!Debated ant! PrereettingS in Parliament. REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

In the House of Commons, on ItImiday, it motion for receiving the report of the Committee of Supply having been put,

Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOURT moved an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the Septennial Act. Mr. lrbyn-

eoutt was inaudible during the greater part of his speech ; but the drift of his argument was to prove that short Parliaments were in accord-

et with the ancient laws and practice of the realm. that Septennial Parliaments were an innovation which had proved mjunoes, and that it was advisable to revert to the former term of three years. It would, however, be for the House to fix in Committee the term for which Parliament should sit. He advised Lord John Russell—wfo, in bring- ing forward the Reform Bill, had expressly reserved the questions of the Ballot and the duration of Parliament for future settlement—to Eke way in time, and not to wait until, as in the instance of Catholic tmancipation and Parliamentary Reform, a change was forced upon the House.

Mr. WILLIAM Wtherests seconded the amendment.

Mr. FITZSTEPITEN FRENCH opposed it : be was adverse to frequent elections, on account of their heavy cost and the political lwat they en- gendered. At the close of Mr. k rencles speech, the House was int. patient to divide ; and there were loud cries of " Question." Sir SAMUEL WITALT.EY protested against being hurried into a deci.. lion of this question, whose importance required full discussion, until she gentlemen who had retired at the usual hour to take rtheshment, had returned to the House ; and Sir Samuel then spoke at some length in support of Mr. D'Eyncourt's motion.

Mr. VERNON thought it rather too bad that the gentlemen who had sent an indecent address up to his Majesty for dissolving the last Par- liament, which bad sat for only two years, should now demand short Parliaments.

Mr. Host": remarked, that the minority were not justified in stigma- tising a vote of the majority of the House as indecent. He contended that the proper term for the duration of Parliament was three years. A shorter time would scarcely suffice to enable a Member to become acquainted with his duties ; but seven years was too long. What pri- vate person would allow his accounts to remain unsettled for seven years? If Members performed their promises to their constituents, they would not dread frequent appeals to them. He wished Lord John Russell would state to the House the opinion he had come to re- specting the duration of Parliament.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Sir Samuel 1Vhalley seemed to think that Members ought to occupy the time of the House in giving their reasons for and against the amendment until certain gentlemen returned to decide the question by votes wholly irrespective of the arguments used in their absence, lie did not know that this was a very reason- able demand ; and doubted whether, having formerly given his opinion fully on this subject, he 'night again to go into it at any length. Hav- ing, however, been called upon by Mr. Hume, he would state that he adhered to the decision he had already come to. True it was, as Mr. D'Eyncourt had mentioned, that in introducing the Reform Bill, he had said that the question of the duration of Parliaments might, without impropriety, be considered at a future time ; but he had added imme- diately after, that he hoped the House never would come to any deci- sion that would affect the stability of our institutions. He had also said, that luol:ing at the question abstractedly, the period of five years might be preferable to that of seven ; and hence it would be inferred, that as no time was fixed in Mr. Tennyson's bill, and all that was asked was for leave to bring in a measure to repeal the Septennial Act, be was bound to vote for that motion. But he did not think this a discreet or lining mode for the House to entertain the question. The plain and intalligible course would be to bring in a bill to substitute another term for that of seven years. But suppose he agreed to the term of five years, would that satisfy the advocates for triennial, or for annual Parliaments ?-01 course nut; and it was therefore inexpedient for him to go into Committee on this bill for the purpose of filling up the blank with the term of five years. But now, with respect to Tri- ennial Parliannents- Mr. llume hel said, that no Member would trust any person with the irre- sponsible management of his private accounts for seven years. But that argo- n:rm., if valid, was equally good against a term of three years, of which Mr. Hume himself was in favour ; and of which he said, with very great ti nth and justice, that it shorter period would not enable Members to become sufficiently acquainted with their dutiea to dispose of the present amount of public busi- ness. Time Member for Middlesex saw, then, very clearly the distinction be- tween a legislative body and a settlement of a private account, and yet he drew this analogy. Mr. Williams had put the question on different grounds ; he had placed it for support upon historical precedents and the example of former times, and seemed to think that the people of this country had a right to Par- liaments of a particular duration. With respect to the analogy thus sought to be (hewn hetwven ancient and modern times, he considered it as little appli- cable as the analogy of the accounts of a private individual. There was a great dtfference between the present period and those times when the knight and bur- gesaes:eame up to attend Parliament for a short time at great inconvenience ; and the amount of business they had to despatch was as unlike as any thing could be to the complicated Miens carried on in the House of Commons in the nineteenth century.

