iBetattiait roreetringi in fiatliament.

I. IRISH MUNICIPAL REFORM.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Thursday. sailed the attention of the EOM. of Commons to the alteration of the Lords in the Irish Muni- cipal Bill He commenced his speech as follows- " I think it will be the most convenient course, in moving the order of the day for taking into consideration the Lords' amendments to the Bill relating to Municipal Corporations in Ireland, that I should state to the House the view which is taken by his Majesty's Ministers of tho-e amendments, aml the lllll dun which will be made my right ho llllll cable friend the Attorney General for Ire- land, ii proposing the mode in which the House should consider and deal with those amendments. Sir, I wish to do this without makiag any lemarks which may tend to excite any exasperation upon a subject on which so much interest is felt; but at the same time I must say, that I think I should be deserting my duty if, for the Puke of any compliment to the proposals of the other House of Parliament, I were to propose to baiter away the privileges of this House, to diminish the rights of any purtion of his hlajesty's subjects, or to impair in the hut degree the well-known pi inciples uf the Constitution. Sir, we stand upon this subject at present on the defensive. It has been the policv of this House to and up to the other House of Pat fitment bills for refurniing Municipal Corpo- mtione, first in Scotland, and afterwards in England. Upon both those bills

amae discussions took place. In the latter, 'natty amendments were introduced

kj the House of Lords ; but it seemed to be the general agreement of both mows, that corporations in themselves tended to promote good govern- ment in the towns in which they were established—tended to preserve order and tegulerity, and to promote the vrelfare of the country in general. ilige have proceeded upon the same principles, and without exactly the mum provisions, yet with pi ()visions nearly resembling them, in respect to the • Corpolations of Leland. We sent up to the other liuuse of Parliament u bill for the regulation of the Municipal Cm ',orations of borough-towns in Ireland. That bill has been returned to us with the title altered, with the preamble chariged ; and of a bill consisting of 140 clauses, 106 have been in substance swim* and eighteen other clauses have been introduced ; and of the whole iepor t and intention of the uriginal bill, little is to he found in the bill which is now t011le down to us. If I wanted any proof of this, it stands recorded. in Ile fact, that the other House of Parliament Lave adopted, upon au instruction to a.tZumniittee af the %Apia liaise, an alterationin the bill which could not be proposed without that istitneetion, sad Mika) instruction had for its object that which this libuse hatlisaltalldy deliberately rejected. ( Tremendous cheer- ing ), lid', Limy, is thestorat. in which this bill iseeturned to us ; and cer- tainly, I must say, if the °Neel was not to promote that cordial harmony be- tween the two Houses of Porliament which we have been told to-day it was the oirject of the House of Lords to promote, I should think that there was no more obvious method of effecting it than to adopt the very proposals which this House had declared to be unpalatable to them, and to alter a bill which they had sent up in such a manner as to make it entirely a new bill, and a new law upon the subject."

He

bill—

was anxious, however, to find some precedent for passing the " I conceive that, in conformity with what are the privileges of this House, und the recognized rights of this House with respect to bills which come before usfor discussion, there are but tin ee courses which it is possible for this House to adopt. The first would be to [eject these atnendnients altogether, with a view to substituting or introducing a new bill, which should contain the provisions made by the Lords ; the second method would be the restoring all the original parts of the bill, and disagreeing with all the amendments of the Lords ; and the third course would be, disagreeing with the greater part of those amendments, and re- storing in principle the original intention and spirit of the bill, but not insist- ing upon the original form in which those provisions were proposed. Sir, there is a fourth course, which I have not mentioned, because certainly I could not recommend it to the House to adopt, and I think there would he few Members found in the House who would think it conformable with our privileges to agree with. It would be to adopt these amendments at a single sitting, with- out any previous notice or consideration of them. If we Were to do this, we should be surrendering altogether our privileges and due deliberation; and, in- stead of having a bill sent from the Lords, which we might read a first, a second, and a third time, and then carry into a committee, where we might ex- amine its provisions in detail, we should then be content to say that any bill which is sent up by this House to the Lords, might be totally altered in its pro- visions, in its nature, in its title, in its intention, and that, with one single reading, and by one motion of this House, we might dispose of all these great questions. I will not be so undmindful—for I clink I should be unmindful— of what is due to the privileges of this House, and to its station in this country, to propose so new, so dangerous, and so humiliating a course." ( Great cheering.) Lord John then referred to the course taken by the High Church and Royalist Hottse of Commons which sat in 1661, in reference to a hill for reguliting the English Corporations,—in other words, to re- move the Presbyterian and Republican members of those corporations, and put Royalists in their places. This bill was materially altered by the Lords. The COMMOOS disagreed to several of the alterations; for this reason among others, "that the amendments are repugnant to the title of the bill, which is a bill for the regulation of corporations, whereas the amendments do either extirpate—(Minis(erial cheers )—or at least new-create them." ( Opposition cheers, reechoed from the Minis- terial benches.) The Commons also stated. that to accept the altera- tions would not be " agreeable to the people, or suitable or consonant with our tru:t." Now, Lord John hoped that the House would act in the spirit of this Restoration Parliament, and in a manlier " consonant with their trust." The result of the collision between the two Houses in 1661 was, that after it delay from July to December, both parties gave way, and the bill was passed. Lord John Russell proceeded to de- scribe the alterations effected by the Peers in the bill which the House had lately sent up to them for the regulation of COrporations in Ireland; especially remarking, that while they professed to abolish corporations, they had taken care to preserve for their natural lives the offices they now hold to the existing members of these corporations. The bill was th, refore not what it pretended to be ; and those who said they were resolved to destroy corporations faultered in their purpose.

" After having taken this care, and made these provisions fur the exireence

and continuance of the present corporate facers, we then come to that which I may call the constructive part of this bill—very different from our censtelic- tive bill—and the clauses of which are to this effect. By the 26h clause, the Lod. Lieutenant is to appoint five or seven Commietioners to be Commissimers of Corporate Property : in these Commissioners, by clause :al, is vested the whole ptoperty of corporations. By the 29th clause, they appoint a Teeasurer. By the 34th clause, they are empowered tu bring and defend actions, and com- promise and settle accounts. By the 41st clause, they are to pay the salaries of the Recorder, Judge of the Court of Conscience, to pay to the Cumuli*. :Miners under 9th of George the Fourth any surplus, and if there shall be any further surplus, to apply it for the public benefit of the inhabitants of such town. By the 43.1 clause, they may abolish tolls; and by the 4,5th clause, they may remove any Town-clerk, Bailiff, Treasurer, or Chambet lain. By the Wilt clause, the Lord Lieutenant is to appoint to any office of Clerk of the Market or Taster of Butter. Sir, the effect of these clauses is to place in Commission- ers named by the Lord-Lieutenant for Irellind, the whole corporate property of Ireland, and the nomination of all corporate officers in that country. And, Sir, I declare at once that I never can agree to such a clause. (Tremendous cheers.) I consider that the Corporations, even in their worst state, are a species of local government which does not belong, which ought not to belong, to the Supreme Executive." ( Cheers. ) He then stated the course he intended to propose with respect to

the bill as it now lay before them- " I will not propose—for it would be but to lead evidently to the rejection of the bill—that the whole of the towns now placed tinder the government of a AIM

