13thatc# an proccrtingstInVadiament.

IRISH CORPORATION REFORM.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL

moved for leave to bring in a bill for " the regulation of Municipal Corporations and Borough Towns in Ireland." Loid John prefaced his motion by a desultory speech, the object of which apparently was to show by reference to the divisions in the House on former bills for the same purposes, that the great majority concurred in the opinion that a reform of the Irish Corporations was necessary. He referred to the triumphant defence of Lord Mulgrave against the attack of Lord Roden ; and added that he did not think it necessary to say a word in Lord Mulgrave's defence.

Mr. SHAW observed, that Lord John Russell had sedulously avoided saying one word about the bill he wished to introduce. The only clue he could find to the nature of the bill, was the fact, that whereas in the Speech of 18:36 an objectionable principle was stated as the foundation of the bill, the passage in the Queen's Speech merely

mentioned that the Irish Corporations required to be better regulated.

He felt that it was quite out of place to discuss the general merits of Lord Mulgrave's Administration, and would not follow Lord John Russell into this part of his speech.

Leave was given to bring in the

ELECTION PETITIONS.

On Wednesday, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH O'Beirne presented to the House of Commons a petition from himself, complaining of the public subscription set on foot to defray the cost of petitions against the Irish Members ; and especially of the conduct of Sir Francis Burdett, who, by contributing to the subscription, had made himself a party in the cause which he might be called upon to judge. A petition had been presented against the return of Mr. O'Brien himself, which the petitioner verily believed would not have been thought of unless the parties had expected assistance from the fund in question. He was not ashamed to confess, that he did not regard with indifference the cost of defending his seat, which might be so great as to indece him to relinquish it. Ile prayed the House to institute an inquiry respecting the subscription, in order to ascertain whether it was consistent with the laws of the land and the privileges of Parliament.

Such was the substance of Mr. O'Brien's petition ; which the Clerk read amidst considerable interruption from Tory :Members. They ob- jected to a speech in the form of a petition; but the SPEAKER decided that it should be read.

Ou the question that the petition be printed, a debate arose. Mr: Ws', Sir RoaLia INGLIS, and Sir ROBERT PEEL ul jected to print.. ing a mition affecting the trial of an election petition.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the petition had no reference to the Limerick election, but to the sabscription.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that thorough investigation was required; arid it was desirable to know bow many Members of the House besides Sir Francis Burdett had joined in the conspiracy.

Lord STANLEY maintained, that the petition could not be received, as it did affect the trial of the, Limerick petition.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL declared a contrary opinion.

Sir FRANCIS 13cancyr remarked, that Mr. O'Brien had neglected the usual courtesy of informing 'him that he intended to present the petition just read. There was something very extraordinary in the whole proceedings before the House; something wholly in contradic- tion to all his Parliamentary experience-- The honourable and learned Member for Dublin took it for granted that tams- thing wrong had been done, because he chose to call the act by a harsh name ; and inferred that there was a crime committed, because he thought proper to attribute to the act a criminal intention : and this too be did before the time came for deciding the guilt or the innocence, the wickedness or the honesty, of the act itself. flow very plausible ! and how very ingenious a mode this was of attacking honest men, who wished to see justice done. (Cheers from the Opposition.) Ay, and justice to Ireland. (Continued cheers.) Yes, and justice, too, done to the honourable and learned Member hilmelf. (More driers.) lie did not leliove that the honourable and learned Member, by assuming a high tone and a confident 'manner, could drive the Noose into the adopts n of measures which would be contrary to the practice of that House, and, he must say, contrary to their privileges, and con- trary to common sense, and control y to every form and proceeding of that and every other well-regulated assembly. They would, lie was sure, not do this, because the honouiable and learned Member for Dublin chose to desig- nate that of which the petition complained "U conspiracy." Wily, a conspiracy was no offence: it was a mere combination for a certain purpose. 'Jibe honour- able and learned Member for Dublin was, for instance, the greatest conspirator that he knew of. Cheers and laughter.) His constant anti repewed cry was, o agitate, agitate, agitate," and " combine, combine, combine." Besides, the honourable and learned Member called upon others to collect " the rent that was the great thing. (Opposition cheers.) But the homurable and learned Member had shown ha his observations a total disacquaintance with all the proceedings in Parliament, and a total disacquaintance with the principles of the profession of which he was a member, when he had chosen to declare that a petition to that House ought to be crammed full of arguments and tea. sons, and that that House would consider that if there were no arguments and no reasons set forth in a petition, of comae that House could have nothing to do with a petition—that without arguments and without reasons there ought to be no petitions. That was a sort of logic which he was sure would not impose upon the House of Commons. It was quite incorrect ; for a petition ought not to state arguments, but facts; and its allegations of grievance could at the proper time be duly inquired into. He said nothing now on the subject in which he was supposed to be peraanally interested. He was, however, obliged to the honourable and learned Member for putting him in a position to provoke the attack that hailbeen amide ; and he should, he now told him, be prepared to stand the bruntof the trial with him in a legal or in any other way.

He thought that they ought to have no holydays till they lad decided who had or who had not a right to sit in that noose ; as d that all Members whose right to sit was questioned should abstain from voting. When the House cattle to a vote he should withdraw.

Mr. O'CONNELL, amidst loud cries of "Spoke !" and much confu- sion, attempted to address the House. The Speaker was not attended to. Mr. Hume rose treorder ; and was himself called to order by Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULt. At length, lr. HUME obtained a hearing, and spoke in favour of printing the petition.

Mr. AGLIONBY and Lord JOHN RUSSELL also supported the motion. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN opposed it. Mr. O'BRIEN said he should again bring the subject before the House on the following day.

Mr. Moneae: O'CONNELL wished to know what Sir Francis Bur- dett, who imputed agitation as an offence to the Member for Dublin, had been doing all his life— lie should like to know if that honourable Member had not " agitated" for a very long time?—if he had not carried on agitation in so very violent a man- ner as to have endangered at times the peace of society, the tranquillity of the country, and the safety of a great number of persons in this city. (Cheers.) Sir Francis Burdett ought, in his opinion, to be the very last person to attack any gentleman for the course he had pursued ; and particularly so if that course were one of agitation. But then, the honourable baronet had repented of his former errors. (Cheers and laughter.) He had repented, and he vili- fied his former friends; he had repented, and he joined himself with those whom he had formerly held up to the execration of the people of England, whom he had abused in every possible way, and whom he had denounced upon every occasion that be had presented himself to the public. The honourable baronet might, indeed, with reason have attacked the Member for Dublin, if he had been a gentleman who had passed his youth in the advocacy of Liberal principles, who in his old age turned recreant to his former principles, and who completed his career by going over to Tories. (Cheers.) He thought attacks of this sort came with a very ill grace from the honourable baronet. That honour- able baronet might, to be sure, attack the Member for Dublin there or elsewhere;

this he was at perfect liberty to do: but when he attacked that honourable and learned Member, why was it that be never said a word of any other Member

from Ireland? (Cheers.) They were in the same situation with the honour- able and learned Member for Dublin ; and the same false charges had been made against them, that they were the representatives of the mob and of Ribboninen. (Much cheering.)

Strangers were ordered to withdraw. Sir Francis Burdett bowed to the House, and retired. A division took place: for the motion to print the petition, 234; against it, :M.

After the despatch of some routine business,

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to move that the first election petition be taken into consideration on the 6th of February. He took this course because it appeared, that, after all which had been said on the subject, the number of election petitions was not unusually large, nor was there evidence of unfair dealing sufficient to call upon the House to depart from the usual course— In IS31 there were 57 election petitions; after the dissolution in 1832, there were 49; in 1835, there were 42; and in the present year, up to the time he was speaking, there were 67 petitions, which was only ten more than the num- ber of petitions in 1331. As far, therefore, as any deductions from numbers could guide him,—considering the great number of contests which had taken place in the late election,—considering also the narrow majorities which some- times occurred in the last Parliament, and the very natural desire which existed on the part of the minority to crop that majority,—he did not think that the number of election petitions in the present year was such as to warrant any extraordinary measures in regard to them.

Sir ROBERT PEF.T, agreed, that nothing had appeared which justified any unusual proceeding on the part of the House. With respect to the number of petitions presented, he had ascertained, that of the whole 67, 27 or 28 emanated from parties on his side of' the House, and 36 from his opponents ; which, with the fortunate intervention of 3 neutrals, made up the total. He hoped that this would teach Lord John Russell not to rely on newspaper statements. He hoped that Mr. Charles Buller would postpone his bill till after the holydays ; but if he refused, Sir Robert said he would divide the House on a motion to put it off till an early day after the recess. If it was not in- tended to give that measure an ex post facto operation, there could be no fair objection to the delay.

Mr. BULLER refused to postpone his bill.

Lord JOHN Russet'. could see no valid cause for refusing to pro- ceed ii ith it. In Committee, he intended to propose that Commis- sioners should be appointed to take evidence.

The conversation then dropped.

Mr. llisavirr next called the attention of the House to five resolus bona, declaring the conduct of the subscribers to the Irish Election petition fund a gross breach of privilege, and pledging the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question. Mr. Blewitt sup- ported Iris resolutions in along speech ; and moved that they be adopted try the House.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion : and the first resolution was put from the chair.

Mr. Wanaunroal recommended the withdrawal of the first four re- solutions ; retaining the last, which related to the inquiry into the transaction.

Mr. BLEWITT acquiesced, and the resolution was withdrawn.

A scene of indescribable confusion occurred. The Tory Members objected to the withdrawal of the resolutions. They did not regard the Speaker's calls to order. Nothing was heard but cries of "Ques- tion ! " and "Chair ! " At length it was found, that Mr. Blewitt's first resolution was actually withdrawn ; but the uproar did not cease till Mr. Blewitt, putting the remainder of his resolutions in his pocket, left the House—amidst peals of laughter.

Lord Jou:: RUSSELL obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the payment of rates and taxes by Parliamentary electors, and to abolish the stamp-duty on the admission of freemen.

Some returns respecting the compensation to slave-owners were or- dered, on the motion of Mr. O'CclestEtt.

Then Lord STANLEY, anticipating the motion of adjournment, rose to cull attention to the state of the question which he had hoped would have been brought to a conclusion that night. He proceeded, amidst much interruption, to ridicule Mr. Blewitt, and the upshot of all.his mighty preparations.

