nehateli anti 7rOceetting11 in tOitrIiiintent. 1. CORPORATION REFORM.

On Tuesday, the Municipal Bill was recommitted, on the motion of

Lord MELBOURNE. • Clause 5th was altered, on the Duke of WELLINGTON'S motion, not- withstanding the opposition of Lords BROUGHAM and MELBOURNE, so as to take the Cinque Ports out of the operation of the bill. On the motion of the Earl of DEVON, clause 15th was amended. so that persons possessed of 10001. real or personal estate may be qualified to be elected Councillors in towns divided into four wards or more, and those worth 5001. in towns divided into fewer than four wards. In reply to a question by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, Lord LYND- HURST said, that it would be necessary for all Aldermen to prove their qualification, the same as Councillors, to make the same declaration of qualification as Councillors, and to be removable by a writ of quo war- rant° in case of insolvency. The Duke of RICHMOND moved, and the Committee agreed to amend, clause 39th, so as to impose on the Revising Barristers, instead of the County Magistrates, the duty of dividing towns into wards. Clause 59th empowers the Council to appoint Town-Clerks; but Lord LYNDHURST moved an amendment to the effect, " That the Town-Clerks should hold their offices dirriinlife; and, a' a cos- sequence of this, that the present Town-Clerks should holeai-eir offices daring their lives, or, which was the same thing, during good behaviour." Lerdlitst000nest said he had expected this proposition— The new bill of Lord Lyndhurst would nothave been in the least degree pot& plete in its badness, without the preservation of the body corporate of Towd- Clerks—the fourscore individuals who were the life and soul of these Corpo- rations. He only wished that this amendment had been given notice of three or tour weeks ago, for he was morally certain if this worshipful body of Tows- clerks could have known that their offices would be preserved, their Lordships the alteration, and in which Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Marquis of SAL1S- been read, Bony, and the Earl of DEvoN, supported it, the Committee divided : and there appeared for the motion of Lord LYNDHURST, 104; against it, 36 ; majority against Ministers, 68.

Lord LYNDHURST then moved a clause, to confine to such members of the Council as were members of the Established Church, the ec- clesiastical patronage, which was to be transferred from the existing Corporations to the Councils.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked, that if it were true that the Church- men outnumbered the Dissenters in the proportion of nine to one, there could be no danger in vesting the ecclesiastical patronage in the inhabitants of towns generally, without distinction of sect.

The Bishop of LONDON said; that the Churchmen did exceed the Dissenters in the proportion mentioned by Lord Brougham ; but then the Dissenters were usually congregated in towns, and belonged to that class of persons from whom the Councils would be chosen—

If, however, those selected to form a portion of the corporate body were in- variably likely to be conscientious and religious Dissenters, he should have no objection to their proposed control over this property ; but the case was not an iniprubahle one, that certain persons who might be considered not so much a religious as a political class, belonging to the Dissenting body, would select a clergyman who would not be likely to win respect to the Established Church.

Lord MELBOURNE could not see why the Dissenters vvould not elect well-qualified persons, especially when it was out of their power to select any but members of the Established Church— The worst choice which they could possibly make, as members of a corpora- tion, would be to elect the person who had the greatest leaning towards their opinions in politics. They must appoint a clergyman whose faith is that of the Established Church--who is inducted according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church ; and supposing that they were men of a conscientious character, he did not see why, if the patronage was to be vested in private individuals at all, it might not be safely vested in such persons. He should be glad to know what course the noble lord would take in the caw of a corporation where the whole or the great majority of its members were Dissenters?

Lord ProNitwr said, the charge of the Bishop of London against the Dissenters, if true, must imply such a degree of baseness and pro- fligacy, as would well warrant the House in reenacting the Test and Cur pv. nth..

It filled him with astonishment and regret that the Bishop should appear to look back with regret on his support of every liberal measure which had re- ceived the sanction of the Legislature. Such an imputation as that which he bad cast on the body of the Dissenters, was an unjust, offensive, and odious one.

The Bishop of LONDON denied that he had cast any imputation on the Dissenters generally. He considered that a large number of the Dissenters must be regarded as a political rather than a religious body. He had sincerely supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and as sincerely opposed Catholic Emancipation.

Lord HOLLAND did not mean to deny that the Dissenters, in com- mon with all who wished to uphold the free constitution of the country, were actuated by political feeling— They were political feelings to which their Lordships owed the freedom of the country ; they were political feelings which were mainly instrumental in se- curing the House of Hanover on the throne of these realms. They Were fore- most in their love of liberty, of the Constitution' and of the principles which placed the House of Brunswick on the throne. He did not mean to deny the existence of these political feelings amongst the Dissenters; but their existence amongst them was no reason why they should be 'deprived of rights which, even during the existence of the Test and Corporation Acts—during the time of persecution amongst them—they were allowed by the common law M Eng- land to enjoy. The immediate clause which Lord Lyndhurst moved might not be a matter practically of very great importance ; but the principle involved in it Was abhorrent to the constitution of the country ; and he ventured to say, not. Withstanding the quarter from which it proceeded, that it was contrary to all the principles and maxims of the law of England. If such anlendment were agreed upon by their Lordship (which was not very likely), if it were sanc- tioned by the Commons of England, the consequence would inevitably be that, after the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts, a test might still be ap- plied to all lay patrons, which would have the effect of depriving them of their Fights. In the persecuting acts against the Roman Catholics, the right of patronage in their advowsons was abrogated, but in no other instance was that right denied. He recollected a case which came before Lord Eldon in which the right of patronage was exercised by a Jew amongst other inhabitants of a certain place. This right was questioned, and Lord Elden decided that he had the right to vote; laying it down as a rule that the seentity of the Church was to be guarded only by preventing any man being appointed who did not sub- scribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, and who was not inducted by the diocesan. There was slipped into this clause a principle pregnant with every species of intolerance; and he was sorry to see the Bishop of London sanction a clause Which, if agreed to, would 'justify an inquisition into the religious creed of every man in the eountry. Last night he heard, and certainly with astonishment, that when the members of the Established creed were few, a proud and ear ensive Church Establishment should be kept up. To-night, however, it was held, that }'hen the number of Dissenters was extremely small—when they were in the proportion of one to nine as compared with the members of the Established Church—that was announced as a strong ground of exclusion against the Dis- senters ; so that all was fish that came to the net of Lord Lyndhurst. He would no longer detain their Lordships; but he could not sit down without expressing it as his opinion, that the greatest disgrace to and stain on the histc,ry of this country was, that it bad kept up laws of exclusion too long ; and he felt it to be the proudest recollection of his life that he had done some little towards the abo- lition of laws which—like the principle on which the present clause was founded—were the sources- whence flowed the bitter watery Of exclusion and persecution. ( Cheers.) Walld have been saved all the trouble of hearing counsel and witie sees, and the many debates that had taken place thereupon. By preserving ihe Aldermee and the Town• Clerks, their Lordship were telling the People of this country, that the whole affair was a mere affectation of reform, and that in effect every.. thing would remain substantially the same, with the exception of ohe periodical election of three-fourths of the Town-Council. He had said that the bill was gone again and again ; hut now the final close of the measure ap; eared to him to have arrived. If Lord Melbourne should think it right to ge on with the bill, it would only show that he powwow(' greater patierree than held Brougham could feel—that he had more power of endurance, or a greater dilosition to be sanguine than most men. For his part, be felt it to be fi uitless and vain to attempt to argue the question any more. He knew that their Loidships would WitaliNCLIFFE, Lord LYNDHURST, and others; and ordered to stand carry the amendment by the initial majority of three to one; and lie also knew part of the bill. this, that the People of this country wou.d know and leel to whom they owed Several verbal amendments to other claims were agreed to; and the this bill, and that it would be to them a lesson which they would never allow report was ordered to be brought tip on Thursday. any time or any chance to erase from their memory. On Thursday, the order of the day for receiving the report having After a brief debate, in which Lord MELBOURNE decidedly opposed Lord PLUNKET said, on reconsidering the tendency of the claws, he was the more convinced of the justice of the language he had treed when replying to the Bishop of London—. It was an imputation the most flagrant and a flagitious perversion °instil, to assert that the Dis-enters would exercise the trust reposed in tho body to which they might belong, for the benefit of the Established Church, in such way as would overthrow the Church. ( Cheers.) The Bishop of LONDON repeated, that his observations were in. tended to apply to the Dissenters as a political, not a religious sees Lord BROUGHAM opposed the clause; which was supported by Lerd

