The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-26 00:00:00

TITHES.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE had to lament a petition on the
subject of tithes and tithe 'nodose*, containing a ststerne‘r.
which certainly gave him great pain, although the griev-
ance, as far as regarded the country in gerKral, would be
remedied by the Bill brought in by the Noble and Learned
Chief Justice. The petition was 'scan the parish of Car-
eloactan, Junton Heath, in the county of Glamorgan, and
the petitioners stated that there had been in the parish mo-
dos for tithes from veer early times, but that in the reigns
of King William and Queen Anne, the then incumbent
had filed hie Bill to set it aside, but had failed, and that
the bill was dismissed with ;nets. About twenty years
ago the then incumbent brad filed his bill in Chancery to
set aside the same moslus, but that the hill was dismissed
with coats. But the question had again been tried lately,
and the incumbent had succeeded. These were matters
calculated to make a deep impression on the public mind.
and it was high time that some remedy should be applied,
and he hoped the Bill of the Noble and Learned Chief
Justice would soon come into operation fet' that purpose.
'Lord KING presented a petition. from Barnsley, pray-
ing for a commutation of tithes, The petitioners stated
that they paid tithes to persons who performed no spiritual
duties among them, and whom they never saw ; and they
mentioned a remarkable instance of a district in which
there were twenty-five livings with only two incumbents.
The Noble Lord also adverted to a remarkable instance in
the diocese of Ely of the accumulation of church livings,
one of them of the value of 6,000/ , and church dignities,
in the hands of one person. These were curious instances
of non-residence and an abuse of patronage; and it had
been said that the Chancellor was not altogether exempt
from blame ott this last head, as the patronage of one of the
living's was in the Crown.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that he was glad of
an opportunity to explain how the matter really stood.
The right of presentation to the living in question was
alternately in the Crown and in the Bishop of the Diocese ;
and it happened that, some time before Lord Eldon went
not of office, the presentation to the livine had fallen to
the Crown, hut the Bishop wrote to Lord Eldon, request-
ing that he would allow him that turn, in order to present
the living to a son-in-law, or same relationot his, and that,
consequently, the two next turns would fall to the Crown.
Lord Eldon consented. When he (the Lord Chancellor)
bad been for three weeks in office, he received a letter,
purporting to be from the Bishop, but which appeared to
him to be in the writing of one who was in bad health ;
and in this letter he was requested to allow that turn
of presentation also to the Bishop for some relation of
his, and that then the three or the four next
presentations would b long to the Crown. But he,
considering that if he did this it must be at the ex-
pence of future Bishops, declined to answer the letter,
more particularly as the turn belonged properly to
Lord Eldon, who had sacrificed the former turn. Some
time after he received soother, stating that the former
letter had been written, but had probably miscarried, and
stating that the Bishop had a right to claim the presenta-
tion, and that if no answer was sent, it would be taken
that silence gave consent, and that steps would be taken to
take possession of the living. He then wrote, in answer,
that he had certainly received both the letters, but that
the latter put the matter upon a different footing,
and he stated that it was Lord Eldon who had to decide
on the matter. He wrote to Lord Eldon stating the case,
and on their applying to him, it appeared that he had
consented to the request. He did not approve of this
mode of disposing of the patronage, for by this means the
Crown would have the three or four next turns, at the
expence of future Bishops of Ely.• Ile, however, was clear
of blame; but he could not help suspecting that a person
making these repeated applications at the expence of his
successors, was net in a sufficient state of health and sound-
ness of mind to enable him, with proper discrimination,
to dispose of church livings and prebends, and that he was
en-rounded by some persons who abused his patronage.
The Duke of NORFOLK presented a petition in favour
of the Ministerial plan of Reform, front the county of
Cork.

Lord KING presented a petition from the county of
Devon, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform.
There was a county petition for a Reform before, but they
met a second time, and agreed to this petition, in favour
of this specific measure. This did not look like the apathy
of which a Noble Lord had spoken the other night.
Lord ROLLE said that he could not undertake to sly
wlat was the general opinion of the county of Devon,
but there were not more than 100 to 200 freeholders at the
meeting. _

Lord KlNG—There was no reason for their being very
numerous, as they had petitioned for Reform before. His
Lordship then presented petitions to the same effect from
the corporation of bikers of the town of Dunfermline, and
from a place in Yorkshire.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
a place in Sussex, in favour of the Ministerial plan of
Reform.

