Clebatel anti procrain0 in landiantritt.

I. IRISII CHURCH REFORM.

Numerous petitions against the Irish Church Bill were presented to

the House of Commons, on Tuesday, by Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. LE- /ROY, Colonel PERCEVAL, Mr. JACKSON, and other Members. Lord MORPETII then moved that the House should go into Committee on the bill ; and the question being put, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose to move an instruction to the Committee, to divide the bill into two parts, in order that a separate consideration might be given to that portion of it which referred to the settlement of the Tithe question, and that which provided for the appropriation of Church property to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. Sir Robert began by magnifying the difficulties of the task he had undertaken, arising from unfavourable prepossessions, and the natural tendency of men to persevere in a course to which they had been once committed. It was bardly possible to disabuse the minds of Members from the long course of exaggeration on this subject, to which they had become accustomed.

Some years ago, the property of the Irish Church had been estimated by

Dr. Doyle at several millions per annum, and the number of Episco- palian Protestants at only 260,000; while Mr. Hume had stated the annual income of the Church at 3,200,0001. These extravagant calcu- lations had, it was true, been reduced by later speakers on the subject : Mr. Ward, in 1834, had reckoned 037,4561. as the revenue of the Church ; and Lord Althorp had declared that it did not exceed 800,0001. But it now appeared that these were, all of them, in a greater or less degree, exaggerations of the real value of Irish Church property. In arguing the question of the existence of a surplus above the wants of the Church, Sir Robert would take the evidence and facts furnished and relied on by Ministers themselves. He then proceeded to describe the effects of the Church Temporalities Act on tile income of the Church, and the consequences which would result from the " process of exhaustion" contemplated by the bill before the House. In the first place, there was to be a reduction of three tenths from the tithes ; secondly, the composition was to be reopened ; and thirdly, a new composition, to be calculated on the prices of corn during the last seven years—when corn had been notoriously low in price—was-to be sub- stituted for that entered into by the clergyman on a calculation of the average of the prices of former years. The effect of these operations, according to Sir Robert, would be to reduce a living of 1001. a year to 57/. Is., and one of 6001. a year to 332/. 15s. He calculated that the total amount of Church income on which the parochial clergy could mow rely was 507,3671. ; but that the ingenious process of exhaustion proposed by the bill would reduce it to 377,779/. ; and, deducting the value of glebe lands and ministers' money, to 288,1631. Now there were 1385 benefices in Ireland, of which 1121 had more than 50 Pro- testants; and if the tithe were apportioned equally among them, there would only be 2561. per annum for each benefice. Look at the cal- culation in another light— "There are 670 benefices in Ireland, with a Protestant population varying in

number between 50 and 200; there are 209 benefices in Ireland, with Pro- testants varying from 500 to 1000; there are 242 benefices in Ireland, with more than 1000 members of the Established Church in each. I take three classes of benefices. Obs:.rve, I am abandoning altogether, and make no defence of,"ineeures in the Church of Ireland. I want to continue no inequality of pro- vision. That there ought to be an inequality of provision, varying with the amount of duty, enabling him who has to perform his duty in a populous town, to-maintain hie station in society, and to compete with his equals in rank, none,

frnrehend, will deny. I divide the benefices in Ireland which contain a popu- aexceeding 60 into three classes; I take those with Protestants between 50 and 500, those with Protestants between 500 and 1000, and benefices which have a number of Protestants in each exceeding 1000. Of the first class, I find there are 670; of the second, 209 ; and of the third, 242. Now I see no rea- moo whatever why, in the city of Dublin, or in Cork, or in Belfast, there ought sot to be some livings amply provided with the means for the support of the

Protestant minister. If there be not—if the Protestant minister be not enabled to maintain tho independeoce and respectability of .his station, and to compete

with hia equals in- life—then you are, in my, uproiono,not merely sacrificing the

man, but inflicting an irreparable injury upon the,Establisbment. Supposing —I am speaking of tithes—supposing I allot 21101.- a year to the 670 benefiees;

1411101 vary from 50 to 100 Protestants ; supposing I allot 3001. a year only to

the 209 benefices, which vary from 500 to 1000 Protestants ; and supposing I allot 400/. a year only to the benefices which have more than 1000 Protestant; amounting in number to 242; then the demand which I must make upon the revenues of the Irish Church, for that extremely low and moderate provision for its ministers, will amount to 293,500/. ; whereas you obtain from tithe, at pre.. sent, only 278,163/. But observe, that this argument is all founded upon an assumption of the number of benefices, and not of parishes. I make no pro- vision for curates, although in benefices containing more than 1000 Protestants, there must be curates to provide for. I make no provision for the deduction occasioned by the tax imposed under the Church Temporalities Bill ; but 1 set off against that the revenue that may he derived from glebes, which I have not taken into account."

Sir Robert quoted the declarations of Mr. Hume, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Finn, in confirmation of his opinion that 2001 a year was cer- tainly not too much for a clergyman ; and referred to the amounts paid to Ministers of the Scottish Church, some pf whom received 800L or 1000/. a year, by way of showing that the provision made for the clergy on that very moderate establishment was larger than the bill id leave to the Irish Clergy. He contended that a grievous wrong would be inflicted by the suppression of parishes in which there were fewer than 50 Protestants ; as it happened not unfrequently, that the income of the clergyman was derived from those parishes with few Protestants which formed parts of unions, while he had no revenue whatever from parishes in which there were numerous Protestants; and Sir Robert concluded with reminding the House, that he had not argued the ques- tion as a party one ; that he had taken the Ministerial data; and that he had not decried the religious opinions of any sect or class. He was convinced that the course adopted by Ministers would not lead to a settlement of the subject ; but would act like a slow poison on the Church, and eventually bring about its extinction. He protested against the appropriation of a surplus, which Ministers had themselves demon. strated not to exist.

Mr. SPRING RICE next addressed the House ; but the reporters coin. plain, that owing to his dropping his voice at the close of each sentence, he was often inaudible ; and his speech on that account appears to be

disjointed, and almost unintelligible in parts. He maintained, that although Sir Robert Peel's speech was ingenious and elaborate, it teas not a speech in support of his motion to divide the bill into two parts : it was rather an indirect attempt to induce the House to rescind the resolution of Lord John Russell, and reject the whole measure. Sir Robert had not argued the question fairly ; and his statements should be received, if not with suspicion, at least with caution. Mr. Rice seems to have given several illustrations of the unfairness he complained of, but theyare not distinctly stated in the reports. With respect to the " process of exhaustion," he reminded Sir Robert of the great deduc- tion his own measure would have made in the incomes of the clergy ; and Mr. Rice contended, that the revenue Ministers proposed to secure to them would be deeMed worth more in the money-market than that which the bill of the late Government would have provided. All men- tion of the grant of the million was avoided by Sir Robert Peel ; who would fain have it supposed that nothing was given to the clergy, while much was taken from them, Sir Robert also argued as it the Protestants were equally distributed all over the country ; whereas, of 850,000. Protestants, 517,000 resided in the diocese of Armagh : and would it, he would ask, tend to pacify Ireland to compel the 3,408,000 Catholics of Timm and Cashel to contribute to the support of the Protestants of Armagh? He was satisfied, that by no such arrangement tranquillity could he produced in that distracted country. If they proceeded in the train of argument he bad just adverted to, they must retain the Protestant Church of Ireland, even if all the people in that country became Catholics ; or, by the argument that the Church of England and Church of Ireland were united churches, they would be justified in drawing any surplus that might arise in the North-or South of Ire. land, and expend it in England on the portion of the United Church in this country : if the principle was to be maintained, this result might be arrived at by a fair train of argument. He put this point to show that the course the Government had pursued was not so unnatural as Sir Robert wished to make It appear. He contended that Sir Robert was not justified in taking the whole case, and leaving out of consideration the difference of circumstances in which different parts of the country were placed. Mr. Rice proceeded to quote instances of the large sums paid in several dioceses by the Catholic population for the support of Pro- testant clergymen; and reminded the House, that besides the million which the bill proposed to give to the clergy, sums had been lent and given by the Board of First Fruits, for the erection of churches and glebe-houses.

He would take the case of ten benefices in Ireland, and show the circum- stances in which they were placed. In the first there four members of the Establishment, and the amount of tithes paid was 440/. per annum ; in the second, there were three Protestants, and the tithes were 3351. ; in the third, 14 Protestants, and COOL tithes; in the fourth, 17 Protestants, and 559/. tithes ; in the fifth, 20 Protestants, and 5061. tithes; in the sixth, 19 Protestants, and 809/. tithes; in the seventh, 20 Protestants, and 784/. tithes; in the eighth, 23 Protestants, and 612/. tithes; in the ninth, 12 Protestants, and 4841. tithes; in the tenth, 8 members of the Church, and 5001. tithes. Thus, in the whole of these ten parishes there were 144 members of the.Esta- blishment, and the annual income of the incumbents of them amounts to onNI. Again be found the following results taken from fifty benefices selected from fifteen dioceses in the four provinces. The number of the members of the Church was 525 ; the number of benefices 50 ; the number of resident clergy 11; non-resident clergy, 39 ; in 42 benefices there were churches, and in 8 there were no churches. The amount of tithes collected in these parishes was 13,300/. per annum. He reminded the House of the inveterate opposition of the Tories to the reform of abuses in the Church,—abuses of whose existence Sir Robert Peel appeared now to be aware for the first time : and this part of Mr. Rice's speech seems to have been very effective. He was ready to enter into the details of the bill in Committee ; but the into two before the House was, whether they should divide the bill nto two parts ; and to induce the House to take that course, Sir Robert Peel should have shown that it was practicable to settle the Tithe question

without meddling with that of Appropriation :. this, however, he had, not done.

Mr. LEFROY supported the motion of Sir Robert Peel, in a speech which received little attention from the House.

