letbasto ants Vrouttsings in 'parliament.

THE lianas ARBIL

On Thursday, the thanks of both Houses were awarded to the officers and men engaged in the battles of Aliwal and Sobraon.

In the Commons, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved the thanks of the House in two separate votes; and, taking the order of time, moved in the first place the award of thanks to Sir Henry George Smith, for the signal valour and judgment displayed by him in the battle of Aliwal, fought on the 28th January; and to the officers European and Native under his command. Commendation was also bestowed on the valour and discipline displayed by the troops, both European and Native; and their officers are called upon to communicate these thanks to them.

In connexion with this public acknowledgment of services rendered on the battle-field, Sir Robert Peel took a luminous view of the military operations which preceded the battle; then referred to the details of the engagement, as recorded by Sir Henry Smith himself; dilating on particular incidents; pointing to the devotion displayed by Sir Henry Hardinge and Sir Hugh Gough, in the perfect concert and communion which existed be- tween them; enumerating the previous services of the more distinguished officers who have survived or fallen; describing the military prowess, re- sources, and designs of the enemy; concluding with a reference to the Great Captain of the age, whose campaigns, victories, and example, had tended directly or indirectly to qualify the victors of the Sutlej for render- ing high service to their country. [So ample details of the battle of So- braon, and the transactions which subsequently took place up to the date of the last official despatches, are giVen under the head of India, in subse- quent pages, that it is unnecessary to quote those parts of Sir Robert's speech which would amount to mere repetition. A few quotations involv- ing something new, or interesting for the sentiment they convey, will suffice.] Speaking of the despatch in which Sir Henry Smith described the battle of Aliwal, Sir Robert remarked—" These operations are described with such preci- sion, all these events, without exception, are detailed with such fulness and beau- tiful clearness, and they must be so familiar to all whom I address, that I will not weaken the effect of their perusal by attempting to go over the same ground. All I shall say is, that the hand that held the pen used it with the same success as the hand that held the sword."

On the ground that it would be unwise to conceal reverse; for which Sir Henry _Smith was not responsible, Sir Robert quoted reports recently received descriptive of the difficulties which beset him in forming his jenction with the troops sta- tioned at Loodianah, from the presence and admirable dispositions of a vastly superior enemy. Sir Robert thought that the manner in which Sir Henry had extricated himself from his difficulties added to the proofs of his skill and valour, and illustrated still more his high character as a commander.

A tribute to the bravery, of the fallen foe, and to the fidelity of the Native troops, had been paid by Sir Hugh Gough, in a communication to a friend—

"Policy precluded me publicly recording my sentiments on the splendid gal- lantry of our fallen foe, onto record the.acts of heroism displayed not only indi- vidually but .almost collectively by the Sikh Sirdars and army; and I declare, were A not Tram a deep conviction that...my country's good required the sacrifice, I could have wit to have witnessed the fearful slaughter of so devoted a body of

men. . . . . I cannot _pase over, I cannot too strongly record, facts which,

whilst they add lustre to the Native Army; afford tome, as its head, inexpressible pride and pleasure. For upwards of a month, when the two armies were close in

frgnt of one another, notwithstanding the numerous temptations held out to our Sepoys by men of their own colour and religion,—namely, greatly increased pay, from seven to twelve rupees a month, and immediate promotion,—I had but three desertions from this large force." The eminent services rendered by Major-General Sir Robert Dick and Lieu- tenant-Colonel Taylor, both of whom fell at the battle of Sobraon, were enumerated and acknowledged; Sir Robert expressing his regret that in the face of the Haase of Commons he could not do justice to every officer and every man who fell in the encounter, sacrificing his life to the glory of his country. Sr Robert's peroration—" Sir, when 1 review the names of those who have taken so distinguished a part in these signal successes—Hardinge, Gough, and Smith, or the former successes, equally brilliant, of Napier, Dick, and Thackwray—I re- collect with more than satisfaction that these illustrious men received their mili- tary education under the auspices of the Duke of Wellington. And it does add a new lustre even to his immortal fame to see men brought up in his school 'who have profited by his precepts, and with eminent success followed hisexample; and it cannot fail to add to his just pride and gratification, that even those who have never been under his immediate command continue to profit by his precepts and his example, and even amidst the scenes of his early victories in India display re- sults which remotely may be attributed to his military genius. Since the ever- memorable victory of Aasaye, I do not recollect that our enemies have received such a lesson as this in Indian warfare. Although General Gilbert never served under the Duke of Wellington, he still had in some degree opportunities of profit- ing by the example of that illustrious man; and well has General Gilbert by his valour and devotion to the public service, told to all Europe as well as to the whole of India, how powerful have been the instructions and how great the influence of the Duke of Wellington's exploits. I rejoice to think that this great man is, in another place, probably at this moment, bearing a Willing and grateful testimony to the memory of those men who have served and fallen in India. It will, at such an hour, be to his mind a great consolation, when in the course of nature this country loses his own services, that through the ea- ample of his valour, his military skill„ his patriotic devotion, the interests of Eng- land have been intrusted to men educated- in his school; that the genius and ex- ploits of this great military _chief. have called into existence a series of other com- manders worthy and capable, like him, of maintaining the honour and protecting the interests of this great empire. He may reflect with equal satisfaction and pride that he has thus raised a bulwark which, in a just cause, can never be des- troyed; that they, like him, show an equal disposition to make every sacrifice when circumstances render forbearance or caution necessary, but who are equally for- ward to display the most reckless valour when the stake to be gained is worthy of their devotion. Thus will the influence of his example descend to our remote posterity, and the effect of his character and his achievements create for this proud country a defence impregnable against the assaults of every enemy."

Sir Robert Peel's sentiments were heartily reciprocated by succeeding speakers. Sir JOHN CAM Hormones spoke with eloquence and animation, in seconding the vote of thanks. • Sir.ROBERT INGLIS directed special attention to the piety of Sir Hugh Gough's • despatch: like Marlborough, Nelson, and all the great English commanders, he ascribed the success and the glory to God. Lord Joins ELWELL said that the terms in which Sir Robert Peel had moved the vote of thanks, the speech he made in moving it, every topic to which he alluded, seemed to him to leave nothing to be supplied. He was not the political or private friend of Sir Henry Hardinge, but there was no person united to him by either of these ties that could feel more warmly the honour he had acquired in the recent transactions than he did. As to Sir Hugh Gough, he was glad to see that a native of Ireland had added another to those many glories which Irish men have contributed to the reputation and fame of England. He approved of all that had been done. The aggression of the Sikhs was entirely without justi- fication; and although it had been otherwise, and the utmost preparations made for the subjugation of the Punjaub from motives of ambition, the result could not have been more brilliant and successful.

