Manful anti laretretingt1 in parliament.

VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY : THE WAR IN SPAIN.

Lord BROUGHAM, on Tuesday, called the attention of the Lords to certain orders which, it had been stated in their Lordships' House, had

been issued by the Admiralty to British cruisers on the Spanish coast,

to prevent the access of certain Sardinian and Dutch vessels to the ports of Spain, on the ground that those vessels were employed in

conveying warlike stores to Don Carlos. He wished to ask, in the first place, whether such orders had really been issued ? Next, whether any notification of such orders, if issued, had been made to foreign powers ? Thirdly, whether the Queen's Advocate had been consulted before the orders were issued ; and whether, if consulted, he had pro- nounced them to be any thing but a gross outrage and infraction of the law of nations If Ministers would answer these questions, he should not trouble the House with a longer speech.

Lord MELBOURNE would not give any answer at that point of the debate.

Lord Bacot:Guam said, he had then a right to assume that the in- structions were issued ; that no warning had been given to foreign or neutral powers, and that no legal opinion was ready to be adduced for so gross an infraction of the law of nations. Belligerent parties might blockade coasts if they had a sufficient power to make it unsafe for neutral vessels to approach the ports on the coast so blockaded. But England was not currying on a war ; and who before ever heard of a nation, because it wished well to one party, preventing other nations from assisting the opposite party ? Since time was and civilized man acknowledged a law of nations, such a proceeding was never heard of before. " Oh! " it was said, "but these were strictly confidential in- structions "- They ought to have been so very confidential as to have been communicated to nobody at all. The idea of secret instructions which must necessarily be commu- nicated to the whole crew of each cruising-vessel before they can be carried into effect ! But, surely, these instructions ought not to have been kept concealed from the neutral powers. lie hoped the House would come forward to arrest the progress of Government in the bad course which they had thus entered on—a course so entirely unjust and oppressive in its character, so grossly violating all the rights of neutral powers, as to put in jeopardy the peace of Europe and the peace of the world. Those who agreed to the Quadruple Treaty, (of whom he was one,) never dreamt of such an interference as went to stop any neutral power, whether Holland or Sardinia, from carrying assistance, whether warlike stores or men, to Don Carlos. It was impossible to set any limits to the mischiefs which might arise from such instructions as these It might so happen that powers nut included in the Quadruple Treaty might apply Mr. Burke's maxim, " When bad men combine for bad purposes, good men must unite against them," to their own case, and, deeming the parties to that alliance bad men, unite against them, and make counter-treaties. It seemed, for instance, to be thought that Sardinia, being a small state, might be insulted and injured with impunity : but how, if Sardinia bad entered into a defensive alliance with a powerful state ?—how, if it had entered into such an alliance with Austria ?—how, if he knew that it was a fact that such an alliance had been definitively settled between these powers ? And if it should appear that Austria, in pursuance of that treaty, was prepared to make common cause with Sardinia, could this be de- scribed as other than a serious ease? It was possible, to be sure, that this alliance was subsequent to the instructions; but the date of the instructions would show how the fact stood. He would repeat, that these instructions,

such as they were represented, tended to aggression—to all that was abhorrent

0 d prohibited by the law of natione—that law whose object it was to secure Itheinweak against the tyranny of the strong, and to make law and right the rule instead of mere arbitrary might.

He concluded by moving an address to the Queen, praying her Majesty to cause to be laid before the House any instructions, of the nature described, to the British cruisers on the coast of Spain.

Lord MELBOURNE submitted it to the House, whether Lord Brougham had made out a sufficient case for the production of the papers? This motion rested upon an observation of Lord Lyndhurst; who wound up his eloquent speech on the Spanish policy of Ministers, by asking whether it was true that orders had been given to prevent the access of Sardinian vessels to the coast of Spain ? as in that case, the country might be involved in R more serious and extensive war than Ministers contemplated. This observation rested solely on public ru- mour : and was mere rumour to be made the basis of a motion so inex• pedient and impolitic as this ?— It was an impolitic, inexpedient, and imprudent motion, because it might tend to excite a jealousy and suspicion against the Government for the time being administering the affairs of this country. Let noble lords condemn the present Government as they pleased or wished—let them remove it as soon as they were willing to do so—let them take a division at once to remove it from power; but, while it had the control of public affairs, in God's name do not sanction any motion which would lessen its influence in its transactions with foreign powers. Supposing that any thing had taken place such as hail been described by the noble and learned lord, and supposing that it had been suc- cessful for the object in view, was it the wish of any noble lord, and was it the part of any prudent man, to state to foreign powers that if the matter had been called in question in the Parliament of this country, the subject would not have been approved of in it ? Would this have been a wise or prudent course to pur- sue? Was it promoting its duties to the nation, the administration of whose affairs it was charged with, to allow such a course to be pursued ?

He did not feel called upon to state whether the facts stated by Lord Brougham were well founded or not, but he held that it would be most impolitic and imprudent to assent to the motion, and would therefore resist it.

Lord BROUGHAM thought that the reply given on a former occasion to Lord Lyndhurst proved the existence of these instructions ; and he should be satisfied to go the jury on the facts of the case as he had stated them.

Lord Riros was much surprised at the manner in which Lord Mel- bourne treated this question. He said that the motion was founded on mere rumour—why, how had Lord Minto, First Lord of the Admiralty, replied to Lord Lyndhurst in a former debate? Lord Minto said— "That if he hail received information that any foreign state was about to send succour in the way of arms or men to Don Carlos on the coast of Spain, he would have issued instruct,ons to the officer at the port to prevent the land- ing of the troops."

It was clear then as daylight, that orders of the nature described had been sent. He trusted that a more satisfactory explanation than that vouchsafed by Lord Melbourne would be given to the House.

