Elebatr# antf Vrarraing1 in Vadiamtnt.

1. GLOVE TRADE. Colonel DAVIES brought forward on Tuesday motion on the Glove Trade, notwithstanding the earnest request of Lord Althorn that he would postpone it, in order that the House might go into committee on the Reform Bill. The Colonel said he grounded his motion for an inquiry on the following facts— There were 120 master glove-manufacturers in Worcester, whose average produce was hitherto 100 dozen per week. At present such was the diminution

the demand, that not one third of that amount Was manuflictured ; in other

'words, 3,0001. of weekly wages was taken out of the eirculai ion of Worcester, . and the workmen who were in the habit of receiving these wages were thrown for existence on the poor-rates. III 1&15 the weekly payments out of the poor- rates was 141., the assessment beiug 2s. 6;/.. in the pound ; at present, the weekly payments were 401., and the assessment ent 48. 6d.,—that s, the poor-rates since 1825 have nearly trebled. At present there were but 113 families in full em- ployment in the glove trade in Worcester; 465 partially employed, some of lam did not earn inure than 2s. fid. per week ; while there were 420, includ- ing 1,748 children, totally out of employment.

He went into some calculations to show the nature of the reciprocity. 'system as carried into effect between England and France— In 1825, the imports front France into this country amounted to 1,110,0001.; while the exports (exclusive of colonial produce) of British manufactures amounted to 241,0001. Io 1830, the imports had increased to 3,050,0001., while the exports only had increased to 448,6001.

He denied that the duties on the imported skins afforded any com- pensation for the suffering entailed by the free trade, but the contrary, for they had fidlen from 63,000/. to 20,000/.

Mr. PoutErr THOMSON stated the comparative amount of imported skins before and after the commencement of Mr. Huskissoies system, in order to show that a dimieution in the quantity of gloves manufac- tured could not have taken place— If they compared the imports of foreign kid skins—almost exclusively used in the manufacture of gloves—in the five years preceding the reduction of duty on gloves, with the imports in the last five years since the reduction,—that is, from 1820 to 1824 inclusive iii the former period, and front 1827 to 18:31 inclusive in the latter period,—they would find that the imports of skins in the latter were to -those of the former five years, as 3,679,000 to 2,600,326. The average quantity ,of gloves made out of 120 skins was 18 dozen. Taking that average as the basis Id their calculation, they would find that ;395,000 -dozen of groves had been xnanufitctured from foreign skins in the first five years referred to, which, with 203,000 dozen manufactured out of British skins, would give a total of 598,000 "dozen: while in the last five years, the numbers stood 352,000 dozen manufac- tured out of foreign skins, and 240,000 dozen manufactured from British skins, giving a total of 792,000 dozen gloves. This was fiir from confirming the gal- .lint Colonel's allegations, Ile could also prove, from papers in his possession, that zui increase ot employment to the amount of 109,000 pair of gloves on the average had taken place during the last five years.

He noticed the case of Yeovil, where it was said very great distress prevailed. It was singular, he said, that before the,penod of the reduc- tion of duty, Yeovil had but twenty-seven, now it had forty glove ma- aufiicturers ; and though, during the last ten years, the entire popula- tion of Somerset had increased only 13 per cent., that of Yeovil had increased twenty-seven per cent.* Mr. Thomson was inclined to at- tribute the distress there rather to the general use of Berlin than to the importation of French gloves.

Mr. ROBINSON thought the acknowledged distress a sufficient cause for inquiry. If the free trade principle must be acknowledged when it made against the poor glovers it ought to be acknowledged as respected the corn-trade ; yet he apprehended Government were not prepared to adopt it there.

Mr. Arrwoon condemned the practice of founding an argument ad- dressed to the House on documents not before it. The system of free trade, he contended, had been tried, and its worthlessness proved. America bad taken up our old principles when we laid them down ; and was flourishing in its manufactures and revenue in consequence, while we were failing in both.

Colonel TORRENS ridiculed the notion that our system was one of free trade; the restrictive system was, he believed, more severe at the present moment in England than in America. Free trade had nothing to do with the distresses of England, nor its opposite with the pros- perity of America. America owed its prosperity to cheap land and light taxation, and England owed its distress to dear corn and heavy taxation.

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN observed, that during the struggle that ended in 1814, provisions were often dearer and taxes were twenty or thirty millions greater: how happened it, then, that we were more prosperous then than we were now ?

Lord ALTHORP observed, that as Colonel Davies hadliven notice of .kiaintention to bring under the consideration of the House the prin- ciple of free trade, it would be most convenient to refer to that oppor- tunity any discussion of it. Touching the prosperity of American manufactures, he requested the notice of the House to the report of the Committee of Congress, in which it was said that the manufitc-

•

• Yeovla in 1821, 4,655; in 1831, 5,921. tures had attained prosperity, notwithstanding restriction, and not in consequence of it. 'What were the points to which, were a committee appointed, its inquiries were to be directed? Was it to examine into the propriety of revising the Custom-laws ? It was proved that the importation of raw material bad greatly increased ; and although there had been a good many gloves imported, they had not been numerous enough to countervail the increased manufacture which the augmented raw material must have caused.

Mr. BARING said, that the position of the glove and the riband-ma- nufacturers was such, that nothing but total prohibition would do ; 30, or 40, or .50 per cent. protection would be none at 11, mid that was the language of all sensible men in the trade. But a total prohibition was impossible, because in that case the smuggler would come in ; and should any additional protection be given, even 10 per cent., the smug- gler would even then come in.

Lord MivroN'denied that there was more distress now than towards the close of the late war.

Mr. WurrnouE observed, that prohibition would put an entire stop to all improvement in glove-making.

Mr. MORRISON said, the French and English glover bought their skins at the same market ; the French glover had latterly paid dearer for the manufacture of them than the English : it was therefore impos- sible, with a duty of four shillings per dozen, he could undersell the English glover. The importation of French gloves \MS favourable to the home maker ; it extended the taste, and with the taste the demand for kid gloves..