Viscount Mer.noultNE rose, and spoke as follows--

My Lords, in moving that this report be now received, I beg leave to guard myself most distinctly and explicitly against being supposed to give any sanction, or any approbation whatsoever, to the amendments which your Lordships have thought proper to introduce into this bill; almost all of them being, in my opinion, great deteriorations of the bill as originally brought up from the House of Commons. I think your Lordships have been agitated by an unreasonable fear of evils that' are not likely to take place; and that to these unsubstantial evils your Lordships have applied most inefficient remedies. 1 think your Lord- ships have departed from the clear, from the simple, from the plain, from the intelligible, and, I believe, from the safe and the secure principle, upon which this bill was founded ; and that your Lordships have engaged yourselves in a complexity of regulations, and in an intricacy and a variety of provieions, which will not have the effect which your Lordship 'intend ; and, not having the effect which your Lordships intend, will have a prejudicial effect upon those towns ; because nothing is more certain than that there cannot be a provision of law which is in itself indifferent, but that if it does not produce the benefit anticipated from it—if it does not guard against the evil against which it was intended to guard—it is certain to produce other effects which were not antici- pated by those who introduced it ; and it is likewise certain that those effects will be of a prejndicial nature. At the same time, considering the great inipottance of this bill, and the importance to the country that this question shouhl be settled, if possible ; considering, too, the strong feeling existing in the country upon this subject—a feeling very much increased, allow me to say, by the sudden and unexpected manner in which the opposition to this measure has been made, and the alterations which have been introduced in it in your Lordships' House; considering, I say, all these important elements, I am not, for one, disposed, so far as my vote goes, to interpose any obstacle to these amendments receiving the mature and deliberate consideration of the other House of Parlia- ment. While I say this, I must beg leave also to say, that I cannot answer for any support being given in that House to these amendments, in toto, or to any one of them ; but viewing, as I do, all the circumstances of the case, and considering the great attention which your Lordships have bestowed upon this bill, I think it is right and proper that the bill, with your Lordships' amend- ments, should be submitted to the mature and deliberate consideration of the House of Commons. It is not my intention to trouble your Lordships by going into the various questions arising out of the amendments which have been introduced—questions which have already been fully discussed. But undoubtedly, • 11giircimthis J.eposh.T gbalimove to omit from the hill many., d rAgn objectionable; in order that the bill may be left in that form in which it originally stood, when brought up from the other House of Parliament. I shall move to omit the clause saving the rights of the freemen—a clause which I consider peculiarly objectionable: and more particularly that clause which saves the right of freemen to be exempted from the payment of tolls—an exemption which is felt and known to be a very great grievance in many of the boroughs in this country. I shall also move to omit the clause which provides for the appointment of Aldermen for life ; and I shall likewise move to place the qualification clause in the same state in which it was brought up from the House of Commons. This qualification clause is one of those to which I believe the few observations! have already made to your Lordships are peculiarly applicable. I do not believe that the clause which your Lordships have introduced will at all tend to bring about the object which your Lordships have in view. kis unsuitable to the state of the towns to which it is applied. Property is no certain criterion either of talent or of respectability; but, my Lords, I fear that the amendment which your Lordships have introduced, is no certain cri- terion even of property. It is a criterion of the most advantageous situations for trade in the towns—it is a criterion of those who may possess the larger warehouses in the towns—but it is no criterion of property. It will eictude, as I am given to understand, many persons of property, while it will admit many who are of a very different description. Some modification to that evil of this qualification has been introduced by an amendment moved by a noble friend of mine on the other side (the Earl of Devon): but I cannot pass this over without saying that that is an amendment which is liable to all the objec- tions which exist against any qualification. It is an amendment which entirely fails in the effect intended, while it will have other effects of a prejudicial cha- racter. It is not, my Lords, effectual in itself for good, by excluding improper persons. It excludes only the honest and conscientious; while it admits those who are fraudulent, and those who have no scruples to declare themselves to possess property, which they in fact do not possess. I will not take up your Lordships' time any further. I only wish to state, that I shall move -these amendments on bringing up the report ; and that on the clause which appoints Aldermen for life, I shall take the sense of the House. I now move your Lordships that the report be brought up." Lord ELLENBOROUGH spoke at length in defence of the course adopted by the Peers. He maintained that the principle of the mea- sure had not been affected by the alterations made in the details, which would be found to be essential improvements. Their Lordships had acted as became the " hereditary tribunes of the poor." Lord Ellen- borough then went into a detailed examination and defence of the amendments ; and expressed his, anxious hope that the House of Commons would look " fairly and favourably on the course" adopted by the Pcers. Lord HOLLAND said, that every one of the principles originally in volved in the bill had either been tampered with or actually subverted and destroyed. With respect to the qualification-clause, he woad:re- mind the House, that Lord Tburlonr and Mr. Fox had both distinctly laid down the principle, in Horne Tooke's case, that it was die 'right of every elector to be himself deemed eligible to the °like to Which lie elected another. But the clause disqualified five,sixthh of the c.put.. wonky. Lord Holland also dwelt upon the. injustice of eXchtding Dissenters from all share in the distribution bf Church patronage ; and asked Lord Lyndhurst, how he distinguished a member of the Church of England from a Dissenter ?

Waa it a man who had 'signed the Thirty-nine Articles ? Did the noble and loused lord mean, that its every instance, before a man voted, he should be asked whether he bad signed the Thirty-niae Articles? If that question were put to every layman, he believed the boasted number of the members of the Church of England would be found to be very much diminished. It had fallen to his lot to know many very pious and serious members of the Church of England who would not sign the 'Fhirty-nine Articles. It should be remembered, that in sigaiog the Thirty-nine Articles a man signed not only the Articles them- selves, but the Athanasian Creed and the Homilies. Now he had no hesitation in saying, though a sincere member of the Established Church, that neither of these things would be sign ; nor did he think that any lawyer could sign the Homily of Obedience. He contended, therefore, that subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles did not accurately define the member of the Established Church. Then how did the noble and learned lord propose to find him out? What test bad he ? If he said tbatit should consist in attending divine service, then they fell back at once to all the old acts of persecution. He should like to hear the noble and learned lord explain himself upon the point.

Lord LYNDHURST, in reply to Lord Holland, quoted the declarations of Mr. Baines and Mr. O'Connell, as proof that the Dissenters and Catholics had no wish to take part in the distribution of Church patronage.

Lord Hot.r.AND remarked, that Lord Lyndhurst had given no reply to his question : he had given no test for distinguishing who were Churchmen and who were Dissenters— The noble and learned lord gave him the authority of Mr. O'Connell for an opinion. He had great respect for the talents of that distinguished individual, but it would seem as if the very mention of his name deprived men of their or- dinary understandings. It was mentioned in that House, and out of it, as if it could scare men from their proper feeling. He bad the pleasure of knowing Mr. O'Connell. Besides his great talents, he would say that he was possessed of many estimable qualities; and the very worst thing he had ever heard re- ported of him, was a fault which many in and out of that House were every day guilty of with respect to that gentleman himself—that of making charges against individuals who were not present to defend themselves. But he had to beg pardon of that honourable and learned gentleman for this introduction of his name. He would repeat his question,to Lord Lyndhurst—how he was to define who the Protestant was in reference to the operation of the clause?

[Lord Lyndhurst gave no reply to this question.]

The Earl of HADDINGTON wouLl not attempt to counteract the ef- fect of Lord Holland's panegyric on the Apostle of the Repeal of the Union ; but would reply to Lord 'Holland, that if a Councillor; being asked, said he was a Dissenter, the clause would-'prevent his voting. Lord Haddington went on to defend the alterations made in the bill ; which would now establish a system of municipal government analo- gous to the constitution of the country.

Lord DENMAN defended the bill as originally sent up from the Com-• mons; and maintained the legality of the Commission, and the cha- racter and conduct of the Commissioners against the attacks of Lord Lyndhurst- Ife had the honour of knowing many of those gentlemen intimately, and others from their practice at the bat. They had been described as entertaining extreme opinions on political subjects. Such an imputation was more applicable to Lord Lyndhurst, by whom it had been made. For Lord Lyndhurst be had a geaL respect; he was indebted to hip) personally for a long succession of kind- subjeas, Lord Denman could only declare that he uttered it with perfect good fait l , and that be believed that it was the perfect conviction of all who knew Chet noble and learned lord.

He protested against the preced4nt of hearinrix parte evidence at the bar of the House, and expressed his strong disapprobation of the alterations in the bill, Lord LYNDHURST denied having made any unfair attacks on the Commissioners : he had only condemned the Government for selecting them all from men of one set of opinions. He referred to the accu- sation against himself; which, he said, was unsupported by a single fact- " I have nothing, therefore, to meet. I do recollect, however, that in the other House of Parliament my noble and learned friend did, during my absence, bri-o a charge against me of a somewhat similar nature to that which he has to- night preferred : and (if I can rely on the accuracy of those who report the prom:dings of that House) the only fact which he brought forward in confir- mation of his statement was, that I supported some opinions of Sir Samuel Romilly. I suppose be alluded (for not being present I cannot assert positively what was meaning) to my having supported the views of Sir Samuel Romilly with respect to the amelioration of the criminal code. Now the fact was, I supported some of the attempts which that learned individual made to ame- liorate the criminal code; I opposed other attempts of his for the same object. That, however, was the only direct charge which my noble and learned friend then alleged against me with reference to the general accusations which he pre- ferred. When a fact is stated, I know to how to meet it; when any particular opinion is imputed, I know how to rebut it ; but whilst my noble and learned friend throws his arrows in the dark, I know not what to combat. I have been on terms of intimacy with my noble and learned friend for a long period : I went the same circuit with him ; I have been engaged in conversation with him at different times; and if he speaks of a period of twenty years past, 1 can only say, that I am unable to recal to my recollection the particular opinions which I might have entertained or expressed with reference to political mea- sures, but I can assert that I never belonged to any party or society whatever. In the absence of any specific facts, I am driven to the conjecture that my noble and learned friend alluded to my conduct at the time Lord Sidmouth was at the head of the' Government : during that time I had some connexion with some persons in that Government; and my disposition and wish were so far from thwarting (as the noble and learned lord would seem to imply) that I was .losirous to support the course of that particular Government. I then never ern- ... • :al in politics ; I did not belong to any society or party; and I never wrote a political article on either side of any question which might then have been agitated. This was my conduct until I came into the other House of Parlia- ment, now twenty years ago. From that period, my life has been before the public ; my course has been direct and straightforward. I have always be- longed to the same party, and I have entertained the same opinions from that time to the present. ( Cheers.) Previously to that time, what expressions I uttered on individual measures it is impossible for me to state ; but I can un- hesitatingly aver that I belonged to no party, and that I was attached neither to the Whigs nor to the Tories, nor, as my noble and learned friend would in- sinuate, to the Radicals. This is the programme of my political life." Lord DENMAN disclaimed all idea of conveying a calumny against Lord Lyndhurst ; and should even now believe the charge to be true, but for Lord Lyndhurst's denial.—

