Dtbates anti Vrocecbinas in lqinliament.

PRIVILEGE.

On Tuesday, Lord 3.I.tnos informed the House that he had received a communication front Mr. Freeman, the medical attendant of Mr. Sheriff Evans, and a gentleman of the highest respectability, stating that the Sheriff was suffering from a complaint of the liver, and that further confinetnent might endanger not only his health but his life. lie moved that Mr. Freeman be called in.

Mr. WARBURTos regretted the inconvenience the Sheriff was sub- jected to, but could not agree to treat him differently front other pri- soners. The individuals confined in Warwick Gaol were only per- mitted to have their medical adviser after much delay and continued representations of the bad state of their health. At all events, notice should be given before calling upon the house to vote on this motion.

Lord Jous did not think the InpFe of twenty-four hours would put the Shariff's life in danger, us the liver complaint was not likely to carry him off in any sudden tit.

Mr. O'CoNNELL reminded the House, that the Sheriff could at any time obtain his libery hr submitting to the ..uthority of Parliament— which Vincent would have done at once to obtain his release. The Sheriff was detained by his own wilfulness. The House could only enforce its privileges by imprisonment. It was almost ludicrous in Lord Mahon to eefi.e forward with the statement he had. made respect- ing Mr. Evans's health.

Lord MAnox Ventured to say that no man in the House except Mr. O'Connell would have applied the term ludicrous to his statement. Mr. O'Cossma. said that Lord •Mahon's remark was out of order, and ex- ceedingly uncivil. Lord Manos repeated his remark, and said he should persist in his motion. Mr. O'CossELL thought Lord :Mahon's statement, on the evidence of a second person, of the sickness of a third person, who might have made the statement himself, was ludi- crous—not more ludicrous, however, than the manner in which it was made but he was not surprised, for a more ludicrous individual than Lord Mahon was not to be found in the lft.use.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought it best to ex.olline the medical attendant at once. Lord Jottx HussELL yielded, and Mr. Freeman was called in.

He stated that Sheriff Evans had been suftbriug several years from a liver coniplaiot. Ile had attended Mr Etadis for seven years ; had seen him limit morning, and found the state of his health " very bad." The Sheriff had a severe attack of gout a short time before lie was placed in confinement, when the witness prescribed for him daily ; and he had prescrihei daily for him since he r as lit confinement. There was no immediate danger, but his life woeld he .ndangered were he to re- main longer meter restraint. He suffered chronic, not active in- flammation. l le took no wine. The weat her a as unfavourable to the

patient—u lei was not aware that he wa:, to make the statement he had made to the Houre.

Mr. Freeman's examination having betel coneiuded,

Lord M klmON moved that his evidence la. ay:iced, and taken into con- sideration mix: day.

Mr. said, a more flimsy affitir than this he had never wit- nessed. Ilitste:el (,t. Lein!! the eVii:elle■! (flight to sleep amongst the other of the 111,:ise.

Lord MA foleth,i1 to.

On Wednesday, Lord M.% HON ailed tirli Mr. Freeman had obtained

a Seennd opinion on the state fir htirifI Evan health, from an eminent

physician. Ifr.1:hatti hers ; and he moved tiro Chambers be called in. This motion provoked a long disme.sien. Lord Joust RUSSELL was

Satisti,q1 e oh I r. Freeman's evidence, that Sheriff's life was in no immeditit•• 'louver. Indeed, it appe,111.11 I, 'ti advertisement in the newspaper,. that if' releed he was qui.e Foal.% to go down to Lewes to canvass the 'a nra. Lord John saw le) l'Serl for discharging the

Sheriff from enseate ;timer tocse ci re 11111 n CPS, or for going any further.

Sir Roji:ei I i.j.0 noel Ike Sheriff's :elver isanient, in which he told the elector, of Lett es, that in eonsequen..a of his imprisonment he could mot go down to ',ewe:. Mr: Ciotti xa: sju, h.! had seen Mr. Evans that morning. The alieriff had not authot ired any application for his re- lease : thotteh unwilling to brave the 110,e-e, he would never give way one inch ; for he had " formed the opiaion ILL the law of the land was supreme," and that he had only done hisd um ',Mr. Goring quoted the Celebrated lines beginning " Justurn e ten:Jr:ton." Mr. Matiu3 awl Mr. LAMBTON Were for retaining the Sheriff; Sir ADoLPHUS 110. RYMPLE for hearing further evidence. Sir ROBERT PEEL wished th in a judicial manner : he did not think Mr. Freeman's evidences cleat to justify the liberation of the Sheriff, but thought the Raze ought to hear Dr. Chambers's evidence ; for if Dr. Chambers eauld state that Mr. Evans's health would be seriously endangered by prd, tracted confinement, the House would regret their refusal to heart', statement. Mr. Aocoen reminded the House of John Thorogood's he, prisonment by a tyrant Church for non-payment of Church-rates. Aki Dr. NIcHoL attributed Mr. Alcock's sympathy for Thorogood to tile fact that he was himself a defendant in a suit for non-paymeat of Church-rates, in which he understood Mr. Alcock had not the sligineit chance of' success.

