Alden! an Prorecisingd in padiamcnt.

1. .MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The Order of the Day for considering the amendments of the Lords to the Municipal Act Amenduient Bill having been read, on Tuesday.

Lord Jotim Russer.t. called the attention of the House of Commons to two of the alterations with which, he said, he could not concur. The first provided that in case of no election of Mayor being made by the Town-Council, that officer should be chosen by lot instead of by the burgesses at large. He considered such a provision a violation of the principles of the bill ; but still, if that had been the only alteration of moment, he should have recommended the House to concede the point to the Lords. But a more important alteration had been made, and - one to which he could by no means consent. He alluded to the conti- nuance for another year of the old corporators in the trustee4rip of corporate charities ; for which the only reason seemed to be, that Lord Brougham had been prevented by sickness from bringing forward his measure for the regulation of charitable bequests. That did not seem to him a sufficient reason for allowing the old corporators to distribute charitable funds so as to benefit their own political friends, which had been their custom ; and, much as he regretted the loss of the bill, he would submit to it, and allow the Lord Chancellor to appoint the new Ttustees, rather than sanction the malepractices of the exif.ting Trustees. He moved that the House disagree to the two amendments he had mentioned. Lord STORMONT said, that the reason why the Lords had made the- amendment objected to, was their determination not to allow the cha- rities to be perverted to party purposes.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL supported the motion of Lord John Russell. Mr. Bsiter.sv regretted the course taken by the Lords, but would not vote for the rejection of their amendments.

Mr. HUME was sorry to hear Lord John Russell talk of' making concessions to the Lords: surely he might have learned by this time that cuncession would not make his course less rugged. Mr. flume went on to recommend an iedependent bearing on the part of dm Commons, and expressed his hope thet at the next election the people+ would not be so foolish as to return MO Tories to the • Louse. Tiler Lords were fortified by the aid of Fo large a minority.

Mr. LEctinEnE CHARLTON defended the conduct of the Peers.

Mr. VILLIERS and Mr. AIORRISON supported Lord Johir Russell.

The motion was cart ied without a division ; and it tv a agreed to ask a conference with the Louis on the following Thursday.

On Wednesday, on the motion of Lord Jorue Ressina , the Com- mons agreed to send a message to the Lords, requesting a free confer- ence on the subject of the amendments on which the Commons disagreed from the Lords. Lord John Russell, accompanied by other Members, delivered the message at the bar of the Home of Peers,. and then retired.

On the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, the Peers postposed their an-. swer to the next day, in order to give time to search the precedents,. as no free conference had been held for more than u huedu d years.

[To request a free conference, Was the only course open to the Corn- - mons, as the other modes of arranging the disagreemeets !etween the two Houses had been exhausted. In Hatselts Precedents it is said After a conference and second, conference, without agleam:at, free anderence is held, at which the point question is dehated ; hut, after • one free conference, no other than a free conference can take place on the same *atter: if, however, amendment of the ameortments is suggested lry- either House, or if any question of privilege or proceeding ari*s, a usual (roofer ence May be demanded."

The alternative indicated in the first pert of this sentence had oc- curred with respect to this bill On Thursday, Lord MELBOURNE moved the Order of the Day for considering the message of the Commons for a free conference.

The Earl of ROSSLYN moved that the free conference be agreed to.

The motion was carried ; and the following Peers were appointed managers of the conference on behalf of the House of Lords,-the Earl of Ripon, Lords Abinger, Fitzgerald, Lyndhurst, Wharneliffe, Ellen. borough, and the Bishop of Gloucester.

The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod having announced that the Managers of the Conference for the Commons were ready, the Mana- gers for the Peers, attended by many noble lords, moceeded to the Committee-room, No. 5. On their return,

The Earl of RIPON stated, that the conference on behalf of the Commons was managed by Lord John Russell, 31r. Spring Rice, and other Members ; that the Lords bad withdrawn some of their amend- ments and insisted upon others; that the Commons had insisted on their objections to certain of their Lordships' amendments ; and that reasons bad been exchanged on both sides. He read the reasons of the Commons.

Lord LYNDHURST then rose, for the purpose of movirg that their Lordships should adhere to their amendments. He said that the first question on which the Mauagers disagreed' related to the appointment of Trustees of Charitable Property. As, unfortunately, no general arrangements had been made for the management of that description of property, it had been proposed Opt the temporary arrangement of last year should be continued' for another year. He could see no reason why this proposition should be rejected. It was said that the present Trustees had abused their power; but where was the proof of their misconduct daring the post year? What bad occurred to render them less trustworthy now than %%hen the charge of these funds was com- mitted to them, a year ago? No complaint whatever had been brought against them ; though, vigilantly watched on all sides, it was impos- sible that misconduct could have escaped detection. Great difficulties would ensue from removing the present Trustees. These difficulties bad been well described the other day bythe Lord Chancellor.

In the first place, in every cane there was a petition to be presented to the Court of Chancery. This was then to be referred to a Master, before whom every particular connected with theease was to be adduced in support of the appointments of the new Trustees. The Master had the power to hear evi- dence on both sides fur and against these appointments, and long and tedious

litigat' might ensue; and then the Master was to draw up his report, and send it:up to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. This report might then be he dhcusseul, and opposed, before his Lordship ; it might then be referred back to the Master to be reconsidered ; and finally, after all these proceedings, the Lord Chancellor, taking all the circumstances of the case into considera- tion, might make his order. All this must incur great expense; which, as their Lordships were perhaps aware, must eventually be paid out of these very charitable funds. Now, it appeared from the report of these Commissioners, that many of these funds were extremely small—so small, indeed, as to be en- timely exhausted in many cases by such a course of litigation. If, then, it were urged that it was inconvenient to per niit the present state of things to remain in force for lute year longer, how much more inconvenient, how much more ruinous, wield it be that the alternative he had described should be adopted, and that it should devolve upou the Lord Chancellor to appoint new Trustees to these charities?

He then :Averted to the other point of difference between the two Houses— By th: Municipal Corporation Bill, the election of the Mayor and Alderman is veste:b hi the first instance, in the Council ; and if the Council should be equally ,s .!.d in their choice, no proceeding or appointment could take place. The ether litre of Parliament did not object, in such a. case, to the appoint- ment of a presiding officer over the Council. They did not object to that appointment being made by lot ; but they said that a person so elected, ought not, in case of art equality of votes on any question in the Council, to have a clatinfl..5.6tty. Ti' contend for this objection, was to argue for an anomaly upon the Municipal Corporation Bill itself; which actually gave a casting-vote to the Dlayar-- if no aiayor, to the senior Alderman—and if no Alderman, to the presiding office:eel:own by the Council itself from its own body. le wart still of opinion that the presiding officer ought to have the casting volt', turd therefore hoped that the House would also insist upon this um, miment.

Lerd 7IlfELeounNE did not understand that the arguments used by Lord Lyaidhurst bad been urged at the conference; and he did not un- derstand wiry, if the conference was a free conference, they were not tivenced, in order that they might be answered by the Commons. He bought that, by not urging these arguments in the legitimate place for them,a course of proceeding had been adopted derogatory to the dig. 707 of ti,c ilouse. The arguments themselves, however, he con- sidered totally insufficient to justify the motion of Lord Lyndhurst. It was %yell knots ti that the urraugement of last year wits intended to be temporary ; and it seemed to be forgotten that their Lorclehips had re- jected a bill sent up to them by the Commons for the purpose of meet- ing the emergency which arose with respect to these trusts. That hill their Lordships had thrown out, accompanying their rejection of it with expressions of the most offensive and cohttunelions nature. ("No, no l" from the Opposition.) Yes, he repeated it. Their Lordships had stated that the House of Commons had been guilty • of every species of interested and desigeing motives in pussies that bill ; and if this were not a charge offensive and contumeli- ous, he knew not what charge could be so denominnted. He re- peated, that it was trot fair to expect the House of Comtnons to ac- quiesce in their proposal to leave the administration of charitable trusts in the present hands, after their Lordships bad in an offensive manner rejected the IneanS for a perrnanent new arrangement which had been offered them by the House of Commous. The motion for continuing the old corporators in the management of the corporate charities till the 1st of August IS34i, was not, as had been said, Lord Brougham's, but Lord Radnor's. Lord Brougham. who had been much pained by the motion having been imputed to hint, was de- sirous that this contradiction should be given. It was no reason for refusing to pass the Charitable Trustees Bill, that Lord Brougham had not beet' able to bring forward his Mea,nro ; for the House and the Government were in possession of Lord Brotatham's views on the sub- ject, he having actundly introduced and explained his hill, and been in- duced by the House to give it up. Lord Melbourne admitted the in- convenience which would result frotn Ow absence of legislation on this subject. But it was not his fitult—nor the fault of the house of Com- mons: it was solely chargeable to their Lordships, who had refused to make provision for the future when a fair opportunity %vac presented to them. With respect to the other point witched upon by Lord Lynd- hurst, he did not think it right to allow a Man, chosen by lot, to have a casting-vote itt the assembly over which he presided. list would, therefore, move that the Lords do not insist on their amendments.

