Eirbatr atO PratcrTfinal in Parliament.

1. STATE OF IRELAND. The state of Ireland was brought under the notice of the House of Lords on Monday, pursuant toll notice of Lord RODEN'S, which had been delayed to allow of the presence of Lord Plunkett. Lord RODEN prefiiced his long speech by stating, that, in his opinion, those who were at present at the bead of the Government in Ireland were not at all competent to the task imposed on them— The state of Ireland was such at the present moment, that it was absolutely necessary that the Government of that country should be intrusted to men of talent, ability, and courage ; awl he lamented to say that none of these qualities were to be found with the head of the Gm-eminent in Ireland.

The noble Earl professed at the same time, that his only object was to rouse Ministers from their lethargy, and to call forth sympathy for the sufrarings of Ireland among the peaeeable and well-disposed of the empire both Protestant and Catholic. De said, the resident magis- tracy were most desirous to put down the disorders that bad so long -disgraced the country ; but they were not supported in their desire to do so. He noticed, in proof of this, the refusal of Lord Anglesey to renew the Insurrection Act in Queen's County, though called on to do so by the resolutions of February laSt, passed by the Queen's County magistrates. To show the state of the county, and the necessity for strong measures, Lord Roden quoted Baron Smith's charge at the Lent Assizes, in March ; in which 150 criminal charges, 50 of which were aggravated eases, no less than 9 being murders, were enumerated. He then adverted to the state of the Tithe question ; in reference to which, he quoted some opinions from a Dublin newspaper called the cornet, which he described as connected with Government ; these he strongly censured, as well as certain remarks passed at meetings presided over by magistrates ; for which, be said, those magistrates better deserved to be struck from the roll of the peace than did Captain Graham for his conduct at Newtownbarry. After noticing the stations and sounding -of horns, as well as the carrying of the Holy Turf,—which, he said, 'were intended to show with what facility communication could be kept up among the peasantry, and indicated somewhere a secret power and influence over them,—he read from a letter an account of a Tithe mob at Middleton, near Cork, on the 21st ult., which seems to have been of a threatening character— They were headed by priests, and bad tri-coloured flags, and musicians playing " The White Cockade," and tunes of a similar character. They bad -with them two coffins, on which were inscribed these words, "Tithes, Taxes, and Church-rates." These coffins they interred, the priests going through a mockery of the funeral service. The mob repaired to the house of a neighbour- ing magistrate, a corn-factor, threatening that they would not deal with him if

i

he did not join them. He joined them n consequence. They went to the chnrch-yard, broke the tomb-stone of the late Archbishop of Cashel, cut down 270 fine trees, and indulged in the loudest imprecations against the Protestants.

The Ministers, Lord Roden believed, were dupes to the spirit of combination that existed in Ireland, and which was steadily moving forward, step by step, to its great object—the repeal of the Union; and in consequence, all the Ministerial measures went to the same end —to strangle the Protestant interest and Protestant people of Ire- land— What did the Irish Reform Bill do? Did it not deny to Protestants, on the plea, by the right honourable Chief Secretary, of a wish to get rid of party dis- tinctions, the hereditary rights which it gave to others? Then, there was the Irish Eiucation Bill. 'What was the first principle of Protestant education? That the whole Bible should be read in schools. That principle was abandoned, in order to meet the wishes of Catholics and demagogues. Lastly, there was the Processions Bill. What was the animus of that bill? Did it not strike at the Protestants only? It was meant to put a stop to the Protestant proces- sions in Ireland on the 12th of July.

He asked, if it were by such bills, and the arguments used in their favour, that 3,000,000 of loyal subjects were to be conciliated?

For himself, he was bound to speak of the Orangemen as a most valuable hndy,*hose only objects were to uphold the laws, and to prmrvethe monarchy: In the prosecution of those objects, the Protestants of Ireland had ever been foremost; while they had had the mortification of seeing the transgressor of the

laws in Ireland eraised by his Majesty's Miaistera, because be was the'sreat leader of the opposite party, and bevause they were desirous of winning him over. He concluded by moving-.

Thatan humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that be would take into his most gracious consideration the afflicted state of his Protestant subjects in Ireland, and adopt such measures as under the distressing circum- stances of the case might appear expedient to uphold the Protestant religion, and to protect the lives and properties of all denominations of his Majesty's Irish subjects.

Lord MELBOURNE said, Lord Roden spoke of the ex:sting disorders of Ireland as if no such events had ever occurred before; and yet, in 1763, seventy years ago, the Government of the day were called on, by the outrages of the Whiteboys, for an act to repress disorders of pre- cisely the same character,—and this long before there was an agitator ill Ireland, and when the Catholic religion was utterly powerless. Iit ieou, the first Insurrection Act was passed, in consequence of the dis- orders occasioned by the Thrashdrs. In 1822, there were as many and as horrible atrocities committed as were now charged against the coun- try ; and then, too, from the utter inability to procure evidence, Govern- III el I t found it impossible to issue a commission for the trial of offenders. In 1827, 1828, 1829, there were numerous acts of insurrection in Tip- perary, and application Was made to the Government to proclaim the Insurrection Act, and the application was refused. The Duke of Wellington took the same vie‘v as Lord Grey had done. Lord Mel- bourne asked, in conclusion, by NVIIilt rule the present Government should be blamed in endeavouring, us all former Governments had done, to put down the processions of the 12th- July and 5th November. Neither in the Education scheme nor in any scheme beside, but least of all in the Processions Bill, could his 'Majesty's Ministers be justly accused of it wish to injure the Protestant intet est.

The Duke of Wlir.t.rscvrox contended, that the former instances of disturbance in Ireland were trifling compared with the disturbance now prevailing. From 1825 to 1829, while the discussion of the Catholic claims was in progress, there was great agitation, but it ceased with the removal of that real grievance. The Duke reverted to the fact that Lord Grey had allowed the Association Act to expire, although warned of the period—

When Parliament reassembled, the question of its renewal was put ; and the

reply was, that his Majesty's Government did not intend to have recourse to any extraordinary means for maintaining the tranquillity of Ireland. The facts as they at present stood answered the question whether or not that was a wise decision. At the present moment, there was nothing like security for person or property in Ireland. There was no man who looked at the state of Ireland, who could for a moment deny that the occurrences now going on in that country were the result of a conipiracy. This he asserted, and could prove. The object of that conspiracy was' to deprive a large class of that security to their lives and property wideli tlray had emoyed under all former Governments ; and, if not arrested in its progress, the effect of the conspiracy would be, not only to destroy all property, but to overturn all government.

