Etchatzsi atilt larttrzebinud in Parliament.

1. CALL OF THE HOUSE. On Monday, when the Order of the Day was read for the House of Commons going into Committee on the East India Bill.

Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY rose to move, as an amendment, " that the House be called over on Thursday next" His object was to insure a full attendance of members, in order to take such measures as should be deemed expedient in case the crisis, which there was much reason to anticipate, should occur. There were still measures of immense im- portance among the unfinished business of the session,—the Bank, the East India, and the Slavery questions. It might, however, be said, that it was not necessary to recall the absent members to London merely to discuss the details of these measures. But there was another bill which he looked upon as the most important of any,—the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. This bill, which had passed the House of Commons by a vast majority, had been termed, by influential persons elsewhere, a measure of spoliation. These individuals not only objected to the de- tails, but were extremely dissatisfied with the principle of the measure. Now, in his opinion, if this bill were rejected, it would be the rejection of the great principle of reform ; and if that principle were not car- ried into effect, the members of the House of Commons would find it impossible to give satisfaction to even the most moderate of their con- stituents. He therefore thought that the absent members should be recalled to their posts, to be prepared in case any great event should occur respecting this bill.

Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated the adoption of Sir John Wrottesley's motion. He did not agree with him in any of the arguments by which he justified it. The Bank, East India, and Slavery questions, had been debated sufficiently, and the House could not justly be charged with remissness. There was no reason, therefore, for a call of the House to have these questions more fully discussed. He objected, however, much more strongly to the other reason which Sir John Wrottesley urged : he decidedly objected to any proceedings founded upon rumours of speeches in the other House of Parliament, which could not in a Parliamentary way be considered within the cognizance of the House of Commons. Any motion was to be deprecated which in the slightest degree tended to menace the other branch of the Legislature.

Now, there was no reason to believe that their Lordships had declared them- selves against the bill. It had been read a first time, and the resolutions had been assented to upon which it was founded. Were they, on the mere rumour of speeches (for it was no better), to adopt proceedings which would imply such suspicions of their Lordships' intentions'? Such a course would be contrary to all precedent. It would be assuming that of which they could know nothing. It would be controlling the independent decisions of men of honour, who were actuated by no personal objects, but did what they thought best for the good of the country. Such a course would lead to the conclusion, that the persons who proposed it bad their own objects to answer by it.

He concluded by expressing his earnest wish that Sir John Wrot- tesley would withdraw his amendment.

Colonel HAY hoped it would not be withdrawn : if no other member took it up, he would do so himself. Mr. O'CONNELL maintained, that it was right that there should be a full attendance of members, in case any crisis should arise to call for their united efforts. No one was less attached than himself to the Temporalities Bill. He considered it a miserable instalment towards paying the debt due to Ireland. Still he would have it rather than nothing at all.

A Member—" Then why did you vote against it? "

Colonel EVANS said, one would suppose that Mr. O'Connell had been a warm advocate for the bill, so much so as to be indignant at its probable rejection : but was it for this that he had so patriotically and con- sistently walked out with the minority against it ? For his own part, he looked upon the measure as any thing but a measure of church re- form ; and he therefore was, and would take upon himself to affirm that people out of doors were, completely indifferent about Sir John. Wrottesley's motion for Thursday.

Mr. O'Corati. denied that he had praised the bill. He merely said, as an a fortiori argument, that if the Lords refused that little in- stalment of reform, what chance could he have of a more extensive measure ?

Mr. ROBINSON subscribed to the view taken by Sir Robert Peel. If the motion was pressed to a division, he would not vote for one side or other. (Laughter.)

Mr. E. Denison opposed the motion.

Lord EBRIROTON said that no man, who had attended to the politi- cal transactions and rumours of the last two-days, could deny that an occasion was likely soon to arrive in which the House would be called upon to do its duty to itself and the country. He felt that he owed a duty to the people; which he should ill discharge, if he suffered idle forms and etictiette to guide his conduct.

He was o,:e of those who had reluctantly voted for the Coercion till, on the pledge of M;nisters that it should speedily be followed up by measures of reforms and concil1ano2. Ministers bad redeemed- that pledge by their Irish-Cher& Bill ; on which they bad, moreover, staked their administrative existence. If, therefore, the House of Lords rejected that Irish Church Bill, they would not only necessarily occasion the resignation of the present Government, but balk the supporters of the Coercion Bill of that measure of reform on the faith of which they had agreed to a partial suspension of the constitution. He there- fore felt it to be a duty he owed to the people to support the motion.

Lord ALTHORP urged Sir John Wrottesley to withdraw hie motion, as it woad only add to the existing embarrassments of Ministers. It

was undoubtedly true, that on the passing of the bill Ministers had

staked their continuance in office. But it was equally true that the motion had the appearance of a menace to the House of Lords. He

had no doubt, in case the bill was thrown out, that there would be a full attendance of members without the stimulus of a call of the House. He was sure a great practical benefit would 'arise from the withdrawal of the motion.

Sir JOIIN WROTTESLEY was perfectly ready to withdraw the motion, as far as he was himself concerned, if the gentlemen who had ex- pressed their • intention to divide with him also would concur in the withdrawal.

Major BEAUCLERK looked upon the present conduct of Ministers, as a striking instance of that vacillation of purpose which distinguished them, and of that readiness with which, when the storm that threatened their official existence was blown over, they sacrificed their friends to their enemies.

Lord ALTHORP said, the charge of vacillation was unfounded. The storm was not yet blown over.

Mr. TENNYSON was sure that every thing which reflected credit on Lord Althorp was a source of great satisfaction to the House. He himself was a reformer who held by the constitution. He would not support any measure that went to destroy the legislative independence of the Peers. As for the bill, it was a mischievous mockery, that would perpetuate the worst feature of the Irish Establishment, and the people cared very little what became of it. He had a motion himself for Thursday on which he was anxious to have a full attendance ; and though he did not approve of the principle of Sir John Wrottesley's motion, he would vote for it with that view.

Mr. STANLEY was not a little surprised at Mr. Tennyson's speech; though perhaps he ought not to be so. The House, however, had learned from that speech the very important fact, that Mr. Tennyson had himself a motion for Thursday, when he desired a full attendance. That was a most gratifying fact.

Mr. Tennyson now praised Lord Altliorp to the skies ; but the greater part of the House were, perhaps, not aware that no longer ago than at three o'clock he had made a gross and violent attack on the whole conduct of his Majesty's Government,—nay, that he had expressed his most earnest and anxious desire for the return to power of a Tory Administration. He must add, that Mr. Tennyson stated that he only expressed that wish because he was sure the new Administration could last only a week. Of course, that would lead to the appointment of a Government of men holding upright principles,— men whose merits had been singularly disregarded by his Majesty's present Go- vernment,—men who, in better times, would have been selected " to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm,"—men who were qualified to hold the reins of power with a steady hand, and to carry into effect that most desirable object, the reconcilement of the differences between the two Houses of Parliament. The Member for Lambeth had declared that he looked with horror and alarm to any measure that would place the other House of Parliament in a state of subordi- nation, and professed himself the strict guardian of the constitutional right of that House to independence. When he turned to the order-book, however, he found a notice by him of a motion for a Committee to review the professed privi- lege of the House of Lords to vote by proxy. Was that no intimidation ? did that convey no delicate hint to the House of Lords ? Was that proposition perfectly consistent with the scrupulous regard which he had just professed for the inde- pendence of the other House of Parliament?

He earnestly pressed Sir John Wrottesley to withdraw his motion. He was anxious that the House should not set itself wrong by a preci- pitate and premature measure.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY, again expressed his own readiness to withdraw the motion ; but if called upon to divide the House by those members who had supported him, he felt himself bound in honour to do so.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he must press for the division.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as a member of the Government, would not vote for the motion, but begged it to be understood that his conduct was not guided by mere motives of conciliation.

So far as conciliation was concerned, Ministers felt that they had gone far enough. ("Hear, hear! ") They bad reduced the Irish Church Bill within the utmost limits of moderation within which a measure could be called a re- form measure—had gone to the utmost length to remove the scruples of con- scientious objectors, and to the utmost length to avoid extreme differences; but they would not and ought not to go any further. (" Hear, hear! ") Mr. HUME recommended a withdrawal of the motion; but would vote for it, if it were pressed to a division.

Mr. .Antacitomar thought the circumstances of the case, and the present aspect of political affairs, fully justified the motion.

The House then divided : for Sir John Wrottesley's motion, 125 ; against it, 160; Ministerial and Tory majority, 35.

2. Lima CHURCH REFORM. In the House of Lords, on Wednesday, a number of petitions were presented by the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord SIDMOUTH, Lord CARDERY, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE, against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, which stood for a second reading that evening.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE observed, that he regretted Ministers had thought fit to counsel his Majesty to violate his Coronation Oath.

Earl -GREY called him to order. It• was not competent for any Peer to state distinctly that Ministers had counselled the King to violate the sacred obligation of an oath.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE still'thought that they had advised the King to do that which tended to the violation of his oath. He feared that the fate of this bill would be the same as that of the Reform Bill, —namely, that the intimidators would overcome the intimidated. It was rumoured, that lately a letter had been written froma certain quar- ter to the Right Reverend Bendi:- he did not say that they who had advised the writing of that letter had done wrong, but be trusted that the Bishops, without minding consequences, would do thair duty, and turn neither to the right nor left. '1 he Bishop 'of LONDON would not speak for his brethren, but he would for himself. He did not require the Duke of Newcastle nor any

one else to instruct him in the performance of his duty. He had suffi- cient understanding-of what was due to his country and his own prin- ciples, to enable him to do without such assistance.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM would take every opportunity of stating that the King could do nothing without his responsible advisers, who

were answerable for the advice they gave ; and that it was not only competent in any Peer to charge Ministers with an intention to make the King break his Coronation Oath, but if he were conscious of any such intention, it would be a dereliction of duty in lum not to make that charge.

Earl GREY would not be driven by all the " sound and fury" of the noble Duke into a premature discussion. He would be ready, at the

proper time, to meet the charge of advising the King to violate his Coronation Oath, as he had met it on several occasions before. He was surprised to bear it recommended to the House, as it had been recom- mended to the Bishops, to reject the bill without consideration : and yet they were urged to do their duty conscientiously,—which could not be done without weighing and hearing the arguments on both sides.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said a few words in explanation, and the conversation was discontinued.

