Manta? attb' Womb - Mal in parliament.

1. EMANCIPATION OF THE NEGRO SLAVES. On Tuesday, the order of the day having been read for the House going into Committee, Mr. STANLEY rose. He had no doubt the Committee would extend to him a large share of kind indulgence, when they reflected, that, al- though only a short' time in his present office, it became his duty to inning tinder the consideration of Parliament a question. of unparalleled znagnitude arid importance, involving greater interests perhaps than any question which bad for many years been submitted to the Legislature. any difficulties surrounded the subject, of a peculiar nature. Mari- time commerce to the amount of 250,000 tons—a revenue of between ve and six millions—the interests, nay the very existence, of a vast body of proprietors in the Colonies—but above all, the temporal wel- fare of 700,4.100 or £00,000 of our fellow.createres, with their descend- ants for generations yet unborn—depended upon the safe and satisfac- tory settlement of the slave question. Millions of subjects of foreign powers would also be affected by the successful or unsuccessful issue of. the mighty experiment now about to be tried. The conflicting opi- nions held by the West India interest on the one side, arid the Eman- cipationists on the other, enhanced the difficulty of dealing with the subject. The determination to procure the abolition of slavery was no novel or transient feeling. He referred to Mr. Canning's declaration, that those statesmen who had abolished the slave trade, " attacked only the outworks of the great fortress' yet undoubtedly looked forward with a certain conviction in their ml rids that the destruction of those outworks would lead to the fall of the citadel itself." He also referred to the speeches of' Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, and to Mr. Canning's reso- lutions in 1823. to prove that the extinction of slavery had always been intended by Parliament, and preceding Administrations. But what bad the Colonies done for carrying into effect the resolutions of 1823 for the gradual abolition of slavery ?

In the course of that year, Lord Bathurst, as Colonial Secretary, communi- cated to the Crown Colonies the wishes, intentions, and determinations of Par- liament, with a view to their adopting such internal regulations, and effecting sueb modifications of their existing domestic usages, as would attain the end contemplated by the Mother Conntry—namely, the total abolition of eleven y, and the converting the Negro into the condition of a free labourer. In the offi- cial circular of Lord Bathurst, it was particularly stated, that it was expected that immediate steps would be taken by the local authorities towards the dieti- tian of the Sunday market, and the better observance of the Sabbath—for the admission of the evidence of slaves—for their nianumission—for sanctioniug slave marriages—for preventing slaves from being separated from their &mines —for the abolition of corporal punishment at the hands of the master or over- seer—and for the establishment of slaves' savings-banks. The resolutions of 1823 were followed up by an Older in Council in 1824, which, in addition to these intentions of the Legislature, added the eStahlishment of a Protector of Slaves, specified the right of the Negroes tmpossess property under certain con - ditions, and to demand his manumission upon certain terms, even against tire will of his master. How, then, were these resolutions and suggestions of Par- liament in 1823, backed by the imperative command of an Order in Council in 1e24, received by the Colonial Legislatures ? Not a colony, without a single exception, but scornfully, rejected them ; not one colony but disdainfully re-

to obey the suggestions and determination of Parliament and the Mother Country.

' Mr. Canning, though indignant at the conduct of the Colonies, did not recommend harsh measures, but gave them time to reconsider the subject. Eight bills were prepared in order to carry the resolutions of Parliament into effect, and transmitted to the Colonies for their adop- tion; but they were all rejected. Not a single colony condescended to accept a single bill out of the entire eight. This was in 1826; mid up fo this time in 1833, not a single step had been taken by the Colonial Legislatures with a view to the extinction of slavery. In one or two Colonies, a Council of Protection was appointed as a substitute for that .efficient officer a Slave Protector ; but that .Council was composed ad Magistrates, themselves slaveowners, and determined to maintain

•

the present system. Even the whippintonemale slaves was continued in all the Colonies.

Talk of improving.the social 'habits ti14he .Negro as a means and essential condition of Ins political improvement! talk of developing and culturing his moralfaculties, male face of this monstrousatbomination ! talk of inducing a habit of respect and reverence- for the laws, of teaching him to behold in his white master a guardian, a moral guide, an intellectual instructor, while his Wife, daughter, or sister, was at the mere mercy, the wanton caprice, of some overseer' who might any moment inflict on that wife, daughter, or sister, de- grading bodily punishment on her bare person ! talk of their improving the Negro as a moi al being and as a subject of the laws, while they themselves per- petuated a practice, the test of barbarism, of 'fierce brutal savagery—that test which separated the civilized man from the barbarian—the inhuman treatment of women ! • How could a Negro, with such degrading and demoralizing facts staring hint in the face, improve as a moral being and a member of political so- ciety ? The supposition was a mockery—a cruel insult.

Remarking upon the practice of the Colonies in regard to the mar- siege of slaves—the reception of their evidence against white men— their liability to be flogged upon the least provocation—he contended, that unless Parliament intetfered for their ptotection, there was not the most remote prospect of their condition being improved. He maintained the constitutional right of Parliament to legislate upon the subject ; and then proceeded to call the attention of the Committee to the statements of West Indian distress. He admitted this distress to be very great; but denied that it bad been occasioned by the inter- ference of Parliament on the subject of slaVery ; and read the report of a Committee of the House of Assembly of Jamaica, which stated the sufferings of the Colonial proprietors in very strong terms. But then this report was made in 1804, when the slave-trade was in its high and palmy state—at that period of prosperityto which the plant- ers now referred with exultation when they charged all the present dis- tress to the measures of the Mother Country for the emancipation and improvement of the Negroes. He would state one real cause of West Indian distress.

Possessing the monopoly of the English market, they had gone beyond its wants; and they could now no longer obtain such a price as would repay them for the cultivation of their estates. The amount of sugar imported at present exceeded the amount of consumption by 1,000,000 cwt. annually. The conse- quence of this enormous excess of supply over the demand was, that the mono- poly WWI, as respected the planters, a dead letter ; and the priced their produce 111 this country was necessarily regulated by the price of the same article in the European mailets.

It was said that measures of the nature which be was about to pro- pose to the Howe would tend to lessen the cultivation of sugar. He would state some facts which be thought would produce such a strong impression as to induce the House to believe, that for the sake of hu- manity alone, they ought to step in for the purpose of limiting and re- gulatieg the extent to which the slave was at present called upon to labour. He then read an official statement from the Trienniol Revister, from which it appeared. that in Jamaica, Demerara, Berbice, and St. Lucia, as the produce of sugar increased, the number of the slave popu- lation had decreased. In Trinidad, there was a trifling increase both in the production of sugar and in the slave population ; but then, there was it considerable influx of Negroes from the Spanish Main into that island. In Barhadoe,s, the slave population had also increased, but the decrease in the production of sugar had been contemporaneous with it.

He had now shown that increased production was accompanied by decreased population,— that the decrease of population fell heaviest on those classes from whom the severest labour was exacted ; and he had now only to show the mode in ohich this labour was exacted by increased severity. The recorded punishments in Demerara were 17359; the number of slaves tieing 60.599. In 1830, the number of slaves had decreased to 1,547; while the number of punishments had increased to 18.324, and the number of lashes inflicted in that year was no less than 194,744. In 1831, the population had still further de- creased to 58,404; but the punishments had increased to 21,656, and the num- ber of lashes amounted to 199,507. Now, let the House bear in mind, that this was the official record of punishment, not including the punishment inflicted by judicial authority, or on reference to Magistrates,—because there existed no re- turn of this latter sort,—but inflicted in one of the Crown Colonies, under the improved system, and under the check of the record. It was a return given by the ministers of the slaves themselves, of the extent of despotic and irresponsible punishment inflicted by their own authority, amounting in one to almost 200,000 lashes.

