Elebatul anti Proteriiings3 in t3atlinnictit.

1. CORPORATION REFORM.

The Municipal Bill was recommitted in the House of Com.nons on Monday ; when, on the motion of Lord Joust It essem., various new clauses were inserted without discussion.

On Thursday, the House again went into Committee on the bill, and agreed to forty-eight clauses. The only discussions of moment took place on the 10th clause.

Mr. PRAED moved an amendment, which would have the effect of securing to the descendants of existing freemen the right of voting for Members of Parliament.

Mr. ROBINSON supported this amendment, on the ground that the right in question bad been guaranteed by the Reform Act.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in a very low and indistinct tone, opposed the amendment— If the present was a mere question as to whether the Reform Bill ought or ought not to be altered, he would not feel inclined to meddle with the rights of the freemen, although he thought that that class was more open to bribery and corruption than any other class of electors ; but as they were now about to create a new corporate right, the case was altered, and he felt bound to vote against any amendment which would have the effect of continuing the franchise in the hands of this class of voters.

Sir ROBERT PEEL declaimed against the injustice of depriving men of rights so solemnly guaranteed them, and descanted on the danger of altering the franchise established by the Reform Act— He believed that the right would be exercised with greater caution than for- merly; the freemen would be admitted to their right by individuals chosen in great part by other parties. He repeated, he was quite ready to punish freemen if it were brought home to them that they had abused the franchise ; but he thought that otherwise, under the present circumstances it would be unfair to deprwe

m

the of their privileges ; and above all, he should do so because it would lead to the belief that the Reform Bill was not a final settlement of the franchise.

The debate proceeded amidst great noise and interruption. The speakers were Mr. PotmErr THOMSON, Mr. A. TREVOR, Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, Mr. WARD, Mr. HARDY, and Mr. POULTER. • The Committee divided ; and rejected the amendment, by 262 to 234. Mr. J. G. PONSONBY moved a proviso to the effect " That the children of all freemen born before the 5th of June 1835, and also all apprentices in boroughs, shall have and enjoy all the rights and privileges to which they would have been entitled but for this bill, excepting the right to vote for Members of Parliament."

Mr. PHILIP HOWARD and Lord SANDON supported the motion ; which was opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. AeLiesar. The latter gentleman professed his willingness to share all the unpopularity attendant upon disfranchising the descendants of freemen. He was mot afraid of his name in the Black and Red List, which he supposed would be published after the division on dids question— A placard had been issued asking, " Are the freemen of England and Wales to be robbed of the rights given to them by the Reform Bill, by a majority of Scotch and Irish Members? " ( Great cheering floss the Opposition.) For his part, he was proud that Ireland and Scotland sent such Members. (Ironi- cal cheers from the Opposition.) There would be no division of the coun- tries so long as they supported such measures as these. There was a certain town in which freemen prevailed, in which another placard had been issued- " Brother freemen the real object of these people is to deprive us of the rights we possess, by robbing our children of their birthrights." ( Cheers from the Opposition.) He perceived that sentiment met with a response front honour- able Members opposite; but in what did those birthrights, or this robbery, con- sist ? If they hail been advaUtageous to the community at large, he would have voted for their continuance, but they were an abuse which had ground down the people to the dust. There was another town which he did not think it ex- pedient to name, where freemen prevailed, in which, at the last election, there was one Whig and one Tory—he begged pardon, Conservative candidate. A placard was issued there also—" Can you believe it possible that the Whig fac- tion have determined to rob us of our rights ? The Whig candidate will not be at the expense of a chair. ( Great laughter.) They will not even undergo the usual expense of constables, bands of music, &c. Will you then sit down and allow every feeling of decency to be thus outraged ?" ( Great laughter, and cries of " Name ! ") He was unwilling to name the city ; limo-ever, as he never wished to advance any thing in that House under the garb of conceal. nient, he would give the name—it was York.

Mr. THOMAS DUNDAS said, be was the Member alluded to in the placard read by Mr. Aglionby- He begged to explain, that since the passing of the Reform Act, lie had thought it his duty to promote the purity of election as much as possible. Ile had therefore resolved to dispense with the ceremony of chairing, which he looked upon as a means merely of engaging a certain portion of influence in his favour. He had, however, given for better purposes, to the town, the full amount of the expersvcs of chairing.

Several other Members attempted in vain to speak : the noises in the House prevented all discussion.

On a division, Mr. Ponsonby's amendment was rejected, by 23-1 to 203.

Another division then took place, on the motion that "the clause stand part of the bill" : for the clause, 234 ; against it, 165 ; Ministerial majority, 69.

Mr. CHARLTON moved that the Chairman report progress : for the motion, 10 • against it, 167. So the Committee proceeded, and dis- posed of the clauses to the 48th ; when the House resumed.

The remaining clauses were carried last night, with a few minor amendments. All the motions of Sir W0.1.1am FOLLETT, Sir Ho- BERT INGLIS, Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, and Sir J. Y. BULLER, were negatived without a division. It was agreed that an extension of time should be given to persons out of the country, to enable them to register their votes ; and this was the only reported alteration that requires notice. The Schedules were agreed to ; the House resumed, and the Report was received.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then said, that he should move the third read- ing of the bill on Monday next. This announcement was received with cheering, which lasted several minutes.

2. ORANGE SOCIETIES IN THE ARMY.

Last night, the question before the House being the reading of the order of the day for going into Committee on the Municipal Bill, Mr. HUME rose to ask Lord Morpeth, whether he had received any account of the affray at Belfast between the Orangemen and the military ? Lord MORPETH regretted to say that he had; and that one woman was killed, and several persons wounded. Mr. flumE said, that before he sat down, he would show how evi- dence could be obtained on which the house might act with a view to put an end to these outrages. He would only detain the House a few minutes.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL interrupted Mr. Hume. He had moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the Corporation Bill ; but if Mr. Hume went into the transactions of Orange Societies, (ober Members would reply, and he might as w.11 defer the Corporations Bill till next week.

Mr. HUME—"If the House would only listen to me, the matter would soon be at end." Mr. Hume continued-

" I deem the subject of so much importance, that I am willing to hazard the delay of the Municipal Corporations Bill for a short time, while I direct the at- tention of the House to some recent events in that unfortunate country—Ireland. By reference to certain public papers, we find that Orange Lodges have been cal tied to a great extent there; that they have been established in various regi- ments; and that as late as the 28th April last, two or more commissions — Colonel PERCEVAL•" I rise to order. There is a question before the House, to which what the honourable Member for Middlesex says has no reference. If he makes a motion without notice, it will be my duty—and that of other Mem- bers to counteract his es parte statements, and to repel his attacks. Let him give notice for a future day.', Mr. 111131E—" My object is not to raise a discussion now; if honourable Members will but hear what I have to say. ( Cheers and laughter.) A Com- mittee has been sitting, appointed by the House to take evidence, respecting Orange Societies; and I find from newspapers published in Dublin, as well as in London, that part of that evidence has been communicated by Members of the Committee. In an Orange newspaper of the 6th of July — Mr. WILSON PATTEN" As Chairman of that Committee, I protest against such an imputation." ( Cries of" Order, order ! Chair, chair !") The SPEAKER—" The question is, that the order of the day be read for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Municipal Corporations Bill, and I do not see how Orange Lodges have reference to it. At the same time, it 18 competent for any Member to move an amendinenton the motion for reading the order of the day." Mr. Hume--" I apprehend that it rests entirely with the discretion of the House and of the Members. I am perfectly in order; for I can move an aniermle- ment upon any motion; but it is not my wish to do SO unnecessarily. (Cries of" Move, move !") I will move, if I am obliged ; but I wish to submit to the House, whether it will not agree that the evidence taken before the Com- mittee on Orange Associations should be laid upon the table. When that. Is done, and when we have also the orders of the Commander-in-Chief respecting Orange Lodges, for which I am to move in the course of the evening, the House will be in a condition to decide upon a subject of great importance. The clues; tion does not involve ordinary individuals ; but, if I am correctly informed,ed, it involves a charge of impeachment against a person of the highest rank n the country, for high crimes and misdemeanours against the State. If the House is willing that the evidence should be produced, I will not say one word more now; but the moment it is upon the table I will submit a moth n. I beg to ask the honourable Chairman of the Committee whetilier the evith ace is termi- nated, and whether it is in a condition to be laid before the House:" Mr, WILSON PATTEN—" In reply, I beg to say that the Committee did not meet this morning. When it does meet, I will obtain its opinion whether the the evidence ought to he laid upon the table. A great many witnesses have recently been summoned, and it may be doubted whether the inquiry can be be closed in the present session. I believe it to be the general opinion of the Committee, from the nature of the evidence which has been broi ght forward somewhat in the shape of accusation and defence, that it would not be fit to conununicate it to the House until it has been given fully on loth sides. I may take this opportunity of saying, that the Committee has witnessed with great regret communications made to newspapers in Ireland of the proceedings of the Committee. I have seen several statements totally the rtverse of the truth. I have seen evidence in English papers also, extremely incoirectly given. But other representations of what has passed in the Committee are true : which are true, and which untrue, I am not authorized by the Committee to mention."

