lerbatesi an liiroceelting4 in Parliament.

1. ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.

Mr. SPRING RICE called the attention of the House of Commons on Monday, at its morning sitting, to a petition presented by him on Fri- day, signed by sixty-three resident members of the University of Cam- bridge, for the removal of the religious tests which preclude the Dis- senters from taking degrees in that institution. The petition is similar to that which formed the subject of discussion in the House of on Friday. After adverting to the gratifying circumstance r" many

pious and learned men having volunteered t ession of those be cone- of so claims, which were the subject of so much agitatir- eerS

and paying high compliments to the charact- at the present time,

.crs of Professors Sedgwick,

Babhage, Lee, Airy, and Furish, Mr. Rice proceeded to give an ac- count of the mode in which the tests complained of were imposed upon the candidates for degrees. He contended that the Newmarket letter of James the First, the authority quoted for the practice by the Uni- versity, really was no sufficient authority, and that it ought no longer to be deemed such. After the Test and Corporation Acts had been re- pealed by the Legislature, it was preposterous to continue distinctions of the same kind in the Universities. He remarked on the gross ab- surdity of allowing a Dissenter to remain in the University and be educated there, and yet to prevent his taking his degrees when he was about to leave it, on the ground, that it would encourage the growth of schism in the institution. Dissenters were admitted into the Uni- versity of Dublin, and no injury resulted from their admission ; although Ireland was a country torn by religious discord. There was abundant evidence to prove the right of the Legislature to interfere with the in- ternal constitution of the Universities. In the reign of Eliza'Jeth, an act had been passed with reference to the corn rents—a statute which affected even the appropriation of the revenues of the institutor). In 1771. a grace was rejected by the Caput which went to release Bache- lors of Arts from signing the Thirty-nine Articles, expressly on the ground that it was a subject for the grave and deliberate consideration of the supreme Legislature. The privilege claimed by the Dissenters was only that which by the old constitution of the University they were entitled to. It was excessively impolitic on the part•of the Church to drive Dissenters to form separate and hostile institutions of their own. That such would be formed, there could be no doubt ; and they wound thus become more and more estranged from the Established Church. lie concluded by expressing his wishes that the Dissenters should pay regard to the friendly dispositions of the CaMbridge petitioners, and re- member their exertions in the cause of liberality when an outcry was got up against the Established Church.

Mr. GOULICURN admitted in the fullest manner, the very high re- spectability of the petitioners in every point of view. But there were others, of equal eminence for learning and piety, who refused to concur with them. It should he remembered, that out of seventeen Heads of Colleges, only two had signed the petition ; out of twenty-five Pro- fessors, only nine ; out of seventy-four Tutors, only eleven ; out of one hundred and sixteen, only twenty-two had signed it in all, from these classes. He was also happy to see, that the gentlemen who had come forward on this occasion by no means went the length of advocating the concession of what are called the claims of the Dissenters. Mr. Goulburn contended, that with respect to the claim really made by the Dissenters, for admission to the honours and emoluments, the degrees, fellowships, scholarships, &c., it was quite opposed to the constitution of the University, and could not be granted. Jt was therefore needless to discuss the general principle. The Universities were instituted for the education of members of the Established Church, and for those who came to them in the doctrines of that Church—not for the educa- tion of Dissenters. It was unfair to charge upon the Universities the practical grievances which the Dissenters endured from the want of the certificate required by medical and legal societies. These societies, not the Universities, were answerable for those regulations. 1 be whole character of the Universities would be changed by the admission of Dissenters to degrees in the Senate House. Instead of being an in- stitution for the education of Churchmen, it would become one for the general education of the country; and if this were conceded, he should like to know how they were to proceed with religious education in the Universities? What system of education would be adopted for an in- stitution into which Jews or Unitarians, as well as members of the

Church of England, were admitted ? Mr. Rice should recollect the disputations and difficulties which had arisen in the Irish schools, from the dislike of reading even the same translation of the Bible. With regard to James the First's letter, he did not think it necessary to go so far back to find precedents for a practice which had continued for two centuries and a half. He hoped that greater weight would not be given to the petition than it deserved, on a comparison being made of the numbers of those who had and who had not signed it.

After a few words from Air. PRYME, the debate was adjourned.

