Elcbatext nub Pructatinad in Vntliantent.

1. THE CHURCH OF IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Irish Church Bill ; after some preliminary conversation with Lord STANLEY and Sir ROBERT PEEL, on the subject of Lord Stanley's Bill, which Lord JOHN said he would allow to be introduced as a substantive measure, but not as an amendment on his motion. Lord STANLEY said he would accept this offer, if Lord John would postpone the second reading of his measure for two or three weeks, in order that both bills might be printed and circulated in the country.

Lord Joins RUSSELL gave a decided refusal to this proposal.

Lord STANLEY then rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "for

the conversion. of tithe opposition into rent-charges, and for the re- demption thereof, and foor the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenue, in Ireland." He supported his motion in a speech which oc. cupiea six columns of the Times, but of which the following is the substance. He began by alluding to the difficulties by which the sub. ject was beset, and to his previous efforts to effect a settlement of the Tithe question. In consequence of an Act which be had introduced into the Legislature, the Clergy were recovering their dues, and the Church was in a better condition than it was some time since : in fact, clergymen were in undisturbed possession of a considerable portion of their incomes. Still, the present was not a safe state of the law for the Church, nor was it consistent with the peace of Ireland. He would not deal in vague generalities, but would propose a specific mea- sure. And he considered this the better course, because the objection- able principle of Appropriation was so mixed up with every part of Lord Morpeth's Bill, that it could not be separated from it by an in- struction to the Committee ; and because it was useless to attempt to amend a bill which the Government declared they would not take if amended. Therefore be thought it better to propose a distinct mettaNd. sure. Lord Stanley then mentioned the principal features of previous bills brought into Parliament for the purpose of settling the Tithe question ; and with reference to the bill of last year, expressed his deep regret that Ministers, for e political purpose, had tied and bound themselves down to a principle which Lord Morpeth regretted his in- ability to " shake off," and which they knew would not be sanctioned by the House of Lords.

Who were the parties, and what were the interests, which impeded the settle- ment of the question? The landlords and tenants were in reality concerned in nothing but the amount of reduction which might be made in the payment for tithe, and the quarter where the burden should be placed, whether on the shoulders of the former or the latter. Who else were concerned in the ques- tion ? Those who from religious or other motives were anxious to destroy the Church in Ireland ; those sincere but mistaken friends of the Establishment.. mistaken, not in their object, but in the course they took to attain it—who desired to reform gluing abuses in the Church, and who thought this combina- tion necessary to effect their purpose ; and those economical politicians (for so he supposed he must call them) who thought that they could screw out of the Church a miserable portion to effect some pitiful economy, which would never be felt for a moment in the expenditure of the country, and who conceived that the power of extorting 50,000/. a year from the Establishment to enrich the Consolidated Fund, was a reason which ought to induce the House of Com- mons to refuse the settlement of the Tithe question.

In framing the Church Temporalities Act, his object bad been the maintenance and wellbeing of the Church, by the reduction of large livings on the one band, and the augmentation of small ones on the other. He would not take any thing from the revenues of the Church for the mere purpose of cutting them down. In order to prove that he bad acted on this principle, Lord Stanley detailed, at some length, the chief provisions of the Church Temporalities Act ; and explained, that, taking the ordinary and current charges on the fund created by that Act by the reduction of bishoprics and of the richer benefices, and by the abolition of Church-cess, that fund would not be available for other purposes till the year 1873. Some idea of the extent of the demands on this fund would be formed from the fact that there were in Ireland 503 benefices without glebes, and 250 parishes without churches— These were the wants to be supplied : and yet, to this bankrupt fund—this fuad which, from the nature of the demands on it, must be getting deeper and deeper into debt every year—to thiir fund they were told to look for having due provision made for all Protestant purposes, before any portion of it was to be applied to any other purpose. He did not state this as the mere opinion of the friends of the Church. It was the plain meaning of the resolution on which the House stood with respect to this question. He looked upon Parliament as pledged to this principle—that .before an application of even a shilling of the Chinch revenues of Ireland was made to any other purpose, due provision should be made for all the wants of the Protestant Established Church of that country. There were, however, many who, while they admitted the principle, still thought that the Church of Ireland was so inordinately rich, that her revenues were great beyond all her wants—that a reduction of them would be a benefit to the church itself—in short, that the patient was dying of plethora, and that the only effectual cure was copious blood-letting. Now, he would beg the at- tention of the House to a few details as to the amount of Church ptoperty in Ireland, in order to see whether it really was that bloated establishment whose superfluous wealth was so great, that, besides being able to make a full provi- sion for all its own purposes, it had large sums to bestow upon others. He went on to state, that there were 1385 benefices in Ireland ; that the income arising from tithes, glebes, and ministers' money, was 459,0001.; and that the average income of each benefice, from tithe alone, would only be 255/. per annum; and he would ask the House, as an assembly of gentlemen, whether 300/. a year was too large an income for a clergyman, who had to maintain and educate a family in respectability ? A clergyman ought to have the means of saving some- ting for his family, and not live in constant anxiety of leaving his widow and children beggars. If there were to be a clergyman to every. bene- fice, then the tithes, glebes, and ministers' money, would give an average income of 3321.: if there were to be a clergyman to each church and licensed chapel, of which there were 1534, then the income of each would be only 2991. annually. Now, what did Lord Morpet bill provide ? Instead of 300/., the very moderate income lie had named, Lord Morpeth gave 1009 clergymen less than 300!.; 790 less than 2001.; and he actually starved down 129 clergymen to 1201. a year. Now if the number of clergymen were equal to the number of bene- fices —say 1380—and if 80 were to have 500/. a year, 400 400/. a year, and 900 3001. a year, the surplus would dwindle down to 30,000/. a year. It would be said, that the number of benefices might be reduced : but be found, that taking the Protestants belonging to the Church at 852,000, and the benefices at 1385, the number of Pro- testants to each benefice would be 615; and the extent of each benefice would be 8,664 acres, or between thirteen and fourteen square miles; the average income from tithe and glebe 3171. to each clergyman. Lord Stanley read a number of statements, showing that in many instances the labours of the clergy were great and their income small; and arguing, that there was a large deficiency of income to be math, good. He then proceded to animadvert on Lord Morpeth's Bill ; which, he said, was introduced with a view to the final settlement of the Tithiei question, while it provided that the rent-charge should continue ti 1843 and afterwards, until Parliament should otherwise direct. And this was called " a final measure! "—a measure which provided that at the end of seven years Parliament should be invited to reconsider it ! .As to his surplus, which was to be applied locally to religious and moral instruction, it was absolutely engulfed in a Serbonian bog—

swallowed up by the Consolidated Fund. It was proposed by Lord

Morpeth, that 90 per cent. should be deducted from tithes in the first instance, and subsequently 21 per cent. Last year, the clergy had certain advantages in return for this deduction ; the Commissioners of Land Revenue were to collect the tithe from the landlord • but, by this year's bill, the clergy were to collect their tithe, and the deduction was as large as before. Now he (Lord Stanley) proposed, that the deduction should be 25 per cent., and 24 per cent., and that the rent- charge should be collected by the Land RevenueCommissioners. He also proposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should make arrangements with the landowner for the redemption of the rent-charge, into which by his bill, as well as by Lord 14Iorpeth's, the tithe com- position would be commuted, though Lord Morpeth made no provi- sion for the redemption of the rent-charge. 1-1e strongly objected to the powers given by the Ministerial bill to the Secretary of State and -Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue. Government was driven to create a surplus ; and the way in which they set about it was most ob- jectionable. He objected to the sum of 500/. being fixed as a maxi- mum °fa clergyman's income ; but if 578/. were fixed as the maximum, and 17S/. as the minimum, the pitiful, surplus would disappear. But the Secretary of State had actually the power of screwing up the sur- plus to 332,000/., by assigning to each clergyman the minimum income fixed by the bill. Then the glebes might not be applied to Ecclesias. tical purposes ; and these glebes were valued at 86,500/. a year. He should like to know what Lord John Russell intended to do with this money ? The Commissioners of Land Revenue had the power of dealing with this property as they pleased ; and he wished a plain an- swer to this inquiry—" Was any proportion of it to be given for the support of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church ?" The Secre- tary of State had by this bill the power of raising a surplus of 380,000!.; and this sum, with a reservation of 50,000/. for education, might be paid over to the Consolidated Fund for the use of the State. Now, to the alienation of Church property for civil purposes, be for one never would consent— It was a principle dangerous in itself—a principle which held out a tempta- tion to political dishonest), and Parliamentary corruption. (cheers.) It placed the means of corruption in the hands of Government ; it deprived the Church of its liberty, by making it dependent on the will of the Secretary of State. (Cheers.) The bill stripped the clergy of their freehold character, placed them in subordination to the Secretary of State for the time being, and by the contingent fund, of which his noble friend, after making himself the trustee of the Church, constituted himself residuary legatee, subjected him to a temptation to which lie should be sorry to see his noble friend exposed, because he foresaw the dangers with which it would be attended. his noble friend said, there was no surplus: some tax must be taken off: but there was a quarrel between several very dear friends as to the amount of a penny tax ; there was a great pressure from without on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the remission of this tax every disposable farthing must be set apart. Certainly that was a

intellectual, perhaps application of a surplus, because it was for the moral, the

perhaps not much for the' religious instruction of the community, without any distinction of creed or party. His noble friend went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right honourable friend said, We can't afford it ; there is a great pressure from wjthout: but there is the Irish Church—the surplus is at your disposal, with the exception of the 50,000/. for education, and 47,0001. for the Consolidated Fund. Why, you have been foolish, impro- vident, prodigal of national wealth, needlessly hasty and imprudent in disposing of the national funds ; you have indulged these bloated clergymen—( Great ktughter)—to the utmost extent Parliament will allow you ; you have gone to the full extent of their incomes ; why don't you screw them up a little tighter? You have the sanction of Parliament for giving them the minimum, and you can make a surplus of 331,000/. ; put that into the Budget, and take off the Stamps." (Loud cheers.) He did not wish to expose his noble friend to this temptation ; he would not trust him with this discretion ; be did not wish that there should be a contingent surplus for every man to draw upon who wished to take off a tax or reduce a burden. Of all modes of applying a surplus, that which made Parliament the residuary legatee, which made it dependent on their ple,Isare how far they would accede to the wishes of their constituents regarding any remission of taxation, appeared to him to put Parliament and Government in the most unpleasant of all positions ; and he for one would not be instru- mental in bringing on the situation.