Mr. FINN, as a member of the Committee, thought that the part of the evidence relating to the Army, being complete in itself, might be laid upon the table without detriment.

A MEmuEn objected to any such statements being made liy a member of the Committee.

Mr. FINN contended that he was justified in offering his opinion. (44 Order, order ! " and " chair! ") The SPEAKER—" It seems to me that no communication of facts should be made without the sanction of the Committee; but the ho- nourable Chairman was quite in order when he informed the House of the extent to which the evidence had already gone. He did not refer to any particular head of evidence, but to the general course of exami- nation.

Mr. WILSON ParrENt—" At the next meeting, on Monday, I will take the sense of the Committee on the question whether any of the evidence ought to be laid before the House."

Mr. HUMF.—" Then all I will now do is, to give notice, that on Tuesday next I will move that the Select Committee on Orange Lodges be directed to report the evidence already taken as to the prevalence and extent of Orange Lodges in the Army at home and abroad, to- gether with copies of any documents for which the Committee may have sent.

Sir H. HARDINGE—" I beg to ask whether the honourable Member means to more for only part of the evidence taken, or for the whole."

Mr. HUME.•-■" That is all I want. If other Members want more they may move for it."

Mr. SirEIL wished to have the evidence given by the Secretary of the Orange Lodges.

Sir H. HARDINGE—" If a charge were made that a Roman Catho- lic clergyman had excited the soldiery who attended his chapel, by seditious language, and only part of the evidence had been taken, would it not be thought most unjust to take only part of the evidence, and to leave the rest to be produced or not to be produced at some future time." (Cheers.) Mr. O'CONNELL—" I should think it perfectly fair." (Interruption, and cries of" Chair, chair !") The SPEAKER remarked that this discussion was unusual and irregular.

Mr. O'CoxNELt —" The question supposes that such evidence does exist : if it do exist, it ought to be before the House. If a Roman Catho- lic clergyman has thus interfered with the duty and discipline of the Army, the sooner be is exposed the better." (Mach cheering.)

After some further conversation, between Mr. HUME, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it was agreed that Mr. Hume should bring forward his motion on Monday ; though, if the evidence were laid on the table on Monday, the motion of course would be unnecessary.

Sergeant JACKSON said, that the report of the evidence might have been sent to the papers by some gentleman not a member of the Com- mittee, who was present when it was given.

Mr. HUME said, that a letter, dated London, 4th July, appeared in the Evening Mail of the 6th, and it contained the evidence of Sir E. Stoven.

Colonel PERCEVAL asked, whether it was intended to prosecute cer- tain rioters at the Wexford election ?

Sergeant PERRIN had directed an investigation into the facts of the case; which bad been greatly exaggerated by Colonel Perceval.

The conversation then closed.

3. BRIBERY AT YARMOUTH AND YORK. , Mr. RIGBY WASON moved, on Tuesday, "That the petitions from Great Yarmouth (presented 26th and 30th June), alleging, among other things, that the sum of two guineas had been lately paid to many of the voters at the house of one of the most active partisans in behalf of the sitting Members, and humbly and earnestly praying that the House will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated in the petitions, and that they be referred to a Select Committee."

After some rather sharp conversation, between Mr. PRAED, Mr. WASON, and Sir F. TRENCH, which arose out of a misunderstanding respecting the time of bringing forward the motion, Mr. PRAED rose to oppose it. He contended, that a very small portion of the constituency had signed the petition, and many who had Signed it were not inhabitants of Yarmouth. The alleged offences were such as the courts of law could take cognizance of; and they could not with decency be brought, so long after the termination of the election, before a Committee of the House. The whole proceeding was dictated by party feeling. Mr. PaysiE said, that Mr. Praed's speech justified the appointment of. the Committee, inasmuch as it involved no denial of having paid the money. Mr. PLIED said, he would never come forward as a witness in that House to state a fact which affected himself personally.

The galleries were cleared for a division ; but, on the question being

put,

Mr. Wirwa addressed the House amidst loud cries of 6, Divide !"

and it was some time before he could obtain a bearing. He argued, that the motion was without precedent, and that a court of law was a proper place to inquire into the matter of the petition.

Mr. AGLIONIIY briefly replied to Mr. Wynn.

Mr. THOMAS BARING said, that out of 1040 freemen in Yarmouth, only 186 bad signed the petition. (Loud cheers.) He presumed that the cheer meant to say that the freemen were not very likely to sign it. There were 576 10/. householders in the borough, and of them only 171 hail signed the petition. So that, of 1000 electors, it appeared that only 357 had attached their names to the petition. A great many of the persons said that they signed the petition without knowing what it was ; and others said that they never signed It at all, and that their names were vut to the petition without their knowledge. There were other forgeries, 0 Connell's name appeared twice, Robert Peel's twice, Stanley once, and one name ap- peared seven times.

The galleries were again cleared ; when

Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to oppose the motion, amidst loud cries of "Order !" He protested aga;nst these questions being decided by party feeling, and against the establishment of a precedent for doing away with the Grenville Act— Having once sanctioned this Committee, where would the House stop ? The present petition was signed by 1,300 persons; but you would not always require that number, but the allegation of a hundred persons would be sufficient. These petitioners contracted no responsibility, entered into no recognizauces, subjected themselves to no expense, but made their mere allegations that bribery had taken place; and upon this allegation you would establish a precedent hy which large constituent bodies of the country might be disfranchised. This was a serious, and in practice a very embarrassing proceeding. In addition to the Grenville Act, Lord John Russell had passed a resolution which entirely met a case of this kind. For where a petition had been postponed for fourteen days after the leturn of the writ, the resolution gave the parties who could allege the fact of bribery having been committed, leave to present a petition to the House within twenty. eight days after the fact alleged was said to have taken place. But in the present case. the parties did nnt come forward within twenty- eight days. Again, as well under the resolution of Lord John Russell as under the Grenville Act, the parties incurred some restionsibility-; but they were now about to open a mode of investigation which dispensed with all responsibility. Ile would venture to say, that if this Feculent should be established, the two former courses would no longer be acted upon, but that parties, taking the choice of destroying the elective franchise without any risk, this would be the only course resorted to. Lord Joilx RUSSEL!. said, that the Grenville Act afforded a very in- adequate tribunal %Olen the public was aggrieved by the commission of gross bribery, though it provided a better one than existed before it was passed for deciding which of two candidates was entitled to a seat. He had not been wanting in exertions to remedy the defects of the present system. Two bills had been taken up to the House of Lords, having that for their ob- ject : one was rejected, on the ground that it was too late in the session to pass it ; and the other came back to the Commons so altered, and containing provi- sions so entilely new, and so inconsistent with the privileges of this House, that he was unable to obtain the reeemt of the House to the amendments. Nor did he think it likely that any thing be could devise would be at once acceptable to this and be sanctioned by the other House of Parliament. Then in the present state of the law, and while they were not capable of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a sufficient remedy, ought the House of Commons, be would ask, to allow gross eases of bribery to be brought before them, and to be permitted to pass unpunished, because the general law was not sufficient to reach them? 1 'mloubtedly, a due degree of caution must be used ; nor ought they to institute inquiries lightly, and upon petitions brought forward for party purposes. (" Hear, hear !" front the Oppo.sitimz.) If it had been shown that this was a petition of such a kind, and that it really did not come from any person en- titled to relief from this House, he would admit that it would in that case be neither fair to the House itself, nor to the Representatives of Yarmouth, that they should eater into the inquiry. But the honourable Member for Yarmouth had himself made out a sufficient case in support of the present motion ; for he said that 171 ten-pound householders had signed the petition, and that more than 3LO having a right to vote for the Members of Great Yarmouth had also signed it. Considering the circumstances, this was a very great number. He could suppose a borough, which by the influence of bribery, might be reduced to that state, that you would not find twenty persons having the right to vote who would venture to sign a petition for inquiry : and yet if there were those twenty, or even if only ten, he thought it might be right, upon their specific allegations, to enter into an inquiry. He did not wish the House to sanction the creation of precedents of this kind. But in the case of Stafford, he thought the House had acted with great propriety. Upon the precedent formed by that case, a bill bad been introduced by the Member for I3uckingham, and he had not heard any objection made to that bill on that ground. Therefore, if any sanction were required for the present motion, it was to be found in the prece- dent established last year.