Mayor and Council shall hsreafter beeplaced under that species of government. I will not propose that all the clauses which we introduced should be restored ; but I will propose that the great towns, which stand in the first and sec..ond schedules of the Commons' Bill—schedules A and I3-5hould be placed in a single schedule, and that the whole of the clauses which have been struck out should be again inserted with a view of applying them to those towns. ( Cheers.) There are eleven of these towns,—Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry. and Sligo. There is another town, which, by reason of hieing a county of a town, ought to be placed in the same schedule—I mean the town of Carrickfergus. 1 have next a proposal to make with regard to the towns which are in schedule C. I think it is not advisable to have these towns altogether either under the Muni- cipal Corporations which you have declared to be defective, or to leave than out of the bill. I have already declared that I never will consent to apply to them, or to any of the corporate towns in Ireland, those clauses which have

but

been inserted by the Lords, making the Commissioners appointed by the Lord- Lieutenant the sole corporators. It is, therefore, necessary to frame. some vision which will not be exactly conformable to our for mer provisions, pro. which shall provide a means for the purposes of municipal government in these towns. I say, then, that we ought to put into schedule B all those towns which are important and of considerable size, and which possess corporate pro- periy. For wherever there is corporate property to any extent, 1. think it w

the duty of Parliament not to consent to transfer that property to Commis. dolma ; tont that, having pointed out the abuses in the management of that property, and those abuses having been generally recognized, that Ihose corpora-

tions shonld he as soon ea possible removed. I propose, therefine, that with respect to them, the provisions of the 9th of George the Fourth—provisions *with ohich gentlemen seemed so much pleased when the queston was uader deliberation before—I propose that thine provisiona should rinno diately apply to the towns—they will be twenty towns in number—and that as soon as the Canntnissioners are chosen by the 5/. householders, so soon all the corporate property, and power to appoint to any necessary office, ouch as Clerk of the Market, should belong to these Commissioners. With respect to the first schedule, it will be a schedule of towns where the 191. householders will have the power of electing the Mayor and Town-Council ; and with respect to the second schedule, it will be a schedule of the towns whore the 5/. householdets will elect, but where instead of electing a Mayor and Town-Courcil, they will elect Commissioners under the 9th of George the Fourth. These Coinmia- 'loners will have the powers of watching paving, and lighting. But the difference between the proposition made in ;his Hotaie, and the to °position in- troduced in the lorda, 13 that to these Local Comm ssioners elected by the U. householders, and, therefore, elected by the inhabitants, and not to Commis- sioners nominated by the Lori-Lieutenant, the corporate property will be in- trusted. I think I need not dwell upon the very important difference between these two modes of appointment, or trespass long upon the Home in order to prove which of the-e two propositions is most constitutional. These Com- missioners will be, at all events, persons having the confidence of their fellow citizens ; they will be persons anxious to promote the welfare of the town; they will be persons acquainted with its circumstances; and they will he per- sons responsible to their fellow citizens." (Load cheers.) The remaining boroughs would be placed in •a third schedule, and tbey should have the liberty of adopting the 9th of George the Fourth, but its adoption should not be compulsory upon them. These were the chief points on which he intended to insist. Other differences were but of detail, in which he apprehended no difficulty in coming to an agreement. To some of the alterations of the Lords he would not object; but he would not disguise the wide difference in point of principle between his propositions and those of the Peers. He did not pretend to have adopted the principle of abolishing corporations, destroying local governments, and establishing a central government in their places. Lord John quoted passages from the histories of Ro- bertson and Gibbon, describing the benefits arising from municipal constitutions, in the dark ages, to the cause of freedom and civilization. He referred also to the policy of Prussia : he had that morning read a decree of the Prussian Government, dated 1808, for the establishment of municipal institutions. Mr. Burke had said that " slavery was a plant which might take root anywhere, but freedom was a flower that bloomed alone in England." Should he be reduced to the necessity of reversing the proposition ? Should he be told that municipal freedom might be allowed under a despotic constitution—that it might be en- couraged by a Prussian Government—but that in the whole of Ireland, under the free constitution of Great Britain, it should not exist?

" Why, Sir, have gentlemen seriously reflected upon the proposition which they have come down here to give their votes upon ? Have they wed consi- dered how deep a wound must be ioflicted on Ireland, not merely by the provi- sions I have detailed to the House, but by the reasons on which it is notorious that they are founded—by the words in which I heard it, with my own ears, declared that three-fourths of the people of Ireland were aliens in blood, differ- ing in language, differing in religion, and waiting only for a favourable op- portunity of throwin,o, off the government at home. (Greet cheering.) These, Sir, are the words which fell from the lips of one who is supposed by the public to be the chief organ in introducing these amendments of the House of Lords —of one who but a few months ago held the high office of Lord Chancellor of England. (Tremendous cheering.) Can it be conceived, Sir, that these enactments, were they far less bitter than they are—were they far less hostile to the spirit of our constitution—were they far less different from the laws we have adopted in other parts of the United Empire—could be received, coupled with such motives, and with such a preamble affixed to them, with any other feelings than those of the deepest indignation? (Cheers.) Tell me of speeches made at the Corn Exchange l—tell me of agitation! I tell you that these words, and those enactments which are founded upon them, will tend

more to promote agitation—will tend more to keep alive discord—will tend

more to prevent tranquillity, than a thousand such speeches—uttered, it may be, by men who are speaking of impossible and unattainable objects; but speak-

ing, nevertheless, in favour of the extension of the liberties of their country.

(Prolonged cheering.) I tell you, that if you coosider this bill with the view of establishing upon it some new law which shall be applicable to Ireland alone, and couple it with such motives, you ill understand the sound policy of govern-

ment in attempting the infliction. I will add upon more general grounds, that having heard what passed in this House, and having attended to much of what pas-ed, or is said to have passed, in the other House of Parliament. I have never

heard any thing like a plausible reason assigned for making this distinction be- tween the twucountries. Differences there are—great and wide differences: I sun not the man to dispute their existence: but the question here is simply this—are there such differences in the towns of Ireland as to render them unfit to have popular and municipal corporations ? It is nothing to tell me that there have

been dreadful outrages committed in the country parts of Ireland —that trials

have taken place which Windt the feeliugs, and that much crime is committed throughout that portion of tile empire. I ask—and as I have never heard it stated yet, I ask fur the bake of information—is it contended that in the towns

of Ireland there prevails a greater degree of disorder and a greater unfitness for popular government than exists in other parts of the empire? If it be so, I have not heard it : if it were so, I should very likely say that, in con- formity with the examples we have of the early ages of Europe, it is hut rea- atonable to suppose that the introduction of municipal corporations would be the

best remedy for the evil. ( Cheers.) Let any man go over, in his memory, the transactions of the last few years. Which are the towns, where are the towns, in which scenes have taken place of great outrage and calamity ? In

Dublia, Cork, or Limits-rick? I recollect one in 1819 in Manchester; 1 recol-

lect a deplorable scene that occurred in 1831, at Bristol • but I do not think that there has been in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, or soy other great town of Ire- land, any timing resemblino' scenes like these. (Cheers. ) If there had been— if Cork had suffered the fate of Bristol—should we not have heard of the danger of extending, and of the dreadful results to be apprehended from the extension of municipal corporations to such a city? And yet no man contended, no loan ever thought of contending, when we had the Municipal Corporation Act ander discussion last year, that it ought not to be extended to Bristol, on ac- event of the outrages which had taken place in that city." ( Great cheering.) Ile quoted, in reference to Sir James Graham's advice against con- cession, a passage from a speech delivered by Lord Lyndhurst in 1829, to the effect that concession alone would tranquillize Ireland, and that the Parliament ought to do what "justice required." He maintaided that the House of Commons by their bill had done nothing more than justice to Ireland tequired. It had Lent observa d tynit James Gra- ham, that the difference between the two sides of the House was not very great—that all were agreed as to the destructive part of the mea- sure, they only differed as to the reconstruction of the Corporations. But if Sir James had held the same doctrines on the subject ef the Reform Act, he would have been content with the abolition of the rotten boroughs, and refused to extend the franchise to Leeds and Manchester.

