Elehated anb OracraiLi0 ia

1. REPEAL OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT.

The House of Commons was occupied the greater part of Thursday night in the discussion of Mr. Tennyson's motion for leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of Parliaments. Mr. TENNYSON re- ferred to his speech on the same subject last year, as a reason fur speak- ing briefly on the present occasion. He reminded the House of Mr. Charles Grey's declaration, in 1793, of the inexpediency of shortening the duration of Parliaments until after the House of Commons should have been reformed ; which he thought furnished an answer to those members 'of Earl Grey's Government who now contended against his motion on the ground that the Reform Act had rendered it unneces- sary. He announced his intention, if the bill were brought in, to move that, in future, Parliaments should not sit longer than three years. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, who seconded the motion, said that he was in favour of quinquennial Parliaments.

Sir DANIEI. SANDFORD, who spoke at length on the same side, pre- fessed himself an admirer of a quadrennial term. Mr. JAMES preferred six years to seven, five to six, four to five, and three to four. He would not go so far as to say that he preferred to to three ; but if the bill went into Committee, be would there propose that one-third of the Members of that House should go out annually; the decision as to the one-third who should go out to be by ballot. Mr. SHEIL, Mr. O'CoNNSLL, Mr. ROCHE, Mr. E. BeLwea, Sit W. CuArroa, and Colonel EVANS, were in favour of Mr. Tennyson's motion; and generally approved of the term of three years—certain', • no longer period. Colonel Dams, Lord Datum; Lord Atrnoste, Mr. 01101.1.__,'', Mr. STANLEY, Lord EMINGTON, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, oppow the motion, and approved of the existing practise. Mr. E. J. STANLEY moved an amendment, that a bill Le brought in to shorten the duration of Parliaments to five years; which was nega- tived without a division.

The House then divided on Mr. Tennyson's motion ; for it, 185; against it, 235 ; Ministerial majority, 50. The debate upon the whole was not a very interesting or instructive one but several of the speeches contain passages which ought to be no- ticed, and are worth extracting.

Lord DALisIENY deprecated frequent elections, on the ground that they would enable the people to exercise an undue and dangerous influ- ence over their Representatives.

The evils of frequent elections were in themselves very great, and the effect they would produce upon the Members of the House would be most injurious. The opinions of those who sat in that House should not be the result of dicta- tion, nor should Members come tutu a deliberative assetnbly as mire delegates. Such men were not Representatives of their constituents. They stood to them in the relation of the slave to his master, and not in that of the free agent to his employer. The constituency had no right to stand in the attitude of menace towards their Representatives, and scare away their conscientious scruples. The duty of the Represeutative did not need that close proximity to his constituents which was required fur it by the propusition of Tt iennial Parliaments. He felt convinced there was too much honour and integrity in that Reformed House of of Commons to require such a check upon its conduct. • The majority of that Home may differ from the People, and differ wisely from them ; and the People, when their passions had subsided, would acknowledge the wisdom. On one great occasion, the granting of Catholic Emancipation, this had !menthe case.

Sir DANIEL SANDFORD said, that the allusion to the Catholic Eman- cipation Act was an unfortunate one for Lord Dalmeny's argument.

When Sir Robert Peel came forward in the House of Commons, with a heroisin and a magnanimity which could never be sufficiently praised, to pro. pose that great measure, and thereby gratify Cee wishes of a whole nation, what was his principal argument ? Sir Robert observed that he could no longer resist the wishes of the Pe .ple, as spoken by their Representatives ; and after going through a list of the votes of the Members of Parliament, he said that he found a majority of the County Members, and of those who represented large and com- manding constituencies, to be in favour of Catholic emancipation. He there- fore thought that the noble lord was most unhappy in his reference to the cir- cumstances attending the passing of that measure ; for instead of showing that Itlembers of Parliament were likely to do wrong if they acted in conformity with the wishes of their constituencies, they proved directly the reverse.

Lord ALTIIORP admitted his former support of motions to repeal the Septennial Act.

It was true that he had several ti:nes voted—he did nit know that he had spoken, but he had several times voted—for shortening the duration of Parlia- ments. These were during the Unreformed Parliament ; and he would state the grounds on which he had so voted. At that period, he had nut the least hope of seeing a measure of reform carried as had since been. Ile saw that a large proportiou of the Members of that House were sent there as the nominees of individuals; and lie therefore thought that the power of the People should be brought to bear more frequently on those Members of the douse who were not so nominated—for lie was of opinion that Triennial Parliaments would greatly increase the dependence of the House on the People. He did not say it would be desirable that the Members of that House should not be dependent on the People, but he did not think it would be desirable to have them dependent on every temporary or passing opinion of the People. He would have them sit for that length of time, that if on one occasion they might be in opposition to the opinion of their constituents, they might in the long run gain their con- fidence.

He objected to any increase of popular influence in Parliament; and thought that frequent elections would greatly interrupt public business. . He would not disguise from the House that the effect of Septennial Parlia- ments was to increase the influence of the Crown, and to give an advantage to Ministers in the power of dissolving Parliament at pleasure ; but then the ques- tion was, whether the popular voice had not sufficient influence in the Legisla- ture, or whether the Crown had too much? He certainly did not think either that the People had too little or the Crown too much. It was said that fre- quent elections would .cause great interruptions to the public business, and in that he concurred. In the present session, no one could complain that business had not been dune, and there had also been much done in the last ; but in general, in the first session of a new Parliament, a great deal of the time of the House was occupied, not so much with the public business, but with a variety of motions of which gentlemen on their first coming in hastily gave notice, and thus public business was delayed.

Mr. O'CONNELL observed, in reference to Lord Dalmeny's remarks on the increased dependence of Members en their constituents, which would ensue from triennial elections- The question was, did they come there to do the business of the People, or their own ? and if they came there to do the business of the People they ought to consult the wishes of the People. They talked a good deal of the wisdom of the People; and surely they must be wise who had selected such a set of philo- sophic Representatives; yet, with all this, the opinion of the People was now to be treated with contempt. For what object had their constituents selected, as was said, from the soundest part of the nation, if their wishes were not to be consulted, and if they could not exercise that salutary control over their Repre- sentatives which the constitution intended?

As a set-off against the influence of the People, he asked if Govern- ment had no influence in the House?

Were there no Peerages to be given, no promotions for Admirals and Gene- rals, no Captains to get ships, and Colonels to get regiments, no lawyers to get " Places, no Colonial patronage ? They had heard from Mr. Stanley that one Hundred and five places had been filled up by Englishmen in Canada. Of course, these were all selected by chance; but possibly, if the history of many of those appointments were known, it would be found that sonic of the parties owed their happy lot to the chance of some of their friends being found in the Govern- ment majorities. There was then the patronage of India placed at the direct control of the Government. In short, the present Government had more patronage than had ever fallen to the share of any Government before. Was not this, then, an increase of the influence of the Crown ? and should not the People under these circumstances have a more direct control over their Repre- sentatives ?

He reminded the House, that the Members were only trustees for the People ; though, by holding trusts too long, they were apt to con- sider them their own private property.

Whoever heard of a man appointing his attorney for seven years without power of revocation? Did Members do this in their private affairs? Did they appoint their stewards or their agents for a limited time, without control over them or power to revoke the appointment? He thought seven years was too long to bold so important a trust. His only objection to Triennial Parliaments was that they were too long. However, he was disposed to take that term, as we had a precedent for it in good times.

