;Debates anti Vroceebings in Warliaincnt.

SUPPLY: GRIEVANCES.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, when the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply was moved, Mr. SHARMAN CRAW.. FORD followed up his set plan of endeavouring to postpone the Com- mittee in order to the consideration of grievances. Alluding for sup- port to several petitions (34) which had been presented, praying the House to withhold supplies until grievances should be redressed, he denied that the House constituted a virtual representation of the people; and therefore he denied its competency to vote supplies. He dwelt at considerable length on the grievances that demanded redress, and espe- cially the claims of Ireland. lie concluded by moving that the consi- deration of the Estimates be postponed until after Easter. The motion was supported by Colonel RAWDON, on the ground that Lord John Russell's motion had not been sufficiently comprehensive, and that the real evils of Ireland had not been sufficiently con- sidered. Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS adduced several figures to show the increase of taxation ; and complained that more than 4,500,000/. is in- tercepted by the various public departments before the revenue reaches the Treasury : 1,200,000/. is intercepted by the Customs alone, though the report of a Royal Commission had pronounced the Commissioners of Customs totally unfit to manage that department. He censured the large sums expended in the Navy-163,000/. for pensions in the Civil department, (though last year it was only 99,600l.,) and 298,000/. for dockyards. Mr. FIELDEN complained of the Income-tax and the mode of levying it ; instancing his own case as that of many. He and his brothers had made a return of "nothing" as the average of their profits for the last three years; but the Commissioners had insisted upon assessing them at 12,000/. profits, in spite of repeated conferences and examinations ; and application to Government had procured him no redress. The amendment was supported by Dr. EOWRING ; and, on the score of unredressed Irish grievances, by Mr. E. B. ROCHE. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that Government bad no more control over the Income-tax Commissioners than any individual Mem- ber of that House. He understood that Mr. Fielden had been requested to make a return according to a form prescribed by law ; but either he could not or would not make one in that form, and the consequence was that he was assessed. If aggrieved, he might have appealed to the Special Commissioners, and his case would have been reviewed. Mr. THOMAS GISBORNE said, he might have supported Mr. Crawford if he had brought forward any specific plan of redress ; but really he could not vote for an amendment which did not state what was to be done, nor why the Estimates should be voted after Easter any more than be- fore Easter. The amendment was negatived, by 105 to 11.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER drew attention to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He attacked the old Navy and Victualling Boards, and especially condemned Lord Melville's construction of a dockyard at Sheerness, on a lee-shore, in an indefensible situation. The Navy is now governed by five officers—the Surveyor of the Navy, the Account- ant-General, the Storekeeper-General, the Victualling Department, and the Medical Department. Each of those officers is under the nominal superintendence of a Lord of the Admiralty, who comes in with every new Administration ; and the Lords occasionally look in at Somerset House and ask how matters go on ? "Oh, very well": hearing which, they put on their hats again and walk off. Sir Charles complained of the appointment of civilians and persons who have never been at sea in the Dockyards ; of the inadequate promotion of Masters in the Navy, who ought to be put on a footing with Lieutenants; and of the bad building and expensive alteration of ships. The Queen's yacht, he said, was so ill constructed that they were obliged to put in 100 tons of lead as ballast. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT represented that several of the ships in question had been built under previous Admiralty Boards ; that whereas out of 600 or 700 persons who had been employed in the Dock- yards not one was a naval man, 50 naval persons had recently been ap- pointed; that 19 experimental ships are building, several able persons having been put in competition with Sir William Symonds; and he read a letter from Cove, addressed to Sir William, refuting "the Vile and diabolical assertions respecting our noble ship" the Albion, one of those attacked by Sir Charles. Captain PECHELL objected to the em- ployment of the Navy to enforce the collection of poor-rates in Ireland. After a little further conversation, the matter dropped.

The House having gone into Committee, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT brought forward the Navy Estimates. He explained, in a very general and rapid manner, the new points. There had been a great reduction in the wages for seamen and marines. On the subject of the fourth vote, " Office for the Registry of Merchant-Seamen," a bill would shortly be introduced to amend the act for registering merchant-seamen. There was a considerable increase in the vote for the establishments at home, as Government intended to reestablish Deptford as a building- yard. New basins also were in course of construction at Portsmouth and Plymouth for building and repairing steamers, as great efforts were making to increase the efficiency of the steam service : a short time ago, there were only 10 vessels, with 6,400 horses-power ; now there are 96 ve.sels, with 28,000 horses-power. There was a considerable reduction in half-pay and pension-lists. Be moved the first vote, of 36,000 sea- men, 10,500 marines, and 2,000 boys. Mr. Wiraffasts objected to the amount of the sums demanded : the Estimates of 1833 were less by 1,600,000/. than those of the present year. The number of marines especially was excessive. Sir GEORGE COCKBURN, Sir CHARLES NAPIER, and other Naval Members, declared the marines to be not greater than was absolutely necessary. The vote was affirmed. Some other votes having been taken, the Chairman reported progress.

THE CLONTARP PROCLAMATION.

On Thursday, Colonel RAWDON again brought up the subject of the proclamation forbidding the monster-meeting at Clontarf. ilereteived

The iliarge of delay ; asking why the Lord.Lieutenant had not left 'London on Wednesday instead of Thursday ; and why, in place of " weighing words NI ben they should have weighed lives," the Irish Government had not issued the proclamation on Friday instead of Saturday ? He moved a resolution declaring that the delay caused the risk of a disastrous collision dangerous to the lives and liberties of her Majesty's subjects.