"And really (said Lord Denman) I feel somewhat astonished) that when the

question is as to what really were the political sentiments of my noble .41 learned friend, he should plead forgetfulness with reference to the opinions whick be entertained, twenty years ago undoubtedly, but still when he was of the mature age of thirty. Up to the period that be came into Parliament, the uni- versal impression of those who lived on terms of close intimacy with my noble and learned friend was, that his opinions were (not with reference to any one particular measure or any one occasion) generally and unequivocally what would now be called Liberal. Those opinions were not uttered merely in the presence of those who were intimate with him, or in the coarse of private conversation, but they were avowed rather as if my noble and learned friend felt a pride in entertaining and avowing them. And I will take the liberty of telling my noble and learned friend, that though his great talents must hare ultimately secured to him the rank which be holds, yet that he undoubtedly owed his first advancement to his devotion to those who entertained the most liberal opinions in politics. With regard to my. noble and learned friend'. opinions respecting Lord Sidmouth's Administration, it was the conviction, I venture to say, amongst those who knew him best, that he was favourable to the sentiments of the Opposition of that period. I beg to be understood as stand. ing corrected in that opinion; and I shall only therefore remind my noble a learned friend, that stronger proof of his being a Whig, or more than a Whig, could be adduced with respect to himself, than as to those Commissioners against whom my noble and learned friend has really ' scattered his arrows ' in the dark."

Lord LYNDHURST denied having owed his political advancement to men of Liberal opinions. Up to the time of his entering Parliament, be had no object out of his profession. He received a note from Lord Liverpool, asking if he would go into Parliament : he took time Co consider, and consented.

Lord DENMAN did not allude to Lord Lyndburst's political, but to his professional advancement ; and his memory deceived him much if they who encouraged his rising talents did not do so under the impres- sion that he held Liberal opinions. '

Lord LYNDHURST said- " I was never engaged but in one political defence. That was on the trial of Watson. On that occasion, Sir. Charles Wetherell called on me as a Common Law lawyer, and asked me if I would agree to join him in the conduct of that defence. After taking a short time to consider, I answered that I would. Now that is the real history of that transaction." Lord RADNOR remarked upon the incorrectness of some of the statements of witnesses at the bar in favour of the Corporations ; and said he had received a letter from Dr. Butler of Shrewsbury, pointing out some errors in the evidence given by one of the witnesses for the Corporation of that town. Lord ASHBURTON complained of the violence and personality intro- duced into the debate by Lord Denman in his attack on Lord Lynd- hurst— He deprecated the practice of recurring to one's early life with a view of chargiug an inconsistency of opinion. He had himself entered political life with Liberal views, butnever with extreme ones; and if his opinions had dif- dergone a change of late, it was because he bad at the outset of his career much less apprehension of the dangers of Democracy than he entertained at present. He always held that the institutions of the country being mixed, and a balance of power maintained, a man might, as Burke explained, and beautifully Wei- trated, take, under a system of checks and balances, either the side of the Crown or the People, as his feelingt tnclerriitoceand licnesty.urnyht,,p,rfromopit. Lm l Ashburton ; and then proceeded to defend theconduct of the Corps- rationCommissioners. He challenged any one to produce an instance when the Commissioners had refused the accused parties the opportu- nity of defence. That was a large defiance. As soon as Lord Brougham paused, Lord LYNDHURST, the Dulte,4 WELLINGTON, Lord FALMOUTH,and other Opposition Peers, started up, amidst cheers and laughter, and gave several instances, as they asserti4d, of the refusal of the Commissioners to allow the accused persons file means of defending themselves.

Lord BROUGHAM replied, amidst great interruption— The terms of his defiance were, to let it be shown, if possible, that at any place any person or corporation was charged without being allowed to be.prraent when the charge was made, or witnesses examined. (Continued cries. of " Hear, hear from the Opposition.) The population was thirteen or fourteen millions, and did the noble lords mean to say that there was to be per seiril notice in every case? (Renewed cries of " Hear I" from the Oppositioki) Noble lords knew that he had been accustomed to this sort of interruptionan the House of Commons for many years. ( Opposition murmurs.) They might go on till five o'clock in the morning if they pleased. (Murmurs continued.) He knew what it was to address a mob—(Much cheering from the Oppo- sition)--be had done it in all parts of the country—(Renewed cheers)—he had addressed various mobs—(A laugh and cheers)--be hoped and trusted he should continue to address mobs hereafter as heretofore; he thought it was the duty of a public man to meet his fellow citizens, and he bad no objection to meet a mob either in Parliament or out of Parliament. This, however, he must say, that the most irregular of the assemblies he bad addressed, were iiot of that kind which went by the name of the three letters, and which were to Ire found out of Parliament ; for he had met more, and addressed more irregular, intolerant, unlistening, bad-hearing, confident, erroneous, easily carried away, easily caught, easily entrapped by a temporary statement, and led astray by, a fleeting notion that it would serve their purpose—( Great laughl,r).—he had met more and addressed more mobs of this description during the last bur years than he liar:lever met or addressed out of a House of Parliament. Nei'', perhaps, the noble lords would allow him to go on. (A laugh.) He alluded to Lord Ellenborough's assertion that the Peers were the " hereditary tribunes of the poor"— Now he had beard of aristocracies—had heard of oligarchies—of griping, grasping, grinding, and encroaching oligarchies ; but of their Lordships as tribunes of the poor lie had not before heard. He had beard of them as those to whom the oppressed would fly for redress—as persons standing by their fellow citizens to protect their rights. (Ironical cheers.) He understood kit cheer, and he admitted that they were ready enough to stand by their fellow Corporators, fellow Town-Clerks, and fellow Recorders ; as, indeed, every

one cheers.) e had an

instinctive feeling to stand by that which lie considers his own. He concluded by saying, that the best be could hope for the measure was, that a conference would be holden, in which both parties would be induced to give up somewhat. The Earl of WINGHILSEA, in a state of extreme excitement rind with a smothered voice, declared that be could not sit still under the imputations cast on the Hciuse by Lord Brougham ; who debased the characters of the members of the House, and bad said in it what' 'he

would not have dared to say out of it.

Lord CLANRICARDE rose to order ; and on his motion the 15th Standing Order, against personal expressions, was read by the Clerk.

Lord BROUGHAM said, it Was evident that Lord Winchilsett had said, under the influence of strong excitement, what, when cool, he must regret he had used terms the most offensive, and of such an extraor- dinary nature that he could not notice them. The Earl of WINcHILSEA said, he could not coolly hear their Lord. ships' House compared to a mob, and sordid private motives imputed to them. As to the bill, such was his extreme dislike of it, that, if be stood alone, he would oppose the third reading of it,

The report was then received ; and Lord MELBOURNE rose to move that the words in the sixth and sub-

sequent clauses—which referred to the appointment of Aldermen as Councillors for life—should be struck out. He prefaced his motion with some remarks upon the altercation between Lords Brougham and Winebilsea- He felt that it was but a piece of justice to Lord Brougham to say, that he lad heard nothing in his speech which could justify the strong language used by Lord Winchilsea. He did not hear his noble and learned friend impute any sordid motive to any of their Lordships; and the word "mob," which he bad teed in the course of his speech had been applied in a similar way before, and he was sure that the noble earl was aware that when Lord Brougham used it he had been interrupted. He could refer to authorities to show that the term had been used as applicable to any assembly, whether composed of Peers or ether men—for the former were actuated by the same views and influenced by the same motives as other men. He recollected that the celebrated Lord Ches- terfield, in one of his letters to his son, alluding to the success of one of his veal speeches in that House, after attributing It wholly to the beauty of the composition and to the race of the delivery, proceeded to say, that any popular assembly was a mob—like a mob was touched, and like a snob would be moved or actuated. ( Cheers and laughter.) Therefore his noble and learned friend vas not singular in the use of the term ; and when he said that the same views and principles applied to them as to others, he could not be strongly condemned.

The question on Lord Melbourne's motion was then put : for it— present 46, proxies 43=89; against it—present 103, proxies 57 =160; majority against Ministers, 71.

Several other amendments were agreed to ; but they were discussed it so low a tone of voice, that the reporters could not catch their import. The bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day.

Last night, Lord MELBOURNE moved that the bill be read a third time.

