Drhatc anti Vraftrbino in parTiainrnt.

1. THE REFORM BILL. On Monday, before going into Committee, Mr. CROKER expressed a wish that the postponed- clauses should be discussed previous to entering on the question of the schedules. He instanced the ease of Helstone, as one that required investigation. The yeomanry cavalry exemption duty and game certificate duty had not been included in the assessed taxes of that borough ; if they had, instead of standing 84, it would have been 88 or 89, and thus altoge- ther excluded from the list.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL admitted, that in respect of Helstone, and one or two more, there were some omissions in the two items mentioned by Mr. Croker ; but Lieutenant Drummond had assured him, that the errors which these omissions occasioned were so small that they would not cause any difference whatever in the Schedules.

Lord ALTHORP observed, on Mr. Croker and Sir Charles We- therell's pressing the postponement of the Schedules, that the boroughs could be taken in the order of their importance, as in Lieutenant Drummond's list.

Mr. CROKER, however, persevered in his objection to entering on the Schedules at all ; and, after some further conversation, the House divided : for going into Committee, 112; against it, 74 e majority, 34.

When the Speaker had left the chair, the conversation respecting the question of discussing first the postponed clauses was resumed by Sir E. SUDDEN and Colonel Woon. It was terminated by the Chairman reading the 55th Clause ; which was agreed to.

The.68th was next read, and also agreed to.

On Lord JOHN RUSSELL moving that Old Sarum should stand part of Schedule A, Mr. F. POLLOCK entered into a long and minute argu- :ment to prove that Lieutenant Drummond, in framing the list of bo- roughs instead of the process he had adopted, should have determined the values of the respective boroughs bythe,principle of conipound.ra- tios. He contended, that by multiplying together the assessed taxes -and the number of houses, a more accurate estimate of their values would have been arrived at.; and he showed, that, tried by such an esti- mate, the relative positions of the several boroughs would have been :different -from those which they occupy in Lieutenant Drummond's lists. Mr. Pollock illustrated his view of the proper mode of thawing up these lists by a case-

Suppose a man had a number of bales of merchandise, the relative value of which he proposed to ascertain. He would applv—suppose to Mr. Drummond —to ascertain the object which he had in view. The bales were of different bulks and different values, and he would desire to have two lists—one containing the quantities, and the other the prices per pound. In such a matter, what would any man do, but multiply the quaunty by the price ?

After dwelling at great length on the method which lie had under- taken to recommend as preferable to that of Lieutenant Drummond, Mr. Pollock proceeded to point out where he thought the two Sche- dules ought properly to end. It seemed unjust that, because of a very small and insignificant difference of value, one borough should be placed in A and another in 13 : he would therefore have A to terminate, not witb Amersham, Number 56 (between which and Petersfield, Number 57, and first of Schedule B, there was a difference of 24 only, the one being in Lieutenant Drunnnond's lists 1,580 and the other 1,604), but with Brack- ley, Number 55' (between which and Amersham, there was a differ- ence of 200, Brackleybeing only 1,380). He illustrated this point bya reference to the practice of the Universities, where as long as there s but a small difference between any scholar and the i one immediately above him, it is not usual to place the lower in an inferior class ; but as soon as a scholar is come to who differs greatly from the one above him, there the inferior class is made to commence. Mr. Pollock concluded by saying that he bad not made this statement without paying the great- est attention to the calculations, and without having his own opinions confirmed by the judgment of others, in whom he could place the fullest confidence.

Lord JOIN Russstr, stated the problem propounded to Lieutenant Drummond for solution. Ile was to take one hundred or one hundred and ten boroughs, so that none which deserved it might escape total or partial disfranchisement ; and, giving equal weight to the number of houses and to the amount of assessed taxes in each to ascertain their relative values. The method proposed by Mr. Pollock was the first that presented itself. The illustration given, was not, however, at all in point. The price of a pound of sugar was determinate, so was that of a yard of cotton ; but houses could not be valued in taxes. There was but one way in which the problem could be solved : by adding to- gether the houses of all the boroughs, and dividing the sum by their number, the average value in houses was found ; by a similar process, the average value in taxes was found ; the value of any borough in houses was then capable of being expressed by a fraction of which the average value was the denominator and the number of houses in the borough the numerator ; the value in taxes was capable of being ex- pressed in the same way, using the average taxes as a denominator and the taxes of the borough as a numerator, and these two fractions being reduced to common denominators,—or, as Lieutenant Drummond had proceeded, to decimals, their addition gave the compound value required. Ifr. Pollock had observed, that where one borough had 278 houses and paid 5401., and another had 538 houses and paid 2784,—and where, in consequence, the latter would, on the principle of compound ratios, be the lower,—that in Lieutenant Drummond's scale it was the higher ; which, he argued, was absurd. But the explanation was obvious—the average of taxes, which formed the first denominator in the one case, was larger than the average of houses, which formed the first denomi- nator in the other ; so that, in the one case, there was a small number of the fraction of high and a large number of the fraction of low value, in the other a large number of the fraction of high and a small number of the fraction of low value. Lord John pointed out a consequence of Mr. Pollock's method : if one borough contained 50 houses assessed in all at 50/., and another 100 houses assessed in all at 1001., according to Mr. Pollock, the value of the one would he no more than one fourth of the value of the other, instead of one half, as it ought to be. He concluded by stating, that Lieutenant Drummond's method had been approved of by Professor Airey of Cambridge, Mr. Barlow of Wool- wich, Professor Wallace of Edinburgh, and Sir John Herschel. In respect to the question of the chasm, Lord John thought, by settling the numbers of Schedule A and Schedule B, while it was yet uncertain what boroughs would go into either, Government had acted with perfect impartiality. If the House entertained the question of a chasm between the two schedules, it might be difficult to hit on one about which all would be agreed—perhaps a more striking one might be found between Numbers 60 and 70 than Mr. Pollock had found between Numbers 50 and 60.

