Eirbatrri an praterbingli Parham:it.

EMANCIPATION OF THE NEGROES.

Many petitions were presented to the Lords on Thursday, for the speedy abolition of the Negro Apprenticeship.

Lord St. VINCENT and Lord SEAFORD. as West India proprietors, de- precated the abolition of the apprenticeship, as impolitic and wrongful;

and maintained that the popular demand for it was irrationaVand founded

on misrepresentation and ignorance of facts. Lord SEAFORD admitted, that the Legislature of Jamaica had failed in its duty, by neglecting to pass the necessary measures for the execution of the Emancipation Act ; but it was in the power of the Imperial Parliament to remedy this omission : a bill had passed the House of Lords for that purpose ; and the misconduct of some of the Colonial Legislatures could not therefore be reasonably adduced as a defence of breaking the contract entered into with the entire body of the planters.

Lord BROUGHAM, in reply to Lord Seaford, insisted upon the un- reasonableness of the expectation that the Negroes would be better prepared for freedom by prolonging the period of bondage. What had been done during the last four years for preparing the non-prmthal apprentices for the change in their condition on the lot of August next ?— Did they require no preparation? He knew that the non.praedials were not by a great deal so respect ,ble a class of men as the prmdiais. The prtedials were more respectable ten to one, in habits and character, than the non. ratchets. But all the nomprledials, " unhouselled, unennealed," were to rush into freedom on the 1st of August 1838, without any thing like preparation. In Jamaica there were 350,000 Negro apprentices, of whom no less than 50,000 were nonlarmdials. But his noble friend had said nothing of them ; they were not one tittle prepared, nor had any thing been projected for preparing them for that state of emancipation which, nevertheless, all knew and admitted they were to enjoy on the 1st of August 1838.

But this had been made a question of currency— How, it is asked by the petitioners, will wages be paid when the Negroes are free labourers? Why, the same means will exist for paying wages then as exist now. How are the goods to be bought ? Goods are imported um-- imported by the transactions of the Colonies with this country. The free Negroes will have to buy those goods which are now purchased by the mreer fiat the slaves. But when they become free, the masters will pay the slave!!! money, and then the free Negroes will purchase the goods themselves. All this will be carried on by the same circulation. without the necessity of oaf single farthing or the fraction of a fat thing more being required after the lt of August than before. But if 350,600 slaves require for their transaction's considerable increase of currency, it is a rule of tEree question how great_ s t increase 50,000 will require: and yet you make no provision for item, wh!le; is clear that the non pitediale will require more currency than the przthags

The Bishop of EXETER took the lead ; and avowed his deliberate

opinion to be in favour of immediate and entire abolition. Formerly he bad not been sanguine as to the operation of the Emancipation Act; but be was now convinced that "the Negro population in our Colo- nies was in a fit condition for the enjoyment of freedom, and that it was expedient they should not be continued in the probationary condi. tion of apprentices."

Lord BROUGHAM presented upwards of a hundred petitions, in adj. tion to a greater number presented by him on Tuesday. He read an opinion he had obtained from Lord Chief Justice Denman on tbs right of Parliament to alter the Emancipation Act by putting en end to the Apprenticeship. It was as follows- " Supposing the Act of 1893 to be a compact between the planters and the Parliament of England acting as trustees for the Negroes, no doubt the bresall of an implied condition by the former would release the latter from their ea. gagement. But I cannot so consider it. I deny the right of this country to stipulate for the Negroes. flow could it be obtained ? It originated in crime', which, if not properly called piracy, deserve a harsher name, and existed only because slavery existed, the lawfulness of which 1 have always denied. In other words, it was power without right ; and the Act was an experiment b two joint wrong•doers, (the more powerful of whom sincerely repented, whether the evil would not be best put down by continuing it in a mitigs form. This compromise, like a thousand other attempts to reconcile right and wrong, is admitted on all hands to have failed. Compulsory apprentice. ship, which was another name for slavery, and could only be justified by ape. diency, is proved to be inexpedient, and nothing remains but the duty of the mother country to afford to all her subjects the protection of equal laws. I am, therefore. fully prepared to consent to the immediate abolition of Negro appres. ticeship."

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented two petitions, the first from West India proprietors and merchants resident in London, the second from the same class of persons resident in Liverpool. The petitioners stated that they were interested, either as owners or mortgagees, in West India property ; that by the Emancipation Act they were en- titled to the services of the Negroes as apprentices for a stipulated time, as part of the compensation for the loss of their property in slaves ; that they were authorized to sell and bequeath the right to the labour of the apprentices ; and that, therefore, to free the prtedial ap- prentices on the 1st of August 1838, instead of two years later, was a manifest violation of rights solemnly guaranteed by Act of Parliament. They referred to a circular of Lord Glenelg to the Governors of West India Colonies, dated 6th November 1837,—wherein it was expressly declared that the working of the Emancipation Act had justified the most sanguine expectations of its authors,—as a reply to ex parte state. merits against the masters, of cruelty and oppression to the slaves.

They professed willingness to aid in the execution of any measures for promoting the success of the experiment of Negro emancipation ; which, they maintained, would be put in great danger by anticipating the fixed term for the cessation of the apprenticeship. They represented that the

Colonies were not in a fit state for the entire emancipation of the Ne- groes: that the currency was:unsound, and insufficient for the regular pay.

ment of Negroes' wages ; that no provisions had been made for the poor no tribunal established for the settlement of disputes between masters and servants—no regulation respecting service in the militia, the right

to the elective franchise, or that of sitting on juries. For these rea- sons, the petitioners submitted that it was inexpedient as well as unjust to abolish the present system of apprenticeship. The Duke of Wel- lington expressed his concurrence with the petitioners ; and his firm opinion, that if a beneficial interest secured by act of Parliament was to be taken away in the manner proposed, there would be no security for the property or interests of the country. wage the former are not payable by means of provision. hratinds, but in bard t,,h, and their wages also are higher. The preerlial slave works or a small .iect of money compared with what carpenters and artisans receive : yet no of a monetary nature, no Peel's Bill, has been pro) ounded to P;co-ali,„aate the 50,000 non.prmdials who will be emancipated ueon the let of August next.

