Clrbatrd anti Vrocreltingt in Vadiamrnt.

1. IRISH Thum.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, in the House of Commons, on Monday, after remarking on the importance of an eally settlement of the tithe ques- tion, said lie loped there would be no objection made to bringing up the Report of the Committee, and having the bill read a first time, on the express understanding that nothing further was to be done until after the debate on the Irish Church on Monday next.

Lord JouN RessELL would not throw any obstacle in that way of proceeding, but he did not think that the bill could be read a first time that night.

The Report was then brought up by Mr. BERNAL, and read by the Clerk. On the question that the resolution be read a second time,

Mr. Beata protested against it, though he Ivould not divide the House at that stage of the proceedings.

In reply to a question from Mr. GtsuonNE, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that although the clauses respecting the remittance of the million loan could not regularly be intioduced into the bill, he hoped the I-louse would allow them to be insetted pro Amu. Bowever, he would give mike that he should move the introduction of these clauses on the Wednesday or Friday following.

Mr. O'CONNELL then spoke against the bill generally, but was williug to take the million for the people of Ireland pro Moto.

Some conversation then ensued between Sir ROBERT PLEa and Mr. GISBORNE; which ended in Sir RoaEar's promising not to attempt the introduction of the money clauses till after Monday the 00th, as Mr. GisuottNE said that he concurred with Lord Howlett in thinking that resolutions relating to money passed in Committee were binding OD the House, though such as related to religion were not.

Mr. FEARGUS O'CoNsaut and Mr. SHEIL were in favour of taking the million ; which Mr. DrvETT and Sit S. WHALLEY, on the part of the People of England, said they could not consent to.

Mr. Banaos called the attention of the House to some of Sir Robert Peel's arguments against the Tithe Bill of last year, as lie found them in the Mirror if Parliament.

Sir Robert Peel expressed himself in the following words, on the :30th July 1834—" Until. you have vindicated the law, by showing that the collection can be made, is it Just to force the collection on the landlords? " Had the law, he would ask, been vindicat..,d, in the interval between the period when the right honourable Baronet had made use of the words which he had quoted, and the present time? It had not ; and yet Sir Robert had asserted, that it was unjint to force the collection of tithes on the landloids, until the law was vindicated. 31r. Shaw also used, upon the same occasion, the following words—" All I maintain is, that, until the authority of the law is restored by the collection of tithes, the necessity of which is so strongly stated by Mr. Littleton, the landlords will not, cannot, Sir' in justice, be forced to take the payment on themselves." What a change had been effected in the opinions of those whose sentiments he had just quoted ! If Sir Robe' t Peel and his friends in the House of Lords had not opposed with effect the measure in reference to which he used the language which he had quoted, it would have been unnecessary fur the Members of the Government to conic down to that llouse, and confess that the majesty of the law could not be vindicated, and that the million which had been lent the Clergy of Ireland could not be collected. And he contended that the persons who had 'ejected the bill were answerable for the massacre at Rathcormac and all the other bloody scenes which bad recently occurred in Ireland. (" Hear, hear ! " and " Oh, oh !") Yes he would repeat that these frightful atrocities, these revulting massacres, had Yes, the result of that heedless, that factious opposition which had been offered to that measure. Never, he said, had there been ex- hibited by public men such a base dereliction of duty and proper feeling as had been displayed by the present Government—( Cries of "Order . ")—such a vile factious course of proceeding—(" Order, order !" and "liter, hear ! ")- it was an insult to the understanding of the People to invite them to place confidence in such an Administration. It was, he repeated, an insult to an intelligent body of men to ask them to place confidence in any portion of the association upon the Treasury benches. They had adopted tha measures of the late Government; the Dissenters' Marriage bill, this very Tithe Bill, and were now endeavouring to pass them off as their own. This very bill was taken from the late Government, and yet Sir Robert Peel and Sir Henry Hardinge had the modesty to claim credit for it as their peculiar work. Well might the late Administration say to them, while they thus rubbed them of their honours, " I los ego Ten:lentos lea t ulit alter houores

Sic Tos two vobis oidificatis uses I"

The members of the Government had in fact abandoned every principle they had ever professed. They had been guilty of a dereliction of every duty. There was only one was of possibly accounting for their having thus abandoned every prin- ciple, and that was their base desire of holding office.

Mr. SHAW contended, that there was a material difference between this bill and the bill of last session.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE spoke nearly as follows, amidst great uproar.

After the very coarse invective in which the honourable Member for the city of Waterford has indulged—(Load cries of " Spoke ! " from the Opposition, answered by loud cheers from the Ministerial benches)—the honourable gentleman Sir, has used the words "base love of office " in the course of his speech. lithose words were meant to apply to me, I can only say that they could only have been dictated by vulgar insolence.

Mr. BARRON again rose-

" One word, Sir. I have only to say that if the right honourable Baronet alludes to me in the words which he has used, I treat them with the most utter contempt, and I repeat every word of the charge which I have made. I throw them back in his teeth.

Lord Joust Beast:Lt was sure that Mr. Barron meant his observa- tions to apply to the political not personal character of Ministers. Sir HENRY HARDINGE felt it incumbent on him to repel with indig- nation the motives attributed to him; the charge was unfounded and untrue.

Mr. BARRON—" I can only say that I believe in my conscience what I have said to be true." (Cries nf " Order ! " and" Chair! ")

The SPEAKER rose and said-

" As the debates in this House are best conducted by the observance of de- corum and propriety, so the time consumed io them is never so palpably wasted as when the honourable gentlemen allow themselves to be betrayed into expres• sions of personal invective and vituperation. Unquestionably, the honourable gentleman (Mr. Barron) made use of an expression which he ought not to have used; and if I have to take some degree of blame to myself for not having called him to order, the fault has arisen from net attributing more importance to the expression than I thought at the time it deserved. Fr0111 the disorder, however, which has resulted from the use of the phrase to which I have alluded, I am now bound to tell the honourable gentleman, that the exprtssiou was one which he should not have used ; and that, having ueed it, the offi nee which he thereby counnitted, was committed not ussainst individual Alembeis, but against the House. After this statement of his having offended against this House by the use of the expression in question, I have no doubt but that Ile will offer an ample apology for having done so."

Mr. IlArtaoN was quite ready to apologize to the House. He hen never spoken of individuals ; but if any one thought proper to take what Ile had said to himself, he bud no apology to offer to that person.

A Member here started up, and declared that lie had no hesitation, on the part of his constituents, in saying that tie political conduct of Alinisters exhibited a gross dereliction of principle, and was disreput- able and dishonourable.

The SPEAKER required a more ample apology from Mr. Barron.

Mr. ILseitox then said—" Seeing that the honour of each indivi- dual Member is best placed in the hands of the Speaker, I have only to express my regret for having used the .expression which has given of- fence."

Sir HENRY HARDINGE—" Conceiving that the explanation which the honourable Member has given is received as satisfactory by the House, I have not the slightest objection (after the withdrawal of the offensive expression) to say that I sincerely regret the, warmth of my own expressions."

Colonel EvANS said, that, divesting the expressions of Mr. Barron of all personality, he did not hesitate to say that he fully concurred in them.

He had no disposition to use any expression which could be personally offen- sive; but as Ile had taken opportunities of adverting to the public political con- duct of his Majesty's present Ministry on the hustings and elswhere, and as what occurred here might lead to a conclusion out of doors that the Opposition Members shrunk in the House from expressions used there and elsewhere, and as he found that a kind of bravado was used on the other side, he felt it necessary to avow there and to repeat, if necessary, all that he bad said elsewhere as to the public conduct of the members of his Majesty's Government. And here he must say, that Sir Henry Hardinge had taken up the course to which he had just referred. There, for instance, was the case of Lord Londonderry's mission, which was before the House the other evening, and when not one word was said against that noble Lord that could by implication be considered personally offensive, Sir Henry Haidinge stated, that if any thing had been said against that noble Lord, he should have felt it his duty to notice it ; and this too when it could not be supposed that the gallant officer was excited by the heat of debate, for it was on the next day, when he was quite cool.

A Member called Colonel Evans to order for referring to a former debate; and Mr. WYNN said it was irregular. The SPEAKER said, particular expressions in former debates ought not to be alluded to.

ColonelEvANs resumed. He must submit to the rule of the House.