A brief debate arose relative to the striking of Captain Napier's name from the list of Navy officers. After which,

Earl GREY rose to move the second reading of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill. He expressed his satisfaction that the period had at length arrived when the motives and principles which had governed Ministers in bringing this measure before Parliament would be fairly explained : and when an answer might be given to those imputations against their conduct, which in fact were as far removed from their in- tentions as they would be at variance with the most sacred obligations of private and public duty. He would endeavour to address their Lord- ships with calmness and temper ; and he entreated them to act firmly, hear patiently, and examine closely all the grounds on which this mea- sure was proposed. He was particularly anxious that the Bishops should disregard the advice which had been given them to oppose this bill, without care or consideration for the consequences of such oppo- sition. On the contrary, he trusted that they would apply their minds to it as statesmen and legislators ; and that they would view with due anxiety the circumstances in which the Church of Ireland was placed at the present time.

The object of Ministers was threefold ; but their main object was to effect such alterations in the Church Establishment of Ireland as the present circumstances seemed to render necessary.

Did such necessity exist ? For answer, he would bid them look at the state of affairs hi Ireland : he would bid them recall to recollection the various de- liberations which had ta':en 1.7 : in Pa,:iament on the subject, and then say whether it was in consequence of certain abuses that life Church Establishment in Ireland was encompassed with dangers, and whether they would not be in- clined, by removing the abuses, to decrease those dangers. Could any reason- able man, looking at the present state of affairs in Ireland, say that this measure was not necessary? And if not, why refuse to endeavour by kindly methods to avert some of those evils which occasioned the great general discontent, and diminished the security of the Church ? In the beginning of the sessirn his Majesty, in his most gracious Speech, in adverting to the condition of -the English and Irish Church, recommended Parliament to approach the considera- tion of those important subjects with calmness and deliberation. His Majesty had especially recommended the Legislature to adopt a measure " by which, upon the principle of a just commutation, the possessors of land might be enabled to free themselves from the burden of an annual payment." To this recommendation he wished especially to point the attention of the House ; and •in doing so, would say a few words on the arguments founded on a pretended violation of the Act of Union by the introduction of the present measure.

He then showed the absurdity of supposing that the Act of Union bound down the Legislature against ever effecting any alteration, which might tend to the benefit of the Church. He quoted a speech of Sir Robert Peel, in which the propriety of a reform in the Irish Church was admitted, with a view to its increased stability ; and those parts of the present measure were approved of which went to the redress of abuses. The highest authorities in the Church itself had expressed their sense of its danger, and their earnest desire to concur in such al- terations as its true interest evidently demanded. He might also cite the vast majorities by wb;ob the measure had been supported in the House of Commons. ( Cries of " Oh ! " and "No, no ! ") If any one thought him out of order, he ought to rise and state his opinions, but not interrupt him in that unusual manner.

The Earl of GUILDFORD said, that the course Earl Grey was about to adopt would only lead to a waste of time.

Earl GREY said it could not surely be thought a waste of time to show the general feeling which prevailed as to the necessity of taking the question into serious consideration.

With respect to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament, be must be allowed to say, that they were entitled at least to some consideratiorr from that House ; and they were important on the present occasion, inasmuch as they displayed the almost unanimous feeling of the country. On the division

which took place on the second reading of the first bill in that House, there were 187 ayes and 46 noes, leaving a majority of more than 4 to 1. On the second reading of,the new bill, on the 6th of May (for the first was withdrawn in con-

sequence of an informality), there appeared, ayes 317, noes 78, leaving a majority of 4 to I. After the bill had gone through Committee, the last division, on the

question that the bill do pass, showed 274 ayes and 94 noes, a majority of nearly 3 to 1. In this last division, it would be recollected, that not only those voted who thought the bill went too far, but many also voted upon the principle that it did not go far enough, and was a pure delusion. Here, then, was a case al- most unexampled in Parliamentary history, that while the progrein of the-bill was so much contested, the majorities in favour of it were never less than three to one, and in some instances four to one. There were two other divisions on the subject, the first of which was more than eight to one, and the last two to one.

He then detailed the principal provisions of the bill; and dwelt at length on the great advantages which would be derived from the aboli- tion of the Church Cess, the augmentation of small livings, the-erec-

tion of new churches and glebe-houses, and the-conversion of Bishops' leases into perpetuities,—which bad been described as a measure of spoliation, but which be utterly denied to he such, as nothing would be taken from the Church. There would be an alienation of property, but that alienation was to be applied to Church purposes. It had been urged, that by the limitation of this proposition, the best principle of the bill had been sacrificed. He maintained the contrary— The alteration involved no part of the principle of the bill, but avoided a principle which bad been sedulously excluded from the bill; for the Govern-

ment were anxious to avoi4 the assertion of abstract principles of right, and the discussion of a point on which so much diversity of opinion prevailed,—namely, whether the property of the Church could be taken and applied to purpses other than Church purposes. The time might come when this topic could pro- perly be discussed ; and should such a period arrive, he hoped—nay, was satis- fied—that their Lordships would meet and discuss the point with perfect fairness and candour. At present, however, he saw no reason for entering upon that discussion ; for, after consideration, it had been resolved that this new value given to Church property could be discussed and disposed of more properly in a future Parliament.

In alienating the property affected by the bill, no new principle was introduced. Two years ago, part of the property of the Chapter of Durham, with the sanction of the Bishop, was sold for the purpose of establishing a college in that diocese. In regard to that part of the measure which related to the reduction of the number of Bishoprics,

he quoted a number of examples from history, to prove that the number of Bishops had frequently varied, and that unions of dioceses had often been made. He also proved, by a comparison of the duties performed by the English and Irish Bishops, that many of the latter might well be dispensed with. He also defended at length the proposition for taxing the incomes of future incumbents, and urged the unfairness of styling that a spoliation which was only a substitution of a different tax for that of First Fruits. The main objects of the measure were the abolition of Vestry Cess, the augmentation of small livings, and the abolition of First Fruits ; to effect which, an annual sum of 136,5001. would be necessary. The sum was to be raised by the interest of the money received from the sale of perpetuities (which he calcu- lated at one million), the produce of the suppressed Bishoprics, the tax on• incumbents, and other sources, which would yield 155,0001. per annum ; of which, however, only 16,1601. would be immediately avail- able. After mentioning some other details of the bill, he continued as follows : "It was said by a noble Duke on a former night, that he saw in this measure the symptom and consequence of that policy which had been acted upon on an- other occasion—alluding, as I presume, to the question of Parliamentary Re- form. The principles on which that measure was proposed are well known— they were professed by the present servants of the Crown when they took the reins of Government. They came into power under the strong impression, or rather under the decided conviction, of the necessity of carrying reform into execution—a necessity which, I believe, was felt and acknowledged by all, though many might and did disapprove of the extent to which reform was carried. The necessity of some reform was felt and acknowledged by almost everybody in the country, with the exception of the noble Duke opposite. Looking to the nature of the question itself, we thought that, if carried, it was eminently calculated tc promote the liberties of the country, and to secure the best interests of the Constitution. It was taken up on a deliberate view of the circumstances of the times, and the necessity of meeting thz opinion which uni- versally prevailed, and of restoring the confidence of the people to a Legislature which had become an object of distrust and suspicion. Acting upon the same policy, we did not contemplate that measure as the limit of our reform. (Cheers from the Opposition Benches.) We looked upon it rather as the means to an end ; and we thought that any man must be mad who considered it in any other light than that, Parliamentary Reform having been carried, it would be necessary to adopt other reforms, in order to give satisfaction to the country and security to the monarchy."

The policy of Ministers had been styled dangerous by the Duke of Wellington. He did not deny the sincerity but the wisdom and sound- ness of that opinion.

" We had come to a situation in which one of two principles of Government must prevail. We must either take the bold, hazardous, and, as I think, fatal determination of suppressing all desire for reform by severe coercive measures; or we must comply with the spirit and feeling of the times, and endeavour to cor- rect those abuses which had crept into the Constitution, and into the various in- stitutions of the country. The first was a line of policylwhich every. Govern- ment ought to repudiate; and we never e.rald be parties to a system which must lead in the first instance to the establishment of another Holy Alliance,' to ex- tinguish the spirit of liberty throughout Europe. (Continued cheers from all sides.) It would be a vain and futile attempt, ending in a war of opinion, and perhaps, for a time, the destruction of the liberty and independence for the maintenance of which this country had made so many sacrifices."

The other alternative was the one he had thought right to adopt.

" We have reformed where we thought reform necessary; and we have ex- erted the powers of the law, and the extraordinary powers of Parliament in- trusted to us, to suppress a spirit of insubordination and violence, and to pro- tect the Constitution from the attacks directed against it. Upon that principle we rest the measure of to-night. The noble Duke has a right to say that it is a necessary consequence of our policy : it is part and parcel of our system, for the adoption of which the present Ministry, came into office, and from which, as long as his Majesty honours them with his confidence, they will never depart." (Cheers from all sides.)

He insisted upon the necessity of taking advantage of the tempo- rary calm produced in Ireland by the Coercion Bill, to introduce mea- sures of reform and conciliation ; and concluded by expressing his ear- nest wish that the measure should be discussed with the calmness and forbearance which ought to belong to a deliberative assembly.

The Earl of RODEN moved an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He strenuously opposed the bill, be- cause it imposed a tax on the clergy exclusively, for benefits which all were to share ; because it effected the destruction of ten Protestant Bishops, no reason for which had been given by Earl Grey, except that he thought it expedient; and because it appointed a commission of laymen as well as ecclesiastics to regulate not only the temporal but the spiritual concerns of the Church. He charged Earl Grey with acting in conformity with the demands of Dr. M'Hale, Catholic Archbishop of Maronia; who, in a published letter, bad required the suppression of the Kildare Street Society, and the extinction of tithes, both of which bad.been done. He bad also said, " from a Reformed Parlia- ment we must demand the extinction of the Established Church ;" and this bill, How proposed to be read a second time, was in accordance with the demands of this Right Reverend Catholic Archbishop. (Cheers from die Duke of Cumberland and Lord Eldon.) The Earl of Wicnow defended the bill in its main provisions ;

• - - - • which he considered absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Church. He guarded himself against being thought a supporter of Ministers ; to whose misgovernment that state of things was owing which rendered the present bill necessary; and expressed his regret at his inability on the present occasion to vote with the friends with whom he generally acted. His conscience, however, told him that he should best promote the true interests of Protestantism by voting for the present bill.

The Bishop of DURHAM disapproved of the bill, especially that part of it which related to the extinction of the Bishoprics ; and ex- pressed his intention, if the House divided, of voting against it.

The Earl of LIMERICK briefly opposed, and the Marquis of CONYNCI-. HAM supported the measure.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA vehemently denounced the bill, as a mea- sure of the grossest spoliation. The King could not consent to it without an open violation of his Coronation Oath.

His Majesty swore, first, to the utmost of his power, to " maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law." Now, could any man, any honest man, deny that a con- currence with any measure which tended to weaken the Protestant religion was a direct violation of that oath? He would not insult his Sovereign so much as to suppose him capable of such conduct. Nor for one moment would he hesi- tate to spurn the imputation which rash and daring men, in avowing his con- sent to the present measure, had ventured to cast upon him.