Lord &MN RUSSELL, persisting in his opinion that Dr. Chambers•s evidence ought not to be received, 'et would not divide the House, bit would allow the Doctor to he examined.

Dr. Chambers appeared at the bar, and stated, that be had seo Sheriff Evans for the first time that morning. He was obvioutia, bourin under ill-health, from an imperfect state of the digestive orgso; he led" an unhealthy aspect of body—fat, bilious looking, and gouty.' further confinement might convert the defects which disordered Lis dioestii e organs into absolute diseases, till the liver became disordered; and front diseases of' the liver drimsy, and all the dangers of dropsy, arose. There was no enlargement of the liver, but a " free disposition to disease of the liver, properly so called, as distinguished from g. order." Close confinement under such circumstances would be highly injurious. Nothing short of absolute freedom would enable him tore. cover the good condition he then wanted. Mental anxiety was a tinct aggravating cause of the other evil of confinement. Dr. Chem. bers dot not think his life in immediate danger. The liver was oh a state of congestion—it was a loaded liver."

Dr. Chambers's examination having been completed, Lord Ma sioN moved that Sheriff Evans be discharged.

This motion was supported by Mr. FITZRolt KELLY, Sir WALTER JAMES. tral Sir ROBERT INGLis. Mr. HORSMAN, interpreting DT, Chambers's evidence as negativing Mr. FREEMAN'S opinion that the Sheriff had a disease of the liver, opposed his discharge, Sir JARS GRAHAM moved an amendment, that Dr. Chambers be recalled, to be more particularly examined. Lord MAHON acquiesced, and withdrew Isis mod' n. Lord Howrcx thought this examination, so painful to the Sheriff ;•tight not to be continued. He suggested that Mr. Evans should he allowed to take up his residence out of town, for the benefit of his health, ie custody of a messenger of the House. Colonel SIBTHORPE spoke in !avowr of immediately discharging the prisoner. Sir ROBERT PEEL e-ti:d not vote for in-mediate liberation ; but as he thought they incurre.• :1 lery serious responsibility by keeping him in strict confine.

merit, rt•commended the House to adopt Lord Howiek's suggestion.

Etude r conversation ensued, which ended in the recall of Dr. Chanth. I• to the bar. The Doctor said, that " air and exercise would not nue, fie case, though theymight diminish the tendency to disease?'

Lord •:.‘lioN, considering that this statement confirmed the evidence previoo given to the House, moved that Sheriff Evans be immediately liberate- The House divided- abr the motion 84 Against it 125

Majority —711

On Si JAMES GRAHAm's motion, Dr. Chambers's evidence was or- dered t. • printed, and to be further considered next day.

On T. orsday, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said, be had intended to move for a Si' • t Committee to consider what steps should be taken to guard against - -,e publication of matter criminating individuals by authority of the Hon- , and how far it might be advisable to retract or discontinue the salt r Parliamentary papers ; but as Lord John Russell was about to bring - a hill on this subject, and the House was naturally anxious for an c :illation of the provisions of that bill, he would postpone his

motion • mat day, week ; assuring Lord John Russell, that if the bill did not it trd against the publication of criminatory matter, he should be fount •Iittong its opponents.

Lord .; ,nist Russora, then rose to move for leave to "bring in a bill to give tamary protection to persons employed in the publicatien of Parham •,::my papers." It appeared to him, that a measure of this de- scriliti.%, • s required to enable the House effectually to exercise the large l's it certainly possessed— The p;-. -1.1 mode of exercising that power was liable to much objection, and in prarti, it led to no inconsiderable difficulties, Take the ease ot a iolation of privile•..: oectirring during the recess. An action is instituted, and a verdict obtained ,I .u. House, in vindicating its privilege, finds it neve,sary to visit the Shied ll LI punishment : here was MI 011VieeS deii.et hi the means dossed- ing the pc :lege of the Bouse—instead of' being able to stop the action, they were (iii, 'I:,' to deal with the officers, ts•110 tt-rre no party to the transaction until aft., 'I, decision of the court of law Iva,: pronounced; and then the only menus II uid dekitding the privilege was hy ordering that the execution of' the or he stopped. In ease aim nu, inn king instituted during the sitting ot U'..riiament, the remedy WaS niece immediate, as the Ilme.e could proceed a.. i the plaintiff before the Sheriffs could he called upon to levy

an exert' : but even then, it was obvious how much the time of the Baur

might lie 'iii pied with motions respecting individuals, to the delay of public business.