On Tuesday, Mr. PRYME again addressed the House. He said that the concession prayed for by the petitioners would not in the least degree interfere with the course of academical instruction and discipline in the University. - When a candidate for honours came up to receive his degree, he was not asked whether he had attended the chapel, or performed other requisites. That was left entirely to the College to which he belonged ; and it was their duty to attend to the regular performance of them, and give hint his testimonials which were never questioned by the University. The Colleges hail it in their potter to grant dispensations from attendance at chapel and at the sacrament, if it we contrary to the conscience of any individual. And this has been the case in Ti Mit), College, Dublin, for a long period of time ; where from national li- berality, they had admitted Roman Catholics and Dissenters to degrees ever Since the year 1693; and he was informed they were not required either to reside in the college or to attend the chapels.

It had been remarked that the right to take theological degrees had not been prayed for. The Dissenters would have stultified themselves by petitioning for leave to become Doctors of Divinity; for in the course of their examination, one of the exercises to be performed is the delivery of a Latin sermon in St. Mary's Church. He gave his hearty support to the petition ; hut reserved what he had to say on the general principle involved in it for a future occasion.

Mr. Conerr was much surprised see a Minister of the Crown trying to get the House to consent to that, for attempting which, James the Second had lost his Crown. He read an extract from Hume's History of England, in which the mandate of that Monarch to the University of Cambridge to admit Father Francis, the- Benedictine Monk, to the degree of Master of Arts, and the refusal of the University to obey, are recorded. Next came the resistance, trial, and acquittal of the Bi,hops, and the consequent dethronement of the King. Yet Mr. Rice had brought forward a proposition, similar to that which produced such consequences to King James on the authority of a Dr. John Jebb ; who was described in the French Dictionnaire des Grandes Hommes, as a clever man, but an inflammatory politician, going in every attack upon royalty and the established institutions of the country. Mr. Cobbett thought this a just character of Dr. Jebb; and hoped he should never see his books laid upon the table of the House again. He could it at imagine how the Church Establishment was to be upheld if the prayer of the Cambridge petition were acceded to. It would have been meth more candid in Mr. Rice to declare that the Church must give way, tint the Establishment could not last. He had much rather that Alinistbra had at once declared their intentions with respect to the Dissenters claims, than have degraded themselves and deluded the House in Ike manner they had done. The real question was, whether the Chun*

Establishment should be upheld, or be demolished. •

Mr. BAINES could take upon himself to say, that there was not the smallest wish on the part of the Dissenters to interfere with the Insti- tutions devoted to the established religion of the country. No possible injury could be done to the Church by admitting Dissenters to take degrees in the Universities.

Mr. LENNARD supported the petition. Nothing could be more absurd than that men who were admitted into the House of Commons, and might become Privy Councillors and Ministers of State, should not be eligible to become Bachelors and Masters of Arts.

Mr. WILK% on behalf of the Dissenters, expressed his gratitude to the petitioners, and to the Members of the Government, for the liberal sentiments therhad expressed. What the Dissenters asked for was, ia the words of Locke, " Liberty, absolute liberty, just and true libeety, equal and impartial liberty."

Mr. STANLEY, as a member of the Government, anxious to support the best interests of the Established Church and of religion, %1 °aid express his most entire, unequivoyal, and unhesitating concurrence in the prayer of the petition. It had been objected that it did not go far enough ; but, in his mind, one of its greatest recommendations AVSS its moderation. The refusal to admit Dissenters to take degrees, MAR an absolute grievance. No reason could be shown for the continuance of the restriction; why, then, should it not be abolished 7 The Dissenter was compelled to serve a longer apprenticeship by two years to the law because he was refused a degree, and this refusal was the conse- quence of his objecting to sign the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought it extremely wrong to require, as was done at Oxford, the signature of young men of sixteen or seventeen to the Articles of the Church. In other respects, the discipline of the College wanted alteration. The compulsory attendance at Chapel, morning and evening, was excessively improper. They were called every evening from their wine, to attend divine service, and then went back to their wine again. Mr. Stanley concluded by saying, that this subject was new to the Flouse ; and he was not prepared to say what relaxation ought to be made. He hoped, therefore, that Colonel Williams, who had a motion on the subject for that evening, would postpone it, in order that the House might be better prepared to discuss the question.

