nellattl att47 Priaccaittail illPatiiitmtut.

1. THE REFORM Bud- Previous to the House of Lords going into Committee, a number of petitions in its favour were presented,—from the merchants and Guild of Leith ; from the inhabitants of the bo- rough of .Ayr, and from the Magistrates and Council of the same place; from Kilburnie; Mortice' ; Perth ; Rochdale ; the Reform Associa- tions in Glasgow and Manchester; the Northern Political Union;

from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London.

The Duke of SUSSEX, in presenting the last-named petition, re- marked on the introduction of the argument of the Coronation Oath into the debate on the second reading. His Royal Highness noticed the admission of Lord Liverpool, that the Coronation Oath had no- thing to do with Catholic Emancipation ; and said he thought it bad even less to do with Reform. He expressed his determination to sup- port the Bill as it stood.

The London petition was only received as the petition of Mr. Wood- thorpe, the Clerk, in consequence of his having neglected to affix the corporation seal to it. Several of the Scotch petitions were received as only the petitions of the individual that signed them, on accouut of a similar omission.

Lord BROUGHAM presented the petition agreed to at the great Edin- burgh meeting ; which, he said, had been signed for convenience-sake by the Chairman and twelve individuals only, but was nevertheless to all intents the petition of at least forty thousand persons.

The Duke of BUGCLEUGH admitted the meeting was large, but said many persons were present at it from mere curiosity—

He admitted, however, that it was conducted with great propriety and de- corum, as that object had been particularly attended to by those who had got up the meeting with great anxiety and trouble. But he denied that the meeting consisted of the most respectable and intelligent of the people of Edinburgh and its vicinity ; for a petition of a contrary tendency had been presented -to the King fa; the most respectable and intelligent of the inhabitants of Edinburgh

and its vicinity, signed by 1,700 names, representing twenty -seven " of property ; and this petition (this was the first opportunity that he bad of noticing the fact) was inserted in the Gazette as a petition iu favour of Reform. Something out of the middle of the petition was inserted in the Gazette, leaving out some of its most important terms and statements. This petition, therefore, was nut that of the majority of the most respectable and intelligent of the inha- bitants of Edinburgh and its vicinity.

The Earl of CAMPERDOIVN said, he could not allow these statements to pass without notice- lle did not by any means intend to deny the respectability and intelligence of the 1,700 petitioners mentioned by the noble Duke; but at the same time he must observe, that it was a petition agreed to at a meeting which was completely exclusive. No one was allowed to attend it who did not profess to bold certain political opinions; and he would ask whether 1,700 persons, out of a population of about 150,000 people, was to be considered as any indication that the majority of the population and intelligence, or the weight of property of Edinburgh and its vicinity, was averse to the present measure of Reform? On the contrary, the very circumstance that such a comparatively small number could alone be procured to sign the adverse petition, was a conclusive proof that the vast majority of the respectability and intelligence of Edinburgh and its vicinity, represented by the immense body which formed the meeting where the present petition was adopted, was decidedly favourable to the measure. Not- withstanding what had been said by the noble Duke—who had great property and influence, and was highly respected for his generous and liberal character in that country—he differed entirely from the noble Duke as to the character of the present meeting. It was attended by many persons of large property and of high respectability, intelligence, and talent, and speeches were delivered at it which would not have dis- graced any assembly whatever. The Preses of the meeting was well known in Edinburgh to be a person of the highest talent and character. The.general feature of the meeting. was that of a meeting of the middle classes, to which every person was admitted without distinction,—a very different mode of pro- ceeding from that of the Anti-Reforming party: and he hoped that.the ad- mirable decorum and temperance with which it had been conducted would for ever put an end to the false imputations that had sometimes been thrown out, that such persons could not meet for political purposes without violence and outrage.

The Earl of ROSEBERY confirmed Lord Camperdown's statements, from an intimate personal acquaintance with that part of the country,- As to the meeting of the 1,700, he would say, that it was not only exclusive, and called purposely and exclusively of those who were opposed to the measure, but that, in order to catch votes and signatures, it was studiously circulated that the petition was opposed only to a part of the present plan, and went .to support a very considerable measure of Reform : and this was the explanation of the statementin the Gazette as to the nature and object of that petitionio much W as said. in it in favour of Reform, that -the conductor of the Gazette, or who-, ever bad the charge of that department, was led to suppose that itaVata peti- tion in favour of the Reform Bill.

The Duke of BUCCLEUGH defended the exclusive meeting: "the ex-• • Sic in Morning Chronicle ; the Times says "seven" millions. The Duke was re- strained by modesty from naming the true suns; it was eight hundred ammo of the Funded Debt, commonly called National. elusion alluded to was necessary to prevent the intrusion of those hos- tile to the object of the meeting, who would have endeavoured to defeat it. He repeated, that the greater part of the late Edinburgh meeting were attracted by mere curiosity.

Lord BROUGHAM next presented a petition from the little town of Dalkeith, signed by 2,000 individuals. He said he was glad to find, after so much depression in trade and agriculture, that there were 1,700 persons in Etlinburah who were possessed of " seven millions." Of the persons who attended the late meeting, it was computed that there were 1,600 whose incomes averaged 1700/. a year ; and if the amount of the average incomes under the income-tax were remembered, it must be allowed that that indicated a condition of high comparative property.

The Duke of Riensiosu presented a petition from a number of the inhabitants of St. Alan-es, complaining of the almses which had taken place at several of the !went elections for that horn ugh, especially on the part of the agent of the noble Duke, its patron, praying that the borough might be disfranchised.

The Duke of BUCEINGIIAM observed, that the House of COMMAs bad already decided on the eases adverted to by the petitioners ; and disclaimed having ever in his life been guilty of such pnictices as those described.

The conversation on the petitions being ended, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Reform Bill ; the Earl of SHAFTESBURY in the chair.

Earl GREY said, as some Peers might object to determine on the number of boroughs to he disfranchised previous to considering the case of each borough, he proposed to postpone the consideration of the num- tier OW of Schedule A, and proceed to the consideration of the bo- roughs included in it seriatim. He moved accordingly, that the title and preamble of the Bill, and so much of the first clause as preceded the first borough in the schedule, should be postponed with a view to the consideration of that borough.

Lord LYNDHIMsT said, be felt disposed to proceed somewhat further, and to propose that the clause altogether should be postponed. If that were agreed to, lie would move the postponement of the second clause also. He spoke of the position in which the vote on the second read- ing had placed the House— he regarded those noble lords who had voted for the second reading as intemi- ing to establish the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage. This he admitted fully, and would act candidly and uni- forndy upon the admission. But although /tale lords had divided iu favour of the second reading., and had thereby acknowledged these principles, yet he begged to remind them that they wcre not fettered in the slightest degree as to the extent to which they were to be urged ; and they came to deliherate as to the amount of disfranehi,ement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage, en- tirely free and untrammelled by their previous vote. Still lie must allow, that, after all that had passel on this subject in both Houses of Parliament,—looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were abroad,—he felt bound to state, alter the best consideration of this most important question, that he was not disp■,cd, nor (Ild he believe that those %rho acted with him on that oc- casion were disposed, to present to noble lords such alterations in the measure as, if adopted, would Rode:- it ultimately of such a character as ought not to satisfy, not Radicals, but all intelligent Reformers in the country, and even the noble lord himself by whom the Bill was brought forwatil. As to the manner in which the discussion was to be carried on in Committee, he was sure that on their side it would be marked by innperanee and candour ; and be trusted to noble lords opposite meeting them in the same spirit, and to the noble earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, upon whose character and professions he relied.

He denied emphatically, that lie or his friends were influenced by party motives. indeed, for a hundred years past. no opposition had been conducted with less party spit it. His Lordship proceeded— What he proposed was simple, and would involve nothing as to a prejudgment of the clauses. To borrow the language of his profession, he desired that the clauses should be postponed " without prejuilice;" that, in filet, they should approach the consideration of them unfettered—unprejudiced—precisely as if they had not been postponed at all. The ground on which he would recommend the postponement of the clauses was, that a bill of this description ought essentially to be a measure of enfranchisement. He objected to it because it appeared to him to be a measure of disfranchisement. In his opinion it ought to be a bill ei enfranchisement, of which principle disfranchisement should be the consequent. He knew no other ground on which they should be guided in framing a measure of the kind. If it were fur the benefit of the State that a number of large and populous towns should be enfranchised, disfranchisement might be required on account of the inconvenience resulting from too great a body of members in the other House of Palliament. On this point he would express no opiuion, -but he would repeat that disfranchisement should be consequent on enfranchisement; be would not say to the letter, but it should be so generally ; and if a particular case arose, let it be judged by its particular merits. As to disfranchising a cer- tain number of places, the proper mode of proceeding was to begin by establish- ing the necessity of the occasion, and by learning previously what places were to. be enfranchised.

He said there were other considerations that pressed upon him— If they pursued the course chalked out by Ministers, they would disfranchise as a matter of necessity ; but if they opposed this course, on what principle would they disfranchise?? They would proceed upon the assumption that time boroughs were nuisances and stains upon the constitution. He would ask thew lordships, if it were advisable for them to pursue the latter course?

He proceeded to quote from a speech pronounced, he said, at the Political Union, a petition from which Lord Durham had just pre- sented, in which the speaker described the debt as incurred for the put- pose of Flitting down freedom abroad and tyranny at home ; and that the fundholders had no claim, unless on the public property of the state. This, he said, was a specimen of the doctrines every day taught • to the people. His Lordship then went into a history of the various • plans of Reform submitted at various-periods to Padiamerit. Lord • Chatham proposed to add one hundred members to the counties and large towns, without any corresponding disfranchisement. The first

scheme of Mr. Pitt, in 1783, was precisely similar. By his second

scheme, in 1785, it was proposed to add seventy-two members, and afterwards to raise funds for the purch,ise of thirty-Six boroughs, for the purpose of disfranchisement. The disfranchisement part of the scheme was, however, only to be had recourse to, if the enfranchise- ment part was found difficult to work. Mr. Flood's plawproposed the addition of one hundred members, still without disfranchisement. Next came Earl Grey's, the principal feature of which was an addition of members to the counties. Next Lord John Russell's, by which it was proposed to give members to certain large towns; the method of doing so, without adding inconveniently to the numbers of the House, being proposed to be left to a committee of inquiry. Lord Lyndhurst also quoted an expression of the well-known letter of Lord Brougham, in which he deprecated, above all things, disfranchisement. From all these authorities, as well as for the reasons he had assigned, Lord Lyndhurst deemed be had made out a sufficient case for the postpone- ment which he recommended.

Lord BROUGHAM said, Lord Lyndhurst had mistaken Earl Grey's meaning. He said be should postpone the consideration of the words "fifty-six," but he never meant to postpone the consideration of the schedule. He had declared emphatically, that he meant to propose the disfranchisement of the boroughs seriatim, until the schedule was ex- hausted. There was no intention on the part of Earl Grey of receding one jot from the essentials of the Bill. Lord Brougham noticed the claim put forward by Lord Lyndhurst to candid dealing in his oppo- sition to the Bill. He gave Lord Lyndhurst individually every credit for what he claimed, but lie could not extend the same charity to all those with whom he acted—

Without going farther back than to that most unfactious and most candid course which that patty took on the occasion of the system of education lately adopted in Ireland, he must say, that when he recollected the various castes and degrees of party who were united on that question, for the purpose of thowing, no doubt, their very good will to Government—when he recollected the strange union which was then made to assert a principle different front that on which Government acted,—they might be right—they might have considered that they were taking a right course as conscientiously as lie believed that they were wrong. But when he recollected the union formed on that occasion of men who could not agree on any one point, but that in the plan they were pursuing they were opposed to the Govermrent—when lie recollected these circumstances, he must own that if lie were to measure his noble and learned friend's candour by that of those with whom he acted, he should not be disposed to give him as much credit for that quality as he should willingly do if he were to consider him in his individual character, and distinct from party association.