Lord ELIOT replied by repeating, almost verbatim, the explanation on the point given by Ministers in the recent debate ; but the present account makes the way in which the time was occupied a little clearer— Earl De Grey [who had been summoned from the North of England to London for consultation, as soon as the Clontarf " cavalry " procla- mation reached England] arrived in ,Dublin on Friday morning ; with instructions to issue a proclamation, or not, according to the state of circumstances which he might find on his arrival. On that day, a meeting was held, of the Lord-Lieutenant, the Lord-Chancellor of Ireland, the Law- officers of the Crown, the Commander of the Forces, and the Secretary for Ireland ; and it was agreed to issue a proclamation. Some time was occupied at night in drawing up the proclamation. At noon next day, a Council as- sembled, at which it was finally resolved on ; and at two o'clock it was in the hands of the printer. It was not a little singular that a counter-proclamation by Mr. O'Connell, criticising the style of the Government proclamation, bore 'date " three p.m." of the same day. That was evidence that the proclamation must have been printed some time before. But he held in his hand a table made on the authority of Colonel M'Gregor, a man whose veracity was unim- peachable, showing that the proclamation of the Government was posted at every station within thirty miles of Dublin in the same day. Let it be also zecollected that the meeting was not to take place until about one o'clock on the Sunday ; and that very alight practical inconvenience and no danger were occasioned to any individual by the delay in the issuing of the proclamation.

The motion was supported by Mr. P. SOMERS, Mr. SHARMA.N CRAW- TORD, and Mr. E. B. ROCHE. On a division, it was negatived by 90 to 62.

Scorrisn JUDICATURE.

Mr. WALLACE called attention, on Tuesday, to the state of thejudicial establishment in Scotland.

He complained of its cost, which, including the allowance to retired Judges, amounts to 150,000/. per annum; yet the work is so ill performed, that the causes are lways in arrear, and the Court of Session ought rather to be called the Court of Vacation. The number of civil causes tried in 1842 in all Scotland, without a jury, was 20,556; the number of causes tried with a jury, 36. The preparation of a cause to be tried by jury in Scotland occupies two years and a half; and the cost is never less on each side than 500/. or 1,000/. He particu- larly condemned the appointment of Mr. John Hop; who was put over the others and was made Lord Justice Clerk. Be moved an address to the Crown, praying that the sittings of the Court of Session might be extended by two months in each year. The notice of his motion had comprised a long argu- mentative preamble; for which Mr. Wallace apologized as irregular, and he did not attempt to move it.

The SPEAKER abstained from censuring the irregularity, further than to observe that such a precedent must be avoided. Sir JAMES GRAHAM vindicated the appointment of Mr. Hope ; and Mr. Wallace's motion fell to the ground without a seconder.

SYMPATHY WITH DON CARLOS.

On Tuesday, Lord JOHN MANNERS called for interposition on behalf of Don Carlos.

Be demanded what crime had been proved against that Prince to excuse his imprisonment ? He justified the breach of a previous understanding that the Prince should not return to Spain, by considering the feeliuge of a gallant man, who had been deprived of the Spanish crown through an intrigue, the basest, perhaps, that ever disgraced history, but who was supported by the unbought exertions of a people that loved him well because they knew him well. Lord aohn attacked the policy of the late Government, which permitted the British Legion to join the forces against Don Carlos; the part taken by the so-called neutral British fleet, in suddenly attacking the Carlists one night at Bilboa ; Lord John Hay's acting as a go-between for Espartero and Maroto in the convention of Bergara; the instructions issued to the British fleet to refuse an asylum, should it he asked by Don Carlos. He pointed to the actual condition of Spain, to show how futile was any argument founded on the pretext that tranquillity must be maintained. He concluded by moving, "That a humble address be presented to her Majesty, representing to her Majesty, that the de- tention of Don Carlos and his family in a town belonging to her Majesty's ally the King of the French, is opposed to justice and the honour of this country ;,and humbly praying her Majesty to intercede with the Court of the Tuileries for their deliverance therefrom."

Sir RoBERW.PF..ai.Qoa.11ed upon the House to reject the motion.

In the Chamber cif' Peers, the French Government distinctly stated that, with respect to Don Carlos, they were acting on views of French policy, and on considerations of French interest. Subsequently, the French Minister re- fused to take notice of what passed in the English Parliament ; and declared that the detention originated in the interests of France, and that it was justi- fied by the law of France. In fact, added Sir Robert Peel, there are 12,000 Spaeish refugees in France; and the same law which enables the French Go- vernment to extend hospitality to the refugees, subjects those refugees to more control than they would undergo in England, in order to prevent the French territory from being made the focus of intrigues against a neighbouring and friendly power. Considering the actual stale of Spain, he did not disapprove of the execution of any legal authority which prevented the return of the Prince to that country. Be believed that much leniency was already shown to Don Carlo.; who, so far front being imprisoned, is permitted to visit at every house in Bourget', and to go to the distance of leagues from the town. If Don Carlos would state upon his honour that he would not return to Spain, no doubt he would he suffered to choose his residence in some other part of Europe.

A. debate of some length followed. The motion was supported by 11D. SfdYTHE and Mr. MONTAGU GORE. Mr. RAILLIE COCHRANE said that the allowance to Don Carlos is limited to 7001. a year ; he has only three miserable rooms to himself ; and when he goes abroad he is attended by four gendarmes. Mr. PETER BORTHWICK justified the Durango decree, as a " merciful" declaration of the Spanish law, which is, like that of England, that invaders in aid of an usurper shall be hanged. Lord PALMERSTON opposed the motion ; concurring in Sir Robert Peel's main reasons ; insisting that Queen Isabella is Sovereign, not by any intrigue, but by the constitutional law of Spain ; and averring that what was done by the Legion and the Fleet was done in execution of the Quadruple Treaty. He deprecated the idea that English interests could gain by upholding any party in Spain : we only 'want to make Spain strong and independent. The motion was also opposed by Sir CHARLES NAPIER, Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS, Mr. TRE- LAWNEY, and Mr. MONCKTON MILNES.

