Mantel anti procrebingit in Parliament.

1. CORPORATION REFORM.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, several petitions were presented by Lord MELBOURNE in favour of the Municipal Bill, and by Lord Baaswoon, Lord WHARNCLIFFE, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE, against it. The Duke of NEWCASTLE expressed his doubts whether it were not a breach of the King's prerogative to proceed to legislate on evidence taken under the authority of a Commission which was ad- mitted to be illegal— Now, if their Lordships desired to proceed in a legal way, lie should propose to them a plan which he thought would have the effect of enabling them to do so. His proposition was that they should agree to an address to the King, praying his Majesty that he would he most graciously pleased to authorize his Attorney. General to introduce a bill into the other House of Parliament, to constitute a regular commission to inquire into corporation abuses.

Lord BROUGHAM maintained the legality of the Commission ; and assured the Duke of Newcastle, that the only doubt was whether the Commissioners could compel persons to answer the questions put to them—the legal right to put these questions being unquestionable.

On Tuesday, Lords DYNEVOR, WILLOUGHBY D'ERESBY, Earl BROWNLOW, the Duke of CUMBERLAND, Lord FALMOUTH, Lord ASH- BURTON, Lord LYNDHURST, and others, presented petitions against the bill ; Lord MELBOURNE, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, Lord RADNOR, and Lord STUART DE ROTHESAY, in favour of it : Lord STRANGFORD presented a petition from the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Commonalty of Co- ventry, praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of their Lordships' House, on behalf of their privileges, which the bill threatened to de- stroy. Lord Strangford, in a speech of some length, supported the prayer of the petition.

Lord BROUGHAM reminded Lord Strangford, that the sort of "con- fiscation" of which the petitioners complained was what was committed in the Court of Chancery constantly ; and what the House had done, without even dividing once, in the case of the Scotch Burghs.

"The petitioners call this confiscation ; I say it is restoration ; and the con- fiscation which your Lordships are charged with committing when you passed the Bill in 1833 is the same sort of confiscation which your Lordships are in the habit of committing every time that you sit as judges in this House, when one man by fraud gets possession of property, and you take it from him and give it to the rightful owner."

He was not opposed to the hearing of counsel at the bar.

Lord STRANGFORD, after several other petitions bad been presented, moved that counsel be heard at the bar in behalf of the Coventry peti- tioners.

Lord MELBOURNE opposed the motion— The bill was one of general policy, and not a measure founded on the Report of the Commissioners. Its object was to adapt the governing body in towns and boroughs to the advanced and enlarge.1 condition of those places which had outgrown the old institutions. They wanted to put an end, on general prin- ciples, to a system which gave dissatisfaction, impeded improvement, affected the prosperity, and threatened the peace of the various cities and places. As for the bill itself, it was in some respect like the bill for the reformation of the con. stituency, which affected the rights of all classes of the community, by disfran- chiang some, by enfranchising others, and by depreciating property ; a fact which, he apprehended those who had burgage tenures well knew. Yet that bill Passed without any motion being made that counsel should be heard. No such proposition was made, nor if it had been made would it have been attended to. Another bill there was which was very similar to the present,—namely, that in 1833 for the reform of the Scotch Burghs ; many of which, such as Clagow and Edinburgh, possessed great property, and in which most extensive commercial interests were involved. Yet neither in this case was there any pro- position made to have counsel heard at the bar, nor if it had been made would itIlave been attended to. Nor was there any such proposition in the case of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, who were disfranchised without having counsel heard on their behalf. On these general grounds, he submitted to their Lordships, that there was no ground for hearing counsel on the present occasion ; sinless, indeed, their Lordships wanted to defeat the bill by delay. (,, No, no!" Tiff "Hear ") He had no idea of saying that their Lordships did mean to do so; but if they did, their course would be, as it had been proposed, to hear counsel. If, on the contrary, they did not intend thus to defeat it—if they wished to give the measure a bond .fide consideration—to afford it that fair play which its own great importance and the wishes and anxiety of the People of England fully entitled it to—they would, as he now begged them to do, refrain from hearing counsel at the bar. lie assured their Lordships, that he held them in the utmost respect—that, casting aside all idle clamour, he believed and knew that their authority was well fixed, their dignity well assured, their rights and powers well and permanently settled ; but, however great and undoubted might be their dignity, their powers, their rights and authority, it was impos. sible that in these times they could be so fixed, assured, and settled, that they could afford to trifle with them or to trifle with such a subject.

The Duke of WELLINGTON agreed that trifling was out of place on such a subject; but there was a desire to proceed with the bill with the utmost celerity consistent with safety ; and therefore he wished that Lord Melbourne had not intimated a suspicion that it was intended to create obstacles for the purpose of delaying the bill. It was right that the petitioners, who felt themselves aggrieved, should be beard at the bar— Lord Melbourne had been pleased to compare this measure w'th that for the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders; he forgot, that in their case the question had been mooted three or four years previous to the passing of the mea- sure—that ample time had been allowed—and that it was admitted in that House that they were useless and injurious as an electoral body. This being the case, it was natural enough that they slioqld not be heard by counsel at the bar. As to the Reform Bill, it was true that by it many men were affected in their pro- perty and interests, and they were not heard at the bar by counsel ; but there were other precedents in which parties interested were so heard. There was that of the heritable Jurisdictions in Scotland, on which counsel were beard, both on the question of the second reading and on the question of going into Committee. He had been ready to offer, in order that there might be no delay, that supposing the House agreed to the second reading, counsel should be heard on the question of going into Committee. He was ready to commence the dis- cussion on the following day after the arguments of counsel had been beard. He must say, that the charge made by the noble lord against everybody who might think that the corporations should be heard by counsel of wishing to cause delay, was unjust ; and he would go a step further, and say that it was not quite founded in fact. Their object was to offer no unnecessary delay, and to extend equal justice to all men. But as to the question of going iuto Com- mittee on this bill, it could not be entertained. It could not be e%pected that anybody could be prepared to do so for some days. There was no reason why counsel might not be heard from day to day ,• and their Lordships, after having heard them, in the course of next week could go into Committee.

Lord BROUGHAM represented the inconvenience which must arise from allowing counsel to be heard separately for each petitioning cor- poration : they might have two hundred petitions and four hundred speeches of two hours each in length from counsel : thus it would' be necessary to prolong the sittings of the House for two years, or to throw out the bill altogether.

Nobody would accuse him of wishing to delay the measure or to do any thing inimical to the great objects it had iu view. In his proposition he would meet the noble duke more than half-way : he would provide for the measure being proceeded with, no undue delay taking place, while he at the same time guarded their Lordships against the possible charge of endeavouring to defeat indirectly a measure which they hesitated directly to throw out. Suppose they allowed two counsel to be heard against the principle of the measure. Now if all the corporations agreed to consolidate their opposition—to fight, as it were, under one banner—the affair would be quite simple. Let them, he would say, for in- stance, take his learned friends Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight—he named them because they were gentlemen of great learning and ability, and be- cause they had the confidence of their countrymen : let them be brought to the bar, and if their arguments prevailed, well and good ; certain was be, that if they could not convince their Lordships, nobody else could. But even in there was another difficulty. Why might not petitioners pray to be heard in favour of the bill? Freemen complained, not that they were deprived of advantages, political and otherwise, themselves, but that these advantages were extended to others. Why should not, then, others their fellow citizens have an opportunity of endeavouring to make good their claim to a participation in those advantages?

Lord RIPON and Lord WHARNCLIFFE approved of Lord Brougham's suggestion. Lord WiNcim.seA said, his appearing in the House that day showed how strongly he felt in the case of the Corporations. The time had come when private feeling should yield to public duty.

Never, in his opinion, had their Lordships, who stood the guardians of pro- perty and of the public peace, to discharge so important a duty as at present. From the bottom of his heart he could say, that if the bill went only to the 'ex.. tent of communicating additional rights and privileges, upon constitutional grounds, to a great portion of his countrymen—if the measure, going further, went only to correct the abuses which had crept into the management of pro- perty, he would give it his most cordial support. He found, indeed, that. these two principles were, to a certain extent, embraced in the measure ; but it con.. tained others to which he never could assent. He never could agree to having any class of his fellow countrymen deprived of privileges which were relatively of as much value to them as those he enjoyed were to himself. They were called, too, to alter the tenure of property; and they were asked to make this change without any other evidence excepting that of the Report laid on the table—the Report on which the bill was founded—the Report against the alle- gations in which the petitioners prayed to be heard. Allusion had been made to the forty .shilling freeholders: he had voted in their favour, and was there- fore not acting inconsistently now in raising his voice in favour of justice, and a fair trial for the freemen.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that in 1808 he had appeared before both Houses as counsel for several trading communities at Liverpool, Man- chester, Hull, London, and Birmingham—

The cases of all had been put together, and he was the only counsel. He

spoke three hours in one House, and a couple or three hours in the other, and that was all. There was no unnecessary delay. He proposed now that the bill be read a second time pro forma ; thus it would gain a stage, and it would be shown that no vexatious obstacles would be thrown in the way of the measure. On the next and subsequent stages, it would be understood that noble lords might vote just as they pleased ; they were not to he at all pledged by the second reading. The Committee might then be put off for a day or two until counsel were ready, and the Corporations had agreed upon whom they might select and prepared their cases.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND said, that in agreeing to this proposi- tion, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not concede the principle of the measure.

