On Monday, the order of the day for the House

of Commons going into Committee on Irish Municipal Bill having been read, BELLEW the bill. Lord FRANCIS EGERTON rose to move the following instruction- i The Irish discussion left scarcely time for the eonsideration of state of Tipperary was quoted by Lord John Russell as evidence Establishment. That noble lord talked indeed of justice to Ireland; but justice to Ireland was a phantom that always eluded the grasp..

an old clothesman, who lived in a house in the Rue de l'Hiltel de defying all attempts to arrest and secure its beautiful but transitory

hues—to-day assuming the shape of municipal reform, the next day Ville. He had been imprisoned for being engaged in a riot at of universal suffrage, then the vote by ballot; but under every shape the time of the trial of the Ministers of' CHARLES the Tenth. and disguise, and at all times, it Meant the subversion of the Irish His mistress gave warning to the owner of the house where he Church, and of the " bloodstained impost " of tithes. This bill would lodged, that CHAMPION was engaged in constructing an infernal bring no peace to Ireland. They who supported it declared that they machine, a la FIESCHI. The man wrote anonymous letters to never would be satisfied as long as one stone of the Church remained the Police, a party of whom secured CHAMPT.ON and his machine upon the other. He should oppose this bill ; for he feared it would lead early on Sunday morning. The ruffian did not deny that he to the abolition of tithes, universal suffrage, reform of the peerage, and intended to kill the King. He had procured a box with three vote by ballot, checked as the latter would be by auricular conressiol drawers, in each of which were ranges of pistol-barrels pointing He had been, humble us he was, une of the advisers of the great mea- different wa ys. This box was to have been placed on the road to sure of Catholic Emancipation ; and he could not forget the pledges Neuilly • and when the King and his escort passed, CHAMPION then given by Lord Plunket and others, that that measure would ope-

rate as a security to the Church. He now therefore felt himself espe. was to have fired off his deadly battery. This account was given chilly called upon not to turn a deaf ear to the prayers of those Pro- by CHAMPION himself, in the course of' a few minutes after he was testants who approached the House under apprehension, which be arrested, lie could not have lost much time in making his confes- knew they must really feel, that the Church was in great danger. sion, for he was carried almost immediately to prison ; and being Mr. WARD said that the present motion was the same in spirit and left alone by his keeper, hung himself to a bar of the window by in words as that of the same Member last year ; and if successful, it his cravat. Several persons supposed to be his accomplices have would produce the same results as the refusal of one branch of the been arrested. Mau:ma's trial has been indefinitely postponed, Legislature to do justice to Ireland had already produced—namely, the in consequence of fresh discoveries. It is said that the Parisian extension of irritation.

public appear to care very little about these plots against the Was the /louse never to escape from this vicious circle when Ireland was Kir g's life, and that the discovery of CHAMPION has scarcely concerned ? The people complained of the want of justice, and justice was to created any sensation. he denied to theta because they complained. If they were silent, what would be the infereuce? Why, that they were indifferent to the matter in dispute— The Monsieur contradicts the report that the expedition to that they could not appreciate the value of municipal institutions, and cared Africa had been put off. A terrific loss of life occurred at Bona little for the boon which the Legislature wished to force upon them. This was on the 30th of January, by the explosion of the powder-magazine, always the logic of the Conservative party; silence and indifference were always No fewer than 108 soldiers were killed, and 192 wounded. A great synonymous. Yet when reform was vehemently demanded, then the cry. was part of the fortifications of the citadel were blown up. Several o AVe must not yield to clamour." Such was the language of the Tories In houses in the city were slightly damaged by the shock. It was 1831, but they did yield nevertheless; and they would in like manlier be forced to give way on this measure.

conjectured that an Arab had made his way into the magazine The Opposition were determinedlto make this not a civil, but are& and set fire to the powder, but there seems to be no evidence gious question. The majority of the people were Catholic's, hostile to

of this. the Church Establishment ; the bill would give power to the majority. ; A severe shock of an earthquake was felt at Constantinople, and and therefore, the people of Ireland were told they should not have it. in several cities in Southern Syria, on the 22d. Many houses were In this way, one injustice was made the pretext for another. Because thrown down ; and it is calculated that altogether about 15,000 the people were saddled with a church which they did not want, they

persons perished, were to be refused municipal institutions which they did want. He bad no fear of an appeal to the People of England on this question. They would see through the Wag of the assertion that the bill merely

Orbatesi an Prorcettingsi us parliament. transferred power from one faction to another ; for they would see that

REI ORM OF THE IRISH CORPORATIONS. such could not be the case when power was vested in the people at large. Mr. MACLEAN supported the amendment; and Mr. MoNrssnuar Mr. JOHN YOUNG did not think that the real ground of objection to the present measure was that the Corporations would be filled with . Catholics. In the first excitement, no doubt, the Councillors would be violent partisans, but before long the respectable merchants and traders would be chosen by their fellow citizens. Neither did- he think that it was a fair objection to the bill, that it would transfer political power from one party to another : Parliament, in legislating on this . question, should not take cognizance of such an argument. Possibly, - if this bill passed, between seventy and eighty Liberal, Members might

, be elected—that would be the extent of the success of :the dominant , party. At the same.time, alarm had naturally been excited by the rle-

-ideation of Mr. O'Connell, that, give him Corporation- Reform, be ,would do what he pleased in Ireland. TheGovernment was- distrusted in Ireland. Its unfortunate position was an insuperable obstacle to the success of any of its attempts to tranquillize that country. Under . such circumstances, and with the prevalence of such feelings, he thought „it wiser to vote for the measure of Lord Francis Egerton, n hich would confer upon the cities and towns all the substantial benefits of .this bill without its dangers and disadvantages.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER wondered whether it would be yossible to varry on a discussion on the subject before the House, without endless references to Policemen and •Magistrates, of whom under other circum-

stances they never should have heard—without eternal allusions to

the General Association, and extracts from the speeches delivered by Mr. O'Connell during the last fifteen or twenty years—without taunts to Ministers of subserviency to Mr. O'Connell—all of which he had heard repeated ten thousand times upon a moderate calculation, and which he really thought must have produced by this time all the effect upon the human mind which they were capable of producing. Sup. posing all that had been said against Ministers and against Mr. O'Connell were true, was Parliament on that account to refuse muni- cipal institutions to the people of Ireland?

4. We are shallow legislators if we devise our schemes of government with- out taking into account the invariable disposition in human nature to attempt the petversion of all great institutions to the purposes of personal aggrandize- ment anti the profit of party—if we apprehend this evil from this O'Connell alone, and dream that, if he were to die, no other O'Connell would ever again rise to trouble us, and if we do not so shape the institutions which we give to the Irish people as to secure them from something more than the factions of a day, or the ambition of a single individual. What matters it, then, what the designs of the honourable and learned Member are, or what he avows? We want not what you call confessions, but what I regard as boasts, to set us on our guard against a danger which we ought to apprehend, if not from the ho- nourable and learned Member, from somebody else. It is our business to take care that neither he nor anyone else shall be able to turn to evil ends the iusti- tenons which we purpose to erect for the behoof of millions and of ages."

From the history of past times and the experience of the present, from books and from observation, Mr. Buller had arrived at the con- clusion, which was daily gaining strength in his mind, that the freedom and prosperity of nations had their best and surest guarantee in local self- government. Not only could it be proved that admirable effects had been produced by free municipal institutions, but it was evident that such must have been their excellent consequences ; for it stood to reason that when men were left to shift for themselves, their towns would be better watched, paved, and lighted, and their police more efficient, than when the Government interfered to take the direction of those matters out of their hands. There were other advantages arising from local self-government. By making men the electors of magistrates, you in- listed their sympathies in behalf of law and order, and made them par- ties to the administration of justice. In a municipal republic might be found the best apprenticeship for the discharge of higher electoral du- ties. Men are accustomed by the exercise of the municipal franchise to select the most upright and able of their fellow citizens, and know to whom to confide the management of more extended interests. They acquired the habits of mutual forbearance and concession ; and it was no slight advantage that they became split into numerous parties, and thereby were saved from the dangers of a division into two great and irreconeileable factions : a sufficient arena being supplied for local emu- lation, the state was preserved from ambition that would otherwise agitate it, while the power of the people was consolidated by placing within their gift not merely the great national prizes, but the cheaper objects of municipal distinction. If such were the general advantages of free municipal government, what country in the world stood more in need of them than Ireland ? Now the Ministerial plan embraced these advantages, while that of Lord Francis Egerton would entail the adop.. fion of the wretched centralizing system, which during the last forty years had enfeebled France. He denied that the fact of Birmingham and Manchester being prosperous could be used as an argument against

the advantages of municipal institutions. It was not fair, because the absence of a mayor had not neutralized the advantages of coal, and the rule of boards had not driven capital and industry from their natural channels, to take the local governments of Birmingham and M techester as models of municipal institutions. As to the exclusion of Protestants in the towns of Ireland, he did not believe it would be of long duration. The majority would quarrel among themselves ; and then it would be found that the Protestants who took one side or the other were valuable allies, and they would come in for their fair share of influence. But the bill was to be opposed on account of the supposed injury it would inflict on the Irish Church. Would the Establishment, then, crumble at the touch of free institutions?