All Ile would say, therefore, was, that the right honourable and gallant officer did, on a former occasion, either there or elsewhere, declare, in the most un- provoked and gratuitous manner, that if any man said any thing offensive to the character of a certain noble lord, he should feel himself called upon to vin- dicate— Sir HENRY HARDINGE interrupted Colonel Evans; but the SPEAXER decided that he nntst wait till the Colonel had finished his speech. Colonel EVANS then went on again— He repeated, that several occurrences had taken place in the House lately, which induced him to think that it absolutely behoved those who with him were in the habit of viewing the conduct of his Majesty's present Ministers as highly discreditable to them, not to shrink on the present occasion from the frank avowal of their opinion.. With the exception of the expressions which had been the subject of remark that evening, and which, he admitted, were not altogether proper -or authorized, he must say that his Majesty's Mi- nisters ought rather to thank that side of the House tor the extremely tempe- rate manner in which they had conducted their opposition. He begged to be allowed to say one or two words on the political conduct of Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Robert Peel. That conduct was certainly most extraordinary. Asto- nished at it he was not ; but unquestionably it was one of the most glaring and flagitious exhibitions of a total dereliction of all -public principle that had ever disgusted the public. When his Majesty's Ministers talked so often and so Joudly of possessing the confidence of honourable Members, he should be very glad to know what portion of the House, looking back to the conduct of the eight honourable Baronet for the last six or seven years, could possibly place any confidence in him? Could the gentlemen who sat behind that right honourable Baronet, in the corner of the House, place any confidence in him? Could those Menibers who had uniformly resisted the claims of the Dissenters place any con- fidence in him? Did not Sir Robert Peel some time back go out of the door of the House, totally disgusted, because he found himself in a minority in the op- position which he made to those claims? and did he not, a few days after, come back and introduce a bill for the repeal of the Test and Co. poration Act ? Until the lath of last November, Sir Robert Peel was totally opposed to any p7opoei- tion such as that the report of which was waiting at the bar' and now he claimed the confidence of those who concurred with him in that opposition for having made a similar proposition. Could Sir Robert claim the confidence of the Section? (" Hear and a laugh.) He might, perhaps endeavour to justify himself under the term "expediency"—a gentle phrase 14 all inconsis-

tency and dereliction. It could not be love of office for its emoluments by which Sir Robert was actuated ; that, of course, was entirely out of the question. Some- thing, however, had certainly come over him of a very extraordinary nature.

Of this, however, Colonel Evans was convinced, that it was impossible that the nouotry could be satisfied with the conduct of the present Administration. He believed that their days were numbered. When it was seen how small a modicum of Reform they were disposed to concede—when it was seen how much importance they affected to attach to some little alteration in the cere- morry of marriage—relieving the Dissenters from observances painful to them, but without in the slightest degree diminishing the rights and benefits of the Church—he was persuaded that there would be one universal expression of dis- content and dissatisfaction.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE, amidst much interruption, denied that he had used any threatening expression towards those who had spoken on Lord Londonderry's mission.

Sir EDwAsp KNATCLIBULL and another Member spoke a few words; sad Men Sir Roam PEEL requested permission to address the House. He 'Wended his consistency in regard to the Tithe Bill. "I have hisard charges made against me witht to the course I have passed regarding the commutation of tithes in rIeli'lerateld, which can only be founded in utter ignorance—for I should rather attribute them to iguoranc.! than intentional misrepresentation—of what my couduct really has been on that question. 13ut how stand the facts? A bill was brought into this House at an early period of last session by the late Government, providing for the ar- rangement of the Tithe question. That bill imposed, in the first instance, a land-tax, which was to endure for five years, at the end of which period it was to be laid upon the landlord as a rent-charge ; that rent charge was redeemable, and the redemption-money was to be connected with land. The amount, the payment of which by that bill was imposed upon the landlord, was, I believe, 71 per cent of the tithe. That bill I supportrd. The late Secretary for Ire- land will acknowledge that he had my support in the passing of that bill. (" Hear, hear! " l'rom Lord Stanley.) 1 come into power ; I bring in a WI in my turn for the settlement of the Irish Tithe question ; and what arc its principles? It imposes the payment of 75 per rent. upon the landlord imme- diately ; it provides for the irdemption of the rent-charge so imposed ; for the investment of the money thus realized in laud ; nod that that property shall be strictly reserved for ecclesiastical purposes. Now I ask, whether it be pos- bible, in the vicissitudes to which human affairs are subject, to suppose a case of less inconsistency than my supporting the first measure I have described, and originating the second." But the original bill brought in by the late Government bad been confounded with the bill of August RS amended by Mr. O'Connell- " It may be said that I opposed the latter ; but sortie gentlemen suppose that I was a party to some organized plan in the House of Lords to throw it out. Sir, the House of Lords determined on their own course, and I was no party to any combination in that House." (Lour/cheers front the .Ministo ial benches.) He wished to have specific, not vague charges brought against him— He was perfectly conscious that in having undertaken the task he was now discharging, be was not acting from any view to the gratification of personal ambition, or from any desire for the presumed advantages or emoluments of office. He had not sought the office which he held by any factious attempts to thwart the late Government of this country. He had never entered into any alliance with those who entertained extreme opinions and feelings on the side of the House on which lie then sat. In this respect he was merely stating a fact with reference to himself ; and so far from meaning it as an invidious reflection upon any man, or body of men, be could appeal to his political opponents to avow the truth, that he did not attempt to gain power by a factious combination with those opposed to him in principle. Opportunities, however, had presented themselves, but he had never availed himself of them. From the circumstances under which he had accepted office (accepted it from a sense of duty), he had determined to make every constitutional effort to maintain it. He would con- tinue to make those efforts. He would meet any charges of inconsistency which might be renewed against him ; and, relying on the purity of his own motives, he would attempt to take a course consistent with the principles which he still avowed, and which should he likely to give satisfaction to the country ; but he would not hold office one single hour beyond that in which he thought be could retain it consistently with the inteiests of the Crown and the honout of a public

man. Mr. BARRON said, that Sir ROBERT PEEL, with his usual dexterity, had evaded the matter in hand.

He stated that the principle of the measure now before the House was to place the burden of tithes on the landlord. He then quoted thewords employed by Sir Robert Peel last year, and showed that the circumstances of Ireland were in no way changed, except in the opposition to tithes having become greater, since Sir Robert made his observations upon the very principle which was now at stake before the House—viz, that it was impossible, in the language of Sir Robert, to fix the payment of tithes upon the landlord until the law had been vindicated.

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Rathcormac bad not then occurred."

Mr. BARRON—" No; and that only proves that it is as bad to place the burden upon the landlord now as it was then."

Colonel EVANS said that Sir Robert Peel had defended his own con- duct at the expense of his colleagues, whom he had thrown overboard.

Mr. LirrtrroN had never supposed that Sir Robert Peel could act from any but honourable motives.

He must, however, take the liberty of reminding Sir Robert of what he Ap- peared, on this occasion, to have altogether forgotten, viz, that he had ca- kagues in the Cabinet. (Loud cheers.) Mr. Littleton knew, and so did all the world, the extreme caution with which, during the last session of Podia- liament, he expressed himself on most public questions ; and upon none did he express himself with greater caution than upon the Irish Tithe question. But, nevertheless, Sir Robert Peel was undoubtedly associated with gentlemen in this and the other House of Parliament—the latter especially—the justification of whose consistency would be extremely difficult, and any attempt at which the House would not, he was certain, hear from him.

After a few more words from Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. SHAW, the resolution was read a second time, and agreed to.

