Otbatcsi antr Vratectiingdfit Vadiament.

I. THE IRISH CHURCH.

On Monday evening, previously to the commencement of the debate on the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill in the House of Peers,

The Duke of CUMBERLAND presented a petition from the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Commonalty of Dublin, on the'present awful state of public affairs, especially in reference to the Protestant Church. The Duke reminded their Lordships, that the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was brought forward by Ministers last year as a final arrangement: as such, it was supported by several of the Peers, who could not cor- dially approve of it. Ile believed that Earl Grey was sincere in what he had stated on that .occasion ; and although he had been politically op- posed to Earl Grey, he had never entertained the least personal hos- tility towards him, and regretted as much as any man the treatment he bad recently received. But the Government was not satisfied with what they had termed a final arrangement ; but had brought forward a measure of a most singular description, namely a Commission. This Commission would throw a firebrand into the country : it was a

measure to count the heads of Protestants, Dissenters, and Catholics, to investigate Church property, and give a census of the whole Irish population. It was true that Lord Brougham had declared that he never would be a party to the application of a farthing of the surplus of the Irish Church property, if any surplus should be found, to other than Protestant purposes. Earl Grey had said the same thing ; and be hoped to hear a similar declaration from Lord Melbourne. But never- theless, a measure was that night to be brought forward which would rob the poor Irish Clergy of two-fifths of theirjust and lawful property. He should have another opportunity of discussing that subject ; but in the meanwhile, he should deceive Ministers and deceive the country if he were to shrink from saying that Ministers were no friends to the Protestant Church. He had declared his opinion boldly, openly, fearlessly.

Lord BROUGHAM explained, that he had used the expression "Pro- testant purposes," in contradistinction to devoting any part of the Pro- testant Church property to the support of the Catholic Church. But he had stated distinctly, that the manner in which the surplus was to be applied was subject for future consideration. It was premature to decide upon the appropriation of the surplus until it was ascertained that a surplus existed.

Lord DUNCANNON would not hear such misrepresentations of his

own opinions and those of his colleagues as the Duke of Cumberland had given, without denying them flatly. The Duke had misstated the objects of the Irish Tithe Bill. It was not intended by that measure to deprive the Irish Clergy of two-fifths of their income.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was glad to hear the declaration of Lord Brougham ; but after what had been said in the House of Com- mons by his colleagues, he trusted that Lord Melbourne would state the real opinion of the Cabinet on this subject. After a number of petitions had been presented, in favour of the Established Church, The Bishop of ROCHESTER said, be should wish to know from Lord Brougham, on what authority the Irish Church Commission was sent out? There was a declaration on the rolls of Parliament on this sub- ject in the reign of William the Third, which said, that a writ issued by James the Second to erect a Court of Commission to inquire into Ecclesiastical affairs, "and all such other commissions, were improper and illegal." The Bishop said, that in his opinion, the Irish people were not bound to answer the call of the Commissioners. He thought there was no authority to compel them. Lord BROUGHAM said, when an individual who seemed to wish for information as to whether a certain thing could or could not be done, set out with stating that he knew and was certain it could not, what was the poor unhappy mortal to say of whom the question was asked? Information was generally asked for the sake of removing ignorance ; but the Bishop of Rochester had completely made up his mind, it ap- peared, on the subject of his question. Now he would tell him, that his inquiry related to the exercise of the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and what would remain such until the Constitution were altered,—and it might be altered under the advice of the right reverend Prelate, who had pronounced this Commission to be illegal—

The Bishop of ROCHESTER—" I did not."

Lord BROUGHAM--.." Well then, it is legal." But the Bishop wanted to know upon whose authority it was issued; and then came the manifest absurdity of his conduct, for he called upon the Irish people to disobey the Commission before he knew upon whose authority it had been issued. But the people of Ireland would not follow such advice. The Bishop had confounded this Commission with an illegal Anti-Protes- tant Commission of James the Second, with which it had as much to do as with the commission of a captain of horse. That was a court for the trial of causes—so much for the Bishop's learning. No lawyers, except the advisers of the infatuated James the Second, ever defended such a Commission ; but be could produce twenty or thirty such Com- missions as the one lately issued, all of which were held to. be legal. The last Commission was issued in 1830, at the instance of Sir Robert Peel, under the advice of Sir James Scarlett, two of the greatest Con- servatives of the day; and the Commissioners were instructed to in- quire not only into the conduct of the Clergy, but into the sums they paid their curates. He had never felt his responsibility less than when he put the Great Seal to the late Commission ; but he thcught it only fair in future that notice of such questions as these should- be given, that he might not be dragged unexpectedly into the discussion of them.

The Bishop of ROCHESTLR said that Lord Tenterden thought the Commission illegal.

The Earl of WICKLOW commended the Bishop of Rochester for his conduct in this affair.

Lord WYNFORD said that the Clergy were not bound to answer the questions put by the Commissioners. An act of Parliament was necessary, as Lord Coke had declared, to render valid a Commission whose object was to make inquiries respecting propel ty, and not merely to inquire into the conduct of the Clergy.

Lord BROUGHAM* reasserted the legality of the Commission ; and again said, that Sir Robert Peel's Commission in 1830 was to inquire into the salaries paid curates by the rectors and others. Although parties answering falsely to the questions put by the Commission could not be tried for perjury, they could be tried for a misdemeanor.

Several other petitions were then presented, and

Lord MELBOURNE rose to move the second reading of the Irish Tithe Bill. After alluding to the very great importance of the measure, and reminding the House of the numerous unsuccessful attempts which had been made to bring the tithe question to a satisfiwtory settlement, he called upon their Lordships to dismiss all personal, all party feeling, from the consideration of the subject. (" Bear, hear ! "from the Op- position.) He admitted that there was some excuse for viewing with distrust and jealousy, or even with enmity, the quarter from which some of the alterations in the original bill had proceeded. Lord Melbourne then briefly explained the objects which the bill was intended to effect. It was to abolish all the compositions for tithes in Ireland which would be compulsory in October next, for a rent charge, payable by the land- lord, due to the Crown, leviable and manageable by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. It laid the burden at once on the owner of the first estate; and, to compensate him, a deduction of two-fifths was made from the amount of the original composition. The whole of the deduction of 40 per cent. was not, as had been wrongly stated by the Duke of Cum- berland, to fall upon the incomes of the Clergy. The deduction would be 2-4! per cent. ; 20 per cent for increased security, and 21 per cent. for cost of collection. Every incumbent would receive 757. for every 100/. due to him, without risk or trouble of any sort. Now he really thought this agood arrangement. (Much laughter.) He did not know how their Lordships collected their rents, but be thought that if they were told they might receive 75/. per cent, without the risk of bad tenants or expense of collection and on the security of Government, there were some among them who would not be disinclined to close the bargain. By the passing of this bill, the Clergy would also be relieved from payment of the first instalment, due in November next, of the money advanced to them by the Government. This charge will also fall on the landlord. But what would be the condition of the Clergy if this bill were rejected, and they were called upon to pay their instal- ments and collect their tithes next November ? Lord Melbourne then read a letter addressed to the Bishop of Dromore by fourteen clergymen of his diocese, in which they stated their utter despair, even in that com- paratively settled part of Ireland, of collecting their tithes ; and repre- sented their condition, in case the hill should be rejected, as one of hope- less destitution. Lord Melbourne concluded by saying, that it was ne- cessary their Lordships should distinctly understand, that if the present bill should be lost, it would be perfectly impose:hie, quite out of the question, for any Government in this country to come forward and propose a grant for the relief of the Clergy of Ireland. It would be perfectly unjustifiable to make such an application ; and it would not be only unjustifiable, but he believed it would be perfectly vain to do so. For the safety of the empire generally, and of Ireland in par- ticular, he recommended their Lordships to read the bill a second time.