The House was cleared for a division ; but the motion was negatived 'Without -one. MINISTERS ON DUELLING.

Mr. TURNER asked, on Tuesday, whether Government intended to bring in a bill for the more effectual prevention of duelling ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL replied in the negative ; at the same time making an explanation— Government had not neglected to take this important question into consi- deration; but they were not prepared to bring in any new legislative enact- ment in relation to duelling. If the practice still existed, it was not from any defect of the law ; and her Majesty's Government, therefore, doubted whether any good object could be promoted by altering the law. At the same time, her Majesty's Government had availed themselves of an opportunity during the re- cess, by exercising their influence and authority in discouraging the practice SS far as they could. He believed that the feeling which existed in the public mind upon this subject had been excited by the unfortunate result of a duel which took place last year. But there could be little doubt that the practice of duelling was fast declining; and that the feeling of society was against the practice, and would, therefore, produce a salutary effect. He should, therefore, deprecate any interference on the part of the House, either by attempting to legislate upon the subject or by coming to any resolution upon it. The officer who lost his life was a man of great military reputation, and had distinguished himself in the service of his country : he was unfortunately killed in a duel; and when his widow applied for that pension to which she would have been entitled had he lost his life in any other way than by the hand of his adversary, her Majesty's Government felt themselves compelled to refuse to grant the pension. With respect to the survivor, as that officer did not come forward after a lapse of time sufficient to allow public feeling to subside, and meet the charge upon a fair trial, he was superseded. The widow of the deceased officer having been refused the pension, and the survivor superseded, he thought her Majesty's Government had sufficiently evinced their willingness to exercise their legitimate power and influence against the practice of duelling.

Mr. TURNER deemed the answer satisfactory as far as it went ; but it did not go far enough. He should therefore, on that day fortnight, sub- mit a resolution to the House to the effect " that duelling is immoral in its tendency, that it brings into contempt the laws of the country, and is contrary to the Divine command."

Mr. THOMAS DuNcomBE, understanding that the unfortunate widow had been deprived of her pension because her husband was killed in a duel, asked whether Government intended to discontinue trying and breaking officers for not fighting duels ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the widow would have been entitled to a pension had her husband fallen in actual service : her claim had been forfeited; therefore she was not deprived of any due.

Mr. THOMAS Durscomos—" Look, then, in what a position you put officers, when "— I Cry of .‘ Order ! "J Sir ROBERT eEEL—" Is it not much better, if this question is to be dis- cussed, to refrain from such observations until then, than to ask questions in this way upon a delicate and important subject ?"

Here the matter dropped.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE METROPOLIS.

On Thursday, the Earl of LINCOLN introduced a "bill for the better regulation of the buildings of the Metropolitan districts, and the better drainage thereof " ; explaining its provisions.

It somewhat differed from the bill which he had introduced last session. The latest act upon the subject was passed in the reign of George the Third, seventy years ago; and, being totally inapplicable to existing circumstances, it would be repealed. That Act contained a provision for the prevention of fires; and a separate measure for that purpose would be introduced this session. The present bill contained only one general clause on the subject of drainage ; for- bidding the erection of any house until proper steps were taken to secure ade- quate drainage. The question of draining and the supply of water, not only as to the Metropolis but as to other large towns in the kingdom, was under the anxious consideration of the Commission for the Improvement of Towns and Populous Places • and he hoped that, before long, a report would be made which would enable the Government more effectually to deal with these subjects. Other clauses of the bill would prescribe a certain width for streets and alleys ; would prohibit buildings for the purpose of trades injurious to the health of the people ; would impose restrictions on the appointment of District Surveyors by the Magistrates ; would provide for the appointment of " Official Referees," a tribunal for disputed questions arising out of house•surveys ; %could enable the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to extend the operation of the bill to any distance round the Metropolis not exceeding twelve miles, and, on the re- port of the Official Referees, to modify certain provisions.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

Mr. RICE called attention on Thursday, to the want of harbours of '

refuwe on the East coast of attention, Britain— A Committee appointed last year, to consider shipwrecks with reference to harbours of refuge, had made some strong recommendations ; but they had been followed by no practical results. One of the witnesses, of great profes- sional experience and authority, Captain Washington, said that from the Forth to the Humber there was not one such harbour ; Captain Bullock and Mr. Cubitt said that harbours of the kind were particularly needed between Ports- mouth and the Nore. A harbour of refuge would be a harbour of defence, and vice versa ; and the vast difference which the application of steam-navigation to naval warfare has made in the virtual distance between Great Britain and France should be considered. The two countries are happily at peace; lint France, thinking that the best way to preserve peace is to be prepared for war, has been augmenting her naval steam force and improving her harbours all along the coast, from Dunkirk to Cherbourg. A plan contemplated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would only have required an outlay of 500,000/. for the first three years, and 100,000/. for the ten following ; which might easily be raised. He moved, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that a Commission of scientific and competent persons may be appointed to consider and a tvise the best means of carrying into effect the recommendation of the Committee on Harbours of Refuge."

Sir JOHN RAE REID seconded the motion ; naming Dover as a place especially suitable.

