19ebatoi mitt Pracertringe in parliament.

I. TRUSTEESHIP OF MUNICIPAL CHARITIES.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. VERNON SMITH moved the further consideration of the report on the Charitable Trustees Bill. The object of the bill was to take the control of the charitable trust property out of the hands of the old corporators, who by the bill of last year were to hold it till the 1st of August next, and to place it in the hands of trustees elected by the municipal constituency. To prevent either party in a borough from obtaining a triumph, and to secure the more impartial administration of the property, he proposed that no bur- gess should have the power of voting for more than half the number of Trustees to be elected ; the Mayor to be the presiding officer, and to have a casting-vote ; and the property to be vested in the Town- Council. The Peers had made an alteration in the Municipal Act Amendment Bill, continuing the present corporations in their respec- tive trusteeships till August 1837, and authorizing them to appoint clerks and secretaries ; and this rendered it especially necessary for the House of Commons to pass the bill then under consideration, as other- wise they would be compelled to reject the bill altered by the Lords for the purpose of continuing the old corporators in trusts which, it was admitted on all sides that they had greatly abused.

Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to conferring upon political bodies the control of corporate charities. He much preferred to place the ap- pointment of the Trustees in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, on whom it would devolve, if no other provision were made, on the ex- piration of the present temporary arrangement on the 1st of August. In that case, the subject would be open to a future settlement. He was by no means satisfied that the Councils under the new bill would not follow the example of their predecessors, and pervert the funds of charities to party purposes : this bill would enable them to do so, and thus preserve one of the worst features of the old system. The Trustees, though nominally different, would really be of the same party as the majority of the Town- Council, being elected by the same con- stituency: therefore they would be as much biassed by party feeling as if they were members of the Council. He objected to the clause which made over to the Councils the whole residue of the property after pro- vision had been made for the payment of the sums prescribed by the will of the donor : in this way the charity would become the mere an- nuitant of the Council; and the Councillors, in order to avoid the imposition of a borough rate, would grasp as much of the charitable property as they dared. Thus, the parties against whose encroach- ments it was peculiarly necessary to guard, were to be in fact the managers of the property, and their interests and those of the claimants on the charity would clash— Now this very case would arise at Stratford-upon-Avon, where there were two estates called the Guild and the College Estates, vested in the Corporation by the 7th of Edward the Sixth, for the purpose of maintaining an almshouse and a free grammar-shool. In the former, a provision of fourpence per head was named for every poor man; and in the latter there was to be a schoolmaster at a salary of 201. per annum. There was also a provision of 201. per annum for the Vicar. Now the Vicar having represented to the Commissioners the propriety of having his stipend increased out of the funds to a sum commensu- rate with the prices and monetary value of the present times, the Commissioners objected to increase the stipend of the Vicar ; although they thought, in the cases of the almshouses and the school, that the object of the donor at the time ought to be carried out to the fullest extent which the change of the times required. They decided, therefore, that the supposed intentions of the founder, as related to the support of the poor and in furtherance of education, should be carried out to their original footing, but that the stipend of the Vicar, being an affair of individual concern, would be be fully paid in the exact nominal amount stated in the original grant. Now, the question upon this case was, whether the intentions of the founder ought not in every respect to be carried out as fully as possible ; or whether, as was contemplated by this bill, the surplus beyond the specific items named in the grant should merge into the hands of the Corpora- tion? and this was a question upon which he could never consent to decide without having much more time for consideration than had yet been afforded to the House.

The Charity Commissioners had not concluded their report ; but in the reports already made they recommended, that all the charitable property in this country, amounting to about one million, should be managed by a permanent board of Commissioners, or some other inde- pendent authority. What, again, was the plan of Lord Brougham ?-