2. ORANGE LODGES.

A Select Committee of the Commons, to inquire into the nature, extent, and tendency of Orange Lodges, was appointed on Monday, on the motion of Mr. FINN. The motion was seconded by Mr. MAX- WELL, who avowed himself an Orangeman ; and was unopposed by the Ministers ; notwithstanding which, a discussion of some length ensued. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN, Mr. HUME, Mr. SHEIL, Mr. GOULBURN, Sir HENRY HARDINGE, Sir R. BATESON, Mr. WV3E, and Lord CLEMENTS, all addressed the House; but the only interest of the debate turned upon a personal altercation between Mr. WARE and Lord MAHON, ef which we gather the following particulars by collating the different reports. Mr. WARD, in reply to an observation from the Ministerial side, said he did not see how the proposition to exclude persons with a particular bias or feeling from the Committee could be carried into effect. For himself, he must confess he had strong feelings upon the subject, not derived from the represen- tations of the Irish or any other Opposition Members, but from a work pub- lished some years ago, and attributed to a noble Lord opposite, entitled Three Months in Ireland, in letters, by a Protestant ; from which he would take leave to read an extract. [Mr. Ward here read a passage in which the Orange-. men were desctibed as ruling the count!), with a rod of iron.] Lord Manor: solemnly declared that he never knew that the work allcded tonsks attributed to him till a few weeks ago, when he saw hirrtself named as the author, in a pamphlet called Politics of 1835. He declared that he was not the author of the work 'and that therefore there was not a shadow of foundation for a charge of inconsistency as applied to him. Ile would not occupy the time of the House longer, because he felt that the discussion ought to have terminated long ago, and had only been prolonged by Members who had their speeches prepared_ beforehand. It might still be continued, but he hoped not in that strain cil" personality which had characterized the observations of several Members Wit night, and which must tend to lower the House in the estimation of the come in: He might have availed himself of his official situation to recriminate open the honourable Member for St. Alan's, by adverting to charges in the more of the Foreign Office, which ought to make that gentleman particularly cautious how he attacked any Member of the present Government. But he mould not avail him,elf of this advantage. ( Cries of " Name !") ilea, he alluded to the honourable Member's mission to Mexico, which gave ape to serious charges against hint. kir. WA up said it was unfair in Lord Mahon, whilst complaining of persona- lities, to have himself indulged in a personal attack of this nature. Ile did not &ay that, in the course ofhis Mexican mission, circumstances occurred most painful to his own feelings, but not injurious to hie character—( Cheers)._ most painful to his own feelings as connected with his superiur in office. Ile had eommitted an error, and he acknowledged it most fraukly and fairly to Mr. Canning. Mr. Canning replied, in one of the last letters he ever wrote, that ke was perfectly satisfied with the explanation he had forwarded to hint, and that he stood as high in his estimation as ever. This was his distinct answer to ate charge which Lord 111ahon—flushed, he supposed, with a few weeks' pea...casket of office—( Great ehrering)—had most unfairly, most wantonly ars,d cruelly, brought against a man who had never done him the slightest injury. What charge had he brought against the noble Lord ? He had 7.,ccely imputed to him the authorship of a pamphlet, of none of the .3eatiments contained in which Ile need be ashamed, which he should hat.: been delighted to have been enabled to attribute to the noble Lord, and which be had not ascribed to him lightly. He first saw the work aAlibed to hint in the brochure to which he bad alluded, entitled, as well as he remembered, State of Politica io 1835. Ile sent for the work, merely asbing for " Lott] Malion's book on Ireland ;" it was forwarded to him zn that order, without any explanation whatever. lie would not posh the ratter any further at present as regarded the noble Lord ; but he would call upon him to state, in his place in that House, on a future occasion, fairly and honestly, whether the whole facts of the case did not confirm the statement which he had just made—and the noble Lord's predecessor in office, who was ktter acquainted with the whole of the circumstances, would confirm it also— that at the close of his correspondence with Mr. Canning, Mr. Canning assured him that he was pea fectly satisfied with his explanation, and with the results of his mission; and that he stood as high in his estimation as he had done be- fore. ( Lord cheers.) Lord :11 IION, seeing how the feeling of the House went, said,he had no hesi- tation in confirming the statement of Mr. Ward, that the transaction to which he hail alluded in no degree affected his personal or political character ; and that statement he most willingly confirmed. (cheers, and cries of" Oh !") Ile also begged to express his regret at having given rise to this altercation ; but he was sure the House would feel that it was occasioned by the personal and unex- pected manner in which he had been called up by Mr. Ward.

3. COMMUTATION OF ENGLISH TITHES.

The House of Commons on Tuesday resolved itself into Committee, to consider that part of the King's Speech which referred to the commu- tation of Tithes in England and Wales.

Sir ROBERT PEEL (who excited a laugh by addressing Mr. Bernal, the Chairman, as "Mr. Speaker ") then proceeded to lay his plan be- fore the Committee. Ile dwelt on the great importance of effecting a settlement of the question, especially on account of the growing indis. position of landowners and tenanfs to pay any addition to the amount now taken by receivers and owners of tithe. He explained at consi- derable length the provisions of the two measures introduced by Lord Althorp in 1833 and 1834 for the commutation and redemption of tithes; both of which bad proved unsatisfactory to the country, and had been withdrawn. The plan he was about to propose was liable, he thought, to fewer objections than either of Lord Althorp's; but if any Member thought differently, and could satisfy the House that Lord Althorp's plan or any other was better than the one he intended to pro- pose, he would not object to it on account of the quarter from which at might proceed ; for this certainly was not a party question. The principle of his measure was the encouragement of voluntary commu- tation. Notwithstanding the very great expense attending the com- mutation of tithes under the existing laws, there had been 1000 volun- tary agreements for that purpose ; as would be seen by reference to the private acts passed between 1757 and 1830. On some of these tithe. acts an expenditure of 2000/. had been incurred. The new plan was to the following effect. It was proposed to establish a Board of three Com- missioners in London, two to be named by die Crown and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury; this Board to have the power of appointing Assistant Commissioners. The landowners and titheowners in every parish would be entitled to meet, after due notice had been given, to confer together on the means of effecting an amicable settlement of the amount to be paid in future in lieu of tithes. An Assistant Commis- sioner, if applied to, would attend such meeting, and explain the prin- ciples and rules which the Legislature had laid down on the subject. If at any such meeting two-thirds of the landowners, the titheowners„ and the patron of the living, should come to an agreement, the terms of it must be reduced to writing, signed by the parties, and transmitted to the Commissioners in London ; after whose approval it would become binding. The Bishop of the diocese would have no right to interfere, as the interests of the Clergy would be protected by the Commissioner named by the Archbishop. The commutation sanctioned by the pro- posed bill is to be a corn-rent, apportioned by the Assistant Commis- sioner on all the titheable land of the parish. A portion of land might also be set aside in lieu of the corn-rent. Any person dissatisfied with his apportionment would have the privilege of appealing to the Quarter- sessions. The commutation-rent to be leviable by distress or action ; or if below a certain amount, by a shorter mode of proceeding, before two Magistrates. The average price of wheat, barley, and oats, to be taken as,the basis of the commutation ; time amount of which is to be subject to revision every seven years at the desire of the parties. Dis- putes respecting moduses and exemptions from tithe are to be referred to the Commissioners; or if the parties please, to a Jury. The opera. don of the bill is to be limited to five years. No expense whatever is to be incurred by the parties ting under the bill, as the Commissioners are to be paid by the public. Sir Robert Peel concluded with the fol- lowing resolution.

" That it is expedient to give facilities for the commutation of Tithe in the se‘eral parishes of England and Wales, and for a payment in money in substitution thereof, to tie applotted on the titheable lands in each parish ; such payment to be subj. ct to variation at. stated periods, according to the prices of corn, or for the allotment of laud 'Uitlieu of tithe in parishes wherein the parties concerned may consent to such allotment." A desultory conversation then arose. Mr. LENNARD objected to a fixed payment for seven years, as before the expiry of that term, the value of the land might be very different from what it was when the amount was fixed. Colonel Wools very much approved of the plan ; as it removed the grand objection to tithes, namely, their tendency to prevent improvement. Mr. C. FnucussoN and Mr. ROLFE thought that the country expected something more decisive than Sir Robert Peel's measure ; and Mr. Fergusson spoke highly of the plan by As hich the tithe question in Scotland was settled after the Reformation. Sir ROBERT Lecus spoke in favour of the measure. Lord JoitN Ilusseu, believed it would be ineffectual. Mr. BLAMIRE approvi d of it, as an approximation towards a settlement of the question. Mr. PARROTT remarked, that the bill would operate most unfairly on the owner of land that might be thrown out of cultivation ; and Mr. LEN NARD said, that if the Corn-laws were abolished, much poor land would be uncul- tivated. Mr. PRYME said, that most of the voluntary tithe commutation had been effected in connexion with enclosure acts.