The House of Lords, he deeply regretted it, had lost its indepen- dence ;

But it still possessed the brightest gem, its moral character ; and if their Lordships meant to discharge their duty that night—if they wished to retain any of the public respect, and not sink themselves to the lowest pitch of degra- dation—they would reject the bill before them. For himself, he was determined to give it his most strenuous opposition.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE and the Earl of GOSFORD spoke in defence of the measure ; and the Marquis of LONDONDERRY againstit.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH also opposed it. He was sometimes on the Opposition and sometimes on the Ministerial bench, but to this measure he was decidedly opposed.

He objected to the amalgamation of the diocese of Elphin with the diocese of Kilmore. The present Bishop of Kilmore was a very old man ; and if the Bishop of Elphin should die before him, how could he attend to the duties of such a distant diocese? He would have to travel thirty Irish miles to the Shannon, which separated the two dioceses. He would ask his noble friend opposite to tell them how could the Bishop cross the Shannon? (A laugh.) If he did cross it, he would find very bad roads and bad means of travelling in that part of the country ; and where, he would ask, could the Bishop put up at night? (Much laughter.)

The Bishop of ROCHESTER opposed the measure.

From the moment the Clerk at the table should in reference to this bill here pronounce the words "le Roi le veut," his Majesty would have publicly violated the engagements of the Coronation Oath.

He trusted, however, that if the bill became :a law, the Clergy would evince their christian feeling by persisting in well-doing.

The Bishop of EXETER moved an adjournment of the debate. Earl GREY assented to this, on the understanding that it would be completed the next day ; and that if the second reading were carried, the bill should be committed on Friday.

The House then adjourned, at one o'clock.

The adjourned debate was opened on Thursday, by

Lord CARBERY ; who protested against the measure, as one calcu- lated to insure the downfal of the Church. The whole affair was an atrocious conspiracy against our holy establishment. He was particu- larly adverse to that part of the bill which related to the Vestry Cess ; but from policy, would vote for the second reading, in the hope that the bill would be amended in Committee.

The Bishop of EXETER assured the House, that he laboured under feelings of great anxiety in rising to speak upon the subject under debate; especially after Lord Carbery's declaration, that notwithstand- ing his deep-rooted objections to the bill, he should still vote for its second reading, from policy. He would not, however, shrink from the responsibility which the performance of his duty to the Church of God imposed upon him. He thought that the subject should have been introduced into the House of Lords in the first instance in the shape of resolutions ; because it was a bill for taxing the Clergy, who were only _directly represented in that House. The object of the bill was to aoolish the Vestry Cess, to augment small livings, and build and repair churches. Now it would appear from the statement of Lord Grey, that no adequate means were provided for the accom- plishment of these objects. He went into an examination of the financial part of the measure ; and maintained, that the proceeds from the sale of perpetuities and the taxes upon livings bad been greatly overrated. He also denied the correctness of Earl Grey's statement with regard to the origin of First Fruits, although he did not object to their abolition. He insisted upon the iniquity of taxing the Clergy to make up the deficiency arising from the abolition of the Vestry Cess ; which be maintained ought to be raised by a tax upon landed property. The rental of land in Ireland was twelve millions per annum ; and a tax of five farthings in the pound would raise 63,0001. per annum, the amount of the Vestry Cess. He admitted that the poorer Catholics were galled by the imposition of this tax, but altogether denied the assertion that it formed the principal topic of complaint in Ireland. He read some quotations from the Report of the Committee appointed by the House of Commons about a year ago, to prove that the Grand Jury System, vagrancy and mendicity, and the unfortunate state of the rela- tion between landlord and tenant, were the chief causes of discontent in Ireland. It was recommended that the local taxes imposed by the Grand Juries should be paid directly by the landlords ; but this Com- mittee, which was appointed on the motion of Mr. Rice, and of which Mr. Lamb, Sir John Newport, Lord Milton, Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Charles Grant, and Lord John Russell were members, said not a word of abolishing Vestry Cess. To the suppression of Bishoprics.he was also extremely adverse. He advised the Peers to be wary how they meddled with the property of Bishops, which arose from the same source as their own,—namely, grants of lands from Protestant kings. The same act, the well-known Act of Settlement passed in the reign of Charles the Second, which contained in its 101st clause a grant of land to Sir William Petty, also endowed many of the Bishoprics. The Marquis of Lansdowne therefore, must see that his own property and that of the Bishops were held on the same title. If he possessed pro- perty in Ireland, he would sell it at once. Mr. O'Connell had sug- gested, that persons who held property in Ireland, and resided out of it, should be compelled to give their property to their younger sons, or else sell it ; and Mr. O'Connell's suggestions could not prudently be disregarded.

A year ago, Mr. O'Connell foretold that tithes would be put an end to; and they had been destroyed accordingly. Of Church Cess he also prophesied the abolition, and that prophecy was likewise fulfilled ; and why might not he de- nounce the payment of rents to absentees, and in like manner procure their abo- lition? First, he denounced tithes, and they were gone ; secondly, he announced that he should, with a view to the improvement of Ireland, require that an ade- quate revenue be provided for the purposes of public charities; thirdly, he pro- posed to make a provision for the Protestant Clergy, which should correspond to the numbers of the flocks of which they had the care; fourthly, it was Ins in- tention to provide glebes and houses for the clergy of all persuasions; fifthly, he was to have a local and domestic Legislature, with the view, as he alleged, of establishing upon a firm basis the connexion of the Crown and People of Eng- land with his own country. What further he proposed, God only knew ; but one thing at least was certain, that those things which he foretold had come to pass; and all he should then say was, that when that well.known individual began to talk ofabsentees, they bad better look to their rents.

As compared with the number of English Bishops, that of the Irish was said to be too large ; but the fact might be that there were too few English Bishops. Cranmer had advised Henry the Eighth to increase the number of English Bishops, and six new ones were made ; but in consequence of the conduct of an apostate incumbent of the see of Westminster, that see was added to London, and its revenues applied to repair the cathedral of St. Paul's ; and hence arose the proverb of robbing Peter to pay Paul. He strongly insisted upon the necessity of resisting the encroachments of the Catholics ; mid quoted some ex- pressions used by Dr. Doyle and others of the Catholic priesthood, to prove their hatred of Protestants and anticipations of overthrowing the Establishment. The bill pretended to do what no human power had ever pretended to do before—to make a Bishop by its sole act and deed.

The bill not merely said that they shall be Bishops if they will, but that they shall be Bishops whether they will or no. He dented their Lordships' right to do it—he did more, he denied their power. He denied the power of any human authority in this respect ;—and he entreated his right reverend brethren to set him right if he were wrong,—he denied that any power could force a man to be a Bishop against his will. ( Cheers, laughter, and " Nolo episcopari.") He was not at all surprised at the mirth of some noble lords; they had treated the whole in with so much levity, that it was to be expected they would in- dulge n a laugh. ( Cheers, and some cries of " Order !") He would repeat what he had said, notwithstanding it had raised a laugh—

Their Lordships had neither the right nor the power to do what the bill said should be done—viz. to force the Bishop of A to be Bishop of B also, whether he would or not. The individual who was Archbishop of Cashel and Bishop of Emly had actually petitioned against the measure ; yet, in spite of his peti- tion and declaration, he was also to be compelled to be Bishop of Waterford and Lismore. In the same way, the Bishop of Kihnore was to be made also Bishop of Elphin.

He read quotations from Sir Hussey Vivian's evidence, given before the Committee of the House of Commons, and from some writings of Dr. Doyle, Mr. John Burnett, a dissenting minister of Cork, and others, to prove the disregard of Catholics to the obligation of an oath. He then proceeded to examine the arguments adduced by Earl Grey, in a speech delivered in April 1829, upon the subject of the Corona- tion Oath ; and argued, that he had utterly failed to make good his

i

assertion that it was binding upon the King in his executive and not in his legislative capacity. There was no distinction recognized in the Constitution between the legislative and executive capacity of the King. The King's executive power was limited.

He could do nothing without an adviser. In the very highest point—that of his legislative capacity—he had for his advisers the Houses of Parliament ; and he, sitting in Parliament, by their advice, decreed what should be the law of the land. Parliament was to him, in making laws, what the Council was to him in issuing proclamations; and so it was throughout his functions—he most have advisers in all he did. On that account, the reasons to separate the two capacities for the sake of binding him in the one and loosing him in the other, did not hold, unless the separation took place in other particulars.

The King swore to make good laws : he was therefore bound in his legislative capacity.

Some of their Lordships were perhaps not aware that there were statutes of this land recognizing the Coronation Oath as binding the King in his legisla- tive capacity. Every Sovereign from Edward the Confessor to Edward the Third swore that he would make good laws and repeal bad ones ; and there

were not one or two, but a whole stream of instances, in which this was re- garded as the tendency of the constitutional principle on which all laws were to be reviewed, and, if necessary, annulled. The first instance was the Statute of Fines, the 7th of Edward III. ; in the preamble of which it was recited, that nothing therein granted was contrary to the oath of the King. Could it he doubted, therefore, that the King and the Parliament recognized the oath as binding him in his legislative capacity.

He would now observe on what had taken place at the time of the Union with Scotland. The Scotch feared that their church would be subjected to the laws of the Church of England. To guard against this it was specially provided that the King should secure to the ut- most of his power the Church of Scotland according to the rules of the General Assembly.

The act was drawn up when the Commissioners were sent; and two petitions were forwarded, that they might also have the security of the Coronation Oath. They bad it; and in consequence of that, the Church:of England, being fearful of the introduction of forty-five Presbyterians into the Lower House of Parlia- ment, and of sixteen Presbyterian Lords into that House, the Bishops introduced a bill which required an oath to be taken by the King, that be would maintain inviolable the interests of the Church of England—(A noble lord, we believe Lord Plunkett, said, "and of Ireland "]—and of Ireland—he thanked the noble lord for the emendation. He was happy to have the concurrence of so great an authority as that of the noble and learned lord in his favour. He was much obliged to him for making the suggestion. After that, he put it to the House, and he had ea doubt their Lordships would agree with him in opinion, that the Coronation 04th of his Majesty was binding, in a legislative, as well as in an executive capacity. No, no!" iron; Lord Plunkett.)

Lord Kenyon bad also said that the King would be justified in re. fusing to follow the advice of his Councillors, if, for instance, they should advise him to overturn the Protestant hierarchy, for that would be a violation of his Coronation Oath.

Dr. Phillpotts concluded by apologizing for the length of time he had occupied, and by promising that he would never trespass again in a similar manner.

