NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Reform question moves, and therefore we conclude it lives. On Tuesday night (or rather on Wednesday morning), after seven divisions, the House was permitted to go into Committee, in order that the ChairMan of the Committee might report a progress which had not been made. On Wednesday night, the same farce was repeated. On Thursday, it was supposed that one step had been gained—that the principle of disfranchisement had been esta- blished ; but it was proved last night, on the unimpeachable testi- mony of Mr. CROKER, that disfranchisement in general meant no disfranchisement in particular, and that the Bill stood precisely as it had stood on Tuesday. Last night, after much and long discus- sion, the particular disfranchisement of Aldeburgh was agreed to; and the House arrived at Appleby, with which they began on Tues- day last, and which they will proceed to rediscuss on Tuesday next. As there are only fifty-seven boroughs in Schedule A, and forty in Schedule B, and about forty cases of extension, besides the qualification question, the county division question, cum multis aliis, to be argued and settled, it seems very probable that the House will get through the Bill somewhere about the 1st of January 1834, and that the Borouglimongers and Cape wine will go out together. " Patience, and shuffle the cards," says the Spanish proverb.

The Bill has not entirely absorbed the week. On Monday, the Wine-duties were considered ; and notwithstanding a spirited de- fence of the alcohol extracted from Cape, the equalization, which encountered great opposition last session, was agreed to without much difficulty. The bringing up of the report on the resolutions did not elicit a single word even from Mr. COURTENAY. In the House of Lords, the massacre of Newtownbarry has been pretty fully discussed by Lord FARNHAM, subject to the ad- mission that it ought not to be discussed at all. Tithes have been talked about, and more especially Irish Tithes. There is to be a regular debate on the question on Monday, when the Archbishop of CANTERBURY and Lord DACRE'S Bills come on for discussion. Lord WYNFORD'S Frauds on Creditors Bill was postponed on Thursday, on account of the casual absence of Lord BROUGHAM,— greatly to the delight of Lord FIFE, whom the attempt to make gen- tlemen pay their debts seems very particularly to annoy. Last night, the Chancellor introduced his bill for creating a new Bankruptcy Court ; Lord KING introduced a bill to fix the future maximum of Clerical Incomes at 5001. a year; and the Marquis of Lorr- DONDERRY expressed great anxiety to learn if the King of Belgium meant to resign his pension and his colonelcy—which of the two the Marquis intends to claim, he did not mention. The Marquis explained, on Wednesday, that he did not mean Lord PLUNKETT, when he last week spoke of the Radical Chancellor, but Lord O'CONNELL.

In noticing the business of the week, we must not omit the pro- vision to the Queen, in case of her outliving her Royal husband. It is the same as that which was made for Queen CHARLOTTE- 100,0001. per annum. We hope her Majesty will long have this ample provision in prospect.

1. REFORM BILL. When Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Tuesday, had moved the order of the day for the committal of the Bill, Lord MAITL AND moved, by way of amendment, that the borough of Appleby be heard by counsel against its inclusion in schedule A. Lord MAITLAND said, that in the census of 1811, the population was stated to be 2,160 ; in that census, the parishes of St. Law- rence and St. Michael were both reckoned ; in 1821, the parish of St. Lawrence, though forming part of the borough, was omitted. Appleby was thus made to consist of 1,341 inhabitants, while in reality it had no less than 2,616.

Colonel CONOLLY, member for Donegal, seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the Bill was not a bill of pains and penalties (" Oh r from the Opposition); and he could not there-

fora see that there was any case made out. If the population of Appleby were improperly represented, there would be an opportu- nity for Lord Maitland and others to state that fact in Committee. i If, in a general bill, they opened the doors to counsel in one case, it was impossible to close them in any case. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the refusal to hear counsel would form a dangerous precedent. The petitioners conceded the prin- ciple of the Bill, but contended that it did not apply to them ; and this fact they sought to prove in the ordinary way. Would any majority, however powerful, refuse them the opportunity of doing so? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the claim set up by the petitioners was a mere mask to impede the further progress of the Bill.

The petitioners admitted the principle of the Bill—truly the House were much obliged to the petitioners. He supposed the Bill was to stop till Appleby and every other borough admitted its principle. What had their admission to do with the question ? Once establish that precedent and then the House would have counsel from other boroughs that did not ad- mit the principle, entering into a legislative discussion with the House as to what principle ought to be adopted. If the borough of Appleby were admitted, would not every other borough be tempted to ask the same thing? Of course, every borough would be able to make out some sort of a case, for the purpose of showing that itwas not within reach of the Bill. But would the public be satisfied, if they found that by this means the progress of the Bill was to be checked ? The country had, from one end of it to the other, adopted the principle of the measure. ("No, no ! " from the Opposition.) Did honourable gentlemen think that they could check public opinion by saying " No, no !" He could assure them that sqmething more powerful in the way of argument would be required. He would appeal from the minority to the majority of the House, and ask them whether they were disposed to be trifled with on this subject, or whether they were determined to proceed, and do their duty to the public ?

Mr. C. W. WYNNE said, no answer had been given to Lord Maitland's argument. It was impossible that boroughs could ask to be heard against the principle of the Bill—that could only be done on the second reading. The time for opposing any particular enactment, was on going into Committee ; and that time the peti- tioners had chosen. It had been said that other boroughs might prefer a similar prayer.

Admitting the principles of disfranchisement, as laid down by the Go- vernment, was it not proper to allow each borough which chose the op- portunity of disproving. that it came within that principle ? Would the majority stop all inquiries ? Would they say at once that they were prepared to give their votes to the propositions of the King's Ministers ? What would be said if a Jury were to act so ? Here there were forty-se- ven boroughs arraigned before them, and there was a call for a verdict without the Jury being allowed to hear the evidence, though they knew not how the evidence applied—though it was offered to he shown of some of these boroughs that they were not guilty. No ; they were told that they must give a general verdict, and must not examine the evidence of each particular case. They were to disfranchise forty-seven boroughs— they were to pass sentence, taking no time for consideration, not allow- ing them to be heard in their own defence, and not even asking them why sentence should not be passed on them !

Mr. ATTWOOD pronounced the conduct of Ministers to be the most improper, unjust, and unfair, that had ever been practised. If the House sanctioned it, there was no injustice nor tyranny which it might not equally sanction. Mr. C. WOOD (member for Wareham) said he believed that there was a mistake in respect of the population of Wareham. (Cheers ,from the Opposition.) He went on—Ministers had declared that if any borough could show that it was improperly included in either schedule, it should be taken out ; but that was a very different question from the question of allowing every borough to be heard

by counsel.

Sir GEORGE WARRENDER thought that if guilty boroughs were heard by counsel, et fortiori, boroughs that were not guilty ought

to be heard.

Lord MILTON spoke against the amendment ; but wished for

information.

Mr. PRAED expressed astonishment at the opposition of Minis-

ters to Lord Maitland's proposition.

Mr.'D. W. HARVEY said he believed this was the first time it had been proposed to settle a great constitutional question by'the

advice of the gentlemen of the bar.

What was there doubtful in fact, or what was there doubtful in law, relating to Appleby, which counsel could prove at the bar ? The question of Appleby might be the question of all the boroughs in the kingdom. If they allowed counsel to be heard for Appleby, they must allow it for every other borough ; then there would be a hundred and fifty boroughs, each to be heard by counsel ; and suppose the counsel were to be contented each with one day, there would be a hundred and fifty days before the House could go into a Committee. If the borough could redeem itself by showing that the amount of its population wa,aAev. .1:11 if the

noble lord could prove that fact,—the House wouldloOf *ye him every attention, and allow the borough either t(oQfiiek.i.-Ix ion or

secure its perpetuity. Sir EDWARD SUDDEN commented on the/change:5:

in the

schedules by Ministers themselves; and On:tea/4 they

were bound to receive information in this case in the only way in which it could be brought before the House. He cared not how long this case or other cases might last—he was willing to sit the whole year round, rather than allow the Bill to be hurried through at the expense of public principle and private right.

ROBERT GRANT said, the refusal to hear counsel was justi- fied by a similar refusal in the case of the Catholic Association. The petition asserted that the borough of Appleby extended into two parishes ; but it did not show, but rather the contrary, that both these parishes were in Appleby, although Appleby was in them. There was no question of law, and what advantage was therefore to be derived from the hearing of a legal argument on the case ?

Sir CH ARLES liVETHERELL asked who was to decide the matter of right in such disputed cases ?— Did his Majesty's Government claim to itself an exclusive use of the -unlicensed practice of making mistakes wl libitum, and likewise the prac- tice of curing- those mistakes ud libitum ? Was nobody eke to point out an error, or suggest a remedy ? Ministers had shambled Dowoton, for instance, out of schedule A into schedule B; and they had shambled other boroughs into A. Did they want to have all the doctoring of the Consti- tution, all the killing and all the curing to themselves ?

It had been said that the House had sufficient evidence ; but bow was the House to get any evidence, if it denied to the peti- tioners the right of producing it ? Sir Charles went on to allude to Cobbett's trial ; the attention to which, and the soreness which its issue had occasioned, he supposed had made the Attorney- General less discriminate than usual in his argument. He could not otherwise, Sir Charles said, have confounded agreement as to principle with unanimity as to detail, when he had in the two noble members for Northamptonshire examples to the contrary. Sir Charles condemned, strongly, the treatment which the petition from Appleby received ; he viewed it as a foretaste of that law of number by which in future all great public questions were to be decided, without. discussion or argument why or wherefore.

Lord ALTHORP said, the speech of Sir Charles was a specimen of his usual exaggeration.

