Essays Moral and Political, by Southey-School and College Classics: Plato-Cruden's Concordance, by Youngman-Fragments of Voyages, &c. Second Series, by Captain Basil Hall-Account of the Province of New Brunswick-Cabinet Cyclopedia: History of Spain and Portugal-The Easter Gift, by L. E. L.Memoirs of Sir James Campbell, of Ard. kinglas Landers' Discovery of the Termination of the Niger Illustrations of Political Economy.-Stanley Buxton, a Novel Histoire de Napoleon-Melange, by Maun de la Voye-A Practical View of Ireland-Theological Library, by P. N. Shuttleworth, D.D.-The Truth of Revelation Demonstrated Woman's Love, a Novel-Library of Entertaining Knowledge- History of the Peninsular War, by Southey-The Rectory of Vale

Page

head-My Old Portfolio, or Tales and Sketches-Attila, a Tragedy, and other Poems-The Death-Summons, or the Rock of Martos, a Tragedy

THE DRAMA

MUSIC

FINE ARTS

PROCEEDINGS OF SOCIETIES

VARIETIES

FOREIGN VARIETIES

RURAL ECONOMY

USEFUL ARTS

NEW PATENTS

NEW PUBLICATIONS

195

LITERARY REPORT

METEOROLOGICAL REPORT

The conclusions drawn from this return are highly satisfactory; for though upon the whole financial year, as compared with the preceding one, there is a manifest falling off of 3,059,4731. yet upon the quarter just ended there is an increase of 223,3601. or nearly a quarter of a million. The returns show an increase under every head of national income except the Customs, and for the falling off there the quarantine restrictions will sufficiently account. It is unnecessary to point attention to the prosperous state of the " Excise," as the produce of the taxes upon consumable articles which go under that head has been always regarded as the touchstone of the state of comfort of the mass of the people.

The total amount of Exchequer Bills necessary to be issued, to make good the deficiencies of the Consolidated Fund for the present quarter, is 3,646,1521.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

March 20. In reply to a question from Viscount Strangford, Lord Auckland stated that an arrangement was in progress and nearly completed by which the harbour and tonnage dues of England and France would be equalized.

March 22. The Earl of Wicklow introduced the subject of Education in Ireland, and moved that inasmuch as in the new plan of education in Ireland, sanctioned by his Majesty's Government, the Bible is excluded from schools, this House cannot view the plan with approbation." In the changes proposed, his Lordship maintained that the Ministers had bowed to a faction; and that, under the plea of reform, they had laid the axe to the root of the best institutions of the country.-The arrangements of Government were defended by Earl Grey. The House divided on the motion, and the numbers were, contents, 87; non-contents, 125.

March 23. The Plurality of Benefices Bill was discussed at much length, on the motion that it be considered in Committee. The motion was opposed by Lords King, Tenterden, and Wynford, but agreed to, after a division. Contents, 31; non-contents, 7.

March 26. Earl Grey moved that the Reform Bill be read a first time, which was done. The noble Earl next moved that the Bill be read a second time on Thursday the 5th of April.-The Earl of Harrowby declared his intention of voting for the second reading of the Bill, inasmuch as he considered it better to make some concession to public opinion, and to the declared sense of a large majority of the other House, than to risk the consequences that might result from continued opposition. Still he thought that it ought to undergo considerable alteration before it passed into a law.-Lord Wharn

cliffe expressed a similar opinion, as did also the Bishop of London. The Earl of Carnarvon and the Duke of Wellington stated their intention to oppose the second reading.-The Bill was then ordered to be printed, and the second reading fixed for Thursday, the 5th of April.*

March 27. The Pluralities of Benefices Bill went through the Committee.

April 2. The Pluralities Bill was read a third time, and passed.

April 6. The Marquis of Westmeath's motion for a copy of the Magistrates' address to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, occasioned an extended discussion. It was agreed to.