0 The right honourable baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), at a very glens did dinner given to him last year, in a very splendid building, by the Gold- smiths' Company, said, ' I think you have done wisely; you have built epos the old foundation.' The Goldsmiths' Company were -highly gratified withthe right honourable baronet's compliment. But what if the right honourable baronet had said, ' I quite agree with you in the propriety of pulling down your old hall. It was a very unsightly and inconvenient edifice, and you did qt4itte right in pulling it to pieces. I cannot think you have done well, however, in erecting this handsome building ; I quite differ from you in that ; I think it was a very useless waste of your local revenue; and I. cannot help thinking, that you would have done much better if you had asked the King's Ministers to take care of your funds, by vesting them in the hands of Commissioners.' (Loud cheers.) Undoubtedly, so far from considering this as any compliment from the right honourable gentleman, they would have been astonished at his selectino" the very point on which they felt the most pride as the theme of his disapprobation.' He concluded by earnestly calling upon the House to adopt the prim. ciple of conciliation in dealing with Ireland- " If you adopt the other course, you embark upon one fraught with diffi- culty and danger. Look around you upon the state of the world, and see how firmly the British empire and the British constitution stand. Foreign powers in relations of amity, and no fear of an interruption of the general peace and tranquillity established in England and Scotland—devoid of the least alarm—. destitute of the slightest apprehension. Manufactures flourishing—agricul- ture, I hope, recovering from its late depression. An empire strong in inns, strong in wealth, strong in character, strong, above all, in the reputation of being a free country. ( Great cheering.) To an empire thus blessed and thus favoured there remains but one point from which danger may arise. Truly was it said, as I see it reported to have been by an honourable friend of mine, who for fifty years has sat in this House, and who never acted contrary to his professions or swerved from his avowed principles—truly was it said by him, that you may make Ireland your weakness or your strength. If you cheese to make her your strength, the whole of the affairs of this mighty em- pire will stand indissoluble and compact. If yin choose to make her your

es weakns, yin' w i

ill have to carry on a struggle n which you can never finally succeed, and to bear the consequences. I sprak not now of poster ity, but of the present time—of plungin.g three-fourths of the people of lreland into dis- content and exasperation. Be assnred of this, that that the first cannonjball which is fired in Europe, will be the signal of your retracting all theirs de- nials, and of your making that concession and doing that justice in the hoar of your need which you refused in the hey-day of your glory and your strength ; and then—then—I shall say with pain and sorrow, that Enema is no longer the great country for which I took her, but that she refuses to concede plain, obvious, and undeniable justice, until at last she stiff.an to be wrung from her interest and her fears, what could not be obtained from her internal preju- dices and her determination to promote disunion and perpetuate discord." (Loud and prott acted cheering.) The Order of the Day for the consideration of the Lords* amend- ments was now read; and then Lord Joins RUSSELL again rose, and proposed that the three first clauses—in which there were no amend- ments of vital importance—should be postponed ; and that clatiae 4th of the original bill, and which had been struck out by the Lords, should be restored. This would raise the question of principle.

The motion having been put by the SPEAKER, Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT rose to reply to Lord John Russell. He maintained, that on several leading provisions of the bill the two Houses were agreed! and denied that Lord John Russell had given a correct description of several of the Lords' amendments. He dwelt for a considerable time on this part of the subject ; and complained that it was a misrepresentation to say that the whole of the property of corporations would be held by the Commissioners to be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant, for it was provided that those Commissioners should make over that property to the Commissioners to be elected under Local Acts. But the great point was, whether the House of Commons would insist on the reconstruetion of the Corporations? The proposition of Lord John Russell, which it was absurd to MI an attempt at compromise, could not be accepted by the Lords, or those who agreed with the Lords in the House of Commons, without a sacrifice of principle— The noble lord said that the House of Lords had taken such steps with refe- rence to the measure before the House as called upon the House to assert its privilege., because the other Huuse had asserted a pi inciple throughout the bill which that Hou•e had !ejected. Now what did the noble lord propose? That, taking all the towns in the schedules, there were some which possesard very little property, and that in them therefore corporations might he dispensed with ; the noble lord then proposed to select twelve of the largest towns in loolatud, and to give them corporate rights. When, therefore, the noble Ionl said that the House was called upon to stand to its pi ivilegea because the Housed Lords had adopted a principle throughout its amendments to the bill which had been rejected by that Howe, he would beg the noble lord to inform him what the House of Lords would say to what was proposed as a compromise? for the noble lord moat he folly aware that what he hall now proposed W.13 !ejected by a large majority of the other House. What sort of a compromise did you proposie is the House of Lords? They would say, what you pt0p04 to us with reference to twelve towns in Ireland, we rejected on the principle when proposed fin" only seven town+. In hopes, then, of passing the bill, the noble lord was willing to give up his principle with report to small places, but proposed. that corporate rights (Mould be given to the twelve large towns in Ireland. This was an extraordinary mode of compromise, and most eertainly it did not meet the difficulties of the case. It was because these towna were useless for muni- cipal purposes, and would only give a legal establishment to what the honouree- ble anti learned Member for Kilkenny was pleased to call schools of agitation, and which had been *o productive of so much injury to the peace and tran- quillity of Ireland. He might he told that they would exclude Beirut-het and Middleton and other sinall towns ; but be ivoul m tell the noble lord that he did not care for that, when they erected these schools for agitation in Dublin and Londonderry, and other great towns in the North and South of Ireland. His great objection to the bill as proposed by the noble lord was, that thaw were creating by it schools fur agitation in all the large towns of Ireland. Calibers.) Was it any compensation to him to be told that they would give these *horde to the large towns, and not to the small places, where he did not anticipate lb* same (Luger from them.

As for the compulsory application of the 9th of George the Fourth to certein towns, the effect in feet would be to estublish corpurat' ,

differing but little from those proposed in the original bill. The amendments of the Lords lead been characterized by Mr. O'Connell as grossly insulting to !rebind— He might he mistaken in the view he had taken of the subject ; but he was not yet satisfied that the mode of proceeding adopted by those who called them- selves the friends of Ireland was likely to extend the prosperity of the couldry. or promote the happiness of the people. Ile did not believe that those were the real fiiends of Ireland, who depicted so strongly the wiettlisloess and misery of the populati llll in that country, and told the lloto,e and the people of England that there were two millions of the inhabitants of lrelann in u state of %tat Va.

tion, and ■ et did nothing to raise their c Ii ion, or to alleviate their sufferings. (Clay s from the Opposition.) They dill not give to these mitutore I people either food or clothing, or attempt to calm their !passions or improve their judg- ments : which %could have the effect of promoting tranquillity and thus ad- vance the prove' ity of the country, and lead to au improvement in the condi- tion of the people.