Mr. J. E. DENisosr, Mr.CYCONNELL, and Lord HOWICK, supported the motion; which was opposed by Lord SANDON and Sir T. Fat- MANTLE.

The House divided, and the motion was carried, by 186 to 132.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then suggested, that the appointment of the Com- mittee should be postponed till the next day.

Mr. WASON said, that the Committee would be fairly selected, six from the Ministerial and five from the Opposition side of the House, and those five from the counties of York and Norfolk.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, that the proceedings of that night would provoke complaints against the returns of Ministerial Members.

He respected much the character of the Solicitor-General ; but he could not help expressing it as his opinion, that there was the same facility of accusation by means of petition with as numerous signatures, against his constituents as against those of the Members for Yarmouth and York. ( Cheers from the Op- position.) He would not now name other places; but he knew many other Members who, before the Committee closed its proceedings, would be brought under the operation of the same system.

Mr. HUME hoped the House would not be deterred from its duty by Sir Henry Hardinge's threats.

If such proceedings as those to which Sir Henry had alluded, did actually occur, the best course was to bring them immediately under the consideration a the House, and at once to put an end to those disgraceful practices wherever they were found to exist. (Loud cheers.) Mr. SPRING RICE complained of Sir Henry Harclinge's attack on Sir R. Rolfe.

"I do think that he has not acted in a spirit of justice to my honourable and learned friend the Member for Penryn; kr he should have recollected that a petition was lodged against that honourable and learned gentleman containing allegations of bribery and corruption, and those allegations were declared to be void by a Committee of that House. (Loud cheers.) The honourable and gal- lant gentleman did not, however, hesitate to declare or insinuate, in the face of that House, that his honourable and learned friend, against whose return that petition was sent in, was a person who had been guilty of in ibery. Sir, all I can say is, let any case involving bribery and corruption—on a great scale, or a small one—be brought before this House, and I trust that I shall never be found in a minority against its being entertained by a Committee. ( Vehement cheer- ing.) I cannot avoid saying in conclusion, that after the careful inquiry which the ease of my honourable and learned fitiend has already undergone, and after the decision at which the Committee has arrived, the honourable and gallant gentleman inust have been very wrong when he chose to be so very angry." (Repea(ed cheering.)

Sir HENRY IlAnnisc.i: said, that the question of agency bad alone been decided upon by the Penryn Election Committee.

Sir II. ROLFE (the Solicitor-Genera)) utterly denied having been guilty of bribery, though an occasional half-crown, or some such trifle, might have been given by his friends, but not to his knowledge.

Mr. WILES, the ehairnian of the Penryn Committee, said, that every oppm t unity had been given to the petitioners to bring forward a charge of bribery, but they had not availed themselves of them.

Mr. WAsox said he was at the disposal of the House. (Cries of " Nione the Committce,"from Mr. Hume and others.)

Sir Romer PEct.—" I have no interest in this question. I only suggested that it would be best for the character of the House to post- pone the naming of the Committee for twenty-four hours."

Lord ions: Itt-ssrm. said it would be desirable to postpone the appointment of the Committee. It was accordingly done.

Mr. Act.ioNnv then moved for a Committee to inquire into the bribery alleged in a petition intrusted to him, and in another presented by Mr. CAYLEY, to have been committed at York during the last elec- tion. It was stated that money had been sent to more than SOO voters.

Mr. Lowritim and Sir HENRY HARDINGE opposed the motion, On tile ground of the small number of the petitioners—only one in forty of the electors having signed the petition. Sir Henry said— Out of a constituency of 400 persons, such for instance as existed at Tavis- tock, if ten persons were to send a petition to the House complaining of the general corruption of the electors, would the noble lord opposite deem that number sufficient to induce him to grant a Committee to inquire into the alle- gations of their misconduct ? As to the case of York, the proportion was one I in 40; was it intended that elsewhere the same proportion should be the criterion of the numbers necessary to obtain an inquiry into allegations of cor- ruption? If that were to he the criterion, perhaps Members on the other side of the House would soon find a greater number of petitions presented against the disinterested purity of their constituents than they might find agreeable.

Mr. RUNDLE said, that perhaps Sir Henry had better take his illus- tration from Launceston; especially as a petition was presented in the list session of Parliament from the former borough against his return, on the ground of the corrupt charges which he had appeared to patronize.

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL thought, that perhaps the House should not inquire into the truth of general allegations of bribery ; but in this case it was distinctly stated, that money had been sent to a great number of persons in a particular manner.

Mr. CAYLLY said, the petition, which he had presented was not signed numerously, he admitted, but very respectably— For it had the signatures of five or six Aldermen, of the Town-Clerk, of three or four clergymen, of two or three bankers, and of several most reputable merchants and tradesmen. They were parties who held themselves aloof from the violent partisans on both sides of the question ; and being such persons, the prayer of their petition ought, in his opinion, to be attended to immediately.

Mr. LOWTHER declared, that his constituents were as honest and independent as any in the kingdom. (Loud laughter.) Sir Ilcsav HARDINGE Qaid, that he had alluded to Tavistock only because he seen Lord John Russell opposite to hint.

Lord ERRINGTON spoke a few words ; and the motion was agreed to.

There was no House on Wednesday ; but on Thursday, on the motion of Lord JOHN Russet.", the following gentlemen were named rilembers of the Committee—Mr. Fazakerly, Lord F. Egerton, Mr. M. Philips, Sir .T. Y. Buller, Mr. Elphinstone, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Tanered, Mr. J. Young (of Cavan), and Mr. Hardy.

4. LTNIVERSITY TESTS.

The House of Lords was occupied the greater part of Tuesday even- ing in discussing the Earl of Radnor's motion for the second reading of Ids bill "to prohibit the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases ;" the object of which was to abolish subscription to articles in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Lord RADNOR supported his motion in a long and elaborate address ; in which he en- deavoured to demonstrate the absurdity of requiring young men on their entrance into the University to declare their belief in a number of doc- trines and assertions which it was impossible for them to comprehend. He proved by reference to the history of the Universities in ancient times, that they were by no means so exclusive as at present ; and he contrasted the Liberal system which prevailed in the Universities of foreign countries—in Paris, Louvain, Bologna, Pisa, Baden, Breslow, Copenhagen, in the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian Colleges, and even in our own University of Durham—with the exclusiveness and bigotry of Oxford and Cambridge. Lord Radnor was willing to pre- vent Dissenters from holding fellowships, tutorships, or preferment of any description, from which they were excluded by the wills of the founders. He maintained the necessity of Parliamentary interference to procure for the Dissenters any relaxation of the exclusive system. It was, in his opinion, vain to contend that the Church would be in- jured by abolishing the University tests.

