Elrbatrl an laraccebingl in Pariiamatt.

1. THE REFORIM BILL. On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the Bill.

Lord MAHON moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. His Lordship's objection to the Bill was, that it took for granted that corruption was the growth of latter times; whereas the system had been gradually ameliorating ever since the Revolution, at which period all the boroughs of England were nomination boroughs. His Lordship expressed himself favourable to the enfranchisement of large towns, though he could not allow that they had been improperly treated in not having it extended to them hitherto ; for, so far from claiming such a right, they had at one time deprecated the possession 4of it. He was convinced that a moderate reform, commencing with en- franchisement, and followed by a limited disfranchisement, would have satisfied all the thinking, sober, and industrious classes of the people— mill the Radicals, whom it was not the duty of the Ministers to satisfy. Lord Mahon said that the anomaly so loudly complained of— small boroughs returning representatives, and large towns none—would not be the only subject of attack if the Bill passed into a law. The Wext anomaly assailed would be large estates in the hands of individuals, while communities Were poor— He felt he was justified in saying, that if a war of property should arise, the xisponsibility of such an event would rest with the Administration, and the moral guilt would be on them. It might be found too late by the great houses of Russell and Cavendish, that there existed a close connexion between small boroughs and large estates.

He went on to notice the exclusion of men eminent for their writings im political and other subjects, that had obtained seats in the present Parliament through the boroughs in Schedule A. Of fourteen of such eminent men, he said the Bill would leave only two,—namely, Lord 311orPeth and Sir John Hobhouse. He contended for the necessity of Peers, if they were to exist at all, being trained up in habits of business; -which, in a Reformed House of Parliament, would be found imprac- ticable. The Counties, he said, had an antipathy to elect Peers' eldest sons, because they might at a moment be deprived of their services. That the minds of the People were by no means made up to the mea- shre of Reform, Lord Mahon thought pretty evident, from the decision given that night in the case of Dorchester and the approbation of the .E'eople was the only argument in favour Of the Bill. He admitted, at the same time, that a majority of the population of the country were favourable to this bill; but he did not see any reason why their wishes should be obeyed. Implicit obedience to the popular will was not the principle of a monarchy, but of a republic. Lord Mahon concluded by calling on those members who had voted for the second reading, in the lope of modifying the Bill in Committee, to pause ere they voted for Abe third— Let them consider whether, by some well-digested plan of moderate reform, they could not combine ancient prescription with modern improvement. He did not mean to deny that there might be some danger in resisting the call for this bill; but would there be safety, he would ask, in giving their assent to it?

Sir. JOHN MiLCOLM seconded the amendment. Sir John made several objections to the Bill, but the principal one was that it did not provide for the proper representation of India.

Mr. Wasaanam supposted the Bill. That it contained some ano- analies, was true; but what were these to the abominations of the pre- sent system ? Unprincipled nien might make the Bill a scaffolding for the effecting of their unlawful purposes ; but was that any reason why honest men should he deprived of their rights, the most undoubted of which was the right of electing their own representatives undisturbed by any influence but their own ?.

Sir ROBERT 'Nous spoke of Lord Chatham sitting for Old Sarum, as a proof of the value of the much-decried borough system ; which borough, Sir Robert observed, was connected with property to the amount of 1,500,0001., and therefore on the elective principle well entitled to two representatives. He alluded to a case mentioned by Lord Brougham, that the Nabob of Arcot had returned eight members ; Sir Robert said this was incorrect, he returned only four ; but while England took so many millions from India, India ought to share in the representation of England. Sir Robert went on to censure the Bill for destroying the rights of corporations by the qualification clause, and of the wrong in- flicted on individuals bY disfranchising nomination boroughs without indemnification. He afterwards quoted Lord Grey's letter to Mr. Attwood, and Lord John Russell's letter to the same gentleman ; and finished by reading an extract from an article, frequently noticed before, in the North American Review, to show; that the Reform would be most injurious to the welfare of the country.

Mr. SLANEY replied to Sir Robert Inglis.

Mr. PEMBERTON spoke of the Bill as tending to upset the Constitution, and to loosen the Crown on the brow of the King.

Mr. Macaimav said he was no enemy of anomaly, unless ano- maly was connected with abuse. He did not support the present Bill because it removed anomalies, but because it removed abuses, the danger of which was not remote but immediate, not fanciful but palpable. He admitted that a government of prescription was likely to be more permanent than a government which was not supported by prescription ; but, that prescription should be respectable, it must be respected. If the English Revolution of 1640 and the French Revolu- tion of 179l did not stand, the reason was, that the people did not b0.o along with them. The abuses removed by the Reform Bill, on the contrary, had been for many years a byword of contempt with the People. The objections to the present Bill were the same as had been urged against the resolution for giving representatives to a few large towns, and they might be urged againstany reform measure that ever was produced. He asked, had the opponents of the present measure any better to offer as a substitute ?- He particularly called upon Sir Robert Peel to explain the nature of the Re- form measure which would meet with his assent. Sir Robert stood at the head of a great party ; he had filled a high situation in the state, and might possibly till a still higher ; and these were circumstances which not only gave Mr. Mac- aulay a right, but made it his duty to make observations freely, but respectfully, on the public conduct of the right honourable baronet. After thirteen months of discussion on the question of Reform, all that the House knew of the opinion of one of its most distinguished members was, that he was opposed to the Minis- terial plan of Reform. He had, indeed, declared, that though.lie would not him- self have brought forward, yet he would have assented to, a measure of moderate Reform. What the plan of Reform was to which the right honourable baronet would have assented, he had not yet explained to the House. The question of Reform might be a question which divided men's opinions, but with respect to the importance of the question all were agreed ; and he could not understand, on looking to the high character and station of Sir Robert Peel, how he could shrink from the responsibility of proposing such a measure as, in his opinion, would satisfy the country, and be less injurious in its effects than the Ministerial proposition. Yet all that he had as yet said was, that he disliked the plan pro- posed by Government, and that there was a something which would have met with his assent, but that Ministers had not hit upon that something. But let the right honourable baronetob.serve the state of the public mind, the excitement which prevailed on the subject, and the delight with which the Ministerial plan of Reform had been received by the people ; and then let him ask himself whe- ther he was prepared to bear the responsibility of the consequences which would follow its rejection. Sir Robert would doubtless say, "That is no elfinr of mine; the excitement is your own." ( Cheers from the Opposition.) He supposed from that cheer that the answer was considered satisfactory by the honourable gentlemen opposite. The next generation would judge them. When the dearest interests of the empire were at stake, the world would hold them responsible, not only for the evil which they had done, but for the good which they had omitted to do. History would not hold such men guiltless, if, when the public good re- quired them to speak out, for fear of compromising themselves, they held their tongues' or spoke in such a way as not to be understood. If any persons were to be held responsible for the public excitement, the kite Ministers had quite as much to answer for as the present. But the great question was, not what person is to blame, but what is now to be done? That was the question before the House and the country; and that was the question which he thought he had a right to ask the right honourable baronet. 'I he right honourable baronet pos- sessed preeminent talent for debate ; but the country had a right to expect from him something of a higher character. The country had a right to call on him for his opinion of the principles upon which Reform ought to be founded, and of the extent to which concession should be made to the public wish at such a crisis as the present. He asked the right honourable baronet, whether he should wish it to go down to posterity, that he in the most eventful period of British history, when the dearest interests of the empire were at stake—that he, being one of the most distinguished members of the House of Commons, brought some sound and many special objections against every thing proposed by others, hinted in general terms that something might be done, but never could be induced to ex- plain what that something was? Did the right honourable baronet suppose that he could ever again conduct the affairs of the Government on Anti-Reform prin- ciples? It would be madness for any Government pledged to no Reform to at- tempt to go on with the present House of Commons. They must dissolve the Parliament, and appeal to the ple in a moment of fearful excitement; and they would then find that they committed the same error which Charles

committed when he dissolved the short Parliament and exchanged it for the long Parliament.

