NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Reform Bill is at last delivered from Sir CHARLESWETHERELL ; it passed the Commons on Wednesday, by a majority of 109. The third reading, on which the division usually takes place, by a mistake arising out of the gravity, physical and intellectual, of Sir JAMES SCARLETT, was carried sub szlentio. The more noticeable speeches of the week are those of Mr. MAcauLaY. Mr. CROKER, Mr. STANLEY, and Mr. JEFFREY. The Scotch Bill was read a second time last night: the majority in this case was 115, being a greater number by 21 than the whole minority.

Lord BROUGHAM'S great measure, the Bankruptcy Courts Bill, is progressing towards a speedy and triumphant conclusion. Two attempts have been made to delay it, but in vain. In a few weeks it will undoubtedly becomelaw. Mr. J. CAMPBELL has introduced his General Registry Bill; mother most important and useful measure. The debates, with the exception of those on the Reform Bill, have been very uninteresting. The wearisome subject of Portugal was resumed on Monday, but nothing new was the result.

Colonel EVANS has again brought forward the case of the DEA- CLES. We are rather surprised to find Lord ALTHORP resisting a committee of inquiry on this subject; it must be granted now or hereafter.

' Lord ALTHORP has satisfied Mr. Him, and Mr. CROKER—we believe there was no one else to satisfy—that the Duchess of KENT'S absence from the Coronation was not improper, by stating that the causes of her absence were deemed just and reasonable by his Majesty.

We are to have Belgium again on Monday, in the Commons and in the Lords!

1. THE REFORM BILL. At five o'clock on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the Bill. The Speaker put the question. The "ayes" answered, as did the "noes." Sir JAMES SCARLETT, who was selected by the Opposition to lead the debate, rose so slowly to open the discussion,, that he was pre- vented by the forms from doing more than dividing the House. The division took place at the moment when the members were beginning to assemble, and when there were only 171 present. The numbers were—for the third reading, 113 ; against it, 58 ; majority, 55. Considerable laughter was excited on the entrance of Sir Charles Wetherell some minutes after the division had been announced.

The third reading thus disposed of, it was necessary to take the debate on the question of the bill's passing, which, under ordinary circumstances, is a Mere formal matter.

As soon as the temporary confusion of the extraordinary set- tlement of the third reading had subsided, Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to move the following rider to the Bill: "And be it enacted, that if a dissolution of the present Parliament shall take place after the passing of this act, and before both Houses of Par- liament shall have voted addresses to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to issue his royal Proclamations as hereinbefore mentioned, in such case such persons only as would have been entitled to vote in the election of members to serve in a new Parliament in case this act had not been passed, shall be entitled to vote in such election, and the proceedings at all such elections shall be regulated and conducted in the same manner as if this act had not been passed ; but if a dissolution of the present Par- liament shall take place after both Houses of Parliament shall have voted such addresses as aforesaid, and before the last day of April, in the year 1832, in such case such persons only shall be entitled to vote in the elec- tion of members to serve in the new Parliament for any county, part, tiding, or division of a county, city, or borough, as would have been en- titled to be inserted in the respective lists of voters for the same directed to be made under this act, if the day of election had been the day for snaking out such respective lists ; and such persons shall be entitled to vote in such election, although they may not be registered according to 'the provisions of this act, any thing herein contained notwithstanding ; and the polling at such election for any county, or part, riding, or divi- sion of a county, may bn,continued for fifteen days, and the polling at such election for any city or borough may be continued for eight days, any thing herein contained notwithstanding."

Lord John explained, that this rider was meant to meet a possi- ble contingency, rather than for any practical purpose. It was hardly within the limits of probability that the case contemplated should occur.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the point of very great importance. Unless the Lords concurred with the Commons in addressing the King, this clause would neutralize the Bill. Again, if they did so concur, and a dissolution took place before the last day of April, any man who said he rented a 10/. house might come forward and vote without challenge or refusal.

Lord ALTHORP said, the difficulties conjured up by Sir Robert Peel could not well occur without others, for which neither clause nor bill could effectually provide. It was not easy to see, how, the Bill itself being agreed to, the two Houses of Parliament should differ as to the address. The difficulty respecting non-registered voters existed at present. If any voter came to vote whose right was doubtful, it could be questioned in the same way as doubtful votes were now questioned. It would be absurd, that in the event of the Bill's having passed and the report of the Commis- sioners having been agreed on, the same imperfect constituency should again send members to Parliament, merely because of certain technical forms respecting the register not having been completed.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke of the clause as "another and additional proof of the imperfect, imbecile, and chaotic, and ig- norant system on which Ministers proceeded." Lord Althorp wholly overlooked the possibility of the overseers' having some sinister Radical bias in favour of the Bill. He was assured, that in the event of a dissolution in the course of the next six months, there would occur scenes of danger and confusion which it was impossible to contemplate without dismay.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that the clause did not, nor could any clause, provide against every possible difficulty which legal subtilty might devise. In the event of the demise of the Crown,—an event which was at the present moment most remote, and which he trusted might long continue so,—there would be a period of six months, during which the House could deliberate on what measures would be required. With respect to the refusal of the Lords to concur in the address, it was so improbable a contin- gency, that he knew not how to provide for it. The votes would, of course, be scrutinized under the new Bill, as under the present law.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL—" The returning officer cannot do so under the present Bill."

Lord JOHN. RUSSELL—" Why not? The want of a register is no objection : there is no register of forty-shilling freeholders at present."

After a few more observations, from Mr. GOULBURN, WYNN, and Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, the clause was read a first, second, and third time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. J. LEE moved a proviso to the 22nd clause, to continue the rights of sons of freeholders who would otherwise have been en- titled to vote. It was carried.

Some verbal amendments were made in the body of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL offered a proviso, to give parties in whose favour costs were awarded by Election Committees, the power of recovering, in the same manner as directed by the act of the 9th Geo. IV. It was agreed to.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, agreeably to a suggestion of Mr. CROKER, offered a rider to Schedule D, adding Preston Quarter to Whitehaven and Workington.

These riders, provisoes, and amendments, being made and agreed to, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved "that this Bill do now pass," amidst loud cheers of the House and Gallery. The de- bate, which had been stopped on the third reading, commenced on this motion.

Sir JAMES SCARLET? spoke generally against the Bill. He considered it to be of a revolutionary tendency, and he regretted that nothing had fallen from the Ministry to convince him of the contrary. He eulogized the machinery of the present representa- tive system. He spoke of the freedom, splendour, and power, which Britain had enjoyed under it. He thought no republic could afford such a degree of individual liberty as Englishmen enjoyed. Sir James extended his praise to the system of corporations, by which, and other local institutions, he contended that the chief administration of the country was placed in the hands of the com- munity. After all the consideration he had given the case, he could not believe but that the experiment was a _hazardous one, and that if the Bill passed, it would endanger rodr.Most valuable institutions. At no period had the House of Cdinintaisbeen more pure ; therefore, at no time was a change in the repitsehtation less required. The House of Commons never was, and'never was in- tended to be, a perfect and independent representitive of the people : if it were made independent of the Crown and of the Lords, it would be a first step to a revolution and republic. Sir James strongly objected to the principles of the constitution being discussed by the people, as contradistinguished from their repre- sentatives, which he said the Bill had been ; lino such attempt had ever been made, even in France. He deprecated the reference to the voice of the people on every important measure; and instanced the Corn-laws and the Currency, as two eases in point, where it stvould have been most unwise to listen to the popular voice. He squoted Mr. Fox's observation on the formation of constitutions ; and observed, that the new constitution of the Bill had been formed on a very different plan, for it was completed in six weeks. ;jig James went on to object to several of the details of the Bill. He objected to the competency of the overseers of the poor to re- gister voters. For the lists, he said the farmers could not make them out without an attorney ; and thus in every parish in England, an attorney must be employed, at the parish expense, to find out the -voters and to stick them on the church-doors. The difficulties of the Overseers Sir James argued at great length. He also dwelt on the wrongs of the Sheriffs—of the barristers, and the paltry 'five guineas a day which they were to receive. He said the better way, in large towns, would have been to make them corporate towns, and to have made 101. householders freemen. He afterwards examined the qualification clause, as applying to Manchester on the one hand and Richmond (in Yorkshire) on the other. At the former town, and in similar instances, a 101. house was inhabited only by common workmen ; whereas in the latter, gentlemen of 1,5001. often occupied a 101. house.

Lord MORPETH particularly adverted to the alleged change in the opinions of the people in regard to the Bill. Of fatigue people had suffered much, from the conduct of the opposers of the Bill ; of disgust more; but of reaction there had not been one solitary instance.

Mr. PEMBERTON eulogized the present system of representation, by which, if a case of oppression occurred in respect to the poorest man, a hundred tongues would at once be raised in his vindication. He condemned the representative system which the Bill was to establish. Whatever might be the theoretical defects of the pre- sent constitution, he would rather take it with all its defects than scramble for another in the lottery of revolution. With regard to the excitement respecting the Bill, they had heard a great deal: they were told it would be most dangerous in consequence to re- ject the Bill. Mr. Pemberton contended, however, that they could not allay excitement by ministering to its cause, nor satisfy the demands of the people by surrendering every thing to them in the blind prodigality of terror. Mr. Pemberton con. eluded by declaring the satisfaction lie would feel, if the Bill passed, in having stood up in defence of the Crown and the People in the last House of Commons that met in England.

Lord NEWARK entered into a calculation to show that the com- plaint uttered in Committee by Sir Robert Peel, of the undue pre- ponderance which the Bill gave to the Northern over the Southern counties, was altogether unfounded ; and that, so far from any such undue preponderance existing, the Southern counties had at least seventeen members more than, according to the tests of property or population, they were entitled to. Lord Newark also noticed the argument about the representation of the Colonies ; and showed, by enumerating the members who generally advocated Colonial interests, that they had in the great majority of instances represented counties and large towns. -Sir JOHN MALCOLM entertained the House with a plan of In- dian representation, which he contended was much superior to that of Mr. Ilium The constituents, in Sir John's scheme, were to be the two thousand male proprietors of East India Stock, and the candidates persons who had resided at least twelve years in India.