After a desultory conversation, in which Lord LYNDHURST, Lord ELLENBOROUGH, the Duke Of WELLINGTON, and Lord FALMOUTH joined, Lord MELBOURNE said, that the opinion which he had expressed at the outset was unchanged. Nothing was then said of accommodation, but now the case was altered in some degree- Lord ALVANLEY could not see the necessity for hearing counsel. There were noble and learned lords on both sides of the House who were fully competent to do justice to the case ; and the only result of the present proceeding would be very much to waste time, and incur unnecessary expense.

The bill was read a second time, without a division.

On Thursday, after a number of petitions had been presented against the bill, including one from Tiverton, by Lord HARROWBY, who de- fended his conduct in regard to that body, Lord BROUGHAM rose to defend himself against a charge in the Go- vernment newspapers, that be had endeavoured to delay the progress of the measure by acceding to the admission of counsel, to plead at the bar in behalf of the existing Corporations. He said- " Without expressing what I feel as to the charge that has been made against me, I am entitled to state that there never was any charge more utterly ground lees than that which has just been brought against me by a Ministerial news- paper—(Much laughter)—newspapers, I will not say haying the patronage of the Government, nor will I say under the protection of the Government, certainly not the patronage and protection of my noble friend, but those who have taken him under their protection. ( Cheers and laughter.) I do not think, if I were allowed to give an opinion on the subject, that the attack is a very judicious one; because one like myself, unconnected with the Government—never ens ing one word against the Government—and I am happy to say that I have not had oc- casion to do so—but uniformly defending and supporting it : I therefore say, I do not think it the most judicious course—because sometimes my advice may have been deemed useless advice—although it was ever humble. sincere, and well-meant, and I gave it at all times conscientiously—that I should be attacked in the manner I have been by those who are under my noble friends' protection, or who have taken my noble friends under their protection. I am sure that the attacks did not proceed from my noble friends. I am sure that they disapprove altogether of such attacks. I know them too well to believe that they had any band whatever in it ; for they are men of sense—but their underlings are those who have made the attacks. One man is disappointed at not getting any thing while I was in office. Another is vexed for some similar reason. It is they who are the authors of these attacks. It is not, I repeat, the principals who have done this ; it is the underlings, instigated by the sort of motive I have described."

He then explained his reason for allowing the admission of counsel-

" I said—now let it be distinctly understood what I say—let it not be mis- understood—that I our decidedly against hearing counsel—) resist, I oppose it altogether ; but I see a great number of your Lordships, and in fact the majority to be in favour of hearing counsel ; and therefore I shall be glad if I can make any proposal that will meet the view of the noble Duke. That is what these men think deserving of censure. As they advise me in the conduct of a case of an action at law, they would advise the noble Duke opposite in the conduct of an action of another sort—in the conduct of a battle : but I prefer as he would prefer, to fight my own battle in my own way. My Lords, I consider that this bill is my own battle—I was the author of the Commission—I originated the bill in this House—I shall fight as good a battle as I can in favour of the bill ; and, with great submission to them, I will not make an exception to that rule of the practice of our Courts, which declares that where you have counsel and leaders, if the leadership be worth having, you shall be guided in the conduct of the cause by your own judgment, and by your leader's judgment, but not by the wishes of your client. I shall do so here, and my client will thank me in a few days for having pursued that course. I was not to lose the battle at once, as these persons advise—for such really is their advice—' Oh, lose it, to show your pluck.' That is what they advise. Why not divide and stand alone ? My Lords, that was not my plan. My plan was to get as good a bargain as I could ; and to tell your Lordships the truth, I think that I did make a good bargain. I was ready to hear two counsel, in order to get rid of the proposition of hearing counsel for every borough that chose to ask it. Viscount Strangford inti- mated that that was not hisproposition.] I see what my noble friend means— he does not want such long arguments of counsel, he shrinks from the idea of it—animus meminissefugit. I only mean to state this, that I did my beet to avoid the consequences of the proposition then made. I shall not say more, than that I feel it necessary to make this statement of what really did occur ; for otherwise it would be represented out of doors, that any long speech of counsel that may take place, will be the consequence of my conduct, when, in fact, my plan was to avoid this as much as possible. I hope that the event will prove that I made au admirable compromise."

Several petitions were then presented against the bill, and one in its favour, by Lord For.Ey.

Lord Ei.t.nsmonorrcit thought that the House should make an order aespecting the Corporations, who should be allowed to defend them- He was opposed to bearing counsel at the bar ; nevertheless, if the feeling. of the House were decidedly in its favour, be should not offer an extreme opposition to any thing which did not interfere with the speedy success of the measure ; and therefore he should readily agree to any fair and reasonable proposition that might come from the other side. His hopes, however, of any thing of that sort had been considerably diminished by the speech which be had heard from a noble lord opposite. If one corporation established its right to be heard, he saw no reason why the efforts of another should not be equally successful ; and in such an event, he hesitated not to say that the proceding would be intermi- nable. A certain number of boroughs claimed to be heard by two counsel each, Bristol and Liverpool by one each. Now, if any borough in the schedule claimed equal rights, he confessed himself unable to see when the proceeding might be expected to close. If, on the other hand, a fair and reasonable limit were placed to the hearing of counsel, and that the object did not appear to be to delay the progress of the bill, then be should, perhaps, be induced to accede to that which otherwise he might feel it his duty to oppose ; for he was most anxious to attain the end in view,—namely, the accomplishment of the measure.

Lord PLITNKETT said, the House should recollect, that at the time of the Union one hundred Irish boroughs had been disfranchised : compensation was given to some, but none were allowed to be beard by counsel.

Lord FITZGERALD said, that the case for the disfranchised Irish boroughs was dissimilar to that of the Corporations proposed by the bill to be deprived of rights and property ; for in their ease, no cor- porate property was touched, no privileges annulled, no extension of sights given.

Lord MELBOURNE observed, that there was now a dictinct understand- ing that the bill should proceed as speedily as possible ; that the second reading should then be taken without debate ; that twenty-four hours' notice should be given of the proposed hearing by counsel ; that Thursday, Friday, and if necessary Saturday, should be devoted by the House to the hearing of counsel; and that on Monday the bill should be committed.

selves by counsel at the bar : it was important to regulate who should be beard.

Lord FALMOUTH said, that the House had agreed to bear two counsel against the principle of the bill.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped that nothing could ever induce the House to hear counsel on the principle of this, or any other bill.

If their Lordships should once agree to do that, they would be laying down a most inconvenient, and indeed a most dangerous precedent, and one on which, if he had divided alone, he would have taken the sense of the House before agreeing counsel as much as possible. Of course they could not shut out the ennsideta- the details, and on the details should have the opportunity of stating to it. He concurred with Lord Brougham in the wish to limit the htheeartiineggtrede tion of the principle of the bill altogether ; but the counsel w, re to be heard ou in which the Corporations they appeared for thought their rights and privileges wound be affected. In that view he found their Lordships concurred. He malty thought it most material, not with a view to this case alone, but with is view to the order of the proceedings of their Lordships' House, not to let it go forth that their Lordships would call counsel to the bar to argue on the principle. of a bill, which principle it was their duty and their tight to discuss, determ rue, and resolve for themselves.

Lord FALMOUTH merely wished that counsel should not be pre- cluded from adverting to the principle.

Lord MANSFIELD understood that counsel should also be heard on points of detail.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, it appeared that the two speeches of which Lord Brougham had spoken, were not the only ones the House would have to listen to ; and therefore Lord Brougham's arrangement was not so good as he had represented it to be.

Lord BROUGHAM must say, that he did not understand Lord Clan- ricarde.

Did the noble marquis mean to say that he would have stood the other night against the majority of 70 or SO who were ranged on the opposite side of the House, and who were determined not to be satisfied unless counsel were heard? It appeared that the noble marquis was one of those who, out of doors, attri- buted to him a desire to delay the progress of the bill. (Laughter and cheers.) But let the noble marquis take his place, and then ask himself whether, as a sincere advocate of the bill, he would not have pursued the same course?

