Eittatt# anti pr0rcrbing1 in Varlfinintnt.

1. PENSION LIST INQUIRY.

A motion, by Mr. HARVEY, for a Select Committee to inquire into the consideration of each grant on the Pension List, and to report the same to the House, formed the subject of an animated discussion in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The motion was supported by Mr. HARVEY, Mr. HUME, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. ROBIN- SON, Sir S. WHALLEY, Sir E. CODRINGTON, Mr. C. RUTHVEN, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. HARDY. It was opposed by Lord ALTHORP, Mr. SPRING RICE, Mr. STANLEY, Lord EBRINGTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Lord MORPETII, and Mr. HAIXOMB.

The supporters of the motion urged, that the whole of the Pension List was open to the revision of Parliament. By the arrangement made iii the last Parliament, the Pension List, then amounting to 144,000/. was divided alphabetically into two portions. The first, in- cluding the names of parties beginning with the letters from A to H, amounted to 75,000/. per annum, and was charged on the Civil List. The vacancies occurring in this list were to be filled up by the King ; it being kept in view that the sum of 75,000/. per annum should never be exceeded. the other portion, amounting to about 69,000/. was to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and the vacancies in this list were not to be filled up. It was contended, that while the whole sum of 75,000/. granted to his Majesty should not be touched, it was the duty of the Reformed Parliament to inquire into the circumstances under which each pension was held, and to see that no improper persons were placed upon that list, as well as on the one, the expense of which was charged on the Consolidated Fund. Such an inquiry was no viola- tion of any contract entered into with the Crown ; but was highly neces- sary, not only for the purpose of purging the Pension List from the names if persons who had no just claim to the national bounty, and who had in many instances probably earned their pensions by disgraceful conduct, -but in strict justice to those who themselves or whose relations had done the country real service, entitling them to a recompense. These parties, whom the country was ready and -willing to reward, were now mixed up with others, notoriously unfit recipients of public money, and shared much of the odium which attached to the latter. Inquiry would do justice to the deserving; and on their account only it ought to be conceded. The strong popular feeling on the subject—the general expectation throughout the country, that the Pension List would undergo revision, and the unworthy names be discarded from it- rendeled it highly expedient that the motion for a Committee of Inquiry should be granted. Amendments in the Poor-laws were in contem- .plation ; would it be wise to refuse investigation into the claims of mendicant nobles and their connexions? To refuse the motion, was in Act to deny the public right of knowing for what purpose their money was paid away. It was no answer to their a guments to allege than the Ministers were responsible, and should be culled to account for the granting of pensions to improper persons ; for the Ministers might die, or be removed, and thus no remedy would be afforded. The right proceeding would be to do away with the pensions themselves. If it was said that these pensions were sanctioned by act of Parlianue.nt, then another act of Parliament should rescind that sanction. Because a wrong had been committed by one act, it did not follow that it should not be remedied by another. There was no good reason why we should wait till the objectionable names CM the list should be removed by death : if the pensions had bees improperly granted, the sooner they were stopped the better. But the House was not pledged to remove names of any pensioners by the motion for inquiry ; which would only inform the public of what it had a clear right to know,—whether their money had been judiciously and worthily expended, or the reverse. The result of such an inquiry could not by possibility injure the deserving either in point of income or publie estimation. The main argument on %%inch the Ministers and their supporters . rested their opposition to the motion, was this,—that the pensioners had a legal right to their pensions ; that the right bad been sanctioned by two acts of Pmliament ; and that the House of Commons, when called upon to settle the new Civil List, which was the proper time for such a proceeding, had not thought fit to strike a single pensioner off the list. However disgraceful the list might be,—and the Ministers fully admitted that'll:sly persons had pensions who were very undeserving of them, and that the act of placing them there was quite indefensible, —still the hands of Members were tied up on this matter. The legal right of the holders of pensions was not affected because the original grant of them was disapproved. They held them under the protection of the same laws by which other property was held. It was impossible that the motion, if successful, could terminate in mere inquiry : ulte- rior measures must be taken, otherwise the motion was useless. But if inquiry only was sought, the inquiry would be a disgusting proceed- ing. The search into the private affairs of individuals would be a de- grading as well as useless, and in some instances a cruel operation. Reductions to the =cunt of 12,149/. had been made in the Pension List since the accession of his Majesty, by death and resignation. TAICk letters were read by Mr. SPRING RICE, from Mr. Charles Bathurst and Mr. J. Carrick Moore in which those gentlemen in the most hand- some manner, gave up their pensions of 1,000/. each. Mr. Bathurst stated in his letter that he had conic into possessien of considerable private property, and did not feel justified in retaining his pension.

The motion was not met by a direct negative, or by moving the pre- vious question. Lord sturnone proposed as an amendment the follow- ing resolutions.

" That it appears from papers before the House, that upon the accession of his late Majesty the charge for pensions OIL the Civil I.ist of England and Ireland, the heredi- tary revenue of Scotland, and the 4/ per Cent. duties, stood as follows :

.C74,200 England Ireland

Scotland h7 91 4* per Cents..... 21,290

47203,059 " That on the accession of his present Majesty the charges of an analogous nature amounted to the following sums; £ England 74,200 Ireland 51,155 Scotland 30.467 4* per Cents 25,122

That his present most gracious Majesty having placed at the dispot1l8r Piarliament his Majesty's interest in the hereditary revenues, in the thuds of the Crown and of the Admiralty, as well as the casual revenues both within the United Kingdom and in his Majesty's foreign possessions, two acts were passed, by which the Legislature. in proof of dutiful attachment, assigned a CiM1 List for the life of his most gracious Majesty. and raised further charges on the Consolidated Fund, thus providing for the honour and dignity of the Crown, and for the support of the Civil Government. " That under these acts a sum of 75,01/01. was tixed as the amount of the pensions on the Civil List of his Majesty, the balance of the existing pensions being otherwise pro- vided for ; by which arrangement, on termination of the existing interests, the whole charge of the pensions, except the charge on the Civil List, will become a saving to the public, and the charge for pensions, which is now 44,263/, below its amount in 1820. will be reduced eventually to 75,0001., being 138,0581. below that sum, " That under the provisions of these acts the charge on the public has already been reduced since the accession of his present most gracious Majesty by the sum of 12,149/. ; and that the further reduction of the expenditure to the sum limited by the Civil List Acts is progressive, and has been fixed by law. "That it is the bounden duty of the responsible advisers of the Crown to reeommend to his Majesty for grants of pensions on the Civil List such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence. or as ho by their personal services to the Crown. by time performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in scienve, and attain- ments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their sove- reign, and the gratitade of their country."