• Mr. J. WILLIAMS ridiculed the notion of eulogizing the Consti- tution because of its most apparent defects. He defied the Op- position to cite a single instance in which any constitutional writer tad spoken of the representative system as excellent, for any other reason than because it reflected the opinions of the people. He quoted Mr. Pitt in proof that the supposed fixity of the sys- tem had no place but in the imaginations of the opponents of the Bill ; and called on them to point to any one period in which it was not in a state of change, or in which change was considered un- necessary. Mr. HAWKINS spoke of the press and its power, to which so Tamil had so falsely been attributed. The House had been told of the power of an abstract being called "a journal "—in other words, the power of the press. But how did the press differ from all other powers, which depend upon the number and obedi- ence of their subjects? The power of the press was the same as that of a popular orator, who, if he desired to lead a party, must adopt their opinions. The efficacy of the press consisted in its being a means of control in the hands of the people over their rulers. If so, then—if pub- lic opinion could control the representatives of Gatton and Old Sarum— why could it not control the representatives of Preston and Birmingham?

Mr. Hawkins contended, that the extension of the suffrage, so tar from controlling members, would bestow on them larger powers of discretion - eople, conscious of their enlarged freedom of election ;4-*,": • isposed to indulge their representative 'with more I ,A7.76r `3,`' tk‘'nd opinion.* He concluded by remind- * The Tim '11- "Mr. Hawkins dwelt on this point at considerable length ; Roth ranspired." We wish this gentleman would recol- lect the ruleic ects every man to stick to his part. If he had told us what " tr ritesses it, we could have pronounced on its novelty without his .,` t had not been touched before in the course of the debate,. ing the gentlemen who so earnestly deprecated any appeal to the House of Lords through their fears, of the frequent appeals to the same quarter through the medium of their interests. The one principle was at least as honourable as the other. Mr. A. BARING taunted Mr. Hawkins with producing a con- cocted speech, and with being a member for a close borough, while he directed his sarcasm at the owners and occupiers of close boroughs. Mr. Baring went on to speak of the complexity of the Bill—of the impropriety of entrusting the registry to the parish overseers—of the difficulty of finding seats for Ministers under the Bill—of the close boroughs which were still retained under the Bill, to favour Ministerial influence—of the exclusion of retiring, modest men, which the destruction of the close boroughs, and the ready admission of noisy demagogues, which the extension of the qualification would give rise to. He contended that all the ten- dencies of the Bill were democratic ; that a democracy might do very well for America, but not in England, where there were many poor and a few enormously rich ; it would only lead to a scramble for property, and an entire subversion of all the institutions in Church and State.

Sir HENRY BUNBURY reminded those members who talked so loudly of the prosperity of the country, of ifs alarming state no farther back than November last. He thought the conciliating of the middle classes, who were so deeply staked to the welfare of the country, was the best means of insuring its continued prospe. rity. The debate was adjourned, on the motion of Colonel Eva.:vs. On Wednesday, the debate was opened by Mr. STRUTT ; who noticed and replied to the arguments that talent and wealth would not find as ready access to the House after the Bill was passed as before.

Mr. BARING WALL contended that Government and the Bill were in the same predicament—the only assignable reason for en- tertaining either was, not that either was good, but that no better was to be had. He denied that the Bill would be final ; for when or how was the perfect satisfaction of the people to be ascertained ? and if not ascertainable, how could the Bill be final ? It had been said it would amalgamate all parties ; where was the proof of this ? It had, on the contrary, disgusted all the Moderate Re- formers of the kingdom, and joined them to the Conservative party. Mr. Wall contended, that the charge of interested mo- tives, made so boldly against the opponents of the Bill, applied equally to its supporters. The Dissenters had an interest in pass- ing the Bill ; so had the Catholics ; had official men, whose power depended on its passing, no interest in it ? Mr. Wall went on to observe, that the present system was eminently calculated for the middling classes ; that they had all the fruits of it ; the Excise and the Customs were theirs ; all the great prizes in the Law and in the Church were theirs. He mentioned a number of high law- officers, beginning with Sir Fletcher Norton, and ending with Sir James Scarlett, in proof of this. He mentioned as authorities for and against the Bill, the editor of the Times, Mr. Macaulay, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. Palgrave ; and con- cluded by stating that the Americans were very much against the- Reform Bill, and that, if passed, it would be the downfal of the British constitution.

Mr. VILLIERS spoke at great length and with great bitterness against the preamble of the Bill; which he said tended to bring the House into contempt, and not only to shake the credit of all its previous proceedings, but also to endanger the credit of the Bill itself, by representing the Commons as chosen contrary to law. He also spoke with much indignation of the division of counties clause; which would, he asserted, by placing the election of county members in the hands of one or two great families, bring county members into as much contempt as rotten borough members were now. He hoped that the House of Lords in its wisdom would re- medy the blunders of the Commons. [Mr. Villiers was vehemently cheered by the Opposition.] Mr. LABOUCHERE allowed that the Bill did not shut out the contest which might ensue between the people and the established institutions of the country; but he contended that the battle would be waged with much better chances of success, by rallying on the side of the latter the middle classes, who had so strong an interest in their preservation, and who in all societies had so great moral and intellectual weight. Colonel MABERLY denied that the Bill was democratic ; on the contrary, it was to all intents and purposes an aristocratic Bill. He proceeded to show this by an induction of particulars. As to the Bill's being final, it never was meant to be contended that it was final in any sense but one, namely, that, removing numerous sub- jects of solid grievance, it left little occasion for future demands of change. That the popular character of the Bill was favourable to‘ its permanence, was proved from the analogy of the United States of America ; where, in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia,. though the people might alter their constitutions every year if they chose, no change had occurred since they were settled in 1780. Mr. TREVOR considered Mr. Hume's motion respecting the Colonies as proof sufficient that the Bill was not expected to se-. cure the representation of all interests in the state. If Edmund. Burke were to reappear, and to behold the Bill and listen to its supporters, he would exclaim " Quos Deus volt perdere, prius de- mentat." Mr. WELLESLEY, after noticing some of the general arguments against the Bill, and more especially the groundless alarms pro pagated by its opponents respecting its probable effects on the -in- terests of the country, and the change of public opinion which these might have produced, though he was happy to say they had not,—went on to deprecate the plan of dividing the counties; the only part of the measure of which he could not entirely approve. He admitted that, in some counties, in which there was no division of interest, a division of the county might be made without diffi- culty ; but contended, that where there were two interests, there division was extremely difficult, and no impartiality could render it permanent. He mentioned Essex as an instance where a divi- sion might be easily effected; and Wilts as one where, if a divi- sion had been effected when he represented it only eighteen years before, the consequence at present must have been that the agri- cultural interest would have been represented by one member, and the other three members would have represented no interest at all. Mr. T. P. COURTENAY agreed with Mr. A. Baring respecting the democratic tendencies of the Bill. The representatives of the large towns would be so many vanes turning round blindly as im- pelled by the aura popula. He also would oppose the Bill, because it would add to the already dangerous power of the Dissenters, and shut out all but noisy demagogues from the House. Mr. MACAULAY spoke at length on the general merits of the Bill. To the charge of theorizing preferred by the Opposition against the supporters of the Bill, he replied— The very reverse was the fact ; facts and experience were the ground- work of the Bill, while hypothetical assertions were the only weapons in which its opponents had condescended to oppose it. For example, look at all their bugbear assumptions with respect to the dangers—democratic dangers—of enabling the inhabitants of a large town—Manchester to wit —to return their oven representatives. Were they not all in the very teeth of the facts and experience, for neglectine' which, those members opposite were so loud in charging Ministers ? Said these honourable members, no public man, whatever his pretensions, can have a chance, under the Bill, to represent a large town ; the representatives of the po- pulous towns will he chosen on exclusively local considerations. Nov, what said "facts and experience" on this point? Let Nottingham—let Leicester—let Chester answer the question. To come nearer home, was not the representation of the metropolis an illustration of the "facts and experience" doctrine?? (Loud cries of " Hear, hear!" from the Opposition benches.) He understood the cheer ; but he would repeat, that the me- tropolitan representation was a clear proof that non-resident public men had a chance in populous districts, and that local considerations were not the sole guide in these places. Did honourable members recollect the great men who, within all, or most of their recollections, had repre- sented Westminster and Southwark ? Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tier- ney, Sir Samuel Romilly—surely no mob-orator, no hustings-demagogue this defects, if. he had any, were the very opposite), and Mr. H. Thornton. On the doctrine of a reaction in the public feelings regarding the Bill, Mr. Macaulay observed that it was no new one—

Just before General Gascoyne's motion in the last Parliament, Sir Ro- bert Peel had declared and predicted the cooling of the public esteem in favour of the Bill • and yet what was the result ? The people having given vent to the first sentiment's of their joy, and having seen the mea- sure of Reform attended with success, they became calm and reposed, as it was natural to those who anticipated a triumph. After this, General Gascoyne's motion evinced to them their danger ; and again were they i roused, and they showed their sentiments in every possible manner. Again did they triumph gloriously as far as they were concerned, and as far as Reform depended upon their representatives. They placed the Bill in security, and again did they return to their repose. At this moment the people were, as they had been on the very eve of General Gascoyne's motion, waiting with anxious interest and resolution the result of the measure. Because they were not violent, they were again told that there was a reaction in the public mind. Those who thought that there could be any such reaction, were utterly ignorant of the public mind ; they were utterly unacquainted with the very nature of that people whom they aspired to govern. In expecting a reflux of the public sentiment, they were as infatuated or as ignorant as the rustic in Horace, who waited to cross the river until its waters should have flowed out and left dry its channel.