Sir DE LACY Ewa thought the word "reverse," made use of by, Sir Robert Peel in reference to the occurrence which preceded Sir Henry Smith's junction with the troops at Loodianah, did not apply to that movement. As a manesuvre it was most successful.

Mr. HUME doubted whether the House knew the full value of the Native troops. Two-thirds of the troops engaged in these battles were Natives. He did not be- lieve that the page of history offered a more striking instance, as regarded the loyalty, the fidelity, and the bravery of troops, than was to be found in this cam- paign in the conduct of the Native troops. The " Peace " agitation was incidentally alluded to in the course of the speaking.

Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL, as Member for Reading, stated that be had been called upon by the inhabitants of the town to disclaim on their part the petition pre- sented on a previous occasion by Mr. Bright, which prayed the House not to pass a vote of thanks to the victors of Moodkee and Ferozeshah; and to express their deep regret, he might add their shame, that such a petition should have been supposed to have proceeded from that town. They had carefully examined that petition, and found attached to it the mimes of many women and school chil- dren, and persons who were hardly able to act; and several signatures were actual forgeries. Mr. BROTBERTON, in connexion with this disclaimer, remarked that from re ligious conviction he deprecated the practice of war. on the present occasion, however, he had no wish to destroy the unanimity of the House, or weaken the cordiality of the vote, where so many bad lost their lives for what they believed for the honour, theprosperity, and the welfare of the country. His heart was as warm and as grateful as any man's could be for such conduct.

The vote of thanks to the victors of Aliwal was agreed to without dis- sent.

Sir ROBERT PEEL then. moved the thanks of the House to Sir Henry Hardinge, Governor-General of India, Sir Hugh Gough, Commander-in- chief of the forces in India, to Major-General Sir Henry George Smith, Major-General W. R. Gilbert, Major-General Sir Joseph Thackwell, and the other officers, European and Native, for their distinguished services at the battle of Sobraon, fought on the 10th February. Acknowledgment was also made of the bravery displayed by the non-commissioned officers and men, European and Native. In proposing this vote, Sir Robert remarked that it would be altogether unne- cessary to go into details, as he had already done so to some extent. As to the remark of General Sir De Lacy Evans, Sir Robert must have been misunderstood if it was supposed he intended to make any reflection on Sir Henry Smith. On the contrary, his object was to pay him a compliment

It was a matter of delicacy, to allude to the probable exercise of the prerogative of the Crown; but he would nevertheless state, that tomorrow it would be his

duty to deliver to the House a message from her Majesty, announcing that it was her Majesty's intention to confer the honour of the British Peerage on Sir Hugh Gough, and desiring the Howe to assist her Majesty to make provision for the maintenance of the dignity. Subsequently, Sir Robert stated that it was the intention of her Majesty to confer a similar honour on Sir Henry Hardinge: the despatches had not been in the possession of her Majesty above an hour when she was pleased to intimate this intention. Resolutions agreed to, new. con. Similar resolutions were moved in the House of Lords; both votes being included in one motion, and not put separately as in the Commons.

The Earl of RIPON was the mover. He passed in review the same transactions as those commented on by Sir Robert Peel; taking the same views, and expres- sing the same opinion. The Earl of AUCKLAND seconded the motion, with an apology for Lord Lans- downe's absence, and a free expression of admiration at the wonderful successes and victories which had signalized the campaign. The Duke of WELLINGTON alluded to the political as well as the military as- pects. Sir Henry Hardinge purposely avoided giving any cause of uneasiness to the Sikh Government. He was anxious, to a degree, to prevent collision with that Government. He wished to preserve it; and in conformity with the policy of the British Government, which was that it should remain in strength, he took measures for thepreservation of peace by forming an additional barrier against invasion on the North-west frontier. He was aware of the irregularities of the Sikh army, of the uneasiness it gave' and of the anxiety of the Government that measures should be adopted in order to restore discipline; but he hoped, by giving no cause for uneasiness to that Government, that he would prevent the collision he was so anxious to avoid. With this view, he did no more than provide for the security of the most prominent points on the frontier, Ferozepore and Loodianah. He had, besides, a reserve at Umballah, just sufficient to defend the positions which he intended to preserve in case they should be attacked.

The Duke proceeded to narrate the progress of the campaign; and in connexion with the loss sustained by Sir Henry Smith when effecting his junction with the troops at Loodianah, spoke of the difficulty of effecting communications in India, owing to the clouds of light troops that attends hostile armies. Sir Henry Smith was obliged to march within sight of the intrenehed camp, and his baggage was cut off; but be succeeded in accomplishing his object. As to subsequent events, the Duke remarked—"I will say with regard to the movements of Sir Henry Smith, that I have read the accounts of many battles, but I never read an account of an affair in which more ability, energy, and discretion was manifested, than in this case, or in which any officer has ever shown himself more capable than this officer did of commanding troops in the field; or in which every description of troops has been brought to bear with its arm in the position in which it was most capable of rendering service, or in which everything was carried on more perfectly the nicest manoeuvres being performed under the enemy's fire with the utmost precision: nor, my Lords, have I read of any battle, in any part of the world, in which at the same time energy and gallantry on the part of the troops were dis- played to a degree that surpassed that exhibited in this engagement." Respecting some censorious remarks made in England on the state of the Bengal Artillery, the Duke said—" Really, we must not notice reports and observations made by a parcel of ignorant persons. Mistakes may have been made on this occasion; but see what this corps did. How did they behave on all occasions? And how in this very action? My Lords, the Bengal Artillery is one of the most scientific corps in that arm which exists in any part of the world. It is composed of men, not Natives, but like ourselves, Englishmen; and, rely on it, whenever they are Opposed to an enemy, they will conduct themselves as they have conducted them- selves, as Englishmen ever do, and as becomes their country. They behaved ad- mirably; and it is quite clear that they mast have been very severely engaged against odds vastly superior in guns." Some details connected with the battle of Sobraon were then given; and in connexion with them, eulogistic remarks were made on Sir Henry .Hardinge, Sir Hagh Gough, and the other officers and men engaged.

In reply to a suggestion from Lord COLCHESTER, the Earl of Rxrost said that the Government would feel it their duty, with the assistance of Parliament, to testify in the usual and proper manner every posthumous sense of regard for the memory of the officers who have fallen.

The motion was then carried unanimously.

PACIFICATION OF IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the contest with the Irish Re- peal Members on the subject of the first reading of the Protection of Life (Ireland) Bill, popularly called the Irish " Coercion " Bill, commenced.

As a preliminary step, Sir JAMES Guarteat moved that the Orders of the Day be postponed, to enable him to move the first reading of the bill.