The Duke having alluded to the great Tithe meeting at Cork, proceeded— The property of the Church was not alone at stake—what did the noble earl say to the lay impropriators? There. was no blinking the question ; means must be devised and acted upon promptly, to protect the property of the peo- ple of Ireland. The time had been, when the Irish people bad something like a grievance of which to complain ; but tithes were no public grievance—they were property, and should at all times be treated as such.

Lord PLUNKETT remarked on the assertion that the combination against tithes was a Catholic conspiracy— On the part of the people of Ireland, and especially on the part of the Ca- tholics, many of whom he knew, he begged to deny the existence of any such conspiracy. It was really absurd to talk of a conspiracy of nearly a whole na- tion against a very small portion of its inhabitants. He found it difficult to comprehend how such a line of argument could be consistently pursued, unless it was intended to reagitate the old debates upon the Catholic claims; and with all his experience of public life, it did surprise him that any assertion so gross and monstrous should have passed the lips of any one. He would put the thing on this footing—was the present resistance to tithes a Protestant or a Catholic resistance ? How many of the Protestants joined in the resistance? Had they not all joined it whenever it appeared in their neighbourhood? That was a matter of public notoriety; and there could not be a grosser perversion of terms than to ascribe the present state of Ireland solely to the Catholics.

He noticed the remedy set forth by Lord Roden—the expulsion of his Majesty's Ministers from office— Would that accomplish the objects which the noble earl had in view? If an effective Administration could be formed of other materials, it would not sur- prise him to hear the noble earl use such language as had just fallen from him; but he should have thought that the noble earl might have taken such counsel from recent events as would lead him not to anticipate much beneficial change from the resignation of the present advisers of the Crown. After noticing the distinction taken by the Duke of Wellington be- tween the case of Tithes and that of Catholic Disabilities, and con- tending that, as the same revolutionary movements which led the Duke to admit that Catholic Disabilities were a grievance, existed in respect to tithes they must of course, on the Duke's showing, be a grievance- also,—Lord Plunkett went on to defend the Government from any remissness in maintaining the law as it stood.

He challenged them, from the beginning to the end of the tithe disturbances,. to point out any one instance in which the Lord Lieutenant refused to give the most prompt and effectual aid to every person applying for assistance. If he had done so in any one instance, let the documents be referred to, and the case pointed out. The opponents of tithes had acted upon a new plan. They did not vio- late the law : they said they would not pay tithes, but that in itself was no vio- lation of the law. They said that the parson might come if he chose, and distrain their goods; but when the parson distrained, he found nobody to buy. What could the Government do in such a case? Government could not become the auctioneer, nor find buyers. The case in the county of Cork had bean referred to by the noble duke. 'Why, how did it stand between the Government and the parson? The parson says, Will you give me-assistance?" The Government. says, "Can you find buyers?" "Yes." "An auctioneer?" "Yes. The- Government gives assistance; a great body of people are assembled, but not one buyer can be found. The parson is unable to fulfil that part of the contract -

for which he stipulated. What was to be done? Were the troops to remain there to the end of time?

He noticed a case in which the magistrates bad ejected the master and scholars of a National School, by force, and torn down the title " National School," to show that the magistrates were not on all occa- sions to be trusted with extraordinary powers. He afterwards noticed certain cases in which magistrates had been dismissed, and, as he con- tended, with perfect propriety— Colonel Vernor and Mr. Grey, both magistrates, had marched into Dundalk :Lt the head of 5,000 Orangemen, with twenty banners flying, and a variety of Orange emblems. This procession met some Itonian Catholics ; had language was exchanged ; and being, as was generally the case on such occasions, pro- vided with concealed arms, pistol-shots W2n! fired, and sewn-al per ons severely injured. Colonel Verner alleged, that he was merely by accident:driving into the town, when he saw the Orangeznen, and joined .theta ; but it was.subse- quently proved On oath, that he had met them by appomtaneut, and remained in conclave two Imors; at whieli meeting they had =Ile tO resektions not to support the Ministry. AVith what degree of fairniss shonlii he lave acted, if ties 11!all had not ben dismissed?

The other case was thet of Captain Gralenn ; who, in calling out the Yeeinanre on hi; own authority, had clearly acted illegally.

Iiilehand, the ;v 'r calling out the Yeomanry u'as expressly confined to the Lord lienteneT,t. Tio military vere 1iflit1t.to restrein, hat the Yeomanry much :yore so. Tho law wisely provided against and the Evils which it cowl-feel:toted were eensequent upon its infraction. -The Earl of E:.non spoke of the. Common Jaw Os not enforced in Ireland. Combinations to resist payment of tithe eteme clearly within its scope ; and had it been vigorously enforced, it would have been found effectual fur their suppression.

The Earl of AVICKLOW described the argument of Lord Plunkett as an extremely na.tble one : it cortainly did not justify the postponement of the :notion so earnestly requested by the Ministers when it was last about to be brought forward. He defended Captain Graham at great length ; and said that no grosser act of injustice wzks ever committed in the -most despotic country then the Captain's dismissal. Ile concluded by affirming, that the general impression in Ireland now was, that every man must depend for protection not on the law, but on his own phy- sical power ; and for the purpose of making it effectual, the whole of the Protestant population were arming. Indeed, the applications for registrations were so numerous, that in some instances the quarter- sessioas 1:tul to be adjourned, from the impossibility of complying with these applications and attending to the ordinary business also.

The Marquis of LaNanowatE replied to the Earl of Wickltav ; after which, and a few words from the Marquis of 11113-rztrEArli, the House dividoti : for the motion,—present, 60 ; proxies, 19 ; total, 79 : against it,—present, 79; proxies, 59; total, 120: majority against the mo- tion, 41.

2. Imam Settoot,s—Bisnor PitiLLro-rrs. On Tuesday, Lord B EL- 11 AVE N having presented the petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland respecting the Government plan of Irish Edu- cation,

The Archbishop of ARMAGH said, the Assembly had been deceived into the opinion that the schools in Ireland were to be managed in the same way as the Scottish parochial schools.

The Duke of WELTINGroN noticed a statement made by Mr. Cock- burn, the Solicitor-General, that Mr. Stanley bad written a letter to a member of the General Assembly, to say that there was no objection on the part of Government to permit the Protestant scholars to read the Bible : had it not been for this statement, the Duke said, the petition of the General Assembly would have been a very different one.

