Debates anb lprottebings in arI talncnt.

MILITARY REFORMS. MILITARY REFORMS.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day for going into Committee on the remaining Military and Naval Estimates was the occasion for a string of propositions on the subject of military reform.

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS drew attention to the case of Medical Officers and Paymasters of Regiments, who were not included in the benefits of re- tiring pay allowed by the warrant of July 1846. Be calculated that the extension of the advantage to them would not cost the country more than 1,300/. Mr. Fox Mstima was unwilling to disturb an arrangement maie SO lately as 1846: he referred to recent proceedings for proof that Govern- ment are disposed to consider the interests of the Army, and promised that in any future arrangements the claims of Surgeons and Paymasters should be duly considered.

Sir DE LACY EVANS moved an address to the Queen praying for inquiry it* =Wes matters,—namely, ration-stopping in the Colonies; defective

marching allowance in Ireland and Scotland; the case of nine petitioners, who had adopted the delusive commutation of pensions offered by warrant of the War-oce-in 1832; the lack of barrack-accommodation, especially for the decent accommodation of noncommissioned officers and privates; the claims of various classes of officers to various honorary and pecuniary advantages; -and the system of military education at Sandhurst College. The nine pensioners who accepted the commutation in 1832 had derived no advantage from it; and he calculated that they had an equitable claim to arrears of pay for ten or twelve years, about 2001. each. To illustrate the want of barrack-accommodation, he described the state of the barracks in the Metropolis—

The barrack-rooms were 83 feet long by 20 feet broad and 12 feet high : in such a room twenty men and one or two noncommissioned officers had to live—to eat, drink, sleep, clean their clothes, &c. There were five inches only between each of their beds. There was not the smallest provision for married men, but they were obliged to sleep with their wives in the same room, and the poor women were liable to be confined there; and there were but nine inches between the bot- toms of their beds and the table on which they dined. It was true, in some cases married men might be permitted to have a lodging out of the barracks; but they were allowed only three farthings per day to bear the expense of it. He was confident that the pension-list was increased more by this neglect of the health of the troops in barrack-rooms than by any other cause. He contended that there ought to be small separate apartments for married men, and also an apartment in which the men could read; otherwise what was the use of barrack libraries?

Touching upon the system of promotions, General Evans commented on the exclusion of Colonel Peyronnet Thompson from the last Brevet.

Mr. Fox MAULE replied to many points in this discursive requisition •

admitting that several of them merited attention. He allowed that the system of commuted pensions established by the act of 1830 had failed; and he briefly described the disastrous fate of pensioners who settled in Canada. Lord Durham had made strong remonstrances on the condition of these men; in consequence of their sufferings, 4id. a day of their pen- sions was restored to them; and Mr. Manle could not conceive how the nine petitioners had been excluded from that arrangement. The experience of 1830-3 has been a lesson to Government. The military colonization about to be attempted in New Zealand will be under a very different system: the soldiers retain their pensions, and are under the conduct of officers who will look after their comfurts. If this system thrive, as he did not doubt it would, a system of military colonization might be carried out to a very con- siderable extent. He regretted the accidental omission of Colonel Thomp- son from the brevet; but the like omission of Lord John Russell's brother showed that there was no wrong intention. The improvement of barrack- accommodation must be looked to as fast as the state of the public finances would permit—

Ile thought that the canteens and canteen rooms might well be appropriated to

day reading and mess-rooms, in which the soldier might take advantage of the libra- ry: proposed to be furnished to each regiment. With respect to the accommodation given to the married soldier, he had himself often blushed to see the system in barrack-rooms, and wondered how any woman could agree to occupy a bed with her husband surrounded only with a cotton screen in the midst of eighteen or twenty men. Still, this was a matter which must be regulated by the state of the finances of the country.

The motion for an address was withdrawn.

Captain PECIIELL called for some explanation as to the success of the new system for the suppression of the slave-trade on the coast of Africa. In reply, Mr. WARD stated that no difficulty had arisen as to joint cap- ture by English and foreign cruisers, no such captures having taken place; and he briefly described regulations for rendering the service on the coast of Africa less tedious and unhealthy for officers and men.