This amendment was carried, on a division, by 190 to 182. The announcement of the numbers was received with loud cheers ; and Mr. HARVEY gave notice, that at a convenient time be should renew his mo- tion, and move a call of the House for its discussion.

This debate produced some eloquence, and a good deal of close ar- gument. Mr. HARVEY appears to have been rather dull during the greater part of his opening speech, when detailing the proceedings of the last Parliament in reference to the Civil List. Toward the close he ,became amusing. He defended his motion from the imputation of all harshness or unfairness to those who had deserved the pensions they received. The following passage was delivered amidst loud cheers and laughter. All those who had any real grounds of valuable consideration to assign, would be eager to rescue themselves front the opprobrium they were now suffering : for the general feeling throughout the country was that all were alike bad ; that there was no suds thing as an honest grant ; but that they were all, without distinction, the reward either of political servility or drawing-room compliance. So far from considering his present motion as at all an ungallant one, be was disposed to think it such as, were he ten years younger, would be most likely to secure for him all sorts of praise and gratitude from the loveliest of those whose names appeared in the Pension List, because it would redeem the purest and the best from the worst and grossest imputations, that they were quietly luxuriating in lascivious indolence on the industry of the country. He was sure such imputations could not be thrown out without -exciting the chivakous nobility ; who,were all .ready, no doubt, to step forward its .order to vindicate their proud aud virtuous associates from she foul calumny of being fastened on the industry of the country without valid and .solid coesideration. But while he believed that many peacoat would be rushing ft/swarth with all :their kOPhieg

of honuur and all the emblems of their reward in their hands at once, not only silencing suspicion, but urging their undoubted meed of praise, there were others, be was sure, who would retire from the contest; and who, in answer to the circular issuing from the Committee, calling on them to state the considera- tion of public service which they had given for the peusion they had received, would no doubt present their grateful acknowledgment for having, through the supineness of the People and Parliament, been No long undisturbed as the recipients of the nation's bounty—some for half a century—and at last beg to resign all further pretensions to it.

Lord Ai:mime thought that needy persons of rank ought to be pro- vided for, but could not defend the existing Pension List.

He contended that it was right that the goveruing power should have means at its command for the reward of merit, for the relief of persons of station in

slistrees--(" No !" and " Hear ! ")—and for the remuneration of those who

had distinguished themselves not only in the public service of the country, but in the scientific and literary attainments of civil life. Honourable gentlemen would perhaps quote instances of pensions which did not come under any one of these categories. lie did not mean to say that there were not some names on that list which ought not to have been there ; but when he said that, be must add, that it was an abuse of power which hail placed them there, and that those who advised the abuse were and ought to be responsible for it. The right to grant pensions must exist somewhere under every government. There were

names on the present list, and he had never denied, nor would be now deny the fact, which ought not to have been there. (Reiterated cheering.) But the stiongest objection, as it appeared to him, against the list was, that it contained the names of several persons who were rightly placed upon it originally, but who since that time had acquired large incomes, which rendered them unfit objects for Royal benevolence. (" Hear ! " and crks of " No ! ") What ! was not that change in their fortunes any objection to their continuance on the Pension List ? Ile thought that it was an objection, and a very strong objection indeed. Though he was not prepared to take away any legal right from those now in the eivyment of it, he would say this—that he should be sorry to be in the situation of such individuals, enjoying a large private income, and at the same time receiving a considerable pension from the Crown.

Mr. Hosts: was not prepared to repeal acts of Parliament ; but

If it should turn out that many of the objects participating in the sum of 73,000/. were totally undeserving, and that their pensions were disgraceful, would it be degrading to the Crown, if the House, after full inquiry, should ad- dress his Majesty on the subject, and request him to erase such pensioners from the Civil List? Surely that would not be an improper interference with the Royal prerogative, but the contrary : doubtless his Alajesty would feel satisfac- tion in removing from the list unworthy objects, and placing upon it in their stead men deserving of the public bounty, and who had distinguished themselves by public services or scientific or literary acquirements. If this were done, people would no longer look upon pensions as something disgraceful, but as the reward and result rid meritorious services. At present the MSC was widely dif- ferent. He did not wish to mention individuals, but he could name one person echo had already received 4fi,000/. of the public money by way of pension ; and lie should be glad to know whether he was entitled to the public liberality for any services that he had ever performed. The acts of Parliament in question would not have been allowed to pass as they did, but for a dread of their rejec- tion being attended with other consequences of a disastrous nature. Ministers were now hound to admit of the proposed inquiry, in order to make the amende honorable to the House and the country for previous injustice. If the House refused to giant an inquiry which took from no man or woman a single farthing, but only ascertained on what principle pensions had been granted, the country would not be satisfied.

Mr. SPRING RICE felt no apprehension at meeting with his consti- tuents after voting against this motion.

He was for taking the question on general grounds. At the same time, he admitted that, having been asked by his constituents how he would deal with the Pension List, he Lad answered that he weuld not defend many of the names contained in it; but at the same time that he prefel red the adoption of a course with a view to prevent the recurrence of abuses in future, rather than by the removal of existing ones enlist the claims of humanity against the cause of salu- tary reform, lie had expressed his conviction that Ministers would not add a single name to the Pension List on improper pounds; that if he found himself mistaken in that belief, he should cousider it his duty to oppose the attempt ; but that he was not prepared to take away from individuals what had already been given them by the law of the laud, because he thought such a proceeding would be unjust. The persons whose names were upon the Pension List held their pensions upon security given them by the law of the land, passed on full deliberation, with all the means of inquily in the hands of Parliament. Such being the case, he looked upon the question as resting upon a solemn contract.

Mr. E. RUTIIVEN spoke amidst much laughter, excited partly by the peculiarities of his manner, partly by his mention of names on the Irish _Pension List (some of which, however, were not generally audible).

From numerous names, having reference to his own country, he would select one or two for remark. There were three ladies, named Eliza, Gertrude,_aud Mary Gossett, who were granted pensions in the years 1828 and 1829. Now, this was nut such a long period; and, as he supposed there was sonic service performed by then', it would be the easier to ascertain them. Altogether, these ladies had received some 13,000 or 14,0001. Now, he should like to ask, what had the working classes made by these Cioasetts having 10,0001. or 14,000/. of their money. Members might laugh—Members might laugh at the name of Gossett. When a few hundred pounds were wanted to survey a port in Ireland, the money could not be had ; but when the Gossetts asked for it, refusal was not thought of. Sir Robert Hunter received, in 1826, one pension of '280/. per annum, and in 1827 another of 100/. Sir Robert was a physician to the Lords Lieutenant ; but why should he be saddled in this way un the back of the pub- lic? Ire was only the private physician of his Excellency. There was George Earl of Errol down fir 276/. per annum, and the Countess of Errol for a like sum. They had rtee;ved 11,0661. ; but why, neither he, nor he believed the public, could conceive. Then there was Viscountess Allen, down for—

A Member here called out—" She's dead."