Another scene of confusion occurred. Members said that there was no question before the House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved that " the House do now adjourn."

Lord STANLEY took advantage of that motion to continue his attack on Mr. Blewitt. He was called to order by Mr. Hume ; who main- tained that Lord Stanley ought not to attack an absent Member with- out notice.

Lord STANLEY said, he would not proceed in personal observations on Mr. Blewitt, seeing that he had disappeared under the cloud of mystery in which all the proceedings of the evening had been involved. He went on to speak exultingly of the failure of the attack on the Conservative Members. In conclusion, he asked Mr. Smith O'Brien to state distinctly what he intended to do.

Mr. SMITH 0.13RIEN said, that be had already stated, in terms dis- tinct and precise, that he intended to direct the attention of the House to the conduct of Sir Francis Burdett ; and that, with this view, he should move to refer his petition to a Select Committee.

Lord Jona: RUSSELL observed, that Lord Stanley indulged rather unduly in an air of triumph- 44 It is very possible that the honourable Member for Monmouth, not being used to the modes of proceeding in the house, may, without sufficient consi- deration, have given notice of resolutions with which other honourable Mena- hers could not agree. It maybe very possible that the motion which he framed was not in accordance with the general view of those who share in his opinion as to the character of these subscriptions. But I do not think that the noble lord is justified in assuming from that thathe is to leave this llotwe with an as- surance that the confederacy to collect subscriptions for the purposed displacing Irish Members, and Irish Members only, is to remain unassailed. I do not say that I could have supported the motion of the honourable Member for Mous mouth. I do not say that it may be fit, considering the law and the precedents in these cases, to institute a select committee upon the subject. But this I do say, that an act more calculated to shake men's confidence as to the fair decit sion of Election Committees—an act more calculated to make men believe tha- the seats in this house were to be determined, not according to the just rights of the case, but according to the politics of those who held those seats—an act more calculated to make one part of the United Kingdom afraid, nay, strongly sensible, that they will not get justice—an act more calculated to work these evils, than this combination, of which Mr. Spottisvroode is at the head, I know no instance of in the history of this country ; and if I take any part in the des bate to-morrow, it certainly will be to insist upon the dangerous character of such a proceeding. (Repeated Ministerial cheers.) What is the appearance that the thing presents ? That men collect subscriptions to support or to attack seats which they think to be held unduly. That would be a question which, upon sonic precedents and some decisions, might well form matter for delibera- tion; and one high authority might be quoted who has given a legal decision upon views founded upon the subject. But this is not the character of this proceeding. The character of the present proceeding is this, that hardly were the elections over—hardly could any man know the exact circumstances of ray particular election—than a party of persons meet (this was upon the 30th of August, when the particulars of the elections could hardly be known) and decide immediately that a certain number of those elections--they neither say which nor bow many—are invalid ; they declare that practices had prevailed at those elections, of which they could have no know- ledge ; and they proceed to say — not, certainly that they found their petitions upon that point—but they proceed to say that Mem- bers will be seated in the House having different opinions from those of many gentlemen who have been returned for many parts of the United King- dom. What was the direct tendency of such a course as this? Was it not enough to make every Irishman believe and think ' whatever I may do with my franchise, to whomsoever I give my vote, I know, although there may be a majority of hundreds of sound votes in favour of the Member to whom I com- mit my wants, my feelings, my interests, he will be no sooner returned to the House than he will be attacked by a monied combination—not on the grounds that he does not represent me—not on the grounds that he is not sent by me freely into the House of Commons to speak my sentiments ; but because he does not speak the sentiments of those more wealthy and more opulent persons who take care that there shall be returned for the county or the borough of which I am an inhabitant a person not to represent my sentimeuts, but to represent the sentiments of those who subscribe their money to secure the seats of such Mem- bers as they please; I maintain that the tendency of such a subscription is ts raise in the breast of every independent elector the feeling I have stated, and no other. I put aside, at this moment, the inconvenience, the expense, which may attend those who have been so elected ; at this moment I will not take that point into consideration. But I say that, considering the difference of political opinions, and the differences in point of religion which prevail in Ireland, to raise a subscription fund, and to carry it throughout the country for the sole purpose of unseating Irish Represertatives, and no other Representatives, 4 • measure more calculated to estrange the people of Ireland from a great portion, at least, of the people of England—more calculated to engender feelings of bitter- ness and of alienation, than any measure of which we have a record in history.'" He was aware of only one case in which resolutions similar to Mr. Blewitt's had been brought before the House— "1 wish I could quote some person of high legal fame as having brought theta before the House; I wish I could name some person of great constitutional knowledge, some person of sound judgment, as having proposed them; but, alas! the only person I can name as having done so was the honourable baronet the Member for :North Wilts! (Loud and long-continued cheering, mingled with much laughter). Upon his authority I certainly shall not lam. (Reamed siteering.) The honourable baronet undoubtedly brought a case iirainit two electors of Middlesex, who were Members of this House, who no only bad dined a petition, but assembled at a meeting somewhere in the City, and passed resolutions condemning the honourable baronet for having obtained his seat by ilsgal means. The honourable baronet moved resolutions calling upon the Mouse to declare whether these electors had not committed an unconstitutional act. Their defence was, that, although they were Members of the House, they were electors of Middlesex, and that they had signed the resolutions in question as being the only means by which they could make common cause with their fellow electors in promoting a petition against the seat of one of their Represen- tatives; and I think, with this defence, it was hardly to be expected that the resolutions of the honourable baronet could prevail. But I will not take the honourable baronet as an authority ; any strength to be derived from the former conduct of the honourable baronet I am ready to relinquish, and give him up entirely to the noble lord. (Great laughter and cheering.) I promise the noble lord that be shall not hear me quote the proceedings adopted by the honourable baronet as an example for the House to follow in the present instance. I will stand only upon the actual facts that have occurred ; and without saying that it is possible for this House to afford any direct remedy upon the subject, I will say that it is fit that the public notice should be called to the case, in order that, in conseyence of the discussion which I hope will take place—in consequence of the condemnation (which I think will be general) of such an attempt to govern the elections—persons may not for the future en- teavour to say here are men who do not agree with us in opinion—here are /moo with whose religion we differ—here are men who go to constitute a main. rity against us; for these reasons, and upon such pretences, we will raise the country for petitions to subvert them." (Long.continued cheering.) Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS, in a short speech, much interrupted, charged the Liberals with the same practice that they imputed to the Tories.

The House adjourned at ten o'clock.

The subject was resumed on Thursday, by Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN ; who brought forward the motion for the Committee of inquiry, of which be had given notice on the previous evening.

Mr. EDWARD BULWER seconded the motion. In the course of his speech he quoted the example of Sir Francis Burdett himself in favour of the proposed inquiry_

Perhaps the honoutable baronet would recollect some circumstances that oc- curred about thirty-five years ago; indeed they took place on the 6th of De- cember, which was a very extraordinary coincidence. Thirty-five years ago a petition was received by that House complaining of the return of the sitting Member for Middlesex, the means of defraying the costs of that petition being a subscription which was entered into. The sitting Member thought it de- sirable to bring the case before the consideration of the House. These were the remarks which he made on doing so. The then sitting Member for Middle- sex said, " There could not be two opinions that to enter into a subscription for a petition was highly indecorous ; that the object was improperly to prejudice the case, and to prejudice the minds of throe who would have to judge It." (Continued cheering ) And this gentleman concluded by moving a resolution, which Mr. Bulwer was sure would be agreed to by all the Mem- ber* on the Ministerial side of the House, "that a subscription to support a petition not pending in the House was a breach of privilege." (Immense

cheering.) This the Member of Middlesex then did. Bat who was it that thus denounced subscriptions, and called it a breach of the privileges of the House? It was one Sir Francis Burdett. That honourable baronet was then the sitting Member for Middlesex, as he was now Member for North Wiltshire. The proceedings of the honourable baronet at that period, and those which he now adopted, reminded him of an old story of the man who was restored to

youth on condition that he should lose all recollection of the past. It did seem to him that this fable had been realized in the person of the honourable baronet. (Cheers and laughter.)

Loud cries of " Divide! " followed the conclusion of Mr. Bulwer's speech, and the gallery was cleared for a division ; when Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT rose, and addressed the House in opposition to the motion. He contended that the Spottiswoode subscription had not been the parent of petitions ; and quoted the Dublin newspapers to prove that several days before the first meeting was held to set on foot the subscription, almost all the Irish petitions subsequently pre- sented had been resolved upon. He denied that the Liberals bad any right to complain of the subscription, seeing that they had often sub- scribed for a similar purpose themselves. Lord Ebrington and Mr. Warburton had promoted a subscription to unseat Lord Ashley; and Mr. Denison had only the day before presided at a meeting whose object was to defray the expense of defending the seats of the Mem- bers for London.

Lord EBRINGION admitted that he bad joined in a subscription to unseat Lord Ashley. But he had every reason to believe that there were good grounds for that petition ; whereas the Spottiswoode sub- scribers could have no knowledge of the real merits of the numerous petitions presented against the Irish Members. He did not think that his conduct offered a precise parallel to that of the subscribers against the Representatives of Ireland.

Mr. WARBURTON said, the gentlemen opposite might make the most of the fact that he had been chairman of the Committee to collect subscriptions to unseat Lord Ashley ; but he had not subscribed him- self. As Representative for Bridport, be was entitled to take the part he did.

Mr. DENISON considered that be bad a perfect right, as an elector of London, to take measures to defend the return of his Representa- tives.

Mr. POULTER maintained that the Spotiswoode subscribers bud clearly committed a breach of the law.

Lord ASHLEY admitted, that there was indeed every great difference betw‘ en his case and that of the Irish Members whose seats were attacked. The whole force of the county was summoned against himself, an individual struggling to maintain his just right. It was said that a menacing attitude would compel him to retire, for his funds were exhausted by a long contest : and he did retire—the combination so far succeeded ; but his friends, after a long and expensive trial be- fore a Committee, established his right to his seat.

Mr. GORING and Mr. \Tamar; supported the motion for inquiry. Colonel CONOLLY spoke with great vehemence on the other side.

