by leave ! he was in a delicate state of

health, which had sometimes prevented him from attending the House recently, still he was proud to say, that he was It has been our earnest wish to publish lists of the divisions ; present at those eight memorable and respectable divisions which took but we have found it impossible to give either absent or present place a few mornings since ; and had he sacrificed his life on that occasion, with any thing like accuracy. The corrections of honourable he would gladly do it over again to insure the success of this measure. members we distrust. The fact is not to be disguised, that not a (Laughter, and loud cheers.) few of the self-styled Reforming members are playing false, and very When both speeches were finished, it was explained by Mr. many of them playing the fool. For the Ministry—they are BANKES, that he did not advocate compensation ; and that, had strong as Sampson to make sport for their enemies ; it is only he been allowed to finish the sentence, he would have expressed when they attempt to shake the pillars of corruption that their himself to that effect. [In the Times report, thirteen sentences blindness and weakness become painfully apparent. We should are assigned to Mr. Bankes, subsequent to the ejaculatory corn- feel sick, were it not that the roar of the breakers ahead renders ment which interrupted the thread of his discourse.] us insensible to the tossing of the vessel. The motion of Mr. Mackinnon was rejected by 244 to 169—Mi- Mr. FRANCIS BARING repeated, on Thursday, the defence of nisterial.majority 75. his brother, Mr. BINGHAM BARING, which appeared in the Even- On the House going into Committee, Lord MAITLAND renewed ing Papers of Saturday last. The House of Commons expressed his motion of the previous Tuesday, for placing Appleby in Sche- itself, on the occasion, with a unanimity which has for some time dule B instead of Schedule A. past been a stranger to its walls. We must, in our humble capa- Lord J. RUSSELL stated the particulars of the case. city, rest satisfied with the reasons that suffice for our betters. Henceforth we shall take care how we oppose the oath of a man Appleby presented the case of a borough in two parishes; part being to the word of a gentleman. the parish, and another part being in the parish of St. Michael, otherwise There has been some talk of Privileges, in both Houses, in con- Bondgate, a parish whose limits extended to seven or eight miles frOm sequence of the committal of Mr. LONG WELLESLEY for contempt the town, and which was about fifteen miles long. In a recent letter, the of Chancery. There are two questions,—first, whether Mr. WEL- Mayor stated, that the borough of Appleby consisted of two parishes, LESLEY was in contempt; and secondly, whether a member of Appleby St. Lawrence, and St. Michael, otherwise Bondgate ; that the pa- Parliament is liable to be punished for contempt of any body—the rish of Appleby St. Lawrence contained 1,359 inhabitants; the parish of St. Michael, otherwise Bondgate, 1,264 inhabitants ; that the part of the terrible Livery of London excepted. We shall have the question borough which was in St. Lawrence contained 851 inhabitants ; the part more at large next week. which was in St. Michael, 203 ; making in all 1,054. By placing this bo- In the Lords, the Tithe measure of the Archbishop of CANTER- rough in Schedule A (Lord John added), the inhabitants were not de- WIRY has been attacked by Lord ELDON. Lord BROUGHAM prived of any right they enjoyed, as it was in fact a nomination borough, thinks Lord ELDON'S opposition will be of great advantage to the in the hands of two noble lords, who for a long period of time had ex- ercised the power of nominating and appointing any two persons they Bill. Lord PLUNKETT opposed Lord WYNFORD'S Debtor Bill, be- pleased to be members of Parliament. It was not a case in which any cause gentlemen residing abroad may get into the Gazette before hardship could be sustained, except by two individuals, who were not en- they are aware : his Lordship forgot, that one way to avoid this titled to complain of any injustice. was open to every gentleman—namely, to pay his debts before he left England. Mr. CROKER contended, at great length, that the case of Ap- pleby was in no respect different from those of Malmesbury, Oke- The case of Infidel Taylor was adverted to last night. Mr. hampton, Caine, Horsham, and Morpeth, in all of which the o u- BRISCOE thinks the Infidel a little "excited:' Mr. HUNT iS chewed by Lieutenant.GORDON with being a cor- Croker concluded by observing, that the objection of !)41447fige7,,e. respondent of the Poor Man's Guardian: the humorous Lieute- mination borough applied equally to Tavistock as to Agplatre ;.z..r, nant has promised a motion on the subject. HUNT was sturdy in Mr. B. CARTER stated the difference between the borongOtrife his denial; we therefore suppose there must be something in it. tioned by Mr. Croker and the borough under discussionet Wt It appears that the Ranger of Hyde Park has ut Mr. GEORGE former, the parish and town were one ; in the lat14:r NEWS OP THE WERE— Gazettes 709 DA1VSON in bodily fear, by ordering all evil-disposed dogs to be Parliamentary Proceedings—The Prices Current . . 710 shot : Mr. DAWSON was ver earnest on this toic on Monda. y p y Claims on Brazil—Frauds on NEW Booes—Facts relating to the 1. THE REFORM BILL. Previous to the Bill's going into Com- Creditors . . . 697-704 Punishment of Death in the Me- mittee on Tuesday, a motion was made by Mre MACKINNON, mem- her for Lymington, that in considering the boroughs included in Sche- London and Provincial News 705-708 Smith's Key toReading—Timbs's dules A and B, the population returns of 1831 shouldbe used, and POSTSCRIPT TO TITS WEEK'S NEWS 709 Knowledge for the People—The not those of 1821. Mr. Mackinnon prefaced his motion by stating East India Shipping 709 ous Journal . . . . 713 what he conceived would be the consequence of it—six or eight Universities . . 709 Fine Arts—Buckingham Palace— boroughs would be taken out of Schedule A, and transferred to Army . . . . . 709 Defence of the Truck System . 717 Schedule B ; three or four boroughs now placed in Schedule B Births, Marriages, and Deaths 709 Advertisements . . 718-720 would be taken out ; one or two boroughs would be transferred from Schedule B to Schedule A, and one borough not at present mentioned in Schedule B would be placed there. NEWS OF THE WEEK. The motion was supported by Mr. C. PELHAM, Mr. G. BANKES, Mr. A. TREVOR, Mr. C. DOUGLAS, and Mr. PRAED ; and opposed IT was an observation that pressed itself on the attention of every by Lord J. RUSSELL, Alderman WAITHMAN, Lord G. LENNOX, thinker in England, when the Ministerial plan of Reform was first and Lord ALTHORP. In the course of his . observations, Mr. promulgated, that it would, if carried, be an exception to a rule BANKES mentioned " compensation " as contemplated in Mr. Pitt's hitherto universal—namely, that in all cases of great national re- Reform scheme ; which led to an ejaculation of " Money" from form, revolution had preceded. That our national Reform will be Alderman WAITHMAN, and to two lone. recriminatoly speeches,—in that exception which was confidently expected, is now not quite so which Mr. BANKES repeated the well-known observation of Crom- clear as it seemed at the close of the General Election. well to his Secretary on the value of mob cheering, and Alderman

in the parish of Appleby St. Lawrence, but not comprising the whole of

lation of the parish had been added to that of the bor i '7 40,,

formed but a part of two parishes, and the palish population lay altogether beyond and away from the town population.

Mr. H. GURNEY and Lord ENCOMBE spoke in favour of Lord Maitland's amendment ; and Lord ALTHORP against Sir ROBERT PEEL mentioned, as a fact for the guidance of the Committee in coming to a determination on the subject, that the corporate jurisdiction of the borough extended over both parishes.

Mr. JAMES BROUGHAM said it did not.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said he was given to understand that the bo- rough Coroner took inquests in both parishes. Mr. JAMES BROUGHAM stated, that the inquests were taken by the county Coroner. Sir ROBERT PEEL complained of the want of authentic informa- tion—he hardly knew how to legislate.

Lord MAITLAND said, he was instructed that the Mayor of Ap-

pleby granted licences in the remotest corners of the two parishes. Mr. JAMES BROUGHAM—" I am instructed to the contrary." Sir CHARLES WETHERELL begged the Committee, before it de- cided, to look at the Bill— Ministers would not take in two separate parishes to preserve an old borough ; but to create the new borough of Finsbury, they patronized a Turkish polygamy of parishes. Ministers separated population in order to disfranchise boroughs, and accumulated population in order to give the franchise when it suited their purpose ; .but those members who had pledged themselves to support the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, would not consider principles or enter into details. When the case of Appleby was before the House on a previous evening, the City of London issued a sort of capiu.s to take the body of Alderman Thompson, and to compel him to state why he had presumed to give a vote in the House of Commons to have the facts of a case examined before he came to a judgment upon it. Was the City of London to be let down to the low-water-mark of degradation, as low as the Thames when the tide was out ?

