Debates antt lEiroteetringsin Iparliantent.

ABSENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN ABROAD.

In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord CAMPBELL drew attention to a question of great constitutional importance, connected with the Queen's visit to Germany. He made some preliminary remarks on the political benefits certain to accrue from interchanges of visits between monarchs— If his Majesty King George the Third, who, during his long life and reign, he believed, never was more than one hundred miles from the place of his birth, had visited the flourishing provinces on the banks of the Rhine, which her Majesty was about to visit, he would have seen how harmoniously and happily men of dif- ferent religions lived together, with equal rights, under the same Government; and it was possible that such a spectacle might have rendered him less adverse to the emancipation of his own Roman Catholic subjects. During the absence of the Sovereign, however, in former reigns, either a Regency or Lords-Justices were appointed to exercise the Royal authority: William the Third went abroad yearly, and he always appointed Queen Mary to act as Regent, or, after her death, Lords-Justices; in 1716, George the First appointed the Prince of Wales his" Lieutenant"—in 1719 he ap- pointed thirteen Lords-Justices, and it was so throughout his reign; George the Second appointed Queen Caroline his Regent, or, after her death, Lords- Justices; and on visiting Hanover, in 1821, George the Fourth appointed nineteen" Guardians and Justices." It is true that since those times rail- roads have been introduced; but railroads cannot alter the constitution; and, a friend to the limited monarchy, Lord Campbell did not like the idea of Van Royal authority* being placed in abeyanee. He asked whether it was

not the intention, during the absence of her Majesty, to appoint Lords-Jus, tices to exercise the Royal authority in Great Britain and Ireland?

The LORD CTIANCELLOR said, that his noble and learned friend had given him notice of his question, but had not given him notice of his in- tention to inquire how far a tour up the Rhine would have modified the religious prejudices of his late Majesty George the Third; an inquiry into which he must decline to enter. Before the Queen's visit to France, the Law Officers of the Crown, Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir Williein Fullest, were consulted; and they, after considering the subject with great delibe- ration, were clearly of opinion that it was by no means necessary, in point of law, that such an appointment should take place. In that opinion he concurred. The present Law-Officers of the Crown also concurred. The question therefore resolved itself into one of expediency. There is now the greatest facility of communication with the most distant part to which her Majesty proposed to extend her visit; she would be accompanied by one of her Secretaries of State, [to give official advice] ; and could herself return in the space of two days. The former precedents did not apply to the present case. Although always stated to be " for a short tine," the Sove- reign's stay abroad always lasted for rather a long time, often while carrying on civil or military operations—George the Fourth's visit extended to seven or eight weeks; and even within Lord Lyndhurst's own recollection, Ha- nover could not be reached in less than eight or ten days. The person§ appointed to exercise the Royal authority always did so under stringent instructious, with a necessity for personal reference to the Sovereign on all occasions of importance. Considering, therefore, all these circumstances, it had not been thought necessary to advise her Majesty to go through the form of appointing a cumbrous Commission for really no practical purpose,

Lord CA.MPBELL thought that a dangerous innovation had been made CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT IN TIM CASE OF MR. WRAX.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. Hawes called attention to the report on the petition of the South-eastern Railway Company, and the consequent proceedings of Government in the case of Mr. Wray. He disclaimed any personal feeling or ill-will towards that gentleman— Mr. Wray was a public officer, holding an office of considerable trust and responsibility. Large sums of public money were constantly coming into his hands, and this money he had the disbursement of; and holding that office, Mr. Wray, in 1836, allowed himself to become the retained and paid agent of a private company, to promote the success of a bill brought into Parliament on their behalf and for their-benefit Mr. Wray in his evidence stated that his engagement with this company was strictly professional. His duties, however, consisted in canvass- ing Members of Parliament, in and out of Parliament; and they found him can- vassing a Member of Parliament who, as a Member of the Secret Committee on the bill, having voted in that Committee, obtained 3001. for his services in assisting in passing that measure. Such could not be called professional services and nia member of the profession believed them to be such. lie understood, indeed, that the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government had given to Mr.. Wray a general permission to exercise his profession while he held the office of Receiver-General. The privilege, however, had been abused. In con- sequence of the recent report, Sir James Graham wrote a letter to Mr. Wray; but the principal part of the offence, the passing of a bribe to a Member of Par., liament, he did not so much as mention. Mr. Hawes stated precedents to show that the House could not consent to Inas over the matter in that slight mailmen In 1695, some serious abuses implicating persons in high station, were brought before Parliament; and the 'House passed a resolution "That the offer of say money, or any other advantage, to any Member of Parliament, as a fee or reward for him to prosecute the furtherance of any matter depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the English constitution." After this resolution was passed, a Mr. Bird was con- victed of the offence and ordered to be reprimanded on his knees. Among the resolutions passed at time of the South Sea bubble, was the following—" That the taking in or holding of stock by the South Sea Company, for the benefit of any Member of either House of Parliament, or person concerned in the Adminis- tration, * • • and the Company's paying or allowing such person the dif- ference arising by the advanced price of the stocks, were corrupt, infamous, and dangerous practices, and highly reflecting on the honour and justice of Parlia- ments, and destructive of the interests of his Majesty's Government." Mr. Hawes. concluded with a resolution setting forth the facts of Mr. Wray's case, and de- claring, "That, in the opinion of this House, such conduct deserves not only the serious animadversion of the House, but disqualifies Mr. Wrayfrom holding an office of trust and responsibility under the Crown." Sir JAMES GRAHAM defended his own share in the matter. He did not palliate the conduct of Mr. Wray, which was highly culpable; but he had. endeavoured to do substantial justice in the case. He had no persona knowledge of Mr. Wray; it so happened that during hie present occume-: tion of office he had never been brought into personal contact with him; he had received no solicitation in his favour from any colleague or friend. of Mr. Wray's. He alone therefore was responsible for the letter; and were- the circumstances again to occur, lie should act in the same way. The. word " bribe " was wrongly used; for it was shown that Mr. Bonham had. acted without promise or contemplation of reward. On the other hand, it was shown that Mr. Wray did not touch a farthing of the money, and Sir James had heard, that if Mr. Ellgood had been examined by the Commit-. tee, it would have been proved that the money did not pass at all through Mr. Wray's hands, but that Mr. Ellgood, also a creditor of Mr. Bonham, had obtained part of it for himself: Sir James had already said that Mr. Wray was unknown to him: on the other hand, Mr. Bonham was inti- mately and well known to him; he was still proud to call him his friend.. He had committed a grave error—he acknowledged that he had committed a grave error—he did not seek to conceal its extent—he would not defend: it; but still he said Mr. Bonham was his friend. It was his wish to give, full effect to the report of the Committee.