Ile would ask, whether it was quite certain that they had the option of refusing emancipation on the 1st of August next ?—

.1 sm treading upon tender ground ; I am going to touch upon still more ender ground ; but they have dragged me into it; I cannot help it. I should not base said a word, if they bad not forced me into a premature and unseason- g, discussion. But, my Lords, I owe it to that measure which I have so long advocated-1 owe it to myself—I owe it to the peace of the Colonies, and to the severity and safety of the planters themselves above all other interests I owe it pt root to withhold my observation. I nave great confidence in the peaceful disposition if the Negroes. That confidence I feel because it is founded upon long expe- rience of their quiet and patient demeanour. Show me anywhere all over the world a race of men who could have borne as much as thq have for ages borne, with hardly a murmur and scarcely an outbreak in their history ! Upon this history of the Negro—his hard fate—his long and cruel sufferings—his um:- toped demeanour under those sufferings—his patience, far exceeding the pati. epee of the sons of men ordinarily in other countries—upon this character of the Negro, so attested by all hie conduct in all ages, I build my hope that he will minim peaceable to the end. But, my Lords, I am not the man to say slist even the Negro will continue peaceful under all circumstances, and when the top of disappointment is tilled to the overflowing. He has now known that for the last six months an unexampled fervour of public feeling has been excited in his favour. He is as well acquainted as you are with all that has been going on in England, Scotland, and even now in Ireland. Ile knows that the laliogs of the people of England have been roused, their opinions formed, taken, and loudly.expressed ; and his hopes are directed to one point, that of his ceas- jag to he in chains at all on the 1st of Angust 1838. To that day his hopes see pointed, his feelings are directed, his expectations are fixed. If on that by, after the unanimous voice of the people of this kingdom has been expressed is loudly, so universally, so unremittingly for his emancipation on that day,—if he, knowing as he does the universality and earnestness of that expression, shall still be kept in chains, my belief is, that he will still continue patient—that lie will still refuse to join in the breach of the peace—but I have a confident ex- pectation that the hoe will fall from his hand, and that if he works then he will work by compulsion, and by compulsion alone. My opinion, therefore, is, that you have not a•chuice—that it is no longer optional with you ; and that now that the general voice has fixed that day for the cessation of Negro bondage, it is as much as the prosperity—I do not say the peace, but as much as the pros- perity of the West Indies is worth, to delay it eight.and-forty hours longer.'

Lord Lord WINCIIILSEA enforced the necessity of further preparation be- fore the prmdial apprentices were emancipated.

The Marquis of CLANRICABDE said he could not consider an act of Parliament in the nature of a compact or agreement. The Etnanci- pation Act was passed by the wisdom of Parliament, and by the wis- dom of Parliament it might be altered.

Lord MELBOURNE felt the greatest alarm at the precipitation with which this question had been hurried forward, and surprise that the po- pular feeling should have been stimulated from the quarter whence it bad derived its most powerful impetus. He maintained that there had been a compact with the planters. He did not deny that if the ques- tion were put to Lord Denman as a casuist, he might find some loop- hole, some mode of evading the obligation ; but it was competent for their Lordships to decide whether the Act of 1833 was not regarded by them, at the time it was passed, in the nature of a compact or contract with the planters. This was a point which, as far as their abilities went, they were as able to decide as Lord Denman. He strongly recommended caution. The experiment was proceeding, on the whole, successfully : for God's sake, let them not mar the great work by precipitancy.

The petitions were laid on the table.

In the House of Commons, a vast number of petitions (six hundred and sixty-seven in the whole) for the abolition of the Apprenticeship were presented—by Mr. O'CONNELL, forty; Lord MORPETII, thirty; Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, twenty-five; MT. HINDLEY, twenty-six ; Mr. VILLIERS, forty. Sir ROBERT PEEL presented seven ; and among them one from Stockport, twenty-five yards long; but Robert stated that when intrusted with these petitions, he had distinctly explained that he could not advocate their prayer. Lord STANLEY presented petitions from West India proprietors, similar to those in the Lords, the contents of which have been already mentioned. He asked Mr. SPRING RICE, whether any measures had been taken with respect to a new coinage in the Colonies? Mr. RICE answered that the subject was "under consideration."

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND then rose to move, "That this House is of opinion that the Apprenticeship in the British Colo. sirs, established by the 34 and 4th of William IV. chapter 73, shall determine satin 1st of August 1838." In a long speech, Sir George laboured to prove that the understanding of the friends of the Negro at the time of the passing of the Emend- piton Act was, that slavery was to be abolished in deed and in truth. They had the distinct promise of Mr. Secretary Stanley, that the "condition of the apprentices should be precisely that of workmen in England." Now, had that promise been kept? Were the apprentices precisely in the condition of English workmen ? Sir George quoted eumerous statements, chiefly from a narrative of James Williams, formerly a slave, but now in England, and from a publication by Mr. &urge, to prove that the apprentices are subject to the most cruel treat- neent; and that, in contravention of an express provision of the Emancipation Act, women are barbarously flogged at the tread.mill. These facts proved that the planters had not performed their part of the contract. Sir George dwelt on the impolicy of freeing one portion Of the apprentices and keeping the greater number in bondage ; and u gued, that this state of society must be attended with serious danger, the result of inevitable irritation at the difference in the condition of the two classes of Negroes. He referred with pride to the circum- stance that he represented the same constituency that had returned Wailberforce to Parliament. and pledged himself to devote all his t

ergies to the abolition of the horrors of slavery, under whatever name it might be disguised or wherever it might exist.

hfr. PEASE, in seconding the motion took the same line of argument a' Sir George Stricklantl. He stated 's variety of facts to show that the apprentices were allowed un insufficient supply of foo I ; while the labour required from them was excessive ; and tee punishments, chiefly

by flogging, frequent, and dreadfully severe. Pregnant women were forced to work till they could labour no longer; the consequences of which were miscarriages, and, especially in Jamaica, a fearful gap ia

the population. Women had given birth to children in the fields, hay- ing been refused permission to go home. In Demerara, the hospitals were places of punishment. The medicines were assa feetida, tartar

emetic, and lamp-oil ; for it was the rule to consider every applicant as

feigning sickness. The place itself was filthy in the extreme, and the atmosphere pestilential. Was this the system of apprenticeship to

which the people of England were induced to consent ? Mr. Pease read extracts of letters from planters in Jamaica, to show that no bad effects would arise from the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship; and he maintained that the example of the Negroes in Trinidad and Antigua showed that there would be no want of free labourers. On the other hand, there would be danger in protracting the apprenticeship

beyond the 1st of August 1838. A Baptist Missionary had written from Jamaica, that OR that day the watchword of the entire Negro population would be " death or liberty ;" and smoother had stated, that it was absolutely necessary to take measures in England for tranquillizing the apprentices. Mr. Pease begged to call the attention of the House to the character of those individuals, Who had left every worldly advantage to perform what they felt to be a sacred duty—who preached to hundreds and thousand* of the Negioes—who were intl. mately acquainted with the character, habits, and feelings of the Negroes— and who in their petition represented the great advantages which would result from terminating the apprenticeship system in August next. He was perfectly prepared for an attack on immediate emancipation upon the ground of broken faith and broken contract. He denied the fact; and argued, that from the very terms of the Act of 1833, such an attack had no foundation.

