IlDtbatts anti Vroadrings in Varliament.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF THE QUEEN.

While the House of Commons was debating the Income-tax Bill, on Monday, Sir James Graham entered the House with an anxious counte- nance, and beckoned Sir Robert Peel from his place ; and the House presently exhibited a scene of great confusion, Members hastily assem- bling in groups and conversing together. Quickly returning, Sir ROBERT PEEL, with an emotion that impeded his utterance, stated in a few words, that an attempt had been made on the Queen's life—an attempt which a merciful Providence bad rendered abortive. Mr. CHARLES WOOD gave voice to the general anxiety, crying out " Is the Queen safe ?" "Perfectly so," replied Sir ROBERT: and he suggested bat the House should adjourn, not only out of respect to the Sovereign, nt because, in the excited state of their feelings, it would be impossible proceed with business. Lord Joy's RUSSELL, also much agitated, econded the motion ; and the House at once adjourned, at a quarter to seven o'clock.

In the House of Lords the news produced no less painful a sensation. Some one entered while business of secondary interest was going on, and spoke to the Duke of Wellington : the Duke started up and left the House very suddenly, followed by Lord Wharncliffe, Lord Fitzgerald, and other Peers. The Lord Chancellor likewise hurried from the Wool- sack and left the House ; his place being taken by the Earl of Shaftes- bury, as Deputy-Speaker. The report soon spread, and all business was instantly suspended. The Peers rose from their seats and collected round the Lord Chancellor, who had returned, and who appeared by his gesticulations to be describing the occurrence ; but no announce- ment was made. The House, however, adjourned, and the chamber was speedily deserted.

THE ADDRESS OP PARLIAMENT.

On Tuesday, the two Houses of Parliament agreed to a joint address to the Queen on the subject of her late escape. The Duke of WEL- LINGTON officially stated the fact of the criminal attempt in brief terms, and proposed the following draft- mi " Most Gracious Sovereign—We, sour Majesty's most dutiful ia n n a Parliament en loyal sub jects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, assembled, beg leave humbly to approach your Majesty's throne to express our abhorrence of the late treasonable attempt against your Majesty's sacred person, and our heartfelt congratulations to your Majesty and to our country on your Majesty's happy preservation from the danger to which your Majesty has been exposed. " Attached to your Majesty by every sentiment of loyalty, and by a sense of the benefits we derive from your Majesty's just and mild government, we acknowledge with gratitude and humility the merciful interposition of Divine Providence which bas been manifested on this occasion ; and we make our earnest prayer to Almighty God, that be will confer on your Majesty every blessing, and that he will continue to watch over and guard a life so justly dear to us."

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, in the absence of Lord Melbourne, seconded the motion ; expressing a hope that their Lordships would, as legislators, direct their attention to the causes which may have led to that which is as great a phtenomenon in human nature, if we look to the absence of all motive, as it is the greatest of crimes, if we look to the consequences which might follow the attempt.

Lord PORTMAN said, that the Queen, relying on the protection of the Almighty, which had hitherto shielded her from the dangers with which she was surrounded, was not unmindful of the safety of all those en- gaged in her Majesty's service-

" Feeling that yesterday some risk might possibly be incurred by those who usually surround her person, she declined to be attended by the ladies who usu- ally accompany her Majesty in her drives. if danger were to be encountered, her Majesty was resolved that others should not unnecessarily partake it. As I am an individual whose near and dear relative might otherwise have been placed in a situation of peril, I thought it became me to mention a circum- stance which must render the person and character of her Majesty still dearer to her subjects."

Lord BROUGHAM, in reference to what the Marquis of Lansdowne had said, expressing a confidence that the existing law is sufficient to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities by condign punishment, Lord LANSDOWNE said that he did not refer to the necessity of any new enact- ment.

The Commons were invited to a conference in one of the Committee- rooms ; and the following Peers were appointed to conduct the confer- ence for their House—

The Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Rich- mond, the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Marquis of Normanby, and the Bishop of London.

The Commons, on the motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL, accepted the in- vitation ; and the following Members were appointed to manage the conference— Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Earl of Lincoln, Sir Henry Hardinge, Lord Eliot, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Lord Ashley, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Lord-Advocate, Lord Granville Somerset, Viscount Mahon, Sir R. H. Inglis, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Cockburn, Lord John Russell, Viscount Pal-. merston,Viscount Howick,11.fr. F. T. Baring, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Vernon Smith, Sir George Grey, Sir Thomas Wilde, Lord Seymour, Mr. C. Wood, Mr. Fox Maule, Sir C. Napier, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. T. B. Macaulay, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Scholefield.

On their return, Sir ROBERT PEEL communicated to the House the

address adopted by the Lords, to which they desired the concurrence of the Commons. It was with mixed feelings of shame and indigna- tion that he rose to perform a similar duty to that which he fulfilled two years ago, when he seconded a like motion made by Lord John Russell- " I should have thought that the natural feelings and sympathies of human nature would have been protection sufficient against so atrocious a crime. (Loud cheers.) That our young Queen, seeking for innocent recreation from the cares and toils of business, in the presence of her beloved husband, should be a second time exposed in this country to an attempt like this, fills me with feelings of shame and indignation. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear!") If the natural feelings of humanity would not have prevented such an attempt, I should have thought that the burst of loyal affections which bad been called forth from all classes of her Majesty's subjects by the first attempt, and of in- dignation and abhorrence against the author of it, would have constituted an additional guarantee to prevent the repetition of such an atrocity. It has not done so. Yesterday evening, a little before six o'clock, as her Majesty was re- turning home in the company of her beloved husband, having, I believe, taken the precaution that no other female life should be exposed to danger but her own — (Much cheering)— relying with confidence in the generous loyalty of her people—with a determination not to be confined as a prisoner in her own palace—( Continued cheers)—I say yesterday evening, on her Ma- jesty's return to the Palace, a shot from a pistol was discharged at the car- riage in which her Majesty was sitting ; and I have at least the satisfaction of stating, that the person by whom that pistol was discharged,was immediately arrested, and is now in confinement. There is every reason to believe that this crime had been meditated on the preceding day : at least a person, answering in every respect the description of the appearance of the person apprehended for the offence of yesterday, was observed to point a pistol at the carriage in which her Majesty was seated on her return from church, and was heard to express his regret that be had failed in effecting his object. This person so charged has been committed for the offence of high treason, and is now before the judicial tribunals of the country : I shall therefore abstain from any further comments on the offence with which he has been charged ; but I am sure I shall be justified in anticipating that the country from one end to the other will concur with us in our expression of abhorrence at the crime—C Cheers)— and gratitude to Almighty God for the renewed protection of her Majesty from this second attempt on her life ; and will offer up an earnest prayer to the same Divine disposer of events, that he will continue to vouchsafe his protection to her, and long preserve a life so justly dear to all her Majesty's subjects." (Loud cheers.)