But it had been said that slaves would not work in the field without the whip ; and they were asked to point out twenty instances of manu- mitted :laves engaged in field labour. Now the fact was, that field slaves were scarcely ever manumitted two thirds of the manumitted slaves were women, and it would be easily conceived wha was the cause of their manumission. The manumitted slaves were almost in- variably house slaves. He read the evidence of a Mr. Lovell, a man of colour and originally a slave, to the effect that a number of liberated Slaves in Antigua had worked for themselves with great industry, and built dwellinghouses. Such also had been the case in the Bahamas. In Venezuela, as he had lately been informed by the Vice- President of that republic, who had also been a protector of slaves, matounission had been acted upon to a great extent. In 1821, there were 100,000 slaves in that republic; now there were only 25,000: and the manumitted slaves were sober and industrious. The agriculture of that country was improving every day. The sugar-cane was produced now, though not under the slave system. in great abundance ; and their rum was sold in the Trinidad markets as the best Jamaica rum.

He would now proceed to state to the House by what -means, in his opinion, Colonial slavery might be abolished with the most certainty and the least danger. No member would .be pledged by his vote to sanction all the details of the Government plan ; which, from its nature, must be capablE of receiving many amendments from the advocates of the different interests to be affected by it. Government was prepared to go to the full extent of Mr. Buxton's requisition in 1823. Mr: Buxton then said, that he did not call upon the Government to retrace their steps, but to go no further in the same direction—to make no more slaves. Now to this extent, and timber, he was ready to go. He proposed that every Negro should front that day—or perhaps he ought to. have said from the day in which this act sbouid be passed—beentitled forthwith to claim to be put in such a situation as would entitle him hereafter to claim all fine rights and privileges of a free man,—a Situation in which he would no longer bear about him any taint of a servile-condition.—in which he would be released from all dread of irresponsible corporal punishment,—in which . he would be in the full enjoyment of all his domestic ties and comforts,—in which he would nut be compelled to see his nearest awl dearest connexions inautted by Pe whip, or by the threat of the whip,—in which his evideum would he teceived in all courts of justice, either for oragainst his employer, as freely as that ol.nyptherof his Majesty's subjects,—in which his right to property, acquired or bequeathed, ?mild be full and undisputed.—in which he would enjoy every irivilege of a free man, subject only to this restriction, that he should be under ii contract to labour for a certain time industriously for his present owner, who would then only be his employer. Perhaps is would be as well for him to meet here the objection " How will you deal with the multitudinous restrictions with which the Colonial Legislature has fettered the slave? " He would so eep away all .those restrictions at once, by declaring the Negro a free map. Flom the mo- anent he was declared a free man, the restrictions which applied to him As a 'dove would cease to apply to him. The Negro, being no longer a slave, would be entitled to contract marriage; his evidence would be indisputab'e; his right to property would be admitted ; he would be entitled to seek the religious in- structor he liked best ; and, in a word, he would enjoy every privi'ege of a free xnan, upon the condition of consenting to labour for a given time upon a parti- cular soil.

The Negro would be made to enter into a contract, by which his Master would be bound to give him food and clothing, and 6uch allow- ances as were now made him by law, or to give him, in lieu thereof, a pecuniary allowance. For this-consideration, he would be called upon to work for his master three fourths of his time—either three fourths of the day or of the week, as they should settle between them. If he

were inclined to give his master the remaining fourth, he would be en- titled to a recompense at the fixed rate of wages ; but he might go and work for whomsoever he pleased. With respect to the rate of the Wages to be paid by the master,

He could devise no better mode than that of compelling the planter to $x a price on the labourer at the time of his apprenticeship; and by enacting that the wages to be paid by the master should bear such a proportion to the price fixed by him, that for the whole of his spare time, if given to the master, the Negro should receive one twelfth of his price annually. In this way the master and the slave would both act in reference to each other. If the master fixed a high price for MI-Negro he would have to pay him high wages in proportion to that price. If he fixed a low price, then, upon the payment of that price by any other person on his behalf, the Negro would be positively and absolutely free.

The slave-owner would thus. have only three fourths of the labour of an apprenticed Negro for the same compensation which he now paid for the whole of the labour of the slave. But was it fair to throw upon the West India proprietary the whole of the loss which this alteration would occasion ? He calculated that the total net profits of West India property would be 1,500,000/. per annum. Ten years' purchase on this would be 15,000,0001.; and this amount it was proposed to lend on loan to the West India body ; or perhaps Parliament might think it right to convert it into a gift, according to a plan which it might be his duty hereafter to propose.

Parliament might consider that sum equal to one fourth of the proceeds of the slave's labour; and with that sum and the other three fourths of his labour, lie would, at the end of twelve years, have received a just compensation for the price of his slave, and for all the expense to which the slave might have put him for food and clothing. It was only right, however, to state, that during that time the planter would have to pay interest upon his loan, and to that amount lie might perhaps be considered a loser. Now, he thought that it would not be denied that this remuneration must be borne either by the produce of Negro labour or by the revenue of England. It could not be borne by the Planters, for that would neither be fair nor just; it must, therefore, be borne by one of the two alternatives to which he had already alluded. Upon one or other of them, beyond all question the choice of Parliament must rest. There might be gentlemen who thought that you ought not to take any thing from the profits of the Negro so long as he continued a slave. In that opinion he could not con- cur. He thought that taking a portion of their wages from them now, for the purpose of purchasing their freedom hereafter, would induce them to lay by some part of their earnings afterwards when they became free—would teach them habits of prudence and forethought, and would materially tend to their moral improvement.

He believed that he had now stated the principal features of his plan, with one exception :

That exception was that it might be necessary to add to the provisions of the bill that of which the want had rendered all former enactments null and void,—he meant that it might be necessary to give to the Executive some dis- cretionary power. It might be necessary to distribute through the Chartered Colonies what already existed in the Crown Colonies,—namely, stipendiary Ma- gistrates appointed by the Crown, uninfluenced by the local assemblies,—free from local passions and prejudices,---who would discharge equal justice to the rich and the poor, the Black and the White,—who would watchover and pro- tect the Negro in his incipient state of freedom, and who would aid and direct his inexperience in forming a contract which might have so material an effect .upon his future life.

• He would also call upon the House to assist the Local Legislatures, or to proceed without their cooperation in establishing schools for the religious and moral education of the inhabitants of the Colonies.

"It is not (said Mr. Stanley in conclusion) without feelings of the deepest and most heartfelt satisfaction that I recall to your recollection the fact, that one man, the most religiously-inspired, the most conscientiously-influenced of • all who laboured in the dawn and the rising of this great and glorious cause- Wilberforce—still remains to witness the final consummation of that important triumph to which his early energies were devoted, and to exclaim, like the last of the prophets to whom I have before alluded, 'Lord, now let thy servant de- part in peace.'" ( Great cheering.)

The following resolutions were then read.

"1. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that immediate and effectual measures be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the Colonies, under such provi- sions for regulating the condition of the Negroes, as may combine their welfare with the interests of the Proprietors. '• 2. That it is expedient that all children born after the passing of any Act, or who shall be under the age of six years at the time of passing any Act of Parliament for this purpose, be declared free; sabject nevertheless to such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary for their support and maintenance, "3. That all persons now slaves be entitled to be registered as apprenticed labourers, and to acquire thereby all rights and privileges of free omen: subject to the restriction of labouring, under conditions and for a time to be fixed by Parliament, for their present On tiers.

" 4. That to provide again' st the risk ofloss which his Majesty's Colonial possessions might sustain by the abolition of slavery, his Majesty be enabled to advance by way of loan, to be raised from time to time, a slim not exceeding in the whole 15,000,00iff.:to be repaid in such manner and at such rate of interest as shall be prescribed by Parlia- ment.

"5 That kis Majesty be enabled to defray. any.such expense he may ipgur in. eata- qffirthing an efficient etipendiaryniagistracy ma the Colonies, and lb aiding the-loral Legislatures in providing for the religious and moral education of the Negro population to be emancipated." •

Mr. STANLEY added, that he was too well aware of the importance of the subject, to ask the House to come to a hasty decision upon it, and would not call for an immediate vote.

In answer to a question from Sir ROBERT PEEL, be said, that although

the power of corporal inflicted was taken from the masters, in cer-

tain cases it might be by order of the Magistrates. Lord Howice said, he was compelled, by an imperative sense of duty, to oppose the plan.