Mr. Pease was beginning to contend that pecuniary policy, that com- mercial policy, that the advantage of the planter, that the advantage of the apprentice, that the cause of justice, that the interest of humanity, all combined to recommend the immediate abolition ; but suddenly be- came so overpowered by his feelings that he was unable to proceed, whilst loud cheers resounded from all sides.

" The House will pardon me," concluded be, " for having no long trespassed upon their attention. I am uliable to go on. But when that great and solemn day shall come, when I shall myself stand in need of mercy, I hope it will be meted to rue in the Koine measure as I nun disposed to mete it to others." ("Hear, hear, hear ! ") Sir Geonce GREY rejoiced that at length this great question would be fairly and calmly discussed. Notwithstanding all the speeches at public meetings, and the numerous addresses and resolutions, that bad been agreed to, the real merits of the question remained to be stated. He begged to remind the House, that it was not the abolition of slavery which they were called upon to discuss : the fiat had gone forth, and elavery was at an end in the British colonies: the question was, whether for the brief period of two years the Negroes were to re- main under modified coercion. It was now attempted to violate the solemn compact made by Parliament with the planters in 1833. That such a compact was deliberately entered into, was incontrovertible. When Mr. Fowell Buxton moved to shorten the period of apprentice- ship, Mr. Stanley distinctly stated that the apprenticeship was part of the compensation awarded to the sluveowners, and Mr. Buxton's mo- tion was lost by a small majority. Lord Brougham was then a member of the Cabinet with Lord Stanley. Was it just to diminish the com- pensation—to violate the contract ? Sir George went on to contend that the Colonies had prospered under the Apprenticeship system ; that the compensation-money had been laid out on the estates of the planters, and bettered the condition of all connected with them ; that the exports had been increased, and the economical condition of the country improved. Not denying individual instances of cruelty, Sir George Grey maintained that the general treatment of the Ne- groes by their masters was marked by kindness rather than severity. There had been a bond fide adherence to the principle of the Act of 1833 by the great majority of the West India planters. In confirma- tion of this statement, he quoted passages from a despatch of Lord Sligo, dated 9th July 1836, amid from Sir Lionel Smith's despatches of the 23d September and 13th November 1837. Sir Lionel expressly stated, that it was in particular districts only that interference on be- half of the Negro was required. Sir George read extracts from the reports of Messrs. !Marlton, Grant, and others, in which the working of the Apprenticeship system was spoken of favourably ; and he de- sired Members to consider these general statements as well as particu- lar instances of cruelty. One fact of oppression was sedulously brought forward, while nine hurdred and ninety-nine of an opposite character were carefully kept out of view. Frauds had been practised at public meetings, amid the grossest misstatements made. With re- spect to the moral condition of the Negroes, Sir George quoted the report of three Special Magistrates, one of them a gentleman of colour, who mentioned that the crime of rape bad become less fre- quent ; an indication of an improved moral sense, and the growth of purer feelings among the Negroes. Where the law had been violated, as in the flogging of females, the Executive Government bad inter- fered. With respect to the reduction in the quantity of food, that, he must say, was a very difficult point ; but tithe bill introduced by Lord Glenelg, and now waiting far a second reading in the House of Com- mons, were carried, it would be immediately settled, and an end put to that complaint. Fbe object of Government was to secure a fulfilment of their part of the contract by the planters; but they could not con- sent to the abolition of the apprenticeship. Mr. Fowell Buxton, in 1837, had given his opinion that the compact with the planters must be maintained. Now, he understood, Mr. Buxton was convinced that Government would be compelled to yield to the pressure from without ; but Sir George would maintain, that the real point for the House to consider was, whether they would adopt a resolution inconsistent with good faith, and not whether they should yield to pressure from without— Ile knew the means which had been adopted to induce honourable gentlemen to vote in favour of that resolution ; and be knew that they had not been asked calmly and dispassionately to hear the alignments on the subject before they gave their vides, but they had been called upon to pledge themselves to sap port the motion—a motion on a question which bad never before been mooted ut this Parliament, and on which, therefore, they had beard no aroim.ent. He knew this to have been done in many instances; and he knew that the constituents of many honourable Members had called on their Representatives expressly to pledge themselves on the subject of this motion. Ile had had the honour to present a petition, very numerously signed, from the borough which he hail the honour to represent in that House, and which clearly stated the views of his constituents on the subject. Ile had been asked to pledge himself to a parti- cular course in reference to this question; and he had had no hesitation in re- fusing to pledge himself to any opinion in reference to any particular measure on which he had not heard a debate. Ile should not, however, fear to present himself to his constituents under these circumstances ; and even if be failed in convincing them that they were wrong in the views which they had taken, yet be hoped that he should at least be able to show them that the course which he had adopted was the best, in waiting for a debate, without merely making hini• self their mouthpiece, in order to express their opinions in reference to this sub- ject, in which he did not concur.

The abolition of the Apprenticeship would be fraught with danger— The sudden destruction of the ties by which the Negroes were bound to the planters, on the tat of August MS, would secure, under existing circumstances, the most unfavourable results as well to the Negroes as the planters. He would point out to the House the present position of the Negroes, who under all cir- cumstances were well fed and taken care of by their misters, and had huts in which they lived, and which were in fact looked upon as their own ; but let the House imagine what would be the effect of this bill if brought in and passed into a law as it was desired. In all probability, if the Houses should proceed with it as rapidly as it was possible consistently with the usual course of public business, it would reach the Colonies where it UM to come into operation only a few days before the let of August. Let the House then imagine the excite- ment consequent upon this sudden introduction of its measures: what security would there be against the Negroes being thrown off the very grounds on which they had been so lung supported, and which they had been in the habit of look. ing upon as their own, and which had hitherto been guaranteed to them by law! Let the House think of the mutual ill-feeling produced between the parties—of the resistance which would doubtless be made by both parties—of the excesses which would doubtless be committed under the excitement which would prevail—of all the horrors of insurrection which would follow that ex- citement, and which would not fail to be introduced by the sudden interference of Parliament ; and then let Britain and this House adopt the scheme, which would be fraught with all these dangers to those persons whose interests it was intended to promote.