Lord PLUNKETT presented a petition from a place in
Ireland, praying for a repeal of the Union.
Earl GREY presented a petition from a place in Ire-
land, complaining of distress, and praying relief ; from
certain Roman Catholics of Ireland, praying for the ex-
tension to them of the elective franchise, in the same man-
ner as to the Protestants; from Tuam, in Ireland, pray-
ing that the town might have the election of a representa-
tive, and in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform ;
and also from the suburbs of Manchester, to the same ef-
fect. The last petitioners stated that they did not think
any plan of Reform would be sufficient without annual
Parliaments and ballot. In this he need not say that he
did not agree with the petitioners.
All the petitions were laid on the table.
Several private Bills were read a second, and some a
third time, when the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 131mut 25.
A great number of private Bills were forwarded a stage,
and others read a third time and passed.
Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from the
inhabit:int, of Edinburgh against the plan of Reform
introduced by Minister'', The Hon. Member .aid the

petition was most respectably signed, and worthy the
attention of the House. It contained 600 signatures.
Mr. HUME denied that the petition now under con-
aideration deserved anything like the .attention that was
claimed for it ; it had but 600 signatures out of the
14.0,000 or 150,000 inhabitants of Edinburgh ; and so
far from having been submitted to the discussion of
public assemblage, it was got up at a private meeting,
where only a few persons attended, and from which the
reporter; for the public press were excluded.—(Hear,
hear.) The moment business began, it was perceived that
two gentlemen were i❑ attendance for the Edinburgh
papers, and on its being intimated to them that the meeting
was private, they of course ruse to withdraw ; and in an-
swer to their inquiries, it was stated that the conductors of
the meeting and the petition did not desire to have any
kart of their proceedings made Oldie. There was no one
who had the means of becoming acquainted with the
real state 'of public opinion in Scotland could doubt that
the present Bill had obtained the approbation of inde-
pendent men of all classes, and that that counter petition
was merely set on foot by the party which had too long
ruled Scotland. He begged of the !louse only to contrast
the two petitions for and tgainst—the one with 35,000
signatures, the other with only 600.
Mr. PP(NGLE said that the meeting in question was
ntte not called for the purposes of discussion, and there-
fore there was no occasion for the presence of reporters.
Ile denied that the present petition proceeded from any
particular class or party ; there wets: many persons in
Edinburgh who favoured a moderate Reform, and there
were even amongst the names to that petition those of men
who had at all times supported those political views pro-
fessed by the present Government.
Sir GEORGE STAUNTON bore full testimony to the
accuracy anti care with which the proceedings of that
House were generally reported in the newspapers, it was
therefore the more necessary that he should avail himself
of the earliest opportunity that presented itself of correct-
ing a mistake that had arisen with respect to himself, and
he hoped the Hn'ane would then indulgently permit him to
explain Mt correct what had been imputed to him ; for
tlae alUestion of Reform was one, of all others, respecting
which it was important that the sentiments of Hon.
Members should not be mistaken. In presenting a peti-
tion on a former night, he had bee❑ reporte I not only to
have said that be concurred in the views of the petitioners,
but thct he gave to the plan of Parliamentary Reform his
entire and unqualified support. What he did say was,
that in the first prayer of the petition he agreed ; but not
with the second ; and that looking forward to great modi-
fications of the Lill being effected in the Committee, he
should taal:e for the second reading. lie was willing to
advait that it contained some admirable provisions, but
there were others from which he could ❑ot help dissent-
ing. He, therefore, voted for the second reading, being
at the same time fully resolved to promote modifications
in the Committee.

Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the county of
Perth, against that part of the plan which proposed con-
necting that county with another.
Mr. HODGES presented petitions from several places
in the co-aUty of Kent in favour of the Reform proposed
by Ministers, and one from Sandwich against the dis-
iranchiseinent of non-resident voters.