This was opposed by several of the Irish Members, and others who availed themselves of the opportunity to express their opinion as to the prudence of the course adopted by Ministers in introducing the bill at a time and under circumstances which must lead to a serious obstruction to the passing of the Corn BilL

Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE moved a direct negative to the motion for the postponement of the Orders. For this course he assigned two reasons,—a desire to remove every obstruction to the passing of the Corn Bill; and a wish to keep up the established orders and forms of the House. From the delarwhich had already taken place in the passing of the financial measures, great inconvenience and embarrassment had been felt in the commercial world. He did not think the Government were in earnest in desiring this bill to pass, otherwise they would have introduced it at an earlier period of the session.

Mr. Samar O'Buraw warned Ministers that they were entering upon a conflict of a very desperate character: it might be prolonged for months. Every ad- vantage would be taken of the forms of the House to oppose the measure. He twitted Ministers with the reproach that they could not rely upon the support of more than a hundred and twenty Members.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM did not deny the competency of the House to refuse to read a bill a first time which had Been sent down from the Upper House; but, with the single exception of the Coercion Bill of 1833, the invariable practice was to read such bills a first time. He admitted that some delay had taken place in the introduction of the measure, but explained that it arose from the desire of the Government to make provision in the first instance for the physical wants of the Irish people by an alteration in the Corn-laws. Circumstances had deprived the Government of the assistance of the former Secretay for Ireland; and his succes- sor was without a seat in Parliament Government considered that the primary measure was the passing 'of -the Corn Bill; but they nevertheless attached im- mense importance to an expression of opinion by the House on the bill now sub- mitted. Should the House decide by a large majority not to entertain the bill, the moral effect would be most mischievous. As to the threat thrown out by Mr. Smith inisters would prove themselves utterly unworthy of the public confidence O'Brien,if they yielded to it: the responsibility of all the consequences would rest with the obstructors, and not with the Government.

Mr. SseAw would vote with Ministers; but he thought they had given no great earnest of their sincerity in the manner in which the measure had been brought forward. He for one believed, that had the Government administered the exist- ing law with firmness and temper, and had not exhibited a spurious liberality a alum of compromise, and other weaknesses, including the passing by the bestof official men on their own side and the patronizing of an infenor class on class the other side, the present measure of severity would not have been needed.

Mr. O'Coxsau, viewed the sessional orders as a means of protecting the pub- lic against reckless legislation; and he regarded Sir James Graham's proposal as an attempt to deprive the people of Ireland of that protection. The Irish people were accustomed to hostile majorities of that house; but it was now proposed that, to get a coercion bill against them passed, the standing orders of the House were to be trampled under foot. Mr. O'Connell assured Ministers that they would gain nothing by perseverance. Lord GEORGE BENTEWE said, he had been appealed to by Sir William Somer- ville, as the leader of the Protection party, in reference to this question. He could not claim the imputed leadership; but as he was sometimes requested to state the views of his party to the House, he could assure Sir Will'.m, that should the day come when that party should be responsible for the goven-nent of Ireland, their principles of protection would not be extended to the broad-day murderer or the midnight assassin, but their regards would be extended to the protection of the loyal and well-affected, of the honest and poor man in the pursuit of his law- ful vocation. For these reasons, he was prepared to give a hearty and honest sup- port to Ministers so long as they showed they were in earnest in patting down murder and protecting property in Ireland. He did not hesitate to say that the blood of every murdered man would be on the head of Ministers and on the head of the House if they hesitated or delayed to pass such a measure. Sir GEORGE GREY thought that the Corn Bill ought to have the preference.

Mr. Go-arras; knew of a way to preserve the peace of Ireland: it was by land- lords keeping at home and assisting the civil power. He should vote with Sir William. Somerville.

Mr. SIDNEY Hzeasairr vindicated Ministers from the charge of delay; and ex- pressed a hope that the House would pause before, by pledging itself in appear- ance against the principle of the measure, it excited expectations in Ireland that the bill would not receive the sanction of Parliament.

Lord JOHN Rust:mix could not consider the question before the House as one involving a decision on the principle of the bilL It had been very justly said that the motion of Sir William Somerville was an unusual proceeding; but these are unusual times. The case would have been altered had Ministers resolved to ad- vance the bill through its various stages; but they did not intend to do more than to read this bill a first time and then proceed with the Corn Bill. He asked, what would be the moral effect of taking the first reading of the bill at that time? Would the perpetrators of outrages and murders be deterred from the commission of crimes by the knowledge that the bill had been read a first time ? Was there not, on the other hand, considerable danger from exciting all the irritation which must be created by a discussion of the subject without deriving any benefit what- ever from theenactment of the measure? The reasons given by Sir James Gra- ham for proceeding with the Coercion Bill told strongly in favour of the prudence of going on with the Corn Bill in preference. But, in voting for the amendment, Lord John did not consider that he was in any way committed to oppose the measure in question. It would be the business of Sir James Graham to show the extent and kind of outrages which prevailed in Ireland, and to prove also that his measure would have a tendency to prevent the recurrence of the crimes. This was a necessary preliminary to asking the opinion of the House. He thoughts great moral advantage would be gained if the House should declare that while it was determined to suppress outrage and preserve life, it would search into the causes of Irish grievances, with the view of considering whether, by any other measures accompanying that now before the House, those causes might not in some degree be removed, and the necessity for such unconstitutional bills as the present be for the future avoided.

Sir ROBERT PEEL had notexpected that any insinuations would have been thrown out against the sincerity of the Government with regard to the Corn Bill. He could tell those who had done so, that there was no proof of sincerity with regard to that bill, in respect of its failure or mutilation, which he for one was not pre- pared to give. Ho had already told the House, that if assent was given to the first reading of the bill now before them, the dovernment would proceed at once with the Corn Bill. If it was resolved to postpone the first reading indefinitely, a departure would be made from the common courtesy displayed towards the House of Lords. As to those with whom he had lately acted, [meaning the Protection- ists] he could assure them they were as free as air to take whatever course they pleasltd. Under present circumstances, the Government was exposed to rather con- tradictory accusations: Lord George Bentinck said they were responsible for every murder committed in Ireland; on the other side, a like responsibility was held up in regard to those who may die of starvation. Government, after mature deliberation, had arrived at the conviction that the best plan was to adhere to custom.

