NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE attention of Parliament—ever directed to the last toy—has been chiefly occupied during the week with the squabble between the King of Holland arid the King of Belgium. It has been dis- cussed in the Lords, and discussed in the Commons ; and, by way of doing it still more ample justice, Mr. CHOKER was so kind as to favour the latter with a report of the Lords' debate as an episode to their own. The endeavours of the Anti-Reformers to fix the eyes of the public on the delinquencies of Ministers instead of their own, have not redounded much to their advantage. Lord PALMERSTON, who requires some enforcement to impel him to exert his powers, treated the ex-Seeretary,last night, after a fashion that will very forcibly remind our readers of the well-known story of the cur and the mastiff. Mr. CHOKER took the sprinkling with touch humility.

The Reform Bill has now arrived at the 13th clause, the 12th being postponed with a view to a verbal amendment. The House sits to-day, but it is understood that no disputed clause will be taken. The Opposition seem to have given up all hope of stop- ping, or of much longer delaying the measure. The chief—Sir ROBERT PEEL—has betaken himself to the ruralities of Drayton Park, to strengthen his influence among the new voters of Tam- worth, against the approaching dissolution.

The only question which has caused any debate, in the House or out of it, is that of dividing the counties which are in future to return four members. We cannot concur with our Reforming brethren in their sweeping condemnation of this clause. We think many of the objections to it are unfounded, most of them unfair. It was, we. will not say the first, but certainly it was a very important object of the Bill, to give properly its due influence in the representation. Supposing that the division of counties does augment the influence of half a dozen of families— supposing that the estates even of the greatest are capable of counterbalancing the free votes in a population of 100,000 or 290,000,—supposing, lastly, that their influence will not only be augmented, but injuriously exerted,—we, the Reformers, have no- thing of which to complain. We took the Bill for better for worse. We have got rid of 150 nominee members ; we have got more than 100 free members in addition to those that we had before ; should we grudge to the aristocracy the retention, or the creation, if it must beso called, of 20 or 30 ? " Why not the Bill without this clause?" it is said. Is it so very certain that without this clause we should have got even the offer of the Bill ? Say it is a sop to the Lords—is not the boon worth the sop ? It is said the county franchise will be emasculated by the withdrawing of the town electors. How long has their influence been a predominating one? Where was the power of Leeds and Huddersfield before the election of 1830 ? We are told that nomination in counties is more dangerous to freedom than nomination in boroughs. Be it so—the advocates of freedom have now more power to with- stand it. The Tines holds out the prospect of the clause being revised. What means this ? Are we to play the game of our enemies, and seek, after the seal has been set to the charter of our libertieS, to attempt to tear it off again, and to subject the whOle measure to a second or a third discussion? We are, lastly, told that the enemies of Reform are the friends of the" clause, and, therefore, it must be bad. Are the cunning al- ways. wise ? Have the Opposition shown so much foresight in their conduct that we need tremble even at their support ? We are not inclined to deny that the preservation of the integrity of Counties might make "the Bill" a better bill than it is. But let us get " the Bill" in the first place. If it wont work, we will then try for a better. The Coronation has, in the course of the week, ministered food for an attack upon*Ministers. Lord STRANGFORD insists that if it costs less than 240,000/. it will be a shabby affair. The Mar- quis of LONDONDERRY will not allow any man to salute the King in his name. .The Opposition Lords threaten to absent themselves from the Abbey. There will be the more room for honest men, who are not Lords.

These earnest endeavours, on the part of the Opposition, to turn away the public attention from the grand object of the ses- sion, are well meant, but their success has not been propor- tionate. Chance, which will now and then offer a straw to a drowning man, displayed more than usual kindness in pre- senting ta them the squabble between the King of Holland and his newly-acquired brother. They were absolutely at their wits- end for a decent pretence to delay the Bill, when it came to their aid ; and oh ! how they clutched at it ! •TDONDERRY, VYVYAN, STORMONT, CHANDOS, CROKER, the whew sag, rag, and bobtail of the " PEEL and DAwsoN Crew," except the plausible leader himself, questioning, motioning, speechifying away, with more than Dutch wit and more than Belgic courage! But all will not do. We are not to be drawn aside from the great principle which we are about to establish at home, by prate about principks to be established abroad. Mr. CROKER.S motion for an inquiry into the soundness of Lord PALMERSTON'S memory, which would scarcely brook twenty-four hours' delay, will not remove from the memory of the people of England the tricks of Mr. CHOKER and his paltry band. Nor will the Reformers of England be in- duced to turn their attention from the march of the Bill, by any pitiful attempt on the part of its enemies to fix them on the march of General GERARD. Whether Holland or Belgium be righted or wronged, the Reformers of England have common sense enough left to determine on righting themselves before they interfere with either.

1. FOREIGN RELATIONS. In our second edition last week, we noticed the postponement of Sir RICHARD VYVYAN'S motion, for the production of papers connected with the late affairs in Bel- gium, which stood for that day—on the request of Lord PALMER- STON; who stated that it might be productive of great inconve- nience if pressed at that moment. On Monday, Lord PALMER- STON repeated, in answer to a question from Lord GEORGE BEN- TINCK, the substance of what he had stated on Saturday, in reply to questions of Lord CHANDOS, Lord STORMONT, and Sir RICHARD VYVYAN,—namely, that

On Wednesday, the day on which orders were given for the French army to march to the assistance of the Belgians, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris invited to a conference the Ambassadors of Eng- land, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, and communicated to them the orders which the French Government had given, and the reasons on which they were founded. This communication was accompanied by an assurance that the march of the French troops had no other object than the pre- servation of the independence and neutrality of Belgium ; and that as soon as the Dutch troops should be repelled into their own frontiers, the troops of France would retire into the department of the North. Upon this a question was put by the English Ambassador with respect to the possible occupation of the Belgian fortresses by the French troops ; and the reply given to this question was, that the French forces would

only pass through the fortresses which lay in their route. He might add, that he had that morning received a despatch from Lord Granville, the British Ambassador at Paris, communicating a written note from the French Government, repeating the assurances which had been previously given verbally by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The question was discussed in the House of Lords, on Tuesday ; when the Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved "for copies or extracts of papers relating to the late negotiations for the settlement of Bel- gium." He began by adverting to the state of singular prosperity in which England was left at the death of his brother Lord Castle- reagh, aided by the military talents of the Duke of Wellington. In proceeding to institute a comparison between the condition of the country in 1822 and at present, he said he expected no cour- tesylitm Ministers, who, when he asked a question, described his inquiries as unintelligible, and taunted him with the discovery of mares' nests, He complained of being exposed to the abusive eloquence of the Premier, not from the disposition of that Cicero of the present day, but because he was cheered on by the Lords who sat behind him ; and if he should prove in any degree inade- quate to the task, "there was the noble and learned Lord on the woollack to supply all the desiderata, by that. vituperative volu- bility—that fierce invective—that indignant sarcasm, for which he had always been so celebrated." All that he could oppose to this talent and sarcasm, was his constitutional obstinacy of purpose. When Earl Grey came into power, the Marquis hoped to be able --,- ; to give him his support, because, from the Earl's opposition to Mr.. -77.- Canning in 1827, he concluded, he must bea supporter of the sys-.:: tern so gloriously established in 1814 and 1815. But he was com- pletely undeceived, when he foundlis Lordship, in.a speech on the 74-r. , 24th June lait, state, that "lathe negotiationswhichhad had for tlieirAg 1 Object the settlement of Europe, the Duke of Wellington had laid the seeds of all those distractions and changes which had occurred since that period." The Marquis asserted, that but for the late Revolution in France, Europe would now have enjoyed peace ; and that in eulogizing the Revolution and condemning the settlement of 1815, Lord Grey had shown an equal want of wisdom and of taste, considering that Lord Goderich and others of his colleagues had been parties to that settlement. Lord Londonderry went on to divide the subject of his speech into three heads- 1st, He proposed to direct attention to the early part of the negotia- tions down to Lord Ponsonby's letter at Brussels, in May or June ; 2nd, To the protocol relative to the demolition of the fortresses, and the speech of the King of France; and 3rdly, To the manifesto of Holland, and our deplorable position with respect to foreign relations as they subsisted at this moment.

After declaring that the whole course of the Ministerial policy was to him unintelligible, the Marquis proceeded to note the va- rious steps of the negotiations,—the choice of the Duke of Leuch- tenbourg, of the Duke de Nemours, and lastly of Prince Leopold; the disputes about the boundary ; and Lord Ponsonby's letter, which began, he said, "as a young girls missive from a boarding- school ends," by apologizing for haste. He read a passage from the letter, and concluded by another theory of its origin—" it looked as if it were the production of an Abbe, or had emanated from the miserable shop, of Reform." The letter, he said, had produced immeasurable Mischief; and he read an extract from a French newspaper, in which it was denominated fraudulent, hypocritical, and insincere. He next adverted to the protocol respecting the fortresses; and wished to know by whom it had been in- stigated ? It could not be the Four Powers ; it could not be Hol- lnd or Belgium; it must have been France, acting under the influence of Prince Talleyrand. He contended that Russia, Austria, and Prussia, being in considerable difficulty, it the more became Great Britain to shield these Powers under the might of England "until they could act in such a way as their disposition and their interests prompted them." The Marquis contrasted the language of the protocol with the language of the King of France's speech; which he said put him so much in mind of the trickery and charlatanerie of Napoleon, that it must have been drawn up by some disciple of his school. He asked, would we put up with such scurrilous misrepresentation as this ? Ought not the French Ministers to be called to an account for so wilful a misstatement?

When he reflected upon the conduct pursued by Prince Talleyrand all through these negotiations, he trembled not only for the position of Europe, but also for the position of England. He saw no longer any trace of that great mind which had once so ably directed the destinies of Europe ; but he saw the wily mind of Prince Talleyrand now directing the debates regarding them, and he was afraid that we were now in his bands for all our political arrangements.

The Marquis said, the arrangements respecting the forts had produced an electric feeling all over the country—and even ope- rated on the editor of the Times. He proceeded, in proof of the latter assertion, to read a leading article from the Times, in which the time and manner of announcing the dismantling of the forts had been deprecated. He next read a letter from Lord Clancarty, in which also the foreign policy of the Ministry was strongly con- demned. He went on to comment on the impolicy of dismantling the fortresses ; and more especially on the fact that the Cabinet contained no military man except the Duke of Richmond. Hav- ing disposed of the fortresses, Lord Londonderry proceeded to the Dutch Manifesto ; he read, in French, the protocols of the 19th and 20th January, and commented on their tenor ; and on the changes in the basis of the negotiation which subsequently took place. He described the protocols as arranging every thing, and the eighteen articles as disarranging every thing; and that the mission to the Hague to prevail on the King of Holland to accept of the latter only added insult to outrage. With regard to the complaint against the King of Holland, that he had broken the armistice, Lord Londonderry contended, it was satisfactorily met by the speech of M. Verstolk. He adverted to the claim for as- sistance made by Prince Leopold, and the marching of the French troops.

Was it a fair proceeding, he would ask, on the part of either the King of Belgium or the King of France? It surely would not bare been too much for either of these two monarchs to have waited a few days, or it might be a few weeks, until they had received the noble Earl's fiat for their future proceedings. Where was the hurry either for making or answering the call for assistance? The King of Belgium was at the head of four millions, and the King of Holland was only at the head of two millions of subjects. Why, then, should King Leopold have sent for suc- cours from France in such breathless haste ? Could he not have held out for a few days, until the conferences had decided whether France or Eng- land should have the direction of the assisting force?

He wished to know if the days of Charles the Second were come back again, and we were about to join France in order to crush Holland.