The postponement proposed by Lord Lyndhurst could be looked on in no other light than a negative on the most important part of the Bill— Lord Lyndhurst would say that he did nut °hied to the principle of Schedules A and B, but that he would rather that Schedules C and D should be taken . first—then Lord Brougham could understand the grouud of his objection, and might be disposed to accede to it (though he should still think that the taking the clauses in their order in the Bill would lie the more desirable course). if even Lord Lyndhurst would point out that there was something for which they ought to wait before they proceeded to the discussion of that clause, some infor- mation which they had not yet obtained, but which might be forthcoming at a later period of the discussion, he should not think his motion unreasonable; but when he left them in the dark as to all that, and as to his own intentions alai those of the party with which he acted, with respect to those clauses, at a future period, lie must think that the proposition was made only to get rid of the clause altogether, and therefore it should have his most decided. opposition.

He remarked en the fitcility with which foolish remarks might be picked out of speeches not pronounced in public meetings by unedu- cated men, but within the walls of Parliament itself— For instance, he had heard in one House of Parliament of a proposition made —ay, and carried too—and carried by a large majority, a majority of which, as expressing the sense of the then representatives of the people, he was bound to speak with all due respect ; but he had heard of a proposition moved in that House, and carried by that majority, which in gross absurdity was not exceeded by any of the wildest or most extravagant which lie had ever heard made out of doors—a proposition not only against the abundant evidence of the experience of that day, but against common arithmetic. That proposition was, that a one- pound note and a shilling were equivalent to, in real value, a guinea in gold— a proposition which seemed to have been made for no other purpose but that of making the assertion of the contrary a misdemeanour, and made at the very mo- ment that persons, who knew well the relative value of the pound note rind the guinea in gold, were giving 28s. of paper currency for that guinea.

Amidst all the examples of schemes of Reform cited by Lord Lynd- hurst, Lord Brougham was surprised he passed over the Irish Union ; by which, 200 members out of SOO were disfranchised without any en- franchisement at all. With respect to his own sentiments, as quoted from a letter, written so long ago as 1812, Lord Brougham said, he thought after twenty-two weeks had worked such a change in Lord LyndhurSt's sentiments, he could hardly be surprised that twenty-two years had worked a considerable change in his. Lord Brougham de- duced the import of the amendment from the character of those who were expected to support it—

Halted no doubt that Lord Lyndhurst expected that all those who objected to the fundamental principle of the Bill would join with him,—not merely those who would give a little here and take a little there but who would rather not be called upon to give any thing whatever. He did not mean to say that Lord Lyndhurst had so framed and intended his motion, but it required not the great acuteness and quick perception of that learned lord to see that such a motion would have the effect of drawing together all those who felt any hostility to the measure. He, therefore, could not consent to a motion which would put the leading, the most important part of the Bill in risk and danger. And let him ask, from whom did the motion come?—from one who was disposed to admit the principle of the measure, or any important part of it, and to see how the rest might be remodelled in the Committee: No ; Lord Lyndhurst had frankly and candidly declared that he was wholly opposed to the Bill, as one which would destroy the balance of the Constitution ; that be could enter into no considera- tion of the detail, for he must oppose the whole.

The Earl of HARROWBY said, Lord Brougham had offered no reply to the argument of Lord Lyndhurst..

They were called to agree to the striking out of fifty-six boroughs, for dis- franchising which number they had at that time no reason before them, nor could they have till they had ascertained the amount of enfranchisement. If they titan once to disfranchise the decayed boroughs, before considering the en- franehistng clause, how should they know where to stop? He was ready to disfranattise to a considerable extent, if on further view of the Bill he should deem it advisable. It was not to the number fifty-six that he objected; if he saw that itwas snore consonant to public feeling to vote for sixty, he would not hesitate for such a difference. It had been said, that this proposition would be supported by those who were enemies to the Bill altogether. Such an obsekvii- tion amid not, of course, apply to one who voted for the second reading, and who would not support any alteration that, in his view of the subject, was in- consistent with the main principles of the Bill. On the contrary, he would do all in his power to give that general, he would not say universal, satisfaction, but that real satisfaction which, as far as was possible, considering the state of

agitation into which the country had been thrown by the discussion of this ques- tion, was likely to result from the chance of seeing something like a good govern- ment established in this country. He denied that the proposition of Lord Lyndhurst was at all hostile to the Bill- . He trusted that their Lordships would agree to that proposition, and proceed to consider how far they might grant representation to all such places as were distinguished, not by arithmetical figures, but by distinct interest -toadd re- presentation to the counties, and to extend, he might almost say to give, that respectable.constituency which it was their object to produce.

Lord BEXLEY thought, as the want of representation in the large towns was the great grievance, they ought first of all to set about re- medying -that grievance. By so doing, they would be sure not to emu the remedy beyond the grievance—

After they.had well considered the subject of enfranchisement, they might find that disfranchisement, in the strict sense of the term, was unnecessary; dial that they might make such a clat■sitication of the boroughs in Schedule A, as might best satisfy the public, without at the same time interfering with and totally destroying corporate and individual rights and privileges.

The Earl of RADNOR denied that the enfranchisement of the large towns was the main feature of the Bill— It was the abolition of the nomination boroughs which induced the people so universally to express their approbation

ation of the Bill at the period when it was

first propounded, and before they bad time to examine into the details on %%lib the value of the enfranchising clauses depended. Disfranchisement was one it the main principles of the Bill, and one of its most popular features. The.objtet of this proposition seemed to be to get rid of disfranchisement altogether.

• The Duke of WELLINGTON said, he of all men had no right to be accused of factious motives—

He had avowed himself to be the enemy of the Bill. He bad opposed its principles. They might amend the Bill as they pleased ; but, in his opinion with all the alterations they might make in its details, it never would prove other- wise than a measure fraught with evil. He had opposed it conscientiously and fearlessly whilst there was any chance of success; but he would not oppose it factiously when the principle of the measure hail been decided on. When a Bill of this description had once received the sanction of the House of Lords by being read a second time, after deliberate discussion, he, as an honest man, felt it to be his duty as a Peer of Parliament, as one of the members of the i Legislature, to make it, as far as in him lay, a measure fitting fur the country, and fitting also for the support and preservation of the Government.

The Duke said, Lord Ly-ndhurst's arguments remained unanswered ; Lord Brougham had given them no answer, neither had Lord Rad/tot--

Under such circumstances, therefore, convinced of its legality and proprit tv, and hearing no justifiable objection to it on the part of noble lords opposite, he felt it his duty to support the noble and learned lord's motion; and he could tell their Lordships, notwithstanding what might be insinuated to the contra, y, that it was not with any dirty view, for dirty be would call it, (" Hear, hear !" from the Ministerialists.) It was not, he repeated, with any dirty view of i

getting rid of the Bill by a side wind, or for the purpose of destroying its effect, that lie supported that motion. ("Heuer) The question for the considtra tion of the House was just this:—Were their Lordships prepared to vote that tI e fifty-six boroughs mentioned in Schedule A were to be wholly disfranehisen, and some thirty others partially disfranchised, without knowing any thing t f the details—without knowing what was to be done with reference to the enfran- chisement, without in fact knowing. any thing except that certain persons had chosen to stigmatize them as nomination boroughs? When the Heuse, however, heard so much from those persons of the necessity of getting rid of the Lmina- firn boroughs, he should like much to know whether any nomination boroughs were to remain? If he was not much mistaken, he could prove that a nomina- tion borough would actually be created by the operation of the Bill.

Lord HOLLAND said, he must state broadly in the outset that the proposed postponement would entirely destroy the effect of the last vote on the Bill—it was utterly inconsistent with it— The proposition was, not only inconsistent with reason, and utterly irrecon- cilable with the decision they had already come to, but at the same time it was fraught with the most bitter feeling of disappointment to the Commons, 're t taking that word merely in its common and accepted sense, but in that larger, and truer, and more constitutional sense—the Commons of England—the whole of the people-cf.this country.

Wink/lid the framers of the Bill look upon as its principle ?

Lord Liadhurst had asserted that his motion was in concurrence with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill was, however, that against which the learned lord had directed the whole of his argument. Let disfran- chisement (said he) be the consequence of enfranchisement, and then you will be acting purely according to analogy and precedent. What precedents? Why, the precedents which the noble and learned lord and his party rejected.

Thelioultosition went utterly to destroy the two great objects of the Bill,—theseconcilementof the people to the Constitution, and the resto- ration of the Constitution to its original purity— He was not - bound to hiok merely at the words in which this motion was couched—he was also bound to look at its tendency. He was sure that the Duke of Wellington had no dirty views on this question; but when men had strong opinions on any subject in their minds, it was impossible fur them to look upon that subject with the same feelings which actuated those who adopted con- trary opinions regarding it. The Duke, and those who acted with him, said that they were now ready to give effect to a principle of which they had pre- viously expressed their detestation. Now lie would ask Lord Lyndhurst whether, as a lawyer, he would advise him to consult a person how to do a thing, when he was aware that that person hated the thing which he asked him to do. He meant to impute no unworthy motives to a person in such a situation ; but this he would say, that it-would be impossible for a person so circumstanced to ex- ercise a calm and unbiassed judgment. The three principles of this Bill were, as their Lordships all knew, disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and ereasion of the suffrage. He believed that to correct and pacify the present uneasy state of the public mind, the first of these three principles was the most important of all.. •(.Loud cheering from the Ministerial benches.) ie. adverted to the conduct of Lord Lyndhurst on the occasion of the Catholic Bill, and contrasted it with his present scruples against disfranchisement— That noble and learned lord had spoken with great indignation of proceeding to disfranchisement, unless an abuse of the franchise was proved against those who exercised it, or unless a strong case of necessity was made out In justifica- tion of it. rictiv on that point he would turn the noble and learned lord over to a measure of his own. The noble and learned lord had disfranchised, at one 01 swoop, ten thousand times as many persons as this Bill disfranchised. The right of those individuals to their: suffrages rested not only upon acts of Parlia- ment, but upon the common law of the laud, from which indeed we derived all the advantages which at present distinguished us. Lord Lyndhurst, and his :friends by whom he was then surrounded, had disfranchised the forty-shilling freeholders. Lord Holland had reluctantly supported that measure of disfrim- aliaement, because he thought, upon the whole, that it would be attended with mare advantage than disadvantage,—in a word, that it would prcve the less of two evils. The noble lords opposite had no occasion to chuckle and rub their Loeb., and say that that Measure was carried because it was intended to diminish Catholic influence. They must not lay that flattering unction to their souls, for the hill disfranchised not only the Catholic, but the PI otestant freeholders—nay, it disfranchised the Protestant freeholders under circumstances in which they pssessed claims not only on the justice of the country, but also on the good faith of those who disfranchised them,—it disfranchised the tbrty-shilling freeholders

who had bought their freeholds from the :;rows, and who hail given an addl- e onal value fur them, for the purpose of obtaining a vote, within a very short period of the time of their disfranchisement. Yes, in spite of all that the noble and learned baron had that evening advanced on the score of disfranchisement, ]cis bill disfranchised 400,000 Irish forty-shilling freeholders, without proving delinquency against theM, or calling upon any of them for their defence at the bar of that House.