Mr. CROKER followed Mr. Macaulay. He had no doubt, lithe Bill passed, we should have a Directory; but we should pass through the previous measures of a dissolution of public credit and a confiscation of public property. Mr. Croker read a quotation from Lord Holland, on the impossibility of framing a constitution. Be quoted the Times of the 7th respecting the stimulus which the wishes-of the people had commu- nicated to the "shy and shuffling" among their representatives. He also cited Gibbon, on the danger of one step in reform leading to others. He concluded— The -effect of the -la clause in the former bill and of that in the present was as different as reform and revolution. Nothing was more likely to excite the desire of future change than the submsaion which had already been made to the popular will; and it as he feared there was no doubt,. the 1Muse of Commons should pass the Bill, and—which God turbid—the other House of Parliament should give its assent to it, from the bottom of his heart he believtd—with the most anxious desire to persuade himself that he was in error, and with the most anxious and agonizing hope to find himself mistaken—that they would put power into the hands, not of the people, but the populace, that would destroy its own 'work, the Reform Bill, like a toy, and pull down in savage sport ihe Throne, the Houses of Lords and Commons,and the Church. All ancient is stitutions- all modern improvements—all future hopes—all would be destroyed before the devastating curiosity of change, which would go on increasing as It ng as there was any thing for it to work upon, and which at last would lie clewn satiated like a wild beast, only when there was no longer any object to prey upon.

Out of that anarchy, however, as in 1660 and in 168S, order would be anew elicited, and the people of the country would once more have the comfort of living under an established government.

Lord ALTHORP said that argumeut on this subject was exhausted, and therefore he should say little. He. expressed his astonishment at the doctrine of Sir Robert Inglis on the right of the Nabob of Arcot to have representatives in that House ; his Lordship thought the right of the Emperor of Russia quite as good. Mr. • Croker had spoken of concessions to popidar clamour in the alterations introduced into the Bill— Now Ministers had been repeatedly told by gentlemen on the other side, that they had adopted all their suggestions. Was he, then, to understand that the honourable members opposite were the organs of popular clamour? Ministers had made alterations where they thought they would be improvements, without caring by whom they had been suggested, and regardless of the taunts to which they might thereby expose themselves.

It had been said that the measure would not be a permanent one— What better grouud could there be for supieeing that a measure would be permanent, than that it satisfied the people ? Were not the people of England most anxious that the Bill should pass ? (No.) He could not conceive in what society thema honourable members moved who could deny that position. For his own part, he had never known any measure reeding before Parliament with respect to which the people were so anxious as the Reform Bill.

Lord VALLETORT divided the people in respect of the Bill into four classes,—those who honestly supported it; those who supported it be- cause it was the only plan of reform proposed ; those who disliked and opposed it ; those who disliked but were too apathetic to oppose it. All these except the first class would be content with a moderate reform.

On the motion of Mr. A. TREVOR, the debate was adjourned till the next (lay.

The debate was resumed on Tuesday by Mr. A. TREVOR. He was followed by Mr. SCHONSWAR, Sir J. BRIDGES, Mr. CUNLIFFkOFFLEY, Mr. HUDSON GenNey, Mr. PIGOTT, and Colonel TORRENS.

Colonel TORRENS combated the opinion that the present system had worked well— where was it that the measures of an unreformed Parliament had worked well? Was it in Ireland ? Was it in the West Indies? Was it in the amount of the debt, of the taxes, or of the poor-rates? Was it in the agricultural districts, where the rural population were serfs and helots on the soil ? Was it in the manufacturing towns, where the system of infant slavery prevailed ? It was mockery and insult to say that an unreformed Parliament had worked well. Throughout all the departments ofthe national interest it had worked ill, and if its operations were not speedily suspended, it would work destruction.

He noticed also the argument that so extensive a measure as the Bill would lead of necessity to democratic changes tantamount to revolution— That objection had been urged with more or less force by every honourable member who had spoken against the principle of the Bill. That objection was, indeed, the pivot upon which the whole opposition to Reform turned. Now he would venture to show, that this objection was valueless. He would undertake to show, that those who contended that this measure of Reform would lead to democratic change, inverted the natural order of events, and fell into the error of mistaking the effect for the cause. In the sequence of events, Reform was the consequent, not the antecedent. It was not an efficient cause, it was a necessary effect. It would not produce the democratic change which Was so much dreaded, because it had been itself produced by that democratic change which the progress of society had already completed. It was therefore erroneous and illogical to consider this measure as an original cause of change, when it was itself the effect of that great moral change which the power of knowledge already had brought forth. 'Whoever would attentively consider the progress of opinions, and the course of events, would arrive at the conclusion, that before that measure was introduced, or even considered, it had already be- come impossible any longer to govern this country by means of a nomination Parliament.

Mr. MAcKisneoN followed Colonel Torrens, and General PALMER Mr. Mackinnon. The gallant General noticed in his speech the plan of a Mr. Heathfield, founded on the assumption that the property of the nation, including thedebt, amounted to 3,600,000,000/. Mr. Heathfield proposed to lay a tax of .9.0 percent. on this capital, and with the proceeds —720,000,000/.—to pay off the debt, and thus to get rid of 30,000,000/. of taxation. The General advocated the propriety of this plan at great length.

Colonel Woo]) deprecated a diminution of the English members. He thought if Ireland and Scotland had a case, they ought to be grati- fied; but the members of England ought not to be reduced in order to their gratification.

Mr. ROBINSON supported the third reading.

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN chiefly objected to total disfranchisement. If there bad been no Schedule A, Sir Richard thought the plan of reform might have been acceptable; but he would not disfranchise even. Old Sarum. Sir Richard alluded to the proposal of creating Peers, in re- spect of which the most unconstitutional language, he said, was held, not only by the press, but in private society. Sir Richard contended, that if such a creation took place, no independent vote could in future be given by. the Upper House.

Several members rose when Richard Vyvyan sat down, but the cry for Mr. T. Duncornbe prevailed. Mr. BUNCOMBE said—

He for One was anxious to express his opinion on the necessity and constitu- tional propriety of such an augmentation to the Peerage as would secure the triumph of thenational cause; and he was anxious that that House should, by its decision, enforce upon Ministers the conviction of that necessity and consti- tutional right. If the public Weal required a reform in the Housiof Commons— and who could deny that it did ?—it was equally important that such a reform

should also be effected in the House of Lords as the sante public \veal demanded. And it was the solemn duty of Ministers, to take care that the ceetstitutional pre- rogative of the Crown should be so exercised that the country Avould be saved from the dire consequences of a second rejection of the great measure on which the heart of the people was set. That house and Ministers had done their duty, and the King was stanch and ready to do his; it only remained for the House of Lords not to neglect theirs. (" flew- hear l" and kughter from the Op- position.) Sir CHARLES 'WETHERELL spoke at great length on the question of creating Peers. Sir Charles read the titles of the Peers created at the Coronation ; those of Panmilre, Poltimore, Dinorben, and Brougham, excited great laughter from the Opposition side. He likened the mode of sending them up to the Upper House, to pitching trusses of hay into a loft. He thought it would have been found rather a hard task to pitch up such loads as Pannutre and Poltimore. If the process were repeated, Sir Charles contended, it would reduce the House of Lords lower than the vile, degraded pauper, nobility of France. Sir Charles said, he did not think Ministers would create Peers ; if he had thought so, he would Imre brought forward his motion on the subject. He challeaged the A tterney-General, and the whole Cabinet to boot, to say if the creation of l'eers, in order to pass a particular measure, would not be a gross breach of constitutional law. He defied any man to say, that the acts which led to the expulsion of James the Second were as tyrannical in principle as the exercise of his prero- gative by King William the Fourth, to destroy the free agency of the Peers, would be. The Bill of Rights, funned to secure the nation from a recurrence of the acts of James the Second, would be violated by the creation of Peers ; for what said the Bill in reference to James ? Why, that " by suspending the laws, and unconstitutionally interfering with their execution," he had forfeited the throne. Sir Charles, after reverting to the peerage of France, came back once more to this topic— He would venture to say, that no persons would attempt to overwhelm the independence of the House of Lords, except such men as were prepared to bring the King into that dilemma in which the Bill of Rights placed James the Second ; for it would be as great an act of injustice and tyranny, and as ex- travagant an infringement of the constitutional law and liberty of the realm, as any act connnitted by that sovereign. If such a proceeding should be at- tempted, base and recreant would be the present House, or any future House of Commons, which should neglect to take the subject into its most serious anti grave consideration.