Mr. EVELYN DENISON opposed the motion—

He had supported the Administration of Sir Robert Peel on public grounds, until the question relative to the Irish Church came under the consideration of the House; and he was aware that exactly in proportion as his view, on other questions approximated to or were identified with those of Sir Robert, were

feelings of asperity and manifested towards. him when le considered himself bound by duty to give up the support if his Administration. He did net at all regret the conduct which he had pursued on that occasion. Whether be was right or wrong in the course which he had then taken, it was not for him to say ; but of this he was sure, that his choice was deterinimd by nothing but conscientious conviction.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG also would resist Sir Robert Peel's motion— Ile had never approved of the principle that in no instance whatever was the Legislature justified in diverting what were termed ecclesiastical revenues from strictly ecclesiastical purposes. It was certainly a matter for grave consideras tion when that departure should be made ; but when he looked at the state of Ireland, and the circumstances developed in the report of the Commissioners— circumstances which were somewhat exaggerated on previous occasions, but which were now proved to exist to a certain extent—he could not hesitate one instant in declaring that he should vote against the proposition of the right honourable Member for Tamworth. ( Vehement cheering for some minutes.) The right honourable Baronet had certainly made a most able speech in intro- ducing his amendment—able, he meant, so far as it ai7oriled an eminent speci- men of intellectual gladiatorship, but extremely defective as a calm and dis- passionate appeal to the reason and common sense of the House.

Mr. F. FRENCH opposed the motion, and Mr. WALTER supported it.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS spoke in favour of the motion ; amidst much interruption, which was said to proceed from the quarter where the Irish Members were sitting.

At length Mr. FORRESTER said, that Mr. John O'Connell's conduct was indecent. Mr. Joins O'CONNELL said, that what Mr. Forrester had stated was not the fact—be had not been especially loud in conversa- tion while Sir Robert Inglis was speaking. Mr. FITZSISION said a few words, and Mr. John O'Connell left the House. The SPEAKER expressed his strong disapproval of the interruptions which had become too common in the House; and he called upon Mr. Forrester and Mr. O'Connell to explain. Mr. FORRESTER retracted his offensive expression ; Mr. JohN O'CONNELL, who soon returned with Mr. Maurice O'Connell, also withdrew his ; and there the matter ended.

On the motion of Mr. HOME, the debate was adjourned.

On Wednesday, the discussion was opened by Mr. Hume ; who stated that he was induced to address the House, contrary to his original intention, in consequence of the pointed manner in which he had been alluded to by Sir Robert Peel. The statements he bad made in 18-22 had been spoken of as exaggerations ; but he made them on the autho- rity of Mr. Wakefield, who was residing with Lord Oriel at the time be collected the materials for his work on Ireland. He had stated the average value of livings at 5204, and Lord Stanley had said that it did not exceed 265L ; but it appeared that the average of 417 livings, com- muted under the Tithe Composition Act, was 499/. ; so that he was not far out of the way on this head, after all. Considering the per- severance with which correct information bad been refused, it was not surprising that errors should be committed. The question, however, for the House to consider, was the means of pacifying and doing justice to Ireland. If he had delivered the speech that Sir Robert Peel had spoken on the previous night, he should have been charged with making the question merely one of pounds, shillings and pence— The whole speech was a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. He talked of the necessity of protecting the Establishment, to be sure ; but did. be put this question to himself or to the House—had the Church Establishment in Ireland, from the period of the first substantive motion, recognizing the neces- sity of reducing it in proportion to its general utility, given satisfaction to the people, or answered the object for which it was founded ? Measure after mea- sure had been brought in, bill after bill had been introduced, Secretary for Ireland after Secretary for Ireland had endeavoured to perpetuate that Church in its old state; and what was the result of all their attempts? Signal and complete failure. So utter was the failure, that after all their endeavours they were compelled at last to give up the tithe, and to grant 1,000,0001. to the clergy. Sir Robert had failed throughout the whole of his argument to ad- vance a single reason in favour of the division he proposed. He would admit every one of his positions ; and the more broadly he admitted them, the more incorrect were his conclusions. What was Sir 'Robert's object? To separate that part of the bill which went to appropriate the revenues of the Church of Ireland to other than ecclesiastical purposes, from the other portions of the measure. Sir Robert's great argument was, that the fund from which the sur- plus was to be derived was already bankrupt, and that until the year 1853 there would not be one farthing of surplus available. Why, if there were to be no surplus at all, on what ground did he oppose the progress of the bill at all ? Mr. Hume did not himself consider that the bill went far enough ; but he would take it as an instalment : if his claim were 6s. 8d. he would take 3s. 4d. rather than lose the whole, but seize the first op- portunity of getting the remainder.

Of all the great subjects of discussion between England and Ireland, on none did they owe so heavy a debt to the People of Ireland as on the Church question ;

and he hoped they would see some such change as he had proposed, before many

years had elapsed. He would not seek to effect it at present, because be did not think he could carry the People of England along with him ; but time, reason, and experience, he was convinced, would induce them, one and all, to awaken

to a sense of its justice and necessity. Sir Robert Peel had said last night, that if the measure were carried, the Church would become stipendiary. Why should the Church not become stipendiary ? Was it to be paramount to the Govern- ment ? Here was the error, and here it had been before. The same obstinacy and wilful blindness had influenced the Anti-Reformers; they had stood by before, and would stand by now, until the storm of public opinion carried all before it. He was extremely surprised not to have heard one word from Sir

Robert Peel on the real object of the bill. Sir Robert had talked of the Esta- blishment, of parsons starving on 2251. a year, and pointed out the apparent absurdity of some of the clauses ; but did be ever put this question to the House—for what purpose was the Christian religion founded ? Was it to pro- mote peace and good-will among men. Had Sir Robert asked himself, or had

any of those gentlemen who now opposed the bill—asked themselves, whether the Church Establishment in Ireland had produced that result? Excitement, irritation, murder, and bloodshed, were these the effects of true religion? Op-

pression, tyranny, and resistance, were these signs of peace and good-will ? The Establishment was a failure—it was the plain truth, and there was no denying the fact—a lamentable failure. All history and experience showed that wherever religious domination had existed, the more had persecution and intolerance flourished. These were the effects of the Church of Ireland, and those effects it was proposed to remedy in part. Was the bill again to be thrown out, and the People of England to pay another million as the price of the folly which al- lowed it to be thrown out. He hoped not one farthing of the public money would ever leave the Exchequer for such a purpose. Let the heads of the Irish Church—let the heads of the English Church—let the Duke of Wellington, or any other man, if they were disposed, render futile the liberal arrangements made last year, and the still more liberal arrangements (even on Sir Robert Peel's own showing) contemplated in the present ; but let not the People of England, under any pretence or any consideration, lend their countenance or sanction to such a proceeding.

Mr. GOULBURN, in a long speech, supported Sir Robert Peel's motion ; and defended his conduct when Irish Secretary and as a member of former Ministries.

Mr. PCSEY declared his intention of voting with Ministers against the motion. He thought that the cry of sacrilege, which had been raised against Lord Stanley, was now most unjustly raised against the present Ministers— It had been stated by a portion of the public press, that the bill unchris- tianized 879 parishes in Ireland. lie turned to the list of the parishes to be un- christianized ; and how many of them did the House suppose be found to be without churches, parsonage-houses, resident incumbents, and, with very few exceptions (not more than eleven or twelve), without the performance of divine service, or even a Protestant population?—No less than 704. He now came to the provisions of the bill which was to destroy Protestantism in Ireland. There were at present in Ireland 1385 benefices, which by the working of the bill would be reduced by 177, leaving 1200 as the number to be allowed to exist in future. It should be recollected, however, that though they were :385 benefices, there were but 889 resident incumbents. Now the bill enforced residence, and therefore there would in future be 1200 resident incumbents ; being upwards of 300 more than the present number, or an increase of 35 per cent. He was aware of the danger which must attend the breaking down of the principle of the inviolability of Church property— He would infinitely prefer applying the surplus to building churches, where they were wanted, for l'rotestants in Ireland, to the appropriation to which it was destined by the bill ; but when he looked at the vast Roman Catholic population in Ireland,—when he remembered that it was through the benefi- cence of their ancestors that the local trusts were founded for the benefit of parishes,—he could not be surprised that that population should advance a claim to derive sonic benefit from those funds. The question was, what ought to be done under existing circumstances? The Protestants of course wished to retain the funds for the benefit of their own Establishment, and the Roman Catholics not unnaturally laid claim to a large portion of them. He looked upon the bill as an award made by his Majesty's Government between the two parties ; and although he was opposed to the general politics of the Government, he must say that he thought it was a lair award. (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM complimented Mr. Pusey on the manly style in which he had avowed his sentiments, and he thanked Mr. Hume for the direct manner in which he had declared his opinions. That gentleman had cleared away some of the mists in which the question was involved : he bad said unreservedly, that he took the bill not as the settlement of a great question, but as an instalment on a debt— He would change the system entirely, and adopt a new one ; be would make the clergy altogether stipendiary ; he would break up and rearrange the whole Establishment on a spick-and-span new plan of his own—the long-established system he considered entirely inapplicable to the present times, and indeed completely worn out—the ancient distances and landmarks were not worth preserving. Where then, it might be asked, was this final settlement ? Once and for ever they were asked to settle this question; but where was the cry of peace? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the cry was peace, but there was no peace. He was prepared to contend that this measure, which it was said would send peace to Ireland, would send a sword to Ireland. Mr. Hume had declared that they were not the real friends of the Church who fought this battle desperately ; but he would reply, that they were false friends indeed who would admit the enemy to assist in repairing its abuses, in supplying its deficiencies, or in improving its efficiency. Let them look to this question as they would through all its shillings, its turning round and its doubles, and they would come at last to tire point on which they really differed ; and that was, what should be the favoured religion of the State in Ireland? and when they decided that the Protestant should be, what was necessary to give effect to that decision? Clear it was—they might dissemble it as they would--and clear it would be, whatever their attempts at concealment, that this measure, or rather that portion of it which was founded on the resolution passed at the early part of this session, was an attack on the great principle of an Established Church.