The Bishop of DERRY felt bound to explain the reasons of his vote in favour of the bill. He had attended a meeting of Prelates, in which he expressed his opinion in favour of the measure ; but when it ap- peared that a majority of the Clergy of his country were against it, he agreed to vote against it, stating his reasons for surrendering his pri- vate opinion. During the preceding week, however, he had received almost innumerable communications from the Irish Clergy, all concur- ring in stating that the bill would give the gi e itest satisfaction to the Clergy in the remote parts of Ireland. He was thus induced to re - vert to his original determination, which he had only abandoned on the representation that the Clergy of Ireland were opposed to the bill. He declared his perfect conviction that the Clergy, who depended for their Support on tithes (no part of his own income, he was glad to say, was - derived from that source), would be left in a state of utter destitution if this bill were rejected. He would decline being a party to proceed- ings fraught with such deplorable consequences, and earnestly entreated the House to read the bill a second time.

Lord ELLENROROUGH was aware of the situation of the Irish Clergy and was sure that if any of them wished the bill to pass, it was their poverty and not their will consented. He did not believe that they would willingly agree to a measure which went to reimburse the people of England for the money advanced out of the Consolidated Fund by drawing on funds devoted to the preservation of the Irish Church. Without these funds, that Church must go to ruin. There was no diminution by this bill of the evils of the tithe system : the number of contributors to tithes was not diminished by it. It made no difference to the tithepayers whether their contributions were called rent or tithe. The poet said,

"That which we call a rose By any oilier name would smell as sweet." And he could assure their Lordships,

"That which we call tithe By any other name would smell as rank."

The landlord would find as much difficulty in collecting tithe as the clergyman had found. He approved of the bill as at first introduced ; for it went to make the clergyman a landed proprietor ; but that plan had been abandoned, and why ? Not on account of difficulties in the

question, but difficulties in the Cabinet--disputes between Members of the Administration. Here he described the provisions of the bill as originally introduced ; and contended that it would have made the Church strong, and given the Clergy increased means of usefulness. This bill had been assented to by a majority of five to one in the House of Commons ; and for that measure he would cheerfully have voted, ipsissimis verbis, without a single alteration. But the present measure was a very different one : it did not vindicate the whole, but only three- fifths of the law, giving the other two-fifths to agitation. How could the clergyman who had security now for all his claim be called on to give up two-fifths of it, having only the same security for the remain. ing three-fifths that he now has for the whole? There were difficulties in the way, he knew : but the first instalment from the Clergy, though due in November, was not payable till February ; and there was ample time to put things on a wholesome footing. The only way, in the meanwhile, with which their Lordships could deal with this bill, would be to reject it. It could not be altered in Committee with advantage, at this late period of the session. Besides, it might be considered as a money bill. He really thought the bill should be thrown out, and op.. portunity afforded Ministers of framing another measure, which would have the blessed effect of settling the question. The present was an ill-considered measure, concocted in three short weeks by different in- dividuals. Their Lordships stood in a peculiar situation. The high and low classes were the friends of the Church; but the Reform Bill had transferred the power of electing Members of the House of Com- mons into the hands of the middle classes, who were principally Dis- senters. The result was, that the House of Commons no longer re- presented the religion of the majority of the nation ; which was now represented by their Lordships' House. It therefore behoved them to look well to every measure which threatened the Church. Ile con- cluded by moving an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six mouths. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was agreeably surprised to find, that Lord Ellenborough had silently approved of the measures of Ministers in regard to the Church during the last three years, till within these few weeks. In the present bill there was nothing inconsistent with that uniform1 course which Lord Ellenborough so approved of; it only arrived at a more prompt conclusion. It was necessary to make some provision for the payment of tithes compulsory upon the land- lords. This was the principle of Mr. Goulburn's measure, which those who bad sanctioned ought not now to reject. As to the conversion of the rent charge into land, there would be time for that hereafter ; though many persons entertained insuperable objections to that mode of arrangement. At the present rate of the Funds, it would be a losing investment to convert tithes into money. Time only plan which was feasible and advantageous, was the one proposed by the bill ; whose principle, since its first introduction, had undergone no change. The Marquis then described the irritation produced by the collection of tithes—of claims amounting to 300 to 400 in a single parish, and varying from 14s. to Is. lOtl. only. It was unreasonable to suppose that the same objection would be felt by a tenant of land to the payment of money as by the tithepayer, who was forced to contribute to the support of those from whom in return be derived no benefit : at any rate, the irritation felt would not be against the clergyman. It ought to be considered what the Church would gain by this measure. The value of land in Ireland had advanced six or seven years' purchase, while that of tithes had remained quite stationa7 ; land being worth twenty-five or twenty-six years' purchase, and tithes only sixteen or seventeen ow the average. The fact was, that purchasers took into ac- count the cost of collection, and hence arose the difference in the value of the two kinds of property. Looking at the proposed arrangement as a mercantile transaction, it was an excellent one for the Church. If it had been found necessary to lay a compulsory measure on the Church, the landlords also suffered in the same way. The nation, too, with great liberality, took part of the burden upon itself; and yet this con- cession for the good of the Church was, it seemed, to be met with re- jection. A boon had been offered which their Lordships might reject, but which might not again be offered. He had considered this subject with deep attention, and would give his best support to the bill. The Earl of WINCHILSEA hoped the measure would be rejected. If it were passed, the Church would feel that it was to be sacrificed to those who trampled upon the laws. He hoped their Lordships would not be intimidated from doing their duty by any thing which had been said out of doors.

