Star.
London, England, 1831-04-13 00:00:00

IMPER

HODS;
Their Lordships met
Lord Wvt.pusa took
the Loan CMAIIICILLOIL
The Duke of RICH;
Anglesea, in favour a
&torn).
The Earl of LIM ER
very important body of persons,
in favour of Parli.unentary P
nience of making speeches
should not have said more
petition, had he not been cal
The Noble Earl considered
Chamber of Commerce in tl
Parliament. tie au not
resisted all Reform, but
conceiving that it could
Constitution.

The Bishop of BR lb _
Devonport, and othis places,
Lord TANKERViLLE
Parliamentary Reform.
The Bishop of W "
slavery.
Esrl GREY presented .
united kingdom for Parliamentary
merchants of the city of Bristol,
property.
Lord DURHAM presented
Their lord.hips, on the -
then adjourned.

HOU:

The SPEAKER having
he bad received a petition '
Londonderry. complaining o.
ordered to be taken into consideration May 3.
Mr. ELLICE then moved for a new writ for Shaftesbury
room of Mr. Stratfnrd llugdale, in the stewardship of
Hundreds.—Ordered.

Mr. hl AURICE O'CON NELL took the oaths and t
County of Clare. He was introduced by his father
Menthes.

Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from Donegal in
Kildare-street Society.
Mr. PATTEN presented a petition from merchants of
against the reform of Parliament ; also a petition from the
%Nan complaining of distress, many of them not being
more dun 4s. 6d. 61. or 6s. per week. They prayed that
I be a duty laid on the export of cotton twist.
Mr. HUNT declared that .he cotton w eeeeee all over
were in the greatest distress.
Mr. HUME said be must deprecate the imposition of
the exports of cotton twist, which would destroy that
and only iajtue the weavers.
Mr. PATTEN presented a petition from Bolton against
the Apprentices Bill.
General OA2O3OYNE presented a petition from the
of Liverpool. against certain parts of the Reform Bill.
that some iteoflll was necessary, but not such a sweeping
The LORD ADVOCATE took his seat for Mahon.
REFORM SILLS.
Lord ENCOM BE asked whether there were to be
'returns of the boroughs, &c. proposed to be affected by
Bills?

Lord JOHN RUSt'ELL said the first return was made out at the
Home (Mee, those who framed the bill taking no part in it. The paper
laid before the house was a corrected return of the population returns of
1821—the correction was made from letters received from the returning
officers of the boroughs, which letters were all laid before the house, and
were now printing. The Under Secretary had moved for a return of me-
morials presented, complaining of the inaccuracy of the returns, and from
these and the petitions presented to the house, a corrected return would
bee formed, which would be finally acted on. For instance, with
regard to the borough of Buckingham, a petition had stated that
some parts of the town were not included in the returns of 1811.
This was found to be correct, and in consequence the borough of
Buckingham would rot be disfranchised. The same, he expected,
would be the 01,14 with the borough of Truro. There was a
similar petition from Guildford ; but unless it was made more ex.
Oleic it could not be acted on. (Hear.) He mentioned this now, that
those boroughs that felt aggrieved might speedily bring their case
before the House. In many cases the whole population of the
parish would be taken as the population of the borough. The
whole bill had been revelled since the second reading, and tome
laiterations would be made, not in the principle of the bill, but at
its application, the particulars of which he would state on Nlon.
day. The claim of freedom by birth or servitude should receive the
best consideration, and probably, in many cases, be allowed. .I.any
pumas had stated that they did not wish the numbers of that
house to bee reduced. Government was not prepared to say it was a
question of that vital importance, that if the feelings of the house were
hat keeping the present number of members. they ah• odd not CODCIU
(Weir, hear) In ali attach they considered the essential prinellts 01

I '