With respect to his letter, he would not defend the critical nicety of the language: but he did use the expression that he "strongly disapproved" of the course Mr. Wray had pursued: and in using that expression he meant it to include all the circumstances of the case. The language of the Committee was nicely balanced,: curately discriminating the different degrees of culpabilfty attaching to each.- With respect to Mr. Hignett, they stated distinctly that hie tonduct was corrupt.,, and that he was unworthy of being employed by the Government; and the con- sequence was that Mr. llignett had at once been dismissed with disgrace by the:: Board of Ordnance. With respect to Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero, they mark expressions less strong, stating that they were not so culpable as Mr. khgnekt but stating at the same time, that the transactions in wluckthel wets were inconsistent with the impartiality on public questions that ought to eta.-1 served by members attached to the Government; and in minaccpaesiee af that re- port, the two gentlemen tendered the resignation of their offices, whie4 liad bees. without hesitation accepted. Then came the expressions used, with regard to Mr.: Wray. The Committee said they could not abstain from eiwressing.their opinion that the conduct of Mr. Wray was deserving of serious suuniadvenebn. its ha& made inquiry of a member of the Committeeouni he was toldthitthedroughrof thr' report, which was framed by the honourable Chairman, did not stop with the words that Mr. Wray' s conduct deserved serious animadversion, but it was there added that the attention of the Secretary of State should be especially called to the transaction. He was assured that these words, after discussion, were deliberately withdrawn; and to have gone beyond the expre.ssion of strong disapprobation would have been to exceed the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr. Hawse explained, that the words mentioned by Sir James Graham had been omitted because the Committee thought it their duty simply to report the transaction.

Mr. Saari. energetically condemned Sir James Graham for making in- quiries of Lord Ashley, instead of the Chairman of the Committee; con- trasted the mild language of the letter with the stronger language of the re- port; and maintained that to canvass Members of Parliament is not so bad as to solicit the members of a Committee on a private bill, whose position La of a fiduciary and judicial kind. Mr. WILSON FATTEN, as a member of the Committee, considered that Sir James Graham had put a right construction upon the report. He Moved "the previous question."

Lord JOHN RuSSELL contended, that it was not the province of the Committee to apportion the punishment, but simply to report on the offence; leaving the House to pronounce judgment. Such was the course in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, a Judge accused of corruption. He blamed the Minister for awarding an insufficient punishment-

" The right honourable gentleman has altogether passed over the chief offence of Mr. Wray, namely, that of offering a sum of 3001. to a Member of this House for his vote and influence in favour of a certain railway; and he has only taken him to task for the minor offence of acting incompatibly with the duties of his situa- tion as Receiver-General of Police. Mr. Bonham was paid for his services as an active Member of Parliament But be the case as it may, of this you may rest assured, that there is no hand-loom weaver, no colder, no agricultural labourer, who should receive money for his vote under such circumstances as these, that would not be convicted of bribery and corruption in a court of justice, and pu- nielied with serious imprisonment for the offence. If that be the case of a man tempted by his poverty to receive a sum of 51. or 6/. for his vote after an election, I say it is not justice nor right to permit a man to give 300/. to a Member of Parliament, and only administer to him a gentle rebuke, not for the act of bribery, but for neglecting, forsooth, the proper duties of his office." Sir James Graham had not always been to blame for his leniency: Lord John could never forget— because it compromised the hospitality of the country—that Sir James had per- sisted in charging foreigners with suborning assassination. [Alluding to the case of Mr. Mazzim.]

Sir ROBERT PEEL reiterated many of Sir James's arguments. In show- ing that Ministers had not been actuated by their personal predilections, he fetid a strong tribute to the worth of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero-

" I do not hesitate to say, that having in the course of my public life had oc- casion to perform many painful acts, I never yet performed one more painful to my private feelings than that of advising her Majesty to accept the resignation of those gentlemen. I bad been closely connected with Mr. Bonham by the ties of private friendship; and now that he is for ever removed from public life, I do not hesitate to say that my friendship for him remains the same and unabated. And although I had not been connected by the same ties with Captain Boldero, the pain I felt in advising the acceptance of his resignation on the part of the Sovereign was not less deep": and he bore testimony to the general fidelity, inte- grity, and assiduity of the Captain's conduct in office. The motion Was supported by Lord EBRINGTON, Sir Joust EASTHOPE, -Mr. MITCHELL, (who begged to be understood to imply no censure on Government,) and Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT; opposed by Mr. Hulas, Mr. WARD, Colonel PEEL, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS. Sir Robert having sug- gested that the motion should be met by a direct negative, Sir JAMES GRAHAM expressed a wish that Mr. Patten should adhere to his motion: be should have great difficulty in meeting with a negative the proposition that Mr. Wray' s conduct was deserving of censure.

On a division, "the previous question" was carried by 81 to 18.

RAILWAY ABUSES.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the Chairman of the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway Company, alleging a discovery that names had been subscribed to the contract- deed of the London and York Company, purporting to stand for half-a.. millionsterling, but representing persons whose abodes were wrongly given, or who were dead; also that the petitioner was still pursuing his inquiries and that he had no doubt, if a committee of inquiry were appointed, dud he should be able to prove more frauds and forgeries than those set forth. Mr. Hawes moved that the petition be printed, in order to found a motion upon it next day.

Mr. Bscirsrr DENISON had observed a name in the petition repre- sented as that of a party who was incompetent to meet the amount set down against it; whereas he knew the person to be a most respectable solicitor, competent to pay six times the amount subscribed for. The name was that of Mr. Michael Thomas Baxter. He believed that the petition had been got up for the purpose of stopping the progress of the bill.

Mr. Hawse insisted that the petition emanated from the most respect- able parties; and he added some particulars. It included the names of persons representing 658,0001. in the Company who were quite unknown; 200,0001. was represented by fictitious subscribers; and 145,000/. by parties wholly irresponsible: one person, represented to live in Finsbury Square, and set down for 130,0001., was not to be found; another, who stood for 50,0001., was receiving alms at the Charterhouse.

A short discussion arose; in the course of which, Mr. ROEBUCK reminded the House that they had been indebted to a noble and learned Lord in the other House for the discovery that 5,000,0001. or 6,000,000/. had been sub- scribed in one railway scheme by persons who were paupers; and he main- tained that the same measure of justice which had been applied to the West of Ireland ought to be applied to the North of England: "What is Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." The motion for printing the petition was affirmed. A new discussion then took place on the third reading of the London and York Railway Bill; which Mr. ROEBUCK moved to postpone for three months. Mr. WILEION PATTEN complained of this attempt, at the eleventh hour, after an outlay of 100,0001. in the expenses of the bill, to stop its progress. Even supposing that there were frauds in the contract-deed to the etxent of 600,0001., there would still be ample capital to carry out the project.

