atai anti 3raccain0 in Parliament.

1. IRISH REFORM BILL. On the motion for recommitting this bill, on.Wednesday- Mr. LEADER and Mr. O'CONNELL complained that the requisite in- formation for coming to a judgment on the bill had not been furnished. Returns of a very imperfect kind had been given, and these had only been distributed that forenoon. Mr. 0' CONNELL said, he understood, from the manner in which the boundaries of Dungarvan and Youghall were drawn, these boroughs would be to all intents and purposes close boroughs in the hands of the Duke of Devonshire.

Mr. STANLEY said, the delay in furnishing the report concerning the boundaries had arisen out of the necessity of having the maps coloured. The information contained in the report was in fact in the bands of members, and had been so for a month past, in the abstract. The slain reason why such a mass of information was not thought necessary in the case of the Irish Bill as in that of the English, was that there were so many boroughs to be disfranchised in the latter, and an exact estimate of their comparative merits was absolutely necessary. In the cases of Youghall and Dungarvan, the same rule had been followed as in similar cases in England.

Sir R. MUSGRAVE observed, that by the bill the constituency of Dungarvan would be reduced from 860 [871] to 106 [210] 10/. voters, most of whom resided on the Duke of Devonshire's property.

This preliminary discussion arose out of a petition for the preserva- tion of the .5/. voters of the borough of Dungarvan, who are 1.50 in number, and are proposed to be preserved for life only. Mr. GEORGE LA3IB, in moving that it be printed, said, he saw no reason why 5L voters, in every borough where they at present possessed a right of voting, should not retain it.

Mr. STANLEY repeated, that precisely the same rule had been applied in Ireland as in England. In Youghall, the constituency now amounted to 263 freemen ; of whom 87 were resident : of these, 74 would be retained permanently as 101. householders, and an addition of nearly SOO [326] 101. voters would be made to the constituency.

Mr. O'CONNELL again pressed for delay. He particularly called for the Population Returns, in order to show that Ireland was curtailed of its fair proportion of members—that there was a disinclination to give it that share in the Constitution to which it was entitled ; "a feel- ing that, in his conscience, he believed existed with as lively force in the breast of Mr. Stanley at that moment, as it had ever existed in this country for the last seven hundred years."

Mr. Wyse said, that by the present bill, the interest of the Marquis of Waterford in Dungarvan would be destroyed, and that of the Duke of Devonshire established. He was not friendly to the former, but he was not for putting down one family influence in order to raise up another.

Mr. GRATTAN and several other members urged delay.

The recommittal was nevertheless persisted in.

Mr. O'CONNELL then rose to make the motion of which he had given notice,—namely, to restore the rights of the forty-shilling freeholders. After observing, that there never existed any valid reason for the dis- franchisement of these freeholders, and that a refusal to restore them to their privileges would infallibly strengthen the question of the Repeal, Mr. O'Connell proceeded— In 1825 he was himself examined before a Committee of the House, with re- ference to the class of voters subsequently disfranchised ; and it was then con-

sidered and understood (at least it was so by himself ) that the forty- shilling

freeholders in fee were to remain untouched in their rights and privileges; and yet in 1829, with a reckless negligence and forgetfulness of every principle, they

were included in the measure and disfranchised, though against them there did

not exist the least pretence for such a course. He, in addition to what he had already objected, must also appeal against the franchise introduced in the mea-

sure, nominally a 10/. franchise, but one which under that bill was stated to be

really a 20/. franchise, because it was provided that there should be 10/. over and above all charges, costs, and expenses. The franchise had not been di-

minished, but extended, in England; why should it not be rendered more ex-

tensive in Ireland? why not restore their rights to the forty-shilling freeholders, and thus give to the peasantry a sense of importance and independence, Nvhile we afforded them a stimulus to industry? Either the English Parliament thought Ireland unfit to receive this boon did he call it ?--nay, this act of justice—or they considered the privilege which was enjoyed in England too good for Irish- men, and grudgingly resolved to keep it to themselves. Grasser injustice was never displayed than that which the Irish Reform Bill exhibited.

He concluded with a severe attack on the Irish Secretary— But this was always the way where Ireland was concerned : her aid was in- -yoked in the battle, but when a division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. In the present instance, insult had been added to injury. The English Reform

Bill was brought forward by an English gentleman; the Scottish Bill by a Scottish legal luminary ; was there no Irishman to whom Ministers could intrust the Irish Reform Bill? was it necessary that it should be introduced by one who could conciliate nobody—a person in whom no party could confide ? Ministers 'wished to put an end to excitement and agitation in Ireland ; and how did they set about it ?—by perpetrating an act of injustice which must perpetuate excite- ment, and leave no room for, any tranquillity but the tranquillity of slavery,—and that, he pledged himself, they should not have. He admitted that Mr. Stanley might defeat himin that House, but the Irish people would beat Mr. Stanley elsewhere. ould vanquish him ; and in doing so, they would violate no

law, so 1. A ;I/Ie.:lets, so long as his Registration of Arms and Unlawful Proe.essio d p± exist. No; so long as Mr. Stanley left the Irish people one sa6ie ainsti nirthey would take their stand upon that and beat him. 117. pagvi./Ttiv: anted of the personalities indulged in by Mr.

0' ;• l'llokuIver, he declined answering. One point only

lie winat1719 O'Connell spoke of the introduction of the

culars last week.] Places.

7 Counties of Cities and Towns

7 Open Boroughs

17 Nomination Boroughs Dublin Belfast Total of 33 places He concluded by asserting, that a .5/. franchise was quite as high in Ireland as a 10/. franchise was in England, and, on every principle of justness and fairness, ought to be adopted.

Sir J. BURKE said, that in Committee he meant to move the dis- franchisement of the six smallest boroughs, and the transfer of their members, with the additional member proposed to be given to the Uni- versity, to the seven largest cOunties.

Sir J. NEWPORT admitted that there was some good in the bill, but he thought the evil in it would effectually neutralize the good. He particularly objected to the mode of registration to be adopted—why was the English plan extended to Ireland? If good for the one country, it must be good for the other.

Lord ALTHORP said, he must support the bill as it stood— The effect of the proposed instruction would be, if carried, to impede the pro- gress of, if not ultimately to defeat, the measure. The object of Ministers in proposing Reform, was not so much the conferring of new rights, as the re- moval of practical grie•ances ; and he did not think that the withholding of the fianchise from the forty-shilling freeholders in fee of Ireland was a practical grievance. They were a very small class of persons, and by the existing law did not possess the right of voting. With respect to registration, the Ministers had thought it advisable to adopt that plan which was already in operation in Ireland, in preference to taking a new system. If the English mode of regis- tration should be found to answer better, it could afterwards be applied to Ireland.

