Debatts anb 1procretings in Vadianunt.

ACLDEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir James GRAHAM moved the -Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill; taking that opportunity to answer questions put on a previous evening, and to explain some alterations 'in the measure.

Mr. Vernon Smith had asked for whose benefit the measure was intended: Sir -James replied, that it was intended for the middle classes—for the commercial, .banking, and manufacturingdosses of such towns as Cork and Belfast, and also for the gentry and upper classes, by giving facilities to such as would find an academical education for their sons in Dublin inconvenient. Lord John Russell had asked how the money was to be disposed of: the capital sum of 30,000/. for each College would be laid out in the purchase or erection of the necessary build- ings; the 7,000/ yearly for each would be thus distributed—" We contemplate -a provision for each institution of a President and Vice-President. The maximum salary for the President will be about 7001. ayear; the maximum salary for the Vice-President will be about 4001. a year. Then, we contemplate from twelve to fourteen Professors for each College; and the sum awarded to each, I should say, 0n ht not to be less than 2001., nor more than 3001. a year. There will be, in addition, the Librarian, theBursar, and the College servants. For the Librarian, .the salary will be about 2001. a year, for the Bursar about 1001. a year, and for the College servants about 3001. a year; making together an annual sum of about '6,0001. There will remain a surplus of about 2,0001." This would provide for a library and for annual exhibitions: at the yearly examinations, students of the greatest proficiency, to the number of twenty, should receive premiums of 201. each, in the next year 2u. each, and in the third year 301.: that would take about 1,0001. or 1,600/ a year.. To a question from Mr. Shell, Sir James replied, that Ministers adhered to their determination of having no religions teat: but, in the absence of that, they considered no security could be so great that the faith of the students should not be sapped as by making Ministers responsible for the ap- pointment of Professors. Nevertheless, to meet the views of gentlemen opposite, Sir James would consent that in three years after the foundation of the Colleges Parliament should reconsider the subject of the appointments. He adhere, to the opinion that the measure would be incomplete unless these Colleges are com- bined in some University. In his opinion, the want of degrees in law, in arts, and in sciences, to be granted to the students in these Colleges, mast necessarily be supplied by an University. Not only is there nothing in the bill to forbid such 4th arrangement, but more it decidedly contemplated it. If the University shall ,enateinelor degrees, the Examiners would be appointed under the prerogative of ahsCrownith in the London University; and, to apply the ulterior arrnagement

of an University to the change, he would propose—if an University should be established it would be a natural arrangement—that the governing body

should have the power of recommending to the Crown, as the various ProfeesorshipS in the Colleges should become vacant, those whom, after ex- amination or otherwise, they should deem best fit by merit to fill the chairs, preserving always • to the Crown a veto. With respect to the case of the pupils, new clauses had been framed. "The young men will reside with their parents and guardians, of under persons selected by their parents and guardians; and if not, they will be congregated in boarding-houses or halls. The

House will see that a licence will be required by the persons allowed to take in boarders even with the consent of the parents and guardians. There is a provi- sion for revoking this licence; and, as it is to be renewed each year, there will be an annual revision by the governing body. With respect to the halls, every encou-

ragement is. given by this bill to their foundation. Incorporation is contemplated; and in their incorporated character they. may receive loans from the Board of

Works in aid of their foundation. The choice of the Principals of these Halle, and

the rules and regulations, will be made under the immediate control of the Visitors. And this brings me to the important question, who are to be those Visitors? I con-

fess, not binding in terms (and it is impossible for me to bind) future Governments,

my own view and the view of my colleagues is, that in selecting the Visitors the heads of the religious establishments in each quarter should be taken: for instance, in Belfast, the Bishop of the Established Church in that diocese, an eminent Presby-

terian clergyman, possessing the confidence of that bodyy, and the Roman Ca- tholic Bishop; so also at Cork, the Roman Catholic iishop of the district and

the Protestant Bishop; and generally, it would be desirable for the Crown to ap-

point as Visitors those possessing ecclesiastical control in the district, and enjoy- ing the confidence of the large body of the particular religious persuasion of the