Mr. STANLEY said that Members of Parliament were not appointed under powers of attorney—they were not delegates—the days had not arrived when they were to be styled legislatorial attornies. He ridiculed the difference of opinion which prevailed among the supporters of the motion as to the term for which Parliament should endure.

Supposing the House to repeal the Septennial Act, with what period of dura- tion would the advocates of your present constitutional doctrines be satisfied ? He wag sure that Mr. Tennyson was too candid to deny that Quinquennial Par- liaments would be a mere delusion, and would do no good. Mr. 'Tennyson, he was certain, wished the House to come back to the Triennial Bill, which he was pleased to denominate the ancient and genuine constitution of the country. But no, said Sir Edward Ctelringtou—" Triennial Parliaments, in my opinion, will be destructive to the constitution. I will, however, support the motion for repealing the Septennial Act, because when that is repealed, I may introduce my project of a Quinquennial Bill." But what did Mr. Tennyson say to this?—'t I M la take your support to repeal the Septennial Act ; but if you think to satisfy ether me or my constituents by your proposition of a Quinquennial Bill, you labaur under a delusion—you might as well give us a Septennial as a Quinquen- nial Bill." Then came the honourable and learned Member for Paisley ( Sir Daniel Sandford); and considering how fresh he was front the hustings, he was perhaps justified in saying " there was nothing like the first session in which s Member of Parliament took his seat." lie knew that, in the first session of Parliament, honourable Members came up with all the glow of patriotism full upon them ; fresh front the hustings, they fancied themselves the express image of the wants and wishes of the People, and they acted accordingly-.

After alluding to the business done during the last session of Parli.e, ment, 31r. Stanley thus continued, -

To return to the Member for Paisley. He said that he would not have An- nual Parliaments, for he thought it only right that we should let the gloss get off the newly-elected Representative. But lie went further—he was as much opposed to Biennial and Triennial Parliaments as he was to Annual Parliaments, and he would have Quadrennial Parliaments. This was what he had called his " ultroneons proposition." What the honourable and learned Member meant by this phraseology, Mr. Stanley was at a loss to understand, for he must candidly confess tlatt he never heard it before. Let the House consider the cnti- tradictory propositions which had already been advanced upon this very point. Mr. Tennyson said that the duration of Parliament for seven years was too long. " Oh !" says another lalember, " I fully concur with you ; I will eonsent to shorten the duration of Parliament to five years." " No," says another, " you do nothing unless you shorten it to three." " Three years," says the Member for Paisley, " is too short a period—dm gloss is not worn off us—give us four years, and then you will hit the proper medium." Then comes a foul th gentle- man, and he tells us that Triennial Parliameuts are too long. " Let us there- fore have Biennial Parliaments. In the first year we shall have a lively recol- lection of what passed at the hustings, and in the second a lively anticipation of what will soon take place there."

Lord JOHN RFsSELL wished to know distinctly whether it was pro- posed by Mr. Tennyson to have Triennial elections?

If we had Triennial Parliaments, it would necessarily be the practice to dis- solve them &fire the limited period of their duration had expired, as was now done under the Septennial system. Such a p: acts: e must pro, e equally in- convenient and disadvantageous. It could only lead to hasty and imperfect legis- lation. However, if Mr. Tennyson's proposition was made with a view to Triennial Parliaments, let him frankly state his opinion, that after the end of the present session it was right that the existence of this Parliament should cease and determine, and that its longer continuance was inconsistent with the rights and

interests of the People.

'2. POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

On Wednesday, the order of the day for the House of Commons going into Committee on this bill having been read, Mr. GODSON moved, as an instruction to the Committee, that the bill should be di- vided into two or more bills—bills to amend the old and to enact new laws ; and a bill to provide an executive power, for a limited time only, to carry the Poor-laws into effect with uniformity throughout England and Wales. His principal argument for this alteration was, that the bill, as it stood, united executive and judicial powers in the same per- sons ; whereas it was an established principle that they should always be separate. Colonel Woon, Colonel EVANS, and Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, supported the motion, and expressed strong disapprobation of the great extent and variety of the measures embraced in this single bill. Lord A LTIIORP opposed the motion. He admitted that many important objects were comprised in the bill ; but all bad reference to the administration of the Poor-laws. The provisions all depended dis- tinctly one upon. another—all depended upon the adoption of the prin- ciple of a Central Board. If sonic of the bills into which it was pro- posed to divide the present measure were to pass, and others to be re- jected, those which had passed would become perfectly inefficient.

After some conversation, in the course of which Mr. LEWIS, Sir R. PEEL, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, spoke very briefly, the motion was withdrawn by Mr. Godson.

Mr. ROBINSON then moved the following resolutions— That the Report of the Prior-laws Commissioners affords conclusive evidence of the deplorable condition of a large portion of the e (irking population. highly detri- mental to the interests of all classes of the community, and especially injurious to the honest. well-disposed, and industrious por. " 2. That, in order to apply an effectual remedy to long-existing and complicated evils. so deeply affecting the well-being of society, it is the bounden duty of a just and enlightened Legislature, when proposing to enact new laws with extraordinary powers for the suppression of idleness and vice. cautiously and deliberately to look into the causes which have operated or contributed to produce a state of widely-spread pauperism, demoralization, and crime, alien to the habits and feelings of a nation, otherwise in a state of unexampled wealth and improvement, and blessed by Divine Providence with the greatest abundance. "3. That this House therefore will, by all possible means, endeavonr to improve the moral and social condition of the labouring, poor, by the promotion of beneficial employ- ment. the encouragement of industry, and the removal or those burdens which press upon the prcrinctive classes with peculiar severity, in order to restore that harmony, good-will, and respect for the constituted authorities, which alone can render the nation prosperous and happy." He supported them in a long speech; in the course of which, while he admitted the necessity of a thorough reform of the present system, he strongly objected to the hurried manner in which Government pro- posed to pass their bill. He also denounced the extraordinary and un- constitutional powers with which it was intended to invest the Central Board ; and the severities of the workhouse system. Unless some means were taken to ameliorate the condition of the poor, he deemed it quite impossible to carry such a bill as the one under consideration into effect. At all events, it was quite certain that sufficient time had not been allowed to give it the necessary consideration.

Lord ALTIIORP objected to postpone the bill, which would be lb.

consequence of agreeing to Mr. Robinson's resolutions. The House had already decided to proceed with the measure, by a very great majo- rity. To what purpose, then, was it sought to reverse that decision, by moving resolutions that were complete truisms, and could lead to nothing ? The House divided ; and rejected the resolutions, by 135 to II.

Mr. BERNAL took the chair ; and the House went into Committee.

Lord ALTHORP rose to explain certain alterations in the bill which it was his intention to propose in the Committee. The first related to the immunity of the Central Commissioners from prosecution. lie now proposed, that while they should be exempt from civil actions, they should be liable to criminal prosecution for misconduct. Secondly, he would deprive the Commissioners of the power of committing per- sons for contempt, and would make that offence punishable by two Justices of the Peace. Thirdly, the rules which the Commissioners framed should be laid on the table of the House when sitting, as soon as they came into force, instead of annually. Lastly, he would alter the clause which positively fixed a certain day in the summer of 1835, as that on which the out-door relief to the able-bodied should cease, in such a way as to give the Commissioners the power, upon the repre- sentations of the guardians of the poor in any particular district, to suspend its operation.