At all events, for the cause of truth, plain dealing, and honesty, be did imploer their Lordships to give the bill their grave consideration before they rejected it. Turn it in what way they would, that practice was most unsatisfactory in which persons were called upon to subscribe to the Thirty. nine Articles—at Oxford when entering the University, and at Cambridge when taking a degree at an age which did not imply a full knowledge of them. He thought it a stigma on the Church; especially when no such practice was to be found prevailing elsewhere; far he defied any noble lord to name an university in the civilized world at which such tests were required. The continuance of it in the Universities of our ow; country, seemed to him a national reproach, arid a reproach to religion.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The title, was " An Act for prohibiting subscription to the Thirty- nise Articles in certain cases ;" and the reason given in the preamble was, that sub- scription to particular articles of faith in the case of persons of tender years, and before they can have so accurately and minutely examined the same, or the grounds on which they rest, as to give an explicit and entire assent to the doc- trines therein laid down, was unreasonable, and tended to evil consequences. The bill proceeded on the assumption that subscription on all occasions and in all persons was exactly of the same significance and import,—namely, as indicating an entire and implicit assent in the Articles after an accurate and minute exa- mination of the doctrines therein laid down. But a distinction was to be made between subscription at matriculation and subscription on taking degrees. With respect to the first, a student of twelve years of age brought to matriculation at Oxford was required to subscribe the fhirty-nine Articles. .None of coulse came so early ; but it was necessary to take the extreme case, in order to insect- taia what was tile real intention of time University in requiring it. Was it not absurd to suppose that he could have fully and minutely considered every At fith. in sad' a manner as to be able to give an entire and implicit assent to them all ? Now he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) maintained that the University nsvss required of him to do so ; for he was admitted :simply on subscription is iF bout any examination—without any previous question—without having lisai;1 the Articles read; full assent had never been required from him ; it had not Ls n tended that he should give it—unless it could be supposed that the di visss statesmen of Queen Elizabeth's time, who hail imposed tile subscription. \vele fouls and men who had quite lost their understanding. The boy having sub- scribed as required, was then transferred to his appointed place, and cominilted to the charge of a tutor ; who was directed to instruct him in the rudinisats ci religion, and particularly in the 'Thirty-nine Articles. Ile pursued his stielies, according to the directions of the statutes, under the tutor fur three or four ycans, and he was then called on for a second subscription. But though he has IWCIL so studying, though he has raved his proficiency in the Articles by medic ex- amination, the University do, s not allow him to subscribe until he has lirst read them, or heard them read in the presence of the Proctor ; and it further requites him to make a declaration that—" the Articles, being in number Thirty-nine, are agreeable to the Word of God." In the first instance, his subscription was only a mark—a token of his adherence to the Church of England, and his desire to be instructed in its articles. That explanation had been said last year to have been contrived for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty, and his night reverend friend (the Bishop of Exeter) had been coarsely taunted with Jesuitism for giving such an explanation. Ile himself had regarded it as a correct one, and had thought it right to take a share of the reproach cast upon those who gave it.

He maintained that the system had been fruitful of good, end he would not consent to an alteration of it. The bill would cast a slur' upon the creed of the Church, and imply a censure on the Universities for teaching its doctrines.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF opposed the bill ; though he certainly could wish the test to be so modified as to be exposed to less old- madversion than it was at present.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER also opposed the bill— It would place tile affairs of the Universities in a most anomalous state. There would be remonstrances in all (platters. The Dissenters would complain, aril with some justice, that they were allowed to proceed in a certain distapre, and then they could not obtain the honour, because they could isot ts:s the degree of Master of Arts. Those who knew the arrangement-, e: the Universities would tell Lord Radnor, that if he admitted the controvk: discussions which would no doubt arise amongst the students, he must I expect to find their attention devoted, as it now was, to the pursuits of literst, .! and science, and all the other matters connected with their education. It I. always been the policy of the conductors of Universities to keep out of via:: much as possible controversial differences. It was true that, in conscensm no subscription being required before matriculation at Cambridge, some of !Lc sons of the Dissenters were occasionally admitted there. Ile had observed es's, lie had rejoiced at it ; i.e thought it calculated to soften tine feelings of animo4ty that might be existing. The instances, however, were very few ; auil he could assure their Lordships, that the parties were admitted not as Dissenters—they were not known to entertain those opinions by the authorities, though one or two of the tutors might be acquainted with the fact. Many took their degree., and became not only members but visiters of the University. They "new that they must comply with all the regulations of the place. They attendsd tl:e lectures, even the theological lectures ; they attended the chapel ; and until they left the University, it was not known that they, or their family rather, hail been Dissenters. But let them once give the right to admission, and they would reverse time case. It would then be found, that the Universities would be made the scene of hostile discussion, and that only objects of disputation would interest them.

Lord MeLnour.NE was in favour of the bill ; as lie also approved of and supported the measure for admitting Dissenters into the Universities. He thought that it was high time that Oxford should imitate Cambridge in admitting the Dissenters at least to matriculation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury hail said that the University owed it to itself that it should have proof that those wino applied for admission belonged to the Church of England—that it should have proof that the individual was willing to be taught the doctrine of the Church. But what proof he would ask, existed in this subscription as it had been explained by the Archbishop himself? The Archbishop declared, that by pursuing this course the University was press' veil in the true religion of this country; and, above all, it had preserved the Univer- sities from being the scene of polemical controversy. Now what was tile tact with respect to the tranquillity of these Universities? Both of them had been over and over again disturbed by polemical discussion ; but patticularly Cambridge, which had been agitated in the beginning of the last century. (" Hear, hear!" front Lord Holland.) Did not the year 1710 furnish a celebrated instance? Was not that respectable individual Professor Wilson, turned out of his University on account of Arian principles? Was not that followed by the controversy between Dr. Waterford and Mr. Middleton, at Oxford ? Who did not recollect the great schism which distracted the Church, and out of which sprung the great body of Wesleyan Dissenters? It appeared, then, that the repose recommended by the Archbishop of Canteibury, It had not been the good fortune of the Universities to enjoy. If to abstain born reli- gious controversy were a virtue, that virtue had unquestionably not been the boast of the Universities in former times. Why, what did Bacon say in his Nor-urn Organon, in tile passage in which he spoke of ecclesiastical contro- versy? " Strepere argurnentis vexare questionibus." Was repose so desirable at a University? Was nothing at all taught by the emulation and excitement which controversy produced ? How was inquiry to be stimulated—hosy was knowledge to be obtained—so well as by the collision of various and conflicting opinions. Little was his reading in divinity, but he recollected a passage to the following effect, in the first book of Hooker's Eecksiastical Polity- In arguing on an occasion when several Dissentels were anxious to have a conference, he said, " What need is there of appointing a conference, have you not the University ? " He remembered the passage very well, it thus proceeded—. " There are many solemn occasions on which all the questions between us and you are brought into dispute. Many of you are members of the Universities; and if there are any who are not, and who would appear, you well know that by the courtesy of those learned bodies and learned men, you would be received with welcome, and attentively heard." That was the nature and character of the Universities of that day. They were open to inquiry ; they courted inves- tigation; and sought to defend the faith that was in them by argument. They did not seek repose—they did not seek to banish inquiry—they did not claim for them:id-es a protection against controversy ' • but, on the contrary, were ready to dispute with any adversaries who presented themselves.

The Duke of IVFLLINGTON considered that the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury had complettly pat an end to the question. There was no reason for complaint on thin part of the Dissenters— It might be desirable that there should be some other test adopted, in order to prove that the individual claiming to be matriculated was a member of the Church c: England ; but that which was most important at Cambridge and Oxford was, that the person to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England. That was the point ; and upon that lie conceived the whole question turned. Ile caufe-sed he was surprised when Ile heard the first Minister of the Crown collie down to this House and declare his preference for the existence of polemical disputes in the Universities. He should have thought the object of a Minister of the Crown would have been, by all means to protect the Universities from all such dilnites, and to preserve any system of icli;:inn whatever from being attacked by differences of (million. -They hail a right to expect that land Melbourne, and the other noble Ion ds on the bench opposite, small support in- violate the rights, the authorie y, and the pi ivileges of tile Universities, a' granted and conferred by ancient charters. Instead of this however, they found the Ministers of the Crown exercised their might and ioiluence and. abilities in support of this measure, which had for its object the overthrow of the institutions and authority of the English Church. The noble viscount shook his head, apparently in dissent from his opiniotts; but did the noble viscount think that the University of Oxford could maimain its authority if such a bill as this became the law of the land ? On what, he would ask was the picanible of this hill grounded, and the charges cmbodied in it ? have any of those charges been proved? Notwithstanding the complaints made in the preamble, that individuals had been prevented from resorting to the University of Oxford, in consequence of the tests, AVM it not an admitted fact, that at that moment there wine hundreds waiting to obtain education, and to be admitted to reside in the Halls and Colleges of that University ? There were many hundreds of per- sons now residing in the town who were unable to get residences in the various Colleges of Oxthrd. Ile contended, therefore, that there was no ground for the complaint as stated in the preamble of the bill ; and there was no ground for Parliamentary interference by mous of a bill like the present.