If, as was generally supposed, an enclosure rendered the land one third more valuable to the clergyman than it previously hail been, Ile hail obviously an in- terest to that extent in seeing it take place. In the general coursoc of negotiation which accompanied such matters, he was asked by the landowners to consent to the enclosure and to a commutation of the tithe at a corn-rem : if he were un- willing, they would say that they refused to consent to the enclosure On any other terms; and then, rather than not have the encluslfre, he would accept those which they offered. In this manner, numbers of the commutations xvilich existed had been brought about. Sir Robert l'eel had mentioned the large saving of expense which would attend commutation under his b11, as an addi- tional incentive to effecting it. That incentive would only operate mum the landowner, for the titheowner was at present not liable to any shame of it; that is to say, the inducement to commute, arising from that cause, would indence only the parties who now felt most strongly the necessity of a commutation, and would nut at all affect those whose consent was most essential amid must difficult to obtain—the titheowners.

Mr. GROTE asked if any thing was to be done respecting the tithes paid in cities ? Sir Romer PELL said, he lied no intention of doing any thing at present.

Several other Members made observations ; Sir Roarer PEEL replied; and the resolution was agreed to.

4. LONDON UNIVERSITY CHARTER.

A bug discussion arose on Thursday, on a motion by Mr. TOOKE, to address the Crown to grant a charter of incorporation to the Lon- don University, as approved of in 1831 by the Law Officers of the Crown, containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and medicine. In opposition to this, Mr. Gousnutis moved an address praying his Majesty to lay before the House copies of the memorials which had been presented to the King in Council against conferring a charter on the London University, and of the proceedings which had taken place in the Privy Council in reference to these me- morials. Mr. Goulburn contended that the House had uot sufficient materials before it to come to a right decision on the question ; and therefore his motion, by which it would not be prejudged, ote.;lit to be acceded to.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS spoke in favour of the amendment. Ile said that the concession made by the London University in regard to the degrees in divinity was of little value, as be found that in 1831, while 268 degrees of 13.A. and 168 of .M. A. were granted at Oxfold, there were only 12 degrees in divinity conferred. It was lint tair for a new institution to take the same letters to indicate degrees as were used by the old-established seats of learning.

Dr. LUSHINGTON arid Mr. WARBURTON, in support of Mr. Tooke's motion, urged the injustice inflicted on Dissenters, who were excluded from the great National Universities, and yet were not allowed to take degrees at the London University. With respect to the charge made against the latter, that it was a stock-jobbing concern, it was false ; as the dividends on the stock were limited to four per cent.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON was in favour of establishing some central college for the Dissenters, since he could not conscientiously admit them into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge ; but lie was nevertheless opposed to the motion of Mr. Tooke.

Mr. BARING contended, that the House before voting for the motion should be made acquainted with what had passed 011 the subject helot e the Privy Council. As one of the original subscribers to the Univer- sity, he could distinctly say that it was not founded with any view to profit.

At the close of Mr. Baring's speech, there were loud cries of " Divide !" and the Gallery was partially cleared, When

Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, and said, that he supposed, from their readi- ness to divide, the gentlemen assembled at the louver part of the House were perfectly acquainted with the nature of the motion under discus- sion, and that they had maturely weighed the subject. There might be some, however, who were not exactly aware of the bearing of the proposition of Mr. Tooke, who did not know what the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown in 1831, referred to in the motion, really were ; and be contended that additional information was therefore ne- cessary to all such, in order that they might come to a right decision. He contended that there was no reason assigned for restricting the Crown from authorizing the London University to confer degrees iii medicine, as well as in law and arts. In 1831, there were at the Lon- don University 293 students in medicine, 113 in the arts and 74111 law; and yet it was proposed to exclude all these medical students from the benefit of taking degrees in the University ! The House should also bear in mind, that the Committee of the Privy Council, after hearing the question argued ably and at great length, by Dr. Lushington and Sir Charles Wetherell, had not been able to come to any decision upon it. Sir Robert read over the names of the Committee,—Lord Brougham, Lord Denman, Lord Lansdowne, and others ; and con- tended that there must have been some very pressing reasons why these noble persons could not decide in favour of the charter. It was cer- tainly desirable that the House should endeavour to learn wl, .t those reasons were, before voting for the motion. He bad well-founded ob- jections to that motion, and would rather be found in the minority than escape any temporary or occasional difficulty by acquiescing in so unwise a proceeding ; he had rather throw the responsibility of their vote on the majority. " At the same time (he continued) while I say this, I do feel that the position of that portion of his Majesty's subjects who do not conform to the Church of Eaglet d. and who, in consequence of their not submitting to certain religious tests, are excluded

from the Universities. is ground of just complaint with them, and that their claim to academical honours is not without foundattun. As to what may be the proper imxle in .t‘ hick these honours should be coull.rred, not having myself conshkred the question,

I am not preisired to give an opinion. (" heir !" fromthe Opto,iti.m.) I will not entrap the House by giving any pledge on the subject. (Itenerect cries sj- Mar, hear !“ from the Opposition.) Not the least in the world, Sir. let the Ilouse take that cour,:o which it, in its wisdom. thinks fit. without my interposition. But at the same time, it is right that I should not withhold the expression of my opioion ; or reftain front declarieg. that I myself have no objection to some provision being male tit a should nect,rd to Protestant Dissenters, who are excluded front the Un:versit the powt.r or :eletiring academical honours. (Muth rhetria.i.) Yes, Sic ; but that is a question witielt will demand very great consideration ; and which, in my judgment. AVM be tntI to he very Ilifferent from what is now proposed to he :wee 'ed to by the Douse. I do not apprehotal. Sir. that the objection of the U:dversilics of Oxford and Cambridge to the admission or Dissenters into those Universi.ies extends to a grant of a elsarter to the Lomb to Unhert.ity. I believe that the objcetion with regard to the charter was narrowed to the I.ondon University assuming the power to collier honorary titles that might be confounded with the University honours or Oxford and Cambridge. ( Lmight• r itt the (JppeSitiOn :4de.) I believe. Sir, there exists nu olject ion to the I on- don University gtanting degwes in the :Ws anti in the law, specifyiug iii tho dii.10- nms upon what authority those grants at Made. At all eveMs, this is i matter worthy of consider,tion. I now hope, Sir, that I have dealt with the !Iwo.. 1,r- feetly fairly. I terat. I make no pledge, an:I give no :tssurance upon the sal ,j et ; hocanse fume not given tic. matter the consideration which it deserves. I thi,:k tho motion an unreasonable one; and I prefer acceding to the amendment, because I conceive it to be the uuly reaianable course which the house can adopt in the rt..- sell! State ettiliS queA ion."

Lord Joits: II tessera. contended that the conduct of those opposed to the motion was most unreasonable. They stood forward and said-

" We will not only exeltule y in tam the honours and learniinrif WI:: ..1:1 Universi-

ties, but, although you have an University of your 1,wn, cstaldhlwd e7;1.0 4.e of 10,00i., and fully capable or teaching scienee, learning. and ar;s, you ill conferring any honours or degrees evea there." 'This it was tbat m41 the

rievance. It II:U1 beell arg,:ed before, that the objection a as not to the chatter, but to the power of the London University to confer degrees by the fintpes Bachelor mid Master of Arts." Now, it was well haowit that the Ian ii'. t, as attached to thwe names; the granting, therefore, degrees by any new name, which siumed th.tt they were not properly members of an University, or at least that they (lid not degrees like other University degrees, would nut be conferring that di,tit c:::m which was required.

He denied that the subject had been dropped by the late Ministry after the Committee of the Privy Council had ceased to mat.

Scarcely a fiat night passed after the silt tug of that Council, before he reeeivetl from Lord Brougham a communication upon the subject, with a view to see a hellier a charter could le granted. combining with the University the other metlieal institutions.

Baring his nutde friend's journey in Seotland—[/.w.vhkr i a the 31,i- if ,:f the House. reSlOodf'd to ky cheera fron the Opie.silon]-1te was very mach mal.lo■ed upon tl,at 1: atter; alai Lord John itm,sell rceeived a very volitminuns paper trona I ord Brougham, written entirely by him when in Scotland, upon this subject. ce!ilit■ r awl cheers.) It mos nut a matter of ridicule or of scorn that a person of high legal station stall eccupy himself in advancing literature and science.

The filet was, that the late Alinisters were engaged in devising a plan to meet the objections to granting a charter, raised before the Privy Council. But Sir Robert Peel held out no such expectations to the Dissenters.