Lord WiszcioLsEa moved an amendment, that it be read that day six months.

Their Lordships divided : for the third reading, 69; against it, 5; majority, 64. [The Ministers and their friends retired to the foot of the throne, and abstained from voting on either side.) The bill was then passed, and sent down to the Commons.

It was received by the Commons with cheers from some, and cries Of " Oh, oh!" from others.

Mr. SPRING RICE then rose to move, not, according to the usual

4:Curse' that the amendments only should be printed, het that the whole bill as amended should be printed, as that was the only way in which the measure—a new measure in some respects—could be dis- cussed.

Ile trusted that that arrangement would be productive of no serious delay, as he

expected that copies of the measure would be in the hands of Members by Monday Nest; when it would, he proposed, be taken into consideration. It was at all events extremely desirable that they should have it before them in a complete state, for the porpose of welbconsidering a measure which had attracted more attention within that House. and indeed had excited more interest out of that House, than any piece of legislation which, since the passing of the Reform Rill, had been propounded. (Loud Aries of " Hear, hear I") Such being the case, he trusted that he might take the liberty of earnestly recommendiug honourable gentlemen not to enter. at the present moment, into a discussion which could not be productive of any possible good, and which could be only in anticipation of that moat serious discussion which must take place when the bill was iu their hands after being printed—(Loud cheers)—when they came nut only Its express opinions but to proceed to a decision upon the subject. He trusted, he would again say, that the question being one of such interest and magnitude, the House would not think that be was acting in any shape improperly or unbeeominely.as one of those most friendly to the bill as it was sent from that House, if he took the liberty of earnestly entreating them to postpone at present a discussion which could lead to no good result, and which might impede the fair, calm, and deliberate, but re- selute—(Tremeadous cheering)—decision upon the subject. Ile would move that the bill, as amended, be printed, and taken into consideration on Monday next.

Mr. HUME concurred in the propriety of considering this, and every

other measure that came before them, calmly and with deliberation ; bat hoped that nothing which had fallen from Mr. Spring Rice would be taken as holding out any idea of a hope that the House could accept for for one moment entertain the bill in Its existing state— He was against any such hope being for one moment held out—against the supposi- tion that they could for an instant listen to the " amendments," as they were called, Which had been made in the measure, or as he should say, the alterations which had altogether ruined it—(" Hear, hear I")—wbich had renderedit such that they arsedd be Letter without than with it. When, however, the copies of the amended bill ehoelld be before them, they would be able to weigh the extent of the evils which the bill had soffered : for his own part, he believed them to be such as rendered it wholly impossi. lie for the House to agree to it ultimately. He said that with great regret, because i

y were then, on the tSth August, seeing the last remnant of the two great measures

,Lich had been the result of all their labours during that session. Time had been lost, excitement had been produced in the minds of the public. and a disappointment bitter is proportion had followed, which could not fail to be productive of the most serious am'ii.leaceg• (" Hear. hear I") The right honourable gentleman bad recommended. perhaps %isely, that there should be no discussion at that period upon the subject. All that he wished was to enter his protest against being supposed to yield, in the mealiest degree, to the propriety

of the amendments in question. After a few inaudible words from Colonel Surrusamr,libt. um said The period was now come, iu which the public *aim lair b• twillsi with.

(Loud cheers)—in which the wants of this great enellaer leaked Slightingly—and in which, if great ersani suestioweallibellitelierAlmeasselee of the *wintry came to be considered, the blame would fall ea Misr .vitheawitigtoo else hi Oath a consultive discussion, if he might use theexpression, snit not 161.1"dmilill endeavoured peaceably to ameliorate its institutions. (Aaseltadeheerilft)

Here the conversation was closed.

Previous to the reception of the bill from the Lords, a sharp dis- cussion arose on the Presentation,b M S by Mr. TEXTT, of a petition from Ludlow, praying the House to resist the "vile anddesperate attempt of the Peers to stop reform." Mr. CHARLTON designated thetitioners as "pot-house politicians, the tag, rag, and bobtail of the town." He maintained that the House of Peers was useful in controlling the de- mocratic tendency of the House of Commons, Mr. ROM, Dr. BALDWIN, and Mr. SCARLETT, spoke a few words ; and Mr. STRUTT complained of Mr. Charlton's unnecessary warmth. He understood that Mr. Charlton was not long since the inveterate opponent of the Corporation of Ludlow, which he now eulogized. The petitioners, he was informed by a trustworthy correspondent, were highly respectable; and he would ask Mr. Charlton what had become of the counter- petition, signed by between fifty and sixty persons, of whom thirty were corporators ? Mr. CHARLTON said, that the High Bailiff had told him that one boy had signed the petition nine times. In attacking and de- fending the Corporation, he had still been consistent. Mr. POTPER said, that 31r. Charlton had been a member of the Birmingham Poli- tical Union, if he was nut mistaken. Mr. CHARLTON believed that he had been a member of the Union ; but he had never attended its meetings. The petition was laid on the table.

2. Lusa Cituncti Rgeoasi.

The House of Peers, on Monday, went into Committee on the Irish Church Bill, on the motion of Viscount MELBOURNE.

The first clause on which any discussion worth notice took place, was the 7th ; which places the management of the revenue to be derived from rent. charges in lieu of tithe in the hands of the Commissioners of Land Revenue.

The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to deprive the clergy of the management of their own funds ; and moved an amendment, to the ef- fect that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be substituted for the Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

Lord DUNCANNON explained the great inconvenience which would arise from making the collection of the revenue the duty of the Eccle- siastical Commissioners, who bad no machinery for the purpose. Ho opposed the amendment. After a brief debate, in which Lord HATHERTON, Lord PLUNKET, and Lord Rirox, took part, the Duke of WELLINGTON postponed his amendment ; and the clause was passed.

Clause 10th, which authorizes the reopening of the compositions, was opposed by Lord ELLENBOROUGH ; who said that it was their Lord- ships' duty to amend the bill, and the responsibility of rejecting it would rest on Ministers.

The Bishop of LONDON, Lord WICKLOW, and other Opposition Peers, also spoke against the clause. Viscount MELBOURNE strongly supported it, as the compositions already made were frequently most unfair to the landlords and the clergy. The T clause was struck out.

Clause 40th enacts that tithe compositions shall be increased or diminished according to the price of corn during the previous seven years.

Lord ELLEN.ORGUGH proposed to strike it out.

The Committee divided : for the clause, 35; against it, 126; majo- rity against the clause, 91.

The principal debate of the evening was on clause 61 the first of a series ending with the 88th, which provided for the suppression of sinecure benefices arid the appropriation of the surplus to the purposes of education.

roe Earl of HADDINGTON called upon the Committee to omit all these clauses ; which he designated as calculated to effect the destruc- tion of the Irish Church. He discussed at length the details of this part of the bill ; and was proceeding with a warm eulogium on the Irish clergy, when he became confused, lost the thread o. his discourse, and with an apology to the Committee, concluded abruptly by moving, that " clause 61st be omitted."

Lord GLENELG briefly defended the clause.

The Bishop of LONDON opposed it with much vehemence; and at. tributed the brevity and feebleness of Lord Glenelg's speech to the stings of his conscience, which would not allow him to justify such measures in peace. As to the,present bill, There was either an overwhelming necessity for it, or there was not. If there was not, the thing was at an end—it destroyed itself. if there was, he would ask what reasons were adduced to show that the same necessity did not exist in 1833. He was prepared to prove that the condition of the country was not essentially changed since then. The noble lord had said that it was neces- sary to pacify the people of Ireland : was the measure propos,41 to their Lord- ships one fit for that purpose? The seeds of discord in Ireland were religious differences: was the extirpation of the Protestant population the mode to be adopted for appeasing them . General education for the poor had been adverted In: he emitted the necessity of a general system of education, but lie much doubted the policy of aupplyIng it entirely gratis. In this opinion, especially as it related to 'retard, he was sustained by the concurrent opinions of Mr. Leslie Foster, Mr. Grant, and the other gentlemen who composed the Education Commission in that country. But if it were a boon decessary to be bestowed on the people of Ireland, why make the Church alone liable for its expense? Why not make the landholders, the people themselves—both classes more im- mediately interested in it—contribute to it ? If gratuitous education were deemed absolutely necessary, why did not the proposers of the bill rather try an. experiment already tried with some success—the appropriation of a sum of the public meaty for a certain period? They would then be enabled to test their theory without destroying or impairing the established institutions of the coun- try. Whatever they might do in that respect would be far wiser, as well a* more bacesaing, than to put their hands into the pocket of the Church, and de- fray, as they proposed to do, the entire at her expense.