Mr. ROTIIVEN continued— Viscountess Allen had received no less a sum than nine thousand and sixtv- five pouuds three shillings, and fourpence. ( Great laughter.) All this might be very good amusement to them ; but not so to poor people, who had to pay their pennies for it. And what were such pensions paid for ? He said that these pensions continuing for years, was hard upon the poor, who worked with their hands to have a little thing—[ There was here a loud burst of laughter, which lasted several minutes, and prevented the conclusion of the sentence.] He and other Members would like to know what value the lady gave for it; and as the Representative of a large constituency, he had a right to demand it.

Mr. STANLEY argued closely against the motion, upon the ground that the pensioners had a legal title to the money they received.

How far, he would ask, was the present inquiry to go? Was the House now to look if rights had been acquired by fraud, violence, confiscation, injustice, wrong, or robbery; which rights having been sanctioned bylaw and Parliament, could not, as he maintained, be set aside, however great might have been the viciousness of their origin ? If the principle were otherwise, or the coutriuy establislesi, the engagements of the country with other nations would not be sacred, the rights of property would be trampled upon, and the Legislature would lose all claim to respect. It was on these high grounds, and not un a question whether or not there had been abuse and corruption in the first instance, that he implored the House to consider well before it consented to so dangerous a prece- dent as would completely break through the engagements entered into by the Crown and sanctioned by solemn acts of Parliament.

The question, he admitted, was once an open one : But when the members of his Majesty's Government asked and obtained I vote of credit for the Civil List, the House became bound by that ultimate ar- rangement, and could not in common justice rescind their fornier decision. By this commutation act—for a commutation act he would call it—the House was at present prevented from discussing whether the claims of this man or that man were most deserving of attention and regard ; and he thought that by ab- staining front inquiring minutely into the disposal of them, the House dealt with a proper spirit of liberality, and with a more enlarged sense of justice.

The people of England, he knew, were anxious for economy ; but not economy which was to be bought with injustice. fie hoped there was no Member who would condescend to court popularity by doing what he must secretly disapprove of.

To such honourable Members be would say—" Go to the hustings ; present yourselves before your constituents; tell them that you have done your duty,— that you have not attempted to revive old grievances, or to look into ills you cannot cure,—that your province is not to amend the past, but to legislate for the future." This course would be the most prudent, the most safe, and the most honourable.

Mr. O'CONNELL, who had been apparently paying little attention to the debate, rose immediately on Mr. Stanley's sitting down. He re- marked upen an expression used by Mr. Spring Rice, that the inquiry would be " disgusting."

Disgusting ! If an inquiry would be disgusting, there must be disgusting

reasons to call it so. ( (jheers.) The honourable gentleman bad taken his stand on the ground that a solemn contract bad been made by the Legislature with

these pensioners, and that lengths of possession had given them an equitable title. But he would tell the honourable gentleman, that no length of posses- sion gained a title by wrong. With regard to the arguments ihawn from the inviolability of acts of Parliament, he had never beard greater sophistr3, in his life. There was a suns of 75,000/. appropriated for the payment of pensions by the Crown, and for nothing else; he certainly would not suppose that it was for the purpose of corrupting Members of Parliament. Let it be supposed that

they were commencing de novo, and let those who now receive pensions be all supposed to be dead ; the rights of the Crown would not be affected by put-

ting deserving in the place of improper objects of its bounty. The words " compact " and " treaty " had also been paraded, but he conceived, that the use made of them was a complete begging of the question. It was true that

75,000/. was voted for the bestowal of pensions, but it should be left to the House to decide who was to get the 75,0001. In 1828 a motion similar to the present bad been made and supported—

Lord Aeriloar—" Only for the names."

Mr. O'Cossisr.r.—" Only for the names! Did the noble Lord think that it was idle curiosity?" ( Cheers and laughter.)

[Owing to the length of the Debates, we have been compelled to omit the passages which we had selected from the speech of Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. HaavEv's reply.'

2. AGRICCLTURAT. DISTRESS.

Last night, a very long discussion took place in the House of Com- mons, on a resolution brought forward by the Marquis of Ciimsnos, " That in any reduction of the burdens of the country which it might be practicable to effect by the remission of taxes, a due regard be had to the distressed condition of the agricultural interest, as adverted to in his Majesty's Speech." The resolution was supported by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, Mr. BARING,_ Mr. CORBETT, Mr. BENETT, Mr. CART- WRIGHT, Mr. LAMBERT, Mr. C. FERGUSSON, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. O'CONNELL, and Sir ROBERT PEEL. The principal speakers on the other side were Lord Ammar, Mr. STANLEY, Mr. WILBICAHA1S1, Mr. W. WHITZ410RE, Mr. CLAY, and Mr. ROBINSON. It was urged on the part of the supporters of the motion, that the King's Speech had held out hopes of a relief being extended to the agricultural interest, which alone was represented as being in a dis- tressed state; these hopes ought not to be disappointed. The duties on Mat, Windows, Horses, and Agricultural Servants, pressed with undue severity upon the landed interest. It was incumbent on the friends of that interest to make an effort to obtain relief. The question as to the application of the surplus revenue was an open one ; for although Lord Althorp had announced his intention to take off the House-tax, the House of Commons had not sanctioned that resolution. It was denied that the landed interest had any monopoly of corn or other articles of general consumption ; and the extremely low prices of all agricultural produce would soon involve the whole body of landlords and farmers in ruin, unless something was done to relieve them. Even the high price of wool was of little avail, as it was occasioned in a great measure by a deficient supply. It was urged by Messrs. CORBETT and O'CONNELL, that the country never would be righted until taxes to a very large amount were taken off; and the only way in which the deficiency that would arise could be met, would be by a reduction of the interest on the National Debt. Mr. O'Connell's remarks on this point are said to have been received with marked disapprobation by the House ; especially when he ridiculed the idea of a reduction of interest being a breach of national faith—" all that," he said, "was cant." Sir ROBERT PEEL warned all those in- terested in the fate of Ireland, of what they had to expect from Mr. O'Connell in case he should exercises predominant influence in a Local Legislature : if State necessity justified so glaring a breach of national faith as that which he advocated, what security would remain for other property ? The Ministers and their supporters maintained, that the relief which would be given to the landed interest by the repeal of taxes, would by no means be equal to expectation. Local imposts, tithes, and poor- rates, but most especially the last, were the great burdens which raii.ht to be alleviated. In this way, effectual relief might be administered; and the Government had applied itself diligently to the subject. Lord ALTHORP strongly denied that he had been intimidated into granting a