Lord SToURTON rose to give his conscientious support to the bill. He protested against the unfounded accusations of the Bishop of Exeter against the religion which be professed. This readiness to impute none but bad motives, said not much in favour of the imptigner's Christian charity. The right Reverend Prelate asserted that the Catholics were taught to disregard the obligations of an oath. Gracious goodness !—what, then, had shut out the Catholics for more than a century, not only from Parliament but almost all the political advantages of the Constitu- tion ? (" Hear, hear !") The right Reverend Prelate cited several obscure tracts and pamphlets, which only extraordinary zeal could have ferretted out, as the orthodox of' the Catholic doctrine and discipline. The Catholics repudiated them : he, as a Catholic, disowned them ; and as well and as fairly might some one-sided pamphlet, written to make out a case of intolerance, be cited as a a proof of the charitable and tolerant spirit of the Church of England. (" Hear, hear !")

He admired the ability displayed in Dr. Doyle's writings, but dis- sented from many of the doctrines they contained, as strongly as any Protestant in that House.

Dr. Doyle was a writer of pamphlets—political pamphlets; some such might perhaps be found on the Episcopal Bench of that House ; and with as much truth and justice might some partisan political pamphlet of a dignitary of the Established Church be quoted as the standard of its theo- logical doctrine, as Doctor Doyle's political effusions as arrefragable demon- strations of the civil tendency of the Catholic faith. (" Hear, hear !") Lord PLurncErr admired the address with which the Bishop of Exeter had drawn away the attention of the House from the subject properly before it. The greater part of his speech had been devoted to the discussion of the Catholic question ; but that question was not now in debate. The effect of the Bishop's speech was to stir tip ill blood between the Protestants and Catholics. Then his quotations from the the works of Dr. Doyle and Dr. M'Hale had taken up much time, but were quite irrelevant to the matter in hand. Lord Plunkett proceeded (amidst much interruption, and in an inaudible tone of voice) to vindi- cate the measure from the attacks of the Bishop. He asserted posi- tively, that Government had never contemplated to apply the property of the Church to purposes other than ecclesiastical. The only question was, whether some property which had been called Church property was really so or not. [The interruption here from the constant buzzing became so great, that Lord Brougham said he could not bear a sentence which Lord Plunkett uttered.) Lord Plunkett, after arguing that Parliament could absolve his Majesty from observing the contract into which he entered when he took the Coronation Oath,—as was in fact done at the time of the Iteformation,—concluded by codling upon the House to follow up the great measure of Reform by passing this bill.

The Earl of MANSFIELD, in a speech of some length, expressed his decided hostility to the bill.

He would remind their Lordships, that in admitting the principle that Dis. seaters should nut pay towards the support of the Established Church, they were holding out a premium to Dissenters: and that much as was now the fond- ness for cheap law, there were fully as many who desired cheap religion; and that the system of doing without clergymen was spreading very widely. (" Hear, hear ! ")

He would not apply the term spoliation to the bill ; but certainly it imposed an exclusive tax upon parties who had hitherto been exempt from it.

He objected to the bill on principle; and the principle was so far wrong, that he could not hope that it would be amended. He could not but say, that, in his opinion, if the Roman Catholic religion were established in Ireland as the reli- gion of the State, such a state of circumstances would be less dangerous to the Protestant religion than the situation in which it was now placed by the present bill, by which it was first pretended that the wish was to maintain and protect it, while it turned out that the intention was to mutilate it.

The Marquis of LANSDoWNE, amidst loud cries of " Adjourn ! " and " Withdraw ! " persisted in addressing the House. From the temper- in which the debate bad been conducted, lie felt himself entitled to hope- that their Lordships would permit the bill to be read a second time.- He entirely coincided with ..,ne observation of the Earl of Mansfield.

The noble Earl had stated that he perceived a growing disposition in the coun- try to reject religious establishments altogether, and an increasing love for what

he called cheap religion. But what was the conclusion to which he had come

on those premises—that the present religious establishments ought to be left un- touched and unreformed. (Loud cheers.) " Leave them untouched," he said, " fiir they have been too much meddled with already." But when he looked to the abuses which had crept into the Church of Ireland, he thought that they ought to come to a different conclusion. Lord Mansfield said that if the present stare of affairs led to convulsion, the sooner the convulsion arrived, the better. (Lr . ! cheers.) He was surprised when he heard him state that it would be bets, : to go or knowingly and willingly in the course which led to convulsion, in tilt. hares that some good might arise from that state of convulsion. He was sure he spoke the sentiments ofhis Majesty's Ministers, and be believed. he spoke the sentiments of the majority of that House, when he stated that they thought that no expedient should be _left untried by which such a convulsion could be avoided, or that should not be used to conciliate the feelings of the country.

He maintained the necessity of some reform in the Church Esta- blishment; which, as Dr. Paley had declared, was no part of Chris-

tianity, but only the means of inculcating it. He bad defended the de- tails of the measure, especially those which related to the reduction of Bishoprics and the means of procuring a greater number of resident Protestant clergymen. On his own responsibility he would answer for the benefits which the measure would produce.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND moved an adjournment; which was ac- ceded to by Earl GREY, and the House broke up at half-past one.

Before the debate was resumed on Friday, the Earl of WisionisEa, with great warmth of manner, asked whether any communication had been received by the Bishops from the King relating to the Irish Church Bill ? If such a letter had been sent, whoever advised it had been guilty of a dereliction of constitutional duty, so gross as to render. it impossible for him to use language sufficiently strong in reprobation of his conduct. The Bishop of LONDON denied the right of the. Earl of WinchiLsea to an answer to that question. It might be very inconvenient to state the contents of any letter which the King, as head of the Church, might write to the Bishops ; but he would state on the present occa- sion, that he did not believe his Majesty lied made any communication which could in the slightest degree infringe upon the privileges of that House, or warrant Lord Winchilsea's burst of indignation.

The Earl of ELDON then rose. After assuring the House of his intention to occupy them only a very short time, and taking the oppor- tunity, which might never again occur, of thanking their Lordships for the respect and attention which he had uniformly received at their hands for so many years, he proceeded to express his conviction that there was a conspiracy going on against the House of Lords, the intent of which was to put an end to its functions. Still he exhorted their Lordships to do their duty fearlessly. He had been raised from a very humble station, and he knew that to yield to menaces and clamour was the only way in which they could give advantage to their enemies. He con- tended that the King would violate his Coronation Oath by assenting to this measure, and dwelt upon this topic for a considerable time. So help him God, he would not assent to any measure that would weaken the Establishment, and if he had been Lord Chancellor when the pre- sent bill had been proposed, lie would have tendered his advice to his Sovereign to reject it ; and if his Sovereign had rejected that advice, so help him that God, before whose tribunal he so soon would have to appear, he would have resigned the seals into his Sovereign's hands, with all dutiful and humble respect.

The Bishop of LONDON disapproved of some parts of the bill, and the mode in which it originated ; but he could nut .hut his eyes to the dangers that would attend the rejection of the measure. He would therefore vote for going into Committee, when he would propose cer- tain amendments. Even without those amendments, however, it would be better to allow the bill to pass.

The Archbishop of DUBLIN also supported the second reading. He saw great danger in the measure, but he saw in its rejection infinitely greater. Its rejection would be more than dangerous, it would be fatal.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that his habits of thinking rendered it extremely difficult for him to bring his mind to oppose any measure which the King's Government thought of importance ; it was unsuitable, it was almost new, for an Archbishop of Canterbury to find himself opposed in sentiment to the existing Administration. lie then went into an examination of the details of the bill, to most of which he objected strongly; and concluded by declaring that he would oppose it, because reform was only a subordinate principle in it—the real prin- ciple was conciliation, which in fact would come to nothing. It would irritate the Protestants, and give a temporary triumph to the Catholics : it would operate on Church property—it would dispossess the ancient owners and give their property to others. With all this, there was not a single word or expression to guard the application of the same prin- ciple to every corporation in the kingdom.

The Duke of WELLINGTON began by adverting to some remarks of Earl Grey in reference to what had fallen from him respecting the policy of the present Government. It was supposed that he had alluded to the question of Parliamentary Refuel'', but he had not made the slightest reference to it. Earl Grey had informed the I I ()use, in very strong and decided language, that he considered Parlim ',Mary Reform as only a means to an end. Whether he had preveil,A upon his Majesty so to consider it, he did not know. (Lo:/,/ few:: the Opposition.) But, under a Reformed or Unreibrmed l'arli:onent, the people had a right to the best system of measures which could be de- vised to promote their prosperity. He then proceeded to , ark upon the system of agitation which prevailed in Ireland; and in order that the House might understand what agitation really was, he would de- scribe it.

First of all, it is founded upon a conspiracy of demagogues, priests, and monks ; and the means were terror and mobs, to be employed whet ev,,r terror and mobs could be used. This was to produce an effect upon Ministers, and an alarm in Parliament ; and the mobs were, excited by orations and seditious speeches at public meetings—by violent publications through the press—by cx- aggeration—by flattery—and by all the resources in the power of persons of that description. The people were called upon to repair in large bodies to all points where it was possible to terrify. If any person opposed himself to this design, he was immediately murdered, or his house and property destroyed. The least done was a combination to deprive him of the means of obtaining subsis- tence; and all was intended to destroy the peace of the country. This is the system which is called agitation.

He maintained that this :system of agitation had been promoted by the Marquis of Anglesea; and that for a long while Ministers had done nothing to counteract it. He went into a long detail of the events connected with the recent history of Ireland—the distress of the clergy, the refusal of tithes, and the triumph of Mr. Con- nell and the agitators. He argued, that in consequence of the abolition of tithes and Church Cess, and the measure pro- posed for the sale of perpetuities, the whole of the actual income of the Church would not exceed .50,0001. per annum. Ile had made this statement, which was not exaggerated, in order that his rea- sons might be understood for not opposing the committal of the bill. The Church of Ireland could not exist for a day unless some measure of this description were passed. The Duke of Buckingham might stand upon principle, and- say that upon principle he would not allow the revenues of the Church to be touched; but the consequence would be that the Church of Ireland must go. It was not possible for the Church to remain for another year to receive the benefit of their acting upon principle. Something must be done immediately. The matter was urgent ; it was now the 19th July, and the Church would fall without immediate relief. He then proceeded to remark upon the de- tails of the bill. He objected to taxing the Clergy, and to the diminution of the Bishops. It was probable that, had he now for the first time to frame a bill for the establishment of a Protestant Church in Ireland, he should not have thought it necessary to have three Archbishops, twenty-two Bishops, and two thousand Clergy: but being there, they could not be withdrawn without injury to the Protestant religion ; and that circumstance ,alone was sufficient for him to make every possible effort to keep the present number. He also was opposed to the clause which enacted that if divine service had not been performed in a district

• 1,

LOT tome years thew never again sliffiarte-'t-serviee • riTrernirea, • church erected.' • It would be- their diity to leave out a clause which tended so much to prevent the growth of the pure Protestant faith. There were provisions in this bill so seriously affecting the stability and usefulness of the Church, that he could do no less than state his ob- jections to them.