Why should a great country like this submit to such degradation ? He bad the authority of the Duke of Wellington for stating, that when he left office never was England more capable, if a just cause offered, of maintaining a successful war. God forbid, then, that, as an Englishman, he should ever consent to tide on as the present Government was doing, to avoid the contingency of war. In his opinion, the best way to avoid the contingency of war, was to show that we were not afraid of it, and were prepared to meet its hazards. He would, therefore, advise his Ma- jesty's Government to take up a higher tone than that which they had hitherto used in these negotiations. He could assure them, that if they did assume such a tone, they would find Austria, Prussia, and Russia, xaady to chime in with it.

He concluded by saying, that his motion would not have been made had Earl Grey answered his questions in such a way as his duty as a Minister and his courtesy as a member of the House re- quired him to do. Earl GREY said- " I certainly feel, my Lords, that with respect to the transactions to which the noble Marquis has alluded, I am subject to a very great and a very heavy responsibility. From that responsibility I shall not desire to flinch. But there is one responsibility which I disclaim, and that is the responsibility of being, in any the slightest degree, the cause of the very long speech which the noble Lord has thought proper to deliver upon this occasion. That responsibility rests solely on the noble Lord himself ; and I hope that when he retires from this place, he will be able to reflect with a satisfied conscience on the course which he has pursued to-day, and on the line of argument with which he has attempted to justify it. I should be sorry, my Lords, if I could be justly taunted with having been on any occasion deficient either in my duty as a Minister of the Crown, or in the courtesy which every member of this House has a right to ex- pect from another. I am not conscious, provoked as I have been by questions put to me day after day, accompanied by invectives and decla- mations not very usual in this place, and founded not on answers which I ever gave, but on answers which it was supposed that it was probable that I might give,—I am not conscious, I say, that I have ever treated any

of your Lordships either with discourtesy or with disrespect. I might be excused, if, under the taunts and provocations which have assailed me,

human infirmity had produced temporary warmth ; but I am not con.. scious that I ever exhibited any such feeling ; and my answer to the noble Lord is, that if he put certain questions to me, because he felt it to be his duty to put them, I withheld an answer to those questions be.. cause I felt it to be my duty to withhold it." He requested the attention of the House to Lord Londonderry's counsel, and the encouragement which he held out to the country to act upon it. " I beg, my Lords, that you will not overlook the circumstances under which the noble Marquis calls upon us to take that decisive step which may long banish from Europe all the blessings of peace. The noble Mar- quis has told us that Russia has got the cholera ; that she is engaged in a war with Poland ; that she would, therefore, have great difficulty in bringing her forces into the west of Europe; and that, consequently, she could give us little or no assistance. He has likewise told us that Austria and Prussia are both in a great degree incapacitated by circumstances from taking an active share in any general European warfare; and who is there that looks upon the dissatisfied and disturbed state of Italy and of Germany, and does, not see the truth of that intelligence ? Such being his premises, what do your Lordships think is the conclusion of the noble Marquis?—That, in proportion as these our allies are weak, and incapable of assisting either themselves or us, are we bound to enter into a war on their behalf against France, capable as she is of rousing every state in Europe to the most dangerous pitch of excitement ! I feel all the difficul- ties and dangers of such a position. I feel, too, that we might be reduced, notwithstanding all our reluctance, to meet these difficulties and these dangers in the face, and to incur the dreadful evil of another war in sup- port of our national character and our national independence. But will the noble Marquis, who knows nothing of what has passed in these nego- tiations, say that the moment is now come, when, after having taken every step which we hitherto have taken with the full concurrence of all the Powers, and when we have every prospect of continuing to act with their concurrence, if we are permitted to follow our own policy,—will the noble Marquis say that the moment is now come when we ought to fly in the face of them all, and thereby to involve Europe in a war of opinions ?" After adverting to the desultory character of Lord London- derry's speech, Lord Grey continued- " The noble Marquis has Inveighed in good set terms, but not with very sound discretion, against Ministers for abandoning their doctrine of non-interference. There is not a principle which I have ever maintained upon that point that lain not ready at this moment to reassert. I admit that the principle of not interfering in the internal affairs of other na- tions with a view to change their domestic government, is one of the most sacred principles of the law of nations. I am ready, however, to contend that that principle is subject to exception. I assert, that as far as regards Belgium and Holland, and the choice of a government for the former, there has been no interference on the part of the British Govern- ment. There are, however, certain principles of interference connected with the rights of self-defence, which justify and render interference ne- cessary. It is on these principles of necessary self-defence that Ministers have acted ; and it is because they have so acted, they did not expect the animadversions of the noble Duke and the noble Earl, who them- selves acted upon the same principles under the same circumstances. Nay more, the arrangements upon which they have acted were actually begun by the noble Duke's Cabinet, for the very proper purpose of avert.. ing what he at the time justly termed the conflagration of Europe"' In answer to a question in the concluding sentence of Lord Lon- donderry's speech, Earl Grey replied—. He wished to God that be could say that any thing had been done to produce a positive settlement of the angry relations between Holland and Belgium; but he could not : all he could say was, that the settlement —so desired, he was sure, by all—was in a state of progress; and he hoped that during the progress of that settlement their Lordships would see the inexpediency of calling for information, the production of which, under the circumstances of a most delicate negotiation, might risk the defeat of the object the country had in view. Such a production would at that moment be highly detrimental to the public service; and though a reference to it would easily expose the groundlessness of the noble Marquis's attack, he still, by not producing it, nor referring to it, would submit patiently to the noble Marquis's vituperation—confident that when the proper hour of explanation arrived, justice would be awarded to him by their Lordships and the public. No surprise, Earl Grey said, need have been felt by Lord Lon- donderry at his departing from the policy of Lord Castlereagh, as he had-not only on the very first day of the last session of the late Parliament expressed his opinion that Belgium and Holland must be separated, but at the, period of the "settlement of Europe," as it was called, he had equally expressed his sentiments on the forced and unnatural union by which the balance of power was sought to be maintained. The result proved that he was right, and Lord Castlereagh wrong. It was true, Earl Grey observed, he had differed from Mr. Canning on some points of his foreign policy, i but it did not follow that he should in consequence agree with the foreign policy of Mr. Canning's predecessor. Having adverted generally to the irritating language employed by the Marquis of

Londonderry, Earl Grey noticed in particular the charge against he French Government.

He was bound to state, that the conduct of the French Government in the whole transaction had been most fair and open. It had been called upon to interfere, pursuant to treaty, in the case of an armistice having been violated without notice, and contrary to the understanding of the other parties to it, as this country and the other parties to the treaty had been called upon ; and in acting as they had done, they felt they were merely fulfilling their solemn engagement. " Admitted," says Lord Lon- - donderry, " but why not await the result of negotiation • and concerted mediation ?" Earl Grey was not then called upon to discuss that point. It was sufficient for the present purpose to state that the French Govern- ment had not interfered but on this most pressing solicitation ; and that they bad given the most positive assurance that their sole object was the defence of Belgium, and that when that should have been secured, and the Dutch troops should have gone hack into Holland, the French troops should forthwith return \eithin the French frontiers.

In conclusion, Earl Grey appealed to their Lordships if they concurred in opinion with the Marquis of Londonderry that the Ministers were pursuing, in respect to Belgium, a policy deroga- tory to the honour of the country and the King,—to say so at once :

And let the noble Marquis come forward with a direct motion to dis- possess them of their present places, instead of endeavouring to hold them up to public censure by indirect attacks like the present. This would be the more manly course—that easiest to be grappled with.

The Duke of WELLINGTON complained, chiefly, that in conse- quence of the turn which the negotiations had taken, we had lost that influence upon the Government of the Netherlands which it had been the policy of all English statesmen to maintain. With respect to the armistice demanded by the Five Powers, the Duke insisted that even yet it had not been enforced ; and where it was, the King of the Netherlands was alone prejudiced by it. The Duke was ready to admit, that the reunion of Belgium with Hol- land was impracticable ; but still he must contend, that the in- terests of Holland had been overlooked in arranging the terms of the separation. The Duke proceeded to comment on the letter of Lord Ponsonby; in which, without any communication with the King of Holland, Luxemburg, which had been previously guaran- teed by implication to Holland, was, on Lord Ponsonby's own responsibility, handed over to Belgium. The King of Holland had a right to complain of this.

It was the old interest of England, no less than of Holland, that Bel- gium should be beyond the control and influence of the French Govern ment; and yet Ministers had set these interests at nought, or rather abandoned them in favour of Belgium. It was our interest not to let the French troops overrun Belgium, as they no doubt would do if they had not done so already ; and it was no valid justification that their having done so was in pursuance of a treaty, to which we also were a party, for guaranteeing the integrity of the new kingdom of Belgium. He asked what business had we in .guaranteeing this integrity at the expense of Holland ? None whatever ; nay, more, our only business ought to have been to guarantee the integrity of Holland against Belgium and other states. Then let them look how the interests of the King of Holland had been abandoned in the eighteen preliminary articles referred to by his noble friend. In the original basis of separation, the King of Holland is guaranteed the Duchy of Luxemburg. He is willing to abide by that basis. In the mean time, the new King of Belgium steps in and swears to the maintenance of the constitution which the allied Powers have drawn up ; of which constitution the annexation of the Duchy of Luxemburg to the new kingdom was a fundamental feature, showing that the King of Holland has just ground of complaint against this country and the other parties to the articles ; and this, too, in favour of a newly-elected King, whom no power in Europe as yet had recognised, except the Kings of France and England. Was it, therefore, surprising that the King of the Netherlands should complain of his interests being thus abandoned by us? or that we had, in fact, lost our influence over the Dutch Govern- ment ? Could it be expected that we should retain the good-will of a state whose interests we thus disregarded?

The Duke made a special charge of negligence against Lord Palmerston— After the King of Holland had received the communication of the terms upon whichthe Allied Powers had agreed to the separation of Holland and Belgium, he forwarded a despatch to the British Government, in which he distinctly states that he will endeavour to maintain the origi- nal basis of the separation "par des moyens militaires," by military means. This letter was delivered at the Foreign Office by M. Zuylen de Nyevelt, on Wednesday at twelve o'clock ; but, strange to say,, was not opened by the noble Foreign Secretary till next day. That is, a letter containing this important communication was not opened till it was to late to pre- vent the mischief it was directed against. This was important to bear in mind ; for he maintained that had that letter been, as it ought to have been, opened on its arrival at the Foreign Office, there would have been sufficient time to prevent the march of the French troops across the Bel- gian frontier, and, indeed, that of the Dutch troops across their own frontier, if they had, which he doubted, even as yet crossed that frontier.

Earl GREY commented on the expression moyens militaires, and explained the case of the letter— The Duke of Wellington interpreted the expression moyens militaires as if it had no other meaning than military means" or instruments. Now he put it to their Lordships whether the obvious signification of the terms moyens militaires was not military " measures." (" No," from the Duke of Wellington.) The noble duke might say no, but he was singular in his interpretation. It was true, as the noble Duke had stated, that M. Zuylen de Nyevelt had forwarded to the Foreign Office, on Wednesday night, the document referred to ; but as it was addressed, not to the Foreign Secretary, but to the conference at large, it in consequence was not opened till the conference had met on the next day, Thursday. In the mean time, we had received despatches from the British Ambassadors at the several Courts, to which asimilar letter had been addressed by the King of Holland; and they had unanimously concurred in interpreting the expression moyens in a sense different from that of the noble Duke. They, in fact, in common with, not only the members of the Cabinet, including of course the Foreign Secretary, but also the Ambassadors, parties to the conference, unitetlin giving to the expression but the one obvious meaning of being a mere," measure," not implying actual war- . fare. They- never for a moment contemplated the proceeding of the • King, of Holland, . and all united in surprise tit his violation of the areal's- -

The Duke of WELLINGTON repeated his interpretation of the word. It might be rendered " measures," but its obvious mean- Mg was " means or instruments."