Lord WoseatEY would vote for the amendment, as he was anxious that the Corn question should be settled. The farmers were suffering much inconvenience and lees from the delay which had already taken place; and, for his own part, he should be glad to consent that there should be no further opposition to the passing of the Corn BilL Sir Roamer Limas would support Ministers. Colonel RAWDON preferred giving food to coercion. Mr. JOHN O'Cosisrau. strenuously opposed the motion;

stating, among other things, that one reason why he wished for the repeal of the Corn-law was, that it would remove the difficulty of commercial arrangement between the two countries when the Union should be repealed

Mr. COBDEN expressed his extreme regret at the course Ministers were pur- suing. He thought it was a great calamity. It ought to have been borne in mind that while upon the subject of the Coercion Bill much diversity of opinion existed among those who were actuated by Irish feelings, there was no difference of opinion whatever upon the question of giving food to Ireland. if the Corn Bill were deferred till after Easter, the Protectionists might come up, and, trusting that the House had forgotten all their tedious arguments, repeat the same thieg again: so that possibly the bill might not reach the House of Lords till the month of May; and when it might be expected to pass that House, Heaven alone knows. He had heard no satisfactory y reason assigned for the course resolved upon. Still, he did not believe in the base compact which was said to have been entered into between the Government and the Protectionists.

The House divided—For the motion, 147; for Sir William Somerville's amendment, 108; Ministerial majority, 39.

Sir JAMES GR.A.HAM then moved the first reading of the bill; remarking,

that painful as the task was, it was not devoid of con ..• Aflections-

It was consolatory to think that he was not called upcid .Nir,;fivieeping

accusation against the Irish people: the case he was Abe& silbmit did not

affect Ireland universally. He also felt more gratified in thinking that the Go- vernment had exposed themselves to the charge of undue delay in bringing for- ward the measure, than that they had brought it forward abruptly and prema- turely. He had also to mention that Government had administered the affairs of Ireland during the past five years, under circumstances- of peculiar difficulty*, without asking for any extraordinary or unconstitutional powers. Nay, in renew- ing certain acts, the stringency of certain provisions had been relaxed: in proof, he could refer to the modifications which had been made in theljnlawfnl Oaths Act, and the Arms Act.

Sir James next adverted to the measures which had been passed calculated to confer substantial and permanent benefit on the people of Ireland—such as the Charitable Bequests Bill, the increased grant to Maynooth, the Colleges Bill, the Board of Education. And as to the landlord and tenant question, a measure had been framed which had met with the consent of Lord Devon's Commission, and he hoped very shortly to lay it before the House. He iould not reconcile it with his conscience to introduce the bill he now sub- mitted till such time as arrangements had been made for placing the &games- series of life within the reach of theple of Ireland; and he could state that

that part of the arrangement which .tted of the immediate introduction of the article of maize had been productive of signal good.

As already stated, he did not mean to prefer a charge against the people of Ire- land. On the contrary, he had the satisfaction of stating that in the majority of the thirty-two counties life and property were as secure at that moment as in most counties in England. In eighteen of those thirty-two counties, crime, in- stead of having increased, had progressively declined; and in connexion with the question of crime he could state that the bill now submitted could not be sustained as to more than ten or twelve. Had it not been for the condition of nine counties, be could not have conscientiously and satisfactorily to his own judgment gone on with the bill. As the worst, he would mention Tipperary, Clare, Roscommon, Limerick, Leitrim. As to the others-Cavan, Fermanagh, King's County, Long- ford, and Westmeath-crime had increased, but not to the same formidable extent as in the others.

Sir James proceeded to state, in the first place, the number of insurrectionary i and agrarian offences which had occurred in these counties in 1844 and 1845, with the view of showing the great increase which had taken place. In Cavan in 1844, the number of such crimes was 109; in 1845, it was 257-in Fermanagh, in 1844, it was 18; in 1845, 166-in King's County in 1844, 226; 1845, 301-

in Longford, in 1844, 205, in 1845, 372-in Westmeath there is an increase of about 120, but in Leitrim, in 1844, it was 228; in 1845, 922, being an increase of 694 crimes in one year. In Roscommon, in 1844, it was 264; in 1845, 716, being an increase of 432-in Limerick, in 1844, it was 321; in 1845, 416-in Clare, in 1844, 279; in 1845, 327-in Tipperary, in 1844, 908; in 1845, 992. He then specified crimes of a more heinous character; comparing the number which occurred in the five worst counties with what was found to exist through- out the other parts of Ireland. " These crimes are homicide, firing at the person, aggravated assaults, assaults endangering life, incendiarism, killing. or maiming cattle, demanding and robbery of arms, appearing armed, administering unlawful oaths, sending threatening notices, attacking houses, levelling and destroying fences, _malicious injuries to property, and firing into dwelling-houses. Now, in the five counties on which! wish to fix the attention of the House, I have to state that the homicides in 1845 were 47; while in the whole of the rest of Ireland the number returned was only 92. Therefore, in five counties, with a population of only one- sixth of the whole population of the country, the number of homicides committed in the year amounts to one-third of the number committed in the whole of Ire- land. In those five counties, in 1845, there were 85 offences of firing at the per- son : there were only 53 such offences in the rest of Ireland. Of aggravated assaults in those counties, in 1845, there were 190, and 350 in the whole of the rest of Ireland; that is, there were two-fifths of the whole number in the five counties. There were in those counties 110 assaults endangering life, 127 in the Zest of Ireland; or one-half of the whole arose in those five counties. There were 189 offences of incendiarism in the five counties, 339 in the rest of Ireland; giving two-sevenths of the whole for the five counties. Killing or maiming cattle, 108 in the five counties, 164 in the rest of Ireland; or two-fifths of the whole arose in the five counties. Demanding and robbery of arms-- a crime of the most sus- picious and fearful character-in 1845, in the five counties there were 420 of- fences, in the rest of Ireland 131; or four-fifths of the whole arose in the five counties. Appearing armed: of these offences 64 were produced in the five coun- ties in 1845, in the rest of Ireland only 25; or two-thirds of the whole arose in the five counties. The same alarming results were exhibited as regarded the other kinds of offences; Sir James remarking that the worst symptom within the last few months was the increase of the crime of firing into dwelling-houses after dark. In the five counties, the number of such offences in 1845 was 93, in the rest of Ireland only 41. He next showed the number of offences which had taken place in January and February of the present year, in four out of the five counties. In Tipperary, there were 8 homicides; 6 offences of firing at the person; 13 robberies of arms; 18 firings into houses; 69 offences of sending threatening notices; 14 attacks on houses. In Limerick, (exclusive of the city of Limerick,) there were, within two months, 3 murders; 5 firings at the person; 12 firings into horses; 26 robberies of arms; 50 threatening notices sent; 18 attacks on houses. In Clare there were in those two months, 1 murder, 1 firing at the person, 7 firings into houses, 20 robberies of arms, 17 threatening notices sent. In Roscommon, there were 1 murder, 5 firings at the person, 3 firings into houses, 31 robberies of arms, 61 threatening notices sent, 42 offences of administering unlawful oaths. Sir James submitted a number of details connected with the manner in which certain crimes had been perpetrated; classifying them thus-persons murdered or injured by their relatives for refusing to give up land; murderous consequences arising from interference with the relation of landlord and tenant; enforcement of arrears followed by the crime of murder; a notice of ejectment followed by mur- der; dorder of magistrates; murder resorted to as a means to prevent evidence; interference between master and servant. One instance and in some cases two of • each of the crimes specified were given; but it is unnecessary to go into details, as they are already familiar to newspaper readers. The latest instance was that of Mr. Carrick. [In connexion with this case, Mr. O'Connell stated that Mr. Carrick was one of his Parliamentary supporters.]