The Earl of IllroN denied that the dignity of the House had been lowered by the mode in which the conference had been conducted. The Commons had not stated their reasoner verbally, but had handed a paper to them ; and it was not proper, therefore, for their Lordships to in- vite them to a verbal discussion. Lord Ripon also defended the con- duct of the Opposition generally, with reference to these bills.

Lord HOLLAND expressed his dissatisfaction with the mode in which the conference had been managed. Oliver Goldsmith had said—" As to argument, I always have the advantage of my antagonist when I am alone, but somehow or other he beats me when I meet him."' Thns, Lord Lyndhurst had delivered a speech very convincing, no doubt, to their Lordships ; but he did not deliver it at the free conference. The meaning of a flee conference was a free interehange of reasons ; and Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Abing,er, and Lord Ripon had been chosen-be- cause they were considered their Lordships' ablest advocates: but when they met their oppotterts face to face, they had not a word to say, and came back and mads speeches to their Lordships. The Commone, by asking for a free conference, said as much as " Be SO good as let us know your opinions:" but they were silent ; and when they met it was all mum-chance.

Lord RIPON—" They did not ask for them."

Lord HOLLAND said, that noble lords opposite knew little of Par- liamentury precedents if they did not undarstand the meaning of a-free conference : it Was one to which both parties went unfettered for dis- cussion ; but instead of that, one party read his speech, and the noble lord read his speech.

Lord RIPON—" They did not even read it."

Lord HOLLAND could not speak with so much certainty ten to the practice adopted in free conferences before the Revolution ; but since the Revolution, there had been tell or twelve free conferences, but in none of them were the proceedings like the present. Reasons had been assigned and arguments employed. But whet bad been the argu- ments and reasons employed here ? None. But the Managers came back and said, " We have arguments which we will state to you. We will tell you all about them. We would not state one word of them to the Jury. We have let the verdict go unquestioned. We would not utter a syllable to them. We came borne to our clients ; and we tell them all that we might have advanced, though not one word could mu opponents hear from us." (Mach laughter.) The Doke of WELLINGTON did not see how the conference could have been better managed; and he had reason to complain of the con- duct of Lord Alelbaurne, who had agreed i:: Committee to the.altera- tion which he now opposed. Other alterations would have I:een made in the bill, but it was understood that the differences were compromised, and that the measure as it stood would be supported by both parties.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that as a hundred years had elapsed since the last conference had been held, the Managers had thought it right to consider not only what precedents they should follow, but what precedents they should avoid ; and he thought that the Managers on both sides had acted prudently in not following the worst examples.

Lord Lvtennuesr wished to defend- himself from the personal and violent attack of Lord Melbourne. He denied that the noble lords

with whom he acted were answerable for the loss of Lord Brougham's bill; and be asserted their right to reject the bill which came up from

the House of Commons. He denied that he had used language dero- gatory to the dignity of the House in reference to that bill : he was not in the habit of it. In no instance had he spoken of the other

House except in terms of respect ; and he asked Lord Melbourne to point out any disrespectful expressions. Would the noble viscount condescend to give him an answer?

Lord MELBOURNE explained, that he never imputed it as a matter of blame to Lord Lyndhurst that Lord Brougham's bill was not

proceeded with ; but he had said that it' might be the fault of Govern-

ment, it might be the fault of others, but it was not Lord Brougham's fault. With respect to the amendment which he had been accused of agreeing to in Committee, he did agree to it ; but with the distinct-re- servation that he was not to be barred" from future legislation on the point. His opponents, feeling themselves secure, said, " As to any measure you may propose for this purpose, we at least are settled for some time ; and nothing is more easy than to object to any measure yon may propose." This might be fair Parliamentary jockeyship ; but that it was political parkeyship, be was convinced. Ile could not venture to cite the precise terms used by Lord Lyndhurst ; but during the whole of the debate, the greatest suspicion and jealousy had been evinced towards the other House; and it bad been said by noble lords that they viewed with eusp!tat ii any tMeg coming from the House of Commons, and which was supported by the Revolutionist and Repub- lican party in this country. ("No, no!" front the Opposition.) Ile stated this from recollection, but was glad such sentiments were disa- vowed; but unless he was much mistaken, such was the tone, temper, character, and colour of these debates— It was said there were always encroachments—there was always an advance— ' a creeping on. Such were the observations made when a clause was introduced into this very bill respecting the school of Louth. They were asked if they would tamper with a scheme of invasion and elan oarlonent. (" Hear, hear !" from Lord Wharncliffe.) Ile knew that the noble lord was much too manly, if he bad said any such thing, to deny it. It was not in the nature, character, or temper of the noble duke, to say any such thing ; but that which he stated of the noble duke he could nut state of others. (, Hear, hear !") It was the impression upon his mind, that lan:;tiage derogatory to the other House had been used ; and although this might nut he conveyed in t. ruts so definite as now to be impressed upon his memory, it was most distinctly conveyed in the spirit that dictated, in the manner thaLcharacterized, and the tone that ran through those debates. Throughout the whole of those debates, the !louse of Commons, and every thing that was pcpular, and every thing belonging to the popular parties Hi the country, was treated in the most contumelious manner. That at least was his opinion. Now, with respect to the question at present before the House, he should say that, whatever inconvenience might arise out of it, and whatever inevitable loss might follow front it, yet, as to keeping up the present Charitable Trustees, he believed the House of Commons would not leave those trusts in their hands for six menthe nor for six hours, nor for six minutes; and he also thought they were right. (Loud cheering.) Lord ABINGER asked Lord Melbourne whether, being head of the Government, he conceived himself at liberty to use such language, and violate the respect due to the house? Did he suppose that their Lord- ships were not sensible of his rude manner and language ? What did lie mean by saying that the Peers repudiated every thing popular? Ile denied that it was so. If Lord Melbourne did not credit it in good faith, he should suppose that it was a niece rhetorical artifice to bring the House into contempt with the country.

Lord WHARNCLIFEE said, that the object of the present measure was to embarrass their Lordships. With respect to a great many other bills, it was attempted by a party in the other House to put the House of Lords in a situation of difficulty.

Lord Chancellor COTTENHANI said, that be had agreed to the clause in the bill relating to the Charitable Trustees, on the express assurance that it could not interfere with the measure in the House of Com- mons for the regulation of Corporate Charities.

The House divided: for Lord Lyndhurst's motion, 40; for Lord 'Melbourne's amendment, 29. So the Peers adhered to their amend- ments.

A message was sent to the Commons, stating that the Lords still insisted on their amendments, and desiring another free conference on the subject matter of the last free conference.

After some discussion as to the mode in which the managers of the last conference were appointed,—Mr. HUME objecting that his party in the House were not fairly represented,—sixteen Members were up. pointed as Managers, including Mr. Home, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Wakley, Mr. Warburton, and Mr. Cutlar Feigusson. A general rush took place to the door, only two Members remaining with the Speaker in the House.

The conference was held in the same room as before ; which was crowded with Peers and Commoners ; of the former, only three on the Ministerial and three on the Opposition benches, with half-a-dozen Bishops, remaining in the House. Strangers were excluded from the conference-room, but the Morning Chronicle has furnished an account of what occurred.

The Earl of RIPON briefly stated that 'the Lords adhered to their amendments; but wished to be on good terms with the Commons. Lord JO/IN RUSSELL echoed that wish on the 'part of the Commons ;

but they would not sacrifice principle to expediency. The Represen- tatives of the People, by personal knowledge of and communication

with their constituents, were better informed than their Lordships could be with respect to the evils arising from the management of ex- corporators, which was the consequence of a mutilation of the original bill of Municipal Reform. If this point of the Charity Trustees were given up by the Peers, some accommodation would not be im- practicable on the other point of difference. But, to continue the old corporators in the trusteeship of charities for another year, would be a direct violation of the Municipal Act of last year, which specifically provided for their continuance for one year only.

Lord LicsniteusT repeated the substance of the speech be had just delivered in the house of Lords. Ile dwelt upon the inconvenience which would arise from resorting to the Court of Chancery for the re-creation of municipal trusts ; and professed a sincere regard for the people, and an earnest desire to protect the charity funds. He also complained of the delay which had taken place in forwarding the Cha- ritable Trustees Bill, and in considering the first alteration of the Lords in the Municipal Act Amendment Bill.

Mr. SPRING Rrce replied, in a spirited manner; recapitulating the facts respecting the different bills.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested a middle course. The Commons, he said, might amend the continuation clause, by imposing restrictions on the ex-corporators. He had never contemplated the continuance of the old corporator, without additional responsibility.

