The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-07 00:00:00

- • -
SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURY.A.ISI- sECONDII_IOI,
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock

Ever since the true cortliosition of the House
of Lords, and of its parties, became more clearl
developed by the discussions between Lord
Grey, Lord Harrowby, &c., and thence the pro-
bability ascertained that the Bill would be suf-
fered to pass its second reading, all minds turned
naturally the committal of the Bill, as to the
balance-sheet, whence alone could be collected
the amount of net profit derivable from the
measure as finally prepared for use. All that
has hitherto obtained admittance into the Lords
is raw material of reform,----it is an indefinite
promise. It has no preri-,:ion of size, or shape,
or substance, and therefore no value can yet be
affixed to The day of trial, however, has
now arrived. The House will go into committee
at once, or the committee will be trammelled, as
ce:tain Tories threaten, by instructions of a na-
ture to suffocate, ere they see the lights All those
provisions in favour of liberty and good govern-
ment which the nation, from north to south,
a id from east to west, agree in considering to be
the vital principles of the Reform Bill., And

what are those parts, for a Tory pamphlet, re-
. Dukes us when we call them principles ? 1. The
s disfranchisement, or rutting out of fifty-ix ulcers
at present eating into the frame of the Consti-
tution, in the Conn of so many rotten boroughs,
and the application of a partial cautery tc shout
thirty others. Now can any man who has opened
his eyes for the last twelvemonth say that the
people of England will be tranquil under a reduc-
tion in the number of these sores, which the
House of Commons itself has declared the ne-
cessity of extirpating ? We put a tame ques-
tion, when we ask will the people be tranquil
under such usage ? . The unrepresented
wealth and moral energy of the metropolis) as
well as of many other great empof-ia of both
throughout Great Britain, are by the gill to possess
organs of their sentiments in every future House
of Commons. Does Lord Salisbury, or the
Duke of 'Wellington, flatter himself that the
people will entfare to be deprived of. such a
guarantee for the interests of commerce, public
credit, kr,Owledge, and civilization, as is con-

tained the elLses by which the town inhabit

. ant", of the kingdom are provided with repre.
-sentatives under schedules C and D ? But
Lord Salisbury, we understand, abandons the
motion of which he had given notice. 3.
Again, the measure proposes that not merely by
a substitution of free and great communities for
dependent villages or paltry hamlets, shall Eng-
- lisp representation, heretofore a fraud, assume a
real and. active existence, but moreover by an ex-
tension of the elective attributes and character to
- large descriptions of respectable citizens, to whom
they have hitherto been, through an insufferable.
spirit of cupidity and monopoly, denied. On.,
this point it is, beyond all doubt, that the fiercest'
show nf oligarch intolerance will be witnessed.
WE can imagine circumstances under which the
Anti-Reforming grandees would have small ob-
jection
to see, not the . capital aldn'e; • but
fifty - Manchester's, did England contain so
• many, send Members to form .an House _of
Commons. The ruling spirit was made suf-
ficiently apparent, when a Noble Lord talked
about his perfect willingness that " Bath" and " Sa-
lisbury," should continue to choose representa-
tives; and on this he plumed himself as a de.-
monstration of his attachment to popular rights!
But what is the fact ? Why, that places like
Bath, &c., being governed by close corporations,
which corporations are marketable individually or
wholesale, and have everywhere been bought
r and sold like-other chattels of particular families,
the larger the city which has been so enslaved
the more adapted. is it >to the- ends of oligarch
*
rapacity, by helping to substitute names for
"things, and to hide under the eclat of a populous
town the intrinsic properties and uses of a no-
mination borough. Then it
.is obvious that if
'Manchester, for instance, or Birmingham, bi
, the proposed districts in and near the metropolis;
could have constituencies assigned to them of a
similar description to those which have delivered
over Bath to one patron, Salisbury to another, and '
Cambridge to a third, the oligarchs would see
nothing to be alarmed at in the•nominal extension
of the franchise to such places, because the po-
pular feeling and spirit of the community would
have no more effect upon the choice of represen-
taives for them, than would the opinions of
the people of Peru. It is not, therefore,
half so obstinately to the place for which the
right of representation shall be established
that the oligarch Lords are likely to object, as
to the constituency by which the right shall be
•: excised. Hence it is; that we anticipate a more
deadly resistance to the 101. clause than to any
other provision of the Reform Bill. Whether
the Anti-Reforming Lords judge wisely, for
their own objects, in their opposition to such a
class of electors, is quite a different question ;
but sure we are that such is their determination,