He called upon the House to dispel the illusion which prevailed on this subject, and to deal with the question calmly and dispassionately. He was perfectly aware of the strong feeling which existed in this country in favour of the change proposed in Sir George Strickland's resolution; but he felt it his duty to resist this feeling; and he would move as an amendment, " That the order of the day for the second read- ing of the Slavery Abolition Act Amendment Bill be now read."

At the conclusion of Sir George Grey's speech, the debate was adjourned, on the motion of Mr. JAMES; and the House rose at a quarter past twelve.

THE MUTINY BILL 1 MILITARY PUNISHMENTS AND REWARDS.

Lord Howlett, on Monday, having moved the House of Commons to go into a Committee of the whole House on the Mutiny Bill, Cap- tain BOLDER° rose to move for a Select Committee of inquiry into the military punishments now used in the British Army ; when the SPEAKER interfered, and said that Lord Howick's motion was an order of the day, and it was a rule that no amendment should be moved on days on which an order of the day had precedence, unless such amend- ment had a direct bearing on the original motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not object to Captain Boldero's motion, as it had a direct refer- ence to the order of the day moved by Lord Howick. The Captain then proceeded ; and prefaced his motion for a Committee with a brief speech, in which the principal topic was the flogging of soldiers in the British Legion under Colonel Evans's command in Spain. In the debate which followed, Sir HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. HUME, Sir HENRY HARDINGE, Colonel EVANS, Mr. D'EYNCOURT, and Lord Howie': took part. It turned almost entirely on the severe use of the lash in the British Legion. Sir HENRY 11ARDINGE cited a great number of instances in which men had been flogged contrary to the rules esta- blished in the British Army. Women also had been flogged, though of course without the knowledge of Colonel Evans. The defence of General EVANS was, that the Spanish auxiliaries were not like the re- gular troops of the British Army, but required a more severe disci- pline; that he had never pledged himself to adopt the regulations of the British Army, though he had signed a certificate to the effect that the Spanish Government had entered into such an engagement ; that, as to the flogging of women, he believed that some had received cor- poral punishment, but not with his knowledge; and that capia1 punish- ment had never once been inflicted during the continuance of his com- mand.

I .,Lord Hownex opposed the motion, chiefly on the ground • that the use of a Committee was to collect facts, of which the House had plenty without further inquiry. Nobody would vote for the entire abo- lition of corporal punishments in the Army, and the number of floggings was in regular process of diminution.

It Nothing else in the discussion appears to require notice. No new light or additional information was given to this exhausted subject.

The House divided—

For the Committee 76 Against it 169

Majority 93 The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill then went through the Committee.

On the motion of Lord HOWICK, the report of the Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates was brought up. Several items passed without discussion. On the motion that 15,9811 be minted us re- wards for distinguished services, Lord HOTHAM spoke at length on 'thesubject ot CI ionel Evans's appointment to be a Knight Commander of the Bath ; contending that nothing that the General had performed entitled him to take prece- dence of the numerous distinguished officers to whom the knighthood was an object of ambition. Lord PALMERSTON maintained that the Oeral tha B eta %v.'s , intended to be a reward, not for long, but dis.

taasa: t tit whatever might be thought of Colonel Evans

,ghralii in Tory circles, public opinion justified the bestowal of the luti on him. There was nothing to prevent the Government, if it oth■ aw:heit fit, from departing from the usual practice of appointing only efloo Officers to be Knights Commanders of the Bath.

Colonel EVANS invited a comparison, which he feared not bet

t °0d his services and those of other Knights.

iNo distinct motion was made ; and the report on the Army Esti

' was received, with little further observation. tes

SPANISH POLICY OP MINISTERS.

A long discussion on this subject commenced in the House of Cm. mons on Tuesday. Lord ELIOT moved- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, expressios Majesty the opinion of this House that no advantage, either to the intenre,u4 this country or to those of Spain, has resulted from the employment of her Ms. jesty's subjects in the service of her Catholic Majesty, in consequence of the suspension, by order in Council, of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistmea Act ; and since the continuance of such order in Council is not requiredby the obligation of existing treaties, humbly praying that her Majesty %gib, graciously pleased not to renew it."

In support of this motion, Lord Eliot argued that the interference of the British Government in the Spanish quarrel was contrary to the principle of non-intervention, which the Whigs had laid down on entering office ; that the interference was only calculated to prolong the war, inasmuch as an army of 50,000, instead of 10,000, men at, required to subdue Don Carlos ; that the expense to this country had exceeded a million sterling, without having in any degree advanced the cause of the Queen of Spain or benefited a single British interest; that the true policy of this country was to allow the Spaniards a settle their own differeyes, and to follow the example set by tire King of France, who had declared that " France reserved the blued of its sons for its own cause," and when called upon to engage in war, it was " under her own glorious standard that French soldiers marched a battle."

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON contended, that it was absolutely necessey for England to interfere in the affairs of the Peninsula, to prevent the ascendancy of France. Notwithstanding the pompous declaration of the King of France, it was notorious that between 5,000 and 0,0 French soldiers were, at the time of the declarations engaged in the service of the Queen. He denied that the services of the Legion had been contemptible or useless ; and he quoted the testimony of Spani.h officers, and of the Queen Regent of Spain herself, to show that the gallant conduct of the British auxiliaries was duly appreciated. The success of Lord Eliot's motion would be hailed with delight at Si. Petersburg and Vienna. Then, adieu might be said to the cause of Constitutional government in Spain and Portugal ; for with Spain Portugal must fall, and in both countries would be installed the inure. terate enemies of free institutions. Mr. Fergusson denied that the " Eliot convention" bed produced the good effects ascribed to it; since Don Carlos, in defiance of the obligation it imposed, bad slaughtered Christino prisoners. As to the formal declaration of ma against Don Carlos, which some persons thought this country should mate, if it interfered at all, he could only say, that the author of the Durango decree was the leader of a band of brigands to be run down, not' prince against whom war was to be declared.

