iBelutteti atilt la roceetringa in Parliament.

1. Limn CHURCH REFORM. On Monday, numerous petitions were presented against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, from the Irish Clergy, and a few from the English Clergy.

Lord ALTHORF then moved the order of the day that the bill should be read a second time.

Mr. GOULBURN stated, that he observed in the sixteenth section of the bill a declaration that his Majesty had placed that part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown derived from the Archbishoprics and Bishoprics to be abolished, at the disposal of Parliament. He had looked over the records of the House in order to discover any message from the Crown to that effect, but had been unable to find any. Per- haps, however, such a message bad been delivered; and he begged to ask Lord Althorp for information- on the subject. Lord ALTHORP and Mr. STANLEY contended, that no specific mes- sage was necessary. That the passage in the King's Speech, which said " your attention will also be directed to the state of the Church, more particularly as regards the temporalities and maintenance of the Clergy," was sufficient authority for the House to proceed with the bill.

Mr. WYNN, Mr. GOULBURN, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir ROBERT IN- GLIS, Mr. M. ATTWOOD, and Mr. SHAW, denied that any such sanc- tion was given by the Speech ; and insisted upon the necessity of having a specific message on the subject.

The order of the day having been read, Lord ALTHORP then moved the second reading of the bill.

Mr. GOULBURN reiterated his objection ; and said that the precedent might be used to deprive the King of his remaining rights. He wished to have the Speaker's opinion upon the point.

The SPEAKER said that he saw no difference, so far as the principle of the question was concerned, in its being applied to the second stage more than.to the first reading.

If it was not wrong to read the bill a first time without a message from his Majesty, it would not, as it appeared to him, be wrong to read it a second time. As it was only in Committee that the details of a bill could be altered, he con- ceived that the present stage might be now proceeded with, so as to admit of any message or alteration before it went through Committee.

Mr. SHAW then moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a se- cond time that day six months. He said that there were some parts of the bill of which he fully approved, the abolition of the Vestry Cess, the augmentation of small livings, the required residence of the Clergy, and the abolition of pluralities ; but he strongly objected to the viola- tion of the right of property which it sanctioned, and to the reduction of the number of the Bishops and Clergy. They were almost all resi- dents in the country; and to reduce their number, would be to increase that of absentees.

He knew that the object of the Memller for Middlesex— (turning to Mr. Hume)—was to destroy the Bishops. If that object could be effected, he would be content. If he could only displace ten of the Bishops, he would be so far satisfied. Perhaps, too,'Mr. Hutne would not object to effect another object of a similar kind ; and he and Mr. Cobbett, who sat near him, would perhaps like to see twenty coronets joined with these ten mitres. They would be pleased to

i

put them all into the mortar of popular opinion, and bray them there with the pestle, which no doubt the member for Middlesex would use secundum artem.

He knew that this was called a remedial measure ; and they were told, that they ought to pass it because they had already passed a coer- cive measure. But he did not like this reasoning in a circle ; or to be told that he must pass a coercive measure because a remedial one was to follow, and then to pass the remedial measure because the coercive one had preceded it Mr. ESTCOURT seconded the amendment. He particularly objected to the reduction of the number of the Bishops ; and thought that Clergymen whose incomes were as low as 2001. per annum ought not to be taxed, as they were, by the bill.

Mr. PLUMPTRE objected to the mode in which the Church revenues were meddled with in this bill. He thought that it would be far better to reduce the income than the number of the Bishops. He objected also to the removal of Bishops from one see to another; and thought that their only translation ought to be from this world to a better.

Mr. STANLEY pointed out the inconsistency of Mr. Shaw's conduct with respect to this bill: he acknowledged that there were abuses in the Irish Church'Establishment ; that this bill would remove several of the principal ones ; and yet he would reject it in toto.

Now Mr. Stanley would ask the most devoted stickler for the property, the immunities, the privileges, and he would even say the prejudices of the Church of Ireland, whether it was either safe or friendly to that Church to say "This bill may be right—there may be abuses which this bill will remedy; but in the present state of public feeling, because I object to part of the bill, I will not meddle with the abuses at all : I will leave the Church to stand by those abuses, unrepaired, and unmitigated ; and yet I will call myself a friend to the Church." He was ready to admit the friendship of Mr. Shaw to the Church ; but he doubted the wisdom and sagacity with which he displayed his friendship. The first point of objection to the bill respected the question of perpe- tuities. He wished the House to consider whether the property which this bill would divert from the Church was Church property or not.

A Bishop was empowered by act of Parliament to grant leases for twenty- one years, and no longer • but the fact was, that the Bishops anticipated there- venues which ought to belong to their successors. They granted their leases for twenty-one years at a low rent, and the amount was made good by renewal fines ; every year the lease for twenty years was resigned into the hands of the Bishop, and .a new lease for twenty-one years was granted on payment of a fine. That fine was calculated at an interest of eight per cent., and thus it was found, that, by compound interest, the sum of It. would become 5/. at the end of every twenty one years : therefore, if at the end of every twenty-one years the Bishop would be entitled to 51. as his fine on a bond fide renewal, according to the pre- sent practice, he accepted I/. per annum .instead of it. What, then, did the bill upon the table propose to effect? To give the Bishops power to grant leases in perpetuity instead of for the term of twenty-one years, renewable upon the payment of a fine. If afterwards a tenant wished to sell his estate, it would be much more valuable with a lease in perpetuity than for twenty-one years; and of this increased value the State was to avail itself. In what possible sense could it be contended that the difference in value between a twenty-one years' lease and a perpetuity was part of the property of the Church? It was exactly analo- gous to the case of a copyhold under the lord of the manor. The State was the lord, the Bishop the copyholder ; and any improvement made by the lord for which the immediate tenant was ready to pay, could not be the prrp Improve-

ment of the Bishop. The Legislature had the right to make the change for 15e of the estate, and no injustice was done to any party if the tenant were called upon to pay for it.

