Elebatet ant! Protrenittnit in Parliament.

STATE OE PUBLIC BUSINESS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM moved for a Select Committee to inquire into and consider the state of Public Business in that House. The Peers, said Lord Brougham, were now in the fifth month of the session of Parliament, and had done little or nothing. They had passed one bill-the Wills Bill-which, after the alterations, was precisely what it was when rejected two years ago. There was another measure-the Municipal Act Amendment Bill, which had undergone the scrutiny of a Select Committee. With these exceptions, and the passing of the Canada Resolutions, which he lamented and deplored, nothing bad been done by the Peers since the session opened. He feared that, at its close, their Lordships would take a course which be could not regard without fear and trembling.- that they would reject or postpone many measures which would be pressed upon their attention, as they did last year ; yet, in candour, he could not but allow that the fault would not be their Lordships' so much us that of others, whom he would not particularize. He could understand the doctrine of those who were in favour of one legislative assembly-they acted consistently; but the men who main- tained that there was an advantage in two branches of the legislative body, and yet who crowded into three or four weeks the measures of a whole session-they acted absurdly. But he ascribed not blame to individuals, or to his noble friend at the head of the Government. He certainly regretted that certain bills had not been originated in their Lordships' House, but he blamed nobody. Without going into that part of the subject, he might be permitted to state some of the reasons for the present unsatisfactory state of public business. The House of Commons privilege of originating "money bills" had been in some degree invaded, by certain resolutions carried on the motion of Mr. Wynn ; and he thought that, without prejudice to the substantial privileges of the Commons, the relaxation might be curried further without interfering with the right of levying taxes upon the people, for the protection of which right the rule was laid down. He would also advert, and no more, to the privilege exercised by parties of introducing bills into whichever Bouse they preferred,-which occasioned delay and that led him to

remark upon the system of Private Bill business Only let it for a moment be considered how the Members of Parliament were harassed

bj the necessity of attending to the Private Co 'ttees of the House. Even if they had no domestic concerns to attend to, their whole time would be occupied. It was not to be wondered at if the Members of the House of Commons, fagged out in the morning, were counted out at an early hour in the evening ; although severity or eighty notices crowded the paper. The Peers would be in the same state, and, for the same reason, incapable of making any serious impression on the Anilines§ brought before them. The private business was, no doubt, of the greatest importance to those who brought it before Parliament ; lint it was overwhelming. During the last year, no fewer than 191 ;Private Acts were passed-. Amongst the Standing Orders of that House, was one which made it impe- rative to give a return of the attendance and votes of each Member upon Corn.. mittees. Now he found in this instance, and it war' the first to which he bad happened to direct his attention, that the number who attended upon the first day was 48, then 44, then 40, then 42, then 40, 38, 39, and 44, during the first six (lays of the Committee. Ile was now supposing that each Member named or attended had attended the Committee the whole day ; but it was barely pos- sible that only five or six really attended out of the 40 whose names appeared. On the 7th day, the Committee did not rest, for the number suddenly rose from 40 to 71, by the influx of about 30 other Members. But the riddle was• soon solved, for on that day a division took place, and out of the 71 about 65 came to a division. So, 42 having attended the hearing, 65 were found coming to a decision ; and out of that number he found at least six who had not at. tended on any of the five former days. Some of them had not even attended on the sixth day, and thus had come down to the Committee for the first time to vote. There was another case still more remarkable. A Committee sat fourteen days ; on the eleventh and three subsequent days there were six divi- sions, and three of those divisions were decided by the casting vote' and the other three by a majority of one. The first ten days there was no division: on the first day 17 Members attended, then 13, then 17, then 18, then 10, then 7: the number then begun to rise, first to 16, then 17, then 24, then 20, then 26; and on the next day a division took place-the number present was 29, anti 7 were attendances for the first time. Those gentlemen who attended for " the first time, had heard none of the very able and learned arguments of coun- sel, nor the evidence ; and yet in the Report they make calculations of the most minute nature, down to the fractional parts of a railway passenger. (Laughter.) Another Committee sat for 55 days last session, and 35 this 1141. sion : the attendance of Members was at first 20, 24, 14, 10, then jumping up to 26, and, on the twentv.eiglith day, to 53. Ou that day they came to a di- vi,ion, and 46 divided ; 'but then, as if exhausted with the effort, they tumbled down from 53 to 27. The number again rose to 43, on a day when there were three divisions, on which Members voted who had never attended befine. This was done openly, notoriously, and avowedly. It was a part of the system the system had been long established, the practice was inveterate; and it was the system itself and the practice of which be complained.He made no charge againstthe Committee or against the individuals of which it was composed. The same thing had been done in the House of Lords, without, perhaps, the same excuse.

Now the whole country, without even excepting the lawyers who might he supposed to benefit by it, cried out against this system, and

called for a change. But how was a change to be effected? Various plans of reform bad been suggested. It had been said that the Parlia- ment should meet in November, instead of February, and in the day instead of the night ; that attendance might be made compulsory on Private Bill, as on Election Committees ; and that the Private Bill business should be confined to six weeks of the session. He was con- vinced that, though this scheme might be looked upon as visionary, it would lay the axe to the root of the present evil. It had also been suggested that Parliament might send a commission into the country to inquire into and report upon alleged facts; and that no member of a Committee should vote who had not heard the whole of the evidence. There was much complaint of the want of uniformity in the decisions of Committees. This was a great evil ; and in connexion with it, he would advert to the measure, which fell through two years ago, for ap- pointing a tribunal of seven Members of the Commons and five of the Lords with a judge for deciding as to the facts of cases brought for adjudication before Parliament. This measure, which was sanctioned by the Lords would have prevented the necessity of going before both Houses of iarliament. He had cited this great departure from the ordinary rides of Parliament, for the purpose of indueing the Peers to agree to some such plan with appropriate modifications, for the management of Private Bill business. It bad been suggested that the jurisdiction of matters brought before Private Committees should be withdrawn, and sent elsee here ; but Lord Brougham was very unwil- ling to relinquish the idea that a sufficient remedy for the evils com- plained of might be four.d without resorting to such a proceeding. Upon the whole, he was convinced that good would arise from con. sidering the subject in a Committee. The number of folio pages of am Private Acts passed during the last two sessions of Parliament was upwards of 9,000. During the last six years and a half, 23,700 odd pages of that kind of law had been added to the Statute-book. During those years the average number of Local Acts passed was 161. In the year 1826, the average was 215; in 1825,262; and in 1826. when the delusion on the subject of Joint Steck Companies so much prevailed, 205. In the session of 1812 and 1813, the number was 295; in 1813-14, 219. About the time of the French Revolution, in 1791-2, 150 Private Bill, were passed ; and in 1792-3, 210. He had also a list of fourteen towns, each of which during the last twelve years had had three Local Acts. During the same period, six other towns had each had 5 Local Acts; Westminster and Bristol, 8 each ; Binning. ham and Dublin, 10; Southwark, 12; Edinburgh and Glasgow, 21 each. Liverpool stood preeminent in this respect, having had no less than 23 Private Acts during the same period-making 278 in all ; and calculating the expense of each Act at 1,000/., at at an expense of at least 300,000/. Even parishes had obtained their Local Acts. He would go no further than the parish of Maryle. bone, the local legislation of which, since the year 1795, occupied a volume of nearly five hundred pages ; being much greater, he would not say than the Code Napoleon itself, but much greater than the Code Clyde, the most import.. ant part of the Code Napoleon. Each of those Acts, he begged their Lordships to recollect, had the effect of suspending the law of the land, and interrupting private rights-altering the law under which men bad made their contracts and settled their affairs, and by which they supposed themselves safe-giving rights which the law repudiated, powers which the law did not authorize, and sanctioning wrongs which the law deprecated : that was in sho:t, but in truth, the effect of private legislation. It was most inconceivable that measures such as those he had stated should have passed without more mature deliberation, and have been decided upon by those who had never heard the facts connected with them.