After Mr. Fergusson's speech the debate became languid. Sit ADOLPHUS DALRYMPLE, Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT, and Lord Manx supported Lord Eliot's motion ; Captain PECHELL, Mr. POUTER, SE HUSSEY VIVIAN, and Mr. VERNON SMITH opposed it.

Mr. PEMBERTON called upon the House to adopt and maintain Earl Grey's principle of non-intervention. It was a sound and generallyad. mitted principle,, that no country ought to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. The Government had not acted in confor- mity with this principle. They had interfered in the affairs of Spain, and taken a part in opposition to the feelings of a large majority of the Spanish people. Such was the nature of their interference arising from a miscalculation of the force of Don Carlos and the popularity of his cause. What, he would ask, would have been said of the Govern. ment of the United States, if that country had followed the example set them by the British Government in their interference in Spanish affairs, and taken part with the Canadian insurgents ? But the main question was, why had this Government interfered in the Spanish quarrel?

Upon what necessity was it that England had been called upon in this instants to interfere? Why not leave it to the Spaniards to determine amongst theta. selves what government they would have? If the Queen of Spain really pos, sewed the preponderance in number and weight, in property and influence, which the British Government attributed to her, she would achieve her victory for herself. If she did not—if the preponderance in all these respects existed on the other side, what would be the consequence? Spain might haves leis enlightened, a less liberal government than we in England had the goal for- tune to possess ; she might possess a Secretary for Foreign Affairs less liberal in the construction of treaties ; they might have a Home Secretary whose notions upon church property were more strict than those of Lord John Rus- sell. These things might be a just cause for regret, but surely they were not a just cause for war. Mr. SHEIL said, that according to Mr. Pemberton, the main object of Lord Eliot's motion was to lay down the principle of non•intervention. But the Quadruple Treaty was intervention,. and Lord Stanley was member of the Government when the original articles were signed. Lord STANLEY— "I was a member of Lord Grey's Government, not of Lord Melbourne's."

Mr. SHEIL—" And if the Duke of Wellington comes into office, the noble lord will be the colleague of that distinguished person, whose first appointment, the appointment of Lord Londonderry, the noble lord denounced." Who, besides Lord Stanley, signed the articles of the Quadruple Treaty?—Sir James Graham, then First Lord of the Admiralty, now Member for Pembroke. It was not to be imagined how Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham could support a motion the object of which was to lay down the principle of non-interference. Mr. Shea contended that the destinies of Europe were involved in tat Spanish war ; that France, as well as Spain and Portugal, would hose succumbed to the cannon and bayonets of the Despotic Power.,, had not England interfered to prevent the accession of Don Cellos to u.c throne of Spain. 'rho services of the Legion, Mr. Shell contended, bad been essential ; and he quoted, 111 confirmation of his assertion, a pas;;.ge from the speech of m i zot n reply to Berryer in the French --Clamber of Deputies. Despite the declaration of the Tories in parliament, their sympathies were in favour of Don Carlos. In the Quarter/y Review Don Callus was spoken of as the lawful King of Spin' The Tories were hurried by the spirit of faction into the grossest anomalies— "The Tory party feel the utmost solicitude fur the independence of the Dopes; nod yet, when they turn to the country which is united on the prin- ciple of equality with their own, thew enthusiasm at once subsides, and, in-

stead of taking part with men who not ask exclusive privileges, but a par-

ticipation in ae. lights id. British citizens, they not into resist that just and rational requisition, but invite. the religious passions Into hostility to their de- mand, ring the tocsin of religious discord, and awaken the No-Popery cry. Aod who are the men that revile the religion and the pure and Christian priest- hood? The very men who, in sustaining the cause of Don Carlos, would re- store what they call Popery, but whet I do not recognize as any thing else than the grossest perversion of the Catholic religion, for the worst inquisitorial pur- poses to which, in an unnatural alliance with despotism, it ever was applied. lf ever abuses flowed from the impure connexion of religion with a corrupt contamination of state—if ever the sanctuary was desecrated by its annexation to the palace—if ever baneful effects were generated by the perversion of insti- tutions originally holy—if ever misdeeds were done under the name of religion, at which the blood should curdle—all those enormities are associated with the cause of which Don Carlos is the representative; and to such an extent of late has his impiety, for I can call it nothing else, been carried, that, while he sur- renders the Christino women to the indiscriminate licentiousness of a ferocious soldiery, be has hail the blasphemous daring to proclaim one, whose name I will tot utter, the patroness of his arms. And yet it is with this bad 11130, WhO'S hands, when they are lifted in prayer, th ip with Durango blood—it is with this remorseless, win Ness, marble-hearted man, that the sympathies of Anglo. Carlist Protestants ate associated. Ilut, thank God ! the people of England enurtain fur his cause the feelings that befit them ; they will, I tel assured, give to the Government of this country their cordial aid in excluding the tyrant troni the throne which he would encompass with scenes of blood."

At the conclusion of Mr. Shell's speech, the debate on Mr. Bao- ThERION'a motion was On Wednesday, a variety of routine business having been despatched, and several measures having been postponed for the purpose of re- suming the debate, the SPEAKER put the resolution moved by Lord Eliot. Nobody took. any notice ; the Members were inattentive and engaged in. conversation. Mr. ABERCROMBY again put the question. The Mitastenalists cried " No; " Mr. GOULBURN, from the Oppo- sition bench, said " Ay; " and the House divided ; when there appeared— For the resolution 62

Against it 70 Accidental majority

A scene of turmoil and excitement followed. Several Coneervative Members, including Lord MAHON, Mr. GOULBURN, Lord Fnatanis &stems and Lord ELIOT, wished the debate to be renewed, IIS it had been closed on a misunderstanding.

The SPEAKElt said, he had distinctly put the question twice. Mr. GOCI.BuRN said, he bad only beard it put once : the gentleman who was to have opemul the debate was unfortunately absent when the ques- tion was put. Li id MA HON said there was relm•tance on his side to divide in the nlisunce of Lord Pahnerston. Sir U. or LACY ETANS remarked, dist el !t was mistaken delicacy, as its point of fact, "the attack was directed against him " Lord Jolts; Russet.i. had no objec- tion to have the debate resumed—he did not wish to get rid of the discussion. Sir ROBERT PEEL had been taken by surprise : having been made acquainted with a particular Member's intention to open the debate, be was never so astonished as when, on coming down to the House at half.past five, he found the discussion bad gone off. Mr. CHARLES RULLER said it was very bad taste in Sir Robert to absent himself at the time when be expected his friend to be on his legs. Lord Maltose proposed Lord Eliot's resolution again, with a

verbal alteration, for the purpose of renewing the debate. This motion, however, was not entertained ; and the uproar was closed by an adjournment of the House, at the premature hour of half.past six.

