tiebittrg anti Pructairigd in Parliament.

1. hunt REFORM Btu. On the committal of this bill on Monday, Mr. STANLEY announced a very important amendment which Ministers meant to introduce in the county qualification clause—to extend the right of voting to all persons having a beneficial interest to the amount of 10/. . yearly on any leasehold of twenty-ose years or more. Mr. Stanley said— They were in this case going considerably beyond the English right of voting; but, taking into consideration thecomparative value and amount of freehold and leasehold property in England ;'and Ireland respectively, and feeling that the alteration would improve the Irish constituency, he thought it would be generally admitted that they were justified in departinmb from the principle of the English Billso fitr as they proposed, in lowering the leasehold qualification, and placing two interests, leasehold and freehold; for twenty-one years (the one without and the other with a life' in addition to the same yearly term) on an equality. He, therefore, .proposed to extend the qualification to all persons being bona fide occupiers (as in the case of fretholds) for twenty-one years certain.

Mr. O'CONNF.I.I. expressed himself highly gratified at this conces- sion, and unwilling to quarrel with its details. Still, if, instead of- twenty-one years, Mr. Stanley had taken twenty, he would have greatly enhanced the value of the amendment ; as in that case, he would have included the sub-tenants of Church lands, the original leases of which cOuld not by law be granted for a longer period than twenty-one years.

Mr. STANLEY said if he consented to twenty years, he might after- wards be called on to make the term eighteen, sixteen, or fourteen.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought the amendment better as it stood than as Mr. O'Connell desired it to be modified.

After some further conversation,—in the course of which Sir ROBERT BATESON and Colonel PERCEVAL expressed their decided pre- ference of twenty years,—Mr. STANLEY consented to the substitution.

As he had been accused of yielding to the honourable and learned member for Kerry in granting this franchise at all, he now inf, rmed the honourable baronet opposite that the honourable baronet might consider the present question of the twenty years as yielded to him ; so that he must take one yielding as a compen- sation for the other. (A laugh.) A conversation ensued on a verbal alteration suggested by Sir E. SUGDEN, to prevent the fabrication of fictitious votes under the amend- ment. It was adopted ad interim; Mr. LEFROY and Mr. CRAMPTONnot deeming it necessary.

The 2d and 3d clauses were, after a short discussion, agreed to.

Mr. LEFROY proposed an amendment in th use 4th, to the effect that the "clear yearly value of 101." should be over and above all charges except King's taxes, Church cess, and parish rates. On this amend- ment the House divided : for it, 26; against it, 152.

The Chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Wednesday.

The House went into committee on the bill last night Mr. CI' Cost- NELL wished the Grand Jury and Corporation cesses to be struck out from the 4th clause ; but the amendment was not pressed.

The House divided on an amendment of Mr. SHELL'S forneaving out municipal and church rates : for the amendment 21, against it 59.

Mr. DAWSON moved that persons possessing forty-shilling freehelds for towns should not retain a vote for the eJunty. His object, he stated, was to get rid of the numerous fictitious freeholders that had been created for elective purposes, as a set off against the non-resident freemen. In Galway, the practice had been carried to a great cxtent. It' the member for Mayo pleased, he might make that town as close a nomination borough as Old Sarum. The ameadment was not pressed. -

The further consideration of the bill in Committee was postponed till Monday.

2. SCOTCII REFORM BILL. On Wednesday, on the House of Com- mons resuming, Lord ALTHORP stated his intention, on account of the necessity of proceeding with the proposed registry, to move the third reading of this Bill previous to the other business of the night. He at the same time stated his intention of omitting the Members' qualifica- tion clause, and substituting for it a qualification of 400/. per annum, instead of 600/. for members of counties only. He was at first of opi- nion that the same rule should be observed in Scotland as in England ; but he had received numerous remonstrances on the subject, and so bad the Lord Advocate, not only from the middle and lower classes, but from parties who were placed by their circumstances above all suspicion of sinister motives.

Mr. R. A. DUNDAS said, if the Qualification clause were struck out, the Scotch boroughs would return men who were wholly unfit for the society of gentlemen.

, Mr. DIXON observed, that the people of Scotland were, on the con- trary, so much given to worship wealth and aristocracy, that mere fit- ness and talent had not the slightest chance of being attended to by them.

Mr. PRINGLE spoke of the proposed change as originating in the clamorous demands of the Political Unions.

Mr. RUNE defended the Political Unions— They were to the full as respectable as the Carlton Conservative Club, to. which the honourable member belonged, and were not the less so that they were mainly composed of persons in the middle classes of society. He approved of- the principle of the noble lord's amendment, so far as it applied to the boroughs; and only regretted that the counties were not placed on the same fitoting, as a property qualification was pro tanto an impedunentto freedom of choice on the part of the represented of their representatives. The only test should be fitness,. as indicated by talent, and information, and zeal in the public service; and to make property the condition was to shut out intellectual competency. What test was a man's money of his intellect? Was-it not a. too notorious fact, that the half-witted, and wholly ignorant, and profligate sat in that House merely because they happened to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths ? And. Vila it not equally undeniable, that many a person not possessing a clear pro- perty of 1001. per annum possessed far higher senatorial qualificat ons than the -large majority of his hearers ? Should such persons be excluded om a station for which they were so eminently fitted, while some monied idiot was repre- sentiag his own breeches-pocket?

The LORD ADVOCATE said, he had sent copies of the Qualification clause to two hundred and fifty places ; and out of the wl ole, he had received but one approval; while from thirty-six be had received an immediate and empliatical protest against it.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY objected to all quilifications, whether in counties or boroughs, as tending to restrict unnecessarily tie choice of electors.

The Qualification clause was then negatived, with a view to its amendment. •

A conversation took place, on Mr. TRAIL'S motion for giving a separate member to the Shetland Islands.

The Sal.:Axint pointed out the difficulty caused by the first clause of the Bill, which limited the number of -Scotch Members to fifty-three.

Mr. Thera said, he would not disturb that number, as he meant to move the disfranchisement of one of the borough districts.

The LORD ADVOCATE opposed Mr. Trail's motion, chiefly on the ground that Sleolinid and Orkney had constituted but one stewartry . [county] since RiG9, and because of the smallness of the population and wealth of the two clusters of islands.

Mr. II UME thought the first objection of small value. When amend- ing the representation, the question to consider was not what had been, but what ought to be the rule. At the same time, he thought the time chosen for the motion rendered it impossible to entertain it. It must be left for a Reformed Parliament to deal with.

Ultimately, Mr. TaAir,, because of the advanced stage of the Bill, agreed to withdraw his motion.