April 9. Previous to the order of the day having been moved for the second reading of the Reform Bill, the Duke of Buckingham rose to present a petition against it, and, in doing so, said-"I rise to give your Lordships notice that it is my intention, in case it shall please your Lordships, as I sincerely hope and trust, and believe, it will, to negative the second reading of the Bill for Reforming the Representation of the People in the Commons House of Parliament-it is my intention, I say, to bring in a bill immediately after the Easter recess, to give a right of sending two members each to Parliament to large towns therein to be specified, which, from their commercial and trading situation, may appear to be entitled to be represented in Parliament, and which are not now represented, and also to consolidate certain of the boroughs, now sending Members to Parliament, so as to make room, without altering the numbers of the present House of Commons, for the members proposed to be added as representatives of large towns as aforesaid; and also to extend the right of voting in all boroughs to be represented in such a manner as, without depriving any person of a franchise who now possesses one, may prevent any individual from unduly influencing the election of Members of Parliament within the said borough."— Earl Grey then rose to move the second reading of the Reform Bill, and addressed the House at considerable length, pointing out the difference between the present Bill and the one rejected by their Lordships; urging the House to allow this Bill to go into Committee; maintaining that the people-the opulent, the intelligent, and the trading classes-required the reform; and congratulating their Lordships on the necessity for reform, by disfranchisement and enfranchisement having been conceded by so distinguished an individual as the Duke of

On the 30th of March, at the suggestion of Lord Wharncliffe, Earl Grey consented to postpone the second reading till Monday, the 9th April, the general quarter sessions throughout the country being held on the day first appointed.

Buckingham. [His Grace denied the accuracy of this description of his notice.] Earl Grey submitted that he was correct, as he understood the plan of the Noble Duke to be to consolidate and unite certain boroughs now having a separate existence, and to give them, when united, a portion of that representation previously enjoyed by them; and to confer members on places not now represented. If that were the character of the plan, were there not disfranchisement and enfranchisement? His Lordship, therefore, assumed that the principle of the Bill and the necessity of reform were conceded. Such being the case, he implored their Lordships to permit this Bill to go into a Committee. He strongly denied that the Bill was "revolutionary" in its nature. It appealed to the three estates; and he knew not how any reform could be effected without disfranchising decayed boroughs, and conferring the franchise on large and populous places-a mode of proceeding that, so far from being revolutionary, was in accordance with the ancient practice of the Constitution. This reform was required by the powerful, the opulent, and the well-informed classes of society; and was it very likely that they would come upon their knees, as it were, and pray for a measure that would destroy their own rights and privileges?-Lord Ellenborough opposed the Bill in toto, and moved as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.-Lord Melbourne defended the Bill. - The Bishop of Durham strongly opposed the Bill. Lord Stourton supported the measure. The Marquis of Salisbury objected to the Bill, but would support the measure of the Duke of Buckingham.— Earls Bathurst and Wicklow also opposed the Bill.-The Earl of Haddington had always opposed Reform, but he felt compelled by the feeling of the country in favour of the Bill to allow it to go into a Committee, in the hope of its being materially altered. If their Lordships rejected this Bill, a worse measure would be forced on them.-Lord Gage said, that to reject the present Bill would be an act bordering on insanity. To rush into the midst of an exasperated people would be an act of madness. They might indeed triumph over the Bill, but it would be a dear triumph for them.-The Marquis of Londonderry spoke in opposition to the Bill, after which the debate was adjourned.

April 10. The debate on the Reform Bill was resumed.-The Earl of Shrewsbury maintained that the want of reform had occasioned the greatest evils in this country, and strongly urged the adoption of the Bill. -The Earl of Limerick said that, with respect to Ireland, he feared the bill would effect at once in that country the fall of the Protestant ascendancy.-The Earl of Mans

field observed that if the present Bill were better than its predecessor, their Lordships, by their wise interposition, had been the cause of the amelioration. Let them reject this Bill, and another less objectionable would be proposed.-Lord Colville expressed his intention of saying non-content to the second reading.-The Earl of Harrowby said that when he came to the determination of voting for the second reading of the Bill, he knew the obloquy to which he should expose himself. He should support the present motion, though he disapproved of the Bill, because, though he felt that it would be a matter of great difficulty, he did not think it impossible to amend it in the committee. Immediately after the division upon a former occasion, he had thus expressed himself:-"We have done well now-this will do for once; but it will not do again." He had even prepared resolutions for taking the subject of Reform into consideration; but found he was unlikely to meet with support from either side of the House. His sense of the duty of the House was that it should give time for consideration. That time the House had given: but it had not produced the effect he hoped in changing the public mind. It had, however, produced some change in the bill itself, which removed some of his objections, though he had never said that the Bill was fit to pass in its present state.-The Duke of Wellington, after alluding to the state of the country, the influence of the late elections, the condition of France, and the consequences that followed the Revolution of 1830, said, his objection to the Bill was, and always had been, that it overturned and revolutionized the system of representation. The present system had raised the country to the eminence it now enjoyed, yet that system it was proposed to destroy. The effect of this Bill, as far as England was concerned, would be to require an increase of the army, and of the expenditure of the country; the like had been the result of the revolutionary movements in France, so that if we had difficulties now, what would they be in the event of the passing of this Bill? Under all the circumstances, and after the maturest reflection, he therefore thought that the only safe course to be pursued, for their lordships and for this country, was to reject this Bill.— Lord Grantham opposed the second reading, and complained of the intimidatory system which had been carried on.-Lord Wharncliffe entered into a detailed statement of the reasons which had induced him to deviate from the course he had pursued on the motion for the second reading of the former Reform Bill, and expressed his determination to support the second reading of the Bill. That Parliamentary Reform must take place he deemed inevitable; and