The causes of distress were these—the manufacture of Worcester consisted of beaver gives, but the wear of other kinds of leather gloves hatl been introduced, and this had diminished the demand for Worcester gloves ; and there was also the competition of Yeovil. It was, therefore, not ' French importation, but home competition, which occasioned the distress at Worcester. Then the ex- ports to Ametica had diminished to one quarter of their former amount. These were not the only causes. A general practice had been introduced of wearing the articles he had on—white cotton gives, manufactured in other places ; Bud he should lay himself open to the hostility of the members for Nottitmgiatn n Leicester if he dissuaded from the use of them. (A laufih.) It w is vch1 known that a change of ashion often threw thousands out of employ ; the pric- lice of wearing cotton gloves, the consumption of which was very great indeed, did much injury to the maintliwture of Worcester beaver gloves. If be stated the consumption at front 200,000 to 300,000 dozen, he should be below the mark.

He noticed a common error—it was imagined that whenever a par- ticular trade was dull, there must be a billing off in the consumption ; but the dulness might arise from another cause. When any combina- tion of circumstances led Men to anticipate a fall of wages or material, they kept their stocks short, and hence frequently ensued the very fall which was anticipated. At the present season, purchases had been in former years very large ; this year they were unusually small. The circumstances ‘vhich had produced the holding off in purchasers in the present instance, he was bound to state— When the Reform Bill was rejected by the other House, it had an immediate effect on trade. He was also bound to state, that since the division in the last mouth, there had been a great improvement, anti lie believed it was entirely oc- casioned by that circumstance. He had heard it stated uu all sides that there was reason to expect great improvement in trade, always assuming that the Re- form Bill passed. ( Cheers awl Ian:Ater.) Mr. SADLER considered the causes of distress during the late war to be the Berlin and Milan decrees. He believed that smuggling was carried on to an extent of which Ministers were not at all aware.

Mr. HUME begged members, when they instituted comparisons be- tween America and England, to recollect that the entire expenditure of America was not above one fifth part of the cost of the Army and Navy of England alone. The fact that the French had actually prohibited English gloves, was a pretty good proof that the French manufacturers could not compete with the English. He thought, however, a com- mittee ought to be granted ; it would allay irritation, by showing the workmen how utterly unfounded their facts and their arguments were.

After some farther conversation, the House divided : for the com- mittee, 168; against it, 223; majority, 65.

2. MR. PERCEVAL'S FAST SPEECH. MT. PERCEVAL complained, on Tuesday, that although, on his motion for a general fast, he had moved the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, a report of his speech, and the other particulars of the debate, had appeared in the Times, Morning Chronicle, and Morning Herald newspapers. He also complained that the speech had been reported in such a way as to turn it into complete ridicule ; and "he charged the individual, whoever he was, that made it, with direct and deliberate falsehood." Mr. Perm- ml particularized some instances of this direct and deliberate falsehood— In the commencement of that report, he was made to assign as his reason for enforcing the standing order against the presence of strangers during the debate, "that he would not allow the public to know the blasphemies that might be spoken in answer to his speech,—that the blasphemers, if any, in this House, might not be able to give publicity to their blasphemies." just so Now, there was so much of what he did really say in that part of the report, as to show that it was given by a person who was present on the occasion ; but it contained in it, at the same time, nothing of the true animus and spirit of the observations that he then made use of. What he really did say with regard to the point at the time, was, "that it would ill become him, after the attention, both patient and respectful, with which he had been listened to on a previous occasion, when bringing forward a similar motion, to impute to any honourable member in that House an intention to treat such a subject in a blasphemous or arelgions man- ner; but he added, that there were individuals out of that House, who, as on the previous occasion, would try to make his speech the subject of blasphemous animadversion, and some of his near friends and relatives hadobjected to has bringing forward the motion for that reason."

The other instance occurred towards the end of the report— He was represented as having said "that he was sincere, and that he was- arguing these truths inhis usual way, when he is under an influence." What he said.on that occasion simply was, that "upon any subject, when he enter- , tained strong feelings, he might be afraid that his speech would partake of the warmth of_fmling by which lie was influenced ; but that he was not in thepre- sent instance carried away by warmth or passion; that he but rarely trespassed. on the House ; and that he hadleea.mly induced_to .do_so on this occasiodby a strong sense of duty." He quoted a third ease of wilful misrepresentation— He was made to say, "Let the kings and priests be expelled, and all such mum- =en; be averted, unless you will listen to ow voice for a fast and In Initiation." He would assert that a grosser perversion could not possibly have been com- mitted by any intelligent man, of the sentiments that fell from arother, than that passage exhibited, and that it was altogether an entire falsiticat:on of what had been said by hint On that occasion. lir. Pereeval did Lot offer the true reading of this pas, age. He cone] tidied by nioving, that Air. Lawson, the printer of :he Times, should be called to the bar of the House on Thursday.

The motion was seconded by :dr. CtESSETT PELHAM'.

Mr. Hume: roan and avowed that he had taken notes of the debate, having ihiled hi his attempt to provent the exclusion of straneers. He wrote down as accurately as he could what :11r. Perceval said ; and, at

the chiee of the debate, he gave the notes he had taken to ne of the eemtleimei outside who attended on behalf of the press, to do what be pleased with them. lie did not see the reporter for the Tifi:es on the occasion ; if he bud; im_would as soon have given them to him as to another. Tito crime, if it were one, was entirely his. lir. Hume continued—

He maid aseure 3rr. Pereeval, thet he had no other desire lett to do him jostice and to tell tie: te'zitli. In doing what he had (lone, he lad mit com- initted a greater breach of the priviltges of that House than WM- every day

counnittof by the Jail:lice:that of their debates ; xvIdell were hi di: at contra- vention f a standing order of that Hotee—an order that be had over and over again endeavoured to get repealed. Again Ile wwild repeat, in reply to the com- plaint of :Air. ilerecval, as to the inaccuracy of his report of his speech, that he had attempted to give as faithful an account of it as he possibly could ; that it was not possible Lr Lin, unpractised as he was in sued a matter, to Mime a enember in full through a .speech that occupied nearly an hour tunl a half : but whenever a similar ::CeilS10/1 arose, in xyhich tiic ebo could thus fe:low 111C111- hers were excluded front the gallery, in older to prevent the publicatio., of their delems,—he would endeavour to supply a report of them, and perhaps mitre practice would make him a better hand at it. In that way, he should do what in him lay to prevent any member who should hereafter attempt it, from ex- cluding the public from a knowledge of the proceedings that tuck place in that House.