The Earl of MINT° said, that the object of the motion was not to get instructions that had been acted upon, but contingent instructions which had Dilly been framed for temporary, not permanent objects. It was the first time that such a demand bad been made. It appeared to him that nothing had been done beyond what was required by the Quadruple Treaty, to which Lord Brougham was a party. By the second article of that treaty, Great Britain engaged to furnish to time Queen of Spain " such supplies of arms and warlike stores as the maintenance of her cause may require, and, if necessary, a naval force." How was the aid of a naval force to be rendered ? Mani- festly, by preventing the invasion of Spain by other powers. This was the aid the Quadruple Treaty required, and which, being according to treaty, must be rendered ; but, had he issued orders to prevent the landing of warlike stores from Sardinia or other countries for the ser- vice of Don Carlos, he would certainly have given full intimation of the existence of such orders to all persons likely to be affected by them. As to the treaty of Sardinia with Austria, the treaty of England with Spain was much stronger than any such general defensive alliance. As to the communication, supposed to have been made by an officer em- ployed off the coast of Spain, relative to the instructions which were the subject of debate, it was felt by the highest officers in the service that the proceeding alluded to was a gross breach of that confidence and trust which should exist between the officers of the service and the Go- vernment.

Lord BROUGHAM bad repeated usque ad nauseam that he had not bad any communication with any naval officer on this subject. If there had been any breach of confidence, it was committed by Lord Minto himself; who had stated in that House, what he was surprised others could he acquainted with. There was no breach of confidence. No al- lusion had ever been made by Lord Lyndhurst or anybody else to any naval officer; for the person alluded to served on shore, and had nothing to do with the sea.

The Duke of WEtaalsoToN said, that an officer who betrayed confi- dence in the manner described by Lord Minto would be unworthy of employment ; but. he did not believe that any person in either service 'was capable of such a dereliction of duty. The knowledge of such instructions might come out without the participation of any officer. This question had nothing to do with that of blockade. The question of blockade could not be raised under the Quadruple Treaty. There- fore Lord Brougham's motion had no reference to the question of blockade. But it was represented to be inconvenient. Now be was not disposed to inconvenience the Government ; but he must remark, in reference to Lord Minto's observations, that the Quadruple Treaty did not compel this country to furnish the Queen of Spain with a naval force under all circumstances, but simply to convey troops from One part of the coast to another. It was never contemplated to in- volve the country in a war in consequence of the treaty with Spain. That was a true statement of the object of the treaty. Lord CARNARVON supported the motion. The Marquis of LANSDOWNa opposed it, as likely to form a prece- dent of the most dangerous character, and likely to bear upon the nicest matters in which Government might think it necessary to in- terfere. Lord ABERDEEN had not Supposed, till be heard Lord Mono's speech, that the country was under any such estensive obligations as the present Ministers considered it to be placed by the Quadruple Treaty. After hearing that speech, he certainly thought the instruc- tions ought to be produced.

The Duke of WELLINGTON sincerely hoped that Ministers would not send the House away with the notion that Lord Brougham asked for any thing it might be inconvenient to publish. Indeed, Ministers ought to explain the situation in which the country stood.

Lord Allwro said, he had not stated the deliberate opinions of the Government—only his own individual opinion. ( Cheers and laughter.) He might be wrong, but he still held the opinion that the Quadruple Treaty did authorize England to interfere in the quarrel between Don Carlos and the Queen of Spain.

The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that though this opinion might be only Lord Minto's, the instructions must embody the opinion of tbe Secretary of State. The opinion of the Government must be found in the instructions sent.

Lord MEI.BOURNE said, that lie had carefully avoided the general question. Neither would he now discuss it. He entirely concurred in the Duke of Wellington's interpretation of the treaty ; which was not an alliance offensive and defensive with the Queen of Spain against the whole world— lie agreed, also, that every power might assert the right of Don ClrIOS ; whether such a course would or would not lead to a war was another matter ; but the treaty was not a treaty offensive and defensive, obliging us to go to war for Spain. Considering how the matter now rested—considei ing that the instructions were contidential—considei ing that if they weie to have any effect, they would only come into operation in a case which hail never arisen—he still held to the opinion which be had stated at the commencement of the debate: be still thought that the production of any instructions would be most incon. venient—that it would embarrass the policy of the Government—that it would encourage those who were opposed to the policy of bier Majesty's Government, and that it would discourage those who were willing to give their assistance to that policy.

Lord BROUGHAM declared, that never in his life had he heard such an extraordinary debate, nor any thing equal to the speech of the Firs Lord of the Admiralty— That noble lord had stated his view of the treaty, not without an object—he had used it as an arguntenture ad homitiem ; but the noble lord's noble chief, in the extreme pressure of the case, had thought fit to disavow the interpretation,—. although Ministers Ilad supported the noble lord when he said it, for two Man. berm of the Cabinet hail cheered whilst the noble lord gave his interpretation, an interpretation used only as an araumenteet ad lanninem, in order to stop him (Lord Brougham), to close his bps. But how had the noble lord done so? (Cheers and loud laughter.) No doubt, the noble lord had not done that : but how was the noble lotil's opinion borne out that it was only a cases fictkris The noble lord was compelled to abandon his notion; and was content, with his colleagues, to avail himself of a plank which the noble duke had now, as several times heretofore, thrown out to them.

The Duke of WELLINGTON wished again to speak, before they came to a vote. The motion was founded on the question of blockade, which Lord Brougham had most ably argued.

Lord BROUGHAM said, his motion was not founded on the question of blockade. He had said that even had there been a blockade, the proceedings were illegal ; but there was no blockade.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was perfectly aware that there was no blockade. Lord Minto had given im intrepretation of the treaty, on which lie said the instructions were founded; but then, the First Lord of the Treasury had since core e forward and declared that he did not put that interpretation on the treaty, and he declared that the produc- tion of the instructions would be detrimeiltal to the public service. Now he thought it likely that those instructions would never be acted upon ; and under these circumstances, his recommendation to their Lordships was not to call for the production of these papers—(Mur- mars)—since her Majesty's Ministers had declared that their produc- tion would be detrimental to the public service.