VexE111,111, eolliSjeng with individuals and with the courts of justice led to so !: root a waste of time, that the whole session might he occu- pied with questions whether this or that officer should or should not be discharged It was also a serious evil that the country should be divided into part as --one contending for the privilepos of the !louse, the other defendina p.t. decision atilt: Judges. These were smite of' the reasons why he 1,11.; deemed it necessary to propose a legislati W. measure to the House ; Mily aware as he was, that any enactment which converted an hiliermir privilege into a law, was list' II' a diminution of that privi- lege. Ili bill, however, would contain a provise saving all the privi- leges of' ;I. f louse, which would not in any manner he altered by the bill, ilull led to propose that proceedings in any courts of law upon publieations by authority of' either !louse of Parliament should be Speaker of the Bowie of Lords, or Speaker of' the Bouse of Commonfa the Lord Chancellor or stayed by the production of' a certificate by

that such publications were authorized by Parliament. He should run the chance of leading the House into error by attempting to explain the details of the bill, and would only say that it in no degree re- stricted the privilege of publication. He should be happy to attend to any suggestion for giving greater security to that privilege than his bill would confer.

Sir Howls's') SUGDEN was not at all satisfied by Lord John Russell's explanation ; and he would oppose legislation on the question, until se- curity had been provided against injury to the public from the publica- tions of the House.

The SOLICITOR-GENEHAI felt it to be his duty to oppose this bill. (" Hear, hear !" and l(Lughter.) He opposed it with sincere reluctance.

His inclinations prompted him to support the Government of which Lord

John Russell was so distinguished a member, and under which he him- self held office ; but his duty as a Member of Parliament was para-

mount to his duty as a servant of the Government ; and as he thought the Government wrong, he must oppose it. Sir Thomas went over the leading circumstances of the dispute with the Courts, expressing his firm belief that the Judges were wrong and the House right. But this bill would in effect affirm the erroneous judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench ; and there was no security that it would be passed. It would probably come down from the Lords in such a shape that the Commons could not. accept it. If passed, it would hold out a bonus to legal contests with the House. There would be the greatest uncertainty with regard to all their privileges. The bill only dealt with part of the

difficulty : it stopped Stockdale ; but Howard, the attorney, remained with his action against the Sergeant-at-Arms for forcibly entering his house to execute the Speaker's warrant. Howard would be substituted for Stockdale, and the substantial difficulty would remain. He strongly advised the House to reject this bill, and stand upon its privileges. The effective existence of the House was never more vitally threatened than at the present time.

Lord STANLEY repeated many of the statements and arguments already used in previous discussions of this question. He declared

that he would not abate one jot of the privilege of publication ; and would support the bill, as the best means of securing the privilege. He differed with much that had fallen from the Solicitor-General ; and he

particularly noticed, that the learned gentleman had not proved how the bill would affirm the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. One very great advantage to arise from passing the bill was this— It would romove one of the great objections of the people of England and the courts of law to the exercise of this privilege—the impossibility of duly supporting it without indicting undue hardship on individuals who might he placed between two jurisdictions. The bill, by confirming—not giving—the powers claimed by the house of Commons, would enable the House to sup- port those privileges and at the same time give the Judges a focus stolliii. They would be able to say, " here are privileges asserted, confirmed, and sup- ported by law, and a coarse laid down which we arc bound to obey ;" and then would be reineved the most formidable objection that had now been raised against this privilege. Whatever might be the result of this bill in another place—and God liirbid that in another place there should not be sufficient temper, good sense, and candour to deal with it with the earliest desire to come to a satisfactory settlement of it—at all events, they in that House would feel that they had done their duty; and while they maintained and enforced their privileges, they would seek at the same thne earnestly to place them on the basis of satisfactory legislation.

On Mr. O'CONNELL'S motion, the debate was adjourned to Friday.

Captain Pommi.r. said, he had intended to move that Mr. Sheriff Evans be liberated on his parole; but as Sir James Graham would pro- pose that he should be released on giving bail, Captain Polhill would withdraw his motion. He had seen the Sheriff; who preferred being released on parole, but lie was ready to give bail to any amouut.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM gave notice, that he should move next day, that the "House do take such bail from Mr. Sheriff Evans as may be ap-

proved of by the Speaker, for the attendance of Mr. Sheriff Evans on the House during the present session ; and that be be required to attend at the bar, on notice in writing being served at Ins house beforehand."