He followed up his argument of the hopelessness of that ex- pectation of change which the Anti-Reformers entertained— Reform had now become the first question that occupied the minds of all men. It was supported by great talent ; men of vast interest adhered to it. If he were asked to name any one instance in the history of the world, of a national feeling unanimous, strong, and persevering, he should name the feeling which had so long pervaded England in favour of Reform. The people of England had long been disposed to move in its favour upon the slightest impulse ; and he should as soon think of seeing them revert to the drowning of witches, or to the burning of heretics, as to find a reaction in favour of Old Sarum. It was as probable that the peo- ple should go back to their attachment to Thor or' Odin, as that they should revert to any attachment to the old system of representation. Re- volutions produced by the excitement of feeling might produce reactions, but the victories of reason once gained were gained for ever. The calm- ness of the people of England was not the calmness of indifference, it was the calmness of confident hope. He adverted to the call that had been made on the Lords to re- sist this measure, and the consequences which might-ensue from their listening to the call. The advice given by the opponents of the measure was, properly interpreted, this- " Proclaim to your countrymen that -you have no interest in common with them—you have no common sympathies with them—you are a dis- tinct race, and you can flourish but upon their distress, and be exalted only on their degradation. Say to the people that the corruption which disgusts them is your glory, and that the oppression against which their spirit is roused is indispensable to your authority—that your power rests not on your private possessions, or upon the habitual veneration of your -country, but upon that system which the people consider so fruitful of evil, and the source of every thing vile. Say tmthe people at-once, that you are identified with the baseness of the country, and with that base- ness you are resolved to stand or fall. Say to the people at once, that if they have a House 'of Peers,They must be content to put up with a mock House of Commons." This was the meaning of what the opponents of the Billexpeeted of the House of Peers. If the Lords valued the voice of example and experience, ,let them look to the long line of deserted -halls and desolate mansions of a certain quarter in a neighbouring capital. Frani those mansions and Castles of the aristocracy of Frante, -as proud and as powerful 'body of nobles as ever existed, were drivenforth to exileand to baggary,-to implore the charity of -hOstZe religions And of hostile nations. And why did such destruction fall upon them ? why were they swept away with such utter destruction ? why was their heri- tage given to strangers, and their palaces dismantled, but because they had no sympathy with the -people ? Because they reviled those who warned them of their danger when they might have been saved; and because they absolutely refused to make any concessions until. all concessions were too late. The names of Cavendish, Howard, Marlborough, and Derby, in the foremost ranks of Reform, afforded the strongest pledges that could be given that the Peers of Eng- land would reject the advice of injudicious and dangerous counsel- lors. But should they be unfortunately otherwise persuaded, let them not imagine, though they might defeat this Bill for the present, that they would enjoy any thing more than a short respite. Let this House, too. recollect, that they had privileges to preserve and property to defend. Let them dread to return to that state which they had witnessed on the close of the career of the lest Administration, who went out leaving every thing in confusion, and elle counties of England lighted up by the fires of the incendiaries. If such were the honors of the day of their flight from office, he would leave it to the imagination to contemplate what might he the alarm which would invade all ranks of society on their return to those seats which they had abdicated because they were incapable of com- pliance with the wishes of the enlighted part of the community ? Never had there been witnessed more marked unanimity throughout England since the day each British heart was handed to that of its fellow, when the vaunted Arniada sailed up the British: Channel ; or since, in our own times, the safety of our country had been menaced by the army of inva- sion collected by Bonaparte at Boulogne. If the efforts of the enemies of the Bill elsewhere were, as he could not imagine it possible they should be, successful, they would only have the melancholy triumph, he believed, of dragging down on their heads the ruins of society. In such a crisis, lie was at least gratified to reflect, this House had boldly placed itself in the van of the nation, and the cause it advocated ; and he was not without a very confident hope, that in that hour of trial, its virtue, wisdom, and energy, would be the happy means of the salvation of the nation. (Loud cheers ) Mr. CaoKaa began with a pointed personal allusion to Mr. Macaulay—

He could not fail to perceive, in the loud applaeses which followed the speech they had just heard, the opinion the House entertained, in common with himself', of the ability and eloquence of the highly-gifted honourable member, and also the corroboration of the rumour which had reached him, amongst others, that the honourable and eloquent member was about to be called to a high and distinguished situation in his Majesty's service, as the reward of his Parliamentary exertions in

behalf of the objects of his Majesty's present Government. He was also induced to believe that those cheers, coming from whence they did, might be taken as an indication that whatever had fallen from him, as to the course intended to be pursued by the King's Government, in the event of this Billbeing rejected in another place, might be received as from authority. He was glad, too, to find that the task from which Ministers themselves had shrunk—namely, that of school- ing that House, and telling the House of Lords, and his Majesty, what ought to be their answer to the appeal made to them in favour of Parlia- mentary Reform—had been assigned to an honourable gentleman, here- tofore only a practising barrister—(Symptenis of dissatiktuction on the 3H-. nisterial benches, and cries of " Oh, oh !")—whose talents, however, and eloquence, he was most ready to admit ; while he lamented his own want of power to cope with them. Mr. Croker went on to give an historical retrospect of the French Revolution, with a view to show that the -Peers of France had not, as was alleged, refused concessions, but had been too for- ward to make concessions, and-had fallen victims to their facility. He then proceeded to a long and minute criticism on the Bill, re- capitulating many of the objections formerly urged by himself and others in the Committee, and contending that the last copy of the Bill differed essentially from the first. He maintained, that front the regulation respecting polling, the expense of a contest would be ten times greater than under the present law. The expense of poll-clerks and booths would be immensely . increased ; and not- withstanding all that had been said of saving in travelling ex- penses, he felt assured that they would be doubled. He proceeded to demonstrate this fact, by adding to the necessary journey of the voters to the poll their journey to the county town for the purpose of witnessing the nomination, which would double the space at pre- sent travelled over. Having discussed the subject of expense at great length, Mr. Croker went on to the list of Commissioners, which he criticised with equal minuteness, beginning. with Chief 'Baron Abercromby, playing upon their names, and :jesting with their personal.peculiarities, and examining the qualifications 'of all of them nominatim. He next adverted to the barristers who were to revise the lists of voters, and the money that was to be paid -for their services. By the proposed division of the counties, by the separation of the Isle of Wight from Hampshire, and by that trumpery which we were now going to substitute for all that was venerable in our Constitution, we had created sixty-e/tght counties ; and to these sixty-eight counties, sixty -eight barristers were to be appointed annually to decide votes and try causes; ay, and these barristers were only to have five guineas a day. The noble Lord opposite was a little coy at first, and proposed only pounds; but then an amatory whisper for guineas was breathed by the honourable and learned member for Stafford, and the noble Lord said that guineas they should be. He would undertake to say, that another amatory whisper would'be heard from some other quarter, that these five guineas ought to be made ten, and then that they ought to be made fifteen, and then, peradventure, that they ought to be made twenty guineas, and twenty guineas they soon would be made, and twenty guineas they ought to be made. On one occasion, whilst he was in office, having a great many official documents to sign, he had determined to see how many of theist -he could sign on a long summer's day, foregoing his breakfast and dinner; and Ile found that, work as hard as he could he could not get through more than five or six thousand. Now the barrister must be able to re- gister the votes faster than he could sign his name, if he could get through -the task of registration in less than ten days. 'That being the case, these barristers would soon -be made permanent officers in their respective 'counties, with -salaries of -4001. or 5001. a year, and in course of time would become most important political functionaries. After pointing out the greataddition which, such appointments would make to. the influence of the Crown, he proceeded to contend that this Bill would overturn the

ancient constitution of the country. He was satisfied that if they passed the present Bill, and if the House of Lords should be intimidated into the adoption of it, the revolution would have commenced, and a republic would be near at hand. Let him not be understood to say, that a re- public could be established in this country—no such thing ; he only meant to say, that a republic would be attempted, and would fail. But in that failure what might happen,

,' Through what variety of untried being— Through what new scenes and changes might we pass !"

There might be blood, there might be plunder. (Loud cheere from the Opposition.) He believed that there would be both.

After observing, that the excitement of the people had been provoked by the call of the constituted authorities,—and that although reaction had not come, it was coming,—he complimented the Opposition on having done their duty, and expressed his con- viction that the House of Lords would also perform theirs, "in spite of the dangers with which weak-minded individuals were at- tempting to terrify them.- So far was he from saying to the House of Lords that by succumbing they would save themselves, that he would go so far as to say th atif they did succumb he should be opposed to a House of Lords. For what purpose was it that they had hitherto preserved that House ? for what purpose was it that they had attended its growth, and given to it the dearest pledges of their love and confidence ? Why was it that until the last few days every public man had looked up to a seat in it as the greatest triumph which he could achieve—as the greatest reward which could be tendered him for his services to his country ? Was it not because the House of Lords was looked upon as the conservative branch of the constitution, and as its surest protection against the madness of tempo- . rary violence, and the enthusiasm of reckless innovation ? He had been educated in the principles of the constitution, and had been taught to re- vere the House of Lords with the same distant respect which he paid to the Sovereign : he venerated the offices which the Peers of Parliament filled in right of their dignities, and the ancient hereditary honour with which they executed those offices. He would, therefore, say to their Lordships, Now or never must you make your stand." What, he would ask, was the use of the House of Lords ? Was it to register the edicts of the Commons, or to give a blind assent to their resolutions ? If it had a will of its own, and could differ from the Commons, when was the time for expressing that difference of opinion ? Was it only to arrive when they could differ with safety ? On the timber-duties, on the wine-duties, on a mere turnpike bill, the House of Commons allowed the House of Lords to throw out any bill of which they disapproved ; but it was not, forsooth, to allow the House of Lords such an exercise of its undoubted privileges when a question of important magnitude was brought before it—a question which divided the public mind more than any other ques- tion which had occurred in his day—a question on which public opinion was so nearly balanced, that out of 36,000 voters who polled at the last election, there was only a majority of 1,600 found in favour of it—a ques- tion on which the House of Commons was divided to an extent to which it had never been divided previously—a question on which the late Par- liament was divided in the proportion of 302 to 301, the unit by which the majority was gained being of a character on which, if this were the time, he had much-to say—a question on which the minority was still unexam- pled in amount, although they had been sent to their constituents with the King's name used against them—a question which was more impor- tant than any which had come before Parliament since the questions of the Revolution and of the Hanover succession.