He had not changed his opinion of the danger of adopting the prin- ciple on which the Commission had been issued— The principle to which he alluded, was that of parochial proportions, which clearly were made the groundwork for the decision of the question whether from a parish, in which there shall be less than some given number of persons pro. fessing the Established religion, the minister of the Established Church shall be withdrawn or not. That principle, he contended, was fatal to the existence of any Church Establishment. He contended, moreover, that if it were a sound pnnciple, its application could not possibly be confined to Ireland, and that five years would not roll over their heads before its extension to England was pressed on them with irresistible force ; and he himself would frankly say, that if he were called on to sacrifice the principle of an Established Church at all, by yielding to the principle of parochial proportions, he would rather sacrifice it to the Protestant Dissenters in this country than to the Roman Catholics of Ire.. land. The principle, however, as originally enunciated, had been limited to the question of whether or not there should be a minister of the Established Church in certain parishes ; but such was the rapid progress of noxious principles when once admitted, and so much had they already overspread the bill, that that prin- ciple was now extended to the amount of revenue to bepaid to that minister ; for it was distinctly with reference to the question of what was the amount of congregation to which spiritual duties were to be administered, that the amount of all the revenues of the Church livings, after the next avoidances, were to be determined.

Mr. Hume had reminded the House that the storm blew high : he would reply by saying, that when the storm is highest you must steer by the compass ; and what was the compass of public men but an adherence to great first principles, which it would be dangerous to com- promise and unmanly to desert? Sir James read a long passage from Clarendon's History, on the mode in which Charles the First was com- pelled to yield one point after another to the Parliament, until the con- stitution in Church and State was overthrown ; and he ardently hoped that no similar consequences would result from the adoption of the not dissimilar measures pressed on the attention of the Monarch at the pre- sent time. He had himself always been an advocate for religious free- dom— He had every respect for conscience. (" Hear, hear ! " and " Oh, di !") Did he not support Catholic Emancipation, and remain for many years in hope- less opposition on that question ? Did he not support the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts? Ile repeated, that no man in that House had a more sin- cere respect for the scruples of conscience. (" Hear ! " Mingled with cries of "Oh I") But he confessed he had no regard for conscience when it assumed the shape of resistance to the monied paymedit of a legal impost ? ( Cheers front the Opposition.) And for the conscience of passive resistance—for the con- science of agitation—for the conscience of repeal—for the conscience of " the annual tribute "—for the conscience of Death's head and cross-bones be for one was not prepared to make the smallest possible concession. For the Reformed religion, as it was established in these realms, there was no sacrifice which he was not ready and willing to make. (Loud cheers.) Lord I-10wICK said, that the speech of Sir James Graham, coming as it did from a professed advocate of tolerance; filled him with astonish. meta ; • but before noticing Sir James's arguments more particularly, he would advert to Mr. Goulburn's defence of his own conduct and that of the Tory Administrations with which he had bean connected, in re- gard to Ireland. It was said that Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues, when formerly in power, had done all they could to remedy abuses ; but how was it that Sir Robert was now obliged to acknowledge the existence of those abuses, and profess his willingness to remedy them ? Having the power for so long a period, why had they not applied timely remedies to the abuses in question ? It was replied that they held power in troubled times. But, with the exception of two years, they had nothing but peace.

He would, too, ask those who talked of troubled times, whether there was any comparison between the Opposition with which we had to contend since the 1st of August 1831, and time Opposition which was nicknamed " his Majesty's Opp- . sition, ' during five years of the Administration of Lord Liverpool? Ile did aver, that if ever there was a Government situated in favourable circumstances for entertaining large and comprehensive views, and for the calm consideration of distant futurity, it was the Administration which then existed. There never yet seas a Government so powerful in that House ; there was no political excite- ment of any kind in the country ; there was profound peace abroad; and there was no cause whatever to prevent Sir Robert Peel from giving his whole atten- tion to the correction of those abuses of which he avowed himself one of the boldest enemies. ( Cheers repeated, and a cry of " Hear !" from Sir Robert Peel.) The right honourable gentleman had cheered him, as if he understood him to imply that nothing had been done by former Administrations towards the remedy of abuses. He did not say that they had not done any thing ; but he only called on the House to compare what they had done with what they left undone—(Loud cheers for sonic minutes)—and with what had been done since, with the facilities which they had for carrying great measures, and our facilities • let such a comparison be instituted, and he would assure them that the deficiency exhibited on the part of Sir Robert Peel's Administration would not for one moment stand unreproved in the eyes of the country. But he would deal fairly and candidly with the right honourable gentleman. He had alluded to one ground of defence which he had brought forward ; but there was another and much more substantial ground of defence which, though he could well imagine, the, right honourable gentleman would not be desirous of putting forward, might, he thought, be most successfully advanced by him. He might say, " It is true we were very powerful in this House ; but in this Meuse, as it was at the time we held office constituted, we held our power by this tenure—that we should not deal too rigidly with abuses." If Sir Robert had rested his defence on that ground, he would at once admit its fairness ; but lie should, on the other hand, have called on him to renounce all that lie had said four years ago on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, and to agree with him that that measure was the greatest blessing ever conferred on the People of this country.

He was led to consider the principle of an Establishment ; Sir Robert Peel had argued as if the support of the Church were the object of the national endowments that had been made— Now, it appeared to bins—and he was corroborated in the opinion by th most eminent authorities, amongst whom were Dr. Paley and the present Bishop of London—that the Established Church, like every other human insti- tution, was founded for the benefit of the great body of the people, for the pur- pose of diffusing the truths of Christianity amongst them. When a Church Establishment answered that object, he scrupled not to say that it was the most useful of all human institutions. It was said that the purpose for which tithe was set apart was for the maintenance of the Church: he said that the purpose for which tithe was set apart was for the maintenance of religion. To maintain that the Church and religion were the same thing, was a fallacy which he had not expected Sir James Graham would have uttered ; for it was a fallacy which an infant might detect. Religion lived in the hearts and minds of men. It could not be created where it did not exist, by human aid ; nor could it be crushed where it did exist, by human neglect. But a Church Establishment was merely a human institution for the promotion of religion : and by its suc- cess or its failure in forwarding that object, it ought to stand or fall. Now would any man of any party venture to say that the Church of Ireland had proved a successful instrument for the encouragement and diffusion of religion? It had been said by some that the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland had been gradually yielding to Protestantism. Was that the fact? He would not trouble the House at that late hour with minute calculations : but he would just ob- serve, that Sir William Petty, in the reign of Charles the Second, estimated the Protestants in Ireland, as compared with the Roman Catholics, at three to eight. A similar estimate was made by the Bishop of Dromore in 1736 ; for lie esti- mated the Roman Catholics as compared with the Protestants at two and a half to one. The Bishop of Ossory, in 1731, considered them to be nearly equal. Now, taking the least exaggerated of these statements, namely, that the Protes- tants formerly tore the proportion of three to eight,—what ground was there for contending that the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland had been gradually yielding to Protestanisin, when it appeared from the recent report of the C11111. missioners that the existing proportion of Roman Catholics, us compared with Protestants, was twelve to three and three quarters ? But the real object to which the property in question ought to be applied, was not an much to the maintenance of the Established religion, as to the diffusion of the great truths of Christianity--those truths in which all were deeply concerned; and to the bringing the whole of the population under those rules of moral conduct which had been prescribed by the Divine Founder of our religion.

Let Sir James Graham, if he could, refute the principle of the mea- sure; but he should be cautious how he admitted the principle to be just, when he refused to follow it out because it would be dangerous so to do. Lord Howick never would assent to the absurd doctrine that a just principle was not to be adopted lest it should be carried too fur.

He went on to argue, that it was impossible to prevail on the Irish to

pay tithes in any shape, unless the Appropriation principle of the bill were sanctioned and acted upon— Could it believed that the present, or that any other Government would be able enforce the payment of the rent-charge from the landlords, if the landlords were unable to enforce the payment of it from their tenants? Certainly not ; and the inevitable consequence would be, that the Church of Ireland, with all its enormities, would be saddled on the people of England. The relation be- tween landlord and tenant in Ireland was at present very precarious in its cha- racter. When resistance was successfully made to the payment of a part of the rent, might not that resistance soon extend to the payment of the whole of the rent ? Would the House throw all the landed property of Ireland into jeopardy, by adopting the right honourable Member for Tatnworth's proposition ? Was that a course likely to produce that general tranquillity in Ireland, which alone could induce capitalists to go to a country so capable, under favourable circum- stances, of benefiting by commercial enterpri•e ? Much, however, as he should regret the loss of the property to which he had been alluding, he would rather that that loss should take place at once, than that they should embark in a course, their progress in which must shake all the foundations of civil society in Ireland. Sir Robert Peel had expressed his hope that each portion of the bill was able to bear a separate discussion. Lord Howick was of the same opinion ; but he would separate the bill in discussion only, not in reality. if they passed the one part of the bill without. the other, it might be that they should find themselves deceived with respect' to the separate disco took his stand upon the resolution to which that House came on a former occa- sion. He maintaintil that no measure upon the subject of tithe could be final or satisfactory unless it embodied the spirit of that resolution. lie said Mare— that he would infinitely rather that Sir Robert Peel had met the bill by a direct negative, than by the indirect and inconclusive amendment to which he had resorted. The Imperial Parliament should deal with Ireland 011 those principles of eternal justice which ought to govern a Parliament sitting in England. At that moment they claimed to be a Government founded on the consent of the great body of the People. Ile knew no other foundation on which a Government aught to exist. (Reiterated cheers.) He wished to bind the People of Ireland to the Government of this country by the bond of affec- tion and good-will—that Ireland, if ever a war should unfortunately amiss, should take her share in every danger and in every sacrifice. He did not wish to govern Ireland as a province, which in times of difficulty and of danger must be watched with greater vigilance than an open and declared enemy. If that were the true policy to be adopted with respect to Ireland, the !louse must adopt the bill which the Government now called upon it to sanction. ( Great cheering.) At the conclusion of Lord Howick's speech, the debate was again adjourned.