AHOLITION Op CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

EWART, on Thursday, moved a resolution, " That it ie expe- dient that the punishment of death be abolished." He emits:tele:1 that experience of the effects of mitigating severe punishments ought to in- duce the Legisla!tire to affirm his resolution. By reference to criminal statistics, Mr. Ewart proved, that mitigation of penalties had been fol- lowed by a diminution of crime that punishment was more certain, and the proportion of convictions to committals greater, since execu- tions had become rare. In a given period previous to the abolition of the punishment of death flay many. offences, the executions were 85 ; during a shuilar period after the nutigation of punishments, the execu- tions were 25, while convictions had increased from 1,53e to 1.7s8. The punishment was mitigated, but impunity for crime was diminished. He referred to Prance, Belginin. Bombay when Sir James 3lackintosh was Judge of the Supremo Court, and to Delhi under the esiverinnent . of Sir Charles Mete:Iles for evidence that the diminution of capital punishments in Europe, and their entire abolition in the parts of India referred to, had produced decrease of crime. Murder was virtually the ouly crime now published in England with death. But the person who committed murder either acted from calculation or sudden impulse : if it acted from calculation, the tear of death did not restrain kiln ; if from impulse, he overlooked the consequences of his deed : in either case the punishment was unavailing. Public opinion, he von tended, was against executions even for murder ; but at all events, it was the duty of the Legislature to hum:ooze the people. It was most important to impress upon a people the inviolability of IIIIItiall life. Ile called upon the House to assent to his proposition. and to resign the attribute of dispensing with human 16 jut o the hands of God who

gave it.

Mr. Hawse; seeonded the motion.

Lord Josue Besssea. respected Mr. Ewart's motives, and admired the

ability his speech displayed ; but he olijected to the course he took. Th!I ought to proceeit hy bill, it at all. It would be unwise to place on thew journals a resolution wl.ielt might be appealed to With great popu- lar Met, but whidi would not, make an alteottion in the la 11', or au- thorise the Judges to infringe it. Ile disagreed with portious of Mr. E Wart's argument. A principal reason ter abolishing death for horse • stealing, larceny in a dwellinghouse, and crimes of that description, was the reluctance of Juries to subject offenders to punishments dis- proportioned to their crimes but no such feelings prevailed in cases of murder. Popular sympathy was not excited for a murderer; he be- lieved that few thoneslit that Greenacre's life ought to have been spared. That, however, wa ; an atrocious case, and Lord John certainly wished that there cottld be a distinction drawn between murders of the worst kind and those which approached more nearly to manslaughter. As to Mr. Ewart's argument from the fact that a murderer acted from calcu- lation or impulse, the same might be said of all other crimes. Though an enemy to capital punishments, and rejoicing in the good effects of mitigating them already experienced, Lord John was not prepared to go so far as Mr. Ewart. lie thought there was some datrger that in cases of atrocious murder. for which the law forbade death to be inflicted, a revulsion of public fr Pug might occur, :ma a restoration of capital

punishments t i t 7,:lak red necessary.

Dr. LUSH I Nt.;TON imreed that in this matter the proceeding ought to be by resolution ,,ou not ny Mil, and he should move an amendment to that effect. lbs sees opposed to the punishment of death, not because he believed it cootrary to the law of Ceel, (an oldeion held by a con- siderable body of persens iii this conetry,) hut because capital punish- ment for murder did not prevent the effseee ; and he saw no reasons for any punishment, but prevention of coitus: and th reformation of the offender. It :.vas peinful to behold the readiness with wind] juries convicted men of atrocious crimes upon folioed's:et evidence; and it was a fact lately stated by Baron Gurney, that the facility of conviction was in proposition to the atrocity of the offence. But this remark did not apply to cases where the punishment Iva:, demi,. Then, the Judges, knowing the fallaciousness of human testimony, used all their astute- ness to suggest reasons to a jury for acquitting prisoners. Why ?- because the law shut the door against further inquiry, and tune was not allowed to remedy the consequences of false testimony. Witnesses gave their evidence with reluctance, and juries were slow to convict. Certainty of punishment was essential: but so long as human life was at stake, the ordinary feelings of huraanity would operate with juries and make them slow to inflict an irretrievable punishment— This must ever be the case; for Ile would ask any man in the House—he would ask any man of honour and feelings of religion—whether if he were sitting as a juror, and were adied to pronounce sentence upon his honour, and according to those of rcli,rion, he would not require more stringent and complte evidence where the lire of a fillow cr.ature was at stake than when traninntation %vas the unisliment ? He asked, them whether, on this question of the certainty of ',punishment, he bad not d„-atonstrated that capital punish- ment was not front the 11:1 !IP: Of man I certain than any other, and whether so li.m; a: do tth tra,t a punish :or t..Todges would not exercise a COM 111 end:tide act lite'ne,‘ aril rack their mind,: tv &tower sortie flaw on which In recommend an ;,..quitt..1 to the jury, with a vi or providing against the the tug. not less anxituts for the prevention or erink, iii I.• :Loo:nee, he legged to move as an nmendment to 'Mr. trt' Inotior, " for I to to bring in a hull for the

ch01ition of capital

Mr. ENV lives resolutim; Avas by iea...e withdrawn, and Dr. LUSITINCP• TON'S motion read from the, chair.

