Debatrii ant, 3rime:U.110 in ParIiantrut.

1. REFORM OF THE CHURCH.

In the HOUSE OF COMMONS on Tuesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Esta- blished Church Bill.

Mr. Jolts MAXWELL complained that no opportunity was allowed him to move the second reading of the Hand-loom Weavers' Bill; and proposed an amendment that the order of the day for the second read- ing of his bill should be read.

The House rejected the motion, by 61 to 51.

Lord John Russell's motion being again put from the Chair, Mr. JERVIS moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee to re- ceive a clause that no clergyman not fully conversant with the Welsh language be appointed to any see or benefice in the Principality. He said that the consequences of appointing clergymen ignorant of the Welsh language to Welsh livings and bishoprics had been disastrous to the Church, and a chief cause of the increase of Dissent. It was a fact, that in many parts of Wales the churches were empty, whilst the chapels close by them were crowded. This was sure to be the case, because the clergy of the Established Church were not only incapable of speaking the language of their flocks, but were also different in their habits and demeanour from the native preachers. The English clergy- man was cold, correct, and formal in his pulpit addresses ; but the *Welshman naturally adapted himself to the character of those whom he addressed, and was vivacious, full of gesture, quick, and familiar. The Dissenting clergy were natives of the Principality ; and their congre- gations flourished, whilst the Church went to decay. It might be said that while the propriety and advantage of having the Welsh livings filled with clergymen who understood the language and sympathized with the feelings of Welshmen was evident, it was by no means neces- sary that the Bishops should be qualified in like manner. He would not enter into the history of Dissent in Wales to prove how far the influence of the Bishops, native or English, for good or for evil had extended ; but he found that for forty years previous to 1640, there 'were four Welsh Bishops in the Principality, and that for forty years

subsequent to 1640 there were four English Bishops in Wales : in the course of the first period, the natives were converted from Popery ; in the coarse of the latter, they became almost universally Dissenters. It was a mistake se suppose that the direct influence of the Bishop on the people might not be very great. He knew that confirmation was not a prayer, or a sacrament, according to the doctrines of the Church ; but it was a most impressive ceremony, and approached very near to a sacrament; and he begged the House to remember, that it was laid down in the 24th Article, that " it is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood by the people." He considered that the rite of confirmation must lose as much in impressiveness and value as the sacraments, by being adminis- tered in an unknown tongue. [This is a mere sketch of Mr. Jervis's speech, given from memory ; the reporters of the daily papers having thought proper to burke it.]

Sir LOVE PARRY seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it. So far from wishing to make a legislative distinction between the two languages, be wished to amalga. mate them.

Sir ROBERT PEEL advised Mr. Jervis to withdraw his motion : as he would probably be in a minority, and thereby an injurious impres- sion would be created in Wales.

Mr. JERVIS persisted in dividing the House ; and his motion was carried, by 74 to 64.

The House then went into Committee.

Mr. LAMBTON moved, as an amendment to clause 10th, that no part of the revenues of the see of Durham should be devoted to other eccle- siastical purposes until provision had been made for the spiritual in- struction of the people of that diocese.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the amendment. It was supported by Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR; and rejected, by 88 to 8.

The remaining clauses were agreed to ; and a clause brought up by Mr. JERVIS, embodying his motion relative to Wales, was added to the bill.

The Chairman then reported progress.

On Thursday, on the motion that the report be brought up,

Mr. CAYLEY strongly protested against the principles on which the bill was framed, and the hurry with which it was forced through the House.

Mr. LENNARD concurred in these remarks, and wished the bill to be postponed to next session.

Mr. POULTER objected to a measure founded on principles contrary to those indispensable for the settlement of the great question at issue. A large surplus might be got out of Episcopal revenues. The Church of England was evidently declining; and its friends ought to be up and stirring for its effectual reform.

Mr. PLUMPTRE eulogized the clergy, and defended the Establish- ment.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER said, it was very difficult to propose amend- ments to the bill, from the manner in which it was framed. There bad not been sufficient time allowed for its consideration.

Mr. ROBINSON did not think that the bill would conduce to the per- manent benefit of the Church. The splendid revenues of the Bishops never could be advantageous to the cause of religion. He wished the bill to be postponed.

Mr. HUME protested against a bill which allowed the Church Com- missioners to do what they pleased. He saw no reason why an Arch- bishop should have 15,0001. a year, or why the Bishops should have more than 30001. or 40001. The bill was a bad bill, and ought not to pass • and he would move that the report be received that day six montlis.

Sir ROBERT PEEL defended the bill, as one of great practical reform. He cordially approved of the course taken by Ministers. He denied that the income of the Bishops was extravagant, when their necessary expenditure and the claims on their benevolence were considered. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS would support Mr. Hume; for the bill would confer no practical benefit on his constituents.

Mr. A. TREVOR did not think the time proper for legislating on the great interests involved in the bill; and would also vote with Mr. Hume, however reluctant to do so on ordinary occasions.

Mr. BUNTON'S objection to the bill was, that it did not provide for increasing the incomes of the working clergy, whilst it continued the payment of enormous salaries to the dignitaries. Lord JOHN RUSSELL denied that the House had been taken by sur- prise ; and defended the measure, and the conduct of Ministers in re- gard to it.

Mr. WaRminTosr spoke a few words in disapprobation of the measure.

The House divided : for bringing up the report, 90; for Mr. Hume's amendment, 43; Ministerial and Tory majority, 47.

The report having been brought up,

Mr. A. TREVOR moved the insertion of a clause fixing the income of the Bishop of Durham at 10,0001. a year. But the House refused to read it a first titre, by 133 to 0. Mr. CHARLES BULLER moved a clause to fix the salary of the Arch- bishop of Canterbury at 80001., of the Archbishop of York at 70001., the Bishop of London at 45001., and the other Bishops at 40001.,— until such time as those parts of the country declared by the Com- missioners to be destitute of religious instruction be supplied with it, and the incomes of clergymen reported to be inadequate were suffi- ciently augmented— It appeared from the Report on the table of the House, that the resident clergy employed by the resident incumbents numbered 1,006 ; and their sti- pends on the average were 861. a year. The nonresidents numbered 4,224; and their stipends averaged 791. a year. Thus, the total number being 5,230, the average stipends were 811. a year. If it were a question between the Bishops and the working clergy, he should say they ought to look to the work- ing. clergy first. The Government, however, bad followed the contrary plan: their first consideration appeare to have been to provide large salaries for the