He would repeat, that he blamed no person whatever, but only the

system. Things had got into this course from inveterate practicer-, usage so long established, that he who would deviate from it was deemed perfidious, and would obtain little credit for his conduct in the House of Commons. He admitted that a Member of the House of Commons was hampered by his obligation to attend to the demands of his own constituents,-which was an extenuation of the conduct of those who devoted themselves to the advancement of particular inte.. rests ; though the better doctrine was, that each Member represented, not his own constituents, but the country at large. As an illustration, however, of the mode in which private business was managed, he would refer to the printed statement of the mode in which business was con- ducted in Committees of the other House. He entertained very sanguine expectations that :sonic plan would be devised which might form an entire and complete cure of the evils which he had sugeested ; and at all events, that they would be euabled to ete their way to something which might eventually lead to their removal. He apologised .to their Lordships for having detained them at such length : but he had been in- duced to bring the matter forward by a consideratioo of the general state of the business, and especially his attention had been called by circumstances in which he had himself been placed. On the first night of the session, he had placed on their Lordships' table four bills, three of which he certainly bad hoped that his Majesty's Government would have taken up ; they had, however, been suffered to drop. He did not blame the Government on that act ount, but he attributed it to the state of the business. Independently of all such motives, and independently of the general view which he took of the proceedings of that House, it bad appeared to him indispensably necessary that at this time some- thing should be done to remedy the evils that existed.

Lord MELBOURNE thought that Lord Bi e.ugbam bad stated enough to justify the House in acceding to his motion. He agreed that there was ground for inquiry ; but did not think that the evil was so great as to demand any legislative proceeding to remedy it ; and he would beg to admonish their Lordships to be cautious how they sanctioned what would be called organic changes in the existing constitution— To change and to tamper with the privileges of Parliament, wale of little less importance than to interfere with the constitution of Parliament itself: it was of little less importance than that measure which had introduted extensive alterations in the constitution of the House of Commons, or any other measure for revising and altering other bodies of the state. He had heard litany persons of very great ability and experience commend the proceedings of Parliament; but he particularly alluded to Sir Samuel Romilly, who was not certainly very much disposed to applaud the constitution and laws of England, hut who always gave his most unqualified approbation to the forms of proceeding in this and the other House of Parliament. He bad heard him say that, having been a Witness of the violence and excesses of the French Revolution, he was con- vinced that had their Upper Chamber been so well devised to check violence, so well devised for producing moderation and reflection, as was the House of Peers in England, that circumstance would have gone far to prevent the evils that arose at that period. He could not, therefore, approach the consideration of these matters without a considerable degree of apprehension, and without reflecting on the importance which was attached to them.

With respect to the want of time for the consideration of bills sent up to the House of Peers, he had never found that their Lordships made that an excuse for rejecting bills which they wished to pass and really approved of; though they certainly did sometimes use it as an apology for that "suspensive veto" to which some persons were de. sirous of restraining their functions—

The real fact was, that much time and leisure did not lead to industry, atten- tion, and thought, but was, on the contrary, calculated to produce neglect, inat- tention, and delay. He found it so with regard to himself, and saw it in the conduct of others. That witich brought them really to consider measures, was the existence of a necessity which called upon them to make some speedy pro- vision ; and, in fact, the more time they had the more they required. What was the reason that they had dawdled so long a time about the two bills which had been sent up to them ? Why, because they had nothing else to do. The fact was, the less they had to do the less they did. It sounded very well to talk about time for consideration and reflection ; but their Lordships knew very well that it was a necessity for expedition that urged them to the real and serious consideration of a measure. His noble friend had made some observations on the mode of transacting private business ; and it was probably liable to many of his objections ; but he doubted much whether to relieve the House from the

private business would at all expedite the public business of Parliament. There WW1 a sort of division of labour in that .respect, for in neither House did the

same Members generally attend both to public and private business, although,

if they did, the private business was calculated to fit them for the discharge of the public business with which Parliament might be engaged. He was very

anxious to have the subject seriously considered, but he must again express his doubt whether that inquiry would lead to the result expected. In many of the suggestions of Lord Brougham he could not concur : with regard to limiting the attention of the House to Private Bills dining the early part of the session,

that Was a question touching the constitutional privileges of Parliament, which he thought inexpedient. The early business of:Parliament, was frequently of very

great importance ; there was already some limitation respecting the time of pre- senting petitions upon l'rivate Bills ; and if they drew the line tighter, he believed they would speedily be obliged to relax it. He was unable then to go into all the details which Lord Broughana had adverted to: there was sufficient to justify the inquiry, but he wished to guard himself from admitting that the evil was so pressing as to render any remedy necessary, or fermi being supposed to anticipate that much good could result from the motion.

After n few unimportant remarks from the Duke of WELLINGTON and the Duke of RICHMOND, the motion was agreed to.