Sir ROBERT PEEL resisted the motion— He bantered the previous speakers on the odd coincidence, that the motion should have been made and seconded by the two Members for Dover. No doubt, 500,000/. or 600,000/. might easily be raised ; but it would be more con- solatory to know how the money was to be repaid. There were claims, too, from other quarters ; and the facilitating of communication with Ireland must not be forgotten. Oa grounds of public policy, he would favour the selection of Holyhead ; whence Dublin might be reached in a few hours. With respect to the Channel, the arguments based on the alterations in steam-navigation were of much force ; but Government had been prevented from making up their mind as to the one place with which it would be best to make a begin- ning, by the conflict of authorities. Sir Charles Napier disapproved of Dover.

The question deserved further but immediate consideration. Government therefore proposed to appoint a Commission, to consist of some of the most eminent naval authorities, of competent persons connected with the commer- chil marine, of civil engineers most versed in the action of the tides and in the effect of breakwaters upon the deposition of mud, and lastly, of one or two Ordnance- officers.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER said, that the Downs would be a site preferable to Dover. Sir THOMAS TROUBRIDGE would leave the matter in the hands of Government.

The motion was withdrawn.

ENCLOSURE OF COMMON LANDS.

Lord WORSLEY moved, on Thursday, for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the Enclosure and Improvement of Commons— Such enclosures would provide much additional employment for the poor : bat parties are at present deterred from attempting them by the expense of obtaining separate acts of Parliament ; which is very heavy. From a return of lands respecting which tithe has been commuted, itappeare that of 6,719,000 acres of land in England, 1,358 are common or waste; of 1,898,000 in Wales, 502,000 are common ; and he cited instances in which waste laud might pro- fitably be brought into cultivation. His bill would appoint an "Enclosure Commission "; the machinery of it either embodied in the bill or left to Govern- ment. In case two-thirds in value of the parties interested in commons and lands held in common should wish to have those lands enclosed, and should at a public meeting come to that conclusion, they should then apply to the Com- missioners to be appointed under this bill. The Commissioners would send down an Assistant-Commissioner to inquire into the expediency of making the enclosure, to take into consideration the interests of all parties that would be affected, to examine the locality, and to have regard to the means of recrea- tion for the population. If the Assistant-Commissioner came to the opinion that it would be profitable and advantageous to have the enclosure made, he would so report to the Commissioners; by whom a day would be appointed for bearing the claims of parties interested. Then, after the different claims had been settled, a draught-award would be prepared, and a certain time given to enable parties to object. And he proposed that if one-fourth of the persons interested did object and petition that Home, and should give notice of their intention so to do, the Commissioners should not proceed with the enclosure until the expiration of six weeks after the meeting of Parliament. The bill would also provide that the Commissioners should make a report twice a-year to the Secretary of State.

Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the bill, as one of a series of innovations, of which the Reform Bill was the first and Railways the worst ; and as tending to deprive the poor of recreation. Mr. TRELAWNEY, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Mr. BRIGHT would vote for the motion, in order to consider the provisions of the bill. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD altoge- ther opposed, Sir CHARLES BURRELL supported it.

The motion was agreed to.

PROTECTION FOR BETTERS.

The further consideration of the report on the Horse-racing Penalties Bill having been moved, on Monday, Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY moved to add a clause repealing the Act 5 and 6 Will. IV. for the prevention of cruelty to.animals; and also the Act 2 and 3 Victoria, "for further improving the Police in and near the Metropolis," which imposes pe- nalties by summary process on persons engaging in certain popular sports. He contended that if the rich sportsmen who infringed the law should be protected, the poor should be SO I00. Mr. JAMES STUART WORTLEY contended that the cases were not analogous, as his bill would protect the aristocratic sport of cock-fighting; but it applied only to inordinate penalties under civil process ; whereas the offences under the other acts were to be proceeded against criminally. As to protec- tion for the poor, such protection from inordinate and forgotten penalties as he sought had been accorded to printers and players. The clause was not pressed ; and the report was received.

On Tuesday, the third reading having been moved, Mr. CHRISTIE contrasted this measure with the criminal proceedings lately instituted in the Arches Court of Canterbury, against certain Dissenters of Nor- wich, because the Vestry had refused to make a church-rate ; proceed- ings entirely without precedent. If the present bill were carried, he should bring in another to discontinue the proceedings against the Norwich Dissenters. He moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. BICKHAN Escorr, considering the bill defective, said that the best way would be to make all bets mere debts of honour, without recovery at law, at the same time abolishing all penalties on betting. Lord GEORGE BENTINCK (a party interested) took occasion to state that he had not voted for the bill; and Colonel PEEL stated that he had only recently been made aware, by a return to the House, that proceedings had been taken against him. On a division, the third reading was carried, by 87 to 21; and the bill passed.

MISCELLANEOUS.

A NEW WRIT was ordered, on Monday, for the county of Londonderry, in the room of Mr. Robert Bateson, deceased.

. DentrAM ELECTION. On Tuesday, the SPEAKER announced that the pe- tition against the return of Mr. Bright, for Durham, had been abandoned.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF PAUPERS. On Tuesday, Mr. BORTHWICK, alluding to the conversation between the Bishop of Exeter and Lord Wharn- cliffe in the House of Peers on Friday, said it had raised a hope that Govern- ment would introduce a provision into the Poor-law Amendment Bill before the House, for religious instruction of the poor in workhouses by chaplains of the Church of England. Did Government contemplate such a provision ? Sir JAMES Gsismars—" I do not know what is the source of the honourable gentleman's information; but I have no hesitation in stating to the House the decision of her Majesty's Government upon this point. I and her Majesty's Ministers are entirely satisfied with the discretionary power which is at pre- sent placed in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners, and with the manner in which they have exercised it ; that is a discretion which will continue to be exercised on their responsibility, with due regard to local circumstances. I am not prepared to propose any alteration of the law. As at present advised, I am entirely satisfied with the state of the law ; and in any discussion which may take place upon this subject I shall be prepared to satisfy this House that the discretion vested in the Poor-law Commissioners has been exercised in a due and proper manner."