Lord IVIELBOURNE defended the Marquis of Anglesea from the at- tack of the Duke of Wellington. It was not fair, nor generous—no, nor was it just. (Cheers.) He admitted that Lord Anglesea had written an imprudent letter : but had the Duke of Wellington never written an imprudent letter ? ( Vehement cheering.) Was there no letter contem- poraneous with that unfortunate one ?—one, too, not the most wise or prudent that any man could write, more especially if he were Prime Minister of England. Surely that letter afforded some ground for • expecting a little consideration for the mistakes of others. Lord Melbourne then briefly defended the bill under discussion, as being well calculated for the good of the Church—the safety, wellbeing, and repose of the whole kingdom.

The Earl of LONGFORD opposed the second reading of the bill.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE also opposed it, and reproached the Duke of Wellington for the course which he pursued on the present occasion.

The Bishops of BATH and WEI.I.S, and Hentronn, Earl nE GREY', and Lord GRANTHAM, would vote for the second reading.

Lord BROUGHAM justified the conduct of Government in bringing

forward this measure. He said that the calculation of the Bishop of Exeter, in regard to the money parts of the bill, were grossly inaccu-. rate ; and went into particulars to prove this assertion. He also re- plied to the Coronation Oath arguments of the opposite side. He quoted precedents from history to prove that Church property had been repeatedly interfered with in a similar manner to the present. He concluded a speech of great length, full of calculations and details, with declaring his belief that their Lordships would not come to a colourable and delusive vote—that they would not vote for the second reading with the intention of mutilating the measure in Committee ; but that they would give it a manly and straightforward support.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND professed his determination to perform the duty be owed to his Sovereign and his country, and to vote against the second reading.

The Duke of SUSSEX supported the bill, as eminently calculated to benefit the Church and the country.

Lord WYNFORD argued, that there would be ne: inconsistency in

voting for the second reading, and yet rejecting the 1.;;11 at any future. stage, if sufficient alterations were not made in it by the Committee. He himself opposed the bill on principle, and would vote against its second reading. • Earl GREY replied at length to the arguments of the Duke of Wel- lington, and defended the general policy of his Administration against the charge of its possessing a Revolutionary tendency.

He would appeal to the House, whether there ever was a period when they had heard so little as during the last six months on the subject of universal suf- frage, annual Parliaments, and the irate by ballot ? Some persons had, it was tine, endeavoured to inflame the public mind on those subjects; they were not satisfied with the Reform Bill, and he never expected that they would have been satisfied ; but again be asked, had ever any thing fallen on the public ear with so little -eil.ect as all these attempts to agitate the public mind ? He begged their Lordships to look back to the state of the country at the period when the present Administration came into office. All the North of England was then disturbed by the Trades Unions ; besides that, the Political Unions were agitating a variety of political questions of fearful import; there was a general spreading of discontent, and buruings were taking place all over the country. This alarming state of things was at an end, and the Political Unions had for the most part ceased to exist.. A noble Lord hail referred to a meeting of a Political Uniou at Newcastle, and said that no- thing could exceed the' indignation and contempt which the speakers at that meeting expressed towards the Administration. That at least was a proof that Ministers had not favoured those bodies, and were therefore not favoured by them. The fact was, that the persons in question expressed themselves vio- lently against Ministers, in proportion as they found that their schemes were de- feated by the measures of salutary reform which had been introduced.

He then remarked upon the miscalculations made by Bishop Phill- potts ; and expressed surprise at his assertion that the Vestry Cess had not been a pregnant source of discontent in Ireland. He thought that the revival of irritating topics, the extracts from Dr. Doyle's letters, and the accusation which he dealt out against the Catholics, were ex- tremely ill-judged, to say the least.

What did it tend to, but to reopen wounds which had been healed, and to re- new a spirit of animosity? Did the right reverend Prelate wish to increase the exasperation, and inflame those bad passions which disturbed the peace of Ire- land ? This bill had nothing to do with Catholics. He denied that it was a concession to the Catholics ; it was a concession to the Protestant Church, in order to preserve it front peril. He should, indeed, be very sorry if individual instances were to be taken as constituting the character of the whole Catholic clergy. But lie believed the reverend Doctor had met with an able competitor, and that it might be said of them that they were " Arcades ambo

Et cantare pares, et responders parati." (A laugh.)

He concluded with a few remarks on the Probability of the bill being altered in Committee.

He trusted that no such alterations might be made in it as would insure its rejection by the other House of Parliament. If so lie would very much prefer its rejection at once, on the second reading. He could assure their Lordships, that be had endeavoured so to frame the measure as to prevent such a decision being come to by them. This was his answer to the charge which had been brought against him of endeavouring to conciliate a party .whom he had no chance of conciliating. A noble Earl who spoke the other night, in alluding to the probability of a collision between the two Houses of Parliament, had de- clared, that if that collision must come, the sooner it came the better. Earl Grey regretted the avowal of such a sentiment. He could only say he had done his best to lead their Lordships from the edge of the gulf on which such a step- would be sure to place them. To comply with the reasonable demands of the People for reasonable reforms, was not surely the likely way to produce convul- sion in the country. He would say, however, that the endeavour by their Lordships to control public opinion, was the likely way to produce it; and in- stead of setting. their face against all reforms, their Lordships would more surely prevent confusion in the country by advocating and supporting them. The Earl of HAB,Rowat though opposed to the bill in many points, • .• would follow the example of the Duke of Wellington, and rote for the .second reading, with the view of amending it in the Committee. The House divided, as follows---.

Contents— Present. 104 Proxies. 53-157 Not Contents—Present 69 Proxies 30— 98 Majority in fiavour of the bill 59 The bill was accordingly read a second time, and ordered to be com- mitted on Monday.

The House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.

3. CONDUCT OP THE MINISTRY. A conversation arose in the House of Commons, on Monday, upon. the presentation by Major BEAUCLERK, of a petition for the repeal of the Assessed Taxes and the tax on Malt, from the inhabitants of East Sorry. Mr. O'CoN- NOR, Colonel EVANS, Mr. FINN, Sir S. WHALLEY, and Mr. TENNY- SON strongly arraigned the conduct of the Government. Colonel EVANS said that the public cared little for the conflict now going on between the two great parties. The Ministry had violated all the pledges they had given to the public, and some change was necessary for the relief and welfare of the country. Mr. TENNYSON repeated the same charge of broken pledges. Any change would be for the .better : for they must either get a worse or a better Government, and a worse could not last a week. Sir JOAN CAMPBELL deprecated these attacks upon Ministers in their absence. ' Mr. O'CoNsat said they ought to have been present, to attend to the petitions of the people. Mr. DENISON and Sir GEORGE PHILLIPS spoke in defence of Minis- ters ; and the latter observed that there was a general return of prosperity in the:manufacturing districts. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD denied this : they who were engaged in trade knew that profits were nearly annihilated, that the middle classes very soon would be ruined, and that there would be none left but the very rich and very poor.

4. EAST INDIA CHARTER. The 40th and 41st clauses of this bill were agreed to in Committee on Monday, with some verbal amend- ments.

Mr. CUTLAR FERGTJSSON proposed an amendment to the 42d clause (which gives the Governor-General and Council the power of legislat- ing for Europeans as well as natives), the object of which was to re- strict such power to the districts beyond the three Presidencies ; for within those limits be wished to preserve to British subjects the bles- sings of British law. The House rejected the amendment by 114 to 33.

The clauses down to the 55th were then agreed to.

• On Tuesday, the Committee proceeded with the other clauses of the bill. The 55th, which enables the Governor-General, with the sanction of the Court of Directors, to act without a Council, was strenuously opposed by Mr. C. FERGUSSON, Mr. HUME, Mr. MARJORI- BANKS, Sir R. INGLIS, Sir H. VERNEY, and Mr. WYNN. It was de- fended by Mr. C. GRANT and Mr. CHARLES BULLER; and carried by a majority of 41 to 32.

Another division took place on an amendment proposed by Mr. CHARLES BULLER, that one Supreme Governor should be appointed, with subordinate Governors for the four Presidencies. This was re- jected by a majority of 55 to 9, and the clause was agreed to in its original form. The 50th and 57th clauses also passed the Com- mittee.

On Wednesday, the clauses from the 57th to the 80th were agreed to without amendinent, Mr. Hiram proposed an amendment to the 80th, which permits Europeans to go to all parts of India in possession of the Company previous to 1800; the object of which was to extend this privilege so as to permit free ingress to all parts of India. The House divided upon the motion, when it was rejected by 111 to 20. The clauses from the 81st to the 88th inclusive were then agreed to. On the 89th clause, which relates to the ecclesiastical government of India, being proposed, two motions for adjournment were made by Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. CHARLES BULLER, and both rejected. It was at length agreed, however, that the Chairman should report progress.

The 89th clause came under consideration at the morning sitting on Friday.

Mr. O'CONNELL objected to it, for it recognized a separate Christian establishment,—indeed, Sir Robert Inglis had given it the name of a .dominant Church in India. There was a vast disproportion in the numbers of Catholics and Protestants in India, and they were going to appoint two additional Bishops for fifteen or twenty thousand Pro- testants, while there were half a million of Catholics; all of whom would be taxed to pay the salaries of these Bishops. Government should bear in mind, that his Majesty had Presbyterian and Catholic .subjects, as well as those who belonged to the Church of England.

Mr. GRANT complimented Mr. O'Connell upon the good temper with which he had made his objections. At present, there was only one Bishop in India, and three Archdeacons. It was proposed to ap- _ point two new -Bishops, and take as much from the salaries of the Archdeacons as would give each of them 2,5001. per annum. In making this provision, he unhesitatingly declared that he did not like connecting domination with the Church. (Loud cheers.) It was with the idea of affording spiritual aid; the diffusion of which would sur- pass all contemptible thoughts of human domination, that he proposed the resolution. (Continued cheers.) He knew there was a large Roman Catholic community in India who deserved the particular regard of Government ; but in what way their claims could be best satisfied, be was not prepared to state : it would not be difficult, however, to adjust the matter between parties who applied themselves fairly and sincerely . to the task—(, Hear!" from Mr. 0' Connell)—and he would be happy to communicate with Nli. O'Connell on the subject.

Mr. SHELL asked Mr. Grant whether be desired to have a dominant Church in India?

Mr. GRANT—" I distinctly stated that I did not." Mr. SHELL—" Does he desire to have an ascendant Church?" Mr. GRANT—" I am surprised the question should be repeated." Mr. SHELL—" Where is the difference between an ascendant and an established Church? Are all religions to be established in India ?"

Mr. MACAULAY—" All are to be paid."

Mr. SHELL--" Yes ; but payment does not constitute establishment. In France all religions are supported, but none are established."

