IlDtbatts ant 413roteebings in radiament.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

In the House of Commons,. on Monday, Sir Roamer PEEL stated the' course which Ministers intended to adopt with respect to the abandonment or prosecution of the several Government measures before the House, A few words were also contributed to the statement by other Ministers In the first place, however, Sir ROBERT PEEL announced an alteration. suggested by experience in the functions of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, which would be embodied in a minute by the Board and laid before the House. "I think the general purport will be, to constitute the Board of Trade a guardian of the public interests, and still to require that all public projects be laid before it, and that it shall have power to report whether any particular project does or does not affect injuriously the public interests, but to relieve it from the duty of deciding upon the comparative merits of the projects; so that it shall perform the functions of counsel for the public, not offering any suggestions with respect to the relative merits, which can even in the slightest degree con- structively fetter the discretion of the House, but issuing reports to be laid before: Parliament on the projects, so far as they affect the public internat." Effect had also been given to the address moved the other night by Mr. Cobden, and Coln missioners had been wointed to report as to the propriety of adopting the broad or narrow gauge. Those Commissioners were Sir Frederick Smith, Professor Barlow, and Professor Airey. With respect to the legislative measures, there were not fewer than fifty or sixty; but as several of them were not likely to lead to any great discussion, it was hardly necessary to go through the whole in detail, and he should bpeak only of the most prominent. Government would proceed with the Irish Colleges B giving it precedence, and endeavouring to bring the discussion upon it to a dole as speedily as possible. He did not think there would be any difficulty in passing` the Scotch Poor-law Bill. He should take the earliest opportnnity to move the se- cond re2rEn& of the bill for abolishing certain penalties under which the Jews labour. Several continuing bills would necesaarilybe discussed, including the Turnpike Act and an act relating to the removal of Scotch and Irish poor; the latter rendered the more necessary as Sir James Graham proposed to relinquish the parochial Settlement Bill for this session. He also proposed to relinquish the bill relating to Justices' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace. There are several bills connected with Ireland in respect to which I believe there is no very material ditlbrence of opinion: there is the Valuation Bill, the Criminal Lunatics Bill, the Constabulary ( 'ft.blic Works) Bill, the Drainage of Lands in Ireland Bill, (which I believe will meet the general assent of the House,) the Joint Stock Companies Bill, (applying to Ireland the same regulations which were applied to England last session,) and I think also a Fisheries Bill." There was also a bill to make further regulations with respect to the administration of oaths; and there remained not fewer than eighty votes to be disposed of in supply. "My right honourable friend the Home Secretary wishes to have the opportunity of reprinting his Physic and Surgery Bill—(A laugh)—both with respect to that bill and the bill relating to the Col- lege of Physicians and Surgeons, he had flattered himself that he and those who had taken 'art in the discussion were so nearly agreed that he might probably pass the bill (Laughter.) If he should be justified in that opinion, the House will at all events be relieved of a discussion next session; but if there should be a.very decided opposition to his proceeding, then, rather than consume the time of the House in a discussion which might not be of any practical use, my right honourable friend, after printing the bill with such modifications as he may pro- pose—not of great importance, I believe--will not press the bills." The Mer- chant .Seomens Bill, introduced by the Board of Admiralty and received with general favour Government intended to press; the Merchant Seamens' Fund Bill wiiuld be postponed to another session. A bill for carrying into effect theeltange- ments with respect to the slave-trade they hoped to pass this session. "With respect to the Charitable Trusts Bill, the Government, after full consideration, approve the principle of the bill, and attach great importance to it; but still it is brought under consideration an late, that I cannot say I think it probable that if We persevered in it we should succeed. A great number of persons have asked for interviews upon it, and it would lead to much discussion: but lain bound to say that I do not postpone it from any doubt on the character of the bill, but to prevent a great deal of, I fear, fruitless consumption of time. From the import- ance of the subject, the parties affected by it are fairly entitled to a better oppor- tunity of considering it. I am not aware that there are any other measures of very great importance. [A Member—" The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill ?"] That is a bill of which the noble Lord (John Russell) has charge: if he is enabled to propose the second reading, I shall be happy to support it, as I supported a bill with similar provisions; but I cannot undertake to assign the number of Govern. ment days for the discussion of it which would be necessary, if I am to judge from experience. [Mr. CRA.YEN BERKELEY—" There is the Small Debts BR'] We propose to proceed with that. There is also a bill relating to the geological survey, for removing some technical defects in the existing law; and some other minor bills, which will create no difficulty. [A Member—" The Commons En- closure Bill."] We propose to assign a morning sitting to that; and from the general impression there was that the bill is really favourable to the interests of the bumbler classes of society, I hope we shall be enabled to proceed with it." It is' thirteen years since there was a consolidation of the Customs Act: "we are ' no change in the law if amendments of a substantial nature were pro-

d with such a consolidation act, embodying all the recent provisions, but making posed, and if we were met with obstructions, of course it would be impossible to proceed this session; bat it would be a matter of great public convenience to pre- sent the existing law in a brief forms and if we are encouraged by the unanimous voice of the House, we are prepared to undertake that duty. [A Member- " The Lunacy Bills."] They are assigned to my noble friend, (Lord Ashley,) mad on Wednesday or Thursday we propose to have a morning sitting for them."

Lord Joins RUSSELL regretted that a sufficient number of days could not be allotted to the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill to enable the House to go through with it; but there would now ben° purpose answered in pressing it; therefore he should not try to proceed with it this session. Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE wished to know whether the Tenants' Compensation Bill was to be persevered in, as the great majority of the Irish Members were waiting in London merely to know the issue of it. (A laugh.) Sir ROBERT PEEL said, as the bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the House of Lords,, he was afraid he could give no assurance on the subject. In reply to Mr. REDINGTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that neither the Irish Registration Bill nor the bill to amend the Irish Municipal Corporations had been, mentioned in the Speech from. the Throne, and no progress could be made with them this session if they were introduced. Certainly, however, Irish measures had not been neglected. In reply to Mr. ALDAN the Earl of Lnicour said, that he would bring in a bill this session for the Leiter drainage of towns, in order to have it printed and circulated and mallow-time for its consideration previous to next session, when he would submit it to the House at an early period. Mr. PAKINGTON wished to know if the right honourable Secretary of State would engage to bring in a bill next session upon the law of settlement? Sir LIMES GRAHAM said,, it would be premature to give any pledge of the kind. Ile was bound to say that the law of settlement was not in a satisfactory state, and that it was in a state least conducive to the interests of the labouring classes. The evil was hardly tolerable, and the. House was unwilling to apply such a remeiy as was needed. He should therefore be premature to give any pledge on. the subject.

RELIGIOUS TESTS IN THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.

In the House. of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. MACAULAY moved the. second reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill. He. began by express- ing, regret that he was obliged to be the substitute for Mr. Rutherfurd, who was unavoidably absent; recalling the effect which Mr. Rutherfurd's introductory speech had had—how. Ministers, who came down to the House to oppose him, relinquished their intention, and consented to give leave for bringing in the bill. Knowing how imperfectly English gentlemen were acquainted with the subject, Mr. Macaulay begged their attention; and he chnmed some indulgence on the occasion as Member for Edinburgh- " I have been sent to this House by a great city, which was once the capital of an independent kingdom, once the seat of a court and of a parliament. For the general good of the empire it descended from that eminence; but it still continues the intellectual metropolis of a great and intelligent people. Its chief distinction of late years is derived from its University, which was practically constituted on the purest principles of toleration. So constituted, it has flourished daring seve- ral generations a blessing to the empire and renowned to the furthest ends of the world, as a great school of physical and moral science. This noble and beneficent institution is now threatened with a complete aad, ignominious alteration in its cbaracter, by the shortsighted and criminal policy of her Majesty's Government, and by the virulence of ecclesiastical factions which is bent on persecution with- out even the miserable excuse of fanaticisin. Nor is it only for Minburgh that I plead; I plead for all the great academic institutions of Saitland."

If the bill ought to pass at all, it ought to pass without a moment's delay; and he maintained that of all people its principle could least be. eon. traverted by Ministers- " From their mouth will not sound well anydeclaration that literary. and miens tific instruction, is ineeprably connected with spiritual instruction: it will-11441o.