In the Commons, on Thursday, on the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the following Members were appointed a Select Committee " to consider, the best means of conducting the Public Business with improved regularity and despatch, and also to consider whether any and what improvement can be adopted in the mode of conducting the Private Business of this House "-

Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir James Graham, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Stanley, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Loch, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Aglionby, Lord Granville Somerset, Sir John Wruttesley, and Mr. Charles Buller.

THE IRISH POOR-LAW, The House went into Committee on this bill on Monday, and agreed to clauses from the 43d to the 47th inclusive. The only discussion of any interest arose on the 43d clause, which authorizes the Guardians to

appoint paid chaplains, of all religious persuasions. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Lord STANLEY, Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR, and others, objected to the appointment of salaried Roman Catholic chaplains. Mr. RAINES said, that the Dissenting clergy would object to the receipt of salaries from the Crown. Mr. O'CONNELL said, in that case they need not take them. Lord STANLEY did not wish to do more for Irish than for English paupers. Lord HOWICK said, that the question was simply whether they should furnish Irish paupers with religious instruc- tion.

The clause was finally carried, by 122 to 39. The discussion of the bill was resumed in Committee, on Tuesday, when clauses 49th to 60th were agreed to, with unimportant amend- ments.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, some conversation:occurred on the subject of Mr. Nicholls's Report, Lord Irrzwiatataat withdrew a motion of which he had given notice, for the production of the facts, communications, and general data ow which Mr. Nicholls had drawn tip his Report ; as be bad ascertained that there were no such documelas in existence, and that the return to the motion would be " nil." Ile expressed some surprise at this want of information ; and warned the Peers, that they ought not to proceed with so important a measure until they had the means of knowing as what grounds the opinions which they were called upon to adopt had been formed.

Lord WiceLow said, they were going to make a frightful experiment on insufficient information. Lord AlrLaouieee replied, that Mr. Nicholls had the Reports of the Commissioners, which were full of facts, to guide him ; and it did not follow that because he had not made a digest of the information be had collected, that he gained none.

PARLIAMENTARY LIBELS.

On Tuesday, Lord ELLENBOROUGH Suggested to Lord Denman, that as the resolutions of the House of Commons with respect to tbe pri- vileged publications of that body had not been communicated to the Peers, the time bad scarcely arrived for making a motion founded upon them ; and perhaps Lord Denman would therefore reconsider his deter- mination on that subject.

The Duke of RICHMOND and Lord LYNDHURST also advised Lod Denman to put off his motion.

Lord PENMAN said, that as the Votes of the House of Commons were regularly laid upon their Lordships' table, he thought that a fair opportunity was offered for discussing the subject to which reference had been made.

" My Lords, I consider myself as an individual standing in a situation of ac- cusation, if Sot of conviction. I find my conduct has been considered rash is doing that which, as one of the sworn Judges of the land, it was my duty to do; and which duty I should have deserted bad I not done as upon that occasion I did—that is, in laying down the law as I believe it in my conscience to be. I see no cause to change my opinion from the discussion that has taken place on that opinion. I am ready, my Lords, to lay down that opinion the very mo-

inent that I am convinced that it is incorrect; but to which I will adhere to the very last moment of my life as long as in my conscience I think it is correct. I certainly thought that it was my duty to take the first opportuuity of dis- claiming the charges of acting with rashness and impropriety. In making these observations, I wish not to become the voluntary censor of so important an assembly as the House of Commons; but I thought that the opportunity was given for entering into the consideration of an important subject, and us which we were invited ; and at least of checking the adoption of resolutions oa the part of others, which I confess, from any thing that has passed, ought to be founded upon better arguments than any that I am yet aware of. Though I felt that I was bound to discuss the subject now, yet it is impossible for me to resist an impression which I think I perceive to be general among your Lordships. I have to thank the noble baron opposite for the courtesy with which he gave his advice, and I am sure any thing that falls from the noble duke will always be entitled to the utmost respect on my part. I think I see an impressioa among your Lordships that this matter ought not to be brought forward unless there is something like a necessity for it. I, however, beg leave to say, that la adopting that advice I do not withdraw the notice of a motion that I gave ; but I reserve to myself at some future period, when other events may make such pro. ceedings neeeseary, the right of bringing this matter again before your Lord- ships. I should wish to name some other day to which dais notice might be postponed. I run told that on Thiarsday it is quite impossible to expect that there ebould be any attendance here. and I should he sorry not to have the matter considered by a considerable number of your Lordalops. On Friday, your Lordships' time will he occupied by an important matter. Monday happen,' to be the last day of term, and it is well known that Judges on that day comae attend anywhere but in Westminster Hall. I shall therefore beg leave that this motion in ty remain on your Lordshipa' books till Tueeday ; reserving to myself the right, if I then think proper, of calling your Lordship** attentions to it."

Motion accordingly postponed to Tuesday next.

The discussion of the same subject occupied the House of Commons, on Thursday. till a late hour.

Sir JOHN eamennat. moved a resolution, that the petitioners, Messrs. Nichols and Messrs. Hansard, lie instructed to appear in the Court of King's Bench, and plead to the netions brought against them. Sir John said that it was by DO means to be understood that he abandoned the resolutions passed by the House. To those resolutions he firmly adhered, believing them to be founded on the law of Parliament and the law of the land ; but it was necessary to inform the Court of King's Bench that the defendants had mated under the authority of the House and in conformity with the privileges thereof, and the only way in which this could -be done would be by putting it plea upon the record. There had been other modes of proceeding. There was a precedent in former times for the Speaker writing a letter to the Courts of Justice, requiring certain actions to be withdrawn, as breaches of the privileges of the House; but it had been decided that such a proceed- ing was contrary to law. The parties, with their solicitors and counsel, might be committed ; but this would he considered a very strong mea- sure, and would scarcely be sanctioned by poblie opinion, after the Lord Chief Justice had decided that there was good ground for the actions ; neither would the actions be stopped thereby. It was now necessary to plead to the actions, or judgment would go by default ; t• be followed by a writ of inquiry to a,cess damages, and a writ of execa- don to leVy them. The committal of the piaties would not prevent these consequence's. Another precedent existed, for ordering the officer of the Court of King's Bench to attend with the declaration and record, which, by order of the House, might be taken from him and destroyed : but this would bring the House into direct collision with the Judges, who might order another dcolaration ti, be entered and the record restored ; and then the action would be in state quo. Judg- ment might be allowed to go by default, and the Speaker might write

to the Sheriff of Middlesex not to execute it. But suppose the Sheriff disobeyed the order, what would the House do? They could only commit him ; but if he ebeyed the order of the House, the parties would bring an action against him for disobeying the decree of the Court. On the whole, Sir J.Thn was convinced that the most conve- nient course would be to direct the petitioners to appear and plead in

