said, he had to present a Petition, which he considered of very great importance, from the county of Northumberland, against the proposed Reform Bill. It was signed by two right rev. Prelates, the Bishops of Exeter and Durham, by ten Peers, by sixty Gentlemen in the Commission of the Peace, and by a very large number— he would say about 2,700—of the Freeholders of the county of Northumberland This petition, so numerously and respectably signed, formed a convincing proof, in his opinion, that the unanimity throughout the country, in favour of this measure, was not so complete as many people believed to be the case. The petitioners prayed, that this Bill should not pass into a law, because they were of opinion, that if it did so pass, it would be subversive of the best interests of this country. In their prayer, and in the propriety of their opinion, he perfectly concurred. He could not avoid expressing his disgust at the intimidation which had been held out for the purpose of compelling individuals to support this measure. He had not given way, and he should not give way, to any such intimidation; and if it were necessary, he would continue to offer his utmost opposition to every part of the measure. He had been taunted, as not being a Reformer. In answer to that he would say, that he was a moderate Reformer, but he could not support such a Reform as was now contemplated.

did not mean to deny that the petition which had been presented by his hon. colleague was most respectably signed; but it would be wrong to give to it all the weight and importance which would be attached to a petition agreed to at a county meeting regularly convened. He considered the present petition as speaking the sentiments of the Duke of Northumberland, and not those of the county at large. When his hon. Colleague spoke of intimidation, he could not avoid alluding to the circular which had been sent round to the tenants of the noble Duke, and which had appeared in the public papers. He did not mean to assert that that circular had emanated from his Grace; but if it did not, his Grace's Commissioners had used his name in a way which he should suppose his Grace could not approve of. The circular ran thus:—

"The Duke's Commissioners send to Mr. — for his own and the signatures of the tenants of his bailiwick, counterparts of Addresses to the King and the two Houses of Parliament, in respect to the present Reform Bill, the originals of which his Grace has signed, and in the promotion of which, his Lordship desires activity may be used, as a return is expected in a few days; trusting that all persons connected with him will join in the prayer of the petitions, which their neighbours should have an opportunity of signing if they think fit. The Duke requires the names of tenants who do not sign, and hopes that they will not embark rashly in politics, if they wish to place confidence in his opinions, which can only be truly learnt through his Commissioners."

"Commissioners'-office, Alnwick Castle, April 5th."

Now let the House look to the concluding paragraph—"The Duke requires the names of tenants who do not sign," and make their own comment on it. Could any man, either in or out of doors, suppose that this list was called for merely to be left on his Grace's breakfast-table, without any intention of making further use of it? Having seen this document in The Times, he had written to a friend in the country on the subject, and he answered in these terms:—"I have not seen The Times; but the conduct of the agents and sub-agents is such as The Times could scarcely misrepresent. The tenants and undertenants have been called on to sign; but it is a complete failure. They have got 2,700 signatures of men, women, and children; for wives and daughters signed for husbands and fathers." He greatly lamented that the noble Duke should have descended from the high station which he held to countenance such proceedings. He repeated, that the petition spoke not the sentiments of the county, but those of the Duke of Northumberland.

said, when he saw that this 'petition was signed by a great majority of the nobility—when no less than sixty Magistrates had affixed their signatures to it, and 2,700 freeholders, he could not but consider it as a county petition of the most respectable character. With respect to the document to which the hon. Member had called the attention of the House,, he could state, most distinctly and positively, that the Duke of Northumberland never saw that document until it appeared in The Times newspaper. The Commissioners considered that circular as a private and confidential communication; but a copy of it had been procured improperly, and sent to a newspaper at Alnwick. With respect to that part of the circular which expressed a hope "that parties would not embark rashly in politics if they wished to place confidence in his (the Duke's) opinions, which could only be truly learnt through his Commissioners," it arose from the following circumstance:—It was found that at the very Castle of Alnwick, an individual who had been an agent to a noble Lord (Howick), when he stood for the county, actually applied for, and obtained the signatures of a great number of individuals, some of them belonging (he might say) to the Duke's household, to a petition for Reform,—that person declaring, that it was a petition which would receive the Duke's approbation, and that, by signing it they would shew their loyalty to the King, and regard for the Constitution. Therefore it was, that the Commissioners had conceived it to be their duty to state, "that the noble Duke's opinions could be only truly learnt through his Commissioners." They had been forced to take this step in consequence of the unfair means which had been resorted to by the other side, in procuring signatures to the Reform petition. He could proudly refer to the noble Duke's strictly honourable and impartial conduct in Ireland; he could refer to the munificent disinterestedness with which he relinquished 10,000l. a year of his salary; he could refer to the whole course and tenour of his life, as affording sufficient evidence to repel the idea that he had ever improperly or unjustly interfered with the opinions of his tenantry.