Colonel WILLIAMS agreed to postpone his motion, in consequence of the tone in which the subject had been taken up by Government ; and the debate was again adjourned.

On Wednesday forenoon, it was resumed. Colonel WILLIAmS said, that as the petition from Cambridge was the result of certain corre- spondence between himself and some members of the University, he was anxious to speak on the subject; but that, as he bad determined to postpone his motion to the 17th of April, he should reserve what he had to say till that day. Sir R. H. Ixasts then addressed the House at length in opposition to the prayer of the petition ; though Inc disapproved of those long dis- cussions on the mere question of laying a petition on the table. This was truly the funiam ex fidgore—the parturient mantes. He should how- ever make the petition a peg on which to hang his observations. There was a great fallacy in the term "National Establishments" as applied to the Universities.

What was meant by it ? Was the term made use of in the same sense as the National Debt 1 Was it intended to be said that the Universities were endowed by the nation for the national good ? ( Cries of ‘. Yes.") What! was it the mere donation of 40/. a year to the Regius Professors of each of the-Universities which was granted annually out of the Estimates, that constituted the only ground upon which the Dissenters set up their claim ? and was it ever intended this donation should authorize the Dissenters to demand admission ? it indeed, it were so, the Catholic College of :Haploid!' was more a national establishment than either of the two Universities. lk stated the various amounts annually given to the Colleges of Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, &e. Oxford, he said, only received 2001. per annum; which was only a tenth part of what was given to the Colleges in Scotland, and one- seventh of what was granted to the establishment at Belfast. Whatever other donations were made by the Crown to Oxford and Cambridge, they were made, not in the character of donations, but were payments of right. The Dissenters alleged that the Universities possessed a monopoly of education : but it had been well stated, in an able article in the Standard, that they enjoyed only a monopoly of character. To this he perfectly agreed ; and was willing that, if the institutions at Hoxton' Mill Dill, &c. should acquire a character. as high as that which, by long labour, the two Universities had acquired, the degrees they bestowed should be equipollent with those bestowed at Oxford and Cambridge; but he would never agree to their passing their own coin under the impress of the Universities. When it had been rendered of the same value, then it might pass current.

It was a gross but common error, to suppose that the Colleges were fainded in Catholic times, by persons of the same religious opinions as Mr. O'Connell. It was true, that twelve of the Colleges at Oxford had been founded before the Reformation, and six only since.

Of the 5274 names in the books of all the Colleges of Oxford, there were 3045 belonging to Collegss founded before the Reformation, and 2229 to those founded after the Reformation. He would next take the Fellowships; and he Mond that there were 2S7 founded by Roman Catholics, and but 30 by Pro- testants before the Reformation ' • while there were 261 founded solely by Pro- testants after the Reformation. Even of those which were founded in Roman Catholic tunics, not one of them was founded by individuals who held the particutat doctrines that now governed the Church of by ' • and therefore those persons in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries might be fairly supposed to have leaned towaids the pthiciples of the Reformers of the Church. There was no evi- dence that these individuals would not have adopted the principles of the Refor- mation if they had lived. Not one-fourth of the property of' Cambridge University belonged to it in right of Catholic benefactions. Of St. John's College, nine- tenths were Protestant; of Clare Hall, two-thirds; of Magdalen, nine.

teen-twentieths. He contended, that because the Legislature had once interfered, it did not follow Out they should interfere ivith the appro-

priation of the property of the Universities again, when no single in-

stance of the abuse of that property bad been made out. h was no ques- tion with him who had founded the Colleges ; the present possession

was held by law, and had been recognized as valid for six hundred years. It would be impossible to conduct the religious education of students in the Universities, if Dissenters were admitted as members of them.

Mr. O'CONNELL expressed his admiration of Sir Robert Inglis's candour and courtesy on all occasions, but his praise must stop there.

Ile could nut admire his opinions, though so candidly and courteously ex- pressed ; fur he thought his theology was not sound, his politics still more un-

round, and his exclusiveness of principle (he would not be so discourteous as to

call it bigotry) was the worst of all. Sir Robert Inglis had evinced, however, an exclusiveness which Mr. O'Connell should have thought was only to have been found secreted in the unused cells of Salamanca, or rather to have existed only in the days of the Inquisition; neither was that exclusiveness to be Metall-. mended at this day' though its praise had found an advocate in the person of Sir Robert. ("He ar ! " awl a lash.) It wa. bad in Salamanca, it was bad here, and would be bad anywhere.