The LORD ADVOCATE having moved the amended Qualification clause, the question of the Political Unions was again introduced, by Sir CHaitLEs WETHERELL ; who expressed an opinion that Ministers had been overruled by them in the present instance.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN repeated and enforced the sentiments of Sir Charles.

Lord A LTHORP said, he would give Sir Edward his honour that the communications which had induced him to alter this part of the Bill came from persons who were not at all connected with Political Unions either in Scotland or in England.

It might be that the Political Unions agreed with them on the point ; but he repeated, that the representations which had induced him to propose the with- drawal of this clause came from respectable individuals in the better classes of society, who were not at all connected with Political Unions.

Sir ROBERT PErir., notwithstanding this declaration, reiterated the assertion, that the change in Ministers' intentions had been occasioned by the dictation of these bodies; and in proof of it, instanced four peti- tions from Political Unions, presented that day, all caning for the change.

Mr. KENNEDY said, be saw no reason why a qualification should be consith,red necessary under the new system, which was not considered necessary under the old.

Ultimately, the Qualification clause was abandoned altogether, both for boroughs and counties. Some other verbal amendments were then agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

It was read a first time in the Lords on Thursday; the second read- ing stands for Wednesday next.

3. Inisn PARTY PROCESSIONS. The bill to prevent party proces- sions in Ireland, was committed, pro forma, on Monday, after consi- derable opposition.

Mr. LEFROY moved, that the bill be committed that day six months. He spoke of the bill as alienating those on whom the Ministry might soon be compelled to place their sole dependence for the preservation of Ireland. He blamed the time chosen for its introduction, without Warning, and When the greater part of Ireland was in open rebellion. It would force the Orangemen into the armsof the Great Agitator.

Colonel PERCEVAL opposed the committal. He, at the same time, was so hostile to such processions, that for twenty years, by his exer- tions, none had taken place in his county.

Mr. STANLEY said, Colonel Perceval's speech was conclusive in fa- vour of the committal which he opposed— If the bill affected Orangemen, and their processions alone, it was because they alone kept alive by their processions those feelings of a religious animosity which it was the object of this bill to put down. Before this bill was brought in, the Orangemen were determined to come forth in great numbers on July 12th to insult their Roman Catholic brethren, and overawe the administration of the law. (' • No no !" and "Hear, hear!") He had taken down the words of the honourable member for Sligo, and he had stated that the Orangemen were to display their physical force on that day.

He referred, for the spirit of these processions, to the destruction, on one occasion, in open day, of an entire -village in the county of Armagh. He referred also to the charges of Judge Jebb in 1830 and 1831, to show that there were legal difficulties in the way of their prevention, - Which c died for the bill before the House.

When honourable gentlemen talked of them as religious festivals, commemo- rating a religious ceremony, he begged leave to ask, if the Liturgy prescribed the attendance at church with loaded muskets, and party banners, and Orange badges to excite the triumphal pride of one party and the indignant remem- iiigniaii; of defeat in the other.

Be admitted that Political Unions might become dangerous ; but the best way to get rid of them, was to let them dissolve, as they soon Would do, of themselves.

That the Orangemen would not do. With them, the experiment had been "lied, and it had failed. Even this year, opinions had been taken as to the pro- pfietai of the Orangemen displaying their physical force, and opinions had been given that it was regal; and, acting on the opinions they had received, they meant to make that display.- The Orangemen were said to be very.loyal ; he would put their loyalty to the test by calling on them to obey the Legislature. lir: O'CONNELL opposed the bill; as establishing a bad precedent, which might afterwards be extended. It was only of late years that Orange processions had been looked on with jealousy by Catholics.

Mr. J. E. GORDON thought, as long as Political Unions were per- mitted, it was most unjust to attack Orange processions.

Mr. SHAW described the Orange processionists as a few peaceable persons in the North of Ireland.

Mr. LAMBERT said, the measure was imperatively called for, as one of peace and good-will.

Ile was surprised, too, that Mr. O'Connell should have imagined, that by his opposition to this measure, he could reconcile, parties who never could be united. But let not the Government hesitate ; they would deserve and obtain the thanks of their country, if they pasevered iii their endeavour to overturn in Ireland every supremacy but the supremacy of the law. He hopd that this bill might be passed with the greatest rapidity, in order to prevent the effusion of blood which he anticipated would otherwise take place on the ltIth of July.

Sir ROBERT BATESON said, the Orangemen would do no harm if they were let alone.

Mr. E. Haoes described their numbers as increasing.

Mr. H. MAXWELL spoke of their conduct as legal, and their objects constitutional.

The House at length divided : for the amendment, 29 ; against it, 110.

It was then agreed that the Chairman should report progress, and sit again on Wednesday, on the understanding that no opposition should be made on the latter night to the Speaker's leaving the chair.

Mr. STANLEY stated last night, that as the determined opposition to the bill rendered it impossible to pass it by the 12th f July, he would not press it this session. At the same time, he said he by no means abandoned the bill. The responsibility of the approaching processions rested entirely with those who so obstinately opposed the bill. He earnestly pressed upon those gentlemen the necessity of using their influence to stop the processions ; from which, as the law now stood, be could but anticipate the most fearful results.

Colonel PERCIVAL said, after the epithet, "bigoted remnant of an expiring faction," that Mr. Stanley had applied to the Orangemen, he was far from thinking he had influence to stop the processions.

Mr. LEFROY felt no surprise at Mr. Stanley's desire to shift respon- sibility from his own shoulders to those of the Protestant gentry of Ireland ; but he cast back upon him all the evil that might result from the failure of the hill. If it was so important as he described it, the bill ought to have been introduced sooner.

Mr. O'CONNELL said-

" I am desirous that the right honourable gentleman and the Government should take a lesson from what is occurring at the present moment ; for they may learn from it in how very different a spirit those who belong to the popular party receive a concession from those who are represented by the two honour. able gentlemen who have just preceded me. ( Cheers.) Instead of expressing any pleasure at the concession—instead of thanking the Government for it—in- stead of being gratified that their wishes are likely to be carried into effect—they have received the boon with taunts, and have returned insult for concession. Their business ought to be to pour oil on the water ; but instead of that, they are blowing the flames into additional fury. I, however, am determined to do my duty; and I here promise to address the Catholic population of the North of reland in the strongest terms, for tlw purpose of persuading them to go out of the way of those processions, so that, if possible, no Hood may be shed."

4. Intsn TITHES. It was intended that tile measure respecting Irish Tithes should be introduced on Thursday; but Mr. STANLEY postponed its introduction till Thursday next, on the ground that the second repeat from the Tithes Committee was not yet in the hands of Members.