Lord Joni.; RUSSELL more briefly expressed similar sentiments. Mr. LASCELLES made a similar statement to Lord Portman's.

The address was adopted unanimously, the blank being filled with the words "and Commons " ; and Sir Robert Peel, the Cabinet Ministers, and the Members forming the Conference Committee, carried it up to the Lords.

The two Houses assembled on Wednesday in their respective cham- bers, the Lords about one o'clock, the Commons soon after twelve ; the latter to the number of about two hundred. The predominance of naval and military uniforms gave to each assemblage a more than usually brilliant appearance: some of those in office wore the Windsor uniform, the Bishops had their usual Parliamentary robes, several of the Peers and some of the Commons were in Court dress, and Mr. O'Connell had on the robes of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The servants of the Peers were in state livery ; and a great number of elegant carriages bore the Commoners. The procession was formed soon after two o'clock ; both Houses proceeding to the Palace together.

THE REPLY.

When the House of Commons assembled again in the afternoon, the SPEAKER read the following answer, which the Queen had returned to the address: the same reply was read by the LORD CHANCELLOR to the House of Lords, when they met on Thursday- " My Lords and Gentlemen—I receive with heartfelt gratification this loyal and dutiful address from my two Houses of Parliament. I am thankful to the Almighty, whose merciful care has protected me and the Prince my beloved consort. I humbly rely on this good Providence of God, who is able to save me from every danger; and, firm in this trust and sincere in my desire to pro- mote the happiness of my people, I sin comforted and supported by the renewed assurance of your attachment to my person and Government."

TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION.

The third reading of the Income-tax Bill having been moved, in the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD pro- posed the following amendment- " That as by the existing laws a large proportion of the people of this realm are excluded from voting for Members of Parliament; and as it also appears, by the reports of different Election Committees, that corrupt practices have been used to an extraordinary extent in procuring the return of Members to this present House of Commons; and as, from both these causes this House cannot be considered a fair representation of the People, it is therefore unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by Parliament until alljust causes of complaint with regard to the mode of electing the Members of this House shall be first redressed."

It is a fundamental principle of the constitution that a money-bill shall not originate in the House of Lords, in order that the people may be taxed by their representatives : but he denied that they have even a "virtual representation." In the United Kingdom, but one person in forty-two of the population, but one of nine heads of families, enjoys the franchise. The representation, such as it is, is vitiated by corrup- tion : a sufficient number of Members could not be found to take the declaration recommended by Mr. Duncombe for the members of Mr. Roebuck's Committee, that they had never done an illegal act to procure their election ; and not fewer than forty places returning Members to Parliament have sent petitions against the returns. He believed this to be a list of places in which bribery had been proved since the Reform Bill— Hertford, Carrickfergus, Newry, Derry, Warwick, Ipswich (twice), Eve- sham, Newcastle-nnder-Lyme (twice), Ludlow, Cambridge, St. Alban's, Wal- sall (treating), Sudbury, Southampton. Cases in which compromises have been made to avoid exposure—In 1837, Bridgnorth, Norwich, Yarmouth ; in 1841, Canterbury ; in 1842, Bridport, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Harwich, Penryn. Cases in which bribery was proved before the General Committee of Bribery at Elections—Maldon, Cambridge, Norwich, Leominster, Hereford. Special Committees have sat and reported on the bribery at Yarmouth and York. Gross bribery has been proved to exist in London, Hull, Liverpool. Places where the bribery is notorious—Pontefract, Beverley, Berwick, Staf- ford, Maidstone, Bridgewater. Boroughs in which petitions remain still to be tried, in which bribery is charged—Beltast, Barnstaple, Sunderland.

It was this state of the representation that had betrayed the country into disastrous and costly wars ; and he read the declaration of the Birmingham Conference to that effect. He recommended as a remedy to these evils, the extension of the suffrage, the division of the country into electoral districts, the ballot, and shortening the duration of Par- liament.

Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted that he should not be charged with want of respect if he did not discuss the motion. It amounted to a declaration that the House of Commons is incapable of performing its functions : if they were not at liberty to propose an Income-tax, they tould hardly propose a Tariff ; and he was afraid that the motion would go to the extent of declaring that the House could not even reform itself.

Mr. O'Cossism, and Mr. HOME agreed as to the untimely juncture chosen for the motion, but supported it on general grounds. Lord Joan MANNERS and Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it ; but the latter intimated his intention of voting against the third reading of the Income-tax Bill.

The amendment was rejected, by 156 to 51. Here the House was in- terrupted by the announcement of the attempt on the Queen's life, men- tioned above.

INCOME-TAX.

The motion for the third reading of the Income-tax Bill being re- newed, on Tuesday, Mr. HOME opposed it, with the argument that, in- stead of attempting to relieve the distress of the country by imposing four millions of additional taxation, Sir Robert Peet should have re- duced the expenditure. A Committee should have been appointed, as in 1828, to inquire into the causes of the difficulty and the state of the revenue. Much of that excessive expenditure was caused by Lord Pal- merston, the evil genius of the country, who had led it into war after war— In 1792, the entire marine of this country numbered 16,000 seamen, boys, and marines : the amount of the Navy in 1817, after the war, was 19,000; the Army in that year numbered 22,000: in 1822, the number of our forces, Army, Navy, and Artillery, was increased to 97,000; and now the number is 146,000. The sending out 15,000 troops to Canada has cost 5,000,000/. The fleet on the coast of Syria used to cost 120,0001.; now it costs 1,000,0001.; and the employment of so greatly-increased a force there had altogether cost not less than 7,000,000/. or 8,000,000/. He objected to the needless and lavish pro- motion, unequalled in France or Prussia, or any other country of a decidedly military character. The amount of our taxation in 1830 was 52,018,000/.: Lord Grey's Government made a net reduction of 7,220,000/. ; but instead of the revenue falling-off in proportion, it only fell to forty-nine millions and a quarter, the reduction having given a great relief to commerce. In 1837, the taxation began to increase, till in 1841 it was 54,000,000/. ; and the distress of the country has grown so great, that that amount will press as heavily as 70,000,0001. would have done in 1833. To send round a begging letter was not the way to meet it, but to reduce the military expenditure.

Mr. Hume added, that it was true that he had given a vote of con- fidence to the Whigs : he now thought that it would have been wiser to have turned out the Whigs three years sooner ; and they might depend upon it, that if he had known that Sir Robert Peel would come forward with the principles which he had lately professed, his efforts would not have been directed to keep him so long out of office : he only hoped that he would carry his principles into effect.

