Otbatr# ant! prarratinglIn Varriamcnt.

I. THE REFORM BII.I.. Previous to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, on Monday, several petitions iiere presented, some for, and some against it.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM, in presenting a petition against it, took occasion to give notice, that in the event of the second reading heinm rejected, he would, after Easter, introduce a measure of reform. He described the bill which he intended to introduce, as A bill for giving two representatives in Parliament to those large towns which, by their opulence and commercial importance, were entitled to be represented, although at present they were not represented. 'rids would be the first object. A second object of the bill would be to conjoin and consolidate certain boroughs, each of which now returned two members to Parliament, so as to ret urn two members for the consolidated boroughs; the purpose of this being to prevent the 'inconvenience of an addition to the present numbers of the House of Commons by the introduction of members for places not before represented. And a third provision of the bill would lie to extend the elective franchise to persons not now entitle(' to vote, so as to prevent the abuse of the elective franchise in boroughs.

The Duke moved the insertion of the notice on the journals, as evi- deuce of the sincerity of his intention.

Lord Baoucriam brought up several petitions, which he afterwards withdrew for inspection, as he could not inform Lord ELDON, of his own . knowledge, that they were respectfully worded.

Lord DURHAM presented a petition from the members of the Politi- cal Union of Greenwich and Deptford, in favour of the Bill.

Earl GREY submitted the petition could only be received as the prayer of the person who signed it.

Lord DURHAM said, he presented the petition from the members of a Political Union. He demanded no particular favours for that body, but he demanded for them the right of being heard at the bar of their Lordships' House, in common with the rest of his Majesty's subjects.

Several Peers having required that the petition be read, it was read at length by the Clerk ; and as it referred to the Parliamentary conduct - of Earl Grey, when Charles Grey, considerable laughter was excited. The question being put, that the petition do lie upon the table, many Peers . cried "non-content," while the greater number said " content ; " and on the Lord Chancellor announcing "that the contents had it," there was a call for a division, accompanied with cries of "No, no," which termi- nated, after some confusion, in the proposition to divide being with- drawn, and the petition being laid on the table.

Earl GREY rose, at six o'clock, to move the second reading of the Reform Bill. After briefly noticing the interesting nature of the Bill. —the importance of its object—the large majority that had sent it up-- the unequivocal support it had received from the people—he adverted to the Duke of Buckingham's notice of motion.

He thought that it could not be necessary for him to show that the principle of this - Bill was a principle which was entitled to the adoption of their Lordships, because, even. by those who were the most adverse to the details of the present measure of Reform, the ne- cessityof some reform was at last admitted. That verynight, two petitions had been pre- sented to their Lordships,—one purporting to be a petition against this measure, and the other thanking their Lordships for having rejected the last bill, but both stating the opinion of the petitioners to be that some reform was necessary ; and, in compliance- with that opinion, a noble duke had that evening given notice to their Lordships of his intention to propose a bill to their consideration, which was founded on the three great principles of the present bill, which had been so often stigmatized as the principles, not of reform but of revolution—he meant the three great principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement. and extension of the elective franchise to those who hitherto had not enjoyed it. (Cries of "No, no !" from the Opposition) The Duke of BUCKHIGHAM rose to order, and, as he said, to save the time of the House— He had particularly guarded himself against entering upon the question of disfran- chisement. His object was to give the elective franchise to those who had it not—not to take that franchise from those who had it.

Earl GREY remarked on this explanation—

The noble duke meant to give the right of returning members to Parliament to large and populous and wealthy towns. That was the principle of enfranchisement. He meant to make room for that addition to the House of Commons without altering the number of its members; by uniting boroughs which now separately and individually possessed the right of returning representatives, into electoral districts, returning a less number of representatives. Now if he took from a number of boroughs, of which each

vossessed the right of returnina two representatives, any portion of t hat r ht, which he would do hy compelling a number of them to return two represent., i yes C nly, that was Imbue on the principle of' disfranchisement. As to his third principle, tho extension of the franchise. he believed-the uoble duke did not dispute it; for he had stated in-ex- press terms that 1.e iutended to extend the ritht of voting. The wade dt ke, therefore, meant to 1.res.nit their Lordships with a bill founded on the three Weil principles or dise.unolinwor, enfranchisement, and extension of the stiffrage,—priteiples which their ,olstlias had unen been told were the principles not of reform, but of revolution.

This notice, Earl Grey said, sufficiently relieved him limn the ne- cessity of defending the principle of the Bill, because it was a principle universally conceded : he did not think he was called an to except even the Duke of Wellington, for the last declaration of the Duke upon the subject seemed to imply that even he thought some degree of reform necessary. He adverted to the Duke's declaration—that the object of the 13ill was " not reform, but revolution"— By what preeess of rot g the not .1. luke arrived at that conclusion, or what logical - distinctions he drew between worm .tnti revolution, Earl Grey did not ku. w ; but this he did keow, that there was nothie,7 in the adaption of the principles whielt he had fast recounted, sIIiC1t:.0111,1 entitle any man to give the 13111 in which they were incorporanal iL revolutionary character. A reliant in Parliament supposed a great el awn, iu the constiteth at of Perlianient,it supposed a great change in the mode in -,vbit It the people and their hilerests were to be represented but all change was not rove? ut 'on, teat least of all sash a Amen. Os was ',reposed in the present Bill. 1! was to bo •lt,(!tell, accord- ing to /In. acknowledged lainciples of the Constitution, by an aet or not innent, paesed by tile tin; of the 1.egi,htto;.e. consisting or the I...rds, zurl i'etnmons. It.

ntight, t be Lirlv coasidered as eifeeted ;est niil 1e th•liberation.

It ; - tie known ftrms of the law, an.1 was to Im earned into execu- tiou by t b • ;tree hnown itethorities of the state—King, Lords, awl Commons. It in- ft-ingot oa eone of the ordinary authorities g,f the land—it violated none ef the ordinary fieans of Rt !ow-taut:on—it imaded net itm privileges of their Lordslips—it inter- fered noi ill the prerozatives of the Cr; : why, then, should it he stigmatized by the term rev,ilation,"—it word used to indicate a great change in the monarchy state, (=tied itito execution by it force superior to the law, mut employed in keeping down the law ? Ile maintained that neither in terms, nor in character, uor in principle, was this Bill a revolution—it Nras truly emit substantially a rearm. i t ine.d :leant ask the noble duke how he illstingaished reform from revolution? Earl Grey know of no way of elthcting a refeen in Parliament,—a inc.-sure which presuppo,tni.the exist- ence of some defects in Hs • constitution of Parliament,—except by one of these three modes : ei.le•r by tlh,frativiii _Mg aneient decayed and inconsiderable borottghs,—whielt was the zu:,:icat pract:ce of the constitution, and that was disfranchisement ; or by giving the right Of representation to large and populous awl opulent towns witicli had risen into importance, and which had it not,—aud that, too, was the practice of the 01 len times, :11111 Mit4 enfranchisement ; or by a great extension of the right of vetintn—whieli was also Ilie in the good old times, and which he again said was not revolutionary. In some cno or these three ways. Retbrtn /mist be eifeeted; and therefore :ill the plans of reform Iiii7teri.o proposed by the scent men who had preceded him, and also that plan of reform which he had pethaps too presumptuously proposed to the House of Com- mons hi 1793, had all prow:oiled upon one or all of these three principles united.

He noticed the acquiescence, or the affection rather, of the people towards this measure— Ile was net now speaking of a mob, or of persons uninstructed and uniuformed. Let not such meats lords as were hostile to Relbrni suppose that such was a proper descrip- tion of the stipporters of Reform. Reforin was supported not merely by the mnItittele, but also by the great times or the power, the opulence, the intelligence, the education, and all that was anpertant in the community. Was it .necessary, therefore, for him to argtte that a measure so supported was not a revolutionary measure? Ile implored their Lordthips to consider agein and again who the parties were who most strenuonsiy advocated this measure. Were they not those able, awl active, and hithistrions meti who had acipiired large property by their habits of enterprise and assiduity, and who bad, therefure, the deepest lune:est' in he security and preservation ? (-Saila it be sup- posed that in the nineteenth century men of such talents and such enerey would come to the bar of their Lordships' House, and would entreet them on bendeeknee to :Idept, as a measure or salvation for their persons and their property, a measure which in its principle:: was ruinous to both, and which in its effects must be destructive to those in- stitutions which they wished nit to pall down, but only to repair? The supposition was too monstrous to be entertained seriously, even for a moment.

He proceeded to notice, in detail, the alterations in the Bill,—the number of boroughs in Schedule A, and the principle on which they were placed there; the reduction of Schedule B from 41 boroughs to 30, and the cause of the restoration of the 11 boroughs, some of which were county towns, whose partial disfranchisement had been very much objected to. He adverted to the argument derived from the anomaly of leaving to some towns their entire representation, while others, much more populous and wealthy, had no representation at ali-

ne admitted the existence of all these anomalies in the Bill; but they were insepar- abk from the principle on \Odell the Government had acted of retaining as much as possible of what existed at present. The only effectual mode of obviating an objection of this character was by doing more than had hitherto been done. Indeed, the only way in which the Reform Bill could be rendered perfect in theory, would be by an en- tire new distribution of the elective franchise; in which- case it would be necessary to divide the country into electoral districts. Now, Ministers never had any such theory in view : on the contrary, they wished to avoid any change which went to that extent; and if they had left the Bill subject to this charge of being full of anomalies, it was for the sake of preserving the institntions of the country, as they existed at present and if its being full (If :monodies was the defect of the Bill, it was a defect which could only be carol by addiag fresh changes to those which, according to the declarations of the opponents of Government, were-already too great and extensive.

Having stated the changes in Schedules C and D, Lord Grey next considered the argument of giving increased power to the demo- cracy, in consequence of the addition to these schedules in the present Bill. He denied that division of interest between the commercial and agricultural interests which- the argument assumed: He noticed the counterbalance to the addition in the subtraction of 11 towns from Schedule B. The towns that were enfranchised, his Lordship said, were not all of them manufacturing or commercial. He adverted to the mistake, that in all future elections the same process would take place as under the excitement ofthe last-

- " Your Lordships must not judge of what will generally be the case by what occurs when the question of Parliamentary Recant agitates the country: When this question is decided, things will rebirn to their settled and habitual state ; and the owners of property, the men of rank and station, if rank andstation be united with good conduct— ant if rank and station be not united with good conduct, they ought not to have any greet influence—they will resume that influence which naturally belongs to them: and, pos- sessing that, there- can be no fear of the representation becoming democratic. As far as these representatives were connected with the commercial all manufacturing, in- terests, they would give those interests the means of protection ; and when your Lord- ships take into consideration the great prosperity and wealth of thetowns to which it is proposed to give 64 representatives .1weSchechiles• C and D; it be admitted, I think, considering the circumstances of these towns, and the importance of the interests concerned, and the inseparable connexion between .property and power, that they have not more than their share in the principle of representation." He next proceeded to -defend the 10/. franchise from two objections that had beenbrought against it,—first, that it was unknown to the constitution; second, that it was framed at the expense of existing franchises. He noticed the last first--

" Whatever may be the other effects of the Bill mediatels-, with. the exception of dis- franehisiug some boroughs, it destroys no rights of voting. The right of voting in- corm- ties, the freeholders' rights, are untouched; the rights of freemen, which by the former Bill were preserved for theirnatural lives, are by the present Bill extended to their de- scendants; and those who acquire the right of 'freedom *Um servitude have it secured to them- for ever. So fan then, from these rights being swept away, they remain -tins touched. As to the other points that this right is unknown to the Constitution, the objection was brought forward before, and called Ruth an answer from my intlee and learned friend on the woolsack; and if his refutation of that objection be not emisidenat sufficient—though to me it appeared unanswerable—I cannot hope that what 1 ninv offer can add any force to that powerful refutation. My noble friend stated—and hia referred to the Report of Sergeant Glanville--that it was agret•able to every principle of common law, that if a nest- writ were issued—and he called 1113011 all the lawyers to stnte if he were wrong—that if a TIVW writ were issued to ally town, it would ipso fiteta he directed to the iehabitant householders residing, in the boort-sit, who would Ito caliol on to retttru the member. That principle is distinctly stated in the Report of Sergeant Glanville, which was sanctioned by Coke mid Seidel' and Finch anti Noy, who waa afterwards Attorney-Oeueral. In that Report it was shit ed--"flittre beieg no certain custom nor preseripion who should he electors and who not, we must have wetter, ti■ common right, wide), to this purpose, was hela to be, that more than the freeladders only ought to have voices in the election ; namely, till men ialiabitant lionseheidera resident within the borongh."I'lle right of Sit tug, as 1,01...itging Io the le el.-. ,'• is then an iteknowledged right ; a ml the Dill will has e no it It- :hna la that right of voting. awl impose limitations out it. lti. right ‘...■ ' • the resuint householders in boroughs, Mit by the Bill it tli :1(Ttit,■• tenements amounting in value to 10/. The pctition laesentvil by the smile La I --•„.! that we were itdroduchur new rights ; but, so air films that, n ale introduehm right, and are placing 0 limit on an ancient right, Fuel as we comsider may i '‘.• attOptelt. It is nothing shore than the sent and hut ii: it ing. which (mold., •

person, being au oreupter. to Sete; but to that right we allix the limit:id:mot' an .1 value of 10:., and that the voter shall have oceapied tile house thr a certain time le the election."

He cited the ease of Norwich, to show that the presumed diMentty of ascertaining the rent of houses was greatly overrated ; aud mitt la!utl, that the methods pointed out 1.y the Bill would be found amply suffi- cient to enable the overseer to ascertain the value of the house, and also to Secure the rights of the voters. If any other provisions, calcu- lated to secure those rights, were proposed, Lord Grey said he would give them his best consideration. He entered into a calculation of the number of voters under the Bill- " in order that I might be able distinctly to point ■)Itt I■1 yoer Iordshins what, mid, t the present bill, will be the relative proporn.ei or 10/. Ifouseholdars ft ('ii,. ii ih1.1.1.1r(1.1g1:S, i isuse obtained rot tuns, l'ron, which it appears that there wilt 115 horouth tae:ses,ing front n00 to 500 voters, It-t horteighs possesnglfr 1,000 ‘ett•rs, hcrol,glIs possesthig from 1,010 to 5,000 voters, and only 'sir lilt.'tlS 5.e:).) esters upwards ; so that, ti-rim this dorstrestit which I hold hi toy Innid, it would appoat, that out of no less than 315 borotighs, there ere only 30 vthicil have a number of voters exceeding 5,000."

He asked the House, whether the renting of a 10/. house were not in itself a proof that the voter was possessed of a certain pioperty, and held a certain rank in the community ; and he pointed out, in the clauses for registering votes, a further guarantee, that even the lowest in the class of voters would be in every respect worthy of being intrusted with the franchise. There was an objection stated in the Oxford peti-

tion, that the franchise was uniform-

" It is tree that the rigid of volina is tube uniform; anl so fift, I say, the arrat,gentont is bolt-416;th Btu though the rieht of voting will Ito uniform, I In• possession will be various; and the habits, the feelings, a utl. I lw dispositions of the persetts possessing thi, franchise. will vary according to the difff•rent circumstances in width they are placed. The 10!. voter of Liverrml awl Manchester, for instance. will he a %Any different sort of parsott front the 1.0!. voter of Guillbrd and Dorchester ; and your Lordships may rely upon it, that the reselt of this franchise wilt be, that in one place we shall haye a class of voters supporting the commercial interests—in awn her a eiteo solve-tine the menu- facturinu—a tol in a Odra a class supporting the agricultura 1 ; while tteain, in such places as Chatham and Plymouth, we shall probably have a clues willing to give their support I it the (nee:mm.11i. This latter may be objectionable ; but at all events, it it: right to state it. for t iW purpose of showing. that though the franchise is uniform, ilt.e possession is various, and ii or fore calculated to admit all the interests of the commu- nity to their just preponderance, and to produce that very effect which all ought to e ish for who desire to see the country really, and net nominally represented."