It hail been said that the first resolution gave the slave the essentials of free- dom ; but this was attempting to dupe the House with words. The only dis- tinction between the slave and the free man was the condition on which lie gave his labour ; and that being the ease, how did Mr. Stanley seek to get rid of slavery ? For three fourths of his tine the Negro is to be the apprenticed ser- vant of his master, not by his own free choice, but by a contract forced upon him. And what was that contract ? That he was to give three fourths of his time for the food and clothing which he now received. Now, in the evidence taken before the House of Lords, it was stated that the value of the supply fur- nished to each Negro was 45s. a year. So that the Negro, for three-fourths of his time, was to give his labour for one fifteenth of its value. Was not this a distinct mark of slavery? His labour would not be voluntary, it would be ex- torted by the fear of punishment.

On the view of the interest of the Negro, he was prepared to reject the scheme. But how was the Planter affected by it ? He was nomi- nally to have three fourths of the labour of his slave ; but that would produce him very little, for the Negro, seeing that his wages were not increased by his labour, would do as little as he could. Even now, the cart-whip could not make the Negro give him the whole amount of his labour. In Demerara, where twenty-five lashes were the maximum of punishment that could be inflicted, it was found impossible to make the slave work to any thing like his full power. Under Mr. Stanley's arrangement, the Magistrate would have the power of compelling the Negro to work, and of punishing him for idleness. But how was he to have the power of deciding a point which depended upon individual strength, the state of the soil, and other circumstances ? The experi- ment had been tried in the Australian Colonies. Indentured servants had been sent out there to work for their masters on a specified scale of labour ; but it was found not to answer, as the servant gained no- thing by his labour, and the more he was punished the more idle he be- came. The bill would abrogate every constitutional privilege in the Colonies ; which could only be justified by extreme necessity. He was for fixing a date, at the earliest possible period, for the total abolition of slavery.

At the suggestion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord ALTHORP proposed that the debate should be adjourned to Thursday the 30th May.

Mr. BUXTON objected to the postponement ; but wished, at all events, before any period was fixed for the resumption of the debate, to be in-

formed on one point,—whether the money alluded to in the propositions was to be paid by the Negroes OF the Country ? If the Negroes were to be called upon to pay a single farthing, unless for their own benefit, he should on that score alone oppose the measure.

Lord ALTHORP said, the details would be left entirely to the discre- tion of the House.

Mr. GODSON said, the West Indians did not wish for any postpone- ment. Their minds were made up as to the measure.

2. ANTI- SLAVERY PETITIONS. Mr. BUXTON, on Tuesday, pre- sented a petition for the abolition of slavery, signed in the course of ten days by 187,000 females. He did not know how he should get it on the table. Mr. Buxton then retired, and returned in a few minutes, accompanied by three other members, carrying the petition, which was about as large as a sack of flour. The first name on the petition was Amelia Opie, the second Priscilla Buxton. Mr. Buxton also pre- sented 300 other petitions on the same subject.

Mr. HARVEY, on Wednesday, when several more petitions against slavery were presented, observed that the Earl of Ripon had been oc- cupied two years upon a plan for the abolition of slavery, and that his plan differed materially, he understood, from Mr. Stanley's. He wished to have Lord Ripon's plan, as well as Mr. Stanley's resolu- tions, submitted to the consideration of the House.

Colonel TORRENS, on Wednesday, presented a petition for emanci- pation signed by 5,200 ladies of Bolton.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord SUFFIELD presented 201 petitions for the abolition of slavery. He stated that he had already presented 2,000 petitions on the same subject, and that he had 1,000 more to present. He complained that the plan of Government would substantially enact the continuance of slavery for at least twelve years ; and he felt certain that it would never find its way out of the .House of Commons in any thing like the form which it bore at present.

On Friday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, Earl oc POSEBERY, Em'! of ALBEMARLE, and the Duke of WELLINGTON, presented peti- tions on the same subject. The Duke of WELLINGTON wok the op- portunity of stating, that Ministers had brought nward the question prematurely, and had incurred a greater responsibility than any Ministry within his recollection. He was for a gradual abolition of slavery, with compensation to the planters ; and he agreed with Mr. Canning in thinking, that it was indispensable to have the concurrence of the Co- lonists and the Colonial Assemblies in any measure for that purpose.

3. CORN LAWS. Earl FITZwILLIAM, on Tuesday, rose to bring the important subject of the Corn-laws under the consideration of the House of Lords. He apologized for introducing it so early after he had become a member of the Peerage. He gave a sketch of the his- tory of these laws, from 1815, when they were first proposed, down to 1828, when the existing enactments were submitted to the House of Commons by Mr. Grant. He quoted several passages from the speeches of Lord Fitzgerald, the Earl of Ripon, and Dilr. Charles Grant, to prove that they had never been cordially supported by these persons, but only as a part of our restrictive system ; which system, it would be recollected, had of late years been very materially modified. He con- sidered that this was a very proper time for agitating the Subject, when no particular excitement existed upon it. It was much better to con- sider it now than when corn was, as it again might be, at 9Qs. or 1004 per quarter. We were not independent of foreign supply. We might have been indepen- dent at the beginning or middle of the last century; but with a metropolis con- taming 1,300,000 persons, and with a country covered with mit cities, it was impassible that this country should ever again he independent of a foreign sup- ply of corn. That being the fact. the only object of consideration was on vhat conditions and terms the alm should be imported. Let it be remembered, that it could be excluded only by checking the increste of the population. If they prohibited the importation of corn, they must check the growth of population. He looked upon these as identical propositions. In older, then, to promote the cultivation of the Country, and make it worth while for the occupiers to till the soil, they must take measures to check the growth of the population.

The necessary stimulus to cultivation would have to be supplied by enhancing the price of corn ; and the use of restrictions on importation was to create u modified scarcity. But how did the existing Corn-laws operate ?

Their Lordships would recollect, that in 1821 and 1822, they were alternately assailed by the agriculturists and manufacturers complaining, the one of privations and the other that corn was too cheap. Their Lordships would recollect, that in the winter of 1821-22, wheat fell below 40s. the quarter, though the law said that there should be no impurtatiou till the price rose to 808. By that the farmers were deluded to believe that 80s., as was promised by legal enactments, would be secured to them. On that delusion thqy offered and promised rent, expecting that price. In 1821, the price dropped, from an abundant harvest,

from importations mportations ; and the farmers, who had made their contracts, and promised rent, expecting 80s. the touter for wheat, obtained only 40s. What was the inference? Why, that this system could not be maintained. It was contrary to the nature of things. Providence would not permit such a scheme to succeed, and those who promoted it saw their plans most signally de- feated. No person acquainted with the state of the agricultural interest in 1821 and 1822, but would admit that the law of 1815 was a most complete failua e. Many of their Lordships, he believed, had let their land to their tenants, and their tenants had promised to pay vents upon the supposition that corn would be 80s. per quarter. Their Lordships had made a mistake : he did not say that it had been dune from rapacity.; but their tenants had entered into engagements which they could not possibly fulfil.

Had the new law of 1828 worked well for the agricultural class ? steadiness of price was what that class principally wanted. But the prices of corn at Maldon, Stamford, and other great corn-markets, proved that the fluctuations in the price had been very great indeed. Be showed the injurious tendency. of the Corn-laws in raising the cost

. of our manufactures and other articles of consumption. He considered, that by means of these laws the country was taxed to the amount o eight millions annually.

He had no doubt but that the landholders of England were as good men as the weavers or chininey-sweepers—(A laugh)_or any. class ; but this was no reason why the rest of the community should be taxed, . order to'enable those landholders to live finely, and have seats in this or that House. Earl Grey had undoubtedly taken of some amount of taxation-30 yer cent, he was told by that noble peer. It might be so ; but, notwittistanding this, the tax on corn was at the rate off from 60 to 70 per cent. (" No, no ! ") Oh yes, it was. The medium price of corn at Dautzic was 30s. a quarter—say 35s. if they liked it better ; but the present duty on wheat in England is, on an average, 33s. a quarter; and if they would go back to the bill which they were discus- ing, they would find that an average price of 63s. had been taken, which was at the rate of 23s. on the quarter ; and this was what they must, at this rate, keep the duty on foreign corn at.

