Debates anb 'pawning% in Warliament.

Tan IRISH DISTRICT COERCION BILL.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir GEORGE GREY moved the .aecond reading of the Crimes and Outrages Bill.

Mr. JOHN O'CottNELL moved as an amendment, "that the orders of the day be read "; stating also, that he felt it to be his duty to oppose this bill, not only in its present stage but throughout its future progress. The only :part of the bill that he could support was that which empowered Govern- ment to send police into disturbed districts; all the rest was unconstitu- tional. He suggested that a short bill should be introduced, giving Govern- ment less power, not causing a cost of more than 2,0001. and not invading the constitution. He insisted that ameliorating measures should have been produced concurrently with the measures of coercion; complained that such measures already resorted to by the Government only tended to in- volve the country further in distress; read some further reports from Ire- land, to show the distressed state of the people; estimated the loss to the working capital of that country by the potato failure, &c. at 18,000,0001.; and called upon Government to make good the loss— If they had a reverence for human life, let them extend it to the people of Ireland. Give money. He asked for money. (Loud laughter.) He heard the laughter of honourable gentlemen; but he could tell them that they ought to give money, and that it was their duty to do so. (Laughter.) Charge them for the money if they liked; but at all events let them save the lives of the people. He did not expect to be met otherwise than with laughter, and he was bound to say that he never saw in that House one single real thought for the interest of Ireland. (Great laughter.) He begged to say that he made that remark hastily and hotly, but now he repeated it deliberately and coolly. Whenever the inte- rests of Ireland came into competition with those of England, they were inva- riably sacrificed. And if he did ask money, had he not a right to do so? In a few nights a motion would come on, and he would then prove that they owed it. He went on quoting documents—a letter from Sir William Somerville to Mr. Parker, the address of the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland to the Lord- Lieutenant, &c.; he cited Lord Devon's report to show that the insecurity of tenure uniformly leads to Irish crime and distress; and called for a co- ercion bill against the landlords. He read divers explanatory statements to show that the landlords who had been murdered—Mr. Roe, for instance, and Mr. Hill the agent—bad behaved harshly to the tenantry. One of these was a letter signed " William Loughnane.

A Member asked, whether the brother of "the gentleman " who wrote that letter was not now in gaol as an accomplice in the murder of Mr. Roe?

Mr. J. O'Cormintz was not aware of the fact; he read the letter as he received it; and Mr. Loughnane challenged inquiry into the truth of his statements. No one was more anxious than himself to see the fearful crimes suppressed; but let them remove the sources of those crimes.

Mr. POWER seconded the amendment.

Mr. H. GRATTAN gave his strongest support to the bill; not for the sake of the Government, but for the sake of the Irish people. He contrasted it with the more energetic measures of the kind; rather hinting that it fell short in stringency— He called upon those who opposed it to remember the bills of 1814, 1822, 1883, and 1845, which suspended the constitution and established martial law. The present bill was meagre, wretched. "However," said Mr. Grattan, "I will not abuse a measure that I am going to support; but I am astonished that my honourable friend does not almost see its invisibility." (Laughter.) He was ' sun that the an now bearing the name of Russell—a name celebrated in his isay.-/wouldalisad by the Bill of Rights. Did the present bill take away the be- maker the Bill of Rights?

He too, however, called for ameliorating measures. Government would do their duty if they would only take the evils enumerated in Lord De- von's report and embody the remedies in a bill.

Sir GEORGE GREY addressed the House very briefly; admitting that the suggestions respecting remedial measures were worthy of deep considera- tion; but insisting upon the necessity of fixing the attention at present on the suppression of crime. There is in England a deep-seated feeling against the unchecked progress of dastardly, cruel, and secret assassina- tion; and Sir George called on the House to pass the bill. The opposition was kept up, in a congenial spirit, by Mr. FEARGUS O'Comma, Mr. Mearaicz O'OoNNELL, and Mr. KEATING; the last of whom, however, admitted that no family in the country deserved more from the poor than the family of Mr. Roe. Mr. DILLON Bnowas sup- ported the bill; and declared that the majority of the people of Ireland had no sympathy with those lawless offenders. Mr. RICHARD GARDNER supported the bill, also calling for remedial measures. Mr. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate; which Sir GEORGE GREY opposed; and on a division, the House decided against the adjourn- ment, by 289 to 18. Mr. FEanGus O'CoNwoa now moved that the House do adjourn; and strangers were ordered to withdraw; but no division took place, and the second reading of the bill was deferred.

[On Tuesday, Motions having of right the precedence of Orders of the Day, Sir GEORGE GREY earnestly besought Mr. Feargns O'Connor to postpone his motion on the Union, in order that the Crime and Outrage Bill might proceed; but Mr. O'Conlion refused. On Thursday, another of the days when Motions precede Orders, Sir GEORGE made a similar appeal to Mr. ANBTEY; who at first seemed in- clined to go on with his multiform Anti-Palmerston motion, but ultimately he deferred to the apparent wish of the House.] On Thursday, Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL renewed his inquiries respecting the introduction of remedial measures, especially of the Landlord and Tenant Bill; asking Sir George Grey to fix a day. Sir GEORGE GREY could tell no more than he had told already. It was not the intention to ask Parliament for any further grant of money. A Landlord and Tenant Bill was under consideration, with other measures; and would be introduced. That and other bills would have been ready for Parliament had it met at the ordinary time; but it would be unwise to lay before the House crude and ill-digested measures; and there could have been no expectation of making any progress with them before Christmas. When he was asked to fix a day, he would only say that Government did not intend to bring forward any business which would interfere with the progress of the Crime and Outrage Bill. The motion for the second reading of the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill was renewed, and again debated at great length; and to an effect so like the drift of previous discussions, that we need not waste our limited space by retracing the debate even in outline: we shall only enumerate the speakers, and select a very few points of novelty. The bill was sup- ported by Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE, Mr. HUME, Lord DUDLEY STUART, Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE, Mr. GRACE, Mr. G. H. MOORE, and Captain HARRIS; opposed by Mr. Joan O'CONNELL, Mr. CALLAGHAN, Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR, Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, and Mr. Stumm.' CRAWFORD.