A conversation on this suliject took place in the Lords on the same evening. The Marquis of WESTMEATH and others complained of the delay in bringing forward the bills. Earl GREY observed, in reply, that the bills being money bills, necessarily originated in the House of Commons, winch could not be accused of idleness, inasmuch as it had sat on an average from five o'clock to two o'clock in the morning for five nights a week ll the session. The cause of the postponement that had taken place that night, lay, not with the advocates of a settle- ment, but with its opponents.

It seemed to be the wish of their Lordships that they should hove a discussion on the principles of the three bills, before they came up ; but no distinct mode was pointed out by which this could be attained.

Mr. STANLEY stated in the House last night, that it was his inten- tion, on Thursday, to enter into a full statement of the principle and scope of the three bills prepared by Government ; but it was not minis- ters' wish, during the present session, to insist on pressing forward any of them but one,—namely, the bill for the amendment of the existing Composition Act, for the purpose of rendering it permanent and com- pulsory. Under these circumstances, Mr. O'CONNELL did not persist in the call of the House, which he had intimated his intention of moving. Mr. 0' CONNELL stated, in the course of the conversation that took place, his decided intention of opposing, in every way, any attempt to connect tithes with rent. The Irish people had determined that tithes should altogether cease, and so to connect them would only turn the popular dislike against rents also.

• 5. NEW SOUTH WALES. Mr. H. L. BULWEll (Member for Coventry) introduced, on Thursday, his motion for bestowing a legis- lative assembly on the Colony of New South Wales. Mr. Bulwer, after referring to statistical details of the increasing amount of the exports and imports of the Colony, as indicative of its increasing im- portance, went on-- Reports had reached this country of the grossest acts of tyranny a mmitted in the colony. We had been told of persons illegally imprisoned. It was too much that any person in the British dominions should possess such power. The Go- vernor had the power of levying taxes upon the importation of goods; he had the disposal of the revenue; the distribution of convict labour was subject to his decision; he had at his disposal a patronage of 20,0001. a year. The only check upon him was a Legislative Assembly, sitting with closed doors, consist- ing of fiftwoi members, eight of whom were official, and seven nominated accord- ing to recommendation. If a person petitioned the Governor, it was necessary to wait a certain interval before an answer could be obtained; and during that time, the Governor might subject him to various inconveniences. The trial by Jury was the peculiar attribute of Englishmen. The difficulty of having Emu).- cipators on the jury, could easily be got over. Crime increased with the pre- sent severity of the saw.; so that the system was not so desirable in its working that it should be continued. He referred to the evidence of Governor Hunter before the Transport Committee. This gentleman said, that there was a suffi- cient number of inhabitants to form a Jury, and that it was the wish of the in- habitants to have Julies instituted. Other gentlemen also gave it as their opinion that the system of criminal justice ought to be altered. Sir Thomas Demnan wished, in 1823, to give the Colonies the advantage of Jurors. Sir James Mackintosh and the Governor of New South Wales were of a similar opinion. Ile also contended, that the colony ought to have a Representative Assembly, or something analogous to the principle of representation.

He entered into a calculation of the constituency which the colony could furnish— According to the returns made in 1827, of those persons then qualified to serve 011 Grand awl Petty Juries at Quarter-Sessions, it would appear that

Sydney had . 406 Paramatta 220 Newcastle 131 Windsor 263 Liverpool 74 -- Total 1,099 In these five districts, then, there was a respectable constituency of 1,100; of whom he understood, from gentlemen conversant with their names, there are about 120 Emancipists. He believed, moreover, members would had among this number upwards of a hundred who possessed more than 500/. per annum, in which number twenty might be Emaucipists. From these persons, surely, a respectable body might he chosen ; nor could the Emancipists, in so small a proportion in the electing body and the body to be elected, obtain a share in the Legislatere improper to assign them.

He noticed some of the expenses of the colony, which were the fruit of the present system— By a Parliamentary return, No. 547, of 1830, it appeared that no less than 10,91,21. 2s. 6d. was received by military men, either by way of peusion, or for performing civil duties, in addition to their regimental pay. It also appeared, from the CAM document, that 750/. a year pension was granted to the Colonial ' Secretary, in addition to 2,000/. per annum, and other perquisites; which pension, received for services here, was paid out of the Colonial Revenue. The 1Cannmissariat expenses, he was confidently assured, had alone increased in • salaries to clerks from 5,000/. per annum ; when both Sydney and Van Diemen's Land weie united, to 10,000/. a-year for the former colony alone, in the space of less than five years, The police establishment increased in the space of four years—viz. from 1825 to 182S, more than double,—being, in 1825, 8,945/. 8s. 2d. ; and in 182S, 20,558/. 8s. 2,d. ; while the population, according to the Parliamentary Returns, at least, was increased from 1824 to

• 1829 by only 3,000 individuals.

He concluded by summing up the arguments adduced in his long and - able-speech in support of the prayer of the colonists.

. Mr. ROBINSON seconded the motion. Having observed that, in regard to the establishment of juries, he was at :loss to see bow any opposition could be made to the wishes of the colonists, Lord Howlers stated, that, only four days ago, despatches were - received from the Governor, which mentioned that he had announced, pursuant to the authority vested in him, the intention of speedily esta- blishing juries in criminal cases. - Mr. ROBINSON concluded— He did not believe that representative bodies like those idthe West India Colonies were as yet altogethei fit fur New South Wales ; but he thought that the time had arrived when that colony ought to possess something like M repre- sentative body. At all events, he protested against the injustice and inexpe- diency of considering New South Wdles in the light of a penal colony, longer than circumstances nnght render absolutely necessary.

Lord HOWICK said, he had already answered, incidentally, one of the complaints made by the colonists, and supported by Mr. Bulwer,—

• namely, the want of jury trials in criminal eases ; a want which was now about to be supplied. To the establishment of a representative Government, he thought the peculiar character of the colonists pre.- sented great, if not insuperable obstacles- . Of whom was the promised representative body to be composed? The ho- nourable member had given no decided opinion on the point ; but he (Lord Howick) collected front what had fallen from him, that he was inclined to communicate the elective and the representative franchise to the .Emancipists, and to give them in all respects an equality of civil rights with the free settlers. Now he thought this rather a startling propsition. The honourable member was of opinion that the Emancipists would he light in the scale weighed against the free settlers: Lord Howick was a opinion they would preponderate. In the year 1828, the male inhabitants of New South Wales, above twelve Years of age, who were born free, or who were free settlers, were 4,484 in number. 1 he number of Emancipists was 6,137. The number of convicts (the, term of Pu- nishment of many of whom had since expired)was 14,155. In the years 1829 and 1830, 6,839 additional convicts were sent out. How did these facts agree with the honourable gentleman's theory? To show how soon the convicts sometimes required power, and what trouble they were disposed to give,• he • would state one fact. When he entered upon office, the first paper i which were put into his hands related to a complaint made by a Mr. Girard, of New South Wales, against General Darling, for ill usage with reference to a-contract for flour. On investigation, it appeared that this Mr. Girard was nothing more nor less than a respectable pickpocket, who in the year 1821 had been trans- ported for stealing a watch. This man, who in 1821 was a convicted thief, in 1829 was a great contractor!