THE CHURCH AND THE CORPORATIONS OF IRELAND.

On Tuesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL pressed Sir Robert Peel for an answer to the question he had asked on Friday last, .

"as to whether it is the intention of the noble Member for Lancashire, as an firmer eceasions, (Sr whether it is the intention of any other Member On the opposite side Of the House, to move an instruction to the Cointnittee on the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, authoriziog the total abolition of the Irish municipal corporations."

Sir Roamer Peet, replied in terms so peculiar, that we shall give them in full, from the Morning Post- " Sir, as I have been for some years past rather in the habit of adminis- tering than answering questions, the noble lord will not be surprised that 1 am desirous, for a few moments, of assuming that position which is some- what more familiar to me—that of putting a question to the noble lord. (" Hear, hear I " nod laughter.) I do not do this merely for the purpose of taking a lesson from the more practical experience of the noble lord in answering questions—(Latiohter):-but because the answer which the noble lord may give to Say question may be important, and may enable me to give a more definite and satisfactory. answer to the question which be has put to me, and to which 1 are promised to reply. The question which I uih to put to the noble lord is. what course it is the intention of her Majssty's Gam nment to pursue with respect to the Irish Tithe Bill and the interest of the Irish Church ? At the meeting of Parliament, her 5Iajesty directed the attention of the Legislature to three questions relating to the iloinestic policy .of Ireland—the establislinient of 'system of Poor.laws, the reform of Municipal Curpotations in Ireland, and the alteration of the laws regulating the collection of Tithes in Ireland ; and the House assured her Majesty, in an address to which we unanimously agreed, that we should consider these subjects. Now, as more than four months have el!psed since that time, and as I presume the Government have made up their !Tads Si to those measures to which they have directed the attention of this nouse, I may assume that they have made up their minds as to the measure they intend to submit to Parliament on the question of Irish Tithes." Sir Robert was proceeditato read certain resolutions, which he said be had found spon the journals onsarliament, when he was interrupted by loud cries of " Hear, hear." After a pause of a few moments, he continued—" I did no Lord JOHN Ressrr.r. answered at still greater length than Sir Robert Peel : we copy the version of the Morning Chronicle- " The House will see dust, as the right honourable gentleman, in putting his question to flue, has gone into some detail, it will be necessary for me to go to a greater length than would otherwise have been requisite in answering him: but, to put myself within the rules of the House, I shall now move that the I low.e resolve itself into a Committee to take into conaideration the question of

I

Irish ' ithes on a certain y, to be hereafter named. The right honourable gentleman hi is stated, that four months have elapsed, and that no measure has been brought forward with respect to Irish Tithes. It does appear to me, that it is the better coarse—and the more I consider all that passed la .t year, the more I am colifirmed in that opinion—that the House should give its attention as nuich as possible to certain measures that are brought forward; that we should dispose of those ineasures in as short a time as we are able, in order to send them to the House of Lords, so that that loalleh of the Legislature may from time to time have them under their consideration ; mai dial we should not be obliged to send to them all our measures at the same tin it., and thus sal, - jert them to the unpleasant necessity either of rejecting them, or of entertaining them when, according to their declarations, there is not stittieent time to give them a separate awl due consideration. In illustration of what I have looted, I beg to say, that the first measure recommended by her !Majesty to ths serious consideration of Parliament, viz. the Poor law Relief Bill, has been seriously considered, not only on the second reading, but daring the ten nishts that it has been in the Committee. I do nut think, then, it can be SSW either that the recommendations made by her 51 ijesty to this 'louse have been negleeted, or that it would have been wise to interrupt the progress of the Poor•law for Ireland Bill by the introduction of any other. With respect to the question of Irish tithes, it stands in this very peculiar situation—that it has now been during four years under the consideration of Parliament. In the year 1834, a bill was sent from this lIonse, and was re- jected by the House of Louts. In the year 1805, a bill was sent from this House, and was SO altered in its lain jpal provisions that it Wali not proceeded with in the Boti•e of Lords. In the veer 1636, a hill for the same purpose wee framed ; and having been curtailed I.r a great number Of its pi ov i•ions—trnre than half—by tlie !tense of Lords, this House rej:wted the amendment: ; and. in consequence, Ha legislative ntearatee on the subject was pass!. lit the ear

11.1117, another mea•ure a; is introdtteed ; and in early stage id t",at biil, tiobk friend the Men,iii.r ler North Lancashire declautl, that mile, the lionse agreed with bins in alLrir.g certain ',incisions of the Nil, let opp,e it

on the third readie!!. I emi•itlered that declaration aQ 7 tit ilC WII0 VIA the 5:111ie Vit W lie did of this nica•tive in the 11 r id, he dispo•ed to oppo•e and r. et this bill. Now, !-;11, 1 • ready to deelare. that I do net think it wisie, whether so ith ief I legislation, or to tls• re•pert due to the different .•. • .litC101.S Id

Ile

lature, or to the inter...as of the parties emicerms!.