The Duke of RICIIMoND supported Lord Radnor's motion ; and denied that its tendency was to injure the Church.

Their Lordships then divided : for the bill—present, in, proxies, '29 —37; against it—present, 8,5, proxies, 78-163; majority against the bill, 101;. [The Bishaps of Chichester, Bristol, and Bath and Wells, voted in favour of the bill.] ROMAN CATHOLIC CREED: DEN S'S THEOLOGY.

In the House of Peers, on Thursday, the Bishop of EXETER pre- sented a petition from a place in Ireland, praying for protection to the Established Church ; and he took the opportunity of asking Lord Melbourne, whether he had received a letter front Dr. Murray, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin on the subject of the book called Dens's Theology?

Lord MasaouttNE replied that he had.

The Bishop of EXETER then proceeded, in a speech of great length, to remark on Dr. Murray's letter. He contended, that the Doctor had made a misstatement, when he denied that Dens's book was a work of authority among the Catholics ; and he quoted the advertisement of the bookseller who published it, as proof of its being made a Con- ference-book for the clergy of Dr. Murray's diocese, and generally sanctioned by the Catholic Hierarchy. The Bishop then read many passages from Dens, to prove the objectionable nature of the doctrines he inculcated; and contended, that he had completely justified the remarks he made on the impropriety of 'Continuing Dr. Murray in the post of Education Commissioner, seeing that he in point of fact did sanction the dissemination of opinions of a flagitious description.

Lord MELBOURNE deprecated the discussion of the topics on which the Bishop of Exeter had enlarged, Though the Bishop's manner was mild, the tendency of his speech was to revive animosities, which all good men must strive to bury in oblivion.

It was had to rekindle the dying embers of strife. The speech of the Bishop was only reviving a discussion that occupied the attention of their Lordships on a former occasion and led to no practical effect. Ile could not help regretting the asperity of the Bishop's tone and address, which certainly was not conducive to the salutary ends of conciliation and harmony. His speech reminded him of a story of ancient times. An ecclesiastic was taken prisoner while in arms against his temporal Prince : the Pope demanded the release of the Bishop : the Prince, as an answer, sent back to the Pope the armour of the ecclesiastic, with this significant question, "Is this the coat of a Minister of peace, whom your Holiness claims as your servant ?" lie would expect somewhat better from the speech of a Protestant Bishop than this fiery display of acrimony ; and he would put it to the right reverend Prelate behind him, his Archbishop, whether such a manifestation of polemical or political asperity would receive his approbation—whether it was judicious or wise ?

Lord Melbourne then argued against the injustice of making Dr. Murray responsible for the opinions of Dens; who, he believed, was a Professor of Theology at Louvain, about the middle of the last cen- tury. He admitted that the Catholic religion was an intolerant one ; but asserted, that in Ireland at least the Protestants had been intole- rant also — Until within the last sixty years, the notestant Church and Protestant Go- vernment of this country made it their policy to extirpate the Catholic ieligion from Ireland. Need he quote historical facts to prove this melancholy truth ? What was the coionizatiou of Ulster by James the First, but a virtual extirpa- tion of the Catholic religion in that province? Lord Strafford intended to follow up the same plan by colonizing Connaught in the same way; and would have executed his plan had he not been called away by the troubles that beset his own country, England. Did not Cromwell, at a subsequent period, aim at the same object, when he had overrun that country, swept away the last vestige of her independence, confiscated the property of her landowners, and driven the ecclesiastics of the Romish faith to the bogs to caverns, and the defiles of the mountains? Look to the Penal Laws, which were written in proscription-, and executed in extirpation. These facts surely might Le set agai 1st the dc- trifles of a Professor of Louvain. The Marquis of IVESTMEATII contended, that the Protestant severi- ties had always been used in self-defence against Catholic plotters.

The Duke of IVELLINGTON was ready to aid in putting down party strife in Ireland, but Ministers were not taking the riiiint method of doing it.

" Far be it from me (said the fluke) to wish for any renewal of dissensions in Ireland ; and God knows I would go any length or do any thing, to put them down, so far as they now exist ; but we are mistaken, if we suppose that they can be put down by oppressing one party, or allowing one party to oppress another, or by extinguishing—what for the last three or four years you have at- tempted, and are now about to complete—that description a propel ty in Ire- land allotted to the payment of the Clergy. This is the circumstance which occasions the present dissensions in Ireland, and which has induced the present discussion in this Ilouse."

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY defended the Bishop of Exeter ; and strongly condemned the doctrines and practices of the Catholic clergy and laity. The Earl of LIMERICK protested against the system on which Ire- land was at present governed; and reminded the House of the mas- sacre of Irish Protestants in 1688.

Loud DUNGANNON asked the Duke of Wellington, what measures he had taken, when in office, to preserve the property of the Irish Church, which the Duke said Alinisters were proceeding to de-troy?

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, when the Irish C:s!rell Bill came from the other House, he should be ready to state his sentiments on the subject.

Lord DUNCANNON again naked him, what protection to Irish Church property lie had given when in office?

The Duke of WELLINGTON replied, that a measure had been intro- duced into Parliament with that view.

Lord DUNCANNON rejoined, that there Wfli 110W in the other House a measure, introduced by the present Ministers, with the same intention.

Lord Asumeros: had not read the bill referred to by Lord Duna cannon— But if the noble viscount sent before Parliament a measure for the collection of tithes, having tad:tit to it another measure for the destructitat of nearly one- third of the Church of Ireland, he must be quite sure that because of that an- nexation the measure could not be passed.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the conduct of Ministers ; and reminded the Duke of Wellington that a bill had been introduced by the Ministers dismissed in November. which, if passed, would have settled the question—that it was not at Easter of the present y ear, but at the Midsummer of last year, that such a measure had been brought forward, which would have had that elfert.

Lord FARNHAM said, that the whole conduct of Government justi- fiul the Protestants in Ireland inn viewing it with suspicion.

The petition presented by the Bishop of Exeter was then ordered to lie on the table.

6. MISCELLANE.OUS ESTIMATES.

On Monday, the House went into a Committee of Supply, and voted numerous sums on the 'Miscellaneous Estimates. The principal discussion arose on the question of granting 85,0011. for the Advance- ment of Education in Ireland—the money to be appropriated by the Irish Education Board. Mr. PLUMPTRE, Sir Roaster Isicars, Mr. PLUNKETT, Mr. HARDY, Mr. FINCH, and Mr. D. Jai:I:so:sr, strongly opposed the grant; on the ground that the system of education adopted by the Board tended to discourage the growth of Protestantism, and that in many instances gross partiality was shown by the Board to the Catholics. This was denied by Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. WYSE, Mr. BELLEW, Sir JOHN HOMIOUSE, Mr. G. F. YOUNG, and Mr. SHE.4 who spoke in favour of the grant.

Mr. SIIEIL said, in reply to Mr. D. Jackson, that

The date of the estimate was the 8th of April ; that being a time when the Government showed great discrimination in selecting and promoting learned in- dividuals of tine Irish bar, and amongst others his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Jackson), who had shown so much talent on this occasion. On a former occasion, however, his honourable and learned friend showed a high talent of is different kind : as the Frenchman said, II d le grand talent pur le silence_ Mum was then the word. ( Cheers and laughter.) The then 'ecretary for Ireland made no amendment in the estimate ; it was proposed in the presence a many pious persons who sat beside him—Mr. Jackson was one; another was the learned Recorder of Dublin, his good friend Banquo, whom he saw not in his place—" Would he were lucre;" and not a single scruple occurred to any of them. (illneh cheering and laughter.) There was his answer to all that had been said by his honourable and learned friend—it was tine estimate, and the name of " T. F. Fremantle" was at the end of it. (Re ,ce:1 laughter.)