Bishops. What had the Government done? A hill had been trought in, in which a great deal was said about Deans and Chapters ; and no doubt it would excite the admiring gaze of the public when they came to examine its details. The Bishops being politicians, had been objected to ; and it was said that he wished to make them independent of the Government ; but in the purposed

arrangement all kinds of temptations were held out to them. The incomes began at about 4,0001. a year ; then there were several at 5,000/.; the next step was 7,000/' up to the see of Durham it was 8,000!.; 10,000/. was to be the income of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of York ; • and 15,0001. was the amount proposed for the Archbishop of Canterbury. His first pro- posal was to equalize the incomes of all the Bishops ; making an exception in favour of the Bishop of London, on the ground that be was a fixed resident in a most expensive place ; he thought it was necessary on this account to give to the Bishop of London a little more than to the others. He not only proposed to equalize the incomes of the Bishops, but also to reduce them. As his guide in fixing the incomes, he had taken the scale of payment of the very highest paid profession in the country, and that was the profession of the law. Ile put aside the income of the Lord Chancellor, however, not considering that a per- manent income ; but with that exception, he had taken the highest rate of pay for service to the public that could be got.

An objection to his plan might be, that it was unjust to pay the Bishops at the same rate as the Judges_ There was this difference between the professions, that the one depended for success on the possession and exertion of individual talent ; and having sur. mounted their early difficulties, and reached the top of their profession, they secured to themselves almost a monopoly of the business, and derived large sums from it. Such was not the case with the clergy. Of course, when it was wished to take a Judge from the list of those barristers who were deriving large sums from their profession, it was necessary to offer them considerable incomes to induce them to accept a seat on the bench. If it were desired to possess the talents of Sir A. Cooper and Sir B. Brodie, their income must be fixed with reference to the incomes they were now making in their profession. In the Army and Navy, in the Church, and in Public Offices, there was con- stant employment and constant pay. In his opinion, the fair scale of remune- ration for the Clergy would be that of the Army and Navy : indeed, at present, the working clergy had nearly the same sums as the subalterns of the Army were paid—it was in the higher stations that the great difference existed. Officers in the Army and Navy were very happy if they obtained 3001. or 4001. a year. Ile proposed to give to the Bishops much higher incomes than that. And, by the way, he would here remark, that he did not see why the same high sense of an honourable occultation should not animate the Clergy as go- Verued those devoted to the other professions, in place of the ordinary desire of accumulating wealth. An officer in the Army was proud of wearing the King's uniform, arid was encouraged by that distinction to brave the dangers of the field. The Bishop, on the other hand, fought under the banner of the cross; lie was engaged in the constant struggle against the Enemy of Man to save souls. Were his motives to be supposed to be of so low a nature, that they must treat him as they would hired mercenaries, and crown him for the fight, or tempt him by the prospect of plunder.

He had had many hard battles to fight with his constituents because he had declared himself in favour of an Established Church; but for his part he would say, that if his choice lay between the Church as it is or none at all, he should prefer none at all.

Lord Jolla RUSSELL could not possibly agree to Mr. Buller's motion— Between the situation of the Bishops and that of the members of any of the professions referred to there was a vast difference. The Bishop had to maintain a large establishment, to observe hospitality, to contribute to the work of cha- rity, and to preserve his position amongst those who possessed large landed property ; whilst persons engaged in other professions were nut liable to such serious charges on their incomes. He thought that, to reduce the means of the Bishops and Archbishops in the way proposed, would exceedingly impair the efficiency of the Church.

Mr. A. TREVOR opposed and Mr. VILLIERS supported the motion. Sir Love PARRY would also support it. The Bishop of Bangor had only 3,84i01. a year, and yet he maintained out of that income a great

number of distressed local clergy. Why should they take tithes for a Bishop of Manchester from Wales ? The people of Manchester did not wish for a Bishop; or if they did, certainly not at the expense of ,Wales.

The House divided : for the clause, 44; against it, 82; Ministerial find Tory majority, 38.

The report was then agreed to.

2. AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

Mr. HUME, on Thursday, moved four resolutions declaratory of the injurious effects of the monopolies of the salt and opium trade, held by the East India Company, on the commerce of India; of the impolicy and injustice of imposing higher duties on East Indian productions than on those of the West Indian colonies ; and of the justice and equity of putting the same duties and no other on the manufactures of India, as are levied on the corresponding articles of British manufacture in India. These resolutions were founded on a petition from the inhabi- tants of Calcutta, voted at the first public meeting ever convened by a Sheriff in India. The petitioners also complained of the alterations in the government of the country, effected by the last India Bill, and prayed for additional guarantees for good government and a just ad- ministration of the laws. They objected to the India Bill, that it was framed for the benefit of the Company, not that of the inhabitants of India; and especially remarked, that the provision which rendered it necessary for official persons of rank to be educated at Haileybury College, made that part of the Act which abolished distinctions of colour and religion a dead letter. The sums levied on the natives for the support of the Church, the little encouragement given to edu- cation, and the amount of official salaries, were other topics of com- plaint in the petition ; all of which Mr. Hume considered to be worthy of the most serious attention of the House and the Ministers. Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE did not think the condition of India so des- perate as the petitioners seemed to consider it. Time should be allowed for the operation of the new Charter ; and the petitioners might have waited a little longer than nine months before they cried out so vehemently. One of the chief complaints was, that the power pre- viously exercised by the Supreme Court, in concurrence with the Governor and Council, had been taken from that court. This was an alteration adopted with extreme caution, and he was satisfied of its wisdom ; though it could not be supposed that the persons practising in that court, and who were the leading parties to the petition, would be pleased with it. He was not prepared to do away with the Haileybury College ; and he had yet to learn that it was improper to. allocate part of the revenue of the country for the support of the Established Church. Some of the natives objected to pay for a reli- gion in which they had no interest : why, perhaps those persons felt no interest in the Government, but yet they were obliged to pay taxes to it. They might prefer a Government of Rayahs and Mussulmans. If the parties to be taxed were to be consulted, it would be impossible to levy taxes, except for objects purely national; and, in that ease, they would soon have to give up taxes altogether. As to the lowering of the duties, if Mr. Poulett Thomson would consent to it, he should have no objection whatever.

Mr. HonG was opposed to discriminating duties, and hoped they would be put an end to; but he did not consider the salt-tax a mono- poly—it was imposed simply for the purpose of revenue.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON reminded the House, that in 1833, he found that there were twenty East Indian articles on which the duties were higher than on the same articles of West Indian produce : he had struck out no fewer than fifteen of them by one act. Last year the Coffee-duty had Leen reduced, and this year that on sugar was to be equalized ; leaving only spirits and tobacco on which the discriminative system operated. As to spirits, that duty might be taken off at some future time ; but the duty on tobacco produced a revenue of 3,000,000/., and were it abolished, some equivalent must be found.