Sir CHARLES NAPIER would rather see an income-tax of five per cent than that the Army or Navy should be reduced by a single man : it was to the inequality of the tax that he Objected. Colonel WYNDHAM repelled aspersions which Mr. Hume had incidentally cast on the aris- tocracy and clergy : those attacks were made in the time of Thistle- wood ; " and who," said Colonel Wyndham, pointing to the Opposition, " brought him to the scaffold? it was you, gentlemen." ("Hear ! " and laughter.) Mr. CURTEIS thought Mr. Hume's language too strong, but applauded his efforts at retrenchment. Mr. F. T. BARING opposed the motion, with a recapitulation of some of the oft-repeated arguments against the nature of the tax.

Mr. Got:mat:RN having made some reply to Mr. Baring, stated that the expense of collecting the Property-tax of 1815 was 300,000/. : he thought that under the present bill the expense would not exceed the half of that sum : under the old act the expense of the establishments was 117,9981. ; it was now intended to employ the Commissioners of Assessed Taxes, which would only increase the expense of that depart- ment by 30,0001. The employment of superannuated collectors, when fit for service, would save the amount of their superannuation ; and the employment of existing officers in all possible cases would greatly mo- derate the expense. He had considered the proposition to make 150/. the starting-point, exempting incomes of that amount and also the same amount in larger incomes, so that in an income of 2001. only 50/. would be chargeable : he found on calculation, however, that such an arrange- ment would exempt incomes of the aggregate value of 33,500,000/. ; and to exempt so large an amount would materially affect the calculation on which the measure was based. The delay in passing the measure had elicited the proof that the people sympathized with the Government in their endeavour to meet the exigencies of the country without pressing on the humbler classes or the springs of industry. The petitions presented against the bill had not equalled in number those on the Waterloo Bridge toll.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS regretted the determination not to adopt his pro- posal. Mr. VILLIERS had the misfortune, with many of those around him, to represent sections of the country where the people are suffering the severest privations, and where no such sympathy exists as that of which Mr. Goulburn boasted. By imposing fresh taxes, they did not increase the power of the people to pay taxes ; and he feared that as they collected more taxes from the new source, the indirect taxes would fall off, so as to leave a deficiency still to be made up—a twofold de- ficiency ; for the revenue is declining absolutely, and it declines com- paratively with the increase of the population ; a fact which proved the condition of the people to be deteriorating. A wise statesman would have sought to increase the demand for labour, by extending trade with those countries which can supply our wants, and at the same time to diminish the cost of the necessaries of life to the home-consumer. Mr. MANGLES and Mr. DISRAELI contended, the one that Government had exaggerated the difficulties of India to justify the tax, and the other that they were made light of by the Opposition to add odium to the tax. Mr. BROTHERTON said a few words against the notion that the working- class would escape from the indirect injury of the impost. The House then divided ; and the third reading was carried, by 255 to 149.

Mr. GOULBURN made several amendments ; and among them was one to exempt from the tax "any building the property of any literary or scientific institution, and in which no payment is made or demanded for any instruction there afforded by lectures or otherwise ; provided also that the said building be not occupied by any officer of such insti- tution, nor by any person paying rent for the same." Mr. WOOD pro- posed to add after the words "any building," " or any part thereof" ; but his amendment was rejected, by 199 to 69. The bill then passed.

Mr. GREENE brought the bill into the House of Lords on Thursday ; and there it was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.

In reply to Mr. LABOUCHERE, Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that Minis- ters had received information that the French Government have the power to raise their import-duties by ordonnauce, and the Minister of Commerce had implied that such was the intention with respect to linens and linen-yarns- He could assure the right honourable gentleman that the British Govern- ment did not allow a post to leave the country without forwarding a communi- cation on the subject to the French Government, and expressing the deep regret that had been felt on learning the course that it was intended to pursue. This despatch stated what material effect such a proceeding must have on the commercial negotiation between this country and France, which had proceeded so far. He could not help stating that there existed a strong feeling in several parts of France, and especially in the South of France, against the policy of such a proceeding. That portion of that country was most anxious for the favourable termination of the commercial negotiation which had been carried on so long. If this step, however, should unhappily be adopted, it would be- come the duty of the Government to open communications with other coun- tries of Europe which produced wine, to see whether commercial relations on more favourable.terms could not be established. He hoped, and from the best means of forming an opinion on the subject he believed it would be the case, that the wine-growers of France would make exertions to induce the French Government to abstain from taking the step alluded to.

Lord doax RUSSELL concurred in the propriety of opening commu- nications with other wine-growing countries, with a view to commercial relations.

DISTRESS. •

Lord KINNAIRD drew the attention of the Lords, on Thursday, to the existing distress in some parts of the kingdom, respecting' which in- formation was much needed— Those who lived at the West end of the town knew little of the miseries existing at the East end of it, and in other quarters; and when they went down to their country-seats, seeing only the smiling faces of their cleanly cot- tagers, what could they know of the severe sufferings in immediately adjoining districts? Ministers, no doubt, were fully sensible of it, as tbeyihad proved by the advising the Queen to write round the country a begging 144,4er. He could not see the policy of that step ; and he objected to the letterLihat it was not addressed to the community at large, but only to the Established Church. Another proof of Ministers' knowledge was, the unconstitatignal use which they had made of the public funds, in order to suppress and steogle the public exhibition of distress. Another proof was, the orders sent down from the

Horse Guards to the •troops in the country. He believed that Ministers could not have been aware of the distress nine or ten months ago, or they could not have suffered each a time to elapse without the slightest attempt at alleviation ; and he now appealed to the House to appoint a Committee to ascertain the cause of all this suffering. Hundreds and thousands of petitions

had been presented from those who asked for cheaper food ; but the House had turned a deaf ear to their cries, and " when they asked for bread, had given them a atone." The only answer to the prayers of the people was the Corn- bill, and in consequence of that measure wheat bad risen three shillings per quarter, with every prospect of a further advance.

