Bebatesi nab tirannannst in parliament. 1. AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

OF LIBEL. Bebatesi nab tirannannst in parliament. 1. AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

A Select Committee, "to consider the present state of the Law of Libel, and report their opinion thereon to the House," was appointed on Tuesday night, on the motion of the Solicitor-General, Sir CHARLES PEPTS. The startling incongruities, and frequently iniqui. tous operation of the existing law, were commented upon by Sir CHARLES; who stated, that he had no fanciful theories of his own to bring forward, but wished to have such changes made as should appear to be expedient to a Select Committee. The persons engaged in pe- riodical publications were those who suffered most wrong from the law as it stood.

In the first place, there was the penal nature of the law as affecting publica-

tions. A man, after a decision in the case had been made, was declared to he guilty, although he might have committed no moral offence which would justify the application of the term. Undoubtedly an author might fairly and properly be declared to be guilty if he violated the principles of fair discussion. That no man could dispute. In like manner, so might the publisher who, either in his own person, or by his agents, or from want of due care, gave circulation to libel- lous matter. The interest of the public required that the man should be held responsible for what he published. But the law as it stood involved all parties in the guilt who might be concerned in the publication, albeit they might he perfectly unacquainted with the libellous matter. Now, this decidedly was • grievance, and occasionally worked great injustice.

But the question was, how is this to be remedied ?

Might not there be some such expedient as this made use of—might they nog do away with the extreme severity and unfairness of the law, by declaring the the simple act of publishing, or assisting in the publication, should not consti- tute a crime, but that it should be further necessary that the prosecutor should bring some proof of knowledge of the publication upon the part of the accused,

or of malice in some shape or form? Perhaps if some distinctiou of this kind were drawn, the ignorant and the innocent might be suffered to eselte untouched by the law, while the original author and the couscioua publisher would be still exposed to punishment.

A good definition of the law of libel was much wanted. The Judges bad described a libel as any thing which might prove injulious to the feelings of any man. But this was manifestly absurd. Tlere was ex- treme difficulty in furnishing a definition of libel ; and this would be a subject for the consideration of the Committee. There woe one point, however, to which he would refer more particularly : he meant, in what manner and to what extent truth should be brought under the conside- ration of the Jury whether in criminal or civil proceedings.

As the law stood, in criminal proceedings, the truth of the libel could not be taken into consideration at all; while in civil cases the allegation a truth could be brought forward, and if proved was conclusive. Now, he thought there was error on both sides. In the first case, malice was implied front the libi ; and certainly, therefore, the consideration of truth or falsehood, as a matter of pallia - tion, should not altogether be excluded. He was not prepared to say to what extent it would be well to admit the consideration of truth : he did not know how far it would be advisable in criminal proceedings for attempts to destroy private character to admit truth as a palliation, much less a justification of the libel.

It had been suggested, that if a publication said to be libellous should be proved to be true, that ought to be admitted as a justification of it. But in many cases, it might not be right to publish matter that was true.

At present he was inclined to think that if a Jury should find that &defen- dant had published a libel innocently—that was to say, for a good purpose, or without express malice—the evidence of the truth of the publication should pro- tect him front the implied malice.

In proceeding by simple action, the consequences resulting from the present state of the law were really absurd. If a libel were proved to be true, however injurious or cruel it might be, however malicious the motive of the defendant, he was not liable to any punishment. He would mention two circumstances showing the inconveniences of the present state of the law.

Not long since, a person was accused of publishing a libel which alleged that a certain individual had been convicted of forgery in France. The proceedings of the French court by which the prosecutor had been condemned to the gullies were produced, and the defendant's counsel was very anxious that they should be read in evidence ; but the Judge of course refused to permit that to be done. Now this was a case in which it might have been not only excusable, but laud- able to have published the fact of the prosecutor having committed forgery. Suppose the individual had been about to obtain a situation as confidential agent to a company in which want of integrity on the part of the individual holding it would have been the greatest misfortune that could happen to the proprietors, the publication of the fact of his previous conduct would have been a useful and laudable act. Was it then, he asked, a wholesome state of law which would compel a Jury to find a verdict of guilty in such a case ?

The other transaction was one which made a deep impression upon him at the time it occurred, many years ago.

A young woman had in early life been seduced by a man of title; but after living with hint for a certain time, she became ashamed of the course of life she was pursuing ; and taking the opportunity of escaping from it, she retired into a distant part of the country, where her seducer was unable to discover her. She obtained a situation; in which she conducted herself with so much pro- priety that she not only gained the good-will of her employers, but was ap- pointed to another situation in a public establishment. Several years after, her seducer discovered the place of her retreat ; uod having in vain made proposals for the renewal of their intercourse, be hit upon the expedient of depriving her of the means of subsistence, thinking that he should then succeed in his attempt to possess himself again of her person. He therefore published, in the town where she resided, the history of ner early life. T he consequence was, that the unfortunate woman lost the esteem of the friends her good conduct had procured her, and she was deprived of the appointment by means of which she obtained her livelihood.

Was not this woman entitled to compensation ? Yet if she had brought an action agtinst her persecutor, he would have justified, and she would have been turned out of court with the aggravation of having incurred a useless expense. With regard to ex officio informations, Sir Charles was of opinion that it would be fit for the Committee to inquire whether they could not be altogether abolished. In Ireland, the Attorney-General had the power of calling the parties before him and receiving an explanation of the circumstances under which the publica- tion took place, previously to filing his information. Good might per- haps result from adopting this practice. He was surprised at the ani- madversion of which the mode of proceeding in libel cases by criminal informations granted by the Court had been the subject.

In such a case, the defendant had this peculiar protection, that the Court would not grant the information unless the prosecutor was able to negative the both of the libel, and thus the prosecutor was deprived of the advantage which he would obtain by proceeding by indictment. Another advantage attending this mode of proceeding was, that the Court having all the circumstances of the case before it, could interpose its advice and probably terminate the dispute with- out the case proceeding to trial. No person who reflected on the subject for a moment could doubt, that it was much more easy to get a Grand Jury to return a hill, than it was to prevail upon the Court to grant an information. The Grand Jury examined only the prosecutor's witnesses; but the Court of King's Bench compelled the prosecutor to negative the truth of the libel before it would grant an information.

The construction which the Judges put upon Mr. Fox's Act, which made the Jury the Judges of the law as well as the fact, also required consideration. Judges seemed to thiak that they had a right to perform part of the duty of the Jury, and that they were bound to state that the publications prosecuted were gross and scandalous libels.

The 60th of George the Third—one of the Six Acts—must also be considered, both as regarded the severity of the penalty inflicted under it forte second offence, and the teizure of the copies in possession of the defendant after conviction. All the inconvenience was not felt by printers and publishers. The persons libelled found the law an insuf- heient defence. There was great difficulty in getting at the really responsible parties. Persons who evaded the Stamp-duty found a ready means of circulating libels. It would be worth while to consider whether the present state of the law as regarded stamps did not encou- rage licentiousness, and whether it would not be better to put all parties on a level. It would be necessary also for the Committee to consider the law respecting slander, than which nothing could be more absurd. On the whole, he believed much good would re.ult Ito a the. inquiries of the Committee.

He trusted it would lead to some means being devised of repe siting those most offensive and odious slanders on which certain individuals were living : he might may that there were persons who were fattening even on the injury which they systematically inflicted on private character. Such was the present state of the law, that it afforded protection very imperfectly to parties so injured. If they brought their action, it was almost always imputed to them that what the party principally sought was compensation, not the vindication of character. The only way in which to avoid such an imputation, was to proceed by criminal information. If an individual proceeded by indictment, that afforded him no vindication of character. His opponent might be found guilty ; and yet the world would believe that the charge which had been made was true. It was evident some alteration of such a state of things was to be very much desired.