Mr. SHEIL pointedly denied that one suggestion of the Irish mem- bers had been at all attended to by Mr. Stanley ; with the exception of one of Lord Ingestrie, for giving a vote in counties to sixty-years leaseholders,—an extension, if it were one, which no Irishman cared any thing about.

After some further conversation, the House divided: for Mr. O'Con- nell's motion, 73; against it, 122; majority, 49.

Mr. O'CONNELL afterwards made a similar motion, also by way of instruction to Committee, for the restoration of forty-shilling freehold- ers "seized of an estate of three lives." It was negatived without a division.

The Speaker having quitted the chair, Sir ROBERT HERON brought forward his motion for transferring the additional member proposed to be given to Dublin College, to the town of Kilkenny. Sir Robert compared the claims of Trinity College with those of the English and. Scotch Universities—.

The University of Dublin consisted of a single college ; it had now a consti- tuency of 72 members, and under the new Bill that constituency would be raised to a number not much exceeding 200. The University of Cambridge had 2,200, and the University of Oxford had 2,500 voters. He should be glad to know on what ground of learning, morality, or virtue, the University of Dublin could claim the right of having a representation ten times as great as the representa- tion of the two English Universities ? Again, if you go further north, you will find four Scotch Universities without any representatives. Why, then, if litera- ture were to be represented, was the additional member to be given to the Uni- versity of'Dublin, which had one member already, and not to one of the Scotch Universities, all of which were without one ?

He considered the question in reference to Ireland generally— You have, on the one side, a constituency of 200 persons, who were to return two members; and on the other, the county of Cork, with a population of 800,000 persons, and a territory containing one seventh of the whole sod of Ire- land, which was to return only the same number; you have also the city of Kilkenny, with a population of 20,000, and its suburb of St. Caning, with a population of 10,000 more, whicte%nsonly to return a single member ; was that right, or just, or politic? But it had been said, that if the right of Reform Bill by an Englishman as an insult. Mr. O'Connell must Be laughing in secret at his audience. He well knew that it was the.pub- lie duty of the Irish Secretary to introduce such a bill. He denied that he had exhibited any unwillingness to listen to suggestions offered in the course of the Bill, whenever they appeared beneficial.

Mr: O'Connell had said, " How unjust to disfranchise the Irish forty-shilling freeholder in fee, while you allow the English forty-shilling freeholder in fee to exercise the franchise! " But Parliament was bound to look and ascertain whether forty-shilling freeholds were held by the same class of persons in Ireland as in England. He had already spoken of the necessity of numbers, in order to make out a case : it would be absurd to legislate for a few indivi- duals; and lie believed he was justified in declaring, that in a vast number of the Irish counties, there was not such a thing known as a forty-shilling free- holder in -fee; and further, that in the great majority of counties where it ex- isted, the class of forty-shilling freeholders in fee was the lowest, most corrupt, and venal, that could well be imagined. Take the county of Wexford, in which there was a considerable number of them ; and on examination, what sort of persons would-the freeholders be found to be ?—they were persons who, to use an Americanism, having " squatted" on the side of a mountain or a bog, had, by long possession, acquired the right to their holdings. In one instance of a contested election for the county, the candidates, of whom there were four, came to an understanding that they would not purchase the votes of any of those eight hundred freeholders so situated, it being well known that they were all venal. lie believed the great majority of the forty-shilling freeholders were precisely of this description; and unless he heard a satisfactory answer to his objections from some Irish member who could prove that the forty-shilling freeholders in fee constituted a large body of respectable and independent men, not under the control of landlords, priests, or agitators, he must say that a case had not been made out to restore to that class in Ireland a privilege which was continued in England, but under widely different circumstances.

Mr. LEADER said, when the Catholic Bill was passed, the number of forty-shilling freeholders was 191,666; of which only 19,264 under the character of ten-pound freeholders were retained. The province of Leinster numbered, of voters from 10/. to 100L, only 14,000; Munster, 14,000 ; Ulster, 1.5,000; Connaught, 17,000. The entire county con- stituency, from the defective forms of the registry, did not exceed 26,000; which was, in fact, no constituency at all. Mr. Leader after- wards went into a long tabular statement of the constituency of the boroughs, of which the following is a summary. [We gave the parti-

Present Votes. Future Votes.

12,011 10,890 4,127 2,738 769 5,270 5,700 14,720 13 2,300 22,620 85,918

returning a member to Parliament were given to either of these et nstitueneies, a Catholic member would be returned, alid that Catholic influence :n the House would be greatly increased. Now, he was not inclined to yield 1 elief to that argument ; but, if the House were really afraid of the increase of Cutholic influ- ence, let them take this right from the University and give it to the city of Dublin ; let them give it to Londonderry, or any other, the most Protestant place in the North of Ireland. To such a transfer, he for one would not object.

Mr. CRAMPTON said, the present electors of the Collcge were 96, and by the bill they would be increased to 600, many of them highly eminent persons. He spoke of the independence of Trinity College, as displayed in the choice of Mr. Plunkett ; and though le might re- gret the decision of Oxford in the ease of Sir Robert Peel,- he must consider that rejection also as a proof of the independence of the electors— In considering the rptestion before them, the House should look to What had been the object of founding and supporting the University of Dublin. It was intended to support the Protestant interest hi Ireland. Now it was said that the present bill gave too notch to the Irish Catholics. He did not say so. He wished to see less distinction between the two parties; but aslong “s there were two religions in Ireland, it would not be presumed that the political influence of both should not be fltirly balanced. It would; however, be untliir to say that the University of Dublin was exclusively Protestant. ' it was open:to Catholics as well as to Pi.otestatits.

Mr. SHE1L said, the scholars at Trinity College amounted to 1,500; those of Edinburgh alone amounted to 2,000. Yet Edinburgh —to say nothing of Glasgow, St. Andrew's, and the Aberdeen Colleges —was to have no members at all ; while it was proposed to give Trinity two. Was this either just or consistent?

