NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE Parliamentary business of this week, like that of the last, has been our Foreign Relations, and "the Bill." The former question has lost its raciness. The debate of Thursday, on Sir RICHARD VYVYAN'S postponed motion, was distinguished from the former debates as much by its dulness, as its length. There is something hiCaricaivably, ridiculous in long speeches calling for papers which itsiSbeforehand known cannot be granted, and soliciting replies which it is equally 'known will not and ought not to be made. In this case they are doubly ridiculous, for the mischief, if there be any; is already Ilene. "Sir ROBERT Pgae, who, in compensation for -the sadness 'of -his jokes, is the most humorously serious gen-
haS, assured the Ministers, that these discus- sionS are provoked by no Wish to embarrass them, but solely by an anxious desire for the welfare of the country. And Lord ALTHCRP nods assent ! Oh, the easy assurance of the Outs and the easy faith of the Ins-what a constellation would they form in con- junction! . .
Ministers have been defeated on one point of the Bill, by a large majority. The Standard asks if they will retire? Perhaps they Quest. _Itwoiilcl be. a proper punishment of the band of trimming traitors who pretend to support them and the people, and, when their own interests, real or supposed, for a moment interfere, turn round and betray both. The extension of the franchise in coun- ties to tenants-at-will, is one of the most injurious " amendments" that could have been. made. All the alterations that Ministers themselves have introduced have been good,—extensions, not limitations of the principle of the great measure. The amend- ment of Lord CHANDOS smacks in every way of the bad school with which it originated. The case of tenants-at-will of land and of houses has been attempted to be confounded. The distinction is plain and palpable. In dwelling-houses—that is, in 99 cases out of 100—the tenant is the obliging, the landlord is the obliged person, without any exception. In shops and warehouses, the landlord is the obliged in almost every instance. But the great distinction between houses and farms is, that a tenant does not live by his house—he does live by his farm. Take away a house, the tenant may suffer inconvenience ; take away alarm, the tenant may suffer ruin. There is another marked distinction—he who discharges a house tenant, punishes himself; he who discharges a land tenant, punishes the tenant only. A man can plough and sow his own lands, and reap their fruits, whether he have. a farmer or not ; but he cannot inhabit a street, and if he could, he would gain nothing but loss from the extended occu- pancy. It is wholly false that the farmer of 50/. is a more respect- able person than the occupant of a 10/. house. He is a labourer of a much lower. grade ; his earnings are much smaller—his edu- cation is commonly much inferior. In a word, the landlord of a 10/. tenant is under the greatest, the landlord of a 501. farmer under the least possible obligation, to respect him ; the one is amongst the most independent, the other amongst the least independent of the community; and were both, in that respect, on an equal foot- ins., the 10/. householder is infinitely more capable of exercising The franchise arie;ht than the 501. farmer is. The amendment is as impudent as it is injurious. It has been introduced and supported in order to create slaves, not electors—to shackle, not to enfran- chise ; and we now give the men who introduced, and the men who supported it, this solemn warning—let them take it as they Wlll—jfit work as they wish it to do, they shall have the Ballot before the wiry of 1832. They may think lightly of our decla- ration, but they will change their tone ere twelve months go over their heads. Ministers, always well-intentioned, have, it may be seen, attempted to mend the amendment, or rather to balance its
evils ; something they will effect, but much of bad will still remain behind, and.for all that remains, their false friends are responsible.
That active and eloquent gentleman, Mr. Hooass HUGHES, whom the Times has, by its late and laggard praise, cockered into consequence, has given not:ce of an intention to renew General GASCOYNE'S motion ! Why don't the. Ministers let loose Sergeant WILDE on his meddlesome ex-attoriaey brother; and worry him at once?
The only other point respecting the Bill, is the motion of Mr. HVME for giving members to the Colonies,—a just and proper sub- ject of a second bill, but evidently impracticable as an amendment on the first.
The subject of Poland, introduced by Colonel EVANS, has been coldly received, though warmly recommended. The diversion in favour of the Czar, made by the Dutch King, is the rock a-head here. There is no want of good feeling in the Ministry, more than in the people.
The Bishop of LONDON is exceedingly zealous against the new beer-houses. . He declares that the peasantry in England do nothing else but drink home brewed and play to skittles. We think sonic inquiry ought to be instituted into the source whence the money for the one and the time for the other are derived. We are per- petually dinned about the distresses of the peasantry, and bills by cart-loads lie on the tables of Parliament for their relief; and all the while these rogues are laughing in their sleeves as cheerily as a parson &lens Tiscopari, absorbing heavy, and bowling away from morning to night. The beer-houses are a nuisance that must be abated—or well-taxed.
The modest proposal of Mr. LEFROY to compel the over- burdened Catholics of Ireland to furnish their Protestant brethren with chapels of ease, as well as churches, was last night most deservedly thrown out, by 38 to 11. Mr. Hume has the credit of the act. . • The consideration of the See of Derry has been deferred by Mr. Huma to Tuesday sennight. There is a terrible to do about the disposal of this 20,000/. a year. Lord STRANGFORD has made another earnest prayer to Minis- ters to be allowed to kiss the King. Really there are strange tastes. Had it been the Queen, we would not have wondered at the Tory Lord's anxiety. Lord LONDONDERRY has put in a word for the Peeresses. They are so eager to have a procession! The Marquis has been accused of an ambition to "ride in the whirl- wind and direct the tempest ;" 'but in this case, we suspect, it is the Tempest that directs the Marquis.
I. FOREIGN RELATIONS. On Tuesday, the Earl of ORFORD put several questions to Earl Grey respecting Belgium. He pre- faced them by a history of the various protocols, and a disquisition on the much disputed terms nwyens militaires. Earl Grey, Lord Orford observed, had said on a former evening, that if the Dutch troops retreated within their own frontier, the French army would be withdrawn ; but it appeared from the declaration of a Minister of State in the Chambers in France, that they were to remain until all chance of aggression on the part of Holland was at an end. Oct this point he should like to hear some information from the noble Lord. Then, as to the fortresses, it appeared fmn the speech of M. Casimir Perrier, that King Leopold was not to be recognized by France until the demolition of the fortresses should be complied with. Their Lordships had heard it stated, that by one of the protocols, the demolition of the fortresses was urged as a matter of economy to Belgium ; but the French Minister stated that their demolition should be exacted from Belgium as the condition of her recognition by France. He wished to know from the noble Earl how- the case stood, and what were the fortresses to be demolished.
Earl GREY complained of such premature discussions as that which the Earl of Orford wished to provoke, and of the want of courtesy in neither giving him public nor private notice of the ques- tions now put.
Lord Orford, under pretence of asking a question, had gone into a re- view of the whole case between Belgium and Holland and the Conference of London. The statement abounded in errors ; hut he would not refer to them for the purpose of refutation, as he was determined not to follow the noble Earl's statement. Lord Orford wished to know for what pur- pose the French army had entered Belgium. That purpose he had thought was quite obvious,—to support Belgium against the invasion of the Dutch,—to maintain that armistice which Lord Orford said had never been established, but which Earl Grey would contend had been fully established, and with the concurrence also of Holland and Belgium. Lord Orford next asked whether France would take such .and such a course. Earl Grey was not there to-answer for what France would do ; but if the noble Earl asked him what it was this Government had a right to expect from France, he would tell him that this Government had a right to expect, and did expect, that France would withdraw her army as soon as the object for which her aid was required had been attained. As to the reports of the speeches delivered in the Chambers in France, Earl Grey would put a hypothetical case : Suppose a Minister of France were to state in his place a matter differently from what it appeared on the face of written encragements, was that a matter for which a Minister. in Eng- land could be fairly called to account ? The last question of the noble Earl related to the fortresses which were to be demolished. To that he replied; that rInthing was yet determined on the subject. Certain
tresses were to he destroyed ; but as to the particular fortresses, or the conditions or obligations which might be annexed to their demolition by other parties, he could say nothing.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed, that the blunders that bad been made, and that were apparent on the face of the negoti- ations, abundantly justified the questions of Lord Orford. Earl Grey had given assurances that the French troops would withdraw 'when the Dutch should have withdrawn ; and there were those in that House who would take care that he should be responsible for these as- surances. He would not at present say any thing more on the subject ; but when the proper time arrived, he should take care that the subject should be fully discussed.
The Duke of WELLINGTON reminded the fiends beside him, that nothing which a Minister of France might choose to say svould remove a signature from a document. Earl GREY said, the Duke had anticipated what he was about to observe— The force of official documents could not be lessened by what might be said by any Minister in France or here. He was responsible, as a bdinister and a man of honour, for what he stated in that House ; and under that responsibility he had stated what this country had a right to expect under engagements entered into with other Powers, and he was no further pledged, as to the introduction of the French troops into Belgium, or as to the purpose for which they entered, or as to when or upon what conditions they should be withdrawn. As to the observations of Lord Londonderry, he should only say, that if that Noble Earl wished to excite animosities between nations, and to interrupt the general peace, he could adopt no better course than that which he was pursuit)... The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would not be deterred from taking part on such occasions, by "the cheers or the yells" given by the Ministerial side in support of Earl Grey. The case of Portugal, another portion of our Foreign Relations which has of late caused considerable discussion, was touched upon in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Lord VALLETORT said, it was stated, on authority which he could not doubt, that the French had seized and carried off the Portuguese fleet, except a couple of schooners. De hoped Mi- nisters were prepared with a satisfactory reason why they had allowed such an act of spoliation to be perpetrated. If they could not, he would say, judging merely from his feelings, that the fleet of Admiral Codrington might have been much better employed in preventing it, than in lying in the Downs for the purpose of assist- ing to crush a weak but ancient ally, who merely sought to gain what he thought to be his right. He wished to know from Minis- ters, whether the facts he had stated were true or not.