After adverting shortly to a recommendation which he had frequently given that the House should have reporters of its own, Mr. Hume concluded by repeating, that he was entirely responsible for the report complained of.

The SPEAKER interposed— The honourable inember, on an occasion when the public were excluded from the dein tes in that !rouse, had furnished a report of them to the public. and he had stated bie determination to do so again whenever a like occasion arose. The honouralde member must be aware, that the furnishing not only a report of a debate in that House, but the furnishing his own speech on the part of any honourable member, constituted a breach of the privileges of that House. He =eau to cast so hIllYitatiUll on the honourable member ; but he must say, that that holiuuralde inember laboured under a great mistake, a gross misconception, if he t■ir a neeneet imagined that the step which he had taken, and which he said he would take again, was not a complete breach of privilege of Parliament. The accuracy of the report had nothing to do with the question of privilege. Mither the honourable member or he must be entirely and completely ignorant of the privilege:: of that House,—the honourable member in supposing that he would be justified in publishing any speech that should be made in that House; or he in asserting that such a publication would constitute a gross breach of the privileges of that House.

Lord Afernoite concurred with the Speaker, that it was a breach of privilege to publish a debate, whether the breach was committed by a member or not. He at the same time counselled Mr. Perceval to with- draw his motion, as he had gained all that he possibly could by its being carried: He remarked on the practical departure from the pri- vilege in question which had taken place during the last fifty years, and observed that he did not think an attempt to enforce it generally would be now of any avail. As far as the newspaper in question was concerned, there was evidently no greater breach of privilege than in the publication of a debate under ordinary circumstances. If Mr. Perceval persevered in his motion, Lord Althorp said he would vote for it, but he hoped he would not persevere.

Colonel DAVIES advised the withdrawing of the motion ; and Mr. C. PELHAM corrected Lord Althorp's history of reporting, by stating that the practice commenced at the impeachment of Lord Strafford.

Mr. O'CONNELL ridiculed the notion of a breach of privilege by publishing the debates, when it was not uncommon for members to complain that their speeches had not been reported at sufficient length. He denied that on the occasion of Mr. Percevars motion there was the slightest reason why the usual custom of admitting strangers should be departed from—

His humble opiuion was, that if they once allowed the barrier between politi- cal and theological discussion to he broken down, there could be no stop put to the results that must inevitably follow; and he was therefore of opinion, that if ever an occasion had occurred where a breach of privilege was allowable, the present was that case; for if it was permitted that other subjects should go forth through the newspapers, why should not the country be informed on this head ?

Lord MILTON deprecated the light mention of the privileges of the House which was made by Mr. O'Connell. He admitted that the cu- riosity of the people was gratified by the publication of the debates, and he would be sorry it were denied gratification ; but there were occasions when the exclusion of the public might be imperatively called for— He would ask whether there might not be occasions when, not for the pur- poses of individuals, but to insure ne quid detrimenti respuldica cap eret, it would not be as well they should have the power of keeping their debates within them- selves?

Mr. ROBINSON- said he would vote against the motion, as one of bad precedent.

Mr. IVAammToN,avowed, that he, as well as Mr. Hume, had taken notes of the debate, and given them to a reporter.. He was well aware, that the giving any account of what had passed in- that House was a breach of privilege ; but he never was aware, and had still to learn, that notes taken by. a member was more exclusively a breach of privilege than those notes taken and published every day.. Mr., J. E. GORDON (the member - for Dundalk) replied to Mr. O'Connell. He thought if they would exclude religious topics from

the House, they should exclude Roman Catholics from it, as their reli- gious opinions were like to afford ground for religious controversy.

(Loud cries of" ! oh !") " He would say that the constitution of England stood upon the sole ground of the Protestant Bible." (Luau lauyhter. ) In reference to an allusion of Mr. O'Connell to the possi- ble exhibition of the Unknown Tongue in the House, if these religious discussions modelled, Air. Gordon began to taunt the Roman Catholics on the performance of certain parts of the service in Latin ; but the ohs and rills became so loud and tmiversal, that he sat down.

Lord JO:IN RUSSELL drew a distinction between connivance at die ordinary reporting of a speech, and permission to report it where :lite connivance WitS formally negatived by movieg the standing order. Sir Ronetce PEEL thought the avowal of mr. Hume and Mr. War- burton guve the case it very diircrent aspect from wlint it had previously borne. He there hire counselled Air. Pereeval to wit luiraw his motion ageinst the newepapers ; 1111(1 it would remain with the Hods,: to deal its own members, if they persevered in their offence.

Sir CHARLES WeroraeLl. spoke of the two members as guilty of a species of high treason.

Mr. Hi-NT exoressed himself favouroble to the exclusion of that re- porters. He never been so aecurately reported as on the present occasion. He was sure, if the st::nding order had been acted on in the ease Of the Reform Bill, the public ll-ould have been much better in- formed than they had been through the reporters.

Mr. expressed his intention of bringing the entire ease snider the consideratiou of the House at a. future day ; and said, he would in the interim attend to what laid been laid down so decidedly by the Speaker.

Mr. Wailetarrox expressed himself to the same effect.

Mr. PERCEVAL consented in consequence to withdraw his motes!.

a THE REFORM Bier. Colonel Davies 'e motion on Tuesday having renderel it impossible to proceed with the Committee on time Reform Bill. Imel eenoitesignilicd his intention of takieg the 'onnnittee un lifedtmeday. T.c.ad ST01:31ONT COMplitilled of want of !melee ; muiiil Mr. C !ION ER, \Ow declared that he had never opposed the Bill from factions motives, strongly deprecated Lord Althorp's proposal. It was, not- withstanding, vgreed to.