But the bill was to pacify Ireland. Lord Glenelg must know the thing to be impossible— Had not every ,lan proposed for that purpose signally and lamentably failed ? Had not every .rt to restore the golden age in that country been eminently un- successful? The misfortune was, that nothing having Ireland for its object was final—nothing appertaining to that country possessed finality. He mis- took : the bill before their Lordships contained a principle of finality, but it was of a nature destructive and annihilating to the Established Church. He would make no pretensions to the gift of Cassandra, but he would say to the House, Pass this bill, and you may add to it, " From the year 1840, or an sera not more remote, the Church of Ireland ceases and determines for ever." Pacify Roman Catholics ! those who from the time of Gandolphe to Dovle—no he would not mention Doyle, because lie was gone to nit account—but-from Gan- dolphe to APHale—to 111'liale, who far out-Heroded Herod, and described the Protestant Church as the idol of Juggernaut, as a vampyre, as a blood.thiLty monster, as a badge of o onqu et, and as a token of servitude ! Pacify theta ! world it not be the same in their twat after the bill should have pasted ea before? would it not be equally obnoxious and equally to be get rid of ? would it wet still be a badge of conquest or token of servitude : would the extinction derma or eight hundred parishes and the starvation of their clergy change it character in their eyes ; or rather, would it nut naturally excite them to get rid of the remainder ? Was the goodly tree of Protestantism to be stripped of its branches first and then cut down and cast into the fire, to appease them ? Was tLe pacification of the Catholics to be effected by offering up the Protes- tant Church as a holocaust ?

He was certain that the truths of religion came with the greatest effect from men holding a certain station in society—

He was not an advocate for luxury, but he did consider it a most amusing paradox to maintain that to reduce the Protestant clergy to poverty, was the best and surest Method of advancing their authority and influence. It was a paradox reserved for the month of August 1835, to attempt to controvert which would indeed be a. waste of argument. Something had been said about the Protestant clergy being missionaries in Ireland. Would a clergyman be less a missionary if he happened to have 200!. or 000/. a year ? Was not every mis- sionary despatched to foreign parts provided with a stipend never below, and moot frequently above that amount ? And was it to be said that a missionary could effect less with 500/. a year than he would with 200/. a year, or with 300/. a year than he would with 2001. ? Really. to answer such etatements, he could not call them arguments, was a waste of their Lordships' time.

The Marquis of CLANIIICAIIDE observed, that the Bishop of Lon- don had spoken of the Irish Protestants as if there were none but Protestant inhabitants in that country, and no religion but the Pro- teetant—

But their Lordships sat there—not all Protestants—to afford justice and pro- tection equally to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, whether Catholics or Pro.. testruda. The real question was as to the necessity of the measure ; and that was to be found in the condition of the Irish Church at the present moment. It was easy enough to talk of well-endowed rectors residing as wealthy gentle- men and magistrates in that country ; but were the Irish clergy actually such ? At this moment there were four fifths of the tithe in Ireland nut paid, and which, without this bill, would not be paid. Iu pint of fact, the Protestant Establishment could not be maintained in its existing condition. It was a mockery to say that it was now effective. The Irish clergy at present were indebted to the amount of 7t.0,000/. to the people of this country ; and would that people continue to allow their money to be thus wasted ? He had always looked on tithes as the property of the State, originally devoted to ecclesiastical purposes, but which might be diverted to others by the State.

The Earl of lirrsenn.sea supported and the Marquis of CONYNG- HAM opposed the amendment.

Lord PLUNKET said, the very existence of the Established Church would be endangered by the rejection of the bill— He regretted to have heard the Bishop of London make use of language upon this occasion so very diffsrent to his usual tone. He regretted his attack upon the Roman Catholic clergy. Was the conduct or the lai.geage of one or two individuals to be held up as specimens of the whole body ? Were he to follow the example, he might mention individual clergyman of the Protestant religion who might vie with those to whom the Bishop alluded. The Bishop com- plained that names were imposed upon the Protestant Church to bring it into odium, and theutioned dui...gamete. lie thought they had done with Jugger- naut. The fact was, that the name was first brimeht forward by a Protestant gentleman at a Pi western meeting, and he applied it to the Homan Catholic Church ; upon which occasion a Raman Catholic celled out, that lie knew more ofiuggernaut than he did. However, were he to have recourse to compatheons, he could mention instances among the Protestant clergy of equal violence, in- temperance, bigotry, and hypocrisy..

It should not be forgotten, that for two hundred and fifty years they had endeavoured to establish the Protestant religion in Ireland, and what was the result?

Why, there were 860 parishes with not lif•y Protestants, and 1ia0 parishes with not one Protestant. If the bill had no other effect than to get rid of this offensive anomaly, it would do much good. Talk of rubbing the Chinch ! Why, the robber of the Church was he who received 500/. or 600!. a year, and did no duty for it. This, howeear, they never heard called robbery, but a cry was raised when it was proposed to apply any part of the revenues of such parishes to the education of the People.

They had all heard of the Second Reformation in Ireland, which was to make all the Irish Protestants—

He believed that some thought they actually saw the finger of God in that second Reforinatium They all knew how it ended. He trusted most devoutly that he should never see a third Reformation. if that conatunmation which

they desired was ever to take place, it would be not by conformity, but by prejudice being removed from the great body of the people insensibly— by a change occurring without their knowing it was in progress. The educated Roman Catholic in Ireland of this day was no more like the human Catholic of a hundred years ago than he was like a Protestant. The Roman Catholice; of the two periods were totally different beings. The present Roman Catholic, as compared with reference to the Roulau Catholic of former times, might be conaideled a very good Protestant. The way to bring them still closer together, appeared to him fur the preachers not to be constantly puiuting out the differ- ences that existed between them, but to expatiate rather on their points of resemblunee.

The Earl of BODE:: trusted that their Lordships would agree to the amendment— He trusted that in the division their Lotdahipt would show that the House of Lords were not to be put down by any set of individuals who might endeavour to rouse the spirit of the country to overrule their Lordships' independent judgment. As to the threats which were to lie beard abroad, having reference to their conduct on this occasion, he trusted their Lordships would prove to the country by this vote of to-night, that if the Peers of England were to fall, they would fall in preserving the dearest rights of Englishmen, and in pro- tecting the Protestaid faith, which there was an attempt made now to destroy by, faction, under the influence of what was called the spirit of the age. ( Op- position cheers.) He cared not for the arguments of the noble lords on the other bide of the House—(A laugh and cheers)—arguments they had none— assertions they had plenty. % The Marquis of LANSDOWNE would tell the noble lords opposite, that however desirous they might be to separate the Appropriation Clause from the rest of the bill, they could not do it— With this clause they would lose that provision for the Church of Ireland which the clause was calculated to secure. The Bishop of London said he would support the Church of Ireland as if the country would one day become Protestant : the experience of two hundred years, confirmed by that of the last fifty years, told them that there was no probability of Ireland becoming generally Protestant so long as thee acted under that delusion. To consider all the acts and istablishinents in which Ireland was interested with referem to her becoming some day Protestant was likely to mike her less Protestant than she otherwise would his. He believed that it was because they had so acted --because they had so blinded and deluded themselves—that they had intro- duced that state of things which the Bishop had not entered into, because it would not suit the purposes of his arguments. While this principle bad been in operation, Humanism had gone on progressively increasing ; so that wherever Protestantism was I to 3, it was now in the proportion of 1 to 9. He could hardly suppose the Bishop to be serious, when be argued, that in England they hinnies need of an Established Church, because the Protestants were so nume- rous while is Ireland we had the greater need of it, because there the Pro. tenants were so few. That principle, if good for any thing, would go to this extent, that the amount of the establishment ought to be in proportion to the smallness of the number of its votaries. The principle amounted also to this, that that ought to be the established religion which was the religion of the minority. This would be in direct opposition to the course which was taken in Scotland. The Act under ivIrich the Established religion of that country, existed, recited as a reason fur the change, that their religion was the religion of the majority. He had not the smallest idea, however, of transferring the Esta- blished religion to the religion of the majority in Ireland. He must admit that the ease of that country was one singularly complicated and artificial. Even if their Lordships could reconcile to themaelves such a transfer, he thought it would be attended with every species of evil and danger. nlinisters were coua. pulled to adopt a measure of an anomalous nature, that being a great anomaly with which they had to deal. The mote they delayed the remedy, the worse the disorder would become, and the mote difficult of cure.

Lord BROUGHAM entreated their Lordships to bethink themselves of the condition to which the Irish clergy would be reduced if the bill were rejected— It was mighty easy for a noble earl on the bench opposite, than whom no one could ever express himself mote honestly, more sincerely, and therefore, in his mind, more satisfactorily— it was mighty easy fur that noble earl, in his great enthusiasm fur the Church of Ireland—in his misplaced zeal for the cause of the Protestant clergy — to say that he was prepared to lay down his fortune or his life in the cause of the Protestant Church and defence of the Pretestant minis- Wes, for whom the noble earl had so great a respect: it was mighty well for the Bishop of London to say ; " Let us die fur the Church of Ireland : let us tight the battle of the Church of Ireland on English ground," and it was also mighty well and mighty easy for the noble duke on the bench opposite to say, "1 am prepared, on behalf of the principle, to make any sacrifice."' It was mighty well for all this to be said by the noble duke and the right reverend pre- late and the noble earl ; but there were two ways of making a sacrifice, two ways of laying down Mauves, two ways of laying down lives. The one was to soy you carte ready to do it, when you were certain you would nut be called upon to do so ; and there was also another way somewhat similar—the doing it not In your own person, doing it vicariously, and as it were by proxy. You say you will lay,down your whole fortune, and consent to starve, before you will assent to certain propositions ; but all the while you are making that assertion, you know very well you will never be called Open to fulfil it ; though you do know that, by the course you are taking, you are causieg others to starve—actually and positively to starve—not one by one, not one here and one there, but every- where and in all parts of the country — actually and positively to starve, in the way that, figuratively speaking, you say you are willing to starve yourselves.