The Septennial Act, he allowed, might be called an act of temporary necessity; but still, the grounds stated in the prolunble for passing that Act were such as did not permit them to consider it merely or alto- gether hi that light. It was stated, by men who had had twenty years' experience of the Thennial Act, that it created greater heats and ani- mosities than bad ever before been known, and therefore they recom- mended its abolition ; yet now the House was asked, in the face of this declaration, to reenact a law which had produced so much incon- venience. There was another reason for opposing the motion of Mr. D'Eyncourt- . 1-1,, thought that, among other consequences of the Home of Commons not being a body subject to continual change and fluctuation, a greater degree of yeight arid consideration was attached to their deliberations. He thought that It VAS the nature of things, wile,' there were two bodies—a House of Cords and a House of Commons—that the Members of a House who always continued to belong to one deliberative body, would have, to a certain degree, more weight and authority than that whose Members were constantly changing. He ima- gined that this was minting the reasons which influenced the mind of Milton in framing has speculative notions about the best kind of commonwealth, when he proposed that the persons elected to his legislative assembly should be elected far life,. It was observable that, from the Revolution to the time of passing !ie Septennial Act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading autho- rity is the country were Peers,—the Duke of Shrewsbury, the Duke of Marl- borough, the Earl of 'Sunderland, Lord Godolphin, and Lord Somers. Even Mr. Harley and Mr. St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, when they mine into power, were ambitious of sitting in the other House of Parliarment ; and one of the great causes of quarrel between Lord Oxfind and Lord Bolingbroke was, that the latter did not obtain so high a title in the Peerage as he thought he heal a right to expect. Thus they got a scat in the House of Lords, as well as in the Cabinet, and enjoyed a vast deal more power and authority than those members of the Government who sat in the other House of Parliament. On the other hand, since the passing of the Septennial Act, a great alteration had taken place in this respect. Sir Robert Walpole, the first Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, the first Mr. Fox, the second Mr. Pitt, and the second Mr. Fox, and other persons who possessed the very greatest influence in the State, were Aletnbers of the House of Commons. He attri- buted this superiority of weight and authority now enjoyed by the House alr Commons principally to the passing of the Septennial Act.

He thought that by attending to practical questions more good might be effected than by discussing the advantage of returning to Annual or or Triennial Parliaments, the result of which he feared would be to make the institutions of the country unstable. Moreover, he did not find that there existed among the people any great desire for changes of this description.

Mr. IVeeeee said, that before this time twelvemonth Lord Jobs Russell might have cause to change that opinion. It was quite clear that until a considerable pressure from without was applied, there would be no abolition of a measure so convenient to many honourable 1embers.

The noble lord had quoted what he had said on bringing forward the Re- form Act in 1S31. Mr. Wakley begged have to retailed him of the expressions be used in 1819, when Sir Francis Burdett brought forward his motion foe Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. The noble lord then said he would vote for any measure that would restrict the duration ef Parliaments to three years. Ile found this in Hansard's Debates, which he would show Lord Qin Russell, although he might have been misreported. If Lord John denied having used the words, of course he would not press that point. His chief object in rising was to show the people of this country that they had the power in their own hands, and that they CGII Id have either Trien- nial or Septennial Parliaments, as they pleased. Three years ago, when he was first returned for Finsbury, he told his constituents that he ebould resign his seat in three years. Now he would tell them what he would do, mad be be- lieved that that was the true test of his consistency. He should not go to his constituents and ask them whether they were satisfied with his conduct, and say that he was willing to resign, but lie should apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds, and go out—(Lanyhter)—and he gave the Conservatives, who made such a boast of their strength in Finshory, this early intimation of his intention to retIcein his pledge, and he hoped they world have a fair fight for it. Now if the people 1:ally felt this anxiety for the repe. d of the Septennial Aet which their petitions would seem to imply, all they would have to do would he to extort a promise from every candidate to resign in three years, and if they would not do that, they ought never to petition Parliameat again for the repeal of the Septennial Act.

Mr. Rommel: observed, that the best way to preserve the stability of our institutions was to make a law that every Parliament should last three years, and that it shotild not be dissolved by the King or any body else before that period had expired.

A division took place; and Mr. Tennyson's motion was rejected; the numbers being.— For receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply 96 For the amendment 57 Tory-Whig majority against Triennial Parliaments. 9

VOTING BY PROXY.

Mr. TI1031AS Dexcomee, on Tuesday, moved the following reso- lution—

." That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments, is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a soon* of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his Majesty's sub- jects; and that this resolution be communicated to the Lords."

In support of his motion, Mr. Inancombe went into an historical detail to prove that the practice of voting by proxy was of modern ori- gin, and that in the earlier periods of our history, down to the time when George the Third became insane, it was with great difficulty that leave of absence was obtained by the Peers. But at that time it was de- creed that the King's permission of adasence might be dispensed with, and the last protection of the people against blind legislation was swept away. The excuse for the Peers' privilege of voting by proxy was—that their Lordships were not responsible; that they represented none but themselves, and not having any trust to fulfil, could not abuse it. Sue,* was the doctrine of Coke, Blackstone, and De Lolme ; but at any rate as regarded the Bishops, who represented the clergy, and the Scotch mid Irish Peers, who represented the respective bodice from which they sprung, this doctrine was not sound. But the main objection to the practice was, that it was detrimental to the public good, and nenaitestly absurd— We hail at present 420 Peers—two-thirds of that number might he absent, and yet vote upon ally question involving perhaps the welfare and fate of the country ; and a majority of the ream tining one-third, namely, 75 individual% were to he considered superior in judgment and ability to 658 Members of the House of Cenenons! or let it be supposed that 135 Peers should be present during the debate upon a bill, in framing and considering which the House of Commons should have passed many long and anxiotta nights, was it to be borne that when loll of those present might have voted in favour of that measure, 111 miserable monopolizing minority of 35, by simply emptying their breeches- pockets of 70 mom:les, enabling them to represent as many absent Peers, some of whom, perhaps, were in China, others dancing at Paris, others amusing thenwelves at a carnival at Rome, and seine possibly in the grave,—was it to be home, he said, that these :35 should have it in their power to defeat suck a measure, and to disappoint the wishes of the country, and render futile the labours bestowed on the subject elsewhere ?We might talk of the civilization of the people, and boast of our "free institutions," but this was one which was an insult to our understandings, and which he thought he had shown was not borne two hundred years age, and to which he could see no reason fat submit- ting now, lie had heard ir said that the lords were responsible for their votes and acts to God and their own conscience,: he believed that all men were so, but it did appear to him that the consciences of Peers in voting by proxy had in analogy to the equity law of Chancellors, as described by Selden, when he said, " k.quity is a roguish thing ; for law we have a measure; know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor; and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should nuke the standard of measure a Chancellor's foot ; what an uncertain measure would this be? One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an in- different foot—'tis the same thing with a Chancellor's conscience." Now, as Chancellors and Ex-Chancellois were Peers, this rule might be thought to be applied to all ; and it was just possible that one Peer might intrust his very long coustience to another Peer with a very short one ; or if Peers were liable to the casualties and defects of other men, and it was not scanda/um magnatum to disclose the fact, it might occur that some Peer might intrust his conscience to some other Peer with no conscience at all.