A brief debate ensued on the close of Sir Charles Pepys's speech ; OH which Lord ALTHORP, Mr. O'CONNELL, Sir F. VINCENT, Sir W. HORNE, Mr. SHEIL, and Mr. PRYME, took part. They were :ill in favour of the motion. Mr. O'CoNNEar said, that if the bill he had introduced had stimulated Government to take up the subject, he should feel much gratified. Ile protested against Sir Charles's defence of criminal informations.

It was the worst possible way of eliciting truth; for it went on the principle of trying facts by affidavits. In such a case, there was scarcely a chance of acquittal; for the Judge, in allowing the information, pronounced on the libel before trial.

Lord ALTHORP was not partial to ex gilicio informations, but thought that Government should not be deprived of the power of laying them. The Committee was then appointed, as follows—.

Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. O'Connell, Sir Francis Vincent, Sir William Horne, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Scarlett, Lord Viscount llowick, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Mr. Sergeant Perrin, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Charles NVynn, Mr. Abercrounby, Sir Richard Shneon, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Tancred, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Rolfe, Mr. Robert Clive, Mr. Ord, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Frederick Shaw, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Tooke, Mr. 11111, Mr. John Romilly, Mr. Baines, Mr. Roebuck. Five to be the quorum.

2. CORRUPT BOROrGIIS.

In the House of Lerds, on Tuesday, upon the presentation by Lord Wynford of a petition from Warwick against the Warwick Election Bill, a conversation arose as to the course which Ministers and the House would adopt towards the bills for disfranchising or extendiug the constituencies of the corrupt boroughs. It was maintained by Lord WYNEORD and the Marquis of Sisal:may, that evidence should be adduced at the bar to satisfy their Lordships of the corruption of the voters in the boroughs proposed to be disfranchised; and Lord WI's- FORD gave notice, that on the motion for the second reading of the Warwick Election Bill, he should move that the petitioners be heard by counsel against the bill. There was no precedent for disfranchising a borough without first having proofs presented to them of its corrup- tion. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE reminded Lord Wynford, that the Reform Act had disfranchised many boroughs without such proof as he required of their corruption. And Lord DURHAM explained the real nature of the Warwick Bill ; which did not disfranchise a single voter, but merely extended the constituency. It was, Lord Durham thought, utterly unreasonable to require further proof of the necessity for this measure, than had been presented to a Committee of the House of Commons. The same parties who now petitioned had already been heard before that Committee ; and their witnesses were declared to be unworthy of credit, in consequence of their gross prevarication. The

question for the House to consider was this—would their Lordships enter into a conflict with the House of Commons ? Would they incur an expense of nine or ten thousand pounds for the sake of having proved before them, what had already been sufficiently established before a Committee of the Commons? 13ut Lord Durham said, he did not wish this question to be considered merely a matter of debate between himself and Lord Wynford. He was anxious to know what course Ministers intended to pursue in regard to it ; and he was the more anxious, because this was the first of five or six bills of a similar description which were coming up from the other House. He wished Ministers to declare what course of proceeding seemed to them to be most advisable? Ile wished to learn what the opinion of their Lordships was on this subject. Did the House intend to hear witnesses at the bar? Did they intend to incur all this additional expense fur the purpose of hearing that evidence which at this moment was ready and lying before them? Ile objected to these parties being heard before the House ; but if their Lordships determined to hear evidence, he, on his part, should be ready to make out a case that would clearly prove the necessity of proceeding with the second reading of the bill.

Earl GREY'S reply was remarkable— On the question which now immediately occupied their Lordships' attention, be could only say that it was a matter of very grave and serious consideration to that House to reflect, whether, in a case which must in a great degree be decided upon by them in their judicial capacity, they could proceed to punish individuals, without hearing them in their defence. This, he repeated, was a matter of very grave consideration. He would not at that moment give his opinion on the question ; but he would state in his judicial capacity what that opinion was when the subject came regularly before them. He had thought it right to say so much on this point ; but it was not for that purpose that he had risen. His noble friend had called on the members of that !louse to state their opinion, and more particularly in one part of his speech lie had called on his Majesty's Ministers to state what course they meant to take. Now, he disclaimed any par- ticular feeling on the subject ; because be considered this question as coming judi- cially, and in no other manner, before their Lordships. He therefore telt no more interest in it than any other member of that House. It was not for him, as Minister, to point out any mode of proceeding which he might consider more or less expedient. As an individual member of that House, he should be ready to give his opinion at the proper time ; but he did not feel that it formed any part of his official duty to make such a communication.

The Earl of DURHAM would not press the matter further ; but on former occasions, Ministers had taken a very active part in similar measures.

Thus, in the case of East Retford, it was well known that the noble Duke then at the head of his Majesty's Government, he might almost say, superim. tended the proceedings, and stated to the House what was the course which, in lus opinion, it was most proper to adopt. He haul therefore thought, that as a matter of form, Lis Majesty's Government might offer some statement WI this occasion. Lord Durham then gave notice, that he should move the second read- ing of the Warwick Bill on the 24th of April.

BOROUGH OF CARRICKFERGUS. In the House of Commons, on Mon- day, on the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, it was resolved to postpone the issue of a new writ for Carrickfergus till the 1st of May.

On Wednesday, the Committee on this bill was postponed to the 16th of April.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. On Wednesday, the order of the day being read for the House going into Committee on this bill, Sir OSWALD MOSLEY moved for the appointment of a Select Com- mittee, to inquire and report to the House, whether a sound and com- petent constimeney could not be found in Stafford and its vicinity. The motion was supported by Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, Mr. E. BULLER, and Mr. Ils tcomu. It was opposed by Sir T. FREMANTLE ; and rejected by 97 to 11. The blanks in the bill were then filled up, the House re- sumed, and the report Ives ordered to be received the next day.

11mm:ono Bonocen BILL. The House then went into Committee on this bill ; the preamble was agreed to, and the first clause was read. Sir Roesler PEEL moved the omission of all the remaining clauses, whirh proposed the extension of the existing limits of the borough. The effect of his amendment, be said, would be to disfranchise those only who belonged to a class the great majority of which was proved to be corrupt ; and to leave those who were allowed on all bands to have been tried by strong temptation and yet remained pure, in possession of the franchise. There would remain after the disfranchisement of the corrupt inhabitant householders, a constituency of 124 freemen, and about 440 ten-pound householders. By the Reform Act, it was settled that a constituency of fki0 ten-pound voters was sufficient to entitle the borough to retain the right of being represented in Parliament. His amendment was formed upon the principle of the Reform Act ; for in Hertford there were 520 ten-pound houses. The Reform Act left forty boroughs, containing fewer than 430 ten-pound houses, in posses- sion of the privilege of returning two Members to Parliament. The House, acting in its judicial capacity, could not punish the innocent as well as the guilty.

Mr. BERNAL opposed the amendment.

Sir Robert Peel had argued, that as time were now forty boroughs with very restricted constituencies, there would be a constituency sufficiently nume- rous at Hertford if it consisted of 380 voters. Now, he cared very little what the amount of the constituency was under the Reform Bill. Iii the situation which he had the honour of holding whilst the Reform Bill was under discus- sion, he had never had an opportunity of declaring his sentiments upon that part of the measure. Ile regretted much that there were such limited consti- tuencies is the Reform Bill contemplated. ("Hear !") It was not a beauty of the bill, but a great misfortune of it, that it erected 300 electors into a consti- tueney. He should be glad to see it enacted that there should not be aconstitueney in the country with less than 1000 persons. lie was sorry that there were such small constituencies as those to which Sir Robert had alluded.

The Reform Bill, however, contemplated a constituency of seven hundred voters to entitle a borough to return two Members. Ile could not understand how it could be considered a punishment to the honest electors that three hundred or four hundred others should be added to their number.