district." Mr. Sheil asked whether the Government were prepared to appoint a Chaplain, to be paid by the State, and to officiate within the College ? " After giving to that question the best consideration in our power, I and my colleagues are of opinion, that any such appointment, for religious duties to be performed within the College, is decidedly at variance with the principle of this bill ; and to any such arrangement we are decidedly °pp:Med. We cannot hold out the least prospect that upon that point we shall be prepared to make any concession what ever: I should be deceiving the House if I said otherwise." Lord Mellow moved the following amendment- " That it is the opinion of this House, that in the establishment of Colleges in Ireland, provision should be made for the religious instruction of the pupils by means of lecture-fees, till such time as the private benefactions for that objectmay have taken effect." He condemned the provision in the bill for private endowment of Theolo- gical Professorships as a kind of charity; quoted Dr. Cahill, head of a Roman Catholic seminary near Blackrock, Earl Grey, and Lord Stanley, (when proposing the National School system,) on the necessary combi- nation of religious with secular instruction; declared his own repugnance to a system of concurrent State endowment for the several persuasions; and explained the system which he would propose— He thought that there should be in each College two Professors of Ecclesiastical Instruction—one for the Established Church, another for the Roman Catholics, and in the College of Ulster a third for the Presbyterians; each to be remunerated by the lecture-fees of the pupils attending him. As the State would allow them no remuneration, the State would have no claim to their appointment. The Pro- fessor of the Established Churchmight be named by our Bishops; the Roman Catholic Professor by the Roman Catholic Bishops, or by the superiors of May- nooth; and the Presbyterian Professor by the Synod of Ulster. The pupil him- self, his parents, or his guardians, should have the freest choice as to which of these three courses of lectures he might choose to attend; but a certificate of such attendance should, as a general rule, be required by the superiors of the College, as a condition to any examination or degree, or even continued residence in the College. Still, that rule should be only general, not universal, nor strictly compul- sory: a power of special exemption should be vested either in the superiors of the Colleges or in the Board of Visitors. Such an exemption might be granted to any class of Separatists objecting on religious grounds to aloud either the Established Church, or the Church of Rome, or the Presbyterian course of theological instruc- tion. Of these, however, it was probable there would be scarcely more than one or two in every hundred. Such an exemption might also be given in particular and defined cases; as; for example, the case of a"yoimg man residing in the house of his father, a Protestant clergyman, who might happen to have no cure of souls, and might have full leisure to afford him instruction. But every instance of special exemption must be subject to a fixed and invariable ride, that in no case should there be any payment of lecture-fees where from any circumstances the lectures themselves had not been attended. The amount of lecture-fees to the pupils attending them might safely be left to be fixed by the Board of Visiting; who, indeed, must beaallowed to have over the Theological Professor a general superintendence and control, not as to any point of religious doctrine, but as to their discipline and conduct. The amendment was seconded by Mr. WYSE, as avoiding State endow- ment while it insured religious instruction: it violated no principle, inter- fered with no previous arrangements, and established no ground for reli- gious prejudice or hostility. Mr. Wyse somewhat indignantly replied Co an insinuation thrown out by Mr. John O'Connell (Kilkenny) at Con- ciliation Hall, that he was an " Anythingarian," with the advice that the electors of Waterford, as Catholics, should not reiflect him. Mr. Joni; O'Corizoira said, that he had not charged Mr. Wyse with not being a Roman Catholic, but with " being in a state very nearly approach- ing to not being a Roman Catholic": he certainly was in the state of .a schismatic, because he had set himself in opposition to his Bishops— He denied the charge made by the honourable Member for Waterford, that he wished to revive religions feuds in Ireland by calling on the electors of Waterford to reject him because he was not a Catholic. From his soul he abhorred religions feuds; but he had told the Catholic electors of Waterford that the honourable Member was not representing them as Catholics—was not representing their opi- nions: he therefore called on them to require the honourable gentleman to re- sign, or not to reelect him as their representative. If there was any meaning in the term "representative," he could not do a greater injury to his constituents than, when they were inclined to be obedient to their Bishops and clergy, to use his influence in that Howe to resist them. Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the amendment; but he began by noticing Mr. John O'Connell's remarks— He was confident it was the opinion of the majority of the House that this was neither the time nor the place to discuss what constituted a "schismatic Roman Catholic" or the obedience a Roman Catholic gentleman owed to Roman Catholic ecclesiastics. It must have been painful to the House to hear some of the observations of the honourable Member for Ifilkenny. He hoped and believed that the honourable gentleman had not rightly interpreted the degree of submis- sion which a Member of that House owed even to supreme ecclesiastical au- thority, when he said the honourable Member for Waterford, in his legislative ca- pacity, in discussing such a measure as the bill at present under consideration, was bound to pay implicit obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Mr. Wyse's opi- nions were well known to his constituents, on the subject both of education and Repeal; and it would be time to despair for the state of Ireland if the course which he had taken should endanger his seat. Sir James took some formal objections to the motion, as tantamount to an instruction to the Committee, though directing what the Committee would be incompetent to perform. He pointed out difficulties in the way of Lord Mahon's plan; asking why, for instance, if Presbyterian Professors were appointed, the privilege should be confined to orthodox Presbyterians, and Unitarians be excluded? He maintained, that practically the bill would provide opportunities for more religious instruction than the pupils receive in Trinity College Dublin, or in the English Universities; and repeated some of the stock arguments in favour of mixed education without religious instruction prescribed by the State. The debate proceeded without much to notice, except that Mr. COLQII- Ham, who had opposed the bill, opposed the amendment also, as tending further to perplex the question; and that Mr. RICKHAH Escort, strenu- ously supporting the bill, called on Mr. O'Connell, now approaching the close of his public career, to rise superior to sectarianism— .As in one great question ho had shown and taught them the way, why not now, as he was approaching the close of his public career, teach the people

to refrain from agitation which now was useless, and to help the

Go- vernment and all true friends of liberty and justice in Ireland in carrying out those measures which the Government and which every just-thinking and inde- pendent man in the United Kingdom admitted were intended for the benefit of Ireland? Why not say that the sun which had warmed the people in its mid- day career might shine with a benignant and milder lustre as it approached its setting in the Western ray ? Mr. O'Connell had gained many victories: there remained but one more for him to achieve, and that was the victory over himself. If he should achieve that, he would go down to posterity as a great man, who had conquered his own feelings of animosity to those in power, and who had done so because he felt that by pursuing that course he was conferring substantial benefits upon his country. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he did not vindicate the measure as perfect, but as practicable with the unfortunate diversity of religions in the country Lord Mahon proposed the fees es a temporary substitute for private con- tributions: but would not the plan practically prevent and discourage pri- vate contributions? And Sir Robert pointed out a variety of difficulties in enforcing the fees without introducing sectarianism. He deprecated the notion that natives of the same island cannot learn the principles of ab- stract science from each other without danger of interference in their par- ticular beliefs- " This, really, is altogether alien from that spirit to which I think religion aught to tend. Why should I tell the Roman Catholics of the last generation that they must not be present at the lectures of John Hunter because be was not a Roman Catholic? Must I tell a Roman Catholic student of the present day, that Sir Benjamin Brodie cannot instruct him in anatomy because he is not a Roman Catholic? Must I tell a Roman Catholic resident at Dublin now, that he must shun Sir Philip Crampton as a pestilence because he is not a Roman Catholic? "

Mr. O'Cosiwett,—" It so happens, that in a lecture on anatomy, lie introduced -one of the grossest calumnies imaginable against the Roman Catholic religion; thinking the fact true, no doubt, himself." Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Well, in that instance the power of the Crown would be used, under this bill, to remove a Professor so acting, immediately. He hoped and believed that Mr. O'Connell was mistaken."