said, he had carefully abstained from making any charge against the noble Duke, because he could not prove that he had participated in the publication of the circular. He threw the whole onus on the Commissioners, not on the noble Duke.

reminded the hon. Member, that he had expressed his regret that the noble Duke should have descended from his high station to countenance such a proceeding.

was obliged to his hon. friend for having reminded him of the circumstance, and he was sorry that such an observation had inadvertently slipped from him.

observed, that undoubtedly there was in the county of Northumberland a considerable division of opinion on this subject.

took that occasion to observe, that he had not described the petition as emanating from a county meeting, but as a petition of great importance, being signed by many of the most influential persons in the county.

presented a Petition from Kirkcudbright in favour of Reform. The hon. Member observed, that at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, which was most respectable, the numbers were twenty-four at each side, and the casting vote was given in favour of this petition, which supported the principle of the Bill introduced by Government (for Scotland), although it differed from some of its details.

admitted the great respectability of the petitioners, but said, that the majority of the wealth and education of Scotland were against the Bill.

maintained, that the people of Scotland were in favour of the Bill. Out of thirty counties, nineteen had already expressed opinions favourable to the Bill.

was sure, that the opinions of the people of Scotland were not in favour of the Bill. He admitted, that there were faults in the representation of Scotland, but the proposed Bill was the most ill-digested production that ever was offered to the House in shape of a law.

wished to know of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland and the learned Lord the member for Malton, what they would have done for seats in that House but for the close boroughs which had elected them. He hoped that would reconcile these Gentlemen to those places of refuge. He could not avoid recurring to the disturbances in Scotland, which he contended were the result of the excitement caused by the Bill.

deprecated such discussions on the presentation of petitions. If the practice were adhered to of debating minor points only of local interest on presenting petitions, it would be impossible to get through the business of the House, or to have time for presenting the petitions of the people, unless the time fixed for receiving them was enlarged, which he hoped it would be this evening.

presented a petition from Preston, signed by 2,400 persons. He was sorry he was obliged to present the petition in the absence of his hon. colleague. The meeting at which the petition was agreed to, was called by the mayor; only two persons spoke against the Reform Bill, upon the ground of its not going far enough; and when the question was put, only a few hands were held up against the question. He therefore had a right to assume that the petition spoke the sentiments of the electors of Preston. He also had a petition to present from the Manchester Political Union, in favour of the Bill. The petition was signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Union, who were present at the meetings which his hon. colleague had attended, and they stated, that the petition expressed the sentiments of 600,000 of the working classes, residing in Manchester and its vicinity. He had also received numerous letters expressing surprise at the statement which had been made by his hon. colleague respecting the feelings of the working classes with respect to the Reform Bill.

said, he had received a communication from the Spitalfields weavers, expressing their indignation at the statement which had been made by the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Hunt). He was also authorized to say, that the freemen of Coventry were willing to surrender their own privileges for what they conceived to be a national advantage.

said, he had received a petition, very numerously signed by the working classes of Darlaston, the town which was visited by the hon. member for Preston. The petitioners expressed their strong surprise at the description which had been given of their conduct by that hon. Member. An advertisement had appeared in a Birmingham newspaper, containing the resolutions passed at a meeting of the working classes and he knew from that advertisement that the meeting came to a resolution declaring Mr. Hunt deserving of their censure.