That noble and learned lord had introduced a bill on this subject into the other House; and his plan was, that a board of Commissioners should he created, to consist of the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and of three other Commis- sioners, to be paid a salary and to be appointed under the sign-manual. This bill was silent as to placing charitable trusts under the management of indivi- duals chosen by popular election ; neither did it propose to appropriate the sur- plus revenues to the borough funds; on the contrary, the bill empowered these Commissioners to confer with local authorities, for the 'purpose of applying the funds to the extemiou of chasity and of edenation. With all these difficulties in the wet/ of a satisfactory settlement of tide question would any man venture to affirm, that it Would be wish in the present month of July, to come to a per- manent arrangement, and especially an arrangement vesting the election of the trustees in the popular body ? Itewould be much better to make some tempo- rary arrangement, and to take up the subject early next session. He wholly and entirely disclaimed any desire to have charitable funds applied to any political purposes whatsoever, but he did object to any permanent arrangement being now made which would preclude full and ample consideration of the whole matter. What permanent arrangement ought finally to be made, he was not prepared to say ; but he must object, at this period of the session, to pro. seeding with a bill giving the control to popular bodies, and so completely at variance with the terms of the report of the Committee, and with the pro- visions of the bill introduced into the other House of Parliament by Lord Brougham.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that Sir Robert Peel would leave them no alternative but to permit the continuance of the management of the charitable corporate funds in the present hands. Now it ap- peared from the report of the Commissioners, that these Trustees had applied the funds committed to their care to the advancement of partylk purposes and the bribing of voters at elections. It was mentioned tta an instance of these proceedings, that a Coventry elector applied for the 41. charity left by Sir Thomas White; that the poll-book was produced, and as it appeared that he had voted for Ellice and Bulwer, he was told by those who had the distribution of the money, that as "he had not put any water into the well, he could not expect to draw any out of it," and that he had better apply to Ellice and Bulwer for the 41. This was the system of management which Sir Robert Peel, in effect, wished to continue. He did not say, reject Mr. Vernon Smith's bill, and agree to one wh:ch I will propose, and which will put the management of corporate charities out of the reach of partisans ; but he confines his objections to some details of the bill. very fit to be discussed in Committee, and proposes to prolong the corrupt system of management which has been so fully exposed. It was unfair to say that the bill would give one party an advantage over the other. The mode of election, which was the same as that adopted in the choice of Auditors and Assessors, would prevent it. He knew several boroughs where that principle had worked well. In one very Liberal borough, the Auditor highest on the list was a Tory : the Liberal party divided their votes ; and thus, one party having 500 votes and the other 400, the candidate of the Tory minority had 400 votes in his favour, while the candidates of the Liberal majority had one 300 and the other 200 votes : in this way, the candidate highest on the poll represented the minority of the electors. The objection to this plan came from men who year after year had allowed charitable funds to he used for bribing votes at elections, and who always opposed every attempt to bring this scandalous state of things under the consideration of the House. When be proposed a mode of election by which each party would pro- bably secure a moiety of the Trustees, was it fair that he should be charged by the stanch supporters of the old system with proposing a political measure ? (Loud cheers, in which Sir Robert Peel joined.) " The right honourable baronet cheers. I am glad to hear his approval thus given of the inference which I have stated, and should be rejoiced to have re- called to my mind all those instances in which the right honourable baronet made motions for a reform with regard to these charitable trusts—in which he showed that Sir Thomas White's charity had been abused in Northampton, Coventry, and various other places, for Tory purposes ; and proposed to substi- tute a fair method of election. ( Cheers.) If the right honourable baronet had proposed any such plan, all I can say is, it must have been brought in very quietly. (Laughter.) For I am quite sure that if any announcement of it was made, all the Reformers in this House would have come down in a body to support him against those of his friends who might have opposed him on that occasion. ( Cheers and laughter.) I do not consider it advisable to intrust these charitable trusts to the Municipal Councils; and when the bill last year was under consideration, I stated, that what might be, and in all probability would be, a political body, should not be allowed to have any control over these concerns. But I certainly was of apinion, that the Mayor, chosen as he would be, under the new state of things, should preside over the body of Trustees, because, in the first place, he stood alone in an eminently responsible situation; and in the next place, because, as he was to act with those who were equally divided in number as to political sentiments, it was impossible but that any po- litical partiality on the part of the Mayor at the head of these Charitable Trustees should be pointed out. Therefore I think, being so marked, so pointed out, and being a man trusted with the confidence of his fellow citizens, as well as, though no doubt, a man of particular political opinions, yet one, as we must suppose, of independent character, and being moreover a man having to act with persons of different political opinions, we may, I say, fairly trust the Mayor, as one who will act properly in this capacity, and whose conduct will not stand in great chance of being impugned. It was said that as those members who had the lowest number of votes would be the first to go out in the rotation, it would give a preponderance to one party. That was a point of detail which, if defective, might be very easily remedied in many ways, by having the whole number go out at the end of the three years, or they might go out by lot, or one of those with the highest numbers and one with the lowest might go together." Cases bad been mentioned by Sir Robert Peel, in which nearly the whole estate might be engrossed by the Municipal body— Now, it was true that no provision was made for that case—for instance, where an estate was left to a Corporation on the condition that it gave a cer- tain part of it for certain stipulated charitable purposes. Suppose, for example, an estate worth 1,0001. a year was left to the corporate body charged with a payment of 21. a year each to four almsinen—would it be fair to look upon that

as an estate intended for charitable purposes, and on that ground to hand it over to the Commissioners of Charitable Trusts, though only ed. of it was reserved for charitable uses, and 992/. belonged to the Corporation? It had been said, that where a certain amount had been left to support a school, the funds should be applied in that way which would meet the intention of the donor, rather

than the strict letter of his bequest : now that might be, and that would be, a proper question to be considered when the question of Charitable Trusts gene- rally came for discussion. In conclusion, he would ask the House to contrast this bill with the no-plan of Sir Robert Peel, and with the proposal to continue the ex- isting system, and then decide whether it did not deserve support. Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Mr. PEMBERTON opposed the bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported it. Mr. HARVEY said, that as to the corrupt management of charitable funds, the Whigs were as bad as the Tories, whenever they had the opportunity. Ilel aughed at the idea of the Mayor being an impartia person he was always the strongest party-man in the town. He also objected to giving the Councils the control of the residue of the funds after providing for the discharge merely of the sums actually charged upon them for charity. Colonel SIBTHORPE moved that the report be received that day three months.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported this amendment.

Mr. VERNON SMITH briefly replied. Ilesiaid that the teal objection of the Tories to the bill was, their dislike of the elective principle on which it was based.

The House divided : for receiving the report now, 133; for Colonel Sibthorpe's amendment, 88; majority, 45.

2. REFORM OF THE CHURCH.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Tuesday, moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Established Church Bill.

Mr. HUME hoped Lord John would not persevere with the bill this session. Time would not be given for the consideration of other im- portant measures only just put into the hands of Members. Ile would move to read the order of the day that day fortnight.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL regretted that he could not accede to Mr. Hume's proposal. He had rather put off the bill to next session than not bring it on that night.