Lord BELHAVEN said, he understood what Mr. Cockburn had stated was, that a member of Assembly had received a private letter—not an °ill:dal letter—from Mr. Stanley ; but it was quite clear he did not describe the letter as the Duke of Wellington had done,—the Assembly would not have prayed for that very thing which the letter professed to give them, and a Bible class for the Protestant scholars was the extent of their prayer. The Archbishop of Armagh knew very little of the Scotch schools, when he imputed to the Assembly the opinion that the Irish schools were to be similarly managed. The Scottish school- masters were bound to instruct their scholars in the Scriptures. Ca- tholics, he believed, did sometimes attend, and had the option of reading the Scriptures or not. What the Solicitor-General said was, that Government would not object to the whole Bible being read before or after public school hours, by the children of those that de- sired it.

The Bishop of EXETER said he was authorized to say, that the General Assembly understood there was to be a Bible class in the Irish schools— A minister of the Church of Scotland had written a letter to a friend of his, -whiteh had been put into his hands, and which he was ready to show to any member of the Government, and to mention the name of the minister by whoin it was written; and this letter animadverted in very strong terms on the kind of mameuvre which had been resorted to in order to mislead the Assembly, and designated it as a trick. " There was no one," the letter observed, "who took the trouble to read the petition, and to compare its contents with the known sentiments of the petitioners, who must not see at once that they were greatly misinformed respecting the Government plan of education in Ireland."

The remarks of the Duke of Wellington and Dr. Phillpots led to a warm defence of Mr. Cockburn, by Lord BROUGHAM, and a length- ened conversation on a previous letter alluded to by the Bishop. Lord Brougham observed— With respect to the letter which had been quoted by the right reverend pre- late, he would take upon him to say, that if the writer was the respectable person stated by the right reverend prelate, he would be disposed to lament the use which had been made of his hasty, ill-advised, and inaccurate expressions. If he were not, it was clear that although he might give Government and the measure his prayers in private, he was content to vent his slander upon them in public. That the charge aginst the Solicitor-General of Scotland was as ground,less as it was foul, it might be necessary to their Lordships' who did not now ms honourable and learned friend, but not to his country, who loved, esteemed, and respected him, that he should most broadly assert, that theie was not in the three kingdoms a man snore incapable, by character, by the tenor of his life, or by his feelings, to be either the author or the suggester of any !Iced, word, or imagination, which could deserve by the uttermost perversion of ingenuity the appellation used in the letter which had been read by the right reverend prelate. If there was any one quality which the Solicitor-General peculiarly possessed, and for which he was proverbially known in Scotland, it was the extreme accuracy with which he stated facts; an over-scrupulous accu- racy to understate rather thm to overstate them. To know, therefore, that Mr. Stanley never wrote such a letter, u-as to know that the Solicitor-General never made the statement attributed to him.

Lord Brougham was surprised that Mr. Cockburn should be charged with a trick, on no better authority than a report in a newspaper ; and his surprise was the greater, considering the quarter from which the charge emanated— Not many months ago, the right reverend prelate charged some member of the Government with Ling th:en guilty of a very gross abuse of official dutv, in havinz given publicity to a conihket'ial letter written by a noble duke to the King. That elnege was indignantly denied—it was indignantly denied hy every inember of the Government then present in the House. It turned mutt, how- ev, r, that tiot only no member of the Government who had a seat in tint House. published tile let-ter—not telly that it Eves not published by any of their col- leagues in the other I lniese, or with their coguizance—not only that it had not come frent the Traasury, to NVilleit it was hoped that it might be traced— that the Forei::;nOrrh:e ',1%;4 ult 1;!,!Ilited Wi:11 the stain of I:rem:11.f trit,t that Sovereign—thet it had net fimml its way bite the paper front the Admiralty, nor fewn the Ile:rheum , r, nee from any uther department of the (iovernment ; nor evel, fr;:91 ;lie cinee,ner hhosel( (he thanked his noble friend for reminding hint :hat he :r::;e: proftet uphace nearer home)—but that, oetuelly, le hod.: lead puldished it ell— :led there WaS DO COITUS Mir( as the lawyer's said, that the offenee kal :levee is en committed hy anybody ; that there was no principal, I st;uLta Ilene we-: no tffence—no i:eck.zay, bemuse there nee: ILO pri::elied— ec privity, la;.all,e there was nothing to be cognizant of. Tim le: ier appeareel in the newepaper was ecmpered with the letter

that wes ; P emaost carefillly compared, within four-and-twenty hours a t I : t dee& made by the right reveterd prelate, because, the cot:Memo cf the e. of the right revareed prelate—from his stetement that the letter wes ceided re led to suspect that it hat teas known to have happ, : t(l 0 itSuui—tuflitelv, the trick (it might,

indeed, be SO eallei,) to open a i2eltiect-box. When• they heard suelt a,serti,,es coefi.h-atly to:ele, they could :lot supimse that there Iva; no foandatien wile: aver toe them—that the right reverend prelate might as wed have dreamt of the tat a 1 ih he had stated, for all the truth the:elves in it. It was not believed that a Hilo, tat b.df a line, or a single won!, contained in the original letter, had not been publish-I in the letter which appeared in the newspaper. But no; upon the most minute investigation it turned Gilt, that there was not a shallow of foundaticm for the charge. Nay, the writer of the letter in the newspaper came finny:int, and declared publicly that he had no more knowledge of the letter than lie had obtained in conversation in society, and that he knew nothing of b s subst.tnce, and much less of its words.

Lord Brougham concluaal-

lle was really quite happy thet the right revereudprelate had afforded him an opportunity of refreshing ois memory Wirii re:Tect to this notable passage in his Parliamentary life, short thoegh it bed been. The right reverend prelate would excuse .him for telling him, that ii' his Parliamentary life should be ex- tended to as great a length as he himself could desire, it would never furnish a more remarkable passage.

The Bishop of Exierea said, when he mentioned the Duke of Buckingham's letter having appeared in the Times, he only told what he had heard.

Lord BROUGHAM said, Dr. Phillpotts distinctly- stated that there had been a'breach of confidenee iii Some of the Government offices by the publication of a letter, which tile Dula:. of Buckingham said was a ver- batim copy.

The Duke of Co:etteitLAND acid, the Duke's words were "an almost verbatim copy." lie thought Dr. l'itillpetts justified in rhat he had said.