31r. G(ut.Iilum' ititje iii inconsistmey in Dr. Lushington's argu.- ment. He had ;old the II011S,. that in pee onloa to the atrocity of the offence was the readin.-:: to conviet, yet he maintained that juries were unwilling to convict murderers. 31m. Contlhurn thought Lord John Russell took the riele v I iv of the sul:j.set. end the 1)111 lie opinion was not adverse to penishiee murder with doelt. By equalising the penalty for housebreakies: mel for murder. yee 11,1d out a strong temptation to add the crime oS :ocinler to liomusb: Li g, by which the only witness might be remove I.

Mr. Holinorsr. Mr. Mt-vrz. Mr. 11::,vc1[: .Tox, and Mr. O'Coszszu

argued against IL. loeislonen: et' den.l. ' • any eiremustanees. • Mr.

PLUM rum:. Mr. F1; ,v. n:el Sir itot. ;LIS took the other side.

The House, on e itt refused. !. •itt,i: in the bill, by a ma- jority of 161 to 90.

Lord Onallorta. S. e arrangement by which Mr. Ile of Ex-

cise mid Co.a. lition Act,

receiving the o • 1.2oo/.. from the

other Mime tare the ditties of both

appointtneuts o. The Commis- sioners of Exeiss o s Ssom ten to three,

and the Comuti-: . to four: and the

duties of both I ' important. Mr.

Stephenson reo--1:. c•I . •• t.f Excise in the

latter end of the s heen an unpaid

Commissioner lit' • o e intimation that

he was to he e :11, --1 Blot Mr. Ste- phenson would O • ' and retire. But

it happened th,t tat.- • had never been officially minter, .111 I. '"I CaelIVII.T. stat- ing that he , , 7 : and it had since been disees eive his whole salary front a.; ,!, - 'mumis,.ioner

of Excise wit!t !." declared that no coarM-- aid their

salaries wer,. It',. were arduous • told require:I !;:ian had ;lever been Tr, try hid neglected te that every five paid to the

Connuissiouers te: Pr the act. No sled,

withheld tit ,ay that it was tended, ilothit, : .; if a job was in-

:. mplislenent than

the withholdim ho received 800/.

a year t 'Tutu el Mr. Stephenson,

the soot_ Ines , se savei to the country.

Lord Granville s oseeent at the' permission , • ofP,cos -the circumstance

accorded to Ile s

was almost in:le:Jibes :o tor ',Avers to elu, i,late this trans:me don,

hi

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had not the least objection to produce the papers. It would be seen that Mr. Stephenson never re- ceived any paynent of the nature of salary as Commissioner of Arbitration. lor one year's labours he was paid 1,0001., but that was not a salary. In 1839, he made a report, applied for payment, and re- ceived it. It had been decided to close the commission on the 1st of January 1841 ; and he had told Mr. Stephenson, that it was not right that he should receive the emoluments of both offices, when Mr. Stephenson very handsomely offered to continue his services in winding up the accounts gratuitously. He maintained that there was nothing improper in the transaction, and would certainly act in the same manner were it to do again. He then reminded the House of several instances, which occurred when Lord Granville Somerset was a Lord of the Treasury, of persons holding and receiving pay from two offices.

Mr. Goteenuns said, there could be no fair comparison between the times when sinecures were allowed, and the present. Parliament in its wisdom had seen fit to condemn the sinecure system ; how then could the union of two effective offices in one individual, with payment from both, be justified by reference to the practices of former times ?

Mr. IIUME concurred with Mr. Goulburn. If the Commissioners of Excise found time to perform the duties of two offices, it occurred to him that their number should he reduced.

Lord JOIN liessete commended the efficient manner in which the Commissioners of Arbitration had fulfilled their duties ; and took occasion to speak in high terms of the assiduity of persons filling the subordinate offices of the Government departments. From zeal for the public service, and a sort of attachment to their duties, they underwent a degree of labour ruinous to their health.

Mr. IRVING bore testimony to the efficiency of the Board of Arbi- tration.

The motion, slightly amended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.

On Monday, the House being in Committee, Mr. Monte OTERRALL moved that 602,6004 be granted for the victualling of seamen and ma- rines. This sum was larger than that proposed last year, in conse- quence of au increase in the number of men and the enhanced cost of provisions. Captain PECHELL wished that the ships had their full complement of men ; that the naval strength of the country should be properly kept up —though he had no desire to equip squadrons to amuse officers by ex- perimental trips ; an that an improvement in the regulations regarding pensions should be made.