Mr. HUME protested against agreeing with the Lords. The Com- mons had the bill in their own hands, and should stand their ground. It was impossible, notwithstanding what Lord Lyndhurst might urge, that the existing arrangement had not produced evils during the past year. The curse of calling back to power the old corporators, was

what the People and their Representatives never would submit to.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL strongly objected to giving the presiding officer chosen by lot, a casting-vote in the Council: by such a privilege he' could cause all the Aldermen to be chosen from one side : it was much better . that the constituent body should be referred to, where the Council could not agree. On this point, however, the Commons were not inflexible, as the difficulty could only occur on the first election. But with respect to the Charity frusts, they were inflexible. It was only from the impossibility of making a new arrangement when the bill was passing, that the old corporators were continued for a single hour.; and there was a solemn coinpact between the Legislature and the public that they should go out of office on the 1st of Atigti-t 1836. The clause of the Lords would not answer their own purpose— It wonld throw every charity in the kingdom into confusion ; and 'it would occasion infinitely more litigation and expense than had been appreaeiole:i by the noble and learned lord who described so powerfully the delays and exp use of the Court of Chancery. Clause L provides that the Trusrees w .0 itt..y be seised or possessed of the real and personal property of the chariti .s, at the pas-ing of the bill, shall be continued for another year. Who woti..1 be I he Trustees so s.ised ? Not the individual members of the old Corpor aim's. Or the 1st of Aug •St they were all fain-ti officio, and the property vested in the new Corpotatimp. The property w uld have continued all along in the new Corporations, but for the 71st sects tem when the 1st of Attete4 it: lived, 'ha section ceased to operate, and th lags were.. a the saute situathm as if it hau. nev t been introduced into the bill. The old imil the new Corporations e e e iden- tically the same, just as if the changes had been introduced by a new clutter front the Crown. Therefore, at this moment, all the estates and all powers of the old Corporations connected with charities are in the new, and no will con- tinue at the passing of this bill. The result would, therefore, be, that the Lords would, without intending it, constitute the new Town-Councils the Charitable Trustees, and would mix up the municipal charity funds, which all were agreed should be kept separate. But the clause went on to join with them the Trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor ; and it still left in the Lord Chancellor the power of creating an entirely flesh body of Tiustees, conferred upon him by the proviso added to the 71st section of the bill. No one could, therefore, tell what coustruction would be put upon the Lords' amendments, or what would be its operation. But so much was certain, that it would cause much more litigation and waste of the charitable funds than could be appre- hended from rejecting the clause, and suffering the Lord Chancellor to appoint Trustees, and issue orders for the regulation of the charities.

Lord ABINGER questioned the legal soundness of Sir John Camp- bell's argument ; and contended that the Trustees last in possession were seised, and that the trusts could not be severed from them.

Lord HOWICK said, that the remarks of Lord Abinger confirmed the impression made by Sir John Campbell's speech, that there was so much doubt as to the construction of the clause, that its introduction into the bill would greatly increase litigation. On this point there was little hope that the two Houses would agree; hut, whether the hill was passed without the clause, or whether it was lost, the Municipal vita- rides must be administered according to the Municipal Act of last year. There were, however, many valuable provisions in the bill, upon which there was no disagreement between the two Houses. Ile theretbre felt convinced that their Lordships, when they considered this, would not think it right to throw away and entirely to reject all the admitted benefit of the rest of the bill (without in any degree gaining the object they had had in view), merely because the House of Commons kit that they could not conscientiously adopt another clause which did not necessarily belong to it. lie thought that their Lordships could not take this course, because it would obviously be liable to the misinterpretation of being a vindictive iefusal on the part of their Lordships, to the towns interested in the passing of the bill, of all advantages they could derive from it, in order to punish them for the re,ist- ance of their Representatives to the clause in question. He would further ob- serve, that if their Lordships were of opinion that such serious inconvenience would arise from that mode of temporarily administering these charities which was provided by the Act of last year, it was perfectly competent to them to In- troduce any other measure for the purpose of meeting this evil, without embar- rassing the present bill with a clause which must prove fatal to it. No Opposition Peer replied to Lord Howick, and Lord JOHN RUS- SELL closed the conference, with expressing his regret at the apparent impossibility of agreement with the Lords. But, however much he regretted the loss of many excellent provisions of the bill, be neither would nor could, consistently with his duty to the House of Commons and the Borough Towns, agree to the Lords' alterations.

The conference then broke up. During its progress, numbers of the Commons kept their hats on ; and a Conservative Peer of eminence was heard to say, that a repetition of such a discussion would not serve the hereditary legislators.

On the return of the Lords to their own chamber, the Earl of RIPON gave a brief account of the arguments used at the conference ; con- cluding with the statement, that as no arrangement had been come to, the bill was left with the Commons.

Lord MELBOURNE then said- " It appears to Inc that the public business has been conducted on this occa- sion in a strange manner. It is manifest by the report which has been just read, as well as from the length of the time that the memengers of your Lord- ships have been absent, that a debate of considerable length has taken pla. So that, when, in the first place your Lordships sent messengers to the brat conference, with their hands free and at perfect liberty to heal what the Com- mons had to say, no debate arose, nor was any argument urged, which ii then stated, might have had some effect in determining your Lordships' deers , and that of the [louse of Commons. But now, when it was clear that the matter was decided—that your Lordships were dete llll i l ied to insist on the amendments, and that no result could possibly be come to—then, it seems, a very long discussion took place, and the whole question was completely argued: Surely it would have been niore consonant with their duty, as well as with reason, if your Lordships' messengers had entered upon the discussion at the first conference, when the whole matter was open, than to have gone into the question on the last conkrence, when the whole business was already concluded by the vote of this House. This, I repeat, is a very singular mode of transacting. business, and not at all in accordance with the manner in which former conferences of this descriptions were conducted." Lord WHAIINCLIFIE observed, that at the first conference, the mes- sengers of the Commons had not entered into discussion, and their Lordships' messengers did not feel bound to do so. A. t the second conference, the Commons having set the example of arguing. the ques- tion, their Lordships' Managers had thought right to follow It.

The Duke Of WELLINGTON 0 A proceeding of this nature has not, it appears, taken place for a period of more than a hundred years. h is obvious, I think, that It has not produced much good effect : it is certain that the discussion has been a very long .one. Besides, the noble viscount disapproves of it. Now I hope the result of this Pill be, that the noble viscount will use that influence which he must have over his colleagues in another place, o induce them not to propose to that House to adopt such a proceeding for the future." (" Hear, hear !

The Peers then adjourned.

On the return of the Commons to their House, Lord JOHN RUSSELL Stated the result of the conference, and then spoke as follows- " The Muirrers of Lite Conference on the part of the Commons, finding that the Lords adhere to both the amendments from which the Commons dis- ee, and it being quite clear that the two Houses can come to no agreement on these clauses, it must appear obvious that the best course for us to pursue is, to !neve that the further consideration of these amendmmts be postponed until this day three months."

This motion was agreed to ; and thus the bill was finally lost.

2. BENEFICES PLURALITIES BILL.

Lord Jong Busseu., on Tuesday, moved that the Order of the Day be read for going into Committee on the Pluralities Bill.

Air. II um: asked Lord John, whether it was possible that due eon- sidetation Could be given to the bill this session ? There were other bills which demanded their attention much wore than this ; vvhich he could not call a measure of reform—it was rather mie for perpetuating abuses. It was generally supposed that this bill would not he pressed tliis session ; and under that impression, several 31embers, it:eluding Mr. Wallace and Mr. Rippon, had kit town.

Mr. WILKS said, he should be a traitor to the interests of that large portion Of community with which he was connected, if he did not pro- test against the further progress of the bill this session.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that he had over and over again declared his intention to press this bill; which had been deferred in order that other measures might be forwarded. He did not agree with Mr. Hume in his opinions on Church Reform' hich could not be effected OTI the same scale as the Reform of Parliament and of the Corperations- Wit h regard to the Reform Bill, they could at once exclude a great number of boroughs and erect a new plan of Pat liamentary representation. So with re *pert to the Municipal Corporatien Bill, they could enact that all old corpo. rations should at once ceae, and that no new corporations should be erected. But in this case, where the interests and incomes of individuals were concerned, it was quite impossible to proceed in such a manner. They could not say that a man ii 'ding two benefices within it certain distance should immediately forfeit one of them ; neither could tlwv say that a Bishop, who was at present living, shoold lie subjected to a great refluction of the income of his benefice. It was quite impossible, therefore, that a bill upon this subject could at all resetnble those two former measures, that of Parliamentary and Municipal Ref inn. It appealed to him that this bill would do a great deal to prevent what he con- sider. If to be a meat abuse, and far whidt the law at present afftr In no remedy. The Eeelesiostical Canons and Fatek.siastical Courts would not allow pluralities beyond tie distance of 35 miles, tint lie dal not believe that the mints of law af- forded a my remedy agaiost two liviw.,;s ing held together at the ii scu nee of BOO or 400 miles apart. If he {yene to agree to the postpur.cfnunt of the bill such pluralities as 1111:':! Wan Id cominur. &tiering, then, that this hill would be of vol vg- it advatttat, and mothl go a great way in reforming the abuses of the Clint eh, and cot, idering al-ti th A it had come down to them from the sai-e at Lords, he %vas dispostil to pet revere in it.

i r. Herr did nut think that Lord John fitt,sell acted discreetly in pressing the bili ; vliiih would uffeet some good, but passed by the most impei taut part of the subject with which it ought to deal. It wool,: not prevent the sante clergyman from holding the golden Pre- bend of Durham with the Rectory of Stanhope.

Mr. Cates :Err PELHAM thought the bill should be Fostponed.

The SrEA K lit put the question that he do " now leave the chair."

