Elebete.1 mutt firnreebin0 in parliament.

1. SLAVERY. On Monday, in the House of Commons, the report of the resolutions empowering Government to raise twenty millions by redeemable annuities, was brought up and agreed to.

The Slavery Abolition Bill was then recommitted.

Mr. BUXTON proposed a clause which enacts, that after the passing of this bill, all children under six years of age should be entitled to their freedom.

This was opposed by Mr. STANLEY, and supported by Dr. Lusa- INGTON ; and carried, on a division, by 65 to 30.

Mr. HARDY then proposed that the apprenticeship of females should expire at the age of eighteen.

Mr. STANLEY opposed the amendment, and the Committee divided : for the motion, 37; against it, 43; Ministerial majority, 6.

Several other clauses passed with slight amendments.

On the motion of Lord ALTHORP, a string of resolutions relative to the mode of raising the twenty millions intended as a compensation to the planters were agreed to, and the House resumed.

On Wednesday, Lord ALTHORP moved that the Slavery Bill be read a third time; which was accordingly done.

On the motion of Mr. Wines, a clause to prevent the labour of the Negro apprentices on Sunday, was added to the bill. After a brief discussion, in which Mr. STANLEY, Mr. BUXTON, Lord ALTHORP, and Mr. WILES took part, the bill passed, with one dissentient voice.

It was then carried by Mr. STANLEY, and a considerable number of members of the House of Commons up to the House of Lords ; where it was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on Monday next.

2. EAST INDIA CHARTER BILL. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, on Monday, presented a petition from the proprietors of East India Stock, praying to be heard by counsel against certain parts of this•bill. Lord ELLENBOROUGII supported the prayer of the petition ; which was op- posed by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, and withdrawn by Lord SHAFTESBURY.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE then moved that the East India Char- ter Bill be committed. Having already fully explained the principles of the measure, he did not think it necessary to detain their Lordships by entering into any fresh statement at that time.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought this was a novel course to pursue, on a bill of such vast importance.

Lord LANSDOWNE said, there was nothing novel in it. He had already explained the outline of the measure ; and if Lord Ellenbo- rough had any amendment to move, now was the time for him to ex- plain the nature of that amendthent.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH then stated his objections to several parts of the bill. He maintained that the revenue of India would for many years be unable to defray the charges entailed upon it; and argued in favour of reducing the taxation on the natives. The sudden termina- tion of the Company's trade would be highly injurious to vast numbers of persons, especially in the port of London, where six millions of China and East India goods were annually disposed of. He was also opposed to the free admission of Europeans into India, and to the vast increase of patronage which the abolition of the subordinate councils in the different Presidencies would confer upon the Directors. He was confident, and quoted the opinions of Sir Thomas Munro and Mr. Elphinstone in support of his opinion, that it would be impossible to frame any uniform set of laws which should embrace both natives and Europeans. The additional power which the Governor- General would acquire by the alteration in the internal system of the Government of India, was highly objectionable. The half-castes, in consequence of the alteration in the system by which natives might be advanced to re- sponsible posts under Government, would, in consequence of their su- perior activity and intelligence, outstrip the natives; and as these half- castes were any thing but respected by the natives, the consequence of this change would be injurious. The provisions relative to slaves would shake the whole fabric of India government and society. Lord Ellenborough then mentioned several other points of the measure which he strongly condemned ; and concluded by moving, that it be an in- struction to the Committee to omit such provisions in the bill as went to alter the existing laws in the East India Presidencies. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE briefly defended the bill. He did not think it necessary to answer Lord Ellenborough's arguments in detail, for they had been already stated and refuted. After adverting in a cursory manner to several of the points mentioned by Lord Ellenbo. rough, and assuring the House that he was supported by the best arr. thorities in holding different opinions respecting them, he coneloded by expressing his earnest hope that no delay would be suffered to take

place in the passage of the bill, but that the benefits which it was cal- . culated to confer upon the people of India would be conferred speedily. • The Duke of WELLINGTON dwelt particularly upon the injurious effects to the revenue, and to the trade of the city of London, which would flow from the passing of the bill. He reiterated several of Lord Ellenborough's statements, and stronglyrecommended the removal of those clauses which related to the abolition of slavery.

Every Mussulman soldier in the Indian army had his female slave, who ac- companied him in all his marches; it would therefore easily be perceived with what tenderness and caution any interference with the fixed habits or prejudices of the natives should be attempted. In his opinion interference at all (at pre- sent, at least) would have the very worst effect. In conclusion, unless their trading powers were continued to the East India Company, very serious incon- venience and loss would be occasioned to India, a great loss to the British pub- lic, and even to the private traders to China. That part of the measure ought certainly, in his opinion, to be altered, and he would himself propose some amendment in order to elect such alteration.

Lord AUCKLAND said, it was quite clear, that if the Company were to carry on a trade in competition with private individuals, their pro- perty would be entirely destroyed.

This fact was established beyond doubt; indeed, whenever any trading mo- nopoly had come into conflict with free traders, the result had ever been found to be a wasting away of the profits of the monopoly. He believed, and he spoke from what had been stated in evidence, that ho difficulty would be expe- rienced in obtaining remittances from India by bills under the new arrangement; on the contrary, it was likely that remittances would be facilitated rather than impeded thereby. He denied that any distress would be created in the port of London from the discontinuance of the East India trade as a monopoly ; and contended, that instead of lessening employment in the ports of the United King- dom generally, the opening of the trade would materially increase it.

Lord Ellenborough's amendment was put, and negatived without a division. The House then went into Committee. The several clauses of the bill, from the beginning to the 48th, were agreed to, and the House resumed.

On Wednesday, their Lordships resumed the consideration of this bill in Committee; and the remaining clauses passed, with verbal amendments. The preamble was agreed to, and the report ordered to be brought up the next day.

On Thursday, it was brought up accordingly ; but, on the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord LANSDOWNE consented to postpone its further consideration till Friday, in order to give the East India Company more time to examine the amendments made in the bill.

In the Committee on Friday some amendments were proposed by Lord LANSDOWNE, one of which -continues the holders of Carnatic stock in the same situation in which they stand at present; another makes it imperative on the Governor-General to send home whatever regulations he may make on the subject of slavery, previous to carrying such regulations into execution. The report of the bill was then agreed to, and it is to be read a third time on Wednesday next.

3. CHINA TRADE BILL. On Thursday, the several clauses were agreed to in Committee, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.

4. BANK CHARTER BILL. Lord ALTHORP, on Tuesday, postponed the Committee on this bill till Thursday, in consequence of a commu- nication be had received from the Bank. On Thursday, he again post- poned it to Friday, for the same reason. On Friday, he moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee.

Mr. GISBORNE moved that the House go into Committee this day six months. He argued at length against the Bank monopoly, which was quite as absurd as the monopoly possessed by certain persons in Portugal for supplying Lisbon with meat. He had tried to convince the Portuguese Chancellor of the Exchequer of the bad policy of per- mitting such a monopoly to exist ; but he was quite as difficult to reason with, and adduced very much the same arguments in favour of the meat monopoly, as Lord Althorp for the Bank monopoly.