[The House seems to have lost-a portion of its relish for Sir Charles's figures, for it interrupted him when he got to low-water- mark, by cries of "PO! poh r] He finished by stating, that when the House got out of the evils of Schedule A, lie would, in the case of Horsham, which he contended to be in every respect analagous, reconsider the case of Appleby. Mr. ATTWOOD complained, that Ministers would lay down no definite rule, and that they applied to Tavistock adifferent onefrom that which they applied to Appleby. Sir E. SUGDEN called on Ministers to redeem their pledge, by admitting evidence where, without it, no satisfactory decision could be come to.

Lord ALTHORP said—

He was not prepared to admit, even if it were proved that the magis- trates of Appleby had a jurisdiction over the two parishes, that they should be included in the population of the town. Although the liberties of the borough magistrates should so extend, this could not be brought as a proof that the town itself so extended. His Majesty's Ministers had no motive or reason why they should object to give a representative to Ap- pleby, for lie did not know that such representative might not he quite as likely to agree with Minjsters as with those who opposed them. The case of Truro, which had been alluded to, was totally different. In that case, a district was added to a place of considerable extent ; but a town of no consideration could not be made more considerable by including in it parishes that did not belong to it. If the House adopted the motion in the case of Appleby, it would merely take out of the county of Westmor- land a large tract in order to form a separate constituency.

Mr. GOULBURN instanced the case of Reigate, as analogous to that of Appleby. Lord MILTON said, Reigate was it case of two towns in one parish, and. Appleby of one town in two parishes. After some further conversation, the House divided, and the amendment was rejected by 302 to 228 ; Reforming majority 74. The question that Appleby stand part of the clause was then put and carried; and the House having resumed, the Chairman again reported progress. On Wednesday, on the question that Great Bedwin stand as part of the first clause, Mr. G. BANKES said he would content himself with merely protesting against the disfranchisement, reserving to himself the power of moving at a future period of the Bill the junction of Great Bedwin to some other place. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL spoke of the ignorance, mistakes, and total absence of principle, which prevailed in every part of the Bill ; and expressed a hope that the House would in its more cool and collected moments correct the errors of the Committee. He observed that the majorities of the Ministers were already de- creasing, in consequence of their attempt to early the question by force, and not by reason. Great Bedwin, after a few words from Mr. PRA.ED, was added to the clause.

Lord Joule- RUSSELL explained the condition of the next bo- rough, Beeralston- The borough comprised part of the parish of Beerferris ; it did not occupy more than ten acres, and the number of houses assessed at 101. did not exceed one. The whole assessed taxes of the borough, for several years, had been only 31. 98. The right of voting was that of burgage tenure, and there was only one instance during many years in whielic'a voter for the borough had been resident in it. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said he should reserve his observa- tions on burgage tenure for the case of Bletchingley ; and Sir ROBERT PEEL, adverting to the fact that Beerferris contained tilore than 2,000 inhabitants, declared his intention of opening that question.when Downt'on came to be discussed. .Lord jostle RUSSELL complimented Sir Robert Peel on his fair- ness, and hoped. he would counsel Sir Charles Wetherell to imitate it.

Beeralston was added to the clause.

Mr. KNIGHT repeated in favour of Bishop's Castle what he

said last week. Its electors were. 200 ; they were persons of all ranks. Sari Powis: exercised no influence in the borough but that which property conferred ; in proof of which Mr. Knight stated that the borough had repeatedly returned Whig members.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the Whig returns had been procured by more unconstitutional and degrading means than nomination— by bribery.

Sir J. BRIDGES spoke against the Bill. It resembled the original Bill in one feature only—spoliation. He complained that Minis-

ters had not kept their pledge. They said if any doubtful case occurred, it would be tried in Committee ; and yet they gave their votes, backed by a delegated majority, against every amendment having for its object the investigation of doubtful cases. Sir John thought that, had the people been aware of the alterations con- templated in the Bill, many of the newly-returned members would not have obtained seats. He had no doubt there would, very shortly, be a reaction in the public mind.

Mr. KNIGHT complained of the attack on the purity of the elec- tors of Bishop's Castle.

He called on Lord John Russell to declare plainly, whether, in this case, he grounded the disfranchisement on bribery or not. If he did so ground it, Mr. Knight was ready to meet him and the bribes of his Re- forming friends. It was, however, difficult to know on what principle the noble Lord proceeded. When driven from population, he took to nomination ;•when driven from nomination, he seized on population ; and, when driven both from population and nomination, he had recourse to bribery.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, Mr. Knight was quite aware that if a plan of Reform had been proposed, of which evidence of bribery in all cases was a part, such a plan would have been arrested at once—

As in a Chancery suit, they would have to wait for reports from the Master, additional references, further directions, and rehearing; and thus the whole of this national suit might be going on for ten or twelve years, while the substance of the people of England, their rights and liberties, like the substance of some unfortunate suitor in Chancery, would be lost in that House ; at the same time that those who had pos- sessed themselves of it were using it, not for the benefit of those to whom it belonged, but against their interests.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN fired at the attack on the Court of Chan- cery—

The noble Lord's observations on the Court of Chancery were the most misplaced and improper that he had ever heard. In that court, the property of individuals, to the amount of many millions, was depending, and there the claims to it were to be decided on ; and the noble Lord had thought proper to assimilate the situation of the people, under certain circumstances, to that of those whom he was pleased to call " the unfor- tunate suitors in Chancery." He would tell the noble Lord that he was utterly ignorant of what was passing in Chancery,—he knew nothing of the nature of its proceedings,—h,e knew nothing of its delays. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord speak in such a manner of that court. How could they inculcate love for the laws, and reverence for the insti- tutions of the country, when the noble Lord, by his observations, taught the people to treat them with contempt ?

Lord ALTHORP said a few words deprecating the irritation dis- played by the two Chancery barristers, Mr. Knight and Sir Edward Sugden. M r ROBINSON adverted to the feelings of the country on the question or Reform— The country looked not to either side of the House,—their attention was solely directed to the question of Reform ; and if they found the House of Commons, night after night, wastity, their time on words, and listening to criticisms on terms, they would feefdiscontented and disappointed.

He commented on the repetitions of Sir Charles Wetherell—

He had never interrupted any gentleman on the Opposition side of the House; but he confessed, when he heard Sir Charles Wetherell night after night stating the same positions, and using the self-same terms, he thought that he acted with a great deal of forbearance in remaining silent. After the decision of the House had been given with respect to the principle of this measure, Sir Charles had travelled back again over all the old ground, and it was utterly impossible for any one to listen to him with the least degree of patience.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL seized the opportunity which the al- lusion to himself presented.

A noble and learned friend of his, formerly Mr. Brougham, but now Lord Brougham, when a member of that House, had told them that the schoolmaster was abroad. Now he had been upon the look-out for this schoolmaster, and was wondering from what quarter he would come, when all of a sudden, to-night, forth stalked this terrible pedagogue in the person of the honourable member for Worcester.

He concluded a long speech about schoolmasters, by declaring that be would prove a most refractory, rebellious, and disobedient scholar. • The disfranchisement of Bishop's Castle was then put and carried.

On Bletchingly being put to the Committee, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL entered at length into the question of burgage te- nures. The point which Sir Charles chiefly dwelt on was, that burgage tenure in its nature was not susceptible of decay or usurpation; that it was the same at the period of its creation and at the present day ; that it did not and never had rested on the basis of numbers or of representation; that it was a gift conferred on the patrons, and vested in them of set purpose and design; and that the object of the gift was the creation of a peculiar de- scription of members. Lord ALTHORP begged the attention of Sir Charles to the pre- amble of the Bill, where one of its objects was stated to be—to de- prive many inconsiderable places of the right of returning mem- bers. His Lordship declined going into the consideration of the historical argument in favour of burgage tenure boroughs. He allowed that they increased the influence of those individuals of the landed aristocracy who happened to be possessed of them ; but they cer- tainly did not confer any advantage upon the aristocracy or the landed

interest generally. The measure which Ministers proposed, while it gave representation to the people generally, secured also to the landed, interest generally, and not to a few persons only connected with that interest, those fair advantages and that legitimate influence which the possessor of landed property ought to enjoy. Those close boroughs were an abuse, and as such they brought odium and dislike on the whole body of the aristocracy of the country.