"I have always been an undisguised enemy of the existence of the Irish Church Establishment. I have never dissembled the horror with which I have always regarded it, as the most revolting profanation of all that is vener- able in Christianity, and the most odious perversion of all that is useful in the principle of a Church Establishment. I rejoice therefore, to hear the right honourable baronet compelled to make an avowal calculated to set that Esta.- bli.hment in so odious a light ; and to convince the public, not only ot' the general aversion of the Irish people for that Church, but of the fact that, in order to keep it up, it is necessary to deprive Ireland of almost every institution Which you think necessary for good government in Great Britain. This is the real mischief of that Church. Its mere existence has indeed been a dreadful evil. It has been a constant insult to the great mass of the community, a con- stant cause of irritation, a perversion of a great national fund to the miserable purposes of a sect and a faction, and an obstacle to the endowment of tae na- tional religion in the country in the world which, perhaps mare than any other, wauts the connexion of the State with the Church of the People." But there were other evils indirectly flowing from the Church in Ireland- " To maintain this institution, in defiance of the hostility of the nation, yon have been obliged to pervert every other institution of the country, anathe train of auxiliary grievances has been far worse than the one which they have been summoned to aid. It is for the maintenance of the Church that the administration of justice has been corrupted ; it is for that turbulence and disorder have been deliberately encouraged; it is for that the local male- administration of the finances is allowed ; it is for that, above all, thatthe Irish people have been as long and as much as possible deprived of the-free exercise of the elective franchise. But the conuexion between these evils and the existence of the Establishment was what it required some reflection to trace. In this case we are spared the trouble of that proof. It is confessed, and every man who sees that Ireland is deprived of that municipal government which has been established as the best for Scotland and for England. sees also that that privation is a consequence of the existence of the Church Establish. meat. I do not quarrel wit o the premises of this reasoning. I believe that the existence of the Establishment is incompatible with the existence of good municipal or any other good institutions in Ireland."

Towards the close of his speech, Mr. Buller expressed his strong approbation of Lord John Russell's explicit declaration that he would stand or fall by this measure ; and be invited Sir Robert Peel to state with equal explicitness to the House upon what principles he intended to govern Ireland. Mr. Buller firmly believed, that, as in the case of the Catholic question, after having opposed this measure in order to oust his antagonists, Sir Robert would himself carry it when in power.

Mr. POULTER supported the measure ; Mr. BORTHWICK and Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT opposed it. The speech of the latter gentleman consisted chiefly of charges of misgovernment against Lord Mulgrave, in reference to his legal appointments and the abuse of the prerogative of mercy.

Lord MORPETH expressed his high admiration of the impressive and argumentative speech of Mr. Buller ; which he said, rendered it quite unnecessary for him to go into the general question of the advantages of free municipal institutions. He then replied to the charges of Mr. Emmerson Tennent, proving that they were either unfounded or grossly exaggerated. He justified the appointment of Catholics to offices of power and trust ; and maintained, that it was just and natural, when the progress of the Catholics in numbers, wealth, and intelli- gence was considered, that they should be admitted to a share in the government of the country. Instead of the proportion of Catholics so promoted being diminished, it was inevitable that it must become larger continually. The principle that religion should not be a cause of exclusion, had been fully admitted both in England and Ireland ; and it should not in the latter country be set aside by the practice of the Executive. As to the argument against the bill founded on the assumption that the Church would suffer from the establishment of reformed corporations in Ireland—was it from the friends of the Church, the champions of the Establishment, that such an objection proceeded ?

" Is the Church strong enough, is she deeply rooted enough in the venera- tion of the Irish people, is she congenial enough, is she so clear from all ground of offence, that you can afford to make her the scapegoat against every charge, the bulwark against every attack? (Much cheering.) Is her structure so sound, or her fabric so firm and so impregnable, that you can call together all the scattered elements of enmity to select her out as a mirk ; and to assail her port-holes.'

The Irish Church was in a most deplorable—a prostrate—condition; and how did the gentlemen opposite propose to raise her head ? Why, they said to the people of Ireland, that the presumption was in favour of extending; to them the same privileges that had been conferred on the people of England and Scotland; but that the principle of equal legislation would affect the full, fair, and round proportions of the Establishment, to whose rottenness they thus bore formidable testi- mony; and therefore the Irish should not have those privileges.

Though he and his friends had been reproached with being the enemies of the Church, they h id never c trried their enmity to that fatal pitch, as to hold out that to save the Church they must demolish the Corporations of Ireland ; that the only tenure of her prolonged existence was to make her rear her naked front over a rased, stripped, and denuded territory ; and that the only pound of her security was the denial of equal rights and the destruction of free institutions.

Lord STANLEY said, that Lord Morpeth had, at the conclusion of his speech, rested his argument in defence of the bill on broad and in- telligible grounds— Fearless of the scorn and fearless of the contumely with which the very name of Protestant appeared to be met on that side of the House-4 Great cheering from the Opposition benches, with ;Evros awl reiterate:1 cries of ‘• Nu!" fruits the Ministerial sitle)—he would say—( Renewed cries if " No! "and groans)—he would say, that fearless of any such reflection, and notwithstand- the taunts which had been directed by his noble friend :igainst those who dared to rest their observations On such grounds, he must assert one intelli. glide objection to this ineasure,—which was, that it was ilitended and calculated to be the destruction of the Protestaut Establishment in Ireland. ( Opposition cheers.) Ministers mistook their position ; and, notwithstanding time warning given them both by friends and opponents, they went blindly burrowing on in their course of mischief. Like the madman, they thought all the rest of the world mad, and all the rest of the world thought them mad-- One patty opposed and another supported the bill, both parties agreeing as to what would be its effect; but his Majesty's Nlinistersi said they were both mistaken. These supported it because they believed conscientiously and ha. nestly, that it would thsaroy the Church : t:t ise opposed it bee lose they also believed, and also consientiously and honestly, that it would destroy the Church. His Majesty's Ministers agreed with the opponents of tbe measure, that the Church ought to be suppatted ; they apeed with the supporters of the measure, that it night to he proceeded with, but they dis 'greed with both oppo. nents and supporters, for they declared in the face of both, they declared in the face of common sense, they declared in the lice of re/mu, that this which its supporters supported and its opponents opposed because it would destroy the Church, they felt bound to carry forward on the ground that it would be the salvation and safety of the Church.

It had been said by Mr. O'Connell, " Give nme municipal reform and I will effect all the rest "— " Ile agreed with him: in the present state of Ireland he believed he would; and therefore—and he had himself to thank for it—and therefore municipal reform they should not have—(A Member exclaimed" They shall have it!" They have just said they should have it—( Great cheering from the Ministe- rial benches)—he would reply—not with regard to so humble and insignifi- cant an individual as himself, but as regarded this House, as regarded Parlia- ment, and, lie would venture to add, as regarded the nation—that the tone taken by the General or National Aaaociation at this moment was the most formidable obstacle in the way of passing the measure. And no far from being intimidated by their threats—so far from being led to concede to clamour that which they would not give to justice—(Load cheers)—he understood the cheers—the cheers would signify that they did deny that to justice—( Cheer- ing)—what he said was this, that what they denied on the conviction that it was not claimed by justice, the louder—( Cries of " Oh, oh ")—the louder it was claimed by threats and intimidation, the more determined were the people of England that it should not be granted." (" Oh 1 ")

Itlien the Church question was settled, it might be possible to settle this question also; but until the Establishment should be placed in a state of security, he never would give more power to the men who would use it for her overthrow.