Lord ALTHORP said, he had once been in favour of a free competition in the trade of banking ; but as he came to understand the subject better, he had changed his opinion, and now thought decidedly that one bank of issue was best and safest. He admitted that the connexion of the Bank with the Government had occasionally been productive of bad consequences ; but that was 'to be attributed a good deal to the influence of Government upon its operations. In considering this subject, the House should never lose sight of the immense importance of preventing fluctuations in the currency; and for this reason mainly, he held one bank of issue for the Metropolis a most desirable arrangement.

Sir HENRY PARNELL said, that this question had not been sufficiently considered. The late Mr. Ricardo, a few months before he died, had agreed to make or to support a motion if made by Sir Henry, to pro- cure a further examination into the subject of banking. After the wit- nesses had been examined before the Committee last year, it was un- derstood that he was to have had an opportunity of producing several others ; but that opportunity had not been afforded. He objected to tying up the hands of Parliament for so long a period as ten years. Lord Althorp :seemed to forget all the advantages of free trade, and all that the public had already lost in consequence of the misconduct of the Bank.

It was a multiplied evil to grant to four-and-twenty Directors the absolute dominion of the currency of the country for so long a period. Had he enjoyed the opportunity before a Committee, he was prepared to go into the subject for the last forty or fifty years, and to show by evidence that the Bank of England had had a great share in every commercial convulsion. The conduct of that esta- blishment was in fact the cause of the suspension of cash payments in 1797, with all its evil consequences ; and it was not to be denied by any man that it had mainly contributed to the mercantile panic in 1824 and 1825. All these facts were opposed to the continuance of the monopoly ; and if they were not well founded,%they might have been disproved before the Committee.

He thought he should be able to show that the free-trade system in banking would work well in this country. Suppose the Bank of England had never been established, that 'retouch act had ever passed,the banking system would have grown upend matured with the other trades of the empire • and the principles of profit and competition would have settled it on as sound and firm a footing as any other trade, such for in. stance as supplying the metropolis with meat. He appealed to Scotland whe-

tber such bad not been the case there, and there was no earthly reason why it should not have been the case here.

He was not for abolishing the monopoly all at once; but he would renew the charter for three years only, and in the mean time have the subject thoroughly investigated.

Mr. STRUTT said, the investigation had not been sufficient. Ile had been an attentive member of the Committee ; and certainly, though many of the witnesses were intelligent, they were not impartial. The case of Scotland had been referred to by Si: henry Parnell: it was not quite a parallel case, but was good as tier as it went ; and it was in- cumbent upon the advocates of monopoly to show that the experience of Scotland was not a safe guide in this instance.

At present the Government was liable to be overreached in its dealings with the Bank—a state of things that could not exist if the trade were thrown open ; and under the amended system, the profits, instead of being lost, would go into the pockets of the public. The object ought to be to guard, not only against commercial, but political panics; but even if the old system avoided the first, it increased the danger of the last.

Mr. HUME thought that Lord Althorp had not made out his case.

He wished to put the question on this footing,—was there or was there not the utmost hazard iu handing over the country bound band and foot to the power of the Bank ? Were they warranted in disabling themselves from dealing with the currency of the country under any circumstances for a period of ten years? Looking at the evidence before the Committee, he should say that it was most abundant to show that the best effects had resulted in Scotland from the business of banking being in the hands of many, and the greatest mischief from its being

i

in England only in the hands of a few. The remedy, he thought, for all these mischiefs, would be a really National Bank, and whatever profits arose from it ought to be applied to the credit of the public ; but at all events, let them come to what resolution they might, they ought to hear further evidence, and welt at least for another year.

Mr. PRYER said, that Lord Althorp took up his measures hastily and abandoned them hastily ; and he therefore did not anticipate a very per- severing maintenance of the present measure. The system about to be adopted would destroy the Country Banks, and place thirty millions of currency in the hands of the Bank of England. He should like to see a National Bank established, as a bank of issue, but not of discount. The Bank of England would run away with itself, and be overturned—

The Quicksilver Brighton coach running against the Rob Roy was resolved to outstrip its rival at any' cost ; but when it had the road all to itself, it was at length run away with, and overturned. Similar would be the fate of the Bank of England.

Mr. ROBINSON thought that Lord Althorp's plan would give general satisfaction ; and he should vote for going into Committee.

Mr. COBBETT was opposed to the bill, solely because it made Bank paper a legal tender.

Mr. T. ATTwooD said, the Bank was not to blame for what took place in 1797 and 1825. In the latter year, it did all in its power to prevent mischief; but it was, and always had been, a mere tool of the Government. The system of joint stock banks was very bad. They would he under the tutelage of the Bank of England, and seven times more subservient to the Government than the Batik was. The joint stock banks of Scotland must fall ; and when they did, their crash would be dreadful. He would vote for going into Committee ; for he did not think it prudent to defer the settlement of so important and in- tricate a subject till next session.

Mr. CLAY rose to address the House, amidst strong manifestations of impatience. After saying a few words, he sat down, and was greeted with loud cheers.

The House then divided : for Mr. Gisbornes motion, 40; againstit, 119; majority for Ministers, 79.

The House being then in Committee, Lord ALTHORP stated,, in answer to a question by Mr. CLAY, that With the exception of one alteration, it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to diminish what were termed the exclusive privileges of the Bank. The exception to which lie referred was, that Joint Stock Banks, without the distance of sixty-five miles, should be allowed to draw fur sums under 501. The privilege of the Bank in this respect it was his wish to do away with, As to the subject of the number of partners in private banks within sixty-five miles of London, his opinion had certainly been very different to what it now was. He certainly thought that the Bank hae a power over these establishments; which, on looking into the act, and taking the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, he found it did not possess—he meant that as banks of deposit they could only consist of six partners. That there might not, therefore, be any doubt on this subject for the future, it was his intention to introduce a declaratory clause upon the subject. Mr. GISBORNE—" Will the banks of deposit be empowered to accept bills?"

Lord A ISHORP—" No."

Two or three Members—" Then no business can be carried on."

Mr. CAYLEY moved as an amendment to the second clause, that twenty-five miles, instead of sixty-five, should be inserted as the distance from London to which the monopoly of the Bank should extend.

A conversation ensued, which was very indistinctly heard. In reply to a question from Mr. Maim PHILLIPS, Lord ALTHORP said, that joint stock banks would not be prevented from establishing an office 4 London for making discounts.

Mr. CAYLEY'S amendment was rejected, by 113 to 51.

Colonel TORRENS moved, as an amendment to clause 4th, which cen- tinnes the charter of the Bank for ten years- " That upon one year's notice given, within six months after theexpirationof three years from the 1st ;of August 1834, the exclusive privileges of banking granted by this act shall cease and determine." After a brief debate, this amendment was rejected, .by a majority of 12-2 to 47.

The 5th, or legal tender clause, was then read.

Mr. HERRIER wished it to be made the subject of a separate bill; .sia Lord Althorp admitted that it formed no part of bin bargain' 'A* 40 Bank.

. Lord ALTHORP said, that wan true, 'but he thought i,t should remain in the bill.

Sir Tome CAMPBELL said, it might he altered or repealed at some future time, as it formed DO part of the bargain with the Bank. Mr. HittniEs maintained, that to repeal it, if once passed, would be a breach of faith.