repeal of the House-tax. The contemptible resistance to the collec- tion of the Assessed Taxes had been completely put down by the officers a the law. He also reminded the House, that five years ago wool was worth only 9d. a pound ; now it brought 2s. Was not this great rise to be attributed to the prosperity of the manufac- turers ? and would not the agricultural interest gam by relief afforded to other interests ? The motion of Lord Chandos was supported on grounds that must lead to national confusion, as the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Cobbett clearly proved.

The House divided : for Lord Chandos's resolution, 202 ; against it, 296; Ministerial majority, 4.

3. CHARGE AGAINST BARON SMITH.

A motion to discharge the order for the appointment. of a Com- mittee, in compliance with the vote of the 13th instant, to inquire into the conduct of Baton Smith, was brought forward last night by Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL. It Was seconded by Mr. RoinNsost ; and supported, in very long speeches, by Alr. Sttaw and Sir Romer PEEL. The arguments urged by these :Umbels were for the most part the same as those adduced on the former debate on this subject. It was main- tained that the Baron's conduct was not unusual in Ireland as regarded his late attendance in court ; that there was no instance ()fatly suitor or pri- soner having suffered wrong in consequence of it ; that there %'as much error and exaggeration in the charge of trying prisoners at so late an hour at Armagh. With respect to his charge, he was perfectly justified, by the notoriously unsettled state of the country in delivering it ; other Judges, especially Judge Day and Judge Fletcher, had charged Grand Juries in a similar style, without being called to account. The motion for in- quiry was a direct attack on the independence of the Judges. And Sir Robot Peel quoted, with approbation, the conduct of Chief Justice Holt, who, when cited by the House of Lords to answer for some judi- cial proceeding of his, refused to answer any question, or to assign any -reasons for what he had done. If the House persevered in their resolu- tion to degrade this venerable man, who was seventy years of age, they xvould afford just ground of triumph to the relentless and overbearing Agitator of Ireland, whose attack upon the Bench did not proceed from patriotic motives, but from a desire to gratify personal enmity. Mr. SHAW pressed upon the House the consideration of " who was the accu- ser ?—whose game were they playing by instituting this wanton and un- necessary proceeding against Baron Smith ?" No discredit could attach to reconsidering and rescinding an ill-judged and hasty vote. On the con- trary, in the opinion of all reflecting people, the House would gain credit by so doing. It was utterly awthy of the Members of that House to be influenced by taunts of having acted with inconsistency on sueh a subject as this. The duty of the House was calmly to recon- sider their votc, and, if convinced that it was an improper env, to re- trieve its error.

On the other side, the Ministers insisted that a ease had been made out for inquiry. It was a dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine to maintain that Judges were irresponsible to Parliament. It was a matter of very secondary importance from whom the call for inquiry proceeded, when it was plain, from the charge of Baron Smith, the au- thenticity of which was not denied, that he had misconducted himself on the benah. If there was no real matter for censure in the Judge's conduct, he would come out of the inquiry relieved of the odium which would at- tach to him by -half a vote of fulmination. Mr. STANLEY -urged the abso- lute necessity, for the sake of Baron Smith's character, of pursuing the subject further. Were such a charge made against him, he should be eager for inquiry. The House had already decided, by a very large majority, that the Committee should be appointed. 1Vith what decency could they nescind that vote, in the absence of all fresh facts on the subject ? It was true that the charge of sitting late in court at Armagh had been in part disproved ; but, as was stated by Mr. O'Connell, a similar case had occurred ut Castle Pollard. If Baron Smith had .stated any thing in extenuation, or had authorized any one to intimate that he would abstain in future from giving such charges as the one com- plained of, Lord ALTitour said that there would have been some ground for rescinding the previous vote as the matter stood, there was BOZIC.

These arguments did not avail the Ministry on the division ; for the House agreed to adopt Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL'S majors, by 161 to J155. The announcement of these numbers was received with loud cheers by the Opposition.

4. COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN IRELAND.

On the motion of Mr. LITTLETON, on Thursday, the House of Commons went into Committee to consider that part of the King's Speech which recommended the "final adjustment" of tithes in Ire- land. Mr. Littleton then proceeded to detail the plan which he pro- posed for the purpose of carrying into effect his Majesty's recommen- dation. In the first place, however, he declared in the most distinct terms, that the question as to the future appropriation of Church pro- perty was not in any respect involved in it. He fully admitted that the question of the appropriation of Church property might, constitu- tionally, become the subject of future discussion in Parliament. The question now before the House was simply one of property ; as was proved by the fact of the resistance to the claims of lay impropriators being quite as violent, if not more so, than the resistance to the claims of the Clergy. He then referred to the measures which had been lately adopted to give protection to tithe property ; and remarked upon their inefficiency. With reference to the claims upon the million granted last session for the relief of the titheowner, he mentioned that the number of applications made was 2,486; and that the sum of 774,000/. would probably cover the whole of them. In order to show how extremely minute and multiplied the payments for tithes generally were, Mr. Littleton read some tables; from which it appeared, that in the county of Armagh the average amount paid by 470 persons was Is. 3d. ; in Cork, the average of 336 was lOid. ; and in'Londonderry, the average amount paid by 1,223 individuals was only 6d. In a parish of Carlow, where the total number of tithe-payers was 446, the num- ber who paid under 9d. was 221. In another parish in Carlow, the total amount due by 221 defaulters, out of 481, was only 10s. 3d.— about one farthing each. In some instances the charge amounted to only seven parts of a farthing. He maintained that, independently of the dAculties arising from agitation, the facts stated proved the neces-

sity of altering the tithe system. The Composition Act of last year had lessened the number of payments by occupiers of land, and would facilitate the execution of the measure he was about to propose. Ist twenty-two counties, there were 16,231 occupiers of land liable to tithe ; of whom 7,947 were yearly tenants ; this would still leave 9,190 payers of tithe. The same proportion might perhaps be taken through the country generally. Mr. Littleton then continued as follows.