Lord BROUGHAM—" If ten noble dukes should say a hundred times over that it was a verbatim copy, or an almost verbatim copy, or that there was one lhke or one particle of the letter in the publication in the .newspaper signed Radical,'—if noble lords were to repeat the same thing over and over again, I must still affirm that there was not a shadow of foundation for the assertion."

The Bishop of EXETER agein contended, that he had made no con- fident statement; he said he had heard that such things had occurred; he had appealed to the Duke of Buckingham, and be said it was true. As to the connexion between Government and the Times newspaper, he stated it not as a thing that he, but that others believed.

Earl GREY observed, that the Bishop had at the same time given as a proof of the connexion which he said existed between the Times and the Government, that the Times bad published what it could only have obtained from persons in the Government. The Bishop professed to dislike insinuations, and to state only what he "believed," and all the venom went forth with the thin veil which he cautiously spread over it. Lord Grey felt only disgust at the time, and now he felt nothing but contempt.

The subject of the controversy regarding the Times was again intro- duced on Thursday. The Bishop of EXETER read extracts from the Mirror of Parliament, which, he contended, bore him out in saying that he had not asserted the existence of any connexion between the Go- vernment and the Times, but merely appealed to the Duke of Buck- ingham on the subject.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY on the same occasion read extracts from the Times with a view to show, in respect of the well-known petition from the Londonderry 'Prentice Boys, that some communica- tion must have taken place between the Times and the Home Office, as copies of the letters that passed between him and that office had actually appeared in the said newspaper.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Mr. J. E. Gorinox moved for amended returns on the subject of Irish schools. He pre- sented at the same time a petition from a meeting at Exeter Hall against the system. •

Mr. PERCEVAL spoke of a Protestant clergyman in Sligo, whose name had been annexed to a petition to the Board without his consent. . Mr. STANLEY commented on such vague charges— If the honourable member, or any other honourable member, would undertake to prove a single case of intimidation or forgery, he would promise him the cor- dial cooperation of the National Board on the proving his case and their assist- ance in punishing the delinquents, in case of its •being proved. But in the ab- sence of proof, it was a little too much for the honourable members to be thins, night after night, pouring forth vague denunciations, which, when examined, would be found, if not wholly groundless, to be distortions of fact, and which, from their very vagueness, were the less susceptible of direct refutation. He mentioned his having instituted a school in a parish in the South of Ireland, where, with the exception of his bailiff, there was not one Protestant— The children, who flocked to it in great numbers, were not what Mr. Gordon and his party would in their phraseology denominate " Scripturally educated nevertheless, he could take upon himself to declare,—having, with the permis- sion and at the request of the Catholic clergymen, examined them himself,— that they answered all questions relating to the Christian doctrines, in a manner

at least equal, if not superior, to ch i ildren n the same walk of life in this country. And this was by no means a solitary instance.

Mr. S raw mentioned, that extracts, as he understood, from the works of St. Augustin and St. Bernard, had been furnished to some schools.

Mr. STANLEY thought it probable, that extracts from the works of either of these fathers might be as proper for Protestants as Catholics.

Mr. Si aw having subsequently adverted to Mr. Stanley's letter to Scotland, Mr. STANLEY stated its substance— That the local arrangements of each school were subject to the direction and management of the local superintendents ; but this WaS a rule of the new sys- tem, that Protestant children might, if their parents chose, receive instruction in the Scriptures in the schools' but nut during the hours of combined educatiou, schen Protestant and Catholic children were being taught in common.

Sir GEORGE MURRAY said, the people of Scotland had been griev- ously deceived on the subject ; they thought that the reading of the Bible was part of the scheme.

Mr. A. JOHNS TONE said, the communication made to the General Assembly by Mr. Cockbuni was precisely similar to the one now made to the House.

Mr. Gordon's motion for returns was agreed to.

TITHES. On Thursday, 11.1r. STANLEY introduced his bills for rendering composition of tithe in Ireland compulsory and per- manent. He spoke first to the question of that mode of payment of clerical duties— In the first place, the payment by way of tithe was not fixed or definite but was continually varying, and bore the heaviest on that person who applied the most labour and capital in the cultivation of the land which fell to his portion. This was the point of view in which tithe was considered to be a most objection- able and grievous burden, both in England and in Ireland ; because the system was not only unjust, but it also tended to check national prosperity, to paralyze the efforts of industry, and to throw on the labouring and industrious tenant a greater burden than was borne by the comparatively idle tenant. A second reason for considering the tithe system objectionable,—and this cause prevailed to a greater extent in Ireland than England,—consisted in the exceedingly minute S111119 and portions in which the tithe was paid, and the exceedingly minute articles of produce on which it was charged. Great as this evil was in England, it was much more severely felt in Ireland; because, in the latter cour.tiy, the subdivisions of land were carried to a greater extent, and conse- quently- the two characters of farmer and labourer were snore commonly com- bined together. The holding of land being thus extremely small, every addi- tional charge was felt as an additional incumbranee. There was another im- portant reason, on account of which tithes were held to be most objectionable in Ireland. It was considered an invidious thing, even in England, for the Pro- testant clergyman to call upon his Protestant parishioners to put apart a certain portion of the produce of their industry exclusively for his support. If such a feeling existed in this country, how much more strongly must it be felt in Ire- land, where the tithe was paid by Catholic parishioners to a Prctestant clergy- man, between whom there was no other tie but demand on the one hand and payment on the other !

Yet these evils would not, he contended, be removed by abolishing

tithe altogether; for, in the present state of Ireland, that would merely swell the landlord's rents. He noticed the temporary character of the present Composition Act; its expiring at the end of twenty-one years ; its alteration every seven years and inure especially its being a com- pact dependent on the consent Of parties whose interests were conflict- ing. His bill proposed to remove the first and third objections to the art; leaving the second condition, which was essential to the rendering of Justice both to the payer and the receiver of tithe. He proposed, however, to modify this provision for a septennial revision of the com- position originally agreed on—

He should propose that in future the composition should be fixed at the

average prices of agricultural produce front the let of November 1823 to the 1st of November 1830. There would be a new valuation every seven years ; so that, in 1839, according to this plan, there would be a revision of the pay- ments, applying the principle that would now be applied to the years between 1823 and 1830.