REPEAL. On Monday, Mr. O'CoNNELL presented petitions for Repeal of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, from Dublin Corporation and various parts of Ireland, from various parts of England, Glasgow, and Nova Scotia—in all, 196 in number, and bearing 397,864 signatures.

Tea DISSENTING GRAND-JURYMAN. In the course of the debate on Ire- land, in the House of Lords, the Earl of Roden had remarked that one of the Grand Jurymen in the late trial, a Roman Catholic, although sworn to keep his own counsel and that of his fellow-jurors, declared in open court that he dissented from the finding of a true bill; which was calculated to inflict a great blow on the confidence in the Roman Catholics. On Monday, Lord CAMP.. BELL made a statement on the part of Mr. O'Gorman, the Juror in question. The finding was returned and signed by the Foreman as "a true bill for self and fellows,"—which implied concurrence on the part of all the Jurors ; and from that implication Mr. O'Gorman felt obliged to dissent. The oath only bound the Jurors not to disclose the evidence ; but the State Trials report a case in which the whole of the Grand Jury were openly examined as to the grounds on which they had decided. In another ease, Lord Kenyon allowed a Grand Juror to be examined. Lord 13norrosuim said, the Earl of Roden, who had been obliged to go abroad on account of an illness in his family, mentioned the fact to show, not that Mr. O'Gorman had violated his oath, but that SO much was the subject of trial a party matter between Protestants and Catho- lics, that Mr. O'Gorman, alarmed lest he should be supposed to assent to the finding, declared his dissent in open court.

RAILWAY AND CANAL ACROSS IRELAND. Sir VALENTINE BLAKE moved, on Thursday, for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency and prac- ticability of promoting speedy communication between England and America, by means of steam-carriages in connexion with a ship-canal across Ireland, and steam .navigation across the Atlantic. Be proposed that there should be a ship-canal across Ireland, with a railroad on its banks; and he quoted passages from the Report of the Irish Railway Commission, favouring the plan. Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated Select Committees with a view to promote local interests, as in this case the interests of Galway. The Irish Railway Commis- sioners were of opinion that the proposed South-western Railway to Cork ilould facilitate the communication between Dublin and Galway ; but they avoided recommending any thing which could interfere with the two great canals of Ireland—the Royal Canal and the Grand Canal. He had that day seen a deputation on the subject of establishing a railway in the direction of Galway ; and the motion would rather embarrass than promote its professed object. Sir VALENTINE BLAKE withdrew the motion.

SCOTCH PRISONS. The LORD ADVOCATE introduced into the House of Commons, on Thursday, a bill to amend the law relating to prisons and prison- discipline in Scotland. The act passed in 1839 had effected a great improve- ment; but it still left imperfections. One principal complaint was, that the burden of expense is unfairly distributed at present, having been framed on an old census; and the bill would authorize a readjustment based on the last cen- sus. Leave was given to bring in the bill.

PRISON DISCIPLINE. Mr. MACKINNON has given this notice, for the 14th instant—" Select Committee, to consider the Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons, and the state of discipline in the gaols, for the adoption of an uniform system of punishment, with such improvements in the management as can safely be adopted."

TAXES ON THE WEALTHY. Mr. ELPHINSTONE has given notice, for the 14th instant, of a motion for a Committee of the whole House, with a view to extending the Probate-duty on personal estate to real estate, as a substitute for taxes burdensome to the people, with some other alterations.

SEIZURE OF TAHITI. In reply to Mr. HINDLEY, OU Tuesday, Sir Ro- BERT PEEL expressed his belief that the published accounts, and the official announcement in the Moniteur that the French Government had disavowed the seizure of Tahiti, were correct : he had anticipated that the French Go- vernment would spontaneously take a proper course.

GLEANINGS OF THE LATE Tama DEBATE.

[Having been compelled to dismiss the discussions that took place on the two Fridays of the late debate in a more summary way than we could have wished, we recur to them to select some of the more memo- rable passages of the principal speeches, the general drift of which has already been described.* These were chiefly to be found in the speeches of Mr. Disraeli, Sir Frederick Pollock, (the Attorney-General for Eng- land,) and Sir Robert Peel. It will be remembered, however, that we contrived to give a faller account of Sir Robert Peel's speech than of the others.] Sir'.Robert Peers Instructions to his Attorney-General.—"My Parliamentary experience was not great; that of my honourable colleague was still less. A case of difficulty arising under such circumstances, it was very natural I should endeavour to avail myself of the great experience of my right honourable friend at the head of the Government. He gave me the advice I sought, and mid—' You never need come to me again for advice. The responsibility is yours ; and let me give you this general direction—When you have any mat- ter of difficulty come before you, consider well before you act ; make yourself master of the subject ; don't decide in a hurry; ascertain what is your duty with reference to the public interest ; and when you have ascertained it, look neither to the right nor to the left. See what is due to the interest of the Crown, and also to the advantage of the public, and when you have ascertained your duty, discharge it. Should I differ from you, I will do justice to your motives.' That is the only advice or direction I ever received; and under that I have acted to the present moment. Sir, that was, if I may be permitted so to say, advice worthy of the first Minister of the Crown to give to its first Law- officer. It has given me courage and confidence in the course I have par- sued."—Sir Frederick Pollock.