Mr. O'CONNELL adhered to his tale. Ina lecture on anatomy, taking Protestant authorities for matter of fact in the history of anatomy, Sir Philip Crampton accused the head of the Catholic Church of the grossest persecution of an indivi- dual for no other reason than that he had made discoveries in anatomy. It did not rest here: a Catholic clergyman, conversant with the history of anatomy, in reply to the published lecture, proved that the individual had been guilty of forgery, for which he was punished. This treatment by the Inquisition was altogether unconnected with science. Sir Philip Crampton, however, bad the manliness at once to come forward and admit that he was wrong. Sir Ronzirr PEEL--" I have known him in other times: he is a man of the most comprehensive liberality, and I never knew him to utter one word that could give offence to a Roman Catholic. It is certainly possible that a Protestant Professor, speaking of Galileo, or in lecturing on the circulation of the blood may have referred to the difficulties thrown in the way of science by men of great weight and ecclesiastical station and influence, but without the slightest reflec- ti on on the faith of a Roman Catholic."

To show how useless it would have been to consult the Roman Catholic Bishops, Sir Robert quoted Dr. IIPHale's recent letter to himself, violently condemning the scheme; and to show how necessary it was to avoid med- dling with religious differences, he read a letter which he had received from a Presbyterian minister of high character, who stated that the ap- pointment of an Unitarian or a Roman Catholic Professor teaching astro- nomy or anatomy would at once decide the General Assembly to withdraw every student. He believed that the effect of the denunciations against the Government plan would be to produce a reaction more consonant to the true genius of the Christian religion, and that the people of Ireland would consent to receive religious instruction from Professors of all creeds.

Mr. O'Corrsem, disclaimed imputing bigotry to Sir Philip Crampton; but he contested Sir Robert Peel's allusion to Galileo-

" The general idea with respect to this philosopher is, that he was imprisoned for a long time for having maintained and taught the Copernican system of astronomy. Now, Galileo was confined for three days only in the Inquisition. So far, likewise, was he from having been east into gaol for promulgating the Co- pernican doctrine of the heavens, that the Pope, or rather the ruling ecclesi- astical authority at Rome, was the person who enabled Copernicus to publish his discoveries. Galileo was imprisoned for saying and teaching that the fact of the snot the moon, and the planets having a circular motion, could be proved by the -Scriptures. He was admonished upon this, and was told that the Scriptures were not to be referred to for such a purpose; and he was enjoined not to promulgate such doctrines. He broke through this prohibition; and he was sent to prison, as I have stated, for three days; during which he stamped with his foot, and ex- claimed, Still it moves.!'" Mr. O'Connell said he was not there to arraign the motives of Govern- ment, though it would be easy to do so. Ireland cannot afford any delay in the application of some relief for the enormous evils which she endures. To illustrate her miserable condition, he quoted the Reports of Mr. Spring Rice's Committee in 1830; of the Poor-law Commissioners in 1834, stating that 2,400,000 persons were in a state of frightful destitution; and the Re- port of Lord Devon's Commission—