Ile contended that the property of the Universities was public pro- perty. It had been transferred as such by the Legisliture, from Catho- lics to Protestants, for public purposes. It appeared that before the Reformation, there were fourteen Colleges founded at Cambridge, and only three since ; at Oxford, twelve before the Reformation, and six since. This, however, was a question of principle not of quantity.

Sir Robert Inglis, in discussing the question of quantity, had introduced his theological win s, and had undertaken to prove that the Wykehams and other founders of Colleges were not the Roman Catholics of those days. His only proof (if proof it could be called) was mere assertion, and nut Cwt. lie would, however, meet him upon the point, first remarking that the Protestants of this country 117,1 placed themselves in this dileunna,—namely, that while they con- tended for the right of deciding for themselves, the moment any other profi.ssor of the Christian faith assumed to himself the same right, they turned round upon him and called him Dissenter, or some such nickname. Ile would now ask Sir Robert Inglis, if he was aware that Bishop Wykehain celebrated mass, not merely every week, but upon every day in the week, in his own cathedral at Winchester ? Would he deny, that in that celebration had been used the ins-u. cation of the saints; or would it be contradicted that Wykeham 1. !ieved in the doctrine of purgatory ? If so (and it was indisputable), he was quite ■1 Ming to make Sir Robert a present of the sort of a Protestant that this Bishop wa:.

Mr. O'Connell then went on to contend for the right of the Legisla- ture to restore the property of the Universities to the Catholics, if it saw fit. Ile mentioned, that during the existence of the penal laws against the Catholics, they frequently endowed seminaries of education abroad ; and that if property of this kind had been restored in I s14 or 1815, he should be entitled to thirty-five foundations in the University of Paris—equal in value to 1000L a year. The property which the Irish Catholics lost in the French Revolution was fully equal to the support of Maynooth. He referred to the practice of Dublin Univer- sity, in proof of the advantage of admitting Dissenters. Ile thought that the petition front Cambridge was a disgrace to that University. It was pitiful to : ee so few signatures of the leading men there appended to it Alas! for those that had not signed it. What was the course at the present duty? Salamanca had neverany thing equal to this. He cried shame upon those who had withheld their signatures. It would aVilla that they were willing to take the money nom the children of Dissenters as long as it could he got hum them, and then to send them into the world with an ear-mark, as it were, lipal thou, of degradation amongst their fellow-countrymen. la the name of the great principles of freedom of conscience, why had these Lamed Heads of the University refused their names to this petition ? By doing tij, they had_ much degraded themselves.

Mr. Sliest' was decidedly favourable to the principle of the petition. Ile wished that the practice of the Dublin College prevailed at Oxford and Cambridge. But it was right to consider tile difference in the dis- cipline of the English and the Irish Colleges. In the latter, the stu- dents did not reside together, but under the roofs of their parents and guardians; so that there was no room for the collision of different re- ligious opinions.

Lord Pasmensros denied that any danger could arise to the Church from acceding to the prayer of the petitioners ; whose talents and learn- ing he highly eulogized. Ile ridiculed the idea of excluding a man from scientific honours on ace t of his peculiar religious opinions. It was impossible to argue seriously on so absurd a principle.

Sir Roman! Pees fully admitted the right of the Dissenters to be relieved from all civil disabilities—that they bad a right to appeal to the supreme authority in the State against the regulations of the Inns of Court, or the College of Physicians. But tile exclusion of Dissenters from the Universities involved no civil rights ; and their claim to be admitted to them was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. Much had been said of the authority by which the religious tests were im- posed upon candidate; for degrees ; and James the First had been ridi- culed as a writer upan demonology. But Elizabeth, whose wisdom had been so much lauded, was also a writer on demonology; and Sir Robert read a short statute, passed in that Queen's reign, %which en- acted that witches and sorcerers should be imprisoned and set in the pillory. Lord Bacon, too, had said that it was currently reported that witches fed upon men's flesh.