Sir GEORGE GREY took the opportunity of correcting some misappre- hension respecting the provisions of the bill, occasioned probably by his own indistinctness— By the existing law, the number of resident Constabulary is fixed at 100 for every county and county town, and 16 for every barony; but there are two modes in which that amount can be increased,—by an application of the Magistracy for such an increase; or by the Lord-Lieutenant's proclaiming the district, in which case be is authorized to send 100 additional policemen into it; the expense of which is to be defrayed half by the disturbed county and half by the Consolidated Fund. He now proposed to remove the existing limit on the increase of the Po- lice force,—to leave it to the discretion of the Lord-Lieutenant to increase to any amount the Police in a disturbed district; to form a reserve depot of disciplined Constabulary in Dublin, from which the demands of disturbed districts may be met; and to levy the whole expense for the increased Police from the disturbed district to which it is sent. The reserve at present may amount to 400; he posed to increase that amount by 600, namely to 1,000. Mr. Henry Grattan referred to the Special Constabulary Act: that act gives very useful powers for bringing the inhabitants of any district into active exertion in execution of the law; and it is the desire of the Lord-Lieutenant to call it into operation where- ever and whenever he can. He thought that the people of Ireland should act themselves in support of this law; and observed thati'Lord De Freyne and his tenants in one part, and Lord Dillon and his tenants in another part of the county of Roscommon, had given the most valuable aid in the discovery and repression of crime in their respective districts. Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL characterized the bill as a much worse thing than he took it for at the first reading— He had been no way prepared for a bill of such petty, minute, ingenious, tor- turiog details. It was the most deceptive measure ever brought before the House. In other coercion bills there had been frank, bold, avowed oppression: in this enactment it was covert; this was an insidious, deceptive, sneaking bill. It de- served no other terms. It did underhand that which its authors had not courage to do plainly and openly. It went beyond the powers of the worst clause of the worst previous act. It was calculated to meet the people at every turn—to an- noy them in their persons, their pockets, and their liberties. It was therefore that he felt it to be his duty most vigorously to oppose the bill. Mr. HUME showed that the bill was not opposed by the majority of the Irish Members— The honourable Member [Mr. John O'Connell] said, " We, the Members for Ireland, are against it." Mr. Hnme had looked at the division-list, and he must say that had he been in his place he should have swelled the majority in voting for this bill: he found that out of 105 Irish Members only 14 had in the first in- stance voted against it, and on the second occasion only 13. Taking the aggre- gate, they were in the proportion of 91 to 14 and 92 to 13 in favour of the bill: 33 and 34 had actually voted for it. It was too much, then, to say that the Irish Members were against it. The honourable Member had repeated so often " we the people of Ireland," that he was reminded of the three tailors of Tooley Street, who began their address, " we the people of England." The honourable Member put himself in the situation of the three tailors of Tooley Street. He flattered himself, and was inflated with the idea that he was "the representative of all Ireland!" Mr. GRACE called upon Mr. Maurice O'Connell for a disclaimer which he had promised to make respecting Major Mahon's treatment of his te- nants; though he had spoken without doing so. Mr. MAURICE O'CowirEra. protested that, in the heat of debate, he had forgotten it; and he apologized for his neglect— "The honourable Member will bear me out that the statement which he made to me amounts to this—that whereas I stated that two vessels were freighted by the party to whom I alluded with emigrants, and that one of them returned as being unseaworthy, he has given me evidence in contradiction to that statement. I confess that it was an omission on my part not to have stated that circum- stance before; but I beg now to say, that I am perfectly convinced that the state- ment I heard as to the return of a vessel laden with emigrants, and freighted by the party to whom he alluded, was not properly founded. I made the statement on representations made to me since I came to London; and I now give the ho- nourible Member the full benefit of the contradiction."

On a division, after midnight, the second reading was carried, by 296 to 19; majority 277. The bill was then read a second time.

Mr. EDMUND B. RoonE said, that whatever might be the course of others, he for one would offer no further opposition to the bill.

Mr. Jose O'CosNau. regretted the course which his honourable friend had thought proper to pursue; but he was not prepared to desist in his opposition to the clauses of the bill.

CHANGE OF VENUE IN IRELAND.

On Tuesday, Sir Joltzr Weise asked the Attorney-General, what was the present state of the law with respect to the power of changing the venue in criminal cases in Ireland; and whether the law of Ireland on this subject differed from the law of England? Sir JOHN JaaVis stated, that there were both in England and in Ire- land many statutes which provided, that, in the case of felonies or misde- meanours, offences might be tried either in the county in which such of- fences were committed, or in the county in which the offenders were appre- hended.

By the law of England and of Ireland, the place of trial, both of felonies and misdemeanours, might be changed in every case where there was reason to believe that a fair and impartial trial could not be had. The course of proceeding was this: after a bill had been found by the Grand Jury, the indictment was removed into the Queen's Bench by writ of certiorari; when the proceedings were thus taken into the Queen's Bench, grounds must be stated on affidavit to show the Court that there was reason for granting the application; and, if the grounds so stated were satisfactory, the venue was directed to a foreign county.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord FARNHAM drew the attention of the Government to the late denunciations launched by Roman Catholic priests in Ireland against individuals who had incurred their displeasure. He disclaimed alike any intention to attack the Government or the Roman Catholic priesthood in general: many of that body he knew to be incapable of such improper conduct; indeed, he had often received the warmest and ablest cooperation from the Roman Catholic clergy. Dr. Ryan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, and that excellent man Father Mathew, had each shown a bright example in denouncing murder from the altar. The most potent influence is exercised over the minds of the people by their priest: he is invested with the power of confession, of absolution, and of administering extreme unction. Turning to conduct of a different kind, Lord Farnham referred to the speech of Archdeacon Laffan at Cashel on the 14th November. On the 25th of the same month, a speech of a still more inflammatory character was delivered at Castlebar, in the county of Mayo, by the Reverend Mr. Hughes, at a meeting held there. The language used by Mr. Hughes was as follows- " The poor are left to the mercy of those heartless extortioners [the landlords]; their cattle are seized and driven to the pound for the least defalcation; their lands are unproductive and barren; in fact, the law seems to be enacted for the purpose of crushing and annihilating this unfortunate class, and no alteration takes place"' in regard of the proprietors; they are still left to the lash of the driver. The poor are sacrificed to the rapacity of the rich, and nought remains to the poor but the wild justice of revenge. The proprietors are not interfering to remedy your grievances. I hope, therefore, you will do it yourselves. [This sentiment was responded to with cries of " Let them remember Tipperary t"] There was a person at the fair of Roscommon, the other day, who came up to a respectable man and asked him to point oat a certain gentleman, as he was determined to rid the country of such a tyrant: fortunately the person sought for was absent, and thus escaped assassination. See what an unfortunate state society is reduced to by the cruelty of bad landlords; and unless there is relief extended to the poor, I fear the consequences." The Irish are a quick-witted people, and well know what is expected of them when they are told to look for redress not to the laws but to the wild justice of revenge—revenge for the due performance of his duty by the landlord! Nowhere are the landlords' duties better performed than by the resident landlords of Ireland; and he did not mean to exclude the non- resident, many of whom performed their duties in the most exemplary manner. But the:efforts of such men are vain, so long as certain of the priests continue to mark their victims from the altar. Lord Farnham mentioned several recent cases,—that of a poor man named Callaghan, who about six months ago was murdered in Tipperary, on the evening of the day on which he had been denounced, and at the inquest the fact was admitted by the priest; that of Mejor Mahon, denounced from the altar by the Reverend Mr. M`Ternans, at the very time (according to a letter writ- ten by Dr. Shanley, who was present at the catastrophe) Major Mahon was actually talking over the improvements which he contemplated in the condition of his tenantry. In referring to this subject on a former occasion, Lord Lansdowne had laid much emphasis on the phrase " some parts of Ireland ": the truth is, unfortunately, that the whole of Ireland is in the same dangerous state; a deep-rooted conspiracy, which can only be over- come by the most vigorous measures, pervades the whole country. Ireland is the scene of a series of crimes which would disgrace the inhabitants of New Zealand. Crime has so got a-head, that nothing but the most vigorous measures will check it. He trusted that the Government would do its utmost to prevent the repetition of language disgraceful in any man, but totally indefensible when uttered by a minister of peace. He con- cluded by asking whether the attention of Government had been drawn to the language he had alluded to; whether they had taken the opinion of the Law-officers of the Crown as to the sufficiency of the law to punish it; and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, whether the Govern- ment intended to increase the power of the law for that purpose ?

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE expressed the greatest anxiety to afford the fullest information in his power.