Mr. HENRY GRATTAN said, that the subscribers to the Spottiswoode fund were actuated by religious prejudice ; in proof which, he read a long list of names, many of them those of ladies. The most vexatious part of the whole affair to himself was, that the Spottiswoode conspi- rators bad actually swindled three most interesting female relatives of his own.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL retained his opinion, that it would be inexpe, dient to appoint the Committee moved for by Mr. O'Brien ; and fre this reason, that all the facts were notorious, and not denied. Thougs opposed to the motion, he did not, however, wish it to be supposed that the conduct of the Spottiswoode subscribers was not criminal; and Sir John produced several law authorities to show that the 13(11), scribers were liable to prosecution. The chief case on which be relied was that of Wallis versus the Duke of Portland— A gentleman named Jackson was returned for the borough of Colchester; and Mr. Tierney, the unsuccessful candidate, petitioned against the returs. Upon this the Duke of Portland employed the plaintiff, who was his attorney, to carry on the petition at his expense. The petition being decided, the plaintiff Wallis, so employed, came against the Duke of Portland for the money be had laid out in the prosecution of the petition • sod his evidence not being COW. plete, he filed a bill of discovery, in which he set forth the fact of his being fan. ployed by the Duke of Portland as above mentioned. This bill was demurred to, on the ground that it set forth what was not legal evidence. Lord Rossiya, in giving judgment, held that the employment of the attorney Wallis by the Duke of Portland in the prosecution of a petition in which he had no legil interest was a violation of the law; and for that reason the demurrer was allowed. This in itself was a strong case; but it was made stronger, and brought more houre:to the present, by the language held by Lord Ros,lyn io pronouncing his judgment. He said—" Put this case, a subscription to carry on a petition to the House ; I confess I always thought there was something of a crime in it. The case disclosed is of this nature : an undertaking appealed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the latter would contribute to tht expense of a petition against a Member of Parliament—that is, an engagement between two parties to the injury and oppression of a third. In short, it maintenance, for maintenance is not confined to supporting suite at corn. moo law."

Sir Fnarectri BURDETT had waited to hear what could he urged against him from the other side. He wished that more of the Trea. sury gentlemen had spoken ; but only one had addressed the House from the Treasury bench ; and if what he said was true, the case should be taken out of Parliament at once, and brought before a better tribunal, where there was less beat and prejudice. For his part, he saw nothing criminal in what had been done— lie did not see why honest men ought not to be permitted to combine to pro. mote the law—not as men of another deeciption had combined, to defeat the law. He did not see why honest men ought not to be permitted to combine to prevent the law from being defeated by an unprincipled combination, the object of which was to keep men out of Parliament who ought to be there, and to bring men into Parliament who, but for intimidation, would not be there at all. The honourable gentleman and the honourable and learned gentleman talked of men who had subscribed to forward the presentation of the petitions in question as being corrupt judges. Now their interference bad nothing to do with the decision of the House on the question. Nor was it important, if they were honest men, that they bad aided in the presentation of the petitionsohat they should not constitute no part of the tribunal to decide upon their merits. It ass a common thing throughout England for honest persons to combine to enforce the infliction of public punishment on individuals. There was not a county in which persons did not subscribe to a fund for the purpose of bringing felons to trial. Even the learned Attorney-General, who went on the antiquated law of maintenance, acknowledged that it had nothing whatever to do with inde. pendent men who subscribed for the purpose of bringing persons to trial who would not otherwise be prosecuted.

Reference bad been made to his own conduct thirty-five years ngo- He must confess the folly of his youth. (Laughter.) Instigated as he was at the period to which the honourable Member for Lincoln alluded by political sager—by the ruinous expense of two election contests in which he had been engaged with the Government of that day—reduced as nearly as possible to beggary—(" No, no !")—reduced at least to what—although a philosnplier might be contented with it—to so narrow an income as only just to be able to keep a carriage and horses, and to maintain the position in society of a gentle. man, until the payment of his debts—thirty years ago when his blood ma warmer than at present, after such severe contests, and believing himself op. pressed by means of the public purse, he certainly had made the appeal to the House of Commons which had been described by the honourable Member for Lincoln. But what had been the consequence? That Sheridan laughed at him, and that the House of Commons rejected his petition almost una roce. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the object of the Spottiswoode subscrip- tion was to support an illegal conspiracy against the Irish Catholic Members. Nobody could doubt that he and others were attacked be. cause they were Catholics and Irishmen. It was an English Pro- testant conspiracy ngainst Irish Catholic constituencies. For his own part, he cared not. He had resources. He was, if Sir Francis Bur- dett pleased, the paid patriot of Ireland- " I stand in this unexampled position ; I sacrificed the largest professional emoluments that ever man made at the bar in Ireland ; I sacrificed it when, at the period that Roman Catholis Emancipation was carried, I had as fair a poet as as any other of the ermine and dignity of the bench, provided I abandoned politics for ever. Because I forgot my ease and gave up my prospect of the dignity of elle bench, am I therefore to be vilified and abused by every old re. negade:" (Load and long-continued cheering.) A single offence—nobody knew it better than the houourable and learned Member for Exeter—a single offence--a single act might nut perhaps be regarded as illegal; but when that act was extended over a greater surface, awl made to assume the shape of a combination to perpetrate a serious injury against any man or any body of men, the parties so combining were guilty of a crime ; and he pitied the man who in the Court of Queen's Bench would attempt to say that there was not sufficient evidence of maintenance and conspiracy to go to a jury upon this subject. The honourable baronet had referred to the history of his younger days; but, allud ing to the glory of his youth, be eeeined now to address them in the spirit if not in tbe words oldie ballad- " Pity the sorrow, of a poor old man P.

( Great laughter and cheering.) The honourable baronet said he taw nothin( at all ii.consistent or improper in contributing to the expense of a prosecution and afterwards being one of the judges in the case! —(111inisteriul c Iteers)— nothing unconstitutional in a mans becoming both prosecutor and judge in tbi same cause ! There were phases in human life which showed man in so lament able a condition as to render the sight pitiable—almost disgusting. (Cheer from the Ministerial benches ; loud cries of " Oh I" from the tlpposition. Ile should not have alluded to the honourable baronet's early life it he had nu introduced the subject himself.

No doubt, strange things had happened in Ireland— lie remembered once reading the report of a speech made by somebody shot, the year I ettr.i. la that report it was stated "The honourable baronet tuck hasty view of the conduct of the Admioistration with respect to Ireland. The enormities and cruelties committed in the sister kingdom, he said, exceeded any thing done by Nero or Caligula." Who was it said this? A baronet of the name of Jones, but whose Christina name was French, Burdett. (Much cheering.) Such was the statement made by Sir Francis Burdett Jones, with lespect to the conduct of the then existing Administration towards Ireland. Bet be did something (Atha kind more than once. In the same year, speaking spin of the conduct of the Adminietration in Ireland, he said, " Recourse, therefore, WU had to the dis.union of the sects." He implored some of the hotionable baronet's very loud cheerers on the other side of the Houma just to attend to this former opinion of his respecting the origin of their favourite inst:tution : Recourse, therefore, was had to the disunion of the sects • and the papering and tacking symtem was adopted, which expelled from their:habi- tations thousands of femilies by a process the most atrocioue. A paper was posted against the doors of the cottages of the Catholics, commanding the inhabitants to quit in five or ten days, and to proceed to the plovince of Con- eaught, or they ahould be sent to hell! and this was the revival, after a century, of ihat faction known under the name of Orangemen. These mandate: not being at first complied with, the fanatics who bad issued them repaired to the heuses of the unfortunate Catholics, ousted the whole family, and racked and ad fire to the miserable hovel and its contents. Such transactions could not fail to attract notice. Many of the authors of them were committed to prison; and his Majesty's Attorney.General was sent to the theatre where these trage- dies had been acted to prosecute the offenders • who were all acquitted, except one, and he was pardoned." And then a little further on in the came epeech, the honourable baronet said, " When I reflect upon the enormities which have been committed in that country, I really feel ashamed of my species—ashamed of being a man. "Ile had no occasion to be longer ashamed of that. (Great laughter and cheering.) "But when I consider that they have been supported by English power, I feel ashamed of my country : when I recollect that a gritiph Minister in a British House of Commons has dared to vindicate the use of the torture, which even the Inquisition has at length through shame abandoned, it seems to be the last of infamies to be an Englishman." For what ?—for the conduct of England towards Ireland. How did the honourable baronet seek to

amend that conduct now? Who were now his cheerers and applauders? The members of that very faction who committed all these enormities—all these cruelties upon Ireland. Were they not the same party ? Did they not still hold their exclusive meeting*? Did they not still assemble at their dinners? If there were any different*, it was only this, that the party now went even beyond what it did formerly. Yes, the party which the houourable baronet now takes up is that very party which some years ago he reviled as the perpe- trators of so many enormities in Ireland. The man who now came forward to traduce Ireland, and to join in a conspiracy against the Irish Members, was that very man who in 1802 made the famous speech just quoted from.

Mr. O'Connell concluded by assuring the House, that the question was understood in Ireland. che people of that country knew well that an additional insult was intended to them : they knew that the object of the conspiracy was to obtain, through the instrumentality of Members' oaths, a decision to make the Tory party triumphant, and the people of Ireland their victims.

