NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Reform question still "like a wounded snake drags its slow length along." Even its enemies seem at length to have tired of it. They speak, but they are too lazy to vote against it. The 21st clause was got through the Committee last night without a division, after being the subject of three nights' discussion. Mr. HUME'S motion to-clay, for accelerating progress, comes so late, that we

can hope but little advantage from it. Lord ALTHORP opposed a similar proposal when it would have been of use. It is again reported that the Lords will so amend the Bill as to induce the Commons, when it comes down again, to reject it alto- gether ; and that there will thus be an end of the measure and of the Cabinet. We can neither confirm nor deny this report.

Mr. ROBERT Goanox, a gentleman distinguished for his parts, has occupied one entire night of the week in a discussion of the last Dublin election, and the enormities of certain freeholds situate

in Cold-blow Lane. Mr. BENETT threatens the absorption of another night next week on the question of the Liverpool election of 1830. Mr. BENETT has a due. sense of the importance of his motion—he is willing to sacrifice even the Reform Bill to it.

The war in Belgium has been taken from the Tories ; but they can now leave the task of delaying Reform to the Whigs. The business of the Lords, during the week, has been of the light, genteel kind. The Coronation still occupies their attention. Lord STRANGFORD has made another strong appeal to Earl GREY

in favour of a procession. Without it the Peeresses will have no opportunity of displaying their trains ; and if there be no display of

trains, the sight will not be worth seeing. His Lordship, who is a political economist as well as an advocate of petticoat-tails, is of opinion that the retrenchment of the latter will seriously affect the Spitalfielcis weavers. Lord LONDONDERRY has joined in Lord SreANoFono's appeal ; the noble Marquis " roared as gently as a sucking-dove" on the pathetic subject. We hope Earl GREY will yet be induced to yield. Sir ROBERT PEEL has a grievance of an-

other kind ; he wished for a month's rest after the fatigues of figur- ing in the Abbey, and Lord ALTHORP will not insure him even a day. e'Small beer continues to be the object of episcopal terror,—nay, of baronial terror, for the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord TEN- TERDEN are as much afraid of it as the Bishop of LONDON. The

Whole nation, it appears, is about to be ruined, soul and body, from excess of indulgence in that licentious beverage. We hope the strenuous attempt to add to it an admixture of gin, will be successful, and that the stomachs and morals of the people will be speedily restored to their ancient and constitutional tone. The Irish Yeomanry has been again discussed. The determina- tion of the Ministry not to interfere in the organization of the New- townbarry corps, until one man is tried against whom there is no evidence, and two against whom there is neither bill nor evidence, is a proof of their impartiality, which we trust the people of Ire-

land will not fail to appreciate as they ought. The indignation of Mr. DAwsox at the opposition offered to Ministers by the Irish members, will doubtless be received with similar gratitude by the parties in whose defence Mr. DAWSON has so kindly interested himself.'

1. THE REFORM BILL. At the sitting on Saturday last, Lord ALTHORP, on the 18th clause having been read by the Chairman, -proposed an amendment, by which the clause stood as follows— "And be it.enacted, that notwithstanding any thing hereinbefore con- tained, no person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in any future Parliament, in respect of his estate or interest as a freeholder in any house, warehouse, or counting- house occupied by him, or in any land occupied by him together with any house, warehouse, !or countinghouse, if by reason of the occupation thereof he might acquire a right to vote in the election of a member or Members for any city or borough, whether he shall or shall not have ac- tinny acquired the right to vote for such city or borough in respect thereof; and that no person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a knight or knights of the shire to serve in any future Parliament, in re- spect of his estate or interest as a copyholder or customary tenant, or as Such lessee or assighee as aforesaid in any house, warehouse, or counting-. p911se, or in any band occupied together with a, house, warehouse, Or

countinghouse, if by reason of the occupation thereof he or any other person might acquire a right to vote in the election of a member or members for any city or borough, whether he or or any other person shall or shall not have actually acquired the right to vote for any city or borough in respect thereof."

In answer to OM observation of Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, that ac- cording to the previous understanding, it was the intention of Mi- nisters merely to drop the words "or any other person " in the original clause, Lord ALTHORP explained—

That as the clause originally stood, a person holding a 10/. freehold in a town would be entitled to vote for the county if he did not pay his rates and taxes ; but if he did pay his rates and taxes, he would not he entitled to vote. The amendment was for the purpose of providing that the non- payment of rates and taxes in the town should not give such a freeholder • the right of voting for the county. - The clause, as it originally Stood, in- volved this additional inconsistency,—that if a landlord let a freehold house for less than 101. he would have a vote for the county ; but if he let it for 10/., or more, of that vote he would be deprived. The object of the amendment was not in any case to deprive the freeholder of a vote for the county, without giving him a right to vote, in virtue of the same property, for the town. It was to be recollected, that by the Bill a new class of county constituency had been created—namely, copyholders, customary tenants, leaseholders, and lastly, tenants at will. The object of the amendment was not to allow the county constituency to be over- powered by the town, in consequence of that creation. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES said, the alteration in the nature and ex- tent of the amendment was a breach of faith with him and many_ other members.

Mr. WARBURTON contended, that the Marquis of Chandos's amendment's amendment of Thursday would destroy the freehold- ers of the counties, if the first contemplated amendment were not carried.

'Lord ALTHORP contended, that the Marquis's amendment would destroy the freeholders of the counties if it were.

Lord MILTON objected in toto to the principle Of the clause— It proceeded upon one of the falsest political views which could pos- sibly be taken of the state of the country—it contemplated the British community as consisting of two divisions, and not as forming one undi- vided whole. The clause was thus calculated on the principle of separa- tion, whereas the true principle whereon to proceed was the principle of union. He admired the Reform Bill—he admired the boldness, the honesty, the disinterestedness, of his noble friends; but he regretted that they had not founded the details of the measure upon the basis of ancient institutions. (Cheers.) He considered that the attempt to strike a balance between commerce and trade en the one side, and land on the other, was. chimerical; it never could be done with that nicety to afford satisfaction to both parties. The Marquis of Chandos had, even as it was, objected to the measure, that justice had not been done to the landed interest. For himself, he wished that every freeholder of the ancient county court should retain his right to vote ; for the ancient principle of county repre- sentation was, that real property should be its basis—personal property was to be represented elsewhere. He did not think it a wise thing to teach the people that the institutions of the country were to be treatedas if they were of yesterday. It was not proper to tell the freeholder that he could be deprived by act of Parliament of that right which had been handed down for six centuries. They were come to that part of the Bill at which Lord Milton must take his stand. (Loud cheers.) He voted for the disfranchisement of the rotten borouglis—he voted con- (more ; but he would not vote for the partial disfranchisement of any freeholder in Eng- land, whether he might reside in Leeds, in Truro, or in Chippenham; lie - did not care whether he was of Yorkshire, Cornwall, or Wiltshire, they were all alike interested in the preservation of those rights handed down to them by the lesser barons, who, with those of a higher grade, had struggled for the liberties of their country in former days, and had an equal right with the descendants of the latter to the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which they had united to vindicate. (Cheers.) He would not vote for the disfranchisement of any bon .fide freeholders of England. (Cheers.) In conclusion, he objected to the clause as a clause of injustice—as destitute of political wisdom—as one which separated, instead of uniting, as was to be desired, the different classes of the coin- munity—as a clause which taught the commercial and manufacturing in- terests to look with jealousy upon the landed proprietors, and the landed proprietors to look with suspicion upon the growing wealth and import- ance of the manufacturing and commercial classes.

Lord ALTHORP complained of the contradictory nature of the objections to the clause: one party would have freeholders of the county vote for the boroughs, another would have freeholders of the boroughs vote for the counties. It was difficult to oppose one amendment without seeming to support another. He thought most of the cases instanced in the arguments for these amendments were extreme ones.

After some farther conversation, Mr. 1,VAusuarow proposed to give freeholders and copyholders a double vote. Mr. R. WAso:sr had previously suggested that they should have an option of voting in the borough or county as they might see fit. Mr. SIBTHORP strongly vindicated his claim to the fathership of Lord Chandos's amendment of Thursday. He might quote, with reference to the sub he line of Virgil, somewhat modified-

" Hos ego versiculos feci tulit the nob (A loud laugh.) He was not quite su • `.‘gsc rip ht to be " feel" or " scripsi." He believed that for " feci" was short. (Sir Robert Pe l observed that " feci" is long.) Well then, he would so repeat the original line-- " Hos ego versicelos feci twit alter hawses."

Mr. WARBURTON withdrew his amendment. Mr. H. HUGHES then proposed his, to omit the words " or other person." The (louse divided ; when there appeared for it 1, against it 187. Clauses 19th and 20th were then agreed to, and the Committee Was adjourned to Tuesday. On the House going into Committee on Wednesday (Tuesday's Committee having been postponed), the Chairman read the 21st clause.