Mr. AGLIONEy said, it was an error to suppose that the Standing Orders gave to the public that complete protection which was spoken of. In some cases, when there were competing lines, the companies met together, and agreed before going into the Standing Orders Committee not to raise asertain points in the Committee; a controversy or dispute concerning which

might be fatal to all the lines. The frauds which had been effected during the present session of Parliament had been both numerous and flagrant, and he wished that he could clearly see his way as to the mode of detect- ing them. Mr. BsonErr Dnxisost said, that in the present instance, the compro- mise was the result of a suggestion emanating from a member of the Rail- way Department of the Board of Trade, and was agreed to by the London and York line on the understanding that the competing lines would also adhere to it. That compromise had since been religiously kept by the London and York Company; and he did not think that it was altogether decent in the chairman of a competing line to sign such a petition after the agreement which had been entered into.

Eventually, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

There was a fresh and very desultory discussion on Tuesday, when Mr. Bscitsrx DENISON presented a petition from the Directors of the London and York Railway, denying the imputation in the petition presented by Mr. Hawes, and praying for leave to take legal proceedings against Mr. C. Bruce, the Chairman of the Cambridge and Lincoln Railway. Mr. HAWES challenged inquiry; and the petition was ordered to be printed with the Votes.

Mr. HAWES then moved, that the petition which he had presented be referred to a Select Committee; which was nominated as follows—Mr. Hawes, Mr. Beckett Denison, Mr. Bingham Baring, Mr. Thomas Buncombe, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Bickham Escott, Mr. Astell, Lord Clive, and Mr. Plumptre; the Committee having leave to sit on Wednesday and Thursday, in spite of the adjournment of the House.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Marquis of Cr.aissicanns pre- sented two petitions against the London and York Railway Bill, from Mr. George Pryme, late M.P. for Cambridge, and proprietor of land in Huntingdon through which the line would pass: one petition complained that the estimate had been raised from five to six millions and a half ster- ling; the other set forth further allegations against the contract-deed-

Of a number of persons who in it represented upwards of half-a-million sterling, some were dead, others not to be found, and the rest paupers, or very little better. There was a Jahn Theobald, whose name stood opposite to a large sum, which John Theobald was nowhere to be found; and there was a Mr. Shackell, whose name figured in the Dublin and Galway discussions, who was down here for 5,0001., and who was equally invisible. Another party, a half-pay officer with 54/. per annum, was down for a large sum in this as m other pro- jects. Then there was a Mr. Davis, a clerk in the Australian Trust office, who was a subscriber for 12,000/. worth of shares in this London and York line; while a fellow-clerk of his, flying still higher, had signed for 52,0001. Another name in the contract-deed was John Guernsey, a subscriber for 12,5001. worth of shares. Who was John Guernsey, did their Lordships suppose? The son of a char- woman, and himself a clerk to a stockbroker, at 16s. or 18s. a week. Next came his brother, Charles Guernsey, who lived with John in a garret in Angel Cour4 and who, being a clerk at 12s. a week, had his name down a subscriber for 52,000. worth of shares in the immaculate London and York. The latter proprietor, in deed, when applied to, stated that he had never applied for shares, but that * stockbroker had taken him to the Company's office, put him forward to sign the contract-deed, and then, taking the scrip into his own possession, dismissed him. without giving him a single sixpence for histrouble.

The Marquis moved that the petition be referred to a Select Committee.

Lord MONTEAGLE presented a counter petition, from parties denying that their names were false, or that they were not bond fide subscribers. After some short debating, the motion was affirmed.

On Monday, Viscount PALMERSTON communicated a statement made to him by the Directors of the South-eastern Railway Company— The late accident that occurred was in consequence of the engine having bean too weak to perform the work required. They informed him that there was a mistake in the calculations that had been made, and that those who were then Directors were not so at present. In October last, when they found that their engines were too weak, they gave immediate orders for a fresh supply. Ile assured them he would make this statement, but that be should say at the same time, that he thought their explanation no justification whatever of the course the Company had pursued. For, when they found that their engines were too weak, they ought to have proportioned the weight of the train to the capacity of the engine; and instead of employing two engines to draw a heavy train, they should have put a stronger engine to draw a lighter train. As to putting an engine behind their train, they assured him that that was only done on one part of the road where there was a considerable incline; and that the trains in that case never went faster than twelve or fifteen miles an hour. Not being an e gi- neer, he could not, of course, pretend to give an opinion of any value; but it appeared to him that that pace was too great for safety. If they or others were to put on two engines, those engines ought to be in front: and if an engine were used behind, the pace should not exceed four miles an hour.

On Tuesday, Viscount PALMERSTON said, that he had received a letter from a friend, stating that it is a practice on the London and Birmingham Railway to place a second engine at the back of the train. His friend had gone in that way from Weedon station to Birmingham, by the fast train, probably at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour; and when he remon- strated at Birmingham, he was told that they were in the constant habit of doing it. Has the Board of Trade power to prevent these proceedings? If not, a bill to give security to her Majesty's subjects, by conferring the power, might be passed before the close of the session. After a jocular remark from Mr. Goma:1mm, Sir GEORGE CLERK replied, that the Board of Trade had no power beyond that of remonstrating. He heard Lord Palmerston's statement with surprise— In answer to the questions addressed to them in 1841, the directors of the Lon- don and Birmingham Railway said particularly, that they never had recourse to such a practice. If it were found that this practice prevailed, it would be neces- sary to apply to Parliament next session for additional powers. At present, from the difference of opinion that prevailed as to giving additional powers to the Board of Trade, he thought that the subject—that of proposing a new bill—was one which would require a more full discussion than could be given to it at the present period of the session.

On Wednesday, Mr. WADDINGTON called for an explanation respecting the frightful accident on the Eastern Counties Railway. Mr. WARD nar rated the accident; which he ascribed to a cause that no human prudence could have averted. One of the wedges had started, had turned up the rail, and had thus diverted the train from its course.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN BRAELL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. MILNER Grimm drew attention to the state of British interests in Brazil— The privileges enjoyed by British subjects in the Brazils, in reference to the dis- posal of their property by will, expired in 1844, and have not been restored to them. e represented many persons of large yroperty, whose partners reside in the Bra-. rib: on the death a a partner, their goods would be taken possession of and administered to by the Brazilian authorities; and large fees, amounting almost to the confiscation of the property, would be exacted. These are inconveniences to avhich the subjects of no other power were subjected in that country. Be wished to know from the head of her Majesty's Government, whether or not the Brazilian Government had imposed twenty or thirty per cent additional duty on British manufactures? Intelligence had arrived by the last mail that the Brazilian Government had imposed a discriminating duty to that amount on English manu- factures above that imposed on the produce of all other countries; and that this additional rate would be charged so long as England proscribed Brazilian sugar. It had been alleged that the deficiency of labour in the West Indian Colonies was a ground for maintaining the West Indian monopoly; but he would ask, what steps had been taken to bring about the immigration of labourers into those colo- nies? Had anything been done towards raising a loan secured upon the revenues of certain West India Colonies, as mentioned in Lord Stanley's despatches? Mr. 110rE replied, that loan ordinances had been passed in two or three of the Colonies; but others had themselves provided means for the immi- gration of labourers, without having recourse to such measures. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that negotiations had been going on to renew the treaty that expired in 1844 giving to British subjects the same privi- leges as those possessed by the subjects of other countries. The Brazilian Plenipotentiary, however, was dilatory; and some further delay was oc- casioned by the removal of Senhor Francia, the Secretary of State, from Office. The British Minister at the Court of Brazil has made no allusion in his despatches to the imposition of additional duties on British produce.