When he heard so much of the measure being considered in the nature of a punishment, it seemed to him as if the right of voting was held on some private footing, and for a selfish, reserved purpose. The Committee did not propose the taking away altogether the franchise from the borough ; but as they were placed in a dilemma, they had adopted a middle course, to admit a class of 10/. house- holders, which, from their contiguity to the borough, and their amount in num- bers, would in future prevent the recurrence of corrupt practices.

Mr. TENNYSON entreated the Committee to remember, that they were now addressing themselves to this question solely in a judicial character. His own sincerity in the cause of Reform could not be doubted ; but he did not think that such a case had been made out against Hertford as to justify the bill, and therefore he would support Sir R. Peel's amendment.

Mr. WARD, Mr. WALTER, Mr. O'REILT.Y, and Mr. O'CONNELL, spoke against, and Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Mr. STEWART in favour of the amendment ; which was put to the vote, and negatived, by 78 to 43. Several clauses of a technical nature were then added to the bill ; after some opposition from Sir ROBERT PERT. and Mr. Gout- BURN, who wished for further delay ; and Mr. PaYME brought up the report amidst loud cheering. It was ordered to be taken into conside- ration on Monday next.

LIVERPOOL FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The third reading of this bill was then moved by Mr. BENETT. Lord Sas:noN moved that it should be read a third time that day six months. The amend- ment was supported by Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. LABOUCHERE, Mr. GLADSTONE, and Dr. NICHOLT.; it was opposed by Mr. BAINES, Mr. C. Worm, and Mr. MARK Pittman, and rejected without a division. Mr. BETHELL moved an amendment, the effect of which would be to preserve the right of voting to the children of the delinquent freemen. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke at length in favour of this amendment; and said that it was the duty of the House, in its judicial capacity, to dis- pense equal justice to all. He maintained that the bill committed gross injustice, in punishing the poor and ignorant voter while the rich and well educated went unscathed. Mr. JAMES, Lord SANDON, Mr. GOULBURN, and Dr. Mellott, supported the amendment ; which was opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. SPRING RICE, and Mr. BENETT; and rejected, by Pal to 63. An amendment by Dr. Mellott was then put, and negatived without a division. The bill was read a third time. On the question that it do now pass, the House divided again : for the bill, 109; against it, 52; majority, 57.

It was read a first time in the Lords on Friday, on the motion of Earl RADNOR. Copies of the Reports of the three Committees of the Commons were sent for, and received, Lord WINIORD gave notice, that on the 28th April, the day fixed for the second reading, he should move that witnesses for and against the bill, which he was sure never ought to pass, should be heard at the bar. He first proposed that they should be examined by a Committee up stairs ; but this was objected to by the Marquis of SALISBURY and Lord DURHAM; and apparently Lord WYNFORD abandoned his proposition. 3. ADMISSION OF THE DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.

A petition, signed by sixty-three resident members of the University of Cambridge, praying for the abolition of the religious tests which are required to be taken by all candidates for degrees in the University, was presented to the House of Lords last night, by Earl GREY. His Lordship entered into a very elaborate account of the constitution of the University ; from which it appeared, that the petitioners asked for nothing inconsistent with that constitution, but for a removal of ol - structions imposed since it bad been formed. The authority for the imposition of religious tests was very doubtful. It rested upon a letter written by James the First from Newmarket races, which he was at- tending. This was absolutely the sole authority on which the exclu- sion of Dissenters from University degrees now rested ! Earl Grey called attention to the practical injury which this exclusion inflicted on the Dissenters. Persons who had taken a University degree, were a- irlifted as attornies and barristers two years earlier than those who had not ; and as barristers their admission-fee was diminished. No person could be admitted a Fellow of the College of Physicians who bad not taken bis degree. These were some of the practical grievances which the Dissenters suffered from their exclusion from University honours. He re- marked that the petition proceeded from men of learning, piety, and un- questioned attachment to the Church; and mentioned particulaily the names of Airy, Sedgwick, Lee, Babbage, and Hughes. The petitioners were about one third in number of the resident members Of the Semite. What the opinion of the majority of the whole Senate might be, could not be ascertained ; for the Caput of Cambridge had interdicted the brill,- sag forward of any motion on the subject, and any one member of the Caput had, by the constitution of the University an absolute veto on all questions. Earl Grey concluded by earnestly advocating the prayer of the petitioners ; and speaking in high terms of the intelligence, piety, and loyalty of the great body of Dissenters. The Duke of WELLINGTON laid great stress on the fact, that out of 4000 members of the Senate, only sixty had signed this petition. fie thought the Caput had done perfectly right in refusing to allow the discussion of a subject on which a majority of 4000 to 60 had made up their minds. He did think it perfectly justifiable to require the signa- tures of all candidates for College honours to articles of Christianity ; especially as it was well known, that among the Dissenters all sorts of opinions prevailed, and that some of them were Atheists. He very much regretted the absence of the Duke of Gloucester, who, as Chan. cellor of Cambridge, was better able to reply to Earl Grey's remarks on the constitution of the University.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH strongly supported the principle of the peti- tion. Nothing could be more injurious than the adoption of a line of policy, by that House, which should join to the bad feeling excited oy religious differences the sense of grievance arising from political dis- tinction. At the same time, be saw great practical difficulties in ti. way of settling this question ; and never would consent that the Dissen- ters should occupy posts in the Universities, which would give them the power of injuring the Established Church.

Lord BROUGHAM complimented Lord Ellenborough on the liberality of his principles; which proved him a worthy descendant of Bishop Law. He expatiated on the injury which the regulations of the Um- versities inflicted on the Dissenters; and raised great laughter in the House by exposing the absurd practice of conferring medical degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, where there were no medical schools—where they could make doctors, but could not qualify them—where they bad the monopoly of the privilege and of the incapacity to teach.

The Earl of DURHAM observed, that the Duke of Wellingion la- mented the absence of the Illustrious Field-Marshal, the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge; but that was not the only misfortune he had to bewail, for he had also to lament the presence of another Il- lustrious Field-Marshal, the Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, and consequently the representative of a University, the principles of which were at direct variance with those advocated by the gallam Duke. Very little sympathy had been exhibited by the Duke of Wellington towards the Dissenters; but if, in his command of the army during the Peninsular war, he had been forced to select his officers only from among those who could take certain religious tests, be would have found the infinite injury such a regulation inflicted on the service, and have sympathized more strongly with the professors of law and medicine. It was impossible to believe that the Dissenters would submit to the injustice done them ; no man in his senses could believe it. The Church was injured, not propped up, by the possession of exclusive privileges. For the Church he would say—give us a clear stage, and no favour.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND, although Chancellor of Dublin Univer- sity, never would conceal that his opinions were opposed to the prayer of the petition.

It was then laid on the table.

4. ABOLITION OF CHURCH.RATES.

A long discussion arose in the House of Commons on Tuesday, on a resolution proposed by Mr. DIVETT, "that it is the opinion of the House,that it is just and expedient to take effectual measures for the abolition of all compulsory payments of Church-rates." The resolution was seconded by Mr. HALL; and several Members, among whom were Mr. BRISCOE, Mr. BAINES, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. WILKS, amid Mr. O'CoNNELL, spoke very decidedly against the continuance of the present system. Lord ALTHORP and Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted that the Dissenters had a right to relief; but Lord ALTIIORP met Mr. Div ett's motion by moving the previous question,—on the ground that he had himself given notice of a bill on the subject, which he was sure ought to be, and be believed would be a satisfactory measure. Mr. DIVETT, in compliance with what appeared to be the general opinion of the Members present, under these circumstances withdrew his resolu- tion; and said he would leave the matter in the hands of Ministers.

But few new facts of interest were elicited by this debate. Mr. Divett was not very well prepared to discuss the subject of his motion, and was several times puzzled to lay his bands on the necessaly papers ; many of which, he said, had only been given to him at a Lite hour that evening. He traced the cause of the present discontent to the grant of a million for building new churches in 1819. The amount of Church-rates was not fur short of 600,0001.; and a considerable portion of this sum was paid by Dissenters, who had likewise to build and repair their own places of worship. The Dissenters possessed eight thousand chapels, and raised a million a year by voluntary contri- butions alone. He dwelt upon the impolicy of continuing the present s;,stem of compulsory support of the Church, and declared his belief that there would be no safety for the Establishment except in the removal of every grievance of which the Dissenters reasonably complain.