Lord ALTHORP asked Mr. O'Connell whether Mr. Grant's remarks were not satisfactory to his view of the subject ?

Mr. O'CONNELL had to say that the answer of Mr. Grant was most satisfactory to him. Though the promise was not an official one, he had every confidence in it, when he thought of the man from whom it fell—(Cheers)-mot man whose life showed it impossible for him to be insincere.

Mr. HUME asked Lord Althorp bow he could consistently propose to diminish the number of Bishops in Ireland, and increase them in In- d i a. He protested against the necessity of having more Bishops on ae... count of the unhealthiness of the climate. He was himself a proof that the climate was healthy. Mr. C. BULLER hoped that Government would not continue their course of conciliating Mr. O'Connell and the Catholics at the expense of the Hindoos.

The House then resumed.

In the evening sitting., the discussion of the 89th clause was continued. Mr. FRENCH, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lord MORPETH, and Mr. Max.wra.t. supported it, and Mr. O'Dwvea and Mr. Runtves opposed it.

The clause then passed, and the others down to the 1011 inclusive were also agreed to.

Mr. GRANT then moved the insertion of a new clause, making pro- vision that at least two chaplains at each presidency should be HAWS.. ters of the Church of Scotland, with salaries equal to those of military chaplains.

Mr. GILLON objected to the exclusion of Dissenters from the Church of Scotland from Mr. Grant's proposition.

Mr. C. FratoussoN saw no reason for putting Scotch Dissenters ou a better footing than English. '

The Chairman then said, that as the clause was a new one it could not be discussed in Committee, and must be proposed when the Com- mittee had gone through the bill.

It was accordingly withdrawn.

The other clauses down to the 113th—the last—then passed. The 75th clause, which had been postponed, was then put. Mr. GRANT said this clause was intended to fix the salaries of the members of the Indian Government. He proposed to give the Governor-General • a salary of 240,000 sicca rupees, and each member of his council 96,000 sicca rupees per annum ; the Governors of the subordinate councils 120,000, and the members of their councils 60,000 sicca rupees per annum.

Mr. HUME proposed that the salary of the Governor-General should be 20,0001. instead of 25,0001. per annum.

The clause, however, was agreed to without a division.

Colonel LEITH Hay then moved the insertion of a clause, giving a legislative sanction to the branch of the Church of Scotland now esta- blished in India, which was carried, on a division, by 63 to 25.

The Chairman then rose, and reported progress.

5. TRADE TO CHINA. Mr. STEWART :MACKENZIE brought in bill, on Monday, to regulate the trade to India and China. It was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

6. DECCAN PRIZE-MONEY. When the question was put, on Wed- nesday, that the Rouse should go into a Committee on the East India Bill, Mr. WARBURTON asked Lord Althorp, whether certain claimants of shares in the Deccan Prize- money would be allowed an opportunity of having their (MSC reheard, before the Lords of the Treasury, to whom the matter had been referred for settlement by the Privy Council, had made a final distribution of it.

• Lord ALTHORP said, that Mr. Warburton appeared to assume a knowledge of the decision of the Privy Council ; but as the decision was not officially before him, he could not pretend to say what it would be. He could not Fledge himself with regard to the course he should pursue. Mr. WARBURTON then proceeded to say, that the adjudication of the question bad taken place upon the faith of a letter which had been sub- stituted instead of another of an earlier date. He should, therefore, move an humble address to his Majesty for a copy of the original letter,„ and the minutes of the Treasury in question.

Lord GEORGE SOMERSET complained of Mr. Warburton's aspersing

the character of the Judges in their absence. •

Mr. RICE had no doubt the matter would be satisfactorily explained.

Some conversation then took place between Mr. O'CONNELL, sir F. BURDETT, Mr. W. BROUGHAM, and Mr. HARVEY, on the subject; and in the course of the evening, Mr. WARBURTON moved for the pro- duction of a letter from the Trustees of the Deccan Prize-money to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 14th of September 1825, for a letter dated the 22d of June 1826, and for the Treasury minute made upon one of those letters. Agreed to. .

7. FACTORY Brat. Lord ASHLEY having moved,. at the morning sitting on Thursday, that the Order of the Day be read for the House going into Committee on this bill,

Mr. R. FERGUSON said, that he had voted for the Factory Commis- sion from an anxiety for full information, not from any desire to delay the measure. The report of the Central Board was impracticable, and fraught with mischief.

It recommended that children should be employed eight and adults ten hours per day. If this arrangement was acceded to, it would be found that adults would be unable to accomplish the work left unfinished by their children witbr oat a ruinous expense to tire manufacturers. He thought the recommendation of the Central Board not supported by the evidence. ,(Hear.) The evidence of medical men showed that the most delicate period of existence in the femake sex was from the ages of thirteen to eighteen; yet by this bill, children over the age of fourteen years might be worked to any number of hours. He hoped the hours of labour for children would be extended to eleven hours per day, fir he felt assured that period was not too long.

The House then went into Committee. At the suggestion of Lord ALTHORP, the first clause was postponed; and the second, which is-

vc lved the greet principle of me bill, was put, with ,the concurrence ut Lord ASHLEY ; • Mlio said, tbat if the Committee decided against him on the second clause, be should abandon the bill.

Lord Avrifonn then said, that the question which the Committee were willed upon to decide was, whether the number of hours, and the age (eighteen) mentioned in the clause, ought to stand ? The first point was, were persons of the age of eighteen to be considered as children, requiring legal protection ? and the second was, did the Com- mittee consider ten hours' labour each day too much or too little ? He looked upon the bill with great apprehension. /t might take away the very bread of the people for whose benefit it was intended.

He thought it was quite clear, that if they prevented all persona under eighteen years of age from working longer than ten hours a-day, the effect would be to pre- vent the manufacturers from working their milli longer than that period. Then, what would be the effect of diniinishing the manufacturing labour of the country to ten hours a-day, when all other nations whowere rivalling us in manufac- tures were unfettered in their mode of conducting their business g It might be, and it had before been said, that the only effect of it would be to make the manufacturers embark a larger capital, and build mote mills; so that the only loss would be the interest upon the extra capital. At the present moment, im- provements were every day taking place in machinery, so that what was in use a few years ago was now thrown aside. Suppose those improveMents were to take place every five years, the difference in the manufacturer's profits would be immense, if his labours were cut down from twelve to ten hours. The effect might be, to drive the manufacturer out of the market, as he would not then be able to compete with the rivalry of other countries.

Much had been said of the effect of working in factories upon the health of the persons employed.

• It had been asserted that the general appearance of the young persons was pallid ; but in the evidence before the Commissioners, it had been shown, that though this pallid appearance was common among the boys and men, the girls were as healthy-looking as they possibly could be. With respect to the de- formity of the-person, it was in evidence that most cases of deformity had oc- curred when the machinery was differently constructed, and at a time when the operation of the machinery so constructed had a tendency to produce de- formity.

He concluded by beseeching the Committee to act with caution ; and moved as an amendment, that the word " thirteen" should be in- serted in the clause, instead of " eighteen ;" and expressed his intention of following it up by substituting "eight" instead of "ten hours," according to.the recommendation of the Commissioners.

Lord ASHLEY was surprised to hear the evidence referred to as not affording allegations of the evils arising from the present mode of em- ploying the children. Had Lord Althorp read the evidence of Dr. Loudon?

Lord ALTHORP—" Look at the others."

Lord ASHLEY—" Well, I will -do so." He would refer to that of Dr. Hawkins ; but first of Dr. Loudon, who had stated that the present prolongation of labour was an act of the greatest cruelty. He then read extracts from the evidence of Drs. Loudon and Hawkins, in confirmation of this statement. He had been opposed to the Commission ; but he called upon Lord Althorp to pay some attention to what his own Commissioners had said, which told very strongly against him. It was true that the Commissioners had reported in favour of employing two sets of hands, and of limiting the hours of labour to eight; but there was no evidence in the body of the report which justified such limitation.

The evidence went to show, that it was impracticable to obtain two sets of hands iu any immediate neighbourhood, but it was said that the poorhouses and other places should be ransacked to obtain children from all parts of the kingdom ; was the House prepared to say, that a master manufacturer might send his waggon to any part of the country for a load of children, like so many hogs- (" Hear ! ")--and to bring them away from their natural protectors; to place them, unprotected among strangers?

He then mentioned the names of a number of manufacturers who had given evidence against the practicability of obtaining two sets of children, according to the plan of the Commissioners. What security, he asked, was there that the children would not work at two mills ? He admitted that Lord Althorp's proposition was in accordance with the report of the Commissioners ; but it was contrary to the evidence on which that report was founded. He took his stand upon the medi- cal evidence ; which.stated that ten hours a day were sufficient for fe- males not eighteen years old.

Sir GEORGE PHILLIPS, who had been a manufacturer all his life, could not speak on the subject with so much confidence as Lord Ashley did. It was said that there would be no reduction of wages in conse- quence of the bill; but the masters knew better than that, and they de- dared that a reduction of 25 per cent. in the wages must follow a re- duction of the hours of labour from twelve to ten. Mr. BROTHERTON would vote for the clause ; but if it were ne- gatived, would move that the word " eleven " hours be inserted instead of ten.

Mr. G. W. WOOD strongly opposed the clause, and as it was now three o'clock the debate was broken off.

In the evening sitting the discussion was resumed.

Mr. STRICKI.AND, 1lIr. Pavan:, Mr. Porrea, and Colonel TORRENS opposed, and Mr. Wilamailasi and Mr. SANFORD supported Lord Al- thorp's amendment.

Mr. FRYER thought that something should be done to relieve the children. He would support the bill, though he considered it a con- temptible and delusive measure, because it would either be evaded, or if carried into effect, would put a stop to trade ; and then the masters would join the people in their endeavours to get rid of that cursed, abominable, damnable law the Corn-law.

Mr. HAanY.and Mr. FIELDEN spoke in favour of the clause - and Mr. P. THOMSON, Mr. PEASE, Mr. M. PHILLIPS, and Mr. HUME, briefly supported the amendment.

Mr. COBBETT ridiculed the idea of the commercial interests of the country being injured by subtracting two hours out of twelve froin the labour of 300,000 little girls in Lancashire.

Lord ALTHORP spoke a few words in reply ; and Mr. SLANEY ad- dressed the House, but was inaudible owing to the loud cries of " Ques- tion !" and " Divide !"

A division then took place : for Lord Althorp's amendment, 238; for the original dauke, 93; majority for Ministers, 14.5.

Lord ASHLEY then said, that he had been fairly defeated, and would no further interfere in the matter. He hoped that into whosoever hands the bill might pass for disposal, God might prosper his endeavours.

Lord ALTHORP then moved that the Chairman should, report pro- gress ; and the House resumed.