Court. For that course there was a precedent in the case of Burdett versus Abbott. An action baying been brought by Sir Francis Bur- dett against Mr. Speaker Abbott, for taking him into custody, the House debated the question at great length; and a motion that the

Speaker be instructed to appear and plead to the action, was supported by Mr. Giddy, Lord Folkestone, Sir Vicary Gibbs the Attorney- General, Mr. Ponsenby, Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. Wyndham; it was opposed only by Mr. Wynn and Lord Milton, the present Earl Fitzwilliam, and carried. Sir John Campbell quoted passages from the speeches of the supporters of the motion ; and then proceeded to remark on the difficulties which the doctrine of Lord Denman, if adopted, would produce in the conduct of Parliamentary business. Be maintained that it was impossible to make a distinction between the publication of the proceediogs of the House for the use of its 11:embers solely, and for sale to tue public_

Ifthe rule laid down that the papers were only for the use of Members, then, if a Member merely showed icy teport to n friend reflecting on the cha- racter of any individual, that Member would immediately be liable to an ac- tion or intik:uncut. An action would even lie if the papers published for the use of Members were deposited in a publ:c library, for the general use of readers, as well as matters for history. The nehle Judge would find that in that case, and if the papers were only for the use of Members, the librarian who received them would be liable to all action at law. He would find also, that though a Member might use those papers, yet, when be accepted the Chiltern Hundreds and er us.d1 to be a :'.:..nrber, be would be liable to action or indictment. He might also say, tlt if Lord Denman tuck the Votes of that house and showed them to his brother Judges—if these Votes reflected on the character of any ledividual, then Lord Denman and all the Twelve Judges might be indicted. They acre not alembeis of the House ; and for reading these Votes, and com- municating them to one another, they might be indicted, and become liable to fine and imprisonment. And why was it that the House.sanctioned the prac- tice of publishing their Votes? Bemuse it was useful. There was a necessity for it, and necessity always formed a ground for a general law. It was equally necessm y that the Votes should be communicated to the constituency and the representative body. R nes also necessary that the public should be made ac- quainttal with them. To have the Gallery open would be of little use, for the pub- lic would Lave a very imperfect means of knowing what was transacted in that House if they were not allowed to procure documents towhich debates referred. No action could lie for publishing what took place in a court of law, and surely the House of Commons was entitled to a similar privilege, lint more than Aid—the practice bad now become the law of the land. The House of Com- mons for two hundred years had ordered petitions and papers to he published and sold ; and the practice had not been questioned except in one instance, that of Speaker Williams. But let it be remembered, that that proceeding was con- sideied highly irregular—that it was described in the Bill of Rights as a great public grievance, and was one of the strongest circumstances that brought about the Revolution. When the guestion, therefore, came to be argued, be had not a doubt that an unanimous judgment would be pronounced by the Court of Kiog's Bench.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, be was surprised by the speech of the At- torney-General, who, after arguing that the House was the sole judge of its privileges, moved a resolution for submitting those privileges to the decision of a court of law. Ile contended that it would be fix better to rescind their resolutions, than have them set at nought in a court of justice. The Attorney. General talked of the unanimous de- cision of the Judges; but could be cite the opinion of one Judge in his own favour ? There was nothing in the attempted analogy between the House of Commons and a court of justice. By a fiction of law, everybody was supposed to be present in court ; but was that the case in the House of Commons ? Was the public presumed to be there ?

To talk of the Judges being liable to an indictment for communicating Parliamentary papers to each other, was quite a caricature. Their re- solutions threatened the Judges of Englund; but it appeared to him that, sensible of having got the House into a difficulty, the Attorney- General wished to withdraw by little and little. The country was much indebted to Lord Denman; and Sir Robert warned the House how they entered into a contest with the Chief Justice. They had been told that it was unsafe for them to battle with the press, and he told them that they had better avoid a struggle with the law.

Mr. POELTER asked, in what respect the publications in question were libellous? What was the substantial grievance complained of ? It was not discernible ; while on the other side, was the great consti- tutional right to inform the People of England what they were doing, and why they did it.

Sir Roemer PErt, regretted the course taken by the Attorney- General. Ile had hoped that some other means of confirming the pri- vileges of the House would have been adopted, rather than a second application to the Court of King's Bench. He maintained the right of the House to institute inquiries and print the information ob- tained for the benefit of the public_ Hesaid for the information of the public ; because if the House took any great and important step—if, for instance, it passed a bill to exclude any in- dividual from the Throne—if it adopted any measure rendered necessary by the temporal y derangement of the Monarch—if it felt it to be expedient to suspend the liberties of the subject—it might be of the utmost importance, before the People were called upon to express their approbation of any such extraordi- nary and unconstitutional proceeding, that they should be put in possession of the information on which it was founded. How could Parliament venture to proceed to deprive the heir to the Throne of his right, unless they had the means of showing to the People of England that the conduct of that heir was such as to endanger the liberty of the subject? And how could that be done unless by laying the grounds of the proceeding in a printed shape before the People If the doctrine were admitted that the House bad no right to insti- tute such inquiries, or, having made them, that they hail no right to protect their servants from being questioned for printing them in a court of law, it was quite clear that the House could not institute an inquiry into the alleged mis- conduct of any public functionary. A distinction might be made in the House of Commons between a public functionary and a private individual, but a court of law knew no such distinction. A public functionary, therefore, against whom the House of Commons had decided, would have a right to appeal to a court of law, and to bring an action for libel. A court of law would only inquire if the publication was a libel, and would not stay to ask whether the individual was a public functionary or a private individual. if, therefore, Warren Hastings, or any other public functionary, against whom the House of Commons had proceeded, had gone to a court of law, and had said that allega- tions of his misconduct had been published by the House of Commons, and that he appealed to the court for protection, whatever might have been the nature of the charge against him, the court would have only had to consider whether or not he had been libelled. Now, if this were once established—if the doctrine of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench were admitted to be correct—it appeared to him that the functions of Parliament were closed.