Lord PALMERSTON said, the information of the noble Lord was Correct— The Portuguese ships of war struck to the French, in consequence of the engagement which took place, when the French fleet entered the Tagus. Part of the fleet was considered prize of war, and was retained as such. One line-of-battle ship, which was dismantled, and took no part in the action, was given up. Mr. PEREGRINE COURTENAY wished to know, if a war of ag- gression were waged against an ally of this country, whether we would not be bound to interfere ?
Lord PALMERSTON said, he should certainly decline to answer such questions. If any member thought that in matters con- nected with foreign policy the Government had not done their duty, let him submit such a motion to the House, and Ministers You'd meet it. They were able as well as willing to defend their conduct.
Poland was also the subject of a conversation on Tuesday night, as well as Belgium and Portugal. Colonel EVANS had been accidentally absent when his name was called in the notice-paper, and he in consequence framed his motion as an amendment to the question of the Speaker's quitting the chair that the House might go into Committee on the Reform Bill. Colonel Evans's motion respected the production of copies of information received, or negotiations entered into respecting neutrality being observed or violated by any states, especially Prussia, in the present contest between Poland and Russia ; but the chief object of the gallant Colonel's address was to show that Poland, under the treaties of 1815, was so far an independent state, as to have a right to demand neutrality from other states, and ought to receive it. The doctrine of the necessity of recon- structing the kingdom of Poland, he remarked, originated with the English Minister in 1815..
The views of Lord Castlereagh with respect to Poland were supported in the Congress by Austria and by Prussia. The Emperor of Austria even declared, that far from consenting to the union of the Duchy of Warsaw with Russia, he was disposed to make some sacrifice of his own posses- sions, for the sake of the entire reestablishment of Poland as an inde- pendent kingdom. Prince Talleyrand, too, on the part of France, ex- pressed himself thus in a note to Prince Metternich, dated December 19 1814:—" Of all the questions to be discussed at this Congress, the King would undoubtedly consider the affair of Poland as incomparably the most important to the interests of Europe ;" adding, "The partition which destroyed its existence as a nation was the prelude, in some mea- sure the cause, perhaps even to a certain degree an apology, for the sub- sequent commotions to which Eultope was exposed." The Emperor Alexander, however, opposed the reestablishment of Poland as a nation under a dynasty of its own, and would consent to no arrangements in re- gard to Poland, of which the annexation of it to Russia did not form a part. As the troops of Russia were at this period in possession of Poland, the three Powers who were anxious for the reestablishment of Poland as ndent nation, did not consider it safe to urge their proposition certain point. In consequence, however, of the pressing in- *the three Powers, a free constitution and the nationality of 44 conceded by Russia, but only upon condition that Poland
heAnnexed to the Russian dominions. The first article of the
.of-Vienna was this:—" The Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception thcise prqvinces and districts which are otherwise disposed of by the oviintnTticles, is united to Russia. It shall be irrevocably bound to the Russian empire by its constitution." He entreated the House to ob.. serve the expression—" shall be irrevocably bound to the Russian empire by its constztution." This condition was reiterated in various treaties, official documents, and diplomatic notes, from one of which the following passage, which alluded to that constitution, was extracted :—" His Royal Highness the Prince Regent would then no longer have to fear that any danger to the liberty of Europe should result from the union of Poland with the Russian empire, already so powerful,—a danger which would not be. imaginary if the military force of the two countries should ever be united under the command of an ambitious and warlike monarch." The constitution, then, of Poland was to be its bond of union with the Russian empire. Colonel Evans proceeded to describe the particulars of the con- stitution, which formed this bond of union, and the open and notori- ous violations of it. He adverted to the grasping spirit of the Rus- sian empire, and its general hatred of popular institutions. It was Russia, he observed, which prompted the Austrian interference in Italy and the French interference in Spain. He remarked on the declaration of the French Minister, that France. would do all she could to preserve the peace of Europe undisturbed. The French Minister could not preserve that which did not exist. The French Minister could not preserve that entirewhich was already broken.. Europe was not in a state of peace, and could not be in a state of peace while the war in Poland continued,—while the Powers of Europe allowed the continuance of that war, which was an outrage and an insult upon all the great potentates who, by their representatives at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, guaranteed the national independence of Poland, upon certain and defined conditions, each of which had been violated. If Russia were successful in the struggle, and Poland were subdued, that country would be garrisoned, not as heretofore by Polish troops, but by a Russian army. This work effected, it would not be difficult to foretel whither Russia would next direct its encroaching steps. The gallant Colonel concluded by stating, that his opinion of the faithlessness of Prussia was not derived from newspaper ac- counts, but from the position of the invading forces, of which he spoke as a military man.
For the last two months, the resources of the Russian army must have been derived from some neutral power. The Russian army had crossed the Vistula ; their rear was on Prussia ; and for some time their com- munication with Russia had been cut off. No army, so situated, could have maintained the position which the Russian army had so long main- tained, without having derived resources from a neutral power.
Lord PALMERSTON said, he could not concur in Colonel Evans's motion ; neither did he intend to follow his speech in the wide range that it had taken. He was sure the House would feel convinced, that his Majesty's Minis- ters could not have witnessed the contest in Poland without the deepest regret, and that it would be most satisfactory to them to see a termina- tion put to it. At the same time, he was convinced that the House must feel that if he were to pronounce an opinion upon the merits of the con- test,—if he were to go into a discussion respecting the grounds and cir- cumstances upon which the honourable and gallant gentleman had dwelt, and if he were to canvass the conduct of other powers in reference to the war,—he should be most unwarrantably departing from that line which his duty as a Minister of the Crown impressed upon him. He hoped that neither the House nor the honourable and gallant member would think that he was doing or intending any thing disrespectful in thus contenting himself with a simple declaration, that he felt it his duty to resist the motion.
The motion was negatived, after a few words of sympathy from Mr. HumE and Mr. O'CONNELL.
Sir RICHARD VYVYAN brought forward the motion which had been so often put and so often put off, on Thursday. The formal motion was for the mere production of certain papers, but its real object was to discuss the propriety of English interference in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. Sir Richard noticed the various attempts he had made to bring forward his motion, and the causes that had interfered to prevent him. He adverted to the declara- tion of Lord Palmerston respecting the withdrawing of the French troops—
Since the noble Lord made that declaration, it had been rumoured, that although the Dutch troops had been recalled within their own fron- tier, the French troops were to remain in Belgium ; and the last news which had been received was to the effect, that 30,000 French troops were to continue in Belgium, as an army of observation, until half the Dutch army should be disbanded, and the expense of the war defrayed by the Dutch. This was a question upon which the honour of England stood committed ; and not only the honour of England, but the honour also of all the great Powers who had assisted at the Conference.
Sir Richard said we were perpetually getting into difficulties, out of which nothing could extricate us but concessions ; and asked if we were prepared for another concession merely because France had an armed force in the Netherlands. The question of the letters, he observed, had been sufficientiy discussed ; he would therefore direct the attention of the House chiefly to the two protocols on which the King of Holland had taken his stand. Sir Richard here entered into a history of the acts of the Conference—the agree- ment of the King of Holland to the first propositions made to him —the rejection of them by the Belgians—the letter of Lord Pon- sonby—the choice of Leopold and the oath offered to him, which Sir Richard contended was directly contrary to the eighteen articles which formed the basis of ultimate arrangement between the par- ties. He said the sending over of Leopold under these circum- stances would be a blot in the history of the country, and might at some future day be used as a ground of charge against Ministers. Sir Richard concluded this part of his argument— He trusted that he had said enough to prove that the King of the- Netherlands had been perfectly justified in the course which he had pur- sued. He had been most unjustly treated, and he had been most unrea■- sonably asked to give his assent to propositions which were clearly in favour of his revolted subjects; and when, in defiance of all feelings of delicacy towards the King of the Netherlands, the Conference acknow- ledged the King of Belgium, the King of the Netherlands might have acted imprudently in casting an affront upon a body so powerful as the Conference; but at all events this must be said for him, that in doing SO he acted honourably towards the Dutch nation, and with a due regard to the feelings and the honour of that people whom the Destinies had corn.
mitted to his charge ; and however history might hereafter dwell upon the imprudence of his conduct, it could not but do justice to the nature and motives of his enterprise.
He proceeded to a more important and comprehensive view of the subject. He admitted that the conjunction of Belgium with Holland in 1815 was a mistake, although it might have been passed over in consideration of the peace of Europe, to which it was subservient. But the conjunction of Belgium and Holland, and the annexation of Luxemburg to the latter, were distinct acts.