Mr. DAVIES GILBERT said, he was opposed to the Bill, but that had nothing to do with the abstract question before the House ; and he certainly.thought Lieutenant Drummond's method the best that could be adopted.

Mr. WARBURTON did not wish the question to be argued too mathe matically, but there was a contrary extreme of arguing. Nothing could be more absurd than that process by which it was sought to be esta- blished that the two halves were not equal to the whole.

Mr. POLLOCK here said, he meant the square root of the different products to be extracted, in order to make the relative values. Mr. WARBURTON—"Ah, now the honourable and learned gentle- man tells the Committee that the square root is to be taken ; but this did not come out in the course of his speech."

Mr. CROKER said, the thing sought was not the relation of Borough.; bridge and Aldborough, but their order. Whether they considered the products in question as powers or as roots, the order of the boroughs remained the same. He dwelt at some length on the differences which' existed between Lieutenant Drummond's first list and his second : the • changes of position amounted to no fewer than forty-eight. From this fact, Mr. Croker inferred, that the list, and the principle on which it was drawn up, were wholly erroneous. He noticed the cases of Caine and Grimsby. While the ten lowest boroughs were excluded from the calculation, Caine was the higher of the two; when they were in.-. eluded, Cane was the lower. This was effected by adding the insig- mificant details of Old Sarum and Beeralston. It was evident that had 90 boroughs been taken, or had 120 been taken there would have been a further alteration of position in most of the boroughs in the two schedules. Mr. Croker (who was listened to with considerable impa- tience) concluded by saying, that when the cases of Westbury, and Amersham came under consideration, he would take the sense of the house on the propriety of preferring Amersham to Westbury.

Colonel DAVIES argued against the principle of the Schedules : he thought they ought to have regulated the order of boroughs by the number of voters that each could produce.

Lord ALTHORP said, he was quite indifferent whether Westbury or Amersham were put in Schedule A.

After a few words from Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, on the unfair- ness of principle, incorrect information, false mathematics, and political injustice of the Schedules, the vote was taken on the fifty-two lowest boroughs, and carried without division, and nearly without opposition.

The Chairman having arrived at Appleby, Mr. CROKER said, if fur- nished with a paper in Lord John Russell's possession, he would, he thought, be able to make out a case for Appleby. Lord ALTI1011P ex- pressed some unwillingness to go into the arrangement ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he hoped Mr. Croker would act with candour.

The Chairman then reported progress.

The case of Appleby occupied the House for a number of hours on Tuesday. The only question was, whether Bondgate should be in- cluded in the boundaries of the borough or not. The Commissioners, relying on the fact that no burgage tenure existed in Bondgate, had in their survey excluded it ; the returning officer had included it. The question of Appleby was, it will be recollected, argued at great length in the early discussions on the Reform Bill, and the dispute has now little interest. The speakers for the enlarged boundary, on Tuesday, were Mr. Croker, Lord Maitland, Mr. F. Pollock, Sir C. Wetherell, Sir A. D. Dalrymple, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Scarlett, and Mr. Attwood ; for the boundary fixed by the Commissioners, Lord John Russell, Mr. W. Brougham, the Attorney-Genera, Lord Althorp, and Mr. J. Campbell. The House at length divided : for transferring Appleby to Schedule B, 143 ; for retaining it in Schedule A, 236; majority, 113.

It had been strongly contended by Mr. Croker and Sir Charles Wetherell, that Midhunt would be more properly placed in Schedule A than Appleby ; the same argument was applied to the case of Lost- withiel by Mr. ClIOKER and Colonel CUST; no division, however, took place on that borough, or on Brackley. When Amersham was put to the Committee, Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst be substituted. The House divided on the amendment : for it, 133; against it, 264; majo- rity for continuing the borough in Schedule A, 131.