Earl GREY said Lord Palmerston had half an hour's conversa- tion with the Dutch Ambassador on Thursday, and not a word transpired that could lead to the belief that the phrase indicated any act of overt hostility.

Lord BROUGHAM strongly deprecated the discussion of delicate and still pending negotiations. Whatever responsibility, however, attached to it, did not rest with the Ministers, but with Lord Lon- donderry, or rather with those persons, more witty than himself, who urged him on, and of whom he was the mouthpiece.

Not only was the noble Eatl* made the mouthpiece, but he was like- wise created the headpiece of the party ; and he availed himself of his being this headpiece, to snatch every possible opportunity of a chance- debate to bring forward the most unfounded charges, and to make the most uncandid statements and unauthorized assertions that any member of the Legislature ever ventured upon; nay, the noble Earl went further than Lord Brougham had ever heard any man go in a court of law, even among the hired advocates whose professional duty it was to make speeches up to the mark of the statements and instructions in their brief. He did not state this out of any disrespect to professional orators or hired advocates—he only made the observation by way of acknowledg- ment to the noble Earl's discreet zeal and consummate judgment.

In respect to the alleged neglect of Lord Palmerston, the Lord Chancellor observed—

How the opening of the letter could have led to any stopping of the military operations, did greatly exceed his comprehension. It was brought to this country by a person who was perfectly well aware, before he left the Hague, that orders had been publicly issued for the immediate march of the Dutch troops. Lord Brougham fully concurred in the mea-

sures which his colleagues had taken ; and they were taken within half an hour after the fact had been communicated on Wednesday night, so little did the charge of largos apply to his noble friend. (Checrs from Lord Londonderry.) Measures had been taken at two o'clock that morning, Lord Palmerston being in possession of the fact of orders having been issued to the Dutch army; but if the noble Earl expected that he should tell hiva what those measures were, he reckoned, as he did on other occasions, very much without his host. If the letter had been opened, nothing more could have been done. If, as it had been asserted, the person who brought the letter had come over to negotiate, after the troops had been ordered to march, this would have been, to use a term of Dutch diplomacy, a case of uberritna fides ; but it was singular that he had never dropped the slightest hint, or taken the slightest step, that could indicate that such was the object of his journey.

The Chancellor went on to comment on the final settlement of European affairs in 1515. It was in one sense indeed a final. settlement, for every year that had since elapsed had seen it ap- proaching its end, and now it had finally arrived at it. He al, laded with great point to the invasion of Spain by the French under the Duke of Angouleme. Lord Brougham said he was not the first nor the only one who took credit for seeing these matters in a sounder light than Godolphin or Marlborough.

But if the latter had lived to 1823, he would not have held down his head with shame, nor would he have lifted up his eyes with amazement, to see that after he had made war so long and so gloriously, in order to prevent France having any influence beyond the Pyrenees, this country could suffer France absolutely to overrun Spain, without firing one single shot in her defence, and, what was more, without using any of those re- monstrances, or any even of the weakest of those terms, which diplomacy keeps bottled up for the use of cabinets.

Lord Brougham repelled in the strongest terms the insinuation that England had deserted the King of Holland ; or that we had encouraged, much less enforced the arrangements by which Prince Leopold ascended the throne of Belgium. The choice was freely made ; and the only drawback, in Lord Brougham's opi- nion, to the object of it, was his connexion with England, since in no case could England haire any business to make itself a party with Belgium. With respect to Luxemburg, Lord Brougham denied that we were in any respect bound to holland. On that point, Holland was not our ally. Luxemburg was the private patrimony of the house of Nassau, but our treaties with Holland did not bind us to interfere to preserve the integrity of that house.

Lord Brougham said he could not conclude without noticing the charge brought against him by Lord Londonderry, that he was fond of sarcasm. He denied being fond of it, but Lord London- derry, he observed, was fond of it and he was prone to indulge in it, judging, as men will often do, that what they like to do, they must necessarily excel in. For his own part, he enjoyed the sar- casm of the noble Earl— It was most innocuous—perfectly innocent—and sometimes very amusing. This only proved his proposition, that, though a person might have not the least skill in stripping off his enemy's skis. (which was the original meaning of the word sarcasm), yet he might show as much of the vituperative spirit as if he were the most suc- cessful and efficient of all the practitioners of sarcasm in ancient

or modern times. The noble Earl's speech had been very much mixed up with attacks of every sort; but he would say a word or two on it, and in a perfect spirit of good humour. The noble Earl had

hardly condescended to mention a single family, a foreign Minister, or, a set of foreign Ministers, without taking some opportunity of attacking

them. His noble friend—he begged the noble Earl's pardon for calling him friend, but he suspected that the noble Earl wished to be his friend, as he wished to be so vituperative—had let the noble Earl at the head of the Treasury come in for a share of vituperation. He had attacked, the

noble Earl for appointing persons connected with him to diplomatic si- tuations, and for appointing another person connected with him to a bishoprick. If ever there was an ungrateful man—a thoroughly un- grateful man—,or, as the old woman said in the play, a fond ungrateful man—it was the noble Earl. He was most fond of newspapers, and how could he get on with his speeches without them ? He had that night not only taken all his data out of a newspaper, but when his own arguments were failing or exhausted, he had ingeniously eked them out, by reading w' The Chancellor, throughout this speech, stands on ,punctilio with the Morn* and alludes to him as Earl Vane, in:which character he sits in theliouse of 1,6*, the arguments of the editor of a French Jacobin journal, and he had fur- ther condescended to translate these quotations for the benefit of all the members of that House who had not had the benefit of a Continental education. And, with all this deep debt of gratitude to the press, no one was more inclined to vituperate the press than the noble Earl. Lord Brougham went on to allude to the elevation of Dr. Grey to the see of Derry, which Lord Londonderry had insinuated was in contemplation ; and observed, as that Reverend person had al- ready all the blame of the preferment, he thought Earl Grey should at once give him the advantages of it, and in this way Lord Lm. donderry's speech would do some good. Lord Brougham concluded by deprecating in the strongest manner the attack of the Marquis on the Foreign Ambassadors ; an attack unparalleled, he said, in coarseness, injustice, and impolicy. The Earl of Al3ERDEEN went into the history of the protocols, joined the Marquis of Londonderry in blaming the indifference of Ministers to the fate of Holland. He thought if the French had possession of the Texel and Helvoetsluys, the issue might be as dangerous to the country as if they had possession of Portsmouth and Plymouth. He spoke of the Ministry throwing themselves for support on the disaffection of the country, and abandoning all that course of policy which had rendered England prosperous and happy. lie concluded, however, by stating that he would not vote for Lord Londonderry's motion, although he looked on the policy of Government as tending to compromise the peace and safety of the country, and of all the countries in Europe. Lord HOLLAND said, Lord Carnarvon described the Ministers as throwing themselves upon the discontented. It was plain, how- ever, that they did not throw themselves upon the noble Lord. He spoke of them as endeavouring to maintain themselves in power by removing the causes of discontent, whenever or by whomsoever they might be expressed; he would find that they would not maintain or increase their power by any endeavour to remove it as far as he was concerned. The Marquis of London- derry's speech and motion had a threefold object in view,—first, to provoke those on the Ministerial side of the House to indulge in language which might be used as a handle against them ; se- condly, to urge Ministers into a premature discussion upon points with which it was inconvenient, and difficult, and dangerous for Ministers to expatiate; and thirdly, to get rid of the Reform Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON said a few words on the mode of settling the Belgian question, by giving the throne to the Prince of Orange ; and Lord CARNARVON complained bitterly of Lord Hol- land, for putting him among the discontented, and of the cheers that accompanied that part of Lord Holland's speech. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, Lord Brougham should be made to know that there were very many Peers in the House who could give Lord Brougham as good as he could bring. He concluded by. withdrawing his motion, the discussion of which had lasted no less than six hours.

The question, which was to have been discussed in the House of Commons the same night, on a postponed motion of Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, was a second time postponed to Thursday, on the statement of Lord PALMERSTON, that despatches had been trans- mitted to the King of Holland, to which as yet no answer had been returned, and that on the answer to be returned it would de- pend whether the negotiations of the parties under the mediation of the Five Powers would not be renewed.

In answer to a question, very pertinaciously put by Mr. Neild's nominee, Captain BOLDERO, Lord PALMERSTON said, the Five Powers, when they consented to Prince Leopold's acceptance of the sovereignty of Belgium, did not overlook the possibility of Holland's putting an end to the armistice. On Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON said, that accounts had been received that day, of orders being transmitted from the Hague for the recal of the Dutch troops, and that negotiations were re- commenced. He wished to • know whether, under such circum- stances, Sir Richard Vyvyan would not consent to postpone his motion ? Sir RICHARD VYVYAN wished, before giving an answer, to learn whether the French troops had also retired from the Belgic territory ? Lord PALMERSTON said, he could only repeat, that assurance was given, that the moment the Dutchtroops retired, the French troops would follow their example. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN said, on this assurance, he had no ob- jection to postpone his motion for a week, in the course of which time the movements of the French troops would be ascertained. Sir Richard having given way, Lord STORMONT rose to state, that he thought the concession of Sir Richard too great ; and he would accordingly next day move for the production of certain papers respecting Belgium. (Cries of " Oh I" and " Hear !") When Lord Stormont sat down, Mr. CROKER stated that he also had a motion respecting Belgium, which he with reluctance consented to forego even for a night. He wished, however, first of all to ask, at what time Lord Palmerston and the Conference became acquainted with the letter of the Minister of Foreign Af- biro of Holland, dated 2nd August? Lord PALMERSTON complained of the inconvenience of such on which he commented at length. He maintained that the King questions— of Holland had clone nothing which his note of the 24th June did " Whatever information," he added, "the House of Commons may not give fair warning of. He panegyrized his Dutch Majesty's require in order to enable it to form an opinion of the policy of his kingly character, and the loyalty of his people. He regretted that Majesty's Government, I shall he always ready to give it; but if gentle- Prince Leopold had acceded to the Belgian invitation. All things those actnteltta.stplaupsertal Majesty's Ministers et rtehteoy serve 'le find them selbvuest considered, our conduct towards the King of Holland had been disappointed." most impolitic, unjust, and un-English. Lord CHANDOS said he had a right to put such questions. He The Earl of CARNARVON looked upon the Lord Chancellor's I said Ministers showed a disposition to hide from the House and speech as a will-o'-the-wisp, to lead their Lordships astray. He the country the information which both had a right to expect. (Cries of " Oh !" and " Hear ! ") The SPEAKER said, that such observations, unless the Marquis meant to conclude with a motion, were disorderly.