After a few words from Lords WICKLOW and HATHERTON,

Lord IVIEt.nounNE said, it was right that their Lordships should more with their eyes open—that they should understand their actual posi- • tion-

It was only right that they should contemplate the consequences of their own actions, and that they should be led to conseler with proper feelings of regard and humanity the destitute situation in which they acme about to leave the Protestant clergy of behind by their decision on those clauses. A noble lord bad told the House, that it was the duty of their Lordships mithe such amendments iu this bill as they decreed proper, without regent to consequences —that it was their peculiar province to reader this defective bill more perfect— that there were in the bill two pacts, one good, the other objectionable—that their Lordships ought to erase the objectionable part, and then tin-ow epon the Go- vernment tl:c responsibility of proceeding with the other part. Now, the two parts of the bill which the .ruble lord proposed to separate had been deliberately united • by the House of Cumulous. They w ere connected, too, by reason and by coo- ' noon sense; they were united and cognate; and it was impossible to settle one • of them in any manner that would be satisfactory to the People of England and of Ireland, without settling the other at the same time. " 1 shall therefore con- clude," said Lord Melbourne, " by saying, that if your Lordships shall carry this vote, as I expect that you will—if you shall determice to leave these clauses out of the bill, I will not be a party to proceeding further with it—( Great cheering from time Ministerial benches)—and I shall decline to send it back to : the House of Commons in a shape which would compel that House, both in form and principle, to reject it entirely." ( Cheers from the same quarter.)

The Duke of WELLINGTON hoped that the amendment would be car- ried, notwitlh,tanding the threats of Lord Melbourne—

The noble viscount had stated that the two parts of the present bill, as well the part which their Lordships evinced a disposition to consider as the part which they seemed to think it was their duty to reject, were intimately connected and iden-

tified with each other. Nov, he had listened attentively to the course of argu- ment used upon the present occasion, and with equal attention he had perused

the documentary evidence which time Government had thought proper to lay

upon the table of the House; but, notwithstanding, be must say he was wholly uuable to trace the connexion alluded to. The more he examined and considered,

the more convinced he became, that, even taking into view thefrightful degree of spoliation which the bill would perpetrate, and carry to account every thing which could be wrung from the unfortunate subjects to whom it referred, the

whole amount which could be procured—and to procure it, it would be neces- sary to destroy the funds created under another bill—would not exceed 40,000r. a year. And was it for such a purpose, he asked, that the whole Establish- ment was to be destroyed?

He much regretted Lord Melbourne's resolution not to proceed with the bill in case be should be defeated in the approaching division—. It was his desire to give Lord Melbourne every support in his power in the carrying on of the King's business; but Lord Melbourne was not to expect. from him that, with a view of enabling him to efkset that object, he should fail in performing the duty he owed to his Sovereign and his country as a member of their Lordships' House of Parliament. In conclusion, he must say that, considering the manner in which the measure had been brought forward in the other House of Parliament, and taking into view all that passed either in Par- liament or beyond its walls upon the subject, he did think it was not quite fair that all the responsibility for the failure of the bill in its present shape should be thrown upan those of their Lordships who, upon the approaching division, should vote for the rejection of the clauses now before the Committee. Lord BROUGHAM said, that the clause was a money clause, and its rejection would destroy the bill, according to the well-known regula- tions of the House of Commons.

• Lord -LYNDHUIIST said, it was not a money clause. Lord Desrcssmosi asked the Duke of Wellington, if he was aware, that if the bill were carried, the rejection of this clause from it would place the collection of tithes under severer enactments than those which existed at present ? He hoped that Lord Melbourne would persevere in his resolution not to go on with the bill.

The Committee then divided : for the clause, 40; for the amend- ment, 138; majority against Ministers, 97. So the clause was struck out.

a DEFENCE OF PRISONERS; OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON; CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.

Last night, Lord DENMAN called the attention of the Lords to three bills which lay before them—

The first was a bill for giving prisoners the full benefit of defence by counsel, when placed on their trial. The opinion which he entertained on the subject was so well known that he need not repeat it. The subject had been referred to a Committee, who had paid great attention to it, and heard a vast deal of evidence bearing on it. That evidence exhibited much difference of opinion, and, as it was not yet printed, he did not Wel competent to form a judgment as to the conclusion that should be drawn from it. Under these circumstances, it was quite manifest that this bill could not proceed in the present session. The regular way a ould be to lix a day for the next stage, and

then to move that the bill be read a second time this day six mouths. During the recess, he would take an opportunity of looking into uhf evidence, and of forming his opinion as to its effect. Ile would state now, that there were some provisions in the bill which he could not agree to at all. One was, giving a right to the accused party to call on any gentleman at the bar to undertake Iris defence, under an act of Parlia- ment. This, he thought, would be a very great hardship on iudividUiliS who were at- tending to their professional duties. The second bill was for rendering offences against the person punishable in a more severe manner than they now were. Lord Brougham had intimated that very considerable difficulty would be experienced in making any alteration in this law. He should, therefore, take the liberty of moving. in the next stage of the bill, that it be read a second time this day six months. There, was a third bill, for taking away capital punishment in cases of conviction for stealing letters, or committing sacrilege. To the provision for removing the punishment of death from these offences he conceived that no reasonable objection could be made. He should, therefore, move with respect to this bill, that it should be read a second time on Monday, and that their Lordships be summoned to attend. (Lord Brougham-" To. mormw.") Well, then, tomorrow. The severity of the law, with reference to these offences, had in so many eases ceased to be carried into effivt, that It was thought better to remove the extreme punishment altogether. With respect to that part of the bill which related to sacrilege, he begged to state, that a noble viscount had inquired, whether it ought not be extended to Scotland and Ireland? lu consequence, he had seen the Lord-Advocate of Scotland and the Attorney-General for Ireland. and had con- sulted them on the subject. The Lord-Advocate was of opinion that there was no ne- cessity for extending the law to Scotland ; but the Attorney-General for !retard thought it would beneficial if it were extended to that country. He should therefore move. that the provision which respected sacrilege should be extended to Ireland.

Lord Bnono tam said, in reference to the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, that it was a subject surrounded with difficulties. His own feeling was in favour of the bill ; but the evidence pressed upon his mind, and raised doubts that be had not entertained before. Under these circumstances, he could not press the bill this session.

Lord HARROWBY, Lord DENMAN, Lord CLONCURRY, Lord LIMERICK, and the Duke of WELLINGTON, each spoke briefly; but the three latter Peers discussed the propriety of rejecting the Irish Constabulary Bill, instead of the subject before the House.

4. SCOTTISH CHURCH COMMISSION.

The Earl of ABERDEEN last night called the attention of the Lords to the Scottish Church .Commission ; the composition of which had, he maintained, given universal dissatisfaction, on account of the un. friendly sentiments entertained by. some of the members of it to the Established Church. He particularly complained of Mr. Dick being on the Commission ; and read a passage from his admirable work on the subject of religious Establishments. The powers intrusted to the Cotiunission were perfectly illegal. He denied that the King had any authority over the Scotch Church. He was not even a visiter; and it was not competent for him to issue a Commission with such powers as were conferred on this. If matters had gone too far to allow the Com- mission to be withdrawn, he hoped that, at least, Lord Melbourne would improve its composition.

Lord MELBOURNE defended the Commission, and the impartiality with which the members of it had been selected,—of which the alleged universal dissatisfaction might be taken as some proof. He had read Sir. Dick's book, which seemed to be a very cautious and temperate production; and the author of it, he should think, must be a very pro. per person to conduct the inquiry into the funds of the Church. He altogether repudiated Lord Aberdeen's doctrine that the State had no control over the Established Church of Scotland— Ile would ask Lord Aberdeen, if he seriously meant to say, that if there was an allegation made of any abuse in any of the vital and fundamental principles of the Church of Scotland, that it would be beyond the powers of the King, or of Parliament, to issue a Commission to inquire into such an allegation. That was a reductio ad absurd:rm. It was holding out high: r pretensions for the Church of Scotland than was ever attempted by the Roman Catholic Church in her proudest days. It was precisely the objection which the Roman Catholic Church brought against the Reformation : for the Roman Catholic Church then said, the laity cannot reform the Church, but the Church must reform itself. (Cheers.) It was precisely the doctrine of the Church of Rome in regard to the Reformation : it was no other and no less. He considered that such a proposition was not only against law, but against reason and common senSei The same might be said with regard to the property of the Scotch Church. (" No, no!" front the Earl of Aberdeen.) Well, the subject was a good deal mixed up with Scotch law, and he did not exactly follow the statement of the noble earl ; but at all events he understood that the property (Attie Scotch Church was as liable to inquiry as any other property. Lord HADDINCTON and the Duke of BUCCLEUCH spoke against the Commission ; which was defended by Lord MINTO and the Marquis of BREADALBANE. Lord ABERDEEN said a few words in reply; and the discussion was closed.