The House went into Committee, and the votes were passed.

On Thursday, Mr. Fox Matrix moved the third reading of the Army Service Bill. Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS renewed his pertinacious opposition, moving that the bill be read a third time on that day six months; and the measure was briefly debated, without a particle of novelty in the arguments on either side. Mr. Fox MAULE, however, took the opportunity of as- suring the House, that the bill should not receive the sanction of the Crown without an opportunity being given to the highest officers of the Army for expressing their opinion on it. The motion for the third reading was affirmed, by 91 to 42. Five clauses were struck out of the bill on the mo- tion of Mr. Fox MAULE, to be incorporated (if we understand his expla- nation) in the Mutiny Act; and the bill passed.

COST OF PRIVATE BILLS.

On Tuesday, Mr. HUME moved for leave to introduce a bill to establish a taxation of costs on private bills in the House of Commons. He stated that he acted in conformity with the report of the Select Committee on Pri- vate Bills; which recommended that no time should be lost before intro- ducing such a measure— Every other court in this country had the power of checking, controlling, and regulating the expense of its proceedings; and the bill which he had been re- quested to propose was for the purpose of giving to the Speaker of the House the same power as the Lord Chancellor possessed in the Court of Chancery, by which a scale of fees was framed, and an officer appointed to tax the bills of all those who choose to submit to such taxation. There was, however, one question of con- siderable difficulty, namely, whether all bills of costs should necessarily, be taxed? A difference of opinion certainly did exist on that point; but the Committee recom- mended as a general rule, that all bills should be taxed before any persons were called upon to pay any part of the expenses. To show the importance of such a measure, he mentioned some cases that came before the Committee. In the Appendix to the Report of last session was the examination of a resident local judge in Liverpool on the subject: that gen- tleman stated that not less than sixty-two local bills existed in that borough; and on the Committee asking for an account of the expenses incurred before that House for legislation since the passing of the Reform Bill, he gave the following- " Liverpool Corporation, for local acts, 1836 to 1844, 24,1251.; Liverpool Sewerage, Commission, 1842 to 1843, 3,9201.; Liverpool and Ilmington Waterworks Com- pany, 1822 to 1843, 3,6181.; Liverpool Docks, 1838 to the 31st of November 1846, 31,2421.• Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company, 1823 to 1845, 7,6981.; Liverpool Gas-light Company, 58 George Ill. c. 66, and 4 Victoria c. 28, and opposition, 5,8851; Bootle Waterworks, Liverpool, 3,1641.; Toxteth Park local act, 1842 to 1846, 2,6791. Total, Liverpool, 82,3311." If all those bills had been submitted to taxation before the authorities were war- ranted in paying them, he had no hesitation in saying that there would have been a very considerable reduction in that amount. In future, therefore, if the House should sanction the bill which he proposed, that remedy would be avail- able. The Trustees of the river Clyde—a most important trust, certainly—had spent since 1836, in applications to that House and in law expenses, 56,8471.,--as large a MDR as was actually laid out in the improvement of the river, the Parlia- mentary expenses alone being 20,468/. At the end of the report, the Committee thought it right to put an example of how much could be charged for doing very little business; and he would now mention it. The Coal Term Act of Newcastle expired the session before last; a bill was brought in to continue it; it consisted of only two clauses, a third being introduced in Committee: he understood from the Member for Sunderland, who was on the Committee, that not more than an hour VMS occupied before them; yet the attorney's bill was 1,9851. Only that morning he had received from Bury an account of the expense of a bill that passed that House last session: it was entirely a sanatory bill; but the charge to the Corpora- tion was 3,6761.

The preliminary expenses of the London and York Railway Bill amountedlo no less a sum than 432,6201. The preliminary expenses of passing the bill for the Direct Northern Railway was 128,4141; the expenses of the London and York Extension was 309,2061.; making in the whole 432,620/. Leave given to bring in the bill.

CATHOLIC PENAL LAWS.