At the conclusion of Lord Stanley's speech, the debate was ad- journed.

On Tuesday, the debate was opened by Mr. Sergeant JACKSON. He spoke for upwards of two hours in defence and amplification of his previous charges of misgovernment against Lord Mulgrave; but scarcely alluded either to the bill itself or to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, remarking that Mr. Jackson bad not said one word that bore on the question before the House, briefly defended the Irish policy of Ministers, and maintained the necessity of giving the Irish people the blessing of equal laws and the right of managing their own affairs.

Mr..VESEY delivered a long speech, which was mainly devoted to accusations against Lord Mulgmve, whom he charged with making improper appointments to the Magistracy. The case of Mr. Cassidy was that on which Mr. Vesey laid the greatest stress.

Mr. E. L. BUNTER ridiculed the notion, that because party-spirit ran high, and there were political associations in Ireland, Municipal institutions should be refused to the people of that country- " Sir, there was an association in Birmingham, nay, all over England—this quiet, loyal England—for obtaining Parliamentary Reform ; and in the meet. logs of these associations language as violent, sentiments as democratic, opinions much in favour of Ballot and Short Parliaments, ay, and of the Voluntary Church principle too, were uttered. How did you dissolve those associations— by what spell did they wither away—by what rites did you lay them in the grave ? Why you granted the reform. Oh! but says the right honourable baronet, if you cannot put down the Association, why do you encourage it— why do you mix it up with the Government—why do you put Mr. Pigott into office? And is it possible that 1 heard that from the right honourable baronet ? Why, who condemned the Orange Lodges more than he did? And was it not one of the first acts of his Government to put into office the Deputy Grand Master of the Orange Lodges, the honourable and gallant Colonel the Member for Sligo? Compare the Orange Lodges with the Association ; both are bad, both are symptoms of constitutional disease ; but one is open, universal ; the other is secret, exclusive. Why did you mix up the Government with those todges. Why did you encourage them? Why did you put your Mr. Pigott into office?"

He advised the Tories not to rely on the smallness of the Ministe- rial majorities, but to recollect that a majority of one carried the Re- form Bill. Besides, Sir Robert Peel, during the struggle for Catho- lic Emancipation, looked not to the numbers in the House, but to those of the constituencies ; and what had he now to set against the masses in the Metropolitan districts, and in Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Wolverhampton, and Sheffield? It was said that the grievances which the bill would remedy were not practical-

" Their fruits are practical—discontent, excitement, Catholic Associations, passive resistance, the fears of the rich, the combinations of the poor. Prac- tical, indeed, most be the evils that result from keeping a whole people

eternally vibrating between the excitement of suspense and the exasperation of despair. See the state of England at this moment—her trade prosperous, her commerce increasing, peace abroad, tranquillity at home, no foe to menace her safety or curb her powtr. Look at her gigantic colonies, covering a new quarter of the globe. Look at that vast Indian empire which she governs almost with the easy hand of neglect ; and close beside her see that fatal neighbour whom you have proved that you cannot crush as a slave, and whom you w ill not suffer us to conciliate as an ally. We are weak, we are diseased,

only in one quarter—there where alone we have abused our power, and sullied our great name as the hereditary assertors of political rights and religious tole- ration."

Mr. G. F. Youxo thought that the advantages of municipal institu- tions has been overrated ; but as he believed that the refusal of the de- mand made for them by the Irish was harsh and offensive, and that the Ministerial bill would produce beneficial consequences, he should sup. port it.

Colonel PERCEVAL thought that, with such opinions, Mr. Young (who sits among the Tories) would have done well to have spoken from

the other side of the House. He entirely differed from that gentle- man, and did not think that the Irish had any cause to be offended because Corporations, which had been forced upon England, were not to be forced upon them : as to Mr. Bulwer, Sir Robert Peel could put an extinguisher upon him in a single sentence ; and for his part, he would leave him to the enjoyment of his poetical fancies. Colonel Perceval then impugned the conduct of Government in not putting down the General Association, since the Orange Society had been dissolved. He maintained that, so far from desiring to be incorpo- rated, the people of many towns in Ireland dreaded the consequent expenses.

Lord Howrcx said, be had not the means of discussing the details entered into by previous speakers, and the admirable speech of Mr. Charles Buller had left nothing to be said on the general question.

Not the slightest attempt to reply to Mr. Buller had been made by the Opposition ; and be should therefore confine himself to an examination of the reasons m hich had been put forward for rejecting the bill. It was said that it would endanger the stability of the Irish Church. He rem:.rked that precisely the same argument, almost in the same words, bad been alleged against granting Catholic Emancipation; but, hap- pily, Sir Robert Peel then treated it with as much contempt as Lord Ho wick did now. But it was said by Lord Stanley, that the supporters

of this measure bad ulterior designs. Well, and so had many of the supporters of the Reform Bill ; but did Lord Stanley therefore reject their support and throw aside the bill ? The question which was in, volved in Catholic Emancipation was substantially the same as that now before the House ; and Lord HOWICK read extracts from the speeches of Sir Robert Peel delivered in 1829, which demonstrated the impolicy of attempting to resist the demands of the Irish and to govern them on a system of coercion. He reminded Sir Robert, that in 1825 he was fatally deaf to the warnings of Mr. Canning and MG Plunket ; and Lord Howick firmly believed that he was underlie grievous a delusion with regard to the present measure as he was 1825 with regard to Catholic Emancipation. Would he now face the danger he shrank from in 1829 ? Would he again come to the Home, advise it to retrace its steps, and yield to clamour what he deniedm justice? Far better would it be to accept the compromise now offered.

Sir FREDERICK Pottoce maintained, that the present measure would tend to degrade the Protestant Establishment ; and that the Corpora. tions would be schools of agitation, by whose aid Mr. O'Connell would shake the foundations of the Church. In refusing municipal institutions to Ireland, he protested against the imputation that he in. suited or degraded the Irish. All that he proposed was to govern them them as Lambeth, Marylebone, Manchester, and Birmingham were governed.

Mr. ROEBUCK next addressed the House, in compliance with a gene- ral call, which selected him in preference to a number of other Men. bers who rose at the same time. He expressed his satisfaction that Sir Frederick Pollock had adverted to the question before the House; for really it was very difficult to grapple with i.olated cases by no means affecting the main paint, but merely having reference to Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Fogerty. Suppose that the Irish Government Aad been in error, the people of Ireland were not to be punished for the faults of the Executive by the refusal of municipal institutions. His object would be to reply to the arguments that had been used against the bill and to state his reasons for supporting it. It was admitted by Sir Robert Peel that there was a prima facie case for giving Irelahd the same municipal institutions as England and Scotland, inasmuch as

it was an integral part of the same empire. But why was it deemed expedient to give municipal institutions to England? It was important clearly to understand why; because then it would be easy to ascertain whether there were any circumstances in the case of Ireland, which could counterbalance the want of municipal institutions. Now, con. tinued Mr. Roebuck-

" I suppose it will be allowed that the principle on which we granted muni. cipal governments to England was this—all communities of men in towna have, from the very fact of their neighbourhood and society, certain interests and concerns peculiarly their own—interests which they have special reason to watch over with care, and to guard and forward with prudence and assiduity. While these societies have these peculiar or local interests, they have also ge- neral ones—that is, interests which are general to the greater community of the nation. Now here in England we have determined that while the general government watches over the more wide or general interests of all, the neigh. bourhoods which have local interests shall watch over and protect these inure narrow and peculiar matters of concern. Just in the saute manner we have also determined that each individual has matters and interests peculiar to him- self and family, which are left to his own individual government. Thus, thee, in England and Scotland we have divided every man's interests into three sepa. rate classes—personal or individual ; local, or those of his peculiar neighbourhoid; and thirdly, general or national. The first set are under his own immediate and singular control; the second he governs in conjunction with his neigh. hours; the third he superintends in common with the whole nation. Such is the view we have taken with regard to the People of England and Scotland, and such at first sight every one must allow we should naturally take with regard to the People of Ireland. In Ireland, as in England, every man has personal, has local, has national interests; and at the first glance or impulse we should be inclined to believe that we should in Ireland, as we have already dose in England—establish personal, local, and national rights."

Now, it was undeniable, that in Ireland there were the same circum-

stances of a local nature whi: ti in England rendered it expedient to establish municipal institutions. This must be. The necessity of municipal government arose the moment men associated together.