Mr. N. ATTWOOD read a passage from a letter of Lord Althorp to the Bank Directors, in whirls he asked for a liberal compensation in re- turn for the advantage which this clause would confer. It was clearly, therefore, part of the bargain.

Lord ALTHORP read a letter from the Bank Directors, to show that they did not attach importance to the clause.

Alderman THOMPSON and Sir JOHN RAE REID thought that it would not benefit the Bunk, but would be beneficial to the public.

It was then proposed to till up the first blank in the clause with the words " let August 1834," as the date from which 5/. Bank of England notes should be a legal tender.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD moved to alter it to " 1st October 1833," in order to enable them to get over the winter better.

The amendment was negatived.

Mr. POULETT SCROPE proposed to insert the words " until Parlia- ment shall otherwise provide," in order to render it quite clear that Parliament might repeal the clause whenever itlhought proper.

Lord Aurtione objected to the addition, but afterwards promised to consider it further.

Sir T. Fits:slioert.E proposed to alter the clause by leaving out the words " five pounds," and inserting "all sums less than ten pounds."

Alderman THOMPSON said, that no five-guinea notes could be issued, except under a stamp-duty for 101.

The House divided on this amendment : for it, 50; against it, 110; majority, 60.

After some further conversation, the clause was finally carried, by a majority of 87 to 48; and the House adjourned to three o'clock this day.

5. Input CHURCH REFORM. The amendment made by the House of Commons to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was agreed to by the Peers, on Monday, on the motion of Earl GREY.

6. IRISH TITHES. On Monday, the House being in Committee, Mr. LITTLETON moved the following resolution.

" That his Majesty be enabled to direct Exchequer bills to an amount not ex- ceeding 1,000,4)00/. to be issued for the purpose of advancing, under certain con- ditions, the arrears of tithes clue for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent. ; and the value of the tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent., to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears or such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such ads antes ; and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe composition, so as to be repaid in the course of five years, being payable by half.yeally instalments."

He went into a long statement to prove, that the amount to be moved for was, as nearly as could be ascertained, the amount fitirly due to the clergy for tithe during the current year, and for the arrears of the two last years. He also explained at length the mode in which the claims of the clergy were to be ascertained and discharged by the Lord-Lieu- tenant.

Mr. O'CONNELL and Sir ROBERT PEEL supported the resolution.

Mr. SHAW, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. DIVETT, Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. HUME, Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. WILKS, Mr. BRISCOE, and Mr. CAYLEY, strongly opposed it.

Lord ALTHORP reminded the House, that this resolution was merely preparatory to the bill, whose details might be discussed satisfactorily at a future time. He hoped that the resolution would be allowed to pass.

The Committee divided : for the resolution, 87; against it, 51; Ministerial majority, 36.

The report was ordered to be brought up next day.

The report was brought up on Tuesday, by Lord DUNCANNON. He moved that it be received.

• Mr. RUTIIVEN would take the sense of the House on this motion ; but he regretted the absence of so many Irish members. He opposed the measure, because it perpetuated the monstrous doctrine of taxing persons for the support of other people's religion.

The House divided : for Mr. Ruthven's motion, 15; against it, 34 ; Ministerial majority, 19.

7. ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGE BILL. On Wednesday, this bill went through the Committee of the House of Commons,and on Thurs- day the report was brought up. Mr. SHAW moved the insertion of a clause to declare all marriages li performed by Roman Catholic and Dissenting clergymen, between members of the Established Church, null and void, and the persons celebrating such marriages guilty of a misdemeanor.

Mr. Sergeant PERRIN and Sir JOHN CAMPBELL opposed this clause; and it was negatived, without a division.

Mr. SHAW then moved that all marriages celebrated by degraded clergymen should be null and void.

' Mr. Sergeant PERRIN opposed this also. The parties married might not be aware that the clergyman was degraded; and very mischievous consequences might ensue.

The clause was withdrawn. The report on the bill was received; and it was ordered to be read a third time next day.

8. REFORM IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition on Wednesday, signed by four hundred clergymen and laymen, in favour of Church Reform. The petitioners wished for a commutation of tithes, the division of large parishes, and a better provision for the curates of large parishes. He also presented a similar petition from the clergymen and laymen of Gloucester ; and stated his general approbation of the prayer of both petitions) The Archbishop of DUBLIN presented a petition from the Clergy of the-Diocese of Kildare, signed by the Archdeacon on their behalf, which complained of the want of some adequate authority to settle disputed ecclesiastical matters.

Many wen were affected by scruples, and thought alterations were necessary, whose minds remained in a state of doubt, because there was no authority corn.. petent to decide on the fitness of those alterations, or the validity and weight of those scruples, bat who, if such an authority existed, would be satisfied even with a decision in the negative. The alterations, probably, which most per- sons contemplated, were in the Liturgy, Homilies, Lessons, &c. Of the Homilies it might be observed, that, although fitted for the state of the time when they were originally composed—that of Edward the Sixth—yet it by no means followed that they were well adapted to the state of society at the present moment. He knew that the sentiments of the petitioners were responded by many of the clergy of his own diocese; and he suggested to their Lordships that the state of things which he represented was not one that ought to continue.

The Bishop of CHICHESTER concurred in the statements expressed in the petition.

9. ALTERATION IN THE LITURGY. The Earl Of GOSFORD, on Monday, presented a petition from the Reverend Charles N. Wode- house, Prebendary of Norwich, praying for certain alterations in the Liturgy. The parts to which the petitioner principally objected, were the damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed, the form of absolution in visiting the sick, and the words used at the imposition of hands in ordaining priests and bishops.

10. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. J. A. MURRAY moved for leave to bring in a bill to re- peal the 59th of George the Third, commonly called the Foreign En- listment Act. No one act of the Legislature had given greater dis- satisfaction to the country, or was considered a greater stain upon its records than this.

He would maintain, that in a free state every man had a right, if lie could not get employment in the service of his country, to seek for it in the service of foreign powers ; and that gallant officers and brave soldiers, when their country did not want their services, had a perfect right to seek for glory and distinction in foreign lands. No doubt the state had the power to pass laws fur its own preservation, but it had no right to deprive men of their natural liberty. Was it not most unjust that gallant officers who had gone abroad and added to the glory and distinction of their country, should be liable to be tried for a misde- meanor under this act of Parliament ? ("Hear!") It was, besides, a most unnecessary law. It hail been said that it was necessary to preserve our neu- trality; but according to the law of nations, no breach of neutrality was com- mitted in allowing a man to serve in the army of another state, so long as he did not wage hostilities with his native country. The fact was, that this very law had given rise to almost all the complaints that had since been made against us as to breaches of neutrality. Were our soldiers to be kept, many of them, inactive and starving at home, instead of being allowed to seek for experience and glory abroad ? Another objection to this measure was that it was totally useless and inoperative. He might be asked, why then, in that case, seek for its repeal ? He asked for its repeal because it was a disgrace to the legislation of the country.

Mr. CORBETT defended the law as it stands.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS objected to Mr. Murray's proposition, that every man had a right to carry his courage, talents, and science to whatever market he saw fit.