The reduction of the number of the Bishoprics was suggested by the Primate of Ireland himself; who recommended that ten Bishoprics should be done away with, as the best mode of furnishing funds to meet the deficiency occasioned by the abolition of the Church ('ess. The Bishops in Ireland were not overburdened with work. In the diocese of Haphoe, there were 34 benefices ; in Dromore, 27 ; in Clogher, 45 ; in Kildare, 53; in Ossory, 62; in Waterford,. 66; in Cork, 93; in Clonfert, 31; in Elphin, 37 ; in Killala, 30. Now there were between 1,100 and 1,200 benefices in the diocese of Exeter, and in the diocese of Chester as many as in all Ireland put together. In England there were twenty-six Bishops and 12,000 livings, while there were ten Bishops in Ireland to between 1,100 and 1,200 livings only. He objected to the plan of equalizing the revenues of the Bishops. It would be making them alterable annually at the discretion of Parliament,—a new prin- ciple, of which he strongly disapproved. He considered that the at- tacks which had been made upon the details of the bill as very trifling, and unworthy serious attention : and said that the risk of doing nothing for the Church would be a hundredfold greater than any hazard which attached to the present change.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that in one respect the bill was less objec- tionable now than when it was first introduced. The power of the Bishop. to suspend the performance of divine service in any parish where it had been discontinued for three years was omitted.

Mr. STANLEY said, it was merely an error in printing the bill.

Sir ROBERT IN'GLIS continued. He did not attach much importance to the clause. The bill itself he objected to from the crown of its bead to the sole of its foot—from the turret to the foundation—from the title at the beginning of the bill to the schedules at the end of it. He considered that the consolidation of the Bishoprics was a breach of the Coronation Oath ; that the abolition of the Vestry Cess would merely put more money into the hands of the landlord ; that to impose a tax in lieu of first fruits, which in many vicarages and rectories were not paid at present, was highly unjust ; that the measure, moreover, had not conciliated the friends, nor diminished the enemies of the Church, in the slighest degree.

Mr. ROBERT GRANT denied that the principle of this measure was a novel one, as far as regarded the consolidation of the Bishoprics, which was so much objected to. Italy, Spain, Germany, and even Ireland itself, afforded instances of the same thing being done. It was a suffi- cient answer to most of the objections which had been raised to this measure, to say, that the greater portion of the Irish being Catholics, the Protestant Church establishment was much too large. With re- gard to the Church Cess, it was a small but a most invidious tax.. If it was Church property, it was of such a description as to injure its possessor; and therefore it was the duty of Parliament, as guardians of the Church, to do away with it. He concluded by saying, that it was a most monstrous thing to keep up a large Church establishment, not for the sake of religion, but for the sake of its temporalities.

Sir ROBERT PEEL approved of that part of the bill which went to redress abuse : for reform was wanted in the Irish Church. He ap- proved of the abolition of the Vestry Cess ; although he admitted that it would benefit the landlords. He thought that the poorer clergy ought not to be taxed for the repairing and building of churches ; and objected to this system of a graduated property-tax, which the bill would sanction. He differed from Sir Robert Inglis as to the altera- tion in the number of Bishoprics being a violation of the Coronation Oath ; but was sorry to see that three of the largest cities in Ireland, --Cork, Waterford, and Kilkenny,—would be left without a resident Bishop. He concluded by expressing his decided opinion that the right to Church property ought to be on the same footing as private property; and by denying that the improved value of Church property should be appropriated to the service of the State.

Lord ALTHORP said that Church property differed essentially from private property. The Clergy obtained it not by the inheritable, pur. .chasable, or otherwise acquirable rights to corporation property, but by the arbitrary choice of the Crown, or of certain individuals. Lord Althorp defended the other parts of the measure at some length ; but was almost inaudible, owing to the noise which prevailed in the House.

Colonel CoNOLLY attempted to address the House, without success.

Lord SANDON stated his objections to the appropriation of Church property by the State. He generally approved of the measure. Several members--among whom were Mr. D. ROCHE, Mr. LEFROY, and Lord CASTLEREAGH attempted to speak; but the noise and laughter was so loud that they could not proceed.

At length the House divided: for Mr. Shaw's amendment, 78; againstit, 317; Ministerial majority, 239. The bill was then read a second time.

2. A.RMY ESTIMATES. On Friday, in a Committee of Supply, Mr. ELLICE brought forward the remainder of the Estimates for the Army. First, he moved that 110,835/. be granted for the payment of the General Staff Officers and Officers for Hospitals, from 1st April 1833 to 31st March 1834.