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE was not one of those who took notice of Lord Brougham's conduct out of doors; but He claimed his privilege of appearing in that House, and finding fault with a course of proceeding winch be thought neither convenient nor proper to be adopted. He should have stated his objections to it the other evening, and mote than once rose for the purpose of doing so, but was prevented by the three or four times repeated speeches of Lord Brougham. He appealed to the common sense and common understanding of their Lordships, to say whether the opinion expressed by Lord Brougham as to the understanding come to the other eveuirg was not widely different from that expressed by Lord Mansfield. Before they took the course proposed of hearing counsel at the bar, he wished to know whether it were possible to reconcile such a course with justice, common sense, or precedent. It was true they had been told of precedents, but he was at a loss to find one exactly in point. It was obviously necessary, before counsel were called to the bar, that an exact understanding. should be entered into as to the points to which their argument should be limited, if indeed it were to be limited at all. No wrier of any kind had been made upon the subject. The motion, as he understood it, was, that all those who had petitioned against the bill should be heard by counsel, and that the counsel called in should be at liberty to argue the case of all.

Some further discussion arose on this point. Lord Baoucirma again

spoke at some length ; and Lords ELLENBOROUGH, CLANRICARDE, and Wroccow, made a few remarks ; but the question appears to have been left where it was when the conversation arose ; and Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight were called in.

After Sir Charles had arranged his papers, Lord ELLENROROUGR asked for whom lie appeared ?

Sir Charles Wetherell replied in the following rhapsody-

" That, my Lords, is the very point I was coming to. I will answer the qua• tion fairly. I believe I appear pro populo, for every corporation in the king- dom. My clients I am unable distinctly to number. There are numerous peti- tions lying on the table of your Lordship' House ; and if the Corporations of England and Wales, whose petitions are not yet laid upon the table of the Haase, knew of the tyrannical attack which the bill of which I complain, levels against their rights and privileges—more especially, the lowest class in these boroughs, commonly called the commonalty, or the commons—if they knew, had heard of, understood, or had explained to them the contents of this atrocious and tylan- Meal bill, I am conscientiously persuaded, that there exists not in Englaild or Wales a single corporation, whose protest against its enormities would not be presented to your Lordship in the shape of a petition tendered by sortie Peer to be presented, and laid on the table of your Lordships' Hanle. When, them- fore, I am asked, for whom I appear, peradventure, the question might be re- versed, and it might be asked negatively, for whom I do not appear : but if the question be affirmatively asked, I may state that I appear for Doncaster—that am solicited by Berwick-upon-Tweed—that I am hand-in-hand with Leicester —that I am at home with Oxford—that with Coventry I am acquainted —that I am not unknown to Grantham—that Boston is well acquainted with me—that Tiverton shakes hands with me—that with Ipswich I am peculiarly licked in the bands of confraternity—that Norwich has an affectionate regard for me— that Lancaster owns use as one of the two roses—that Marlborough I take under my care—that Cambridge, bad it presented a petition, I should number as mine —that Warwick is with me—that Worcester I take under my wing—that Hereford, Dover, Carlisle, Ashford, St. Albans, Poole, Sandwich : all these, et cum malls aliis, are those who have done me the honour, through the medium of your Lordships, to solicit my humble assistance." Ile then proceeded, in his usual grotesque manner, to object to the principal provisions of the bill,—to the abolition of the ancient charters, the rate of qualification for voting, and to the powers conferred on the new Town-Councils. He contended that the Crown had power to remedy existing defects, and that the bill was therefore not required. He objected also to the style in which the Commissioners' Report was drawn up— The couched in a style hardly he for such works as Roderick Random or Tor' something which The fact was, that something vulgar, something low-bred, he found it impossible adequately to describe, pervaded the whole itepurrt. _omit Jones—a style similar to that of the books which were to be found in some It circulating library at Ramsgate, or Margate, or 'Southend, or Sheernes::.corea, any genteel, or mock• genteel watering-places, or in any of the steal of .t which convey( d the public to those places. And yet, on the statements o such scorn of those who.exarnined its arithmetic, irlatuoghleinggsisitoatr of trheusePortw5buro a report as that their Lordships were called

regarded only its pleasantly. He denied that the matters of fact stated in the preamble were proved; and was proceeding with his argument, when

Lord BROUGHAM observed, that Sir Charles must be exhausted, and suggested that the House Snould adjourn for a short time.

Their Lordships accordingly retired for about twenty minutes.

When they returned, Lord KENYON said, that Sir Males Wetherell was too much fatigued to go on ; and hoped that he would be allowed to resume his speech the next day. This was agreed to, after some conversation,—with the understanding that Mr. Knight as well as Sir Charles Wetherell should finish their arguments on the following night. The House then adjourned.

Last night, Sir Charles Wetherell resumed his speech ; which was much in the same strain as his performance of :he previous day. He was followed by Mr. Knight, who spoke till he became exhausted; and then the House adjourned to one o'clock this day, to give him an oppor- tunity of finishing his argument.

2 Lusa CORPORATION REFORM.

In the House of Commons, last night, Mr. PERRIN, the Attorney- General for Ireland, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the existing state of corporations in Ireland. He detailed at considerable length the abuses of the present system, by which I:1000 corporators bad the uncontrolled management of the affairs of 900,000 inhabitants of corporate towns. The bill he intended to bring in was in most respects the same as the English one. The principal difference related to the franchise. In towns the population of whirl, reaches 20,000, the occupancy of a house valued at 101. a year would confer the right of voting : in towns with a smaller population than 20,000, occupancy of a 5/. house would entitle a person to vote. There would be no wards in towns with a less population than 12000. There would be no Revising Banisters or Auditors, but the Alavor would revise the burgess-roll • and be liable to a penalty of 101. for improperly admit- ting or excluding any person. In this bill the city of Dublin would be included.

Mr. SHAW presumed that it was not intended to press the bill this session, with so thin an attendance of Members : therefore, though he strongly objected to it, he would not oppose the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSEL!. said, it was intended to press the bill this session ; and he felt assured that it would sustain the heavy fire with which it might be assailed in the other House.

Mr. O'CONNELL spoke strongly in support of the bill ; and dwelt on the monstrous corruptions of the existing corporate system of Ire- land.

There was some bickering between Mr. LEFROY, Mr. O'CONNELL, and Mr. Suave • after which, Mr. H. GR.tTTAN spoke in favour of the bill ; and Colonel PERCEVAL expressed his hope that it would not be pressed in a " thin and exhausted House."

Mr. SHEIL said, the House was certainly thin—the leader of Co- lonel Pereeval's party was away :• the Member for Tamworth knew that when Corporation Reform was granted to England, it could not be withheld from Ireland.

After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORPE, the bill was brought in.

3. Fuss! CHURCH REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day having been read for going into Committee on the Irish Church Bill, Air. Gocaneast slated, that lie should not waste the time of the House, after the decision to which it had come the other night, by offering any objection to the details of the bill in Committee, but that he would record his opinions against the measure on the bringing up of the report. The House then went into Committee.

Lord Monreart took the opportunity of mentioning an alteration in the

bill-

Frum certain quarters, to which they were inclined to look with every de- ference, a communicating' had been made to his Majesty's Ministers, that strung ohjeetiens were entertained to that provision of the bill which directly assigned to the uses of the Board of Commissioners of National Education the excess of the reserve fund over and above all the purposes mentioned in the Act; on the ground that it was calculated to give an invidious appearance, in the eyes of some persons, to the proceedings of that Board. Though it was to be hoped that the liberality of Parliament would provide- funds for the general education of the People of Ireland, should they fall shot t during the necessarily scanty beginning of the reserve fund, yet it had been inferred unwisely, he thought., that there might arise considerable impatience in districts liable to come under its operation—impatience which might terminate in the meht dis- astoms consequences. Now, this was an alarm more apparent than real ; yet it was of such a nature, and its existence had been communicated to him from such platters, that Government wished to meet it in the first instance to the hest of their abilities. They therefore proposed to alter the destination of the funds, by providing that the sums payable to the reserve fund fitr the purposes of education should be paid by the Commissioners of the Land Revenue to the Consolidated Fund ; and the Government therefore proposed to fix a charge of 50,000/. to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund from the 1st of April 1836, by sealant of attorney, for all purposes connected with the education of the different classes of his Majesty's subjects, without any distinction of religious opinions.

The first clause was agreed to.