Many persons feared that there would often, he a short supply of 'corn, it we depended for it upon foreign nations ; but those fears were utterly fallacious.

He could not give a greater illustration of the fallacy of these fears, than the fact, that in the year 1810, a time when our hostility with France was at its highest pitch, there lied' been a very large importation of corn from that country into this—to no less an extent than 1,000,500 quarters. This would show at once how.vialohary were all fears about the independence of the Country in this , respect.

By the abolition of the Corn-laws, some spots of poor:land would be thrown out of cultivation ; but he did not think it was wise to keep up a war price of corn for the sake of. cultivating those spots.

He conolnded by moving the resolutions previously laid on the table ; and saying, that as long as these laws* held out to the landowner and tenant the prospect of obtaining an unnatural price for their corn, so long Wculd they both be in' difficulties.

Whether he luoked, therefore, to the interest of the agriculturist (that was,

the cultivator), or of the mariufactur ing population, or to the ultimate interest :of the proprietor of land (he said ultimate interest, because he admitted that there might be a temporary advantage to the 'proprietor in a continuance of the present sisteni),.he would say that that House could not confer a'greater .bene- fit upoil the country,' or perform a duty which would be: received With greater gratitiide.tiut Of doors, than by going into consideration of the laws which regu- lated the,dutie:aupon corn. The' Earl . of RIPON would state clearly the Government intention upon this subject ; which it was highly important should he. set at rest. He objected tO Lord Fitzwilliam's resolutions, in the' first place, because the time and circumstances were not favourable to the discussion ; secondly, on ac- count of the grosifiillaCies on which the resolutions were founded ; thirdly, on accountof the fallicitaia conclusions drawn by the noble earl from these false premiievi; ahd because the noble earl proposed to pull tiolin the present structure.WithOut being prepared with materials for a better. building.

He compared the fluctuations whichhad occurred in the price of . . . .

corn previously and subsequently to the enactment of the present laws ; and concluded.; from the comparatives steadiness of price during the latter period, that any alteration would be injurious. He knew that hy coinciding in his view they might be denounced as selfish, and that It popular clambur.might be raised against them.; but he considered it to be the duty of the Government not to yield to anything like popular clamour on this subject. For public opinion he had the highest respect, and to en- lightened pubic opinion he would always bow. Ile was confident their Lord- ahips would do their duty, notwithstanding the misstatements and calumnies to winch, they were.liable ; and that, notwithstanding they might be held up to public. exec eition, nothing would prevent them from performing their duty to themelviori„: to the country, and to those who looked up to them for protee- tion,lay ayiniiathiiirg with the sufferings, attending to the comforts, adininis- terinetCtlie.iVantri, and consulting the welfare of the people at large, even doing they should act adversely to their prejudices and their pas- -- 8ionIt.1

concluded by moving the previous question. The Bails of WINCHELSEA and Wrcuaiw opposed the, resolutions. nOrtfirzw.u.i.hirgi briefly,replied ; : and they Were negatived without

Mr. W. WarratonE brought forward this subject in the House cif last night Commons. He was aware, he said, that it was a dry sub- ject; and he Would deal with it concisely. He maintained that the bill of 1828 Contained the seeds of the evil of the bill of 1815; and read many details to prove that the oscillation in the price of wheat had been very great. The object of the law was to produce steadiness of price ; but it was ineffectual for that purpose, and should therefore be repealed. A change, then, ought to be made ; but that change should be gradual. If the ports were thrown open to foreign corn at a moderate duty, he was persuaded that it would not fall in price be- low 45s. or 47s. a quarter. He thought that many of the evils com- plained of would be remedied by adopting Mr. Ricardo's proposition to fix the duty on Wheat at 10s., Rye, 6s., Barley, 5s., and Oats, 3s. 4d. He showed the advantage which would accrue to the com- mercial and manufacturing interests of the country from a free trade in corn ; and concluded by moving the following resolutions.

" lst.—That the present system of Corn-laws, founded on a high and ever-varying scale of duties, while it fails of confering permanent benefit on the agricultural interest, tends to cramp the trade and impair the general prosperity of the country. " 211.—That an alteration of these laws, substituting in their stead a moderate duty. fixed at all periods except those of extreme dearth, while, it indemnified the agricul- turists for the peculiar burdens which press upon them, would, by restoring the cam- mercial relations between this kingdom and foreign countries, increase the manufac- tures and render the price of the produce of the country more equal."

The resolutions having been seconded, Mr. HUME moved the following amendment to them.

" That all the words after the word 'that, in Mr. Whitmore's resolutions be omitted, for the purpose of adding the following words= It is the opinion of tins House that any sort of corn, grain, meal, and flour. which is now imported into the United King- dom, shall be admissible at all times, on.payment of a fixed ditty." He observed that other kinds of property were subject to burdens from which land was free ; and asked why the landholders therefore should be allowed to possess a monopoly, more than merchants and manufacturers? As to the Funded property, it was a debt, and those who contracted it could not justly tax It ; that Would be borrowing with one hand and paying with the other. If there were burdens on land let them be taken off, and let taxation fall equally upon every species of property: He was for a free trade in corn, unless an emer- gency should arise in which Government would be reduced to raise a revenue upon it. In 1827, he had proposed a fixed duty should be laid on all corn imported of 15s. ; to be afterwards reduced to 10s: A vary- ing scale of duties, however, had been' adopted ; and the consequence was, that only 6s. 8d. per quarter had been realized ; by which a million sterling had been lost to the revenue, and the country had lost the iiiyari- tage which would have been acquired by an increased demand for its Manu- factures, in exchange for corn. It was said that by diminishing the Cul- -tivation of corn, you would throw agricultural labourers out of em- ploy; but they would always' find employment in manufactures. HO went on to show the injurious operation of a system which made bread dear, and enhanced the cost of our manufactures. He disapproved of _Mr. Whitmore's plan because it retained the system of averages, which he thought highly objeetionable.

Lord NEWARK, Mr. F. O'Cormon, and Captain HEATII63TE, Op-

posed the resolution. .

• Lord ALTIIORP admitted the vast importance of the subject ; but he thought the time selected for itidiscussion Most inopportune.. The House was completely engrossed 'at present With matters of the highest importance, on whiChpublic.excitement.w.as very great ; and surely it would not be advisable to add this to the others. He was not an ad:- vocate for the present System Of Corn-laws ; and he did not think that the Landed interest had benefited so much by them as was generally imagined. He intended to vote against Mr. Hume's amendment, with the view Of voting. against Mr. Whitmore's resolutions when they came

before the House. ,., .. . . . . .

Mr. BARING thought that ,the most alarming circumstance in the consideration of the question was, the view taken of it by Lord Althorn; Who thoughtiliat the 'law Was .unsatisfactory—as bad as it could pos-

sibly be. ("No, no.'!) . .

• • . . . • Lord ALTIfORP Said he had only expressed his doubts as to the de-. gree of benefit which the Corn-laws -conferred upon the Landed in- terest.

Mr. BARING said, it Was Lord Althorn's argument that the law waa unfavourable to the protection of Landed interest. If that Was his opinion, he might be sure. that 300 persons in the 'House agreed with

him. . .. . . .

- If Lord Althorp thought that the law could beimproved, what time could be _better than the present? . They had been sitting for three months, and nothing had been done ; and now the noble lord, although he disliked the system, thought that 'this was not the time for attempting its improvement. Was he aware of the inconvenience which resulted from the uncertainty. in which .all -classes were as id the proceedings .9f Parliament. with respect to them ? The Shipping interest, the Binh of England interest, the Erik India interest, ought all to have been brolight'imder the consideration of the House, instead of having been hung up as they had been. 'And ililiV to these Victims of uncertainty, Lord -Althorp added the Agricultural interest.