He anticipated some objections to his proposal. He did not think it a 'valid objection that false hopes would be raised ; rather, the minds of the people would be pacified. Was it certain that no advantage would

result from the inquiry ? The report of the Import-duties Committee had been reprobated by Lord Ashburton ; yet now it is the depository to which Ministers resort for arguments to support their measures

against the attacks of their friends. It might be objected, that there is a promise of reviving trade : the accounts from Manchester last week were in a trifling degree better ; but so it had been at Liverpool three weeks ago, when the exceedingly low price of the raw material gave some impulse to speculation, yet now the warehouses are overstocked with goods which the manufacturer cannot sell, or with the raw mate- rial which he cannot afford to manufacture. And in the mean time the Poor-law has proved totally insufficient for the support of the destitute. Lord Kinnaird cited statistical details to illustrate the ex- tremely depressed state of the people—

Though the population annually increases, the consumption of articles of Excise and Customs diminishes : in 1836, the population, 26,158,524, gave a net revenue in Customs and Excise of 36,392,472/. ; in 1837, the increased popula- tion, 26,518,885, should have given 36,398,3634, but it only gave 33,958,421/. ; in 1840, 27,599,968 should have given 38,567,036/., and only gave (deducting the additional 5 per cent then imposed) 32,401,0001.; and in 1842 the produce would be 32,340,7391., or excluding the 5 per cent, 30,723,0001. From returns in Marylebone, he showed that the poor-rate increases in a direct ratio with

the price of wheat ; while the actual consumption has fallen off in three years to the extent of 1,361,252 quarters annually. The quantity sold in the 150 old towns returning the averages is about one-fifth of the entire consumption of the country;' and on these data it was calculated that in the periods of -eight months endino 1st May 1840,'1, and '2, the sales of borne wheat had amounted respectivei to 13,103,765, 12,338,915, and 11,081,005 quarters; or, adding the foreign w eat on which duty was paid, the gross amounts would be 14,242,257, 13,650,557, and 13,281,005 quarters. Of the wheat on which duty was paid, in the last period, 400,000 quarters remain in warehouse. Lord Kinnaird quoted other returns to exhibit the decrease in the consumption of butcher-meat and groceries in Manchester, Leeds, Rochdale, and Dundee. The patients in the Manchester dispensaries in the six years ending 1835 were 54,000; in the six years ending 1841, 169,000. The poor-rates in Manchester have increased from 25,0001. in 1836, to 33,938/. in 1841. The estimated loss in wages, on account of the want of employment, in Bolton, is 320,5601. in the year. The Guardians of Burnley Union have 12,000 persons on their books : they declared to the Secretary of State that the distress was far beyond the reach of relief, and they threw the matter into the hands of Government; a Special Commissioner was sent down—Sir John Walsh, he believed; and on his ap- plication, funds bad already been sent to meet the pressure. Government had also assumed the management of relief in Paisley.

But what general measures of relief had been taken ?—

He did not pretend to say that Government could be expected to relieve the distress at once; because it was not, in his opinion, a temporary distress, but arose entirely from the mischievous operation of their commercial law. But what had been done since that time? They had passed a Corn-law, the result of which had been to raise the price of wheat 3s. per quarter. They had also resorted to an Income-tax, though it was admitted that the means of the con- sumer were exhausted. The reduction of the intended duty on exported coals from 4s. to 2s. a ton' showed that it was impossible to understand the principle on which the Tariff had been framed; and it had produced a feeling of uncer- tainty in trade which had destroyed confidence throughout the country. It in- terfered with the small monopolies in trade, with the monopolies in such arti- cles as shoes and gloves; just at the time when those trades were suffering under great distress it did this, and created a deficiency in the revenue in order to keep up the great monopolies of sugar and corn, which if not abolished would prove most injurious to the commerce of the country. How was it that the people endured those injuries?— He had lately asked a gentleman, connected with a town in which distress existed, how it was that the people had borne their sufferings with such pa- tience ; for he thought that if he had seen his children perishing around him from want—if he had seen the felon in gaol better treated than the person willing to work—sooner than submit to this, he thought he would have gone and helped himself. (Laughter.) This might be a laughing matter to their Lordships comfortably seated on these benches, but it was no laughing matter to those who suffered from the distress. When he asked that gentleman how it was that the people had been so patient, he was answered—" If the bread had been taken from you suddenly, you might have gone and helped yourself; but if you had been gradually reduced to starvation, and weakened from not getting -food sufficient to support the energies of nature, you would have become reck- less, and would not have cared to see your children perishing around you." Now this, he believed, was the truth—the horrible truth.

He urged the expediency of cultivating a freer intercourse with America ; whose power to consume English manufactures, he had been assured, was beyond belief. He concluded by snoring, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the cause of the present general distress.

The Duke of Ws'i T3NOTON said, that no one denied that some parts of the country, particularly the manufacturing districts of England and Scotland, labour under great distress. He admitted that it was not quite regular to send pecuniary assistance to any part of the country. ; but it had at times been practised, and the law recognized the principle of levying rates in aid. The power of levying rates in Scotland is not so great as in this country ; the subscriptions at Paisley were drawing to a close, and Ministers thought it necessary to adopt some measure to

extend means of relief to that part of the country. In the issue of the Queen's letter, the usual course had been followed ; but in this in- stance the Sovereign herself bad subscribed. What would be the use of a Committee ? If Lord Kinnaird desired to repeal the Corn-law just enacted, to which end his speech was directed, let him bring in a bill for the purpose. To prove that Ministers had not been remiss in pro- viding measures of relief, the Duke enumerated the Income-tax to place the finances on a stable footing, the Tariff to relieve consumption and commerce and restore employment to distressed manufacturers, the negotiations now proceeding with foreign countries for the like pur- pose, the restoration of peace in the Levant, Portugal and Spain, and Central Asia, the efforts for its restoration in China, and the attempt to settle questions between the United States and this country and Canada. He hoped the House would meet the motion by a direct negative.

The Earl of RADNOR denied that the Corn-laws were now in ques- tion, but the state of the country : and would the House sit quietly, hearing Lord Kinnaird's statements confirmed rather than contradicted by the Duke of Wellington, and take no steps to ascertain what mea- sures might be adopted for the relief of a suffering people? He con- demned the improper resort to public stores and remittances of public money for relieving particular distresses ; and he observed with respect to peace, that this country was as much at peace with those enumerated by the Duke of Wellington when the late Ministry went out of office as at present.

The Duke of RICHMOND defended the Government relief of Paisley, and called in question the accuracy of Lord Kinnaird's statistics. He believed that he had been made a tool by the Anti-Corn-law League. The statement that there is now a less consumption of wheat than there was two or three years ago was a statement perfectly theoretical, and, in his opinion, practically false.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that there was not an authority in the country that would not bear out that statement.

Lord MONTEAGLE justified the course pursued with respect to Paisley by frequent precedents set by the late Government. It should be re- collected, that in every year there was a certain unappropriated sum placed in the hands of Government, and no Parliamentary disapproba- tion had hitherto followed when portions of that sum had been devoted to an object like the present.