The object of Ministers, and their only one, was to get in Committee ;

and, once there, in God's name let the House bestow upon each individual borough set down in schedules A and B the fullest discussion. Sir Charles Wetherell taunted Ministers with making their own arbitrary 'will the rule by which the House should regulate its proceedings. So far from this being the case, Ministers, of their own accord, precluded its possibility, by binding themselves by a fixed rule, wholly independent of party or individual caprice. Sir Charles asked whether Lord Althorn did not consider the Bill as it affected the petitioners, and others similarly situated, a bill of pains and penalties? He did not. That could not, j with any show of justice, be called a bill of pains and penalties which had but one end—the public benefit. "But," said Sir Charles, " how can you attempt to decide on the case of Appleby, if you refuse to hear the petitioners through their counsel ?" The answer was simple : they had the evidence furnished by the population returns; if witnesses were ex- amined at the bar, they must necessarily—if not engaged in taking the census of the population—be unable to furnish as good evidence as the House already possessed ; and, if they had made out these returns, they could furnish no information additional. They had before them sufficient evidence to act upon. (" No, no !") He said " Yes," and therefore could not assent to the present motion.

Mr. CROKER thought the defence of Ministers exceedingly

lame against the motion of Lord Maitland. Why should not the same favourable hearing which had been granted to Buckingham be granted to Appleby ? It had been said that the error might be remedied in Committee ; but no evidence could he heard at the bar in Committee. without permission previously granted on for- mal motion. If, therefore, the present motion were rejected, evi- dence could not be procured. Mr. Croker denied that the motion orieinated in any wish to delay the Bill. The petition had been before Ministers several weeks ; the case was precisely identical with those of Buckingham and Truro.

Colonel TORRE NS said, Ashburton was a similar case to that of Appleby, yet it had not won the sympathy of the opponents of Reform.

Mr. CROKER said, if the identity of the cases were proved, he would support Ashburton as soon as Appleby. Alderman THOMPSON said, from his local knowledge of Appleby, he could state confidently that the borough was entitled to be beard by counsel. He wished the principle of the Bill to be car- ried. but to be carried with justice and impartiality. Mr. C. FERGUSSON made some inquiries respecting St. Mi- chael's and Bondgate ; which Colonel LOWTHER stated to be the same.

Lord Jowl RUSSELL said, Ministers were quite aware of that fact, but did not look on the time or the mode as proper for its consideration. The House then divided—for Lord Maitland's motion, 187 ; against it, 284 ; Reforming majority, 97.

The question for the House going into Committee being again

put, Colonel Coeneeter spoke at length against the Bill. He com- plained of the extensive nature of the change, and its spoliative character ; spoke of the analogy between the present Reform and the French Revolution of 1789 ; and described the imputation of improper motives to the opponents of Reform as the effort of a -weak party, which had no legitimate argument to support itself. Mr. FANE also and Mr. C. PELHAM spoke generally against the measure.

Mr. ATTWOOD went over the topics so often urged by former

speakers,—the great men that had been introduced to the House through the rotten boroughs -; the evils of freedom in France ; the incompatibility of popular with monarchical, government ; the in- opportuneness of the time ; the necessity, if the Bill were to pass, of reforming the Upper as well as the Lower House—" and he did not believe that Ministers would have the profligacy and audacity to create new Peers to carry the Bill."

Mr. Attwood sat down at twelve o'clock ; when Captain GORDON (nominee for Dundalk) rose, and moved an adjournment. Lord A LTHORP admitted that at that hour they could not pro- ceed with business, but they could go into Committee pro for ma. If members wished to discuss further the principles of the Bill they could go on for an hour or two, and the House could go into Com- mittee pin forma after the discussion was over.

Colonel Wool) wished to speak on the principles of' the Bill, but thought the hour too late, and therefore would vote for the adjournment. Mr. C. W. Wveeen opposed it—by sitting a little later they might get over that stage.

Sir R. PEEL said he was bound in justice to declare, that he thought the one discussion on the second reading to have been suf- ficient. It was better to prolong the discussion than to have to renew it. He was not a friend to creating any factious delay. Sir EDWARD SUCHEN thought an adjournment was the only chance that members had of being fully heard.

The House divided accordingly—for the adjournment, 102; against it, 328 ; Reform majority, 226.

It would appear that immediately after the division, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL again moved an adjournment. Lord Tux, LAMORE expressed his intention to move a third if necessary : he complained that Ministers had endeavoured to check free dis- cussion.

Lord ALTHORP denied this : he had consented to adjournments whenever they were necessary for free discussion. He felt, how- ever, impelled to mark the sense he entertained of this opposition. Colonel DAVIES said, the only object of the present demand for adjournment was delay. The country would not fail to see through it, and to estimate it as it deserved.

Sir JOHN BRIDGES (who, it would appear, had just awaked) admitted that the question of Reform had been sufficiently dis- cussed, but riot the question the House was then engaged in— the hearing of counsel at the bar. (Loud laughter.)

Lord G. LENNOX denied that Mr. Attwood had been at all in- terrupted. In proof of the stillness of the House, he mentioned, that he had counted eighteen members fast asleep all the time, and among the number Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Goulburn.

Sir CHARLES FORBES, alluding to the absence of Sir Robert Peel, who left the House before the second division, declared his

readiness to fight on, under an able leader—if he knew where to find one. His object was to throw out the Bill and the Ministers also.

Alderman WAITHMAN strongly advised :‘•Tinisters to resist the adjournment. The true motives of those who brought it forward could not be mistaken. They had heard a most sudorific speech from Sir Charles Wetherell; and what, after all, did he tell them that he had not told them before ?

After some further conversation, Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and complained of the inconvenience of not having any one with whom to arrange matters for the.facilitating of business. He had fixed this day for going into the Committee on the ReformBill, on an understandinc, with the right honourable member for Tamworth that the House should do so ; and he should have fixed an earlier day if he had not believed that understandinc, would have been adhered to.

The House then divided—for the adjournment, 90; against it, 286 ; Reforming majority, 196.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL divided the House a third time on the question of adjournment till Thursday instead of Wednesday. The numbers on this division were 63 for, 235 against—majority 172.

After this division was reported, Lord BRUDENELL simply moved the adjournment of the House. Lord ALTHORP expressed his determination to resist all attempts at adjournment, except on the condition that the Committee was pro forma gone into. To a question of Mr. T. P. COURTENAY, his Lordship answered, that it was open for any gentleman to recommence the debate on the principle of the Bill, on the motion for its recommitment.

A member congratulated the House on the absence of the re. porters—the discussion was wisely kept to themselves, as it was the very reverse of creditable.

Mr. ATTWOOD could imagine no motive for resisting the ad- journment, unless to create an impression that the Opposition were desirous of obstructing the public business. (Cries of "So you are.") He asked if this were a part of the agitation which had been carried on by the servile adherents of Government.

Lord EBRINGTON said— Some of the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House seemed in their speeches to consider that they were above those rules agreed to by the House, in order to secure decency and propriety in discussion. He had been a supporter of the Government; but he denied that because he had been so, any man of good breeding would think of calling him a " servile adherent of the Government." Men who were at least as honourable and of as high character as Mr. Attwood had also been supporters of the Government ; and in his own, and in their name, he cast back the impu- tation of " servile adherency" with all the indignation that became an independent man, Mr. ATTWOOD being called on to explain, by Lord A. LENNOX also, said he spoke of the servile adherents of Ministers out of the House.

Lord HowicK mentioned it as currently reported on 'Change, that no less than twenty members had declared their intention of making long speeches, in order to delay the Bill. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL denied the truth of this report, and contended that the Opposition were not at all to blame. '-11111t. tOi'llq-G011; nil said—

Hi the d.dy.'e, was not t•, •C..aaa Bi3, but on the

felt that Le was not heard with StItti- ,-k at night. If such an nhj.;:ti■■!I w. re good on the tali of Jul CILIUM: good on the 12'h (:; A"gust, or

the 12th of Septcol: r, . 12to of October, and titn.i 0:1 uch an ar-

gument the great inea-.1r, 2ht fie {mined to all Qit nifty.

Mr. PRAED next took ee the question Of adjournink ut, which seems to have passed from hand 10 hand among the Opposition; his reason, he said, for ineving it, was, that Ministers, according to their own statement, weed gain a step if he did nut. The numbers tin this division were 37 rind 103—majority 1G6. On the numbers being reported, Mr. PEA.ED renewed his mo- tion, substituting only Feiday for Wednesday. Mr. JAMES said, the country would see the motives of this fac- tious opposition—the people of Glasgow might hoist their black flag Sir CHARLES WETIIEP.ELL said, he would go on and divide the House twenty times before he gave in. Such things had been done before.

Mr. Hume pointed out the difference-

' " Men may live long zu:c1 learn little. The honourable and learned member has lived long and knows little of his own situation or that of his party. The minority in which I sat when such amendments were proposed, was a popular minority contending against an unpopular Ministry. Here the situation is quite the reverse—it is a popular Ministry, backed by the whole conntry, contending with an Opposition consisting of a handful of factious men."

Lord STORMONT declared his intention to go on while one mem- ber remained to second him : and Mr. SIBTHORP proffered to take his place when he till. Mr. PERCEVAL called attention to the case of the Speaker, and begged gentlemen to spare him, if they would not spare one another. Mr. ROBINSON thought the remark too late—Mr. Perceval's own friends might have taken it some hours ago. If Ministers now gave way, the Reform Bill would never be carried.

The House divided for the sixth time, on Mr. PRAED.S motion; when the numbers were 25 and 187—majoritv, 162.

t'. On the House resuming, another effor was made, by Mr. PRINGLE, member for Selkirk, to procure the desired adjourn- ment; which Mr. Plum) seconded.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL declared that he had made up his mind to perseverance, and that persevere he would ; Sir Joliet BRYDGES proposed to draw cuts who should give in.

On this seventh division, the numbers were 24 and 187—majo- rity, 163.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL then declared, that he had no object in view but to prevent the freedom of debate from being stifled (" Oh, oh !"); and that it was his wish to facilitate the settlement of this great question. (" Oh, oh r) And Lord ALTHORP having stated that all he wished was that the House should go into Com- mittee, and that the Chairman should. report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker was at length permitted to quit the chair, after having occupied it for fifteen hours.

The Bill was committed accordingly, progress reported,, and the recommittal adjourned to Wednesday evening.