By the present act, the land was leased tithe-free ; the clergyman

claimed from the tenant ; and the clergyman's receipt was effectual as a set-off against so much of the tenant's rent. But the clergyman as well as landlord retained the power of prosecutinr, the tenant,—the one for the tithe, the other for the rent; and this double power had been the occasion of manifold grievances. Mr. Stanley proposed to remedy this—

He proposed that the last tenant having an interest in the land—whether by lease or otherwise, excepting always the tenant at will—should be responsible for the payment of the tithe composition ; and when the lease, if the interest was leasehold, of the person so held responsible for the tithe should have ex- pired, the charge should fall upon the holder immediately above him. By that arrangement, if was obvious that, at the expiration of existing leases, the actual landlord—that is, the person receiving the profit rent—would ultimately be the payer of the tithe. To protect the tenant at will from the consequences of a distress for the non-payment of composition by the landlord, Mr. Stanley pro- posed that the person owing the tithe should be liable to an action for damages, or to a civil bill in the County Courts ; and that, upon judg- ment given against him, a receiver should be summarily appointed by the Court to receive the rent, and to pay over the balance, having de- ducted the tithe due. As a bonus on prompt payment, he also pro- posed that the landlord who anticipated the demand of the incumbent should be entitled to 15 per cent. deduction, retaining at the same time his entire claims against his tenant; and if the landlord neglected this advantage, the tenant who similarly anticipated the clergyman's demand should also receive 15 per cent, deduction, retaining at the same time his right to deduct the entire tithe from the rent due to the landlord.

Mr. Stanley described the purpose of his second bill— It was to erect, in every diocese a corporation composed of the Bishop and 'beneficed clergy, who, as a joint body, would collect and distribute the funds of the joint body, and in that way remove the parochial clergy from all collision with their parishioners in their individual capacity, by the corporate body col- lecting the whole income, from that deducting the gross receipts, and dividing the surplus in such manner as the rights of individuals might require ; the risk in all these casesbeing mutual, and the profit mutual likewise. It was his intention to propose such provisions as would enable the corporation, so formed in each diocese, to make purchases of lands out of such sums as might be paid for the redemption of tithes, facilities being created for such redemption in the manner in winch the redemption of the ad goes forward in England. It would of course be obvious, that for particular parishes, it might not always be practi- cable to find portions of land precisely of the value which those parishes might require to meet the amount of their tithes ; hut, with a view to an arrangenient of that nature, the proceeds of the redeemed tithes of several parishes might be united ; and for the use of the clergy of those parishes, an estate might be pur- chased which would supply the place of the redeemed tithes. Accordingly, the bill would afford increased facilities to landlords to relieve themselves from a burden which they now really bear, and which it was the intention of the bill to be brought forward to impose on them nominally as well as really. The bill would go upon the same principle as the redemption of land-tax proceeded in England, and as the redemption ot the quit and crown rents proceeded in Ireland : and in order to afford increased facilities to landlords for effecting these redemptions, he proposed that, where there were settled or incumbent properties, the sums raised for the purpose of redemption should take priority of all existing claims.

He confidently calculated, that, assuming the present income of the Irish clergy to be 600,0001., and that the tithes should be purehaseable at sixteen years' purchase, and the sum reinvested in land at eighteen years' purchase, the clergy would insure, subject to no collision or dis- pute, a clear income of 510,000/. per annum for their future mainte- nance. Lastly, it was an object of the bill to enable Government to purchase up the tithes in any part of Ireland where it might be deemed necessary : leaving the Corporation alluded to, to lay out the sum so in- vested. Mr. Stanley stated in conclusion, that steps were about to be taken with a view to render the First Fruits Fund available for the payment of Church cess, and to relieve Catholics altogether from these trifling but vexatious and irritating imposts. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Composition Act.

Mr. J. GRATTAN said, his father had at one time introduced a bill similar to Mr. Stanley's ; which might have done in those days, but which would now be found altogether useless. All parties in Ireland had made up their minds, not only that the mode of collecting tithes was bad, but that the impost itself was much greater than the service rendered deserved. He moved, as an amendment, the following re- solution— " That it is essential to the peace of Ireland, that the system of Tithes in that coun- try should be extinguished, not in name only, but in substance and unequivocally. That in coming to this resolution, we recognize the rights of persons having vested in- terests, and declare that it is the duty of Parliament to provide for those persons by making them a just compensation. That we also recognize the liability of property in Ireland, to contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion and charity ; but that such fund may and ought to be quite different in the mode of collection, and much lighter in effect, than that raised by the system of Tithes. That we are also of opinion, that the mode of levying and the application of such fund, and its distribution, ought to be left to the decision of a Reformed Parliament."

Mr. BEAUMONT seconded the resolution. He was a lay impropria- tor, but he was willing to sacrifice his private interests to the proper and satisfactory settlement of this great question.

Mr. SIMI. strongly objected to a condemned Parliament, when in articulo mortis, entertaining such a measure as Mr. Stanley's bill. He referred to the evidence before the Tithe Committee, to show that the Opposition to tithe composition was as strong as to tithe itself—to that of the Archbishop of Dublin, of Mr. Dunn and of Mr. James in particular. He noticed Mr. Stanley's plan Of fixing the tithe ulti- mately on the landlord- " He says that he will require the landlord on all new leases to pay the tithe. How is he to manage in the interval? A generation must be in the grave be- fore his act conies into operation. If so, why precipitate the measure, when its application must be so slow ? And what will he do if the landlord does not pay? He says he will put a receiver on his estate. What if the landlord does not himself get his rents? No matter—a receiver will ; a receiver with all the costs and ruin that accompany that incubus on property. He says, too, he will allow tenants for life to mortgage, to cut off remainder men, and to give security to the tithe redemption mortgagee over all other creditors. Thus he shakes and disturbs the whole frame of property in Ireland, and overthrows all the fixed rules and canons of the law, to consummate his favourite project."

