Elebateg an Prereettingd in Parliament.

I. Basil CHURCH REFORM. On Monday, on the motion of Lord ALTHORP, the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was read a third time.

Mr. SHEIL moved an additional clause, by way of rider, the object of which was to reduce the incomes of all future Archbishops in Ireland to 4,500/. per annum, and of all future Bishops to 3,0001. per annum.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

Mr. STANLEY opposed it: the rider itself was not only objectionable, but would, if carried, make the bill in many parts grossly inconsistent.

Mr. A. JOHNSTONE would resist any motion emanating from a mem- ber of the Romish faith, which militated against the Archbishops, Bishops, and the Protestant Church in Ireland. He alluded then to Mr. O'ConnelPs strictures upon his conduct when on a former occa- sion he had remarked upon the oath taken by Catholic members.

Mr. O'CONNELL informed Mr. Johnstone for the last time, that he did not consider himself bound by his oath not to interfere in the tem- poralities of the Church. He would give Mr. Johnstone one piece of advice, and that was to take care of his own conscience, and leave him to take care of his.

Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed the introduction of the clause.

The motion was negatived, without a division.

Mr. SHEIL then moved to insert the follosvingwords in the preamble of the bill— "That the revenues of the Church of Ireland are properly under the control of the Legislature, and applicable to such purposes as will be most beneficial to the interests of religion and to the community at large, due regard being had to all persons having a present interest in them." His object in making this motion was to restore the principle declared in the 147th clause, which had been struck out of the bill. He called upon the members, now on the Ministerial, then upon the Opposition side of the House, who had voted with Mr. Hume in 1824, for a Com- mittee "to inquire if the revenues of the Church of Ireland were not more than commensurate to the necessities of that Church," to sup- port his motion. He quoted the opinion of Lord (then Mr.)• Brougham, which at that time was strongly expressed in favour of deal- ing with Church property as public property. He insisted upon the great importance which Ministers attached to the 147th clause when the measure was first introduced by Lord Althorp, and the delight and cheering with which his statement of the intent of that clause was re- ceived. He reminded the House that Ministers had taken good care. to carry the Coercion Bill before they hinted their intention to with- draw that clause, which involved the whole principle of Irish Church Reform ; and concluded by calling upon all those who had voted for the Coercion Bill upon the faith of Ministerial promises to grant real re- lief to the Irish nation, to vote for his motion.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He much regretted that what Ministers, when in Opposition, had the disposition to do, they now, when in power, had not the will to attempt. He really could not believe that his Majesty's Ministers had changed their opinions—opinions so honestly and fairly given. As to any thing like truckling to influence, they ought to spurn it : they ought never to think of yielding to those, who, when the occasion came, they might be sure would treat them as they deserve. (" Hear ! " and laughter.) If the Whigs in power were to be governed by Tories, he would rather have the Tories themselves ; for he did not like delegated power. Lord ALTHORP by no means recollected that when he stated the in- tent of the 147th clause there was very general cheering in the House ; or that it was honoured with any marked respect. He had been dis..

tinnily told by many, that the bill would be more acceptable without it. For his own part, he never did consider it one of the most important clauses ; and unless it were for the attainment of a measure of absolute importance, Government would act a verfunnecessary part in bringing the two Houses of Parliament into collision,

Colonel DAVIES was almost inclined to say, that if the principle of this clause were rejected, and a motion- were afterwards made to throw out the bill, he should support that motion with his vote.

Mr. -WARD, in allusion to the manner in which the announcement of the principle contained in the 147th clause had been received by the House, observed that,

Honourable members, and he among the rest, had received. what they deemed to be an assertion of the just powers of the State, in so marked a mariner—cheer- log it so as to draw down on the noble Lord the reproof of Sir Robert Peel—that they had at once leaped to a conclusion which, peidiaps, the Ministers had done their best to avoid, and indeed to disclaim ; but which they most readily, and joyfully adopted. They did this the more readily when they observed that Lay Commissioners si-ere to be appointed to administer funds proceeding from the Church. It was not wonderful, then, that the people had taken up their tone, and not being able, like themselves, to receive rapidly new lights upon any par- ticular subject, had not been capable of following them with equal speed in the change that had since occurred.

Mr. IV. PETER would vote against the motion, because he would rather give up a little to a friend than all to an enemy.

A division then took place : for the amendment, SG; against it, 177; Ministerial majority, 91.

Mr. 0' CONNELL moved an amendment to the clause which relates to the income of the Bishop of Derry. The present Irish incumbents were all exempted from taxation except the Bishop of Derry. This was an unfair exception, and he wished it to be erased. He owed a debt of gratitude to the Bishop, for perhaps without his aid he should not have had a seat in that House. This was his reason for making the proposition. He then moved the omission of certain words in the clause, to effect his object.

. Mr. STANLEY opposed the motion. The payment which the Bishop would receive for his vote in favour of Catholic emancipation would be derived from the peace and goodwill restored to Ireland, and not from an addition of 4,000/. per annum to his income.

Sir ROBERT PEEL felt nothing but respect for the Bishop of Derry, who had been appointed to his first see while he was Secretary of State ; but he would not consent to give him 4,000/. per annum because he had voted for the Roman Catholics. Besides, the Bishop was not con- sistent in his support of the Catholic claims ; for when Dean of St. Patrick's, he had signed a petition expressing decided hostility to them. He held the very petition in his hand ; and in it the Bishop prayed the House "to protect the Protestant religion against inveterate machi- nators," and many other similar expressions of hostility to Catholic emancipation.

Mr. 0' CONNELL said, there was neither candour nor the affectation of it in Sir Robert Peel's remarks. When the Bishop of Derry, then Dean of St. Patrick's, found that his signature had been affixed to a pe- tition against the Catholic claims, he published a letter in the news- papers, stating that the petition was laid before him in a darkened room, when he was just recovering from a typhus fever, and that he had signed it on the assurance that it had been drawn by Dr. Magee, and merely prayed protection of the rights of the Church.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that Mr. O'Connell should have had some ground for: knowing that he was acquainted with this fact, before he charged him with want of candour.

Mr. O' CONNELL said the facts had been published in the newspapers.

Sir ROBERT PEEL did not think himself bound to know or recollect all that the newspapers contained. The petition bad been put into his hand in the course of the evening; and had he recollected the facts men- tioned by Mr. O'Connell, he would not have omitted to state them.

Mr. O' CONNELL rejoined, that in future, perhaps Sir Robert would be more cautious from whom he received documents.

The amendment was negatived, without a division. The question was then put, that "the bill do pass." Mr. LEFROY and Mr. T. GLADSTONE opposed the motion. Colonel EVANS would make a single remark : The only reason Ministers gave for the withdrawal of the 147th clause was, that they dreaded a collision with the other House ; which fear did not appa- rently actuate them on elate occasion, when the affairs of Portugal were called in question. He would vote against the bill.

Mr. HUME and Mr. O' CONNELL would also vote against the bill. Mr. STANLEY said, he had been informed that gr. O'Connell had declared he *odd vote against the bill in order to encourage the Peers to reject it.

Mr. O'Cosnsmu. denied that he had said any thing of the kind, and did not believe that any person had told Mr. Stanley that he had. (" Order, order I")

Mr. D. W. HARVEY restated several objections to the bill, which Lord ALTHORP again defended.

The House then divided: for the bill, 274; against it, 94; Minis- terial majority, 180. So the bill passed.

On Tuesday, it was taken up to the House of Peers, by a deputa- tion from the Commons.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM asked Earl- Grey when he intended to move its first reading Ss Earl GREY said, he intended to follow the usual custom, and move that it be read a first time forthwith ; which he accordingly did. The Duke of Buctsitscnam wished to know, as this bill affected a prerogative of the Crown, whether Earl Grey was authorized by the King to introduce the bill. According to the order of the House, such bills could only be introduced on a direct message from his Majesty.