Mr. SPRING RICE expressed his regret, that what had been done for India with so much care and with such good intentions, should now be characterized as a grievance and not a benefit.

Mr. HUSIE spoke in reply ; and the resolutions were then negatived.

3. RAILWAYS.

On Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition from the pro- prietors of shares in the Birmingham and Derby Railway against the bill for Regulating Tolls on Railways. He regretted that Mr. Mor. rison was not in his place, as he wished to know whether he intended to press his bill this session. It was necessary that his intention should be known ; as the uncertainty kept parties in complete sus- pense, and prevented the sale and purchase of shares. He hoped that Mr. Labouchere would state what the intentions of Government were respecting the measure; which be himself would oppose, on principle. He should take the tense of the House upon it.

Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that Mr. Morrison intended to press his bill, but could not state the intentions of Government with respect to it in Mr. Poulett Thomson's absence.

Mr. HAWES was glad that Sir Robert Peel intended to oppose the bill; which was calculated to have a very injurious tendency.

Mr. ROBINSON said, his constituents took a deep interest in the sub- ject. A large amount of capital was kept in suspense by the present uncertainty.

Mr. O'CosisTet.t. said, the bill created alarm in every part of the empire; the more especially, that being brought forward at this time, when many bills had been passed and vested interests created, it could not be retrospective, and therefore unjustly affected bills still in progress.

Sir ROBERT PRICE was convinced that the subject ought to be set at rest ; for the excitement respecting it was general.

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS agreed with Sir Robert Peel ; and hoped the debate would take place soon, that the public might know how to employ their capital. A great deal of capital was laid out in canals, on which it would be found that there was no inordinate profit.

4. TAMPERING WITH COMMITTEES.

On Wednesday, Sir CHARLES BURRELL called the attention of the House to a matter which affected his personal character— The charge which he wished to repel had reference to his conduct as a member of the late Brighton Railway Committee. It was a charge which he was sure honourable Members when they heard it would admit was a very flagrant one, if not one that amounted to a breach of the privileges of that House. He should state to the House, that there was an engineer, a Mr. Cundy, who had pro- posed a line of railway to Brighton, but one which had not been brought before the Committee. That individual had been using his (Sir C. Burrell's) name in a most reprehensible way. ; stating that the reason why lie had voted for Ste- phenson's line was his having hail 15,0001. awarded to him as compensation for land required for the railway, which land was not worth .2"0/. Now he begged leave to state to the House, that such an imputation was totally untrue ; in fact, he did not know what compensation would be given to him. The charge, he repeated, was totally untrue. It had been made by this Mr. Cundy, in a conversation which he had had with the Member for Wilts (Mr. Benett), who had kindly communicated it to him. That honourable Member was at pre- sent unfortunately out of town, in attendance upon the Assizes; but he would read a letter from him, stating the substance of what Mr. Cundy had said to him.

Sir Charles then read Mr. Benett's letter to the following effect— It stated that Mr. Cundy had said to Mr. Benett that the majority in the Committee in favour of Stephenson's line had been obtained by unfair means. Mr. Benett asked him what he meant? In reply, he said that Sir C. Burrell had been at first opposed to Stephenson's line (Sir Charles here remarked that that was not true), but that his support had been obtained for it by giving him 15,0001. for land that was not worth 2001. Mr. Cundy added, that several other members of the Committee, whose names he did not mention, had been won over in a similar way,—that one had got 20,0001., another 80001., &c. (" Hear, hear !" from some honourable Member.) The honourable Member should have the delicacy to wait and hear the case out before he cried " hear." Mr. Benett concluded his letter by telling him that he was at liberty to show it to any of his friends. He was most grateful to Mr. Benett for giving him an opportunity to declare, which he did most distinctly, that there was no truth in the charge. Having given a flat denial to the facts asserted, he left the case in the hands of the House, to deal with it as it should think proper. If he had been capable of any such conduct, he should not only be undeserving of a seat in that House, but unfit for admission to the society of gentlemen. He firmly believed that no member of the Committee was capable of such conduct.

Captain PECHELL said, that this was the first time he had heard of such a charge being made— It did not appear to him that there was any thing in it. The fact was, that rumours had gone through the country, and he believed with some jtatiee, tha some of the members of the Committee bad been tampered with. ( Cries of C4 Oh, oh ! " and " Hear, hear ") He believed, that such a UR •opery case as this was never before brought before the House, There was also another charge of a serious nature affecting an honourable Member of that House, who was stated to be a shareholder to the amount of several thomaud pounds,— saisely, that be had been tampered with in regard to a petition against this hoe, and the common report was that it was a mixed-up company. Now, he was quite aware that there was not one of the Committee personally interested in the land through which the line of road passed, although the contrary had been stated. He thought, however, that these.:repurts were unworthy of the attention of the House.

Mr. WYNN said, he should be astonished if any Member of the House gave credit to charges of the foulest corruption against another Member without positive proof of their truth— As to the reports alluded to, Captain I'echell had said that they might be false or they might be true, but they were unworthy of the attention of the House. Now, it was the bounden duty of every Member to bring forward such matters, and to put by any public business, even if it were of the greatest importance, in order that charges of this nature might be met ; and therefore he could not admit it to be a Parliamentary course to decide that such conduct was not worthy of the attention of the House. If the House wished to maintain its station in the public opinion, it must vindicate itself by punishing those wholwere guilty of such conduct, or, if the charges were untrue, those who were guilty of making them. He suggested that a day should be appointed, when Mr. Benett should be present, for the further discussion of the business ; and he would move...that ,Mr. Nicholas Wilcox Cutely be ordered to attend at the bar on that day.

Lord ARTHUR LENNOX said he would second the motion. He did not believe that Sir Charles Burrell, or any other member of the Com- mittee bud been guilty of conduct so derogatory to the character of a gentleman and a Member of that House.

Mr. Hawes wished to give Captain Peehell an opportunity of withdrawing or confirming a statement he bad understood him to have made,—numely, that in his opinion some of the members of the Com- mitted bad been tampered with. Was he mistaken in supposing him to have used such language ?

Captain PECHELL replied, that he had never intended to make any such insinuation against the members of the Committee— He merely meant that those assertions which had gone forth to the world should be treated as they deserved—with contempt, for they were not worthy of any consideration. Ile had brought no charge against Sir Charles Burrell ; he should be the last man to do so. He thought that Mr. Cundy, under the mortified feelings of disappointment, might have made assertions which he ought not to have done. He must reply to Mr. Hawes, that he did not mean to Insinuate that any member of the Committee had been tampered with in the slightest degree: but it was possible that some of his constituents might think otherwise.