It was a matter of great importance to bring this new king,dom of Holland and Belgium . into the Germanic Confederation. Now by the annexation of the Duchy of Luxemburg to that kingdom, Holland and Belgium were introduced into the Germanic Confederation, and all the Powers that were united in that Confederation had entered into a gua- rantee with each other to preserve the tranquillity of Europe, so that it was plain that no war could take place while the Duchy of I uxemburg remained part of the Germanic Confederation, and of the kingdom of the Netherlands. All the Powers that were engaged in that Confedera- tion guaranteed that Duchy to the King of 'Tolland as clearly as any of the smaller states had been guaranteed to the other Powers ; and all the Powers were mutually hound together not to enter into any engagements which might be calculated to affect the safety of the Confederation, or of the individual States united in it. There was no denying that such a guarantee, to which the King of this country, as King of Hanover, was a party, existed. The new Sovereign of Belgium, however, on accepting the throne of that country, took an oath to maintain Luxemburg as a part of the Belgian kingdom. In doing so, be actually flew in the face of the Conference ; and yet, to the surprise of the world, when the King of Holland said that be would not allow this, the Conference turned round on him, and told him that he must. Sir R. Vyvyan's charge against his Majesty's Ministers was, that they did not attend to that guarantee which was to be found in the 67th article of the Treaty of Vienna, and that they did not compel the Belgians to respect it. He might be told that the King of the Netherlands could still sell his right to the Duchy of Lux- emburg, but that had nothing to do with the question. The Belgians should have been made to respect that right, before compensation for it was talked of.
Even supposing compensation given, there still remained the question, was Belgium to be a member of the Germanic Confede- ration or not? If not, instead of a bulwark against France, it would remain under its protection. Sir Richard went on to de- fend the government of the King of Holland in Belgium. He adverted to the charge of his having acted as a tyrant both M civil and religious matters,—an allusion which called forth a marked cheer from Mr. O'Connell, and led to a long tirade, not against the Belgians, but against the member for Kerry— He understood that cheer from the honourable member for Kerry. The time had at length arrived when they were able to tear the mask off a party that had done, and that was doing, so much mischief in Europe. The machinations of that party had given rise to what had taken place in Belgium, and it was now pretty plain that the efforts of the same party were at work to create a somewhat similar explosion in another quarter, with which the honourable member for Kerry might be acquainted, and to which Sir R. Vyvyan should not more particularly allude. That party was the cause of the revolution in France, though it might have been attributed to the Liberals. It was in consequence of the system which that party carried on in Belgium that the revolt succeeded there, and the same party were desirous to provoke a similar resistance elsewhere. Although the explosion had taken place in Belgium through the machina- tions of that party, while the left wing was looking on in Dublin, there was still time left to unmask such a party, and to counteract its efforts. The House could not fail to observe, that precisely the same plan was fol- lowed in Ireland that had been adopted in Belgium. There were the same kind of petitions, and upon the same subjects. There were peti- tions against the College of Louvain in the one instance, and against the Kildare Street Society in the other. Sir Richard went on to defend the King of Holland from the charge of improper intermeddling with the national education—
In the year 1825, the King of the Netherlands put forth a public edict with regard to education. The missionaries were then going about in Belgium, tormenting the people there as they had been doing in Nor- mandy in France. The King ordained that the schools which were to be erected under this edict should be under the direction of the Catholic Bishops. Had the Belgians any reason to complain of that ? The object of the King of Holland in erecting those schools was, in fact, tolera- tion. He was anxious to impart a national education to the Belgians, and to bind them up with the interests and the institutions of the country in which they lived. In 1825 and in 1826, the subject was brought before the States-General, and it was to be remarked that on both those occa- sions the Liberals by no means spoke against the edict of the King of the Netherlands. In 1827 a concordat was entered into by the Belgic nation, and that was received quietly, not only by the nation at large, but by that party also which subsequently caused the revolt. At the end, how- ever, of the year 1827, and in the year 1828, efforts were made by this party to get up petitions against the laws with respect to education. In consequence of such efforts, in the year 1829, the table of the States-Ge- neral was loaded with petitions against the schools and the edict of the King. A modification of the laws was then granted by the King, and granted to as liberal an extent as any man who was not disposed to be a traitor to his King could have desired on the subject.
The charge of withholding Juries from Belgium was most un- founded; the fact was, three jury bills had been sent by the King to the Chambers at Brussels, and all three were rejected. Sir Richard made a distinction between the revolution in France, in the occurrence of which he said he rejoiced, and that of Belgium, which he must condemn—
The French and Belgic revolutions differed materially; and the differ- ence consisted in this,—that while the revolution in France was a just resistance to arbitrary authority, thatin Belgium was an unjust and unpro- voked rebellion. The impartial page of history would describe the revo- lution in Francein the terms he had mentioned, while the revolutionin Belgiumwould be regarded as a rebellion.
He-went on to observe, that the Ultra party in France differed essentially from the Ultra party in this country : here they stood for existin.g institutions—there they were opposed to all existing Institutions. He particularly exhorted Ministers not to give way to the Ultra party in France.
He believed that the Cabinet of France was not acting dishonestly, but in that country there was a power behind the Cabinet, which influenced. if it did not control, its actions. He would entreat his Majesty's Minis- ters, for the honour of England,—he would implore them, for the safety of the country and for the peace of Europe, to make a firm, and a bold„
and a determined resistance to the line of policy which that party in
France would wish to pursue. He was well aware that there were some subjects upon which it was dangerous to expatiate, when they had to deal with Powers that might take offence at the slightest suggestions of those who were supposed to be hostile to them ; but in all the necessary care of not offending others, an equal care should be taken not to injure themselves. He would wish Ministers to take care not to give any just cause of offence to the revolutionary party in France, but he would wish them to be equally guarded in not surrendering the power they al- ready possessed, for bullies always became greater bullies by concessions; and if Ministers would only be firm and resolved, they would meet with. the support, not only of that House, but of the whole country.
Lord ELIOT, in seconding Sir Richard's motion, followed a similar train of argument. Lord PALMERSTON observed, that the mere appointment of a Sovereign to Belgium was by no means so conclusive a step, that Government might on that account lay before Parliament the whole particulars of the negotiations which had preceded it.
The object for which his Majesty's Ministers had embarked in the transaction had not been to procure a Sovereign for Belgium, but to establish and secure the peace of Europe. Until that peace was esta- blished, he.did not consider the transaction as in any respect complete; and he felt that it was impossible, without doing a prejudice to the best and vital interests of the country, to produce any papers or enter into any explanations upon the subject.
Lord Palmerston said, his speech must be necessarily brief, for his silence was a matter of duty.
Whether Belgium were or were not to possess the duchy of Luxem- burg, or whether Luxemburg was to be connected with the Germanic body, were questions totally unfit to be discussed in that House at the present moment. Such a course would not be less adverse to the stand- ing principles of the Constitution, than it would be to the practical in- terests of the country. As long as the House was dispcsed to repose
confidence in the responsible Ministers of the Crown, it was bound to abstain from taking out of their hands the conduct of important and pending negotiations, by summoning them to the bar of the House to account for conduct which was still in progress. No course could strike a more important blow at the prerogatives of the Crown than motions of such a description.
Mr. O'CONNELL repelled the attack made on himself, and err tered into a minute history of particulars, to show that the con- duct of the King of Holland had been very different from what it was represented by Sir Richard Vyvyan.
He had, by fraudulent means, obtained a nominal majority of the gian deputies in favour of the Dutch constitution. He had abolished the practice of the public examination of witnesses in all cases in which the Crown was concerned ; and made the judges, who were at once both judges and jury, dependent on "their good behaviour "for the tenure of their office. He had crushed the liberty of the press, placing a twice-con- victed forger and galley-slave at its head. All offices, civil andmilitary, in Belgium, in the proportion of nine to one, were placed in the hands of Dutchmen. He attempted to expel the French language (the language of the forum) by statute. He endeavoured to force one exclusive system of education throughout his do tninions. He had interfered with the reli- gious rights of his people, having entered into a concordat with the Pope
relative to the appointment of Catholic Bishops, only to be violated. Be- sides oppressing his Belgian subjects with the most burdensome taxes, he monopolized into his own hands, or those of his Dutch favourites, some of the most considerable trades and sources of wealth which the nation contained. - Mr. BARING said, the arrangement of the separation of the two
countries would have been a difficult task had Ministers received a carte blanche from both parties. He proposed a scheme of divi- sion as much better suited to preserve the peace of Europe than the establishment of a neutral kingdom, where, he contended, neutrality was impossible.
By giving Antwerp and Maestricht to Holland, the Duchy of Luxem- burg to the Germanic Confederation, to which it formerly belonged, and the provinces which bordered on France to that country, they would in his opinion have created a system of greater security for the tranquillity of Europe. The provinces which bordered on France—Tournay and Mons, for instance—were French in feeling ; the country from Antwerp
to Ostend were to his knowledge as decidedly Dutch in feeling ; and he believed for the Duchy of Luxemburg, with the exception of that feeling
which had been recently excited by Belgian agitators and French propa- gandists, there would be found no difficulty in assigning it to some of the Powers of Germany.
Mr. HUME spoke indignantly against Mr. Baring's new scheme of partition. Sir ROBERT PEEL addressed himself at very great length to the general question. Sir Robert solemnly declared that the present and similar motions had not been brought forward to embarrass Ministers, but originated solely in an anxious desire to promote the honour and interest of the country. After a few words from Mr. HUNT, and a short reply from Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, the motion was withdrawn.
2. THE REFORM BILL. We noticed very briefly the Saturday's labours of the Committee in the second edition of our last N umber. The clause discussed by the Committee was the 13th. On the question that "three" be inserted in the first blank in the clause, Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS put in a claim for additional mem- bers to Scotland, on the ground that the Bill went to enlarge the number of the constituency there. Mr. GILLON said, Ministers had already given Scotland 50 members, for before it had e one at all. The Marquis of CHANDOS thought, Buckingham did not require a third member; the addition would prove injurious rather than beneficial. Lord ALTHORP felt convinced that the third member woulsi lessen contests.