When the Marquis of Chandos sat down, Mr. A. TREVOR rose to ask, whether King Leopold had not sent a message to the French not to advance ? and whether the French had not, in retrrn, stated that his request could net be complied with, as the resolution of the French Government had been taken ? • Lord PALMERSTON refused to give any more answers. " It appears," he said, " that I am not merely expected to give the House accurate and detailed information of every thing which his Majesty's Government has done, but also to furnish the House with infor- mation of every thing that has been done by all the other Governments of Europe. I do not feel that that forms any part of the duty which I am called upon to discharge" Mr. CROKER introduced his motion last night, by way of amendment to the question of the Speaker's leaving the chair when the House was about to resolve itself into Committee on the Reform Bill. After a few preliminary observations as an indivis dual, on his desire, not to censure Lord Palmerston but Minister- generally, he again put to Lord Palmerston the question put the previous evening,—namely, when that noble Lord had first learned the contents of the letter of the Dutch Foreign Secretary, dated 2nd August ? • LorePALMERSTON, said on Friday. Mr. CROKER went on. When Sir Richard Vyvyan, on Friday, put a question respecting the terminating of the armistice by Holland, Lord Palmerston said in reply, that Government had re- ceived notice of that intention from Sir Charles Begot. Mr. Croker then asked whether, besides the communication from Sir Charles Bagot, a communication had not also been made by the Dutch Government. To this second question, Lord Althorp replied, that an answer would lead him into more details than was then convenient : he afterwards added, that Government had with great surprise heard of the termination of the armistice at the mo- ment a minister was sent to this country to enter on negotiations. Next day, Lord Palmerston repeated, in general terms, that the Dutch had broken the armistice, and without notice. Mr. Croker mentioned a conversation that passed on Saturday between him- self, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Palmerston, in which the latter repeated that the King of Holland had violated the truce Mr. Croker here related hypothetically the substance of the debate in the House of Lords, on the Marquis of Londonderry's motion. He particularly adverted to the letter received by Lord Palmer- ston on Wednesday, the opening of which was delayed until the following day. In consequence of the answers of Lord Palmer- ston and his colleagues, the Dutch nation, Mr. Croker said, had been most unjustly calumniated. The Dutch were left for seven days—the most eventful in their history since the period when the Duke of Marlborough was knocking at their gates—writhing under an accusation preferred against them by a British Minister, for having violated their engagements. He thought that he had now made out something of a prima facie case, to prove that his noble friend should have been either more or less communicative; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should either have persevered in his original reserve, or, if he deviated from it, he should have done justice to the un- fortunate Dutch.

Mr. Croker went to what he termed the second act of the drama, the letter of the 2nd of August. When his noble friend was pressed on that subject, he said that he re- collected some such letter had been read in a hurried manner by the Dutch Minister. A Dutchman in a hurry ! Mynheer.got into a fuss, and read the paper in a hurry I But if the Dutchman was in a hurry, that was no reason why the Englishman should get into a hurry also. The pheno- menon of a Dutchman being in a hurry, should have induced his noble friend to suppose that there was something in the wind. It was surely no common matter which could excite a Dutchman. The circumstance, however, made so little impression on his noble friend, that he remem- bered nothing of the contents of the letter; and concluded by saying, that he forgot whether the communication took place on Friday or Saturday. Mr. Croker animadverted on the different conduct of the French and English authorities. An hour had not elapsed, from the time that the former received the King of Belgium's letter, before the telegraph was at work and the garrison at Lisle was under arms. He went on to comment on the various attempts at translating the phrase in the two Dutch despatches, mavens militaires, seemed wonderful, that, however hurried the reading of the Dutch Lord PALMERSTON said, on Wednesday. But it afterwards ap- peared that he had confounded the letter of the 2nd with that of the lst. In answer to a second and more specific inquiry, he said the former had been read over to him hastily on Friday or Satur- day, he could not say which, by the Dutch Minister.

Mr. CROKER said, he would on Friday make a motion on this point.

Mr. Croker being disposed of, the Marquis of CHANDOS ad- vanced to the attack. He wished to know if the French had crossed the Belgic frontier, and taken possession of Mons ? Lord PALMERSTON understood they had arrived at Mons. Lord CHANDOS again asked whether the French had taken military possession of the citadel of Mons ?

Lord PALMERSTON complained of the inconvenience of such on which he commented at length. He maintained that the King questions— of Holland had clone nothing which his note of the 24th June did " Whatever information," he added, "the House of Commons may not give fair warning of. He panegyrized his Dutch Majesty's require in order to enable it to form an opinion of the policy of his kingly character, and the loyalty of his people. He regretted that Majesty's Government, I shall he always ready to give it; but if gentle- Prince Leopold had acceded to the Belgian invitation. All things those actnteltta.stplaupsertal Majesty's Ministers et rtehteoy serve 'le find them selbvuest

assure

most impolitic, unjust, and un-English. Lord CHANDOS said he had a right to put such questions. He The Earl of CARNARVON looked upon the Lord Chancellor's I said Ministers showed a disposition to hide from the House and speech as a will-o'-the-wisp, to lead their Lordships astray. He the country the information which both had a right to expect.

Minister, these remarkable words did not strike the ear of Lord Palmerston.

The Cabinet had been debating for twenty-four hours what the words moyens mititaires could possibly mean. The five wise heads of the Con- ference, too, had been puzzling themselves on the subject. One of the

members of the Conference had a perfect knowledge of the meaning of French words ; but it unfortunately happened that his proficiency in the English language was not very great, and in consequence he translated moyens militaires to mean nothing at all. He did not know whether that illustrious person intended to deceive the Conference, but he succeeded in convincing them that moyen militaires meant nothing at all.

Mr. Croker read quotations from other portions of the letter of the 2nd, and declared that his understanding, sunk in despair when he found Ministers at a loss to conclude from its tenor whether the Dutch King meant to commence hostilities or not.

Such, then, was the history of these extraordinary proceedings—such was the history of " the three great days" of the noble Lord. Ile had crucified on the gibbet of infamy thh honour of the Dutch nation, and had, for his triumph, the occupation of the fortresses of Flanders—won by English blood, and built by English money—by the tricoloured flag of France. That tricoloured flag did not triumph' mire in the three great days of July in Paris, than it had triumphed in the three days of August in Belgium.

Mr. Croker proceeded to quote and comment al great length on an article which appeared in the roles of Thursday sennight, on the subject of the disputes between Holland and Belgium, and to remark on the coincidence of the sentiments of the article with those expressed by Ministers on Friday and Saturday. He next mentioned an article in the same journal on Monday ; and lastly adverted to the letter of the 2nd of August, which ap- peared in it on Thursday—the same letter which had been so hurriedly read over to Lord Palmerston on Friday, and to the article exculpatory of the King of Holland which accompanied it. Mr. Croker stated, that he made these quotations and comments in order to show how the current of public opinion on this subject flowed. He concluded— What he complained of was the silence of Ministers. They would not have done any injury to the public interest, if they had acted towards the King of Holland with that fairness and candour which they would have extended to the gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, though their political antagonists. They ought not to have let the Dutch Monarch lie under so grievous an imputation for several days ; they ought nut to have left it to a public journal to be the arbiter of his con- duct, and to unsay what had been gravely stated by his Majesty's Minis- ters. In bringing this question forward, lie had alluded to no paper -which was not to he found in the public journals—he bad not anticipated events—he had spoken only of things that had already been done. He had, he conceived, made out a case, and showed that in;uitice, cruel in- justice, had been done to the King of Holland. He had, he thought, made out a sufficient ca;e to call on his Majesty's Ministers to explain the share they might, perhaps involuntarily, have had in creating that injus- tice. It was not his intention to ask for the letter of the 2nd of August ; which the noble Lord did not appear to carry in his head, although he might have it in his office. He should therefore move for a copy of the letter of the 1st of August, addressed by the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Ministers of the Five Great Powers.

Lord PALMERSTON said, the motion and speech seemed some- thing like a hull. Mr. Croker had made a long harangue about the letter of the 2nd August, and by way of finish, he asked for the letter of the 1st. He would not grant it—not because it was any secret, but because it made a part of a whole, which Ministers were not at present prepared to produce. Lord Palmerston pro-

ceeded— •

He did not mean to go into a defence or explanation of that which the right honourable gentleman had selected from newspapers. He could assure the right honourable gentleman that he (lid not write for news- papers. (Loud cheers.) He was neither an editor nor a party connected in any way with newspapers; and therefore he was not responsible for any thing that appeared in them. Neither would he he led to enter into the general question by any personal appeals which had been made to him. The right honourable gentleman declared, in the outset, that he was actu- ated by the utmost personal affection and regard for him ; but certainly he bad taken a very unsatisfactory mode to prove the sincerity of his state- ment.. The right honourable gentleman's speech of an hour and a half, consisted of one continued personal attack on him. The right honourable gentleman imputed to him every species of fault. There was scarcely one which in the right honourable gentleman's eyes he had not been guilty of. Negligence, absence from his post, ignorance of his duties, and injustice to his Sovereign—of all these errors he had been accused.

Lord Palmerston remarked on the character of Mr. Croker's appeal—

The right honourable gentleman appeared to have been, on this even- ing, allowed by his friends to have a benefit of his own; and he had given the House a laboured display, partly of tragedy and partly of comedy. The right honourable gentleman was, lie admittted, an exceedingly good joker—he was excessively successful when he attempted the comic strain ; but, when he came to the higher strain of tragedy, and endeavoured to touch the feelings of his audience, he was far from being happy. He would therefore'advise him to leave off tragedy, and take at once to farce. Lord Palmerston would not be impelled by Mr. Croker's speech to go into any discussion of the general question, or to

pronounce a verdict on the conduct of the King of Holland. He would rather lie under the imputation of having acted improperly, than relieve himself by inculpating that Monarch, if it were in his power to do so. He denied that he had ever offered an opinion on his conduct. He had stated facts only. He would not declare whether the armistice agreed on in November last by the late Ministers was right or wrong. He would merely say it was now broken. Lord Palmerston went on to notice the case of the letter— Mr. Croker was surprised how any person could keep such a letter for twenty-four hours without breaking the seal and informing himself of

its contents. Lord Palmerston did not know what might be Mr. Croker's

official habits ; but he could assure the right honourable gentleman that such habits, the breaking open of letters not directed to him, were not -amongst his. It had been his practice when he received communications of this nature, not to open them privately, but in the presence of all the

members of the Conference. " But," said the rig'it honourable gentle . man, " in this perilous moment, when the fate of tsurope depends not- on days, or hours, but possibly on minutes, a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs receives this mysterious letter. It comes over in the Lightning steamer ; it travels quicker than the rapidity of the winds ; the Secre- tary of State receives this letter, and he keeps it in his pocket till the fol- lowing and succeeding day I" (Laughter.) That was the best touch of pathos in the right honourable gentleman's speech, though it did notaa The to create any very pathetic effect. Now what was the answer to this? Conference invited the King of the Netherlands to send over a minister to negotiate a peace. if the King had replied, "No, I will fight, and J send you a letter with the reason," the business would have been intelligible. If the plenipotentiary appointed by the King had said to the Conference, " I am sorry to tell you that my master refuses to negotiate, and here is a letter to the Conference which will explain his motives"—in that case, Lord Palmerston would have lost no time in summoninr, the Commis- sioners of Conference, and laying that document before them. But what was it that the plenipotentiary said, in half an hour's conversation ? He appeared to have come without full powers to conclude any thing. Did he state that hostilities had recommenced ?—No. In his interview, he stated, in some detail, the case of the King of Holland against Belgium. But when he went away, Lord Palmerston had no more notion that the Dutch troops had entered the Belgian territory twenty-four hours before„ than he had of the most remote or improbable event that could be imagined. Mr. Croker had panegyrized the promptitude of the French Go- vernment ; • Lord Palmerston claimed equal praise for that of the English. The intelligence of the Dutch movement was received on Wednesday evening, and on the same night despatches were sent to Admiral Codrington to proceed to the Downs. With re- spect to the meaning of the often-quoted phrase moyens

mili-

taires- When in the Conference the letter of the 1st of August was read, he asked, not one, but both the plenipotentiaries, whether they knew that

hostilities had been begun ? They said, in answer, that they might know

much as individuals, but nothing in their official capacity. He then asked, " What is the meaning of this expression, that your master will

support his negotiations by military means ?' " Their answer was, " We have no instructions to give any explanation." Then what became of Mr. Croker's charge? According to him, if Ministers had only asked the plenipotentiaries to explain, it would have been done.

With respect to the letter of the 2nd of August, Lord Palmerston explained—

On Friday, on his way down to that House, he called on Lord Melbourne, and lie found with him one of the Ministers of the Netherlands. Just as Lord Melbourne was rising to attend to his duties in the other House of

Parliament, the Netherlands Minister pulled out that letter which had appeared in the newspapers, and read it, as he had before observed, in a hasty manner. Under other circumstances, it might, perhaps, have made a greater impression on his mind ; but it should be observed, that it re- lated to a transaction that had been fully discussed. When he was ques- tioned on the subject, he stated the simple truth, that all the circum- stances connected with the reading of that letter were not, on the mo- ment, present to his mind.