He regretted that he could not say that he believed the facts mentioned by Lord Farnham were without foundation. In answer to the first question of the noble Lord, he could not say that the language he alluded to had been submitted to the Law-officers: but he could assure him it had attracted the serious atten- tion of his noble friend at the head of the Government of Ireland. His noble friend would necessarily be in communication with his legal advisers; but Lord Lansdowne was not enabled to say that up to the present moment more than one sworn information had been lodged relative to circumstances of this nature: one sworn information had been referred to the Law-officers of the Crown, and WAS then under their consideration. The noble Lord would see that there was a wide difference between the prevalence of reports of language used at public meetings, and the certainty of being able to prove its accuracy so as to bring it within the law and commence a prosecution against the parties accused. The Lord-Lieutenant was endeavouring to use his discretion with the greatest desire to bring the perpetrators of such outrages—for outrages he might call

them, as they were incentives to violence—to that condign punishment they de- served. And let not the House suppose that the law, even as it existed, if the necessary evidence could be procured, was ineffectual. The statute-book was

clear upon this subject. In the first place, to excite persona to violate the law, was by the common law in itself a misdemeanour, and might be punished as such: But the law did not stop there; not a great many years ago an act was passed for the special purpose of applying to Ireland the punishment inflicted on persons ex- citing others by acts of outrage and violence: he would read the terms of that act, because it was most desirable not only that their Lordships but the country should know the amount of criminality incurred by persons who excited others to illegal acts. By the 9th of George IV. passed for the more effectual prosecution of accessories before the fact in cases of felony, it was enacted, " that any person who shall counsel or procure or command any other person to commit any felony, whether the same be a felony at common law, or by virtue of any statute made or to be made, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and may be indicted and convicted as an accessory before the fact, either with the principal or after him." These were the words of the act; but the law did not stop there. A subsequent act, in terms, if possible, still more stringent, constituted every accessory to a murder a felon. The 10th of George IV. enacts, " that if any person shall solicit, encou- rage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or incite any person to commit a murder, it shall be deemed a felony, and on conviction thereof he shall suffer death." It was right that this should be placed before the public, because an unfounded im- pression had gone forth that these acts did not apply to Ireland. But they did apply to Ireland specifically; and he took it upon himself to say that enforced in Ireland they would be, .if to enforce them were possible. His noble friend the Lord-Lieutenant felt it his duty to weigh carefully every information of the nature the noble Lord alluded to, when brought before him, with the determination to enforce the penalty of the law if a conviction of the crime could be procured. If the Government found that additional powers were necessary, they would not hesitate to ask Parliament to strengthen their hands. As far as he had had occasion to observe, a zealous discharge of their duties had generally distinguished the conduct of !the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. It was to the performance of that duty they were indebted for the patience, en- durance, and resignation with which the most appalling of human calamities had been borne by the population; and if they were compelled to visit with the severest animadversions the misconduct of certain individuals belonging to that body, it was only the more necessary they should recognize with the readiness and gra- titude it deserved their general zealous and untiring exertions in relief of affliction and distress.

The Earl of' MALMESBURY regretted that so little hope was held out of bringing some of these reverend persons to justice. Surely there must be some among the hundreds present in the chapels who did not rejoice in the denunciations, and who would give evidence as to what they had heard from the altar? It would have been better had the Government taken all needful power at once.

Lord STANLEY complained of the indistinct and undefined character of the answers given by Lord Lansdowne. Lord CAMPBELL had no doubt either of the sufficiency of the law, or of its energetic administration by the Lord-Lieutenant.

An incitement to commit a murder would clearly render the accessory before the fact by whom that incitement was given liable to expiate his offence by his life. Formerly it was necessary to proceed in the first instance against the principal ; but that difficulty was removed by the act of the 9th George IV., which act was extended to Ireland by the 10th George IV. Under the law as it now stands, all doubt is removed from the subject, and we are enabled to proceed against an accomplice as an accessory before the fact, as a substantive proceeding. Now, he should say that this denunciation from the altar formed no exemption from the criminality of the proceeding. It had been determined over and over again, that a minister of the Established Church of England, or a minister of the Established Church of Scotland, was, if he said anything from the pulpit detrimental to the character of an individual, or anything that led to a breach of the public peace, civilly and criminally liable for what he said, just as much as if he spoke it from the market-cross or from a public platform.

Lord BROUGHAM said, he should answer the question whether the Go- vernment measures were sufficient by another. Could he refuse to con- sider them sufficient, when his noble friend the Lord-Lieutenant stated himself to be perfectly satisfied with them? Earl GREY admitted that the Government found great difficulty in ob- taining evidence as to outrages; but when prosecutors did come forward, juries were not reluctant to do their duty. In the present condition of Ireland, the Government believed the course they had proposed was upon the whole the most likely to be successful. Lord Grey complimented Lord Farnham on the manner in which he had brought the matter forward, and regretted that two other Lords had not followed in the same spirit.

After some further conversation, the subject dropped; and the House adjourned.

On Thursday, Lord FARNHAM recurred to the subject, and read pas, sages from letters respecting the assassinations of Mr. Lloyd and Major Mahon. Onepart of the second letter painfully illustrates the condition of the country—.

" There are over three hundred families in this district who were tenants to Major Mahon some of them owing from two to four years' rent. They were at all times treated with very peculiar lenity, neither harassed nor ejected; and, to my knowledge, Mr. King [a Roman Catholic clergyman, on friendly terms with the Major] frequently told the people how very grateful they should feel for such indulgence. The state of this pact of,tbe country is indeed melancholy. Life is not worth a day's purchase. It is eralslangerons to speak of Major Mahort's kindness to his tenants in this district. ?Ad intimate friend of mine received a threatening letter denouncing him for so do doing; and, with his large family, he feels miserable, and anxious if possible to leave this country."

REPEAL OF THE UNION.

In the Howe of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR moved for a Select Committee " to inquire and report on the means by which the dissolution of the Parliament of Ireland was effected; on the effects of that measure upon Ireland, and upon the labourers in husbandry and operativei in manufactures in England; and on the probable consequences of oon- tinning the legislative union between both countries." Mr. O'Connor gape

this motion in a long and very discursive speech, of which the fol- lowing is rather a description than an outline.

His object was mainly to obtain the opinion of the House on a national agitation; also to give recent converts in the Repeal cause an opportunity of redeeming their pledges. He disclaimed any jealousy of the late W. O'Connell; and in order to secure unanimity, he had, contrary to his own views, adopted the very words of "the gentleman now deceased," who brought forward this subject in 1834. He would not rest the question upon statistics, upon the falling-off in exports or imports, but upon higher ground. He gave a retrospective sketch of the history of English dominion in Ireland, from the apocryphal charter of Edgar in 964, and the invasion of Strongbow under Henry the Second in 1169, down to the Union; glancing at the alleged conquest of Ireland by Henry the Eighth; the passing of Po ing's Act, in James's time, which extended English acts of Parliament to Ireland; the reckless days of Cromwell and of rueful King William; the repeal of Poyning'a Act in 1780, when the American Revolution threw the British Ministry into difficulties; the corruption of the Irish Parliament by raising the price of seats, &c. Mr. O'Connor mentioned that his uncle Lord Longueville returned sixteen Members to the Irish Parliament, four of whom he won at billiards and backgammon. He endeavoured to show that the disturbances in Ireland had not originated in religious differences, but in the endeavour of the Protestants to ob- tain Protestant ascendancy. He described the Protestants under Lord Cherie- /tient, as creating the Volunteers, a body of Catholic soldiers with Protestant officers; the Protestants using the Catholics to obtain all that was required by Protestant interests, and so establishing Protestant ascendancy. He spoke of the United Irishmen, and mentioned among the members Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Grattan. He described the Irish gentry as retaining a claim to the lands of which they had been despoiled, in spite of any statute of limitations: many a man in Ireland whose ancestors had been unjustly deprived of their estates still had his armorial bearings over his chimney-piece and his title-deeds locked up. From Ireland Mr. O'Connor glanced at the condition of Spain, Portugal, and Switzer- land—that great boiler in the centre of Europe. He took occasion to declare that he had never travelled or eaten at the expense of any man; that he was not a destructive, revolutionist, or firebrand; and that he was doing more than any man in England to introduce changes in the social condition of the people. He was for the altar, the throne, and the cottage: but he wished the altar to be the throne of God, and not the couch of Mammon; he wished the throne to be based on the affections of the people, and not on the lusts of the aristocracy; and he wished the cottage to be the castle of the freeman, and not the den of the slave.