Lord Holland quoted the Duke of Wellington's argument derived from the dependence of the disfranchised freeholders; and asked if it were not as applicable to the electors of St. Mawes as to them. He commented at length on the argument that the Reform Bill was cal- culated to injure the privileges of the House of Lords— There was no borough attached either to the title or to the princely possession if any of their Lordships; there was no borough which belonged to that House s t I muse : it was true that the boroughs had produced an effect upon that House ; and perhaps one of the greatest evils of the borough system was, that it had pro- duced a stronger effect upon that House than it had even produced upon the other House of Parliament. To borrow a phrase from one of the many able sad eloquent speeches which his noble friend on the Woolsack had made on this subject, he would say, that " the corruption of the borough was often the ge- neration of the Peer." But did the noble lords opposite, who expressed such generous and chivalrous sentiments respecting the dignity of that august as- sembly which he was then addressing—did those noble lords mean to assert that it was right that the aristocracy should be the gaudy insects generated by the filth and ordure of the rotten boroughs? He was prepared to show, at a fitting 'season, from the records of history, that the effect which the rotten boroughs had produced in this way upon the House of Lords, was far greater than the • effect which it had produced in giving members of the House of Lords an in- fluence over the other House of Parliament.

. lie denied that Mr. Pitt approved of the principle of compensation to the voters of the rotten boroughs which he wished to disfranchise—

Mr. Pitt said, " This is the weak part of my measure, and one from which I naturally recoiled. I perfectly agree with my noble relation"—the late Lord

• Camelfind, or the present Mr. Bankes, who opposed himself to every thing of that sort—" I perfectly agree," continued Mr. Pitt, " with my noble relative, that you ought not to pay men for any loss they may sustain when deprived of the means of corruption ; but I introduced this provision into my measure, be- cause I could not hope to carry my measure without it."

He pressed on the Lords the propriety of attending to the recom- mendation with which the Bill had come to their bar—

This Bill had been brought up to their Lordships from the Commons, after undergoinF, a deliberate consideration in that House for the last two, or rather three, sessions. It affected the privileges, the exi-tense, ail the purity of that body_ Men of honour might say—" You take that view of this Bill ; but you are calling upon us to do that which we conceive to be unjust, and which we therefore cannot do." Now there was a quarter from which this argument would not come with a very good grace ; for he recollected certain circum- atanees inducing certain men to do that which they considered wrong before it was done, and were not prepared to defend now that it was done. He would, however, admit that the plea which lie had just advanced would have been suf- fi.ient to justify any noble lord in not supporting the principle of the Bill upon

its second reading. But lie asked their Lordships, whether, after they had sanctioned the view taken of the Bill by the House of? Commons by agreeing to

i the second reading, they deemed that it would be wise, prudent, or decorous, unless a strong case of necessity were made out, to tamper with that which the House of Commons—and, what was perhaps inure material, the People—con- sidered to be the most material part of it.

He concluded by adverting to Lord Bexley's expedient- - hut what said the noble baron who had risen to speak on the subject of the currency, and .of whose speech he had unfortunately heard nothing but a few .disjointed fragments ? Be used as an argument, which was good to those to

whom he addressed it,—namely, the enemies of the used as an argument this extraordinary assertion—" I thi dr that if you postpone this clause, there is great probability that there will be no disfranchisement at All :" and then the noble baron expressed a hope that some trick might be per- formed—some adjustment or classification of boroughs might be devised—which would do away with disfranchisement altogether. After such a declaration, 'coining with so much frankness from such a quarter, could lie entertain a mo- ment'adoubt that the object of those who proposed the postponement of this clause was either to get rid of it entirely or to maim and mutilate the Bill in such a manner as would render it the scorn and not the delight of the People?

The Duke of NEBTASTLE professed his willingness to agree to any measure which would bind down the patron of a nomination borough .nut to exercise undue influence over his voters.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH thanked God, that though the Bill bad passed the second reading, it had not been indebted for passing that stage to • Peers sent up for the sole purpose. He considered it' his duty, now-

ow that the principle was recognized, not merely by the House of Com- mons, but by the House of Lords, to endeavour in Committee to ren- der the measure as perfect as possible. When the Bill came to be reported, it would be their duty to consider whether. the danger was greater to pass the Bill as it left the Committee, or to reject it— The question which had been submitted to the House that evening was one of great iinportance, not so now]) with respect to the Bill as with respect to the past and the future. To agree to the disfranchising clause an the manner proposed by Ministms, was. an invasion of priVate rights, and Would form a precedent for an attack upon property of any description. Ile would never consent to such a course of prorettfing. He should regret if, as the noble baron Said, the Commas cif England should be dilappointed that their Lordships did not proceed exactly in time way which Ministers proposed ; but it was his duty not to indulge the People in that which was 'nut reasonable, and would to themselves prove injurious: 'No man desired =Pre than he did to witness the reestablishment of that confidence and good humour amongst all classes of the People which the measuresof.Ministers had fur a time destroyed ; but he would not consent to effect even that desirable 'object by establishing a precedent which would shake the foundation of every thing which was valuable in our social system. He could assure the House, tLat he he and the noble lords with whom he acted were disposed to deal fairly by the Bill, and endeavour to render it a measure under which it would be possible for the Government to be carried on ; and for his own part, if the amendment proposed by his noble friend should be agreed to, he would suggest to the House to proceed immediately to the enfranchising portion of the Bill ; and he would propose the names of the towns to which lie thought that, in respect not only to population and taxation, but also on account of other peculiar circum- stances, it would he expedient and right to give representatives.

The Earl of WINCIIILSEA declared his readiness to enfranchise large towns.

Lord WIIARNCLIFFE professed his inability to discover the means of ascertaining whether Schedule A went too far or far enough, unless by the method proposed by Lord Lyndhurst. • • Lord HAREWOOD expressed his belief that the proposed amendment would not affect Schedule A.

Earl GREY spoke in reply. He disclaimed all intention of imputing improper motives to the proposer of the amendment ; but he was bound at the same time to say frankly, that he considered it to be fatal to the Bill— He was pledged to the principles and efficiency of the Bill, not only by the assurances which he had given to the House and the public, but by his *deep, conscientious, and unchanged opinion of the necessity of the measure. The principles to which he was pledged were those of disfranchisement, enfranchise- ment, and the extension of the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to listen to any suggestions -which might be made with the view of preventing. injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. To the third principle, he knew the expectations of the people were most anxiously directed—he meant the qualification. After much consideration, and much !Buns to obtain the best advice, he had satisfied himself—and he believed that when thequestion came to be examined he should be found to be in the right—that in taking the 10/.qua- lifieation, he haul i

not taken too low a scale ; and that if he were. to raise it, he should disfranchise a great number of his Majesty's subjects who had as fair a claim and title to vote for representatives as any persons in the country. To the principle of the 10/. qualification, he felt himself decidedly and irrevocably pledged ; and he would admit of no ;Iteration respecting it, except such as could be clearly shown to be a security against abuse. He would resist with the most fixed determination any proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the effect of raising the qualification.

He adverted to the argument employed to defend the amendment— Lord Lyndhurst said, that if the House should proceed immediately with the task of disfranchising, they would justify all the cry which had been raised against nomination boroughs. To be sure they would. He should like to know upon what principle the noble and learned lord would propose to disfranchise them. Perhaps the noble and learned lord would propose to place the names of all places in England in a box, and ballot for them. Noble lords deceived themselves, if they supposed that the present moment was the first in which a stir had been made on account of nomination boroughs. They had been de. nounced during the last half century, by some of the greatest men whom the country had produced—by men who were least disposed to advance what, in an invidious sense, was called the democratical spirit. They spoke of nomination boroughs as sores and ulcers, eating into the vitals of the.Constitution,Which it was necessary to excise, in order to prevent its total commtion.- Lord Wham- cliffe had expressed a hope that Ministers would confide in the disposition of noble lords on the Opposition side of the House to grant a proper measure of Reform to the People. If he had observed any such disposition, no one would • have been more ready than himself to have met it in a proper spirit, always recollecting that to the principles of the Bill he was irrevocably fixed ; but what

reason had he to expect that any tiring approaching to such an arrangement would be made? What evidence was there that night of the disposition to which the noble lord had alluded ? Lord Lyndhurst, who moved the amend- ment, repeated what be said on the second readingthat the Bill was incompa- tible with the safety of the Government, and destructive of the Constitution. Then, he asked, what hope was there that he would give his consent to the Bill? Lord Ellenborough said that he would endeavour to amend the Bill, re-. serving to himself the right of voting against it on the report. From what had fallen from the Duke of Wellington, lie understood that Ire would act much in the same way. Many other noble lords who had voted for the second reading, at the same time declaring that there was much in the Bill which they objected to, now intended to support the amendment. Under these circumstances, could he trust the measure in their hauls, with the hope that it would be brought to such a consummation as would satisfy either his own conscience or the expec- tations of the public? With opinions so divergent, or rather so opposite, all arrangement was impossible.

The Earl of CARNARYON supported, and Earl MANVERS opposed the amendment. After a few words from Lord CLIFFORD, the House divided :

For the amendment 151 Against it 116 Majority against Ministers 35 On strangers being readmitted, Earl GREY was found expressing his intention, on the House's resuming, to move the postponement of the Committee till Thursday.

Lord LYNDHURST having moved the postponement of Schedule B— Lord ELLENBOROUGH rose to explain the course which he and his friends meant to pursue—

Having, in conjunction with other Peers, given the most serious consideration

reasonableness, under existing circumstances, of carrying into effect the changes which these. clauses, taken in conjunction with other parts of the Bill, would create,--having reflected on the proposal to give additional members to the counties,—and having at the same time very strong objectious to Schedules B and E, the result of the amendments to be proposed would have been to give enfranchisenient to an extent such as would- have made it necessary (unless an inconvenient increase of members of the House of Commons were -resorted to) to disfranchise the boroughs contained in Schedule A, which, with Weymouth, would cause a reduction of one hundred and thirteen members. • Such was a part of the amendments referred to, but which he was sorry that the conduct of the noble Earl, in proposing apostponement of the Bill, prevented from being brought forward at present. Re must express his unfeigned reovet at the course from by the noble Earl. ( Cheers from the Opposition, mingled with laughter from .the Ministerial side of the House.) He had just been reminded by a noble friend near him, that there was one most important f-e nitre of the Bill to which he had not alluded,—he meant the 10/. qualification. • To thief., as a uniform qualification; he had at a late period stated his strong-and decided ob- jectims,—objections that arose in his mind not because the quahfici t ,n was popular, but because it was uniform. He had stated his regret that, under the

t th 1 f I Bill h • 11 i 1 ed th I i ed

by the towns included in Schedules C and D,—having likewise considered the o the great principles es o the ,— aa ne cons er the a ms possess eiperation of this qualification, would be excluded from direct representation in Parliament all the poorer classes ; and he had thought it absolutely necessary, that during the progress of the measure, their Lordships should consider whether it was not requisite, with a view to the perinaueuce of any measure of Reform, that they should continue in certain places a more popular right of voting.

