NEWS OF THE WEEK.

LAST week we left the Reform Bill in the middle of Schedule B ; it has now got through C and D. We rejoice less at this marked acceleration of its progress, than at the magnitude and firmness of the majorities by which it has been accomplished-101 has been the least. Looking to the decrease in the minority, this is quite as large in proportion as was the majority of 136 on the second read- ing. Our intended publication of the names of the Absentees may be deferred, at least for a time. The Opposition give decided tokens of languor and heartlessness. Last night, even Sir CHARLES WETHERELL deprecated a division, as useless. The meeting in London, and the spirited resolutions elsewhere re- ported, have done good. The Anti-Reformers have indeed blus- tered about them ; but their big talk thinly disguises their terror. There is a description of persons spoken of in an old record— sturdy defenders of corruption—loud assertors of partial interests —.vehemently opposed to the voice of the people—thoroughly practised in quibbling—much given to lies : these persons are said to " believe and tremble,"—what their tongues deny, the quaking of their joints reveal. The knocking together of knees and chattering of teeth have been very marked among the Minis- terial opponents during the week. They are dying—without signs of repentance indeed, for there is no place left them for repentance• —but not without signs of anticipated punishment. Mr. BARING wishes the newspapers would let him alone. So they will, by and by, and more than him. The only question of the week, in the Reform Committee, has been Lord MILTON'S ; which his Lordship-pressed with little wis- dom and great pertinacity, and with the success it deserved. Mr. CROKER still acts the orator of the Boroughmonger race, the Anacharsis Cloots of the Duke of NEWCASTLE and Company. He has added this week about 20 speeches to his former 58. Mr. HUNT listens to them with profound attention, and is particularly - m*17 with the Times reporters for not giving them at full length, while they continue to report the harangues of such persons as STANLEY and MACAULEY, which regularly put Mr. HUNT to sleep. We hope these gentlemen will, in future, consult Mr. HUNT—his taste as well as modesty is undoubted. The question of Portugal has been discussed at needless and wearisome length. Lord ABERDEEN deems Don MIGUEL quite a jewel of a man, and can find no prototype to which to liken him but the French HENRI Quatre! There is some novelty in this view of the little Prince ; and novelty of any kind, after what has been inflicted on us in the other House for the last month, is re- freshing. There has been a very earnest endeavour in both Houses to prove Earl GREY guilty of sinister motives in his Foreign equally as in his Home policy. Call Hercules a coward !—It is pleasant to listen to imputations of shuffling from the Marquis of LONDON- DERRY and Mr. JOHN. WILSON CROKER. Belgium is to be dis- cussed to-day, by Sir RICHARD VYVYAN; which will stave off the Committee for three or four hours. Heaven is kind to idlers. The war in Belgium comes in good time, when, by the dwindling of the Opposition, the interest of the Reform discussion was beginning to fall off. The Royal assent was given on. T- uesday. to the Queen's Dowry Bill: we stated in our Second Edition, inaccurately, that it was given on Saturday last. The King and Queen went to Parliament for the purpose.

1. THE REFORM BILL. At the extraordinary sitting of the Commons on Saturday last, the whole of the boroughs in Schedule B were dispatched, with the exception of Totness and Sudbury. The former was reserved, in consideration of the absence of its representatives; the latter, because of alleged local peculiarities, which ought to take it out of the schedule. Before the House went into Committee on Tuesday, Mr. O'CONNELL offered to its attention a petition from the Birmingham Political Union, com- plaining of the slow progress of the Reform Bill. The petition stated—

That the confidence which the petitioners reposed in the Honourable House had hitherto induced them to wait with patience for the issue of its deliberations ; but that they regretted to observe, that the station's deter- mination to possess, at length, the rizhts of which it has been so long de-

prived, was set at nought, and that dji,rt nee was paid, less to the will of an united people, than to the sordid and frivolous objections of interested indivi- duals. The petitioners had observed, with disgust and indignation, the factious and puerile opposition made to the opinions of a majority of that Honourable House, and to the demands of an oppressed and insulted people; and, with feelings of a nearly similar character, they contrasted the rapidity with which measures of penalty and of spoliation had been enacted by former Parliaments, with the extraordinary tardiness at present displayed ill completing a wholesome and healing measure of wisdom, justice, and conciliation. The The petitioners respectfully remindedthat Honourable House, that the state of distress which has so long oppressed the energies of the nation, and filled the country with anxiety and misery, imperatively de- manded the immediate attention of the House, and the adoption of com- prehensive and effectual remedies; but it was impossible, until the present great measure of Reform should be carried into effect, that such atten- tion should be given, and such remedies applied ; and therefore, the peti- tioners felt it their duty to urge upon the House the absolute necessity of no longer permitting the Bill of Reform to be retarded in its progress, and the sufferings of an oppressed but patient people prolonged, by the obstinate and factious opposition made by a small and interested minority to the acknowledged and expressed opinions of the great majority of the members of that Honourable House, and of the people of the United Kingdom. Sir CHARLES FORBES spoke to order; and the SPEAKER said a few words on the grossly disrespectful language of the petition, when the conversation was cut short by the Black Rod, which came to summon the House to the bar of the Lords, to attend the King. When the House returned, the conversation was resumed. Mr. O'CONNELL said, he wished to have the opinion of the Speaker on the subject—he should certainly present the petition unless the Speaker thought he ought not. The SPEAKER said, as the petition referred to certain proceedings in the House, and to the manner of conducting those proceedings, which ought to be left free and with- out restraint from without, his decided opinion. was, that it could not be received. Mr. O'CONNELL bowed to the decision of the chair.

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN made an attempt to speak ; but the SPEAKER interrupted him, observing that there was no question before the House ; and one reason for withdrawing irregular peti- tions was to avoid irritating discussion. Sir RICHARD said, he would speak, then, on the motion for withdrawing the petition. Mr. O'CoNNELL said, there was no -motion for withdrawing the peti- tion, as the motion for bringing it up had not been made. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN made a third attempt : the statements of the petition, he said; were now before the House. The SPEAKER- " No petition can be before the House until it be read at the table."

The House having soon after resolved itself into Committee, the adjourned case of Sudbury was resumed. Lord ALTHORP said, the allegation that Ballingdon belonged to Sudbury was un- founded; in the paving and lighting act of the borough, the limits were correctly defined to extend to the parishes of St. Peter, St. Gregory, and All Saints only. Mr. WRANGHAM admitted this ; but contended that Ballingdon was part of the same town. He mentioned a rumour that Ministers had received an intimation that, let them determine as they would, there was a party in the House which would retain Sudbury in Schedule- B. Lord AL- THORP said he had not received any such intimation. The fact was, Ballingdon could in no sense be termed part of the parish of All Saints: there was not only a river, but a part of the county of Essex, interposed between them. Lord MILTON, Sir JOHN WALSH, Mr. TYRRELL, Mr. BARING, and Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke against including Sudbury in Schedule B. The Committee at length divided ; when the amendment was rejected by 157 to 108. Totness was then added to the schedule, after a few words from Mr. PEREGRINE COURTENAY ; who contended that it would be open to much more bribery under the new than under the old system. -The question was now put, that the clause, as amended by the addition of Saltash, transferred from Schedule A, should stand partof the Bill. Mr. CROKER protested against it; while he declared that he would not enter into any discussion of the principle, after the op- portunity that the House had enjoyed on the motion of Sir Robert Peel.

On this understanding, that no discussion was to take place, a discussion arose which lasted a couple of hours. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL gave a history of the two Sc A and B. Heireclared Lord Milton to be as factious in sition as himself; he compared Lord Milton and Lord to the Sianiese tviins; and concluded by declaring the of the Committee in respect to Schedule B to be " a Jacobinical insult upon the feelings of the country." Colonel WOOD said, if the Bill were lost in the Lords, Ministers alone would be answerable, in consequence of their withstanding all amendments.

Lord MILTON hoped Sir Charles Wetherell would support him in his motion for giving two members to all the towns in Sche- dule D, as he was so scandalized at giving only one to those of Schedule B.

" A Member " said, the whole of the schedule must be recon- sidered !

Mr. STUART WORTLEY wished to obtain some explanation of the principles on which Ministers had acted in the exceptions which they had themselves made to the schedule. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said this had already been repeatedly ex- plained—

Mr. 'Wortley must be aware that many boroughs were now under very different circumstances from those in which they formerly stood. Even in cases where statements of the population and the amount of taxes paid by boroughs could be obtained, these cases sometimes furnished no guide for the regulation of their proceedings with regard to placing such bo- roughs in the schedule or leaving them out of the schedule. Before the

budgment of election petitions was referred to sworn committees, a orough had not unfrequently been confined to one-third of its proper limits by the capricious decisions of that House. A considerable portion of Shrewsbury was, in one instance, deprived of the right of voting by a decision of that House, because the property in that part of the town was in the hands of a person who was adverse to the Ministry of the day. In every instance, Ministers had been justified in not carrying the excep- tions farther than they had done. In cases where parishes and hamlets happened to be situated in the neighbourhood of boroughs which had been selected for disfranchisement, Lord John observed, that every concession which had been made by his Majesty's Ministers had been met with taunts and reproaches, more particularly on the part of those who had themselves called for such concessions. On the whole, it appeared to him that they had made fair distinctions, and on reasonable grounds ; and he was disposed to think that, notwithstanding all the ingenuity which had been displayed, and all the efforts which had been made to render the circumstances of one case resemble those of another, that Schedule B had been fairly drawn, according to the population returns and the principles laid down in the Bill.