Mr. Hume referred to some disputes between the Governor of Jer- sey and the Legislature of that island, and asked for information re- specting them.

Mr. G. Lama thought that, in a discussion on the Army Estimates, it was very singular that such a question should be introduced. He was ready, however, to say, that the States of Jersey had made a law, or passed a gelation, which had been declared illegal by the Law Officers of the island. The Governor had nothing to do but to execute the decree of the Privy Council.

The vote was agreed to.

The next vote was for 94,6271. for the principal officers of the several public departments, their clerks and contingent expenses connected with the Army.

Mr. HUME complained of the expense of the Paymaster's Office, 19,0001. which he said was of no use whatever. He expected that the Reforming Paymaster would have come down, and stated that his office was useless. The whole plan only went to multiply useless checks. He would recommend the abolition of the office of Paymaster, and the consolidation of the Pay-offices. Lord Joum RUSSELL denied that it. would be wise economy to abolish the office of Paymaster either for the Army or Navy. He admitted that many reductions were necessary. Mr. HUME asked Lord John Russell, why, if he said the thing eay/et to be done, it was not done ?

Mr. ELLICE hoped that in another session something would be done. He then moved for a grant of 15,7031. 19s. for the Royal Military

Asylum, and Hibernian Military School. By the reduction of Adju-

tants, Sergeants, and 200 boys, a saving of 3,375/. had been effected. Mr. HUME thought the establishment ought to be put down at once. Mr. ELLICE said, that it could not be reduced at once, but he would

do all he could.

On the motion that a sum of 103,3181. be granted for the Volunteer Corps of the United Kingdom,

Mr. 0' CONNELL remarked, that he admired calling people who served for pay, volunteers. Several Members objected to this vote; and Mr. ELLICE said he would inquire into the subject with a view to reduction. Mr. FENTON said, the Yeomanry were necessary at Huddersfield, for the operatives there last winter had made some unpleasant demon- strations : for instance, they had gutted his house. Mr. 0' CONNELL, Mr. O'CONNOR, Lord A. CHICHESTER, and Colonel PERCEVAL, made some brief remarks respecting the Irish Yeomanry. Mr. ELLICE said, that with respect to the vote of 2,000/. for the Huddersfield corps, he would give it up, if Mr. Hume insisted upon it as unnecessary, after hearing what Captain Fenton had said. Mr. HUME had no objection to people keeping up as many of these military bodies as they liked,—all he objected to was paying for them. The Committee divided: for the reduction of the Huddersfield corps, 53; against it, 205; Ministerial majority, 152.

Several other votes were then agreed to, without discussion ; the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

3. DUTCH EMBARGO. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, on Friday, when the motion that the House should go into a Committee of Supply was put, moved as an amendment, for an account of all vessels detained under the Order in Council of the 5th of November last, laying an embargo on Dutch vessels in our ports ; also for copies of all applications that had been made to the Privy Council for the release of such vessels. He supported his motion, in a speech of considerable length ; dwelling upon the injury which the merchants of this country sustained from the policy of Ministers towards Holland. The injury was much greater to England than to Holland, whose merchants evaded the Order in Council by trading under the Hanoverian and other flags. He had petitions from South Shields, Sunderland, and Newcastle, complaining of the injury inflicted upon them by the embargo. In 1832, the number of British vessels engaged in the trelde to Holland was 1,617 ; tonnage 179, 488. Every ton of this was now idle. There was also consider- able alarm and inconvenience felt in the East Indies, lest the Dutch should make reprisals on our vessels at Batavia. In point of fact, many of the cargoes which we had seized belonged to English capi- talists, or were insured in England ; and not one commercial failure had occurred in Holland in consequence of our measures.

Mr. YOUNG seconded the motion ; and expressed his general con- currence with what had faller. from Alderman Thompson.

Lord P AIME RSTON would not object to give the returns moved for. He admitted that considerable inconvenience must necessarily arise from the embargo ; though Alderman Thompson proved too much when he said that the Dutch did not suffer from it, and that we did. If the Dutch nullified its effects by coming into our ports under the neutral flags, of course so far its effects were nullified for the English also, whose manufactures they took back with them. He defended the embargo, upon the ground, that the obstinacy of the King of Holland rendered it necessary to adopt some measure of coercion to bring him to terms. France and England had adopted an embargo in preference to a war. He declined going into the general subject of our negotiatio7!c with respect to the Belgic question ; and referred the House for infor- mation to the papers on the table. As for the loss said to be sustained by British insurers, it was illegal in them to insure the vessels of a country against which we had proclaimed an embargo, and they ought to sustain the loss arising from such violations of the law. Mr. LYALL understood that we were not at war with Holland ; so that Lord Palmerston's doctrine with respect to insurances was incor- rect. He expressed his compassionate sympathy for the sufferings of our ancient ally. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL (Solicitor-General) said, that underwriters were not liable, whether the policies were effected before or after the embargo. He reminded .Mr. Lyall, that when Holland was our ally, she was at the head of the friends of freedom ; now she had leagued herself with the Holy Alliance, whose object was to.put down freedom all over the world.