Lord BROUGHAM Was not at all surprised at the Duke of Welling.. ton's recommendation— He had from the first moment on entering the House that night, although the case was so strong and irresistible, hail some impression on his mind that at the eleventh hour, as upon all other occasions, the noble duke, who was the saviour of her Majesty's Government—(" Hear ! ")—anti who had bePTI the saviour of the present Ministry over and over again—( Reel:teed cries if Hear ! ")— who had been to them a friend indeed, because a friend in need—whose fliend. ship and generosity towards them had been exactly in proportion as the neces- sity for it pressed more urgently upon them,—he had from the beginning some iinpression that at the eleventh hour the noble duke would once more, on more or less intelligible grounds, more or less distinctly made intelligible or unintel- ligible to those who were to follow him, nevertheless come forward with his powerful assistance to defeat the motion, and undo the good to the country which that motion would have accomplished. lie could not, however, allow the noble duke to go away laying to his soul the flattering unction that this treaty had not beer. acted upon. Nay, to a certain extent, it had even been bragged of as having been acted upon ; for the noble earl at the head of the Admiralty could not help letting that out.

Lords MANSFIELD, ELLENBOROUGH, and HAREWOOD, could not concur in the Duke of Wellington's recommendation, but felt it their duty to support the motion.

The House divided—

For the motion 57 Against it 57

The numbers being equal, and there being no casting-vote in the House of Lords, the motion was neither negatived nor affirmed.

UNIVERSITY STATUTES.

The Earl of RADNOR, on Monday, requested some information from the Duke of Wellington and Marquis Camden respecting the pro- mised revision of the statutes of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. At Cambridge, he believed, little had been done beyond abolishing the oath taken at matriculation. The University of Oxford bad merely made a show of doing something ; and the Colleges had done little or nothing. There had been some new regulations, he be- lieved, about the fashion of the hair, and cudgel and foot-ball playing ; and it had also been made a law that any person in Oxford who com- posed a libel, affecting the reputation of anybody in the world, should

be made to produce the libel before the Vice-Chancellor ; and if he did not explain every thing to the satisfaction of the Vice-Chancellor, he should be imprisoned at the pleasure of that officer, and make public recantation, or be banished from the University, and make reparation to the injured person. (During his speech Lord Radnor was cheered by Lord Holland.)

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the statement made by him, that the revision of the statutes of the University of Oxford would be proceeded with, rested on the authority of communications from the heads of Colleges. Lord Radnor asked a question, but he took care to answer it in part himself. The University of Oxford, however, bad done much more than Lord Radnor had mentioned ; but he (the Duke of Wellington) would give him no explanation or information on the subject. He protested against the discussion of these topics in Parliament, at present. Lord Holland had thought proper to encou- rage Lord Radnor in his attack on the Universities, but be thought one of her Majesty's Cabinet Ministers would better perform his duty by protecting national institutions from attack.

Marquis CAMDEN was quite inaudible in his attempt to speak a few words.

The Bishop of LONDON regretted that he could not hear Lord Cam- den's observations. He could assure the House, that the heads and members of Colleges at Oxford were anxious to amend the statutes in all cases where they could not be enforced.

Lord HOLLAND, having been particularly alluded to by the Duke of Wellington, felt it necessary to say a few words. It appeared from Lord Radnor's statement, that a person was not only liable to expul- sion from the University, but to imprisonment, for having an unpub- lished libel in his possession. The University officers, it appeared, took upon themselves to act as judge and jury,—and criminals also, for they became the publishers of the libel, and by the law of England publication constituted the chief offence. For having a document in his possession which had not been published, but which was held to be libellous, Locke was expelled from the University ; and for a very similar offence Algernon Sydney was executed.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, his complaint was, that a Minister of the Crown should support Lord Radnor in his attack on the University.

Lord BROUGHAM was astonished to bear the statement that bad been made respecting the punishment for libel at Oxford, which was contrary to the law of the land.

The Duke of WELLINGTON denied that any of the Oxford statutes were contrary to the law of the land : he objected to the discussion of bits of statutes in this way.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER said, that Locke was expelled from Oxford by order of Charles the Second, not by the University. He thought this fact, stated in the very curious correspondence between the Earl of Sunderland, Secretary of State, and Dr. Fell, Dean of Christchurch, had been generally known.

Here the conversation dropped.

THE IRISH POOR.

The debate on the Irish Poor Bill was renewed in the House of Lords, on Monday ; the motion being to omit certain words from the 17th clause. This motion was negatived without a division ; and then the question was put from the woolsack, that "this bill do pass."

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, he was aware that the House would not be convinced by any arguments he could use against the bill. He therefore would not take up time by a long speech, but would simply move that the bill be rejected.

The Earl of LIMERICK looked upon the bill as a humbug. All per- sons of large property and of moderate fortune were opposed to it ; and be did hope that Ministers would not press it at this late period of the session.

The Marquis of CLasinicaann expressed his disappointment that the measure had come out of the Committee as bad as it went in, and even at that late stage would record his vote against it.

The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL protested against the bill, as a dangerous and destructive measure, which would surely bring revolution and re- bellion on the country The Radicals and the Conservatives, the rich and the poor in Ireland, were all opposed to the bill ; and his only consolation was, that as the people and the priests united—although opposed by the landlords, yet assisted by Mr. O'Connell, had been successful in their opposition to tithes, they would equally succeed now, alien not only the priests and the people, but also O'Con- nell, the Conservatives, and the Protestants of Ireland were united ; and he defied her Majesty's Ministers to bring the bill into force in Ireland. There was no country where they better knew the use of passive resistance; there was no country in which agitation was so well understood : both these means would be brought into full play ; and if their Lordships passed the bill, he was convinced that it would have no effect.

Lord BROUGHAM said, it might be supposed, if he wave a silent vote, that his objections to the bill had been removed ; but all that had been said in its defence had only confirmed his deeply-rooted repugnance to it. In Ireland, all parties, Protestant and Catholic, priest and layman, Radical and Moderate—if, indeed, there was a Moderate party in Ire- land, which he much doubted—Radical and Whig, Orange and Green, all who depended on labour, and not only they, but the poor them- selves, objected to the bill, either as a burden and a curse, or as a sham. This was not the case with the English Poor-law ; which was disliked

only by the jobbers, the idle, and the dissolute. There could be no just analogy drawn from the English Poor-law in favour of the bill for Ireland. The facts did not warrant it. Lord Brougham proceeded to animadvert on the details of the bill, and especially dwelt on the difficulty of obtaining machinery wherewith to work the measure. Of