Earl GREY, as one of the King's responsible servants was prepared, as usual, to communicate his Majesty's- assent to the measure. The Duke of BrrettrxGnam said, that was not sufficient; a §pecial Message was necessary. The House was entitled to know whether the Head of the Church had consented to the spoliation of the Church. Earl GREY repeated, that he would take upon himself the responsi: bility of introducing the measure, and further than that he did not think it necessary for him to say. He then stated, in answer to a question from the Duke of CUMBERLAND, that ample time woulcd•be given for the consideration of the measure, and that he would fix the second reading for Monday next. The Duke of C UMBERLAND said, that there had been so much vacillation in the conduct of Ministers respecting this bill, and so many alterations in it, that he would defy any man to tell what its provisions now were.

The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed ; the second reading was also fixed for Monday the 15th.

In the course of the same evening, the Archbishop of DUBLIN pre- sented a petition from certain clergymen in his diocese, praying for some alterations in the bill, but not opposing it entirely. The Arch- bishop proceeded to make some remarks in reference to the assertion that the King would be restrained by his Coronation Oath from assent- ing to this measure. Now, this assertion conveyed a heavy charge against those who petitioned at all in favour of the measure ;because it might be said that they were willing that a bill should pass through Parliament, an assent to the provisions of which would not be consistent with his Majesty's solemn oath. The petitioners, how- ever, looked at this point precisely as he did. They were of opinion that the Coronation Oath affected the King in his executive, but not in his legislative capacity. That oath did not prevent him from assenting to any measure which was sanctioned by the other branches of the Legislature. If the oath were in- tended to affect one branch of the Legislature, the members of that and of the other House of Parliament ought to take a similar oath. He could not see why one portiois of the Legislature should be thus tied up, and not the others. Their ancestors had no such object in view ; and, in his opinion, if the oath were in- tended to operate in the way which had been contended for, their ancestors would have imposed it rather on the two Houses of Parliament than on the King,. If the oath only affected the King in his executive capacity, it was not necessary that the members of the two Houses should have such an oath administered to them ; but if it extended to the King's legislative capacity, then he could not see why the other two branches of the Legislature should not take a similar oath. They were in the habit of speaking of the three branches of the constitution; but if this oath bad the binding effect which some noble lords attributed to it, they would have four branches' —namely, King, Lords, Commons, ai.d Corona- tion Oath. The two Houses of Parliament and the King might feel that certain alterations in the law would be beneficial ; but vet, according to the doctrine which he was opposing, their ancestors, through the medium of this oath, might and would prevent the improvement. Now, as the grave had closed over them, there could lie no appeal to their judgment ; and, however absurd it was, the law, if this doctrine were maintained, must remain as it was.

The Earl of ELDON said, that -this was the first time he had ever heard a right reverend prelate assert that the members of both Houses of Parliament had taken a coronation oath. ("No, no 1" Mid laughter.) He would not discuss the subject then, but if what the Archbishop said was correct, there never was an oath which any man took which he might not escape from.

Earl GREY supported the Archhishop's'opinion respecting the oath. He felt that he was supported by the very best authorities that existed in the history of the country, when he asserted that the Coronation Oath applied to the executive and not to the legislative capacity of the King.

The Bishop of EXETER differed altogether from Earl Grey in his interpretation ; but he would reserve himself for the "unanswerable and irrefragable " argument on the subject, to Nwhich the Earl stood pledged.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND also totally differed from Earl Grey. He maintained that no measure more directly bore upon the Coronation Oath than the Irish Church Bill.

Earl GILEY--" That is the opinion of the illnstrious Duke—that is of an in- dividual member of this House. I, as another individual member, have only to say that illy opinion is directly opposite, and that I should be glad to hear the— I have no doubt convincing—argument of the illustrious Duke in support of his view."

The Duke of CUMBERLAND—" I refer the noble Earl to the 5th article of the Act of Union ; and I defy him to show that that article did not bind his Ma- jesty by his Coronation Oath against assenting to the present bill." Earl GREY—" I readily accept of the illustrious Duke's defiance. ( Cheers.) I can tell him, that I have looked at the 5th article of Union, and I have con- sidered its provisions, and those of the Coronation Oath, as carefully, with all due humility let me say it, as the illustrious Duke can have ; and, accepting his challenge I shall be prepared to show that the Coronation Oath can in no degree whatever prevent the King giving his assent—as I earnestly trust the decision of your Lordships will render necessary—to the Irish Church Bill."

The conversation was then discontinued.

On Thursday, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a petition, signed by the Archbishop and Clergy of Armagh, against the bill. He was the more anxious to draw the attention of the House to this peti- tion, because it had been said that the Archbishop of Armagh was fa- voumble to the measure, and had assisted in drawing up. some of the clauses. The petitioners stated that they would not oppose the reduc- tion of a certain number of bishoprics, the revenues of which should be applied to the diminution of the tax-upon the clergy, but they im- plored the House not to reduce them. to the extent contemplated by the bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition against the bill from the clergy of the diocese of Clogber. He said that he considered tke measure as utterly inconsistent with the policy of this country since the Reformation, but more especially since the Revolution. That polity was to support the Protestant religion in Ireland, as was shown most clearly in latter times, in the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and the Catholic Relief Bill. Yet now this measure was brought upon them : it was the necessary consequence of the measure of last year, which he should never cease to -deplore. This bill, moreover, could not receive the Royal assent, without a violation of the Coronation Oath. His Majesty swears that he will 'maintain inviolate all the prin- ciples and temporalities of the Church of Ireland ; therefore tbeixill before the house was diametrically opposed to the very spirit of the oath. At the proper time, he would .defy any man to show that his Majesty could by any possibility give lA consent to that bill. He could draw no distinction between the legislatile and executive authority of

the King, but thought an oath as binding in the one capacity as the other.

Earl GREY would be prepared at the proper time to prove that the bill deserved a very different character from what it had received from the Duke of Wellington ; who, it appeared, objected not only to the details, but to the pridtiple of it, and would therefore vote against its second reading. He had heard with much satisfaction the petition of the clergy of Armagh, which seemed to acknowledge the principle, though it objected to some details of the bill. He was much surprised to hear the Duke of Wellington's observations respecting the Coronation Oath; as he remembered the objections, now urged by the Duke, were urged quite as strongly against the Catholic Relief Bill, when he had the honour, with the concurrence, as he had supposed, of the Duke, of combating them. If the argument was inapplicable to the principle on which Catholic emancipation was passed, it was still more inappropri- ate, if possible, to the present measure—(" No, no ! "from the Duke of Cumberland.) Earl GREY—" I hope the noble Duke will have the decency_( Cries of" Order, order! "from the Opposition, and cheers front the Ministerial benches.) The illustrious Duke has a right to maintain his opinions on every measure, but because he differs with me—" Lord KENYON—" I call the noble Lord to order, and I ask your Lordships to say whether his language is decorous."

Earl GREY—" If the noble Lord wishes to take the opinion of the House on the subject, of course I must submit to that decision ; but I think that such interruptions when a person is speak- ing are unworthy of the noble Lord, and indecent towards the House. The Duke of CUMBERLAND said, there was no man in the House more unwilling to commit an act of indecency than himself; but if he were nOt allowed to call "No, no !" when he dissented from a propo- sition, while those who assented to it might cry " Hear, hear !" there was an end to all liberty of speech.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that he had certainly been guilty of recommending to his Majesty to give his consent, in his executive capacity, to the Catholic Relief Bill ; and he would not then discuss the point whether it was or was not contrary to the Coronation Oath. But he would venture the opinion, that the Irish Church Bill was con- trary to the uniform policy of the country and the Coronation Oath.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM repeated his opinion, already stated when the bill was brought in, that the measure was one of spoliation.