This was the enlightened Lord Bacon ; who proceeded further to soy, ,4 If this be so the reason is this, that front men's flesh ascended high and exciting va- pours, which stirred the imagination ; and as it is well known that the hbeity of witches consists ill hnagination, a satisfactory reason was afforded why they preferred men's flesh." (Loud cheers and laughter.) [This extract from Sir Robert Peel's speech is taken from the Times ; but that journal supplies, in a note, the rollowing passage from Bacon as he really Wrote it. " it is said that witches do greedily. eat man's flesh ; which, if it he true, besides a devilish appetite in them, it as likely to ploetes1 for that man's may send up high and pleasing vapours, which may stir the imagination: and witchow' felicity is chiefly in imagination, qs bath been said.".] Sir Robert went on to argue that these demands of the Dissenters were merely preliminary. They never would be satisfied with the bar- ren honour of forming a part of the governing body, without tasting the pecuniary emoluments..

By admitting them to the governing body, a small minority would be et eated ;

and it was well known what even a small minority could effect, particularly when in pursuit of objects of ambition. It was a great fallacy to say that, be. cause Dissenters were admitted now to the benefits of an University educatiou without any injurious effects to the constitution, the same result would follow a further extension of their privileges. At present, the Dissenters could be ex- cluded at any time from the privileges they even now enjoyed ; but would the same power remain after the admission into the governing body of persons pos. sewing interests adverse to those of the University ?

Sir Robert concluded by saying, that in his conscience lie believed, that the concession prayed by the petition would lead to the destruction of the main link which united the Church of England with the State.

The Speaker then left the chair ; and the debate is adjourned till after the Easter recess.

2. CORRUPT BOROUGHS.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time, and passed, on Monday. It was read a first time in the house of Peers on Tuesday, on the motion of Lord ELLENLOItOUG11; and a copy of the evidence given before the Committee of the Commons was sent for and received.

HERTFORD Bonotreit Bists Several amendments were agreed to in Committee ; and the report was ordered to be received on Wednesday. The report Was brought up on Wednesday; and the bill is to be read a third time on the 16th of April.

REPORT ON THE WARWICK BOROUGH BILL. Mr. HALCOMB on Wednesday, amidst groans and interruption, moved for a Contmittee to inquire into the authorship of the Report of the Committee on this bill : he had no doubt, from inquiries he had made that it was the production of Mr. Joseph Parkes. A law-stationer, to whom he had applied for information, had told him that be had made four copies of the Report for Mr. Parkes. Tile SPEAKER here informed Mr. Holcomb, that it was unnecessary- that a report should be actually and technically drawn up by a member of the Committee, as the House was assured of its correctness OR the responsibility of those who concurred in it. Sir RONALD FERGUSON rose to reply to Mr. Halcomb ; but there were several cries of " No, no !" and he resumed his seat. No one seconded Mr. lialcomb's 'notion, and of course it was not put.

3. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

There was a desultory discussion on Lord Joule RUSSELL'S bill, in Committee, on Monday. It referred principally to the mode of choosing the Committee, who are to decide on the truth or fldsehood of the allegations of bribery brought before it. The bill provides that out of thirty-three Members chosen by the House, the Speaker should select eleven. Mr. PRYME moved that the reduction should be effected in the same manner as lists of special juries are reduced, by the parties striking off names alternately. This motion was rejected, by 43 to SA It was then proposed by Mr. AGLIONBY, to strike out that part of the bill which provides that nominees should be appointed for each party. This was also rejected, by 35 to 19. The further consideration of the clauses was then postponed till Wednesday. On that day, the remain- lug clauses were agreed to, and the report was received.

4. THE MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

A bill was introduced into the House of Peers, on Wednesday, by Lord Bnouenast, for improving the administration of the criminal law in the Metropolis. The whole Metropolis, including Lambeth, South- wark, and parts of Kent and Essex, the population of which is about 1,700,000 souls, is to be placed under one criminal jurisdiction, the Ohl Bailey. The Magistrates of Middlesex, at Clerkenwell, are to try those prisoners only whose crimes are not punishable with more than seven years' transportation; and the persons arraigned for any offence before the Magistrates may be removed by certiorari to the Old Bailey. The Sessions at the Old Bailey are to be held once a month, instead of eight times a year ; but the Home Winter Circuit will become utme- cessary under the new arrangement, and will be discontinued. There will be separate Grand Juries for the Middlesex Magistrates, and for the Old Bailey Court, whose separate jurisdiction will be complete within itself. OM principal reason assigned by Lord Brougham for this change was, the unfitness of the Magistrates, unassisted by profes- sional men, for the discharge of the very important duties u lurch DOW devolved upon them. The bill was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