The consideration of the preamble was postponed ; and it was moved to fill up the first blank in the clause, relating to the appointment of the Commissioners, with the word " three."

Colonel TORRENS, who expressed his general approval of the mea- sure, moved an amendment, which would have the effect of limiting the period of the exercise of the Cre—nissioners' powers to five years.

A brief debate ensued. The n, • vas opposed by Lord ALTHORP mid Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSOr ..sported by Mr. C. Butaxit and Mr.

liALCOMB, and finally wits -:1• Colonel TORRENS.

The Chairinan tl— question to be, whether the word

" three " should Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished that the Lord Chancellor, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be ex (Sitio members of the Board. Lord ALTIIORP said that they would be of no use, as ex officio members were never active members of a Board. Ministers, as it v as, were in fact responsible for the acts of the Commissioners, seeing that it was in their power to dismiss them for inefficiency or misconduct. Colonel EVANS spoke with much warmth against the bill, and especially condemned the amount of patronage which it would confer upon Ministers. He moved an amend- ment, that instead of the word " three," the following words should be inserted in the clause,

Certain lit and proper persous of the legal profession, with such functions as shall be hereinafter mentioned, to assist his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor-General in carrying the provisions of this act hereinafter mentioned into execution."

The amendment was put, and Mr. WOOLRYCII WHITMORE spoke against it, and complained of the hard words which were used in refe- rence to this bill, but which in no way affected him.

The eyes of the country would be upon the Central Board ; and if they at- tempted to abuse their power, he was sure the good sense of the Government would at once put a stop to such abuse, or to any undue control of the liberty of the people. But if the Government did not take the necessary steps for that purpose, where were the county Members and the Members for great towns? lied they not the power to correct the abuse, if any should be found, by bring- ing it under the notice of the House? lie hoped the House would weigh this matter well, and look with favour on a measure which was calculated to remove on of the greatest blots on the laws of the country, which, besides a useless waste of the money of the country, tended more than any other to demoralize the people.

Mr. GODSON repeated the objections which he had previously urged against empowering the same men to make laws and then to execute them. He saw no difference between the power of any arbitrary despot and that of the Commissioners.

Lord ALTHORP defended the clause. The Commissioners had cer- tainly the power of making rules, which, after a certain time, and after the approval of the Secretary of State, and in some eases of the House of Commons, became laws ; but the penalty for the infraction of those laws would not be levied by or before the Commissioners, but in the ordinary way.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET maintained, that, nevertheless, the power left to the Commissioners was tyrannical. Ile wished to know whether the Commissioners were to be paid salaries or not ?

Lord XI.THORP again denied that the powers of the Commissioners could be fairly called tyrannical. The Commissioners would have salaries, which the House might, if it thought fit, vote annually in a Committee of Supply ; but if the House disapproved of their conduct, the money might be withheld.

Mr. YouNc denied that any necessity had been made out for grantine- the powers asked for, and Colonel EVANS then withdrew his wend!. meat. After a few observations from Mr. SLANEY, who said that the measure was not harsh or oppressive, but highly beneficial to the poor, the blank was filled up by the word" three," as originally proposed.

Some conversation arose upon an amendment proposed by Mr. EST- COURT, for leaving out the words "powers and authorities hereinafter contained," which Lord ALTIIORP maintained was quite inoperative, and was withdrawn by the mover. Another amendment, by Mr. J ray is, which went to vest the power of appointing and removing the Commissioners in the House of Commons, instead of the Crown, was also withdrawn ; and all the blanks having been filled up, the question was put, " that this clause do stand part of the bill."

Mr. JERVIS then moved, that the clause, to which he objected in lobo, should be omitted. The bill was unconstitutional. It was a general principle of the constitution, that those who paid money should have a control over its expenditure; but those who paid Poor-rates in future would be deprived of this power, for that portion of it which would remain in their hands would be only nominal, the supreme directing authority being lodged in the members of the Central Board, resident in London. He objected to the newly-imported principle of centrali- zation. Local abuses should be met with local remedies. He was not satisfied with The limitation which Lord Althorp proposed on the powers of the Commissioners. It was no remedy for an injured per. son to prosecute his oppressor at a great expense, and not get a shilling compensation. To a poor man it was a mockery to tell him that he had his remedy by indictment. The rules of the Commissioners were to be kid before Parliament when sitting, but they were to come into operation before presentation to Parliament ; this alteration, therefore, was nugatory. The objection to the power of committal for contempt was only partially removed, for, on application to a friendly Justice, there would be little difficulty in procuring his consent to the committal. The general powers given.to the Commissioners would enable them to repeal local acts, an authority which even the House of Commons did not possess.

In fact, the Commissioners might t contravene every act on the statute-book, and set aside the common law itself. They might make any regulations they pleased, no matter how contrary to the public interest. There was 'nothing to control them but the will of the Secretary of State, all whose inforiiiation on the sub- ject must be derived from the Commissioners. He deprecated a delegation of power so foreign to the Constitution, so alarming in its nature. Ministers might as well appoint three Commissioners to frame rules for the government of all corporations, subject to the approbation of the Secretary of State; they might as well throw the entire regulation of the tithe system into the bawls of Com- tnissioners, as thus to delegate the authority of the Legislature in reference to the Poor-laws to individuals without any effectual check or control.

Mr. EWART supported the clause. Air. Rienaitos said, that . . . it appeared to him, if, instead of vestino. a Central Board with mighty and extraordinary powers, certain persons were directed by Government to publish and distribute generally wise and wholesome regulations for the management of the poor, those recommendations would be adopted, and the greatest benefit would result from them.

Lord Ai:rump defended the alterations he had proposed • which would have all the effect he thought it desirable that they should have. The general principle of the measure he was also prep'tred to defend.

The whole question was, whether it was desirable to continue as at present the administration of the Poor-laws under different magistrates, acting upon different principles, and guided by different feelings, or whether it was not, on the contrary, most desirable, by introducing a system of centralization, to bring the entire management and administration of the Poor laws throughout the country into one uniform system. It appeared to him most desirable to bring the administration of the Poor-laws into one uniform system. For every reason, and upon every ground, it was most desirable that such a system should be introduced. By acting in such a manner, and under such a system, arrangements which had been found effective and useful in one pal t of the country could be advantageously applied to other parts of the counter. At present parishes in the South of England might not know what arrang parishes iu the North of England had adopted with advantage in the manage went of their poor, and vice versa ; but if they had a Central Board, over- ruling and overlooking the whole administration of the various Boards through- out the country, they might depend upon it that measures which hail been found to answer in one part of the country would be extended and applied to other parts of the country, and that, therefore, there would be a much greater chance of perfecting the administration of the Poor-laws. Sir JAMES SCARLETT expressed his approval of much of the bill. lle liked the appointment of a Central Board of Commissioners ; but did not believe that the country would suffer the measures to be carried into effect, which it was made the duty of the Board to execute. lie could not vote for the clause, because it was connected with others which invested the Board with a species of unlimited despotism.

Mr. SLANEY, Mr. C. FERGU§SON, and Lord ALTHORP, again spoke in defence and explanation of the measure; and Mr. BENETT, Mr. lim.coma, Mr. ifecirEs, Colonel EVANS, and Sir II. Wil.i.oue [thy, against it. Sir S. WHALLEY moved an adjournment of the discussion ; which was negatived, by 312 to 17; and the first clause was agreed to. without a division. The Chairman then reported progress.