On Wednesday, on the question being put for the recom- mittal of the Bill, Mr. CROKER asked, why the communica- tion respecting Downton had not been included in the peepers laid before the House ; he understood that it-was not from Lord: Radnor, but from another noble Lord. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, a note that had been received from Lord Granville—a purely pri-. vate and personal communication—had directed the attention of Government to the case. He had subsequently had a verbal com- munication with Lord Radnor, who expressed strong doubts as to. the population of Downton being what it had been estimated.

Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to allude to a point of some import- ance arising out of Tuesday's discussion. it was possible that Appleby, Ashburton, or Wareham might petition for thesole pur- pose of proving that they were improperly included in Schedule A. Admitting that the majority did well to reject any proposition made for the purpose of creating delay, were they to reject all pe- titions, on the hypothesis that they were presented for that pur- pose?' Sir Robert wished also to be informed respecting the prin- ciple on which the division of counties was to proceed. It was highly necessary, for instance, that it should be ascertained whether,, insuch a. case as Warwickshire, Birmingham and Co- ventry should be included in one division,. or Birmingham in one and Coventry in an other. Lord Joins aussEm..said, in respect to the case of petitions such as-Sir Robert had supposed., he did not think there would. be any great-necessity for the reception of evidence, and therefore there

would; be none fox empowering the Committee to receive it. If After some further conversation, in which Colonel TRENCH, Lord ALTHORP, Lord EBRINGTON, and another member took part,

Colonel Wool) reminded Ministers, that on all similar occasions for twenty-six years past, the Ministers had given gay. The privilege of moving an adjournment was the only shield which the • minority could empl;',y against the majority. Mr. STANLEY said, it was; but it might, like othsr privileges, be strained too far. The minority was losing at every division ; and he would like to iceav, under such circumstances, which ought toy.e.e 11 , the )r:tv or the majority. Lord Balms:xi,: !aving with:lieen his amen him nt, it was taken up by Lord :' ; ONT ; on whose motion the OU se divided

a fourth time.; 11 ' and 21-1— ma:ority 17.1. On the debit{ The first and ,dC:.• found, d on any co.: simple 1.-xt that pi: cient attention at any case did occur, the House could easily resume, in order to permit evidence to be heard. The division of counties would be left to the arbitration of efficient and well-s:lected Commissioners, appointed for that purpose alone: when their names were made public, it would be sullleiently seen that theirknewledge, capacity, and personal weight, entitled lieen to over). respect. He could see no method likely to prove s., oe: ;es; ese as leaving the whole matter of the division to the Ceenn::;emleis.

After some further remnrIes from liar E ET PEE L and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, ?,lt. C. W. WY NNE that the principle by

which the Commissioeers were to be t: :.dad should he properly

&lined : at presnt it w;'.!:Trip. , tain Vail. :.1:er it was to be vogra--

phiedi or numer:cid, svhei het i. t. t ({ei,:•ia1 on towns ar ell voters. Lord A LTHORP admit! ed the dif:lealty to lee great, and sail Minis- ters would Cierftiiiy listen to ;1:13, 1,factical siv..geAion for dimi- nishing it ; but t{ey couId not al: andon a principle which the House itself had already sanctioned.

The qusstion being again put,

Captain GORDON rose to state his ols7setions to the Bill. Ile said it was the offspring m" petiliens and blind clamour. All that was diseased, infected, and corrupt in the community, supported it. The gallant member then went back to the French Revolution ; and expressed his regret, that, instead of Reform measures, the Government had not, in imitation of "a firm Minis- ter and a constitutional King," snspended the Habeas Corpus Act, by which the present clamour would have been repr.,ssed as that. of 1794 was. At this rirair.,nt tli.Te was a party of delegates of the National Union sifting iu Lemk), in Oxford 72Iarket he be- lieved. He said they lied voted a vote of thanks to Mr. Hunt; but he afterwards corrected this assertion—the vote of thanks h-id been voted, it seems, at Manchester. The gallant Captain :vent on to mention the black flags of Glasgow, under which the work- men were to march to London if the Lords threw out the Bill; and the two armies which Birmingham was ready to furnish, each as large as the army of Waterloo. Colonel LINDSAY (member for Fifeshire) complained of the ex- traordinary haste with which Ministers proceeded. (" Oh ! oh !" and loud laughter.)

Mr. C. W. WYNNE moved that all petitions connected with the details of the Bill be refe,rred to the Committee. Lord ALTHORP assented to this.

Mr. HUNT explained the nature of the National Union, on which Captain Gordon had dwelt at so great length.

There was no similarity between the Union of Trades of the present day, and the Corresponding Society of the years 1793 and 1794. There was a National Union of Trades, and of that society some four or five delegates hat come up from dliferent puts of the country with petitions, which had been presented to the {louse : if any of them attended at the meeting of the London Union, it was not from any connexioa with them, for there was no correspondence kept up between them. The House having gone into Committee, and the preamble being read by the Clerk,

Mr. C. W. WYNNE proposed that the disfranchising clauses should be postponed for the present ; and that when it had been determined how many members would he required for the non- rapresented towns to which it was proposed to grant the franchise for the first time, then the House should proceed to consider the means of vacating such a number of seats as were wanted. Mr. Wynne complained that no reason was given for including certain boroughs in Schedule A ; it was not sated that they were below 2,000 inhabitants, nor was it staled why the number of 2,000 had been chosen as the smallest nucleus round which 300 voters could be aggregated. He also complained that Mmisters had taken the lists of 1821, instead of those of 1831, which might be so easily procured. He thought the proper way would have been to appoint the Parliamentary Commissioners in the first instance, and to act on their report of the populations and wealth of each town and dis- trict. For absolute dis'ewnchisement he could see no reason—why might not the boroughs in Schedule A be combined, as the burghs in Scotland were ? It was, however, impossible to do this, until they had ascertained how many members were wanted for the un- represented towns and districts.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN spoke at great length on the successive alerations introduced in the progress of the measure. It was first proposed to diminish the number of members by 62 ; now the di- minution was 31 ; five boroughs had been taken out of Schedule A and placed in Schedule B; two were taken out of Schedule B and placed in Schedule A ; then certain counties were to have three members each, and certain towns to have one member each ; the qualification of voters had been entirely changed. He commented on the half-yearly clause; in which, lie insisted, there could be no mistake, because the same words which were used in reference to boroughs generally in the 21st clause, were used in reference to New Shoreham, Cricklade, Aylesbury, and East Relford, in the 27th. As respected Wales, also, the Bill had been materially al- tered; and the Irish and Scotch Bills were equally changed from what they were. Sir Edward declared, that he had no particular affection for no- minee boroughs ; he loved them merely as parts of a system, and because by their means men of talent and integrity got into Par- liament who would otherwise be excluded from it. He strongly urged the necessity of having recourse to the population returns of 1831, instead of 1821.

Was it to be endured that this King's Government should come down to the House and propose to alter the Constitution of England on imper • feet population returns, when they could have correct returns ; for at the present moment thousands were interested in seeing that the returns came before the country in the most correct shape possible,—in fourteen days, if they would wait ? It was well known, that if the Bill should pass in its present shape, it would disfranchise places'which the new census would show ought not to have been disfranchised. Those instances would come before a Reformed Parliament, and there could be little doubt that such a Parliament would allow them to be represented. Thus constant changes would take place, until at length every vestige of the Constitu- tion would be swept away, and its place supplied by new institutions. Sir Edward went on to talk about hereditary Peerage—the sys- tem of pledges—his Majesty's Speech—the elasticity of the Con- stitution—the propriety of the votes of adjournment on Tuesday, without which he could not have had that opportunity of delivering his sentiments ; and concluded by expressing his hearty appro- bation of Mr. N'Vynne's motion, in opposition to which, he de-

clared, any argument or reasoning would be wholly thrown away. Mr. STANLEY replied to the observations of Sir Edward, and

commented on them. There were differences between the pre- sent and the first draft of the Bill, but none of them affected its principle. Ministers, in bringing forward the measure of Reform, did not lay claim to infallibility. They were aware that their in- formation must be limited, and they were not above receiving an addition to it from any quarter. They had no predilection for the number 62, or the number 31, or for 3 or 1 ; their only object was to frame such a bill as should satisfy the reasonable wishes of the people of England. With respect to the half-yearly clause— Sir Edward Sugden had said, that Ministers intended that that clause,

however objectionable, should be a part of the Bill, until public observa- tion was drawn to it. So far as intention went, he utterly repelled the

assertion. The great wish of Ministers was, to secure a body of bona fide

freeholders. Whether the words that would now be introduced would have that effect or not, the House would soon be enabled to decide.

With respect to the question under discussion, which he con- tended Sir Edward Sugden had not once approached, Mr. Stanley

said— It did not strike him as very important, whether they first enfranchised and then disfranchised, or whether they first disfranchised and then en- franchised ; and for this simple reason, because the one proceeding was not at all dependent on the other. They took away the franchise from a small and corrupt borough, because it was not of sufficient importance to hold such a right ; and they gave it to a great town, because, without any reference to the small disfranchised borough, its wealth and popula- tion entitled it to representation. Mr. Wynne said that Ministers, in pointing out certain places for disfranchisement, had adopted a very arbi- trary line. He should be glad to know what line they could have drawn that would not be arbitrary ? Mr. Wynne appeared to him to be mis- taken, when he said that the great complaint amongst the people was not against the nomination boroughs. The reverse was the fact.- He had seen something of the feeling in the country and in the great towns ; and he was perfectly convinced, that nothing had made so e'deep an impres- sion on the sense and feeling of the people, as the fact, that whilst great towns were excluded from the franchise, rotten and insignificant boroughs were upheld. The continuance of those boroughs was, in truth, the chief cause of complaint. It was to abolish those boroughs as far as pos- sible that this Bill was intended ; and therefore it was that the schedule with respect to which the right honourable member had moved his amendment, held a very prominent situation in the measure. He looked at the motion only as one of a number intended to delay the Bill. It might be delayed, but it could not be defeated.