On Wednesday, at the early sitting, the order of the day was the Com- mittee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; and a discussion was revived On the whole measure and its principle. This went over ground which had been beaten in the previous debates; any novelty that there was being rather in the manner than the matter of the treatment, and that but slight. Thegeneral measure MIS opposed by Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. PLUMPTSE, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. FINCH, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. GOULBURN,_ Mr. LAW, Mr. ESTCOURT. was supported by the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY, Lord HARRY VANS, Mr. SHEIL, Lord JOHN MANNRRS, Sir JOHN' EAST- HOPE, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. JOHN COLLETT, Lord SANDON, and Mr. WATSON.

The debate was opened by Sir ROBERT INGLIS. He resisted the bill because its direct tendency was to " unprotestantize " England, and it

would materially shake that constitution which requires the Sovereign to be a member of the Reformed Church of England. Remove that distinc- tion, and you abolish the right of the present branch to occupy the throne: every one knows that it is a younger branch. Sir Robert dwelt much on the declaration against the Roman Catholic Church which is made by the Sovereign, as an insuperable impediment to the passing of the bill. He glanced at historical facts to show that for three centuries the Church of Home has been the inexorable, the constant enemy of Protestantism, the unchangeable foe of the Church of England. Within the last fifty years its pretensions have been as great as ever. That Church canonized Pius the Fifth for his "services ",: he absolved the people of England from their allegiance to their Sovereign: his name and the name of Gregory the Seventh appear to this day in the breviaries. The same Pope dismissed no fewer than a hundred Bishops from their sees because they refused to comply with his ooncordat. Did the House forget what the Jesuits had been doing in France, Switzerland, and Germany? Even in England at this moment the Church of Rome is raising obstacles to the peace of society by her opposition on the subject of mixed marriages. Sir Robert called on Lord John Russell to remember the dying exhortation of his illustrious ancestor—" not to assist the progress of Popery "; and he concluded by moving that the bill be committed that day six Months.

To this speech the Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY replied; chiefly con- tending that persecution was not peculiar to the Church of Rome, but to

a past age. Passages could be pointed out in the Old Testament which might seem to justify persecution: he alluded to the wars of the Israelites to exterminate the nations that stood between them and the land of pro-

mise. But it is now admitted that persecution and force have never availed for the advancement of religion. He agreed with Sir Robert In- glis that the Church of Rome was antagonistic to Protestantism— So it was; and so it would be as long as the world should last, or till Protes- tantism itself should be extinguished. (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.)

He could illustrate his views by an incident wnich had happened to himself. He was once on the plains of Marathon, directing his attention to the ruins of a Gre- cian temple, when an Eastern stranger stood by his side, lost in reflection whilst contemplating that noble temple. In the neighbourhood from which the Persian force had been expelled he had seen the descendant of the conquered gazing upon the ruins of a mighty empire which remained in poetry alone; and he asked hun- self whether the Catholic or the Protestant faith should stand at the last hour: and that reflection led his feeble and uninstructed mind to the same result as his- tory and argument had brought that of Mr. Macaulay, when looking through

the long vista of ages, he fancied some stranger from New Zealand seated on a broken arch of London Bridge and contemplating the ruins of St. Paul's, whilst the successor of St. Peter was wielding 'with undiminished force the power which had been so long before conferred upon the Prince of Apostles by the Son of Je- hovah and of the Hebrew woman.

Mr. PLustPTRE endeavoured to represent Lord Arundel as justifying persecution; and he opposed the bill as part and parcel of that unextin-

guishable contest carried on by Rome. Lord HARRY VANE defended Lord Arundel from Mr. Plumptre's misconstruction; and Lord ARUNDEL expli- citly disclaimed the sentiment imputed to him.

Mr. SPOONER called to mind that one peculiar commission given to the Jews was to exterminate idolators and idolatry: there is a great deal of idolatry mixed up with the forms and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church. Any measure acknowledging an authority competing with that of the Sovereign would be unconstitutional. He would suppose that a bull were issued, giving orders to Roman Catholic priests— Now, a few weeks ago, a young gentleman, the son of a friend of his, was per- suaded to leave the Protestant and join the Roman Catholic Church. ills father found among his books one entitled Consolation and Encouragement for the Soul, in which it was laid down that "he who obeys his director is freed from respon-