He proceeded to explain his plan for the better distribution of the Church revenues. He proposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should immediately report on the state of the benefices in cities and towns, and as soon afterwards as possible on rural benefices. Where rural bmetices contained congregations of fewer than 100 souls, and an income of 5001., then the junction of benefices might be recommended. In the same class of livings, a reduction of income, but not below 300/. might be made. The amount arising from these deductions to be devoted to the building of glebe-houses, building or repair of churches, or augmentation of small livings. Livings not situated in towns not to be raised to more than 3001. a year ; but in town livings, to 400/. or 500/. a year. Lord - Stanley concluded by warning the House, that the Ministerial Bill would be rejected by the House of Peers ; that his bill would be accepted by their Lordships; and by in- thnating -that he was authorized to say that it would also be acceptable to the Church.

Lord Joust RUSSELL hoped the House would recollect, that though they were doubtless an assembly of gentlemen, they ought to act as the representatives of popular feelings and interests. He hoped that they would consider themselves the Representatives of the whole People of the empire, including even that outlawed portion of the people— the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland. Lord Stanley had totally omitted to notice the Consideration which the House ought to have for three fourths of the people of Ireland. Lord John proceeded to reply to several of Lord Stanley's arguments ; and avotved, that the principle on which he legislated with regard to the Church was, that the Church was not established for the propagation of a doctrine, but fur the instruction of a people. He would not go so far as Warburton, who maintained that the Established faith should be the faith of the majority; but he could not consent to exclude the majority from all participation and benefit in the funds which were levied from them for the support of the Church. The time for discussing details would be in Committee; when Lord Morpeth would be prepared to reply to

many of the remarks of Lord Stanley, which be would not then advert to : but he would give an answer to one emphatic question of Lord

Stanley, who had asked him whether any portion of the glebes were to be given up to theCatholic clergy ?—to this he would say " No." He thought it extremely unfair in Lord Stanley to taunt Ministers with having made alterations suggested by his own side of the House, and

conceded by the Government in the hope of disarming some portion of opposition. After replying to other parts of Lord Stanley's speech, Lord John Russell said, that there could be no hope of any agreement between his side of the House and the Opposition on this question ; for, with regard to Ireland, they legislated throughout on opposite principles. He would give instauces in support of this asssertion.

One was, that when Mr. O'Loghlen had appointed Crown Solicitors to prosecute offenders for crimes of which former Governments took no cognizance, the only question asked by the Opposition was, whether these solicitors were Roman Catholics. Again, Mr. O'Loghlen had put an end to the usual practice of challenging jurors on account of their religious persuasion, inducing the belief that Protestants would not give Catholics a fair trial, and vice versa. The effect had been, that the administration of justice was more respected, and the belief that accused persons would at all events be fairly tried had become universal. These were the means taken by Ministers to restore peace to Ireland. He would refer to a third point, which placed the policy of Ministers in contrast with that of their opponents. He alluded to the Irish Municipal Bill— Having now an opportunity, which he had not when he before spoke on the subject, to look at the amended bill as sent down from the other branch of the Legislature, he must be allowed to say, that he observed in it the same prin- ciple on which his noble friend's amendment to-night was founded—the prin- ciple of contempt and degradation of the Boman Catholics of Ireland. (Loud cheers from Mr. O'Connell and the other Irish Members.) Ile confessed when he heard Lord Francis Egerton propose the instruction which he moved before going into Committee, he wondered what, if the amendment had been adopted, could have been the nature of those provisions by which it could be carried into effect ; and seeing that Lord Stanley supported it, he wondered in what manner they were to agree on the principles on which the new bill was to be founded, because on questions of English politics their principles had hith2rto been different. He found that it was a bill not founded on the Whig principles of liberty, nor on the Tory principles of reverence for ancient esta- blishments, but a mixture of some foreign adaptation, in which had been com- bined whatever was worst in the example of France—all that was most de- structive in her jacobinical republic, with all that was most despotic in her military empire. ( Cheers.) He therefore said he was obliged, in considering this bill and his noble friend's amendment, to look at them in reference to the whole tenour of their policy. ( Continued elu ers.) lie considered the whole government of Ireland as a system. He believed those on the other side like- wise considered it as a system. It must be tried in that House ; and by the moderation and sense of the people of this country, to which the noble lord appealed, it must decided which was the better course for Government to pur- sue. If the House were of opinion that they might fairly consider the wants, wishes, and interests of the Roman Catholic subjects of his Majesty, they would agree to the second reading of this bill. But if, on the contrary, they were of opinion, that they ought altogether to be omitted from their view, then he would not deny the noble lord's plan was an excellent one, and well worthy the consideration of the HOUSN ( Cheer's and laughter.) But that was the real question ; and if, after the House of Commons had decided the principles on which Ireland should be governed for the future, they were to reverse them, they would make the cup so much the more bitter for having told them that it was no longer to be offered to their lips; and if they were prepared to take a course inflicting on the Irish people degradation and a sense of injustice, they might depend on haying to contend with much opposition—with many obstacles —from the feelings of the Irish people ; and he believed likewise they would have to contend against the reason of the people of England. ( Cheers.) Their attention was now turned to Irish subjects, which fur a long time had not at- tracted sufficient consideration ; and he was fully convinced that Englishmen would be prepared on this occasion to do as they had always done, and act as they would wish themselves to be done by, treating their Irish fellow country- men with that regard which would insure their steadfast attachment and cordial union to the British empire.

Dr. LEFROY spoke at length in defence of Lord Stanley's propo- sition.

Mr. FOWELL BUXTON said, that though the tone of Lord Stanley was conciliatory at the commencement of his speech, it soon appeared that he had no intention of adhering to the language of conciliation— He divided the supporters of the present bill into three distinct classes,— those who were miserable disciples of economy; those whom he called the erring friends of the Church; and thirdly, those whom he looked upon as the direct and malignant enemies of the Church. To which of these classes Mr. Buxton himselebelonged, he really slid not know; but this he did know, that he could with confidence appeal from the calumnies of the noble lord to the bill itrelf. He had read it attentively, and found that the first great feature in it was a settlement of the tithe question upon a most satisfactory basis. Surely that ex- hibitel no design for the spoliation of Church property. The next principle of the bill very properly made a proportion between the duties to be discharged and the revenues to be received, which had not hitherto existed. The third principle was, that remuneration should be confined within certain restricted limits,—a most important feature as regarded England as well as Ireland. This could not be Ida' to the Church. If Ministers were desirous of overturning the Church, they had begun in a very strange way, by adopting those principles which were calculated to substantiate and confirm it.

The education clause had been grossly mirepresented. It provided for the appropriation of a surplus to the purposes of education ; but not until every parish had a pastor, and every pastor an adequate provision. It was said, however, that there would be no surplus—

The misrepresentations of the opposite side of the House were rendered

quite inoperative, and of no force, from their gross and absurd inconsistency with one another. First, a loud outcry was raised against the robbers and spoliators of the Church ; then came the assertion that the surplus which Ministers had in view was a mere farce, a bubble—that there would not be a farthing of surplus. How there was to be robbery and spoliation if there was nothing to rob and spoliate, he was at a loss to conceive. Ministers were, in fact, anathematized as robbers of a fuud which their assailants the next mo- ment distinctly pronounced to be a fiction, and to have no existence. But sup- posing that there really were to be found a surplus, he could not imagine ut what way, after adequately providing for the maintenance of the Protestant ministers in these parishes, that surplus could be appropriated more appropri- tely, more beneficially, more in accordance with the oliginal design for which the property was given, or more conducive to the interests and welfare of the Protestant religion, than in the promotion of education,—education being, after religion, the moat important object which could be secured for the people.

Education enabled the people to read their Bible, and it partook therefore greatly of the nature of a religious object. The Roman Catholics, it was true, were permitted to read but too little of the Bible ; but there were Protestants as well as Roman Catholics who were presumptuous enough to suppose that they could advise something better for the study of mankind than the Scriptures which the Creator had bestowed upon us. Education would greatly promote the in- creased reading of the Bible by all ; and thie would have another glorious re- sult—that of Inspiring all men of all religious opinions with that feeling of charity towards each other, the almoet total absence of which was the existing curse of Ireland.