3. CHURCH AND STATE; THE GLASGOW PETITION.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, Lord BROU.IIAM presented a petition from Glasgow and the vicinity, for redress of Dissenters' grie- vances, and for the separation of Church and State. It was adopted, after a full discussion, at a meeting called on the requisition of 27:2 respectable inhabitants of Glasgow, and it had received 48,600 sig- natures. Lord Brougham said,

It was not necessary for him to remind their Lordships, or to inform those petitioners, that there was no individual in either House of Parliament who had ever manifested, or who had ever expressed, feelings more firm or more zealous in support of the principle of religious toleration in its widest and fullest extent, than he had done. He had always expressed this opinion, that no man otig:.t to be prejudiced or injured in the enjoyment of his civil rights on account of his professing particular religious tenets. But although holding this opinion, although imbued with and acting on these principles, he could not go along with the petitioners in professing sentiments which were to be found in the residue of that prayer,—he meant that part of it in which the petitioners prayed their Lordships to take measures for the dissolution of what they called the unjust, the unscriptural, and injurious connexion between the Church and State.

He objected to this new form of expression which had lately crept into petitions : it was perhaps a loose form of expression merely, and he hardly knew what it meant:

But Ire took it to mean, that the wishes of the petitioners were, that there should no longer be any Established Church, but that religion should look for support to the principle of voluntary contributions. They desired that there should be no annuity, no tax, no compulsory provision whatsoever, for the . maintenance of religious establishments ; but that all sects and individuals, the ignorant and uninstructed, as well as the better-informed, might be left to pro- vide for themselves that portion of religious instruction of which they stood in need, so that every man might be a sect and a church to himself. On this point he professed a difference, an irreversible difference of opinion with the petition- ers; and he could not but advert with feelings of alarm, and even of dismay, to the state of things inevitable on the concession of this portion of their prayer. The prayer was, in fact, one for the total abolition and extinction of allhierar- chies, in Scotland as well as in England—as well for the suppression of the eco • noinical Church of Scotland as of the less economical Establishment of England ; but he could not think of leaving 14,000,000, he believed he might say 16,000,000 or 18,000,000 of persons, wholly without any established or en- during means for the maintenance and support of religion.

Lord Brougham went on to argue, that men could not be depended upon for procuring supplies of spiritual things, as they would of the absolute necessaries of life. It was therefore necessary for the State to supply them with religious instruction. He maintained that the non-existence of an established church in the early ages of Christianity was no argument against it now, when the circumstances were so totally different. He complained of the rejection by the Dissenters of the .Marriage Bill, and other measures which the Ministers had framed for their relief. He thought them rather unreasonable ; and dwelt espe- chilly oil the necessity of the publication of buns in churches in order to prevent clandestine marriages : this was the only reason for en- forcing such a regulation, and lie regretted that the Dissenters had not perceived the policy of it. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY would not have said a word, had not something more than toleration been asked for ; but if the Dis- senters opposed the religious establishments of the country, he should feel bound to resist them.

If they had only asked for the advancement of their comfort, the increase of their security, and the protection of their property, the petition should have had his support ; but the point to which they pressed their pretensions was so ex-

.,.;;ant, and the proposition they hail made so wild, that he could hardly con-

ceive it could have proceeded from persons so respectable as the body with whom the petition originated. Ilow was it possible to provide for the dissemination of a pure religion through all pants of the kingdom—how could it_penetrate the narrow lanes and reunite villages that were scattered over the face of the country, in the absence of an established church to furnish them with religious lush iw- tion ? The gospel was to be preen hed to the poor ; but how could they hear it, uuless persons were sent to preach it to them?

'1' Ile Dissenters had referred to the primitive ages in defence of their arguments— Now, he wished to know whether there was not always a church which was achnnwledged as the church, from which all who dissented were accounted bangles? If it had not beeu fur this, where now would have been Christianity? Let the case be supposed of all the sects in this country on equal terms, each claiming to be the true church of Christ; whew was the ignorant inquirer to obtain information, and fix upon the truth ? He thought it incontrovertible, and lie had the most respectable authorities in his favour, that the advantages of an established church to the Dissenters themselves were inestimable, by its maintaining an unvarying standard of true religion. But suppose the Establish- ment destroyed, what would the Dissenters do, and how would religious instruc- tion be eared for ?

He defended the ministers of the Establishment from the charge of illiberality ; and maintained that they were willing to allow the Dis- senters full toleration, though they would not grant them any privileges inconsistent with the safety of the Church.

Earl FITZWILLIAM could not concur in some of Lord Brougham's observations. He did not think that the Dissenters ought to be satis- fied with the Marriage Bill. The publication of haus in churches was not necessary to prevent clandestine marriages, and the Dissenters .ivere aggrieved by the regulation. The conduct of the Church had not been at all times so liberal and tolerant to the Dissenters as the Arch- bishop of Canterbury had represented it—

Six years had not elapsed since a great fight had been made in another place

to continue the exclusion of Dissenters from corporate and other offices. Then it was that the party who represented, or assumed to represent the Church of England, and so assuming took it under their care and protection, told the Dis- seaters that they were not fit to fill the office of alderman, nor even that of common-councilman, in any corporate body. Could it be supposed that such a circumstance did utherwise than still live in the recollection of Dissenters, and excited their animosity towards the Church Establishment ? To that church he himself belonged : to its prelates and ministers lie owed an d enter- tained the highest reverence ; but he thought that they had not sufficiently studied the government of all classes; and if they were now exposed to the taunts of teets who had heir partially relieved from grievances, lie hoped they would receive a lesson horn which they would profit.

After some conversation between Lord BriouGnAm, Earl Firzwir.- LTAM, and the Earl of limmtscrox, the Bishop of LONDON sail, That the petition tinder consideration presented a most striking proof of the superior advantages to a country which accrued from a Church Establishment. He admitted that the greatest moral and religious good had been effected in the city of Glasgow by tine distinguished divine, Dr. Chalmers ; but still, from the want of an establishes! chui cli, no less than between 50,000 and 60,000 of the population of the city of Glasgow and its neighbourhood were destitute of all religious instruction. In aid of such wants the Dissenters had done nothing ; while, on the other hand, an association of Churchmen had already raised no less than 12,0001., with every prospect of realizing :30,0001., for the purpose of building twenty chapels, to be connected with the Church Establishment, and to be erected in Glasgow and its vicinity.

The petition was then laid on the table.

4. CHURCH REFORM.

Lord BROUGHAM introduced two bills into the House of Peers, last night, for abolishing non-residence of the clergy and pluralities in the Church. By the first bill, he proposes to enact that all rectors, vicars, curates—all clergymen having the cure of souls—should be compelled to reside constantly in their respective parishes, except for two months in every year, for which period leave of absence might be granted ; under penalty of forfeiting double the amount of their annual income for the first offence, and vacating the living for the second. The only exceptions to be made to this rule were cases of sickness, death of near relatives, or some other strong reason, to be set forth in the dis • pensation. Bishops are included in this regulation ; but Lord Brougham said, that if the House should think right to except them on account of their necessary attendance in l'arliament, he would not on that account

oabandon the bill. The second bill refers to pluralities ; and enacts, That no clergyman should in any case hold two livings, provided one of them amounted to the value of 2001. a year and upwards ; and that he thould be al- lowed to hold but one, even if the value of the living was under 2001., excepting in the ease of a clergyman who holds one living, the value of which is under WM. a year, being offered another under I00/. ; in which case, he is to be allowed to accept it, provided the bounds of the two parishes touch, or the churches of the two parishes are not more than five miles asunder. The principle on which this bill was founded was, that where the income was sufficient for the support of a curate, that curate ought to he vicar, but that any surplus ought not to go to the pocket of the non-resident vicar.