Why then depart from the rule which experience had proved to be the wisest, from the ordinary path of government, in the case of Ireland? These were the reasons adduced by Sir Robert Peel : that gentleman alleged that freely-elected Town-Councils would destroy the Church, and therefore that the Irish ought not to have them. It was not denied that in England and Scotland municipal institutions were necessai y for the good government of the country. It could not be denied that the same circumstances which rendered those institutions necessary ill England were to be found in Ireland. But in Ireland there was, it

seemed, something of far more importance than good government,— namely, the Church. How would the Corporations endanger the Church ? What was the precise signification of the statement ? Did it mean that the religion of the Church would be in danger? If so, it was feared that the people would change their religion. Why should they change their religion under good rather than under bad institua tions ? There was but one answer—the Corporations would, in some way not specified, lead to the non-payment of the clergy ; and if the parsons were not paid, they would not preach, and the people would not believe. Now he recollected that Protestantism had made its way in defiance of the State, and without pay. Catholicism made plogress in opposition to a clergy paid by the state in Ireland; and surely they paid their religion a poor compliment who said it would die the diath of a pauper if not provided for by the state. But it might he said that the danger was, that the Protestants would lose not their faith, but their lives. Could any thing be more contemptible !—would the establish. ment of Corporations turn the Irish into cutthroats ? Again, it might be urged, that it was not the religion, nor the lives of the Protestants, but the Establishment—meaning the pay of the clergy—that would be endangered. Then say so at once, without ambiguity ; for when the cry was raised that the Church is in danger, people were apt to suppose that religion was in danger. But as to the Church, the establishment of Corporations would not hasten its fate. The doom of the compul- sory principle was already sealed. Do what they would, the progrrsa of religious freedom would haunt the Tories night and day. But,

upon their own showing, the Tories had taken a fatal course for the Church— •

You plaioly tell the Irish people, that the existence of the State Church establishment is incompatible with good government; and you bring this question at once, in all it's nakedness, before the people. We have settled, say you, that what you believe requisite for good government, and that which we sall the Irish Church, cannot exist together : you must determine, therefore, Which you will choose : will you have all the advantages to be derived from municipal institutions—advantages which we allow to be derived from them 112 Englind—or the supposed benefits conferred on you by the Irish Church Esta- blishment ? We know that you are already inimical to this establishment ; we know that you aver that it has ever stood in the way of peace and good government in Ireland ; and we here again, in spite of your preconceived feelings, call upon you to remain quiet and submit to this outrageous insult—to this great and extraordinarymory—because you are to be blessed by the existent* of a cor- poration of priests, to which you have so often manifested an unconquerable disgust. Oh, Sir, this is wise policy ! this is excellent statesmanship ! And be It remembered that it has received the sanction of the right honourable Member for Tamworth. The truth upon this matter has at length been openly told to the Irish people ; and the Tory party, and the right honourable gentle. wan, in England, are now allied to the bigot thangernen of Ireland. There is to be, there can be, no further disguise in the matter. The people of behind now know, that from the right honourable gentleman they need expect no hope of peace; and they must hear steadily in mind that persecution will follow his dominion in Ireland. He has thrown off the mask. Ile is a mere tool of the Orange party. He shouts as they about ; and to obtain their suppol t he is fast sworn to uphold, in all her rampant prodigality of mischief, the harlot Church Establishment of Ireland." (continued cheering.) But, after all, how could the power of appointing constables, and superintending the lighting, draining, and paving of a town, prove inju- rious to the Church Establishment? Let the specific powers given by the bill be examined, and inane and pompous generalities be laid aside, and then it would be seen bow futile was the dread of injury to the Church from the proposed Corporations. Before quitting this part of his subject, Mr. Roebuck reminded the House, that Sir James Gra- ham, not content with the mischief already perpetrated, had contri- buted another element of discord to the turbulent compound of Irish politics- " The right honourable Member for Tamworth contented himself with stirring tip to the utmost of his ability religious strife in Ireland. The right honourable Member for Cumberland endeavours, according to the measure of his ability, to set the poor in hostility to the rich. The one gentleman made the question depend upon sectarian difference; the other on the distinction between rich and poor. Ireland cannot have a good government, says one, because the majority are Catholics; Ireland cannot have a good government, says the other, because the Catholics are poor. One bands the Protestant against the Catholic ; the other incites the poor against the rich. Had any one not Conservative done this, how soon would the destructive qualities if these arguments have been displayed to this House. In the one ease, we should have been shown to be the enemies of religion ; in the other, we should have proved hostile to property ; and loud and vehement would have been the denunciations against us tor disturbing, by such wild and dangerous doctrines, the peace of that much.iojured people. (Cheers.) For, just in the same way that the right honourable Member for Tamworth has endeavoured to show that good government and the Protestant religion cannot coexist in Ireland, so dues the right honourable Member for Cumberland seek to prove that property and good government must also be sworn enemies. I cannot but admire the benignant inspiration in obedience to which they both have laboured on this memorable occasion."

He combeted the doctrine, that because the minority in power had been persecutors, the majority also would use their predominance as the means of oppression. He maintained that a minority were driven to persecution as a means of self-defence; while the majority, being supported by and having identified interests with the community at large, was under no such necessity. Seeing, then, that there was no intrinsic value in any of the arguments which had been adduced against the bill, what was the real cause of opposition? There was a reason, and it was by no means creditable or honest. By means of this bill, the people of Ireland would instantly become a better-governed and more independent people. Hence all the opposition—the hypo- crisy—the base whining dissimulation about religion and Protestantism. Religion was not what the Tories were anxious about—it was the power they were about to lose, and which they had perverted to their individual benefit and the general ruin. Iii conclusion, he would say a few words to Sir Robert Peel- " If we denythis measure to Ireland, we must be prepared to govern that country upon principles entirely different from those by which the government of Great Britain is guided. Now, I am not going to ask if they be willing to do this. I would only ask the: right honourable gentleman tlean if h i e can do it? Does he believe that a whole people, amounting to near seven millions of souls, are to be thwarted and insulted with impunity? Does he believe that, at this period of ulan's history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, priuciples and doctrines of government suited for the dominion of St. Petersburg can be carried iuto actual practice? Let toe put the question plainly—does he, does any one, believe that the system of Protestant supre- macy can be continued in Ireland without civil war? Is he prepared upon any grounds stated by him, or that can be suggested by his friends, to risk a civil war in Ireland ? If he be not prepared for this, his conduct appears without an i y defence. Party politics, I know, sanction many things ; but n the estimation of all wise and virtuous men, some further justification for this fear- ful hazard will be required than the acclamations and applause of party ad- herents ; some better reason will be demanded of him than the desire to bring under his banner the bigots of the Protestant party; some further excuse will be sought than the maintenance of Protestant supremacy. The world at large usually attributes to the right honourable gentleman the quality of prudence.

He bas won this reputation by a regulated demeanour, by a somewhat precise, formal, and guarded manner of expressing his opinions. A reputation of this i description s, I allow, of great advantage, but it leads men sometimes to scruti- nize severely conduct that in others might pwrs without much comment. We assume that the right honourable gentleman always knows what he is doing— that he has weighed the consequences of his acts, and that he is prepared for them. Thus, in the present cast, we assume that lie sees the great dangers of his course : we suppose that when he has aided in denying this measure to Ireland, that he is prepared to govern her at the bayonet's point—that he is prepared to justify before the people the ruin, disaster, and bloodshed that will follow his hopeful project. We resume that he sees these things_ thathe acts upon reflection ; and we judge lulu accordingly. ( This speech was cheered in many more passages than we hare ?narked, and very loudly at the end.) Mr. SHAW spoke for some time in support of the amendment ; de. !lying the utility of the bill, and enlarging upon the dangerous addition A would bring to the power which Mr. O'Connell bad openly declared he would use for the overthrow of the Church and the repeal of the Union. Mr. Shaw read several extracts from Mr. O'Connell's speeches and letters in support of this opinion. He said be was aware that a large majority would support the bill, because the question was not put fairly before the House : instead of being statettas a question whether the Church 'should be destroyed or not, it would be put to Members whether they would turn out Ministers or not ; and upon this the majority would vote in their favour. Some Members, too, on his own side, objected to the abolition of the Corporations. However, he did not despair. His hopes and those of the country were fixed upon one who disdained to hoist false colours to gain support, and bad manfully declared in the face of the nation and of the world, that the principle of his Government would be, " to support the national establishments which connect Protestantism with the State, in every portion of the United Kingdom."