On Thursday, the discussion was brought to a close. The speakers for the motion were—Sir R. BATESON, Mr. JACKSON, and Lord STANLEY; against it, Mr. WARD, Mr. SHELL, Lord MotteEnt, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. O'CONNELL. The arguments were for the most part the same which have been already given in the foregoing part of the debate ; but some new points were made, and several of the speeches contained striking passages, which will be found in the sub- joined extracts.

Mr. WARD remarked on the tone of Sir James Graham's speech—.

He must express his astonishment—he would not say disgust—at seeing the right honourable baronet, who had been the supporter of the great measures of Pull inset:- tory and Church Reform while in oflice, so complete an apostate from those pine:44es us to indulge in such sentiments as he had the night before delivered. Inc limit bet

a narrow-miuded and bigoted fanaticism, and had 'unsaid and undone ::11 t he acts and proressions of his former life. (Ministerial cheers.) Ile could not sit and hear him. self charged by Sir James Graham, with sacrilege, without indignantly repAliag the assertion. The right honourable baronet said, that he would stick to the last ballt ; but would he desert for that plank every other interest in the community ? The right honourable baronet knew well that there could be no stability for any interest in the country until this question should be settled; yet he last night indulged in the most bilious terms ems:lust those who advocated that settlement.

Mr. Ward defended the Scotch Members from the attacks of Sir Jatnes Graham— In reply to a question from Mr. Shell. the right honourable baronet said, that in Scotland religion was fanaticism ran mad, and he instanced the address of the Synod of Dumfries. Now was this a fair answer as to the slate of See:laud? Look at the Scotch Members of that House, thirty-five of whom out of fifty-three always voted in favour of civil and religious liberty. Did not Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and all the great populous places in Scotland, return Members or a liberal and tolerating spirit? The Synod of Dumfries was no criterion by which to judge of the sentiments of the People of Scotland. Why, it was a notorious fact, that thirty of the members of that Synod were nominated by the Duke of Btu:clench ? Ile knew such to be the case ; and, moreover, it was his firm belief that the address or that Synod was never written there, but was sent down from the South, ready prepared. It smelled very strongly of Exeter Hail. (Cheersfrom the Ministerial side.) Ile believed it came from that manufacture; and he had no doubt that the sentiments expressed in it would be repudiated by every other Synod in Scotland.

There were parts of the bill of which he did not approve— The part of the bill which he objected to was, that in ninety-two parishes, where it was admitted there were on an average only thirty Protestants in each, a church and glebe should be kept up because they were already erected in those parishes. Now this he conceived to be directly opposed to that principle of the bill which declares! that no church should be erected in any parish where there was not a Protestant population of at least fifty. He considered it quite unfounded to say that ,by this measure the Protestants, or any part of them, would be left without religious instruction. So fin from their being deprived by this bill of instruction, he thought tie Bill went too far to provide spiritual instruction under every circumstance that could arise. There were 140 parishes that had churches, where the number of Protestants did not exceed twenty, and in some instances consisted only of the family of the iescumbeut. Ile con- sidered it a great evil to have them kept up. became it must go far to diminish the sur- plus. At present. according to existing arrangements, there was an episcopacy of four ArehRigleops and ten Bishops to be kept up. Now, in his opinion, four Bishops. that was, one for each province, and one Archbishop to superintend the whole, w onhi be amply sufficient for a Protestant population of 800,000 souls. In the diocese of Louden, one Bishop was found to be sufficient for a population of more than 800,000: and in the new diocese of Manchester, there would be only the superintendence of one Bishop over a population of 1,200,000 souls. He was convinced that the principle of Appropriation must be finally admitted in dealing with Church property: the struggle was in fact for a great and vital principle-- The noble lord who so loudly cheered (Lord Stanley) was the very last person in the world who ought to dispute that point. (Loyd cheering.) Upon what pi inciple. Ito would ask, did Lord Stanley retire from Earl Grey's Gmetument ? It wit' that prin- ciple which, unassisted, alone, and by its own-intrinsic:Ind irresistible force had broken up two Administrations already and would most assuredly break up tutu more, if tho attempt hem or elsewhere to defeat this bill should be successful. If those who ho now resisted that principle, whether in this House or iu the House of Lords, slusuld emceed. and upon the strength of that success again attain power, he would tell ti:eni that they would not—could not—hold that power for three short months. (Lend cheering.) They might appeal to the People—(Cheers)—he feared it not. (Renewed cheers.) 1' he People of England were unqssestiouably in favour of the principle irsvolved in the resolution of this House, and of those legitimate changes which his Majesty's Govern- ment were desirous to effect in the Establishment of the 11.101 Church. They wean tired of these endless discussions, and anxiously wished that this matter were fairly and finally settled. He believed that the adoption of this bill afforded the °My chance of effecting that settlement, Mr. SHELL went into many detail:, with a view to prove that the value of Church property had been understated ; but the concluding passages of his speech, wherein he rapidly traced the recent history of the Irish Church question, were the most eloquent and striking- " There are two men in this !louse who of the poor Irish people h eve had the most pefand, the most dear. bought, I hope it will prove the most instructive, experience ; and those two are the Members for Taw orth and for Laucashire. Both entered officiel life as Secrelariee for Ireland ; both devoted themselves to Aseetetancy ; and bre It became its victims. Iii IS13, the Member for Tamworth tea; appointed Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant ; and, uniting great c tpacity u kit great anxiety to do good,

tercumehowes been less untoward, and had he had jest hews to administer, how

tee'. sett %%wild Levy been his government Rut he was wtached to a ',arty which meet elized hk t,dents and frustrated his purposes. Ile could not go to the root of the evil ; and alt hough he now expressed a strong dist( list' fur ecelesiastical abuses, of that thstelish N%-hilt, he was iu office 11e gave no eery unequivocal evidence, and ;t1lowed sineemes (a husk his virtuous abhorrence ) to remain undisturbed. lie had ec weeiree oecept mem :nes of repression. The Insurrection Act wee renew-:d; and on the 3,1 of June lei 11, a reclamation was issued under Lis auspices, to 1110',Iti the assemblage: of the People. The Catholic Hoare was pat down. Not so the spirit of the People ; it w'as only dormant ; it never can be dead. It WaS IrSOSeitated in that grad cut:fedi:racy w hitch embraced au active population, and made such a display of metal and oh s'eength, that in leSei it was deemed requisite by the Ministry, of which the right honourable barenet was a member. to suppress it. Vain and Hie effort. It was laughed by Its to scorn. We returned from London. where we had agreed to con- nect the Church by money with the Siite, provided the State should by liberty consent to connect itself with the People. The offer was repudiated. We invoked the Irish peasantry, %%Ito were armed with the elective franchise. Those gallant, devoted. dauntless, heroic men, rushed to the hustings with the courage and devotion with which Irish soldiers, led by you -[Pointiter to Sir 11.• Ifiqinge]-ra,t..11 to t he breach. The holds of aseeedency were carried ; the Ileresfords were annihilated in Waterford; the Aristoeracy was beaten to the earth in Louth. These were. bower, r, but the pre- ludes for the great encounter. In two sears; envie Mr. Yesey 'Fitz:el-eta, having vacated his seat as member of the Jabbed, mood for Clare. Ile m is oppcs: it 1,y the Leader of the Irish People-lie was discomfited. The heart of Irehma thrilled with exultation ; the national sympathy became contagious ; the !witness shouted. rael threw up their caps for joy. Astonished by what they saw-appalled by what they :trite:iv:sled-the Duke and his distinguished colleagues gave way at last to the newer of the Irish People. But ail had not been accomplished: it remained that, having WW1 Emancipa- tion for ourselves, we should secure Reform for yolk. Th..r, was a majority of English mid a majority of Scotch Members against Reliant. It was acbieved by the men whom the 1redt Peeple had poured, in a noble exercise of their privileges, iuto this Muse.

• We did the elite some service. and they know it'"

Put Lord Stanley would not grant the necessary censequence of a Racial of Parliament, a Reform of the Church- - IS32, his Tithe code. that object of universal derision, and that cause of universal calamity. was produced. Ile passed it. despite or reiterated adenoid( ione, to which he was as imeasible as the animal from which the Scripture illustrations of deafness are derived. The People assembled to petition Parliament : their meetings erne dispersed at the point of the beyeneLand the petitioners tried awl lee:neer:0ml under the verdicts of Juries from which Roman Catholics were excluded. The popular indignation rose to the Itiehest point, and at the General Election the standard of Repeal was planted 'I°' every bustle-a The Coercion Bill is peesed-a million is given to the Irish Clergy-!he Cherelt Temporalitie' Ihidl is introduced, with a great but latent prin- ciple-the hAtetee of the noble lord prevails, and the 147th clause is struck out. Memos he Clergy starve. The session of 1834 is opened-Lord Anglesey's letter, eallieg tar a new apprOpriati011, is produced-Mr. Ward brings his motion Seward-the Chereti Commission is opened by heel Grey-the noble tont tenses been office-lets go lentleau sbaft at his opponents -,tud there he now sits, in juxtaposition with his former antagonists. How Ihr he has descended or he has risen in public estimatium leave to bas own judgment, .awl th ,t of the party or which he '7%1% some time the and which has certainly gone thieve:1i ' the process of exhanst ion.' " (bot cheers.) Then came Lord Melbourne's Irish Tithe Bill ; its rejection ; and the dismissal of the Ministry, with as little ceremony as a menial would be discharged from the Palace.