Mr. HUME said, it would be impossible to press on the bill that night. Lord John would find himself very much mistaken if he ex- pected to pass the bill that night ; and if he attempted to pass it that session, he would do much injury to his party. Every body with whom he had communicated reprobated the bill, as a hasty measure. The clergy objected to be consigned over to a body whose authority they were unwilling to acknowledge. He entreated Lord John Russell to listen to the wishes of almost every body on his own side of the House.

The SPEAKER suggested, that Mr. Hume had better allow the Order of the Day to be read, and move his amendment on the motion for the third reading.

Mr. HUME assented. The Order of the Day was read. Lord Jolts: RUSSELL then moved the third reading of the Bill ; and Mr. Hums moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months.

Mr. LENNARD seconded the amendment. He objected to the bill in principle and detail. The only benefit likely to accrue from it was the prohibition against Bishops holding livings in commendam.

Sir ROBERT Emus opposed the bill, because it went too far. It recognized the principle that Church property was public property, and relieved the destitution of one class of clergymen by the legalized rob- bery of another. The property of the Church did not come from the State, and the State had no right to meddle with it. The bill would form a most dangerous precedent, and he would support the motion of Mr. Hume.

Mr. BUXTON denied the truth of Sir Robert Inglis's doctrine ; which would act as a bar to all improvement in the Church. Surely he must recollect, that in the time of Henry the Eighth, the Church property was held by Catholics ; and what became of the title of Pro- testants to it, if the State could not interfere with its use and destina- tion. With regard to the bill, it left the great and monstrous injustice in the Church untouched ; and he opposed it as an impolitic piece of legislation, and dangerous to the establishment.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER strongly disapproved of the course taken by Ministers in regard to this measure— He would ask his Majesty's Ministers, by what insanity it was that they came forward to alienate their friends by supporting the proposition emanating from a Commission appointed by Sir Robert Peel ? That right honourable gentleman'had, it seemed, now the substantial powers of office, wanting only the pitiful salary, to which he attached no value. If Sir Robert had come for- ward himself with such a proposition, it would have been rejected. He con- tended that this measure, which professed to be a bill for abolishing pluralities, would have the effect of legalizing them, and that as regarded the translation of the Bishops, they would be perpetuated. He would assure Me Government, that they could not go on carrying Tory principles into effect without losing the support of the country. Their present conduct was too like that which in 8334 enabled their adversaries to turn them out of ojfice. The difference was this—they had now an opportunity of retrieving their error by following the advice which was pouring in upon them from their most sincere supporters. By abandoning these bills, which would never be considered otherwise than as measures of a colourable reform, they might yet secure the support of their sin- cere friends.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not remain silent after the speech of Mr. Buller. He pleaded guilty to the charge that he had not looked to this question with a party view. His object was to bring forward a measure which, though it might not go as far as he could desire, would still accomplish an effective reform of some great abuses in the Establishment. Undoubtedly he might have introduced a bill more agreeable to Mr. Buller and those who thought with him ; but then, it would not have had the consent of gentlemen opposite ; and he con- sidered it more advisable to frame a measure which could be carried through Parliament with the consent of the Church,—especially when, as was the case in the present instance, the Church party had made great and important concessions.. Lord John went into some of the details of the bill, with a view to prove that it really would in many instances produce substantial improvement. Sir ROBERT PEEL denied that the passing of this bill would be a great political triumph to him. It was no concession to him. He bad appointed a Commission, and the present Ministers had continued it ; but that was their own doing. He approved of the main provisions of the bill ; and by no means considered the salaries of the Archbishops and Bishops too large, when their necessary expenditure—the mainte- nance of their dignity, and the exercise of hospitality—were taken into account.

Lord EBRINGTON objected to some of the details of the bill, but would vote for it.

Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment.

Mr. THOMAS BUNCOMBE said, that notwithstanding the attempt of Isord John Russell to bolster up this miserable measure, this contemp.

tible subterfuge,—and notwithstanding Mr. Buller had been lectured for declaring his hostility to it,—he wcu'd not refrain from expressing his extreme disgust at the bill.

They might talk of the Irish Tithe Bill—they might talk as they pleased of the unhappy Appropriation- clause—( Opposition cheers)—but the present bill was to be the touchstone and test whether his Majesty's Government would retain the confidence of the English People. That confidence, it must be re- membered, ought to proceed, not from persons interested in the abuses of the Church, but from the community at large. As to the Commissioners in this business, who were they ? Why, five of them were Bishops, another five mem- hers of the Cabinet, and three more very respectable men doubtless in their pri- vate capacity, but known to be high Tones, devoted to the protection of the Church in all its abuses. The parochial clergy were in no respect represented in this Commission. It was one good thing, however, to have got the Deans and Chapters in opposition to the measure; and he did not slightly rejoice to see such a schism starting up between Deans and Chapters and the Bishops; for when these bodies fell out, the public were much more likely to get their own. At a future more eligible opportunity, he should detail the great objec- tions he felt to the proposeecontrol. All he would observe on this occasion was, that if the proposition of arming a Central Board with such indefinite powers as these had been made by a Tory . Administration, there would have been some 1:30 or 140 Whig patriots protesting against such a tyrannous attempt, and resisting it with all their might.

Mr. HAWES interrupted Mr. Duncombe, and asked if the question of the adjournment had been put ?

The SPEAKER replied that it bad.

