arbatt4 anti Vrortainge in Vadianunt.

1. IRISH DISTURBANCES Buz. The first reading of this bill in the House of Commons being appointed for Wednesday evening, and Mr. -O'Connell having announced a call of the House, the crowd and stir in the Lobby and passages were unprecedentedly great. Mr. O'Connell's motion for a call of the House was opposed by the majority; but when

the division was called for, it was found almost impossible to clear the Lobby; and as the opponents of the call were unwilling to leave and

thus perhaps lose their seats in the House, the call was proceeded in. -When the Gallery was opened, soon after six o'clock, thus perhaps lose their seats in the House, the call was proceeded in. -When the Gallery was opened, soon after six o'clock, Mr. ROCHE was charging the Ministry with a deep-laid conspiracy to gag public opinion, and establish martial law in Ireland in order to put down the cry for the Repeal of the Union. The two great Aris- tocratic parties in. the House had clearly coalesced against the People. lie moved for certain returns relative to Irish disturbances, which had occurred from the 25th February 1829 to the 25th February 1833.

Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD seconded the motion.

Mr. STANLEY opposed it, on the ground that it was an attempt to postpone indefinitely tile great question to be considered that evening; and that the details sought for were so exceedingly voluminous that no three men in the House would wade through them. He allowed that the Ministerial measure, which Lord Althorp would bring forward that night, was of a very arbitrary and coercive character ; but it was re- suired by the extraordinary circumstances of the country.

Ministers were anxious for their trial (" Hear, hear 1")—they were rejoiced the time bad arrived when they could be judged on a measure which they had postponed late and adopted reluctantly—(Cheers from both rides of the House)—and which, if they would not vindicate, they should for ever lose their characters as men—their characters as Ministers. [Here the cheering, says the Chronicle report, was deafening, and was re- mewed and re-echoed from side to side in the most boisterous and determined manner, Inked once or twice with no inconsiderable degree of hearty hooting.] He hailed those cheese--he hailed them, he repeated—he accepted the challenge.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD said, that if Ministers possessed documents which would justify their extraordinary measures, they were bound to bring them forward. He had carefully attended to the state of Ireland during the last two years, and he would say confidently that the disturbances there were greater eighteen months ago than at the present time. The

extreme sufferings of the goaded, harassed peasantry, were the cause of those disturbances. The people wanted food and employment ; which this bill would never give them. Was it not monstrous, when the peo- ple called out for bread, that they were to be answered by bayonets, sa- bres, gaols, and the suspension of the Constitution ? Foe the imme- diate suppression of disturbances, he recommended the employment of a Special Commission--a commission of peace, not one of blood. If

the motion for inquiry were not granted, he would, body and soul, re- sist this mortal measure to the last.

Mr. O'Cominnn requested Mr. Roche to withdraw his motion,—on the ground that it was best to avoid all desultory warfare, and that emi- topportunity would be-afforded for discussing all the details of the

The motion was then withdrawn.

Lord ALTHORP moved the order of the day for the first reading of the Irish Disturbances Bill. After some opposition, this was agreed to and Lord Althorp proceeded. It was extremely painful to him, he said, to bring forward a measure of such a character. He felt he was bound to show that the state of some parts of Ireland was such as to require extraordinary remedies ; that the ordinary law was insufficient to afford such remedies ; and that the provisions of the bill before the House were such as to provide them. Be would first proceed to prove the insecurity of life and property in Ireland at the present time. He then detailed the particulars of a number of murders, which had occurred at Portarlington, Cashel, Youghall, and other places in Kilkenny, and Queen's County. Many of these murders were committed by men in large gangs, in open daylight; and frequently no attempt had beer, made to secure the offenders. Only one of those detailed by Lord Althorp, namely, that of the Reverend Mr. Houston, appeared to have any connexion with tithes. It had been said that these outrages hid not been multiplied lately—that they were as numerous two or three years ago as now. He was prepared to prove the reverse. In the pro. vince of Leinster alone, the crimes of an insurrectionary description... such as murders, burglaries, burnings, maiming of cattle, illegal notices. malicious injuries to property, and serious assaults—which had occurred during the last three months in each of the following years, were in 1829, 300 ; in 1830, 499; in 1831, 814; and in 1832, 1,513. He compared the number of offences which had occurred in Connaught with those which had been committed in single counties only of the province of Leinster, in order to prove that it was not the distress of the people merely which occasioned them. In Kilkenny, Westmeath, and Queeo County, the number of outrages generally far exceeded in number those which had taken place in the whole province of Connaught. He then read a number of letters from Kilkenny, Carlow, and Louth, which contained accounts of immense assemblages of the peasantry by night, of beacons lighted on the hills, of the ill-usage of persons inimical to the designs of the insurgents, and of the exertions of the peasantry to provide themselves with arms. He said that the Special Commission which had tranquillized Clare was of no avail in Queen's County. He admitted that he had few cases to bring forward of the intimidation of jurors. Some of the Jury, however, which tried the prisoners at Carrickshaugh, had been threatened and had been obliged to leave the county, while a gentleman who had been supposed favourable to the acquittal of the prisoners had his corn cut for him by the peasantry. He had no case to produce of actual violence being committed on a juror. Many witnesses had been obliged to leave the country, or to put themselves under the protection of the police ; and persons well informed as to the state of the country declared, that jurors must not be expected to be found to come forward at the ensuing trials. He , thought that he had hlroved that the ordinary law in the province of Leinster at least was insufficient for the protection of life and property, and for the punishment of criminals. He would now endeavour to show that the proposed bill would supply the deficiency of the ordinary laws. The want of jurymen would be supplied by the members of the courts-martial. He preferred a court-martial to the employment of Judges of Assize without Juries,—or to barristers who must be selected by Government, to whom it would be said they looked for promotion. He thought it was wisest not to take a middle course, and thereby to mitigate the excess of law to such a degree as to render it less hateful than it ought to be in the minds of Englishmen, and thus to induce and enable Government at some future time to bring forward similar measures when the necessity for them was not so urgent as it is at present. With regard to the protection of witnesses, every body knew that they were in the greatest danger after dark. The bill would prevent people from leaving their houses after sunset, and thus the wit- nesses would be safe. He was aware of the objections to the power of searching fof arms; but the House should recollect that they were called upon to legislate for a country overrun with marauders and Whitefeet, and not for a peaceable country like England. He consi- dered that the proposed bill would remedy the existing evils. That part of the measure to which he had more particularly alluded, regarded the proclaimed districts only. But there was another part—the renewal of the Proclamation Act—which he admitted to be a most despotic and arbitrary measuie. He maintained, however, that it was a necessary part of any measure for the tranquillization of Ireland. He considered that political agitation was closely connected with the outrages which now prevailed in Ireland, notwithstanding the flimsy pretence of the leading agitators, that they recommended a tranquil obedience to the laws. He alluded to the formation of the Volunteer Society, and the violent harangues of Mr. Steele the Pacificator. It must certainly, he thought, strike every man, that the existence of such a powerful polin- cal engine as the Volunteer Society was, in the hands of Mr. O'Con- nell, incompatible with the due exercise of the authority of the Govern- ment. Lord Althorp declared that the bill was not to be used for the collection of tithes. If the Lord-Lieutenant were to proclaim a dis- trict in order merely to facilitate the collection of tithes in it, he should say that it was an exercise of his discretion directly contrary to the instruction and intention of Government. He concluded by moving that the bill be read a first time.

Mr. TENNYSO?i denied that the occasion called for the immediate es. ' ercise of increased powers. The Trial by Jury ought not to be abo- lished because jurors were threatened in May last. Extraordinary measures ought not to be grante?. until the powers granted by the Con- stitution had been urged to their extreme limit, and turned to account in the most effective manner. The measure proposed would be ineffi- cacious for the protection of witnesses, who would be liable to outrage as much as they were now. He objected to the courts-martial, and the whole character of the measure. Parliament ought to pause and examine evidence before they passed it. He therefore moved that the bill be read that day fortnight.

Mr. E. L. BULWER joined issue with Lord Althorp on his en ground, and opposed the bill because it would be inefficacious. He did not deny the existence of crime in Ireland, but that the powers proposed furnished a remedy for it. The remedy proposed was worse than the disease : a violation of the law was a terrible evil, the suspension of it a greater one. Witnesses would not be protected by the courts-martial. " You say that these officers are free from the prejudices of the Magistrates. It is an error: it is with the Magistrates—with the provincial gentry—that they will hail Wally mix. From whom can they, ignorant of the country, take information, but front those persons with whom society brings them in contact? They will see with the eye, of the Magistrates—it is their opinion they will represent, and according to their pan- tialities will they judge. Thus, then—I beg honourable members to mark this—tha5 you are about to suspend the Constitution, to inflame all Ireland, to outrage all liberty, for the sake of appointing a tribunal which does not possess the requisite qualitie,

fairly to adjudge the offence--which does not give the necessary protectfon to the wit- ness—which does not meet the very crimes fur which alone you ask us to appoint it."

He objected most strongly to the system on which Ministers sought to govern Ireland.

" I am sure that no people on the face of the earth can be governed by the system his Majesty's Ministers propose. To-day concession, to-morrow coercion. This quick alternation of kicks arid kindnesh—this coaxing with the hand,' and spurring with the heel—this system. at 01163 feeble and exasperatiug, of allowing the justice of complaint, and yet of stifling its voice—of holding out hopes and fears, tenet and ef =illation, all in a breath—is a system that renders animals and men alike—not tamed, but savage— is a system that would make the most credulous people distrustful, and the mildest people ferocious."

Sir Toux Bvsio well knew the State of Ireland ; and Much as be re- gretted the necessity of such a measure, be felt bound to support the first reading, at any rate, of the bill—reserving to himself the right of forming his opinion as to certain details. Mr. GROTE wished to consider the question'before the House as an Irishman. He made no distinction between Ireland mid England. Ile felt as much interested in the prosperity of one country as the other. He considered the bill unlikely to attain- the end for which it was proposed.

lie had listened patiently to the long catalogue of Irish enormities which Lord Al- thorp hail laid before the House. Such a catalogue contained nothing new to him. It was not the first time he had heard that the Will were a lawless people, who were not to be bound down by courts ofjustiee. They ever had been a lawless ?mite ; and Lard

' Althorp had not sufficiently dwelt upon that Cwt. If he had done so, then would it be for them to examine and see whether the tribunals already'existing were not sufficient to try the offences that might he brought before them, and whether the polieewere suffi- ciently strung to execute the orders of those tribunals. If not, they should be Strength- ened—for that would be making strong the hands of justice. The hands Of justice should be strengthened ; but in doing so, a new species of injustice should not be in- troduced, as would be by the present measure.

He thought that courts-martial would not be impartial. It would be an object with them to condemn upon slight evidence as many as possible for the sake of the example.