Sir James quoted a number of reports and representations forwarded by re- sident Magistrates and others, calling upon the Government to interfere; and read a touching appeal which had been forwarded to Mr. O'Connell by Mr. Ryan, a Roman Catholic gentleman, entreating him not to oppose the bill now before the House.

In this state of things, it was impossible that Ireland could thrive. Ab- senteeism was complained of, but nothing else could be expected in a country where life was insecure; neither could capital be expected to flow in, and without capital Ireland never would be prosperous. Sir James mentioned that in the commission of the crimes no distinction was drawn between political or sectarian creeds. The Protestant and the Roman Catholic, the Orangeman and the Re- pealer were all equally liable to fall by the weapon of the assassin. The leading provisions of the bill as applied to this state of things were then specified. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to have power to proclaim a district where heinous crimes have been committed; to appoint salaried Magistrates and increase the Constabulary force'according to the necessities of the case, at the ex- pense of the district; compensation to individuals who have sustained injuries, or to the survivors of those who may lose their lives; power to the Lord-Lieutenant to cause the apprehension of persons found out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise, to be tzied by a jury and before a judge of assize.

At the conclusion of Sir James Graham's speech, Mr. R. D. BROWNE moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. Saturn O'Bruns urged that as it was then half-past eleven o'clock, it would be unreasonable to ask Mr. O'Connell to commence his speech, as it would no doubt occupy an hour and a half or two hours. Mr. O'CONNELL said he was ready to go on, but the lateness of the night made it exceedingly inconvenient. Sir ROBERT PEEL ventured to say, that if Mr. O'Connell would address the House for an hour and a half or two hours, he would be listened to with great at- tention: he hoped the debate would not be adjourned after one speech only. A vote was then taken; and the motion for adjournment was lost, by 98 to 32. Sir ROBERT PEEL, however, yielded; and the adjournment of the debate till Tuesday was agreed to.

On Tuesday there was a lull; the requisite number of Members to con- stitute a " House " not having appeared.

On Wednesday, a desultory conversation took place on the subject of reami :g the debate. Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN submitted to Sir Robert Peel, whether it was desirable to go on with the Coercion Bill seeing that not more than ten Irish Members had voted for it, whilst thirty-four had voted against it? Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the division on Monday did not turn on the merits of the measure, but upon the question whether the Irish bill ought to have precedence over the other orders of the day. Mr. Grusrras asserted that Ireland was not half so bad as it was represented to be: the Government had been deceived. Sir RO- BERT PEEL said, it was still his impression that there were scarcity and distress in Ireland. That conviction had excited his deepest sympathy; and he would ask the House if be had not done all in his power to relieve the distress? Mr. O'CONNELL said, he should be ungrateful to Sir Robert Peel if he withheld his acknowledgments for the steps he had taken to avert famine from Ireland: he readily, cordially, and he might add gratefully, offered his thanks to the Government for what they had done in that respect; and, if this was a measure for the same object, he would agree to it at once; but it was an attempt to de- prive the people of Ireland of the benefit of the constitution.

After some further conversation, it was agreed that the order of the day for the first reading of the Protection of Life Bill should be postponed till the following day, (Thursday,) with the understanding that it may be de- ferred till Friday.

LEGAL RELIEF FOB THE POOR TN IRELAND.

On Wednesday, Mr. PormErr Scnorn moved the second reading of the Destitute Poor (Ireland) Bill- For the last twenty. years he had taken a great interest in the condition of the poor in Ireland; and in connexion with the Coercion Bills of 1834 and 1835, and on various other occasions, he had urged upon Parliament the absolute necessity of a poor-law adequate to the relief of the destitute portion of the population. Ultimately, a Commission of inquiry was appointed; and the report which eman- ated from it recommended the establishment of a system of in-door and ont-door relief. An exception was made as regarded the able-bodied: for them relief by emigration was recommended. The Government, not satisfied with this report, at the close of 1836 sent over Mr. Nichol to make another inquiry; after a fey weeks' residence, Mr. Nichol submitted a report recommending that relief be re- stricted to the workhouse; and upon that principle the present Irish Poor-law was framed.

The existing act had proved inadequate to accomplish the object for which a Poor-law was needed; and unless its working were enlarged so as to confer relief on the destitute, they could not justify the law which protected any property whatever, especially property in land, which was the common gift of the Creator to mankind upon which to maintain themselves; and he asserted indisputably, that when they established a monopoly of the land of a country in the hands of a large or a small number of proprietors, the mass of the inhabitants of that country had a right to call upon Parliament to give them some other resources to secure them from absolute want, and from perishing upon the face of the land which God had given them to support themselves.

The workhouses, to which relief was confined, would barely contain one per cent of the population. In England the number of destitute persons was about ten per cent; and in consequence relief was not confined simply to workhouses. The number of workhouses in England was 534; and no less a proportion than six-sevenths of the entire number of paupers had out-door relief. But in Ireland, under the existing Poor-law, they had not the means of relieving a hundredth part of the population. In a petition from the Town-Council of Limerick, the statement in the report of Lord Devon's Commission was quoted-that there were in Ireland 2,385,000 persons in absolute pauperism, and yet there were not workiess .47;essa houses to contain more than 90,000 persons; adding, that 'in the five years the' number of workhoases did not exceed 130, and that the buildings, instead of being appropriated to the accommodation of the poor, had been converted into immense infirmaries and hospitals. 31endicancy and vagrancy were as prolific as ever in Ireland; as was well testified by the crowds which surrounded those who landed in that country. Allusion had been made by Sir James Graham to the liberality to the poor inculcated by the Roman Catholic faith: Mr. Scrope did not believe that it was a principle of the Romish religion that alms should be substituted for a perfectly-organized and legal system of relief. He thought that the best way to put an end to the necessity for coercion bills, was to give the poor a right to a maintenance upon the land of their birth and of their forefathers, and so to take from them the plea of the necessity of combining together against the law. Mr. Revans, the Secretary to the Poor-law Commission of 1834, stated as the result of his extensive inquiries, that nine-tenths of the outrages to property and person originated in the want of proper relief to the poor. Similar testimony was given by Mr. Page of Queen's County, and other well-informed authorities.