The flourishing condition of Scotland had been often alluded to, but be maintained that it wits by the abseece of agitation, for until very secently, there was no freedom of election, Municipal or Parliamen- tary, in Scotland, and by obedience to the laws, and peaceful industry, thin Scotland had become prosperous. Alturicipal institutions were serviceable in a country just emerging from barbarism ; but, as was proved by the peace mid prospet ity of several large towns in Englund, they were not requisite for a country in a state of civilization. He concluded by avowing his determination to adhere to his former opinions on this bill, the more resolutely because they bad been confirmed by so large a majority of the house of Lords.

Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN spoke strongly in opposition to the amend- ments; and pointed out the absurdity of permittiog Irishmen to re- ceive the benefit of municipal goverment if they crossed the Channel, and denying it to them in their own hold.

Mr. EWART remarked upon the inconsistency of Sir William Fol- lett, who said that municipal institutions were of service to a country emerging from barbarism, and yet he gave them to peaceful, pros- perous, and civilized England and Scotland, and denied them to semi- barbarous Ireland !

Colonel CONOLLY denied that the Irish Catholic Members spoke the sentiments of the Irish nation : on the contrary, he was email, that the amendments of the Lords were generally acceptable in Ireland. Lord CLEMENTS accused those men who taunted the Irish with being " aliens in blood, aliens in language, and aliens in religion," as being the greatest agitators—orthodox Protestant agitators--of Ireland. He believed that the object of the Tories was to extinguish popular institutions wherever they could and dared. If they only said in public what they privately made no secret of avowing, they would de- clare that the English Corporation Act was their abomination, and that it was their experience of the working of that act :which influ- enced them to deny municipal institutions to Ireland.

Captain BERKELEY said, that, moved by the strong case made out by the Government, lie had voted, against his principles, in favour of the Coercion Act ; and he did not think he should have lived to repent that vote : but when he heard a lending member of the Legislature assert, with the approbation of a majority of the Peers, that the Irish were " aliens in blood, differing in language, and differing in religion," be declared that, could he have antivonted such language in such a quarter, he should have been almost driven to vote with Mr. O'Con- nel for Repeal-- But he would appeal to the Irish people to fcrget the words of any self- opinionated and bigoted individual—of a person who would nut hesitate to throw down the firebrand of political commotion to promote his selfish party purposes. ( Cheering.) When he saw such feelings existing, he lamented the vote he had given for the Coercion Bill, and should certainly vote for the motion of the noble laid.

Mr. GROVE PRICE maintained, that the expressions attributed to Lord Lyndhurst must have been used as part of an argument, or hypo- thetically. He would not believe that they were used in the sense and manner in which they were now quoted. Mr. Price dwelt for some time on the secret articles agteed upon, he said, by Ministers with Mr. O'Connell, at the famous meeting at Lichfield House. He also quoted, in reference to the imbecile conduct of Ministers, the hacknied saying of the Swedish Chancellor to his son, that " be knew not with how little wisdom the world was ruled."

Mr. WARD agreed with Mr. Price, that the world w.ls governed with very little wisdom ; but he need not go to Sweden for an illustra- tion of that maxim—the conduct of the Peers of England sufficiently proved its truth. It required no better illustration than the proceed- ings of the individual whose words now appeared to have so much weight attached to them ; because, though personally obscure, and not entitled to respect individually, but the reverse, [so we understood Mr. Ward, but cheers and interruption prevented hien from being distinctly hearda he had been selected us their leader by the proudest aristocracy in Europe.

Mr. W. Duocousx called Mr. Ward to order.

The SPEAKER said, it was disorderly to allude to words spoken in the other House.

Mr. WARD said, that be claimed the freedom of debate, so far as to reply to statements made on the other side of the House, by counter. statements of what he heard himself. Mr. Price had endeavoured to persuade the House that Lord Lyndhurst bad not used the offensive expressions quoted ; but be had himself heard them, without any hypo- thesis whatever. 1So we understood Mr. Ward, but the interruption was continued, and the SPEAKER again interfered.] Mr. Ward then said, that as he had attained his purpose of making a counter-state- ment to what bad fallen from Mr. Price, he would not again allude to the subject. He then proceeded to advert to the question before the House— The course suggested was one that he with some reluctance could be brought to adopt. What he would have wished was, that when the resolutions pro posed to them on a former discussion upon this bill had been set aside, and they fouled that those resolutions which lied been rejected were again sent down to them, the plain and simple course was adopted of refusing them. That, how- srer,, was not the line which his Majesty's Ministers had taken, and which some of their supporters would have wished them to adopt on this occasion. (Cheers from the Opposition Members.) It was his belief, it was his expecta- tion, that the measure of conciliation which his Majesty's Ministers proposed, and the attempts at compromise that they made, would be rejected. ( Cheers from the Opposition side.) If it so happened, it would place them in i a situa- tion still more n the right in the eyes of the public. ( Cheers front the Minis. terial side.)

He did not look forward to the collision with pleasure—God forbid:

he could not behold it without grave apprehension. It had already brought the machine of government to a stand. The People must be appealed to. Let that decision be final, and let both parties under- stand clearly their position.

Mr. HAMILTON gave his cordial support to the Lords' amendments, and would oppose the encroachments of the democratic spirit.

Mr. CPLOCHLEN replied, in a speech full of details, to several of the

arguments of Sir William Follett ; whom be charged with entirely misrepresenting that alteration of the Lords which transferred corporate property to the Commissioners. He quoted the words of the clause; which gave the Commissioners the entire control of the property, to be used according to their absolute will and pleasure. And yet Sir William Follett had said, that the funds were to be given up to the Commissioners under the 9th of George the Fourth ! In several other points Mr. 0•Loghlen exposed Sir William Follett's inaccuracy- and he concluded by declaring, that there Was no true Irishman who would not desire a separation of the two countries, if such a measure as

that passed by the Peers became law. • Mr. SHAW spoke with much vehemence against the motion ; alluded to 11B's caricature of O'Connell exacting tribute from his fellow. countrymen; professed himself anxious to see real justice done to Ire- land ; and concluded, amidst great interruption, by imploring the House not to add insult to injury by rejecting the amendments of the Lords.

Mr. CALLAGHAN Mid Mr. BROWNE supported Lord John Russell's motion. It was opposed by Mr. Fawn; and then the debate was adjourned to Friday.

Last night, the discussion was resumed by Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD;

who supported the motion. The other speakers on the same side were Mr. GROTE, Mr. WYSE, Mr. GISBORNE, Mr. H. GRATTAN, Lord EBRINGTON, Mr. &WM, Mr. O'CONNELL, and Lord I fowice. Dr. LEFROY, Mr. PRAED, Mr. TWISS, Lord SANDON, Sir ROBERT PEEL,

and Lord STANLEY, argued in favour of accepting the Lords' amend- ments.