On the House going into Committee on Wednesday, Mr. D. G BERT Stated his intention of moviog an amendment taking away the friumbise from low lodging-house-keepers.

Lord JO:IN RUSSELL said be bad two amend ments,—one was to ren- der it necessary, for the exercise of the franchise, that occupiers of warehouses in boroughs should reside within seven miles of the bo- roughs to entitle them to vote ; the other was to assimilate comities of cities in respect of freeholds for life to other counties.

Clause 16th was agreed to. The 17th was postponed, we presmne until the hill regulating the boundaries of boroughs and the divisions of counties be introdueed.

A legal discussion took place on the 1Sth Clause (the 101. life free- hold clause), in which several members took a share. It was agreed to.

Clause 19th, with an explanatory amendment by Lord illthoip, was agreed to.

On Clause20th' Sir Roeenr HERON moved his amendment for leaving out the words which give a vote to 501. tenants at will. Sir Robert said, the chief object of the Bill was to get rid of nomination influence ; but the effect of the clause under consideration would be to convert small comities, or the divisions of counties, into a species of nomination boroughs. He had good reason to believe that tenants at will throughout the country were by no means desirous of having the franchise conferred upon them: they knew that it would expose them to the tyranny of their landlords.

Colonel Siernonr, Mr. A. TREVOR, and Mr. BENETT, spoke in favour of the clause; and Mr. C. FeacussoN in favour of the amend- ment.

Lord ALTHORP said he must give the amendment his direct negative. The clause, they well knew, was not in the original Bill; but a large majority of the House had supported it, and under these circumstances Ministers felt bound to adopt it.

Lord MILTON spoke against the clause. The effect of it would be to place the election of at least half of the members of the counties, indeed of all counties exclusively agricultural, not in the hands of in- dividuals, but of an oligarchy chiefly composed of the members of the bench of Quarter Sessions. The oligarchy would effect their purpose of confining the county representation to themselves by making the geneed tenure of these lands a tenant-at-will one. Their freehold and leasehold leases, as they fell in, would be converted into tenures at will, so as to give the landlord a control over the tenantry. In doing this, they would only be acting in obedience to the ordinary principles of human action, which led men to promote what they conceived their own interest and aggrandizement.

Sir ROBERT PEEL. supported the clause. A numerous constituency

was about to be created in towns, and it surely could not be said that 101. householders were more respectable than .501. agricultural tenants. The House divided on the clause: for it, 272; for the amendment, 32; majority, 240. •

Mr. BARING complained of the complexity of the county suffrage; and suggested instead, that a certain ratio of voters to population should be assumed, and that the persons who paid the greatest sums of as- sessed and other taxes should be the voters according to this ratio.

Lord Joliet RUSSELL observed, that this suggestion went to effect a much more radical change in the representation than the one contem- plated by his Majesty's Ministers, whose object was to amend, not to destroy the present system.

principle that the owners of borough property ought to have no concern with the election of agricultural members ; but in that case, the owners of agricultural property ought in fairness to have nothing to do with the election of borough members, who must be limited to the great towns, —for in the smaller the addition of surrounding districts in order to form a constituency, of necessity gave to the proprietors of those dis- tricts an influence in the election of the borough members.

C01011e1 DAVIES supported the amendment.

Mr. How. expressed his astonislunent to finda Reformer advocating such an amendment. If it should be carried here, or in another place, as it Ivas hinted that it would be, he Arould say to Ministers, reject the Bill at wive rather than pass it in such an objectionable shape. The adoptioe of such a proposition would create the greatesqdissatisfaction throughout the country.

LOI'd A LTHORP spoke against, and Sir ROBERT PEEL in favour of the amendment.

Sir ( ;!;oant; CLERK hoped the Lord Advocate would vote for the amendment, as it was strictly conformable to the principle of the Scotch Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE Said be should vote cordially in support of the original clause. The difference between the Scotch and English bills Ives easily explained : in England the right of town-freeholders to vote for coueties was an existing right ; in Scotland no such right did exist or ever had existed.

Sir G. CLERK said, that if he was not misinformed, the learned Lord possessed a vote in virtue of a superiority which he held over a street io Edinburgh ; and that he would no longer possess that vote after the passing of the Scotch Bill.

• The LORD ADVOCATE—" I believe I understand the nature of my qualification much better than the honourable Baronet does. My right of voting for the county depends upon no property within the borough of Edinburgh ; and I shall continue to possess that right so long as I continue to possess the property, notwithstanding the passing of the Scotch Bill."

The House then divided : for the original clause, 181; for the amend- ment, 91; majority for Ministers, 90.

Previous to the House going into committee on Thursday, some angry debate arose between Lord Ebrington and Sir Henry Hardinge. Alderman WAITHMAN, on a question put to Ministers—whether they intended to sit on Saturdays, as during the last discussion in the Re- form Committee—observed, that great dissatisfaction prevailed out of doors on account of the slow progress of the Reform Bill. He had as extensive a correspondence with his constituents and the people as any member of Parliament, and he understood that there was a stagna- tion of trade and a very general irritation in consequence of the state of suspense in which the people were kept ; and he was persuaded the peo- ple out of doors would not be satisfied if the Bill did not advance at a more rapid rate, and the Ministers did not use the best means to facilitate its progress.

Mr. CROKER protested, on behalf both of the Opposition and the Ministry, that no unnecessary delay had taken place in the Bill ; and told Alderman Waithman, that his knowledge on the subject had been acquired on the east side of Temple Bar.

Alderman WArritstax made repeated attempts to reply to Mr. Cro- ker' amidst cries of " Spoke !" and would probably have succeeded, had he not, in one instance, addressed the Speaker, with great earnest- ness, by the title of " My Lord Mayor,"—which slip raised a laugh that drowned whatever else he had to say.