Sir GEORGE GREY remarked, that if any Member had entered the House in the midst of Mr. O'Connor's speech, and had not heard him read the terms of his motion at the end, he would have been unable to con- jecture what the subject of the motion was. Mr. O'Connor had certainly improved the leisure of his absence from the House, in acquiring a large stook of antiquarian lore and historical information, which he had not pre- viously displayed to Parliament; though he had before favoured the House with the autobiographical notice,—commencing it, however, from an earlier period, and demonstrating his descent from the ancient Kings of Ireland. Sir George Grey would not give the speech any serious answer. He asked what good purpose the proposed Committee would serve; and challenged Mr. O'Connor to bring the subject of Repeal at once before the House, and take a decision upon it.

Mr. O'Coeseton was quite ready to propose a distinct measure for the re peal of the Union, and hoped that Sir George Grey would second it.

Mr. HENRY Gusrrax declared that Mr. O'Connor's statement respecting his father was false. (" Order, order! ") Mr. Grattan was never a United Irishman, nor Mr. Ponsonby either. He charged Mr. O'Connor with four libels—against Lord Charlemont, the Volunteers, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Ponsonby. He called upon the House, as upon a jury, to convict Mr. O'Connor; and as one of the jury he pronounced him guilty "upon his honour." (Cheers.) Mr. Jose! O'Coarratt supported the motion with the usual hacknied topics: the manner in which Ireland was tricked out of her Parliament; unfair taxation of Ireland; unequal representation of the same; the new Poor-law, which, he said, would stimulate the immigration of diseased paupers into this country; the want of well-considered measures of im- provement, and "a thousand other grievances which had never been touched."

Mr. TRELAWNET remarked, that Ireland unduly escaped taxation, as in the case of the Income-tax; and he recanted his former opposition to an arms bill.

The motion was supported with animation by Mr. REYNOLDS—who warmly approved of the Poor-law, however, as " a blister on the backs of the landlords"; by Mr. E. B. ROCHE, and Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL. Dr. Bowman- declined to occupy the public time further, although be had intended to address the House upon a motion which is likely to be .come important, from the state of feeling prevalent in this country. Major BLACKALL declared that repeal of the Union would only be a source of misery to Ireland. Mr. FAGAN supported the motion, in a long speech, much interrupted by his own pauses, and by cries for a division. Unable to obtain a further hearing, he concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned. Mr. WALTER rose to address the House; but was interrupted by Mr. ROCHE, as not being in order. The SPEAKER, however, decided that Mr. Walter had a right to speak on the new question that the debate be ad- journed; and Mr. WALTER proceeded- " 1 was about to say, that the honourable Members for the city and for the county of Cork have favoured the House with their opinions as to the capacity of the Irish people for self-government. I have always considered that one of the best tests of the capacity of a people for self-government was the possession of business habits; and of those habits one of the most important was the habit of keeping to any question under discussion. Now, if I were to apply that test to the people of Ireland, I should say, after the course which has been pursued by Irish Members during this debate, that they were about as fit for self-legislation as the Blacks. (Laughter and cries of " Oh ! ") The House may not be aware, but it is nevertheless a fact, that the Blacks have a proverb that if Nigger were not Nigger, Irishman would be Nigger.'" (Laughter.) Mr. Jolts; O'CoNsam. here rose and said—" I think it is a question whether it is quite in order that this buffoonery should go on."

The SPEAKER—" The honourable Member for Kilkenny is clearly out of order in applying the word buffoonery' to any observations that have fallen from the honourable Member for Nottingham." (" Hear, hear!")

Mr. J. OCoeurma.--" To anything that you say, Sir I of course bow at once; and any expression that I have used I entirely retract. I spoke under strong feel- ings when I heard the expressions of the honourable Member."

Mr. WALTER—" No less a person than Bishop Berkeley, an Irish Bishop, gives ns the proverb I have just mentioned ; and I should not be surprised if, one day or other, such a transformation took place. From some speeches which have been made during this debate, it might almost be thought that Irish distress and Irish grievances were new to the House; that the exactions of the conacre system and the hardships of ejectment/ had never been heard of before. Why, there can scarcely be a Member of this House who has not heard these questions discussed, at least out of the House, five hundred times; and I maintain that, however im- portant such subjects may be—and weighty and important they are—this is not the proper time to bring them under discussion. We are now met for a different purpose. We are met to protect the lives of our fellow subjects from murderers and assassins; and we are to be told by honourable Members for Ireland that we are to place no check upon Irish assassins until we have provided remedies for Irish grievances? ("Hear, hear!") If a burglar breaks into my house, am I to inquire into his motives for committing the crime, or into the circumstances of his past life, before I avail myself of those means which my own instinct would prompt me to use, and which the law allows me to use, to prevent his depreda- tions? What would the Irish Members have said if, at the time when the famine was raging in that country, instead of voting millions for their relief, we had told them we should not give them a farthing till we had inquired into the causes of the potato-rot? If honourable gentlemen would ad- mit of no delay, no inquiry, when money is the question, let them be for once consistent, and interpose no further obstacles to the measures which this exigency demands. We have been told by the other honourable Member for Not- tingham, [Mr. Feargus O'Connor,] that for the repression of ordinary crimes ordinary laws are sufficient; and he read a number of extracts from various writers in support of his position. I agree with my honourable colleague, that for the ordinary crimes of murder, theft and highway robbery , ordinary laws are suffi- cient: but I maintain that an organized system of mid-day assassination is no ordinary crime. (" Hear, hear!") I think we should deal with those who com- mit such crimes as Dr. Johnson proposed to deal with madmen—knock them down first, and reason with them afterwards. (A laugh.) I would say, in the words of King Richard the Second,

' We must supplant those rough mg-headed kerns, Which live like venom, where no venom else,

But only they, hath privilege to live.' " (Cheers.)

Mr. E. B. Rocuz observed, that the flippant speech they had just heard, (and which reminded him of those violent, bitter, and envenomed articles against Ireland, he had read in a certain paper published in this metropolis,) however smart it might have been, was not exactly to the point. He exhorted Mr. Fagan to press the motion of adjournment to a division.

The O'Gousisx Mstiosr complimented the House on its admirable patience in listening to the Irish Members, and besought a continuance for a few minutes longer in favour of Mr. Fagan.