Sir WILMA'S' MOLESWORTH seconded, and Captain BERKELEY and Mr. D'EvccouaT supported Mr. Duncombe's motion.

Lord STANLEY referred to what passed in the House on the previous night, when only about forty Members listened to the debate on Mr. D'Eyncourt's motion to repeal the Septennial Act, though a large mi- nority of 87 voted for it— It appeared that, with a view to refresh themselves, honourable gentlemen paired off last night for two or three hours, and afterwards came down to vote without listening to any portion of the debate. But this, be might be told, should be regarded as nothing, because a person by study might have been con- vinced of the reasonableness of a proposition without hearing the discussion. He admitted the force of this argument, but how a man could consistently give a vote for the whole of the session on all questions that might come before that Rouse was perfectly incomprehensible to him. And had they never beard in this House of such a practice as pairing off for a week or month, for half a ses- sion, or for even a whole session? Ile would nut enter upon the question of the privileges et the House of Lords—the privileges of that assembly which repree seated only themselves, and which was actually an independent branch of the Legislature, the members of which possessed the undoubted right, through other members belonging to it, of voting by proxy. But setting aside the privileges of the other House, those who argued against proxies in the other House, and not against the practice of pairing in the House of Commons, were guilty of the most flagrant inconsistency.

Mr. WAKLEY was glad that only one Member defended the practice of voting by proxy, and that one was a lord— The common sense of the nation cried out against the practice of voting by proxy ; and he would tell the noble lord that the common sense of England would not long endure the practice. Because Members paired off for weeks or months, was it a sufficient reason to justify the practice of wilding pieces of paper from the Continent of Europe for years together to authorize any member of a legislative body to vote fur another ? He, for one, thanked his honourable colleague for having brought forward this motion ; and fur the future it would become a sessional motion until it was carried. The noble lord justified proxies by the practice of pairing in that House ; but one abuse would not justify another. If the noble lord did not approve of pairing, as he appeared to do, why did he not bring forward a motion to put a stop to it ? But what justification was that practice of voting by proxy ? Honourable Members only paired for certain votes ; but still it was a practice he condemned, and he was satisfied that it would ultimately bring the House into contempt, as it would appear that Members, instead of listening to the reasons adduced on one side or the other, were prepared on all questions to vote with their party.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he would advise the House to accept certain resolutions with regard to their own practices before they tried their "prentice-hands " on the House of Peers— His first resolution was-44 Resolved, that the practice of letting members of any deliberative legislative assembly vote without having heard all the argu- ments on both sides of the question was incompatible with every principle of justice." His second resolution was this—" Resolved, that the absence of Members, by pairing for several hours for the purpose of refreshment, and for several weeks at a time, without hearing the arguments which arose on such questions as were under discussion, was becoming a source of well- founded complaint among all classes of the community." (Laughter.) He would ask1the honourable Members opposite, whether it was not clear that they should attack the evil in their own House before what might be good elsewhere? Ile agreed with one suggestion that had been thrown out on the opposite side— namely, that they should begin at home. They could not speak to the House of Lords on this subject befoie they reformed themselves on a practice which they had the high authority of Mr. Wakley for saying it was bringing them into contempt. But supposing that the resolution of the honourable Member for Finsbury was carried, and was ordered to be sent up to another place,—sup- posing, also, that an amicable conference took place, what should prevent the other House presenting them in return a counter. resolution? Mr. 13uncombe proposed that this resolution should be presented to the Lords; Sir Robert Peel would propose that, after passing the resolutions he had read, as to not hearing arguments, and to the practice of pairing, the following resolution should be adopted: "Resolved, thirdly, that the honourable Member for Mary- lebone be requested to bring in a bill founded on the previous resolutions." He would do this, because Sir S. Whalley stated last night that he was a Metropo- litan Member, aud that he was convinced that the question before the House was regarded by the country as one of vital importance, and in comparison with which the Reform Bill was as nothing. The gentleman also said, that he was only prepared with a crude speech, but feeling the vital interest of this ques• tion, he felt bound to speak ; but be concluded with stating, that he bad paired off till ten o'clock : with a degree of kindness and candour that could not be ear passed, he said that be thought it was too much for the House to come to a decision on this important question during the hours devoted to taking refresh- ment; Ile observed that he bad paired off from seven to ten, and he earnestly entreated the House not to conclude the debate till ten o'clock; seeing, however, the indisposition of the House to pause till ten o'clock, in order that his con- stituents might not think that he was absent, he had thought it his duty to make this crude and undigested speech to show the reason why he was else- where. (Laughter.) Sir Robert Peel concluded with repeating his recommendation, that before attempting to take away the privileges of a coordinate branch of the Legislature, they should look at home—take the beam out of their own eye before attempting to take the mote out of their brother's.