ss. well as themselves as the exelu4ve representatives of the Chia,

I est soottld Then:fore, it of tho•e who are the support el • of the mea-tire, that ti. • be carried oa by both !Iowa:4 of Parliammt. (" flew, I, •;) . will be the inIXIOUS wish of her Majest)'s Government, in pi a measure relative to Tithes during the present year, ta propose it on a cu I altogether new. (('hars.) Whether that wound will be more satislietiay or not, I will not say ; but I hope it will be eonsideied that it may form the bas:s of an adjustment that will prevent a legislative mea•ine twins coutitaacied by the views maintained in this and in the other Ilease of Parlia- ment with 'Tigard to this exciting subject. I think abo it is the duty of her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward the question again, after all that lies taken place concerning it, that, as far as may be in their power, they should propose a comprelien,ive measure, and one which, if cat rill!, will give that without which I consider that no measure can be compreheusive and- final— viz, on the one hand, seeurity to the Irish Church; and on the other, Natio- fiction to the people of Ireland. (clines.) It is with the:A! views I mean to give notice, that on the :30th of April this question will be introduced to the Nouse.And I have also to gate, diet the nature of the measure I have to propose is such, that it will not be possible to introduce it by the same kind cif general resolution by which we introduced the measure of former years; but it will 1;e necessary to take the sense of the House on various resolutions, as the groundwork of the measure. I think it therefore my duty to state %that those I.:solutions will be I consider it my duty to state them, that the House limy have a gel:et:al view of the nature of the bill it is intended to proi ose. At the same time that I declare it to be the anxious wish of her :Ms; sty's (Suiten mitt to come to a settlement of this question, I must say that I do coneeive there is at present in Ireland, on the part of those who In fot mer years have mimeosi its settlement, a great and growing anxiety to see it set at r,t ; and I ,:a think that it will he for the advantage, not only of that party, but of Par- 1 orient, and also of the people of Ireland, that the queqion should be finally d:sposed of. In addition to these few words, I have roily fui titer to say, that I certainly have observed since the beginning of the session, that some petitions have been presented to this House, which have stated that the clergy are eatis fied with the existing state of things ; but, on the other band, meetinge have been held at which a contrary feeling has been expressed. If there be a wish for a settlement, I do not think it is impracticable ; but if, on the contrary, :t is the opinion of the patties most interested that it would be better for the pre. wilt law to be allowed to operate without any alteration, in that case, perhaps, Parliament will not ronsider it the duty of her Majesty's Goveroment to pro. pose any measure 14 the permanent settlement of the whole question. I %via now read the resolutiens which I propose to move on the day that the question is brought forward." (We copy from the printed Votes, the vcision in the (Jhrosirk being imperfeat and unintelligible.) " I. That it is the opinion of this Committee that tithe conqa, iition in Ireland should he commuted lino a rent charge, at the rate of seven-tenths of their omomit, to he charged ou the on ..er of the lust estate or inheritance.

" 2. That it is the opinion of this Conituittce that on the expiration of existing in- terest., so much of such rent.cl.ar,,e as shall be pa> site iu Lieu of ecclesiastical thinci should lie purchased by the State, at the rate of sixteen years' purchase of the original tulle composit ion. "3. That Otis the opinion of this Committee that the Ecclesiastical COMInillSiObrft fir Ireland should Ile empowered, st ith the conseut of the ineilmbents, to demand from the State the parchase, at the same r de, of ;Lny other poll ion of ecclesiast teal tit1se seek il,s ; die eanis,! whirli d.e hod Lai t iken has imposed it upon me. I find these resolutions on the journals of tile Ilouse—• it ;his Bowie do now resolve itself into a Committee of the whole blouse to consider the state of the Church Establishment in Ireland with a view to ap- propriating any surplus arising therefrom to the general education of the people; that it is the opinion of this House that no measure can be introduced for the settlement of tithes in Ireland that will be likely to prove satisfactory that does not embody the foregoing resolution.' These resolutions were voted by the house at the instance of the noble lord. Coupling the existence of these resolutions with the Speech from the Throne, I think myself entitled, after the lapse of four months, to put this question to the noble lord—whether it is his intention to bring forward any measure with respect to Irish Tithes, and ohether it will involve the principle contained in these resolutions? (Loud cheering.) Having received an answer from the noble lord, I will then proceed to the fulfilment of my duty in answering the question he has put to me."

somposition or rent-chatge, not exceeding Duodenal of the whole amount in any one year. " 4. That it is the opinion of this Committee that until such rentmliar4e shall be purchased or redeemed, the amount of ecclesiastical rent.charge and minister's money ahould be paid to the incumbents front the Cansolidattsl Fund. " 5. That it is the opinion of this Committee that the arrangement of such pay- ments, and the investm, tit of the purchase monies paid by the State lbr ecclesiastical rent.charge, should be intrusted to tlw Ecclesiastical Com.,issioners for Ireland. "6. That it is t he opinion of this Committee that the rent-charges for ecclesiastical liana should be appropriated by law to certain local charges now defray ell out of the .i..'ousolidated Fund. and to education; the surplus to form part of the Consolidated !owl.

" 7.‘That it is the opinion of this Committee that the rent charges for ecclesiastical tithe and minister's money should be collected by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for live years. anal until Parliament shall otherwise provide. '' 8. That it ist the °Idaho' of this Committee tit it further provision should be made by law for the regulation of ecclesiastical duties, end the better distribution of ecclesi- astical revenues in Ireland.

" That it is the opiuion of this Committee that provision should be made for the revision of certa to tithe compositions, where such compusitions operate with *loath*. '" That it is the opinion of this Conantittee that the rent.charges for lay tithe should De collected by the tithe.ow nes and facilitiea afforded for redemptiou upou mutual agreement between the part ies."

" I propose that these resolutions be printed ; and, in conclusion, beg to give notice, that on the 30th of April I shall bring the subject under the consi- iteration of the House."

Sir ROBERT PEEL then gave in his ultimatum, in the same wary atyle of diplomatic fencing : the following is from the Times report- " He thanked the noble lord for the frank declaration lie bail made of the in- tentions of the Government, and for the decisive proof he had atthided that he considered the question put by him (Sir R. Peel) a very natural one, inasmuch ss the noble lord, without any previous concert, had come fully prepared with an answer. (" Hear I " and a laugh.) Although the noble hum d uow exempted tint from the necessity of giving any reply to the question lie had put, yet he would follow the example set by the noble lord, and give him an answer, as he bad pledged himself to do. The question put to hint was, whether or nut, on going into Committee on the Irish itlunicipal Corporations Bill, the particular in- struction which had been moved on two preceding years—numely, that the bill should be separated, thereby implying a decisive objectiou agaimit the rerun-

sreiretion om the Irish Corporat s—would he adopted. Fast of all, he must observe, that there might have been some force in the argument of the noble lord that it was desirable to proceed with only one measure at a time, had he steadily adhered to that principle ; but, not content with bringing forwaid the

ish Poor.law Bill, withholding the inteutions of the Government as to the Blimicipal Corporations, the noble lord, fur the purptpe of resolving some doubts and calming some anxieties on his own side of the House, accompanied the discussion of the Irish Poor-law Bill with that relative to the ;11unicipal Corporations. And on that ground lie should have had a claim to be placed in respect of Itish Tithes on the same footing on which they stood with respect to klunicipal Corporations. Of course the noble lord did not expect that he should at this moment express any opinion on the resolutions he had read. Ile would, however, take that opportunity of stating' that he entirely partieis paled in the wish expressed by a noble friend of his (the Duke of Nrelling. ton) at the close of the last session of Parliament—he wished it could he pos- sible for Parliament to come to some final and satisfactory serth inent of this question, which had so long occupied the attention of both la inches of the Legislature. (" Marawar ! ") There was a prospea, It tru-i, of coining to