The old topics were again discussed, with little novelty of expres- sion, except in the case of Mr. SHEIL, who, after explaining at some length that his speech at Thurles had been misrepresented—that he had never spoken of a bargain at Lichfield House, or a compact ; but "a compact and indissoluble union " between the Irish Members and the leaders of the Euglish Whigs—proceeded to remark upon the pre- sent state of the question ; which was no longer a dispute between parties in the House of Commons, but between the two branches of the Legislature. He taunted the Tories with their failure to carry on the Government in their own Parliament ; and challenged Sir Robert Peel again to dissolve the House of Commons—the House which he had himself summoned—and appeal to the People. We have only room for a short extract from this part of Mr. Shell's speech-- Was he prepared for dissolution ? ( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) If he was not, why stand up so obstinately against a majority—a majority greater than he before quailed under?—when the feelings of the people of Etighind were roused to a higher pitch of excitement than ever they were known to be before. (" Oh, oh !" from the Opposition.) What ! did they deny that ? They before made the same allegation ; they put it to a strong test--the disso- lution of Parliament ; they then worked their whole machinery of political in- trigue; they worked the lever of the clubs ; they sent out their emissaries ; they strained the prerogative of the Crown almost beyond its constitutional limits; they lit up the torches of their incendiary eloquence, and waved them all over the land. (Loud ironical cheers.) What, did they not do so? Did they not raise the torch of incendiary declamation? (Renewed cheers ; amidst which a voice exclaimed " You never did that.") Though the right ho- nourable baronet was beaten in the Parliament convened by himself, yet he would say that he never lost his character or his dignity. The right honour- able baronet was not like other leaders elsewhere—be was not a needy, despe- rate adventurer—a man of yesterday, speculating on the public ruin for pelf or aggrandizement. (Ministerial cheers.) No, he was not a man who would submit the constitution or the counity to electric Amite. Well, what had the Tories gained by the manceuvre of dissolution? There were now sixty four Irish Metnbers pledged to resistance to the system of government for Ireland on which the Ministers of the British Crown had acted, not for several years past. but, he would say, fur centuries; and this band was resolutely determined to abide by the principle of equal and impartial justice.

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that Mr. Sheil had disproved the existence of' the compact, so often alluded to, but bad rather confirmed his belief in it. Mr. Shell having quoted a speech of 111r. Canning upon the mutilation of his Corn-bill in 1827 by the House of Peers,—iii which Mr. Canning called upon the Commons to stand up in defence of their privileges, and not to prostrate themselves ignominiously before the Peers,—Sir Robert Peel, in reply, read the chief part of Earl Grey's famous speech wherein he declared himself ready to stand or full with his "order." Sir Robert then went on to argue, that it was not on account of national "enmity, but because they were unsuitable to Ireland, that he and his friends refused to erect new corporations in Ireland.

Mr. O'Cosneeta. strongly insisted on the absolute necessity of re- forming the House of Peers ; without which, it was now manifest that justice to Ireland was out of the question. Lord STANLEY replied, with vehemence, to Mr. O'Connell ; and then supported the Lords' amendenents,—especially remarking, that they would not preclude the establ:shment of corporations in Ireland at some future time, should they be deemed advantageous to that country. •

At the conclusion of Lord Stanley's speech, the House divided; and there appeared— For anLorditJohn Russell's motion 324

2438

Ministerial and Reforming majority 86

The result of the division was received with very loud cheering from the Liberal Members.

Lord JOHN Russelt proposed that the House chould meet at twelve o'clock on Monday, to proceed with the consideration of the Lords amendments. There were loud cries of " No, no!" from the Opposition benches; and the Gullery was cleared for a division; but none took place, as the motion was agreed to.

2. MALTA.

Mr. EWART, on Tuesday, presented a petition signed by the nobles, clergy, merchantseand people of Malta, complaining of the misgovern- ment of that island. Mr. Ewan stated the heads of the petition at some length— He believed that few, if any, of our foreign possessions displayed greater in- stances of miegovernment than Malta,—whether we regarded its internal institu• tions, its commerce, or its long list of salaried officials, with incomes in the in-

verse ratio of the services they performed. The petition stated the extreme and increasing distress of the Maltese. Their feelings of distress, rendered

keener by a sense of injustice would, unless, speedily remedied, terminate in disorder. In consequence of the reiterated complaints of the Maltese, a Legis- lative Council hail been granted thetn by the Crown. In this famous Council the system of representation was all on one side. It represented the local au- thorities, not the Maltese. It was a mere instrument of ad lll i l ti.tration, or a kind of racial screen interposed between the Government and the people. The Maltese prayed for a system of free rept-mutation. They hail a light to it

historically, as well as on the general principles of good govertitnent. The

petition prayed further for a code of laws. and that the compilation of them might nut continue secret, but he free and open. It next prayed for the free- dom of the press, which had hitherto been a mere organ of Government. Ti this prayer he was happy to say that his Majesty's Ministers had liberally yielded. It would be the duty of Parliament, as well as of the Government at home, to see that no official interineddlers in Malta should dare to deprive her af the boon conceded by Great Britain. The petition next prayed for a system efedueation throughout the limits of Malta. This prayer alone entitled the petitioners to the respect and consideration of the [Iroise. The Local Govern- ment in Malta had hitherto shown its zeal in the cause of education by im- posing a tax on the students of the island. The petition prayed further for fiscal and commercial reforms. It prayed for the reform of the Board of Health and of the Grain department. The grain dere' tment hal lonig:been an impolitic interference of the Government with the freedom of commerce, and with the supply of food for the population. The Quarantine system of Malta required also itnniediate alteration. It should be assimilated to the system of quarantine elsewhere. The charge should be defrayed by the State, not imposed as a tax upon the merchant. The Customs-duties should be at once repealed. In a word, the petitioners prayed that Malta might be a free port. Nature had destined Malta for a place of transit, an entrepot, or, in simple words, a ware- house. Until its commerce was conducted on this principle, its energies would never be developed.

He had been informed, since he undertook to present this petition, that Government intended to appoint a Commission to inquire fully into the grievances of the Maltese— There were two courses before Pailiament ; either to appoint a Select Com- mittee, or to address the Crown for ii,Commission. Ile believed the latter the prefet aide course. The report of a Select Committee was sometimes an ex parte statement, and seldom final. The teport of a Commission was of a more coticlu- rive nature. It bound future (overnments, as well as the one under which it originated. But the appointment of a Commission could only be assented to en the understanding that it would be conducted on British principles and en • eouraging inquiry. He hoped also that the Commissioners would avail them- selves of the information of unlimited investigation) ; that full hearing and com- plete protection would be given to all parties bringing their complaints before the tribunal of inquiry ; that publicity would be ins basis ; that, above all, the newly-established freedom of the press would be an instilment of extending no- ftnrinationn to persens in this country whose commercial engagements and per socal experience rendered them familiar with Malta. At the same time, he was certain that great discontent would ensue if the appointment of this Corn. mission was allowed to obviate the progress of those reform, ihe policy of which was obvious and the necessity urgent. The Maltese hall already beer, grievously disappointed in one Commission. Their feelings would be embittered if they found that the appointment of a Commission appeared to impede the progress of amendment. He was certain that this would not be the case. But, diould the result of the present proposal cause just dissatisfaction to the Maltese, he reserved for hitnself full power to bring the whole case before a Select Com- mittee of the House of Commons.

The petition was laid on the table.

Mr. Hol.i.eee then presented a petition on the same subject from the merchants trading to Malta. Ile said that one complaint of the petitioners, he was happy to learn, would certainly be obviated ; fur Government bad determined not to interfere in future with the grain trade.