Lord KINNAIRD said that his object was general inquiry. He with- drew his motion for the present ; intending shortly to call their Lord- ships' attention to one of similar import.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION: PROMISED DISCLOSURES.

A petition was presented, in the House of Commons, on Monday night by Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, from John Wren, who was a witness before the Southampton Election Committee— The petitioner recapitulates the case before the Committee, and states that be was summoned by the petitioners against the sitting Members to appear as

a witness. He was examined by the Committee; and be refused to answer

certain questions put to him, on the ground that the answers to such questions might tend to criminate himself. In consequence of the evidence which he

gave before the Committee, he has been held up to public odium and local per-

secution by political parties in Southampton; he has been placarded through the town as " The Traitor Wren " ' • and a caricature of him has been pub- lished and circulated. Be expresses fear of insulted violence from mobs, and

complains that his wife and children are nsulted and outraged because he would not perjure himself before the Committee in behalf of the party against whom he was compulsorily summoned to give evidence. He calls on the House to protect him from persecution; and promises, if the House will, by an indemnity-bill, protect him from legal consequences, "he will submit himself to the pleasure of your Honourable House, and disclose most material facts

within his knowledge respecting bribery and corruption practised for a series of elections at the late elections for Southampton, and especially at the said last election." He " is able and willing (so indemnified) to inform your Commit-

tee of the names of resident electors in Southampton, partisans and agents of the late sitting Members, who organized and accomplished an extensive system of bribery and treating at the last election for the said borough."

He is in possession of a certain memorandum-book, "not produced before the Select Committee, which contains divers entries of sums of money, corruptly

given as bribes to several electors, and also the names of several bribers who were electors ; and the said book contains also the signature of one of the re- turning-officers at the said late election, authorizing the bribing of a particular elector, and who was bribed accordingly." He believes that the late sitting Members expended through their agents upwards of 5,000/. sterling ; and he asserts that this system of organized electoral corruption in Southampton has

prevailed more or less at every election since the Reform Bill of 1832. In 1832, before the Reform Act disfranchised non-resident electors, the consti- tuency of Southampton numbered about 1,700 voters. The Reform Bill

added to the franchise the ten-pound householders; but it did not increase the constituency, inasmuch as the ten-pound householders were all previously

entitled to vote as scot and lot voters ; and at the first election in December 1832, after the Reform Bill, the newly-registered constituent body numbered 1,443 electors. A strong party contest took place, and Mr. A. Atherley, a Liberal, and Mr. J. B. Hoy, a Conservative candidate, were elected. This election was the only contest which did not cost either party the customary outlay of money ; but a considerable sum was nevertheless expended by both parties, and much intimidation and unconstitutional pressure of electors took place. He says that "arrangements are now pending in the borough for bring- ing forward two new candidates on both party-sides; and there is every prospect

and probability of the contest (should the writ issue without new legislative en- actments against electoral corruption) being an increasingly costly and cor- rupt contest." He asserts that Mr. John Willis Fleming, the Member for South Hampshire, has been an active friend and partisan of the Conservative

party in the borough, and that he has been privy to pecuniary arrangements for past elections, and has collected and paid subscriptions on account of the last contest.

Mr. Duncombe moved that the petition be printed with the Votes. Mr. FLEMING, and some other Members on the Ministerial side, opposed the motion, with aspersions on Wren's character. The Opposition gene- rally supported it ; and it was ultimately affirmed.

The subject was first introduced on Wednesday, by Mr. WARD, who presented a petition from Southampton, signed by 151 persons, com- prising some of the most wealthy and respectable inhabitants, declaring that the purity of election in the borough had been grossly violated, and praying that the issue of the writ might be suspended.

Mr. FLEmnio presented a petition signed by the Mayor, Bailiffs, and a large majority of the Town-Council, stating that a petition formerly presented, which purported to be signed by 171 electors, and prayed that the writ might be suspended, bore the signature of 30 persons who were not on the register. He moved that it be printed with the Votes; but the feeling of the House was against him, and the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. FLEMING presented another petition, declaring that John Wren was not to be believed on oath ; and the petitioners prayed the House not to attach weight to his allegations. The petition was ordered to

lie on the table. Mr. Fleming moved that it be printed with the Votes, as John Wren's had been. Sir Jones Forenoon said that the majority of respectable persons in Southampton desired that a most searching in-

vestigation should be had into all the circumstances. With respect to the signatures which had been challenged, a few individuals bad been temporarily struck off from the register on account of removals and similar causes. The feeling was against this motion also, and it was withdrawn.

Mr. MAcirrstrow then moved that the writ for Southampton be issued ; contending that after the writ for Ipswich had been issued, although the Committee had expressly recommended that the evidence should be taken into consideration, it would not be consistent to withhold the writ for Southampton, in respect to which the Committee only reported that five people had been guilty of bribery, and that the sam of 5,0001. had been spent. On the 27th April, the writ was suspended on the ground that Wren would not give evidence: on the 1st June, was it to be sus- pended because Wren had further evidence to give ? Mr. W. 0. STAN- LEY said that he had attentively watched the proceedings, and it was clear to his mind that the Committee had not got to the root of the evil, but that much evidence remained behind. It had already been proved that upwards of 4,000/. had been expended in the election : Mr. Fleming stated that be had collected 5001. among his friends, and in a similar way as much was collected as made up 1,000/. ; and there was no proof that any of that sum was expended in the legal expenses. One Lisle had received 6001., which he paid to chairmen, porters, colourmen, and the like, most of whom were voters or the relations of voters ; and a Mr. Cheeseman had received nearly 5001., 200/. of which came from the Members. Mr. Stanley contended that Wren's offer of evidence under indemnity was worthy of serious consideration ; and he moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the extent of bri- bery and treating at the late election for Southampton ; the writ in the mean time to be suspended. Mr. WARD seconded the motion ; referring to other details of the evidence, and relating matters injurious to the cha- racter of some of Mr. Fleming's electioneering correspondents in the borough. Mr. FLEMING averred that certain persons had engaged in a foul conspiracy to revenge the rejection of an offer to enter into a com- promise for the purpose of screening that bribery and corruption of which they now expressed such a virtuous horror ; the condition of the compromise being, that the Conservative majority should consent to the election of one of the candidates opposed to them. Mr. Fleming re- curred to the evidence ; observing that forty-one witnesses had been ex- amined, but out of thirty or forty cases alleged by counsel only five had been sustained. One Whitmarsb, it is said, had received 20/. under the authority of a returning-officer ; but Mr. Fleming declared that the gentleman in question gave his most positive denial of the assertion, and offered to contradict it on oath. The amount actually spent at the election was not 5,0001., but 3,9601. Mr. MACAULAY argued for the ex- pediency of accepting the evidence of Wren, on the principle that " when rogues fall out honest men get their own"; insisting that the case before the House was ten times stronger than that of Nottingham.