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN replied to Lord John. The principal cause, however, of Sir Edward's rising, was to complain of the Times of Thursday, for having represented him as repeatedly laughed at. Sir Edward denied that there had been more than a slight laugh in the House while he addressed it.* Lord ALTHORP said, that the Committee had always received the statements of Sir Edward with the respect due to his talents and his station. Allusions to reports of speeches in the news- papers were, Sir Edward must know, wholly irregular. The prin- ciple on which Ministers had proceeded in the formation of the two schedules, Lord Althorp contended, was perfectly fair : and, in illustration of this, he mentioned, that while the average As- sessed Taxes of the disfranchised boroughs was no more than 2001., that of Schedule B was 7801., and of the boroughs not disfran- chised at all, 1200/. ; a proof, his Lordship contended, that the rule of population assumed by Ministers was closely and directly associated with the rule of property. Mr. GOULBURN spoke of average taxation as an unfaircriterion. In, the instances of Guildford, and other places similarly situated, he contended that the principle at first laid down by Ministers had been most grossly departed from.

Mr. S. WORTLEY said, the concessions made by Ministers were not made to their opponents, but to the people whose rights their opponents advocated. Mr. A. BARING declared it impossible, under the Bill, that the squires could pretend to compete with the intelligent, active, push- ing representatives of the towns. From the time the Speaker took the chair, those members would be in the House ; they would apply themselves to every sort of business; they would read every paper. Let the House call to mind whether the country gentlemen were not likely to be overmatched by these new representa- tives. The country gentlemen would have no more chance of maintaining themselves against these antagonists, than the Church against Lord John Russell's friends of the three denominations.

Mr. BARING was very anxious to learn how, in a reformed Par- liament, Ministers were to be provided with seats ? Mr. STANLEY said, they were now discussing whether the se- cond clause should or should not stand part of the Bill. To the question concerning seats for Ministers, this was not the time for answering. It formed no part, nor would it form any part, of the Bill. Mr. Stanley defended the country gentlemen from the charge of inactivity or incompetency— No set of men attended their duties in that House with more diligence than that class of which the honourable member had thus spoken. All the most important business was mostly conducted by country gentle- men ; they constituted most of the committees, and were quite as active and intelligent as the members from manufacturing towns.

Mr. BARING again reverted to the difficulty of providing Minis- ters with seats under the new Bill ; to which, he said, he had re- ceived no answer.

Mr. CROKER, who, an hour and a half before, had stated that he would not discuss the question at all, lest the discussion might wear a factious appearance after that which had taken place on ffir Robert Peel's motion, followed at great length. He complained, not that Ministers had laid down this principle or that principle, but that they had not stuck to the principle they had laid down. Be then went on to reargue the cases of Sudbury, of Appleby, and * The nnes reporter flatly contradicts Sir Edward, and repeats, that there was very loud laughter: he refers, in corroboration, to Sir Edward's own words—" the uproarious Lursts of laughter which I now hear around me." of Bridport ; and having done so, came to Lord Althorp's illustra- tion of the average amount of taxation in the two schedules. Mr. Croker showed, by the returns, that there were numerous cases in which boroughs would still return two members, though the amount of Assessed Taxes- paid by them fell far short of 1,200/, Thus, Morpeth paid only 8001.; Northallerton, only 9001.; Caine, including the parish, only 6501. Again, in Schedule B, there were instances of boroughs that paid much more than 1,2001.—

Huntingdon paid 1,750/. of Assessed Taxes ; Dorchester, 2,100/. ; Guild- ford, 1,9601. ; Chippenham, 2,2311. ; even Sudbury, with its 1,1311. of As- sessed Taxes, was above the average of p1 aces retaining two representatives.

Lord ALTHORP said, Mr. Croker assumed as a rule what had never been laid down as such. Population was the only rule laid down and acted on by Ministers; all he meant to show, by the illustration of the Assessed Taxes, was, that taxation and popula- tion had, on an average, gone hand in hand. Mr. WYNN asked how the refusal to take in the overflowing of a borough would apply to the City of London, which, in point of fact, had a smaller resident population now than it had a century ago ? This long conversation over, the question as to the second clause was agrearto. The principle of Schedule C being admitted, the Committee went on to discuss the various details of the Schedule.

On the question of Manchester being. put, Mr. STUART WORT- LEY proposed as an amendment, to include Salford with Man- chester, instead of giving it a separate member. Mr. HUNT said, there was a marked distinction in the two towns. He added,

He should support the enfranchising part of the Bill, although he had opposed a few of the cases of disfranchisement ; and he trusted that si- milar forbearance would be exhibited by the other members in Opposition.

A loud " No !" was the response from the other members in Opposition. Mr. HEYWOOD said, Salford and Manchester were topographi- cally, and in respect of their several interests, to all intents and purposes as distinct as Southwark and London. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to the enfranchisement as proposed by Ministers—it was enfranchisement founded on spoliation. They were generous out of the plunder of others— The disfranchisements of Schedules A and B were not necessary to en- franchise all the towns in Schedule C. He objected, then, to the extent, and he objected to the principle of disfranchisement to insure enfran- chisement. Looking, however, at all the circumstances of the country— at what had taken place previous to the dissolution—at the difficulty of constituting any Government not prepared to concede the principle of Reform—he had stated before, that, acting for himself, and not in con- cert with others, but forming his own judgment, he for one, having yielded his own opinion in deference to the majority of the House—look- ing, he said, to all the circumsthnces of the country, to the formation of a Government—the perhaps necessary formation of a Government pledged to Reform ; he had stated at an earlier period, that rather than hazard the displacing of the Government, not seeing how any Govern- ment could be formed hostile to Reform, he was ready to consider the question of Reform, and what Reform should be granted. As a member of the Government, though he did not object to enfranchise single towns, he was afraid of letting loose the question of Reform, and would as such have proposed a more limited enfranchisement than that now proposed. He was at the same time aware, that such a limited enfranchisement proposed by the late Government, professing itself hostile to Reform, would not have satisfied the people, and would not have been a permanent measure.

Sir Robert went on to pronounce a preliminary oration on the several places in Schedule C. To Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, he saw no formidable objection. He had, however, great objections to the enfranchisement of Greenwich and Woolwich— places where Government influence was paramount. He objected, also, to giving members to the various districts of the metropolis. To the three first places in the schedule, Sir Robert repeated, he would offer no objection ; but he would divide the House on the uestion of Greenwich, because he objected to the undue influence which the metropolitan districts exercised over their members. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he thought Sir Robert would find it as difficult to carry on Government with the rotten boroughs, as without Manchester and Birmingham ; the opinion of the public had been as loudly expressed on the one point as on the other. As to the metropolitan districts, each of them possessed a vast popula- tion, and above a million per annum of property; and there seemed no reason why, merely because of their proximity to London, they should not have members as well as Manchester and Birmingham. Lord John described the declarations of Sir Robert Peel as incon- sistent with his'former opinions— Sir ROBERT PEEL fired at the imputation of inconsistency— Was it the noble Lord who said, that he ought to allow no change to take place in his opinion on the subject of Reform? If the noble Lord's doctrine, that no change should take place in a man's opinions, was to be considered as correct, what must, be the feelings of Mr. Grant and Lord Palmerston, who for fifteen years past had chiefly distinguished them- selves for their adherence to the political opinions of Mr. Canning, whose domestic policy was marked by the most decided resistance to Reform in every shape ? Had they any other reason or pretext to assign for their support of the present measure, except the altered circumstances of the country ? In 1826, when the application of the forfeited franchise of Grampound came to be considered, what course did Lord Palmerston take ? Did he concur in the expediency of transferring it to some large town ; or did he not rather adhere to the policy of Mr. Canning, and vote for transferring it to the neighbouring hundred? Had Sir Robert Peel ever insinuated that there was any thing unworthy in the course which Lord John Russell had pursued t But be thought that the noble Lord, after the speeches which he had made, and the able treatises which he had written on the subject of Reform, and flanked as he was on the right hand and on the left, should be the last person to taunt his opponenta with change of opinion on the subject of Reform, Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained, that he did not speak of former Parliaments, but of this. Sir Robert said he could not bring his mind to grant members to large towns, because it set afloat the question of Reform; yet he was willing to grant members to Man- chester, Birmingham, and Leeds; was not this inconsistent ? After some more talk from Sir ROBERT PEEL, and a word on the Manchester massacre from Mr. HUNT, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL rose to state the case of Manchester. There were three points,—lst, the qualification of the voters ; ed, what was Manchester ; 3d, was Manchester to have members. Sir Charles contended, that, under the Bill, the qualification would be for every place in Schedule C universal sultra,;.e. He should there- fore oppose the whole and every part of the schedule. Lord Aurnoup'replied to Sir Charles. In allusion to Sir Robert Peel's argument, that the gift to Manchester and other places in Schedule C was taken from the plunder of Schedules A and B— He would merely say that Government had found it impossible to give the elective franchise that extension they thought necessary, without dis- franchising the smaller boroughs. This, however, was not the main ob- ject of that disfranchisement : they had availed themselves of the neces- sity which existed of finding a means of satisfying the claims of Man- chester and Birmingham, to cut off those boroughs whose system of cor- ruption or of nomination had in their opinion rendered them unfit for the exercise of the power to send members to the Legislature. To a question respecting arrangements, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he had great objections to entering into any arrangements at all ; a sentiment which was loudly cheered by the Opposition. He was

however, to let the three first places of Schedule C pass for the present. Sir ROBERT INGLIS objected to enfranchising Manchester. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL again spoke ; but the reporters have not put down what he said. Manchester, with its appendages, was then put, and carried; as were Birmingham and Leeds. Previous to going into Committee on Tuesday, Lord AL- THORP said, he would on Friday propose that the House should sit on Saturday, as they had done last Saturday, for the further- ance of the progress of the Bill. When the House had resolved itself into Committee, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to move his amendment for excluding Green- wich from Schedule C.