After a few words from Lord ALTHORP, on the order in which the various amendments, nine in number, should be taken, the precedence was given to the amendment of Mr. Hunt, for confer- ring the franchise on all householders paying scot and lot. Mr. HUNT stated, that this was strictly conformable to prece- dent, inasmuch as, previous to the famous forty-shilling freehold statute of Henry the Sixth, it had been the general law of the kingdom. Mr. Hunt also thought, that besides its recommenda- tions of justice and impartiality, it possessed a high Claim to con- sideration from the simplicity it would give to the clause. The motion provoked little discussion, and was rejected by 123 to I.

Colonel DAVIES then proposed his amendment, to give to freeholders in boroughs a vote for the election of borough mem- bers. The amument of Colonel Davies was, that the subtraction from the counties of as many 101. renters as were required to make up the constituency of the several boroughs to 300, would seriously trench on the independence of the counties in which the boroughs were situated. According. to Colonel Davies's estimate, there are ninety-three boroughs which will require such an addition. After a few words from Aldermen WOOD and WAITHMAN (who mentioned, in contradiction of Colonel Davies, that the feeling of the City of London was decidedly opposed to the amendment), Lord ALTHORP stated the two grand objections. to it,—namely, that in large towns it was admitted to be useless ; and that in small towns it would place the return in the hands of any one who happened to possess a considerable freehold property in the ueiAbourhood. Mr. C. FsnouSsoN, Sir E. SUGDEN, Mr. PRAED, Mr. J. WEY- LAND, Mr. SIBTHORP, and Mr. SADLER, spoke in favour of the amendment ; Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. MABERLY against it.

The amendment was rejected by 225 to 136. On the division being reported, Colonel DAVIES stated, that he should give up the other amendments which he had contemplated. Several of the blanks were then filled up. On the motion for filling up the rent blank with "ten pounds," Sir EDWARD SUC- HEN remarked on the various tests by which the rent of 101. was to be ascertained.

Lord ALTHORP explained— The object was to include all persons who held a house of the value of 10/, or who paid a rent or were assessed to that amount. It might happen that a man who had a house of his own of the yearly value of 101., for which he paid no rent, and for which he was not rated to either house-duty or poor-rate, would be excluded from a vote, unless the words " yearly value" were included. Ali that such a person would have to do would be to prove that his house was of the value of 10/. If the assessments to the house duty and the poor-rates had been taken as the only test, then many persons who paid a bond fide rent of 101. would be excluded from voting, because, as was well known, many houses of that description either were not assessed at all, or were assessed below their real value.

Mr. W. PEEL argued against the democratic nature of the clause, especially in very large towns. Captain PoLmer.. moved his amendment for the insertion of 5/. instead of 10/.

After some conversation,—in which Lord MILTON, Mr. Gm- iON, and Lord ALTHORP opposed the amendment, and Lord LOUGHBOROUGH, Mr. TREVOR, and Mr. S. WORTLEY both the amendment and the original words,—the amendment was with- drawn. The original words were then agreed to. Captain PoLuieL then moved a verbal amendment preparatory to one for raising the qualification in the new boroughs from 10/. to 20/. This amendment also was negatived, without a division.

Mr. HODGSON offered his amendment, that 101. of rent, although payable to more than one landlord, should confer a qualification ; but he did not press it. The clause having been agreed to as far as the commencement of the proviso, the House adjourned. [Nothing can more strongly show the unintelligibility of Parlia- raentary proceedings, than the fact that, as we have above written, all the journals in London had disposed of the 101. clause most satisfactorily, and without a division, on Wednesday, and yet on Thursday, it appeared that the clause had not, in point of fact, ven been mooted. The Votes, in these cases, give not the slightest assistance ; for, whether it be that Mr. Rickman can sit nowhere but at the head of the table, or that he can write nowhere else, certain it is that the moment the Chairman of Committee sits down, Mr. Rickman's pen is laid down, and not resumed again until the House resumes. All, in fact, that the public can learn from the Votes since the Bill first went into committee, is the fact that it has from time to time been there, and that from time to time the Chairman has reported progress • but what progress has been i made, they may seek in vain from that, and, owing to the general confusion of the House, from any other source.] • On the House going into Committee on Thursday, Mr. MAC- zINNort moved an amendment, that in boroughs in which the number of voters is greater than 1,000, the qualification should be a 151. instead of a 10/. rent. This amendment was withdrawn, in order to be afterwards offered as a proviso. The question was then put, that the words " And in respect of which house, warehouse, counting-house, 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," (page 7, line 7-10 of the Bill of the 25th of June) should be omitted.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL objected to the alteration. The first draught of the Bill required that the payment of rates must pre- cede the tender of a vote : by the alteration, if the election took place several months after the 1st of July, the clay named for the payment of taxes and rates, a man who was in arrear of both might yet give a good vote.

Lord ALTHORP said— • If a man paid his rates and taxes up the 1st of July, his name would be entered in the register, to be made up to the last day of August, in

each year. Though it was possible that under such an arrangement there might occur instances of persons voting with arrears of rates and taxes undischarged, the twelve months' residence which the Bill required pre- vious to registry, and the circumstance of the voter still residing in the tenement from which he derived his vote, such precautions as these suf- ficiently guarded against the frequent occurrence of instances of voters being in arrear.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought the clause would hold out in- ducements to landlords to pay the rates and taxes for their tenants. Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS spoke at great length against 101. voters for towns ; who, he contended, would be found open to all manner of bribery and corruption. Mr. E. L. BULWER said, the Anti-Reformers never knew when they were beaten ; the arguments of Mr. Lewis had been urged and answered a hundred times.

After a long conversation, in which no progress was made, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to put a question to Lord John Russell— He would postpone the discussion on the tendency of this entire clause, until all the amendments had been made in it, and the question was put that these amendments stand part of the clause. His reason for doing so was, that he did from his heart sympathize with the noble Lord as to the delays interposed to the progress of this Bill, not by its opponents, but by its supporters. (Cheers from the Opposition Benches.) All the gen- tlemen opposite were ready enough to hasten over the destructive part of the Bill, but now that they had come to the constructive part of it, more strenuous advocates for delay could not be found. (Cheers from the Op- position.) He saw from the Order-book, that one gentleman who had supported the second reading of the Bill, had now given notices of four amendments upon it; at least he saw the name of' Mr. Hughes Hughes appended four times to four such notices. (A laugh.) As he saw no prospect of getting through these amendments at their present rate of progress in four months to come, he would postpone to the period which lie had before mentioned the discussion upon this clause. He rose at pre. sent to ask the noble Lord opposite a single question. At present, to qualify a renter of a house of not less than 101. yearly value to vote, all the rent which shall have become due from him previously to the 1st day of July in each year must be paid up. Now, in the Midland counties of England, the practice was that though the rent was legally due at Michael- mas-day and at Christmas-day, it was not to be expected to be paid till three months after each of those periods. But if this clause were passed in its present shape, the result of it must be to alter the present practice; for no tenant would have a vote unless he should have paid up his rent on the day it became due.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL answered- " As the clause stands, the tenant is not called upon to prove that he has paid his rent, unless he claims to vote solely upon the amount of his rent. If he can show that rates and taxes to the amount of 101. have been paid previously to the 1st of July, that will be enough ; but if he cannot do that, and yet claim to vote as a 10/. renter, he will be called upon to show that the amount of his rent is 10/., and that he has paid. it." Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. W. WYNN spoke of the facilities to bribery which the clause would give. Lord ALTHORP observed in reply, that If an election were to take place in July 1833, the voters must be regis- tered in August 1832. The candidate must, therefore, foresee in August 1832, that the election would take place in July 1833, and foreseeing that, must pay up for the voter all rates to August 1832. He really thought that no man would think it worth his while togo to such an expense for the mere sake of catching a contingent vote.

Mr. WYNN complained, that he might be out of town in the month of July, and he might not be able to find out the collector's house, and then he would lose his vote. Colonel DAVIES pointed out a remedy—Mr. Wynn might leave directions to his agent to pay his rates. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL again put a case—

Suppose an election should take place in the beginning of July. It was almost impossible but many tenants would then be in arrear. In that case every 101. tenant would be a tool in the hands of his landlord, who. could prevent him from voting or enable him to vote, just as he pleased.

Lord ALTHORP- " I have stated three times to the honourable and learned gentleman, that this aromment is founded on a part of the clause which has been altered, and does not now exist; and I will not waste the time of the Com- mittee by endeavouring to explain the same point a fourth time." (Cheers.) Sir EDWARD SUGDEN was anxious to know what must be done if a landlord put himself in hiding, or would not accept his rent. Lord ALTHORP thought, unless a landlord held a great number of houses, his hiding himself would be of no use; • if he 1.cl hold a great number, the payment of the rent would proba)ly be of more importance to him than'the destroying of votes. - A long conversation ensued on the period at which rents and taxes were generally paid. Mr. FRANKLAND Lams again spoke at length against all the particulars of the clause. Mr. HUNT put an end to these desultory observations, by mov- ing that the word " rent " be left out. The speech and amendment were received with much coughing and interruption, of which Mr. Hunt grievously complained. Colonel DAVIES said, the omission would make nonsense of the clause.

Mr. W. HARVEY also remarked on the absurdity of the amend- ment.