The House then divided : for Mr. Duncombe's motion, 81; against it, 129; Whig-Tory majority, 48.

AMENDMENT OF THE REFORM ACT.

On Wednesday, Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of his bill to abolish the Rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to make the payment of rates and taxes as little onerous as possible, but could not consent to do away with the qualification established by the Reform Act. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. HusiE regretted that Lord John Russell should take such a eourse. Did he mean to cheat the people when he gave them the Reform Act ? The refusal of this concession would inevitably lead to uni- versal suffrage. Cries of " Divide !" and " Question ! " were now uttered by the Opposition Members; in the midst of which, •

Mr. GROTE rose, and remarked, that it was the common practice of gentlemen opposite to attempt to silence Members, who spoke what they did not like to hear, by clamour and noise. But he would not be put down by such practices ; and he would on this occasion more es- pecially insist on his right to address n the House, as among his ow eon- stituents, and all town constituencies, a very strong feeling existed against the Rate-paying clauses— The other night Lord John Russell objected to-the introduction of abstract questions; they had now a practical question, and he moved that the diecussioa of it be postponed till that day six months. If he had no better arguments to adduce in support of his views, the noble lord might be assured he would fail to get rid of the dissatisfaction which existed more or less on the subject in every town in the kingdom. ( Cries of " No, no I ") The constituencies could not be satisfied with a disqualification of this kind, which did not attach to the county voters. Believing that the effect of this clause had been contrary to what was intended by the framers of the Reform Bill, and that it operated use justly, he should give his hearty concurrence to Mr. Duncornbe's motion. (Cries of "Divide! " from the Opposition.) Mr. DUNCOMBE observed, that the Tories had mustered with their usual alacrity to resist a measure whose object was to extend popular rights. He did not, however, complain of them—they only pursued their usual occupation. But of Lord John Russell he did complain.

i

The promises which Lord John had made when he ntroduced the Reform Bill had not been fulfilled— He then told them, that he proposed to increase the constituency half a mile lion ; the returns showed that it had not been increased above 300,0o0. Ile imputed the deficiency to the restrictive clauses in the Reform Bill. The noble lord also told them that it was one of his propositions that no constituency should be less than 300. Ile held in his hand a return of the different boroughs, and from that it appeared that in Boroug IS. The registered voters did not exceed.

12 200

30 300

400 600 25 600

21 700 58 from 700 to 1500

27 from 1500 to 3000

giving a total of 217 boroughs, in every one of which the Reformers, lie felt confident, would in a short time be beaten by bribery and intimidation. ( Cries of" Oh !" from the Opposition.) The honourable gentlemen opposite knew well that they would be able in a few years to get a majority in every one of those boroughs, unless something were done to extend the suffrage. It was his honest conviction, that if they persisted in their present course, they would soon have this House as much a Boroughmongering House of COMMOM as was that which existed prior to the passing of the Reform Bill.

Mr. Duncombe referred to the progressive decrease in the numbers of the Westminster constituency, proved by the numbers polled at elections before and since the passing of the Reform Act, as illustraa tive of the operation of the Rate-paying clauses ; and quoted the de. duration of Lord Durham, that the .Reform Act was not to be taken as a perfect measure—that it required amendment, and that especially the Rate-paying clauses should be repealed if they were found to act as a disqualification. Those clauses, moreover, Mr. Duneombe said, gave opportunity for the practice of gross bribery and favouritism ore the part of the tax-collectors- He knew that these people sometimes tore leaves out of their receipt•books, that favoured electors might be placed on the register notwithstanding that they had not paid their rates. (" 01,, oh!" from the Opposition.) This led to gross bribery on the part of those who were trying to get po■session of their boroughs. He was sorry to see theenoble lord throw himself into the arms of the honourable gentlemen opposite. They were not only bail, but very dangerous company for any Reformer to fall into. (Laughter, and cries of " Divide !") A division took place— For the second reading 73

For Lord John Russell's amendment 166

Whig-Tory majority r. 93

So the bill is lost. ADMISSION OF FREEMEN.

Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, on Wednesday, moved the House to go into Committee on the bill for abolishing the Stamp-duty on the ad- mission of freemen.

Mr. WARBURTON moved an instruction to the Committee, to make provision for the amendment of the Reform Act as far as related to the payment of rates and taxes ; but subsequently withdrew his motion, on the suggestion of the Speaker, who ruled that it was riot in order to propose as an instruction to a Committee the consideration of a question which was not directly connected with the subject of the bill

about to be committed. •

Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished Mr. Williams would postpone his bill until Lord John should have an opportunity of introducing one be had himself prepared with reference to this question_ He wished to state, in accordance with what he had before mentioned, that it was his intention to bring in a bill comprising the objects of the present bill, and also providing for a relaxation of the enactment relative to the payment of rates and taxes. He proposed to leave the Act of Parliament as it at present stood, with regard to the first year's taxes being paid, that is, the payment of rates and taxes up to the 5th April preceding the 20th June, as it now stood; and that in all subsequent years, supposing the person's name to continue on the register, then he was only to pay his rates and taxes up to the 1st October. Stating that, he hoped that the honourable Member would not press his bill. He did not ask of the honourable Member for Coventry to give up his bill, but to postpone it until be had the opportunity of examining the bill which Le then held in his hand.