Lord DUNCANNON dwelt at length on the advantages which would spring from passing the measure. He quoted a passage from Mr. Goulburn's speech on the introduction of his Tithe Composition Bill, in proof of the impossibility of collecting tithes in Ireland under the existing system. The case was precisely the same now as when this speech was made. He related some instances of the ineffectual em- ployment of the military for the collection of tithes, and expressed his opinion that the passive resistance to tithes would continue to be effectual. He was not surprised that the Clergy of Ireland had not spoken out in favour of the measure, as the Primate bad interfered to repress the expression of such opinions. Lord Duncannon then made some statements relative to the amount of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ; and asserted, that the alteration in the bill, about which so much had been said, was made at the suggestion of the Irish landlords, though Mr. O'Connell had wisely adopted and ad- vocated it.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND asked if Lord Althorp had not opposed it? (Cheers.) Lord DUNCANNON replied, yes, certainly. He WU hound to support the measure as proposed by Government ; but when he had obtained the sentiments of the Irish landlords upon it, he was justified in giving way. Lord BEBESTORD utterly denied that the Archbishop of Armagh bad attempted to influence the votes of the Irish Bishops on this oc- casion; and appealed to the Bishop of Derry to say if such had or bad not been the case.

Lord Duscasrxosi did mean to say that the Primate had acted in the manner described; but he bad addressed letters to the Clergy on the subject.

The Bishop of DERRY said, that the Primate had not attempted by a single word, as far as he had beard, to influence the votes of the Bishops.

The Bishop of MEATH knew that the Irish Clergy were in a state of great suffering ; but they would rather suffer much more than take such a bill as this.

The Earl of MANSFIELD spoke at length against the bill ; which would operate so severely against the Clergy and in favour of the landlords. If any diffleulties arose from the rejection of the measure, the Clergy must apply to Parliament, and he trusted successfully, for relief. He denied that there had been any successful opposition to the payment of tithes till some time after the change of Ministry in IWO ; and then it was owing to the mistaken conduct of the Government. They used the unfortunate phrase of " extinction of tithes ;" then the prosecution of Mr. O'Connell, undertaken in the spirit of vengeance and aban- doned without reason ; then the patent of precedence to that individual, —an tmdisguised premium on agitation. What could the Protestants think of such proceedings ? Lord Mansfield next adverted to Mr. Stanley's resignation ; and recounted some of the circumstances which preceded the alteration of the Tithe Bill in the House of Commons. He contended that Ministers had entered into a compact with Mr. O'Connell, and had suffered themselves to be beaten by him. It had been imputed to the Peers who sat on his side a the House, that they were actuated by mortified pride and disappointed ambition : if so, what greater gratification could they receive than beholding the degraded state to which their adversaries were reduced ? He hoped the absurd fear of a collision would not prevent the House from rejecting this bill.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked upon the bitter tone of Lord Mansfield's speech ; so different from the style adopted by those Peers who had preceded him in the debate. He would abstain from entering into the personal and party topics on which Lord Mansfield had dilated ; and would appeal to their Lordship? dispassionate judgments. The bill was the same in principle as when originally propounded ; and the main alteration was throwing the burden upon the landlord immediately in- stead of at the end of five years. Now the Clergy had by law a right to 104) per cent. of their tithe ; but there was what lawyers called a severance between the title and possession ; and the Clergy had to struggle for even a moderate portion of their right. This measure secured to the Clergy, in paper as good as gold, as regularly as the clock struck, 771 per cent. of their full claim.

But he was told that it was not so much the measure itself, as its supposed author, tbat was objected to. Were the bill ever so good, ever so advantageous to the imerests of Church and State, it mattered not, so long as it proceeded from a suspected source. The benefits of the measure only regarded the merits of the case, and the duty of the Government in proposing, and of the Legislature in passing or rejecting it. These were simple considerations, according to Lord Mansfield, who said that the main thing for their Lordships to bear in mind was not whether the measure was bad or good, but how and by whom it was pro- posed. If the bill had been proposed by Ministers, said be, with overflowing candour and an extreme degree of kindness and compassion—having now some one in view whom he hated even more than his Majesty's Ministers—(Laughter)— if the measure were only brought forward by Government, or if they would bring it back to the state in which it was when they first introduced it into Parliament, I promise to withdraw all opposition as regards it. "Oh that we Lad the noble Lord always in this benignant mood ! Oh that we could be sure all he wanted was to be satisfied that we were proposing our own measures for the approbation of Parliament ! Oh what reforms I should rejoice to see intro- duced in the next session, if this happy, and candid, and liberal disposition, were to continue, and if it were not to be soured in the interval ! I pledge myself that no human being should know a tittle of any thing—that the measures to be introduced to your Lordships should be entirely and exclusively the measures of his Majesty's Government—that your Lordships should have Ministerial mea- mires, the whole Ministerial measures, and nsthing but Ministerial measures. (Renewed laughter.) I am afraid, however, that kind disposition will not con- tinue till the month of January or February next ; before which time, with all my respect for your Lordships, I can assure you I have not the slightest wish to meet you here." (A laugh.) It was said that Ministers were in a degraded situation, but he could not fancy a more degraded position for any men to be placed in than they were, who admitted that a certain individual had only to propose any measore to insure its rejection by them— Let at objectionable person say, "You profess to be friends of the Irish Clergy, corder upon them a boon," and straightway those wise and dispassionate individuals would refuse to confer such boon because of its suspected proposer. A man whom you disliked had only to say, "Save the country, from civil war," in order to make you reject the suggestion. The answer of this class of legisla- tors and politicians was ready and simple ; it was this—" Am Ito degrade my- self by taking a leaf out of 'Mr. O'Connell's book : shall I permit him to dictate to rue?" Ah, but he did dictate to you, and the only difference between you and those who were willing to take the benefit of a hint from Mr. O'Connell, when the suggestion appeared beneficial, was, that in the one case we took the thing honestly, directly, and in a manly way ; and in the other case you took the law from him, it was true—hut how ? as a pouting boarding-school miss took or did any thing, not because she ought, but because her maid or governess bade her not.

Objection bad been made to the silk gown and patent of precedence conferred upon Mr. O'Connell— Since when, he asked, had it been the law, that a gentleman whose learning, talent, experience, and standing, placed him at the head of his profession, was not to receive common justice? Since when had it been the rule with Chan- cellors to refuse what was a matter of course, and a matter of justice, on account of an individual's conduct, not in his profession, wherein he was without re- proach, but simply because in politics he differed from the Governmetat ? The profession of the law would reject with indignation a principle which tended to enslave its members and make them slaves of Ministers. 'I he rank which had been conferred on Mr. O'Connell was the right of others as well as himself—of his clieuts, of his brother barristers, and of the courts of justice : of his clients, whose interests were concerned ; of his brethren at the bar, who had also an in- terest in his promotion ; and of the courts, whose business was impeded for the want of it. He (the Lord Chancellor) was himself an instance of the spite of some miserable, petty, wretched intriguer—of some foul and vile slanderer—of some contemptible miscreant whom he would not condescend to name, and who had so fir used his base influence against him, in common with his noble and learned friend the Chief Justice of the King's Bench—an individual, whose eleva- tion to his present station, on that account as well as because of his merits and vir- tues, which had excited the love and admiration of the profession, constituted the proudest moment of his (the Lord Chancellor's) life—he said, that in consequence Of the efforts of parties who wished to gratify their spite against individuals simply for doing their professional duty, politics and party pretences were made the grounds of keeping his noble and learned friend and himself out of their just rank in their profession. No person felt that more than Lord Eldon, on whom he had never cast the slightest blame. However, ten or eleven barristers had been all but ruined by the course then taken. Those gentlemen were some of them made Judges by way of compensation, but they had first lost their practice simply because they happened to be his seniors at the bar. Ile found those gentlemen in good practice when he first went the circuit, but they were after a while left without a single brief, because he could not lead them. In like manner, Mr. O'Connell stood in the way of his seniors and his elevation was due as a matter of right, not merely to himself, but Mother members of the Bar, to his clients, and to the courts.