The question was at length agreed to. On the next question, for filling up the second blank with " two," Mr. S. WORTLEY spoke on the additional weight given to the ar- guments of those who asked for additional county members for Scotland, by the precedent of Glamorgan. Lord ALTHORP, without denying the claims of the larger Scotch counties, thought that, to accede to Mr. Wortley's wish, would, by the jealousies and suspicions it would rouse, go far to defeat the Scotch Bill.
Sir GEORGE CLERK and Mr. PRINGLE supported the argument of Mr. S. Wortley. Mr. BRISCOE said, he could see no reason for interrupting- the discussion on the English Bill by irrelevant discussions on the Scotch.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said, members were perfectly right to take advantage of the opportunity which it offered ; if the English Bill were once passed, all would be hurry-scurry, and there would be no time allowed for discussing the minor bills at all. Mr. MusD moved as an amendment on the clause, that no voter in a county returning three members should enjoy a vote for more than two.
According to the present mode of electing two county members, and according to the proposed mode of electing the three members which
certain counties were hereafter to return, the smallest possible majority would secure the return of the whole number. Now the minority might be equal at least to the majority in wealth and intelligence, and inferior to them only in numbers. lie thought that in times of crisis and of great popular excitement, it would be highly desirable that the arguments of such minorities should be heard in that House. According to the pro-
posed system, such minorities would have no representation in that House. If, however, his principle were adopted, the minority would have one representative until such minority became so small that it was doubled by the majority ; and then, no doubt, it would have no claim to be represented at all.
The amendment was not meant to be pressed, but Mr. Praed said he would take another opportunity of bringing it forward. Lord ALTHORP observed, that it proceeded on an extreme case— one which had never occurred. There had always been a minority in Parliament ; and, what was yet more in point, there had always been a minority in the American Congress. All who had expe- rience in county elections, must be aware of the difficulty of per- suading men to vote for two members of the same sentiments. That disinclination was only got over, at last election, by the uni- v. rsal feeling on the subject of Reform.
The question having been agreed to, Lord ALTHORP rose to de- tail certain verbal alterations in clauses 16th and 21st, which will Fe best understood by a perusal of the clauses themselves. The words in Italics are those proposed by Lord Althorp; the words tliiii brackets are those for which they have been substituted :— Ciduse 1Gth.—" And be it enacted, that from and after the end of this present Parliament, every male person of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, who shall have [shall be seized of and in] any lands or tenements for life, or for any larger estate of at least the yearly value of 10/. above reprizes, holden by copy of court roll of the lord or lady of any manor or by any customary tenure, or who shall hold as lessee or assignee any lands or tenements demised [hold any lands or tenements by any lease, Assignment, or other instrument] for any term not less than sixty years (whether determinable on a life or lives or not), of the yearly value of not less than 10/, above reprizes, or demised for any term [by any lease, assignment, or other instrument, for any term] not less than seven years (whether determinable on a life or lives or not), whereon a yearly rent of not less than .501. shall be reserved, or for which a fine or pre- mium of not less than 300/. shall have been paid, shall have a right to vote in the election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in any future Parliament for the county, or for the part, riding, or division of the county, as hereinbefore mentioned, in which such lands or tene- ments shall be respectively situate : provided always that the only per- sons who shall have aright to vote in such election in respect of any leasehold interest under the authority of this act, shall be persons who shall be lessees or
• assignees of the original term granted of the premises demised, whether such lessees or assignees be or be not in the occupation of the premises demised, and also persons who shall be lessees or assignees of derivative terms or under. leases, provided such last-mentioned lessees or assignees be in the actual oc- cupation of the premises demised such person so seized or holding, shall
• be in the actual possession of such lands or tenements, or in the receipt, for his own use, of the rents and profits thereof from the [person actually occupying the same]: provided also, that nothing herein contained shall take away or in any manner affect the right of voting in the election of a knight or knights of the shire at present enjoyed by any person, or which may hereafter accrue to any person, according to the laws now in force in respect of freehold property, rent-charges, annuities, or any other right of voting now by law enjoyed in relation to the election of a knight or knights of the shire."
His Lordship explained, that the object of these verbal altera- tions was to place the voters under the bill in the same position as freeholders under the law as it at present stands,—namely, that he who had the equitable right should have to all intents and pur- poses the same political rights as he who had the legal right. The 21st clause is that which contains the " inadvertent " provision regarding the half-yearly payment of rent. Lord Althorp said, he had conversed with some persons from Manchester, whom he found to be as sensible men as he ever met with, and they bad explained to him, that weekly and monthly tenants, whom the Ministry had been led to look on as disreputable tenants, were quite as respectable as those who paid their rents quarterly ; and that the period of payment did not indicate any suspicion of the tenants' solvency, but was adopted merely as a matter of mutual convenience. The clause, as altered, stands thus ; the alterations are marked as in the former instance:—
Clause 21st.—" And be it enacted, that in every election of a member or members to serve in any future Parliament for any city or borough, every male person of full age, and not subject to any -legal incapacity, who shall have occupied within any such city or borough, or within any place sharing in the election for such clty or - borough any of the places named in the first column of the Schedule [P] to this act annexed], as owner or tenant for twelve  calendar months next previous to theday of— in the present year, or next previous to the last day of Au- gust in any succeeding year, any house assessed to the duty on inhabited houses upon a yearly value of not less than 101., or any house, warehouse, or countinghouse being, either separately or jointly with any land owned and occupied therewith, or occupied 'therewith under the same landlord, of the clear yearly value of not less than 10.!., or rated to the relief of the poor upon a yearly value of not less than 10/., or any house, warehouse, or countinghouse, for which, whether separately or jointly with any land occupied therewith, under the same landlord, he shall be bond fide liable to a yearly rent of not less than 10/. [and in respect of which house, warehouse, countinghouse, or land so respectively assessed or rated as aforesaid, or of the yearly value or rent as aforesaid, all the rents, rates, and taxes then due, shall have been paid], shall, if duly registered accord- ing to the provisions hereinafter contaiiied, have a right to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for such city or borough [and that no persons other than such occupiers as aforesaid shall have a right to vote many such election].
Instead of the provisoes of the former copy,—namely, that re- specting the half-yearly rent and the payment of i'ates by landlords, with the sub-proviso annexed to the latter,—the amended clause has the following :—
" Provided nevertheless, that no person so occupying such premises, so assessed or rated as aforesaid, or of the yearly value or rent as aforesaid,
shall, by reason thereof, acquire a vote in any such ohef in the pre lection, unless such - person shall have paid, on or before the d sent year, and ou or before the 20th day of August in any succeeding year, all the poor's rates and assessed taxeg which shall have become due from such person in respect of such premises previously to the day of in the present year, and previously to the lit day of July in any succeeding year, nor unless such person, where his right to vote shall depend upon Isis being homi fide liable to a yearly rent of not less than 10/. as aforesaid, shall, in addition to the payment of the poor's rates and assessed taxes as aforesaid, have also paid, on or before the said day of in the present year, and on or before the said 20th day of August in any succeeding year, all the rent which shall have become due from such person in respect of his premises so rented previously to the day of
said in the present year, and previously to the said 1st day of July in any succeeding year: provided also, that no tenant so occupying such premises as aforesaid at a yearly rent of not less than 10/., shall, by reason thereof, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, if by any agreement or contrivance, or by virtue of any act of Parliament or otherwise, the landlord shall be liable to the payment of the rates for the relief of the poor in respect of such premises ; but that nevertheless, where, by virtue of any act of Parliament, the landlord shall be liable to the payment of such rates, it shall be lawful for any such tenant to claim to pay such rates, and upon his actually paying the same, to acquire the same right of voting as if his landlord had not been so liable for such rates ; provided also, that the premises, in respect of the occupation of which any person shall be deemed entitled to vote in the election for any city or borough, shall be the same premises, and not different premises respectively occupied for any portion of the said twelve months ; and that where such premises as aforesaid shall be jointly occupied by more than one person' each of such joint occupiers shall be entitled to vote in respect thereof, in case the yearly value or yearly rent of such premises, or the yearly value in respect of which they shall have been assessed or rated as afore- said, shall be of an amount which, when divided by the number of such occupiers, shall give a sum of not less than 10/. for each and every such occupier, but not otherwise."
Lord Althorp explained, that the reason for omitting, where rates were paid, all notice of rent, was, that voters might exercise their privilege without inquisitorial scrutiny into their circum- stances; where voters claimed to vote on the sole ground of rent paid, they would of course be obliged to prove the payment. The phrase "all rates," he explained, had been modified with a view to the scruples of a most worthy denomination of Christians, the "Friends," with whom it was a matter of conscience not to pay church-rates.
On the House going into Committee on Tuesday, after Colonel Evans's motion had been disposed of, Mr. HUME brought forward his motion respecting the giving of members to the Colonies.