The three propositions which he wished to establish were these,—lst,

That the metropolitan district of London [Middlesex and Southwark generally], with reference to other parts of the country, was amply pro- vided with members, as it returned no less than ten members [London four, Westminster two, Southwark two, the County two] ; 2nd, That the ancient usage of England, with respect to the representative system, gave an equal right to all places to return representatives.; 3rd, That the same was the case with respect to this Bill, as was seen in the instances of Caine and Manchester, the former continuing- to return members on account of ancient right, and the latter being allowed that privilege in consequence of its great population. Now, from the positions, he in- ferred that unless some special case was made out for the metropolitan dis- trict,the course meant to be pursued respecting it ought not to be suffered. Could those who proposed this alteration show, that either with re- ference to population or contribution, the metropolitan district deserved this additional number of members ? A case, he knew, could be made out, but it was a case against those who call for these additional' members. The case of Marylebone was a very peculiar one. Individuals here had a chance of acquiring two rights. If they were freemen of London, and freeholders of Marylebone, they would be invested with the right of voting for both places. Marylebone was singularly situated in another respect. A great number of members of Parliament (he believed at least one hundred) resided there. He might be asked, what particular iden- tity of interest they had with the parish? He would answer, that there was a Select Vestry in St. Marylebone, and amongst that body there were ten members of Parliament. Could it, then, be said that Marylebone, under these circumstances, required representatives ? Sir Robert afterwards touched on Mr. A. Baring's argument— Too much importance was attached to the manufacturing and commer- cial, and too little to the agricultural interest. Representatives drawn frdm the latter class he preferred to those drawn from the former, be- cause the one party was more disposed to continue things as they were,. while the other was more addicted to change. There was more activity, more ambition, a greater desire of distinction, as a class, amongst the representatives of great bodies of men in a town, than was to be found: amongst the country gentlethen. He did not notice this as a- matter of reflection on the latter; so far from it, that he was inclined to applaud them on that account, because, by their steadiness, they opposed a species of check to that variety of movement, and that love of alteration, which, without such a barrier, might be-found mischievous.

Lord ALTHORP said, there were but two ways of remedying. the glaring defects in the representation of the metropolis,—by giving. the unrepresented districts members,. or by joining-them to such districts as already had members. Irhe latter method would go far, not to- enfranchise new districts,. but to. disfranchise the old, which would sink into comparative insignificance,. from the wealth and' greatness,-of their allies. The latter must, therefore, remain as'they were, or they must have members of their own. It had been said,' rather'inconsistently, that Greenwich would be a no- mination borough of the Crown. "Inthat case," said' Lord Al- thorp, "it will be a pretty large one, for it contains above 40,000 inhabitants."

Mr. H. GURNEY opposed-Sir. Robert Peel's amendment. Colonel Woon,entertained the-House with. an.old argument and a new Bill. The argument was the facilities, which.tbe rotten-bo- roughs4fforded-to officers from India, -merchants, a.nih".retired.old gentlemen " to, get into the Bause.of Commons; The new Bill

was--

To. give:to the county of Middlesex six members,. in the same manner as to the county of York. To give two of these six Members to. the Tower Hamlets.; and two to the. eastern division, Hackney to be the place of election ; and two for the western division, Brentford-to be the place of election. The county of Surry might be advantageously divided in the same manner; and a similar plan might be adopted with regard to Kent. Colonel Wood said he was convinced that such an arrangement would be quite as acceptable out of doors as that proposed by the Govern- ment.

Mr. WYNN spoke of the members for the metropolis as too much under the control of their constituents ; and alluded to the cases of Alderman Thompson and Sir Robert Wilson, in corrobo- ration of this. Mr. Wynn thought, if a member voted according to his conscience at night, and if his constituents were to meet next day and declare the vote contrary to their consciences, an in- convenient if not dangerous influence would be exercised over the deliberations of the House. Mr. Wynn then spoke of the French Revolution,—an old story, which he said ought to be ever present to the minds of members ; and of the clamours of towns being neutralized by the voices of the counties.

A Member asked Sir Robert Peel, if the country gentlemen hail ever displayed any symptoms of inactivity when their interests{ were at stake.

-Did Sir Robert recollect the fight which the country gentlemen made* few years ago upon the Corn-laws ? Could any men have acted more firmly, or more intrepidly—could any men have attended in their places more constantly, than the country gentlemen did upon that occasion! And when a game-bill was introduced, or when a question of hops or wool was touched, did the country gentlemen show any want of activity!

Alderman Woon-replied to the taunts of Mr. Wynn on the con- stituency of London—

He would tell that right honourable Gentleman, that there were thou- sands of the Livery, who, in character, in talent, and in fortune, stood as

high as any member of that House, whether county member or member for a town. Mr. Wynn had alluded to the calling of Alderman Thompson before the City—or, lie should rather say, to the voluntary attendance of Alderman Thompson at a meeting of the City. (Laughter from the Oppa. Mien.) Gentlemen might laugh at this, but had they forgotten how many

gentlemen for counties and towns had been obliged to give the pledge which Alderman Thompson had given ? The gentlemen near him thought

this very improper, and they no doubt thought it still more improper that so many of their friends had been turned out because they would not give that pledge. Mr. Wynn found fault with the City meeting, because,: as Alderman Wood supposed, it took place too near the House of Common This at least was the way in which he understood the right honourable Gentleman's objection ; for there happened to have been a similar meet- ing one hundred miles from town, to which he had not alluded, although that meeting took a stronger course towards their representative than the City of London had taken with regard to Alderman Thompson. Again, it was said that Ministers had determined to meet on Saturday, be- cause of the sentiments expressed by the electors of London. Had the constituent body of London assembled? It had not. Some few indi- viduals had met, and had passed certain resolutions, in his opinion very proper ones ; but the constituent body of London had not even been called together. He would tell the honourable members near him, why. It was because the citizens saw that the gentlemen of the Opposition had at length given some symptoms of returning to their senses, and of aban- doning that frivolous and vexatious opposition which had before charac- terized their proceedings. (Cheers.) Lord VALLETORT favoured the House with a commentary ors the leading article of the Times on the meeting in question, in op- position to the statement of Alderman Wood. His Lordship was very violent in his gesticulations, and very loud in his tones ; but he afterwards denied that he had been at all angry—he was only warm.

Mr. Alderman WAITHIVIAN supported the original motion, and corroborated Alderman Wood's statement that the late meeting was not a meeting of the Livery, but only of certain individuals belonging to the Livery. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke, at his usual length, in favour of the amendment. Alluding to the meeting held in consequence of Alderman Thompson's vote on the Appleby case, he observed— The worthy Alderman behind him (Wood) had spoken of the submission which had been made by Alderman Thompson to the Livery of Londoner being a voluntary one ; but Sir Charles would defy any honourable member to find, after a search through all our dictionaries, from Johnson, the first. to Entick, the last of lexicographers, such a definition of the meaning or " voluntary " as that which had been given to it by the worthy, Aldermana Dr. Johnson, when called on for a definition of the phrase come trelire4. said that it was similar to throwing a man out of a garret, and then re- commending him to fall to the ground. The transaction of which the worthy Alderman had spoken was undoubtedly perfectly similar as far as regarded its recommendatory nature. When they saw four members thus controlled by the acts of a metropolitan union, what would they think when they should see twenty-one members controlled and bound togetbee, RS the present four members for the City of London were disgracefully , bound together and controlled by their constituents ? That dlsgracefut submission was only similar to what might be expected if they increased the number of members-subject to such influence to the extent of twenty- one. If they should-adopt the principle which the present motion era- ' braced, they would make the metropolitan a departmental representathao, as the French would term it, instead of being a part of the representatives of the country at large. Sir Charles then,made an excursion to Guildford, and spoke of the intersection and transsection of houses, to bring it below the mark.. He next went to Greenwich; returned to Marylebone; and from thence moved down to Chelsea, which he declared to bs as worthy of two members as either. He knew no reason why Greenwich was preferred to it, unless that it was above bridge and Greenwich was below—the one had an hospital for sailors, the other for soldiers—blue jackets and red made all the difference. Why-had Tooting been omitted in the list of fortunate places? why omit grass-growing Battersea, xenowned in story.? or cabbage-cultivate/4z Fulham.? orpictaresque Petersham ? why leave out Rotherhitbe r.and„, above all, why omit thrice-celebrated Garrett—Garrett, with regardlis which, at least.no difficulty could be started on the score of a return*" officer, for a- mayor was elected there every year ? Sir Charles concluded by declaring the question before the House to be a.serious one, which the county would require to be decided on principles of common sense. Captain BERKELEY spoke of the burning of his colleague in effigy at Gloucester, in consequence of his vote on the Downton division, as an exhibition got up, not by the inhabitants, but by a small party at the instigation of Mr. PHILLPOTTS. Alderman THOMPSON said, the meeting in the City, held in con- sequence of his vote on Lord Maitland's motion, had been alluded to, he believed, for the fifth time by Sir Charles Wetherell ; and he could no longer remain silent under the imputations which these allusions cast upon his character.