sibility to God for what he has done." A man who held that doctrine was ab- solved from all individual responsibility. The mandate of a priest would override considerations of parental authority, of what was due to the Sovereign, and to one's Country. Nor must it be alleged that this obligation to obey was confined to the "forms and ceremonies of religion." The power of the priest was unlimited; and what would stop the person who was imbued with the pnnciple be had quoted from committing murder or treason? To such a man the Bible was a mere dead letter. If the priest were to tell them the consequences of any given act would be his and not theirs, and they believed him, they might sin in peace and comfort. Such priestemft was subversive of the liberty of conscience and the Protestant right of private judgment It was his firm conviction that the bill was looked to with intense anxiety on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, and that it would be hailed by them as another step in abandonment of the line of protection drawn by the bill of 1829. Be was one of those who had been willing to make the concession of 1829; but if that discussion were to come over again nothing would induce him to give his consent to such a bill. If the extinction of Protestantism had been talked of at that time, as it was at present, would Parliament ever have consented to pass that set?

Mr. SHELL endeavoured to convince the House as to the modesty and safety of the measure; showing that it makes no greater change than the present law requires-

" Any native of Ireland who enters a religious order is liable to banishment in the first instance and transportation afterwards; and any person who initiates

an individual into a religious order is liable to the same penalty. Now, I think it most strike the common sense and justice of the House, that these laws require, if not total abrogation, at least most essential alteration. In point of fact, they are inoperative." He read from the Irish Almanack and Official Directorg a long list of Roman Catholic dignitaries and of religious orders in Ireland and England; proving that the law is inoperative. " And yet under this law Dr. Doyle might nave been transported, and Father Mathew sent to preach sobriety in Van Die- men's Land or New Smith Wales. Then, Sir, the question arises, ought this law to stand? or, if it is to stand, for what purpose is it to be retained? '

There is much talk of the " Jesuits ' : at least the modern Jesuits of Ireland have been blameless-

" What have been their offences? They have established their college in the South, where the best literature is taught in the best way; they have their large school in Dublin, for the gratuitous education of the poor; they have also erected a church, the architecture of which is nobler than that of any church of the Esta- blishment, where you bear good music, and where there is good preaching by these Jesuits, in the manner becoming their dignity and their calling. These are their acts. Can you adduce a single instance of a Jesuit having interfered in politics during the last thirty years? During that period Ireland was agitated, convulsed by great political questions. I defy you to show a single speech by a Jesuit at the Catholic Association, or a single political tract published by them. I never saw a Jesuit at the Roman Catholic Association. I don't believe that the Repeal or the monster meetings were ever attended by Jesuits."

The exclusion of Roman Catholics from the Lord Chancellorship of Ire land, which has nothing to do with the Church, was another of Mr. Shad topics.

Lord JOHN MANNERS touched effectively on the Jesuit point- Sir-Robert Inglis talked of what the Jesuits had done in Switzerland: what were the facts P—In some of the Cantons the Jesuits were by the laws and con- stitution of the country, tolerated and fostered. A violent and lawless mob. invaded one of these Cantons from a neighbouring Canton, violated every principle of the constitution, and endeavoured by force to put down the Je- suits. The people of the invaded Canton, who formed the local force, rose against this lawless mob. And yet Sir Robert Inglis came to that House and said, " See the evils these enemies of public peace, the Jesuits, have brought about in Swit- zerland." Sir Robert had asked them to look to France, and had said, "See how Guizot,, Michelet, Thiers, Eugene Sue, and other writers, have found themselves compelled, by regard to civil and religious liberty', to use their efforts to put down the Jesuits and other religions orders in France. Lord John did not know whe- ther Sir Robert was aware of the system of religion which some of these great Anti-Jesuit leaders in Franee were attempting to set up in that country; whether he regarded Michelet and Quinet as professors with him of a common Protest- antism.

It was now nearly twenty years since the measure of 1829 was passed, and Lord John Manners had in vain requested any gentleman to point out to him one single instance in which its so-called safeguards had been acted upon.

GOULBURN resisted the measure, because he would not disturb the solemn contract of 1829. The bill would encourage further innovation:* for instance, the only member of the Government who had spoken in this debate talked of making the Irish Chancellorship open to Roman Catholics.