A scene of confusion arose. Mr. BLACKSTONE and Lord FRANCIS EGERTON spoke a few words. Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR addressed the House, but was inaudible : he said, that in consequence of the noise, and unseemly behaviour of Mem- bers, he should move to adjourn the debate. The Gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place ; and the debate was adjourned to Friday.

3. REPORT OF THE .AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.

On Thursday, a long conversation took place on the conduct of the Agricultural Committee; who had determined to make no report, but merely present the evidence to the House. Lord DARLINGTON ex- pressed his surprise and regret at this resolution. Lord Howes said, that, as a Member of the Committee, he was surprised that no County Member, of whom there were eighteen out of twenty five on the Com- mittee, had brought forward a single point for discussion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained, that Mr. Shaw Lefevre, the Chairman, had drawn up a report, which he saw at once that the Committee could not agree to, and therefore he had moved merely to report the evidence. Lord CHANDOS said, he had seconded the motion ; for Mr. Lefevre's report was calculated to injure, not benefit the farmer. Mr. LEFEVRE main- tained that his report was according to the evidence; but it was un- palatable because it recommended the farmers not to rely too much on the Corn-laws, to obtain what reduction of rent they could from their landlords, and then to take advantage of those improvements in agricul- ture, by which in many parts of the country the farmers were largely profitting. Mr. HUME was delighted to find that the upshot of this inquiry had been just what he anticipated ; and that the labouring man was better off than he had been for many .years. Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended the course which he had taken in this affair; and observed, that when two such great friends of the farmers as Sir James Graham and Lord Chandos thought it best for the agricultural interest not to accept Mr. Lefevre's report, and brought forward nothing in its stead, it was not incumbent upon him to originate a proposition ;—especially as it was well known, that, in his opinion, no legislative measure, agreeable to the advocates of the agricultural interest, would materially benefit that interest. Lord John did not profess to be the especial friend of the farmers, and would not vote for the repeal of the Malt- tax, or a change in the currency ; but he had really done them essential service, by improving the Poor-laws, and supporting remission of taxation.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that be bad reluctantly consented to the appointment of the Committee, aware what the result would be. He was certain that the Committee would not agree to recommend any measure of relief which Parliament could pass ; for he had always considered that the subject of tithes ought to be dealt with by the House, not by a Committee. As to the currency, experience con- tinued to prove the soundness of adhering to the present standard. At present it was vain to expect any substantial relief to the agricultural interest from any legislative measure. Such vast changes, arising from scientific and mechanical improvements, were now in progress, that it would be unsafe to legislate with reference to the existing state of things. Sir Robert then alluded to what passed in the Committee ; where, he

said, Lord John Russell had taken up the report, and demolished

paragraph after paragraph, till nothing but a skeleton remained. He so entirely concurred in Lord John's reasoning, that he gave his vote

for reporting the evidence without comment, convinced that such a course vir,s the wisest under all the circumstances. He should observe, however, that the responsibility of having appointed the Committee rested with Lord John Russell, who had moved for it in accordance with a recommendation in the King's Speech.

After a few words from Mr. SANFORD, Sin R. PRICE, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE brought up the report,. amidst loud laughter.

4. NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. Hunt, on Thursday, moved an address to the King, praying him to direct further competition in designs for the new Houses of Parlia- ment, not designating the style of architecture, and limiting the ex- pense. He condemned the course taken by the Commissioners in this matter ; arid disapproved of Mr. Barry's plan, which, he said, was in- convenient, and too costly. Mr. Barry had produced a beautiful pic- ture, but experienced artists should not have been deceived by it. The plan now adopted, and which is to cost 724,000/. could not be executed • for two or three years to come. If completed, three arches of West- minster Bridge would be blocked tip within twelve feet, and the build- ing would rise out of the water like the houses of Amsterdam. He was decidedly in favour of reconsidering the whole matter.

Mr. Ewan' seconded Mr. Hume's motion. Mr. HANBURY TRACY opposed it, and justified the proceedings of the Commissioners. As to Mr. Barry's plan, after months of scru- tiny. but trifling defects bad been discovered in it. If the estimates for executing it were found to exceed 720,000, it would not be finally adopted.

Mr. ESTCOURT said, he should vote with Mr. flume, for the pur- pose of having further time to consider a subject of such importance.

Sir JOHN 1101IHOUSE related et length the proceedings of the Com- missioners, whose competency, diligence, and fairness, he highly eulo- gized. Mixing a good deal in society, be bud heard but one sentiment of approbation of their choice.

Mr. Hawes supported Mr. Home's motion, and said that no satis- factory answer bad been given to his speech.

Sir Romer PLEL would not agree to plash all the proceedings in the tencenanuoimem manner proposed by 31r. Hume. lie was opposed to con lllll owing dc novo, alter so much time and labour had been ex- pended. Ile was indignant at the calumny and invective with which Air. Barry had been hunted. Ile thought that the proper course bad been :ululated ; and us to the subsequent alteration in 3Ir. Barry's plan, they were no evidence that it was not originally superior to all the of 1:-mm which lad been offered.

Mr. WYSE Said, it would be unjust, for the sake of gratifying the spleen of a few disappointed parsons, to reverse all their proceedings.

Mr. 1 I CAW nraiiit iir.cd that his arguments had been unanswered ; but us the sense of the !louse seemed to be against him, he would not press his resolutions.

Motion by leave withdrawn.