Earl GREY said, when the details came to be discussed, it would then be seen whether it was a measure of spoliation. He begged to annoance to the House, that he was authorized to declare his Majesty's formal consent that their Lordships should entertain and discuss the measure.

After a few remarks from the Earl of HARROWBY, the Duke of WELLINGTON, and the Duke of BucarNottor, the second reading of the bill was fixed for Wednesday next, instead of Monday ; to be com- mitted, should the second reading be carried, on the following Friday.

2. CALL OF THE HOUSE. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY gave notice on Friday, that "in consequence of what had passed in another place last night" [alluding to the opposition of the Lords to the Irish Church Temporalities Bill], he would on Monday next move for a call of the House on Thursday.

Mr. WYNN thought Sir John Wrottesley should state some grounds for his motion.

Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY replied, that he should be prepared to state those grounds on Monday.

3. LOCAL COURTS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, on Tuesday, moved the third reading of this bill. He made no speech on the occasion, but reserved himself for the reply.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read that day six months. He said that, instead of amending the adminis- tration of justice, which it professed to do, the bill did more, in his opinion, to disorganize society, than any single nieasure which could easily be imagined. He admitted that some reforms were necessary : perhaps more frequent circuits of the Judges would be advisable—there were now enough of Judges to go the circuit more frequently. But it was a strange way of giving cheap and speedy justice, to send men from the remote parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire to the county town for the settlement of their disputes. He doubted the utility of enabling people to settle their personal quarrels with attomies at their elbows : through the agency of such men, eternal litigation would be engendered. He denied that the bill would be a benefit to the poor man ; and affirmed that it was not called for, as the rights of property in the hands of both rich and poor were never better protected than at the present moment.

The Earl of HOSSE opposed, and the Earl of WICKLOW supported the amendment.

Lord LYNDHURST said, he would fairly and candidly state his objections to the bill. He had previously signified his intention to the Lord Chancellor to oppose it, while he thought it the measure of an indivi- dual; and he did not know that he ought to shrink from doing so now that he found Government had adopted it. He objected, in the first place to the great increase of patronage which it would confer upon the Lord Chancellor ; and although he was well aware that, personally, pa- tronage was not sought for by Lord Brougham, still the seals might fall into less scrupulous hands—into those of a man who, with equal talents, might possess less moderation, who might be indifferent to the institutions of his country, and desirous of being the founder of a new system, and of establishing his authority upon a more secure basis than the fleeting one of popular favour. Such a man, by means of the facilities offered by this bill, would be enabled to grasp a degree of power almost unlimited. The great expense it would involve was another objection to the measure. While the cost of the existing Courts of Westminster Hall did not exceed 100,000/. per annum, the expenditure occasioned by this bill would not be less than 150,000/. per annum. He quoted the opinion of Sir Matthew Hale, and of a writer in the Edinburgh Review—which, from similarity of style, might almost be supposed to be Lord Brougham's himself—against the esta- blishment of Local Courts : they had been tried and abandoned in the earlier periods of our history. He contended with much earnestness against the notion that this could fairly be called " the poor man's bill," as it had been styled in "a document " (meaning the Times newspaper) that he perused every morning at breakfast He denied that it esta- blished tribunals which resembled the courts fovea which the Assistant Barristers presided in Ireland. The effect of the measure would be to destroy the bar, which he conceived many of their Lordships were pecu- liarly bound to vindicate and protect. He asserted that the bill was emphatically a bill to oppress the poor, especially the poor debtor, who might be taken in judgment in the short period of six weeks from the commencement of a suit. He reminded their Lordships, that the wit- nesses who gave evidence to the Common Law Commissioners were wholesale tradesmen and bankers, not poor men. The result of the bill would be to transfer to badly-constructed local tribunals, all actions for libel, and for malicious trespasses—in short, all actions for personal torts ; for the jurisdiction of the Court extended to cases of the amount of 501., and in twelve out of fourteen cases of this kind, the verdicts were for less than .50/. It was incorrect to say that the bill followed the recom- mendation of the Commissioners : it did no such thing, for they recom- mended 20/. as the limit of its jurisdiction ; whereas the bill raised it to 50/. It would be easy to raise it to 100/. ; and thus the King's Bench would be ousted of nineteen twentieths of the causes which now came before it. Then again, the bill gave no means of redress to a man aggrieved by an un- just verdict. This was the effect of a bill propounded, after five years' deliberation, by the Lord Chancellor of England ! The Registrars—. the travelling companions of the Judges, by whom they were appointed —had the selection of the Juries ; from all interference in which, under our present system, the Judges were peremptorily excluded. There were many other objections to this measure which he could state, but his main and most weighty objection was, that it established local Judges to administer the law,—men who from their residence would become acquainted with every party, every witness, every juror—whose likings and dislikes, whose predilections and animosities, would have free play, or, what was almost as bad, would be liable to the suspicion of partiality. Lord Lyndhurst concluded by disclaiming every personal or party motive in opposing the bill, and declaring his decided assent to Lord Wharncliffe's amendment.

Lord PLUNKETT said, that much of Lord Lyndhurst's argument was applicable rather against the office of Lord Chancellor than against Local Courts. The latter, he begged to remind the House, were established in the country in former days ; and the system of Courts at Westminster Hall was introduced as an improvement upon them. Our ancestors had a right to make that change or improvement ; but we had certainly a right also to change the Courts of Westminster Hall, when we found that, from a change in the times, they did not answer the purpose for which they were instituted—that of administering im- partial and cheap justice. The main objection of Blackstone to a system of local judicature, was the permanent residence of the Judges. He himself thought that the bill might perhaps be improved in this respect ; but this was a matter of detail, and did not effect the main principle of the measure. As far as the system of local courts had been established in Ireland, its results were highly favourable ; it had succeeded as far as experience could go to establish a principle. Lord Lyndhurst evidently underrated the evils of the present system in this country, and overrated the dangers of the plan by which it was proposed to remedy those evils. Lord Plunkett dwelt at some length upon the very great expense incurred in the recovery of just debts in this country, and upon the consequent advantage it gave to the rich against the poor in this respect. The report of the Commissioners stated, that the expenses of recovering debts were, on the average, four times the amount of the debt recovered.

Lord WYNFORD objected to the amount of patronage conferred by the bill upon the Chancellor. He was sure that this patronage, con- nected with the other held by Lord Brougham, would confer upon him a degree of power inconsistent with the lives liberties, and property of the public. He had wished the operation of the bill to be limited to two counties ; but when the amendment which he proposed to that effect was rejected, he determined to vote against the bill. The mea- sure would be found to be impracticable, in less than three months. Local Courts had been tried in former times, and in modern times, and the due administration of justice in them was found to be impracticable. They existed in the Metropolis.

There were in it the Lord Mayor's Court, the Sheriffs;and the Palace Courts, in which actions under 20/. might be tried. Yet, though the gates of those

' Courts stood gaping wide no suitors could be tempted to enter scarcely; as was proved by the fact, that 300 cases that might be tried in those Courts were carried to the superior Courts. They were found to be expensive—that was the chief reason; and he appealed to Lord Brougham, whether by his bill the ex- pense of the inferior Courts, in regard to witnesses, would not be greater than they were at present in the other Courts.

If this bill passed, there was little probability that the bar would con- tinue respectable, or that justice would be well administered.

Lord BROUGHAM began his reply by disposing first of the strictures of Lord Wynford.