Sir GEORGE GREY suggested that Mr. Fagan would be heard if he did not detain the House so long with pauses. Mr. Joust O'Ccurazu, declared that he had never witnessed such an inclination to prevent and crush Irish discussion. Mr. FAGAN stated that he would not detain the House any longer, and that he should withdraw his motion for an adjournment.

Mr. O'Coserrou replied, and the House divided: for the motion, 23; against it, 255. Soon afterwards the House adjourned, at midnight.

ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.

On Wednesday, Mr. ANSTEY moved the second reading of his bill for the further repeal of acts of Parliament imposing pains and penalties upon her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their religious opin- ions. Mr. Anstey referred to previous attempts at legislation on the subject, especially to Mr. Watson's bill of February 1846 and 1847, which was thrown out. Mr. Anstey proposed to repeal all disabilities and penalties which that bill would have removed, and also some which it omitted to notice. Among other enactments to be repealed, were several that are never enforced,—such as that which imposes a penalty of imprisonment for being present at any other form of worship than the one directed by the Book of Common Prayer; that which imposes penalties on Popish rem- saucy; that which prescribes the penalty of prcemerrire for persons refusing the oath of supremacy; and that which forbids Roman Catholic ecclesiastics to use a steeple or bell. But he also proposed to abolish the penal enactment in the Relief Act of 1829 which made it illegal for Roman Catholics to per- form funeral rites openly. Mr. Anstey declared, that if any Member could show him that any clause of this bill would interfere with a single act of Parliament that tended to the strengthening of the Church Establishment, or the present civil Government, or the settlement of property, he would at once strike it out. His object was merely to benefit Roman Catholics, so far as he could do so without harm or detriment to any other interest.

Sir ROBERT Imams opposed the motion, with a reiteration of arguments similar to those which he advanced against the bill of Mr. Watson. The bill, he said, was evidently directed to increase the influence of the Church of Rome, which is seeking to elevate itself and to lower the Protestant Establishment in this country. It would virtually begin a process of re- pealing the Bill of Rights. He called upon Mr. Anstey to show a single instance, since 1829, in which any penalty has been inflicted upon any member of the Church of Rome in respect of his religion. He would not consent to modification of the bill, but called upon the House to judge it as it stood, and to reject it, as part of a general system of aggression by the Church of Rome. To prove that aggression, he pointed to the fact that the Pope has elevated the chief Catholic Prelate in Sydney to be an Archbishop, investing him with higher rank than the Protestant Bishop of Australia; England has been divided into new sees, created in violation of the Queen's supremacy; a " Westminster Association and Confraternity" has formed itself, to regulate elections for seats in that House in the Ro- man Catholic interest. The Roman Church has created confusion in the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, and also in France. Sir Robert moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. HOME DRUMMOND supported Sir Robert Inglis's arguments; quoting an address by Mr. John O'Connell to the Pope, to show that tens poral authority in this country is arrogated for the Pontiff. In the address, Mr. John O'Connell says—" It is your high mission to stop oligarchical tyranny and democratic anarchy and their false pretences; and to estab- lish in the face of day, and patent to the universe, the great fact, so redo- lent with happiness to man and safe and peaceable progress to society," that " the increase of popular power " is " most entirely consistent with the maintenance of order and legitimate authority." Mr. Drummond also read passages from the rules of the Jesuits, enforcing the most absolute obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. The rules said that every man was bound to be as a carcass in the hands of his superior. A [lay] cook-boy was to receive the word of the cook [a monk] as if it were the word of the Saviour. " Si c'est pour notre seul Crdateur at Seigneur qu'elle se aoumet, elle doit voir noire Seigneur dans chacun indifftSremment."

The Earl of ARUNDEL and Stranzir supported the, bill. He denied that temporal authority was arrogated for the head of the Roman Catholic Church; admitted that the Church was aggressive, as all churches are, and ought to be; but observed that the division of England into districts for convenient supervision is not more than the Dissenters have done—the Wesleyan for example.

Mr. War-roLE examined the provisions of the bill somewhat in detail; opposing the measure because the fullest exercise of religion is not prohi- bited to the Roman Catholic, and because the extra liberty demanded would not harmonize with the spirit and temper of a Protestant govern- ment: he would abide by the settlement of 1829.

Sir GEORGE GREY said he would vote for the second reading of the bill; but he could not consent to every part of it at future stages. He should rejoice to remove from the statute-book all acts tending to maintain ill feeling; but he could not so soon after the settlement of 1829 consent to reopen that settlement. The bill was opposed by Mr. PLUMPTRE and Mr. NEWDEGATE; sup- ported by Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL. Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE supported it; examining in detail the arguments against it. The proper means to counteract the activity of the Church of Borne, or of any other religious body, was the zeal, fidelity, energy, and ac- tivity of the English Church. He could not consent to repeal the Act of Supremacy, nor that enactment which forbids the use of official costume in Roman Catholic chapels; considering such enactments accordant with the maintenance of the Established Church. But he could not exclude the religious orders from this country; nor could he deny that the clause in the act of 1829 respecting the performance of Roman Catholic ceremonies is founded on too narrow a basis.

Mr. &Tem confined his advocacy of the bill to a single illustration. No ecclesiastical patronage is in the hands of the Irish Lord Chancellor; and yet Roman Catholic barristers are excluded from that dignity: the late Sir Michael O'Loghlen was thus excluded; so was Mr. Woulffe, who was made Lord Chief Baron; and Mr. Pigott, who now holds that office.

Further concession to Roman Catholics was opposed by Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. FARRER, and Mr. STUART; advocated by Mr. HUME. Mr. CARD- WELL urged Ministers to employ the recess in considering the actual state of the law, and in determining what practical grievances remain for the Roman Catholics • so as to be prepared after the recess to determine finally what alteration shall be made and what shall be refused. He was sure that Ministers would receive support from both sides of the House in abo- lishing practical grievances, and closing this subject of controversy.

The House divided on the amendment; and it was negatived, by 168 to 135—majority 33. The bill was read a second time; and the Committee was named for that day fortnight, on the understanding, however, that it should not be brought on till after the recess.

SLR ROBERT PEEL ON THE COMMERCIAL DISTRESS.

[We recur to Sir Robert Peel's speech of Friday last, in order to place upon our file some of its more substantive and striking passages.]

What was expected of the Bank Charter Act.—" There seems to have been some misapprehension as to the object contemplated by that act: that which we con- templated was, that its future effect would be to prevent the recurrence of those convulsions which had heretofore frequently taken place. It had previously been thought, and might afterwards have been expected, that the Bank of England would have taken precautions against the ill-regulated issue of its treasure; and therefore the bill contained no imperative regulation affecting the banking de- partment. We did hope, that after the panic of 1826—after that of 1836—after that also of 1839—we did hope that the Bank of England would have confined itself to those principles of banking which their own directors admitted to be just, but from which they had admitted their own departure though prescribed in part by their own regulations. In that hope I am bound to acknowledge that we have been disappointed. Seeing commercial difficulty coming, seeing the approach of a panic, they still did not conform to those regulations. Commercial houses were swept away which had long been insolvent; other houses, which under different circumstances might have proved perfectly solvent, suffered from the failures of those whose inability to meet the demands against them was previously well known. The bill has not sufficed to prevent these results: and so far, also, I ad- mit that we have been disappointed; for the bill was intended to impose, if not a legal, at least a moral restraint on the Bank, and we hoped that it would prevent the necessity of having recourse to measures of extreme stringency. In that hope, likewise, I admit that we have been disappointed: for this I must contend, that it was in the power of the Bank, had it taken early precautions, if not to prevent all the evils that have arisen, at least greatly to diminish their force. If the Bank had possessed the resolution to meet the difficulty of a contraction of its issues by raising the rate of discount, by refusing much of the accommodation which they granted between the years 1844 and 1846—if they had only been firm and perse- vering in those precautions, the necessity for any extensive interference with their operations might have been prevented; it might not then have been necessary for the Government to authorize that violation of the provision, the sole end and ob- ject of which was to constrain the Bank of England, and prevent a recurrence of the panics of 1836 and 1839. Here I think I may be permitted to refer to what I said on the second reading of the bill of 1844. At the close of the speech which I then made, I thus expressed my opinions-