O. TAMPERING went Comm rrrees.

On Monday, Mr. Nicholas Wilcox Cundy was brought to the bar

of the House of Commute. by tile Ser;zement.:it-.Arms ; and node' went an examination, by the Speaker and several JIembers of the House, in relation to the charge against Sir Charles Burrell and other members of the Brighton Railway Committee, that they had been bribed to vote in favour of Mr. Stephenson's line. Mr. ('only' denied posi- tively that he bad accused Sir Charles Burrell, or any Member of the House, of having received exorbitant re llall teration for their land, or being in any way bribed ; but he admitted, that having been questioned on the subject y Mr. Benett, M. I'. for Wiltshire, he had stated that reports to that effect were in general circulation—that they had ap- peared in the Briyidon Gazate and several London newspapers. Ile told Mr. Benett nothing of his own knon ledge on the subject. Being asked, however, whether lee believed such reports to be correct, 11r. Cundy replied, that he could nut presume to " decide " that point ; but that if the House should appoint a Committee of Inquiry, he should be ready to give evidence on the subject. This was the substance of Mr. Cundy's statement.

A dry and desultory debate followed. Several Member:: considered that the affair should be mellowed to drop, as Mr. Cundy had disclaimed any intention to accuse Sir Charles Burrell. 3Ir. WYNN, jr. Gum:, and Captain PECIILLL, were of this opinion. Mr. 'Lam- thought that Mr. Benett was not fairly treated in his absence ; and that the discussion should be postponed till lie could appear and speak for him- self. Admiral TROCIMIDGE wished Mr. Cundy to give a categorical denial to the statements in Mr. Benett's letter to Sir Charles Burrell. Mr. GORING and Lord GEORGE LENOX, thought that every material point had been contradicted. Captin PECHELL reminded the House of the prevalence of the reports that the Committee had been tam- pered with ; and hoped it would not be forgotten that Mr. Cundy was a severely-disappointed and an ilhused man. Sir GEORGE STRICE. LAND said, be had found the greate-t difficulty in persuading his con- stituents that Members of Parliamentary Committees were not bribed. Sir CHARLES BURRELL, in the most emphatic manner, denied the charge against himself; and said duet Mr. Celledy had assured him that Lord Egremont, the Duke of Norfolk, and Lord Surr were in favour of his line to Brighton ; • but lie found that Mr. Cundy had stated what was false, and he then resolved to give no credit to what that person stated in future. Sir Rordaer INGLIS hoped that Members would not abuse their privileges by attacking persons who were not present to defend themselves. Admiral TROeIIntDGa having moved that Mr. Cundy (who had left the bar when his examination was over) should be recalled, Lord JOHN Hussw. moved that the House should proceed to the Order of the Day. This motion was supported by Sir ROBERT PEEL, and carried, by 144 to .56. In a subsequent part of the evening, Mr. MILES moved, that Mr. Benett should attend in his place to reply to Mr. Cundy's denial of having made the charges which Mr. Benett bad accused him of making ; but Sir CHARLES BARREL!. bovine. mentioned that Mr. Benett was suffering bum ill health, and Mr.c'SPRING Thee and Dr. Bowarstc leaving stated the general opinion that there was no slur upon Mr. Benett, the motion was withdrawn.

6. STAMP-DUTIES BILL.

On the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the House went into Com- mittee on this Lill on Monday. Mr. Rice then stated some alterations which he had made in the bill since it was last before the House. In the first place, he had determined to strike out the 180th clause, which made the printer of a newspaper liable to have his property seized for payment of an arrear of newspaper.duty. Ile intended, secondly. to omit the word " pamphlet " from the clauses which could be interim end to put a duty on pamphlets which were not newspapers ; his object being to prevent newspapers being published in a pamphlet form. Ile bad also altered the clauses making printers liable to penalties in cer- tain cases : he now proposed to give them notice that they were acting illegally, before the Stump-office could proceed against them for penal- ties, if they registered their names at the Stamp-office as the printers of certain papers, and gave notice whenever they commenced print- ing a new paper.

The bill went through the Committee, after receiving various amend- meats, principally verbal.

Mr. Rice moved to add a clause reducing the duty on Irish news- papers from a penny to three farthings, by allowing 25 per cent. dis- oount on the penny stamp. The reason for this alteration was stated Ita follows by Mr. Rice— The duty at present imposed upon newspapers in Ireland was twopence, upon which a discount was allowed of 9i per cent. If, therefore, the duty were now reduced to one penny, and the discount not continued, the actual reduction afforded to the Irish newspapers would be only three farthings. Now three farthings was not an amount that the publishers could charge upon the pa ice of their paper, and it would consequeutly happen that whilst they received only the advantage of three farthings in the reduction of the duty, they would be obliged to give an advantage of one penny in the price charged to their put- chasers. By this means they would be losers to the extent of one farthing upon each paper.

Several Members wished the duty to be the same—three farthings— in both countries ; on the ground that the Irish press deserved no es- pecial privilege over the English, and that it was paltry work to Niggle about a farthing.

The clause was read a second time, by 89 to 52.

Mr. ROBINSON moved to equalize the duty in England and Ireland, by striking the word " Ireland" out of the clause. But the motion was rejected, by 106 to 61.

The Committee again divided on the question whether the clause should stand part of the bill : it was carried in the affirmative, by 104

to 79. Ple Mr. GROTE then moved the following clause.