and once more we acquit our consciences by be-
seeching them to consider well what they are
about. If there be one portion or characteristic
of the whole measure to which the industry and

intelligence of the whole of England are more
pledged, more devoted—with which they have

more indentified the public fate and fortunes
than any other, it is the 101. clause. Of the
national wisdom, again, in the manifestation of
such a preference, we say nothing : we take the
country as it is, and look to consequences only.
Will the nation hear to be duped or dragooned
out of this idolized feature of the Bill ? Do

Noble Lords hear any thing of what is passing
around them ? Do they know that such
places as Edinburgh, and Glasgow, and
Leeds, and Alanchester, and Birmingham, (the
population of which meets this day), exist within
the island ? And with proofs before them of
what the nation has resolved upon, will they set
great Britain at defiance ? Will they fling down
the gauntlet to the House of Commons, already
pledged heart and soul to this noble measure ?
Whom will the Anti-Reforming Lords impose
upon the Crown and kingdom for Minister on
Lord Grey's resignation ? What will be the
reply written for his Majesty by that Minister, to
an address by the Commons of disapprobation,
and a call for his dismissal ? Will he dare to
advise an appeal to the people as a means of
diminishing the majority in favour of Reform ?
With a House of Commons which cannot, if it

have a spark of honour, vote more than one
month's supplies, Lind a people who will one and
all support the House in that strong but righteous
and necessary measure, let an Anti-Reformer
think well what it is that he attempts in accept-
ins office, after Lord Grey has, in despair,
abandoned it, and what it is that he risks in ar-
raying his Sovereign's name and authority
against three united nations. If the battle be
forced upon us by these men's madness, why,
then we cry, " Old England for ever !—God
speed the People, the Constitution, and the
light rm.-Times.

IMPERIAL PA [IMAM EY

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF 'COMMONS.
The SPEAK ER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
On the motion of Lord Moo PETII, the Hartlepool Dock
Bill was read a third time and pissed.
Mr. £WART presented a petition from the Magistrates
and inhabitants of Liverpool spinet the punishment of
death for other offences than those of murder,
Mr. LITTLETON presented a number of petitions
from Diseenters against Negro Blrtvery. The Hon Gen-
tleman also presented petitions from places in Staffordshire,
praying for a repeal of so much of the Beer Act as allowed
persons to trade in that beverage by a license from others
than magistrates; and, further, that ho house should be
allowed to be opened in that trade of a lees value than
10/. per annum. The non. Gentleman could not support
the whole It-er of the petitioners; but he was of opinion
that If, would be beneficial that those houses should in some
way be under the control of the magistrates.
Mr. HOME was sorry to hear that his Hon. Friend
would in the least give in to the cry raised against these
new beer-shops, He thought that it would be just that
that they were put on a level with the licensed victuallers
in regard to hours—he did not see why these restrictions
should be laid upon the poor man who was in want of his
glass of beer, and that the man who could afford to drink
wide Was not tobe meedled with.
After a few words from Mr. SANDFORD and Mr.
TREVOR,
Mr. FYSIIr, PALMER said that Hon. Gentle-
men v^.:re expecting too much when they thought that the
system, which had only been in operation for two years,
should be perfect : only give it time, and it would come
round of itself.
The petitions were then read and ordered to be printed.
The Hon. Gentleman then presented a petition from
Sir C. Wolseley and others, in the county of Stafford, pray-
ing for the abolition of the Bank of England and private
hanks, and for the establishment of one conducted by the
Government.