"' The Ministers were not wild enough to suppose that this measure would prevent all undue speculation, or insure an invariable paper currency; but there was a species of Speculation dependant on an undue issue of paper which they hoped the measure would check. Speculation could not be prevented in a commercial community, but it might be aggravated by a species of paper credit within the control of Parliament ; and though Ministers did not aim at checking legitimate speculation—though they admitted they could not prevent Illegitimate speculation, which was perhaps necessarily incident to mercantile enterprise, particularly in a country like this—still they asked Parliament, by assenting to this measure, not to aggravate evils which it could not control, nor re- fuse to check those which came properly within its Jurisdiction.'

"I say, then, that the bill of 1844 had a triple object. Its first object was that in which I admit it has proved a failure, namely, to prevent a panic and a confu- sion such as that which has been obviated by the intervention of the Government: but there were two other objects of as great importance; the one being to main- tain and guarantee the convertibility of a paper currency into gold, and the other to prevent the aggravation of those difficulties which arise at all times from un- due speculation encouraged by an abuse of paper credit. In these two objects, my belief is that the bill has completely succeeded. My belief is that you have had a guarantee for the maintenance of the principle of convertibility such as you never had before; and my belief also is, that whatever difficulties you are now suffering from a combination of various causes, those difficulties would have been infinitely aggravated if you had not wisely taken the precaution of checking the abase of paper credit by an unlimited issue of the notes of joint-stock banks and private banks, such as the abuse which existed antecedent to the year 1844." Adam Smith on Crisis.—" I wish to remind the House of an observation which was made eighty years ago, by one of the greatest writers that ever treated upon the subject of political economy—I mean Adam Smith. I consider Adam Smith to enjoy the same preeminence as a political economist over all those who have ever subsequently written upon that science as Sir Isaac Newton holds over all subsequent writers upon the divine science of astronomy. Writing upon an ab- stract subject, and without any reference to or foresight of such events as those which present themselves to our view, this is the observation of Adam Smith— "'No complaint is more common than that of a scarcity of money. Money, like wine, must always be scarce with those who have neither wherewithal to buy it nor credit to borrow it. Those who have either will seldom be in want of the money or of the Wine which they have occasion for. This complaint, however, of the scarcity of

money, Is not always confined to Improvident spendthrifts ; it Is sometimes general through a whole mercantile town and the country in its neighbourhood overtradIng

is the common cause of it. Sober men, whose projects have been disproportioned to

their capitals, are as likely to have neither wherewithal to buy money nor credit to borrow it, as prodigals, whose expense has been disproportional to their revenue.

Before their projects can be brought to bear, their stock is gone, and their credit with it. They run about everywhere to borrow money, and everybody tells them that they have none to lend.'

"That is the precise condition in which we are at present. There is everybody asking for money, and speaking of the dearth of money; that dearth being a dearth of capital. You blame the law, or you blame the Government, because

they cannot supply you with that which you really want, which is available capi- tal to meet your exigencies. Nothing can be more delusive than the expectation

you entertain that either Parliament or Government will give way to the foolish weakness of increasing the currency. Increasing the currency would not multi- ply capital, but would prevent the exertions of individuals to assist themselvee.

By preventing that which is a remedy for your evils—the cis medicatrix—they would only aggravate your evils, if you intend to maintain a convertible currency.' Former Periods of Distrass.—" When you attribute it to free trade, to the act of 1844, and various other causes, how do you account for this, that if you take

the history of the last sixty years, I can show you when protection was at its highest, in times of peace, in times of war, before the standard was disturbed— nay, in the time of an inconvertible paper currency, as afterwards, that prosperity

and a low rate of interest have led to exactly the same pressure and the same

want of money you are at present experiencing ? Take the year 1784; you had then the old standard. You had then the power of paying, I think, up to 251. in silver, at any rate; at that period the standard had not been altered: yet in 1784, in order to protect the convertibility of its notes, the Bank of England was compelled to refuse advances in loans, and to reduce its notes in circulation from 9,000,0001. to 6,000,0001. Previous to 1784 there had been years of prosperity, years of great speculation; but, as a consequence of that undue excitement, you had also the pressure that followed it, and a course of violent action on the part of the Bank in order to protect its treasure from exhaustion. Take the year 1793,—here again the standard had not been disturbed; the currency was then a convertible one: in 1792, before the war broke out, you had great prosperity: the distress began to be felt at the latter end of that year. Allow me to read an account of that distress, and you will see how exactly it corresponds with the distress of 1846. Mr. Tooke says- ". From the operation of causes which I shall not pretend to explain, the unpre- cedented number of bankruptcies in November 1792 was prodigiously exceeded in number and amount by those which took place In the spring and summer of this year,

—105 in Starch, BB In April, 209 in May, 158 in June, and 108 in July. Many houses of the most extensive dealings and most established credit failed ; and their fall involved.

vast numbers of their correspondents and connexions In all parts of the country. Houses of great respectability and undoubted solidity, possessing ample funds, which actually did, in a short time, enable them to pay every shilling of their debts, were obliged to stop payment ; and some bankers, who, almost immediately recovering from the first panic, resumed the regularity of their payments, were obllged to make R.

pause It was impossible to raise any money upon the security of machinery or shares of canals ; for the value of such property seemed to be annihilated in the gloomy apprehensions of the sinking state of the country, its commerce and manatee- tures; and those who had any money, not knowing where they could place It With safety, kept it unemployed and locked It up in their coffers.'

" Is not this an exact description of the present time; does it not exactly cor- respond with the state of things in 1846? In what respect is it different? "Again, take the year 1810: you then had almost the command of the com- merce of the world, and you had an inconvertible paper currency; but it led to exactly the same evils that occurred in 1792.