So far from concurring in this proposition, he was of opinion that no man ought to engage in a war, or was at liberty to kill his fellow man, except in the cause of his family, his country, or his religion.

If the doctrines held by Mr. Murray were good for any thing, the subjects of this country were justified in running the same race as the Buccaneers on sea and the Condottieri on land.

Mr. O'Cossfia. said, the Foreign Enlistment Act was inoperative ; he knew so from experience.

No fewer than twenty five acts of Parliament, having a similar object to that which was the subject of the present motion, had existed in Ireland; some, in• deed, making hanging and quartering the punishment of the offence; but so in- operative were those statutes that, since the treaty of Limerick, no less than 140,000 Irish subjects had fallen in the French service.

A man was justified in fighting for liberty, but not for religion— No doctrine had occasioned so many melancholy cruelties as that encouraging a contest for religion. Religion was not made to be fought for, and it had never been intended to mingle the cup of blood with the chalice of salvation.

Colonel EVANS, Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, Mr. TYNTE, and Mr. ROBERT GRANT supported the motion.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT had always opposed the Foreign Enlistment Act, because it afforded no practical advantage.

By the common law, it was an act of felony for a British subject, after the proclamation of his Sovereign, to join the army of any acknowledged govern- ment ; but this did not apply to revolted provinces; and hence it was that, with regard to South America, complaints had been made by the Spanish Minister that the laws for the prevention of interference by British subjects were unequal. He shculd support the motion so far as it went to a restoration of the old com- mon law of the land.

Lord ALTHORP thought the act was detrimental to the interests of the country. He could conceive cases in which it would be the bounden duty of the Sove- reign to interfere with the powers with which he was invested by the common law—he meant in cases of the training and disciplining of troops in this country for the service of fimeign states; which clearly would be a breach of the common law, and might be much better prevented than by any provision contained HI the Foreign Enlistment Bill. By repealing that law, the Sovereign would not be liable to the imputation of not enforcing the execution of the law, which was almost impossible. He should, therefore, give his most cordial support to the motion.

Mr. MURRAY replied, and the motion was agreed to.

11. PORTUGAL. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr.. O'CONNELL asked Lord Althorp, whether it was the intention at Government to recognize Donna Maria as Queen of Portugal; but Lord ALTHORP declined answering the question at that time. In answer to a question from Mr. E. L. BULWER, on Wednesday, Lord ALTHORP said, that he was not aware that any transports had been taken up. with a hostile purpose towards Spain ; nor was there any feeling of jealousy towards Spain.

12. FACTORIES BILL. The House of Commons, on Friday, went into a Committee on this bill at the morning sitting. Lord ALTHORP explained the details of the amended bill ; and pledged himself to use his utmost exertion to carry it through this session. The following are the more important provisions of the measure. Persons under twenty-one are not allowed to work at night, and not more than twelve hours if under eighteen. The time allowed for meals, to persons working twelve hours, is to be an hour and a half. The

employment of children under nine is absolutely prohibited ; and those who are under thirteen are not to work more than eight hours daily. The age of the children is to be certified by a surgeon, and countersigned by a magistrate, within three months. Inspectors are to be appointed, who are to have the power of choosing mill-wardens, providing schools, and charging the expense of them to the parish, settling the amount of salary to be paid to subordinate officers. They are to make annual reports to the Treasury. Parents, agents, and factory-owners, are liable to punishment and penalties for the employment of children be- yond the legal age. The children in the schools are to be taught read- ing, writing, and accounts.

Mr. HEATHCOiE moved that lace-mantifactories be excluded from the operation of the bill, on the ground that very few children were employed in them. Mr. BOLLING strenuously opposed this ex- ception, as unfair to other manufactories ; but it was carried, by 49 to 28.

Clauses 1st, 2d, and 3d, were passed, with unimportant amendments.

Mr. BROTIIERTON moved to expunge the clause which provides for the loss of time through accident in certain cases; on the ground that it would open the way to evasion of the bill altogether. The ameed- ment was rejected, by 60 to 20.

The Chairman then reported progress.

13. LABOUR-RATE BILL. Sir CHARLES BURRELL moved the second reading of this bill on Monday. Considerable discussion arose rela- tive to its policy and provisions; and it was rejected, on a division, by 29 to 17.

14. ABUSES OF THE POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE moved, on Tues- day, for " Copies of the instructions under which Postmasters claim a right to unfold or open letters in all or any of the Post-offices of Great Britain and Ireland. Also, copies of all instructions to the solicitors of the Post-office to prosecute persons fur offences against the Post-office regulations between July 1832 and July 1833, together with the names of the prosecutors and of the persons pro- secuted. Also, an account of all sums paid for informations ; and an account of the costs paid to the solicitors, distinguishing the amount of those costs paid by the person prosecuted, and the amount charged to the public."

He said that means were used to detect frauds on the Post-office, which were highly illegal; indeed they amounted to the commission of a felony. He had been favoured with two interviews with the Duke of Richmond, the Postmaster-General, on this subject ; but though he was kindly received, no adequate remedy was proposed for the evil of which he complained. He read some extracts from the report on the state of the Post-office made by the Commissioners of Revenue in 1829; but as far as he could learn, the recommendations contained in that report had not been carried into effect ; neither had the recom- mendations in the reports of 1788 and 1707, though wise and salutary, been followed up by the Government. He contended that the Posts office was managed in a mean and niggardly style, and that the whole system required remodelling. There ought to be some officer of the Government in the House of Commons, to whom questions might be put respecting the mode of conducting this department, as well as the Admiralty, Treasury, or Colonies. It appeared that the clerks in the Post-office were paid partly by salaries and partly by emoluments of a different description.

One of these sources of emolument was the Secretary's fund, of which 750/. a year was paid to the revenue, and the surplus to the Secretary's clerks. The amount of emoluments connected with the Post-office in England and Wales, and derived from various sources, was 89,000/. a year. In some departments the remuneration was very considerable, while in others it was trifling. Such irregularities and such a system of extra remuneration ought not to be permitted.

He objected also to the practice of allowing the solicitors to the Post-office to open letters on which to found proceedings, and to charge fees, the amount of which was regulated by no fixed and authorized scale. The six Clerks of the Roads were also paid by trafficking in newspapers and some other sources. This ought not to be allowed. It was a just cause of complaint, that there were two deliveries of let- ters, and one of them—the window delivery—much earlier than the other, for the benefit of the rich, which was unjust and impolitic as re- garded the poor. He asked how it was possible to guard against a vio- lation of the law, when it was contained in one hundred and one sta- tutes? He next alluded to the parsimony of the office in not sending expresses, on the arrival of the Oporto and Jamaica mails at Falmouth, after the despatch of the regular mail.

It was not expecting too much to require that the Post-office should, upon such occasions, imitate the conduct of the newspapers, and despatch the intelli- gence by a post-chaise. The conductors of the public journals displayed no such parsimony as the Post-office. Perhaps they benefited by a priority of in- telligence upon the Stock Exchange, independently of the other uses to which the news was put. Ile intended no charge against the conductors of newspa- pers ; he cast no blame upon them, even if they did so benefit by the possession of early information.