He felt bound to state, in the face of that House, that the honourable and learned member was totally misinformed, when he asserted that he (Alderman Thompson) had been summoned before his constituents to answer for his conduct, and for the vote which he had given in that House ; and that, in order to retain his seat, he had obeyed that summons, and had surrendered his independence as a member of that House. He totally denied the imputation which it was thus attempted to cast upon him. It was quite true, that having heard that a certain number of the Livery of London were about to meet in Guildhall, and having been told that the object of the meeting was grounded on the supposition that he had acted differently from the promise which he had given at his election in reference to the Reform Bill, he felt anxious, as every man of honesty and independence would feel, to go and set himself right with his con- stituents.

Alderman Thompson then explained the circumstances under which his vote on Lord Maitland's motion was given. He con- cluded by complaining of the illiberality of alluding to this case night after night, and hoped in future to be spared such attacks.

Mr. BARING spoke amidst strong marks of impatience. He de- fended what he had said of the inactivity of country members compared with town members. He said the franchise in towns would, under the Bill, approach to universal suffrage ; property would not have the slightest chance of being represented. As it was now in Westminster, it would be in all the metropolitan districts —all that would be required would be to know that " what were called gentlemen" were of certain opinions. He advised the House to limit the franchise in time : if too little were granted, it could be extended ; but, if too much were granted, it could not be recalled. The House of Commons, under the Bill, would be in the condition of the French Assembly—its powers controlled and directed by the clubs that were sitting around it.

Mr. HOEHOUSE spoke at considerable length.

Mr. Baring's great fallacy was, that the people of England had sinister motives ; and if any power whatever were given to them, it must be fatal to the constitution. He had said, that if they listened to the people, they had no chance of hearing reason. Perhaps what Mr. Baring might call the voice of reason, Mr. Hobhouse might term the suggestions of folly and of self-interest. Mr. Baring appealed to what might happen, but he would rather appeal to what had happened. No assembly that ever sat, no body of men that had ever been collected together, could show by their records such a mass of folly and self-interest as could be exhibited from the records of the House of Commons.

Mr. Baring had asked if the King must ask the opinion of the electors of Westminster as to who should direct the Government of the country—

He must beg leave to say, that he would as soon consult the electors of Westminster as he would those who had hitherto been consulted on such subjects. It was notorious that the King was not free to choose an Ad- ministration. He was obliged to know if the gentlemen who undertook to serve him were in possession of the rotten parchment votes of that House. If a man of the first-rate talents were to say to the King that he could serve him and promote the best interests of the country, his Majesty must in the first instance say to him, "Is my Lord Duke such-a-one for you ? Is such a Peer in your favour? And how many can you command in the House of Commons?"

He ridiculed the novel difficulty in which Mr. Baring lately pre- tended to find himself placed by the absence of the Foreign Secre- tary, and which had ministered occasion for one of his objections o the Bill.

How had Mr. Baring contrived to forget, that, but the other day, the Foreign Secretary had no seat in that House at all, being a member of the other branch of the Legislature? Was it so soon forgotten, that it was part of the office of the Ministerial leader of the House to answer all questions connected with the Executive ? Did honourable Members re- collect that Sir Robert Peel had so discharged the duties of leader, not only answering all questions particularly bearing on his own office, but, as the ego and alter ego of the Government, all questions put to his col- leagues. Then came the objection of a packed and pledged majority—and from whom?

Was it from men representing the wishes of an enlightened and free. acting constituency ? or from men acting upon their own notions of what was beneficial or otherwise to the general interest of the country? By no means. Those who were so ready with their taunts, and who presumed —he used the word advisedly—to censure the recent explanations which the Livery of London had so manfully wrung from their pledged represen- tative, were men who represented no interests or feelings, save those of some few boroughmongering patrons.

He was disposed to pass over the taunts of such men as these —nominees might safely sneer at pledges—from them such sneers fell still-born: but he felt greatly surprised at such sneers when proceeding from Sir Robert•Peel. Had he forgotten his own con- duct respecting Oxford ; and how, having given a pledge to his cnnstituents there that he would oppose concession to the Catho- lics, when he found that concession could be no longer withheld, he honourably, and in terms of that pledge, resigned his seat ? Mr. Hobhouse concluded by alluding to a frequent argument in the House—that all exertions in behalf of the Bill were useless, be- cause it would be thrown out by the Peers.

He knew that the Peers of England were not blind, or if blind to the interests of the people, not blind to their own interests ; and he knew that their own interests would lead them to support the great mea- sure of Reform. But if they should unfortunately be blind both to their own, and the national interests, he knew the constitutional duty that Rouse, as the representative of the people of England, had to discharge; and, therefore, he had no fears of the constitutional issue. As the Com- mons of England, they could not permit themselves to be overborne by borough patrons, who had already had a full and impartial hearing, through their numerous organs in that House. If their labour to im- prove the representation of their own House should be in vain—and their decisions, and the decisions of the people of England, for Reform, should be thwarted in their progress to fulfilment by the other House,— he would say, let the House of Lords have a care, in time, to distinguish between their best friends—those who would urge them to facilitate the progress of the Bill—and their worst enemies, who ask them to resist a measure for which the people of England are unanimous, and by that re- sistance expose themselves to the fury of a torrent, which, in the nature of things, must be irresistible. Mr. GOULEURN said a few words in favour of the amendment; and Mr. MACAULAY ridiculed the notion that any control could be exercised by the metropolitan districts, under the Bill, that was not exercised at present, unless it were mere physical control,— which was more likely to be employed against an Unreformed than a Reformed Parliament. He added, that the metropolitan dis- tricts promised to furnish that very diversity of franchise which Sir Robert Peel so greatly desired. The Tower: Hamlets would consist chiefly of 101. to 201. voters ; Finshury of 201. to 30/.; while in Marylebone the great majority would be above 40/. Mr. PRAED spoke of the impropriety of making distinctions be- tween the representative rights of buyers and sellers ; under which two classes the proposed division of the metropolis would arrange the mass of its population. After some brief observations from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. CROKER—who contended that the rule of common sense was that London and its vicinity should have six members and no more,—the Committee divided ; when Greenwich was placed in the schedule by a majority of 295 to 188. Sheffield, Sunder- land, and Devonport,—the last after some argument from Mr. CHOKER, who wished it to be joined to Plymouth—were after- wards placed in the schedule without a division ; and the Chair- man then reported the progress of the night. Previous to going into Committee on Thursday, Mr. GieLoN presented a petition from his constituents, the Magistrates and Council of Linlithgow, complaining of the delays in the progress of the Reform Bill.

Mr. WYNN objected to the competency of the parties to form a judgment on the subject, and asked if they would have the Bill passed as one question.? What would be thought of the trial of sixty persons, where a verdict at once upon the guilt or innocence of the whole without distinction was asked ?

Mr. O'CONNELL thought the criminal illustration singularly un- happy. If, instead of sitting and voting on their own disfran- chisement, the nominee members went at once below the bar into the dock, there would indeed be some similarity in the cases, and much of the delay would be Spared. Mr. O'Connell said he had heard one member deliver fourteen times, not only the same speech in the same words, but with the same fisticuff accompani- ment on the box before him. They began the Bill on the 4th of July, the anniversary of American independence ; it was now the 4th of August, and they had only arrived at the third clause. •

He could have wished that it were completed on the 10th of August, . which was the anniversary of another event ; but if they were to go on with such arguments, or rather such no-arguments, as had been heard on this Subject, they might then get through somewhere about February

next.

Mr. DUNDAS professed himself intimately acquainted with the sentiments of the people of Scotland, and contended that they would be dissatisfied if the Bill were not fully discussed. . Lord STANLEY replied to Mr. WYNN'S argument against Scotch electors interfering in respect to English boroughs. He thought they had an equal right with any electors in the kingdom to ex press sentiments which, he believed, they only felt in common with the whole of the kingdom. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN said he had not hitherto taken an active share in the discussions on the Bill, though he reserved for himself the right of doing so when he thought proper. Sir Richard stated his opinion of the time necessary to pass the Bill with due delibe- ration—

The House was sitting as a deliberative body, considering one of the most important changes which could be made in a state—the change of its constitution—a change so important, that if they took six months to effect it, they would be still liable to the charge of too much haste.