The debate was then again adjourned. Mr. BROTHERTON reopened it on Wednesday. In answer to an i assertion made by Mr. Shaw and others, he stated, that t was the almost unanimous desire of all classes in Manchester to obtain art improved system of local government, by means of a Corporation. The difficulty was, to make an arrangement that would satisfy the inha- bitants of the various townships comprising the town of Manchester; but it was not true, as had been alleged, that the people of Manchester were satisfied with their present system of local government.

Lord CLEMENTS, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. C. A. WALKER, and Mr. MottoaN JOHN O'CONNELL, spoke in favour of the bill, and in defence of the Irish policy of Ministers.

Sir FREDERIC TRENCH, Mr. Alcitatals, and Mr. GROVE PRICE,

addressed the House on the other side. There was nothing remark- able in any of their speeches ; though Mr. RICHARDS excited laughter by a sort of parallel be drew between the supporters of the bill and Denton, Marat, and Robespierre, before the Frenchmen had been steeped in atrocity. Mr. WOULFE (the Attorney-General for Ireland) defended Lord

Milltown from a charge brought against him by Sergeant Jackson, of having been dismissed from the commission of the peace for joining in the anti-tithe agitation. -It appeared that Lord Milltown was a large lay impropriator, and had never been an agitator against tithes. Neither was he dismissed from the Magistracy : be resigned, because he was told, that being a member of the Volunteer Association, he ought not to remain in the commission of the peace. He was restored to the Magistracy before lie became a member of the General Asso- ciation, and he had only delivered two speeches at the meetings of that body—one in favour of Poor-laws, and the other on Joint Stock Rinks. So much for the truth of the charges against Lord Milltown. With respect to Mr. Pigott, that gentleman ceased to belong to the Association on takingbis present appointment. Mr. Woulfe defended the conduct of the Irish Government in some other particulars ; and

then spoke to the question properly before the House—the necessity of giving municipal institutions to Ireland. He utterly denied the assertion that the bill would operate as an act of exclusion of Pros testants from the Corporations; and referred to the numbers ot Protestant tradesmen even in what were called Catholic towns, to prove that they must have powerful influence in the election of Coun- cillors. But the principle of Lord Francis Egerton's amendment was this—that, by reason of their religion, Catholics were not fit to be trusted, in conjunction with Protestants, with the management of their local affairs.

He knew very well that an attempt had been made to reconcile the principle of that project with the principle of the Emancipation Act. It was said that there was no injustice in that project, because the principle of the Emancipa- tion Act was equality between Catholics and Protestants; and accordingly the project of Lord Francis Egerton dealt with them upon the principle of equality. fhe noble lord said that the bill of his Majesty's Ministers did not deal equally with Protestants and Catholics, whereas his amendment did. But the dis- tinction was most marked and obvious : the principle of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill was equality of employment, notwithstanding dissent—the principle of the project of Lord Francis Egerton was equality of privation be- cause of that dissent ; the principle of the Catholic Emancipation Bill was equality of rights7the principle of the project of the noble lord was equality of wrongs ; the principle of the one was the principle of distribution—dealing with the ;rowers of the State as equitably distributable among all without re- gard to difference of creeds : while the principle of the other was the principle of destruction—destroying all civil powers instead of distributing them upon an equitable principle. The principles of the two measures were not only not the same, but the very antipodes of each other.

He had at all times been a supporter of the Act of Union : but if this measure were rejected, he should not, he feared, be able to defend the union effecively.

Sir JasteS GRAHAM said, that the Attorney-General for Ireland had declared that if the amendment were carried he should cease to defend the Union!

Mr. WOULFE interrupted Sir James—" I said that I should not be able v. defend the Union."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed that this was a very nice distinction.... drawn with fine legal subtilty, which he feared the people of Ireland would scarcely comprehend. There was something ominous in the declaration of the King's Attorney-General, that if this question were not. carried now, at this particular moment, he should not be able to d efend the Luton with efficiency. But he would pass on to the sub- ject of debate. Sir James then animadverted upon the countenance given by Lord Mulgrave, as he asscrted, to the General Association ; on the appointment of Mr. Pigott; the "strong expressions" of Mr. Buller relative to the Established Church in Ireland ; and the decla- ration of Mr. Roebuck thet the Church (1 England in Ireland was a "harlot church."

Mr. ROEIHICK—" I. said the harlot Church of Ireland. I said no- thing about the Church of England. The honourable baronet must not misrepresent me."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Mr. Roebuck drew his distinctiou with great legal precision ; but, in the eyes of the law and of the na- tion, there was no difference between the Church of En&land and the Church of Ireland. ("Oh, oh ! ") Sir James then read extracts from Mr. O'Connell's speeches, to prove that this measure of Municipal keforiu w-as but an " instalmenta" and he -quoted passages from . a pamphlet, entitled " The Policy of England towards Spain," to prove that the Ministers-or at least the "Juvenile Whig" to whom be at- tributed the authorship of the pamphlet (Lord Palmerston), justified the murder of Cabrera's mother, and the massacre of Quesada. The writer, however, drew a dark picture of the Spanish priests ; and Sir James intimated that it would pass for that of the Irish Catholic clergy. As for the Church, it rested on the rock of ages. (" Oh, i") Its rottenness consisted in the wavering, hollow support given it by the Ministers of a King.who had sworn to uphold it : but its bulwarks were the hearts of a million of Protestants, who would die to defend it.

Mr. SHE1L said, that Sir James Graham, who boasted that he was neither sectarian nor bigot, had used language when speaking of the Catholic clergy, that no Catholic would have ever applied to the Pro- testant Church- " Why did he speak of Spain? Why did he refer to the atrocities which have been committed in that country ? Why was Cabrera's, why was Quesada's mune iotroduced ? I will not call the right honourable gentleman a bigot, but he will pardon me if I call him a convert. (Laughter.) On this occasion, he has exhibited all that zeal and enthusiasm fur which conversion-conversion be it-is eroverbial. In the course of his speech, which was certainly an ex- tremely discursive one, he did me the .honour to refer to a speech of tnitie ; and I must confess he spoke of me in terms which were most complimentary. I, in return, must say I hear him alwayswith the most unqualified pleasure: he is in heart most generous and humane, and his tongue carries conviction to the mind." (Cheers aria ®ister. )

In the course of his speech, Sir James Graham had animadverted on the conduct of the General Association : that was dangerous ground for him to take, at least if not for himself; for his present associates-

" How long ago, I ask, is it since the Member for Tainwortle when called upoo to form an Administration, *elected as the objects of his special favour the members of an association which has since been denounced by the House of Commons ? The Member for Sligo, the Treasurer of the Orange Society, WAS promoted-the treasurer of a society) that tampered with the Army-( Loud cheers, and cries of "No, no ! "from Colonel Percival)—have we nut evi- dence of that? Has not the evidence been produced in this House, that the Orange Society was in communication with the Army ? Was there not the declaration of the Duke of Cumberland that be was unaequainted with the fact? Is there an Orangeman in this House-is there a gintleman in this House-who Call deny that the proofs were afforded to us that warrants were issued to the Army ? Will that be denied ?"

Colonel PERCEVAE-" Yes, I deny it. The warrants were issued, but the Army was not tampered with."

Mr. SHE11.--" We do not Materially differ. The warrants were issued ; and I refer to the appointment of the gallant Colonel, not with an unkind spirit, but because so much has been made of the promotion of Mr. Pigott." Mr. Shell then reminded Sir Robert Peel of the process of soft compulsion by which he had been obliged to concede the repeal of the Test Acts and Catholic Emancipation. In that Act of Emancipation were clauses declaring the right of Ca- tholics to be admitted into the Corporations ; and Sir Robert Peel had expressed his earri;st hope that they would not be excluded- " From that day to this-mark it, Englishmen l-fi our that day to this, despite of that Act of Parliament-despite of the declaration of the tight ho. nourable baronet-not a single Catholic-I repeat it-not one has been ad. mitted into the corporation attached to the metropolis of our country. Do you approve of that ? You do not. Will you then now, as the opportunity is afforded to you, carry emancipation into effect ? Will you do it ? Do you re- pent of having eanctioued part of the Act of Parliament? Was that the coin- pact ? Was It to be a de rd later? Will you permit the law to be still evaded by the Orarg,then of Dublin ?"