Mr. WILLIAMS refused to give way.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, then he would move for leave to bring in his bill, as an amendment on Mr. Williams's motion. Mr. WYNN and the SPEAKER observed, that this course would be in- convenient, and was unusual. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would then move that Mr. 'Williams's bill should be committed on the 21st of June. Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, Colonel SIBTHORPE, Lord SANDON, and Mr. PILAW, urged Mr. WILLIAMS to persevere. Mr. T. DuNcomsE,

31 13

Mr. HUTT, and Mr. G. F. Youtsc, hoped that Lord Joust RUSSELL would not give way, on the understanding that he would himself intro- duce a measure for the purpose he had mentioned.

On a division, the committal of Mr. Williams's bill was postponed to the 21st of June, by a majority of 82 to 45. On Thursday, Lord Joust Russem. moved for leave to bring in a bill " to regulate the payment of rates and taxes by Parliamentary electors, and to abolish the stamp.duty on the admission of freemen."

Mr. FORBES divided the House against the motion : for it, 29; against it, 9. Leave was given to bring in the bill.

T/IE IRISH POOR.

The House, on Monday, went into Committee on the Irish Poor Bill; and after some resistance from Mr. O'CONNELL, agreed to the 1st and 24 clauses. The first clause enacts that the Commissioners of the English Poor-law should have the chiet control of the adminis- trittion of the Irish law. Mr. O'CONNELL moved that there should be three new Commissioners for Ireland ; but he did not press his motion to a division. Clause 24 passed without discussion.

On Tuesday, clauses 3d to 13th inclusive were passed.

The House went into Committee again on Thursday ; when Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved four resolutions with a view to establish

law of settlement, and to enable Guardians of the Poor to give out- door relief.

Lord Joust RUSSELL objected to the introduction of the English Jaw of settlement into the bill.

Mr. CuantEs Bou.sat thought that without a law of settlement the measure would be a perfect delusion.

Mr. O'CONNELL disapproved of the law of settlement, which pro- duced endless litigation and vast expense.

Sir JAMES GRAMAM said, that the whole question would be opened up when the 42d clause came under discussion. It must then be de- termined whether destitution should give a claim to relief : if it did, then a law of settlement was an absolute necessity—if not, it became an open question.

Lord JOHN Russell. was desirous that the question should be fully discussed; and Mr. LUCAS gave notice, that on the following night he would move " an instruction to the Committee to introduce a provision for settle- ment, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be in- curred and levied under the name of Poor.rates."

MT. SHARMAN CRAWFORD withdrew his resolutions.

Mr. LUCAS then moved an amendment on the 15th clause, so as to restrict the size of unions to twenty square miles, unless the popula- tion should fall short of 6000. Ile considered that the extent of the unions proposed by the bill would be much too large. In Monaghan there would be a union of 400 square miles, with a population of 154,000. For the management of such a population they must have paid Guardians.

Lord Jolts; RUSSELL opposed the amendment, chiefly on the ground that so small a population as 6000 would not furnish a sufficient number of persons fit to be Guardians, and that in England it was found that the largest unions were the best managed. It was not intended to fix the size of unions by enactment : on that point discretion would be given to the Commissioners.

Lord STANLEY objected to the amendment. The right size was that which should furnish the requisite number of Guardians, without being so large as to make it difficult for persons needing relief to reach the workhouse.

A desultory discussion ensued, which ended in the adoption of the original clause.

On clause 16th, which provides for the erection of workhouses, not simultaneously, but at intervals, being read, there was more conversation en the law of settlement. Lord STANLEY was convinced of the neces- sity of such a provision. The establishment of one poor.honse in a district would draw towards that district a vast mass of destitution. The O'CoNson. DON and Mr. JEPHSON agreed with Lord Stanley. The clause was agreed to, however, withou‘a division. The 19th clause provides for the division of unions. Lord STANLEY moved an amendment to prevent town-land from being divided. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the amendment would cause much inconvenience; and it was negatived, by 69 to 67. The 20th clause empowers the Commissioners to appoint the number of Guardians for a district. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD moved, that for every 3,000 persons there should be at least one Guardian. This amend- ment was rejected, by 77 to 11; and the clause passed.

The House then resumed.

MINISTERIAT. POLICY.

On the motion for considering the Irish Poor Bill in Committee, on Monday, Mr. Slim made a few observations respecting the postpone- ment of the Irish Municipal Bill by the Peers till the 9th of June; and Inquired what course Govermnent intended to take under these cir- cumstances?

This question called up Lord JOHN RUSSELL / who said, that the anprecedented conduct of the Peers had placed Ministers in it situation of great difficulty. It was impossible to tell what the other House would do. He disagreed with Sir Robert Peel and those who thought that none of the Irish bills should be proceeded with until all were laid before the House ; but, supposing that such an objection to pass the Municipal Bill had been a fair one, it had been obviated, as the public were now in possession of the intentions of Ministers with respect to the measures for the settlement of the tithe question and the relief of the poor in Ireland. To postpone the Municipal Bill, there- fore, to the 9th of June, scorned most unreasonable. It certainly might be supposed that the intention of the majoiity of the other House was to render the Municipal Bill worthless. They might not have any such design ; but certainly the only proposition hitherto made to

the C w ommons as this—" If you will take out of your bill for the

s

ettlement of tithes all that is displeasing to us, we will in return put into your .11Iunicipal Bill something which is displeasing to you." It

was, however, the determination of his Majesty's Ministers not to de- part from their duty, but to proceed with the measures they had brought forward— But he must say, at the same time, that they would not be performing their duty to their constituents if they did not warn the Membeisof the other House of Parliament, that it was not to be anticipated with any confidence that there could be a satisfactory adjustment of this question ; and if they did not endeavour, whilst they carried on the business of the country so as to prevent it from suf- fering any inconvenience, to take care that none of the essential powers or pri- vileges of the House of Commons were parted with under the notion that the House of Commons was giving its confidence to the present Administration, which confidence they would be misusing fur the purpose of proposing bills which in the end were to be totally defeated.