After brick, noticing the relative members which by the Bill would remain to the town and country interest, and to England as one of the

three kingdoms, Earl Grey concluded-

" Alt that I desire is, that we should now proceed with this discussion in such a manner as may lead to a happy and to a speedy terminatiom—speedy, indeed, I nny well say, for happy it (tamed be without I hat taller ingredient being added. The on- portimity of doing this is now afforded to your Lurdshipa; find I hope that it will not lie lost: I hope it, my Lords, the more, as that opportunity, once let slip, it will not be easy to recover it. I haw been accused of using. on a former occasion the language Of in- timidation. I inst.:aim the intention of using any such language. Nothing could be further from my wish than to influence your Lordships by any improper or unworthy fears in deciding a questiou which should rest alone on your most deliberate judgment. But surely it is not the language of intimidathm, I wished to address to your Lord- ships that -which any honest counsellor intelit address to the most despotic sovereign on the thee of tin. earth—my humble advice on the subject; Mill I am sure that all flan- tured to state to you was, that no iulluenca, no authority, no power, was sufficient safely to set at detiance that unanimous demand which was founded en public opinion, My Lords, I never counselled you to yield to any hasty or temporary outcry ; I never ail- visol you to give way to the exorbitant anti unruly demands of clamour; but what I thih theu say, aud what I now repeat, is, that the deliberate seutimeut of a great and in- telligent people. expressed after long time being allowed for reflection, is entitled to your Lordships' attention—and the House will give me leave to say, to your Lordships' respect also. I can assure the house, that I feel the deep and vital consequence of this measure to the country, to your Lordships, and to myself. I feel its consequence to the country, as connected 'with all those interests ou wilich its power and its prosperity depend: I feel its consequence to your Lordships, as connected with that confidence and reliance which I would ever have the people place in yourjudgment, and without which this House can never hold that station which ought truly to attach to it. My Lords, I admit that we have of late heard none of that outcry ou the part of the people, which first marked the progress of this Bill. In its place, a tearful silence at present prevails,—a silence which may, perhaps, lead some foolishly to imagine that the people are no longer lout:int,' at this question with the same feelings of interest- But I caution your Lordships to beware how you form that opinion. You may rely upon it, that though the people are silent, they are looking at the deliberationsof this night with no less intenseness than that Which has marked them from the very first day of the agi- tation of this question. I know that it is pretended by some, that the nation has no confidence in this House, because there is an opinion out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separate from those of the people. On the part of this House, how- ever. I disclaim all such separateness of interests; therefore lain willing to believe that the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still existing, in their bosom. With respect to myself, I am very sensible that no one ever stood before Par- liament with the same personal responsibility as that with which I am invested. _I have been made the subject of attack—I have been laid open to what I believe to be great injustice—I am sure that I have been the subject °Niue+ undeserved suspicion. And why ?—Because I Inure proposed,that which I thought my duty to my Sovereign and to my country required meto propose,—a measure, which is now in its principle generally admitted to he necessary, and about which the only difference is as to its ex- tent. All that I can say upon this subject is, that I exercised the best of my judgment. I believed (again to use the words of my noble and learima friend) that a large measure of Reform—an efficient measure of Reform—such as should meet the just expectations of the people, was necessary, if we wished to enable this country to resume that peaCe- fill and prosperous situation to-which it is impossible for it to retnrir, so long as this agitation awl anxiety pervade the public mind. My Lords, I knew well the difficulties that I should have to encounter; but I was led by my sense of duty to disregard them. I hope that I may be allowed lowly, that in all the progressive stages of this measure I have never deviated front that steadiness of purpose which I believed would finally lead to success ; anti that as, on the one hand, I bare not been deterred by threatened diffi- culties from proposing this Bill, so, on the other, I have not suffered myself to be forced by clamour into the prosecution of it by menns to which I could not-in my hest judg- ment consent, un!ess in a case of the last necessity. Under these eircumStances, and feeling t hat this may possibly be the last t into that I shall have to press this me:murexes I'll Lertiships' attention, I mast confess tint I 1, di. with something like- hope to that which appears to be a sort of a ?preach to a faro :..shle decision on the part of thin

House. lf, however, on the other hand. I should sink under the struggle, I shall at least have the consolation of feeling that I did, to the best of my judgment, that which I thought right and fitting, regulating my actions according to the sincere dictates of my conscience, with the one sole object of effecting that which should be beat calculated to promote the interests of my country. All that I pray for is, that if misfortune is to fol- low this measure, it may be confined to one—that I may be the sule victim of it. I pray that my Sovereign, my country. and your Lordships may remain untouched; and above all, that your Lordship may be enabled to form that union with the People which is so necessary to the welfare of the whole, as well as to that sentiment' upon which your Lordships' influence and weight in the country are based."

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, he did not mean to deny that the Bill was sent up by a large majority from the Commons, and supported by a large majority of the country ; but he would not give to numbers merely what nothing but the merits of the measure itself could claim. It was a remarkable fact, that the principal clause—the 10/. clause had been altered eleven times ; and yet, a year and a half ago, they were told this clause had received the full approbation of the People of Eng- land. At the very last moment, when the unchangeable Bill was com- ing up to the Lords, a borough- was.added to it. In Schedule B, since it first appeared, no fewer than forty-seven changes had taken place. What would be the consequence if they departed now from the vote they gave in October ?— nod G rey had told them that the majority of the House of Commons was backed by the majority of the People ; aml he had already admitted that such was the case. lint it might, perhaps, be worth while to pause for a moment, for the purpose of investigat- ing et whom that majority consisted. The first part of that minority consisted or the whole body of the Whig aristocracy. together with their dependents and adherents ; and yet these very persons, as they had heard from Earl Grey himself, were not able, five years ;0), to agree among themselves on any general principle ot reform ; added to which, Lord Ellenbomugh would take the liberty of reminding their Lonlships, that about the same time nearly the whole of them, with the exception of the noble earl, had joined the Administration of Mr. Canning, Wim, to the very last, was opposed to all reform whatever. How, tlwn, was their present conduct to he accounted for ? The only mode that he could discover was, that having been out of office for forty years— and if they had been backed by the people, so lone an absence from oflice could not have happened—they had discovered that it was jusepossible that this sweeping mea- sure might be the means of reconciling the people to them, by NvIlich they might hope to retain their present power for some years to come. The next portion of the majority in favour of the Reform Bill, was the Irish Roman Catholic party. And on what prin- ciple had they joined the noble earl ? Why, they had said, as plain as tongue could speak, " It is the noble earl's turn now, but ours will come next ; and that, too, by the dissointiou of that very union which the noble earl says must cause a dissolution of the empire." The next portion of this majority was formed by those who, since the year 1793, had unceasingly advocated every principle that was subversive of pod govern- ment and the Constitution,—a set of men who for a season had happily been lost in the $hades of obscurity, from which they had emerged on the broaching of this question, for the purpose of proclaiming themselves its leaders and its warmest advocates. One $hades of obscurity, from which they had emerged on the broaching of this question, for the purpose of proclaiming themselves its leaders and its warmest advocates. One would have supposed, that the mere appearance of such men as these might have ex- cited the apprehensions of the noble earl, and led him to consider over and over again what must be the nature of a plan that could at once inlist such men as these on its side. The next portion of the majority was made up of the poorer classes of society ; and why had these joined in the general cry? Because they had been told that reform would give them cheap bread ; that it would produce a change that would raise them from their present unfortunate condition—that it would, in short, open the door to a revolution, to which desperation was willing to look forward as its only remedy ; and thus it was that these poorer classes had been deluded by the false representations of false friends.

In addition to these, he acknowledged, there was a large number of respectable persons ; but he asked whether among this class no change of sentiment had taken place ?—whether Dorchester did not exhibit such a change; and whether it was not from fear that a second Tory member should be returned for that county that Mr. Portman had not resigned ? If, then, they rejected the Bill ni October, what should pre- vent them from rejecting it now? The passing of the Bill, so far from removing, would only increase agitation. With respect to its provi- sions, he thought them much worse than those of the last Bill. Having noticed the Schedules A and B, which being now restricted to a limited number, left less freedom of choice than when they were not, he went on to enumerate the advantages of the boroughs contained in those schedules— In the first place, they returned forty sons of peers, only fifteen of whom were returned by their fathers or brothers. He recollected how eloquently, on the discussion of the former Bill, the noble earl behind him—the benefit of whose support he did not expect that night—had defended the practice of the sons of peers occupying scats in the other House of Parliament ; and the more the grounds upon which that practice came to be examined, the more stable and excellent most they appear. A large and most important portion of the aristocracy came there to associate with men of large general information and of talents highly cultivated, who raised themselves without 'the aid of hereditary privilege. Let the House only look to the names of the persons filling up that list of forty members ; he should mention a few—there were Lord Lowther, Lord Mahon, Lord Stormont, Lord Porchester, and Mr. Wortley. Of the last-mentioned gentleman, who was not long associated with him in a public office, he was enabled to speak in the highest terms ; and of the noble lords referred to he need say nothing, for they .were well known to the public for ability, industry, and every qualification which could fit them to make able members of the House of COME00113; and yet by the new BM they would be removed, and the places which sent them declared unworthy and incapable of sending representatives to Parliament. In that list of boroughs there were a certain number which returned officers of the Army, or men who, though not now or recently pursuing the military profession, were nevertheless so much identified with the Army, that they were, in feeling and sentiment, soldiers ; and these included sixteen sons of peers. Amongst the names of the other military men, he found Sir Colquhoun Grant, Sir Edward Kerrisom Sir William Pringle, and Sir Henry Hardinge ; yet every one of those would be removed by the Bill, and with them would go Mr. Attwood, Mr. Sadler, and other distinguished members of that class. The country by such a change would lose such members in the other House as the late Attorney and Solicitor General, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, Sir Charles Wetherell, Sir John Michell, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Macaulay, and many eminent members of the legal profession; it would lose, too, a large majority of those representatives connected with India. The re- maining members returned by the places to be disfranchised by the new measure, in- cluded twenty-seven gentlemen of large landed property,—men whose character and whose estate in the country placed them above all suspicion ; and there remained thirty- nine persons possessed of property in the funds, in land, and otherwise, which gave them a deep interest in all that related to the wellbeing of the country ; and at the head of the whole, was the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, when rejected by the University of Cambridge, found refuge (a remarkable coincidence) in the very SUM borough* which received Sir Robert Peel when he ceased to represent Oxford.

Having panegyrized the nominee members of the present House of Commons, he went on to enumerate the benefits conferred on the i'na- tion by the system during the eight years preceding the entrance on office of the present Ministers— In those eight years.15,500,000/. of taxes had been repealed ; the interest of the debt had been reducedby 4,000,0001.• 4,500,000/. had been taken off the public expenditure; 4,000 offices were reduced. The last Government alone had taken off more than 1,000,0001. of taxes. Again, in the stime period, the exports had increased 12,500,0001., the imports 15,000,0004 the coasting trade 1,000,0001.

He noticed further, the revision of the Criminal Laws—the simplifi- cation of Civil Process—the relaxation of the Prohibitory System—the Small Note Bill—the Duke of .Wellington's Corn Bill—the repeal of the Test Act—the Catholic Relief Bill. With respect to the charge of Corruption—at the accession of George the First, 276 members of

• Lord Ellenborough mistakes—Lord Palmerston sits for Bletchingley ; Sir Robert Peel sat for Westbury.

the Commons were dependent on the Crown ; under George the Se- cond, the number was reduced to 256 ; under George the Third, to 200; now there were only O. He asked what a Reformed Parliament would do, which an unreformed Parliament would not ?—

Did Ministers expect that a tax would be imposed upon the transfer of Stock in cou- travention of repeated Acts of the Legislature. and in violation of all good faith ? Did they expect that the export of cotton, the production of sines at the Cape, and the tim. her trade of Camula, would all be placed upon u new footing ? If those were their ob. jects, they ought to come forward and explicitly say so ; and then, and not before, their Lordships would know to what purpose they were legislating.

He noticed the probable effects of the Bill upon the Church and its interests— It was well known that in England the very lowest and the very highest comprised a larger proportion of those in communion with the Established Church, and it might reckon a very considerable portion or those whom he should call the middle classes ; but those on whom the new Bill conferred the franchise were all Dissenters. Then he begged of the House to remember the homier which it conferred upon Dissenters, through the medium of the Scotch and faith voters. No doubt, limier the present sys- tern, a few Presbyterian members might be returned from Scotland ; butt then they were, generally speaking, men of large lintune, and tut generous and liberal sentiments ; but under the new system they could have nothing to expect but represent:dives im- buedj with all that remained of bigotry in that country. The House of Commons would be returned by the Dissenters here, by the Presbyterians in Scotland, and by the Catholics in Ireland.

After sonic further remarks on the operation of the 10/. franchise, and on the impossibility of preserving the Septennial Act, he con- cluded— There might be inconvenience iu rejecting the Bill ; but there was no inconvenience which u firm Government might not meet, and there was none which at all equalled the hazard of that desolation to the whole country which must be the consequence of adopt- ing any such measure. The cry from day to day would be for further and greater change ; and therefore he should say to those who were determined not to pass the Bill, vote not for the second reading. There was danger—be did not mean to deny that there was ; neither did he undervalue that danger ; but there was infinitely more danger in encouraging the popular madreess to the extent which the promoters of the measure, if permitted, would proceed. There was not one of the difficulties which the sincere opponents of the measure had at that moment to contend against, which would not be aggravated tenfold on the third reading : therefore to the present motion he should say Not Conteut.

He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

There was a pause after the Lord Chancellor put the Amendment, and on the Opposition side some cries of " Question !" and " Divide !" Lord Melbourne spoke to the Lord Chancellor ; on which his Lord- ship withdrew for a few moments. When he returned,

Lord MELBOURNE addressed the House. He said the speech of Lord Ellenborough was directed as much against all Reform as against the details of the present measure. His argument for nomination bo- roughs went to preserve not some, but all of them. To such an ar- gument it was unnecessary to offer but one answer—the constitution of the House of Commons was no longer capable of being maintained. With respect to any argrument against the details of the Bill, the proper time to notice these would come when the Bill was in Committee.

The Bishop of DURHAM said, in bringing forward such a measure, there were three things to be considered : first, it ought to be so framed as not to cause alarm to those who were attached to existing institu- tions,—which was notoriously not the ease in respect of the present Bill ; second, it ought to remove great practical evil, or produce great practical good,—and he .denied that the Bill did either ; third, care should be taken that any future Government would have the means of carrying on the public business of the country,—which had not been taken in the present case. He expressed his belief, that in cutting off nomination boroughs, they would merely substitute boroughs to be ruled by political unions. If he thought it would benefit the people, he would vote for it ; but he was far from thinking it would. Finally, the Bishop expressed a hope, that Ministers would still retain power enough to give protection to those who were honestly opposed to them.

Lord STOURTON supported the Bill, on the principle that those who paid the taxes should have a voice in their imposition. From the changes that had taken place of late years, this was no longer the case.

The Marquis of SALISBURY, in reference to the Duke of Bucking- ham's notice, observed, that the question of Reform or No Reform no longer existed ; the only question now was should the House preserve the consistency of the Constitution? Any one who desired a more moderate Reform than this Bill offered, might very properly reject it, looking to the Bill of the Duke of Buckingham which would follow; whereas, by voting for the present Bill, it would be impossible after- wards to accept of the -Duke's narrower measure.

Earl BATHURST spoke against the 10/. qualification, as unconstitu- tional. He mentioned Lord Milton's having opposed it in the case of Grampound, and Lord Altliorp's supporting Lord Milton in this view of the qualification. On that occasion' a noble member for Yorkshire declared against the 10/. franchise, on the strength of communications from Leeds, which described it as too low. Again, when the question of transferring the vacant members to Manchester was discussed, Mr. Phillips a resident of that city, objected to 10/. as too low - and even Lord John Russell was content that it should be fixed at 40/. Lord Bathurst went on to argue, that by the proposed qualification, the nomi- nation of members would be placed in the bands of the Political Unions ; and to criticise the provisions of the Bill generally, which he contended was much more objectionable than the former. .