Mr. Crampton had said that the University of Dublin was open alike to Ca- tholics as well as Protestants; but was its constituency equally open to both ? The votes were given to the Fellows and Scholars, who must all be Protestants. This was an exclusively Protestant constituency ; and in what way was it made At the preent iwsinent, there were not more thim 25 Scholars who could vote, as many of them were under age. There were 14 Scholars admitted every year ; so that, from the yen 1800 to 18.20, there had been only 420 Scholars. Now, allowing for the deaths which would take place in that time, and for those who might go abroad, he thought it impossible to get a constituency of 600; and he must observe, that the majority of the constituency, such as it would be, would be by no means a resident constituency, which was one great object of the bill. An additional member would only add to the political ndluence of those who seem to think it a matter of much greater importance to make a member of Parliament than to create a Bachelor of Arts. This addition of a member was not for Ireland, but for a small minority, who had no sympathy with the peo- ple of Ireland. It could not be necessary for the Protestant Church in Ire- land, every beneficed clergyman of which had already a vote. The House was now about to give an addition of five members to Ireland. The boon was small compared with the rights of those to whom it was given, and with the dignity of those bv whom it was given; it was therefore of importance, that as -they gave but little, they should give it well.

Mr. LECROY contended, that the constituency of the College would, under the bill, amount to 1,300 or 1,400.

The original ground of the charter granted by King James to the University, was to protect the rights and interests of the Church. A franchise was granted on a similar ground to Armagh, which it was intended to take away by the bill; so that there was an additional reason for giving a second member to the Uni- versity of Dublin. The opening of the boroughs in Ireland would give a con- siderable accession to the popular representation, and therefore there should be an addition to the representation of the intelligence and learning of the country.

Mr. O'CoNNELe asked, in sober sadness,

What was the meaning of giving five members to Ireland, and one of them to a miserable community in Dublin, a college belonging to a particular persua- sion, numbering 400 or 500 voters at most, who were to have one member, when 8,000,000 were to get only four? Could any mockery of reform be greater than that?

Mr. STANLEY defended the consistency of Government in supporting the Protestant interest— In giving an additional member to Dublin, they had calculated upon its being a Protestant College ; and though they did not always look to the question of Protestant or Catholic he did not deny that they ought to protect the Protes- tant interest in Ireland. He did not wish to see the interest of Protestant learn- ing without its due weight in that House. He wished there was no distinction between Catholic and Protestant ; but, seeing the state of things in Ireland, they did not think they were doing what was unreasonable in throwing the ad- ditional member into the Protestant scale, as a protection to the Protestant interest in Ireland.

Lord ALTHORP did not think that in giving one member to the Pro- testant party they were fostering an exclusive interest. He hoped the House would support the proposition, because it was essential to the future success of the bill.

Mr. Caoican. eulogized Mr. Stanley for his moderation.

On a division, the numbers stood—for the amendment, 97; against it, 147; Ministerial majority, .50. The further consideration of the bill was postponed till Monday.

On the subject of the registry under the bill, Mr. O'Cosiamer. put a question on Thursday to -Mr. Shaw, the Recorder of Dublin: Mr.

O'Connell said he understood that it would require 208 days of 8 hours each to register the electors under the bill for the city of Dublin. Mr. SHAW said, the calculation was inaccurate; it would require for the performance of that annual duty, 374 days of 8 hours each !

2. SCOTCH REFORM Btu. This bill passed the Committee last night. Mr. PRINGLE wished the classification of the boroughs to be referred to a Select Committee, but did not press his amendment.

Sir GEORGE Muanav moved an amendment, to restore to Perth the detached parishes proposed in the bill to be annexed to Clackinannan. He spoke of the separation of those parishes as prospectively injurious, by lowering Perth in the scale of counties; which would diminish its claim to a more extended representation when the subject of additional members to Scotland and Ireland came again—as it must come—before Parliament.

The Loan ADVOCATE observed, that the dismemberment, as it was called, already existed geographically; the counties of Clackmannan mid Kinross being intersected by a strip of the county of Perth. The bill only made the political and natural boundaries correspond. The House, after some conversation, divided; for the amendment, 24; Against it, 54; majority for the hill wit stands, 30. The annexation of Elgin to Nairn, on which the House also divided, on the motion of Mr. CUMMING BRUCE, was carried by 50 to 26.

On the question that Greenock stand part of Schedule D—that is, send a member by itself—Mr. C. FERGUSSON urged the conjunction of Port Glasgow with that town, as proposed in the first bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL urged the propriety of the junction.

Lord ALTHORP said, it had, when formerly proposed, been so strongly objected to by Greenock, that it was abandoned. If carried, the only consequence would be to sink Port Glasgow in Greenock.

The original clause was carried, by 73 to 47.

Mr. R. A. DUNDAS'S 1110ti011 for conjoining Stonehaven with the Forfar district of boroughs, was resisted by the LORD ADVOCATE, Its tending to injure the constituency of Forfirshire. It was rejected, on a division, by 62 to 42.

A long conversation took place on a motion of Sir M. S. STEWART, to add Kilmarnock to the Ayr district of boroughs, and Inverary and Campbelton to the Dmibarton district. Sir Michael contended, that Kilmarnock would command the elections of its district, and thus vir- tually give .Ayrshire three members.

The House divided on this motion also : for it, 35; against it, 07; majority for the original clause, 2.

The remainder of the Saba(' tiles, with the addition of Schedule AI— which, with the clause relating to it, embodies the proposed Boundary Bill, as far as respects tiny boroughs—was agreed to without a division. The preamble was also agreed to ; and the House having resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

3. BRIBERY. Lord JOHN RUSSELL obtained leave, on Thursday, to introduce a bill to prevent bribery at elections. Mr. J. CAMPBELL, 011 learning that it did not contain a clause empowering the House to re- quire the oath of members that they had not practised bribery, stated his intention of moving such a clause.

A bill has been introduced into the Lords by Lord Wyxrorin for a similar puTose: it contains the clause desiderated by Mr. Campbell.

4. MINISTERIAL SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. OH Tlmrs- day, the Marquis of NoiernameroN moved the second reading of his bill to enable members of Parliament taking certain offices to remain in the House of C0111111011S Nritbout reelection. The act is a repeal, in part, of the Act of Settlement. His Lordship noticed several incon- veniences which it was the object of such a bill to remedy— When an individual accepted high office, he must at first be ignorant of the details of office ; and it was important, not only to himself, but also to the pub- lic, that his entire and immediate attention should be directed to his new duties. It was, therefore, a great inconvenience, that, when he ought to be attending to public business, he was obliged to be attending to the success of his election. If it was an inconvenience when a single member of the Administration was changed, how much was that inconvenience increased when a whole Adminis- tration was changed, and new men were called upon to take their situations? Au individual might be called upon to take the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the midst of a very difficult negotiation, or the office of Se- cretary of State for the Colonies in the midst ot an insurrection in the West Indies, or the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department in times of excitement like those of the last three weeks; and would it not be produc- tive of great public detriment, if, at such a time such an individual should be obliged to go to the most distant parts of England, Scotland, or Ireland, to secure his return to Parliament? 'I he law, in point of fact, had interfered with the choice of the Crown in appointing its Ministers; for individuals had de- clined to take office, because they would be compelled to vacate their seats, and so be exposed to a ruinous and vexatious opposition. The consequences of the present state of the law might also be dangerous; for in a case of excitement like that which prevailed during the last three weeks, it was important that Ministers should be in their places in the House of Commons, and should not be driven away from them merely because their presence was most wanted. If such was the mischief which might take place now, let the House consider how much it would be increased under the Reform Bill.