Lord SANDON supported the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Hume presented a petition from Charles Dear, alleging that he had been impaisoned for opening a school without a licence.

Sir GEORGE GREY then stated the intention of Ministers with re- gard to the subject of the petitions_ Ithad been thought that inquiry was necessary upon several of the points mentioned in the petitions; and, with the full concurrence of Sir F. Ponsonby, now in this country, it had been determined by Ministers to send out a Com- mission to Malta. An investigation so conducted would be more likely to lead to a beneficial result than any inquiry before a Committee of the House, which might at last tetminate in what had now been done in the first instance. He did not apprehend it would be necessary for him to say any thing of the con- stitution of the Commission ; but this he would say, that no party would have any ground of complaint in the choice of the individuals. With regard to the revenues of the island, it would not be possible to relinquish the Customs- deities, yielding an income of 10,0001. or 11,0001. a year, without previously ascertaining in what way a reduction of the expenditure could be made. Very recently, when the Earl of Aberdeen was at the head of the Foreign department, 30001. arising out of the Quarantine-dues had been relinquished. Ile quite Teed that the present system was objectionable, and he hoped that beneficial changes would be made at an early period. Major BEAUCLERK said, that he had witnessed the evil effects of the .Corn-laws in Malta: at one time the people had been nearly starved, in consequence of the scarcity they occasioned.

3. DISCIPLINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from Dr. Mulholland, a Catholic priest, who for many years held a living in the county of Louth, of which be had been deprived by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of his diocese, Dr. Kelly; which de privation had been confirmed by Dr. Kelly's successor, Dr. Crolly, be- cause he had brought a civil action against another priest for defame- lion of character. 'The petitioner prayed for redress from their Lord ship. Lord Lyndhurst took occasion to animadvert on the use of the titles of Protestatit prelates by the Catholic hierarchy, and ca''.:d upon Government to execute the law %thief' was enacted to 'revs it the practice.

Lord Hot.eeee objected to the reception of the petition ; on the ground thud the House had neither the right nor the power to interfere in the spiritual toffees of those who received no support from the Go- vernment of the country.

Lord Weemow was eurprised that Lord Holland, of all others, should be the person to citettinscrilie the right of petition. He owned that the House COulli give the petitioner no redress; but it was not to be endured, that any man should be deprived of his means of support, because lie bud brought a civil action ill defence of Ilk character. The petitioner had done right in appeal i lig to public opinion. Lord el et.Boultse reminded the Ilmee, that nobody pretended that the petitioner t ould have redress at their hands— The question was entirely one of ecclesiastical discipline. But the noble earl said i he le tition was an appeal to public opinion through that House ; that Was, ill atilia weeds, that the petitioner stated all, ged facts in censure of the conduct of untidier person, under cover of it petition to that House, into the merits of which petit:on the Ifause could not enter. Now, although he (Lord Melbourne) could not in all ri spirts reprobate sun-it a mode of proceeding, yet he could not pot it nut of his cousideration that it might be cattied further in other eases, and, indeed, to an extent that would prove very inconvenient. Under these circumstances, he doubted the prudence and policy of the noble and learned loin: in pi esenting such a petition). There WilMone observation made by Lind Lyndlitust, to which he wished le jelly to advert. The tioble and learned !old read from some documents proceed i eg from the episcopal authon- ties of the Itomish Church, the tides of Iltslitips and Archbishops; and then contended that the use of marl titles MIS a violation of ()ilea the clauses of the Act for removing the disabilities of Roman Catholics. Now, he apprehended that the clause in question only prehibited those titles from being taken in ordii- nary style. To abolish their use in the Roman Catholic Clitirelnwould be to abolish that chute!' itself; for to that church the existence of episcopalordi- nation and episcopal authority was indispensable. In the internal discipline of the famish Church, the use of episcopal titles and the exercise of episcopal authority were essential. The Duke of WELLINGTON maintained that the petition ought to be received. A petition agairist the Bishop of Peterborough's eighty- seven questions had been received. Ile utteily delete the validity of Lord Melbourne's excuse for the assumption of the titles of Protestant bishops by Catholic priests. The Marquis of LANSDOWNif said, that Lord Lyndhurst would have exercised a sound discretion had he declined to present the petition. The House might it fuse to receive it, and it would be an inconvenient precedetit to receive petitions containing complaints of persons against their superiors— We hall no right whatever to interfere with the discipline of any church which we neither recognized nor paid, sinless that church were grulty or some contravention of public law. The petitioner, in the present case, had a re- medy at law. That remedy he had seughe and obtained. Whether the peti- tioner had been tiejtotly treated or nut, lie, having, heard only an ex parts statement, could not say ; but this he would say, that if their Lordships re- ceived this petition, tin y could not refuse the petition of any other clergyman of the Roman Catholic teliAion who complained of his bt111/Clior. Thirs might be attended with great ineutivenience. At the SatlIC tine, if bed Lyndhurst ptes-ed the reception of the petition, Ile would riot oppose it ; for it cc:ceinly was his opinion that great latitude aught to he ahlweill with respect to petitions, huwever it might be ultimately inconvenient and even misellievuus. Lord Ilore.asai again contended Ore the petition ought not to be received ; but would content himself with saying " Non-content." The Duke of Wellington had reminded him of the petition against the Bishop of Peterhol ough- If the noble duke would look back to the circumstances of that case, he would tind they were these—that the law of the land required certain

ea qnnahifl-

a and testimonials ft om the candidates for erdinati lll and that the Bishop introduced others, which he was not author:zed to do. But, in the present case, was there any allegation of a departure from the law of the land ? DA the law of the land declare that a Roman Catholic bishop should not dismiss any Roman Catholic clogyrnau from the exercise of his functiuns ?

After some conversation, in which the Marquis of WI:entree:let, Lord DUNCANNON, Lord eleeeounee, and Lott! LYNDHURST joined, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. In the House of Peers, on Monday, 8 bill to regulate the Universities of Scotland, founded on the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into that subject, was lead a first time, on the motion of Lord elet.eouitee ; who named Monday next for the second reading, when he intehded to explain the provisions of tee measure.

LORD LYNDHURST'S ATTACK ON THE IRISH PEOPLE. Lord LYND■

:weer complaieed to the Peers, last eight, that certain words of his liad been misrepresented ; but, whether the misrepresentation came from a demagogue on the hustings, or a Minister of State in his place, it must Ile considered in the highest degree reprehensible. Lord Meeeoults:e asked, whether Lord Lyndhurst would defend or explain those expressiens? Lord LYNDHURST said, that whoever beard those expressions must be aware that they needed BO explanation : that was not the time fist giving any; and be was satisfied with appealing to the recollect :on of the noble Lords who were present when he used those exprtesions.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE LYNDHURST BILL. In the House of Com-

