LINES [66] SELECT POETRY. On the Death of the late Mrs. Siddons*. AGAIN, lone Muse, the mournful strain resume, A sad detail o'ershades the former gloom; Another grave th' unwilling hands prepare, Around the throng bespeaks some anxious care; Death's last sad act each griev'd inquirer Engross'd all passions, feelings, as its own, around [July, As struggling through his half-dried veins, The moon-beams rest upon the hill, Save where through branches thick en- Forcing its way the whistling wind The bravoes now to burial bore, ANTENOR. 1831] [67] HISTORICAL CHRONICLE. PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 4. After the reception of various petitions, Lord J. Russell moved the second reading of the REFORM BILL, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to some inquiries made by Mr T. G. Estcourt, stated, that a clause, restricting the franchise to persons paying their rents half yearly, had been introduced by mistake. As soon as its tendency had been discovered, Ministers came to the instant resolution of abandoning it. On the question being put from the chair, the debate on the Bill proceeded. Sir J. B. Walsh said, that the more he considered the bearings and tendencies of this measure, the more he was impressed with the danger it would work to the British Constitution, and to the whole system of social order. He should firmly oppose the Bill in all its stages, confident that in so doing, he should be contributing his aid towards towards averting imminent danger -perhaps ruin, from his country The Hon. Baronet moved that the Bill be read that day six months.--Mr. F. Clinton seconded the amendment. The Hon. Member objected to the pledges which had been required from Members during the late elections, observing, that if this system were persevered in, the House would lose all pretensions to the character of a deliberative assembly, and would become the mere puppet of the popular will. The doctrine, that was, not decayed boroughs, should be called upon to exercise the right of election. A great deal had been said concerning what was called corporation robbery. Now the fact that this measure merely proposed to withdraw a public trust from those who had abused it, and to place it in the hands of those who would use it better. They had been told, that the present Bill was dangerous to the rights of property. Now that ingenious and benevolent man, Mr. Owen, had never promulgated any doctrine so wild as this-that property, the great union of mankind and protection of society, was involved in the fate of Gatton and Old Sarum; and it might be as well if gentlemen would not teach the spoiler of a future day to lay hands on their property, by stating that the estates which they now held were not more sacred than the boroughs of Gatton and Old Sarum. The right to send Members to Parliament was the right to share in the government of men, and the revolution of 1688 established the great principle, that those who held political power, held it not as a property, but as a trust. He was apprehensive that a violent opposition to the present measure would sow the seeds of permanent discord between the two orders of the State, and cause bitter consequences to ensue hereafter, when anti-reformers would acknowledge with regret, that they had only protracted an unavailing struggle to their own injury. But he hoped for better things, when he saw that those who had the strongest claims and a connexion of longest standing with the history of their country had proved the most strenuous friends of freedom, as well as the most generous and disinterested promoters of Reform. - Mr. Bruce strongly opposed the Bill. proved of the existing system of representation, inasmuch as it comprehended variety of suffrage, and formed a combination of numbers and property.-Mr. C. Fergusson supported the Bill.-Lord Porchester expressed himself hostile to the Bill.-After a few words in favour of Reform by Mr. G. Knight, on the motion of Mr. R. A. Dundas, the debate was adjourned. the people were the only source of all civil power," had been not only asserted but acted on by the republicans who had led Charles I. to the scaffold, and abolished the House of Lords as "useless and mischievous."-Sir J. Mackintosh supported the Bill in a long and able speech. The Hou. Member observed, that the late Parliament had been dissolved in order to afford the people an opportunity of marking their sense of the measure introduced by his Majesty's Ministers. With regard to the dangers apprehended from the Bill, he looked upon them as visionary. The real danger arose from the schemes of those who wished to subdue what was called the democratical spirit, for the purposes of lawless power. Such had been the case in France; and such would be the case in this country, if the enemies of Reform had power equal to their will. With regard to the history of our Borough representation, it was a known fact, that 45 boroughs, and one city, the city of Ely, which were anciently summoned, were not summoned now. It had been said by Mr. Pitt, that these alterations did not arise from any fixed rule, but were founded on the principle, that places of importance, and He ap July 5. Lord John Russell moved the order of the day, for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the second reading of the REFORM BILL.-Mr. R A. Dundas opposed the Bill. He was sorry that Ministers had not confined the right of election to persons of property and intelligence.Sir John Malcolm was also opposed to the Bill. Although returned for a close borough, he considered himself the guardian 68 Proceedings in Parliament.