Mr. MARRYATT and Mr. PRICE supported the prayer
of the petitions.
Mr. lIODGES then presented a petition fron the county
of Kent, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. The
petition was agreed to at one of the most numerous and
respectable county meetings he had ever attended, and
that unanimously.
Mr. JONES said bhere was one borough belonging to a
Noble Lord (Cawdor) who was favour ible to the measure of
Reform which, although it contained very few houses, was
allowed to retain its elective franchise.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The framers of the Bill had
no intention to favour Lord Cawdor or any other Noble
Lord. It was not intended to increase the influence of
an) individual, its principle was strictly impartial.

. .
Mr. GEORGE DAWSON—There was one circum-
stance in reference to a particular county, that required
some explanation, ho alluded to the county of Durham.
—( Hear, hear, hear.)—lt had been stated that the Noble
Lord who bore that title had been mainly instrumental
in drawing up the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)—The conse-
quence was that Durham, which already sent four
Members, was to have six more.—(Bear.),—What
he complained of was, that as the principle of the
Bill proposed to give the elective franchise to the greatest
population and the greatest number of houses, he
thought it unfair that Durham should have six
new Members. When Lanc.sbire, containing sixteen
towns all larger in population and the number of
houses than the places in Durham, yet that county had no
additional Members assigned to it, it required some
explanation why Durham should he so favoured over Lan-
cashire. Such a system of legislature would never be
satisfactory to the country. 11-natured people would say,
that ender the name of destroying rotten boroughs the
Constitution of the country had been cat up.—(Hear.)
It would appear ag if Ministers wished to destroy Old
Sarum and Gatton for the purpose of giving additional
Members to Lord Durham.—(Hear, bear.) The way
in which this measure. of Reform was managed by
the public Press was most disgraceful.—(Hear, hear!)
Speeches even in favour of the plan that had no effect in
that House were published at great length, whilst those
in opposition, however strong the effect they might have,
were partly left out. It was pitiful to see such papers as
the Times and mbers lending themselves to such
a system. The people of En'gland ought, however,
to know the juggle that was carrying on.—(Hear.)
They were also entitled to an answer to the question he
had asked, namely, why. Durham should send six Mem-
bers, and sixteen places in Lancashire, larger than ally of
those in Durham, not send any ?

Sir GEORGE WARRENDER must say, in jus-
tice to his Noble Friend who had introduced the measure,
that he had been actuated by no feeling of private interest
towards individuals. Ile was decidedly opposed to the
measure, but he believed its promoters were perfectly im-
partial.
Mr. C. WOOD was sure his Majesty's Ministers were
actuated by no party or selfish motives, and he thought
that on the presentation of petitions it was improper to
discuss the question of Reform.
Sir J. SEBRIGHT deprecated long discussions on the
presentation of petitions.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said that the hint thrown out by
the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) could not be
correct, for the interest of those places in Durham that
were to have representatives was divided between Lord
Durham and the Marquis of Londonderry ; and if the one
supported the measure, the other was no less determined
against it.—(Hear.)
Lord STANLEY said, that although population was
one, it was not the only ground on which representation
was to be given by the Bill. The design of his Majesty's
Ministers was to give a fair proportion of representation
not to the population alone, but to the interests of the place.

. .
An HoN. MEMBER observed, that Lord Durham had no
interest at South Shields. Three candidates lead already
announced themselves there, and not one of them was con-
nected with the Noble Lard.

Lord J. RUSSELL stated that he did not rise for the pur-
pose of arguing the question, or of answering the imputa-
tion that had been made by the Hon. Gentleman oppesite,
which would net be in that stage of the business very
regular, because it would give rise to discussion, and
would be going prematurely into a Committee upon the
Bill. He could then have offered an answer to the Hon.
Gentleman, but on going into Committee upon the Bill, he
(the Nob'e Lord) would state fully the grounds on which
the particular towns named in the schedules had been se-
lected, and Members granted to represent their interests.
Mr. G. DAWSON observed that when he had stated
his Majesty's Ministers had acted unfairly to the county
of Durham, lie did not mike it as a personal imputation.
It was one of those imputations, however, which rested
on facts, the ground of which required to be removed
in order to be contradicted.