The number of the destitute has increased to 4,500,000; and these numbers are

now badly fed, badly clothed, badly housed; their food is potatoes, when they can get them, and their drink water; a blanket is a luxury unknown to them. Murders are increasing year after year; a never-failing system of assassination prevails—the assassination of parties really concerned or supposed to be con- cerned in the removal of tenants, by the friends of the tenants so ejected: and this system of horror is proceeding Northwards; it has reached Roscommon; it is spreaihug through Leitrim; nay, into Cavan, and even into the Protestant county nt Fermanagh, where two hideous murders have been recently committed. Are the gentlemen of England—are the gentlemen who compose this House at all aware of he state of Ireland? Mr. O'Connell diverged into a discussion on the Landlord and Tenant Bill; which he declared to be inefficient. lie felt flattered by Mr. Esoott's having addressed so much of his speech to him; answering the appeal by another- " But I ask him, and I ask the gentlemen near him, and I ask the gentleman opposite me, to say what will the Government help me to do for Ireland. Let us see if the Government are disposed to meet the Irish landlords and compel them to do justice to the people of Ireland. Your triumphant majorities, your exclaim- ing Hear, hear I' your exclaiming against those who differ from you in opinion, are valueless themselves. 'fora your majorities to good account—make them really useful to Ireland. The present Government is the strongest Government which has been known for a century, and you have ever'tldug in your power. Give us, then, at least this measure in such a shape as will enable the people of Ireland to receive it as a boon. The people of England will not sanction this scheme of godless education, and you must introduce religion into your system or it will not be received by the people of Ireland. The Irish are essentially a re- ligious people. Infidelity is unknown in Ireland. Act manfully, therefore: make religion the basis of your proceedings, and fear not." In this strain Mr. O'Connell proceeded; contending that great deference ought to be paid to the declaration of the Irish Catholic Bishops. 'The people, he repeated, would not consent to receive a system of education based on the principle of receiving religious instruction. " You may think the clamour gone which was raised in England. The claimer against the Maynooth Bill was the most senseless and atrocious display of calumny, hatred, bigotry, and bad feeling, which ever disgraced any country. That has now exhausted itself. You do not now perceive a symptom of it remaining. It has gone by as has the snow of the past winter. You have nothing now to fear from it. You carried your bill manfully. You did, and it did you great credit. I come not here with overweening expressions of gratitude; but I am grateful for that measure. I em here to declare that there never was a measure brought in with more perfect fair play andjustice, and with a more honest intention of carrying it out fairly for the people for whom it was intended. That measure was as perfect in its kind as any which ever passed through Parliament; and you are entitled to great credit for having carried it against the senseless and unjust clamour which bigotry for the time succeeded in raising against it. Take one step more, and consider whether this bill may not be made to accord with the feelings of the Catholic ecclesiastics of Ireland. * * Again, 1 repeat, I am most anxious for the success of this bill; but I fairly tell you, it cannot suc- ceed without the Catholic Bishops. They have the faith of six millions of people in their hands. • * * Which way soever you may decide in that respect, I trust the House will believe that what has fallen from me has been uttered in the fairest spirit of good faith. My political power elsewhere may be deemed a jest, but here it is a reality. I am ready tojoin in any measure that may be useful to the people of Ireland, and that may tend to do away with the spirit of disaffection existing in that country. It is not a political disaffection; it is not a religions disaffection; but it is a physical disaffection. You gentlemen of England have no notion of its extent or of its intensity; and though it may not display itself at this moment sufficient to alarm you or arouse you, still the time may come, after some of us shall have gone to our graves, when that physical disaffection may have the most frightful consequences." Sir ROBERT Nous called Mr. O'Connell's historical accuracy in question— Could the House believe that the honourable and learned gentleman trusted so much to the lack of memory or of knowledge on the part of every other Member as to assert that the Pope who was reigning in the time of Galileo—Paul the Fifth—had enabled Copernicus' who died in 1543, to publish hie observatioss, when that Pope did not lie to reign till 1605 ! Of course, the honourable and learned gentleman well knew that Galileo was not senteneed to the imprison- ment which he underwent because he established his doctrine on the words of the Scriptures: those words did not sustain his doctrine: but it was not because the doctrine of Galileo was contrary to the Scripture, but contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Did not the honourable and learned gentleman know, that two of the most eminent mathematicians, in the earliest part of the last century, when they published Newton's Principle, were obliged to declare that they could not maintain the doctrine of Newton wale:at at the same time maintaining the motion of the globe? On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 189 to 49; majority, 140. The bill was committedpro forma, to be recommitted on Monday next SPEAKERS sic THE DEBATE.—For Lord Mahon's amendment—Lord Mahon, Mr. Wyse, Viscount Clive, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. John O'Connell, Sir Robert Inglis; Mr. Charles Hindley. Against it—Sir James Graham Mr. Monckton Milnes, Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Bickham Escott, Sir Robert Peel, 'Mr. Sharman Crawford, Sir Arthur Broke, Lord Claude Hamilton, Mr. Shaw.

COMPENSATION FOR TENANTS IN IRELAND.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation (Ireland) Bill having been moved, the Marquis of LONDON-

DERRY opposed the measure; objecting particularly to the compulsory clauses. One clause gave the Commissioner in Dublin power not only to decide whether improvements were to be effected, in spite of the landlord, but also to fine landlords 201. It would make the landlords jealous; and it would effect nothing for tenants, whose demand is " fixity of tennre

a cry instigated by demagogues. The bill has been opposed by Mr. O'Con- nell, who is understood to represent the majority of Irish Catholics- -by

Mr. Sharman Crawford, author of a similar measure; and the Marquis ;lied a protest signed by thirty-six Irish Peers, who objected to the bill that its tendency was destructive to the rights of property, and that its operation was likely to be injurious. Several other Peers opposed the bill on similar grounds, and with little variation of arguments; its interference with the rights of property and the free will of landlords being harped upon by all. The Marquis of Ctsanu- QUIDS insisted that it would be injurious: in the North, it would super- sede the tenant-riAt, and provoke ill-feeling between landlords and te- nants: lie could understand no necessity for interference with the rights of property; and there never was a time when it was less necessary to meddle than the present, since improvements are going on to a greater extent than ever they were in the history of Ireland. Lord MONTEAGLE advanced elaborate arguments to show that the measure would prove injull ■us, since the most desirable improvement is drainage; which cannot be effected by holders of small farms, of five, ten, or twenty acres, and which are now carried out by landlords. Acts of Parliament to enforce improvements of this kind are like acts of Parliament to enforce religion and morality. Others did not oppose the motion, but only permitted it to pass with a view of ultimately referring the bill to a Select Committee, in order to a, considerable modification of the compulsory part. The Duke of RICH., IIOND, however, who supported the suggestion of referring the bill to a Com- mittee up stairs, strongly approved of its principle, and wiblied that it Were extended to England and Scotland. Lord STANLEY intimated his consult to refer the bill to a Select Committee.