The manner in which he wished to distribute among the Colonies their new representation was—to British India four members; to what he should call the Crown Colonies, eight members; to British America, three; to the West India Islands three. The four representatives of Bri- tish India he proposed to distribute in this manner—Calcutta, one ; Ma- dras, one ; Bombay, one ; and Sincapore, Malacca, and Prince of Wales's Island, one. The Crown Colonies were especially in need of represen- tation; they had not even the advantage of a domestic legislature ; but were wholly subject, in taxation and legislation, to the Governor, Whose only guides were the Orders in Council issued by the Government at home. He wished to give to St. Lucie and Trinidad, one ; to Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, one member; to the Cape of Good Hope, one; to Ceylon, one ; to the Mauritius, one ; to Australia, one ; to Malta, one ; to Gibraltar, one. To Upper and Lower Canada, he would give each one member ; to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward's Island, and the Bermudas, one. He would give one member to Jamaica and the Bahamas; one to Barbadoes, St. Vincent's, Grenada, and To- bago; and one to Dominica, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Christopher, Tortola, and Antigua. Mr. Hume went on to explain the grounds on which his calcu- lations of this scheme of colonial representation were founded— Calcutta contained only 1,200 Europeans, exclusive of the. troops and the servants of the Company ; but there were in other parts of Bengal, adjoining Calcutta, and subject to the same jurisdiction, 18,000 Euro- peans; and in that city there were more than 20,000 British Indians— besides an Indian population of upwards of 265,000. The population of Madras amounted to 462,000 persons. Bombay had, on the grounds of population and coinmertial importance, nearly equal claims to either of the other Presidencies. Sincapore, Malacca, and Prince of Wales's Island, taken as one constituency, had similar claims. About four years ago, that House had made the natives of India eligible to sit as jurors, and had left it to the Supreme Court in Caicutta to fix the quali- fication. In that way, therefore, there was a constituency ready prepared. In Sincapore, Malacca, and Prince.of Wales's Island, there did not at present exist such a qualification; but he could see no difficulty in ex- tending the law respecting jurorsto those colonies. Gibraltar was not a mere military station—it was also a place of considerable trade, and cou-
tamed a population of seventeen thousand free British subjects, exclu- sive of the military. In the Crown Colonies, he did not think there would be any difficulty in finding for each of them an excellent consti- tuency. In Ceylon, for instance, Sir Alexander Johnston had extended to the natives of that island the right of sitting upon juries ; and surely it was not too much to say, that the man who was fit to sit in judgment where the life or property of another was at stake, might very well be looked upon as qualified to vote for a Parliamentary representative.
Mr. Hume proceeded to state the claims of the West Indies— Jamaica and the Bahamas contained a population of 3Q000 free whites, and 37,000 free people of colour, in all G7,000. Barbados contained 14,957 whites, and 15,000 free people of colour. St. Vincent's, Grenada, Tobago, &c. contained 17,000 whites, and upwards of 13,000 free men of colour. Dominica had a population of 840 whites, and 3,600 free peOple of colour. The free population of Montserrat was 350 whites, 849 people of colour ; of t. Christopher's, 1,612 whites, 300 people of colour ; of Tortola, 477 whites, 1,286 people of colour; and the free inhabitants of Antigua were, 1,9s0 whites, and 3,895 coloured. Mr. Hume said, in the groups of „islands, a plan of election similar to what prevailed in the Scotch boroughs might be advan- tageously adopted ; the member might be chosen by delegates from each island ; and, in case of equality, -one of the islands might have a casting-vote.
Upper Canada, he went on to state, contained.265,000 ; Lower Canada, 18 8,0 00 ; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, St. Edward's, and the Bermudas, 300,000.
Mr. Home proceeded to consider the manner in which the mem- bers being elected should take their seats—
He might he asked; how were the members, when so chosen, to find their way to that House ? (Laughter.) Now, to that question he had three answers—in other words, he had three strings to his bow. (A laugh.) There were three ways in which those members might be sent there. They [night be elected for three years, and hold their seats for that term, whether there were one or two different Parliaments in the mean time ; that is, the Colonial members appointed to this Parliament should hold their seats in the next without a re-election. (Laughter.) His second proposal was, that should a dissolution take place before the expiration of the term for which a Colonist member had been originally elected, he should hold his place in the next Parliament until the election of a successor. (Much laughter.)
The laughter roused the honourable member. He said— He had begun his speech by expressing a fear that very few members who heard him would give their attention to the subject ; but he was now convinced that those who laughed did give their attention to it. (Laugh- ter, and " Hear, hear!") The late Secretary to the Admiralty might laugh, but— Mr. CEOriEE—" I did not laugh. I was reading this." (Holding a paper ?ip.) Mr. Hume proceeded— He had stated two modes in which Colonial members might be elected; and as they seemed to be considered by the House to be objectionable, he 'would explain a third mode. Let there be writs issued for the election of new representatives for the Colonies, in the same way as for other mem- bers, at the close of each Parliament. Certainly, they would not be able to take their places in the new Parliameat for some months. But then their constituents would be in no worse state than they were at present.
He concluded by moving an instruction in terms of his notice.
The Marquis of CHANDOS seconded the motion.
Mr. LABOUCHERE opposed it. He felt assured that direct re- presentation of the Colonies was impossible. There was nothing mew in the plan ; such a plan had been theoretically entertained by Mr. But ke, but he abandoned it as impracticable. If there were twenty members from the Colonies in the House, they would form a knot at the service of any Minister who chose to purchase their votes by supporting them on any Colonial question on which they might have set their minds.
Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS said, the subject was one of great im- portance; but he admitted that it. would be difficult to append a plan of Colonial legislation as a clause to the Reform Bill.
Lord ALTHORP said, it was quite clear that such an amendment as that contemplated by Mr. Hume could never be introduced into the Bill, and it was therefore unnecessary to discuss it.
Sir JOHN MALCOLM thought not a moment ought to be lost in pressing on Parliament the necessity of imprOving our Colonial
system. Leaving the Reform Bill, Sir John referred to a book that he had written, and hinted his intention to act a distinguished part in the discussion of the East India Company question by and by.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL partly supported, partly ridiculed Mr. Hume's proposal. If the Ministers voted against Mr. Hume on giving representatives to the Colonies, he could vote against the Ministers on the third reading of
the Bill, and so be quits with them. Still not only was the member for Middlesex's motion a valuable one, but he had also backed it by a most valuable speech ; of which he would say, that it had entirely made out the
justice of the casein support of which it had been made. It might be true that it might be found difficult to elect members for the Colonies on the 10/. system which had been introduced into the Bill ; but though that
10/. system had been represented to be so admirable, he still did not see why another almost as admirable might not be found by which Colonial representatives might be elected. He begged to recommend this con- sideration to the framers of this Bill—this unaltered and unalterable Bill
—the first stereotype of which had long been extinct, and had been re- placed by a second unaltered and unalterable Bill. Entertaining these views, be should certainly divide with the honourable member for Mid- dlesex; and in so doing let it not be said that he was setting himself up as a new maker of the constitution ; it was because the mischief had al-
ready been done by others that he interfered ; and he did so in the hopes
of somewhat ameliorating the dangers with which these changes appeared to him to be beset. He begged leave to pay the honourable member for
Middlesex a farewell compliment, by congratulating him on the latent member for Montrose having broken through the exterior colouring of the Member for Middlesex ; and he trusted that when that honourable
Member should put on his philibegs, and arm himself for the Scotch Reform Bill, he would be found advocating, the same principles that he had advanced that night, and taking Montrose under his special protec- tiori. One word further—they Mid been told by the advileates of. the 11111 that they ought to watch to si„4e; Ui tt1,2 I; m:■3. Now, he had been watching the signs of the Mile3; au.i he ;ty, that within the last four or five days, the signs of the "limes had not been very favourable. (Cheers and laughter.) The signs of the Times were beginning to frown upon the Bill; they were beginning to call the framers of the Bill to task ; and since this was the case, he trusted that his dissatisfaction and disap- proval of the Bill would no longer be set down as something unnatural and indefensible.
After some observations from MI% BURGE, Sir CHARLES FORBES, and Sir GEORGE MURRAY, Mr. HumE said he was sure Ministers might add his amendment to the Bill, when they had time, with advantage both to the Colonies and the mother country.
The amendment was then put and negatived, and the House went into Committee.
When Mr. Hume's amendment had been disposed of, the Isle of Wight clause was put.
Mr. H. HUGHES moved his amendment for filling up the blank with "two" instead of " one." Mr. Hughes's argument for the change was the loss of members sustained by the island under the Bill. [I3y the disfranchisement of Newton and Yarmouth, we suppose—the reports do not specify the particulars of the loss.] Sir GEORGE CLERK said, if he were inclined to be captious, he might argue that it was intended to make the Isle of Wight a no- mination borough. Mr. CAOKER remarked on the anomaly of giving five members to Southampton county, while to fourteen counties, each of which were more populous, only four were given. [There are only eleven counties, including York and Middlesex, more populous than Southampton.] After some more conversation, Mr. HUNT expressed his appro- bation of the arrangement in the Bill. Hants was notoriously a Government county, from the great influence which the Dock- yards gave. The principal object of the honourable member seems, however, to have been to give a lecture on the Times news- paper. Having adverted to the disapprobation expressed against all attempts to alter the Bill in any respect, he went on— He wished to direct the attention of members to the course pursued by the Press, and particularly by the Times. That paper denounced every man who presumed to find fault with a single word of the Bill, as an ene- my to his country. It had so denounced him. But he would ask them to look at the Times now. He would ask them, to look at the Times of that morning, and see how it was laying it on Ministers about the. division of the counties. He would ask them to see hov: the Times was calling on the country almost to rise in arms against a part of that Bill, the whole of which they had called on every man to accept without hesitation, under the pain of being considered an enemy of his country. The Times called on the counties to meet and petition for the purpose of putting a stop to that atrocious measure, the division of counties. But he could tell the Times, their power was gone by. The day for obeying their calling for county meetings wasne. They had endeavoured to get up a Common Hall, but they failed ; and in their attempt to get up county meetings, they would meet with the same disappointment. The Times, however, held out threats to the members of that House ; and he, for one, was for bringing the writers of these attacks to the Bar. In the Times of that day, there was a general attack on the House, as well as on individuals : he should like either to have some of the gentlemen who wrote these attacks, or Their ladies, brought up to the bar to answer for them.