The Earl of HADDINGTON said, that up to within a few days of the second reading of the former Bill, he had determined on voting for it. He was restrained by two considerations,—first, he did not believe that its supporters would have agreed to any thing like an amendment of it; second, he was indignant at the process of intimidation adopted towards the House. The appeal had been made from the Ministers to the good sense of the country, and what was the result ?— • A great deal had been said of reaction. He was himself quite certain, at the time that the last Bill was presented, that the country was divided. That a large portion of , the People favoured that measure, he had no doubt ; but he was also certain that a laege portion was opposed to it. He believed that the rejection of the Bill on that oc- casion had given Courage to those persons to speak their minds, and they had done it in a manner most distinctly and most respectfully ; but he could not help thinking, that if their petitions were looked into, however they might be opposed to the extent of the principle, there would not be found in those petitions any such abnegation of the principle of Reform itself as would form asafe and reasonable ground for them to refuse the reading of this Bill the second time. 'His firm belief Was, that the reasonable and respectable part of the country were tired of this discussion; and that they desired the settlement of the question. He believed that they wished Parliament to amend the representation, though they did not approve of the measure now before the House ; but he did not think that they wished their Lordships to reject this measure without ex-. amination. Indeed, if their Lordships did so reject the measure, he believed theywould not have the support of those respectable persons in the country to whose opinions they had before listened, and were still anxious to listen, with attention.

He said it would have been infinitely more agreeable to him to take the same course as Lord Ellenborough had done ; but then, he must be prepared to vote against any reform whatever. He regretted the loss of nomination boroughs as much as Lord Ellenborough did ; but the question now was, could they be retained?, In his wish to retain these boroughs Lord Ellenborough was as much opposed to the Duke of Buckingham's bill as to Lord Grey's, for nomination was to be de- stroyed by both. As to the 10/. clause, he approved of it as much in small boroughs as he disapproved of it in large boroughs; • Any one who imagined, that by voting for the second reading he bound himself to the whole of the Bill, was mistaken. If he did not hope to alter the Bill in Committee, he would not vote for its going into Committee. All that he conceived himself pledged to by going into Committee was, that some reform was necessary. He pursued his present course as the best in an alternative of evils. The nomination boroughs must be given up ; but they might endeavour—although he was not sanguine as to the result—to create a balance for the loss, by giving weight to pro- perty in regulating the qualification. If they did not go into Commit- tee, he saw nothing but the acceptance, in a short time, of the whole Bill, or perhaps of a worse.

He proposed, therefore, that they should go into Committee on the Bill ; that they should do their best with it there ; and, having done that, they might then throw it out upon the third reading, with a much better grace than they could du at present. lie thought, if they did this, they would do better for the interests of the country than if they adopted any other course; and the country would then see a practical refutation of that assertion that their Lordships did not sympathize with the feelings or the country, and were determined to refuse all reform whatever. They would show that they were williug to concede much ; and that if they did not concede all, that at least they did not throw out the Bill till they had tried all in theirpower to pass it. ThePeople had had their minds filled with delusion. The commerce of the country was in a s:ate of stagnation, the revenue was sufferiug. and enterpriseswas checked, and the good hu- mour and cheerfulness that used to characterise the English was impaired. Ile did Lot say that these were reasons for passing the Bill, but for their going into a consideration of its details with a view to show that they were willing, as far as the safety of the Con- stitution would allow them, to admit of a practical reform. Ile thought that this ques- tion must be settled by a compromise. The people of this country were now in a tem- per of mind to render that possible. How long that would continue, he could not say. Parliament was of that temper, and he saw no reason why any one of their Lordships (except those, if any such there were, who thought they could take their stand upon es- isting institutions, and could refuse all change whatever) should hesitate to adopt a comproa-Sse.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, he had voted against the last Bill, be- cause be abhorred its principle; and he would vote against the present for the same reason. It was said the present Bill was much better than the last : if they threw out the present Bill, might they not then expect one much better than it?

Lord GAGE said, while a post remained, it might be wise to defend it but to rush into the midst of the enemy without the means or hope oevictory, was not courage, but insanity. The only chance of carry- ing those amendments for which noble lords contended, lay in voting for the second reading.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY spoke at length against the Bill. He read a long extract from a speech delivered in 1771 by Mr. Fox, on the propriety and the right of members opposing their constituents, whatever might be the earnestness of desire expressed by the latter, or their unanimity. He concluded by alluding to the arguments by which the second reading was knight to be defended by Lord Wharncliffe and other lords who intended to vote with him— It had been said abroad, that noble lords were induced to support the second reading of the Bill in consequence of their knowing that the noble earl at the head of the Government was intrusted with authority to take measures to secure the carrying of the Bill through their Lordships' House. Nothing could be more unconstitutional, even at this time, than the assertion on the part of the noble earl that he had the authority in his hands to carry the measure. The reasons advanced for going into Committee on this Bill were ridiculously flimsy. They were not the true reasons. There was some- thing lurking behind. their Lordships had a right to know what they were : it in thew conferences with the noble earl, the noble lords had heard good grounds stated in private to induce them to depart from their former views,tbeir Lordships ought to know them. He was not to be deterred from openly declaring this—every l'eer had a right to speak out. They were now struggling for God and their country—struggling about is matter of no less consequence titan a change in the Constitution. When the thing was so openly stated abroad, he felt himselfjustified in stating it as openly there. If the noble earl had used this influence in his private conferences with noble lords, it ought to produce Ids impeachment. They might talk of using the King's name at elections— that was bad enough; but when the Prime Minister used the paramount influence of the Royal name in his Cabinet, he was deeply responsible and deeply guilty.

. When the Marquis of Londonderry sat down, the House adjourned, at half-past twelve o'clock.

The Earl of SHREWSBURY opened the debate on Tuesday. He was at some loss, as far as he had consulted history, to discover from what evils the Constitution, of which some persons seemed so enamoured, had saved the country. We had had expensive wars' we had eight hundred millions of debt ; we had had rebellion and revolution, great and frequent commercial embarrassments, and the strange picture of an in- telligent and active population idle and starving in the midst of abun- dance. The only way to test the value of the Constitution, was to pass a measure which would give its merits fair play. By passing the Bill, they would restore their connexion with the People, and their power of doing good—the only power they ought to enjoy. They must either consent to right the People, or the People would right them- selves.The Clergy, who, his Lcirdship said, had too frequently been "the willing agents of the worst systems of tyranny, and participators in all acts of extravagance, spoliation, and corruption," ought to be the 'first to come forward to discharge their duty to the country. As for those Peers who only voted for the second reading "in order to bring the Bill into a snare, that they might despatch it the more readily," lie :thought that their more manly and dignified course would be to op- pose the Bill altogether. He concluded by asserting the necessity of Ministers possessing in the House of Lords a considerable majority of votes, else their resignation was inevitable. Neither did he think this majority could any longer be maintained by the old means— Ministers must no longer sustain their influence by keeping up a number of officers in the Army and Navy out of all proportion to the wants of either service—by trans- lating obsequious prelates from a poorer to a richer see—by elevating an aspiring noble to a higher rank in the Peerage—by reinforcing their Lordships' House with persons whose only claim to distinction was their having voted at the Ministerial beck for a cer- taM term of years, without any consideration of the measures they supported—or by the lavish distribution of pensions and sinecures. bestowed on the principle of giving large salaries for small services. It was not by a system of this kind that a Government was hereafter to be fortified, but by founding its strength upon the basis of public opinion a guide which generally proved correct in its suggestions. If their Lordships would not allow a Government to be carried on according to this system. then there was uo remedy but in filling the House with men,of different notions. Ile, for one, would not mince matters, but would unsbrinkingly declare his opinion, that if the House of Com- mons needed refoem, so likewise would that House, to prevent the danger of continual collision, and to secure that unity of action essential to the management of the affairs of a great nation.

The Earl of LIMERICK remarked on the Earl of Shrewsbury's speech, as one of the notable fruits of Catholic Emancipation ; which measure he deeply regretted the having lent himself to. It was supposed by many that that measure would disappoint its friends ; but he did not expect, in a year or two after its passing, to find one of the first Peers of the Catholic religion pronouncing a philippic, not only against all existing Peers, but against all that had existed for the last century.

The Earl of MANSVIELD said, the first question he asked him- self was, " did the Bill contain any alteration of the principle of the last ?" He had carefully examined it to discover if it did, and he found it did not : his course was therefore clear. Lord Harrowby had announced his intention of voting for the second reading of the present Bill because of the alterations made in it. Now he had con- tributed to the circulation of Lord Harrowby's speech against the second reading of the last Bill, because he thought it the best expose of the defects of that measure—he could see nothing in the objections to the one that did not apply to the other, and he only regretted that the speech had made less impression on Lord Harrowby himself than it did on his hearers. Lord Wharncliffe had spokon of expediency,— a reason to which Lord Mansfield felt little disposed to yield. Lord Wharncliffe had added, that the principle of the Bill must be the prin- ciple of every measure of reform. In that case, he must oppose them all. Lord Mansfield had been asked, out of the House and in, would he

deprive the People of all hope ?— If their Lordships would indulge him, he would offer some explanation on this point. If the People entertained a decided opinion that a change in the representation would materially increase their comforts and happiness, were not their Lordships to be al- lowed to express a doubt as to the necessity of the proposed change ? Ile maintained that the ehange ought not to be effected, unless accompanied with reasonable hopes of real and not speculative advantages to be derived from it ; and of those advantages their Lordships must be the judges, or otherwise for what purpose did they possess legislative functions ? He would say farther, that it was one thing to admit the possi- bility of improvement, and another to admit the existence of an evil to which it was necessary that an immediate remedy should be applied; and if, as he believed, the country multi go on increasing in wealth and prosperity as it had done since 194 uotwitlestand- ing the existence of certain anomalies in the representation, ho would rather adhere to the old Constitution, and the certain blessings which he enjoyed under it, than adopt a new one, with the hope of obtaining speculative advantages. In his opinion no reform was desirable which was founded on injustice. An attempt should be made to persuade the People that the evil of delay would be preferable to the danger of falliug into irres trievable errors by inconsiderate and—he must say, notwithstanding all the discussion which had taken place on the Bill—precipitate legislation. In advocating: the necessity of delayshe thought that he should have the support of all the boroughs which by the first Bill were to have lost their franchise, but were now to have one member ; and of those other boroughs which, by the same measure, would have been partially disfranchised, but were nom, to retain both their representatives. The measure before the 11011Se WILK the second bill whish had been presented to Parliament. Was it better or worse than its predecessor? lie must give Ministers the credit of supposing that it was belt er,— although he be„ d to remind the House, that one of the threats held out to induce the House -to agree to the former Bill was, that if it should 1 e rejected, a worse one would

proposed. If the present Bill, however, were better Hum that which had preceded it, the country was indebted for the improvement to the wise interposition of that House ; and therefore he might not unreasonably hope, that if the present Bill should be rejeet another, still less objectionable, would be submitted to their consideration.

He proceeded at great length to discuss the general arguments for Reform. To the first argument, that it was neeei,sary to render the House of Commons more democratic, Lord Mansfield replied, that it was already democratic enough, if not overmuch ; and that its demo- cratic character had been receiving a gradual increase of strength for many years past. The second argument for Reform, which was pointed against the nomination boroughs, was, that members ought not to be independent of their constituents. Lord Mansfield, to prove that no want of independence had been on any occasion displayed by the mem- bers of close boroughs, went into the argument so often dwelt upon, that many of the greatest men in the House of Commons bad entered the House by the means of close boroughs. He asked, if even under the Bill it was meant to get rid of close boroughs, or merely to change the present ones for others,—whether Whitehaven, for instance, was not to have a member, in order to neutralize the influence of Lord Lonsdale. Having considered these points, Lord Mansfield adverted to time ques- tion, what would be the result of rejecting the Bill ? He did not think much mischief would result from it. There might be violence offered to individuals ; perhaps the payment of taxes would be resisted; in London there would be a great breaking of windows ; but as to insur- rections, these could never happen if Ministers did their duty. He fully agreed with those who wished this question settled; but that set- tlement could never be made by a measure which would only open the door to endless disputes— If the present Bill were rejected, he did hope that the Ministers would wisely profit by the delay thus afforded them, and in another session bring forward a more Modified measure ; or, if the extensive scheme they might have in contemplation involved the actual revision of the articles of Union which bound Scotland and Ireland to England, he trusted that they would follow the example of those Ministers who brought about the Union of Scotland, and advise the Crown to appoint a commission, to which it might be referred to report what changes could be safely introduced, with a due regard to all the interests of the three component parts of the British emrire. If such a course were adopted, he should then entertain a hope that some bill, divested of those objec- tions which would thus have twice caused the Reform Bill to be rejected by this House, would lie introduced. But if any measure equally efficient (or, as he should say, equally unjust) should ever again be presented to their Lordships, he trusted that they would never allow the rights of the meanest individual in the country, of which they were the guardians and the protectors, to be arbitrarily destroyed.

Lord COLVILLE followed on the same side.

The Earl of HARROWBY next addressed their Lordships. He said he had expected, for it was usual in such times of excitement, that those who took a middle course between the two parties should be assailed by both. He bad been called "deserter" and "treacherous friend ; " yet why, he knew not. He could not well desert those whom he never had joined, nor prove treacherous to a friendship he had never pro- fessed. He denied that his speech against the second reading on the former Bill could be taken as the speech of a man determined under all circumstances to resist Reform. What he was most anxious to im- press on the House was, that they were not, because they had rejected Reform once, to reject it again— I wished to impress upon your Lordships' minds, that though we had then acted rightly in rejecting the Bill, we should not we warranted to do so again. This will do once, but must not be repeated. We cannot hope to again successfully resist a measure which the House of Commons has sanctioned for a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which the people of England has expressed a decided opinion. It was

because I felt this, that I had prepared a resolution ef which many noble lords are aware, as well as of the reasons which induced me not to bring it forward, by which the House would pledge itself, in the ensuing session, to take into its serious consider- &I ion some plan for extending the franchise to his Majesty's subjects, and for correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of the Constitution."

He delayed moving this resolution, on the representation of some friends, that it would be better to allow the excitement to be moderated. He himself hoped that, in the interval between the two sessions, the public would see that the plan of Ministers was injurious. No such result had happened. There had been sufficient time allowed for re- ution, but no such reaction had taken place. Still the delay had done good. Formerly there were two parties,—one who went with the Ministerial plans, another which opposed all Reform. The second party had now disappeared ; and the only division was between those who argued for a great and those who argued for a moderate change. After the alterations made in the Bill,—after its being twice sanctioned by the Commons,—it was not enough to say its passing would be dan- geroas ; they must show that the rejection of it would be less dan- gerous. That the opinions of Anti-Reformers out of doors were much changed, Lord Harrowby thought sufficiently proved by one fact —where was there a single petition against all Reform ? There were petitions against the Ministerial measure, but none against Reform.' The notice of the Duke of Buckingham equally afforded proof of this What were the principles of the Ministerial Bill? Simply enfranchisement, disfran- chisement, and the extension of the franchise. What were the principles of the noble duke's plan ? Enfranchisement (t• Hear I" from the Duke of Buckingham)—disfran- ebisenkent ("No!" from the Duke of Buckingham). and the extension of the franchise. The te.ble duke said be did not mean to disfranchise ; but what, he would ask, was the outsel elating or thre boroughs into one, hut a disfranchisement of from ten to two mem- bers ? And this reminded him or a striking inconsistency in this part of the dukes 1■14-tet. Ile would fain preserve a pertiou of the nomination lerenelts, on I he ground That they served as inlets to Parliament Mr men of great capacit V. Nvho otherwise could not obtain an entrance there. And li,ex did he propose to preserve this nomination in- dupla...1i Why, By distributing the power of the nomination, vvhich WaS at present in. the herds of one proprietor, among live or six proprietors,—ratiter a strange mode of quarding :tgai list those collisions awl contrarieties of interest whiell hall been charged est t he present Bill. There were use boroughs, say in Cornwall, the property of ,IitThrer t iriu1ivicluia1, aud these tile noble duke would " consolidate" into one returning I wo ineml■ers, in order to preserve in degree the power of nomination. Was there ever a. more absurd proposition ? And did noble lords de, 1., themselves that such crude and vontradictory schemes would satisfy public opinion, now admitted on all bands to be irresistible?