In the course of the discussion on the second clause, Lord STANLEY said, that he wished to suggest such alterations in the first part of the measure as he thought would tend to improve it, but no amendment could reconcile him to the principle of the latter part- ' The first suggestion which he had to make, referred to what was technically called the ascending and descending scale of the bill. He wished Lord Morpeth to consider, before he came to the 5th clause, a part of it by which no compensation was provided for those who must be injured) by its operation. He was sure that the common object of all parties on both sides of the House was to provide that the owner of the soil, and not the occupying tenant, should be the person charged with the payment of the tithe, or tithe composition or the rent charge in lieu thereof. That was the object of all the bills which had been passed on this lebject from the year 1823 down to the present period. In 1823, by the first Tithe Composition Act, it was determined that tenants paying composition should be entitled to deduct the amount from their rent; and under this • sir Rome Paar. made his appearance in the House (for the first time this week) at a later hour in the evening. arrangement the clergy were the receivers, and the occupying tenants the payers, of tithe. To obviate the objection arising from bringing the clergy sod the occupiers of land into collision, it was proposed by Lord Stanley's bill that future leases of lands should he granted free of tithe, and that the grantor, and not the tenant, should be liable to that charge. A difficulty was felt as to the introduction of a like system with reference to current engagements and leases already granted ; for it was considered to be a hardship that 'Ike landlord, tak- ing upon himself the entire burden of tithe, should have to collect the amount in a number of small payments from a numerous class of occupiers. He there- fore proposed that any landlord who before the expiration or existing leases might voluntarily agree to pay the tithe, should be allowed a deduction of 15 per cent., with a right to collect the whole sum from his tenants. This was done with a view to compensate him for any loss he might sustain in collecting the tithe. It was now proposed that the landlord should be compelled to take upon himself the responsibility of paying tithe, with a power of recovery against his tenants, and that he should he allowed a reduction, not of 15, but of 30 per cent. which however he was obliged to allow to the tenants. Thus, although the risk was entirely thrown upon him, the landlord reaped no immediate benefit from the arrangement : but it must be admitted that at the expiration of exist- ing leases his land would become more valuable. This might be considered a sufficient compensation. However, the case of persons having an intermediate interest between the head landlord and the occupying tenant was different, —here there was compensation for the additional risk': and he suggested to his noble friend, whether he might not be able to devise some remedv for the injustice. Suppose an estate let by a landlord to three middlemen, on leases of twenty one years, and sublet by the middlemen at profit rents to fifty tenants. In this ease, the head landlord incurred no risk with respect to t:thes, the middle- men being liable and solvent. But what was their state? They were called on to pay to the landlord 70/. for every 100/. of tithes, in a case where they had not covenanted to pay a farthing ; and they were empowered to collect from the fifty tenants a sum not exceeding by a single farthing what they themselves must pay. Now, these middlemen had lin permanent interest in the property to compensate them for any immediate loss they might sustain ; unlike the land- lord, they would not be benefited by the circumstance of the estate becoming eventually more valuable in their hands. He threw out this difficulty, vvhich i he felt to involve a serious practical evil, for Lord Morpeth's consideration.

Mr. WALKER thought that the occupying tenant should pay no more than the head landlord paid to the clergy.

Mr. II. GRATTAN said, the bill would give middlemen the power of ejectment—a power which they never had before ; and this was suffi- cient for their protection, without giving them any bonus.

Mr. SPIIING RICE said, that the cases alluded to by Lord Stanley were daily becoming fewer ; and that the landlords and their tenants would adjust the matter between themselves.

The clause was passed ; as were also clauses 31 and 4th.

On clause 5th being read, Mr. O'CONNELL remarked, that So little bad the people of Ireland been in the habit of paying tithes of late years, that the reenactment of them by this bill eras almost like throwing a new burden upon the people. What would be the consequence if this bill were re- jected ? By Lord Stanley's bill, the clergy would have recovered 771. 10s. per cent. of their tithes; by the big of Sir H. Hardinge 75/. per cent. ; and the bill new under consideration insured the clergymen 73/. 10s. per cent.; lint if the bill were rejected, what would they recover? Little or nothing.

Lord STANLEY protested against the assumption that if the bill did not pass tithes would not be paid— As for the present measure being a boon for the clergy, he doubted not whether a larger amount of tithes would not be paid if this bill did not pass, than if it did. In the Act which he had introduced, provision was made fur the payment of the clergy by landlords; and payment had been made to the amount of from180,000/. to 200,000/. The payments which would he made under this bill would nut, at the limiest, execul 2.4,000/. If this bill did not pass, 200,000/. per annum would be paid without any difficulty to the clergy; and certainly many ditfieulties would arise under this bill. Mr. SPRING RICE thought that it would be highly dangerous to the Church to throw out the bill— If it were carried i:.to effect, the clergy would never he brought in contact ;in any way with the tithe payers, but would go and obtain the amount due to them from the collecting officer of the Government. This, he thought, was highly advantageous to the clergy. lie also begged Lord Stanley to recollect, that the landlords were not always so willing to pay tithes.

Mr. SHAW said, that the clergy would never be induced by any tem- porary gain to sacrifice the good of the Church.

Mr. O'CONNELL repeated what be had said respecting the progres- sive diminution of the amount proposed to be paid to the clergy since Lord Stanley's measure was introduced.

The clause was agreed to. Clauses Gth, 7th, and 8th, were also passed.

On clause 9th—which authorizes the reopening of compositions— being proposed, Lord STANLEY said, that it would occasion great incon- venience and confusion : the amount of the composition was supposed to have been finally settled fourteen years ago.

Mr. PERRIN proposed an amendment, which he said would have the following effect— That where the amount of the composition exceeded by more than one-fifth the actual amount really paid or adjudged to lie paid on the average of the seven years preceding the time of the composition, the complainant was to prepare a ;:rima facie ease; next, a notice by the party was to be posted upon the church- doors ; there every such application was to he accompanied by a statement in writing, specifying the facts, the grounds, and the reasons for making the same ; and the same grounds and reasons were to be seated on affidavit. This was to be submitted to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who were to certify as to the grounds of the revision to the Lord Lieutenant ; and he thereupon was to issue his warrant for the revision. Thus the course to be taken would not be left altogether to the Revising Barristers. They too would be called upon to state the actual grounds of their decision.

Mr. O'CONNELL exclaimed against this, in a tone which the Tory reports represent as dictatorial and fierce- " Leave your amendments out—it is an idle mockery to introduce all these things into the bill." (s, Hear, hear !" from the Irish Members.) If the Attorney-General for Ireland's amendments were agreed to, it would be a million to one against the reduction of the amount of composition in any case. Mr. SPRING RICE and Lord Motteent said a few words in favour of the amendment; but it was agreed to postpone the clause.

The other clauses down to the 49th were then agreed to.

On Wednesday, the House being again in Committee, the clauses from the 50th to the 100th inclusive were ordered to stand part of the bill, with scarcely a word of comment. A stormy discussion arose on the 10Ist clause, in consequence or Mr. SHAW asking Mr. Walker, the Member for Wexford, whether he had returned himself to the Commissioners as a Catholic of Churchman ?

Dr. LusilINGTOw rose, and with much warmth objected to the question, as unparliamentary, and contrary to every principle of justice— This was the first time in the course of his Parliamentary experience that he had seen a Member rise in his place and question another Member as to his reli- gious faith. (Loud cheers.) It was the first time he had ever heard a Member required to state, in the face of the House and of the public, whether he enter- tained those religious opinions or any other. (Loud cheers.) He would tell the right honourable and learned gentleman, that this House would not endure such inquisitorielpractices ; and he would further tell him, that the Member for Wexford would best discharge his duty to the House and to the public by treat. iug the question with the contempt which it deserved. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial beaches.) Mr. SHAW said, he had been completely misunderstood by Dr. Luahington. Ile had not asked Mr. Walker what was his religion : he believed Mr. Walker to be a member of the Established Church, and that be had received the sacrament in the same parish in which he had himself resided ; but he asked how he had returned himself to the Commissioners of Public Instruction ; and that question was neither irregular nor unparliamentary.

Mr. IlualE agreed with Dr. Lushington : he had never before heard such a question put in the House. But it was in perfect agreement with the language held by Mr. Shaw elsewhere; and he would put a question to Mr. Shaw respecting the language be alluded to- " I wish to know, whether he means to say that those Members who sit on this side of the House, and who are now taking measures to promote a reform of the Church and other institutions of the country, are the individuals whom he has characterized as Revolutionists and Infidels? It appears to me, from the situation in which be mail's, he cannot have any objection to remove that

ground of complaiut honourable Members on this side of the House have now against him ; but L. he will not do so, then we have a right to know to what sense the character of Revolutionists and Infidels is intended by him to attach to us."

Mr. SHAW said, that he had been misrepresented—

Au expression he had lately used in public, mei to which he supposed hlr. Hume alluded, was most incorrectly represented to Lave been that those who differed from him in politics were Infidels in religion. He had never said any such thing. He bad been speaking of the two great political parties into which the country was divided ; and lie said it was very natural that all that was restless in disposition, desperate in character or fortune, Revolutionary in politics, or Infidel in religion, should be joined to the Movement party. But he need not point out the difference, both in reason and common sense, between saying that all that was Infidel in religion was joined to one party, and saying that all that party were Infidels in religion.