When he looked to the clauses of this bill, he saw many that were objectionable ; and amongst them he found particular fault with that which related to the investigation of complaints directed against the conduct or officers who had acted on courts-martial. Let any man imagine an officer accused before a court-martial of any abuse of his an- thority,—what chance was there that the complainant would obtain redress? Ile asked whether it was not to be expected that there would be, and whether in fact there would not lie, a strong feeling, an esprit de corps. in Invent of the accused party, that would render a conviction before a court-martial almost impossible ? And yet the bill provided that such complaints should be preferred before a court-martial. The framers of the act appeared iudeed to have taken great rains to free the perpetrators of any abuses that might be cornplained of from all efficient responsibility. To the 37th clause he had the reset decided objection. It ran thus—" Provided always, and be it enacted, that when a verdict shall be given for the plaintiff in any such action to he brought against any justice oft= peace, peace officer, or other person, for taking or imprisoning or detaining any person, or entering houses, under colour of any authority given by this act, and it shall appear to thejudge or judges before whom the same shall be tried that there was a probable cause for doing the act complained of in such action, and the judge or court shall certify the same on record, then and in that case the plaintiff shall not be eutit led to more than 6d. damages, nor to any 'costs of suit." Now he must say, that this. provision seemed to be eminently calculated to deter all persons who might have complaints to make from preferring them, and showed clearly to him that they would have little or no chance of redress.

For these, and for many other reasons he was opposed to the bill, and would vote for the amendment of Mr. Tennyson.

Captain BERKELEY was certain that the country was in a much more unsettled state now than it was in 1829. In that year, when he was benighted, or lost his .way when out hunting, all he had to do was to inquire for the house of Mr. Tighe or Mr. Power, and their names were a passport all through the county of Kilkenny. But times were altered now.. It was dangerous to be out late. Mr. Power's hounds had been stoned to death, and the farmers who voted for Lord Duns cannon had been cruelly maimed and beaten.

Mr. FINN avowed himself an Irish agitator, and an advocate for the Repeal of the Union. As for the county of Kilkenny, there had been a decrease, not an increase of offences, subsequent to the election of Lord Duncannon.

Mr. STANLEY entered into a very long detail of the outrages more briefly indicated by Lord Althorp. The strong measures were directed against an accumulation of outrage, not any particular class of offences. Ile denied that the collection of tithes was the occasion of the disturbances. He had a statement from the Attorney-General, to prove that on the Home circuit, out of 150 cases, there was not one connected with tithe, nor one attack made upon a man of property : the persons outraged were poor farmers, labourers, women, and defenceless persons. The Insurrection Act was in fact in existence in the pro- vince of Leinster now : no man could leave his house after nightfall, without being in danger of his life from bands of nocturnal ruffians. It had been said that at the last assizes for Kilkenny there had not been a single case. That did not prove the absence of crime • for who would prosecute or give evidence at the imminent risk Of his life? In Leinster, the number of burglaries committed in the month of January 1833 was more than three times the total amount in the three previous months. This proved that crime was increasing with fearful rapidity. He read a catalogue of outrages and attempts at intimidation—not robbery—which had occurred during the month of January in the county of Kildare. The cases of the intimidation of jurors were, he admitted, rare; but those of the intimidation of witnesses and pro- secutors were very numerous. It was with the greatest difficulty, how- ever, that jurors could be found to attend, though mulcted for non- attendance in the highest legal penalties. In Louth, Tipperary, Kilkenny, King's County, Queen's County, Waterford, there had been instances of jurors being intimidated from attending—though direct violence had not been offered them. Mr. Stanley quoted part of the report of the Committee which sat last year to examine into the state of Queen's County, to prove that extraordinary measures were required for the pacification of the country. He also read part of the evidence of Mr. Barrington and Mr. 0' Conner, a Roman Catholic clergyman, in which they detailed some of the modes of intimidation practiSed by the Rockites. He reminded the House, that the Committee above men- tioned had recommended, that so much of the Insurrection Act as for- bade people being out at night, and empowered the Magistrates to make domiciliary visits, should be reenacted. After mentioning several other particulars tending to show the disorganized state of the country—and especially the circumstance of a canal-boat being stopped in its course from the Shannon to Dublin, and the navigators being driven away— Mr. Stanley proceeded .to justify the appointment of courts-martial, Which he defended from the charge of partiality made against them by Mr. Grote. Mr. O'Connell had said that politieal agitation was not connected with the predial agitation. Certainly he had not directly recommended the commission of outrages, any more than, in a certain letter to the editor of an Irish paper, he had recommended a rnn• on the Bank for gold. But why did he not? Because he said that if the bill should pass, the run would commence of itself. Mr. Stanley quoted some passages from the most violent of Mr. Steele's speeches, and read a long ballad which was sung in the streets of Kilkenny after the Carrickshaugh affair,—principally in praise of " Glorious Dan," who was to drive out the Saxon invaders,—in order to prove that Mr. O'Connell's advice and speeches were perverted by the ignorant peasantry. He commented upon the regulations of the Volunteer Society ,- and contended that they would introduce a system of un- exampled tyranny over the population.

Such was the system of freedom with which Ireland was blessed I Peace va,4 sought to be preserved by stilling all public opinion, as well as individual independence of judgment—by givine' a sanction to a war directed against wealth and property ; mid it was to so tyrannical and oppeessive a system he called upon the House to oppose itself. Such a pouter was altogether unconstitutional. and one which the constituted authori- ties were bound to suppress. Mr. O'Connell had said, that the system which his Ma- jesty's Ministers were about to introduce, would be extended all over Ireland. He

forgot, however, that his system of pacification was to be extended all over Ireland ; and that this peaceful country was in such a state as to require, even in his opinion, armed paeificators. Their system would not be extended unless such extension wto; de- manded by the existence of a system of outrage, depredation, and tyranny, beyond the control of law.

Mr. Stanley then alluded to an expression used by Mr. O'Connell at the meeting of the Working Classes on Saturday last, in which he called the members cf the House "six hundred robbers or scoundrels ;" and commented upon his denunciation to the Volunteers of the MOTO- hers who had voted with Government upon the Address. He read extracts from the letter of Mr. O'Connell to which he alluded, and contended that it was a most tyrannical and unconstitutional attempt to Overawe the members of the House by proceedings out of doors.

Mr. SHEII. moved an adjournment.

Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion ; and, in obedience to a gene- ral call of the members, explained the expression which he had used at the meeting of the Working Classes. The reporters had fallen into a mistake in stating what lie had said. At first when he read the re- port, it struck him as being very ludicrous that such a speech should be attributed to him.

Ile, having the coercive bills in his mind nhen arguing on the subject of universal suffrage, spoke of the injustice, on constitutional principles, of any man who was un- represented being taxed. He said that the robbery committed by a single individual could be punished by law, but that injustice was not the less so if effected by six hun- dred individuals. It seas true that he had that House in his mind when he said that. By the six hundred individuals, he certainly meant the house. Then, as was natural in speaking, another idea came into lain mad relative to physical force. He sai-i that one scoundrel might be resisted by physical force, but that it was impossible to resist six hundred by the same means. (" Oh. oh 1")

In that House he would reassert both the things which he had said at the meeting. (Strong disapprobation.)

He did not know, after the manner in which he had been received by the House, that lie ,tould express any regret for what he had said. If he felt any regret, it was for his own sake; for he would certainly be included amongst the six "hundred members to whom he had alluded. (General cries If " Oh!" and laughter.) Again he said that the report was quite excusable, He solemnly assured the House, that he had not tTie slightest intention to apply a derogatory phrase to auy member of the 'Joust% (Dis- approbation.)

The motion for adjournment was then put and carried.

The debate was resumed on Thursday.

Mr. SHEIL could not disguise his apprehension that there existed in the House a predisposition unfavourable to the cause which he had to plead. The English, like the great Republican of antiquity, were careless of the liberties of their provinces, though jealous of their own. How would the English receive such abill as was proposed for Ireland ? When would nations learn not to do, what they would not suffer?

But let us take this act up in its several parts. The former Proclamation Act ease the Lord-Lieutenant power to dissolve certain assemblies : so does this : but if the Lord-Lieutenant thinks proper to proclaim the city of Dublin, which he is empowered to do, no meeting whatever can take place—the right of petition is at an end—the Ha- beas Corpus is siispended—the liberty of the press is gone—any obnoxious speaker or writer may be incarcerated without injunction and without trial ; and even offences committed before the proclamation (for the Act has the peculiar merit of being retro- spective) are to be cognizable in the city of Dublin, by a court-martial subsequently established. Are the English members aware of this—are the men who shouted with laughter, in testimony to a vile ballad rc it last night by the Irish Secretary in impos- ing despotism on Ireland, aware of what this art contains? Do they know what Stacy are called upon to do ? The Tory government never asked for, nor even thought of such powers as are now demanded.'

He denied that the Ministers had fairly tried the effect of the existing laws in repressing ruffianism or agitation.

" Why not be contented, in the first place, with the old expedients, and why not re- sort to the common law? Have you prosecuted a single speech ? You prosecuted, in- deed, the Country Papers—you persecuted the Tipperary .Free Press—you threw the writers of the Cornet into gaol ; but against a single factious oration you have not in- stituted a single proem:nig. Had you no Jury? Did you distrust the complaieanee of the Corporation ? Would not twelve Aldermen have suited your intents? Had you no evidence? Short-hand writers in the pay of Government are employed at every meeting. Before you resort to this terrible stretch of the prerogative, try, put to its simple test, the efficacy of the law." He maintained that the tithes were the cause of the Irish disturb- ances; and referred to the Travels of Arthur Young in 1776, to prove that they were so in his time ; and to the evidence of Sir Hussey Vivian before the Committee which reported on the state of Ireland in • August last, to prove that they were so now. He denied that political societies had contributed to prwdial outrage. They contributed, on the contrary, to tranquillize the country. Sir Hussey Vivian had truly said, "If you can get rid of the tithe question, I think you will have Ireland pretty quiet." "But what have you done? The Secretary for Ireland, deaf to all remonstrance, in- sensible to every entreaty, although he was implored to forbear, to wait at least for the Reformed Parliament, passed his Tithe Act, at the close of the session—trampled on us with his English majorities, and effected an achievement in legislation to which all our calamities may now be referred. It is too bad, it is not to be endured, to hear him talk of the Special Commission in the Queen's County having failed, when he himself enacts such statutes as Would overthrow all peace in any country, and has driven the people to excesses of Which the consequences ought to be on his bead. The fault is with him. But for his Measures, of equal rashness and impolicy, the country would now be tranquil. He first drives Ireland desperate, and then he calls for penalties for 'her correction."

It was admitted that Special Commissions had restored peace to Clare, Galway, and Limerick, although they had failed to do so in Queen's County. In Kilkenny there were disturbances. But were

Queen's County and Kilkenny, the O'Connell counties? The reason that certain districts were disturbed was, that there the collec- tion of tithes began to be enforced. It was in Kilkenny that the priest's horse was seized for tithes ; in Kilkenny the priest was lately arrested for tithes and in Kilkenny the effects of Ilfr. Stanley's ge- nius for legislation were peculiarly conspicuous. Let the House read the last Report of the Committee on the state of Ireland, of which Mr. Stanley was a member.