Mr. Hunt had passed over to the Ministerial side of the House, where he was engaged in conversation. Mr. HARVEY said he regretted to perceive that the attantion of the member for Preston appeared to be otherwise directed, as it was to him in particular that he was addressing his remarks.

Mr. HUNT—" You wouldn't hear me." (Order, order !) Mr. Hunt, says the Times, here crossed the floor to his former seat, and in so doing, broke forth into an indescribable sound, somewhat

resembling the whooping-cough, following it up with the exclama-

tion—" There, now, that is a specimen of the treatment that I received while I was speaking !" (General cries of "Chair, chair I.') The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bernal) rose and said, he was quite sure he need not impress upon the honourable member that he was pursu-

ing a course which seemed to require explanation.

Mr. HUNT expressed his contrition " for having followed a bad example."

The House divided ; when there appeared for the amendment 10,-against it 353. The next discussion took place on Mr. J. CAMPBELL'S amend- ment for limiting the franchise to persons paying rent quarterly.

Lord ALTHORP said, the only objection to the clause proposed by Ministers was, that a landlord might eject his weekly tenants,

and thus take away their votes. It was, however, to be noticed, that in all cases previous to registry, the tenant must have resided for twelve months, and that if the landlord paid the rates, that

circumstance would disfranchise the tenants. He also thought it very unlikely that a landlord, having a number of tenants, would either consent to eject them for any mere political purpose, or if he did, would be able at a moment's warning to find others to take their place.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON spoke in favour of Mr. Lewis's amendment. He thought if weekly tenants were allowed to vote, the half of the House would, in future, be returned by the landlords of houses.

Mr. O'CONNELL denied the power of landlords to eject at a week's notice, if the tenure was yearly. Sir J. SCARLETT said, an agreement between the parties over- ruled the law. The amendment would leave the franchise in the hands of independent operatives ; without it, the boroughs would be as subject to nomination as ever.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—

The question was, whether the class of individuals which the amend- ment would exclude was not a class that the Government ought to con-

ciliate. (Cheers from. the Opposition.) If that cheer implied that he could

mean that this class of persons should be conciliated towards the present Ministry, he envied not the feelings of those who raised it; and if they were young men, it gave but small promise of their future conduct as public men. He thought not of the existing Administration ; he was standing there for the people of England. He wished to gain their con- ldence for the laws, which could never happen until the majority of the people of England should be placed in possession of the elective franchise. He did not hope to convince his learned friend, but he wished that he could he convinced that his amendment would exclude from the right of voting hundreds of thousands of his intelligent countrymen, who were in every respect fit to be intrusted with the franchise ; and then, as a Reformer, he would feel bound to withdraw it. Was it to be endured, that when the elective franchise had been extended in counties to more tenants at will, and when the object of the Bill was to inlist the feelings of the mass of society in favour of Government, the great body of operatives and artisans should be told that they were unfit to be intrusted with the elective franchise? Such a proceeding would create the greatest possible distrust and disaffection throughout the country.

Sir ROBERT PEEL asked— At what period had it been discovered that weekly tenants were a most respectable and intelligent class of voters? Government had proposed to give them the right of voting by the original Bill ; but after mature deliberation they became alarmed. When, like the monster in the novel, their project had been reduced to a shape and endowed with vitality —when it opened its eyes, and Ministers found that they could not infuse judgment and discretion into it, they shrunk appalled from the work of their own hands. They then came down with another bill, by which they attempted to establish a more discreet class of voters—namely, those who paid their rent half-yearly. The real reason of the change which gave the right of voting to the intelligent and respectable class described by the Attorney-General, was, that Government had excited hopes which they were afraid to disappoint. That was the reason, and the only rea- son which could justify the introduction of the clause, but Ministers shrank from acknowledging it. (Hear, hear.!) But why did they not maturely consider their plan in the first instance ? Why did they first propose to give the right of voting to hundreds of thousands of persons, as the Attorney-General said, and six weeks after bring in a bill to take it away, and then once more propose it again? (Hear, hear !) In his opinion, there was no class of voters more likely to be under the influ- ence of their landlords than that of tenants whowere liable to be ejected at a week's notice.

After some further conversation, Lord Jour/RUSSELL observed, that this objection was of very little weight. In point of fact, many quarterly tenants held their houses on an agreement to quit at a week's.notice ; so that the amendment left the case precisely where it found it.

. The House divided ; when there appeared—for the amendment, 242, against it, 210; Ministerial majority, 68, In Committee last night, the remainder of clause 21st was agreed to, after a long, rambling conversation, many parts of which the reporters who heard it profess themselves incapable of understanding. The only amendment not purely verbal, was an addition to the proviso, moved by Mr. PRAED, by which persons receiving parochial relief are excluded from voting. The House sits to-day, when Mr. HUMS intends to move, 1st, that the Reform Bill shall take the precedence of all other busi- ness on the days for which it is put down ; end, that on those days the House shall, for the sake of greater expedition, meet at twelve o'clock, instead of four o'clock.

2. THE KING of HOLLAND. The conduct of this monarch in respect of Belgium was on Monday the subject of a speech from Lord ELIOT and one from Mr. O'CONNELL.

Lord ELIOT rose to complain of certain alleged misrepresenta- tions in the speech of Mr. O'Connell last week. Lord Eliot re- marked, that the union of Belgium with Holland was the act of the Allies, not of the King; and that no remonstrance was made against it. The taxes were imposed by the States-General; and as they had on three several occasions rejected the budget, it was presumable that the taxes that they tolerated they approved. The trial by jury never existed in Belgium, unless under the Code Na- poleon ; and then, it was well known, if the verdict of the jury was contrary to the wish of the Government, it was reversed by an Imperial decree. Juries were three times offered to the States- General by the King of Holland, and rejected. The decree re- specting language only introduced the language generally used in the province into its Courts ; and it was finally withdrawn, before the revolution broke out. The press was only amenable to the laws passed by the States-General ; in other respects, it was more

free than in France. The reason for no up the bishoprics was, that the King, being a Protestant, did not feelthat he could fill them aright ; ;hen the Concordat was obtained, they were filled up, and the Pope had expressed his perfect approbation of the manner. The non-appointment of Belgian officers to the Army, was owing to their incapacity. In the civil departments there was no distinction between Dutch and Belgians. Lord Eliot concluded by acquitting Mr. O'Connell of any intention of misrepresentation ; but deemed it right that the inaccuracies into which lie had fallen should be corrected.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he was aware he had fallen into several inaccuracies ; for he had given a very mitigated statement of the case between the King of Holland and his late Belgic subjects. Mr. O'Connell went over the various particulars of the King's conduct from 1814 down to the Revolution.

Although the annexation of those provinces to Holland WaS determined on in 1814, it was not completed until the month of August 1815. But, in the mean time, the King of Holland was in military possession of 13e1. glum, and there was in that country no law but the will of the Stadt- holder. How could the Belgians express unwillingness to the union? The King referred the constitution to a Coogre.;s of equal number of Dutch and Belgian notables. Of 1,03 notables summoned by the King, 1,321 attended; and of them there voted against the constitution 796, and for it 527. But the King declared that the reason which 126 mem- bers had given for their votes was not a good one, and that therefore they should go for nothing; and he decided that all those who wereabsent should be considered as having voted for the constitution. Thus he made out a majority. The greatest part of the taxation was collected for the pay- ment of the debt. At the time of the union Belgium had a debt of about one million sterling; the debt of Holland was upwards of eighty millions sterling. By the constitution, the Dutch Deputies transferred 39,500,0001. of it to the Belgians. The increase of taxation in Belgium was enormous indeed the French war taxes amounted only to one-third of the Dutch peace taxes. In the year 1821, the King of Holland imposed additional taxes to the amount of 4,000,0001., 3,000,0001. of which were thrown on Belgium. The Belgic population amounted to 4,000,000, and the Dutch to 2,000,000; yet the Dutch had an equal number of representatives in the States-General. The King being sure of the Dutch depu- ties, had only to bribe one or two of the Belgic deputies to secure a majority for any measure which he might propose. The King, in 1814, when acting as commissary of the Holy Alliance, abolished, by a decree, the trial by jury in Belgium, and lie never restored it. True, he had presented three jury codes to the Chamber; but it was not until the year 1828 that the first of them was offered ; and the legislation of the Middle Ages was enlightened compared with it. In the same decree by which the King of Holland abolished jury, he or- dained that the examination of witnesses should no longer take place in open court. The constitution provided that there should be a new appoint- ment of judges ; that the first appointment should be made by the King : it decreed that they should hold their seats for life. The King made them all provisional, and so they remained for the whole fifteen years of his reign. On the 25th April 1815, he issued an ordonnance, declaring that it was a high crimefor any one to publish any thing tending to create dis- trust in the government : the minimum of punishment solitary imprison- ment for one year, the maximum death. In July 1830 there were thirty- two prosecutions commenced in one day. A Catholic priest one evening read some verses at the table of a family with whom he dined. In one of these verses there was a line to the effect that the Belgians could not bear a foreign yoke. For reading that line at a private table, the priest was condemned to two years' solitary imprisonment. M. Van der Staaten published a work upon political economy, and was arrested on the very day of its publication. The pleadings being drawn up, were signed in the usual way by the defendant's lawyers. Every man of them was im- mediately sent to prison, and confined for seven weeks. They were ultimately acquitted ; but the King forbade them to practise again ; nor were they permitted to return to their professional duties until after a suspension of twelve months. The convenience of the law against the press was liberally accorded to foreign despots. Some writer in a newspaper said that the beloved Ferdinand was a very good embroiderer, but at the same time expressed some doubt that the Virgin would like her statue to be decked out in a petticoat worked by hands that were stained with innocent blood. The man was prose- cuted, and received the punishment which was due to so great a libel- ler. Some one said that a French colony was neglected because the Go- vernorwas a friend to the Duke of Wellington. The Duke prosecuted the writer; he laid his damages at ten thousand florins, and the judges