" And he it enacted. that in the stamp to be ;Axed to each and every twwspapee under the provisions of this act, the title of such newspaper shall be expiess,t1 to such convenient manlier and form as the said Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes shall appoint ; and the said Commissioners shall cause a proper the or shunta for meal news- paper to be prepared under their direction. and a new or other stamp or the to be man time to time pre 1.4 avid in like manner as they shall think necessary ; awl the reason- able costs and expense, or preparing such stamps or dies shall be from time to lime defrayed by the proprietors of each such newspaper. and 'laid when anti as required by the said .Comtnissioners Co such person as the said Commissioners shall appoint to re- eche the saute, before any paper shall be stamped under the direction of such Com- missioners fur each such newspaper."

Mr. Grote remarked upon the frauds committed by newspaper pro- prietors, who Were enabled, under the present system, to obtain credit for the circulation of papers fur which they took out stamps in their own name, though they did riot publish them, and thereby to obtain an unfair proportion of advertisements, and to defraud the public— It was to amend that system that he now brought forward this clause, and lie could not anticipate any serious ground of objection to the proposition he was about to make. It could not occasion any inconvenience to the newspaper pro- prietors themselves; fur it could be no more inconvenience to them to have a stamp with a peculiar title than to have it without it; and as to the expense, it Was too trifling to be mentioned. He had never heard of any one newspaper being publicly hostile to such a plan ; while, on the other hand, every fair and honest proprietor must be desirous that his neighbours should be relieved from the disadvantages they laboured under from the present system. Ile did not, therefore, anticipate any opposition from the fair and honest pfoprietors of newspapers. It had been stated, as an objection to his proposal, that by the present system one country newspaper could borrow stamps from another, and by that means they could publish their full complement of circulation, whereas if there was a distinct die this could not be done. Now to this argument lie would in the first place observe, that country proprietors ought, surely, like all other tradesmen, to have sufficient foresight to make provision for their onlinary, or even for any extra circulation of their paper. But, in the second place, this argument could be of no avail whatever, inasmuch as Mr. Rice had himself, by the I 73d clause of this bill, made it illegal for one paper to transfer stamps to another. He therefore trusted, that as his proposition did not bear with any degree of hardship upon the newspaper proprietors themselves, it would not meet with any opposition.

Mr. SPRING RICE opposed the clause ; which, while it imposed a restraint on newspapers, could in no way benefit the revenue— He begged to state to the Committee, that, by the post of this day, a circular letter had been addressed by the Board of Stamps to all newspapers, stating- that any one who wished to have a distinctive die, indicative of their own paper, upon the paying the expense thereof, a die would be at once prepared. Therefore, the only question between his honourable friend and himself was, whether it should be obligatory on all papers, whether they liked it or riot, to have a distinctive die. Now, what was the argument of his honourable friend? He said, and said truly, that the House had been accustomed, from time to time, to call for returns of stamps, with a view to ascertain the extent of the circulation of newspapers, and that those returns were delusive. By reason of that delusion, those returns gave an unfair representation of the extent of the business of the respective newspapers; and so enabled, and thereby enabled, certain of them to deceive the public as to the extent of their circulatioa, which materially affected the interest of others on the subject of advertisements. He believed he had fairly stated the argument. Now he should say to Mr. Grote, that the proper way of meeting thus case was, not by imposing restrictions on newspapers, in order to avert the inconvenient consequences resulting front a wrong step originally taken, but it was by avoiding for the future to take that step which was wrong. Ile held that the Legislature lead no more right to inquire into the number of papers which any particular newspaper establish.. ment circulated, than it had to inquire into the number of stamps which had been used in an attorney's office. In fact, they had no more right to inquire into the private concerns of a newspaper establishment than they had to inquire into the private concerns of any other description of business. This had always been his opinion, and be had consequently always resisted the produc- tion of these returns. They were delusive accounts, and could not be relied on. Ile always contended, and would still contend, that so long as a news- paper avoided the commission of any offence or fraud on the revenue, it ought to be left fully free and unfettered as to the mode of its carrying on its own business. This subject of a distinctive die had been pressed upon his attention by various persons connected with the newspaper press, who attached very peat importance to it. His answer always had been, " It may be very well for you to make a peculiar mark on your paper; you shall have it if you ask for It; but 1 have no right to impose upon nine -tenths of the newspaper press a regulation which is of no use as far as regale's the revenue, and which they do not ask for, although you do." He therefore left it open to all parties to avail themselves of the power of using a distinctive die or not, as they pleased. The object of the 173d clause, to which Mr. Grote had referred, was merely to protect the revenue against the forging of stamps. Ano- ther objection to the use of the die was, that if a newspaper changed its title, all the stamps on hand marked with the old die would be lost to it.

Mr. LEADER contended that the public had a right to know the cir- culation of each newspaper. The public were so much interested in their proceedings that they had a right to know the extent of their ope- rations. Dr. BOWRING thought the adoption of a distinctive die should be permissive. Those who did not use it would labour under the oppro-

brium of having some motive for concealing the extent of their circu- lation.

Mr. ROBINSON maintained, that the public had a right to know to which paper it was beneficial to scud advertisements. Sir ROBERT PEEL Was in favour of the die— Mr. nice had said that, under his optional clause, newspapers which were of extensive circulation would take out the die, and those which did nut would lie under the opprobrium of being of small circulation. But if, in point of fact, you indirectly required them to take out a die, or else subject them to be the objects of opprobrium, why will you not go to the length of saying that the law repines that they should take Out the die? It appeared to him to he in- finitely better to take one or the other of these courses—either to say, the newspaper proprietors should he at liberty to transfer stamps from one to the other, or to say they should take out the die. But to say that it should be permissive, was altogether delusory. Unless effectual security were taken, no- thing could be accomplished. Ile was cot aware that any objection existed to the adoption of the die. The expense would be exceedingly trilliog. , Mr. Sea NG ItIr1:—" The expense would be very. tritium" Sir Itonsaa PEI-1.--" It would be so small that it could he no objection in itself. 'then it could be no restriction?"