Sir Charles went on to notice the landing of the French at Ancona, which lie insisted was strictly connected with the Reform Bill. Lord Grey advised the Bishops to set their houses in order ; and the mob at Bristol burned the Bishop's palace, with all his manuscript sermons. M. Casimir Perier was influeueed by the same desire a setting in order the Bishop of Rome's house ; and hence the Ancona expedition.

Sir Tfloatas PENMAN deprecated the language used by his honour- able friend in respect to the Sovereign. If he had any charge to make against the Ministers, let him bring it forward— Lord Oxford stood the brunt of an impeachment, and-so would the Ministers of the present day. But Lord Oxford made a mean and disgraceful defence— he sacrificed his mistress, who was too partial to him. But no such defence would be made on this occasion.

The Attorney-General concluded, by expressing his opinion, that time opposition was founded on complete ignorance of the people of England; and that the House would completely answer the expecta- tion of the people, by carrying the Bill to the other House, leaving it to them to dispose of it as pleased them.

When the Attorney-General sat down, Mr. GOULBURN and Mr. PERCEVAL rose together; the former, however, gave way, and the latter proceeded to address the House. To avoid any suspicion of caricature, we copy the report of his very extraordinary speech, and the account of its reception, from the journal of his party, the Morning Post. Mr. PERCEV.AL spoke as follows- " In whose name do ye sit here, I ask ye ? In His name, at the mention of whom in this Housethe titter and the sneer are wont to come forth from ye. In whose name do ye sit here? (Considerable interruption, and cries of Question, question !') Think ye, think ye, I say, for one moment, that, sitting here in the utter forgetfulness of Him from whom alone all reason, wis- dom, and might cometh, that thy works will be prosperous, or that thou canst sow the seed from which a goodly crop will spring ?" (Considerable inter- ruption, in the midst of which) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said, that as he apprehended the object which the honourable member had in view was to propose the ad- journment of the House, perhaps the best course would be for him (Lord Al- thorp) at once to move the adjournment of the debate. (Cries of" Hear hear I" and" Go on, go on!") Mr. PF.RCEVAL continued—" I ask ye, do ye expect that a blessing will await your labour if ye place not your trust in Him from whom all goodness springeth? Do ye think that He is for one instant forgetful of that which He ought to bear in mind? Ye must know that, without seeking by prayer to be inspired by His counsel, thy labours cannot prosper ; and yet, vain mortals, ye sit here day after day, and night after night, forgetful that in your state of unrighteous, ness your labours in the vineyard must be fruitless. Know ye not the words of His Sacred Volume. ( Considerable interruption.) How stands the account of this House with their God? Twice have ye been called upon. Twice have the Commons of England been called upon to humble themselves before the Lord, and to ask the blessing of Him from whom alone the blessing of prosperity can come." ( Great interruption.) Mr. HUNT—" Sir, I rise to order. We are now approaching the fast-day which Government thought proper to order ; and I believe that the object of the honourable member in ,addressing the House is to move that, in order to comply with that order' the House should not further proceed with the despatch of business. I really think the course which we ought to adopt would be to ad, journ without further delay." Mr. PERCEVAL—" It is not my intention to move any adjournment; but r rise to admonish the House against the evil course which they are following. (Considerable confusion, during which several honowrable members here rose- to leave the House. When order was in some degree restored, the honourable member continued.) I tell those members whom I see now on the wing—who, if allusion was made to the vain and idle frivolities of the world, would have at here until five or six o'clock in the morning, but who flee from the mention of God's blessed name—that they should now sit down and hear from my lips the

warnings of Hint who sent me hither. I stand here once again before man. I stand here once more to warn a reckless race of men of the justice and the retri-

bution which awaits them. If ye think I stand here on my strength—if ye think I am not deputed by the Lord to warn you of the precipice near which ye are hurrying—I tell ye all that ye are deceived. ( Great interruption.) I re- peat, I do not stand here in my own strength, but in that of Him who sent me, and therefore do I implore ye to listen to me for a moment. Ye may endeavour to drown my warning voice, but with His blessing will I struggle to undeceive your minds as to the condition in which your want of grace has placed you. Twice before have you been required to humble yourselves, and twice did ye ,get rid of that request by the subtlety of a miserable formality. And how had He punished your utter contempt of His warnings? Ye have raging in the midst of you that scourge of idolatry and impiety. (Here fur some time the honour- able member was inaudible.) A bill was brought in—I called for an acknow- ledgment of God's providence. I told ye that the scourge was inflicted on ye in God's wrath—that to Him it ought to be attributed. But my counsel, my warning, was rejected. ( Here .hr some time the honourable member was in- audible.) In the English Bill, the mention of the Deity was omitted; but when the House came to consider the Scotch Bill, it was said, ' We have found that the people wish to have the name of the Deity:diluted to, and as they wish it, let it be so tramed."1' has, though the words of God which I expressed to the Iheise were disregarded, in conformity to the Ivishes of the people the alteration was made. (Here the conpsion was Si) great fir several minutes, that tee were unable to cuteb even. MP import of the obserrations.) The Rulers of the laud have ap- pointed a fast, hut I tell them that that fast is in the eye of their Giml a soleum mockery, NViliCh He WOU111 1114 favour. Ye have agreed to a fast, but ye have it not in your hearts to humble yourself. And do ye think that the Lord God

he deeeived ? ve think that Ile will not searcii your hearts, to see if ye are sincere ? I tell ye He has searched your hearts, and in that search He has discovered that ye do not approach Him in the solemnity which ye ordain, in a Nmirit a contrition, humiliation, aud repentance ; that ye do not look upon Him in a spirit of belief that in Ilium alone is there prosperity- and happiness. For some cause or other the fitst is ordered. What that cause is I cannot sav ; but I will say it was not ordered in a spirit of voluntary humiliation before your

God. It is not to avert the curse which is hovering over ye. It is not to acknowledge that the disease which is upon your shore is the scourge in- 'flirted liy au offouled God, that the order for this gist is issued' and therefiwe do I tell ye that it will not avail with the Lord, but that God ere long Nal break upon ye numerous woes and sorrows. Therefore have I resolved to warn ye, and to the performance of this task have I, after solemn prayer, committed myself. I tell the House that in retribution of the mockery which is attempted to be imposed on God, the land will

be rendered naked and deserted. Wait for a little time, and ye will be all annihi- lated. The sword of destruction is not far removed from your devoted heads. These things I tell ye, and believe them, for they arc the words of your God, through me his humble messenger. I tell the House, moreover, that the Church of this country shall be laid low ; aye, and soon shall that time come, for she is filled with corruption, and has played the harlot with her doctrines. These things will your eyes see ; therefore shall ye tremble. ( Considerable confusion in the body of the house, and loud cries of " Question, question! ") Ye may think me mad, and that I am beside myself; but the time is coming when my words shall come true. I tell the rulers of the State that God looks narrowly into their hearts. He sees that they like not their King, but consult for his destruction. They think that they have caught him in a net from which there is no escape ; but God watches over him, and will defeat their iniquitous plots." (Loud cries of " Question, question ! ")