His noble and learned friend laboured under so considerable a degree of igno- rance upon the question which their Lordships had to consider—so great was his misapprehension not only of the principle of the measure—not only of any of its provisions—not only of the grounds upon which it was introduced—not

i

only of the arguments by which t was supported or assailed—not only of the very papers which he himself made use of—but of the provisions of his own bill—that it would only be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with'a very few observations indeed, in order to dispose of all that had fallen from him.

He certainly was very much struck with Lord Wynford's intellectual blindness on this subject, and his marvellous ignorance of the facts of the case.

For example, he had said that County Courts and Local Courts where every- where to be found—that there was hardly a county, city, or greit town, in which they were not to be found ; and yet they were so little beneficial, that no suitors were to be found—though their doors were gaping, suitors would not en- ter—they did not like the system. Within the limits, as it might be said, of the Metropolis, there were Palace Court, the Lord Mayor's Court in London, and the Court of the Sheriff of Middlesex ; and there are, as was well known, various Courts of a similar description elsewhere. Now it so happened that he held in his hand-returns from the Steward of the Palace Court, who was ap- pointed under the Lord Steward, and from those returns it appeared that in the year 1832 there were tried in that Court no fewer than NI causes, Lord Wy NFOI-" Was not that the number of writs issued?"

Lord BROUGHAM said he would presently favour Lord Wynfold with the num- ber of writs issued-921 was the number of the causes actually brought to trial

in a single year. What did their Lordships suppose was the actual number of writs? Only 7,100—( Great cheering and laughter)—only 7,100 in the Palace Court in one year; and those were the Local Courts of which his noble and learned friend told them the doors were gaping wide, and that no suitors would enter.

In Liverpool and Manchester, upwards of 20,000 cases were annually decided in these Local Courts. Throughout the country there were many Courts of the same description,—many of them certainly greatly in need of reform in the mode of operation. Wherever they were, how- ever, they were contently resorted to for their proximity and cheapness. Lord Brougham called the attention of the House to the strong sup- port which his measure received from the report of the Commissioners, men of the highest eminence and standing in the legal profession, and whose political bias was opposed to his own and that of his friends in the Government. He was now on his defence before the House. Be had been attacked by Lord Lyndhurst,—powerfully seconded by the knowledge and accuracy of Lord Wynford ! He admitted that there might be a theoretical objection to the residence of the Judges ; but this was the lesser of two evils, and, practically, any inconvenience thin could arise from this source was trifling compared with the benefits which the measure would confer. He did not apprehend much danger from the partiality of Judges acting under the scrutinizing eye of. a public, he would not say glaring, but frowning with suspicion on all men in office. Was there a town in England in which a Judge would be called upon to act, where there was not a newspaper ? (A laugh.) Some noble Lords were merry at this mention of newspapers, but he never knew a Judge who was not unwilling to expose himself to the censure of the press, however he might ajAct a disregard of newspapers. He was extremely surprised that Lord Wharncliffe, of all men, should suppose that local judges were liable to partiality or corruption. Were not the Magis- trates, whether acting as single Justices in their own parlours, or in Petty-Sessions, or in Quarter-Sessions, local Judges ? and was not Lord Wharncliffe distinguished as an able, discerning, and impartial Judge, in his capacity of Chairman of the Sessions in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he dwelt, and where both his political and per- sonal predilections whether of favour or enmity had full play? He was; and no suspicion of local interest or attachment had ever east a shadow of a shade over the brightness of his judicial career. Lord Brougham next applied himself to the misstatements of Lord Lyndhurst. To enliven a dull subject, he had soared into the regions of fiction—he would not say pleasant, but pure fiction ; and at last fell into a series of inaccuracies which would have done honour to the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

Lord WYNFORD rose, amidst loud cries of " Order !" and declared that he had submitted a long time with patience, but lie would not be held up to ridicule by any man. (Laughter and cheers.) Lord BROUGHAM said, be had, only charged him with inaccuracy. He hoped he would remember what Dean Swift said of persons who were laughed at.

Lord 1VINFORD desired that the Ilith Standing Order might be read. It was read accordingly, and was found to require-

" that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne"—(Lau6Itter and checrs)—that the speaker "should apply his answer without wrong to the person ; and that as nothing offensive ought to be spoken, so nothing ought to be ill taken"—(Immense ehre clog frwn all skies)—" that the party who speaks what offends shall presently make a fair explanation ; or if otherwise, that the House would sharply censure the offender, and call upon him to make fit tepara. tion or to give full satisfaction." (cheers and laughter.)

Lord BROUGHAM, after the confusion had subsided, assured the House that he would conform to the order—as explained by modern usage. He hoped that Lord Wynford would take nothing ill that was not offensively spoken, and he would avoid all "personal, sharp, and taxing speeches." He then showed the inaccuracy of Lord Lyndhurst's statement that the bill would occasion an expenditure of 150,000/. an- nually : the expense, in fact, as he proved by a calculation of the num- ber of offices and the salaries to be created under the bill, would not ex- ceed 60,000/. He then stated at considerable length the mode which he had adopted in disposing of his clerical and legal patronage ; and de- fended himself from the insinuation against his disinterestedness on this subject. He especially wished to remind their Lordships, that this Local Courts measure had been brought forward by him, when Lord Lyndhurst himself was Chancellor, and that it could not therefore have been propounded with a view to increase his own individual power or influence. He defended several details of the measure at length ; and declared that he would not believe, until convinced by their votes, that their Lordships intended to throw it out.

" I hear strange rumours of all kinds, in all quarters. Whispers fill the air. Every species of tale is borne on the winds. Nevertheless, I will not believe them until you, my Lords, convince me ; and even you can only convince me by coming to a vote, to refuse to pass this bill. 111y Lords, I am not here to flatter you. It does not belong to me. I neither give nor take flattery; I will neither be its victim nor its dispenser. I will tell your Lordships the plain truth ; which be it, as it may, the less palatable, is, at all events, the fairer and the more honest course. I will tell you plainly that, if your Lordships throw Out this bill, it will in no way relax any efforts of mine in favour of law reform; and whoever expects by it to damp or discourage me from prosecuting such measures as I think necessary to the safety of the country, the honour of Parlia- ment, and the good of the King's subjects, reckons without his host, and in me mistakes his man. (cheers.) But to say that I should feel no mortification— that I should be in no sense discouraged—that I should not to a certain extent despair—would be affecting a state of mind which I could not feel; for un- doubtedly, when I first took the office which I have the honour to hold, my great and primary motive was that I might have the means of using the official influence of my station to accomplish effectual and adequate, though cautious, safe, and judicious measures of the law reform. Therefore, although I shall continue to discharge my duty, and to propound measures of reform, they then, of .course, will be moderate—they then will lie inadequate, and applying to points of inferior importance; because it would be useless to propose what ex- perience would have shown to be impracticable. But such measures as there is a chance of getting your Lordships to accede to, I will propound. Within those limits I shall still be ready, although it be but half an inch of the way, to ac- company your Lordships. But, my Lords, I am not the only person whose ex- pectations will be disappointed by the rejection of this bill. It may be of little moment whether you damp my hopes, and dash the cup from my lips. But your country ,will be disapsoiuted. 1 perceive that that word has excited a smile, as I was certain it would, amongst a number of noble lords,—as if the most safe, and prudent, and dignified course that this House could possibly take, would be to disregard all such considerations, and not to care whether the hopesof your country are damped or no. ( Cries of " No, no !"from the Opposition.) Well, then, my Lords, it is untrue—you do care—you would regret to damp the hopes of year country—you do lament any step that would frustrate the expectations of the people. I heartily rejoice at it ; and, as I am confident that that is the frame of mind in which your Lordships now are, I am hound, on the intimation which your Lordships have just conveyed to me, to expect that you will not throw out a bill which brings home cheap justice to every man's door, and which, if you do reject, you tell this country, that, through this channel at least —and no other is pointed out—through this channel the hopes and expectations of the country are not to be realized." ( Cheers.)