Before passing to the consideration of Schedule B, Mr. PoLrocs: took notice of an inconsistency in the list in the cases of Westbury and Petersfield, as compared with Grinstead and Wendover. In the for- mer, Westbury had the advantage in houses and Petersfield in taxes, and Westbury stood highest in the list; in the latter, Grinstead had the superiority in houses and Wendover in taxes, yet Grinstead was lowest in the list.

Mr. STEPHENSON, MT. WARBURTON and MT. D. GILBERT, defended Lieutenant Drummond's accuracy in die one case as in the other, by the same argument as that made use of by Lord John Russell the previous evening.

. On the question that Petersfield stand part of Schedule B, Mr. SIIBIL moved, pursuant to the notice he had given, that it should be added to Schedule A, for the purpose of enabling the House to give more members to Ireland. He. entered into a comparative statement of the rental, inhabitants, and taxes of Petersham and Amersham, for the purpose of showing that the one town was no more entitled to a member than the other.

Lord AranonP said, as an honest Reformer, he could not seriously argue the question whether a place comparatively so insignificant as Pe- tersfield should retain the right of returning a member to that House. But the question then before the Committee, considered in all its re- lations, was not one of mere principle—it also involved considera- tions of policy and expediency. It was admitted that, let the number of Schedule .A boroughs be what it may, it must be in degree arbitrary —that they must draw a line somewhere, the boroughs bounding on which must appear on the one hand to be unduly favoured, and on the other to be visited with undue harshness. Fifty-six was adopted in the present Bill, because on the one hand it was desirable that a less extent of disfranchisement than the former Bill proposed, and which the pub.. lic sanctioned, should not be effected in the new measure; and, on the other hand, it was a matter of prudence that the success of the Bill should not be hazarded in the House of Lords, by sending up to it a higher number of disfranchised boroughs than was contained in that which they had rejected. As a mere question, therefore, of prudence, he would oppose Mr. Shell's motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL drew two conclusions from this statement of Lord Althorp,—Ist, that the present Bill was only a temporary measure ; 2nd, that it was not intended to create Peers in order to pass the Bill, as in that case, it would be as easy to pass one bill as another.

Mr. STANLEY said, Ministers did not pretend that the Bill was free from anomalies ; but they were willing to overlook small defects, in order as much as possible to avert opposition to the removal of great evils. As to Sir Robert Peel's artful insinuation with respect to the creation of new Peers, he would not say one word, further than that it was the duty of Ministers not to unnecessarily provoke hostility among the opponents or neutrals to the Reform Bill; and that four or five boroughs, more or less, one way or the other, was a compromise not too great to make for the purpose of conciliation and unanimity.

• A correspondent thus notices this objection. "Mr. Pollock has endeavoured to throw discredit on Lieutenant Drummond's calcu- lations, by asserting that they lead (in particular instances) to absurd results. "As this statement does not appear to have been contradicted at the time, probably from its taking the House unprepared, it may be worth while to show that it is abso- lutely unfounded. " The instances selected are Petersfield compared with Westbury, and Wendover compared with Grinstead.

"Mr. Pollock's argument is this. Since the houses of Westbury equal the tares of Petersfield, and trice rend, and yet Westbury stands highest in the scale that can only be because more importance is attributed to houses than taxes, and Westbury has more houses than the other. .

"But on the other hand, he says, since the houses of Wendover equal the taxes of Grinstead, and vice versa, and that Wendover has more houses than the other, it ought to stand highest in the scale, according to the same principle as before. "And so it does, Mr. Editor. Any man that has eyes can see that it does. "it is hard that imputations of error should be thrown out against the able and ,ix- perienced.calculators employed by, Government; when, in point of fact, those persons alone are m error, who have accused them with so much carelessness and precipitation::

Mr. SHEIL said, seeing the tone that the discussion had assumed, he would not press his motion.

On going into Committee on Thursday, Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that from additional information received in the case of Ashburton, it appeared that 19 houses and 191. of assessed taxes had been omitted in calculating the relative value of the borough. The addition, however, did not take it out of the schedule, and therefore he thought it unne- cessary to alter its position in it. The question was successively put and carried on Ashburton, Eye, Westbury, Wareham. Of Mid- hurst, Lord J. RUSSELL said, in consequence of insinuations that too large a boundary had been taken, he hid requested the Commissioners to state what would be the consequence of restricting it. They stated that, by drawing the boundary round do town in its most circumscribed limits, only ten houses would be left cut. The borough, in that case, would still stand in Schedule B.

Mr. HUNT said, it was inconsistent with common justice that Croy- don, with 10,000 inhabitants, should have no member, and that 21id- hurst should retain one. He moved that Midliurst be placed in Schedule A.

Mr. BERNAL—" The honourable member cannot make that motion now ; all he can do is to move that Midlffirst do not stand in Schedule E, by which means it will retain both its members."