Ilnala rejoined-

" No doubt, the language of the right honourable and learned gentleman was very charitable, and in the spirit of a tiue Christian. But did lie mean to say that the opponents of the Conservative party in this Ilousewe,e Infidels? The right toirourable gentleman had said, that though all were not Infidels, route were. (Cries of " No !") I wish the tight honourable gentleman would tell us whom he calls the Movement party. I take upon myself to be one of that party ; and I wish to know what Infidel associates I have. ( Cheers.) I challenge the right honourable gentleman to name one. Of course, as there are so many Infidels amongst us, there can lie no difficulty in stating who they are. Either the right honourable and learned gentleman ought not to make such a statement, or he ought to be prepared to substantiate it. ( Great cheering.) I repeat my challenge, and call upon him to name one of the Movement party who is an In- fidel? If he cannot, then I call upon him to withdraw his words, and acknow- ledge that they are not applicable to us. ( Cheers. ) As a man of honour, he is bound to substantiate his charge, or to retract it altogether." (" No. no !" front the Opposithm, and yreat cheering on the Ministerial side of the house, with cries of" Chair, chair !")

Mr. BERNAL here interfered, and the altercation was stopped.

The clause was agreed to; the preamble was also agreed to. The House resumed, and the bill with its amendments was reported.

On the motion of Lord Mottri:nn, the House again went into Com- mittee on the money clauses of the bill, and two resolutions were pro- posed whereon to found those clauses. The first was-

- That advance's be made out of the Consolidate;) Fond to defray the expenses incurred in time revision of the tithe.composition ; such advances to be paid out of the semat.charges to be received by the Commissioners."

A desultory conversation ensued ; and after it bad continued for some time, Mr. Hume said, that it was of no use to enter into any compromise, if the bill was to be rejected in another place-

. Half measures would never do. What had they gained by them? Lost a million of money, and they were now as far from the settlement of the question as ever. He would be content to throw away any sum of money, with a fair or reasonable prospect of securing the peace of Ireland. He could save it out of the military establishments in one year. If there were no such pros- pect, where was the use of making the sacrifice? The question would be brought forward again, however, and they would have another opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. In the mean time, let his Majesty's Minis- ters make up their minds, and deter mine on the course they will be called upon to pursue. Let them not fear that this measure will not be passed in the Lords. Let me recommend them to make the bill perfect ; let them send it up in that shape to the Lords, and let them throw it out if they dare. ( Great cheering. if, as the House was told the other night by the noble lord the Member for Lancashire, they were really determined to throw out the bill, let the Ministers do their duty, and let the People of this country speak out; and then let us see whether the Commons will bear this misrule, or whether the peace and welfare of the empire shall be consulted. (Renewed cheering.) If any measures shall be adopted by the House of Lords to secure the loss of the bill by delay, let his Majesty's Ministers come to this determination—pass all our bills, adjourn the House, and call it together when the Lords have made up their minds. The People of England are determined to have both this and the Municipal Corporation Bill. (Load cheers.) And backed as his Majesty's Ministers are by a majority in this House—and I am persuaded, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, by a large majority out of the House—they will be deserting their duty to the People if they hesitate for one instant iu the maintenance of those reforms which the country has aright to demand. I there. fore do hope and trust that Ministers will act like men, and that they will not be frightened by shadows. (Loud cheers.) Mr. FINCH thought that Mr. Hume would find, when the forth- coining appal should be made to the People, that the esustitneney of Middlesex would very unequivocally express their dissent from his opinion.

Mr. HUME said, that his meaning was this— If all the salutary Reforms which the country hail a right to expect

thrown xtpereota out

results of the Reform in that House were to be repudiated awl elsewhere,—and if the public money were to be squandered away, and the peace of the country disturbed by them, without the slightest regard to the dictates of reason, justice, or common sense,--it would be for the People of England to determine for what purposes the privileges of either House were granted. It would be for them to consider and to act. How far the honour- able gentleman who spoke after him might be correct in his estimate of the opinions of the People, be would not stay to inquire. He would only say that his belief was very different from the impression produced on the need of the honourable Member. " With regard to my constituents (continued Mr. Hume), if the constituency of Middlesex disapprove of the principles I nuw avow, or have expressed heretofore, all I can say is, that they will do very wrong if they

do not turn ins out the very next time they have an opportunitlyi.Tlieey. well, able gentleman talks with great sole "ty of an appeal being made : very

the sooner it is made the better. I have not the least objection to its being made, I can assure him ; though he may possibly recollect, that the last appeal made by his friends to the voice of the People of England was attended with a very different result from that which they anticipated. (Loud cheers.) If the honourable gentleman alludes to a similar appeal—if he adverts to a forthcoming general election—I hope the People of England will not permit such abominations in the land to continue." Let those who were for supporting abuses, and for refusing all terms of compromise at present, cuileider what terms they were likely to get if this bill should be rejected, and it should become necessary to introduce another in a new Parliament.

The resolution was agreed to ; after a few words from Mr. Gout, BURN, Mr. LEFROY, and Mr. YOUNG.

Lord MORPETH then moved, " That 50,0001. should be annually paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Board of National Educa- tion in Ireland, from and after the 1st of April 1836."

Mr. GOULBURN contended that Lord Morpeth's plan was a direct attack on the Church— For what was the noble lord's arrangement ? To sacrifice the revenues of 860 parishes in Ireland to obtain anion tbr the repayment of this sum of 30,0001. The result of confiscating the revenues of so many parishes would be to place 58,000/. a-year in the bands of Government. But was the whole of that sum applicable to the purposes of this bill ? No; the noble lord had saddled it with the support of so many other purposes, that he would find himself in debt upon his Reserve Fund, as he had found himself in debt for other purposes upon his Perpetuity Fund.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Mr. Goultairn and his friends were displeased because sonic of their arguments were taken from them by the arrangement which made the money for the purposes of education payable out of the Consolidated Fund—

Gentlemen on the other side said, " Your pretence of having a reserved fund, as the incumbents of livings which are to be sequestered die off, instils into the people a notion that the benefits of education ale contingent on the death of cer-

tain individuals; and is in fact, au encouragement to the assassinat. of Pro- testant clergymen—a bonus upon their murder throughout Ireland." Such was the argument of gentlemen opposite against the bill; but this argument was entirely destroyed when the House of Commons said that a sum should be given from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of education, and that the monies which fell in yearly from vacated and sequestered benefices should go to repay these advances made out of the Consolidated Fund. Now, whatever ought be the enthusiasm of the Irish People in the cause of education, it could scarcely be supposed, even by gentlemen opposite, that they would be such en- thusiastic supporters of the Consolidated Fund as to put clergyffien to death in order to repay its advances speedily. (" Hear!" and laughter.) He did not wonder that Mr. Goulburn should be a little sore when he found those favourite predictions of desolation and murder (which answered so well for making beau- tiful perorations and rounding sentences) completely doue away with by the resolution in the hands of the Chairman.

Mr. GOULImURN thought it rather extraordinary that Lord John Russell should be willing to pay 50,000/. a year out of the Consolidated Fund, to obviate an exaggerated and fanciful apprehension that Irish clergymen might be murdered in consequence of the provisions of his bill.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE maintained that there would be no surplus.

Lord Moneeni said, it would be greater than lie had calculated on.

Mr. HORACE Twiss said, that this was a struggle not for educating the Irish—that was a delusion—but for the dismemberment of the Church.

Mr. JACKSON believed that the present grant was proposed by Mi- nisters under the conviction that there would be no surplus. The system of education was not fair and even-banded- It was nothing but a Roman Catholic system of education. It appeared from a return presented to that House, that the number of Protestant clergymen is Ireland who had applied to the Education Board for pecuniary assistance did not exceed 140; and it was a curious circumstance, that the return (lid not state the number of Roman Catholic ministers by whom applications had been made to that Board. In the extensive county of Cork, it would be found that not a single Protestant clergyman had sent in any application to the Education Board. To those who were acquainted with the mode in which the new schools were conducted, such a circumstance would not appear at all surprising. He could inform the House, that one of those schools in the county of Cork was established within the walls of a convent ; and another in the town of Galway was, according to Mr. Inglis, under the management of nuns. These were facts which seemed to identify the new schools with the Roman Catholic religion. Lord MORPETH would again explain how he expected the surplus to arise— From the benefices or parishes which, under the operation of this bill, would have no new incumbents appointed to them after the next vacancy in each, after deducting 30 per cent., lie found there would arise 82,0271. a year to be paid to the Commissioners. After deducting the expenses which would fall on this fund, and which were made chargeable on it by this bill, including the interest of the money to be raised to compensate the owners of the advowsons, there would remain about 50,0001. a year to he devoted to the purposes of education. This amount did not include the sum that would be derived from the operation of the clauses which allowed the income of rich benefices in certain cases to be reduced to OWL a year. He bad never made any allowance for what 'night be derived from this source, but he had no doubt that the amount would not he in- considerable.