In reference to the argument that the reelection of a Minister was a test of his popularity, he denied that it was so, unless in the place for which he was to be reelected. He concluded by stating the offices he meant to include in his bill—

First,. all the great offices usually held by Cabinet Ministers; and secondly,

what might be called the principal law offices, the presence of the persons hold- ing which was generally supposed to be necessary in the House of Commons.

He had not decided whether the office of Secretary at War ought also to be in- serted in the bill ; but this was a question which might be considered in Com- mittee.

The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to such a bill being brought forward by a private Peer. Ministers were responsible for the incon- veniences of the Reform Bill, and ought to provide a remedy for them. He spoke also of the absence of Earl Grey, and the thinness of the House, as reasons for deferring the second reading.

The Earl of RADNOR saw no occasion for such a bill at present ; and thought the Commons would take a natural objection to its origi- nating in the House of Lords.

The Marquis of LaXsnowsm said, when the subject was first broached, it was generally admitted that the law, as it at present stood, was an inconvenient one. He at the same time counselled postpone- ment. Lord BROUGHAM made an observation to the same effect.

Lord NORTHAMPTON acquiesced in these suggestions; and the second reading was deferred till Monday week.

5. TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE. Mr. E. L. BULWER brought forward, on Thursday, his long-announced motion on this subject. He noticed, in commencing, the prevalence of cheap political periodicals in defi- ance of the law, which was the necessary consequence of the present system. He described the results of that ignorance which such publi- cations were more calculated to inflame than enlighten— From an analysis carefully made by the British and Foreign School Society of the cases of those persons who were committed for acts of meendiarism' &c., in 1830 and the beginning of 1831, it appears that, in Berkshire, of 138 pri- soners, only 25 could write and only 37 could read; at Abingdon, of 30 pri- soners, 6 only could read and write ; at Aylesbury, of 79 prisoners, only 80 could read and write; of 50 prisoners tried at Lewes, one individual only could read well.

In France the same result was obtained...

In 1830, it appeared that in the French Courts of Assize there were 6,962 ac- cused persons; out of this number 4,519 persons were entirely ignorant of reading and writing, and only 129 persons, about a 57th part of whole number, had received a superior education.

He denied that, in these cases, crime as well as ignorance was a con- sequence of the poverty of the perpetrators.

His habits had necessarily led him to see much of the condition of those men who followed literature as a profession ; and he would say, that this city con- tained innumerable instances among well-informed and well-educated men, of poverty as grievous, as utter, and certainly as bitterly felt, as any to be found among the labouring population of Kent or Norfolk. Yet how few among these men were driven into crime ! How rarely you find such men retaliating on society the sufferings they endure ! The greater part of offences are offences against property; but these men, accustomed to inquiry' are not led away by those superficial and dangerous notions of the injustice ot the divisions of pro- perty, which those who are both ignorant and poor so naturally conceive, and so frequently act upon: the knowleilge which cannot, in all cases, prevent them from being poor, gives them at least the fortitude and the hope which enable them to he honest.

The natural inference from the connexion thus established between crime and ignorance, Mr. Bulwer said, was, that no difficulty should be thrown in the way of dispelling the latter ; and that, therefore, the tax on newspapers, the most popular of all instruments of instruction, was an unwise and impolitic one.

A certain traveller said, that he asked an American, why it was so rare in America to find a man who could not read ? The American answered, " Be- e.ause any man who sees a newspaper always iu his neighbour's hand, has a desire to see what pleases his neighbour, and is ashamed not to know what forms the current topics of conversation."

He stated the cost of a sevenpenny- paper— The present.taxes upon newspapers consisted first of a duty of 3d. per pound weight on the paper, or about a farthing a sheet ; next of a duty, nominally 4d., but subject to a discount of 20 per cent. ; and thirdly, a tax of 3s. 6d. upon every advertisement. The whole duties, with the price of printing and the news agency, amounted to 5id. for every sevenpenny copy of a London paper.

He noticed the immense circulation of penny political papers, and the cause—

Were honourable members aware, that many of these publications circulated to the amount of several thousand copies weekly; that their sale in several in- , stances was larger than the sale of the most popular legitimate pipers; that their influence among large bodies of the working classes was much greater? A very intelligent mechanic, in a manufacturing town, with whom Inc had had oc- casion to correspond, said, in a letter to him, " We go to the public-house to read the seven i

penny paper, but only for the news; it s the cheap penny paper that the working man can take home and read at spare moments, which he has by him to take up, and read over and over again whenever be has leisure, that forms his opinions." " You ask me," said another mechanic, "if the Penny Magazine will not counteract the effect of what you call the more violent papers? Yes, in some degree ; but not so much as is supposed, because poor men, anxious to better their condition, are always inclined to politics, and the Penny Magazine does not touch upon them : to correct bad politics, you must give us not only literature„ but good politics." Did honourable members know the class of publications thus suffered to influence the opinions of their fellow- countrymen ? He spoke not about such as were aimed at mere forms of go- vernment ; but were they aware that sonic of them struck at the root of all.pro- perty, talked of the injustice of paving rents, insisted upon a unanimous seizure of all the lands in the kingdom, declared there was no moral guilt in any viola- tion of law, and even advocated assassination itself! Thus, then, it was clear, that the stamp-duty did not prevent the circulation of the must dangerous doc- trines. It gave them, on the contrary, by the interest which the mere risk of a prosecution always begets in the popular mind, a value, a weight, and a circu- lation; which they could not otherwise acquire. Above all, let them recollect, that while these were circulated in thousands, the law forbade reply to them; or it; in despite of fact, you call the legitimate papers a reply to them, then, even by your own showing, you sell the poison for a penny, and the antidote at sevenpenee.