He congratulated the House on the conciliatory tone of Earl Grey's sP'':• He felt emboldened to say, from that speech, that if they mold not deprive the Bill of all its evil tendencies, they might yet suggest many useful alterations in it. He noticed the argmnent of yielding to intimidation— They eeele. not be inthwed, by vapid declamation, idd confound a merely yielding to the fore,. of eirenntstanees ivili vele above their coo : ol, to a cowardly shrinking to daimon.. It they saw that tl,ey could not hope to 7)1,1,:ill gcod government till the free.non or Itelbrm waS settled. WO, it not their obvious dul v —no matter how Hwy might ditliT :ts to the particular mode of Reform—to assist in efi1,eting that settlement imn;:plly and satisfactorily as possible ? And if they also OLW that nothing less than On t`Ntt711,71VC measure of Reform weulti satisfy the public mind, were they not bound to forego their own predilections, and do the best to prevent the ill consequences of a too rapid and violent change?

He asked if the present was a question, the final settlement of which could be deferred till dm occasion of it had passed away— The! puldie feeling in &vont of B eihrin, which it was so dangerous to resist, was not a ebullition Of t mry, ;i,,Lronie and nc-ep•seated affection, %Odell .,.1.111,,! of suspense and disupeoiniment, and the " deferred that makm It the

he, setved bet to exacerbate. Fig-leaf it as they eh,se, the present state of the

publie 7 wit h reireen, to the preset], Bill betokened a state of things which no

honest ,outentplafe wititout alarm, ev hieing, as it did, a want of that con-

tidenm iti the people in the institutions of the countey. iii hoot which there could be no effectual and beneficial cooperati,m,hetween the People and the Government of the country. The People had no confidence, itoh, after the two records of its own condom-. nation, could have no confidence in the I louse of Com awns, And wits this a state of Clings which could he longer permitted to exist ? Was it so or hot? Ilad not the rms., 17f COU1111011S7bv large and increased majorities. declared i hat' it was unwortlly of , the eonfidence of life People whom it professed to represent ? And if so, was it her their Lordships to turn round and gainsay a decision thus solemnly pronounced and tepee! ed ?

Ile repeated, that although such were his views of the question, his opinion of the Bill, and of the conduct of Ministers in projecting it, and of the danger which might accrue from its adoption, was not at all changed. He then proceeded to consider the consequence of its rejec- tion— hail they beard any thing from Earl Grey which could induce them to believe that

he w ould consent to a measure less efficiency or extcut ? Were they sure that other measure would not most probably be one of still more extensive

changes, and one brought forward under still more ol,jectionable auspices ? If their Lordships rejected the present motion for a secend reruling of the Bill, would they not be provoking that evil to which the noble earl said he would not have recourse Ind a, tinlast resort'? (Loud cries qf "Hear f") But let them proceed a step further. 'Let them suppose the Bill rejected, and that a new Government had succeeded to that of the rod& earl. Were the opponents of the present Bill absurd enough to believe that they would gain any thing by that change—that was, that by a change of men they could get rid of the Reform question altogether? He would tell them not to deceive themselves for one moment by such an absurd belief. Let his Majesty select whom he might for his counsels, Reform must constitute a condition of office, if those persons hoped to continue a single week in his service. He said a single sveelc, for even less would suffice for the present House of Commons to disabuse any Minister who Should be mad enough to assume the helm on the principles of Anti-Reform. But per- haps he would he told "the remedy was obvious,—let his Majesty dissolve Parliament, anti so procure a House of Commons more amenable to his new counsellors." He 'would ask, where was the man bold enough—he would say mad enough—to make the trial? Apart from all the evil consequences of protracted suspense, and delay, end ex- citement, he would ask, was there the remotest chance of their obtaining, a House of Commons less pledged to Reform than the present? Was not the supposition a libel Upon the People of England? Was it not probable, indeed certain, that the new House of Commons would insist upon &measure of far more extensive change than even the present objectionable measure? And was it not equally certain that their means of resisting its adoption would be considerably lessened?

The Duke of WELLINGTON spoke next. He noticed the argument derived from the approval of the House of Commons. No doubt re- peated decisions of that House might be obtained to this measure, for they were the decisions of the same House, and that House pledged to this measure. But the disease was not chronic on that account, and would be at once removed by the removal of the Ministry that caused it. In I829 and 1830, the Duke said there was no cry for Reform ; that was a fact fully admitted, and he might therefore take it for granted. Then came the French Revolution, and the insurrection in Belgium; and the consequence was, great excitement in the elections, and a cry for Parliamentary Reform. If a moderate plan of Reform had been proposed, it might have been carried; but the Ministers proposed a plan which Parliament refused to sanction, and then dissolved Parlia- ment, and called another under excitement never before known. The consequence had been, continued excitement ever since. The Duke went on to assert, that the King took no interest whatever in Reform ; and he doubted not, when the country knew this, they would be as in- different tv; the King. The Duke wished also to impress on the House the fact, that the opinion of the landed proprietors and of the learning of the country was against the Bill. He admitted it was supported by the Cabinet and their friends, by the Dissenters, by all who looked for a vote under it ; still, he contended, tile yeomanry and middle daises, the best part of the public, were not desirous of it, but apprehensive of its effects. The Duke gave a summary of a Parliamen- tary paper, No. 232, the object of which was to show how numerous were the anomalies and contradictions of the Bill,—that many boroughs I'ere partially disfranchised, that possessed more population, more houses, more 101. voters, and paid more taxes, than those that were left untouched. If, in answer to these defects in the Bill, he were told that they ought to go into Committee in order to amend them, he would ainwer, in Lord Wharncliffie's 'Words last session—" everybody who has had Parliamentary experience well knows, that when a bill brought in by the Government has been read a second time, it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to make any alteration." The Duke admitted, that Earl Grey had on this occasion shown more courtesy than on the former, but he had not said he would consent to any alteration in Com- mittee.. He had no doubt, when alterations were proposed, they would be received with great politeness, but they would not be conceded. The .Duke proceeded to criticise the disfranchising clauses—the

changes in Scotland—the RV. qualification. In respect of the influence that 1ms in future to predominate in boroughs, he said-

S,vead of those places would be left in the hands of noblemen eetirely ; so as greatly to inerease, beyond what it was at present, that influence which they possessed with respect to the limitation of every Government which could be carried on by the King of Et:41mM. But generally speaking, in those towns it would bu the demegogue, mid not the gentleman of properly, who would possess the influence over the elections there. Vat latter could not command such an influence, unless through the means of au expenditure which it would be impossible for him to support. But the demagogue eauld (ii hi it by other means, and it was by demagogues that such 1lace3 would be repre,eated in Parliament, lie begged their Lordships to observe wimt would be the ,,r ,ich a state of things in the constitution of the House of Commons ; and he 1)..„.. 1 them whether, with such men as the representatives of those boroughs, it wes !:I !... .ssible to carry on any thing like a Government, or a steady system of policy, tienelt it, meths or that assembly.

Tid, Duke spoke of the evils of delegation—of Sir Robert Wilson's case—of that of Alderman Thompson ; and asked what was to be the result of sueli a plan, were it to be generally acted on. As a further proof of what the system under a Reformed 'House of Commons would degt'neriitc to, his Grace read an extract of a letter from Mr. flume 1),:uvel to the people of St. George in the East, calling on them to ft.,rel 1J:dons—in the first instance, for the protection of persons and property ; and secondly, in order to be ready to express the opinion of the parisit upon any public measure ; and, in case the Ministers or the House of Commons should be lukewarm, that suck 'Unions would be ready to urge them on to the performance of their duty. He noticed the diversity of qualification under the present system, and the change by which the -,vhole representation of the country was to be

given to one class ; and by such a change it was pretended that the busi- Imes of the country could be carried on. The Duke repeated Lord „..

r.,neiensreuge s arguniiit f 118 number of offices that had been abo- lisl,ed of late years ; and the passing of the :Test and Emancipation Acts,—fur a trial of whose working, he said, a proper tune should be

allowed. Perhaps, by proceeding to one change, as another had been

proved to be beneficial, they might gradually and in time arrive even at such a bill as that before them, which, if suddenly adopted, would be ruinous to any government that might attempt to manage the affairs of

the kingdom. The Duke considered the notion that Reform would enable us to carry on government more cheaply, or with a snuffler mili- tmy forte, as quite delusive; and pointed to France as an exemplifica- tMo of the contrary. In conclusion, he adverted to the Duke of Buck- ingham's notice ; to which, if brought forward, he said he would give his best consideration. As far as he could judge, it seemed founded on a different principle from the Bill before the House.

Lord GRANTHAM said, from what had fallen from Ministers, he con- sidered it hopeless to go into Committee, as he could not expect to modify the measure when there he was therefore compelled to vote against the second reading now, as he had done last session.

Lord WinuteneirrE said, the present Bill had been twice carried by . great majorities in the House of Commons ; it was approved of by the Crown, mid it was backed by the People. When they saw this support given to the Bill,—a support greater than ever they had seen on any former occasion,—did not that afford a sufficient reason why they should permit this Bill to go into Committee? By the course which his noble friend adopted, one of two things must be effected—either the Ministry must retire, or the Parliament be dissolved. In case of the latter event, what would be the consequence? He believed, that if Parliament were now dissolved, they would, by a new election, hare a worse Parliament. He alluded to the Duke of Wellington's assertion, that the call for Reform was no older than 1830—

Good God! How could the noble duke make such an assertion? Did he not recol- lect the proceedings on the East Retford question? Did he not call to mind the in- creasing minorities on the Reform question? Did Ile not know that the Reform ques- tion was, the last time, only defeated by a majority of 48 ?

He doubted the Duke's ability, from his military education and habits, and long absence from the country, to', decide on such a ques- tion--

He Conceived himself to be a better witness of passing events in this country than the duke was. Ile had been in Parliament for a great number of years; he had repre- sented large bodies of people; : ad, as long as he could recollect, this question of Par- liamentary Reform had been proceeding. The sense and feeling of a grievance in that respect, whether right or wrong, had constantly prevailed. He recollected no time in which it could he said to have ceased.

He believed as well as the Duke in the excellence of the present system ; but that was nothing to the purpose, if the people were of a different opinion. It was most impolitic to refuse to consider the prin- ciple of the Was it right that they, as one body a the Legislature, should declare that they could not in Committee consider a measure affecting the vital interests of the country ?—that they could not in Committee alter its provisions? If such aposition were once admitted, then they must be considerenl. as a body incapable of framing laws themselves, or of alteting Wye that came fsQ201 ttte house of conunons, but having the power merely of assentinglb; ordisSenting from; anymeasuresthat were tent up-to them from-the other House. If in Committee he could not beneficially alter the Bill, he would know how to act ; and he could at least say to the country, he had shown no disinclination to consider their claim. What would be the result of rejection ?- The country had been appealed to and the appeal had totally failed. Addresses had been presented to the Crown, and petitions had been laid before both Houses of Par- liament, every one of them without exception calling for the enactment of this measure, or if they deviated from that point at all, they demanded a bill of a more extended kind. How then were they to meet this claim?

He alluded to the Duke of Buckingham's notice, which came upon them at so late an hour ; and to the power of carrying the Bill by cre- ating Peers,-for his refusal to use which power Lord Whameliffe thought Lori Grey entitled to the highest praise-

They should recollect, not only that the House of Commons, but that the Crown also, approved of this measure. It would not be wise, therefore, to reject it without giving it that consideratieu which its great importance deserved. He assured their Lordships, that the feeling of the country was now entirely changed. They had not now to apprehend any of that sort of violence which they before dreaded. A calm had - come over the public mind,-a lull in the storm of passion had occurred; but this was the Very reason why they shouldnow act-the very reason why they should take advantage -why they should now deal with the Bill now before theni differently from that of last year. They had no longer to encounter thecry of "The Bill, the whole Bill, and no- thing but the Bill;" and they had now an opportunity given them which might never again return to them of moderating this measure in some degree to their wishes.

He considered the three principles of the disfranchise- ment of nomination boroughs, which Lord Ellenborough had defended ably, but uselessly, for their condemnation was sealed ; the enfranchise- ment of large towns, in which all sides agreed ; the extension of the franchise, Which must be admitted to be a just and necessary conse- quence of the abolition of nomination boroughs; the diminution of election expenses, which, whether so well provided for in the Bill as it ought to be, or not, was by all allowed to be a matter for which some provision was imperatively called. He fully admitted the right of the . House to reject the Bill. They did so with the Catholic Bill on several occasions ; and had they done so on the last, they would have had a large portion of the people with them_

But how would the matter stand with them if they refused to pass this Bill? They would not have a House of Commons nearly divided in opinion, but a Honse of Com- mons which had twice sent them up this Bill backed by large majorities. Would they have the People, or even a portion of the People, on their side ? What could they depend upon to support them in their opposition to the house of Commons ?

He called on the House to look to the effects of procrastinated justice, in the case of the American question, in the recent case of the Catholic claims, and even in that of the Bill before them. He ad- mitted the evils of the Bill-

Either the bringing forward of the Bill itself, or its protracted discussion, had been most detrimental to every interest in the country : the trading interest, the manufac- turing interest, the agricultural interest—in short, all classes of the community—Were now anxious in their desire to have this question settled in some shape or other. If he could believe fur one single moment that his vote against the second reading would settle and put an end to this Reform Bill for ever, he would most cheerfully give that vote ; and he was persuaded, that although many in the country might be disappointed, yet he felt convinced that the great body of the people, whatever they might think upon the subject of Reform, would be glad to have it even thus disposed of. But it was be- cause he felt conscious that such could not be the effect of now throwing out this Bill, that he should vote in favour of the second reading. To reject the Bill, would oulv be to put off the question for a short time, at the cud of which they would find themselves in even a more difficult situation than they occupied at present.

The House adjourned at a quarter before one.

The Earl of 111.D:came:A resumed the adjourned debate on Wednes- day. The chief novelty in his speech, was the announcement, as an undisputed fact, "that nine-tenths of the supporters of Reform were so from motives of private advantage." He declared himself a Re- former, though a determined opponent of the Bill. He was willing to give members to such towns as Manchester and Birmingham, but not to take away their rights from other towns for that purpose. He was equally opposed to the 10/. suffrage, and would prefer a universal suf- frage at once. Lord Winchilsea spoke with great indignation of a creation of Peers. If such an expedient were had recourse to, lie would no longer submit to sit in the House : he would retire, and "bide his time, until the return of those good days which would enable him to vindicate the insulted laws of the country, by bringing such an un- constitutional Minister before the bar of his country."

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM followed ; and opened with a severe attack upon Lords Harrowby, Wharneliffe, and Haddington. These Lords, he observed, had said they did not desert the banners under which he marched, because they never were Misted to them : they were, he admitted, only amateur supporters of his side, as they were now of Lord Grey's-he hoped they would escape the fate that generally awaited such persons, of being shot down by those in whose way they stood. Lord Harrowby and his friends had declined fighting under the command of the Mayor of Gatton, but theywere content to fight under the colours of the Birmingham Union. The last flag, the Duke said, that he would choose, would certainly be that of Attwood. The Duke proceeded to criticise the Bill, and the Earl of Harrowby's support of it. It was quite as efficient, quite as democratic, as the former one. It was said the Lords, by their former vote, were placed in a false posi- tion: who had .placed them there? Last year they were told to de- spise intimidation : this year, it was, it seems, their duty to submit to at. One Lord said the country was tranquil. Witness Bristol, Not- tingham, and Derby, all the riots at which places had been begun and carried on in the name of Reform. The Duke did not deny that there had been no compromise between Lord Harrowby and Lord Grey; but 'had there been no attempt to soften down the Bill ?- The noble lords had been admitted behind the scenes, and had seen the incantation ..going on. Like Macbeth, they had broken in upon the witches whilst they were en. gaged in doing " this deed without a name." They saw the spell formed by which it

-ewes intended to " — untie the winds, and let them fight Against the churches-to let the yeasty waves Confound and swallow navigation up- To let the castles topple on our heads, And palaces and pyramids to slope Their heads to the foundation."

They saw the caldron mixed, the ingredients poured in, and the charm completed; and then they seal, "'When it begins to boil, we will take the venom out of the caldron." (Vociferous cheering from the Opposition.) Did the noble earl fancy that "when the

charm was fast and good," lie would be allowed to skim off the venom as he proposed? -to take away " The eye of newt, and toe of frog,

Wool of bat, and tongue of dog, From that charm of powerful trouble,

Mid the hell-broth's boil and babble?"

The-fact was,-that-hrthatealdreartitelffitax'nottriurtmt v'etimn. —trotilirmt-efteuringt from the Marquis of Londmiderry.) Did this. noble lord fancy that he could make any thing either edible or potable ontbf 'it?