Lord BRUDENELL asked, if Ministers were so ready to interfere in the case of Holland, why they did not interfere in the case of Poland also? The truth was, they made it a principle to truckle to the powerful and to oppress the weak. He declared, if the pre- sent policy were persisted in, the English name would become a bye-word for every thing that was base and dishonourable.

Lord ELIOT said, he understood that one of the Dutch Ambas- sadors had stated that they were at war with King Leopold.

Lord STORMONT expressed a wish that Lord Palmerston would not, on another occasion, keep a letter in Isis possession twenty- four hours without knowing its contents.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY remarked, that the plea of Lord Palmer- ston, that he was put on his defence without the means of excul- pation, was equally good in the case of the King of Holland, whom Lord Palmerston, by his charges on Saturday, deliberately made, had put on his defence without the means or opportunity of defence. Sir George said, public rumour had described Admiral Codrington's fleet as at the disposal of the Conference —he would be glad to know if General Gerard's troops were also at its dis- posal ? Sir George alluded to the possibility of King Leopold's falling in the present strife : and asked, in that case, what might be the result with respect to the Duke de Nemours, the former candidate for the throne, who was now, it appeared, at Brussels? Sir George expressed a hope that Ministers had clear grounds of defence, but insinuated his doubts of this.

Lord ALTHORP complained of the unfairness of such insinu- ations.

Mr. PRAED contended, that Holland had given sufficient notice of its intentions.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL fully agreed, that Ministers should not be put on their defence until they had the means of defence ; but in the present instance, they had, by the charge brought against the King of Holland, been the attacking, not the defending party.

The motion was negatived, without a division.

On the original question for going into Committee, Mr. CRO- RER made a few observations, by way of reply. He defended him- self from the charge of committing a practical bull in moving for the letter of the 1st of August, by the fact, that had he moved for that of the 2nd, he would at once have been told it was not in Lord Palmerston's possession. He seemed to apply to himself, with considerable soreness, Lord Palmerston's observation about ".writing in newspapers." lie concluded by declaring, that his observations, throughout, had been addressed to the Minister, not to the man • and that Lord Palmerston's speech that night had only confirmed the high opinion he had always entertained of his talents. Lord Palmerston equally disclaimed all personal feelings. The debate ended here.

2. THE REFORM BILL. At the sitting on Saturday last,* three of the cases of Schedule D, the consideration of which had, on the

'cm evening, been postponed, were considered, and settled. To Kendal, the first case, no opposition was made; to Walsall, the second, very little ; to Whitehaven, on the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the township of Preston-Quarter was added. Mr. CROKER and several other members strenuously objected to the eonjunction of Workington and Whitehaven. The House divided on the clause ; which was carried, with Lord John Russell's amendment, by 104 to 60. The division was wholly unexpected, and about thirty membersivvere barred out. Mr. DAVIES GILBERT'S motion respecting Penzance, and Mr. RIGBY WASON'S respecting Toxteth Park, were not pressed ; and clause 3rd was in conse- quence agreed to. The 4th clause, reducing the representatives of Weymouth from four to two, was also agreed to.

The House having gone into Committee on Tuesday, the ques- tion was put on clause 5th generally, and agreed to. It was then put on the first case in Schedule E—namely, that Sculcoates be united to Hull; and after some objections from Mr. GouenURN, carried.

On the second case, that of Penryn and Falmouth, Mr. FRESH- 17.1ELD moved as an amendment, that Penryn should continue to return two members, to be elected by the resident freeholders and householders paying scot and lot.

Mr. STEWART, the other member for Penryn, supported the amendment ; which, after a few remarks from Lord ALTHORP, was negatived without a division.

To the union of Portsea and Portsmouth, Mr. CRORER ob- jected ; he could see no reason why the same rule should not be adopted in respect of Portsea that had been adopted in respect of Devonport. Lord ALTHORP observed, that Devonport and Plymouth were two separate towns, a mile distant from each other ; Portsea and Portsmouth were undistinguishable. The union was agreed to. On the question that Rochester, with Chatham and Stroud, :stand part of Schedule E, Mr. J. :\ [tees strongly objected to the onion. The principal objections urged were—that the 1,000 vo- ters of Rochester would be deluged by the 1,500 Chatham voters; that Chatham was under Government influence. Mr. Mills at the same time had no objection to Chatham's returning two mem- bers for itself, provided Rochester were left undisturbed.

The objections were enforced by Lord VILLIERS.

-Lord ALTHORP thought the charge against Chatham of being ?ander Government influence, was the best argument for the junction.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN complained of the contradictory nature of the rule applied to disfranchising and enfranchising.

Lord ALTHORp said, none but inconsickrable places were pro- posed for disfranchisement— it had been insisted that Ministers should lay down some rule upon this subject ; and when they had laid down a rule, the gentlemen opposite bound them strictly to that rule. They did more. Having got the rule, they tried by every means that ingenuity could devise—he would not say by all sorts of special pleading—to get in some fraction of a .district, or corner of a parish, in order to take a place out of the strict rule.

In respect of enfranchisement, the case was different; for the Smallest town to he enfranchised possessed several thousands more than the rule of disfranchisement required; such extreme strictness was in that case unnecessary.

Mr. WYNN defended the conduct of the Opposition, and con- tended that the rule ought to be intepreted literally. Mr. STANLEY repeated Lord Althorp's argument. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke against the conjunction of Chatham and Rochester. In the course of his speech, Sir Charles said the eyes of the people of England were beginning to open ; they were beginning to be disgusted with the absurdities of the Bill. Mr. HODGES took him up on this point.

The honourable and learned gentleman had said that there was great disgust in the county of Kent at the manner in which the House had dealt with this Bill.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—" Not with the Bill, but with the Kentish boroughs." Mr. HonGES continued—Well, in that respect, the honourable and learned gentleman was quite right. (Loud cheers from the Opposition.) Ile was sorry to say, that in the county of Kent very considerable disgust bad arisen in consequence of the proceedings on this Bill. (Loud and continued cheering front the Opposition.) He repeated, very considerable disgust—but it was disgust at the delay which had taken place in the progress of the Bill. (Much cheering and laughter from the Ministerial aide.) The people would never change their mind on the subject of Re- form ; or if they did, it would be replaced by a desire for a republic.

After some conversation, on the rights of the two towns, lord MILTON asked, where there were on the banks of the Med- way two boroughs, one of old and one of new creation, and only one of them capable of exercising the franchise arida, which was best entitled to exercise it ?

Mr. Gotrusuaer reminded Lord Milton of the case of Gateshead. had the noble Lord forgotten the Tyne ? Could not the noble Lord zecollect a debate in which two towns on the banks of the Tyne were re- ferred to, one of which was to send two members, and the other one ? Could he so suddenly forget it when he came to the Medway ? When the county of Durham was in question, one principle was to be applied; but to the county of Kent there was to be another. These queries were very loudly cheered by the Opposition. Lord MILTON observed, there was this plain distinction in the two cases—the smaller of the two towns on the Tyne was larger than the largest of the two towns on the Medway.

• Noticed in the second, but not In the first edition, of last week's Spectator. Mr. WYNN thought the virtual disfranchisement of the Roches- ter voters might bring into question the right of Earl Spenser and Earl Fitzwilliam to sit in the House of Lords.

Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE remarked on Mr. Goulburn's allusion tO Gateshead and Durham—

The right honourable gentleman had referred to a noble Lord, a friend of his. What did that observation mean ? It meant that that noble Lord had used his influence in the Cabinet to get additional representatives for the county of Durham to the prejudice of other places. That was the plain English of it. (Cheers from the Opposition side.) He understood that cheer ; but if Mr. Goulburn, or any other member, would get up and say so, he would meet the assertion with a direct and express contradic- tion. If Mr. Goulburn said so, he called it a base and wicked calumny.

This expression of Mr. Duncombe called forth a very loud cry of " Order!" The Chairman, Mr. BERN AL, interposed, as did Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Sir RonEnr INGLIS, in deprecation of the expressions used.

Mr. DUNCOMBE said—

He was sorry if his language had not been Parliamentary ; but he p.p.' pealed to the Chair, whether, when he referred to the charge, that Lord Durham had exerted his influence in the Cabinet to obtain representatives for the county of Durham, to the prejudice of other places, he was not met by a cheer from the other side of the House ; and when he was met b1 that cheer, lie said he would repeat that it was a wicked 'calumny. (Order, order !) He cared not for the penalty for saying this ; he sup. posed there was some penalty ; it would be a penalty for speaking truth, and he would abide it. (Order, order !)

No fewer than twenty-seven speeches were pronounced, by nearly as many members, on the point whether Mr. Duncombe should or should not apologize for these hasty words ; and the discussion seemed destined to occupy the entire night without any settlement of the question mooted ; when the Speaker, who had been accidentally absent, entered the House, and there was a general cry raised for him to stand forward and pronounce the law on the case.

The SPEAKER Said— No member of the Committee more heartily concurred in the wish expressed by the noble Lord that this discussion should end; and he ex- pressed this wish with the greater earnestness, as his experience had shown him that no question of disorder was ever cured or mitigated by an eloir,ated discussion. He was not in the Committee when this oc- curred, but he •.-..as informed that honourable members had gone much outof the question before the Committee. It was said by the honourable member that the rktilt honourable gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had made no com- plaint; but the offence of disorder was not looked upon as an offence of the individual, but to the Committee. He also collected this, that what. ever was disorderly arose from an hypothesis of the honourable member as to the construction of another honourable member's speech. He had heard it discussed, and had heard all honourable members negative the correctness of the hypothesis „ and the honourable member for Hertford himself, must feel that the speech would not bear the construction which he had hypothetically put upon it, and the honourable member himself had expressed his regret that he should have said any thing offensive to the Committee : this being so, he cordially joined with those who wished that the discussion should go no farther ; though he was far from say. ing that even if the insinuation were made, it would justify such lan- guage as had been used ; yet, having been explained so far as that ho- nourable members must have seen that the language was not applicable, he did hope that the discussion might now close, for if such discussions were continued, the Committee, in endeavouring to get out of one diffi- culty, would only get into others. The question of order thus happily settled, the question of bu- siness was at length attended to. The House divided ; and Chat- ham and Stroud were united to Rochester, by a majority of 251 to 151.

The question of Sandwich and Deal was then disposed of. Lord ALTHORP moved, as an addition to the schedule, the con- junction of the parish of Christchurch and of Clink Liberty to Southwark. It was also agreed to. On the suggestion of Lord ALTHORP, the principle of the sixth clause, which relates to the Welsh contributory boroughs, was also agreed to. On the House resuming, the SPEAKER reverted to the discus- sion of order which had occupied so large a portion of the night--

It sometimes happened that intemperate language was used in the heat of debate, and it was difficult to account for the impression which, under such circumstances, an expression made on the mind of an individual. In such cases, it had always been his endeavour to maintain the dig. nity of the House and the freedom of debate ; and at the same time, to observe the utmost delicacy with respect to the personal honour and cha- racter of every member of the House. Some intemperate language had been made use of that evening, and an explanation had been subsequently given. It was his opinion that all that had passed in the Committee should be buried in oblivion.

Lord ALTHORP said, the Speaker had acted on this occasion, as he always did, in the way best calculated to maintain the dignity of the House ; he hoped every gentleman was now satisfied.