Mr. SANDIFORD presented a petition from the menu-
Facturers of Dorset and Somerset against the Factory Bill.
The petitioners stated that the Bill would interfere with
their manufactories, and that they had not been in the
habit of overworking the children they employed.
The Hon. Memos then presented a petition against
the Registry Bill, and one from the town of Trent inCum-
berland against the new system of education in Ireland.
Colonel LINDSAY
,presented. a petition from Fife,
signed by seventy-three clergymen of the Church of Scot-
land against the new system of education in Ireland.
It was very seldom, said the Honourable Member,
that the Clergy of Scotland interfered with secular
matters, and therefore the 'House ought to pay more
attention to their representations, especially upon the sub-
ject of education, with whith they were well acquainted.
The Board which had been constituted could not last, from
the opposing materials of which it was constituted. It
had, been proved by past experience that it wtnild.not paci-
fy Ireland ; for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act,
and the Repeal of the Catholic Disabilities had only led
to further demands, and the result now was, that the
Government were driven to the extinction of tithes.
Mr. DUNDAS supported the petition, which came
from a most learned body, some of whom were profes-
sors in one of the Universities, and he believed it spoke
the opinion of the great majority of the people of Scotland.
Mr. HUME thought the petition might have been
presented without the remarks which had fallen from the
Hem. Member who spetke last; but these remarks having
been made, he felt called upon to deny that the Petition
spoke the feeling of the people of Scotland ; for the only
public meeting which had been held upon the subject-,
had come to resolutions favourable to the system by
a majority of five to one : he meant the late
meeting which had been held in filesow. He could state
upon good authority, that it was both a large and respect •
able meeting, and many who attended it were as learned as
any one who signed the petition.
Mr. GORDON was of opinion that the petition should
be supported by every Scotch Member in the. House. It
seemed that toleration had been granted, but now some-
thing more was required.
Mr.O'CONNELL said, they did not want toleration now,
for the. Catholic was on a footing of equality with the
Protestant:. Religion had been prostituted in Ireland
by a few canting bypocritee, for the 'purpose of leeeting
up the spirit of disrension 'between the Protestant an
Catholic; but, thank God ! that spirit had decreased, wise
dtcreasing, and would so continue, until the number of
those whose interest it was•to perpetuate it, would be so
small, that they would not be worth thecountini! As to
the petition before the House, be thought the meeting in
Glasgow had given a direct contradiction to the greater part of
it. There was one fact to which he had before advertedrand
FAA- not one of the high Protestant party had ever
thought fit to cornbat, and that was, the dismissal of two
officers of the army. at Malta, because they could not cone
acientiously adopt a' religion which they disliked.
Sir R. INGLIS said he bad once brought that very
subject forward, and be was supported in it by the Hon.;
and Learned Member—a circumstance that that Hon. and
Learneditlember had forgotten. The language of that
Hon. Member was scircefy parliamentary, and such as he
would not have addressed to any body of gentlemen out
of the House, in speaking of canting hypocrisy.
Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that he alluded to the
canting hypocrisy out of the House.
Sir R. INGLIS would leave the Hon. Member to
settle that with the parties to whom he bad'
alluded, as he best could ; but it could not
be supposed that those Members who advocated petitions
like the present could be made answerable for all that par
ties said out of the House.

(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lord SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack
at five o'clock.

Mr. Preston attended from the East India House, and
delivered in copies of regulations:affecting Fort St. George.
Lord AUCKLAND presented a petition froth the mer-
chants and guild of Leith in favour of Reform.

The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from :the
county of Rose, praying that the Distillery Laws might not
be altered.

The Duke of GORDON presented a petition from a
place we could not hear the name of, against the Govern-
ment system of education in Ireland.
Lord DUNDAS presented two petitions, one from York,
and the other from Richmond, in that county, respecting
the proposed measure of Reform ; but in so law a tone of
voice, and which were repeated by the Clerk of the House
so indistinctly, that we could not learn their nature.

Lord FINGAL presented a petitio❑ from Meath,
against the Tithe System.
The Duke of RUTLAND presented a petition from
Cheveley, Cambridgeshire, against the Government system
~f Irish eiiucation.
Lord KINNOUL presented a petition from Stirling,
and also one from Pertb, to the same effect.
The Marquess of SALISBURY presented✓ petitions
from the ship, smack, barge, and other craft-owners, of
Rotberbithe, Blackwall, and Greenwich, against the
Gravesend Pier Bill.

Lord STRANGFORD presented petitions from North.
fleet, Purfleet, Erith, Rochester, Chatham, and _other
places, to the same effect.

Lord CARNARVON presented a petition from Mine—
head, Somersetshire, praying that that town might not be
d i 'franc), iced.

The Duke of RICHAIOND presented three petitions
from Ayr, in favour of the Reform Bill.

Lord ROSSLYN presented A petition from Grimhby,
against that town being disfranchised. The same Noble
Lord presented a petition from the wives and daughters of
the freemen and tradesmen of the same place, praying
that their rights might be preserved under the present
Reform Bill.