Blr. Hunt: moved that the bill be taken into consideration that day three months. !le complained that this bill should be pressed, v.•bile the Deans mid Chapters Bill, which was an excelhatt immure, had been put MT.

3Ir. ImxNAnn seconded Mr. Hume's motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it. As fur the Deans and Chapters Bill, in had encountered so much oppositiolt to it from otlicr quarters than the Cathedral divines—he meant in that House—that lie felt unable to carry it ; though he should have perseveied had the Deans and ffiapters only opposed it.

A division took place; and Mr. Ihnne's motion was rejected, by 66 to ‘)s.

lie House• then went into Committee. The first clause was

agreed to.

IltratE moved an amendment to clause second,

"'that from and after the passing or this let, no spiritual person holding preferment In the I botch or the value ot three hoodrol pounds net shall hold any otlwr preferment theren ob."

31r.. WILKs, Mr. Haas-ET, and Mr. THOMAS Drxeomne supported the amendment. It was opposed by Sir Rotwar Iscus and Lord Joust Ressun ; and seems to have liven negatived without a division.

Mr. Ilume. then proposed another amendment to the same clause, to the effect, that no person holding a benefice should take any Cathedral preferment, und that 110 person balding a Cathedral dignity should take a benefice.

Mr. T. Doxeastm: moved that the Chairman report progress_

Hewas sure the noble lord must fed the impossibility of passing this bill during the present session. They were now discussiag this measure for four hours, and they had only passed one clause. If they were to proceed, evelv other clause would occupy as much time, and tiny would be sitting until November. Thew was the Dissenters' Marriage Bill. Thev ought to retail lea that they had done nothing for the Dissenters this session. Now, before they took up the Bishops' Bills, they ou4lit to look after their own bills. There were the Registration and the Mariiages Bills, and they ought to pro- ceed with them.

A brief discussion ensued, which ended in Lord JonN Russru.'s yieldiug to Mr. Duncombe's motion; saying that be saw no prospect of makiug progress with the bill that night. Last night, in reply to a question from Lord SANDON, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he had e i ne to a resolutioa to postpone the bill till next session; when he certainly intended to bring it forward again.

3. ESTA RUSHED CHURCH BILL.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved that the Lords' amendments to this bill be considered.

Mr. HALL strongly objected to the alteration by which Mr. Jervis's amendment, requiring bishops and clergymen appointed in future to Welsh livings and sees, to understand the ‘Velsh language, was struck out. There were very great abuses in the distribution of Church patronage in Wales; and Alr. Hall read an extract from a book which stated, that " The son of the late Bishop of St. Asap!' was the Dean Residentiary of that

dineese, having a house belonging to the deanery of the value of -I0/. a year, and diffident livings amid appointments in the same diocese of the respective values of 15001., 41261., ;300/., 220/., and 120/ , besides a chancellorship, the einolu ments and fees tsf which amounted to 400/. a year, making, together an income of 3000/. a year in that diocese only ; and yet he did not understand the Welsh lantuage. Besides this, he enjoyed, as lessee under his father, Church property in the same diocese, worth 6004 a year. In the diocese of Ilerefind he had other preferments, making the total amount of his Church preferments 63001. But this was not all. It appeared that the relatives of this Bishop among them enjoyed an income if not less than -.?3,600/. in the diocese of St. Asaph. It. the diocese of Bangor and of St. David's the facts were not so gross, but the in- comes were almost all of the same extent.

Lord Jolts Russitu thought it would be a restriction on the pre's- goire (fthe C 10 147 it to make it necessary for a Welsh Bishop to under- stand the Welsh language : the regulation would be in other respects inconvenient.

Mr. AGLIONRY, Mr. EWART, and Mr. IlumE oppesed, and Mr. GOULBURN and Mr. G. I'. YOUNG defended the Lords' amendment.

A diseussion took place : for the clause as amended by the Lords, .51; against it, 15.

A further discussion of a desultory description took place on this el-rise. In the course of it, Air. IluatE said, that any thing like Re- form was sure to be rejected by the Lords ; and the Commons were treated with indignity— Ile was not prepared to let Peers sit in that House while he and other Mem- bers had to stand if they wished to listen to the debates elsewhere. Even at th2 conferenee that had just been held, they had been treated in a manner which he thought the House should not submit to. It was degrading to the 011111110114 of England that the Managers on their part had to stand uncovered, while. the managers on the pirt of t he Peers were seated and covered.

Mr. TREVOR called Mr. Hume to order. Some interruption en- sued ; and the SPEAKER stated the question before the House.

Alr. Hum: then moved that the further consideration of the clause should be pustponed to next session.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. IleGoEs fIrcite.s, and Mr. ROBINSON

opposed the inotiom 31r. Roatssox complained that Mr. Hume wasted the time of die House. Mr. EwAtur defended Mr. Hume : nobody, lie said, had theie more good, though there were some Members mho wasted a great deal more time, in a little way.

Mr. Dt7scomni: moved that time debate be adjourned for six weeks; but asked the Speaker if Mr. Flume's motion would throw out the bill ?

The SPEAKER said, if carded, it would only cause the rejection of the de tistt.

Lord Jolts H es-Ent. WaS willing to divide on Mr. Ilume's motion, as if it was one for throwing out the bill alteg, The House divided : for Mr. Iluine's motion, 31 ; against it, 66. The remainitig clauses were agreed to.

4. REGISTRATION or Bnurits AND liarthIAGES.

Lord Jolts: H usset.i., on l'hursday, moved that the House slioeld agree to the anicaulments of the Lords to the Registration of &vas and Marriages Bills. By these bills, great principles were establishad, and great improvements made ; and lie thought it would thieve tore be wise to pass them, although they- went up to the Lords far better mea- sures than they hall been returned.

Mr. II l'31E Objected IO the amendment by which the appointment of the Registrars was,taken from the Registrar. General, and given to ma ever.changing and most unfit body, t'de Guardians of the Poor. He hoped that the original provision would be restored to the bilL

Mr. Witais highly approved of the bill. Mr. Hume was ntistaken, The bill as it went to the Lords gave the appointment of Registrars to the Guardians of the Poor, and the Lords had made an excellent amendment to it as to the qualification of the Registrars.

Mr. T. DescoNttm said, that tin' amendment of the Lords gave the appointment of Registrars to the Clerk of the Guardians of the Poor, who wight any day be dismissed from his office.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL disapproved of the alteration made by the Lords, but would .iot on that account lose the bill.

M. Ilume said, dint the bill, as it went to the Lords, gave the ap- poii:• !.ent to the Guardians of the Poor, so. ject to the ivproral gide tia: intemIcat Reyistrar ; and the Lords, by i.5eir amendment, had reo. ed that approval unnecessary% Ile was Tate astonished that L• .1 John Russell could agree to the amendments.

Lord JOHN Russi:u then moved that the Clerk of the Guardians of the Poor " should have such a qualification as the Superintendent Re- gistrar deemed necessary." This would make the Clerk a responsible person.

This amendment was agreed to, and also the minor amendments of the Peers.

Lord infix Gussin.t. then said, that the amendments of the Lords would render the 31arriage Bill imperfect ; but it would be capable of remedy; or inch remedy, he doubted not, the Ilonse would soon be ready to apply. It was of importance to get the bill on the Statute-book and he moved that the House concur in the amendments of the Peers.

Mr. WiLics said, there were several very strong objections to the alterations made in the bill by the Lords; but he gave no decided op- po.ition to the motion. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, the bill bad been materially injured, and m tell inconvenience would be the result. But for this the House of C nnmons were not to blame-

With wear ingenuity in ill, the Lords hail contrived to establiah two distinct gem* oi marriage,—owe by bans and licence in the church, and the other through the tueilmiti of notice elsewhere. The effect would be, that whereas before only one dour was opened fur clandestiue mairiages, (against which the House ol Commons had carefully guided,) now two doors would be thrown wide open ; and he was much niietaken if their Lurdships would not, here- after, have reason bitterly to regret their own incaution, when stone of their nearest and dealest connexions availed themaelves of the new opportunity thus affuided. At the same time, lie wits ready tu &tempt the bill, even aa amended, ),øc use it wioi the acknowledgment of a great principle; and he said with Mr. canning upon a similar occasion in 1822, " the alterations have proceeded upon wisound seasoning ; hut, having the Lords now in the hummir to make a 1 will heatafter induce them moment] it." If this bill were not passed, the country might indeed say that Pat liament had sat fur seven months and had done nothing. In fact, this measure and the Tithe Act were the only two of any importance Out had been passed into law.

GouLliuuN said, that if the hill was a bad one, Dr. Lushington bid given a very bad reason for taking it.

Mr. ARTHUR Teevoa defended the Lords' amendments.

Mr. Grantee Palatial strongly disapproved of the measure; which, he said, would lead to Infidelity.

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS disapproved of the amendments, but would take the bill farther thun lose it.

Mr. BoternwIceentettained insuperable objeetionsto the bill even in its amended form ; and be moved that the Louis' amendments he read a second time that day three months.

The Heuse divided: for the :intendment, 3; against it, 63.