gave him five florins. A burgomaster 4fered some opposition to the im- position of a tax : he was turned out of office, and lost all his political rights. Another public officer was dismissed for signing a petition in fa- vour of the jury law, and he lost all his political rights. A Belgian, who been twenty-five years in the French service, became entitled to a pension of Your thousand francs if he remained in France ; he preferred his native country, and the pension was reduced to three thousand six hundred francs. He was a member of the Second Chamber ; and for no other reason than that lie supported a motion for taking into consideration a petition com- plaining of grievances, his political rights were also taken away.

Mr. O'Connell, in concluding, complained of the way in which his former speech had been reported in the Times— He had not expected, however short the account of what he said might he, to find in the Times reports a sneering answer from the reporter to observations made by him in that House. If the editor of a newspaper thought proper to reply to him, well and good, but it was rather new that he should receive answers from any one else.* t In reporting Mr. O'Connell's speech, of last week, on the same subject, the re- porter, instead of telling what Mr. O'Connell said, observed that the honourable gentleman repeated with considerable closeness and accuracy a statement which tad appeared in the Westminster Review, and which had afterwards been repub- lished as a pamphlet ; adding, that be did so" without acknowledgment." It is due to the Times, whose reports we generally lied good, sometimes escellent, to remark, that this is the first instance of a reporter's impertinence that we have seen in them.

3. FRENCH TROOPS IN BELGIUM. On Thursday, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY put a question to Earl Grey—

He understood from rumours that were in circulation, and from state- ments in the journals, that Earl Grey had got some intelligence on this subject ; and lie asked him whether any information had reached him as to any order given by the French Government for the evacuation of the :Belgic territory by the French troops ? If Earl Grey should refuse to answer his question satisfactorily, then he would give notice of a motion to be made on Monday, for the production of some further papers con- nected with the late proceedings in regard to the affairs of Belgium.

Earl GREY said—

Although it was very unusual in Parliamentary proceedings to answer such questions when put in the manner in which the noble Marquis had for sometime past adopted, yet he would state, that he had grounds for believ- ing that General Gerard had received orders from the French Govern- ment to retire with the French troops from Belgium, in conformity with the terms agreed upon between the French Government and the other Powers ; and from the manner in which that Government had hitherto acted, he had no doubt but that all its engagements would be honourably and fairly performed. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY congratulated Earl Grey on a circumstance which must be so very satisfactory to their Lordships and the country. He himself was most happy to hear the state- ment, and hoped that it would be confirmed to the fullest extent. • Lord HOLLAND—" I am most happy to hear that the noble Marquis is so very happy on the present occasion." The same question was put by Sir RICHARD VYVYAN in the Commons, and a similar answer returned by Lord ALTHORP. On Lord Althorp stating that there never appeared the least reason to doubt the assurances of the French Government, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that no one on the Opposition side of the House had encouraged the impression that the French Govern- ment was not sincere in its assurances respecting the withdrawal of their troops.

4. WINE-DUTIES BILL. This Bill was read a second time on Monday. Mr. COURTENAY was opposed to it, as contrary to the condi- tions of the Methuen treaty. He said, while he was in office, he had considered the plan of equalizing the duties on French and Portuguese wines, and had come to the conclusion that it would be a breach of solemn compact with Portugal. Mr. ROBINSON said, the opponents of the bill would not derive much benefit from Mr. Courtenay's arguments. The Methuen treaty he considered to offer no bar to the equalization scheme: it was on principles of commercial policy alone that he opposed. it. Mr. Robinson argued, that if we no longer gave to Portugal the advantage we now did, it would no longer receive our fish on the terms which it had long been content to receive them. The Nor- wegians and Americans would take the traffic from us, in the same way as they had done the traffic of Spain. He contended that experience was opposed to the expectation of increased commerce with France. The last fall of the wine-duties had not increased it, neither would the present. To transfer the wine trade from Por- tugal to France, Mr. Robinson said, would only increase the power of a nation which must always be our rival, at the expense of a nation which had on many occasions done us good service. Mr. Robinson went on to argue against free trade. If Poland, he said, supplied us with corn, France with silk, and other places with other articles, "the consumers would be benefited—the few would be, to a certain degree, advantaged, but the many would be ruined." Mr. Robinson concluded by moving a series of reso- lutions, declaratory of the amount of the imports and exports in the Portuguese trade with England. Mr. HYDE VILLIERS replied to the objections urged against the

If the liberal course now about to be adopted had been adopted long before, the ports of France would be now open to us, and we should have had a ready market for our woollens, our cottons, our iron ware, &c. But instead of that, the two countries had persevered in a system of mutual prohibition and restriction. As we were the first to adopt that pernicious system, he was very happy to find that by this bill we should now be the first to depart from it. The great fear of Mr. Robinson was, lest this measure should have an injurious effect with respect to the ex- portation of fish from Newfoundland to Portugal. But were the people of this country to be content to suffer under, and to inflict on themselves, all the et/Us and mischief of the Methuen treaty, political as well as com- mercial, lest by any chance whateyer the fish that was carried into Por. tugal from Newfoundland should in future be admitted into that country at a rate of duty, to a certain degree, less favourable than at present ? Mr. Robinson complained that the trade was at present restricted, and yet . . .

the specific which he prescribed to cure the evil was calculated to confine it within still more narrow limits. He regretted that the member for Worcester (a place of so much commercial importance) should withhold his support from the King's Government in their praiseworthy exertions to extend the principles of free trade, and the division of labour, which was, in fact, the soul of trade, which must prove advantageous to trade

and commerce in proportion as it was extended, and which was always attended with the most salutary effects whenever it was acted upon. Mr. Sadler deprecated tearing asunder the ties which had so long subsisted between this country and Portugal. Lord ALTHORP vindicated the measure.

It had been objected that the trade with France was less than with any other country. Now that fact was the clearest possible evidence that the system at present pursued was bad. The trade of this country with Por- tugal was indeed great, but that did not arise from any great advantages wgiCh we derived from that country, but because there was a taste in this country for wines the growth of Portugal. He denied that the dis- tress of the country arose from adopting the principles of free trade: it was in consequence of the long and expensive wars in which this country had been engaged.

After some further conversation, Mr. HUME said he was op- posed to that part of the bill Nv ich went to increase the duty on Cape wine ; it was a gross breach of faith. He would, when the House went into committee, expose a case of atrocity the equal to which had never been brought forward.

The bill was ordered for committal on Monday.

5. DUBLIN ELECTION. A very long debate took place on Tons day, on the subject of the late Dublin election, on a motion of Mr. ROBERT GORDON. Mr. Gordon, previous to bringing forward ins motion, was earnestly importuned to relinquish it, by Ali.. DENI- SON, on the ground of the waste of time it would occasion, and the delay it would interpose to the progress of the Reform Bill; but he persisted notwithstanding.

Mr. GORDON commented at great length and with great mi- nuteness on the evidence given before the Election Committee. He concluded by moving the following resolutions :- "That it appears in evidence, adduced before the Select Committee ap- pointed to try and determine the merits of the petition of James Scarlett and others, severally complaining of an undue election and return for the city of Dublin, that a system of creating fictitious freeholds within the city and county of the city of Dublin, has been fraudulently and ille- gally carried on ; that such freeholds have been supported by perjury, and certain votes qualified thereby have been notoriously bribed. "That such a system is a great violation of the purity of election, and a direct infraction of the law of the land.

" That it is the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to take immediate measures for the purpose of Punishing the persons con- cerned in these illegal and unconstitutional practices. ". That it appears in evidence taken before such Select Committee, that official influence in Ireland was unduly exercised in favour of, and with a view to aid and assist in the e.ection and return of Robert Harty, Esquire, and Louis Perrin, Esquire, for the said city of Dublin in the present Par- • liament ; and that it is the opinion of this House that such undue exer- cise of official influence was a gross violation of the privileges of this House, and a direct contravention of the law of Parliament, as declared in the Resolutions of this House."