Lord RADNOR presented petitions from Kilbournie,
Ayrshire ; Rochdale, Morpeth, and Ptrth, praying their
Lordships to pass the present Reform Bill unmutilated.
The Earl of RODEN presented several poitions from
Ireland, and one from Roehfort, Essex, against the Irish
system of Education.

Lord HAREWOOD presented a petition from Ding.
wall, praying their Lordships to take into consideration
the state of the West India colonies ; also a petition from
another place, to the same effect.
Earl GREY, who, we are glad to perceive, looked in
the enjoyment of excellent health, presented petitions from
I I different places, many of them in Scotland, in favour of
the present Reform Bill.
Lord DURHAM presented a pitit;im from the Asso-
ciates and friends of the Northern Political Union,
declaring their satisfaction at the second reading
of the Reform Bill, and therefore praying their
Lordships to pass it unrnutilated. The same 'Noble Lord
presented petitions from the Corporations of Perth and the
Royal Burgh of Dysart, to the same effect.
The Duke of SUSSEX held in his hand a petition__
Lord ELDON, interrupting the Royal Duke, wtshtd

the House to understand that one of the petitions which
had been presented by the Noble Lord who bad last occu.
pied their attention was irregular—that it could only be
received as the petition of the individual who had signed
it, and not as the petition of the corporation of Perth.
Lord HOLLAND said, of course the petition could only
be received as that of the individual who had signed
it, and if there had been any thing singular in
the presentation of that petition, he could tell
the Noble Lord of something that was much more
irregular, namely, that of a Noble Lord, after another Noble
Member of that House had made a motion, and obtained
leave to lay his petition on the table, had laid his petition
on the table, and another Noble Lord had risen to address
the House, that of a Noble Lord rising to interrupt the
Noble Member then speaking.—(Loud cheers from the
Ministerial, and cries of " No, no," from the Opposi-
tion; sides of the House.)
Lord ELDON explained.
Lord DURHAM said that the petition had been
sent to him by Mr. Bruce as the petition of the
corporation. It certainly had not the corporation
seal attached to it ; but if the Noble and Learned
Lord would examine the petitions which had come from
d fferent corporations in the North, be would find that
the majority of them had no seal attached to them.
THE CITY OF LONDON PETITION.
The Duke of SUSSEX. lam not sorry this conver-
sation has taken place, as I am about to present a petition
of a somewhat similar character : it was delivered to me by
the Lord Mayor, and a deputation of the Common Council,
as the petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
the Common Council of the city of London ; hut
is only signed by Henry Wnodthorp, clerk to the
Corporation. I believe, however, I am correct
in presenting it as the petition of the Corpora-
tion' of London. It humbly prays that the Bill
of Reform now before your Lordships may he speedily
passed into a law. I conceive it to be my duty
to accompany the presentation of this petition with
some remarks upon the subject to which it re-
lates. On the second reading of the Reform Bill I
remained silent, conceiving there were many Noble
Lords who would more strongly ailvocee it
than it was in my power to do. In the
course of the debate which then took place, some
doctrines were promulgated by several Noble Peers
agaist which I wish to take this opportunity
of entering my protest.—(Hear, hear, hear.) One
of the topics which it was endeavoured to press
upon your Lordships' attention was, that the passing
of this Bill would militate against the coronation
oath. I have now been many years in this House,
and bare often heard with regret the same argument
applied to the passing of another question, now happily
settled, although a Peer then at the head of his Ma-
jesty'e Councils,—(Hear, hear,)—and since dead,
admitted that the coronation oath had nothing to
do with- the matter. I do not wish to be under-
stood as making any personal remarks, but on
the contrary, to use the most general and cautious terms ;
but still I must say that I do not think that argument can
be urged with any delicacy on questions of this kind.
As I have, all my life, been the advocate of Re-
form, it cannot be matter of any surprise to
any Noble Peer who hears rue, for me to declare that
ordially subscribe to the proposed plan of his Majesty's
Ministers. lam satisfied, my Lords, that in doing
so, I take that course which is best calculated
bp promote the tranquillity and welfare of the country.
I do not go the length of granting the principl of Re-
form solely on the ground of expediency, but it cannot
he denied that this is a meaeore which will be
of great advantage to the country at large.
Objections have been made to the Bill before
us on the score of its being too extensive in its
nature, and, perhaps, had it been brought forward
at an earlier period it would have been e.o, but it is the
continual procrastination which this question has suffered
that now renders it neetseary for us to grant more
than heretofote might have been sufficient.—(Hear.)
The step, tee know take is to be attributed to the delay
of carrying improvements, the affect after it was
admitted to be required more than to any other cause
whotever. In looking at the Constitution, and the prin-
ciples upon which it rests, it does strike me that