Lord EBRINGTON said, he perfectly agreed with Alderman Waith- man. Great discontent existed out of doors because of the slow pro- gress of Reform in a House specially convoked for its discussion. The public saw with great dissatisfaction that much valuable time was wasted by the needless speches of the opponents of the Bill, and the artifices of delay nightly resorted to. So impressed was he with the conviction of the mischievous consequences out of doors of unnecessary delay, that, should the Bill not advance more rapidly than it had done, he would move that the House sit every Saturday, from twelve to six o'cloek, till it should have passed through its Committee stage.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE rose with great warmth to repel the imputa- tion on the Opposition- " What !" said Sir Henry, "are we already arrived at that period in which our proceedings are to be dictated to by the mob out of doors? Are we already arrived at the period when the House of Commons shall have no rule of its own, but must implicitly obey the dictates of the sections of London? ( Cheers front the Opposition.) I, for one, will never submit to be so dictated to. (Conti- nued cheers.) I know full well that Ministers can only hope to carry their Bill by the aid of the mob. ('No, no!') I say, yes; they court the mob: and the sections of Loudon, speaking through their organ, the noble Lord who has just sat down--"

Lord EBRINGTON.....•

" I rise, Sir, to repel with indignation the assertion of the right honourable and gallant General ( Vehement cheers from the Ministerial benches), in terms as positive as is consistent with the forms of this House. I declare his state- ment to be a misrepresentation—I presume unintentional—but still a misre- presentation of fact. (Continued cheering.) I distinctly stated, that I thought that a great waste of time and words was the result of the course pursued by ho- nourable gentlemen opposite, and that the country' felt justly dissatisfied with the unnecessary delay to the progress of the Reform Bill which was thereby oc- casioned. That statement I repeat ; and I repeat that I repel with indignation the assertion of the right honourable and gallant General, that I am the organ of a mob or section. I scorn the insinuation of being the organ of the sentiments or opinions of any man or party differing from my own. I stand here the represen- tative of a large and flourishing county, as independent in my opinions and in the expression of them as any man who hears inn. And I beg leave also to state, that these opinions are as honestly entertained, and as fearlessly avowed, as any ever entertained or expressed by the right honourable and gallant General."

(Loud cheers.) •

. Sir HENRY HARDINGE justified his argument that the suggested Sa- turday's sitting was of mob dictation. He alluded to the letters of Lord Althorp and Lord John Russell to Mr. Attwood of Birmingham, in justification of his charging Ministers with listening to the mob. Sir Henry went on-- " The noble Lord says he repels with indignation may statement. I know not what meaning the noble Lord attaches to his words but I tell him that if he re- pels with indignation what I may address to him, words, ready to meet him in any way and any place he pleases. ( Cheers, and cries of Chair I) I have only to add, that whenever I shall hear honourable members make out-of-door state- ments the rule of their conduct in this House, I will—recollecting the indignation of the noble Lord, or of any other noble lord—express my indignation ; and that I see no reason to retract a syllable or iota of what I have uttered." ( Cheers from the Opposition.) Lord EBRINGTON-- " The right honourable and gallant General stated that I was here the organ of the sections of London—that they spoke through me as their organ.' To that assertion I gave, and again give, a positive denial, a flat contradiction. No gentleman has a right to state what is unfounded in fact; far less when the as- sertion is calculated to convey an unjust insinuation. I repeat that the assertion of the right honourable and gallant General is perfectly unfounded in fact."

(Cheers.)

Mr. GOULBURN, Lord ALTHORP, and Sir GEORGE MURRAY said a few words on beat in debate, and the conversation dropped, and the House went into Committee.

The 24th Clause passed without remark, unless from Colonel Sin- THORP, who spoke of the reaction in Lincolnshire, and from Sir HENRY INGILBY, who likened the assertion of Colonel Sibthorp to the veracious averments of the celebrated Baron Munchausen.

The 25th Clause passed without remark.

On the 26th, Lord ALTHORP having moved the filling up of the blank with the 20th June, Mr. C. W. WYNNE repeated a suggestion made last session, of dividing the Bill after the 34th or 35th clause, and constituting- of it two bills,—one for the Reform, another for the Registry of Votes. The clause was passed.

On the 27th, Mr. HUNT moved, to substitute for the more complex suffrage, all householders paying taxes. Mr. CUTLAR PERGUSSON thought any fixed qualification, even 51. per annum, would be better than a fluctuating one.

Sir Ronewr Peer. objected to any unvarying standard of voting ; he wished the standard to be regulated by the circumstances of the bo- rough. In small towns, scot and lot voters were more respectable than persons having 10/. houses; and by extending the right in such cases to scot and lot, they would create a link to connect the lowest with the highest classes in society. In large towns, he thought Mr. Baring's plan of taking 4,000 or 5,000 of the highest rated persons as voters, the best and most simple. Sir Robert noticed, in the case of Tamworth, the difficulty of obtaining a correct account of the number of 10/. houses. The Town Clerk reckoned them at 202, the Churchwarden at 325; there were but 729 altogether. The Clerk had taken the poor- rate, the Churchwarden the church-rate as his guide. In another case, it was disputed whether a settlement had been gained by a party who claimed from having occupied a 10/. house : the examination occupied two days ; there were fourteen Magistrates, and seven declared for and seven against the settlement. Sir Robert argued from these in- stances, that the litigation under the Bill must of necessity be great and expensive.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL joined issue with Sir Robert Peel. If the suffrage were made low in small towns, the reform, far from being salu- tary, would be mischievous. Small boroughs, where the scot and lot franchise prevailed, were of all others the most corrupt. In several of them, the price for a vote from the lowest of labourers residing in pig- stye huts was some twenty or five-and-twenty shillings. It was essen- tial in such places that the suffrage should be dependent on something more than nominal. The link which Sir Robert wished to create, must be a link connecting not this lowest class of voters, who knew little and thought less of political :questions, but the middle class, which both understood and felt their importance, and who, if the lowest voters in small boroughs were let in, would be completely overwhelmed by their numbers. With respect to the difficulty and expense of adjudicating contested claims to voting, if any mode of getting rid of it could be devised, lie would most willingly adopt it. Rate would not suffice, for rating went on different principles in different places.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke of the odious oligarchical distinc- tion, which, admitting a man whose house was worth 10/. and excluding, a man whose house was not worth 10/., would necessarily introduce.