Mr. SuAw—" I beg, in a spirit of entire admiration of the motives which induce my honourable friend to address the House, to put it to him if he would not act more consistently, as regards his motion, that this day be reserved for a ,general humiliation, were he at once to move the a(ljournmeut of the House. (" Hear, hoar!") I am sure he will do me the justice to think that the i mention of the name of God would not serve as an nducement to me to leave the House; but, comistently with may feelings as regards the necessity of abstain- ing from business on this day, I cannot think of longer remaining in the House." (" Hear, hear !") Mr. PEnezvar.—" I cannot think of adopting the advice of my honourable friend ; for my duty to my God impels me on to declare what may be expected in retribution of the people' apathy- and disregard of his worship. 'I tell the Rulers of the State that God sees that they think they have the King fast bound in a net ; but he is the Lord's anointed, and the heart of the King is m the ilord's hands, and they shall not hold him, though they think they have got him secure in their meshes. I know there are those among ye who will with sincerity and true hu- mility bow down before the Lord. To those do I say, manifold blessings shall come upon ye ; for the Lord loyeth to reward those who place their trust in Him. ( Considerable confusion.) I assure ye all that this storm is coming, and that He is coining who is your God amid your Lord."

This strange speech was terminated by Lord SANDON'S observing that he saw strangers in the House ; on which the Speaker immediately proceeded to enforce the standing order. Mr. Perceval sat down while the Gallery was being cleared ; and before it was again opened, the mo- tion for adjournment had been put and carried.

The debate on the third reading, which was interrupted by Mr. Per- cevars speech on Tuesday, was resumed on Thursday by Mr. CRESSET PELHAM, who spoke against the Bill.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY defended the Bill. In the course of his speech he alluded to the opinions of the Quarterly Review, to show the nature of that exclusive loyalty which the Anti-Reformers arrogated to them- selves. As long as the Crown was subservient to their private in-

- .. terests, they were content that it should remain undisturbed ; but now, to use their own words,

"Having witnessed an instance of a King who was represented as the chief innovator of the realm, instead of being the Thief conservator, they had begun, like their forefathers in 1648, to discuss the theoretical uses of Kingship."

Mr. STEWART went into an enumeration of the delinquencies of the Long Parliament, with a view to show that Parliaments popularly chosen were not more scrupulous in their conduct than those that were not so chosen. He concluded by stating, that the first collision be- tween the Lords and the Commons, were the Bill passed, would prove fatal to the former ; and while the Commons reflected every wavering wish of the people, such a collision was inevitable. Mr. Witsmi thought the plain fact that the People of England were for the Bill, was a sufficient argument in its favour. It was better that it should be passed in the House than passed out of the House, as it would be if Parliament rejected it. O'CONNOR DON spoke in favour of the third reading.

Sir GEORGE ROSE spoke of his experience as. a diplomatist for forty years past, and declared his belief that the Bill would materially affect all our foreign' relations. He thought it would prove equally injurious in respect of' our Colonies, which had hitherto continued true to their allegiance only because of the indirect share in the representation of the country which the present system allowed them. Sir George eulogized the United States' representation, but denied that it was at all applicable to this country. The House of` Representatives, he said, was composed of men of inferior education, fortune, and station. He mentioned a case in which a wealthy merchant had been beaten by a man who let out horses to hire. He argued from this example, that a Reform Parliament under the Bill would consist of men who had narrow local interests, and that the national interests would be wrecked in the struggle. Sir George next turned to the Church—

He was no bigot ; but this he would say, that be believed those who saw the spire of Salisbury Cathedral or the cross of St. Paul's in their present places thirty years after the passing of this Bill, would have better eyes than he ex- pected them to have.

Sir George entered into a statement of the relative independence of members for large constituencies and members for rotten boroughs— He sat for many years as the representative of a considerable constituency, to whom he pledged himself Ao support the Government; and was often coup. Felled to do so when, under a less vigilant supervision of his conduct, he should have paused, and have required to be better satisfied as to the propriety of parti- cular measures. During that time, too, he was compelled to seek for patronage for Ids constituents at time hands of Government. Afterwards, he was fourteen Years the member for a close borough ; and during that time, the only patronage, 'direct or indirect, which be ever procured, was the appointment of one mau as a gauger in Ireland.

He concluded by observing, that were he free to choose between the Cholera and the Bill, he would choose the Cholera,—preferring, like King David, to fall into the hands of the Lord rather than into the hands of men.

Mr. ADEANE thought the present Bill much more objectionable than the last, particularly in allowing the freeholders of towns to vote for eounties ; by which, lie contended, the latter would he wholly swamped. He should, however, vote for the third reading ; although he sincerely regretted that many of the amendments offered in Committee had not been adopted.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN pointed to the member for Cambridge Mr. Adeane, as one of the proofs on which Lord John Russell relied lie spoke of the general acceptability of the Bill Sir Edward entered into an elaborate criticism on the whole of the details of the present Bill ; contrasting them, as he proceeded, with those of the former Bill, and arguing from the differences (which he pointed out in very nearly the same words and order as Mr. Croker's resolutions of Wednesday sennight), that the Ministerial measure, like the Government that con- cocted it, was wholly unworthy of support. The only novelty, in Sir Edward's long speech, was his argument that the freedom of the press could only be preserved under such a system as that which we at pre-, sent enjoy, and that the Reform Bill would be fatal to it. He con- chided with warning Ministers, from the manner in which the creation of the twelve Peers in Queen Anne's time had been viewed in the de-- bate on the Peerage Bill of 1719, to be cautious how they employed the royal prerogative on the present occasion.

Mr. R. GRANT observed, that when Sir Edward spoke on the Bill, instead of taking a large view of its bearings, he invariably applied him- self to the crossings of the'ts and the dots above the is— If a representative body was obtained representing public opinion, that body. was not only influenced by the People, but they influenced the People. Those who were sent to that House to fight the battles of the People, had most power over them. There should be frequent and intimate communication between the representative and his constituents; and narrow indeed must be that mind which called that influence by the opprobrious name of dictation. What, then, was the test to see if the sentiments of the electoral body were right or not ? The great mass of the middling classes must be consulted. And what did they ask ?- A larger share in the representation ; and could the House hope to give content to the immense majority of the people, unless harmony was produced between. them and their representatives ? In the present state of disaffection, aversion, and alienation towards our institutions, unless some reform was adopted, we should be driven to consequences which he had been told the late Mr. Canning. had predicted, not as near, but in the horizon of our prospective policy,—a war between property and the amass of the population. One topic more. He would ask members if they meant to abide by the principles of the orders that stood on their own Parliamentary books, or whether they would alter those orders, or,, without altering, violate them habitually, and tell the People they did so be- cause they were afraid of popular encroachment ? The People were as good judges of those principles as were their, representatives, and they would even- tually overwhelm them—he would not say by physiell force, but by the power of argument.

Lord PoRCHESTER condemned Ministers for not abiding by the votes of a freely-elected Parliament, instead of a rabble stimulated by bribery and the use of the King's name: Mr. Grant had said, that if Reform were not conceded, there would be a collision between property. and numbers : if the present Reform were Conceded, such a collision was inevitable. The standing orders forbade Peers to interfere in elections; but Lord Porchester asked, whether they did not also forbid the pub-

lication of the debates of the House? It was no argument for en- forcing an order that it appeared on the journals. He spokeof the po- litical consequences of the Bill— After passing the Bill, Ministers could no longer look upon the County Mem- bers as the influential body they had been considered till now. The members for towns would be the inheritors of their power, and these would be the iron men who would hereafter govern the Government and direct the destinies of the empire. When the present representatives of the nation were, on some future day, struggling for life, fortune, and family—for their altars and their homes, —and when they were confronted by that band of Republican opponents, they would then regret the change which they had sanctioned by a rash assent,—they would then reflect that

"An erring hand may ruin in an hour

The mighty fabric of imperial power."