. -
the objections which have been made by certain
Peers to this measure are founded in tome degree in error.
I conceive my Lords, that the Crown has the
power of creating Peers, but I do not conceive
that the Crown has the power of nominating any
individual to represent his Majesty in The Cotnatmons.
If the Crown, the first brancti of' the Legislature,
have not this pot, , I cannot conceive that the second
part of the Lok4islatule, or any individual portion of it
can have any title to it...-.(Hear, hear.) I con-
sider that the vety principles of the Constitution
nay that specific Acts of Parliament distinctly
prove, that it never was intended that a No-
ble Peer, or any individual whatever, should
have the power of nominating a Member of any
branch of the legislature. If such were the case, why
have acts been passed requiring Members of the House of
Commons taking office under the Crown, to return to their
constituents to see whether they approve of the line of
politics be then becomes likely to adopt? Surely it was never
intended that a Member of the House of Commons taking
office under the Crown should vacate his seat in order to
ascertain whether a Peer or any other individual ap-
proved of what he had done, and would return
him again. Ido not think that dangers, which some
think likely to arise from the increase of the democratic
influene in elections, will be found to exist. In countries
where no political power has been exeleised by the people,
no doubt great dangers might arise from suddenly invest-
ing them with the influence which this Bill will
give to the people of England. But in this
country such a power as is here bestowe 1, has been already,
to a certain degree, in the hands of the people. Our object
is to extend that power, and as the people are deeply in-
terested in the measures which their representatives
propose, I cannot imagine that the power which it is
proposed to' vest in their hands will be misused as some
apprehend. I shall therefore feel it my duty to support the
Reform Bill, as it now stands. I consider schedules A
anti 11 as of vital importance, and as far as nay
own individual exertions go, shall give them my
complete support. I think it likewise but fair to
state to your Lordships, that the ten pounds
clause is one which I do not think myself
justified in giving up. When we settled the hist' consti-
tuency we fixed upon a 101. fret holder as the lowest
quiiiification for a country voter, and I do not think it more
than fair that we should take an English 101. house-
holder to vote for the Members of our towns. With re-
spect to the great question of the metropolitan Members, I

for one shall give it entire support, and I shall do so upon
the principle, that if population and property jointly
give a right to have representation, London has that
right in a most pre-eminent degree. I do not, :how-
ever, pretend to speak to a figure, but if
your Lordships will look to the returns of

the assessed taes, I think you will find that London and
its suburbs pay one third of the assessed taxes in England
and \Vales. Witt► respect to knowledge and intelligence,
I tbink there can be no doubt that the inhabitants
of the metropolis are as much entitled to increased
representation as on account of their great wealth and popu-
lation. I have spoken calmly, and without making personal
observations, because I wished to imitate the example set
by my Noble Friend at the head of Government who hos

tikin every conciliatory step it was in his power to do,
I beg to move that the petetitfon be laid upon the table.
The Marqutts of SALISBURY rose to inquire by whom
the petition was s gned ?

The Oak replied that it was signed by Henry
Woodthorpe.

The Marquess of SALISBURY submitted that it could
only he received as the petition of that individual.. _. Cries
of "No, no.")

Earl GREY said it it was solely a question of usage.
He had always understood that petitions from the Com-
mon Council had been signed in a similar manner
to the present, and he therefore hoped that their Lord-
ships would not upon this occasion depart from the usual
practice.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed, that petitions
which came from corporate bodies bad usually the seal of
the corporation affixed to them, which was not the case
in this instance.

The Duke of SUSSEX said the petition purported to
come from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common
Council.

Lord TENTERDEN said that if the corporate seal was
not attached, it could not be the petition of the corporation.
The Earl of ELDON concurred in the view taken by
the Noble and Learned Lord.