far them to decry the principle of this bill as establishing a godless system of education,' or to talk -with horror of the danger of young men listening to lec- tures delivered by an Arian professor of botany or a Popish professor of medicine- (Cheers and laughter.) They have, for a country in which a great proportion of those who require academical education are dissenters from the Establishecr Church, advocated a system of academical education altogether separate from religious tests. In that case, they have thrown open the professorships to every creed; and they have strenuously defended this principle against attacks from opposite quarters—against the attacks of zealous members of the Church of England, and of the Prelates of the Church of Rome. A test was offered only the day before yesterday. [by Sir Thomas Acland, in Committee on the Irish Colleges Bill.]—a test singularly moderate, merely requiring the professors to declare their belief in the Divine authority of the Old and New Testaments—and even this test the Ministers resisted as inconsistent with the principles of their measure. It was then argued that it was unnecessary to apply such a test to professors of secular science. We heard in other quarters the use of very different language; but that language made as little impression on Ministers as on me. We were told that secular knowledge, unsanctioned anil unaccom- panied by some views of pure religion, was not merely useless' but was positively: noxious; that it was not a blessing, but a curse." That pro- position is so monstrous and ludicrous, that refutation is out of the question. Is it seriously meant, that if the captain of an Indiaman should be a Socinian it would be better that he should not know the science of navigation; and that if a druggist should be a Swedenborgian, he should not know the difference between Epsom salts and oxalic acid ? Is it seriously meant that 100,000,000 of the Queen's subjects, being Alahomedans and Hindoos, and progressing towards, our state of civilization, should be sunk below the aborigines of New South Wales, without an alphabet, and without the rudiments of arithmetic? Gentlemen who mean seriously that secular knowledge, unsanctioned by a pure system of religion, is a positive evil, must go that length : but I should think that no sane man would be found to do so. On these grounds, I cordially supported the measure which her Majesty's Government introduced with respect to the Irish Colleges. The principle of the Irish Colleges Bill, and the principle of the bill the second reading of which I now move, are the mune; and what the House and the country have a right to know is, why those who bring in the Irish Colleges Bill call on us to throw out the present bill?" What is the distinction between Scotland and Ireland, except that in Scotland there is no clamour against the British con- nexion, no demagogue seeking popular favour by exciting animosity against the' English race, no party contemplating alliance with the enemies of the state? But is something to be withheld from Scotland on that account ? In Scotland as well as Ireland, the Established Church is now in a minority; and among the class requiring academical education, the proportion of Dissenters is perhaps as great as that of Roman Catholics in Ireland. If it is desirable that there should be no sectarian education in Ireland, it is no less desirable in Scotland. If it is desirable that Protestants and Catholics should study together at Cork, it is no, less desirable that the sons of elders of the Established Church of Scotland and the sons of those who are separated from that Church should study together at Edinburgh. If it is not desirable to require from Irish professors a declaration that they believe in the Divine authority of the Gospels, on what ground is it ne- cessary to call on the Scotch Professors to say that they assent to every clause in the Confession of Faith ? I defy right honourable gentlemen opposite, with all their ingenuity and eloquence, to find one argument or rhetorical topic against this bill which would not be as effectual against their own Irish Colleges Bill. I consider this bill, then, as safe from attack, with respect to its principle, from her Majesty's Ministers." tut he went further, and insisted that the peculiar circumstances of Scot- land furnish irresistible reasons for the bill. In respect to existing academical institutions, the case of Scotland differs widely from that of England or Ire- land. The English Universities have a character of their own which, bad or good, is in strict harmony with the system of tests; the Irish Colleges have as yet no character; but the Scotch Universities haves distinct character altoge- ther out of harmony with the system of tests. In the English Universities the object is to bring men up as members of a particular church; and however ineffectually carried out, there is a machinery to watch over the discipline and morals of the students: in Scotland there is no such object or ma-. chinery; in secular matters, the. Universities do not recognize any one sys- tem of religion more than another, and no effort is practically made to preserve moral discipline: the relation between the students and professors is mach the same as that between medical students in Loudon and the persons whose lectures they attend. Where you aim at bringing up young men as members of a particular church, there is a reason for requiring from all who educate, a test to show that they belong to that church; but where you do not propose to inculcate certain religious opinions, it is ab- surd to prohibit a man, unless he gives a religious test, from lecturing on chemistry or other science. The Treaty of Union and Act of Security" had been pleaded against the bill: he contended that they bound the. Legislature to pass it- " It was declared by that treaty that no person should be a teacher or offices bearer at the Universities who did not subscribe to the Confession of Faith, or in' other words, did not declare his adhesion to the Established Church. What Established Church was that? It was the Church established in 1707, when the Union was adopted. Is the Church of Scotland at the present moment on all - points constituted as that Church in 1701? I answer, certainly not. The British Legislature has violated the articles of the Union, and has made a change in the constitution of the Church of Scotland. From that change has flowed almost all the dissent now existing in Scothind3 and if you attempt to enforce the letter of the articles of the Act of Union against the Dissenters, you are actus ally excluding from acting as officers of the Universities precisely those persons to . whom the Act of Union meant to 'give the exclusive ion of the academic offices. This I undertake to prove.' Mr. Macaulay 7'ia.cris:ossby tracing the his- tory. of Dissent in Scotland. In that country it is considered as a matter jure diem, for they think that they find it revealed to them in the Word of God, that no individuals are entitled to be ministers to congregations if their preaching does not tend to edify the congregations. In 1712, the Whigs, the authors of the Union, fell, in consequence of the prosecution of Dr. Sacheverell and the enmity of the Church of England: the Tories came into power, bent on evading the bar- gain and on offending the prejudices of the Presbyterians; and they introduced a bill abolishing the law of 1690, and giving back the power of filling up vacant benefices to lay patrons. "Of the history of that bill we have a little in Burnet; and we have something very significant in our own journals. The measure was hurried on with the greatest speed, that it might be got through the House before intimation of it could reach Scotland; for those were not the days of railroads, when a speech made at two or three o'clock in the morning is read the same day at Exeter and Newcastle. The significant entry on our journals respecting it us this—there was an obstinate tight, and in the debate on the third reading it RES ordered that the Act of Union and the Act of Security should be read to the House. This is a pretty clear indication of what the feeling was on that occasion. But the bill got no to the House of Lords; then came a petition from the General A.ssembly of Scotland against it. The first name attached to the petition was that of Canstairs, well known for the share he took in the establishment of the Church of Scotland after the Revolution. In that petition their Lordships were prayed not to violate the Act of Union: but party-spirit ran high, and bore down all opposition; the Act of Union was violated; year after year the General As- sembly protested against the violation' but in vain- and fromfromthe Act of 1712 undoubtedly flowed every secession and schism that has taken place in the Church of Scotland. This is the true history of Dissent in Scotland; and know in g can any English statesman have the front to invoke the Treaty of Union and the Act of Security areiinst those who hold these precise opinions which the Treaty of Union anl the Act of Security were intended to protect ano who are Dissenters only because that treaty and that act have been violated? Can they have a doubt of the animus imponentis of the bill of 1712, when they see the names of those who opposed it, the name of Carstairs, and o f Boston, the author of The Fourfold State ? Suppose we could call them up from their gravel, and explain to them the revolutions which have since their time taken place in the Church of Scotland, and then ask them, Which of these was your church at the time of the Union, for the protection of which the articles of the Union and the Act of Security were made?'—have you the slightest doubt of what their answer would be ? They would say, Our church was not the church you protect, but the church you oppress; oar church was the church of Chalmers and Brewster, not that of Brice and Muir.'"

Another argument in favour of the bill seems yet stronger-

" You may say you are averse to removing these tests; but the question is not whether you will remove these tests, but whether you will reimpose them? The laws imposing these tests have fallen into disuse. We have heard that disuse made an argument by the right honourable Baronet the Home Secretary in favour of the Irish Colleges Bill: he said, 'The experiment has been tried—in Edin- burgh these tests have been disused for near a century?' (Great cheering.) I implore the House to remember this: we are called on to establish Colleges in Ireland without tests, and yet we are asked to introduce a system of tests into the University of Edinburgh ten times as stringent as the test the honourable Baronet opposite (Sir Thomas &land) proposed to introduce into Ireland! Is it possible the House of Commons will bear out the Minister in such an attempt as this? Then, being to this extent obsolete, why are they now imposed? Having so long slept, the attempt is made to revive them precisely because a schism has taken place, and there has been a vigorous demonstration of differences which you might have laid to sleep for ever. They were not enforced while the Church of the Peo- ple was the Church of Scotland; but you begin to enforce them as soon as the majority the people become Dissenters. You enforce them as they never were enforced

before; and the very moment you do so you make the Universities secta- rian bodies."

Could the prosperity of the University of St. Andrew's be promoted by ejecting Sir David Brewster from his professorship? The Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh University knows better, for it has petitioned in favour of the bill. He warned the House, that unless the bill were carried, a new College would be founded by the Free Church; and nothing would be in prospect but the gradual, and he feared not distant, destruction of the Scotch Universities- " Even now it is notorious, such is the competition and emoluments of other pursuits of life, that it is difficult to procure eminent men to fill the chairs of the Universities. We can now choose from the whole of Scotland, from the whole world, men to fill the office of professors: throw out this bill, and you narrow this choice to half of Scotland or less ; the diminution of students will lower the emoluments of the chair to less than half their present amount. What will be the consequences? Is it passible not to see that you will have a lower class of professors? With the inferior abilities of the professor, the students decrease; the decline will be rapidly and headlong downwards; and it is clear to me that all will sink into utter decay, till the lectures are deserted, the halls empty, and a man not fit to be a village dominie will occupy the chair of a Dugald Stewart, an Adam Smith, a Reid, a Black, a Playfair, and a Jameson." How could Ministers like such a prospect as that?— " The right honourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department has already, by his misfortune or his fault, secured no enviable place in the annals of Scotland: his name is inseparably associated with the disruption of the Scotch Church. Will he ruin the Scotch Universities? If the Government were con- sistent, even though it acted on an erroneous principle, though we might disap- prove, it would be with some mixture of respect; but a Government that is guided by no principle whatever—a Government which on the gravest questions does not know its own mind for twenty-four hours together—a Government that goes from extreme to extreme, backwards and forwards like a reed shaken by the wind'--a Government that is against tests in Ireland and for tests in Scot- land—that is against tests at Limerick and for them at Glasgow—against them in Cork and for them in Edinburgh—that is against tests at Belfast and for them at Aberdeen—that opposes tests on Monday,. and advocates them on Wed- nesday, to oppose them on Thursday again,—it is impossible such a Government can command either respect or confidence. Is it strange that the most liberal measures of such a Government should fail to gain the applause of liberal men? Is it strange that it should lose the confidence of one-half the nation without gaining that of the other half ?" Mr. Macaulay appealed also to the House; calling upon those who had voted with Government against the test proposed by Sir Thomas Acland, upon those zealous members of the Church of England who would not have the doctrines which they hold to be true declared to be penal, and upon every man of every party who loved knowledge, science, and literature, to stand by him in endeavouring to avert the destruction which threatened the Universities of Scotland.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the motion at some length. When the subject was introduced, last year, by Mr. Fox Maule, he stated the reasons why Government resisted the proposition and when early in the present

session, it was again brought forward by Ruthedurd, he said that Mi- nisters were waiting for some general declaration of sentiments by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and by the people of Scot- land. Having beard the decision of the Church, and as far as they could collect it, the opinion of the people, Ministers adhered to their determina- tion of lest year. The very circumstance to which Mr. Macaulay referred, the rejection of Sir Thomas Acland's test, proved that if any test is to be maintained in the Scotch Universities, it is better to adhere to that test which rests on the basis of ancient statutes than to attempt modifications or alterations; for Mr. Macaulay admitted that there could not easily be framed a milder test than that which was proposed, yet it met with many objections in the House, and a great majority of the House held it to be inconclusive: this failure proves that it is not expedient to attempt to alter or modify the test to be imposed, but that it should be the existing test. In various parts of his speech Mr. Macaulay had referred to the conduct of Government with respect to Ireland- " Now, I appeal to the justice and to the recent recollection of the House whe- ther throughout the argument as to the admission or exclusion of tests filial the Irish Colleges, I have not rested the course taken by Government on the special circumstances of the condition of Ireland? I appeal to the House, whether I- have not uniformly declared that the only ground upon which the absence of all religious tests in those Colleges could be maintained was, that there rested in the Government the power of nominating and of dismissing the Professors of those Colleges ? "