He concluded by observing, that when the Constitution was spoken of it was as a whole—

When they talked of re-establishingthe representative system upon the ancient principles of the Constitution, they meant that constitution by which the people of this country were entitled to be fully, freely, and fairly represented in the Commons House of Parliament. The measure which his Majesty's Government proposed, therefore, was not the less a restoration of the ancient principles of the Constitution, though it might destroy some boroughs which had existed up to the present day in the same condition that they had been at their original establishment.

Sir ROBERT PEEL protested against the doctrine advanced by Lord Althorp in the conclusion of his speech.

It involved the fallacy that the people of this country ever had the right which it was proposed to give to them by this Bill. The phrase, " the people of England," never meant the people-of England as they were to be polled by this Bill. The people of England, when we spoke of the repre- sentation, in ancient times, consisted of the great corporate bodies, and those classes of the community to whom the franchise was intrusted, and of whom the members sent to Parliament were the representatives. The word " people" was never used so as to mean 10/. householders, who had never hitherto possessed a right to that franchise which it was now proposed to give them.

Sir Robert went on to argue, that though the right of returning members was in burgage tenure boroughs vested in individuals, it was not to be supposed that those individuals would. exercise it solely for their own interest. This doctrine of Sir Robert's was received by loud cries of " Ohl " Sir THOMAS DENarAN observed, that the fallacy of which Sir Robert complained was one which head been adopted by the people of England ; and it was only those who were interested in the spe- cies of property which it was the wish of the people of England to destroy, that imputed delusion to them.

If burgage tenure was in the first instance given by the Crown, in the favour and for the advantage of certain great individuals, it was, in its very origin, an abuse; if the power of returning members, which had been given by the Crown to the burgage tenants, had been afterwards purchased by an individual, it was by an abuse of his wealth that such an individual obtained the power of returning members to that House. Even if the right of returning members had been given originally by the Crown to some of the great men of the realm, was that representation after. wards to be made a matter of bargain and sale in the market ? Was the power granted by the Crown to pass into the hands of persons different from those whom the Crown had intended to hold it? Unless it was to be contended that it was right and lawful thus to go into the market and buy up the consciences and votes of men, the existence of such a species of property could not be defended. If burgage tenure had ever been good, its good principles had been destroyed. It was said that those boroughs were useful as a barrier azainst the passions of the people ; but had the great borough proprietors no passions to gratify, no self-interests to promote?

Sir Thomas, alluding to our watchword, " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," observed, that it was, at any rate, quite as good as thecry of those who had been converted since the 1st of March—" We are for Reform, but we are not for the Re- form proposed in the Bill."

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that he had been converted since the 1st of March— He had quitted office on the question of Reform, and he was opposed to the present measure, and he should 'continue to give it his opposition. Mr. ALEXANDER BARING designated the Bill a second revolu- tion. He denied that a representation of numbers could coexist with the constitutional influence of the Crown. He spoke of the French Chamber of Deputies, and the anticipated abrogation of the Chamber of Peers. He describe I the constitution as consist- ing of a King, a House of Lords, and a House of Commons, one half chosen by the people, the other half by the aristocracy. He said the people had been hitherto contending with one hand tied behind them, which the Bill went to loosen : the Bill conferred a power to which the people had no right, and one which ought to be. kept from them, as a stick is kept from a child, in order that it may not work mischief with it. The buying and selling of seats, he said, had nothing dangerous in it : a merchant, or an East Indian, who had lived long abroad, and possessed valuable in- formation, and who bought a seat for 5,0001., was quite as likely. to have the interest of the country at heart as the man who went canvassing among 101. voters. He asserted that corruption might exist in large constituencies as well as small—as at Liverpool for instance. He declared that he was a bit-by bit Reformer—he would give representatives to large towns. He ascribed the una- nimity of feeling among the people to the fact of the proposal of Reform coming from the Crown, and concluded by stating that he would not enter on any consideration of the principle of the measure.

Mr. MABERLY observed, that was the third time that Mr. Baring had repeated the same speech. It turned entirely on the principle of the Bill, when the only question before the House was the disfranchisement of Bletchingley.

Bletehingley was then added to Bishop's Castle. Boroughbridge. was next proposed to be added to the clause.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL repeated his argument in favour of burgage-tenure boroughs—

The preamble of Mil Bill stated, and its framers asserted, that its ob- ject was not to destr6y, but to " restore the Constitution ;" therefore, to restore the Constitution was to eireserve the burgage-tenures; and therefore Boroughbridge should not be disfranchised, as its franchise was burgage-tenure.

Lord PALMERSTOX—" The preamble does, not say a word about

restoring the Constitution ; ' it merely says, that it is expedient to take effectual measures for correcting divers abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of members of the Commons House of Parliament.'" Boroughbridge was then added to the clause; as were Bossiney and Brackley.

On the question of Bramber, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL begged a little delay—

They had the defunct bodies of six or seven boroughs before them—a Radical feast with a vengeance—the sport of one short evening ; and it was not too much to ask for a .little delay to enable all parties to digest their corporation repast.

Lord ALTHORP said they would stop at Downton.

Bramber, Callington, and Uttinelford, were then added to the rest.

Mr. MILBANK said, when he last visited his constituents at Ca- melford, they told him and his colleague, that they had unani- mously determined to give up their exclusive privileges as a sacri- fice demanded by the country. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL cried Fie on the suicidal borough! it ought to be buried in a cross road, and a stake driven through its heart.

No observation was male upon Castle Rising ; but Mr. W. BANKES, amidst loud laughter, put in a word for Code Castle. It was, lie said, an increasing, not a decaying borough ; it had in- creased two hundred within increasing, last ten years.

Twelve boroughs. having been thus added to Aldeburgh and Appleby, the House resumed, and the Chairman reported pro- gress.

On Thursday, Lord ALTHORP introduced a motion of which he had given notice the day before, for giving to the Reform Bill the precedence of all other public business, with a view to its more expeditious settlement. The motion was argued against by Mr. C. W. WYNNE, as strik- ing at the root of the independence of the House, and as establish- ing a precedent equally unwise and dangerous. Mr. Gouusuaiv also objected to it ; and Mr. Hunt declared, that no consideration would induce him to forego his motion on the Corn-laws, which stood for the 28th.

Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke with great warmth against the motion— He was quite satisfied that Lord Althorp would have found it much better to depend upon his own judgment and discretion, instead of read- ing newspapers, and obsequiously adopting their tyrannical suggestions. Lord Althorp should have treated their proffer of advice with the same contempt and indifference with which Sir R. Peel and others viewed the shameful and audacious menaces daily put forth in order to deter them from the conscientious performance of their duty. Hitherto Lord Althorp had wisely trusted somewhat to his own discretion ; and the result, Sir Robert hoped, had shown him that there was no disposition in that House to in- terfere with the reasonable progress of the Reform Bill, or of any other measure which formed a part of the public business of the nation. If people imagined that they would consent to make a new constitution without inquiry or deliberation, he could assure them they would find themselves grievously mistaken. He would not sanction any improper or undue delay, because he thought it must eventually recoil on those who acted upon such tactics : but when he saw that ten out of the sixteen notices of motion to be considered in the Committee emanated from members who had voted for the second reading, and who, it appeared, thought it necessary that it should undergo the fullest discussion, he did think it rather hard to impute factious motives to members on his side of the House, who had ventured to suggest other matters no less closely connected with the details of the self-same measure. If it was assumed that continued discussion would abate the appetite for Reform, or if the public were supposed to be growing weary of the debate, then he muck doubted whether the cry of which they had heard so much could be con- sidered either rational in itself, or at all likely to be permanent in its du- ration.

Lord ALTHORP agreed to withdraw his motion, on the condition that four o'clook should be fixed as the hour at which the Reform Bill discussion should cominence ; but Sir ROBERT PEEL and a few members calling out for five o'clock, he agreed to accept of five.

In the Committee, when the Chairman put the question ort Downton, Lord JOHN RUSSELL explained the condition of that borough— It was not included within the last Bill ; neither did it come within the rule applicable to boroughs which did not possess a population of 2,000; because its population, according to the census of 1821, was 3,100, though, by the same authority, it appeared to possess only nine houses, payinga yearly rent of 101. The House was now in possession of later information respecting' the number of 101. houses in the borough. In answer toe question from the Home Office, the overseers had replied, that the borough might contain about 108 houses rented at 101. The returning officer who had furnished information respecting this borough for the recent population returns, had calculated the number of 101. houses at about 120. The number of these houses might be taken at about 100„. or very little more. It then became a question how the number of 300 houses rented at 101. each was to be made up. The surrounding district was composed principally of down, and it would be necessary to proceed to a considerable distance in order to obtain the requisite number of constituents. It would, indeed, be impossible to complete the number without proceeding to Fordingbridge, a town which contained a consi • derable number of inhabitants ; but in that case Downton would merely have a share in the election of Fordingbridge, instead of Fordingbridge having a share in the election of Downton.