TheGallery was then cleared for a division ' • when two divisions took place. The original question being " that this bill be now read a second," and an amendment " that this bill be read a second time this day six months," having been proposed, the first division took place upon the question " that the word proposed to be left out (viz. the word now) stand part of the question." Upon this the numbers were—Content : Present 81, Proxies 41, total 122 ; Not content : Present 81, Proxies .53, total 134 ; majority 12. The second division was upon the spies- tion " That this bill be a second time this day six months ;" and upon this the numbers were—Content : Present 68 ; Not content 73 ; majo- rity 5. So the bill is rejected. In the House of Commons on the same night, Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on Thursday he should move a resolution declaratory of the opinion of that House, that it was the duty of the Representatives o. the People to take immediate means for the establishment of Courts of Local Jurisdiction for the better administration of justice.

4. LAW REFORMS. Lord BROUGHAM, on Friday, in moving the committal of the Chancery Regulation Bill, said, that in order to se- cure unanimity, a clause which had been objected to was withdrawn- from the bill. That clause related to the system of taxation in the Court of Chancery, and the sworn clerks. Some important additions had been made to the bill, especially one for abolishing the office of Six Clerks ; who, during six months of the year, had nothing to do. It was proposed that no vacancies which occurred in that office should be filled up till the number of the clerks was reduced to two, and those two were to be retained only until Parliament should make other pro- visions on the subject. He also proposed to abolish the fees for copyists in the Master's Office, and gratuities to clerks ; also the payment of the Masters by salaries instead of by fees.

The House then went into Committee pro forma, after which the re- port was ordered to be considered on Monday.

Lord BROUGHAM then said, that the abolition of several other offices had been intended, the salaries of which amounted to 17,000/. ; but that in consequence of the rejection of the Local Courts Bill, no provision for the performance of the duties of these offices was made, and their abolition must therefore be postponed. There was, however, no rea- son for delay in bringing in one or two other important measures. The Ecclesiastical Courts in this country—the jurisdiction of some of which extended over large districts—were about three hundred in number; it Lead been suggested by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that their duties and jurisdiction should be extended to the Diocesim Courts but this was found to be inconvenient. He had thought that they might be transferred to the Judges to be appointed under the Local Courts Bill ;. of course that could not now be done. The object of the bill, then, which he now introduced, and in which were embodied nine other bills which lead been introduced into the House, was to abolish Peculiars, and give the jurisdiction to the Diocesan. He proposed also to deprive the Ecclesiastical Courts of all jurisdiction in criminal actions which were brought for brawling and profanation, and to make these acts punishable as a misdemeanor by the Judges of the Common Law Courts. There were other provisions relative to the punishment of clerks who had misbehaved, the dilapidation of churches, and the mode of proving wills. Lord Brougham again took occasion to deplore the loss of the Local Courts Bill; but said, that it would not prevent hini from carrying on improvements,.—if not so far as be could wish, still to such a length as their Lordships would be pleased to permit him. He then moved the first reading of the bill, the principal provi- sions of which he had just detailed.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER expressed his satisfaction at the mea- sure; the improvements it contained were not only important, but essential.

The bill was read a first time.

Lord BROUGHAM said, he had another bill to lay before their Lord- ships, which had likewise been delayed till the decision on the Local Courts Bill was ascertained. There were at present four Judges of the Insolvent Court who went the circuit ; during which time and the six weeks of vacation, the unfortunate debtors who wanted relief could obtain none. The Judges, moreover, only went two of the circuits, and more were wanted to go the others. As long as there was a chance of the Local Courts Bill becoming a law, he had not thought it necessary to bring forward the present measure ; but be now moved the first read-

ing of the bill to give a concurrent jurisdiction with the Judges of the Insolvent Court to the Judges of the Court of Review. He hoped this measure would only be temporary, and that the bill for the amend- ment of the law of debtor and creditor, now suspended, would be allowed to pass, and thus render it unnecessary.

This bill also was read a first time ; and

Lord Boot-Guam again rose to move that a Court of Appeal should

be instituted in the Court of Chancery, which might be resorted to by suitors in Chancery. The court would consist of the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Baron, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor, and another Judge to whom he would presently refer. He could say that no judge had ever sat in the Court of Exchequer who had given more sa- tisfaction than Lord Lyndhurst. He had given entire and universal satisfaction ; so that nearly as many entries had been made in that Court as in the King's Bench, and more than in the Common Pleas. This made the proposed measure necessary, as the business of that Court was pressing. The new Judge be had alluded to, he proposed should be the Chief Judge in Equity or in Chancery. By this means its ordinaryjudicial functions would be separated from the Great Seal ; but the Lord Chancellor would retain his political and ministerial ones,. and all his highest and most important functions. He %would still be the Judge of a Court of Appeal in that House and in the Privy Coun- and a Judge of .the Appeal Court of Chancery, but • the Chief Judge in Equity wouldshave the jurisdiction in cases of lunacy.

With respect to the salary of the additioaal Judge, it could be provided for without imposing any additional burden on the public. The salary of the Chief- Justim of the Court of King's Bench, which WiN formerly 10,000/. a year, had been reduced to 8,000/. The salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had been reduced to 7,000/. a year. Now, he thought that the salary of the Master of the Rolla on the resignation or death of the individual now holding it, should be reduced 7,000/. a year to the same amount as the Vice-Chau- cellor's. Here then would be a considerable saving. When it was proposed last year to fix the salary of the Lord Chancellor at 14,000/, he had stated his opi- Mon that 10,0001. a year was sufficient. But if this new Judge were appointed, the Chancellor's labours would be in some degree diminished, and he thought that 8,000L would be an ample salary. Here then would be sufficient to make up the salary of the new Judge.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, Lord Brougham should not forget, when he proposed lowering the salaries of Judges, that the emoluments of barristers were much higher than formerly. He could not approve of a system of economy which would deprive 'the country of the services of able and learned men.

Lord Bitouortast agreed that it was bad policy to pay the Judges inadequately. That part of the subject should receive his best at- tention.

The bill was then read a first time.

5. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT Buis Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, on Wednesday, that in consequence of the rejection of the Local Courts BM, he could not press this bill at present to a Committee ; because the Judges under the Local Courts Bill were to have carried some of its. provisions ioto effect. He hoped, however, to make an at rangement by which the Commissioners of Bankrupts might execute its provisions. The Committee on the bill was then postponed, to Wednesday next.

6. BURGLARY BILL. Mr. EWART, on Wednesday, moved the second mating of this bill.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL (the Solicitor-General), opposed it; but after r=e remarks from Mr. AGLIONBY and other menesa-s, it was agreed that it should be read a second time, and referred to a elect Committee.

7. ADMISSION OF STUDENTS TO THE BAR. Sir F. VINCENT pre- :cnted a petition, on Wednesday, from the Westminster attornies, com- plaining of the regulations whereby students were entered and called to to the bar, and praying for a Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the Benchers of the Inns of Court. A conversation arose on this sub- ject, in which Mr. PLIILLPOTTS, COlOilel EVANS, Mr. SHE IL, Llano, and Mr. HaavEv joined. All these gentlemen were in i:tvour of inquiry ; and, in allusion to the case of Mr. Harvey more especially, remarked upon the necessity- of its taking place, in order that the cha- racters of all concerned might be viedicated from suspicion of improper conduct and motives.

8. EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER. Mr. CESA:ILES GRANT, on Wednesday moved the second reading of the East India Comiamy's Charter Bill.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM moved as an amendment, that a sin■rt 11:17 :liould

be passed for the opening of the China trade in April !. 0:at the other parts of the measure should be deferred till next :;‘.:ision. lie objected to the continuance of the government of Isdia in the hands of the Company. If the proposition were now made for the first time for giving the control of that country into the bands of a ,..;;Ipany of merchants, it would not be listened to. He maintained that flue trade of the Company and their administration of Indian affairs had both been disastrous. He did not believe that if they were called mm ii to pay their debts to-morrow, they could pay twenty shillings iii tbc pound. Re adverted to the works of Mr. Rickards and Mr. Mill, in proof of his statements respecting the heavy debt and wretched finaecial pro- ceedings of the East India Company. The system of taxation was par- ticularly. bad, and oppressive to the poor cultivator of the soil. Among other things, he mentioned that rice, the general food of the inhabi- tants, was taxed 1,000 per cent. Justice was administered by young men unacquainted with the laws and language of the natives. Pundits, natives learned in the law, but very venal, were in fact the judges in the shape of advisers, and assistants to the young occupants of tbe seat of justice.

The motion of Mr. Buckingham appears not to have been seconded.

Mr. HOME made some observations on the original question. There were several parts of the proposed arrangement which be objected to ; but as he was not able to propose any thing better, he thought that the question should be settled now, in preference to postponing it for an- other year.

Mr. W. Witirsiorie thought that the government of India should be committed to the Company for ten, rather than twenty years. That the Company had made a good bargain, was evident from the advance in the price of East India Stock. He hoped that a new and bright rera had commenced for India.

Mr. MACAULAY observed, that not one voice was raised in defence of the China monopoly. He said that the difficulties of separating the accounts of the Company as a trading corporation from those which be- longed to them as territorial sovereigns were insurmountable. No one could truly say what were commercial, what territorial assets. The case could not be adjudicated; it became necessary, therefore, that the matter should be compromised. He considered that upon the whole the compromise had been fairly made. It was not to be wondered at, that India Stock, now that the difficulties of the subject were arranged, should have risen to the price whichit bore four or five years ago. He defended some other points of the Government plan, and particularly , the admission of Hindoos to office ; and declared that he would never ;- be a party to any measure for retarding their desire to acquire British habits and institutions.

Mr. WYNN approved of several parts of the measure, but must with hold his assent from others. At a future stage of the bill, he would state his opinions respecting its provisions more at large.

.Mr. O'CONNELL objected to some Of the proiiiions of the hill, espe- cially that which gave the Compauy a twenty years' lease of the go- vernment of India.

Mr. WALLACE and Mr. EWART approved of the measure.

Mr. CHARLES GRANT briefly replied to some of the objections to the bill, and stated that he would discuss them more fully at a future stage.

The bill was then read a second time.

On Friday, at the morning sitting, Mr. CHARLES GRANT having moved the Order of the Day for the going into Committee on the a conversation ensued as to the mode of proceeding ; several members being desirous of moving instructions to the Committee relative to the monopoly of salt, the admission of sugar and coffee from the East and West Indies at equal duties, and for returns of East India imports : but the SPEAKER said, that no substantive motion could now be made except in a Committee of the whole House ; it was not necessary, therefore, to discuss these subjects while he was in the chair.

The House then went into Committee; and the preamble having been postponed, the first clause was read. It was proposed to fill up the blank relative to the duration of the Charter with the words " 2'2d April 1854."

Mr. Hoare moved that the clause should be altered so as to give Parliament the power of terminating the Charter at the end of ten years.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM, Mr. W. WHITMORE, Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. Fisch, and Mr. O'CoseeELL, spoke in favour of, and Mr. CIIARLES GRANT, Mr. C. FERGUSSON, Mr. LYALL, Mr. MARJOILIBANKS, Sir R. Nests, and Mr. R. GORDON, against the amendment.

Mr. WYNN said that no limit whatever should be assigned, but that the power of terminating the agreement should belong to either party upon giving sufficient notice to the other. He preferred the shorter period, however, to the longer one.

Three o'clock having struck before a division took place, the Chair- man reported progress, and the House adjourned.

The discussion on Mr. HUME'S motion was resumed in the evening sitting.

Mr. O'CONNELL supported it. The House ought not to tie itself for a longer term than ten years. As it was agreed on all hands that the Company would derive no benefit from the duration of the Charter, he saw no reasonable ground for objecting to ti a motion of Mr. HUME.

Mr. Ewaisr, Mr. Haane, and Mr. Hry n again advocated the amendment; which was opposed by Mr. C. CERGUSSON and Lord SANDON, and rejected, on a division, by 76 to Mr. MARJORIBANKS called the attention of the Committee to the effect which the resolution that deferred the opening of the China trade to British shipping till the 22d of April 1834 would have on British commerce. The effect of this would be, the throwing the whole China trade, for some five months, into the hands of tbreigners ; for the Com- pany's vessels cleared out from China in the month of January.

The savend clauses of the bill down to the 40th were agrecd to, with some verbal and unimportant amendments. The Committee is ordered to sit again oa Moodily.

9. POLAND. Mr. CUTLAII FEP.GUSSON, on Tuesday, moved,

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Ma- jots' would be graciously pleased not to recognize, or in any way give the sanc- tion of his Government to the present pelitical state and condition of Poland, the same having been brought about in violation of the Treaty:of Vienna, to which Great Britain was a party."

Be supported his motion in a speech of considerable length ; expa- tiating upon the cruelties practised by the Russians upon the Poles, their gross violation-of the Treaty of Vienna, and the duty of the Re- presentatives of the British People to express their abhorrence of such conduct. He would not go to war with Russia, but he would not have this country exhibit any fear of Russia. He was anxious that Minis- ters should be armed by a vote of the House of Commons in any future proceedings, which this country, as a party to the Treaty of Vienna, might be required to take respecting Poland. He trusted that his mo- tion would be either affirmed or denied, and not met with "the previous question."

Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD seconded the motion ; and insisted upon the necessity of our interfering on behalf of Poland with speed and vigour. He maintained that in a war to reestablish Polish independence, there would be no relectance on the part of the country to furnish the neces- sary men and money.

Sir HARRY VERNEY approved of Mr. Fergussores temperate motion and speech; and regretted that the attention of the House had been withdrawn from it by the remark of Mr. Attwood, who had misrepre- sented the question as a question of making war upon Russia.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS also eulogized Mr. Fergusson's speech. He thought the cause of Poland was the cause of Europe and of civiliza- tion itself. He went into some long statements to prove that solemn treaties and the guaranteed constitution of Poland had been shames frilly violated by Russia. He flattered himself that a recognition by the House of Commons, in the face of Europe, of the right of Poland to different treatment, would not be without its effect. It would, he sincerely hoped, eventually serve the cause of Poland.

Lord PALMERSTON said, that on the ground of the Treaty of Vienna, the Powers of Europe who were parties to that treaty had a right to demand that the constitution of Poland should remain untouched. This opinion had not been conceded by the Russian Government. Russia, conceived, that in consequence of the revolt of Poland, its reconquest and revolution, that country was placed in the same situ- ation as it was prior to the Treaty of Vienna. The reply of the Bri- tish Government was, an adherence to the opinion that Russia bad no right to overthrow the Polish Constitution. Under all the circum- stances of the case, it was considered unwise to involve Europe in a general war in the hope of ultimately securing Polish independence. With regard to the motion before the House, it was unnecessary. There was no reason whatever to suppose that Russia would seek our sanction to an arrangement which she maintained that she was per- fectly competent to make without it. lie trusted that the motion would not be pressed, to a division.