5. THE NEW EXCHEQUER.

On Tuesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved that the report on the bill for regulating the Exchequer should be considered. Two alterations had been made in the bill. Tim first was to the effect that certain of- fices might be abolished or regulated at the will of Parliament at a fu- ture time, without its being understood that the holders of those °feces enjoyed any vested rights in them. The other clause related to the ap- pointment of Lord Auckland. This clause asserted that no person could bold the office of Comptroller-General together with any other office belt during the pleasure of the Crown, and then went on to recite the reasons why in the case of Lord Auckland an exception should be made. Lord Auckland had given up two pensions, one of 4001., an- other of 300/., to take this office. His appointment was more econo- mical than any other which could be made. Mr. Gousuens: objected to laying down a good principle in an act of Parliament, and then immediately violating it. The precedent thus created would certainly be followed. What was there to prevent a fu- ture Minister front following the example thus set him ? He would not twee to the clause. Mr. Runty ea Mr. HERMES, Mr. TENNY- SON, and Colonel EVANS, also opposed the clause.

Lord JOHN Russets. said, that although Lord Auckland's office (the Treasurership of Greenwich Hospital) was nominally held at the plea- sure of the Crown, it was not the practice to remove the holder except for bud behaviour.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, finding the clause only moderately approved of, would not press that part of it which regarded Lord Auckland. The other clauses were agreed to ; and 011 Wednesday the bill was read a third time, and passed.

6. ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

The report was brought up on Monday ; Major BEAUCLERK moved an abatement in the sums proposed to be laid out on Colonial fortresses, namely, on Kingston, 10,000/. ; Mataititua 8000/. ; and Nova Scotia. 10,0001. This was supported by Mr. Herr, Mr. CounETT, Colonel EVANS, Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. CHARLES BULLER ; who in reply to an observation by Mr. TENNYSON, that if the Colonies were to be retained, it was necessary to complete the fortifications—said, that Colonies which did not de-fray their own expenses were of no use to the Mother Country. Colonel AIAM:111.1N, Mr. STANLEY, Mr. lIntsuota Mr. G. F. YOUNG, and Lord Jons: essELL, Imposed Major Beau. clerk's motion ; and it was negatived by 7ti to *2.2. The rqurt was then brought up, and agreed to.

7. THE DEANERY OF DOWN ; LORD PLUNKETT'S DEFENCE- On Monday, Mr. LITTLETON presented a memorial from the Reve- rend Thomas Plunkett, Dean of Down. He explained the circum- stances attending the bestowal of the Deanery on the son of the Tilsit Chancellor. As soon as the vacancy occurred, Earl Grey, of his own accord, wrote to offer it to Lord Plunkett for his son. 'there was no solicitation, no knowledge of his intention on the part of Lord Plunkett ; who was as much surprised as gratified by the net of Lord Grey. If it were asked why Lord Plunkett had accepted the offer, which was at direct variance with the recommendation of his own report, he could state to the House, that Lord Plunkett came into office five months after the commission had issued under the Great Seal, and was so unac- quainted with the contents of the report, that he signed it with great reluctance, and only on the representations of his brother Commission- ers that he was answerable only for the principles, not the detailed statements in it. Subsequently, when Mr. Stanley wrote to him to say that the appointment (for which Dean Plunkett resianed a living: worth 1,200/a year, and which was supposed to be unconditional,) must be held only conditionally, Lord Plunkett immediately agreed to the in- sertion of those clauses in the Church Temporalities Bill which put it in the power of Government to adopt the recommendations of the Com- missioners, had it been deemed right to adopt them. The Deanery of Down was therefore now liable to be dealt with as if it were still vs. cant. Mr. Littleton said he did not know what impression this state- ment might make on the House, but he hoped that those Members who disagreed with hint, would refrain from expressing any strong opinion, till further iitformation were laid before them.

Mr. CoanraT, under that injunction, wculd only say that his itnpres- sion was very different from Mr. Littleton's he thought the defence had made the case worse.