Mr. WHITTLE HARVEY spoke to order ; and the Chairman in- timated that Mr. Hunt was rather wandering from the question; but Mr. HITNT and the House did not seem to be of the same opinion. He resumed— If every member, in the course of the debates, was forced to confine himself, as the Chairman said, to the question before the Committee, he knew not the man who would be in order. He was speaking of the news- papers at the time he was interrupted. The press made it a practice at the present moment to abuse the House, and to misrepresent and vilify its members. In one part of that day's Times they had alluded to Mr. Sib- thorp by name; and, what was the most extraordinary part of the busi- ness, they had coupled Mr. Sibthorp and him together. (" Hear' hear !" from Mr. Sibthorp.) They had made a gross attack on Mr. Sibthorp by name, and then they put him and that member to run as a couple. (Laughter.) Mr. Hunt cared not what they said, but he would state it broadly and openly, that if the debates on the Bill had been carried on with closed doors, the country would have understood the Bill better than they now did, after the gross and scandalous misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House which had appeared in the papers. The people would have read the Bill and judged for themselves, without being preju- diced by the scandalous misrepresentations contained in the reports of the press.
Mr. SIBTHORP also complained of the misrepresentations of the
Mr. KNIGHT was very anxious to ascertain if the Governorship of the Isle of Wight was a civil appointment ; and persevered in stating his doubts, notwithstanding Lord ALTHORP'S assurance that it was. The House became very impatient, and Lord STOR- MONT threatened an adjournment, amidst cries of "Oh I" and laughter. [No adjournment can be moved in a committee of the whole House. The only competent motion is, "that progress be reported."]
The clause was at length agreed to. The next clause, the 15th, being that on which Colonel DA- VIES meant to move an amendment, he begged it might be post-. poised; to which Lord ALTHORP acceded. When the House went into Committee on Wednesday, Lord ALTHORP moved the clause.
Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, on its being read, exclaimed that ft made a great alteration in the Bill. Lord ALTHORP—"No alteration has been made in the clause; I merely read it as it stood." Colonel DAVIES rose to move his amendment. His object was to allow freeholders to vote for the cities and boroughs, in which
Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed his gratification at the tardy ad- mission of Ministers that no unnec2ssary or factious delay had been offered to the Bill by its opponents1 This candid and honourable acknowledgment of the noble Lord was Sir Robert Peel's answer to Common Councilmen and Political Unions, who threatened them with the application of external force for the expe- diting their proceedings. (Cheers from the Oppoition.) The practical proof that the noble Lord was right was furnished by the fact, that be- cause they proceeded faster than usual with the Bill for one or two days, the Government found it necessary to postpone a most important clause, because it could not be in proper time amended in conformity with the suggestions of the Opposition side of the House. Sir Robert went on to discuss the clause more immediately un- der notice— In ten out of the nineteen corporate towns in Schedule II, the free- holders had no right to vote, either for the town or for the county. These ten corporate towns were Carmarthen, Chester, Coventry, Exeter, Gloucester, Kingston-upon-Hull, Lincoln, London, Newcastle-upon- Tyne, and Worcester. In Canterbury, Poole, Southampton, and the Ainsty of York, the freeholders had the right to vote for the county. In Bristol, Haverfordwest, Lichfield, Norwich, and Nottingham, the free- holders had a right to vote for the town. Now, although, these anoma- lies existed in the rights of freeholders in these corporate towns, yet he did think, when they were overturning the ancient fabric of representa- tion and constructing a new one, that it would have been much better and much more analogous to the Constitution, to have given to the free- holders of such places the right of voting for the city than making them vote for the parent county. If the Bill had so dealt with the freeholders of the counties of cities, it would have made an arrangement which would have been at once more desirable, more convenient, and more analogous to the Constitution than the present arrangement. He consi- dered it most absurd to send 40s. freeholders, freeholders of the lowest scale, thirty or forty miles to vote at the election for the parent county, instead of allowing them to vote at the election for the county of the city in which they resided. Sir Robert went on to state, that the mere attachment of a small bit of ground to his house would create a freeholder; and the facility of creating a double vote was so great, that he had no doubt Birmingham and Coventry would find means of returnirg the members thr the county as well as the members for the borough. Their freeholds were situated ; so that, in forming a consti- tuency for towns, it might not be necessary to have recourse to the country. Colonel Davies went on to show, that in many cases, without such an expedient, it would be impossible to find within reasonable limits such a borough constituency as the Bill required. It would he impossible to find three hundred voters within many miles of East Grinstead or of Northallerton; and in Wales the difficulty would be much greater. There was another objection to the clause, in the predominance it would give to large towns where the counties were divided. In Birmingham, for instance, there were two thousand voters ; these, in the case of the county of Warwick being divided, would command the election of the divi- sion in which Birmingham happened to be situated. Colonel 3?avies adverted to the difficulties which were anticipated in the Lords, and the necessity which existed for sending up the Bill in as perfect a state as possible, in order to obviate the objections which were sure to meet it there. Even if it passed the Lords in its present state, it must be the subject of amendment in two or three years ; and what then became of its permanence ? If this Bill were not found to work well, as he was convinced it would not in its present form, the people would say that they had been betrayed and deceived by the Reformers; and, not putting their trust in such Re- formers for the future, would send to the House men who would advocate and demand Reform of a much greater extent. It might happen that such demands would not stop short of vote by ballot, departmental dis- tricts, and annual Parliaments. He had been induced to press these suggestions upon the House and upon the Government, because he was sure that if they did not now get a good Reform Bill, they never would get one, and because he felt that by passing a bad one, they would bring discredit on themselves and misfortune on the country.
Lord ALTHORP agreed in the necessity of sending up the Bill to the House of Lords in as perfect a state as possible ; neither did he deny the propriety or utility of fully discussing its various clauses, nor that advantage had been derived from the discussion they had hitherto undergone. He could not, however, see that there was any force in the objections urged by Colonel Davies, or that if there were, his plan went to remove any of the difficulties which lie imagined he had discovered. Lord Althorp went on to reply to Colonel Davies's remarks on the impossibility of finding It. constituency of three hundred voters within a reasonable dis- tance o1 every borough. The Bill did not say that there must necessarily be a constituency of three hundred. The Bill only endeavoured to procure that constituency. The great inconsistency, as Colonel Davies called it, of the Bill, was, that by throwing the districts into the boroughs, and the borough freeholders into the counties, it swamped the boroughs in the districts, and the county freeholders in the borough freeholders. Colonel Davies, how- ever, had not attempted to show how these consequences would result from the Bill ; and he could not perceive how they possibly could. Co- lonel Davies wished to get rid of this inconsistency, as he called it, by enacting that the freeholders in boroughs should vote at the election of members for such boroughs, and not at the election of the members for the county in which the borough was situated. Lord Althorp thought, however, that it would be most dangerous to admit the freeholders of bo- roughs to vote at the election of the members for the boroughs. By such an arrangement, they would enable any man who possessed large free- hold property in a borough to convert it into a nomination-borough. Again, if the constituency of some of the boroughs were small under the Bill, as Colonel Davies had wished to make out, a man who had free- hold property in one of these boroughs to the amount only of 300/, a year, and chose to grant 408. leases fur lives, would obtain a command over 150 votes, which in some of the boroughs would form a majority, and thus command the return of the members as effectually as in any of the nomination-boroughs which were to be disfranchised under the Bill. Sir THOMAS PENMAN (the Attorney-General) said, before pro- ceeding to notice the arguments of the mover of the amendment, he must notice a circumstance which had been the subject of some triumph to the enemies of the Bill for several nights past.
Because a clause had been postponed on a former evening, it had been said that it was postponed in consequence of the rapidity with which the Bill was going through the Ilouse, and that his Majesty's Ministers were anxious to elicit the valuable censure of the Opposition in order to guide them as to the amendments which they should introduce into it. Now the fact was, that this amended clause was ready written and prepared some days previously ; and it was only owing to the indisposition of the noble Lord on that occasion, who was to bring the clause forward, and whose papers, in consequence, were not in the House, that he, the Attor- ney-General, having been taken somewhat by surprise, after the rapid rate at which they travelled through Wales, had been obliged to make that momentary apology for the postponement of the clause of which so great a handle had since been made by honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He hoped after this explanation to hear no more on that subject.
Sir Thomas went on to defend the clause—
The Bill as it stood secured the representation of property in the coun■ ties, and the representation of persons in the towns. That was the object and the principle of the Bill; and it was upon such grounds that he would contend that the agricultural population in the neighbourhood of corpo- rate cities and boroughs should vote only at the election of members for the county. It was no reason, because that population happened to be Within the jurisdiction of the city or borough in question, that it should therefore vote at the election in the said city or borough, and not at the election for the county.
After remarking that the danger of the privilege of splitting freeholds was much less under the arrangement proposed in the Bill than it would be by that proposed by Colonel Davies and Sir Robert Peel, Sir Thomas concluded—
The Bill went to confer the right of voting on resident voters in towns; the giving that right to the proprietors of counting-houses and ware-
houses was no deviation from that principle. The owners of such pro-
perty might, to be sure, live seven or eight miles from the town in which it wassituate, but then they made their daily visits to it, their capital was
employed in it, its interests were of the greatest importance to them, and
the mere circumstance of their not sleeping there did not bring them under the class of non-residents. When the advocates of the Bill spoke of residence as regarded voters, they did not mean that kind of residence which gave a right to a settlement, but that species of residence which consisted in daily communication, commerce, and occupation in the town in which th.2 right of voting was to be exercised. Such a residence as that did not necessarily exist in the instance of the owners of freeholds, for they would probably only call occasionally for their rents, and they would be in no way identified with the trading and commercial interests of the town where they might have a vote.