Mr. STANLEY complained, that in the motion two totally dis- tinct questions were mixed up. One part of it went to the sup- pression of the Dublin forty-shilling freeholders ; the other went to criminate the Irish Government. He also complained that he had not had an opportunity of learning the course which Mr. Gor- don intended to pursue, until he had that day come down to the House, when the resolutions were put into his hands. He said, until the first part of the resolutions was disposed of, he should not enter on the consideration of that which respected the Irish Go- vernment.

Mr. HUNT, Mr. LEFROY, and Colonel COXOLLY supported Mr. Gordon's motion. Mr. GRATTAN, Mr. SPRING RICE, and Mr. Simi. spoke against it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved as an amendment on the third resolution-

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to direct the Law Officers of the Crown in Ire- land to institute an investigation into the system of fictitious freeholds which prevailed in the city of Dublin, and to take such steps to remedy the evil as might seem to them most in accordance with the ends of pub- lie justice."

The Attorney-General afterwards withdrew this amendment, in order to substitute the following:—

"That the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland be directed to take im- mediate measures for the purpose of bringing to justice all such persons as may have been guilty of bribing voters at the last election for the city of Dublin."

Mr. GORDON having withdrawn his resolution, moved that, in- stead of " guilty," &c. the words "concerned in such illegal and unconstitutional practices" be inserted.

The amendment was supported by Mr. C. W. WYNNE, Mr. GEORGE BANES, Sir J. SCARLETT, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. LOWTHER, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, and Mr. HUNT. The amendment of the Attorney-General, now the original resolution, was supported by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. SPRING RICE, Lord ALTHORP, and Sir JOHN NEWPORT.

Alderman WAITHMAN was opposed to all prosecution for acts of which every one of those that called for prosecution was himself guilty.

Mr. O'CONNELL wished the amendment to be so worded as to reach the guilty on both sides.

Mr. Jour: WOOD spoke of the effects of such motions, and of the motives of their supporters—

The whole system of the Opposition members had been one of contriv- ing unnecessary delayS to the Reform Bill, and the present discussion was a proof of the fact. About forty: members of that House used every.con-

trivance to delay.the measure of Reform; and he therefore looked with .

suspicion at their interrupting the course of general Reform by their pretended zeal against isolated instances of corruption in a particular place. He could not but seriously regret that the time of the House was wasted as it had been that evening with a motion like that before it; while the far more important measure of Reform, on the progress of which the public mind was riveted with intense anxiety, was awaiting discussion. 'With such a measure before the House, and in the peculiar state of the public business in consequence of its all-absorbing magni-

tude, the present motion, so far as it professed to correct :he evils of elec. tion, was a complete farce. Yes, he repeated, the resolution then under consideration was a perfect mockery ; as if, forsooth, bribery and cor- ruption were such strange phenomenons in the present system of elec- tion; and as if the practice of making fictitious votes, and using undue influence over poor and unprotected. electors, were wholly unknown to the immaculate gentlemen who were just now so anxious to pounce, with the talons of the law, on cc Lain wretched electors of Cold blow Lane. Had honourable members ever heard of a place called Westmoreland ? of the elections of that county ? Was there any thing like fictitious votes or undue influence, or bribery or corruption, on-those occasions ? Were they not as notorious as the sun at noon-clay, not only so far as Lord Lonsdale was concerned, but many other great proprietors in every other county in England, whose nominees were now such fastidious censors of the practices of Dublin ? And was it not, therefore, a monstrous farce, with these crying abuses staring them in the face, to be attempting to foist a character of purity at the expense of some half dozen ignorant poor electors from the liberties of Dublin ? And who, he again asked, were they who just now so earnestly called down the vengeance of the law on these miserable Dublin electors ? Why, men who, he could easily prove at the bar of that House, had themselves spent thousands and thousands in purchasing seats there. It was right that the people should know the manner in which those who professed to be their representa- tives were spending their time—that is, the time of the public. They were sent there to expedite, as speedily as was consistent with justice, a measure in which the country was intensely interested, as that to which alone they could look for the means of a sound system of representation, and thence of good government ; and yet, instead of devoting themselves to the consideration of that important measure, had wasted already six hours that evening, not to say any thing of the many hours squandered away on other occasions, doing neither more nor less than squabbling whether 2?. 73. or 2/. 10s. had been given at the last Dublin election to some dozen poor and ignorant voters, while they the very judges, too many of them at least, had themselves paid—bribed was the correct term—thousands to the " independent" electors in other " independent" places, for the oppor- tunity of thus evincing their prudish horror of all undue practices at elections." But the fact was, and it was important that the public should be acquainted with it, that the whole motion was seized hold of as a plausible pretext for delaying the progress of the great Reform measure, which alone could afford a chance for the independence and purity of election. And viewing it in this light, he could not but congratulate the honourable member for Cricklade on his new alliance with the Anti- Reforming party in that House. It may be—indeed he believed that it was not—the intention of the honourable member to promote the mischievous views of that party by his present motion ; but still he must say that his mo- tion had the effect of making him a most useful ally to that party—at least, a most mischievous friend to the great cause of Reform, of which he was an avowed supporter. Be that as it may, he would repeat that he con- sidered, and was sure the public would also consider, the present motion, like the similar one of the honourable member for Wiltshire with respect to the Liverpool election, as mere Reform farces, serving no purpose but to delay the only real measure of Reform that had, he might say, ever come under the consideration of Parliament. He objected, therefore, to the honourable member's motion as a mere pretext of delay, and he objected to it as a cloak under which public censure might be artfully di- rected against the present Irish Government, whose unpardonable offence in the eyes of the factions of all parties was, that it was based on liberal and comprehensive principles.

Mr. Wood's speech was very loudly cheered.

The House at length divided; -Olen there appeared—for the resolution 224, against it 147.

The fourih resolution was opposed by Mr. STANLEY, who moved a direct negative on it. Mr. Stanley dwelt chiefly on the ambi- guity of the Committee's report, and also of the resolution; and contended, that in going into evidence on collateral points, the parties connected with which had no notice of the charges meant to be brought against them, nor any opportunity of defence, the Committee had exceeded the powers conferred on them by the Grenville Act.

Mr. STANLEY was supported by the Earl of UXBRIDGE and Lord ALTHORP.

The original resolution was defended by Mr. HUNT, Mr. RID- LEY COLBORNE, MT. LEFROY, and Mr. C. W. WYNN.

The house divided on this resolution also ; which was rejected by 207 to 66. It being then three o'clock in the morning, the Committee on the Reform Bill was postponed to next day.

6. IRISH YEOMANRY.! On Monday, Earl WICKLOW asked Earl Grey, whether it were meant to disarm the Irish yeomanry, to place their arms in depots, and to form the corps into battalions ? He preceded his question by a panegyric on the corps, which, he said, had performed great and good service on former occasions, and to whom the present peace of Ireland was chiefly owing. He alluded to the two interviews which had taken place between the Irish members and Government, and to the altered tone iii which the answer to the latter deputation was conceived, from that which was given to the former. He deprecated the publicity given to them. Earl Wicklow concluded by affirming, that if the Yeo- manry were dissolved, the Irish Protestants would change their country or their religion. Earl GREY concurred with Earl Wicklow in regretting the novel practice of giving publicity to every meeting, whatever might be its nature ; but observed that he had no concern in the publicity given to those alluded to. He repeated what he had stated to the deputation that waited on him ; as to what had taken place at the interview with Lord Althorp, he was not present, and had therefore no direct knowledge of what passed. The measure, some details of which were then noticed, had not come before Parliament, and it never might; it was not therefore a proper subject for discussion. With respect to the Yeomanry of Ireland, he had only to state, that it was far from his wish to say any thing which might injure the feelings of that highly important body ; but he must freely and candidly declare, in answer to the noble Lord, if the noble Lord wished to know his opinion with respect to that description of force, that experience had convinced him that whatever might have been its merits on particular occasions,— whatever might be the patriotic spirit by which the members of the corps were actuated—whatever might have been the advantages rendered the country by that body on certain occasions—that species of force was not one which was attended on the whole with advantage to the country. The disadvantage of that species of force was obvious ; for with the anxiety which the members of it felt to support the constitution of the country—with the zeal and ardour with which they embarked in that service,—there were, unfortunately, too often mixed, from local circum- stances, other feelings of party spirit and personal hostility, which some- times produced the most lamentable consequences. Another evil was, that when they were called out to act against a spirit of insubordination in the country, the feelings which 'were excited did not subside when the occasion was over, but remained in the minds of the people, ready to break out at a future opportunity. He had already stated, that he did not mean to concur in or propose any measure that tended to a sudden abo- lition of those corps ; yet he certainly did think that the general security of the country would be better provided for by other means ; and what- ever taunts the noble Lord opposite, or any other person, might think fit to throw out against him with respect to a change in his opinion on the subject of a force of this description, or an increase of the standing army, he certainly had no hesitation in declaring, that if any further military force for the maintenance of internal tranquillity should be re- quired (a most lamentable necessity he acknowledged it to be), he should infinitely prefer the extension of the regular police force of the country or an increase of the standing army—(Hear, hear !)—however unpopular that expression might be—to the assistance of those corps, against which, however, he begged leave to say, in order that he might not be misunder- stood, that he threw out no imputation.