said, that, for the first and only time in his life, he perfectly acquiesced in the estimate of the year for this service, for it was all in vain now, after what had occurred last night, to expect that any thing would be conducted in the way of business, satisfactorily by a House constituted as it was proved to be, by the two trials of strength between the two great parties in that House, which had been run neck and neck on each occasion. It was, therefore, to be hoped this state of things would be put an end to by a prompt dissolution, and they would all be sent back to their constituents, when, no doubt, a Parliament would be returned which might effect something for the public good, and not take up important public measures in the light of party questions.

alluding to the savings which had been alleged to have been made in this department by the present Ministers since their accession to power, believed they could not be fairly taken at more than 4,000l. or 5,000l. sterling, whilst the hon. Member had been silent on the very important saving which had been accomplished in this department last year by his predecessor, amounting to above 47,000l.

said, he was in hopes he should be able to propose a reduction in next year's estimates larger than that which he felt authorised in proposing on this occasion. He believed the saving this year would be found to be fall 5,000l.

from intimate acquaintance with the subject, would take upon himself to correct the statement made by the hon. Member, and state his opinion that the real saving to the public in this year's estimates would not be found to exceed 3,000l. He should not oppose the vote.

wished to take that opportunity to say a few words on the abuses of Sheriffs in empanelling Juries in Ireland. He could shew, by a reference to the Reports already laid on the Table of the House, that parties were continually obliged to purchase an exemption from serving as Jurors. The evidence of Mr. John Dodd, a Dublin auctioneer, proved that Sheriff's, on some occasions, received compliments of 50l. and 60l. for certain indulgences by them extended to the donors in return. He would take this opportunity of stating, that he had lately received a communication from a gentleman in Ireland, whose feelings it appeared were wounded by the observations which he had made upon this subject already, and he much regretted that any thing he had uttered should have been productive of annoyance to any one; but he could by no means consent to retract a word of what had fallen from him during the debate alluded to, for he had made no strictures whatever which were not fully justified by the information on which he acted, nor had he been, in any degree, influenced by personal considerations.

disclaimed being an apo- logist for any one abuse, whether public or private, whether in the Sheriff's-office in Ireland, in the administration of the laws, or in the rotten boroughs, of which he trusted so soon to witness the disfranchisement. The Special Jury system was not indeed quite so bad as it had been represented. At the same time, he admitted, that the system might want amendment, and to its amendment he should be ready to contribute his exertions. He had further to observe, that the statements to which the hon. Member had alluded were ex-parte statements against the individual to whom they referred, and it was scarcely fair to make them the grounds of a charge against a gentleman who had no notice of the intended accusation, and, consequently, was not prepared to defend himself.

with all due deference for the learning and station of the hon. Gentleman who filled the office of Solicitor General for Ireland, deprecated in the strongest terms his very ill-timed and unwarrantable allusion to what he was pleased to call rotten boroughs. The allusion on this occasion was equally uncalled for and out of place, and, he must say, did but little credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman's prudence and good sense.

observed, that the most odious abuses were daily taking place in the Sheriff's-office in Ireland, and he hoped, ere long, to witness their effectual and permanent abolition.

wished to call the attention of the learned Solicitor General for Ireland to the inconvenient operation of the Registry Act, and requested to know whether it was likely that any legislative measure would be applied to remedy the evil.

said, that the reason why the abuses in the Register's Office had not hitherto been rectified; was the difference between two Minutes drawn up by the Treasury in consequence of a report on this subject, which made it difficult to decide upon which it would be preferable to proceed. A further Report on the subject had, however, lately been laid upon the Table, which so far disembarrassed the Government on that point as to enable him to state, that an effective remedy would be brought forward with as little further loss of time as possible.