-Reform Bill. of the interests of the country at large. Were this measure to pass, it would close the avenues to that House against the monied and colonial interests, which were now represented through the medium of the close boroughs.-Sir F. Vincent said, that the Bill was based not only on common sense and the usages of the Parliament, but on the principles of constitutional law as expounded by Blackstone. - Colonel Trench thought that the present Bill would be destructive of all vested rights, and should therefore vote against it at every stage. Mr. G. H. Vernon supported the Bill. He said that its three great principles were, the destruction of nomination, the extension of representation, and the diminution of the expense of elections.-Sir E. Deering opposed it.-Mr. E. L. Bulwer supported the measure. The Hon. Member said, that the most ostensible ground on which the antireformers rested, was the probable manner in which the Bill would affect the power of the Aristocracy. He concluded by observing, that the best security for the institutions of power was to be found in the love and confidence of an united and intelligent people.Mr. Lyon, Mr. E. Peel, and Mr. Trevor, opposed the measure, and Mr. Godson and Colonel Torrens supported it.—Mr. Macauley, in an eloquent speech, entered largely into the subject of Reform, observing on the imperfections of many of our civil and political institutions, in which it would be found that barbarism and civilisation went side by side; but in which it would also be found that the barbarism belonged to the government, and the civilisation to the people. It was because he wished to make them run concurrently, that he voted for this measure of Reform; and proud he should be to the latest hour of his existence, that he had had any share, however humble, in promoting a measure which he firmly believed would be attended with such happy effects. Mr. W. Bankes said, that if this Bill passed into a law, the possession of a seat in that House would no longer be regarded as an honour.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that Ministers were pledged to bring forward a measure of reform, and they thought they should be trifling with the feelings of the country, and with the important subject itself, if in bringing it forward they had not produced such a measure as would prove satisfactory to the country. They felt much pleasure in finding that the country generally approved of it.-Sir George Murray opposed the Bill. He was apprehensive that the proposed measure would have the effect of raising up a future Cromwell, who would be seen endeavouring to form a Legislature; but on this condition, that no member should enter it who was not pledged to the opinions of the usurper. The debate was then adjourned. [July, July 6. The order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the REFORM BILL, having been moved, Colonel Sibthorpe said that he had read the Bill carefully, and could not understand it, for a more unintelligible chaos, a more complete mixture of absurdity and nonsense he had never seen. He hoped that his friends would oppose the hurrying so dangerous a measure through the House. Lord W. Lennox, Sir F. France, Mr. J. Campbell, Mr. H. L. Bulmer, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. W. Brougham, warmly supported the Bill; while Mr. R. Douglas, Mr. F. Lewis, Mr. Wrangham, Lord Valletort, Sir C. Wetherell, and Sir G. Murray, strongly opposed it, as being destructive of the constitution, and a violation of existing rights.-Sir R. Peel entered at great length into the subject, observing, that the small boroughs which existed at the present day were not an usurpation on the rights of the people, but that they existed at an early period of our history, and had continued ever since. Although it was not easy to defend the sale of these boroughs, yet he was convinced that it would be impossible to eradicate the evil without depriving the country of much good that more than counterbalanced it. There had been no reform of Parliament for 400 years; but so elastic were the principles of Parliament, in accommodating themselves to the spirit of the age, and circumstances of the people, that the House had governed the country better than any other country on earth had ever been governed. He gave his opposition to this measure, because in his conscience he believed that it went to diminish, and not to increase, the security of the permanent liberties and happiness of the people of England.-Sir F. Burdett supported the Bill in an eloquent speech, and observed that the real question for their decision was, whether it was a part of the constitution, that Peers and others should nominate persons to seats in that House? Was it to be endured, that in that House, which was called the representative of the people, seventy Peers should nominate to 150 seats? What the people demanded was, a restoration of their rights to have a voice in the election of those on whose decisions their properties and lives depended. This demand of the people was not the result of temporary excitement, but the echo of the long-expressed wish of the wealth and intelligence of the middle classes for Reform. The system of boroughmongering was no longer to be borne. Lord J. Russell having replied to the various observations against the measure, the House proceeded to a division; when the numbers were:-for the second reading of the Bill, 367; against it, 231; majority in its favour, 136. 