• He eulogized at some length the scot and lot qualification ; and finished by stating, that in respect of the 101. qualification, he thought some better method must be devised of ascertaining its genuineness than the Bill provided.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM expressed his dissent from Lord Ellen- borough respecting the 101. franchise—

He wished fir an amendment to qualify, extend, and enlarge the franchise in particular districts.

Earl Gam. wound up the debate- s He congratulated Lord Ellenborough and the House on the progress which lie had at length made in the principles of Refurm, and also upon the extent to which he was now content to go in disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and, let it not'be forgotten, extension of the popular qualitication,--an extension greater than that contemplate(' by the destructive and revolutionary Bill denounced by the noble baron and his friends ; greater and more extensive, inasmuch as the noble lord had expressed his intention not to touch the 101. qualification, and to preserve the scot-and-lot right of voting where it at present existed. Lord Ellenborough objected to the uniformity of the 101. qualification, and proposed to change and correct the democratical tendency of the Bill by bestowing a more extensive elective franchise. All this was matter of congratulation. He must also congratulate the noble baron on the proof he had given, by stating the vari- ous persons by whom certain propositions were to be made in Committee, and by his prompt attention to a suggestion from the noble lord near him—the proof that there existed no concert whatsoever between noble lords opposite in their operations. Lord Ilarewood hail expressed his regret that no .communication had been mane to the Miniswrial side of the House as to the course intended to be taken by the opponents . of the Bill in Committee. Personally he was not disposed to complain of a want of com- anunication on the subject ; but on the part of the House, he did complain, that the intentions of Lord Ellenborough, as lie had just described them in his speech, were not explained before coming to this vote. For what would many noble lords who voted with Lord'Lyndhuist have said—more particularly the Duke of Wellington—if Lord Ellenborough had previously explained to them the cense-

epiences of their vote, and informed them that he wished to render this demo- cratic measure still more democratic? It was not his intention to enter now

npoa a discussion of the noble baron's principles of Reform ; that must remain for a future opportunity ; but be might observe, that the plan was to involve a ineasure of disfranchisement to the extent of Schedule A; yet, if such was the noble baron's intention, surely he must regret, on more mature consideration, a vote which had thrown an obstacle in the way of the accomplishment of his own purpose, by postponing the consideration of the clause. Lord Ellenborough proposed to abolish entirely Schedules B and D. Earl Grey might here state, that this was a proposition in which it was impossible for him to concur. As to the charge of delay, which Lord Ellenborough had attempted to fix on him, he felt perfectly satisfied to rest under the accusation, being convinced that there was not a man in the country who would not see that he was justified in the course he had taken under the particular circumstances of this case.

The House then resumed, and the Committee was postponed to Thursday. Their Lordships sat till nearly twelve o'clock.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. On Wednesday, Earl GREY, after presenting petitions for Reform from Dumfries and several other places, announced, that in consequence of the vote of the Lords on Monday, he and his colleagues had no alternative but to ask from his Majesty such powers as were necessary for carrying through the Reform Bill, or to tender their resignation. They had acted on that alternative, and their resignation had been accepted. Under these circumstances, he said he did not mean to go on with the Committee on Thursday. lie ex- pressed at the same time his anxiety that the Navy Office Regulation Bill, which stood for the second reading, and which was meant to come into operation on the 14th, should pass with as little delay as possible. But, Lord EI.I.ENBOROUGH baying intimated that a debate would pro- bably be the consequence of the second reading, it was not pressed.

Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting a petition from Dewsbury, and the petition from the great Birmingham meeting, made a communication similar to that of Lord Grey.

The petition from Birmingham was read at length, on the motion of Lord SUFFOLK.

The Earl of PLYMOUTH, in allusion to a statement of Lord Brougham —that on a calculation made by a person who was conversant in such matters, the meeting contained above 200,000 persons—contended, that a great many had been attracted from mere curiosity, and that the people were by no means so anxious for Reform as they were described to be. None of the Political Unions of which he had any knowledge were at all respectable—in some of them, it was a rule to admit all per- sons above twelve years of age.

Lord BROUGHAM thought, when they were talking of hundreds of thousands, it mattered little that there were a few hundreds, or a few thousands, open to Lord Plymouth's remark.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested, if the order for considering the Re- form Bill in Committee was discharged for Thursday, it would be necessary to name another day.

Earl GREY said, he would move to discharge the order, but he saw no necessity for naming another day.

This remark called up the Earl of CARNARVON • who objected, with great heat, to the ,.contemptuous" discharge of the order, because a slight change of the form of proceeding had been made—because the House had declined to consider Schedules A and B, before they con- sidered Schedules C and D. Lord Carnarvon proceeded- " My Lords, the noble lords opposite may act asthey think fit: we know the grounds, the slight grounds, which their 'defeat on Monday evening afforded them for one of the most atrocious propositions with which a subject ever dared to insult the ears of the Sovereign. We have heard, and it was what I naturally (expected to hear, that his Majesty, who was among the first to recommend Re- form upon broad and constitutional principles, finding himself reduced to the alternative to which his Ministers ventured to reduce him, has acted as became a Sovereign of the House of Brunswick ; and by so doing, he has established an additional title to the respect and affection of vlhis subjects. But, my Lords, it shall not go forth to the public, because the noble lords opposite, whatever may be the motives wham nave influenced them, have determined to abandon

niavure,—it shall not go forth to the public that this House is unwilling to

enter into the discussion of its merits. This Bill must be discussed, unless the majority of your Lordships, which I do not believe, are opposed to that dia. cession. If therefore, the order of the day for proceeding to-morrow with the consideration of the measure, be discharged, I will move instanter that it stand for Monday next. Should it be impracticable to bring the subject for- ward on so early a day, it may easily be postponed ; whereas, if it be fixed for too late a da:, we cannot advance the period of the discussion. I therefore move, that your Lordships proceed with the consideration of the Reform Bill is Committee on Monday next."

Earl GREY replied to this attack— Lord Carnarvon was pleased to characterize the advice which Ministers had thought it their duty to offer to the Sovereign, as a most atrocious insult ; and there were some persons on the opposite side of the House, who, apparently, agreed in that sentiment. All he could say was, that he had deferred offering that advice till the very last moment, when the circumstances of the times and a sense of duty, as appeared to him, imposed upon him the obligation of humbly, offering it es his Sovereign. Whether that advice was right or wrong, if it should become a matter of discussion, lie would he found fully prepared to argils that he had taken the right course, amid to defend himself from any imputations cast upon him. He appealed conffdently to the House and the public, and relied upon his character to prove to the satisfaction of both, that whatever in- direct motives the noble earl might be pleased to suspect him of, the charge was totally unfounded.

He denied that Ministers had resigned on a mere :point of prece- deuce between two portions of the Bill. The postponement in itself involved an important principle of the Bill, for it exhibited the removal of the nomination boroughs, which was the great object of Reform, as a matter of subordinate interest ; but the grand objection to the post.. ponement was to be found in the sentiments of those who proposed and carried it— He did not recollect any proposition except that of Lord Ellenhorough, whe declared himself for a considerable measure of disfranchisement, to the extent of the whole of Schedule A. He might add, that Earl Harrowby appeared to join in that proposition. Those two persons, then, were willing to adopt some reform, in the way of disfranchisement ; but by whom was the proposition of _postponement moved? By Lord Lyndhurst, who, in the course of the speech in which he supported the motion, declared the Bill to he inconsistent with the safety of the Government and the true spirit of the Coustitution. 1That right, then, had he to expect that noble lords opposite would support a measure of disfranchisement, if he gave his consent to the postponement of Schedules A and B? By whom was Lord Lyndhurst's motion supported? By the Duke of Wellington, who had deliberately declared his opinion that the present system of representation was not capable of amendment by all the efforts of human loge.. nutty and wisdom. The motion was also supported by the Duke of Newcastle, . who was against every disfranchisement ; and by Lord Bexley, who stated that he hoped to get rid of the necessity of any disfranchisement. Under those cir- cumstances, was it not childish to say that the subject at issue was a mere clues. tion of form or precedence?

There remained, under such circumstances, no alternative for-Minis. tens but to resign the Bill or to resign office— For his own part, he could never consent to remain the mere shadow of a Minister, under the tutelage of noble lords opposite ; nor could he be a party to permitting the Bill to be cut and carved and mutilated and destroyed by them. He thought that, in the opinion of all reasonable men, even of such as did not agree with him, it would be considered that he had taken the course required. by that sense of duty which had always governed his conduct, and by that sense of honour which he never had, and trusted he never should violate. He stood before the public with the full responsibility of Isis conduct upon him ; and be should be ready to vindicate that conduct, and the motives which dictated it, whenever a proper occasion presented itself.

He defended the discharge of the order of the day for Thursday, as strictly conformable to the practice of the House— In fact, he could not undertake to proceed with the Bill with any prospect of success under the circumstances stated. Nevertheless, he trusted that a great, extensive, effective, and beneficial measure of Reform would be brought in and carried : and let him remark, that if the Reform were not great and extensive, it would neither be effective nor beneficial, nor would it give satisfaction to the couutry. If a measure to that extent—an extent which he thought right and necessary—should lie hereafter carried, and should have the effect of satisfying the country, and of fully meeting the wishes of the People, it would give him, he begged to assure their Lordships, the most sincere gratification and delight. The Earl of CARNARVON disclaimed having made my attack on Earl Grey, or having imputed to him any improper motives— When he said that it was the most atrocious advice that any Minister had ever given to his Sovereign, the words were spoken in perfect good temper, though, undoubtedly, they were characterized by a warmth which became a friend of the Constitution, and am member of that House ; they emanated from a feeling which he should deeply and warmly entertain till the last moment of his existence.

After some interruption on the point of order, Lord Carnan-on pro.. ceeded- lie had spoken not in anger, but in dismay, when he heard such a declaration as that made under such circumstances by the noble earl to that assembly. If he was not wrong in supposing that such an advice as that he had already alluded to had been given to the Sovereign, he would ask their Lordships whether the history of this country supplied an instance in which, on such slight and trivial grounds, a proceeding so involving the political independence and constitution of that House had been resorted to by any administration. If such an advice had been given to the Sovereign, it was given in a spirit consistent with the mode of dealing which had been hitherto adopted by his Majesty's Ministers towards their Lordships ; it was given by Ministers who meant to deal with their Lordships as abject tools and instruments, precisely as they themselves were dealt with by those whom they could not deny to be their lords and masters.

He concluded by moving, that the order for the Committee should be fixed ad interim for Monday; when, if necessary, it could be post- poned to a future period.

The House then adjourned till Friday.

In the Commons, on Wednesday also, Lord ALTHORP made a com- munication to the same purport as that made by Lords Grey and Brougham. He said-

" I feel it to be my duty to state to the House, that in consequence of what

recarred in another place on Monday last, it appeared to bis Majesty's in that it would be quite impossible to carry the Reform Bill n such a manner as they deemed it their duty to carry it in, or without such alterations as would render it inefficient and inconsistent with the pledges they had given for earring it forward. Under these circumstances, there remained for them only this alternative—to tender their resignation to his Majesty, onto advise his Majesty to take such measures as would enable them to carry the Reform Bill efficiently, end•in case that advice should not be taken, then to tender their resignations. The latter -course we adopted ; and I have now to state to the House that we did tender advice such as I have mentioned, which not being received, we then tendered our resignations, and that his Majesty was graciously pleased to receive them. At present, therefore, we only hold office till our successors are ap- pointed." Lord EBRINGTON expressed his deep regret at the announcement, as well as at the failure of Reform, out of which it had arisen— Under the circumstances, he should feel it his duty, though he wished the task had &lien upon one better qualified than himself, to give notice, that to- morrow he would move an address to his Majesty on the present state of public affairs. (Loud cheers.) Whatever might be the opinions entertained by honourable members, he was sure that every one who had a seat in that House would feel it his duty to attend ; and in order to secure this, he would follow up his first notice with another,—that he would move that the House be called over. (Loud cheers.) Mr. GORE LANGTON expressed his deep regret at the defeat of Reform.