Clause 7th was strongly objected to by Mr. WILKS, who thus stated its operation- - It required the Surrintendent of the district to send ta the Clerk of the

Union the names of all persons, being Protestant Dissotteis, who sl id notify that they had an intention of bring moiled ; that he should enter the same in a book kept for that purty..e ; sod that the entry so made shindil be read over weekly fur three successive meetings of the Ga irdians of the Poor. Thi was a degradation to which the Dissenters would never cunaent.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the alteration unnecessary, but did not see that it degraded the Dissenters.

Mr. Buorneetroe said it was perfectly intolerable. • .

Mr. Aimee Tnevoa said that the douse did impose a degradation on the Dissenters ; and therefore he would vote against it, though not in the habit el dividing with Mr. Wilks.

Mr. Hum hoped the motion would not be pressed. The clause did phree the Dissenters in a degrading situation ; but it might be amended afterwards. lie would nut risk the loss of the bill by voting with Alr. Walks.

The House divided: for the clause, 47 ; against it, 9.

The other umendments were then agreed to.

Allecree.axeous Esecaaei:s.

In Committee of Supply, on Aloudry, was voted to the

British Aluseten ; Sir Rotifer: Iseus tissue ;ie.; the Iluese that the Museum %%mild be kept open during May, Jan, :oil August, from in the morideg till se,ea nuffiber

of visitcrs to the Must ma, and ef i. . is in th: 1:i;(1 of late greatly increased.

The sum of was v,,t; r ;; km from 3Ir. Sergeant Jaceeux, -,- s

The only other vine on v.; ..ii any di e te , was the annual giant of Kq. to ;moils t 1 1. itt'Ecat.,

Mr. A moat TeEvoa, and .sir. SuAw • l',• ■:11,0,,d to it. Captain BOLDER° said he hoped that ere hieg (limey would be paid their stipends by the Sta:e, as the sir.- means Of putting an end to the influence of the plies' awl the al4i::;!_or. 'llw committee divided by Mr. Taevoa ; and agreed to the grant, by at to 10.

On Wednesday, the consideration of the Miscellaneous Estit .ates was resumed.

To defray the expense of prosecutions in aid of the Comity-rates, 40,01101. was voted, after strenuous opposition float Mr. Hume ; who denied that counties had any better claim to such usststance than towns.

As compensation to Danish elabnants 78,000/. For the Pulish Refugees 10,0e01. This vote was highly approved of by Mr. Hem, Dr. Bowetse, Mr. Hawes, and Lord DUDLEY STUART.

For defraying the expense of openieg a steam communication with India, $OM.

For the settlement in Western Australia, 7.37e/.

Fur the expense of Emigration Agencies, 1.87.a. For the salaries and elletvanees of the Wirers of the two Houses of Parliament, 501. A debate of some length arose on the motion for this vote.

Mr. HAWES complained that the House of Commons was badly ventilated ; and that the difficulty of hearing was so great, that Mein- bers sitting immediately behind the Treasury bench only heard imper- fectly what was going un.

Mr. SPRING RICE admitted the inconvenience; but said it was almost impossible to remedy it. The ceiling should be lowered, and the win- dows moved, and the gallelies luwered,—alterations which, be feared, the walls would not sustain.

Mr. Huste was convinced an improvement might be made: any alteration would be for the better.

Dr. BOWRING thought an experiment should be tried before the new House was constructed.

Mr. WAKLEY suggested, that the table should be moved lower down, and then the leading Members on the Treasury and Opposition benches would be obliged to speak loud enough for the Speaker to hear them,•and others would hear too. In the Reporters' Gallery, it was impossible to hear the Speaker, though what fell from the chair was distinctly audible in the body of the House.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM Whiled the existence of the reporters to be formally recognized, and that suitable accommodation should be made for them. As to the difficulty of hearing, it was attributable to the

angular form of the .1.1ouse. In, France and America, the Legislat. Chambers were semicircular, on the ancient Greek model.

Mr. WARBURTON said, that Dr. Reid should be examined : that :gentleman. had erected, on acoustical principles, a building in Edin- iburgh, which was excellent in conveying sound.

Dr. BOWRING wished means to be tuken to secure full reports of' iwhat was s lid in the House; as was dune in France and Belgium, in. .which countries lie had travelled.

Mr. Rice. was satisfied with the present reports. It was all very well for geatlenwit to wish to be fully reported ; but if all that was said was published, where would readers be found for such an immense

mass of matter ? preferred nusting to the discretion of the re- -,porters.

Mr. Hume said, one practical proof was worth a dozen theories; and he beg;ed to refer Mr. Rice to the reports of the proceedings in the Legislazive Assembly of Belgium.

Mr. Ric v.—" yes; but how long do they sit ?"

Mr. Humr.—" For five or six hours ; but if they sat for tFn hours, their proceedings, if important, would be reported ut equal length." Of course every word would not be reported, but every Meng of im- portance was. That was not the way matters were conducted in this country— It was only last night that they had a discussion of some length on the Bette- fit-es Plurality 11111. In conjunction with other Alenshers, he had opposed it ; and though the hill went into Committee, the progress made in it there was not very considerable. A gentlemnn had called upon him that morning, and had told Iii am that he uses much surprised to find that the bill, which he suspected would have met with great opposition, had passed the third reading without opposition, aceerding to the Lure t in the Tintes ; which, he mid, was very meagre end very unsatisfactory. Ile had not scent that report himself; but if such a statement n cue taint:lived in that paper, nothing could be more inten- tionally erroarems. Ile also complained that after a certain hour in the evening the reporters inade a point of stating that the Other orders of the day wete then di-peed of. This led their constituents to believe that they led a very idle life, and did nothing fin the retinal. But if any personal quarrel arose in that House, the repeat was then given fully and fairly, even to the very words ; and then tutu r constituents were led to believe that they formed nothing but a mere meeting of hi awlet s. Itu point of fact, things had come to such a pass, that the House must have an organ of its own for the publication of its debates. 11e now gave notice, that he smart in the coutse of next session move fix the ap- pointment of a Committee to see whether this could not be done. Ile wanted nothing but facts to appear in the reports, and to put a stop to the erroneous statements which went forth at plesent to the public.

[ This report of ;Mr. Huine's speech is taken fro:n the Times, which appends the following foot-note.

" It weala he as well it Mr. II time. before he charges other partie, with making statements ititentionally erroneous, uould mho the trouble of atscertainiag, as in this instance be ea,aly could have done. 'slim her the inrormat ion on a Welt he acts is or is laud 11eSf•ning Comma. ou this . ceasein tee informant ot Mr. Hume isa,sessed either treacheratis memory, or a mendacious tongue. The !het seas not stated correctly, either by huts imorimmt tu Mr. llume, or hy Mr. ileum to the Must.. thir report distinctly sta'es. that after comma clauses Avele dismissed, • the Haase re,.; llllll the Chairman reared ',Ingres,. and obtained leave to sit again en Thar da.r.' 'there is not it us lull in it al amt the bill passing the third reach tar cellhoat oppose lot."

NoW, in the summary of Itiesdey's proceeding:: in the leading article of the Ti hrs, it is said that " the bill was reported, and ordered to be read a ibird tithe act filonday." There Wet% therefore, some ground for the blunder of Mr. Iluine or his informant.] Colonel Siert:otter: complained of this unreasonable and unfounded (italic, against the reporters. Mr. Iltime, at any rate, might to be satisfied with the reports of his speeches, which, during this session, would take up a :nib, in length.

Mr. ROinNSW said, iin newspeper could report all that passed in the : II oust', and realize a profit by its sale.

'The conveys:talon on this subject. and on the inconvenience of the Lihrary, was at length put an cud to by "Mr. RICE, who reminded honourable Members, that they could not determine to alter the con- striation of the House in a Committee of Supply. The vote for the salaries of the Officers was then agreed to.

For the repairs of Buckingham Palace, 6,496/. was voted. Colonel SIBTHORPE arid -Mr. Weateuterox, however, denounced the Palace as a scandalous job. Mr. RICE said that the present Government was not responsible for the truly enormous sums expended on the Palace : this vote, which. W119 Wanted to complete the furnishing, would be the last. Mr. HUME said, he had visited the Palace, and found it fit to be inhabited; but if it was inhabited, what was to be done with St. James's Palace? No answer was given to Mr. Hume; but Mr. EWART suggested that St. James's Palace might be fitted up as a temporary Parliament House.

For the expense of a Ladies' Gallery, 400/. was proposed. Lord LINCOLN opposed the vote. What had passed formerly in the House on the admission of ladies, he considered as a mere joke.

Mr. FRF.SIIFIELD said, it was no joke. The admission of well-edu- cated women would render their debates more decorous.

Mr. Toose. was of a different opinion: the presence of the ladies' would obstruct the progress of business. Mr. Pintur HOWARD objected to making the English ladies poli- tical partisans, and would oppose the vote.

Mr. POTTER supported, and Mr. POULETT THOMSON opposed it. Lord PALMERSTON, amidst much laughter, spoke in favour of the admission of ladies to the House.

Sir Jolts, IlonnorsE shuddered at the idea of the ladies hearing what they inevitably must hear, if present at the debates of the House of Commons. Ladies used to be admitted above the ventilator, which was a disgusting practice ; and be would say, God forbid that his wife, mother, or sister, should have heard what those ladies heard there.