Mr. Croker concluded by expressing a hope, that the Bill would be returned from the Lords modified so as to take from it all that was injurious, and his confidence that in that shape the people of England would cheerfully yield the same obedience to the House of Lords that they had declared themselves ready to pay to the House of Commons.

Mr. STANLEY said, the apology made by Mr. Croker for the smallness of his talents was a common trick of ambitious rheto- ricians, which did not surprise him ; but he was rather amused by its being followed up by an apology for the shrinking sensitiveness of his modesty. It might have been as well, while he was in this vein, to apologize, if he could, for the ingenuity by which he con- trived to pass by the real bearings of the question which he pro- fessed to discuss.

In dealing with the Bill, Mr. Croker had confined himself to cutting a few jokes on the names of the Commissioners, and to a few cavils on the petty details of the Bill. To one gentleman who was afflicted with the gout—to another gentleman who bore the homely name of Sheepshanks to the case of the borough of Downton—to the case of the borough of St. Germains—he had returned with the most unenviable pertinacity. All the points of the Bill touched on by Mr. Croker had been discussed over and over again in the Committee. At that stage he had not said a word upon them, but now— Mr. CROKER—" I reserved to myself the right of discussing these points on the third reading of the Bill." Mr. STANLEY did not know any process by which he could so construe the orders of the House, as to reserve to himself a right of discussing these points on the third reading of the Bill. But the fact was, that the Bill had been read a third time already; and it was sibw quite hopeless lot the right honourable Gentleman to carry any Amendment on the Bill, inasmuch as the only remaining question was, "thatthis Bill do now pus." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) In this dreadful state of the question, it was some satisfaction to seethe right honourable Gentleman, after all his pathetic declamation on the grave perils which at present surrounded the state, able to turn his attention to such light subjects as those which he had introduced into a discussion to which they did not be- long, and not unwilling to give the House a merry tune upon his fiddle, even though he stated that Rome was burning. If any stranger had walked into the House, and had listened to the two first hours of the right honourable Gentleman's speech, could he have imagined, from the comic _ststures and buoyant tones in which he delivered his speech, that he was discussing the last stage of a measure which he considered more import- ant even than the glorious revolution of 1688 ? After adverting to the argument of the increased expense,—for which he said there was not the slightest colour of foundationr and to the criticism on the Commissioners, to whom Mr. Croke, would willingly entrust his life and honour, while he Would not trust them with the task of dividing a county for political purposes (a pretty estimate of political honour),—Mr. Stanley went on nearly as follows—.

Mr. Croker had talked of changes, important changes, which had been introduced into the measure since it had first received the sanction of the public ; but how was that assertion sustained ? Was Schedule A. changed? Had Schedule B been altered ? Was not the franchise to be extended as at first proposed to the great towns, to which honourable gentlemen opposite would now concede the privilege, when they found that it was impossible any longer to withhold it ? In short, what one alteration had been made, which could in any degree affect the original merits of the Bill which had found favour and acceptance with the people of England when first mooted ? In proof of a change of opinion on their parts regarding the Bill, since the first commencement of the debates upon it, Mr. Croker had mentioned that there was only a majority of 1,600 in support of it out of 36,000 polled votes. That at least showed that immense exertions had been made to procure a nominal advantage on the side of the Anti-Reformers at the late elections, knowing as they did that great personal interests were involved in the result. But had he included the numbers that would have voted for Reform in all the large towns and important counties throughout the kingdom ? Could he for a moment doubt that the majority out of doors would be still greater in proportion than that which existed within the House ? Hini not the party been obliged to fly at the General Election, without a shadow of chance, from every popular hustings which they had ventured to contest ? And were there not at that moment but six county members out of the whele representation of England, who offered any opposition to the Bill ?

Mr. Stanley noticed Mr. Croker's statement, that if the Peers threw out the Bill, there would be no republic established in the country.

A republic there certainly would not be ; nor would there be even any attempt to establish one, for the people of England were not actuated by a republican spirit, nor did they foster republican principles. But when the right honourable gentleman demanded what was our security that we should not be carried to much more desperate lengths than any to which this Bill would commit them, he made answer—we had the same security which guaranteed the success of the Bill itself, the deep-rooted convic- tion, theindomitable energy, the resistless voice of public opinion through. out the country.

What then would ensue from its rejection ?- The result of their rejection of this Bill—if they did reject it, which he could not contemplate—would be a constant pressure on the Peers as a body. Instead of being venerated and esteemed as the safeguards and ornaments of the country, they would be regarded with aversion and dis- trust: no longer esteemed the patrons and benefactors of the poor, they would be looked upon as hard and oppressive task-masters, who wrested from the people a power which they had no right to enjoy, and assumed that which they were not entitled to claim.

The gentlemen of the Opposition talked of their great satisfac- tion from the part they had taken in these debates—

Whatever might happen,=and he trusted ere six months to see the Reform Bill the law of the land, cementing all ranks in peace and unity one with another, thus establishing the empire on a solid and permanent basis,—whatever might happen, the satisfaction of the right honourable gentleman at the part which he had performed could not be greater or more comfortable to the conscience than that of those who had brought forward this mighty and most salutary measure, in the bumble confi- dence that, by so doing, they were most effectually consolidating the liberties of the people.

The debate was again adjourned. Wednesday's debate was opened by Colonel SIBTHORP ; who repeated his expression of hostility to the Bill. Mr. CRAMPTON, the Irish Solicitor-General, spoke at consider- able length in its favour. With respect to the House of Peers, he said, if ever there was a bill on which they ought not to exercise even a severity of criticism, it was the Reform Bill. It should be viewed by them as a money bill, in which no alteration should be made. The two Houses had each their distinct and separate rights. In a question affecting the Peers alone, it was proper that the Peers only should interfere ; in a question in which the House of Commons was alone interested, it was equally proper that the Commons only should interfere. Mr. Crampton went on to ob- serve, that even if the Peers rejected the Bill, one great object of it might be obtained without their concurrence : the disfran- chisement of the boroughs in Schedule A, with a few exceptions. could be effected without legislation. The House of. Commons might address the Crown, in case of a dissolution, not to issue writs to the green mounds which had hitherto returned its majori- ties, and to send writs, instead, to large and populous towns. This they might do, although the Lords rejected the Bill ; which he admitted they had an undoubted right to do. After some remarks on the character of the voters of 'Milborne Port, which Mr. Cramptoarepresents, and a compliment to the Marquis of Angle- sea, whose nominee he acknowledged he was,—though he denied that the Marquis's influence was either derived corruptly, or im- properly or tyrannically exercised,—Mr. Crampton again contended that writs might, on an address of the Commons, be withheld from all such.places as were decayed—from all rotten and strictly no- mination boroughs. This was an opinion which was to be met by legal and constitutional arguments, not by cheers, or sneers, or gesticulation however comical, or declamation however fanciful. Mr. WYNNE said, he had deemed it impossible, in the present stage of so important a measure, that collateral matter of still greater importance should be introduced, until he- heard Mr. Crompton's speech. Before they proceeded a step farther, they ought to ascertain whether Ministers concurred in Mr. Crampton's doctrine : if they did, even the Reform Bill ought to be ad- journed, in order at once to determine if the Crown did or did not possess the power thus claimed for it. He did not deny that the House might address the Crown on any subject, right or wrong; but if the Crown had not the right, it could not exercise it; and if it had the right, no address was required. If the doctrine of Mr. Crampton were correct, the Crown might dissolve Parliament, and wholly alter its constitution previous to reassembling it. Mr. Wynne went on to cite the opinions of Coke, Wen, and Hamp- den, that if the Crown withheld a writ from any borough, that borough would, notivithstanding, have a right to elect a repre- sentative. This was the doctrine which had been embodied in a resolution of the House in the days of James the First. Mr. Wynne was going on to notice another argument of Mr. Cramp- ton, that the Lords should not too minutely criticise the Bill,— when Sir CHARLES WETHERELL rose to order; and, with the per- mission of Mr. WyNsrs, most readily conceded, proceeded to move that the debate be adjourned until the next day, in order that the point of privilege contended for by Mr. Cra:npton, should be clearly ascertained. The House had only the choice of two modes of proceeding,—either to suspend its proceedings altogether on this superfluous and unnecessary act of legislation (for superfluous and unnecessary would have been the labours of the Committee for some time past, if the Solicitor for Ireland was correct in his doctrine); or to vindicate itself from the intolerable insult and insufferable disgrace of the arrogant and untenable attack of the learned Solicitor for Ireland,—arrogantly and untenably supported, if supported it should be, by a no less illegal, arrogant, and unconstitu- tional Administration. The Ministers were involved in the statement of the learned Solicitor ; but if they should get up and disavow his doctrine as being illegal and unconstitutional, then he was content to go on with the debate. The Ministers were bound to state their opinion on this subject. They must either maintain or throw overboard the King's Soli- citor for Ireland. Let the House know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the King's Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for England, presumed to maintain the proposition of the member for Milborne Port? If they dared to maintain it, he would then move that the words of the honourable member be taken down, and that the fur- ther progress of the Bill be adjourned until this matter was settled.

Mr. CRAMPTON complained that Sir Charles Wetherell had misrepresented every word he had said. He never said the Lords had no right to criticise the Bill ; but that, in his opinion, they would do well to exercise that right with great caution and deli- cacy. He had never said that the Crown possessed the right of suspending writs ; but he said, and he still maintained, that the Crown and the Commons could do so, by common law. He had excepted from the exercise of this joint power the representation of Ireland and Scotland, which was regulated by the Union Acts, and of certain boroughs in England which also held their franchise by special statute. If, notwithstanding a suspension of the writ, a return were made, then the House could reject the member so returned. Such was his individual opinion of the doctrine which had occasioned so much uncalled for warmth.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL insisted that he had correctly stated Mr. Crampton's doctrine and its consequences. Lord ALTHORP denied that any gentleman was entitled, in Par- liamentary usage, to stop a debate until every opinion hazarded by gentlemen not of the Government, was expressly denied or con- curred in by Ministers. The Ministers could not be responsible for the private legal opinion of Mr. Crampton ; with whom they had held no communication on the subject. For his own part, he could not pronounce on the question as one of law ; but in so far as it was a constitutional question, he thought_ the opinion of the Irish Solicitor-General was unfounded.