Reverting to the bill before the House, Lord Brougham maintained that he was voting for the good of the Church in voting for it. If it were thrown out, where would the Clergy find relief? The Govern- ment was bound to do all it could, but there was a point beyond which it could not go— The law could not break open people's doors. The law conld not by hold of cattle which were not in the fields ; nor could pigs or cows be seized under si. milar circumstances. The tables and chairs, and other miserable furniture, might be in a divellinghouse ; but he would say that while the Government could enforce the law and prevent a " rescue," one thing must be clear—that they could not compel the people " to buy ! " How, he should like to know, could the Clergy repay the Government advances if this bill were not agreed to? Why, it was clear, that if the Clergy had advances made to them, their

private estates would be liable for them at common law as well as their Church preferments. But again, suppose this bill thrown out, and what would be the result? Ile almost feared to contemplate it. Were their Lordships, he should like to know, under such circumstances, exercising their high preroga-

fives—their noble functions? Were they doing all they ought to do for the good of their country? The country would not forget what their Lordships had done, or would do ; and having stated his firm belief that this measure should pass into a law for the good of the Clergy and the peace of Ireland, lie would wash his hands of any opposition to it.

He would say one word in reply to the tirade on Ministerial unpopu-

latitY— Take it for granted that Ministers were as unpopular as it was possible for Ministers to be, and as unpopular as Lord Mansfield would wish them to be- take it for granted that every measure they proposed was disapproved of, that the Representatives of the people placed no confidence in them—then he could only bay that there was a great floating fund of popularity somewhere—a great mass of public favour without owners—and a love towards statesmen unnamed and unborn. Take it for granted that Ministers bad not the approbation of their countrymen, that Mr. O'Connell had it not ; had the noble Lords who sat on the Opposition side of the House got it? (Loud laughter.) lie was in the same boat with them, they were all equally unpopular ; who then was the happy Minister who was to command all voices, for whom the eyes of the country longed, whom the hands of the country were stretched out to receive? Pe would take upon him to say that if be was not upon one side of the House, it was in vain to look for him upon the other.

The Duke of WELLINGTON maintained that the bill as originally in.. traduced was entirely distinct in principle and practice from the present. It was true that the Irish Clergy could not lay their hands on their pro- perty unless the Government preserved peace : but the peace of Ire- land depended entirely upon Ministers.

No man could approve of the administrative measures of his Majesty's Govern- ment in Ireland. If they had met the disturbances with energy—if they had carried into effect the Proclamation Act—if they had renewed it when they ought—if they had not given patents of precedence to a gentleman who had been convicted of a; misdemeanor—if they had omitted to reward that gentleman, who had flown in the face of his Majesty, they would have put an cud to these tithe disturbances; and if they had done that, we should not have been in the state in which we found ourselves at the present moment.

The tithe in Ireland was fifteenpence an acre, and the Irish peasantry were to be gratified by striking it down to tenpence. The Ecclesiastical Fund never could meet the deficiency of one-fifth, which was to be taken fre.m the Consolidated Fund in the first instance.

At the present moment, not more than 25,000/. could be raised. He agreed that the Clergy of Ireland ran a great risk ; but there was as great a probability of their receiving their dues under the present system as under this bill. We were told that it was absolutely necessary to pacify Ireland, and a noble friend of his had brought in a bill to establish a composition of tithes. The principle a that bill, which was to extend composition equally all over Ireland, was now over- turned. Ile trusted that the House would reject the bill, as it would not be a benefit to the Clergy of Ireland.

The Earl of RIPON disapproved of many parts of the measure, but would vote for the second reading, with a view to amend it in Committee.

The Bishop of LONDON opposed the bill, which would tend to in- flame prmdial agitation. A very large body of the Clergy disapproved of the bill without the redemption charges. They far preferred the old composition system to this new measure; which commenced by par- tially robbing them, and would deprive their successors of all revenue whatsoever. For his own part, he would oppose the bill, because he saw in it the gradual diminution and final extinction of Church property.

The Earl of RODEN in strong language reprobated the measure.

The Duke of RicsisioND would vote for the second reading. If the bill were rejected, the Irish Clergy would not be able to raise a single shilling.

T Marquis of CLANRICARDE and the Earl of GOSFORD supported the bill.

VISCIMMt MELBOURNE replied

He was as desirous as any man to vindicate the law—to repress violence and outrage; but the bill before the House would render it unnecessary to vindicate the law : it would prevent crime, instead of punishing it. Ile would not dis- guise from the House the scenes it would be necessary to go through in Ireland, and that they must levy tithes by means of war. The Duke of Wellington said that the Government had nothing to do but to vindicate the law ; and that it was entirely the fault sf the Government that the resistance to tithes had been so successful. To that assertion he could only oppose a distinct denial ; and if it had come lions any man but the noble Duke, he would have added that the statement was most uncandid and unfair ; but he knew bow prone the noble Duke was to deceive himself, and if he were at the head of affairs—and, for his part, he wished to God that he was—be would take a very different view of the subject. He begged to remind him, that in leI29 he took a very different view of the disorders of Ireland. He then talked of his melancholy experience of the horrors of civil war, and adopted a measure to which he had all his life been op- posed, in consequence of the apprehensions which be entertained of the disorders likely to occur in Ireland from longer withholding it. It was for their Lordships tO congder Whether they would place the Clergy in the situation in which all parties agreed they would be placed by the rejection of the present bill. If the Clergy should not succeed in getting their tithes, their Lordship might depend upon it that a bill so favourable to the interests of that body would never again be presented to them. They were now about to miss an opportunity of settling this question, which would never again occur.

The House then divided : Fur the second reading, Present 51 Proxies 71

—122

Against the second reading, Present 85 Proxies 104

Thus the bill was thrown out, by a majority of 67.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, at the morning sitting, Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition signed by 7000 peers, grand jurors, and landowners of :Jork county, for protection to the Established

Church. This petition, he said, disproved the assertion that the landowners were in favour of the Irish Tithe Bill.