"Suddenly, and to himself, I believe, unexpectedly. tie' right honourable baronet is raised to the Premiership-the fortunes of this great country are placed by his Sove- reign in his hands. the arrives-declares himself the champion of the Church-enters into a contest with the Irish People-dissolves the Parliament-strains every Treasury nerve to return a Conservative !louse of Commons. The Parliament of hie own calling meets-be is beaten on the Speakership, and does not resign-he is defeated on the amendment, and still retains his oftice-he is discomfited upon the It ash church—mad he no longer considers it compatible with his dignity, his duty, cur his honour, to remain in power. Ile surretelers the trust reposed in him by his Sovereign, and retires with disaster, lint without humiliation, for he fell in a coolest with millions ; he had chosen a nation taw his antagonist, and it was impossible that he should not be overthrown. Far he it from me to dispute the talents, the consummate skill, the vat ems attributes for go- vernmeat which he displayed : the greater his merit, the greater the evidence of that power by which he was overthrown."

Then addressing himself to Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Sheil continued- " can you a 1,it. and if you wish can you hope, that this unilateral, galling, exaspe- rating .e.seelaney should be maintained ? Things cauttot rennin as they are-retro- grade it a. ail& they should ever-what expedient arc yen prepared to adopt Would yea' r emaet the Penal Code, let loose Orangeism from its den, hid the Orange- man draw forth the satire, clotted and rusty with the blood of civil warfare, that he may :illeathe it in the nation's heart? No! nom so horrible a conception you in- stinctively recoil. Will you dissolve the Parliament ? What ! alter you have already had recourse to that perilous expedient ? You thought that you could manage the Rouse of your own calling: you declared it at 'I'amworth. Ilave you sot too deep a stake in tame, in fortun s, in property, and in renown, to renew these terrible experi- meets ? Yoe think the English People are with you. If a Conservative Parliament simnel be assent iled; its duration must be brief, its existence will be stormy and agi- tated while it lasts; but if the excited People should infuse an undue proportion of the democraticII clement into the Representation, you will have raised a spirit which yell will have na spell to lay, exposed an institution more valuable than the Church to peril, and put perhaps what is more precious than the mitre. to a tremendous hazard ; and ail for is hat ? For what are these terrible risks to be run-these awful chances to he incurred? Fur what are Cabinets to be annihilated, the country to be brought perhaps to the verge of convulsion, the Palace to be shekel, to its lottudations For the Church !-the Church of the minority-the Church from which no imaginable benefit can henceforward flow, but from which evils after evils in abundance have flowed-the Church by which, instead of being advanced, religion has been retarded, fur whose eupport an enormous army is maintained, which has cost Euglaud millions of her tretemre and Ireland torrents of her blood." (Much cheering.) Mr. Sergeant JACKSON laboured to prove that there was no surplus; that the Church, in fact, was and always had been poor; that the Pro- testants were increasing in Ireland notwithstanding ; and that the object of the Catholics was the utter subversion of the Establishment. There are no passages in his speech of two columns which are not actually tiresome to read.

Lord MORPETII reminded the House, that in legislating on this question, it should not be forgotten that there were :;ix or seven mil- lions of Catholics in Ireland Many arguments, be admitted, which had been advanced on the other side, would be difficult to answer, but for the fact that by this bill the Government was legislating for the Irish People. The answer would to difficult, if tine surplus were to be available for all imaginable ecclesiastical purposes, but for this consideration-they were not legislating alone for e00,000 or 900.000 Protestants, but they were legislating for mil- lions. The object of those who Mon. ht furs and the bill was to bring the question to a final adjustment ; but those on the other side, if they rejected the appropriation por- tion, would never bring it to an issue. Ile, and those with whom he acted, wished to show that the preponderating portion of the population was not overlooked in the ad- justment of a property u Inch was decidedly national. (Cheers from the miniderial benches, and "No. so !" from the Opposition.) It was nut the intention to provide for the maintenance of their clergy, nur for the erection of their chapels ; but it was right to show, that in legislating on this subject, their very existence in the land of their birth was not forgotten. When he heard the zeal—lie begged Nrdon, when he witnessed the tolerance, of the gentlemen on the other side-when he heard them assuming a high tone, and talking or the 111VaS:011 of rights leader ditch eircumetences as these-lie could not help asking himself, if by some chance of conquest aud coutiscation the religion of time State were changed- he would not say to Roman Catholic, but to Unitarian--it that were made the dominant religion, would Englishmen content themselves iu resist- ing its exactions by a quiet Chaucer) suit, such as that in the ease of Lady lle.aley's charity ? Let honourable gentlemen :tenet hues place themselves lit the yosition of those to whom they were opposed, and their conduct would prove different, their language more pleasured. Mr. Sergeant Jackson argued that the State should support the Esta. Wished Church because of the Oath of its doctrines. Nose how could the honourable mid teamed Member set himself up as to the irmfuilihule test. and say that the doctrine' in which he believed were the true one? In Lora Murpetles opinion, the Established Church should be that of the majority of the People. (Cheers from the Ministerial tenches. lust!.? returned (lent the OpposiSon.) 'rhe state or Ireland now forbade this, but something should he done for that country.

Lord STANLEY highly eulogized the speech of Sir Robert Peel— lie bend it stated on the other side of the House, particularly by the Chancellor of tie Exchequer, and he lit aid it with a surprise almost amounting to incredulity. that the speech of the right honourable baronet evaded, the real question-that the ques- tion was 110i :hilly dealt with-that the speech alined at carrying the audience to a conclusion different from whet its words and bearing would warrant -that it meant one thing and stated :mother. Ile lamented to witness either this obliquity of intellectual vision, which could not see a distinct proposition in its proper light and form, or the sinister tendency or party. that would distort and misrepresent it. If ever there was a Speech delivered within that (louse, or without it, bringing home the force of demon- stration to t lie mind of even the most sceptical-beating down every, even the remotest attempt at reratation-combining mathematical calculation in its most enlarged scope, set descending to the niiiintest particulars, with the most consummate logical skill and power of rhetorical argumentation, it was that speech ; a speech that travelled in a chain of t he most even, consecutive, and best-regulated induction-in a category of un- doubted facts-step by step, to the conclusion-not merely n inning. lint forcing convic- tion upon the most reluctant mind, whose invincible obduracy did nor the e every open- lag to conviction, ;iittl. earr3 ing conscience and judgment along with here con. seWtice aud judgment were to be linied-(Cheer,)--a speech !bat at once ehowed the nand of .1 master, throe jug off the exuberance of his knowledge, nrul quelling incredu- lity itself into reluctant. but tacit-lie regretted it was tacit-acquiescence in his details alai his inference, his promises :tut his deductions. It was a speech worthy of the best tel brightest days of our senatorial oratory, and was tele that showed that statestnan- ship in its most philosopliaell,mul at the same time in its most pt.:Ilk-al shape, was not yet extinct amongst us. To that speech where was the answer ? There was none, for there could be none. It was founded on the reek of troth, aud by it the eddies of party acrimony would sweep without harm. It laid down premises which were truisms, and not denied by those set use jaundiced vision saw every thing through a discoloured me- dium, or whose passione. or prejudices, or it might he interest, would heel them to mis- represent, or doubt, ur dummy-that speech, if there was sincerity ur honesty in the

should decide the question of Appropriation ; for its premises were no less un-

questionable than were its elusions just and true. Lord Stanley's own speech was full of dry details: lie endeavoured to prove, by reference to the circumstances of several parishes, that great injustice would be committed by- this bill. He particularly com- plained of the suppression of parishes in which there were few Pro- testants, though when several of those parishes were united in one benefice the number of Protestants became considerable. He strongly objected to the threat which had been held out of starving the Clergy if the bill were rejected ;—and asked Lord John Russell, if, after the warning be b;:t1 received, he could possibly expect that this bill

would efTvct a settlement of the question ?-

" Asloug Chinch exists, as long as it has 100/. of imeene. never will there beany satisfaction on the rent of those whose ottica it is to make their own and hot c,atilie o ecitriro; test:tut the domivant religion or the country. if you is 1.41 to secure a peaceal or the revenue of the Chlactu,andafteraards to discuss a practicable and proper altera- tion of Ile LAW, with reseect to the appropriation of that revenue, the mnirse 3 on hare to take is !list to deal with those prim:ivies of the hill which affect the secarity of the property, and next to deal with those by which you pr, poee to carry your principle into practice. But I ask my snide friend, on the other hand, bow it is that under all the circumstances of the case, !Ley, the King's Ministers, charged with the peace of Ire. land-charged with the defence of property-charged with the maintenance of the taw-charged with the support of the Irish Church-refuse to eeperate into two parts a bill , one portion of which they know they have not the power to pass -(Loud and longont oued cheering front tuth sides if the Horse) -because it em- bodies principles so objectionable in themselves, so utterly repaguaut to the feel- ings of gentlemen-not, of course, intending to cast any imputation on those whose judgment differs from my own-that no prospect of political advantage or expe- diency can induce them to sacrifice their honest convictions, and to conform to them. • I do not,' says my noble friend, ' call upon you to repudiate or to deny your own prin- ciples. This I call upon you loth, (aud it is the first time I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown make such it declaration)--here we have two measures. which we ourselves have declared to be independent aud separate' -(" No, no!" and great cheers)-I am not referring to this, but to the last measure-' two measures which we have declared to be independent and separate, both of which tend to the promotion of peace and trail. quality in Ireland, both of which vac desire to comwet toeetlier, and either or both of Sr hich we hold it to be mactitial to pass ; and yet, because we have nut the power to carry our vices lido effect ill hOth cases, we will know ingly and with our eyes open re- fuse one great positive good, and endeavour to link ourselves with these who are seek- ing to starve out the Clergy of Ireland--(Cries of " No, no !" and great chef nig)-who

are seeking to starve out the Clergy of Ireland by the withltulding of their legal rights: and unless an alteration in the appropriation of Church property shall take place, we

hill take advantage. of the feeling which may be produced in the clergy by the distress to which they may be driven; vie will take advantage of the feeling of compassion which may be excited fur their destitute situat hilt elsewhere ; and, bevause we will not separate these two bills, we will join in those unions which have been established for the purpose of starving out the Clergy.' "