It was a mere theoretical distinction which made it allowable to print pope's tor distribution among 6:181Vlembers of the House, and criminal to sell them to the public ; it was too futile to require consideration. The grand point was, the preservation of the independent authority of the House in matters of privilege, which would be gone if the inter. ference of another tribunal were permitted. The right of the House was confirmed by common sense, by the repeated decision of courts of law, and by the highest constitutional authority. It was asserted and maintained in the ?dill of Rights. He wanted an answer to that. The ninth declaratory article of the Bill of Rights stated—" Thin t the free- dom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament ;" and this declaration had a direct reference to the case of Mr. Speaker Williams, who in the reign of Charles the Second had been prosecuted for the publication of a document reflecting on a person of high stand- ing : judgment was obtained against him in the following r..igii ; rind to make it the niore plain that his was the particular case which the Com- mons had in view, Sir William Williams was ordered to be one of the managers in the conference which was had with the Lords on the eighth article of the Bill of Rights, on which the ninth was foulided ; the eighth article making it a matter of complaint against James the Second, that he had endeavoured to subvert the laws of this kingdom, "by causing informations to be brought acid prosecuted in the Court of King's Bench, for matters and causes cognizable only in Pailiament." Sir Robert Peel then quoted the decisions of Lord Kenyon, and Justices Grose and Lawrence—that it was impossible to admit the " proceedings " in either House of Parliament to be a libel even in the case of Horne Tooke, who with Hardy and Thelwall bad been stigma- tized as guilty of high treason, in a report of a Parlinineetary Coiri. mittee, even after they had been tried and acquitted on this very charge of high treason. In this very strong case, the privilege of Pailiainent was held by Lord Kenyon and his brother Judges to be a sufficient protection to the printer. Judges De Grey, Gould, mid Blackstone, had in other cites held the same doctrine ; though Chief Justice Holt has said that in one ease the House had gone too far. In conclu. sion, Sir Robert Peel declared, that he did not think the doctrine of Lord Denman could be maintained; but if it were, a difficulty of no small importance would arise—

Supposing the Court of King's Bench should disappoint the expectations of every reasonable man who thought on the subject, and decide that the House of Commons had no right inherent in them to justify such a publicatiou, arid that Mr. Stockdale, or any other person against whom inquiry should be ordered by that branch of the Legislature, had his ordinary remedy by action or information, as in any common case of libel against the publisher : the clear course in that case to take would be to appeal to the House of Louis; and then

that coordinate branch of the Legislature would be made a Court of &oiler ressort in that privilege which was far greater than any personal privilege which the House did or could possess. Although there were difficulties in the way of adopting the alternatives proposed by the Attorney-General, the course he suggested was not by any means free from them either. But whatevel de- cision should be come to, he was of opinion, that unless the House if Com- mons hail the right of judging on the publication of what came bcfure it, its functions as a legislative body were perfectly at an end. ( Cheers. ) Lord Jonar RUSSELL observed, that after the able speech of Sir Robert Peel, it was quite unnecessary for him to speak in defence of

the privileges of the House. Lord John, however, did at some length quote authorities and precedents for the course pursued by the Coin 'icons.

Mr. PEMBERTON argued, that the reference of the question to a court of law was quite inconsistent with the assertion in their resolutions that no court had cognizance of the proceedings or privileges of the House of Commons. He could state positively, that on this queation the great majority of the bar were with Lord Denman.

Mr. WYNN quoted precedents to prove, that publications made tinder the authority of the House had always been held to be pritileged ; while the publisher of a libellous speech might undoubtedly be pro- ceeded against, and the privilege of Parliament would not shield him. He would not oppose Sir John Campbell's motion ; but regretted that the ancient, proper, and constitutional course, of conimitting the offenders to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms had not been taken.

Mr. HUME wished to know whether the resolutions they had passed were to be persevered in ? It was monstrous to think of going back; and he could never wish to see an appeal to the House of lords, which, it appeared, the course taken by the Attorney-General light lead them to.

Lord Howicx denied that there was the least danger of their privi- leges being surrendered either to the courts of law or to the other H ouse of Parliament.

Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE supported the motion ; which appeared to be a virtual abandonment of the privileges so hastily asserted the other night.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE said, that by allowing the defendants to put in their pleas, they would not be submitting their privileges to the Court of King's Bench— It would be :nerds, telling that Court, that the act which had been done, and with reference to wiich the action was brought, was done by order of that House, and was within its privileges, and was protected by it. The Court might say that they had not sufficiently explained their privileges, or that it was not satisfied of the existence of such privileges. Ile was satisfied that the Court of King's Bench ought and would hold their hands in such a case, for

there was no power vested in any body of more undoubted authority than the privileges of that House. Therefore, to enter the plea of the publication being in conformity with the order and the privilege of that House, was quite suffi- cient. He was not so sanguine as the Attorney-General as to the result of the motion ; but still, there could be no doubt that the House were bound to vin- dicate its privileges. The question had been much discussed in Westminster

Hall ; and although the feeling of the majority of the bar against the resolu- tions, and in support of the view taken by Mr. Pemberton, was not so great as

had been stated by his learned friend, still no doubt it was very great. Ile had had a great deal of communication on this subject with many gentlemen of the bar ; but he had not found one who adopted the opinion just referred to, who had looked into the question, or, at any rate, who had looked so far into it as to be able to maintain it. Most of those gentlemen, after ten minutes con- versation with him on the subject, observed that they were surprised that there

was so much in his case. He was satisfied the minds of all these parties would be changed if they would well look into and examine the matter. Ile thought that the opinion said to prevail in Westminster Hall on the subject was not worthy of consideration, as it was not founded on an examination of the subject Should the Court overrule the plea, the House would be placed in a position of great difficulty— If the Attorney-General appeared in the case, and argued the matter on the part of the House, undoubtedly it would be something like a submission. He would recommend the Attorney-General not to argue the question, but to sub- mit it to the Court and ask for judgment. If the Court pronounced judge- ment against the resolution, then this House should take up its proper ground.

After a few words from Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL briefly replied, to the effect that nothing had been said to induce him to alter the course he proposed.

The House then " ordered,"

" That Messrs. John Bowyer Nichols and John Gough Nichols be permitted to appear and plead to the said action. " That Mr. Attorney-General be directed to defend Messrs. John Bowyer Nichols and John Gough Nichols against the said action.

" That Messrs. James Hansual and Luke Craves Hansard be permitted to appear and plead to the said action.

" That Mr. Attorney-General be directed to defend Messrs. James Hansard and Luke Graves Hansard against the said action."

SABBATH OBSERVANCE.