Lord ALTHORP alluded to several of the other matters of complaint brought forward by the Dissenters. As regarded the general registry, (a bill to establish which had been introduced by Mr. Brougham, but of which Lord Althorp knew nothing), he considered it a subject of great difficulty ; but he hoped that part of the machinery !IOW forming for amending the Poor-laws might be made available for the purpose of registering the births' deaths, and marriages, throughout the country. If o, a measure might be introduced next session upon this plan. He was sorry that Lord John Russell's Marriage Bill had not gives satis- faction : it would be withdrawn if the objections to it were deemed in- superable. As regards the admission to the Universities, be hoped it would be granted : he was confident that it svonld benefit those institu- tiols ; and he had heard with pleasure of a petition to the House of Lords, signed by fifty-four resident members of Cambridge University, praying for the admission of Dissenters. He thought that, by allowing some delay, the measure might be carried with the concurrence of those venerable bodies. Ile hoped also, that some legislative enactment might be framed for authorizing the burial of Dissenters by their own ministers, in parish burial grounds. Both Lord ALTHORP and Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted the great obligations which Ministers were under to the Dissenters, who had always been the fast friends of civil and religious liberty ; and Lord John Russell dwelt for some time on the services which he and his colleagues had rendered the Dissenters when in Opposition.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that the advocates for abolishing Church- rates sought to humiliate time Church of England, by bringing it down from the position which it now occupied, to a level with every one of the Dissenting sects. Was Lord Althorp, was the House, he would ask, prepared to abandon the connexion between Church and State ? for it had come to that. The petition from Cambridge, which had been n `..o.red to, merely proceeded from a small minority—not one-third of the resident members. In reference to this petition, Mr. GOULBURN mentioned, that he had known nothing about it till that evening. If it was intended to be asserted that the University of Cambridge was favour- able to the admission of Dissenters, he would give that assertion a direct contradiction. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the principle which the House ought to establish was this—that no Christian should be com- pelled to pay towards the support of the religious observances of a church from which he dissented ; and he would vote to establish that principle of common justice and common sense.

5. FREE TRADE; REPEAL Or THE CORN LAWS.

At the morning sitting on Wednesday, Mr. EWART presented a pe- tition from Liverpool in favour of Free Trade, beginning with the trade in Corn. On the question that the petition should be laid on the table, a debate ensued which occupied a eousiderable time, and was twice adjourned.

Mr. EWART maintained, that the Government would best consult its own interests, and the interests of time country at large, by acceding to the prayer of the petition. Mr. Buonisavros expressed the same opinion: but Mr. CAYLEY said, the true meaning of free trade was to drive our own labourers out of employment, for the benefit of the la- bourers of other countries.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, the whole case between the agriculturists and manufacturers could be despatched in five minutes. A free trade in corn would benefit all classes (including the agricultural capitalists), ex- cept the landlords. He hoped the time would come when the farmers would discern that the " landed interest" meant only the interest of the landlords. He argued, that by shutting our ports to foreign corn, we had compelled other countries to resort to manufactures, which formed the chief support of our own country.

Sir ROBERT PEEL ridiculed the idea of stating this question in five minutes. Mr. Roebuck had occupied more time than five minutes, and yet he had not stated the most importaut elements of the case. He bad said nothing of the manner in which Ireland would be affected by an alteration in the Corn-laws. The amount of what he had said was this—other countries cats produce corn cheaper than England, and England could furnish manufactures cheaper than they. Mr. Roebuck also said that the Corn-laws were for the benefit of the landowners alone : this he denied : but if it were so, he should say, before you take away the protection to the landowners, look at the burdens to which they are subject— The Malt-tax brought nearly five millions to the Exchequer, and was a great burden upon the land. Ile had in his hand a return of the amount of Poor- rates paid by this country in 1823: the report distinguished the amount of Poor- rates paid by the land, by dwellinghouses, and by mills and manufactories ; the total amount paid in the year 1823 was 6,7030001.; of this, dwellinghouses paid 1,732,000/, the land 4,602,000L, and mills and manufactories only 247,000/. So that the land bore the pressure of the Poor-rates to the extent of 4,602,000L, while mills and manufactories only did FO to the extent of 247,000/. Was it right, therefore, to say that the landlords had no claims to the consideration of the House ?

The health of the country should be considered. By the improve- ment of the land, mortality had been lessened ; but what would be the consequence of the land being again reduced to morasses ? Were the agriculturists alone protected ? Did they not pay duties on manufac- tured articles ? He had before him pages upon pages of duties on foreign manufactures; of which nine out of ten were for protection or prohibition, not for revenue.

The agriculturist had to pay every way to protect the manufacturer. His boots, his dress, every thing he takes, or does, has something attached to it to compel him to deal with home manufacturers; so that there was a double monopoly. The duty on foreign boots was 2/. 14s. ; on foreign silk hats, I/. fis. , on silk dresses, 2/. 10s. The manufacturing interests were sufficiently protected, and the agriculturists only prayed for the same protection. His china, if foreign, paid 20 per cent. ; his plate, if gold, 31. 16s. 9d. ; if silver, 6s. 4d. per ounce. If he walked with bamboo, he must pay 5s. per 1000; if with a jumbo, rattan, &c., he paid the same ; but if with a dragon's blood, or a supple-jack, and mounted, painted, or otherwise decorated, he must pay 20 per cent. (Laughter.) On watches, carriages, gunpowder, cards and every thing else the agricultural farmer was compelled to pay exorbitantly if he in- dulged in foreign articles. It was admitted that these were absurdinei, as de- tailed, but they ought to be known. If the farmer indulged in a foreign fiddle or flute, he must pay 20 per cent. No necessary article could he use, no amuse- ment could he follow with foreign manufactures when alive; and svhca dead,

he must pay 2s. tk/. per foot for his tomb, if he wished to have it of foreign stone. Ile entered into these details to dissipate the idea that the monopoly of the land was an exclusive monopoly.

Mr. FiNcii, who opened the adjourned debate on Thursday, spoke against any reduction of the ditties ; and said that the whole question of free trade was a chimera. The Corn-laws could not be repealed with- out inflicting a great injury on the farmer.

Sir HENRY PARNELL said, that whenever he beard it stated in that House, that the Corn-laws were beneficial to the farmer, be felt it to

be his duty to contradict such statement in the most direct and posi-

tive manner. It was a gross delusion, practised by the landlords on the farmers, to say that they, the farmers, were iuterested in the con-

tinuance of the present system of Corn-laws. Let the farmer be really made to understand his own interest, and the monopoly of the Corn-laws could not any longer exist.

The farmer was a person who had to obtain his livelihood by the application of his capital in a particular pursuit—the tillaee of land for instance: his in- terest, therefore, depended upon the rate oeretuin rendered by Isis capital ; which, again, depended upon the pike of the produce of the land with reference to the rent. If the price fell, or, in other words, if it were reduced by the re- peal of the Corn-laws, the interest of the farmer must be put to rights, and Isis los-es prevented, by a reduction in the rate of rent. ("Hear, hear !") When it was clearly proved that the interest of the farmer depended upon the price of the produce of the land with reference to rent, the farmer must be satisfied that he had no interest in the monopoly of the Corn-laws, but that the landlord had. ("Hear, hear !") The whole community, in fact, was taxed by the Corn-laws, for the 'impose only of increasing the rent of the landlord. (" Hear !" )

Instead of millions of persons being benefited by the Corn-laws, only a few hundred timusand landlords were benefited, and the rest of the community were injured in a far greater proportion.