But the Clergy would not be bribed into acquiescence-

Miuisters were tictermined to assetit another year, as', or three or four years, until they mead pass the bill : and till then, they sere resolved that Ireland should not be pacified, nor her clergy rescued from starvation. But he would tell those Ministers that they would not succeed. (Opposition cheers.) Ile would, tell them, moreover. that great as were the tirivations suffered by the Clergy, he believed that one and all. of them were prepared to suffer those, and greater privations-that they were prepared to trust even to the miserable resource of private charity to supply their wants, rather than see a principle carried into effect which they knew to he destructive of the interests of !hat religion of which they were the faithful ministers. If he. wanted a confirma- ti, et of this, he had it in what he held in his hand. It was an address presented to his ;.'sty by the Clergy of the diocese of Tuam. They stated, that with regard to their leStig deprived by this, bill of three-tenths of their income, .adthough they might con- s r such a deduction as a heavy penalty to be inflicted upon them for discharging .itlifully their duties as Christian ministers, yet they would most willingly. for peace- s ate submit to it. When, however, they considered that the bill also contained clauses, calculated not merely to effect the overthrow of the Established Church, but the ulti- mate extermination of his Majesty's poor but always loyal Protestant subjects in- Ireland, they felt that it would be barter-(Ironical cheers front the Mini lerial benches) -that it would be a barter-(Lattekter)-ionvorthy of their character as Christian ministers, to purchase freedom from persecution for themselves, at the expense as well or their successors as those among whom they had so long lived.

Lord JOON RUSSELL Said, that the latter part of Lord Stanley's speech trenched on the orders of the House: it was unparliamentary,

and be might again revert to it— not he must say now, what he thought due to the. King's Government or which lie was a member, that they , bringing forward this question soberly, conscientiously. and after long deliberat Wu- considering that it was requisite to settle this much-disputed question-considering that it was necessary for the peace of Ireland, and that it would promote the good of Ireland, aud tend to the advaucement of religion in that country —acting neon these motives, and having these °plants of their measure, it was not kr them to say whether there were in that !louse, or in any other House of Parliament, 611th a number of persons as to be able to defeat and to set that measure aside. If his .Majesty's Government did believe that it was required for those great purposes, it all their duty to propose it, (Loud and general cheers.) Were it the force of an honest and conscientious opinion, or the force of any other motive, whatever it might be, that this measure was right, it would be dastardly and base for them to shrink from the uttering of their orineiples, or to pause, because they were told by some gentlemen or other that they tight to abandon a measure which would not be allowed to pass elsewhere ? Waft he to be told that there existed, either in that House or in the other House of Parliament, a body of men so determined upon opposition to this ball, that no force of ememnstances. no force of argument, uo coneiderations of prudence, no consideration fur the Wide peace and improvement of these kingdoms, would induce them to Helen to any terms—would induce them to come to any compromise; but that before the tines- tion had ever gone into Committee of the House of Commons. they were predetermined to impede the King's Ministers,and not Allow them to pass the measure at all ? (Great cheermg.) If there were no other objection to that language—if it were nut indecorous to this blouse—it was, to gay the least of it, a libel eerie* the other House of Parlia. leant. He believed that the I louse of Lords would listeu calmly to every thing that could be said upon this measure. He would believe that if they did reject it. they would reject it alter due examination. But lie would not believe that now, at I his day, that before the measure had passed through the preliminary stages in this House, they were altogether resolved that they would give it no examination—that they would enter into none of its provisions—that they would not examine the Report of the Com- missioners they bad laid before them ; but that they were predetermined to persevere —that to them, at least, should not be applied the term of a deliberative assembly. But such, in few words, was the effect and menning of what Lord Stanley had had the condescension to declare to that House, as a reason to induce them to forego any further consideration of what Lord J01111 Russell had hitherto thought was due from them in the discharge of their legislative duties.

Mr. OTONNELE wound up the debate with an eloquent and masterly speech ; to which, however, very scanty justice is done by the reporters —it was delivered at three o'clock in•the morning.

He would beseech the gentlemen opposite to pause, and reflect on the fatal consequences of their own success. The hopes or Ireland were now raised. That House had declared that the surplus should be disposed of for the benefit of the Irish nation. It was the first

time that the Irish nation was offered a participation in the national property. Had Members read the charges of the Judges in Ireland lately ? If they bad, they must

have found that the only part of Ireland where the King's troops were called upon to

put down the disturbers of the King's pence, was where the loyal Orangemen were settled, in the North. Much had been said of the Protestant population, but scarcely had the name of Catholic been introduced at all ii.to the calculation of honourable gentlemen opposite. Now it was clear, by the immense majority of nix millions and a half of Catholics to one million and a half of Protestants, that it was the most daring

Fpresumption to call the Protestant Church the National (31turch. Neither Sir Rohert eel nor lord Stanley argued this question upon the principle ; they argued merely on the details, on the question of surplus. The right honourable hamlet introduced the

case of Dundalk, in which there were 1433 Protestants. The tithes there were, it was

true, improprette, and the Rector had ouly 101. a year from the parish; but then, he hal the parish of Loath, in which there were truly 2G1 notestants to lake care of, with an income of 1888/. What. then, became of Sir Rotel-recalculation ? would take in t he same way his own diocese : he would take the diocese of Team, in e hick there were 404,900 Catholics. l went yesix Catholics to one Protestant. Those 404,000 Catholics had their Bishops, and Deane, mid Chancellors, and 'Vicars. Who provided for them ? They slid not apply to the Protestants. Why should nut the Protestants support t heir own Church am well as the Catholics? No, but they refused even the means or education to the Catholics out of part of what was national property I The Catholics are seid to be ignorant—to be benighted. Then edecate them. Give them a fair trial, and see what w ill be gained. Ile would now notice some parts of the speech of the Member rur Cumberland. !hi ought to do eu. that right honourable baronet bottomed him with 4 _teat deal of notice. Ile said he preferred the dissenters to the Catholics. The Catholics cared little l'or his preference. He pulsed out of his pocket a passaee front Clare neon, whiell he read, alluding to the expulsion of the Bishops front the House oh Lords. Ile snonld ice use recollected what led to that expulsion—it was the refusal to listen to and redress just eteeplaires. Ile should have recollected, too, that the Catholics were for keeping in the Protestaet Bishops. Ile said that We per cent. was gained by the Church of Ireland since la:4 year. Nov, was that the case ? hy, the Met was, that live.and a-half per cent. was lust to the Church by the delay since last year ; soil what would it be nest 3 ear if this hill was l'eje::ted? (CheCrS frinn the Intr. teriat te,rhes.) And had Ireland gained in the mean time? Did it gain by the massacre's of t7arricksbeek and it atheormac ? Did the right honourable baronet remember these events ? Did he reng,Ilea t bloodshetl, the frightful loss of life ? Perhaps he consoled himeelf in the proceedings of the S3 mid of Dumfries? The result of time rejection of the bill ed last year, of the Commission appointed in consequence, w as to make known their strength to true Catholics. Was this wise ? Were they more likely to be submissive on this ermine ? 'The Roman senator alleged as a reason against a census, .2Ve sari se nronerare posse at. They tell the Catholic People of Ireland their numbers, and. alter elites; lug them their strength, will never allots them to put their lips to the meat:owing cup of national property. heat noir breath might taint .it. And they who act thus are statesmen, forsooth I (Chars from the Ministerial benches.) He would explain haw it happened that in some parishes the Protes- tants had increased, in the island of Achill and elsewhere— A person had been sent over to that island from Exeter Hall to convert the C41.110. lies. Ile took out with him a capital or 2500/. and took a number of Protestants with him, which were daily increasing. As the island at the time was overihnving with min.. lat ion, the people mere dissatisfied. and drove the settlers elsewhere. And e et this had been the ground of attack on the Catholic Church. The same cii:eunist ;tures would cer- tainly have taken place elsewhere. Ile could not refrain from laughing at the imper- lance attached to the increase of the number of Protestants in some parishes. Any person who carefully !coked at the two columns in the Report—the one taken in ISSlie and the other in 183I—would see that the latter was rasher a correction of the former : he, however, did not place the slightest reliance on such returns. In one parish near his own residence, it had been stated that there had been a great increase in the Pro- testant hiltabitants in the course of three years—namely, from 32 to 49. Now- it So happened, that 16 Protestants had been transferred from one parish to another. Keeper of the Water Guard nod his family had been moved from one side of the river to the other. So much for the increase of Protestants in that quarter. If there had been an increase in one parish, there had been accompanying diminution is another.. In another case, an app Brent increase lust taken place by a Protestant relative of his own and his family coming to reside iu a parish. This, however, was miserable special- pleading with au important question.