Mr. DISRAELI followed Mr. O'Connell. He contended, that the subscribers to the Spottiswoode fund were men anxious to work out the Reform Act ; by putting an end to the system of boroughmonger- ing, which in a different shape prevailed more extensively than ever. The mortified feelings of these indviduals should be taken into con- sideration, before the inquiry was instituted. [Mr. Disraeli ex- perienced much interruption, and repeatedly implored the house to grant him a hearing.) He had something to say in vindication of her Majesty's Government ; and wished the House would give him five minutes- " I stand here tootight, Sir, not formally, but in sonic degree virtually, the representative of a considerable number of Members of Pm liament. (Bursts y laughter.) Now, why smile ?—(Continued laughter)—Why envy me? .11,,re the laughter became long and general.) Why should not I have a tale t unfold to-night ? (Roars of laughter.) Do you forget that band of 155 Members—those ingenuous and inexperienced youths, to whose unsophisticated minds the Chancellor uf the Exchequer, in those tones of winning pathos— (Excessive laughter, and loud cries of " Question! ") —Now, a considerable misconception exists in the minds of many Members on this 'hie of the House as to the conduct of her Majesty's Government with respect to these elections, and I wish to remove it. I will not twit the noble lord opposite with opinions which are not ascribable to him, or to his more immediate supporters, but which woe expressed by the more popular section of his party some few months back. Mont that time Sir, when the bell of our cathedral announced the death of the Monarch—(Laughter)—we all read then, Sir—(Groans, and cries of " 011! ")--0.se all then read—(brughter, and great interruption)—I knoe no- thing which to me is more delightful than to show courtesy to a new Member, particularly if he happens to appeal to me from the party opposed to myself- (." Hera, hear! ")—At that time, we read that it was the death-knell of Toryism ; that the doom of that party was sealed ; that their funeral obsequies were about to lei consummated. We were told that, with the dissolution of that much- vilified Pat liament which the right honourable baronet had called together, the hopes and prospects of the Tories would be thrown for ever to the winds ; and that affairs were again brought exactly to what they were at the period when tlae hurried Mr. Hudson rushed into the chambers of the Vatican; The interruption and laughter grew. Mr. Disraeli proceeded ; till at length lie was forced to sit down, declaring with a loud voice, that though "he then sat down, the time would come when they would hear him."

Lord STANLEY said, that if the Attorney-General were right in his law, it became his duty to prosecute the subscribers to the Protestant land. But there would be no prosecution; for the very good reason at the Attorney-General feared the verdict would be one of acquittal. Lord Stanley then proceeded to argue, that whatever the law might be, the manner in which elections were carried in Ireland justified the attempt to procure a Parliamentary inquiry. He cautioned the House against arbitrary interference; especially as they were told, on high authority, that the parties whose conduct Was the subject of discussion were liable to prosecution. If they had broken the law, let them be punished in a legal manner.

Mr. HARVEY feared that this discussion would produce no practical result. It was clear that neither party in the House would gain a triumph over the other; so there was nothing to be gained on that score by continuing the discussion. All professed a desire that the election of Members should be free ; all wished for wholesome re- firm. He would test the sincerity of Members, by moving an amend- ment. " that a Select Committee be appointed to consider those mea- sures by which the expenses of contested elections, and election peti. lions, may for the future be avoided." Mr. Tnostas BUNCOMBE seconded the amendment.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that he could vote neither fur the original motion nor the amendment. With respect to the subscription, he had no doubt of its illegality; but every day illegal acts were committed, which the Attorney-General wisely refused to take notice of by a public prosecution. Were they to proceed upon legal grounds, every subscription to defray expenses connected with elections must be pro- secuted. Under these circumstances, it was impossible to proceed by law against the Spottiswoode subscribers : and he thought it unfair to appoint a Committee which would not produce public benefit— which in fact could lead to no practical result. Neither did he think the appointment of such a Committee as Mr. Harvey proposed expe- dient. He thought the best way was to let the election petitions be sent for trial before the ordinary tribunals; and in the mean while, to expe- dite every measure for improving those tribunals, and giving them the best legal assistance that could be procured.

Sir ROBERT PEEL professed himself ready to consider any measure for improving the election tribunals : what he objected to was the attempt of a majority to fix upon a minority what should he the tri- bunal by which great party interests were to be decided. He refused to send 67 petitions to be tried before an untried tribunal. He required time for deliberation before he consented to an alteration of the exist- ing law. With respect to the election subscription, be and his friends contended that it was legal : if it was illegal, the Attorney-General had the remedy in his own hands without the intervention of Perlis - ment. But be it legal or the reverse, the Liberals had set the example of subscribing. For himself, be was free from all connexion with the subscription ; but if the House of Commons substituted an act of the majority for law, there was no measure he would not resort to for the purpose of showing that in that illegal use of power be defied the House of Commons. Sir Robert then proceeded to defend Sir Francis Burdett from the charge of inconsistency. He contended, that although Sir Francis bad taken a violent part in politics many years ago, he then, as now, resisted any attempt to encroach on the prerogative of the Crown or the privileges of the Peers.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE spoke in favour of the amendment. Mr- O'BRIEN briefly replied ; and the House divided—

For Mr. Harvey's amendment 91 Against it 389

Majority 298 Another division took place on Mr. O'Brien's motion for a Com- mittee of inquiry—.

For the motion 121

Against it 331 Majority 210

These divisions occupied the House for an hour and a half; and:the adjournment did not take place till after three o'clock.

RIOTOL-3 CONDUCT OF MEMBERS.

Before the commencement of the long debate on Thursday, the SPEAKER noticed the disorderly conduct of Members on the previous • evening, in the following speech from the chair-

" I wish to address a few words to the House. Most of those who now hear me will not, I am sure, be surprised when I say that the transactions of last night, at the close of the address of the honourable Member for Monmouth, were such as left a deep impression on my mind. In any thing that I now say, I do not wish to forget that I am the servant of this House; and, with that feeling on my mind, nothing can be further from my intention than to question the right of a Member to animadvert upon any thing that falls from the Chair : still further is it from my intention to seek to control that which any Member feels it his duty to do, from a sense of duty to this House and to the public. Feeling this, and as I trust I have ever been governed by such a feeling, I regret to find that I do not possess, as I appeared to possess, as much of the confidence of the House as I some time since ventured to hope I had done. From the moment in which I was placed in this chair, the greatest object of my desire, and the highest object of my ambition, was to obtain the confidence of this House ; and this by the directness, the truth, and impartiality uf any conduct. I have reflected calmly upon the transactions of last night ; I have endeavoured to give the most full effect to all that was said by those who took part in that debate. I have done that which believe all men who are sincerely and earnestly desirous of ascertaining the truth ought to do in matters in which they are themselves concerned, to ascertain coolly and calmly the character of the trans. action in which they have taken a part. Touching that transaction, then, Jam bound to confess, that it does appear to me, that there were appearances that indicated that I do not possess that degree of confidence, which I think it essen- tial that persons holding the situation that I do should at all times obtain from this House. I have always, in my mind, made a great distinction between the duties imposed upon me in regulating the forms of this House, and those duties which are the most serious, and not the least important, the moral duties of a Speaker. Unless a Speaker possess the confidence of the How* in these respects, he cannot discharge the duties imposed upon him with credit to himself or with advantage to the House. I do not wish—in fact nothing can be further from my intention—them to revive the discussion of the last night ; nothing can be further from my wish than that any thing I should say might provokes discussion of the sort. I have only to express what are my own feelings, and to give to the House the assurance, which I do most solemnly, that, if again./ see a similar indication, I shall think the time has come whish, perhaps, if I had followed the dictates of my own judgment and my own deeires, would have occurred before now ; and that is, to relieve myself from the duties that now devolve upon me. Having made this statement, I shall let the matter rest here: hut I could not refrain from expressing what is the impression upon my mind with respect to the proceedings of last night." (Much cheering.)

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. Wwnentrov, on Monday, rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of the claimants for compensation for injury done to their property by the Danish Government in 1807; but WU immediately interrupted by Mr. F. T. BARING; who said that, as Mr. Spring Bice was un- avoidably absent OD urgent private business, he hoped Mr. Warburton would postpone his motion till the next day.

Mr. WARBURTON said, that the book was SO full of notices, that be should have no chance of bringing forward the subject the next day. The question was not a complicated one ; and anybody might easily make himself master of it by examining the documents.

Mr. liannso said, that Mr. Rice had a cause which was to be tried the next day, and he was obliged to attend a consultation with his coun- sel. He could not himself undertake to answer the case to be stated by Mr. Warburton. Mr. Wattscaros said, that after the 7th, many Members for places in the North, much interested in this subject, would leave town ; and it was most desirable that it should be brought forward before they left. Ile knew many Members had been ordered by their constituents to attend the discussion. (Cries of "No, no! ") He begged pardon, requested, he should have said. Would Mr. Baring guarantee him a bearing for the next day?

Mr. BARING would do his best to secure Mr. Warburton a hearing; he could not answer for more.

Mr. IVARBURTON then proceeded. In order that there might be no abjection in point of form to his motion raised at any future stage of the debate, he would read the terms of his motion ; so that the objec- tion, if ally existed, might be stated at once, and thus save the House the trouble of discussion. He intended to move-

" That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will he graciously pleased to give directions that the Commissioners to whom it was refiared to examine the claims of certain British subjects for losses sus- tained on account of book-debts and other property confiscated by the Govern- meut of Denmark in 1807, shall receive, entertain, and examine the claims of certain British subjects for losses sustained on account of the seizure by the said Government, in the same year, and subsequent confiscation of merchandise ashore, which claims, or the evidence by which they are supported, may not have been delivered in to the said Commissioners before the 12th of February 18135; and that tl.e said Commissioners shall report on such claims to the Lords Commissioners of her :tlajesty's Treasury."

[While Mr. Warburton was reading his motion, Mr. Spring Rice entered the House and took his seat behind Mr. Warburton. A Member bad left the House as soon as it appeared that Mr. Warburton would nut give way, and Mr. Rice came in about two minutes after- wards.] Mr. Warburton repeated the question, whether there was any objec- tion to his motion? — -- Mr. Rica apologized for his absence. Ile had been detained by pri- vate business of an urgent nature. There was no Parliamentary ob- jection to the motion, as be found that it only referred to money already granted for distribution among the Danish claimants, and did not call for any fresh grant of money.

Mr. WARBURTON then proceeded to state the case for the claimants for compensanon for property ashore seized by the Danish Govern- ment. It appeared from the admission of Mr. Perceval, that the Danish property seized by the British Government amounted to no less than 1,379,00a, :Hording an ample:fund for[the compensation of the Sufferers by the Danish seizures ; but of this sum only 113,0001. and 78,0001, had been granted for that purpose ; and the only class of elainionts whose case was favourably received by the Government was those whose book.debts had been confiscated ; for the owners of met.- chandise ashore had only three months allowed to them to acrid in their claims, while the book-debt claimants, who required so much less time, had six inon•bs. The conclusion was, that there existed an inten- tion to defeat the claims of the owners of the merchandise nshore ; but Mr. Warburton caled uputi Mr. Rice to know upon what grounds one set of claimants were preferred to another, who, in justice and accord- ing to the law of nations, had as good a right to compensation.