Mr. CROKER complained, amidst considerable interruption, that Ministers would not and could not answer their opponents. They were not able to meet the minority—a minority in numbers, but not in power; they could not support their own measure. He went on to remark on the anomalies of the BilL

Lord John Russell had drawn four lines of population,—the first 2,000 ; the second, 4,000; the third, 10,000; the fourth, 20,000; the places above 20,000 were to have two members. This was a strict arithmetical line ; and from that line, in almost every particular, had he departed. Downton and St. Germain's had been brought in ; places in the second class had been removed into the first; places with above 4,000 inhabitants had been kept under 4,000; places above 20,000, such as Stockport, which had 21,000 in the township and 94,000 in the whole parish, were to have one member, whilst Melton, with 4,005 inhabitants, was to have two, as if to mock the common sense of the House of Commons—as if to deceive, and insult, and exasperate the hopes of the people.

Mr. Croker said, Parliament had been dissolved for rejecting the Bill, and Ministers had followed the example of Parliament and rejected it also.

What had been the boasted basis of the Bill? Property. " Property," said the noble Lord, borrowing the fag-end of a metaphor of the First Lord of the Admiralty, "property is the anchor of the Bill." Mr. Croker was glad to see the honourable member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) come in ; he was a witness upon this point; he should put him into the box. Whilst Ministers were secretly hatching this measure in the Cabinet, the unconscious member for Shrewsbury, unaware of what would be put into the Bill, introduced a bill to exempt from the payment of poor-rates the inhabitants of 101. houses,—the very persons who were to be raised to the distinction of electors. Whilst this measure, which was to counterbalance the destruction of all the corporations,—to coun- terbalance the aristocratical influence in the country, by the raising the 101. householders to the elective franchise,—whilst this measure was hatching in the Cabinet, the honourable member for Shrewsbury was showing that 10/. houses were not a measure of property, but of pau- perism. (Mighty cheers from the Opposition.) Lord ALTHORP said, the reason why on Tuesday and that night be had not replied to many of the speeches made against the Bill, was simply because they contained nothing new, and had all been replied to before. If it could be shown that any individual borough was improperly included in Schedule A, he would attend to there: presentation ; but if members would debate the principle of the clause, Ministers were prepared to assume that rotten borough's were an evil and ought to be abated.

Mr. Croker had said, that the 10/. a-year houses were inhabited by paupers, and yet that they were put up as measures of property ; could not the right honourable gentleman perceive, that what he considered the maximum of pauperism, Ministers had a right to consider as the mini- mum of property ? The elective franchise ought to be extended to the lowest point of property. There could be no danger from the extension of the franchise. If tin re were any danger on the subject, it would arise not from the extension, but from the restriction.

Colonel WOOD thought the right way was to find out the wants of the country first, and then to supply them.

Sir ROBERT PEEL strongly objected to takinff6 the population re- turns of 1821 as'a. basis, while those of 1831 would so soon be before the House ; he hoped Ministers would yet perceive the ex- pediency of waiting for the latter returns. Sir Robert briefly re- capitulated his objections to the disfranchisement of the rotten boroughs- 1st. It was opposed to those principles of prescription which had hitherto been observed in both Houses of Parliament ; 2d. It would de- prive talent, unaccompanied by fortune or family influence, of an easy access to that House ; 3d. It would curtail the prerogative of the Crown in the choice of its Ministers ; 4th. It would shut out men of retiring, philosophic habits ; 5th. A 10/. constituency could not make choice of as enlightened and independent representatives as found their way through the close boroughs ; 6th. The Colonial interest would lose their only chance of direct representation ; and lastly, the extinction of the close boroughs would remove the best constitutional check which that House afforded upon the excesses of the popular will.

Sir Robert said he would not object to a moderate reform, such as the enfranchisement of the towns in schedule C [Birmingham, &c.] and the disfranchisement of as many of the smallest boroughs as would furnish the requisite number of members for that purpose.

Lord JOHN. RUSSELL could-see no reason why a town of 20,000 should have two members and a town of 10,000 none, or why a borough of 500 inhabitants should lose and a borough of 2,000 re- tain a right which neither was capable of properly exercising.

After some further debate, which was drowned in cries of " Question !" the House divided on Mr. Wynne's amendment ; when the numbers were—for it, 174 ; against it 292 ; Reforming majority, 118. The Chairman then reported progress, as it is called, and obtained leave to sit again.

On the motion for the recommittal on Thursday, a long conver- sation took place on the production of the population returns of 1831. Mr. CROKER and Sir HENRY HARDINGE pressed for it. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the returns would be laid on the table as soon as they were in a proper state for the inspection of the House. Sir HENRY HARDINGE wished to raise a question on what he called a libel on the returning officers, by insinuating that their returns were not in a proper state for inspection; but he was stopped by cries of " Spoke!" Sir EDWARD SUDDEN repeated the demand for the returns of 1831. He contended that Ministers should either act uniformly on the old census or produce the new.. In the course of his ob- servations, Sir Edward turned to the members behind him and complained bitterly- " That the supporters of Government should occupy seats amongst Opposition members, whom they annoyed in a variety of ways—inter- rupting their speeches with ironical cheers, and playhouse whispers, be- sides overhearing their conversation, and embarrassing their confidential intercourse."

He went on to talk of the fleeting nature of the present delusion, and how the people would at last discover who were their true friends. ("Poh, Poh !") Colonel DAVIES, in allusion to Sir Edward's complaintof Minis. terial members sitting on the Opposition side of the House, said he had sat on that side many years before Sir Edward had a right to sit on either. Alderman WOOD said he was in the same predicament : his constituents might dislodge him, but Sir Ed- ward Sugden Should not. Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Sir CHARLES WETHERELL enforced Sir Edward's complaint: while the Opposition members were speaking other members near them were ever and anon ejaculating, "This is all trickery and hum- bug." (Laughter.)

Mr. C. W. WYNNE said, if the reason why disfranchisement was advocated—namely, that in the lapse of time certain boroughs had fallen into decay and others risen into importance—held good for four hundred years, it held equally good for ten.

Mr. J. WOOD said, if the census of 1831 were substituted for that of 1821, it would be necessary to alter the standard of popula- tion contained in the Bill.

The census of 1821 had been taken without reference to the attainment of any political object; which, without casting any imputation on the individuals appointed to frame the present census, was more than could be said of it in all cases. He had been informed, and understood, that there was evidence to show that in one borough situated in the county of Lancaster, three hundred male adults had been brought into the town, where they slept and were located for two or three days, for the purpose of swelling the population return of the place. He believed that a similar proceeding had been adopted in the case of other boroughs, and of course with the same object in view.

Captain HARRIS spoke in favour of Great Grimsby. He had a certificate from the minister, churchwardens, and overseers, proving that "she". had. 743 inhabited houses, and that there were 31. inhabited houses in the soke. of Great Grimsby. Further it was shown that "she" had 47 uninhabited houses, and that there was one in the soke, giving " her" a total, including five houses Wilding, of 827: There were 791 families in Great Grimsby, 81 in the soke : " she" had 4,0.18 inhabitants, exclusively of 177 in the hamlets, so that " her" total population amounted to 4,225. He should be able to prove in Committee, that " she" had a right to two members of Parliament. Great laughter -pervaded the House while the gallant member was thus enforcing the claims of old Mrs. Grimsby. He concluded by what he said was a new argument, and one which would make the Reformers laugh on the other side of their faces— It would be borne in mind, that at different periods many of the poorer boroughs had prayed to be excused from the burden of sending members to Parliament : but Great Grimsby was not one of those boroughs; it had never flinched from sending representatives. This was his argument.

Mr. C. Woon said, the census of 1821 formed as much a part of the rule laid down by Ministers as the number 2,000 did. The returns under that census were not laid on the table until the 7th of July 1822. The present cry for the returns of 1831 was merely meant, under the pretence of saving two or three rotten boroughs, to delay Reform for another year.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL complained that there was no crite- rion by which the facts of any individual case could be ascertained. Counsel and evidence were rejected ; and the return of 1821 had, in numerous instances, been impuzned by Ministers themselves. Where, then, was the House to obtain a proper test ? Sir Charles proceeded to comment on the paper entitled " Copies of Further Information,' which lay on the table, but on whose authority no one could or would tell.

In the proe.ress of this measure, if no other member should deem it consistent with his duty to make a motion on this subject, he should feel it to be his duty to do so. Members had talked of delusion the other evening ; but could there he a greater delusion than to proceed to dis- franchise a number of boroughs because the population was below a fixed numbenwithout any evidence to show what that number was? Why, there as no House, except a Reformed House of Commons, which would have the audacity or impudence to proceed to disfranchise the people upon such, he would not say evidence, but such an absence of all evidence as this. Here it was proposed by the Government to act on certain alleged facts; but when a verification of those facts was called for, it was flatly denied. He did not ask for counsel—he asked only for evidence to show the cor- rectness of the data on which they went, and this was denied. Let any man look at that silly trash—that miserably idle gasconade—that Dodsley collection of Parliamentary Reform, laid on the table and called " further information" as to the amount of population in the several boroughs, and ask would any Minister have—he would not say the face, but—the impudence or audacity to tell the people of England, that this was to he the ground on which the franchise was to be taken from so many boroughs, and at the same time refuse to tell who made this collection, or on what authority it rested ?

Sir Charles commented at great length on the " smilery " of the Reformers, which lie said they substituted for argument. It would be better, he said, to answer Captain Harris's facts than to laugh at his grammar. lie finished by declaring, that if any member were in future to be interrupted as Mr.Attwood had been on Tues. day, he would again have recourse to the same remedy that he had that night.

Lord ALTHORP said, he would not now stop to debate the prin- ciple of the Bill—it had been sufficiently debated already.