"In 1819 the standard was restored. If you are about to repeal the act of 1844, if you are about to restore to the Bank a discretion unlimited and uncontrolled,. you are about to restore to the joint-stock banks their privilege of making unre- stricted issues; and I presume you are about to permit the revival of private banks, and give them the right of making issues also. But before you do this,- read the accounts of the transactions of the Northern and Central Bank, of the Norfolk, Norwich, Manchester, and other joint-stock banks which issued notes

professing to be convertible into gold at the will of the owner; and you will find that non-restriction and a convertible paper did not prevent a series of abuses, which, when stated to the Committee, induced it to determine that the public se- cnrity required a change. The simple repeal of the act of 1844 will be the

restoration of full discretion to the Bank without any Parliamentary control. Well, in 1826 the Bank of England had unlimited discretion. I will give you an account of the state of affairs in 1826, before the sad period of the restriction im. posed by the act of 1844. I will take the account of a most unexceptionable am. thority, whose name will command universal respect,—Mr. Alexander Baring, now- Lord Ashburton: in describing the undue excitement and prosperity of that time,. he describes the state of things in 1846, and preceding periods also; he says- ." He bad no hesitation in attributing the distress of the country to the extent to which- the paper circulation had been pushed about eighteen months ago ; and for which the country banks, and he was sorry to say the Bank of England, were answerable. The

Bank of England, by the facilities which they afforded, had been the authors of that dangerous redundancy of money, that gave rise to the wild speculations which abounded

in every part of the country. It seemed as if Bedlam had broken loose on the Royal Ex- change. The same frantic spirit overran the country. The bankers In London, and their agents In the country, and the customers of both, were actuated by the same uni-

versal desire to put out their money in whatever way they could. Then, all on a sud- den, the very reverse of this system came Into practice. A panic seized the pubic. Men would not part with their money on any terms. Men of undoubted wealth and real capital were seen walking about the streets of London, not knowing whether they

should be able to meet their engagements next day. The over-Issue by the country banks was the main cause by which the distress had been widely spread. If this crisis

were allowed to pass without speaking the truth, it would be only laying the foundation for future evils. Houses which were weak went humediately ; then went second-rate houses; and lastly, houses which were solvent. All confidence was loot, and scarcely one man could be found to trust his neighbour. Men were known to seek for assistance,, and that too without effect, who were known to be worth 200,0001.'

" That was the state of things in 1826. In 1836, the proceedings of the Bank had at least so endangered its stability, that I heard a Minister attribute to it, as the consequence of undue issues at one time and rapid contraction at another, the loss of 40,000,0001. sterling in the great materials of our manufactures—cotton, silk, and wool. In 1839, the Bank was obliged to apply for the intervention of the Bank of France; its gold was reduced to 2,000,0001: and again the evils that followed were attributed to a departure by the Bank from rules which the Bank itself had established for its own security. Thus, in 1784, in 1793, in 1810, in

1826, in 1836, and in 1839, you find the same cause, prosperity and a low rate of interest, leading to speculations and immense engagements, which, when they came to be tried by the test of a metallic standard, collapsed, and stagnation and distress ensued."

Causes of the present Crisis.—" The same cause, in my opinion, is operating now. In consequence of a period of prosperity, in consequence of a low rate of interest, there has been an undue amount of speculation; there has been a mode of conducting business by issues of paper and rediscounting of bills, which I be- lieve is quite novel in the commercial history of this country. In this country you choose to erect a greater superstructure of paper, currency and paper credit upon a smaller metallic basis than in any nation of Europe. In this country, as in the United States, you attempt with a small comparative amount of the precious metals to raise an enormous structure both of promissory notes and paper credit. There is no country in Europe which, in proportion to the extent of its commer- cial enterprise and its paper credit, (in which I include both promissory notes and bills of exchange,) puts itself to so small an expense of bullion to support that paper. It gives great facility, no doubt, to enterprise; but, at the same time, it is accompanied by numerous corresponding evils. (Cheers.) The facilities for enterprise, the largeness of your credit, the immense extent of your colonial em- pire, are such, that when there is prosperity, and when there is a low rate of in- terest-above all, when the temptations held out by that prosperity and by that rate of interest are unduly encouraged by that great establishment the Bank-de- pend upon it, these consequences are inevitable. (Cheering.) I know you will not go to the expense of greatly widening the basis of your currency. Your call is now for more relaxation. You want more paper in proportion to your gold than yon have at present. And with more paper you would obtain greater present ease; but be assured that this would cause a more frequent recurrence of the evils you now endure. (Cheers.) The United States attempt the same thing; and, notwithstanding the enormous advantage they possess in the great ex- tent of their territory and growing commerce, because they have a similar foundation for their superstructure of paper money, they are exposed to more rapid and more repeated disasters than even we are. * • • It is painful to refer to individual houses; but I have seen accounts in the news- papers showing such an amount of liabilities in comparison with assets, in some instances, that I do not hesitate to say that if the commerce of the country is to be conducted on such principles, it is in vain to look for any legislative regula- tion which could prevent the evils that must flow from such a system. I saw the accounts of one house published in the newspapers-I do not feel it necessary to mention the name-the liabilities of which amounted to 50,0001., whilst its assets did not exceed 5,0001. If that is the practice of your commerce, do not complain of the act of 1844. Is it not monstrous that the standard of this country should be endangered in order to cover or facilitate such transactions as these? Have we not seen a bank with 600,0001. of paid-up capital lend 500,0001. to one house? What is it to me that the shareholders of such establishments repose confidence in their directors, instead of taking part in the conduct of their own affairs ? Men find that they are liable to demands to the extent of 50,0001., and that they have got only 5,0001. to meet them with; and then they exclaim, That infernal act of 1844 is the cause of our difficulty. We want money, and the act of 1844 prevents us from fulfilling our engagements! You may thank the act of 1844 that your difficulties are not aggravated tenfold. Just consider what would have been your state if your Northern and Central banks, your Manches- ter banks, and your Norfolk and Norwich banks, had been entitled to foster spec- ulation by unlimited issues of paper." Usury Laws and High Interest.-" A great outcry had been raised because, as it was alleged, certain parties could not get money at a lower rate than 10 or 15 per cent; and some gentlemen, from whom I expected better things, say that the commerce of the country cannot be carried on because people pay 10 per cent fee money ; and the Government is blamed as the cause of that rate of interest being paid. But, I ask, why should not commerce pay what money is worth? Persons may think it very hard that they are obliged to pay 8 or 10 per cent for the money they want; but pray, by what law can you prevent it? Will you make the usury-laws more stringent? I think there is great reason to doubt whether the retention of a portion of the usury-laws is not telling injuriously on the parties for whose benefit they were intended. We had experience of the usury-laws in 1826. At that time, many houses of the first respectability, and whose solvency was undoubted, shook because of the usury-laws-because those laws prevented them from borrowing money and giving what the use of it was worth. How is it possible to prevent lenders from charging the interest which their money is worth ? Doubtless a high rate of interest restricts our exports, and to persons engaged in commercial enterprise it is a novel thing to pay 8 or 10 per cent for money: but no issue of bank-notes could remedy that evil. I say again, that the dearth we suffer from is the dearth of capital; and whilst capital is scarce, pass what laws you please, you must pay for it." The Railway Drain.-" I do not estimate the effect of that application of capital so highly as some persons do. I think that, under ordinary circum- stances, nothing could be more advantageous than such an application of capital. I think that, by the extension of railroads, we are laying the foundation of great future prosperity; and I very mach doubt whether we ought not to deduct from any evil which the sadden application of capital to railroads may have caused, all the evil that would have been caused by the investment of the same capital in foreign railroads. I believe that if it had not been for the scarcity of food and the suspension of engagements in consequence of improvident commercial enterprise, we should have been able to bear the demand for capital for railroads with little inconvenience. I do not look upon the money expended on railways as dead loss. The time will shortly come wheu the railroads will be completed, 1 hope with ad- vantage to those who have engaged in them; but, at all events, when we look at the saving which will thereby be effected in the conveyance of goods and the loco- motion of individuals, it is impossible to doubt that they will ultimately be sources of great improvement and prosperity. Nevertheless, the railway expenditure operates for the present to increase the restriction arising from other causes."