Sir James Graham had talked of the Church of Scotland-- But how did the Scots acquire their Church? Were there no Grahams or Grmmes- be Knights of the Bright Sword—(Shorts i f laughter)—to eat down the People of Scot- land ? Did the same spirit now show itself in the name, without the chivalry of former days? They hail an essay on charity from the Member lew Berkeilire—(Terniee round to the seat where Mr. 11aPer smuts in the habit qf sitting)—Oh, he is not there : he is gone --the last rose of summer—(Shouts spasm/dere-1w perceived that the honourable Member had moved over the way ! lie congratulated hint on his ebanee of place—be Nils in his proper hemisphere—he was now in his proper element. Precious to this move, the honourable Member had reminded him of

" The last rose of summer, Left blooming alone;

All its lovely companions

Were faded and gone "

(Cheers and shorts of laugh!er, which lasted some minutes.) The honourable gentleman had shown a great deal of cunning, which did not blind him; he appeared to be mighty charitable and kind on those points which did not hurt him in the slightest degree. He was willing to give fear-laws to Ireland,forsooth, which could not affect him in the slightest degree. Sir James Graham had taunted him about the bloody head and bones. The sneer came extremely well from such a quarter—half Reformer, half bigot —palid with fear on one side, insolent with temerity on the other. (Great cheering.)

would keep up the apparition before the right honourable gentleman, and set up the bloody head and bones for a coat of arms for him.

Mr. O'Connell's pereroration was solemn— What kind of party is that which can turn its eyes to Heaven and invoke blessings on the Church of Ireland. while the blood of its people is flowing in the collection of tithes ? I. M the God oh' Charity now preside over their councils, fill them with the spirit of true Christianity, and so direct them as to give peace and tranquillity to

Ireland!

The House divided : for going into Committee, 319; for Sir Ro- BERT PEEL'S instruction to the Committee to divide the bill into two parts 282; Ministerial majority, 37. 2. CORPORATION REFORM.

Sir RICHARD VY YA N, on Monday, presented two petitions, and delivered a long speech, against the details and the principle of the Municipal Bill. Ile particularly dwelt upon the invasion of vested rights which it would sanction ; and maintained that on the same principle a bill might be brought in to deprive the Peers of their privi- leges— The rights of Peers were considered inviolable by law ; and why were they invio- lable? Only became, they were cousideledso. What was to prevent a bill being brought iu to.morrow by some honourable gentleman of strong opinions, to take from Pews their right to sit in the other lipase of Parliament ? What was there to render the robe of a Peer more sacred than the gown of an Alderman? As to the rights of freemen, the bill was was a measure of spoliation : not coutent with extending the rights of free- men, the framers of the measure abolished them. It was contended that freemen were open to bribery-10 the insinuatieg address of persons who accompanied their persuasive arguments by a small sum of money. Was poverty, then, to he deemed a disqualification for municipal 41111 political rights? If so, no rank was a guarantee: all gentlemen were net lionest—all peers were nut rich. Before honourable :Members made up their minds that men because they were poor were to be suspected of dishonesty. let them reflect whether the same experiment might uot S0011 be tried in another place. A, Baron might be bribed by an Earl's coronet, a Marquis by a Duke's,—fur, after all. these mete only abstract distinction'; they were honourable distinctions indeed, but nut necessary for the maintenance of the Constitution. When a Baron had been bribed by the coronet of an Eatl, and a Marquis by that of a Duke, then the House might have a right to consider whether these inferior privileged persons, Who had been convicted of 110 Offence, should be deprived of their rights, however insigniffeant. Some admitted that the rights of exiling freemen ought to be preserved ; sonic said that they would preserve the rights of the children of freemen already born ; and some said that they would preserve at least the Municipal, if nut the Parliamentary rights of persons in this situation. Sir Richard maintained, that the freeman's child was in precisely the same situation as the heir apparent of a peer of the realm. Ha maintained that the Alderman with his rank was in precisely the same situation as a Peer of Parliament who bad not all hereditary seat in the house of Lords, as the Scotch and Irish Peers. Ile would say also that the Alden:11411'S 1105i1i011 4511 Ma- gistrate elected fur was, in the eye of the law of England, similar to that of the Peer elected for life to sit in the I louse of Lords. Therefore, whether they considered the Peer's right or the Alderman's title—whether they looked at the right of the free- mates child in connexion w ith the right of the son of a Peer—in whatever way the subject were considered, he maintained that the rights of the Aldermen and freemen were as sacred in the tar of time law as the rights of tile most elevated peisomeges in the kingdom.

He would not believe that the Aristocracy would allow such a mea- sure to pass. He admitted that self-election to corporate offices must be done away with ; and would admit the owners of the Parliamentary franchise to the possession of the Municipal franchise : but he would always resist the seizure of vested rights.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL briefly replied to Sir Richard Vyvyan.

Mr. S. R. Lt7SHINGTON, Mr. 1V. G L DSTONE, Mr. SCA RLETT, Mr. RORTHWICK, Mr. H. TWISS, Sir J. R. REID, Mr. CHARLTON, Mr. MACLEAN, and Colonel SIBTHORPE, spoke against the bill, to a very inattentive andienee. Some clauses for the prevention of bribery, pro- posed by Mr. Barsms, were agreed to. Several others were proposed by Mr. CAYLLY, Sir E. Wl LMOT, and Alderman Wool) ; but they were withdrawn or negatived ; and the bill was read a third time, and passed without a division.

On the same evening, Earl GREY presented a petition to the House of Peers ; front Newcastle-upon-Tyne in favour of the bill, and expressed his hope that it would be passed without its efficiency being impaired. It was irregular, he was aware, to present a petition on the subject of a measure not before their Lordships ; but he hoped it would be received, as lie was going out of town, and must leave the advocacy of its prayer to others.

Earl GREY then left the House ; but the petition was not received, owing to the circumstance which rendered its presentation informal, and to which Earl Grey had alluded.

On Tuesday, Lord JOHN Russil.t. and other Members brought up the bill from the Commons. On the motion of Lord AInuroultsE, it was read a first time, and ordered to a second reading on Tuesday next.

3. ORANGE LODGES.

On Monday, Mr. WissoN PATTEN moved for leave for the Com- mittee on Orange Societies to report the evidence given before it, from time to time.

Mr. JACKSON said, that he had the highest authority for stating, that the Duke of Cumberland had signed no warrants for Orange Lodges in any regiment : he had on one occasion refused an application to sign one.

Mr. H. MAXWELL could corroborate this statement— The warrants almost invariably passed through his (Mr. Maxwell's) bands: they were sent in blank, and his signature and those of other Grand Officers were necessary; and when they were affixed, they were forwarded for fae sig- nature of the Duke of Cumberland ; that being obtained, five or six other names were added, and the warrants were retransmitted to Dublin, and filled up according to the purpose of the general managing body ; but the destination was altogether unknown to his Royal Highness. " I beg leave (continued Mr. Maxwell) particularly to corroborate what has been stated by my honourable and learned friend respecting an individual application to the Duke of Cumber- land for an Orange lodge in a regiment. His Royal Highness has given me full permission and authority to mention, that he gave the most direct refusal to the application, unless permission were first obtained from the Horse Guards. If that permission were given, his Royal Highness was ready to grant the warrants but otherwise he could not give it his sanction as Grand Master."

Captain CURTEIS spoke as follows- " As an officer serving in a regiment chiefly composed of Roman Catholics, I beg to say that an Orange lodge was formed in it without the slightest know- ledge of the officers generally ; and I do • not hesitate to say that, before it was formed, it was the duty of the parties to acquaint the Commander-in-Chief. Looking at the regiments in which Orange lodges have been formed, I must say that the wish seems to have been to excite and indignation between the Protestants and Roman Catholics. I do not know what may be the precise in- tentions of the honourable Member for Middlesex, but I beg to say, that if for any reason he does not think fit to pursue this subject, I shall think it my ditty to bring it before the House." ("Hear, hear 1") Mr. II. GRATTAN observed, that whoever put seals and names tO the warrants should come forward and avow the fact-

" I beg to ask the Honourable Member (Mr. H. Maxwell), whether he seat, from the Grand Lodge, five members, under a warrant, to the county of

Monaghan, in 1821 ? They in upon my estate, and a set of greater incen- diaries were not to be found in the country. They did the utmost mischief, and ought to have been transported to Botany Bay. They set one part of my tenantry. against another, and .introduced a degree of confusion that to the present time has never subsided. Has the corporation seal, as it %vele, and the signature of the Duke of Cumberland, been sent through Ireland ? The honour- able Member says, that these warrants were signed by the Duke of Cumberland ; but that he is authorized to say that his Royal Highness did not know of their -destination. I happen to know an Orangeman who did believe that the Duke of Cumberland had given his authority : he and others have ken en- trapped by this fabricator and forger of the name of the Duke of Cumberland. What right had they to pot his name towarrants? I am well aware that the warrants Were signed in blank, but they were afterwards filled up, and I want to know by whom ? If they were filled up with the (mines of the Grand Com - mince, I beg to ask the honourable Member for Lancashire, whether the re- port lie is going to lay on the table will show who were the Grand Committee? We ought to have the names of those who Lave been in the habit of committing forgery. Allow me to add, that this is a topic which cannot rest hoe: the the honourable Member for Lancashire must inform the House when it is likely that the evidence will be printed and in ow hands ; for if it be voluminous, we may reach the end of the session before the House is in a condition to consider it."

Mr. PATTEN said, the names of the Committee of the Orange As- sociation in Dublin would be found in the evidence.

Mr. MAXWELL could not answer Mr. Grattan's question, as he was not a member of the Orange Society previously to 1828-

" I beg to add, that until I heard it in the Committee of this House upon Orange Lodges, I was nut aware that there was a single lodge connected with any regiment in the Army or Militia. I may have been deplorably ignorant, but such is the fact. I can undertake to assert, that no forgery has been coin• mitted by any member of the Grand Committee: the signatures of the Duke of Cumberland, as Grand Master, were bona fide, as well as those of the honour- able and gallant Member for Sligo, the Grand Treasurer, and of other Grand Officers; 'but they were attached to blank warrants."

Mr. Patten's motion was then agreed to.