mons, un Monday, petitions were pteseeted against the Irish Municipal Bill passed by the Lords.—by Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, from Belfast (signed by 9703 of the inhabitants), Dundalk, and numerous places in the counties of Louth, Donegal, Monaghan, and Queen's County; by Mr. EWART, from Liverpool ; by Mr. CALLAGHAN, from Cork (signed by 6000 persons), and seven other places in Ireland; by Lord CLEMENTS, from Carlow; and by Mr. J. A. MURRAY, from Mid Lothian. On Tuesday, Sir Itonenx FERGUSON presented a petition from Len- donderry, as a set-off to one in favour of tbe Lords' amendments pre- sented by Sir R. BATESON. Sir R. FERGUSON stated, that his peti- tion was adopted at a public meeting, presided over by the Mayor. It was signed by several merchants and a large proportion of the inha- bitants. Similar petitions were then presented by Mr. SHARMAN CiLawroansfrom places in the counties of Londonderry,Down, Antrim, and Queesta; by Mr. System from Derby and Loughborough; by Mr. Gn..sosi, from Linlithgow; by Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from Casale Douglas; by Mr. Hawes, from Lambeth; by Mr. HUTT, from Htd/ ; by Mr. R. WALKER, from Bury ; by Mr. RUTHVEN, from se. vend places in Kildare County ; by Mr. H. GRATTAN, from places in the counties of Monaghan, Longford, and Meath ; by Mr. R. FITZ- simDN, from King's County ; by Mr. GUEST, from Merthyr Tydvil; and by Mr. HALL, from Monmouthshire.

Do Wednesday, petitions against the alterations of the Lords were presented by Mr. BAINES, from Leeds (signed by 13,000 persons); by M. Twits:, from Gravesend; by Mr. LENNARD, from a town in Somersetshire ; by Mr. MITT, from hull ; by Mr. C. FITZSIMON, from a place in -Dublin County; by Mr. JOHN Powen, from many places in Wexford ; and by Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, from towns in Meath and Wicklow. Lord Catmints:eon presented a peti. tion from Newry in favour of the Lords' amendments; and Mr. EMERSON TENNENT one to the same effect from Belfast.

On Thursday, the petitions presented against the amendments of the Lords were more numerous than on any previous day. The principal were from Kendal, Newcastle-under-Lyne, Hereford. Berwick, Not- tingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Ipswich, Lynn, Bath, Gloucester, Leo- minster, Tedbury, Halifax, Finsbury, Westminster, and many other places in England not mentioned. The Scotch petitions were from Greenock, Kilmarnock, Glasgow, several places in Fife and Banff. From every quarter of Ireland petitions were presented by the Irish Liberal Members.

'DISPOSAL OF LAND IN THE COLONIES. On Wednesday, on the motion for readitig the Order of the Day being put, Mr. Waits) ruse to move for the appointment of a Committee, " Toinquire into the different modes in which land has been, and is at present dipposed of iu the British Colonies and in the United States of North America, with a view to ascertain that mode which would be most beneficial in future both to the Colonies and the Mother Country, and which might be brought more peculiarly to bear upon the present state of Ireland as connected with the ques- tion of Poor-laws."

Sir GEORGE GREY interrupted Mr. Ward, to say that Government would agree to the appointment of the Committee,—excluding Canada, however, from the inquiry. He therefore wished to save the necessity of a discussion by this early announcement.

Mr. O'CONNET.L said, that Mr. Roebuck intended to move that Canada be included in the inquiry.

Sir GEORGEGREY said, be could only state how far Ministers would go ; and if the House was satisfied, the Orders of the Day could be proceeded with. [Mr. Alderman Woo D who had a bill about Hackney- coaches, the consideration of which stood as the firstOidersof the Day, was evidently eager to obtain the attention of the House, and re- peatedly rose during the conversation.]

Mr. Wants said, he had no choice, after what had fallen from Sir George Grey ; though lie wished for a previous discussion, that the Committee might be instructed as to the principles on which their in- quiries should proceed.

The SPEAKER urged the necessity of going regularly on with the business befole the House.

The Committee was subsequently appointed, after the Orders of the Day had been disposed of, without any discussion.

TRADE WITH PORTUGAL. Lord PALMERSTON stated, on Monday, in reply to Mr. ROBINSON, that negotiations were on foot for a new commercial treaty with Portugal ; but lie added, He did not wish to conceal from the House, that many persons in Portugal entertained very strong, but utterly unfounded prejudices in favour of protecting- duties, with a view to the fostering of their own particular manufactures. He trusted that these prejudices would not prevail so far as Millipede the conclusion of a treaty between the two kingdoms, founded upon minciples of just reciplo- city and mutual liberality ; but he could not too strongly impress upon Mem- bers, that if foreigners entertained prejudices on the subject, those prejudices had been sometimes too touch encouraged by gentlemen in this House, who made speeches upon foreign trade. ( (iheers.) When the Government of Great Britain urged upon foreign Governments the advantage of unrestricted commerce, subject only to such duties as were necessary for revenue, the answer had now and then bien—" This is a very good doctrine for England, which by means of restrictive duties has attained her present enviable prosperity ; but we shall pursue the same course of protection and prohibition, and when we have equalled England in prosperity, we will imitate her in liberality." It was in vain to tell such persous that England had flourished, not by the aid of, but in spite of protecting duties; and that her prowess had been greatly retarded by the vicious system of former times. As long, however, as persons in foreign countries unfortunately found their prejudices supported by language sometimes held in that House on those subjects, the difficulties of Government in persuad- ing other countries to conclude conainexcial treaties upon liberal principles, would be considerably increased.

APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES. Earl JERMYN presented a peti- tion from Bury St. Edmund's, on Monday, complaining of the appoint- ment of certain Magistrates for that borough, under the Municipal Act, on the ground that they were partisans of Government. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in defending his conduct, remarked, that If the Town-Councils of the kingdom recommended individuals of Liberal principles, he thought it would be some time before the House of Commons decided that the parties were therefore not eligible. During twenty years that he had sat in the House, he had constantly seen Magistrates appointed from party and political motives; but he had never on this account thought it his duty to complain, as long as the individuals were persons of respectable cha- racter and adequate to the administration of justice. Now, indeed, a different rule of conduct seemed to prevail, and a course was taken which he had never ventured to adopt. He knew that the great majority of Magistrates in England and Wales had long been opposed to him in politics ; but he did not think that a constitutional objection to their being in the commission. That party could not now bear to lose any of its power ; and although he did not complain of the petition, he thought that the House could not properly entertain the question. Sir ROBERT ROLFE (Solicitor-General) said that he was Recorder of Bury St. Edmund's ; and had been requested to state to the House, that a public meeting convened by the Mayor, resolutions had been passed, to the effect that the petition presented by Lord Jermyn was not agreed to at a public meeting, and that the inhabitants generally know nothing of it until it was sent up for presentation. Lord JERMYN acknowledged that his petition was not adopted at a public meeting; but he did not see that the fact of the Mayor being in the chair made a meeting more respectable.

The petition was then laid on the table.

REGISTRATION or Bialys BILL. The House of Commons went into Committee on this bill on Monday, and agreed to thirty-three clauses; after considerable opposition from Mr. ESTCOURT and Sir ROBERT INGLIS; who said that the bill was calculated to degrade the Church to the level of a meeting-house. Mr. A. TREVOR divided the Committee against the 27th clause, which enacts that the expense of registering him ths should be paid by the parish: he wished it to be a. charge on the Consolidated Fund. For Mr. Trevor's motion, 28a against it, 71. So the clause was agreed to.