To exemplify the effects that must flow from the Bill, the Duke in- stanced the case of Charles the First-.

What was the first thing done in the case of Charles ? The House of Commons passed a triennial Bill, and they got the consent of Charles the First to it. Charles Was then a patriot King—nay more. a Citizen King. But what followed ? The very next year the Commons took his ministers from him, and compelled him to subscribe to s judicial murder. What came next ? The Commons deprived the Bishops of their seats in Parliament, and passed resolutions declaring that they were the only body entitle& to direct the affairs of the kingdom. Then there was only one chamber, and the privi- leges of the House of Peers were for some years suspended. Such had been the mauls of events formerly-such would it be again, if this Bill were aufortunatelY Passed- into a law.

The Duke quoted from Lord Nugent's Life of Hampden the well- known story of that patriot's early discovery of the determined character and great abilities of Cromwell. His Grace said, as he understood the anecdote, what Hampden meant was, that that would happen which would equally happen now-the power of the King being broken, the government would necessarily be delivered over to such low, vulgar

characters as Cromwell was at the time of Hampden's remark. The Duke asked why nomination boroughs were unpopular ?-certainly, because the choice of the members was in the hands of individuals why then should the boroughs themselves be punished? He mentioned a case of incorruptibility in one of his own boroughs : they had beer twice attempted to be bribed by Reformers, and they twice refused

never gave them any thing but thanks, and yet they voted according tot his wishes. Were such persons to be disfranchised ? He referred to his own intended Bill, in which no such disfranchisement would have a place ; and stated, in reference to that measure, that he would merely- move a resolution of the Lords approbatory of its principles, and that the bill itself would be introduced in the Commons. He afterwards noticed the cases of Dartmouth; and Helstone ; and made repeated al- lusions to the resolutions of Mr. Croker, to show the inconsistencies aud anomalies of the Bill. He spoke thus of the metropolitan districts-- They had heard of Paris constituting all France, and they were to bear of London. constituting. all Englarei. And what, he asked, was London I Were they to look for- the purity of representat hal in the hallowed shades of the Tower Hamlets—in the clas- sieal lat tints of Billingsgai 0, pail the modest precincts of St. Mandebone? They had. heard or Westminsier's pride, and England's glory," but he believed it would be diffi- cult to bestow an eleemosynary penny in the Simlal. without hazarding the appearance, of ltubing a Westminster elector; and if a short sighted candidate chanced to overlook a beggar, lie might have to mourn over tlw loss of a vote. Why, the eludera w as nothing,- to the risk of this contamination—the pestilence was nothing to it—and yet this was the way in which the representation at England was to be purified!

He adverted to the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury; which, he said, he hardly knew how to designate " in terms of courtesy consistent with what was due from one gentleman to another." He particularly adverted to the Earl's attack upon the Bishops, as ever foremost in the work of rapine, as the greedy plunderers of the State-

" My Lords, if we hail treated the nettle each in the same manner, what would he have said? Had we done so, would the noble earl be sitting N; here he now sits ? Uwe had told him—. You are Catholics, and we like you not ; von are ready to take oaths, .but. you mean to break them ; We know that you profess in support and reverence the Pro- testant Church, which you intend to tietroyf—lual we made these declarations to him and his church, where would there have been in end or the ftilmhuttions thundered. against language sullicient to provoke rieo-dn-fis at Lisbon and at (Joe? Whoever hatic been the counsellor of the noble earl, tin mlviee he huts received is not such as ought to have been tendered to a Christian man anti a British legislator." In conclusion, the Duke asked how the Parliament could be re-

formed ?-

Where would the noble earl find a more democrat ic aristocracy or a more aristocratia- denweracy than was seen in the I wo Houses of Parlhl atent ? At what period were those- rugtut away from the people which the Dill it InYt rut to restore ? she would main- tain, I hat never since the time of William the Conqueror had the liberties of England been bet t or attentledio than at the present moment. It was in vain to say that the Consul:' tutu of Englanrl would be renova tett by. the Bill ; no such change would occur- -it was the spirit of Republicanism that 1.v. add be insinuated in the habit and form of the 13ritish Constitution. The themon of Republican:Min, in all its hideousness, was before them in that bill. He trusted that it would meet its Mud repose in that house— that it would be laid in a red seaufrest, no 3,■,,re to " fright the isle from its propriety."' The Earl of RADNOR deprecated the foolish and pitiful custour which had been practised so long in the Lower, and was then intro- duced into the Upper House, of imputing- improper motives to ha

framers and supporters of the Bill-

It was totally inconceivable to him how any noble lords opposite ceuld imagine that persons in the situation or Ministers could have thought of consulting their own in- terests on such an important occasion as the present. How could noble lords suppose that others could act in a manner in which they were incapable of acting themselves .? Nothing could be more unpleasant than to bear persons continually harping on this subject. These imputations had been ringing in the cars of the House of Commons for the last year and a half, and now they were introduced into their Lordships' discussions- He was really astonished that men in high situations should be so foolish as to conde- scend to impute such mean motives to individuals. Now with respect to the Duke or Buckingham himself, he had, some years ago, heard a strange storv relative to a great quantity of paper which the Duke carried off with him when he quitted office. He diet not wish to dwell upon that circumstance; but when the Duke chose gratuitously to, bring forward charges as if they were unanswerable, lie ought to recollect that he might be assailed in the same way.

He noticed a misstatement made by the Duke of Wellington on the subject of the 10/. clause. It would not enable any one who paid 7d. for. his bed to have a vote. He that claimed to vote must be rated ; and how- could a man who merely paid for his bed be rated ? Lord Mansfield had- misquoted an expression of Lord Chatham respecting nomination bo- roughs-he had represented that statesman as observing, that the? were like a mortified limb, which if amputated, "the patient must die: Lord Chatham's words were, "the patient may die." On another 'tic- easion, using the same figure, Lord Chatham said of the system of nomination boroughs, "if it do not drop off, we must amputate The authority on the one side was at least as strong as on the other:. The analogy between the case of certain Scotch hereditary offices,- for which compensation was subsequently given, and which were reserved in the treaty of Union, and the case of nomination boroughs, he coul& not perceive-

Lord Radnor had the right of nominating two members for Downton ; and the Duke- of Buckingham hail the right of nominating two for St. Mawes; but by what law did- either of them possess that right as property? The Duke said that he possessed that right by law. He wished him to point it out. Lord Radnor possessed houses Downton, as the Duke in St. Mawes, but that was all. The question was, whether it was wise and proper that the Duke should possess the right—he believed he might call it the hereditary right, for it was enjoyed by his father, and, unless the Bill should. prevent it, would descend to his son—of compelling the electors of St. Mawes to retinas what members he pleased ? It might be thud the Duke exercised his power in a very proper and becoming manner; but what injury would the electors of St. Mawes sustaim by being deprived of the right of voting under such circumstances? By losing their votes, they would not likewise be deprived of their houses, Be adverted to the resignation of the Duke of Wellington, which the Duke denied to be due to the Return question, although Lord , Radnor could never understand law he made it out—to the state al the country at that. moment--Lend asked whether Ministers,- called to power by the Duke's resignation and under such circumstances, were to be justly told that they were responsible for the present difficulties of the country ; or whether they were not the result of their predecessors' conduct rather than their own? He noticed another observation of the Duke of Wellington, that the Reform excitement arose out of the Revolution of Paris : and yet the elections were mostly over before the news of the Revolution arrived. Was it the news from Paris that re- . turned the Lord Chancellor for Yorkshire ? Lord Radnor defended the 10/. qualification, and concluded by expressing his hearty approbation of the Bill. • The Bishop of LiNeorN said, that in October he felt they had but a choice of evils, and they had but a choice of evils now. He had ex- pected that some influential member of the House would propose a more moderate measure, to which, in refusing his support to the Ministerial measure, he could refer as embodying his sentiments.. He had, however, been disappointed; for of the Duke of Buckinghtun's notice he had the same opinion as Lord Wharneliffe—it had come too late. If he now voted for the second reading of the Bill, whose rejec- tion he had voted for in October, he had the altered state of the public mind to support him in his change of conduct— At the same time. such was the excitement of the public mind, and so etrong the feel- ing in favour of this particular measure, that he believed that a modification of the Bill would have been scarcely ieSd ditthiSterai to the public than its entire rejection. What was the state of public feeling now? There existed an intense anxiety for the settle- ment of this (rest ion, on accoent of the iujury which must, so long as it undiluted in suspense, be Inflicted on the agricultural, commercial, awl manufacturing interests. There existed also a general persuasion that the question eould only bo settled by the introduction anti adoption or some considerable measttre of reform; and there prevailed, moreover, a growing indifference to this particular Bill. Ile had already expressed his opinion that even a modification of the former Bill would, at the time of its rejection, have been distasteful to the public mind; but helielieved now that the people would be satisfied with any modification whiell their Lordships. supposing they should concur in the principle of the Bill, should think proper to introduce into its details.

The Bishop expressed his regret that Lord Grey had declared him- self against any alteration in the franchise in large towns ; and hoped he would reconsider this declaration. To the clause as it stood, the Bishop said he could never consent.

The Earl of FALMOUTH, after some observations about Lord Radnor and Cobbett, and the misfortune to the latter which the disfranchise- ment of Downton would occasion, proceeded to criticise Lord Wharn- diffe's speech, by contrasting with it the speech of the same nobleman in October. He vindicated the Duke of Wellington from the imputa- tion of ignorance of the state of public opinion—

Lord Falmouth would consider it an affront to the House to suppose that it was nes cessary for him to conunent upon any thing that might be said derogatory to the Duke's character. In reply, therefore, to that assertion of Lord Wharncliffe's, he shonhl only say, that three times as lung as that lord had sat in that House, the Duke of Welliug- ton had been engaged in the civil service of the country.

Lord Wharncliffe had given the Lords two warnings,—one against, the other for the Bill : they might take either— In October last, Lord 'Wharneliffe quoted a very appropriate expression of Crom- well's ; but the Whigs might now appropriately apply the quotation to the noble baron himself; and say with the Protector. The Lord has delivered him into our hands." Having taught the Tories how toyeer the Whigs hist sear, the noble baron showed his generous impartiality-by helping the Whigs this yearlosloor the Tories: t The Marquis of BRIATOL' spoke against the Bill, as the most revolu- tionary measure ever submitted to any legislature— Ile had supported Earl Grey in the Government of 1506, and had lost through it some valued and endeared et:auctions ; nevertheless he felt he was only fulfilling his duties ; but in the present Bill, now brought forward by the same noble earl, he could not concur, believing it would lead to fatal results to the institutions of the country. Why should Ministers seek to alter the Constitution ? Had it not caused the country to be placed in the enviable situation which all the civilized world admitted to be the fact? Had not commerce, manufitctures, and agriculture, flourished for ages under those admirable institutions? It was the lot er man to glean information from expe- rience; and„ as experience had proved the value of the Constitution, surely it was the act of madmen, rather than that of wise legislators, to alter a system such as he had described, The Bishop of LONDON spoke in vindication of the vote he meant to give—

And first, he must take the liberty of protesting, with all due respect and humility, but firmly protesting, against all those appeals which had been made on loth sides of the House to the Spiritual Peers, as if they were a different body of persons front the rest of their Lordships, and as if they were actuated by different motives—by motives which did not apply to every iudividual who sat in that House. Lord Falmouth had asked, though with much expression of reverent feeling, what were the motives that would induce the Bench uf Bishops to support the measure which had been introduced by his Majesty's Ministers? lie begged to say, that the Bishops who voted for it did not support the measure because it was a measure introduced by the Ministers, but because it was a measure intruder:NI under circumstances that placed them in a situa- tion which rendered it necessary for them to vote for it.

He defended his consistency, though. he considered consistency of small moment compared with sincerity, in voting for the second read- ing of the present Bill. It was well known, that had he been present, he would have voted for the second reading of the last— •

With respect to this measure, it appeared to him that the time for neutrality had gone by. Ile had therefore made up his mind to vote for the second reading of this Bill, not because he approved of it entirely, but because it appeared to him the most prudent plan. Recommended as it was by a large majority of the House of Commons, whose opinions had been twice declared on the subject—supported as it was, if not by a great majority, at least by a most formidable minority of' their Lordships,—it seemed to hint the most prudent plan to deal with it as they could—to modify what was objectionable, yet not so to trench on the principle of the Bill as to endanger the speedy settlement of this question.

He did not think it necessary to enter on the question how far the Bill was the best and wisest that 'could be proposed ; or whether a more .cautious application of the pruning-knife might not have been ad- visable— At present they must deal with things as they were; and be could not now but ex- press his conviction, that it would be-as vain to expect that the sun would trace back his degrees on the dial. as that the People of England %odd ever return to the same channel of thought and of opinion as before the introduction of this measure. It was true the inundation had subsided, but the current had been turned into a new chaunel, from whence it never could be diverted; and therefore it appeared to him to be true wis- dom to watch and regulate the course of the stream—to embank and secure that course, so that it might fertilize but not overflow and desolate the land.

The Bishop allowed, that the results of the measure were not to be foretold by any man ; but if the People were to continue much longer brooding over grievances, real or imaginary, the result was not one which could not be foretold—it would lead to the demand of a larger

and more injurious remedy. He declined going into any observations on the detail of the Bill, as out of place in the present stage— /1e had merely stated the reason 'tot the iote which he should give for the second reading of this measure, in the conscientious persuasion that he thus best consulted the dignity of the House, and the peace and security of the country generally. He could not say he did so without fear, thr that man must be careless and over confident who could express himsdf to be without some apprehension. But if all parties were wining to concede what ought to be concedeti—if cads would give credit to the other for sin- cerity and purity of motive, and if not yielding, at least not outraging, even the pre judices of those who differed from them,—he trusted they would be able. under the blessing of.11im who had so long favoured the country, to concur in the adoption of a me:tsure which would improve the representation, conciliate the affections of the People, and consolidate the best interests both of religion and the country.

The Bishop of EXETER thought the Bishop of London should have waited for the bill of the Duke of Buckingham. The Bishop of Lon- don's only objection to the Duke's measure was that it was too late : for himself, however, it was not too late, and therefore be would wait for it. He admitted that there plight be a wish to get rid of it on the Ministerial side ; but to any onewho had read the Bill they were then considering, be thought the Duke's notice afforded a good reason to get out of that measure. Dr. Phillpotts proceeded to discuss the Bill. The preamble expressed the necessity of reforming abuses ; but who was to suppose that it was to be followed up by " extinction of rights, by spoliation and robbery ?" The principle of the Bill was change— revolutionary change. He was aware that Lord Grey had indignantly denied this- tle had said that was not a revolution, which was not either a change of dynasty, or some other change wrought by an irregular force unknown to the Constitution. "If such are his notions of revulution," said the Bishop, " they are Avry different from mine. By that principle it follows, thud Ito revolution occurred in France before the year liffiL—not till Louis the Sixteenth fled from Paris ; for up to that period, vast as were the changes that took place, all were brought about in the regular course of things, and by the regular powers of the Constitution. (' No,noP) I repeat that such is the fact. Now, suppose the two Houses of Parliament were base enough to make this mighty change—to give the authority of law to the Royal proclamation—is there any man who would say that that was not a revolution, and yet it would be a change brought about by the regular forms of the Constitution? Suppose, on the other hand. that the King was so anxious to gratify the wishes 'of the People, that he consented, with the approbation of the two IIotzses of Parliament, to descend from his throne and to put an end to the monarchy, or to create a state of government in which the monarchy was so limited as to cease to deserve the name of monarchy—surely, my Lords, such a change would be a revolution, although brought about by the regular forms of the Constitution, and with the regularly expressed assent of the King, Lords, and Colu- mns in Parliament assembled. It may be said that this is an extreme case. I will put one which I gimlet have thought an extreme case twelve months ago, but which has recently become much less incredible titan it was then.—I mean the supposition that the independent voice of this House is to be drowned by some expedient thud should render it in future the tool of the other branches of the Legislature. Suppose that to be the case. I should say that a revolution had occurred,however strictly the mere forms of the Constitution might have been followed."