On the House going into Committee on Wednesday, Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS suggested the striking out from Schedule F, the five townships of the parish of Presteign that are situate in Herefordshire; to which Lord ALTHORP agreed. To the group which are associated with Denbigh, the two townships of Wrexham Abbot and Wrexham Regis were added, on the recommendation of Sir WILLIAM WYNNE and some other members, we suppose by substitution for the parish of Wrexham generally, of which they are a part. The reports do not enable us to determine ; of course nothing is said in the Votes on the subject. These were the only alterations made in the schedule. On the question of uniting Llandaff, Cowbridge, Merthyr, Aberdare, and Llantrissent, with Cardiff, a conversation of some length ensued. Colonel WOOD, Lord J. STUART, Sir HENRY HARDINGE, Mr. CHOKER, &c. severally urged the propriety of givi ing Merthyr a member for itself, or in conjunction with Aberdare. Lord ALTHORP admitted the case to be one fully deserving 0 consideration, and said that it should receive it; but he declined making any alteration at that stage of the Bill. On a division, there appeared a majority of 164 to 123 for the clause as it stood. Another somewhat angry conversation arose on the tenth . group, that of Pembroke. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN having in- dulged in some insinuations against the presumed packing system by which the groups had been arranged to serve individual in- terests, a great part of his address was drowned amidst the " Ohs" and " Hears" of the House. He turned. with great sharpness to some members behind him, and charged them with being dragged down to vote for Ministers.

Mr. Alderman Warrant/1N said, the only persons whom hiasknew to be dragged down to the House, were the borough nominees, who were bound harfd and foot to the patrons that gave them their seats.

Mr. HOBHOUSE advised Edward's observations— That learned gentleman had so often indulged in insinuations similar to those which he had uttered that evening, that neither the country nor the House cared any thing about them. The objections which he made to the Bill, though they became him well enough, were disregarded by every

an of common sense in the country.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN returned to the charge, and insisted that when members were in the performance of their duty, it was dis- graceful to interrupt them by cheering and noise. He particular- ized the member for Westmoreland or Westbury, the Times re- porter says. The Reforming member for Westmoreland does not appear to have been in the House. Mr. PEPYS, who seems to have been the gentleman complained of, replied, that his reason for acting as he had done, was "the disgust that the repeated insinu- ation of improper motives occasioned him to feel."

The clause was at length agreed to, with the amendments al- ready noted. The next clause, respecting Swansea, was also agreed to.

The 8th clause, which empowers the sheriff for the time being to nominate the returning officer, where none is nominated in the Bill, was opposed by Mr. WYNN and several others ; chiefly be- cause it gave the sheriff the power of disfranchising any voter whom he might see fit to fix upon, and because no compensation was provided for very onerous duties, the improper discharge of which would subject the parties to heavy penalties. The opposi- tion led to a singular declaration of the Attorney-General, that the clause in question had been submitted to him, but that, on ac- count of the recent rapid progress made in I he Bill, he had not had time to consider it. It was postponed to Thursday.

To the 9th clause, giving two members additional to York, and

• directing that in future two members should be returned for each Riding, Mr. WRANGHAM moved as an amendment, that the West Riding should have four members, and each of the other Ridings three members each. The amendment met with a cold reception from both sides of the House, and was in consequence withdrawia and the clause agreed to. The clause dividing Lincoln into two districts was, after some discussion, postponed; it being agreed that the general question of dividing large counties had better be discussed in the first place.

Mr. Waithman not to notice Sir The question of the division of counties, which was thus leftover on Wednesday, was discussed on Thursday night.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated the general principle of division. It was to be regulated according to the amount of population and

extent of surface ; and words to that effect would be introduced into the clause. At a later period of the debate, Lord John stated, that, as a matter of course, the decision of the Parliamentary Com- missioners would be open to the review of the House.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN complained of the indefinite nature of the clause. It did not state whether borough population was to be included or excluded. It was, he contended, impossible to discuss such a principle in the gross • the House, to come to a definite arrangement, would require to have each individual case before them. He thought the better plan would be for the Commis- sioners to institute an inquiry merely, and for the House to decide on the result.

Mr. HUGHES HUGHES stated the great objection to the division —that it went to create that nomination which it was the grand object of the Bill to put an end to. He moved an amendment, leaving out all that part of the clause which directs the division. Lord ALTHORP opposed the amendment. It materially altered the whole Bill. He thought the fear of undue influence unfounded—

No doubt the influence of property would tell in the proposed divisions, particularly so far as it was in the hands of some one or two large land- holders,—that is, these individuals would have a much greater chance, indeed certainty, of being returned for the divisions in which their pro- perty lay, than they could have of being returned for the whole country at large ; but he was sure that that influence could not be so preponderat- ing as to warrant the apprehension of its being abused, and that it would be neutralized by the other divisions into which the county would be parcelled.

As a set-off against the increase of individual influence, his Lordship contended that the proposed division would put an end to those compromises by which counties were now subjected to two or three large proprietors. The objection that it went to in- crease the power of the aristocracy, was no objection in the eyes of the framers of the Bill— On the contrary, they felt the necessity, while they were adding to the democratic share of the representation, by extending the franchise gene rally, and adding to the members of the large towns, of preserving the balance of the aristocratic share, by increasing the influence of the great landed proprietors in the counties.

Lord Althorp was not friendly to the present system, by which

mere popularity too frequently engrossed the representationg a county, to the exclusion of gentlemen of retiring habits, whO.se large property well qualified them to represent its interests. He knew not how that evil could be entirely got rid of, so long as the freeholders of a wide surface of country were distracted in their choice of the candidates proposed by the districts best acquainted with their re- spective merits,—a distraction that almost inevitably ends in their choos. ing some popular individual, whose chief merit is, that his name is best known to all. If the amendment were acted on, the result would be, in counties returning, say four members, that at least three of them would be persons of this popular description, while the fourth would only come in on a kind of compromise.

He concluded by stating once more, that he would give all his- opposition to the amendment ; at the same time admitting, that it was not to be looked on as destructive of the Bill, though it would very considerably alter its character.

Mr. D. GILBERT supported the clause, as tending to diminish expense. He thought it would be an improvement to place in future freeholds of purchase on the same footing as those of Ireland.

Mr. VERNON spoke in favour of the clause. He thought an elector was likely to give his vote more discriminately and con- scientiously for two than for four members. The plan of division would permit a more frequent and intimate intercourse between the member and the constituency. The elections would no longer be carried, as they frequently were at present, by the longest purse merely. Sir ROBERT PEEL was opposed to the division, on sentimental grounds. It would break up local associations : a Staffordshire man would no longer have the same feelings towards Stafford as before. He thought that a Committee of the House would best decide touching the divisions, all the .facts being before them. Waving, however, these considerations, he was content to vote for the clause rather than the amendment, on the principle laid down by Lord Althorp,—as a means of preserving the wrecks of aristo- cratical influence ; and because it offered a sort of counterpoise to the extension of the popular influence by other parts of the Bill. Sir Robert said, he could wish, in addition to the power bestowed by the division clause on the aristocracy, to shut out the popula- tion of borough districts from all slian! in the county elections— to give freeholders and copyholders a vote for the towns, but not for the counties. On the same principle, he objected to the clause by which freeholders in counties of cities (clause 15th) were to have a vote in counties. Sir Robert finished a long and rambling speech by repeating his intention of voting with Ministers.

Mr. WYNN wished the plan of division to be part of the Bill ; and for this purpose suggested, that the report should be made to Parliament rather than to the King in Council.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY opposed the division, on account of the precedent it established ; it might in time lead to departmental divisions.

Mr. BRISCOE and Mr. BENETT supported the amendment, on the principle that the division would neutralize all the other advan- tages of the Bill. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said he could not follow the example of Sir Robert Peel, even for the advantage of balancing the de- mocratical portion of the Bill. He looked upon the present proposition, not as an incipient step, but as a far-advanced progression towards a revolution of all the existingre- gulations with regard to representation ; and he remembered that-Lord Durham did, in 1821, make a proposition for a direct jaeobinical division of the country into electoral departments, after the example of France. If the present clause should be agreed to, henceforth there would be no county members in England. There would be honourable members for the Northern division, and honourable members for the Southern divi- sion; there would be plenty of half county members, but there would be no such thing as a whole county member. Mr. O'CONNELL strongly opposed the clause, as a deceit prac- tised on the people, and a mockery of the rest of the Bill.

If he thought that the division of the counties would lead to the ballot; he would vote for the proposition ; because he believed that no election could be free, until the vote by ballot was adopted. But not anticipating that it would tend to such an effect, and willing to apply the principle of the Bill against all nomination of whatever kind, he should vote for the amendment.

Lord MILTON observed, that in Cumberland, the least county in the schedule, the division would still leave 78,000 of a popula- tion; and he did not think there was much danger of nomination with such a number.

The House at length divided : for the amendment 122 ; against it 241 ; majority for Ministers and the clause 119.

On Friday, after Mr. Croker's motion and the discussion arising out of it had been at length disposed of, the various counties in Schedule G- were agreed to, as part of clause 11th.

Clause 10th, which provides for the division of Lincoln, was agreed to, after a show of opposition from Mr. SIBTHORP, Which he withdrew on the recommendation of Mr. CHOKER. Mr. Sin--

THOM' complained grievously of noise and interruption : the news- papers would not write speeches for him, and make up the deficiencies of those he made himself, as they did in the case of others. He expressed a hope that the House of Lords would throw out the Bill, as the Commons were determined to pass it.

On the 12th clause, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN put a question, as to, how those who had freeholds in each division were to vote— whether in one, or in both ? The noise and confusion were so great while Sir Edward was speaking, that even the members could not hear what he said. His precise argument is therefore not quite intelligible, but this seems to have been its import. After a great deal of interruption, Lord ALTHORP said— The object of the Bill was obviously to give to freeholders, copyholdera,

and leaseholders, the right of voting at elections. It was intended that the voters in towns and boroughs should be excluded from voting for counties; and by this means the town and county representation would be kept distinct, and the landed interest would claim an advantage which at present they did not possess. As the division of counties would make each division of the nature of a separate county, a property in both would give the right of voting for both ; in the same way.that a person who had a freehold in Lincoln and another in Nottingham, would have a vote for each of those counties. With respect to non-resident voters, the coun- ties were on a footing different from that of towns ; for although it was very desirable that non-residents should not vote for towns, it was impos- sible to extend this regulation to counties.

To give opportunity for amending it agreeably to this explana- tion, clause 12th was, pro forma, negatived, The principle of clause 13th, giving three members to certain counties, was agreed to, after a conversation of some length. The discussion of the schedule remains for this day.

3. THE CORONATION. On this subject, a conversation took place in the House of Lords on Thursday. Viscount STRANG- FORD, after describing the intended curtailments of the ceremony as disgraceful and unseemly, asked if it were meant on the occa- sion to deprive the Peerage of England of their right of offering their individual homage to the King ; and whether delegates, selected by the Ministry, were to act as their sponsors ? Lord Strangford intimated, that in the latter case, the Opposition Lords would not attend the coronation.

Earl GREY said, on the disgracefulness and unseemliness of the curtailments, the public would decide. It was the desire of Go- vernment to make no farther demand on the public than was imperatively required. With respect to the manner of doing homage, the same plan which was proposed to be adopted now, had been followed at the coronation of George the Third. The matter was still under discussion, and nothing would be resolved on that was not consistent with the convenience of the public, the dignity of the Peerage, and the honour of the King. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained to Lord Strangford, that the arrangements were under the consideration of the Privy Council, not of the Cabinet.

To a question of Lord STRANGFORD, why, in that case, the whole Privy Council w ere not summoned, Lord HOLLAND stated, that, according to invariable custom, the whole Council were summoned in the first instance, afterwards only such as attended the first notice were summoned.

The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed his regret at the proposed omission of the individual homage of the Peers ; and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY said there were individuals who would transfer to no man their right of tendering such homage. The curtail- ments, he said, were made in the customary levelling spirit of Ministers ; but as the tendering of homage was a sacred and im- portant part of the ceremonial, he hoped they would at least recon- sider that part.