The Earl of RADNORnd the Marquis of BUTE approved of the w

bills. Lord WYNFORD would trot oppose their first reading, but said that their effect would be to place the Church below the other sects in the country. The bills were then read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

5. OBSERVANCE OF TILE SABBATH.

Lord WYNFORD, on Thursday, moved the second reading of his bill for the better observance of the Sabbath. He said that as to the man- ner in which the Sabbath ought to be kept in a religious point of view, no man or body of men had a right to legislate. Every man had aft undoubted right to worship as he pleased. But the Legislature should prevent labourers from working on that day, and prevent all persons from doing what would be hurtful to the feelings of others. Now, drunkenness and trading on Sunday were disgustingly prevalent in all large towns in England, especially in the Metropolis. To prevent the commission of these offences, his bill was mainly directed.

There was a penalty which now attached to Sabbath trading. That penalty was only five shillings, and could only be exacted once on each Sabbath-day. There ought, in his opinion, to be a penalty attaching to every conviction of the offence, however often committed on the same day. The present penalty of five shillings would, in that case, be made effectual fur the intended purpose. He did not mean to prevent travelling altogether on the Sabbath day. That

was in many cases necessary. But he would prohibit stage-coaches running

during the hours of Divine worship ; and he would prohibit carrying goods on Sonday altogether. The statute of Charles the First prohibited carrying goods on the Sabbath.day ; but its provisions were rendered inoperative, because the cart or wagon could not be seized until Sunday was over ; and then it was too late, as the law ceased to have effect. With regard to public-houses and gin- shops, his bill proposed that they should be shut an hour before and another

after the time of public worship on the Sabbath-day. He also proposed that where any person was found drunk in a public-house, the landlord should be

subjected to a penalty. Another thing which his bill wished to prevent was, the purchasing of provisions on the Sabbath morning. This he proposed to do by prohibiting the payment of wages on Saturday. He was certain that this would, in a pecuniary point of view, be advantageous to the working chasm themselves; for he was satisfied they purchased their provisions late on Satur- day night, or on the Sabbath morning, on much worse terms than they would at any otter period of the week. Lord BROUGHAM said, that the Sabbath was more decently observed in England than in any other European country, and in London than in any other great city. He feared that mischief might be done by le-

gislating on this subject—that people might be driven into the wrong way instead of the right. This exacting of penalties and encourage- ment of informers, was not the proper way to deal with such a subject. Lora Wyriford himself would admit that his measure Was not practi- ' cable—

Lord WYNFORD—" No, no."

Lord BROUGHAM continued—

Its necessary effect would be to make all business stand still on Sunday ; and not only on Sunday, but in point of fact, every day of the week. Lord Wynford proposed to alter the present law respecting public-houses, and to shut them up for a longer period than they are under the existing law. Why, he must be aware, that among all the petitions which had been presented for the better ob- servance of the Sabbath, none had been presented against public-houses. Drunken- ness, it must be admitted, was a bad thing; but it was not so had as many other vices : why, then, was his noble and learned friend so anxious to prevent

drunkenness, while he allowed other vices? Then, instead of the drunkard him- self being punished, all the punishment was to be inflicted on the landlord.

It would be gross injustice to let the drunken sot escape, and fix on the poor landlord. But this was not all ; how was the landlord to know when a man asked for drink, whether he would get drunk or not before he left his house ? One man would get drunk on one or two or three glasses, while another would be perfectly sober after drinking two or three bottles. (Loud laughter.) Hay, in these circumstances, could the landlord tell when a man came into his house, what was the exact quantity which he could drink without getting drunk? Could he judge from the countenance of a man how much drink he could take without getting drunk, and say when persons entered his house, "This is a two or three glass man, and that is a two or three bottle man." Besides, it

might happen that a man had been drinking before in some other house; fur they all knew that many persons, not observing modoration—the golden mean—

after hewing got a little, were anxious to get more. When, in this case, a person called at a public-house to get more liquor, how was the landlord to act? Was he to step up to him and say, as he entered the threshold of the house- " Sir, you have been drinking elsewhere, and I must know, before you get any more here, how much you have had?" As, in such a case, the man's own word could not be taken, the only alternative that remained with the landlord, would be to empannel a jury of waiters, he himself acting as foreman. It might happen, in the supposed case, that the man had only got one glass, and therefore migiit now get some more. But if, on the other hand, it happened that he had got so much before as that one glass more would make him drunk, then the landlord who gave him that glass more would be subjected to the penalty, while he who had given the first and largest quantity escaped. And this might happen any day in the week as well as on Sunday, whether the man was drunk or solar when he entered.

Lord WYNFORD—" No, no." Lord WYNFORD—" No, no."

Lord BROI7GIIAM—" Ay, but it is though ; and in proof, I will read part of the bill." Lord Brougham then read part of the bill ia confirmation of his statement.

Thus (he continued), it is clear, that a landlord is actually liable for admitting a man into his house though he be not drunk. The bill was altogether objec- tionable. It could not be made a passable measure by any alterations that could be made upon it. As it is said with regard to a celebrated but crooked poet', when he on one occasion made use of the exclamation which was a cus- tomary one with him, " God mend me!" he was answered, " God mend you! it would be easier a thousand times to make a new man than to mend such a one as you, so it would be much easier and better to make a new measure altogether than to mend this. The greatest confusion of ideas and terms pervaded the bill. The persons] and relative pronouns were all confounded together. Indeed, no man taken drunk in a public-home could make a greater jumble of words than was made is the bill of his noble and learned friend. The bill prohibited all works on the Sabbath-day which were not works of v and charity. Its effect, then, would be to render illegal and invalid any will or decd affecting pro- perty, executed on a Suuday. He was one of those who thought, that as life was uncertain, men ought to make their wills in the time of health ; but as they were liable to be suddenly attacked on a Sunday as well as other days with dangerous sickness, it might in such a case become a matter of prudence to execute their wills on that day. As, then, a will could not be regarded as an act of necessity or charity, it would not, if executed on a Sunday, be held valid, though it transferred property to the amount of 10,0001.

Lord WYNFORD spoke with considerable vehemence in defence of his measure ; which provoked several retorts from Lord BROUGHAM. The Earl of WICKLOW complained of the levity with which the subject had been treated by the Chancellor ; and Lord Wystmen said, be thanked God he was incapable of imitating him. Lord PLusKurr, Lord AUCKLAND, and Lord RADNOR, strongly opposed the bill. The Bishop of LONDON and Lord Wicitt.ow wished it to be withdrawn, especially as a measure from the Commons on the same subject would shortly appear. But Lord WYNFORD refused to withdraw it, though he was willing to remove objectionable clauses in Committee. Their Lordship s 16 to 13.

(i. REGISTitATION OF FIR ri:13, HEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.