Mr. Peuserese though an unprofessional man, could not avoid re- marking, that from all he had heard and read, the Navy must be in a very unsatisfactory state.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL held a contrary opinion. As a peace establish- ment--and it was only as a peace establishment that he or anybody else could speak of the Navy—it was very efficient. He could not agree that it was necessary in time of peace to keep up a fleet equal to what every foreign power might have in every part of the world. That would be a ruinous policy for this country— Wishing very much to keep up the efficiency of the Navy, he protested against its being the policy of the country to keep up an establishment so onerous, that the country would very soon begin to think that it was better to have op mm war at once than to keep up such an armament and live in such a state of suspicion. With regard to the war•complements, it was a naval ques- tion, on which he did not pretend to give an opinion further than what he had collected from those who he thought were best able to form an opinion on the subject. The question to be discussed was not whether the same number of ships was to he kept up, all with large complements, which would evidently cause a., enormous increase of expense ; hut whether it was better to keep up, say twenty line-of-battle ships with certain complements, than seventeen with full complements. From all he beard and believed, the complements, as they at present existed, were fully sufficient fur the purposes for which they were required ln war, very full complements might be required, but they were only necessary in the expectation of action with an enemy. Comparing the complements of men-of-war, when the war began in 1793, he believed them very little larger than the present complements when the Navy was on a peace establi4emeit. With respect to a duserepancy which appeared between the number of ships and the number of men asked for on the face of the Estimates, it was to he recollected that some ships were about to be called home, and it would mit he necessary to replace them with ships of the same size. The dif- ference, '-oltlier with the additional men voted, would make up the comple- ments of the ships in cotnmission. Sevi rel oilier sums were voted ; of which the principal were 528,723/. for wages of artificers, labourers, and others employed in the naval de- partmee is at home ; 193,174/. for new works, improvements, and repairs ; 1,03Seee:/. fir naval stores and outfit of the fleet ; 758,657/. for half-pay to seamen and marines; and 187,263/. fur civil pensions,—Mr. HUME compleining of the little reduction in this last item after twenty-five years of peace.

FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.

Mr. l uN Es4, on Tuesday, moved the Commons to go into a Commit- tee of' the w hole House to consider the propriety of abolishing first fruits and tenths, and making the tenths more effectual for the main- tenanee of the poor clergy. Ile reposed that, instead of the existing payments. the holders of all ecelesiastieal livings above 300/. a year itt value sloothi be assessed to the actual amount of a tenth of their ineonv• :he fund to be derived front that assessment to be devoted to the ill-ro:Isv of small livings, the building and repairs of churches, and other o' j. et, connected with religion.

Mr. 1;.% Keireer seconded the motion; and stated reasons why

Parlie nee e owelit to devote some attention to the subject

He vetirely ..eiceresl mmith the Member of laiel!s in the propriety of altoge-

ther brst Emits, which were alway s severely felt. The moment of enterive epee a lising w:C1 lint the moment when kill extraordinary payment ahould t,,• d,,na oiled. They equally proposed that no change should take place dun mm tia. fie., of the preseet ieleeetents. Thee equally proposed that an benefice- am- below the value of 3i m0/. a year should be exempt from the pay- ment of tir.t fruits maid tenths. They equally proposed that all benefice; above the value. of :eel/. a err should, oil the next avoidance, become liable to the peplum t ef tciltlis. ;List not according to their value in the King's books, but accordl:, 1,, the valuation taken in 1831, The amount of the tax was the next ..queotiee, ! :lee it should he unitimrin or graduated. The principle adopted in the of tl.e Irish livings was a graduated scale, beginning at 2/.10s. per cent. on livings of 300/. a year, and gradually augmenting to 12/. 12s. per eeee on livings of 1,000/. a year and upwards. Another proposal was, that Heiner above 3130/. a year and under 500/., should pay 5 per cent.; above 500/, under 800/., 7 per cent.; above 8001. and under 1,2001., 10 per cent.; and abov 1,200/., 15 per cent. Both these propositions appeared to him to lie too severee, He repeated, he had no wish to interfere with the principle of inequality in the incomes of the clergy. He thought it better that there should be different degrees in the Church, as in other professions. He thought it was useful that there should be attractive prizes in the ecclesiastical lottery. If all pet ee should be satisfied Wall paid alike ; and lie should wish the payment to be to moderate as neither to be oppressive to the smaller livings nor to the larger, Upon the whole, therefore he would be satisfied if 3 per cent. were exacted from all benefices above 300/. a year, according to the valuation taken in 1831. Moderate as this tax would be, it would still producea considerable sum, finitely- more than was raised at present. First fruits and tenths now produeei only 14,000/. a year ; 3 per cent. on all benefices above 300/. a year would produce rather more than 65,000/. a year, which would at least augment the poor livings in a much more rapid ratio. He should commit the distribution of this sum to the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty. They would be just as equal to the die. tribution of the larger as of the smaller sum. He had every reason to believe that the Board worked well ; and by continuing the trust in the same honourable hands, they would avoid the expense of salaried Commissioners.

Mr. GOULTIVRN and Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the motion, on the ground that Mr. Baines's proposition would impose a new tax ; was ute palatable not only to the holders of rich livings, but to the clergy gene. i rally ; and that it was desirable to retain considerable inequality n the value of Church livings.