' He ought to have token some *decided line. What injury had any gentleman sustained from the present Corn-laws? He bad not heard : of any such instance. There was, he contended, no necessity for alter- ing the Corn-laws, and tampering with our present prosperity.. . Lord PALMERSTON complained that Mr. Baring had misrepresented Lord Althorn; who -had pot premised at, any future time to takethe subject into consideration, but had merely given an opinion (in which he concurred), that the Corn-laws were not so beneficial to the Landed interest as was generally supposed. . .. . ' . Colonel WOOD,. Mr. C. FERGUSSON, and Mr. BENETT, opposed the resolutions. Mr. Roimisozi also thought the discussion of the subjezt inopportune. .• •

Mr. OTONNELL complained, that this question was always discussed without reference to the :wants of the., great body of the people, but as one of protection to agriculture. But there would be no magic in the Reformed Parliament' unless they gave the people cheap food. (Great :riProar.,) When he said that the people ought to 'have cheap- food, -members, as usual, expressed their diasotisfaetion,.. (Cries .op4-Wo, rii, I .Shame, shame! ") The-country would say to such.proceettings:as -ticies" 'IrOtt ' OW Of -.Eligrat4 who Iiiiro—trie iower to Ofolceiovio, heed not the poor man's claim, but at his expense add to your riches, and aggravate his poverty tenfold. (Loud cries of " No, no ! " and cheers, sonze of which proceededfrorn the Strangers' Gallery.)

Mr. DUNDAS spoke to order. Some cheers had proceeded from the Strangers' Gallery.

A Member moved that the Gallery be cleared ; which was accord- ingly done.

The Chronicle says, that during the exclusion of strangers, Mr. Lalor was observed sitting in the place in the Strangers' Gallery from which the cheering proceeded. He rose and apologized to the House ; say- ing that be thought he had a right to cheer from any part of the House. The affair was going off quietly, when Mr. HUME said, he hoped that there was no intention to discuss the subject of the Corn-laws with closed doors. This produced some angry remarks ; but matters soon resumed their usual course, Mr. Lalor occupying still the same seat in the Gallery, where he had been sitting with a friend, not a member of the House. Upon the readmission of the reporters, Mr. O'Costsiera. was found arguing against the Corn-laws, as en- hancing continually and improperly the cost of food.

Colonel CONOLLY, Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, Mr. H. HANDLEY, and Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, would vote against the resolutions.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT for some time in vain attempted to procure a bearing. At length he said, that if the House was not in a tit temper to discuss this important subject, he should move that it be referred to a Committee up stairs. He would vote for Mr. Hume's amendment.

Mr. HUME, finding there was much difference of opinion respecting his amendment, would withdraw it.

Lord ALTHORP then moved the previous. question.

The House divided : for Lord Althorp's amendment, 305; against it, 106; majority for Ministers, 199.

The House adjourned at one o'clock.

4. IRISH CHURCH REFORM. On Monday, the order of the day having been read for going into a Committee on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, Dr. LEFROY protested against the principle and the details of the bill. Instead of taxing the incomes of the clergy, he would levy a tax of one penny per acre upon the property of the landlords. He said that the present measures would make the Church of Ireland a mere oligarchy. As to the plan for purchasing the perpetuities, he had au- thority to state, that the Bishops' tenants wished nothing of the kind and that no consideration could induce them to look upon such a plan as a boon to themselves. There was no law or precedent to justify the transfer of the funds proposed to be raised out of the Church property to the use of the State. In the Four Courts at Dublin, it was a com- mon phrase to hear of a gentleman being improved out of his estate. This plan of Lord Althorp would be likely, he thought, to improve the Church of Ireland out of its estate.

Mr. FRENCH agreed in the principle of the bill, but objected to some of the details. He objected more especially to that part of it which related to the conversion of Bishops' leases into perpetuities.

Lord Althorp had not shown himself acquainted with the value of such pro- perty to the tenants. The plan would impose a ruinous burden on them, and would give them in name no more than they at present possessed in effect—the property in perpetuity. He maintained, that this would be greatly unjust to the tenants; that their tenure of the Church property had been sanctioned by the usage of two centuries; that the Church and the tenant had been connected by the atrongest link that could bind man to man, their mutual interest; that the interest of the tenants in such property had been greatly overvalued.

A Member recommended the application of part of the Church property to the diffusion of education. Where so much crime existed, as in Ireland, there must be a sad want of education among the people.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that if great ignorance existed in Ireland, it was clear that it also existed elsewhere ; and he seldom saw so many proofs of it as when honourable members talked about Ireland. He referred to the Edinburgh Review to prove that the proportion of per- sons, who received the benefit of education in Ireland, was greater than even in favoured Scotland.

But as to the statistics of crime, it was proved by returns lately made to the French Government, that crime existed in that country, not in proportion to the ignorance, but to the education of the districts. Now, as to the bill before the House he must say that when it was first proposed, he had considered it a boon to the people of Ireland ; but he owned that his opinion in that respect bad been greatly changed. He had understood that the whole of the Vestry Cess, amounting to 70,000/. per annum, was to be abolished ; but the bill, he found, would in reality only relieve the people of Ireland to the extent of 10,000/. a year. The principal part of it would still remain, for that part which was ap- plied to the rebuilding of churches was by no means the most burdensome por- tion of it.

Lord ALTHORP said, that the intention of the bill was to put an end to all charges levied by an exclusively Protestant Vestry ; and if there were any doubts upon that point, he was ready to introduce such alter- ations into the bill as would set the matter at rest. He considered that Mr. French was grossly mistaken, when he asserted that the bill would be injurious to the tenants of Church property, as to the object, intent, and effect of the measure.

The intention of Ministers was to benefit the holders of Church property; and they had framed the bill with a view to the accomplishment of that object. Mr. French stated, that Church leases were equal to a perpetuity; but there were many instances in a single diocese of leases having but ten years to run : in what sense could they be said to be equal to a perpetuity? One of the main features of the bill consisted in its giving a greater interest than that which he now possessed to a tenant of Church property.

Mr. GOULBURN strongly objected to the bill. It did nothing to ren- der the Church more efficient. It did not enforce residence ; it made no provision for the separation or union of parishes ; its grand feature was the abolition of ten bishoprics.

He did not object to the removal of the Vestry Cess from the population at large ; but he thought, that in professing to remove a grievance, Lord Althorp left behind abundant grounds for dissatisfaction and agitation. There were two wises raised in every parish in Ireland,.—the one by an exclusively Protestant Vestry, the other by a mixed Vestry of Protestants and Catholics. The objects of the first-named cess were limited by act of Parliament to repairs of the church and the performance of worship therein ; but the General Vestry bad to deal with subjects no less inflammatory. Curates' salaries had been provided for in General Vestries, but it was otherwise enacted by the present bill. • How- ever, abundant subjects of dispute and irritation remained. The expenses of organists, singing, and all matters connected with the churchyard, were pro- vided for in General Vestries. Here was matter for agitation. The bill un- posed an oppressive and iniquitous tax on one class of the community, without attaining its avowed object.

lie contended at considerable length against the reduction of the numbers of the Bishops ; and concluded by declaring, that if the licuse passed this bill, they would condemn many parts of Ireland to the misfortune of never seeing a Protestant Bishop, and never being solaced by a Protestant pastor.'

Mr. HUME wished that Mr. Goulburn, when he held office, had in- troduced the reforms into the Irish Church Establishment, for which he now appeared to be so anxious : but he played a very different game then.

Ile was anxious to state to the House what be believed to he the real truth,— namely, that they never should have peace in Ireland until the Protestant esta- blishment there was put down. (Several loud cries of " No, no I ") The member for Berkshire did not seem to agree in that opinion ; the member for Yorkshire (Mr. Duncombe) did not appear judging from his vociferous " No," to coincide in that sentiment. He did not seem to agree with him as to t! :e ex- pediency of putting an end to the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. Now, he would reassert that was the only and the true way for pacifying Ireland. What was the fact ? They had been trying to spread Protestantism in Ireland fur a century and a half, by every means in their power ; but the Church was becoming worse off every day, and the proportion of Protestants was regularly decreasing.