Mr. Seat t; It tet:—‘‘ Oh! none."

Sir Boni:WE Pm:i. thought, therefore, that taking out a the would, upon the whole, be perketly fair. It would be the most effectual security to all parties, as it would still remliu Mr the House at any time to determine whether or nut returns should be made to show the actual amount of circulation of each paper.

Mr. Ric": then said, that lie had no personal.objection to the clause; he only wished it to be understood that be did not consider it one in which the revenue was affected. If the clause were agreed to, some specific period should be fixed for its coming into operation.

Mr. Gaon: had no objection to a short delay.

Mr. RICE Said, that if Air. Grote would postpone the elau,e till the bringing up of the report, he would consider the matter : he had him- self no objection to it.

The clause was postponed.

The schedules were then proposed.

Mr. GOULBURN called the attention of the Committee to the pro- posed restrictions on the size of newspapers. Ile considered that the press and the public had both gained by the alteration which allowed proprietors of newspapers to use paper of the size which best suited their purpose— Now, lie considered that if Proliament thought it right to alter the law, this at least ought to he done—to leave all the prop ietors of newspapers upon an equal footing. It was out just to select such a size for all newspapers as 1r-radii give to one particular newspaper the benefit of that which ought to he a general enactment. When, too, they considered what was likely to be the till:et of the intended change, and what were IIIMV the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he really trusted and believed that the Ilouse would have no reason to regret the amendment which he meant to propose. Now he could say that the real question between 31r. Hire and himself was this—woli'd he ;,flow the margin in the superficial measurement of the newspaper? If 31r. nice would not take (dr the margin, then there was very ge:od ground for complaint. lie would nut ask him to leave an unlimited discretion to proprietors of newspapers for the future. But he did ask him not to interfere with the prop:,rty and trade of those already established. Ile assured the House, that the question of the mat gin of newspapers Wa, now the whole question before them. More than this he did not ask far. Upon every just principle he considered it ought to he conceded. If it were conceded, the interests of trade would net be interim cd with, and the public would be gratified.

The clause limiting the size of the paper would produce extreme inconvenience— The reams of paper were soh] by weight; and in opening those reams, the sheets differed from each other so much so in the ',molter of inches, that an honest proprietor, desiring strictly to conform to the law and to have his paper within the prescribed limits, might still, without any fault of his own, have in some reams the paper exceeding in length what the law required, and thus he subject to an additional duty, or to a heavy penalty if the duty was not paid. Was it just, then, when a person was unable to measure the indivi- dual sheets, that he should be subjected to a penalty? This was certainly in- terfering with the private trader in a manner that was most injurious to the trader; and it was doing so without conferring the least advantage upon the public. Now, if they adopted the superficial matter printed—if there were to be 1530 inches of printing allowed—that was what every man would be com- petent to regulate. Thus they would have a test for controlling the size of the newspapers; and one, too, with which the individual would be able to comply.

Mr. RICE expressed his willingness to accede to Mr. Goulburn's proposition. Sir ROBERT PEET. spoke in favour of it, and it was adopted. Mr. linxtE wished to know how Mr. Rice defined a "newspaper ? ' Mr. RICE replied, that be made nothing a newspaper Which was not' one under the existing law—the 60th of George III. ' • but he omitted

the words "nor any mutter in Church or State," which in that Act, as they might be made to extend to the discussion of some point in the history of Elizabeth or Queen Ann.

Sir ROBERT PEEL urged the necessity of giving newspapers the bene- fit of the Copyright Act, under certain restrictions. Sir Robert highly eulogized the leading newspapers of the metropolis, for the talent, skill, industry, and enterprise shown in their management.

Mr. RICE observed, that this question was one of great difficulty. It

would be difficult to distinguish between original and copied foreign in- telligence, and newspaper reports. He was, however, in favour of giv- ing the desired protection to newspaper property ; and had received from persons connected with the press the sketch of a bill for that purpose, which would have his best attention. He would leave no effort untried to adjust the question in a satisfactory manner, as early as possible.

In reply to a question by Mr. B.tINF.S, Mr. Rice said, there was nothing in the bill to prevent a country newspaper proprietor getting his stamps through a London stationer.

The Committee rose, and the bill was reported to the House.

7. IRISH CHURCH BILL.

In the House of Peers, on Monday, the Irish Church Bill was read a first time.