Some supported the measure as necessary in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. The Earl of WicaLow insisted that it-a principle—compulsory compensation for improvements carried out by tenants—was just and sound. It is well known that the soil of Ireland is fertile in the extreme, and that the produce of the country might be increased fivefold; but landlords cannot or will not undertake improvements, while tenants are unable: it is therefore the duty of the Legislature to interpose. Earl FORTESCUE ad- vocated the bill as likely to give a great stimulus to employment. The Earl of Devote cited the concurrent testimony of the best authorities, in- telligent and practical men in Ireland; premising that processes called im- provement in Ireland are in England accounted indispensable— The present bill was founded upon a mass of evidence taken before the Com- mission, and had not been taken up upon fancied or ill-conceived grounds. The Committee had examined 303 witnesses; of whom 47 were landed proprietors, 47 were agents, 128 farmers, and 81 were not classed. Those included persons from all parts of the country. They were invariably asked, what they conceived to be the best mode of encouraging the tenants to improve the land? and in answer to that question, 146 gave their opinion to this effect, namely, that it was most import- ant to secure to the tenants, on the expiration of their leases, or upon ejectment, a fair compensation for their outlay in labour and capital. The first witness who gave that opinion was Mr. Sharman Crawford himself—a resident, an ex- cellent landlord, and a man of great practical experience. There was a very large volume of evidence to show the necessity for the interference of the law to pro-. vide compensation for the tenants, even in cases where the landlords did not de- sire or did nothing themselves towards effecting those improvements. His strong feeling was, that the measure, by creating a security in the minds of the tenants, had a tendency to secure property and the rights of the landlord. Lord STANLEY defended the bill at some length; insisting upon its ap- plicability to the peculiar circumstances of Ireland. Where landlords and tenants were already bent on improvement, the bill would not interfere, but would practically be a dead letter. It is the custom in many parts of England to give compensation for particular improvements—as in some parts of the South for draining with fagots ; such customs may be pleaded in courts of law, and compensation enforced: he called upon the House to extend a similar law to Ireland. He admitted that it should be a question open for ulterior consideration, whether the landlord should be allowed to oppose his veto on the improvements notified by the tenant; and if a more safe or competent tribunal for reference could be suggested than the Go- vernment Commissioner, he should not object to the change; only insist- ing on the importance of a central registration for improvements. The compulsory part of the bill he defended thus— The principle of giving compensation appeared to be generally admitted; and the question was, how were they to secure its award? It was said by some, "Secure to the tenant long leases; give him fixity of tenure." That was what the Legislature could not do. To secure compensation by enforcing long leases, was a violent interference with the rights of property, which he, on the part of the Government, repudiated the right or the power of Parliament to make. What the Government proposed was, that whether the tenant had a longer or a shorter lease, if he laid outhis money on the land—if he thereby increased the landlord's rent and the fee-simple of his estate—then the landlord, if he took advantage of the tenant having improved the estate, and turned him out houseless and home- less on the world, should be bound to give him compensation. That was the principle of the bill. But then, they must secure its operation; and what, in fact, was the compulsory part of this bill? Would any one contend that the com- pensation should be left to be settled by the landlord? That would be practically depriving the tenant of compensation while they flattered him with baying the means of &killing it. There must be some person to interfere between the tenant and the landlord. To refer to a court of law small and trivial disputes, especially with a litigious or prejudiced landlord, might render the compensation

tory.

reply to the Earl of RODEN, Lord STANLEY said, that the Commis- sioners were not unanimous as to the tribunal for appeals; but that they were unanimous on the main points—the necessity for compensation, for re- gistering improvements, and for affording some appeal in case of disagree- ment between landlord and tenant.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE having taunted Lord Stanley with his - willingness to give up the compulsory clauses and the Commissionership, and still clinging to the remainder of the bill, Lord STANLEY denied that he had agreed to give either of the two points—

"I do not consider discussion and abandonment to be the same thing; upon the contrary, I consider them to be very different; and as I leave the noble Lord full power to deal with these provisions in Committee, so I must reserve for the Go- vernment the entire right of considering the effect of any amendments that may be made in Committee, and deciding, when they see the bill as amended, what course they will pursue with respect to it." On a division, the second reading was carried, by 48 to 34; majority, 14.

SPEAKERS IN THE DEBATE. For the second reading—The Earl of Wick- low, Earl Fortesene, the Earl of Devon, Lord Stanley. For the second reading and the Select Committee—the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Marquis of Lansdowne. Against the bill—the Marquis of Londonderry, Lord Gosford, the Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Monteagle, Lord Carew, the Earl of Essex, the Earl of Roden, the Marquis of Normanby, Lord Campbell.

On Thursday, Lord STANLEY moved the following as the Committee on the bill—

The Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Cleveland, the Marquis of Salisbury, the Marquis of Londonderry, the Marquis of Normanby, the Marquis of Hertford, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Earl of Devon, the Earl Fitzwilliam, the Earl Fortescue, the Earl of Chichester, the Earl St. Germaine, the Earl of Roden, the Earl of Rosso, the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Monteagle, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Ashburton, and Lord Stanley. This gave rise to rather a sharp debate. The Marquis of CLANarcARDN, as a thorough opposer of the bill, objected to serve on the Committee; and the Marquis of NORMANDY entertained a similar scruple. The Earl of LUGAR objected to the proposed Committee that it was not impartial, con- taining sixteen supporters to five opponents of the bill. This Lord STAN- LEY denied. The result of the contest was that the Earl of Charleville ' was substituted for the Marquis of Clanricarde; and then the motion was affirmed.

SLAVE-TRADE.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. HUTT moved-

" That the course pursued by Great Britain since 1814 for the suppression of the slave-trade has been attended by large expenditure of the public money and by serious loss of life to the naval forces of the country; and that it has not miti- gated the horrors of the middle passage, nor ai • 'Abed the extent of the traffic in slaves."