Mr. O'Costisma. in strong terms denounced the conduct of the " en- throned brute " who governed Russia, and the debased nobility of that country. He would as willingly keep company withOld Bailey thieves, as with such men.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL requested Mr. Fergusson to withdraw his motion.

The beneficial consequences Which might be anticipated from the knowledge of the unanimity which prevailed in that House upon this subject, would be en- tirely lost if the House were divided, and Ministers were compelled to resist the motion. ("No, no ! ") • Mr. BUCKINGHAM hoped the motion would not be withdrawn.

Lord Atiritone stated his regret that the motion was not to be with- drawn.

What was the address? A statement of the opinion of that House, that the Emperor of Russia had been guilty of a violation of the Treaty of Vienna. Now, what answer could his Majesty be advised to give to such an address ; or what conduct could he be advised to pursue ? It was quite impossible that his Majesty's Government should consent to become parties to such a vote, and not follow it up by some strong measure. It was for that reason that Mr. Fergusson had been urged not to press his motion.

He concluded by moving the previous question ; which was a course he had much wished to avoid.,

Mr. WARBURTON thought that the House ought not to agree to the address, unless they were prepared, in consequence of their recorded vote, to follow it up by an appeal to arms.

Mr. HUME looked to the moral effect of the motion, and did not by any means consider himself pledged to go to war as a consequence of voting for it.

Mr. STANLEY reprobated the idea of involving the country in a war; and asked if it would be consistent with the high character of the country to provoke a war, and afterwards flinch from it ?

Sir R013ERT PEEL concurred in all that had been said in admiration of Polish gallantry, and expressed his deep regret at the course pursued by Russia, if the statements he beard were true.

Mr. FERGUSSON having refused to withdraw his motion, the House divided : for the motion, 9,5; against it, 177; Ministerial majority, 82.

10. RUSSIA AND TURKEY. On Monday, Mr. Ilmenv L. BULWER, being called upon by the Speaker, said, that before making the motion of which he had given notice, he wished to know whether any Govern- ment existed?

Lord ALTHORP, who had just then taken his seat, replied, "Here we are."

Mr. BULWER said, it did not follow, because they were there, that they constituted a Government. However, he would go on. He dis-

claimed all intention of hostility to Ministers in making his motion ; but it could not be supposed, when political events of such importance were taking place in Europe, that the House of Commons was not anxious to be made acquainted with the foreign policy of the Govern- ment. He went at some length into the policy of the Russian Govern- ment in her intercourse with foreign nations, and the artful manner in which she had extended her influence in Turkey. He detailed the circumstances which led to the present degraded condition of the Turkish empire,—the application from the Sultan to this country to stop the progress of Mahoinet Ali ; our refusal to interfere even by a note ; the consequent necessity he was under to solicit assistance from Russia ; and the ineffectual attempt of Admiral Roussin to procure the retreat of the Russian forces. He dwelt upon the necessity of oppo- sing the progress of Russian arms and intrigues in Europe. He had no wish to hurry this country into a war, but he did not think it states-

manlike for a Minister to turn the eyes of the people from events which might endanger their dearest rights, by a commonplace appeal to their pockets. Mr. Bulwer concluded by moving for "papers respecting the measures pursued by Russia in her late interference with the state of Turkey."

Lord PALMERSTON opposed the motion, on the ground that the trans- action to which the papers moved for referred was incomplete. He said it was so, because when:the last advices left Turkey, the Russian army

had made no decisive movement ; but at the time he was speaking, he had no doubt the Russian troops had evacuated the Turkish territory. He admitted that the Sultan had applied to this country for assistance against the Egyptians; which, for reasons not proper then to be men- tioned, had been refused. He bad no doubt that it was of the utmost consequence that Turkey should be independent ; and Government would feel it their duty to resist any attempt on the part of Russia to dismember the Sultan's dominions. He felt the fullest confidence that the Russian troops would be withdrawn, and that her pledges, given in the face of all Europe, would be redeemed.

Mr. C. FERGUSSON did not think that the pledges of Russia were to be depended upon on all occasions. Witness her conduct towards Po- land, and breach of the treaty of Vienna!

Colonel EVANS made a few observations, and .Mr. BULWER with- drew higmotion.

11. TITHES COMMUTATION BILL. Lord ALTHORP moved the second reading of this bill on Monday. He stated the intention of Govern- ment to withdraw the compulsory clauses; and wished it to be read a second time pro forma, the necessary alterations to be made in the Committee. After a few words from Colonel DAVIES, who wished the bill to be postponed till next session, the motion was carried.

On Tuesday, the bill went through a Committee of the House; the report was brought up, and ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday next.

12. LABOUR RATE Btu.. On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, this bill was read a third time on Wednesday; and, after some opposi- tion from Lord WYNFORD, the Marquis of SALISBURY, and the Marquis of BUTE, was passed.

13. VAGRANTS BILL. On the motion of Mr. R. PALMER, this bill was read a second time on Monday, and ordered to be committed on the Monday following.

14. VESTRIES ACT. Colonel EVANS, on Friday, brought in a bill to 'amend the Vestries Act was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday. 10. SEA APPRENTICESHIPS BII.L. This bill was read a third time on Monday, on the motion of Mr. Comas, by a majority of 84 to 64; and passed, after a few remarks from Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, Lord GEORGE SOMERSET, Mr. HALL DARE, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Lord. GEORGE LENNOX.

11. THE MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES AND THE OLD BAILEY SIM. sioNs. On Friday' before the House went into Committee on the East India Bill, Colonel EVANS observed, that in consequence of some statements which had lately come before the public, apprehensions were entertained that some late criminal prosecutions were irregular, and that several convicts would be again let loose upon society.

Sir- JOHN CAMPBELL admitted that there was great reason to appre- hend that several persons had been illegally convicted at the Old Bailey.

The circumstances of the case, as far as he had been able to learn them, were these. Towards the conclusion of the late Old Bailey Sessions, the presiding Judges were informed that the bills of indictment had not been properly preferred. They instituted an inquiry, the result of which induced them immediately to stop the trials which were proceeding. A meeting of the Judges was subse- quently held at the chambers of the Chief Justice ; and, as he was informed, those learned persons came to nu unanimous opinion that the trials which had taken place were illegal. This opinion was communicated to the Middlesex Magistrates ; accompanied with instructions that the Grand Jury should be again summoned, the witnesses resworn, the indictments again preferred, and the prisoners retried : but these Magistrates, thinking that -they knew the law better than the Judges, had declared the proceedings which hail taken place legal, and prevented the Grand Jury from being summoned, and consequently the possibility of the prisoners being retried.

He would briefly state the circumstances out of which the illegality of the proceedings grew.

The bills against the prisoners were usually returned at the Middlesex Ses- sions held a few days before the Old Bailey Sessions. On the Monday, the Court met and sat at the Middlesex Sessions, and adjourned to Thursday ; but Oh the Tuesday and Wednesday there were no Magistrates present; the Crier alone presided in the court, and swore the witnesses, who went before the Grand Jury and gave evidence, upon which true bills were found. The Judges were unanimously of opinion, that the Crier had no authority to administer the oath ; that therefore the witnesses who were examiued before the Grand Jury were un- sworn, and that consequently the bills found upon their testimony were illegal. The Middlesex Magistrates, however, on what grounds he could not imagine, took a different view of the subject ; for they said that the Judges were wrong, and had prevented the Grand Jury from being summoned. What, under these circumstances, was to be done, was niece than he could tell.