The petition was in favour of the integrity of the Church Establishment as regarded its revenues and its connexion with the State. It deprecated that un- hallowed commission (for so he would call it), that had been issued by Govern- ment, to inquire into the revenues of the Established Church, and which he was so delighted to have the sanction of the greatest ornament of the English bar and bench for terming illegal. The petition further deprecated the abstrac- tion of one-fifth of their incomes from the Clergy. If tithes were not paid. in Ireland, on the heads of his Majesty's Government be it ; but lie would main- taM, that if the laws were supported, tithes would be paid as willingly as ever in Ireland. Pinch laughter.) The exertions of the Clergy to support the laws and maintain the institutions of the country, had been badly repaid by motions, such as that of the honourable Member for St. Albans (Mr. Ward), for the spoliation of their property ; while on the contrary, those who had outraged the laws and fostered rebellion, had met with encouragement and support.

Mr. O'REILLY looked with apprehension to the consequences in Ireland of the rejection of the Tithe Bill.

It had been very insolently whispered out of the walls of that House, that the representatives of the property in Ireland had voted against the Tithe Bill ; but he would ask how much of that property was affected by mortgages and judg- ments. He would fearlessly place the supporters of the bill, in point of pro. petty, against those who had opposed it ; and he had no doubt the balance would be vastly in favour of the supporters of the bill, and against the boasted representatives of property.

Mr. WARD regarded the Commission of Inquiry, which Colonel Perceval called unhallowed, with very different feelings.

He thought it would prove the first step towards the removal of that accursed system (he would reply to one harsh epithet by another), which had brought the Clergy of Ireland everywhere into hostile collision with the peasantry, and rendered the country one vast scene of anarchy, confusion, and bloodshed. As to the bill, upon the rejection of which the gallant Member was bold enough to congratulate the country, he viewed its fate in a very different light. He la- mented to see, perhaps the only opportunity of settling a great national question upon terms satisfactory to all parties, gratuitously thrown away ; and the Clergy of Ireland, whose individual rights he had been most anxious to respect, consigned to hopelessness and utter destitution. There was not a possibility of enforcing the law as it now stood, and that Colonel Perceval well knew ; for when he talked so loudly of the responsibility of others, he did it in the hope of hiding, by a little blustering (he loved to borrow the gallant lember's own words), his own apprehensions as to the effects of that blow which he, and those who acted with him, had, probably, had some share in inducing the other branch of the Legislature to direct against the unfortunate Clergy.

But the rejection of the Tithe Bill would have at least one good effect— It would convince the House of the absolute necessity of asserting its right to interfere with Church property, in whatever manner the interests of the com- munity might require, by a distinct and decisive vote, as an indispensable pre- hrunsiry to any legislation. He therefore should beg leave to give notice of his intention to bring forward the Irish Church question again, in the hope of see- ing it receive a very different decision ; but whatever the result of this motion might be, he was convinced of one thing—namely, that the Clergy would never have more favourable terms offered to them again, than those which their so-called friends had now thought proper to reject. Mr. SINCLAIR rejoiced at the rejection of the bill— The enemies of the Church would, he feared, never be satisfied so long as the Church had a privilege to forfeit or property to lose. In a short time, Mr. O'Connell would call for further concessions, and assail the shattered fabric of the Church with all the force of his eloquence, calling upon that House to re- duce still further the members and revenues of an establishment that had been bedewed with the tears of Ireland, and had fattened on her blood. ( Cheers and laughter.) They would at length find themselves in the O'Connell word- bus, with Mr. Shell on the steps behind : before they had got two-thirds of the Journey, they would cry out to the coachman to stop and let them out ; but they would be hurried on at a railroad pace to the goal of Church annihilation. (Cheers and laughter.) He was surprised that orthodox Dissenters should unite with the enemies of the Church to effect its destruction. Let the ortho- dox Dissenter and the Churchman unite. Yonder (pointing to the Treasury Benches] was the Sucinian—yonder the Papist (" (ih, oh I ")—yonder the enemy of the Church—those were the enemies of the Reformed Church; and be hoped that all friends of the Church would unite for its preservation.

Mr. POTTER protested against the Unitarians being classed with Infidels. Ile should be ready, in that House, if it were a fitting place, to prove the accordance of the Unitarian faith with the New Tes- tament.

Sir E. CooraxGro.sr, Mr. WALKER, and Mr. SHAW made a few remarks.

Colonel PERCEVAL noticed Mr. O'Reilly's remark about property— He would repeat, that the landed property of the county which he represented was in the hands of Protestant proprietors. A great part of the property

aught be mortgaged—his own property was mortgaged ; but that did not alter the case.

Mr. O'REILLY meant nothing personal. He merely wished to rebut the idea that the whole landed property of Ireland was in the bands of Protestant proprietors. If that explanation were not satisfactory, he should be willing to give any satisfaction elsewhere which Colonel Perceval might require.

Here the SPEAKER interfered, and the conversation dropped.

At the evening sitting, Mr. HENRY GRATTAN withdrew a motion. of which he had given notice on Monday, for an address to the King to prevent the interference of the military in the collection of tithes in Ireland. His reasons were his objection to increase popular indigna- tion at the rejection of the Tithe Bill, and the very thin attendance of Members.

He reserved to himself full scope on this subject ; and in the next sessionop- portunities would occur of discussing the expediency of nullifying the proceedings of that House, and rejecting so many popular and salutary measures as the House of Lords, in the undoubted exercise of their constitutional right, had thought proper to do. Their right was one thing ; the expediency of exercising it, anti thus going against the sense of the people, was another. For instance, the Dn.- senters' Bill, the Jewish Disabilities Bill, the Warwick Disframshisernent 1311), the Bath and Bristol Railroad Bill (or Irish Bill, it might be called), anal last, though not least, the Irish Tithe Bill. In addition to the rejection of tlr:se, they had mutilated other measures—the Coroners' Bill, the Punishment of Death Bill, and the Bribery at Elections Bill. The allusion to the rejection of the Tithe Bill would rekindle great warmth, and possibly no public good would re- sult from it, particularly in Ireland. Ile therefore felt it more advisable to sa- crifice his feelings, and yield to the dictation of numbers, and to trust the cause of Ireland to the calmness and the cool forbearance to be exercised by the noble Lord now at the head of his Majesty's Government, and to commit to ids care the peace of Ireland and her real interests.

The motion was then withdrawn.

Lord ALTHORP stated, in reply to a question from Major BEAUCLERK, that . . . . after the positive refusal which had been given by the Lords, to a measure which was really for the benefit of the Clergy, it was not his Intention to propose any assistance, by way of grant, to that body ; nor did he believe it to be the wish of the House that he should suggest such a course. (Load cheering.) As to what measures might be proposed next session, he would abstain from saying any thing upon the subject.