Sir ROBERT PEEL agreed with Mr. Macaulay, that nothing but the cordial cooperation of both sides of the House could afford a hope of checking the practice which was undermining its character and au- thority. He approached the case, as he had done that of Ipswich, di- vested of political feeling. In the case of Ipswich, bribery was proved ; but he could not consent to the proposition that the writ should be suspended until some bill should have received the sanction of Parlia- ment: the case of Southampton, judicially considered, was not so strong, though too lavish treating had certainly been proved ; but it was alleged by electors that a system of bribery had prevailed which was concealed by the Committee by a compromise or some other means. Mr. Wren's conduct at the bar appeared to be that of a person entitled to respect ; and although be might not be able to substantiate the allega- tions in his petition, the facts which he stated did raise a difficulty about issuing the writ until something had been done with respect to those allegations. He was afraid the mere appointment of a Select Committee would lead to no satisfactory result: perhaps such cases might be in- cluded in Lord John Russell's bill ; and at all events he thought it de- sirable to suspend the issue of the writ for the present, until Lord John Russell had stated the principles of the bill he meant to introduce.

Mr. Thomas DUNCOMBE believed John Wren's allegations, and moreover, that he could prove them— He believed that this John Wren had been the very life and soul of the Con- servative conviviality at Southampton. Whenever the honourable Member for Hampshire was to grace the dinner-table of art Alderman of the borough with his presence, the notification which John Wren received of it was, " Mr. Fleming is coming; you, Wren, must come too." And yet this individual was now told that he was unworthy of credit. What was the reason of all this vituperation and reproach with which the Conservative party now loaded John Wren 2—Clearly and solely because he would not agree to perjure himself before a Committee of the House; and that he was able to prove. The honour- able Member for Hampshire stated that Mr. Abrahams, the Returning-officer, denied ever having signed a memorandum-book, as alleged in the petition of John Wren. "Here," said Mr. Buncombe, holding up a small book with a red cover, " here is the record of your crime, and here is his signature autho- rizing the payment of 5L" Was not that a fact that ought to be inquired into? [ Sir Robert Peel was understood to give his assent to the question.] He read a letter, in which Mr. Wren stated that he placed the book in Mr. Dancombe's hands ; and afterwards the writer said- " I have assisted in fighting the Conservative cause in the borough for years. And why am I to be persecuted by the general body of the Conservatives, and branded as I was by one of the honourable Members of the House of Commons as a vagabond 2—Because I would not perjure myself before the Select Com- mittee appointed by the House of Commons to try the merits of the late elec- tion. It must be evident, as I shall be able to prove, that I was a companion of the parties concerned, and in the secrets of the late election ; or why should a party come to me and say, He was directed to offer me a sum of money if I would make Mr. Martyn's seat secure '? This offer was made the first time the Chairman of the Select Committee cleared the room to decide whether I should answer the questions or not." After some further debate, in the course of which Mr. HINDE and Mr. GODSON pointed out inconsistencies in Wren's statements, Sir ROBERT PEEL suggested that the motion should be postponed for a fortnight ; and in accordance with that suggestion, both the motion and the amendment were Withdrawn.

MB. WARBURTON AND BRIDPORT.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER moved, on Wednesday, that the case of Brid- port be referred to Mr. Roebuck's Committee. Mr. BANKES objected, that the motion offered an example to incite any unsuccessful candidate who might not think fit to present a petition in the usual way, to come forward at any length of time after the election was over. The wounded feelings of an individual and the personal friendships of Members were no grounds for Parliamentary interference. The consequence of in- cluding the case in the inquiry of Mr. Roebuck's Committee would be, that the bill of indemnity would be made to apply to an inquiry the motives of which were avowed to be not public, but private. Replying to a remark by Mr. Bankes, Mr. ROEBUCK denied that the House was about to invest him with great powers: the House had constituted a

Committee to inquire into a matter of public policy, to. y, and had given t i

that Committee certain powers ; but he thought it invidious to say that he wielded a power which the House, in fact, shared with him. He did not want to extend the inquiry ; for he thought the load imposed on the Committee already enough for it to bear. But setting aside that consi- deration, and the other consideration of private friendship, the fact was, that here were three gentlemen who on their own confession were guilty of compromise. As to his absence on Friday, which had been re- marked, it was owing to severe indisposition ; but he did not know that he was bound to hear all the nonsense that was to be uttered in these discussions on bribery ; nor had he ever heard it made a charge by a criminal in the dock, that a counsel who had prosecuted on Monday was not present on Tuesday at a prosecution in which he was not con- cerned. Mr. COCHRANE had no objection to Mr. Buller's motion ; but if Mr. Roebuck would look into the petition, he would find that he (Mr. Cochrane) was not charged with bribery, bat with having spent a sum of money which was unknown. Mr. DARBY opposed the motion. Eventually the motion was carried, by 44 to 16.

BRIBERY IN LICHFIELD.

A petition was presented by Mr. ROEBUCK, on Wednesday, from- Lichfield, stating that situations in the Post-office were given by the Earl of Lichfield to certain parties who voted at the last election ; that gross political immorality was caused by that system of bribery ; and the petitioners were of opinion that a bribe given in the form of a salary of 1001. a year was more extensive in its effects than direct bribery by money. Mr. DivErr remarked, that after a few votes had been in- vestigated before the Committee, the petition was abandoned ; counsel failed to fulfil the statement on opening the case for the petitioners, that evidence would be adduced in support of certain charges ; and he was convinced, that if there had been any case for the charges now preferred, it would have been brought before the Committee.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Mr. REDINGTON having moved the second reading of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill, on Wednesday, Sir GEORGE CLERK reminded him that he had not, according to precedent, served a copy of the bill on the Returning-officer of the borough. Mr. BLACKSTONE suggested,. that, as in some previous cases, the evil of partial bribery in the bo- rough might be obviated without disfranchisement. Lord SANDOZz thought that the cases of corrupt practices before the House ought all to be considered together. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE did not know that Sudbury merited disfranchisement more than half the boroughs of the kingdom. Mr. REDINGTON, in deference to the general feeling, post- poned the second reading for a week ; and a copy of the bill was or- dered to be served on the Returning-officer for Sudbury.

THE STATE OF IRELAND.