Lord John added, it was a fair question for the Committee: the Ministers would not consider the principle of the Bill affected, whether Downton were included in Schedule A, or excluded from it.

Mr. CROKER said, the defect of constituency was not peculiar to the. borough under consideration— Out of the forty-seven boroughs contained in Schedule B, thirty- three had less than 150 electoral houses each. Out of the boroughs which were not included in either schedule, eighty-four had not 300 electoral houses each; therefore, if the Bill should pass, there would exist eighty-.

four boroughs requiring out-voters. Lord John Russell 'had said, thtit 116 would not retain Downton, because it would be necessary to proceed to • a considerable distance to make up the amount of constituency ; but, in the case of Morpeth, he was told that Lord John had proceeded fifteen miles for that purpose.

Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the principle of the Bill clearly demanded the disfranchisement of Downton ; and Mr. Croker's argument only proved that Schedule B contained a number of bo- roughs which ought to be swept away.

Would any member deny that the borough of Downton belonged to the Earl of Radnor ? Would any man deny that he sent two members into that House ? The constituency of Downton was composed of twenty thatched cabins. The people of England wanted no numerical calcula- tions. The knowledge of the number of inhabitants in boroughs was of use only as showing that they were likely to be corrupt ; but if the !louse arrived at the tact of corruption by other means, where was the use of numerical calculations? He should certainly take the sense of the Committee as to the strict propriety of continuing Downton in Schedule A. What were those individuals doing who argued in favour of a dif- ferent course? They were advocating the system of electoral districts, and thus driving the country to that which they professed most to dread —universal suffrage.

Mr. STANLEY contended that there was sufficient ground for placing Downton in Schedule A ; but if the House should decide otherwise, it would he no violation of the principle of the Bill.

• Sir ROBERT PEEL expressed his satisfaction in observing that Ministers were divided on the question. He could see no reason why, under the plan of district polling, any renter of a 101. house within the limits of Salisbury Plain might not be included with Downton. • Sir Robert called on those who were for " the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," to join in the amendment. Some members proposed the union of Wilton with Downton ; in which case, Mr. HUNT said, Lord Pembroke and Lord Radnor would have a toss up for the nomination of its member. The Committee at length divided : for the disfranchisement, 274 ; against it, 244 ; Ministerial majority 30. On the question being put in respect to Eye, Sir CHARLES WE- THERELL cautioned the Committee against mistaking E Y E for AYE. Nobody spoke for Eye but Sir Charles. Its fate being settled, Sir JOHN BRIDGES rose to move an adjournment. It was then half-past twelve o'clock. Lord MILTON reminded him that they had only been three hours in Committee ; but Sir JOHN persisted, until he was told by Sir ROBERT PEEL that it was yet too early for such an expedient, on which he withdrew his motion.

Fowey was then added to Eye, after a few commendatory obser- vations from Lord BRUDENELL, Mr. SEVERN, Sir CHARLES WE- THERELL, Mr. SADLER, Mr. PRAED, and Mr. CROKER. Mr. HOPE was understood to say something in favour of Gatton, bu his speech was lost in the laughter of th-e House. The extinction of Haslemere closed the labours of the Committee for Thursday.

Last night the House went into Committee at five o'clock agreeably to the tacit arrangement entered into on Thursday. Heytesbury, Higham Ferrars, Hindon, Ilchester, East and West Looe, Lostwithiel, Ludgershall, Midhurst, Milborne Port, Minehead, Newport, Newton, Newtown (Hants), Orford, Peters- field, Plympton, were added to the first clause.

On the question of Hedon, Mr. FARRAND gave notice of a mo- tion to join Hedon with Holderness • and Mr. STRICKLAND with- drew his notice for giving four members to each riding of York- shire. Mr. SADLER spoke of Oliver Cromwell ; Sir CHARLES WETHERELL Of Malton, Caine, and Tavistock ; and Sir CHARLES FORBES defended the independence of Beverly. Heytesbury and Higham Ferrars fell uncommemorated. Mr. J. WEYLAND, on the question of Hindon, described the Bill as covered with ulcers from the head to the foot, although its admirers deemed it a Venus. He said he was a Reformer, and had no desire to delay Reform ; but unless the Committee made some amendments in the Bill, he did not see what was the use of a Committee. He gave notice of motion for the restoration of Hindon at some future period. He said the claim set up for the Bill, that it alone was entitled to be called a Reform, put him in mind of a story he had heard when a young man—

A foreigner arrived in France with the tautologous name of Mouski- Mouski. He was accosted by a Frenchman, who asked him—" Comment Vappelle tu ?" "Mouski-Mouski" was the reply. "Ah, mon ami," re• joined the Frenchman, "soyez Mouski si vous voulez, mais vous ne serez pas Mouski-Mouski cela ne passe pas."

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL having again addressed the House, and alluded to the people without, who, he said, were hallooing the Ministers on, Alderman WAITHMAN compared him to Lawyer Endless in the farce. Sir CHARES fired at the comparison, and went on to lecture the Alderman on the conduct of the Livery to- wards Alderman Thompson. The Chairman, Mr. BERNAL, inter- posed ; but Sir Charles would not be put down—he threw him- self on the House, and went on ; and Sir Charles's observations called up Mr. Alderman VENABLES and Alderman WAITHMAN a Second time.

Mr. D. GILBERT suggested the junction of the two Looes. Mr. O'CONNELL said, if there were a borough in England more cor- rupt than East Looe, it was West Looe.

• Mr. A. BARING spoke against giving a member to Cheltenham. i Lord MILTON appealed to the decision in the case of Downton, as applicable to that of the Looes. Mr. DAWSON said, Malton, after the passing of the Bill, would be more under the influence of Earl Fitzwilliam than before. Mr. O'CosnvEr.r. wished to get rid of nomination borough's altogether; it was by them that persons totally unconnected with the places they represented got seats. Mr. DAWSON retorted, that Mr. O'Connell had been chosen by three counties, with only one of which he was connected, and very little with it. Mr. KENNEDY said the difference was this—the member for Kerry had been returned for three counties, with which he was unconnected; the member for Harwich had found it impossible to get returned for the only county with which he was connected. Mr. BROGDEN thought measures should be taken to check the influence of democracy. A long conversation took place on the subject of Minehead. Mr. LUTTRELL, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. Ross, Mr. S. WORTLEY, Sir EDWARD SUDDEN, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, Mr. ATTWOOD, and Mr. PRAED, contended that it ought to be joined with Dunster. The argument was founded chiefly on a resolution of the House to the following effect- " February 1717.—That the right of electing burgesses for the borough of Minehead is in the parishioners of Minehead, and of Dunster, being housekeepers in Minehead, and not receiving alms. Ayes, 122 ; Noes, 99. So it was resolved in the affirmative."

Mr. STANLEY, Lord ALTHORP, and Mr. O'CosmELL, spoke against the junction. Mr. HUGHES HUGHES begged that the House would not, in these nice distinctions, lose sight of the important question before them.

Let honourable members rec• that the honourable member for Minehead had claimed this born; a. own property, on the ground that it had been the property of b. v from generation to generation. If there were any argument more . than another in favour of this measure, the honourable member fu. ..nehead had furnished that argu- ment. It was the duty of the House to negative such a claim at once, and to get rid of this generation proprietorship.

When Newton was put to the Committee, Mr. H. GURNEY adverted once more to the case of London.

If this borough should lie disfranchised, and if he should be obliged to retire from Parliament, he would, at all events, carry with him this satisfaction—that he had never seen a member for this borough make himself such a spectacle for men and angels as the four honourable mem- bers for the City of London had done.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL spoke at some length in defence of the conduct of the electors of London. Lord John asked, with re- spect to the representatives of nomination boroughs—

If any of those honourable or those learned gentlemen should in any stage of the Bill vote for a motion which was in favour of it, would not the noble lord, who had sent that honourable gentleman to that House, turn round upon him at once, and call upon him to reconcile his vote with his previous pledge, or to submit to the alternative? Away, then, with the idle talk of independence as compared with the independence of those members who represented popular places 1

Sir JAMES SCARLETT did not think that London had well dis- charged its duty in calling one of its Members to account for his honest vote. Sir James Scarlett concluded—" Sir, we have been sent here by the people. (Loud cheers from, the Ministerial side of the House.) But when I speak of the people, I do not mean to call the 101. householders the people. Our functions as a delibe rative assembly, for the purpose of framing laws, are gone for ever, if it be contended, that all we have to do is to attend to the will of the people and to execute it!' Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN replied to Sir James. He com-' plained of the superabundance of lawyers in the House, who came there only to obtain that consequence which their opportunities at the bar did not give. Sir Charles Wetherell, he said, was now obliged to laugh at his own jokes—they had become so stale no one else would.