2. POOR-LAW BILL.

The House of Commons had agreed to take the Lords' amendments in this bill into consideration on Monday. On that day, accordingly, Lord ALTHORP explained the different alterations made by the Peers in the measure ; all of which 'se thought were such as the House might agree to, except one. Their Lordships had struck out of the bill the clause introduced by Mr. Langdale, which authorized Dissenting mi- nisters to claim adreission into workhouses : the legal right of such ministers to claim admission was done away by the omission of the clause. Lord Althorp did not think, however, that practically this would be a grie-ance, as he felt quite assured that no ministers of reli- gion would be denied admission into the workhouses. He therefore moved that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. HUGHES HUGIIES moved that the amendments be read that day six months.

Major BEAUCLERK, Sir S. WHALLEY, Mr. RICHARDS, Mr. BENET; Mr. R. PALMER, Mr. HODGES, Mr. HARDY, Lord GRANVILLE SOMER- SET, and Mr. T. ATTWOOD, supported this amendment.

Mr. CoanErr spoke strongly against the bill.

It was obvious that the design of the bill was to put an end to any relief being afforded to able-bodied labourers; while they had been told in that House that there was no intention whatever of interfering with the rights which the act of Elizabeth gave—that, in a word, that act was not to be impaired. But the right of the able-bodied labourer did not stand merely upon acts of Parliament ; it stood upon the ancient law of the land. The putative father of the bill would not deny the authority of Baron Gilbert, who laid it down most distinctly when speaking of the threefold division made of Church property. Mr. Cubbett then adverted to the bastardy clause, describing the promoters of the measure as la- bouring to carry into effect the anti-population principles of the Malthusian school. It was an attempt to prevent women from breeding—it was a vulgar, drover-like plan to stop breeding. Besides that, the bill was a gross violation of the fundamental principles of the constitution, and the rights of property, as well as those of individuals : he therefore fully expected that it would have to encounter the most formidable resistance throughout the country. Its post- ponement, then, till next session should have his most cordial support.

Mr. HARVEY insisted upon retaining the clause relative to the ad- mission of Dissenting Ministers into workhouses; but hoped the bill would pass now, and not be deferred.

Why should they defer this measure to another session? To defer it, would be to defer every thing else of the many measures which had hitherto been de- layed, but which were promised for the next session. What was it which they had not been promised for the next session? It was to be the golden year of the Reformed Parliament, the jubilee of legislation, when all the important measures which had hitherto been delayed were to be brought forward and corn- pleted. To delay this bill, therefore, would be to postpone indefinitely those pro- mised reforms of which they had heard so much. Ile, under these circum- stances, hoped that the bill would not be postponed; but be also hoped that the amendments to which he had referred would not be retained in it. It was said that this bill was not understood in the country. It was well understood, and particularly so by that class to which it so much applied, he meant the laud- lords. In the discussion with their tenants about the arrears of lent, they would hear about the pressure of taxation, and of course of the 8,000,000/. paid for poor. rates. It would then be said that the able-bodied labourers were not to obtain relief; that he would be more independent if he relied upon his own industry, than upon the chance of parochial relief. The labourer would Vu .nh, then, I am content ; but let me lay out the produce of my labour in that te.:y which will bring the largest quantity of food ;" amid when he found daily in tIle City article of the Times, that in most of the towns on the Conti- nent the labourer could purchase his bread for half the price at which it could be obtained in England, he would naturally look for the means of being enabled to make his purchase of the cheaper article. This would, in the result, lead to the repeal of the Corn-laws; and even on this ground he hoped this bill would pass.

Mr. HUGHES'S amendment was then rejected, by 79 to 24.

The amendments of the Lords, up to the 18th clause, were agreed to. That clause, which relates to the admission of Dissenting Minis- ters, was reinserted. The Duke of Wellington's bastardy clauses were agreed to, by 50 to 19.. An amendment by Mr. AGLIONIIY, which would render corroborative evidence of the truth of the mother's statement not indispensable in all cases, was rejected, by 44 to 4.

A Committee of Conference with the Lords respecting the omission of the 18th clause was appointed.

The .Peers, on Wednesday, agreed to the reinsertion of the 18th clause, in order to save the bill front final rejection. Lord BROUGHAM stated his strong objections to it; and said that it would not produce the effect intended. Still, on the whole, he thought it best not to insist upon the amendment made by the Peers; as the subject could be dis-

cussed again next session, when it would be found neees: ary, to amend the bill. In this Viscount MarameeNE concurred.

0. APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE PEERS.

Lord BROUGHAM, on Thursday, laid a bill on the table of the House of Peers for improving the mode of hearing and deciding appeals be- fore their Lordahips. He thus described the present mode of pro- ceeding— When the first hearing of an appeal came on, two noble Lords sat and assisted at the opraing; two others atteaded the hearing Du the other side. On the third day, two noble Louis, who had not hem; present before, came down and heard the reply. The cause was then see down for judgment ; and in the fourth instance, two noble Lords assisted at that judgment who had not heard the be- ginning, the middle, nor the end of tla, prt ceediag. Such a system was not in accordance with comumn decency, either to noble Lords who were thus called in rotation to assist in appeal casts, to the suitors whose iaterests were to be considered, or to the House itself.

He exposed the ubsurd:ty of appealing from the decisions of the Courts to persons utterly ignorant of the law. For instance, an appeal from the decision of thirteen Scotch Judges might be adjudicated by Then as ignorant of the law of Scotland as of the law of Japan. It was also wrong that the same judge should have the power of revers- ing or confirming his own decisions. Yet at the same time, a judge who was not accustomed to the forensic strepitus would be oval' no- thing as a judge. There was but a middle course to take ; and that was to compose a due admixture of the various jodges whose decisions were appealed against, on the principle of analogy to the CO111111011 Law Courts.

The bill would give their Lordships the power of calling fur the services of the Judges in equity, and of Ilireeting any CaSe in which all appeal might be re- sorted to to be tried by a judicial Committee to be anointed under the bill. Thou judicial Committee would pronounce its judgment in open court, whieh would be repotted to the House, and then theI louse would pronouttee its kola-- tnent in open court. The rights irnd dignity of their Lordship,' Boum! would be preserved inviolate as heretofore. Ile proposed that the judicial Committee should always have presiding over it either the Loud Chancellor for the time being, or the Chief Justice of the King's Bench ; or a :Jew officer, a Vice-Pre- sident, without salary, to be appointed by the Crown, and to hold rank next to the Privy Seal; and who must previously have ailed the office of Lotil Chan- cellor, or Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, or of the Common Pleas. The Vice-President, however, would only be called upon to act when the Lord Chancellor or the Chief Justice of the King's Hermit might be prevented front presiding in consequence of being engaged elsewhere.