' 5. THE WAR IN SPAIN.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved on Wednesday, to discharge the order of the day in the House of Peers ; and made the motion an excuse for impugning thiconduct of Ministers in issuing the Order in Council authorizing the levy of troops for the Queen of Spain's service, and especially animadverting on Lord Melbourne's denial of the genuineness of the proclamation of Don Carlos, by which foreigners employed by the Queen were ordered instantly to be shot. He maintained that it was the duty of Lord- Melbourne to have ascer- tained the genuineness of that document ; as his statement on the sub- jeet had induced many to volunteer in the force lately despatched to Spain. Lord Londonderry spoke amidst constant noise and talking from the Opposition benches.] Lord MELBOURNE defended the conduct of Government— He was prepared to show that the support which had been given to the Go- vernment of the Queen of Spain—which had been recognized by his 11 ajesty- was not on account of any opinion entertained or interest existing as to the right of making the disposition of the Crown of Spain which had been dose, and still less from any desire on the part of his Majesty's Ministers to uphold our particular form of government in that country. Whatever might be the in- terest of other nations, he was convinced that it was the interest of England that Spain should be strong—that Spain should be united—that Spain should be peaceable—that Spain should be prosperous—above all, that Spain should be independent of all foreign nations. ( Cheers.) This was the opinion on which he acted ; this was the opinion which was entertained by himself and col- leagues ; and they thought that the course which had been pursued by them— although this opinion might be open to some remarks and objections—was the best calculated to produce the effect and result they so anxiously desired.

He had certainly thought that all parties engaged in the war were entitled to the benefit of the Elliot Convention ; and he disbelieved the the genuineness of Don Carlos' decree, in common with parties in Paris and Bayonne, who were supposed to be well-informed— Ile had been too willing to believe that no person at the present period of time, and under the circumstances of modern warfare—whatever might be the cause in which he was engaged, or whatever might he the nature of the was or however his passions might be excited against the party opposed to could resort to an act of such horrid barbarity, for which there was no petalled, except in a decree issued is the most bloody and revolting period of the French Revolution. Ile repeated, that the only precedent for the decree of Don Carlos was that issued by the National Convention in 1794, in which it was declared that no quarter should be given to foreigners taken in arms against France. If he regretted any thing in the speech of Lord Londonderry, it was that he, being a Peer of the British Parliament and a General Officer in his Majesty's service, should mention the decree of Don Carlos without using one single word of con- demnation respecting it—without using one single word of regret that it had ',sea issued—without uttering one term of indignation, which was called for by the natural character and colour of such a proceeding. ( Cheers.) The Earl of CARNARVON regretted that the decree of Don Carlos had been issued : it was certainly most unfortunate. He dwelt for some time on the alleged cruelties of Mina and others in the Queen's service ; and severely censured the conduct of the Spanish Government to the inhabitants of the Basque provinces.

Lord BROUGHAM defended the policy of Ministers in regard to Spain ; and complained that Lord Carnarvon took a one-sided, squint- eyed view of the subject. III allusic . to the decree of Don Carlos, he said— His noble friend could not believe this favourite to be so bad as he had now turned out to be. There was no choice now but to believe that Don Carlos had been guilty of the most shameful breaches of solemn treaties, and of cruel tits which were unexampled and unparalleled in the most troubled periods. There could be no longer the least doubt but that Don Carlos had issued an ordet which reflected infamy on hits who issued it, but which, to the honour of Spain be it spoken, and to the greater infamy (Aldan who issued it, the Spanish troops refused to obey.

The decree had been called by Lord Carnarvon an " enfortunate decree"— Aye, in the same sense, then, in which robbery was unfortunate—murder was unfortunate—and the most shameful breaches of faith were unfortunate. According, then, to the noble earl himself, the man whose example he had quoted as a palliation fur the conduct of his hero, was among the unfortunate of men. ( Cheers, and cries of "No, nn !") 11 ever he had heard an expression clear) v and distinctly, it was that used by the noble earl ; and, if necessary. he could swear that the word "unfortunate " was applied to the decree of Don Carlos. Such was the nature of the decree that issued from this very humane and just prince. The independence of Spain must always be a primary object with the British Government— The first duty of England in this question was to promote the tranquillity of Spain—the peace and the prosperity of Spain ; but :drove all, to secure the Ins- dependence of Spain—above all, and before all, to insure the exclusion of all in- terference in the affairs of Spain by all foreign powers. He should regard it air a great evil for England as well as for Spain, to see the flag of France wave over one single square yard of the Spanish territory. (Loud cheering.) This WWI not a new opinion, but one he had entertained, with his noble friend at the head of the Government, long before he held office; and he had never changed his opinion on the subject. The Duke of WELLINGTON deprecated discussion of this subject; and maintained that Lord .Brougham's speech was unwarranted by. what had fallen from those who had preceded him.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY briefly replied ; and the converse. tion closed.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. Ire the House of Lords, on Ttresa day, Lord ASHBURTON presented petitions against this bill ; which he said was but a following out of the abstract theories of dilettanti Re:., formers. Lord BROUGHAM hoped that the House would not be led away by Lord Ashburton. The House of Commons Lad not exa- mined witnesses, but volumes of evidence had been taken before the Commissioners— He knew that some of their. Lordships did not like to bear Commissioner's talked of ; but these were Commissioners that none of them would object to " Dilettanti5Reformers," indeed ! Ycs, he would tell them who was at the head of these "dilettanti Reformers." Sir Frederick Pollock was the dilettante Reformer. Was there ever a more notable slip made by unhappy man than by Lord Ashburton ? (Laughter.) The noble lord thought that by the use of this phrase he alluded to him (Lead Brougham); but the noble lord WAS wrong; the real allusion, however it was intended, was to the King's Attorney- General,—the Attorney-General, too, under the very Government of which Lord Ashburton formed a part. Sir Frederick Pollock was a man of great knowledge and experience Lord Lv ultST—" And a Reformer." (Laughter. ) Lord BROUGHAM could not admit that charge against him to be tree.: (Laughter.) Lord Lv annuasr —,6 In all things but in law, a deliberate Reformer."1, (Laughter. ) Lord BROUGHAM most defend Sir Frederick Pollack from the charges which his friends, the men with whom he had acted, sought to bring against him at this moment (Laughter.) But this he would say, that if Sir F. Pollock VIM now a Reformer, be was what be always had been—he certainly had not changed ; but he was at the head of those whom Lord Ashburton had qualified as "dilettanti Reformers." Lord Lvxontraer said that a body of evidence had been taken by the Casa robnisoenr.

Ltd B1141116*Alti...." it win printed."

Lad LYWDHUlsT—" And had been printed; and the Howie of Commons thought that sufficient, especially as that House could not examine witnesses on loath." He did not find fault with this ; but as the House of Lords had the prover of examining witnesses on oath, it need not follow the example of the Ifouse of Commons. He much respected Sir F. Pollock, but should not pin his faith upon Sir F. Pollock's sleeve.

Here the conversation dropped ; it being the general feeling of the 'louse that the bill should not be proceeded with this session.

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL. On Tuesday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second reading of this bill. Lord LYNDHURST opposed it. The object of the bill was to appoint thirty Commission- ers to inquire into charities, twenty of whom were to receive salaries— The bill originated in the recommendation of a Committee of the other House : at the head of this Committee was a gentleman learned in the law, and of great Parliamentary talent and information, but who entertained strong feel- ings on this subject. They had not the evidence on which the Committee of the other House proceeded to recommend a legislative enactment. They had DO evidence, they had heard no statement to prove the necessity of a measure of this nature, or to show the propriety of agreeing, at this late period of the ses- sion, to this bill. In the absence, therefore, of such statement and such evi- dence, he was not disposed to accede to the second reading of a bill to pay twenty Commissioners to inquire into the charities of England and Wales. The bill bad also passed through the other House without any discussion whatever.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE. Said, The bill was the result of an investigation before a Committee of the House of Commons, which had been appointed to see how the important inquiry in- trusted to the former Charity Commissioners could be brought to a close. The opinion of that Committee was, that it was expedient to appoint such a large number of Commissioners as would enable them to conclude the inquiry withir, a short period; and with this view the bill limited the time during which they should receive any emoluments to the let of March 1837. Under the circum- stances, he thought there could be little doubt as to the propriety of appointing a large number of Commissioners.

Lord LYNDHURST repeated his objections to proceeding with the bill. Lord MELBOURNE thought, that if the mode of proceeding was right, the less delay there was the better. But

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE postponed the motion for the second reading ; and a message was sent to the Commons for a copy of the evidence which bad been laid before them.

Tinton. TITHES BILL. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, this bill was read a second time in the House of Peers on Wednesday. Its object is to prevent tithe being levied on turnips drawn from the field where they grow to feed sheep ; a late decision of Lord Lynd- hurst having authorized the claim of tithe in those cases, and rendered the interference of the Legislature necessary.

TITHES RECOVERY BILL. 7 his bill, which enacts that tithes under the value of 101. due from Quakers, and persons objecting on account of religious scruples to pay tithes, was read a second time on Wednes- day; after some opposition from Lords ROSSLYN and SALISBURY.

IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL. Lord DUNCANNON moved the second reading of this bill on Wednesday. Lord RODEN moved that it be read a second time that day six months. His principal objection was to the clause which conferred upon the Lord Lieutenant the power of appointing Inspectors of Police, which the Magistracy now possessed. Lord FARNHAM, the Earl of WICKLOW, Lord FITZGERALD, and the Earl of WINCItILSEA, supported the tonendment. Lord ‘Vinchilsea said— He was opposed to this measure, because he regarded it as one of the three instalments which were agreed to be paid to an honourable and learned Member of the other House, in consideration of the support given by that individual to his Majesty's Ministers. The first instalment was the spoliation of the pro. party of the Church; the second instalment was the reorganization of the Police force, so as to confer on that honourable and learned Member a power of in. Ihrencing the appointments to that force; and the third instalment was to be discharged by a measure which bad not yet reached their Lordships' House, hav:,ig for its object an alteration of the reformed representative system of Ireland. When these measures should be passed, the whole Government of Ireland would be transferred into the hands of that individual.

The Marquis Of CLANRICARDE, Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord HATHER- TON, supported the bill. Lord GLENELG said that the clause ob- jected to by Lord RODEN should be omitted. Lord DUNCANNON remarked, that if the noble lords opposite were determined to resist every thing for which Mr. O'Connell might ever happen w have voted, it would be idle for Ministers to attempt to legislate upon any subject • connected with Ireland.

On a division, the amendment was carried, by 51 to 39; and thus the bill is lost.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. On Thursday, Lord Witanx- OLIFFE presented the report of the Committee, in favour of the Rail- way, and moved that it be agreed to. Lord KENYON opposed the motion— There were circumstances connected with this Committee which were unprecedented during the thirty years that he had had a seat in that House. The Committee was very numerous, and they sat forty. one days. Many of them were desirous to ascertain what were the real merits of the case, and attended the Committee. He was a member of it, and a perfectly unbiassed one. He obtained from the Clerk an account of the number of times each member of the Committee attended, and the greatest number of times any member attended was forty-one. The final division which took place was thirty-three on one side, for the bill, and thirty one against it. Of the thirty- three there were some who attended for the first time when the division took place.

Lord CARBERY and Lord WHARNCLIFFE defended the conduct of the Committee. The Duke of BUCCLEUCH considered that the best line had not been chosen. The Duke of CUMBERLAND was opposed to the Railway. There was a good deal of discussion ; which ended in the report being approved of by a majority of 50 to 28.

Last night, the bill was read a third time, and passed. It was then sent to the Commons; who agreed to the amendments, and the bill was returned to the Peers.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL. In the House of Commons, on Monday, this bill passed through the Committee; the only important alteration being one made, on the motion of Lord CLEMENTS, to the 49th clause,—to the effect that tenants having a bene- ficial interest in their land or houses to the amount of 101. per annum over the amount paid to the landlord and other outgoings, should be entitled to vote. This amendment was opposed by Sir W. FOLLETT, but supported by Mr. O'Cooivasa and Lord MORPETH, and carried. On the question that the clause so amended should stand part of the bill, the numbers were—for it, 69; against it, '27 ; majority, 42.

DUTY ON GLASS. In reply to a question by Lord SANDON, on Monday, Mr. SPRING RICE said, that He intended that the reduction of the duty on glass and the drawback should commence next quarter—that is to say, on the 10th of October. It was not proposed to make any allowance for stock on hand ; but, in order to prevent the interruption to the manufacture, parties continuing it would be permitted to bond it, and to take it out after the 10th of October. Thus, he thought, a positive advantage would be secured without any injury to the trade : but for consideration for the trade, be should have been prepared to make the reduction at once.

LIFE ASSURANCES DUTY. Mr. RICE, On Monday, also stated that he intended to make some reduction of the duties on policies of life assurance for small sums— Ile meant to propose that on all policies of 50/. and under, the duty should be 2s. tid. ; that on all policies of 1001. it should he 5s. ; and with policies of 500/. and upwards he meant to do nothing. This would be the scale; but if he had wished to give relief to all classes, it would be nearly impossible to guard against fraud, since insurers to the extent of 500/. would split their policies into five of 100/. each, and would thus injure the revenue.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG'S POLITICS. Mr. YOUNG complained, on Mon- day, of the pain, injury, and inconvenience he had suffered from a remark of Lord John Russell, when alluding to the composition of the York Bribery Committee, that he (Mr. Young) was an opponent of Ministers. Lord JouN RUSSELL said, in reply- " I spoke at the time what struck meat the moment ; and I believe that my impression was derived from some divisions in which I had seen the honourable Member. One of those occurred at the commencement of the session, and others upon some amendments of the Municipal Corporations Bill ; and therefore said on the sudden, as I supposed was the fact, that in four out of five divisions, the honourable Member had voted against the Government. I by no means wish to say that on the whole he may not be reckoned one of our supporters; and I believe that, looking at all the divisions since we came into office, my statement will be found erroneous. To a certain extent, therefore, I beg to correct it, and I hope hereafter that I shall have to correct it still more. I hope that I shall have to say, that of all the supporters of the present Govern- ment, the most steady, uniform, and constant, is the honourable Member foe Tyneinouth." ( Cheers and laughter. ) Mr. YOUNG said, he had always voted with Ministers with pleasure, and opposed them with regret.

MARRIAGE. ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The report on this bill was considered on Monday. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT moved to restore a clause struck out of the bill last week, which made all future marriages within the prohibited degrees null and void. This, after a brief dis- cussion, was carried by 75 to 17. As the bill now stands, all marriages within the prohibited degrees will be illegal in future, but all (of affinity) hitherto celebrated, and for the dissolution of which no suits were pending on the 1st of June, are rendered valid. The report was then agreed to.

LECTURES PUBLICATION BILL. This bill was read a second time, on Monday, on the motion of Lord Advocate HURRAY. On Tues- day, the House being in Committee, Mr. WAKLEY moved the omission of the second clause, which protects lecturers from the piracy of their lectures.

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL opposed the motion— His view of the matter was. that lecturers should have the same protection as authors had. At the same time, he was of opinion that it should be fully competent to newspapers and other publications to make extracts from such lectures, and pass comments upon them, with a view of affording the public ao opportunity of judging as to their merits. Unless this permission were ac- corded, he should not support the bill.

Mr. WAKLEY agreed that private lecturers should have equal pro. tection with authors; but he could not see that such-lecturers as those at Bartholomew's Hospital (who on the aggregate derived an income of 80001. a year from this source) were in any respect entitled to a similar protection.

The clause was carried, by 29 to 9; and the remaining clauses were agreed to.

MILITIA ESTIMATES. The House of Commons went into a Com- mittee of Supply last night; and, on the motion of Lord HOWICK, voted 218,000/. for the charge of the Militia.

WOLVERHAMPTON INQUIRY. Last night, Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked Mr. Thornely, to what part of the evidence given at Wolverhampton he intended to draw the attention of the House? Mr. THORNELi said, that the conclusion he had come to on reading the evidence was, That the Riot Act ought not to have been read ; and the military ought not to have been sent as they were, through' the streets; for there was no riot except at the Mar- ket-place and opposite the hotel. His object was to prevent interference of this kind. Ile bclioed that this House, and he was sure that the country at large, felt great jea- lousy on the subject of military interference. The resolution he intended to move was. That this house having taken into its consideration the minutes of evidence taken at Wolverhampton, as to the proceedings which occurred at the close of the South Staffordshire election, and the introduction of the military into that borough on the 27th May last, when several persons were wounded, 13 of opinion that measures should be immediately adopted to secure the administration of justice and the preser- vation of the peace in that borough, without resorting to military force."

Lord Jous RUSSELL said, that the Magistrate appeared to him to have acted to the best of his ability. He was fully aware of the neces- sity of improving the system of Magistracy in the country. Mr. was happy to hear that Lord John was in favour of a Sti- pendiary Magistracy.

LOST BILLS. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL last night moved the appoint- ment of a Select Committee to search the i Journals of the House of Lords, to ascertain what had become of two very important bills sent up from the Commons, one relating to the Execution of Wills, and the other for reforming the law relative to Executors and Administrators,—

A very important bill, as the house was aware, a bill for the abolition of Imprison- ment for Debt, had passed from that House into the Lords, and as to that bill ha was in a condition to tell the. House what had become of it. Ile understood that

that very important bill was not to pass their Lordships until they had examinedTomes upon it ! Probably. is accordance with precedent, their Lordships would call to their bar all the-bute-balliffa-all-the gaolers-the getalernenwhe,served the useful tummies of sham bail-aed all the attornips —(I,aughtt r ain timers); and from these truth-speaking-and disinterested witnesses. their Lordships would tar doubt hear that the law of arrest for debt was a most excellent law, that it never was is any one in- stance abused, and that it would give great dissatisfaction to the country if it were abolished-(./droned laughter); and upon such evidence the Abolition of Imprison. went fur Debt Rill would share the fate of other measures sent from that Douse to the Lords.

After some discussion, which is unintelligible in the reports, the motion was withdrawn.

,COXPENSATION TO Mn. BUCKINGHAM. Last night, there was a -good-deal of conversation on the bill for authOrizing a grant of money from the East India Company, to Mr. Buckingham. The SPEAKER decided that the bill was a private bill, and must go through the preli- minary forms of private bills. But that did not prevent Sir JOHN IlosnoosE and Mr. BUCKINGHAM from speaking at length on the :Jab- ject, the latter in defence of his claims to compensation. At length the SPEAKER interfered, and the bill was withdrawn.