This proposition he developed in a speech of some length, full of - argument and evidence. For thirty years the country has busied itself with nothing so much as with the abolition of the slave-trade: we are constantly compromising the British Crown by inducing other countries to enter into treaties which they utterly disregard: we have established Cora- ' mission Courts to adjudicate on questions of slave-trading over half the Tropi- : gal globe; but have we abolished the slave-trade ? Sir Fowell Buxton,

Mr. Clarkson, Lord John Russell, all say that it has increased; and its present extent is shown in a variety of official papers, from which Mr. Hutt read extracts. At the commencement of the present century, about 100,000 Negroes were exported from Africa: the number is now not less than 200,000 annually; while there is no account of great numbers, who are massacred in the slave-hunts, who perish at sea, of disease, in storms, or thrown overboard. While the traffic was not prohibited there were none of those additional horrors. Mr. Hutt described slave-ships which he had seen, with the space of twenty-two inches between the decks; glanced at the consequent sufferings of the miserable wretches confined there in a Tropical voyage; touched upon the expense—calculated by Sir Fowell Buxton at 15,000,0001. from 1814 to 1839, with 1,300,0001 given as a bribe to Spain and Portugal to suppress the traffic; and the annual expense is 500,0001. or more. The non-completion of returns prevented his showing the loss of life sustained by British cruisers. He scarcely felt bound to propose any substitute for the present system; thinking his part performed in proving that it cannot be carried on with honour or humanity— But he would say at once, withdraw your cruisers, which had been productive of nothing but mischief ; let them promote a much more extensive commercial intercourse with the coast of Africa. He did not mean that they should under- take another Niger expedition. That expedition had always appeared to him a most insane application of a principle sound in itself; and he did not mean to re- commend any such course; but he did mean to urge them to promote more ex- tensively the legitimate pursuits of commerce with the people of Africa. They should also throw open as much as possible the ports and harbours of the West Indies to a free importation of Tropical labour. Such a course would not awaken the jealousy of foreign powers, and would be productive of the most beneficial effects. It would put down the slave-trade by underselling its products; it would destroy. the traffic by rendering it unprofitable. It would give the African what it was impossible he could enjoy in his own country—it would place him in a po- sition to avail himself of the wealth, the peace, and advantages of a civilized community.

Sir GEORGE COCKBURN opposed the motion. He read accounts from the naval force on the coast of Africa, to show that the efforts to suppress the traffic are quite successful. On the 5th of April last, the Commodore wrote that during the past twelve months there had been forty-five seizures of slave-ships, only one of which had been released by the Mixed Commission. Of those forty-five, only twelve had slaves on board, the others having been taken while attempting to approach the coast. The loss of slaves at sea by death is but 4 per cent; and the barracoons have been destroyed. To abolish the present system, would be to abolish treaties concluded with African chiefs, who would at once resume war with their weaker neighbours, to renew slave-trading.

Lord Howscx concurred in most of what had fallen from Mr. Hutt; but at the same time he would not recommend him, in the then state of the House, to press his motion. [There'were not forty Members present.] He did not share in Sir George Cockburn's expectations of success—

He could not help thinking that the better and wiser policy for the attainment of the object in view, the suppression of the slave-trade, would be to withdraw the Commission. For thirty years the same expectations had been entertained— it was always hoped that some new device or plan would succeed in putting down the slave-trade; but the ingenuity of the slave-trader had kept pace with our efforts. The evidence of our own officers went to prove that the trade was in- creasing more than ever in Cuba and Brazil. It is notorious that the Govern- ment-officers there connive at the traffic; and the interference of foreigners must inevitably be regarded with so much jealousy that be was surprised at the for- bearance with which it had been met. With respect to the right of search, he had never condemned the right honourable Baronet for giving it up, more espe- cially when he considered the feeling which had been excited in France on the sabject; but on the scheme of a combined squadron an the coast of Africa he looked with doubt. He feared that the officers would either agree too well or too ill: if too ill, there would be collision between the British and French; if too well, legitimate commerce would be obstructed and discouraged. Sr ROBERT PEEL declined to follow Lord Howick's observations on the new convention with France, as it would be discussed on a future day, for which Lord Palmerston had given notice of motion. He admitted that Government had not been successful in abolishing the traffic, and that the efforts to suppress it had even increased its horrors: yet on the whole he doubted whether the sufferings of the unfortunate Negro race would not be increased if British vigilance were relaxed. He doubted whether Mr. Hutt had not exaggerated the extent of the trade—the number imported into Cuba and Brazil, the only two countries more actively carrying on the slave-trade, probably does not exceed 35,000. As to crushing the slave- trade by encouraging the successful competition of free labour in our own colonies, even supposing Mr. Hutt's anticipation were realized, the process would take a great length of time. He admitted the advantage of-intro- ducing free labour into your own colonies; but he apprehended that the two systems, the suppression of the slave-trade and the sanction of free African emigration, are not consistent, and that an attempt to make them so would give encouragement to the direct slave-trade. Sir Robert quoted several communications representing the naval operations as quite success- ful in obstructing the traffic—as at Quilimane, where 2,000 slaves could not be shipped. Spain and the United States are cordially cooperating with the British; we are now to have the aid of France; and he had no doubt of ultimate success.