PAPAL AUTHORITY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. On Monday, the Bishop of St. ASAPH presented a petition to the House of Lords, from the Master and Brethren of a Hospital in the county of Durham, complaining of the annual im- portation into Ireland of the Papal Bull In mad Domini. Lord BEAumorrr took occasion to observe, that the circulation of this document was a matter of form, which had been maintained ever since this country adopted the Reformed religion. It was a form, however, which, like many others, might well be dispensed with; and were this country properly represented at the Papal Court, all these anomalies would, in the spirit of reform which characterized that court, be speedily abol- ished.

SwiTzustazno. In reply to Mr. OSBORNE, on Monday, as to whether any answer had been received to our offer of mediation in the civil war in Switzerland, Lord PALMERSTON said, that since the offer to mediate was made, information had been received that the civil war in Switzerland was in point of fact at an end; and, as mediation implied an interposition between two parties, there being no parties, of course there could be no mediation. PORTUGAL. On Thursday, Mr-I:Wpm asked whether, as France and Spain bed withdrawn from the protocol of London, England also had done so? Lord PALMERSTON reminded the House, that the protocol recorded certain engage- ments entered into by the Crown of Portugal towards the three Allies; two of those engagements were that the elections of members of the Cortes should take place with as little delay as possible, and that the Cortes should be assembled: of course, until those engagements had been fulfilled-and at present they had not-it was the opinion of her Majesty's Government that the Crown of Portugal was bound by so much of its engagements as had not been fulfilled. Mr. HUME wished to know whether any communication had been received from France and Spain intimating that they had withdrawn? Lord PALMERSTON did not think there had been any formal communication to that effect. At the same time, he must not disguise that there might be a shade of difference of opinion between the two Governments that had been mentioned and her Majesty's Government. He was only authorized to state the opinion of her Majesty's Government; it was not for him to expound the opinions of other Governments. AFFAIRS OF THE LATE RAJAH OF SATTARA. On Monday Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON inquired whether the Government had received any official informa- tion of the death of the deposed Rajah of Setters; and if so, whether any pro- vision would be made by Government in conjunction with the East India Company for maintaining the family and dependants of the late Rajah, [estimated at 700,J who were left in a state of extreme destitution ? Mr. ConnEwAtt. LEWIS re- plied, that the official intelligence of the Ex-Rajah's death had arrived on Satur- day. Though he had not seen the despatch himself, he believed it was a simple announcement of the death. He would prepare himself, however, to answer the question on a future day. ELECTION AFFAIRS. On Wednesday, the Speaker read lemurs from three Members who had been returned by two constituencies-Mr. Charles Pelham Vil- liers, elected for Wolverhampton and for South Lancashire, will sit for Wolver- hampton; Mr. Cobden, elected for Stockport and for the West Riding of Yorkshire, will sit for Yorkshire; Mr. John O'Connell, elected for Limerick and for kenny, will sit for Limerick.

New.writs have been ordered for Liskeard, in the room of M. Charles Buller, who has been appointed Commissioner for Administering the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in England; for South Lancashire, in the room of Mr. C. P. Villiers. for Stockport, in the room of Mr. Cobden; for Weymouth, in the room of Mr: Christie, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; for Edinburgh, in the room of Mr. C. Cowan, who has intimated his resignation to the Speaker; and for rd.' kenny, in the room of Mr. John O'Connelll.

Tuesday was the last day of petitioning against the returns to the present House of Commons. The following are the petitions presented.

Places. Returns petitioned against.

Great Yarmouth- Lord A. Lennox.

0. E. Coope.

Montgomery (Bo- lion. H. Cholmcu- rough) deley.*

Stockport J Heald.

Dublin (City) J Reynolds.

Cheltenham Sir W. Jones. Glocesterehire(West)Hon. G. Berke:ey.

Great 31arlow T P. Williams.

Colonel Knox.

Kinsale II. S. Guinness.

Athlone W. Keogh.

Abingdon Sir F. Thesiger.

Lyme Regis T. N. Abdey.

Carlow (Borough). J. Sadler.

Westbury J Wilson.

Lancaster S. Gregsou.

Sligo (Borough) . . •1'. Somers.

Peeblesshire W. F. Mackenzie.

Leicester Sir J. Wahnsley.

A. Gardner.

Dundalk C. C. M'Tavish.

Drogheda Sir W. Somerville.

Maldon T. B. Leonard.

Derby (Borough) • • E. Strutt.

F. L. Gower.

* Mr. Cholmondeley has since written to t Since withdrawn.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCIL-Select Committee " to Inquire Into the present condition and prospects of her Majesty's East and West Indian Possessions and the Mauritius, and of the planting interest connected therewith, with a view to their relief." (Deferred till Thursday 23d December.) Mr. Hors-" In the event of the success of Lord George Bentinck's motion for the appointment of a Select Committee ' to inquire into the state of the West India Islands and the Mauritius,' to move that this House will resolve itself into a Committee on the Sugar-duties Act of 1846 ; and to propose in the Committee a resolution, to the effect that it is expedient that, pending such inquiry, the operation of such clauses of the act of 1846 as relate to a descending scale of duties on foreign sugar shall be suspended and held in abeyance, and that the amount of duties now levied on sugar shall be levied until Parliament shall have considered the report of the Select Committee proposed to be appointed." (Deferred till Thursday 23d December.) Mr. CHISHOLM ANSTEY-Address for papers CO Foreign affairs. (Deferred ow 7'hur4. day 23d December.) Mr. Matz-Select Committee " to inquire into the state of the public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom." (Deferred till after the recess.) Mr. URQUHART'S motion respecting the Irish Union is deferred till after the recess. Mr. HUSIE-Select Committee " to consider whether in all cases of shipwreck and of collisions of merchant-vessels, attended with loss of life, an inquiry, as speedily after the accident and as near as possible to the place, should be appointed, to examine into the attendant circumstances and causes of the shipwreck, and to report to the House ift what manner that inquiry should be conducted." (After the recess.) Ties CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER-" That the Committee to inquire into the causes of the recent Commercial Distress consist of twenty-six Members-The Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Lord George Bentinek, Mr. Berries, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Labouchere, Sir James Gra- ham, Mr. Francis Baring, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Spooner, Mr. William Beckett, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Glyn, Sir William Clay, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Thornely, Mr. James Wilson, Mr. Home Drum- mond, and Mr. Tennent." (Monday 13th December.) Mr. WAHLEY-" That Mr. Muntz be added to the Committee on Commercial Dis- tress." (Monday 13th December.)

Places. Returns petitioned against.

Bodmin J Wylde.

C. S. Lacy.

Carlisle W. N. Hodson.

T. Dixon.

Bolton W. Bolling.

Aylesbury Lord Nugent.

Bewdley T. J. Ireland.

Staffordshire C. B. Adderley.

(North) Viscount Brickley.

Nottingham F O'Connor.

Harwich J Attwood.

Andover H. B. Coles.

W. Cubitt.

Horsham J Jervis.

Lincoln (City) C. Seeley.

Hythef E. D. Brockman.

Essex (North) Sir J. Tyrell.

Major Beresford.

Stafford (Borough) D. Urquhart.

Colchester J A. Hardcastle.

Sir G. EL Smyth. Monmouth (County)Lord G. Somerset. Longford (County) .B. M. Fox. Newcastle-under-

Lyme W. Jackson.

Walsall E B. Littleton.

the Speaker to decline defending the seat.