He denied the distinction which Mr. Macaulay endeavoured to make between

the English, Irish, and Scotch Universities; all of which, with Maynooth College, supply candidates for the religious ministries of the respective countries; the only real difference being that the Church of Scotland exclusively draws its supply- from the Universities. Mr. Macaulay admitted the connexion between the Uni- versities and the Church of Scotland, and said that the good faith of Parliament was pledged to the act of the Union; but he argued that what is customarily called the Church of Scotland has in fact ceased to be so: Sir James could not conceive anything likely to be received with greater feelings of terror in Scotland than this statement, that on account of the disruption that has recently taken place in the church, that church is no longer the Church of Scotland to which the faith of the British Parliament is pledged. Mr. Macaulay had referred to Sir James's remark, that in one of the Scotch Universities the use of the test has been discontinued— "I do admit that in the University of Edinburgh, in the last fifty or sixty years, the imposition of this test has been discontinued. But, at the same time, it is historically inaccurate to say that it has been abandoned, or that in later times it has been anything like discontinued. A large proportion of the Professors of the University of Edinburgh have signed from time to time the Confession of Faith, or were liable when caned on to do so. It was signed by Professor Leslie and by Mr. Dugald Stewart, and many other distinguished persons have signed it up to a recent period. In the other four Universities of Scotland, the Professors have from time to time signed it, without exception, from the period of the Presbyterian settlement in 1690 to the present moment." The right honourable gentleman added that those tests were principally levelled against the Episcopalians; but in fact they were in terms levelled against the heterodox onions of "Popery, Sociniamsm, and Arminianism." With respect to Sir David Brewster's case, that turns upon a question of law: he has twice subscribed the Confession of Faith, and it is doubtful whether subscription can be required after a Professor has been inducted.

Sir James proceeded to argue, that if the tests, which have existed for century and a half, were repealed, Dissenters, especially those of the Free Church, would be admitted to the control over the lectures; the more so, as many of the Professors are appointed by popular bodies, such as the Town-Council of Edinburgh. And he insisted, that under the pledge con- veyed in the Treaty of Union, Parliament is bound to maintain the perpetual connexion between the Established Church of Scotland and the Universities. The weight of authority also is against the repeal of the tests,—the report of the Commission appointed in 1826; the recent decision of the General Assembly, composed both of clergy and laity, and representing the Church throughout the country ; the leaders of the Free Church, such as Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Cunningham, and Dr. Candlish In establishing Colleges the Dissenters always take steps to secure that the teachers shall be of their own creed; and no feeling in favour of the proposed change has been mani- fested in Edinburgh or Glasgow. No doubt, if the Free Church were to establish a College, they would adopt a stringent test.

" I have reason also to believe, that if this bill should pass and become law, the Established Church of Scotland would not think itself justified in allowing its youth to be educated for the ministry of the church in the absence of such tests in the existing Universities. My belief is—I deplore it as mach as any honour- able Member of this House can do—my belief is this, that the time has arrived when sectarian education in Scotland is inevitable: but I further believe, that if the Free Church of Scotland shall establish a College with a stringent test, and if the Church of Scotland shall establish a College of its own for the education of its ministry, by leaving the ancient Universities without any security with regard to the religions teaching afforded in them, you will be taking a course which IS certain, if it do not lead to their downfall, at least to deprive them of a consider- able number of students.

No practical evil has resulted from the moderate use of the tests. There certainly has been no want of able men in the Universities of Scotland; and the condition of those Universities is not one of decay. Bequests have been made to them on the faith that connexion between the Established Church and the Colleges would be maintained. Sir James concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months.

Sir GEORGE GREY enlarged on the inconsistency of Sir James Graham's present position as compared with that which he took up when agreeing to the introduction of the bill, and still more as compared with the course taken in respect to the Irish Colleges Bill. Sir James seemed to forget that there was any such thing as principle.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER rebuked the lax morality admitted by Sir James Graham. Practically, the test must extort from some men the declaration that they would practise the worship of a church to which they do not belong. All public morality must be destroyed if a Government changed its principles one day and then shifted back again the next— if; instead of acting upon clear and defined principles, they were guided by no principle at all. Sir James Graham said that the state of Ireland was peculiar: in what was it so? Was it peculiar in the prevalence of sectarian dissension and animosity? Thanks to the policy of Government, it was not so; for they lied done their best to make Scotland in the condition de • scribed to be that of Ireland. Was it not as great en evil to encourage sectarian education in Scotland as in Ireland? Yet Sir James stated de- liberately, that in future all education in Scotland must be sectarian! He said that in Edinburgh only those took the test who chose: this is the first time we ever heard of an optional test. If all were made optional, in- deed, there could be no objection to retaining them. But if so, how is it that we hear of such proceedings as those against Sir David Brewster?

Sir ROBERT PEEL made a short speech against the motion; retouch- ing some of Sir James Graham's arguments. He explained the distinc- tions between the case of Ministers in Ireland and in Scotland. In Ireland, they proposed to establish a secular education, calling upon individuals to provide for religious instruction, but making no change in existing institu- tions in Ireland any more than in England or Scotland. They desired to institute new Colleges without provoking opposition by encouraging an apprehension that the same principles must be -applied to existing institu- tions. But as tests are not to be applied in the new Colleges, power is re- served to the Crown of appointing and removing the Professors. Mr. Macaulay admitted the binding force of the engagement in the Act of Union; but his argument went to deny altogether the existence of the Established Church: yet his own bill provided that theological chairs should still be subject to the test. Ministers had been taunted with allow- ing the bill to be introduced and then opposing it—

'Sir, we were assured that this bill would meet with general concurrence on the part of the people of Scotland: and lain not prepared to say that if the general voice of the people of Scotland had been in favour of it—I am not at all prepared to say that in that case Parliament would not have been perfectly right in agreeing to it But I must say, that when the Union of the two countries was perfected, the engagements then entered into are not lightly to be set aside against the ex- pression of the public opinion of the people of Scotland. What demonstration have we had on the part of the Church of Scotland in favour of this bill? Instead of such a demonstration, it was by a majority of 240. toll that the late General Assembly applied to Parliament for the maintenance of these securities. Were there petitions from Scotland in favour of the repeal of these teats? Was there any demonstration from Scotland? "

Mr. Rusts—" Yes."

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" I don't deny that there may have been some one or two petitions: but does the honourable gentleman mean to contend that the opinion of the people of Scotland, as it can be inferred from the demonstrations in Scotland, is to be taken as being in favour of this bill ?"

Mr. Hustx--" Yes."

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" To what extent have petitions been presented?" Mr. Rusts—" None against, and all for it." Sir ROBERT PEEL—"IS the recorded opinion of the Church of Scotland itself to be regarded as nothing ?" Mr. Rusts—" Not more than the recorded opinion of the Roman Catholic Prelates against the Irish Colleges Bill." ("Hear, hear!" and cries of "Order!") Sir ROBERT PEEL reiterated his explanation, that although Ministers imposed no test in the case of the new Colleges, they thought it not inconsistent to abstain from altering the system in ancient institutions.

Lord Jona RUSSELL exhorted the House not to stiffer themselves to be involved in the humiliating dilemma from which Ministers could not extricate themselves. He vigorously rated Ministers for holding neither one principle nor the other; saying today, that there is no need of reli- gious tests in Ireland, tomorrow, that they are essentially necessary to maintain religion in Scotland-

" We have all heard an old story of two knights who disputed respecting a shield, one side of which was black and the other white: one maintained that the shield was wholly white, the other that it was wholly black; and they were ready to fights desperate battle and to peril their lives for the sake of defending each his opinion. One can believe that each knight, trusting his eyesight, acted faith- fully according to its testimony; but that one of them should go first to the black side and say that all was black, and then to the white side and insist that all was entirely white, and yet claim to be acting on conscientious conviction, was realiz- ing what no fiction ever supposed." Tests are in fact no guard against infidelity- " We all know that Bolingbroke, Hume, and Gibbon, held offices when it was necessary to take the sacramental test, and when persons were obliged by the solemn administration of the sacrament to evince their belief in the doctrines of the Church of England. Did that prevent these men from holding office, and being good Tories to boot? They were eminent Tory authors and statesmen; and yet my honourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford would rely on such a test as a guard against infidelity and irreligion."