If landlords were to receive less than they now received by 500,000/. or 1,000,000/. a-year, in consequence of the Corn-laws, that money would remain in the pockets of the consumer ; the actual income of the country would not be interfered with, although landlords would have less ; but the money being in the pockets of the consumer, it would pay as much tax, employ as much labour, and do as much, or even more, good than even if it were in the pockets of the landlord.

The burdens of the landlord had been much exaggerated.

The Malt-tax hail been said to be a tax on the land, but he denied that it was.., He would ask who paid it The landlord paid very little, fur it fell upon the great mass of the community. As to the County and highway rates, though they fell on the land, they were expended in the improvement untie Mud—suck as making roads, &e., Wont all of which the landlords benefited. Now with regard to the Poor-rates, the landlords complained of their eXeCE, ; i,i it should be known how much the landlords might have done if they had en&avoured in time to prevent the abuse of the Poor-laws. Neither did he agree in the sup- posed injurious effect which the abolition of the Corn-laws would have on our manufactures. The protection of a tax upon our imports ought to be discon- tinued ; it was an useless protection, and productive of mischief. The 40 or 50 per cent. imposed upon articles of manifficture imported into this country, was, in fact, a dead letter. His constituents, who were great manufacturers of linen, and knew their own interest as well as others, would he glad to see the protection on that article thrown away. All the arguments upon that subject were entirely useless. The whole question was involved in one principle ; and the great evil was, that under the peculiar circumstances of the country, there was an enormous quantity of capital unemployed, and a superabundance of labour. That capital and that labour wanted .2 inployment, and the House ought to endeavour to remove all the impediments winch prevented their employment. In proportion to the reduction in price, would be the increase of consumption and the employment of capital. The Corn-laws stood first in the way, and he should be glad to see that impediment first removed. ( ('heers. ) Mr. CHILDERS said, the upshot of Sir Henry Parnell's argument, was this—that the country would go on well while the landlords were utterly ruined; and is weaker argument be had never heard. (Laughter.) Mr. LANGDALE complained of the heavy taxation to which land was subjected. Sir C. Bunitesit. thought it would have been much better to have let the debate terminate with time adinirable speeds of Sir Robert Peel, which Ile was sorry to see so briefly reported in the newspapers. Colonel TORRENS maintained that, like all other employers of capital, the farmers had a large, enduring, and permanent interest in low prices. Mr. ROBINSON said that these discussions would produce no good. No relief would be obtained, unless a tax were imposed on the wealth and property of the nation. Mr. BExerr thought the heavy National Debt was the main cause of all the suffering in the country. Lord SANDON was opposeil to altering the Corn-laws : Ise was time representativeof a trading town, and was on this point at variance with a large number of his constituents. Sir GEORGE STRICK-• LAND said it would not do to go on in the old plodding system. The duties on foreign manufactures were an absurdity. They ought to be ropealed, as well as the duty on corn. Here the debate closed on the second day.

Yesterday, it was resumed at the morning sitting. Mr. O'REILLY spoke at length against the present laws. He dwelt principally on the evils inflicted upon Ireland by the protective system. The linen trade had been destroyed by protection. Since the protection had been done away with, the trade had again revived. He was also convinced that the abolition of the Corn-laws, the consequent reduction of prices, and time larger amount of capital which would thereby become applicable to the employment of labour, would be highly beneficial to Ireland.

Mr. CosEETr utterly denied that the dearness of bread was owing to the Corn-laws : it was owing to the taxes. Wheat was cheap enough already ; it was 27s. a quarter in Scotland, and 35s. the best, in Eng- land. *

Mr. LAMBERT was in favour of increased protection to the land- owner; for the Corn-bill, which be had supported, was quite inopera- tive for that purpose.

Mr. HARVEY contended that something must be done with regard to • In what market? See the Spectator's Prices Current.

the National Debt—with our 283,000 creditors. It was fashionable to rail at the Debt ; but had they not, by incurring it, preserved the bles- sing of Church and State; mid was not that well worth thirty millions a year? The nation, however, owed more than it could pay, and there- fore there must be a meeting of creditors. The abolition of the Corn- laws would ruin all the little landlords—the men of 2000L a year. The great ones would be inconvenienced telly for a time. A day of reckon- ing was coming, and he wattled the lauded interest to be prepared for it.

Mr. Ilseass said that there was a great tuitional obligation to pay the Debt. Ile was opposed to the Corn-laws, but would pay the Debt.

Sir J. TYRRELL, Mr. H. L. BULWER, Lord HENNIKER, Mr. PEASE, Mr. MAXWELL, and Mr. T. Arrwoon, made a few remarks. Mr. Ewater replied ; and after an observation by Mr. O'CONNELL, that the liouee had been labouring three days to put additional profits into the pockets of the landlords at the expense of the poor, the petition was bud on the table, and the discussion was at length closed.

6. REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.

Mr. COBBETT, on Monday, moved as an amendment to the motion of Lord Althorp that the House should go into a Committee of Supply, that " it is expedient, after the 5th of October 1835, that all the duty on Malt should cease and determine." The arguments adduced in sup- port.of this motion were very similar to those by which the late motion of Sir W. Ingilby was supported. Mr. Comm insisted more parti- cularly on the advantage which would result from enabling the farmers and poor men to brew their own beer, which might be made in as small quantities as tea. He maintained that there would be very little gain in repealing only half the tax, and leaving the cost of collecting it the same. The tax must be repealed at last, and nothing would more con- ciliate the nation towards the Government than repealing it freely. The repeal of this tax would put down the beer-shops, and most effectually improve the morals of the labouring classes.

Lord ALTHORP briefly replied to Mr. Cobbett, and reiterated the arguments with which he had opposed Sir IV. Ingilby's motion. Mr. MARK PHILLIPS observed, that in the last session sixty-six county Members voted for the repeal of the Malt-tax, but only twenty-four had supported the only effectual substitute for it,—a Property-tax. He could not vote for repealing the tax on malt under such circumstances.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD spoke in favour of the motion. The deficiency of revenue might be made up by taxing the Fundholder. Until Lord

Althorp relieved the people, he hoped he would be as restless on his pillow as the millions were rendered by the pressure of taxation : indeed it was inconceivable how he could rest tranquilly on . the

same bed with his victims. (Cries " !") Sir WILLIAM Iisonaly supported Mr. Cobbett ; and utterly denied that there was any buf- foonery in his speech or any thing nonsensical in the "budget of the Knight of Lincoln."

Mr. CumstiNG BRUCE spoke at length on the subject of the distress of the Scottish agriculturists, but refused to vote with Mr. Cobbett.. Mr. STANLEY dwelt upon the absurdity of taking away five millions of revenue without providing a substitute for it. The House divided; and Mr. Cobbett's motion was rejected, by 142 to 59.

7. THE NEW TEA-DUTIES.

The House was engaged during the greater pm t of the mornings of Monday and Tuesday in discussing the new scale of Tea-duties. Mr. Caawsoun, on Monday, presented a petition from the persons engaged in the tea-trade in the Metropolis, praying for the establishment of one uniform rate of duty on all kinds of tea imported into the country. He stated several objections to the proposed graduated scale adopted by Government. There was very great difficulty in distinguishing be- tween the different sorts of tea, especially between lobes and Congou, and Congou and Sous:bong, when there was any thing like a dose ap- proximation of quality: he might say, the thing was utterly impossible. The difference of value to the importer of Bohea and Congou was from 2 to 6 per cent.; but Bohea was charged with a dety of Is. lid. and Congou with sts. 2d. a pound, a difference of 44 per cent. Congou would readily be transformed into Bohea, by deteriorating its quality 4 to 6 per cent. ; and then it would be charged with 44 per cent. less duty. By a fixed duty, the whole corps of tasters and inspectors, otherwise about to be enrolled, would be rendered ormecessary ; and a fixed duty, he thought, would not bear heavily upon the poorer classes.