Mr. HUNT had no doubt that the people of England
would be highly delighted to hear that the Right Hun.
Gentleman (Mr. Daw4on) was so particularly anxious
about their welfare and interests.—(Hear.)
Lord MORPETH said, that the measure was supported
by the universal voice of the nation.
Mr. RUT lIVEN wished to call the attention of the
House to an observation that appeared in the public Papers
that morning, of an expression made use of by the Marquis
of Londonderry last night, in the House of Lords.
The SPEAKER rose to order. It was utterly impos-
sible that a breach of privilege of the ether House could be
corrected by a breach of privilege being committed in that
House.
Mr. RUTHVEN, after making several attempts, and
being called to order, made some observations on a peti-
tion which he had to present in favour of the Reform Bill
from the freeholders of the county of Down.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed that the petition
was signed by 13,000 freeholders in the county of
Down, no doubt highly respectable individuals, but
as he had stated before, he was sorry to differ from them
upon the subject of Reform ; nor did he consider the
petition contained all the respectability or the wealth in the
county, as he had stated in his letter declining to present
the petition. He hoped Honourable Members for Ire-
land who came forward to support this measure,
would consider. and weigh well the question, because

he felt convinced that when the principles of the Bill were
thoroughly understood in the Protestant Church of Ireland,
and the re.action of it took place, there would be a very
ereat change in the opinions that had been expressed.
Mr. JONES hoped, that because Hon. Members on
his side of the House were opposed to the measures ot
his Majesty's Ministers, they were not to be cried down
on the occasion of a petition being presented in favour of
the Reform Bill, and not permitted to utter their opinions
upon the subject. He for one certainly should not sub-
mit to be so put down,
Petition ordered to be brought up.
Mr. K. DOUGLAS hoped the Hon. Member whont
he
saw in his place would now name a time when he should
bring forward a subject of vast importance which he had
long since given notice of,' and that he would abide by that
!hoe, that Hon. Members might he prepared to meet the
discussion—he meant the subject of slavery. He for one
should certainly have liked that the measure, whatever it
might be, had been brought forward by one of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers.
Mr. RITXTON said that his object was to intro-
luee a resolution that would go to the entire abolition of
slavery. He had framed a resolution to that effect,
though he hail it not with him at the moment.
He certainly concurred with the lion. Member, that it
would be most des'rable that his Majesty's Ministers
should introduce the measure, and nothing would give
him greater satisfaction than to find them come for.
ward to do so ; but should they not feel so in-
clined, he should bring forward his proposition on (as
we understood) Tuesday next.
SUPPLY—REFORM.
Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the
House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Sir R. PEEL said that he wished to call the attention
of the Noble Lord opposite to a matter of detail respecting
the Reform Bill, but which was of great importance. For
the purpose of his argument, if argument it 'night be called,
he would take it for granted that the principle of the
rill was very good ; and taking the principle to be ;right,
he was quite sure the Noble Lord would agree with him that
the principle should lie justly applied. It was of extreme
importance, before going into the Committee, that care
should be taken not to make the disfranchisementsfall upon
places of larger population than the places intended to have
franchises conferred upon them. Returns of population
of different boroughs bad been made ; one of those returns
was of boroughs going to be disfranchised, as well as those
going to have the franchise conferred upon them. The
return professed to be a return of the population
of each city and borough; but he apprehended that
it was not so. It was a return in some cases of the
population in the parish in which the borough was
situated—in other cases, a return, not of the population
of the parish, but of the borough. Now it was clear
the House ought to take the population either of the pa-
rishes or of the boroughs, and apply that rule indis-
criminately to both. This could not fail to be
an acceptable propositon to both the friends and oppo-
nents of the measure. He was quite sure that this not
having been attended to was unintentional, but still that
could by no means diminish the injustice of the thing.
He took the case of the borough which he represented, in
order to show the injustice of the proposed measure of dis-
franchisement. The parish in which Tamworth was si-
tuated contained, according to the returns of 1821, no less
than ';,500 inhabitants, whilst the number of inhabitants in
that part of the parish comprehended by the borough,
did not exceed 3,500, so that if the population of
that part of the parish which comprehended the borough
and not the population of the parish in which the borough
was situated, were taken as the standard, Tamworth would
be deprived of the right of sending one Member to Parlia-
ment. He would now take the case of Caine, in which
it appeared by the population returns that the number
,if inhabitants was 5,600. But then it must be considered
that the limits of that borough were identical with
the limits of the parish in which it was situated,
although the number of inhabitants actually residing in
the borough did not exceed 3,500. Now if in this
instance, the standard taken were the number of inhabitants
residing within the borough, as in:the case of Tamworth, it
would be evident that Caine, instead of returning two Meir
hers, would only be entitled to return one. This being the
case, he could see no just ground for depriving Tam-
worth of one of its Alembers, whilst Caine retained two.
He did not intend to move fur any additional returns, but
as it was of importance that the principle of the Bill
should be impartially applied, he wished the Noble•
Lord to procure returns showing the population of each
borough, and of the parish in which the borough was
situated. In the parish of Bridgewater for instance, the
parish was of equal extent to the borough, but only one-
third of the persons residing in the perish were entitled to
vote for Bridgewater. If the population of the parish in this
instance were taken as the standard, it would appear that
the population of the parish was 4,000, and, therefore,
that Bridgewater would he entitled to send two Members
If in all cases the principle would apply according to the
population of the parish, as he thought it ought to do, he
should be able to make out a strong case for the borough lie
hail the honour to represent, to send two Members to Par-
liament.
Lord ALTHORP said he had stated to the Hon. Member
for Beroughbridge last night, that it was the determination of
Ministers to abide by the rule of disfranchising those bo-
roughs whose population fell short of the number limited in
the Bill ; but if a mistake had been made in the population of
returns, which might work an injustice, it was not the in-
tention of his Majesty's Ministers to abide by these returns.
Their object was to procure all the information they
could, to attend to any suggestions which might be well
founded, and if these returns were inaccurate to remedy
the defect.
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS complained of similar
defects in the population returns of the borough
of Radnor, arid other boroughs in Wales, and he
asked the Noble Lord, would there be any objection to lay
before the House the answers given by the officers
of those boroughs to the questions contained in circulars
from the Home-office.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL disclaimed all intention of
doing any injustice, and expressed his willing-
ness to lay those returns before the House.
If it should turn out that the application of the rule
to the parishes, rather than to that of the bo-
roughs in which those parishes were interested, was more
favourable to an extension of the franchise, he thought it
ought to be applied, and taking the statement of the
Right Hon. Baronet to be accurate, Tamworth would still
be entitled to send two Members.