REVIEW OF VIE SESSION.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord Joust RUSSELL made the following motion for papers, on purpose to introduce a retrospect of the session— "That there be laid before this House a list of the public bills which have been introduced into this House during the present session, or which have been brought from the Lords, and the date of their several stages in this House; and distinguishing those which have since become law.

"Also a return of the quantity of wheat in bond on the 1st day of July in every year since 1838."

Lord John began his review by declaring that he did not mean to imitate the practice of Lord Lyndhurst during the late Administration, by com- paring the promises of the Queen's Speech with the performances of the session, in order to prove the incompetency of Ministers by the delay and failure of measures; though if he desired to do so, there would be ample materials. The Physic and Surgery Bill alone would form the subject for lengthened commentary of that kind. The present Ministers do not listen to suggestions in the House; but they do alter their measures on the suggestions of particular classes in the community; and thus the Physic and Surgery Bill was altered, first at the instance of the Council of the College of Surgeons, then on the objections of physicians and surgeons; and, though put into many different shapes, each one was un- satisfactory to some large class of the profession. But a far greater question than the incompetency of Ministers was, the effect of the session on the great interests of the country.

The Queen's Speech began by alluding to foreign policy. Lord John congratulated the House, that now, instead of the threatened rupture with France, our relations are so close and unbroken. Alluding to the Oregon question still pending with the United States, he declared that he adhered to his opinion as to the justice of our claim; and while he regretted the loss of Mr. Everett, he hoped from the appointment of Mr. Inane that the negotiations would be brought to a successful issue.

He then adverted to the domestic concerns of the country; beginning with the anxious subject of Ireland. He rejoiced that gentlemen opposite had abandoned the opinions which they held some years ago ; that even the language held by one of the principal Ministers of the Crown [Sir James Graham] since he came into office had been retracted. Not only did those opposed to the late Government resist them on the Appropriation- clause, but they denied to the Irish the rights which the English and Scotch had obtained with respect to Municipal Corporations. That policy is now abandoned. It is admitted that in Parliamentary franchise and Municipal Corporations Ireland ought to have equal rights with England and Scotland. That, so far as principle is concerned, is great progress. But how far have their acts been consonant with their professions? With regard to Municipal Corporations, what bill have they introduced? The number of electors in the Irish counties is actually diminishing: the attention of Parliament has not been called to that grievance. On another subject they proposed to legislate—the relation of landlord and tenant. They appointed a Commission which raised great hopes: the mere issuing of the Commission was calculated to excite considerable animosity on the part of the tenants against the landlords, and the actual effect must have been greater than that of Mr. Drummond's celebrated declaration that "property has its duties as well as its rights"; but those evils might have been remedied if Government had possessed a clear perception of the remedy to be introduced on the information as to details obtained from the commission: the only result, however, was that extraordinary measure for interposing a Government Commissioner between landlord and tenant with regard to transactions for the improvement of the land. He supposed that the universal outcry made by Irishmen of all classes and politics had caused the abandonment of that measure. The endowment for May nooth College he thought a good plan; though he agreed with the author of Past and Present Policy of England towards Ireland, in thinking the sum so trifling as to be hardly worth acceptance. He also thought with that writer, that the measure must lead to the endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. He was very sorry to hear that the Premier's object in it was, very much, to break up the confederacy of the Repeal Association: so that, after all, the measure was not founded on justice, or adopted with the view of affording an improved education to the Roman Catholic priests, but was yielded to the clamour of the Repeal Association, through means of the multitudes which it collected. The bill created a great excitement in England among those who are opposed to all ecclesiastical endowments, and who maintain that all religious instruction should be given on the voluntary principle. On that principle Ministers introduced their next measure, for the establishment of Colleges. But these measures are late and imperfect; and a great lesson is to be learned from the way in which the party now in power have treated the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland— In 1813, Mr. Grattan said, more than once that if the Roman Catholic claims Were conceded, he had sufficient authority from the Prelates to state that no Roman Catholic Bishop would be appointed to whom the Crown objected. That would have been a great concession to the Crown of this country ; and it would have enabled the Crown to refuse to sanction the nomination of any Prelate likely to use his religious authority for political or seditious agitation. That offer was rejected, as the Roman Catholic claims were refused. In 1825, another proposition was made by Lord Francis Egerton, that provision should be made by law for the Roman Catholic clergy. The resolution was agreed to by the House of Corn.. aims ; but the Government of the day refused to concede the Roman Catholic claims, and the proposition fell to the ground. If Emancipation had been carried in 1825, they would have had in the endowment, the great security that the priests would no longer depend on voluntary support. It was at last granted as an alter native of civil war—not founded on justice and munificence, Inn chosen as the lesser of two great evils. In 1836, the King, by the advice of his Ministers, proposed that Parliament should agree to a reform of Municipal Corporations in Ireland founded on the same principles with the measures adopted as to England and Scotland. At that time Mr. O'Connell stated in Parliament, that " he had met congregated thousands in Ireland, and asked them would the' give up Repeal if he could get justice? He was met by an unanimous shout, Get us justice from England, and never think of Repeal more.'" Had they then granted the desired equality, would they not have opposed a bar to the further progress of Repeal? Having complied with Mr. O'Connell's own conditions, could he have fairly raised in Ire- land that cry which has gone through millions, seeking Repeal of the 'Union and a separate Legislature? The House of Lords, however, refused that measure of civic equality. " Well then, Sir, I ask, having refused measures for the settlement of the ecclesiastical question in 1825, and Parliament having in 1836 refused civil equality, do we find now, when Ministers arc willing to propose, so far as political rights are concerned, perfect equality, the same answer as to a readiness to give up Repeal ? Do we hear it said, Give us equal privileges, and Repeal is at an end ?' Not a word of the kind. They tell us that no measures you can propose will have the effect of inducing them to give up the demand for Repeal. Without imputing to those opposite any other motives for their conduct in 1836, I must say it was most shortsighted and totally wanting in wisdom; and that if the con- ciliation of Ireland is not effected, the delay is owing to those who so long persisted in refusing a remedy for her evils."