The alterations lately made in the charge of the postage on ship let- ters which was now raised from 8d. to 22d., and the restrictions on the mode of conveying them, might be fairly complained of. Moreover, the Government ship packets were the worst class of vessels, and the slowest sailers in the world.

He objected to the mode of charging on double letters, which was infinitely inferior to the French system of charging by weight. The latter practice avoided all pretence for scr utiny and examination, which were the grand mis- chiefs of the English system. He was satisfied that it was utterly impossible for any party to express his sentiments by single letters so as to be secure from ob- servation in the Post-office; where an effectual method of examining the con- tents of letters existed by means of strong gas-lights, and a particular descrip- tion of shade. He should produce letters so folded that it would appear the seals had been broken, under pretence, no doubt, of information being lodged against the parties. If the public knew this fact, they had better send their letters to the Post-office at once, without the protection of either seal or wafer. For his own part, he bad thought till recently that an unsealed letter would have been as safe from inspection in the Post-office as upon the table of any member of that House. Now, however, he was of a different opinion.

He had received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce at Greenock, complaining of the abuses of the Post-office.

In consequence of this, he communicated with the Post-office; and the re-

presentative of the Postmaster-General:at Edinburgh distinctly avowed that there was " a necessity for examining every letter that passed through the Post- office," and that "each postmaster had printed instructions directing him to ascertain whether letters had been legally conveyed, or whether any attempt had been made to evade the postage."

The Postmaster-Generate had declared that the opening of letters and other irregularies complained of at Greenock should not occur again. He, however, blamed not the Duke of Richmond, but the law, which he wished to get altered. He produced a letter addressed to James Scott and Company, of Greenock, which was folded in such a manner that it was impossible to get at the contents without breaking the seal, but yet the contents were known at the Post-office. In conclusion, he thought it necessary to state, that unless he received an assurance from Government of their intention to take the subject up, he should in the next session move for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Post-offices of Great Britain and Ireland.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, that the Government packet-boats were un- rivalled for their speed ; but lately gun-brigs had been employed in their stead, by which a prejudice had been created against them. Lord ALTHORP would not object to the motion ; but much of it was unnecessary, as it called for documents that never existed. The Post- master-General disavowed having given directions to deputy-postmasters to open letters. But a letter was produced which it was said must have been opened to get at the date of it.

Now, without breaking the seal or opening that letter, but in consequence of the awkwArl manner in which it had been folded, he, simply by look- ing into it, could as easily as possible read the letters "Dublin," whence the let- ter was dated. But the Postmaster-General had, as Mr. Wallace was aware, disavowed having. given to deputy-postmasters authority even to look into letters in that way in order to discover their dates.

There was not the slightest use for moving for such instructions as Mr. Wallace moved for, as none such were given, seeing that they would be instructions to commit a felony. He was not prepared to en- ter into a general discussion of the subject ; which, judging from the terms of the notice which Mr. Wallace bad given, he did not suppose would have been brought on. Mr. C. STUART observed, that as he and Mr. Wallace had already received a satisfactory explanation from the Duke of Richmond respect- ing the Greenock case, it was not fair for the latter to bring it forward on the present occasion, especially after declaring himself satisfied with the explanation he bad received. He spoke in high terms of the despatch and undeviating regularity of the Post-office conductors. Lord LOWTHER strongly recommended a consolidation of the acts re- lative to the Post-office, to which the late Government was pledged. Mr. COBBETT recommended Mr. Wallace not to have interviews again—they were very dangerous things. He complained of the non- delivery of a letter of consequence addressed to himself, and which was intended for publication. The Post-office, he believed, read all the letters that it liked to read. ("14'0, no !") He believed it did though, and lie wrote accordingly. If the Postmaster at Greenock had no authority for lookilg into letters, why had he not been punished for doing so ?

Mr. STANLEY said, It would no doubt be a source of great regret indeed to his noble friend the Postmaster-General, to suppose that any possible neglect in the department over which he presided should have delayed, even far a single week, the transmission of those elaborate compositions which the honourable member intended for pub- lication in the Regicler. [Mr. Cohbett said—" They never appeared at all."] Still. greater must be the regret, then, that they failed in reaching their des- tination.

With regard to the Greenock letter, it was not pretended that the seal had been broken. The letter was written in Dublin, and brought over to Greenock to be put in the Post-office of that place. There was a fraud on the lime of this transaction, and it was natural that the Post-office should strive to discover who had committed it.

Let Mr. Wallace call for inquiry, as he had given notice, next session—let him bring forward then any substantial grievance that he could adduce—let him come before the House of Commons, and he might depend upon it that the party whom he had attacked would be not less ready to meet it than he was. With regard to the .present motion, he could not conceive what practical object he had in bringing it forward.

Mr. O'DwYER alluded to the conduct of the Clerks of the Roads in the Dublin Post-office, employing the official privilege which they possessed to circulate through the Post-office the periodicals and other publications unstamped, to the defrauding of the revenue, and also to their circulating newspapers free of postage through the penny-posts, while on the papers received from the regular newsvender the postage was charged.

Lord ALTHORP said, the Clerks of the Roads had no right to trans- mit newspapers free of postage through the penny-posts; and if Mr. O'Dwyer would produce evidence to show they had done so, the Post- master-General would put an end to the practice.

Mr. O'DWYER engaged to supply abundant evidence of this fact. Mr. WALLACE replied, and his motion was agreed to.

On Wednesday, Mr. LYALL presented a petition from the merchants, brokers, and others of the city of London, engaged in the American trade, praying for permission to send their letters and parcels to the outports by whatever conveyance they chose.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the method of sending letters to the outports by private conveyances had gone on until a most glaring abuse was detected.

An irregular post-office had been established at a coffeehouse without the knowledge of the Postmaster-General, for the convenience of persons sending to their foreign correspondents; that post- office actually charged the inland post- age upon the letters so transmitted ; and even that practice might have gone on to this day, but it was found that the hag belonging to that post-office actually contained letters for persons merely miffing at the outports, and thereby a direct fraud was committed on the revenue. Upon this discovery taking place, it was impossible that the practice could be permitted to go on.

Mr. LYALL said, that only one letter of the description alluded to had been found in the bag, and that without the knowledge of those who made it up.

Mr. Halms mentioned an instance of a letter-bag having arrived in

Liverpool several hours before the packet sailed, and yet, through the neglect of the Post-office, it was left to be forwarded by the next packet.

Mr. WALLACE said, thathowever desirous Government might be to accommodate the trade of dee country, they could not do much in the present state of the law.

The petition was ordered to be laid on the table.

15. REPEAL OF THE HOUSE TAX. Mr. HUME moved, on Wed- nesday, " That the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the Assessed Taxes Act, with a view to the repeal of the whole inhabited house-duty."

He supported his motion in a speech full of details as to the oppres- sive and unequal operation of this tax; and went into several calcula- tions to show, that by retrenchment in several departments of the public service, such a saving might be made as to enable Government to take off this tax without imposing any fresh one.

Colonel EVANS seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP dwelt upon the great relief from taxation which had already been conferred upon the country. It was quite out of the question this year to reduce the Assessed Taxes any further. The amount of reduction which he had at first proposed was only 100,0001. per annum ; it had since been extended to 500,000!. He admitted that the House-tax was a most galling and vexatious one. It was more- over at the present time excessively unpopular.