the state of Ireland itself, God knew, he had but little knowledge ; for there never was any subject more puzzling, or on which more contra- dictory statements were made— One said that there never had been a state of tranquillity so complete—never prosperity so unbroken—never so little crime—never so few outrages—never such undisturbed peacefulness, as reigned over the kingdom of Ireland during the administration of his noble friend the present chief governor of that country. How were his praises—and how justly—sung forth by eloquent tongues out of doors, and by yet more eloquent within the walls of both Houses of Parliament. Grateful to him it was to hear it ; and be felt still bights- gratification in joie, in; his voice in chorus with those on all aides of their Lordships' House. But what was his astonishment to receive such a letter as that which he now held in his hand, coming from one of the most strenuous supporters of the Govern. went! What a different story did it tell ! It mentioned, that while upon all other subjects there existed many different opinions, upon the subject of the Poor-law there was only one opinion. Upon that question there existed no ' doubt, no dinrepancy, no difference of opinion whatsoever. The writer de- clared that he was quite disheartened and disgusted with the present state of the country, and was astonished at the change since he last visited it two yean ago. Men formerly peaceable bad become org wired and dangerous assassins, against whose outrages the law was perfectly powei less. It was wonderful. (the writer observes)) that the majority of such and such houses should be so leo. rant of the real state of Ireland, and should indulge in the idle dream of pacify. ing that country by a poor-law bill. Why, if they were to add a municipal bill to that, and to a municipal bill a bill fur the total abolition of tithes, it would not have the smallest effect upon this poverty-stricken country. The writer proceeded to say, " One can scarcely be aware of the dreadful state of this country. No man's life is worth an hour's purchase. The reign of terror is established, which every man feels and acknow. ledges. I recently saw so and so, who told me of — being attacked in the middle of the day, two miles from the capital of this county, and on the mail. coach road, and of being so cruelly and barbarously beaten that his life is de. spired of." He was aware that it might be said that nothing was more absurd than that of arguing from a private letter, but he had received other letters from other parties. What puzzled him was, that those letters so materially differed from the returns laid before their Lordships.

These were private letters, but there was public testimony : there was Mr. O'Connell's to the fact that Ireland never was in a worse or more dangerous state—that you could not be sure whether somebody might not at any moment by lifting up his finger create a revolt of a hundred thousand men. Now that was a very awful state of society; and although Mr. O'Connell's statement might be denied, yet it must be admitted that it was a dangerous experiment to introduce into Ire- land, with the imperfect knowledge Parliament possessed of its actual condition, a bill which everybody must confess was most unpopular. Great changes, it was said, were required in Ireland ; and he thought that the abolition of the Viceroyalty was one. If he was mistaken, he erred in common with Sir Henry Parnell, Lord Grenville, Mr. Pitt, Lord Liverpool, the Marquis Wellesley, and the Marquis of Anglesea. He thought, that in order to consolidate the Union and mitigate the evils of Ireland, Parliament should put an end to the Lord. Lieutenancy. As for this Poor-law, if there was any truth in the representations made of the inflamed and dangerous state of the country, it would not be any alleviation of Irish distress ; and more- over, he was sure that unless they made provision for the Catholic clergy, every other measure of relief would be unavailing—.

If every priest in Ireland were to tell him that they would not take the money—if every agitator were to attack it—if every meeting were to vote

against it, and every address were to pray the Crown not to sanction it, and if every petition were to deprecate it—if he should bear these authorities com- bined say, " We tell you we won't receive your money, we won't take the pro- vision at all," he should go on ha his course, unmoved by all this array of pe- titions, deprecations, speeches, repudiations, and should euact the measure and provide a fund, and should then say, " Gentlemen, you do not want to take the money ; it is not your fault that the enactment is made ; you have re- aisted to the utmost ; keep the profit of that resistance by retaining your con- sistency, namely, the confidence of your flocks, and have the glory of refusing to barter your independence—your spiritual independence—for Government gold ; keep the glory, keep your influence—we grudge you neither ; preserve your character : but here is the money-100/, for you, 1301. for another, 2501. for another, WO/. or 450/. for another." Now, he did not like to prophesy— it was a dangerous thing ; but if ever be thought he could safely risk a predic. tion, it was this—that the protestors, the dissenters, the deprecators, the speak- ers, the addressers, the petitioners against this measure, would before may months take their portion and be thankful.

Lord MELBOURNE said, he should only attempt a brief defence of the bill. Lord Brougham's main objection to it was the utter detesta- tion with which, he assumed, it was universally held in Ireland. Now, he admitted that the Irish gentry disliked it ; but he very much doubted whether they represented the feelings of the humbler classes, for whose especial benefit it was intended. He was aware of many difficulties in the way of its introduction, but saw nothing to make him despair of its ultimately working to the great advantage and improvement of the destitute poor in Ireland. A great outcry was raised in Parliament and in the country against the English Poor-law ; but few were now bold enough to pretend that it had not worked most beneficially. He asked the House to pass the bill ; for none of the alarming statements made by Mr. O'Connell, and by noble lords in that House, were suffi- cient in his mind to outweigh the benefits he fully expected to flow from the measure.

Lord PLUNKETT maintained that Ireland was in a state of tranquil- lity, notwithstanding the assertions of those who never dared to bring the question to a distinct motion.

Lord RODEN said, that when the misery which this bill would occa- sion was felt, it would be a consolation to him to reflect that he had lifted up his voice, and had (as he should) also used his privilege of protesting against it.

The Earl of GLENGALL denied that Ireland was tranquil— From returns before the House, it appeared that in 1836 there had been 23,000 crimes committed ; and in 1837 there had been 26,000 crimes com- mitted. homicides, firing of houses, and other crimes most frequent in Ire- land, were perpetrated in a greater number in 1837 than in 1836; 13,0001. had been offered as rewards for the discovery of offences, and of that but Ma claimed ; 5,0001. had been offered for the discovery of a murder in Tipperary, and yet not a shilling had been claimed. And this was the state of tranquility which had been boasted of ! The Peers then divided— For the bill—

Present Proxies

69 24 93

Against it— Present 23 Proxies 8 — 31

blajorito 62

IRISH CORPORATION REFORM.

On Monday, the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill was read a se- cond time in the House of Lords, without a division ; Lord RODEN protesting against the measure in foto, as impolitic and unnecessary.