If Sir C. Wetherell, with the power which he possessed of putting to. gether a string of synonymous words, and the great fluency and ability with which lie urged his opinions to the House, chose to debate the prin- ciple of the Bill, every time the question was put, " that the Speaker do leave the chair," after the House had been two nights in the Committee, be no doubt would succeed in delaying the Bill for a very considerable time ; but the people of England would know how to estimate and value such a mode of opposition. The greater part of the speech of the ho- nourable and learned gentleman was applicable only to the principle of the Bill, and the remainder of it was fit only for the Committee. Lord Althorp had seen on that night what he had never before witnessed on any occasion where the principle of a Bill had been debated and decided, after the Committee had sat more than one night, a debate got up on the question being put, that the Speaker do leave the chair, for the purpose of resuming the Committee.

Lord Althorp concluded by declaring, that no course Sir Charles could pursue would induce him to alter his—he hoped the patience of the friends of Reform would not be exhausted by the species of opposition offered to it.

Sir ROBERT PEEL complained of the allusion to the people. He said Sir Charles Wetherell's question had received no answer, be- cause Ministers had none to give. At the same time, he depre- cated such an inquiry as Sir Charles had threatened, for it went to place representation on the most fluctuating of all bases—po- pulation. It had been said, that in one case under the present census, three hundred persons had slept in a borough for the sole purpose of swelling its numbers in the return; in the same way the breaking down of the mail-coach in 1821 might have been the cause why Melton escaped disfranchisement. Sir Robert instanced Downton, to show that population was not considered by Minis- ters themselves as a proper test of disfranchisement. After some further conversation, the House resolved itself into a Committee.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL briefly restated the object of Ministers in framing the Bill ; it was to make the House independent. No- mination boroughs were of two descriptions,—some of them were

considerable enough, by an extension of the franchise, to become independent ; Others were not. The list of the returns of 182] was taken as the best that could be got. The returns of houseS rated at 101. was tried, but the principle on which they were

framed was so different in different places, that not even the num- ber of 101. houses could be ascertained ; and if it had, there were doubts if such a list were preferable to the one that had been em- ployed. The census of 1821, be it perfect or be it imperfect, had been drawn up without partiality or prejudice; and by that return they would stand, disfranchising entirely all boroughs to which it gave less than 2,000 inhabitants, and disfranchising partially all boroughs to which it gave more than 1,00u and less than 4,000. The House havinep adopted the principle of the Bill, the consideration then was, whether the boroughs enumerated in schedule A contained fewer than 2,000 inhabitants according to the census of 1821. He believed, that in a very few instances would any doubt arise as to the boroughs contained in schedule A; but should any doubt arise, he would be ready to show the grounds on which his Majesty's Ministers thought that none of the boroughs ought to be excepted. Lord John concluded by moving, "That the preamble of the 13111 be agreed to."

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN repeated his objection, that, admitting the principle laid down by Ministers, they themselves had already departed from it

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, every borough in schedule A was a nomination borough, and he could, without difficulty, name its patron. SirRoaEwr PEEL laid down the rule by which he thought the future discussions of the Bill ought to be regulated. Fifty-seven boroughs were included in the schedule, upon each of which it was competent for any gentleman to raise a discussion involving the consideration of the whole Bill. Now, he thought the best course would be to take the sense of the House on this question, whether all boroughs containing fewer than 2,000 inhabitants should he disfranchised; and when the will of the House was clearly manifested by decided majorities, he for one should not be disposed to repeat the discussion in the case of each particular borough, upon the understanding that with respect to every borough where a prima facie ease could he established that it did not fall below the line drawn by Ministers, an opportunity for full discus- sion would be afforded. He still reserved to himself the right to speak upon the principle of the Bill, when the report was brought up, or upon the third reading of the Bill. He trusted that all sides would enter into the Committee with good humour, and abstain from throwing out impu- tations of any sort. Let them remember that they were now forming a new Constitution ; and if it was to he adopted, no time was to be lost in making it as perfect as possible. (Cheors.)

Mr. A. Baerec expressed his belief, that when the Bill passed, they would lie found living essentially under a democracy. The King would have less power than the President of the United States. It was proposed to disfranchise all nomination boroughs

below 2,000 ants ; but were there not six or seven nomi- nation boroughs that would escape disfranchisement by being above that line ? tinder the Bill, the Kine could not find a place for h:s Ministers, unless he selected them by the voice of the people, or applied to one or two great intlieiduals, who would still have the control of some dozen of seats in the House ; by which means an oligarchy would be formed which would have an entire control over and monopoly of the Crown. Lord JOHN Russime admitted the perfect fairness of Sir Robert Peers proposition, to take the opinion of the Committee on the disfranchisement generally in the first place. With respect to par- ticular cases, they would be best noticed as they arose. Lord John went on to comment on Mr. A. Baring's argument— That gentleman had addressed himself to the question with his usual talent and ability, and with that extreme ingenuity which induced hint to balance things first on one side and then on another ; so that those gentlemen who were convinced by the first half of his speech, generally found the whole eff.'et of it destroyed by the last half. He had, in the first place, declared that the destruction of the rotten boroughs would introduce a perfect democracy into the country, under which the King's power would not he greater than that of the President of the United States; but he had no sooner given utterance to this idea, than he raised up another phantom of an aristocratical oligarchy, which was to bind down the Crown and depress the democracy, and produce effects the very opposite to those welch he had descriteel in the beginning of his speech, Accustomed as he was to listen to the arguments of the honourable gen- tleman with much pleasure, he confessed that he seldom listened to him with much conviction, because the working of his mind was so ingenious, that after be had twisted a question into everyshape possible, he very seldom came to conclusions properly deduced from his premises.

After a few words in explanation from Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord ALTHORP, the former put his proposition in the form of a motion for leaving out the word " each" in the first enactingclause of the 13111, by _which the grammatical structure of the clause would be rendered absurd.* Mr. KNIGHT wished to learn from Ministers, whether the test on which the decision of the Committee was to be founded was no- mination or population. Sir Edward Sligd:n had asked that question, and no answer had been ret owned. Ministers, aided by their pledged and unlistening majority, might hear the arguments of their opponents wih scorn, but surely the time would come when the people would ask why these arguments, if answerable, were not answered.

Was the speech of Sir Edward Sugden so inconclusive—so feeble—so full of fallacies, that there was no necessity to vouchsefe any answer to it, except that of Mr. SterCey ?—which was, in fact, the only answer it had received on the part of Government. Let, then, the country know, that the members of his Majesty's Government were either unable or un- willing to combat the arguments adduced in opposition to their measure; let, then, the country know, that they were unable or unwilling to argue a proposition of law and of morality, but that with silent scorn, they were ready, without reasoning. to carry every thing they chose by a ma- jority. If members on the -Opposition side of the House had not ree lieved them from some of the inconsistencies, follies, and incongruities, with which the Bill abounded, he had no doubt that it would have been sent by acclamation to the other House, a specimen of attempted legis- lation, such as had never before been seen.

Mr. Knight went on to say, that he represented a borough which was included in Schedule A; but he denied that Bishop's Castle was or ever had been a nomination borough. The electors con- sisted of all classes of the community: he had been elected by 190, and the whole electors were 390 ; and there had been as keen • The entire clause is—" That [each] of the borouchs enumerated in schedule A, to this Act annexed, shall cease, after the end of this present Parliament, tore,. turn any member or members to serve in Parliament,"

contests in the borough as in any borough in the kingdom. The test attempted to be supplied by the contributors to the direct ia.xes, Mr. Knight thought equally inapplicable.

Harwich was neither in Schedule A nor Schedule B, and it returned two members ; Helston was in Schedule B, yet their assessments were as nearly alike as possible. Petersfield was in Schedule A, and Malmesbury in Schedule B; yet the contribution to the Assessed Taxes made by Petersfield was in an enormous proportion, about one-third more than that of Malmesbury; yet Peterstield was totally disfranchised, and Malmesbury was to have one member.

Mr. Knight concluded by repeating the question, whether nomi- nation or population was to be considered as the test of disfran- chisement ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that population was. If he were asked the object, he would say, as he had said already—to destroy nomination, and to give to every 10/. householder in every borough a free and independent vote. The only exceptions to the rule laid down in schedule A, were Downton and St. Germains; there was no borough that contained less than 2,000 which was not in- cluded in it. Mr. Knight had accused Ministers of including and excluding boroughs according to their caprice. This was one of those imputations which it was the lot of official life to bear ; although he confessed that he had not yet been long enough in office to be callous to a charge which, in effect, touched the per- sonal honour of those against whom it was made. As to Sir Edward Sugden's speech, he thought that Mr. Stanley had not left a shred of the argument in it remaining. Mr. Knight had spoken of the Bill as repugnant to law and morality— Was it according to law that Peers should return members of Parlia- ment? Where was that law to be found ? Then as to morality : they all knew that the monied interest, as well as the ari•oocratical interest, found their usual avenue to the House. This lInding a way into the House by the usual avenue, meant that a certain number of potwallopiee elec- tors received from ten to twenty guineas a piece before they went to the busting?, and declared on their solemn oath before God, that no bribe nor promise had been made to them. And this—the constant practice under the present system—the honourable and learned gentleman called morality.

Ministers were not called on to answer arguments founded on such assumptions.

Mr. C. FERGUSON asked, if Earl Powis would allow Mr. K&ght to sit for Bishop's Castle, except on the condition of Iris -voting against the Bill ; and Mr. Knight declared his political opinions had nothing to do with his seat. Mr. HUNT spoke against the delusions propagated by the "beastly press." Ministers did not keep the press' in their pay, but they bribed it wills advedisenients. The Times bad cone up to the neck in defence of the Duke of Wellington, and now it went etp to the ears in defence of his opponents. Mr. B unt then went on to describ; a, Birmingham medal, which lie produced for the inspection of members. It lied been :;trueli, lie said, in comme- mention of the passing of the Bill. . One in gold had been sent to the Nine, one to Lord John Russell, one to the Lord Chancellor, and ens Earl Ci:ve. On one side of the medal vas " Patron, William the Folirtli. Earl Grey, Lord Brow Lain, Lord John Russell, and the People ;" motto, "Solos Populi Suprema Lex." On the other side, " Reform," in the centre; and radiating from it, " Reform, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales." Then there was, " the Church to be reformed, the tithes to be reformed, the Laws to be reformed, the Aristocracy to be reformed, the Borough mongers to be re- formed ; Corn-laws to he reformed, Slavery to be reformed, Sinecures to be reformed, the Bank Charter to be reformed, the India Charter to be reformed, the Colonies to be reformed, and the Currency to be reformed." Motto—" The rights of the people, commerce, trade, cheap bread, and bappiness." Mr. Hunt asked if Ministers were prepared to act on the motto of the medal, which he understood they had very graciously ac- cepted? On his argument being interrupted by some symptoms of impatience, lie threatened to move an adjournment—there were persons round him who had promised to second that motion when- ever he put it. He said the Bill would reduce the electors of Newark from 4400 to 300, and those of Preston from 7,000 to 900, and convert the one into a close borough for the use of the Duke of Newcastle, and the other for the use of the Earl of Derby. Still he would vote for the Bill, because he looked on it as a step to Reform.