He stated that his only object was the removal of the stamp-duty

and the advertisement-tax. If the former were removed, the price of a newspaper would be reduced at once to aid.; and, in the opinion of many practical men, much lower, in consequence of the abolition of the monopoly and the increase of advertisements. In proof of the extent to which the circulation was limited by the stamp-duty, Mr. Bulwer noticed the fact, that the Political News Letter, which, when published at 4d. without a stamp, sold 6,000 copies a week, fell at once, when published at 7d. with a stamp, to .500 copies. The extraordinary sale of the Penny Magazine he noticed as another case in point. He adverted to the extraordinary sale of the American journals- . There is not a town in America with 10,000 inhabitants, that has not its daily paper. Compare Boston and Liverpool—Liverpool has 165,175 inhabi- tants; Boston had, in 1829, 70,000 inhabitants. Liverpool puts forth eight weekly publications; and Boston, with less than half the population and about a fourth part of the trade of Liverpool, puts forth eighty weekly publications! In 1829, the number of newspapers published in the British Isles was 33,050,000, or 630,000 weekly ; which is one copy for every 36th inhabitant. In Pennsyl- vania, which had only in that year 1,200,000 inhabitants, the newspapers amounted to 300,000 copies weekly—or a newspaper to every fourth inhabitant. What WIW the cause of this mighty difference? The newspaper in one country sells for a fourth of what it sells for in the other. The newspaper in America sells for lid., and in England for 7d.

After arguing for the necessity of enlightening the people, to whom the highest rights of citizens had been conceded by the Reform Act, Mr. Bulwer went on to notice the effect of the duty on the character of the press itself-

. Suppose they did not break the present monopoly of the five or six newspa- pers, which now concentrate the power of the Press, what would be the conse- quence? Why this. In a Reformed Parliament, would not a Ministry too entirely depend on some one or two of the most influential newspapers for sup- ' port? What the close boroughs had been, might not the existing Journals be- -come? Did he speak against the respectability of the present Press?—No! considering the vast power they possessed, the wonder was, not that they had so' often, but so seldom abused it. Was he then, opposed to granting that power to the Press? Absurd! While types and paper existed, that power must con- tinue. But then it should be a free press, and not a monopoly. Every shade of opinion should its organ. Power should exist, but that power should be a representation, not an oligarchy. Why exchange an oligarchy of boroughs for an oligarchy of journals ? He next adverted to the advertisement-duty.; the calculations respect- the Exchequer, by the editor of the Scotsman, which embodied the whole of the arguments on the subject, that appeared in that journal several years ago. Mr. Bulwer dwelt on the evil inflicted by the ad- vertisement-duty, and consequent cost of advertisements, on the book- trade— A book must be advertised largely in order to sell: advertising was the chief expense. What was the consequence? Why, that as it cost as much to adver- tise a cheap book as to advertise a dear one, the bookseller was loth to publish a cheap one. He cared more about the number of pages in your work than the number of facts. You told him of the materials you had collected, and he raked if he could sell them for a guinea? This operated in two ways,—First, it degraded literature into book-making; Secondly, it was a virtual interdict upon cheap knowledge. In both ways the public were irreparable losers; and all for the paltry sum of about 157,0001. to the revenues of the wealthiest country in the world.

He stated the substitutes that he proposed for the taxes which he purposed to abolish— His plan was a cheap postage, in the following manner—all newspapers, poems, pamphlets, tracts, circulars, printed publications of whatsoever description, and weighing less than two ounces, should circulate, through the medium of the General Post, at the rate of one penny ; through the Twopenny or Threepenny, at one halfpenny. He would also propose, that all world under five ounces should circulate 'through the same channels, at a low and graduated charge.

He gave an estimate of the produce of such a tax, on the supposition that one paper should in future be circulated for every eight persons of the population..

The weight of daily newspapers of the largest size is 8Slbs. per 1,000 copies, which pay a duty of Od. per pound or 22s. per 1,000 copies (say 20s.); this makes the paper-duty 1,0001. sterling fur every million sheets. Now, we found at present that two-thirds of the London papers went by post ; suppose for one moment that this ratio continued with the increased number, the account to the

revenue would stand thus :—

Postage of weekly papers £416,666 Extra paper-duty for the extra 120 million sheets 120,000 Total £536,666 But this is only for weekly papers : add now all the daily papers—those published twice or three times a week—the pamphlets—the tracts—the prospec- tuses—the various publications sent through the post ; and if you only calculate these at an equal sum produced by the weekly papers, the results would be more than a million ; from which if you took 300,0001. to pay the expenses of car- riage, distribution, &c. (a most extravagant calculation), you would still leave more than the profits of the two taxes he wished to repeal?

He afterwards showed, that, allowing for such an increase of news- papers as the diminished price might be fairly supposed to produce, the mere paper-duty would amount to more than double the present revenue arising from both stamp and advertisement-duty. Mr. Bulwer concluded by moving- " That it is expedient to repeal all taxes which impede the diffusion of knowledge.

" That it is peculiarly expedient at the present time to repeal the stamp-duty on newspapers. " That it is also peculiarly expedient to repeal or to reduce the duty on advertisements.

" That it is expedient, in order to meet the present state of the revenue, to appoint a Select Committee, to consider the propriety of establishing a cheap postage on newspapers and other publications.'

Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.

Lord ALTIIORP opposed it, because of the late period of the session, and because he had not given to the subject so much consideration as to arrive at a satisfactory judgment upon it. He observed, that in many points Mr. Bulwer's statements were greatly exaggerated. To a post- age-duty he decidedly objected. That would merely relieve the Metro- polis at the expense of the provinces. London had great facilities for acquiring information, and its journals would always have a preference to those of the country. He noticed also the difficulty of transmitting so many newspapers by post, as proved by the difficulty that at present occurred on any extraordinary occasion. As he could not refuse his assent to the principle of Mr. Bulwer's first proposition, he would merely move the previous question on the motion.

• Mr. O'CONNELL noticed an error of Lord Althorp respecting adver- tisements. His Lordship had said, that out of the sum charged for a daily advertisement in a London journal (202/.) Government received only 60/. ; and.hence he argued, that taking off the tax would not place advertisements in England on an equal footing in respect of cheapness with advertisements in America, where a similar advertisement cost only 71. In this argument, Lord Althorp forgot entirely, that the newspaper proprietor charged for outlay of capital on the duty, and he lost sight entirely of the effect of the increased competition.

Sir Ctiani.Es WETHERELL spoke of the press as a valuable right of property, which must not be injured: Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought it quite impossible to get through the proposed inquiry. • Mr. WARBURTON and Mr. STntrri. thought Mr. Bulwer should press the motion to a division, in order to show the feeling of the House upon it.

Mr. ROBINSON observed, that taxation of every kind must be re- modelled in a new Parliament, and the taxes on knowledge among others.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, the diffusion of knowledge was a most im- proper object, of taxation.