The measure before the House would give satisfaction to nobody. He did nut blame it because it cut down ten, but because it did not cut down twenty-two Bishops. Mr. Shaw had declared that Church property was not public property; but that doctrine was so completely exploded, that even some of the Bishops themselves had given up the point. He would have the Church lands in Ireland sold out and out,- and the funds arising from their sale be applied as Parliament ' might think fit. With all its imperfections, Mr. Hume would support the present measure. He would go as far as Lord Althorp ; and if his Lordship would not go further he hoped somebody else would.

Mr. GRANVILLE VERNON defended the bill.

Mr. WYNN explained the difficulties attending the measure zeising. out of advowsons, and the great injury which, on that ground, it _would. inflict upon proprietors ; taking away, in fact, a large proportion of property actually purchased.

It was, in his opinion, a measure most hostile to the Protestant intereets. in Ireland. It would be better for the interests of religion to increase tbe number. of Bishops in England, than to diminish them in Ireland. Even if a rishictioa. were necessary, the striking off so many, or half the number, was inexpedient. The only part of the bill with which he agreed was that which enforced the re- sidence of the clergy. At the same time, upon that point, it did not seem to go further than the bill which had been introduced by Mr. Goulburn.

Sir R. BATESON and Mr. A. JOHNSTONE opposed the bill.

Mr. Snaw said, that Mr. Stanley was mistaken in asserting the other night that the Primate of Ireland had suggested the reduction of the number of Bishops.

Mr. STANLEY admitted that he had incorrectly stated the fact: it was this--in answer to a question from him, the Primate had said, that if the funds were to be provided, the reduction of the bishoprics would be the least objectionable mode of providing them.

Mr. PETRE, Mr. CHRISTMAS, Mr. LALOR, and Lord CASTLEREAGH, made a few brief observations ; when the question that the Speaker should leave the chair was put, and carried.

The House being in Committee, Lord ALTHORP moved that the preamble of the bill be postponed.

Mr. RUTHVEN rose to speak, but was interrupted by the noise made by members leaving the House.

Lord ALTHORP then moved, on account of the lateness of the hour, that the further consideration of the bill be postponed. This was agreed to; and the House adjourned at three o'clock.

5. COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND AND WALES. Last night, Lord ALTHORP brought in a bill for this purpose : which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time that day fort.. night.

6. SIR ROBERT PEEL AND MR. CORBETT. Mr. CORBETT, OR Thursday, said he would read his resolutions against Sir Robert • Peel, without profession or apology. The tenor of his motion would 'then be seen ; and he had no doubt that he should prevail upon the House to agree to it without difficulty. He then read the resolutions; which were very long, and to this effect—That as the King was not reapon- sible for the acts of his Government it was of great consequence that the responsibility of his Ministers should not be merely nominal ; that Sir Robert Peel, by his bill in 1819 for restoring cash payments, and by his subsequent support of the measures for the reissue and with- drawal of the one-pound notes, unaccompanied by any measure for the equitable adjustment of contracts, had caused ruin and distress to multitudes of his Majesty's subjects ; and that therefore the House should present a loyal address to the King praying him to dismiss Sir Robert Peel from his Most Honourable Privy Council. (Loud Laughter.) The SPEAKER asked Mr. Cobbett, whether what he had just read was to be considered a speech, or a substantial motion ? If the former, it could not be received, because it was written; and it was neither a motion nor a resolution.

Mr. Cosserr replied, that it was a resolution. It said " Resolved" at the beginning and it was " resolved to the end."

The SPEAKER was sure the House could not sanction the insertion on its journals of an elaborate series of arguments—in fact, a sort of pamphlet expression of Mr. Cobbett's views of a public question.

Mr. Coss= was sure his resolution would be received. He bad seen on many occasions equally long motions submitted and discussed. He. then proceeded to detail the injurious consequences of Peel's Bill in the depreciation of all kinds of property. Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Ricardo were quite as much to blame for it as Sir Robert Peel: but then, Sir Robert was in the .House, and could be got at. He . enume- rated the different periods of distress during the last thirty years : and maintained; that they were principally occasioned by tampering with the currency, and by the mismanagement of the Bank. The Govern- ment had encouraged the Country Bankers to reissue a multitirde of one-pound notes when their own measures had almost ruined the country in 1822; and then caprieleusly passed'a bill to withdraw them, within three years, when the bankers expected to be allowed to circulate them for eleven. Sir Robert Peel had been the main instrument in the per- petration of all this mischief, though Mr. Cobbett believed that he had not foreseen the evil effects of his measures. Therefore it was that his motion was directed against him. His resolutions might be inserted on the Journals of the House, or they might be expunged : ni either case, he cared not--he had done his duty in bringing them forward.

F1ELDEN seconded the motion; and spoke at some length, but with very little attention on the part of the House, which was very noisy.

Sir ROBERT PEEL rose amidst loud and long-continued cheering. He said that the charge which had been brought against him was of a most serious nature ; but he should have treated it with more respect if it had been made by some man of influenc7 in the House, and one who acted from the pure impulse of duty and sincere conviction in thus calling upon the House to pass upon him the highest disgrace which could be inflicted upon any public man.

The grounds on which Mr. Cobbett wished to have him disgraced, were on the face of them most vague. (Immense cheering.) He had not been even charged with bed motives, for Mr. Cobbett entirely disclaimed imputing any such to him : the whole extent of the charge was alleged ignorance and want of foresight in the conduct pursued by him in the course of six years. This was the front of his offending, as drawn up in the six-column indictment ; and here he would ask whether it would not have looked fairer in Mr. Cobleat, after he had drawn up this elaborate bill of indictment, to have sent the accused party R, copy of it, so that he might be prepared with his defence ? As it was, how- ever, he had not been made acquainted with even the outline of it till this evening. He was not, however, the less prepared with their refutation. (Ile, mewed cheering.) The question was not brought forward, as it should have been, in a legitimate way, as the currency question. Why was it thrust forward inapplicably and invidiously on the present occasion ?

Why had not Mr. Cobbett brought forward his resolutions—why had he not

shown cause for the dismissal M an open and practical way (Tereing- to Mr. Cobbett; Sir Robert continued.) 1, Why have you not brought your accusations forward in a fair and practical manner? What do you mean by displaying such gross ignorance of facts and reason? What do you mean by your opening, de- clamation about responsibility and non-responsibility of Icings and Ministers,. and about my being a responsible Minister at the time in question ; and having been rewarded with large sums of money, and so on ?" This was the whole ground of the charge. But Mr. Cobbett then required to be told that in 1819 he was not a Minister of State—( Cheering and hiughter)—and that he hail not received a farthing benefit from that act which was represented as having re- dounded so eminently to his advantage. He had not had the slightest olect at that time for appreciating the currency with any view to salary, any more than he could have now in depreciating it.

He was charged with having deluded the House into passine the fatal measure of 1819, by his speechifying: but had he deluded ti 'eounit- tee which reported in favour of the bill ? had he deluded tho iottee of Lords also? The bill of 1819 was peseed without the Siiet oppo- sition. Only jhar members voted in opposition to the I. I of le=112.. On the bill of 182(i, there were several divisions, the teillorities amounting altogether to nine. Yet he was to be disgraced and expelled for supporting measures sanctioned by such majorities as these ! Then, he was told that he had committed all these blunders in opposition to the most solemn warnings. Mr. Cobbett has greatly plumed himself upon the soleam warnings which he had always been in the habit of giving;- but he would at once proceed to destroy his character as a pro- phet. Sir Robert then quoted several passages from the Political Pvisier, in which Mr. Cobbett stated, that the bill of 1819 was a re- laxation of the Pitt system, which would have screwed up the country in six months after the peace ; that it was not in the power of Parlia- ment to avoid recurring to cash. payments; that the paper system was a bubble; that it was an infernal system, and he was glad it was coin- ing to a close ; that Mr. Attwood who had proposed to coin an ounce Of gold into 5/. instead of 3/. 17s. 10/A, was not to be reasoteel with— he wits a Birmingham man, " my Lord Little Shilling of Bine:eel:am."