Mr. JACKSON said, that being a young Member, he had not risen on the occasion referred to, because he did not know that it became him then to speak. He was always opposed to the grant, by whomsoever proposed.

The Committee divided ; and agreed to the vote, by 143 to 41.

There was a good deal more conversation on the motion to vote 89281. to Maynooth College. Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. LEFROY, and Mr. FINCH, opposed the grant ; which was supported by Lord MoarErir, Mr. WARBURTON, and Mr. O'CONNELL ; and carried without a divi- sion.

After voting several small sums for the support of hospitals in Ire- land, the Committee rose.

7. ALTERATION IN TI1E TEA-DUTIES.

On the motion of Mr. Sraixo RICE, on Monday, the House went into a Committee on the Tea-duties ; and Mr. Rice then proceeded to

explain the nature of an alteration he intended to propose in those duties. He reminded the House, that the present ditties were always considered as experimental ; and it had heed found by experience that serious inconveniences arose from adopting them— There were teas totally differing in value coming under the same rate of duty. That was a great inconvenience, but there were ether evils more serious still. The qualities of teas of different kinds nevertheless sometimes approached so nearly as to occasion great difficulties and disputes between the merchants and the officers of the customs ; and to give the latter so tremendous a power that without meaning to throw out the slightest imputation against them (on the contrary, he was sure they had a just claim to the praise of having discharge/ 8. MetastanEatENT OF THE POST. OFFICE.

The Duke of Iltenstoso, on Monday, called the attention of the Peers to the statements of Mr. Wallace in tile House of Commons in regard to the alleged mismanagement of the Post-ogiee department.

It had been stated, that, of the income of the Post-otlice, there was it sum of

no less than 1,697,060/. receiud within the last ten years unaccounted for. Bow any gentleman could make such 4Sb:eine:It, was to him most surprising. The returns in themselves, if propel ly looked at, would show that it was an error. The Post-office accounts, by dircetien of the Treasury, were Inept under the beads of " gross receipt," " net prelate,'' and " charges of management." The way inn which the lionouralhe gentleman in the other Ihesee (Mr. \Veil:ice) had committed the mistake, was by adding the two it together, aml finding that they did net amount to the so me stun as that sue al as eress receipt : but had that honourable gentleman cast Ids eye one line further down inn the return, he would have been that the statcniint he had made as to the grvss alerses of the office, could not be supported. That return went oil tr: say, " Perot anel returned letters, Parliamentary grants, and miler tra;„ recut s Cer national oh:rect., are not

included in the charges of management." The a,l.lition of the sums wearid

make the whole conrcet to a shilling. lk Intl riot mob as.. .rid how it •rcas that the honourable gentleman did not read that line—it :curved that it 0 the only thing he did nut read--was it from a fear that the reatim; of it might lie against his own statement? Yet at that inoinerit ha was making a elrarc,e against the Postmaster-General. I/ad he read a litttle further, lie would also have seen dolt it was stunted, that during the last ten years the rem entre had not suffered any loss from the de!.aleathat or arrears of any Postmaster hi Great lir itain ; and consequently that there cunld have Lieu no such iniKuurlact as he had re. presented. The Duke concluded by moving for " a return of tine gross end net revenue, and el the charges of management for the last ten years, as laid before Parliament up to April IS;14. ; and :Os° mar marina slrewing the details of the expenditure of tine sum of 1,0.;7,th)0/. lc:fermi to therein."

The Earl of Lreurreso also complained of Ale. Wallace's state- ments; and highly eulogized the talents, assiduity, and fidelity of Sir Francis Freeling. lie asserted, that Aridn regard to tine greasing of coach-wheels, the contracts for carrying the merls, and the Motley- order Office, there was no fault to be found.

Lord WAI.LACE wished the Post-office to be free from suspicion ; and admitted that many of the charges brought against it were errone- ous. With respect to the management of that department, he differed in some respects with the Duke of Richmond ; and he rejoiced in the appointment of the Commission to investigate the subject.

Lord Aleevnonouort spoke in the highest terms of Sir Francis Freeling, and his management generally of the Post-office. In re- ference to what Lord Lowther had stated of the reluctance of the Post-office functionaries to give explicit information to the Commissi- oners, Lord 2Iaryborough observed, that

When be held the office of Postmaster-general, be felt it his duty to make it generally known to the officers, that they were bound to give every information which was required by the Commissioners; to comply cheerfully with their suggestions; in fact, to go hand in hand with them In the inquiry, and act in every respect in compliance with their wishes, lk felt pleasure in biting enabled to state, that whilst he remained in office there was not the slightest complaint of any obstinacy being shown by the officers, or of a determination exhibited by any one of the officers to withhold any information which they possessed. On the contrary, he bad every reason to believe, that every information which could be required was readily given; every return asked for was as soon as possible supplied ; and the greatest anxiety evinced by every person in tire department to forward, as far as lay in his power, the object of the Commission. Under these circumstances, he certainly felt very great surprise when he read the statement which had been put forward in another place. But in order to see whether there was even any ostensible ground for such a charge, he had that day taken pains to make every inquiry into the subject ; and he fouud- that thirty precepts had been issued by the Commissioners, and that seven or eight of officers if the Post-oftice had beea examined before the Commissioners. lie stated to them what had been mentioned in another place, and asked them

their duties moat conscientiously), he must say that it ought not to exist. Per- sons whose salaries were only two or three huudred pounds a year had the power, on their own discretion and judgment, of varying the duty on a cargo of

tea to an amount of more thousands of pounds than they annually receised hun- dreds. Another evil was, that the present system prevented the extension of the trade to outports, in consequence of the difficulty of fairly levying the dis- criminating duties. These were among the reasons which had induced his Majesty's Government to give the preference to a uniform rate of duty. There were two points to be considered,—the first, what the amount of that uniform duty should be ; the second, at what period the new law should come into ope- ration. He held in his hand a document to which he wished to cull the atten- tion of the Committee. It was a calculation of the produce of the different rates of duty on tea which had been collected since the opening of the trade. It appeared that, from the 22d of April lea.14 to the .5th of April 1835, the amount of tea on which the duty of Ise GI. a pound had been collected, was 300,000ffis. ; that the amount of tea on which the duty of t2s. •2d. a pound had been collected, was 22,000,000ffis.; and that the amount of tea on which the duty of as. a pound had been collected, was 1,:300,000ffis. The amount of reveuue received was :3,021,00e/. Now, if the entire amount of tea had been rated at the highest rate of duty, the revenue would have been 119,000/. more; if it bad been rated at .2s. Id., the revenue would have been 14,900/. less; if it had been rated at 2s., it would have been 12:2,200/. less. Ile would now advert to the period at which the operation of the uniform rate of duty might advan- tageously commence. Nothing could be more unjust than to carry the proposed alteration into immediate effect. Persons who had ordered large quantities of Bohea would have a good ground of complaint, if they were compelled to pay 7d. or 811. a pound more duty than the rate established by law at the time they gave their orders. Iii order, therefore, to give full and timely notice to all par- ties, he intended to propose that the present duties should contiuue in operation until the 2d of July I sa36. All who might import tea after that period, would have had abundant notice on the subject. After a brief recapitulation of the motives of the change, and of the advantages which might be expected to result from it, Mr. Rice concluded by moving a resolution to the effect " that the pre.. sent rates of duty on tea shall cease and deteriniae on the :el of July leeSti; and that in lieu thereof, there be levied and paid on all teas innported for home con- sumption a uniform duty of tti. III. per pound."

Mr. CRAWFORD, Sir J. R. REID, Mr. Gout InenN, :Ma Mr. PEASE, approved of the proposed uheration. Mr. I eSIE regretted it—

It appeared to him to be contraty to all princip!e to lay a duty cf :;00 per cent. on cheap teas, and a duty of not 100 per cent. on otters. If Government were t!stermined on this measure, there was no alternative, but he euuld have wished they had tried the existing system for another year.