Mr. H[mE commended the resolution of Ministers, as the only

• course left them to pursue— He must also emphatically state, that to have the expectations of an united People, in which they were led on from day to day, put an end to and frustrated in the manner they had been by the other House, was a subject of the deepest -regret. He, as a sincere Reformer, could not but regret that the cause of a mea- sure which all knew would end in peace, should be cut short and put an end to in the manner in which the Reform Bill had been. He did anticipate that the noble eat]. who had introduced this measure would have been able, with the support and countenance under which he had introduced it, to carry it to a happy and prosperous conclusion. He should await with anxiety the result of the motion of the noble lord to-morrow. He would again express his approba- tion of the conduct of Ministers; and he hoped and trusted, that every man who had a seat in that House would attend, and he ready to give that opinion firmly and manfully, which the dignity of the House and the peace of the country required.

Lord ALTHORF expressed his fears lest the proposed motion of Lord Ebrington should embarrass the formation of a new Ministry ; and he therefore wished for its postponement.

Sir JOHN NEweowr hoped, on the contrary, that Lord Ebrington would persevere in his motion ; though he doubted whether a call of -the House could be made efficient, as many members were absent from town.

Mr. LABOUCIiERE called on Lord Ebrington to persevere. It was essential to the safety of the country, that the House should convey to the Throne the alarm they felt at the prospect of any Ministry being formed on other principles than those of Parliamentary Reform— If the House stood not where it ought to stand, in the front of the battle, then scenes would occur which he shuddered' to contemplate. It was idle to sup- pose, that if the House of Commons did not do their duty,—if its members 'were such cravens as to allow a Government friendly to the People, and honest in their friendship, to be scattered and put out in consequence of the proceed- - ings of a majority of the other House of Parliament,—they would not he con- sidered, and justly considered by the nation, as base deserters of their duty.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the expectations of the People could never be frustrated as long as they were true to themselves; and the only ques- tion was, would the People of England be so? Ile believed the People of Scotland would be so, and he could pledge himself for the People of Ireland.

Mr. BARING said, while gentlemen talked of danger and agitation, . it would be well that they did not themselves create the danger and agitation which they deprecated— He would not anticipate the discussion of to-morrow further than to observe, that he hoped and expected that the House would entertain that discussion in a tone harmonious with the feelings of the sound and sensible portion of the com- munity,—that is, that while it asserted its own opinions with due regard to its own dignity, it would not be neglectful of what was due to the opinions of the

• other brawch of the Legislature. If they were warned against proving them- selves cravens to the public, he would warn them against proving themselves bullies towards the House of Lords.

He complained, that a more full explanation of the causes why Ministers had resigned had not been given to the House. He depre- cated also what he described as a tone of complaint, which bad accom- panied the explanation given.

What he and those on the Opposition side of the House wanted to learn from Lord Althorp was, the specific character of the advice given to his Majesty, and of tie grounds on which it was proffered and rejected. He took it for granted, when he saw members opposite so prompt and zealous in their approval of the conduct of the noble lord and his colleagues, that they at least were possessed cf this information—that they were acquainted with the nature of the advice - and, as a consequence, knew whether it amount, d to an imperative demand ior the creation of some sixty or seventy Peers, fin- the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill, or otherwise. It was important, if such was the case, that the House at large should be made acquainted with the particulars,—that it should know whether the advice tendered to the King involved what he would not hesitate to call a most outrageous and unconstitutional principle. If so, he would only say, that he very much mistook the feelings of the People of England, if a very large majority of them would not he imbued with a strong feeling of gratitude towards his Majesty for so promptly accepting the resignation of those who tendered him such an advice.

Colonel DAVIES noticed two versions of the story— It was said by some, that Lord Grey had advised the creation of fifty or seventy Peers ; according to others, a hundred ; but that his Majesty objected to the amount. According to other versions, his Majesty did not object to a definite number, but-to intrusting the noble earl with a carte blanche power of creating as many as circumstances might require ; and that the noble earl, being refuse5 this unlimited power, resigned. Now if this carte blanche power was the ad- vice given by Lord Grey to the King, he would not hesitate to declare that it was an advice, or rather demand, which his Majesty ought not to have complied with, and which he was therefore right in peremptorily rejecting.

Sir RORERT PEEL suggested the propriety of Lord Althorp's apply- ing to his Majesty for permission to state the causes which led to the dissolution of the Cabinet— This permission it was necessary he should obtain, as otherwise his explana- tion would be a violation of what was due to his Sovereign, there being evidently no acts more truly personal with respect to the Sovereign than those of the ap- pointment or acceptance of the resignation of his Ministers. Mr. JAMES thought the creation of Peers was the only constitutional advice:that could be tendered to the King. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did trot think that Lord Althorp was called-iirbts to explain more fully the proceedings connected with his resiguatiba than he had done.

It was enough for the country to know, that in consequence of what had taken place in the other House of Parliament on Monday last, the noble lord and his colleagues deemed it their duty to resign. ("' no !" from the Oppo- sition.) Well, that in consequence of the adverse vote of their Lordships, that Ministers felt it right to give their advice to their Sovereign to take such steps as would secure the national Bill against mutilation ; and that his Majesty, not acting on that advice, they had no alternative between resigning, or being auxi- liaries in the work of slaughter. It was enough for the country to know, that they had most honourably preferred the former course; and he trusted, in gra- titude, and consistency, and justice, the People would not cease from constitu- tional agitation till the power to carry the great measure of national purification into effect was restored to the hands of those who had the magnanimity to stand or fall by it, from the grasp of those who had been enabled to—he trusted tem- porarily—assume it by means of the grossest hypocrisy. In the mean time; it was highly expedient that the People should know who were and who were not their honest and uncompromising representatives, as would he evident by com- paring a list of those who would vote fur the noble lord's motion, and diesels...hes had with so triumphant a majority recorded their confidence in Ministers on, the former defeat of the Bill by the House of Lords.

Lord ALTUORP, in allusion to what had fallen from Sir Robert Peel, observed, that he had stated all that the public interest seenied.• to require, and all, as it seemed to him, that was compatible with. official confidence.

Mr. MACAULAY contended, that Lord Ehrington's intended motion was strictly conformable to the freedom of debate, which was the pri- vilege of the House. It was not to be construed into any infringement of the rights of the Lords, nor did it imply any censure on the conduct of the Sovereign.

After some further conversation, in which Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord MILTON, and Mr. IICNT, took part, Lord EBRINGTON said be felt com- pelled to persevere— Under the extraordinary relations in which that House stood with respect to the Reform Bill and the country, he felt he should be abandoning his duty did he delay his motion a single hour. It was important in such a national crisis„ that the People should know who were their honest and consistent representa- tives, and who had proved recreants from their duty. For the same reasons, he would persevere in his motion for a call of the House, so as to guard against backsliders and time watchers.

3. ADDRESS or THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO TIIF. KING. Lord EBRINGTON, pursuant to his notice, moved on Thursday the following resolutions.

"That an humble address IT presented to his Majesty, humbly to represent to list Majesty the deep regret felt by this House at tin change tint has been announced its his Majesty's Cot:ie ils. by the retirement of those Ministers in whom this name coT2P• tin;WS to repose unabated void! teem

" That t his House, in conform it y with the recommendation contained in his Majesty** most gracious Speech from the Throne, has framed. and sent up to the House of Lords,

a 11111 lbr the Relbrm of the tepresentation of the People, by %Odell they are convinced that the prerogative Of the Crown, the authority of Imth Houses of Parliament, and tliSt rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured.

"That to the progress of this measure, this House considers itself hound in duty t* state to his Majesty, that his subjects are looking wit h the most intense interest and anxiety ; and they cannot disguise from his Alajesty their apprehension that any suo• cessful attempt to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest disappointment and dismay.

"'That this House is therefore compelled, by warm attachment to his Majesty's per- son and government, humbly, but most earnestly, to implore his Majesty to call to his Councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential pro- visions, that Bill for the Ren:rea of the Representation Cl the People which has recently passed this House."

In introduring these resolutions, he referred to the precedent of 1812., when Mr. Stuart Wortley (tile present Lord Wharneliffe) made a simi- ler motion, and to the defence by Mr. Canning of the line of conduct pursued on that occasion. Lord Ebrington disclaimed all intention of' dictating to the Crown in its choice of Ministers : what he wished was merely to explain to it clearly the feelings and sentiments of the House of Conuno»s, any doubt as to which must be necessarily most injurious—.

Strange and sudden changes of opinion were reported to have taken place its another Meuse, in favour of the measure of Reform ; and be did not know but that changes of a different kind might have taken place in that House ; but he did not believe that such was the case. At all events, he was sure it was neces- sary, with a view to the traminiilitv of the country—with a view to the perma- nence of any Government that might be formed, and with a view to the forma- tion of a due estimate by the Crown and the country of the sentiments of that House—that those sentiments should be fully and completely expressed.

He adverted to the position in which the late Ministers had been placed by Lord Lyndhurst's vote, and the feelings with which they were disposed to regard their retirement from office— They would have been content to retire with all the obloquy that had bees heaped upon thein since they came into office, and have carried with them inn" their retirement the consolation of how much they had effected,—he said, how much they had effected, because, though dragged through the humiliation of hay- ing the question whether Gamin or Old Sarum should continue to be a dise-race to the country until a majority of four-fifths of those who were opponents of all Reform could make up their minds how much franchisement or disfranchise- ment they would give to the people ; but no sooner had the vote which was ter unseat them passed, than a declaration wits made by one of those very opponents of the intention of his party to concede, not only the disfranchisement proposed by the late Government, but in one particular to go beyond the Ministerial plan. They had the satisfaction of knowing that all they contemplated in the way of disfranchisement was actually to he conceded by the opponents of all Reform ; and that the good sense of the country was no longer to be insulted by the farce of houseless boroughs, or the grievance of close corporations. But he must say, that if the late Government had submitted to such a course—it Lord Grey had consented so to be dragged through the dirt by those who opposed Ms measure—Lord Ebrington should not have joined in those imputations of insin- cerity which be knew would have been so lavished upon him from many quar- ters ; vet he should have felt that those Ministers who could be so forgetful of what they owed to their own character, of the respect which was due to that House, and to those who had supported them in the prosecution of their great measure, were totally unworthy of their future support. Before he concluded, he returned to the topic with which he set out-- 'Whether there was any change in the feelings and sentiments of that House, remained to be seen. Ile owned it would surprise him if he found that there was. If any honourable gentlemen should determine to alter the course which tile) 6,1,Lerso pursued—mt they should see, or limey t they saw, am, set of Ministers that was inconsistent with the course of proceedings which they adopted--if there were any who, fancying that they saw this, determined to abandon, in the hour of retirement, the Government which they had supported in the day of prosperity—he trusted, if there were any such, that they would lave the maoliness to stand up and openly declare their intention.