The division was loudly called for when Mr. Hunt sat clown ; and after a few observations from Mr. CROKER on the nature of the motion, it took place. The numbers were 193 and 290—ma- jority for retaining the word proposed to be left out, 97. The House then resumed ; the Chairman reported progress, and ob- tained leave to sit again.

Last night, the Speaker was allowed to leave the chair without discussion. On the House going into Committee, Sir ANDREW AGISEW (Member for Wigtonshire) proposed his amendment for joining in groups of fours or fives the several boroughs in Schedule A, as is the case with the Scotch burghs, and giving a couple of members to each group. Mr. WEYLAND (member for Hindon) seconded the amendment.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON pointed out the absurdity of a motion by which disfranchisement was sought to be got rid of altogether, after the H ouse, by its decision on Thursday, had agreed to dis- franchisement. It was besides impracticable ; there were 20 of the 5 rboroughs in Schedule A, which together would furnish only 94 votes under the Bill.

Mr. HUDSON GURNEY spoke against absolute disfranchisement; Le said he would support the principle laid down in Schedule B, but not in Schedule A. He contended, notwithstanding the do- mination of the Benthamite and Westminster Review philoso-

phers, that the rotten borough members had been of as much ser- vice to tha state as they had been.

Lord ALTHORP said it was absolutely necessary that nomination boroughs should be entirely banished from the t institution. The only consequence of Sir Andrew Agnew's plan would be to place the retnr.i of a member in the hand of four or five borough pro• prietors hstoad of one.

Sir ANDaEw AGNEW, in defence of his pan, said it would ma- terially diminish the power of the proprietors of the boroughs in Schedule B.

Mr. C. W. S/VVNNE thought, if all e. a boneighs were to be disfranchised, the distinction betweet1 ':erlirles must be abolished. Woodstock was in 110 re-1 nomination borough than Mahnesbury. The Me\ i eifect of the Bill

would bete close many boron:11,s that vu • open ; and he much

doubled if tile I 1. voters of Knare,:: would prove purer than its borgnocholders.

Aldernmo VENABLES eulogized the P:1, inquired how it

happened !.hat none of the many plane ii- L.:Freed as substitutes for it had never been proposed before.

Sir JOHN MALcoem complained that Mi.tislers had hurried on

the elms:ire of Reform ; he saw no ne'reet why they might not

giant some delay, now that they wer-2 a majority. Sir John sp&-re with great indigna:ion of Sir Finneis Burdett's decla- ration (on the night of the second realine) that the Duke of Northumberland did not care a snap of his Ilegers for the people of En land—[Sir Francis said the people of Ledia, according to the

rep or: s] —and regretted that Sir Francis vets not present to hear his centradiction of so foul a libel. He deeirired his intention of supporting Sir Andrew Agnew's motion.

Ale S. WonTLEY ulsu supperled the met:(m. plan pro- posed hal the ana:oeies of the 'Welsh and Scotch boroughs, and also of Bessetiew and other places, to justiiy i• s adoption.

Lent Advocate JEFFREY thought. the prinelple of disfranchise- ment, being carried by a large majority of the House, eight not to he now disturbed.

It was impossible by the proposed plan to obtain a pure constituency. They might as well attempt to form a t•. hole man out of so many 'ingrown babies. VIt had been said, that if the proposed plea were adopted, oppo- site iltalCtlee5 might tend to neutralize cacti other. lie admitted this, but denied that the result of the conflict could ever be to represent truly and faithfully the interests of the people. No ilmtlit the extent of certain inihichees could be lessened, but the chars 7_ at thp imiticace would not be altered. Sir Andrew Agnew and otle•tes expressed a vast in theo veneration fur the ancient institutions of ; ;• c"•-ie : no man n Loess felt IL greater degree of veneration titutiuhs than Mr. Itffrey hint cif, and, far from 'attempt:I:, • cow or impair them,

.:: his object was to insure their eermanenee• e any defects which the lapse of time might have occasioned. ;••nt boroughs of the

C Juntry, so maily of which had fallen into s left out of the re-

pr.es,ae.a.thm from time to time, a:, they I i; • . :hill and population. But had the principle now proposed by Si;- e• • e.eew been applied of

joining th rev or four as one borough ? Ne-;• 1::s kind; they were

t of the representation by not heir : :• • • by the Crown to send members ; and had time same mos.lc ie• i . or suspending writs

been continued by tne•Crown, a similar cle might now be ;:lopted. But the Pill, i i the course au'. i.e • ...I, only followed the ancieet practice of the Constitution, while the pl.1!I proposed by Sir An- drew was the innovation. If such an innovation had been proposed on the Ministerial side, it would have been objected to as strange, unprece- den: etl, and fantastical.

Mr. CROKER said he hoped no more would be said about long speeches from the Opposition, after that of the Lord Advocate. They had now come to the fourth night of the Committee, and yet it appeared that the Lord Advocate did not know where they had got to. Mr. Croker went on to contend, filet neither of the two votes taken on Mr. Wynn and Sir Robert Peel's amendments de- cided the principle of disfranchisement, or precluded Sir Andrew Agnew from moving his. Sir Andrew hail asked Sir Robert Peel, who surely best knew what he himself Meant, if in voting against hint lie nets precluded from bringing forward the amendment now moved ; and was told that he was not. It was only now that the House was about to decide on the question ef total disfranchise- ment—for diSfranchisement it had decided, but it had not decided tshat kind. The plan was described as unprecedented and fantas- ticel ; and yet, in the Bill itself was found a precedent for it, in tile cases of Sandwich and Penryn. and in all the towns in Schedule C. The argument against nomination borouebs, Mr. Croker re- peated after Mr. Wynn, was good if the constituency were not to be changed ; but by changing the constituency, they would no longer be nomination boroughs. If this were not conceded, what became of the nomination boroughs in Schedule B, which must remain nomination boroughs still ? Mr. Croker went on to comment on Mr. Jeffrey's argument— The learned Lord talked of adding babe to babe to make a man, to illus- trate the absurdity of taking several small places to make one borough. He owned that he was at first surprised at such a metaphor as that of adding babe to babe, coming from one who was so complete a master of metaphors as the learned Lord; and the learned Lord must not wonder that so excellent a judge as he was in these matters should have so many eyes fixed on him in the use of them. He had listened to the learned Lord's use of the metaphor of the babes, and was at a loss to find the point of it, till he saw the foundation on which it rested ; and, looking at that, he was at once reminded of the massacre of the innocents. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Croker concluded by declaring his intention of voting for the amendment as a smaller evil than the Bill.

Mr, W. HARVEY remarked, that on the previous night Ministers were twitted because they did not answer their opponents, when in fact there was nothing to answer; to-night, when one gentleman

rose to enter on the question, he was taunted by all manner of un- worthy sarcasm.

What was the amendment, for objecting to which on the ground that the principle of the Bill had been already decided, the learned Lord had encountered so much of the right honourable gentleman's sarcasm ? It was one which went to the pHnciple of the Bill. What was the decision of last night ?—that Schedule A should stand, and that one or more bo- roughs should be included in it ; butthe present amendment would destroy Schedule A, for if you decide that there shall be this union, you decide against all disfranchisement. The principle c:f the Bill was:disfranchise- ment for the purpose of destroying the nomination boroughs, but how could any man grapple with this and not extinguish the principle of Sche- dule A by its adoption ?

Mr. Harvey admitted, that if the Bill were to be remodelled, there might be some clauses of it, as he thought, beneficially altered ; but the delay consequent on remodelling it would risk Reform altogether. He had his own views of Reform, and one of them was, that no place with less than a thousand voters should return a member ; but were he to move a resolution to effect such a purpose, he must very essentially alter the Bill. He would not move it, because he thought Ministers had enow of obstacles to overcome without being beset with those Of their friends.

Mr. A. BARING said, that .at least the amendment was not un- reasonable. It might be injuriotts, but there we s nothing in it to warrant the charge of its being brought forward to waste time. '

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that Sir Andrew Agnew could not fail to perceive that his amendment was supported by those only that were opposed to all Reform. Lord John said, he cer- tainly- understood Sir Robert Peel's motion of the previous night to have decided the question of disfranchisement. He did not im- pute the present motion to any wish to create unnecessary delay ; still it would materially alter the whole complexion of the Bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, the advantage tiiken of his declaration on Thursday was enough to deter him from any similar proceed- ing in future. What he proposed was, to take the opinion of the House on the question of disfranchisement generally, instead of taking it on every particular case.

He was not a strenuous supporter of the honourable Baronet's amend- ment; but when this alternative was offered him, he should follow the course pursued by all statesmen, and of two evils adopt the less one. ("Hear, hear ."') There was another line of conduct which he might adopt

that of leaving the House altogether; but that was not a course con- sistent with his duty as a member of Parliament ; and he should there- fore remain in his place and try to amend the Bill as much as possible.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he only alluded to the motion of Sir Robert because on Thursday it had been made so much of, and was then represented as of nor importance at all. Some further remarks were made by Mr. FRESHFIELD, Mr. STANLEY. Sir GEORGE CLERK, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS. Sir A. AGNEW stated in reply, that he voted for the se- cond reading in the expectation that his present motion weuld he complied with. The House then divided—for the amendment, a05 ; against it, 316; majority 111.

against Chairman, Mr. SPRING RICE, then read the name of the fii.st boroueh on the list, "Aldeburgh, Suffolk," and put the question that it should stand as part of the clause.