The resolution was then agreed to.

whether, in their examination before the Commissioners, any expression had noble lords, who hal been successively Postmastess, to a discussion. He wow

fallen from the Commissioners which could reed them to believe that the•im- pression on their minds was that they (the officers) had shown any backward- ness or disinclination to give every Information in their power to the Commis- sionera? They answered that they felt convinced that they gave the Comnais- sioners the most perfect satisfaction, and that they had not made use of a simele expression which could lead them to a contrary opinion.

The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed his surprise at the speech

attributed to Lord Lowther : indeed, he was persuaded that the noble lord bad been misrepresented.

Lord ROSSLYN bore his testimony to the "alacrity" with which the officers at the Post-office had promoted the objects of the Commis- slot ters.

The Duke of RICHMOND'S motion for papers was agreed to.

In the House of Co:anions, on Tuesday evening, these retnaiks of the Peers were noticed by Lord LOWTHER ; tvlio began by remarking, that, on the previous evening, there had been "in another place " a field. day of Postmasters-General. lie would not retract the term " obsti- nacy" which be had used in refereuee to the conduct of the Post-office functionaries, and he would state some facts which had conic to his knowledge, as a Commissioner in the Post-office inquiry, which would justify his use of the term— Ile would first refer to the concluding Report of the Commissioners relative to the Price Current ; and he would observe that there were two or three subjects on which they had never been able to obtain such information as to enable them to make a report. With regard to the alleged alacrity of despatch in the Post •office department, he would read the concluding sentence of that Report. The Corn.. nossionersap'oointed by the Linda of the Treasury had furnished the Postmaster- General with a statement of several recommendations of the Connuissioners of tire Revenue Inquiry, and requested them to prepare a paper, showing, in what cases these recemmendations had been complied with, or the reason which hail prevented their adoption. That paper haul not been furnished at the time he and his colleagues closed their inquity. It was ;main applied for by the succeed.. iog Commissioners in the Month of August, and 'a renewed application had been made in the month of February. That paper had not yet been furnished ; and he bad therefore a right to complain of delay, and to say that the Post-ofliee showed great obstinacy in refusing to attend to the question of the Commis- sioncte. There was another paper asked for, which was drawn up by Colonel Yet ke, Private Secretary to Lord 31tilgrave : that paper also was refused ; and when the Postmaster went to tine office to inquire as to the cause of delay, he found there was a great unwillingness on the part of those concerned to make the retail,. Ile else informed them that no explanation had been given why that paper, which would have verv much facilitated the inquiry, bad not been put before the Commissioners. Ife would refer next to another subject of in- quiry—that of steamsboate : he bad always thought the pablic losers trum those eentracts, and be bad applied for a detai!ed account ; and the answer seas, that it was impossible to give a detailed account. Ile next applied at the Admiralty, and went to Me. Dawson, who furnished him in three days with the most precise details. 'fire foreign postage was a most important part of the Post-office business— In order to get some information on that head, he bad called for the number of letters between Calais and London, and the number that passed the other way. The answer was, that the weight of letters sent from London to Calais, was 1:34,0001lis weight in one year, independent of franks, and from Calais to London b,000,000 drachms. Ile wished to know bow the Commissioners could make any intelligible tenon hoot such returns. Ile would also add, that the accounts were ill kept ; and that they were not in such a state as to show the amount of postage between this country and France and Spain, as smell as several other Continental States, or ',reduce any clear data to prove whether we were losers on whiners. Ile could, in fact, enumerate a vast number cf cases in t-Iliell no returns had been prude to the Coninris,,ioners. lk wished, for in. stance, to ascertain what was the salary of the Post:no:ter cf Jamaica ; a re- turn was made, in which it was statol that the salary Was 4C0/. a year, with kol. allowance. Colonel Yorlte was not satisfied with the return; ail inquiry was iostituted ; and it was finally ascertained from a clerk in the Secretary's office, who gave his evidence very relinetautly, that the office is-as worth t 1,600/. a year. Ile hell not the advantages of Lord Maryborough, who had lately visited the Post-office for the purpose of obtaining something like correct in- formation; but he should like to know how this -ICU a year and 160/. allow- :111M were to be reconciled with 1,600/. a year. It was said the difference was made up by the sale of newspapers. It was said also, that he was paid so much for iesiteeting the other West India Islands. The son of Sir Francis Freeling, who was scut to the West holies to procure infoiniation, at it heavy expense to the csaintry, could hardly have been ignoraut of this. Ile could adduce a number of cases relative to the salaries of clerks, tire profits for the transmission of newspapers—the use made of the Post-of:lee for electicneering purposes; but he thought he had stated enough to show that he was justified in fuibwiir, out the recommendation of the Commissioners appointed in 1797, and in making gore! his assertion that he had met with obstructions which very much inter- rupted a sathfactory result to the inquiry. Ile had been selected on different occasions to make inquiries into the Excise-office, the Tax-office, and the old Exchequer ; and the first step to the abolition of that antiquated office had been recommended by himself and his colleague the Member for Aluuniouth. In his inquiries into these three offices he had found every facility ; in his inquiries into the Aletropolitan Trusts he had received the same facility; arid he might add, that notwithstanding the complication of the details, he did not meet with more difficulties in the Exchequer inquiry than he met with in the inquiries into the Post-office. Ile would ask, therefore, and wished Lord alaryborough were present to say, what alacrity bad been shown by the Post-office in the production of it single paper ? There were several other minor points, such as that papers were not eigned ; but he would not go into them. Ile had en- deavoured to make a candid statement. He trusted he had not made a rash one; and he was ready to bear any obloquy that might attach either to his conduct in these inquiries, or to his statements in the House that night.

Lord Lowther concluded by moving for a return of papers from the office of Postmaster-General, stating which of the recommendations of the Commissioners bad been carried into effect, and which had not, with the reasons for not carrying them into effect. Mr. VERNON SMITH had no objection to granting the papers moved for ; but at the same time, he wished that a copy of the evidence sent to the Treasury by the Commissioners of 1834 should be laid on the table. Mr. HOME said, that the House was under great obligation to Lord Lowther, for the manner in which he had brought forward the subject : the time he had devoted to it rendered him a most important witness.

Mr. WALLACE declared, that he should adhere to all his statements of the previous Thursday; and would prove them all, were a Com- mittee granted— He was read • to make good his assertions; and he would challenge the five admit the public— the public Press, and meet them in any hall in London — ( Cries of" Exeter Hull V" and laughter)—well, he was ready to meet them in Exeter Hall, and prepared to refute them.

Mr. LABOUCHERE, Dr. BOWRING, and Mr. SPRING RILE, spoke a few words; and the motion of Lord Lowther was agreed to.

9. ADMISSION OF LADIES TO TIIE GALLERY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

On Thursday, Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY brought forward his mo- tion to allow ladies to be admitted to the Gallery of the House.

In former times, and until the year 1763, ladies were allowed uot on!y to sit in the Gallery of the House, but to occupy seats usually appropriated to Alembers alone. In the Irish Parliament ladies vere always allowed to be present dui ing the debates. In our present House of Peers they were also so admitted. And why should not they be adinitted to hear the debates of the House of Commons ? He was-quite aware that an erroneous opinia was prevalent among Members. that the ladies already possessed too much power and influence in the political world. But Si) lung as a female could Iry law wear the Crown of England, that was an opinion to the justice of which' be would never assent. No one could coutradict that females shared as largely in the distribution of intellect as lien. It was well known also that the exercise of that intellect lead frequently decided elections both for counties and towns. Possessing so much influence over the return of :Members to that House, it was merely but just that they should be admitted in order to hear how the honourable Members who had ken returned by their influence acquitted themselves. (A torty6.) Ile had been informed by two or three honourable and right honourable gentlemen, that the only rea- son which made them doubt whether they could conscientiously support his portion, was the apprehension that if ladies were admitted into the House, a number of honourable :Members, instead of addressirg the Speaker would address the ladies. (L,:uhter. Really, he did not think that that was a sufficient reason for rejecting his motion. A stronger motive for adopting it might be found in the superior tone of discussion which the consciousness of the presence of ladies would necessarily induce. Let the lloroe recollect the violent language and the gross personalities in which honourable Members now oreasionally in- dulged ; and then say if theydid not think that the tone of the debates would be much refined and elevated by the presence of ladies. No Member would make a speech of five hours and a half in length if he knew he was drawing so largely on the patience of feinala auditors. Many other advantages would accrue from the adoption of his propositivo ; and the more he considered the subject, the more he became convinced that the admission of ladies during the debates of that House, would, in every respect, he highly advantageous. Ile won'ti con- clude, tlarefoie, with moving, in the words of his notice, " That it Select Com- mittee be appointod to consider the best means of setting apart awl adapting a portion of the Strangers' Gallery for the admittance of ladies during the de- bates:" to which he would add, "that admittance might be granted in such form and manner as the Speaker might appoint "—( Load loughter)—and " that provision be made in the new House of Commons for the accommodation of

A dozen Members started up to second the motion ; but Mr. Fooscir obtained the enviable distinction of doing so.