He was persuaded that the Protestant religion was rejected by the Catholics because it was presented to them in so:odious a light. Lord Stanley had omitted to notice the disparity in numbers between the Catholics and Protestants—

That disparity, in fact, formed the main feature of the case ; because the pe- culiarity which it exhibited was, that the Established religion went by the

broad name of the National Church, while, in point of fact, the nation, he

might almost say, were opposed to it, and considered the faith which it pro- fessed to be heretical. lie must say, however, that the terms proposed by

the Government measure were as favourable as they ought to expect. No bene- fice was to be suppressed, and no spiritual instructiun was to be wanting. The four principal provisions of the bill went to give strength and stability to the Church ; and more than this ought not to be required. It was said that a concession to the Catholics were intended. What kind of a concession was it? One of education and knowledge. Had it been a concession of ignorance,— had it been proposed to shut up the schools, to suppress the eirculatiou of the Scrip- tures, and to put a stop to the further progress of education,—he would have admitted that to be a concession in favour of the Roman Catholics ; but as it was one of instruction and knowledge, he must say that he believed it to be a concession most decidedly in favour of the Protestant religion. He would go further, and declare it to be the paramount interest of the Protestant Church to make every rtiasonable concession to the Catholic Church. No church en- joyed such advantages as the Protestant Church, backed as it was by the wealth, intelligence, and influence, of the laity, and as it hail been, he was sorry to say, by the arm of power in times past ; within his recollection, it had been a capital offence to perform some of the rites of the Catholic Church ; under the name of the Protestant religion, persecution was established ; and we said to the rising gentry and nobility of Ireland, "Conic over to us and be good Protes- tants, and you shall have not an eternal reward for your faith, but you shall turn your fathers out of their houses if you please." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Such were some of the advantages, if they might be so called, which the Protestant Church had enjoyed : but its greatest strength was n its truth and purity ; and yet, with the help of Parliament to boot, it had not been able to stand its ground against error. Ile should like to have this phenomenon ex- plained. For three hundred years positive truth and positive error had been at war ; but truth had not triumphed—on the contrary, it was the worse for the conflict. Ilis solution of this extraordinary fact was, that they had failed because they had resorted to force, which could not carry conviction to the minds of men, but made them more opposed to truth, and produced a feeling which made them cling closer, in spite of reason and every _thing else, to a per- secuted religion.

He knew very well what some gentlemen meant by talking of Pro- test...4 Ascendancy ; but he knew also, that in Ireland it signified something very different from what it did in England— In Ireland, it meant that spirit which had occasioned a war, a half civil and half servile war, of about three hundred years' duration. The meaning which he attached to the words " a good Protestant," was, that the individual so described was a person of piety and benevolence, who attended Iris Church and adopted its principles; but a " good Protestant," when he was in Ireland, meant a man of quite a different order. ( ('heers.) Ile had known what was termed an exceedingly "good Protestant" who never darkened the doors of a church ; but a "good Protestant" in Ireland was a man who belonged to a political confederation—who plunged into the depths and excesses of political controversy—who drank on his knees to the " gloi iuus, pious, and immortal memory." (Cheers.) Ile himself had seen—and he witnessed it with shame — a religious procession of those " good Protestants" marching through Carlow with their banners flying in the face of a silent and insulted people; and all the way they went they were playing the tune of " Croppres lie down,"—which was intended to convey to the Catholics, and which they understood to convey to them—" We Protestants are your mas- ters, and rise if you dare." (Mach cheering ) Had the Protestants trusted more to the truth of their religion,—had they trusted less to the exterior marks of power, and more to the humility which properly belonged to it,—had they relied on the revolution which might have been effected by truth,—he was decidedly of opinion that prejudice and ignorance would have given way, and that his religion would have been triumphant.

Mr. Buxton concluded a speech which is very imperfectly reported in all the papers, by declaring his intention to support the bill, provided be bad a pledge from Ministers that the system of education in Ireland should be really what it pretended to be, and riot be perverted to the purposes of any sect—Methodists, Baptists, or Catholics.

Mr. GLADSTONE, Colonel COVaI IX, and Mr. HARDY, spoke against the Ministerial Bill; .ULTER, Mr. H. Gaarran, and Mr. VILLIERS STUART, in its favour. The debate was then adjourned. On Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate.

Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR objected to the motion ; as the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Irish Municipal Bill had been fixed for that evening.

The SPEAKER decided, that the Order of the Day must be read ; and stated the original question—" that the Irish Church Bill be now read a second time," and the amendment moved by Lord Stanley.

Mr. BARRON then addressed the House in support of the Ministe- rial Bill. Ile contended, that the income of the Irish Church had been understated by Lord Stanley ; and that, with the glebes, Bishops' lands, gardens, and palaces, it really amounted to 762,000/. per annum, or about one pound a bead for the Protestants. On the same principle by which the State was called upon to lay by this sum for the religious instruction of Protestants, he claimed 6,000,000/. for the instruction of the Roman Catholics of Ireland.

Mr. GALLY KNIGHT was almost inaudible to the reporters; but was understood to support Lord Stanley's proposition.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN and Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE supported the Mi- nisterial Bill; Mr. JOHN YOUNG opposed it.

Mr. EDWARD BULWER protested against the inconsistency of de- nouncing sinecures in the State, and upholding sinecures in the Church—

They talked of Irish bulls, but the words Irish Church were the greatest

bull in the language. It was called the Irish Church because it was a Church not for the Irish. ( Cheers and lauyhter.) They had heard that those who ministered to the altar should live by the altar : but the Protestant clergymen did not minister to the altar—the Catholic ministered to the altar, and the Protestant lived upon the flock. But they were told, that though they had the legal, they had not the equitable right to appropriate Church property. Could any Protestant use this argument ? How then did the Protestant Establieh. anent exist ? We stood upon the gigantic ruins of the Catholic Church pro.. perty. Should we quarrel with the very title-deeds by which we held our pos- session ? They had been told that it was arranged at the Union that the two Churches of England and Ireland should be incorporated as a defence to the weaker, or, in other words, the Protestant party ; and they had been eoleninly adjured to adhere to the contract. Was it at that time of day they were to be told that what the Legislature of one age had established the Legislature of another age could not amend? 'f alk of adhering to the legislation of the past ! —you might as well talk of adhering to the Ileptarchy. What ! was there to be only one entail which could never be cut off in the blunders of departed bi- gotry and the injustice of obsolete oppression? ( Cheers.) Ile referred to the condition of the Irish clergy— In what a situation are the clergy of Ireland now ? Do you mean that they should for ever continue in this situation? Are they to subsist for ever upon public subscriptions?—for I tell you plainly that until you have repealed di,. Parliamentary Reform Bill, this House will never pass an Irish Church without the Appropriation-clause. ( Cheers.) I ask you then, is it you—you who set up for the friends of the clergy—who insist upon maintaining them as

the mendicants of public charity—is it you who sneer at the honourable aud learned Member for Kilkenny for receiving public subscriptions, when it is your own obstinacy on this question that covers the columns of the newspapers with

the subscriptions of ostentatious piety for the starving clergy of the wealthiest establishment in the world ? Emulous of the fame of your own caricature of the learned Member for Kilkenny, it is the Protestant Establishment that you have made the Big Beggarman of Ireland. (Much cheering.) Mr. MACLEAN animadverted upon the principles laid down by Lord John Russell with regard to a State Church ; and maintained, that it

was the essential duty of the Government of a Protestant country to promote the diffusion of Protestant doctrines, and no other. lie was fully aware of the prostrate condition of Ireland, and deeply lamented

it. Mr. Grattan had said that Ireland was not dead—she was only asleep ; and Mr. Maclean earnestly appealed to Mr. O'Connell to use his ,intluence to arouse her from the "lethargy" into which she had fallen !

Lord MORPETH did not think it necessary for him to enter into a discussion on the Appropriation principle, on which he had nothing

novel to offer to the House. The principle was plainly avowed, and Ministers were resolved to abide by it. He had been represented, gee. phically and rhetorically, as struggling to shake it off; but he did not complain of the burden, and it had not broken his back. Two mes- sages had been brought down to the House,—one from the Right Re- verend Bench, by Lord Stanley, with their consent to the adoption of

his scheme; another from the Lords, by Mr. Gladstone, signifying that the Government plan would not pass their House. Now, he did not think the complexion of public affairs, or the constitutional practice, required that permits for the introduction of measures into the House of Commons required the indorsement of either of the august bodies whom Lord Stanley and Mr. Gladstone represented. Lord Morpeth then applied himself to answer several of the objections raised by Lord Stanley against his bill. With regard to the omission of any provision for redeeming the rent-charges, he considered that the question was already sufficiently complicated without the unnecessary introduction of that element. It should be remembered that the subject was diffi- cult to deal with. The money received from the sale of rent-charges must be invested in some permanent fund : now the public securities would only yield an interest of 3i per cent.,—which would occasion a large deduction from the clerical income ; if they purchased land, the price of land would be raised, and thus the same reduction of income would be effected, besides exposing the clergyman to all the casualties affecting a landowner, from which it was so desirable to preserve him. Lord Morpeth then explained the actual state of the fund created by the Church Temporalities Act ; and reminded Lord Stanley, that by that Act provision was made for the repairs of churches, building of glebe-houses, and other outgoings, to which Lord Stanley proposed to devote the surplus which might accrue from the new mode of distri- buting the ecclesiastical income. The income now received by the Commissioners under the Temporalities Act was 42,000/.,—a consi- derable sum to realize in the course of three years, and larger by 13,000/. than that which Lord Stanley had supposed. The bill then before the House did not interfere with the operation of the Church Temporalities Act, except in the way of augmenting the funds to be placed under the control of the Commissioners for the purposes of that Act. He explained, that the number of Irish benefices, accord- ing to the present bill, was only 1250, instead of 1385; because he had consolidated benefices with less than twenty-five Protestants in each—many of them having only three or four—with neighbouring benefices. He then showed, by reference to the number of Protes- tants in the English and Scotch benefices, that he assigned a much smaller flock to each Irish clergyman, than his brethren in England and Scotland had to take care of; and with respect to the extent of theliv-_,. ings, he had ascertained, that although the average number of acres o i n/ English benefices was much smaller than in the Irish, yet that n Scot- land it. was much larger. As regarded the comparative incomes of the clergy, in England and Wales, on the average it was 285/. per head ; in Scotland, only 2401.; in Ireland, taking into account the 40 acres of glebe-land at 30s. per acre, it was 2951.—payable, too, on the presentation of a warrant signed by the Committee of-the Privy Council, at the Bank of Ireland, at certain stated periods, without loss, trouble-, or expense to the recipient. In reply to Lord Stanley's ob- jections, that many large benefices, finding employment for several clergymen, were reckoned in the bill as one, Lord Morpeth showed that by kis bill the Commissioners would be enabled to divide .bene- fices, ancrapportion a suitable income to the clergymen of each district in the cases quoted by Lord Stanley ; who had overlooked the fact, that the present incumbents took large incomes of 11001. and 1800/. per annum, doing nothing themselves, and leaving their flocks to the care of curates at 75/. a year. He pledged himself to use every exertion, to see that the system of education, to support which he asked Parlia- ment to sanction his bill, should be really national, not sectarian ; and stated, that many of the representations to the disadvantage of the working of the system had been unfounded. He quoted from an article in the Quarterly Review, a statement of the comparative pro- perty of Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and the proportion of tithe composition paid by each ; and the result, according to the Re- viewer, was that " more than 19-20ths of the whole real property of the country, and nearly the same proportion of every quality which constitutes superiority among mankind," was with the Protestants. Now he begged the House to attend to this statement— The population of Ireland was 7,943,940 persons; the number of those amongs tthe Irish people who belong to the Established Church was only 852,064 persons. Now, he would ask for whom and for what were the vast charges of the Established Church in that country ineurred—fot what class had the State made such ample provision as regarded their spiritual instruction and comfort ? Was not all that great machinery provided for the use of persons of property and rank, of refined and cultivated minds, for the rich and for the few ? There vas nothing of the sort for the uninstructel, the suffer itig, the oppiessed, the poor, aud the many—nothing for the people. Cottle any man wonder, then,

