecting the principle of the proposed Bill
thought there might be great differences of opinion as to
iti details.
Sir G. WARRENDER haul had communications from
some of the best informed persons in Scotlnd on the sub-
ject of the proposed measure, and without entering into the
question of how many meetings had been called, and of
how many persons had voted at those meetings in favour,
and how many against the Bill, he was happy in
being allowed to take thus the earliest opportunity of
avowing the degree of change which had taken place in his
mind respecting the Bill, as it affected Scotland, namely,
that a popular election must take place there.—(Loud
cheers.) Now, as a Scotchman, ha frankly avowed
that the present system of sending Members to Parliament
in Scotland could now no longer exist. He begged, how-
ever, to tell the Noble Lord opposite that lie should differ
most materially with him upon many important details in
the Bill; most materially should he oppose the disfran-
ebbing of any place whatever either in England or else-
where. With many other Scotch gentlemen he made con-
.iderable sacrifice in making the concession he now did in
respect to calling for popular elections in Scotland ; but he
made the sacrifice cheerfully, because he was now per-
suaded that the benefit of his country required it.
An Hoe. MesteEn, whose name we could not ast.er-
tain, considered that the introduction of this Bill was a
most hex irdous and dangerous speculation as regarded
Scotland; and that those who had thus brought forward
such a speculative measure might yet deeply regret their

conduct:
Mr. O'CONNELL denied that Mr. Benett could ever
have made such a statement as that mentioned by the lion.
Member for Preston.
Lord WILLIAM GRAHAM presented a petition from
Dumbarton against the Reform
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was rigl.t the House
should be informed that although this petition was
got up by a very respectable meeting, regularly
convened, it was only signed by thirty-two individuals,
and that there was a counter-petition on the road, much
more numerously signed.
Lord W. GRAHAM sail there was double the number
of freeholders who signed his petition than those who
signed the counter one.
Mr. H. DOUGLAS thought that as every person he-
came acquainled with the Bill, they would all be anxious
to enter their objections against it.
Mr. KENNEDY was convinced that the feeling
throughout Scotland was decidedly in favour of the
measure, and said that at all the meetings convened,
learcely more thantwenty or thirty ever signed the petition
against Reform.
Sir G. HURRAH was of opinion that the general
feeling, in Scotland was against the measure.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH could not help making
a few observations in consequence of something that had
fallen from hie lion. Friend the Gallant Officer opposite.
He thought his Hon. and Gallant Friend (Sir G. Murray)
had shown his jadgment, and the integrity of that judgment,
in admitting that the representation of Scotland was the
least tenable part of the Constitution, though he had not
made his admission in such express terms. He was a
little surprkel at the reference that had been made
to Sir Thomas Bridale's lett, r, with respect to
showing which of the two meetings in the county of Rox-
burgh were the most numerous. Sir Thomas was a
person whom he (Sir James Mackintosh) had a very par-
ticular respect for, and that lie had changed his opinions
after he had been for some time Chairman at the second
nutting was of no sort of importance in comparison to the
value of the two meetings, because Sir Thomas went to
preside there, knowing perfectly that the first meeting had
been held, and he could in no way have shewn more
distinctly his impression that the state of the county had
not been taken when the second meeting was called than
he did by taking the chair.—(Cries of Hear, hear.)
His firm opinion was that the middle class of
persons in Scotland was still decidedly in favou
of Parliamentary Reform, and he was persuaded that a
meeting of freeholders might be held in Scotland at which
twenty acres of land relight not he represented, so greatly
were the freeholders separated from the landowners.
—(Hear, hear,) Scotlind at this moment possessed
no free Governmeat. The Parliamentary representation
was nothing like what it ought to have been. Scotland
never had had that security in her Parliamentary
representation Which justice demanded, and which the
present measure was calculated to confer upon her. There
Was a medium of representation required, neither was
universal suffrage advocated by those who wished well to
Scotland, or did they desire to have the present system
continued.
Sir G. CLERK could not conceive how the Hon.
Gentleman just sat down could be found to support a
Bill which was, according to what he had stated, to give
to Scotland a similar representation to that to which Eng-
land had heretofore been, and which, was now ea much
deprecated as it regarded England, but under which both
England and Scotland had prosperered. The meetings
that had taken place in Scotland against the proposed
measure must be admitted to have been attended by persons

who could make it convenient to attend, and li•ho were
capable of taking part in the discussions. At the
meeting which bad taken place in favour of the Bill
and which had been called the more numerous meeting, it
was well known that only one side could obtain a hear.
'ing. He did not see bow any Honourable Member who
was at all acquainted with the state of feeling. in Scot-
land, could deny that by far the greater proportion of land.
proprietors were against the measure. As to its being
said that the same persons had gone from county to county
and called meetings to petition against the measure, In,
should be glad to know if those who had presented pe-
titions in favour of Reform, had not appeared in 20 or 30
dirtelent characters. With respect also to the disturbances
which had already taken place in Scotland, and particularly
in Edinbnrgh, in consequence of the introduction of
this measure, he regarded those as discreditable to
Edinburgh, and hoped the Noble Lord opposite would
take all the care in hi■ power to prevent a repetition of
the excesses there. He believed that almost every indi-
vidual were of opinion that if this Bill passed, no great
length of time would elapse ere every individual would
enjoy the right of elective franchise.
Mr. CUTLER FERGUSSON had said last night
that he believed the population of the three kingdoms
was in favour of Reform ; he would repeat that he be-
lieved such to be the tact. But they were not in
favour of that sweeping plan of Reform which was
introduced by his Majesty's Government.—(Hear.)—
They agreed in the principle, but objected to the detains.
eal-leofhotr7iinei(tl m'R-eafiorhrenwtlhreoy
ofth llealvouthide
obtain cheap bread, and their hours of labour would be less.
I peoplefthe l et
to believe,
any etnheanti f
No such results could be anticipated. But he believed
that if a proper Reform was carried it would he the means
of preventing a number of useless wars, and put a stop
to wastful expenditure.--(Hear, hear.) An Honourable
Member had said that the Hon. Member for Preston had
presented a petition complaining, of the plan of Reform.
Now he only wialied to call the attention of the House to
the date of that petition. It was dated 4th March, which
was before the plan of Reform could, by possibility have
been known.

:-. Mr. O'CONNELL denied that he had ever trafficked
;with the Marquis of Anglesea for a seat in that House ;
fmore unfifunded thaw had - never been -brought
rward. The Hon. Member for Preston might
,think of him as he:please;d ;-- bit be (Mr. O'Connell)
:would never -believe That the Hon.. .Igenibcr.wa,s a sincere
friend to Reform.
.Mr. HUNT would contenetlyo a .reformed House of
Commons, freely chosen by the piople, would abolish that
great pest the Corn Bill--(Hear, hear),—and eonsequebtly
i