The question having been put from the chair, the sound of the "ayes" shook the walls.

Lord JouN RessLar. said, that without entering at all into the merits of the question, he would merely observe that he could not acquiesce in the motion ; becallae, in his opinion, if it were deemed advisable to adopt the proposition for the admittance of ladies during the debates, it would be much better that the House should do itself the honour of adopting it, instead of referring it to the consideration of a Select Committee. Moreover, a Select Compiittee appeared to be quite unnecessary, as Mr. Berkeley hod mortal that the Speaker should appoint the form and manner in which the ladies should be admitted. The Gallery was then elearad for a division. For the motion, J,;) against it, 104; majority for tine ladies, 49. The announcement of the uumbers was received with vociferous cheers.

Mr. BEnsTra:v then read the names of the gentlemen Ile proposed to place OD the Committee, amid:zt loud laughter ; which was increased on a motion being made that Mr. Pryme and Mr. Pease should be added to them.

Last night, in the House of Peers, Lord Boot-Guam referred to the above vote of tile Commons—

He must say, that lie diflred from some other people in this matter ; and, disliking the introduction of politics into private society, he thought that the ladies wonld bc infinitely litter employed in almost ninny other way than in at- tending the dellates of the Houses of Parliament. Ile should, therefore, if no other noble lord (wind a proposition for setting apart a gallery for their use in

the new building, oppose it himself. His noble—he might almost say his noble and learned—friend opposite (Loin! Wharncliffe) sermon! to laugh at what he was saying. He could assure his noble friend, that not even his noble friend felt a tome absolute and entire devotion to the sex than he did ; but he wished also always to see them in their proper places. (Lctuuldrr.)

Lord WitaaNcrarer. agreed entirely with Lord Brougham, and did not mean to ridicule what he said.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that the name of the ladies was not as yet in the report of the Building Committee; and as far :as he was concerned, it never should be introduced there.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

IRISH CHURCH BILL. This bill was read a second time on Monday, without opposition; Lord JOIN Rossaao having informed the House that his Majesty had been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament all his interest in any benefices or Ecclesiastical preferment in Ireland.

hum MUNICIPAL REFORM. On Monday, Mr. Sergeant PERRIN gave notice, that on Thursday the 23d instant he should move for leave to bring in a bill to reform the Corporations of Ireland.

DROGHEDA ELECTION. On Monday, Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Mr. O'Dwyer, praying for some legislative measure to remedy the existing Election-law, under which his election for Drog- heda had been declared void. Some discussion took place on this peti- ton. It was generally allowed that the law required to be amended; but there was considerable difference of opinion as to whether in Mr. O'Dwyer's case the decision of the Committee had been a right one. Colonel Wool) maintained that the decision was just. Mr. O'CON- NELL and Mr. SHELL were of opinion that it was at variance with law. Colonel WOOD said—

The question Which the Committee had had to decide was this—whether a person having a lease for the lives of two other persons, could grant to a third person an estate for his life, aueh as would constitute the qualification required

by the act. Had this been an English case, there would not have been a ma- nient's doubt about it in the Committee; but there had been an Irish net passed, giving leases held in perpetuity the character of a freehold ; and the Committee had decided that, in the present case, although the qualification did approach ha its nature to a freehold, it was not exactly of that kind which the act required.

Mr. SHEIL and Mr. IL GRATTAN argued, that a lease for lives of this kind wits always considered in Ireland better than a freehold ' • as the tenant, in this instance, on the lapse of a life, might, if he pleased, have put in that of Mr. O'Dwyer himself'. Mr. WYNN objected to the reception of a petition impugning the decision of an Election Committee ; but the House agreed to receive It, and it was laid on the table.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF ART ; SCHOOLS OF DESIGN. On Tuesday Mr. EWART 1110Yed for the appointment of a Committee " to inquire into the best means of extending a knowledge of the arts and of the principles of design among the people (especially among the manufac- turing population) of the country ; and also to inquire into the consti- tution of' the Royal Academy, and the effects produced by it." After a debate which was of considerable length and interest, but which the reporters in their wisdom have "Lurked," the motion was agreed to. Mr. 1VYSE, Dr. BOWRING, Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, Lord SaNnoN, AIr. RIDLEY COLBORNE, and Mr. SPRING RICE, were among the principal speakers, all in favour of the motion. Mr. Wyse's speech was that of warin admirer of the line arts ; and Mr. O'CoN- NII.I spohe a few eloquent and most impressive sentences on the advantages of decorating our churches with appropriate works of the first artists—such as would in St. Paul's, for instance, be far more fitting to a temple intended for the worship of the Deity, than the warlike banners which rotted ;against wulls.

PUBLIC WALKS AND GARDENS AND MECHANICS INSTITUTIONS. Air. BUCKINGHAM, ou ..1' tiesday, ol:tained leave to bring in two bills to facilitate the laying out of walks and gardens for the recreation of the public ill the vicinity of large towns, annul the establishment of Me- chanies Institutes. lie also moved for leave to bring in a bill to " classify " houses of entertainment ; hut this motion was opposed by Mr. Hums, Colonel loorit Ilav, and Mn. Maas, who deprecated this perpetual legislative meddling, with publiehouses. :Ur. BUCKINGHAM, seeing the sense of the house to be against him, withdrew his third motion.

Cirm.rv To ANIMALS BILL. At the morning sitting on Tuesday, on tine motion of Mr. PEASE, this bill was recommitted, on a division of' 30 to 16. Several clauses were agreed to after some opposition, and the Committee ruse.

TURNPIKE l'itusrs. On AIonday, Mr. Fox 2I:aut.o obtained leave to bring in a bill to consolidate turnpike trusts.

TREATMENT 01 THE ABORIGINES IN THE BRUM! SETTLEMENTS. On the motion of Ali. BUXTON, on Tuesday, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the treatment of the natives in the British Colonies. But it Wili agreed that there should be no proceedings on the report of the Committee till next session.

DIVISIONS OF Tito Hoeso. Mr. Ward) stated, on Thursday, iii reply to a question from Mr. Harvey, that the matter was left in the of Mr. Spring Rice ; who had a few days ago informed him that he had prepared an estimate of the expel' a; of ploviding the additional lobby, which svould shortly be laid b, lore the House.

Cr.alm or THE Fianna nt: BODE. Mr. GFRORNE moved. on Tues- day, for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of this person; but the llonac rejected the motion, by 177 to 59.

Bitaacii or PRIVILEGE: AIR. CHARLTON. On Monday, Mr. Citaituros gave notice, that he should on the following day call the attention of the House to a breach of privilege committed by the Monday CY/Amick in some remarks upon his Parliamentary conduct and political history. On l'uesday, Mr. Charlton withdrew his mo- tion ; as all exaulpatory letter which he had sent to time Morning Chro- nicle last week had bcen inserted that morning; and as he was con- vinced the editor was not the author of the article ; the writer of which, Inc was convinced, was the perstm described by his _Majesty in the Cor- poration Commission ;la our " right trusty and well-beloved cousin, .1o,epli Parkes." Mr. Charlton read some passages of his letter to the Chronicle, which provoke 1 loud law:liter ; arid he was at length informed by the SPEAKER, that he was out of order and must sit down.