that such a state of things would n i ever answer ? Was t not impossible to avoid seeing that the danger was pressing, imminent, and deadly ? In such a

state of things then, when m and those with who he was in the habit of acting lent their best assistance towards curtailing the extent and ex- posing the nature of the danger, as well as concentrating the strength of its defenders within the citadel of the Constitution and the Establish- ment, a cry of treachery was raised against them, and Alm warning of anxious friends was described as the machinations of enemies. tri course he mild not undertake to guarantee that any such nwasure as he had proposed would be final —would be successful ; but he believed it to he the best that, under present circumstances could be introduced for the preservation of an Establishment which it would be impossible otherwise to maintain, unless by the shedding of blood—a sacrifice which, great as it was, he should not deem too much for truth and religion, hut infinitely too much for an eatablishment—not too touch for the spirit, but for the form of worship. (" Hear, hear, hear !") He valued highly the learned leisure end refined habits of the clergy ; nit one could less desire than he should to see those habits undergo a change; but let nothing induce that House to consent to pay for those advantages inure than they were worth. Though his bill was not all that in the abstract might be desired, he still should say that he believed it would have the effect of palliating many serious evils, that it would be received by the bulk of the people as evidence of a consideration of their feelings; and that it would prumore the highest objects of general charity, piety, and faith.

[Loud and long-continued cheering followed the close of Lord Mor- peth's speech ; in the midst of which, Mr. O'Connell, who had been sitting on one of the back-benches, left his seat, and cordially shook hands with Lord Morpetb,—a movement which excited a slight sar- ca.tic cheer from some Members on the Oppos'tion benches, but was viewed with delight by the majority.]

Sir JAMES GRA o M entered at sotne length into a comparison between the measures of Lord Stanley and Lord Morpeth, for the purpose of showing, that, except as regarded the Appropriation principle, there was little substantial difference between them. In prim!iple, however, they were essentially different ; 'and he maintained, that to divert any portion' of the revenues of the Protestant Church to the education of Catholics was a violation of the right; of property, and absolute robbery. lie warned the House against proceeding in the career of concession ; and contrasted the language of Dr. APHale in 1826, when he declared his readiness to pay tribute unto whom tribute was due, with the language of the same person in 18:34, when he declared that nothing would induce him to pay a farthing for the support of " the greatest nuisance in the civilized world. He laid great stress on the clause of the bill which allowed compositions to be reopened; and argued, that, from the fall in the price of corn, the incomes of the clergy would be diminished at least 25 per cent, by sanctioning such a measure. Ile charged Lord John Russell with inconsistency, in supporting the motion to expunge the 147th clause from the Church Temporalities Bill, on the ground that lie would not provoke a collision with the Lords for a mere shadow, while he nevertheless supported the present bill, in which the surplus was not more tangible. He also quoted a passage from Lord Melbourne's speech on moving the second reading of the Tithe Bill last year, expressive of deep concern and regret at the necessity which had arisen of meddling with the question involved in the bill. Sir James concluded a speech of nearly two hours' duration, and which was beard with great impatience by the House' by reading a passage front Bolingbroke's works,—to the effect, that when the Church Establish- ment fell, the British Constitution would fall with it, and bury truth, Justice, reason, and liberty in its ruins !

Mr. Sum. next addressed the House. He commenced thus-

" The right honourable baronet concluded his speech by quoting an Atheist and a Tory in defence of the Church and the Constitution. In the early part of his speech, he stood forth as the champion of the rights of property. Had not the " Cumberland Yeoman" better be sturunoned tu the bar tu correct his erroneous opinions on that subject ? "

He then -adverted to the antagonist measures of Lord Stanley and Lord Morpeth. Lord Stanley said he never would consent to a bill which contained the Appropriation principle-

" I never expected, indeed, that he would divest himself of the fatal perti. naeity which characterizes him, and which has been the source of so much calamity to the country that was so long abandoned to his control. The man who could without remorse witness the fatal results of his miserable legislation, must indeed be incapable of penitence: hut he is mistaken in supposing that his consent is necessary to the achievement of this great measure. This House, invested as it is with a power which is sure to prevail at last, sustained by the great body of the nation, has means of persuasion which have not been tried on former occasions in vain. Does the neble lord recollect by what ex- pedient the Cabinet of which he was a member carried the Reform Bill ? And if that measure was accomplished, its results—its inevitable results, of which this is one—will by the same instrumentality be achieved. It is sufficient to trace the progress of' this question, in order to see that its advances to success are beyond all doubt, and that although it may be retarded, it cannot be stopped. There are a class of questions which cannot retrograde, which cannot continue stationary, and which must needs go on. Of this character was the Slave question, the Catholic question, the Reform question. Of this class is that which the Irish millions, returning to this House a vast majority of the Repre- sentatives of Ireland, never will relinquish. In the year 1824, this question was first pressed to a division by the Member for Middlesex. In the minority the names of Hobhouse, of Rice, and of Russell are to be found. They saw even then, that the concession of this right to Ireland was indispensable for her peace. The Member for Cumberland has quoted a speech of the Secretary of the Home Department in 1833, to prove that he was opposed to a new appro-

priation ; Lut that @leech referred to the 147th clause, and to a contingent and improbable surplus in the Church Temporalities !till, and not to a surplus, de- finite, substantial, palpable, like that which will result front the contemplated

measure. It may be said that the uoble lord, as well as the Secretary for the Horne Department, has been consistent. He has been, indeed, obstinate in his adherence to a detail ; but his general policy hie with that detail been most in-

congruous. The instant the Reform of the Parliament was proposed in Eng-

land, the Reform of the Church was with the haute loud voice imperatively required in Ireland. The excitement which arose in one country on the ques- tion by which it was most deeply interested, soon extended itself to the other, on the grievance by which it was most sensibly and painfully affected. Down, cried England, with nomination in the Parliament! Down, cried Ireland,

with sinecurism in the Church ! Perish Charon and Old Sarum ! cried the

people of this country. Perish the abuses, answered the Irish millions, which nothing but Old Sarum and Gatton could maintain. How, indeed, was it pos-

sible that the popular agitation which pervaded une country, should not have

been communicated to the other ? How could Ireland remain in apathetic contemplatimt of the great scenes which were passing in this country ? Yet the noble lord, who himself administered to the provocation of the popular passions in England, and the right honourable baronet conceived that they could play the Gracchiefor Reform of the Parliament, and complain of sedawn when Ireland demanded in the same right the Reform of the Church."

Mr. Shell gave a rapid historical sketch of the events which fol- lowed the carrying of the Reform Act, to the introduction of the

Tithe Bill of last year. Ile then described the operations of the Lay Association, the course taken by the Court of Exchequer in issuing writs of rebellion, and predicted the alartniies consequences which must result from the continuance of such proceedings, in spite of the influence of a friendly Governtnent. He contrasted the state of Ire- land with that of Scotland, where a different policy had prevailed-

Seraland affords evidence irresistible of the advantage of adapting the in- stitutions of a country to the habits and principles of its people. Look to Scot- land when an effiwt was made to inflict Episcopacy upon her—(how full is her history of the philesophy which teaches by example !)—and look at her after her national religious rights had been asserted. Noble anti enviable Country! She has won victories in civilization. Her agriculture has climbed to the summit of those hills whose heather was once red with her inartyrs' blood ; the palaces of her industry ascend on the banks of every frith ; her estuaries are covered with navies that bear the produce of her labour to the remotest marts; in every science that exalts and expands the mind, in every Sit that cheers and embellishes existence, Scotland has made the most important contributions to

the happiness of mankind. But alas! when from the contemplation of the

splendid spectacle which Scotland exhibits, I turn to my own unfortunate country, my heart sinks, I confess, within me, in the melancholy consciousness in which every Irishman, no matter what may be his creed, ought to participate. But if Ireland does exhibit this fetal contrast—if in a country that ought to teem with abundance there prevails wretchedness without exatnple—if millions of paupers are without employment, and often without food or raiment—where is the fault ? Is it in the sky that showers verdure ? is it in the soil, that is surpassingly fat:I!? or in the fatal course which you, the arbiters of her destiny, have adopted ? She has for centuries belonged to England ; England has useil her for centuries as sh pleased : how has she used her, and whet has been the result? A code of laws was established, to which in the annals of legislative atrocity there is not a parallel ; and of that code, those institutes of unnatural ascendancy, the hist' Church is a remnant. But although that detestable policy was without example, it has since been chosen as a model. Well did Nicholas

exclaim, when he pet used the debates (as I have beard) in this House, on his

frightful tyranny to Poland,—well did he exclaim, Poland is Russia's

Ireland.' Ile confiseates as your fathers did ; he banishes as they did ; he debases as they did ; he violates the instincts of human nature, and from

the parent tears the child, as they dub ; anti he inflicts upon a Catholic teaople a church alien to their: national habits, feelings and belief, as you do. And think you not that there are men found in the Senate of St. Petersburg, who exclaim that the Greek Church must be maintained in ascendancy in Poland—that it is the bond of connexion between Poland and Russia—that a

Greek priest, disFeasing hospital ty, and holding out a salutary example by the

excellence of his moral conduct, must in every Polish village be the source of ingwovement ? and can you doubt that some Tartar Secretary for Poland- ( Loud cheers)—is sufficiently prompt to furnish the materials for a Warsaw stretch, and to exclaim that a lesson must be given to Poland, and that she must be t might to fear, before she can learn how to love?" (Loud a,a1 eon- tio+-ci dere, ing.)