On Thursday, the order of the day for going into Committee on the bill baying been read,

Lord LYNDHURST rose to state the nature of several important amendments which he intended to propose in the Committee. Before entering on the subject of the bill, he made some remarks on the con. nexion between the three great Irish questions, relating to the Poor, the Corporations, and the Tithes; which connexion Ministers could not perceive at the commencement of the session, but now he appre- hended that it was evident to all parties. The Poor Bill might be said to have passed ; there was a prospect of the satisfactory settle- ment of the Tithe question ; and, with the test of rating which the Poor Bill afforded, they could proceed to frame a Corporation Bill. He would now explain his amendments. The Corporation Bill

had two schedules, A and B. Schedule A comprised eleven towns with a large population, and with corporations possessed of extensive property. He did not therefore object to the esta- blishment of new corporations in those towns, on conditions

which he would presently mention. But the towns in schedule B were much smaller; • and to their inhabitants the new corporations might be a burden and an expense which they would not like to under- go: he therefore proposed, that if the majority of rated inhabitants in these towns applied for charters, they should be granted, and not other- wise. The time during which the applications for charters must be made, should be limited ; and at the expiration of that period, if no ap- plications were made, the existing corporations should cease and deter- mine, and Commissioners be elected by the rated inhabitants for the management of the pecuniary affairs and the performance of other necessary duties. With respect to the franchise, he meant to propose, that it should be uniform, and granted, as in Scotland, to the occupiers of premises of ten pounds yearly value. But, to enact simply that the inhabitants of ten-pound houses should have the franchise, would be illusory. There was abundant evidence to prove that persons occupy- ing houses not worth five pounds would represent themselves as bond fide ten-pound occupants, and so fraudulently obtain the franchise. There must therefore be a test of value. Now, under the Poor Bill, the real value of premises could be accurately ascertained ; and his first proposition was, that the qualification should be raised from 51. to 10/. • and if that were agreed to, his amendment would point out the mode of ascertaining the value ; which was as fellows. There ' was a schedule in the Poor Bill which defined the mode of rating: there were three columns—in one there was the rated value, in another the estimated amount of the landlord's repairs, in a third the insurance; when the sums in these three columns together amounted to ten pounds, he proposed that the occupancy of these premises should confer the municipal franchise. A Revising Barrister should sit with tbe Magistrates of the county at the revision, to guard against mistake or fraud. There were other amendments, relating to the administration of charitable funds the boundaries of boroughs, the watching, and other matters, which he considered necessary, but be would not then enter into the details. The points were simple, but the alterations were of the most extensive character.

Lord GOUT objected to the bill entirely. The situation of Ireland was worse now than last year, and the bill was doubly dangerous. He called upon Lord Lyndhurst to withdraw his amendments, and resume his fine manly tone of resistance to the bill.

Lord MELBOURNE said, that nothing could be more fair or candid than the course taken by Lord Lyndhurst. He would not discuss the proposed amendments at length ; but would remark, that the towns in both the schedules appeared to him of sufficient magnitude to require the re- modelled corporations proposed by the bill ; and he feared that to leave it optional with the inhabitants of those in schedule B whether they would have corporations or not, would lead to harassing contests and local feuds. As to the franchise, he really thought that Lord Lynd- hurst's plan of testing the value, with rates, repairs, and insurance' was rather puzzling ; and it was doubtful whether the five-pound franchise, as it stood in the bill, was not, on the whole, the best that could be devised.

Lord Wrcesow rejoiced at the prospect of settling the Corporation question ; but he insisted on a real ten-pound qualification. Lord PORTMAN said, the main object was to get rid of this question, so that it might not bc perpetually brought before Parliament. The House went into Committee.

Clauses 1st, 2d, and 3d, were agreed to.

Lord LYNDHURST proposed an amendment to clause 4th, which restricted the grant of corporations to the towns in schedule A. The amendment was carried, without a division.

The Committee divided on Lord Lyndhurst's amendment to clause 6th, fixing the franchise at ten pounds, to be ascertained in the manner explained in his speech. For the amedment Against it 36 Majority against Ministers (30

The clause, thus altered, was agreed to.

Lord Lvisnitensr's further amendments were agreed to pro forma, and ordered to be printed, on the understanding that they should be dis- cussed on bringing up the report. The bill passed through the Com- mittee, and the report is to be brought up on Tuesday.

IRISH Tunics: THE MILLION LOAN.

According to the arrangement made last week, the Speaker took the chair in the Commons at twelve o'clock on Tuesday. The order of the day was for going into Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill ; but the whole of the morning, from twelve till four, was devoted to a dis- cussion on a motion by Mr. O'CONNELL, that it be " an instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make arrangements for the diminution or discharge of the arrears of tithe now due." The substance of Mr. O'Connell's proposition was, that the sum of 640,000/, already advanced to the Irish clergy and other tithe impro- priators should be remitted, ati:1 that the Committee should have power to dimitlish or discharge the remainder.

This scheme was soppoAe‘l by Lord STANLF.Y, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. Silt:tr., and Mr. S2riteaot Jataisosr. Lord Jolts/ Ressma. and Mr. SPRING Rice demurred to it ; on the ground that time loan-re- ceivers ought only to he relieved from the repayment of that portion of the arrears which they could not collect.

Mr. Hoste would not give one shilling to the Irish clergy, until the conditions were fulfilled on which it was formerly proposed to remit payment of the money advanced—until the Appropriation-clause and the abolition of sinecures in the Church were agreed to.