After a few words from Sir CHARLES NATTER, in favour of trusting to the efforts of the combined squadron, Lord PATsrensToN rose to speak; when the House was " counted out." [The motion therefore was lost.] PRIVILEGE.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Sir FREDERICK THESIGER, in pursuance of the recommendation reported by the Select Committee on Printed Papers, moved, " That a writ of error be brought on the judgment of the Conn of Queen's Bench pronounced in the case of Howard versus Gossett." He stated that the Committee were not unanimous in that re- commendation: it had been opposed by Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. War- burton, the supporters of the highest doctrines on the exercise of privilege, and by Sir Robert Inglis and Lord Mahon, supporters of the humblest sub- mission to the Courts of Law. On the other hand, Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, who on various occasions bad made so decided a stand for the privileges of the House, acquiesced in the substance of the report. Sir Frederick entered into an explanation of the proceedings; beginning with the action instituted by Stockdale against Hansard, and bringing it down to the present suit of Howard, Stockdale's attorney, against the Sergeant- at-Arms, for illegal arrest. In 1843, the House instructed the Sergeant- at-Arms to plead, expecting that the privilege of the House would satisfy. the Court; but in that they were disappointed; and, after six months 430Ik• sideration, the Court decided against the validity of the plea- He would not attempt individually to censure that judgment; but this he must say, that so vet), contradictory were the reasons given by the different Judges, that one could have been very successfully used as an argument against the other. One of the Judges had expressed himself in a tone and manner which, con- sidering that he read a written judgment which had been six months in prepara- tion, was scarcely to be excused. Sir Frederick glanced at Mr. Hume's suggestion of forcible resistance— The steps they had taken a few nights previously rendered it quite impossible then to follow the course recommended by the honourable Member for Montrose. It would be recollected, that the Committee made a short report on the 24th of May, recommending a writ of error, and that the authority of the House should be interposed to prevent the levy of the 2001. damages. It was then considered desirable that no discussion should take place until the Committee had given in a more lengthened report, stating the reasons for theiropinions; and, in consequence, it was delayed until after the day when it was competent for the plaintiff to levy his damages. The time, therefore, for making a stand against the levy had been, allowed to pass away.

For the motion, he pleaded a precedent in the case of Burdett versus Abbott. He represented that it would be advisable to have the opinion of the other Judges to elucidate the case; and if the decision on the writ of error should be unfavourable, the House might then take ulterior steps to assert their privileges. It was absolutely necessary to do something; for three other actions were pending: in one the damages were laid at 100,0001.; and in the recent case, a Jury had assessed the full damages claimed.

Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, " That it is inexpedient to trust the maintenance of the privileges of this House to any other authority than that of the House itself." This was at once negatived, by 78 to 46.

A long debate ensued on the main question. It was begun by Mr. ROE- BUCK, who opposed the motion. He pointed out the difficulty in which the House would be placed if the writ of error were decided against them. He contended for the indefeasible privileges of the House, as ne- cessary to maintain the liberties of the people and uphold the constitution. Let every man know, that if the least motion were made in a court of law to question the privileges of the House of Commons, the man who made it, be he plaintiff, attorney, counsel, or any one else, would be laid by the heels and committed to prison. He was prepared to go that length; and if the House were not ready to go with him, they ought at once to give up their privileges.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS agreed that there must soon be a final decision on the dispute: but he opposed the privileges claimed by the House, as dan- gerous to the liberties of the people; asked if it could be pretended that the House of Commons had the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act? and recommended, as the only means of escaping from the difficulty, the simple remedy of legislation. Sir Robert read a series of resolutions setting forth his views; but the SPEAKER decided against them as an amendment, on a point of form.

Viscount Manox spoke to a similar effect; contending that the Speaker's warrant was incomplete and informal, and therefore constituted as bad a ground for defence as if a man were to defend his title with a flaw in his deed. He quoted a passage from Mr. Macaulay's writings, stating that the privileges of the House of Commons, which in 1642 the people rose in arms to defend, had now [in 1828] " become nearly as odious as the worst rigours of martial law."

The original motion was supported by Mr. Co-s.ktas WTNN; who said, that he had acquiesced most unwillingly in referring the matter to the Law Courts; but that now he thought they could not but let it be brought to its conclusion.

Lord Joint RUSSELL also supported the motion. The law and custom of Parliament, he insisted, were as much the law of the land as the common law; the House was the judge, and the sole judge, of that law and that custom; and therefore he protested against the opinions of those who had the presumption to say that they were setting themselves up against the law, and were deciding cases according to their own arbitrary will and caprice. He showed that it was necessary for the purposes of public in- quiry that the House should have the power of bringing whom they pleased before them; and maintained that the province of the House transcends that of the Law Courts. Lord Erskine said, erroneously, that the House could not impeach except where an indictment could lie: but how could questions such as those which regarded Lord Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke, Lord Somers and the balance of power, or Warren Hastings and his administration in India, have been made subjects of an indictment? An ultimate responsibility must rest somewhere: it evidently does not rest with the Judges, for they are removeable on an address from Parliament to the Crown. That ultimate power, therefore, lies with Parliament; and the check upon it is the suffrages of the people, who elect the Commons, and can displace the Members at a general election. He repudiated the small and technical grounds on which the Judges disallowed the Speaker's warrant. He had no doubt that the House, in conjunction with the Ex- ecutive Government, had the power to make the Judges or any other body of men comply with their orders, even by means of a military force; but there would be great misapprehension and excitement occasioned in the first instance by a mistaken notion that the House were attempting to over- ride the courts of law. Therefore, he thought, the House ought to have time granted it in order to consider whether they would vindicate their pri- vileges in the violent manner which had been proposed by Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck; and accordingly, he supported the moderate course recom- mended by the Committee.

Mr. FITZROY KELLY [who did not vote either way] devoted his speech to an energetic assertion of the right of the Law Courts to decide—not on the privilege of Parliament, for that did not come in question—but on the sufficiency of the warrant; and to a defence of himself for having taken a brief as counsel against the House of Commons. He reminded the House, that questions of arrest and imprisonment arising out of its proceedings had often come before the Court of Queen's Bench; and he defied any one to prove that the Court had ever disallowed a privilege claimed by the House. He also reminded the House, that its power only lasts during the session; that, in spite of any declaration of breach of privilege, the plaintiffs in the three other actions would proceed behind the scenes, would not enter judg- ment till after the recess, and one might possibly recover the half of his 100,0001. by levying on the goods of the Speaker or his officers, in defiance of the House: what would be done then?