Eeereouter rose to speak, amidst much interruption.

In the pal ition front the University of Oxford, presented to the King, it was only stated that such marks of distinction as might be granted by the Leaden Univer..itv should ma hear the -,ante tithes as those coact col by Ox- ford and C nob: id-ge. And why ? h. lu,e degrees conferred by thos:i Universi- ties hod under varions circair:too, tok,n as qualifications for placing itt curtain station,: of great tru,t. In the foundations of iiisiitutioter by indivii;nals, the th,,ree of 31a-ter of Arts was often specified as a qiciliiicatien, —not, bowever, MI, ster if Arts ol it new institution, but of the ;LUC:L[1f Cni- venittes. lii citjeeted, therefore, to that name being given to any honour con- ferred hy.the University of London; because it was calculated to carry with it a deception and delusion as to what University the individual lit,iding that honour behengsd. (" Q■le,,tirm,tittextion Divide, divide !")

The House-divided : for Mr. Tooke's motion, :246; for Mr. Goul- burn's amendment, l;36; majority against Ministers, 110.

5. SABBATH OBSERVANCE BHA.

Several petitions from market.gardeners and others were presented, on Wednesday, against Mr. Poulter's bill for putting a stop to Sunday trading in open shops. The second reading of the bill was then moved by 2.Ir. POULTER. .‘; r. WARBURTON, after showing that the Sunday was now more strictly and decorously observed than ever it had been before, moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. POTTER, Mr. CLAY, MT. LENNARD, Mr. EWART, and Colonel Evaxs, supported the amendment. Mr. POULTER explained, that he would listen to all proposals of necessary exceptions, in the Committee : he did not mean to interfere with Sunday travelling or with fruitselling in the streets while the equitable construction of the law would protect victualling:houses, and other such places ministering to the wants of the poorer classes for whose benefit chiefly be was solicitous. Under the present law, religious people could observe the Sabbath properly them- selves, but could not prevent its desecration by others. Mr. GOULRURN supported this, as he had supported former bills for securing the better observance of Sunday. Sir ANDREW AGNEW threw out a Ninth:it to Mr. Poulter not to be too liberal in his exceptions. This called up Mr. HUME, who otherwise felt disposed to let the bill be read a second time. The House at length divided : for the second reading, 121; against it, 45 ; majority for the second reading, 76.

6. LIGHTHOUSES. Trinity House; and Mr. WV: E, Sir. SHAW, and Mr. Fazsimoie, ob- jected to merging the Dublin Board in one national board. Mr. GOUI.BURN denied that lighthouses had been let to individuals on Tiarty or political grounds ; and Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET defended dm lessees from Mr. Hume's attacks.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

7. CHATHAM ELECTION : CONDUCT OF COLONEL TREMENHEERF- MF. LAW HODGES moved, on Tuesday, for a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of Colonel Tremenheere, to which he ha& called the attention of the House on presenting a petition from Chat- ham, last week.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBVIL was hostile to these inquisitions by the house of Commons, though Colonel Tremenlwere was desirous otie- quiry. As to the three persons admitted exclusively to sell slops within the Barracks, two of them were not voters; and one of them, Llims., voted for Captain 13yng.

Mr. IJAw lloDGEs said, that the men were agents of Admiral Beresford. It was also a fact, that the colours of the Marines were taken from the flag-staffs, put on other staffs, and borne in Admiral Bercsford's procession. Sir GEottot: CLERK affirmed, that the slopsellers generally wet.' ex- cluded, because a body of Marines had just been paid off, and Coload Tremenheere wished to save them from being plundered.

Mr. WARBURTON reminded the House, that Colonel Tremenhe.ere had declared, that if the electors voted against the Government =di.- date, he %vislied their sins might be visited on their own heads.

Sir Eowatin KNATC1IBL1.1.—" Colonel Tretnenheere voted for Cap- tain Byng at the previous election."

Mr. WARBURTON—" No doubt, Colonel Tremenheere was dm strenuous supporter of the Government, whatever it might be." As tin the pretence that the order was issued to prevent the Marines from being nlundered, that was inconsistent with the fact that it was re- called when the petition was ascertained to be in course of signature.

Mr. FRESIIFIELD and Sir JOIN HAN3IER opposed, and Sir RONALID FERGUSON and Mr. W. Olio supported the motion. Mr. Ortr) said. that Lucas did not vote for Captain Byng, but for Admiral Beresford. Si: ROBERT PEEL expressed his great reluctance to give his consent to the Committee. He never would consent to making the words used during an election the subject of inquiry by the house ; and would therefore move to limit the inquiry to the ogicia/ conduct of the Colonel. Sir GEORGE GREY said, that Sir Robert Peel spoke in ignorance of the facts of die case. Ile contended that the words and actions sit the Colenel should be inquired into. The words proved the oninpe: by which he was actuated.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then moved, ''That an inquiry should. be made into tie- circumstances under %%Melt 1 on kJ ,•5-K made towards the teratihatlint of the last election Mr the t•orough, podtibiting brokers and slop.ellers hunt entering the Marine Barracks at Chathein, try q■••ehtl permi,-in u!' the l'onItn,L■htitt.-

Sir JOHN Ilomtorse asked why Sir Robert Peel (lid not adhere to his first amendment ?

Sir Romer Pees with rstood that his first amendment was as- sented to. ( Cries j'"Xo, vu

Strangers were ordered :o Witham-. While they were excltule4 Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that there was very little difiesence between his amendment and the original motion. Sir JOHN 110.- 'louse admitted this ; but if there were to be a division. le hoped all the Members on his side of the House would vote for the motion of their own friend. The House then divided : for Mr. ilonc:Est motion, 163; for Sir ROBERT PEEL'S amendment, 132; majority against Ministers, 31.

8. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON complained to the House, on Tuesday, of an attack made upon him by the Morniny Post.

In a discussion on the Chatham petition, on Friday last, he had felt called upon to take part ; and the observation he had tnade was, that great intimiea- tion had also taken place at Devonport, which he considered was very much to be aft' ibuted to Mr. Dawson, the Secretary to the Admiralty, having hoist's". the Admiralty flag, while the General commanding the Marine force had also taken a principal part in the election. lie had distinctly stated that Mr. Daw- son hoisted the Admiralty flag, but he did not state that he had canvassed under the Admiralty flag. It had been attributed to him in the Morning Post that he stated distinctly that the canvassing took place under the Admfralty flag. He had not said so, and the fact might easily have been ascertained by application ta himself, for he could not say so, because he knew it was not the fact. In c. sequence, however, Mr. Dawson had written to him, saying that such a report was to be found in the newspaper, and giving it a flat contradiction. He gave it a flat contradiction too : he told Mr. Dawson that he had not said so, nor fall he said another thing that was charged upon him in the Times. Not conceiving that Mr. Dawson meant, without communication with him to send the cor- respondence to the newspapers, he had made an observation in his reply, which, perhaps, lie should not have inserted, had he known what use would have been made of it. He should have thought that Mr. Dawson would have called vast hint to r -erect the misstatement in the House : instead of that, that geniieraza sent the eorrespondence to the newspapers. In consequence, all the represen- tations of the different newspapers were found in the Morning Post, accom- panied by certain observations, which he felt it his duty to report to the Hon.

SirEdward then quoted the paragraph of which he complained, and which was the following.

" We assert, in reply to this, and shall abundantly prove, that our report ei Sir Edward Codrington's speech is substantially cortect ; and that this gentle- man, in impeaching its correctness, has had recourse to direct and wilful false- hood, or to an equivocation so me-in, dirty, and pitiful, that in comparison trial it, even direct and wilful falsehood becomes a respectable and manly vice."

Ile declined taking any further steps in the matter, but hoped fled he should not be subject to such attacks in future.

Lord CLEMENTS and Mr. IIENRY GRATTAN mentioned instances in which they had been misrepresented by the newspapers.

Lord Jolts; RUSSELL thought that the breach of privilege in the case of Sir Edward Codrington ought not to be passed over. He gave notiam that he should call the attention of the House to the subject the neat day. On Wednesday, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON expressed his desire that

After several other Members had taken advantage of the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, to ask questions on various subjects, the House went into Committee, and voted upwards of a million and a half for the Naval Half-pay, and for the Pensions of Naval officers.

On Thursday, the Resolutions, passed in Committee, were reported to the llouse, and agreed to.