Mr. HUGHES HUGHES was at the meeting of Magistrates referred to by Sir John Campbell, who was not correct in stating that the Ses- sions were adjourned from Monday to Thursday : they were adjourned to Tuesday, from Tuesday to Wednesday, and from that day to Thurs- day, in the regular way. The question was, whether the course which had been pursued in this in- stance was regular. In order to determine this point, the Magistrates called before them the Crier of the Court, and he stated that the course which had been adopted upon this occasion was that which had unithrmly been pursued during the last sixty years. lie had always been accustomed to sit alone, and swear the witnesses. When the TQagistrates heard what the custom had beeu, they supposed it must he right. (A laugh.) Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that from the best information he bad been able to procure, he had come to the conclusion that the practice in question was not in former times acted on by the Middlesex Ma- gistrates.

On the occasion which is referred to, the Court met on the "Moielay in the forum of an open court, and afterwards adjourned to the hare walls on the Tues- day and Wednesday ; the Judges not going into Court iu person, but employing an officer of the Court to communicate with the witnesses.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, it appeared that no Magistrate had been in attendance on Tuesday. Their attendance was not required ; the Crier managed all the business of the Court. Mr. HUGHES replied, that in the course of the day several Magistrates had gone in and out of the building, but had certainly transacted no business. (Loud laughter.) Mr. O'CONNELL-44 Oh ! it is quite proper that the whole dignity of the Court should be supported by the Crier, and that he should swear witnesses when there is no Magistrate in the way ! " It was- quite clear that the Magistrates should have bowed to the decision of the Twelve Judges. With respect to Mr. Hrgnes's argument, founded on the antiquity of the practice, he would only remark that a similar argument had once been used in favour of the ancient practice of sheep-stealing, when it was said that a prisoner ought not to be convicted because the practice had become legal from. custom.

Mr. WYNN said, the question was, what ought now to be done? He thought that the appointment of a Special Commission should be re- sorted to, as no existing Court was competent to apply a remedy.

Sir Jolts; CAMPBELL thought Mr. Wynn's suggestion the best which could be acted upon.

After a few words from Colonel EVANS, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

12. THE CALTHORPE STREET MEETING. A Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Police, in dispersing the meeting on the 13th May, was appointed on Thursday, on the motion of Lord 111.- THORP ; who said— There could be no doubt that the meeting was illegal before any tumult took place as much as afterwards; and it was equally certain that the Police had not committed any violence until forced into it in their own defence. They were pelted with stones before they used force. At the same time, he thought some inquiry should be instituted, though he was far from blaming the Police. As to the verdict on the tile!, he believed that was found rather from a doubt of iden- tity than influenced by any other consideration. Under all these circumstances, however, he was clear in the opinion that there ought to be an inquiry by that House.

In answer to a question'by Mr. Roinsmox,Mord ALTHORP said that the proclamation was perfectly regular; and in reply to one from Sir H. HARDINGE, he said that the instructions issued to the Police would be laid before the Committee.

13. INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT. Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL pre- sented a petition on Friday from an attorney practising in the Insolvent Debtors Court, praying for compensation for the loss he would sustain from the passing of a bill for the amendment of that Court.

Mr. Wysnq said, Jark Ketch might as well petition for compensa- tion in consequence of the diminution of his business arising from the mitigation of the severity of our criminal code.

A

SCOTCH ROYAL BURGHS BILL. This bill, on the motion of Mr: JEFFREY, -was read a thissi time on Monday, by a majority of 100 to 36. It then passed.

20. TRISH GRAND JURY BILL. On the question being put, on Thursday, that this bill be recommitted, Colonel COOLLY, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. FINN, Mr. SHEIL, and Lord OXMANTOWN, wished that it might be postponed. Mr. O'CoNs:Em. stated his objections at length to the measure ; the most prominent of which was, that it con- tinned the plan of compulsory assessments, and violated the great con- stitutional principle that no man shall be taxed without his own con- sent. Lord DUNCANNON, Mr. LITTLETON, Mr. D. BROWNE, and Mr. H. GRATTAN, were desirous of the measure being proceeded' in, on account of the reform in the Grand Jury system, which in many respects it would certainly effect, especially that part of it which let in the light of day upon the proceedings of the Grand Jurors. The House divided : for going into Committee, 78; against it, 45; Minis- terial majority, 33. The bill was then committed pro foroui. Several clauses were agreed to, and the •Chairman retiorted progress.

21. ABSENTEEISM. Dr BALDWIN, on Thursday, moved for

"A Select Committee to inquire into the amount of the various forms of absentee expenditure, by which Ireland is afflicted, to ascertain its effects on the prosperity of that country, and on the happiness of the people; and to discover a remedy, if possible, for the evils it occasions."

After stating at length, the evils of absenteeism upon the welfare of Ireland, he said that he did not mean to press his motion to a division, but to bring it forward next session, and then divide the House upon it.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, in that case he would reserve his remarks upon it till next session.

Mr. O'DwvEtt thought that Ministers would nevertheless discover a more proper sympathy with Irish suffering, by replying to Dr. Baldwin's statement.

A brief debate then followed ; in which Mr. RICE, Mr. O'DwvErt, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. SHEIL, Mr. HU3lE, and Lord ALTHORP, took part, and Dr. BALDWIN withdrew his motion.

22. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Dr. LUSHINGTON, on Monday, presented a petition from a body of Jews, who declared that they be- lieved the true Sunday to be on a Saturday, and that the consequence of the Sabbath Observance Bill being passed would be to compel them to keep two Sundays every week instead of one.

23. LIVERPOOL BRIBERY COMMITTEE. Mr. WARBURTON moved, on Monday, that five members of this Committee should constitute a quorum. Lord SANDON suggested, that eight members should be re- quired for that purpose ; and divided the House upon his amendment : for it, 28; against it, 85; majority for Mr. Warburton's motion, 37.

24. SUGAR BF.FINERTES. Dr. LcsiiiNcTox, on Monday, presented a petition from the Churchwardens, Overseers, and rate-payers of St. George's in the East, complaining of the state of the sugar refinery business, and the restrictions under which it laboured. The petitioners earnestly desired the prompt attention of Parliament to this subject.

Mr. CLAY supported the prayer of the petition ; and stated his inten- tion of speedily proposing a measure to Parliament for the relief of the complainants.

Mr. HUME, Mr. GROTE, Mr. EWART, Mr. BOTCH, Mr. WILES, and many other members, declared their determination to support any bill which might be introduced for the purpose of putting the refinery business upon a fairer footing.

25. CASE OF:CAPTAIN ROBISON. On Thursday, Dr. LUSIIINGTON moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Ma- jesty should be pleased to lay before the House a copy of the minutes of a Court- martial 'on Captain Robison, which took place at New South Wales in the year 1823."

He stated at length the circumstances of this case, which has been already before the House and the readers of the Spectator.

Mr. ROBERT GRANT replied at length, in justification of the verdict of the Court-martial, and impugning several parts of Captain Robi- son's conduct.

Sir F. VINCENT, Major BEAUCLF.RK, Mr. O'CONNELL, Colonel EvAirs, and Mr. HUME, spoke in favour of the inquiry ; and Sir H. EARDINGE, Sir JAMES SCARLETT, and Sir E. KERRISON against it.

Dr. LUSHINGTON briefly replied, and the House divided : for the motion 42; against it, 73; Ministerial and Tory majority, 31.

26. THE THELLUSSON PROPERTY. Lord LYNDHURST moved, on Thursday, the suspension of the Standing Orders of the House, in order to enable him to bring in a bill for the relief of the members of the Thellusson family, and the better regulation of the property. After SOIlle, opposition from the Earls of ELDON, HARROWBY, MANSFIELD, and the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, the motion was carried, on a division, by 57 to 13; and the bill was brought in by Lord Lvismiunsr, read a first time, and ordered to a second reading on Monday next.