Mr. BULWER, after a few words of reply, consented to withdraw the motion, on the sole ground that the season was too far advanced to entertain it.

6. MONOPOLY OF THE BAR. On Thursday., MT. D. W. HARVEY brought this subject under the consideration of the House, on a motion for leave to bring. in a bill "to empower the Judges of the Court of King's Bench to issue a mandamus to the Treasurers of the .several Inns of Court, and to frame ordinances to regulate the admission of persons claiming to become members of such Inns or to be called to the Bar." He stated the grievance which he was anxious to remove— If any honourable gentleman opposite were to- present himself to-morrow

morning for admission to the bar, he could not demand that admission. He

tificatei to his character ; but he would be ordered to call again; and when he did call again, a verbal communication would be made to him, that his applica- tion was rejected. Why ? No reason was ever assigned. On applying to the Benchers, stating the severity of the case, and applying again for admission, he would receive a letter from the Secretary, telling him that his letter had been read, and that his request could not be complied with. Against that decision the individual had no redress.

He remarked, that this was no imaginary case ; and in proof, cited the case of Mr. Wooller, in which the Judges had decided that they bad no power to direct the Benchers to admit, and consequently, that they could not call on them to assign reasons for rejecting. After commenting on this case at some length, Mr. Harvey stated the man- ner in which his remedy was meant to apply—

He proposed two things,—first, that when a person applied to he admitted a student in any of the four Inns of Court, and was refused, he should be entitled to obtain a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench, calling upon the Trea- surer, or some other Officer of the Inn, to state the grounds of his rejection. The second was, that when a person who had become a student subsequently asked to be called to the bar, and was refused, he should be entitled to apply for a mandamus calling on the Benchers to state the reasons of his rejection.

By way of exemplifying the mode in which admission to the bar is sought, Mr. Harvey went into a history of his own case.

In the year 1813, an individual, who was then in practice as a solicitor, applied to be admitted into the Inner Temple. He was told that before he could be admitted he must bring credentials from two respectable persons, both as to his knowledge of law andas to his character. Those credentials were produced, and he was admitted. Until 1818 he took no further steps. Circumstances then induced him to apply to be admitted to the second stage. He was told that he must bind himself to conform to certain rules, and pay 100/. Those things he did, and was allowed to enter upon the severe study of eating dinners in Term time. At the end of three years, having complied with every thing that had been required of him, he applied to be admitted as a barrister. He was then informed, that he must apply to the Court of King's Bench, two years before he wished to be called to the bar, to have his name erased from the Rolls of that Court as an attorney. The person in question slid so apply; and at a time when his practice was worth not less than 2,500/. a year, with every prospect of augmentation. Having in all things perfected his title, he applied to be called, and was rejected. The Court deciding in such a case possessed a power un- known elsewhere—a power unpossessed by the Courts of Law in Westminster Hail, a power unpossessed by the King in Council. They possessed a tyrannical power extending to inquisitorial influence over all the acts of the individual sub- jected to it, from the cradle to the moment at which they might think proper to strangle him. There was no transaction of his life, however distant, and by that very distance perhaps rendered difficult of explanation, on which they did not claim a right to institute a secret, a strict, and a partial inquiry. There was no prosecutor. No man dared to make any charge. There was no appeal, except to the fifteen Judges as visitors. The individual to whom he had alluded made that appeal; and he was accordingly called on to make a defence to an undefended action—a mere question of meum and tuism—on which a Jury had given a verdict ; and the Judges confirmed the decree of the Benchers, and refused to call him. But upon what grounds?—on the ground that there was no agreement—in favour of which there really was stronger evidence than that upon which Christianity itself rested.

Sir THOMAS DENMAN contended, that it was absolutely necessary that an inquiry should take place before a candidate was admitted to. the bar, respecting his fitness to act as a member of a society of gen- tlemen, and that the qualifications of such a one were not such as could possibly be made the subject of a mandamus. He justified the refusal to allow Mr. Wooller to become a student, on the ground of his being the author of the Black Dwarf, which the majority of the Benchers thought contained inflammatory and abominable doctrines. He next adverted to the case of Mr. Harvey himself— A statement was made, that Mr. Harvey, being himself an attorney, had stolen a paper from another attorney's office; and an action for scandal was the conse- quence. The attorney who made the statement justified it; and pleaded, that it was true the case was tried, and the Jury found that the defendant had made out his plea, and the charge was true. There was another question, which it had been said was a mere question of meum and team. Why, that question involved the possession of all the property in the country ; nay more, it involved the question, "Are you, or are you not, an honest man?" That question, which was tried in an action upon a contract, was, whether Mr. Harvey had sold property for a client, and got a profit on it himself; or whether he had, in the first instance, purchased the property, and afterwards resold it, and so was fairly entitled to the profit he had made. It was said, that that was a mere undefined case of contract. It might be so. He would not speak positively about it; but his impression was, that it had been afterwards discussed on a motion for a new trial. Of this, however, he was certain, that the whole matter had been brought before the Judges, who had confirmed the decision of the Benchers. He, and the present Lord Chancellor, had been charged with the duty of defend- ing Mr. Harvey. He assured the House, that they did their best in his defence; and had spoken with a strong disposition to persuade themselves that he was wrongly charged; and that even if the charge had some foundation, he might afterwards become a respectable member of society. He knew that it was now asserted that the true reason for the rejection was the attack made by that in- dividual on the practice of the Exchequer. That was not the case. He him- self had assisted in that House in making that attack; and the change that took ',lace in consequence was almost the only legal reform he remembered that had been the consequence of a public complaint. He could not for a mo- ment entertain the belief that the Benchers or the Judges had been in the least degree actuated in their conduct by the motive thus attributed to them.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, they ought not to allow any body of men the power of capriciously disposing of the fortunes of individuals—