Lord Moro:Ham made several statemeats as to the amount of busi- ness he had got through, and the small number of cases left undecided ; and then pronounced an culogiurn on the House. of Peers Os a court of revision and appeal from the decisions of the Ileuse of Commons.

No impartial man who had 'watched the proceedings of the last two years could have failed to perceive ti t' if there bad been no !louse of Lords, the ;mew of( !mo- utons must have stopped its legislation, or if it had n'011:01 On it would have been eat ered with launders and itlyourtlities. Ile spoke with all due respect fin- the House of Commons, for which he felt veneration. It was not their fault that they com- mitted errors, they must of necessity do so. With the e petition which pre- vailed amongst 6:ot men, who were constantly striving one with another, it was impo.usible that the details of incase :es email reeeive the sane, calm out deliberate

attention which they obtained in their Lordship.' Hon w, where none of these disttaction sprevailed. The noble mid learned Lord then adverted to what he called the moahle chime in the Justice of the Perre hill, which the Commons insists,' upon remituing, as a prof of alisurd list ohm. Their Lhl :o. had

impreeed that and seaaral ouber mea.ures, MAii, Av thcy 11 he keic, ii their hands, cutting- :tway the rotten part., they should s dm.: 'j.eli to out too far and cut oil the head, of which there had been a reeent cal, dome. Tice should be made for them. If a surgeon shill cut t,.0 fir, or hht ia the right hue taut, who wot l! be so thlicultuu. as on that acet ant Sol.;ti ose to biota hit knife and prevent hint front operating at all?

0. Busta:Ess os THI: Courer on CHANCERY.

Sir .TouN CAMPBELL, ill moving, on Thursday, for cc; rr turns relative to the state of business in Lord Brougluant's ;et, !male the following statement.

It gave hint great pleasure to state, that in the Court of Clemeers tasie were now no al rears subsistiug; which he believed had not beet: the ......u II now

since the days of Sir Thomas Alore. or did this arise from any fildiv off in the lousiness of the Court, because, io fact, it had been proem ..ively

Thus in the three years la2a, lsati, and 1827, Lord Eulee lehiug ocellor, 5982 bills haul been tiled ; in ls2i, 1829, and 1830, I. el st being

Chaumellor, 6231 were tiled ; and during the first three y :rs, 1 I and 1833, that Lord Brougham had been Chancellor, the ii hi' rI bills filed had increased to 7180. With iegard to appeals from the Ala. he :1 iv !lolls atol Viee- Chaneellor to the Lord High Chancellor, there bad also I ii si iuiisi inerease.

In 182o, le:26, and 1827. the appeals amounted 131 ; in I r, 1•.29. and 1830, to 145; and in 1831, Isee, and IN.L3, to 161. The Hoe e would therefore see that a eonsiderable increase hail taken p:ilee in the busimiss of the Court of Chancery, both with respect to original tails filed, anti the smother of appeals which had been set down. Notwithstanding this, howm er, it woold appear, front the returns for which he was about to move, that al: lonigh when the pre-

sent Lord Chancellor came into office in Novendler 18:l( ;uppedi remained undisposed of; constituting art actual arrear of rather now., thaw the average of two years' business, yet at the close of the last sitting Lord lhmigler a oft only uudisposed of, the earliest of which was set down on the It of February ; so that, except two %fleltieh haul been abated in come.,11 nee of the death of parties, it might be sail there was really no arrear whatever iii the Court of Chancery.

The appeals to the House of Peers had likewise Leen increasing. In 1a2o, 1826, end 1 stn., the appeals to the House if Lords were 221 ; in laOss !Mao, and lano. Oka were 214 ; while in 1831, 1:.32, and 1833, they unmerited to 210. When the present Lord Chancellor came hit° office, 94 appeals were undecided ; and at the present moment only- 44 were undisposed of, tlw whole of which had been entered during the plesem session, except two which were adjourned at the request of parties. 'there was, ia fact, then no arrear in the House of Lords.

Mr. linos: expressed his satisfaction with the statement of Sir John Campbell ; and hoped that attention would be paid to lessening the expense of legal proceedings.

meats furnished him, and he could not entertain a doubt of their cor- rectness. What he had stated was substantially true; as Mr. Lynch, himself a Chancery barrister, must know.

Mr. LYNCH declared there were upwards of two hundred cases un- disposed of; and when the Vice- Chancellor's bill passed, there were only 214. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL again said, he believed the returns quoted were essentially true. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

SOUTH A essrnaraaN COLONY BILL. This bill was read a second time in the House of Peers on Monday, and went through the Cu. mittee on Tuesday ; the report was received on Wednesday, and on Thursday the bill was read a third time, and passed.

CINQUE PORTS PILOTS BILL. The Duke of WF.LLINGTON Opposed the second reading of this bill on Tuesday ; and Lord AUCKLAND ac- quiesced in its rejection, after promising to instittc an inquiry into the whole system of pilotage in the country.

INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN ELECTIONS. Following up some ob. servations of the Earl of WAliverck, on Tuesday, Lord BROUGHANI said, that although it was criminal for any Member of the House of Lords to be concerned in bribing, treating, or any other acknowledged illegal act, he did not hold it to be contrary to law for any l'eer to interfere in elections in the same mariner in which a Commoner could legally inter. fete.

He Spoke as a lawyer, and constitutionally. He was aware that such inter- ference tor the part of Peers was contrary to a resolution of the House of Com- mons—bat their Lordships had never admitted (whether rightly or wrongly their Lordships were the best judges) that they were concluded by a resolution of the other House of Parliament. It was, perhaps, a thing to be avoided, but it was not illegal—it was not contrary to the character of a constitutional man, a good subject, or a loan of honour. The predecessor of the present Earl :Marshal, who was a very constitutional man, attempted not only to interfere in, but to vote at eleetions—that was to say, be offered to vote; but his vote was of course re. jected. Ile held that a Peer was entitled by law to canvass, though it was de. dared improper for hint to do so by the resolution of the House of Connnons. The respect which he had for the resolution of the House of Commons would prevent him individually front interfering in elections; hut if be should do so, be would hold that he did no dishonourable act, nor any thing which could affix I stain upon his character.

JCINT STOCK BANKS. Lord WHARNCLIFFE asked Viscount Mel- bourne, on Thursday, whether Government bad made or iatended to make any regulation which should provide for the security of joint stock banks? At present it was well known, that not one tenth of thri capital advertised was actually subscribed ; and yet these batiks would probably establish a number of branch banks in different places. The sulliciettcy of the parent bank to meet its engagements ought cer- taioly to be looked after by Government ; and the branch banks should also be liable for the amount of their respective issue:a Lord 1ILLI:OURNE said, he believed the system to which allusion had been made was tiot only injurious to other banks, but to the community at large.