Mr. STANLEY—" I did not attend."

Mr. Sneer.—" Not attend I Good God I Do we hear correctly? A Committee is named by Sir II. Parnell in the midst of an emergency in May last, to consider the state of Ireland ; the Secretary declares that Committee to be most important ; his name is the second on the list ; the Commander of the Forces is examined, and the Se. eretary for Ireland does not condescend or is too much pressed by occupation to at- tend. This is a precious mode of managing Irish business. And what does he tell the House? 'Having neglected to attend himself on the inquiry, he tells the House not to inquire. Bed what is most strange is this, that he quotes the Report, and egre- giously misconceives it. This Report states that a Special Commission has been and will he eflicient : it recommends a continued Sessions with a Jury ; and then the high Secretary, not understanding it, represents it as containing an approval of the abolition of all Juries. Then conies the evidence of Mr. Barrington, the Crown Solicitor, who de- clares that the ordinary law is quite adequate to every purpose; and the Chief Justice's address et awns the whole, in which he, expresses his convection that the actual law will meet every purpose. [Here Mr. Sheil read extra:its from the charge.] But was the At- torney .0eneral silent on that occasion? No ; he threw in his attestation to the firm- ness of the Juries, and declared that a conviction had taken place in 38 cases out of 39. [Mr. Sheil read the Attorney-General's speech.] What will you say to all this evi- dence? Why, you will produce a vile ballad, and fling the literary puddle of the town of Clonmel in our fides ; and you will read anonymous letters from your miserable me- Ilia's and interested terrorists in the Police, and on documents which would not be re- ceived as evidence in an assault case in a court ofjustice."

There were trials for combination against tithes in Clonmel, Dublin,

Kerry, and Cork ; and in every case convictions were obtained. Lord Althorp himself allowed that not a juror was injured. It was absurd to say that jurors would not attend : let the gentry of the county be summoned, and be heavily fined for non-attendance • 1 they would throng to the ordinary tribunals of the country. Provide witnesses with due protection ; let them emigrate if necessary. This would cause expense, but let liberty be preserved at any price. It was clear, notwithstanding Lord Althorp had said that the bill was not intended to be used for the collection of tithe, that it could and would be used for that purpose.

" The Irish Secretary contradicts the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says that offences connected with tithes Shall be punished by the courts-martial. Now, look to the Act of George III. c. 57 : combination against tithes, or obstructing a clergyman in their collection by any unlawful means, is made a crime; afed this statute gives the court-martial cognizance of the offence, because it embodies the clause in its enact- ments. It is, then, clear, beyond dispute, that this act is to have the effect of extorting an abominable impost by means of martial law; and the officer of the Army, who has been impeded on one day in levying tithes in any way, is to try the wretched peasantry on the next, for an offence in which his own feelings are deeply engaged. Admirable legislation! the Judge is not only to be a soldier, but he is to be a party in his own cause."

Ministers had deserted all their former principles and professions; and shut themselves out from their advocacy in all time hereafter— "Alas, Sir. they think that they are only depriving us of liberty, when they are depriv- ing themselves of the opportunity of ever being again its advocates. They are deserting the lofty principles, the ramparts of the constitution, on which they kept their sleepless watch. llow will they' ever be able again to raise their voices against coercion in this country? When the wheel of official fortune, which is subject to steels rotations, shall have gone round, and those who are now on its giddy top shall occupy a different pool- tion,—when those who now occupy the Treasury bench with so much dignity shall re- turn to the bench which they once filled with so much honour, if it shall be deemed necessary, in the midst of any disturbances which may arise even in this. prosperous island, to leave recourse to measures in abridgment of genuine freedom, wheat can they say? Should they venture to expostulate, may not the new Minister, with that sar- castic gentleness in which he is so accomplished an adept. open this statute, and with an impressive gravity read the court-martial clause? (Loud cheers) And may not others, with less effect but greater vehemence, exclaim, 'How can you presume to stand up as the advocate of the People here? Did you not abandon all your former opinions? did you not fling your recorded protests to the winds? did you not abandon the principles on which your entire political conduct was so long founded? did you not suppress discussion, beat liberty to the earth, suspend the Habeas Corpses Act, destroy the freedom of the press in Ireland, overthrow all jus- tice, hurl down the ordinary tribunals, and raise on their ruins the legislation of the Horse Guards and the judicature of the camp?" (Loud cheers.) Mr. MACAULAY said that the speech of Mr. Stanley remained unan- swered. It was unanswerable.

It had been said that it was addressed to the prejudices of English•members, who before had seemed inclined to vote for the suspension of the laws wills respect to Ire- land. He, as an English member, took it upon himself, in behalf of the English them- hers of that House, to repudiate such a charge. It was mere assertion founded upon nothing like truth. With respect to his own feelings, he would say that he had never once risen in that House and experienced feelings like those that agitated him at that moment. It could not be otherwise; for he now saw himself called upon to do that which he never expected to be called upon to do—wheat he hoped never would be ne- cessary—to defend the suspension of the laws of the Constitution.

* He strongly objected to Mr. Sheil's plan for substituting juries of the Aristocracy for the courts-martial. It would be nothing less than • delivering the peasantry over to be tried by the Protestant Magistracy, against whom they felt the bitterest antipathy. The prmdial agitation called for strong measures to suppress it ; and the more so, as it was absolutely connected with political agitation.

He said this, not founding his opinion upon isolated anecdotes, but upon numerous facts that could not be denied by anybody in that House. The most prejudiced per- son, if he fairly weighed those facts, would allow that between the two agitations there was a strong family likeness. That likeness existed both in feature and in principle; • and the principle of each was evidently one and the same—that of preventing peace- . able inhabitants from being loyal to their King. and obeying the laws of their country, by threatening them with a judgment they had not the slightest right to inflict.

It was very easy for the leader of such a body as the Irish Volun- teers to recommend peace and order, and to condemn Whitefeet out- rages, while he kept up the personally lucrative trade of political agi- tation.

Just see wheat a Whitefoot leader may say to a political agitator, and what he had a right to say. "You are a leader for the redress of wrongs—so am I. You are unarmed —so are we; but we keep our arms under lock and key, ready to take them up when the time arrives for their use; and you do nearly the same. There is no difference between us, and you have no right to blame us for following your example." Certainly not ; there is no difference between them—their aim is the same, and they are actuated by the same passions. Let the matter be considered as a question of morality, and the resemblance will still remain. He would ask those political associations, and the Whitefoot leader might put the same questions—" Who made you Judges over your fel- low-countrymen; what right have you to determine on taking up arms, and forming yourselves into what you call a National Guard? You say you have grievances to re- dress—so have we. We have woods to cut down, cultivated grounds to uncultify, houses and farm-yards to burn down, stewards and landlords to dismiss: and we do this with the same right that you have to take upon you to cure your wrongs." (Cheers.) He would confidently repeat, that the outrages of the Whitefeet were inseparably con- nected with political agitation; and that, consequently, both the one anti the other were fit objects for the interference of the Legislature.

This Volunteer Association was said to resemble the Volunteers of 1782, and the Unions of England. The assertion was grossly incorrect, "z It rather resembled the Jacobin Club of the first French Revolution. The devotion of the members to their leaders, and their avowed deter- , rnination to follow them through all perils, were the same. The weak - French Government allowed the Jacobin Club to wax powerful : lie

trusted that our Government would destroy the Volunteer Association in its bud. In answer to the charge of inconsistency which had been

made against Ministers, he said— During the course of the debate, allusion had been made to former measures of tins kiud. But no allusion could apply—no comparison be correct—since no Ministry se yet applied for such measures who stood upon the same grounds with the present MD nisters. The present Ministers had the conndence of the Nation, and would not abuse it. They asked for great powers to be granted them; but, at the same time, they fell that they were responsible to a Reformed Parliament for the use they made of those powers. Besides, they asked for those powers in order to be able to apply to Ireland those measures of redress which they knew she was entitled to. It had been argued, last night, against Ministers, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, that with them it was " to-day con. cession—to-morrow coercion—a quick alternation of kicks and kindness—coaxing with the hand, and spurring with the heel." Such an accusation did not come well and con. sistently from Mr. Bulwer. as he would confess. if he recollected his words on the Ad. dress to the Throne. He said then. " If you ask for coercive powers, why do you soh at the same time. hold out measures of redress ?" That was the very thing Govers ment did; it agreed with Mr. Bulwer's first thoughts,—which, in his humble opinion, were better than his second ones.

He compared the state of Ireland to that of the Scotch High. lands eighty years ago. Lord Lovat Was the leader of the political agi- tation ; the system of burning and robbery was carried on by Rob Roy. A firm and resolute Government broke up the system of intimidation and organization under which both were carried on ; and the High. landers lived to bless the severity used towards them at that period, andthe salutary wisdom which dictated that severity. Mr. Macaulay concluded by asserting his perfect independence, and by declaring that he did not compromise any of his former opinions by voting for this bill.

Upon all occasions he would act with the dignity and freewill that became him as a member of that House ; he would do no in defiance of all that might be said; and On the present occasion lee would stand up for the powers the Government demanded. 'When he said this, he said it with the firm conviction that he could defend his opinion and his acts, which were the results of those opinions, before those to whom he (mei his seat in that House, and to whom above all others he considered himself more ies mediately responsible. Those constituents understood liberty in the way all rational beings understood it; and they never would confound it with the maniac ravings of those who neither understood it nor appreciated its blessings.

Mr. J. tionm.xv, while he admitted the erdstence of outrages and agitation in Ireland, felt bound to inquire whether the enactment of the proposed bill was the right way to suppress them. He had gleaned out the difficult cases adduced in justification of the passage of this bill, but had not come to the conclusion that it would have the effect of removing the evils complained of. The provisions of the bill would be found in. efficacious while they were in a high degree irritating and arbitrary.

With regard to domiciliary visits, he would willingly go so far as to allow that those who were out beyond a certain hour at night, and were found out, should be considered as guilty of a misdemeanour; but he thought that clause should be confined to time who were found out, and that the houses of the people should not be liable to be searched to see whether or not they were at home. Ile considered those domiciliary visits as ty. rannical and oppressive; and he had no doubt, that in practice, they would be found more harassing to the orderly than to the disorderly. It was intended by this clause of the bill, that as the inmates of a house would generally be known to the Police, they should know if any one of them was absent. But would they know where the places Of resort of the absentees were, if they were among the disorderlies ? Did it not appear, Oa the showing of Me'Stanley, that the persons who created the disturbances were migrs tory, and that these places of meeting were changed continually? How, then, should these domiciliary VislES have the effect of discovering these places of resort, if they west to all districts of the country, spreading alarm and disorder? He therefore thought he was right in saying that this clause would be more harassing to the orderly than to tie disorderly.