Sir ANonew AGNEW, Oil Wednesday, moved the second reading of the Lord's Day Bill.

Mr. PLEMPTRE seconded the motion ; and having remarked that the quotations made on a former occasion by Mr. Roebuck from St. Paul's writings, did not answer the purpose for which that gentleman intended them, proceeded to read extracts from the prophecies of Jeremiah, warning the Jews against carrying burdens or doing any work on the Sabbath-day, on pain of the destruction of Jerusalem by fire. He contended that they who maintained that the religious observance of the Sabbath was not obligatory upon Christians, might just as well set aside the Ten Commandments. And he should support the bill, on the conviction, that by the observance or non-observance of the Sala- bath, men would stand or fall before the judgment-seat of Christ.

Mr. ROEBUCK complimented Sir Andrew Agnew on his approxima- tion to something like fairness. The original bill applied to the poor only, not to the rich ; now the case was somewhat altered. If the bill passed, no rich man could travel further than the church. door on Sun- day. The Clubs were also to be shut up, though those profane places were frequented by reverend and right reverend gentlemen. Ile had been requested to support the bill by the Bishop of Bath and Wells among others ; but he would ask, why the bill was not intro- duced into the House of Bishops in the first instance ?

"Could not the Bishops legislate on the Sabbath ? Why did not they bring in the bill, and act like irhepherds of the flock ? I will tell you why : they wish

to throw the oil' of rejecting the measure on certain parties in this House. I have also observed, that certain honourable Members veted on the first reading,

and now steal away at the second reading. They wish it to be lerstood that they encomaged the honourable baronet to bring in the bill. They encouraged him to bring in the bill on the preteace of holiness, and they wish it to go forth to the public that they sup,niiitu d him. I have observed aka, that various parties have aboained from voting on these occasions, with a view that it may go forth ro the public th at the made parties who are not favourable to the mea- sure ate those on this side of the I louse. ( Cheers.) I understand the cheer ; the theta. itself confirms the pretension of claim to superior holiness. But what de these honourable Members themselves on Sundays ? Nut one of them pretends to adhere to such a law as that for which they voted, or ;against which tiny would not vote ; and SRA it law I confess I never yet he trd of. I never yet saw any production of the human mind embody so touch absurdity, if we except the conduct of the monk of Afrisa, Simon Stylites, who s it for ten years on the top of a pillar to please (Lail Almighty ; and I only pray that the name of the honourable baronet and of Simon Srylites may be enrolled on the same scroll and pass to posterity together." ( Cla era and lanyhter.)

But why do things by halves ?

0 The Inc of Moses saes, obey the Sabbath, or die. If the Sabbath is to he observed according to the law of Moses, why not attach the capital penalty for disohedience? But I deny that that command applies to the Lord's day ; and nekher the honourable baronet nor any other person can bring any proof to that effect. I am prepared to show that the Sabbath is not the Lord's day ; and that there is no thyme authority for observing the Loral's day in the way which the honourable baronet proposes it should be observed. It all rests on mere tradition. Let the honourable Member commence with St. Matthew, and go through the whole of the New Testament, quoting whatever may have been said by Christ or his Apostles ; anal I defy him to point out one passiese or injunction which orders that day to be kept. Let hint not go to the Decarogue —let hint not quote from Jeremiah—let him nut go to the Ohl but the New Testament—let him show me one command of Christ to keep the first day of the week holy ; and then lain ready to admit that he has grounds for legislating. If he cannot produce any such authority', then he must confine himself to the Jewish law ; anti if he confines himself to that, why does he not emu it out religiously, and to the full extent ? Why does he not propose to enact that I and every person who breaks the Sabbath should suffer death, instead of merely confuting him-elf to the paltry penalty of three pounds sterling? Why does he not mopose to put me to death at once and; for ever ? Why does not the honourable Member bring in a bill to that effect? Let him deal fairly with us, and not partially. I have heard of the Scriptures being mutilated ; I have heard of charges brought against parties for gabling the Divine Word; and the honourable baronet makes himself more than perhaps than any other indi- vidual liable to the charge. The honourable member who seconded the mo- tion quoted the Decalogue and Jeremiah. These, he knows, were addressed to Jews; but I Um not a Jew, nor do I wish to be a Jew in any thing. (Lanyliter.) I don't wish to have forced on me their pecu- liar laws. The Decalogue was given to a particular people, and that part of it was addressed to them for the purpose of making them a peculiar people. Moses put these laws in one book, and said this shall be the Jewish law. But if the honourable baronet denies this—if he denies that these laws were made for a peculiar people—why does he uot go a great deal further ? Why does he not include all those laws which were peculiar to the Jews ? Oue of these commandments says, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,'—not only that you shalt not fall down and worship it, but that thou shalt not make any graven image. I wish to know whether the honourable baronet will include the Second Commandment? Surrounding nations made laws forbidding murder and robbery, and enjoined their observance on the in.. habitants ; but though it is evident several of the laws of Moses were made for a peculiar people, yet the honourable Meinber says he will follow the Decalogue. Does lie know that by the law of Moses adultery was punished with death? If that law were to be observed—and why should it not as well as the other ?— a great number of noble lords would come within its operation, and a great number of other persons too."

The species of religion which Sir Andrew Agnew would inculcate, made the observance of the Sabbath the principal matter with the Di- vinity, and degraded and disgraced real religion-

" It has been owing to such principles that religion has always been made a craft. The persons professing and acting on such principles depart from the great and important end of religion, and establish the craft of priesthood, so prevalent in all ages. On the present occasion, I am convinced the course pursued will do little credit to any party mixed up with it. It was said, if the law is not to he obeyed, repeal the act of Charles the Second : but that is in reality repealed, for no one obeys it. I should like to know who present were at Tattersall's on Sunday, or at the Clubs, or in Hyde Park, or at Crockford's ; for all who support this bill and attend these it are self-convicted. I look upon this as a peddling scheme, and think at a mere waste of time that we should have for an hour awl a half been discussing the question whether we are to shut out from places where they can have the fresh air such citizens of London as choose to go there."