In conclusion, he defended General Darling from the caluMnies cir- culated against him— For those which were serious, or could lead to a practical conclusion, there was'not even the shadow of a foundation. The General had been the object of the most virulent calumny and invective. Great jealousy existed as to the di- vision of convicts; and it was impossible to satisfy all parties, because the claim- anti were very numerous, and the number to be divided limited to an average of 'about 3,000. Lord Howick said, not only was there a free !mess, but the greatest licentiousness occasionally prevailed. In the Colony, General Darling had been accused of murder, as the Government here had been accused of burn- ing Bristol : the libel in the Colony passed unprosecuted, as well as the libel at home.

Mr. DixoN decidedly objected, on general principles, to the system adopted in the colony, of taxing men without their own consent. One word with respect to General Darling— Re considered it most impolitic and unjust on the part of a Minister of the Crown, to characterize, as he bad done, the 'complaints against a public officer . . as calumnious, before those complaints had been fairly and fully heard and determined.

• Mr. STANLEY thought it the duty of Lord Howick to give that pro- tection to General Darling which every public servant was entitled to.

• Mr. O'CONNELL remarked on the application of the term calumnious to the charges against General Darling— •

If the noble lord at the head of the Government was capable of acting towards any one as General Darling had acted towards Mr. Kew, the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench would be unworthy of his high office if he did not within four-and-twenty • hours send that noble lord to the Marshalsea.. Then again, there was the conduct of General Darling with regard to the prosecutions of the Press. • There was no cuter test of tyranny than a disposition to pro- secute the.Press on all occasions. He would not gointo the one of Mr. Hall anotheropportunity would be afforded for that ; but he had no doubt he could prove, that many parts of the conduct of General Darling bad been such, that in the matterof tyrannical prosemations Verres had been a child to him.

Lord HOWICK denied that.he had either praised General Darling or blamed those who attacked him. But he had a right to say that General Darling was basely calumniated, when charged with murder ; seeing that the charge was so untenable, on investigation, that the prosecuting counsel threw up his brief, and would have nothing to do with it.

After sonic further conversation, the House divided : for Mr. Bid- wer's motion, 26; against it, 66.

6. Por.aNn. On Thursday, Mr. C. FEBGUSSON moved for the production of a copy of the Imperial manifesto respeetiree , Poland, slated the 26th February last, and of the organic statute which accom- panied it. After a lengthened comment on the treaty of 1814, by the terms of which, be contended, the independence of Poland was guarun- teed,—Mr. Fergusson went on to notice some of the atrocities lately perpetrated in that country.

It Was Of course known to the House, that of the twenty-four General Offi- cers who had been arrested in Poland, not more than four flail returned to their homes, though it was declared that all of them had been included in the amnesty. The soldiers of Poland Were also included in the amnesty, and yet it was also equally well known that they were marched in columns'of ten, and linked together by bars of iron, to the remotest part:: of Siberia. That was the treatment which they received at the hands of .the clement Nicholas. The nobles of Poland encountered no better treatment—they were banished and degraded. The sentence of one Polish Prince was signed by Nicholas on the festival of his patron saint ; and what was that sentence?—Tbat he should be banished to Siberia, and that he should proceed thither on foot. That document was still in existence—that 'document, which enjoined that that illustrious Prince should march along with common soldiers to Siberia, and should en- counter not only the privations of that dreadful climate, but the misery of a journey thither on foot. The Princess, his mother, immediately on learning *the sentence, proceeded to St. Petersburg, in the hope of procuring some miti- gation of it ; and what was the condition upon which the Emperor agreed that there should be some mitigation? The condition was, that the Prince should acknowledge that be had been led into the rebellion by the loss of reason conse- quent on the death of his wife. To this he replied, that he was a Pole; and that no consideration should induce him to acknowledge that he had over devoted himself to the cause of Poland from any other Motive than a deliberate convic- tion of the justice of her cause ; and that that conviction was adopted under cir- cumstances which would for ever render it impossible that he should admit the influence of any other sentiment than a strong sense of the injuries inflicted upon his beloved countiy. If any answer could have softened the decision of the tyrant, it was this ; but the unfortunate Prince was subjected to all the rigours of his sentence. He would mention another rase. The Russian soldiers were directed to take possession of all infants who might be left without parents; a grandfather was about to he robbed of a child, a female, not above eight years of age—he was seventy ; he had been a fellow-soldier of Kosciusko : he resisted with more than Roman heroism, and even Russian brutality Was arrested in its career.

The despotism of Nicholas had not been confined within the boun- daries of his own dominions— -•

A person named Tours was found in the dominions of the King of Hanover. The Russian Minister. in Dresden demanded the surrender of Tours. It was al- leged that he had been arrested in consequence, and his papers were taken from him. He should like to know if the fact were so? By the treaty of Vienna, the King of Hanover was not bound to deliver up any person who was not charged with some crime; and, 'indisputably, not the slight...st charge was preferred against him.

• It was evident from the whole conduct of Russia, that it was meant to denationalize Poland altogether; and that one of the objects proposed by the destruction of the Polish name, Was the realinition of that Project of universal empire Which Russia had so long cherished.

Lord SANDON seconded the motion. He observed, that Russia, by its late conduct, had effectually put an end to the arrangements enteled into by the Congress of Vienna; and new ones might therefore be en- tered into whenever the high contracting parties saw fit.

He hoped that the time was not distant when the Crown of Poland would be declared independent, and when that country would be placed in such a si- tuation'-isio enable her to fulfil her duties amongst the great; faMily. of the States of Europe. In the consideration of such aquestion as that, he had. the satisfaction to think there did not exist a second opinion, either in that Heusi or -in the 'nation at large. It had been contended, on the part of the 'Emperoi of Russia, that the Poles had forfeited their right to a free constitution: as well might it be said that the people of Scotland, after the events of 1745, had for- fened all right to personal or political liberty. • :Lord PALMERSTON, while declining to enter into any statement of the conduct of England-in respect to the • late events in Poland, to which be,:was not called by Mr. Fergusson's speech, • felt bound to sip, that the Government was by no means blind to the obligations of the Treaty of Vienna— No man could entertain a doubt, that Great Britain possessed a full right to express a decided opinion-upon the performance or the non-performance of the stipulations contained in that treaty. Nevertheless, it could not be denied that England lay under no peculiar obligation, individually and independently of the other contracting parties, to adopt measures of direct interference by force.