In ecclesiastical matters, the author already quoted, and the Reverend Baptist Noel, the writer of the most distinguished pamphlet against May- nooth, both say that it is unjust to refuse absolute equality to Ireland; but while one would do it by endowing the Roman Catholic Church, the other would do it by abolishing the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. Depend upon it, that every Government, however constituted, will be forced to adopt one or other branch of the alternative. For these reasons, he said that the measures of Ministers were late and imperfect; and that in submitting the one of an excellent description and the other of a doubtful character, Minis- ters ought to have been prepared with ulterior measures. Until the great question be settled, the mind of Ireland will continue to be agitated. As it is, no party is satisfied. Formerly, great numbers of Protestants de- dared their dissatisfaction with the Governments of Lord Normanby and Lord Fortescue: now, while Mr. O'Connell presides over assemblages, we are threatened with immense Protestant meetings to declare their discontent. It will not do to allow this state of things to continue. It is not only disgraceful to Ministers as a Government—it puts in peril the whole United Kingdom.

Among other things, the Queen's Speech recommended legislation to pro- mote the health and comfort of the poorer classes: on that important sub- ject legislation has not been carried into effect; and indeed hardly a single stage of any measure has been moved.

With regard to the financial measures proposed in the Queen's Speech, there had been much to gratify, much to disappoint. He did not originally think the Income-tax necessary ; but if adopted, he thought that it ought to be accompanied by measures to relieve the working-classes from the taxes which press most heavily upon them. On that subject Ministers had exceeded expectation. But Lord John took exception to three points,—their treatment of the Timber-duties, imposing 21s. on Foreign, Is. on Colonial; their unfortunate adherence to a moral tariff of Sugar- duties, prohibiting the produce of certain nations, entailing a rejection of the commercial terms offered by Spain, with farfetched and finespun argu- ments about the treaty of Utrecht, not applicable to the substantial merits of the case, and entailing the present position of Brazil, who threatens a new hostile tariff; and their new Corn-law, which has unsettled the " pro- tection " of the farmers, and yet leaves the country exposed to all the consequences of an exclusive corn-law. Their doctrine of protection grows "fine by degrees and beautifully less." Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham have boasted that under the present Corn-law bread has been cheap, and yet wages have not diminished, while crime has decreased. These admissions, inconsistent with the arguments for maintaining the present law, greatly weaken its chance of being maintained. On the other hand, can anybody have heard of what has been passing within the last ten days without feeling the misery of an uncertain corn-law—without wishing that the labouring-classes should be provided with food from all quarters whence it could be obtained? Lord John said a few words in favour of a small fixed duty, which he believed would chiefly act in dimi- nishing the price at which the foreign merchant would sell his corn; and it would at all events promote an uniformity of system; whereas the pre- sent law aggravates every uncertainty, and doubles the gambling in this necessary article for the subsistence of human life-

" Is it wise in a Ministry who profess free trade—is it wise in a Prime Minister who makes it his boast that he has done more for free trade than any other Mi- nister for a long period of years—to rest upon a law which he must own to be 80 defective, not only with regard to all the principles of political economy, but with regard also to all the principles upon which commercial transactions are usually based? And then, to add to this uncertainty, we have gentlemen avowing that they do not think the law will be permanent. Only the other day, we had a gentleman who has always been a constant supporter not only of the present Mi- nistry but especially of their policy with regard to the Corn-law and the sliding scale—we had that gentleman, I say, avowing publicly that he did not think that law would last, and that two years would probably see the end of it. Well, L11,11, I say, if it is to be abandoned, do not leave us in this miserable uncertainty. Begin the next session early, and begin it with the reconsideration of the Corn.. laws." He believed that the farmers themselves would rather see any evils which might fall upon the country in consequence of the sudden adoption of the mea- sure proposed by Mr. Villiers, than be kept in this continual uncertainty. "At this very moment, with respect to corn, the stock of supply in this country is un- usually small. It is unusually small in consequence of your own law: and let it not be forgotten, when gentlemen refer, as I have sometimes seen them do with great satisfaction, to the failure of speculations in the foreign con trade, that the consequences of the failure of those speculations are very often injurious not only to those immediately engaged in them, but to the whole country, manufacturing, commercial, and agricultural; that the indisposition to get together a supply, to make a store of corn on which this country can rely in case of a sudden failure in the harvest, is a national misfortune; that therefore everything which tends to make this trade gambling and uncertain is a loss to the agricultural interest as well as to all others; and that no law based upon such principles can be for the permanent advantage of the country." When in office, two subjects had caused Lord John great anxiety,—Ire- land, and Education; to the second of which he now addressed himself.

Be referred to the reports of the Prison Inspectors, who describe large por- tions of the humbler classes to whom in early youth not the simplest rudi- ments of religious instruction are imparted; to some even the names of Al- mighty God and Jesus Christ are unknown. In the Western counties, farmers' boys are not sent to school on the Sunday, nor taught to read the Bible, but are employed cleaning horses in the stable. The late Govern- ment thought that they could not proceed more gradually than by esta- blishing the Education Committee of Privy Council: but Sir Robert Peel objected to the plan, on three distinct gronnds,—that the Committee ought not to be established by a single vote of the House; that such a Board ought not to consist exclusively of Ministers; and that there ought not to he an entire exclusion of Ecclesiastical authorities. But Ministers have now thought better of it- " These objections, like many others, have been got over by the right honour- able gentleman and his colleagues. They have appointed a Committee of the Privy Council on Education, which consists of her Majesty's Ministers holding suffice during the pleasure of the Crown; and no Ecclesiastical authorities, none of the Prelates of the country, are members of that Committee. I am glad, like- 'wise, to see that the right honourable gentlemen has lately said that the grant which has been increased this year will be still further increased in the next, and lhat the Board will have greater power of interference and greater authority than they now possess." He did not want confidence in Sir Robert Peel or the Lord :President; but much still remains to be done—especially by giving funds in aid of voluntary contributions, and by giving gratuities to deservmg school- masters.