Mr. GRATTAN deprecated members repeating on every. occasion the same string of arguments, not only on behalf of their own boroughs, but every borough in the Bill. Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM said, the practice should not be aban- doned the more readily for these remarks upon it. Mr. WYNN caught at Mr. O'CONNELL'S allusion to the Ameri- can and French anniversaries.. He did not expect to hear the Reform Bill coupled with an allusion to another anniversary, that of the 10th of August,—a day memorable in the annals of lawless outrage, and distinguished by a massacre from which the streets of Paris ran with human blood.

Mr. O'CONNELL explained— His coupling the Bill with the 10th of August was not because he thought the events of that day ought to be imitated, but because he wished to call to the remembrance of some honourable members that the events of that day, deplorable as they were, were the result of a long and dogged refusal to restore the usurped rights of the people. Mr. HUNT ridiculed the petition. He supposed the person who signed it (there was but one) was like a friend of his, who came to London when the Bill was introduced, and remarked, that he would stay a day or two, and then he could carry it home in his pocket. Mr. NORTH spoke of the Repeal of the Union ; and declared his

determination to take no share in the question, as he felt assured that the Constitution of 1831 would be set aside by another of

1832.

When the House had gone into Committee, and the question on

Wolverhampton was put, Mr. CROKER complained of the numer- ous additions to that town, while Walsall was left standing alone. He wished to unite Wednesbury to Walsall. Mr. LITTLETON said, the people of Staffordshire were perfectly well pleased with the Bill as it stood. Sir ROBERT PEEL also spoke of Wednesbury. Lord Joi-iN- RUSSELL thought the case of Walsall might be better discussed under Walsall than under Wolverhampton. The

question was agreed to.

On the Tower Hamlets, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN observed, that

the Bill took away rights from freemen and gave them to mere occupiers of tenements. He spoke of Government taking districts out of counties to form them into boroughs, and letting in the lower orders of the people to overbear the agricultural interests.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said the Bill gave a bonus to the freeholders of London.

Mr. F. LEWIS said, the 16th clause must be amended, or there would he a contradiction in the Bill.

Alderman Woon said, there were very few freeholds in London, and these were of a higher order. He took occasion to express his surprise at Sir Charles Wetherell's dislike of Aldermen, while he was himself an Alderman of Bristol. Surely a London Alderman was as respectable as a Bristol Alderman I The question, after some further conversation, equally to the purpose, was agreed to.

On the next question, that of Finsbury, Mr. J. WEYLAND made a long speech about the danger of 101. voters—the Corn- laws—the taxes—the ancient regime of France—Moderate Reform —the rights of the aristocracy—and how that Ministers, if they pleased, might have proposed a measure on which they might have shaken hands with their opponents.

Colonel l3nucE spoke of Mr. Hobhouse's speech on the pre- vious night ; which, lie said, he could compare to nothing but a torrent, the eloquence of which had been collected from all the leading articles of all the seditious journals which had gone tbrth for years past. That torrent had prevented Colonel Bruce from making a speech on Wednesday. He went on to state, that the members given to the metropolitan district would be half as many as were possessed by all Scotland. He spoke of the Lpndon meeting, and of the committee now sitting to watch the Bill. He denounced subserviency to large bodies, as much more degrading than subserviency to individuals. He finished by ridiculing the claim of the London Livery to judge of Reform at all— They might be good judges of turtle, but in matters, the considera- tion of which required any exertion of the higher order of the intellectual faculties, they should take care not to interfere, for all such matters were entirely beyond the ken of those City judges.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON expressed his surprise that Colonel Bruce should feel displeasure at London returning as many members as the half of Scotland, while he was content that Cornwall should return as many as all Scotland. The entire objection to giving more representatives to London, was founded on some of the elec- tors having censured a member for not acting as he had said he would do.

That such a thing had happened in the City of London, was not the fault of the constituents there, but of the member who had been called to account. When members pledged themselves at their election to fol- low a particular line of conduct, it was no fault of their constituents to bind them to their promises. What had happened in this instance was not peculiar to the City of London; it was only what would have hap- pened, under similar circumstances, in any other part of the kingdom.

Mr. J. SMITH said, the Livery had a most undoubted right to do as they had done ; and if the practice had been earlier adopted,

and more frequently followed, it would have saved the country from an infinity of evils.

Sir J. WALSH said, the objection of Colonel Bruce was a sound one. The members returned by London would be representatives of local interests ; those sent by Cornwall were representatives of general interests.

The question was carried.

When the case of Marylebone came on, Mr. C. FERGUSSON rose, amidst much confusion, to put the claim of the inhabitants of

St. Pancras.

To show that they were entitled to a representative for themselves, they stated that their parish paid in Assessed Taxes three times more than Manchester, four times more than Leeds, four times more than Sheffield, nine times more than Devonport, fourteen times more than Wolverhamp- ton, and eighteen times more than Sunderland, to each of which two members were to be given. They stated further that there were ten thou- sand houses in the parish which averaged 401. a year each, and that the parish was the residence of a wealthy and enlightened and most respect- able population. They asserted, that if their parish should be united to. Marylebone and Paddington, which did not pay more taxes than the pa- rish of Pancras did, they would be overwhelmed by the greater population of those two places.

Lord ALTHORP did not think it very likely that the 71,000 of St.

Pancras would be so easily overwhelmed by the 96,000 of Mary- lebone.

Marylebone was then carried.

To Lambeth no objection was offered.

Schedule C being thus exhausted, Lord MILTON stated, that having given notice that he would move that each of the places in Schedule D should return two members, he would now move, that instead of the word one, in the latter part of clause 3d, there be inserted two ; which would, he conceived, be the most convenient way of raising the question. Mr. LITTLETON said, such a general motion went to preclude his particular motion respecting Stoke-upon-Trent [the Potteries); which, however, he must bring forward. Mr. Littleton proceeded to state the case of Stoke.

It consisted of a cluster of four towns, containing, in the whole, a population of 53,000 persons. The inhabitants of this very populous dis- trict were principally employed in the manufacture of earthenware and china ; and from their numbers, and from the extensive and important nature of their trade, with the capital it employed, and the interests it involved, they were fully entitled to have two representatives in that House. If members would examine into the subject, they would find that the Cotton manufacturers had their interests represented in Parlia- ment by fifteen members, the Colonial interests by seven, and the Silk trade by three, whilst the China manufacturer was very inadequately re- presented. The trade of the people of Stoke-upon-Trent was not only large and extensive, but it was on the increase, and in its nature more likely to be permanent than many which were to be better represented in that House.

He concluded by moving that the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent be transferred to Schedule C.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY and Mr. E. PEEL supported the motion—, Stoke had a greater population than many places now in Sche- dule C.

Lord ALTHORP said, Ministers had not proceeded without making every inquiry, and the conclusion they had come to was, that Stoke was not entitled to more than one member.

Sir ROBERT PEEL would prefer taking ten or twelve of the twenty-six places in Schedule D, and giving them two members each, to giving the whole twenty-six one member a-piece. Of this selection, Stoke would certainly be one. After a lengthened conversation, the Committee divided; when Mr. Littleton's motion was negatived by 246 to 145. Lord Ms LTON then introduced his motion. The argument on which he chiefly relied, was the general practice of the Constitution, of giving two members to each borough ; and an argument previously adduced by Sir Robert Peel, that where there was but one mem- ber there would be frequent contests, and that it was essential that the minority out of the House should he represented by a minority in the House ; which with one member would be impos- sible. Lord Milton's third argument was, that as the boroughs in Schedule D would naturally strive for two members: if they did not get two members now, the measure could not be final.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT spoke against the motion. He coun- selled unanimity among the friends of Reform. Under existing circumstances it would be much better for the friends of Reform to forego their own wishes, however reasonable, with respect to mere matters of detail, rather than in any degree endanger the success of the great measure before them, which Sir Robert Peel had owned that he had not the fortitude to introduce, although he was sensible that some reform in the representation had now become indispensable. His noble friend appeared to advocate a double representation; whereas lie considered single representation, if attainable consistently with the in- terests of the people, to be more convenient and advantageous for all practical purposes ; and, for his part, he should desire rather to see the number of representatives diminished than increased. The present Bill, it ought to be borne in mind, would abundantly embrace all the interests of the. country ; and no one could fail to perceive that they could never arrive at practical results on any question, the success of which required combination, if they all insisted on pressing their own specific opinions on the Legislature, to the prejudice of the general measure on which they were, for the most part, agreed.

Mr. HUNT spoke of Sir Francis having supported Mr. Canning, who opposed all Reform ; and of his having supported this Bill, which conferred neither short parliaments nor universal suffrage, for both of which Sir Francis had long contended. He spoke of the pledges of members with great indignation— He " would rather be a dog and bay the moon," than come into that House with shackles about his arms like the members for the City of London. He would at once resign his seat if he could not concur with his constituents; but as to their calling him to account, forsooth, he would take good care that the first time of their doing so should also be the last. (Much cheering from the Opposition.) Mr. STRICKLAND supported the motion, because it would give a greater number of members to Yorkshire.