After the discussion had proceeded for some time,

Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke as follows in explanation of a plan he had formed- " I do not despair that some settlement of this question consistent with jus- tice may be arrived at ; arid I beg to submit to the consideration of the Com- mittee a proposal offered with that view, and the main grounds of which i shall now state. In the first place, as you can do nothing without a Commis- sion, let one be appointed. It is impossible, unless you mean to act blindly, that you should proctad in this case without intrusting to some such body the necessary powets for carrying into operation the plan which I mean to submit. Do not guarantee to pay the amount of the arrears, but place at the disposal of this Commission 307,000/.—I should rather say half a million. Ascertain, then, the total amount of the arrears of the occupying tenants, and determine what proportion the defined sum which you place at the disposal of the Com- mission bears to the whole amount of the arrears. Supposing the sum fixed upon for disposal by the Committee to be 307,0001., and the whole amount of arrears to be 614,0001., of course you can only inset 50 per cent. of what is now doe. Then introduce an optional principle into the plan—offer to pur- chase the arrears by a tender of 50 per cent., the Government standing in the position of the tithe-owner in respect to the arrears. Give the parties two months, or a certain definite period, to decide. In my opinion, a great num- ber will be found ready to sink their right to arrears, in consideration of the immediate payment of the sum which you offer. The state will then be in possession of the existing right of the tithe-owner to the arrears. You will thus be enabled to look at the particular circumstances of each place, and to see where it is right to enforce the law, and where it would be more expedient to avoid its enforcement. Let you, the state, be the party to enforce to the utmost the claim of the tithe-owner, and to make such arrangements as that you can say to the landlord= There are 100/. of arrears due to me by your tenants ; let a portion of this be paid, and we shall remit the remainder.' This plan would do no injustice to the clergyman, becalm he is to remain in possession of his remedy for the recovery of his tithe, in case he refuses the offer made him by the Commission. I venture to say, in nine cases out of ten he will accept your offer. In the few cases in which he shall decline, there re- mains the objection that the tithe arrears are to be recovered by the clergyman from the occupying tenant ; but how infinitely smaller will that proportion be, than when you leave the clergyman altogether to the enforcement of his Own rights, without any intetference on the part of the Government. Ify this course you introdrice an optional principle; you place yourselves in the position of the clergyman ; where the circumstances of the opposition given by the oc- cupying tenant are such that you do not think it right to enforce the claim to arrears, you Can abstain from doing so; but where, on the contrary, the tenant is solvent arid refractory, and you seek to make a public example of enforcing the law, then you have the m .ans af compelling payment."

Mr. O'CoNsEt.t. thought Sir Robert Peel's proposition might be- come the basis of a practicable arrangement.

Lord JoitN flcssur.r. and Mr. SPRING Rtci . agreed to give it a fa- vourable 'mishit:ratio'', and the di:cussion was adjourned.

SALE OF BEER. Lord FRANCIS Esestroo, on Tuesday, moved an address to the Queen for " coaies of any passages in presentments of Grand juries in England and Wales having reference to the state of the law aff_cong the sale of besr, for the years 1536, 1537, and 1838." Ile referred to numerous petitiona which hail been presented from York, Leeds, Huddersfield, Shi flield, and other places, for proof of the enormous eyrie pro laced by the present system. No bill had ever been more productive of drunkenness anti immorality than the Sale of Beer Act. Ile did not wish to ineouvenience the Government, or to injure persons who had engaged in business under a bill introduced by a Ministry in whose politics he concurred ; but he wished to give all parties mulling that the present system could not continue long.

Mr. SANFORD seconded the motion.

Mr. SPRING Rica had always considered the opening of the beer- trade us a wise and liberal proceeding. As to the alleged increase of crime, he did not believe that it was to he attributed to the Beer Act. Neither had he any faith in the statements made of the greatly-in- creased consumption of spirits. In London, gin-shops were not or the increase, but the reverse. Would not the repeal of the present law respecting the sale of beer bring on the old monopoly, and the evils of the licensing system ? Nothing could be done this session ; bun he implored the House to weigh well the consequences of altering the existing law.

Mr. Hume deprecated the eternal meddling with the comforts of the poor. He denied that there was any proof of the increase of crime and drunkenness. The licensed victuallers had been raising a clamour against beer-shops ; but, while complaints bad been made against 514 licensed victualling-houses, only 240 beer-shops had offended.

Lord DUNGANNON considered beer-shops as places where crimes of the deepest dye, such as highway robbery and deer.stealing, were con- cocted ; and he had forbidden all his tenants to keep them.

Mr. WARBURTON said, the old women who used to rail at public-. houses now railed at beer-shops. If to drink beer at the beer-shops was prohibited, he should propose that no beer be drunk at any inn in London.

Mr. Danny contended that beer-shops were resorted to by worse cha- racters than public.houses.

Mr. HAWF.S denied time increase of crime, on which Lord Francis Egerton's entire case rested In two metropolitan counties, Middlesex and Surry, there had been a steady decrease of crime during the last three years, though the population had in- creased and beer-shops bad multiple& It was true there had been a better police and prompter gaol-deliveries. Of serious offences, in 1834, the number was 17 per cent. ; in 1835,16 per cent.; in 1836, 15 per cent.; in 1837, 13 per cent. If the state of crime was examined, it would be found that all those offence* which might be supposed to be the result of bard driakiog and bad

company had diminished ; and that inhumes had decteased in the coMitry dis- tricts, when the evils of beer.shops were aaid to be most felt. Education was the proper corrective of crime ; and who were the opposers of all education, not founded upon a particular creed, but the gentlemen opposite ?

I Mr. SLANEY attributed the increase of crime to the augmented con- sumption, not of beer, but of spirits-

' From the returns which he had minutely examined, he found that the con- sumption of spirits had within twenty years increased from 9,000,000 gallons tu 27,000,000 gallons. That was a trightful increase, and in some degree owing to the seandalously inefficient manner in which the police discharged their duty. Whenever he had left that House after midnight, sometimes at one and two o'clock, he had invariably seen on his way home several spirit.ahops open, and persons coming out from them in a state of inebriation. If the police were attending to their duty, that could not take place with impunity to tither party. With regard to beer-shops, he was certainly of opinion that some im- provement should be made in the mode of granting licences. Some criterion— that of property perhaps—ought to be required before any one should be per- mitted toestablish a beer-shop. There waa a great difference between the work- ing of the present system in large towns and in the country, as the competition created in the former from the multiplicity of such houses, secured to the in- habitants a good article at a cheap rate. This was not so in villages, which required a check of a different nature.

Mr. WALLACE was for free competition— He could produce villages in Scotland in which every other house was a beer.bhop; and yet from those houses the people returned as sober as the fre- quenters of Crockford'a or any other club in London. (Mach laughter.) They went to those placea to refresh, not intoxicate themselves. It was thought no disgrace to do so; and if the same liberal system were adopted in England, he had no doubt it would be attended with the same happy result.