In taking leave of these special topics, Lord John requested Govern- sment, asking the House, as they did, implicitly to follow their dictates, at .least not to begin another session without asserting some firm principles on which they meant to stand; not one day refuting objections of Roman Ca- tholics, who any that teachers of anatomy may corrupt the faith of their :pupils, and next day arguing for tests, not only as to the Christian religion, Int as to differences between one set of Presbyterian opinions and another. - "As the Ministers require so much, as the votes of the House must be in entire -accordance with their opinions, is it too much to ask, before the session begins, -that they will, in December or January, settle among themselves at their Cabinet ;meetings what are to be the principles for the session—whether they are to be the principles of the Established Church, or the Voluntary principle; whether educa- tion without testa, or education with a very strict one? Unless they do this, however sure they may be of their majority, they can hardly expect the people of this country to view with respect the decisions of their Representatives. The people of this country, whatever their occupations may be—one engaged in mer- cantile pursuits, another in farming, another in some profession, and seeming to have their whole time occupied—have a certain set of opinions they entertain, and which they are sorry to see departed from. Every man in the country is shocked when he sees an entire indifference as to the principles to be adopted. Even if be -differs in principles from the majority of this House, still if he sees they are en- tertained conscientiously he bows with respect to its decision. But if they are -continually changing and wavering—if he finds they have no one sure principle- -then he feels no 11' but contempt and dislike for the House, that is thus led to -take one course and then another. I therefore put in my prayer, as the conclu- sion of this session and the preparation for the next, that her Majesty's Ministers may have some principle or other which may be understood as the principle of .the Government. I think, though I am asking what would certainly be con - venient for the minority who are in opposition, it would be no less to the advan- -tage of the majority; because, on the present system, their position must some- times be exceedingly puzzling. Thus, if any gentleman had been asked during the discussion of the Irish Academical Education question, Are you a supporter .of the Government?' he would say, 'Yes; Jam against religious tests: I think the Roman Catholic Bishops a bigoted set of men for requiring a religious quali fieation before they admit a person to discharge the duties of an instructor, and I support the Government against them.' But the next week, the friend or con- stituent would be surprised at seeing the honourable gentleman's name in a ma- jority supporting exactly the opposite principle: whereas the Ministerial sup- porter might be able to answer his constituent or friend, and to tell him the na- ' tare of the measures he would support for the next session, if the principle on which they were founded were known."

Before sitting down, he alluded to a report that the Queen intended to visit Germany, and to be absent for three or four weeks, without appoint- ing a Council of Regency. In such cases formerly, a Council has always -been appointed: when George the Fourth held the crown of Hanover and 'visited that country, Lords-Justices were appointed for the time of his ab- sence. He could not help also making one more reference to the situation of Ireland-

" No doubt, her Majesty, having twice visited Scotland, would have been gra- tified by a visit to Ireland: but when an address was presented to her Majesty on the subject, the answer was advised by the Ministers of the Crown in terms of -studied ambiguity. That answer implied a doubt in the Ministers of the Crown whether her 'May would receive a welcome in that part of her dominions. It _would be most painful to think that, as William the Fourth was prevented from visiting the City of London by the advisers lie then had, her present Majesty, should be unable to visit her subjects in Ireland owing to a doubt as to her recep- . tion. I trust it is not on that account the visit to Ireland is postponed. I am sure, if the Ministers of the Crown do their duty—if they conduct the govern- ment of Ireland with a view to the welfare of the people of Ireland—there is no doubt whatever that the Sovereign of this country would receive the warmest welcome in Ireland; and, at all events, whatever they thought of the advisers of the Crown, I feel that, personally, her Majesty might expect the most affectionate reception."

He had now done. He had not imitated the spirit of Lord Lyndhurst's speeches, merely to point out delays in passing measures; speeches much easier to make when an unscrupulous Opposition obstructed all the pro- positions of the Government— "But even now, with a confiding majority in this House and a large and con- . fiding majority in the other House of Parliament, it is impossible for the Ministers - of the Crown to say they have brought all their measures to perfection. Have .they not abandoned many of them—have they not repeatedly altered others? I do not wonder at it. I do not impute this to them as blame. Some, perhaps, . they might have better considered before they introduced them; but I feel that the business of this House, combined with the duties of executive government, is Bo heavy, BO harassing, and so continual, that it is no wonder some measures is brought forward in a state in which they are not afterwards found fit to receive the sanction of the two Houses of Parliament. I run sure of this, that with regard to the attendance on this House, neither the Ministers of the Crown, nor her Majesty, nor the people at large have any reason to complain." With a tribute to the assiduity of Members, and the formal enunciation of his motion, ,.Lord John concluded.

Sir Jsmes Gusstam replied, as he had officially taken part in domestic questions with which Lord John had dealt. He could not hope to corn- 'Tete with the ability of Lord John's speech; he would not return its bit- terness. The inference of incompetence drawn from the abandonment of measures did not apply to his colleagues, but to himself, and was made in

regard to the Physic and Surgery Bill. Mr. Warburton and Mr.Hawes would testify that it is not possible to undertake a task of more desperate dif- ficulty than to legislate on that particular subject. He could not conceive that he had failed in his duty because, receiving representations from con- flicting interests, he had modified the bill; or because he had yielded priority to measures that appeared to be of more pressing urgency. Concurring hi Lord John's regret at the loss of Mr. Everett, Sir Jams was convinced that in the negotiations pending with the United States there would be every disposition to maintain relations of amity. With respect to Ireland, Lord John alluded to a hasty expression uttered. by Sir James many years ago, which he hoped that he had sufficiently ex; plained: he felt a deep responsibility in regard to that country, and if the noble Lord believed that his official conduct would be swayed by feelings or opinions exhibited in that hasty expression, he did great injustice. But the noble Lord said much from which he could not dissent: he thought with him, that the rule of government in Ireland ought to be equality cif civil privileges and impartial laws fairly administered. Lord John cen- sured Government for not having brought forward certain measures: at the close of last session Lord Monteagle strongly and ably pressed the endowment of Maynooth College ; and Mr. Wyse, in and out of season, in and out of the House, urged collegiate education in Ireland: those mea- sures Ministers have succeeded in bringing to a successful termination. They always said, that it was impossible to obtain in Ireland equality with identity of the municipal and elective franchise in England, but that equality without identity would be possible: to that opinion they adhered, and they have stated their willingness to remove doubts as to the legal interpretation of the franchise. With respect to the Landlord and Tenant Commission, the report was not presented until late in the session; the evidence was voluminous, and worthy of consideration; several measurer; were recommended, and one bill was introduced to secure certain safe- guards and restrictions in favour of the tenant: the principle was scarcely disputed. As to the inconsistency between the Maynooth College Bill and the Colleges Bill, in the general principle of which Lord John concurred, and the maintenance of religious tests in Scotland, Sir James argued that Government felt bound to uphold these tests by a national compact; and moreover, varying and conflicting circumstances justify different political decisions. He was surprised to hear Lord John allude to the Approprie- tion-clause, after having himself failed for a series of years to force it on Parliament, and then having deliberately abandoned it. Lord Jail charged Ministers with being reduced to a great alternative—