Ile was aware that within the last mouth or six weeks symptoms of incon- venience haul been manitasted. lint Coverument had not received any id. rota- ti 11 that the circulating medium in the country had he-cu Mel-eased by the issues of branch latuas to any danget out extent. Some regulation on the subject was, ha ciueceived, necessary ; but he was riot prepared to say what that regulatiou shumld lie. The subject, was certainly one of importance; and has serious attea- that should be directed to it during the recess.

JCS eters an THE PEACE BILL. OH the motion or Lord Baotoitan, the Peers, on Wednesday, refused to concur in the anieminients inade by the Commons i u u this bill as sent down by the Peers. Their Lord- ship, haul struck out two clauses relating to the mode of taking evidence hy Justices of the Peace, and also to their power of awarding special piatishinents. The Commutes insisting on the reiasertion of these clauses, to which the Peers would not agree, the bill was rejected.

COUNTY CORONERS' BILL. The Peers havilig refused to reinsert the clause in this bill which throws open Coroners' Courts to the public, 31r. WARBURTON moved, on Wednesday, that the Lord's ameniments be taken into consideration that day three months. Sir JOHN' Camila:Lt. seconded the motion ; which was supported by Lotd Amway and passed. So the bill is lost.

IMPRISONMENT FOR Darrr. Sir Jolts Caneura.L, on Wednesday, gave notice, that early next sessiour he should more for leave to bring in a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt. Blom BILL. The Lords' amendments to this bill were considsred on Thursday, in the House of Commons. Mr. Ikon divided the House against the clause which autherizes the domiciliary visits of the Police ; but his motion was rejected, by 29 to 12, and the amendments Intaliy agreed to. CHARGE AGAINST LORD ELLENEOROUGH. Mr. BUTIIVEN gave

notice, yesterday, of a motion next session respecting the conduct of Lord Ellenborough; who, as Clerk of the Court of King's 13encia lied applied the interest of WOO/. Exchequer Bills, which belonged tothe public, to his own private use. Mr. SeloNo Men protested against any such notice beim; made : it was most unfair on the last day of the session to bring such a charge, which could not be rebutted in Parlia- ment for six months to come. Mr. HUME remarked, that Lord Ellen- borough had accounted for the manner in which he had applied the money. Mr. HILL said, that as one of the persons oho had con- ducted the inquiry, he could declare Lord Ellenborough's conduct had been as upright and honourable as a man's could be. After some further conversation, in which fur some time Mr. IttarrivaN pertinaci- ously adhered to his original charge, the notice of motion was we. rded in such a way as to convey no personal imputation on Lord Ellen- borough.

0. THE PROROGATION.

The King proceeded yesterday to the House of Peers, and took his seat upon the throne. The Commons were summoned; foul the Speaker, attended by about eighty Members, having appeared, the lloyal assent was given to several bills. The Speaker delivered the usual address relative to the labours of the sesaion. his Majesty then re- ceived the Speech from the Lord Chancellor, which he read as follows. My 1.ords and Genttemen—The rianwrous and inmortant questions wit eli have in the present, as ilu the two preeediria years, beeu submitted to your evasideration, halo

imposed upon you the necessity of extraordinary exertions ; and it is with a deep sense of the care and labour which you have bestowed upon the public business, that 1 at length close this protracted session. and release you front your attendance. "I continue to receive from all Foreign Powers assurances of their friendly dispo- sition. " The negotiations, on account of which the Conferences in Loudon upon the affairs of the Low Countries were suspended, have not yet been brought to a close ; and I have still to lament the continued postponement ef a final settlement between Holland and Belgium. 0 On the other hand, I have derived the most sincere and lively satisfaction from the termination of the eivil war which had salting distracted the kingdom of Portugal ; and I rejoice to think that the treaty which the state of affaits in Spain and Portugal induced me to conclude with the King of the French. the Queen Regent of Spain, and the Regent of Portugal, and which has already laien laid before you, coutributed mate- rially to produce this happy result. " Events have since occurred in Spain to disappoint, for a time, the hopes of tran. quality in that country, which the pacification of Portugal had inspired. To these events, so important to Great Britain. I shall give my most serious attention, in con- cert with France find with the other Powers who are parties to the treaty of the 21,1 of April; and the good understanding w hieh prevails between me and my Allies, em eourages me to expect that our united endeavours will be anemia! with success. " Tlw peace of Turkey remains undisturleal, and I trust that no event will happen in that quarter to interrupt the tranquillity of Europe.

"I have not failed to observe with approbatien, that you have directed your atten- tion to those domestic questions which more immediately affect the general Vo Orate of the community, and I have had much satisfaction in sanctioning yonr Wise and volent intentions by giving my assent to the Act fur the amendment and better ad- ministration of the laws relating to the Poor M England and Wales. It will be my they to provide that the authority necessarily vested In Commissioners nominated by the Crown, be exercised with temperance and caution; and I entertain a confident ex- pectation, that its prudent and judicious application, as well ;is the discreet entoreement of the other provisions of the Act, will, by degrees, remedy the evils which at present prevail; awl whilst they elevate the character, will increase the comforts, and iterative the condition of my people. ." The amendment of the Law is one of your first and most important duties. and 1 reioiee to perceive that it has occupied so Mal of your attention. The establishment of a Central Court for the trial of ofienees in the Metropolis and its neighlsuollood mill, I trust, improve the administration or justice within the 1,opu1oni sphere of its jurisdic- lion, and afford a useful example to every other part or the kingdom.

"

To the important subjects of our Jurisprudence and of our Muoicipal Corporations. your attention will naturally be directed early in t he next session. You may always rest assured of my disposition to cooperate with you in such usefol refiamat ions.

" Gentlemen of the House of Commons-1 thank -oit fur the readiness with which von have granted the Supplies. The Estimates laid before rat were sunless bat lower than those of former years, although they included several extramdinary which mill not again occur. The same course of economy will still be steadily pur- sued. The continued increase of the revenue, eetwithstanding the repeal or Si. many taxes, affords the surest proof that the resources Mlle: country are unimpaired, and jug. tilies the expectation that a perseverance in judicious and well considered meastues will still farther promote the industry and augment the wealth of my people. " My Lords and Gimtlenten-It gives me gwat gratification to believe, that in returning to your several counties, you will hind a prevalence of general tranquillity mei of active industry amongst all classes of society. I humbly hope that Pivine Pm- vidence a ill vouchsafe a coMinuance and inerease of these blessings ; and in any cir- cumstances ts hint may arise, I shall rely a ith confidence upon your zeal and fidelity. And I rest satisfied that you will inettleate air( encourage that obedience to the laws, and that observance of the duties of religion and murality, which are the only secure foundations of the ranter and happiness of empires."

After the Speech was finished, the King took his departure, attended by several of the Peers. The Commons then retired to their own House, where the Speaker read a copy of the speech ; and the whole then separated.