The motion for the Committee was carried, by 38 to 17.

The Speaker having left the chair, the following resolution was moved by Mr. BAINES, adopted by the Committee, and reported to the House—. mm That it is expedient to provide for the abolition of the first fruits and tenths of the clergy, as at present in force in England and Wales, after the next avoidance ; and in lieu thereof, that one-tenth be contributed by all Arch- bishops, Bishops, and others of the clergy whose incomes shall be above 500/., to lie applied to augment the stipends of the poor clergy, the building of churches, and other purposes."

Leave was given to bring in a bill founded on the resolution.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition on Monday, complain. ing of the state of the law relating to patronage and the appointment of clergymen in the Church of Scotland. The Duke of RICHMOND presented twenty-five petitions from parishes

in Scotland, on the same subject. He could confirm the statements respecting the intensity of the ill-will engendered by these disputes, and wished Lord Melbourne would state whether Government intended to introduce a measure for reconciling the parties ? '

Lord MELBOURNE was aware of the bad feeling which had grown out of these differences in the Church of Scotland. The subject should have the immediate and most serious consideration of Government, but he could not promise immediately to introduce a bill. In reply to Lord Haddington, the Duke of RICHMOND said that the twenty-five petitions he had presented were in favour of Non-Intrusion. He was glad that the matter was under consideration—

He hoped the people of Scotland would receive the assurance in a kindly manner, and put an end to the dreadful excitement which prevailed ; otherwise it would beco:ne most dangerous to the Church, and to every one possessing property in that kingdom.

Lord HADDINGTON could confirm the Duke of Richmond's state. ment-

The excitement prevailing in Scotland was much to be deplored; butt it ought to be remembered that it was produced by the conduct of the Commission of the General Assembly, who had suspended a majority of a whole Presby- tery from all spiritual functions, because they declared they would obey the law as expounded by the Supreme Court. That excitement did not arise from the interference of the Civil Court : that Court did not at all interfere until it was called upon to interpret and put the law as declared by that House in force; and accordingly, it had interdicted any interference in the parishes of the seven clergymen. Those uefietunate gentlemen had had their motives and conduct grievously misrepresented : their conduct had been loyal and • peaceable, and they were well deserving of the sympathy, regard, and support of all peaceable and well-thinking persons.

Lord Mien.° presented petitions from Jedburgh and other places iii favour of Non-Intrusion, and suggested the propriety of abstaining front all discussion of the question.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. COLQUHOUN asked Lord John Russell, whether Government was prepared to introduce a bill to allay the dissensions arising from the collisions of the Civil and Ecclesiastical authorities in Scotland?

Lord JOHN RussELL hoped soon to be able to state the determination of Government on this point.

Mr. Coequitoteet remarked, that an impression had got abroad, that Government intended to bring in a bill, and to state the outlines of their plan very speedily. Was it possible that the subject had been under consideration since May last, and that Government was net even yet ready to explain their course of proceeding to Parliament?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the impression to which Mr. Colquhouu alluded, was erroneous. Government wished to be satisfied in the first place that their interference would be advantageous ; and if convinced that it would, no time would be lost in bringing in a bill : but as yet the subject was only under consideration. Sir ROBERT PEEL hoped that Ministers would inform the House of their determination as soon as they came to any-

1k hoped that the House would be apprised of the intentions of the Govern- ment at least as soon as any deputations front Scotland. Ile had answered a great number of' letters which he haul received upon the subject, and Ile had stated that it wets understood to be the intention of Government to introduce a legislative measure with reference to time matters disputed. It now appeared that the noble lord was not prepered to say any thing calculated to afford the least information, and that he had been in error when replying to the various letters which be hail bad occasion to answer upon this subject. All he would now musk of the noble lord wits, that lie would give a distinct assurance either that he intended to bring forward a measure if nature referred to, or that he would abandon it.

Lord JOLLN RUSSELL promised the desired information as early at possible. On Thursday, Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition to the Lords from a Presbytery in Selkirkshire, complaining of the conduct of the

General Assembly in interdicting certain clergymen from the per- fOrMance of their duties.

• The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from Huntly to the same effect.

The Duke of SUTHERLAND and the Earl of ABERDEEN had the care of petitions in favour of Non-Intrusion. Lord ABERDEEN said, though all his petitions were in favour of the principle of Non-Intrusion, the petitioners did not mean the same thing by that phrase. He believed that few of their Lordships knew exactly the meaning of " Non-Intru- sion," and he would therefore explain the views taken he Scotland on this point by the great divisions of the Church— In the first place, there existed now, and always had existed, a numerous body who looked upon church patronage as unscriptural—as an abomination—

as an accursed thing, that ought to be abolished as soon as possible. The ob-

ject of that portion of the Church was the total abolition of patronage ; and that abolition was prayed for in several of the petitions. The next great divi-

sion of the Church was composed of those who did not advocate the abolition

of patronage, but who advocated the right of the people to have a positive veto on the presentation of a minister, without assigning any reason whatsoever for their rejection of him. That was the present law of the Church under the Veto Act, which was passed in 1834 ; and which their Lordships' HollSe had declared to be illegal, and beyond the power of the General Assembly to enact.