Sir James could not conceive any combination of circumstances at any fine which could make him support such a proposition as the destruction of the Pro- testant Church established m Ireland: m his opinion, it would cause such a shock to the rights of property—it would be regarded as such a violation of a solemn engagement—it would be so opposed to the sense of what was right on the part of the people—that he must ever consider it as fraught with the utmost danger, scarcely to be preferred to any measure short of actual violence. As to the other branch of the noble Lord's alternative, he would not now argue it. As to the eri- dowmeut of the Roman Catholic clergy, he confessed that to such a measure he had no personal objection; but at the same time, he saw that such a measure emanating from the Government at the present moment would be open to the greatest difficulties. This, however, he could safely say, that nothing had been done or said by him, nothing had been done or said by the Government, which - could be supposed to involve that principle. It was a subject still open to consi- deration and discussion. He was aware that it was the tendency of passing events to raise these questions. Their solution was not as easy as their (fiscal- sion. He of course could not foresee what was in the womb of time; but he cer- tainly thought it would not be wise to precipitate these important questions-by the expression of strong opinions, or the publication of hasty decisions. It was said that the policy of Ministers had satisfied no party. Aid the disturbed and angry passions of that country, impartial justice dealt with a fair and firm hand must lay them open to that charge: the suppress* of turbulence leads to discontent among the turbulent: but he again re- peated the deliberate determination of the Government steadily to pursue their own course of impartial justice, and to secure to all the people of the country a perfect equality of civil rights. In regard to Education, Sir James described the Committee of Privy Council and its plans, and the Education-clause in the Factory Act, as working well. He took credit fa the relaxation of the Tariff, and for the introduction of the bill to improlie the drainage of towns. By the alteration of the Timber-duties, a large

iii- come is obtained. The success of the alteration in the Sugar-duties is shown in the increased consumption: originally estimated at 40,000 Ions on the year, on the half-year it has been not 20,000 tons but 30,000. He now came to the topic of corn— Surely some gloom or mist must have hung over the Surrey bills when the noble Lord gave notice of his motion, to excite such sad apprehensions. Actuated by those apprehensions as to the harvest, the noble Lord discovered that the country was in a condition which excited his serious anxiety, and which he de- scribed as almost unparalleled. But the quantity of wheat and flour amounted to 150,000 quarters now in bond: in August 1839, when the noble Lord was responsible for the state of the country, there was in bond only 61,000 quarters. Well, then, there had been, in August 1839, in the coffers of -the Bank of England, 2,400,0001. in specie; and now there was no less a sum than 16,000,000/ Had the noble Lord felt any anxiety as to the condition of the coup- try in 1839? Had he then proposed any alteration of the Corn-law? Had be proposed any alteration of the Corn-law in 1840? Had he proposed it in 1841 until he found out the condition of the Government? He had proposed no alteration of the Corn-law in 1839, nor in the succeeding session. The noble Lord talked of the sliding-scale' and of protection becoming fine by degrees and beautifully less ": had they heard of no other diminution to which the description of the noble Lord was equally applicable ?—had they not beard of a protection of 88., then of a dement to 68. and to 4s.• and then so much had it become beauti- fully less that many gentlemen on that side of the House had found great diffi- culty in less, whether any protection at all was to be afforded? He not deny the difficulty arising from the increase of the population; but within the last year the home supply was greatly increased. And what were the prices to occasion this great anxiety P—Up to the present time, the average of the six weeks was but 49s. Ltd., and of the week considerably under 54.s. He did not deny that a bad harvest was a most severe infliction of Providence on any nation. But tt the present moment the stock of corn in bond was accumulating ; and considering the quantity we had, and the prospects of the country with reference to the great amount of wheat sown, he entertained sanguine hopes that there would be no great increase of price on the staple food of the community. Lord John appeared to infer from the Queen's answer-to-the Lord Mayor of Dublin that some doubt was entertained as to the reception which her Majesty would meet with in Ireland: he must either have misconceived qr forgotten the terms of that answer- Hewas quite certain that her Majesty, whenever she should pay that order' visit, would rely qua the loyalty of her Irish subjects, and that an affectionate and loyal reception would be given to her. Whatever might be the terms of the answer, such be knew was the .purport and spirit of it. For, however torn that country might be by local divisions, or however much it might be agitated by in- ternal conflict, he was satisfied that she might visit that portion of her dominions with entire confidence—that there would prevail but one universal wish to receive her and treat her with loyalty and devotion. At the close of the session he could not sit down without rejoicing that on this topic at least, whatever differences of opinion might on other matters exist, there could but be perfect unanimity. Mr. MORGAN Jolts O'Cororstd. said, that that declaration as well as the tone of Lord John's remarks would have a good effect on the public mind in Ireland; but he censured the delay of Ministers in settling the Church question and the franchise; and animadverted on the Landlord and Tenant Bill as only a monkery: he likened it in spirit to the Registration Bill introduced by the same nobleman, [Lord Stanley,] whose talents in debate nre unrivalled, but whose powers in council are in an inverse ratio. His Irish notions of rule have followed him to the Antipodes, and in the di- visions of New Zealand he has found a new Munster and a new Ulster.

Mr. Ptumerns renewed his protest against the Maynooth College Bill; a disgrace to the Statute-book. Alluding to the subject of corn, he stated with regret, that in Kent the wheat is much blighted.

Mr. MOFFATT called attention to some points in commercial ppolity.The increase of which Sir James Graham boasted in the consumption of free-labour sugar was equalled by the increase in slave-grown sugar. During the last ten years there has been a great increase in the exports to China: they can only pay us in tea and small quantities of silk; they im- pose a duty of only 10 per cent on our goods, while on theirs we lay one of 200 per cent. These were considerations to induce Government to open the markets of the world to the commerce of this country.

Mr. VILLIERS, remarking that Mr. Plumptre's information respecting the harvest in Kent would possess a far more general interest than his peculiar religious views, called on Sir James Graham to state the grounds of his case respecting the harvest. Had he been in a maze on the Surrey hills— or where had he been living—what reading? No two people meet without exchanging apprehensions on the subject. Sir James, however, seemed quite alive to the evils which flow from scarcity and dearness, and therefore to the blessings which flow from the failure of the present Corn-law to raise prices by limiting quantity. He admitted that that blessing had followed Itgood harvest: but what steps had he taken to secure a supply in case of a bad harvest? Mr. Villiers had often complained of Parliament separating at this season of the year without doing anything to put the trade of the country on a solid steady footing; but never did he think it so utterly un- reasonable to do so as in the present year. The prosperity of the country depends on a sufficient supply of fond; on that prosperity depends the con- tinuance of the great public works now in progress. Pursuing his remarks on this head, Mr. Villiers observed, that those works are always the first things to suffer from a bad harvest. In such projects the House showed their respect for the principle of competition; in everything with which the law does not interfere the public are well supplied; yet Ministers maintain the dangerous principle of "protection" solely in reference to the supply of food. Ho warned the legislators in that House of the share which they have in producing periodical returns of distress; and he extended his warn- ing to those electors in large towns who in their choice of candidates pander to the objects of the rich instead of protecting the poor.