Mr. Got-LaraN said, that had he wished to make Lord Plunkett's conduct the subject of animadversion, he should like nothing better to effect his object than what had fallen from Mr. Littleton. It appears that Lord Chaneellor Plunkett—the highest legal functionary in Ire- land—ft nod the draught of a report, and signed it, without knowing any thing of its contents.

Mr. LirrtaaroN observed, that Lord Plunkett had read it.

Mr. Goemieux—" Undoubtedly he signed it. Either he (lid or did not read it. If he did not, the inference is obvious; if he did, he must have known the condition on which the appointment ought to have been made."

Alajor III:Aren.eaK llopcd that something would be done to compell- sate one of the curates of the parishes which were to have been sepa- rated, who had only Sit/. instead of 100/. per annum. He was in debt a-al distress.

Mr. Rola N S ON said, Lord Plunkett was on the horns of a dilemma— his defence was most unsatisfactory.

Mr. STANLEY denied that Lord Plunkett was bound to know the contents Of the five schedules, or the particulars of a hundred unions, mentioned in ea. report.

Mr. RUTIIVLN said, the -saddle would now lie fixed on the right horse. The instinct in which Government had bestowed their pa- tronage, al tAY a dark shade on the management of the Irish Church.

The memothd was laid on the table ; and Mr. LITTLE:ma said, in reply to a questiall frOnl Mr. Re:mama, that Government could not iliterfrre in hi-half of Mr. Campbell, the curate mentioned by Major Beauelerk. It was a bard case; he hoped it was not so bad as repre- sented.

8. ThscELLANEotis SunaEcTs.

AMENDS1ENT OF airE Itaronat ACT. Lord JOHN RUSSELL mentioned, on Monday, that Government intended to bring in a bill to amend the registration of voters under the Reform Act.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR-LAWS. Sir JAMES GRAHAM gave no- tice, on Wednesday, on behalf of Lord A Rhona that his Lordship will introduce a bill to atnend the Poor-laws on the 17th of April.

COMMUTATION OF TAXES. Mr. Robinson's motion on this subject is put off to the .2(1 of May, in consequence of Lord Althorp's illness, and the general absence of Members.

Horn TAX REPEAL Brat- The second reading of this bill is postponed to the 14th of April.

Trrurs ra IRELAND. On the motion of Mr. LITTLETON, on Tues- day, the order of the day for taking this subject into consideration on the 11th of April was discharged, and the motion is fixed for the 18th of April.

FELONS PROPERTY BILL. On the motion of Mr. BOTCH, on Wednesday, this bill, the object of which is to take care of the pro- perty of felons, and in certain cases to point out the mode in which it shall be appropriated, was read a second time.

HIGHWAYS BHA- On Wednesday, Mr. SIIAW LEFEVRE moved the second reading of this bill; which, after some opposition, was agreed to, and it was ordered to be committed.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS EMPLOYMENT 'ACT. Sir CHARLES BURREI.L obtained leave, on Tuesday, to bring in a bill to amend this act, passed two years ago.

ILLEGAL OATHS. A conversation took place on Wednesday, on the presentation, by Mr. Hughes, of a petition from Oxford, praying for the mitigation of the sentence of seven years' transportation, passed at Dorchester by Mr. Baron Williams, on the six men convicted of belonging to nun illegal society. The prayer of the petition was sup- ported by Mr. H. L. BULWER and Mr. WARBURTON; on the ground that the men were not intentionally guilty of any offence, and that there were some doubts in the mind of the Judge as to it hether the tor applied to their case. It was opposed by Mr. Hanoi., Mr. SHAW, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM. Sir James Said, that the wily doubt was NS

to the amount of punishment to be awarded to the offenders ; there was none at all as to their guilt acrording to law. The erect ssity

of punishing some persons severely, HS an example to deter others from joinitig Trades Unions, was also insisted upon by the opposers of the petition.