Mr. STarrT seconded the motion. He noticed the argument that Ministers had retired on a point of form only—

For the sake of the argument, admit the truth of that assertion---which he, by the by, altogether denied--but, even fur a moment, admitting the argument, he would then ask what they were to think of the conduct of those persons

who, professing the greatest zeal in favour of Reform and of the principles of the Bill—who, being aware that :Ministers considered the point in question not a point of form, but a 'whit involving one of the most vital principles of the Bill—what were they to think of the conduct of those persons who, on such an occasion, thought fit to leave Ministers in a iniaority ?--(" Hear, hear ! ")-7

thus endangering not only this great question, but the tranquillity of the country isself. But he denied that the point was a point of Mon ; in his opinion it was a point of principle. The question on which Ministers were

left in a minority was simply this—whether disfranchisement was or was not good in itself; whether the system of nomination, now so deservedly odious to the whole country', was to be continued by the Bill, or whether it was only to be considered as a titiestion subsidiary to that of enfranchisement ; and conse- quently, whether an cpportunity was to be given to the cool and lukewarm supporters of the Bill to make what alterations they pleased in that vital and important part of the measure?

In the close of his speech, Mr. Strutt reverted to this view of the cause of Ministers' resignation—

If the time should et:me when it should be thought necessary to intrust the 'imminenml of our army or our fleet to unpractised civilians—if the time should tonic when the culprit should be called from the bar to the judgment-seat to pass fieldmice—if that time should ccme, then, and not till then, would he, for one, consent to intrust the construction and management of the Bill to those who had either avowed themselves its opponent', or, what was worse, had ap- peared as its reluctant and wavering supporters.

Mr. Banisa; expressed a wish to hear from Ministers some more detailed account of the causes which led to their resignation ; otherwise, the House must remain in a state of ignorance— For his pirt, he must declare that he was entirely ignorant of the cause which lad led to the extraordinary resignation. (Loud laughter from the Ministerial side.) Ile only stated what was his sincere sentiments. He did not see why Sea a statement need excite the laughter of gentlemen opposite.

Ile went into what he called a history of the transactions, on which the House were called on to come to a judgment, by the resolutions before them— The Reform Bill went up to the House of Lords; and the proceedings upon it were naturally watched with great anxiety by the country, for no person could regard with indilhrence a measure which went to remodel the constitution of the country. Various statements had been previously mode .that not the slightest alteration of the Bill by the House of Peers would be permitted, and that a certain person's homer and dignity would sutler by any change being effected in its provisions. All this was contradicted by Earl Grey, w6 made what Mr. Baring comb!ereml a very fair announcement, that the liouse of Lords were to be pernottol to deal with the Bill as an independent branch of the legis- lature. That noble earl stated, that " he did not mean to fetter their Lordships, —that it was for them, and not for him, to consider what alterations should made in the Bill; but that if its great principles were touched, then he could not stay in office." What alteration, he should like to know, had been made which could justify the Ministers for having thrown tie country into the pre- sent confusion ? i;entlemen might talk lightly of the present state of affitirs in the country, yet the truth was, that tumultuous assemblies collected upon the street, and the People were crying out " No King and no Queen !" and a very great state of confusion prevailed; and all those serious consequences had been produced by the Ministers setting their own master, as it were, at defiauce, and appealing to the mob out isf dote s. Nothing but something of the most serious importance could justify the Ministers of the Corwn for having thrown the country into the present state of embarrassment, which they must have known would result from any discussion or Mill:reeve of opinion occurring between them and their master. No ordinary apprelumsion or surmise of the probability of the Bill being altered at some future period, could excuse them for the step which they had taken. Nothing but the certainty—nothing but the fiat of the Bill being in danger, could be a justification for their conduct.

He asked what was the aim and end of the address ?— The plain English of the address was, that it was thealesire of that House that his Majesty should take back his Lilo Ilinisters. (Loud cheers flax the Minis- terial benches.) He collected from that cheer that the gentlemen opposite put that construction on the address. ( Owen from the some quarter.) The King, then, was to be told that it was the pleasure of that }bloc, joining itself with the. Lord Mayor and the atelioriiies o f the ('its of London—which, notwith- standing their station, he would call discreditable assoriatious—and connecting itself with other mote violent societies, whose endeavour it was to inflame the public mind, that he should take back his Ministers. But how was the Mim- ic) take them hack ? The King did not discharge them ; but the Ministers bad themselves given notice that they would not serve the King.. Was the K then, to go on his knees and entreat them to come back? If it were of advan- tage to the Stets that the Crown and Peerage should possess any influence in this country, and ..that all power should not be centered in political clubs without and theiplelegates within doors, he begged the House to pause befitre agreeing to the:proposed address, lest the independence of the three branches of the Legislature might be endangered.

He proceeded at great length to argue that the proposal of Lord Lyndhurst involved no departure from the Bill; and contended that MirriSters were bound to wait at hoist until they saw whether the en- -franchising schedules were conceded or not, before they had recourse to the step they had taken.

He believed, that a very large majority of the House of Lords entertained a strong dislike to the principles of the Bill. He would go further, and say, that a large majority of their Lordships participated in this hostile feeling, to the ex- tent of two-thirds,---not on), the minority who voted on 'Monday last, but also including many of the minority ; but it did nut therefore follow, that that majority would thereCire vote against the Mk He went on to enumerate various classes out of doors who agreed with the two-thirds of the Lords— That very numerous class who might he termed the well-informed timid were averse hum its adoption. The educated portion of the community— judging by the opinions of lawyers, physicians, and other proftsional men— were opposed to the Bill. Indeed, there was a decisive proof that the thinking and cultivated minds of the community--in fact, the intelligence of the country— regarded the Bill in the same light in which iswas regarded by alarge majority ut time Lemke of Lords, in the tact ut its being held in such ili-fevour by the heads and more • distinguished members of the two Universities. ( Great laughter, and-cries of " Hear !" from Sir R. Inglis, and Messrs. Goullmin and Praed.) Reverting to the immediate cause of the Ministers' resigning—the . refusal of the Sovereign to comply with the advice they had tenderedto him—Mr. Baring said- . He for one knew nothing of the true nature of that advice, far less of the grounds on which the King refused to act upon it. Ile took it for granted, from their zeal, that members opposite were well acquainted with it ; and, as a conse- quence, were prepared to vote for an address which censured the Illustrious Personage who had rejected it. He had heard that it was to create a specific number of Peers. He did not believe it. Ile candidly confeessel that lie could not himself guess within twenty or thirty of the number of Peers which it would be necessary to create to carry the Bill (" Oh, oh !") ; and till it was made public by Ministers themselves, could not believe that statesmen so high minded and consistent as Lords Grey and Althorp had really proposed to their Sovereign to create a specific number of Peers:in order to carry a specific purpose.

IIC deprecated the address, as an implied censure on the candour, manliness, and straightforward character of the King. It was the more. to be deprecated, at a period "when a spirit of disrespect towards the highest authorities was abroad— It was impossible for them to be blind to what was daily passing before them —for them not to see the tone of disrespect in which a most influential portion of the press was wont to speak of the time-hallowed institutions of the land— not to see the daring tone ire which the daily journals (one in pesticides, of great ability and influence) were accustomed to speak of the highest authorities in the state.—to libel, in language of unmeasured scurrility, the members of the Royal Family—nay, to utter tied slander against the highest personage of that sex which a manly mind would instinctively recoil from calumniating—that sex which a truly manly mind would he eager to protect, and which the silent con- tempt with which the illustrious individual alluded to treated those slanders only rendered the more estimable.

Lord ‘1,1'119111' expressed his surprise that Mr. Baring., or any are else, should for to moment misapprehend the meaning of the explanation he had given the previous night.

" If, however.," said the noble lord with great emphasis and dignity (we quote Lams the Times), 4, this statement appear to the honourable gentleman not sufficiently explicit, and that he wishes me to explain myself further, I have not the least objection to, without beating about the bush, telling him in plain words what the advice which we gave Ids Majesty, and which hie Majesty re- jected, was. The advice was simply this—that his :Majesty should create as many Peers as would enable us to carry the Reform Bill through the House of Lords in all its efficiency."

[A burst of cheers, the Times says, followed this announcement, by far the most enthusiastic, universal, and long-continued, ever witnessed within the walls of Parliament. The Morning Herald describes the cheering as vehement, and adds that, in the enthusiasm of the moment, a number of persons in the Gallery clapped their hands.] Lord Althorp proceeded to defend. the.conduct.pursued by Ministers in consequence of time vote in the House of Lords— He appealed to the honourable member himself, and to every man in the House, whether, after the decision to which the House of Lords had come, it was possible to conceive that Ministers could carry the Bill through? After that decision, the Bill no longer reniained in the hands of Mittistms, but passed into these of its most decided enemies. That being the case, Ministers had only one of two courses to pursue,—either to tender their resignations to Iris Majesty immediately ; or to tender him such advice as, if adopted, would place them in a situation in which they might be responsible for the further progress of the Bill. They adopted the latter alternative. Ministers were not to be blaMed for What they had done. They could not act otherwise than they had done.

He denied the meaning put upon the address by Mr. Baring— The motion for the address was one which it was not unnatural should be made by persons who were anxious for time success of the Bill. The measure had proceeded to a certain extent, and was still in existence; and the occurrences which had taken place had left it in a state in which it was in the power of any Administration which might succeed that which lately existed to carry it through. This being the case, it was not unnatural that those who were anxious for the success of the Bill should take the constitutional course of pro- posing an address to his Majesty, not to appoint an Administration which would not be pledged to carry the Bill through in all its efficiency, That was simply the object of the motion which his noble friend had made ; and really, after what had passed in another place, he could not see why it should not be con- sidered very possible for his Majesty to obtain an Administration to succeed that which had resigned, and which would carry the Bill through all its parts. (Prolonged cheers and laughter.) Mr. litNIE supported the address. The House of Coin mons bad time privilege of offering theKing advice ; and more- over, if he should not follow that advice, they had the power of controlling hire. ( Cheers.) The King was time Chief Magistrate of the country, and exercised all the prerogatives which he possessed for the benefit of the People over whom lie reigned. Ile had no desire to speak irreverently of his Majesty, to whom, up to the present moment, he had seen every reason to pay the respect which was due to his office ; and he should lie sorry to use any expression which could be con- sidered personally offensive to him. The interests of the People required his Majesty to reconsider what had taken place. He would advise the King to take the same Ministers again, because there was no set of men in either House of Parliament who could, consistently with their own declarations, carry the Bill. After tracing the history of the Bill and of its defeat, Mr. Hurne turned to Mr. Baring's argument, that Ministers should have relied on time good wishes of the majority of Monday— . Such reasoning was too futile even to satisfy children. It might suit Uni- versity, men, millionaires, or supporters of the I loly Alliance ; but it would be seemed in the Political Clubs: and Unions, who would consider themselves in- sulted if it were addressed to them. Ile was present when a noble and learned lord asked those who opposed the Bill what it was they proposed to do—what plan they had in contemplation? Oh no, they would give no information on the point ; but they directed all their efforts to get rid of Schedule A, which was the foundation, the essence, and principle of the Bill. The reasoning of the honourable member was not fit to lie addressed to grown-up persons. Could he suppose that Ministers would be so foolish as to trust a noble lord who had declared the Bill to be revolutionary? The noble lord disapproved of the Bill as a whole, and yet, with most extraordinary consistency, declared his willing- ness to amend it in detail. Now no one but an old woman would trust a bill of such importance as the Reform Bill to the nursing care of such a gossip as the noble lord had avowed himself to be.