The Bishop quoted an expression, from the Times (we believe), about " the horrid old mockery of free government we had hitherto en- dured," and went on to describe that journal, according to general belief, as breathing the inspirations of Lord Durham. He compared the element of democracy in the Constitution, as resembling the ele- ment of fire in the physical world—most salutary if kept within due bounds, but most destructive if permitted to stray beyond them. It was only to be kept within due bounds by correctives and safeguards In the present Constitution, those safeguards and correctives existed.: they were to be found in the nomination boroughs, which a noble earl had last night called " rotten boroughs," and which a deceased great man had described as " the shameful parts of the Constitution." Admitting that. they were !..esharnerui parts of the. Lenstitation," he It-ould maintain that they weretnedessary for preserving the soundness of the Con- stitution. The .11111 before the House afforded no corrective to the democratic force in the place of those boroughs which it proposed to abolish. He should therefore adhere to the old Constitution.

The Bishop denied that the influence of the Peerage over the House of Commons, was exercised to the extent generally assumed ; and if it were, there was no usurpation of the rights of the Lower House or the People, for the nomination boroughs were created for that very end. He found, too, a compensation to all this influence, which more than counterbalanced it—in the publication of the debates in their Lordships' House. Before this usurpation, all others sunk in utter insignificance. If to tix publication of the debates were added the disfranchisement of the nomination boroughs, the power of the people would speedily be paramount, and no public business could be carried on.

The Bishop proceeded to consider the effects of what, he said, was part and parcel of the present Bill—the Irish Bill— The effect of that Bill would be, to take the representation of Ireland out of the hands of the Protestant interest, and to confer it on the Roman Catholic interest in that country. Ile could hardly conceive a greater, a more important, or a more fearful change than that. It appeared to him to be only a portion of that system which.had Ixeu unfortunately too long carried on, of truckling to the Roman Catholic interest in Ireland. There seemed to be on every occasion of late, a disposition to yield the most high and sacred considerations connected with that country to a temporal—nay, to a temporary expediency. But such a course of proceeding did not even deserve the name of expediency. The thing was a mere huckstering of the religion of the country for the purpose of gaining the brief and worthless support of men whom no concession could gam over—who laughed at their bribes, and jeered at their most friendly offers —men who no longer wore even the mask of decent hypocrisy, but who proclaimed aloud the approach of their triumphs—men who boasted that the oath which they had taken, not to use the power which a too indulgent Legislature had given them," to weaken or disturb the Protestant Government or religion of the country "—that that oath, instead of being :a bar, was the very key and picklock by which they would open an entrance into our citadel, and into the temple of our religion. The destruction of the Protestant Church in Ireland was no longer a matter of speculation. Its approach hail been openly and by authority proclaimed. The general election, they were told, would be at hand in November, and then the gigantic spirit of democracy was to rise in all its strength and to crush the Church of Ireland. That proclamation had been made, not by some mad fanatic, or by some wicked and worthless demagogue, who fed the flames of agitation for the purpose merely of answering his own sordid views, and who sought only to gratify his mercenary ambition at the expense of his country's peacts—it was made by no such despicable and depraved character, but it had been made by a British senator, in a place second in dignity only to that House.

After deducing from history, that the representation of Ireland was framed for the support of the Protestants there, by James the First— that at the Union also this was the principle laid down—that it was attended to equally in the Emancipation .Act—end after a long com- ment on the Coronation Oath as connected with the maintenance of Protestantism, the Bishop concluded with the following prayer:

" Stay He, nik Lords, who appointed you to your high office, enable you to fulfil it as you ought in this great crisis—in Qs, I may say, agony of your country's fate! May Ile give you wisdom to seek, and firmness to pursue, steadily and fearlessly, the only path of honour and of safety—the path of truth. True, my Lords, is it, that our path is beset with difficulties and dangers; true. my Lords, is it, that • shadows, clouds, and darkness, rest upon it ; ' but one course is Clearly right, and one course onlY —namely, to walk upright, conscious of the integrity of our own conduct. As to cir- cumstances, my Lords, they are in the power of God. Will you, my Lords, distrust that God ? No, my Lords, I am sure that you will mit." The Bishop of LLANDAFF declared his intention of voting for the second reading—

He had voted against the last Bill. in order to give time for consideration—to ascer- tain whether the cry of Reform was the mere fever of excitement, or arising from a deli- berate conviction of grievances. An interval of six months had proved that it was a settled and perfect conviction. The measure came before their Lordships free from any excitement ; and as no other was proposed as a substitute, there was no alternative but to take this into their most serious consideration. By so doing, he did not pledge him- self to support what might not be called the vital and essential parts of the measure.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE spoke of the responsibility incurred by Ministers—

A great responsibility rested otilltis noble friend, on Limself, and on all those who formed the present Government, in bringing forward this measure,—a responsibility only inferior to that which would have attached to individuals who. filling the situotiou of King's Ministers, and placed in that situation at the psriod when he and his friends were placed in it, would have silently contemplated that gradual estrangement which was taking place amongst those classes of this country, on the continuance of the har- monious connexion between whom depended the prosperity of the country, and more especially the stability of the hierarchy.

If Ministers were responsible, they were also disinterested—

They eared not for the transitory dignity of office ; they were ready to risk it all— they were ready to sacrifice personal comfort and happiness. All they wished was, to restore the Constitution, and, by restoring it, to give additional stienglh, stability, and prosperity, to every part of the empire.

The charge of revolution, preferred against • the present measure, might be preferred against all the great and beneficial changes in our political institutions—

Changes were constantly taking place in every portion of society: and it was there- fore necessary, from re time to time, that well-consSied alterations "should he made in the working of the Constitution, in order to meet those various changes. It was by the careful. by the deliberate, and by the effectual application of such alterations, that it was poisible for ours or any other political system to bear up against the perpetual in- roads which time must necessarily make upon it.

MI that he and his colleagues wished or meant, was the application of old doctrines to new circumstances— Let the Bishop of Exeter, who looked upon the proposed change as amounting to re- volution. look to history, which was open to all. Let him look to our own history. and he would had the system of legislation not only altered, but previously independent le- gislatures wholly swept away. Was the Union with Scotland revolution ? Was that with Ireland revolution ? He doubtless would say, that in neither case a revolution haul been effected; and yet. in each of these instances. it was deemed politic. for the general good, to make a far more sweeping change than would be effected by this Bill. The Bishop of Exeter had adverted to the French Revolution: that revolution originated in violence. And why ? Because there was no Parliament in that country, to consider the Complaints of the People—because there was no Parliament there, to mark the change which had taken place in the popular mind and feeling—because there was no Parliament there, to warn the Chursli and to warn the nobility of their danger. That revolution was begun in blood; awl it proceeded to take its fearful course, in conse- quence of the want of that very feeling which induced Ministers to listen tolhe com- plaints of the People. which the Bishopof Exeter was anxious to oppose.

He noticed a corroboration of this argument, in the claim made by the friends of the Colonies to a direct representation of the latter, which he Would most willingly join in granting, were it not naturally imprac- ticable. All they could do, was done in the Bill, by giving members 'to the outports, between which and the Colonies there was a close and -natural connexion. Lord Ellenborough had classified the supporters of .the Bill_ First, there was the great Whig aristocracy, .who. the noble baron conceived it per- fectly obvious, must have motives tin supporting this measure more dear to them than .the maintenance and transmission to their families of those houours and properties which they possessed. He next challenged the whole body of the Catholics of Ireland, andeaid that they also ought not to sit iu judgment upon this measure. Then came the Radicals and the Dissenters ; and the well-known Reffirmers of England, who, ever -since the year 1792, had always been ready to advocate every change, aud they also 'were challenged. But even after he had thus ent out of his chalice all these noxious ingredients, he was obliged to admit, and candidly did admit, that there still remained a great residuum with which he did not know how to deal. It was composed, he ad- mitted,of very honest people of every class and rank in the community, who had got into their heads a strange idea that Reform was neeessary, and whose opinion, constituting . as it (lid public opinion, was entitled to respett. Now, why had not such a body, con- stituting the wholesome part of the community in the opinion of the noble baron, been separated from those whom he conceived to be the Ultra-Reformers, by some sort of 'proposition, calculated to conciliate them, and proceeding from the noble baron or the noble duke in the course of the last two years?

He noticed the birth of the Duke of Buckingham's little Bill— He knew—what, perhaps, they all could not know—the great pains of labour it had cost to produce that conception. Some rumours had, indeed, reached them from time to time, of statesmen and members of Parliament, and of ex-clerks of office, being engaged in laborious attempts how they might effect the least possible change by the least possible means. (Cheers and laughter.) They had heard, too, occasionally, of the projects, of the calculations, of the circulations, of the eopyings, and printings, there had been, of' papers put forth one day and suppressed another : but all, it seemed, had fallen to the ground, to the utter discomfiture of the opponents of the Bill, when the courage or impatience of the noble duke induced him to bring forward his offspring, to the common parentage of which no one else haul yet asserted a claim. The duke had laid his offspring upon their Lordships' table, in the hope, no doubt, that if the plan which was now before them should be stripped of its title to the favour of the House, it might be there to claim the attention of the compassionate. But there, whether the present Bill were adopted or rejected, he thought that offprints of the noble duke would lie for ever. No man should persuade him, that after the Commons House of Parries ment had twice considered the whole of this subject, and sent up to their Lordships the fruits of their deliberation, the compliment they would return to the House of Com- mons would be, to send it back a bill endorsed with the name of the noble duke.

Lord Ellenborough had alleged that the voters under the Bill would

be incapable of making a proper selection of members—

He could not, after the scrupulous and severe accuracy of research employed by the noble lord, pronounce that these persons had produced one man capable of trans- acting ordinary business; but he imagined, that after a time, if these bodies were inca- pable: of finding among themselves persons of talent capable of representing them, they would be able, at any rate, to go for it to a distance.

The middling classes were described as persons who were likely to be actuated.by.a desire to disturb the tranquillity of the country—

Ire believed that their choice would be governed by a desire to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the public tranquillity ; for, having acquired their property by their own-industry, they had as.deep a stake in the country as had Lord Ellenborough, who derived a splendid fortune from the talents and services of his immediate progenitor. Their small fortunes were as great objects to them, if not greater, than was the ample income of the noble baron to him—" Little things are great to little men." Their Lordships might convey away their land—they might go to another eountry—they might 'guard themselves in many ways against the evils of a revolution but to the professional man, who depended upon the peaceable exertion of his talents—to the mechanic, who depended upon his weekly wages—to the annui- tant and small proprietor, who depended upon their halt-yearly and quarterly incomes —revolution, or even agitation, brought greater ruin than could even come upon their Lordships by the confiscation of thew estates.

What would be the consequence of rejecting the Bill?— — .

By refining to adopt this Bill, they would 'again expose the country to a renewal of that agitation which had been for some time suspended. The noble duke had indeed given them a tittle comfort in this respect ; but -he feared that even the most intelligent of the middle classes, availing themselves of the newspapers, and all the other sources of information at their command, would hardly be able to gather from the language of the Doi* dohe any thing more than a remote, uncertain, indistinct design, not to pro-

pose or to adopt any measure, but perhaps respeetfidly So consider some proposition of Reform, after a few tridiug events—such as the going out of one Administration and the eoming in of another—had taken place. From that indistinct and almost inteutioeully clouded hope, )ie.diil not think therefore they couldexpect much.

At the dose of Lord Lansdowne's speech, Lord KENYON moved the adjournment of the debate ; and some conversation ensued respecting the period to which it should extend. The Duke.of WELLINevoN pro-

posed Friday, on account of the Levee on Thursday, and the King's dinner to the Knights of the Bath.

Earl GREY consented to this, on the understanding that the debate was to close on Friday ; in which case, if the second reading were carried, he would move the committal of the Bill for Monday.

The Duke of 'WELLINGTON thought they ought to have some time to consider the clauses : he hoped, if the second reading were .carried, the committal would not take place until after the Easter holydays.

Earl GREY replied, that every part of the Bill was familiar to every body : if they went into Committee on Monday, some important clauses might be got over before the receSs.

The Earl of HARROMBY wished to delay the Committee till after Easter— Even supposing their Lordships were assmed the second reading would be carried, they could not be expected to make up their IBMs with respect to the amendments they intended to propose in the very short time the noble earl was disposed to allow them. The first clause was one of the most important of the Bill ; and, in his opinion, they shoul 1 be prepared to take all the clauses. not on their separate merits, but in con- nexion with each other as a whole. There were other bills, too, almost equally im- portant ; and he thought that haste in going into the Committee was the less necessary because it was most desirable that they should have all the Itetbrm measures before them at the time they were called. on to agree to the provisious or the present Bill. Ile was decidedly of opinion that they could- not consent to the third reading of this Bill without those other measures; and by postponing the Committee till after Easter, they gave the other House or opportunity of occupying itself with the remaining Bills --that when they came to decide definitely on the present Bill, they might have the whole of the measure of Reform at once fully under their consideration.

Earl GREY said, itwould be time enough to decide on the future stages of the Bill after tile second reading took place.

The debate last night was commenced by Lord IlrYsvonn. He was allowed to address their Lordships sitting ; and commenced by stating.his unwillingness to trespass on the time of the House,—which, however, he occupied for Upwards of two hours.. He described the Bill - as sweeping down the Tory boionghs; and leaving those of the Whigs entire : it had, moreover, a fructifying quality, for while it put down one nomination borough, it created two. On the most careful perusal, he Could discover in it no principle of property, unless that it took from those that had, to give to those that had no property. He

proceeded to criticise the 10/. clause in the late and present Bill ; and insisted, notwithstanding repeated disclaimers on the part of Earl

GREY, that in the former it was necessary that a house should be rated. He ridiculed the opinion of those Peers who imagined that the defects of the Bill could be remedied in Committee : he felt sure that the se- cond reading was the last opportunity on which they would have to give a decisive vote on the measure. He noticed the anticipated creation of Peers—the speeches of the three Bishops who had delivered their sen- timents in favour of the Bill—the rational Reform proposed by the Duke of Buckingham, under whose,speraticnthe.Constitution of the country would remain unimpaired—such a bill could never come too late. He next adverted to the Irish Church, and the consequences which Reform might produce in it. He admitted at the same time, that the Church was safe—" it was founded on a rock, and the gates of Hell would not pre- vail against it ;" but the preservation of its externals was not the less a debt of justice and sound policy.. He then turned to France, for the purpose, he said, of correcting an historical error committed by the Mar- quis of .Lansclowne. It was not for want of a Parliament that the French ReVolution took place—they had the States-General in 1789 as well as in 1791 Louis the Sixteenth had, however, in the interval, doubled their number—he had, in fact, reformed them, and hence the consequences that flowed to himself and .the nation. „Lord Wynford expatiated at great length on the indefeasibility of the borough rights--on the manner in which it was proposed to destroy these rights by the Bill—on the diminution of English and the augmentation of Irish and Scotch mem- bers—the difficulty of passing one Bill of Reform while other two Re- form Bills remained unconsidered—the evils of a Parliament of Dele- gates, which the last election had already given the country, and which every Parliament under the Bill was likely to consist of—the threats held out by the press—the certainty of the Bill, extensive as it was, not proving satisfactory to the Reformers.

Lord DURHAM observed on tire long and desultory speech of Lord Wynford, that he felt it unnecessary to follow or reply to it. Objections

of detail could only be made or answered with propriety in Committee; to the Committee Inc would leave them. Be had felt one gratification

in listening to Lord Wynford's speech, laborious as the task of listen- ing otherwise had been—it was unmingled with that leaven of party rancour which characterized some of those that had preceded it— Ho could not avoid saving, that no small portion of bleb party rancour and personal hostility was displayed in a speech which their Lordships heard from the Bench of Bishops in the last evening which that House assembled. Ile would not say that the address was spoken in a malignant spirit, lett he would say that it not only grossly ca- m:ger:Wee facts, but conveyed insinuations against his Majeet y's Ministers which were aftegether false (Loud cries of " Hear I" from all sides); anti these insinuations were conveyed iii all the coarseness or pamphleteering slang Vehement cries of" Order !" from the Opposition, replied to hy "Hear, hear !"from the Ministerial Benches.) The Earl of WiNcnitssa rose in great heat to censure the language applied to the Bishop of Exeter. Having sat down without making any motion, Lord HOLLAND rose to order : he wished to know if Lord Winchilsea had any motion to make—if he thought the words "immoderate," he ought, according to the orders of the House, to have them taken down. Lord WINCHILSEA then moved that the words should be taken down accordingly. Earl GREY said, the mere isolated phrases—" pamphleteering slang" and "falsehood"—might be harsh ; but it was only by the context that they could be made out to be disorderly. It was necessary to take

down the context also. •

Lord WINCHILSEA and several others said, that the phrase was

•

"false insinuation."