The great end and object of his measure would be, to find the means of com- niuting in the quickest possible manner tithe into land. The best way, in his opinion, to effect this, would be to confer on that description of property, now threatened with annihilation, all the value which it was in the power of Parlia- ment to confer. It was, then, the intention of Government to propose, that from and after the month of November next, composition for tithe should cease in Ireland ; and that in lieu thereof a land-tax should be Unposed, payable to the Crown, by the same parties, and to the same amount. That being done, this land-taz should be redeemable at the end of five years, by all wino had a substantive interest in the estate. This would be on terms as fair to the land- owners as it could possibly be, taking the interests of the patties so connected with the propel ty ; it being an object of the bill to give the greatest facilities to all who should choose to redeem, to give them advantageous terms of redemps tion, and to supply them with adequate facilities for raisiug money for that purpose.

It %vas next proposed, that whatever portion of the land-tax should remain unredeemed at the expiration of live years, should be converted into a rent charge, payable by the owner of the first substantial interest in the land.

This person should have for his indemnity an abatement of one-fifth of the land-tax, and be entitled to recover the full amount of it front his tenantry, ca front the parties who were liable to pay it. It was next proposed that these rent charges might be redeemed by the parties on whom they were made, or sold in the market like any other property, for the best price they could bring. The money paid for the redemption of these rent charges, and of the land tax, is to he handed over to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and to bear an interest of :lid. per cent. per diem. As to the mode in which the clergy or other owners of tithes should receive their incomes, it was proposed that the amount of such incomes should be certified by warrants of the Ecclesi- astical Commissioners, setting forth the amount to which each clergyman or titheowner was entitled. Die amount would then be paid by the Commit:moo- ers of Woods and Forests ; who were to have the payment of those sums, sub- ject to such deductions as might be considered fair under the peculiar circum- stances of each ease, or class of cases, for the cost and trouble of collection. Those payments would, of course, be made out of the fund raised by the land- tax, or the money paid for its redemption, by the annual amount of the rent charges, or their produce when sold. When, however, the money should he in- vested hi land sufficient to give to the clergyman or titheowiler what was con - sidered a full equivalent for his tithe, the land would be transferred over to the party, and the Government would be relieved frotn all further connexion with it. Ile fixed the term of five years as that at the expiration of which the land-tax was to be redeemed ; because dunning that period, the sum of

800,000/., which was to be advanced to the titheowncrs, would be in the course of payment ; and the amount of those payments would he de-

ducted from the suing paid by the' ;;`: Z7:I Forests out of the produee of the land-tax to the titheowners. Next came the terms on which the redemption of the land-tax was to be made.

It was quite clear, that the object of redemption being granted, it could be effected only in two ways,—either by a transfer of land from the tithe-payer to the titheowner ; or of a sum of money, which being converted into laud, would yield to the titheowner a rental of 60/. for every 1001. of tithe to which Inc was before entitled. The rate of sixteen years' purchase had been recommended in the Report of the Tithe Committee ; but this had reference to all purchases throughout Ireland. It might be said that bishops' lands might be purchased, and so they might, at a trilling cost, and without any loss to the his awl the lands might easily be transferred to the diocesan corporations, or the clergy ; but this resource was not now available. Those lands had been otherwise ap- plied, and they must, therefore, look to some other source. Now referring ta the rate of purchase, it would not be denied that that must be different in dare- rent counties in Ireland. For years past, the sales of lay impropriate tithes had been so few, that there could be no data collected from which to fix the number of years' purchase. The sale of advowsons would not give such data ; for though the tithes passed in the sale, yet there also passed with them the life of the then incumbent, which, under so many circumstances, would increase or diminish the price; so that it would be difficult to collect any correct materials for the required calculation. The only course, then, was to determine thenum- her of years' purchase which land was worth, and to take something lower for the number of years' purchase of tithes. From all the information which he had got on the subject, he would say that the value of tithes might be taken at

four fifths of that of laud. This he took upon the concurrent testimony of men of all parties. It was then proposed to ascertain by Commissioners what the fee-simple of land was worth in the several counties in Ireland, and by that rule to determine the number of years' purchase applicable to tithes. There were some counties in Ireland where land was worth twenty-five years' purchase: in those counties, the value of tithe would be twenty years' purchase. In other counties, land was not worth more than eighteen years' purchase : in such counties, the tithe would be worth fourteen years' porchase. In a majority of the counties, land was said to be worth twenty years' purchase; and in those he would take the value of the tithe at sixteen.

Mr. Littleton dwelt at some length on the benefit which his plan would confer on the landowners, not merely on account of its effects ia tranquillizing the country, but also in a direct pecuniary way.

It would give him an abatement of one-fifth of the composition, or land-tax ; while it would leave him the right to recover the full amount from the occupier, or the other parties liable to pay. (Some expressions of dissent were here made by sereral Members, chiefly at the Opposition side.) It was at least certain that the landowner would be entitled to the full amount. He might, if lie pleased, share the abatement with the tenant, or the party on whom he had the claim, or remit the whole to him ; but it was not the less his advantage, whether he chose to avail himself of it or not. Now, suppose a case where land was valued at twenty years' purchase : the owner in that case could redeem the laud-tax at sixteen years purchase, out of which he got an abatement of one- fifth. Taking this and the rate at which he could raise money for such re- demption, it would be found that he would have to pay only 64/. for every IOW. which he could recover from his tenant. (A lang,In on the Opposition side.) The honourable Member might find it convenient to laugh, but what he had stated was a question of arithmetic, and capable of being clearly proved.

The payment made to the titheowner would be subject to some slight deduction, varying according to the expense and difficulty which arose in the process of collection; and, considering the annoyance and risk which they now encountered, it was fair to call upon them to pay something for the relief they would obtain. The deduction would in some counties be more, in none leas, than 10 per cent. When the Money of any titheowner had been invested in land, (and the great ob- ject was to invest the produce of the land.tax and rent charge on land so as to give the titheowner 80/. in Lind for every 100/. in tithe,) the property would be handed over to the clergy or other party entitled to it, and from that moment the Government would have nothing more to do with it. There would be little difficulty in investing the money in land. In the three years previona to 1830, hooded property to the va- lue of nine millions sterling had been sold in Ireland.