Sir ROBERT PEEL advised Sir Charles Wetherell, now that the doctrine of the Solicitor-General had been disclaimed by the first Minister of the Crown in the House, to withdraw his motion. Of the doctrine he observed, that, according to it, the House of Com- mons held-its rights only by sufferance. The motion was withdrawn, and the debate proceeded. Mr. WYNN said, he had supported the second reading in hopes that the Bill would be greatly amended in Committee: that hope had been disappointed, and he felt, in consequence, compelled to vote against the passing of the Bill. He, at the same time, de- clared himself ready to support a Reform of a moderate and consti- tutional character.

Mr. ROBERT GRANT supported the Bill in an able speech, which he concluded with a word of advice to the Lords.

If the Peers would listen to a word of advice from him, he would tell them not to let menaces disturb the freedom of their judgment ; he would tell them to cast aside such motives in coming to a decision on this im- portant question ; he would tell them to execute their duty with forti- tude and courage. (Loud cheers from the Opposition, echoed from the Minis- terial benches.) He would Warn them to avoid all sorts of cowardice, but especially that worst, basest, and most abject cowardice, which drove men to do wrong from the fear of being thought afraid. (Loud cheers.) He could not for a moment doubt the decision which the House of Lords would pronounce on this Bill ; and his firm opinion was, that if the pre- sent question be honestly encountered by them, they would have no oc- casion to be afraid. (Cheers from the Ministerial, echoed from the Oppo- sition benches ) He trusted that the result of their decision would be, that the people would be led to the employment, not of material arms, but of more irresistible weapons—the arms which the constitution sup- plied them with—the weapons of truth, justice, and reason. The people would be amply grateful for such a concession as the Bill offered. But he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that in the decision of this great question they would not be satisfied with any thing short of pure, full, free, and unqualified justice. Lord VALLETORT denied that there had been any opportunity for the expression of the sober feeling of the country during the six months that the Bill had been before the House.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL thought the new system would be as anomalous as the old; and he referred to Caine, Tavistock, Horsham, and Melton, in proof of this. He replied to the charge of want of moderation urged against the opponents of the mea- sure in the House, by referring to the pamphlet What will the Lords do ? and to the Times newspaper, which had printed, " in large Roman capitals," an appeal to the soldiery to commit mutiny and treason. The Ministers, he went on to contend, were tinder the dominion of a despotic press, and their acts led to the worst species of terrorism—the terrorism which the press exercised. Sir Charles 'next adverted to the conduct of the French noblesse-in 1792, who, he contended, had destroyed themselves by their con- cessions,—and yet Mr. Macaulay would have the House of Peers to follow their example. After alluding to the fall of the Duke of Orleans, Sir Charles returned to the pamphlet What will the Lords do? which he criticised at great length ; and concluded by stating, that as he had opposed so he would continue to oppose the Bill from beginning to end. Lord ALTHORP replied to Sir Charles Wetherell, and to Mr. A. Baring's speech of the previous night, at considerable length. He went on to notice the question as connected with the Lords— It had been asserted that the consequences of this Bill must he destruc- tive to the existence of that branch of the Legislature. it had been said that there was no instance in the history of mankind of a purely popular assembly coexisting with a peerage and a monarchy. That was true —(Cheers from the Opposition)—but he believed it was true only because the experiment had never been tried, ant not because any rational man had ever thought that, if tried, it would not succeed. (Renewed cheers.) Something like it had been attempted in this country, and the effects ha been beneficial. They would be still more so, when the representa- tion of that House was more correctly a representation of the wealth and intelligence of the country ; and therefore he could not agree with the argument, that because that House was to be in future the real represen- tative of the people, it would therefore set about overturning all the in- stitutions of the country, which, in point of fact, existed only because the people were attached to them. The power of the House of Lords consisted, not in a physical force of its members, but in the attachment of the people ; it consisted in public opinion ; end when it was unsup- ported by public opinion, fall, he was afraid, it must. At present no one proposid to take from that House its share in legislation. Its influence depended, not only on its share of legislation, but cm the knowledge of the people of the advantages they derived from having one branch of the Legislature conservative and independent of popular commotion. The House of Lords was in no danger whilst it performed its duties ; and, therefore, if this Bill passed, there was no danger of that House losing the influence which it always had possessed, and which he trusted that it always would possess, in the government of this country. (Cheers.) He noticed the argument that republics were prone to rash wars and dishonourable peace ; which, he said, was best met by the history of ancient republics and the example of a modern republic the greatest that ever existed. There, the greater spread of knowledge and civilization, which tended everywhere to put down war, had amply shown itself in the peace which had been so long cherished. His Lordship returned to the question of the Peers, to consider the justice of the parallel attempted between them and the French Peerage. It must he evident to all who heard him, that the state of France pre- vious to the Revolution was as different to the state of England at the present moment as the state of one country could be from another. When Sir Charles Wetherell said that the Noblesse of France suffered because they gave way to popular clamour, and sacrificed their exclusive privileges, he should consider what those privileges were, and how dif- ferent they were from those of the Peerage of England. He should con- sider, that though undoubtedly at last they did give them up, the surren- der was not mane till long after the Revolution had commenced. The Re- volution began in the years 1789 and 1790, and the year 1792 was the only year to which Sir Charles had referred as the era of these sacrifices, There was, however, as much danger in resisting the demands of the people at a right period, as in granting them at a wrong one ; for resist- ance at an early stage to just demands excited indignation, and conces- sion to them at a late period gave rise to the contempt of the people. (Immense cheering.) Lord Alt horp proceeded to observe, that the constituency of the few nomination boroughs that remained would be so changed that they would be nomination boroughs no longer. He remarked on the eccentricity of Sir Charles Wetherell, who, while he con- gratulated the Ministerial members on being at length allowed to speak, instead of answering their speeches, travelled out of his way to criticise pamphlets and newspapers. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman must have known that for the quotations he had read to the House, the Government had no respon- sibility, because over those who used them it had no control. There had

been undoubtedly much talent and some warmth of expression displayed in the discussion, but not to a greater extent than it was natural to ex- pect upon a question of such great importance. They were now corning to the close of their discussions, and he would say, that for a question upon which party feeling ran so high, and in which such important inte- rests were involved, it had been discussed in that House with less of per- sonal violence than any other political question of equal magnitude. Some hard words had undoubtedly been used, but he thought as much on

the one side as on the other. On neither side did he think there was much reason to complain. But he would say for his own part, that if hard words had been used against his Majesty's Government, he was perfectly ready to forgive them, and he hoped that gentlemen on the other side would exercise the same forbearance. (Cheers.) The measure was one of such vast importance, whether viewed with a hostile or a favourable eye, that no man could avoid feeling warmly upon it. He had long felt it necessary to the best interests of the country that the state of th6 re- presentation should be deliberately considered with a view of rendering the practice more in conformity with the theory of the Constitution. He believed that this measure would effect that object. An attempt had been made to excite a belief that the effect of the measuie would be to de- stroy the influence which the land had always justly exercised in the State. He believed that apprehension, if it anywhere existed, to be purely chimerical. The framers of the Bill had indeed been accused of very different objects from other quarters : their object had been to see that the influence of the landed interest should be properly maintained, and he was satisfied that would be done by the increase of the number of county members. Whether those members should be returned by the whole county, or by divided portions of the county, would, in his mind, make very little difference. Feeling that to be the case—being convinced that the system of representation proposed by Government would, while it conferred that power and influence which was due to the large manufac- turing districts of the country, also give a proper share of weight to the landed interest—he had naturally been very eager for its success; and he felt greatly gratified that the Bill had now arrived at its last stage, and that tiro Iallours of that House with regard to it were about to finish Lord Althorp sat downlamidst loud and long-continued cheering. Sir ROBERT PEEL complained that they were still without any grave and solid exposition of the nature and extent of the evils v. hi c h the Bill was meant to remedy, as well as of the applicability a'the remedy it proposed. It had been asserted that the Bill was u sit of a democratic tendency, but it was mere assertion. If ever there was a change tending to increase democratic influence, the removal of every check by which it had been hitherto controlled Frost he looked on as welt.

The Bill now stood in the shape in which it had come out of the Corn- reittee. He and his friends had laboured to mitigate its evils, and had

faded ; and he must do the noble lords opposite the justice to say that ti cy also had laboured to mitigate its evils : they had tried to recede from Their weekly tenantcy. They knew the danger of it ; but there was an extrinsic power greater than any which they could exercise, which con- tealed them in the first stage. Here, then, they gave this uniform right ii.t.inting through the country to the occupiers of 101. houses, and by a ateartge perversion of reasoning they increased the popular influence v,, here it was most dangerous. In large towns, where large bodies of men c'.uld he easily collected—where their feelings could be easily excited- se.we the influence of the press was greatest—in those places where there r. the least necessity for the extension of the franchise, and the greatest danger—did they find out this class of weekly tenants, paying 3s. 10d. a week rent, and to these did they extend the franchise. But had they ever inquired in what estimation that class was held in .the towns, by those local administrators of the law who must know them well, and who in- Nnriably refused to take them in cases where householders paying annual rant of 101. by quarterly payments would be readily admitted ? In .,,,Incliester, so lightly did they hold this weekly tenure, that the Magis- teates invariably refused the security of persons who thus paid their rents. feet while the promoters of this Bill increased the democratic influence on one hand, they on the other removed those countervailing restraints by which popular will received a salutary check. They swept away cor- perrate rights. He would not enter into a defence of all those rights, but /au certainly were checks and restraints on the excess of popular feeling. P. was also to be considered, that besides this Bill before the House, there mere two others, which greatly changed the system of representation in two other parts of the Uuitcd Kingdom. Without saying whether the

stem of representation in Scotland was capable of being improved, he s

odd state, that such as it was, it was a salutary check on the violence of popular feeling for the last century. This was to be all changed. In Ireland too, the system of representation, on which were founded the security of property and of the Established Church, was also to be enanged. The influence of the Peerage in that House was also to be destroyed. He would not say to what length such influence ought to go; but he mentioned its removal, to show that while the popular influence Bras increased, in the same proportion the checks which it had heretofore exerted on its violence were removed.