Earl Grey added, that he had no local feelings, and that what he had said of the Yeomanry i force in Ireland, he would equally ap- ply to a Yeomanry force n England.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who had been alluded to by the Earl of Wicklow as hostile to Yeomanry corps generally, from his having in 1827 counselled the breaking up of the Yeomanry in England, observed, that he had no such hostility, and only advised the dissolution of such corps in England and Scotland as the experience of the ten previous years had shown to be un- necessary.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY went at considerable length into the character and views of the Irish members who constituted the deputation to Earl Grey. He read their names, and com- mented on their views. They represented, he said, the Catholic interest and the feelings of Connaught only. He particularly cautioned the Ministers against that unfortunate person Mr. O'Connell, and read an extract from his last letter to the Irish people, to prove the soundness of his advice. He was going on to comment on the conduct of the Lord-Lieutenant in respect to the late Dublin election, when he was called to order by the Duke of RicimOND. After another attempt to proceed in the same line of argument, for which he was again called to order by Lord Hot.- LAND, he desisted, and the conversation terminated.

7. NEWTOWNBARRY MASSACRE. Last night this case was once more brought under the notice of the House of Commons, by two petitions. presented by Mr. LAMBERT, praying the House to adopt measures for disarming the Irish Yeomanry. Mr. Lambert, on presenting these petitions, described the affair at Newtownbarry as a deliberate, premeditated massacre. He adverted to a memo- rial presented to the Irish Government by certain gentlemen of the county of Wexford, which had been described as factious, and as got up by Mr. O'Connell. Mr. Lambert denied both alle- gations. The remonstrance, he said, was a most temperate one, and it had never been seen by Mr. O'Connell until Mr. Lambert himself carried it to that gentleman for his signature. Mr. MAXWELL read a declaration, signed by forty noblemen and other highly respectable persons, praising the conduct of the Yeomanry corps, and pointing out the absolute necessity of sup- porting them in order to preserve the peace of the country. Mr. Maxwell particularly alluded to the alleged firing over the Catho- lic chapel during the celebration of a mass for the persons slain at Newtownbarry, and pointedly contradicted it, on the testimony of eleven persons, who had all been in the vicinity of the chapel at the time, and who must have heard the shots had any been fired. Mr. Maxwell said, until the report of Mr. Lambert's former speed' reached Newtownbarry, the story of the shots was unknown to the town or neighbourhood; it was the only report that had ever reached them. Mr. Maxwell said he had no doubt, if the names of the two electors of Mr. Lambert, who had been singled out and shot, were given, it would be proved that there was as little foundation for these shots as for the others.

Mr. O'CONNELL regretted that he must commence his speech as he had done others. There were, he observed, in all forty per- sons killed and wounded, and for all this slaughter not one touch of compassion had been displayed by the House. The whole affair was treated as an everyday circumstance. He denounced the declaration, read by Mr. Maxwell as grossly false, and denied that the peace of Wexford had been ever disturbed until the Yeomanry disturbed it. Mr. O'Connell went on to speak of the ren-

contre at Maghera, in which the Catholics on the interposition of the magistrates having thrown down their arms and fled, were fired at by the Orangemen, and no notice was taken of the atrocity. He observed as there were seventeen persons killed at Newtown- barry, there must have been seventeen masses besides the high mess ; and he commented on the singular coincidence of the eleven Protestant gentlemen being close to the Chapel on all these mei- suffer themselves to slaughtered? He feared not. If they did not an end. that a retainer had been given to Sergeant Wilde to plead for Mr. Mr. GEORGE DawsoN expressed great indignation at the con- Deacle in the trial against Mr. B. Baring and others ; but he duct of Mr. O'Connell; in which, he said, he shared with the contrived not to arrive at Winchester until after the trial. The greater part of the people of Ireland. He inveighed strongly against petition concludes by praying to he heard at the bar of the House the attempt of the Irish members to dictate to his Majesty's Minis- in support of the facts set forth. The narrative of facts, thus ters. He said the strength, intelligence, and property of Ireland, offered to be proved, is as follows. were opposed universally to the suppression of the Yeomanry, and " That on the L'.Itit of November 1630, at about two o'clock in the day, William would resist any attempt at it. Lewington and John Switzer, constables of Winchester, came to the house of your on Earl Grey and Lord Althorp as a cabal, immediately, without any hesitation, were preparing to dress themselves in a be- him, he would at once say it was altogether false. lowed, with great apparent violence, and with great rudeness, by Francis Baring Mr. DAWSON said, he did not apply it to Mr. Grattan portion and Bingham Baring (being two magistrates of the county), by Robert Wright (clerk), by Mr. Deane (bam:er), of Winchester, and by one Seagrim, an at-. larly ; he spoke of a body of men. Mr. Graitan's language was torney, of Winchester, who is the partner of another attorney named Woodham, not Parliamentary, nor such as could he used in private society. who are the attornies of Messrs. Francis and Bingham Baring. That, upon these Mr. Dawson concluded by stating, that the disarming of the Yeo- tioners, of the name of Jervis, in an outer room, who was changing his coat, put mangy as a public body would only lead to the private arming of a pistol to his head, having, at the same tithe, a dagger in his hand. That he theta the men themselves, and to an instant collision between the Pro- followed the rest of these violent intruders into the inner room, or parlour, where your petitioners were. That then Bingham Baring came up to your petitioner,

testants and Catholics. Thomas Deacie, and striking him upon the shoulder, and then seizing him by the

He avowed he was one of the body which the honourable member had seized hold of the hinder part of his coat. That thus seized, Bingham Baring attacked; and he would say, that if the honourable member stated that having hold of an arm, Francis Baring of the collar of the coataRobert Wright of he was one of a cabal, or of a body who meant to browbeat the Govern- the hinder part of the coat, Bingham Baring (in a commanding arid menacing voice) runt, he should repeat that lie (Mr. Dawson) had said that which was said to the `constable,' Mr. Lewington (Switzer being sent into the yard to hold the false. said, ' Du your duty, do your duty ! ' in a very quick and stem manner. That the Mr. Grattan being called to order by the Speaker, said he ap- constable, in a compassionate tone, while putting his hand into his coat-pocket, plied the epithet false to Mr. Dawson's language—he did not mean answered, ' There is no occasion for that, Sir, Mr. Deacle will go quietly ;' where- upon, Bingham Baring, looking sternly at the constable, said, ' Hand-bolt them i• It personally. That Lewington put the hand-bolt on one of your petitioner's (Thomas Deacle's) Captain GORDON complained, that all the pity of Mr. O'Con- hands. That while he was doing this, Francis Baring quitted his hold of your nell was reserved for the North of Ireland ; he expressed none for petitioner's (Thomas Deacle's) collar, went to another part of the room, seized hold of your petitioner's (Caroline Deacle's) hand and arm, in order to compel her to the blood silently shed in the South. He afterwards alluded to submit to be hand-belted. That in spite of the supplications of your petitioner, the Carlow dinner, and said he had a letter, which denied that any Thomas Deacle, who represented in the most feeling manner the delicate and pre- carious state of health of his wife, she was brought up by Francis Baring, who held of the obnoxious toasts, so often mentioned, had been given at her arm until her wrist was fastened in the same bolt with that of her-husband.