Ministers deceived themselves in anticipating the effects of the Bill. It appeared to him, that so far from adding strength to our councils, it would produce the most shallow and fluctuating policy that ever enfeebled the energies of a people. Government, instead of being judged by its general policy, would be estimated by the course it followed on subordinate questions; and members would be con- tinually harassed by the demand of pledges at the hustings,. and an inquisition into all the details of their Parliamentary.conduct, on tho .ground of respon- sibility. He next alluded to the effect of the Bill in Ireland—to the destruc- tion of the Protestant Church there—to the democratic spirit of that country—and to the fearful accession which the strength of the anti- monarchical principle would receive from a popular Scotch represenm.

tion. He concluded by declaring his belief, that if the Bill were passed into a law, the destiny of the country would be sealed.

Sir Joutsr HORHOUSE (quoting Mr. Wilberforce) said, the op- ponents of Reform were so terrified at the idea of innovation of every kind, that they would not venture even on a new argument. The pre- sent debate was no more than a repetition of all that had preceded it. The Anti-Reformers tried to frighten the Agricultural interests—the Funded interests—the People—the King—the Lords—the Commons ; and then they turned round on the Government, and said they were at- tempting to pass the Bill by intimidation. From the Agricultural interest the answer was-76 County members for the Bill. The Funds were now much higher than when Government Caine into power. As to the complaint of the use of the King's name by Government, it was wholly untrue ; but if were not, there was ample precedent for it in the conduct of Mr. Pitt in 1784. The dissolution of that year took place in the face of a positive address of the House ; the Parlia- ment had sat but four months ; the country was at war ; Ireland was in a state of insurrection ; the Minister had a majority in the Com- MOT1S of 46 : yet he dissolved them ; and in the King's speech he told them— That his Majesty was anxious to recur to the sense of his people, while the events which had taken place were fresh in their minds ; and was satisfied at once with the Ministers, and the rectitude of the motives under which they acted, and called upon his people to stand by him in the free exercise of his pre- rogative.

In 1807, Mr. Perceval acted on this precedent ; and a note to the report of the debate on the occasion stated, that

Mr. Croker spoke for some time with much animation, in answer to Lord Howick and Mr. Grattan, and concluded by supporting the Ministers in their dissolution of Parliament.

Sir John regretted the spirit in which the question had been argued throughout— It had been met and argued as a party question. ("No!" from the Oppo- sition.) He was afraid it was but too true ; and though he did not mean to make a charge agaiast the gentlemen opposite, he must say also, that the country thought it was true. (" No ! " from the Opposition.) lie thought so. In short, the fact was this : one great party in the state succeeded to another great party in office, and the first proposed a measure to which the latter would not concede ; and so it had been argued, and he thought with acrimony. The new Administration had scarcely been in office two days, before personal charges were brought against some members of it : in fact, every question was made a party question, and that long before the Reform Bill was brought forward. In what manner had the Budget been dealt with ? How were the Timber-duties dealt with ? These had been opposed by individuals, who well knew that the Government had done nothing more in these questions than adopt the sug- gestions of those who caine forward with the Opposition. The same had been the case on the Russo-Dutch Loan. With respect to the present question, if not a party one, why not have met it half-way, so that the country might be satisfied ? It was impossible that the Government could have done that with such an opposition. It was a mockery to think it. The Government would have been laughed at by their opponents, and become the joke of the lobby itself. What ! modify the Reform Bill with gentlemen who were only trying to trip the heels of the Administration!

He asked, could the country remain at peace without any reform, let who will undertake the Government ?—

He was not aware of any middle course that could be taken ; and there must be either a Government on the old principles, under which it was said we had flourished so much, or a Government on the principle of that the Ministerial side of the House, founded above all on the basis of free representation. He would take Sir Robert Peel as an exemplification of the manner in which the Bill had been opposed. Sir Robert at one time complained of raising the qualification of borough voters, and he concluded by deprecating pauper votes. Another time, he complained that the Government had not adopted any of his sugges- tions, while again in a short time he said that they had all been taken. Then came the charge of revolution which came strangely as an accusation from those who lauded the Revolution of? 1688. That the Bill was a change, there was no doubt; but what state had ever reached greatness that had not frequently changed, or, as Machiavelli expressed it, which had not recurred to first princi- ples? It had been said the other night, that not only would the House of Peers be destroyed, but the Throne would be upset : this was urged as a menace not to be misunderstood, as references were made to James the Second, with some hints given to the King now upon the thione. But he would say that this was a revolution better than that of 1688. We were not going to cashier a Monarch —we were not going to change from James to William ; we had our own Wil- liam, and meant to keep him (Loud cheers); and the only change we proposed was that of Gatton and Sarum for Manchester and Birmingham.

Sir John, in answer to Lord Porchester, showed that the destruction of the French Peerage, in the commencement of the Revolution, was wholly consequent on their own absurd opposition to the people,—first quibbling, in order to in rid of their demands ; and then advising the use of physical force, m order to put them down. He concluded by a quotation from Cicero' expressing the opinion of the Roman orator that it was the duty of Government to adapt its measures to the varying mrcumstances of the times, and that nothing could be less laudable than a determination in no case to change opinions that were no longer tenable.

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that Reform was demanded by the people— But certainly the supporters of the Reform Bill at present had this in their favour,—that if they could not govern the country themselves, they had at least rendered it ungovernable for others. If that were a boast, they were fully en- titled to it ; but if there were no alternative between this Bill cud anarchy, then this position was the most severe censure that could be cast upon the Govern- ment. Supposing that the late Administration had even thought the time had come for a reform of the constitution of that House, Sir Robert Peel should not have thought it proper that the Government should propose the measure; he should have left it for those who had been the uniform advocates and supporters of Reform.

He denied that the excitement for Reform was spontaneous in this Country— It arose out of a most stupid admiration of what had occurred in a neighbour- ing nation,—an ambition to cut clumsy capers in imitation of the harlequins of France. It was the duty of the Government to repress this stupid ambition — to separate the rational part of the nation from these stupid imitators, and those discontented and dissatisfied people who were prepared to go to all lengths. Ministers might have waited until the excitement ceased—until the impure waters were separated from the pure; and he firmly believed the country would have been satisfied with such a delay. Or they might have offered a moderate-measure of disfranchisement and enfran- chisement, and in that way also contented the country. Sir Robert aftenvards went into the argument against the Bill, from the presumed difficulty of Ministers obtaining seats under it— They might have many lawyers in a Reformed Parliament, who gained their seats pledges, and who came into the House backed by Lambeth and the Tower Hamlets; and was the Crown to want its Attorney-General, through the impossibility of effecting his return? When Sir Charles Wetherell, the other night, had, in the heat of argument, offered a disrespect (in ap- pearance only) to time Crown, the prompt answer of the Attorney-Geueral showed how important it was to have a law-officer sensitive to such an insult. But suppose any member of Parliament should hereafter get up and insult his Sovereign by an odious comparison with scone tyrant of antiquity, when some bold and loyal Attorney-General was expected to rise and vindicate the charac- ter of outraged and insulted Majesty, they must remember that before he could do se he must go and obtain his credentials from Lambeth or Mary- leboue.