This would give a fair idea of the quantity r>f land which came into the market ; and supposing that no greater supply than this WaS to he had, he could easily conceive that many persons, on whose estates a laud-tax or rent-charge arising out of it to some amount might be laid, would be willing to ,v11 a portion of their estates to discharpe the burdens on the remainder ; and when honour- able rilembers came to examine the bill, they would find that great facilities would be afforded for making such sales. It was proposed also, that in entailed estates, timber might be felled for the same purpose; though fi.w ea,es of this kind were likely to occur, from the comparatively small quantity of timber in Ireland. It was also proposed, that property invested in the hands of trustees might be made applicable to the purposes of bill. It might be objected, that in Inan parts of Ireland there bad been many compositions already agreed to by clergymen. In all casts of that kind the clergyman would get tax to the same amount, which would be redeemable on the same terms as m other cases. In- deed, the clergy in such cases would gain something, probably about five per cent. more, by the proposed change.

It would be objected, that the rate of tithe had been raised under the late Composition Act, and therefore there would be an unfair basis for the proposed arrangement: but the rate had been raised in very few instances, and io those the rise was rather nominal than real. There might be some objections to minor points of detail, which perhaps would deserve future consideration ; and he had every disposition, as far as possible, to obviate them. The expense of law proceedings

would be borne by the titheowners. Mr. Littleton concluded by again reminding the House, that the collection and appropriation of tithes were things wholly distinct ; and that his plan refet red only to the former. It was the duty of Parliament to vindicate the existing law; and to realize that property, which, if it did not belong to the Church, at least belonged to the State. He then ptoposed the first of a series of resolutions, the substance of which will be found in the ex- tracts from his speech given above.

A long but extremely dry discussion then arose upon the merits of this plan. Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. SHEIL, Mr. FERGUS O'CoNNon, Mr. WALKER, and other Irish Members, denounced it as unjust and impracticable ; Colonel DAYIES.11Ild Mr. COBBETT also disapproved of it. Mr. BENETT, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Mr. CGRISTMAS defended it. Mr. SIIAW and Sir Roatarr Nous would wait till the bill was in their hands before expressing any decided opinion' b

guardina. them-

Belves against being supposed to approve of it. Mr. L ABIBERT objected to some of the details, but approved of the leading principle of the measure. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN and Mr. O'Dwysa each proposed amendments ; which in substance recommended the extinction of tithes, reserving the rights of the present owners, and the substitution of a land-tax, the proceeds of which should be devoted to the support of re- ligion and charity, under the control of Parliament. The first amend- ment was negatived, by 219 to 42 ; the second by If)0 to 66; and the resolution proposed by Mr. Littleton was adopted.

3. NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House of Commons was occupied during nearly the whole of Monday evening with discussing and votina. the Navy Esi :mates for

the ensuing year. When the order of the tray had been read, mat the

motion for the Speaker leaving the chair was put, Mr. Coant:TT rose to complain of the very little time allowed for the examination of the Estimates ; which occupied forty-live folio pages, and contained eleven hundred money items. In order to make himself acquainted with the contents of the paper on the table, he had been obliged absolutely to disregard the commandment not to employ himself on the Sabbath 011 matters of business. Sir JAMES GRAHANI made a few brief observa- tions in reply to Mr. Cobbctt ; and the Speaker then left the chair.

The House being in Committee, Sir JAMES GRAHAM prO,Veded to explain the Estimates. Having first reminded the House that the re- ductions effected in the expenditure of the country by the Duke of Wellington's Administration amounted to 3,200,0001. per annum, and that the present Ministry had reduced the sum of fifteen millions, which was all that they had to work upon, by 3,800,000/. (including the reduction of 500,000/. to be effected this year), he said, that although since his accession to office he had diminished the Navy expenditure by more than a million, he should now be able to effect an additional saving of 181,000. This was principally done by reducing the number of workmen in the dockyards, by which 22,000/. was saved ; by re- ducing from 10 to ta per cent, the allowance usually made as a set-off against an increase in the cost of provisions, by which be should gain 42,0001.; and by filling up only one out of every three vacancies created in the service by death or the sentences of Courts-martial: this made a difference of 65,000/. The number of men he proposed for the service of the year was 27,500, including 9,000 Marines and 1,000 boys. The number of men was reduced by 500, but then the 1,000 boys were in addition to the number employed last year. Sir James said this was done advisedly. It would be found that the rearing up of boys in the Navy would be a more effectual mode of manning it, than by unpressment ; and as far as the expense went, 1,000 boys would cost little more than 500 men. The vote for 27,500 men for the Naval service of the year was then put.

Mr. HOME moved to reduce the number by 2,500 men. The naval force of the country, he said, from 1817 to 1822, was only 20,000 men : why should it be larger now ? Mr. Hume also objected to the mode in which promotion in the Navy had taken place since the peace. He complained that younkers had been set over the heads of veterans. This was not consistent with the professions of Ministers. He re- membered the cheers with which Lord Althorp's statement had been received, that Ministers would carry on the Government without patronage.

Lord ALTHORP here interrupted Mr. Hume, and said, "I never said any such thing." (Marks of surprise, and cries of "Hear, hear! ") Mr. Husts—" Then some new light must have looked in upon tht country: the whole country must have been greatly deceived in the interpretatiun of what Lord Althorp said."

The amendment being put, Si, JAMES GRAHAM defended his system of promotion ; which he affirmed was regulated without regard to party, but by a regard solely to the good of the service.

A discussion then ensued ; in the course of which Mr. C. FEL. GUSSON gave notice, that he should soon move that a grant of public money be made to Captain Ross, as a reward for the improvements in physical science and geographical knowledge which he had effected. Mr. COBBErr spoke earnestly against voting so large a number of sea- men ; and again called for delay. Captain YORKE complimented Sir James Graham on his Estimates ; which were also approved of by Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. LLOYD, Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. T. ATTWOOD, Sir E. CODRINGTON, Mr. GIBBORNE, and Mr. RUTHVEN. The House di- vided ; when Mr. Hume's amendment was rejected, by 196 to 20.

The other votes were then proceeded with. An amendment moved by Mr. RDTHVEN, to reduce the number of Admiralty Lords by two, and the salary of Sir James Graham by 500/. per annum, was rejected, on a division, by 160 to 29.

When the sum of 21,720/. was proposed to pay the salaries of the Navy Pay-office, Mr. HALCOMB said, that four new clerks, the sons of gentlemen who had been active on Mr. Poulett Thomson's election Committee at Dover, had been lately placed in the office, and four old ones had hem superannuated. Mr. Tnoatsoar said, that the old clerks had retired after long service, and that a saving of 2,2001. had been the result of the arrangement.