What was the real object of Mr. Cobbett's present motion ? pre- tended that be expected a large majority in favour of it ; but he ex- pected no such thing. The answer to this anticipation was the incre- dulous burst of laughter with which it was greeted, and which must have penetrated any skin less tough than that of Mr. Cobbctt. He knew his real though unavowed motive in bringing forward this motion; and be would state it without any delicacy.

In one of the honourable gentleman's books—the volume for 1819—he found a letter addressed " To Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and Cotton-weaver." ( Great laughter.) There was nothing in the whole range of scurrility more disgrace- ful—nothing which was so oftensive in the organs and instruments of a certain party—as that scurrility which sought to depreciate a man beeause he had raised himself from obscurity by his own talents and exertions. ( Land and long-continued cheers.) Mr. Cobbrtt addressed his letter "to Sir Robert Peel, Baronet and cotton-weaver ;" hat when he wanted to g:A into Parlia- ment, he dia not disdain to ask the assietance of a cotton-weaver. ( (.he..rs and laughter.) There were no men who were more distinguished for a vulgar de- ference to mere rank, than those whe assailed it with scurrility, while they affected to stand up for liberty—than the whole class of men to which Mr. Cobbett belonged. They all spoke as if they were the decendants of the Courtenays and Montmorencies. If they were, they would be too generous to despise these who had raised themselves to eminence. Men of true nobility were too generous ever to begrudge ethers the rewards of their exertion, and the public honours which men not of their class might attain. To make it a matter Of reproach to any man that he was of humble origin, denoted nothing but inherent vulgarity of mind. (Loud cheers.) And in this age, and on these principles, to taunt a man that he had raised himself to a station of erai Bence by his own exertions and his own talents, was not only vulgar, it was something worse. So far from that taunt causing him any shame, he felt only proud. (Loud cheers.) He differed with his father respecting the measure of 1819; but if he had agreed with him, should he have escaped this motion—the real though unavowed object of the motion ? The letter of Mr. 'Cobbett to. his father concluded thus:— " Now, Sir Robert Peel, I care little whether you reflect on, these truth,' or not: I hnov well what is coming (those words being in Italics).; and if I pal your nameat the head of this letter, it is not merely to reason with you but tet point you out" (also in Italics). ' What was the meaning of these Italics? Could the honourable gentleman say they had'any good object? (Loud cheers.) What could he mean by putting in Italics, " I know well what is coining?" and his object in addressing Sir R. Peel was to point him out, and not to reason with him. ("Hear, Aar !") He knew well what the object was; and no mo... tives of false delicacy should prevent him from doing what he believed to be a public good, and to declare that, in his opinion, Mr. Cubbett speculated on the chances of what he believed would be a period of public confusion. (Immense cheering.) The intention of the motion was to point him out.

On the 6th of April 1833, Mr. Cobbett recommended the formation, in different parts of the country, of defensive associations, the objects of which should be to obtain a list of the names and places of residence • of all the great landholders in the country—to ascertain how they came into possession of their estates, and the probable value of those estates. •

In addition to this, they were to cause to be printed a true pedigree of every landlord, and the amount of public money which he and his ancestors had re. ceived for three or four generations; and to be sure and distribute a sufficient number, and cause them to be circulated amongst the industrious classes, that they might be enabled all to know one another well (" Hear, hear I"); and that as the day of reckoning must soon come, it was absolutely necessary that • they should make up their accounts, and have them ready, so that they might not be taken by surprise when they are called on to arrange matters and coins to an equitable adjustment.

Now, the object of the present motion was to connect him with this scheme of reckoning—to point him out now as his father was pointed out in 1819.

What possible motive could Mr. Cobbett have for singling him out as the ob- ject of attack ? He had never lent him his confidence; nor was he aware that he had ever received any obligations from him; he therefore presumed he must• attribute his conduct to public motives alone. But from what he had already adverted to, he believed that one of his motives was to induce some indication of fear on the part of his intended victims. ("Hear, hear !") But he told the gentlemen of England, their security was in boldly facing him, and defying this incendiary. (Immense cheering.) Sir Robert concluded by declaring his belief, that be had been se. lected for the purpose of producing some abatement of resistance to in.- timidation ; but be would never have to reproach himself with showing any symptoms of submission to the threats of suit inen.

Mr. Comm. rose, but was received by repeated volleys of groans from all parts of the House.

- The scene that occurred (says the Morning Chronicle) was such as we have seldom witnessed, even in the must stormy of our public meetings; the con- tinued yells of indignant execration with which every sentence uf the honourable member was assailed rendered him for a considerable time perfectly inaudible. As nearly as we could hear, he said—That the speech he had just listened to was full of calumnious assertions. If order could not be kept, he would move an adjournment: It Was im doubt some mortification to the House to listen to him ; but it ought to have been more mortifying to thcm to eat their own vote on the Malt-tax ; and if they would not listen to what he had to say, in reply to some parts of Sir Robert Peel's speech, they would stand out to the world in a light which he would not venture to describe. If he experienced such inter- ruption from the House, he must describe it as the most unjust assembly in the world. He had heard no defence from Sir Robert. Nine tenths of his speech werefaken up in reading from books which Inc had written ; acne] the remainder consisted of vulgar.abuse. (" Order ! Chair !" much confusion.) The SPEAKER said, that the House had a right to expect an apology from Mr. Cobbett for such language, which no gentleman was entitled to use.

Mr. COBBETT then said, that he most readily apologized to the House ; and made a few additional remarks.

The House divided (Sir Robert Peel having first withdrawn) : for the motion, 4; against it,.298; majority against Mr. Cobbett's motion,- 94• Lord Aurnone then said, that he was not awere of any precedent for the course which he was about to call upon the House to pursue ; but never within his memory or knowledge had a pereemal attack been made within those walls upon such geounds, or supported like that of Mr. Cobbett. He was confident that the feelings of every member would respond to his own, and agree to his propositiom " that the re- solutions which had been moved be not entered on the minutes." Mr. CORBETT, Mr. Fue..DEN, and Ur. LALOR, opposed the motion.

The House again divided : for Lord Althorp's motion, 295-; against it, 4; majority for expunging the proceedings, 291.

The House adjourned at it quarter to three.

[ The four members who composed the minority on Mr. Cobbett's motion, were Mr. T. Attwood, Mr. Hoe, Mr. .1. 0 Colwell; and Mr. Lalor ; the Tellers being Mr. Cobliett and Mr. Heiden.] 7. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH 'BILL. Sir ANDREW AGNEW, on Thursday, at the suggestion of Sir Roamer leaa.is, expressed his willingness to postpone the second reading of this bill. Mr. Weetuou.. TON would not agree to the postponement, but would move as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that deny six months. Sir R. INGLIS, Lord ALTHORP, Mr. SHAW, and Mr. 11exToet, wished the bill to be postponed ; but it was finally agreed t-nat it should be brought forward.

Sir ANDer.W AGNEW advocated the principle of the bill at great length, but in a tone of voice almost inaudible ; and, moved its second reading.

Mr. LEFROY seconded the motion.

MT. PLUMPTRE, Mr. LEFROY, Mr. R. GRANT, Mr. SHAW, Mr. HARDY, Mr. BUXTON, and Mr. A. Jonaseose supported the bill. It was strongly opposed by Mr. POULTER, Mr. ROEBUCK, Lord Aa- THORP, Lord MORPETH, and Mr. BILL.

The House divided: for the second reading, 73; against it, 79 majority, 6: so the bill is lost.