He next adverted to diocesan corporations, which he declared no one acquainted with the state of Irish society would dream of advocating. He spoke of the scheme of assigning ten millions worth in perpetuity to the Irish Church— The Church have now a million of statute acres. Was not this sufficient ? Would Parliament throw an additional mass of property into mortmain, make it inalienable, and thus swell the episcopal principalities with this portentous aug- mentation? Look to its effect on elections. What a preponderance it would give to Churchmen at the hustings! Was this the object of the Ministry who had given Reform to Ireland? He afterwards examined at length the proposition involved in Mr. Stanley's bills, to leave the present revenue of the Irish Church undi- minished, and its appropriation unchanged. On this point also, he went into a lengthened examination of the evidence; from the whole of which he contended, that the amount and appropriation of the tithe was the chief ground of the present resistance to its being levied. He concluded— With the evidence he had cited before him, the Irish Secretary told the House that the Church property was to remain untouched. Vain and preposterous hope ! The Irish millions—Catholic, Presbyterian, and Protestant—would dis- abuse him of his error when that error might be lamented, but could not be repaired. And what did he a few days ago utter in that House? In speaking of the evils of delaying Reform, he asked whether, if the Tories, when in power, had adopted measures to correct the abuses of the Church, Ireland would he in the condition it now is. Surprise was produced by this observation. The-right honourable member for Tamworth, in a Parliament whisper, said across the table, "Do you remember your speech in 1823 ?" Who was there that did not remember it ? But with what consistency did the right honourable gentleman talk of Reform in the Church one day, and produce such a mockery as this the other? These measures were mere impertinence. They would but aggravate the evil. They would but—(a new word might be fabricated for such original proceedings)—they would but East-Reybrdise the-Church. Mr. GALLY KNIGHT said, tithes did not belong to the People— they who took them were robbers. If the resistance to their payment were permitted, the empire of law was at an end, and they might as well give up Government at once.

Mr. RUTIIVEN regretted that a measure, which would reouire a new army to carry it on, had ever been brought forward ; and hoped it would not be persisted in.

• Mr. GOULBURN supported the bill. The amendment went to de- stroy tithes entirely.

Mr. O'CONNELL, who entered the House as the debate was about to close, moved its adjournment. The House divided on this motion; which was rejected, by 143 to 25. . .

Mr. O'Coss:Est, then movel the adjournment of the house; which, however, he did not press. The adjournment of the debate, till Monday, was afterwards agreed to.

4. Tann REroast BILL. Sir ROBERT BATESON, ill 0.'ommittee on Tuesday, moved the same amendment as was moved by Colonel Davies on the English Bill,—namely, to raise the qualification iii the first class of large towns to 20/. and in the second class to 15L The :intendment met the same fate as ;hat of Colonel Davies—it was negatived without a division.

On the motion of Mr. LEADElt, the fith clause was so amended as to continue the franchise for life to the 5/. householders of Dungarvon, Newry, and Downpatrick. A smart discussion arose on the 7th clause. Mr. SHAW contended, that the rights of freemen ought to be preserved, as in the English Bill. Mr. STANLEY said, that would perpetuate sectarian distinctions, as the freemen were all of one church. Mr. O'CONNELL taid, many of the Catholics would lose their rights, to which they had attained by servitude. Mr. RICE felt surprised at Mr. O'Connell's opposition : if the clause had been worded the other way, they wculd doubtless have heard an eloquent speech against it.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, Mr. Rice had grossly calumniated him—

It might suit the right honourable gentleman, who had once defended the freemen of Ireland, to desert them now ; but Mr. Rice had slandered lihn when he said he was ready to adopt the same course. The right honourable gentle- man had done right to desert the people of Limerick so early, for it was not improbable they would have returned the compliment at an early opportunity. He congratulated him, indeed, on his importation to England ; and thought he acted wisely, befere he made this declaration, to take care to have Cambridge in his rear.

Mr. STANLEY said, Mr. O'Connell had in one of his letters praised tins part of the Bill, as taking away the corrupt power of Corporations.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the Lord had delivered the two right honour- able gentlemen into his hands—

The right honourahle gentleman had proved himself completely ignorant of the question. The proposition he contended for was, that the Bill should compel the corporations to admit those entitled to their freedom, not take away from them the power to admit.

Mr. GEORGE DAWSON, "as a peacemaker," advised the postpone- ment Of the clause. Mr. H. GnAVEAN Mid Mr. CALLA!!!!AN sup- ported the clause as it was. Mr. ..ALLAGIIAN said, many of his con- stituents were freemen, and yet no part of the Bill was more praised than this. The House divided on the clause : for it, 1S; against it, 9; majority-, 89.

Mr. RUTHVEN afterwards moved that the Chairman report progress; which was opposed by (54 to 10.

Clauses 8th and Snit were afterwards agreed to ;.! and the House resumed.

In the Committee last night, an important amendment was made in the Registry clauses, with which Mr. O'CONNELL expressed himself highly gratified,—namely, that a notice sent to the high constable of the barony should answer the same purpose as a notice sent to the clerk of the peace ; by which arrangement, a long and expensive journey, and frequently a residence of several days in the county town, will be saved, and the registry effected with the least possible inconvenience to the elector.

Mr. WALL/set:, Mr. O'CONNELL, and others, suggested that free- holders in towns should be subjected to a personal examination.

Mr. STANLEY was understood to agree to this.

Mr. BROWSE described the way in which the registration used to be gone about—

The registration certainly took place in open court ; but it took place before two Magistrates in a corner of the court, who called the freeholdersover to them in batches of eight or ten at a time; and the Quarter-sessions Clerk having wiped the swearing book over the mouths of all of them, the registration was thus effected.

Mr. O'CONNELL suggested some alteration in respect to certificates. He mentioned a fact that occurred in his own experience-

. On one occasion, when he was acting as assessor, a man came up with a cer- tificate granted to a person named John Moran. The certificate was signed with a cross for John Moran ; but it was suspected that the certificate had not been originally granted to the person who then bore it, and he was informed that the man who presented it was not an illiterate man. In order to determine that point, he said to the man, "John Moran, write your name." The man took up a pen and wrote "Thomas O'Brien." (Loud laughter.) To prevent this sort of fraud, he recommended the annual publication of the list of voters, as in England.

With the exception of two or three postponed clauses, the whole of the Bill went through Committee.

SCOTCH REFORM Btu. Previous to the second reading of this bill in the Lords, on Wednesday, the Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from the trustees of Shaw's Hospital, Prestonpans, com- plaining of the Bill, that it went to diminish the value of the Hospital funds, by rendering superiorities of no value. A similar petition was presented to the House of Commons at an early stage of the Bill. Lord Haddington mentioned, that there were from 3,000 to 4,000 of these su.perionties in Scotland, worth on an average 400/. each ; so that the Bill destroyed property to the value of 1,200,000/.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY said, a superiority was of a threefold cha- racter; in only one of which relations it would be affected by the Bill— In the first place, it included what were called the casualties of superiority, such as feu-duties; ald in that smse it was property as much as any other spe- cies of property. In the second place,. it was connected with titles; from which connexion some beneficial interest arose; and in that view also it might be con- sidered as property. Its third character was, that it carried the right of voting; and, considered with teference to the naked right of voting, it eves not property, but a mere trust, which might at any time be justly detached from it when It could be better reposed in other hands. That incident might be detached from it without the slightest claim, in justice, to compensation.