Sir THOMAS WILDE followed, with a powerful attack—on Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, for taking a brief against the House; on the House, for its vacillation, and submitting its privileges to another tribunal; on the Judges, for their law —althJugh they had taken six months to prepare their judgment, he said,

any old woman in the parish could have pronounced the warrant sufficient in a single instant. He asked, what would be gained by having the deci- sion of eight more Judges against them, or by submitting their privileges to the vindication of the House of Lords? He made a new suggestion. They ought to say at once that they had done wrong in pleading to the action, and that that step had led to a decision of a Court of Law dangerous to their privileges ; that they would not proceed further against Mr. Howard and his advisers, because it might be possible that he had pro-

ceeded with the action because they appeared and pleaded to it; they might then rescind the resolution of the House, ordering the Attorney- General to appear and plead to the other three actions, and might pass another, declaring that the further prosecution of those actions would be a breach of privilege, and would be signally punished as such. Sir ROBERT PEEL contended for the inherent right of the House of

Commons to determine their own privileges; but thought that the House ought not to proceed to extreme measures before they were sure of having the public mind on their side. Therefore he advised that the re- commendation of the Committee should be fulfilled: and there were matters in the statements of the Judges, especially in those of Mr. Justice Wight- man and Lord Denman, which led him to hope that their judgment was not without appeal. At all events, he would not proceed against subordi- nates. By now taking a prudent course, the necessity for extreme mea- sures might be averted- " I am not saying that the time may not come when no other alternative may not be left us but to put these means into practice. I think it would be better to do so than relinquish the privileges essential to the House of Commons. But before you do so, you must have exhausted every other means, and have the country with you. Those other means are not yet exhausted. I think the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench is inconsistent with reason and former decisions. In case the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench is affirmed, there remains a last and extreme measure; but before I appeal to that, I would exhaust every other, the adoption of which would not compromise the authority of this House."

On a division, Sir Frederick Thesiger's motion was affirmed, by 82 to 48; majority, 34. SPEAKERS 1N THE DEBATE. For the writ of error—Sir Frederick The- siger, Mr. Bickham Escott, Mr. Charles Wynn, Mr. James Stuart Wortley, Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel. For a higher assertion of privi4eMr..flume, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Sir Thomas Wilde. For sission to the Law Courts—Sir Robert Inglis, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Fitzroy Kelly.

A NEW Warr was ordered on Tuesday, for West Suffolk, in the room of Colonel Bushbrooke, deceased.

COMPENSATION TO TENANTS IN ENGLAND. Lord Portman's Landlord and Tenant Bill was thrown out on the second reading, in the Lords, on Thursday; the motion being negatived by 11 to 7.

BANKING IN SCOTLAND. The Banking .(Scotland) Bill passed the second reading in the House of Lords, on Monday; with some opposition from the Earl of RADNOR and Lord KM:MED.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION. The Select Committee appointed to consider the means of preventing loss and delay to promoters of Railway Bills thrown over till next session, have presented a report containing these recommendation;,-. - " That, in order to prevent expense and delay in the progress through Parliament in the next session of such Railway Bills as it may be found impossible to pass into laws,

from want of time for their proper investigation, during the present session, it is de- sirable that a bin should be passed to prevent the proceedings on such bills being dia.. continued by a prorogation of Parliament.

" That this privilege shall be extended to such bills only as shall have been reported to the House, and ordered to be engrossed." On Wednesday, Mr. COBDEN moved the following resolution; which after a few remarks, mostly of concurrence, from several Members, was affirmed- " That, it having been represented to this House, by petitions from various publics bodies as well as from merchants, manufacturers, and others, that serious impediments

to the internal Cradle of the country are likely to arise from the ' breaks' that will

occur in railway communications from the want of an uniform gauge ; and these re- presentations not having been fully inquired into by any of the Committees of this

House upon private bills; and it being desirable that the subject should be fttrther in-

vestigated, an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire, whether, In future private acts mr the construction of railways, provision ought to be made for securing an uniform gauge; and whether it would be expedient and practicable to take measures to bring the rail- ways already constructed, or in progress of construction, in Great Britain, into uni- formity of gauge ; and to inquire whether any other mode of obviating or mitigating, the apprehended evil could be adopted; and to report the same to this House."

ALJ,EGED OFFICIAL ?disco:sliver. On Thursday, Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the South-eastern Railway Company, complaining. that undue in-

fluence had been used by the Solicitor of the Board of Ordnance, m favour of the London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway. Mr. Hawes read a letter from the Solicitor of the Board of Ordnance to the Secretary of the Railway Company in

question, suggesting that shares should be allotted to Captain Boldero, Mr. Bm- ham' and himself, and offering other suggestions respecting the bill in Committee: The petitioners prayed the removal of the individual from the Board. THE SMOKE PROHIBITION BILL passed through the Committee of the House of Commons, on Wednesday; the Select Committee having reported that the bill could safely be carried out, if its provisions were limited to stationary engines.

ENGLISHMEN IN THE IsLE OF MAN. In reply to Dr. BOWRHIG, on Tues- day, Sir JAMIts GRAHAM said that the proceedings in the case of James Caldi- cott, an Englishman who had been charged, in the Isle of Man, with a violent as- sault on his wife, and committed to prison in default of bail, were quite regular in ac- cordance with the laws of the island. Caldicott possessed indifferent repute: he had perpetrated a brutal assault on his wife; and -he had formerly been convicted of a criminal assault on his own daughter. There appeared nothing in this case to demand furthe- inquiry.