Mr. CROKER said he would not divide on Aldeburela or on any borough that came clearly within the line laid down by Ministers.

It was agreed that no other case should he taken, but that Appleby should stand first on the list for Tuesday. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he would then state the evidence on which Government had concluded that the population of Appleby fell short of 2,000. After some further conversation, very imperfectly heard,—in which it was understood Lord VALLETOIIT and Lord STORMONT were anxious to know what was meant by the word " borough,"— Mr. O'CONNELL rose and said— The question appeared to him to be this—was Aldeburgh a rotten bo- rough ? Did any man doubt that the Marquis of Hertford sent two mem- bers into the House for that borough ? Were the Committee, with this fact before them, to listen to special pleading. and nisi prizes manceuver- ing ? The people of England insisted on having Reform ; they had sent in an overwhelming majority, not of mock Reformers, but of real substan- tial Reformers, who would not allow a rotten borough to be compared with the mighty city of London, as had been done by Sir John Malcolm. The people insisted that the House of Commons should be reformed,— that it should no longer respond to the wishes of the aristocracy or an oligarchy. If Aldeburgh was a nomination borough, it ought to be dis- franchised. He was not disposed to inquire minutely respecting the limits of rotten boroughs. It was sufficient for him to know that they were places in which the right of legislating for the people of England was sold. If people in that House were not familiar with such matters, they would start with horror at selling of the privilege of making laws for life and death, and of levying taxes which were put into the pockets of the very men who levied them. The thing had become insufferable, and ought not to be borne for one hour longer. (Cheers.) Sir JOHN MALCOLIVI repeated, he would rather be member for Launceston than, if the newspapers told the truth, he would be in the situation of Alderman Thompson. (Long cheers from the Op- position followed this declaration.)

The question that Aldeburgh stand as part of the clause, was at length agreed to ; and the Chairman reported progress, and ob- tained leave to sit again on Tuesday.

2. THE WINE DUTIES. On Monday, Lord ALTHORP, in com- mittee on the Customs Acts, renewed the proposition made last session for a gradual assimilation of duties on all wines imported into the country. The proposition was—that the duties on Por- tuguese, Spanish, and Cape wines should be raised, the two first from 4s. 10d., and the last from 2s. 9d. to 5s. 6d. per gallon re- spectively, and that the duty on French wines should be lowered from M. 3d. to 5s. 6d. By the alteration, it is the expectation

of Government that an addition will be made to the revenue of at least 180,0001. Lord Althorp having restated the arguments, by which, on introducing I he Budget last session, he sought to justify the proposed equalization, concluded by moving a resolution, to the effect that from the 1st January 1834, the duty on Cape wines should be 5s. Gd. instead of 2s. 9d.

Mr. ROBINSON opposed the proposed equalization in toto. He contended that the last reduction of duty on French wines (in 1825) had not led to any increased expoet of English goods to France : on the contrary, they had declined, during the six years, from 1,124,0001. to 643,000/. while the imports had increased front 1,536,0001. to 3,159,000/. He contrasted with this statement the account of exports and imports in the Portuguese trade,—where the former amounted to 2,500,0001. while the latter only amounted to 500,0001. Mr. Robinson said he could see no reason why the drinkers of port and sherry should be taxed Sd. per gallon more, while the drinkers of champagne and burgundy were taxed Is. Od. per gallon less. He thought no further step should be taken in the proposed measure, 'anti' some guarantee of reciprocal advantage were obtained from the French Government. Mr. Robinson ridiculed the nation of putting in hazard the whole of our Newfoundland trade, which employs no less than 150 square- rigered [the reporters say square-ballt] vessels, and for which Portugal is the great market, merely to afihrd to the gentle- men of the club-houses an opportunity of drinking their wine 6d. a bottle cheaper. He concluded by calling on Lord Althorp to abandon this scheme, as lie had done other financial crudities.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON put Mr. Robinson in mind of a fact which he had contrived to lose sight of in setting forth the advan- tages of the Portuguese trade, —namely, the monopoly of the Oporto Wine Company, by means of which, the Portuguese con- trived, in the shape of an enhanced price of wine, to take from Great Brit ain a mueli larger sum than the amount of any nominal privileges which, under the Methuen treaty, or any subsequent treaty, it had been allowed to retain. The price of Portuguese wines was raised by that monopoly no less than 151. per tun. Mr. Thomson traced at length the history of the several negotiations and remon- strances which had taken place in the course of these negotiationS between this country and Portugal, the whole of which were very fully dwelt upon and explained in the discussion arising out of Lord Strang,ford's motion of the 28th of February last. The only pe- nalty that could he inflicted on England by Portugal in conse- quence of the proposed reduction of duty, Mr. Thomson observed, would be the prohibition of our woollens. Now, the value of woollens exported to Portugal last year, was 213,C00/., while the total value of woollens exported was 5,530,0001. ; so that Portugal. by excluding us altogether, could only affect the trade by about 34,- per cent. To the argument derived from the demand on Portugal for our salted fish, which was certainly great, the plain answer, Mr. Thomson said, was, that we competed suc- cessfully at the present moment with the fishers and fish-curers of other countries, and there was no doubt that we should continue to do so. If Portugal increased the duties on English fish— which would be an exceedingly unpopular tax—it must increase the duties on other fish in a similar degree. Mr. Thomson con- cluded by observing, that in France itself the absurdity of the exclusory system was now seen through ; and he read letters from some eminent wine-growers complaining of its effects. The pro- posed equalization would greatly strengthen the arguments and influence of such men, on whom we might safely rely for fighting our battles for the abolition of that system, and the extension of free trade, so advantageous to every nation that practised it.

Mr. Arrwoon pronounced the plan of Lord Althorp to be cir- cuitous and tortuous. It went to transfer the Cape wine trade wholly, and the Portugal wine trade partially, to France. It car- ried the wild theories of free trade farther than ever ; it imposed the same duty on an article worth 2s. and an article worth 6s.; thus affording a.bounty to the latter, while it prohibited the former; and the bounty was given to France, while the prohibition was passed against our own colonies. Sir JAMES GRAHAM commented on Mr. Attwood's description of a plan which was remarkable ihr its simplicity, and whose sole object had been stated at the outset to be the raising of a revenue of 180,000/. in the least objectionable manner. With regard to treaties of reciprocity with France, he thought much time had been lost in establishing such treaties in other instances, and to small purpose. If France were treated liberally and impartially in re- spect to the first product of its soil, it was reasonable to look for corresponding treatment in return. Sir James detailed the facts of the protection which the present low duties of Cape wine was supposed to have given to the manufacturers of it.

The present protection on Cape wine would expire in 1833, when, un- der the existing law, an increase of duty of id. on the gallon would take place. It was not, however, the intention of Government to impose the contemplated increase of 2s. 9d. until the year 183-1, thus allowing an ad- ditional year to the capitalists to withdraw their money from the trade. How had the Cape trade prospered under the present boasted protection ? In 1827, the importation of Cape wine amounted to 698,000 gallons ; in 1828, to 652,000 gallons; in 1829, to 579,000 gallons; and in 1830, to 537,000 gallons. Mr. HERRIES spoke against the resolution ; which he said Mr. Canning would have scouted. Mr. SADLER rose amidst great confusion. When he contrived at length to get a hearing, he contended that the resolution im- posed a tax of 150 per cent. on the poor man's cordial, while it took off 25 per cent, of the rich man's luxtiry. This applicabbn

crtheboasted principles of free trade went to iraposeTa dirty, of 40 per cent. on French, of 80 . per cent. on Portuguese; and 150 per cent. on Colonial wines. •

t Mr. HUNT strongly protested against Cape wine being a cordial for anybody. He never heard of an instance where a medical man had ordered, or a medical man recommended, such trash. Mr. SADLER declared, on the authority of " the first medical chemist in the empire," that Cape wine afforded alcohol of a su- perior quality to any wine imported. Mr. GOULBURN deprecated offending Portugal. Portugal, he declared, would not tamely submit to be treated as Lord Althorp proposed. Don Miguel might throw open the trade in fish. Lord ALTHORP observed, when gentlemen talked so much of Portugal as an old ally, and of its conduct towards England, they forgot thatbut a few weeks ago we were compelled to send a fleet of ships to Lisbon to procure redress for the injuries inflicted on British subjects by its government. Portugal might of course throw open the trade in fish—there was nothing to prevent it from doing so, whether the duties on wine were equalized or not.

The House then divided : for the resolution, 259 ; against it 157 ; majority, Ministerial, 102.

3. SIR A. B. KING'S COMPENSATION. A motion for granting to Sir Abraham Bradley King, late stationer to his Majesty in Ireland, the sum of 2,5001. per annum as compensation for relin- quishing his patent, was made by Mr. G. DAWSON on Monday. Mr. Dawson stated the history of the patent— This patent had been in Sir Abraham's family from l760 up to the present period. In 1829, when the Irish Estimates were referred to a Se- lect Committee, it was suggested that it would be advisable to get Sir A. B. King to surrender his patent. Sir A. B. King was examined, and the whole subject was fully investigated ; and the Committee, so far from imputing any thing like delinquency to him, recommended that a nego- tiation should be entered into with him for the purpose of inducing him to surrender his patent. Various Treasury minutes passed upon the sub. ject, in which the surrender of the patent was insisted on ; and, at length, it was determined that the Government should select some stationer of high eminence and great character, to meet some other stationer ap- .pointed by Sir A. B. King. A third person was called in, and in the end the three decided unanimously that 2,5001. per annum ought to be given as compensation, and they made an award to that effect. If this award had been made while the late Government were in office, Mr. Dawson had no hesitation in saying, that they would have felt it their duty to have confirmed it by a minute of the Treasury, and to have carried it into effect. He understood that it was meant to be contended that as the patent was held during the pleasure of the Crown only, Sir A. B. King had no right to compensation. If this doctrine were sanctioned by the House, it would he the first and only instance in which such a course had been pursued with regard to patent offices. He held in his hand a return of forty offices, all of them conferred by patents revocable at pleasure, but all the holders of which had received compensation on the abolition of their offices. There had been a saving of 10,0001. on a sum of 22,0001. since the new mode of supplying stationery had been adopted, but the previous excess was not owing to any misconduct of Sir A. B. King. Lord ALTHORP explained why no compensation ought to be given.