presented a Pe- tition, which had been adopted at a public meeting of the Freemen of the Borough of Maldon, resident in London, in favour of the Reform which had been proposed by the Government. The petition was peculiarly entitled to attention, as corning from persons whose personal interests and rights would be so materially affected by the measure in question. The petitioners stated truly, that the number of nonresident freemen of the borough of Maldon very far exceeded those of any other borough in the kingdom; but, so far from grounding on this circumstance any claim in their own favour, of exemption from the general provisions of the Bill, they state that they cheerfully sacrifice all personal considerations for the public good. He thought this petition highly honourable to his constituents; and he must claim for them the same praise which had been so justly bestowed on the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Cleveland, and others, who had declared their willingness to sacrifice their own interests in favour of the great measure of Reform which had been introduced by the Government. He hoped that the petition he had the honour of presenting would tend to satisfy the hon. member for Preston, that there were many persons favourable to the Reform Bill besides those who derived a particular and private benefit from it. There were some of his constituents who were deprived of a valuable privilege by it, and who yet, on public grounds, were anxious to give it their support—a conduct which he thought highly creditable to them.

gave very little credit either to those members of the aristocracy or of the middle classes who now came forward by compulsion in support of this measure. As to the great body of the people, he maintained that they would derive no advantage whatever from it.

deprecated the course adopted by the hon. member for Preston, who had gone on maligning the views and feelings of the people. He utterly denied, that those persons among the upper classes who had now stood forward as the advocates of Reform were actuated by the unworthy motives imputed to them by the hon. Member. He knew it to be a fact that, long before the present measure was thought of, many of those persons had shown themselves ready to do all that they had since done. He was assured that several petitions would be presented to the House from the operative classes, denying, and utterly disclaiming, the representations made respecting them by the hon. Member.

must still contend, that the Bill excluded the great body of the people from any practical benefit. A great deal was said about his having misrepresented the views and feelings of the working classes, and he understood that the hon. member for Stafford had a petition to present from Darlaston on the subject. With regard, however, to such petitions, he set very little value upon them. He would engage, on any day in the week, to get one or two petitions up, with double the number of signatures attached to them that, any petition had which the hon. Member had presented, for five shillings. He admitted, at the same time, that a very strong feeling prevailed in favour of the Bill, and on that ground alone it was, that he gave it his support. He would maintain that the Bill was a delusion upon the country. He wished to know what good this Bill would do for the people? Would they get bread cheaper by it? Would they get a reduction of taxes? Would they get a reduction of that accursed Pension List? No; Ministers had defended it through thick and thin, and had told the House that there was no prospect of amelioration for the people in a reduction of taxes, which was the thing most likely to prove advantageous to the community. He had no party views whatever in the course he had taken, and had only expressed his sincere opinions.

wished it to be understood, that he had made no attack upon the hon. member for Preston, but, on the contrary, had risen to defend him. He regretted exceedingly that the hon. Member should have expressed his opinions with regard to the Bill in the manner he had; and he hoped that he would not continue to throw out those remarks, which could have no practical good effect upon the measure.

said, that the Bill, in its amended state, ought to have remained longer before it had been pressed on the consideration of the House, in order that the people of the country might have a full opportunity of seeing all its objects. He concurred with the hon. member for Preston that the Bill was a delusion—a fraud, he would say—upon the people of England; and the more it was exposed and developed, the greater would be their disgust. The public was far from being contented with it. He had voted invariably against the measure, and felt that he had done his duty. By so doing he had not consulted his own interest probably, but he had obeyed the dictates of his own conscience. In all public matters he would invariably attend to a conscientious discharge of his duty, disregarding any considerations of private interest. Something had been said respecting the sacrifice made by borough proprietors in forwarding the measure of Reform, but they had not come forward with this generous sacrifice on behalf of the country until the Bill was introduced. They had disregarded the old maxim, bis dat qui cito dat, in the course they had taken. He feared not the being sent back to his constituents on account of the line of conduct, which he had pursued with regard to the opposition he had given to the Bill; and he hoped that the Bill would never meet with the sanction, of the Legislature, fraught as it was with injustice towards so many individuals who had never been proved guilty of any impropriety or delinquency, in the discharge of their political rights and privileges.

denied, that this Bill was either a fraud or a delusion on the people of England. He had wished to ascertain the feelings of his constituents on it, and he had in consequence spent three days out of the last ten in calling upon his constituents in Oxford. He had called in that time upon more than a thousand of them personally, and he would undertake to say, that not fifty individuals out of that number disapproved of the principle, or even of the details, of the measure. He had seen some of their children playing about, in whom the right of voting was only inchoate. The circumstance of their children being deprived of that franchise which they themselves enjoyed, was the only objection which any of his constituents had urged to the measure, but they had unanimously agreed to waive that objection rather than endanger the success of a Bill which was calculated to confer so much benefit upon the country. Now the rights of the children of freemen were secured by one of the late amendments introduced into the Bill, and therefore he was certain that his constituents would not have any the slightest objection to the Bill as it. now stood.