In allusion to the case of Tours, he said— He understood Tours to be a subject either of Prussia or of Saxony; and therefore the Hanoverian Government, in arresting him, were merely performing a duty which it was not able to refuse. He did not conceive it to be his duty to make any further observations; and the more so as he had already said he did not intend to refuse She papers which were moved for.'

Lord Moitrrrit spoke of the hospitality he had received in . _ _ • - _ , . _ from the Emperor Nicholas, and the natural desire he felt to view with approbation the conduct of one with whose friendship he had been ho- noured. He could not, however, with all his kindly feelings towards the Emperor, approve of his conduct towards the Poles. Lord Mor- peth's speech is given at greater length in the Chronicle than in the other jourands, though we must confess not more intelligibly. The following is the peroration literatini- " If the design is on foot, and in active progress to annihilate the Polish na- tion, name, constitution, language—all but her immortal memory—the land of Cashiers and Tigismunds, of Sobieski, and Teoshivshes, that had first resisted the torrent of Illahomedan invasion, and secured the liberties and. religion of Europe; if her princes, and nobles, and senators, are consigned to the dungeons, the mines, the graves of Siberia; if her noble ladies travel to the foot of the Throne—and I am told their very presence has even gent a chill into the festi- vities of the capital—and sat not-for pardon, but for pity upon those whose fault it was to act with conscientious and heroic, though perhaps despairing devoticn, . In the cause of their country, while they thought they had one—and that suit is denied them ; if, while in confiscation and exile, they teach the course of her Czartoriskis and her Sangouches, her rising and spirited youth are daily drafted -to swell the ranks of the Russian armies, and prepare new Te Deums for future triumphs over the freedom of the world; if, further—oh, crowning horror !— let it be well attested before we credit it—children are carried off to lose the memory of their noble country on the frozen banks of the Obe, or among the mountainous steeps of Caucasus; if these things be we may, without much compromising ourselves say that a case is made out for the energetic interven- tion of England and of Europe; we may, without much presuming, add, that whatever becomes of that intervention, great room is left for the righteous retri- bution of Heaven."

After a few words from Sir GEORGE WARRENDF:R and Lord ERRING- TON, in support of the motion, and in deprecation of the cruelties of Russia, Mr. O'CONNELL said— Lord Morpeth had spoken of the gratification he felt in being known to the Emperor of Russia, and in having visited his Court. For his pint, he should be ashamed of such an acquaintance. If the Emperor of Russia had been a smaller and more insignificant person, it would have been considered a disgrace to hold any communication ; but because he had a horde of three or four hun- dred thousand barbarians at his back, was that a reason why mankind should not treat him as he deserved, and execrate him on account of his crimes? The 33arbarian conqueror had violated the treaty regarding the Poles in a manner such as no treaty was ever violated before. , The miscreant barbarian had vio- lated all compact—had trampled on all rights; and was this Attila—this scourge of God—to found a new claim to the kingdom of Poland, because suc- cess had, by barbarian force, crowned his perfidy and infamy with triumph? It ai,r4s a question not of argument but of natural feeling.

Mr. ScrtoNswatt, Colonel EVANS, Mr. G. KNIGHT, Mr. PIG OTT, and Mr. RUTHVEN, condemned the conduct of Russia in strong terms.

Sir RoeFsir Ixetts objected to the strong language employed in speaking of the Emperor_

Hewas surprised that the right honourable Secretary opposite, and the other 'members of his Majesty's Government, should have suffered seven members to proceed with such language—( Cries of " Hear, her !" and " Suffered r )— he meant without notice. Ile considered such language to be a most improper use of the freedom of debate in that House.

Sir Robert afterwards said, that he had an opinion on the subject; 'ivliieh, however, he would reserve.

Lord PALMERSTON said, he greatly regretted Mr. O'Connell's language ; but he did not conceive he had any right, or that it was his duty, to interrupt him.

Mr. BEAUMONT perfectly concurred with Mr. O'Connell, that the Emperor of Russia was a miscreant.

Mr. flume agreed with Mr. Beaumont.

It was complained that the Emperor of Russia was called a miscreant ; why he would call him a monster in human form. If he knew language by which he could more strongly express his detestation, he would use it. He wondered that Sir Robert Inglis should venture in that House to address a Minister of the Crown, and ask him why he suffered such language to be used there. Why, it was not in his power to prevent it.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS-44 I said without notice."

Mr. H1.7.31E-4‘ I ask what were the words to which the honourable member alluded ?"

Sir ROBERT Lecrls—" I stated the word—miscreant."

Mr. RVME—" And, I repeat it, the word is too weak to express my feelings of detestation at the barbarities exercised towards Poland. I would ask, are the accounts of the conduct of Russia untruly or unfairly stated? If any thing stated by the Member for Kerry be untrue, let some member stand up in his place ana deny it. If true, I ask any man possessing the feelings of a Briton, whether the language was not weak when compared to such atrocity that pro- voked it."

Mr. WYSE felt convinced, that by such a debate as the present, they were raising a powerful moral barrier to the encroachments of Russia. Mr. BAanso justified Sir Robert Inglis in deprecating the appli- cation of such terms as " miscreant" to the Emperor of Russia. He thought Ministers would have done well to stand forward and express their opinion of the impropriety of such phraseology. He admitted the Polish rebellion to be most righteous, more especially as the man deputed to reign over them had been deprived of the Imperial crown of Russia for incompetency. He did not, however, see the necessity of England's sallying forth as a general redresser of wrongs, and embroil- ing herself in disputes with every nation that committed an act of injustice. However, he thought Government right in pressing upon Russia the fulfilment of the Treaty of Vienna; and he hoped niuch from the prudence and firmness of the Noble Lord about to proceed to St. Petersburg for that purpose. Mr. SHEIL said, Mr. Baring would have members " Mince their words,

And mollify damnation with a phrase."

He should, however, give the allowance which he so freely. took. He should pardon another for speaking of a miscreant on a throne, who described his fellow-citizens as "blackguards in the streets." He asked how Sir Robert Inglis, whose language when describing the oppressors of the Vaudois was so glowing, had of a sudden adopted so meek a strain in speaking of the Emperor Nicholas? When Mr. Shea saw a man delegating his brother, into whom the sphit of -Nero must have transmigrated—if here was a metempsychosis among despots .-441:trea4 the heart of Poland out; when he saw him betraying a nation of borm into submission, an then transporting them to Siberia ; shaving off the grey hair of nobles with the blood of Europe's saviours in their veins ; degrad- ing and enslaving women ; spitting neither age nor sex, and thrusting the hand of a ruthless and Herod-like infanticide into the cradle of Polish childhood; when he saw him acting thus, and leaving himself nothing to add to damnation, he would not call him " miscreant,"—the word was poor and incommen- surate with his depravity,—but exclaim, " Oh, thou art worse than words can give thee out !" Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated the use of insulting language towards I the Emperor, as tending to produce that irritation which so often led to war between states. He denied that those who used it had any right to call themselves advocates of the Poles ; the Poles had never, in the greatest heat of their struggle with Russia, indulged in such Bil- lingsgate oratory. Sir Robert concluded by suggesting the addition of a copy of the Polish Constitution to the papers moved for ;.--which was agreed to.