Sir Roemer PEEL also disapproved of the new duties. The duties on Bohea, Congo'', mid Souchong, were imposed, no doubt with the view of taxing the higher and middling classes more highly than the poor. But this idea was fallacious. The consumption of the poorer classes was principally Congou; a hundred chests of which were sold in the working districts to one of Bohea. It appeared, by a reference to the prices of tea at the India House, that there was only three-half- pence a pound difference between the value of Bohea and of Congou; but the difference in the duty was 8d. In twenty thousand chests of tea, it would make a difference to the importer of 50,000/. whether it was called Bohea or Cougou ; and it was imposing too much responsi- bility on any man's judgment, and affording too strong a temptation, to leave him to decide as to which class the tea belonged.

Mr. Hawes said, that the whole quantity of tea consumed during the last year was thirty-three millions of pounds, of which twenty-one millions were Congou. Yet this was the tea on which the duty of 241. was laid. It was evident that the lower classes would derive little of the benefit which Ministers intended to confer upon them ; and therefore he thought that the scale of duties should be modified.

Sir GEORGE STa.tosTosi supported the petition. He observed that a great misapprehension existed upon the nature of black teas.

The term bohea in this country had been applied to all kinds of black tea, but its literal meaning was " manufactured," and that of Souchong "selected." The hest judges in China were themselves frequently deveived by the inhabitants of that country, and the greatest 1 itliculty must necessarily arise in distinguish- ing their different qualities here.

Mr. Gaon..., Mr. LYALL, Mr. IIUME, Sir J. R. Ran, and Lord SANDON, were also oppos. d to. the plan adopted by Ministers. Mr. 1RolasisoN spoke strongly against the uniform rate of duty prayed for by the tea-dealers, us being in a high degree partial to the rich. Mr. BUCKINGHAM recommended the establishment of bonded svarehouses in sea-port towns, where the quality of teas could be investigated and the duty rated ad valprena.

Lord ALTHORP ai.d &fr. POULETT THONISON, time latter at consider- able length, defended the Government scale of duties. Their object had been to give to the consumer of the lowest quality of tea that arti- cle at the lowest rate of duty. The quantity of Bohea sold had risen during the last seventeen years from half a million to six millions and a half of pounds annually ; while the quantity of Congou had risen only between one and two millions. Much Bohea was sold under the name of Congou. There could be no doubt that the cheapest tea would be bought, and was bought, by the labouring classes. The Government had taken great precaution, had held many and long cousultations with experienced men in the trade from all parts of the country, before adopt- ing their present scale. There would not be the great difficulty that some anticipated in distinguishing the different qualities of tea. w the inquiry was in progress, forty-four different samples had been sub- mitted to tasters, and, with the exception of two bad bits, the different qualities were most accurately distinguished. The plan surely ought to be tried before it received such sweeping condemnation : and it should not be forgotten, that Ministers were under the necessity of obtaining by some means or other the same amount of duty under the new as under the old arrangement. This would account for some:of the faults of the scale which they had adopted. In reply to a letter from some of the tasters, read by Sir ROBERT Peer—stating that the samples pre. seated by Government did not enable them to come to a correct judg- ment on the matter—Mr. THOMSON said, that it was remarkable these gentlemen had taken seven months to make the discovery.

The petition was then laid on the table.

Mr. CRAWFORD gave notice, on Thursday, that he should move on an early day for a Committee to inquire whether an equalized, in the place of a fluctuating duty on tea, should not be imposed.

8. FOREIGN POLICY; TREATY OF TURKEY WITH RUSSIA.

When Lord Althorp, on Monday, moved that the House of Com- mons should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Stine rose to move an address to the King for copies of " any communication

between his Majesty's Government and the Russian Government, with respect to any treaty between Russia and Turkey which has been en- tered into since the 1st January 1832." After some general remarks on the importance of the subject, and the anxiety of the public for in- formation respecting it, Mr. Sheil proceeded to give a detail of the several principal occurrences of the late war in the East, from Me- hemet Al's attack on Acre to the battle of Koniah. He referred to the application of Turkey to England for assistance, and its refusal; the attempt of Admiral Roussin to prevent time march of the Russians to Constantinople ; the unaccountable apathy of the British Govern- meet, and their ignorance of the proceedings of Count Orloff, till in- formed of them by the Morning Herald; and finally, to the strange proceedings of the British fleet in the Mediterranean—its first going to time Dardanelles, then to Smyrna, and subsequently to Malta, having literally effected nothing at all. Mr. Sheil maintained, that the provi- sions of the treaty of the 8th of July, negotiated by Count Orloff, were in a high degree injurious to England and beneficial to Russia; who could by virtue of this compact call Upon the Porte at any time to close the Dardanelles against British vessels, and thus, in case of a Russian war, prevent us from attacking our enemy in his most vultienffile part. In confirmation of his views, Mr. Shea referred to the note of Count Nesselrode, in reply to that of the French Charge d' A ffiiires at St. Petersburg; to the celebrated speech of M. Bignon iii the French Chamber of Deputies ; to the reply of the Due de Broglie, lied his sub- sequent explanations. lie concluded by calling upon Lord Palmerston to produce the treaty, and not to suffer himself to be duped by Machia- vellian cabinets ; but to imitate the example of Mr. Canning, who was a man of an enlarged and enlightened mind on subjects of foreign policy.

Colonel DAVIES, Colonel EVANS, Sir Roustur PEEL, amid Mr. C. FERGUSSON, spoke on the same side as Mr. Shell. Lord PALAIER- STON and Mr. STANLEY resisted the motion, on the ground that the papers moved for could not be granted without injury to the public service.

Lord Pat.steasToN entered into r. long defence of the conduct of Go- vernment. He admitted that application for aid had been made by Turkey to this country ; but it could not be granted; if for no other reason, because our disposable vessels were then off the coast of Hol- land, and in the Tagus. Turkey then applied to Russia, and lie re- joiced that Russia had given the aid required ; more especially since she had acted in the whole affair with such good faith, and had actually per- formed her promises of withdrawing her troops when they were no longer necessary for the protection of the Sultan. He admitted that he viewed time treaty of the 8th of July with dissatisfaction. It was still a subject of negotiation : but after all, it only stipulated that Russia should be put on the same footing as other nations ; that her ships of war (for time treaty had no reference to merchant vessels) should possess the same privileges, and the same only, that other nations enjoyed. By the treaty of 1809, it was declared to be the custom of the furkish empire, not to permit time vessels of war of any country to pass up or come out through the Dardanelles. In case of a war between Russia and England, the treaty of the 8th of July would not affect us. It had been objected that we had no Ambassador, only a Secretary of Legation at Constantinople, while Count Orloff wa.s there, and while many events.of vast importance were in progress. The reason of that was, that Lord Ponsonby, our Ambassador, was delayed by bad weather at Naples from May to November. tie trusted dint peace would be pre- served ; but this could only be done by placing confidence in Ministers. It would be contrary to all custom, and very detrimental to the public service, to grant the papers called for in the existing state of the ques- tion to which they referred.

The motion was negatived, without a division.

9. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

The Ordnance Estimates were voted last night, in a Committee of Supply. There were only about thirty members in the House ; and Colonel MABERLEY, who brought the Estimates forward, spoke in so indistinct a manner that the reporters could not follow him. The saving in the Ordnance department from 1820 to 1829, he said, bad been 600,000/. ; from 1829 to IMO, 370,0001. Since 1830, when the present Ministers came into office, to the present time, the saving had been 335,000/. This year he was enabled to announce a further reduc- tien of 82,0001. After some observations relative to the survey of Ire- land, which had been undertaken on a very insufficient estimate, and the removal of the Tooley Street stores to Woolwich, and the Tower, he concluded by moving the first vote, of 70,562/. for the salaries of the Ordnance Officers at the Tower, Pall Mall, and in Dublin.