He was fairly ready to say, that though, if left to his own opinion, and acting upon the financial principles which he entertained, he would not select this tax as one of the first that he would propose to reduce ; yet, looking at the views of the country on the subject, he did think that it would be the duty of Govern- ment, whenever it should be enabled to do so, to reduce this tax ; and that, whenever its place could be supplied, either by some diEreat arrangement of the Assessed Taxes, or by the substitution of sonic other tax, the tax upon Louses ought to be reduced. ( Cheers.) He believed thet he had said more now than he had ever before at any time stated on this ,abject. (A laugh.) On the ground, then, that he had mentioned, not on ne:olint of the nature of the tax, but considering the unpopularity of it, and that the extreme unpopula- rity of any tax was a reason for the Government looking to it for the purpose of reducing it, he was prepared to go as far as he had ju:!- stated. ( Cheers.) But he was not prepared to say at the present moment, tliit a certain reduction should hereafter take place, so as to sink the revenue below the expenditure, be- fore he knew what that revenue would be, and before other taxes could be supplied to maintain it above the expenditure. He must therefore oppose Mr. Hume's motion.

Mr. Alderman Woon and Sir S. WHALLEY spoke a few words.

Mr. HUME wished to know whether he was correct in understanding Lord Althorp to state, that, considering the extreme unpopularity of this tax, he thought it was one that the Government should look to as the first to be reduced in the next session of Parliament, its place to be supplied either by a corresponding reduction of expenditure, or by the substitution of some oilier tax? (" Hear!" from Lord Althorp.) Under such circumstances, anxious as he might be to press his motion, he felt it his duty to withdraw it.

The motion was withdrawn accordingly.

Colonel EVANS then moved a resolution declarztory of the injustice and inequality of the (louse and 'Window tax.

Mr. RICE opposed the motio.i; and in the course of his speeeli made the following statement of the reduction of taxation effected by the present Ministry.

Tax on Printed Cottons, repealed ; on Coals and Slates, repealed ; on Candles, repealed ; on Hemp, reduced ; on Dregs, reduced ; on Tiles, r,'; cased ; on Ma- rine Insurances, reduced ; Advertisement-duty, reduced one half; Fire .insur- ance on Farming Stock, repealed ; small Receipt Stamps, repealed ; Land-tax on Personal Estates, repealed ; Soap duty, reduced one half; Cotton-weal, re- duced ; the duty on Pamphlets repealed ; House-tax on Shops, reduced one half; Travellers or Riders, repealed ; Clerks, Book-keepers, and Office-men, repealed ; Overseers and Managers, repealed ; Shopmen, Warehousemen, and Cellarmen, repealed ; Taxed Carts, repealed ; Market Gardeners', repealed ; House taxpayable by Licensed Victuallers, reduced one half; Houses of 101. value, tax reduced one third, and in houses from 101. to 161. value, a progressive reduction made.

After a short conversation between Colonel EvAles, Mr. HUME, and Lord ALTHORP, the resolution was negatived, without a division.

I. ASSESSED TAXES REDUCTION BILL. In the House of Com- mons, on Tuesday, this bill was read a third time, and passed.

17. ST. MARTIN'S VESTRY. Colonel EVANS, on Wednesday, pre- sented a petition in favour of the Parish Vestry Act, from the inhabi- tants of St. Martin's parish.

The petitioners complained that nine individuals in that parish, with a salary of 1501. a year, appointed their successors in office as Overseers and Church- wardens, and raised and distributed the sum of 50,0001. in poor-rates ; one half of which, it was ascertained, they expended annually in banqueting and other improper expenses not concerned with the support of the poor. About three Sundays back, an entertainment was given to them and their families out of the parochial funds, which cost 681. They were not content with a good dinner and wine, it seemed, but they must also have music and professional singers from the Opera and the theatres.

18. POLICE SPIES. Mr. Alderman Woon, on Thursday, brought up the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of Popay the Policeman, and into the system of espionage practised bythe Police in general. It stated the conduct of Popay to have been highly repre- hensible, and cast some blame upon his superiors for not having warned him against recurring to undue means to obtain information. It elso urged great caution in the employment of Policemen in plain clothes for the purpose of detecting and preventing breaches of the law.

After some conversation, the discussion was postponed, until there- port and evidence should be printed.

`On Wednesday, however, Mr. Conn?, having presented a petition from the Political Union of Newcastle-upon-Tyne against the system Of Pace adopted in the Metropolis, said that he did not approve of thereport of the Committee on this subject ; it fell so far short of what he approved of, that he never could give his consent to it.

The witnesses, without exceptiaa, proved themselves to be men of good character ; and after the indulgence of a fortnight given to Government and the Commissioners, nothing could be brought forward in any way to impeach their character or testimony. They had before them the most infamous spy ever employed by any Government in the world ; and he was proved to be guilty of the grossest prevarication and barefaced falsehood. The Superintendent also had been found guilty of equal prevarication, and he must be taken notice of by the House. They had traced the money into the hands of the spy, from the Secretary of State himself; and the only apology they received was, that it had not come out of the parish-money, but from the Home Office, out of that secret service money which that House voted every year. They had fixed the same prevarication, though not to the same extent, on the Commissioners themselves; and Mr. Cobbett did not see how the House could refuse calling them to the her. Government had been clearly convicted of encouraging and supporting a noto- rious system of espionnage. It was very strange that it was only to the Political Unions of the working classes that spies were sent. They did not send them to Saville House or the Political Union in Leicester Square, which was principally composed of tradesmen; nor were they sent to any of the respectable meetings at which Mr. Hume presided ; though he believed it was proved at the late examination, that a spy had attended one of the parochial meetings at which that honourable member took the chair, and had furnished the Government with a copy of his speech. (Laughter.) Lord WILLIAM LENNOX believed the character of the Police to be generally good. Mr. Cobbett was giving garbled and exaggerated ac- counts of the evidence before the Committee.

Mr. MACKENZIE charged Mr. Cobbett with making gross and mis- chievous misstatements.

Mr. KENNEDY mentioned that Mr. Cobbett bad taken away from the Committee-room the Police reports furnished by Government to the Committee. Mr. Cobbett stood alone in the Committee in his opinion as to the conduct of the Police.

Mr. CORBETT explained, that Alderman. Wood had taken away the reports alluded to, in order to peruse them ; and that he had done the same. He took them away at night, and returned them in the morning.

Sir OSWALD MOSELY said that this explanation was disorderly.

The SPEAKER said, that it was not disorderly, but very important. It was clear that both Alderman Wood and Mr. Cobbett had, uninten- tionally, acted in a very irregular manner in taking away the reports in question ; which he felt it his duty thus to notice.

The conversation then dropped.

19. METROPOLITAN POLICE ACTS. The House of Commons being in a Committee on these acts on Thursday, Mr. RICE moved that the , sum of 60,0001. yearly be granted in aid of the Police rate of the Me- tropolis. This would reduce the parish-rates from 8d. to 6d. in the pound—the sum originally intended that the rate should amount to.

Mr. THICKNESSE objected to the grant : the Metropolis should sup- port its own Police.