Mr. WYNN then moved that Mr. Cundy be ordered to attend at the bar on Monday next.—Ordered.

5. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord Chancellor COTTENIIAM moved the second reading of the bill to Abolish Imprisonment for

Debt. He spoke for some time in defence and explanation of the measure, but in so low a tone of voice that hardly two consecutive sentences were heard by the reporters. He dwelt upon the reason for delaying the introduction of the bill to their Lordships : it arose from the absence of Lord Brougham, whom Ministers wished, and who wished himself to take the management of the bill, had his health per- mitted his discharge of Parliamentary duties. Still, however, Lord Cot- tenham observed, the measure was not laid before the House this year at so late a period as the bill of last sessions : the bill of last year only aeached them on the 16th August, whereas that which he now hoped would be read a second time had been on the table since the 30th of June. It was, moreover, founded on the Report of a Commission made so long ago as 1832; and it related to a subject upon which their Lord- ships must have made up their minds. For these reasons, he trusted that Ministers would not be blamed for the delay which had occurred, and that no objection would be made to proceeding with the bill on account of the period of the session at which they had arrived. Lord Cottenham then explained the chief clauses of the bill ; maintaining that its effect would be to render the recovery of debts more certain and less expensive.

The Duke of WELLING-row regretted the absence of Lord Brougham ; and his continued absence was one reason why it would be advisable to postpone the consideration of the measure to next session. There was a great pressure of business upon the House—business which could not be postponed ; and he was strongly of opinion that it would be im- possible to give the bill its due consideration during the remainder of the session,—which he was happy to hear would be terminated by an early prorogation. There were many very important alterations made by the bill in the law of the country as it affected the tenure of landed property : to these he could not consent without attentive considera- tion. He would not say that he was hostile to the principle of the measure ; but he was not prepared to pass, or even to discuss it this session ; and therefore he would move to postpone the second reading to that day three weeks.

Lord ABINGER supported the amendment, in a nearly inaudible speech. He dwelt much on the expensive machinery and large patron. age the bill would create ; but said he was not indisposed to a more judicious alteration of the existing laws ; in proof of which, he referred to the bill he had himself introduced when Attorney-General. That bill had been cordially approved of by the merchants of London ; but he found that the House of Commons was so bent upon violent reforms, that he abandoned his measure rather than be in effect defeated by those who went so much beyond him.

Lord MELBOURNE said, the time of prorogation depended upon circum- stances beyond the power of any man to control ; and the amendment of the Duke of Wellington would only carry them to the 1st of Au- gust,—which he apprehended, however great their exertions, would still find them sitting; and then they would have to consider the bill. He preferred going at once into Committee, and making what progress they could in the bill— He really could not see why they should not go into Committee, and why they should not consider whether the objections made by the noble duke and the noble and learned lord might not be overcome, and attain an object deeply desired alike by the country and by the House of Commons, which he bad no reason whatever to consider unattainable. When he considered the amount of business now upon the table, or the nature of that which they all knew was soon to occupy their attention, he saw nothing to induce them to postpone the measure. As to the state of the session, it was extremely early, compared with the periods to which their sittings had of late extended. (A tough.) The House had rarely risen of late years until the middle of Au- gust ; and their sittings bad often been protracted several days in September: they might therefore consider themselves rather as being just at its .....

uce-

meat than as approaching its termination. Having so much time before them —(Laughter)—the matter being so very important, and the other Intsitte-s not being so extremely pressing or overwhelming, he did not see any reason why they should not enter upon the consideration of the subject.

After a few words from Lord ABINGER and Lord WYNFORD, the House divided : For the amendment 46

Against it 22

Tory Majority 24 So the second reading was postponed for three weeks

6. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES.

Lord MELBOURNE, on Monday, moved the second reading of the Registration of Births Bill ; at the same time explaining the leading provisions of the Marriage Bill. With reference to the first mea,tire, PA• be maintained the importance of having a correct register of WI the apart from religious considerations— No one of their Lordships conversant with the business of life, or engaged in its transactions, could have failed to experience at some time or other t he diffi- culty of ascertaining some facts of importance to his property and hi, (molly. Those who were conversant with the administration of justice and the natore of the cases which were brought forward for legal adjudication, were well ac- quainted with the imperfections of the system of registration adopted in this country, and the great inconveniences which had arisen from the impos-itii:ity of ascertaining facts of great and vital importance. At present nobody could tell what period might have elapsed between the birth of a child and the 11 ite of its baptism; nobody could tell how many children were not baptized at all.

The difficulties ill the way of amending the law for the celebration and registration of marriages were greater than those relittieg to the registration of births ; and Lord Melbourne explained the 111CillIS by which the bill professed to remove these difficulties.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY felt such strong objections to the details of the two measures, that nothing but his desire to relieve the conscientious scruples of the Dissenters induced him to consider them in Committee. It was admitted by the clergy of the Church of Eng. land, that the laws relating to marriages and the registration of births required amendment, but sufficient alterations might be made without going the lengths proposed by the bills. The Registration of Births Bill was an inquisitorial, compulsory, and expensive measure, and never could be carried into effect in England. It separated things which had always been united in the Christian church—the naming and baptism of the child— There was not one petition which be had received from the clergy which did not insist most anxiously upon that point. The practical effect Ismail be, that when persons had once named their children without going to the clan eh, it would make them careless and indifferent about bringing them to the font. Why should the existing arrangements with the clergy of the Church he dis- turbed? They had originally had the custody of the registers, and he never understood that they had been accused of faithlessness or negligence in making and keeping the registrations. Certainly, as far as the Dissenters were con- cerned, the registers were imperfect, because Dissenters did not conic to the church. That was a reason, therefore, why they should have a register of their own ; but it was not a reason why the keeping of the registers the births of members of the Church should be taken from the clergy. He could not see any reason why there should not be a general registry ounce, to o Lich should he transmitted duplicates of the registers to be still kept ly the clergy of the Church, and also of the registers which were kept by the Dissenters. If this were done, all the complicated machinery of the measure Con, before them might be avoided.