The Earl of GLENGALL, moving on Monday for returns of rewards offered by the Government of Ireland for the conviction of offenders in 1841, referred to certain words which Lord Wharncliffe let fall on Friday, that the conduct of some landlords was inexcusable. In Ireland there might be landlords who behaved with harshness ; but in the North Riding of Tipperary there was no pretext of the kind ; yet the state of that part of the county is worse now than it has been for twenty-five years. He alluded to the murder of Lord Norbury, of Mr. Hall, and other violences- Such must remain the state of things as long as there existed, as was the fact in some counties of Ireland, impunity for crime. If evidence were ob- tained against offenders, a matter of the greatest rarity and difficulty, and the- criminal were prosecuted, it was necessary to send the witnesses, for their own personal safety, either to Canada or the Cape : if they ventured to remain in Ireland they would inevitably be murdered. Juries did not dare to obey the oaths they took : formerly jurymen, in order to avoid the consequences of serving, stayed away from the court ; but now, to such an extent was intimi- dation carried, that they dared not do otherwise than serve and acquit the pri- soners. The known murderers of Byrne were at this moment roaming at large over the country. Between December 1836 and the same month in 1840, the Government of Ireland offered no fewer than 3,905 rewards for the conviction of offenders, varying from 151. and 201. to 3001.; and what had been the result ? Only 107 rewards had been claimed and paid. He had compared the four largest counties of Ireland with the four largest counties of England; and he found that in England two-thirds of the persons committed for trial had been convicted, while in Ireland the very reverse was the fact, for there two-thirds of the persons committed had been discharged.

There are a vast number of people in Ireland whose sole occupation is to excite the lower orders against their landlords. Some of the

respectable Roman Catholic priests had denounced the present system ; but there was a distinction to be drawn between them and the agitating priests and their young coadjutors— Who were the first persona on the hustings at elections 2—The young priests. Who brought np would-be voters to the Registration Courts /—The young priests. Who got up Repeal meetings and rejoiced to see their names stand first in the newspapers 2—The young priests. Who collected the funds for the Association, which otherwise would not rise to a thousandth part of its present amount 2—The young priests.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE adhered to his statement, that some landlords had used their rights of property in a harsh manner. He admitted that

continued agitation weakens the law. The remedy for the present state of things is an improvement in the condition of society ; which must necessarily be a work of time.

The Marquis of NORMANBY and Earl FORTESCUE acknowledged the advantage they had derived from the efforts of the Roman Catholic clergy to promote peace. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE recommended a discreet and firm enforcement of the Arms Act. Lord CiAnicuaar defied any one to produce ten or even five per cent out of the 3,000 priests who are agitators. The crimes in Ireland are the fruits of past errors on the part of the upper orders, and of past misgovernment. And there are still many of the Magistracy who will not bear compa-

risen with the priests ; a fact proved by the dependence of Government on Stipendiary Magistrates. After some further conversation, the motion was affirmed.

THE a CONDEMNED SERMON" CONDEMNED.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE drew the attention of the Lords, on Tuesday, to the " shameful, disgusting, and profane exhibition " in Newgate, on the Sunday before the execution of Good. He read a few passages from the account in the Times of May 23d; which described the crowded state of the chapel, the presence of the Lady Mayoress and some of her friends in the Governor's pew, Good's being placed in a chair in the midst of the congregation, his appearance of agony, at which a female shrieked and fainted, his looking about at the con- gregation and blessing them as he left, and his being suffered to wear plain clothes for the occasion. This, said the Marquis, was the sort of Sunday pastime which took place in one of the chapels of the Metro- polis 1 Instead of employing the interval allowed before death to make his peace with the offended Deity, he devoted his time in chapel to observing the audience and seeing the effect produced on them. Exe- cutions should be public, as an example to deter from crime ; but the law never allowed any church or chapel to be desecrated by an exhi- bition of the criminal during divine service. He desired information on the sot ject ; and moved for a copy of the regulations observed in the Gaol of Newgate with regard to criminals after condemnation for capital offences.

The Duke of RICHMOND, Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the Marquis of Nos- MASSY, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, agreed in these sentiments. The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the criminal being induced to act a part—to encourage his hypocrisy and stifle the feelings natural to hie situation. The Marquis of NORMANBY said that the Secretary of State has no jurisdiction in the London prisons ; but he had been obliged, when in office, to represent to the Sheriff, that if exhibitions of the cri- minal in earlier stages of his condemnation were not stopped, he must draw the attention of Parliament to the subject ; and he had met with every cooperation from the gentleman who then filled the office of Sheriff. Lord LANSDOWNE thought that to the mind of some criminals such an exhibition might be a source of morbid gratification ; and he believed that many crimes, particularly of late years, had been com- mitted or attempted from a morbid appetite for notoriety. The motion was agreed to.

In answer to Mr. VERNON SMITH, in the other House, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the mention of the subject in Parliament, which be would communicate to the authorities in the City, would have the effect of preventing any repetition of the very improper scene.

ULTRA-PROTESTANTISM IN CANADA.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord HOWDEN asked the Bishop of London, whether it had been correctly stated, that the friends of an officer who died lately at Quebec had been refused permission by the Co- lonial Bishop to put up a tablet to his memory in the church where his remains were laid ; and whether the conduct of the Bishop had been approved by his superiors? The Bishop of LONDON replied, that the Bishop of Quebec, with all other Colonial Bishops, was answerable, not to him, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Complaints had been made respecting the erection of tablets within the church at Quebec, and the Bishop had established a general rule, that no monu- mental tablets should be put up unless the inscription had previously received the approval of the clergyman ; and secondly, that the privi- lege should be confined to the case of persons who had been habitual communicants in the church. The application in question happened to be the first after the establishment of the new rule, and the Bishop did not think it expedient to make it an exception ; but no insult was intended to the memory of the deceased officer. The Bishop added, that there had been precedents for the refusal even in this country ; for their Lordships knew that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster had thought fit to refuse the erection of monuments in memory of certain persons, who, as far as their literary acquirements were concerned, were fit persons to have that honour paid to their memories.

Lord BROUGHAM rejoiced that St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey were under better, more judicious, more charitable, and more liberal superintendence. If instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, we had provincial superintendence of the erection of monuments in St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, many of the mono ments which adorn and grace the inside of those great national cathe- drals would not now be found within their walls. The precedent just just mentioned was the only one which the Bishop of Quebec ought to have selected not to follow.

The Bishop of LONDON took shame rather at the facility with regard to the erection of monuments in our churches than to the exception ; and he approved of the rule laid down by the Bishop of Quebec as more consistent with the spirit and regulations of our Church— He never could go into a church without feeling a sense of shame at seeing monumental inscriptions in memory of persons who, neither by their lives nor their deaths, showed that they valued the high privilege of being members of that Church. In this country he was aware it might be difficult to prevent this practice, but if the Bishop of Quebec thought it possible in what might almost be called a nascent church and an infant congregation, to establish those regulations, he would say that the right reverend prelate had done it in strict accordance with the legal discipline of theChurch, and also in strict accordance with the most genuine Christian charity.