He proceeded to enumerate the supporters on which Lord Grey was called by Mr. Baring to rely,—Lord Ellenborough, the Duke of Wel-- lington, the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Bexley- Then there was a learned lord—one of the Judges of the land, by the by— who was to bring in this new Bill of Reform. Talk of the public principles of that noble lord Why, if the honourable member below him could forget the various contradictory speeches made by that noble lord when a member of this House, Mr. Hume could not : if the honourable member, with all his great wit, had a memory so short as not to recollect the various changes of opinion which that noble lord had been so constant in committing, he had not. opinion

there a

single old woman, Whig or Tory, Revolutionary or Conservative, who for five minutes could trust in a single declaration of that noble lord? (Immense cheering.) And yet this noble lord, it was said, was to be the head—oh, such a head !—of the new Administration !

He adverted to the consequences of his Itlajesty's refusal to accede to the wishes of his late Ministers, and to the parties from whom the counsel might have proceeded which led to that refusal— He looked upon the conduct of his Majesty himself as so ill-advised, that he ardently wished to know who the advisers were who had given his Majesty the counsel which had led to so melancholy and so unlooked-for a result. [Whilst uttering this sentence, the Times says, Mr. Hume fixed his glance at the bar, where the Duke of Cumberland, the Marquis of Londonderry, and Loid Lynd- hurst, were standing. ] If his Majesty had Ministers, let him trust to none but those Ministers. If there were advisers behind the Throne, more powerful, perchance, than the Throne itself, let those advisers be unmasked. ( Great cheering Ar some minutes.) He believed that those advisers were at that mo- ment within his hearing. If he had the power, he would tear the mask from their visages, and expose them, in all their political deformity, to the gaze and execration of the public. ( Great cheering.) They might depend upon it, that if they persisted in their present line of conduct, he would carry his threat into execution to the very letter.

In allusion to Mr. Baring's notice of the Queen, Mr. Hume said— The public had eyes to see, and ears to hear ; and the notice of that fact was a sufficient answer to all the vapid declamation of the -honourable member fur Thetford. As a piece of friendly advice, he would tell that honourable member, that it would be much better if he had never mentioned the name of her Majesty at all ; and he (Mr. Hume) hoped and trusted that what the honourable mem- ber had said, and what he himself had said in consequence, would be the last mention of her Majesty's name in that House.

He next adverted to the question of who was to succeed the present Ministry— The right honourable baronet below him ?—The supposition was monstrous. (Cheertng from the Ministerial benches.) Why, the right honourable baronet had himself declared, that he did not go out of office on account of the division on the civil list, but because he saw the question of Refocus coming forward in such strength, that though he could not yield to it, he could not resist it. The Duke of Wellington?—That supposition vas equally monstrous, fur lie had told the' country that the present constitution of the House of Commons was the best that could possibly be framed, and therefore it was idle to expect that any thing like Reform should come from his hands. After a tedious trial of eighteen months—after we had applied during that period every screw to extract Reform from Ins Grace—what good could they expect to obtain from him now ?

Mr. Hume, after stating his readiness to withhold the supplies or to commit their appropriation to Parliamentary Commissioners, concluded by adverting to the creation of Peers, and the necessity that the power of the Ministers over such a creation should not be limited— Ministers were right to tell the King, that if he would' not trust them with the power of creating thirty, fifty, or even a hundred Peers, they were unworthy the Royal confidence. All they wanted was the authcrity of the Crown. It was understood that the proposal was that sixty Peers should be made, and that less would not have done : for his part, he should have had no objection to the creation of a'hundred Peers. This he would say—knowing what he did of the other House of Parliament, he would stake his existence, that if the King had given Earl Grey a carte blanche to make as many Peers as were wanted, not ten would have been requisite. From the course taken by the majority on the late occasion, it was evident that some little bird had whispered them, that the King would not consent to the creation of any Peers. Somehow or other, they had obtained a knowledge of that fact ; and under the circumstances, Ministers had no choicethey were perfectly right in what they had done, and they stood justified to the country. Instead of dela) big all public business—instead of 'keeping the public mind in a ferment, they did wisely to bring the whole ques- thin at once to issue. The true mode of avoiding the necessity of making many Peers, was to obtain an unlimited power of doing so ; if only twenty, forty, or sixty weo granted, the evil might return—the snake might be "scotched" and not " killed ;" whereas if the Minister had been trusted with full authority, the Peers would have known their interests, if not their duty, and would have passed tIM Bill with only a small addition to their numbers.

Lord MORPETII and Mr. RoarNsox spoke in favour of the motion.

Lord SANDON spoke in favour of Reform and the Ministers; bits whether he supported or opposed the address, seems to have been un- intelligible to the reporters.

Sir Romer PEEL stated his reasons for opposing the Address.

- I difli.r from the resolutions, because I do not place confidence in his Majesty's late Ministers; I differ from them because I do not agree tu the expediency of the measure which has been under discussion; and I &Mr from them, because I consider that they establish a precedent dangerous at all times, but pen uliarly dangeums in the circumstances in which we at present stand. I differ from most of the resolutions, because they advocate an extensive change in the constitution of this House; to which I—though it has been sanctioned by the majority of this House—have always refused to be a party. 1 retain my opinion, that the change is a perilous experiment— the most perilous that ever was tlied ; and retaining my opinion unaltered. MI !ling which 1 have heard this night—nothing in the language of the Member fur Middlesex, who has expressed his readiness to withhold the Supplies, and vest the money in Com- missioners—nothing. I say. which I have heard in the la aa guage only, honottrable gentleman, has at all tended to diminish the apprehensions which 1 entertain of the measure of Reform."

.Sir Robert pursued his argument against the resolutions at great length. He concluded by expressing his determination to oppose them, as uncalled for and unconstitutional- . In IBM there was no attempt to require any pledges as to the details of a particu- lar measure. I consider it a violation of the Constitution itself, to call on the King to require those who may be about to enter his service to give such pledges. On these grounds, therefore, I feel it my duty to oppose these three resolutions. When Lord Wharneliffe brought forwent his motion, it was then matter of notoriety who was to be the Minister. But here we are not only to call upon the Crown to appoint an efficient Government, but, by these resolutions, are required to dictate to him the principles on which that Government is to be carried on, and in reality the persons of whom it is tole composed. In my opinion, there is neither necessity nor justification for entering into these resolutions. W hen this House shall be modelled upon the principles of the MR brought in by the honourable gentlemen opposite, then. I have no doubt, they will find every disposition to violate and encroach of the prerogatives of the other branches of the Legislature. When such language is matte use of as I have heard to-night, I doubt not that the most ardent anticipations of honourable gentlemen opposite will be fully realized. I cannot but deprecate. to the utmost of my power. the establishment of such a precedent—a precedent which I consider to he opposed to the principles of the Constitution, and to the welfare of the nation itself," Mr. 0' CONNELL remarked on the hopeless nature of the contest waged by the Anti-Reformers—.

• In 1801 the cry of " No Popery" and "The Church in Danger" was raised. The country was excited—the Ministers were turned out—the 'Tories came in triu.nphantly ; but did they succeed in throwing over. the Cathohe question? For twenty-live years . the public mind was kept in a state of agitation, and they were finally compelled to yield the point. Ile thougld, therefore, the right honourable baronet had been unfor- tunate in his allusion to the proe..edings in I507. The Irish were a patient and endUr- hog people. ("Hear, hear I" front the Opposition.) Yes. in spite of that contempn tams sneer uith which the remark had been treated, he repeated, that they had endured not only injury and oppiession, but base insult. He doubted whether the English 'ample would be so patient—he doubted if the people of Scotland twuld stiffer them to make similar trial of their patience. Wasit uneonstitutional tom-utile pledges from a Ministry? Were there no pledges since 1807? Were there no Ministers who had been pledged ' against the liberty riffle snIdect ? If it be in accordance with his own principles, why should any man refuse to give his pledges? There was nothing nneonstitutional in the King ascertaining the prtneiples of his Minister, and requiring from hum it pledge in support oh those principles. The present Ministry, when they time into office. were pledged to the King on the question of Reform, or. lie might say, they had pledged the • King to Reform. TIW King could, by law, do no wrung; but he must strongly eon- • demn those who had advised the King to withdraw his confidence from his Ministers. Ile felt great Ideas:1w in slipportiug the resolteiens. The conduct of the Ministers was - such as to maintain their high character, and pre,olve to them the confidenee of the • country ; and he trusted they would shortly be restored to power, and be enabled to bestow on the People that Bill, without which they were indeed oppressed and de- • graded.

Mr. III:sem:LAY noticed an argument of Mr. Baring's-

It had been said the Ministers have resigned, they have refused to retain place, and it would be itwonsistent to call upon the King to solicit them to remain in office who had already declared their determination to retire. Surely this was too shallow a sophism to proceed from the lips of one is hose abilities they had so clam occasion to admire. The Ministry resigned oil ;lemma of the King's not accepting the advice offered by them ; and in soliciting the K ing to take back his Ministers, they of course meant that • he should take their advice u ith them.

Ile spoke of the creation of Peers as an act of the prerogative, with- • out the exercise of which no Government could be, under certain cir- cumstances, carried on— Let them suppose a ease in which the two Houses were placed in direct and imme- diate collision by a intitbrot and continued diti,renee of opinion on every question. Sup- pose the lion,. of Lords vat to be for war, and the noussor Commons liar !mace; sup- pose the llon-e or Commons to be for one Ministry, and the House oi fa,,Ii&ionrtds suppose ' titer ; suppose, too, he struggles consequent on these differences of opinion to be eon- tinned ; suppose that they lasted throughout all entire session of Parl that they were foinal so inveterate as to be incurable even by a dissolution ail!? House • of Common:: why, what, he w wild ask, must be the consequence of such a s:ate of • things? T1 ad the whole machinery of Gus must be stopped until his Majesty exercised his prerogative by giving one of the parties a predominance. The Govern- ment must in such case stand stilt. or new Peers must be created.

Even where no such collision existed, it might be necessary— Suppose that one party holding power for nearly fifty years, ennobled. from time to time, nearly two Inuit Ired or its own supporters. while all others wine passed by; sup.. pose all the Peers or that period to be chosen from alle faction. while all rank was denied to the other; was there any thing so mon 0 rously unconstitutional in that other _ Nay setthez theln.elv;•s right in the political sun and resuming that station in the House of Lords to which they were en*, led, when they obtained the aseendaney ? If ' it was nueoustitmional for the Whigs. when they ohtain-d power. to resume that ba- lance of ic thyme, is the House of Lords of whieh the long tenure of °Rice by their ad- versaries land d-prived them, than the inevitable result must be, that the pose; „tun of political aseendaney or thirty or forty years was to he a pesse,sioa for ever. It was no longer a question of public opinion or political rectitude, but it must be a question of whether one party or the other had been longest in °Rice.