It appeared from the Constabulary returns of 1844 that some agrarian out- rages existed in every county. Sir James Graham had stated that outrages were restricted to five counties; but he must have meant the increase of outrages- the increase of the percentage. If it were said that outrages did not prevail throughout Ireland to the same extent as in the live counties, it was because the agrarian law had superseded to a certain extent the law of the country, and had fulfilled its duty of protecting the lives of the peasantry. It was also important to remark, that a tenant-right prevailed in a large extent of country; and wherever that right was admitted by the landlord, there was comparative free- dom from agrarian outrage. Ulster afforded an example of this. The law, how- ever, did not enforce this tenant-right; and wherever it was disallowed, agrarian outrage prevailed, and it supplied the only security which the tenant had for ob taming compensation. Lord Brougham had recently enunciated the laws of property, and had stated that the landlord had the power to sweep off the entire population of his estate. Well, that was just Mr. Scrape's case-that the land- lord could so overstrain the rights of property.

Mr. Scrope explained the leading provisions of his measure: the Guardians to have power to give out-door relief to the destitute•' to give relief to the able- bodied in the shape of work; to substitute unions for electoral divisions in giving relief, and levying rates; and to abolish mendicancy. Ample means existed for finding profitable employment. There were 4,000,000 acres of waste land to reclaim; and there were also 12,000,000 or 14,000,000 acres under cultivation or in pasture, the produce of which might be doubled or quadrupled by the application of more skill and labour. He was satisfied that the adoption of his measure, so far from injuring property, would greatly benefit it. Sir JAMES GRAHAM admitted the purity of Mr. Scrope's motives, and his earnest desire to benefit Ireland; but, looking at the state of that country, at the topics adverted to, and the manner in which they were handled, he believed that Mr. Scrope had, unintentionally, done much to aggravate the present crisis, and to add fearfully to the difficulties of the Government- Mr. Scrope had spoken of his consistency. It was possible to be a consistent and honest enthusiast, and at the same time a very indiscreet person; and it was also possible that enthusiasts might rash in where experienced statesmen con- nected with the locality would fear to tread. The great majority of the land- lords and of the Representatives of Ireland, who knew that country best, had come to a conclusion exactly opposite to Mr. Scrapes. That gentleman had not restricted himself to the enlargement of the Irish Poor-law, but had dwelt at great length on a topic even more exciting and important, that of the tenure of land. Sir James denied that agrarian law had superseded the law of the coun- try; or that agrarian crime was general throughout Ireland. It was only in five counties that that species of crime was greatly on the increase; in the other counties it was on the decrease. As to the allegation about persons dying in the

streets from want, he did not believe that any such case could be adduced, even during the present scarcity. This proved that it was not, after all, the poverty of Ireland which was the cause of crime. Honesty amidst great want is a re- markable characteristic of the Irish people. As to the tenant-right, it was a right enjoyed by the Irish tenantry in large districts, which was not enjoyed by English or Scotch tenants. It is not held, it is true, under statute law; but it exists tinder unwritten law as strong as statute law, and partakes of the character of common law; - and wherever it prevails there is the smallest degree of violence. " But then, he says that the occupation of land in other parts of Ireland is not of a sufficiently Srm and certain tenure. Now I must be permitted to say, that in the present condition of Ireland, unguarded words or imprudent expressions drop- ped in the course of debate in this House may produce effects which those who use them would be the last to desire, and which they would deplore to contemplate. In this point of view, debates on this question in this House may, I fear, be written in letters of blood in Ireland, and followed by a sacrifice of life which we should all de- plore." Sir James proceeded to argue, that the opinions expressed by Mr. Scrope about tenant-right inevitably tended to the subversion of all rights of property. [Mr. Scrope denied this: he merely spoke of compensation for improvements.] Sir James proceeded. He approached the subject with fear. Mr. Scrope's observa- tions are pregnant with danger; for what do they amount to? They amount to this, that because in some few counties in Ireland agrarian outrages exist, there- fore a Member of Parliament in this:House recommends as a remedy, that occu- pation subject to ejectment should by force of law be converted into a perpetual possession; thereby subverting all the rights of property and the law of the land, M an extent which even a successful revolution could not surpass. [Mr. Scrope repeated, that he said nothing of the kind: he was desirous to see the tenant- right sanctioned by law.]

Sir James entered with some minuteness into the details of Mr. Scrape's bill; showing that the principle of out-door relief was entirely opposed to the remedial measures recently introduced. The proposition, therefore, would derange all the pro- visions hitherto made, and introduce the utmost confusion. If adopted, the land of Ireland would not be sufficient to meet a permanent claim of so overwhelming a description. He held, that to pass such a measure would break down the rights

property. He believed that the effect would be bad, and that the public im- pression produced by it would be still worse. Sir James concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day six months. A short discussion followed. The prevailing opinion was unfavourable to the measure.

Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN remarked, that it was not incorrect to say that tenant- right was upheld in certain districts not by law but by the fear of outrage. As it was found, however, that wherever that right is allowed and acted upon there is ce pea, the Government might be properly. called upon to lay the foundation of such a right where it does not exist, by giving the tenant a claim to compensa- tion for improvements. He thought that Lord John Russell had done wrongly in rejecting the recommendations of the first Commission, and preferring the sug- gestions of a Commissioner who had spent but six weeks in the country. He would support the measure now submitted, because it recognized the right to out- door relief- and he thought the infliction of the necessary rate would convince absentee l'andlords that it would be cheaper and better to expend the money in improving their estates.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended his proceedings in connexion with the framing of .he existing Poor-law. The Commissioners referred to were very good judges of the lege of Ireland as it then was, and with regard to what they knew of its wants; Int they were not equally good judges with respect to a system of out-door relief. Lira John then quoted the opinions of Mr. Senior and Mr. George Cornwall Lewis; the substance of which was, that the granting of outdoor relief in Ireland would be to introduce all the abuses of the old English Poor-laW, and many others besides. As to the propriety of withholding out-door relief, his opinion remained unchanged. The OrCoNsion DON, Mr. P. Bremen, Lord C. HAMILTON, and Mr. FREWMI intimated their intention to oppose the second reading. Mr. WAHLEY supported the bill; expressing his regret that out-door relief should be opposed by Sir James Graham, in office, and by Lord John Russell, who expected soon to be in office. For his own part, he could not see the justice of de- priving Ireland of the same law which exists in England. It had been said that such an extension would amount to a confiscation of property: now, what Was passing in Ireland at that moment? Was there not danger already both to life and property in that country ? It seemed to be imagined that by stav- ing off this thing the evil would be lessened; but he believed the evils of Ireland would continue to magnify till they adopted the same course towards the Irish poor which was now in existence in England. Mr. P. SCROPE said, he would not give the House the trouble of dividing. His object had been to some extent answered; for the principle of out-door relief had made some way. . The amendment was agreed to, and the bill thrown out.