He objected to courts-martial for the trial of offenders : he would not grant such powers as the bill would confer upon men who were noted for unreflective obedience. The argument used by Lord Althorp —that if it were necessary to violate the Constitution at all, it was more dangerous to pass a moderate measure than a violent one—was untenable and surprising. He expressed his abhorrence of such a doc- trine. If it were necessary to violate the Constitution, let Minister: allow that they did violate it, but let them do as little mischief as pos- sible. The whole argument alluded to amounted simply to this—that the present Ministers have determined to enact such a measure as no Ministers who followed them would ever dare to attempt. It was against a less penal measure than this, introduced at a time too when we were at war with France (in 1807), . and when even Mr. Grattan admitted that there was a French party in Ireland, that his father, Sir Samuel Romilly, had most solemnly protested, and voted against in a minority of ten, which included Sheridan and Sir Arthur Pigott. Mr- Romilly said, though the Administration contained many men whore he respected, still he could not forget that there were also included in it some of those who in 1807 passed the arbitrary act against Ireland to which he had alluded. He thought that Mr. Tennyson's amendment

should have been that the bill be read that day six months. He snip.posed that he walled to throw out the bill, and that would have beer

the plainer and more direct mode of doing it.

Lord MAHON thought that the present state of Ireland did not re- quire so rigorous a measure as the one proposed. He was at any rate certain, that two years ago, a less rigorous measure would have been more efectual for the suppression of disturbances than this was likely to be now. He gave a very reluctant consent to the measure.

Mr. FERGUS O'CONNOR denied that there were any disturbances in Cork. He had no doubt that the member for Kilkenny would gone similar testimony. as to the state of that county. If the country ha been for so long m such a dreadful situation, why had not Ministers in- troduced some remedial measure before ? The reason was, that while the Reform Bill was pending, the cry of agitation was music to then ears. The root of all the real disturbances was to be found in the speech of Mr. Stanley, who had promised the extinction of tithes, and which promise he had broken. The Ministry would find what the voice of the people could do. They would find that they could not stifle Irish liberty in its infancy. The voice of the people had driven Caius Marius from Rome. (Shouts of laughter . Since the name of Rome was distasteful to them, he would bring them nearer 'home the voice of the people had brought Charles the First of England to the block; it ea the voice of the people which drove Charles the Tenth from his throne; it was Its voice of the people which passed the Reform Bill, and the voice of the people would, zat on this pressing occasion fail to protect the constitution. At this part of his speech, considerable mirth was occasioned by tbe manner in which Mr. O'Connor attempted to speak at Mr. Stanley, while he still continued to address the Speaker—. a Would you dare, Sir, to propose such a measure for England ? I ask you, Sir, are you not the most unpopular man in Ireland ?" (Great laughter ; in which the Speaker heartily joined, and said ' I hope not.") Gentlemen laughed shin he addressed them seriously, and looked grave at his jokes : like the drummer, beat them wherever he might, he could not please them. (Renewed laughter.)

Mr. CAREW said that the county of Wexford was tranquil. Other parts of Ireland might require the strong measure proposed. He should, 'however, examine the details of the bill closely. He knew of instances where the people had behaved with great moderation,—where in- quests had been held on Whitefeet shot by the Police, and the farmers had returned a verdict acquitting the Police ; the consequence of which

ss, was, that the people were satisfied and remained peaceable. He also knew of many instances of great outrages being perpetrated ; and he

4 really thought that industrious people required protection. lie would :=4 support Lord Althorp's motion.

Mr. CLAY said that Mr. Stanley's speech, however able, was cal- culated to lead the House into one great error—that of substituting '4, local, personal, and party feelings, in place of the general good, as the basis of legislation ; a principle of legislation that was in the last de- . gree dangerous.

He would say, that he bad no feeling of hostility against Afirtisters ; he was disposed

to give them his warmest support ; lie owed them gratitude for what they had done as ' to Reform, and he was confident that their intentions were most pure. For them to ... leave office, would be a great national calamity ; for he saw no other set of men who ..:- possessed the power to carry those measures of further Reform which the country de- '. manded and must attain, and at the same time preserve order. The disposition to place -: confidence in them most not, however, lead him too far—not so far as to oppose those

principles which were the basis of his political creed. Many independent men in that House, who wished well to Ministers, would not enter with them into the present path, and many more would enter it with the deepest regret.

Nothing but urgent necessity could justify the employment of force.

Let Ministers be quite sure that their cause was just before they had recourse to such a measure—before they resolved to employ force against a whole people; and the employment of force by the Government against the people was a prima fade proof - that the Government was wrong. ('‘ No, no !") There was always a presumption, when the Government employed force against the people, that it was to support a mea- sure of injustice ; and let them, he said, be sure to do justice before they employed ' force—to redress every grievance before they had recourse to coercion. Measures of coercion were the last which could be called for on this occasion. One part of the mea- sure he did not approve of: another part—that which went to strengthen the law and protect life and property, to put a stop to outrage and restore order—to that extent he

. approved of the measure, and to that extent lie thought Ministers had made out a case. He did not approve of the military tribunals. There was no reason why justice should not be administered by the ordinary tribunals—no reason why a Special Commission should not be issued to suppress the outrages.

He would not oppose the first reading of the bill : but, at the proper time, he would give his decided opposition to those parts of it which went beyond the suppression of outrages. He concluded by saying— If lit saw a full measure of justice done to Ireland, and if Mr. O'Connell should then continue his agitation for Repeal—if he saw him acting from any motives or low and selfish ambition, though he did not think that he would act on such motives,—but if he saw agitation pursued after justice had been done, to chase the phantom of Repeal, which must lead to the ruin of the empire, he should be one of the first to grant Ministers all the power they could ask.

Major BEAUCLERE said, that misgovernment was the cause of the evils which England suffered from Ireland ; and yet Ministers were about to make the wrong and the cause of all these evils much greater.

' The question would probably be decided for Ministers by a well-dressed majority of

the House. (Load cries of "No, no ! ") But who were their supporters in this scheme of oppression? The very men who were distinguished for their hatred of liberty—that faction which had been so long the objecrof invective to the very members of the Ad- ministration, and had so obstinately resisted the rights of the people. The Ministry might plume themselves on such assistance ; but he would say, that the intelligent por- tion of the English community—the educated, reflecting, honest classes—felt the suffer- ings of Ireland as warmly as any Irish gentleman.

The bill was one which every honest man must view with feelings of

hatred. If it were carried, he for one would declare, that out of the House he would not obey it. ( Cheers and laughter.) Mr. T. LENNARD thought that Mr. Shell had failed in shaking one single fact or argument contained in the convincing speech of Mr. Stanley. If he had felt any doubts as to the propriety of supporting Government, they would have been removed by that speech. He would not grant the delay asked for by Mr. Tennyson, unless he could

be satisfied that no outrages would be committed in Ireland in the meanwhile.

Lord EERINGTON asked Major Beauclerk what he meant by a ‘‘ well-dressed majority?" Major BEAUCLERK said, he used the term in no offensive sense ; but merely meant to refer to the order and arrangement of honourable members on the various benches rising behind each other.

Lord EBRINGTON was the last man to take advantage of a word hastily spoken in the heat of debate ; but he would tell the opponents

of Ministers, that they would not be able to shake the confidence of the people in those men, the whole tenor of whose lives proved them to be the firm friends of popular rights. He supported the bill with great reluctance. 'He disliked courts-martial, but thought that the exe- cution of the bill ought not to be intrusted to the Magistracy. He hoped that men of higher rank than those required in it would be alone eligible to sit on the court-martials. He had the fullest confidence in the Ministry, and was sure that the Marquis of Anglesea would use the powers intrusted to him as sparingly as possible.

Mr. H. L. BULWER moved the adjournment of the House. Lord ALTHORP would not object to it, but thought that some hour should be named for the closing of the debate.

Mr. O'CONNELL disclaimed being a party to any such bargain.

"No man has a right to dictate to me what course I should pursue. I am the repro sentative of the People of Ireland. (Loud cries of • No, 110 and laughter.) I am the representative of thecapital of Ireland, and I believe there has been no petition against my return."

A Member objected to Mr. O'Connell's styling himself the member for Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNELL explained that he meant the capital of Ireland. No man should dictate to him when he should address the House.

Lord ALTHORP disclaimed all such intention. After a few words from Dr. BALDWIN, the House adjourned, at a quarter after twelve.

The adjourned debate, on Friday night, was opened by Mr. H. L. Bumvxu., He would not vote that the bill he read that day six months,—he did not consider that to be a proper mode of dis- posing of a subject which required great consideration ; but he wished time for evidence ; and the House should recollect that if a short delay was granted, the results of the Assizes in Ireland might be known. He would therefore vote for Mr. Tennyson's amendment. He thought that the conciliatory measures in progress would have great effect in quieting the people, especially when they knew that coercive measures would follow if mild ones proved ineffectual. He denied that Mr. Stanley had by any means made out that the prmdial agitation was con- nected with the political agitation. The violent speeches of Mr. Steele, and the miserable ballad about the liberation of Ireland by Mr. O'Connell, were very insufficient substitutes for grave documentary evidence and from credible witnesses. Mr._ Stanley had read only those parts of Mr. Barrington's evidence which suited his purpose ; he had omitted to say that Mr. Barrington by no means recommended the adoption of coercive measures. Mr. H. Bulwer concluded by remind- ing the House, that although the most perfect confidence might be placed in Earl Grey's discretion, and his love of the liberties of his country, still there were two questions to be asked—Is he certain to remain in office ? is he certain that his conciliatory measures will be carried ?

Sir GEORGE GREY supported the bill, from a conviction of its abso- lute necessity. It was not because the measure was one for Ireland only and did not extend to this country. It was morally impossible that England or Scotland could ever be in similar circumstances ; but if these countries were so placed, he would vote for a similar measure. He objected most strongly to that part of the bill which related to courts-martial; but it was difficult to find a substitute for them that was not still more objectionable. It had been said that agitation re- pressed instead of creating disturbances. Why, then, did not Mr. O'Connell repress them ? Surely, if agitation could effect it, he had the power in his own bands.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that when England was in a worse state that Ireland, no such extraordinary measures had been resorted to for her pacification. Comparing the situation of England and of Ireland, he would ask in what part of Ireland had raged a conflagration which desolated one of the first commercial cities of the empire ? What castle of Ireland had smoked with rebellious fires like that of Nottingham ? What agrarian disturbances had convulsed any county of' Ireland as they had convulsed Hampshire ? Exaggerate the case of Government as you would, not one of the instances of crime in Ireland, nor all of them put together, equalled, either in atrocity or in disregard of law, what had been done in England.

The Ministers, it seemed, threatened to resign- if this bill was not carried.