After some further conversation, in which the Earl of ABERDEEN enforced the doctrine of Lord Haddington,

Lord BROUGHAM rose to move the second reading of the Bill. In doing this, his Lordship entered at considerable length into the prin- ciple and detail of the present representation of Scotland; a subject familiar to most readers, from the debates in the House of Commons, and to the readers of the Spectator long before the debates in the Com- mons on that subject commenced, from the Notes on the " Anatomy."

The House was extremely thin ; and when the Lord Chancellor finished his address, the Earl of HADDINGTON adverted to that fact, as rendering unnecessary any lengthened reply ; for it proved that there was no interest felt in the present motion, nor any intention entertained of

totsing it. He spoke of the old system of England as more favour- able to Scotland than the new ; inasmuch as it opened a way for the admission of a much larger number of Seotehmen than fifty-three to the House of Commons. He held also, that the population and taxes of Scotland called for a much larger number. He complained that the comity franchise gave the preponderance to the manufiteturing interest ; alai of the neglect shown towards the four Universities. When the Bill went into Committee, Lord Haddington said, he hoped for a fuller House; as several important amendments would be proposed in it.

The Earl of ROSEBERRY, though differing from the Earl of Hadding- ton in other points, concurred in regretting that one member at least had not been given to the Scotch Universities.

Lord NAPIER said, the People of Scotland laid long regarded their country- as represented in the Upper rather than the Lower House of Parliameot ; and he hoped nothing would be done to destroy the respect Nvbieh they had hitherto entertained for it.

The Bill was ordered to be committed for Monday.

6. THE BOUNDARIES BILL. OD Tuesday, Lord WYNFORD IMCWed that the Borough Boundaries Bill should be referred to a Select Com- mittee. This slais resisted, on account of the delay to which it must lead. It was not pressed.

I.ord ELLENBOItOUGH spoke of the hardship, in certain cases where there was no overseer, of imposing the duty and expense of the registry on a neighbouring parish, in some cases a very small one.

The Duke of Melt MONO thought this defect of the Reform Act might be cured by a elause in the Boundaries Bill; and Earl Gam- said he would inquire into it.

7. '',..ottett:N eeerrm:e. On Tuesday, the :Marquis of LoNtioN- nEeity, after a prefiice

Earl GREY said, he deprecated as much as any one could the use of such expressions as those to which Lord Londonderry had referred- Suelelanguage was not consistent with the dignity of Parliament ; it was iii-

to time interests of the country ; it created difficulties where there were none previously, and aggravated those which already existed.

As to the Belgian question, he could not state that the negotiations respecting it had been brought to a conclusion; he earnestly wished that the moment were come when he could state to the House that they were.

The Duke of WELLINGTON expressed pleasure at hearing from Earl Grey that he disapproved of the epithets applied to the Emperor of Ruseia- Ile could not help wishing, however, that the noble earl had gone yet further, and eteted his opinion with respect to those charges which were brought against that i:lostrions individual. For his own part, he must express his entire con- viction that his Imperial Majesty had performed every article of the treaties to

he was bound, so far as he had any acquaintance with them.

8. PRIVILEGES OF THE LORDS. Lord Pus:am, on Monday, pre: seated a petition on the subject of Irish education ; and stated, that there were now on the list of the Government Commissioners 600 schools, and that in these schools 125,000 scholars were receiving the elements of education. A great number of the children are Catholics; which his Lordship said he so much the more rejoiced at, as it was at the education of the Catholics that Government chiefly aimed; but not a few are Protestants. The opposition in Ulster is, it seems from Lord Plunkett's statement, giving way.

Tite petition was read at length; on which occasion a long conver- sation took place on the privileges of the House.

The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the question, that the petition be read, The Earl of Wirecow rose and made some observations respecting Lord Plunkett's statement ; when he was called to order. The Mar- quis of CLANRICARDE, Lord HoLLANn, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, and several other Peers, contended, that previous to the reading of the petition, there was no question before the House ; that every Peer, witheut leave asked, had a right to have any petition read which he might think fit to present ; and that this privilege extended also to bringing in bills, for which no previous permission had been moved, as in the House of Commons. Lord HOLLAND mentioned a fact con- nected with the exercise of the latter privilege_

Inthe year 1784, a noble peer, in order to put to the test the right of any noble lord to bring into the House any bill that he pleased, brought in a bill containing a caricature print of Mr. Fox and Lord North; and a question arose whether he had a right to introduce and lay on the table a bill of that kind; and it was decided that he had. As to the first reading, he certainly thought

that a question might be put on that, on which a discussion might take place, without any infringement of order. Any noble lord had a right to present a ; though whether the presenting implied laying it on the table or delivering it to the Clerk, he could not precisely say.

. Lord BR0UGHAI41 excused himself for having put the question on the reading of the petition, from the practice of the Commons. He was,' however, he observed, in a different position altogether from the Speaker of the Commons, as be had not the same powers, nor was he supposed to have the same knowledge..

9. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. The bill for taking away privilege cif Parliament in eases of contempt against these courts was read a second time last night, after a long speech from the Marquis of WEST- MEATH ; who complained bitterly that the bill had a retroactive effect given to it, in order to include his case. The LORD CHANCELLOR (a private letter from whom the Marquis lied read) denied that, in respect of contempt, the bill was retroactive—the contempt must be future, although the suit with which it Nvas connected might be at present in progress. The act of contempt for which the Marquis of Westmeath took advantage of his privilege as a Peer to practise, was the non- payment of 2001.

10. THE BANK CHARTER. On Tuesday, in answer to Mr. Gis- BORNE, Lord ALTHORP stated, that from the accumulation of evidence, he feared it would not be possible to originate any question on the re- newal of the Charter in the course of this session.

11. ASSESSED TAXES—BUM:ET—RUSSIAN LOAN—ORDNANCE ESTI. MATES. OD the motion for going into Committee, on Tuesday, on the Ordnance Estimates, Lord E. Somvizsier put a question respecting the Assessed Taxes Composition Act, the answer to NVI;1.•■■ 11,:d been misunderstood when given last week. Lord Aernone said he meant to renew the Lill without any alteration.

In answer to questions from Mr. Henniss, Lord ALTITORP stated, that good and fair notice of the discussion of the Russian Loan would be given to the House. He said at the same time, that he was not aware that any objection existed to the publication of the convention of May 1815 respecting the loan, but he would inquire if there did.