7. CONVENTION WITH RUSSIA. The convention entered into with Russia respecting the payment of the Russian-Dutch Loan, was laid on the table of the House of Commons on Wednesday, and on the table of the House of Lords on Thursday.

The Earl of ABERDEEN complained of the distinction in the treat- ment of the two Houses. He also complained that the additional ar- tide of ItIth May 1815, had not been submitted to Parliament. Earl GREY said, he was on his way to the House on Wednesday, when he was informed, at ten minutes past five o'clock, that the House was up. He was only to blame for not being dowu precisely at five o'clock. He would inquire respecting the additional article; and, if no objection existed to its production, lay it before their Lordships.

8. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL. Lord DACRE, OR Monday, moved the committal of this bill. Lord TENTERDEN objected to the principle of the bill. He objected to the abolition of the punishment of death, because we had no sub- stitute the apprehension of which would inspire equal terror. The ex- ample of the United States of America had been alluded to—

He did not profess to possess any knowledge as to what had taken place in America on this subject, but he thmight he could perceive, from the countenances

of many noble lords while the noble lord was at himself to that point, that the example of America was not one that would be followed in this country. It was necessary to introduce some effectual secondary punishment, before the punishment of death was taken away. By postponing the bill for a session, the attention of Parliament and the public would na- turally be turned to that point : if the object of the bill were carried now, there was great fear that no strenuous endeavours would be made to discover such a secondary punishment hereafter. The protection and security of property were the main object of society, and no ciple of religion or morality condemned the adoption of any measures for that purpose where they were clearly necessary. As the law now stood, stealing in a dwelling-house to the amount of .5/. was capital— If this measure should be passed, taking away the punishment of death from all such ntfences, the temptation to steal in dwelling-houses would be greatly in- creased. It wassaid, that as this punishment was now rarely inflicted, it would be better to abolish it altogether. It was quite true, that it was rarely inflicted ; and he was glad to say, that after all the camplairOs which they heard of the se- verity of the laws of England, they heard no comp:.!ints as to the severity of their admilistration. But though the punishment of dem!: was rarely applitd in such cases, the power of its application was attended with a allutarY ; for it was a very dift-erent thing for a man to be able to say to hirinself—" By the law of the land, I can commit such and such crimes, and not suffer death,' awl to be able to say, "If I commit such and such crimes, I may suffer death."

With respect to horse-stealing, he would ask, had the crime so de- creased as to render the highest punishment unnecessary ? Lord Ten- terden concluded by denying that either prosecutors or juries had shown any unwillingness to convict for offences under .1.a laws sought to be repealed.

The Fav.1 nf t'- ' 2 the subject of secondary punishments for twenty-five years, and had never been able to find one that satisfied his mind. He doubted in consequence the expedience of the present bill. He spoke of a threat held out by the Judges of As- size on one occasion, and its consequence— The Judges gave notice, that they would, on the ensuing circuit, leave the law to take its course with respect to all those who should be found guilty of horse-stealing. What was the consequence? Why, the consequence was, that not a single horse was stolen between the period which elapsed from one assizes to the other. This proved that the terror of capital punishment produced a salutary effect. The cases of horse-stealing might very much vary He remembered an instance in which a man was convicted of stealing a horse, and selling it to an individual near the Smallpox Hospital, at Battlebridge' for Svc shillings. It was proved that the wretched animal was not, in reality,

worth that sum. Perhaps it would not have been advisable to follow up that offence with capital punishment. But immediately afterwards, another case oc-

curred, in which a man stole a horse in Essex ; and it was proved, that before he came to London he had possessed himself of nine other horses. That was not all. He was discovered to have in his pockets the keys of almost the whole of the turnpike-gotes on the road to town. Was this, he would ask, a case to be lightly dealt with?

He noticed the same variation in cases of forgery. A banker like Fauntleroy, receiving the dividends of his customers, might in the course of a month, by forgery, take out of the pockets of these indivi- duals two or three 'hundred thousand pounds. This was a very dif- ferent crime from forging a check for ten pounds. Again, in respect of stealing in a dwelling-house—the five pounds stolen from a poor man might be his all, which it would cost him years to make up again--

Did not the act that reduced this man to utter penury deserve condign pu- nishment ? The lightning of heaven might consume the t oor man's. Cottage, the thunders of heaven might destroy his dwelling, but still t e Ian, said, " It is his castle, and the hand of power shall not touch it." But what did ' this bill de- clare? It declared, that the robber might enter his abode almost with•im- punity.

The law provided general enactments to prevent enormous crimes.. Now they could not have those general enactments to prevent such crimes, Without classing under them offences of O nature with reference to which it might not be necessary, sometimes, to suffer the law to take its course. It did not, how- ever, follow that they ought therefore to abrogate the law altogether. In such einteilas theft to which be had alluded, it was left to the Crown to exercise the

prerogative of mercy; and so far as his knowledge extended, mercy had never been refused in any instance where it ought not to have been withheld.

Lord DACRE observed, that from the line of argument adopted by Lords Tenterden and Eldon, it might be thought that in England no such thing as secondary punishment was known— If they cast their eyes over the returns which had been laid on their table, they would find, that during the years 1826, 1827, 1823, 1829, 1830, and 1831, 935 persons were convicted of sheep-stealing ; out of which number only 14 criminals suffered the last penalty of the law. The remainder had undergone different secondary punishments, which were known at present. He had no objection to the discretionary power of the Judge, but he wished to introduce greater certainty into decisions of law— It appeared to him, that crime could not he effectually checked, unless the punishment which it awarded was concurrent with the feelings and sentiments of the people. It was not by the threat of a sanguinary punishment that they would induce the people to abandon crime. In this enlightened age, the frowning aspect of a barbarous and bloody code, whatever might have been its effect formerly, had lost all its terrors.

The only sure method of diminishing offences, was to render the punishment not terrible, but certain.