Ile should not be deterred in his vote by any fear lest another Government could not be formed. Ile was not alarmed even at the idea of a Tory Government. (Laugh- ter on all sides.) Let Ministers pass this bill, and they would soon find, like one of the members for 'Westminster, that they were in an uncomfortable situation. ma 'raises could not remain in office longer than Whigs, if the people did not sanction their mea- sures ; and in his conscience, be believed that the best Government for the county: would be a Tory Ministry, acting under the recollection of their former errors. (31ac-Is langhter.) The truth was, that the cause of the people was never more deserted than at this moment. Suppose a Tory Minister had come down upon this question with his red box and his thirteen cases spread over fourteen months. the Whigs would have started in a phalanx from the Opposition Benches to resist it, and it would have been. impossible Ibr the Speaker to decide which of the eager orators had first caught his eye. (Laughter.) They would have talked of the House of Brunswick, of the Constitution, of the laws, and what not; and of their predecessors, the Somerss, the Russells, and the Hampdens, while the Tory Government would have been denounced as a Cabinet of traitors, united for the destruction of the liberties of the country. (Cheers.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, with respect to Mr. Tennyson's amend- ment, that it would be more manly and consistent with their dignity as legislators, to apply themselves at once to the present measure, if it were requisite—if not, to put a negative upon it directly. Ministers brought forward measures which they considered necessary to enable them to carry on the government— Parliament was to decide between three things—whether they would allow the go- vernment of Ireland to be in the hands of the midnight legislators, the Whitefeet ; or in those of an individual wielding the democracy of Ireland at his command ; or whe- ther they would assert and maintain it to be in the Crown and in the Parliament of a united people?

It was expected that the Catholic Association would be dissolved after Emancipation was granted.

But no: the power the person before mentioned held, in consequence of the denial of Catholic claims, was not withdrawn from him by the Irish people. Through gratitude, or through some other motive, they still adhered to him, and were prepared to adopt whatever measures he advised. That pewer and influence he still holds, and wished seemingly to retain it, from what motivvs it was not easy to devise ; they may be mo- tives of personal aggrandizement, of a double ambition, or they may be motives of the purest patriotism. No one knew. However, that individual continued to recommend agitation for certain purposes, of course only known to himself.

With regard to the first agitation—that for relief from the Catholic disabilities—

This extraordinary case happened, that while the people were excited to the utmost the public peace was preserved; and, as Mr. O'Connell had said, the perpetration of

outrages was prevented by the existence of the Catholic Association. But when the second. agitation commenced, the result was not similar; on the contrary, wherever agi-

tation was tried, outrages commenced of the most violent and detestable kind,—outrages

which for a time the law was able to suppress, but which in the end overcame the law, awl prostrated it at the feet of a ruthless and sanfuinary rabble. It was in evidence befare the Committee on the state of Ireland. that in many places where this agitation evailed, the Whitefeet were the same persons who attended the tithe meetings. They were ready to accept of agitation for one purpose,—namely, to get rid of the tithe sys-

tem,—but they were also prepared to remedy their own grievances, which went beyond

the tithe system, and extended in many eases to the ejection of persons from lands which they thought that other parties were better entitled to hold. Mr. Stanley had stated, on a former night, that of 150 outrages of this kind not one had been tried. Ile remem- bered, that in the month of December last, there had been scarcely one case of outrage committed connected with tithe, but many outrages of a different character. Yesterday

he had received a letter stating, that on the night of the 19th February, six or eight

violent outrages had been perpetrated, all for the purpose of compelling persons to sur- render land. They were told, however, that this was not political agitation: it had been set on foot, however, by those whom political agitation had moved,—by men who, having been told that the best mode of obtaining a redress of grievances was to make resistance where resistance was legally due, thought right to make resistance in other murders, Heit was not legal, by the commission of nocturnal outrages, robberies, and He defended the appointment of Courts-martial and the power of making domiciliary visits. Every gentleman connected with Ireland

thought the latter necessary. The Committee which sat last year, though it did not recommend the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, recommended that any man who was twice absent from home at night

should be sent to gaol for a month, by any Magistrate, without the in- tervention of a Jury. The only way to give employment to the Irish poor, would be to restore tranquillity to the country; and that would be done by this bill. V From whom, be asked, could employment come, except from men in the possession. of capital? and what capitalist would invest his capital in Ireland lode' he was certain that his property would not be destroyed and his servants would not be inurdered performing his behests ? If employment be wanted in Ireland, pass acts to give it to the people ; but do not fancy that you are doing your duty towards Ireland by refusing your coasent to a measure without which life mid libevty will be lett inseeare, a.nd made the sport of every ruffispfly highwayman. .Mr. H. GRATTAN charged Mr. Stanley with only producing one- sided evidence.

Be showed the worst side, and hid the best. • Ile alluded to the murder of Potts, Gregory. and Maram, and made them the cardinal poilds of his statement. But why dffiraid Mr. Stanley read to the House the evidence of Johnson and of the steward or Lord Lansdowne ? That evidence would show that the act:: of tyranny were not re- sisted until they were successively repeated for years, and until those who at length bemuse guilty of the crime of murder were goaded to it by the most inhuman nets of barlurity. In that evidence, it was stated that Gregory practised every species of tyranny over those under his enthority. He ejected the peasant from his habitation without having recourse to any form of legal proceeding. and be turned out upon the highroads wives and children there to starve and die. Gregory had not practised this tyranny for one year alone, but for several years; and he was proverbial for cheating the labourer out of part of his hire, or for withholding it entirely from him.

He denied that the country was so, disturbed as was represented.

He had letters that day from the counties of Meath, Cork, Kerry, Limerick and Waterford, and Queen's County, all of which stated those counties to be in a state of complete tranquillity. He would read a passage from one letter, to show the system made use of in order to keep up the appearancelof disturbance : " The police reports which are made up for tile Castle are highly pictured and exaggerated. They are made up_by persons who have an interest in keeping up the disturbances. This county (Meath) was never more tranquil than it is at present. There were oaly 53 persens committed for trial at the Assizes [he would remind the House that this was out of a population of 200,000 souls], and one half of those were out on bail." They were thou told that it was impossible to obtain Jurors who would convict even on the clearest evidence, Mr. Grattan did not think so ; and he had the opinion of Judge Foster to the same effect, who said,that " He never would. believe that sufficient Jurors could not he found to do their duty."

.Sir W. HORNE defended the bill,.on the ground of the necessity of applying some extraneous force to compel obedience to the laws. He asserted that the connexion between prmdial and political agitation was . clearly proved by the proceedings of the Volunteer. Society, and by those of Mr. O'Connell and his friend Mr.. Steele.

• Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the dreadfully.disorganized state of Ire- land was notorious. He quoted the charge of Baron Smith to the Grand Jury of Queen's County, -to prove that murders, rapes, and robberies, were fearfully on the increase there. He also quoted the evidence of Mr. O'Connor, a Catholic priest, and of Doctor Doyle, to the same effect.

He did not now say what might be right or wrong to be done; but were they agreed as to the facts, and that a more alarming state of society, established on testimony the most unquestionable, had never existed? (Cheers.) What, then, was the course to be prirsuesl? Were the ordinary powers of the law sufficient to repress the disturbances and outrages that prevailed? No man alleged that they were ; but every man expressed a desire to curb the disturbances. How was that to be effected? By a measure such as the present? It was for the House to decide the question.

It was objected to this bill, that it contained no remedy for the causes of Irish distress and disturbance. This he would not deny.

At the same time that he felt the necessity of this measure, with a view to repress outrage and disturbance, he candidly admitted, that he viewed the general condition of the country, for which, as he had said before, the bill afforded no remedy, with the ut- most dggree of anxiety and apprehension. He lamented to see such party animosity and agitation as now disturbed Ireland. Looking at the state of the country, he per- ceived au increasing population, and another evil reacting on and reproducing the first, —namely, a low scale of comfort, want of employment, want of the usual conveniences and comforts of life. It was because the people were contented with little and inferior food, and because employment v-as scanty, that they were not discouraged from con- tractiug early marriages, the source of an increased population. The two evils went on reacting on and reproducing each other, and . the only check consisted in a deficiency of the potato crop. For that state of things this measure contained no remedy. (Cheers from some Irish members.) Who said it did? (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) But the present state of disorder precluded the application of any remedy. (Renewed (Amy-- jag.) Ile repeated, this measure was no remedy for the original evil; but it put an end to a state of things the continuance of which would be inevitable destruction. As to the original evil, look at the state of the relations subsisting between landlord and tenaut in Ireland.

The existing evils were not to be traced to the Clergy and the Tithe system. The Clergy were innocent.

Do not let us offer up unoffendiug men, who were already despoiled of their rights, as sacrifices for the exactions of others: such a sacrifice would not suffice. He applied to it the words of Lord Bolingbroke on the trial of Sacheverell, which were equally true of the attacks now made on the Clergy, and of their probable result—" They made a fire to roast a parson, but they made it so hut that they burned themselves."

The misery of the farmers and the peasantry was to be attributed to the misconduct of the landlords, not to the exactions of the Clergy. Sir Robert then read extracts from the evidence of Mr. John Walsh, a Roman Catholic Magistrate, which proved that a man who farmed ten or fifteen acres, in ordinary years, after having, paid for rent, seed, and tithes (the latter, on ,a farm of ten acres, amounting to 3/. 48.), had only 31. 4s. left for the payment of taxes, church-rates, and the repair of his cottage; his family being supported by the produce of one acre of potatoes and one cow's milk. With reference to Poor-laws he said— With every desire to afford relief to extreme cases of distress, he must class himself with those who objected togiving Poor-laws to Ireland; for he feared that they would extinguish all the property Of the country, and -amount to a simple agrarian law. He was not decidedly against all Poor-laws ; he did not say that such a modification of them as would relieve cases of extreme distress, while they did not afford•any tempta- tion to idleness, should be at once rejected ; but, looking to -all the remedies which had yet been proposed, he felt that the country was nearly arrived at that condition described by the Roman historian= Oodles nee vitia nostra nee remcdia path possu- Inns." How could such measures as hind' been proposed stop the anareby that was stalking through the land, or how could it prevent the crimes that were committed? They talked of healing measures ; hut let them-remember, if they placed any hopes to pacify, the people by making concessions; they must go on conceding, and there would be nothing but concession ; and he would suggest that they should not, in any mea- sure, go one point -beyond their own deliberate sense Of-what was due to justice.

• The measure before. the House W8S- one of intolerable severity, un- less there was a necessity for it. He admitted that; but he-denied that it was a suspension of the British constitution.