Mr. O'CONNELL NIDarited, that the disclosure of bed principles Sometimes led to good-

, Mr. Shaw had that night given them a specimen of his liberality of feeling— he seemed actuated with such zeal as to amount almost to spiritual ferocity. He seemed to be actuated by the feeling that he was alone infallible, nd that the law which he laid down must be right. Mr. O'Connell was glad that the Member for Bandon had at last shown himself up. Perhaps the House was not aware that the honourable and learned gentleman had been Secretary to the Kildare Street Society for twenty-five years. ( Cheers.) He was the man to whom the superintendence of the education of the People had been intrusted. Could they be surprised that the People of Ireland were dissatisfied with the system of education afforded in the Kildare Street Societe schools, after what bad fallen that night from the honourable Member ? Ile had told them—and bad been cheered by those behind him when he did so—that children had been educated within the walls of a convent. He did not say whether or not there were any Protestant children in the number. Again lie would ask, what was the use of keeping up a church in a parish in which there were no Protestants? Where they to maintain a chinch for abstract Protestants. if there was not a single Protestant in a parish, what was the use of keeping up a church, and paying a clergyman? Was it that the atmosphere might be improved by the savour of Protestantism ? lie would ask the late Secretary of the Kildare Street Society at once, where was the Protestantism where there were no Protes- tants? But were the souls of Catholics of less value than those of Protestants ! Mr. Jackson would make the 900(1 Catholic inhabitants of some pat ishes pay largely fur the support of a Protestant clergy man, and the maintenance of a church for the religious instruction of five Protestants. Were not the Catholics equally entitled to the means of instruction as the Protestants? it almost appeared that the only thing to be eared about was to examine how much they could get ex- torted from the 9000 Catholics.

Mr. O'Connell then alluded to the kindly offices of charity which the nuns were always ready to perform, and especially to their Chris. thinlike conduct in the time of the cholera in Ireland. He denied that they interfered with the education of Protestant children. He rejoiced at the blow which Government had struck at the system of bigotry which Mr. Jackson advocated.

Mr. SHAW protested against Mr. O'Connell's language—

What, however, was the situation in which the honourable and learned Member had placed himself? The honourable and learned Member had solemnly declared, on his oath, that he would not attempt to subvert or Mime the Protestant Church of Ireland ; and notwithstanding this, lie was now at- tempting to subvert that Church. (" Hear, hear!" and " Order !") Mr. O'CONNELL exclaimed "It is false !" which was followed by loud cries of " Order, order !"

Mr. O'CONNELL rose to order. He submitted that the right honourable Member was out of order, in accusing him of swearing to one thing arid doing directly the contrary. ( Great colfusion, and cries ill" Order !") Mr. FINN said, that a grossly calumnious attack had been made on Mr. O'Connell by Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Strew' observed, that !redid not intend to charge ltIr. O'Connell with perjury ; but he contended that he was perfectly justified iu the argument he had used.

Mr. FINN hastily rose, and exclaimed it was a false and atrocious calumny.

Several other Members rose at the same moment, and made use of some hasty expressions • but such was the confusion of the House, and the loud cues of " Order !" and " Chair !" that it was utterly impos- sible to gather them.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bernal) at length obtained partial order ; and stated, that if order was not restored he would immediately leave the chair and break up the Committee, and report tl• reason to the House. It was utterly impossible to proceed with the veolie business, if seven or eight Members rose at the same moment to address the Committee. He then called on Mr. Shaw.

Mr. SHAW was quite at a loss to know how his observations could have affected so ninny Members as rose to deny the truth of what he said. sir. O'Connell bud alluded to his spiritual ferocity ; but his ferocity was different from Mr. O'Conuell's, for that exhibited itself in a Death's head and cross-bones.

Mr. O'CONNEI.1—" And yours in a calf's bead."

Sir HENRY HARDINGE was opposed to making the grant of 50,000/. a year permanent. Had he continued in office, he should have pro- posed it from year to year.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad to hear this, but lamented that be had not bud Sir Henry's support when a vote was taken on the question a few nights ago.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Mr. WYNN said, that they came down prepared to vote for the grant, but left the House supposing it would not be proposed that night.

Sir JOHN HOBIIOUSE said, on the night in question, there were forty- one of the honourable gentlemen opposite, greatly to his astonishment, who voted against that very grant which had been introduced by Sir Henry Hardinge.

It was certainly most unfortunate that when the vote did come on—owing, lie Would not say to any defection, but to some unaccountable accident or other— not one of the honourable gentlemen opposite, who would have supported the motion had they not been absent, was present. That being a vote which was viewed very invidiously—that being a vote which was much objected to—it un- questionably would have been more fortunate for the present Government if the speeches which they had heard this evening had been declared on the former occasion. ( Cheers.) Mr. JACKSON declared, that he bad never approved of the grant, and in private conversation had signified his disapproval of it.

This resolution was agreed to, and the House resumed.

4. NEW IRISH COERCION BILL.

Last night, Lord MORPETH moved for leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of offences against the peace in Ireland. The state of Ire- land was so far improved as to relieve Ministers from the necessity of proposing to reenact the Coercion Bill, and to justify them in bringing forward a milder measure. It was intended to empower the Lord Lieutenant to call together the Quarter.sessions, in lieu of issuing a Special Commission, on any emergency. With regard to the suppres- sion of nocturnal outrages, The bill proposed to empower the Cent of thee: Sessions, on the representas tion of the Grand Jury (such Grand Jury being treien from tEe Special Jury list of the county), and with the approbation of the Lord Lieutenant, to warn inhabitants of the disturbed districts to keep within their houses, and to autho- rize the Magistrates and chief constables to require the names of inhabitants when summoned ; persons not answering to be deemed absent : but the bill gave no power, in any case, of entering the houses. Unless the ab-

sence was sire accounted for, it was proposed that the party should he sub- jected to a slight punishment for the first offence, a greater punishment for the second. and should give security for their good behaviour. Persons found • abroad at night in the disturbed districts, after due warning, as well as those is arms, were to be appr(liendell and punished for a misdemeanour. These were the whole of the provisions which he proposed to incorporate in this bill.

Colonel PERCEVAL was surprised that Ministers should refuse to re- enact the Coercion Bill, when a considerable part of the country was actually traoler its operation.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the bill would please every rational party in Ireland.

Several Irish Members spoke briefly; and the motion was agreed to.

5. RELIEF OF TUE HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.

On Morday, Mr. JOHN Alaxwer.t. moved for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of the baud-loom (weavers; the main provision of which, as appears from the debate, was to establish a minimum rate of wages. Mr. Maxwell entered into u number of statements to prove the extreme distress of the weavers, amounting to little short of a million in numbers. He endeavoured to show that their wages had fallen in a much greater proportion than the price of necessaries. The petitioners in favour of a measure similar to that which lie wished to bring in, stated,

That the present system was the result of a union between the middle and the wealthier classes at the expense of the working classes. Care was taken to protect the wealthy distiller against the importation of foreign spirits, but uo protection was afforded to the weaver against the importation of foreign silk goods. The petitioners .complain of the overgrown capitalists who go into the manufacturing districts, and advance money to the embarrassed manufacturer, who, by disposing of his goods at a reduced profit, is compelled to give the working man not the Lir marketable rate of wages, but the rate which the capitalists choose to fix. This wretched policy forced the pour manufacturer to carry on his trade by s system (Speculation and theft ; and reduced the working-man to so destitute a condition, that for want of decent apparel lie was not able to attend divine wor- ship on the Sabbath day, or to send his children to school. Nay, such was the chilling and demoralizing effect of poverty on the morals of the labouring man, that with the loss of the ability to do this he almost lost the inclination. In calling, however, upon the Legielature to amend the system which heaped such mem ttt dated evils upon them, the hand-loom weavers did not ask Parliament to sacrifice any of the other great interests in the State. They did not desire that you should take away the protecting duties from the landowner, the farmer, or the master manufacturers. All they asked was, that you would enable them to support existence, by giving to them the same degree of protection which you had given to all others. It hid been said that the hand-loan weavers ought nut to expect the Legislature to put a restraint on the application of machinery, for the sake of securing to a small class a higher rate of wages from a less perfect system of manufacture; and they had been told that they ought to abandon their trade, and seek other sources for the application for their industry. But where were they to seek them ? The agricultural classes were already too numerous, so that you were actually sending them out of the country. Look at what was taking place at this moment in Buckinghamshire. 'Then with regard to the other trades, was it not well known, that unions were formed, having for one of their objects the preventing of the increase of their numbers, inasmuch as they already buffered greatly from the competition to which they were exposed. They say to the hand-loom weavers—" You shall not come to us ; for though we pity you, we cannot give you employment; if, therefiire, we were to allow you to join With us, the inevitable effect would be to bring us down to the same wretched condition in which you yourselves are." There was no place to which they could carry their labour. Their situation was a most melancholy one. Overburdened with taxation from which other nations were free, they were, nevertheless, for W4(1t of that legislative protection which other trades enjoyed, placed in competition with the foreign manufacturer, and also in competition with the power-loom machinery, which was capable of a fourfold production beyond the labour of the hand loom weaver. When the Legislature saw all the evils produced by this peculiarly anomalous system—that of legislative protec- tion extending itself to all classes except to that class among whom it was most required, the labouring poor—he thought it would appear to the Legislature as being only in consonance with justice stet csinnion sense, that the oupressed hand-loom weavers should be allowed to try the benefit of that system, the adop- tion of which they now sought.