What useful purpose had the gorgeous Establishment ever an- swered ?—

" The hen easel& :Wernher fur Weymouth, who hates Popery as much as you do, 01r. Sled appeared to address himself to Lord Stanley.] and detests ty- ranny a great deal more, has told you that the Protestant Church Establith- ment has been an obstacle to the Protestant religion. You have tried every thing, but you have failed. You tried Foundling Hospitals, then Charter Schools the nurseries of corporations, and then the Kildare Street Society ; but that did not do; and then you introduced the noble lord opposite. ( Great taro:Ater.) It is well to be able to find an opportunity of panegyrizing where there is so much to deplore. The noble lord—who is, I believe, the author of Parobles for the Use of Children—I should like to read his version of the parable of the Pharisee—assented, even he assented, to what is conintonly called the mutilation ef the Word of God ; and it was found so hopeless an attempt to proselytize the Catholics of Ireland, that even the gallant officer opposite was obliged to do the same. You gave up the notion of making Catholics Pro- testants. The corruptions of the Protestant Church have excluded every pros- :wet of coverting them. And is this Aceldama, this field of blood, fitting for limiting the vineyard of the Lord ? Do you not sae what advantages you give ep by the course you pursue ? What a field for declamation you throw open to your opponents! Do you not know that they say, that Rehab and Marnmon, and Meloch are the gods of the Church, and that they take advantage of Rath- cormac and Insearra ? Think of bringing the Bible, and swearing the mother, screaming by her child, to pay her dimes! ("0e, oh ! ") It was proved— proved on oath ; the party went to the scene of outrage, and did swear the mother, on the Gospels, to pay her dues. Then, at Inscarra, the hands which had been employed in distributing the cucharist were engaged in loading the initruments of destruction ; and, afterwards, with an air of sentimentality, the fingers dripping with human blood were raised to wipe the tears from clerical eyes ! There are men who say that the Church, even with its abuses, cements the Citnin. Were not the abuses of that Church even at the present moment disturbing the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and shaking the institutions of this country to their very centre ? In support of that Church was it worth while to continue the scenes of bloodshed which had been enacted at Rath- cormac and elsewhere ? The honourable aleitiber for Manchester, in presenting to-night a petition sigated by thirty thousand of the inhabitants of that great and populous town, hall expressed a hope that no organic change might become necessary. In that hope he most enthusiastically concurred : but he must at the same say, that if men, acting not like British l'eers. but with insanity, should have the infouetion to push the People to a point front which they can- not retreit,—if, he repeated, they should have the infittuation to place in one scale the privileges of their nubility against the rights of millions contained in the other,—the People of this country would not be long in determining on which side the balance should preponderate." (Load cheers.)

At the conclusion of Mr. Shell's speech, the debate was again adjourned, at one o'clock.

Last night, the debate wus opened by Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, in a speech of three hours' duration ! He maintained that the real question

at issue was, whether the Protestant religion was to be supported or abolished,—for the motto of their opponents in regard to the " nuisance " as they culled it, was " Delenda est Carthago." He defended the proceedings of the Lay Association, and charged the lash Govern- ment with arraying itself against the High Courts of Law. He denied that Mr. Bereshad of' Inscarra had acted in the manner imputed to him, and denounced the agitation against the payment of tithes. The real object of those who supported the Government was to pull down the Protestant religion, and Lord Morpeth would soon be called upon to carry out his principles. Ile thought that Lord Morpeth was very ill-advised in saying that he would not allow blood to be shed in the collection of tithes by the military. Where would he draw the line ? Was not the property of the Church to be protected ? He expressed strong disapprobation of the system of education patronized by Govern. meat.

1111% WARD defended the principle of the Ministerial Bill; and when it was said that be and they who thought with him were bigoted

to an abstract principle, it ought at least to be remembered, that their principle had not been tried, while Lord Stanley's principle had been tried, and had been attended with the worst consequences to religious institutions in Ireland and elsewhere. Mr. Ward dwelt upon the un- just operation of the present system ; and argued, from the fact of so many Ministries having been overthrown in attempting to bolster it up, that the principle which he advocated, and first put forward

distinctly and tangibly in the House of CODIMOng, must prevail. Much was said of revolutionary violence ; but if violence was to be expected,

it was not from the popular party, %rho had the power to obtain their ends by constitutional means, but from that party for %idiom Sir Robert Peel was too cautious and prudent, and who, adopting the advice given

them by their organs of the press, had recently elected another leader, who had no property, no aristocratic connexions, was independent of all parties, having joined all by turns, and was possessed of serve.

Mr. HARVEY, AS a Protestant Dissenter, would not vote for either of the bills. Were be desirous of supporting the Establishment, un-

doubtedly he should prefer Lord Stanley's. But he was decidedly op- posed to both measures, lie ridiculed the idea of men quarrelling about the Appropriation principle, when each partigave the landlords

a large slice, 80 per cent., of the tithe property ; and thus applied it to the very worst of secular purposes. As to the Roman Catholics, their religion was always the same, and it was absurd to suppose their leaders were sincere in their support of the Voluntary si stem. He as a Pro- testant Dissenter might be a sireere advocate of the Voluntary system ; but as for the Catholics, they must have the design of seizing upon the Church property and (stub/is/dog their own religiea. For his part, he hoped that the Catholics would never be any thing but a sect. Ile warned Mr. Hume and the economists of the House, that the result of this measure would be, that the Catholics would seize the tithes, and that the Protestant clergy would be supported out of the Cooso-

lidated Fund. As to either of the present measures being calculated to put an end to the tithe-war, it was impossibly to suppose it. The

Irish people would resist a rent-charge tar the support of a Protes- tant church, just as earnestly as they resisted tithes—the name made no difference ; and be hoped they would resist as heretofore, lie bad a plan for settling this question, which he had oo objection to defend anywhere—on College Green. After providing for existing interests, he would convert the /chute of the tithe, without any deduction, into a land-tax, the proceeds of which should be devoted to the support and education of the poor. [In the course of his speech, Mr. Harvey was repeatedly cheered by the Opposition, and sometimes ironically by the Ministerialists.] Mr. O'Coxsess said, no doubt Air. Harvey's scheme was a very practicable one! No doubt the House would sanction a proposal to take the whole of the tithes from the Church ! To speak in earnest, however, it was contemptible in Mr. Harvey to allow himself to be actuated by his miserable, petty, paltry, personal resemments and jea- lousies, in dealing with such a subject as this. But he was all for the poor ! The milk of human kindness bad been poured over him ! Amazing was his candour ! Certainly he was sincere, though the Ca- tholics were not. He congratulated Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley on their new ally ; but he denied that Mr. Harvey had spoken the sentiments of his constituents. Mr. O'Connell then adverted to the bitter Anti- Catholic spirit on the Opposition side of the House ; which would not long since bate given him pleasure, as affording an argument for Repeal ; but now it gave hint pain, as he bad seen too much lately of the English people not to join in the sentiment once uttered by Mr. Spring Rice, and to declare himself a West Briton. Mr. O'Connell commented in strong language on the remark of Sergeant Jackson, that Lord Morpeth was ill-advised in declaring against the shedding of blood for titbes. He adjuled the gentlemen of England, in the name of the living God—( Cries if" Oh, oh ! ")—was there any man so savage as to ridicule the adjuustion he had made? ((Jries " Oh, oh ! ") Did they ridicule him because he deprecated the shedding of blood? If they were men of blood, let them call for blood— Sit' STRATFORD CANNING called Mr. O'Connell to order.

The SPEAKER said the term " men of blood" was disorderly if applied to any Members..

Mr. O'Cosataa. stood corrected—he would not use the term again ; but if he were so taunted out of the House, he would not hesitate to call those who ridiculed a sentiment of humanity men of blood. He denied that because he was a Catholic he must be necessarily attached to an Established Church. Was the Catholic religion established in France, Hungary, or Belgium, where the Catholics were the most powerful sect ? He reminded the House, that in 1834 he had offered the clergy 771. 10s. per cent. On their tithes ; but the Lords threw out the bill, though there was no Appropliation clause in it. Next year Sir Henry Hardinge offered them 75/.—underbid him by 2/. 10s. ; by the present bill they would have 67/. 10s. Next year they would have still less offered. See what the friends of the clergy had done for them!