The Common Law.—"‘ How,' said my honourable and learned friend, [ Sir Thomas Wilde,i 'how is it that the rights and liberties of the people have been swamped ? by means of the common law.' The common law of this country is the great shield and protection of public and personal freedom. From that we have derived some of the very first principles of liberty. If we had not had our common law, I doubt whether there would have been a single spark of liberty left in this country. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of trial by jury, which is part of our common law. We owe to our common law that collection of twelve men to inquire into the guilt or innocence of our fel- • Readers may not be aware of one difficulty which besets weekly papers, and most especially those which take most pains in condensed compilation. Friday is often the evening of heaviest debate. To the daily paper, a Parlia- mentary report of considerable length is one of the ordinary materials for filling space; but even the daily paper, which receives the matter bit by bit as it accrues, occasionally feels the vast debates a burden, and sometimes the report abruptly breaks off with a few lines of apology. The debates are pub- lished early in the morning; but the heavier they are, the later the hour of publication. Last Saturday, the reports filled some thirty columns : the mere reading of such a mass of type must take up several hours ; and when the reading has been accomplished, the task of compilation commences. The flow of the yen is checked by reference to the original; and even the despised use of "scissors and paste" is not so facile a process as may be supposed, when it is embarrassed with considerations of selection to make the most profitable use of limited space, and collation of various texts to elucidate obscurities. The task of writing has to be followed up by that of printing. Other news, too, has to be gathered and condensed. Add to those impediments in respect of time, the fact that a paper like ours is usrially,buraened with a redundancy of mate- rials, so as often to be choked up by Friday night ; and the reader will not be surprised that the debates indicated rather than abridged for our Postscript are at times so briefly and imperfectly described. low-subjects and to protect their rights. To our common law more than to anything else we owe our right to meet and discuss matters of public opinion ; and it is by meeting in that way that we discover our strength. And let me add, juries have continually worked out the liberty of the subject, and sustained public and personal rights. Does my honourable and learned friend mean to say that only the interests of the Crown or a particular class are served by our common law ? Then look at the case of the general search-warrants, which were considered as legal from the time of the Revolution down to the year 1770; when the Court of Common Pleas, and subsequently all the Judges, pronounced, notwithstanding a practice of nearly a century, that they were not consistent with the common law, and therefore that they were illegal. But there is another instance of the value of our common law. What was the first effort made towards the extinction of slavery and the liberation of the Negro race ? It was in the case of the Negro Somer- set. About the year 1772, Somerset the Negro, who had come over to this country, was shipped on board a vessel to go back to Jamaica. The common law by habeas corpus brought him out of his dungeon on board ship ; and it brought him into court, where the question was argued, and that great prin• ciple was decided, that the liberty of every human being is commensurate with the extent of the shores of this country, that the noxious weed slavery cannot exist in its climate for a moment, that, in the words of Curran, the instant the slave touches the sacred soil of Britain his chains burst and drop from around him.' So, when domestic slavery prevailed in this country in the shape of villenage, every presumption was by this law against the master. If the vil- lein succeeded once he succeeded for ever ; if he failed once he might come again and again. Indeed, the very breath of liberty imposed the common law from the first to its last maxim. It was not long since a most remarkable case—s case referring to the privileges of that House—showed that the courts of law had a greater respect for the common law than for the courts of legisla- ture. And though I agree in the view taken by my honourable and learned friend the Member for Worcester as to the privilege of this House, still there are many persons, as the honourable and learned Member for Bath knows, both in this House and out of it, who are glad to have the courts of laws to resort to against the possible tyranny of the House. And we know that our Trans- atlantic brethren, when they founded that constitution which they enjoy, upon the purest principles of Democracy, took care that the legislature should not have the power to spoil the constitution ; but they gave the supreme court the power to render null and void any thing which was ultra vices and opposed to the spirit of the common law of the land."—Sir Frederick Pollock.

The Law of Conspiracy.—" The doctrine of conspiracy is, I believe, as old as the common law. I know there is a definition of it to be found in an existing statute ; and in that definition the House will find one expression of great im- port, and which really comprehends almost every case which has since occurred. I have that portion of the statute here; it professes to state who are conspira- tors. Like our old statutes, it went rather on examples of a principle, very shortly stated, than as a detailed code of law. Conspirators are there described to be such as retain men in the country to maintain their malicious enter- prise.' If men combine and confederate together for the purpose of accom- plishing any malicious enterprise, whether with or without fees, they are un- doubtedly conspirators in the eye of the law. The law rightly treats as illegal many combined acts, each of which is separately legal. Let me mention one or two instances that have occurred. There was one case where a number of officers in the East Indies all resigned their commissions on the same day, for the purpose of compelling Lord Clive to come to a certain arrangement. They 'Were guilty of the crime of conspiracy, because they confederated to coerce the Commander-in-chief, by measures which it would have been perfectly legal for every man to take in his own view and behalf, but not in combination with others. The moment it was done in confederacy with others, the act became Illegal. It was an unlawful conspiracy : that is the language used. Every man has a right to exercise all the ordinary rights of property, and all other rights, free from all control except that which belongs to public opinion and the satisfaction of his own conscience ; but when several persons combine to- gether, they have instantly a power of mischief which, alone, they did not at all possess ; and it was therefore essential, the public safety demanded, that it should be criminal to associate for an illegal end although the acts in them- selves be perfectly legal. One of the most familiar instances that occurred was of this nature. It does so happen that by law no man is punishable for a de- parture from truth: there is no particular obligation on him to tell the truth— be may speak truly or falsely; but if several persons were to unite in one common falsehood for the purpose of depressing the price of stock or commodi- ties, they become amenable to the law. You may with perfect impunity state that which is false without communication with others ; but the moment you confederate with others for that purpose, you become amenable to the law ."— Sir Frederick Pollock.