10. ARMY ESTIMATES.

Mr. III-Aims last night moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, preparatory to the consideration of the Army Estimates. He piefuced his motion by stating the circumstances which rendered it peculiatly necessary that Ministers should avail themselves of that night fur the Committee of Supply. The financial year would terminate on the 31st; and the Mutiny Bill must be renewed before the 25th of April, when it would expire. Now Lord John Russell's motion came on next Monday; and it would be impossible for the House to consider the Army Estimates before Friday next—after the financial year had closed. There would also be a short recess between the present time and the 25th of April; when the Mutiny Bill, without which the Army could not be kept together, would expire. Under these circumstances, and as it was impossible to carry on the Govern- ment of the country with the money now in the Treasury, be did hope no obstruction would be made to his motion that "the Speaker do leave the chair."

Mr. HUME said, the question to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was, whether, if Members voted the Supplies without inquiry, they were doing what they were pledged to do ? Now be had pledged himself to do his best to procure a reduction of expendi- ture, in order to obtain a reduction of taxation. He entered into a variety of details to prove the necessity and practicability of making very considerable reductions in the cost of the Army and Ordnance ; and the advantage of placing the control of both departments under a Board, similar in its constitution to the Admiralty Board, to be pre- sided over by a Minister directly responsible to the House of Com- mons. lie hoped to be able to prove before a Committee, that a saving to the extent of one, two, or even three hundred thousand pounds, might be effected by consolidating the Army and Ordnance depart- ments; and he concluded by moving,

" That the Army and Ordnance Estimates be referred to a Select Com- mittee, to consider of the expediency and practicability of consolidating some of the ntilitary and civil departments of the Army and Ordnance, with a view to diminish the expense of those establishments, and to provide a more efficient control over military expense."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that many members of the late Ministry were of -pinion that there would be no efficient control over military

expenditure until one person was charged with the responsibility. With that view, a commission, consisting of the Duke of Richmond, Mr. Ellice, and himself, had been appointed. They made some progress in the inquiry, which was interrupted by the resignation of the Duke of Richmond, and subsequent events. As far as the evidence went, it tended to confirm his opinion, that one person, whether he were Secre- tary at War, Secretary of State, or President of the Army Board, ought to have the control of and be responsible for the military expenditure.

When he looked at the present way in which the Army was governed—when Le saw that the Secretary at War interfered with the Commander.in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief interfered with the Secretary at War—that the Board

of Ordnance exercised a power over either department—that the military officers were obliged to go to the several heads of the different departments—and, lastly, wl,en he took into consideration the great superabundance of stores, which, he believed, at the time of the appointment of the Comtuission was estimated at no further iiroceedings would be taken in the matter. Lord Joux RUSSELL Was willing to leave it to the noose. Sir Roamer Pest. re- commended that the affair should be allowed to drop. lie hoped Lord John Russell would not set a precedent that would render it necessary for a public man in future to notice all attacks made upon him in the newspapers. Ile could furnish Lord John with a vast variety of attacks upon himself. Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, that he had been grossly attacked within the lust forty-eight hours. Mr. SINCLAIR said, that if the motion had been persevered in, he could have produced cases from a file of newspapers, where the falsest and the basest motives were ascribed to Members. Here the conversation was brought to a close.

9. NAVY ESTIMATES.

On Wednesday, the order of the day having been read for the House going into a Committee of Supply.

'Lord ASHLEY begged to make a short statement of the difficulties by which the Goveinment was surrounded. The half-pay dne to officers of the Navy would become payable within a few days of the 10th of April; and it was necessary to give notice of the payment being about to be made, in the Gazette of Friday, in order to prevent alarm,—such notice being always given. But as yet, the money had not been voted. lie hoped that, under the circumstances of the case, the House would not object to go into Committee and vote the money for this specific purpose.

A discussion arose upon this proposition. Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought that, as two millions had been already voted for the service of the Navy, some portion of that sum might be appropriated to the half. pay. He was utterly opposed to transferring money voted specifically by the House for one purpose to another, after the Appropriation Act bad been passed; but in the meanwhile he thought it might be done.

Mr. HERRIES, Mr. CHARLES WYNN, and Sir ROBERT PEEL differed from Sir James Graham ; and were decidedly of opinion that the money voted by the House for an especial object should be rigidly ap- plted to that object, and not diverted even temporarily to any other.

Mr. Ilene agreed to go into Committee, as he would not willingly stop the half-pay of any officer for a single hour.

Lord STANLEY thought that the money already voted might be taken, as there was no doubt but that the House would vote the half-pay. If

the rule laid down by Ministers were rigidly adhered to, the Govern- ment would be placed in constant difficulties. Any misappropi iation

would be detected when the Appropriation Act was before the House. Lord Joust RUSSELL thought it most convenient to go into Com- mittee.

seven with many others, did think that these evils might be re-

medied, and that their correction would lead to a better administration of the uffaii s of the Army. At the same time, it was not his opiuion, nor did he think it was the opinion of any of the members of the Commission, that the military command invested in the Commander-in-Chief for the purpose of preserving military discipline, should be weakened.

Taking this view of the subject, he should be prepared to vote for such a Committee as Mr. Hume proposed : but he would suggest to Mr. Hume, not then to press his motion, on account of the statement made by Mr. Herries. If he did press it, he would divide with him. The cours; of their present proceedings was certainly no fault of this Parlia- ment : it was not their fault that they were getting somewhat too near to the period when the Mutiny Bill would expire, for them at present to enter into the discussion of any other subject. Ile should have no objection to going into a Committee of Supply and take the vote of a certain number of men.

Lord STANLEY concurred with almost every thing that had fallen from Lord John Russell ; though he would not vote for the motion of Mr. liume, as it was brought forward to obstruct the Supplies. At a future time, us a substantive motion lie should consider it well worthy of serious consideration ; being of opinion that great and extensive reductions alight be made with benefit to the interests of the country. Ile hoped that the present Government would follow up the plans of their predecessors on the subject; and he trusted that Mr. Hume, after the strong statement made by Mr. Ilerries us to the importance of not delaying the vote of the evening, would consent to postpone his motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that all previous Parliaments, whatever the state of parties might be, had been in the habit of showing that consideration, which was but just, of the circumstances in which they were placed who were called on to administer the affairs of the country. Ile would remind the House, that when Ministers took office in December last, they found many important questions un- settled,—the Tithe question in England, and Ireland, the Dissenters' Marriage Bill, and die Canada question,—all undecided. Surely he might be excused if he bad not found time to give all the sulijects that pressed for settlement due consideration. Mr. Hume said they had done wrong to dissolve the late Parliament: he dissented from that Opinion. " And," continued Sir Robert, with great warmth of manner, " I ask, whether, on the days that are nominally appropriated for Com- mittees of Supply—I ask whether we have not been constantly obstructed by motions? I ask whether, on almost every day usually appropriated to Supplies, there has not been a motion made as an amendment to the motion for a Com- mittee of Supply ? On this very day, two motions were given notice of. The honourable Member for St. Alban's gave notice of one motion to postpone the Army Estimates till after the vote of Monday. I hope he intends to persevere. (11Inch cheering from the Treasury benches.) I ant justified in concluding that he did not give that notice without due deliberation. It stands for to-night : is that motion to come on to-night ? After the notice of the honourable Member for Middlesex is disposed of, is the honourable gentleman's motion for postponing the Army Estiniates to come on ? I take for granted that it is : I hope it is—(Ifinisteriol cheers, and laughter from the Opposition)—because that is a fair and legitimate course by which the House of Commons may signify whether it will permit the Govern.. meat to continue toconduct the public affairs. I never felt greater anxiety for a motion to be decided than I have after these repeated notices—that on one day the Navy Estimates were to be postponed on the expression of want of confi- dence in his Majesty's Government, and on another day the Army Estimates; but when, after all the notices, I saw only last night a notice that the Army Estimates were to be postponed till the vote was taken on the motion of the noble Lord, then I did not entertain a doubt that a resolution was at length irre- vocably taken, and that we should come fairly to the question—will you give a vote for a number of men, or will the House of Comments insist on a postpone- ment from its want of confidenca in the Executive Government.