The subject then dropped, and the petition was under-
stood to be received as from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
and common Council.
EDINBURGH REFORM PETITION.
The LORD CHANCE. LLOR—My Lords, I hold
in my hand a petition from the inhabit-
ants of Edinburgh and its vicinity, agreed to
at a public meeting assembled for that purpo,e. I am
bound to state, my Lords, that in order to suit the
convenience of so large a meeting the petition is
signed as it was directed to be signed, by the Chairman,
tl,e Secretary, and 12 gentlemen, who were chosen from
among the rest, and, therefore, it can only, I suppose, be
received as the petition of those persons; but I will ven-

tore to say, that no petition ever more deserved the
title affixed to it as the petition of the inhabitants
of Edinburgh and its vicinity than this does. The meet-
ing was attended by a vast concourse of the inhabitants of
that populous district, and I belive I shall underrate the
number who attended if I state them at less than 40,000,
and indeed I am informed that the number was consider-
ably greater. Men more zealous for the question which called
them together your Lordships would be unable to find; men
more temperate and more peaceful in their demeanour, both
at and subsequent to the meeting, it would be impossible
to discover. There was not the slightest indication
of tumult, or even of any thing like the smallest
approach to a breach of decorum, to be observed during
the whole of the day on which the meeting took place.
I will now, my Lords, state the representation and the
prayer of the petition in which the inhabitants of the metro-
polis of Scotland are joined by almost the whole body of
their fellow-countrymen.—(Hear, hear.) They state
that they received with great satisfaction the confirmation
of the second reading of the Reform Bill by your Lord-
ships. They state their unaltered desire for the speedy
enactment of the measure into a law, and they
state that that is the only effectual mode of establishing
the Constitution on a firm and lasting basis. They
therefore pray that your Lordships will be pleased
to press the measure without any alteration, and p aticti •
larly without raising the qualification for voting.—(llear.)
The Earl of ELDON said there could be no possible
objection to receiving the petition as that of the persons
whose signatures it bore, but he thought that the best time
to speak of the system of Scotch representation would be
when the Bill for Scotland came before House.
The Duke of RUCCLEUCII said he had taken some
pains to inquire respecting the meeting at which the peti-
tion was agreed to, and also those who composed it,
and from the information which he had received he
had no doubt that there was a large assembly,
but he believed that as many persons went there from
motives of curiosity as those who went with a desire
to petition in favour of the Bill. That the meeting wie
conducted with great temper and moderatiou, was
certainly to the credit of those who were asiembled
and he had no doubt that it was got up with
great care—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side)—
but as to the petitton expressing the opinions of the
majoritity of the most respectable and intelligent classes of
Edinburgh, he begged to differ with the Noble and
Learned Lord in opinion. He referred their Lordships,
in support of his assertion, to the address which he had
the honour to present to his Maj•-sty from Edinburgh,
signed by 16,000 or 17000 Fersons, who represented
six or seven millions of property—(Hear, hear)—and in
the Gazette he begged to observe that he found that
petition was in a most extraordinary manner stated to be
in favour of Reform, and only about two sentences of
it were printed, and the most important parts omitted.
Ear: CAMPERDOWN admitted the respectability of
the persons who attended the meeting, at which
the address referred to by the Noble Duke was
agreed to, but be hefged to call to their Lordships'
recollection that it was an exclusive meeting, and none
were admitted but those who were of a certain opion._
([fear, Lear, hear.) In the town of Edinburgh there
were from 140,000 to 150,000 inhabitants, and if only
about 1,700 could be found to petition against Reform,
it was a strong and conclusive argument that the
general opinion of Fdingliargh was in favour of Reform.
—(Hear. hear.) 'With respect ;o the meeting, from
which the potion presented by the Noble and Learned
Lord (Brougham) emoted his information wa( very different
from that which had been stated by the Noble Duke.
He bad been informed that that meeting was attended
by' persons of great respectability, and by persons of
high character, and speeches had been made which would
not disgrace any assembly whatever. The preses of that
meeting was known to him and most of the inhabitants
of Edinburgh to be a person of the highest talent
and of the highest character. The general fea-
ture of the meeting was the middle class,
and they conducted themselves in such a manner
that be was sure wonld put down that infamous
falsehood which had been disseminated so industriously
that the people could not assemble 'together
for political purposes without confusion and disorder.
He was inclined to attach importance to anything which
fell from the Noble Duke, from the high station he oc-
cupied in that part of the country. But he was astonished
to here it insinuated that that meeting had not been atd
by the respectable persons of Edinburgh.