On the other hand, there is no difficulty in allowing persons of different persuasions to attend the lessons of eminent instructors in literature or science- " I happen to recollect attending the University of Edinburgh myself when Da- gald Stewart was lecturer. We who attended the lessons of that great philoso- pher were of different persuasions; • and I remember that when he retired from the chair, a Committee was formed to express our sense of his high merits, and our regret at his retirement. There were Presbyterians and members of the Church of England belonging to that class; but it so happened, that the person to whom Was confided the drawing up of the address was a Roman Catholic, Lord Killeen, the present Earl of Fingal This is a proof that men may derive instruction from the same eminent and enlightened man, without a compromise of their religious faith."

Sir Robert Peel said that the General Assembly opposed the bill: would the Lord Primate and clergy of the Established Church in Ireland have given many of their suffrages in favour of the Maynooth or Colleges Bill? Lord John called upon the House to come to some principle or other, and not to be misled by the very shallow distinction that religions differences should be excluded from new institutions, but maintained in old ones.

The House divided—For the second reading, 108; against it, 116; Itlinisterial majority, 8. The announcement of the numbers was re- ceived with loud cheers by the Opposition. SPEAKERS IN THE FOREGOING DEBATE. For the bill—Mr. Macaulay, Sir George Grey, Mr. Charles Buller Mr. Patrick Maxwell Stewart, Lord John Russell. Against it—Sir James Graham, Mr. James Stuart Wortley, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Pringle, the Lord Advocate, Sir Robert Peel.

• ACADEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

On Monday, the House of Commons went into Committee on the Col- leges (Ireland) Bill On the 14th clause, providing lecture-rooms for religious instruction Mr. BORTHWICK moved an amendment to provide also chapels and chaplains for the several denominations in the Colleges. But the amendment met with no encouragement, and it was withdrawn.

On the same clause Sir TEamies DYKE Aermsin moved an amendment, to introduce the following proviso-

" That any person appointed to be President, Vice-President, or member of the governing body of each of such Colleges, shall, before he enter upon the duties of any of the said offices, make and subscribe the following declaration= I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I acknowledge and receive the Holy Scrip- tures of the Old and New Testament as containing the revealed will of Almighty Grod."

This religious test was supported by Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Mr. WILLIAM COWPER: opposed by Lord Josue MANNERS, and others, as in- effectual to its object—Mr. Gtmosrowe doubted even if Dr. Strauss him- self might not be prepared to subscribe to it—by Mr. REDINGTON, as offensive to the Roman Catholics • by Sir JAMES GRAHAM, as impracticable; and by Sir ROBERT PEEL, as needless—

He thought that, before adopting this test, they should ascertain whether or not infidelity was an evil against which it was necessary to guard by legislative means. He did not believe that either in England or in Ireland avowed infidelity was an evil requiring legislative remedies. The latitudinarian opinions which were held in Germany would be a total disqualification for an appointment to a Professorship in Ireland.

On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 105 to 36.

Mr. Cwastsvm MEDLEY' divided the House against the whole clause; 'which was affirmed, by 100 to 0.

With some amendments, the remainder of the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

When the report was brought up on Tuesday, Mr. WYSE moved a reso- lution, that the new Colleges be annexed to Dublin University, in pursuance of an act of 1793, which provided that future Colleges might be so annexed. Opposed by Sir J.siires GRAHAM and Mr. Snsw, the amendment was negatived without a division.

When the third reading was moved, on Thursday, Mr.BERWAL OSBORNE moved the following resolution as an amendment-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the amount of the revenues of Trinity College, Dublin, from rents of college-lands, endowments and bequests, fees on matriculation, on taking degrees, and from every other source; also iMo the manner in which that income is expended, the number of Senior and Junior Fellows, of Professors, Scholars, and all other officers of the College, with the amount of salary and allowances to each of them, with a view to ascartain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be beneficially ex- tended, so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters eligible, if other- wise qualified, to all Scholarships, and to all such Fellowships, Professorships, and other offices in Trinity College, Dublin, as are not intended for ecclesiastical pur- poses or immediately connected with ecclesiastical endowment." He deprecated the idea of taking money for the new Colleges from the Consolidated Fund—the pool of Bethesda, to which they always applied when the waters were troubled; and proceeded to show the resources avail- able in Trinity College. Of the Catholics, only 1 in 320,000 goes to that College; and even those Catholics who do go are cut off from the emolu-

ments. Nevertheless, it was not founded with Protestant money, but with the estates of the Roman Catholic Earl of Desmond, confiscated by Eliza- beth in 1592; and it was not until forty years afterwards, in the time of Strafford, that Catholics were mentioned, and rendered ineligible for the professorships. The Fellows have been enabled to marry; and the institu- tion has been converted into a gigantic scheme of collegiate connubiality, into which at least the Member for Oxford University (Sir Robert Inglis) could hardly resist inquiry: a rich and unmarried Fellow of Trinity Col- lege is regarded as a very good investment among the coterietrof Dublin. The gross revenue he estimated at 500,0001. a year— His data were made up partly from the University Calendar for 1844, and partly from the information of a gentleman a member of the University. The total income from tuition was 28,316/. a year; the amount from lands held by the College, 21,6841.; making a total of 50,0001. speaking in round numbers. Of course, if they knew the exact amount of these revenues, there would be no neces- sity for the motion. Of this amount the money spent in prizes and scholarships was 4,4001.; it was said that the Fellows, after the expenses of the College were defrayed, shared the revenue among them. The senior members had 2,0001. or 3,0001. a year; the junior members 1,5001. a year. But, not satisfied with

these emoluments, the Fellows laid violent hands on several of the professorships: one of the senior Fellows was Regius Professor of Greek—a mere sinecure; and not only that, he was also a Catechist and the Professor of Oratory. Another Fellow was a Catechist and Professor of Moral Philosophy. These professorships were paid by large fixed salaries. Mr. Osborne gave some account of the course in the College, to show that it could not make very ardent divinity students. Distinctions and tests are to be abolished in the new Colleges, but they are retained in Dublin: a professorship of chemistry was lately advertised as open to candidates of all nations, but they must be Protestants. A Spaniard or a Frenchman

might be appointed, but not an Irish Catholic. Under such a system, men could not but look on the Irish Roman Catholics as an inferior class. They might say that the days of Protestant ascendancy were at an end; but they would not be so as long as this University remained on its present system. Sir Tnowas FREMANTLE opposed the motion; for which, he said, no Parliamentary grounds had been shown. Mr. Osborne asserted that the

funds of the College had been misappropriated; but he did not establish any

proof of the fact. With respect to the marriage of the Fellows, that was a recent arrangement, made under Earl Fortescue's government; and the present Ministers had positively refused to make any such concession.

The incomes of the Fellows were exaggerated: those of the senior Fellows do not exceed 1,5001. a year; a portion of that is derived from the salaries of professorships; and it must be remembered that the tutors look forward to those fellowships as a reward for their arduous services. As to Protes- tant ascendancy, it might as well be said that they were maintaining Roman Catholic ascendancy, because, while the landed revenue of Trinity College is 21,000/., they were endowing Maynooth College with 26,0001. a year. Mr. Wanntomow entered into a minute account of the College and its history, to show that it had been perverted from its purpose; the charter of Elizabeth prohibiting instruction in the liberal arts at any other place in Ireland, and the property belonging to the Crown, rendered it evident that the design was to make it provide education for all the inhabitants of

Ireland. He condemned the practice of permitting the Fellows to marry; since in the English Universities a rapid succession of Fellows is deemed conducive to learning. And he suggested a plan for opening the College to Roman Catholics—

The wise course would be to leave to Protestants the existing foundation and funds, so far as they are correctly applicable to Protestant purposes, and to endow new professorships and fellowships for the encouragement of learning among those Catholics who might enter the College. And with respect to the applies, tion of the funds of the College, which appeared to him to be wrongly applied by allowing the Fellows to marry and also to hold their fellowships for more than seven years after taking their degree of Master of Arts, they should be so applied as to extend the benefits of education more widely among Protestants, by doing away with those objectionable statutes which were wholly at variance with the intention of the founders.

Sir ROBERT Neils denied that the College was founded with Roman Catholic money—

The fact was, that it was erected on the site of the old monastery of Allhallows, which at the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry the Eighth was vested in the Mayor and citizens of Dublin, and was by them freely granted in 1591 for the establishment of the College. And so far from its being built from the plunder of the Roman Catholic proprietors, the Lord-Deputy Fitzwilliam, the Archbishop, and the Lords of the Council, on the llth of March 1591, sent a circular letter to the principal gentry in every barony in Ireland urging them to contribute to the erection of ths College: and although the design had to struggle with the poverty of the kingdom and the reluctance of the Popish party, yet m two days after the first stone was laid, and on the 9th of January 1593 students were ad- mitted. So far, therefore, as related to the original foundation of the building, that at least might be said to have been as purely Protestant as any foundation which at this day the most decided in the cause of Protestantism could desire.

Mr. Snaw also defended the College. The senior fellowships, he said, were worth no more than 1,500/. a year, the junior but 300/.; and it is a great mistake to suppose that the Fellows have little to do.

Mr. SHIM. supported the motion. He advocated a mixed education; describing it as particularly desirable in Ireland, to soothe religions animosity and train the youth of different creeds in habits of friendship. But he insisted that a mixed secular education ought to be combined with a separate religions instruction; which would be quite practicable. He had urged Government to provide religious instruction—chaplains for the Protestants, Catholics, and Presbyterians; arguing by analogy, as they ap- pointed chaplains to barracks, workhouses, and gaols. But Sir James Graham evaded that argument, asking if chaplains were to be appointed for the Quakers, Unitarians, and Jews--

" You know, in point of fact, that the population of Ireland is compos.d of three great religions denominations: there are 500,000 Presbyterians, 40,000 Unita- rians and no more, 700,000 Episcopalian Protestants, and between 7,000,000 and

8,1)00,000 of Roman 'Catholics. being the state of things,. why talk to me of the possibility of there being Jews, Quakers, and Unitarians in the Colleges? You must take things as they are; you must not have recourse to imaginers, ingenuity for the purpose of resisting a just application on the part of the Roman Catholics?'