Mr. HUME entered into a very long and searching examination of the Estimates. Of the saving of 84(1001, for which Colonel Maherley -took credit, 56,000/. was in stores; the actual reduction on the Civil and Military establishments was only the paltry sum of 8,493/. ; it was entirely unworthy of notice. Mr. Hume then proceeded to animadvert on the large sums expended on the Irish survey, which had cost 300,000L, and would take 200,000/. more to complete it—on the sost of the barracks, on the waste in the purchase of stores, on the large per- centage charged on all the disbursements. He insisted on the neces- sity of consolidating the different Civil departments of the Army, and putting the Artillery on the same footing as troops of the Line. lle admitted that for much of this the present Ministers were not to blame ; they had succeeded to their places when the bad system was in full ma- lignity. The House should assist them, and urge them to get rid of it.

Colonel MABERLEY made a very brief and indistinct reply to Mr. Hume's observations respecting the barracks, which he said were better and cheaper than the billet system. Great economy and attention was now paid to the purchase and keeping of stores.

Mr. COBBETT spoke some emphatic and entertaining sentences. He said that Ministers were not to blame for keeping up such large mi- litary establishments ; they would be kept up as long as Parliament voted fifty millions of taxes annually. When the taxation was reduced to fifteen millions there would be no occasion for a standing army to keep the people down.

This and all the other votes proposed were agreed to, with very little remark from the other Members. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday next.

10. APPEALS LN THE House OF LORDS; CHANCERY CAUSES.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord ELLENBOROUGH asked Lord Brougham what arrangement would be made for the hearing of appeals to their Lordships, which now amounted to one hundred and forty. It had been usual for the House to proceed to the decision of appeals immediately after its assembling ; but forty days had elapsed since the opening of the session, and nothing had been done in this

business. This question drew from Lord Bnocctiam an explana- tory speech of considerable length, relative to the state of business in his court, and the reasons which had induced him to postpone the hear- ' ing of appeals to the House of Peers. He had not been idle, he said, since the House had met. He had sat six or seven, and frequently eight hours a day, in the Court of Chancery, every day except two, (when he was called upon to attend the King), and the Sundays of course, during the period of forty days mentioned by Lord Ellenhorough. It had been made a matter of charge against him,' that Ile had only de- cided thirty-two causes since his accession to office, while the Vice- Chancellor had got through nine hundred, and the Master of the Rolls, he knew not how many causes. But if Lord Ellenhorough, and the persons who made this and similar charges against him, would inquire of those who were willing as well as able to give correct information on this subject, they would find that the wonder was, that he had de- cided as many as thirty-two causes. The Chancellor's Court had be- come a court of appeal, of rehearings and of motions, but not of origi- nal causes, since the establishment of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. With respect to the hearing of appeals in the House of Lords, it was to be remembered, that except when Lord Plunkett was present to give him assistance, which he always did most ably and willingly, he had no one to help him. Lord Eldon had had the assistance of Chief Baron Alexander for six months together ; but it was impossible lie could have the assistance of Lord Lyndhurst, for the business of the Court of Exchequer was not the trifling affair it used to be, when the Judges merely sat down to rise again like a covey of partridges, but it equalled that of the King's Bench. The Master of the Rolls now sat in his own Court in the morning as well as the evening; lie therefore could not call upon him to come to the House of Peers. Lord G'ifford and Lord Redesdale had once assisted for a whole year in deciding up- peals; and then, to be sure, a vast mass ofjudicial business had been got through : but leaving that year out of view, he had transacted, under all his disadvantages, nearly as much business as had ever been done in the way of hearing appeals. There were three classes of appeals,— Scotch, which were generally very intricate, English, and Irish. Last session he had got through so many of the Scotch appeals as actually to have overtaken the parties engaged in them, who were not ready to go on with them. It was a question whether it was advisable to be in a great hurry to hear appeals. When a party lost his cause, he frequently thought that the judge was in fault, and his decision wrong ; and there- fore he would have it tried over again. His counsel also was very apt to imagine that justice had not been done to his own eloquence and exertions, and therefore he would advise an appeal. But in a few months the parties had time to cool ; and the consequence probably would be an acquiescence in the first decision, and thus a great saving in time, trouble, and expense, would he made. There was another reason why appeals had not been heard so early as usual this year. When Parlia- ment met, it was out of term ; and the Chancellor, Vice- Chancellor, and Master of the Rolls, sat in Lincoln's Inn. These Courts absorbed all the Chancery barristers ; and it would be very inconvenient at the same time to have appeals going on at Westminster, when it would be phy- sically impossible for the leading barristers to attend. On the 150 of April,:all the Courts would be open under one roof in Westminster Hall ; and till that time, he thought that the best thing he could do was to keep down theChancery business. He was sure that a vast deal more business might be got through by sitting for six days together, than by sitting once a week for six weeks ; and he hoped that be should soon have Lord Plunkett's assistance. At all events, he should proceed with the appeals on Monday or Tuesday of Easter week. On the Monday week following, the business would go on ; and before the 15th • In Ilia John Pal of last steetay, echoed in Monday's Post. of April, he hoped that more business would bare been done, not merely in Chancery, but in the House of Lords, than had ever been known to have been done within the same period.

Lord Wveroao said, that he did not approve of delaying the trial of Scotch appeals, for he was certain that many moved for appeals merely for the attainment of delay. He was always ready to attend to his own duties.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished Lord Brougham to state some period at which the appeals of the Scotch suitors might be heard. There wast surely no reason why the Scotch appeals sFould not have been proceeded with since the commencement of the session. Counsel could have at- tended in their causes as conveniently in March as during the Easter holydays.

Lord BROUGHAM reminded Lord Ellenborough, that Lord Eldon, who had said that the place for the Lord Chancellor was the Chancery Court, had absented himself for a whole year from the Appeal Court of the House of Lords and that, too, at a time when arrears were pressing. At present, there was no arrear in point of fact. Last year he heard in July appeals entered in January.

But he was perfectly willing that they should he proceeded with ; and he begged the Scotch suitors and solicitors to attend to what he was about to say. He was now warned that there was a complaint that the Scotch appeals were not heard. He would take care, then, that they should be heard ; but the parties must not quarrel with the Judge that heard them. Lord Wyuford being always prepared and willing to do his duty in that place, would be ready to bear them ; and the Scotch suitors, _who complained that the appeals were not heard before Easter, might be assured that they would henceforward be brought on. But he was not bound to have arrears in the Court of Chancery for their pleasure, and he would not. They must rest satisfied with such judicial assistance as his noble and learned friend the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas would give them, no doubt with perfect alacrity ; and he hoped they would, as he knew they ought to, receive It with thankfulness. Here, then, was an end of that complaint.

Lord Brougham added, he knew that many persons would be glad of the opportunity of complaining that he heard Scotch appeals' and suf- fered the business of the Chancery Court to fall in urrear : he would not give them any such gratification, but would keep down the Chancery business. Nothing was so disagreeable to the persons who attacked him, as the non-existence of Chancery arrears.

Lord Essvenonoven said, that something like a menace had fallen from Lord Brougham; and he wished, therefore. distinctly to know what his intentions were. Did he mean to bear Scotch appeals towards the close of this session, or before Easter next year?

Lord BROUGHAM said, he intended to act as his predecessors had done, and as Lord Eldon had preached by way of advice; namely, to sit in his own Court of Chancery, and leave Lord Wynford to hear appeals presented to their Lordships. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" It is impossible to give the Scotch suitors a more indistinct answer."

Lord BROUGHAM—" They will understand it well enough."

Here the conversation closed.

The subject was resumed on Friday, by Lord ELLENBOROUGH ; who referred to some returns of the number of days on which Lords Eldon and LyndhurSt had sat, and the number of appeals they had heard, to prove that Lord Broughani had in fact not been more indus- trious than his predecessors. lie also contended, that Lord Brougham had received us much assistance as other Chancellors.