Polasit ExtLEs. A discussion arose in the !louse of Coannons on Tuesday, on the subject of relieving the necessities of the Polish

Exiles in this country, by a grant of public moncy. !olon..d EvANs pre- sented a petition, agreed to at a public meeting held some time ago, to take into consideration the state of the unfortunate Poles. He main- tained, that in consequence of our being parties to the treaty of Vienna, so shamefully violated by Russia, we were bound to administer some relief to the exiles. In former times, we had relieved the Flemings and the Hugonots; and in later times, French emigrants and fugitive Spaniards. The Poles had as good a claim as tit( se upon the liberality of the British Government. Sir II. VERNEY, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. T. ATTwoon, and Lord D. STUART spoke on the same side. But Lord PALMERSTON said, that the grants which had been mentioned stood upon quite different grounds. The Spaniards who were relieved had, at least many of them, fought with the British army in Spain ; and many of the French exiles, particularly those who belonged to the army of Condi., had similar claims. He (lid not see that we had any right, because England was a party to the treaty of Vienna, to inter- fere by force of arms in the Polish war ; and he did not think that we were bound in any way by that treaty to relieve the Polish fugitives. Besides, vhere were we to stop There were only a few Poles now ia Eugland, but if we assisted those, many others would soon he here. Mr. O'CoNNELL spoke in strong language of the brutal conduct of Russia. Ile would give money to the Poles in the fiwe of Europe, as Russian blood-money, to let it be seen what we felt for those unhappy meta -and how ‘ve detested their brutal oppressors. The petition was laid on the table.

On Wednesday, Mr. BUCKINGHAM gave notice that he should move, on the Nth April, an address to the King praying him to extend his Royal bounty to the Polish exiles.

CHANNEL FISHERIES. Sir JOHN TYRRELL, on Tuesday, asked Lord Palmerston whether any thing had been done in the ease of the four fishing-smacks seized by the French in July last. He also re- minded the Foreign Secretary, that in a lute affray between some Eng- lish and French fishing-smacks, WI Englishman bird been killed, and a verdict of Wilful Murder had been returned by the Coroner's Jury. Lord PALMERSTON said, that the question related to subjects of ex- treme diffirulty. He was not able to state any thing positively respect- ing them, but that communications were still going on ; and be trusted that arrangements would soon be made to prevent the recurrence of si- milar difficulties and acts of violence. Sir JAMES GRAHAM observed, that the English fishing. boats, engaged in the late affray, had pole be- yond their boundaries, and could not be strictly considered as under the protection of the British flag.

SOUTH SEA COMPANY. Certain papers relative to the eoneartta of the Smith Sea Company were ordered on Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. Bnocal.micasT; who means to bring in a bill to enable Govern- ment to pay off the stockholdersand dissolve the Company.

RECORDERSHIP OF THE GREAT ROLL OF SCOTLAND. A bill Was brought in, and read a first time on Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. Seam; Rola to abolish this patent office, which is very nearly a sine- cure. This measure was taken agretably to the proposition of Mr. J. A. Murray, the Member for Leith, who is the pment holder of the (Are.

SCOTTISH LAW OF ENTAIL. Two bills for altering the law of entail in Scotlarnd, were read a first time in the House of Peers on Monday, on tha motion of the Earl of ROSERERY, they are to be referred to a Select Committee after the second reading; the day for which is not fixed.

DISSENTERS' PETITIONS. A considerable number of petitions for re- dress of grievances have been presented to both Houses of Parliament during the week. Ono the most nutnerously signed was from the in- habitants of Edinburgh and Leith, presented to the House of Peers on Wednesday, by Lord Bnouottroft. The petitioners wished to devote the property and revenues of the Established Church in both parts of the United Kingdom to civil and religious uses for the benefit of all, having a due regard to the interests of the present incumbents. But to this part of the petition Lord Broughatn could not subscribe. The petitioners were quite incorrect in stating, as Hwy (lid, that the mem- bers of the Established Church in England and Scotland formed It mi- nority of the population. The petitioners stated that the Dissenters of England were subjected to a variety disabilities and grievances still more serious than those of which the petition- -a had a right to complain, and that they pressed upon a numerous, en- lighten, a and powerful body of men, who had done eminent service to the cause if religion and morality. Ile entirely concurred in the expression of praise whicII was here bestowed on the great body of Dissenters; and he entirely con- curred in that part of the petition which prayea the Legislature to takesuch steps as might be deemed necessary for putting an end to all distinctions in respect of civil and constitutional privileges founded on religious principles. Ile most anxiously desired the consummation of the wishes of the Dissenters in this re- spect; and those who legally set about effecting the required amendment in the law in this respect would at all times have his zealous, conscientious, and most ready support. He was now drawing on towards the close of his days, but he hoped to live long enough to see all those distinctions complained of by conscien- tious Dissenters abolished.