The Attorney-General on Libel and Sedition.—" I have great objection to a prosecution for libel. That may be an odd thing for an Attorney-General to say ; but the law itself was in such a state, as well as the administration of it, and its licentiousness up to a certain period was so great, when I had no con- trol over it, that when a private prosecutor called on me to give an opinion, I have always asked, What do they accuse you of?' 0, they call me names, and vilify me." Well, unless you have some distinct allegation made against you, a charge of some crime that you can go to the court and purge yourself of by affidavit, pray, in the name of common sense, let the libeller alone, and suffer yourself to be abused. Hard words break no bones, and you are re- ceiving only the same dose of that branch of the public opinion which the greatest statesmen, on both sides of the House, and in both Houses of Parlia- ment, are daily in the habit of receiving.' I hope I am not wrong in that opi- nion. But then, you say, why not prosecute for sedition ? 0 dear, Sir, it is so difficult to say where fair discussion ends and sedition begins! I know no question more difficult to determine than at what period a law. officer would be justified in filing an ex-officio information for libel. I have never filed an ex- officio information. But I share that distinction with several of my prede- cessors."

Newspapers in Evidence.—" After the Chartist Association was formed, Mr. O'Connor published violent libels in his newspaper ; and although I had no disposition to put down the press, which for good or for evil is a powerful in- atrument, I used another newspaper for the purpose of proving the conspiracy. This trial took place at Lancaster; and no single individual made the least exception to that course of proceeding, not even Mr. O'Connor himself, who only complained of the length of the indictment, saying that the Government had only done its duty in a way creditable to the administration of justice. This was the exact course I took against those who wanted to bring about or- ganic changes by tumultuous meetings, intimidation, and force ; and I made use of the newspaper to show the animus of the parties. Now I am not aware that the Attorney-General for Ireland adopted any other or different course than that which it was my own duty to pursue."—Sir Frederick Pollock.

A Test for the Verdict.—" Not to keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope, I will now say, that if before next term you can show that fraud has been committed—if you can satisfy the Judges of that—there will be a new trial. That is the best answer I can give to the charges on the other side with respect to the Jury-paneL Don't come and tell us about strong expressions having been used, and about the trial not being a fair one. You come and tell us in Parliament that Mr. O'Connell has not had a fair

trial : I say, go and prove it before the Judges in Ireland, and have another."— Sir Frederick Pollock.

Sir Robert Peel on Appointments in Ireland.—[There has been but one judicial appointment in Ireland since the last meeting of Parliament—a place in the Ecclesiastical Court, necessarily filled by a member of the Church of England. The elevation of Mr. Sergeant Keating to that post vacated the office of third Sergeant; on which some official correspondence took place.]

" I wrote thus to the Lord-Lieutenant, on the 223 of August. I admit that political considerations would not justify a bad appointment of any party, still less a bad judicial appointment ; but I must, on the other hand, express a strong opinion that considerations of policy, and also of practice, demand a liberal and indulgent estimate of the claims to the favour of the Crown on the part of such Roman Catholics as abstain from political agitation, and take no part in politics offensive to the dispensers of that favour. What is the advantage to the Roman Catholics of having removed their legal disabilities, if, somehow or other, they are constantly met by preferable claims on the part of Protes- tants, and if they do not practically reap the advantage of their equality as to civil rights ? ' I can, Sir, with truth say that I wrote that letter with reference to the appointment then vacant, and without reference to this debate, several months ago. I can readily believe '—I am reading the letter exactly as I wrote it—' I can readily believe, that for nearly every office that may become vacant for ten years to come there will be found a Protestant candidate, with at least equal claims in point of qualification, and with superior claims on account of their professed attachment to the Church. If that claim is to be always admitted, there is still a practical disqualification ; and what motive can we bold out to the well-affected Roman Catholic to abjure agitation, and the notoriety and fame which are its rewards, if the door to honourable ap- pointment and legislative distinction be in point of fact closed ? I fear he will not be satisfied with the answer, " It is true we have made fifty appoint- ments, but for every one of the fifty a Protestant can make a preferable claim." Why has the Protestant a preferable claim ? Because he has had, for a long series of years, the advantage of ample privileges secured to him by law—be- cause he has been thrown into constant contact and intercourse with the Go- vernment. But the policy of the law has been changed; and surely we ought not to allow the effect of preceding policy to remain in full force, and to plead the inferiority of the Roman Catholic as a conclusive reason for preferring his more favoured opponent.' I say nothing of the spirit with which the Govern- ment were inclined to view the Roman Catholics. What was the practical result ? Sergeant Howley, a Roman Catholic, was appointed to that situation."

Dismissal of Magistrates.—" We are blamed for having dismissed those [the Repeal] Magistrates without having previously issued a proclamation. Sir, the noble Lord considered himself entitled, 1 believe, to dismiss Mr. Frost from the Magistracy for being a member of the National Convention, without having previously issued any proclamation. The noble Lord wrote to Mr. Frost, whom be had appointed a Magistrate, and asked him whether lie was a member of the National Convention. The noble Lord thought the answer in the first instance satisfactory : but Mr. Frost subsequently wrote a comment on his first state- ment; and he was then removed by the noble Lord from the Magistracy—not for any illegal act, but expressly, I apprehend, for having taken part in meet- ings at which seditious and inflammatory language bad been used. The noble Lord did not prosecute the meetings; yet the noble Lord dismissed Mr. Frost, without any proclamation."—Sir Robert Peel.