He knew that the aim of Ireland's enemies was to drive her into a civil war ; but, said Mr. O'Connell, " the Irish sha'nt make war with Toil. Do you think the People of England will back you in such a war? I' he People of England will be against you. I have dined with Mayors and Aldermen, shaken hands with the students in the ' normal schools of peaceful agitation,' who had crowded round me, as if I were some new animal in the Zoological Gardens. A liberal spirit is abroad ; and the loud cry of ' No Popery' has dwindled down to a faint wailing on the mouctains of Cumberland." He concluded with a solemn adjuration, warning them by all the motives of policy and religion, not to reject the present compromise. [Mr. O'Connell then left the house.] Sir Roamer PEEL said, it was very disagreeable to reply to a Member in his absence, more particularly when that Member bad especially called on him to note his words and answer his arguments, as Mr. O'Connell had desired him to do. He proceeded to point out the inconsistency of Lord Morpoth's bill with the principles laid down by Lord John Russell with regard toChurch Establishments. lie disputed the correctness of Lord Morpeth's statements as to the income of the clergy under the new bill. Lord John Russell had been compelled to adopt new views on the question before the House. Ile asked him if the Protestant religion had not been established by law, and had not the King sworn to protect it. (Loud Opposition cheers.) If Protestantism was to be protected and encouraged, there must be no such equalization of income as that pro- posed. They gave their doorkeepers 400/. a year, and Mr. O'Connell said it was not too much. There must be different arrangements if men of education were expected to enter the Church. The Govern- ment Bill would render the Church stipendiary; but Lord Stanley's Bill would put an end to abuses and make the Church efficient. The country would judge between the two measures; and to the people must be left the decision.

Mr. SPRING Rice asked if it was worthy of Sir Robert Peel, when such an impoitant question wits under consideration, to occupy himself with instituting comparisons between the salaries of doorkeepers and clergymen? The principle of Ministers was to apportion remunera- tion to the service performed. Why did not Sir Robert Peel propose to increase the incomes of the poor English clergy—many of whom had not a tenth of the income of the doorkeepers—out of the Consoli-

dated Fund ? Sir Robert Peel talked of engagements into which Ministers had been forced to enter : such representations were false and malicious. A more disgraceful and calumnious charge—one more destitute of truth—bad never been uttered within the walls of Par- liament against any Ministers. Mr. Rice went on to show that Sir Robert Peel's own calculations as to the property of the Church were grossly incorrect. Ile was not afraid to meet the people of England

on this question ; and he was prepared to adhere to the principles and policy on which be had come into office. The House then divided—

For the second reading of Lord Morpeth's Bill 300 For Lout Stanley's amendment 261

Ministerial majority

89 The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 1711, instant.

The House adjourned at a quarter past three.

2. Ilsroast OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

On moving the Order of the Day for going into aCommittee of Sup- ply, on Monday, Lord JOIN RUSSELL said, he did so to give Mr. Grove

l'rice an opportunity of bringing forward or withdrawing his motion to expunge Mr. O'Comiell's notice of motion for leave to bring in a bill to alter the coostitution of the House of Lords.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he intended to move that Mr. Grove Price's notice be expunged. (Laughter.)

Mr. Grlovn Pince said, he was unwilling that the question involved in Mr. O'Connell's notice should be seriously debated in the House, though he knew that motion would be rejected by an immense majority; and therefore be bad given notice of a motion to expunge it from the paper : but he was informed that there was a technical objection to such a proceeding, and be would not risk a question of such magnitude upon a point of form. He knew the dexterity of his adversaries, and that the use they would make of any formal advantage would be to represent that the monstrous proposition of Mr. O'Connell had re. ceived some sanction from the House of Commons. He therefore should withdraw his notice, reserving the right of expressing his feel- ings on the question to a future time ; for he should not lose sight of his main object.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that neither would lie lose sight of/is object ; which was to bring the two Houses of Parliament into harmony. Ile knew of no technicality that could prevent him from bringing a motion for that purpose before the 1-louse: be knew of no sound objection to such a motion that Mr. Price could bring forward, from whatever source he drew his inspiration—from the head-quarters of Don Carlos down to the Morning Post. Mr. Pales said, the technical difficulty was this—that the expunging of the notice (for which there was only a recent and hasty precedent) would not deprive Mr. O'Connell of his right to bring forward the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad that Mr. Price had taken advice from persons of sound judgment. lie must have opposed his motion—as he was also prepared to oppose that of Mr. O'Connell, respecting, he would not say the reform, but respecting the constitution of the House of Peers- " It is certainly my opinion, that as it is the undoubted right of this House to introduce bills to regulate the succession to the Crown, and to reform the representation of the People in Parliament, so likewise it is the undoubted right of this House to introduce, and to favour, if it shall think fit, bills respectidg what is called a reform, but which I do not consider to be a reform, in the constitution of the other branch of the Legislature. This is the opinion I should have maintained and argued upon, if the honourable gentleman had persevered in his motion. As I before said, I am very glad be has listened to the advice of others, and abstained from pressing it. I hope the honourable gentleman has taken the advice of the right reverend prelates of our Church. (A laugh.) A motion was made not long ago by an honourable Member— not for any reform in the number of Br- hops sitting in Parliament, but for depriving them of their seats in Parliament altogether. Now, as the Lords Bishops

Spiritual have so full a right—a right which I am determined to maintaim--to

lit iotthe othrr Emote of Parliament, it cert sinly would have been a bad com- pliment to those right reverend Prelates, if this House, after entertaining a motion for the removal of the Bishops hem the House of Lords, had declared that they could not entertain a motion for a reform among the Lay Lords. I think it very likely that the right reverend Bishops, feeling somewhat hurt at the course intended to be pursued by t! e honourable gentleman, may have suggested to him that they ought not to be placed in a situation so invidious as compared with that of the Lay Lords. I have much greater respect for the Bishops : I maintain their right to sit in the House of Lords ; I maintain the right of the Lay Lords; I maintain them both equally ; mid I do not intend, as the honourable gentleman did, to maintain an iuvithous distinction between them."

GnovE PRICE then withdrew his notice.

3. REPORT OF THE DUBLIN ELECT ON COMMITTEE.

On Monday, the debate on the petition of the Dublin Electors against Messrs. West and Hamilton, the sitting Members, was re- sumed.

• Mr. O'CONNELL briefly stated the facts of the ease ; and argued, that there was nothing in the Grenville Act or any other Act of Parlia-

ment which prevented the House from entertanthig the petition. He ridiculed the Grenville Act, which he said had been called the per- fection of wisdom ; and as an illustration of the wisdom of a law %vbich was neither English, Irish, nor Scott!), but Welsh law, quoted a clause which provided fur that was to be done in case a Committee con- sisting of demi persons should be equally divided.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that after a very patient investigation of the question, he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the peti- tion could nut be received.

Mr. O'CosNEtt. here rose, and, amidst some interruption, said that he would at once withdraw the petition, since the first Law-officer of the Crown was decidedly of opinion that it could not be received.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL requested that the Speaker would give his opinion on the question.

Mr. ABERCROMBY then rose, and spoke to the following effect.

It was competent for the electors of any place or for the unsuccessful candi- dates at an election, or for both, to present an election petition to that House: but in all cases it was the duty of the Committee, in a constitutional point of view, to consider the constituency as the real parties before them. That Com- mittee had the power of deciding whether the sitting Members or the unsuc- cessful candidates woe duly elected • and therefore it followed, as a matter of course, that every question that could affect the right of either of those parties ought to be brought under the consideration of the Committee. In his opinion, any C tee that abstained from reporting that either the one or the other party was duly electvd, failed in the discharge of their duty. But how could the Committee conscientiously report either that the sitting Members or unsuc- cessful candidates %sere duly elected, if they shut out evidence having reference to the merits of the election ? Ile would meution a very recent ease, CO re- markably on all fours with the present one, that it was surprising it bad not been alluded to. In 18:31, a petition was presented from the electors of South- ampton, complaining that one of the gentlemen who bad been returned for that place was not duly eketed. The Committee decided that the honourable Mem- ber was not duly elected, add that una of the unsuccessful candidates was duly elected, and ought to have been roam ned. After the Committee had reported that decision to the House it was desired to present a petition, as in the present case, against the unsueces:ful candidate, on the ground of In ibery and treating ; but the right honourable gentleman, his predecessor in the Chair, gave it as his opinion that the Committee who had the power to investigate all the circum- stances connected with the election having failed to do so, the House was pre- cluded from appointing a new Conitnittee to inquire into the chatge of bribery and treating. It was obviously the intention a the Grenville Act, and of the succeeding acts relative to controverted elections, to take from that House the power of deciding on the questions raised by petitions complaining of improper returns and undue elections' for a separate tribunal was constituted for adjudi- cating on those matters, and its decision was to be held as final and conclusive. With reference to the case of the Dublin election, he undoubtedly was of opinion that the Committee conic to a must erroneous and unfoitunate decision in declaring that the unsuccessful candidates were not parties !refine the Com- mittee, and in preventing the reception of any evidence affecting their right to seats in that Douse. In their report the Committee stated, that a certain number of votes were struck off the poll on account of bribery ; and they also stated what was a most material and important fact—that there was no evidence to connect the present sitting Members for Dublin with that bribery. It cer- tainly appeared to him, on first reading the report, that it was expressed in such terms as would have been used if the Committee had examined the charge of bribery against tire present sitting Members, and found that it could not be sustained ; but the fact turned out to be, that the Committee were induced to agree on their special report not on account of the failure of evidence against the present sitting Members for Dublin, but on account of the exclusion of all such evidence, which was the act of the Committee themselves. Then came the important question—what ought the House, supposing it to concur with him M thinking that the Committee had mistaken its duty, to do? Now, he thought he was only discharging his duty to the House when he stated, that it was his firm opinion that principle ought to prevail against the particular cir- cumstances of the case; and that House should not give its sanction to a pro- ceedirt'e, which might serve as a precedent for shaking off those fetters imposed on it by law, and which limited its jurisdiction in questions relating to contro- verted elections. After the unfortunate decision to which the Committee had come, he did not see that that House possessed any further jurisdiction in the matter; but he must at the same time say, that the House ought to take mea- sures to guard against the recurrence of a similar cause of complaint by some more explicit enactusent, or by clear instructions to all parties concerned. Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed that the Committee had come to a most unfortunate decision. They had, no doubt conscientiously, done the greatest injury and the greatest injustice against the electors of Dublin. They had declared the present Members to have been duly elected, without inquiring into material facts which it was their bounden duty to have investigated. He conceived with the Speaker, that the deci- sion of the Committee, though unfortunate, erroneous, and unjust, must still be final ; and he also agreed with him that steps should be

taken to correct the evil. •

Mr. WYNN felt strongly the impropriety of altering the decision of the Committee, and he also felt the inconvenience of allowing the ille- gal decision to remain— In his opinion, the decision of the Committee was a most mistaken one as re- garded one part of the case before them, in refusing tu receive evidence erirni- natory of one party before they decided on their report as to whether the peti- tioners were- duly elected. That course was most certainly wrong ; but the meat difficulty now was, what could be done to remedy the error? Under all

the circumstance., he thought it would be better not to interfere with the deelletbra as it now stood.