Mr. BARING contended, that in consequence of the foreign policy of Ministers, the British shipping trade was in a state of universal de-

terioration. The effect of the pending negotiations was felt in the

Mediterranean, in the Brazils, in the Pacific Ocean—everywhere we suffered from it. He wished that Lord Palmerston had condescended to give some more explanation respecting the real state of this Belgic question. He had certainly read his .protocols,—not every Word of

them, for they were intolerably tedious; not even Lord Palmerston's pen could enliven so dull a subject. He concluded by expressing his

surprise at hearing it said that insurances of vessels under embargo were illegal, and could not be recovered in a court of justice : certainly, in point of honour, evk underwriter considered himself liable—for all practical commercial purposes he was liable.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the foreign policy of Ministers. As to protocols, if the neutrality of Belgium and the peace of Europe could be preserved, even though it were at the expense of two hundred and fifty protocols, it would be a glorious triumph.

Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that the embargo was an efficient instru- ment for the purpose for which it was laid on. It was called a miti- gated -peeks of hostility ; but there were circumstances in which an actual declaration of war would be attended with more mitigated conse- quences. If it were the intention of Government to injure the trade of Holland, however, in this instance the embargo had fail to do so. They had not injured Holland,—they had only excited a deep feeling of re- sistance in that country, and the strongest sympathy with the sufferers in this.

Mr. Honosow complained of the injury which the coal trade had ex- perienced from the embargo.

Dr. LUSHINGTON defended the laying on of the "embargo ; and re- marked, that he had known Mr. Baring entertain successively almost every opinion promulgated in Parliament, and arrive at a doubt at last.

Lord GEORGE BENTINCE said, that three fourths of the trade to Holland was carried on in British bottoms, and the other fourth in Dutch bottoms. The effect of the embargo consequently was to injure British trade threefold.

Mr. POLLOCK said, that embargoes had always been used as instru- ments of war, and not as instruments in the hands of a minister to for- ward negotiations. The laying on of an embargo in time of peace was illegal, without precedent, and wrong.

Sir ROBERT ImGLis asked Lord Althorp, whether the King of Hol- land had or had not agreed to recognize the independence of Belgium ? Lord ALTHORP replied, that the King of Holland had agreed to re- cognize the independence of Belgium, but only on such conditions as would render it impossible that it could be maintained. He contended that it was the policy of this country to continue the embargo ; but at the same time, to expedite the negotiations as much as possible. Mr. ROBINSON could see no prospect of a speedy settlement of this business. The motion was not brought forward to embarrass Govern- ment. There never was a Ministry to whom so much forbearance had been shown as to the present. He thought it would have been much better if the embargo had never been laid on. The conduct of the King of Holland stood in the most honourable light.

The motion was then agreed to.

4. AFFAIRS OF THE EAST. Mr. HUME, on Friday, moved an bumble address to the Throne, to lay before the House the names of persons who had been Ambassadors at Constantinople since the 1st of June 1827. His object was to afford Lord Palmerston an opportunity of giving the House and the country some explanation of the policy of Government with respect to the Turkish affairs. He thought that there had been a most apparent want of judgment or management in the negotiations carried on there.

Lord PALMERSTON' opposed the motion. Sir Robert Gordon was our Ambassador at Constantinople up to a late period ; but he returned to this country last year. Sir Stratford Canning was afterwards sent on a special mission respecting the very important question of settling the boundaries of Greece. Lord Ponsonby had been subsequently appointed; he was probably now at his post, and would have been there before, but that he found it difficult to obtain the means of transport. But there had always been at Constantinople a Secretary of Embassy, who had acted with great judgment and discretion, and whose conduct had met with the perfect approbation of his Majesty's Government.

He had been called to account by Mr. Baring for excessive meddling, and now he was rated by Mr. Hume for not meddling enough in the affairs of Europe. When the proper time came, he was confident that he should he able to satisfy the House that Ministers had not been unmindful of their duty with respect to the affairs of the East. Mr. BARING, Mr. H. BULWER, and Colonel DAVIES, spoke a few words ; and Mr. HUME withdrew his motion, observing at the same time, that Lord Palmerston's answer was not in the least satisfactory.

5. CROWN LANDS. Lords ALTHORP, on Tuesday, moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the management of the Woods and Forests, and the revenues arising therefrom. He was of opinion that it would appear that the value of the Crown lands was greatly exaggerated.

Mr. HARVEY said, that he had applied himself very particularly to the subject before the House. He was much pleased that the Com- mittee was to be appointed ; the only subject of regret was, that as the King had made the surrender of this property a prominent topic of his speech two years and a half ago, the Committee had not been appointed sooner. • He firmly believed that the property was of great value, though the Aristocracy i bad considerably diminished its amount since it was surrendered to the People by George the Third. He did not hesitate to say, that some of the noblest por- tions of this property had been obtained by some of the first families in the kingdom, for very suspicious consideration. It would afford some idea of the extent of this property to state, that the sum received as rental from 1795 to 1806 was 2,374,3211., of which only 8,6841. found its way into the public Ex- chequer; and from 1826 to 1829, the sum received was 1,500,0001., of which not a single shilling had come into the Exchequer. This property ought to be made available for the public service ; and in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to the repeal of the Malt-duty, he had recommended him to go into the City and raise five or six millions on the Crown lands. He also thought it would be advisable to issue from 10,000,0001. to 15,000,000/. of notes, to be called the Crown Land Notes, to be received in payment for taxes, and not convertibld into gold at all. This would be a circulating medium based on real property; and he really thought the experiment was worth trying.