He read a statement by the Bishop of Quebec, respecting an officer who died at Montreal, in a duel arising out of a supposed intrigue, and to whose memory a monument was erected, which stated, that he "bad died as he had lived, a gallant soldier and an honourable man."

Lord BROUGHAM always understood that "charity is that which thinketh no evil " ; but now turned out, that, because a man died in a duel arising out of a suspected immorality, all his profession and society at large were visited with this general rule ; which besides did not ap- ply, for it excluded all who were not communicants of the particular church.

The Bishop of LONDON contended that that was a very proper line to draw, and the conversation soon after dropped.

MISCELLANEOUS.

THE HAND-L0031 WEAVERS OF SUDBURY. Mr. CHARLES WYNN moved, on Tuesday, that the Sudbury Election Committee be reap-

pointed, to examine the Report of the Commissioners on the state of the hand-loom weavers, in order to the selection of such passages as bear upon the elections in the borough of Sudbury. The motion was agreed

to.

THE JURISDICTION or JUSTICES Brix was read a second time in the House of Lords, on Monday. The Loan CHANCELLOR stated, that that bill had been prepared by the late Government. The object of it was to transfer the trial of many offences that were not of a capital description from the Assizes to the court of Quarter-sessions. Those offences that were punishable with death or transportation for life, were still to be tried at the Assizes ; but other offences, except certain speci- fied ones which were of a peculiar character, such as those arising out local excitements, were to be tried by the Magistrates at Quarter- sessions. A fruitless discussion arose on a suggestion by Lord CAMP- BELL, that a stipendiary Chairman should be appointed for each Quarter- sessions, competent to administer the law.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING on SUNDAYS. In conversation with the Earl

of GALLOWAY, who presented a petition from Edinburgh against rail- way-travelling on Sunday, Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that if they inter- fered with one kind of Sunday-travelling they would be obliged to stop Sunday-travelling of every kind. Government was not prepared to legis- late on the subject, because they were not prepared to say to the people of England that Sunday was a day ou which no one should be allowed to travel. The Committee of last year had reference only to the boat- men employed on canals ; and the Marquis of NORMANBY added, that a distinction was to be drawn between stopping their being employed on Sunday and the stoppage of general travelling on railways.

PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL. In Committee on Captain Roues Public- houses Bill, on Wednesday, Mr. Peststaxots moved a clause to prevent the opening of houses for the sale of fermented liquors or the sale of those liquors before one o'clock on Sunday, Christmas-day, or Good Friday, under a penalty not exceeding 51., or under pain of not more than one month's imprisonment in default of payment. Captain Rous opposed the clause, as tending to drive the poor to worse places than public-houses. Sir JAMES Gassam saw no necessity for extending the provisions of the Police Act to the country: He saw no evil in a hard-working man's taking, after a week of labour, a little refresh- ment more stimulating even than tea, perhaps in a public .house on a Sunday morning ; and he was told, that in the manufacturing districts it was customary for the artisans to take their breakfasts on suck occasions in public-houses, that they might enjoy a little more comfort than ordinary. Ultimately the clause was rejected, by 110 to 7. Mr. HUMPHREY then moved a clause providing that public-houses within the Metropolitan districts should be at liberty to keep open after one o'clock, with a view to securing uniformity ; greatinconvenience arising from the celebration of Divine worship at different hours in different parishes. The clause was negatived, by 69 to 27 ; and the House then resumed.

AFGHAN WAR. Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, on Tuesday, that the East India Company had advanced to the Indian Government 338,000/. or 340,0001. for carrying on certain affairs : it was proposed by the General Government to repay that advance, and to make an advance in return of 400,0001. in two instalments, to be repaid by the Company.

DESPATCHES OF SIR ALEXANDER BURNES. Mr. DISRAELI observe d that despatches by Sir Alexander Burnes had been published in India but suppressed here ; and those printed in India were accompanied by a letter, in which Sir Alexander said that the conduct of the late Govern- ment with regard to those despatches had been a piece of trickery and fraud. He wished to ask Sir John Hobhouse why he adopted a course liable to those epithets? Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE said, that the despatches published in England only purported to be extracts ; the alterations were only such as were dictated by a regard for public interests, and no omissions had been made which affected the spirit of the originals. The gentleman who published the letter alluded to had very little re- gard to the memory of the excellent officer who wrote it ; and it seemed to him a violation of public duty and the usages of private life for a public functionary to publish a correspondence with a person in the ex- ercise of an official charge.

CONTROVERTED ELECTION.

The Lyme Regis Election Committee reported on Monday-

" That William Pinney, Esq., was not duly elected a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Lyme Regis: that Thomas Hussey, Esq., was duly elected, and ought to have been returned a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Lyme Regis. That the Committee think it right to inform the House, that although the general charge of bribery alleged in the petition has not been gone into, yet it has appeared in evidence, in the course of the scrutiny, that a corrupt practice has for sonic years pre- vailed in the borough of Lyme, of lending money upon notes of hand, bills of sale, and other securities, to a considerable portion of a constituency which did not exceed 280 by the last registration. That, in the opinion of this Commit- tee, a practice so insidiously corrupting and demoralizing is peculiarly adapted to interfere with the free and honest exercise of the franchise, especially in small constituencies : that it has had this effect in the borough of Lyme; and that it deserves serious attention and inquiry on the part of the House."

The Belfast Committee opened the inquiry on Thursday, and closed it on the same day. The petition prayed that the election of Mr. Emerson Tennent and Mr. Johnson might be declared void. Mr. Austin, in open- ing the case, dwelt on the obstructions to the electors at the polling- booth for letter M, and to certain technical disqualifications of election- officers. Mr. Talbot thereupon remarked, that the sitting Members were prepared to resist other allegations in the petition of bribery and treating, which affected their characters ; but they did not offer any objection to the smaller allegations on which Mr. Austin rested. The Committee then resolved,

" That James Emerson Tennent, Esq., and William Gilliland Johnson, Esq., were not duly elected as burgesses to serve in the present Parliament at the last election for the borough of Belfast, and ought not to have been re- turned.

" That the last election for the borough of Belfast was a void election."

[A correspondent of the Morning Chronicle asserts that this avoidance of the main charges in the petition, which were bribery, treating, and personation, is the result of a compromise, to avoid disqualifying the sitting Members during the present Parliament.]