Sir Robert concluded with a prophetic description of the evils that must flow from the Bill— He could picture to himself some calm spectator of the change through which we should have passed, seeing the country scorched by a fierce democracy, tired with the fury of annual elections, cursed with having in the intervals every thing referred to electioneering intrigues, as in the United States, where, in such matters, the means were always forgotten in the end,—he doubted whether such a person would not, when sighing after what they now enjoyed, breathe out his bitterest reproaches upon those who had taken such blessings from his country. There might be reduction in the expenditure, there might be a closer economy enforced in the finances of the country ; but he thought it but too pro- bable that such a persons would have to exclaims', while addressing himself to the authors of the measure, " Alas ! was it for this that you have put rancour into our hearts, and sown dissension in our homes? Was it for this that you dis- turbed that harmonious action of the Executive upon the people, which solved the great problem of uniting security with liberty and power with equal laws ? Was ic for this that you dissolved the happy medium of a Monarchy which con- nected the Throne and the People, and had combined the power of the feudal system with the most paternal Government that ever existed ? Was it for this that you disturbed that social system which admitted distinctions indsed, but knew no exclusions, asd in which the road to the distinctions which it recog- nized was accessible to all? Was it for this that you have dissipated all those pleasing illusions which made power gentle, and obedience but a courtesy through all the gradations of life, until by their bland assimilation they incorporated all that could give beauty or dignity to private society ? Was it for this that you submitted to yield up the domination of that religion so pure in its doctrine, so tolerant in its practice, to be supplanted by sects now tearing each other to pieces either in the extremes of Superstition or of Infidelity ? " " I know," con- tinued Sir Robert l'eel, " that I have not overcharged what the state of society now is. That it may escape the imaginary picture I have represented, is my earnest and fervent prayer. But whether it shall do so or not, I, amidst all the vicissitudes of private and of public passion, aims determined to carry with me the consciousness of having struggled to the last in the contest, and of having surrendered without dishonour ; my last vote being given, as my first was, in opposition to this measure." ( Cheers.) Mr. STANLEY rose to wind up the protracted discussion. He first alluded to what had been said on the Opposition side of time House con- cerning the creation of Peers for the purpose of passing the Bill— That any Minister who advised such a measure would incur a grave and great res.ponsibility, no one would deny ; and he was equally ready to admit that a Minister of the Crown, in giving such advice, must rest his defence upon the emergency of the times, and upon the only alternative left to him—that of avoid- ing greater evils. He could not hear it said, that on no occasion, when great and imminent evils arose—when the two Houses of Legislature were in com- plete and tutal variance with each other,—he could not hear it said that on such an occasion no Minister of time Crown could take upon himself the responsibility of advising the Sovereign to adopt such a measure as would put an cud to so fearful a state of things.

Having noticed the case of Lord Oxford, and the insignificant place which the charge of creating Peers formed in the impeachment of that nobleman, Mr. Stanley said— Should the confidential advisers of the Crown see it to be their duty to advise his Majesty to take such a step, they should most assuredly not flinch from the responsibility of giving that advice. Supported by the feelbigs and the wishes of the country, and knowing, too, the stake for which they played, they would altogether disregard the idle threat, the brutum fidthen of an impeachment, with which the honourable and learned gentleman had endeavoured to affi ight them. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Stanley then proceeded to reply to Sir Robert Peel. He no- ticed the recommendation to the Ministers to delay Reform until ex- citement was over— Alas ! that would indeed have been to realize the folly of the rustic simpleton in Horace. If they, on coming into power, with the hopes of the country for an effiement Reform centered in them, had neglected to bring forward such a measure, what a cry would not there have been raised against them;—what ac- cusations would not have been urged against them of want of faith, appetite for place, broken pledges, and violated promises!

He spoke of the pledged majorities which had so repeatedly been ob- .

jected to : he thought the epithet "pledged" was more properly ap- plicable to the minorities ; who, it would be found, on reference to the places for which they sat, had been fighting this question as one of life or death to them. He too concluded with a solemn aspiration The House was now taking leave of the measure, he hoped for ever; and he hoped that, -in receiving it favourably-, the Lords would follow the example of their ancestors in the year 1688, who concurred in the resolutions of the other House without an amendment. He trusted the same spirit would actuate the Upper House on the present occasion. God grant that they might in their Judgment agree with this House, on a measure the most arduous, important, and perhaps the most perilous, that ever was undertaken ; and in doing so, they will see that they are consulting the future tranquillity and happiness of the realm, the prerogative of the Crown, and the security and rights of the People. ( Cheers.) After a few imperfectly-heard words from Mr. HUNT and from Co- lonel SIRTHORP, the House divided—

For the third reading

355

Against it 239 Majority for the Bill 116

Lord ALTHORP announced, that he had some amendments to offer

by way of rider, before the final motion, " that the Bill do now pass," could be put.

The House adjourned at a quarter past five on Friday morning.

Last night, after some amendments in the way of riders had been offered by Lord ALTHORP, Colonel SIBTHORP rose to make his motion for a distribution of the freeholders of the town of Lineoln between the two parts of the county, according to the situation of the freeholds on the right or left bank of the Witham The Colonel said he did not accuse the Ministers of improper motives, but of lack of understand- ing. He prayed God that they might be out of office by that day month.

Mr. KEARSLEY seconded the Motion. He complained that the Op- position members were not listened to. lie said the Bill was a dam- nable Bill, an infernal Bill—an iniquitous, unjust, pickpocket Bill—it had no fair spot in it.

The House divided on Colonel Sibthorp's motion : font, 27; against it, 169.

Mr. FRESHEIET.D afterwards moved an amendment respecting the re- gistration of freeholders, but did not press it.

Some verbal amendments having been made, Lord Jon RUSSELL then moved the passing of the Bill. He thanked the majority for the support they had given to Ministers, and complimented them on their real independence. He gave the minority credit for the sincerity of their conviction that the present system was worthy of being perma- nently retained. For the Government, he said they thought now, as they had done a year ago, that it was become absolutely necessary to step between abuse and convulsion.

Mr. GOULBURN followed Lord John Russell's example, and made a complimentary speech of considerable length to his friends, for the steadiness and resolution with which they bad opposed the Bill. He looked for the salvation of the country only through its rejection.

The question was then put and carried.

On the Speaker putting the question on the title, there was a loud and continued cheer from the Ministerial benches. The Bill was then ordered to be carried up to the House of Peers, by Lord .Althorp and Lord John Russell.

2. SCOTCH REroam BILL. In answer to a question of Mr. HUME, Lord ALTHOUP stated last night, that he was anxious to get on with the Supply; and therefore he proposed postponing the second reading of the Scotch Bill till Monday sennight.

Mr. Hum"; wished Alinisters would get on Nrith it and the Irish Bill as quickly as possible. No public business could be satisfactorily treated until the House got rid of Reform.

3. IRISH EDUCATION. On Thursday, the Earl of Wicxtow brought forward his motion, " That the system of education adopted by his Majesty's Government in Ireland, inasmuch as it does not promote the reading of the Holy Scriptures, is not entitled to the approbation of this House." He noticed the arguments against the Kildare Street Society,—that it had been partial in its conduct ; that the people took little interest in its success, as was shown by the smallness of the sub- scriptions ohat the system of education recommended by it was objected toby the Catholics. He stated, in reply to the first objection, that the affairs of the Society were openly conducted ; its proceedings were accessible to Catholic and Protestant indifferently ; that the number of Protestants was great in proportion to the number of Catholics, only proved that the Protestants were the more enlightened part of the Irish community. The direct subscriptions were undoubtedly small, but this arose from its being the object of the Society to encourage local subscriptions ; not less than 1,600 or 1,700 were in connexion with the Society. With respect to the third objection—that the Society was disapproved of by the Catholics— It was not until 1825, nine years after the system had been in operation, that this disapprobation had been expressed. So far from the Society having been opposed by the Roman Catholics, the fact was, that it had at first been objected to by the High Church party, as too favourable to the Roman Catholics; and he declared that at the time when he put his schools, or rather, he should say, the schools on his estate, in connexion with the Society, he thought he did an act favoui able to the Roman Catholics; and it was, he knew, so considered by them. Then why was it that the system had been abandoned? He would tell the rea- son, and the only one—it was to please the demagogues and the agitators. The new system was a base submission to clamour of faction.