Ministers wished to give time for the mist which now covered the intentions of the Peers to be •,cleared up, and would not take any de- cisive-step in a hurry— The wish of his Majesty's Government and of their supporters in that House was to come to such a settlement of these questions as would produce some be- nefit to Ireland, and to carry their measures in such a manner as would compel those who represented and sympathized with the feelings of the people of that country, to consider that some progress was made in legislation during the pre- sent session. At all events, he felt it incumbent on him, after the vote of the other night, and after the unusual proceeding of the other House in respect to this house of Parliament, to say that it was essential at this moment, that all those who constituted the majority on this question in the House of Commons should remain firmly together on the present occasion ; and he thought he might add, that if the supporters of the Ministers still continued to place con- fidence in them, such supporters and such majority, speaking the sense of the House of Commons, the Ministers would not desert. ( Cheers. )

Lord John concluded by expressing his earnest hope that nothing would occur to impair that constitution which %%as capable of producing such admirable effects both in England and Ireland.

Mr. HUME said, as long as Ministers did their duty, unquestionably they would receive continued support from the majority of that House; but he wished that they would make up their minds as to the course they ought to take. As to the admirable working of the constitution, be wished to know how it had worked for the last two years ?

Colonel Simmers: saw plainly, that the object of Ministers was to carry on measures from day to day until they were succeeded by others.

Sir ROBERT PEEL defended the conduct of the Peers, on the ground that they had a right to have the three great measures for Ireland fully laid before them previously to giving their sanction to any one. He was as jealous as any Member of the dignity of the House of Commons; but be contended that no disrespect bad been offered to it by the Peers, whose proceedings were quite consistent with the desire to give all the measures of Government a fair and candid consideration.

Mr. RICE said, that the Lords would do well to remember that the Commons formed a coequal and coordinate power in the State ; and if they postponed measures with a view to coerce the Commons, they bad better take care how they stood in the opinion of the country ; but at all events, if the Peers were wrong, let the Commons be in the right, keep their temper, and carry on the public business. Ile hoped that Members on both sides of the House were agreed on this point, that the consideration of this question, on which so much depended, night be approached with caution and calmness.

After a few words from Mr. W. SMITH O'BittEN Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, and Mr. lisssiev GRATTAN, the subject was dropped.

POSTAGE or LT:Treas.

On Tuesday, the order of the day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor Bill having been read, MT. WALLACE (who wool,' not yield to the request of Lord John Russell to postpone the question) moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the practicability. of the plan proposed by Mr. Rowland Hill for reducing and rendering man. form the postage charge on letters.

The principle of the plan was so plain and simple, and its advantages :1 ob- vious, that he was sure it would meet with general approbatiou ; but some of the details might appear impracticanle to those who had not had an opportunity of closely and intimately considering them. Part of the plan, if brought to bear, would be found to be a great discovery in finance. He alluded to the proposal that the rates and duties should in future be paid in advance. One great prin- ciple of the plan of Mr. Hill was that they should in future have one uniform rate of taxation for every description of !utters, and one rate only. Ile did not say that he was prepared to advocate Mr. Hill's proposal so far as the low amount to which he proposed to reduce the rate of postage, but he was per- fectly prepared to stand by the principle of his plan.

Mr. Ewaler seconded the motion. It was supported by Alderman Copeland ; who said he could speak from his own knowledge of ins. proper practices in the Post-office department.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that Mr. Hill's pamphlet bad been placed in his hands immediately after its publication— The tables which it contained were now under the consideration of Govern- moot, and he hoped before the conclusion of the present session to propose some I in on the subject. hut be could not believe that the House would deem it ilie best plan to refer a matter involving a million and a half of revenue tc tic consideration of a Committee. Ile could assure Mr. Wallace that he was not hostile to a reduction of the rate of postage. lie could refer to the steps v.hieb the Government had taken on the subject during the two last years. TU.! re- ductions in particular which had been made in the rate of cordon postage wet a proof of their inclination. Respecting the contract system, lie html to remark that be was determined to adhete to it until he found that failure required that it should In, put down.

Mr. WALLACE withdrew his motion.

CONDUCT OF THE BRITISH TROOPS AT BUENOS AYRES. Oum Wednesd ty, Sir CHARLES BROOKE VERE referred to the state- ment of Colonel Thompson in the debate on Spain that order had been given by a Geneial Officer in the Army whicii attacked BuciioE Ayres fu 1808, to give no quarter, but to bayonet all but the women and children, lie said that he bad made inquiries of several officers who served with that force at the attack on Buenos Ayres, and they all declared that no brigade, regimental, or general order to that effect was given ; but one of them did recollect an officer passing along the line and directing the men to make free use of the bayonet, though he did not hear him tell them to "give them about six it-clues only, aS then it would he pulled out easier." Colonel THOMPSON, in reply, produced evidence in support of his statement ; observing that there was a proverbial difficulty in combat- ing the evidence of one man who did see with the evidence of any Number of men who did not see. He read a passage from the evidence *f. Colonel Bourke on the trial of General Whitelock, the commander at Buenos Ayres ; proving that it had been one of the general orders for the attack to take no prisoners,—which the Colonel objected to as likely to produce much butchery in an open town, and which General Whitelock promised to withdraw; but it might not have been with- drawn. He then quoted the account, published in the United Service Journal of December 1636, by an eye-witness of the attack, which showed that in point of fact quarter was not given. It was not to be oxpected, to be sure, that men should use bayonets as if they were turkies' feathers; but then, why were the soldiers of the Auxiliary Legion abused for doing that which the British troops were ordered to

do at Buenos Ayres ?