Mr. Bit r complained that lie had not been allowed time—he only

asked for twenty-four hours—to prepare himself for this debate. He considered himself bound to resist what he deemed an unfounded claim on the public purse. These claimants bud not called for com- pensation during the long intei val between 1807 and 1834, although the subject had been repeatedly brought before Parliament ; and their neglect to prefer their claims, Mr. Rice argued, was pretty good evi- dence that the parties themselves did not place much reliance on their justice, lie must warn tbe; House against the "extreme peril " of sanctioning claims to an undefined amount. There was no specified sum now asked for. For tl e e e ;SOT a he aliould oppose the motion.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that any deficiency in Mr. Rice's speech was not to be attributed to want of preparation, but to the case he had to defend. It was quite unpardonable that justice had not been done long ...go to these claimants. For his patt, he was shucked, not at the amount of the money, but the enormity of the injustice. No case bad been made out for refusing the claimants sufficient time to come Hi and prove their case before the Commissioners.

Mr. Mact.r.as: and Mr. WILBERFORCE strongly advocated the cause of the claimants.

Mr. Balass could not believe that Mr. Rice was serious in his op- ?osition to the motion.

Mr. Wartsuarom said— Mr. Perceval hail expressly stated that 1,597,0001. had been paid into the tre,ours on the express ground, that every individual who claimed cOm. peusitioa 1hz Miuries suffered from the Danish Doverninent, might he indemni- fied al:chiding to the particular circumstances of the eve. 'the sum that had been actua4 paid was not more than as. in the pound. The SUM for which be asked was limited in amount; and when Lord Althorp acceded to Mr. Parker's motio.1 mu P,34, no sum was required to be named.

Mr. Rice, finding that he received no support from the House, was constrained to withdraw his opposition to the motion ; but the House was responsible, not the Chunceilor of the Exchequer, for the conse- quences. If the thattcr were left in his hands, the claim should be investigated, amid a grant, if necessary, proposed to the house for their liquidation.

Mr. ‘ValteCUTON acceded to this offer, and withdrew his motion.

THE BATTLE OF TtiE DiAMoND.

On Wednesday, the House was occupied for several hours in a dis- cussion relative to the conduct of Colonel Verner, who was dismissed from the Irish Magistracy for giving the toast of " The Battle of the Diamcrid " :it a public dinner at which he presided. The Colonel entered into a long detail of circumstances connected with the affray, quotiog many passages from Irish history and public doeuments. His 1111011011 was tor a copy of the correspondence between himself and the Irish Government,

Lord Mottesro defended the conduct of the Irish Government ;"and maintained that it was highly necessary to mark with displeasure the attempt to revive embittered feelings between different classes of people in Ireland. He referred to several transactions in which Co- lonel Verner figured, to show that he was an improper person to hold the office of Magistrate in Ireland.

Mr. Corm:stouts considered that Colonel Verner bad been harshly tseated. Mr. O'Connell had received different usage. Did Mr.

O'Connell's speech at Carlow, inciting the people to abed blood, call forth a prompt epistle from Mr. Secretary Drummond? Other persons, Mr. Gore Jones, for instance, had misconducted themselves in their magisterial capacity : were they written to by Mr. Secretary Drummond ?

Mr. O'CoNatern was glad to ascertain the precise part of the House which Mr. Colquboun dignified with his presence. Air. Colqu. houn bad made a long journey to Ireland, and returned with a marvel- lous budget of blunders. With respect to the Carlow speech, falsely attributed to him, it happened that the very first notice be had of the speech was from Mr. Drummond, who had seen it in the Dublin Evening Mail. He contradicted the report at a public meeting the same day. Another speech had with equal falsehood been attributed to him by the Bishop of' Exeter : be had never contradicted that till then : were hi to contradict all the calumnies:uttered against him, he would have nothing else to do. He had given the toast of " The Repeal of the Union ;" but, said Mr. O'Connell, when I gave it,

o I did not know that Lord Mulgrave would be appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, nor that his Secretary would be a nobleman who, instead of hunting down the small deer, would single out one of the stateliest stags of the forest, as an example to evil-doers."

A long debate followed ; in which Mr. LITTON, Mr. &taw, and Colonel PERCEcAL took part with Colonel Verner; and Mr. Spam Rice defended the Irish Government. In the course of his speech, Mr. RICE spoke of Colonel Verner as one who scattered firebrands and spread destruction, like those who slew their enemies by poisoning wells. Colonel VERNER demanded an explanation of these words ; and, after some demur, Mr. RICE said that he intended nothing per- sonally offensive to the Colonel; and there the matter was suffered to drop.

The motion for the correspondence was agreed to.

EXCLUSION OF JEWS FROM MUNICIPAL COUNCILS.

On Monday, the motion being that the House should go into Com- mittee on the bill introduced by Mr. BAINES for relieving Quakers and Moravians from taking the declaration of a belief in Christianity, imposed by the Municipal Act on officers elected under that Act,

Mr. GROTE moved an instruction to the Committee, " that they have power to extend the relief afforded by the bill to persons of all religious denominations." He said— A very strong feeling prevailed amongst his constituents with respect to the intolerance of the present law, especially when, by that law, they saw gentle. men of the Jewish persuasion excluded. He appealed to the honourable Mem- bers present whether the Jews, who within the last two or three years had dir chareed the duties of High Sheriffs of London, had not filled those *offices with as much honour anal credit to themselves as any of their predecessors? He contended that Jews, as well as other dissenters from the Church of England, ought to be admitted to municipal offices. In fact, he could not conceive upon what ground the Member‘for Leeds could oppose his proposition. He waited with impa- tience to hear it ; for he did not want to go one step further than did the same honourable Member's bill in 11336. By excepting Jews from his present bill, that honourable Member, in his opinion, degraded his bill from being a bill of principle and justice, to one of special grace and favour.

Mr. GORING seconded the motions for the instruction.

Sir JAMES DUKE bore testimony to the high respectability of Mr. Salomons and Mr. Montefiore, his predecessor and successor in the office of Sheriff.

Mr. PATTISON supported the motion.

Mr. LANGDALE and Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND opposed it, on the ground that the extension of the favour to the Jews would endanger the success of the bill elsewhere.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that the personal respectability of Mr. Salomons and Mr. Montefiore should not induce the House to violate a great principle_

The principle be contended for was that of excluding those who did not pro. fess to belong to their common for, from any share in the government of England. 'they were very different propositions, that of relieving from dis- abilities those who dissented from the Church of England, and relieving those who dissented from Christianity. He insisted that the latter description of persons should not legislate for that Christianity in which they did not believe. those who supported a contrary proposition forgot that they were called there to consult upon matters connected with and in defence of " the Church." To this it might be said that persons had been admitted who were not interested in the Church ; but still none had been admitted who did not at least profess themselves Christians. Ile could assure honourable Members that the admis- sion of Jews would be against the feelings of the country. For himself, he had always °prised the introduction of Jews into that House, and he should con- tinue to do so.

Mr. CUTLAR PERM:850N remarked, that Sir Robert Inglis always opposed measures whose object was to do away with intolerance. For his part, with the greatest respect for Christianity, he saw no objec- tion to admitting persons of the Jewish persuasion to offices the duties of which they were capable of discharging.

Mr. KEMBLE spoke against, and Mr. G. F. YOUNG for the motion.

Captain PECHELL said, that when Mr. Salomons first went down to canvass Shoreham, there was much prejudice against him on account of his religion but during the progress of his canvass the prejudice wore away, and he had a very good chance of being elected.

Sir CHARLES BURRELL said that Mr. Salomon& did not receive the vote of a clergyman or gentleman. He was supported by a certain class of electors, whose votes were obtained he would not say 'how. Mr. O'CONNELL thought the fact mentioned by Sir Chasies Bur- rell any thing but creditable to the Shoreham constituency, lie was against the pitiful mode of legislating hair by hair, and bit by bit— He would admit all persons into office without any religious test. Ile did not know any thing so derogatory to Christianity au that rerigious tests and oaths should be made a mere road to office. There was nu sanctity about such oaths; and the flippancy with which the awful ceremony was guile through was env thing but creditable to religion or conducive to religious feelings. True refigious feeling consisted in doing justice to everybody, in not allowing religion to interfere with the functions of any man, but leaving evety man to entertain freely his own religious opinions. They had no right to scan the religious opi- nions of others. There were gentlemen of different persuasions in that House ; but it was no part of the duties of that House to inquire into the religious opi- nions of any individual. They must look to a man's conduct ; and if his con- duct were such as to entitle him to the enjoyment of civil rights, the more con- scientious such a man was in refusing to obtain those rights by means incon. 'Went with his conscience, and thereby of depriving himself of civil benefits, the more repugnant such a man Was to taking oaths, the mare would he in his opinion be entitled to confidence. Instead, therefore, of shutting the doors to office against such men, they ought to open them wide.

Mr. HOME charged Sir Robert Inglis with inconsistency in support- ing a bill which did away with religious disabilities in India, while he maintained them in England.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL entirely concurred in the principle of the amendment; but would support Mr. Baines in resisting the amendment, if that gentleman thought that it would be an injury to his bill.

Mr. BAINES felt very highly honoured by the opinions expressed by Lord John Russell. He was not inclined to extend the relief proposed by his bill to others than Quakers and Moravians. He thought it highly desirable that the Jews should obtain relief; but in justice to the persons interested in his bill, he must oppose the amendment.

The House divided— For Mr. Grote'a amendment 156

Against it 172 Majority 16

The House went into a Committee on the bill, the second clause of which, on the motion of Mr. BAINES, was amended, so as to include Separatists. The other clauses were agreed to, without alteration.