After adverting to the doctrine thrown out by Mr. Crampton, Sir Robert went on to notice the popular argument-

He.attached the highest importance to peldie opinion, and would be disposed to make concessions to it even in cases of doubt and difficulty as

own opinion, where the matter did not involve a matter of the I:e-hest moment ; but he must contend, that unless the House was con- vinced that what the people desired was for toe national good, the fact tint they desired it ought not to induce them to concede it, for the mos ?anent they yielded them implicitly to the commands of the people, that moment they resigned their character and feactions as a deliberative body. lt`was easy to say that the people would not desire any thing that was mot for their own good ; and it was unpopular to deny it; but he did deny it. (Cheers.) If he saw that men in their individual capacities in private, who spent their days in consulting their own interests, were al- ways influenced by reason and not by passion and feeling—if he saw the gaMbler and the speculator take reason for their guide and not passion—if be saw that large bodies of men, acting together, were influenced by season only, and not by passion or prejudice, and that when heated and excited, they were the best judges of their own interests—then he might admit that a legislative body might not be wrong in yielding to the com- mands, on all occasions of their constituents; but when he saw that the reverse of all this Was the case, he must pause before he yielded to public feeling, solely because it was public feeling, and not founded on what he considered to be reason and justice.

After noticing the mgument derived from the anomalies of the present system,—which he contended was equally applicable to a issireditary king and a hereditary nobility, and which was besides pig by the anomalies of the proposed system,—Sir Robert reverted to. the argument from the wishes of the people— Popular opinion had been sufficiently demonstrated in favour of the rneasure to induce him to treat that opinion with the utmost respect, and to-consider maturely whether he wasjustified in opposing it. He regret- ted to say that his deliberate judgment was. against the.measure. He did not think that it would conduce to the permanent interests of the coun- try. On that ground, and that ground only, and not for the purpose of maintaining the interests of Peers or other persons, he felt himself bound to:oppose the wishes of the people. He hoped the people would reconsi- der their own wishes. Already there were indications throughout the country, and even in London, that the feeling in favour of the Bill was not quite so strong as it was. He would ask the people of England to-look at the example of France. Admitting to the fullest extent the right of the peOple to resist the Government or the exiled family, he would ask whe ther the changes which bad taken place in France had improved the secu- rity for liberty and property in that country ? How was it that every *week brought accounts of some movement in Paris. The National Guards were compelled to hold the implements of their trade in one hand, and the sword in the other. How slid this state of things arise ?—From having aume unsettled men's minds with respect t the Government.

Infine, differing with the people on this question, Sir Robert said he must submit to the penally which that difference of opinion w d subject him to. With reluctance he surrendered the hold which he had on the people's esteem: that was a penalty which they had a right to inflict; but they lat;Lno right or power to compel him to acquiesce in their error, for he tftliev.ed them to be in error. He would not be involved in the responsi- bility of the measure e and being, with others, a liferenter only in the admirable constitution which had hitherto secured the peace and happie mesa pf his country, he would not be instrumental to cutting:off the in- lettrita.nce of those who were to succeed him. (Laud and continued cheers.) 1.ord JOAN RUSSELL'S reply is thus briefly reported in the. Morning Herald; the other journals are even more imperfect. He denied that he was influenced in the smallest degree either by the diurnal press, or any of the pamphlets that had lately issued from the press. He referred to the conduct of the Lords when, after having re- jected the Catholic Bill, they were induced to pass it by the declaration of the noble Duke then at the head of the Government, that the peace of the country was endangered, and that he had rather sacrifice the remain- ing years of his life than witness two months of civil war in Ireland. The. Lords on that occasion revered the laurels which adorned the hero's brow, and blessed the olive-branch which he held in his hand ; and they had proved their wisdom by the salutary effects which its exercise had produced. He was confident that the Lords would never suffer the taunts of the enemies to the Reform Bill to sway their decisions ; and to their integrity and sagacity he was willing to commit the measure.

Mr. HUNT afterwards made an attempt to speak, and Alder- man WOOD to answer him : the one attacked, the other defended the Livery of London. The noise and impatience of the House became excessive, and the gallery was then cleared for a division. The numbers were—for the passing of the Bill, 345 ; against it, 236 ; majority for the Bill, 109.

The House adjourned at half-past five o'c'.ock on Thursday morning.

The Bill was carried up to the Lords on Thursday at five o'clock, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord ALTHORP, accompanied by about a hundred of the members, supporters of the Bill ; a crowd of members, chiefly opponents of the Bill, stood in the front of the Throne. The attendance of the Lords was unusually numerous. The Times gives a formal and florid description of the scene :- The Loan CHANCELLOR came to the bar with the usual formalities, and received "The Bill" from the hands of Lord John Russell.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in deliveringthe Bill to the Lord Chancellor, said in a firm and audible voice, "This, my Lord, is a Bill to amend the Re- presentation of the People in England and Wales, which the House of Commons have agreed to, and to which they desire the concurrence of your Lordships." These words were followed by a loud cry of "Hear, hear I" from the members of the House of Commons who had come up with the Bill ; and this unusual proceeding was met by a faint cry of " Order I" from some of the Lords.

Instead of retiring from the Bar, which is usual in such cases, the mem- bers of the House of Commons preserved their position at the Bar.

The Loan CHANCELLOR, holding the Bill in his hand, retraced his steps to the woolsack, and communicated to the House the nature of the mes- sage of the Commons. His Lordship, however, made the communication with unusual solemnity of tone and manner ; and the words of mere form and ceremony, which are repeated upon the bringing up of every bill, and which no one perhaps ever thought of listening to before, were, on this occasion, heard with breathless silence.

The Bill having been laid upon the table, a long pause ensued, in con- sequence of the absence of Earl Grey, who, however, shortly afterwards entered the House.

Earl GREY said—" My Lords, I was not present when the Bill for effect- ing a Reform in the Representation of the People was brought from the Commons. I beg, however, now to move that the Bill be read a first time. Having made this motion, it will be necessary to.fix a day for the second reading of the Bill ; and in doing this, I have no other wish than to consult the convenience of your Lordships. I think the second read- ing should not be taken sooner than Friday sennight, nor later than Mon- day sennight. It will perhaps suit the convenience of all parties if I fix the second reading for Monday sennight." ("Hear, hear !" from all parts of the House.) The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday sennight. Earl GREY—" If the second reading should be carried,—as I have every reason to hope it will be,-1 trust that there will be no objection to take the Committee with as little delay as possible." ("Rear, hear!" from all parte of the House.) The members of theHouse of Commons then retired from the bar.

2. SCOTCH REFORM BILL. Last night, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, the LORD ADVOCATE delivered a speech of great ability on the present state of the Scotch representative system. We can make room for only a few detached portions of if.

The whole of the constituency for the thirty counties of Scotland in- eluded, according to the present rule of voters, little more than 3,000 per- sons ; and from that number a deduction was to be made of,500 or 600 for voters counted twice over, in consequence of their holding a franchise in three or four different counties. The whole number of electors for the Scotch burghs, amounted to 1,440, averaging for the 66 boroughs of Scot- land, about 20 electors each. The whole constituency of Scotland, there- fore, was not so much as 5,000—probably not more than 4,500. The county qualification depended upon individuals holding a superiority over lands of which other parties were the proprietors, an illusory rent of a penny Scotch per quarter being paid as a rent to the superior. The dis- proportion between the number of voters and the real landed pro- prietors was enormous. In the county of Argyle, the whole num- ber of voters was 113, of whom 84 were not proprietors of the lands for which they voted, thus leaving only 31 landowners out of the 97,000 inhabitants of Argyle to elect the representative. In the county of Bute, the voters were 21 ; and 20 out of those 21 had no property what- ever in that county. At one election for that county, within the memory of man, when the day of election came, only one person qualified to vote attended, and that person was the sheriff. He read the writ to the meeting as sheriff; then lie constituted the meeting; then, having con- stituted the meeting., he called civet' the names, on the roll; then he answered to the names himself;- then he put the vote for a preses to the meeting ; then he elected himself preses; then he read over the minutes of the last meeting ; then he moved that they be confirmed; then he con- firmed them himself; then, last of all, he put the representation to the vote, and, being himself the whole meeting, made an unanimous return. (Great laughter.) In Caithness, the population was 30;000, the number of freeholders 42. Out of that number N had no property in the lands of which they held the superiority. In the county of Dumbarton, the popu- lation was 28A0. The enrolled voters were 71. Of this number 52 had noyroperty in their qualifications. The county of Inverness had a popu- lation of 90,000. The enrolled-voters were 88; of these 88, sa had no

iin'Operty in the county. • '

After noticing more generally the defects of the borough sys- tem, he went on to argue for the necessity of a change in both. We quote from the Chronicle.*