Referring' to the appointments, he retorted upon Ministers their own argument—

"You think the Catholic Bishops were unreasonable in asking that the Pro- fessors of Metaphysics and Geology should be Catholics, that the Professor of Anatomy should be a 'Catholic. You said it was monstrous. But you do not think it at all monstrous that in the University of Dublin the Professor of Meta- physics must be a Protestant, that the Professor of Anatomy must be a Protestant?' Ministers asked for " confidence ": without referring to the State-trials or to their appointments of Bishops, Judges, or Magistrates, he contented himself with referring to a single but most important fact-

" Fifteen years have elapsed since you carried the Catholic qiiestion; andthe statesman by whom that great measure was bravely. achieved (I have never • omitted an opportunity to say so) is now the Prime -Minister, with a great ma- jority. There are 8,000,000 of Catholics in Ireland; but there is not a single EMnan Catholic in office connected with the Government—not a single Roman Catholic who has a right to go to the Castle or go to the Home Office and say, "Yen are mistaken; take a different course.' It was not so with the 'Whigs. -Sir Michael O'Lwhlen, and Chief Baron Wolfe—.of each of whom I may say,

Mullis bonis occidit,sullifiebilior ram inai—the present Judge Ball, a man at the top of his profession, and Mr. Pigott were the Attorniee-General of Ireland under the Whigs. The Attosney-General in Ireland is a great officer. Upon almost every subject he is consulted: no man knows it better than the First Lord of the Treasury, who was in intimate and familiar intercourse with Mr. Saurin. The Whigs had the opportunity of consulting men in contact with the great Catholic community. You have none. When you were preparing this bill- s bill intended for the Catholics of Ireland—whom did you, whom could you con- • 'suit? You may tell me the Catholics of Ireland do not support you: consider whether that be your fault or ours." Mr. Sheil adduced evidence to prove that Queen Elizabeth's charter did not contemplate exclusively Protestant uses for Trinity College— "'in the recital of that statute it is stated, that the object was to promote the better education and instruction of scholars and of students': it was general edu- cation, not an ecclesiastical institution, that was intended." * * "In the

• fifth volume of Lord Bacon's Works as published by Mr. Basil Montague, and in an essay entitled The Queen's Service in Ireland, Lord Bacon, at page 175, re- commends toleration to the Catholics. After saying, that in policy, there is no doubt that to wrestle with the Oatholics now is directly opposite to their reclaim- ing, and cannot but continue their alienation of mind from the Government,' he proceeds to advise the reconfirming and replenishing the College begun at .Dublin'; and concludes with the following remarkable injunction, in which so much wisdom is contained= It is true what was anciently said, that a state is :contained in two words, prom/tiara and porno.: and I am persuaded, if a penny in the pound which bath been spent in perm, without fruit or emolument to this state, had been spent in prTniso, that is in rewarding, things had never grown to this extremity. The' keeping of the principal Irish persons in terms of content- ment, and generally the carrying on an even course between the Englishand the

i

Irish as if they were one nation, s one of the best medicines of that state; andfor other points of contentment, the care and education of their children, and the like -points of comfort and allurement, they are things which fall within every man's onsideration: Now' Sir, I think that if you.couple the recital in the charter of Queen Elizabeth with the passage written by the great man to whom I have re- ferred, you cannot but conie to the conclusion, that it was not intended, at least by Lord Bacon, that Hamm Catholics should be. excluded from the University of :Dublin."

It is not on such grounds, however, that the question ought to be dis- cussed; but on those of justice. He gave practical instances of injustice in the working of the system. There are seventy scholarships, in which the scholars have lodging and commons for a nominal sum, with 10/. a year at first and 401. a year in the -last three years: those scholarships are ex- clusively Protestant. Mr. Mackie, a distinguished teacher, whose pupils attribute their successes to him, and who has attained a position equivalent to that of Senior Wrangler at Cambridge, is a Catholic; and therefore heis .deprived of his scholarship antlfellowship-

' So long as you keep up Trinity College in its supremacy, you will make ,your Measure of academical education for all political purposes an entire failure. Your provincial academies will be marked with all the characteristics of mediocrity; which will only render the elevation of Trinity College more conspicuous by the inferiority with which it will be surrounded. How stunted and dwarfed the groves of our new academies, when composed with the rich luxuriance of the gardens of Trinity ! I had a thousand times rather yen had-applied your 18,0001. a year to the establishment of new fellowships and new professorships in the metropolitan and national institutions; because, if you had so done, Englishmen would have got a value—a value in peace, a value in contentment, a value in pacificatory results—for their money. Now your measure for political purposes— I say for ' political purposes,' for I won't deny that the advantages Of education will he distributed to a certain extent—but your measure, though for political -purposes it may partially succeed, yet as a message of peace it will be a failure."

Mr. Sheil supposed that Sir Robert Peel were a native of Ireland, barred from Trinity College, from effectual benefit in trial by jury, and demand- ing Repeal: then, being told that Repeal could not be granted, suppose he were asked, "What can we -do for you ? " would he not demand equality—equality in all respects—social, political, official, ecclesiastical, academical equality?

"You know in your heart—you know that that would be your answer. You know that nothing else would satisfy you; you know that nothing else will or ought to satisfy ns ; and I tell you at this the close of this fifth session of your Parliament, that if that equality shall be withheld, all your half-measures will be in vain: and if you shall persevere in that course, I fear distil you delay, by your fatal procrastination the country will be brought to such a pass that at last a terrible outbreak will take place—the passions of the people will bunt into a fatal eruption. England will put it down—I know it. You will have established what you call " peace "; but with your tranquillity desolation will be associated, and you will convert one of the finest islands of the ocean into a solitude, in which the rights, the liberties, and the hopes of the -one country, and the honour, the character, "and the virtue of the other, will be entombed for ever." (.11fuc4 cheering.)

Sir ROBERT PEEL contended that -he ,and his colleagues had exerted themselves to promote equality in Ireland; and in so doing, had braved, he feared, the majority of -the people in this country. To establish that Xaot, he described the increased and liberal Maynooth grant, bestowed

• /without restrictions or conditions, with a sum for improving the building. If it was not proposed ta appoint Roman Catholic chaplains under the Colleges Act,as.httle was.it !proposed to appoint Protestant chaplains. Ile had admitted that secular instruction would be imperfect without religious

instruction; and he believed the best mode of effecting this would be to ,girre every facility of affording it without exciting jealousy, by placing it under the control of the heads of the institutions, and calling upon the parents of the young persons attending those institutions to furnish their assistance, and to select the persons whom they wished to impart religious instruction, and the respective Churches to provide aid for the :purpose. This might be an erroneous proceedieg on the part of the Government, but . still the principle on which the institution was founded was that of perfect equality; aud he believed for the first time. Thg had endeavoured to found these institutions on a principle which would be gene- rally acceptahle. They had hoped they had attained that object; but they had been deceived. The opinion of the Roman Catholic Prelates was against them; and he admitted that their sanction and assent was almost essential to success.

He appealed also to the way in which the Charitable Bequests Act Bad been carried out, as showing the conciliatory disposition of Government; and he had reason to believe that among the Roman Catholic lafty thee was a strong feeling of approbation at the conduct of Government. He regretted Mr. Shell's speech, on account ef the use that might be made 4f it in this country— It would be said, See how unavailing all attempts are to conciliate the-Ca- tholics of Ireland. Regardless of the warnings, the feelings, and fears of thsir friends, they hoped by propwing certain measures that they could make an 'on on the Irish mind; but instead of this, the leading Roman Catholic !ember in the House of Commons gets up and tells them, that unless they went ten- times as far as they had -yet-gone, they would have an insurrection in Ireland. This, he believed, was not the feeling of the Irish people: he believed that the Government, by its proceedings, had made an impression on the feelings of the Irish people. With respect to the Dublin College, he contended that it was meant to be exclusively Protestant: for though it was not so declared in express terms, the state of the laws at the time most be taken along with the charter; and whatever the charter, the College had been for two hundred years connected with the Established Church. Yet because Ministers did not open it to the Roman Catholics, they were to be charged with want.pf equality! Sir Robert -cited petitions from the gentry and clergy of Galway, Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, approving of:a College in that quarter: and he asked whether the same harmony would be evinced if the Protestants were deprived of their privileges? He then fell to attacking the form of the resolution, for its clumsy style. He was interrupted by Mr. OSBORNE, who said that he had not himself drawn 'up the resolution; and Sir Robert therefore abstained from further " tot- taring " Mr. Osborne on that score. He finished by recalling to laid how he had sacrificed the representation of Oxford, and risked the alienation of friends, because he was determined to do justiceto the Roman Catholics; declaring that there was still no sacrifice that he would not Make to -do

justice between them and the Protestants and to promote harmony. , Lord Joust RUSSELL admitted great merits. in the bill; but pointed out that the higher hind of education is to lie obtained solely at the Dublin College, presided over by a body exclusively Protestant; and that, he insisted, is not equality. The way to give equality would have been, either to make a separate institution for Roman :Catholics, or to open to -them so much of Trinity College as is of a secular nature. There are difficulties in the way of all Governments; one difficulty to the present-Government consists in their own past acts: but if they were to tell the people of England that it was necessary to work out the -principle .of equality, whether as regards ecclesiastical education or political mid civil advantages, the difficulties would Boon vanish- " The people of England would see the justice of that policy. They do not so - easily-see the justice of a proposition which comes piecemeal before them. They do not see the advantage of endowing Maynooth solely for the education of Catholic priests; they do not see the advantage of a system of education from whieh religion is totally excluded. These propositions, coming singly before them, do not strike them with the force that they would do if you were to bring the whole condition of Ireland before this House and the country, and were to say that you are determined to act according to the principles of justice."