The debate was wound up with a reply by Mr. WATSON, in defence of his bill. Its principle was, that no one should be persecuted on account of his religion. It sought to repeal penalties which are only odious without being operative or conducive to religion; and if it appeared that the bill was likely to have ulterior and unintended effects, such contingencies would be provided against by alteration in Committee.

On a division, Sir Robert Inglis's amendment was carried, by 158 to 119; majority, 39. The bill therefore was lost.

THE EDUCATIONAL MINUTES.

On Thursday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM put two questions respecting the, minutes of Council on education: first, was it intended, as heretofore, to give no aid to schools which are not connected with the National School Society or the British and Foreign School Society; secondly, was it intended to adhere to the rule that no aid should be given to schools in which the authorized version of the Scriptures is not used?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained the exact state of matters. Before 1839, the rule was, that no aid should be given to schools not connected with the National School Society or the British and Foreign School Society. By the minute of 1839, however, it was laid down that applications, from other schools might be received if a special case could be made out for the aid. The President of the Council has lately intimated that he is ready to act upon that minute. By the ' minute of 1839, also in all schools to which aid is given the authorized version of the Scriptures must be used. But Lord Lansdowne recently thought it necessary to state that neither he nor the Committee of Council would feel themselves at all precluded from preparing and adopting other . minutes, by which aid might be given to Roman Catholic schools, in cases where it was thought fit. No such minute, however' has yet been agreed upon; and the subject will require very mature consideration. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE asked, whether Lord John Russell intended to apply for the educational grant on Monday; or whether it might not be better to postpone the consideration of the subject until:the further minutes' alluded to by Lord John Russell should be produced?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL dissented-

" There is no need of waiting for any further minutes, because everything that will be asked for on Monday will be expended under the minutes of Council which are already before the House, and which are well known; and indeed, it appears that on many parts of this subject, what was done some years ago is sought to be undone now."

SUNDAY TRADING IN THE METROPOLIS.

On Thursday, Mr. HINDLEY moved for a Select Committee on the sub- ject of Sunday traditg in the Metropolis. His object was, not that the Committee should inquire into the general subject of trading on the Sab- bath, but into the laws which prohibit such trading, and which are said to; be extensively violated. Complaints are made from all quarters, that the laws are broken by unscrupulous tradesmen; that the competition compels even thcee who would obey the laws to break them; and that the result is very unfair to well-disposed tradespeople.

The motion was opposed by Mr. Hume; who did not see its precise ob- ject. Did Mr. Hindley mean to prevent poor &milks from having their dinner baked on the Sunday; or to prevent the man from being shaved on the Sunday who could not spare time on a week-day? Gentlemen had, from time to time sought a character for superior senctity by bringing ineae sores of this sort before Parliament; but he had never found that, in point

of fact, they were any better men or better Christians than an old sinner such as himself. (Laughter.) The motion was also opposed by Mr. Escort', Dr. Bownwo, Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Mr. WAKLEY, Captain PECHELL, Mr. CHAPLIN. The suppression of Sunday trading was advocated by Mr. lawns, Mr. WILLIAM COWPER, and Alderman COPELAND. Mr. MrricTx would sup- port no suppressive measures directed merely against the poorer classes. Colonel SIBTHORP doubted the practicability of legislation on the subject. Sir GEORGE GREY could not refuse inquiry into laws which were on the statute-book but inoperative: if they were unnecessary, they ought not to remain there; if desirable, they ought to be made effective.

On a division, the motion was carried, by 51 to 19.

FIRST SITTING OF THE PEERS IN THEIR NEW HOUSE.

The Lords assembled for the first time in the chamber allotted to them in the New Palace at Westminster, on Thursday afternoon. The attend- ance of Peers was very numerous; the bar and galleries were thronged with spectators; and the whole sitting was marked by an unusual noise and commotion in every part of the House.

There was very little speaking. Lord BROUGHAM brought forward a large bundle of petitions; and being interrupted by the noise, he threatened to hays the bar cleared. The tumult, however, still continued. The subject of Lord Brougham's remarks was the continued incursion of Irish paupers into Liverpool: on Sunday last the number was 3,714, and on the next day 2,400.