Mr. CoaDETT vehemently opposed a vote of 847,360/. for half-pay. It was a monstrous sum—surpassing the cost of the maintenauce of the Army, Navy, Civil Government, and Ambassadors of the United States. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he NVZIS ashamed to argue the ques- tion. It was one of performance or non-performance of a direct con- trail with the men who had fought the battles of the country. Mr. COBBETT replied, that he did not grudge the money paid fur service actually performed. But the Estimate was too large, and ought to be scrupulously examined. That was all lie said, all he proposed ; and if the House would not inquire into these things, a Reformed Parliament was not worth a — [ lit re Mr. Coaarrr struck the table with the printed Estimate with great vehemence, and the genend laughter pre- vented the reporters from bearing the final word of his speech.] Sir JAMES' GRAHAM, vhen 230,258/. was proposed for Civil Pen- sions and Allowances, said that he should not shrink from the dis- agreeable duty of bringing in a bill, which Was already prepared, for re- gulating Superannuations. Mr. Hum,. said---" I see among the su- perannuations the following item : Royal Naval College, John Live. say, mathematical assistant, 107/.' Now, I am sure this is a young man perfectly cornpetent to perform his duty, and who therefore should pot he put noon this list." Sir JANE!: GRAHAM said—" This very young man, 1%!1io is so perfecily competent to perform Isis duty, is up- wards of sixty years of age, lati has had his two legs broken in the ser- vice." ( Cheers end lanyhter.) Sonic other votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.

4. AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.

011 Tuesday, Mr. O'Cosxm.i., in moving for leave to bring in a bill to ammo' the Law of Libel, described the defects of the existing law at some length. Ile particularly dwelt upon the fact of truth not being allowed to be produced in proof of the intention of the author of the alleged libel, while the applicant for a criminal information was obliged to swear to the falsehood of the attack upon him before he would be able to obtain a rule. Than it was impossible to say what was or what was not a libel ; and who did or did not render himself liable to punishment for writing or speaking one. A newsvender, a gentleman at Brookes's, or the Conservative Club, who handed news- papers to each other, might be prosecuted for a breach of the libel-laws. The law ought to be amended, were it for no other purpose than to afford protection to the libelled. Owing to its present state, no man prosecuted another for libel, who did not come out of court with a worse character than he went in, even though: he gained his cause. It was so cke:y for a counsel to say, that had the defendant been allowed to prove certain facts, his justification would have been complete. Then, in Ireland, a farthing damages would carry costs and the Judges had lio control in the matter in England, the Judges had a control, but they were unwilling to use it. One branch of the law, Mr. O'Connell declared that he would not meddle with—he alluded to the law for the prosecution of blasphemous libels, and libels against Christianity. He did not wish to excite opposition to his bill ; though he thought privately that there ought to be no punishment for libels against Christia- nity: as long as it was allowable to impugn the doctrines of the Trinity, or the Divinity of the Redeemer, he did not think it worth while to prosecute for other attacks on religion. He would endeavour to find sufficient legal grounds to define what should or should not be a libel. At present, any thing tending to disparage Government, or in the words of the law, reflecting on Government, was liable to prosecution. He would state what he proposed to substitute. He took the law of principal and accessory. At present, if one man counselled another to commit a crime, the accessory could not be punished unless the crime had been committed. At common law_, the accessory could not be convicted until the principal had been convicted; but that rule had been altered by statute. At present, no man could be punished as accessory unless the crime he had advised had been C0111.• mitted. He thought that a limitation which ought to be excluded from the law of libel, because if a man were an accessory, the law ought not to wait for the commission of the crime. He proposed to make any thing accessorial equally cri lll inal, whether the crime were or were not committed. This would be done by striking out from the indictment the averment that the crime had been corn. nutted. Thu he brought every offence of the press within known categories of the law. In high treason there were no accessories ; in misdemeanour there were no accessories; and he thought there should be none in publications of matter proceeding merely to misdemeanour. The liberty of the press, he thought, could never be secured until that step had been taken: He then came to private libels; and here he would have nothing capable of indictment that was not at present actionable as oral slander. Thus he would limit all private prosecu- tions to the bounds of oral slander. His next step would be to do away with ex-officio and other informations. Prosecutions for libel ought to be, like other offences, eubmitted first to a grand jury.

He would do away with the present practice of bringing prosecutions for libel hetere special juries. The case of Mr. Cohen, of the Brighton Guardian, strongly illustrated the evils of this mode of procedure.

The Special Jury before whom he was tried, and who were the judges and grand jurors, as well as special jurors, convicted him. But what did the Judge

think and say on the occasion? When the defendant was brought up for judg- ment, be told him he had been convicted by the Jury, but that he (the Judge) did not think he had been actuated by any evil intention in the publication coin 'Alined of; and therefore the Judge only sentenced him to six months' impri- sonment, and to pay a fine of 501. In adverting to the evils of Special Juries, Mr. O'Connell did not wish to see them abolished altogether. What he wished was, that there should be this distinction made between the prosecutor and the defendant—that while the latter should have the right to choose a spe- cial jury whenever he chose, the prosecutor had no such right, without the con- currence of the defendant.

The truth of the allegation ought to be admitted as a defence.

He knew there were many who would be adverse to this part of his plan. It might be objected, that if a man had in early life been guilty of improper con-

duct, but had since repented of that conduct, and acted in the must praise- worthy and exemplary manner for a long course of subsequent years, it would be hard indeed if the editor of a publication, or any other person, should be suffered with impunity to bring that one improper action before the public for

the purpose of gratifying his own private spleen, or from any other unworthy motive. Mr. O'Connell admitted that such a case would be a very hard tine

indeed ; but he couceived that, so far from the defendant commending himself

to the Jury in the supposed circumstances, or bettering his condition,- it would operate very much against him to have been guilty of such a thing. lie wished

the House to understand that he did not mean that the truth of an offensive ar- ticle ought at all times to be regarded as a justification for the publication ; he only wished that the defendant should have the right of proving his allegations

in Ids own defence ; and he thought that, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, a Jury would find the proof of the charge ought to be a justification of the de- fendant, sod to entitle him to a verdict of acquittal.

He would introduce a clause which should put an end to speculative actions.

The clause he meant to introduce was, that in those cases in which the pro- secutor did not recover more than 40s. damages, he should obtain no costs, but should, on the contrary, be made to pay the costs of the defendant. Where 20/. damages were obtained, the plaintiff should receive no costs, nor he made to pay costs, but each party pay their own expenses. If the plaintiff recovered Sa damages, then he should receive the same amount in costs; but if above SOL damages, then he should obtain all costs against the party responsible for the libel. These were the principal alterations he would make in the existing law of libel.