Lord GODERICH explained the forms observed at the coronation of George the Third. On that occasion a Peer from each order of the Peerage tendered homage. When Lord Londonderry spoke of individual homage as a sacred part of the ceremony, it was evi- dent he had discovered " a mare's nest " once more. Lord Gode- rich stated that the expenses of last coronation amounted to 240,000/. ; those of the present coronation would not amount to the fifth part of that sum.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY reiterated his asseveration that the Ministers were doing every thing in their power to destroy " the blessed constitution." He would express these opinions as often as he chose. He afterwards, on being called to order by Lord HOLLAND, threatened to move an adjournment. He ob- served that Ministers would speak themselves, but they would let nobody else speak ; and they were sanctioned in this by the official countenance of the Lord Chancellor. The Marquis was again called to order by the Duke of RICHMOND; who said, he was alone guilty of the disrespect to the Crown that he imputed to his Majesty's Ministers. The Marquis retorted by expressions of contempt and insinuations of backsliding against his " old com- panion in arms." The conversation then dropped.

4. POLAND. The question of Poland was mooted on Monday, on the occasion of a petition of a set of people calling themselves the Westminster Union, praying that the House would address the King to dismiss Lord Pahnerston from his counsels. The ground of their prayer was the contempt shown by Lord Palmerston to a memorial they—the Westminster Union—had sent to him respect- ing Poland.

Mr. HUME said, he met no individual who was not anxious to know if it were the intention of Government to take any steps in behalf of the Poles. He reminded Government that there were treaties that bound them to see justice done to Poland as well as to Belgium. After a pause, Lord PALMERSTON said, he could not, consistently with his duty, enter on the explanations which Mr. Hume desired. The obligations which treaties imposed, he added, would always receive the utmost attention from Government.

Mr. O'CONNELL repeated at length what had been stated by Mr. Hume ; and several other members joined in the conversation ;

but nothing farther was elicited. .

5. POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND. A long conversation on this sub- ject, and on the social evils generally of Ireland, took place on Wednesday, on the presentation of a petition by Mr. BROWNLOW from the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops on the subject. Mr. BROWNLOW said, the plan of introducing poor-laws into Ireland had his decided approbation. Mr. CONOLLY and Mr. J. BROWNE expressed themselves to the same purport. Mr. CRAMP. TON thought a provision for the aged and helpless most desirable ; but deprecated any such provision for those that were able to work.

Mr. GRATTAN having expressed his regret that none of the Ministers connected with Ireland were present, and especially that Mr. Spring Rice was not in his place, gave notice of a bill to pro- vide for the old and helpless.

Mr. O'CONNELL spoke warmly on the absence of the Irish Secretary. What signified the many hours that that gentleman was employed in his official duties, if nothing but good intentions were the result ?

Talk to him of good intentions ! Hell was pwied with good intentions ; but Ireland required something more—she required something to he done for her. He spoke warmly on this subject; and he did so because he saw that, while the people of Ireland were starving, a bill had come down from the House of Lords, having received the sanction of Government, for building additional churches in Ireland. He could assure the Govern- ment, that that bill should not pass without a call of the House. The time he thought had come, when they must have a poor-rate in Ireland. The people were perishirr, there ; the first elements of society were broken up ; Desolation stalked through the streets, and Famine showed her form in the most fertile plains the sun ever shone upon. The corn and cattle of the country were transported to other nations, while the wretched peasantry beheld those exports in starvation, misery, and distress.

Mr. CRA.MPTON replied to this attack on the Ministry. Mr. O'Connell had no right to attackthe Government for not introducing poor-laws into Ireland, for it was only within a few weeks that he had himself become a convert to the expediency of their introduction, by she ably-written pamphlet of a Roman Catholic Bishop. He also thought that Mr. O'Connell ought to have been the last to make a charge against the Government of exciting party and religious animosities; for those feelings of irritation had originated at a certain election in Ireland, when the tenants were turned against their landlords, Protestants against Roman Catholics, and when the power of the landlords was transferred into the hands of the priests. This was the first cause of agitation, trace- able not to the Government, but to the honourable and learned member himself; and since that time it had spread itself over the whole face of the country. Mr. HUME blamed the attack on Mr. O'Connell, and repeated that gentleman's statement of the negligence of Government.

Lord MILTON thought such a subject as the introduction of Poor-laws ought to be gravely and leisurely deliberated on. Mr. NORTH thought Ministers would have done better to apply themselves to the grievances of Ireland than to Parliamentary Reform.

Mr. WISE, having observed that there never would be peace in Ireland until it was governed in every respect like England, Co- lonel PERCIVAL asserted, in reply, that the administration of justice in Ireland was as impartial as in any country under heaven. Major MACNAMARA and Mr. SHELL ridiculed the notion that the agitation of the country arose out of the Clare election.

To the election for Clare, said Mr. Shell, they owed the Catholic Re- lief Bill ; to the election for Clare, he and other gentlemen were indebted for their seats in that House ; and he, for one, was proud of an election which had led to such results. He was perfectly certain that the existing irritation did not proceed from that source. The truth was, that dis- content had been produced in consequence of the interests of the people of Ireland having been neglected in various ways, and because, in parti- cular cases connected with the administration of justice in that country, partiality had been manifested. Could the learned Solicitor-General for Ireland deny, that at the late trial, which took place at Kilkenny, every man on the Jury was Protestant ? He did not mean to make a sweeping assertion that the administration of justice in Ireland was not pure ; but, like Caesar's wife, it should not only be pure, but unsuspected.

Lord DUNCANNON admitted the fact of the Jury at Kilkenny. Mr. O'CONNELL again addressed the House, in reply to Mr. Crampton. He commented severely on Government having dis- armed the Catholics of a Yeomanry corps (Irwin's town), while they armed the Protestants ; and in the Attorney-General's not having prosecuted in the Newtownbarry case, although he was in Wexford at the time.

Mr. CRAMPTON defended the Attorney-General—it was not the practice of that officer to prosecute. In the midst of these recriminations, Mr. STANLEY joined the House and the conversation. He said, that Ever since the appointment of Lord Anglesey, the object which the Irish Government had had most at heart, was to render the administration of justice in Ireland not only pure, but to render it so notoriously pure that not even the shadow of suspicion of partiality could by possibility attach to it. Mr. O'Connell came down there night after night, and told the Government that they ought to throw themselves on that party which would support their political views; but he would tell him, that, in the administration of justice, the Government would recognize no party whatsoever—would be influenced by no other considerations than those which might tend to establish the most rigid and even-handed impartiality. He repeated that it had been the earnest endeavour of the Irish Government to remove from the administration of justice in Ireland, as well in. crimi- nal as in civil cases, all suspicion of partiality; and he must protest against the course which Mr. O'Connell had thought proper to adopt, in coming down there night after night, and, without notice, charging the Irish Government with having acted unfairly in this lease, and in that

case, and in the other case. If Mr. O'Connell had any charge of par- tiality which he thought he could substantiate against the Irish Govern- ment in the administration of justice in any case, let him bring that charge specifically before the House, upon notice, and Mr. Stanley should be prepared to meet him.

He-went on to advert to the Kilkenny tithe case. He denied most emphatically that Government had lent its sanction to the

exclusion either of Catholics or of liberal Protestants from the Jury. In the Castlepollard case, the right of challenge was ex- tended to the relations of the deceased, with a liberality that called forth the animadversion of the Judge.

Mr. HUNT made some observations on absentee landlord's:. '

Mr. LEFROY junior defended the impartiality of the administra- tion of justice in Ireland.

Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated irritating discussions. He recom- mended LordAlthorp, if a plausible case were made out, to submit it to a Committee rather than allow the revival of such dis- cussions.

Lord ALTHORP thought that an attempt at Parliamentary inter- ference with a judicial sentence was only to he justified by a strong case, not by a plausible one.

Sir ROBERT PEEL explained, that he meant only a case where an officer was charged with misconduct. Mr. BROWNLOW, in moving that the petition be printed, brought back the House to the question. He said— They ought to make the property of Ireland responsible for the poverty of Ireland. That was the object, and that was the prayer of the petition -which he had presented, and to which he had given his humble support. Was it to be endured that where 80,0001., was contributed by the middling classes in Ireland for the support of the poor, the proportion contributed by the great absentee proprietors should amount to 80/. ? Mr. O'CONNELL remarked on the conduct of Mr. Stanley on various occasions—

There was a self-complacency, a self-satisfaction, and a haughtiness about the right honourable Secretary for Ireland, which totally unfitted him for directing the administration of the affairs of that country. With regard to the affair at Castlepollard, there was not a single Catholic upon the jury Who had tried the police that were concerned in that transac- tion ; and though several lives had been lost on that occasion, not one single policeman of those who had been engaged in the affair had been since that time removed from the constabulary.

Mr. STANLEY begged leave to contradict this assertion, and to state, that every single policeman who tad been engaged in that transaction, with the exception of four, had been since removed to another county. Mr. O'CONNELL—" That is truly a strange contradiction of my statement. No doubt these policemen have been removed to another county ; but they have not, as I have already complained, been removed from the constabulary. They are still kept there to shoot more of the King's subjects." Mr. WEYLAND spoke in favour of the petition ; and Mr. SAD- LER replied to those who called on the House to pause before it acceded to such a measure, that the House had already paused for.two hundred years on the subject. The petition was ordered to be printed.

6. NEWTOWNBARRY MASSACRE. On Thursday a long con- versation took place, on the question of printing a petition, pre- sented by Sir RICHARD MUSGRAVE, from the city of Waterford, praying for the disarming Of the Irish Yeomanry force: Mr. STANLEY said it was considered at present inexpedient to disband the Yeomanry, but measures for their better regulation were contemplated. He opposed the printing of the petition, as it contained Offensive expressions in respect to a part of the in- habitants of Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNELL thOlKtilt, in common justice, the Government was called on to dismiss the whole of the corps engaged at New- lownbarry. In so doing, Government would pronounce no opinion on the guilt or innocence of any of those parties. It was a question of military disci- pline; for it appeared, on the admission of every one of the officers, that none of them gave orders to the men to fire on the people ; and a body of men who had so little discipline as to take on themselves to fire on a crowd without the orders of their officers, was not fit to be continued with arms in their hands.

Mr. BROWNLOW, Sir JOHN BURKE, and Sir JOHN NEWPORT, spoke against the calling out of the Yeomanry by Government. Sir 'JOHN NEWPORT thought, in so divided a state of religious and political feeling, they never could be safe or useful; and therefore they ought to be disbanded altogether.

Sir GEORGE CLERK opposed the printing of the petition, be- cause it described as a massacre an act which was still subject to judicial investigation.

Captain GORDON spoke of the great services of the Yeomanry in 1798.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, the only objection to the printing was, the publicity it would give ; but, after the discussion that had taken place, the petition would be published whether the House did or not.

After some farther conversation, Mr. LAMBERT said—

To show the spirit by which they were actuated at Newtownharry, two persons who had voted for him had been singled out by the Yeomanry and shot. Nay, while the relatives of the men who had been killed were offering up prayers to Heaven for the souls of the deceased, the Yeo- manry fired over the house of God in derision and triumph. If such scenes had occurred in England, would they not have roused the indigna- tion of the people ?

Colonel PEactvat. spoke in favour of the Yeomanry. Where they were generally established, only three regiments of the line were required ; where they were not, fifteen regiments were required.

Lord KILLEEN wished to put the discussion on a short issue. He-would ask Mr. STANLEY one question— About three weeks ago, Mr. Stanley stated that the issue of arms to the Yeomanry had been suspended. Lord Killeen had since seen in a publi- cation a statement that arms had been issued to a certain corps in the county of Wexford ; and as lately as the 2nd of August he perceived, from the Dublin Gazette, that Yeomanry appointments had been made.

i He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to increase the Yeomanry force ?