Some remarks also passed on the subject of education; but they were not of much importance, adding nothing to what had passed in the House of Commons.

burin WASTE LANDS. On Monday, Mr. LABOUCHERE postponed his motion for leave to introduce a bill to reclaim waste lands in Ireland, from Tuesday last to Tuesday next.

SANATORY REFORM. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, it was ordered, on the motion of Lord MORPETII, that no private bill relating to town improve- ments or to public cemeteries be further proceeded with by this House before the 1st day of May next.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS. On Tuesday, Mr. WALFOLE moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the law for the registration of electors in England and Wales. One object was to prevent frivolous objections, by imposing a penalty on the objector who opposed a vote without probable cause. He proposed to take away all objections founded on merely technical grounds. And he also sought to facilitate the purification of the electoral lists, by giving to the bona fide objector increased means of effecting that purpose, at the same time that his power should be so restricted as not to admit of his acting vexatiously or injuriously towards the elector. The bill was framed in conformity with the report of the Committee on Votes of Electors.—Leave given to bring in the bill.

THE VACANT MASTERSHIP. In reply to Mr HUME, on Thursday, Lord Joan RUSSELL stated that it was not deemed necessary to appoint a Master in Chan- cery in lieu of Mr. Lynch, who lately resigned; and that various important re- forms in the Court of Chancery were under the consideration of the Lord Chan- cellor.

MARRIAGES OF QUAKERS AND JEWS. On Tuesday, Mr. CHRISTIE asked for leave to bring in a bill to remove doubts on the subject of Quakers' and Jews' marriages; the existence of which had been disclosed by the recent investigation into the law of marriage. Sir GEORGE GREY had been assured by a very high legal authority that no such doubt really did exist; but as some doubt had cer- tainly been expressed on the bench, there could be no objection to the introduc- tion of the bill.—Leave given.

JEWISH DISABILITIES. In reply to Mr. SpOONER, on Thursday, Lord JOHN Busssur. said that it was not his intention to bring in any specific measure to alter the existing law so as to enable Jews to sit in Parliament; but, if any general measure should be introduced with respect to a change in regard to oaths to be taken, it might form a part of such general measure to take into considera- tion the words which prevented the Jews from holding certain offices and from Bitting in Parliament.

flouts FOR BEER-SHOPS. On Tuesday, Mr. MUNTZ moved for leave to bring in a bill "to enable retail brewers in the Midland Counties to keep open their houses till twelve o'clock at night, the same as the Metropolitan retail brewers." The motion was opposed by Sir GEORGE GREY; and was negatived, by 77 to 4.

CAPTAIN DICKINSON. On Thursday, Viscount licoEsras moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the case of Captain Dickinson. The frigate Thetis was sunk off Cape Frio in 1830, having on board treasure to the amount of 164,000/. Captain Dickinson, by means of extreme exertion and ingenuity, suc- ceeded in recovering 157,0001., besides a portion of public stores. For that ser- vice, he and those who assisted him were awarded 17,0001. as salvage; the amount awarded to the Admiralty was 13,0001.; the Admiralty making a bill of charges to that amount against Captain Dickinson, for assistance given to him by the loan of the gun-brig Algerine, &c. Lord Ingestre, and several other Members, including Mr. WAKLEY and Lord GEORGE BENTVICK, contended that this charge made by the Admiralty was grossly derogatory, and very unfair to the salvors; and that it was, in fact, so much abstracted from the rightful gains of Captain Dickinson and his coadjutors. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, said that he felt bound to support the award; which was adopted after full consideration, after an appeal to the Court of Ad- miralty, and a further appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The motion was resisted, on similar grounds, by Mr. PARKER, Lord Jonsr Rua- Emu., and Mr. RUTIIERFURD; and ultimately the motion for the Committee was negatived by 52 to 32.

PROGRESS OF RAILWAY BILLS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

BILLS READ • SECOND TIME AND CONNITTED.—Tuesday, April 13.- -Edhibursh-and- Perth. Edinburgh-and-Northern (branch from Burntisland to Dunfermline branch, pc.) (No. 2.)