With respect to the Marriage Bill, one objection to it w.._, iibit it interfered with the marriages of Jews and Quakers, and unnecessarily, because the arrangements of these two sects afforded a security to the state against clandestine marriages. He had no objection to giving the Dissenters the same liberty as the Jews and Quakers, if they would give the same security against secret and improper marriage; but the bill provided no such security. He also strongly objected to the cele- bration of marriages without any religious ceremony— There was a strong feeling throughout the country against such a ;Ilan being authorized. For who were the persons to accomplish those nini images? They were the Registrars. This bill gave them very large powers, such that of determining who were persons prohibited by law from intermarrying, and many other points which very often puzzle clergymen, and would, of course, much oftener puzzle the Registrar. If it were necessary to authorize Imo riages of this description, let them be done before a Magistrate—before a man of edu- cation, who could form a judgment of the matters before him, and whuse respectability would give a security to the country that no indecency or im- proper ;conduct would take place. It was his intention, therefore, is hen the bill went into Committee, to propose such amendments as would tiring the hill into what he considered to be its legitimate form and object—that of giving relief to the Dissenter. For although he agreed in what the noble vise ,,,,,, t had said as to the necessity of getting a more perfect register of births, he did aot think that was an object worth obtaining at the expense of all the complicated machinery proposed by the bill. He therefore considered it in the -shove 114ht tij of giving relief to the Dissenters ; and that relief he would give as far it dill not interfere with the religious scruples of the members of the Church, as tar as it did not disturb the marriage laws, and as far it did not interfere with those formulw which had long been held sacred by the people. Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained that the Marriage Bill would be onerous and expensive and disagreeable to the poor—

In addition to all the information the poor man was now called upon to give, he must state his profession or condition in life, the church or other place n here he intended to be married, declare whether he or the woman was of age or under age, and state whether he knew of any impediment to the marriage, of

which of course he could know nothing at all. But this was not e gin : he was required to find two persons who knew him, and also the Registrar, who were to go with him to the Registrar to declare that they believed that what he had stated in his notice was true. The difficulty of this was obvious. '1 li!ri let their Lordships look at the expense imposed by this bill : he now paid nothing for the banns ; but by this bill he would first have to pay a shilling for entering the notice ; next he would have to travel it might be five or six miles to the Registrar, thus would he lose a day's work ; and the two persons that went with him must be paid for their loss of time ; so that the expense by notice would be 3s. 6d. or 4.1., whereas by banns there was no expense. .11••■■•• Lord HOLLAND—" They pay for publishing banns." Lod ELLEN HOROCC H —" There was another thing which might under rime circumstances be of rather serious importance. At present every stranger mit,Ist forbid a marriage who knew that it was incestuous; but there was no provision in this bill to prevent any incestuous marriage. He did not impute that to in- tention ; but It was a gross error ; and when men took upon themselves to legislate upon matters of so much importance, they ought not to commit so gross an error.

Then how would the Registration of Births Bill operate upon the poor man ?— Ile was required within eight days of the birth of his child to give notice of

the birth to the Registrar. Nov, in no eight days in the year was it more in- convenient for a poor man to be absent fur a day from his home. The notice would not be given ; but what would he the consequence? If lie did not give notice, yeti inflicted upon hint a penalty of 20s.—no less than three weeks' wages. And for what purpose was the notice to be given It was for no benefit to hint. ‘Vhat del it signify to him whether the birth was registered or nut ? It was required to be dune just to gratify the statistical fancies of some few philo. sophel a, in order that they might know how many persons died and how many Were born in a year. If they wished to obtain that information, they ought to ray fur it, and not make the poor man pay for it, with a penalty. But sup- posing the poor man omitted to give notice, he was told that, for some reason or other, the child should be afterwards registered. Now observe the peculiar correctness and cote of the framers of the bill not to give trouble. If, after fifteen days, the child was to be registered, some person m ho was present at the birth must attend the Registrar to testify to the birth. It often happened that only arte, and sometimes only two persons were present at the birth—the mother being one. How was it possible to get the nurse several weeks after- wards to meet the Registrar, who had duties to perform that required him always to be going about the country. Besides this, the poor man, by attending the Registrar, would be convicting himself of not having given notice of the birth within eight days ; and he would be liable to a charge of 7s. Sd. for the delay. That was not all ; for at the time the notice was given, it was required that the name of the child should be given. Nov, it was perfectly well-known that, in point of practice, it was not usual to determine within eight days what the name of the child should be. It very often happened, too, that the name was changed. This change the bill treated almost as an offence; for if notice were lint given of any change made in the name of the child, the poor man was liable to an additional penalty of 51. Vas not that a monstrous provision ? But it was worse than that ; for although he must pay the 5/. penalty, be could not get the child registered at all. The bill positively said that he should not. Surely this was not the way to prepare acts of Parliament. There was one provision of a very offensive nature, and which ought not to be suffered to become law. It was required that within three days of the death of a person, notice should be given theseof to the Registrar • and within eight days the Registrar was authorized to obtrude himself on ihe widow—on the very dry. it might be, of the funeral—to answer all sorts of questions, merely to gratify the curiosity of a a few individuals who were wedded to statistics. All this was vexatious, and more than vexatious.

He also contended that the machinery of the bill would be unwork- able ; that the officers appointed to register births, marriages, and deaths, would not be able to get through the duties assigned to them ; and that the compensation would at all events he inadequate. With all his ohjections, however, he should not oppose Lord Melbourne's motion, but would go into Committee with the desire to make good laws of both bills.

Lord MEt.routtNE admitted that great difficulty had been found in framing the bills before the (louse; but if their Loolships would go into Committee really with a desire to obtain the object aimed at, he thought that they would find their opinions of the vexatious operation of both measures to have been much exaggerated.

Both the bills were then read a second time ; to be committed on Monday.

7. PRISONERS COUNSEL BILL.

On Thursday, the order of the day for receiving the report on the Prisoners Counsel Bill having been read, Lord WHARNELIFFE said that be considered the measure to be un- necessary, and likely to occasion an increase of crime. The facilities for the guilty to escape were already too numerous; and if counsel were permitted to address Juries, the uncertainty on which professed rogues calculated would be increased. It remained to be proved that the proposed measure would lesson the number of wrong verdicts. He would venture to say, that Sir Frederick Pollock or Mr. Sergeant Wilde would find, that as many wrong verdicts had been given in trials for misdemeanour where counsel were allowed, as in cases of felony where they were not permitted to address the Jury for the de- fendant. Lord Whanieliffe concluded by moving that the report be received that day three months.