Mr. Mane Pittman wished for inquiry next session.

"" Mr. VILLIERS supported this suggestion. He defied any person to

show that the conduct of the people had deteriorated since the intro- duction of the Beer Act. It was, however, the interest of Magis- trates, and those who made Magistrates, to go back to the old system.

Sir J. GuesT supported Lord Francis Egerton's motion.

Mr. AGLIONBY FOR1 Mr. PARROT approved of the Beer Act. Mr. BROTRERTON and Mr. finsants.:e were unfavourable to the continuance of'the present system, arid advocated inquiry and iIupovemeitt.

The motion for returns was agreed to.

TI1E (O.L TRADE.

Mr. LABOUCRERE, on Thursday, having moved the further consi- deration of the report on the London Coal-trade Bill, Lord GRANvILLE Sosteuser moved an instruction to the Cotnmittee, to make provision for the repeal of all such clauses in Railway Bills as impose a duty of a shilling and a penny per ton, to be paid to the Corporation of London, in coals carried by railways %vithiti certain dis- tances of London, which distances were specified in the several acts,

and varied from fifteen to eighteen miles. His proposition was the only one which could enable the citizens of London to obtain coals from inland districts, and break down the monopoly of the coals owners—that gigantic combination, which now engrossed the entire supply of coals to the metropolis.

Mr. Heate seconded the motion.

Mr. LAROCCIIERE would gladly reduce the price of coals in London, but that reduction should be made in a fair and open manlier. If the eoulowners had fsrined an illegal combination, let an net of Parliament be passed to put it down. By the present bill, the City of London consented to allow a drawback on every ton of coals exported, either for the use of steam-boats or as cargo. The adoption of the amend- ment would seriously obstruct the passage of a bill which conferred these great advantages ; and he should give all the resistance in his power to Lord Granville Somerset's motion.

Mr. WARBURTON observed, that a more scandalous monopoly never existed than in the Northern Coal trade, or a more shameful combine- tion—

A good description of coal they sold for exportation at Is. a ton less than they would sell it to the English consumer ; and an inferior description, called beam coal, they sold to the foreign consumer at 8s. 6d. a chaldron, while they (barged the home market twice as notch. He hoped the House would adopt some regulations to put this tiade upon a footing of fair and honorable compe- tition, and correct the selfishness, narrowsmindednesa, and want of patriotism of those who monopolize it.

Mr. Bill. denied that any thing like combination existed among the coalowners in the North of England-

IL,The privilege of supplying the port of London was not confined to the coal. owners of the North of England. It was open to those of Scotland and Wales ; and the only advantage possessed by the North of England coalunvuers was, that the public gave them a preference because they supplied a better and a cheaper article to persons so dealing ; therefore the charge of monopoly or combination could not apply. It was erroneous to suppose that the regulations adopted in the Northern coal-trade had the effect of limiting the supply to the part of London, because the supply had Mereased considerably within the last ten years. In answer to Mt. 'W arbutton's ubservation, he begged to state, that the beam coal, which was sold cheap for exportation, was not so well screened or attended to as that sent to Loudon, which was charged only 10s., instead of Ws., as stated by Mr. Warburton.

Sir RoueaT PEEL opposed the motion ; as it involved a dangerous principle—that of interfering with places that had natural and physical advantages, so as to bring them to a level with places less favoured. There was, he agreed, a practical monopoly on the part of the coal- owners ; but he was surprised at Mr. Warburtotes indignation on the subject, and his disappointment in not finding disinterestedness and patriotism in a coal.hole- Ile for one never expected to find more patriotism in a coalowner poi coal. owner than he did in a horse dealer. (Much laughter.) He did not think the coalowners were to blame fur selling to foreign manufacture's. The fault and the blame lay with those who permitted thent to do so, iustead of retaining and securing to England her own elements of continual prosperity. ((heers.) In that respect the co:downers must stand acquitted of all blame. Indeed, he verily believer! that Quintus Curtin,' himself, it he wete a coalowner, would exact as truck from his customers as he could, although in another capacity he would, of course, be very patriotic. Su it was with the coalowuera grid coalowneta, they might be selfish, though patriotic and disinterested in a different character.

He thought that the House had legislated too hastily on the subject

of railways. They should have dealt with the railway bills as part of a general system, and not as individual measures. He considered the continuation of the coal-duty objectionable, but did not know in what other way they could have a Royal Exchange worthy of the city of London.

Mr. PEASE defied any man to show that the coal business had hem a paying trade during the last ten years, He had himself given away 10,000 tons of small coals this year to repair the roads, rather than send them to London, as they would not pay the cost of freight.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET withdrew bis motion ; and the report was considered in Committee. The several clauses, with the sches dules and preatnble, were agreed to ; and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

THE MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

The House of Commons went into Committee on the Miscella- neous Estimates oil Monday. On the vote of 107,993/. for the ex-

penses of the Consular Department being proposed, Sir ROBERT Pees asked whether Consuls were prohibited from engaging in trade ? Lord PALMERSTON replied, that whenever the Consul was more of a diplos matic than a commercial agent, as in most of the South American States, he was prohibited from engaging in trade ; but not otherwise, as he was thus enabled to obtain Consuls at smaller salaries than if they were prevented from trading on their own account.

The sum of 9,055/. was voted for the salaries of factory surveyors. Several Aletnbers expressed disapprobation of the present system.

Mr. BROTIIERTON said, that the act did not afford the slightest protec- tion to the children, while it was extremely inconvenient to masters and workmen. It was easily and constantly evaded.

The sum of 3,703/. for the expenses of the mint having been pros posed,

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, in reply to an observation from Mr. Clay, that he regretted to state the general opinion of English artists, that the execution of the coronation medal did not answer the expectation formed, from the distinguished reputation of Signor Pistrucci- To show, however, how capable that artist was of elegant design and able execution, lie need only refer to the coronation medal of George the Fourth. And though he fully admitted that the late coronation medal was not executed in the tnanner that might have been expected from Signor Pistrucci, yet he believed that the imperfection was entirely owing to an unfortunate CIICUM. stance, by which he had been almost totally deprived of sight for two weeks previous to the completion of the work. Signor Pistrucci was as sensible as any body of the imperfection of the medal, and wrote to bite to state his regret and explain the cause.