3 settlement on the Irish Poor. law : he for one wi.hed it . possibl0 to

stiive at such a settlement with respect to the other qumions o : Irish Cur. 'orations and the II ish Church ; but he felt himself bound to , .eat what lie lad always said, that be thought a security for the etalrility of the Irish Church must be an essential condition of such a settlement. (" Hear, hear ! ") The o pinion he give last year on the third reading of the bill was this, that a general knowledge of the iotentions of the Government with respect to the Church and Tithe questions was an essential preliminary to any decision on the :Municipal Corporations Bill. Ile trusted the noble lord would spate them the necessity of any conflict of a preliminary character on the Municipal Corporations Bill,

by seeing the reasonableness of postponing the Committee until at least time sense oldie House had been pronounced with respect to the resolutions which were tube the foundation of the Irish Tithe Bill. If the noble lord purposed going into Committee on the Municipal Corporations Bill previously to the sense of the House being pronouuced on these resolutions, the course he (Sir Robert Peel) should take, would not be to move the separation of the bill as an instructiou to the Committee; but lie should move that the Committee on the Corporations Bill should be postponed till after the sense of the House had been taken on the

resolutions relative to the Irish Church. (" Hear, hear ! ",) He hoped the

n oble lord would consider what he had stated as distinct an intimation as it was in his power to give with respect to the course which would be pursued on the Municipal Corporations Bill : the motion he should make, if the noble lord pre- maturely brought forward that measure, would be for the adjourmuent of the Committee until after the sense of the House had been taken on the resolutions

relative to Irish Tithes. (" Hear, hear.' ") On those resolutions he would

express no opinion whatever • and he would give no pledge whatever with respect to the Municipal Bill, beyond the general one of an earnest anxiety to see a satisfactory settlement come to upon that and the Church question, that Irish

matters should not be the constant arena on which political parties must always meet. ("Hear, hear ! ") He repeated, he should consider the stability of the

Irish Church an essential condition of any such settlement. With respect to all matters of detail, such as the character and extent of the franchise, the qua- lification of the voter, and the other important points involved in the Municipal Corporations Bill, lie entirely reserved himself; indicating at the same time the general principles which would actuate the course be intruded to pursue."

OPERATION OP THE POOR-LAW.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the Lords, OTI Monday, for copies of papers relative to the administration of the Poor-law in the Union of Bourne and other places. He delivered a long speech, to prove that though most unjustifiable exaggeration had been employed against the law and its administrators, there was testimony of respectable persons, and some notorious facts, which showed that in some instances the powers granted by the law had been abused, and that it had become the duty of Parliament to inquire carefully into the mode of adminis- tering the act.

No opposition was given to the motion by Lord MELBOURNE; who, however, described Lord Wharncliffe's speech as "piebald." Lord Wharneliffe had only made out a sore of half-and-half case. First, Lord Wharneliffe looked northward, and then he looked southward. Ile viewed the question in different aspects and different views. Lord Alelbourne would not enter at large into the subject. He was aware that much prejudice existed, especially in the North of England; but prejudice gave way before the actual operation of the law.

The Earl of RADNOR remarked, that in the counties wherein the Poor-law had been enforced, the diminution of crime was remarkable.

Lord W1NCIIILSEA suggested that larger powers to afford out.doo, relief should be given to the Guardians of the Poor.

Earl S rammer: spoke at some length in condemnation of the pria, ciple and operation of the Poor-law.

. Lord Bitouctlitat challenged the fullest inquiry into the effect of

law tie Lord WHABNCLIFFE'S motion was agreed to.

CATHOLIC OATHS.

The Bishop of EXETER moved, on Tuesday, for

papers relative to

the refusal of the Catholic Bishop to take the oath aptrheoslcircibeeodulhdytaithet scruples were just ; and that consequently no true c Catholic Relief Bill of 1829 to persons taking office under the Cron The aim of Dr. Phillpotts was to prove that the Bishop of Mahal the oath prescribed by the act. He was aware of the difficulty or repealing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, but could not think of all other means of preserving the Church than restoring the state of thief' prior to the passing of that act. Lord GLENF.LG would not object to the productions of the papea moved for; but declined the discussion of the general question.

Lord SHREWSBURY denied that the Bishop of Exeter's up:antral facts warranted the conclusion to which he had arrived.

The motion was agreed to.

BILLS READ A FIRST TIME IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

March 26 Middlesex County Court (for the further improvement if th

County Court of Middlesex) L'inilou Grand Junction Rada ay. South Australian Colonization Company (for incorporatioi

granting certain po acts to the South Australian COUIpapy).

Herne Bay Gas. City of London Police.

Southampton Docks.

BILLS READ A SECOND TIME,

Mardi 29 Balleybitry College. High Sheriffs. Midland Counties Railway.

U until J auction Railway, by 240 to 92.

SECOND READINGS DEFERRED.

March 26 Registration of Electors. To 2d April. 27 Copyright. To 25111 Apia.

"5 Bribery at Elections. 'Po itlt April.

COMMITTEES DEFERRED,

March 26 Benefices Pluralities. To Ctli April. Qualification' of Members. To But April

BILLS READ A THIRD TI3IE.

Mardi 23 .. Cin•ltenham and Great Western Itailaay. Mutiny. Bills.

THIRD READINGS DEFERRED.

29. Common Fields Immovem.mt. To With April. Notting Bill lko,nay (the Hippodrome Hill) -by 226 to K.

2int April.

ELECTION PETITIONS.

On 'Monday, Lord SEYMOUR announced that Mr. O'Connell al.:

Mr. Hutton were duly elected Members for Dublin.

On Tuesday, the Kinsale Committee was chosen — Libern/s-5 ; Tories-6 ; Mr. Greenaway, Dlr. Gaily Knight,

Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Bingham Baring, Mr. Hoskins, Mr. Acland, Sir Charles Bluut, Sir J. Pollen, Mr. J. Power. Mr. Mackinnon,

Mr. Master.

The petitioners are Tory electors against the return of Mr. Malloy, the Liberal sitting Member.

— 29