Sir ROBERT PEEL made some observations on the fund whence the expense of witnesses was to be defrayed; when Lord ATHORP recalled to the House the motion of Mr. Hunt, which remained undisposed of.

Mr. SADLER said, be had made calculations, and found that of the population of Great Britain, twenty millions would have no vote under the Bill. The House then divided; when there appeared, for Mr. Hunt's amendment, 11; against it, 290.

On the House resuming, there was a general call for adjournment; which, after an unsuccessful endeavour of Mr. E. DENISON to obtain a hearing, and a few words from Lord ALTHORP and Mr. CROKER, was acceded to.

Last night, Mr. E. Denison was heard in support of his amendment to limit the franchise to persons paying certain rates, instead of giving it to all who paid a certain rent.

Lord John Russell cited, as he had on a former occasion,the Nor- wich Poor Bill, to show that, in the working of the clause, none of that difficulty would occur which members were so much inclined to dread, and on which their proposed amendments chiefly hinged. Mr. W. Wynne spoke of the distinction between guardians of the poor and electors. He adhered to the opinion that the clause would be productive of much trouble and expense.

Lord Althorp observed, that those who conjured up so many difficul- ties did not seem to recollect, that there was no test with which, by a little ingenuity, the same or more might not be connected.

Sir Robert Peel recommended the valuation of property as rateable to the poor; or, if that were deemed unfit, the assessment to the county-rate might be assumed.

Lord John Russell observed that the poor-rate was too irregularly assessed to be available..

Lord Sandon observed, that the arguments against the irregularity of

poor-rates were not of much value : wherever there was any difference of political feeling, a reassessment would immediately take place. Mr. Freshfield offered an amendment, confining the franchise to 10/. tenanteies under the same landlord.

Mr. G. Vernon moved the insertion, after the word "landlord," of the words" rated to the relief of the poor, or, in places where there has been no sueh rate, to the county."

Sir Edward .Sugden argued at great length, that the 10/. clause would include all houses ; that it would lead to universal suffrage; that there was no means of preventing houses from being registered at 10/. what- ever was their value ; and that the clause of joint occupancy also would lead to endless multiplying of votes.

Lord Althorp said, the clause was properly described as important ; it was that by which he set greatest store. As to its including all louses, or extending the suffrage to universal suffrage, the amaver was plain—many houses were rated to poor-rates which were not worth RV., many houses were worth 10/. that were not rated to poor-rates. The fear of rents being misrepresented in order to fabricate votes, was groundless. Suppose a person went to the barrister and valued a 4/. house at 10/., the barrister would ask if he had paid poor-rates? " Yes." If, on inquiring whether he had paid the assessed taxes, he were answered " No," he must be a very different barrister from Sir Edward Sugden if he admitted his right to vote.

The House at length divided on the amendment : for the clause, 252; for the amendment, 184; tnajority, 68.

Mr. Davies Gilbert's amendment, of which previous notice had been given, was negatived without discussion. So was an amendment of Mr. Warburton, suggested by the National Union Council, for the omission of the words rendering payment of rates necessary.

Mr. Hunt's runendment, exempting persons not having a vote from taxes and militia services, was similarly disposed of. He then offered one exempting Preston from the operation of the Bill, which, he said, would cut down its 7,000 or 8,000 voters to as many hundreds.

Lord Althorp expressed his surprise at Mr. Hunt's tenderness about the Preston potwallopers, after his former scot and lot amendment, which would have been equally fatal to them.

Mr. Hunt—" I had not the slightest expectation that that amend- ment would be carried."

The House divided on the Preston preservation amendment for it, 5; against it, 206.

Mr. Mackinnon moved the amendment he had given notice of, re- stricting the suffrage to 15/. where the number of 10/. houses exceeded .500, and to 20/. where the 10/. houses exceeded 1,000.

After some conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, 'Mr. Mac- kinnon stating that lie would bring it forward in another shape.

The original clause (the 27th) was then agreed to, and the House reswned.

4. RUSSIAN LOAN. The question of the Russian loan was brought before the House of Lords on Thursday, by Lord WvNewin. After giving the history of the treaty of 1814, Lord Wynford went on to contend, that the separation of Belgium from Holland necessarily called for a cessation in the payment agreed on at their conjunction. He entered into a long and elaborate critique on the fifth article of the treaty, and the distinction between a king de facto and a king de jure, which its wording implied. He noticed the existence of this distinc- tion in our own history as early as the reign of Henry the Seventh ; its recognition in the release of Mr. Lawrens, the American President, after he had been committed to the Tower on a charge of high treason—which, owing allegiance to the sovereignty de facto of America, and not to the sovereignty de jure of England, it was granted he could not com- mit. From these facts, Lord Wynford argued, that though the King of Holland retained the sovereignty de fare over Belgium until he saw fit to acknowledge its independence, yet no longer holding the sovereignty de facto, the separation of the two states was to all practical purposes now complete ; that each could enter into alliances and make treaties for itself, independent of the other; and therefore no treaty made by third parties, when their interests and government were conjoined, and dependent on that conjunction, could be any longer binding, now that they were separate and distinct. If there had been any doubt as to the legality of the payments to Russia, Lord WYNFORD said, as they were made by virtue of an act of Parliament, the proper persons to whom it ought to have been submitted were the Twelve Judges : if the payments were continued on principles of equity, and not of strict law, the proper judges of the question of equity were the two Houses of Parliament. Lord WyNFortn concluded by a summary of the argu- ment of his speech—

There could be no doubt that the Belgic provinces had become independent. Holland had treated with them as a separate power; England, France, Rus- sia, and Prussia had held communications with a Minister styling himself the Plenipotentiary of the King of Belgium ; and Prince Leopold:had been ac- knowledged, in the speech from the 'Throne, as King of that country. These were facts which sufficiently proved the independence of Bel&ium; he should therefore move, "that the Judges be directed to attend this House, to answer the following question—Are the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury authorized by the 55th Geo. III., or by any other law, to issue any sum of money from the consolidated fund of Great Britain, or any public money, for the payment of any part of the principal or interest of the loan mentioned in such act, at any time after his Majesty the King of the Ne- therlands shall have ceased to exercise any sovereign authority in the Belgic provinces, and shall have treated with persons exercising the powers of Govern- ment therein; and after his Majesty shall have announced from the throne the conclusion of a treaty between his Majesty, in concurrence with the other Powers of Europe and the King of Belgium, and shall have appointed a minister to treat with the King of Belgium; and after the Ministers of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Prussia shall have treated with a minister announcing himself as the plenipotentiary of the King of Belgium ?"