that dinner while the grand jurors were present. " That 111r. Lewington had been ordered at the jail to bring a pair of small hand-bolts Mr. JEPHSON said he was sorry that Earl Grey should think it with him, and that he had them in his pocket, but did not pull them out. That at this time Bingham Baring went into the outer room for the purpose of disabling the necessary, as a point of dignity, to fall into the representations fowling-pieces which were placed in the corner of the room. That your petitioners which had been made of the interference of the Irish members. were now marched car front the inner room towards the outer room, handcuffed together, Francis Baring still holding the right hand and arm of your petitioner, The independent gentlemen who had communicated with the Prime Caroline Deacle, her left hand being in the bolt. That in pulling her forward Minister were not the men he took them for, if they did not meet Earl through the outer room into the court, she wishing not to go without her bonnet and Grey's dignity, as Lord Londonderry called it, or pride, as Mr. Jephson shawl, he pulled with such force as to pull her hand through the bolt, except • should call it, with equal pride. The proceeding which these gentlemen that it was held by the fingers, and by a part of the rutile, which was snapped took was taken in a friendly spirit towards the Government. As to the in the bolt, and there fastened ; that Francis Baring, seeing your petitioner, Carolina Deacle, thus loose, put his arm round one of her arms, and held her imputations which Lord Londonderry had cast upon that proceeding, lie two hands together under his arm with great force and rudeness, still refusing would not take any notice of them, because he thought them below his to stiffer her to have her bonnet and shawl. That in the meanwhile Deane the notice. banker had quitted the house, and Seagrim and Wright were now on the Mr. Slim. also defended the conduct and sentiments of the outside of the house, on horseback. That the cart, which had been guarded deputation. about a hundred yards away from the house. That Bingham Baring was now Lord KILLEEN said the visit to Earl Grey was a friendly one, employed in knocking the caps off the fowtingpieees, and pouring beer into the and its objects were friendly. Mr. Dawson seemed to he jealous locks ; that your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, was now taken to the cart by Lewing- ton and Bingham Baring, which latter mounted his horse, and rode by the side of of opposition offered to Ministers by any one but himself—he con- your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, and the constable. That Francis Baring, refusing sidered it as poaching on his manor. to wait for the bonnet and the shawl, proceeded to force your petitioner Caroline Mr. Rurnvaar agreed with Lord Killeen in describing the visit Deacle, from the house and the court, across the wet and dirty yard, in order to arrive at the place where the cart was stationed ; that the servants ran after with the as in every respect a friendly one. Indeed he had no doubt that bonnet and a cloak and clogs, which they put on as well as they could, he not suf- the soreness on'this subject had arisen from the fact that they did fering petitioner to use her hands for the purpose. That he then, not however tilt her feet had been wet, carried her across the yard for a certain distance, by putting go in friendship, and not in hostility, to the Minister. his arm round the middle of her body, her head foremost and her heels hindmost. Mr. LAMBERT, in moving that the. petition be laid on the table, and her person in an horizontal position, and thus, notwithstanding her earnest en- treaties compelling him, by his unjust treaties that he would allow her to go through the garden, where the way was not Complained of Captain Gordon's only clean, but where the distance was much shorter to the cart; that when arrived charges of violence, to depart from the moderation he had meant at the cart, by the side of which Captain Nevill was sitting on horseback, the Cap- tO observe— lain alighted, and got into the cart ; that in the meanwhile Francis Baring applied his bands and arms to the person of your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, in a manner SO " Sir, he has, in saying this, compelled me to lift up the curtain from rude, indecent, and brutal, as not to he described by her, and thus lifted her upon tine horrible fact. I will state but one, and that was described to me by a the shaft of the cart, while Captain Nevill seized her by the arm, and dragged her Protestant gentleman of great property, and of the most unimpeachable into it. That while your petitioner's (Caroline Deacle's) person was handled in this character. That gentleman went to the scene of this wanton murder, rude and indecent manner, the extent of which indecency she refrains from de. a short time after it occurred. And what did he see there ? He saw a scribing to your Honourable House, Seam and the Rev. Robert Wright were husband kneeling in silent horror, over the body of his wife, whose womb sitting on ther sand looking on and lgriaughing; that the wheel and other parts `bad been ripped open by those butchers, and whose murdered child was time, and even in the court-yard, your petitioners earnestly implored that your liostruding from it." petitioner, Caroline Deacle, might be permitted to ride her horse, fearing, from the Mr. 0.CONN. ELL, in reference to a complaint of Captain Gordon, state of her health, serious injury from the rude jottings of the cart; that this re. quest was positively refused by Francis and Bingham Baring, and that Seagrim that Mr. O'Connell had called the Orangemen exotics, said that said 'No : if you had your horse, you would ride as pan did yesterday; that one of

Captain Gordon was, in his own person, a proof that to be exotic sions. Mr. O'Connell concluded byacalling on Government to was not considered as a crime in Ireland. He went on to notice dismiss some of the Orange magistrates, and the rest would in

that case keep perfectly tame. a letter read some time ago by Captain Gordon, pretended to be What was the consequence of keeping up this Yeomanry force, which written by a Mr. Murphy of Clare. Mr. O'Connell said he had Government seemed afraid to disband? Why, the Ribandmen were again asked for the original of the letter, but after a lapse of two months, organizing. He understood that eight thousand of them had assembled no original was forthcoming. together very lately, and of these two hundred were armed with muskets. Captain GORDON expressed surprise at the authenticity of the This was an appalling state of things. Would men, thus situated, calmly

letter being disputed, after it had appeared without contradiction

show their resentment in the day, they would at night. The wild justice in all the newspapers. He had not tho ught of sending for the of barbaric revenge, if not called into operation in the open day, would original until Mr. O'Connell mentioned it a few days before. perhaps be fatally busy at night. The Government had not acted with After a few words from Mr. Wyss and Mr. PETRE, the petition that just spirit which the people expected, and which they demanded. was laid on the table. They had, in fact, alienated the people from them, and given their sup- port to a faction, who hated them even worse than they hated those 8. THE DE ACLES AND THE 13artiNass. A petition from Mr. whom they wished upon all occasions to oppress. and Mrs. Deacle was presented to the House of Commons on Mr. STANLEY deprecated the appeal of Mr. O'Connell to the Monday night, by Colonel EvaNs ; who introduced the subject feelings of the House. He said he had brought down Major with great firmness. Bushe's report, for which it was Mr. Maxwell's intention next The petition is signed by Thomas Deacle and Caroline Deacle, day to move, and it fully bore out that gentleman in his statement and is dated from Marwell Farm, parish of Oswellburv, county of respecting the insult to the Catholics in firing over the chapel. Hants. It complains of the " false, scandalous, and malicious Major Bushe had received his information from the Reverend Mr. allegations published in the newspapers as parts of speeches deli- Walsh, who said that but one shot was fired during any part of the vered in the House of Commons —particularly those of Mr. Fran- religious ceremonies observed on the occasion, not over the chapel, cis Baring and Mr. Sergeant Wilde. It then proceeds to notice but at a considerable distance from it, and not by a Yeoman, but the facts of the trial of Mr. Deacle, and particularly the cross- by Lord Farnham's gamekeeper. Mr. Stanley said Government examination of Collins, Barnes, and Prickett. It describes Sea- were not prepared to dismissthe whole of a respectable body of grim as the attorney of the Barings, and one of the prosecutors at men for the fault of a few individuals. If any ease of misconduct the trial. It mentions, that in consequence of Francis Baring's were proved, it would be visited with instant punishment. As to and Sergeant Wildes speeches in the House (as reported by the the Newtownbarry corps, as he had repeatedly said, nothing newspapers), Mr. Deacle had been refused a farm for which he would be done until the proceedings at present pending were at was in treaty with the Duke of Beaufort. It farther mentions, an end. that a retainer had been given to Sergeant Wilde to plead for Mr. Mr. GEORGE DawsoN expressed great indignation at the con- Deacle in the trial against Mr. B. Baring and others ; but he duct of Mr. O'Connell; in which, he said, he shared with the contrived not to arrive at Winchester until after the trial. The greater part of the people of Ireland. He inveighed strongly against petition concludes by praying to he heard at the bar of the House the attempt of the Irish members to dictate to his Majesty's Minis- in support of the facts set forth. The narrative of facts, thus ters. He said the strength, intelligence, and property of Ireland, offered to be proved, is as follows. were opposed universally to the suppression of the Yeomanry, and " That on the L'.Itit of November 1630, at about two o'clock in the day, William would resist any attempt at it. Lewington and John Switzer, constables of Winchester, came to the house of your

petitioners, being the bearers of a warrant signed by the Rev. Robert Wright and

Mr. Dawson having designated the Irish members who waited one or two other magistrates of Hampshire, and served it on your petitioners ; who on Earl Grey and Lord Althorp as a cabal, immediately, without any hesitation, were preparing to dress themselves in a be- coming manner, in order to go with the constables, in obedience to the warrant. Mr. GRATTAN said, if that expression was meant to apply to 'That, in about five minutes after the constables entered the house, they were fol- him, he would at once say it was altogether false. lowed, with great apparent violence, and with great rudeness, by Francis Baring Mr. DAWSON said, he did not apply it to Mr. Grattan portion and Bingham Baring (being two magistrates of the county), by Robert Wright (clerk), by Mr. Deane (bam:er), of Winchester, and by one Seagrim, an at-. larly ; he spoke of a body of men. Mr. Graitan's language was torney, of Winchester, who is the partner of another attorney named Woodham, not Parliamentary, nor such as could he used in private society. who are the attornies of Messrs. Francis and Bingham Baring. That, upon these

parties milting into the house, Bingham Baring seeing a friend of your peti-

Mr. Dawson concluded by stating, that the disarming of the Yeo- tioners, of the name of Jervis, in an outer room, who was changing his coat, put mangy as a public body would only lead to the private arming of a pistol to his head, having, at the same tithe, a dagger in his hand. That he theta the men themselves, and to an instant collision between the Pro- followed the rest of these violent intruders into the inner room, or parlour, where your petitioners were. That then Bingham Baring came up to your petitioner,

testants and Catholics. Thomas Deacie, and striking him upon the shoulder, and then seizing him by the arm, exclaimed,' You are my prisoner.' That at the same time, or the instant after-