Lord MORPETH said the addition of twenty-six members to the commercial interest would wholly alter the balance attempted to be established in the Bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL declared himself very much at a loss how to vote. If he thought Lord Milton's motion would be carried, he would vote against it ; because, although abstractly he pre- ferred two members to one, he could not bring himself to give two members to so many towns. He said he would vote for the amendment notwithstanding, reserving to himself the right to move that the half of the names in the schedule be struck out. Sir Robert could not at all agree with Sir Francis Burdett, that one member was as good as two.

Suppose that a constituency of 1,000 were divided, so as to have 501 on one side, and 499 at the other, ought the 499 to remain unrepresented? Should there be no opportunity left for the influence of reason ?

What became of the principle of taxation and representation being coextensive, if the minority were not represented as well its the majority?

Lord ALTHORP agreed that the minority ought to be repre- sented, but he could not see that they would not under the present Bill.

The question upon which the Committee had to decide was this, whether or not it was expedient that a certain twenty-six boroughs should have one member or two. Generally speaking, he was rather friendly than otherwise to the principle of a representation by two members ; but he would strenuously contend that the adoption of the Schedule by the Committee would not lead to stifling the voice of the itsinority, unless, indeed, that minority was exceedingly small. Though be did so with regret, he must admit, that practically there was little identity of feeling between the manufacturing and the agricultural classes ; and he therefore desired to give to each a due proportion of power; and he had no doubt the Committee would agree with him, that by the arrangements proposed in the Bill, that object was best accom. idished. • The Committee divided; when Lord Milton's amendment was negatived by 230 to 128.

Last night, the House being in Committee, the question was put on Brighton, the principle of the clause generally having been fully discussed on Lord Miltons motion. Mr. CURTEIS and Lord G. BENTINCK wished Brighton to be placed in Schedule C : it contained, the latter observed, 39,000 inhabitants, and paid more Assessed Taxes than almost any town in that schedule.

A conversation ensued, less on the merits of Brighton; than on the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioners. Lord J. Rus- SELL said the clause respecting these would be amended. From what passed, it would appear their powers will be limited to joining to the original borough outlying portions in immediate contact with it.

Brighton was put in the schedule. Bolton and Bradford, each with a remark from Mr. CRORER on the difference between them and Northallerton, were allowed to take their place by Brighton.

In the case of Bradford, on the suggestion of Lord MORPETH, "t0'.V11" was substituted for " township ;" the Commissioners to determine the extent of the town.

Bury, Cheltenham, and Pismire, followed in uninterrupted suc- cession.

A stand was made on Gateshead, by Mr. CROKER. His prin- cipal objection was, that Gateshead formed only a suburb of New- castle ; and that, in reality, to give it a member, was to give three members to Newcastle. There was another—namely, the crea- tion of three other boroughs, Sunderland, South Shields, and Tynemouth, in the immediate neighbourhood. Mr. Croker was very anxious to persuade the Houee that the giving of so many members to a nook of land in Durham must originate in sinister motives, and that the rejection of them was no violation of the principle of the Bill. Mr. Croker went on to consider the case of South Shields ; to which, he said, the same arguments applied with yet greater force. Instead of adding the chapelry of NV est oe to South Shields, he thought South Shields and Gateshead might have been united. In the same spirit, he objected to the exten- sion of the franchise to the parish of Tynemouth: he would have confined it to the town ; which, in ease that Gateshead were united to Newcastle, might then be conjoined \vitt' South and North Shields, and return with them one member. Mr. Croker noticed that the in were included in Durham, while they were ex- cluded n the cases of Bolton, Bradford, and several other towns • atat so fortunate in their locality. Lord ALTHORP observed, that while population was one rule of enfranchisement, other circumstances had not been overlooked. It bad appeared to Ministers, that among the parties not adequately represented, were the shipowners; and for the purpose of remedy- ing this defect, a member had been given to Whitby, though there were larger towns on whom it might have been bestowed. For the same reason, a member was given to Sunderland, to Shields, and to Tynemouth. Mr. Croker talked about Durham, and yet all the while Tynemouth was not in the county of Durham, but of Northumberland. Gateshead was not added to Newcastle, be- cause such a union had nowhere been made to otherboroughs. As to any influence of Lord Durham, it was-impossible that in such populous places it could have any existence. Mr. GOULBURN thought the case t f Hull and Sculcoates, in which a suburb of 10,000 was united to a town of 30,000, was precisely analogous to Newcastle and Gateshead. Mr. HODGSON said, when Mr. Croker spoke of Bolton and Shields, he had taken the lists of 1331 for Bolton, and those of 1821 for Shields. Mr. Hodgson observed, that Sunderland was the fourth part of the emi:ire in general, and the second in the coal trade. There was no such connexion between Shields and Tyne- mouth as Mr. Croker assumed. The river, which that gentleman called a connecting band, was in fact a broad line of separation between two counties. As to Gateshead, its interests were as dis- tinct from those of Newcastle as were the interests of Salford from those of Manchester.

Mr. K. DOUGLAS and Mr. KNIGHT spoke against the claim of Gateshead.

Mr. WOOD observed, that Gateshead and Newcastle were in 'afferent parishes, under separate jurisdictions, and in different counties ; whereas of Hull and Sculcoates, no one could tell where the one began or the other ended, and their poor assessment was common.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE spoke of Gateshead as a petty suburb. Mr. RUSSELL (we believe) said, Sir Henry knew nothing about Gateshead ; he had, indeed, canvassed it two or three times, but merely to obtain the votes of the out-freemen of Durham, who re- sided in it. He confirmed Mr. Wood's statement.

After some further conversation, in which Sir CHARLES WE- IrimaELL jioned at length, Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, by way. of diversion, introduced the county of Glamorgan ' • and a conver- sation.still longer ensued, not on Gateshead, but onMerthyr-Tydvil mad the claims of theiron-manufacturers. -Sir HENRY HARDINGE ITIested strongly on the superior merits of Merthyr. Mr. D. W. HARVEY ridiculed the new ground taken up by the Opposition—

They seemed, for the first time, to have made the discovery, if he was to judge faun their proposition with respect to Merthyr.Tydvil, that the Bill was not sufficiently Jacobinical, not half enough democratical. Why, they now eclahned, refuse a member to Merthyr.Tydvil, with a popula- tion of 34,000 persons? \Vas this, then, the result of the cogitations of

the 'Ultra-Tory Cabinet at Pall ? Was this the plan which they had determined to propound ? After more than a month spent in delibera- tion, was nis the ouzings of their design ? Here was population taken as the basis of representation by the defenders el Old Sarum. On what ,round, then, he would ask, did they contend against the dissolution of the Boronghs in Schedules A and B ? and why, if they had determined to broach this, their new plan of Reform, did they waste so many evenings 'in pronouncing funeral orations over the bodies of the slain ? If this was their course and their intention, why bad they expended so much argu-. meat in opposition to the destruction of the system of nomination ?

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said, Mr. Harvey had delivered one of the hackneyed speeches of vulgar abuse wills which the House had so often been favoured during the course of these debates. Sir Edward went on to speak of the Bill as not a final measure ; and finished by declaring against Gateshead.

Lord ALTHORP said, the conjunction of boroughs was continued in Wales, because it already existed there. The Government had attended to every suggestion, and made the Bill as satisfactory as they could to all around them; it was their wish to make the Bill final.

Lord J. STUART spoke in favour of Merthyr.Tydvil; and con- trasted the condition of Cardiff, with which it was about to be joined, Caine and Morpeth. Several other members spoke, on the Welsh boroughs, Durham, and the finality of the Bill.

Mr. A. B A It I N G complained of the newspapers ; which, by inter- polations of "yawns,' " groans," and other interjectional sen- tenees, ale his speeches a mere pack of nonsense. He also corn- plainsd of being called a " fungus" and a " fool," and expressed a wish that the press, since it 'would not report hint correctly, would let him ;Ilene.

Mr. Huey joined Mr. Baring in abusing the press, especially the Tiou?s. Speeches, he said, to which Inc listened with attention, were passed over, while others that set him to sleep appeared in tin most eloquent phraseology.

Gateshead was retained on a dinision; when there appeared. for the amendment 160, against it 264.

The rest of the schedule was agreed to without discussion.

ere conversation ensued on the question of sittine. on Saturday [to-day] ; which question was, however, agreed to without any division.