That, however, ought be considered the opinion held by the majority of the Church in the General Assembly, and also by the majority of the Presbyteries. Those parties held that the people had a positive arbitrary right to reject a presentee without assigning any reasons, but merely on expressing a conscientious conviction of his unfitness for the office. The third class con- sisted of those who agreed that the people should have a right to niake any ob- jection whatever to a presentee, whether it was connected with his moral cha- racter, his literary acquirements, or any other point, that led to their full conviction of his unsuitableness, on which objection the Presbytery of the Church would decide. .They might even object that they were of opinion that

they could not be edified by the presentee's ministry ; and the Presbytery of the Church had a right to decide on the propriety of this objection arbitrarily, although it might not in any degree affect the presentees character or his acquirements. This Ives a large and numerous portion of the Church. They did not pray that the Veto Act should be legalized, but that the people might have

their right acknowledged to evict ministers for any reason whatsoever that ap-

peared sufficient to them. The fourth division consisted of those who thought that the power of rejection should only be allowed where objections to a

minister affecting his character, his doctrines, or his literary acquirements, could be legally sustained. This was, in numbers, the most limited of the classes; and they approved of the law as it stood for the last hundred years. These were the four great divisions into which the Church was divided on the subject, although there might be other shades of difference. When he men- tioned that division which prayed for the total abolition of patronage, he wished their Lordships to understand that they slid not wish the people generally to exercise the right of' electing the minister; they limited that right to those who were in full communion with the Church in the different parishes. Nay, they wished to confine the right, not merely to communicants, but to such communicants only as were the heads of families. That seemed to him to be an arbitrary limitation. He could not conceive on what grounds those who were communicants, but not heads of tionilies, should be deprived of their rights. The manner of dispensing the holy sacrament was different in Scot- land from what it was in England; the people in Scotland were not allowed to go up to the communion-table indiscriminately ; only those were admitted who were considered qualified to partake of the holy rite, and that after examina- tion by the ministers and elders. Therefore, to a considerable extent, that gave a certain guarantee of the character, of the feeling, and the diepositiou of the persons called upon to exercise the privilege of rejection.

He warned Lord Melbourne, that in dealing with this subject, more was to be feared from precipitation than delay. It was a question of immense difficulty : no Government ever had to legislate upon one more delicate and difficult. It required the most serious deliberation, and above all, honesty of purpose. He was not sure that the measure Lord Melbourne intended to propose would be a wise one, but he did

hope and believe it would be an honest one. '

MISCELLANEOUS.

LUDLOW ELECTION. It was agreed on Monday, that the order for the attendance of the Committee to try the petition against the return of Mr. Alcoek for Ludlow, should be discharged, in consequence of an irregularity in serving the notices. [It appeared that, through the negligence of a messenger of the House, Mr. Coppoek, agent for the parties defending Mr. Alcock's return, was served with the notices di- rected to the petitioners' agent ; and that, under Sir Robert Peel's new Controverted Election Act, no power is given to the General Commit- tee to rectify the error. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the interven- tion of an act of Parliament was necessary to do justice to the parties interested in the Ludlow petition.] INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL. On the motion of MT. LABOUCHERE, this bill was referred to a Select Committee.

NEW WRITS were ordered, on Wednesday, for Lewes, in the room of Sir Charles Blunt, deceased ; and for Helstone, in the room of Lord Cantelupe, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

HORSE-RACING. The Duke of RICH3IOND obtained leave from the louse of Lords, on Tuesday, to bring in a bill to repeal an act passed in 1740 to prevent any person front running more than one horse in a race, or in any name but his Own. The act was hardly known, indeed, until some very clever solicitor lately ferreted it out, and served notice of action upon six gentlemen under its pro- visions. Now, according to that law, the Member for a Borough or Comity, Subscribing 10/. or 20/. to the races held there, was liable to a penalty, or any number of gentlemen entering for a sweepstakes. Ilia late Majesty, who kept race-horses for the purpose of encouraging au amusement which all could en- joy, and of maintaining the breed of horses, frequently ran three horses in one race, and that in the name of the Master of the Horse. His 5Iajesty, be doing so, was liable, under this act, to tine of the penalties and the iiirkiture of the horses, and the Earl of Albemarle to another penalty. The act had clearly fallen into desuetude ; and therefore he called on their Lordships to reel itle it, since it would only be made use of to extort money front persons who were Perfectly ignorant of its existence.

•