Never did man pant as he did for that motion of :want of confidence. He was perfectly careless of the issue. That was the proper and legi- tfinate course to take. lie would oppose the present motion ; but if Mr. Hume would move at a future day for a Committee of preliminary inquiry as to whether any part of the Estimates should be referred to a Select Committee, he would then consider, after examining the evi- dence, what course he would take. Ile would give the subject his best attention.

Mr. ELLICE said, that had Sir Robert Peel made his last proposal without his preliminary observations, he should have been disposed to join in the request to Mr. Hume to withdraw his motion. But be did not feel disposed to do so after Sir Robert's speech. As to the difficulty Ministers were involved in, it was entirely of their own seeking. The late Ministers had nothing to do with it. They bad prepared measures, and would have been able to carry them. Sir Robert Peel was answerable to the country for the delay. What was the state of the country when the late Parliament and the late Govern- ment were dismissed ? The country found no fault with their mea- sures, nor was there ground for any dissatisfaction. At the moment of confidence, and under the Duke of Wellington's advice, the Govern- ment was dismissed, in a manner for which no precedent could be found in the history of the country. By that proceeding the whole of the public interests were impeded. With regard to the question before the House, he agreed that the Ordnance and Army departments should be consolidated. Half the stores collected in the depots of the Ord- nance were worse than useless, and had better be thrown into the sea. He thought that Mr. Hume should withdraw his motion. They were scarcely competent to express a want of confidence by that vote; and if it should be wanted, there was yet the Mutiny Act. He would assure Mr. Hume, there would be plenty of opportunities for expressing a want of confidence in his Majesty's Government. He did not particularly refer to the past week, but the Government was in such a state as to be unable to carry a question ; and to insure any question being carried, it was only necessary that the Government should give it its opposition. Ile could not say how long matters were to exist in the present state; they would probably see it settled in the question on Tithes; and if not, then the House would probably come to some vote which would decide what confidence they placed in the policy ot the Government. A conversation ensued between Mr. IlEaturs, Mr. HUME, .Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. WARD; which ended in Mr. liesiVs with, drawal Of his motion, and giving notice of a similar one for Monday week; and in Mr. Wann's withdrawal of his also, with the intimatieu that it depended upon the result of Mourlay's proceedingsslathea he

should bring it forward when the report of the Committee was brought Ill), before which the vote of this evening would not be complete.

The House then %vent into Committee ; and Mr. HERMES proposed that 81,'171 men should be voted for the service of the year ending 5th April 1836, exclusive of the troops employed in the East India Company's territory. This was the same number as that voted last year ; and Mr. 11F.tuttes explained that his Estimates were in fact the _Estimates of the late Government, us he !tad not had time since his accession to office to enter into such a review of them as would justify him in claiming the merit of them for himself.

Major BEAUCLERK moved to reduce the number of men to 75,000. Sir HENRY PARNELL supported the ameadment ; as (lid also Air.

'CHARLES BULLER, Colonel EvAss, and WattauaToN. Sir C. D'Aimac, General SHARPE, and Sir H. Haltom": opposed it. It was finally negatived, by 255 to 101.

The next vote was for 2,978,52W. for the pay of the land forces. Lord ALBERT CONYNGIIAM moved to reduce the amount by 6,902/, the arnOttitt Or the difference in the cost of the Life Guards over that of the Horse Guards. This amendment also was negatived, by 229 to 57.

The next resolution was for 78,434t, for allowances to the officers of several public departments connected with the Army. Mr. IIUME moved to reduce this stun by 11,980/., the amount of the expenses of the Adjutant and Quartermaster-General's offices ; laic') appeared to him to be enormous. On a division, the numbers were 106 to 43 against the amendment.

Some smaller sums were voted and the House then resumed.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

CANTERBURY ELECTION. On Thursday, the Committee of the eel the Canterbury Election reported, that Mr. Villiers was not, and that Mr. S. It. Lushitriton was, duly elected for the city of Canterbury. Subsequently, it was moved by Mr. DUGDALE, Chairman of the Committee,

That Frederick Villiers. Esq., be at liberty to question the validity of ihe return for the city of Canterhnry within the next fourteen

Mr. Om ot.Es Behr.un complained that the Committee had not done its duty. The circumstances were these.

In the opening of the proceeding before the Committee, Mr. Harrison, as counsel fir the petitioner, proposed not to go into his whole ease, but begged the Committee filst to examine one point,—viz. whether the returning officer had not partially and improperly exercised his discretion by rejecting certain votes that were upon the register, and ought to have been received, thereby giving Mr. Villiers a colourable majority. The consequence of establishing this point, as the learned counsel stated, would be, that the petitioner 51tould be placed in the situation of the sitting Member, and the sitting Member be allowed to petition if he thought fit. The Committee acquiesced in this course; and after entering upon the inquiry specified, decided that Mr. Lushington had a legal majority of votes; that be ought to be returned, and that Mr. Villiers ought, if lei thought it expedient, to be permitted to petition against that re- turn. This was an exercise of discretion on the part of the Committee that, in Mr. bullet's opinion, ought not to be supported but on very substantial grounds. The House would at once perceive the hardship upon Mr. Villiers : he had brought a number of witnesses to London, expecting that the case would be proceeded with in the usual way ; and now found that he must maintain them at a heavy expense doling the fourteen days allowed bins to petition, or re- linquish his right altogether.

He argued amidst some interruption from Mr. Wvxx and Mr. Gochetais, that the House ought to reconsider the decision of the Committee ; and he gave notice that be should move, on Friday, that the minutes of the Committee be produced.

Mr. STRATFORD DUGDALE, Mr. WYNN, Mr. SCARLETT, and Mr. FRESIIFIELD said, that they should oppose the motion as tending to in- terfere with the established rights of Election Committees. Mr. Hums and Mr. G. F. YOUNG were favourable to it. The resolution of the Committee was then put, and agreed to.

LEICESTER ELECTION. On WedileSday, Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from Mr. Joseph Parkes, agent for the petitioners, who com- plain of the return for Leicester : Mr. Parkes prayed for leave to alter the name of one of the sureties, who had been described as Samuel Stokes by a clerical error, his real name being Thomas Stokes. Mr. Gisborne moved that Mr. Parkes be allowed to state the facts at the bar of the House.

This motion Was supported by Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. GROTE, and Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, but strongly opposed by Mr. WYNN, Mr. LAW, and Mr. GOCLOURN. On a division, it was carried, by 147 to 101, against the Ministers; and Mr. Parkes was called in.

He stated, that on the 20th of March he bad applied to change the name of Mr. Babington, one of the sureties for the Leicester petition. for that of Thomas Stokes ; but had, by mistake, given the name of Samuel instead of Thomas. There was yet time to send down to Leicester to ascertain the sufficiency of Thomas's Stokes's security.

Mr. GISBORNE then moved that Thomas be substituted for Samuel Stokes, as it was merely the correction of a clerical error.

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the motion.

lithe House. passed a law, it was its duty, as it was the duty of the other sub jects of his Majesty, to set the example of conforming to the laws. The enactment provided that seven clear days should intervene between the day on which the names of the sureties should be given in and entered in a book, and the day on which the sufficiency of the sureties was to be examined into. The question then was, whether the name of Samuel having been given in, the House had afterwards power to sanction the substitution of that of Thomas: would that be a compliance with the Act?. A name had been given in seven days before completing the surety; would they, by substituting auother name, comply with the rule?

Sir F. POLLOCK argued on the same side, and appealed to the Speaker.

Mr. ABERCROMBY said, that he would give his opinion, if the House desired it ; but it would only be the opinion of an individual. The question was as to the construction of an Act of Parliament, and it was undoubtedly for the House to decide it. He had consulted the books, but found nothing to guide the House in its decision. Lord Sas:noN, Mr. 'TERRIES, Mr. ROLFE, Lord FaANcis Eceares, and Mr. ROBINSON,hought the alteration could not be made. Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. flARVEY, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL contended, that the permon not being changed, and the only alteration asked for being that of his Christian name, it would be more reasonable and just to accede to Mr. Gishorne's motion.

The House again divided ; and this motion was also carried against Ministers, by 129 to 113.