Sir MICHAEL. SHAW STEWART seconded the motion.

Lord DUDLEY STUART spoke in favour of it. POULETT THOMSON felt it his duty to oppose the bill at its outset, principally out of regard for the interests of those who called for it--.

It was not because Government were disposed to underrate the state of suf- fering in which, according to the Report of the Committee, these men were placed—it was nut because they were unwilling to do all they could to alleviate their distress—that they would at once reject the bill; but because they were satisfied that the sooner the delusion it was calculated to create was put an end to the better; and next, because, upon Mr. Maxwell's own showing, so far from his proposition being advantageous to the parties whose cause he advocated, they would be the very persons who would suffer most from it. If their distresses were heavy now, they would be aggravated in a tenfold degree after the passing of the bill. To the very principle of the bill—the establishment of a minimum of wages—he had ever been opposed ; and the principle was one which had been disavowed even by litany members of the Committee. The Committee (to the appointment of which he had been opposed) had examined a variety of wit- nesses, whose evidence filled three large volumes. Who had read them, or what effect had they produced ? if the questions had been shorter, indeed, and the answers longer, they might have had some effect; but as it was, he could not help thinking that they had not proved very beneficial. In their Report, the Com- mince assigned five causes for the existing distress among the band. loom weavers. 1st, The increase of machinery ; 211, the oppressive taxation occasioned by the war ; 3rd, the increased pressure of taxation occasioned by the alteration of the currency in 1816, 1826, and 1829; 4th, the exportation of British yarn, and the competition created thereby ; and 5th, the competition arising out of low profits. As a remedy for these various causes of distress, the Committee recom- mended fixing a minimum of wages. Why, how could the fixation of a minimum of wages by possibility act as a remedy for any one of them ? Was It possible for the Government of the country to fix a rate of wages? Was itpoe- sible that the labour of man should not be free—that the capitalist, who wished to employ a tabourer, should not be at liberty to make a bargain with him for money, which he could pay and the other receive? Was the labourerto resort to the Board of Trade, or to a tariffof prices for his remuneration. Giving every credit to the benevolent feelings of the gentlemen who originated and sup- Sir GEORGE GREY opposed the motion ; and justified the conduct of General Darling; especially in reference to his treatment of Cuptain Robison, whom he charged with acting in this matter feurts vindictive motives. He also referred to an address presented to General Darling on his leaving the colony— That address described him as having laboured during his administration for the benefit of the colonists, and was signed by a numerous body of official and professional individuals—merchants and residents, who, inasmuch as they lived on the spot, must be supposed to have had the best opportunity of forming a fair estimate of their Governor's public character. Mr. HUME strongly supporred the motion for inquiry. He had ex- pected the address alluded to by Sir George Grey to be brought for- ward, and had informed himself bow it had been got up— The same address was produced in this House three years ago, in the course of a debate which then took place on the subject of General Darling's conduct. Shortly afterwards, he sent a copy of the address to the colony, and in due course received a reply. The question was asked, "Did the learned Puisne Judge sign the address? " and the answer was, "No." "Did Major Mitchell, a private friend of General Darling, sign the address." "No." "Did the Co- lonel of the 57th Regiment, who had retired from the Army, sign it ?" "No." "Did any of the independent members of the bar ?" " No." Indeed it was signed by only two legal functionaries, by the Attorney-General and the Com- missioner of the Court of Requests. Out of twenty-five solicitors, only one could be prevailed upon to sign it. Of the clergymen, seventeen in number, but four had affixed their names. Of the Magistrates, 127 in number, only nine not connected with the Government had signed ; the remainding fourteen all held offices at the will of the Governor. In the Surveyor. General's depart- ment, out of twenty-six only one had signed, and all were requested to do so : in short, out of the whole body of the Colonial Government, only thirty signa- tures were obtained. Out of the merchants, who might he estimated at 1000, only one hundred had signed. Lastly, out of the free population, amounting to 21,000 souls, only 111 signatures were obtained, notwithstanding that every possible influence had been exerted to induce people to subscribe their names. ported the motion, he thought it was a species of legislation, which—putting entirely aside the other results that must inevitably flow from it—would neither reflect credit upon its authors nor confer benefit upon those for whose improve- ment it was introduced. The establishment of such a system would be an act of tyranny, inducing those who were rendered subservient to it—to break the law, and leading to results the extent of which no man could foresee. Did Mr. Maxwell know on what dangerous ground he was proposing to legislate ? Was be aware of the extent to which it might be carried ; or had he forgotten that the principle of fixation of wages, if applied to one branch of trade, must tilt'. match, extend to all ? If they regulated the wages of labour, they must regulate also the price of every article sold.

Mr. Ma xwelta.■" No."

Mr. P. THomsoN—I‘ You are to regulate the wages of labour, and not the price at which the article is to be sold ? Then I tell the honourable gentleman, his principle will be ten times more oppressive on the man who has labour to cell, than on him who has money to buy." Talk of philanthropy, and protect- ing the rights of the poor ! Why, so far front the measure being a protection to the poor, it would rob them of the just and right fruits of their industry. These were his views of the measure proposed, and he had yet to hear any argument founded on the benefits which were likely to result from it. He had embraced with pleasure and eagerness every opportunity, of conversing with many of the hand-loom weavers themselves respecting this plan ; and he had never found that where tire matter was fairly argued, and where representations of the real state of the case were made to them, they had either refused to listen, or to own that their previous impression on the subject was erroneous. In calling on the House to oppose the proposition now offered to it, he was content to rest upon the grounds he had already stated. He was satisfied that, by acceding to it, they would continue a delusion which could not be too soon dispelled ; and that they should lose no time in determining the question whether Parliament would legislatively fix a rate of wages or not. Without troubling the House any futther, he placed the matter in their hands. Without any disrespect to- wards the Member Lanarkshire, and yielding to him and those who thought with him, his tribute of praise to the benevolence and purity of their motive's, he called upon the House to resist this first proposition, which had been made for a series of years, to interfere with the rate of wages, by at once expressing their decided opinion on the subject of such attempts, to put an end to them for the future.

The motion was supported by Mr. GILLON, Mr. FLEETWOOD, Mr. W. WILLIAMS, Mr. TENNANT, Mr. ROBINSON, and Mr. FIELDEN ; and strongly opposed by Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. HUME, Dr. BOWItING, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. HUME said— He was sure that the House would not countenance a measure which was likely to create delusive hopes, and had for its ultimate object the lowering the currency. These persona had a right to complain of some laws, and especially the Corn.laws ; but they did not do so, but called for a remedy which, if

granted, would be highly injurious to them. if they took the course that was recommended, they would drive away the capital at present enipleyed in trade, and increase the existing distress. They might compel the manufacturers not to employ men at the low rate of 5s. 6d., and oblige them to pay not less than 6s. lid. ; but was it to be supposed that they could force the public to pay

the additional charge ? And if not, what became of the manufactories, and of those now employed in them ? It was impossible to fix a minimum price of

wages in a country in which the commercial transactions were so numerous and

extensive as in this. He would ask any commercial man to say whether a mini- mum price of wages would not be fraught with mischief? The men of Coven- try bad suffer.d much—indeed, he did not know any who had suffered more— by an attempt to keep tip a minimum price of wages. On the same mistaken pensiple, the men of Macclesfield had destroyed machinery on its introduction ; and what was the consequence ? Why, the trade had gone from them. Ile was ready to vote for a removal of the Excise-duties on manufactured articles, for a comniutatiun of taxes, or for a Property-tax, because he thought that such measures as these would afford substantial The House divided, and refused to allow the bill to be brought in, by a majority of 129 to 41.

6. CONDUCT OF GENERAL. DARLING.

Petitions were presented on Thursday from merchants and others trading to New South Wales, from the late High Sheriff of N;..sv South Wales, and from certain inhabitants of Maryleleme, praying for inquiry into the conduct of Goner : I Darling while Govcreor of the colony.

Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL then moved for a :;elcct Committee to inquire into the conduct of General Darling,—particularly in reference to the grants of Crown lands made by him ; his treatment of the public press ; the case of Captain Robison ; and alleged instances of cruelty towards two soldiers, Sudd and Thompson, and other persons. Mr. M. O'Connell spoke ably in support of Iris motion ; stating reasons for inquiry into the several matters mentioned in it.

Such was the true clieracter of the address which had been produced. He was further informed, that it was got up at a private meeting ; the previous ad- dresses to Governors on their quitting the colony having been agreed to at public

meetings, and then signed. No piece of plate had been voted to him, as to former Governors • no request had been made to him to allow his portrait to be taken, as had been made to former Governors. In short, his departure as hailed with rejoicing—in the evening of the day on which Ire quitted, these a general illumination;

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON maintained, that Captain Robison had not been treated with injustice ; and that the Court-martial which found him guilty had delivered a proper verdict on the case presented to them. Mr. Fergusson laid particular stress on the fact, that his predecessor as Judge-Advocate, Sir Robert Grant, after a most careful examination of the facts of the case, had arrived at the conclusion that the finding of the Court-martial was just.