Earl GREY repeated, that whatever objection might be offered to the words, it was essential to take the context along with them, in order to found a charge of disorderliness. Lord HOLLAND—" The noble Lord must not merely move that the words be taken down, he must repeat the words he wishes to be taken down."

Lord WINennsEA—" Pamphleteering slang and falsehood."

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said, the words, in his opinion, were such as ought not to be applied to one who by his official character could not defend himself against them.

Lord DURHAM said, he had not the slightest objection to his words being taken down—

'Whether the words " pamphleteering slang " were such as suited the taste of Lord Vinehilsea, or whether Lord Durham might not have used some others to express his t neauing, might be a matter of question ; but that he was justified in applying the word falsehood to the insinuations which he was about to disprove when Lord Winehilsea in- terrupted him, he was able to maintain beyond all doubt. Lord Winchilsea must know that it was in consequence of an expression made use of (respecting the connexion of his Majesty's Ministers with the Press) by Dr. Phillpotts, to whose speech Lord Durham had alluded, that he had been compelled to use the word false. It would be vain affectation for him not to say that he knew the words of Dr. Phillpotts were intended to apply to him ; and, in fact, when he found that the insi- nuation was couched in such terms as neither he nor any of their Lordships, nor any man living, could doubt that they were directed against him, he was determined to take the first opportunity of showing that they were false and unfounded. Did any of their lordships wish that those words also should be written down ? (Cheers, and cries of • Question I" The Bishop of Exeter rose, amidst the confusion, to address the House, but Lord Durham proceeded.) If the right reverend prelate wished to explain any thing which he had said in his speech of last night, he could have the opportunity of doing so viten Lord Durham should have concluded. He had thought it necessary thus openly, rind without hesitation or disguise. in the face of their Lordships and of the world, to give the strongest contradiction to the atrocious calumnies which had been spread re- specting him.

He commented in feeling terms on the unfairness of the attack, at a period when it was well known to all that he was suffering at once under domestic affliction and bodily weakness. He then turned from Dr. Phillpotts to Lord Ellenborough and the Duke of Wellington. He noticed the argument of both these opponents of Reform—that the call for it was nO older than the late French Revolution— If there was any one question more discussed than another, both in and out of Par- liament, especially during the last fifty years, it was Reform in Parliament. During that period it had been frequently brought forward by the most eminent men in either House of Parliament. Front the presentation of the Oxtbrd Petition. in 1783, to the present day, the subject had been, he might sav, kept constantly before Parliament and the public, by petitions from the people, and by the speeches and motions of distin- guished risen in both Houses.

In the course of an extensive induction, he showed that the public bad many and strong reasons for demanding Reform. He passed an

animated eulogium on the middle classes-

" Their wealth now doubled, he might say, trebled the wealth possessed by the ligher orders: and as to their intelligence, look to the great manufacturing and com- mercial towns—Alancliester, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham ; who in them were the founders and supporters of public libraries and of literary and scientific institutions? 'Who were the persons who were linnet promoting every thing that tended to the im- provement of the human mind? The middle classes for the most part, and in many cases the middle classes only. That the gentlemen of the country had lost the superiority which they formerly held over the middle classes in knowledge and intelli- gence,was evident on every occasion which brought them and the middle classes together. Lord Ellenboroush, who talked so ruueli of the ignorance of the people of the great towns, and of their inferiority to the upper classes, ir he would go to some of the public meetings of the middle classes, would see that even he had not so much reason as he supposed to plume himself upon Ithe superiority of his intelligence. Was it to be said then that the persons who possessed amongst them so large a proportion of wealth, in- telligence, and knowledge of the country, were to be excluded from any share in the representation, bemuse they did not belong to some one of the classes that were in- vested with some particular privilege ?

He noticed the danger of delaying to grant the demands of the people—

When he heard noble lords talk of the danger of concession, be felt disposed to ask them what safety did they expect from refusal? A right reverend Bishop, indeed, ad- vised them to leave the Constitution to Providence. He did not wish to use that name lightly, or he should ask the right reverend prelate what was the state in which Providence hail left the Constitution? It was painful, it was in some degree humili- ating, but he would ask, was history to remain for ever a sealed book to noble lords op- posite, or were its pages always to be misread and perverted by right reverend bishops? Had resistance to the reasonable demands of the people not yet been tried sufficiently cam], and wills results sufficiently deplorable, to convince those noble persons of its inutility as well as of its injustice.

He concluded by repeating the words of "a statesman whose prin- ciples he venerated, and whose example, at an humble distance, he had endeavoured through life to follow"—

" Remember that on the issue we risk all—all that is most dear to us—all that is most valuable—our character—amu. integrity—our honour—our present reputation and our future fame : these, and whatever else is more precious, if more :precious any thing can be, we have staked on the enlarged policy. equity, and wisdom of this measure."

The Bishop of EXETER rose, in great agitafion, to explain. He ob- served, that when he said the Times newspaper was connected with Go- -vernment, he was cm-chin l to except Earl Grey. The charge he made respecting what had appeared in that journal, bad no particular applica- tion: he believed, however, that sonic one connected with Lord Durham communicated with the Times. [Dr. Phillpotts was here overwhelmed by cries of" Hear !" and " Order!" and having observed that he was not supported by any part of the House but the Episcopal Bench, he sat down; but many of the Peers exclaiming "Go on!" he was induced to re- sume.] He said that a connexion between the Times and the Govern- ment had been traceable on more occasions than one. Five or six weeks ago, there had appeared a statement in that journal, of a cor- respondence between a noble friend [the Marquis of Londonderry— respecting the Derry petition] and the King; and on or about the 23d January, it contained a direct allusion to a correspondence between a noble Duke and the King. The letter sent to his Majesty by that noble Duke [Buckingham] was transmitted through the Secretary of

State's Office ; the writer of it gave no copy to the press, d in- directly; or n- directly ; it must have come from the Government, and Dr. Phillpotts thought as probably from Lord Durham as any other member of it.

The Duke of Bump:Guam confirmed the account of sending the letter, of which he gave away no copy : he was, he confessed, asto- nished to find a verbatim copy of parts of it in the Times.

Earl GREY said, it was true the Duke of Buckingham had sent a letter to the King, containing his views of the present political state of the kingdom, and stating the course which he thought ought to be pur- sued. His Majesty, with that strict regard to the spirit and forms of the Constitution which must endear him to all his people, immediately transMitted the fetter to himself, as head of the Administration. Earl Grey was much surprised when he saw the notice of it in the Times That notice, he could pledge his honour, did not come from him, nor from any member of Government— !is a person standing in an ostensible situation in the Government)I.diselaini any connexion with any one publication, and I most distinctly deny that I have done any thing to influence a single newspaper. (Much cheering.) This I must add, as regards myself personally, and the particular paper in question, that those who have seen it for the last month, and who have read its attacks upon me, will not think that I need ester into any disclaimer of the remotest concern with it. (Cheers and laughter.) But tine- right reverend prelate said on the former night, that he had heard these things, and, Inc believed them. (' No, no I ') I understood him to say, that he believed them ; but if I am mistaken, I beg his pardon."

The Bishop of EXETER— I did not say that I believed Them, but that they had been believed. C Rear I ')"

Earl GREY —" That they had been believed, [Confusion—Cries of Order 1' end ' Spoke P] I certainly understood the right reverend prelate to express the impression an his own mind that there was truth in the charge. He has undoubtedly saint that there were insinuations against other members of the King's Government ; and he added, that he had heard a story of my noble friend near me (Lord Durham). Now mark the charity of the right reverend prelate [Cheers and exclamations] —I say, mark his charity—mark what he does not think improbable !—that my noble friend near me, connected with me not only by the bonds of office, but by the nearest, dearest, and closest ties of relationship, has been guilty not merely of fraud, but falsehood, and has secretly and insidiously furnished newspapers is ith the means of attack upon the very Government of which he was a'snember—(Loud and reiterated cheers)—that this he was ready to do, amid actually did, at the expense of tearing asunder the ten- derest and dearest ties of affection. (Cheers.) If this be charity—if this be the charity of a Christian Bishop, I am much deceived in the true nature of that virtue." (Cheers from all sides.)

This episode in the debate was terminated by Dr. Phillpotts again

explaining, that he did not impute the communication in the Times to any member of the Government in particular.

After a few words from Lord LONDONDERRY and the Duke of WEL- LINGTON, Lord CARNARVON resumed the debate on the question. He said the cry for Reform was an old one, and its cause was old. When- ever the people were in distress, it mattered not from what cause, the institutions of the country were sure to be blamed, and an alteration in them called for. He repeated the Duke of Wellington's argument of the expensiveness of all popular systems of Government, and the Duke's illustration of it in the present Government of France. The dangers of an obstinate adherence to a measure like the present, characterized by great boldness and little consideration, had been repeatedly pressed on the Mi- nisters ; and he hoped not without effect,—he hoped for some wakening in them of their old Whig principles ; and that they would join the real friends of Reform in discharging from the Bill those parts that at present so much discoloureci. it, and thus negative the expectations which their underlings in public and in private had for some time past been so ac- tively exciting. He proceeded, in answer to the Marquis of Lans- downe, to criticise the Bill in its bearings upon the different interests of the country,—agricultural and commercial, home and colonial,—on the interests of the poor and those of the rich. He afterwards went into a minute comparison of the present and the late Bill ; which he concluded by declaring, that the present Bill was the more democratic of the two. He noticed the extension of the Reform to Ireland, and the consequences that might flow from it there; he considered that extension to be of more impor- tance than any thing connected with the measure. The principle on which representatives were given to the great towns in England, he denied to have any application whatever to Ireland. If any alteration were necessary there, he would say, that it was diminution rather than extension ; for while some towns had increased in population, many had decreased. The disfranchised boroughs in Ireland, as in England, ought to furnish members for the enfranchised boroughs. The boon, moreover, would be no boon, but would only strengthens the hands of a desperate faction,which. only required means and opportunity to commence a war of general spoliation. He afterwards entered into a description of the checks to precipitate legislation imposed by the forms of the United States Go- vernment, which had been alluded to in the course of the debates ; and contended, that if they meant to frame a constitution at all analogous, nothing could be more opposed to such an intention than the haste with which the Bill had on various occasions been pressed forward. His Lordship concluded— He admired the Whigs of former times, who felt the danger of meddling with our in- stitutions, and pursued a very different line from the Whiglings of the present day.. What could they think, when they heard Law Officers of the Crown not only maintain that the King had a right, by making Peers, to destroy the House of Lords, but also- that lie had a right to issue writs to some towns and places, and withhold them from others?—in fact, that he possessed the uncontrolled powers of the Grand Seignor, and could make two new Houses of Parliament out of his own slaves and dependents? (Great cheering!) This was the modern Whig version of the British Constitution. They recommended for imitation one of the worst acts of the Tories—one of the worst measures that soil the pages of our history—and one for which the guilty Minister was impeached by the Whig Opposition of that day. He pronounced a high panegyric upon the British Constitution, which bad so long flourished. He implored their Lordships not to lay the axe to the root of the tree. He implored themto avert the axe. If theydid so, their destiny was in their own power—if not, their destruction appeared to him inevitable.

Lord Gonmen.ridiculed the notion of calling upon them to rever- ence the Constitution of their ancestors, and at the same time to resist

all attempts to perfect what was most valuable in it—the representative portion. The system which it was the object of Ministers to amend, was opposed not merely to sound principle, but it was in the teeth of the unrepcaled law of the land. Its continuance confounded all correct notions of right and wrong—of legal and illegal. In the course of his speech, Lord Goderich replied to the argument of the Bishop of Exeter drawn from the first French Revolution ; and vindicated the 10/. qualification from the objections of the same person. He concluded by declaring his concurrence in the Bishop's prayer, and expressed a wish that the charge of indifference to religion made against his Majesty's Government had been better considered before it was made.

The Earl of ELDON said, among the projects of Reform he had con- sidered—and they were not few in number—he had never seen one in

which more alteration was to be effected and less improvement made. As to the motion of the second reading now before them, he could not perceive one particle of difference between it and that which they had negatived in October. If anywhere, -the principle of the Bill was to- be found in the preamble ; and that was word for word and letter for letter the same as the preamble of the last Bill. No amendment in Committee could alter that; and how, therefore, any one opposing the last Bill could support this, was entirely beyond his comprehension.

Lord TENTERDEN followed Lord Eldon. If the Bill were once passed, he thought that the Lords would be converted into a mere place for registering the decrees of the Commons-- That was a degradation to which he could not submit; and he would never enter the walls when it had become only the ghost of its departed greatness.

The Bishop of ROCHESTER denied that the voice of the people went with the was not the topular voice, but the popular clamour:

As to the present House of Commons, the manner of its election took from it all its deliberative character. His ancestors had sat in their Lordships' House for five hundred years, and he would not disgrace their memory by voting for a measure that would destroy a constitution for which they would have forfeited their lives.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER, after vindicating the Reverend Bench against the Earl of Shrewsbury, contended that the fact of the Bishops having voted against the Bill was decisive of its merits ; for they could have no interest in nomination boroughs, nor any interest at all apart from the people of which they were the instructors. He had voted with the majority of his reverend brethren before, and he had heard -nothing since that should induce him to alter his sentiments.

Lord BROUGHAM spoke next, and riveted the House's attention for about two hours: He noticed, in commencing, some of the charges brought against the Ministry-

.' My Lords, I know—as I believe all my Colleagues know—and as I trnst this house is couvinced—that there is not a shadow ot a shade of foundation tbr those calumnies which have been whispered in public, and have been—not urged here, bat here brought to the test, and here received an indignant denial. And in saying this. I refer not merely to the black charge which has not been urged, and which no one has meant to urge, and which has by all been disclaimed, but also to that scarcely less black charge-1 mean that of violating the sacred trust reposed. in us, as Ministers of the King, with respect to the correspondence of the noble duke. But the case does not rest with the noble duke alone. We have also heard the sentiments of a right reverend pre- late on the subject, who appears to be, on his own showing, most ignorantly innocent of the whole affair—ignorant not only of what passed four or five years ago in the formation of the Ministry that was then estahlished, but ignorant also of what passed before his own eyes. The right reverend prelate dwelt with peculiar satisfaction on the subject of the formation of Mr. Canning's Administration; he had even,after indulging in a hint or two on the subject, gently reclined his head, as if to receive, with all becoming feeling, the comfortable cheer of assent ; and then had wound up the whole by taking credit for an unusual allowance of candour for himself. Now, my Lords, I mean to assert that on this subject there is not the shadow of a foundation for the suspicion which the right reverend prelate has thrown out. Those who joined Mr. Canning s Administration retained their own opinions on the subject of Parliamentary Reliant, as well as on every other subject connected with our foreign or our domestic policy."

He noticed Lord Carnarvon's charge of precipitancy ; and quoted, in answer, the words of Lord Carnarvon himself on the subject of delay- " I do not wish," said the earl, "that there should be a delay of one moment in bringing forward the great subject of Reform. If the Ministers are anxious for their OWa safety—if they are anxious for the safety of their country—they will take the ear- liest opportunity of submitting their intended measure to the attention of Parlimnent."

This was said on the 22d of November ; and Ministers delayed, not- withstanding, till the 1st of March before they brought in their Dill. Then came the assertion of the Earl, improving upon the Duke of Wellington's, that all the property of the country was against the Bill. The Duke said, the landed property The Duke of WELLINGTON—" All the property."