8. THE COLDBATHF1ELDS MEETING. MT. HOME, on Wednesday, asked Mr. George Lamb, whether the Sheriff of London had bee* called upon to attend, and prevent the meeting on IVIondey last in Cold- bathflelds? Mr. LAMB replied, that it wus not usual to give such. notice to the Sheriff. The Commissioner of Police waaa magistrate, and responsible fat what had taken place. It would be found, doubt..

less, that the Police, all the circumstances considered, had acted with moderation and forbearance. Mr. SHERIFF HUMPHERY said, that un- less notice had been sent to the Sheriff, the responsibility rested with the Lord Mayor. Mr. LAMB said, that notice had been sent to the Lord Mayor, but not to the Sheriff.

The subject was resumed on Thursday. Mr. ROEBUCK asked Mr. Lamb, whether the proclamation prohibiting the meeting, which bore no signature, came from the Home Office ? Mr. LAMB declined dis- cussing the subject during the Coroner's inquest upon Culley. Mr. ROEBUCK wanted to know upon what information Government had is- sued the proclamation. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, the discussion was irregular.

Mr. ROEBUCK repeated, that he only wanted to know whether the proclamation had Lord Melbourne's sanction? The meeting would have been a perfectly colitemptible one, if left to it.elf. The Government acted very ineonsistenly on this occasion. The people bad been indulged by Ministers for three years in holding meetings of this description, and in using violent language; and he did not see how they could now turn round upon their old allies. The people of Lon- don had long been accustomed to assemble and talk nonsense; and on this occasion, if they had been let alone, they would have talked a great deal and nothing would have been done. It was doubtful whether the object of the meeting was illegal, for who could say what a " National Convention" meant? He knew what it meant in France and Ame- rica; and perhaps the object of the meeting might have been to peti- tion Parliament to assemble a national convention ;• and who cou:d say that such an object was illegal?

Mr. O'CoNNELL stated his opinion, that the Police had no right to disperse the crowd without reading the Riot Act first. Sir Jolts; CAMPBELL maintained that it was not necessary to read the Riot Act before proceeding to disperse a mob.

APOTHECARIES MONOPOLY. The Duke Of HAMILTON, on Mon- day, asked Lord Melbourne what steps Government meant to take, if any, to relieve Scotch medical practitioners from the hardships which they suffered under the Apothecaries Act? Lord MELBOURNE said, the matter required consideration. It did not lie in so narrow a eompiFs as was imagined. The Scotch practi- tioners were DO worse treated than the members of the London "Col- lege of Surgeons ; who could not dispense medicines without a licence frotii the Apothecaries' Company ; and as in Scotland an Edinburgh diploma would not enable its possessor to practice in Glasgow, and vice cersii, there was nothing surprising in the fact that a Scotch dip- loma would not enable a person to practice in London.

Lord SUFFIELD inquired, whether London practitioners had the same fiwilities for pursuing their profession in Edinburgh, as the Edin- burgh practitioners had in London?

The Duke of HAMILTON was unable to answer the question, and the conversation dropped.

10. NEW House OF COMMONS. Mr. HUME, on Monday. brought up the report of the Committee appointed to consider the propeiety of building a new House of Commons ; and gave notice, that he would move, on the 4th JUR°, that the House should adopt Measures to carry the r-ccomniendation of the Committee into effect.

•

11. IRISH COURT or EXCHEQUER. Mr. O'CONNELL, on -Thus- , day, asked whether it wasytrue that the Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer had lately ordered a sum of 3781. to be given the Jury in a trial between the Crown and the Primate of Ireland ?

Lord DUNCANNON said, that the Jury had been very long in attend- ance, for the trial lasted four months. The verdict was given against the Crown. The Judge declared that the suit was a persecution of the Primate, although he had advised the prosecution of it when be Was Attorney-General.

Mr. SHAW said, that Lord Duncannon's insinuation was poor en- couragement for a Judge who acted with the Government.

Mr. flailvev was surprised at hearing a Judge spoken of as acting with the Government. In the case under discussion, the fact was, that the Judge entered into a contract with the Jury, before they delivered . their verdict, that they should receive thirty-one guineas each. Lord 1)E1=0111011 should have moved to set aside this corrupt verdict.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved for various papers explanatory of this transaction; which were ordered.

12. POWER OF THE SECRETARY AT WAR. On Friday, Colonel EvaNS, asked Mr. Ellice, whether a.; escertion which lied lately ap- peared in the public prints, to the effect that the Seeretary at War had the power to remove anylialtlpey officer fromhis AI

a,esty's service at his own pleasure, was correct? That assertion had been minl-se and -- in a subsequent correction of it, the assumed power was not distinctly disclaimed.

Mr. ELLrer. replied, that if it should appear necessary to remove any half-pay officer from the service, it was the duty of the Secretary at War to take the King's pleasure on the subject,. and to be responsible for the advice he gave. There was no instance of an officer being re- moved in that way, except in consequence of some stain upon his moral character.

13. POLAND. Mr. C. FERGUSSON gave notice, on Thursday, that on the 1Sth June he would submit a motion on the subject of Poland.

14. HOUSE AND WINDOW TAX. Sir S. WHALLEY, on Thursday, gave notice that he should move for a call of the House on the 21st of May; when he intended to bring forward his motion for the repeal of the House and Window tax, which had become "a dropped motion ;" owing to the House having been "counted out" on Wednesday last.

15. INSURANCE OF FARMING STOCK. Lord ALTHORP stated, on Thursday, that he should be able to give up the duties on policies of insurance on farming stock. Mr. HANDLEY therefore withdrew his "notion on that subject.

16. BATH AND WARMINSTER BILL. Mr. BENETT; on Monday, brought up the report of the Committee on this bill, and moved that vermin amendments thereto should be read. Mr. H. BARING moved that they be read that day six months. Captain DUNDAS seconded the motion. Mr. ESTCOUAT opposed the . bill. Mr. ROEBUCK defended it ; and said that the only real opponent to the, road was. Mr. Vivian. This was denied by Mr. BARING; who said, that the proprietors of the Kennet and Avon Canal were also against it. The House this divided: for receiving the report, 49; against it, 87; majority 12. .

17. LORD TEYNIIAM. The Earl of WINCHILSEA, on Monday, I0611 to express his deep indignation at the slur which had been cast upon the character of the Peerage by the report of a trial which had ap- peared in the papers, and which he— Lord BROUGHAM here interrupted Lord Winchilsea, to remark, that the Peer alluded to had not been finally convicted; that the verdict of the Jury might yet be reversed ; and therefore, that Lord Winchilsers had better reserve his remarks for the present. It was yet to be seen whether a new trial would be moved fur.

Lord WINCHILSEA thanked Lord Brougham for his advice ; and the conversation was discontinued.

18. Banos: DE BODE'S CLAIM. Mr. HILL, on Wednesday, moved for a Committee to inquire and report upon the claim of the Baron de Bode upon the fund for indemnifying. British subjects for loss of pro- perty unduly confiscated by the French Government. Sir WILLIAM HORSE was proceeding to argue against the motion, when Sir JOHN TYRRELL moved that the House be counted ; and there being only 09 members present, the House adjourned.

19. TivEttroN ELrerioN. Mr. ABERCROMBY, on Monday, brought up the report of the Committee on this election, which declared the return of Mr. John Kennedy to be void. A new writ for Tiverton was then ordered.

20. WARWICK ELECTION PorsTrosi. The Committee on this peti- tion reported, on Wednesday, that Sir Charles Greville's return was null and void. They also made a special report, that it did not appear that Sir Charles was personally concerned in bribtny, but that gross bribery had been carried on by his ugents. It was then ordered that no new writ should be issued for Warwick till after the 25th of May. The evidence was also ordered tu be printed.

21. POSTPONEMENT OF Waurs. Mr. O'CONNELL moved, on Fri- day, that the issuing- of the writ for Carrickfergus should be postponed to the tith June ; when he would ask for leave to bring in a bill to dis- franchiSe the borough. 011 the same day, Mr. BERNAL moved that the issuing of the writ fur Hertford be postponed to Friday the 24th May.

22- Lnnetice ELECTION. The Committee on this election re- ported, on Friday, that the sitting members were duly elected.

23. COLERAIN Eitecrioe. The Committee, on the same day, re- ported that ;sir John Beresford was not, and that Alderman Copeland was duly elected.