Ile concluded by reminding the Anti-Reformers of the position in which they were placed— They were attempting. like Pelignac, to administer the Government in direct opposi- tion to the wishes of a whole people. They hail to dead however, with a people xs stubborn and as resolute as that of Flame. In attempting to administer the Govern- ' ment, they were so eager to grasp. they must either shamelessly desert the whole of their former protestations, or go in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of that House. Ault even it they could sum aid in overcoming the majority of that Ihmse, they would still have dang,ns before thein from which Mr. Pitt would have shrunk, and even an Earl or Strafford rise hesituted to encounter. They %%void go forth to the contest without arms. -it her totron•ive or nIcre:Isine. If they lad recourse to knee, they would find it vain; if tiv.y attempted gagging hills, they world Inn derided; in short. they would, in tal:1ng ullire, present a lutist tak,,r;l1:10 exbHtiun of inqs,:ent andAdon. and appear as if I hew it i-dh-d to show to tine world a melancholy example of little men • bringiug a great empire to destruction.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said, there were two ways in which the House of Lords might be rendered useless,—the one, as had formerly been done, by voting than useless ; the other, as it had been recently proposed to do, by the introduction of a number of new Peers. If the present House of Commons passed a resolution, declaring that the . King should not have the choice of his Ministers, and carried that resolution to the foot of the Throne—it the Monarch was so degraded by the present Parliament, what would it be by a retbrmed Parliament ? - Ministers had required the Ilona- of Lords to sninnit to their dictation. Ile trusted they wreild no, er allow th miselves to be so oven OM. I f t hey dint, thn.y would I lesprvo that with which the had been threatened—to 1:c suppresseh. If Ministers were up- held in the course which they had adop:ed, the co, or the Reform Bill would serve as a precedent, lb a RetoillIVII Pa rl iament, the Corn 11111 and other measures would be treated in a similar manner. Ile congratulated his Majesty. the represent:Woe of the illustrious House of Brunswick, for 110t having been led by evil counsellors to follow the example of the unfortunate family which his had succeeded upon the throne of these realms. Ile congratulated the Crown for having detected and opposed the eon- cealed villany set forth under a specious appearanee of liberality, to induce his Majesty to a most unmeasured. unlicensed. and exorbitant exercise or his prerogative, which would at once have annihilated the House of lauds, and established a principle whieh would be pursued by every future Administration.

[In the course of his speech. Sir ('harks, in swinging his arms about, gave Sir Robert Peel a smart slap on the face—not the first that Sir Charles has lent to Sir Robert. The blow and the apology created great laughter-]

Mr. Hoye made one of his usual speeches against the address.

The House then divided : for the motion, 288; against it, 208; . majority, 80.

Some conversation took place on the form in which the Address was to be presented.

Sir RICHARD VYVVAN spoke of the small majority—only SO in a House of 490. • It was at length agreed that, in order to spare the King's feelings, the Address should be carried up only by such of the House as were members 'of the Privy Council.

The House adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock ; the debate hav- ing lasted nearly nine hours.

4. REFORM PETITIONS. Last night, Mr. J. WOOD presented a great manly petitions on • the subject of the Bill, and among others the MancheSter petition, which we have noticed elsewhere. In moving that it be brought up, he said- Ylr:King had unfiutunately, in an evil 1194r. doliveced hitnsellinver to the influence of sow back:stabs intrigue, to some dirty intrigue -whethereffected by man or woman Ile knew not. lit an evil hour the King had listened to pernicious a•Ivisers. If the Moir supposed that he could remain Chief Magistrate of the country by the help of a lidroughmongering faction, he was deceived. The People of England would soon send athpt faction dispersed over the four quarters of Ow globe.

'Mr. JAMES observed, that he bad heard the Duke of Wellington 1114,S to be once more Premier, and that they were to have a military Government. He also understood that Parliament was to be dissolved on Monday next. But he had no fear upon the subject.

Ilftle.t soldiers so for forgot their duty as citizens. as to 'eke part iwainst the people, ito.yet knew that swords and bayonets and pistols and cannons, awl oven dungeons, aopld not compel that House to vote the Supplies—the Supplies for the support of the Army. Swords and bayonets and cannons count not prevent men from taking a certain 'purse as to the payment of taxes. Colonel EVANS having observed that he had that day attended a meeting which, like that at Manchester, was one of those ‘u!gar assent- btages so much condemned by the Member for Thetfurd, .Mr. BARING said, the expressions used by him on Thursday had Nen falsified.

Colonel EVANS—" Before I proceed, I will give the honourable, gentleman an opportunity of retracting the word falsify."

Mr. BARING disclaimed all intention of personal offence.

-Colonel EVANS then went on to say, that at the meeting he had attended, the plan of resistance to taxes Was received with enthusiasm. He noticed the fortification of the Tower, the last act of the Duke of Wellington's last Government ; lie hoped it would not be the first of his new Government. • Lira Hosts said, he had taken down Mr. Baring's words on Thurs- day; they Nverc—" Clubs and assemblies brawling without, and dele- gates within."

Mr. BARING said, he did not remember using such words, but he would cheerfully repeat them-

?' As long as he had a seat in that house, be would firmly end fearlessly express his minion and sentiments, without caring one straw in what public bodies, whether con- sisting uf 10,000 or 1(1,000,000 persons, his expressions were misrepresented."

Mr. IlemE made some observations on the importance of the petition.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE recurred to Mr. Baring's speech— When that honourable member accused people of brawling, surely be forgot some of . the terms which he had himself used in that douse. When speaking ofthe late Go. wernment. the honourable member had not unfrequently called the late Governtnent

• Coustitutiontmougers ;" and the chief law officer of the Crown " a mob-courting At- torney-General."

. The Speaker, after a few words of deprecation from Mr. BARING, reminded Mr. Duncombe of the irregularity of recurring to former debates.

-Mr. DUNCOMBE bowed to the authority of the Chair ; and then pro- ceeded to put a question to Sir Robert Peel touching the report of his forming one of the new Administration.

,Sir ROBERT PEET. promptly replied, that the report was altogether -unfounded. He stood in the IIouse in a private capacity ; he had not taken office, nor had he been called on to take it— It was because he stood there in a private capacity. that he begged leave to entreat the. house to take care that while it en r tssed its opinions on t he great question w hutch now occupied the public mini with firmness, to do so temper:06y. Ile felt that neither he nor ally other member bad a right to dictate to any gentleman the measure of ve- hemence with which he should give utterance to his feelings ; but he also tilt it to 1 tt a matter of duty to re,.pect fully urge upon the House the expediency, indeed imperative necessity, of not a:tiling to the excitement of the public by violent expressions, or un- necessary reference to delicate and topics. It was the inure neettetary that they should abstain from such indiscreet allusions and exciting topics, as there was no Man in that II■111,0 authorized to address the Ileuse ca the part of the Crown, so is to give an official contraditt; ion to t he vague assertions ear mdbunded rumours, affecting the public mind, like the L just retirrited to, and apparently credited by I he honourable member for Ilertford; else why fonntl a question upon it? It was Nov no means impro. table that many other rumours equally groundless. and equally stimulant to the pub- lic mind. might be in circulation ; however, it might ute he so easy to expose : so that he trusted, in the absence of persons authorized by the Crown to speak officially, that honourable members would exercise a wholesome discretion in bringing them in an authoritative manner before the public.

Sir Robert concluded by defending the arrangements at the Tower, alluded to by Colonel Evans.

Lord Aurnotie also strongly counselled temperateness— It was the duty of every honest Refermer to impress this important fact upon the miuds of the People; and it was his urgent hope teat it w• old b2 acted upon, and that the peuple would seek for their rights firmly, but temperately, and by uu means which the laws did not recognize as within their bounds.

Mr. Gn.Los said, the House and the People had still one resource left—

They could still read a lesson to hanghty Lords and overpaid and treacherous Churchmen. Their late conduct would increase, ii it were possible, the public detesta- tion to the system by which they throve, and the conduct they pursued. This, then, le.declared, and he believed the feeling to be general, that anal a bill, at least as ex- tensive as the one lately before the House, should have become a law, he should not pay one farthing of taxes. A despotic Government, if such venture to assume the reins of (lice, might imprison his person or distrain his goods, but they should not enslave his mind. If any mum ventured to purchase these goods, a brand would be set on him like Cain, and he would be marked for the execration and detestation of his countrymen.

Mr. CURTEIS and the O'CONNOR Dos expressed their strong regret, that they had been accidentally absent on Thursday.

Sir F. BURDETT said, the plain duty of the House was to support no Ministry not identical in principle ivith that of Earl Grey— It was said the Duke of Wellington—the bold Captain—the pledged foe to all Re- forin—was about to prove his own memorable declaration, one of the wisest in his political career, that " he should be mad to think of accepting office." Let him make the experiment. It would soon be seen, that though he might be as brave, he would be as senseless as his sword, to think. under the present circumstances of the country, and 'With his Polignac vision of its wants mid iuterests, to undertake the management cilia affairs; (Great cheering.) The House of Lords last night were occupied in receiving petitions. The Earl of CAMPERDOWN presented twenty from vitriol's places in Scotland; and among others, one from Aberdeen, signed by 8,000 people.

After some further conversation on the same subject, Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting a petition from Sheffield, signed by 29,000 persons, observed that the repeated denials of the numbers and value of these meetings would, he was afraid, receive a very alarming contradiction.

',CALL OF THE HOUSE. Mr. Hume, last night, gave notice of a call fe the House for Monday; he should perhaps have a motion on the

state of the nation to make for that day, andle wished the attendance to be full.

5. MankmA. On Monday, Lord ELIOT put some questions to Lord Palmerston respecting the blockade.of this island. He wished.-to know who had notified it ; in whose name it was imposed; what was to be deemed in such.a case an effective blockade ; whether the blockading vessels were not officered and manned by Englishmen?

Lord PALMERSTON said, the letter to Lloyd's stated the blockade to be imposed by the Queen of Portugal ; he believed it to be effective. Of the crews and officers be knew nothing, save that the commander had formerly been in the British Navy, and was so no longer. The blockade was communicated in the ordinary way by the Admind on the station to the English Consul, and by the Consul to the Government.

6. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. On Monday, the printer and others connected with the breach of privilege complained of before the recess by Lord Sronmosr, in printing a list of the division of the Committee on the Sunderland Docks Bill;' with comments on their conduct, ap- peared at the bar of the House. Mr. Wright and Mr. Belson, the agents for the bill, expressed their extreme regret at having unwittingly tninsgresed the orders of the House. The whole of them were dis- missed, with an admonition.

7. ANATOMY BILL. This bill was read a third time last night,.in the Commons, after two divisions.

8. IRISH TITHES BILL—The second reading of this bill, in the House of Lords, Was postponed last night. Lord MELLOURNE said, under present circumstances, he could no longer be responsible for that measure.

9. PUBLIC BUSINESS. On Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved for a Committee " to take into consideration the best means to be adopted for facilitating the presentation of Public Petitions." Sir Robert ex- plained, that without interfering with the right of members to present petitions to the House, he wished all petitions, where members were content to waive that right, shouldgo to this Committee ; which would classify them, and set forth their general prayer, and also report the number of signatures attached to each to the House. Sir Robert sug- gested also, that in presenting petitions, members should limit them- selves to one speech.

The Committee was granted ; to consist of the following members— Sir Robert Peel, Lord Viscount Althorp, Williams Wynn, Mar- quis of Chandos, Mr. Hume, Mr. Littleton, Mr. Rutbven, Lord Viscount &uion, Mr. Charles Culvert, Mr. Yates Peel, Mr. Alder- man Wood, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Ayshford Sanford, Mr. Shell, Sir Richard Vyvyan, Mr. Heywood, Sir George Clerk, Colonel Davies, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Adam Pundits, Sir Hcdworth Williamson, Mr. J. E. Gordon, Lord -Viscount Morpeth, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Robert Gordon, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Warburton, Mr. -Fynes Clinton, Mr. Lawley, Mr. Robinson. Five to be the quorum.