Mr. RICHARDS and Lord DUDLEY STUART supported the motion ; which Lord Dudley said was quite necessary for General Dnaling's cha- racter. He was astonished at Sir George Grey's calling Captain Ro- bison's conduct vindictive— Good God ! a man endusing the severest degree of privation, and suffering all the misery of a prison-house, to he accused of vindictiveness because he die- played sufficient courage to demand some redress for the wrongs he sustained! No doubt, General Darling would describe Captiin Robison as a trouldesorae fellow. Why, all honest men who resisted tyranny were troublesome to tyrants. Was Hampden not troublesome? Was Washington not troubleaome ? But to call a man troublesome who resisted malepractices ; vindictive, when his oppo. nents had pursued a course which could only have been actuated by a feeling of vengeance, was a monstrosity which he could not venture to describe. Ot all the circumstances connected with this case, none hail so much disposed him to take an unfavourable view of General Darling, as the fact of his having perse- cuted Captain Robison even to a prison, and that without giving Captain Re. bison an opportunity to prove his case by putting the truth iu issue.

At this stage of the discussion, Mr. BROTHERTON wished the House to adjourn.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE felt a deep interest in this question, but would go to a divisitn without saying a word, if others would do the same. Mr. Maurice O'Connell was the best advocate Captain Robison ever had in the House—he had stated his ease so very temperately.

After several threats to divide the House, Mr. Brotherton seems to have given way. Mr. O'CONNELL spoke earnestly in support of the motion ; and upon a division, there appeared—for the Committee, 57 against it 49 ; majority against Ministers, 8. This result was announced amidst loud cheers.

Last night, Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, that, on the appoint- ment of the Committee, be should move as an instruction, that no in- quiry should be made into the proceedings of the Court-martial on Captain Robison. Mr. WARBURTON hoped that every Member who voted for the Corn- mittee would oppose such a motion.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

COUNTY ConoNt:its BILL. In the House of Commons, on Wed- nesday, Mr. Cruses persisted in moving the order of the day for going into Committee on this bill, although the Members generally were anxious that the Irish Corporation Reform Bill should be brought forward that evening. A long and dry discussion ensued ; which was put a stop to by Mr. WARBURTON moving that " the Chairman dO now leave chair," and Mr. CRIPPS withdrawing his bill. So, after all his obstinacy, the bill was lost.

Ports AT ELECTION BILL. This bill went through a Committee of the House on Wednesday.

Irswicit BRIBERS. In a thin attendance in the early part of Wed- nesday evening, the House decided, by as vote of 56 to :34, that John Clipperton should be brought to the bar on Thursday, reprimanded, and discharged; and accordingly, on that tinny, the ceremony was performed. Subsequently, Mr. Thomas Moore Keith, the Norwich attorney, was brought to the bar, in the custody of Sir William Gossett, the new Sergeant-at-Arms ; and on the motion of Mr. HUME, committed to Newgate, for breach of privilege. Mr. WAsoN presented a petition Iron, John Pilgrim, praying the House to allow Keith to go to Nor- wich, to give evidence on the trial of Pilgrim for embezzlement, as, in case of Keith's absence, the trial would probably be postponed. Lord STORMONT recommended that the prosecutions of Pilgrim should be dropped ; but the further discussion of the subject was adjourned to the following day.

Last night, the consideration of the matter was again postponed to Monday.

GREAT YARMOUTH ET.F.CTION. On the motion of Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, on Thursday, William Prentice was ordered to be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for refusing to answer a certain question put to him by the Committee, on the ground that he should by so doing criminate himself, although informed by the Committee that he wits bound to answer it.

Last night, after a long and desultory conversation, William Pren- tice was called in ; admonished by the SPEAKER to answer the questions put to him by the Committee ; and on his persisting in his refusal to answer, was committed to Newgate, to be brought up in custody from time to time to give his evidence. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Committee on the two elections was discharged, and a separate Committee appointed for each. HULL ELECTION. On Tuesday, a Committee reported that Colonel Thompson had been duly elected ; but that the petition against him was not frivolous or vexatious.

CONSOLIDATION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES. Mr. SPRING RICE Ob- tained leave, on Tuesday, to bring in a bill to consolidate the offices of Paymaster of the Forces, Paymaster of the Navy, Paymaster of Chelsea Hospital, and Treasurer of the Ordnance; all of which were now held and the duties performed by Sir Henry Parnell alone. REGISTRATION OF VOTES IN IRELAND. On Tuesday, in reply to Mr. EMERSON TENNANT, Lord Morpeth stated that a bill Was in pre- paration to amend the system of registering votes in Ireland.

THE BUDGET. In reply to a question from Sir ROBERT PEEL, last night, Mr. SPRING lila said, tbut owing to the state of the .W. est

India Compensation Loan, and the absence of an im; °slant estimate, Le should not be able to make his financial statement so eariias he had intended ; but he hoped that next week he should be prepared r.fs fix the day.

TRINITY HARBOUR BILL. Colonel LEITH HAY moved, on Thurs- day that the report on this bill should be considered. Mr. SPICING RICE opposed the motion ; on the ground that the property of the Leith Docks, on which a former Government had advanced a loan of 240,000/, would be deteriorated, if a new harbour was formed. Ad- miral ADAM, Sir WILLIAM RAE, and Mr. LABOUCHERE, also opposed the motion. Mr. TooxE, Mr. HUME, and Colonel LEITH HAY, spoke in favour of it ; on the ground of the new harbour being wanted, and that no sufficient reason bud been assigned for postponing a great public improvement. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL was fur putting off the bill till the next session. The House divided ; and refused to con- sider the report, by 55 to 22. So the bill is lost for the present.

LONDON UNIVERSITY. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL stated, on Thursday, in reply to a question by Mr. TOOKE, that He had prepared two charters, which he hoped would be in complete concur- rence with the address from this House, and with his Majesty's gracious answer. One of these charters was for the University of London—not as a university, but as a college ; • it being proposed that it should be called the London University College. No powci, however, of granting academical degrees was to be con- ferred by this chatter ; it would only enable that body to conduct all their own affairs, in the same way as they had hitherto done. • The other charter was for the purpose of establishing a Metropolitan University, with power to grunt aca- demical degrees to those who should study at the Londuo University College, or at any similar institution which his Majesty might please hereafter to name.

Mr. Toots: postponed his motion on the subject till next Thursday ; but said that he considered Sir John Campbell's reply very unsatis- factory.

Pentic Wat.ns AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS BILLS. On Thursday, these bills were read a second time, on the motion of Mr. BUCKING- HAM ; after a brief conversation in which several Members joined, though • the only observation reported is one by Mr. Toosc, that the Public Walks Bill was a crude and impracticable measure. The bills arc to be committed on Thursday next, at the early sitting.

Disrness IN IRELAND. A conversation arose in the House of Commons, on Monday, respecting the means of relieving the distress of the peasantry in layo and Galway. Mr. SIIARMAN CRAWFORD moved an address to the King, praying him to take the distress existing in Mayo into his gracious consideration. Lord MORPETII opposed the motion'; and said, that Government was doing all in its power to al- leviate the sutler-nig of the peasantry. Mr. SPRING RICE and Lord JOHN Russsa.r. also opposed the motion ; which Mr. CRAWFORD withdrew. The general feeling manifested in this conversation ap- peared to be in favour of establishing Poor-laws in Ireland.

MURDER. OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BY THE CARLISTS. On Wednesday, in reply to a question by Captain BoLurato, Lord PALMERSTON stated some particulars respecting the murder of three British Marines by the Navarrese insurgents— The only official information he had upon the subject was contained in a letter transmitted to him from the Admiralty, which was received from an officer in the King's service, dated the 16th July. It stated that three English Marines belonging to the steam -vessel called La Reina Gobernadora, having straggled to some distance from Gilboa, had been surprised and taken prisoners. One of them who made resistance had been instantly shot ; and the other two had been marched about a league and a half from Bilboa, on the Oiduna road, and there shot. This act had been committed, as the officer stated, in consequence of the order of Don Carlos that no foreigner taken in arms should be spared. This was the only communication yet received on the subject. The unfortunate men were not Marines in the King's service, but had been engaged in this country to ant as Marines in the service ofthe Queen of Spain. They formed part of the crew of a stcam.vessel, which, having been at Bilbos, had assisted in the defence of the town, and it appealed that they had been taken snuggling out of the town. As this was all he knew, it was all he could communicate.

Lord MAIION—" These then, Mr. Speaker, are first fruits —" (Cries if " Order!" and " Chair!") Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there was no question before the *House. Lord MAHON thought a motion had been made.