4. IPSWICH ELECTION.

On Wednesday, Mr. WYNN brought up the report of the Ipswich Election Committee, and moved that it be read : it was as fhllows-

a That it appears to the Committee, that Thomas Alootte Keith aided and abetted the procuring and continuing the absence of John Pilgrim, to prevent his giving evi- dence an the petition against the Ipswich election; and that he uNed charge of embezzlement as a means of imitating Pilgrim to remain iu concealment fur the same purpose. "That on Pilgrim's return to Norwich, an information was laid against him fur em. bezzlement, which had the effect of delaying obedience to (lie Chairman's muumuus, and his attendance before the Coanmitice on the Ipswich election. " That it dues not appear to the Committee, limn the evidence before them, that there is auy proof that these prosecutions were taken for the purpose of procuring such delay.

" That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence before them, that any charge is proved against Joseph Sewell, John Blake, or John Joseph Blake."

Mr. Ilea : moved, according, as lie believed, to invariable practice, that Thomas Moore Keith be committed.

Mr. WYNN, as Chairman of the Committee, hoped that the evidence would be read before punishment was inflicted.

Mr. WASON said, that a distinct offence was stated against Keith : there could now, therefore, be no question as to the breach of privilege. Mr. HUME pressed his motion.

Mr. Mir.Es said, that Keith was extremely ill—he believed that he was labouring under an aberration of mind.

Mr. Hum: wished the forms of the House to be complied with : he was not actuated by vindictive feelings.

It was agreed, on the suggestion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the motion should be postponed to Friday.

Sir C. B. Yeas: moved that J. E. Sparrow be called to the bar, with a view to discharge him.

Mr. AGLIONlaY and Mr. HUME said, they saw no reason fur releasing Sparrow. Dr. LUSHINGTON, Sir R. PEEL, Mr. P. M. Smwaar,

Mr. WASON, and Lord Jon:: RUSSELL, wished that Sparrow should be discharged.

It was then agreed that be should be brought to the bar the next day. Mr. FRESIIIIELD moved that J. E. Clipperton be called to the bar, and discharged.

Mr. WASON opposed the motion ; as he considered Clipperton one of the most guilty parties.

A long discussion ensued; in the course of which a warm altercation between the Earl of DARLINGTON and Mr. WASON arose ; the Earl having charged Mr. Wason with being actuated by vindictive feelings in this affair. Mr. WASGN said that this was "untrue," and that Lord Darlington had been prompted by Mr. Richards. Lord DARLINGTON said that this was "false." The SPEAKER interfered, and called upon Lord Darlington to retract his imputation of vindictive feelings on Alr. Wason. Several other Members interfered ; and filially, as usual, both Members retracted their offensive expressions, Lord DARLINGTON

• being compelled to apologize first. And Mr. FICESHEIELD'S motion was postponed to Friday.

On Thursday, J. E. Sparrow was brought to the bar by the Ser- geant-at-Arms, reprimanded by the Speaker, and ordered to be dis- charged.

Last night, Mr. FRESIIFIELD moved again that Clipperton be called to the bar, reprimanded, and discharged. But after a desultry discus- sion, the motion was rejected, by 83 to .54; and the consideration of his case postponed till Monday. It was urged by Mr. WYNN in his behalf, that Lord Brougham had given a judicial decision from which it appeared that the protection which solicitors could claim in virtue of

their office went further than he had imagined, and that Clipperton's offence was therefore not so serious.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

LAPSE OF CLERICAL SINECURES. On Tuesday, the House of Peers went into Committee on the Sinecure Church Preferment Bill ; the object of which, as explained by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, is to prevent certain clerical sinecures which it is proposed to place at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from lapsing to the Archbishops, Bishops, and others, to whom, as the law now stands, they would fall. The bill went through the Committee, and the re- Tort was received.

Luau COERCION BILL. The Earl of GLENGALL asked Lord MEL- souRNx, on Monday, whether it was intended to renew the Coercion Bill, which would expire in August ? Lord MELBOURNE replied, that it was intended to introduce another measure for the purpose of pre- serving the public peace, and repressing any outrage or disturbance that might breuk out. The proposed measure was founded on the Report of a Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the Queen's County in 1831 and 18e32.

Pool-LAW. Lord TEYNIIAM moved their Lordships, on Monday, for certain returns relative to the conduct of the Kent Magistrates in suppressing the recent disturbances arising out of the enforcement of the new Poor-law in that county. Lord Teynham arraigned the conduct of the Magistrates. They were defended by Marquis CAM.. DEN, the Duke of RICHMOND, Lord Dexcaaaox, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE ; and the motion was negatived, without a division.

ENGLISH Tanis. In the House of Commons, last night, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, in reply to a question from Sir E. KNATCII-. Bum., that it was intended early next session to introduce a measure on the subject of tithes in England and Wales.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Rm.. After a desultory discussion in s thin House, last night, this bill went through the Committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday. The only circumstance in the debate worth notice, was a remark by Mr. HUGHES HUGHES. that " all Scotland was up in arms against the bill;" to which it was re- plied, that the bill "did not extend to Scotland."

OATHS OF SHERIFFS. On Thursday, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL obtained leave to bring in a bill to remove doubts respecting the construction of the statute 9th Geo. I V., requiring Sheriffs of cities and towns that were counties of themselves to take the same oaths, and make the same declarations as the Sheriffs of counties. Sir John explained, that this doubt had arisen out of the recent election of a Sheriff of London, who could not conscientiously make the declaration required.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. On Monday, on the motion for going into Committee on this bill. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN moved to instruct the Committee to provide that the Members for Stafford should be transferred to Cork County but, on a division, the motion' was negatived, by 159 to 19. Mr. E. BELLER moved !Or a Select Committee to inquire into the alleged bribery and corruption in Staf- ford. Lord SANDON and Captain CHETWYND supported this motion which was opposed by Mr. DIvETT and Mr. GLADSTONE; and rejected, by 98 to 19.

The bill then passed through the Committee.

PROSECUTION OF TI1E BRIGHTON GUARDIAN. On Thursday, Sir C. BLUNT presented a petition from Chichester, complaining of the prosecution of the Brighton Guardian ; and of the expense of that prosecution, which amounted to between 300/. and 400/., being paid out of the public purse. Mr. Hume gave notice, that he should move for an account in detail of the expenditure of the money.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS. On Thursday, Mr. Hines: presented a peti- tion, signed by nearly all the London printers, fur a repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge. Alia ROBINSON asked Sir John Campbell, whether Government intended to enforce the law against the publishers and venders of mist:united papers ?- He gave no opinion on the propriety of the tax upon newspapers, further than to say, that he had always supported the repeal of this and all other taxes obstructing the dissemination of useful knowledge; but while the law remained unaltered, as prosecutions had been instituted against inferior offenders, the pub- lishers of Penny Magazines and others, he thought it unfit that greater offenders (and lie was told that some great persons were implicated) should be allowed to escape altogether. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL replied, that as to the continuance of the tax, that was a question fur the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer— On the propriety of enforcing the existing law, he had no difficulty in saying, that he had taken steps, and should cominue to take steps, to secure obedience to that law. Justice to the fair trailer required that while the tax remained, it should not be evaded ; it was injustice to those who obeyed the law, if those were nut punished who disobeyed it. If the honourable Member for Worcester would point out to him any individuals, high or low, without respect of per- sons, who offended, Le would instantly put the law in force against them.

METROPOLITAN PUBLIC CARRIAGES BILL. On the motion of Mr. Alderman Woon, the House, on Thursday, went into Committee Ott this bill ; the object of which is, by establishing a registry of coach, omnibus, and cabriolet drivers, and by other means, to provide some security for the good character of those persons. Small progress, how- ever, was made in the Committee, owing to an informality; one of the clauses laying a tax, and another appointing Commissioners,—which, it was urged, could not be done without the consent of Government. Al- derman WOOD complained of the absence of Mr. Spring Rice, who concurred in the measure, and ought to have been present to express the concurrence of Government. The bill still remains in Committee, and the Chairman reported progress.

ABERDEEN AND GLASGOW UNIVERSITIES BILL. On Monday, on the suggestion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. BANNERAIAN agreed to post- pone his bill for the union of the two Universities at Aberdeen, till next session; Mr. J. OSWAI.D, at the request of Lord STANLEY*, postponed the Glasgow University Bill also till next session.

RIOTS AT DERRY: LADY MuLeatave. Last night, Sir ROBERT BATESON asked for some information respecting the liberation of certain Catholic rioters at Derry, by Lord Mulgrave ; he understood that it was owing to the intercession of Lady Mulgrave, to whom the prisoners had petitioned, that the order for their liberation bad been given. Lord Moarent replied, that the case stood thus— At the Assizes at which this cause was tried, the parties were brought before the Court upon cross-indictments. The Chief Baron who tried the indictments

sentenced the Catholics who were found guilty to imprisonment for six months,

and the Protestants who were found guilty to imprisonment for periods varying from three to two months. All the jurors who tried the ease, and eleven of theta were Protestants, signed a petition to the Lord Lieutenant (and not to his lady).

praying that the Catholics, who had then suffered an imprisonment of three months, might be liberated forthwith. That petition was backed by the Mayor

of Derry. It prayed for the remission of that part of the sentence passed on the Catholics which was then unsatisfied ; and with that prayer the Lord Lieu- tenant had complied. Sir Robert Bateson had alluded by name to Lady Mul- grave, and Lord Morpeth must confess that he was surprised at it. He was not surprised at the attacks which had been made upon that noble lady in the party newspapers of Ireland, for party was not nice in the selection of its victims. Those attacks had no other foundation than this—that she had sent a letter in reply to an application for Amity, which she had received from the wife of one of the Catholic prisoners. (" Heae, hear !")

Sir ROBERT DAMSON disclaimed all intention of being discourteous ,towards Lady Mulgrave.

DISTRESS IN MAYO. In reply ton question from Mr. S. CRAWFORD, last night, Lord Monet:Tim said, that Government was doing all in its power to relieve the distress of the starving population of Mayo. Since the subject had last been mentioned in the House, the " pro- ceedings of Government had not been stationary." (Lanyhter.)