Lord WYNFORD agreed that the punishment of death ought not to be inflicted unless where life had been taken away, or for the abstraction accompanied with violence ; but he contended, that unless in these cases, the prerogative of the Crown ,was a sufficient security. Ile denied the value of the secondary punishments at present in use— Transportation was, at present, a secondary punishment ; but transportation had no longer any terrors attached to it. It was rather an encouragement to crime, as had been repeatedly declared in evidence by gaolers and others, than a dissuasive from it. At first, when a country was in a rude and unsettled state, and when much labour was to be performed by the convicts, transportation was certainly a severe punishment. But the circumstances were now entirely al- tered, and the terrors which were formerly connected with transportation had been wholly removed from our colonies. If such were the tease, in what situa- tion would they place this country by the passing of this bill, when they left it without any secondary punishment that could have the effect of deterring men from the commission of crime ?

The feeling of the public on this subject, he concluded, was morbid, and to be withstood.

Lord BROUGHAM admitted that certain crimes deserved death, but be thought such crimes ought not to be so loosely defined as they now were. He disapproved of classing under the same head, as punish- able by death, acts of the most unequal degrees of criminality, and to most of which it was never meant that the punishment of death should apply. If the mere threat of death deterred criminals, it would be well to keep up the threat ; but it did no such thing— If they looked at the returns, and marked the small number of capital sen- tences that were carried into execution, they would at once perceive that it was a mere empty threat, and nothing more. Let them examine the return with respect to the crime of sheep-stealing and they would find, that in the year 1831, 163 capital sentences were passed under the law, as it at present stood ; but of those capital sentences only one was carried into effect. In the same year, there were 125 capital sentences for hurse -stealing, ad Isamu, was carried to effect. For stealing to the value of 5/. there wel-e 100 capital sentences and, as in the case of horse-stealing, not one was executed. Here, then, out of aSS capital cases, there was only one exec:ink:1. The whole numli,yr of capital

convictions for every species of crime, in IC411 :untainted to and not more than 11 executions took place. Now, supposing, in spite of all the chances of escape which a erimioal had---the chance of pro,c,:ators not i.t&I;lizzg—the chance of witav:.;as holding ha:di—suppose hut, notwithstalidiag this, to have

been convicted, how did he stand ? nhy, lie formed one of gross number of 1,180; of whom 11 were executed; so that his chance of tuhLuIliLtJ escape was snore than 100 to 1."

Allusion had been made to forgery : there v.-as no crime that more effectually bore out the advocates of the bill— Previous to the alteratiens which had been introduced in 1820 in the punish- ment of forgery, out of 737 prosecutions there were 334 convictions ; while there were but 57 acquittals out of 553 cases that had occurred since the milder penalty had been adopted. This would appear, perhaps, stronger put thus :—the number of persons executed for the crime of forgery in the seven years ending 11830, was 24 out of 217 prosecutions—that is to say, from the reluctance of persons to capitally prosecute, and of Juries to find capital verdicts, and of Judges to enforce the strict severity of the law ; to but One case in nine was the law rigidly applied ; while the number of persons executed for the crime of murder dilting the same period was nine to one of the prosecutions ; clearly showing, that where the punishment is considered by the community at large to be diss proportioned to the offence, the chances of acquittal are so magnified, that the law ceases to be efficacious as a preventive; and vice versa.

He noticed Lord Tenterden's argument respecting secondary punish- ments— He agreed with his learned friend, that secondary punishments were not under the present system applied with sufficient severity and discrimination ; but he entertained sanguine hopes that by a due adjudication of those punish- ments—by a more vigorous applicatiou of them, particularly so far as the treatment of the convict after sentence of transportation had been recorded against him was concerned, and by rendering it almost hopeless to attempt to escape from their infliction,—they might be rendered efficient checks upon crime as punishment. As it was,—huperfect as they were, and indiscriminating and lax as they were administered,—they were the only protection of property, and prevention of offences which the common feelings of mankind, as indicated by the reluctance to capitally convict, did not place in the category of crimes for -which death was the just penalty, which this country possessed; for, as he had endeavoured to show, the chances of escape from the capital punishment of the - existing statutes against crimes involving loss of property, were so great, that those statutes were practically useless.

After some further conversation, the bill was committed pro formd.

Lord WYNFORD suggested, that instead of the Judge having a dis- cretionary power to order instant transportation, it should be imperative on him to do so. Lord MELBOURNE agreed to this amendment; and the House baying resumed, the bill was ordered to be recommitted on Wednesday.

9. MR. BARING'S BILL. On Wednesday, Mr. BARING moved the commitment of his bill for disqualifying insolvents from sitting in • Parliatnent. He observed, that whatever opinion was entertained .respecting the positive property that a member ought to have, he sup- posed they were all agreed about his negative property—

He thought all would agree that a member should not be encumbered with

those weights which made him, in every respect, a dependent man—that the House shoul I not be a receptacle for such persinis. His object was not to keep men of mod Tate property out of the House. As far as this bill was concerne4

it would only m prevent men encumbered with debts from taking refuge from i

their creditors n that House. At present, the pi ivilege led to scandalous abuses. He had he ird of a case of a member of Parliament drawing a bill at Bath, which was dishonoured ; and when the parties, after having- obtained a judg- ment agains% him, went to seize his property, they foiled that his furniture and carriage and horses were all seized ; and so they got nothing. He could relate a multitude of such cases, but would not tire the House. Now, was it fair that six hundred and fifty persons should have a privilege against arrest from debt? All that Parliament was called on to do, was to prevent any part of the King's subjects from lowing such a privilege different from all others. If the House would allow the bill to be recommitted, and the blanks to be filled up, he should propose that no member be liable to arrest on mesne process, but only on the final decision of a competent tribunal ; and with respect to the period, adopting the suggestion of Mr. Cutler Fergusson, he should propose that each blank be filled up with three months ; making it six months before the notice of any process whatever should be effective.'

Lord Aternone said, when the bill was first proposed, he was in- clined to support its principle, but his views of it had changed the more he considered it— The privileges of that House were originally and substantially the privilege. of the People. That a member should not be subject to arrest, was the privi- lege of the constituents whom be represented. As far as the scandal of the thing went, it was well known that there were seldom more than three or four persons in Parliament to whom the provisions of the bill would apply. Un- questionably, the worst cases were those in which a man who had got into debt afterwards got into the House of Commons for the purpose of eluding his cre- ditors. But the change which was about to take place in the representation would go far to prevent thatevil; for it was not likely that a man who was al- ready in a distressed condition, would venture upon canvassing any large and populous town or district. Under all the circumstances of the case, he should feel it his duty to give the motion his direct negative.

Mr. HUNT thought the bill ought to extend to the Lords as well as the Commons.

Mr. HUME was opposed to the bill, as tending to narrow the choice of the People. Neither could he see why the bill should not extend to Peers as well as Commoners.