Lord STORMONT (we believe) adverted to the return
for Scotland, as being probably equally incorrect with those
for England. In consequence of that, the Anstruther dis-
trict of burghs, which contained more than 6,000 people,
was to be disfranchised. If they adopted either the popu-
lation of these burghs, or the number of houses rated at
101., it would be found that they were more numerous
than one borough of England, which still returned two
Members, and more numerous than eight boroughs of
England, that returned one Member each.
Lord ENCOMB adverted to the borough of Truro,
and said, that if the parishes only of St. Mary and some
others were included, the population would be only 2,712 ;
but if the parish of St. Clement was included, the whole
population would be three times as many as were returned
as the population of the borough. According to the re-
turns of 1821, the population was then 7,000, and be
believed it had since increased very much.—(Hear.) He
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman's wishes would be com-
plied with as to the returns.
Mr. G. MOORE observed that there were no returns
before the House, as to the cess and rate payers of Ireland.
From what he knew, however, of Dublin, he was sure,
that, admitting all those to vote who occupied a house at
101. a year rent, would make the suffrage there nearly
universal. He hoped that the Government would take
steps to place an accurate return on the table.
Mr. STANLEY said that there was a paper already
laid on the table of the House relative to Dublin, though
he believed it had not yet been printed. That was an ab.
stract of the return made by the Commissioners for making
the new valuations ; and if be recollected rightly, the
whole number of houses in Dublin was twenty-two thou-
sand ; and that seventeen thousand of these were rented at
te❑ pounds and upwards.
Mr. O'CONNELL confirmed (as we understood) this
statement, and suggested that it would save a great deal
of trouble to the proposed Committee, or the Privy Coun-
cil, if they took the limits of the parishes ss the limits of
the boroughs.
Mr. STANLEY did not approve of the suggestion.
Sir CHARLES FORBES said, so many objections
were already made to the details of these Reform Bills,
that the shorter way would be to withdraw them at once.
The oppo.ition was already so formidable, that if ever the
Bill went into the Committee—which it never should, if
he could help it—it would be there plucked feather from
feather, and at length kicked out, bare and worthless.
An How. Mxstaxa expressed a hope that correct re-
turns for Scotland would also be laid before the House ;
at present it was not possible to know what would be the
effect of the Bill.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS recommended that all further
proceedings relative to the Reform Bills should be post-
poned till after the returns were made under the new
Census Act. If that were done, the anomalies of the
census of 1821 might be got rid of.
Lord .JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to the Hon Member