The SPEAKER being called for, observed, that As the Reuse hail twice decided in favour of the admission of ladies to the Strangers' Gallery, he had felt it a matter of great doubt whether he ought to give any opinion at all or not on the question; but as he had now been called upon by the House to do so, he must say, that having well-considered the sub- ject, and looking at it as a question of considerable iuiportanee, with reference to the order and devoruni of the House, and with reference to the influence which might be exerted on the liouse,:and looking at it Ids° as at qusauuer

awaiting the confirmation of the Committ.* that night, he had come to a ifs. tinct and positive eons ictiraz that the measure was undesirable. As this was the first time he had expressed his opinion on the subject, he begged to say that be had done so without reference to those whom it might please or displease, and in the discharge of what ;le conceived to be his duty to the House. Look- ing at the question in all its bearings, be must repeat his decided opinion that the proposition was most undesirable. (Hear, hear !) Mr. AGLIONBY observed, that the Speaker had given no reason for his opinion, but had treated the question as a matter of feeling% He was averse to stultifying the two former decisions of the House in favour of the Ladies' Gallery.

Mr. GOULBURN objected to the vote. Lord Howice supported it. The Committee divided : for the Ladies' Gallery, 28; against it, 42. For a School of Design in connexion with Manufactures, 1,5001. was

'voted.

A few more sums were granted, and the House resumed.

6. NEWSPAPER STA1MP.DUTY.

On Monday, Lord MELBOURNE moved the Peers to go into Com- mittee on the Newspaper Stamp Bill. He explained that it was measure for reducing the duty from threepence anti one fifth to one penny, and for putting down the sale of unstamped newspapers, which the existing law had been found unable to effect, although from 800 to 1000 persors had been prosecuted under it during the last four or five years. He also mentioned, as a reason for their Lordships' assent to the bill, that its rejection would throw the whole newspaper trade into confusion and disturbance, and perpetuate the sale of uustamped publi- cations of evil tendency.

The Lords went into Committee, and agreed to the first ten clauses. On clause 11th, which enacts that the name of every proprietor of u newspaper shall be registered at the Stump-oflice, being read— Lord LYNDHURST said, that be entirely concurred in the propriety of checking the sale of unstamped publications, and would do all in his power to prevent the violation of the law which took place with respect to them. He would not therefore oppose the bill; but he objected strongly to the inquisitorial and unnecessary elegise before them. The existing law made it necessary that the names of the printer, publisher, and two of the largest proprietors, should be registered at the Stamp. office ; and this precaution has been proved to be sufficient by forty years' experience. Parties wishing to proceed by indienhent or by civil action, could Hite:vs find responsible persons. This law—the 38th of George the Third—had been vigorously opposed by the Whigs of that day—Mr. Sheridan' Mr. Tierney, Sir William Pulteney, and Lord William Russell. Lord Eldon wished the names of three proprietors to be registered, brit Mn'. Addington said that two would give ample security. This was the regulation which was originally adopted by Government in the present bill ; but it had been altered so as to make it necessary that the name and residence of every proprietor should be registered, with the anionitt of his share or interest in the paper, and the transfers of ,-bares; and this registration was to be renewed every six months. This alteration, proceeding from the quarter it did, fur- nished another proof how readily those root and breech Radicals, who clamoured most loudly for the liberty of the press, were, on every uct-a- sion in which they could exercise power, more arbitrary, more search. ingly, and in tyrannical, than any other class o.fluen. Ile had been informed by a most respectable individual, Mr. Baldwin, pro- prietor of the Standard, that the effect of this clause, and others which belonged to the same subject, would be to deteriorate his property to the extent of 50 per cent. It had been said that if these claeses were meddled with, the bill would be lost, as it was a money-bill. But those clausl:s had nothing to do with money. They were clauses of police and regulation, and had nothieg ta do with the duty. At any rate, there was time for the introduction of a new bill omitting these clauses, which the House of Commons might send up to them, and which the Lords would at once pass : or the Commons might do better—they might send up a bill to abolish the duty altogether. To retain such machinery for the purpose of collecting a duty of one penny, was the most absurd thing in the world. Lord Lyndhurst concluded by moving the omission of the 11th clause.

Lord Chancellor COTTENHAM said, that these clauses introduced no provision unknown to the act of 1798; for although by that act two proprietors only were registered, a bill of discovery might be tiled to compel the disclosu:e of the names of the other proprietors.

Lord Wvsecnto said, there was a great difference between these clauses and the act of 1798. The act of 1798 gave an injured party the means of seeking redress for a civil injury, but limited the use of the information, acquired by filing a bill of discovery, to the purposes for

which the individual plaintiff required it. But the present bill made a discovery which might be used for criminal as well as civil cases. By

the Act of 1798, a man was obliged to prove his interest in the infor- relation, by seeking it at some cost ; but the present bill gave that infor- mation for nothing, to everybody who might choose to use it for the detriment of others, or the gratification of his own spite.

Lord LYNDHURST observed, that over and above these clauses, there was in the bill a discovery clause similar to that of 1798: therefore, if Lord Cottenham were correct in saying that these clauses did no more than the discovery clause of 1798, the former, on his own showing, ought to be given up as unnecessary.

Lord MELBOURNE was satisfied, from reference to the best authori- ties, that an alteration in these clauses would be fatal to the bill. But they were told that they might bring in another hill, and for the repeal

of the whole of the duty. He begged to ask if the Duke of Welling- ton and those who sat near him were parties to that recommendation ? This was bidding for popularity with a vengeance! He would ask Lord Lyndhurst, at whom was this recommendation levelled—what party it was intended to gain—whom to please—whom to satisfy? It was an attempt to outrun his opponents in the race for popularity, rind to take up circumstances which Lord Lyndhurst thought favourable to himself. It would, however, be found that great objections existed to the entire removal of the Newspaper Stamp-duty; for were that done, a charge must be imposed on the transmission of papers through the Post-office. It was said, that the existing law afforded the means of getting at the proprietors: but it was found that the registered pro-

prietors of certain stamped papirs which indulged in every species of scurrility and slander, were persons from whom nothing in the shape of damages could be recovered though a verdict might be given uplink threw. It was true that the clauses in question were not in the original bill—they were proposed in the House of Commons ; and no opposi- tion was given to them, till the honourable Member for Berkshire, ott the third reading, opposed them, when only fifteen Members could be found to vote with him. Lord Lyndhurst had said that he respected the Wings of former times : Lord Melbourne had a high respect for this Tories of former times ; and he well remembered a quotation made kg one of them, in reference to this question- " ipse pater, media nimhoro in it, nocte, eorusca

molitur derail's."

It was this night-like mystery in which these publishers were enveloped that he wished to see removed. He desired to see the shade by which those who exercised such Inver umi authority in the country were surrounded, dispelled. There could be no reason for their concealing themselves. The noble anti learned bold had himself spoken of the talent and the learning connected with. the press of this country ; and nobody could think it idle or derogatory to be connected with the press. lie also presumed that it was impossible that any person would give assistance or lend his capital to a journal professing princi- ples other than he himself entertained : it was, he took it for granted. Impos- sible that a Conservative lent his aid to a Radical newspaper, or that a Radical applied his capital to a Conservative journal. lie supposed, too, that it was perfectly impossible that the characters of these individuals could be injured bp their names being divulged, except those, perhaps, who had gained notot iety by personal slander. He presumed it was nut for these that the noble and learned lord put himself forward on the present occasion. If there were any foolish. fellow u•ho had raised himself from a humble station in life to that of a Member for a county, who feared that his veracity ',if/he be impeached or his vanity wounded y these ifiraweli:s, it was la dly ueeess. ry to legis- late for that purpose, or for his protection. But he Was ITIOSt anxious is call to their Lordships' attention what the effect of the loss of this bill might lie on the country, on the state of press, and on the future wellbeing of every thing that was connected with that subject. If there really was such an ohjection to this clause—if, as the noble and learned lord had stated, dr clause infiinged on the liberty of the press, for which so much acute sensibilitr had been displayed by the other side of the House—if he thought the clause was incoasistent with every principle of liberty, he would not consent to keep the clause in the bill. Dissenting as he did from the noble and learned lord opposite, be thought their Lordships ought to pause before they hazarded the fine of the measure by so rash and unadvised a step as that proposed by the noble and learned lord.

The Duke of WeruxeTost said, it was obvious that the clause had been tacked to a money-bill in order to injure certain individuals. The clause had no reference to money or taxation. If a new bill were to be brought in, because these clauses were rejected, in the name of God let them have the real bill—let them know the intentions of Govern- ment—let them have the penny duty and the drawback of the Post- (Alive duties. It was no reply to the speech of Lord Lyndhurst, to ask others whether they agreed %rid that noble lord us to the entire repeal of the duty.