Mr. SADLER declared that he could see no difference between a Constituency of one and a constituency of ten thousand. Sir R. PEEL regretted that Alderman Thompson had not told the Livery he would use his discretion in voting for the Bill: had he done so, Sir Robert felt assured the Livery would have placed him at next election at the head of the poll. Mr. SIBTHORP entered into a criticism on Mr. Hume's speech at the White Conduit Tavern on Wednesday, to show the ulterior views of the Reformers.

The case of Newton was then allowed to drop. When Orford was put to the Committee, Mr. CROKER went into a statement of the changes in respect of members which the Bill would effect in different counties.

Bucks, which returned 10 borough members, would under the Bill re- turn 5 ; Devon returned 24 members, under the Bill it would have but 16; Dorset would be reduced from 18 to 8 ; Kent, from 16 to 12 ; Lincoln, from 10 to 9; Hants, 24 to 14; Norfolk, 8 to 7; Northampton, 7 to 4 ; Oxford, 6 to 2; Somerset, 14 to 9; Surry, 12 to 5; Sussex, 26 to 14; Suffolk, 14 to 5; and Wilts, 22 to 13. On the other hand, Stafford, which now returned 8, would return 9 or 10—it was not yet determined which. Warwick would be increased from 4 to 6; Durham, from 2 to 7;-Chester, from 2 to 5; Lancaster from 12 to 16.

Mr. Croker went into some other calculations respecting the distribution of members in the different counties ; and concluded by suggesting the union of Aldeburgh and Orford. The House did not entertain the suggestion. The Messrs. JOLIFFE and Mr. GOULBURN put in a word for Petersfield. It was added to the clause.

When Plympton was put, Lord VALLETORT complained with great vehemence of the absurdities and egregious inconsistencies of the Bill which had been thrust on the House, and which they were to be bullied into passing. His Lordship turned from the Bill to the Press, and read to the House a part of a leading arti- cle in the Times of Thursday, recommending the Ministers to commence their sittings at ten o'clock, to display more energy, and carry the war into the. Boroughmongers' camp. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL asked why Ministers did not take the advice of their sagacious friend, and vote the disfranchisement of the boroughs in a lump ?

Mr. Hunts said, the majority was quite agreeable to that mode, if it were preferred by Lord Valletort and his friends.

A Member, who will not be long unknown, observed— The influence of the press, of which the noble Lord complained, was owing to the imperfect representation of the people in that House, which had led them to consider the press as their natural and most efficient representative. Let the people he fairly represented, as they would be under the operation of this measure, and a Reformed Parliament would take into their own hands the enormous power which he acknowledged was at present exercised by the press.

Mr. SIBTHORP complained, that his speeches, and those of the other Anti-Reformers, were curtailed in the reports ; he believed this was done by the advice of Ministers, who carried on a nefa- rious traffic with the Press.

An adjournment was moved at twelve o'clock by Mr. HUNT ; but it was not seconded; on which that gentleman (who is very attentive to eating and sleeping) made his bow, and walked out. At two o'clock the Chairman reported progress, and the business of the Bill closed for the night and the week.

2. KING LEOPOLD'S ALLOWANCE. re stated, in the postscript to our second edition of our last number, that a communication had been made to Ministers on this subject. In the House of Lords on Monday, Earl GREY read the communication in ques- tion ; it was as follows:

" Marlborough House, 15th July. " My dear Lord Grey—Before I quit the country, I am desirous to state, in writing, the intentions and views which I had the pleasure of commu- nicating to you verbally this morning on thesuhject of my British annuity. " As sovereign of Belgium, it is not my intention to draw from this country any portion of the income which was settled upon me by Act of Parliament at the period of my marriage. Your Lordship is, however, well aware, that up to the very moment of my leaving England I have maintained my establishments here upon their accustomed footing, and that, consequently, there remain to be fulfilled and discharged, pecuniary engagements, and outstanding debts, to an amount which it is quite im- possible for me to state at the present time with precision. As soon, there- fore, as I shall have accomplished the payment of these demands, it is my intention to make over, into the hands of trustees, whom I will without loss of time appoint, the whole of the annuity which I receive from this country, in trust, for the following purposes :-

" I shall require rn-j trustees to maintain, in a state of complete habi- tation and of repair, the house, gardens, and park, at Claremont ; and far- ther, to pay all the salaries, pensions, and allowances, which I shall deem a proper reward to those persons who have claims upon me, for their faithful services during my residence in this country. I shall, in addition, require them to continue all those charities and annual donations to cha- ritable institutions, which have been allowed or subscribed to, either by the Princess Charlotte or by myself, up to the present period.

" All these objects having been fulfilled, it is my wish and desire that the remainder shall be repaid into the British Exchequer.—I remain, my

dear Lord Grey, most faithfully yours, (Signed) " LEOPOLD."

His Lordship added, that the colooelcy held by the King of Bel- gium had not been formally resigned, in consequence of his hur. reed departure ; but that Colonel Oust had stated to the Com- mander-in-Chief, that from that circumstance only, the resignation had not been tendered. The annunciation of King Leopold's inten- tions, which was made in the House of Commons the same even- ing, was received in both Houses with very marked approbation from all sides.

3. TITHES. The second reading of the Archbishop of CANTER- BURY'S Bill for legalizing compositions for Tithes was moved by

his Grace on Monday. The bill provides, that whenever the in- cumbent and the owners for the time being of not less than two- thirds in value of the property subject to tithes desire it, it shall

be lawful, under certain regulations, and with the approbation of certain parties mentioned in the bill, to enter into a composition for any term not exceeding twenty-one years. In order to this, commissioners must be appointed by the parties to carry the agreement into effect. The agreement must be in writing, and signed by the incumbent and the proprietors of two-thirds of the tithable estates or their authorized agents. The bishop in whose diocese the lands lie, and the patron of the benefice, must give their approbation. The signatures of parties must be affixed be- fore the termination of six months from the time of the agreement: The Court of Exchequer may set aside any agreement, upon ap- plication by third parties interested, within six months after its conclusion. No application for an agreement is to be stayed by the death of a commissioner; if a commissioner refuse to act, an- other shall be appointed in his place. The commissioners may require written statements, or order surveys and valuations of the lands. The parties may fix upon the amount of the composition- money, or it may be fixed by the commissioners. This composi- tion-money is to be aplotted by rateable assessments on the tithable lands. Before the award of the-commissioners is recorded, it must be publicly exposed for the inspection of parties interested ; and a notice must be given seven days before the draught of the agree- ment is deposited, stating where it is to be found ; one copy of the agreement is to be deposited in the registry of the diocese, and another with the churchwardens of the parish. No new compo- sition can be entered into till within three years of the termination of the old. The payment of the composition-money may be en- forced by suit, or in the same manner as tithes may now be reco- vered. The incumbent is permitted to distribute the expenses incurred by the execution of the act, in proper proportions among his successors.

So far the Composition Act may be said to proceed on fined principles; but there is a clause in it which goes far to convert the composition of twenty-one years into a composition of seven years. By that clause, it is provided " that if corn have fallen or risen one-tenth during the currency of each seven years of the

agreement, allowance shall be made in behalf of either of the parties who may be injured by the change." On the same evening. Lord DACRE detailed to their Lordships his plan of composition, or rather commutation. Lord Dacre would provide, that whenever the owners of the tithable property in any parish shall desire that a commutation be made, a me- morial shall be presented to the quarter sessions, setting forth this desire, and proposing a commissioner to effect it ; this memorial to be signed by two-thirds of the owners of land paying tithes in the parish ; a notice of this memorial to be served on the owners of the tithes, and duly advertised ; these owners, whether lay or ec- clesiastical, to appoint commissioners to meet the commissioners on the other side, to frame a commutation; or, if they do not, the quarter sessions to order a commission to be made out by the Clerk of the Peace for the county in which the parish is situate whose tithes are concerned; the commissioners to be sworn to act " with equity and good conscience, and without favour or affection" be- tween the parties.