Lord Briononam observed, that even on the admission that there were any precedents for submitting a case to the twelve or rather the fifteen judges, where no previous proceeding, judicial or legislative, had been instituted, he yet should doubt of the propriety of submitting such a question to them as Lord Wynford proposed. It was one thing to Interpret a statute, and another to apply the principles of inter-

national law to the interpretation of a treaty. If the question could be sent to the Admiralty Judges, there might be some specious reason for s

doing so ; but such a course had never been adopted, and it was not pro posed to be adopted now. After noticing two cases alluded to by Lord Wynford as justifying the reference he recommended,—neither of which, Lord Brougham contended, was in point,—the Chancellor ob- served on another difficulty attending the reference. It was contended that an Act of Parliament had been violated : there was of course a responsibility incurred for the violation somewhere, and there might be prosecution. Thus the Judges might be called on, after delivering a judgment on an act of Parliament and a Treaty, to hear the vhole case on more complete evidence, and to reverse the very decision which they had previously delivered. Having explained this and other inconveni- ences that might arise from such a reference, Lord Brougham went on to consider the treaty itself. He read the article which alluded to the payments compl i u7d of-

" Art. I. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands hereby engages to take upon himself a part of the capital and arrears of interest to the 1st of January 1816, of the Russian loan made in Holland, througlt tlw interveation of the house Of Hope and Cu. in Amsterdam, to the amount of *25,1100,000 ilorins, Dutch currency ; the annual interest of which sum, together with au annual payment for the liquidation of the same, as herein:tiler specified, shall he borne by and become a charge upon the kingdom of the Netherlands; and his Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland engages on his part to recommend to his Parliament to enable him to take upon b i a aa if an equal capital of the said Russian Lao, viz.-25,00000 of florins, Dutch taurency ; the annual interest of which sow, together with an annual payment fbr the liqui- dation of the same, as hereafter specified, IcL1I be borne by and become it charge upon the Government of his Brit:intik 3Iajesty."

He observed on the obligation's being not voluntarily or gratuitously undertaken, but for a distinct consideration : the question accordingly was not, as Lord Wynford pat it, whether a certain amount of saving could be made by the nation, but whether it could keep its money with- out losing its credit. Russia, before the treaty was entered into, had performed her part of the joint contract, by clearing an immense tract from the common enemy. The payment of two millions towards the erection of the Belgian fortresses, and of the moiety of the loan in discussion, was our part of it. For, according to this arrangement, we received from the King of Holland certain colonies, which we still held ; and we rescued Belgium from the grasp of France, as it was then termed. Russia, indeed, contracted to protect the integrity of Belgium; but it was from France, not from Belgium itself. Lord Brougham proceeded to criticise the words of the article 5th, " !-evered from the possession and sovereignty." He contended, that the addi- tion of sovereignty to posession wholly altered the complexion of the case. There could be no separation of the sovereignty but by recog- nition. He referred to decisions which bore him 011I DI this interpre- tation of the words. In !SOS, sixteen years after Hayti had veased to be in the possession of Fnmec, the Privy Council decided. that in the eye of time law of England, Hayti was still under the sovereigi:ty of that ccialtry—because, up to that period, no recognition of' its ind.,!:,,ndence

had taken place. Another ease of a similar kind had been docidc ,urd

Stowell. It was a question of piracy. Colombian cruiser Ii ,it taken a Spanish ship, WaS afterwards captured by in, a hrought into one of our ports for condemnation. The :Spanish nibus- sador put in a clahn for the property found on boara the 0,1oud,;urt cruiser, on the ground of piracy. Ile contended that Colombia was a part of Spain. Although there had been a sevenince of the volony de facto, Lord Stowell, because the sevenmee had never been recog- nized by Spain, ordered the goods to be given up to the Spanish Am- bassador. He cited a still snore marked case decided by the same judge. The question, therefore, came to this—the Belgian treaty had not been ratified by England until the payments in question were mnrile; it had not been ratified by Russia up to this moment. There was no recognition, and there was of consequence no severaece of so- vereignty. Ile asked, what would have been the consequence, had Ministers acted differently from what they had done ?

If, after having obtained the best a!':ice, they had acted in opposition to it, would they not have been told of th..,ir scandalous and gross breach of faith ? It would have been said, " This is all jealousy c.f Russia ; you are afraid of that great power—if it had been France, now, the money would have been paid im- mediately—you never can forgive Russia for the services which she has ren- dered to the common cause; if it had been the common enemy, you would at once have followed the opinion of the law officers, the constitutional law ad -

visers of the Crown ; hut because it is Russia' you will not pay ll'11:1t are bound to pay. You fling the opinion which you received behind the tire' and

act upon your own prejudices." Then anoble Lord, not far off from him,wouldhave designated the proceeding of Ministers as apiece of handy-work. He would have told them they ought never to have quibbled about the words contained within the four corners of the treaty, but should have, according to Grotius and Vaud, looked at the condition and views of the parties at the time the treaty was signed, and given a liberal and common-sense construction to it. Further it would have been remarked, that it was easy to account for the conduct of Ministers

in refusing to ply the money to Russia,—the treaty was none of theirs,—it was framed by far wiser and better men who had gone before them • and of whom they testified captious jealousy by giving a strict and irrational 'construction to the treaty, instead of an ample, rational, fair, honest, and manly one.

Lord Emeosr described the payment complained of as the most un- pardonable act that ever any Ministry had been guilty of. To hold that Belgium and Holland were not separated, after the recognition of the King of Belgium by the King of England, was a doctrine equally paltry and unfounded. There was no man such an idiot RS not to per- ceive that the payment of the Russian loan was contrary to time statute. He would bet his life, if he were fifty years younger, that not one of the fifteen Judges would give a contrary opinion.