Some conversation took place on the nature of the residence contemplated by the Bill. Lord ALTHORP explained, that keep- ing a house and establishment would of course constitute a re- sidence.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN was about to remark on the 18th clause; but Lord ALTHORP told him it was to be altered. He proposed to add to it, that the freeholder in a town should not be deprived of his vote for the county, unless he derived from the occupation of it a vote for the town. Sir Edward Sugden, after observing that this alteration would be one of the most important innovations on the Bill, and would, in such cases as that of Brighton and Southwark, add greatly to the number of county voters, and place in part the election of the county in the hands of the towns situate in it, went on— He was far from thinking that the division of the counties would have the effect of making them a species of nomination boroughs. His objec- tion to the division was founded upon very different grounds. It was, that the division would give a predominant influence to the great towns. Although he was called an Anti-Reformer, and was decidedly opposed to many parts of the Bill, yet no man could object more than he would to the cutting up of the counties in such a way as would reduce them to the state of nomination boroughs. The greatest blemish in the Bill was, that when one clause made an alteration in the institutions of the country, another subsequent clause made some counteracting change, as if for the sake of balancing. one evil with another. Rights were taken from one man and given to - another, who presently found that they had vanished, and were to be possessed by a third. What he proposed to do in respect to the clause before the Committee, was to alter it so as to give the free- holders in the corporate counties the right of voting for the cities, as well as the 101. householders ; and he would introduce another clause to pre- vent the formation of what might he called fraudulent freeholds.
Lord ALTHORP explained, that The effect of the clause would be to place the freeholders of boroughs, and of counties of cities, upon the same footing. As to the powers given to Commissioners, he declared that he should be exceedingly sorry to give them any power not rendered necessary by the machinery of the Bill; and therefore he should not, and did not support an arrangement for en- abling Commissioners to alter existing boundaries. Where they had been accurately ascertained and defined, no change was meant to be intro- duced. Such was the plan proposed, and he had not yet heard ony other mode suggested for the formation of new boroughs, or the definition of old. He wished to know where the power could be more advantageously placed ? Something had been said of the irresponsibility of the Com- missioners; and he did not deny that there might be some weight in the objection founded upon that circumstance. The clause stated, that the report of the Commissioners should be laid upon the table of the House; and he saw impediments to its being declared that such reports should not be deemed valid until they had the sanction of Parliament.
The above is the Chronicle's report ; the following is the report of the Times. The reader will hardly make out that they both relate to the same speech:— All that the Bill had done was to place the freeholders in towns which were counties as much as possible on the same footing as those of towns that were not counties. He was himself sorry to give the Commissioners a power to alter the limits of towns which were counties ; but he had not yet heard any thing suggested that could enable him to dispense with this arrangement. The report of the Commissioners was to be laid upon the tables of both Houses of Parliament ; and he would confess that it would 1* desirable that the report should in no case be considered valid until -it was approved of by both Houses. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke of the power which the Bill would give the Birmingham Union. Last election had, he said, been dictated by them. Lord ALTHORP said if last election were dictated by them, then their power was antecedent to the existence of the Bill.
The House at length divided: when there appeared for the amendment (the nature of which, by the by, none of the news- papers state, but we suppose it to have been that which Colonel Davies has had for a month past on the Order-book), 124; against it, 164 ; Ministerial majority, 40. A long conversation took place on the qualification for counties clause.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said, that four votes might by its means be manufactured out of one property. He objected to the word " having ;"—which the Solicitor-General defended.
Mr. C. PERGUSSON thought no one but the tenant in possession ought to be allowed to vote. Mr. O'CONNELL also objected to derivative. votes. A man who bad a lease for 200 years might in fact create 140 votes out of it, by granting a lease to A for 199, to B for 198 years, and so on. He thought profit, not rent, ought to be the criterion.
Lord MILTON objected to leasehold votes : the parties who held them were too dependent on their landlords.
Mr. WESTERN spoke in favour of leaseholders.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the objection that one property would confer four votes was frivolous: Why should not four have a right to vote out of a copyhold property of 401., while twenty, under the existing law, would_have a right to vote out of a freehold of the same amount ? As to profits, the grand ob- jection was, that there was no means of ascertaining them. He did not see that the clause gave any encouragement to the crea- tion of fictitious votes ; nor did he see, where the desire to create them existed, how it could be prevented from operating.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, adverting to an objection of Sir James Sear- lett (which was communicated tothe House. not to the gallery), said— He thought the objection of his learned Friend the member for Cocker- mouth so conclusive, that it was impossible they could go further without the most mature deliberation. 'Was it not, then, most desirable, that in the present position of affairs, with their numbers thinned by the absence of those who were suffering under indisposition from ions and protracted attendance to their duties, they should not persevere in attempting to pass the Bill at present, but at once adjourn for three months, in order to give time for the perfection of this Bill by a better consideration of its details ? He would put it, therefore, to Lord Althorp—and he never was more serious in his life in any proposition at the moment he did so— 'whether it would not be advisable that he should to-morrow propose an adjournment of three months, in order that the House andtheGovernment might be better prepared by due deliberation to make this their new Con- stitution perfect. (Very gene)* cheering from the Opposition, answered by _partial cheers from the ilinzsterial Benches.) It was no impeachment of the judgment of the Government that they were compelled to adopt such a course, and that they were not found to have proposed a measure of such importance, containing so many complicated details, and involving so many different interests, free from all defects. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would at once make up his mind to relieve them from further attendance ; and that, pressed as they were by so many other questions of foreign and domestic policy, the Government would not continue night after night urging a Bill, which, it now appeared, accord- ing to their own admission, was so defective that it required many con- siderable amendments.
Lord ALTHORP said, the Committee would hardly expect that he should accede to this proposal. His Lordship admitted the difficulty started by Sir James Scarlett, and said it would be remedied.
Sir JA.MES SCARLETT suggested the division of the clause into three parts.
The part of the clause respecting copyholds was then carried ; and the House, it being nearly two o'clock adjourned. [The whole of the debates of Wednesday are given in the reports in a most discreditably confused and unintelligible manner.1 On Thursday, a discussion took place on that part of clause 16th which gives a vote to 50/. leaseholders. It terminated in a majority against Ministers of 84. The amendment, which con- sisted in substituting tenants at will for leaseholders for seven
years, was moved, in the first instance, by Mr. SIBTHORP, but
withdrawn in consequence of not being moved at the right time. It was afterwards moved, in nearly the same terms, by the Mar-
quis of CHANDOS, and withdrawn for a similar reason. Lord MILTON'S amendment for excluding all tenants at rack-rent having been moved and negatived, the amendment was a third time brought forward ; and, after a conversation in which Mr. WES- 'TERN, Sir C. BURRELL, Mr. MILDMAY, Mr. BENETT, Mr. HODGES, Mr. ADEANE, Mr. E. A. SANDFORD, Mr. HUGHES, and Alderman VENABLES spoke in favour of the amendment, and Lord .ALTHORP
against it, carried by 232 to 148. Eighty-two of the members who call themselves Reformers voted against Ministers on this occa- sion. If they had voted as usual, the amendment must have been rejected by 230 to 150. Every member of Government present in the House voted in the minority.
In the Committee, last night, Lord ALTFrORP stated, that with the consent of the Marquis of Chandos, the amendment of the
previous evening had not been inserted, but the clause had been remodelled, so as to comprehend all tenants at will of 501. and up- wards. By the amendment as moved, it would have been applica- ble to none but agricultural tenants. Lord Althorp read the al- tered clause-
" Who-shall hold any lands or tenements, demised for any term not lass than twenty years (whether determinable on a life or lives, or not), of the clear yearly value of 50/. ; or who shall have occupied and farmed land pa his own account for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, for which land he shall be liable to a &mil fide rent of not less than SO/. a year ; or who shall have occupied as tenant, for twelve calendar months next preceding the first day of November in the present year, or next preceding the last day of August in each succeeding year, any lands or tenements for which he shall be liable to a bond fida rent of not less than 501."
Colonel Woon stated an intention to move for leaving out the registration clauses.
Lord ALTHORP explained, in answer to Sir JAMES SCARLETIT, that the 1st November had been fixed on for making up the first lists, on the supposition that the Bill would have passed by that day ; the 1st August was fixed in future years for publish- ing, and the 1st Julf for making up the lists, as the services of a barrister might be most easily got in the interval between these two dates.
Lord ALTHORP also moved a verbal amendment of the proviso objected to by Mr. O'Connell and Sir James Scarlett on a former night, touching sub-leaseholds. The object of the clause is to grant a vote, 1st, to the leaseholder for sixty years, who has a 10f. interest ; 2d, to his sub-lessee, whose interest in the sub-leasehold may be equal to 10/. per annum. The-cla,use now stands-
,. Provided always that the only persons who shall have a right to vow in such election, in respect of any leasehold interest under the authority of this act, for the term of sixty years or twenty years, as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be persons who shall be lessees or assignees of the ori- ginal term granted of the premises demised, whether such lessees or as- signees be or be not in the occupation of the premises demised, and also persons who shall be lessees or assignees of derivative terms, or under leases, provided such last-mentioned lessees or assignees be in the actual. occupation of the premises demised."