Such are the principal points of the two measures which were proposed for a second reading en Monday. The bill of the Arch- bishop was read with the very general approbation of the House. The bill of Lord Deere met so cold a reception, that he was per- suaded with very little enforcement to withdraw it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, in noticing the two plans submitted to their Lordships, dwelt particularly on the temporary and experi- mental nature of the first, which would enable future legislation to advance or draw back according as the working of the bill, and the benefits or disadvantages of it might justify. To the second he chiefly objected, that it went to shut the door against any fu- ture arrangement, however desirable, by providing at once for a commutation in perpetuity. His Lordship also thought that there would be a very great risk that the incumbent's interest might be neglected, from his not being made a party to the arrangement, and that where the incumbent was an old man, the interest of his successor might seriously suffer. The great advantage, his Lord- ship observed, of the Archbishop's bill, in addition to its being tentative and experimental, was, that it put an end to the present system, by which a minority, however small or unreasonable, could defeat the views of a majority who might wish for a composition; that it extended the period of composition to a fixed number of years, without respect to the continuance or termination of the in- cumbency of the party with whom it was entered into ; while the limitation of that period would keep the income of the clergy from falling permanently below the income of other persons in the com- munity, which it naturally would do were it fixed and unalterable while the value of land was rising.

Under the existing laws, he must look upon the clergyman and the landowner as joint proprietors in the farm, nine-tenths being the pro- perty of the landlord, and the remaining one-tenth as absolutely the property of the parson. The landlord could no more turn round upon. the clergyman and deny his right to the one-tenth, than could the latter turn upon the landowner and deny his right to the nine tenths. It was precisely the same case as if a field were divided into ten parts, of which: nine were allotted to one of two proprietors, and the tenth were set apart for the other. The owner of the nine-tenths had no right to seize upon the remaining tenth, the property of his neighbour. The clergy- man and the landlord might be looked upon as co-partners, of whom the latter was the acting, and the former the sleeping part- ner. (Hear, hear !) He meant to call the clergyman a sleeping partner, only as to agricultural labour. He did not work upon the land, but he laboured elsewhere for the good of the community, which in return allotted him a proportion of the produce of the soil. (Cheers.) It would, therefore, be a great violation of property, that one of those co-partners---the clergymen or the landlord—should oust the other from his possession, without asking his consent. What would be the consequence, if such a law were enacted respecting other co-partner- ships ?—partners in a commercial property—if one should be allowed to say to the other, "You must go out. You must consent to take stock now, whether you like to do so or not ; and, if it be valued at ten thou- sand pounds you must take one thousand, and we shall take the remaining nine. You shall have the one thousand for yourself, your heirs and assigns, for ever ; and then, should the value of the property be increased, you shall be shut out for ever from all participation in that increase, the advan- tage of which shall be altogether ours." * ' * * He trusted that he had said enough to show their lordships, that the rights of the tithe- owner to that species of property, was as legal and as complete as that of the land- owner to his estate. (Hear ! hear !) The misfortune was, that the laws had fixed upon a mode of collecting the tithe-owner's income which was attended with many and serious inconveniences. By mutual agreement, however, between the parties concerned, an arrangement might, as he had said, be come to, whereby those evils should be removed, neither. party standing too much upon their own claims, or denying pertinaciously the claims of the other.

Lord ELDON thought, that there were many very exceptionable points in the Archbishop's bill, which would require amendment in Committee.

The Bishop of LONDON expressed his gratification that the Chancellor had placed the property of the Church on its true basis, —namely, that it was held by as sacred and legitimate a title as that by which any territorial property in the country was held. The Lord Chancellor had illustrated the right of the clergy to a share in the value accruing to the land from its cultivation by the case of a sleeping partner in a commercial house: the Bishop of London alluded to the illustration to prevent misconception— He laboured under no misapprehension of the meaning of the Lord Chancellor ; but then others might Misunderstand, or pretend to misun- derstand, the expression which his noble and learned friend had used, and be thought this a good opportunity of stating that, in his judgment, no, men rendered a more valuable return for what they received than the clergy of the Church of England rendered. Besides, the money which the clergy received was more generally laid out upon the spot, and a more considerable portion of it bestowed upon deeds of charity and love than the money received by any other class of men. On Thursday night, Lord ELDON commented at somelength on the defects of this bill, of which he pointed out several. It did not determine what was or was not a modus ' • it gave no faCilities to the probation of pleas of exemption from tithes ; it took no no- tice ,of what in law is termed mere composition ; it appointed no party through whom in disputed cases an application to the Court of Exchequer was to be made. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY did not think the objections of much value. The bill was a bill for leasing tithes on certain lied terms— Common sense, he thought, would show, that in such a bill as that it was not necessary to introduce a description of all kinds of tithes, with Their modes of payment, exemptions, &c. Where the payment of tithes was disputed, and the right to exemption was claimed, the matter was left to be decided by the law as it at present stood.

It was ultimately agreed, after some remarks from Lord WYN- woRaand Lord CARNARVON, that the bill with amendments should be printed, and that it should be recommitted on Monday sennight.

4. PRIVILEGES OF THE CommoNs. On Saturday last, in the tore of Chancery, Mr. Long Wellesley was committed by the Lord Chancellor for avowed contempt. The fact of the committal Sias communicated to the House of Commons on Monday, by his Lordship, and also by Mr. Wellesley, in the following letters to the speaker-

" High Court of Chancery, 16th July 1831. "Mr. SPEAKER—I have the honour of making known to you, for the in- formation of the House of Commons, that I have issued a warrant for the commitment of the Honourable W. L. Wellesley, Knight of the Shire for the county of Essex, for a contempt of this Court, confessed by him in

Court, in taking the person of a ward of this Court, his infant daughter, froMthe custody of the persons, her aunts, to whom that custody had been committed by order of this Court, and in refusing to deliver up the said infant ward, when served with the order of this Court to that effect, and in stating in open Court that he was resolved not to deliver her up, and had taken steps to withdraw her from the Court's jurisdiction.

"The right of this Court to commit in such cases is unquestionable,

and has been enforced against peers of the realm ; but I have deemed it Etto make this communication to you, for the purpose of bringing the Nouse of Commons acquainted with the fact, and thus accounting for the absence of the Honourable Member, and also to testify my profound re- spect for the Honourable Ilouse.—I have the honour to be, &c.

"BROUGHAM, C."

Mr. Wellesley's letter ran as follows-

" London, 18th July 1831.

."MR SPEAKER—I have the honour to inform you that on Saturday last ;Ivtas ordered by the Lord Chancellor into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms of the Court of Chancery. I am not aware that I am so confined for any breach of law which could subject a Member of Parliament to such detention. I therefore beg leave to submit to you, Sir, and the House, the consideration of this act, as being an infringement of the privileges of Parliament, of those of my constituency, of the people generally, and of myself. "I have the honour further to request that you will lay this, my com- plaint, before the House ; hoping that they will find cause to direct my tmmediate discharge, in order that I may he able, without delay, to at- ietel in my place there to perform my public duties.

" I have the honour to be, Mr. Speaker, " Your faithful and obedient servant, "'The Right Honourable Mr. Speaker. " W. L. WELLESLEY."

On the recommendation of Lord ALTIIORP, the case was leis to the consideration of a Committee of Privileges. Mr. C. W. WYNN, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. A. BARING, seemed to think the right of the Chancellor to commit was indisputable, and that Mr. Wellesley's privileges could not shelter him in such a case. 'Mr. O'CONNELL, on the contrary, thought the committal not warranted, and the right claimed by courts in such eases open to question, as well as liable to much abuse. Sir JAMES SCARLETT said, the usual way in such cases was, in the Common Law Courts, to proceed by distringas, and in Chancery by seques- tration.

The case of Mr. Wellesley was adverted to on Tuesday by Lord BROUGHAM; who spoke of the strange doctrine laid down by those "who had been so long absent from the Courts that they had forgotten the law of the hind," that it was a breach of pr.vi- 'lege in a judge to employ, for the punishment of a manifest and avowed contempt, the only means which lie possessed. He said he hoped this doctrine of privileges, now for the first time set up— which would leave every Peer and member of the House of Coin- • mons free to do any thing he pleased in a-court of justice, short of an actual breach of the peace—would never meet but with the de- ,tided reprobation of either House of Parliament.