f lr Oxford, stated, that the returns under the new Census
Act were only now beginning to be taken, and would not
'ie complete before August, and he did not mean to post-
pone the Bill to such a period. The effect, too, of such a
delay, deserved consideratiat. Something had already
been said about Malton and its 4,005 inhabitants in 1821,
And he wished the House to remember what a temptation
it would afford to make false returns, when, by the addi-
tion of five persona, a borough might-be secured from dis-
franchisement. With respect to the observations of the
Hon. Member for Malmesbury, he admitted that there
were some doubts as to the population of certain bo-
roughs ; and Malmesbury was one, and Buckingham was
another • and there were about six in all. Having ad-
mitted that, he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he
had too much respect for the House of Commons, which
had permitted the second reading of the Bill not to make
his stand upon that ground, and endeavour to curry the
13i11 to a successful and triumphant conclusion.—(Hear.)
Sir W. RAE complained that Scotland was worse off
than England. For there were two sets of returns, which
were not only defective, they were inconsistent and COQ-
tradictory.
Sir G. CLERK wished to know whether the Learned
Lord had yet any accurate return of the 101. householders
in Scotland ? if the principle of allowing them to vote
were curried into effect, the representation of all the coun-
ties in Scotland would pass out of the hands of the landed
interest.

The LORD ADVOCATE explained that there were
already returns on the t.thle, which stated the number of
houses paying 101. a year both in cities and the boroughs,
and distinguished those in the boroughs front those of other
places.
An HON. MEMBER complained that these returns were
by no me ins in the best shape ; and he must repeat the
statement, that the present plan of representation would
throw the representation into the hands of the manufac-
turing towns.
The LORD ADVOCATE, in consequence of the time
which the Reform Bill for England was likely to occupy
in Committee, should be obliged to postpone the second
reading of the Reform Bill for Scotland until the 22d of
April.
Sir ALEX. HOPE could not allow the question to
be disposed of without asking whether it was the inten-
tion of the framers of the Bill that the Scotch Clergy
should remain in the same condition they had been, or
whether it was proposed that they should mingle the
poison of politics with the discharge of their sacred duties,
and, abandoning that course which had hitherto proved so
eminently conducive to the moral health of the commu-
nity, become again political partisans.
Colonel LINDSAY believed that the people of Scot-
land generally were averse to the details of the Bill, al.
though some Hon. Members had been at such pains to re-
present them as unanimous on that subject.
Mr. HUME denied that the people of Scotland were
adverse to the Bill. From the one end of it to the other
they had expressed themselves in favour of it ; and after
the miserable minority—( Hear, and a laugh)—after the
miserable minority, he repeated, on the question of Re-
form, he believed they could feel little anxiety on the
subject. There were, to be sure, a few gentlemen who
got returned for Scotch counties. and fancied that they re-
presented the opinions of all Scotland, who might, from
feeling that it would affect their interests, oppose the Bill;
but the great mass of the people were in its favour, as the
petition from Renfrew, signed in a short time by five
thousand persons, sufficiently showed.
A MEMBER for a Scotch county denied that the great
mass of the respectable portion of the people of Scotland
were in favour of this plan of Reform. On the contrary,
it was chiefly supported by those who expected to gain
from it. A good deal of the agitation about Reform pro-
ceeded, indeed, from the exertions of the Hon. Member
fur Middlesex, to whom he heard that many of the persons
who petitioned in favour of Reform applied for instruc-
tions. And lie was told that the lion. Member, in con-
veying those instructions, expressly enjoined all applicants
to make no objections to the plan of Reform, but would
take it as it was, so that there might be no doubt of its
success.—(Hear, hear. )—He had heard, indeed, that the
lion. Member for Middlesex actually made a tour through
the South of Scotland to forward the cause of Reform, and
in order to make his progress the more affective, threw
petitions for Reform from the windows of the mail-coach.
Mr. HUME said the Hon. Member charged him with
being the agitator of Scotland.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—
He denied that he had done or said anything to induce any
part of the people of Scotland to petition in favour of Re-
form until he received letters, begging him to point out the
course fittest to be pursued. He believed that the oppo-
nents of Reform were mortified at the extent of agree-
ment which prevailed among all parties on the subject of
the Bill. They were pained to find the Member for
Waterford, the Member for Preston, the Members for
Westminster, and men of all parties and degrees uniting in