'The British constitution, in many parts of that country, as described by Dr. Doyle, by Baron Smith, by the Reverend tdr. O'Connor, had been long ago gone. He saw a ghastlyform that called itself. the British constitution. What was the British conch. tution? It was not a form of jurisprudence intended to give impunity to crime. The British constitution presupposed the existence of institutions and implements which could be employed for the protection of life and property. The . British constitution knew nothing of the-abominable doctrine of-passive resistance ; it never took a precau- tion against it,. because it confided in the equity-and justice of Englishmen, and never supposed that the doctrine of passive resistance would be resorted. to by any man as an authority for the purpose of depriving others of their rights. But it had been said, would England tolerate this- law? He asked, would England tolerate the state of things which existed in Ireland? And this state of things existed before this law was brought in, and therefore this question ought to have precedence. It had been denied that the system of political agitation was eon. meted with the insurrection-- Political agitation and insurrectionary violence were said to be totally unconnected: but that, on the contrary, the one %vas adverse to the existence of theother, as the efforts of the politicul agitators were directed to repress outrage. Ile would draw the line be- tween the truth and the error : they were, at certain periods, disunited, and even op. posed, whenever insurrectionary violence was likely to defeat the objects of theaghator. No doubt, m et laudable eillortations were addressed to the people, xecearimendiog sobriety, abstinence from quarrels, and many other virtues. He md not say .they were insincere in such exhortations ; on the contrary, he admitted their perfect sincerity, But what consolation could a nmuifesto, inculcating sobriety, impart to the victims if turbulence? How did it furnish evidence of the utter difference between agitation ail insurrection, when. political agitation could flourish only by a system of perfect disci. pline, and when that discipline would be incomplete until obedience was secured en those points ?

He referred to the history of the Society of the United Irishmen, whose organization and discipline were so complete that they obeyed orders transmitted to them from Dublin without even knowing by whom they were issued. Now this society, which had for its object the overthrow of the Government, was constantly exhorting the people to be sober and peaceable. He would not wait a fortnight, with Mr. Tennyson, to see whether the stream of guilt which was flowing in Ireland would be streaked with a few more or less drops of blood. He grounded his support of the bill on the record of outrages, which it was impossible to gainsay. To all objections there was an answer in the fact, that in one year, and in one province, there had been 196 attempts at murder, 194 burnings, and 1,827 burglaries. These were the justifi- cations for suspending the Constitution. How could society be in a worse state? Great battles and victories had been won without such an expense of human blood. The glorious victory won by Lord St. Vincent did not cost so much; the bombardment of Algiers did not waste so many lives ; and the impetuous tide of French exultation was rolled back at Busaco without such a loss of human blood. (Loud cheers.) He was haunted by recollections of Irish atrocity. In Eng- land, what man did not scorn the threat of assassination ? In Ireland, the notice was given in serious earnestness ; and if the unhappy wretch thus threatened did not remove to some distant place, his life would too surely pay the forfeit. He related the story of a man who had prosecuted certain persons at the Clare Assizes. He came to Dublin for a short time till the affair had blown over, and his thatched roof was pulled down, and a slated one built in -its stead. And he would here divert their attention for a moment to this apparently trivial circumstance, as strongly illus- trative of the state of society in Ireland. In England it was but of little importauce whether a roof was thatched or slated; but in Leland, a slated roof was one step to. wards security in a country where it was but too common a practice to fire the roof, whilst every door and window was guarded for the purpose of driving back or butchering those to whom the progress of the flames.permitted any exertion for their escape. This mam.however, anxious to retain his property, substituted a slated for a thatched roof, Be received a threatening notice. which he communicated to me. I earnestly advised to return Lir Dublin ; which he, anxious to preserve his property, refused to do. SKII4 weeks after, nine, or eleven men (I forget which) surrounded the house. These ruffians came after much deliberation, much conspiracy among themselves, and wimp, by forbearing for some time to carry their threats into execution, they had lulled the vigilance of the unfortunate man, and diminished his precautions against them. They found him asleep—they broke open the door—they brought him to the threshold, and murdered him with pitchforks, within bearing of his wife and children. [The strong emotion excited in the House by the narrative of this circumstance, and the pathos of Sir R. Peel's acting, is, according to the Chronicle's report, " indescribable."] The eldest child was nine years of age. "The heroic ma- titer, aware of the doom that awaited her, and that remonstrance was useless, hid the child ip a recess of the immense fireplace, at the same time stirring up the flames. She said to the child (whom I saw, and indeed had under my charge for some years), 'Tire cries you hear are the cries of your murdered father—my turn will be next—in this re- cess you may escape observation. I will struggle to the utmost, and my dying action shall be to cast a turf upon the fire. Mark well the murderers—and avenge your mur- dered parents.' ( Vehement cheers.) And on that child's evidence it was, confirmed by other testimony, that Owe- men afterwards forfeited their lives for that murder."

Sir Robert concluded by stating, that if this measure were refused, the inevitable result would be a state of things in which every founda- tion of _civil society would be subverted—in which there would be no punishment except for innocence, and no security but for crime.

Mr. RUTHYEN moved an adjournment ; which Lord ALTHORP ear- nestly opposed ; and it was rejected by a majority of 466 to 68. Ano- ther motion to the same effect was rejected by 468 to 63.

Mr. J. H. Lton then spoke against the bill.

Dr. BALDWIN moved and Mr. O'CONNELL seconded an adjournment to -Monday.

Lord ALTHORP would no longer object to the adjournment, as it was now later than when he first objected.

Sir R. H. INGLIS protested against the time of the House being wasted in the discussion of Irish affairs. Lord Althorp would lose the respect of the House if he thus yielded to clamours for adjournment : be ought on Monday to take measures for bringing the discussion to a close.

Mr. O'CONNELL said that nothing could be- more unfounded than the statement that the Irish members had taken more than an adequate share in this debate. (g Oh t") How many Irish members had spoken? One on the first night of the debate two 011 the second night, and another on the present night. Let it be recollected that the Irish members were deeply interested, in this question. The English gentlemen were there in a judicial character; they were the judges; but the Irish were to be the 'victims.

The House, at half-past one o'clock, adjourned to Monday.

2. hum VENUE BILL. This bill went through the Committee in the Lords on Tuesday, and Was passed on Thursday.

3. ABOLITION OF Inuit TITHES. A long conversation took place on Wednesday, on the presentation of a petition by Captain WEMYSS, . from •LeSlie. in Fifeshire praying for the abolition of the Church Esta- blishment in Ireland, and the application of its revenues to the uses of the State.•

GILLON, Mr. O'DwvER, and Mr. BARROW complained of the manner in which Church property had been diverted from.the legiti- mate purposes of educating and supporting the poorer classes ; and contended, -that there would be no tranqUillity in Ireland as long as the Protestant 'Church was supported by compulsory payments from Catholics.

Mr. M. D. 'HILL said, that the effect of abolishing tithes would be to put their produce into the pockets of the landlords. There was no necessity 'for- passing any acts, as had been asserted, in the time of Henry the Eighth, for the transfer of the tithes from Catholics to Pro- testants ; for the clergy became convinced of • their Catholic 'errors as soon,as the Head of the Church was convinced ; which therefore-pre- cluded the necessity of making any transfer.

Mr. COBBETT said, that all grants of tithes were made subject tathe performance of certain duties. The parson had a very small share of Lord Wirmorna disapproved of Lord King's mode of introducing these subjects into Parliament. It only tended to increase the "rim upon the Church," which was made without any just cause, and to em- bitter the dreadful spirit against it which existed at the present time.

Lord. KING then presented another petition from the inhabitants of a parish -in Cumberland, who complained of being harassed by the tithe system.

According to the petition, a system of extreme and vexations legal persecution had been carried on against them ever since 1816, in order to upset a long-established mo- dus; that they had fully proved their modes in the evidence which they gave in the cause ; that they had had the decisions of Sir John Leach. Lord Eldon, and Lord Lyndhurst in their favour; and yet a third suit was now in progress. It was circum- stances like these which occasioned that ran agaiast the Church which Lord Wynford deprecated.

On Wednesday, the Bishop of BATH and WELLS defended theRector of Borebam. He said that the clergyman in question was a most ex- cellent man and had never raised, but on the contrary had lowered his tithes. The petition presented by Lord King had been got up by Mr. Pierce, his Lordship's agent. He hoped that Lord King meant to make the amende honorable for his unjustifiable attack.

Lord KING said that he meant to do nothing of the kind. The Bishop could not deny that the rector had demanded the tithe of her- rings, or that he had made the parish too hot to hold him. Every far- mer in the parish except two had signed the petition ; which was not got up by Lord King's instigation, but on the contrary, be had directed Ins agent, a lessee of land in the parish, not to interfere respecting the petition. the tithes in Ireland. The Aristocracy had by far the largest portion ; and the object of the Ministerial Court-martial Bill was to force the People to pay the money due to the Aristocracy. There were only five hundred Protestant clergymen in Ireland, but there were two thou- sand five hundred Catholic priests. The lords, baronets, and squires of Ireland, not the Hierarchy, enjoyed the tithes and oppressed the people.

Lord &trims. agreed with Mr. Cobbett in believing that it was the squirearchy, not the clergy, who enjoyed the principal part of the Irish tithes. He mentioned the circumstance of an Irish gentleman who cleared his estate of a surplus population, by turning eleven hundred people upon the highways to shift for themselves; some of whom went to the towns, others to neighbouring estates, and others became thieves and vagabonds. No English landlord would dare to act in this way. Mr. SHEIL said, that the statement of Mr. Cobbett as to the com- parative amount of tithes held by the laity and clergy was erroneous. The laity held only about 100,0001. per annum, while the clergy laid claim to 600,000/.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that Mr. Sheil's calculation was nearer the truth than Mr. Cobbett's. It would be unwise to enter then into the discussion of the tithe question, but he could say, that Ministers had a measure to propose on that subject. When the Church Reform came regularly before the House, Mr. Stanley would be prepared to answer all pertinent questions upon the subject..

4. Pooa-Laws IN IRELAND. In reply to a question by Colonel TYRRELL, on Tuesday, Mr. STANLEY said that Government were not prepared to bring in a bill to establish Poor-laws in Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that he was in favour of establishing Poor- laws for the relief of the aged, infirm, and insane, but opposed to giving parish relief to the able-bodied. He had been misrepresented on that point. He would apply part of the Ecclesiastical revenues to the purposes of Poor-laws.

5. PETITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF MR. STANLEY. Lord TEvsniam, on Tuesday, presented a petition from the parish of St. Michael and St. George, Dublin for the removal of .111r. Stanley from the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland ; but withdrew it, upon the re- presentation of Earl Grey and Lord Brougham, that it was irregular

• to petition the House to remove an officer of the Government, who was appointed, and could only be removed, by the King.

6. TITHES, AND CLERICAL PATRONAGE OF TIIE CHANCELLOR.

• Lord KING, on Tuesday night, presented a petition from Boreham, in the county of Somerset, complaining of the attempt of the Rector to exact the tithe of herrings caught upon the coast. This attempt, Lord King stated, had so exasperated the parishioners, that it had made Borehana "a little Ireland." The Rector had been burnt in effigy, and had fled the parish. He was one of those lately appointed by the Lord Chancellor; who had made it his practice to confer livings upon clergy- men recommended by the Bishops. The Chancellor did this, of course in order to stand well with the Bishops ; who generally were the tools of every successive Government, but they would not be the tools of this Administration.