1831.] Proceedings in Parliament.- Reform Bill, &c. July 11. The House having gone into a committee on the Customs' Acts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer renewed his propositions of last Session for the equalization of the WINE DUTIES. He proposed, that the general duty should henceforth be 5s. 6d. per gallon, to take effect this year, with the exception of the duty on Cape wines, which is not to be subject to the new impost till 1834. The alterations were strongly opposed by Messrs. Robinson, C. Pelham, Attwood, Herries, Sadler, and Goulburn, on the ground that they were in violation of the treaty with Portugal, that they broke faith with the colonies, and that they evinced an unfair partiality towards France. On a division, there appeared-for the resolution, 259; against it, 157. The House then went into a Committee of SUPPLY, when it was moved, that 15,798l. 10s. be granted to defray the charges of retired allowances, &c. for the current year. Mr. G. Dawson moved, that the sum of 2,500l. per annum should be granted to Sir A. B. King, as a remuneration for giving up his patent office of stationer to his Majesty in Ireland. This led to some discussion, in the course of which it was said, that the patent in question was revocable at pleasure, and that his was not a fit case for compensation. On a division, there appeared-for the proposed grant to Sir A. B. King, 45; against it, 103. the original vote was then agreed to. July 12. Lord J. Russell moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the REFORM BILL. Lord Maitland objected to the disfranchisement of the borough of Appleby, on the ground of its possessing the requisite number of inhabitants to entitle it to be represented, and moved that counsel might be heard at the Bar against the Reform Bill as it affected their interests. This motion gave rise to considerable discussion, and on a division there appearedfor the motion, 187; against it, 284. Captain Gordon moved the adjournment of the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not consent to an adjournment. The House then divided, when the numbers were-for the adjournment, 102; against it, 328; majority for Ministers, 226. The original motion, "that the Speaker do leave the chair," being again put, an amendment was moved upon it, "that the House do now adjourn." The House having divided, the numbers were-for the amendment, 90; against it 286. A deal of warm debating took place on both sides during the intervals between the divisions. Col. Davies, Alderman Waithman, and other members, urged Lord Althorp to persevere in resisting the adjournment; and Lord George Lennox said, that he sincerely trusted that Ministers would not give in to a factious opposition, but that, supported by the 69 House, they would, if necessary, remain at their posts till twelve o'clock to-morrow night. After five more distinct motions for the adjournment of the debate, which were defeated by considerable majorities, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a question from Sir C. Wetherell, said he was anxious that the House should have the fullest opportunity to discuss the question that evening, (the 13th.) If the House would allow him to go into Committee pro forma, the Chairman might report progress, and ask leave to sit again, aud the discussion might take place as before. This arrangement was agreed to. The Bill was then committed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again that day. The House then adjourned at half-past seven in the morning! July 13. On the motion of Lord J. Russell, the House resolved itself into a committee on the REFORM BILL. On the first clause, which proposed the disfranchisement of certain boroughs, Mr C. Wynn moved, that the House should postpone the consideration of the schedules A and B, which contained the names of the places to be disfranchised and curtailed of their representatives, and proceed to the third clause of the Bill, which pointed out the mode in which the new representation was to be provided. -Mr. Stanley opposed the amendment, as only intended to delay the Bill.—Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment. He objected to the disfranchising schedules A. and B. for several reasons, but chiefly because the extinction of the close boroughs would remove the best constitutional check which that House afforded upon the excesses of the popular will. The House then divided, when there appeared-for the amendment, 174; against it, 292. The House having resumed, the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. July 14. The House having gone into a committee on the REFORM BILL, Lord J. Russell, in moving the first clause, said, that it was intended to disfranchise all boroughs not possessing 2000 inhabitants, and to permit those places possessing a population of and above that amount to return one Representative.-Sir Robert Peel thought that as there might be fifty-seven questions raised on these boroughs, the most couvenient mode would be, first, to decide upon the principle of disfranchisement, and then to discuss the rights of the different boroughs in the schedule. The Right Hon. Bart. moved an amendment to the above effect. After considerable discussion, the House divided, when there appeared-for the amendment, 193; against it, 290. The Chairman then reported progress. July 15, The House went into a Com 70 Proceedings in Parliament. mittee on the REFORM BILL. On the motion for the adoption of the disfranchising clause, Sir A. Agnew moved, as an amendment, that all the boroughs included in schedule A. should have a share in the representation. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Weyland, H. Gurney, C. Wynn, Sir J. Malcolm, Messrs. S. Wortley, Croker, Baring, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Freshfield, Sir G. Clerk, and Sir R. Inglis; and opposed by Mr. C. Fergusson, Lord Althorp, Alderman Venables, the Lord Advocate, Mr. D. W. Harvey, Mr. Stanley, and Mr. Campbell. On a division there appeared-for the amendment, 205; against it, 316. In answer to observations from various Hon. Members, Lord John Russell said, that the House had decided that all boroughs under 2000 inhabitants should not send Members to Parliament. By the population returns, the boroughs and parishes in some instances were taken together; and in such cases he took the borough and parish together. But in other instances a corner of a parish was in a borough, and he could not feel justified in including the whole parish in such a case. The Chairman reported progress, with leave to sit again on the 19th. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 15. Lord King, after presenting several peti tions against the present Tithe System, brought up a bill for establishing the maximum and minimum of TITHES. Whether a clergyman held one benefice or more, his tithe was not to exceed 500l. The provisions, however, of his Bill were altogether prospective, and would have no reference to existing abuses.-The Bishop of London complained of its introduction, as the Archbishop of Canterbury had a Bill with precisely similar intentions.-The Duke of Wellington protested against the principle of the Bill, as illegally interfering with Church property, which he deemed as sacred as private property, and without providing compensation. The Bill was read a first time. The Lord Chanceller brought in the bill of last Session, which was intended to regulate proceedings in BANKRUPTCY. It was read a first time. July 18. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved the second reading of the COMPOSITION OF TITHES BILL, in which, his Grace observed, it was provided, that if the rector, vicar, or other incumbent of a parish, and the owners of two-thirds in value of the lands paying tithes, should be desirous of a composition, such a composition might be entered into for a term not exceeding twentyone years. The sum of money to be agreed upon for a compensation might be settled by the parties among themselves, or by persons appointed to carry the provisions of the Bill into execution. The rate of compensation being to be taken upon an average price [July, of wheat in the London market for seven years. If the Bill were to be acted upon, it would virtually have the effect of a perpetual commutation. He conceived that it was desirable that the Bill should pass into a law as speedily as possible.-The Lord Chancellor supported the Bill in a very luminous speech, and observed that it was but bare justice to the Most Rev. Prelate to say that he had admirably fulfilled the duty which he had undertaken. It was the interest of the clergy as well as of the laity, of the Church in an eminent degree, as well as of the country at large,—that a speedy and satisfactory settlement of this great question should be effected.-The Earl of Eldon observed, that this was a Bill for a composition of tithes, and though plausible reasons might be offered in support of such a measure, it was impossible uot to see that it went to alter aud interfere with the nature of the property of tithes, which had been vested as property in the hands of the church by the law of the land. The Bishop of London expressed his entire concurrence in the principles of the measure of the Most Rev. Prelate. The Bill was then read a second time. Earl Grey rose to inform the House that he had received a written communication from Priuce Leopold, intimating that, as sovereign of Belgium, it was not his intention to draw from this country any portion of the income which was settled upon him by Act of Parliament at the period of his marriage with the Princess Charlotte; reserving, however, the payment of his outstanding debts, the maintenance in complete order and repair of Claremont, the annuities to his confidential servants, and the continuation of his subscriptions to the different public charities in London, to which he and the Princess Charlotte had been accustomed to subscribe. His Lordship was confident that this statement would he received with satisfaction both by the House and the country. (Continued cheering.) July 19. The Lord Chancellor brought forward a Bill, which was read the first time, for the abolition of the COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN SCOTLAND, and for substituting some other mode for the discharge of its duties. His Lordship said that there were seven Judges of the Court of Session, who were not Judges of the Justiciary Court, and one of them could well sit in the Court of Exchequer on the Mondays during the Session, which were the days on which the Justiciary Court sat, during whose sitting there was no sitting in the Court of Session. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the same day, the House resolved itself into a committee on the REFORM BILL, when Mr. Mackinnon moved an instruction to the committee, declaring that the boroughs in the schedules A and B should be considered |