2. Music:2gs VICTORIA. A considerable portion of the fund out of which the education and appointments of this young Prin- cess have hitherto been defrayed, have, it appears, been supplied by her uncle, the King of Belgium. That source being dried up by the relinquishment ofhis annuity as widower of the Princess Charlotte, it was necessary to call on Parliament for a grant to nial;_e good the deficiency. A Royal message was brought down to both Houses on Tuesday, and considered on Wednesday. In the House of Commons; where the grant was to originate, Lord ALTIIORP stated the precedent and reason on which it pro- ceeded— Upon the birth of the Princess Charlotte, the Princess of Wales re-; ceived 6,0001. a year for her maintenance ; and in 1806, that sum was raised to 7,0001., to be paid out of the consolidated fund. In addition to this, the Princess Charlotte was paid a sum of 34,000/. out of the droits of the Admiralty, and received 9,7771. from the Civil List. Upon the whole, the income received by the Princess Charlotte from the tenth year of her age, amounted to 17,0001. a year. In 1823, the sum of 6,0001. was granted for the support of the Princess Victoria ; and that was all that had been voted by the public for her maintenance. The amount of in- come at present received by the Duchess of Kent was 6,0001. a year,—an allowance settled upon her at the time of her marriage; and the further sum of 6,0001. which she received on account of the Princess Victoria. Ile proposed that 10,0001. a year be added to this income; which would make the whole allowance received by the Duchess of Kent 22,0001.,-- namely, 0,0001. for the Duchess herself, and the remaining 16,0001. for the meintenance of the Princess Victoria.

Mr. HUNT opposed the grant ; which he considered to be a most extravagant one. He would have opposed the annuity to the Queen also, but he had gone home to bed before it was proposed to the House. He moved that 5,0001. be substituted for 10,0001.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Colonel DAVIES, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. RITTHVEN, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. W. TAYLOR, Lord EASTNOR, and Mr. PROTHEROE, supported the grant. Lord ALTHORP stated, in answer to Mr. Hunt's notice of the grant to the Queen, that it was moved, not after two in the morn- ing, but before five in the afternoon !

The House divided on HUNT'S amendment, he himself being the teller ; when there appeared for the grant 223, against it 0. It was noticed, in the House of Lords on the same evening, that the message was inaccurately-worded ; the Princess Victoria being described as " Her Highness" instead of " Her Royal Highness." Earl GREY said the message was drawn up by the officer of Go- vernment, whose duty it was to draw up such documents;* and sulmitted to the King. He regretted the inaccuracy—it could not, however, he supposed to imply any want of respect.

• This functionary doubtless conferred on his deputy the honour of writing the message, and his deputy left it to his secretary, who again handed it over to his clerk. If such perpetually recurring inaccuracies were accompanied, as they ought to be, by the instant deprivation of their author, we should soon hear less of them. 3. THE QUEEN OF PORTUGAL. On Wednesday, Lord LoN- DONDERRY put a question to Earl Grey respecting the manner in which the young Queen had been received at Portsmouth. He wished to know whether orders had been given to receive her with Royal honours? Earl GREY said, he could not answer the ques- tion, for he really knew nothing about- what orders had been issued. On Thursday, Lord LONDONDERRY returned to the at- tack. He complained of Earl Grey as wanting in candour in say- ing he did not know what orders, or if any, had been issued ; and read from a newspaper, in proof that orders must -have been given on the subject, an account of the Queen's reception at Portsmouth. He proceeded- " I think that if this little personage—pretesider I call her—was likely to arrive here, the noble Earl must have been prepared for her arrival. He must have been apprized of it; and I can hardly suppose that he is so foreign from the confidence of his own Administration as not to know whether any orders were sent to Portsmouth about the manner in which Donna Maria was to be received. I know that there are many points in which the noble Earl is foreign from .the confidence of his own Adminis- tration ; and I mean to show, not now, but on another occasion, that he is particularly so on the Reform Bill. I wish now to be informed, whether the noble Earl is prepared to give any other answer to my question." Earl GREY said, he might be guilty of ignorance, but he did not see how he could be guilty of want of candour. He added, that in consequence of Lord Londonderry's notice, he had made inquiry, and he now stated that there had been no written instruc- tions on the subject.

" There was a verbal communication," continued Earl Grey, " between the Commander of the Forces, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which it was agreed that Royal honours should be paid to Don Pedro and his daughter Donna Maria. Now these honours are paid in the same way to all individuals connected by relationship with the Royal houses of Europe—they are not paid to them in their political character of crowned heads—they are paid to them as a mark of respect to their Royal rank. In this manner, Don Pedro, and his daughter, Donna Maria, whom the noble Marquis styles a pre- tender, but who, I beg leave to remind him, was received and acknow- ledged by his late Majesty, and by the late Government, as Queen of Por- tugal—in this manner, I repeat, were Don Pedro and his daughter Donna Maria received here with the accustomed honours paid to royalty. Having said this, all that I have now to say is, that it appears to me that the noble Marquis, notwithstanding his grave denunciations, and his la- borious attempts to invest trifles with importance, has, to use a vulgar phrase, discovered nothing but a mare's nest." Lord ABERDEEN said he did not mean to dispute the title of Queen Maria, but he thought the choice of their king rested with the Portuguese nation only : if this doctrine were not conceded, .there could be no reason why Henry the Fifth should not be re- ceived as King of France.

The mention of Henry the Fifth was received with a loud laugh from the Ministerial bench, in which the tones of Lord Holland were heard above all the rest.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY spoke of the principle of non- intervention, on which he would have something to say in a day or two. He concluded by expressing the gratification he had re- • ceived from the acknowledgment of Government that Maria da Gloria was not Queen of Portugal.

4. Dox MIGUEL. Last night, Lord ABERDEEN, on moving for certain papers connected with the Azores, entered at great length into the history of our connexion with Portugal, and of the late transactions in that country and its dependencies. He noticed the original acquiescence of Terceira in the election of Miguel, by what he called the Corti2s of Portugal ; the revolt of the garrison of Angra; the consequent subjection of the Azores to theConsti- tutional party; the establishment of the Regency at Terceira by Don Pedro ; the expedition of the garrison against the other islands, for the purpose, Lord Aberdeen said, of against only ; the embargo laid on vessels in the port of Ang,ra, and the seizure of the Coquette, on the 10th April. He proceeded to describe the pro- gress of the expedition, and to characterize its acts from beginning to end as obviously piratical. This expedition, he observed, was car- ried on in the presence of a British frigate, the Galatea; and at the very same moment a French force was blockading Lisbon, and the British Consul there actually refused to allow two English vessels to put to sea for the purpose of warning Portuguese vessels off the blockaded port, on the pretence that such a permission would be an infraction of the neutrality which England was bound to ob- serve. Lord Aberdeen went on to notice the residence of Don Pedro in this country, obviously with a view to an expedition against Don Miguel, for which ships had even been hired in the Thames. He asked what were Don Pedro's claims to English sympathy or support ?

If Earl Grey would only refer to the documents which had been filed in the Foreign Office during the last four years, lie would see the correct- ness of Lord Aberdeen's assertion, that no power had ever displayed so offensive and so incredible a spirit of injury to the commerce of Great Britain as the ex-Emperor of the Brazils. Talk of injury and insult ! By him insult was added to every injury ; for every injury was justified, and every demand of redress was refused. At last it was found necessary, from the open robbery and spoliation to which. Don Pedro resorted, to send an order to the Admiralty to give directions that reprisals should be made upon him, if certain conditions were not acceded to. These condi- tions, when a squadron was sent out to enforce them, were acceded to. He had not thought it necessary to insert that despatch in the newspapers, much less to mention it in the Speech from the Throne ; for he did not wish to humble Don Pedro, his principal object being to protect British commerce. He was informed that the convention which was then en- - tered into, though signed, was still unexecuted ; and he firmly believed, that if the noble Lords opposite performed their duty, they would have to follow up the example of the late Government, and to deal with Pedro II. as the late Government had dealt with Pedro I. He strongly deprecated the late transactions of the Tirol& fleet— He could not trust himself to speak of them as he felt; but he was sure that there was no man who had a particle of English feeling in his heart,

that did not share with him in those feelings. It was quite impossible that the noble Earl should not share in them. In the conduct of the French force before Lisbon, he saw no humiliation of Portugal— it was England only that was degraded. (Laughter from the Ministerial benches, and cheers front the Margins of Londonderry.)

His Lordship asked, what would have been done had Charles the Tenth sent such an expedition to Lisbon, and the white flag in- stead of the tricolor had waved under its walls ? He then entered into a long discussion of the numerous treaties, ancient and modern, between England and Portugal, which bound us, he contended, to uphold not only that country and its Government, but to uphold the country in spite of its Government. He spoke of the attempts on Miguel's power ; he thought it not impossible that evert

his life might at last fall a sacrifice to the attacks of his enemies ; but that would form no argument against his character. Henry the Fourth fell by an assassin, while Louis the Eleventh died in his bed. Lord Aberdeen concluded—

If it were a main object of Earl Grey's policy to overwhelm Don Miguel's Government, and expel him from a kingdom the inhabitants of which were devoted to him, let him say so at once; and, above all, if it were his intention to commit the King, his master, in a war for that pur- pose, let him declare that such was his intention. Pretexts for such a.

war could not fail to present themselves in abundance ; and it would be a more honest course to avow that such was his object, than to indirectly contribute towards it by refusing to interfere when called upon—as he was by Portugal—between our most ancient ally and our most ancient adversary.