EJECTMENTS IN IRELAND.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved for a return of the ejectments actually carried into effect in Ireland on the tenants and occupiers of land, for the five years ending with 1845—

The motion was founded on the circumstance of a large ejectment having taken place in the South of Ireland. He had made inquiry into the facts, and had learned that on the property of Mr. and Mrs. Gerrard, upwards of three hundred people had been turned out of house and home, and even prevented from any at- tempt to make coverings for themselves on that land: whole villages were de- populated, and the rents were offered and refused. He would ask their Lordships, Was not this a frightful state of things? Wes it to be wondered at, when such were the sufferings of the people, that the law was not obeyed, that assassins walked abroad-and were protected, and that coercion bills became necessary? Too much publicity could not be given to the facts; for unless public indignation were aroused no legislative measure would be effectual. The Earl of ST. GERMANS assented to the motion. As to the occurrence re- ferred to by Lord Londonderry, the Secretary for Ireland had promised to supply him with the facts; and till he received them he should not enter into a discussion on the subject. Lord MONTEAGLE entreated the Haase to show that they were anxious to as- certain the full extent of Irish grievances. As to the distress and suffering in Ireland, he trusted their Lordships would not be induced to underrate it: it was very severe.

The Duke of WELLINGTON made a declaration on the subject of this distress- " With respect to the last point alluded to by the noble Lord, the amount of the evil atpresent existing in Ireland, I certainly was one of those who in the month of November last doubted the possibility of the evil being of such magnitude as it appears to be at the present moment. But I am sorry to say that those who were of a different opinion were entirely right, and those who thought the evil was not one of such magnitude were entirely wrong; and I, my Lords, was one of those persons."

The motion was agreed to.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. Satarst O'BRIEN brought under notice the same wholesale ejectment referred to by the Marquis of Londonderry; and in connexion with it read a long statement furnished by a special reporter sent to the spot by the Dublin Freeman's Journal. After reading the distressing details, Mr. O'Brien said it would be better for Ireland to return into the state of barbarism which existed before the English connexion, than to enjoy such a state of civilization as this. lie moved an address to the Crown praying for inquiry.

Sir Jaxes GRAHAM knew nothing cf the transaction but from newspaper reports; but if such rumours proved to be true, it showed the necessity for checking the terrible system of clearances, by legislative enactment. He thought the motion was superfluous, as the matter was under inquiry. The motion was therefore withdrawn.

MR. SHAW AND SIR JAMES GRAHAM.

When speaking on the subject of Irish government, during the discus- sion of Sir William Somerville's amendment on Monday, Mr. Slum' availed himself of an opportunity for settling some outstanding personalities with Sir James Graham. It would be seen from our last Postscript that the Home Secretary, dealing with Mr. Shaw's scepticism on the subject of the potato disease, spoke of the bitterness of his attacks on the Government, and hinted pretty broadly that Sir James's resistance to a certain re- tiring allowance to be paid the Dublin Recorder had engendered the hostile feeling. Sir James also spoke of visions about Irish Secretaryships flit- ting across the imagination of Mr. Shaw. It was in reply to this that Mr. Shaw spoke an episode in the discussion on Sir William Somerville's amendment. He described the attack as unwarrantable, unworthy of a Minister of the Crown, and without foundation in truth—

In 1842, when Sir Robert Peel was fixed in office, Mr. Shaw submitted to the

Government, in connexion with his office of Recorder, an arrangement by which the public would have saved between 3,0001. and 4,0001. a year, and the office itself made more independent and comfortable, by making the salary payable, like other judicial offices in the gift of the Crown, out of the Consolidated Fund, in- cluding also a retiring allowance. The offer was not accepted; but, so little im- portance did he attach to the thing, that it had flitted from his recollection. His communications with Sir James Graham on the subject must have been confi- dential; but, for his part, he did not care although everything which passed were published on every market-cross in England. As to office, Sir Robert Peel, in 1834, asked him to accept office; and he declined, stating that he preferred re- maining as he was: Sir Robert Peel could tell whether, since that time, he had ever directly or indirectly spoken to him on the subject of office. Sir James Graham had accused him of kicking the falling Government from behind: but he begged to remind Sir James, that lastyear, when the Government was not falling, he did apply that operation as vigorously as he could to the Home Secretary him- self. He lamented that the Government was falling in power and character; and he moreover thought that Sir James Graham was its evil genius. It was pre- dicted three years ago, by the party with which Sir James formerly acted, that lie would be the ruin of the Conservative Government. Sir Robert Peel had un- fortunately fallen into his bands. For Sir Robert himself Mr. Shaw still retained respect and affection; but his feelings for Sir James Graham were the opposite.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained. He would leave the House to judge of the fine

judicial tone and temper just exhibited. He admitted that he had made an al- lusion to the possible effect of political ambition in swaying the judgment; but it was prospective, and in connexion with the formation of a Protectionist Govern- ment. As to a breach of confidence, he denied that any confidence could exist in such a case. Mr. Shaw, in the former speech to which he alluded tonight, bad said that he was on terms of friendship with Sir Robert Peel, but that with Sir James Graham he had none: under such a disclaimer there could be no " con:- fidence."

RAILWAY LEGISLATION. •

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord HINNAIRD moved the follow- ing resolutions—

That a Select Committee be appointed, I. To take into consideration the best means of enforcing one uniform system of management on railroads in operation, or to be constructed ; and to secure the due fulfilment of the provisions of the acts of Parlia- ment under which the companies have obtained their powers, whereby greater accom- modation and safety may be insured to the public ; 2. To take into consideration what means may be best adopted for diminishing the extravagant expenses attendant on ob- taining acts of Parliament for legitimate and necessary undertakings, and at the same time for discouraging the formation of schemes got up , for the mere purpose of specu- lation : 3. To consider what legislative measures could be framed to protect indi- viduals from the injury they may sustain by the laying down lines of railway through their property, without subjecting them to the ruinous expense of opposing bills ih Parliament."