Lord LYNDHURST complained of the extremely inconvenient course taken by Lord 1Vharneliffe. On the second reading of the bill, every Law Lord spoke in favour of the principle of the bill ; and Lord Wharneliffe—who was also a Law Lord—was then silent. Now, how- ever, lie came down and set to work to attack the principle of the bill. This unsteadiness—this halting between two opinions—was produc- tive of the inconvenience, that either the noble lord's arguments must remain unanswered, or it would be necessary to go over the whole of the arguments so fully stated a few nights before. Lord Lyndhurst went on to contend, that if there was any occasion on which the elo. quence and zeal of counsel could be more fitly employed than another, it was in a case where the life of a fellow-creature was involved. Ile had no fear that felons would escape by the eloquence of their advo- cates: the rule was that DO man should be found guilty of felony except on evidence "so clear and plain that all the counsel in the world should not be able to gainsay it :" such were Lord Nottingham's words on the trial of Lord Cornwallis. In the United States, prison- ers were allowed counsel in all cases, and no inconvenience resulted from the practice. Such was also the ease in Jamaica and the West India Islands. These facts outweighed all speculative opposition, however clear and ingenious. The bill did away with an absurd and cruel anomaly in the law; which, while it allowed prisoners to be de- fended by counsel in cases of misdemeanour and high treason, denied that advantage to persons accused of the intermediate crime of felony. Suppose a foreigner, ignorant of the language and laws of the coun- try,—or a wretched old man, deaf, dumb, and blind,—were put on his tnal, would it not be a mockery to say to him, " You cannot defend yourself by means of counsel, but you may speak for yourself?" The first principle of justice was, that no man should be condemned with- out being hearth in his defence. How was this principle to be ist-- preted ? Did it mean, that after in trial of ten hours, an ignorant man should get up and comment upon the evidence? Was that hearing man in his defence ? Lord Lyetnrurst then addressed himself to the Bishops, and urged them to unite with him in wiping out a stain upon the judicial system—the relic of a barbarous age; and concluded by reading a passage from the work of a dignitary of the Church, in which the injustice of refusing counsel to prisoners was forcibly put and elo- quently expressed.

Lord RADNOR was surprised at the sudden change in Lord Lynd- hurst's opinion on this subject. Ile had himself heard him, when Attorney-General, express his decided opposition to the principle. Lord Lyndhurst seemed to have no fixed or settled opinion on the sub- ject. Though fearful that its operation might be mischievous, Lord Radnor would still vote for the bill.

Lord LYNDHURST had no recollection of the conversation alluded to. He once told Lord Brougham, that he had not sufficiently considered the subject to be able to make up his mind upon it, though he rather thought, with Sir Michael Forster, that it would be injurious to allow counsel to prisoners. Since that time, however, he had had experience as a judge which had caused him to correct that opinion. Ile had taken upon himself the charge of this bill at the earnest request of Lord Denman ; at whose suggestion and that of Lord Abinger, certain alte- rations had been made in it; and he thought that Lord Abinger had quite as meat practical experience on the subject as Lord Wharncliffe. Lord ABINGER, :lie Duke of RICHMOND, and Lord Chancellor Cor- TENAM, supported the bill. The Earl of DEVON opposed it ; but said he would not vote against it.

Lord WHARSCLIFIE withdrew his motion. The report was brought up, and agreed to; a clause having been added to the bill, declaratoryof the right of prisoners, in cases of summary conviction before Magis- trates, to call for the assistance of attornies.

Last night. the bill was read a third time. The LORD CHANCEL- LOR said he would bring forward a clause to allow prisoners to see the depositions against them before magistrates, which would meet the views of the Duke of Richmond. The discussion was therefore ad- journed till Monday.

8. STAMP-DUTIES BILL.

The House of Commons went into Committee on this bill on Mon- day ; when Mr. Sentsc BICE moved to postpone the first 162 clauses, and to proceed to the consideration of those which affected Newspapers; intimating at the same time, that he should !probably postpone the other parts of the bill to the next session.

Clause 16:1d was then proposed.

Mr. 11rAKLEY objected to it, as bringing " pamphlets " under the liability to duty and other regulations affecting newspapers. He moved to strike out the words " or pamphlets." Mr. SPRING Hictl said, that if Mr. Wakley would postpone his mo- tion till they came to the schedules, he would show most distinctly that the object' i did not apply—that he did not intend to charge pamphlets wit! • .e same duty as newspapers.

After a disci: -ion, in the course of which Mr. O'CONNELL and M. OM:LIU:RN spoke a few words, the Committee divided; and, rejected Mr. Wakley's motion, by 69 to I.

Mr. JERvis then objected, that the clause inflicted upon the printer of a supplement of a newspaper punishment for a fraud of which he might Out be cognizant.

Mr. RICE said, that this clause had been _framed at the earnest re- quest of newspaper proprietors.

When this measure was first proposed, it was suggested to him by the parties to whom he had alluded. that there were often foreign expresses came in at a late hour, which contained matter of great interest, and there were often debates in Parliament which would require much more space than was afforded by the ordinary size of the paper. On these grounds, amongst others, it was urged that if a supplement of a sheet were allowed on the payment of a lialfpeany duty, it would he a very great convenience and advantage to the conductors of newspapers, and would nut occasion any loss to the revenue. So far he was perfectly willing to go; but if a general power was granted under the proviirom of this act to a paper, for instance, which was published once a week, of bring- ing out supplements on consecutive days that on which it appeared, the effect would be to have a publication brought out and continued subject only to half the duty intended by the law. Now to guard against this obvious fraud of defeating the imposition of the penny duty under the colour of halfpenny sup- plements, the present clause was drawn up, which directed that the supplement should be published of the same date and by the same parties as the newspaper itself.

Dr. BOWRING complained that the clause inflicted a fine upon the publisher of the supplement of 20/., but on the seller of it, who might be an innocent person, 501.

Mr. Rica willingly reduced the 50/. to 20/.

Mr. WaxtEv wished proprietors to be subject to the same penalties .ms printers or publishers.

Mr. RICE would not accede to this proposition; and the clause was carried.

Clause 164th, which states who shall be considered as the proprie-

tors of a newspaper at the Stamp-office, elicited a long and desultory discussion. Mr. CHARLES BULLER, Lord SANDON, and Mr. J. JERVIS.

wished all the proprietors to be registered, and deemed liable for the contents of the paper they owned. Dr. BowRING said, it would be impracticable to get at the real proprietors. The names on the registry might be altered constantly, so as to baffle those who sought to lay hold of the real proprietors. Mr. PRYME said, that if their names were to be registered, and they were to be held personally responsible for what appeared in their papers, respectable persons would be de- terred from taking shares in newspapers. To which Mr. CHAIM= BULLER replied, that secrecy only favoured the patrons and employers of obscure and worthless slanderers.

Mr. SPRING RICE would gladly have proposed the registration oil& the proprietors, had he not been afraid of being charged with a desire to bear hard upon the press.