Mr. BROUGHAM obtained leave, on Tuesday, in the House of Com- mons, to bring in a bill for registering births and deaths throughout England and Wales. He proposes that the collector of taxes in each district shall be charged with the registration of every birth

and death, a duplicate of which is to be transmitted at certain periods

to a general registration office in Loudon, as a central tiepin. A book containing the facts is also to be lodged in each parish-church. By employing the tax-collectors, the necessity of new and expensive ma- chinery is got rid of ; and it is calculated that the tires which arc to be paid to the collectors will not amount to more than 65,000/. per annum, or about fivepence to each fern ly. There ate 190 surveyors of taxes, who are to act as intermediate depositaries of the records between the parochial collectors and the Registrar-General in London. Mr. Brougham stated, that if the bill he proposed was approved of, lie would then bring forward another for the celebration and registration of marriages, the heads of which were already prepared. lie gave the f. Mowing explanation of this measure.

his plan was, that buildings for the celebration of marriage should be enrolled atail licensed at the Quarter Sessions, and that persons should be there qualified te, celebrate merriages with such religious ceremonies as the peculiar tenets of earls Kett might require. Ile proposed that any Justice of the Peace might be authorized to give a licence, whether lie were clergyman or layman ; and he would make it necessary for the parties contracting marriage to show that they were in all ms Bets qualified to contract it, as they now were before the per- formance of the present ceremony. The next provision he would make was, that the minister to perform the ceremony should not be authorized to do so mail lie had first received the certificate.

The course to be pursued then would be this— The parties went to the registry-office and proved before the registrar that they were in all respects, as demanded at present, capable of contracting mar- riage. They obtained a certificate or licence ; and this they were bound to deposit for one fortnight in the hands of the minister to officiate, before the marriage could take place. This was the minimum time; but the licenee was to n-main in force for three months, (luring which, at any moment, the minister might perform the ceremony according to the form of religion professed by the parties. Now, if it should appear that this bill would satisfy the Di,senters, and remove those objections which they felt to the measure proposed by Lord John Russell, he contended that it would be desirable that it should be dove- tailed with the bill fur the registration of births and deaths.

The person who performs the marriage ceremony will be enjoined to send the account of it to the Registrar's office; and persons who omit to give an account of the births or deaths which occur in their families, will be made liable to a certain penalty. The bill appeared to meet with general approbation ; and was read a first time on Wednesday : to be read a second time on the .27th May.

7. INNS OF COURT; CASE OF MR. HARVEY.

On Tuesday, after the presentation, by Mr. BARING, of a petition from five hundred of his constituents, praying for inquiry into the pre- seet mode of uffinitting persons to practise at the bar :1113 another to the :mire effect by Mr. LENNART), signed by three Inn:dr:al electors of South Essex, Mr. O'Coxma.t. moved, " That a Seleet Committee beappointed to intet:re into thm pi't'-see- by 1,..• fiat! Imas of t 'mitt in London, and al-4. by the king's Ike-. in I ,:pot the al:pl. a• lion of persons Io he :vitiated s au I to in eall...I I. the leer; :nub ab.o to in- gpihe lob) the revenues of tutu Inn, 0.1 the oppliezit ion tlo.reet:" then divided ; and the (mind rea lit g was carried, by The motion was seconded by Alr. Itoenues, and supported Ly Mr. levaetaarto, Mr. Cretan Fennessoan Mr. II ALcom a, Mr. 11!Li.„ and others : Sir JAMI:s ScAltLETT and Dr. LESIIINGTON opposed it. Lord Ai:rimer thought an inquiry by the House unnecessary, as the Com - mon Law Commissioners, in their last ( Sixth) Report, bud suggested measures by which the irresponsible powers of the Benchers might be controlled. The debate turned principally on the case of Mr. Harvey; and after considerable discussion, Mr. O'CONNELL, at the sugg,estiou of Sir CHARLES PEPYS ( Solicitor-General), withdrew his original mo- tion, and substituted the following ; which was adopted. " That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate all the circumstances respect- ing the ease of D. W. Harvey, Esq.; that evidence-be heard, and a report be made to the I louse of the same."

The debate on this motion was an interesting one, and the speeches were generally very able.

Mr. O'CONNELL argued against the continuance of the unrestrained and inquisitorial powers assumed by the Benchers of the Inns of Court. lie contended that there was no serious evil to be apprehended from the admission of improper persons to the bar. The profession of a barrister did not per se entitle the party to any emolument or employ- ment, but such as the public chose to give. There was no monopoly on their part ; and every one worked his way with the success pro- portioned to his genius, condition, and integrity. He felt for the honour and independence of the profession be belonged to ; and con- sidered it unjust, inexpedient, and intolerable, that the high and honourable profession of the law should be closed against any indivi- dual at the caprice of a secret tribunal like the Benchers; • or that secret whispers and anonymous intimations should be used to blast the characters of men so circumstanced. Mr. O'Connell mentioned the case of Mr. Curwood ; who was prevented for twelve months from being called to the bar, because lie happened to be involved in a personal quarrel with one of the Benchers ! Mr. Wooler's case also strikingly illustnited the manner in which the irresponsible power of the Benchers was exercised.

Mr. Wooier was a man of reputed character and ability, but, unfortunately for his prospects, was a working printer. His friends imagined that his talents and his industry could be turned to better account if he were to become a bar- rister. But in this commercial country, where it was supposed that any honest man by his industry might mount to the highest station, Mr. Wooler, because be earned his bread as a working printer, was precluded by the fiat of the Benchers from admission to the bar. He appealed to the King's Bench; and what was the result ? Why, be gut the comfortable assurance that be had no redress, and was besides told that there was no tribunal in the country to relieve him.

With regard to tln case of Mr. Harvey- fle had been since 1818 a Member of that House. Six times had a popular constituency selected bins at six diffirent elections. The people of Colchester his neighbours—who had the beet opportunities of being acquainted with 1..a character had thus stamped upon it the broad seal of their approbation. He was fit to be a Alember of that House, and yet was not deemed fit—for what?

To run his chance of getting a brief irom those who might think proper to confide the defence of their lives, liberties, or properties to his zeal, integrity, and talent. Did not this case, then, demand, trumpet-tongued, that an inquiry should take place ? Ile had lead the ease which had been made against Mr. Harvey and without meaning in anywise to disparage the tribunal which had given die decision, he most solemnly and firmly asserted his conviction that never was there a man more grievously or more unjustly injured. Had he to address a Jury selected with even moderate fairness, with such a case as Mr. Harvey had, he would stake whatever professional reputation he possessed, that he could not NI of obtaining a verdict. This was his firm anti conscieutiela conviction—not as an advocate—for he rather stood there as a judge than in any other capacity.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT objected to any inquiry into the amount of the funds or property belonging to the Inns of Court. These were as much private property as the estate of any gentleman in the House. He denied that the Benchers had ever abused the right they possessed of refusing to call persons to the bar. Two cases only had been in. stunted of that refusal—one of Mr. Wooler, and the other the Mem. ber fur Colchester. Mr. Wooler was refused, not because Inc was a working printer, but because he had been convicted of a seditious libel. Apr. Harvey's ease stood thus— On the first occasion, he applied to the Benchers of the Inner Temple to he admitted. They beard him state his own case, and they rejected him. He thea appealed to the Judges from their decision, and the Judges confirmed that deci- sion. Some years after, when there were three of the same Lencluers only (there having been, on the last occasion, four), of which he was ma', they sat upon the cum, when the counsel for Mr. Ilarvey had been transferred to the Bench. Ile believed that there were not above two of the Judges then in ex- istence who had had to give an opinion in the former cases. Ifere, then, was a fair opportunity; there was an infusion of youth and vigour in the profession ; these were men who had been brought forward as counsel by the present Lord Chan- cellor—men of most perfect honour, of great talents, and of great legal know- ledge. Nineteen gentlemen met, and heard Mr. Harvey for a considerable time ; they allowed him counsel and a short-hand writer ; and they rlecideri

unani- mously against him. Did he appal to the Judges? If he did, he would say that all the evidence would be tendered, and every opportunity would be given by the Benchers to give him an opportunity to make out his defence. Let him then appeal to the twelve Judges of the land. lie was ready to admit that lie might be liable to error; but at present he must say that he adhered to the opinion which lie had already reluctantly given, that it was not consistent with the prac- tice of the Inn to call Mr. Harvey to the bar.