Mr. WASON contended, that it was competent to the House to allow the electors of Dublin fourteen days for the purpose of petitioning against the decision of the Committee.

Mr. G. F. Youtsc regretted that the illness of Mr. John Maxwell rendered it necessary for him to occupy the attention of the House for

a few minutes. He could not, after what had fallen from the Speaker,

and the general coincidence of opinion in the House, defend the cor.. rectness of the decision which the Committee bad made on one point.

He would not defend the motives of the Committee, which even Mr. O'Connell had not impeached. He thought the Committee had been unfairly dealt with by the counsel for Mr. O'Connell— When the Committee had decided on the appointment of the Commissioners in Dublin in March 1835, it had restricted their powers by the resolutions to which they had then come; but it had not entered into the minds of the Com. Ini ttee on that occasion—certainly it had not entered into his mind—that thecourse which they had adopted would have prevented the citizens of Dublin from going into any cases of bribery which they might have thought it proper to bring for- ward. Ile regretted much that they should have la-en prevented from showing that bribery had been committed, if that could be shown; but he must also regret that the question had not been brought under the notice of the Committee at an earlier period. It was only at a late period of the proceedings of the Committee that an application was made to go into cases of bribery. The Committee were engaged in it scrutiny ; and it was agreed that they should go on with that vote by vote, and that afterwards they should go into the question as to bribery, if that should be considered necessary ; but let it not be understood that the course which the Commissioners had pursued, acting under the rules laid down bv the Committee, would shut out all possibility of evidence as to bribery. The most strict examination and cross-examination as to bribery was allowed ; awl soine who came forward to attest their own iufanny, as having received bribes, were examined, and it stun not unnatural to suppose that evidence of bribery would come out if it had existed. What the Committee had decided on the subject was, that the counsel should confine themselves to the scrutiny at first, and that the Committee would afterwards go into the question of bribery, if that should be required. It had been contended by Mr. Austin for the then sitting Members, that it was competent to the Committee to send back to the Com- missioners in Dublin to inquire as to bribery ; and the Committee decided that they would consider that point if the application should be made ; but Mr. Young added emphaticully, amidst very loud Oppo- sition cheers, " the application never was made." lie regretted that the Committee had on one point come to an erroneous conclusion, but it was a satisfaction to him that they had been unanimous, although mets of different party politics. Mr. O'CoNNer.r. would not allow Mr. Young to fritter away his declaration on a former evening, that the Committee had prevented in- quiry into the charges of bribery against the now sitting Members.Mr. Young said, that the Committee would have considered an application for inquiry, but it was not made ; why, the Committee would not allow it to be made !— The Home must be astonished when he told them, that the Committee decided that they would not hear counsel. ( Cheers.) (Inc of tha counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Harrison, spoke in terms to the Committee which were not the most flattering upon that decision ; and the honourable Member now came down to say, " Why were we not informed that such would be the effect of our resolution " lie having prevented counsel from giving Iiiin that in- formation. ( Cheers.) Ile did not arraign the honourable Member's motives, but he did his capacity. (Laity/del.) Again, upon the very occasion to which the honourable Member had just alluded, Mr. Austin was interrupted and prevented by the Chairman, Sr by what Ile might call his mouthpiece, the honourable .Member for Tynemouth. Counsel was prevented from going into a statement by the oi ) i ll ion irregularly delivered by the honourable Member. Ile did not impugn motives; the human mind could not be well searched; and therefore it was that he did not impugn the motives while he impeached the decisions of the Committee.

Mr. YOUNG denied that he was singly responsible for the acts of the Committee.. It was unfortunate for Mr. O'Connell, that the Com- mittee was unaniinous in corning to those decisions which he consi- dered most adverse to his interests. As to want of capacity, he con- sidered the obiervation unworthy of notice, and treated it with merited contempt. A scene of great confusion arose. Mr. O'CONNELL attempted to speak, but his voice was drowned by cries of " Spoke ! " and " Ques.. tion ! " from the Opposition, in which the voice of Lord STANLEY was particularly vehement. Mr. O'CONNELL noticed this, and said it was very delicate in Lord Stanley to assail him in such a manner. Some remarks of Mr. O'CONNELL, inaudible in the Gallery, were evi- dently heard by Mr. YOUNG; who spoke a few words, also inaudible,

with much vehemence of gesticulation. • At length order was restored. Mr. liot.LAND defended the honesty of the Committee, and The petition was withdrawn.

4. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

On Monday, the House went into a Committee of Supply, and Mr. F. BARING brought forward the Miscellaneous Estimates. About 700,000/. were voted in sums varying from 750/. to 100,000/. There was a good deal of desultory conversation on some of the items. The sum of 64,450/. was proposed for public works and buildings.

Mr. GOULBURN complained that some old trees in Kensington Gardens, which the people had been in the habit of contemplating with respectful reverence, had been cut down. Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if future generations were to be grati- fied with the sight of any trees at all in Kensington Gardens, some of the decayed and sickly trees, now there, must be cut down. Mr. HUME was sure, that if Mr. Goulburn would examine the trees, he would concur in the propriety of cutting them down.

In reply to a question from Mr. HUME, Mr. SPRING RICE said, that one or two alterations were still required in Buckingham Palace : he was not aware that any thing had occurred to prevent its being used as a Royal residence. Mr. WABLEY complained that the British Museum was closed dtuing the whole of Whitsuntide week. He also complained of the great collection of carriages in the Regent's Park, at the ZoologicalGardens„ on Sunday: it was quite a nuisance. On the previous Sunday, the

pathway both for carriages and foot passengers was blocked up for nearly an hour.

Mr. SPRING RICE disapproved of the practice of dosing the British Museum during holyday time ; some other time should be chosen for cleaning. He pledged himself to bring the subject before the Trus- tees. As to the Zoological Gardens, he should be very sorry if they were closed on Sunday : the crowd of carriages was incidental to a place which was a peculiar source of attraction at the present moment. lie was very often at the Gardens himself on Sunday ; and if he was not bettered by it, he thought at any rate that he devoted part of Sun- day to a very legitimate and proper purpose.

Mr. WAKLEY'S chief ground of complaint was, that the bulk of visiters were of the higher classes, and that the poor were excluded from the Gardens.

• Sir ANDREW AGNEW was sorry that Mr. Spring Rice approved of visits to the Gardens on Sundays : Mr. Rice's opinions were not con- sonant with the religious feeling of the great body of the people. (Cries of " Ohl")

Sir T. FREMANTLE disapproved of opening the British Museum on Sunday: on the same principle, the Adelaide Gallery, and possibly the Theatres, should be opened.

Mr. Huste contended, that it was better for a mechanic to spend part of Sunday in the Museum than in drinking.

On the motion that 31,112/. be voted to complete the National Gallery, Mr. EWART objected to giving up any portion of the building to the Royal Academy ; which had no right, on any ground, to preference over other institutions of the same description.

Mr. RICE contended, that as the Academy had rooms in Somerset House, which were wanted for Government offices, rooms must be provided elsewhere for the Academy. lie was averse to withdrawing the very small encouragement afforded by the Government to the arts.

Mr. HOME thought the Academy bad a monopoly which was inju- rious to the arts.

Mr. WARBURTON observed, that when the National Gallery was opened, he expected that many presents would be received.

Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE said, that pictures valued at 60,000/. six of them presents from the King, had been already sent in.

A vote of 7000/. was proposed to defray the expense of prisoners.

Mr. Hissers hoped, that by the abolition of imprisonment for debt, this item would soon be reduced. He spoke in severe terms of cen- sure of the state of Newgatc prison, and of the neglect of the Magis- trates, who ought to take care that it was properly managed.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL would rejoice at the abolition of imprisonment for debt ; but, frOm what he had heard elsewhere, he feared there was little chance of its being soon abolished. He admitted, that the report of the Prison Inspectors confirmed Mr. Ilawes's representation of the state of Nevegate.

Mr. COPELAND (Lord Mayor) said, that the report of the Inspec- tors was drawn up on ex parte statements. Newgate was a gaol of transit. There were twelve gaol deliveries annually from Newgate ; from other gaols there were but two. This made it extremely difficult to enforce salutary regulations.

These were the only questions on which the discussion requires notice.