But there 1Vtle fears for the Established Church. It was it pity, if that Church were the true one, that it should be the obstac!e to every concession. The peril of the Church was adduced us an argument against the Reform Bill ; what did Lord Stanley say to that ? He would read them what he said. Citations were not popular ; but as Sir James Graham had employed the recess in groping out speeches, and selecting passages front pamphlets almut Cabrera's mother, surely be might be excii,ed for reading from the Mirror of Parliament the passage of Lord Scaoley's speech to which he referred. It was from Volume 17th, page 2278.

" I call upon those who are for Reform in England to look back and consider what has been the conduct of the Irish 3letebers with respect to that bill. (‘ Ceitainly,' said Mr. Sheil, we eat rieil the Reform Bill, against a majority both of English and Scotch Members.') If it be iust here, NO it must be just there. I entleat of the atIvecates of the Conseivative intertst-rf he noble lord was then on this side of the House]-and those who consider themselves the supporters of Protestant institutions, to look at the danger to which those institutions are exposed. By withholding the privileges which this bill con- fer*, you will give to Ireland a real substantial grievance. It will give a handle for agitation-a great argument for the repeal of the Union. Do nut let them lay that in the House of Commons English interests wete treated one way and Irish interests iii another-that in England public opinion is attended to, while in Ireland the public voice is stifled. 1, fur one, canuot conceive how, tea epitit of fairness and justice, this can be dune. Agitatiun will break out, and in a manner that it has never done before. I cannot conceive that any thing can be more clear, than that there ought to be an extension of the English Bill to Ireland. I cannot conceive-[ Ilia conception has since improved] how we can ref rise to treat both countries equally, and make the same principle appli- cable to all the members of the empire. (Much cheering accompanied and followed the reading of this extract from the Mirror of Parliament.)

He hoped that if Sir Robert Peel did him the honour to advert to any thing he said, he would extricate Lord Stanley from the difficulty in which he was placed. It would require all the dexterity for which Sir Robert was so remarkable, to serve his friend, who assuredly needed it all. But, really, he mourned for Lord Stanley. Wits it not lamentable to see him-the man who had uttered the sentiments he had just quoted-in such a position ? It was melancholy to see him where he was ; and the pain was aggravated by the tone and character of the speeches he had lately delivered. The moan who had delivered the fiprecil he had cited, amidst the acclamations of the Reformers, was the same who had told the people of Ireland that they never should have curpieatte reform.

Lord Si N --" N0,110."

SlIIAL---" Lien 1 beg his pardon : abut did he say ?" Lord STA a IL -•••" 1 IiiVvE o'cd tire phrase." Mr. SHELL-" Euough: I recall every expression used under the belief alas . he did use that language. I was not in the House when he was reported to hoe, utlefileiiitei:l Members -" He did use it."

Mr. Sneiz-" The noble lord says he did not use it." Lord STANLEY" The honourable and learned gentleman has made a pee., senal attack upon me." Mr. SHRIL-" No, no. Not a personal attack." Lord STA N LEY.-" What ! no attack ! The honourable and learned gentle- man has made tin attack on me, knowing that I have not the opportunity of answering him. ( Opposition cheers.) I do not complain of this ; but as does ask me to explain that which he had not the opportunity of hearing, anti yet to which he is replying, I beg to tell him, that I did not use the expression that the peoole of Ireland shouldnot ever be put in possession of corporate re-. form ; but I stated this, that while the Irish Church was subject to danger, and while the General Association was using thieats and intimidation, that the more these threats and intimidation were used, the more would the people of England be determined that they should not have what they thus demanded." (Cheers from the Opposition.)

Mr. SUM showed, argumentatively, that this amounted in substance to the very threat which Lord Stanley denied- 44 The noble lord complains that I have attacked him when secure from a reply: he knows perfectly well, that although I feel myself, and I speak most, unaffectedly, most conscious of my inferiority to him in point of talent, I have never shrunk once when any public duty called upon me to assail him, whether he had a reply or not. (Loud cheers.) I must appeal to the House whether I have made an attack on the noble lord. I would rather say, that there is that in his own breast which reproaches him more than I can do. ( Great cheering.) I stand here, in a constitutional point of view, the noble lord's equal. The noble lord knows it. I respect his rank, I respect his talent, lament his opinions. Let me add, that the noble lord himself is not charac- terized by mercy tr., his opponents. No man fears an operation so much as the surgeon. I have always heard that the drummer of the regiment has the greatest terror of the lash." ( Cheers and laughter.)

He would now show why the " No Popery" cry could not succeed. Catholic Emancipation was carried against Sir Robert Peel, who offered to that measure a resistance as strong and as formidable as that which Lord Stanley now offered to corporate reform. Emancipation was carried by union, organization, associated power-by the Clare election. And now he would ask, when their power was trebled, were they not equal to carry this immediate result of Reform? Ireland not only stands erect, but looks as if she had never stooped-

" All we ask is simply justice. Can you reconcile it with common sense or justice, that I, who stand in this House as a Member for the County of Tippe- rary, cannot be a Member of the Corporations of Cashel or Cloninell? The thing is inonstrous. We ask for justice, and we will persevere in the asser- tion of our just cause. If the Tortes come into power, they shall find Us here; they Will find us combined and confederated against them. We beat them before, and we will beat them again. Oh, but there was a great anxiety to do us justice! This is the language that has been always used ever since Strong.. bow first put his foot on the shores of Ireland. Yea; every Engli=bman to whom the Government of Ireland has been committed, professed the utmost solicitude to do justice. Even Strafford, the deserter of the People's cause- the renegade Wentworth, while setting his foot on the necks of Irishmen-de- clared his anxiety to do justice. I am not surprised at this, for the same infiu- epee now exists by which Straffnal was influenced. But while all others pro- fessed to do justice, theie is one amongst you, of the most distinguished talent and the most decided character—Ire is not a Member of this House-he spoke at least with more frankness than others of his party. He dues not profess Coda justice to Ireland; he is above imposture; and part of the epitaph on Charteris is applicable to him. This ilistinguisliedperson tells us, when making an appeal to the passions

i

of the English people-he tells us, the people of Ireland-that n every particular by which strangers can be enumerated we are aliens to this country. ( Tremen- dous cheering, which lasted for several ntinutes, and was renewed with bursts of enthusiasm ; it being discovered that Lord Lyndhurst was sitting under the Gallery.) The ploase is certainly a remarkable one, and one which now belongs to history. It is one which must necessarily be the subject of' fur and legitimate quarrel now, as it must be the subject of observation hereafter. I am not aware whether that phrase has ever been explained. ( Cries of" Oh, oh !" and cheers.) I know the phrase has never been distinctly disavowed. I know that the utterance of that pluase has not been denied ; and with re- spect to the meaning of it, but little doubt can be entertained. I know that, in this House, upon one occasion immediately after that remarkable phrase had been uttered, I took the liberty-if it be one, I beg pardon-hut I took the liberty of asking every one who held a conspicuous position oil the opposite benches, whether he adopted the phrase or not. I remember more especially the right honourable baronet the Member for Tarnworth, on that occasion, saying that he was not responsible for any language but his own. The right honourable baronet was in the painful situation of being in close connexion and association with a man in whose expressions he did not think it judicious to express his concurrence. I am surprised that, at the moment the phrase was uttered, the Duke of Wellington did not start up and say that those uliens had done their duty. (Immense cheering.) The Duke of Wellington is not a man of a peculiarly excitable temperament ; his mind is too martial for sudden emotions ; but y et I cannot help feeling surprised, that when he heard expres- sions so affronting to his country, he did not recollect how often in the field and in the fight the Irish Roman Catholics have been the auxiliaries of his renown. He ought not to have forgotten Vimeira, and Badajoz, and Sala- manca, and Toulouse, and the last and glorious conflict which crowned all former victories. I will appeal to the gallant and honourable soldier opposite (Sir H. Hardinge)-I know he bears in his breast a brave and generous heart -let him tell how on that day, when the destinies of mankind were trembling in the balance-when the batteries, with fatal precision, spread slaughter over the field, and men fell in heaps-when the legions of France rushed to the fight, and, inspired by the voice of their mighty leader, rushed again and again to the onset-the gallant soldier opposite will tell you that in that, last hour of thousands the aliens did not flinch. And when at length the moment for the decisive lititish charge arrived, and the Great Captain cried out Now, boys ! at them '-he will tell you, for he must remember, whether the Irish- mau, the Catholic Irishman, was less forward in throwing himself upon the foe. Ile will tell you, that on that day the blood of the men of England, Ire- land, and Scotland, was poured forth together : they fraught in the Same field-they died the same death-they were stretched in the same pit-their dust was commingled-the same dew of heaven fell upon the earth that covered them, the saute grass sprung from the soil which covered their graves. And is it to be endured that we should be called aliens and complete strangers to that empire for whose salvation our best blood was shed ?" (Enthusiastic cheering, in the midst of which Mr. Shed sat down.) Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to discuss this question calmly, oft its merits : but Mr. Simi' had converted it into an appeal to the passions and a series of personal attacks-