Mr. 1111.1. gave the House an illustration of the mode in which the Benchers exercised their inquisitorial powers.

Why were the Benchers formally summoned to hear the case of Mr. Wooler, but becatiee he was a political character? for otherwise he would have been as it had been in his own case—where lie was admitted in use minutes. It was melee the pretence that he loud been convicted of a seditioes libel that Mr. Wookr was refused admiesi.m. lie believed, however, that at that very Inn in which he had been convicee I of libel, Alr. Redhead Yorke was convicted of sedition. This occur- red in Tory times, and in Tory times 31r. Yorke was subserviently admitted :nal abet to the bar ; and why ? lieeause Mt. ,redhead Yorke lia4 dote tied which Mr. Wooler never would consent to do—Ise had given up his early teei- Mons, inel he was rewarded by litig salmilted to the Inn.

atddressed the House in a speech of great force and do:pierce.

'• I lsave n is (lie said) been sixteen years a Member of this Home. I am uneonnected with either of the great parties in t!te State ; hut wimr1•...er their strum; th or Cede inveteracy in following up their leery prieeiples in this Ihnee, still hove that the Heuse will never finfeit its ii-ill11"2s of honour or of , justice. I might state the mental suturing I have eediured ; I might state my pecuniary losses; I might state the clouds which have lowered over me ; but I shall do no such thing, and on the present occasion I shall appeal I to your sense of justice. What I (lid I would now do again. I seek no smelter fin• having done that in a season of youthful inadvertence or inexperience, or against my more matured experience in after years. I seek no covering for any thing which I have done in the course of may professional life; I only ask for justice and fair play. This question does not affect me alone. It affects the House itself; for it would be ridiculous to say that a man who could not hold a half-guinea brief in the Court of King's Bench would yet be fit to be the com- panion of statesmen, and one fulfilling one of the highest offices which his coun-

try could confer upon him." - In reference to Sir James Scarlett, Apr. Harvey said that he had ar- rived at eminence and station by the abandonment of his earlier political principles.

One would really think, when he heard Sir James's speech, that he never got four hundred guineas as a fee to gloss over falsehood—to make vice look virtue, and virtue vice ! One would think, to hear the virtuous and profitless tone of indignation in which that honourable and learned gentleman had spoken, that the gentlemen of the bar were not to be purchased either to eulogize vice or to detract front virtue. (" Hear, hear !") What passed in secret conclaves might not transpire ; what passed before the Benchers might not transpire; but what passed in this House would go out—forth it would go—heeded or unheeded as it might he, notwithstanding all the practised and paid verbiage of the Member for .Norwich.

He referred to the former conduct of Sir James Scarlett, when a candidate for Lewes and, anxious to conciliate Mr. Harvey's con- nexions. • " I called upon the honourable and learned Member for Norwich while he was canvassing Lewes, and asked Lim if he would name me to the Benchers? He said, Yes, with great pleasure ; but as I have heard a something whispered against your character, I think it would be advisable that you should speak to the Treasurer of the Society, and if he will second you I am content.' But what else did the honourable and learned Member for Norwich say upon that occa- sion? He said the Treasurer was a good Whig---(" Hear, hear!')—and that I would find every thing to be right. Well, I saw the Treasurer, who told me he would second my nomination; and after I had told him about the charges pre- ferred against me—after I had explained the full and entire state of the facts al- leged against me—he said to me, with tears in hise}es, that he could not witness the injustice sought to be practised upon me."

Mr. Harvey explained at length his exertions to have an investigation into the charges made against his private character, and continued-

" When I got into Parliament I called for inquiry, and I will never cease to do so; I will never cease from complaint until I get it. I have a right as much as any other man to have my character vindicated when it is unjustly and tyrau- ideally assailed. It is the common law right of every subject ; it is the right that man has to expect from man in every stage of civilized society. This is all I ask : this I contend for ; and without this I never shall be satisfied. I court, I defraud inquiry ; and if I do not prove before an honest and impartial

Committee of this House, or before three gentlemen to whose decision I before said I would leave my case—if, I say, I do not satisfactorily prove that I have been ill-treated, and persecuted, and injured almost to the last extremity—if I do not prove that I have been so ill treated, I shall move for a new writ for Col- chester on the next day."

He mentioned the conduct of Lord Brougham in reference to his case.

Mr. Brougham had been his counsel in his first struggle with the Benchers. After their decision, he told Mr. Brougham that he was placed in a very awk- ward situation, by having given up his profession as an attorney, and by then having been refused admission to the bar, and that he thought of practising as a conveyancer. "Am I," said he to Mr. Brougham, "at liberty to refer any one to you if I do so?" " The more the better," was the answer, " for I think von have been very badly treated." (" Hear, hear!") Before Mr. Brougham had been Lord Chancellor twenty-four hours, he sent for him to the House of Peers, and there he received him very kindly. "I wish," said Lost Brougham, "to make you Secretary of the Charity Commission ; not only because I con- sider you as peculiarly fit for the situation, but because I wish to show my, opi- nion of the treatment which you have received in being refused admission to the bar."

But he did not obtain the situation after all, because Mr. Maule, the Solicitor to the Treasury, had stated that he wits not a proper person to bold it. He called upon the House to mark the meanness, the iejus. tice of his accusers. They did not dare to face a Parliamentary in. quiry. Why did not Sir James Scarlett second the :notion before the House ?

The Benchers desired to leave him no locus penitentia,, no back-door to escape from their condemnation—their pains and penalties were to fall heavy on him— were to brand his honour, and ruin his character. No exema, they admitted— no palliation they allowed. Surely, even if he hal been guilty, they sheaddl have considered that sympathy was due to youth—that the faults alleged to have been committed were the faults of early life—that they were redeemed by the practices of after years; and that charity and Christian benignity should have interposed between him and the stern mandates of their rules. llis life had been one of active exertion; he had looked to the Senate of his country as the reward of his exertions; he had had the high honour of being a .!!ember of Parliament for many years; his conduct had been before the world, and to the world's verdict he would look. Let hint not be made the victim of accusations

which he denied—of charges which were as monstrous as they were Use. He besought honourable gentlemen—no matter the hue of their party—no matter how they might be opposed to him—no matter upon what side of the House they sat—to do him justiee—to adopt the benignity of Christianity—to obey the divine injunction—to do unto others as they would wish to be done unto them.

In the course of his speech, Mr. Harvey seemed to carry the sym- pathies of the House with him, and was repeatedly cheered.