5. BOARD OF CUSTOMS.

On Tuesday, Mr. How moved for some returns relative to the detention of ships by the Customs in consequence of errors in their manifest. He took the opportunity of complaining of the very capri- cious and dilatory conduct of the Commissioners in the discharge of their public duties. Instead of energy, despatch, anxiety to collect the Custom-dues so as to offer the least possible obstruction to the trade of the country, Mr. Hutt stated that the interest of the public seemed always a secondary care with the Chairman and Commissioners of the Customs ; that the Board never sat on a Saturday, let business be as pressing as it might ; and that the Chairman and Commissioners did not always assemble on the following Monday.

Mr. Hutt's observations were corroborated, and the justice of his complaints supported, by Mr. EWART, Mr. THORNLLY, Mr. ROBIN- SON, and Mr. INGHANI.

Mr. F. BARING, on the part of the Government, protested he was unaware of any grounds of dissatisfaction: the Board of Customs was greatly occupied with business.

Mr. Home asked, with considerable warmth, if it were possible that the Chairman and Commissioners never sat on a Saturday? No an- swer being returned to this interrogatory, Mr. Hume immediately gave notice, that he should call for a paper explanatory of the number of days in every week that the Commissioners were in attendance on their duties during the last year.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

SLAVERY ABOLITION BILL. In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, this bill,—whose object is to prolong the operation of an act passed by the Jamaica Legislature, for the abolition of slavery,—but which had been suffered to expire, went through the Committee; after some explanatory observations by Lord GLENELG.

BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM. On Tuesday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the second reading of the bill for separating the judicial from the ecclesiastical functions of the Bishop of Durham. A discussion of some length arose on this motion, in consequence of the Marquis of Londonderry supposing that the bill provided for the diminution of the revenues of the Bishop of Durham, whereas it had no such object. The Marquis read several long letters to prove that the charities of the late Bishop were very extensive; and he argued against the policy of reducing an income so beneficially expended. The bill was sup- ported by Earl GREY and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY; and the second reading was carried without a division.

SUGAR-DUTIES. On Thursday, Lord MELBOURNE stated, in reply to Lord CLARE, who presented a petition from the East India Com- pany for the equalization of duties on East and West India sugar,— that Government had the question under consideration ; but that, although he admitted the soundness of the principles advocated in the petition, it was necessary to act with extreme caution where such large interests were at stake, and he could not say positively whether or not a measure on the subject would be introduced this session.

PRISONERS AT HAM. On Tuesday, Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the House of Commons to address the King to intercede with the French Government for the liberation of Polignac, Guernon de Renville Pey- ronnet, and Chantelatize, the Ministers of Charles the Tenth, now im- prisoned in the fortress of Hum. Mr. Duncombe, in a speech which excited approbation from all sides by its generous spirit, represented the severe hardships which Polignac and his fellow prisoners endured from incarceration in so unhealthy a plate as Ham. lie asked if their continued imprisonment did not savour more of revenge, than the spirit of justice; and whether the glories of .the Revolution of 1830 were not tarnished by such needless cruelty ? lie quoted, as precedents for_ his motion, those of Mr. Fitzpatrick in 1794 and 1796, for addresses to the King to intercede with Austria for the release of Lafoyette from prison; and to the successful intercession of France at the request of

England to procure the liberation of Sir Charles Asgill from an American prison. He read a letter which lie had received from the Princess Polignac, expressive of deep gratitude for the sympathy ex- hibited on a former occasion in the English Parliament with the suffer- ings of her husband and his fellow prisoners ; and he earnestly entreated the House to give some evidence that they did not behold with indif- ference the needless persecution endured by the prisoners at Hain.

Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY seconded the motion.

Mr. 1Vaan reminded the I louse, that Polignac and his colleagues had been guilty of crimes of the greatest magnitude ; that their present punishtneet was a mitigation of that which was legally due to their offences ; and that it was not decorous or wise in the British Parlia- ment to interfere between great public offenders and the execution of the laws in a foreign country, though it might be consonant with the feelings of the House, as it was with his own. Sir ROBERT INGLIS deprecated interference on this occasion, though his feelings led him to envy Mr. Duncombe the gratification he must have in bringing forward his motion. Lord PALMERSTON and Lord JOHN RUSSELL took the same line of argument. Lord John Russell mentioned, that being in Paris at the

time of the trial of Polignac, he had been the instrument of conveying to the Princess Polignac the assurance that the extreme sentence of the law would not be executed on her husband, and also of obtaining a pledge from Lafayette that the National Guard of Paris would protect the ptisoners from any attack of the populace. Mr. GROVE PRICE, Mr. RICE TREVOR, Mr. POULTER, and Dr. Lusitmorosr, expressed sympathy with the sufferings of the prisoners,

and their hope that the French Government would in nierey release them : but they could not vote for the motion ; which Dr. Isushing- ton thought u ould excite the jealousy of France, if acceded to, and tend to prolong the imprisonment. Mr. DUNCOMBE expressed his gratification at the tone of the re- marks which his motion bad elicited; and then withdrew it.

PETITIONS AGAINST THE LYNDIIURST BILL. Petitions were pre- sented on Monday against time Lords' Bill for abolishing Corporations in Ireland, from Worcester, by Mr. ROBINSON—who earnestly sup- ported its prayer; by Mr. P. HOWARD, from Carlisle; by Mr. BER- NAL, from Rochester ; by Mr. BARRY and Mr. H. GRATTAN, from several places in Ireland ; and by Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, from Edin- burgh. This last petition was adopted at a public meeting and signed in two hours by 12,000 persons; and its prayer was, that the House would legislate for Ireland on the same principles as for England and Scotland, and :eject the amendments of the Lords in the Irish Muni- cipal Bill.

On Wednesday, numerous petitions of similar purport were pre- sented from various places in Ireland, by Mr. livens:, Mr. FITZGIBBON, Mr. H. GRATTA:,.7, Mr. BRIDGMAN, Mr. TALBOT, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. BALL, Mr. BODKIN, Lord Aciissosr, Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, Mr. C. O'BRIEN, Mr. N. FITZSIMON, Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, Mr. PowEe, Mr. J. GRArrAN, Mr. LYNCH; and by Mr. Oen from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Mr. POTTER from Rochdale, and Mr. BROCK LEH URST from Macclesfield.

On Thursday, a great number of petitions on the same subject were presented ; and among them one from Manchester, by Mr. Alarm PHILLIPS, signed in one day by 29,960 persons. Mr. W. S. O'BritEN said, the people of Ireland owed a deep debt of gratitude to their English brethren, for the zeal with which they had taken up the cause of Leland against the Lords. Mr. HUME said, the whole community was roused by the injustice of the Lords towards Ireland, in a most extraordinary manner.

RAILWAY Thus. On Tuesday, the report on the London and it Dover Railway Bill was agreed to, by 175 to 94. The reports on the t-sw London and Cambridge, the 'Merthyr Tydvil and Cardiff, Eastern Counties, and Midland Counties Railway Bills were also received.

MILITARY AND NAVAL PROMOTIONS. In the House of Commons,. on Tuesday, Mr. BANNERMAN moved for certain returns, to show the hardship inflicted on many naval and military officers by the postpone- ment of the customary brevet promotion. He entered into numerous detsils, which showed how long and meritoriously officers might serve upon very small pay and without promotion. Be contended that the cost to the country of such a promotion as he would recommend would. only be about 25,0001.; while the comforts of numerous deserving officers would be materially increased by that small outlay. The motion was supported by Mr. Iloy, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON., Sir JOHN ELLEY, Captain BERKELEY, Captain DUNDAS, and Captain PECHELL—who said that he knew a Midshipman who was now a grand- father. Mr. HUME, Mr. C. WOOD, and Lord HOWICK opposed. the motion; the latter on the ground that the Committee on Military Sinecures had reported against a further addition to the number of field-officers; and that it was not advisable to increase the military ex- penditure of the country.

JEWISH DISABILITIES. Mr. SPRING RICE, on Tuesday, moved the House to go into Committee to consider the laws affecting the Jews. The motion was opposed by Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. PLUMPTRE, Co- lonel PERCEVAL, an Mr. Emma.; and supported by Mr. ROBINSON, Colonel THOMPSON, and Mr. O'CONNELL ; and carried by a vote of 70 to 19. The House being in Committee, a resolution preparatory to the introduction of a bill was agreed to.

PETITION AGAINST MR. O'CONNELL'S RETURN. The SPEAKER stated to the House, on Monday. that he had received a petition com- plaining of an undue return for Kilkenny. It was ordered to be taken into consideration on the 21st of June.

CAPE COAST CASTLE. On Monday, Sir ROBERT PEEL presented a petition, which he described as being of a novel character. He had received it through the Post-office, but had no doubt of its genuine- ness— It was addressed to the House of Commons by Beak Alberiton, who styled himself King of Cape Coast ; and he signed it on behalf of himself and the native population, his inlets. The petitioner expressed the utmost gratitude for the part the House had taken in elevating the character of the Black popu- lation by the abolition of Negro slavery, and his reliance upon the House to afford him and his countrymen protection. The particular object of the peti- tion was to secure to the inhabitants of Cape Coast the liberty and advantage of purchasing merchandise from the Bristol and Liverpool traders and to pre- vent merchants from acquiring an exclusive trade there, and thereby y establish. ing a complete monopoly. Sir Robert, of course, knew nothing of the facts, and he had not been able to hold any communication with the Colonial Depart- ment. The petitioner stated himself to be an ally of this country, who was de- sirous of cementing the existing bonds of friendship. , He was sure the House would not be disposed to treat the petition with any degree of levity ; and there was nothin.•' unreasonable in the prayer, by compliance with which the inhabi- tants near Cape Coast Castle would be able to save one-fourth of the present cost of the goods brought by the free traders from Bristol and Liverpool. It was well worthy the consideration of the house, and he moved that the petition do lie on the table.

The petition was laid on the table.