Lord ALrlIORP admitted the principle that towns should support their own Police.

But in the present instance, the Metropolis differed from other towns, because the peace of the Metropolis was important to that of other towns; which was a reason why the country should contribute to the expense of the Metropolitan Police. That Police was, besides, often sent into the country, and employed there as well as in London.

Colonel EVANS and Mr. ESTCOURT supported, Mr. BENETT and Mr. AGLION1IY opposed the grant.

The House divided : for the resolution, 49; against it, 19; ma- jority, 30.

20. CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL. Mr. P. THOMSON moved the third reading of this bill on Wednesday. Mr. GRu CE moved that the enormous duty on currants, which was 600 per cent. on the original cost, should be reduced from 44s. 6d. to 28s. per hundredweight.

Mr. THOMSON opposed the motion, on the ground that the revenue could not spare the money derived from that tax. It was rejected, one division, by 67 to 52.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

21. SUGAR REFINERY BILL. On Tuesday, this bill was read a third time in the House of Commons, and passed.

22. COLONIAL APPOINTMENTS. A motion by Mr. HUME, on Tues- day, for copies of correspondence respecting the removal of the Attor- ney-General and Solicitor-General of Upper Canada, and their subse- quent appointments to other offices in Canada and Newfoundland, was opposed by Mr. STANLEY, and negatived without a division.

23. IRISH GRAND JURY BILL. In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, the several clauses in this bill, from the 30th to the 55tb, were agreed to in Committee ; excepting clauses 51 and 57, which were withdrawn, and clause 50, which was postponed.

On Thursday, the remaining clauses were agreed to, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

24. BURGLARY BILL. In the House of Lords, on Monday, this bill. was read a third time, and passed.

25. SCOTCH BURGHS POLICE BILL. On the motion of the Earl of RossaYN, this bill was read a third time on Monday in the House of Lords.

26. THAMES TUNNEL COMPANY BILL. On the motion of Mi. BRISCOE, this bill was read a third time in the House of Commons on Thursday, and passed.

27. SEPARATISTS AFFIRMATION BILL. This bill was read a second time in the House of Lords on Friday, and ordered to be committed eta Thursday next.

28. Sin JOHN KEY AND THE STATIONERY CONTRACT. On the mo- tion of Mr. HARVEY, on Monday, a new writ was ordered for the city of London, in the room of Sir John Key, who has accepted the Chil- tern Hundreds. .

Sir HENRY HARDINGE then rose to present a petition complaining's( the appointment of Mr. Key, son of Sir John Key, to the office of Storekeeper and Inspector of Stationery inthe Stationery Office. The petition also stated, that Sir John Key was the actual, though his bro- ther was the nominal contractor for stationery, to the amount of 60,0001. ; and yet had sat and voted in that House. Sir Henry, however, said, that as Sir John Key had vacated his seat, he would not press his re- marks upon that part of the sleet. But this was a case in which the Government was implicated. They bad appointed a young man, eigh. teen years of age, to the office of Inspector of Stationery supplied by his own father. He was aware that that appointment had been since cancelled, but still the subject called for inquiry. He therefore moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with this case.

Lord ALTHORP admitted that this was a matter which required ex- planation.

He had made inquiries on the subject, and he found that the custom had al- ways been, that the person who was appointed to the situation lately held by the son of Sir John Key, must be one who had been engaged in the stationery trade, as it was thought that such a person would be most likely to have the necessary experience and knowledge. On the death of the late Storekeeper, application was made to fill up the vacancy by appointing the son of Sir John Key, who was stated to be in his twenty-second year ; and the Comptroller of the depart- ment, on whose authority the appointment was made, did not communicate to the Government that the young mare-was a connexion of the contractor for sta- tionery, but took upon himself to make as arrangement by which the paper sent in by the uncle of the young man (the Government contractor) should not be inspected by him, but by another person, selected for his competence to the task. The Treasury, therefore, were not aware that the contract for stationery was in the hands of the uncle of the young man appointed ; and Lord Althorp was only made aware of the circumstances on Saturday sennight, when, on a representation by him to Lord Grey, an inquiry was instituted, the result of which was that the appointment was cancelled.

He thought that further inquiry would be inexpedient, as Sir John Key had now, by accepting the office—(Laughter)—alluded to, vacated his seat in Parliament.

Sir ROBERT PEEL regretted extremely that Sir John Key had been allowed to withdraw himself—that the Executive department of Go- vernment had interfered to prevent inquiry. In an unreformed House of Commons, nothing of the kind would have been attempted; certainly it would not have been sanctioned.

Why was it that the provisions of the act of Parliament, passed for the ex- press purpose of limiting the influence of the Crown in matters of this descrip- tion, had been neglected in the present case ? That act provided that no mem- ber of Parliament could at the same time that he served in Parliament hold a Government contract, and that no person holding such a contract was eligible to be elected to Parliament ; and its provisions extended not only to those nomi- nally holding the contract, but also to members benefiting in any way by such contract. He wished to know whether, in the case of Sir John Key, any such condition as this had been complied with? and, if so, bow was it that Sir John Key was evidently the virtual contractor? It was necessary that the House should know whether this act, passed for a specific purpose, had been in the pre- sent instance evaded, and whether a contract had been nominally entered into with one person, while, in truth, it was his brother who was the real contractor? Let the House know that such a transaction could take place; but let it be met by a legislative remedy, and not by withdrawing a member from the House, and giving him the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Lord ALTHORP said, that as Sir John Key was just as liable to the penalties consequent upon his conduct now as when he was a member of the House, there appeared to be no good reason for refusing him the office which he applied for. He denied that he had any wish to screen any party; and had written to Sir Henry Hardinge to say that, if it were demanded, he would not object to inquiling into the case. The Comptroller had made the arrangement without the knowledge of the Treasury. He complained of the style and tone of Sir Robert Peel's attack upon him.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the *assent to the Committee was the best answer to the charge against Government.

There was no reason why Sir John Key should have been allowed to shrink from that House, and disappoint inquiry. The statement was, that he had by

• misrepresentation got his son appointed to an office where he would have to look over paper that the father had contracted to furnish. This was the first taint of the Reformed Parliament. He had hoped that this would not have taken place in a Reformed House of Commons—the son of a member to get a place, not for his merits, but his gross demerits—for his age and connexion were demerits. He remembered that Sir John Key had voted for the Coercion Bill, and for rescind- ing the vote on the Malt Tax; and then it appeared that his son got eplace from the Government of 4001. a year. This getting of places for the sons of mem- bers, of independent members representing great constituencies, representing the city of Dublin—(Loud Laughter)—he had said Dublin, he meant London—he did not think the son of either of the members for Dublin was likely to get a place.

Mr. STANLEY defended the Government. Before any thing had been heard of this motion in Parliament, the appointment to Master Key had been cancelled. The contract had been given to Mr. Jonathan Key, Sir John Key's brother, though he was not known then to be such, because his tender was the lowest on the list. It was almost. im- possible to prevent the evasion of the law, if the friends of the real -contractor put themselves forward in that capacity. He was confident .that the Government would go into the inquiry with clean hands.