" Is it wise, or is it prudent, or is it just, to remark upon every phrase that

easy he uttered in the heat of debate, or on every angry expression that may have fallen from a political opponent on such an occasion? Is it right or just that expressions so uttered iffiould be set down as matters of history? Will the honourable and learned gentleman be himself bound by the same rule ? Did he never hear of an occasion on which the " mighty captain of the age," who valued life as nothing when he staked his reputation won in so many fields, and stood opposed to the legions of France, leading on to victory the united bands ofEnglishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchinen, to rescue Europe from the domina- tion of Bonaparte and establish the military fame of his country—did the honourable and learned gentleman ever bear of an Irishman who thought so little of his country's glory as not to be able to frame any other appellation for the " mighty captain of the age " than that of a " stunted corporal?" If it is not fair to fasten on words uttered in a moment of warmth in debate, which affects the fame of the greatest man which the country ever produced—is it fair to fasten on an accidental expression of Lord Lyndhurst as irrevocable?"

He had been called upon by Mr. Sheil to defend Lord Stanley. What defence did he require?

" What man ever held a prouder position than that of my noble friend? What into had ever risen to a higher position, as regarded powers of debate, talents for public business, and the confidence of a great party, in the pursuit of am- bition ? Am I not right in saying, that there was a deep sense of the public lac sustained when my noble ftiend found it necessary, from a feeling of duty, to separate himself from those with whom he had before been politically con- nected? I speak of the opinion of those with whom he was connected, and not of those whose designs he has so ably contributed to frustrate. If the love of office was an object of ambition with him, what could have made him relin- quish it, but an overwhelming sense of public duty, and place himself in the situation be now is? Why did he relinquish office? Why did be sever him- self from his party? What assignable reason is there for my noble friend act- ing thus, but a sense of public duty ?"

Sir Robert then defended his conduct with reference to the carrying of Catholic Emancipation. It was universally declared by the advo- cates of that measure, that it would tend to strengthen the Church. He had his doubts on that point ; but he had chosen what he deemed the least of two evils. He had been reproached by Lord Howiek for not having foreseen, in 1825, the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. He was asked why he had not yielded sooner— The same question might be put to many other public men. Would the noble lord have the goodness to ask the noble Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to Reform ? He had no doubt the noble Secretary was an honest convert, and that, acting with regard to the question of Reform on the same principles as he had acted with regard to the Catholic claims, be had chosen what he considered to be the lesser of two evils. Would Lord Howick inquire of the head of the present Administration, why he too had not been an earlier convert to Reform ? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1625 the neeesssity of granting, of con- ceding the Catholic claims, was not Lord Melbourne, then, blind in 1826, when he made the most vigorous opposition to all Reform, even to the transfer of the Representatives ft om Pentyn to Manchester ? Nay, even the leader of the House of Commons could not escape the searching question of the noble lord his colleague. Had a prophetic vision of what was now passing appeared to Lord John Russell some ten years ago, he doubted whether any enlogium on Old Sarum, or any declamation on the necessity of preserving Aladdin' lamp and cherishing the vestal flame, would ever have proceeded from the pen of the noble leader of that House. He knew not what answer Lord John Russell might return to the question why he had changed his course with respect to the question of Reform, but be would freely reply to the question which had been addressed to him on the subject of the Catholic claims. He thought that a man might, without any irrational distrust of the Roman Catholics, have entertained conscientious doubts on the question whether the removal of the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics would restore peace to Ireland and secure the stability of the Established Church. Ile feared danger to the Pro- tstant Establishment. Had he been entirely wrong?

He was now called upon to defend the Church which had been designated as a curse by those who had urged him to carry Catholic Emancipation as a means of strengthening the Church ; and was he to be blamed if he refused to put weapons into the hands of those who would use them for the destruction of the Church ? He did not believe that Mr. Charles Buller's description of the advantages to be derived from municipal institutions would be found applicable to Ireland. He be- lieved that the Irish corporators would be controlled by the General Association, and would constantly interfere with the elective franchise. He would for his part take the course prescribed by justice, and stand by the Church, to whose cause he was bound by the ties of honour and of interest also. It was said that the majority never persecuted a minority.. Were not the early French emigrants a minority ? Were not the Girondists, who were guil'otined twenty-two at one time, a minority ? Had not the Government of Spain sent a General into Andalusia, proclaiming that every one who refused to join him should be hanged ? When it was objected to Ministers that they had pro- moted members of the Association, it was retorted upon him that he had given Colonel Perceval an appointment: but was his fault their justification ? He complained ot the conduct of Government, as un- just, ungenerous, and impolitic- " I think it has been unjust, because it was not fair to discourage one kind of combination, and then to give that kind of encouragement to another 'which is shown by the selection of a most confidential official from among its members. I think it ungenerous, because it was not consistent with gene- rosity to cajole those loyal gentlemen who presided over the Orange So- cieties; for you told them, that although you would not attempt to control them by law, yet you had that confidence in their devotion to their King, that a manifestation of his commands would be as powerful as the law in insuring the dispersion of them ; and then, when they had taken your advice, acted on your injunction, and thus proved their willingness to defer to the commands of their Sovereign, you turn round upon them and taunt them with being a miserable monopolizing minority, when they showed thew disposition to reiniud you of your implied engagements and to complain of your connexions with this Association. I think your conduct is impolitic, gheo, instead of interposing the restraint of Government on a dangerous asso- ciation, you give it the encouragement implied by those appointineuts. I call your conduct impolitic, when you tell me that the principle on which you mean to conduct the Government is that if one concession fails you are leady to make another—that the course you mean to pursue is one of constant com- pliance with popular demands. I say, that when you do this, you are establish- ing a principle which appears to me to be revolting to common sense; which, if held by individuals in private life, would be most dangerous to the wellbeing of society ; and which, when backed by the weight of official station, will tender it in future almost impossible to interpose that authority and restraint which it was intended you should exercise when that official station devolved or was conferred Nan, Mr. O'CONNELL next addressed the House. He said that he stood there as a Repealer—as one who was convinced that the Union should be dissolved. The period had not arrived, and he feared it nevat would, when the Legislature would do perfect justice to Ireland. Every thing he had heard that night convinced him that a large portion of that House, and a majority of the other, would refuse justice to Ire- land. He referred to history to prove that justice never bad bees done to Ireland, from the time of Strongbow ; and be concluded with declaring his belief of the impossibility of procuring equal laws for Ireland from the Imperial Parliament, and his conviction that Irish- men must look to other means for redress.

Lord Joni: RUSSELL replied ; and the House divided— For going into Committee 322 For Lord Francis Egerton's instruction to the Committee 242 Liberal majority SO The House then went into Committee pro forma ; the Chairman reported progress, and the House was ordered to go again into Com- mittee on Friday next.

RAILWAY JOBBING.

On Wednesday, Mr. WARBURTON presented two petitions to the House, from parties who complained that they had been persuaded to put their names down as subscribers for shares in the Kent, Deptford, and Dover Railway, in ignorance of what they were doing, and, as it appeared, merely for the purpose of enabling the solicitor of the Cora- pany to fill up the requisite subscription-list before bringing forward his bill in Parliament. They now prayed to be released from the ob- ligation they had ignorantly laid themselves under. The amount sub- scribed by those men of straw was 224,9001. ; and sonic of them had received three or four shillings each for their signatures, at the office of Mr. F. G. Hamond, in Mark Lane, chairman of the Provisional Committee sitting at Greenwich, and a Magistrate of the county of Kent. One Jacob Costello was the person who brought the parties to Hamond's office. There were three Members of Parliament Directors of the Company,—Sir Andrew Leith Hay, Mr. Hesketh Fleetwood, and Mr. Pinney: Mr. Warburton commented on the con- duct of Members of Parliament who lent their sanction to undertak- ings of which they knew nothing; and moved for a Committee to in- quire into the transaction complained of by the petitioners.

Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY explained, that he had last year been a Director of the Gravesend Railway Company, \which was dissolved; and then, without his consent, his name was transferred to the Kent, Dover, and Deptford Company. He had not attended any meeting of the Directors, or signed the deed of settlement, or in any way interfered in the management of the concern. He bad withdrawn his name from the direction as soon as be found that the proceedings of the company were improper ; and he fully admitted that he had been guilty of great negligence in allowing his name to remain on the direction without in- quiring into the character of the proceedings. Many persons of the highest respectability were mixed up with them.

Mr. HESKETII FLEETWOoD said, he had withdrawn his name from the direction before he had heard of the petition. He had reason to believe in the great respectability of the concern, but had not at all in- terfered in its management. He was desirous that a Committee of in- quiry should be appointed.

Mr. PINNEY was also quite willing to stand the test of a Committee.

Mr. OISBORNE doubted whether Parliament ought to interfere, as the regular legal tribunals could take cognizance of the fraud that had been committed. Mr. STRING RICE, Lord STANLEY, Sir EDWARD KNATctIBULL, Mr. POI:LETT TIMISON, Mr. ROBERT PALMER, and Colonel SIBTHORPE, spoke in favour of Parliamentary inquiry.

Finally, a Select Committee was appointed, to whom the petition presented by Mr. Warburton was referred.

CIIURCII-RATES.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Earl Frrzwit.riasf presented several petitions for the abolition of Church.rater. He said that hat did not entirely concur in the prayer of the petitioners. In his opinion, the State was bound to provide places of worship in every part of the country, to which all could have admission ; and that the expense of building and maintaining them should be defrayed by a tax on the landed proprietors. He wished it could be so arranged that persons of all sects could use the churches—of course at different times. He WWI persuaded that, in almost all parts of the country, the members of the Church of England were more numerous than those of all the other sects put together ; but in any parish where a Dissenting sect ex- ceeded the Churchmen in number, he shwa wish the property of the Church to be transferred to such sect. Lord Fitzwilliam took the opportunity of expressing his disapprobation of the proceedings of the Church Commissioners : they effected changes without any beneficial result, and removed no abuses which called for immediate correction. The state of the archdiocese of York illustrated this : it was, notwith- standing the measures of the Commissioners, too extensive for any single person properly to overlook.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of LotemaN de- fended the Commission. As for Lord Fitzvvilliam's plan of allowing all sects to use the parish-church, Dr. 13lomfield said it %mild make that edifice like Noah's ark.

Lord MELBOURNE thought that Government must be in the right way, for they had been attacked on all sides- " On the one side, we have been accused of acting with the recklessness of g Wilt Tyler or a Jack Straw ; while, on the other side, we have been accused of acting with a timidity and a hesitation that is perfectly contemptible and un- suited to the character of the times. On the one side, we are told, by the warm espousers of the Church, that there prevails a lay and 3Iinisterial influence in that commission which entirely overwhelms the right reverend Prelates, and prevents them from protecting the Church ; while, on the other side, we are told that we, the Ministers, are beset with a certain number of artful and ra- pacious Churchmen who do with us exactly what they please. Considering the) variety et these accusations, and considering their inconsistency with one an- other, I cannot help conning to the very same conclusion with the m ight leverend Prelate, that when these propositions shall come fairly to be considered, it will be found that we have hit upon rienethine like the just me limn, and, upon the whole, have powered that which is the fittest to execute the great objects for which that commission wu appointed. Into the other matters stated by my sable friend I do not mean to enter further on the present occasion ; but 1 beg have to assure my noble friend, that with regard to the general principle he has laid down upon the main subject embraced in the petitions, we entirely concur with him, and that it is our object to secure that principle, and that in attain- ing that object we have the most sanguine hope we shall be found to have suc- ceeded."

With respect to the Ministerial plan for doing away wIth the Church- rate grievance, Lord AIRLBOURNE said— "I beg leave on the part of his Majesty's Government, to state, that it is not their intention to introduce into Parliament any plan which would interfere with the revenues of the Church, but one which, I humbly conceive, would secure them in a much better, in a much more prudent, in a much more safe wanner, and which would be less liable to insecurity and irritation than is the present state of the law upon the subject. 1 beg distinctly to state, that, in our opinion, the plan which we have to prepose will secure all these objects, and avoid all the inconveniences and all the evils which I believe it i9 admitted on all sides belong to the present state of the law, and the present mode of its administration."

In the House of Commons on the same day, Mr. SPRING RICE postponed his motion on Church-rates, from Thursday the 23rd to Monday the 27th.

During the week, the petitions presented to both Houses of Parlia- Nsent for the entire abolition of Church. rates have been very numer-

ous. A few have also been presented, principally to the Lords, for the preservation of the impost. The latter seem to be generally from agricultural parishes.

WILLS.

Lord LANGDALE, on Thursday, called the attention of the Peers to a bill which be had introduced for the purpose of amending the law relating to wills ; and of which he now moved the second reading. Be reminded them, that two bills which had been previously intro. duced into Parliament bad been suffered to drop in their progress through the Upper House ; but be hoped that which he now brought forward would be considered an improvement on the former measures. Be had solicited and received several suggestions from eminent lawyers, some of which he had embodied in the bill. His object was to frame a law that would lay down distinct and intelligible rules for xnaking and revoking wills. Lord Langdale explained several points on which the existing law required amendment. At present the owners of copyholds and customary freeholds could not dispose of them by will ; and he proposed to allow them. A person could only bequeath such real property as he possessed at the time of making the will ;- but he would enable the testator to dispose of any that he might acquire subsequently to making his will. No person under the age of twenty-one could now make a will ; but it was proposed that persons of seventeen should dispose of personal property by will. With respect to witnesses, the bill would enact, that in all cases a Walid will must be signed in the presence of two witnesses, whether the property were real or personal. An executor would be admitted to give evidence of the validity of a will; which at present lie could not do. Under the existing rule, both the witnesses need cot he present at the same time—they might sign in different places and at different times, in a place where the testator might see them, which was held to be in the actual presence of the testator: but the bill provided that the signature of the testator, or his acknowledgment, should be made in presence of two witnesses, who should then attest it. With regard to revocation of wills, it was provided that a woman might revoke a will by interlineations or obliterations, or written in- struments, all attested in the same manner as a will ; and that a inarriage, or the birth of a child, should not invalidate the previous will of a man. A will would only be revived by a codicil or re- execution, and a subsequent act or conveyance would not render a will inoperative except so far as they related to the interests they hn- snediately affected : the remainder of the will would not be invalidated. With regard to construction, it was proposed to restore words to their Natural sense, to follow as nearly as possible the inteotions of the testator, and not (to quote the expression of Judge Wilmot) " to wrest and torture the words of a will to the purposes of justice." A devise of real estates and a bequest of personal estates would include all the property over which the testator had a power of appointment ; and a general devise of lands would include leasehold as well us free- hold and copyhold lands. Previous statutes should also he repealed.

Lord BROUGHAM and Lord ABINGER expressed their approbation .Of the measure.

Lord Wersroan disapproved of one of the alterations proposed. There was an old rule that a subsequent birth or marriage invalidated a will: this it was proposed to abolish ; but he thought that a child should not be left unprovided for because some old wills which the testator might have entirely forgotten, were picked out of a corner. He wished the law in this respect to remain unaltered.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that when the present bill was dis- posed of, he should reintroduce his measure for the regulation of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; and then, if both bills passed, there would be one law regulating the making of wills and another the mode of prov- ing them.

The bill was read a second time.

MISCELLANEOUS.

LOWER CANADA. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL mentioned, in reply to Mr. Robinson, that it was his intention to bring the affairs of Lower Canada under the attention of the House on the 28th instant (Tuesday next.) BANK OF IRELAND. In answer to a question by Mr. O'CONNELL, on Wedeesday, Mr. SPRING Rice said, that until the Joint Stock Bank Committee had made their report, he could not take any step respecting the renewal of the Bank of Ireland charter.