Lord Wysnaaan professed himself unconvinced, but consented never- theless to withdraw his motion.

5. TREATY WITH BELGIUM. In answer to a question of' Sir RICHARD VYVYAN put on Wednesday night, Lord A LTHORP stated, that the treaty of the twenty-four articles had been ratified by England, France, and Belgium, and would be laid on the table of the House on the succeeding day. Under these circumstances, Sir Richard said he would postpone his motion respecting it until Tuesday next.

A copy of this treaty was laid before Parliament on Thursday,--in the Lords by Earl GREY, and in the Commons byLord PALMERSTON. The ratification by France and Englaad bears date 31st January.

Last night, Sir Richard Vman, after some remarks on the irregu.. larity of laying on the table a treaty which had been ratified by only three out of the six contracting parties, asked Lord Palmerston, whether he had any hopes that the other three powers, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, would ratify:the treaty; and whether, in case the King of Hol- land acceded to it, the same guarantee would be extended to him as bad been extended to the King of Belgium?

Lord Palmerston observed, that Sir Richard complained of an irre- gularity thaehad no existence. If he had inquired, he WORM have found that the treaty of Vienna was laid on the table although one of the Parties to it (_Spain) did not ratify it for two years after the others had ratified it. The present treaty, however, required no precedent : it bound the King of England fully and completely, and it was both re- gular and fitting that it should be submitted to Parliament. As to the ratifications of the other parties, who were distant, and with whom communications were not so easily maintained, he hoped they would soon arrive—the nearest the soonest. To the other question he would give no answer. He could not resolve what was yet future and con- tingent.

Mr. Robinson spoke of the treaty as unsatisfactory on the subject of the Russian Dutch loan.

Lord Palmerston said, under the construction of the treaty, the King of England could never be called on to pay the interest of the Russiao Dutch loan.

The conversation continued for some time, but nothing was elicited.

G. TII a EserimAres. Sir Roemer PEEL on Wednesdoyceiki the attention of Lord Althorp to a resolution passed some ymes by which in cases where the House met before Christmas, it was agreed that the annual estimates should be laid on the table before the lath of January.

Lord ALTrione,in reply, said that the meeting of Parliament before Christmas was not usual, and the estimates were not in consequence ready but they would be laid before the House at the earliest possible period.

7. POOR-LAWS. It may be recollected that in June last Lord Brougham mentioned that he had a plan in centemplation for the amendment of the Poor-laws. It appears he has not yet had time to arrange it sufficiently; but as a preliminary step to any such amend- ment, Ministers have sent Commissioners into various parts of the country, with a view to inquire into the practical working of the laws, which is very different in different parishes and counties. It is sup- posed that their report will be ready in time for the introduction of some general measure even during the present session. These facts were stated in a conversation between Lord BROUGHAM and Lord ELLENaonotrun on Thursday night. The appointment of Commis- sioners was also stated by Lord Aurnonr, in answer to a question of Mr. J. IVEYLAND, on Wednesday.

S. Lam TITRE COMMITTEE. The motion for adding the name of Lord Killeen to the Irish Tithe Committee was withdrawn, on Thursday, by Mr. OTONNELL,-011 the representation of Lord MIL- TON, that the Committee, although Catholics had been excluded from it, was yet in every way worthy of confidence, and that the motion might probably lead to expressions of opinion on each side which mem- bers making use of them might afterwards regret.

0. IRISH POSTAGE OF LETTERS ACTS. TWO resolutions were passed by a Committee of the House on Thursday,—the first, declaring the pro- priety of a penny post in Ireland; the second, the propriety of generally amending the Irish Post-office acts. Mr. HUME put a question re- specting the employment of the Post-office clerks as newsmen. If the Postmaster General had not power to abate this evil, he ought to re- ceive it by the new act. Lord ALTHORP said, he had power to put an end to the practice, but that it would necessarily require an augmenta-

tion of salary. Mr. said, economist as he was, he would most willingly grant what salary was fairly called for, in order to put an end to a practice which he deemed most pernicious.

10. GENERAL REGISTRY BILL. On Thursday, LordilToarrrn pre- sented a number of petitions against this bill; they were all from York- shire.

Mr. STRICKLAND declared himself hostile to the measure. It was far from new. Sir Matthew Hale had a plan of the same kind, and he believed the plan of Mr. Campbell was the tenth that had been sub- mitted to Parliament. He accused Mr. Campbell of having, only three years ago, signed a report which stated that a general registry would be fatal to commercial credit.

Mr. HUME deprecated such an attack on Mr. Campbell in his absence.

Mr. RAMSDEN supported the petitions, and Mr. SPENCE the bill.

Sir JOHN JouNsToNE admitted the value of county registrations, but denied the value of a general registration.

Mr. CAMPBELL, who entered while the conversation was proceeding, said, Mr. Strickland's inferende from the language of the report was unwarranted. The Commissioners' only fault was not giving a decided opinion on behalf of a general registry, instead of merely stating the arguments for and against it. They gave no opinion against it. The petitions against the bill were hawked up and down the country by at- tornies, whose gains it would certainly diminish in the same proportion as it benefited the country gentlemen.

11. ANATOMY BILL. A petition from the surgeons of Halifax in favour of this bill was presented on Thursday, by Lord MORPETIL Mr. HUNT said, he had yet seen no petition from those who, if the Bill were passed, were to be the subjects of it. Lord MORPETH said, a petition in favour of the bill had been agreed to at Wakefield, by the inhabitants assembled at a public meeting.

The Duke of SUSSEX, on the same evening, presented several peti- tions to the House of Lords. In doing so, his Royal Highness said he had ordered by his will, as far as a will could order such matters,

that his own body should be submitted to dissection. He had often felt peculiar pains ; and he thought it at least possible, that by dissec- tion their causes might be discovered, and in this way even his dead body might be of use to mankind. "As a religious man he felt no scruples on the subject, his hopes being fixed upon a world with which the frail elements of mortality bad no communion."