Lord LYNDHURST said, there was inr insinuation in Lord Melbourne's speech : Lord Alelbourne aimed at the Member for Berkshire now lie knew nothiug of that gentleman ; lie had never seen him, and had Lad no cominueication direct or in with him. As for the diffi- culty of procuring redress under the presteit law, every publisher of a newspaper was b(1111111 to give sureties to the extent of 400/. : it was the duty of the Stamp-office solicitor to see that those sureties were valid, and lie had never known a verdict against a newspaper for as high damages as 40t11.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that if these clauses were "it tack " to a money-bill, the bill itself should be rejected. But Lord Lyndhurst did not follow the straightforward course pursued by Lord Grenville t,' who had moved to reject a bill lor the regulation of trade— a bill combining matters of revenue with those of general policy. But there was DO pretext for representirre, these clauses as "a tack." He would not follow Lord Lyndhurst iii his detail of what occurred la 1798,—though Lord Lyndhurst had a great advantage in referring to that period, as he bad declared that no men had a right to impute to hint any political opinions whatever at that time ; hut Ile would maintaitt that the clauses in question were calculated to promote the respecta- bility of the press, with which lie wt a well aware afew persons of high and honourable characters were connected.

Lord LYNDHURST said, he took the course he did, because techni- cally those clauses were not a "tack." Two courses were open to that Government : if the House of Commons considered that their privi-

leges were infringed by the rejection of these clauses, a new bill might be introduced without them, or a bill doing away with the duty altoge.- ther,—which he should recommend; as he considered it would not be worth while to keep in action so much complicated machinery for se small an amount of duty.

The Committee then divided : for the clauses, 40; against them, 61. They were accordingly struck out ; the remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be reported on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the report was received. On Wednesday, the bill was read a thiid time, passed, and sent down to the Commons.

In the Commons, the amendments having been read by the Clerk, Mr. SPRING RICE rose to state the course which Government in tended to propose. It was, he thought, perfectly unnecessary to dis- cuss the arneudments of the Lords; for they were made in a bill of "aid and supply," which was a direct violation of the privileges of the Commons. 'I here was no question of privilege less open to controe versy than this, that to the House of Commons alone it belonged to deal in all matters of aid and supply— He 2dmitted that the application of this principle was open to some just and. reasonable limitation ; and that if the House of Commons were to endeavour to engraft upon a hill of aid and supply matters quite foreign to the professed ob- jeers of such a measure, such an attempt would not be fairly within the opera-. tion of their privilege, and could not be protected by it. But in the preen* ease, he denied that such an att,nript had been made by the House of Commons to stretch their privileges. The clauses which the House of Lords had re- jected in this bill were not such as were technivally called " tacks," foreign to the subject matter of the bill. True, the clauses so left out were not of his in- troduction. True, they were not in the original bill brought in by him, but had been introduced into the measure, on the motion of other gentlemen, in the

course of the discussions which the measure underwent in that House. The House, however, had not been taken by surprise in the introduction of these

clauses : one of them had been introduced on the motion of an honourable fentleman not now in his place ; and not one objection had been urged against 31, at least'hy.any one on that side of the House. That clause had been objected to, however, m another place, and bad been struck out of the bill ; 1111,i now the only question was how this House had now to deal in respect of the bat so altered ?

There could be no doubt that the House must reject the amend- ments. If he wanted authority for this course he would refer to the speech delivered the other night by Sir Robert Peel, in the case of the Irish Tithe Bill. He would assume that the House was prepared to maintain its privileges, and would advert to the best mode of dealing with the matter before them— Having consulted all the authorities upon the subject in order to guide him in the course he should this night take up, the motion that he had HOW to make was, the amendments of the House of Lords having been duly read, that the Trill now in the Speaker's hands he laid aside. He %%amid tell the house why be framed his motion in that form. If he were to move that the amendments ot the House of Lords be rejected in the way commonly proposed, he would, in fact, be proposing a motion against the very bill originally introduced by himself into -this Ilouse ; for in such form the bill was actually left by the omissions made it by the Lords of the amendments introduced into it in the course of its dis- .cussion in this House. If he had done so, therefore, and the motion were agreed to, the House must be aware that they would be precluded from the reconsidera- tion of the question in the course of the present session ; which was what he was most anxious to avoid.

Mr. Rice then dwelt upon the disappointment and inconvenience -that would result from the loss of the bill, and, especially, on the con- tinuance of the prosecutions of the venders of unstamped newspapers, the sale of which the bill would prevent. Ile thought that the House ought to rush forward at once, and secure to the public the benefit in- tended by the bill, without delay. He would therefore move to bring in a new bill, precisely the same (except as ton slight alteration of date) as that passed by the Lords. Before he sat down, however, he would advert to certain observations which he had not expected from the quarter in which they were made— He certainly was hardly prepared to hear parties who had hitherto opposed any reduction at all in stamp-duties upon newspapers, now holding out a sort of promise, or professing an inclination for the total abolition of those duties. This was a naked bait, which he was somewhat surprised to see held out ; and if those who held it forth were men who knew any thing of the sports of the field, awl knew what was meant by a fidse drag,—if they were aware of the use of a red- -herring in this way, in ordet to get the hounds off the real seent,—and if they. knew also by whom such expedients were usuafly resorted to,—they would spare him from further characterizing their conduct on this occasion. Why, what be had described was no other than the conduct of the poacher ; awl all Ile would say was, let not the parties he had referred to take up the course of the poacher on the present occasion, and impede him in the rousse of public utility which he was now caller' upon by his they to take up, by holding out hopes and throwing out suggcstions which they all the while knew would never be realized. (Cheei s.)

Mr. Rice concluded by moving, that the bill received from the .Lords be " laid aside."

The motion was agreed to, without opposition.

Mr. Rum then moved for leave to bring in the new bill.

Mr. GOULBURN thought that Mr. Rice had taken much unnecessary trouble in speaking at such a length on the question of pi ivilege. lie agreed with him so entirely, that he had not thought it %with a.bile to offer a single renenk on his first motion ; and he Ivould not throw any obstacle in the way of bringing in the new bill.

Mr. Hest": thought that the bill had not been injured by the omie. sion of the clauses struck out by the Peers. Ile was eel wilily in fa- vour of a total reduction of the duty; but Ile would not on that account oppose a partial reduction.

In reply to a question from Mr. POTTER, Mr. Rice. said, that the reduction of the duty would be postponed to the 15th September : the delay was none of his causing.

The bill was read a first time ; but considerable opposition being made to the second reading, that stage of the measure was postponed.

On Thursday, the bill was read a second time, vommitted, reported, and ordered to be engrossed. It was then read a third time, and passed—all in the course of four minutes.

The bill was then takeu up to the Lords. Lord•MertiOraNE moved that it be read a first time ; and gave notice that the next day he should move the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order that it might be then put through the remaining stages. It was the same bill as that originally introduced by Mr. Spring Rice, with the exceptien that the day on which the reduction of the duty was to commence was altered from the 1st to the 15th of September; this alteration was the consequence of the unnecessary delay to which the bill had be subjected in their Lordships' House.

Lord LYNDHURST asked, why Lord Melbourne did not at once move to suspend the Standing Orders ?

Lord SHAFTESBURY said, a day's notice of such a motion was re- quired.

Lord LYNDHURST said, he had asked the question because he and other lords on that side of the House were willing to give every facility towards passing tha bill without delay.

Lord ABINGER lectured Lord Melbourne on his discourteous tone towards the majority of their Lordships' House; and maintained that the "unnecessary delay" was altogether chargeable against the other side.

The bill was then read a first time.

Last night, the Lords passed the bill through its remaining stages.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

THE VOTERS REGISTRATION BILL was read a third time on Mon- day, and passed by the Commons ; the names of Mr. It. Gurney and Mr. E. Winslow being substituted in the list of Revising Barristers for Mr. Alexander and Mr. Rogers, who declined the appointment. The majority in favour of the motion that the bill do pass, was EC to 23.

The bill was taken to the House of Lords, and read a first time; it was read a second time on Wednesday; and last night considered in Committee.

On the first clause being proposed, Lord IVIIARSZelaree t'ook occa- sion to repel the charge brought against his side of the House by Lord Melbourne, of using offensive and contumelious language towards the House of Commons. Lord Melbourne did not seem to understand his real position. Lord Wharncliffe then animadverted in strong terms on the manner in which Ministers allowed alterations to be made in bills, till they were themselves quite ashamed of them ; and he maintained the right of the Lords to revise any measure passed by the Commons. Ile then stated several objections to the leading clauses of the bill, especially disapproving of the number of places it created.

Lord Mimi:motes: said, that be might on the previous night, in the heat of debate' have used expressions a little over a lint the occasion required ; but for the general import of those expressions, he stood entirely by them, and would not retract any part or tittle- " And I say now, it is not the way to produce cordiality—it is not the way to produce union between the two Houses—it is not the way to establish a good understanding between them, or to promote the public service, for the Mixubers of one House to view with distrust and jealousy the measures proceeding from ano- ther, and to be continually imputing to them sinister design., and intentions of in- juring and overreaching those who form a part of the legislative body with them- selves. I say, whatever the noble lord may think of it, there is,uo such ground for suspicion as that which he declares; and when the noble lord tells me that I do not understand the situation in which I am placed, I beg to express my belief that the noble lord does not understand, our in the slightest degree per- ceive, how he or those who associate with him stand with the count, y. I know it is mere assertion on both sides, and time alone eau decide which is right ; but I feel as confident that there is as much blindness UN the part of the noble lords opposed to me as there can be ignorance on my pai t of the situation in which I am placed."