The question being put from the Chair, that leave be given to bring in the bill, Sir FRANCIS VINCENT and Lord ALTHORP erpressed their conviction that the law stood in need of amendment ; and, without pledging themselves to support all or any part of the proposed bill, would not oppose its being brought in. Lord ALTHORP added, that he thought truth ought not to be admitted as a justification of the offensive matter.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

•• MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

SUPPRESSION 01' TILE PILOT Ntavse.selar. At the morniag sitting yesterday, Mr. Sims called the attention of the House to the circum- stances attending the suppression of the Dublin Pilot, the property of Mr. Ilichard Barrett ; arid charged the Government with very oppres- sive conduct towards the press generally. In the evening, the subject was resumed by Mr. Wii.xs ; who asked Lord Althorp, whether it was the intention of Government to repeal the law which prohibited the Commissioners of Stamps from supplying stamped paper to a news- paper proprietor convicted of a seditious libel, and which law had lately been enforced against Mr. Barrett? Lord Aurnione said, that the law was imperative on the Commissioners : it had been passed not by the United, but by the Irish Parliament.This announcement caused some laughter ; and Mr. O'CONNELL said " it was 'renewed in 1815." Lord ALTHORP replied, that it was passed and made perma- nent by the Irish Parliament, though it was renewed in 1815. 'When Mr. Barrett was convicted, Mr. Littleton wrote to the Commissioners of Stamps and called their attention to the statute : it was one which might easily be evaded. He would not promise to propose a repeal of it; but he thought that a law which could be evaded, and which con- strained the Commissioners to act with unnecessary harshness, ought not to remain on the Statute-book. Mr. Witics said he would again mention the subject on Monday or Wednesday; and in the mean time, hoped Ministers would make up their minds to repeal the law.

CASE OF THE BRIGHTON GUARDIAN. At the morning sitting yes- terday, a conversation arose on the subject of the severe sentence of fine and imprisonment of Mr. Cohen, the proprietor of the Brighton Guar- dian. Mr. Wiess:v presented a petition from Mr. Cohen, complaining of the mode in which the prosecution had been conducted, and the un- due punishment which had been awarded for his unintentional offence. The petitioner prayed for an amendment of the law of libel, and that the House would adopt measures to procure his release from gaol. Lord Wn.taam LENNOX, though, he said, he and his family had been repeatedly attacked in the columns of the Brighton Guardian, thought Mr. Cohen's case a very hard one, and supported the prayer of the petition. Sir CHARLES BURRELL, one of the Sussex Magistrates, said that Mr. Cohen, who came forward in the garb of innocence, had previously to his last sentence been convicted of two libels on different individuals. He thought his conduct was liable to much animadversion. He wished that some member of the Government had been present, to take notice of the petition.

Piamtai.erms IN THE CHURCH. A discussion of some interest arose at the morning sitting of the House on Thursday, upon the presenta- tion, by Mr. GaorE, of a petition from the parishioners of Allhallows- the. Great, complaining of the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury in conferring the rectory of their parish on the Reverend Francis Dawson ; who was already in possession of several pieces of preferment—being Rector of Orpington, Rector of Chiselhurst, Pre- bendary of Canterbury, amid Sub-Dean el Canterbury, as well as Rector of Allhallows-the-Great. The predecessor of Mr. Dawson„wha held the living for eighteen years, had been a non-resident, although there was a good parsonage house, which let for 60/. per annum ; and the living was sufficient alone to maintain a clergyman. Even the Curate did riot reside in the parish ; so that the parishioners had riot the ad- vantage of any spiritual adviser among them. Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY supported the prayer of the petitioners with great earnestness. This system of non-residence would ruin the Church. It appeared by a re- turn presented to the House last year, that there were in the country no fewer than 3,687 incumbents who were non-resident. He firmly be- lieved, that if some means were not adopted to enforce the residence of the clergy, the beautiful fabric of the Church Establishment would soon become a miserable wreck. Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought Sir John Wrottesley exaggerated the dangers of the Church. He was prepared to defend any question that might arise on the subject of pluralities. Non-residence had existed from the earliest periods ; and must have existed, from the nature of things, when many livings were under i101. per annum. There was nothing in Mr. Dawson's appointment con- trary to law ; nothing unfair had been done by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. After a few words from Mr. GnoTE, the petition was laid on the table.

A similar petition was presented to the House of Lords yesterday, by Lord DURHAM. It elicited a few observations from the Archbishop of CANTERBURY ; who explained that the law had not been broken by the Dean and Chapter; and that a curate had been appointed by Mr. Dawson, who would perform the duties of a clergyman in the parish. He reminded the House, that if his Pluralities Bill had passed into a law, this complaint would not have been made.

Houst: TAX. Mr. HUME on Monday, asked Lord ALTIIORP WY- it happened that, as 400,000/. was taken off the House-tax last year, there would remain 1,100,000/. to be taken off this year, when the whole tax was only 1,200,000/. ? Lord Al.T11011P replied, that last year the gross amount of the tax was 1,400,000/. Be recollected having stated that the publ;c would be benefited by the reduction made in the tax last year to the amount of 400,000/. ' • but that was an error-aft turned cut to be onl' 240,000/. ; so that there remained at least 1,100,000/. to be taken off.

INTEREST OF TILE WEST INDIA GRANT. Lord ALTHORP stated 011 Monday, also in reply to a question from Mr. 1-11'31E, that only half of the interest of the twenty millions grant would be wanted this year. The interest would be calmilated from the 1st August next : so that this.year only 400,000/., not 800,000/, would be wanted for that purpose.

BrEn-Stioes. The Marquis of c'HANDOS, asked Lord Althorp on Monday, whether Ministers would introduce a bill this session for the better regulating of Beer-shops. To this Lord ALTIIORP replied, that the subject was one of great difficulty; and that he was not prepared to say that any measure of the kind was contemplated.

Boaoyeit or HERTFORD. The second reading, of the bill to prevent bribery in Hertford is postponed to the 12th of March.

POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND. In the course of a long discussion which arose on Tuesday, on the presentation of sonic petitions for the Repeal of the Union, Lord Al:moue said, that it was not the intention of the Government to " give the go-by" to the question of Poor-laws for Ireland but Inc doubted very unieli, from the evidence which he had seen, whether their establishment would be beneficial to that country. TlainEit DeTirs. In reply to a question from Mr. lloeixsoN, Lord ;s rrunoam' statcd Loa night, that there was 110 illt1.11t1011 on the part of i iiisters to propose any alteration in the Timber duties this session. , _