The writer in the United Service Journal said, that some of the enemy /signed death; on the arrival of reitlforeements "the pretenders to death now *sated it in reality ;" a battery was attacked, and the party there, consisting of about sixty men, made a precipitate retreat ; but in place of beim; able to reach She theatre, they took temporary refuge in a barrack, and were SO closely fol- lowed up as not to give time to shut the gates. Here thole was a regular row IL a barrack-room, and nut one of the sixty was spared. The only fellows that escaped werefive prisoners in the black hole." But this was not all—there was a &nue boucle to come. " When this hustle was over, I taunted to the barrack, and met, coining out, Corporal Mackay, a regular. built Highlander, uf my own company—sorry he was to read any thing discreditable to a Scottish soldier, but the ault was not his]—with a sword well stained in one hand—[perhaps some honourable gentlemen might have 5011.4 iO the army, and wish to know what a well stained sword wasi—with a well stained swerd in one hand, and a pair of boots in the other. (Lon.ohter from Me Opposition benches.) I asked him what he bail beeu about? He said the Spaniards were some of them ascasv, and he was quieting them : in fact, he had beeu putting all the wouuded out of pain "—(a gesture of incredulity from a Member on Me Opposition side)—nay, here it was, said Colonel Thompson, holding up the book, and turning it on the two sides, in page 504 of The United Screice Journal for December last—" and having seen that I had host my boots in a muddy lane, he had unbooted a dead Spanish officer for the sake of his captaim" This was the way the Spaniards were treated. Within thur hours afterwai it:, Colette] Thompson was a prisoner in the hands of the Spaniards, and was asked whe- ther the orders he had described were what they had entered the town with ; and of course he told the truth. A Spanish officer pulled out his purse and asked if he wanted money, offering to supply hint. If any thing could ;Id to the misery of meting a town with such orders, it was the pain of being so treated afterwards.

But he had not done yet. Sir Charles Vere could nut find anybody who had heard the exact order, but he had.

He had a letter from an individual whom he could not name ti: 1 he had as- certained limn him that he was under no fear of suffering from the di-closure, which ran as ullors ; " Sir--having read in a newspaper a communication from you to your constituents, wishing to knine if theue was any old soldier ill their neighlano hood who was at Buenos Ayres, although not ',clog in the neighbour- lieJtI you write to, I beg to acquit it you that the reiment I set vet! 111-1.tvgi- meat's name mentioned, and in a Milo cut part of the army ft OM our mentioned betlerell—get orders not to spare any persons except out men, women, Lunt thil■lt en, and were forced to act accordingly. One or too revolting cases I bsg to mention. As the compituy I belougial to advanced up the street, them appeared at the dour of a house, as we passed, a clergyman ; he wore white robes. Ile was killed where he well, and fell 0.1 Oh his faee iii the street. The next was a Man NV It thOaght to secure himself under a wuntaa's petticoats "—( Lora bru;,htrr front the Tory side)—Colonel Thompson said he had waited for that Logi'. Per- haps when honourable gentlemen opposite hail known him lon,:er, they would be less incautious. " 1 he man had two 1)33...nets put through his hutly in that situation. To deserilie the agony of the distracted mother, which I Ittdieve she Was, would take an abler hand than the humble i uidiviiiutt who aildre.ses you. But the order of the day was, 4 You know your orders ; do your duty, or " And so' said Colonel Thompson, ends my military report. Ile wnuld leave the facts before the House; and he submitted that he had shown reason to believe, that in four several parts of the army orders tantamount to what he had reported Lad been given. (Loud chars.) After some words of mutual explanation hod passed between Sir CHARLES VERE and Colonel THOMPsON, the subject was &upped.

UNIVERSITY REFoRM, The Earl of RADNOR, on Monday, moved the Lords to appoint a Committee to inquire into the " provisions of the Statutes of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the practices relative there- to, the oaths by which the members are bound to obey theto and the powers vested in visitors or others to alter, modify, or amend ;hem."

A debate ensued ; in which the Duke of Wia.umerox, Marquis CAMDEN, the Bishops of LLANO:LEE, LINCOLN, GioueesTisa, the Archbishop of Donne, Lords WYNEORD, Bitol•GlIAM, and WINE:NIL- BEA, took part. The substance of the speeches delivered by all these Lords and Prelates differed in no essential particular from those of the Lords and Commons on the previous motions of Lord Radnor and Rryffle OR the saute subject. In the end, Lord RADNoll withdrew Lis motion on the understanding that the Heeds of the Universities would apply themselves, without the interference of Purliument, to re- medy many of the abuses.

COERCION OF CANADA.