Lord BROUGHAM—" Then I must apologize for saying the noble Earl went farther than the noble Duke." But had none of the pro- perty even of the House of Lords declared for it ? what came of the merchants and bankers of London ? what of the majority of the House of Commons ? and what of the public, of which there were at least some portion not absolute rabble in favour of the Bill ? Lord Brougham noticed the Delegate argument— If they are delegates, and not representatives, it is by the old, and not by the new system. But if I found that these gentlemen, immediately after the general election, gave their votes more in favour of the measure than they did after six or eight months'. time bad been afforded for reflection, their constituents also having had time for reflec- tion too. I should then be willing to admit that there might be something in the remark. But, my Lords, the very contrary is the fact ; for it turns out that the majority has gone on Increasing instead of diminishing. Now this can only be accounted for on one of two suppositions—either that those gentlemen do not act as delegates, and do not reflect the opinions of their constituents, but give their votes, as independent members of Parliament ought, as trustees exercising their own judgment on the affairs of the country ; or they must have known and felt, when continuing to give their votes in favour of the Bill, that their constituents continued to be of the same opinion as be- fore; for if they are delegates, as alleged, what possible inducement could there be for them to vote in favour of the Bill, if their constituents had turned against it ?

It had been said that it was the French Revolution that excited the cry for Reform- " I can take on myself to state, that at the election of 1830, which preceded those three flay:,, Parliamentary Reform not only formed a favourite subject, but was the fa- vourite sahject. In this matter I am speaking with some experience; for, in York- shir:, the whole canvass for the county was over, and the election secured, before the news arrived at York of the transactions that bad taken place in France, except, indeed, that it was known that the French King had violated the Charter."

It was not the resolution of the French to reform, but the Duke of Wellington's resolution not to reform, that rendered an otherwise in- tense feeling yet more intense.

He proceeded to point out the essential features of the Bill. The qualification in the counties had been very slightly altered; and the al-

terations were decidedly on the Conservative side—all of them increased rather than diminished the influence of the landed interest. There was also a large increase of county members—the town votes had taken largely from the county votes. The 10/. householders had been strangely misrepresented. They formed no separate class—they mingled imperceptibly with all that were above them. It was equally incorrect to speak of them as the poorest of the com- munity and as common labourers. How could a man gaining from 10s. to 14s. a week afford 4s. for a house ? Such houses would be occupied by. shopkeepers, tradesmen, overseers and foremen in factories, men between whom and the tenants of 20/. there Was no practical severance. The Duke of Wellington had spoken of the heavy expenses that the late Revolution had imposed on France: in France there was a disputed succession, a new dynasty, a threatened civil war, an apprehended foreign war. Reform in England would allow a Ministry to do its duty, and to do it cheaply. All these points

Lord Brougham illustrated with his peculiar felicity. He concluded with these words—.

"Your Lordships may rely upon it, that in every part of the kingdom—not only in towns, but in the country—not only in England, but in Scotland—the ithabitants are awaiting your decision of this night with the most anxious suspense and painful solicitude. That decision will either produce bitter disappointment, or diffuse universal jov. If joy, it will terminate at once the most distressing doubts, and secure to this house the lasting affections of a grateful people."

Lord LYNDHURSi repeated the Old argument of Mr. Croker, that, from there being no petitions in its favour for several years previous to 1830, the people were proved to have been up to that time indifferent to Reform. He repeated that of the Duke of Wellington, that the pro- perty of the country was against the Bill ; and appealed in proof of it

to the numerous addresses presented to the King on the subject. He admitted that the best consideration of the House was due to the Bill ;

but, looking on the details of it as essentially connected with its prin- ciple, he thought they were perfectly justified in considering it at that stage rather than in Committee. He characterized the supporters of the

Bill as had been done by Lord Ellenborough; and asked, whether it was to such supporters that their Lordships were bound to defer? He alluded to Dr. Maltby's letter, in which he said, that prelate charged the Peers with being influenced by none but selfish and interested motives, as a curious illustration of a prevailing delusion. He noticed Lord Melbourne's argument, that from the sin-us of the times it was obvious that their Lordships must agree to this Bill : he knew of no argument more un- worthy of their consideration than this. Having dwelt at considerable length on the impossibility of a House of Commons such as would be created under the Bill and a House of Lords coexisting, he concluded- ', Wo are told that this measure is to be permanent ; but, my Lords, no person looking at this Bill, at its various provisions, its anomalies. its absurdities, can for a moment imagine that it will be permanent. My Lords, the organs of the Movement party, in and out of Parliament, have declared that it is not to be final. It is not intended to be a final measure. If you should pass it under such an impression. you are grossly deluded. I know enough of this House to declare, that if this Bill pass through this stage, the certain result win be that there can be no possibility ofpreventing it from becoming the law of thin land. My Lords, I am borne down by apprehensions and alarm upon this momentous occa- sion, not upon my own account, but for the sake of the country, whose dearest interesta are placed in jeopardy. I therefore be. you to lay aside all temporizing policy, which must assuredly, if you should be weak enough to entertain it, prove your destruction. By voting against the second reading, on the contrary, you will turn aside the dangers which menace the Constitution, and you. will win the eternal gratitude of your fellow- countrymen and of all good men."

Earl GREY commenced his reply at five o'clock this morning. He noticed the charge of delay, so ably refuted by Lord Brougham. With respect to the measure introduced by Ministers, he said- " I may have erred—Governmeut may have erred—our views may have been wrong - -we are erring men, and do not pretend that our Government is imifallible: but, ap- plying our best judgment to the best iutbrmation we could ebtaiu, awl examining mi- nutely the situation and prospects of the country, the view we took was this—that something being to be dune in the way of Reffwm, it should be done to that extent an to give us a resting-place on which the Constitution could repose in future free from all further discussion and agitation. We aced on that principle. Reform being necessary, the other consequences were the result of our honest and unbiassed judgment,"

He noticed Dr. Phillpotts's attack-

" I have been cow-trot:dated by a learned mind right reverend prelate, v te, that I he re- jected with scorn amid indignation the stigma of revelut ion. The charity of Ihat sneer: and of that insinuation is not lost upon me ; bat I tell the right reverend prelate, that I have a hale life to appeal to, which even those who know me not in private will think, sufficient to justify me in the opinion of my countrymen from the foul and ntalignant charees which he, in his Christian charity. has thought proper to produce against me. (Great cheering, and cries if Order ! ) I have a stake also in the country., perhapa as large a one as he has. I have also given pledges to my country,—piedges which must prove toy sincere desire to transmit to my posterity the property which I have received front my aucestors,—pledges which ought to satisfy the country that I shall not, with my eyes open, undertake any thing 'that is dangerous to the Constitution. The right reverend prelate threw out insinuations about my ambition. Let me tell him calmly, that the pulses of ambition may beat as strongly under sleeves of lawn as under an ordinary habit. (immense cheering.) I wish not to pursue farther a subject on which I feel strongly ; but a speech more unbecoming the situation of a Christian bishop—a speech more inconsistent with the love of peace—a speech more remote from the charity which ought to distinguish a clergyman of his order,—a speech more replete with insinuations and charges calculated to promote disunion and disconi in the community—never was uttered within the walls of either House of Parliament He concluded— lie would take leave to say one word on a question which had been frequently dis- cussed out of doors, and in which Ile was in some degree personally concerned. He alluded to the probable creation of' Peers. All the best constitutional writers had ad- mitted that although the creation of a large number of Peers for a particular object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet that in some cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two Houses, it might be absolutely necessary. It was true that he had been, for many reasons, exceedingly averse to such a course ; but he believed it would be found, that in cases of necessity, such as be had. 'stated, a creation of Peers would be perfectly justifiable, anti in accordance with the best and most acknowledged principles of the Constitution. ("Hear hear!") More than this, he would not say at the present moment.

After a few words of explanation from Lord CARNARVON and Dr. PHILLPOTTS, their Lordships divided— For the motion

Present 128 Proxies 56 Total

Against it—

Present 126 Proxies 49 Total —175 Majority for the Bill —9

The Bill was then read a second time ; and, on the motion of Earl GREY, it was ordered to be committed on the first day after the recess. The House then adjourned, at a quarter past seven o'clock this morning. [The debate of last night, we need hardly observe, from the lateness of the hour at which it terminated, and the fulness of our columns, has been of necessity more curtailed than the other debates.] 2. THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND THE MARQUIS OF CLEFT:IAND. Previous to the commencement of the adjourned debate on Tuesday, a warm conversation took place, which was particularly pointed at these two noblemen. Lord WI-stone' having presented a petition from Arundel, praying that, rather than be joined to the village of Little Hampton,—in selectine.p which, the petition said, the Commissioners had passed over twenty intermediate places, and gone four miles out of their way (Little Hampton lies on the left bank of the Arun, near its mouth, and is about four miles from Arundel],—the town of _Arundel should be placed in Schedule A; and having insinuated that the reason why Little Hampton was selected, was because the Duke of Norfolk had the entire possession of that town, and could through it command the return for Arundel.

The Duke of RICHMOND said, that when the Bill was in Committee, he would be able to show that no such effect as was anticipated would flow from the arrangement.

The Duke afterwards observed, that if Lord Wynford moved the in- sertion of Arundel in Schedule A, he would second the motion.

The Earl of FALMOUTH felt astonished at the Duke of Richmond's change of opinions on the question of Reform. When the Earl of Witchilsea declared himself a Reformer, the Duke took especial, pains to convince the House that he did not concur in Lord Winchilsea's views— Then came the companion of the Catholic Relief Bill—the bill for disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland ; and he well rememberedthe earnestness with which the noble duke denounced that measure in his speech. (Some Peers on the Opposition side added, "And in a protest.") He also remembered the protest which the noble duke had placed on the journals on that occasion, and that it Was, if possible; still 'stronger in its denunciation of the principle of the disfranchising bill than the speech.

He invited their Lordships to contrast the Duke's conduct on that occasion with his new-born zeal for Reform.

The Duke of RICHMOND designated this attack as one Of the most unwarrantable and unjustifiable ever made in that House. For the de- fence of his conduct he might perfectly rely on the argument which the whole of the Opposition must rely on,—namely, that the times were changed : but he had a better argument— At the time alluded to, Earl Winehilsei said,-that if the Catholic Emancipation Bill should be carried, he would vote for any plan of reform that might be proposed. On that occasion, he certainly rose immediately after the Earl, and declared, that though lie was opposed to the Einancination Bill and the disfranchisement of the ferty-shilling freeholders, he would not, if these measures should be carried, vote merely 011 that ac- count for any reform that might be proposed. He should be glad to know where the inconsistency was between that declaration and his subsequent conduct, or what were the changes to which the noble Earl had so pointedly and personally alluded.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said, the forty-shilling freeholders were indemnified for their disfranchisement by the emancipation that accom- panied it; in the present case, there was disfranchisement but no in- demnification.

The Marquis of CLEVELAND said, although he had so large borough interest, he had always been a Reformer. From the year 1792, when he first entered Parliament, he had applied himself to obtain the com- mand of borough influence ; but his reason was, that such property was so often used for improper purposes, and there was no mode of coun- teracting this but by opposing the use of it to the abuse. For this pur- pose, he had endeavoured to possess himself of as much Parliamentary influence as possible_ Buthe most particularly differed from the Marquis of Salisbury, and all those who talked about spoliation and robbery when the nomination boroughs were disfranchised. lie did not consider them as, strictly speaking, property ; nor did he by any ineaus con- sider their disfranchisement, for the public good, as to infringement of the rights of pro- perty. It was a species of property, if such in any sense it could be called, that could be desired only for the sake of two objects, either for the sake of Parliamentary influ- ence, or for an object which he could not suppose that any of their Lordships would contemplate for a moment—he meant the pecuniary advantage to he derived from a sale of seats in the other House; and if the existence of such property was bad in the one sense, it was bad in the other, and therefore it ought to be put an end to in both ways.

The Marquis said, be had supported Mr. Canning, because, in the accession of that Minister, he saw the triumph of liberal principles ; the Duke of Wellington he supported, for the political benefits his Grace had conferred on the country ; but he never compromised his Reform principles in supporting either.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, ironically, he had no doubt the motives of the Marquis of Cleveland were purely patriotic. Lord 1.4 ondonderry said— If the Bill should pass, the marquis would be deprived of his boroughs, but he would have claims on Earl Grey, and might look for his reward. If the Bill should pass, the noble personages who sacrificed their boroughs on the altar of their country would have some compensation. Suppose it should not pass, the sacrifice would not be required, the marquis would save his boroughs. Etien in that ease he should not despair of seeing the noble marquis still retina his seat on the same side or the house. The marquis, if Ire got no other rewankmight,pechaps, lookrtatet-some in Durham, where he would acquire a greet itreponderhnce by tIfe division of county. The division of Durham, he was prepared to show; was one of the grossestliffis that ever took place. It was one of the most gross Whig jobs—even of tire 'grossIA big Bill.

The Marquis of CLEVELAND again rose in consequence of this at- tack ; and said— When there is such an important question as that now on the orders of the day standing for discussion, we are improperly trespassing on the time of the House, and I may also add, on the time of the public, when we indulge in these petty, and pumile, and snappish imputations one against the other. With respect to any favours, grants, places, allowances, or honours to be conferred on me, I disclaim before your Lordships, and before my country, any idea or conception that they will lake place. I flatter my-* self that I amas independent a man in every respect as any one of your Lordships. I am as independent in every respect as the Marquis of Londonderry is, or as any of the noble lords by whom he is supported. With respect to the support which I have given to Parliamentary Reform, I have acted independently, looking neither to the right nor to the left for compensation or reward, but keeping one object always distinctly in view,—the advantage of my country. I am not obliged either to one Government or to

another." • • • • • •

The Marquis having restated the motives- which induced him to sup- port the Administrations of MrCanning and the Duke of Wellington, concluded— .

He had never asked for a place or pension, and had- never mule an application W3 which a Minister of the Crown was induced to write amemoratidunt "that this was too bad.– When his late Majesty promoted him to the rank he held, he could state that the honour was conferred on him unasked, unsolicited.

The Duke of WELLINGTON acknowledged, that in all their mutual conversations, the Marquis of Cleveland had acted with the greatest candour and openness on the subject of Reform.

a SCOTCH EXCHEQUER BILL. The retiring pension of 2,0001 to be assigned to Chief Baron Abercromby, was the subject of a long con- versation in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Mr. G. DAWSON was very bitter in denouncing the job, as he termed it. It was ad- mitted by all, that the Chief Baron had nothing to do at present, and . got 4,000/. for doing nothing ; but it was contended by Mr. DAWSON and others, that he ought to have been placed at the head of the new Bankrupt Court. To this, however, it was answered, that Mr. Aber- cromby had declared himself inadequate to the duties of such a Court. No division took place.

4. ANATOMY BILL. A long discussion on this bill took place in Committee on Wednesday; and a number of amendments were offered. One, extending the bill to Ireland, was carried, in consequence of the expressed wish of persons worthy of consideration in that country. Several others, offered chiefly with a view to delay, were negatived. The close of the debate resembled that on the Reform Bill sonic months ago, when the House divided so often on .questions of adjourn ment : on this occasion, the chief opponents of the bill were Mr. G. DAWSON; Sir ROBERT INGLIS; and Mr. HENRY HUNT. Lord AL- THORP and Sir Tiromas DENMAN strenuously advised Mr. Warburton to go on : Mr. WARBURTON yielded, however, at length, rather than put the official .gentlemen connected with the House to inconvenience. The sitting of the Committee did not' terminate until nearly four

o'clock on Thursday morning. ' •

5. GRAVESEND PIER But. This bill passed on Tuesday; with a very important amendment; carried by a large majority. Mr.

Hum moved, that passengers should in all cases have the option of . . _

landing, by small boats, above or below the projected pier-7 The Pribirc is thus secured from such an intbie.rithleilrionopoly 'as that which has been established at Margate, where two shillings are extorted from pas- sengers, for a convenience which would be amply paid with' the eighth part of the sum.

LAST NIGHT'S COMMONS. - The House last night was employed in Committee of Sappily, in discussing, or voting rather, the Estimates for the civil contingencies. The only matter of interest touched upon in the course of the discussion, was the acknowledgment of Lord ALTHORP of the necessity of a National Gallery for the pictures now lodged in Pall Mall, and a statement of the same noble lord, that it was at length in contemplation to bring home the obelisk called Cleopatra's Needle. The estimate for that purpose, his Lordship said, was 1.5,000/.

When the House resumed, which was at a late hour, Lord STOR. MONT spoke of bringing before is?- on Monday, a gross breach of pri- vilege. He did not say what it was, but added that he would exclude Strangers during its discussion.

The second reading of the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills was post- polled till after the recess.