The Budget, Lord ALTHORP observed, in answer to the same gen- tleman, would be brought on soon after the close of the quarter (.5th July). The deficiency, he said, was not quite 1,200,0001.

In answer to Mr. G. Dewsos, Lord ALTHORP mentioned, that the resolution of Lord Durham and the Duke of Richmond not to draw their respective salaries, would not be persisted in, because their col- leagues had deemed such a resolution improper.

Several items of the Ordnance Estimates were objected to in Com- mittee ; but none of them was divided open, with the exception of a vote for barracks in the Birdcoge-walk,—which :\ Tr. II. 1VAsoN op- posed, as tending to defeat certain building improvements in the line of Storey's Gate and Pimlico, and as being also an unhealthy place for barracks. The vote was carried, by 48 to 22.

12. limners AND Exemers. Mr. Alderman AVerrustse troughs forward, on Tuesday, Ii is animal ra:“Outions, founded um SA it. .1? to rsha li's tables, respecting the comparative in the ofilcial mid declared value of the exports for the last twenty-five years..

Mr. P. THOMSON moved the previous question.

Colonel TORSENS attributed the depression of prices to the rise in the value of gold, consequent on our return to a nietsil:e currency in 1819; and to the fact that the precious metals were admitted duty free, while goods were in all cases loaded with a tax.

• Mr. ROBINSON expressed his gratification at the opponents of free trade having secured such an advocate as Colonel Torrens.

Mr. GALLY KNIGHT spoke strongly against the notion, inculcated by the Alderman's resolutions, that the distress of the country could be removed by a vote of the House of Commons.

Could any system prevent the proverbial vicissitudes of trade Could it pre- vent the fluctuations of foreign demand ? the effects of home competition? Could it prevent the consequences of the increased power of production, or of the voluntary error of over-production? Was the systdm to be charged with the calamities which proceed either from unwise speculations, or from the migration of capital? And yet any one of these causes might produce distress to a great amount. Even a change of fashion might throw towns and districts out of work ; but could they prevent the changes of fashion? Should they prohibit the use of cotton gloves; and, if they did, would trade flourish the mere ? These were a few of the ruinous causes which were in continual operation; it was these which, under the very beet system, might produce, and xeould ever pro- duce, an abundance of individual, and of local and temporary distress. But where would be the advantage of continually altering general laws to meet par- ticular cases? What would be the consequence of our saying to the capitalist, " You shall never remove from the scene where you first begin your operation; yint shall remain in Spitalfields; you shall not go to Manchester or Leeds?" Would not such legislation be as futile as it would be barbarous and absurd? Again, if to favour the silk-mills of Idacclesfield, we were to surround the island with the brazen wall of prohibition, should we be doing good or harm to the whole community ? Would the loss of foreign trade be no detriment ? Would the migration of British capital to other countries (and such would be the in- evitable consequence) be no evil? For the hundreds whom we might benefit, should we not mjure hundreds of thousands ? Would not the clamour which the alteration might allay be succeeded by an outcry far more general, far more loud, and far more just?

The previous question was carried without a division.

13. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BILL. This bill, with amendments, was brought back from the Lords on Thursday. On Friday, on an inspection of these amendments. it was found that they were so many and so serious, that the COIDUIOns hesitated to comply with them. A conference took place last night on the subject between the two Houses; on which the Upper is to sit in deliberation on Monday.

14. MILITARY TORTURE. Mr. HUME moved, on Tuesday, for a copy of the minute of the Court-Martial that condemned Somerville, concerning whom he presented a petition last week.

Sir Jenne HOBHOUSE resisted the motion, on the ground of Mr. flume's not having given distinct notice of it. Sir John's principal argument in favour of Major Wyndham was the alleged impossibility

s

that any gentleman could have done as he was represented to have done —punished a man for one offence on the pretence of punishing him for

another. •

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied the doctrine that a soldier retained all the privileges of a citizen, anti asserted that a soldier could not exercise. privileges which were incompatible with military discipline—.

He did not see how the discipline of the Army was to be maintained, if sol- diers were allowed to become politicians. He would be the last man to justify. the act of pusishing for one oflence under pretence of another ; but he contended, that the soldier who was capable of writing such a letter as Somerville had writ- ten, was guilty of an atrocious offence, and that the commanding officer would have been justified in interdicting him from making similar communications in future.

The motion was withdrawn, with the understandisg that it would be renewed in another form.

The case of Somerville was agaio noticed last r:ght. Sir Jolts: Hos- 110USE stated, that application had been made tc Lord Hill for the man's discharge, which he believed would be cornpli2d with. Lord ALTHORP stated at the same time, that Lord Hill meant to institute an inquiry into the case ; which would be conducted in a way to satisfy the pub- lic. Mr. HUME, on this assurance, withdrew his notice bf motion.

15. GENERAL DARLING. On the motion of lr. HUNT, on Thurs- day, the entire charges preferred against this ofileer by Mr. Wentworth were ordered to be printed. Mr. H. L. Rumen said, be had intended to bring the ease before the House, and he felt much pleasure at the prospect of having all the papers connected with it before him.

16. ZEMINDAR OF NOZEED. The bill under tide title—which sanc- tions a large claim of an individual against the East India Company, after a long and fruitless attempt to substantiate it, cut of Padiament —was read last night a third time, and passed, eft er an earnest attempt of Lords Bnoucaisst, ELLENBOROUGH, and 1.1oT ‘ND, to have it postponed.

17. SUNDAY PROFANATION. Sir ANDREW AGNEW obtained, on Tuesday, a Committee to inquire into the abuses prevailing on the Lord's Day. The inquiries of the Committee are not to extend to the indulgences of the wealthy on that day.

IS. PURE Weyee FOR THE Mierecnearss. A long discussion took place last night on the motion for a vote of 1,0001. for the surveys un- dertaken on the suggestion of Sir Francis Burdett for the purpose of procuring pure water to the metropolis. Sir Romn:wr PEEL, Mr. GOULBURN, and MT. FANE opposed it. Mr. PANE described the vote. as an act of favouritism towards a Whig memin r. Lord ALTHORP remarked, that the charge of favouritism was a strauge one : Sir Francis Pordett could receive no benefit from the survey itself ; and its results, if beneficial, must be equally so to the whole of the metropo- lis. The vote was agreed to. The survey is in a forward state.