Lord Brougham. who knew so much of history, would recollect The reply of the Duke of I'llartou to William the Third, when that King remarked to him that he thought the Tories were a very convenient and a very accommodating set of men, whom it might be to his advantage to employ, The Duke agreed with his Majesty that the Tories were certainly very good tools, but his Majesty must recollect that he was not the King of the Tones. He would tell Ministers that they were not the Ministers of

• the Tories.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND asked if the tithes had been exacted ? Lord KING—" No; the tithe proctor was burnt in effigy, and no steps have been since taken to enforce the payment of tithes."

Lord BROUGHAM said, if there were no custom authorizing the col- lection of the tithe of herrings, the petitioners would obtain redress in a court of law, if the claim of the Rector were attempted to be enforced. The Rector was a very unlikely man to enforce a claim of that nature. He had given him the living because he was a very deserving man, who was a preacher at one of the new churches, which had been burnt down. He would have been reduced with his family to great distress if he had not given him the living in question. It was evidently quite impossible for the Lord Chancellor to go travelling about the country seeking proper persons upon whom to confer livings of 30/. 40/. and 60/. per annum; and he had therefore applied to the Bishops to recom- mend persons who might be appointed to them. This was done for the good of the Church, and without any reference whatever to politics.

Lord KING said the Lord Chancellor might have great discernment as to human nature in general, but he knew very little of clerical na- ' Cure. The Bishop of EXETER charged Lord King with having stated in- correctly some circumstances with regard to the conduct of the Dean of Exeter, in the payment of the officiating clergymen of two parisheein Devonshire, Silverton and Swainbridge, and with having levied hearp fines upon the renewal of leases, while the salaries of the curates re- mained at the sam'e low rate as before. This he denied. The Dean had not raised a sixpence by fines during the twenty years he had been, the impropriator of the tithes.

Lord KING replied, that all he had said was that the officiating der-. gymen were very ill paid in those parishes. The fines had not beers increased by the Dean, because no leases had dropped in.

7. BREACII OF PRIVILEGE. Lord TEYNHAM, on Wednesday„ moved that the editor and printer of the Standard should be brought to the bar of the House on Thursday, for styling Lord King and him- self " the Church-hating Gemini," " scoundrels," and the " Devil's advocates," in an article which appeared in their journal of that evening.*

Lord BROUGHAM hoped, that if Lord Teynham persevered in his motion, Lord King at least would not join him in taking any notice of such trumpery.

Lord KING said that he did not concur with Lord Teynham; and that he had no objection to be called the Devil's Advocate,—understand- ing that, in the Court of Rome, the Devil's Advocate was an impor- tant person, whose duty it was ex officio to warn the Pope against admitting any improper person on the roll of Saints. He was rather gratified therefore with the appellation.

Lord TEYNHAII said, in that case, he must be content to take his share of the fun. So he withdrew the motion.

8. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Mr. HUME presented a petition on Tuesday, signed by 5,330 persons in the Metropolis, for a reform in the criminal law relating to capital punishment.

Mr. PEASE entirely, concurred in the prayer of the petition, an thought that the character of a Christian country and a Christian Le- gislature was at stake when they were called upon to wipe away such.. a stigma from the criminal law of the country.

The system, as at present existing, was at variance with the principles of the Christiam religion. Why should a man convicted of murder, for instance, be executed within forty-eight hours after the sentence? Why should he, in so short a space, be called into the presence of Omnipotence, when the points of law on which his fate depended were often so doubtful as to require hours of discussion before the Judges could decide?

Sir J. CAMPBELL reminded the House, that much had been done int softening the severity of the criminal laws by the last Parliament.

Mr. GEORGE LAMB mentioned, that a gentleman in every respect highly qualified for such a service had been sent to the United States to examine the m'ode of secondary punishment in that country, and tor give this country the benefit of American experience in the treatment of criininals.

Sir W. HORSE (the Attorney-General) was of opinion that the severity of the criminal law might be mitigated still further, with ad- vantage to society.

9. LABOUR IN FACTORIES. Colonel TORRENS presented a petition, on Tuesday, in favour of the Ten-hours Bill. Mr. FRYER said that the tax on bread was the cause of the cruelty of the manufacturers to the children in their employ. Means would' be taken out of doors, if not within the House, to put an end to that odious tax.

Mr. CUTLAR FEneessox objected to the threatening language of Mr. Fryer. He approved of Mr. Sadler's bill.

Mr. HUME defended the master manufacturers. They were not the brutes they were called. The necessity of paying 55s. a quarter for wheat, which the operatives in other countries could obtain for 33s., was the real cause of all this overworking and wretchedness.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD also attributed the sufferings of the operatives in a great measure to the Corn-laws. Stern necessity compelled the mas- ters to grind down poor children by extraordinary labour.

A Member mentioned, that at a meeting held some time since in Manchester, Mr. Oastler and the Reverend Mr. Bull entered the. town with flags and banners bearing inflammatory mottoes. From one of the flags two ropes were suspended, wherewith to hang master- manufacturers. At the same meeting it was said, that at the Day of Judgment the sentence pronounced upon those manufacturers would be„ "Depart from me into everlasting fire prepared for ye."

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS hoped that the question would be dispassion- ately considered. He was largely connected with manufactures ; and, in common with most others in the same business, was desirous that the question should be brought before Parliament. Mr. HARDY presented a petition, on Thursday, from a considerable number of Bradford manufacturers, in favour of the Ten-hours BilL He was convinced that a case had been made out for the interference of the Legislature. Mr. STRICKLAND said that the question was not one in which the interest of the master-manufacturers was singly concerned, it was also a question of humanity. He never would believe that the welfareof the country could be advanced by crippling the limbs of her children.. Though the evidence adduced before the Committee was only on one side, it was nevertheless so complete, convincing, and unanswerable, that no counter-evidence could affect it.

• This is the passage of the Standard of Wednesday, to which Lord TETWITAX al- luded—" As far as the interests of the clergy are concerned (to use a trivial phrase), we glory in the displays of Lords King and Teynham. Representing, as these Lords vo- lunteer to do, the Devil's Advocates, the manifestations of abortive labour and ineffec- tual spite made in their false and in their trumpery charges would insure the canonika- tion of any church. without one word being said in its favour. There are, perhaps, fen or twelve thousand ministers in the United Church ; and about every session Lords King and Teynham come down with their little driblet of imputation upon a parsim of a small parish—here a lecturer of some obscure chapel—there a curate who would not , bury or marry or something at the command of. the Dissenting teachers—or a rector who demands all or more than all his tithes. The year yields, say some half-doireir to each of the Church.hating Gemini—the majority inevitably wholly false in master of statement; and these are the charges—which would not be noticed if they were not singular and striking eXceptions—that serve as the text for those long invectives against the whole body of the clergy that give renown to the titles of King and of Teynhim. There are scoundrels every where, and the House of Lords cannot be exempted front the knowledge that there are." Mr. COBBETT said, that those who supposed it was in the power of the masters to put an end to -the evils complained of, were under a mis- take. What was the cause of the sufferings of the childrea ?

Let them confess it at once. It was because the people were ground to the earth with taxation,—becaUse every artiste which they consumed was loaded with taxes, whilst the rich almolikescaped taxation altogether. (A laugh.) Notwithstanding the laugh of the right honourable baronet on the Treasury Bench, he should be able to prove that assertion satisfactorily to the House on a future day. He said that the poor were ground to the earth by taxes laid on by the rich, from winch they themselves escaped almost entirely ; and therefore they were reduced to the necessity of either starving, or driving their children to work in the factories. Ile certainly would vote for the bill if it should be introduced: On this occasion Ile would pin his faith to the sleeve of his honourable colleague (Mr. Fielden), who was a great manufacturer, and employed more men, perhaps, than soy other manufacturer in the country. Mr. Fielden understood the subject perfectly well ; which he (Mr. Cobbett) (lid not. ("Rear !" and a laugh.) Not so fast. He did not say that he did not understand the cause which induced parents to drive their children into the factories, but that he understood nothing about spinning-jennies, power.loorns. and the sort of work which was done in cotton- factories. Let the House always keep in view, that this law was required not to restrain the masters, but parents from being cruel to their own children ; and that they were driven to be thus cruel by the heavy burden of taxes which pressed upon them, of which the rich bore hardly any share.

Mi. METHUEN in Strong terms reprobated the almost nightly attempts of Mr. Cobbett to create ill.will in the poor towards the rich. The language which he used was the same which for many years had been employed in the Political Register, and in "twopenny trash.'' • Mr. O'CONNELL thought that Mr. Methuen would have acted more wisely in remedying the in;-stice which Mr. Cobbett had demonstrated to exist, and which Lord _ horp admitted to exist, in the operation of the Assessed Taxes.

Mr. Methuen might have spared his sneer at the compositions of the member for Old- ham. The latter was entitled to hold 'what opinions he pleased out of that House, and he possessed a ready pen to deliver them, lie thought, however, that there was mot a man in the House who did not feel it to be creditable to England, that an individual who had commenced life in so humble a station, had, by the unaided force of his in- tellect, raised himself to the proud situation in which he at present stood. (" Hear, hear!") There probably was no country in Europe but England where such an event could have happened. That was the highest culogium which could be passed upon England. He was sorry, therefore, that on the present occasion Mr. Methuen had been hurried away into the expression of something like anger. When he was talking about 'twopenny trash," he might have reflected that there might be more wisdom in what was sold for '2d. than in a splendidly-bound folio volume, fie might also have recol- lected that a great man of the present day had gone below 2d. in the price of the publi- cations with which lie was connected.

Lord A LTHORP wished it to be understood, that he had admitted the inequality of taxation in the particular case only which Mr. Cobbett had brought forward, but denied it as to taxation in general.

A Member, in allusion to a statement made by Mr. Cobbett on a former evening, of the distress existing in one of the districts of York- shire, stated, that persons above sixteen years of age were receiving 2s. a day when employed out of the factories, and 3s. a day when employed in them ; and it was expected that there would soon be more work than hands to execute it.

Mr. GISBORNE could state from his personal knowledge, that there was never less waes f employment in the districts near Manchester than at present.

10. SLAVE EMANCIPATION. Mr. Goosox, on Wednesday, presented a petition from James Window, of Westminster, containing a plan for the gradual abolition of slavery. It contained a proposition for making a compensation to the masters of slaves.

Mr. COBBETT had no doubt that a plan would be proposed to the House containing some such compensation clause ; but if five millions were disbursed, in this way, he should like to know how the people were to get it back again ?

Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that emancipation should precede compen- sation. He thought that the slaves should receive compensation—not the masters. But the plan in question proposed that the compensation- money should be raised by debentures, which were to be liquidated by the labour of the slaves themselves.