The right honourable gentleman had not stated—what he was informed was the fact—that that Committee which recommended the compensa- tion was not aware that the patent was a patent during pleasure. Mr. DAWSON.—" The patent was on the table."

Lord ALTHORP—The patent might have been upon the table, but he was told that the Committee, so far from being aware of the nature of it, considered it to be a patent for life. Finding this, Lord Althorp had at once given it as his opinion that the patent ought to be revoked. And when he found that so extravagant had been the expense under Sir A. B. King's administration of this office, that 10,0001. could be saved out of a sum of 22,0001., it did appear to him that the profits of that gentleman in his office, while he held it, must have been so enormous, that his was not a fit case for compensation. (Cheers.) As to the cases which the right honourable gentleman had quoted, he admitted them to be in point, but he could not consent to take them as his guide. He thought that what had been done in those cases had been improperly done. (Cheers.) Mr. SIBTHORP thought it would be an act of robbery to refuse the compensation.

Mr. R. GORDON confirmed Lord Althorp's statement, that the Committee were not aware the patent was revocable at pleasure. Mr. Gordon mentioned, among the abuses of the patent, that money was given in lieu of the stationery claimed : the State Cook got 24/. a year instead of his allowance.

Mr. LEFROY urged, that Sir Abraham must be a most respect- able character, as he was once Lord Mayor, and had been knighted by the late King.

Mr. O'CoNsram. said, Sir Abraham and his family had always moved in a respectable rank.

He appealed to honourable members if such a man, and those dependent on him, ought to be consigned to penury, without any delinquency being proved against him.

Mr. HUME commended his Majesty's Government for acting as they had done.

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON spoke in favour of the grant, on the ground that both parties ought to be bound by an arbitration mutually entered into.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE spoke strongly against the compensation, as neither justified by law nor equity. Mr. GOULBURN admitted that Sir Abraham had no legal claim, but thought that in equity the compensation ought to be allowed. The motion of Mr. Dawson was negatived by 103 to 45.

4. NEWTOWNBARRY MASSACRE: On Monday, Lord FARNHAM gave notice of a motion on this subject; which, after some conver- sation, was fixed for Wednesday. On Wednesday, in moving for certain papers, his Lordship stated that his only inducement was to show the exaggerated nature of the stories that had been circu- lated. He adverted to the terms " indiscriminate slaughter'.' and

" massacre WhiCh had been applied to it ; and noticed a hand- bill circulated at Wolverhampton and Birmingham, which gave the most libellous 'and abominable description of the occurrence. His•rordship said there was an organized conspiracy in Ireland to resist the payment of tithes, at the head of which was the Rev. Dr. Doyle ; and he read extracts from Dr. Doyle's letter to Mr. Spring Rice, in proof of the conspiracy, and of the Catholic Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin's connexion with it. His Lordship said Dr. Doyle was morally responsible for all the blood that had been shed at Newtownbarry. His Lordship then alluded to another Dr. Doyle, a distant relation of the Bishop, whom he also denounced

as a chief conspirator against tithes. Lord Farnham was. going on to remark on this person being appointed a magistrate, but abstained, on Lord PLUNKETT'S assurance that no such appoint- ment had taken place. He then proceeded to narrate the history of the Newtownbarry massacre ; concerning the facts of which there appears to be so much dispute in Newtownbarry itself, that no twelve men in the town and parish can agree:about them. Mr. M.Clinteck, he said, had resided in the parish for twenty-four years ; he had nine or ten children, and both he and they would have been starved, had not Lord Farnham's steward given him " some sheep of his flock " for nothing. Lord Farnham read a placard, headed " Reform : the Church in danger," which was given in the Irish papers at the time, and which, he said, had been carried through Newtownbarry market by ahoy hired by the son of Doyle, from whom the cattle had been seized. He defended the conduct of Captain Graham ; who, he said, was a man of the most humane disposition, who had property in several counties in Ireland, and had served in the Peninsular War. He described the slaughter in the seine terms in which it has been described by the evidence for the Yeo- manry, with some additions. He said that a Yeoman and a Yeo- man's son were killed, and several Yeomen wounded, by shots tired by the people ; that a number of Yeomen were knocked down by the stones thrown at them ; and that they only fired in their own defence, and no longer than their own defence required. . He was proceeding in this course, when the Lord CHANCELLOR suggested, that as the investigation of the Newlownbary affair was not yet concluded, the supreme court of the realm would do well not to discuss the merits of a case which was still pending before an inferior judicatory. Lord FARNHAM admitted, that in such a case it would be im- proper to continue the discussion with respect to the judicial part of the question ; but the other part—the conduct of the persons in the employ and under the control of Government—might still be considered. This part, accordingly—the right of the Magistrates to call out the Yeomanry, and the right of the Yeomanry to fire when ordered by the Magistrates—his Lordship went on to discuss, and having done so, he arrived at a conclusion which seems to touch on the judicial part,—namely, that the Magistrates and the Yeomanry at Newtownbarry had done nothing that was not fully warranted by the circumstances of the case. Finally, he moved for a copy of the evidence taken before Mr. Greene,. and also for a copy of the reports of the Chief Constable of Police and of the Inspector-General, touching the events of the 18th of June at Newtownbarry. Lord MELBOURNE made some strong observations on the very exceptionable nature of the motion. The first paper, he said, was a confidential report to the Irish Government ; it consisted of vo- luntary evidence, not taken on oath, nor before an authorized tri- bunal. The second paper was also confidential, and of necessity ex pane. A similar motion to that of Lord Farnham had been made in the House of Commons on the 30th ult. and withdrawn.

Lord FARNHAM, having listened to the reply of Lord Mel- bourne, begged to withdraw his motion also, and it was withdrawn accordingly.

5. KING LEOPOLD. The Marquis Of LONDONDERRY last night asked Earl Grey, if the King of Holland was understood to

be agreeable to the arrangements by which Prince Leopold had been raised to the throne of Belgium ; and if it was understood that his Highness was to continue to receive his British allowance

of 5 0,0 00/. a year, and to hold his colonelcy. Earl GREY promised that Government would give the House and the country every information when the proper time arrived; but declined entering on the subject at present. The income of Prince Leopold was settled by act of Parliament, and Ministers had no control over it.

6. PLURALITIES. Lord King last night presented a Bill, the object of which was to allow no clergyman to hold any living in conzmendwn, where the income of the living where he resided amounted to 500/. ; and where a living in commend= was held, to take from the clergyman the power of levying tithes to a greater amount than 5001.

The Bishop of LONDON thought the bill would lead to much litigation between parishes : he suggested that it would be best moved as an amendment to the Archbishop of Canterbury's bill on a similar subject. Lord KING stated, in reply, that no litigation could possibly en- sue, because it was provided that the mere tender of 5001. a year should prevent the clergyman from getting more. The Bishop of BRISTOL enforced the objections of the Bishop of London.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the bill'a direct attack on the Church. What was to become of the tithes that 'were not paid, if this bill were adopted ? ' Lord KING explained, that the bill was purely prospective. No one now holding two livings would be affected by it. The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

7. NORTHAMPTON ELECTION. On Monday, in presenting a petition, Lord CHANDOS complained that on the occasion of the late election the barracks at Northampton had been ap- propriated to the reception of the electors in the Govern- ment interest. Mr. TENNYSON admitted the irregularity, and stated that the Barrackmaster had been reprimanded for it. Sir HENRY HARDINGE thought this was an irregularity much more serious than any that had been practised by the late Administration ; but was reminded by Mr. V. SMITH, that the same accommodation had been given to the voters of Captain Winter and Sir Robert Gunning in 1818 and 1826. Mr. Ross denied that it was given in 1826—the voters in that year were lodged in the canteen; which, however, he admitted to be within the walls of the barracks. Mr. Ross added, th-at pensioners had been told, if they did not vote for the Government candidates, they would lose their pensions. Mr. SMITH said he had been asked that question, and he ans sered, as a matter of course, that Minis- ters could not deprive the parties of their pensions if they would, and would not if they could, let them vote for whom they liked. Mr. HUNT wished to settle the matter at once by calling the Bar- rackmaster to the bar ; but the Marquis of CHANDOS declared, that he would not be prevented from exercising his discretion by the member for Preston ; and as the Marquis's discretion prompted .him to do nothing, nothing was done.

8. NEW STREET FROM WATERLOO BRIDGE. The bill has been -recommitted, on the motion of Mr. W. HARVEY. Mr. Harvey ,complained thatthe Woods and Forests had 700,0001. per annum at their command, no part of which large sum was applied bona fide to the public service, but was at the devotion—subject only to the mere formal approbation of the House—of any jobber or spe- culator who called for it. The new street, he said, would cost at least 60,000/. ; which sum went almost exclusively to benefit the property on the line of the street, while the whole sum subscribed by those who held property in the neighbourhood was 4,5001. by the Duke of Bedford—the 12,000/. of the Marquis of Exeter was a mere illusion.

Lord D UNCANNON defended Lord Lowther, "whose absence from the House he regretted"—( Great cheers from all sides of the House)—from any charge of misappropriation of the funds under his peculiar management. Neither Lord Lowther nor himself had given the proprietors the least reason to believe that Government • would assist in carrying the new street beyond Long Acre.

Mr. WARBURTON said, if a company were formed to carry for ward the improvements to Tottenham Court Road, the mere brick and timber-duty would more than compensate Government.