Lord Melbourne then entered into a general vindication of the bill.

Lord Hotmeen complained of the spirit which Lord Wharncliffe commenced the discussion on a bill which, being passed by the Com- mons, it was their Lordships' duty to examine dispassionately and Ivithout prejudice, in order to give bond fide effect to the views of the House of Commons.. It bad always been the practice of that House to treat matters relative to elections with great delicacy.

Lord Mums:mere denied that Ministers possessed the confidence of die house of Commons. (Ironkal cheers.) Ile repeated it : they were kept in office by a party which could put un end to their tenure of office when they chose.

Lord HOT.LAND wished Lord Wharncliffe to attend to the course of his own alignment. He denied that Ministers bad the confidence of the Commons, and said that the measures they brought forward were the measures of the House of Commons. Well, I.ord Holland would say, that measures regarding the people and the internal allbirs of the I louse of Commons ought not to be the measures of any party, or even uf the Executive Government itelf: such was the lax way of speak- ing, that some people secant d to think that the Executive Govern- ml could nude laws, as well as enforce them ; but that was altogether unconstit utional and impedimentary.

Lord Frrzeenar.n impugned, and Lord Chancellor CorreNnam defended, the conduct of Ministers.

Lord A eixemi spoke against the first clause of the bill. And it was rejerii•d. by 57 to 21.

In•XI division vvas on a motion by Lord ‘Vharncliffe, to deprive persons lievieg borough property of the might to vote both for Borough .11embcrs and County Members by virtue (Idle same property.

Lord Mime:weer: would not concur in such an alteration of the Reform Act.

The clause, however, was carried, by 54 to 20.

All the claties of the bill were disposed of, and the Committee rose.

Scoren COURT OE SESSION BILL. Lord Chancellor COTTENIIAM InOWO the second reading of this bill, on Tuesday. Lord ROSSLYN and LOrd WYNroan opposed the motion, on the ground that there bad not been sufficient time for the consideration of the bill. Lord COT- TLNIIAM replied, that the bill was brought into the /louse of Corn- Mons some months ago, and had been thoroughly examined there. It was founded on tins recommendations of two reports, one of which had he-tit before the House two years, and the other a twelvemonth. Ample time, therefore, had been given for its consideration. The Peers then rejected the bill, by 37 to 27.

Tim COMMON FIELDS ENCLOSURE BILL went through a Committee of the Lords on Tuesday ; some amendments, proposed by Lord Ermesagmortue haring been inserted. It was agreed, that these amendments should be printed, in order that their nature might be clearly understood ; amid the discussion was reserved to a future stage of the bill.

Toe JEWISH DISABILMES BILL went through the Committee In the Common,: last night.

Pitisoxiats' Couesea Bum. Last night, the Lords' amendments to this bill were agreed to, with the exception of the clause which denied to the party accused the right of reply. The Commons insisted on the original clause, giving that right. • POOP...RATE BILL. On the motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, OR Thursday, die consideration of the Lords' amendments to this bill was put off for three months. Mr. Thomson said—

'f he itrienthnents made by the Lords were undoubte0y calculated to improve the measure , but being a bill for rating, there was a technical difficulty to its receiving any amendment in the other house. He had therefore no alternative left but to move that the amendments be rejected, and then to move for leave to bring in another bill upon the subject.

Another bill was then brought in, and read a first time.

THE MILLION LOAN. Last night, the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee on die bill to suspend the repayments of money advanced out of the Million Loan, Mr. LEADER called attention to the shameful manner in which laymen of property had helped them- selves to large sums out of that fund. He contended that the money was advanced under a strict pledge that it should be repaid; and he would not consent to a bill which set aside that pledge. Mr. SPRING RICE said, the I ill only went to suspend proceedings for the present for the recovery of the money adeaner d. The bill was passed not for the clergy only, I ut ta relieve every impropliator of tithe in Ireland.

The bill then went thiough the Committee.

PENSIONS-DUTIES BILL. On Monday, the report on this bill was brought up. On the motion that it be received, Mr. HARCOURT moved a clause for the purpose of exempting the pension to the Duke of Marlborough from the operation of the bill. Mr. Rica spoke in favour of the clause. Sir T. FREMANTLE and Mr. Ilusia opposed it. The House divided ; and agreed to the brining up of the clause, by :37 to 35. The clause was read a first time. M. WAR newroar opposed the motion that it should be read a second time. A second divi- sion thok place • and the motion was carried, by 55 to 35. Mr. WAR- BURTON said, the house had been taken by surprise, and moved an adjournment. For . the motion, 33; against it, 61. The clause was then added to the bill.

limn MALT-DUTIES BILL. MT. SPRING RICE, on Monday, moved the second reading of this bill; whose object was to improve the mode of collecting the malt-duty in Ireland, which is now extremely defective. Strong opposition being made to the measure, by Mr. Ha- 3111.Tala, Mr. RUTHVEN, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, and Mr. WALKER, Mr. RR7E consented to withdraw it.

TRINITY Ilminoca BILL. On Monday, Mr. POULTER moved the second reading of this bill. [There appears to have been a mistake in supposing that it was withdrawn when the clerical error in the copy was discovered, about a fortnight ago.

Sir Jona Castel:au said, he thought that Sir Andrew Leith hay had abandoned the bill. The House could not surely proceed with it. lie moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. PouLTiat said, he had taken charge of tha bill in the absence of Sir Andrew Leith I lay, at the request of the parties engaged in the undertaking. It would be hard to stop the progress of the bill now.

Mr. LEADER, BOWRING, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, and Mr. WILES supported the bill. It was opposed by Mr. ROBERT STEUART; and lost, on a division, by 30 to 29.

Semen UNIviaiserres. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, on Monday, in reply to a question from Mr. ()swam), that Government intended to appoint a Commission in reference to the state of the Scotch Uni- versities ; but he could not say positively what would be done, until more time 1111(1 been given for deliberation.

Team.: wrrn Java. Last night, Mr. P. M. STawater called atten- to the increase of duties on British goods, imposed, contrary to treaty, by the Dutch authorities of Java. Lord PALMERSTON fully acknow ledged that the treaty had been grossly violated; but deprecated Parlia- mentary interkrence, as he was in a condition to state that the Dutch Government manifested a disposition to do justice in this matter.

REFUGEES IN SWITZERLAND. In reply to a question from Dr. Bowarso, on Tuesday, Lord PALMERSTON said, that the Government of this ccuntry was in no way a party to the note of the French Ambassador to the Swiss Diet, complaining of the protection given to political refugees in Switzerland.

THE GREEK LOAN BILL was read a third time, and passed.

STAFFORD BOROUGH. On the motion of Mr. Ilestr, on Thurs- day, the issue of the writ for the borough of Stafford was po,tponed until ten days after the commencement of next session, by a vote of 95 to 2.

Nam Worn Ou Thursday, Mr. E. J. STANLEY moved for a new writ for the borough of Sheffield ; Mr. .John Parker having been ap- pointed a Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. WALTER. Last night, Mr. WALTER spoke for some time in retaliation of Lord Melbourne's attack upon the " silly fellow " who was connected with newspapers, who Mr. Walter supposed to be him- self. He said that he was not ashamed of his connexion with the Thrum ; and if the private life of Lord Melbourne was inquired into, it would be seen which was the silliest fellow of the two. Ile also in- dulged in some reflections on the bumble origin of Lotd Melbourne's family. Mr. Walter said that he had intended to have delivered this speech on the Stamp-duties Bill discussion on the previous day, and had conie early to the House on purpose ; but found, to his surprise, the bill already passed.

Case or Da. BEAUMONT. In reply to a question from Mr. AG- LIONEY, on Thursday, Lord PALMERSTON said that there was every disposition on the part of Government to procure Dr. Beaumont's re- lease; and he advised Mr. Aglionby not to bring forward any motion on the subject. Mr. AGLIONBY acquiesced, and expressed his satisfac- tion at Lord Palmerston's answer.

THE POST-OFFICE COMMISSIONERS BILL was read a third time, and passed, on Monday. It was taken to the LORDS and read a first time. Lord DUNCANNON last night moved the second reading of this bill, for appointing a Board of three Commissioners to perform the duties of Postmaster-General, and for effecting other reforms in the management of the Post-office. .1 The Duke of RICHMOND denied that the gross abuses, charged against the Post-office in another place, existed • eulogized the late Sir Francis Freeling ; declared that a Postmaster:General, assisted by two Secretaries, would be far preferable to a Board of Commissioners; and concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord WESTMEATH supported the bill.

Lord Marsiotatae spoke for some time in its favour ; and observed, that the speech of the Duke of Richmond proved that official persons contracted a great fondness for the places they held ; and also for those who held office with them or under them,—which was very natural.

The Duke of WELLINGTON complained of want of sufficient infor- mation on the subject.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH disapproved of the proposed arrangement. The Lords divided, and rejected the bill, by Zit to 22.