Looking back to the best part of the period since the Union, he certainly could not deny that the representatives of ScOtland had been all men re- markable for their respectability of character, their intelligence, and their willingness to promote the interests of their country. But—and Sir Ro- bert Peel referred to it as a matter of illustration the other.evening—the re- presentatives of Scotland, during the same period, had almost wholly, from the causes he had already described, been of the Court, rather than what is called the Country party, and always found supporting the Minis- ter, and swelling the ranks of his majority. It was not, however, their want of independence, however objectionable that might be, which formed the chief ground of complaint against the representatives for Scotland : it was their alienation from the people ; it was the absence of all opportunity of intercourse—the cutting off of all the tenures by which the elector should be connected with the elected, and through which their opinions on any subject of local interest could be brought to hear on the -discretion of these representatives. For full fifty years after the union with England, he admitted that Scotland exhibited no symptoms of na- tional feeling on any subject except religion ; and the want of an adequate representation excited no attention amongst its people ; but this was the result of a state of ignorance which the advantages of a rapidly increasing trade, and a more extended intercourse with other countries, have now so thoroughly dispelled, that there was now scarcely a man to be found in Scotland who was not in some degree imbued with the impression that they were entitled to have some portion of those privileges which they saw in possession Of the people of the other divisions of the empire. But it was not so much on the growing up of this spirit, as on the direction it had taken, that he rested an unanswer- able argument for that extension of rights contained in the Bill. If he wanted an argument of more than common weight beyond that of justice and principfe, it would be found in the growing urgency for Reform, which arose from the perfect knowledge of political rights, with a sense of the power to maintain them, which now pervades the great mass of the people of Scotland. Beyond all that, there had, however, been growing up for some time a spirit of dissatisfaction, not applying itself to the Go- vernment, but, if he might say so, apart from the .Government—a spirit producing opinions not in connexion with the aristocracy of the land —not going along with it, but apart from it—manifesting itself in times of quiet by indifference, and in times of disturbance by open hostility. He took it upon him to assert, that the demand for • Reform pervaded all classes, except those few privileged persons who monopolized its representation and the benefits which flowed from their monopoly ; and he believed most sincerely, that in no part of the empire were the people more sensible of the notion of their rights, or more de- termined to obtain them. The petitions from Scotland might enable the House to form some conception of the feelings of the people. Scotland had little better than two millions of inhabitants ; England and Ireland had two or three-and-twenty; and yet the petitions from Scotland in favour of Reform were more numerous than those received from all the rest of the empire put together. The feeling in favour of Reform was, indeed—and he spoke from his own knowledge—greater, deeper, severer, more settled, fixed and resolute, and indestructible among the great body of the intelligent and independent of the middle classes, than it was pos- sible, without an opportunity of studying their character, or viewing the traces of its existence and the circumstances attending them, for the 'House to conceive. And the reason of this was obvious. They saw the current of opinion flowing through all classes ; they knew the power which they possessed to give it effect ; and they were deeply sensible 'therefore of the necessity of Reform, because they saw the dangers of a serious concussion, in the event of the failure of their expectations, to be more alarming and more pregnant with mischief than those which might take place even in Birmingham or Manchester.

The Lord Advocate briefly alluded to the nature of the remedy which he proposed .• • He would at once set out by stating, that while any change must be for the better, the total abolition of all these abuses was the most desirable, and he was sure would prove the most satisfactory. He would then at once declare, that the object of the Bill was not to take away any part of the system, but to take down the whole of it—(Cheers from. the Opposition and Treasury Benches)—to take it down altogether, for the whole principle of it was bad. He gloried in making the avowal, that no shred or rag, no jot or tittle of it was to be left. (Cheers from both sides.) Who would venture to get up and gravely say that the holder of a bit of parchment— that one hundred and thirteen persons, of whom perhaps not two-thirds possessed any property, were to usurp the rights of one hundred thousand of their fellow-citizens ?—that magistrates, reelecting each other, should be allowed to stand between the Legislature and the wealth, the intelli- gence, and the industry of the community ?

He concluded by requesting the opponents of the Bill to wave the discussion of its details till the House went into Committee.

Mr. C. DOUGLAS opposed the measure in Coto, as an attack on the agricultural, and as giving an unfair and undue advantage to the manufacturing, interests of Scotland. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months. The amendment was seconded by Mr. RAMSAY'. Sir GEORGE WARRENDER frankly acknowledged his conversion. He had at one time stated that the people of Scotland cared no- thing about Reform; he now found he had done so incorrectly. He would endeavour to mend what he considered to be objection- able parts of the Bill when in Committee ; but to the measure as a whole, he would then give his cordial support. Mr. K. DOUGLAS said; that to oppose the second reading, was to .declare that no Reform was called for in Scotland; which he was not prepared to admit. At the same time, the Bill required great alterations.

Mr. R. FERGUSON, member for the Kirkaldy burghs, supported the Bill.

He denied that there was in Scotland any dislike of the lower towards the higher orders; the Scotch entertained, as they had always done, a -strong feeling of attachment towards their superiors. The spirit now raised in Scotland was not thatof a turbulent insubordination, but of a desire to obtain those political rights of which the mass of the people, notwithstanding their intelligence and industry, had hitherto been de- * The reporter of the Times says—"there were throughout the whole of this speech, many sentences of which we could not take a note, from being unable to interpret the strong broad Scotch accent in which the Lord Advocate spoke." It is amusing to listen to the criticism of a gentleman who talks thus learnedly of interpreting. an.accent, which happens to have about as much of the " broad Scotch" ZIA as Mr. O'Cormelfs ban

prived. The higher orders would always be able to keep up their proper influence in the country, but ttey must keep it up by kindness and good conduct ; the repellant system, on the contrary, was fraught with vexa- tion and mischief to those who had recourse to it. Their English and Irish brethren had long held out the hand of friendship to Scotland, on the score of her hospitality ; he trusted they would now be able to do so on the score of her constitutional liberty.

Colonel LINDSAY said, lie knew the sentiments of the county he represented, and must risk the penalty incurred by voting against them. He was decidedly opposed to the Bill, as unneces- sary, and, until very recently, as uncalled for by those whom it was assumed that it would benefit.

Mr. C. GRANT supported the Bill, on the principle that it was demanded by the people of Scotland, and that it was just and rea- sonable in itself.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said, the Bill would destroy the agricul- tural interest in Scotland ; he must therefore vote against it. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH observed, that the whole system of Scotch representation was one mass of evil, unchecked and unmi- tigated. Mr. STUART WORTLEY thought, that after the Reform in the representation, it was impossible to continue the Scotch representation as it was. Sir GEORGE MURRAY described it as a distinguishing feature ire the present electors of Scotland, that they were all independent— that they were not under the control of any oligarchy. He thought Reform would be more injurious in Scotland than in England. Lord ALTHORP, said a few words on the general principles of the Bill ; in the course of which he noticed the inconsistency of some- of its opponents, who, while they pretended to look with terror on its democratic tendencies, called aloud for an addition to the number of representatives for Scotland. The House divided : for the second reading, 209 ; against it 94 ; majority, 115. It was ordered to be committed for Monday. in the course of the evening, Lord ALTHORP observed, that he did not think the second reading of the Irish Bill would take place on Monday ; he would consult the convenience of the Irish members as to whether it should proceed pari passu with the Scotch Bill.

3. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL. On Tuesday, Lord LYNDHURST stated at length his objections to this bill. He no- ticed, first, the charges in the London petition against the Com- missioners; 1,1iieh, on the experience of Es three years' posses- sion of the Seals, he declared to be in every respect false and unfounded. The Seventy Commissioners were all persons of eminent skill and learning in their profession, and of characters and qualifications which might shed lustre on any station. In corro- boration of his experience of the Commissioners, he referred to the much more lengthened experience of Lord Eldon. If there were any doubts on the subject, the small number of appeals from- the judgment of the Commissioners would serve to remove them- He proceeded to comment on the two petitions presented against the Commissioners,—or rather on one of them, the petition of the merchants and bankers. He pronounced the first imputation in the petition, of diversity of the form of procedure and contradictions in the law of the Commissioners, to be absurd; the second charge, of their needlessly multiplying fees, to be most improbable; the objection of youth, he said, was unfounded—the youngest of the Commis- sioners was a member of the House of Commons, where he had greatly distinguished himself, and lie was thirty years of age at the time of his appointment. From its ministers, Lord Lyndhurst proceeded to the system. He observed that the Bankrupt business was extremely fluctuating: a system, therefore, which supplied at one period a large number of judges, which judges could, when not engaged in their judicial functions, fall back on their ordinary 'functions, was best suited to manage cases of bankruptcy. With respect to the expense of these Commissioners, it might be judged of by one fact—during a certain period of. the last year, there had been sixty commissions, the whole fees on which did not exceed one farthing in the pound l In case of insolvent estates, the Commissioners often refused fees, or accepted them only to hand. them over to the poor debtor. Lord Lyndhurst admitted that the system, notwithstanding the excellence of the judges, their perfect adaptation to the business they had to transact, and the smallness of their fees, was yet susceptible of improvement. He thought,. for business purely ministerial, a ministerial Commissioner should be appointed; he would also have three Commissioners to sit de die in diem to settle any question of doubt that might arise. He had postponed these alterations while in office, because it was in the country that reform was chiefly required, and he did not wish to begin at the wrong end. Lord Lyndhurst here went into a state- ment of the changes proposed. by Lord Brougham,—the appoint- ment of ten permanent Judges, and an equal number of subordi- nates, including two Registrars and Deputy Registrars, exclusive of thirty other officers, selected from the class of persons who- usually acted as special jurors at the Guildhall, the allowance to each of whom could not be less than 7501. or 8001.; all of which taken together would require a provision of at least 48,0001. a. year. There was besides, by such alterations, an increased pa- tronage- of at lewd fifty offices added to the Great Seal, at a time when the patronage of every other officer of Government was dirdinished. There was indeed the abolition of seventy places, but it was only the vacancies in these that were matter of pa- tronage—the fifty offices formed a capital for immediate distribu- tion. He went onto criticise the rest of Lord Brougham's Vaal& bankruptcy was sought to be set aside—the power to deny or to Lord Lordships

hundreds of thousands of pounds had been lost. The whole of the clamour against the proposed plan proceeded, he had aster- October, in the middle of the shooting-season.

connected with the Bankrupt Court, and one or two accountants altered. interested in the present system. In stating the expense of the Lord WHARNCLIFFE objected to vesting the property of the

proposed system at 48,000., Lord Lyndhurst had forgotten that game in the tenant of the land, except in cases of reservation.

the expense of the present system was at least 70,0001.