In some respects Sir Aedrew Agnew had acted fairly, in others un- fairly— While he would allow no person to go and take the fresh air, he still com- pelled servants to brush shoes and clethes; to make beds and light tires when the thermometer was low, and prepare a hot dinner : but the poor student, who laboured hard for six days in studies which the honourable baronet despised, was not to be allowed to leave his humble lodgings ; and if he did leave them, there was to he no place open for food or refreshment : whatever might be in the mansions of the rich, " no cakes and ale" for him. The bill enacted that DO person could obtain refreshment, or a dinner, unless at places where he usually dined ; and all that was to be forced on the community, because the honourable baronet was pious. The honourable baronet, however, could go

out to dine, but lie declares the poor man shall have no dinner. The honour- able baronet had been tossed from step to step, and had at last, to a certain extent, included the aristocracy. Let him also include the menial servant, or support

him in a clause with that object. The servants anal the rich, in fact, were exempted. The rich would Lave their dinners dressed, and they could ride out OR horseback ; but was to become of the poor man, who had no horse aud cv place open where he cauld buy a dinner? It was altogether a mean popularity-

catching scheme, got up by men who assumed high pretensions, anal said to others, " Keep at a distance, for I am holier than thou." He hoped the House

would put a brand on the attempt to coerce a large class of the poor commu- nity and embody the worst species of asceticism and smyrstition—to force the consciences of the people, and throw a stunablingblock in the way of religion - Lord SANDON supported the bill ; and charged Mr. Roebuck with a wish to deprive the poor man of his Sunday's exemption from labour. (Load cries " No ! ") What benefit could accrue from denying the poor man his seventh day's rest, he was at a loss to conjecture.

Mr. WARM, Mr. WAKLEY, MiljOr BEAUCELILK, Mr. POTTER, Mr. SPRING RICE, Mr. BM/THEREON, Lind Mr, HENRY BULWER, opposed the bill. Mr. Ber.wea regarded but little the number of petitions said to have been presented in its favour— At all tinie,, numbers of men bad been found anxious to thrust their con- sciences down the consciences of other people. Hundreds mid thousands of persans had assisted at the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and haul been ap- plauded even bv their own priests fur doing so. They were pious men of their time and had follow( dl the dictates of their consciences. 111 fact, no petscen tiou 'had ever taken place which might not be justified on the ground that re was agreeable to the consciences of other men. But legislation cat this kind was not only unequal in practice and bad in principle, it was also of necessity absurd mad a idieultaus ; for, unless the whole of society were altered, nodal'', but legislation of the most half-begotten and most imperfect kind could take place upon it.

Lord ARTHUR LENNOX regretted the ititroduction of the bill, but would vote fur the secoad readiug.

Mr. IlannY was lit favour of the principle of the measure, hut would reject clauses which operated unfairly.

Mr. CUMMING Beres: thought it the duty of a Chtistian Legisla- ture to give the suppot t of humatt laws to the proper obsel %mice if the Sabbath.

Mr. Got-Li:ens: and Colonel Sinnott'. would support the secona reading, with a view to amending the bill in Committee.

The House divided : for the second reading, lit); against it, fib ; majority, 14.

TILE CURRENCY.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord JOHN Reessa.t, has. ing moved the order of the day for the Committee on the Irish Poor Mr. THOMAS Arrwoon moved as au amendment,

" hat, in the opinion of this House, the present system of' the Currency it not efficient to ineet the wants and protect the interests of the community."

Mr. Attwood said that Members had been fiddling like Nero while Rome was burning. In the midst of a general conflagration, they had been dabbling with small game. He thought that the existing state of affairs demanded inquiry ; which would be of more service even to Ire- land than any measure now proposed for the relief of the people of that country. The distress in 182:, WaS not a millionth part whatt it was now ; mid Lord John Russell refused inquiry, because he did not fe& it himself, politically or commercially : but Sir Robert Peel, if he had b.-en present, could tell Lord John how great was his mistake in sup. pesing that the existing difliculties were not greater than those of 1825. Perhaps Lord John would not consider it as calamity if Loudon and Westminster were swallowed up, if he himself only escaped-- Plague, pestilence, and famine were each a great calamity., but were not, when coinbined, such a calamity as that of depraving one. third of the popula- tion of this empire of the means of daily subsistence. Ile would undertake to say, that from the year 1810 up to the present al ay, there was no man living who had applitsl so much tiine as he had applied to the subject of the currency, or who had possessed such opportunities as lie had for investigating all its ra.. mitications. (Loop/tier.) Seeing, thorn, that a uin was marching into the vitals Of English commerce, he took the liberty of calling back the attention of the House; but why should he say calling back the attention of the Rouse, when its attention had uever yet been directed to the subject? He took the labetty of calling the attention of the House to the real interests of the nation, which had been little consulted by Parliament since it haul become a Reformed Parliatnent—( Laud cheering from the Opposition benehrs)—and had not been consulted by it, he did not know how long before it became a Reformed Parliament. (clue-era from the Ministeriol bench('s.)

Ile charged :Ministers with having created a state of fictitiotta pros- perity, and afterwards changed it into a state of real adversity. Men,