WILLS.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, on Monday, delivered a very long speech in support of a mc •ion for leave to bring in a bill to suspend the opera- tion of the Wills Act for three months after the close of the present year. As reportea Mr Edward's speech is scarcely intelligible; but it would seem that he objects to nearly every enactment in the new bill for regulating the disposal of property by will.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL opposed the motion. He thought that Sir Edward Sugden, with all ,his ability and undoubted knowledge of the subject on which he spoke, could not have succeeded in making him. self understood by the House. It was most unreasonable that Sir Edward should expect to suspend the operation of a law, because be differed in opinion with the able lawyers who had framed it. The objections he had urged would have been properly put forward when the measure was discussed in Committee, but they were now quite out of place. Sir John considered the law an excellent measure- 1 If he were mistaken in this opinion, lie should despair of any act of legislation ever proving satisfactory. What was the history of this act, both as to its prin. ciples arid its main enactments? It was recommended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, consisting of several Bishops, with all the heads of the Courts and eminent lawyers in Westminster Hall, and also the Ecclesiastical Judges. It was drawn up by Mr. Tyrrell; and, when printed, it was circulated amongst all the eminent conveyancers in the country, who were solicited to make sug- gestions, and front whom much valuable information was obtained. This was in 1834, when the bill was read a first and second time. That House was not considered a fit place for the discussion of such a subject; and it was re.. ferred to a Committee. Notwithstanding the cheers amidst which Sir Edward Sugden had concluded, the wisdom of this course was obvious, for he would ask whether those who had cheered had been able to follow him through his speech? All the lawyers in the House were named upon that Committee, which sat for several days, and went through the bill clause by clause. He regretted that, uot being then in the House, they had not the advantage of Sir Edward's assistance. In 1835 the bill was again introduced: it was read a first and second time, and Sir James Graham assisted in framing it. When Sir R. Peel was in power, the then Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, approved of the bill, and expressed him- self ready to bring it forward in the Lords; but he thought that, as it had never passed the Commons, it had better go through there first. It was approved of by Sir F. Pollock, Sir W. Follett, Sergeant Jackson, Dr. Lefroy, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hogg, and all the eminent lawyers, who in Committee went through the bill clause by clause. (" Hear, hear ! ") All the contro- verted points alluded to by Sir Edward Sugden had been by them discussed and overruled:; and, after that, should the bill not go into operation because Sir Edward alone objected to it ? The bill then went up to the Lords ; but, being late in the session, it was postponed. In 1836 it was introduced into the Upper House by Lord Langdale, who entirely approved of it ; and referred to a Com- mittee, upon which sat the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Abinger. They considered the bill ; but not having made up their minds, and requiring time for further consideration, it did not then pass. It was again introduced by Lord Langdale in 1837, and was sent to a Committee composed of all the Law Lords of the House, and was returned in the same state in which it had passed the Commons. It was read a third time, and received the Royal assent of the young Queen Victoria.

Sir John Campbell really hoped that the House and the country would have confidence in the united opinions of Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir William Follett, and Lords Lyndhurst, Langdale, and Brougham ; and it would be well for Sir Edward Sugden himself to remember, that, though a great lawyer, he was not the only great lawyer in the land.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said he would not divide the House, being satis- fied with having stated his opinion on the subject. The operation of the law would show whether he was right or wrong.

The motion was negatived without a division.

COMPENSATION TO LORD CANTERBURY.

Sir F. POLLoCK, on Tuesday, called the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the losses of the late Speaker and other Officers of the HOUR`, by the fire in the Houses of Parliament. He rested the claim of Lord Canterbury to compensation on legal grounds ; and quoted some authorities to prove that a public servant, residing in a house selected by Government, had a right to demand payment for losses incurred by the carelessness of persons over whom he had BO control. If the Speaker had effected an insurance, it would lave been worthless in point of law ; for in his house there was the ap; pearance only of a party-wall, but not such an one as would render Lad . insurance valid. By grace or favour be might have recovered the amount of an insurance, but the officers of a company admitting his claim would have been guilty of a breach of trust. Then, where was he to apply, if not to the House of Commons? Sir Frederick Pollock concluded by moving " that this House do resolve itself into a Com- mittee of the whole House, to consider of the Report on the losses of the late Speaker by fire of the Houses of Parliament."

Mr. SPRING Rice felt the highest respect and esteem for Lord Can- terbury, but regretted that he must oppose the motion. With respect to the question of insurance, Mr. Bellamy was exactly in the same position as to the party-wallas Lord Canterbury ; but Mr. Bellamy had insured, and zeceived the full amount of his losses from the Insurance Company. Lord Canterbury might have insured had he thought pro- per to do so, and the public ought not to pay for the loss incurred by his own negligence. As a public officer, he must on principle oppose the motion.

Mr. WARBURTON said, that Lord Canterbury bad no more right to expect favour from the House than anyother individual. From papers that had come incidentally before the Committee, he had gained Infor- mation of a transaction which deserved to be characterized as " an arrant job "— It appeared that after the fire had happened, whilst the House was in a dilapidated condition, an application had been made to the Treasury by Lord Canterbury to purchase from him eight chairs two screens, and two sofas, for the sum ot' five hundred guineas. These eight chairs, two screens, and two sofas, had been formerly purchased by his Lordship from Lord Gwydvr, who had laid claim to them as a perquisite of office, because on the night before the coronation of George the Fourth they had been in the chamber M which his Majesty had slept, and by some hereditary right they thus became his perquisite. They had accordingly been awarded to him by the Court of Claims, and Lord Canterbury then purchased them from him. The fire took place, but this fur- niture was preserved ; and when the House was dilapilated, in order to make these chairs and sofas available in the house of the Speaker who might succeed him, Lord Canterbury offered them to the Lords of the Treasury. This was in the time of the Administration of the rigLt honourable baronet opposite. The offer was accepted, and almost concluded, when the Administration was changed, and fortunately this arrant job was nipped in the bud. There was certainly a disposition on the part of the then Government to show favour towards Lord Canterbury ; and having this proof before them, he asked honour- able Members to keep a guard on their feelings not to do that which was un- just to the country. He asked them to lay aside all private feeling which they might have for their late Speaker, for having shared his friendship or partaken of his hospitality, and, nec ',rem, nee pretio, to show greater favour to him than they would show to any other individual.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN thought that Lord Canterbury bad a claim on the grace and favour of the }louse, which ought to be admitted.

Mr. Hume thought an explanation of the job mentioned by Mr. Warburton ought to be given by Lord Granville Somerset, the First Commissioner cf the Wom:s and Fo:ests. It was the must disgraceful job be had ever heard of, arid he had assisted in raking out a good many. He would not admit the doctrine that the House should be generous. Why should they be generous ? It was unjust, and not generous, to vote away the public money. Lord Canterbury had se- cured a large pension for himself and a good sinecure for his son, and had had compensation enough.

Mr. PEASE had paid much attention to the subject, and was decidedly of opinion that Lord Canterbury had a claim to compensation. Mr. F. BAntsc opposed the motion.

Colonel SIBTHORP supported it.

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that the transaction nbout the chairs and screens was a job. Lord Canterbury bad bought the furniture in ques- tion for the convenience of Members of the House—for the decoration of state-rooms which he never used except when entertaining 31embers of the House. When he left office, he applied to have the money re- funded ; and Sir Robert maintained that, in acceding to this applica- tion, nothing like a job bad been committed. With respect to the claim for zoinpensation before the House, Sir Robert considered that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it ought to be granted. It was not a claim of right, but Lord Canterbury was entitled to the generous consideration of the House— There were some occasions when generosity, though not perhaps required by the strict letter of the law, was must consonant with the honour and permanent interest of a great country. Let that house put itself in the place of a master in the present case: let it suppose itself in the situation of a private whose steward had, on account of iialisposition incurred in service, demanded permission to retire, but who, at the urgent request of his master, continued in office, to his own great inconvenience; let the House further suppose that this servant, after a short period, suffered a loss in consequence of a calamity for which be was not in the slightest degree responsible ; and he then asked whether it would not be consistent with justice, if not with law, to take an equitable view of the case ? It was on this ground, that looking to all the vari- ous circumstances of the case, and considering that it was not likely to occur again, he should, not concealing from himself the difficulties of the question, but consulting the dictates of a liberal and generous justice, vote in favour, not of the grant of any particular sum of money, but of the motion for a Committee made by his houourable and learned friend.

Sir ROBERT ROLFE would vote against the motion, because Lord Canterbury had not acted with connuon prudence.

The House divided—

For the motion 163

Against it 173

Majority 10 IMPRISONMENT FOR DEI,T.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord Chancellor COTTENBAK moved the second reading of the bill to abolish Imprisonment for Debt. He explained, that the bill differed very materially from the measure under the same title which lw bad introduced in 1836. In that bill were provisions which enabled debtors to make what was called it res:40 bonoram, or an equal division of their property among their creditors. Ile cousidered these provisions salutary ; but they encumbered the subject, and wine omitted from the present bill. The aim of the present bill was confined strictly to improving the mode of process, and the remedies which the creditor had against the debtor; and to relieving the debtor from some of Mo. e hardships, which,' a. the law stood, be Wt14 often exposed to at the suit of his Creditor. At present, the creditor had that remedy against the person of ti e debtor which be ought not to have and had not that remedy against the pro- perty of the debtor which he should have. At present, tiny body might be arrested if any other person made an affidavit that the former owed him twenty pounds. He had.this remedy against the person ; but the debtor could so arrange his property as to have all the enjoyment of it himself, leaving his creditor without the means of satisfying his claim. The creditor could not touch his money in the Funds, or lay hold of debts due to the fraudulent debtor. If the debtor chose imprisonment in preference to paying his creditor, the latter had no remedy. The debtor might take the benefit of the Insolvent Art, and then his pro- perty would he equally divided among his creditors ; the person who had arrested him, perhaps after going through an expensive process of law, having no larger share than any other creditor. Generally speak- ing, the creditors got nothing ; for experience proved that dividends made in the Insolvent Debtors Court seldom produced any thing after paying all expenses. Under the Insolvent Debtors Act, persons were imprisoned on an average about eight weeks ; so that the debtor was taken from his business, and lost all credit ; and what good did the im- prisonment do to the creditor when the debtor gave up all his pro- perty ? And if he had no property, what was gained by the harsh and cruel process of imprisonment ? But he might have friends who would Pay his debts rather than allow him to go to prison : did the House think that was a course of law which ought to be encouraged ? He believed that the major part of the persons arrested never paid their debts. In the Courts of Equity, the amount of money involved was enormous' but there was no arrest except in one case, and the writ was granted at the discretion of the judge : it was the writ ne ereat reqno. The judge exercised this power with great caution. Lord Eldon said there was no part of his duty which he exercised with more fear and trembling than the issue of this writ. Jita court of justice, any man who made an affidavit of debt to the amount of 201. could stop another from leaving the country, however urgent the cause of absence. Why should there be this difference between the Courts of Justice and the Courts of Equity ? He had stated that money in the Funds could not be seized by a creditor— Now, by the bill on the table, this property, as well as all Aare. in compa- nies, would be made liable to seizure for the payment of the creditors. Ile thought that no reason could be found, on principle, why the remedy of the creditor should be confined to the seizure of goods and chattels only; and why creditors should not be entitled to every description of property which the law could find the means of transferring from a debtor. The proposition then was, that after judgment a creditor should have an equitable lien on the lands of the debtor. In the ewe of stock, where it stood in the name of a debtor, it might be very Inzardrus to look upon that always as the property of the debtor, for he might be acting only as a trustee: it was therefore his intention to introduce this matter to the Committee, provided the House should think proper to ac- cede to his proposition in granting one ; and he should suggest that such a pro- vision should be into oduce.1 as would give a creditor a lien on such stock, by which means he would be enabled to work out his remedy. The Committee, however, and the House, would on this subject, of course, take such measures ab to them should seem fit. The same observation would apply to shares; but, on the other hand, it would not have reference to bank-notes, or to promissory notes, or bulbs of exchange or bonds ; for in those cases no danger, he thought, would result from the creditor being put in possession of 9urli property by a Judge, in order that he might have security, by %%Midi he could obtain that to which he was entitled. There were some other powers which followed the same principle, hut te which 1,e need not particularly allude ; fir lie might con- tent himself with point:eg out to the House that the scheme was, that wherever divisible property existed, it might be handed over by the Judge to give the creditor a title to pursue his claim. There was one other rtgulation which W55 new, fool was riot contained in the former bill, and which it might be sug- gested would cause sonic iticonvenience in mercantile tiansaetions : there was a power given to take property which should appear to belong to the debtor, and which should he in his possession ; and the question was, whether this course would be likely to produce inconvenience or not. But this al-o would receive the attentiou of the Committee, arid they would give their opinion on the sub- ject founded on the facts which :should be shown to them ; and upon the opi- nion which they might express, the House would be at liberty either to amend the bill in this respect or to omit the clause entirely. A Wan might appear to be posse.oed of great property, but might say " This is riot mine; " but 'surely some regulation on this subject should be made by which timid might be pre- vented ; for there was no reason why a person should not be considered to be the real owner of the property which was in his possession. There was one other measure of some importance in the bill to which the 'mention of the House should be particularly drawn. It tot& away thosei