He criticised the reports of the Education Committees, in answer to the argument of Lord Plunkett on a former occasion derived from that source. The only report which at all bore out the plan of Go- vernment, he said, -was that of the Committee formed during the Viceroyalty of the Duke of Northumberland. There was' however, au essential difference—the Report advised the Scriptures to be read by all the scholars, Catholic and Protestant; the plan of Ministers left out the reading of the Scriptures altogether, and merely directed two days of the week to be devoted to religious instruction; which, when given by the Roman Catholic clergy, meant any thing rather than reading the Scriptures. He conuasted the conduct of the Duke of Wellington's Government with the rash policy of the present Admi- nistration ; and contended, that although it was not the duty of Go- vernment to encourage proselytism, still less was it the policy of Go- vernment to prohibit it.

The Duke of NORFOLK corrected a misstatement of the Earl of Wicklow : the Church of Rome did not deny the Scriptures to the laity. It denied the right of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture ; a denial which, he rather thought, the Episcopal Bench would not altogether disapprove.

The Bishop of CHESTER gave the Ministers credit for good inten- tions, but he thought it would be a fatal error to sanction such a com- promise of Protestant principles as the new plan of education inferred.

The Duke of LEINSTER defended Ministers.

Lord SUFFIELD said, those who called out for the whole unmutilated Bible as necessary in Irish schools, ought to recollect that in the public schools of England no such system was adopted ; and he believed that those who called for the whole Bible for Irish children would not allow it, without some accompanying commentary, to their own. On the

whole, he looked upon the hostility to this measure as a miserable shift of Opposition.

The Bishop of LONDON said, the plan proposed by Government was so great an innovation on Protestant principle, that it was impossible for him to assent to it.

Lord SUFFIELD observed, that the plan was the same as was observed in the Bible Society Schools and in the National Schools.

After a few words from the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, The Bishop of EXETER spoke strongly against the Ministerial plans. He denied that they were founded on the reports of the Education Committees : they were framed, on the contrary, in the teeth of them. He proceeded to accuse Mr. Stanley of surreptitiously altering the words of the Committee's recommendation— The passage originally stood " and such selections as shall be approved of by the Board ;" but Mr. Shuiley, in his letter, as it appeared in the Catholic jour- nals, altered the passage, so aslo make the approval depend on the " entire Board." [It was here intimated to Bishop Philpotts, that the authentic copy of Mr. Stanley's letter did not contain the word "entire."] All that was the merest Jesuitism ; fin- the effect of the version which had appeared, with at least the negative sanction of the writer, was, that the people ef Ireland are impressed with the belief that so long as one Catholic clergyman is a Member of the Board, no book of selections, other than Dr. Murray would approve of, will be rulopted,—that is, so long the Protestant Scriptural system will not enter into the plan of education. This, he repeated, was mere Jesuitism ; and must excite the indignation of every man who, like himself, was a consistent and disin- terested worshipper of truth. " Oh ! the offence is rank, and smells to Heaven.'0 The Bishop proceeded to criticise the Ministerial scheme at great length ; and contended, that it was contrary to the act of Parliament which placed the care of the education of Protestant children in the hands of the Bishop of the diocese—opposed to Protestant principles —that it divorced morality from religion, and combined with the Catho- lic hierarchy in shutting out the light of heaven from man. He con- eluded— ;;careelv twenty-four hours had elapsed since they had humbled themselves b..fore God. Ot all his ordinances, the most sacred was the prudent use of God's Word ; and of all his presents, the most precious was it free use. Would they then agree to exclude that sacred word from any class of their fel- low sOhjects ? He had no right to speak of his own opinions ; if he had, he would not imitate the most eloquent of living orators, by kneeling to their Lordships, for he bent not his knees to man ; but he would Pray to the Lord to bind the hearts of all present, as the heart of one man, to disclaim-this unhallowed work, and to denounce the manner in which the name of our most gracious scvereign bad been abused. That name, affixed to such a commission, was calculati:d to awaken extraordinary recollections. [" Here," says the Times' report, which we are quoting, " the reverend prelate seemed very much excited, and proceeded in a lour, but apparently most emphatic tone, for some time. We were only able to catch, at his conclusion, some expressions relating to the pre- sent period, which be described as one when thrones were tottering, while they were reminded that He by whom Kings reigned might he provoked again to say, what he had once spoken to a monarch whom n he had favoured, Because thou hest rejected the words of God, he also bath rejected thee from being King over Israel."] The Bishop of CincinsTna said, the opponents of this plan left out of view the very peculiar nature and condition of the country— The plan was not for a people of Protestants, but for a population the vast majority of which consisted of Roman Catholics. The question then was,„ whether a Imuevolent Government could not devise a plan for the education of both the.ay cla,ses, which might eradicate the prejudices that divided them. In conformiry with this desire, four days were by, the new plan to be devoted to the moral education of the pupils, and two days were given for the reading of the Bible, and the peculiar religious instruction of each sect, at the same time that there was no restraint on the reading of the Bible any day except in school hours. Now be asked whether this was not quite enough for every purpose?

Lord RADNOR alluded to the closing part of the Bishop of Exeter's address, .in which he had acted the part of a prophet in tellim., the King that God would reject him because of the change in the plan of con- ducting the education of Ireland. Lord Radnor did not know whose vote would most contribute to give fulfilment to the prophecy, but his • should at least be given in the spirit of charity. He alluded to the change of sentiment in the Bench of Bishops— He remembered, twenty-five or thirty years ago, when the Bible Societies were first established, what an outcry had been raised at the Bible being given without comment, and without being accompanied with the Prayer-book. It was then stated, that such a practice was the ground and foundation of dissent ; and be would be bound to say, that three-fourths of the Bishops were then strongly opposed to what was now contended for. Now the tables were turned; and because the Roman Catholic prelates thought in the same way as the Bench of Bishops in England, we were told, that the principle of Mr. Stanley's plan was to prevent the Bible from being read at all. The debate was prolonged by Lord STouirros, the Earl of RODENT, the Earl of GOSFORD, the Bishops of BRISTOL and LANDAFF, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, and Lord PLUNKETT.

The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the Ministerial plans_ He had ever felt that the Protestant interests should he the chief object of Ministerial respect in Ireland ; for, independent of the thrilling historical recol- lections with which the Protestant name was associated in that country, the Protestants were the chief proprietors of its soil, to the extent of not less than five.sixths, and constituted besides the chief portion of the intelligence of the country. Still more were the Protestants to be respected by an English Minis- ter, for their uniform attachment to the British connexion, of which they were the main stay; and sorry he was to find, that so important a body should have been not only disregarded, but actually wounded in some of their most cherished feelings, by the present Government scheme of national education. That scheme went, as he had stated, to subvert a system under which not less than 600,000 persons had received a, to all intents and purposes, gratuitous education in Ireland (being a larger proportion, as compared with its inhabitants, than was thus educated at the charge of the state in any other country in the world); and that merely for the purpose of conciliating the enemies of the Kildare Street Society.