With the experience of past years as a guide, he thought it perfectly possible to frame some general measure by which the public, and at the same time the interests of private individuals, might be better secured. His own idea was, that some responsible board should be appointed in connexion with the Government. As to the powers to be conferred on the proposed Board, he should propose that superintendence over Railways should be one. He should propose also that the great lines should be considered great arteries, and that no amalgamation should be permitted among them. As to the saving of expense in Committees, he thought that evidence might be given very much by affidavit; and some arrangement might surely be made by which the enormous expense of serving railway notices—cal- culated at 9,0001. for serving 7,000 notices—might be avoided. The motion was not opposed; but their Lordships did not anticipate much good from the labours of the Committee. The Earl of DALHOUSIE thought there was nothing which Parliament should scrutinize more closely, and which called for more circumspection and caution, than questions of amalgamation. He did not think that the appointment of the proposed Board would do any good whatever: it would add to the expense of pro- curing and opposing acts. He would not oppose the appointment of the proposed Committee; but he had no sanguine expectation that it would be able to form from the plan of Lord Kinnaird any materially improved system. Lord MONTEAGLE wished to remove an erroneous impression which had gone abroad, that it was incompetent for the subscribers to railway schemes to petition Parliament to stop the passing of the bills, seeing that they had delegated their powers to the directors. He begged to state that it was competent to those parties to petition Parliament at any time during the progress of the bills. [The Duke of WELLINGTON—" Yes, of course it is."] If parties so situated availed them- selves of that power, their Lordships might, in many cases, be freed from a pro- tracted and laborious investigation, which would be productive of no result.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was anxious for the adoption of means to secure the welfare and safety of the public; and he would beg to suggest whether it was not desirable to apply the common law of the country to these companies—whe- ther in fact, the Magistrates should not have some power over them. Lord CAMPBELI, after suggesting to Lord Kinnaird the propriety of directing the attention of the Committee to two bills which had been passed by their Lord- ships but rejected by the Commons the one for abolishing deodands, and the other relating to the responsibility of railway companies in cases wheredeath en- sued from accidents, proceeded to say, that by the law of Scotland, railway com- panies, in cases where death ensues from accidents caused by their negligence, were responsible in the way he wished them to be in England. That law had re- cently been acted upon, and 2,0001. paid to the widow and children of a man who was killed by negligence on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.

Lord REDESDALE advised Lord Campbell to reintroduce his bills; and perhaps they would receive more attention from the other House this session than they did last year.

The motion was agreed to. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. Morearr moved the second reading of the Railway Deposits Bill; the object of which-is to-re- move the inconvenience arising from the existing obligation- to pay railway deposits in money—

By the bill, payment may be made in the Three per Cent Consolidated or the Three per Cent Reduced Annuities, Exchequer bills, or other Government securi- ties. It is alSo provided that payment should be made into the Bank of England, instead of into the Accountant-General's office.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer assented to the second reading; mentioning that he should- propose some amendments in Committee. He should suggest, that in future the money should be paid to the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, as heretofore, giving that functionary the power to take Exchequer Bills or other Government securities instead of money.

The bill was read a second time.

On the same day, Mr. DENNISTOUN presented a petition from merchants, bankers, and traders of Glasgow, setting forth the inconvenience which has arisen from the withdrawal of so much of the capital of the country to the Construction of railways; and soliciting the House to adopt measures for preventing the increase of the evil, by making a selection of new projects, or otherwise.

The petitioners also submitted that an opportunity should be afforded to scripholders to consider whether they should or should not proceed with their bills; and that all further proceedings be suspended till the consent of a majority of the scripholders should be obtained. The petition was referred to the Committee on Railways.

Tax NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. in the HOUSE of Lords, on Tuesday, a conversation took place on the delay which had occurred in completing the new Houses. During the last nine months, the works connected with the House of Lords have been entirely suspended, in consequence of a dispute between the architect and the scientific gentleman employed to superintend the ventilation and warming. The subject had been inquired into by the Committees of both Houses: the Lords Committee have made a report; and the conversation turned on the propriety of presenting an address to her Majesty reechoing the findings and recommendations of the Committee; one of which appeared to be the placing of the werks.under the superintendence of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the adoption of this address. The Duke of WELLRIGTON approved of placing the superintendence in the hands of the Commiiioners named. The building was the palace of the Sovereign, and it was therefore the duty of the Government to take the responsibility of all the proceed- ings. He understood that it was the wish of the Committees of both Houses that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whose duty it was to superintend such matters, should take an active supervision of the proceedings; and it would devolve upm the Government to give the Board the necessary instructions. He would aavise the Marquis of Clanricarde to postpone his motion till the opinion of the other House of Parliament were known, in order that both Houses may concur in opinion as to the most effectual supervision. This course was approved of by their Lordships; and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE postponed his motion till after Laster; trusting that it would not be necessary to bring it forward again, seeing that the object which the Committee had in view was attained—the declaration that the Government had a power to interfere.

MaNuearrueo OF PETITIONS. The Committee of inquiry into thegenu- ineness of an Anti-Corn-law petition from Cheltenham, which reached the House of Commons under suspicious circumstances via Manchester, have agreed to the following report-

" Resolved, That It is the opinion of this Committee, that an irregularity in regard to the petition from Cheltenham, as transmitted thence to Manchester, was of a nature which rendered it not capable of being presented to the House of Commons, according 'to the known forms of the House; that it was altered by agents of the Anti-Corn-law League at Manchester, who were cogn'zsnt of the rules of the House; and in adapting this petition to those roles, they acted irregularly, though with no fraudulent inten- tion. It appears to your Committee that the five first signatures appended to the pe- tition-sheet, as presented to the House, are not in the handwriting of the persons there named, but are transcribed from genuine signatures which were on another sheet; that this act of transcription, though irregular, is not fraudulent. It further appears, that twenty-four names, purporting to be the signatures of other subscribers to the petition, were written by one and the same person, (an elector of Cheltenham,) with the sanc- tion, as he states, of the persons named. 'In closing their report, your Committee think this a lit occasion for expressing their regret, that methods of promoting and preparing petitions should prevail which have a tendency to bring into discredit that mode of giving expression to the sentiments of the subjects of the realm."

DISSOLUTION OF RAILWAY COI■IPANIES. On Thursday, Mr. HUDSON gave notice for a future day, to move that a clause be inserted in all Railway Bills, au- thorizing the registered shareholders, at any special general meeting at which meeting three-fifths at least of the shareholders shall be present, to declare the company dissolved; fall compensation being paid to landowners and others for any loss sustained by the operations of the company.

NEW WRIT for Richmond, in the room of Mr. R. Colborne, deceased.

EASTER RECESS. Sir Roemer PEEL stated, on Wednesday, that he intended "to propose that the Easter holydays should be of the shortest possible duration— not to exceed the Monday week after their commencement; and he should not inove the adjournment before Thursday.