wbo were not to blame, bad been swindled out of their property by the ifrauduleet operation of tne haws; and unless the law which compelled She Bank to pay in .;old was repealed, the Bank, by striving to assist the merchants, would only involve itself in their ruin. That ruin was occasioned by the improvident and impolitic conduct of the Government. He would not despair if the present difficulties should end in the ruin a ortin five hundred merchants and the distress of a million of labour- ing families ; but be believed the distress would go on increasing ad libitum and ad infinitum, till both the throne and the altar were involved se one common ruin. He did not like to spread any thing like alarm. (Roars ("laughter.) Honourable Oxford-bred gentlemen might laugh at hint; they might know more about the classics than be did ; but us to commerce and manufactures, when compared with himself, they were like so many butterflies. As for Ministers, since they placed bim on the Committee for inquiring into the state of the Manufacturing interests in 1833, they had taken care to exclude him from all such Committees; and be verily believed that they would as soon see Ifleelzehub on a Committee as himself. A friend of his, adverting to the declared opinion of Mr. Baring before a Committee, that there was not a twentieth part of the wealth of London then that there had been twenty years before, had said, " I assert, that of every twenty inch merchants who stood on the Exchange of London twenty years. ago, nineteen are gone, and only one is solvent and that one is either a gambler or a speculator." It was said that the Bank of England antst pay gold, but every body knew that the Bank could not pay in gold a hundredth part of what it owed. He was not afraid of the truth, and it should be spoken. He defied all alarm. The mettle, ots of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glas- gow, and Birmingham, were tarred, one and all, with the same brush. He would tell Lord John Russell a secret. No doubt, Lord John thought that a buttomm tkercould not tell him a secret. He would tell Yam, as he did hi 1833, that if be made an inquiry from a merchant in the City, he would not get ,111 honest answer, only " a mighty big lie," as to the real state of aeries. NVould J. Maberly mind W. Manning have told the real state of affairs six months before their failure ? He could name members of other immense firms who were now dying poor, of broken hearts. Those men were murdered by an unseen hand. In his opinion, all the difficulties of England and America had arisen born intrusting power to ignorant men—to Oxford scholars and American backwoods-men. He contended that it was ill the power of Nicholas Biddle to break the Bank of England. As for the Whigs, they were worse than the Tories, and the people would not be oppiessed by them. They had found out that whenever the Goverument was slow to enforce the standard of value, the country rapidly gained in prosperity ; whenever the standard was enforced, strangulatiots fullon ed. But he appealed once more to the Members of that House— He trusted that, by utlopting his resolution, they would ev:twe their determi- nation to coulee upon the country a real, solid, and last mg p p rity. They *loaf septa] thew l'utm law, their Corn. law, arid their Motley law Bills, if they were not relieved l,y. law, the people would relieve themselves. :Billions the people it ere mow in a state of oestituthm, lir holder ing upon it ; and if relief wen: farther withheld, a civil war, like that w Melt new prevailed in with tril its inealeillable calamities, might be the coi,,,quenee. If the C latteenoe of tile Exelielpier tio..e to exerei,e the tteccs.11:. 1.■oltiol over the Bank of 12:tigland, every tirohea allele), it ill England would 1,, mine rich in a month. lie repeated his conviction ti it 'melt wouNI he the i stilt, if the Chancellor of the Exchemiei %, ere to stop the Bank of England with regard to its issues to-tionrow. Ile %%mild oat 1,14 I t.n cc that w lit laid already been made sufferers, but lie wool.; •ave loindie.ls of Ut hi Ii on sliming the same fate, prevent miniuns hem beii.g thrown out of employment, aud convert a miserable into a hipp) people.

Lord Jolts: Russtaa. protested against this incifleir al mode of pro- posing to repeal an act if Patliament and unsettle the monetary system of the country. He woultl not enter into a discussion of the

subject, wind] had already &mined the House unprolitidtly for three hours ; and he regietted that the consideration of an important public measure had b en uspended.

Mr. Rico/anus supported Mr. Attwood's motion.

Mr. 0. F. YOUNG advised Alr. Attwood to withdraw it.

Mr. HARVEY disagrectl entirely w jib Mr. Attwooth the country

could never be relieved by being sluiced with worthless paper.

Mr. Foitsmit defended the Bank of Ettgland.

Mr. O'CoesELL thought the Batik culpable.

The House divided : for Mr. Attwood's resolution, 24; against it, 86; majority, 61.

BRIGHTON RAILWAYS.

Mr. CURTEIS, on Tuesday, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations cunt:tilted in Mr. petition relative to the eonduet of certain supporters of Stephen-out's Railway to Brighton. Mr. Curteis felt extremely angry with Ministers for their support of Stephenson's line; but he would not let his anger outstrip his discre- tion ; though, if somethiug were not done to set mattera a little straight with regard to his constituents, he was determined not to mince matters, but to give vent to his feelings. (Laud laughter.) Captain PECHELL said, that with regard to Lord Melemid, who was said to have voted for Rennie's line within forty, tight hours of his election, he believed that noble lord had been canvassed for the Stephenson party even before he went down to Ilythe to be elected ; and Lord Arthur Lennox, who brought forward the charge against Lord Melgund, had himself only attended the Committee four days out of the twen ty..seven on which it sat.

Mr. CHAltl.ES Baru:Lae opposed Mr. Curteis's motion as irregular. Sir HARRY VERNEY said, that Ministers had &tie what was quite sight and justifiable.

Mr. HtTate. recommended 1Ir, Curteis to withdraw his motion, as it would not answer his purpose ; and Mr. CURTEIS withdrew it.

Mr. HUME then moved that Mr. Mills's line should he referred with Stephenson's end Rennie's to themumilit1n y eagincer to be appointed by Govt rti went.

Mr. PotrLErr THOMSON opposed the motion, RS Mr. Mills's line had been rejected for tom-compliance with the Standing Orders. He also made several obzervations on the evils attending the present mode of conducting the business of the House, both public and private,..... subject wh:ch Lord John Russell intended on the following Thursday to bring before Parliament. For his part, though aware of the mis- chief, he WIS at a loss to suggest a remedy.

After a few Words from Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND in favour of and Mr. H. HOPE against the motion, it was rejected, by 71 to 33.

Mr. Fume then moved,

"That the military engineer appointed by his Majesty, in pursuance of an bumble address from this House, be instructed, when considering the subject of the London and Brighton lines of Railway, to keep in view the formation of one main Southern trunk line out of London, by which unnecessary intersection of the country may be avoided, and facilities of approach given to other towns oa the Southern coast."

This motion was carried, after a brief debate, by 38 to 36, although opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. POULETT THOMSON.

MISCELLANEOUS.

BRIDGEWATER ELECTION. The SPEAKER, On Tuesday, informed the House, that he bad received a letter from Mr. Henry Broadwood, declining to defend his election for Bridgewater against the petition of Mr. Sheridan.

THE EDINBURGH WATER COMPANY BILL WAS opposed by Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, and rejected, without a division, on Wednesday.

THE PUBLIC WALKS BILL was read a second time, on Wednesdar. It was opposed by Mr. Torres; but earnestly supported by Captain PECHELL, Mr. BROTHERTON, Mr. WAKLEY, Lord SANDON, Mr. CHARLES BARCLAY, Mr. POULETT THOMSON, and Major Beauersae.

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING REGULATION BILL, founded on Mr. Buckingham's Shipwreck Report, was opposed by Mr. Pourer THOMSON, Mr. HUTT, Mr. BARNARD, and Air. G. F. YOUNG. Mr. YOUNG said, it was a perfect legislative monstrosity. Sir &warm CODRINGTON, Colonel THOMPSON, Captain DUNDAS, and Captain Pa. CHELI., supported the measure. The motion for the second reading was rejected, by 176 to 28.

THE SCOTTISH SMALL DEBTS BILL was read a second time by the Peers, on Thursday. Lord MELVILLE objected to the extension of the measure to the whole of Scotland, in many parts of which it was not wanted; and gave notice, that at a future stage he should move to re. fer it to a Select Committee.