Toryism the most Congenial and Beneficent Rule for Ireland.—He would take a period only two hundred years past—the period immediately preceding the breaking out of the civil war. At that period there was a Parliament in Dublin called by a Protestant King, presided over by a Protestant Viceroy, and at that moment there was a Protestant Established Church in Ireland; yet the majority of the Members of that Parliament were Roman Catholics. The Government was at that time carried on by a Council of State, presided over by a Protestant deputy ; yet the majority of the members of that Council were Roman Catholics. The Municipalities were then full of Roman Catho- lics. A majority of the Sheriffs also were Roman Catholics, and the prepon- derating number of Magistrates were Roman Catholics. It was, therefore, very evident that it was not the necessary consequence of English connexion —of a Protestant monarchy, or even of a Protestant church—that this em- bittered feeling at present existed ; nor that that system of exclusion, which either in form or spirit had so long existed,was the consequence of Protestantism. The Oath of Supremacy, the only penal enactment, was then never called for, and this by the special desire of the King. Every corporation was open ; and Sir William Brereton, a Puritan, who visited Ireland in 1636, mentioned that he had seen a Protestant Judge of Assize carried to his church by the Popish Mayor of Wexford, and then carried with him to the mass-house. He cited this to show that to attribute the present condition of Ireland to the conse- quences of Protestantism was an error. Its condition was to be traced, not to Protestantism, but to Puritanism. It was the consequence of that stern system which in this country had destroyed those institutions which they were now all banded together to support.—Mr. Disraeli.

The Irish Question and its Solution.—He did not see that Lord John. Russell offered more than her Majesty's Ministers. They offered a great deal for them, for men who did not pretend to offer much. But for the noble Lord, who made a most spirited and animated speech, and in that truly heroic vein which always distinguished him when fighting against odds—what did he offer? The noble Lord offered a little thing in a great way. That was not what Mr. Disraeli wished. He wanted to see a public man COMC forward and say what the Irish question was. One said it was a physical question—another, a spiritual: now, it was the absence of the aristocracy—then, the absence of rail- roads : it was called the destitution of the people—and again, foreign interference in the appointment of Popish Bishops: at one time it was the Pope—at another the potatoes. Let them consider Ireland as they would any other country similarly situated, in their closets. Then they would see a teeming population, which with reference to the cultivated soil was denser to the square mile than that of China, created solely by agriculture, with none of those sources of wealth which develope with civilization ; and suotained con- sequently upon the lowest conceivable diet, so that in case of failure they had no other means of subsistence upon which they could fall back. That dense population in extreme distress inhabited an island where there was an Es- tablished Church which was not their church, and a territorial aristocracy the richest of whom lived in Paris or some other Continental city. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien church ; and, in addition, the weakest executive in the world. That was the Irish question. Well, then, what would gentlemen say if they were reading of a country in that position ? They would say at once, " The remedy is revolution." But the Irish could not have a revo- lution ; and why ? Because Ireland was connected with another and a more powerful country. Then, what was the consequence ? The connexion with England thus became the cause of the present state of Ireland. If the connexion with England prevented a revolution, and a revolution were the only remedy, England logically was in the odious position of being the cause of all the misery in Ireland. What, then, was the duty of an English Mi- nister? To effect by his policy all those changes which a revolution would do by force. That was the Irish question in its integrity. It was quite evident, to effect that, we must have an Executive in Ireland which should bear a much nearer relation to the leading chases and characters of the country than it did at present. There must be a much more comprehensive Executive; and then, having produced order, the rest was a question of time. There was no possible way by which the physical condition of the people could be improved by act of Parliament. The moment they had a strong Executive, a just Adminis- tration, and Ecclesiastical equality, they would have order in Ireland ; and the improvement of the physical condition of the people would follow—not very rapidly, perhaps, and they must not flatter themselves that it would—but what was fifty years even, in the history of a nation ? But he would say, if these recommendations were adopted, that in fifty years hence the men who should succeed the present generation in Parliament would find the people of Ireland a contented and thriving peasantry. He looked to a power more influential, more intelligent, more beneficial—a power which had risen but lately in the world. [A voice, " Young England?"] No, it was not Young England ; it was that irresistible law of our moral nature which provided that that which would not bear discasaion was doomed.—Atr.

The Peroration Victoria's Temple of Peace.—" I have a firm conviction, that if there were a calm and tranquillity in Ireland, there is no part of the British empire that would make such rapid progress in improvement. There are facilities for improvement, and opportunities for it, which will make the advance of Ireland more rapid than the advance of any other country. I will conclude, then, by expressing my sincere and earnest hope, that this agitation, and all the evil consequences of it, may be permitted to subside ; and hereafter, in whatever capacity I may be, I should consider that the happiest day of my life when I could see the beloved Sovereign of these realms fulfilling the fondest wishes of her heart—possessing a feeling of affection towards all her people but mingling that affection with sympathy and tenderness towards Ireland : I should bail the dawning of that auspicious day when she could alight, like some benignant spirit, on the shores of Ireland, and lay the foundations of a tem- ple of Peace—when she could, in accents which proceeded from the heart, spoken to the heart, rather than to the ear—call upon her Irish subjects of all classes and of all denominations, Protestants and Roman Catholics, Saxon and Celt, to fetget the difference of creed and of race, and to hallow that temple of Peace which she should then found with sacrifices still holier than those by which the temples of old were hallowed—by the sacrifice of those evil passions that dis- honour our common faith, and prevent the union of heart and hand in defence of our common country."—Sir Robert Peel.