5. PENSIONS. A conversation of some length took place, on Monday, on the subject of that part of the Civil List Pensions Which is now chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. Lord AL- THORP, Mr. Hums, Mr. S. RICE, Alderman VENABLES, Mr. IloncEs, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. COURTENAY, Mr. Sergeant WILDE, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, and Lord GEORGE LENNOX spoke in favour of the grant of 56,0001. for the payment of bygone -allowances, leaving the question of their continuance in whole or in part open to discussion. Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. HUNT, Captain HARRIS, Mr. BRISCOE, Mr. MILLS, Mr. 'WALL, Mr. JEPHSON, Mr. B. KING, and Mr. CALLEY, opposed .equally past payments and future. The Committee divided on an amendment of Mr. ROBINSON, to reduce the civil services grant 012:10,0001. (out of which the conversation sprung) by 56,0001.; :when there appeared for the amendment 41, against it 142. For Itiefirst time, we believe, Mr. Hume appeared, on this question, Votingagainsta motion for reducing the public expenditure.

6. YEOMANRY PROCESSION. The case. of the .five unfortunate persons who fell at. Banbridge, in consequence of an Orange pro- cession, in which the Yeomanry took part, was noticed on 'Mon- day by Mr. O'CONNELL; who expressed his surprise that, ncit- withstanding the express declaration of Government, that the delivery of arms to the Yeomanry had been countermanded; a supply had, nevertheless, been given out on the 11th instant to the Ogle Blues of Wexford. Mr. O'Connell also complained, that while the privates of the Yeomanry who acted at Newtown- harry were put in prison, Captain Graham, who ordered them to fire, was at large on bail. Mr. 'STANLEY excused the admission of 'Captain Graham to bail, on the ground that the evidence in his case was extremely con- tradictory. ground regard'to the corps in question, he had never even heard the name before. Orange processions, it was well known, were not illegal; and it seemed hard to create a new penal • statute for the idle purpose of putting them down. The LORD ADVOCATE mentioned a case where a constable at Ayr had been shot in attempting to put down an anniversary procession of a similar kind. He thought the constabulary powers ought to be greater in such cases. Mr. DAWSON was averse to any enactment against Orange pro- cessions, on the ground that it would not be obeyed. He thought they would be abated by advice and time. Mr. Hums thought, it' the peace of Ireland could not be other- wise preserved, it would be much better to have its Government carried on in England. Sir ROBERT -BATESON deprecated the abolishing of the local government of Ireland; no step could be devised more calculated to give strength to the Repeal question. Sir Robert said, the display of the •Orangemen had been much less this year than it used to be.

Mr. RUTHVEN mentioned, that in a late case, where some persons engaged in a procession were brought to trial, they pro- duced warrants, signed by the Duke of Cumber:and, as a justifi- cation of their meeting. In that particular district, the proces- sions were put down because the magistrates were earnest to have it so ; but where the magistrates themselves continued to be members of such institutions, their precessions could not be sup- pressed. Captain GORDON thought it very unjust to cast firebrands from the House of Commons against the Yeomans-;; of Ireland.

7. MANNOOTH COLLEGE. On Tuesday, a long' discussion to k place on the presenting of a petition from certain Protestants resid- ing in Glasgow and its neighbourhood, amtinst the continuance of the grant to Maynooth College. The petition was stated to be signed by 28 ministers and 11.1 elders of the Chorch of Scotland, &c. It described the Roman Catholic religion as idolatrous, as objectionable in principle, and dangerous in i s elf-cts—as marked out by God for destruction, as were all the hiegdoms which sup- ported it. Mr. C. FERGUSSON strongly objected to the reception of the pe- tition. Its language, he contended, was insulting to every mem- ber of Parliament who had voted for the emancipation of the Catholics, and equally at variance with fact and liberality. Lord MILTON gravely rebuked the sentiments of the petition— The petition stated that the Catholic religion was marked out for de- struction, by the Divine will, along with the kingdoms which supported it. How could such frail and ignorant beings—Le would not say as the petitioners were, but as men in general were—boy; could the honourable member himself know any thing of the future designs of infinite and omnipotent Wisdom ? Supposing, however, that this statement of the petition were true, what necessity was there for the House to interfere with the designs of Providence, as the petitioners requested ? With re- gard to religion, he was himself, if he might be permitted to use such a phrase, an 'Ultra-PrOtestant ; but knowing the infirmity of human judg- ment, he bore with patience what he believed to be the erroneous but conscientious opinions of those who differed from him on points of reli- gion. He was sorry to say that men had often just enough of religion to hate one another ; he sincerely wished that they had enough to teach them to love one another. He was sure that it would not conduce to the peace of society to encourage in petitions the condemnation of religious opinions, to which in all probability those who condemned them had not given any consideration. Mr. -Dixon, member for Glasgow, said he would take the sense of the House on the reception of the petition. Sir GEORGE CLERK deprecated the language of the petition, but did not think it ought to be on that account rejected. Sir •ROBERT INGLIS said,' the terms of the petition against which such an outcry had been raised, were the terms of the oath which 658 members of that House had sworn to only two years ago. Mr. O'CONNELL thought it impossible to say of that petition that it was respectful to the House, which told members of the House that they were idolaters. He put the case of a parcel of Roman Catholics petitioning against a grant to the Universities, and denouncing them as heretical- " Supposing," said Mr. O'Connell, " a Roman Catholic should present such a petition, would not every man in the House rise up with horror against such an expression ? and would not every Roman Catholic mem- ber present be eager to scout a petition which contained such disrespect- ful expressions ?" Mr. HUME said, his only regret was, that in so well-educated n. country as Scotland, pious and conscientious men could he found ignorant enough to approve of such a petition. He deprecated the rejection of the petition, whatever might be its language -in re- spect of the Catholics,-if it were not insulting to the' ouse. ' For myself," said Mr. Hume,-"It does not affect me, when men call me atheist, idolater, or any such iinmeaningliames. So long as they keep their 'hands off me, I have no objection to their indulging in their abuse; 'for I well know that honest deeds will long outlive dishonest words." Aftersome further .conversation,-.-in the -course of which Sir "FRANCIS BURDETT referred to the case of Robert Taylor, from whom, he said; he had a petition to present, with a view to impress on zealous Protestants that while they manifested so much indig- nation against any attack on their own religion, they ought to make .allowance for cases in which the consciences of Roman Catholics were outraged,—Mr. Dixoer withdrew his amendment, and the petition was laid on the table. Captain GORDON moved that the petition should be printed. He assured the House that he considered himself as acting in con- formity with a sacred duty, from vvhich, without violence to his conscience, he could not swerve.

Mr. WOOD of Preston, Sir J. BURKE, Mr. V. FITZGERALD, and Sir GEORGE WARRENDER opposed the motion for printing. Sir GEORGE CLERK supported it, on the precedent of a similar peti- tion from Aberdeen, presented on the 23rd ult. Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the printing of the petition : if they printed this petition, they could not well refuse to print counter- petitions.

Mr. STANLEY concurred with Sir Robert Peel.

Mr. O'CONNELL stated the reason why no opposition was made to the printing of the Aberdeen petition alluded to by Sir George Clerk— Lord Mandeville, who presented it, made no mention of it beyond its general import ; and Mr. O'Connell knew nothing of it until he saw it in the Appendix to the Votes : it was on that account that he had called on Mr. Gordon to state whether it contained any of those gross indecencies on the Catholic religion which had characterized the former petition : when the honourable member declared that he not only had read, but also approved of every sentiment it contained.

. A division was called for on the question of printing the peti- tion, but none took place ; the motion being negatived without any.

8. MR. BINGHAM BARING. The case of this gentleman was brought before the House of Commons on Thursday, on a motion of Colonel EVANS for a copy of the indictment in the trial Deacle v. Baring, together with a copy of the sentence and of the Judge's notes.