A Select Committee was then appointed. The members chosen by Sir H. Hardinge were appointed members of the Committee. When Sir Henry's list was gone through, Lord ALTHORP moved that Sir R. Peel, Mr. Hume, and Mr. D. W. Harvey, should be added to the Committee. These motions were agreed to.

40. COVENTRY ELECTION. Mr. HALCOMB, on Thursday, presented a petition from 960 electors of Coventry, complaining of the conduct of the Sheriffs at the last election, in notpreventing the violent pro- ceedings of the party which supported Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer. He advocated the prayer of the petition, and moved that the Sheriffs .of the city of Coventry should be called to the bar of the House, and that Messrs 'Fyler and Thomas should also be summoned to give evi- alence.

The question having been put by the Speaker, and no person ap- pearing to address the House on the subject, Mr. HALCOMB offered to withdraw his motion ; but this was objected to. After a few words from Mr. ELLICE, Sir 0. MOSELY, and Mr. H. BULWER,—from which it appeared that no member of the Committee on the Coventry election thought ulterior measures necessary,—the motion was negatived, without a division. Mr. HALCOMB then moved for a copy of the appointment of Rolla Randall, a prizefighter, said to have been active in the party of Ellice and Bulwer, under the Corporation of Coventry.

Mr. BRISCOE seconded this motion, as he thought the matter had root been sufficiently inquired into.

It was rejected, on a division, by 54 to 27.

29. BRIBERY AT NORWICII. Mr. LENNARD presented a petition en Monday, from certain inhabitants of Norwich, complaining of the prac- tices of the Corporation of that city, and of undue influence and bnbery used at elections.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT denied that either Lord Stormont or himself had been guilty of bribery at the last election. In a large popular constituency, absolute purity was not to be expected. The election in Norwich had always been popular. He therefore could not say that a case of bribery had never occurred ; for, as a lawyer, he was aware that attaish issued - meats had been ssued in the King's Bench for bribery—that in some of these cases the parties had been punished, and in all they had been put to considerable expense. In his opinion, that was the proper tribunal for complaints of that de- scription.

80. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF STAFFORD. Sir THOMAS FREMANTj.K moved, on Tuesday, for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the bo- rough of Stafford. He stated, that in Stafford the usual price was 21. 10s. for a split vote, and 51. for a plumper ; that attempts had been made to raise these prices ; and that on one occasion a friend of one of the candidates in the most open manner exhibited a bundle of notes to the amount of 500/. in the market-place, to show that he had the means of bribery. It also appeared, that one half of the 10/. voters had been bribed, as well as six sevenths of the old constituency : it had been proved that 852 voters out of 1,049 had received bribes at the last election.

Captain CHETWYND said, that there were numberless misstatements in the evidence given before the Committee. Bribery was not so com- mon in Stafford as had been alleged. At the election before the last, Major Hawkes advertised that no money, either by himself or friends, would be given to electors. Sir T. FREMANTLE—" Yes, and be lost his election." (Great laughter.) Captain CHETWYND said, Major Hawkes was at the head of the poll the first day, and was only obliged to withdraw in consequence of a mistake made by the Mayor. He denied the story about the 5001. bundle of notes displayed in the market-place. Stafford was a most ancient borough, and among other distinguished men had been repre- sented by Sheridan. The electors were aware of their past errors ; and if an election were to take place to-morrow, he had no doubt they would exercise their franchise with as much honour and integrity as any constituency in the kingdom. He moved an amendment to the motion in these words—" That leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent bribery and corruption in returning members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Stafford."

Mr. E. BULLER, Sir 0. MOSELY, and Sir H. WILLOUGHBY were opposed to the disfranchisement of the borough, and the punishment of the innocent as well as the guilty electors.

Mr. ORD, Mr. HARDY, and Lord ALTHORP, gave their cordial con- currence to the original motion, and it was carried without a division.

On Tuesday, the bill for disfranchising Stafford was read a first time, on the motion of Sir T. FREMANTLE, and ordered to be read a second time that day three months.

31. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. This bill was withdrawn Mr.. Monday, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL ; who moved that the Order of ttie Day for going into Committee upon it should be discharged. He said that the period of the session was too far advanced to allow of its being fully discussed, and he was not himself sufficiently prepared (to enter upon the discussion.

32. VOTE OF THE PEERS BY PROXY. The Marquis of WESTMIN- STER also gave notice, that early in the next session he should move -to abolish the right of the Peers to vote by proxy.

33. LAW OF PATENTS. Lord BROUGHAM stated, on Friday, that it was not intended to press the bill for amending the law of patents this session.

34. JEWISH DISABILITIES. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER gave notice, on Tuesday, that he should next session move for leave to bring in a bill to remove the disabilities under which the Jews labour.

35. MILITARY FLOGGING. On Thursday, Major FANCOURT post- poned till the next session his motion for the abolition of military flogging.

36. STAMPS ON NEWSPAPERS. Mr. E. L. Butane, on Thursday, postponed his motion on this subject till next session.

37. REPORTING. Mr. O'CONNELL, on Monday, gave notice, that early next session he should move to rescind the Standing Order that the publication of the debates in the House is a breach of privilege; but that any partial or unfair report of the proceedings be declared a breach of privilege.

38. BREACH or PRIVILEGE. Mr. O'CONNELL complained on Wed- nesday, that the Times had misrepresented a speech of his delivered on Tuesday evening upon the Foreign Enlistment Act. The misreport was not on this occasion owing to the noise in the House, for the Morning Chronicle had reported his words with the most admirable pre- cision—the report indeed was the model of what a report ought to be. The Times had made him term the Enlistment Act "a lousy attempt" to put down the feelings of the people in favour of liberty. (Great laughter.) He did not wonder that members laughed. The words were imputed to his in order to raise a laugh against him. He now would give notice, that if suf.!". a circumstance should occur again, he should certainly avail himself of his pri- vileges as a member of that House to put an end to such misrepresentations.• 39. CARLILE'S IMPRISONMENT. Colonel TORRENS presented a pe- tition at the morning sitting on Wednesday, from three thousand in- * The Times says the mispresentation complained of was an obvious misprint ; bat it does not supply the correct reading. habitants of Bolton, praying for the liberation of Mr. Robert Taylor and Mr. Carlile from imprisonment.

Colonel EVANS supportelt the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. Tay- lor had already been liberated and he earnestly hoped that Carlile's release would be ordered.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE remarked, that it did not say much for the religion of Lancashire, from which county this petition emanated, that out of 1,300,000 inhabitants, only '200,000 received a religious education. A man might be punished for blasphemy in America ; so it was a mistake to say that any religious opinions might be entertained there.

Mr. CORBETT said, that when he was last in America, there was a man in jail in New Jersey for being an Unitarian.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL thought he could explain the statement of Mr. Johnstone relative to the small number of persons in Lancashire who received a religious education. In Lancashire there was a large body of Catholics, whom he believed Mr. Johnstone did not include among Christians.

Mr. JOHNSTONE strenuously denied this imputation. Mr. POTTER said, the Unitarians were the persons to whom Mr. Johnstone denied the name of Christians. There were many thou- sands of Unitarians in Lancashire. They had increased also in Ame- rica, in spite of being persecuted ; and there were sixteen Unitarian congregations in Boston alone.