He considered the Crown lands were worth fifteen millions sterling; and the cost of collecting the revenue arising from them was twenty per cent. He thought the Committee would do little good, and that a Commission should be appointed.

Mr. HUME said that the Crown lands in Scotland wanted investiga- tion.

Lord DUNCANNON said, that if experience should prove that a Com- mittee could not sufficiently investigate the subject, be would not ob- ject to the appointment of a Commission. He accounted for the money received as rent not having been paid into the Exchequer, by the circumstance that it went to discharge a debt which was fixed upon the Crown land department. Only 100,000/. of that debt now remained, and it. would be paid off in the course of the present year. Mr. Harvey was incorrect as to the expense of collecting this revenue ; it was only ten per cent.

Mr. COBBETT disapproved of the appropriation of a portion of the revenue arising from Crown lands to the building and beautifying of streets in London, with the view of attracting a crowd of idlers to the Metropolis, when it ought to be the object of Government to keep them away. He believed that in many instances, people had acquired estates out of the Crown lands without paying a farthing for them. He hoped that no respect would be shown to persons, but that the in- quiry would be impartially conducted. The manner in which this portion of the public property bad been dealt with was really shameful. He was born on the skirts of a Royal forest on the borders of Hampshire; and some time when Mr. Huskisson was Commissioner of Woods and Forests, or something of that kind, this forest was cut down ; and although the timber covered 1,000 acres of land, the Government, instead of gaining any thing by the transaction, incurred a debt. This reminded him of the doings of Lord Peterborough's steward, who knocked down his master's house and sold the materials, and then sent in his bill for repairs.

Lord DUNCANNON, in reply to a question from Mr. HUME, said that the Dutchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were not to be included in the inquiry.

Mr. HARVEY said, he would move for the appointment of a Com- mittee relative to these Dutchies.

The Committee proposed by Lord Althorp was then appointed.

6. CRIMINAL LAW. The Duke of Sussex, on Tuesday, presented a petition, agreed to at a meeting at Exeter Hall, and signed by 5,330 persons, for a reform of the criminal law. He said that he was con- vinced that great care should be taken in diminishing the number of offences which rendered the guilty liable to capital punishments. He wished the subject to be carefully examined.

Lord LYNDHURST spoke strongly in disapproval of the act of last session, by which the Judge is not allowed to use his discretion as to the amount of punishment to be inflicted upon offenders, who, pre- viously to the passage of that act were liable to capital punishment. Now, transportation for life is the only sentence which the Judge is allowed to pass. The consequences of that act had been very bad. To enforce it in twenty-nine cases out of thirty, was a harsh and un- justifiable administration of the criminal law. Suppose a man tried for stealing 5/. in a dwellinghouse, and found guilty, it was imperative on the Judge to sentence him to transportation for life ; and the sentence, as the returns showed, was sure to be carried into effect. The next person might be tried for breaking and entering and stealing; that was a capital offence ; and if he were found guilty, the Judge might sentence him to one year's imprisonment and to hard labour. The punishment, then, for the inferior offence, was transportation for life, and for the capital offence one year's impri- sonment. This was an anomaly in the law which ought not to be suffered to exist.

He hoped that Lord Melbourne would bring in a bill to alter it. The clause he so strongly objected to was not in the bill as originally framed ; but was ihtroduced as an amendment in the House of Peers, and very reluctantly acceded to by the Commons, from the fear of the bill being rejected altogether if that clause were rejected.

Lord MELBOURNE said, that if there had been a harsh and unjustifi- able administration of the law, it was his fault ; for it was his province to advise that the severity of the law should be mitigated, when it was proper that it should be so mitigated. He always attended to the re- commendation of the Judge for the commutation of punishment. He reminded Lord Lyndhurst, that he ought not to condemn the system until it had been fairly tried. Lord LYNDHURST replied, that under the present system the Judge could not interfere to any proper extent or effect. The end which he desired would be attained if the Judges were instructed to send in every calendar to the Secretary of State with the alteration in the sentences which they recommended, marked upon the margin. Lord BROUGHAM agreed, that Lord Lyndhurst's suggestion would, if adopted, answer every end. He hoped that such, before long, would be the instructions sent to the Judges.

7. POLICE OFFICE BILL. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on this bill, on Wednesday, Mr. PEASE moved a clause, to enable the Magistrates to put down, by a summary proceeding, places where rat-hunting, bear-baiting, and other sports of that kind were car- ried on.

Mr. LAMB admitted that the sports alluded to were cruel; but he saw no more propriety in interfering with the sports of the poor than with the sports of the rich. He opposed the clause. A conversation ensued, in which Mr. LENNARD, Mr. HILL, Mr. JOHN ROMILLY, and. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL took part.

The Committee then divided ; and Mr. Pease's clause was rejected by 46 to 42.

The other clauses of the bill were then gone through, and the report was ordered to be received on Thursday.

8. REGISTRY BILL. Mr. WILLIAM BROUGHAM, on Wednesday, obtained leave to reintroduce the bill for the general registration of deeds, which was originally brought forward by Sir John Campbell. Mr. STRICKLAND observed, that this was one of the greatjobs of which the Law Commission had been the prolific parent—a job which would cost 500,0001. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, only 20,0001. Mr. STRICKLAND said, he had understood that one side of Lincoln's Inn was to be purl_ chased for a site for the building. The conversation here dropped.