The House divided—For Mr. Osborne's amendment, 91; against It., -168; Ministerial majority, 77. The House divided again on the original motion; which was affirmed by 177 26; majority for the third reading, 151. The bill was read a'third time, and passed.

SrEAVERS tie TEERSDAY'S DEBATE. For Mr. °shames 'motion—Mr.

'Osborne Mr. Bellew Mr. Redington, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Hume, Mr. Morgan John O'bonnell, Mr. 'Sheil, Lord John Russell. Against it—Sir Thomas 1.)10-

'mantle, Mr. G.A. Hamilton, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Ld-roy, Mr.Shaw, Sinliebert Peel, Colonel Sibthorp.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

A Select Committee of the House of Commons have made -a .second-re- port,,in substance agreeing with that of the Lords' Committee; that is, pm.. posing that the rules for private bills deferred till next session be settled, not by bill, but by resolutions of the two Houses. Resolutions for that purpose are proposed.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of CuatnioannE moved the subjoined Standing Order; which was carried- " That there be inserted in every future railway bill a clause to enact that the Directors appointed shall continue in office until the first ordinary meeting to be held after the passing of the act; and at such meeting, the shareholders present personally, or by proxy, may either continue in office the Directors appointed by this act, or any member of them, or may elect a new body of 'Directors, or Di- rectors to -supply the places of those continued in office; the Directors appointed by this art being eligible as members of such new body."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE took occasion to point out some abuses in the management of the-affairs of trading -companies. He related the' ease of Captain Berkeley, who had been asked, about seven years ago, to becothe subscriber. and director in a company for establishing steam communication to India by the Cape -of Good -Hope; 'which he declined to-do: but be years later, a demand for payment was made upon him, on the ground'tliat his name was in the act obtained by the Company as director; and pro- ceedings at law were instituted. It had been pronounced-by a high legal authority that he was rightly designated -as a director, because an act.of Parliament is -a valid document. How many of their Lordships' names were not inserted in local acts without their knowledge? -and were they all to be made liable to actions-at law? To show-'the extent of the impu- dence and audacity of parties engaged in getting up trading companies, he would state a fact which had come to his knowledge- Argentleman a Member-of Parliament for one of the counties, was asked:to become a director of one of -theseprojected companies, and he refused. A short time afterwards, he was toldthgt'behis}-attendedat a meeting in the county with which he was connected, and had spoken in favour of the projected scheme. Kis attention being called-tothe.report of this meeting, he found-not only that helms Mated to have attended, which he did not, but he found also that many other per- sons were asserted to have been there, and to have made speeches, although they did not attend such meeting. The whole of the parties went to the bankers ad- vertised, in shady, and-gave notice to them not to pay any money that should be received by them on account of the said scheme after the meeting in question; and it turned out that a very large sum had been subscribed after that meeting, solely upon the belief and in consequence of its having been publicly reported that the persons to whom be referred had attended it and had sanctioned its objects. Now, DI what a situation might not their Lordships be placed if such things as this were allowed?

A standing order ought to be adopted requiring that the names of indi- viduals should be set forth in any future schemes.

Lord BROUGHAM concurred; but did not see the remedy for the past- lde would willingly have concurred in passing an act in order to relieve a person in the situation described by the noble Marquis, but that in so doing there arose a difficulty which was toll= insuperable; namely, that the Home -having origi- nally passed shill in a negligent and careless manner, could not, by any subse- quent act, reach the cheat who had beguiled them, but any such measure would only affect an industrious and honest person who might have lent his money on the strength of their Lordships' legislation. The man who sued the honourable gentleman whose situation was described by the noble Marquis might be, and pro- bably wa., as bonii fide a sufferer as that honourable person himself was; and consequently, what would relieve the one would oppress the other. He thought, if the Houses of Legislature passed acts AO thoughtlessly, they ought each to pay their respective portions of the pecuniary losses which they inflicted thereby.

Earl FazweitoiNGE said that the claim made upon his brother was for 35,0001.; and the same attorney's letter that contained the claim told him that the expenses chargeable upon him, whatever might he the issue of the suit, were already 4001.

Here the matter dropped.

The subject had been alluded to in the House of Commons one pre- vious evening; and on Tueschly, Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from Captain Craven Berkeley, praying that the officers of the House might be allowed to give evidence as witnesses in the action brought against him. Mr. Ba.nrEs stated the case of Messrs. Scott, the plaintiffs. They contracted to furnish a ship for 35,000/, it actually cost them 4Q,0001.; the contract was hot fulfilled; the company lost 50,0001.• and, having the prospectus of the company before them with Captain Berke- ley's name in it, they brought an action against him as the only Director within their reach. The prayer of the petition was granted.

PRIVILEGE.

The House of Commons proceeded on Monday with the new privilege eased "Phillips versus Jasper Parrott."

Sir Jolts YeanE BELLER presented a petition from Charles Edwards, of Totues, and Thomas Baker, of Lime Street, stating they had brought the action of libel against Mr. Parrott, for giving, "wilfully and ma- liciously," false evidenee before a Committee of that House: in so doing they were not aware that they were committing a breach of privilege, as they did not suppose that-protection would be extended to evidence not given bora Ade: the petitioners stated that the indictment was so brought that the action would not lie unless it could be proved in the first instance that the evidence was known to be false at the time it was given; and they trusted that the. House would take the circumstances into consideration. Sir John also presented a petition from Theodore Bryett, Mr. Edwards's partner; who stated that the action had been brought entirely without .his knowledge, and prayed that he might be discharged from further attendance. On the 'notices of Mr. DivErr, David Phillips was called to the bar. In reply to questions by various Members Mr. Phillips said that he was the plaintiff in the fiction against Mr. ParrOtt. Mr. Parrott had made a state- ment before the Medical Poor-Relief Committee, which was false from beginning to end, and he believed maliciously so. After his return from London, Mr. Parrott, before the Board of Guardians, to which he belonged, referred to the same evidence; saying that he would not enter into it then, but that the evidence would be printed. The effect of those charges was, that Mr. Parrott, after having been twenty-four years in practice, was de- prived of all his parish business and was injured to an extent he could not tell in his private practice. He fruitlessly endeavoured to obtain, first from the Guardians and then from the Poor-law Commissioners, ani nquiry into the case; and not sueeeeding, he brought the action for the allusion in the Board-room aouplecl with the evidence before the Committee. The " declaration " in the action was read to Mr. Phillips; and it appeared it only mentioned the evidence: but -Mr. Phillips said, that he was not ac- quainted with the technicalities of law; and he did not seem to perceive the distinction between the words spoken out of doors and those addressed to the Committee. Be professed that lie would bow submissively to the House; bit he hoped that the House would take some steps to inquire respecting his character. He was ordered to withdraw.

Mr. DIVETT then moved that Charles Edwards be celled to the bar. A long and very desultory debate ensued; lasting for three hours and a half, and full of conflicting suggestions. Lord JOHN RossELL doubted whether they ought to proceed further, after Mr. Phillips's submission. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought, substantial justice would be done if the witness, being ap- prized that this was not the way to attempt to obtain redress, should consent to withdraw the action, and the House should receive his acknow- ledgment that it was commenced in error: the House would afford the wit- ness an opportunity of substantiating his case if it thought what had been stated before the Committee was false. Mr. Ronsucu said, the person who had really offended was the attorney; and the House ought to have from him the same assurance that he had committed the offence and was awry for it: unless he distinctly asked pardon of the House, it ought not to be satisfied. A great part of the dispute turned mien the question whe- ther the House could accept a declaration from the parties at the bar, or whether it must be made by petition; for which Sir Tnomas WILDE con- tended. Sir JAMES GRAHAM reminded the House, that Howard's verbal submission was accepted; and the SPEAKER said that a petition was not necessary. After a long discussion Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved, as an amendment, that Mr. Edwards be Called to the bar on the following day, Sn order to come to some arrangement with Mr. Phillips before proceeding with the other cases. But both the motion and the amendment were with- drawn, to make way for preliminary resolutions moved by Sir Teordas WILDE; which were carried, as follows-

" That it appears to this House that the action 'brought by David Phillips against Jasper Parrott, esquire, is in respect of evidence given by the said Jasper Parrott before a Committee of this House.

"That it is a breach of the privileges of this House."

A petition, prepared in the interval, was then presented by Sir Joax BULLER, from Mr. Phillips, stating his regret at having violated the privi- leges of the House, giving assurance that no further proceedings in the action should be taken, and praying for leniency. Sir ROBERT PEEL move& the following resolution; which was carried-

" That in consideration of the petition of David Phillips, in which he declares that he had no intention of violating the privileges of the House in cominca, ing the said action; and the said David Phillips having expressed his contrition and prayed a lenient consideration of the House for the same, and declared his lute*. Lion of not proceeding further in the said action; this House does not deem it ne- cessary to take any further steps for the punishment of the said offence."