Mr. STANLEY replied, that Government had given orders to suspend the issue of arms to the Yeomanry. The arms which had been issued since those orders were given must have been 'issued by the commanding officer; who had received them from the Government previously to the orders being given. Government had no intention of increasing the Yeomanry force in Ireland. The ap- pointments to which Lord Killeen had referred, must have been made' to fill up vacancies. The conversation was prolonged, notwithstanding Lord Killeen's question and Mr. Stanley's answer.

Mr. O'CONNELL thought the refusal to print the petition would drive the people of Ireland to despair. .

Sir GEORGE MURRAY opposed the printing of the petition, be- cause it maligned the Yeomanry ; and quoted Tacitus to prove, that the best way of governing Ireland was to remove the causes of disquiet. After a few words from Lord ALTHORP and Lord DurveANNOIT, the former against, the latter in favour of printing the petition, Mr. SHELL rose and asked—

Who had spoken against printing this petition ?—The right honourable Secretary for Ireland,—a clever and an able man, he admitted ; but op- posed to him they had the right honourable member for Waterford,—the Nestor of the Irish cause, who had devoted fifty years to the service of his country. Who opposed the printing of this petition ?—The honour- able member for Galway ; and next, the honourable member for Dundalk —lie would but give utterance to his name—there was no necessity to make any comment on it. Thus stood the authorities for and against the motion.• Now, he demanded, had a single Irish member amongst all those who gave to the Government their strenuous and honest support, was there one, he asked, who had decided against printing that petition ? No, there was not one. On whom, then, ought Ministers to depend ? On whose advice ought they to rely ? Ought they not to hold with those who gave them their steady support ? Ought they not to turn round to their opponents, whose counsels they in this instance appeared ready to follow, and say to them " We seek not the approbation of those-

' Whose praise is censure, and whose censure praise!' "

Did Ministers know on Which side of the House they stood ? Did they know by whom they were supported on this question ? They were sup- ported by pretended friends, but real enemies,—by those who, in the exuberance of their kindness, would hug them to death. It was an insult to the Irish people thus to treat a petition of this nature, because they w ere afraid to offend the Yeomanry. •

Captain GORDON' replied to Mr. Shell with great heat- " The honourable member for Louth has, I say, acted in an unparlia- mentary manner, and his language is not that adopted in the society of gentlemen, either expressed or implied." (Cries of " Order ! " and

Choir ! ") •

The SPEAKER called for an explanation of these words ; and Captain GORDON gave the following- " My understanding and construction of the case is this :—The honour- able member for Louth said, ' It is sufficient to mention the name of the honourable member for Dundalk—comment is unnecessary.' Now, I could be at no loss to construe this into a something, which I have no hesitation in saying is not usual in the phraseology adopted amongst

gentlemen." .

Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke of Mr. Shell's inconsistency : he had last session, in his speech on-the Reform Bill, strongly deprecated keeping alive religious distinctions, and he now pressed the print- ing of a petition which tended directly to awaken such distinc- tions.

Mr. SHELL said, Sir Robert was mistaken. He knew how to distinguish between the Irish people and the Irish Yeomanry. He explained the pause which had so grievously offended Captain Gordon

It was made for the. purpose of preserving himself from saying that which might, perhaps, have been offensive. He would now state what that was. It was this—that in his judgment, a gentleman who, since he had been in Parliament, had evinced feelings so strong on this subject, showing no unsoundness of heart, but a proneness to a particular class of opinions, had, by so doing, taken away from his opinions the value of authority upon Irish questions. He must now observe, that it was a matter of astonishment to him that a gentleman who was so strenuous in Christian orthodoxy should permit such a slight matter so to have riffled his temper.

Captain GORDON said he thought Mr. Shell's insinuation was intended "to dip below that ;" but he was now satisfied that lie had been mistaken.

Mr. STANLEY explained, in answer to a question of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, the nature of the legal proceedings still pending. The bills on murder were ignored, so were the bills on manslaughter with on;.! exception ; in that case the witnesses refused to come forward ; but Government had deemed it necessary to try it next assizes, and the culprit was in consequence held to bail. Three others were also held to bail: Mr. O'CONNELL ridiculed the notion of any legal procedure pending or contemplated. The people were determined not to prosecute, and the criminals might go where they pleased.

The House at length divided: for the printing of the petition, 76 ; against it, 238.

7 THE CARLOW GRAND JURY. On Tuesday, on occasion of a question of Mr. O'CONNELL respecting the Orange riots at Maghera, in December last, Captain GORDON stated, as a speci- men of the general inaccuracy of the reports GI' transactions in Ireland, the toasts attributed to the Grand Jury of Carlow. He had a letter from Colonel Rochford, denying that any such toasts were given or drunk. Mr. O'CONNELL corrected this statement— Colonel Rochford did not deny in his letter that the toast which he had stated had been given ; he only said that the toast was not drunk while he was in the chair. When Captain Gordon accused him of inaccuracy, he ought himself to have been more correct in statinop the contents of Colonel Rochford's letter. He was ready to prove, at the bar of the House, that the four following toasts were drunk in the Grand Jury room at Carlow :—" Captain Graham, and the brave Yeomanry of Newtown- barry,"—" Our heels 'on the necks of the Papists,"—" The Pope in the pillory in hell, and the Devil pelting him with priests," and " The glori- ous and immortal memory of King William." Mr. O'Connell lamentedthe prejudices which existed in Ireland against the Catholics; but said he

need not go so far as that country to find a gentleman who had sworn, in

evide-,•e to that House, that the peasantry of Ireland believed thatthROMalt Catholl priests could turn them into hares and goats. Mr- 8 auley insinuated, that the Grand Jury were drunk, as well as their guests, when the toasts were given. They were heartily ashamed of them next morning. Mr. SHELL spoke of the tone of imperious contradiction assumed by Captain Gordon. To refresh his memory in respect to his be- lief in the popular opinions of priestly magic, Mr. Sheil read his answer from the printed evidence before the House— In answer to the question, whether he had heard that any portion of the people believed that their priests could turn them into goats and hares, the honourable member answered that he had no personal ac- quaintance with such instances, but that he had no doubt whatever of their existence. Mr. Sheil begged to be permitted to entreat the gallant member not to avail himself of the seat which he fortuitously possessed in that House, as representative for Dundalk, a town containing fifteen thousand Roman Catholics, for the purpose of persevering in that course which he had, no doubt, honestly and zealously pursued in Ireland, by making this House the arena for theological controversies and scholastic discussions.

Captain GORDON replied with great bitterness— Mr. Sheil had been pleased to observe that he had found his way into the House by fortuitous circumstances. This observation was quite un- becoming a member of Parliament. He stood there to exercise an un- purchased privilege, and to discharge a function honestly, freely, and in- dependently. He stood on the ground of an acknowledged right, as a Christian and a gentleman; and he repelled such observations as those in which the honourable member had indulged, as unparliamentary ; and were it not inconsistent with the discipline of the House, he would add a still stronger epithet. He could, if he pleased, retort upon the honour- able member, but he disdained to do so.

Mr. SHELL said, it would be well if one who talked so much of his Christianity did not allow his Christian spirit to be so speedily soured.

Mr. O'CoaratELL's motion for Mr. Perrin's report respecting the affair at Maghera was agreed to.

8. DUBLIN ELECTION. The report on this election was made on Monday. It first of all finds the sitting members not duly elected, and disqualifies them for sitting again in the present Par- liament, as guilty of bribery through their agents. The report then adds- " That it appeared to the Committee that certain persons holding high official situations, or considered to be connected with the Irish Govern- ment, did use undue influence to promote the return of the two mem- bers (Harty and Perrin) contrary to the privileges and resolutions of the Mouse. That the Chairman be directed to report these resolutions to the }louse, and to move for the production and printing of the evidence taken before the Committee."

The evidence having been laid on the table, and ordered to be printed, Mr. GORDON, Chairman of the Committee, moved the issuing of a new writ for Dublin. Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM moved that the issuing of the writ be suspended for a week ; which amendment was seconded by Mr. O'CONNELL—he wished the whole affair examined into at the bar.

Mr. CRAMPTON said, there was a distinction between the present case and that of Liverpool, where it was reported that a large body of the electors were guilty of bribery. In the course of a long conversation for and against the amend- ment, Mr. Hum, said, there were not less than 1,500 fictitious totes of freeholders, in each of which a false oath must have been taken, and that he had no doubt the head of the Irish Govern- ment was implicated in influencing the return. The House divided, when there appeared for the amendment ; against it 76. The writ was accordingly ordered to be issued, 9. COAL DUTIES. On the third reading of the bill for repeal- ing these duties, the Duke of WELLINGTON took occasion to advert to the often noticed case of the Government having dispensed with the duties as soon as the resolutions for repealing them passed the Commons.

Lord GODERICH observed, that such was the constant and in- variable practice of all Governments, and that a contrary practice would be attended with great inconvenience.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained that the continued high price of coals was attributable to the combinations among the workmen. His chief source of apprehension arose, however, from the workmen mixing politics with their combination. Lord Londonderry read a temperate and well-written advertisement, calling a meeting of the Northern Union to express their loyalty to their Sovereign, and their opinion on the effects of the Reform Bill, with various other political subjects.

The advertisement concluded with many expressions of loyalty and attachment to the Throne. He put it to their Lordships whether these were the people who were calculated to take political and legislative mea- sures into their consideration ; and whether some check ought not to be put to their unions and meetings ? He wished them to return to their +obedience to their employers, and continue obedient to them ; and if they did that, there might yet be some hopes of the prosperity of that part of the country. He concluded by appealing to Peers, connected with that part of the country, if such proceedings were proper ; and he had ad- verted to the subject, because he felt some uneasiness as to that part of the country.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it augured well for the country, when no mail was heard favourably, or could command the attention of the people, who did not profess sentiments of loy- alty to his Sovereign. Lord Lansdowne went on to advert to the state of the revenue, for whose prosperity -the Duke of Wellington had expressed some fears— Though the excess of revenue above expenditure was not as much as he could wish it to be, still he believed that there was at present an excess s)f 300,0001. or 400,0001. He was happy to say that the country was once more in such a situation that the repeal of taxes on articles of consump: poll did not lead to a diminution of the revenue, but rather to the reverse, in consequence of the expansion which it gave to capital employed in ma- nufactures. The repeal of this tax on coal furnished at once relief to the population, and means of increased exertion to the capitalist; and, by doing so, furnished the materials of increased revenue to the future statesman. The bill was then read a third lime, and passed.

10. GAME BILL. This bill was committed on Monday night: Lord ALTHORP proposed that the annual licence-duty for dealing in game should be fixed at 2!. ; that the annual duty for killing game should also be fixed at 3/. 13s. 6d. ; that the act should come into operation within twenty days after its passing ; that laying snares or shooting game on Sunday or Christmas-day should sub- ject the parties to a fine of 51.; that for laying poison to destroy game in any open or enclosed ground, or any highway, the penalty should be la ; that killing teal, wild ducks, or widgeons, in close time (1st June to 1st October) should be visited with a similar penalty; persons having game in their possession for sale eleven days after the last day of the season to forfeit 1/. for each offence ; that no innkeeper, coachman, guard, carrier, or higgler, shall be entitled to a license for the sale of game. This last clause was an amendment moved by Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE. The other clauses of the bill are less important than those enumerated. A most singular fact was stated by Lord MILTON,—namely, that gentlemen very seldom took out game licenses, being protec- ted from challenge by their rank. Mr. HUNT was opposed to selling game at all ; but no one seemed inclined to second his views. He also wished to impose a double tax on double-barrelled guns.

Colonel SIBTHORP was of opinion that laying poison to destroy game should be punishable by transportation for fourteen years ; and that killing game without a licence should, for the second of- fence, subject the party to three months', for the third to six months' imprisonment, and for the fourth to transportation.