9. P004 LAWS FOS ISSLANIA The Puke of Sum; on WOW% presented a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and ten citizens of London, in favour of establishing a system of Poor-laws for Ireland. The Duke of HAMILTON strongly supported the prayer of this peti- tion. Tbe expense of maintaining the Irish paupers was a heavy bur- den in Scotland. In the county of Lanark alone, he believed that there were 40,000 destitute Irish. He did not wish to wound the feel- ings of Irish noblemen, but he must say that the Irish who emigrated were the most destitute beings he had ever beheld.

The Earl of WICKLOW said, that the people were constantly excited by the writers for the periodical press ; who were always trumping up lamentable accounts of the state of Ireland, and of daily and nightly outrages. There never was any complaint of the influx of Irish la- bburers in harvest-time, when the English firers derived so much benefit from their labours.

The Earl of Hanonaerou concurred with the Duke of Hamilton in his remarks respecting the injury inflicted on Scotland by the influx of Irish paupers.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, the Irish might lower the price of labour, but they worked like other people, and were as fully entitled to relief as any Scotchman born.

IO. IRISH VAGRANTS. Mr. R. PALMER, on Tuesday, moved fora Select Committee to inquire into the law relative to the passi rig of Irish vagrants, with a view to its amendment. From a return of the numbers and expenses of Irish paupers passing to their own country through different counties for the last five years, it appeared that the numbers had increased ; and that the expense in Berkshire had been 8551., in Wiltshire 1,0001., in Gloucestershire 1,2851., in Warwickshire 9581., in Lancashire 1,689/. This was a serious business, and he hoped that Government would take it into consideration.

Lord ALTHORP acceded to the appointment of the Committee, but would not pledge himself as to the course which he should afterwards pursue.

Mr. COBI3ETT hoped that the House would recollect, that these Irish paupers could get no food at home, although their country fur- nished Yorkshire and Lancashire with large quantities of provisions. The burden of passing these paupers did not fall principally upon the counties. He believed that the parish of Kensington, containing 14,000 persons, paid more for that purpose than the whole county of Berks.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. EWART, Lord SANDON, Colonel WOOD, Lord DUNCANNON, and Mr. SLANEY, each spoke a few words in ap- probation of the appointment of the Committee.

Mr. O'CONNELL, said, they would find Ireland come on them again and again in every shape, until something was done to identify the pro- prietors of the soil with the residents upon it.

The great evil was, that so many of the proprietors of Irish soil resided else- where. Where the proprietor of the soil in Ireland was an Englishman, and lived in England, it must be enacted either that his Irish estates should go to his second son, or that his eldest son should he compelled to sell them. But why propose Poor-laws, in order to give the people employment? That appeared to him to be a most extravagant proposition. He could understand Poor-laws for the purpose of giving the people food ; but the moment they attempted thus to give the people employment, they would interfere with the wages of labour, and derange the machine of society. Such a plan would soon exhaust the wealth of England. Why, England already paid eight millions—half the amount of her establishments, from the highest to the lowest—to support her poor ; and those who looked at the Report of the Commissioners on the subject, might see how little happiness or comfort that large expenditure produced.

He did not object to the proposed inquiry; but was certain that the object aimed at by it would not be attained.

The motion was then agreed to, and a Committe appointed.

11. IRISH SECRETARY. In reply to a question from Colonel PER- CEVAL, last night, Lord ALTHORP stated, that great difficulty had been found in filling up the vacant post of Irish Secretary. In the mean time, all communications on the business of Ireland should be sent to the Home Office, where they would meet with attention.

12. PRIVY COUNCIL BILL. This bill, the object of which is to im- prove the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council, was read a second time on Wednesday, on the motion of Sir J. CAMPBELL, Solicitor- .General.

13. SAILOR'S PENSIONS. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, on Wednesday, in presenting a petition against the Gravesend Pier Bill, mentioned the ease of a sailor who had successively lost both his eyes in the service, besides receiving six wounds ; and yet this man had been rewarded with a pension of only sixpence per day.

11 that were the way the Admiralty remunerated the disabled servants of the country, he thought it was high time to inquire into all other classes of pensions. If the Government could not afford to reward such men as these, let the same course be adopted without distinction of persons, and he would for one willingly serve his country for nothing. The sailor was forced into the service, and after having been deprived of the use of his limbs, was forced to accept a bounty of as many shillings as the soldier got pounds.

The SPEAKER said, that a discussion on the subject of pensions, upon the presentation of a petition against the Gravesend Pier Bill, was out of order.

Captain ELLIOTT said, that the sailor alluded to by Sir E. Codrington had been sent to the hospital, in the hope that his sight might be restored to him.

14. LORD DUNGLASS'S PENSION. Mr. HUME, on Wednesday moved

" That a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to issue a commission to the Law Officers of the Crown to inquire into the validity, of the appointment of Lord Dunglass as Chamber- lain of Ettrick Forest, and into his right to that office subsequent to the death of George the Fourth."

His main object was to bring strikingly before the House and the public, those instances of unmerited pensions and costly sinecures by which this country had been so long abused and impoverished.