After some further discussion, petitions were presented from the ats tonnes, including Frederick Redden and Joseph Humphry Grant, Mr. Baker's partners, who had taken no part in the proceedings: these peti- tions were to the same effect as those previously presented by Sir John Buller; and resolutions similar to those passed in Mr. Phillipa's case, mantis menandis, were affirmed.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Duke of RICHMOND pne• sented a petition from Thomas Baker, a Policeman of the C division, ing for the protection of the House in an action brought against him John Harlow, for evidence given before a Committee of the House on the subject of gaining. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the peai*. should be referred to a Select Committee. Lord CAAMBEIL thought thsit there was no occasion for doing so; advised that the House should at mice assert its privilege; and moved as an amendment, that the plaintiff and liii attorney be summoned to the her next morning. Lord Etinanionouog and Lord CAYrnonfirs concurred. Lord Ihromairan counselled moos deliberation, and argued that the House might safely leave its privileges te the adjudication of the Law Courts. Lord DENMAN, too, advised the House not to interfere in the matter; urged the justice of leaving aggrieved par 'Use to seek their remedy in the Courts of Law; but had not the slightest hesi- tation in saying, that if the petition were true, the plaintiff could not hold up his head in a court of justice. On a division, Lord Campbell's amendment was negatived by 33 to 22; and after some further disease/MT,

the Lord Chancellor's proposition was carried. •

THE NEW SLAVE-TRADE TREATY WITH FRANCE.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Viscount PALMERSTON moved for a return of the names and description of the witnesses examined before the mixed British and French Commission appointed to inquire into the best means for Suppressing the Slave-trade, and of copies or extracts of the evidence given by those witnesses; the motion being merely a peg where- on to hang a long speech, of which we can only describe the course. He began by denying that past efforts to repress the slave-trade had bee,/ ineffectual; that they had aggravated the horrors of the trade; or that it was more politic to attack the institution of slavery rather than the traffie which is the root of the institution. If the sufferings of the passage acroas the Atlantic have not been mitigated, there is no proof that they were lest, fifty years ago than they are at present; and as to the number of the vie- tims,they were fewer in 1840, 1841, and 1842, than on the average of the forty previous years; while the vast extent of uncultivated lands in Cuba, Bra- zil, and Surinam, proves, that had the trade continued free and unrestricted such would not have been the case. He described the measures which had been in operation for nearly thirty years since 1819. The first part of the system was to contract treaties with the powers whose subjects carried on the slave-trade to induce them to prohibit it--Holland, Denmark, Swe- den, France, Spain, Portugal, and Brazil: those treaties have been faith- fully observed by Holland, Denmark and Sweden; France, he feared, still brings slaves from Madagascar to Bourbon, and under the name of import- ing free labour has made a treaty with the Imaum of Muscat to legalize the slave-trade; while by Spain, Portugal, and Brazil, their engagements have been systematically, perseveringly, scandalously, and most dishonourably violated. [Sir ROBERT PEEL--" Not by Portugal, of late."] If Portugal Is now fulfilling her engagements, it is solely owing to these measures df coercion which the late Government proposed to Parliament in 1839. The vigorous measures then adopted had an effect not only upon Portugal, but upon Spain and Brazil: Brazil seemed for the time earnest in measures to suppress the slave-trade, and a governor was sent out to Cuba who repudiated the corrupt practice of his predecessors—the taking a fee for conniving at the importation of negroes. Restrictions ow the slave-trade act beneficially on the condition of slaves, rendering then more valuable in the eyes of owners conscious that they cannot replace

them. The next part of the system was to intercept the slaves on the passage; for which the mutual "right of search" was obtained from maritime powers: but that means has never been effectually tried; for no power was obtained with respect to vessels under the flag of France until 1831, of Spain until 1839, or Portugal until 1840; and now with re- gard to France that right has been taken away. The third part of the plan was to attack the slave-trade in the market for buying the slaves oit the coast of Africa: but the system of naval police was never properly car- tied out: cruisers were at times withdrawn from the coast of Africa, Brazil, or the West Indies, to China, the river Plata, or New Grenada; and al- though they bear very fleet and fiery names, such.as the Racers and the Ardents, some with sail and steam could hardly exceed the pace of five knots an hour, and they lay very tranquilly in the harbour of Sierra Leone. Unless they changed the system, and adopted a new police instead of such old Charles, he was afraid they would not be likely to be very efficient in putting an end to the slave-trade. Their system, then, had never been tried, and it could not be said to have failed.

He next proceeded to pass strictures on the new treaty with France. He had understood that many officers who had been examined by the Commissioners stated that the right of search was necessary for the sup- pression of the slave-trade: and he gave his reasons for disbelieving what might be the usual Ministerial answer, that the production of the evidence would be" injurious to the public service"; doubting whether it could contain anything likely to irritate the people of either country, or necessary to be cone cealed from slave-traders. He condemned the treaty because it abrogates the mutual right of search; and in passing, complimented the Duke De Broglie for his "skill and dexterity" in "worming this country out of all its tow. ventions and treaties since 1831," by the wording of the new convention. He imputed the clamour against the treaties of 1831 and 1833 to the slave-dealers of France, Cuba, and Brasil—in Cuba, subscriptions were raised to get England well abused in the French papers: and he denied that the clamour against the treaties of 1831 and 1833 was owing to the irritation produced by his measures in 1840. The powers secured by the new treaty are less than those that have been relinquished. The muted

right of search included the West Indies, Brazil, Africa, and part of Mada- gascar: the present arrangement is confined to the West coast of Africa. England has recently given warrants of search for My-two French ves- sels; France, warrants for fifty-two English vessels: each power is now only to employ twenty-six; and they must sail in couples. By the third article, which makes it lawful for the cruiser of one nation to enter a station held in charge by the cruiser of another nation, merchant-vessels seem to be ex- cluded from such stations. The preamble contains two passages which Should not have been signed by any English Minister: one, speaking of English and French flags, says, "this odious traffic still exists,"—implying the calumnious imputation that the British slave-trade has not been put down: the other passage says, that the slave-trade must be put an end to in the Colonies,—as if it still existed in the British dependencies. He then diverged upon other matters; complaining of General O'Don- nell, the Governor of Cuba, for returning to the practice of winking at the slave-trade; and of Lord Aberdeen, for not being sufficiently peremptory in exacting the interposition of the Spanish Government. Alluding to the Divine retribution which nations are sure to incur for their crimes, Lord Palmerston concluded with saying that he should not submit a resolution to the House, because he would not risk defeat by the compact majority at the Ministers' command; and he admitted that he addressed his arguments less to the House than to the people of the country. Sir ROBERT PEEL replied at still greater length. Lord Palmerston baying been discourteous enough to declare that he should not give credit to the reasons for withholding the evidence, Sir Robert felt justified in say- ing that he did not believe the reasons which the noble Lord had given for hot bringing forward a resolution: it was not the fear of a hostile majority, but the knowledge that many of his political friends would not concur in condemning the recent convention. Sir Robert Peel did not apologize for the treaty or the commission on the ground of deference due to the ex- cited state of the public feeling in France; but vindicated the treaty as the substitution of an efficient instrument for one that never could have been made efficient at all. He denied that slavery is only to be suppressed by suppressing the slave-trade; since in the United States, for example, the institution exists without the traffic. He denied that the cordial co- operation of Portugal is owing to any compulsion. He rebuked Lord Pal- merston for the disparaging way in which he spoke of France; reminded him that the importation of Hill Coolies into Mauritius and the West Indies might be compared to the importation of slaves from Muscat to Bourbon; and stated that the condition of the slaves hired with the cognizant.° of the Imaum of Muscat was likely to be much improved in the French colony. Be read a despatch from Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Bulwer, showing that Lord Aberdeen had peremptorily demanded the recall of General O'Donnell. Reverting to the treaty, Sir Robert contended that the clamour against the right of search was to be attributed more to the Syrian events of 1840 than to any other cause; proved by reading despatches, that Lord Aberdeen had not silently acquiesced in M. Guiwt's refusal to ratify the treaty of 1841; and proceeded to show that the present convention is more favour- able to the suppression of the slave-trade than that of 1831, with the supplementary convention of 1833. The mutual "right of search" esta- blished in 1831 was limited on the Western coast or Africa to the space between the 10th degree of South latitude and the 15th degree of North latitude; the slave-trade between Africa and Brazil being carried on many degrees more to the South. The treaty gave no power to interfere with the transport of slaves from the territory of the Lnaum of Muscat. We did not bind France to keep up any naval force for the suppression of the slave-trade, but only pledged this country not to keep up more than twice the number of vessels; so that if France had employed only four, England was bound not to exceed the number of eight. Sir Robert showed that Lord Palmerston had suggested that a French squadron should be employed on the coast of Africa, in case the French did not acquiesce in the right of search. As respects France, the mutual right of search could only be useful in suppressing the alave-trade when carried on in French vessels: it appears to have entirely ceased in French ships. The present convention extends from the 15th degree of North latitude to the middle of the 17th degree of South latitude. If the right of search has been relinquished, the right of visit to ascertain the genuine nationality of the flag has been distinctly and formally admitted by France. We have the advantage of twenty-six cruisers cordially cooperating with us; supplying the deficiency occasioned by the withdrawal of our ships to China and elsewhere, and sharing the expense hitherto borne almost exclusively by this country. The ambiguous phrases in the preamble Sir Robert justified on the ground that it would have been hard to insist on recording that France had carried on the slave-trade when we did not; and he showed that Lord Palmerston had committed precisely the same error when he ceded the mutual right of search in 1831, though the trade in British vessels had entirely ceased. The third article was not intended to exclude merchant-vessels from particular ports; but as it would be desirable to assign to French or British cruisers stations near the French or British territories respectively, and as France has no treaty-stipulation for touching vessels under the Spanish, Por- tuguese, or Brazilian flag, it was necessary to secure the entrance of British cruisers.