CLDYE NAVIGATION BILL. On Monday, Lord WILLIAM BEN■ TINCK presented a petition from 14,000 inhabitants of Glasgow, against ally alteratien in the management of the Clyde Navigation. He thee moved that the Clyde Navigation Bill lie read a second time that day six months; which motion was agreed to.

POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE postponed his resolutions respecting the Post-office on Tuesday, in consequence of an assurance from Mr. SPRING RICE, that Ministers intended to bring in bills to effect the alterations recommended by the Commissioners, and that the whole subject should then be opened to discussion.

PLAGUE IN LONDON. Mr. WAKLEY, On Tuesday, called the at- tention of Mr. Poulett Thomson to a rumour that five persons in Tottenham Court Road had died of the plague. Mr. Poeserr THOM- SON said, there never was the slightest foundation for the report, which bad reached him on the previous Friday, and was said to rest on the statement of a medical gentleman— As won as the rumour had reached his ears, inquiry was at once made, and a letter was written to the medical gentleman with whom it was supposed that the report had originated, the answer to which be held in his hand. It was as follows: " In reply to the; inquiry made, I have the honour to state that the report was communicated to ate by a medical practitioner on Sunday week, which report I mentioned in one house only on the same day, and not since. It was not that several cases of plague had occurred at the London Docks, but that Mr. Cooke, of the house of Shoolbred and Cooke, drapers, Tottenham Court Road, with seven assistants, bad died from opening a bale of goods in their walehouse, and that it was suspected they had died of the plague. The medical practitioner in question, knowing that I had paid considerable attention to the disease, which I had witnessed at Constantinople, thought that the report would interest me, and wished that I should take pains to examine the truth, and investigate the pat ticulars of it—an object which I have not been able to accomplish, in consequence of my other numerous avocations." On receiving this answer, the right honourable gentleman said he had at once requested Sir W. Pytn, the medical man acting under the directions of the Board of Trade in London, to proceed to the place pointed out in the letter. That gentleman had done so, and finind that Mr. Cooke, the head of the establishment, which was

a large warehouse, where between seventy and eighty persons wkre employed,

hail died on the 1st of May, of a brain fever, and that since that time there had not been one single person ill out of all that were employed, except a young man suffering from a pulmonary complaint. Now he must say, that fur a me- dical gentlemen to have propagated rumours of this kind, having it case of this nature in his possession, and not to have called the attention of Government to it during a whole week, affinded just grounds of complaint.

Mr. Trios/sm.; also mentioned that Shoolbred and Company had offered a reward of 2001. for Os discovery of the original author or the calumny.

Mr. WAKLEY observed, that in the opinion of nine out of ten me- dical men, the plague was not a contagious disorder; and, even should ifs appear in London, it ought to create no alarm.

CRIMINAL LAW. Mr. EWART, on Tuesday, moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the law which allowed a previous conviction to be given in evidence against a prisoner. Sir JOHN casieeese would not oppose the motion, but neither would he pledge himself to support the bill in its subsequent stages— He did not mean to deny, that there might he inconveniences attendant on the practice of bringing evidence of previous conviction before the July, as It had some tendency to create a prejudice in their minds against the prisoner. In the trial of La Roneiere, which had excited so much attention throughout Europe, facts bad been deposed to, as to the former conduct of the prisoner, not bearing at all upon the case, and which had completely poisoned the minds of the jury against him.

Sir EARDLEY WILMOT supported the bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed it— A person on his trial for any offence was permitted to bring evidence of former good character ; and, on the same principle, he thought that evidence of former bad character should also be brought against the accused party. He considered that the system followed in France, of investigating the previous conduct of the prisoner, was in principle to be preferred to an opposite course;, though, what many questions were addressed to the prisoner by the presiding Judge, the effect was to detract from that sedateness and impartiality which should always cha- racterize the bench.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill. CLAIMS or MR. BUCKINGHAM. The House was occupied for several hours on Tuesday in discussing the claim of Mr. Buckingham for compensation from the East India Company for the suppression of hot newspaper, the Calcutta Journal, and his own deportation from India. Mr. TULK moved a resolution confirming the report of the Select Committee in favour of granting compensation to Mr. Buckingha.m; and said, that if this were agreed to, he should move another resolutioa, appropriating the sum of 10,000/. out of the funds of the East In Company to the purpose of reimbursing that gentleman tor his losses. Major CuaTris seconded the motion. It was warmly supper by Mr. Flume, Mr. O'CONNELL, Major BEAUCLERK, TER ; and opposed by Mr. VERNON SMITH, Mr. —OG

and Mr. PI.-

JOHN HOEHOUSE. Mr. Hanvex asked if it was trueitThatGtheanSdotici7 tor of the East India Company had denied that Mr. Buckingham*

losses amounted to 40,000/., and had said that they could not exceed 7000/. or 8000/. ? because, in that case, it seemed to be admitted that a considerable sum was due to Mr. Buckingham ? Mr. VERNON SMITH replied, that the Solicitor to the Company altogether denied the validity of Mr. Buckingham's claim ; but said that if he substantiated a claim, it could not be for more than 7000/. or 8000/. Mr BUCKINGHAM, who was present during the whole of the discussion, said a few words in de- fence of his application to Members to get up petitions in his behalf. The House rejected the motion, by 92 to 60.

SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY BILL : COLONEL TRENCH AND MR. Wasosr. The House was occupied for sometime last night by an aft dr in the Committee of the South Durham Railway Bill. It appeared by a report from that Committee, that Mr. Wason had moved a resolu- tion, which Colonel Trench, considered " s.bsurd," and that high words ensued between the two Members. After a good deal of talk on the subject, as it appeared that Mr. Wason had gone abroad, and Colonel Trench would not positively promise to take no further steps in the affair, the Colonel, on the motion of Lord JOIN RUSSELL, was committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms, and, on the motion of Lord STORMONT, Mr. 1Vason was ordered to be put under the same restraint. This quarrel occupied the House for some time before the -commencement of the debate on the Irish Municipal Bill, and after the division ; so that the Speaker did leave the 'chair till nearly four o'clock this morning.

PRINTING or THE STATUTES.—A message was received on Thursday from the Lords, who professed themselves " at all times desirous of maintaining a good correspondence with the House of Commons,"— a profession which excited loud laughter in the House,—desiring a con- ference on the subject of the Commons' resolutions on the printing of the Statutes. Mr. Pryme was appointed to manage it ; and on his return to the House, read the report; which stated, that on the 9th and 15th of February last, the House of Commons resolved, that the statutes should be printed and promulgated in one uniform shape— royal octavo- " To this suggestion the Lords objected, thinking that it was fit to have two editions of the statutes, one for immediate dish ibution in octavo, and the other for deposit in public offices, libraries, &c. in quarto. Their Lordships, also, did not concur in another resolution, that bills should in future not be engrossed, but written in round hand: their Lordships still wished bills to be engrossed, but the names of places and persons might be written in round hand."

The reasons of the Lords were then laid on the table.

COPYRIGHT ACT. The House, on Thursday, by a vote of 169 to 80, allowed Mr. BUCKINGHAM to bring in a bill to extend to Ireland the Copyright Act of England, as far as relates to prints and engravings.

STEAM VESSELS BILL. On the motion of Alderman WOOD, this bill was read a second time on Wednesday.

FISHERIES. On Wednesday the Reports on the Fisheries and Oyster Fisheries Bills were considered and agreed to.