Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1831-05-21

ed whether, In eiecunS representatives, uiey
would prefer the gl0 hOuseholders or the gentry,
they uniformly said the gentry. Hear, hear,
from the opposition. The SpitaIGeld weavers,
from whom he had received deputation, declar-
ed that they were not now as mad as formerly,
for they did not expect t" derive any benefit from
the bill, not being represented in ITS provisions.
The subject again came up on the 18th, and
led to long and animated discussions. MIR. Stan
ly, in the absence of Lord John Russell repeat
ed what had been said by him on the day previ-
Peel contended that the alterations and the sub
mission of the number to the house. made it al
together new bill. Lord ]. Russell, having en-
tered the House, said he would reserve further
explanations until the 18th. Very hard words
passed between Sir E. Sugden and MIR. OCon-
NELL in relation to charge Of corruption in buy
ing his seat, brought by the latter against the
former. Lord J. Russell agreed that the charac.
ter of the house demanded that the case should
be cleared up. The whole conversation was re-
markably animated and personal. Lord Nugent
obtained leave to bring in bill to abolish the
greater part of 1O1, 500 oaths in the Customs and
Ie4. GIG onhS in the Excise; and to substitute
declarations, with penalties of gl00 for false
ones.
MIR. O'Brien afterwards brought forward the
distressed state of ireland, which called forth a
good deal of discussion. Whatever differences
there were OH particular points. almost all the
Hon. Members who spoke on that subject, ad-
mitted the necessity of introducing poor laws in
to Ireland, as the only means of protecting the
poor, and securing them against the consequences
of absentee landlords.
In the House of Lords on the 18th, in reply to
inquiries made by the Marquis of Londonderry,
Earl Grey gave similar explanations to those
made in the Commons, in relation to the Minis
terial plan of reform. He Earl Grey stood
pledged, for one, to the principles of the bill
An extended discussion ensued. The Lord
Chancello earnestly defended the measure.
In the Commons, on the same day. on the pre-
sentaticn of petitions pro and con, the Debates
or rather desultOry conversations were continued.
Mr.. Hunt, on presenting petition from Man
chester, charged Mr.. O'Connel with having
abandoned bis principles, and with having sought
To afIic with the Marquis of Anglesev for seat
on the Bench, as the condition on which "agi-
tating'' was to cease. Mr.. O'ConnelI denied
that there was particle of truth in this represen-
tation. He supported the bill, because. as far
as it went. he considered 1t would be great boon
to the people; and expressed his conviction that
NJ. Hunt had "suld hmself' to the Tories,
land dainty pennyvorth they had got" Mr..
Hunt rejaped tina, he had never shifted his prin-
ciples: aud added that Nr. Bennett had told him
that Mr.. O'Connell endeavoured to obtain the
Chief-Justiceship of the Common Pleas. after
wards conferred on Mr. Doher,y. Mr.. O'Connell
admitted that Mr.. Bennett was man OF charac-
ter, but declared that if Mr.. Bennett had said
any thing Of the kind, he had said that which was
most untrue.
A message from the King excited much sur
prise; as II was not imagined it would relate TO
any subject but parliamentary reform. 1t was.
however, a call on the house TO make provision
for the Queen, in case of his Maesty's demise.
The third reading of the Civil list Bill called
forth good deal OF desultory, but Intellectual
opposition; out on the subject of reducing the
salaries of the Huuseho Id Officers, agreeaby to
the recommendation of the Civil List Commit.
tee, Lord Althorp gave sort Of iutimation that
the present amount of salary might not be con-
tinued.
The Morning Herald of the 18th, under the
city head, says that the declarations of the Min
is,ry seemed calculated to shake the confidence
of the people in them. e." Ii, P" it is asked, - the
measure for the reduction of the number of men,
bers be considered desirable, why should not the
Ministers make it sine qua non? But if up
on reflection, they do not think it worth retain
ing, Why not giveit up at once? Why talk a.
bout being compelled by vote of the House?-
There can be no doubt that a new Parliament
would enable them to carry the present Bill.and
wten Ministers talk about being compelled
by the House, it would really seem that the
King has refused to allow them to resort to new
Parliament" It's broadly intimated that, if
Ministers should be deprived of the power to dis
solve Parliament. it would be ascrbed not to his
Majesty; but to foul and treacherous means;'
alluding obviously to power behind the throne.
Turning our attention for moment to France,
we find but little matter of special interest 1t
will be seen by paragraph given below, that the
late ministerial associates of Polignac & Go. who
escaped from the storm of July, have been tried
for high treason, convicted. and sentenced to
perpetual imprisonr ent. with deprivation Of their
civil rights, titles, and honors. NJ. de Montbel
addressed protest to the Peers against any
Judgment which might be pronounced. aud trans
mitted it in letter to Baron Pasquer, the Pre-
sident. This protest defends the memorable or
dinances, and denies the jurisdiction o. the
Chamber. The Court decided, that as NJ. de
Montbel was in cOntumacy. no communication