Lord ALTHORP, on Friday, in reply to a question from Mr. ROBIN.. SON as to the course he meant to take with respect to this bill, said that he could only then state his strong conviction that some legislative provision for the protection of children labouiing in factories was called for.

S. ABOLITION OF SINECURES ; REDUCTION OF TAXATION. On Tuesday, Mr. RUTHVEN moved the following resolution- " That it is the opinion of this House, that the reduction of taxation and the diminution of the public burdens, by every attention to economy, are objects of paramount importance; and that, in justice to the people who pay taxes, all sinecure places, not merited by public services, should be abolished throughout the British empire."

He declared his belief of the absolute necessity of reducing taxation, and censured Ministers for having in this respect disappointed the just hopes of the country.

Mr. RICE maintained, that Ministers had effected extraordinary re- ductions in the expenditure ; to an extent, indeed, which would have ap- peared incredible if promised three or four years ago.

There was one test which in itself, he thought, would place the services of the present Government, in regard to economy, beyond all dispute—he meant the stan- dard of value of retrenchment set down by the great economist of that House, Mr. Hume, in his celebrated motion in June 1821. What would that gentleman and the House say when he told them that Alinisters had reduced the expenditure 798,896/. less than the honourable member fixed as the maximum amount of reduction, and the expense of collecting the revenue 112,033/. less than the honourable member said it might be collected for on a better system ? Be it remembered, too, that Ministers had reduced the Estimates from 15,000,000/. to 12,000,000/. since their accession to office; and be it further remembered, that this 15,000,000/. or 12,000,000/. was all the public expenditure which fell actually within the control of Parliament.

Ministers had reduced their own salaries, of 1,0001. per annum and upwards, not less than 40 per cent., and the expenditure of the country had been reduced three millions per annum since their accession to office. With regard to sinecures, he agreed that their principle was bad ; but could not allow that vested right sinecures, such as Lord Ellenborough's and Lord Kenyon's, should be abolished with as little ceremony as those held during pleasure.

There was no sinecure on the Pension List which Ministers had not so regu- lated that they must at no distant period be altogether abolished ; and the moment they fell vacant that moment they were abolished ; so that the public would pro- spectively view their entire abolition.

He concluded by reading a long .statement of figures, in proof of bib operation of the great reduction in the taxes arid expenditure of the country since 1817. He confidently appealed to the " great econo- mist," Mr. Hume, in confirmation of the correctness of his state:- ments.

Mr. HENRY L. BULWER said, that Ministers were not unfrequently glad to have forced on them what the People required them to do ; and, although he did not 'approve of Constant attacks on the Govern- ment, he thought that an Opposition, not always confining itself to recommendations easily practicable, but sometimes going beyond that line, was often of great service. He wished Mr. Ruthven would withdraw his motion, and introduce some individual case, to which no vague and general answer could be given.

Sir S. WHALLEY supported, and Sir H. VERNEY opposed the rm.. lotion.

Mr. HUME said that the Government, after all their reductions, had just left the expenditure of the country at the level at which he found it, when he first took tip the subject in 1821. The reductions arose entirely from the diminished charge of the National Debt since that time. Iii 1792, our whole expenditure was fifteen millions ; of which nine millions were for the interest on the Debt, and between five and six millions were distributed over the Naval, Civil, and Military expenditure of the country.

The expenditure in the present year was fifty millions and a quarter ; and in 1821, it had been something more than fifty-three millions ; leaving a difference, in favour of the present year, to the extent of 2,954,0001. But the interest of the National Debt in 1821 was 31i millions, and in the present year rather more than twenty-eight millions, leaving a difference of 2,900,000/. Thus the actual saving, beyond the diminished interest of the Debt, was not more than 54,0001. ; and the apparent saving was occasioned by the reduction of the interest upon the 5 per Cents and 4 per Cents, without any thanks being due to the Ministry.

He admitted that the mode of keeping the public accounts had been made simple and intelligible, and that all the expenses of the State, within about half a million, had been put tinder Parliamentary control. He still, however, pressed (or a further reduction of taxation and of salaries, which had been increased in consequence of the depreciation of the currency. There had been a change in the mode, but not in the amount of taxation. He maintained that this Parliament bad the right to abolish pensions which were granted under the authority of former Parliaments. (Great cheering.) The time was fast advancing, and even now was, when an inquiry into the circumstances under which every pension was granted must take place : and be would not be de- terred by the rank of the parties from instituting such an inquiry—the higher their rank was, the stricter should be the investigation—the more the means they bad at command, the less regard would he pay to their complaints and remonstrances.

He recollected well, that on a former occasion, when this subject was before Parliament, Lord Althorp had said, "I admit that the parties have no legal claims to these pensions, but I ask the House to grant them on the score of charity." To that assertion he had replied, that " our charity should begin at home, and that we should consider how many of our poorer countrymen were without a home in order to pamper the pride and swell the pensions of the junior members of the Aristocracy." (" Rear, hear ! ") To these sentiments he still adhered ; and he would again repeat, that all pensions ansisinecures ought to be swept away,-unless the holders could show that they had deserved them by public services. (" Hear, hear 1 ") Lord ALTHORP could not help thinking, that Mr. Hume had taken the amount of the expenditure of 1820 exclusive of the cost of col- lecting the revenue, and that in 1833 he had taken it inclusive of that cost.

He would state the amount of the expenditure of our establishments in 1820, and also in the present year; and, comparing the two, it would appear that in 1820 they cost 22,087,000/, and in the present year 18,050,0004 • so that the difference between these two sums was the amount of reduction effected in the interim. If he went to the votes of Supply, he got the same simple mode of comparison. In 1820, the votes of Supply amounted to 19,600,773/. ; in 1821, to 18,358,6511. ; and, is 1833, to 14,623,219/. Deduct this latter sum from the amount of the votes of Supply in the years 1820 and 1821, and you will get the amount of reduction stated by Mr. Rice.

He considered it a great fallacy to say that no relief was given to the People, notwithstanding a certain amount of taxes was taken off, if the revenue sprung up to its former amount showing the capacity of the country to consume a greater quantity of other taxed articles. As re- garded the subject of pensions, he certainly was not prepared to say that it was justifiable to revoke grants to individuals, which were made at the time by competent authorities ; and the recipients of which depended upon them for support.

Mr. BARING, Mr. ROBINSON, and Sir GEORGE PHILLIPS opposed the resolution.

Sir ROBERT PEEL also objected to it. He allowed that the day for sinecures was gone by, and that 'as soon as existing interests had ter- minated, they should be abolished. The resolution contained a truth too obvious to need enforcement ; but he, disliked to see individual members bringing forward, without the slightest necessity, abstract propositions, abort which there was no dispute, and which tended to no practical result. Mr. O'DWYER said, if the resolution contained a truism, why (Id Sir Robert Peel refuse to affirm it ? Why negative a proposition which lie admitted to be true ?

Sir ROBERT PEEL—" I do no such thing."

The House divided : for the motion, 90; against it, 81; majority against Ministers, 9.

(On this occasion the minority were directed by the Speaker to go out : six members, who had not intended to vote at all, went out, and were brought back by the tellers. This swelled the minority from 75 to 81, otherwise the majority against Ministers would have been 15.] 9. PATRONAGE OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH. Mr. SINCLAIR moved, on Tuesday, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act of the 10th Anne. His object was to emancipate the Church of Scotland from the yoke of patronage, by which it had been so long enthralled.

Mr. H. Ross seconded the motion, and supported it at some length. It was also supported by Mr. CoLeutious, Mr. GILLON, Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, Mr. HALLYBURTON, Mr. EWING, and Mr. PRYME. It was opposed by Mr. JEFFREY, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. ABERCROMBY, and by Lord ALTHORP—who asked the Speaker, whether, as the act of Parliament gave certain rights to the Crown, it could be repealed without the consent of the Crown ?

The SPEAKER said, it could not. During the course of the debate, he bad sent for the act ; and having read it, he found the motion could not be entertained without the consent of the Crown previously ob- tained.

Mr SINCLAIR then withdrew the motion.

IO. CHANCERY REFORM. Lord BROUGHAM, On Monday, introduced a bill into the House of Lords, relative to Sworn Clerks in Chancery. It contained some provisions which were struck out of the Chancery Regulation Bill ; and was read a first time.

11. THELLUSSON'S ESTATE BILL. On the motion of Lord LYND- HURST, this bill was read a second time on Monday; and was then re- ferred to a Select Committee, on the motion of' the Earl of HAR- HOWBY.

12. LOCAL COURTS. Mr. O'CONNELL, on Thursday, postponed his declaratory motion in favour of Local Courts of Judicature till Thurs- day next.

13. LAW OF PATENTS. On the motion of Mr. GODSON, the bill to amend the law respecting patents was read a third time on Tuesday, and passed.

14. SCOTCH SMALL DEBTS BILL. On the motion of Mr. KEN- WEDY, this bill was read a third time on Friday, and passed.

15. DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL. On the motion for the fur- ther consideration of the report on this bill, on Friday, Alderman WOOD moved a clause excepting the city of London from its operation ; which was agreed to in the mean time, on the understanding that it should be discussed at a future stage. The report was then agreed to, and the bill was ordered to a third reading on Monday.

16. BLOCKADE OF LISBON. Mr. ROBINSON, on Tuesday, moved for a copy of the notification issued from the Foreign Office respecting

the intention of the Regency of Donna Maria to institute a blockade of Lisbon. He said that it was contrary to all rule to announce an in- tended blockade, as had been done by a notification sent that morning to Lloyd's by the Foreign Office.

The SPEAKER said—" Who seconds the motion ? "

A Member—" Nobody."

The SPEAKER—" Order, order ! "

At length Lord Lowniza seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP could not say whether the notification was in the usual form or not ; but its object was to warn British merchants; and he could not conceive what there was to complain of in that. The Government of course, could not sanction the employment of British officers in the service of either of the belligerent parties ; but it was impossible not to admire the bravery which had been displayed in the late action.

Colonel EVANS and Sir E. CODRINGTON expressed their high admi- ration of the gallantry of Captain Napier ; and the latter added, that he believed, at the time he was speaking, Donna Maria's authority was established in Portugal ; and he hoped that Ministers would soon re- cognize her as the Queen of Portugal de facto.

The motion was then withdrawn.

17. CAPTAIN NAPIER. Earl GREY, on Wednesday, in answer to a question by the Marquis of Londonderry, stated that Captain Napier had been struck out of the Admiralty list on the previous Friday.

He stated the fact with great regret, because, admiring as he did, and as every one must, the gallantry, the daring, the spirit, the skill, by which Captain Napier had, on that occasion distinguished himself, and upheld the character of a British sailor,—(Much cheering),—it was, he said, with great regret he now stated, that on the receipt of this intelligence, a few days before, which was brought to this country by a steamer from Lisbon, that officer had been struck from the list of his Majesty's service. (" Hear, hem !") The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said, no one lamented more than he did that a gallant officer like Captain Napier should, by a breach of regula- tions, have rendered his dismissal from his Majesty's service necessary. Whatever that breach was, it was gratifying to know that so brilliant an achievement had been performed by an English officer.

18. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT. Mr. J. MURRAY, on Wednesday, gave notice of a motion to bring in a bill for the repeal of this act.

19. POST OFFICE REGULATIONS. Lord BELHAVEN, On Monday, asked the Duke of Richmond what steps had been taken respecting the Post-Office communication between England and France ?

The Duke of RICHMOND declined entering into any explanation on the subject ; but would state, that every thing had been done to pro- mote good. will and the commercial interest of the two countries.

20. SUGAR REFINERIES. Mr. CLAY, on Wednesday, presented a petition from persons interested in the business of sugar-refining, resi- dent in the Tower Hamlets. It was signed by 19,000 persons ; and complained, that owing to the importation of foreign sugars being pro- hibited, the circulation of a sum of money amounting to 400,000/. an- nually, which had been paid for labour alone, was subtracted from their district. The petitioners dwelt much upon the distress thereby oc- casioned, and prayed for the abolition of restrictions upon the importa- tion of foreign sugars for the purpose of refining. Mr. BRISCOE, Dr. LUSHINGTON, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. EWART, and Mr. GROTE supported the petition.

Mr. STEWART was opposed to it. It was impossible for the English colonists to compete with the labourers of Brazil and Cuba. It would cause ruin to our colonies, should a bill be passed to allow the sugar of those foreign colonies to be refined here, with all the advan- tages of British capital.

21. SURRY MAGISTRATES AND THE GRAND JURY. Mr. IlAwts presented a petition, on Monday, from the Grand Jury at the last Easter Sessions of Newington, Sorry, complaining of the refusal of the Magistrates to allow them to inspect the county gaol.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL observed, that the Grand Jury had no right to inspect the gaol as visitors; but that they had a right to inspect it inside and outside, in order to report or represent whether it was in a proper state for carrying the laws and regulations of the Magistrates into effect. With respect to the fine imposed upon the foreman of the Grand Jury, if it had been imposed for contempt of Court, there was, he believed, no remedy for it ; but if it was merely for demanding to view the gaol, it ought to be inquired into.

Mr. HUGHES HUGHES said, the person was fined for using violent language to the Court. Mr. HUME, however, denied that any violent language had been used.

22. MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES; OLD BAILEY TRIALS. In answer to a question from Colonel EVANS, on Monday, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL stated, that a conference of the Judges had taken place, under the auspices of the Lord Chancellor, at which it had been determined to issue a Special Commission to try the prisoners who were convicted at the last Old Bailey Sessions on the bills improperly returned by the Grand Jury. Those who were acquitted would be discharged.

Mr. Const, the late Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, was much hurt at its being supposed that the practice which bad caused so much inconvenience prevailed whilst he was in office. He had written a letter to Sir John, stating, that whilst he acted as Chairman, he never knew an instance in which the Grand Jury had not returned their bills to him sitting in full court, or in which the witnesses for the Grand Jury were not legally sworn.

23. POLICE SPIES ; BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. COBBETT, on Monday, complained to the House, that in a paper published under the auspices of the Police, called the Police Gazette, a paragraph had ap- peared in which it was said that Popay the Policeman had negatived many of the allegations against him before the Committee. The Home Secretary had, it appeared, without the knowledge or consent of the Committee, obtained a copy of the evidence, and the spy had, through his means, been furnished with extracts from it.

Mr. KENNEDY said, that Mr. Colffieti: bad stated circumstances as facts which were quite of a contrary nature. The Secretary of State had been furnished with a copy of the evidence by order of the Com- mittee. It was also ordered by the Committee, in Mr. Cobbett's pre- sence, that Popay should have a copy of the evidence. From this copy the extracts had doubtless been made.

Lord ALTHORP asserted, that the Police had nothing to do with the newspaper in which the paragraph had appeared.

Mr. KENNEDY said, when it was proposed in Committee that Popsy should be furnished with a copy of the evidence, it was remarked, that if he were so furnished with it, he would have to pay the expense; upon which it was arranged that he should be permitted to see the Secretary of State's copy. (" Olt! " and " Hear I") Mr. COBBETT said, he had always been present in the Committee when five members were there, and knew what passed better than Mr. Kennedy. Popay was to have the evidence read to him next Wednesday, and thea to have a lawyer, and to be permitted to cross.examine the witnesses if he pleased. So that he had never yet had a copy of the evidence, nor was it ever ordered that he should have a copy. Popay had told the Committee that he had seen a copy at the Secretary of State's Office, and had been allowed to read it, to examine it, and to take extracts from it, in order to frame questions to cross. examine upon. He did not complain of his being allowed to obtain extracts, but of his disparaging the character of witnesses, whose demeanour and conduct were most proper, and whose characters he firmly believed would bear the strictest inquiry. After some remarks from Mr. WYNN, Mr. ESTCOURT, and Lord Eintrtroros, the conversation dropped. 24. LRLUERY IN WESTMINSTER; NEwSTAPER REPOILTS. CCIUtiel EVANS, on Thursday, in moving for certain returns relative to the mu. nicipal government of Westminster, called the attention of the House to some statements in a newspaper which he held in his hand, respect- ing bribery practised in the Westminster elections. The account as- serted that Colonel Evans, Mr. Hume, and others, had confirmed the truth of these statements : but what Mr. Hume bad stated referred to -times long past ; and he could say that the opportunities afforded him ,during his two contested elections for Westminster, enabled him to ;deny the allegations of bribery, and he thought there was no place in England to which they were less applicable than to Westminster.

Mr. HUME said, he had been accused, in the paragraph in question, -with Magnin,' the electors of Westminster, and had received a letter from a Mr. De Vear calling upon him to reply to those accusations. He had not replied to the letter, for he thought that Mr. De Vear should have ascertained the truth of the accusations before calling upon .him to reply to thern. What be had said on the subject of bribery in Westminster, was on the occasion of his presenting a petition on the subject of the payment of rates ; and his observations were merely an echo of the statements in the petition.

Sir F. BURDETT utterly denied the statements in the paragraph.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, that almost every member in the House com- plained of the manner in which tke reporters of their proceedings per- formed their duty.

He could state from his own little experience, that reporting was never so much abused as at the present time, in consequence of the incompetency of the -set of men who were engaged to report the proceedings of the Flouse. He said ;distinctly, that he was not afraid of them, and they knew it. It was a fact, that the proceedings during the last ten days, although of a most important alescription, had been almost totally suppressed or neglected ; and he was in- formed that this arose out of a combination among these individuals, with respect to a recent diminution of their salaries. He understood, that notwithstanding the monopoly enjoyed by some of the newspapers, they had lately, instead Of paying, as they used to pay, their reporters six guineas a-week, reduced their payments, and were now employing persons at, in some cases, as low,a rate as two guineas per week. This would immediately account fur the manner in which the reports of the proceedings of the House were now executed. Indeed, it had now come to such a pitch, that no member could be considered responsible for statements in the House as they appeared in these reports. It was high time that the public should in some way interfere, and protect themselves from the consequences of these misstatements, as well as that honourable members should be protected from the imputations on their characters consequent upon them. :He had been misrepresented to an extent perfectly ludicrous ; and there were

i

other honourable members also who were in the same situation as to these mis- representations, but who, perhaps, had not the courage to speak out so loudly as he had now done. (Mr. 0' Connell's observations were received throughout with much cheering on the part of the Irish members, and others around him.) The returns moved for by Colonel Evans were ordered, after a few remarks from Mr. BARING and Mr. M. Pinnies • who was inter- rupted by the SPEAKER, in some remarks in denial of? Mr. O'Connell's statements respecting the salaries of reporters.

25. CIVIL LIST. Mr. HARVEY gave notice, on Friday, that when the Civil List should be brought under the consideration of the House, be should move that all pensions not appearing to have been merited by public service should be struck off from it.

26. REPEAL OF THE IRISH UNION. Mr. FERGUS O'Comeron., on Tuesday, withdrew his long-notified repeal motion.

27. STAFFORD BRIBERY* BILL. Sir T. FREMANTLE gave notice on Wednesday, that he should move on the 6th August for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford.

28. HERTFORD ELECTION. Mr. BERNAL obtained leave, on Mon- day, to bring in a bill for the more effectual prevention of bribery and corruption in the borough of Hertford.

29. CASE OF CAPTAIN AITCHESON. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented a petition, on Wednesday, from Captain Aitcheson, complaining of hay- mg been dismissed from the Artillery for refusing to perform certain duties which he conceived were more of a religious than a military na- ture. He considered that the petitioner had been cruelly treated: he bad been driven from the service for refusine-a to attend at a Catholic ceremony, and forced to get his bread where he could find it.

Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. SHELL, Sir R. INGLIS, SirCHAILLES BURRELL, Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL, and Mr. O'DWYER, earnestly supported the petition. The Earl of DARLINGTON said, that every military man was bound to obey all orders be received. (No, no 1") He said, yes, yes.

Every man was bound to obey the orders he received, and seek redress after- wards, if they were not correct. It appeared to him that the duty in this

was a military duty, though it was to do honour to a Colonel LEITH 14 " -..a.ous ceremony. soougist it was merely a military question, and Lieu nothing to do with religion. The question was, whether Captain Aitcheson had obeyed military orders or not? Captain Aitcheson had been found guilty by a Court-martial of disobe- dience; though he regretted that he had been so severely punished for an error of judgment, as he believed this was. He had seen the Duke of Wellington itsist at Catholic ceremonies at Salamanca. Mr. O'DWYER said, the President of the Court-martial was a Mal- tese and a Roman Catholic.

Col,onel Evates protested against the doctrine laid down by Lord Darlington, and thought that military men were bound only to obey all legal orders.

If it were otherwise, the Army would he those mere automata which the Ger- mans were described to be. With respect to the particular case, he thought filet no redress having been afforded to Captain Aitcheson, was a striking proof of the bad character of past Houses of Commons. The case was one of great hardship and capricious severity. The proceedings were not even legal. He Was an advocate for intrusting the greatest power to a commander of an army in War, but in peace circumstances were different. It was plain that the officer had not resisted the orders, having appealed against them, and the appeal was Mowed. If any fault were committed, it was by the officer who allowed the ippeal, and not Captain Aitcheson. He had heard that the general officer who iillotved the appeal had been reprimanded, and the reprimand had caused his death.

Mr. Pr.trurrer said, he was happy to see the unanimity of feeling on

this subject ; and trusting in that, he would not, in the absence of Ministtrs, give notice of any further motion. But if the expression of the opinion of the House had no effect in the proper quarter, he should feel it his duty again to bring the subject before the Home.