Earl GREY said, the Duke of Wellington was not more desirous to conciliate the Protestants than he was ; and he could see nothing in the Ministerial scheme of education that could be construed into a con- trary feeling. IN expressed his surprise at the arguments of the Duke of Wellington, so different from what he had used and acted on in the case of the Catholic Bill— When the measure of Catholic emancipation was in its progress through that House, the noble duke was nightly assailed by assertions and appeals, in spirit

and in letter, as senseless as those which the noble duke now condescended to .advance against the plan of national education which Ministers thought it their duty to introduce into Iraand. The very persons who were now denouncing that system as destructive of the Protestant interests in Ireland, were loud in their denunciations of the noble duke's policy, as fraught with rum to the Pro- testant establishments of that country.

He could oppose to the Duke's present argument, the Duke's answer to these attacks—all that the plan required was fair play, and a just spirit of tolerance. For himself, his best energies should be devoted to insure it such fair play— Undismayed and undeterred by the taunts and insinuations of right re- verend prelates and noble. lords, who would fain persuade themselves that they had a monopoly of religious faith, he would tell them, that no noble lord nor right reverend prelate in that House was actuated by a more earnest belief in the great truths of Christianity, nor by a more warm anxiety for the prosperity of the Protestant Church, than he was ; but he had yet to learn that obstinate ad- herence to a system which had led to no good results, in a national point of view, in Ireland, but which had tended to alienate the feelings of a large majority of its inhabitants, was the best mode of proving that belief and that anxiety. He had been educated in a different school, where it was taught that it was Hie duty of a legislature to inquire into grievances when their existence was a matter of cer- tainty, and not to wait too long in providing a remedy lest the delay should im- nart the character of an extorted concession to what would, if granted in time, have been gratefully received as a boon.

The Lords divided on the motion : for it—present GO, proxies 27, total 87; against it—present 59, proxies GG, total 125; majority for Ministers, 38.

4. PrantAuries BILL. This bill was committed last night, on the motion of its author, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY. It was the object of the bill, he said, to allow no more than two livings to be held by any individual, and, not even two livings if they happened to be more than thirty miles apart. .He objected to Lord Suffield's proposed amendment, directing every Bishop holding livings with his Bishopric of more than 3,500/. to pay over the surplus to the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund ; because it went to interfere with the King's right to grant commendams, and because such commendams were never granted to rich bishoprics. The Archbisho.p declared his opinion, that the re- striction proposed by Lord Suffield would prevent many worthy persons from taking orders. To another amendment of Lord Suffield, proposing to regulate pluralities by the income of the pluralists, the Archbishop objected, that it did not bear upon the bill, which provided no means of ascertaining a clergyman's income. He added, that a plan was in contemplation for procuring a return of clergymen's livings, and would soon be carried into effect. To this he had no objection, but rather approved of it, as tending to remove misstatements which had done great injury to the Church. He concluded by saying, that in conse- quence of the opposition to the bill, he had almost resolved to with- draw it.

Lord SUFFIELD repeated his objections to the bill. It was a gross delusion—no other name fitted it. He proceeded to criticise the va- rious provisions of the bill, and concluded by moving to substitute "contiguous" for " within thirty miles."

The Bishop of DURHAM defended the bill.

Lord WYNFORD spoke of it as a violation of the rights of property. He thought men of abilities would not enter the Church if pluralities were done away with.

Lord TENTERDEN suggested a postponement.

Lord KING expressed surprise at the Archbishop's declaration that 4,000/. per annum was insufficient for the support of a Bishop, and still more at the opinion expressed by him that 1,000/. per annum was only a sufficient income for the parochial clergy.

After some further conversation,—in the course of which, Lord BROUGHAM denied that the bill at all interfered with the rights of pri- vate property, as asserted by Lord Wynford,—the House divided : for the Committee, 31 • against it, 7. The House then went into Com- mittee pro forma, the further consideration of the bill being postponed till Tuesday.

5. WEST INDIA COLONIES. Lord ALTHORP, in moving, last night, that the House go into Committee on the Sugar-duties, with a view to their renewal for six months, said, that in consideration of the hurri- . canes in one part of the West Indies, and the insurrections in the other, he should propose a loan to the sufferers, on proper securities. The poorer part of them had been already looked to in the way of gift, but there were many, comparatively rich, who required assistance, and who were able to guarantee repayment. As this was a temporary grant, he would not annex to it permanent conditions. With respect to the plan of general relief proposed by Government, its application would alto- , gether depend on the accession of the Colonies to the measures to be submitted to them. His Lordship did not state what the plan of relief was, as he said the premature disclosure of it would lead to inconve- nience. He proposed to take the duties for six months only, for the express purpose of allowing ample space for discussion.

Mr. BURGE said, Ministers must know that the Colonies would not accept relief, if humiliating conditions were annexed to it. He pro- ceeded to comment with great severity on the order in Council of the present Government; and concluded by entreating them not to compel the Colonies to throw themselves into the arms of the Americans ; to which course, founding on an article in the North American Review, Mr. Burge argued they had already been invited.

Lord Howicis entered into along and detailed defence of the conduct of Government, with a view to show, that in the order of Council com- plained of, they had merely followed up the spirit of Mr. Canning's resolutions of 1823, and of every successive order that had been since framed by the Administration that succeeded Lord Liverpool's. Mr. GORDON recommended oblivion of the past; and to consider the Colonies, in their suffering condition, with a view to kind treatment

rather than angry recrimination. •

Mr. HOME thought the present complaints not in the West Indies only, but in all the Colonies, arose from their being kept in leading- strings by the officials of Downing Street, instead of being left to manage their own affairs as they ought to be. He fully concurred, and so did the planters, with the resolutions of 1823. They oppoeed an immediate emancipation, and so did he, because the slaves were not fit Tor immediate emancipation. There was no question of the dangerous posi- tion in which the Colonies were HOW placed ; but were the measures (it- Government adapted to remove that danger? He hoped when Mr: Buxton brought forward his next plan for ameliorating the condition of the slaves, he would accompany it by a measure of security to their owners. His measure of October last was a rash and hasty one.

Mr. BUXTON said, Mr. Hume had complained of all the parties in these matters but one : Mr. Buxton was rash and hasty, the order in Council was dangerous—the planters, and only the planters, were right. Mr. Buxton quoted a resolution of the Assembly of Jamaica, negativ- ing by 35 to 2 the motion for abolishing the practice of flogging women in public, in proof of the progress the planters had made in their ac- ceptance of Mr. Canning's resolutions, and of the necessity that m- isted, if these resolutions were not to remain a mum dead letter, of having recourse to strong measures in order to compel obedience to them. He mentioned the banishment of Missionaries from Deme- rara; the resolution of the planters of Trinidad, that religious instruc- tion was incompatible with shivery; and several insulated eases of per.: secution of slaves for attending to religious duties; all of which, he contended, led to the same conclusion. He ridiculed the notion of a revolt. The Whites of Jamaica could not muster 4,000 effective persons,—how could they, with such a handful, coerce 350,000 slaves,. without the assistance of the mother country?

.Mr. GOULBURN deprecated irritating topics in so delicate a question.

Lord SANDON asked if the measure of relief intended by Govern- ment was to be consequent on the acceptance of the order in Council?

Lord ALTHORP said it was. At the same time, Government were ready, if it could be shown to be practically unfitted for the management of the slaves, to alter the details of the order. To the principle they' were resolved to adhere.

After some further conversation, the House went into Committee:. Mr. K. DOUGLAS offered a clause, the object of which was to alter the mode of charging duty on bonded sugar, so as to allow for the wastage. Mr. P. THOMSON thought such a question would be best discussed when the Customs Bill came before the House. Lord A1THORP said, the alteration would occasion a loss to the revenue of 90,000/. Mr. DOUG- LAS did not press it. The resolution, continuing the present duties for six months longer, was agreed to ; and the report ordered to be con- sidered on Monday.

G. DORCHESTER ELECTION. The Committee; on the Dorsetshire Election, after sitting for a number of days with great closeness of attention, resolved, on Alonday, that Lord Ashley had been du'eletd.