Mr. HUME was sorry that the medals could not be put into a pot and remelted ; and he was sorry for Signor Pistrucci's misfortune; but, on such tin occasion, if on any, extraordinary precautions should have been taken by the Master of the Mint. He wished to know whether there would not be threepenny and twopenny silver pieces as well as fourpenny ?

Mr. LABOUCHERE did not think that an possible benefit could arise from having smaller pieces than the fourpenny for general circulation, but should be indeed sorty to omit the coinage of the smaller pieces usual at the commencement of each reign. The series of silver pen- nies was the most perfect of any class of English coins.

Mr. IVAttlit/RTON regretted that the Committee on the Mint bad not been reappointed.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, that the state of health of one of the officere, whose evidence would have been most important for the Committee to hear, would not have allowed him to be present.

The vote passed.

By a majotity'of 84 to 16, the Committee agreed to continue the grant of 4,500/. to Dissenting ministers and French refugees; Mr. fireman', Mr. Ideate, Mr. BAINES, and Mr. WALLACE, on behalf of the Dissenters disclaiming any wish to receive that portion of the sum, 1,0951., paid to their clergy. 46,690/. for the Convict Hulks establish. meta, and 235,0001. for maintaining convicts in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, were voted without a word of remark.

The grant of •20,000/. for the erection of school.houses excited some discussion.

Mr. SLANIN was dissatisfied with the manner in which the money was distributed. There ought to be a system of inspection. Mr. SPRING RICE promised a measure for that purpose next session. Mr. Wvsn spoke in favour of general education. Mr. GOULBURN insisted on religious education.

Mr. ACI.AND spoke to the same effect, and added—

There was a very efficient inspection of the national schools carried on by the clergy in each parish, and the benefits of those schools were Lot confined to the children of members of the Established Church, for a very large portion of the children of the Dissenters attended them.

Mn'. Vissices said, the inference was that the schools were well.con- ducted, because they were under the inspection of the clergy. But whet was the fact ?-

Was not the complaint general that the country, in respect to religious in- struction, was in a state of destitution, thus cleanly showing that an improved system of inspection was wanted? He hopid the House would consider that there had been nothing advanced against bonne improved system of super intern. deuce and when they voted the public money, it was surely their duty to see how :bat money was applied. That looney at present was given to two some. ties ; and it appeared to him that the only rule for its distribution at present was to give it almost exclusively to the most wealthy sect. Now, it was clear that it ought to be applied fairly to the general purposes of education ; and he sincerely trusted that a better system of inspection would be established so as to insure a fairer distribution of the grant.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS was strongly opposed to Parliamentary inter- ference with the mode of instruction udopted by the Church. Mr. O'CONNELL only wanted fair play- As the grant was the coutribution of all sects in religion, they wanted that grant to be fairly divided amongst Protestants, Catholics, and Dissenters. "They were all met there on equal terms ; awl all that those ou his side of the House asked for was equality and justice, and that the Government should superintend the distribution of the money, leaving the instruction to the care of the pastors.

The money was voted.

For the erection of school-houses, and for the education of poor children in Scotland, 10,000/. was voted; and the Chairman reported

prgress. MISCELLANEOUS.

THE NATIONAL LOAN FUND ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL. was read a third time in the Commons on Monday, by a majority of 109 to

38; and passed. PILOTAGE BILL. The order for " committing" this bill was dis- charged on Tuesday ; Mr. POULETT THOMSON declining to proceed with it this session.

VEsTatEs IN CHURCHES Btu- It was agreed on Tuesday, that this bill should be brought forward at the morning sitting of Thursday the 19th. GOVERNMENT OF OUDE. Mr. PRAED moved for papers connected with the assumption of the Government of Oude by the East India Company. Sir Joust HOBIFOUSE had no objection to produce the papers ; but assured the House, that nothing had been done to give the Company greater power than it possessed by treaty to enforce pay- ment of any claims on the King of Oude.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. Mr. GLADSTONE moved an address to the Queen for a commission of inquiry, on the spot, into the past and pre- sent state of British relations with the Caffre tribes at the Cape of Good Hope. Sir GEORGE GREY said, that the real object of the mo- tion was for an investigation into the conduct of certain settlers at Albany in the colony : but, after careful attention to the circumstances attending their disputes with the natives, he saw no ground for ap- pointing the proposed commission of inquiry--

No effort had been left untried by the Government of the Cape of Good Hope to carry into effect the measures recommended by the Colonial Adminis- tration here for establishing a better system of policy and remedying existing evils. The aggressions of the colonists could not be justified or sanctioned by Parliament or the Government ; and he trusted that these excesses, which were only disgraceful to the British name, would in future be prevented. Motion rejected, by 41 to 32.

THE PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL was read a second time, on Wednesday, on the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, and after a division of 104 to 42. The object of the bill, as explained by Mr. Labouchere, is to prevent farmers' profits being rated for parochial purposes. By a late decision of Judge Parke, in the case of the King verses Joddrell, the usual mode of rating—namely, that of making deductions for re- pairs and other outgoings, and fixing the rate on the remainder—was set aside. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL declared this decision to be bad in law ; but, to prevent extensive litigation, a declaratory act was necessary. Another effect of the bill would be to render clerical tithes liable to rates; from which, by a clause introduced in a former bill by the Archbishop of Canterbury, they are now exempt. The chief oppo- nents of the bill were Mr. GOULBURN and Sir ROBERT INGLIS on behalf of the Clergy. The Country Gentlemen supported the measure.

THE QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS BILL Was read a third time, and passed.

THE WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENT BILL was withdrawn by Sir MarritEw Woou; Mr. POULETT THOMSON having objected to the mode of raising 900,0001. of the necessary capital by tontine, which he called a species of hocus.pocus or gambling.

TIIE SCOTCH SMALL Deirrs BILL was thrown out, on the motion for the third reading, by a vote of 6;1 to 45. This measure was brought forward by Sir IVILLIAS1 RAE, and opposed by Mr. WALLACE.