if they agreed to the second reading, their Lordships could correct such parts of the Bill as they deemed to be objectionable. With respect to the effect of the measure on the country, he could state that there was an anxious desire on the part of all classes of commercial men and traders of every description to see it settled. Were he persuaded that his vote in favour of the measure would finally settle the question of Reform, he would willingly give it; but as he was persuaded the public would not rest satisfied without the measure, he should vote for inquiry into its merits.-The debate was then adjourned.

April 11. The adjourned debate on the Reform Bill was commenced by the Earl of Winchelsea, who explained the limits of that Reform to which he had formerly declared himself favourable; he however declared his determination never to give his assent to a measure founded upon the principles of this Bill.-The Duke of Buckingham expressed his earnest hope that the Bill would be defeated. A spirit of revolution alone had brought it into their Lordships' House, where he hoped it would find repose. He hoped it would be laid in the Red Sea, and be no more heard of to fright the isle from its propriety."-Lord Radnor contended that there had been a universal feeling in favour of Reform long before the present Ministers entered office, and expressed his opinion that the salvation of the country depended on the passing of the measure: he should give it his most cordial support, and he trusted their Lordships would sanction its going into Committee. The Bishop of Lincoln declared his intention of supporting the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but at the same time intimated his intention of altering it in very material points in Committee. -The Earl of Falmouth opposed the motion, and complained of the inconsistency of those Peers who had resisted the former measure, and now supported the second reading of the present Bill.-The Marquis of Bristol denounced the Bill as revolutionary in all its provisions, and declared his firm opposition to it, although he had all his life been a friend to toleration, and had been a zealous supporter of the liberal administration of Mr. Fox in 1806. He declared that whilst he would not withhold any reasonable concession to the wishes of the people, he would not yield to that which he deemed to be prejudicial to their interests.-The Bishop of London maintained that it was impossible to stem the tide of popular feeling, and he would support the measure-not because it was one of Ministers-but because he thought it ought to be carried. He considered that the day for neutrality on this question was gone by, and that the most prudent course to be adopted,

was to make the Bill as useful to the country as possible, and recommending it to the people by showing that they (the House of Peers) were disposed to legislate for their advantage. This he considered the most prudent course. - The Bishop of Exeter considered the overthrow of the Protestant Church in Ireland to be a necessary consequence of the Bill, and endeavoured to show that, therefore, the King could not be a party to it without a violation of his coronation oath. He concluded by a solemn adjuration to their Lordships to do their duty, and leave the issue to that Being who had always in circumstances of the greatest danger guarded the British Empire.-The Bishop of Llandaff apologized for his former vote against the Bill, on the ground that the agitation which then prevailed was unfavourable to calm discussion, and for his present vote in favour of the Bill, on the ground of the unanimity of all mankind in support of Reform.-The Marquis of Lansdowne strongly contended for the necessity of a concession to the people to the full extent to which they had declared their sentiments upon the question of Reform. He could not agree with the Noble Lords who believed that the new constituency would be actuated by motives destructive of internal tranquillity. Noble Lords objected to the argument of expediency. But every change adopted since 1661 had for its ground expediency. The Bill was not democratic; the principles of it were the principles which must compose any measure of Reform. The rejection of the Bill would be understood by the country as the rejection of Reform altogether. He trusted they would show the country they were determined to remove the abuses of the present system. Their Lordships then adjourned.