poi tams of the old law by which an act of bankruptcy was proved to bro..: been committed ; but

io doing this, some test must be provided in order to shoe: the•ame fact which

was proved by the act of bankruptcy, namely., the inability of the debtor to pay; and the bill therefore directed that the non-payment of money for a certain

length of time after judgment obtained should be deemed equivalent to an act of bankruptcy. This was in fact, an equivalent ; fur the only evidence pro- duced 'ay such an act WA the inability of the debtor to pay. These provisions would subject, with very few exceptions, all the property of debtors to execu- tion creditors ; and could it bedewed that the creditors would be better off than they were before,. notwithstanding the removal of all the pressure of the old system, or that they were not in as good a position, and at the same time the debtors would be relieved from the inconvemence of arrest? Not only so, but the act furnished 11210,1) ample and better means of recovering debts from per- eons who might have fraudulent intentions than now existed. If the debtor almild be about to leave the country, or to abscond, it was necessary that the creditor should attach the property. At present, he had so far a remedy that be could detain the person of the debtor in the event of judgment ; but if lie was at a distance from London when be ascertained his intention to quit the country, he had to send to London for a writ, and then be was subjected to the delay of waiting until process should be sued Out; and if these steps were not taken at the commencement of the suit, they could not be so afterwards. The debtor then might remain in the country and oppose the creditor's claim so long as it was safe, and then he might remove from the country. To remedy this evil, a provision was suggested by which a power was given to the creditor to go before a Justice of the Peace, or some other person competent to take oaths, and to make an affidavit of the circumstance of the debt and of the intention of the debtor to quit the country, and the property would be attached.

The bill also extended the power which existed in certain cases under tbe Lords Act— Under that statute, debts not exceeding :300/. in amount were contemplated ; but under the new tin, it was proposed that the same power should extend to all debts, and that the ntnedy should extend therefore to all classes. The Lords Act had been in existence for some time, and he saw no reason why it should not be extended. It was proposed that a debtor, on a judgment, should be liable to be called on to deliver •schedule of hie property; and that he should he examined on it before certain officers, who should be appointed to act in cases in London, and before Commissioners in the country as to its amount; and the necessary powers were given to compel answers, as the Commissioners of Bankrupts were already empowered to do; for the debtor had no right testy that, having been relieved from imprisonment, he should refuse to answer ques- tions with regard to his property. 'There were other points to which he might draw the attention of the House, but he thought it would be unnecessary to K0 more into detail on tile subject of the bill ; but there was one subject on which, no doubt, much interest would be felt by Members of this and the other I-louse, and to which, therefore, he felt bound to refer : he alluded to privilege of Par- liament. No alteration in the law in this respect was proposed, because the principle on which the exemption was grounded had been long established; and he saw no reason, therefore, why any change should take place, due care being taken that creditors should have the means of enforcing their just claims; and this being dilly provided for, there was nothing in the privilege which was inconsistent with the provisions of the bill.

Lord LYNDHURST gave a brief history of the several attemps that had been made to legislate on this subject ; and charged the Attorney.. General with the loss of the bill of last year. That learned person was not in the habit of dawdling, but he dawdled so in the conduct of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, that the measure which was introduced on the 6th of February, was still in the House of Commons on the 6th of April. It was thrown out by the Lords because they had not time to consider it; and it was very properly rejected. As to the alleged popularity of the measure, he had ascertained that the petitions against It far exceeded those in its favour, and the number of those who signed the adverse petitions were as ten to one to those who had petitioned in its favour. There had been some mystification about this hill— It was eaid that it was not only to abolish imprisonment for debt, but that it was to give an additional security to creditors, and that the abolition of the- imprisonment was a consequence of that measure. Persnne were generally very, astute on matters affecting themselves, and understood their own rights per. feetly. There were many who were most intelligent persons, and full of in. formation, whom he had consulted on the subject of the bill, and they all de- clared that the additional, or rather the improved remedies proposed to be given. to creditors, were useless—that they did not care for the additional securities— that they were, in fact, no securities at all, but, on the contrary, that they left the creditor in a worse situation than ever. Now let the House look at the first clause alluded to by the Lord Chancellor, by which an increased power was given to the creditor in respect of the landed property of the debtors. He had no objection to that clause if it should prove of any additional use to the parti- cular class of creditors referred to, to whom arrest for debt was useful; but he did not see what this clause had to do with the holders of freehold estates, and copyholds, and customary lands. It might apply to creditors for small debts, but in cases such as he had pointed out the bill did net apply. How were the customary and freehold lands affected only by judgments under the act ? It was perfectly possible for any debtor to favour some one of his creditors by acknow. !edging a judgment to him. It was competent for him to do this, when thene was no law by which it was prevented. He might be told that this was the law at present, and that the evil already existed ; but although it did so, there was a check to the system in existence when a person made over a freehold land ; for when such a thing took place there was a cheek, for the body of the debtor might be taken tinder a writ of capias ad satitfaciendum: but let this power be takiet away, and what control existed ? The debtor would tell you that he would defeat yuu, and then what good could be done? The creditor would be defeated, legally defeated, and there would be no remedy. Then it was said that the mosey and the bills of exchange of a creditor might he taken ; but what was so moveable as money? and might not bills of exchange be endorsed away in a minute, aiel then where was the additional security? The Chancellor had next alluded to stock in the Funds which could not now be taken ; and had stated, that the consequence of the law as it now stood was that a person might run into debt, niight go to prison, and might live at ease upon his stock ; and to put an end to this state, his noble and learned friend properted to render funded property a security for debt. The first objection to this proposal was, that debtors to the small amount (if 301. or 40/. were not usually stockholders; and, next, that even if they were, they could easily sell out during the progress of the suit, and they had only then to invest the amount in fereign securities, and thus C0101 Fet their creditors at defiance : they need not even be immured within the walls of the Queen's Bench ; they might live in Grosvenor Square, reeeiviog their dividends from French or any other foreign stock, and taking readysfurnislied houses, and live in splendour. He did not understand such provisions, and he confessed that he thought it was a mere mockery. His noble and learned friend had forgotten to mention another provision in the bill, which enabled a creditor to become a substitute for the debtor as plaintiff in ally suit or action which the debtor might have commenced. They all knew the difficulty of conducting a cause to a prosperous issue, even when the plain.- tiff had the whole management of the suit, and knew all the facts ; but how much would this difficulty be increased if the original plaintiff were adverse!

There were other points in the bill so singular and unjust that it would weary the patience of the House were he to name all that he deemed objectionable— The persons who drew the bill did not seem to be aware that a defendant might obtain a judgment against a plaintiff, and that if the costs due to the defendant were not paid, the plaintiff might be imprisoned. Now the defendant was to be liberated by the operation of that bill, but such relief for the plaiutiff was entirely omitted ; all mention of his release was left out of the 24 clause, it teas left out of the 6th clause, it was left out of the 8th clause, and it was left out of the 9th—not one of which applied to his case. How did it happen that this omission occurred, in a bill formerly introduced to the other House by the Attorney.General, and to that House by the Lord Chancellor? Was the omission intended, or was it a mere slip; or did those learned persons think that the plaiutiff was always in the right, and the defendant always in the wrong ? But whatever might be the reason, no notice was taken of this possible occurrence. His noble and learned friend had also alluded to the power given by the bill for the 'ciente of securities. Suppose, however, that the plaintiff should luckily get hold of the securities, let them mark what provision was made to render them available. The creditor was to put them in force; he wag to receive the money arising from them, out of which he was to pay hum. self his debt ; and then he was to hand over the difference to his debtor. Here again the framers seemed to be acting on the principle that the plaiutiff was always rich and in the right, sod the defendant always poor and in the wrong; but Lord Lyndhurst thought that sometimes the plaintiff might be the pourer man ; and suppose that after he had put in force his debtor's seized securities he were pressed by his own creditors, and applied the balance to his ow use,. what would become of the original defendant ? He would be left to hi. action against the creditors. The subject of abolishing imprisonment for debt dirided itself into two partarrest before judgment, and arrest after. At first view, errs,-

nothing appeared more harsh than arrest before judgment. This was the only great commercial country in which the power to arrest before judgment existed ; and lie felt inclined to abolish it but still, where credit bad been given on the faith of the existing system, great caution should be used in meddling with that system. There were advantages also in the existing system- It rendered men more cautious in incurring debts; not, perhaps, all men or all characters, but still many did not incur debts in the same reckless manner

as if no such power were in existence. And again, it operated beneficially for tradesmen, because if a debtor could pay it instantly produced a settlement. In short, its effect was to procure prompt payment from those who either had or could obtain the means of liquidating the debt; but it was useless against those who either had not, or could not obtain the means, and who, if arrested, "mold go to prison and avail themselves of the Insolvent Act. The result of the whole on his mind was, that this part of the law required some modifica- tion, hut that the extent of such modification required great consideration, and .ought not to be effected too suddenly.