The whole clause was agreed to ; after Lord ALTHORP had ex- plained, that a house in a town of I 0/. and a farm in the country of 40/. would, under Lord Chandos's amendment, give a vote to the tenant at will.
An amendment was offered by Mr. D. GILBERT, to restraitr 40s. freehold votes to freeholds of inheritance. It was withdrawn on the pledge that Government would bring in a clause to effect the same object,—namely, to prevent the creation of fictitious votes.
The 17th clause was then agreed to. The 1Sth was postponed
The 8th clause, which appoints the returning officers, was agreed to, after a long conversation. The points disputel were, whether the clause, as verbally amended by Ministers, was even yet com- pulsory on the parties to be appointed by the Sheriff; and whether the Sheriff was the proper person to nominate them. Both Of these, by the adoption of the clause, were decided in the affirmae five.
The House sits to-day.
• 3. DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS IN IRELAND. The second reading of this bill, on Monday, was opposed by Mr. O'CONNELL, on the ground that it removed the responsibility from the Lord Chancel- lor, on whom it was at present laid, and imposed it on persons who were much less likely to exercise it wisely. The gist of Mrr. O'Connell's objection was, that it would be impossible to find in Ireland a sufficient number of men of rank who were worthy of the office of Deputy Lieutenant; and that, in consequence, the present evils of the magistracy, instead of being remedied, would be aggravated. Mr. STANLEY said, on the point of responsibility, he was com- pletely at issue with Mr. O'Connell ; the grand object of the bill was to secure responsibility. At present, the Lord Chancellor was without responsipility, for he had no means of knowledge ; and the Governors of counties, for whom it was meant to substi- tute a Deputy Lieutenant, were so numerous that their responsi- bility was purely nominal. In fact, it followed from the present system, that the lists of the peace were framed on the sue:gestiorr of those very persons on whom it was the object of the bill to fix responsibility, by giving them the show as well as the substance of power. Mr. Stanley admitted, that in some counties there would be a difficulty in finding fit persons to fill the office of De- puty Lieutenant ; but he contended, that such cases would be the exception, not the rule, as Mr. O'Connell anticipated. Mr. JEPHSON, Mr. RUTFIVEN, and Mr. DOMINICK BROWNE.' were generally favourable to the bill. Mr. BLACKENEY thought, if it effected any change in the present system, it must be a goad one, for a change to the worse was impossible. Mr. SPRING RICE mentioned, as an exemplification of the looseness of the present system, his having known an individual Governor recommend a person to the magistracy and afterwards disown his own recommendation.
Mr. LEADER repeated Mr. O'Connell's objection, that it would be impossible to find in the thirty-two counties of Ireland, thirty- two persons qualified to discharge the duties imposed by the bill. Lord ALTHORP argued, from the fact that the system had worked well in England, that it would be found beneficial in Ireland. Mr. PAGET adverted to the great number of clergymen in the commission of the peace ; and contended, that neither their educa- tion nor their sacred duties fitted them for the bench.
The bill afterwards passed through a Committee, without amend- ment.
In Committee, Mr. O'CONNELL noticed a case in the trials for the Doneraile conspiracy, as indicating the character of the Irish magistracy-
The peculiarity of Leary's case, who Was tried as a participator in that conspiracy, was, that contrary to three reMonstrances to the Irish Go- vernment by Judge Pennefather, who tried him, founded on the fact that three Juries had acquitted parties on the very same evidence which was brought against Leary, and that the character of the witnesses was more than questionable, while that of Leary, a wealthy farmer, aged seventy. five, was above suspicion, the sentence of transportation was enforced by the late Irish Government.
Mr. CALLAGHAN added., that the witnesses had ever since been maintained at the public expense.
4. TITHES. On Monday, Lord Wystman introduced a bill for the purpose of reviving an act of Edward the Sixth, which, by re- peated decisions in the courts, had been rendered so inoperative that it could no longer be said to be the law of the land. By that act, barren lands, on their being first brought into cultivation, and all lands on their improvement, were declared, for a limited num- ber of years, to be subject to no higher tithe than they had been previous to their cultivation or improvement. To a declaration of the law in this respect, Lord Wynford said he meant to add a clause, by which all lands cultivated by spade husbandry should be liable to no higher tithe than before that species of cultivation was adopted. The bill was read a first time.
5. THE BEER ACT. On Monday, on the presentation of a petition by the Bishop of LONDON, a conversation took plac e on inis act ; in which the Bishop, the Duke of ‘VELLINGTON, and several other Peers joined. The Bishop of LONDON mentioned certain resolutions passed at a meeting in the Potteries,—in which it is suggested. that the licence should be raised ; that more strict testimonials should he required from parties applying for licences; that no beer should be consumed on the premises ; that the shops should be shut on Sunday; and that no skittle-grounds should be connected with the houses. The Bishop expressed his approba- tion of these resolutions, and a hope that they would not be lost sight of in the bill for amending the act. Lord MELBOURNE having moved the second reading of the amendment bill, explained the alterations which it went to effect. That in future no licence would be granted to any constable or peace-officer; nor to any one who had not, for at least six months previous, been the &mit fide resident proprietor of the house to he licensed ; that no surety would be accepted who was not qualified to hold a licence ; that constables, by warrant, might at any time enter licensed houses ; and that such warrant might issue on oath before a justice of the peace ; and that the constable might, with- out special warrant, enter when there Was rioting or disturbance in the house; that the constable should be empowered to turn out the disturbers, and also all persons remaining in the house after the proper hour for shutting up ; that keeping open house at un- licened hours should incur a fine or forfeiture of licence. The act also contained clauses inflicting penalties in case of the con- stable being resisted in his duty, or not admitted in order to its performance. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought these houses might be shut up at four or five o'clock in winter and six in summer. Lord BROUGHAM thought early hours good ; but if . very early hours were required, the principle of the act would be altogether destroyed, as conipetitioo with the public-houses would, in that case, be at an end.
• The Bishop of LONDON suggested some regulation for keeping such houses shut on Sundays ; the only reason why public-houses were open on Sundays was, that they were supposed to be necessary for wayfaring persons.
6. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Among the petitions in the House of COMMODS on Monday, was one,' presented by Mr. HUME, from certaht individuals assembling at the Rotunda, Blackfriars, against the tax on political newspapers, particularly against that one of the Six Acts which makes it penal to publish any periodical pamphlet or paper Which was of less price than 6d., unless the same be stamped as a newspaper. Mr. Hume said—
He thought that if there was any thing calculated to brutalize the people, it was the act in question. He contended, that to continue such acts was inconsistent with their own professions, not only as individuals, but as members of the Legislature. They established schools, but of what use were schools, if the law prevented men from giving the working classes publications which they could buy, containing matter proper for their information ? Nothing could be More opposed to gocd government than such a principle. The act was avowedly passed to put down Mr. Cobbett, who then published a twopenny paper ; but he did not wish to refer to individual cases ; he objected to the principle which prevented the lower ranks from obtaining information which it was proper for them to have. What was the effect of the law ? Individuals, who per- haps ought not, to be invested with the power, had taken possession of the press in many instances, and published in a cheap form the most danger- ous principles, which even touched the existence of property ; while well-disposed persons, who would be ready, if the press were free, to re- fute such' statements in a like form, were unwilliwr to do so, lest they should be rendered liable to the lash of the law. So tat, in point of fact, he who wished to do evil had the means of effecting it, whilst the man who desired to provide a remedy for the mischief, was deterred from the attempt.
ColonelTonaass was of opinion, that the only way to counter- act the dangerous doctrines inculcated upon the labouring classes, was by making knowledge cheap ; he was decidedly favourable to the prayer of the petition.
7.. ROBERT TAYLOR. Mr. HUME, on I4Ionday, presented a pe- tition from Boston, most respectably signed, praying the House to consider the sentence pronounced against Taylor. Mr. Hume de- precated the principle on which the prosecution proceeded. Many athe members of the Soci dy for the Eup2ression of Vice were also the same time, our doubts of its accuracy. A victory, it now ap-
members of the Missionary Society; but if a missionary sent out by them to preach down Hindooism were treated as Taylor had been, no persons would be louder in their complaints. Mr. Hume contended, that Taylor having sought to propagate his opinions in 6 private room, in which no one was present but those who chose to pay for admission, it was tyranny to punish him, equal to that of the worst inquisition in the world. Mr. Hume also dwelt at length on the severity of the punishment, and the way in which it had been carried into effect, as wholly unsuited to the offence.
Mr. J. Woon thought Taylor's mode of expressing his opinions was exceedingly revoltinc, and disgusting; but he believed the people of Boston would never '-'have heard either of him or his opinions had it not been thr the prosecution. Captain GORDON said, the case of a persecuted missionary was in no respect analogous to that of Taylor. It was incorrect to say that he did not obtrude his opinions on the public ; he was in the regular habit of publishing them in a publication called the Devil's Pulpit. Mr. O'CONNELL said, such prosecutions always made men mar- tyrs, and it would do so in this case. The people who petitioned for Taylor to-day would subscribe to-morrow to support him. He contended that prosecutions by the Society for the Suppression of Vice were most unconstitutional ; its members might be amongst the jurors, perhaps among the judges.
On moving for the printing of the petition, Mr. HUME mentioned, as a great aggravation of Taylor's punishment, that he was pre- cluded from procuring controversial works on religion ; "which, to a man like him," said Mr. Hume, "is the same as if, were I in confinement, you should interdict to me the reading of Parlia- mentary Papers.'