Sir Reber tadhered to his opinion that to produce the evidence would be an injury to the public service; but he had no hesitation in saying, that five of the witnesses were English and three were French officers, and that their evidence was not the foundation of the treaty. It was framed by men who could be influenced by no political or party motives—Dr. Lush- ington, a political opponent of the present Government, and the Duke De Broglie; both men distinguished by their efforts to abolish the slave-trade. The convention secures to us the cordial cooperation of the most powerful maritime country in Europe next to England.

The motion was supported by Mr. SHEIL, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Cap- tain PECHELL, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS. Sir Robert read a proposal by the planters of Trinidad, to purchase slaves in Africa and to emancipate them in order to import them as free labourers; and he complained that a slave-trade had been virtually revived in Sierra Leone, where liberated Africans are placed in an enclosed yard and exposed to the solicitations of the emigration-agents. Mr. HOPE said, that Sir Robert Inglis ought to have given Government credit for discouraging the Trinidad proposition. He insisted that the Blacks of Sierra Leone exercise a perfectly free choice, and that their con- dition is greatly bettered by their being transferred to the West Indies. In his reply, Lord PALMERSTON offered to modify his motion: he pro- posed that Sir Robert Peel should give him the names of the parties referred to in his motion, and such extracts from the evidence as related to the value of the right of search as a means of suppressing the slave-trade. Sir ROBERT Pcsr. declined either to make a second speech or to accept the modified proposition. The House divided—For the motion, 51; against it, 94; majority, 43.

NEW ZEALAND.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, the Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from the Church Missionary Society, setting forth their views as to the colonization of New Zealand, which they had at first opposed as injurious to the Aborigines; expressing alarm at the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons; and praying that their Lordships would not sanction any new settlements which did not rest on the prin- ciples of justice humanity, and national faith, as pledged to the natives of New Zealand by the treaty of Waitangi. Lord Chichester defended the Missionaries from charges brought against them; explaining, that with only two exceptions, none held more land than the regulations of the Society permitted. And he called upon Lord Stanley to give an assurance ac- cording to the prayer of the petition.

Lord STANLEY did so; but being pressed by Lord MONTEAGLE for a more distinct explanation as to his view of the treaty of Waitangi, Lord STANLEY made a second speech, in more explicit terms. He said that he would not argue the matter then ; but on a future occasion he would undertake to prove that all previous Governments had interpreted the treaty in the same way that he did ; and that the apparent discrepancy between Lord John Russell's agreement with the New Zealand Company and the treaty of Waitangi arose from a misrepresentation on the part of the Company, that they had purchased from the Natives to whom it belonged an entire district of 20,000,000 acres.

The declaration and agreement made by Lord John Russell confirmed instead of nullifying the treaty of Waitangi. Upon the part of the Crown it confirmed the claim of the Company to a large tract of land they had bought from the Natives, and in the opinion of Lord John Russell led to the indisputable inference that the natives had the right to sell that large tract of country which they did not occupy. There might be waste districts in New Zealand, but with regard to the greatest portion of the space of New Zealand, he knew it to be distributed among various tribes, all of whom had a perfect knowledge of their respective possessions, which were as much defined by natural, and in some instances by artificial boundaries, as were the districts of great proprietors in Scotland one hundred years ago. He believed that in the greatest portion of New Zealand their native rights were perfectly well known, and their limits ascertained and decided on by the native laws. He was not prepared to say what portion of New Zealand might be so possessed. That which was not possessed by any tribe was by the act of sovereignty vested in the Crown; but that was a question upon which the native laws and customs had to be consulted. They. were bound by and must abide by, those laws and customs, and the rights arising out of them. Be the lands large or small, waste or occupied, possessed and enjoyed, or only pos- sessed without being enjoyed, those rights and titles, he conceived, the Crown of

i England was bound n honour to maintain; and his interpretation of the treaty of Waitangi, which he was prepared to defend, was, that regarding those rights, the Crown, unless with the intelligent consent of the Natives, had no right to take posRpqsion of the land; and having no right, he would not be the man to advise that it should exercise the power of making over to another party that which it did not itself possess.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. HAWES asked whether there would be any objection to lay on the table, of the House copies of the instructions recently transmitted to Captain Gray„ithe new Governor of New Zealand; and also whether any official information had been received respecting the late melancholy collision between English settlers in the colony and the Natives, in which it was stated more than a hundred Natives had fallen, and eighteen to twenty Englishmen.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that instructions had been sent out to Captain Gray having for their object the introduction of municipal institutions, with a view to representative government at a future time: but it would not be consistent with the public service for him to lay these instructions before the House at present. Mr. HOPE said, that the information received at the Colonial Office, respecting the collision to which the honourable Member referred, was exactly the same which had appeased in the newspapers. He might observe, however, that the inference drawn from the accounts received on the part of the Government wag, that the collision had not been between settlers and Natives, but between armed troops and some of those Natives who had previously, shown a disposition to rebel- lion. The place where it occurred was the same where attempts had been made on former occasions to pull down the British flag-staff; and other names and cir- cumstances contributed to strengthen this impression on the part of the Govern- ment.

Morons° SITTINGS. To further the remaining business of the session, the- House of Commons began on Monday to sit at noon, and has continued its sittings to a late hour—one or two o'clock in the following morning. At these sittings, the details of the Commons Enclosure Bill, and some other measures, have been "disposed of" in Committee, with railroad speed.

AGRICULTURAL 13IPROVEMENT. In the House of Lords, on Tusesday, the Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading of a bill to amend the act of the 3d and 4th Victoria, and to enable the owners of settled estates to defray the expenses of draining by way of mortgage. It had been thought desirable by the Committee to extend the bill to Ireland as well as to England; and it sim- plified the proceedings by enacting that a Master in Chancery, on being satisfied of the outlay, should give a certificate, which was to operate as a rent-charge; and as the application was to be made in the first instance to the Master, much expense. would be spared. Several Peers made cursory observations on the bill, mostly in concurrence; though some exception was taken to details. The Earl of DEVON hoped that it would be made a pendant to the bill relating to Tenants' Compensation in Ireland. It was read a second time.

REFUSAL OF SITES FOR CHAPELS RI SCOTLAND.—The Marquis of BREADAL. BANE presented a long petition to the House of Lordst on Thursday, from the Free Church of Scotland, besides some others from local bodies' complaining that landed proprietors refuse to allow sites for chapels to be purchased, and that if that re- fusal be permitted, it would practically amount to a denial of religious freedom: some Peers were specifically mentioned. The Earl of CAWDOR defended his con- duct: he said that he had not absolutely refused sites, but had agreed to grant them temporarily, for buildings to be made of wood and to be taken down at six months' notice,—believing that the secession would be only temporary. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH defended himself with more warmth; complaining of the agita- tion resorted to by members of the Free Church, to represent him as a "godless tyrant," who would trample down their rights. He contradicted reports that he had attempted to coerce his tenants in their religious opinions; and asked why the members of the Free Church could not, like the Dissenters' go to the next town for a place of worship? Lord CAMPBELL deprecated both the intolerance of the Free Church and the refusal of sites. The Marquis of BREADALBANE thought that the charges of intolerance were unjustifiable; and observed, that when congregations were obliged during the winter months to conduct pnblie worship exposed to the inclemency of the weather, it was not surprising that such grievances should excite the feelings of the people. .Anstrisisrasselors or CRIMINAL JUSTICE. In the House of Lords, on Mon- day, Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of his Administration of Crimi- nal Justice Bill; a distinct measure from Lord Cottenham's, though bearing a similar title. The object of the bill is, to fix upon certain towns in the country to which districts should be attached, after the manner of the Central Criminal Court, by way of facilitating the speedy administration of justice. The object of the bill met with general approval; and it was read a second time. But the LORD CHANCELLOR having concurred in the remark of several Law Lords, that the report of the Circuits Commission was very unsatisfactory, and having announced that a fresh Commission would be appointed, to undertake a more extended in- gully, Lord BROUGHAM said that should not press his bill any further this session.

PENAL LAWS AGAINST THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. In the House of Com- mons, on Wednesday, Mr. WATSON moved the Committee on the Roman Catholic Belief Bill; which was intended to repeal certain acts passed when hostility to that Church prevailed—such as the provision which forbade Roman Catholics to engage in the business of tuition without a licence, prohibited Bishops from using the titles of their sees, suppressed monastic orders under pain of transporta- tion and banishment, &c. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he could not consent to the part of the bill repealing some clauses in the Emancipation Act of 1829, nor to disease the details in the absence of the Law-officers of the Crown; but he said that a bill on the subject had been prepared by the Government Commis- sioners, and would be introduced next session. Sir ROBERT INGLIS altogether opposed the intended concessions to the Roman Catholics; fearing to see the country crowded with Jesuits, and processions in the very streets. Lord JOHN RUSSELL and some Irish Members supported the bill. Sir ROBERT PEEL re- peated Sir James Graham's representations. Eventually, the motion was nega- gatived, by 89 to 47.

BRAZIL SLAVE-TRADE. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of ABERDEEN moved the second reading of the Slave-trading ( Brazil ) Bill. A treaty was concluded with Brazil in 1827, based on previous treaties with Portu- gal; one of which, in 1817, established the Nixed Commission Courts to adjudi- cate on charges of slave-trading; while another, in 1826, declared that the act of slave-trading by the subjects of either country should be accounted piracy.. Brazil never gave effectual operation to the provisions for the suppression of the slave-trade; and, fifteen years after concluding the treaty, that country took advantage of a provision to declare that the Mixed Commission Courts should cease. Such being the case, it now became necessary to give effect to the still subsisting provision continued from the treaty of 1826, making the slave-trade piracy, which had been suspended; and in order to that, it was necessary to repeal the Act of the 7th and 8th Geo. 1V. which suspended the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, so that it might not clash with that of the Mixed Com- mission Courts. The bill was read a second time.