Leo' Ilitoueltast could not speak positively on the subject, having only looked cursorily at the returns. lie believed it would appear that he had sat more hours in the day—frequently till nine or ten in the evening, instead of rising at three ; and that would account for the greater number of his decisions. There was a fallacy in the manner in which the paper referred to was made up.

After a remaik by the Duke of Cumeettsaxn, the conversation dropped. 3111SCELLANF.00S SUBJECTS.

ABOLITION OF OATHS. A Select Committee was appointed on Thursday, on the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND to inquire into the expeillency of substituting declarations in lieu of the oaths whick are now required in certain cases.

INNS OF COURT. Lord BROUGHAM, on Thursday, laid upon the table the last report of the Common Law Commissioners, which relates to the powers exercised by the Inns of 2ourt upon the application of

persons to be admitted as students, and to be called to the bar. He

expressed his strong approbation of the report ; and said that he con- sidered it very questionable whether the country ought to receive the services of the Commissioners without giving them compensation. In

the House of Commons, the same evening, Mr. O'CONNELL, at the instance of Sir Cilattass PEPYS, postponed his motion on the subject

of the Inns of Court, until the 13th of May, in order to afford time for the consideration of the report above-mentioned.

SLAVE EMANcIPATION. In reply to some remarks of Mr. FovrEtt, Bexvox on Monday, Mr. STANLEY gave a gratifying account of the

state of feeling in the West Indies, particularly in Demerara, Jamaica, and Antigua, in regard to the approaching emancipation of the Negroes. In Antigua, the wish of the planters (and there was nothing to prevent the compliance with it in the act), was to do away with the term of apprenticeship, and emancipate the Negroes at once. In Jamaica, the

Fame desire wits prevalent, although it seemed to be the impression of

the members of the Assembly that the law would not allow it. In -"- Demerara, the House of Assembly had of its own accord abolished

corporal punishment of the slave by his master after the ist of M0-,t'h

1834, six months previous to the period when it would be

the recent law. The dispositions of the sieves in Dews -ashed by the

to the despatches of the Governor, were most .arara, accord same ne aoun Nearly t of stores as usual had been too

..cred from this country for

the West Indies ; and there appeared '

crops would be materially dimitoo. to be no epprehension that the labour. -led by the use of free instead of slate Poon- LAWS' La/45 prepared to say w/' a AITHORP stated, on Monday, that he was not . be introduced. en a bill for the amendment of the Poor-laws would `Jutcertainly this session. liLvI8P.:4G BARRISTERS; CORPORATION COMMISSIONERS. COM.. plaints were made in the House of Commonslast night, that no money, nut eveu their out-olpocket expenses, had been paid to the Revising Barristers and Corporation Commissioners. Mr. CHARLF.S WOOD said, the reason of this was, that no money had been voted to pay them. Mr. Gourannta replied, that Government should have obtained a vote for that purpose OD the Estimates of the year.

Tuts NEW EXCHEQUER. The bill for regulating the New Exehequer went through a Committee of the House last night ; the report to be received on Monday.

IVEICHTS also MEASURES. Lord EBRINGTON obtained leave, on Tuesday, to bring in ii bill to amend two acts passed in the reign of the late King, for establishing a uniformity of weights and measures. Ile should be happy to support any similar measure for Ireland and Scot- land. Mr. Roman. Waist-see deprecated the system of separately le- gislating for the different portions of the realm.

He had heard a great deal about the Repeal of the Union and such separate legislation encouraged the cry. He thought that they onglit to endeavour to cement the Union by means of a uniformity of weights :mil 'IMMO ei. (Loud laughter.) They should not legislate on a limited scale, but give their due weight to the other portions of the empire, and maintain a true balance between them.

SCOTTISH REGISTRATION BILL. Mr. B. STEWART Obtained leave, on Wednesday, to bring in a bill for establishing a uniform and efficient registration of births, denths, and marriages in Scotland.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. HARDY'S bill was read a sCCOIld time on Monday.

Calausav-Swesrees. Mr. Tooxe, on Wednesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better regulatioo of chimney-sweepers and their apprentices, and for preventing the employment of children under the age of fourteen in climbing chimney-flues.

THE GLASGOW LOTTERY. Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved, on Tues- day, for a Select Committee to inquire into the origin and present state of the Glasgow Lottery, said to be carried on under the sanction of an act of Parliament. Mr. SINCLAIR seconded the motion. Mr. Ilisit said that his character was in some degree involved in the question before the House ; but he really knew no more about the bill than the Speaker did. Inen he first heard that lotteries were to come up again, he was as much surprised as if lie had been told that St. Paul's Church had walked to Tower Hill. Every thing on his side was quite fair and legal, and he would give every facility to the proposed inves- tigation. Ile was not treated with courtesy by Sir R. Inglis; who had promised to bring this 'question forward at a particular time, but had broken his word and not done it. The persons who were said to have smuggled this bill through Parliament were gentlemen of high character,—Mr. Monteith, Mr. A. Campbell, Mr. Dixon, and Sir Michael Shaw Stewart. Ile was favourable himself certainly to lot- teries. The revenue had lost four millions a year by their abolition, which bid not procured four penny worth of morality. Lottery-office- keepers were generally as moral and virtuous men as Sir Robert Inglis, and stood quite as good a chance of going to heaven. There ware plenty of other gamblers besides those who put into lotteries. All men who trusted to chance were gamblers more or less. Mr. Bish here read a letter from a friend, who represented all men as gamblers in the various speculations in which they engaged.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that he had a few words to speak in ex- planation, us Mr. Bish had accused him of having violated his word. t Mr. Bish here gave a very decided nod of assent, which set the House in a roar of laughter.] Sir Robert then read a letter written by him- self to Mr. Bish, in justification of his conduct ' • which he was sure, he said, the House would consider :is disproving Mr. Bish's accusation.

Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. SPRING Rica, Mr. Wausaaerosa Mr. O'CON- NELL, Mr. E. Rostrata-, and Captaiu Cumn:ii, spoke a few words ; and the Committee was appointed; Mr. Bish being added to it, on the motion of Captain Cella-Las.

COMPENSATION TO CAPTAIN IICSs. On Tuesday, a Select Com- mittee was appointed to inquire into the nature of the services of Cap- tain Ross, and the amount of the compensation, if any, which should be awarded to him.

OFFICERS Or THE HOUSE or CoMMONS ; SINECURE COMMITTEE CLERKS. Mr. Geese obtained leave, on Thursday, to bring in a bill to regulate the salaries of Officers of the House of 4.7ommons, and to abolish the sinecure offices of principal Committee Clerks and Clerks of Ingrossment. Mr. RICE- gave notice, that he should move for a Committee to inquire into those parts of the subject, regarding fees, offices, &c., not embriwed by Mr. Guest's bill.

BUSINESS OF arm House:. On the motion of Colonel Davirs, a Select Committee was appointed last eight, to inquire into the best mode of expediting the business of the House.

PETITIONS. It appears from the Sixth Report of the Committee on Public Petitions, which extends to the 7th of March, that the greater number of petitions presented to the House of Commons this session conic from Ireland, and from the English Dissenters. For the Repeal of the Union, 79 petitions, with 58,164 signatures; for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Peers, one petitien, 316 signatures (presented by Mr. Gusaors, from the inhabitants of the .Southern district of Linlithgowshire); for the support or the Church Establishment, 46 petitions, 7235 signatures ; for the removal of Dis- senters' Grievances, 192 petitions, 31,9110 signatures (of these petitions, .56 refer to the alliance of Church and State as an evil); far the aboli- tion of Irish Tithes, 113 petitions, 84,849 signatures; for the commu- tation of English Tithes, 14 petitions, 10,837 signatures; for a better observance of the Lord's Day, 32 petitions 9357 signatures; for the repeal of the Corn-laws, 13 petitions, 104180 signatures; against an alteration of the Corn-laws, 61 petitions, 15,063 signatures.