Mr. M. SMITH said he was ready DI admit that Midhurst stood at present, as far as nomination was concerned, in the same situation as Gatton and Old Sarum ; but let the House widen the boundaries of the latter places as they pleased, he did not know how they could contrive to create a respectable constituency, if they were able to create a con- stituency at all. The ease with Midhurst was widely different. They had only to throw open the ancient limits of the borough, and there would be created at once a constituency as respectable and as worthy to exercise the elective franchise as the inhabitants of any town in the United Kingdom.

After the dissolution of the late Parliament, he went down to Midhurst, ond paid his respects to the few electors (for few he confessed they were) of that bo- rough. The reception he met with was favourable in every point of view ; and the only hope expressed by several of the electors was, that he would support the measure of Reform brought forward by Ministers, which at that time, be it re- collected, contained Midhurst in its Schedule A. This readiness on the part of the electors of Midhurst to sacrifice their interests, showed how deep their feel- ing; was in favour of Reform; and he knew that the same independent spirit pre- vailed among the electors of many other small boroughs. fie could assure the Committee, that when the Reform Bill passed, Midhurst would possess a respect- able and free constituency. It was, indeed, improbable that either he or his family would ever sit in Parliament for emancipated Midhurst. He had no particular local connexion with that borough; and as for his influence, that would be completely and irrevocably destroyed by the bill now in committee. But if ever he presented himself as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of Mid- hurst, he knew that his greatest recommendation to their favour would be, the support which lie had given, for many anxious nights, to the present measure of Reform. ( Cheers.)

Mr. CROKER admitted that Sarum and Gatton were irredeemable, but contended, at great length, that in the cases of Okehampton, Alde- burgh, Fowey, and, indeed, all the other boroughs of Schedule A, with the exception of Beeralston, the same process which was about to be employed in the case of Midhurst, would procure a constituency equally respectable.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, he did not wish to give a long answer to Mr. Croker's long speech, because the members were anxious not to sit on Saturday, but lie was impelled to notice its inconsistency. Last session Ministers took population for their guide ; and the constant complaint of Mr. Croker was, why did they not take property ? They had this session taken property, and yet Mr. Croker was as much displeased ivith his own plan as he had formerly been with theirs.

Mr. CROKER said he did not introduce the question of population ; but he felt compelled, in honour and conscience, to show that there were other boroughs better entitled to a member than Midhurst was.

Sir C. WETHERELL complained that he and his friends were threat- ened with being dragged down to the House on Saturday, if they ven- tured on discussion that night.

Lord ALTHORP denied that there was any threat made or meant. No one who looked at the number of IOL houses in Midhurst, could doubt its claim to stand in Schedule B.

The motion was then agreed to; as well as similar motions in re- spect to Woodstock, Wilton, Malmesbury, Liskeard, Reigate, Hythe, Droitwich, Lyme Regis, Launceston, Shaftesbury, Thirsk, Christ- church, and Horsham.

Lord LOUGHBOROUGH spoke in favour of Great Grimsby. It was not a nomination borough, for he and his colleague had been chosen in opposition to a noble person in its neighbourhood, and also to the in- rillenee of Government, not very constitutionally exerted.

Mr. H. FITZROY spoke of 'his election and that of Lord Loughbo- rough as equally honourable to both members and electors.

Alderman WarrumaN said the borough was notoriously corrupt, and this he had been assured of by candidates and voters repeatedly.

Grimsby, Caine, and Arundel, were then added to the others.

Mr. A. BARING spoke in favour of Dartmouth as a rising town.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH wished the case of that borough postponed ; the assessed taxes had been counted short, in consequence of part of them being carried off by a defaulter.

Lord Joust RUSSELL observed, that the amount of taxes was taken from the Surveyor's books, not the Collector's. It was not easy, to see how

the defalcations of the latter could affect the accuracy of the former. He saw no reason for the postponement on that ground. The statement of Mr. Baring was not conformable to that of others equally well in- formed, which represented the trade of the place as being taken away by other places in its neighbourhood.

The case of the Collector was afterwards put with more point by SIT HENRY WILLOUGHBY-

He apprehended, that by a calculation of the assessed taxes, and the number of houses, on the principle of Lieutenant Drummond, Dartmouth would yet weather Schedule B. The return of the assessed taxes by Lieutenant Drum- mond had appeared to hiln (Sir H. Willoughby) suspiciously small; he there- fore examinee the facts, and found, that in Ite29 the collection had been made: by a person who had performed the duty for many years. In 1830, the Com- missioners of Taxes discovered a great deficiency for Dartmouth ; and on inquir- ing into the state of the matter, it appeared that a fraud had been committed to the extent of 200/. and upwards. The documents proved that the fraudulent Collector had made the assessment ; he had got the tall sum from the inhabi- tants, but instead of returning that sum to the Tax-office, had made an erro- neous return. This was for the year 1829-30; and the assessment on which the Committee were proceeding—namely, that for 1830-3I—was equally de- fective. There was a letter from the Surveyor of Taxes, which stated that the assessment for 1831 was even more defective than that of the Collector. There could not be a question that the amount of the assessed taxes would go to take this town out of Schedule B.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, the calculations of Lieutenant Drummond were founded on the returns made to Government by the Surveyor, and he was informed that the taxes for the succeeding year would be the same. As however, by Sir Henry Willoughby's statement, there Was a dispute respecting the accuracy of the assessment, be was no longer averse from postponing the consideration of the case.