There was one superstition still remaining in England—it was the veneration forthe Judges. How it existed, he knew not, for all English history showed

their characters to have been most deeply stained. Who were they that justified the levying of ship-money, and who were they that sacrificed the lives of numbers of innocent men on the accusation of Titus Oates? In both cases, the Judges. It was they who put into the hands of that ruffian the dagger of the law to assas-

sinate men by charging them with impossible crimes; and the Attorney-Gene- ral of that day praised them as loudly as did the Attorney-General of this. For what was it that we were indebted to the Judges of this day? Had Lord Ten- terden offered them an admirable specimen of a firm supporter of civil and reli- gious freedom; or had he shown himself anxious to put an end to the corrup-

tion and bribery—ay and the perjury—that prevailed at elections by reforrning The House of Commons ? The honourable member might be defeated here, and now; but the subject would ultimately triumph; and the Legislature would declare that there should no longer be a tribunal which, like the Inquisition, conducted its investigations in darkness, and, like it, condemned a man unheard. Why, what had not these secret tribunals attempted? At one time, they had passed au order that gentlemen who had reported debates ill Par/ieele4t not be admitted to the bar ; and but for the eloquent exertio Is of a min whose honourable labours had enrolled his name in the annals of humanity—but for Mr. Stephen's speech, in the case of Mr. Farquharson—that rule would pro- bably not have been put an end to. But while the system remained as it was, that cute might be renewed to-morrow. Where was the necessity for this sort of caution with regard to the bar ? It was not employed with regard to attor- flies, who really possessed more of the confidence of the public ; and it could not protect the public, for unless a barrister enjoyed those advantages that would gain him the confidence of the public, be would not be employed by them. The rules were not the same in this and in the sister country ; for in Ireland, an at- torney might practise as an attorney till the day before lie was called to the bar, while here he must give up his practice five years before he was called to the bar. But then it was said, that, but for these regulations, men might be ad- mitted who were not fit to associate with the members of the bar. The bar did not need that protection—they could protect themselves. They would not asso- ciate with a man merely because he wore a bar wig and a bar gown ; and the investigation into his fitness was only a pretence—it was only made just where it ought not. It was admitted that Mr. Wooller was a man of respectability-7 that he was a man of talent ; yet he was rejected by a set of gentlemen who had assembled in a private parlour, because they thought he had been guilty of pub- fishing a political libel. He was afterwards tried before a jury for that libel, and acquitted. That was monstrous. That case alone was sufficient to show that this motion ought to be granted. Surely the law of libel was strong enough ; vet the Jury had acquitted Mr. Wooller, but the Benchers found him guilty ; and it was astonishing to hear a patriotic Reforming Attorney-General say, that such a system ought to go on. Mr. .T. CAMPBELL thought it would be much better to give the Benchers a discretionary power over the entry of students, than over the calling of barristers. If Mr. Wooller's case were correctly stated, he thought that gentleman had been wronged.

Mr. HUNT put a ease—

Supposing the two Baronets who represented Westruinsterivished to be called to the bar, the answer to them might be—" Oh, you have both been in gaol ;" and yet these two honourable gentlemen were thought good enough to represent Westminster, besides one of them being one of his Majesty's Ministers.

Mr. LENNARD said, the decision of the Benchers affected the public, and therefore the public had a right to inquire into it.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, that two cases occurring in the course of a century could not, in his opinion, very much interest the public. Mr. HARVEY replied to the statement of his case given by the At- torney-General— An action had been brought by one Andrews against a poor man for money. Mr. Harvey defended the man and went to Mr. Andrews on his behalf, to try to settle it. He did so, and a Clay was appointed for carrying the terms of the settlement into effect. Mr. Harvey and his client went to the office of Andrews, and he refused to conclude the agreement. This did not affect Mr. Harvey; but Andrews said that Mr. Harvey had taken away the agreement. He there- upon (and he was a fool for doing so) brought an action against him in the Court of King's Bench; Andrews put his brother into the box, who swore that lie saw him take away the paper. The second case was simply this. A person named Frost, who was older than him, though they were both young men at the time, was entitled jointly with his sister to a small copyhold estate. He asked Mr. Harvey if he was disposed to buy it of him. He replied he had no objection, provided his sister would sell her part, and the father would also part with his interest. He asked 500/. for it, which he agreed to give. He mentioned it to his father and sister ; and the old man fixed 300/. for his daughter's interest and 150/. for his own, making 450/. for what the son had asked 500/. for his part. He agreed to give it, and paid the money. Some time after, a person applied to Mr. Harvey to sell it to him ; and as he had bought it to sell, and as the purchaser was the only person to whom the estate could be valuable, from its contiguity to his own, Mr. Harvey offered to take 500/. for his bargain. He agreed to give it, and a regular agreement was pre- ferred. There were three agreements between himself and the other parties respecting this estate. This was in 1810. He received the 500/., and the other parties their proportions. In 1813, there being a running account with this gentleman and Mr. Harvey., the former went to the very Mr. Andrews whom Mr. Harvey had prosecuted, to proceed against Mr. Harvey. He bronght his action ; and in the course of conversation speaking of this transaction, Andrews said, " Mr. Harvey got a considerable sum of money for that estate; you may get it back ; no attorney can buy of his client;" and he advised him to get liacle the 500/. The action was tried at Chelmsford. Mr. Harvey applied to have the trial put off on account of the absence of a witness ; but the Judge refused. The counsel for the plaintiff chose to characterize this transaction as a fraud; stating that Mr. Harvey had been employed to sell the estate for the parties, and that he had put the 500/. into his pocket and kept it. If he had done so, he confessed it would have been a gross fraud. But it was not the case. The Judge would not allow the trial to be put off unless the 500/. was paid into court that morning; and as he had not at that time 5004 in his pocket, and as nothing would satisfy the plaintiff but those terms, a verdict went against him. When he was called upon to explain this transaction before the Benchers, they had taken the facts from the statement of counsel, as if Mr. Harvey had really been employed to sell the estate for the other party. He offered to produce the day-book, his clerks, time stamp-agent, and the Report of the Committee of Common Council of Bishopsgate Ward, stating that his conduct had been strictly honourable and upright. Was it fitting that a man should be thus condemned by a secret tribunal ?

The House divided on the motion for leave : for it, 52; against it, 68. The bill was therefore rejected in limine.

7. CHURCH PROPERTY. In presenting a petition to the House of Lords on Thursday, Lord KING, in allusion to a question put to him some time ago on the subject, went into the consideration of Church property at some length.

He would suppose a case :—

It was a case merely hypothetical, and which, of course, was in the highest degree improbable. Suppose that the Bishops of our Church were to become political characters, and were to take a very decided part against the general feeling of the country,—so much so, as to become unpopular and odious to that degree, that they could scarcely show themselves in the public streets, or even- ' appear in their own pulpits; and suppose, that in consequence of that political part, it was deemed expedient that they should be deprived of their temporal power, and further, that they should be deprived- of their seats in that House; and suppose further, that it should be deemed expedient to change the whole discipline of the Church, and to abolish the hierarchy, and establish a Presbytery in its stead,—would it not follow, that the present holders of Church dignities and Church property would be obliged to relinquish those dignities and that property, if they refused to conform with the new state of things? Undoubtedly it would; tor if the State had a right to make such changes (and who would question that right?), it would have a right also to

arrange and dispose of the Church property in conformity with tEem. But

could this be the case, if the property of the Church were to be considered solely as privateproperty ? The property of the Church, he contended, was originally given for the general purpose of promoting Christianity itself. During the do- minion of Popery in this country, no other form of Christianity was permitted to be publicly preached or taught ; and for a long time after the Reformation, the Church of England kept up the same intolerant spirit ; but now, all civil dis- tinctions being removed, and all men being equal in the eye of the law, without any reference to their religion, it might well become a question for consideration, whether the property originally given for the general promotion of Christianity, ought not to be divided amongst the various Christian sects in this country ; and the more so, as it was leen known that the great body of the inhabitants of this country did not belong to the Established Church.