Mr. GRATTAN repeated his former expression— wards, Francis Baring also seized your petitioner by the collar, while Robert wright He avowed he was one of the body which the honourable member had seized hold of the hinder part of his coat. That thus seized, Bingham Baring attacked; and he would say, that if the honourable member stated that having hold of an arm, Francis Baring of the collar of the coataRobert Wright of he was one of a cabal, or of a body who meant to browbeat the Govern- the hinder part of the coat, Bingham Baring (in a commanding arid menacing voice) runt, he should repeat that lie (Mr. Dawson) had said that which was said to the `constable,' Mr. Lewington (Switzer being sent into the yard to hold the

horses), ' Do your duty !' and Francis Baring, on the conatable seeming to hesitate, all the while by Captain Nevill, was stationed on the outside of the yard,

of the cart covered her habiliments with dirt, and tore parts of them. That at this

the constables (Switzer) said, ' For God's sake, Sir, let the'lliciy Weber horse, and Iwill hold the reins, and.will forfeit my !Half nose her.' Ehat-unon this, Bing- ham Baring made answer, Do your duty, Sir, or I'll report you.' ,That the cart was driven by Lewington, and that the horse was a wretched pony; that Bingham Baring urged Lewington to drive faster; which having done for a little while, he said, upon a second application, The lady complains of being ill, and says that the jolting hurts her ;' whereupon Bingham Baring again exclaimed, ' Drive on -make your way to Winchester;' that Lewington still not driving so fast as Bing.

ham Baring wished, the latter came up, and with a large black stick which he Carried, gave repeated blows across the back of the pony ; that the pony now 'ent considerably faster, causing the cart to jolt so much that your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, felt great pain, and rose up, by bearing upon the side of the cart, and turning round a little, said to Bingham Baring, ' Really, Sir, cannot bear this will be the death of me-I shall be shaken to death ;' that your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, putting out his hand, said, ' Sit still, my dear-bear it as well as you can,' and that hereupon I3ingham Baring struck across your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, a severe blow with the before-mentioned black stick, which fell upon the arm of your petitioner, Thomas Deacle ; that the cart was accompanied by Francis Baring, Bingham Baring, Captain Nevill, the Reverend Robert Wright, Mr. Deane the banker, and Seagrim, the attorney, as a troop of guards assisting the constables; that when the cart had reached about half a mile from the house. Mr. Deane went off to Winchester, leaving the rest to attend the cart; that when the cart arrived at the top of Winchester Hill, about two miles from the city, it was met by a post- chaise, into which your petitioners were put, in company with the jailor, who was init. and were thus conveyed to the common jail at Winchester; that when arrived at the jail the six persons before.mentioned had disappeared; that the jailor hurried your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, into a room where certain magistrates were assembled, amongst whom were Sir Thomas Baring, as he bWieves, and the Reverend Robert Wright the elder; that in the meanwhile your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, was put into another room, being the jailor's kitchen, but afterwards was brought into the same room ; that the magistrates deferred any examination for that night, on the alleged account of want of witnesses, and refused to let your petitioners out on bail ; that after this, the jailor Beckett took your petitioners into the passage, and informed them, that he must take your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, and put him into a yard, and that he would give your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, a bed along with the women ; that upon hearing this, your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, understanding that her husband was going to be locked up amongst felons, fell into a violent hysterical fit, and was falling backward upon the stone floor, which was luckily prevented by your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, catching her in his arms; that the fit was very strong, and rendered it necessary to open her clothes, cut the lace of her stays, and thus expose her in the presence 01 numerous persons of various descriptions, the inmates er the visitants of a common jail ; that after this your petitioners were permitted, at the expense of 108. a day, to live in the apartments of one of the turnkeys, situate on the felons' side of the jail, and surrounded by felons on every side ; that in this situation your petitioners remained from the evening of the 24th of November until the evening of the 27th of November; that on the 25th of November your petitioners were brought before the magistrates sitting in the jail, and were told that the evidence against them had not arrived; that on the morning of the 26th of Novem- ber they were brought before the magistrates again, always guarded by the jailor or under jailor as if they had been felons, and were now told that the evidence was in their favour, but that as all the evidence had not arrived they must detain them longer. That in the afternoon of the same day, the under-jailor again brought them into the presence of the magistrates, always sitting in the jail. That the magistrates there told your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, that they had nothing against him, and that he might go, but they must detain your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, until the next day, when they expected some evidence against her. That upon this, your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, begged to be permitted to remain with his wife, to whirls the magistrates answered No.' That thereupon your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, fai nted away, and was held in the chair, the magistrates, with Sir Thomas Baring at their head, exclaiming, Take liar away, take her away-she must not remain to interrupt our business.' That in consequence of this she was carried out of the room in the chair, and your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, was afterwards permitted by the jailor to remain with his wife. That on the 27th, your petitioner. Caroline Deacle, was brought before the magistrates by the under jailor, and had read to her a deposition of Robert Wright the younger, one of the defendants in the late action, but that she was not confronted with any acccuser, nor were either of your petitioners ever confronted with any accuser from the first to the last. That finally your petitioners were released upon bail given for your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, and your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, without bail in the first instance, and afterwards with bail, when new-pretended evidence had been discovered. That in the meanwhile your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, had declared his intention of bringing an action against the magistrates for assault and false imprisonment. That after this the indictment before-mentioned was framed against him, and the bill found as before stated, just at the close of the proceedings of the Special Com- mission which produced the trial at the Lent Assizes, ending in the honourable ac- quittal of your petitioner. And that, during the imprisonment of your petitioners, the letters sent to them were destroyed by the jailor, in one of which was an offer of legal assistance."

Mr. FRANCIS BARING remarked at great length on that part of the petition where it is stated that he, not Bingham Baring, carried Mrs. Deacle to the cart ; he also denied that either Mr. Seagrim or Woodham were attornies of his family.

Sir THOMAS BARING denied that he had ordered Mrs. Deacle out of the examination-room.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE declared, that in his former speech on the subject, he did not mean to make any charge against the Deacles- he merely stated what was contained in the depositions. He en- treated the House to distinguish beween a retainer and a fee; and asked if it was understood that a Member of Parliament was to neglect his duty in the House for a guinea.

Mr. HUME observed, that the petition brought no charge against Sir Thomas Baring individually, and therefore his denial was no answer to it. He was very anxious to learn who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be handcuffed. He recommended referring the petition to a select committee, as soon as an opportunity offered for making such a motion. A conversation ensued, on the propriety of receiving the petition, as it alluded to matter spoken in the House. Sir GEORGE CLERK was of opinion it ought to be rejected. Mr. ESTCOURT joined in this view. He thought that, as there was a standing order against the publication of speeches, the allu- sion to them by the petitioners was very disorderly.

Lord ALTHORP was of opinion that the House ought to be very scrupulous how they rejected a petition against one of themselves. Mr. O'CONNELL ridiculed the alleged breach of order in alluding to the speeches of members.

Mr. Estcourt ought to enforce the order against the publication of speeches, if he enforced the rules of the House against this petition. Would he do this, and call the editors of all the newspapers up to the bar' He shouldihink not. If statements were made in that House, it was well known that they would go forth to the public; and if those statements were incorrect and injurious, evils would result which ought to be com- plained of. Mr. O'Connell would only say, with regard to the case before them, that in his opinion it called_ for further inquiry. That inquiry might, for aught he knew, end in the most triumphant justification of the magistrates ; but he must say, that the two innocent persons-for the petitioners had been proved- to be innocent-from whom this petition :came, had made out a strong case for inquiry.

-Sir:.F.aancra B URDETT perfectly-concurred with Mr. O'Connell

in his view of the point of order. He thought the handenffing inexcusable, whatever version of the story were utiinately eft- bushed.

The petition was received, and ordered to lie on the table.

9. MESSRS. LECES:!TE AND ESCOFFERY. The case of these gentlemen, who have been the objects of unmitigated persecution by the Jamaica authorities for many years, and, having been griev- ously injured, were afterwards outraged by all possible means— the vilest and most infamous libels being openly circulated in the island against them, in the plenary security that a West India jury and West India judge gave to the libellers,-was brought before the Commons on Monday night, in the form of a vote in Committee of Supply. The sum finally awarded to Messrs. Lecesne and Escoifery was 16,2701.; of this, 5,000/. had already been paid ; the vote of Monday of 11,270/. completed the sum awarded. Mr. HUME contended, as the blame was the As- sembly of Jamaica's, the colony ought to pay the compensation. Mr. SPRING RICE stated the case. The award was made by Mr. Seiwin, the illegality of the arrest and deportation having been decided on reference by Mr. Sergeant Bosanquet. Tile sum of 5,000/. was paid by the late Government in July 1830, and an ex- plicit promise made that the remainder would be paid.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY corroborated this account.

Lord Howicx said, the sole question was, whether the colony or the mother country should make compensation, The Ministers had the appointment of the Governor ; and being thus respon- sible for his acts, it seemed a necessary consequence that the com- pensation should be paid by England.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL concurred with Lord Howick, that the payment ought to be made by the responsible party, which was in this case the Government at home.

Some conversation took place on the merits of the case ; its which Mr. F. PALMER, Mr. Sergeant WILDE, and Mr. O'Corr- NELL spoke warmly in condemnation of the treatment of Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery ; and Mr. Burge, the late Attorney-General of Jamaica, in palliation of the Colonial Assembly. [Mr. Burge advised the proceedings which now call for compensation.] A division took place on Mr. HUME'S amendment for making the Colony pay the sum in the vote ; when there appeared for the amendment 12, against it 117.