Arrest aft" egment rested on a totally different principle-

The- • . tof the debt had been fully established before a competent e debtor had received full notice, and ought to pay. He had eferred to the usages of other countries on the other point, and he would .gain refer to theni, and say that there was not a country in Europe in which Slit' power of arrest after judgment dues not exist. If there was any tangible or visible propet ty, u wtit of arrest was not issued, and the property was seized in preference to the person ; but supposing there was property which was not visible, or which was suspected to be secreted. a power of arrest was given, because it was considered to give the power to the plaintiff to compel the de- fendant to disclose the property, and that thus the debtor was made an agent to pay the creditor • whereas, if the present bill passed, the debtor would he at his ease-he wodd not assist in giving information to his creditor. He thought it most important, therefore, that the power of arrest after judgment should be retained. He did not say that he was not open to conviction upon this subject ; and if lie saw any method of obviating the difficulties which he then felt, he would most willingly give the proposal his best consideration. Ile now soggestell that the present bill should be read a second time ; and consider- ing the time sellieli such an important measure must occupy, not only in the diseussion of its details but also of its main principles, and considering also that the Commissioners-able and astute men-were divided in opinion, he proposed aloi that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee. And if noble lords had not read the disselo of Mr. Sergeant Stephen, he would earnestly request them so to 110 ere they determined on the support of thine principles. Lord linoecnata, in the course of a very long speech, entered into it general defence of the bill ; though he admitted that some of Lord Lyroiliurat's objections were well founded. He confessed that he did not like one important alteration which Lord Cottenbam had made : it wits ominous of the fate of the bill- " I am sorry to see-and I assure my noble and learned friend, who intro• filmed the bill, that I speak this with very sincere concern-but I am sorry to lice that, among the alterations about to be made in this useful, in my opinion just and humane, and I am certain wholesome and salutary act, there is about to be made, besides the charters to which my noble and learned friend adverted, one other alteration which I most deep'y deplore-I mean that alteration which is to draw the line between the Ileinbera of the two 'loaves of Parliament, sod by which we act invidiously and unjustly, and, in my opinion, towards the rest of the coinrutmity, little short of insultingly, to say that with us the law shall not operate; that alteration by which we are to place outselves in the proud preeminence of twing law-makers, and, therefore, law-breakers-of making a law by which we know that we retain in our own hands the power to violate, and by which we alone, of all our fellow-citizens, are to keep to our. selves that power which was described both by my noble and learned friend who spoke first and my noble and learned friend who spoke last, the power of not doing what every honest man dues, and what every man ought to do. Their observation was, that the object of this bill, of this compulsory emit t- alent, was to make every man do what every honest man already did ‘sitliout compulsion. NI'llat an invidious position is it-and that, too, by way of privi- lege, by way of exalting Parliament and making it more likely to gain the affections and to command the respect of the people-what an invidious position is it in which this alteration is about to place yua ! You, of all men are not to do, or at least are not to be obliged to do, what they who'propound ;he alter- ation in the same breath tell you the object of the bill is to compel every one to do-namely, nothing more than what every honest luau already does, and does nut want any compulsion to force him to do."

Lord SVINFOIlD concurred with Lord Brougham, that there was no valid reason why Peers should be protected in the refusal to pay their just debts : and that was not the first tone he had expressed such an opinion, as Lord Brougham well knew.

Lord DeNmao said, he could mention one or two facts which should induce the House to pass the bill without delay--

One was the case of a gentleman who came to this country as the Consul of one of the South American States. He gave orders fur a certain quantity of goods; and in his public capacity, and whilst residing in this country, he was actually arrested as one of the partnership for whom the goods were ordered. Of course he was thrown into prison ; where, though a person of high rank and station, he was confined for many months. l'pou his release, he brought an action of malicious arrest, and recovered very great damages. He (Lord Denman) for- got whether those damages were ever paid or not; but he asked their Lord. ships to consider fur a moment the case of this distinguished foreigner as their own. Suppose any one of their Lordships were residing in another coun- try, and were to be arrested upon such a pretext as that which lie had stated, and confined many months in prison, whut sort of opinion would they form of the code of a country in which they had met with such treatment ? Since he had held his present station upon the bench, another instance of a soniewhet similar kind had occurred. A Portuguese nobleman landing at Plymouth, or residing at Plymouth, was arrested, thrown into prison, and obliged to pay a large sum of money to procure his release. He also brought an action for ma- licious arrest, and recovered large damages against the person who had impri- soned him ; not one farthing ot which, however, had ever been paid. But what compensation could any amount of damages be to a person who was so outraged by the abuse of a law which was always in operation in this country? It was impossible to suppose that either of the two distinguished individuals to whose cases he had referred, however wealthy they might he, could be provided with sufficient money at the moment to purchase their release. But let it he considered how many persons there were continually exposed to the operation of the cruel law, who had it not in their power to COMmand the vet.) smallest • sums; and let it be remembered how much that difficulty was Mei eased when they were suddenly thrown into prison, and every means of tinning money, either by their trade or labour, dosed against them. It was to prevent the possibility of /whets like these, and time possibility of -the ruin of umbers, that he was in hopes that the arrest upon matte process would _have been at once (Iceland a practice that ought not to be continued in this free said enlightened community. It WM dreadful to think hew many

London February 27. Mallon April 3. Marylebone.. . February 20. Newcastle-under-Lyne March ft. Newry March 20.

Not folk. East April 26.

Norwich May 10.

oarara County May 1. Peteratield F •bruary 13. Pontefract May 22.

Poole March 22.

Port arl ington March 2).

Preston May 17. Queen's County February 27.

Keeling March 6.

It olburghshire February 6.

Salford F.bruary 6.

shartedliiry March 1$. Sligo Borough February 15.

Sligo Comity March t). Stirlinshire April 24. Tamworth Mardi 22.

Taunton February 27. • Fralav March 6.

TY uemouth Februara 22. Waltsit Ma-ch lb.

Waterford City May 3. Westmeath May V. Wisklow April S. Woodstock May I. Worcester March 27.

Yarmouth April 26.

Youghall February 23.

37 petitions have been presented by POSTAGE. On Monday, petitions were presented from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, from Brighton, and Montrose, in favour of an uniform and low rate of postage. Simi- lar petitions have been presented from other places in the course of the weck.

ADMISSION OF THE PUBLIC TO CATHEDRALS AND THE TOWER. On Monday. Lord JOHN Resstoo. stated, in reply to a question from Mr. HUME, that be was in correspondence with the Dean of Westminster, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, arid the Ordnance Department, rela- tive to the free admission of the public to Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's, and the Tower ; but that the opinions expressed differed so much that lie was at a loss what course to adop'. Ile was willing to produce the correspondence. At the suggestion of Mr. II cam, copies of the correspondence were ordered.

• Last Meld, the Speaker stated that the Tralee petitioners had not entered into the requisite recognizant:es. and the order was discharged.

persons had been imprisoned for Wog periods far very small some. It was was found upon inquiry, that a verb large propurtios of the persona imprisoned for debts were fur sums under ; and it was a fact tbat four-fifth' of the whole number were imprisoned for various punts under SOL There was One consideration connected with this subject which had not yet been pressed at all upon their Lordships' consideration, but which he was sure no one at all con- versant with the history of the courts of justice would be insensible to. It was this, that the less the means of the debtor to pay the expenses and colts of his arrest, the more completely was he placed at the mercy not only of his creditors, but of the low practitioners of the law-men who were in the habit of pushing the abuses of the law to the very uttermost to secure their own gain, and with- out the Bina:lett regard to the feelings or interest of the unfortunate beings who fell within their power. Ile found that their Lordships were all agreed that the bill should be read a second time, and referred to a Committee up stair.. lie trusted that the only object of that Committee would be to discover, &rid that without any unnecessary loss of time, the best substitute that could be und for the existing law ; and that they might now venture to consider that the principle of the present bill was adopted and sanctioned by the approbation of their Lordships.

Lord A BINGER would willingly aid in improving the bill in Com- mittee; but he confessed that, as it now stood, it did not contain a clause that met his approbation.

The Duke of itirla.INGTON hoped that the bill would come out of the Committee giving security for the recovery of debts other than the arrest of the debtors. He believed that the system of credit hitherto pursued had been instrumental in promoting the prosperity of the colliery.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said a few words.

The bill was then read a second time, said referred to a Select Committee.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ELECTION COMMITTEE Bettors. The following table gives the list of petitions against returns, and the days appointed for taking the same into consideration.

May 3. 1838.

Maiell 22.

February 13. lay S. May 8. May 15. Ma: 17. February 13. March O. Felnuary 15. May 15. February 8. Mardi S. March 13. Apt il 3. May S. March 13.

April 5. March I. April 24.

March 8. May 1. May 15. May 10. .February 20.

Irub 15.

March 6. February G. March 20.

March 17. February 20. April 24. April 3. February 8.

Of the above, it appears that Liberals, and 30 by Tories. Belford Iterw irk Belfast Beierley Blackburn

11dm ii

130.131in ri,:gnorth Bridgewater Bristol has Sr. Edmund's Calderbury

Carlow Borough

Carlow County Carl U.kfcrgus Denbigh Dublin Dudley Dorliam opatrick

ii jut Couto y

Flom

luttet ,Ler

fl0111:On

11,01 11110 i ngden County

ich Kerry Lanatkaliire Leice•ter Limerick County Longford