asserted, that from his long connexion with the University and city of Oxford, he had as extensive a knowledge of the feelings of the inhabitants of Oxford as the hon. Member who now represented them; and he would take upon himself to deny the assertion, that the constituency of the city of Oxford, whose Representative he had been, and to whom he still was strongly attached, were favourable to this measure of Reform. As a proof of his opinion, he would only state, that in the Common Council of that town, which consisted of sixty persons, a petition in favour of Reform had only been carried by the casting vote of the Mayor. He contended that nine out often persons in Oxford had neither read nor understood the details of this Bill.

was sure that the citizens of Oxford understood, that this Bill would destroy fifty-five rotten boroughs; and that, after it was passed, Boroughbridge would cease to exist, arid that when it ceased to exist, his hon. and learned friend opposite would be compelled to go back to the electors of Oxford, or of some other populous borough. He must say, that he should like to see how his hon. arid learned friend Would be received by his quondam constituents of Oxford, when he went back to them after his present declaration, that they neither knew nor understood any thing about the present Bill.

wished to say a few words in explanation. He contended that he was justified in declaring that there was almost an unanimity of opinion in favour of this Bill among his constituents at Oxford. Of his constituents, 2,145 had signed a petition in favour of Reform, which had been agreed to at a public meeting at Oxford, at which more than 1,000 persons were present, and at which there had been only one dissentient voice. At a subsequent period, the Chamber of the Corporation had met, and had wished to get up an anti-Reform petition. The promoters of that petition had been defeated, however, by a majority of one. There Were thirty persons for that anti-Reform petition, and thirty against it. Those thirty persons formed part of the fifty dissentients to whom he had alluded in his former speech. As the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge seemed inclined to disbelieve the statement which he had given of the feelings of his constituents on this Bill, he only Wished that the horn and learned member would meet him on the hustings at Oxford, to see whether his constituents would not verify it.

repeated the assertion which he had made on a former occasion, that the petition which the hon. member for Oxford had presented had come from persons who did not understand the Reform Bill.

presented a Petition from the Corporation of the city of Giocester, against the Reform Bill.

observed, that as he had the honour of being one of the members for the city of Gloucester, he must be permitted to say a few words upon this petition. During the last fortnight he had visited his constituents, and he could say of his own knowledge, that a great majority of them were in favour of this Bill.

wished to take the opportunity of stating, that he had never asserted that no credit should be given to the noblemen and gentry who had surrendered their borough patronage. All that he had said was, that he should have given them greater credit had they surrendered it before this Bill was introduced, which would compel them to part with it. He should give them still more credit, if they would give up the borough influence which they still retained, as, for instance, the boroughs of Calne and Malton.

said, that if the noble personages to whom the hon. member for Preston alluded had given up their boroughs before the present time, they would have defeated the object which they had in view equally with the people of England. They acted no less wisely than patriotically, in giving up their borough influence as part of a general measure; but till that general measure was carried they ought to hold it and to use it as trustees for the public, arid for the public benefit.

presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Cashel, in favour of the Reform Bill. The Reform Bill was most popular in Ireland. He trusted that, his Majesty's Ministers would, by dissolving the Parliament, appeal to the people, and he would answer for it that the result of that appeal to the people of Ireland would be favourable to the measures of Reform which had been brought forward.

supported the prayer of the petition. Not having had an opportunity of addressing the House last night, he wished to take that occasion to state, that if the Reform Bill passed, it would be most satisfactory to the people of Ireland, and that one effect of it would be, to allay the feeling which existed there at present in favour of a Repeal of the Union. He concurred with those who thought that Ireland was fairly entitled to an additional number of Representatives. The two countries now formed a United Kingdom, and Ireland should be treated like Yorkshire, or any other component part of this country.