Mr. PRAED said, the bill might be extended to the Peers hereafter. He advised Mr. Hunt to take what it gave, and to procure its extension if necessary at a future period. • Some further conversation took place on the subject of the bill's ex- tending to the Peers ; in which Lord JOHN Russell. observed, that -a Peer could in no case go into Parliament to avoid his debts ; his going into Parliament did not depend on his own will. • Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the Commons had never resigned a privilege which the Peers had not afterwards resigned ; and therefore he thought the bill might properly be entertained as it stood.

Mr. BERNAL did not believe any private or public Committee would ever be found to apply the bill. A man's being in debt, implied no moral impropriety ; and would the House, because he was in debt, not merely expel him, but disqualify him from being reelected ?

The House at length divided : for the bill's being committed, 69; against it, 50; majority against Ministers. 19.

The report was ordered to be received on l';'ednesday next.

10. THE COAL TRADE; POLICE. The precarious state of the Cool-trade, in consequence of the combrintiurs among the workmen, was last night brought under the notice of the House of Lords, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, on presenting a petition from the coal-owners of the Tym, praying for an inquiry into it. His Lordship went into a history of the rioting among the miners, their refusal to work, the murder of Mr. Fairies, and other outrages. He said, that what the proprietors wished, if the season had not been so far advanced, was, a Select Committee to consider the whole subject— This was not a matter merely of an ordinary dispute between masters and labourers about wages, but a case in which the proprietors had found it ne- cessary to make a head against the tyranny and violence of these miners, both for their own sakes and for the sake of those meritorious men who were williag to do their work peaceably, for wages with which they were satisfied, mid hid good reason to be so. If these conitinations were sufli:red to go on, it must be obvious that no species of manufacture could be safely conducted, and opulent men would be induced to withdraw. their capital from so insecure a busunsis. The freedom of commerce and manufacturing industry roust seen be at an end, unless those who had their capital employed in them should be allowed to do their best. If they were to be entirely at the command of these combinations of the workmen, no trade could be earned on.

Lord MELBOURNE concurred in deprecating these Unions, whose only proposed object was to effect impossibilities—to fix what in tbe nature of things must be fluctuating—to regulate what was in the . nature of things independent of rule. He said no trifle would be lost - in bringing forward a measure for the establishment of an effectiie police force ; the only objection to which hitherto offered was the ex- pense attendant on it. Lord ELLENBOROUGII spoke in favour of a general measure of poliCe preferably to a partial one. Lord BROUGHAM said, a general measure bad been prepared, and would be brought forward early next session. It ' had been found very difficult to arrange the rights of corporations and other matters.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH expressed his hope, that in the general measure, the great and pervading principle would be to retain the police appoint- ments in the hands of Government, instead of leaving them an the hands of the local authorities.

Lord HOLLAND—" Does the noble lord propose that with a view to facilitate the measure?" _ _ Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" I do not expect that it would facilitate the measure ; but it is an essential point, without which the whole scheme would be nugatory."

11. SUPPLY. In a Committee of Supply, last night, L000,pow. was proposed by way of loan to the West India planters, in order as far as possi- ble to enable them to reconstruct the buildingsbmnt down and destroyed in the late insurrection-' the one half of the sum to be advanced by way of loan to Jamaica, the other half to the other islands where the effects 13. THE ADDRESS OF CONGRATULATION. The House of Lords adjourned on Wednesday from one o'clock to five. o'clock, in order that their Lordships might carry up the address agreed to by both Houses of Parliament on occasion of the assault orthis Majesty's person at Ascot. The House of Commons—which was numerously attended, there being above three hundred Members present—adjourned for the same space of time. On the two Houses resuming, the answer to the joint address was read in each ; it was as follows- " My Lords and Gentlemen-1 thank you for this affectionate expression of your feelings in consequence of the attack made upon my.person. I rely with confidence upon the loyalty and attachment of my people and you may be assured of my anxious solicitude to insure to them the continued blessings which they now enjoy under a free constitution."

14. PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE or COMMONS. A long conver- sation took place on Monday, on the presentation of a petition by Mr. HARVEY, from Mr. Walker, an attorney of Bristol, praviqg that the Journals of the House might be produced in the Court of King's Bench on the following day, in order to prove an averment in the decla- ration in an indictment for libel preferred by Mr. Walker against Dr. Lushington, for certain words said to have been spoken by Dr. Lush- ington in the House, and afterwards printed in the Mirror of Parlia- ment. The difficulty in which the House felt itself placed, arose out of the assumption that the Journals were to be used at the trial to con- nectwhat was printed in the Mirror of Parlianzent with the transactions of the House. Mr. Harvey explained, that the production of the Journals was merely sought, as set forth in Mr. Walker's petition, for the purpose of proving an averment in the declaration. This was con- firmed by Mr. J. CAMPBELL; but he afterwards admitted that the aver- ment was unnecessary; and the House in consequence refused the prayer of the petition.

1.5. BUSINESS OF TIIE LORDS. The Scotch Reform Bill was read a first time on Thursday, and ordered to be read a second time on Wed- nesday next. The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON withdrew his bill for amending the Act of Settlement in regard to the vacating of seats on accepting office under Government, on account of the lateness of the season, with a pledge to re-introduce it next session. of hurricanes had this season been so severely felt. After some con- versation,—in which Lord SANDON and Mr. 13traaa, on the behalf of the planters, expressed themselves grateful for the boon,—the vote was agreed to.

Several votes for the public service were agreed to in committee without comment. Lord ALTHORP, in answer to a question put by Mr. PIGOT, said it was not his intention to make any provision this session for a composition of the Assessed Taxes.

Mr. HUME noticed the insult to the School of Naval Architecture, in passing over the whole of the pupils, and appointing Captain Sytn- monds Surveyor of the Navy.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the real reason was, that none of the pupils was fit for the office.

1.2. THAMES POLICE OFFICE. Mr. O'CONNELL, on Thursday, called Mr. Lamb's attention to a report of a boy who had been brutally beaten by his master, a captain of a coasting vessel. The case came before Messrs. Broderip and Ballantine, of the Thames Police Office ; who fined the captain 5/. to the King, and dismissed him, without at the same time informing the boy that there was a mode of proceeding against his master by information, indictment, or action. The mode adopted by the Magistrates was a gross dereliction of duty.

Mr. LAMB believed, as far as the treatment of the boy went, there was no over-statement of the case. The subject matter of Mr. O'Connell's complaint, however, lay in the law, rather than in the mode of its administration. The offence had been committed in Essex; if tried, it must have been tried at Chelmsford; the only result, therefore, of leaving the boy to prosecute, would have been to let his assailant master go scot free. The Magistrates certainly ought to have told the boy that there was an alternative.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, if he sat in another Parliament, he would certainly introduce a bill to amend the present law, by which it was at any time in the power of a Police Magistrate to prevent a man, however great the injury he had sustained, from seeking a civil remedy, by merely imposing a fine, which went not to the complainant but to the county-rates.