The House and the public were, perhaps, not prepared to hear that the offices of Justices in Eyre, two in number—perfect sinecures, in the possession of noble families—had cost the country since its institution, in 1696, nearly fifty millions of money, the receipts being 45,923,2001. in a hundred and twenty-five years. Theo ;here was the pension of Speaker Onalow, which cost the country 16,3001. ; the interest of which, for the period he and his son enjoyed it, would make a sum of 373,000/. of the public money for one pension. In 1792, a sine- cure office was given to Lord Home, which, though only 276/. 10s. per annum, cost the public 36,360/., he having received it for twenty-two years. The son of that Lord Home enjoyed another'sinecure, the exposure of which was an oh- k.et of the present motion. The chief business of the Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland was the disbursement and management of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in that country. On looking into the items of that disbursement, be found Lord Dunglass was set down 3001. a year as " Chamberlain of Ettrick Forest." Now it was attempted to be represented that that salary was a re- duced one, from 5001. to 3001. ; whereas the fact was, the original salary of the office was 500 "ponds Scotch,"—that is, 81. 12s. sterling; so that, in point of fret, so far from it being a reduced salary, the noble lord was receiving 300/. when all he was entitled to was 81. 12s. As the Sovereign had no right over the hereditary income of the Crown beyond his own life, he had no right to grant this office to Lord Dunglass for the term of Lord Douglass's 1.ife ; tor, if Lord Dunglass's life extended beyond the period of the Sovereign's who made the grant, it was evident that his holding it after that Sovereign's demise inter- fered with the rights of the individual who succeeded to the Crown.

A Member seconded the motion ; and observed, that the appoint- ment made by the present Ministry of a Governor to Berwick Castle, where there was only one gun, and that honeycombed, had caused great dissatisfaction.

Mr. JEFFREY ( Lord Advocate) believed that the grant of the pen- sion to Lord Dunglass was illegal ; but he thought that no decision ought to be made on the subject in Lord Dunglass's absence.

He was therefore of opinion, that the best plan which the House could follow would be the adoption of the motion of Mr. Hume. It was certainly a curious thing to give Lord Dunglass 800/. a year for the collection of rents which did not amount to more than 230/. a year. It was unfortunate for him that this appointment of 300/. a year had not been a pension upon the Scotch Pension- list; for in that case, he might have continued to hold it, inasmuch as the pensions on that list, which he thought expired with the Sovereign, had been continued by the liberality of Parliament.

The motion was then agreed to.

15. COTTON DUTIES. Lord AUCKLAND, on Thursday, moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the bill for reducing the duty on cotton.

Lord ELLENBOROUGLI was glad the tax was reduced. He had pointed out to Ministers, when this additional tax was laid on, the impolicy of extending it to East India cotton. In consequence, the quantity of cotton imported from India had considerably increased. He also ad- verted to the small surplus revenue which Lord Althorp had retained, and said, that he bad no right to calculate upon any surplus for the next year. It was by a surplus revenue that former Ministers had kept tip the Funds and diminished the interest of the Debt.

The Earl of RIPON said, that in point of fact, the interest of the Debt had never been much reduced by the surplus revenue. It had been effected by the reduction of the rate of interest. Reduction was now going on by the conversion of perpetual into terminable annuities.

The bill then went through the Committee.

16. NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS. Lord ALTHORP, on Monday, when the House went into a Committee on the Stamp-duties Act, moved that a duty of Is. 6d. be imposed upon every newspaper adver- tisement, instead of the graduated duty proposed on bringing forward the Budget. Agreed to.

17. TILES DUTY Btu.. The bill for the reduction of the duty on tiles was read a second time in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

18. Soar DUTIES. Mr. LENNARD, last night, asked whether those persons who had a stock of soap on hand would have any allowance made them in consequence of the withdrawal of the drawback, on the alteration of the tax on that commodity? Lord ALTIIORP replied that they would not.

19. SAVINGS BANK ANNUITIES BILL. Lord ALTHORP, on Tues- day, postponed the third reading of this bill ; and in reply to a question from Mr. COBBETT, said, that he intended to omit the clause which re- quired a month's notice from depositors before they could withdraw their deposits.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD regarded the whole scheme of savings banks as a fraudulent delusion upon tne people. They bad answered no other purpose than to divert so much currency from productive industry. Mr. SLANEY was not surprised that the people should prefer deposit- ing their savings in the Public Funds to risking them with country bank- ers. They perhaps agreed with the observation made by Dr. Frank- lin, who said that an empty sack could not be well expected to stand up firm.

The bill was read a third time on Wednesday.

20. QUAKER'S AFFIRMATION. On Tuesday, when the Coleraine Election Committee came to the table to be sworn, the SPEAKER called the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Pease; and wished to know whether his affirmation was to be taken instead of an oath— whether the decision of the House, by which his affirmation was accepted on taking his seat, necessarily comprehended the duty to be performed by a member of a Select Committee under a special act of Parliament. This was the first time such a case had occurred. Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the affirmation of Mr. Pease should be ac- cepted. Having allowed him to make the affirmation on becoming a member of the House, it would be an absurd anomaly indeed if more were required of him to perform one of its incidental duties. Sir Ro- BERT PEEL, Lord ALTHORP, Mr. GODSON, and Mr. J. JERVIS, all thought that the affirmation might be received. This was accordingly done; and, at the suggestion of the Speaker, without the formality of putting Mr. O'Connell's motion, which was withdrawn.