Previous to the postponement being formally agreed to, Mr. CROKER rose to submit some calculations into which he had entered respecting Dartmouth and Tavistock. He said— There were four elements, which ought to be taken into consideration when they were deciding on the comparative importance of different boroughs. These were-1st, the number of inhabitants which a borough contained ; 2nd, the number of its 10/. houses ; 3rd, the number of houses of every description and value ; and lastly, the amount of assessed taxes. When these elements were added up together, the importance of one borough, as compared with that of another, was seen by a comparison of the different sums. That must be a cor- rect calculation, even according to Lieutenant Drummond's principle. ( Cheers from the Opposition.) Now, according to that calculation, Dartmouth, which stood 79 on the list of Lieutenant Drummond, was a borough of greater importance than Tavistock, which stood 95 on the same list. (Loud cheering from the Opposition.) At Dartmouth, there were 4,996 inhabitants ; 411 10/- houses ; 634 houses of all descriptions ; 768/. assessed taxes ; which, if his cal- culation was correct, amounted altogether to 6,399. [6,809.] At Tavistock, there were 4,339 inhabitants ; 269 10/. houses ; 624 houses of all descriptions; and 1,124/. assessed taxes ; which, if his calculation was correct, amounted to 6,357. [6,355.] Now, 6,357 was considerably less than 6,399 ; and therefore he, as an unlearned man and no mathematician, should have supposed that Tavistock was of less importance than Dartmouth. ( Cheers from the Op- position.) Lord J. RUSSELL congratulated the House on the very curious speci- men of calculation submitted to its consideration. The Committee would not fail to perceive that Mr. Croker had, in estimating the value of his four elements, reckoned one of them—the 101. houses—twice over. He was quite at a loss to see the purpose of the calculation on any prin- ciple; but its inaccuracy, even on Mr. Croker's plan, was sufficiently obvious.

Mr. CROKER said, Lord John was a bad schoolmaster or he was a dull scholar, for he had not profited by his instructions, frequently as they were repeated. He would, however, strike out the second Cie! 1! ea of his calculation, and still, by a combination of the other three, the result would be the same.

St. Ives, Rye, and Clithero were mext added to the schedule. On the boundary: of Morpeth, Mr. CROKER observed that, if Appleby had been treated in the same way, the Opposition would have had no reason for complaint.

At Appleby, the Commissioner had delighted in straight lines and acute angles; but if the plan of Morpeth were examined, it would be seen that the boundary-stones were not joined by straight lines, but with tv.-0 yellow lines with slight waves. He did not say that this was not right, but it was singular enough that these waving lines ran through the property af William Ord, Esq. He could only wish that William Ord junior, Esq. the Commissioner at Appleby, had made use of the same zigzag kind of line. ( Cheers from the Opposition.) Lord Alwrox—" Was William Ord junior, Esq. the Commissioner at Mor-

ber, with great indignation, vociferated "No." (Loud cheering

petslin?n'

Some Mein from the Muiisterial benches.)

On the next borough—Helstone—Mr. CROKER claimed the calm attention of the House. He said— There were two elements on which boroughs were to be disfranchised—the number of homes, and the amount of assessed taxes. With regard to the num- ber of houses in Helstone, he made no question ; but the Committee would per- haps recollect, that on a former occasion he had stated that in some boroughs a part of the assessed taxes paid had been omitted, and that in othms a part had been added. The amount of assessed taxes omitted in the borough of Helstone was 41/. If this were added to the amount furnished! to Licutenaut Drummond, it would raise Helstone in the scale of importance from 84 to 86.

Lord J. Russess—" Only to 85."

Mr. CROKER would not dispute that point, because the addition of 411. was not sufficient of itself to take Helstone out of Schedule B.

There was, however, another circumstance which would give it that exemption, and to which he wished to call the particular attention of the Committee. The as- sessed taxes of Helstone were short-stated by the sum of 75/. In the return, the short statement was given as 571.; but he was informed that that was a clerical error, the figures 5 and 7 being transposed. But 57/. would do for his purpose quite as well as 75/. That 571. was the amount of the assessment, to which the mem- bers of the Yeomanry Cavalry of Helstone would have been liable for their horses, had they not been in the Yeomanry Cavalry. He submitted to the Committee, that in taking the value of the assessment of taxes, nothing could be more unfair than to strike out of it the exemption granted to individuals for public purposes.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, if Ministers consented to Mr. Croker's pro- posal, they would next have a claim put in for horses employed in agricultural labour. The exemption claimed by Yeomanry Cavalry had often proved the source of much abuse.