8. FOREIGN AFFAHts.

In reply to some questions by Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, last night, Lord PALMERSTON stated, that the treaty relative to the affairs of the Peninsula had been signed by the four contracting powers, and ratified by three of them. The ratification of Portugal had been delayed by matters of form, but would certainly bc given, and might be almost im- mediately expected. He also said that General Itodil had entered Portugal with the full consent of the Government of Portugal, and certainly' not with the disapprohation of tine British Cabinet. The General had confined his operations to fli,balging Don Carlos and his adherents from the Spanish frontiers ; but the presence of the

army allowed several fortified .towas to di chire iu favuur of the Quell:. As to foreign iitterferetti iu t he Portuguese quarrel he thought it would appear that there had been Nitwit as inuch on one side as the other. Lord Palmerston refused to state the terms of the quadruple treaty at present. This explanation was received with cheers by the House ; but Mr. BAKING was dissatisfied with it.

9. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJF.CTS.

CHRISTCHURCH RECTORY BILL. Sir EDWARD KNATCHRULI., on Monday, moved the second reading of this bill in the House of Commons. Its object was to compel the parishioners of Christchurch, in Surry, to pay their Rector, Mr. Mapleton, a sum of 4001. a year, which they formerly paid him gnduitously, but which, since lie had ac- quired another living and became a non-resident, they refused any longer to raise. Mr. BARNARD, Mr. GOULBURN, Mr. HAI.COMB, and Sir J. R. REID, supported the bill; which was opposed by Mr.ABERCROMBV, Colonel DAVIES, Mr. HAWES, Mr. HILL, Colonel EVANS, and Mr. METHUEN; and rejected, on a division, by 74 to 33.

CHURCH RATE BILL. Lord ALTHORP stated, in reply to a ques- tion from Mr. BAINES, that he intended to introduce this bill, but he could not say when.

ISIPRISONMENT von. DEBT BILL. On the same day, Mr. HUME asked Lord Althorp whether this bill would be introduced this session ; and his Lordship replied, that he despaired of seeing it carried this session, owing to the pressure of business before the House. On Thursday, Mr. POLLOCK, gave notice that he, should move for leave, on Wednesday next, to bring in a bill to effect this object.

LOCAL COURTS BILL. To a similar question from Mr. HUME re- specting the Local Courts Bill, Lord ALTHORP gave a similar reply ; , and Mr. Hume remarked, that as the Peers did not seem to be overladen -with business, perhaps Lord Brougham might find time to introduce the bill into the House of Lords.

PARISH. VESTRIES BILL. A majority of 38 to l, on Monday, re- :fused to read this bill a second time. It is consequently lost.

RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES BILL. On the motion of Mr. HARDY, this till was read a second time on Wednesday, by a majority of 60 to 37; ..after a brief debate, in which Mr. STANLEY, Mr.' FINCH, and Mr. SHAW, opposed, and Mr. WARBURTON and Lord HOWICK supported it.

BEER BILL. This bill was read a second time last night, on the mo- tion of Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL. It was opposed by Mr. FYSHE PALMER, who moved that it should be read a second time that day six months ; by Mr. WARBURTON, Sir G. STRICKLAND, Mr. ROEBUCK, and Colonel IVILLiAms. The second reading was supported by Lord HOWICK, Lord ALTHORP, Mr. BUCKINGHAM, Mr. BARING, Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, and others ; and was carried by 157 to 27. It is understood that the bill is in no respect to restore the old licensing monopoly, but merely to provide for the better regulation of beer- houses. It was generally admitted, that in country districts they were the scene of much low profligacy. Lord I-limn:it alluded to the Poor. laws Amendment Bill as likely to effbct § reformation in the morals of

the poor, to a much greater extent than the Beer Bill, or any act of legislation.

CIVIL PENSIONS BILL. On the motion of Sir JAMES DRAMAS(' the several clauses of this bill, the object of which is to settle the amount of retiring pensions, and superannuations of persons employed in public offices, were agreed to in Committee on Monday, after a long but very uninteresting discussion.

DANISH CLAIMS. Mr. PARKER moved, last night, for a Committee to inquire into the claims of certain British subjects, commonly called the Danish claims. He explained, that

In 1807 an embargo was laid on 107 Danish ships lying in the Thames. These vessels and their cargoes were sold ; and the proceeds, amounting to 1400,000/. became droits of Admiralty. The Danish Government, iu retalia- tion, laid an embargo on the debts due by the merchants of that country to the merchants of England. The answer of the theu Aliuisters to the demauds of the British Govei lament was " Wait a while—wait till peace is proclaimed, and these druits shall be at once handed over in liquidation of your claims." They also been given to understand, before the Treaty of Vicuna, that an especial clause would be introduced into it, in order to protect and secure their rights. From that day to the present hour, justice had not been done—not even been attempted; the Moils had remained where they originally were, ur perhaps beat expended, and not one clam had been liquidated.

Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Canning, Sir James Mackintosh, and Mr. Hume, had all endeavoured to procure the settlement of these claims; but had failed.

Lord ALTHORP at first objected to the motion ; but it was pressed upon him by Lord SANDozg, 31r. G. IV. Wool), Mr. IV Auccarox, Sir G. STRICKAND, and Mr. O'CONNELL; and he finally promised, if Mr. Parker would withdraw his motion, to take the mutter into his own hands. The motion was them withdrawn.

MiricaTiox OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. Leave was granted, on Tues- day, to Mr. LENNARIL to bring in a bill to do away with the punish- ment of death for robbery ; and on Thursday, to Mr. Li.ovo, to effect a similar alteration in the law relative to the punishment for wilful burnii,gs.

STATE OF KENr AND SUSSEX HARLOURS. Mr. HALCOMB divided the flouse on Thursday, 011 a motion for a Committee to inquire into the state of the Kent and Sussex Harbours ; but he found no one to vote with him ; and as lie was himself appointed teller, the numbers stood on the division-86 to 0.

SCOTCH ENTAILS. The two bills for amending the laws relative to Scotch entail, were read a second time in the House of Peers on Tuesday, after considerable opposition from Lord MANSFIELD and the Duke of IlamisTeN.

WARWICK BOROUGH BILL. Witnesses in support of this mill were ex- amined on Monday-, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. On Meaulay, it was ordered that four of the principal witnesses, who had absconded, should appear at the bar on l'rhlizy, and in cAse of their non-appearance should he taken into custody by the Sergeier at Arms. Mr. Sergeant Heath, on Wednesday, as eel: lisi I ter the bill, c:e :e 1 the retei.e ion of the

blouse to a statement eppeared in Oa. alfordiug Fos!, relative to their Lordship's prot-e«J:.4, WI till.; IDA ; it we asserted that Lord Brougham had ev.le;e:y made up his miud agdiost it. and a, conversation between Lord 1:ree. ham, Lou! !an ham, and ether Peers,

had been most eaa•sly mi.r,•pw Leal deaied that he ler,1 ever expressed any opinioo on the suhject, for he really had not formed one ; rind Lord Drell am said, that the whole of the article in the Post was a gross mad impudent fabrication. Last night, the Ser- geant at Arms was ordered to take the four witnesses, referred to above, into custody on Wednesday next ; as they had been summoned, but did not appear. NEW WRITS. On the motion of Mr. CHARLES WOOD, on Thurs- day, new writs were ordered for Edinburgh, vacant by the removal of Mr. Jeffrey to the Bench of the Court of Session ; for Leith, in the room of Mr. J. A. Murray, who had accepted the office of Lord Ad- vocate; and for North Derbyshire, in the room of Lord Cavendish, now Earl of Burlington.