A good deal of conversation also arose respecting the returns of the stamps supplied to newspapers; many Members complaining of the

frauds committed by those who took out stamps which they did not consume. Mr. SPRING RICE said, he had no objection to allow those who wished it to have a distinctive die on their paper, but he would not make the regulation compulsory.

It was also objected to this clause, that it compelled all newspaper proprietors to purchase their stamps only at Somerset House, instead of being allowed to accommodate each other with the sale or loan of stamps. But no alteration was made, and the clause was passed.

/ The 175th clause was the next which provoked discussion : it im- poses penalties on the printers, publishers, and sellers of unstamped newspapers.

Mr. WAELEY protested asainst its severity.

Dr. BOWRING put it to Government, whether it was worth while to carry on the war against the unstamped press.

Mr. INT said, that having resolved upon a penny stamp, for which a full equivalent was given by the free transmission of papers through- out the country, the question now was, whether that duty should not be collected, and the fair dealer protected. Any regulation which went beyond this purpose he would readily abandon.

Mr. CitaRLEs BeLLER thought that Mr. Rice's enactments went further than was necessary for the collection of the tax.

Mr. PitvatE wished to know whether the existing law imposed pe- nalties on a person having an unstamped newspaper in his possession ?

Mr. RICE said, the Government must have the power of seizing a smuggled article in any person's hands.

Mr. O'CoNNELL objected to the clause— Every person ought to be supposed innocent till guilt was proved ; but the effect of this clause would be to put the person accused to the moot' of his inno- cence. It might be said that there were some instances id. fiscal laws having a similar effect, but there was this distinction between the present ease and those referred to—the illegal possession of spiritsand tobacco was established by show- ing that the one was held without a licence ; but what guilt could then: be in merely having possession of a printed paper? Persons might have unstamped papers in their possession without a guilty knowledge. It was believed out of doors that this bill was meant to gagging bill : he did not believe that, but he trusted it would not be persevered in, so objectionable as it was felt to be. It was impossible for any one to vote for the clause without feeling that he was voting for that which would violate every principle of justice.

Mr. VILLIERs protested against the clause.

Mr. RieE referred to the existing act ; and he found it imposed a penalty of .20/. on a person having ate unstamped paper " knowingly and wilfully" in his possession. He was ready to insert the wads " knowingly and wilfully" in his clause. The present law would take prosecutions out of the hands of informers, and make the Attor- ney-General sole prosecutor.

Mr. AGLIONEY proposed to add the words " without sufficient ex- cuse."

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that " wilfully " implied an intention to violate the law.

The clause was then agreed to.

Mr. O'CONNELL proposed to amend the 117th clause, by making those who wrote in newspapers liable, as well as the printers and pub- lishers, for what they a rote. Their names should be registered.

Mr. RICE thought the names of the proprietors a sufficient security. Mr. O'CoNNELL—" The writers ought to be discovered." Mr. Rice—" You would not make a man criminate himself ?"

Mr. O'CONNELL—" There never was a worse rule than that against allowing a man to criminate himself? "

' The clause was passed without alteration.

On clause I 7Sth being proposed, Mr. PRYME objected to it, as giving a power to the Stamp-office to suspend the distribution of stamps to a proprietor in arrear of advertisement-duty. Ile moved to strike out the words which had that effect : but this motion was negatived, with- oqt a division ; and the clause was passed.

Clause 179th was agreed to, and the Committee rose.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

ENGLISH TITHE BILL. All the clauses in this bill were agreed to by the Lords, in Committee, on Tuesday. No material alteration was made in the measure, and there was no division on any of the clauses.

SCOTCH. UNIVERSITIES BILL Lord 111L111OURNE last night post- poned the recommittal of this bill to next Thursday. Lord-LYNDHURST thought the bill had better be postponed till next session : it had ex- cited much alarm and dissatisfaction. Lord MELBOURNE wished it to undergo further discussion at any rate, with a view to ulterior mea- sures.

SOUTH DURHAM RAILW.AY BILL. The Marquis of CLANIticsin.DE moved the second reading of the bill on Monday. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY opposed the motion. The railway would cut up his grounds, on which he had expended large sums of money. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, the bill did not go upon the principle of allowing the landlords sufficient compensation for the injury done to their property ; and therefore he should oppose it. Lord HowneN and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE supported the bill. The House divided : for the second reading, 19; against it, 51. So the bill was lost.

Last night, Lord RADNOR presented a petition complaining of the rejection of the bill.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said be would repeat that the railway would confer no public benefit, but an unfair advantage over other coal pro- prietors upon the projectors of the bill. Lord CLANRICARDE said that the railway would bring coals to the Metropolis at a cheaper rate, and therefore would be a public benefit. It was a most unusual course to refuse to read a bill a second time be- cause two noble lords said it would injure their private property

Lord HATT-ma-roar bad voted with Lord 1Vharneliffe for the reasons stated by that noble lord, and would vote again in the same way.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY suspected that Lord Radnor must have some shares in the railway. After the decisive majority against the bill, he thought the discussion on the subject ought not to have been renewed. Though the case was particularly strong as affected himself, all the other great landed proprietors were also affected by it. Lord RADNOR had only done his duty in presenting the petition, and denied that he had any private interest in the railway. Ile still thought it unusual to oppose such a bill on the second reading. Here the matter was dropped.

PERSONAL TITHES. The bill for abolishing tithes on labour went through a Committee of the House of Commons on Monday, after some opposition from Mr. GOULBURN.

EMIGRATION. Mr. WALTER, 011 Monday, moved an address to the King to ascertain by whose authority a certain handbill, describing the inducements to emigrate to Van Diemen's Land, was placarded by the Postmasters in different parts of the county. It appeared to have been done by the instigation of the Emigration Committee ; but that Corn- mittee made delusive statements of the advantages of emigrating to Van Diemen's Lund. The new Poor-law was disgusting the people of this country ; who, sooner than be driven into workhouses by it, might be persuaded to labour under a tropical sun. Mr. Walter dwelt for some time on the evils of emigration, and the ruin brought upon the 3oung females sent out to Van Diemen's Land, many of whom be- came prostitutes.

For some time Mr. Walter's motion was not seconded: at length Mr. WAELEY said, " I second the motion ;" upon which Mr. O'CoN- NELL exclaimed, " Oh! Wakley !"

Sir GEORGE GREY said, that all the information Mr. Walter now asked for had been already given him. He hoped that the people of England would not adopt their notion of the benefits of emigration from anonymous paragraphs in the Hobart Town newspapers. As to the declaration of 11r. Walter that the people of this country were driven out of it, like so many slaves, by the operation of the Poor-law, nothing could be more unfounded— It could not be denied that in some instances young women had turned out hadly. They had these facts upon authority, that many of those females ob- tained respectable places. The names of the individuals who obtained them, the dates of their arrival, the mode of their employment, were all to be found in the impels on the table of the House.