April 13. The adjourned debate on the Reform Bill was resumed by Lord Wynford, who strongly opposed the Bill, declaring that it was based on injustice, and an attempt to remedy that which was already perfect.- Lord Durham said it must be conceded that a great change had taken place in the state of one class of society; they had progressively increased

the other class had stood still. The middling class had increased in wealth and intelligence, and they felt that they were fitted for higher duties. It was a praiseworthy ambition, and the middling class had a right to indulge in it. They felt they were entitled to a greater consideration in the state, and that they manifested this feeling no man in his senses would deny. He could not better conclude than in the words of an illustrious statesman, whose principles he revered, and whose example he endeavoured to follow: "We risk our allfuture fame-all these we stake on the con

stitutional character-the enlarged policy the conciliating wisdom of the measure we propose."-The Earl of Carnarvon said that it could not be doubted that the public opinion was in favour of the measure, but that opinion was the result of a delusion to which their Lordships ought not to lend themselves. It was like the delusion that distress originated from misgovernment.-Lord Goderich defended the Ministerial measure at considerable length, and especially dwelt on the advantages to be derived from the extension of the franchise.-The Earl of Eldon said, that during the whole of his political life nothing had given him such astonishment and pain as to see so many Noble Lords prepared to overturn a constitution which had been the admiration of the greatest men this country had ever produced. He felt it a sacred duty, with reference to the lowest as well as the highest of the community (well knowing what blessings they had both enjoyed under this constitution), to take care that, under the name of Reform, revolution was not introduced. The desire for revolution in this country had followed the consummation of the first revolution in France. In 1795, it was scarcely possible to walk the streets without seeing the walls chalked with the words "No King!" and as sure as he (Eldon) was now addressing that House, so would they see the same feeling prevail, if they passed a Bill which condemned all those institutions of the country under which it had reached a station far above every other on the earth. He called upon them to withhold their consent from the second reading. -Lord Tenterden expressed his conviction that the Bill could not pass. His principal objection to it was, that it set the example of a system of legislation with an utter disregard to all existing rights. Another was, that it carried the enfranchisement far beyond what the exigencies of the case required. The effect of it would be really, though not nominally, to make one class of people the sole depositaries of political power. The Bishop of Rochester said the Bill had been supported on principles of expediency, but it was a maxim of religion that men ought ne. to do evil that good might come of it. It was said that vox populi was vox Dei. He denied it. He had heard of the mad ness, but never of the prudence of the people. He respected the people in their proper station. Popular clamour was for the measure; public opinion, he contended, was against it.-The Bishop of Gloucester believed the Bill would not satisfy the people. The intelligence and wealth of the country were against it-the rabble, indeed, were for it. It was supported by the Radicals, but not by the mass of the community. Lord Brougham defended the Bill at great

length, and went into an analysis of the different majorities in the House of Commons, showing that they had always increased in number and value. When the franchise of East Retford was refused to a large town, the people had despaired of obtaining redress, even by progression; and ten thousand times more effective than any acts of the present Ministry, or the revolution of Paris, was the declaration that there was no necessity for Reform-that all was perfect! He intreated the House not to lose this opportunity of improving their place in the esteem and respect of their countrymen. There were other plans of Reform now suggested; he looked upon them with all but suspicion. England and Scotland were waiting in anxious suspense-he hoped the decision would be in conformity with their best wishes, and was confident it would be received with joy and gratitude. — Lord Lyndhurst said that the Government had excited the present cry for Reform; the whole country became excited when the King was brought down to the House to promote its passing; and the excitement was increased by the public Press. If the main principle of the Bill were to be retained, he cared not for the details. If this Bill passed, it would make the House of Commons what was called independent; if it were, there would be an end of the two other branches of the legislature. To make a complete representative government, was to form that which never yet had existed in this country. He called upon the House to reject the Bill, by refusing to sanction the second reading.-Earl Grey, in reply, expressed a hope, and it was a confident one, that the Bill would go into Committee, to be there improved, if possible-but that it would be ultimately passed in such a shape as would give satisfaction to the country.→→ Their Lordships then divided. The numbers were—

Contents

Present, 128 Proxies, 56 -184 Non-contents-Present, 126 Proxics, 49 -175

Majority in favour of the second reading

NINE.*

April 17. The state of the West Indies occupied their Lordships' attention. The Earl of Harewood presented the petition agreed to at the meeting in the city, and intimated his intention to move for a Commit

Their Lordships did not adjourn until a quarter past seven o'clock on Saturday morning.

The Duke of Wellington has put on record a Protest against the Reform Bill,-which has since been signed by 77 other Peers. It embodies all the objections of the Duke against the measure.