On Tuesday, Lord GLENELG moved that the House of Lords should toncur in the Canada Resolutions passed by the House of Commons. He went into an elaborate detail of the recent disputes between the Mother Country and the Colony; but adduced no new arguments in favour of the proposed system of coercion. He contended that the Jawasure proposed by Government would go just as fur as was necessary, and no further. Be eulogized the conduct of Sir Francis Head in Upper Canada; which, be said, was worthy of all praise. He ad- mitted, that as the North American Colonies advanced in wealth and civilization, some alteration in their constitution might be advisable ; and pledged himself to do all be could to improve the Legislature and Executive Councils of Lower Canada. It would be the especial ob- ject of Government to remove the soreness which was growing up be- tween Upper and Lower Canade.

The Earl of 'trews gave his consent to the resolutions ; and ex- pressed his extreme regtet that the measure of conciliation, the giving up of a large portion of the Crown revenues, which he had persuaded

the House of Lords to sanction in 1831, had not produced the effects anticipated. He had done all he could to produce conciliation; butth colony had been the prey of mischievous and designing men.11.° chief objeAion to the resolutions was, that they appeared to hold oat" a

prospect of uniting tine go_ North American provinces under a federal g vernment,—a project of such importance, that he was scarcely preparod_ to sanction it without further and mature consideration.

Lord BRoUGHAM regretted that scarcely any body was present to hear this important discussion. He feared that the absence of noble lords ja, dicated thsir concurrence with the Resolutions. Underthselsoeueld irebuamve, stances, he believed that he should do best to enter his protest on the journals ageinst the Resolutions ; which he deeply regretted emanated from the quarter they did. It appeared to himalitit the House of Assemb!v represented the great bulk of the people in Lower Canada . and in that -House the majority was eight to one in favour of the course' which excited the indignation of his Majesty's Governtnent. fie utterly protested against the principle of legislating for Canada with reference to the different origin and language of the two classes of the population. Such a principle would have been a perpetual bactrhlaetiomAthtsoe. emancipation of the Catholics of Ireland. It was said that the Cacnaandaisak constitution wits excellent, and that it worked admirably well. So said the Duke of Wellington of the English constitution before the Reform Act ; but the people thought differently, and a reform ensued. was, indeed, weak ; but the weaker she was, the stronger her claim consideration arid protection. Lord Brougham was in favour of most of the demands of the inhabitants of Lower Canada. fie wished the Legislative CGtincil to be elective, not chosen sembly, but by a class of voters distinct from those who elected MEM. bers to the Hone of Assembly. He had no apprehensions of the loyalty of the Canadians. They would not take up arms or apply to the United States. Ile did not believe they would ; but it was really impossible to predict the result of the present policy of the Govern. merit. He wished to have an amicable adjustment of the disputes with Lower Canada, but regretted that he saw no prospect of so de- sirable a consummation.

The Duke of WELLINGTON wished cloudy to understand what Mittisters intended to do ? If by virtue of the 8th, resolution they in. tended to seize on the money in the Canadian exchequer, he would say that there was no authority for such in proceeding ; than which, nothing could be more itnproper. For his part, be was always opposed to the concessions of Lord Ripon to the Canadians ; for be saw from the first, that there was no disposition to make the proper return for them. He never would cOnsent that the 1-louse of Assembly should be paramount in Canada. He was utterly opposed to such an alteration of the Legis- lative Council as would make it elective ; and he objected to the Reso- lutions, that they were not sufficiently precise on this point. He thought that there was ma necessity for remodelling the constitution of the North American Colotties, so as not to leave it in the power of the houses of Assembly to grant or withhold the supplies.

After a fey.- words from Lords Am:Imes amid OLENLLE, the Reso. lutiuns were agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS Sr BIECTS.

THE BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR Ilii.i. was read a second dine in the Commons on Monday, by a majority of 157 to 86.

Beicarrox RAILWAY. On the motion of Sir Citanta:s BURRELL, it was resolved on Tuesday, by a vote of 77 to 72, that the C munittee on the Brighton Railways should report specially to the House the engineering merits of the several lines to Brighton.

Canr.ow Er.r.crioN. On Monday, the Committee reported that Mr. Vigors was duly elected ; and that the conduct of Mr. Keogh, the High Sheriff, which bud been impugned, was in no respect blame- able.

LONGFORD ELECTION. Mr. LAWSON moved, on Tuesday, that the voters reported by the Longford Election Committee to have been improperly placed on the register, should be struck off the register. The motion wus supported by Lord Cues: • but opposed by Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Lord STANLEY, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on the ground that the report of the Committee did not formally recommend that the voters in question should be struck off; and secondly, that b the Irish Reform Act, no power was given to the Speaker to direct, OR the report of a Committee, that my names should be struck off the register. It was agreed by all parties, that the law on this point was not quite clear, and required amend- front; and the motion was withdrawn. TURNPIKE TRUSTS BILL. Mr. MACKINNON, On WPIIIICHlay, moved the second reading of this bill. Lord WORSLEY moved to postpone the second reading for six months. Mr. AlAcKINNON briefly defended his measure. Mr. Fox Nlaut.e said, that the objections to it were so numerous that it was vain to think of mending it in Committee. The bill was withdrawn.

THE EAST INDIA MARITIME OFFICERS BILL, which provides com- pensation for certain officers in the service of the East India Com- pany, excluded hitherto from compensation on the breaking up of the Company's mercantile navy, was read a second time, on Wednesday, by a majority of 47 to 31; although strenuously opposed by Sir JOIIIE HoBlIOUSE and Mr. VERNON SMITH.

MANUFACTURE OF BONDED CORN. On Thursday, Mr. Ronossollas had leave to bring in a bill "to admit foreign corn to be ground in mills

under the lock of the Crown, and manufactured therein for exportation only." The bill was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading on the 24th of May.