Mr. Cnaut.Es lausiniscroN earnestly defended the conduct of the Emigration Committee; and read a letter in which the arrangements on board the emigration vessels, and the conduct of the women on board of them, was spoken of in high terms. Mr. WALTER said, he relied upon official documents for the truth of his statements.

The motion was negatived, without a division.

Pons AT COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL. The House being in Com- mitttee on this bill, on Monday, Mr. Gourauntat moved to strike out the first clause ; which confines the polling at county elections to one (lay, and authorizes the poll to he kept open to six o'clock. Lord Jona RessELL, Mr. PaYME, and Mr. J. E. DENisoN sup- ported the clause. Sir Roemer PEEL said, the clause would give a great advantage to those residing in large towns and near the polling-places-

It was to be considered, that when the pull closed at so late an hour as six o'clock, there must he greater apprehension of intimidation by the voters, than when those voters had the option of coaling in to poll any time in two days. There was, too, a monopoly of carriages to be apprehended—that was more likely to come into operation where the polling was confined to one day. It thi:,ht be attempted for one day ; but if there were to he a second day's poll, such all attempt would be defeated by the spirit it was likely to excite in the country. lie considered that no evils had followed from the two days' polling; no solid reason had been given for the change. Lord Ilowtea was sure that Sir Robert Peel never had the misfor- tune to stand for a county, or he would not have said there was no solid reason for the charge— As to the inconvenience arising from intimidation, he believed that intimida- tion was fir more rare at county than borough elections. ("No, no!" front 3Ienibers on the Opposition benches.) There was, to be sure, a great deal of intimidation in counties, but it was of another kind than that referred to by the right honourable baronet. (" Hear, hear !" front the Ministerial benches.) Ile did not see that closing the poll in one day was likely to increase the power of the landlords, any more than giving an opportunity to the intimidation of the mob. As to the monopoly, he contested a county under the old system, when such a practice was attempted; and he could say that it was easily guarded against. it could not be done without some previous notice. Under the proposed system, it was to be observed that the distance which the voter would have to travel to the polling-place would be very short indeed.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had no objection to make the polling close at six o'clock.

The clause then passed, by a vote of 64 to 31; and the House re- sinned.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF STAFFORD. Mr. DIVETT moved, on Tuesday, that no writ for the borough of Stafford should be issued before the first day of next session. Lord LINCOLN said, that as a bill for the disfranchise- ment of the borough was before the other House, it would be proper to move the suspension of the writ for a few days only. Mr. SPRING RICE agreed with Lord Lincoln, and recommended Mr. Divett to give notice of his intention to move the suspension of the writ for the longer period.

Mr. DivErr moved and gave notice accordingly; and the motion was carried.

TILE LIGHTHOUSES BILL went through a Committee of de House on Tuesday.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY BILL. Captain ALSACE& brought up the report of the Committee on Wednesday.

Mr. POTTER objected to the report being received. Many of the clauses in the bill were grossly insulting to the Dissenters. One of' the clauses enacted that the cemetery intended for Churchmen should be consecrated, but that the Disssenters should be interred in the un- consecrated portion of the ground. Distinctions were carried to great lengths, but be had thought that in the grave there were no dis- tinctions. Dr. BOWaING, Mr. CHARLES LCSHINGTON, Mr. HAWES, Mr. WAKLEY, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. WILES, spoke in strong terms of the insult offered to the Dissenters.

Lord SANDON could see no objection to the clauses, provided they meant nothing further than having two vaults. If any wider distinction were intended, it was full time it should be removed. Captain ALSAGER disclaimed any wish to insult the Dissenters ; and be could not discern any such, intention in the bill; which had been discussed clause by clause in the Committee. lie would, however, consent to the recommittal of the bill.

Ordered to be recommitted.

HACKNEY-COACH Brae. Twenty clauses of this bill were agreed to in Committee on Wednesday, when its progress was stopped by the House being counted out.

DANISH Cams's. On the reading of the order of the day last night, Mr. CLAY moved for a Select Committee of inquiry into the claims of certain British merchants whose ships had been seized in the Baltic by the Danes before any declaration of war was made. Government had received upwards of 2000,000/. from confiscated Danish property, and had discharged some of the claims of British merchants on Denmark, but the persons whose claims he advocated had not been so well treated.

Mr. Hums:, Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. Herr, Sir J. R. REID, and Mr. PARKER, supported the motion ; which was opposed by Mr. SPRING RICE on the ground that the seizures were made according to the law of nations. It appeared that the claims amounted only to 66411. The SOLICITOR-GENFRAT. and Mr. GOULUURN also opposed the motion ; which was negatived by 59 to 51. • THE TROUTBECK CASE. Yesterday, the House met at twelve o'clock ; when SIr. Wannuorox presented a petition from certain parties claiming to be heirs of Samuel Troutbeck, a merchant ut Madras, who died in 1783, leaving property which in 1815 was worth upwards of I-10,0001., and which in default of heirs ( Troutheek's will, by which he left the property to a dimity in Wapping, having been set aside as contrary to the Statute of Morainal,') had been taken possession of by the Crown. Mr. Warburton entered at great length, and very ably into the claim of the petitioners : and, after a few remarks from Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, in favour of the petition, the discussion was adjourned to Monday next.

TRINITY HARBOUR BILL. Sir ANDREW LEITH Hay moved, on Thursday, that a Committee be appointed " to search the Lords' jour-

nals, for the purpose of ascertaining what proceedings had been taken with respect to the Leith Harbour Bill since it had been sent up to the House of Lords." Sir Andrew said, he made this motion for the pur- pose of moving for leave to introduce a new bill during the present session.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL objected to this motion, at so late a period. Sir ANDREW Ilay said, it was necessary, as the Lords had made alterations in the money clause of the bill, which would be fatal to it. It was unfair to frustrate a useful bill in such a manner.

Mr. WILK?, supported the motion. Mr. O'CONNELL said, the bill had been rendered abortive, by a blunder—or something Worse—in the other House. The case for the Trinity umr Bill had been completely made out. Sir GEonee CLERK opposed the motion. But it was carried, and the Committee appointed. • Last night, Sir ANDREW Hay presented the report of the Committee, and moved for leave to bring in a fresh bill. The motion was opposed by Sir JOHN CAMPBELL and Sir GEORGE: CLERK ; supported by Mr. WILES, Sir EDWARD Cooniscroai, and Mr. Hume; and carried by 73 to 56.