favour of the Bill, and that seemed to him to be their
greatest grievance. He supported the Bill because it
was good for the present.—( Hear, and a laugh.) Yes,
for the present, because if he found it did not produce all
the good he expected, he was certainly not precluded from
coming again to ask for more.—(Hear, hear, from the
Opposition.)
Mr. FERGUSSON bore testimony to the popularity of
the Reform question in Scotland ; but he thought that the
details of the Bill with respect to the increased power given
to the manufacturing class, and the inhabitants of towns,
in stifling and overcoming the votes of the agricultural
portion of the community in the counties, required very
serious consideration.

Sir G. 'MURRAY, without denying that a great por-
tion of the people of Scotland were in favour of Reform,
believed the county he had the honour to represent felt very
little interest in the question. After repeating the state-
ments of the Hun. Member for Kircudbright (Mr. Fer-
gusson), on the defects of the details of the Bill, the Right
lion. Gentleman enforced the question of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Linlithgowshire, (Sir A. Hope,) with respect to
the Scotch clergy, and contended, that the result of the
change in Scotland would be to compel the landlords to
divide their lands into small farms that they might con-
tinue to exercise an influence over their votes. This, to
lie sure, the Member for Middlesex would say, called for
the ballot—and the ballot lac was ready to apply to it—
but lie apprehended that the promoters of the Bill were
not disposed to go so far, and that they would consider
well before they produced that state of circumstances
which would place the people of Scotland in such a situation.
The LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to the questions
of the llon. Members said, it was the intention of the
framers of the Bill to leave the Scotch Clergy in the same
condition as they found them. At the present monsent a
Clergyman if he possessed the necessary qualification, could
vote for a Member for a county like any other person, and
under the Bill he would retain the same power if he had
the qualification prescribed by the Bill. The framers of
it were not, however, wedded to this part of its provisions
and it was in the power of any Member in the Committee
to exclude Clergymen from voting if they thought fit.
After a few words from Sir GEORGE MunnAx, Sir A.
AosiEw, Mr. Ltsossr, and others,
Sir M. S. STEWART said that although the second
reading of the Scotch Reform Bill was now postponed to
a future day, and he must, therefore, defer entering fully
upon this must important measure, although he had already
repeatedly and in vain endeavoured to catch the Speaker's
eye, yet as allusion had been made to the county of Ren-
frew, and doubts expressed by some lion. Members as to
the prevailing opinion in Scotland in respect to this great
measure, he was sure the House, impatient as it was
to proceed to the other pressing business before it, would
permit him to discharge his bounden public duty to the
county of Renfrew, in assuring them that there was not
only in the county of Renfrew, but throughout the West
of Scotland, a strong, decided, and grateful feeling in fa-
vour of the Reform Bill.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, the
county petition from Renfrewshire, presented by his lion.
Friend the Member for 'Middlesex, and which he under-
stood had been attended by some of the largest and most
respectable proprietors in the county, he had himself
presented petitions in favour of the Reform Bill from the
magistracy and large commercial and manufacturing towns
of Greenock and Paisley, consisting of more than '75,000
souls. The great county of Lanark, which be had the ho-
nour of representing in the last Parliament, had assembled
and petitioned in favour of the Reform Bill. The liberal
Aligistracy, and vast, and enlightened, and opulent corn.
munity of the city of Glasgow, had sent up numerous pe-
t tions, all in support of the great principles of the Reform
Bill.—(Hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, that as far
as the West of Scotland was concerned, (and be believed
the same feeling was almost universal throughout Scot-
land), there could be no doubt that the great current of
public feeling among high and low, rich and poor, was
strong, grateful, and exulting, in favour of the measure;
and although he thought some of the details of the Bill
would require alteration in the Committee, yet he could
not but feel satisfied that the great principle of the mea-
sure would in its application be just, politic, and beneficial
to his country.—( Hear, hear.)
Captain WEMYSS said, that the vote he gave the other
evening in favour of the Bill, might lead some persons to
suppose lie gave it his unqualified support, and he there-
fore felt bound to say, that he approved of the doing away
with the out-voters, and the dependent boroughs, he could
not approve of all the details.—(Hear.) No man could
say that the representation of Scotland was fit for the
growing intelligence of the people--(Hear)—and if they