CORK ELECTION. Another debate then took place on the proposal to substitute the name of Henry for William Manitix, one of the sureties for the petition against the return of the :Members for Cork. This motion was brought forward by Iii. LEFROY, and supported by Mr. WYNN, Mr. SHAW, Mr. FaEsneir.1.14 Lord FRANCIS EGERTON. and Sir FREDERICK Pot.hocic ; who had all opposed the motion to correct the error in the Leicester petition. It was contended in justi- fication of the change of vote, that more time was allowed for inquiry into the sufiiciency of Alannix as security, than could be had in the case of the Leicester petition. Mr. HARVEY, having voted for the last motion, said he would vote for this. Mr. FEAllGUS O'CONNOR, having opposed the last motion, would oppose this. Mr. O'CONNELL, not having voted at all in the previous division, felt himself quite at liberty to vote against the motion. Mr. SHAW said the Opposition must support the motion, unless, like ;Mr. HumE, they were prepared to vote that black was white. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that Mr. Shaw, who admitted this petition to be identical with the one from Leicester, had certainly displayed considerable moral courage in taunting Mr. (lime with an avowal that he would vote black to be white against Ministers.

Mr. Shaw would not truly vote black to be white but be showed a perfect willingness to vote uranye one way and green the other. ( Cheers and lanyliter.) Ile acted judicially, too, in the decision to which they had in the fonner instance come; and as a learned judge, he called upon those who sat at his side of the House, to do justioe iu the cases of both petitions, though he ap- peared to forget, that in these instances he was himself open to the charge of voting justice only to one party. He could not avoid congratulating the learned judge, and those to whom he administered justice, on his admirable consistency!

On a division, the motion was carried, by 130 to 103.

ENNIS ELECTION. A petition was presented on Monday from the agent to the petitioners against the return of Air. Bridgman for Ennis, Foying time to perfect the securities, as Mr. Macioce's, one of the sureties, bad been rejected by the examiners in consequence of his being described as residing at No. 6, instead of No. 5, Cursitor Street, A good deal of altercation as to granting the prayer of the petition, arose. Mr. Baker, agent to the petitioners, was examined at the bar of the house. So was Mr. Alaclaren ; who confessed, that though he was surety for the petitioners, he did not know who they were, neither did he know the name of the sitting Member ; but be was em- ployed by Mr. Baker as a law-stationer, and lie become surety be- cause Mr. Baker asked him. Finally it was agreed to enlarge the time, as prayed for in the petition.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. Lord John Russell's bill for improving the mode of registering votes was read a second time on Wednesday.

LORD CANTERBURY'S CANADIAN MISSION. Mr. Home. asked Sir Robert Peel, on Monday, if the rumour of Lord Canterbury's having declined the missions to Canada was eorrect ? Sir ROBERT PEEL replied, that if Lord Canterbury had declined the mission, he bad done so on account of severe illness in his family, not on public grounds.

Ursa Crioncit. Lord Jowl RUSSELL stated last night, that he in- tended to propose on Monday next that the House should resolve itself into a Committee "for the purpose of considering the expediency of ap- plying any surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland, which may not be required for the spiritual wants of the members of that Church, to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the community." He would not, however, pledge himself not to vary the terms of his motion.

Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether, supposing that the House should ac- cede to that proposition, and resolve itself into Committee for the purpose stated, Lord John Russell would then be prepared to produce any practical plan for carrying into effect the proposed appropriation of Church revenue?

Lord J. ItessEht—" That is a question which I do not feel myself bound to answer. (" Hear, hear !"frona the Opinnition.) Should the House agree to my motion for resolving into Committee, 1 shall Lilco know how to act.'

Mr. FINCH said that, as the proposed motion alluded to " the religious in- struction of all classes of the community," he wished to know whether the noble Lord meant that the Roman Cathelies of Ireland should be instructed in the pritieiples of the Roman Catholic religion ?

Lord J. RUSSELL gave no answer to this question, according to the Times and Herald; the Chronicle reporter thinks he said " I do."

SIR ROBERT PEEL'S LETTER TO MR. 111:31E. Mr. ROEBUCK, OR Monday, called the attention of the House to the letter written by Sir Robert Peel to Mr. Hume, in which the latter was required to explain some expressions he had used in the House relative to Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Roebuck contended that the letter was a breach of in ; that every Member had a right to state his opinions an the House without being liable to be shot at out of it ; and he claimed the protection of the House if he should be placed under circumstances similar to those of Mr. Hume. He moved that the letter be read by the Clerk, and that it was a breach of privilege.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said a few words in self-vindication ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped that the matter would not go further. Members should recollect that they were gentlemen as well as Members of Par- liament. Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD reminded Sir Robert Peel, that ten years ago, he had procured a bill to be passed making it felony for one person to attempt the life of another, or inflict pain with a blunt in- strument. Sir ROBERT PEEL jocularly remarked, that he could not prosecute Mr. Attwood under that statute, for he had not inflicted pain with his blunt instrument. Mr. ROEBUCK withdrew his motion.

EXCHANGE OF BOOKS WITII FRANCE. In answer to a question from Dr. BOWRING, on Wednesday, Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he really did not see the advantage of sending all our literary trash to . France, to receive theirs in return. It would be better to spend 5001. (the sum per annum for which one of the Scotch Universities pro- posed to transfer to the Government its copy of every work published,) in the purchase of French works of merit; and as the French were a.

rich n diem, they might spend 500/. in the purchase of English wwes of mei it.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. ID reply to a question from Mr. Cow:taus BULLER, on Tuesday, Mr. GOULDURN admitted that he had received tha Report of the Corporation Commissioners.

TIMBER DETIES. On Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. BmuNG, the House resolved into Committee, and after some discussion agreed to a resolution for making foreign timber imported from British pos. Sessions liable to the same duty as if imported directly from the place of its growth. Mr. BARING also said, that it was in contemplation to put the Timber-duties on a more satisfactory footing than they stood at present.

PosT-orrier. A nusr.s. Mr. IVALLACE complained, on Wednesday, that he had been deceived respecting the notice of his motion on the

state of the Post-office. He had been assured that he sh mid not ex- perience interruption from the Government, or any other pal ty. Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that he had attempted to postpwie Mr. Wal- lace's motion.

This being Wednesday, nos not a night when notices of motions preetsiedi orders of the (lay ; and, if the Government were to step out of its way v. accom- modate him, still he could not take preecilence of the orders o the day, ail Of which were likely to be pressisl by private persons interested throu:0, tinir several stages to-night. Mr. Wallace's better course would be to fix his motion for spine night when notices had precedence.

Mr. WALL:act: intimated that he should take that course.

?Saw HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. nom: naked, On WealleStLiy, ,whether the plan for the new I louses of Parliament would he thrown open to public competition ? and, upon receiving from Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET a reply, understood to he in the negative, said he should call the attention of the House to the subject.

In the House of Lords haat night, the Marquis of WEsrmissrEa Asked the Duke of Wellington it' the rumour were correct that the Committee on the new Houses of Parliament had received only one plan, and intended to leave the matter in the hands of one at chitect only? The Duke of Watooxo-roa: replied, that the Committee of the Lords had come to no decision on the subject, and he believed that the Commons Committee were equally undecided : he could not say whether the plan alluded to would be adopted, or others be called fur. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that so far from the Committee having decided to adopt the plan of " the very able" architect referred to by the Marquis of Westminster, it had been sufficiently intimated by the Committee that they received the plan only as a formal matter

businesa. Other plans of other architects might be called for, arid considered.

PRISON DISCIPLINE. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, on Tuesday, a Select Committee of the Lords was appointed to in- quire into and report upon the present state of Gaols and Houses of Correction in England and Wales. The motion excited some discus- sion ; in which Lord Witatteciarre, Lord Baoconam, the Duke of 'WELLING-roe, and the Marquis of LAN:mower., joined. In the eloirae of it, there was a slight altercation between the Duke of theiteoeo and Lord BROUGHAM, in consequence of some remarks of the termer on Lord Brougham's habit of milking long speeches,—remarks which, according to Lord Brougham), raised a grin on the faces of his brother Peers. Lord BROUGHAM said, he simuld take an opportunity of bring- ing the subject of secondary punishments hefore the House, and should znake a long or a short speech on the occasion, as he thought beat

himself. • NEWSPAPER STAMPS. Lord Beoucnam presented a petition to the House of Peers, on Monday, for the abolition of the Newspaper Stamp-duty. The petition waa signed by Dr. Birkbeek, Dr. South- wood Smith, and Mr. Grote, among others. Lord Brougham sooke for some time in support of the 'petition ; but his speech contained wothing new on the subject; and it elicited no remarks from other Peers.