Lord MORPETH, on Wednesday, obtained leave, which was granted unanimously, to bring in a bill to enable Quakers and Moravian to make an affirmation in all cases where an oath at present is required. He said that Quakers were now only subject to two disqualifications, owing to their indisposition to take oaths,—namely, holding offices under Government, and serving on Juries. With respect to the latter disqualification, however, though the law was imperative, yet there was an anomaly as regarded the prac- tice ; for Quakers were often called upon to serve as jurors, and often actually eat in the jury-box. In illustration of this, he cited a case which occurred at the Old Bailey, where a prisoner was arraigned for murder. A verdict of guilty was pronounced; but the Judge declined to receive the verdict, because, as it appeared, in consequence of a Quaker being on the Jury, twelve men had not been sworn. This information was considered fatal, and the prisoner was dis. charged. As Moravian had been coupled with Quakers in all the recent acts of Parliament, he also prolosed to include them in the present bill.

21. SLAVERY. Mr. BUXTON, on Monday, presented four hundred petitions for the immediate abolition of slavery, four of which were signed exclusively by females.

22. SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. The Earl of HADDINGTON, on, Tues- day inquired whether Ministers intended to act upon the report of, the Board of Visitors, who in 1830 had collected four volumes of evidence touching the state of the Scotch Universities? Lord MELBOURNE declined stating what the probable course of Ministers would be. The report embraced a complete alteration in the constitution, discipline, and course of study at those Universities.

23. BANK AND EAST INDIA CHARTERS. In reply to a question from Mr. BARING last night, Lord ALTHORP stated that he intended to bring forward the Bank question towards the end of next week ; and Mr. CHARLES GRANT said that he should mpst certainly bring forward the East India question in the course of the session, but could not fix any time, as the correspondence between the Company and the Govern- ment was still going on.

24. ST. LUKE'S POOR BILL. This bill, which reduces the qualifi- cation for Vestrymen from a residence in 30/. to a residence in 20/. houses, was read a second time on Wednesday, on the motion of Mr. HustE, by a majority of 55 to 21.

25. GLASGOW LOTTERY BILL. Sir ROBERT PEEL, On Monday, in reference to the mode in which this bill had been smuggled through the House, recommended the appointment of a Committee to examine all -bills that were introduced. Mr. SPRING RICE said that no one could have supposed that the bill could have been made use of for the purpose of a lottery.

26. DRAMATIC AUTHORS BILL. This bill was read a third time on Wednesday, and passed.

27. HIGH SHERIFF'S OFFICE BILL. This bill, the object of which is to charge the expences of High Sheriffs on the county-rates, was read a second time on Tuesday, on the motion of Mr. FYSHE PALMER. Sir R. VYVYAN moved that the House be counted ; and only 36 members being present, it adjourned.

28. LONDON AND GREENWICH RAILWAY BILL. This bill, on Wed- nesday, was read a third time, on the motion of Mr. HODGES. Three new clauses were added to it, on the motion of Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE; and it then passed. It was read a second time in the Lords on Friday.

29. RAILWAY BILLS. The Royal assent was given by commission, on Monday, to the London and Birmingham and the Warrington rail- way bills.

30. STAFFORD BRIBERY BILL. The Earl of RADNOR, on Friday, moved the second reading of this bill.

Lord LYNDHURST said, it was clear that bribery to an immense ex- tent had been carried on in Stafford ; and that the candidates at the last and previous elections had been deeply implicated in it. He there- fore thought, that effective measures should be taken to prevent a re- currence of similar transactions. Ile would not oppose the second reading of the bill; but he had an observation to make in order to pre- pare the House for the consideration of a point of some consequence when the bill went into a Committee.

It appeared that the only proceeding which was now depending in the other House was an election petition under the Grenville Act, the proceedings under which were of a.judicial character, the conflicting parties having each a right to examine what witnesses they might think proper, or who might not be material to the particular interest in whose behalf they might be called, but merely called for the purpose of being indemnified under such a bill as the present from the consequences of the bribery he or they might have committed. This could not occur if the witness were examined at the bar of the House, and therefore it was an abuse ; which he was anxious if possible to prevent, by the insertion of some clause, shoiild the House think it right to pass the bill.

Lord WYNFORD said, the bill in its present shape would tend to en- courage, not to prevent bribery. He.would only indemnify those wit- nesses who were examined, and who gave material evidence. He would indemnify the poor wretches who took the bribes, if by so doing he could get at those who bribed them.

The bill was read a second time, after a few remarks from the Earl of RADNOR in reply.

31. LINLITHGOW ELECTION. The Committee reported, on the same day, that Sir Alexander Hope was duly elected.

32.. LINCOLN ELECTION. The Committee reported, on the same day, that Mr.. E. L. Bulwer was duly elected. The petitioner against the return was Colonel Sibthorpe.

33. SALISBURY ELECTION. The Committee, on Monday, reported that Mr. Wadham Wyndham was not, and that the Honourable Cap- tain Bouverie was, duly elected for this borough.

34: HERTFORD ELECTION. Mr. BERNAL moved, on Monday, that the issuing of a new writ for Hertford be postponed to Wednesday the 15th May.