extended the fiepresentation according to the possession of
real property, he could not object to it ; but he certainly
did feel that the plan of giving the manufacturing and the
agricultural classes a power of voting in the way pre-
scribed by the Bill, would lead to a continual political war-
fare.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Aliddlesex said,
there was a universal feeling throughout Scotland in favour
of the Bill. He (Captain Wemyss) knew there was a
feeling in favour of Reform—(Hear)—but it was a silent
feeling as yet ; for the petitions he had hitherto received
came from those who were under the influence of others,
and which did not embrace the intelligence and respecta-
bility of all the counties. On his own estate a petition was
got up by a master manufacturer in favour of Reform, and
he actually forced all his men to go into his office and sign
that petition.—(Hear.) This was the way petitions were
got up ; but he did not deny that the people were favour-
able to, and desired Reform—(Hear)—although the re-
spectable part of the county of Fife, which he repre.ented,
were much alarmed by some of the projected details of the
Bill now before the House.
On the motion being again put that the Speaker do
leave the chair,
Mr. BURGE rose to ask the Hon. Member for Wey-
mouth (Mr. Buxton) to postpone his motion on the sub-
ject of slavery until the papers moved for by the Noble
Lord (Chamlos) were before the House. These papers
were of importance for a proper consideration of the sub-
ject, and he hoped that the Government would now state
what view they take of the subject.
Mr. HERRIES also asked what course Government
intended to pursue with reference to the Coal Duties and
Canada Trade Bills ?

Lord ALTIIORY answered across the table, and in a
low tone of ♦oice, so that he was totally inaudible in the
Gallery.
In reply to a further observation from Mr. lIERRIES,

Lord ALTHORP remarked that he was not aware that
anybody objected to the taking off the tax on sea-borne
coals.--(Hear.)
Mr. F. BUXTON, in answer to the question put to
him by the Hon. Member for Eye, said that he would
certainly bring on the question of Negro Slavery on Tues-
day next. He should have been happy to have consulted
the wishes of the lion. Member, and to have postponed
the subject, could he feel sure that in that ease he might
not be prevented from submitting it to the consideration
of the House before the termination of the present P,ir-
!lament. .

Lord HOWICK stated that it certainly would be more
convenient to him if the lion. Member for Weymouth
would postpone his motion. With respect to the papers
to which the Hon. Member for Eye had alluded, it was
difficult to select them from the voluminous mass of docu-
ments which existed on the subject ; but he could assure
the Hon. Gentleman that no avoidable delay should take
place in their production.
Mr. PURGE and Mr. 11. Twins presled for the produc-
tion of the papers in question, as absolutely necessary,
before the question could be entered into.
After a few words in explanation from Lord Flowlcx,
the House resoll ed itself into the Committee of Supply.