Mr. C. W. WYNNE complained with great bitterness, and at conside- rable length, of Lord John's abusing the Yeomanry Cavalry.

Lord JOHN denied the imputation : he might as well be accused of abusing the agricultural interests. Sir R. VYVYAN spoke in terms of highest eulogy of the Yeomanry Cavalry, and particularly those of Helstone. Mr. HUNT said, he could see no reason why Helstone should have two members because it kept a Yeomanry corps. He knew it to be a fact, that many of the persons embodied in the Yeomanry corps kept horses, and hired butchers' boys to ride them on review-days, in order to save the horse-tax.

Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR expressed indignant contempt for the asper- sions cast upon the Yeomanry. He spoke as an officer of a Yeomanry corps, when he said the persons composing that force were above being obliged to join it in order to save the horse-duty.

'Mr. Hurarr—" Unless I had heard it from the honourable member's Om mouth, I could not have believed he was an officer in any Yeo- manry corps. He might be a private, not yet out of the awkward squad. (Loud laughter.) If the honourable member be a sample of the ,Yeomanry of England, the Lord keep me from them." (Renewed laughter.) After some more conversation, in which Mr. CROKER took a large share, the House divided on the question Of postponing the case of Helstone: for the postponement, 176; against it, 256; majority for placing the borough in Schedule B, 77.

The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next.

2. Than •TITHES. On Thursday, in presenting petitions praying tbr the abolition of tithes in Ireland, Lord KING observed that he hoped

no coercion would be used, and not a pound of English money spent for their maintenance, inasmuch as the whole people having agreed to resist their payment, it was idle to contend against their united wishes.

Tim Earl of LIMERICK asked if Lord King were aware of the extent to which his doctrines went?

Lord KING replied, be was fully aware of it, and would declare tithe to be a tax and a drawback upon iudustry and property ; and his

advice to the noble Earl and the Irish Church was, to make as good a compromise as they could for what was indefensible. The tithe must go, zeal let the Church make the best of it. As to the insinuation that the petitioners entertained any intention of attacking other descriptions of property, it svas a gross libel upon them.

The Earl of Esoms expressed his thanks for the careful attention paid to the subject of tithes by Lords Grey and Lansdowne. When

the intended bill came before the House, let it propose composition or commutation he would give his best attention to it. But he implored the House, for God's sake, to take care how they dealt with acknow- ledged property_

The petition, as opened by Lord King, expressed nothing whatever with re- spect to the merits of the clergy : " it stated that the claire% property formerly belonged to monasteries, had since become that of the Established Church, and now prayed its total abolition." Now he would ask the lay impropriators, who pissessed a great portion of tithe property, whether they could agree to such a proposition as this, simply because the people said they would not pay. Such a declaration ought, on the contrary, to serve as a reason why they should not agree to it. If property had been given for charitable purposes, which were no longer considered advantageous to the public, then the law of England declared that the Crown might apply that property to otherpurposes; and yet here the petitioners asked that the property of the monasteries, which now formed the

greatest portion of the its of the noble Lords who sat liround him, was Cu, be taken away from as present owners. Lord Eldon had lived in this country, for some prople, perhaps, too long ; but God t■ whid lie should live to see the lloose of Peers disgrace itself by pavsin, any nicasure which he conscientiously believed to be a wrong one, without his at least offering it his strongest op- position.

Lord WYNFoito remarked on the promise of the petitioners that they would leave English tithes undisturbed, mal that their only- wish was to get rid of Irish tithes, and contrasted it with the promise formerly inade by Dr. Doyle in respect of the latter— Sow years ago that prelate declared that the people of Ireland, if they leal emancipation, would be content to leave church property as it stood ? Now he seemeul to forget this opinion, and indeed all he had sworn before their Lordships; for he published to the world his detestation of tithes, and in Lord Wvnford's opinion, these publications were the origin of the late disturbances. Di. Doyle beld out to the people that the tithes were not to be resisted by violence, but that they ought to be opposed by every other means. This was odd casuistry, which Lord Wynford thought was not reconcileable to law or good faith. He would repeat, that if the Irish Church once fell, so would the Church of Eng- land; and when that fell, so would the monarchy.

Lord CLANRICARDE said, all that Dr. Doyle swore to was what he then held to be the fact respecting the feelings of the people of Ireland. Be swore to what he believed. He had now discovered that his belief was unfounded. It would be strange if any man were to be held ac- countable for the most incalculable of all things—the future opinion of a nation on any complicated question in which it took a deep interest.

Lord KING said, Lord Wynford gave poor consolation to the tithe- holder here, when he said the English must go with the Irish. He could do no worse thing than establish what he asserted, that the Irish church was a necessary outwork of the English.

3. IRISH SUBLETTING BILL. This bill was committed on Mon- day. It provides, that where no clause has been introduced into a lease forbidding subletting, it shall be lawful for the tenant to sublet, in op- position to the existing law, by which, for the purpose of subletting, express permission is required. Mr. M. O'CONNELL wished to ad- journ the discussion of the details of the Bull: but the House, by a large majority, determined on going on.