The Bishop of LONDON said, he never denied that the Legislature might interfere with Church property, so far as to see that those who enjoyed it should perform the duty for which it was given.

As the noble lord had taken several months to answer his question, he had a right to take three times as long a period before he answered the three questions 'of the noble lord ; and of this right he would avail himself, rather than en- courage the practice of discussing grave and important subjects without notice

or preparation. •

8. POLITICAL UNIONS. Last night, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY brought the question of Political Unions and of Mr. Larkin's speeches -once more under the notice of Ministers— Mr. Larkin, the friend of Dr. Headlam, had said, " As to Earl Grey, he is only a weak instrument in the _bands of the people ; without the Political Unions, he would be nothing." The extent to which these Political Unions carried their proceedings, was deserving of serious consideration. Placards, of the most objectionable nature, were widely circulated through the country. One of these, of which, as he was informed on very good authority, 150,000 copies) were circulated, talked of the People's Charter and of the con- duct of the people. Speaking of the power of the people, this placard said that the battle of freedom was just begin ! its great instruments were a free -press, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and annual Parliaments. The people of Gateshead, for which a candidate had already started, talked of the necessity of dissolving the sacrilegious union between Church and State—of the repeal of the Septennial Act—of the abolition of the Corn-laws, and the necessity of asserting popular privileges by the election of delegates of the people.

The Marquis read one of Mr. Pitt's speeches in 1799, recommending a fine for belonging to such societies, and a tine on the landlord of the 'house where they were held. He concluded by asking if Ministers meant to propose any measure for putting them down-now ?

Earl GREY said, Mr. Pitt's plans were not attempted to be put in execution : this was enough for them. Whether Mr. Larkin was a friend of Dr. Headlam, he knew not ; he knew, however, that Dr. Headlam was incapable of approving of the speeches attributed to Mr. Larkin, and he was at a loss to understand why he should be made ac- countable for them. With respect to Unions (which were the offspring of high political excitement), he meant to ask for no additional powers : the law, as it stood, was quite sufficient for its own vindication.

9. PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND. On Thursday, Mr. STANLEY intro- duced his bill for restraining party processions in Ireland. He briefly explained the object of the bill— A party procession, whether of Catholics or Orang-enien, as they had all a ten- dency to break the peace, was a misdemeanour by the conimon law ; but the question which rendered the interference of a magistrate so difficult, was the question as to the precise moment when these meetims became illegal. The magistrate must have the oaths of an informer, declaring his apprehension that a breach of the peace would ensue from them ; and even when that oath was ob- tained, the magistrate had to excrci,o. his discretion, lest he should interfere with an assembly that was perfectly legal, or should admit a meeting to continue which was illegal. The object of his bill was to define the cases in which these processions were illegal, and thenfore punishable as a misdemeanour; and to lay down a line which would enable the magistracy, be following it, to pot an end to such processions when they were illegal. At that late hour of the night, it was impossible for him to enter minutely into a description of the details of the bill. He would merely say, that processions on days set apart for religious fes- tivals, or on days set apart for celebrating party triumphs, arising out of religious events, accompanied by banners, badges, and fire-arms--of which latter too many of these processions were even wantonly lavish—were circumstances which called for declaratory law rather than an enactment from the Legislature, as an assistance to the magistracy in the performance of those duties which, he was happy to say, most of the magistracy were anxious to discharge.

Mr. MAXWELL said, the bill ought to extend to England as well as Ireland; to Radicals who sought to destroy, as well as to Orangemen who sought to uphold the Constitution.

Colonel PERCEVAL spoke of the Orangemen as a very much op- ' pressed set of persons— The Orange societies were not secret societies; their objects were known and avowed; they sought to uphold the Protestant establishment in Ireland, and to maintain that connexion with Great Britain which some persons were so anxious to dissolve. And yet, with these objects in view, the Orangemen were almost driven out of the country, and treated as rebels. Such of the magistrates as were Orangemen were treated with contempt : if they ventured to attend the most peaceable Orange procession, they ran the risk of losing their commis- sions; whilst magistrates on the other side, who attended tithe meetings, and encouraged the peasantry to open breaches of the law, were allowed by Govern- ment to proceed without interruption. 'Now, too, on the 12th of June, a rnea- • sure was brought forward to meet the processions of the 14th of July—a mea- sure which he denounced as a direct insult on all the Orangemen of Ireland.

Mr. SHAW deprecated the introduction of such a law, as unnecessary and uncalled-for. He told a story of a certain Mr. O'Connell, a priest, who bid his parishioners not to be afraid of the military, because one half of them were Catholics who would bite the balls off their car- tridges, or fire over their heads. The persons whom he addressed were about to attend a sale of cattle distrained for tithes. Mr. Shaw said, they went to Dr. Doyle, and got his blessing before setting out. He - also spoke of information received from a relation of his own, about fifty-three bonfires, "which cast a funereal blaze over a space of not less - than twenty miles." He thought Government ought to put down such meetings as well as Orange processions.

Leave was given.

10. SCOTCH EXCHEQUER. Last night, the Duke of BUCCLEUGH opposed the Committee on this bill, on the ground of insufficient evi- dence for the suppression of the Court of Exchequer. He wished it to be referred to a Select Committee. • The Earl of CAMPERDOWN declared that the fact on which the bill proceeded—the- want of business in the Court—was notorious to every

resident in Scotland. -

The Ea.]. of HADMNGTON and the Duke of WELLINGTON supported the motion of the Duke of BUCCLEVG11. The latter observed, that Sir Samuel Shepherd was of opinion that the Court ought not to be dis- solved ; and his eleven years' experience was preferable to the two years' experience of Mr. .Abercromby, who might find it convenient to retire on a pension.

Lord BROUGHAM said, Sir Samuel Shepherd was consistent in this—he had equally opposed the reduction of the Court effected by the Duke of Wellington. If his opinion was to rule the House now, it ought equally to have ruled it then.

The bill was committed. The Duke of BUCCLEUGH gave notice of an amendment on the third reading.