Mr. MILNER Gassox followed in a similar strain; declaring himself equally against fixed duties on corn and sliding-scales. Mr. DARBY observed, that the League had prophesied that with the Corn- laws trade would never revive: the Corn-laws have been retained, and trade has revived. , Mr. SHEIL passed some discursive strictures on the Irish policy of Go- vernment. He condemned Government for not having consulted the Bishops on the Colleges Bill. He pointed to the elective registration, Which is growing "fine by degrees and beautifully less," and recommended the establishment of a franchise based on a forty-shilling freehold in fee. Instead of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, he would en- courne leases for terms of thirty-one years, which would give the tenant reasonable time for the enjoyment of his improvements. Some de- clarations, however, made by Sir Robert Peel might be regarded as great political events. He had declared that it was of the utmost importance to conciliate Ireland, that Ireland could not be governed by fbrce, and that in Ireland the efficacy of the trial by jury was not to be relied upon. These declarations on the part of the right honourable Baronet he regarded as equivalent to measures; because they were declarations which must be followed up. One source of the diffi- culties of the present Government is the fact that eight millions of the Irish people are excluded from the patronage of the Crown; which led Mr. Shall to contrast the appointments made by the present and by the Whig Ministers. Towards the conciliation of the Roman Catholic clergy, he suggested means that need not compromise their independence—the building of churches, purchase of glebes, erection of glebe-houses, and full

recognition of their ecclesiastical rank and station. He reminded Sir Robert Peel, that if he had difficulties, he also had peculiar advantages for each plans in the cordial concurrence of the Opposition; and he insisted that Sir Robert might do justice to Ireland without any of those sacrifices which he declared himself willing to make for the sake of peace in that distracted country.

Lord John Russell's motion for returns was affirmed without opposition.

'QUEBEC. Colonel Dawson Darner appeared at the bar of the Commons on Tuesday, and presented the following message from the Queen—" I have received with much satisfaction your address, in which you assure me you will be ready to make good a sum of money for the relief of the sufferers by the late calamitous fires at Quebec. I have given directions that a sum not exceeding 20,000/. be ap- plied to-that purpose."

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given by Commission, on Monday to twenty-five public and nineteen private bills, including twelve railway bills. Among the public measures were the Lunatics Bill, the Poor-law (Scotland) Bill, and the Waste Lands (Australia) Bill.

VALUATION OF LAND IN IRELAND. In the House of Lords, on Monday, Loss! STANLEY moved the second reading of the Valuation (Ireland) Bill; a measure intended to effect improvements in the system of valuing. Lord Moser- RA.GLE and the Earl of WICKLOW protested against urging forward so impor- tant a bill at the end of the session, and without the possibility of a proper dis- cussion on its merits. Lord STANLEY said, he felt all the inconvenience and ex- pause which would be caused by postponing the bill; but, seeing that of the four Peers present connected with Ireland two bad expressed themselves in opposition te it, and that the Marquis of Clanricarde was also likely to oppose it, he felt that he weald not be warranted in pressing farther the consideration of the Meg■ sure. It was therefore withdrawn.

A STRAY Btu- On Tuesday, Mr. GREENE moved the third reading e( the Silk-weavers Bill. Mr. Hums objected to proceeding farther with this He was not ashamed to say that he knew nothing of its contents. It had coma

down to the House from the Lords; it had through every stage to the pre- sent sub silentio; and he much doubted whether it had ever been printed. A conversation then took place; from which it appeared that a Member for Leices- tershire, whose name was not mentioned, had the charge of the bill when it came from the Lords; that he had been obliged to leave town, and had committed it to the charge of Mr. Greene; that Mr. Greene was not fully acquainted with its merits, hut that he had ascertained that the Board of Trade had no objectien to it; that it had not been introduced, as a bill for the regulation of trade ought to be introduced, in a Committee of the whole House; that it was a retrospective bill, which was to be considered as coming into operation on the 1st January 1845; and that not a single Member knew anything about its different clause& Under these circumstances' Mr. Wamitorrox moved that it be read a third time this day two months; but ultimately the further consideration of the bill wan postponed till Friday.

SMALL DEBTS. In the House of Lords, OR Tuesday, the LORD CHANCELLOR explained the amendments made by the Commons in the Small Debts Bill; which were of two classes,—one set were merely verbal; the other set gave the Queen in Council power to extend or contract the jurisdiction of Small Debts Courts up to sums not exceeding 20/. With some discussion the amendments were agreed to.

Banwnuercy. On Tuesday, Mr. RAWFA obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to insolvency and bankruptcy, with a view to its being printed and circulated during the recess.

NOTICES OF MOTION. SOIlle notices of motion stand Over for next session. Mr. Mackinnon is to make one relative to interments in or near large towns. Mr. Bickham Escott is to move that maize or Indian corn be imported into the United Kingdom free of duty.

A NEW WRIT was ordered, on Tuesday, for Chichester, in the room of Lord Arthur Lennox, appointed Clerk to the Board of Ordnance.

THE SPAFTELDS NUISANCE. In reply to Viscount liBEINGTON on Monday., Sir Jestes GRAHAM said, that by the consent of the Crown, the parties indicted with respect to the Spafields burial-ground had pleaded, and promised to prevent a recurrence of the nuisance complained of.

THE BRAZILIAN PIRATES. In reply to questions in each House, on Mon- day, Ministers stated that Mr. Baron Platt entertained some doubts as to the legality of the sentence on the men convicted of murdering the crew of the Wasp; and therefore he had reserved the consideration of it for the fifteen Judges.

GRATUITOUS ADMISSION TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS. Mr. RUBE having It, newed, on Monday, his objection to the practice of exacting fees for admittance to view cathedrals and other public buildings, Sir ROBERT .PEEL, also deprecating the practice, stated that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster had made an order for admitting the public to the Nave and to the North and South Transepts; visiters being only excluded from the Choir, (except at times of divine service,) and from the Chapel behind the Choir, [Henry the Seventh's,] except on the pay- ment of sixpence; a payment universal on the Continent. This statement caused general satisfaction.

bin PALACE AT WESTMINSTER. In rEIO Mr. MOFFATT, OD Monday, the Earl of LINCOLN stated that the House of Lords and the Committee-rooms of both Houses would be fit for occupation in the session of 1847; but the House cl - Commons would not be ready until the following year.