4. SECRETARY TO THE Tann Ronns Btu. On Wednesday, a long debate took place on an amendment of Mr. STANLEY'S to the mo- tion for the committal of this bill, that it should be committed that day six months,—in other words, that the bill should be thrown out. It appeared in the course of the debate, that no Master of the Irish Rolls had Appointed or sought to appoint the officer who bears the name of his Secretary, and whose functions are analogous to those of the Deputy Registrar here, from 1801, when the Rolls Office itself was remodelled., down to the Chancellorship of Sir Anthony Hart, when Sir William MqVlabon first claimed and sought to exercise the right. Sir Anthony Hart had the case fully discussed before him' and he de- cided that Sir William -had not the right of appointment, but that the right lay with the Lord Chancellor. An attempt was made to have the question brought before a Common Law Court, but Lord Chan- cellor Plunkett refused to allow an issue for that purpose to be tried. The present bill was introduced for the purpose of removing the bar to this form of adjudication which the Chancellor had refused to re- Move. The-question, as brought before the House, was entirely one of the patronage of two great officers. Those who spoke for the bill, relied on the argument, that by refusing to allow an issue to be tried, the Irish Chancellor was in reality deciding on his own right. Those wit.) argued against the bill, contended that, under all the. cir- cumstances, Sir W. M‘Mahon had made out no primil facie case for an issue, and that none such was ever granted unless where a prinid jhde case was made out. The speakers for the bill were, Mr. J. Knight (its author), Mr. O'Connell, Sir R. Peel, Sir E. Sugden, Mr. C. Fergusson, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hume, Colonel Torrens, Mr. .T. Campbell, Mr. Leader, and Lord Ingestrie ; against the bill, Mr. Stanley, Sir William Home, Sir Thomas Denman Mr. Spence, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Paget, Sir J. Burke, Mr. H. Denman, and Mr. N. Calvert. It svas stated by Mr. STANLEY, that Lord Plunkett had offered to submit the question to any arbitration Sir W. 11,1,Mahon might deem best, provided the present holders of the office should not

be disturbed. • The House at length divided : for the Committee, 84; against it, 88 : majority, 4. The bill was consequently lost.

.5. CHOLERA. Some conversation took place on Monday respecting the restrictions on commerce which the announcement of Cholera having broken out in London had occasioned. Mr. ROBINSON said, be hoped that as very serious doubts were entertained of the contagious- ness of the disease, Government would give directions to the Custom- house to furnish clean bills of health to vessels clearing out.

Mr. P. THOMSON said, it would be a breach of faith in the Privy Council to allow the Customhouse to make declarations contrary to the fact. Till the opinion of the medical men authorized the giving of clean Mils of health, they would not be given. At the first appearance of Cholera in the country, it was the intention of foreign powers to put all English vessels under quarantine ; that intention was only aban- doned on condition that a quarantine should be established by ourselves, and on a distinct pledge that the moment Cholera appeared in any port,

it should be made known. The doubts cast upon the arrival of the disease in London could only be resolved by the medical authorities.

Mr. Hume observed, that the present Board of Health had spread alarm throughout the country; and the general opinion was, that their only motive was to keep up the establishment of the Health Board, who were all contagionists.

Mr. THOMSON said, Dr. Russell was a decided nou-coznagionist when be went to Russia.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, if Indian cholera had broken out in Lon.. don, we were bound to refuse clean bills of health. He very much disapproved of a Board of Health made up one half of contagionists and the other half of non-contagionists.

Mr. WARBURTON hoped Government would not change their course until the Board of Health had given an opinion setting the question of danger at rest.

Colonel EVANS presented on Thursday a petition, signed by seventy- three medical gentlemen of the metropolis, asserting that the cholera, as it is f•Stii«:, now in existence in the metropolis, was not a contagieus disorder. The petitioners said they did not fear contradiction on this point, and they prayed, in consequence, for inquiry.

Mr. CI:OKI:it said they might not fear refutation, but contradiction they could not but fear, for their opinions had been often contradicted.

Mr. P. Tilonsost observed, that while there was a doubt, it was pro- per to keep people from exposing themselves to the chance of infection. There WIIS 110w no coasting quarantine. As to foreign quarantine, it l-as not merely necessary that we should be convinced that there was no danger, we moat also convince others.

6. Sim: Thane. On presenting a petition from the master silk- manufacturers of London, on Tuesday, praying for an inquiry into the distressed state of the trade, Alderman VENABLES expressed his opirion that the distress complained of arose entirely from the inability of the manufacturers at home to compete with the manufacturers at Lyons. He described the state of Bethnal Green; there were 1,100 persons in the workhouse and 6,000 out-paupers ; and the wages which in 182a were 16s. 7d. per week, had fallen to 7s. 9d. in the following year, then to 6s., and in some instances as low as 29. 10d.