Dr. BALDWIN said, the person who proposed such a security for the liquidation of the debentures, should insure the lives of the slaves ; and what would be the result if the cholera should then break out among them ?

11. WEST INDIES. Lord COLVILLE, on Tuesday, postponed his motion on West India affairs, in consequence of the interview which he was informed was to take place between Lord Goderich and the West India Committee.

12. Taxus ON KNOWLEDGE. .Mr. DYKES, on Friday, presented a petition from Cockermouth for the repeal of the taxes on Knowledge.

Mr. AGLIONBY supported the petition, and expressed his confident expectation that Ministers would attend to the prayer of it.

Mr. COBBETT did not think that these taxes were all taxes on know- ledge. He thought that the benefits of education were much over- sated. Crime had increased as education had increased. He was op- posed to the taxes, however, because they were unjust in their opera- tion, and because they tended to the suppression of truth.

Lord A LTI1011.P protested against Mr. Cobbett's doctrine that educa- tion had no tendency to check crime. lie maintained that it had.

13. OBSERVANCE or THE SABBATH. Mr. JOHNSTONE, in presenting a petition, on Wednesday, from Richmond in Surrey, stated that there was no intention to interfere with innocent amusements on Sunday; but the object of those interested in the success of the proposed mea- sure was to protect those tradesmen who observed the law from loss arising from its non-observance by others.

Mr. O'CONNELL, in that case, would support the measure.

Mr. COBBETT thought the law strong enough as it stood. There would be no end to interference between servants and their masters if it were once commenced. If Parliament were to legislate for s and ladies' maids, there would be a system of interference in the con- cerns of private families introduced, such as never was heard of in any other country.

Mr. M. D. Hitt presented, on Friday, a petition from Hull, pray- ing for measures to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath. He was glad to hear that in the bill about to be brought forward, there would be no interference with the recreation of the lower orders on Sunday.

Mr. CoaaErr said, as there seemed to be a pretty general disposition

to remove what was called the disabilities under which the Jews boured, it would be necessary, when the bill was brought forward, ti have some provisions inserted respecting their observance of the Sab. bath.

Their Sabbath now took place on a Saturday. the Christian's on a Sunday ; Rau?. there was not some provision introduced, either one or the other must change their rel gion, and he confessed that he did not feel very much disposed to change las. (Lan3t ter.) Mr. Hill had spoken of the lower orders. " The lower orders!" Who lies they, be would ask ? Were not they all made by the same hand? If Mr.. Hill theact that class who were most liable to the taxation of the country, then he understesi what he meant by the term " lower orders."

Sir C. BURRELL denied that any class of persons escaped taxation; certainly the rich did not. He denied that there was any want of feeling on the part of the wealthy towards the poor.

A Member said, that though he had no great respect for Mr. Col. bett's opinions, yet lie thought highly of his knowledge of the Englisi language ; and he would thank him to point out a term that would do in the place of the " lower orders," which so much displeased him.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought that no legislative act would' make the Sabbath to be more sacredly observed than it WItS at present. He agreed with Mr. Cobbett, that it would be inconvenient to exempt the Jews from the operation of any law which might be passed for the bet. ter observance of Sunday.

14. JEWISH DISABILITIES. Mr. flisr., on Friday, presented a peti. tion from the Unitarian Dissenters assembling for worship in Bowls Alley Lane, Hull, praying for the removal of Jewish disabilities. Mr. Cobbett had said, that if the Jews were admitted to the privileges of Christians, there would be an end to the Christian religion.

But suppose that the Jews were relieved from their eivil disabilities, Mr. Cobbeit need not change his religion, si hatever was done in favour of the Jews, nor need se, change take place in the Sabbath-day. The Jews were careful to observe both the Jewish and Christian Sabbath. He never heard of the Jews offering such an insultt, the religious feelings of the country in which they happened to reside, as not to showell proper outward respect (and that was all that could be required of them) for the ree gious institutions in the midst of which they lived. If Mr. Cobbett were to go to Tus key—anti Ile should be sorry for him to go there or anywhere else that would take his away from them—he would find himself obliged, by that courtesy to the opinions of others which had marked his conduct through life—Li laugh)—to observe the Friday with the same strictness as the Jews do the Christian Sunday in this country. If als Cobbett did so, no Imatin in Turkey could justly complain of him,

He noticed Mr. Cobbett's criticism on the phrase " lower orders," and said he disliked the phrase himself, as it was sometimes used to imply contempt, which certainly he could not feel.

Mr. COBBETT said, this was a petition for abolishing Christianity in England.

"Since we have met, we have abolished the Committees of Grievances, of Religion, sod of the Courts ofJustice ; and we have established the practice of presenting petitinne in a petty Parliament instead of a full one. That was a pretty beginning; and now conies this petition four oversetting the Christian religion. Let the honourable gentle. man tell me in what position the Courts of Law would be, if the Jews were emancipated. God knows, they make free enough already—(Laughter)—and certainly get more me. ney together than any set of Christians. As if this were not enough. a clause was slipped into an act of Parliament,a few years back, to enable them to possess freeholdpro. petty in England. It would not have passed so quietly. I promise you, if I'd been in Parliament. (Laughter.) But let the honourable gentleman, I say, tell me what would be our position with a Jew Judge upon the bench, a blasphemer by profession, one who calls Jesus Christ an impostor? What would the honourable member do with thit Judge stuck up there—(A laugh)—to try a man for blasphemy? He is himself a Ulu. phemer; and regularly once a week blasphemes Jesus Christ in the Synagogue, and once a year crucifies him in effigy."

He said that the poor fanatics who had presented that petition, knew not what they said, or what they prayed for.

"They cannot have reflected that the Jews call Jesus Christ an impostor. Yet they proclaim it in their books, in their sermons, in their prayers, and in their psalms, which they sing loud enough to stun any unfortunate Christian who may happen to be within hearing.'

Mr. Cobbett then made a digression relative to the inequality of the byStamp.duties, and concluded y saying- " I will not talk of the Stamp-taxes as regards what has passed; but if the present laws be persevered in. I warn the House that not only will the Funtlholders pay their proportion, but we will go into the arrears. AU I require is justice for. the future. Gino us but that, and I will not ask for justice for the past."

Lord ALTHORP said, that a bill for the consolidation of the Stamp. duties was then in preparation.

In some respects, Mr. Cobbett bad shown that some parts of the Stamp-duties re- quired ameaultnent; but if he looked to the whole of the taxation for Stamps, he would find that the pressure did not operate unfairly on any class. but that the rich paid the same proportion as the other classes. This he would satisfactorily show when the

question was brought before the House. • Mr. CUTLAR FFRGUSSON complained that the business of the House was delayed by Mr. Cobbett, day after day, occupying their time with the delivery of his notions. 'He thought that the Jews ought to be admitted to an equality of civil rights : no man should be excluded unless he were a dangerous man, or an enemy to the State.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE agreed with Mr. Cobbett, that if the petition presented contained the opinions of a majority of the House, this was the last Christian Parliament that would sit. The petition came from Unitarians, who were not Christians themselves.

15. INTERFERENCE OF MILITARY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. T. ATT- WOOD, on Tuesday, presented a petition from the Birmingham Politi- cal Union, Complaining of the illegal interference of the military at the late elections. He had himself seen bodies of infantry clear the streets, and troops of cavalry ride up to the hustings, when the polling was going on, and no breach of the peace had been committed. If the House did not do its duty now, be hoped that at the next election the peolde would go to the hustings with loaded pistols. ( Groans.) lie repeated it—be hoped they would arm themselves with pistols anti rifles, for the protection of their rights. (Loud disapprobation.) Mr. SPRING RICE strongly protested against such language.

A Member said, that at Wolverhampton the interference of the mi- litary was necessary to enable the peaceable electors to give their votes in safety.

Mr. ATTWOOD said, that the place where the soldiers charged the people when no breach of the peace was committed, was Walsall. Mr. FORSTER maintained, that the interference of the military was necessary during the late elections, to save Walsall from sharing the

same fate as Bristol.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM said; that at Sheffield innocent blood was shed owing to the unnecessary calling in of the soldiers.

16. Sr. IVES ELECTION.- Mr. - HAWKINS presented a petition, 011

Wednesday, from Mr. Mackworth Praed, complaining of undue in- fluence practised at the •last election for St. Ives. The petitioner charged the owners of mining property, and principally the Earl cf Lauderdale, with illegal interference in that election.

Mr. HALSE denied the charges of the petitioner, who was the un- sseceaul candidate ; and who had no property in the borough, but had .stated that he made .500/. per annum by his law business, and .501. per :annam by poetry. He said that Mr. Praed had applied to Lord Lau- 41erdale for his influence, but confessed, on the hustings, that he had fined to obtain it.

Mr. Ilmvxiss, on behalf of Mr. Praed, denied this statement.

17. INTIMIDATION OF ELECTORS. Mr. GROTE, on Thursday, pre- sented a petition from Chatham, 'complaining of intimidation being used at the last election, to compel persons to vote for the Govern- ment candidate ; and requesting that the electors might either be stripped of their franchise, or protected in the free exercise of it. He said that the only mode of protecting electors was that of voting by Ballot. Mr. E. L. BULWER concurred in this opinion. Mr. GROTE then presented a petition from Carmarthenshire, likewise complain- ing of undue influence and intimidation at the last election.

18. BATH ELECTION. The Committee have reported that Mr. Roebuck was duly qualified at the time he took the qualification oath, but that the petition against him was not frivolous or vexatious. . •

19. CORPORATION OF LIVERPOOL. MT. EWART, on Wednesday, presented a petition from a large number of the merchants of Liverpool, for a reform of their. corporation. Mr. Ewart stated the income of the corporation at 300,000/. per annum. They had expended a million and a half on various buildings in the town. He considered that such an immense property ought not to be under the almost irresponsible control of any certain number of individuals.

20. COURTS OF LAW. Lord WYNFORD, on Thursday, brought in a bill, which was read a first time, to reduce the expenses attending pro- ceedings in courts of law.

21. RAILWAYS. The Birmingham and London Railway Bill was read a second time, and the Birmingham and Warrington Railway Bill was read a first time, on Tuesday.

22. HIGHWAYS. Mr. PORTMAN, on Tuesday, brought in a bill for Tete consolidation and improvement of the laws respecting highways.

23. NEW BUILDING FOR THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. MT. HUME OH Tuesday gave notice that on the 11th of March he should call the attention of the House to the Report of a Committee recently re- printed, on the subject of erecting a new building for the use of the House.

24. COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS. On Thursday, MT. LITTLETON 'brought am the report of the Committee which was appointed to make • arrangements for the receipt of petitions. He stated, that the Com- mittee had classified the petitions, and prepared a form by which the °nature of .each petition, the place from whence it emanated, and the number of signatures to it, might be seen at one view.