Mr. FRANCIS BARING read a number of depositions, sworn be- fore the Magistrates, with a view to show that there were good -grounds for issuing the warrant against Mr. and 11Irs. Deacle, ac- knowledging, at the same time, that the fact of the accusation against these parties being well or ill founded, had no connexion with the question. Mr. Baring then proceeded to give his version of the story of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle's treatment. He declared that Mr. B. Baring was not in the house when the hand-bolting took place; that he did not go into the house until after ; that it was himself, and not Mr. Bingham Baring, that accompanied Mrs. Deacle to the cart; and that the carrying, described by one of the witnesses at the trial, consisted in nothing more than his lifting that lady over a muddy part of the farm-yard. The permission for her to use the horse was, he said, refused for fear of a rescue, .as it would have taken some time to get it ready. With respect to Mrs. Deacle's state of health, Mr. Baring said—

As to the statement that this woman was an invalid and poorly clad, he must say that time enough was allowed her to put on any addition of -clothing; and as to her being an invalid, when they had the evidence in the depositions before them, that at four o'clock on the previous day she was at the head of a body of men engaged in breaking machinery, which she encouraged by her smiles, they had no reason to think that she could be in any very delicate state of health. •

Mr. F. Baring went -on to argue, that the cart could not be driven at a very rapid rate, as the constables on foot kept up with it; and stated that it was driven rapidly in one part of the road because the lane was narrow, and because three men were seen in advance of the cart with a gate unslung, which they might have thrown in the way of the cart, and so delayed its progress. Mr. F. Baring said he saw no blow given by Mr. Bingham Baring; • and explained the reason why Mr. Deane was not called as a witness,—namely, that he had left them soon after quitting Mr. Deacle's house, and that the counsel thought a speech without a witness would tell better with the Jury, than a speech with a witness, and its conse- quence a reply. Mr. Sergeant WILDE, who had been employed by the Attorney- General to assist at the trials, entered into a long argument against Colonel Evans's motion ; in the course of which he gave the history of a criminal named Boyce, whom the depositions stated to have been once seen in the company of Mr. Deacle, and to have signed -a paper which Mr. Deacle and many more had signed. Looking at the informations against Deacle (continued Mr. Sergeant Wilde), at his station in life, and the part he was described to have taken in these proceedings, he thought that he ought to be prosecuted, and in this the Attorney-General concurred; and as the prosecution was in- -tended, he used great caution in examining witnesses in other cases in order to prevent the name of the Deacles from transpiring, that their case might be in no way prejudiced. That the prosecution had not been gone into, he could only attribute to the speedy pacification of the county which followed the first steps taken to bring the guilty parties to justice, and this was in-a great degree owing to the prompt and vigorous exertions of those very gentlemen whose conduct formed the subject of the present -discussion. He hoped that if ever any similar circumstances should occur, magistrates, instead of being warned by the obloquy which had been thrown on these gentlemen, would rather be stimulated to carry into -force the law, which, while it commandedirespect, also inspired terror. He hoped that magistrates would not be deterred from doing their duty by the misrepresentations that had gone forth in this case. Though he re- .gretted that the lady in this case might have been lifted over the mud, or carried to the cart, or in it, a little more quickly than was agreeable, still he must say, that he was glad that the result of these prompt and active 'steps in apprehending those against whom informations were laid, had succeeded in putting down tumults, which, though they had not been un- attended with loss of life, might have been attended with a still greater loss ; and that they had not been so, they owed to the great activity of those very gentlemen whose conduct was, in his opinion, so very .juglay impugned. Mr. Hums commented on the speech of Mr. Sergeant Wilde at some length, and amidst repeated interruptions -from cries of " No !" " Oh ! " and " Question ! "

Mr. CARTER spoke of the activity of the Messrs. Baring, in their capacity as magistrates, in suppressing the riots. Mr. A. BARING repeated the various particulars which had been stated by Mr. F. Baring. He dwelt at some length on the conduct of the newspapers. The persons who had been attacked were the most inoffensive persons,: perhaps, in this great metropolis ; and, therefore, that sort of violent persecution which had been directed towards them was most extraordi- nary. The facts which came out at the trial were represented in glowing colours ; for it was the evident object of those who got up this transac- tion to produce an effect ; and the consequence was, that a great sensa- tion was excited in the public press of this country. He admitted that the transactions barely stated were calculated to excite that feeling which was so generally expressed. Mr. B. Baring was not at Winchester during the trial ; nor did any person in that part of the country think the matter of any importance, until remarks of the most astounding nature were made upon it. Mr. B. Baring knew nothing as to the mode in which the case had been conducted, until he observed the violent manner an which he was attacked in the public press.

Sir JAMES SCARLET" said, he felt assured that the statements which had now been made would give universal satisfaction. Mr.11uNr said, he would be glad to find the evidence given on the trial to be incorrect, but lie could not receive unsworn testi- mony against it He acknowledged that he had not heard Mr. F. Baring's defence. After a few words of rebuke from Mr. MILIMAY administered to Mr. HUNT, Lord ALTHORP said— The explanation given by Mr. F. Baring had proved satisfactory to the whole House, with the exception of one honourable member, and that member had not heard it.

His Lordship spoke to the character of Mr. B. Baring— Having the pleasure of knowing Mr. Bingham Baring very well, he clic! not for a moment believe that he was capable of acting in the brutal manner which he was represented to have done. If there was one man in the world less likely than another to act in such a way, it was his ho- nourable friend. (Hear !) His Lordship strongly condemned the conduct of the press— lie could not help concurring entirely in the indignation expressed by Mr. A. Barino-s at the conduct of those who had pressed on Mr. Baring its the way they had done, without giving him any opportunity of making his defence ; and who, when lie did offer a defence, treated it with derision and contempt merely. He should not do justice to his feelings if he did not state that he fully participated in the indignation which had been ex- pressed at the conduct of thosa parties. His Lordship concluded—

The whole case was now fairly before the public ; and he was quite sore that all who had heard the speech of the honourahle member for Portsmouth, or who might read it hereafter, must be perfectly satisfied that the conduct of Mr. Bingham Baring, and of all the magistrates, had been in all respects justifiable, and that they exhibited no harshness which the circumstances of the case did not render necessary.

The motion was negatived without a division.

9. CLAIMS ON BRAZIL. On Mon.lay, Mr. DIXON moved for correspondence on this subject. The vessels which he enumerated were part of those which were captured by the Brazilian squadron in 1826 and 1827, while the River Plata was declared by the Bra- zilian Government to be in a state of blockade. Mr. Dixon men- tioned the ship George, the Hellespont, the Unicorn, the Nestor_ Thecase of the Nestor was peculiar : She was first seized by a Buenos Ayres privateer, off Patagonia, and afterwards claimed the protection of the Government of Buenos Ayres, as being a vessel of a friendly power ; but she was subsequently taken by the Brazilian squadron, and condemned on the ground that, having been in the possession of a Buenos Ayres privateer, the property had changed hands. She was afterwards recaptured by a British friga.te under the guns of the Brazilian squadron. Yet as soon as the fact was known to the Government of this country, orders were sent out that she should be again given up to the Brazilian squadron, and a reprimand was adminis- tered to the commander of the frigate, who did no more than his duty in the protection of British commerce. The French and American Governments, Mr. Dixon observed, had received indemnification for the losses they had sustained, while the English, whose power of compelling redress was infi- nitely greater, and whose losses were so much more extensive, had received none. He concluded by moving for copies of all corre- spondence respecting the indemnification claimed. Lord ALTHORP regretted that he must negative the motion. The negotiation was still in progress ; and being so, it was con- trary to all practice to grant any documents connected with it. Mr. HUME ,thought such an argument of no value whatever. The negotiation commenced five years ago ; and if not finished long since, it ought to have been. It was shameful that other na- tions should obtain, with so inferior means, what was refused to the power of Great Britain. Mr. Hume blamed the absence of Lord Palmerston. The motion had been delayed solely because he was not in the House ; and now that he had taken his seat, he was not present to give an answer. Mr. WRANGHAM spoke of the strong representations sent to Brazil by the late Ministry. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said, if Ministers would declare that they were alive to the importance of the subject, and would leave no means untried to procure redress, he would join in advising Mr. Dixon to withdraw his motion ; otherwise he thought a deci- sion on the slight statement of Lord Althorp would give little satisfaction to the country. After a few words from Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, Lord ALTHORP gave the pledge required of him, and the motion was withdrawn. 10. FRAUDS ON CREDITORS. The third reading of Lord Wyn- ford's Bill was postponed on Thursday, to Tuesday next. Lord PLuswerr spoke against the bill, so far as it affected gentlemen not being traders— If a private gentleman were to go abroad, even for very fair objects, by the present bill he might be made liable to the Bankrupt-laws, al. though he might never have had any connexicn whatever with transac- tions of trade or commerce. It was a question of fact whether a man had gone abroad for the purpose of avoiding his creditors, and yet with- out that fact being ascertained he was to be made liable to the laws of Bankruptcy. The person, moreover, was to have no actual notice of the proceedings taken out against him, except what he might derive from the Gazette, or from a paper to be sent to his house of residence. On this subject it was obvious that few gentlemen residing abroad were in the habit of seeing the English Gazette.