Alderman WAITHMAN presented a similar petition from heads of families in Spitalfields.

Alderman TitostrsoN thought the best form of inquiry would be to inquire into the causes affecting all our branches of traffic, for none was exempt from distress.

Mr. HUME said, free trade had added to the general commerce of the country, and it was therefore absurd to suppose it had added to the general distress at the same time. What the weavers wanted was its extension, not its restriction ;1 they wanted a free trade in corn. That would 'benefit both them and the country.

Some conversation afterwards occurred on Mr. Ls-rrosi BULWER'S motion, which stood for Tuesday ; it was ultimately postponed till Monday.

Mr. G. BANKES afterwards brought forward his motion for additional papers in the case of Messrs. Leaf and Co. He noticed the statement of the Government authorities and the counterstatement of Leaf and Co.— It had been denied by one of his Majesty's Ministers that smuggling to any considerable extent was carried on; but the accounts contained in the public journals of the day proved the contrary ; and the silk-weavers, in their petition, expressed their opinion, that the quantity of silk goods seized would bearno comparison with the amount which found its way into this country without paying duty; and it Was not a little, curious, in reference to this statement, to observe the amount of duty paid every month on foreign manufactured silk goods- by the house of-Leaf and Co., from May 1831 (up to which period, according to the evidence of the witnesses, smuggling transactionson the part of thosepar- ties were traced), to August in the same year, when the discovery was. made. In the month of May, the arnonnt of duty paid was 1,7111.; in June, 1,8671. ; in July, only. 1261. ; and -in August, the duties-paid by Messrs. Leaf and Co. swelled up-to the amount of 1,3901. Mr. Bankes noticed similar differences in the general duties receive& by GoveroMent during the same period; which,. he argued, strongly

corroborated the statement of the silk-weavers that smuggling prevailed to a great extent—.

In the quarter commencing on the 5th of April, and ending on the 5th of July, the general duties received by Government amounted to 3,f,6443/. ; and in the next quarter, in the early part of which the discovery of Messrs. Leaf and Co.'s transactions was made the amount of duties increased to 50,932!.; being a difference of more than 10,0001.

The papers moved for by Mr. Bankes and ordered were—." A copy of the information or process served upon Leaf and Co., and the pro- ceedings thereon ; a copy of the minute or order of the Treasury Board or Customs, directing the mode in which the goods seized were to be disposed of; a copy of the minute or orders of the Treasury Board or Customs, by virtue whereof the penalties were remitted ; a copy of any correspondence which took place between the Treasury Board, Customs, or the Board of Trade, with respect to the seizure of the goods." • 7. GENERAL REGISTRY. A long conversation took place on this bill on Wednesday, in consequence of a request from Colonel MA- BERLEY, that Mr. Campbell would postpone the Committee upon it, in order to make way for the Ordnance Estimates.

Mr. J. WOOD mentioned a fact, to show how little the petitioners against the bill knew of that which they were petitioning against—

Happening to be in the county town the evening before a county meeting was to be held to petition against this bill, and at which the Lord Lieutenant of the county was to preside, a message was sent to him for a copy of the bill, it being supposed that, having come from London, he might have such a thing in his possession, and the persons who were to take a principal part at the meeting next day against the bill never having seen a copy of it at all.

It was ultimately arranged, that the Committee should stand for the 16th April ; and in the mean time, Mr. CAMPBELL moved for a com- mittee to inquire into the petitions, to examine witnesses, and to re- port. This motion was carried, on a division, by 85 to 30.

8. REGISTRY OF BIRTHS. Lord NUGENT OR Thursday introduced a bill to regulate the registry of births. He aimed at a merely civil registry. He proposed that, within three months of the birth of the child, the date and name should be communicated to the clerk of the parish, and that these statements should be communicated to the con- stable of the hundred, and by him to the clerk of the peace for the county, who should make up and keep the register.

Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. CROKER spoke of the great utility of such a regulation in Ireland ; and Lord NUGENT said, he had no objection that it should extend to that country ;—in fact, his only wish was that it should extend as widely as possible.

9. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES. These estimates (from 1st January to 1st April) were considered on Wednesday, in a Committee of Supply, and agreed to without opposition.

10. SIR GEORGE Hitt. The reporter of the Times, in the debate on Friday last, on the vote of 5001. to Mr. Marshall, made Mr. Hume not only ,allude to, but mention the name of Sir George Hill, as an in- stance of Tory carelessness of expenditure.

Mr. DAwsoN, on Monday, noticed this as a misstatement, and added, that Sir George Hill, since the subject was first noticed, had balanced his accounts, and paid up every farthing that was due to Government. Mr. HOME said, the report was incorrect. The words given were . pretty nearly the same as he believed he had used, only that he had not mentioned Sir George Hill's name, nor in fact was he thinking about Sir. George at the moment.