He would trouble their Lordships with a very few words respecting There was no reservation in nine-tenths of the land in England. the charge made against him by his noble friend, that he was increasing, Lord WESTMORELAND said, the bill was merely meant to abolish pension of the Lord Chancellor was taken very low, when it was made The bill was, after some more conversation, committed pro the same as that of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench ; the expenses forma, and ordered to be recommitted on Wednesday. of the latter judge being very little compared to those of the Chancellor, who was obliged to take an active part in the business of the state. Those 5. SPRING-GUNS BILL. This bill was committed on Monday. expenses were especially heavy on a man who, like himself, never saved On the suggestion of Lord CARNARYON, the licence of one magis- any thing. Perhaps it was in consideration of those expenses, and of the trate was substituted for the permission of two. The Lord

uncertain duration of the office, and because it left the holder at the same

time a title to support, that the Lord Chancellor had always in his gift several places with high salaries, which were mere sinecures, -and by of guns, the better : persons might be thus deterred from ventur- which he was enabled to provide for his family. One of those sinecures, ing into any specified enclosure, on the supposition that guns were worth about 9,0001. a year, had been given by Lord Chancellor Thurlow set there. He would have dispensed with any licence, but certain to a member of his own family, and one of the family still held it. That parties insisted on this in order to control the rash and improper it was a sinecure, would readily be acknowledged, since it had actually setting of these destructive machines.

been held by no less celebrated a person than Nell Gwynne. There were,

besides, the office of clerk of the Hanaper, and Several others, absolute 6. PORTUGAL. In one of his late speeches on Portugal, the

sinecures, which were always given to relations of persons holding the

Great Seal. Amongst those were the twenty-four Cnrsitors, some of Earl of Aberdeen stated that the French had endeavoured, while whom received 2,0001. a year, and the others from 1501. to 5001. a year. in the Tagus, to obtain a commercial treaty, by which they would There was thus the disposal of upwards of 20,0001. a year, which he had be placed on the same footing as England. Earl Grey contra- cut off for ever from the Great Seal. ( Much cheering.) The bill which dieted this. The Earl of ABERDEEN, on Monday, introduced the be proposed might be a bad one. The present system for carrying the subject again ; and read over and commented on what he described

bankruptcy laws into effect might he excellent. The merchants, bankers,

and traders of London might all be mistaken respecting their own in- as the articles of convention attempted, as well as those agreed terests. He might have introduced the bill without submitting it to any on, between Admiral Roussin and Viscount Santarem. The two competent persons to give an opinion on the subject, to suggest an im- clauses on which Lord Aberdeen founded his statement that the provement, or to detect a fault; and the whole measure might be French were endeavouring to supplant the English merchants at an example of imbecility and presumption. All that might be pos- Lisbon, and that the latter had been defended in these interests by sible. But it could not be true that he had introduced the measure Don 1VIiguel's Ministry, follow. •

for the sake of increasing his own patronage, at the very moment that he was cutting from his family the rich provision which they might have The proposition of the French Admiral ran thus—" Sur les reprisen.

found in those sinecures—when he was depriving himself of all means of tations de M. l'Amiral au sujet de la defaveur qtii frappe le commerce providing for them, except the retiring pension, which was less than half Francais a Lisbonne comparativement au commerce de I' rIngleterre, M. le the emoluments of the profession which he had exchanged for the Great Viscomte de Santarem a promis que dans le cas dun renouvellement de Seal. He would frankly confess, that whatever other faults he might have traite avec les pavilions changers, son Gouvernement strait dispose, et it supposed his noble friend could attribute to him, he was not prepared for s'engageait lui meme, a. mettre la France au rang des. nations le plus favo- the charge of designing to increase the patronage of his office and of him- risees.' The proposition of M. de Santarem in answer was—" Sur les re.

self personally, presentations de M. l'Amiral au sujet de la defaveur qui frappe le coin.

years, it was his opinion I hat the evils which Lord Brougham pro- nir des arrangemens de commerce, le Gouvernement Portugais est dispose posed to remedy did not exist. Great misconception, Lord Eldon it traiter sur cela d'une maniere avantageuse pour la France et recipro• said, had gone abroad about the expense of the system, and much quement pour le Portugal." exaggeration. After a long, and, from the low tone in which it Earl GREY said, his contradiction of Lord Aberdeen's former was pronounced, an unintelligible statement about the emoluments statement rested on the authority of the French Government. of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon concluded that the plan of Two notes had been transmitted to the Foreign Secretary, by Lord Brougham would cause delay, instead of removing it, and Viscount Santarem, in one of which it was stated that the French that it wouldincrease the Chancellor's patronage. He stated also were attempting to negotiate—"entamer des negotiations." No as an objection, that under the proposed plan, all the appointments notice of this fact had, however, been received, either from the would be to barristers, whereas at present attorneys could be ap- British Consul, or from any person interested in the Portuguese pointed as well ; and he had always, on the retirement of an at- trade, who must have been aware of any such attempt of the iorney, appointed an attorney to succeed him. He also thought French Admiral. There was anotherreason why these notes were ihat'Common lawyers were most unwisely preferred by the bill not thought of great importance. Although written for the

—the number of Judges in each court—the Court of Review—the to Equity lawyers. Under all the circumstances, he thought their substitution of the latter for the King's Bench in cases where a Lordships should not be in too great a hurry to pass the bill. said, the bill gave no preference to Common grant a trial for that purpose, &c. &c. Lord Lyndhurst concluded over Equity barristers ; at the same time, he must be a poor Cora- by suggesting to Lord Brougham to withdraw the measure alto- mon lawyer who was not fit for Bankruptcy business, nine-tenths gether, and to refer the whole law of debtor and creditor to a of which was directly connected with Common law. Select Committee of the House. Last night, Lord WYNFORD stated several objections to the bill, Lord BROUGHAM said, as Lord Lyndhurst had enumerated, he and moved as an amendment the omission of the clause which believed, all the possible objections to the Bill, lie would reply to creates a Court of Review. his speech rather than wait for other speeches, which might corn- Lord Wynford and the amendment being but very feebly plicate the answer he was prepared to give. He defended himself supported by the House, it dropped still-born. from the charge of lightly or inconsiderately seeking to change The Duke of WELLINGTON spoke of the case of Mr. Thurlow, the present system. He had consulted the most eminent of who, holding his office by patent, he thought was as much en- the Commissioners ; he had consulted solicitors and attorneys ; he titled to its emoluments as any man could be to his private pro• had questioned the merchants who signed the petitions ; and the perty. result of all the information thus obtained, and of all the criticism, Lord BROUGHAM said, Mr. Thurlow's interests would be strictly not sparingly applied, to which his plans had been subjected, he attended to ; and in no case would he recommend or support a now submitted to the House. With respect to the capacity of the stingy compensation where so great an improvement was at stake. Commissioners, Lord 13rmigham said, in the nature of things it The third reading was then fixed for Tuesday ; the report being must be more difficult to find seventy men of talent and industry fixed for Monday. than ten. He had found the greatest incapacity on one occasion ; 4. GAME BILL. On Monday, the Duke of RICHMOND, is and on inquiring who were the Commissioners, he discovered that moving the committal of the Game Bill, argued in support of the one of the list was an attorney, the other a young person not bill, chiefly from the tendency of the present laws to foster the called even to the bar, and that the other two were absent. The crimes which they professed to suppress. contractile and expansive power which Lord Lyndhurst admired, The Duke of WELLINGTON offered some special and some meant merely that there were more Commissioners than enough : general arguments against the bill. It made game property if seventy were equal to a hurricane of business, seventy were too hitherto the killing of game had been a property. The bill thus many for the calm of ordinary trade. The case cited by Lord established a new principle. Breaches of the law would be as Lyndhurst, of fees which amounted to only a farthing in the frequent after the bill passed as before—it facilitated the sale of pound, was worth nothing, for the person who furnished it had game more than many bills which the Lords had rejected. The admitted that his calculation was founded in an error. It was not general arguments against any bill to alter the Game-laws were correct to say that the rule of proceedings was the same in all the these : the killing of game forms the chief amusement of country lists. Every attorney knew that one list committed more bank-

rupts than all the rest, and that a person had one chance of justice causes a large expenditure of money—it creates a great deal of in one room and another in another. The examination of evidence employment—the gentry possess the exclusive right of killing was one of the most important duties of these Commissioners, and game in every country except France. The Duke concluded with yet he could name a score that were wholly incapable of it. Many two technical objections—the bill punishes killing of game with- of them were in fact boys taken from Westminster Hall the first out permission as a trespass only ; farmers killing game, where day they entered it. The official assignees, he looked on as the the right is reserved exclusively for their landlords, will escape this most valuable part of the plan. For want of some such safeguard, penalty, for they cannot be convicted of a trespass in going over

their own lands. The bill would come into operation on the 20th

tamed, from one or two trading assignees, two or three attorneys The Duke of RICHMOND said, the first of these clauses would be

CHANCELLOR thought the less publicity that attended the setting

Lord ELDON said, that having held the Seals for five and twenty merce Francais It Lisbonne, M. le Vicomte de Santarem, ayant fait des explications sur ce sujet, a declare que dans le cas de se traiter dans rave- purpose 'of engaging the interference of this country td prevent the carrying off of the Portuguese fleet, the English Government !Mew that the retention of his fleet depended entirely on Don • Miguel himself.

The French Admiral had stated to the Portuguese Government, that lie was willing, on his own responsibility, to restore these vessels, if the Portuguese Government would release from custody four hundred prisoners, whom the French Admiral would name. The French Admiral did not propose that these four hundred prisoners, all of whom he offered to name, should be set at liberty unconditionally ; but that before their release they should engage, on their parole, not to take part in any hos- tile expedition which might be directed against the existing Government of Portugal.

With respect to the convention of eight articles, to which Lord Aberdeen alluded, Lord Grey said he had never heard of it before. Of couese he knew of the firshconvention of fourteen articles- ., Lord ABERDEEN—" Twenty articles." Lord GREY went on. There were fourteen articles, and six additional articles, which contained, however, nothing of import- ance. He then read the extract from a dispatch from Lord Granville on which his contradiction rested, and added, that he had not the slightest doubt of Count Sebastiani's accuracy. The Duke Of WELLINGTON said, he had seen the convention founded by Lord Aberdeen a fortnight before ; and he still, as he did then, relied on its authority. Lord HOLLAND argued at considerable length on the improba- bility of the statement made by Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Wellington ; which, however, the discussion left where it was found. Neither party seems to have convinced the other.