Earl GREY complained, that, on pretence of discussing the insu- lated case of the Azores, Lord Aberdeen had gone at large into the Portuguese question, admitting all the while that the documents necessary for its elucidation could not, under present circumstances, be dernanled. Of the French expedition, Lord Grey said—

The /table Earl asserted, with his usual confidence, that he was convinced that reparation had nut been refused by Portugal to France in the first instance. Ile was in error : the Portuguese Government not only refused redress, but left the French Government hardly any other course to pur- sue than to demand that redress in the manner they had done. This would be seen at the proper time, as also the unfoundedness of another assertion of the noble Earl—that the counsel which he admitted Ministers had given to Portugal had been given too late. Earl Grey most emphati- cally denied that it had been proffered at a late period of the transaction ; and would he, at the proper time, prepared to show, that not only the British Government had early counselled the Portuguese authorities to make reparation to the King of the French, but had early been assisted by the Spanish Government in their co-remonstrances to that purpose.

Lord Aberdeen had taunted Government with its predilection for Liberal Governments-

" I know not," said Earl Grey, "what censure or sneers the declara- tion I am about to make may elicit from the noble Earl, and those who, like him, hold despotic governments just now in such particular esteem ; neither do I Much care. Neither shall deter me from stating, fearlessly and explicitly, that I have, and ever had, and ever shall have, a predi- lection for a form of government founded on right and justice ; and that, on the contrary, I have, ever had, and ever shall have, a feeling of aver- sion from governments founded on usurpation, and supported by cruelty and blood." (Continued chars.) He went on to remark on Lord Aberdeen's sudden and unac- countable change of sentiments respecting Miguel. Earl Grey quoted the character of Miguel given by the Duke of Wellington. That noble person said— "I admit Don Miguel to be an usurper. I believe him to be. perfidious and cruel, because cruelty belongs to cowardice. I will not attempt to deny that his Government is an usurpation, and that he has himself broken all ties, pledges, and oaths, which bound him in alliance with this country and in allegiance to his brother." These, added Lord Grey, were the sentiments of the noble head of the Administration of which the noble Earl was a member ; they were at the time, it is to be presumed, also his own,—at least he was very cautious in suppressing different ones if he entertained them. (Cheers and a laagh.) But now, it seems, the noble Earl had discovered that Don Miguel was a " marvellous proper man," and that thd portrait so true, so graphic, of his ex-commander did not apply to him. Such are the wonderful discoveries men make who are anxious to be restored to office. (Cheers and laughter.) . After ridiculing that new-born affection which tempted Lord Aberdeen to compare Don Miguel to the beloved Henry the Fourth of France, and after expressing his abhorrence of the principle of assassination, in whatever case applied, Lord Grey proceeded to comment on some expressions of Lord Aberdeen's respecting Louis Philip— He would not follow the noble Earl in his very indiscreet—he used the mildest term—allusion to the King of the French, and to the Duke of Orleans his father. Surely the noble Earl's partisan zeal in defence of despotism could not blind him so effectually to a regard for the public weal at large, as for him not to see that such indecorous insinuations could only be irritating, without any single compensating advantage? Indeed, such language, coupled with the general tenor of the noble Earl's speech, struck him with wonder. Before that evening, he was not aware, and could not believe, that anxiety to reoccupy office could have so in- fluenced any noble Lord, as to make him so blind, or negligent, or incliffe- :entws:Or it must be one of the three—to the general interests-of the country, as to make use of language so calculated to produce nationaE mischief; and this language, too, with reference to a monarch whom the noble Earl and his colleagues had—to their credit be it said—promptly and judiciously acknowledged as the king of a great and free people. (Cheers.) Lord Grey concluded by briefly stating the history of the Coquette— It was true that a vessel so named, belonging to a Mr. Dart, a merchant in the City, had been seized by the Government at Terceira, and used on the expedition to which the noble Earl's motion referred; but it was equally true that compensation was offered to that gentleman, either to pay him the value of the ship, or for its use, by the authorities of Ter- ceira. Mr. Dart's application to the British Government had been made on the 24th or 25th of May; on the 31st an order to institute the fullest inquiry into the matter had been forwarded to the Consul-general at the Western Isles, who bad not yet made his report. Till that report had been made, he would not offer any opinion on the transaction ; and, for the same reason, must negative that portion of the noble Earl's motion which referred to it.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought Lord Aberdeen could not have made out his case completely without going into the details that he had done. The Duke contended that the French expedi- tion was not limited in its object to the demand of restitution. He found it put forth in a French newspaper, that one of its objects was to ascertain whether there were any revolutionary party in Portugal. The Duke observed that Don Pedro was a mere pri- vate individual, however exalted ; and that he could not plan expe- ditions from the Azores or elsewhere, nor in British ships for their accomplishment, "without a violation of law and justice." Lord HOLLAND commented on the Duke's logic- "' I have read,' said the Duke, in the newspapers, or rather in a newspaper of France, that the editor had a suspicion that the people of France, and the French Government, had ulterior views to those of de- manding satisfaction of Portugal ; and that such views had been defeated by the representations of the Government of England.' Now, mark the logic of the noble Duke," continued Lord Holland—" first, the French newspaper was called a document, although newspapers and the press are generally spoken of by that side of the House in terms of contempt. Well, this document informs the noble Duke, that the ulterior views of France were defeated by the wisdom of the English Ministers ; and what was the noble Duke's inference from this ? Why, that he must call Minis- ters to account, and demand a full statement of what they had been doing: and where ?—not with the French or in Portugal—but at Terceira." The motion, after a few words from Lord ELLENBOROUGH, was negatived without a division.

5. .CHANCERY APPEALS. In his attempts to get rid of the ar- rears of appeals in the Court of Chancery, Lord Brougham has been met by some objections of form. ' Among others, a doubt was suggested, by Sir Edward Sugden we believe, respecting the bearing of affidavits in cases of appeals after " Seal-day." We shall give it in Lord Brougham's own language.

There was no doubt as to whether affidavits might he read at any time; but the doubt was, whether affidavits could be read in cases of appeal en- tered after the last Seal-day. An appeal was entered and notice of the circumstance was served, and then the question came to be whether, as the appeal was entered after the last Seal, the affidavit of service could be read ? The entry of the appeal after the last Seal made the whole differ- ence.

To solve the doubt in the readiest way, Lord Beau GRAM intro- duced a short Bill into the Upper House, which stood for a second readine. on Thursday. On the question being put, Lord ELDON opposed the bill as unnecessary. The Lord Chancellor had the power, of his own authority, to have affi- davits read either before or after Seals, or at any time that he chose, from the first day of January to the last day of December. He had power, even in the time usually called the Long Vacation, to proceed with causes in any stage, and to hear affidavits read, or carry on any proceeding touching the suit, and to call counsel and solicitors before him to proceed with the business of the Court. Ile had sat a long time in the Court of Chancery, and never had the least doubt as to the Lord Chancellor's powers in this respect. There was, therefore, in his opinion, no occasion whatever for passing this Bill ; and as there was no occasion for it, that was a sufficient objection to its passing. He had sometimes sat from six o'clock in the morning till eleven at night ; and at all times of the day, and at all times of the year, he had permitted applications to be made on important matters requiring dispatch, and had heard affidavits read, with- out any doubt of his power to do so, in case he had thought it proper. The Court of Chancery was open during the whole year; and there busi- ness might at any time be transacted, without regard to its being before or after Seals, which were appointed merely as matters of convenience. The LORD CHANCELLOR explained the circumstances under which he had brought forward the Bill. He had asked the Bar, and they could give him no satisfactory answer ; the Registrars were equally at a loss. All he could get from them was, that what he wished to do had never been done. He readily allowed that Lord Eldon's dictum was sufficient authority ; and as it showed the bill to be unnecessary, he would allow the second reading to stand over indefinitely, unless some reasonable doubts were brought forward which might render it necessary to proceed with it.

6. MR. O'CONNELL. Lord ELDON has moved for S. copy of the record of Mr. O'Connell's conviction, not with a view to raise any question on it, but with a view to the introduction of some mea- sure to prevent such accidental pardons in future. He meant, where conviction took place before the expiry of a statute, to hold parties liable in the penalties, even though the act should expire before judgment was pronounced.

7. WINE- DUTIES. A motion was made on Thursday, by Mr. ATTWOOD, for the production of the Treasury minute by virtue of which the new duties (the act being meant to be retrospective) are at present levied. He designated the levying of duties without authority of Parliament, as unjustifiable, unconstitutional, and illegal.. He spoke of the meeting at the Foreign Office, where members were instructed not to debate, but to vote. He also complained, in respect to these duties, that the House had been taken by surprise. Lord ALTHORP answered to this tirade—Ist, that the practice adopted•by Government was strictly conformable to. precedent in all similar cases ; and to show this, he would amend Mr. Att- wood's motion, and call for all the Treasury minutes of the same kind issued since 1800: 2nd, that at the meeting alluded to, the Wine-duties were never mentioned or hinted at: 3rd, that he had given distinct notice in answer to a question put from Mr. Att- wood's side of the House.

Mr. GouLairax observed, that the resolutions bore no date. Mr. POULETT Tnomsorr said, neither did those of 1825.

Mr. CALLAGHAN took a distinction between a case in which duties were lowered, and where they were raised. [The present case is one which embraces both: the French wines are lowered, and the Portuguese wines raised.] The return was ordered, as was an order for the quantity of wine on which the new duties had been levied.