justified the vote which he gave last night for the Amendment moved by the gallant member for Liverpool, on the ground that he was anxious to retain as many Members as they had at present for England. At the same time he was as anxious as any man to give such additional Members to Ireland as she was entitled to.

said, that the effect of the vote which had been given by his right hon. friend last night in favour of the motion must be to prevent Ireland from getting additional Representatives.

said, in reference to the vote which he had given against the Amendment, that if he had been the bitterest opponent of Ministers, he would yet, as an Irishman, have opposed that Resolution, the effect of which would be, to prevent Ireland from getting those additional Members which Ministers had proposed to give to that country.

presented a Petition, numerously signed by the workmen of West Bromwich and the neighbouring parishes, in the county of Stafford, in favour of the Reform Bill. The petitioners stated, that they heard with astonishment and indignation that declarations were made that the workmen of Staffordshire were, to a man, opposed to the Bill, and such declarations they now declared to be utterly false. As the petition was very short, he begged that it might be read by the Clerk of the House.

said, he had no doubt that the hon. Member wished to make it appear that the petition alluded to a declaration industriously reported to have been made by him, but which he had never made. What he said was, that he had conversed with some of the working people in Staffordshire and elsewhere, who disapproved of part of the Bill brought in by Ministers.

had no doubt that the petition alluded to the report of what the hon. member for Preston had said in that House, and the petitioners unanimously denied that they disapproved of the Bill.

said, that if the hon. Member stated that the petition adverted to any thing that had taken place in that House, it was irregular, and could not be received; it must be withdrawn.

had not meant to state a fact, he had only uttered his individual opinion. There was nothing in the petition to lead the House to conclude that it alluded to what fell from the hon. member for Preston, though he (Mr. Littleton) entertained that opinion.

observed, that such an excuse, though good from any other Member, could not be considered satisfactory from the Member who presented the petition.

thought, that the petition had been got up to contradict a statement which had been made in that House by one of its Members, and it therefore ought to be rejected.

thought, that there was nothing in the petition, to warrant a conclusion that it referred to what had been said in Parliament, for the matter to which the petition alluded had appeared in various publications, as statements made out of doors.

observed, that his objection was founded upon what had been stated by the hon. Member who had presented the petition, and not upon the contents of the petition itself. It certainly was not usual for that House to put a forced construction on the language of any petition. As the hon. member for Staffordshire had stated his impression, however, that the petition referred to the report of a speech made in that House, if the House concurred in the impression of the hon. member for Staffordshire, it could not consistently with the rules receive the petition. There was nothing in the phraseology of the petition which led necessarily to the conclusion that it referred to what had taken place in that House, and, therefore, the House might receive it; but in doing so, the House would declare in effect that it did not agree with the hon. member for Staffordshire in the construction which he put on the petition.

declared, that the petition had been got up in London, and the hon. Member who had presented it had only insinuated that it alluded to him, for the hon. Member would not charge him with having uttered a falsehood in respect to the sentiments of the working classes, for fear of the personal consequences.

called the member for Preston to order. He begged to remind the House, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had not construed the petition to allude to the hon. member for Preston—it was the latter Gentleman that had applied the contents of the petition to himself.

said, that the hon. member for Staffordshire had come to him, and had told him that he had received the petition, and that it contradicted what he (Mr. Hunt) had asserted respecting the hostility of the working classes to the Reform Bill. He treated the petition as altogether fraudulent.

said, that there never was a more groundless statement; and the hon. member for Preston well knew, that there was not the shadow of a foundation for his assertion that this petition was fraudulent. The petition was written in the country, and he had received from every part of the county assurances of the indignation with which the people had heard of the hon. member for Preston's assertion that they were hostile to the Reform Bill.

merely looked upon the question as one of privilege. If the hon. member for Staffordshire did not think the petition referred to a declaration made by a Member of the House, lie should not assume that it did, and should not object to its being received.

had no doubt that the petition referred to what had fallen from a Member of that House. Long as he had been in Parliament he had never heard such personal attacks as had been made for the last few days on the hon. member for Preston, If any such attacks had been made on him, he would make the Member indulging in those attacks eat his own words.