Last night, Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading of the bill. He explained its leading provisions, but avoided entering at large into the defence of any portion of it. He stated the surplus revenue, after giving the Irish clergy larger average incomes than those enjoyed by the English clergy, nt 75,-175/. ; out of wirieh it was proposed to de- vote 50,000f. a year to the edueation of the people, without regard to sect or creed. As to the power of Parliament to make a new applica- tion of ecclesiastiral revenues, he maintained that it was abMitl. to question it : the example of this country, and of all European nations, warranted such interfereoce. Whatever might be the form of govern- ment or religions faith, it had been found impossible to leave ecclesias- tical revenues as they hurl been accumulated by the Pio), or superstition ofpast ages ; and it %vas contrary to fact, reason. experience, and com- mon sense, to say that the predominant party in Fogland could not effect such changes as might be deemed expi dicta in regard to the ecclesiastical revenues of this country. At the ,.;ittle time, he ilihnitted that the subject should not be approached except under extreme cases; and he considered that Ireland teas in extreme ease. The Duke of 11'1.1.1.1x6TON. 1*(1:11111i!IIVIItt'll oil Melbourne on the moderate tone of his speech ; and %iambi not opi ids, the second reading of the bill, but would endeavour to amend it in Committer.. He was willing to agree to some timitslifes for altering :he distrihroion of the revenues of the Irish Church ; but be believed that Lord Melbourne would be disippoirited of the magoilicent surplus upon which he ap- peared to triumph. The Doke was sure that there would be no sur- plus, according to his view of the future disttibution of the revenues of the ('hunch for the service of the people.

The bill was than read a second time, and ordered to Le committed on IVIonday.

S. Alt.mtirxr. CotteoaxTrox /Icy Ant NOMENT BILL.

Lord Chancellor roTTENitast. on 'Al reulay, moved the Peers to take into consideration the reasons of the Commons for refusing to agree to sonic of their Lordshios7 ainerulmeets to th:s bill.

The Peers agreed not to insist 1.11/011 several Of their amendments, which e.cre evidently bliniders, or very unimportant. They resolved, by it vote of 6:3 to :3:3. to insist on the ;dna:abut which couipels Town- Councils to choose their Ablvors by 14, %% II parties in the Councils are equally divided, instead of iefertieg the choice to the Burgesses at large.

The Duke of 1VELLINGTON, in supporting the alteration of the Peers, reprobated the conduct of Ministers, who bad agreed to the alteration in a Cormitittee of the House of Peers, and yet directed their Attorney-OCr.cral to oppose it in the !louse Of Commons.

Lord LyNott ens r objected ro the mode proposed by the Commons; as, unless the electioil was carried on in wards, tile Radical party would be sure to gain the day.

The Lord Chaneellor Clyurt:Nitxxt moved to postponct the considera- tion of the reasons of the Commons against continuing the old corpo- rdtors in charitable trusteeships till ilte,.;t14 IS:37; because in a few days a bill remilating the mato.:;ement of cot porde charity funds would be received bow the !loose ut Conitionia. I3nt, on the motion of Lord Lvsottetts.r, soppet ted by the lbilre of WELLINGTON, the prop Isition of Lord Cotteilliatu was rejected, alai the Peers insisted

on t amendment. A

up ti Lordships' reasons.

e‘oweitte e aptatit 1., :1 to LW h riltlity, Lund '.N, as ( of this Committee, pre- S, •11t,•11 Statl'ilit'ilt of r.;1`.11111, ;41 the 111.)11--V; waS eumuumicated to the COUllatalS 111 a COaniaittee of Conference,

Altscrt.t.xxt.oe's MATTEtts.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT BILL. On the motion of the Duke of RreilmoNn, the Peers went into Committee on this hill on Tuesday. The object of the bill is to provide for making the poor-rate assess. merit on the full %%Atte rof the property rated. The first clause was opposed by the Archbishop of CaNTsnernY and Lord ELLENDO- ROUGH, on the groom! that tithes ought not to be rated at rackrent value, though land should. The clause was carried, on a division, by 31 to 28. The other clauses were also agreed to, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Thursday. The report was brought up on Thursday ; when, after some discus.. Finn, the following proviso was added to the first clause, to meet the objections of the A:clubishop of Canterhury. " Provided that nothing in this act contained 511411 alter the principle on which different kinds of lands or beteditantents are rated under the existing law." The bill was then ordered to be read a third time on Monday week.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL. Read a third time and passed by the Peers, on Monday ; with a clause proposed by the Duke of RICHMOND by way of rider, tle^ effect of which will be to allow copies of deposi- tions taken before Alagistiates to be given to prisoners.

THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES BILT.S went through the (7 remittee on Thursday, pro Amu ; and were ordered to be reprinted, wit!: amendments proposed by Loud Ellenborough, and other opponents of the bills, which are to be discussed on a future day. L iOCESE OF DURHAM. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved, on Thorsday, for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the ecclesiastical revenues of the diocese of Durham, with a view to post- prole the alienation of any part of the revenues of the Bishop of Dur- ham. The motion was opposed by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, and Lord .MELBOURNE; and then with- drawn by Lord LONDONDERRY.

THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL went through the Committee bust night. The principal discussion was on a motion by Lord HAD.. DINGTON, to insert a clause enacting that any alteration made in the course of theologival study should be comm uu Mated to the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. Lord MELBOURNE and Lord HOLLAND opposed this clause; but it was carried, by 16 to 8.

DUNDEE WATER - WORKS BILL. Lord BANDON reported, on Tuesday, from the Committee on this bill, that the preamble had not been proved.

PAPER. DUTIES BILL. Read a third time and passed, by the Com- mons, on Monday.

COUNTY ELECTIONS Pott Bit.L. On Monday, Lord JOHN Ibis- SELL moved that the report on this bill be received. Colonel SIB.. TH E moved, that the report be received that day six months. Mr. Foauss moved that, as it was very lute (past one o'clock), the House should adjourn. For the motion of adjournment, ; against it, 52. Mr. FORBES again moved the udjournment, and Lord JOHN Ressuss gave way ; observing, that the session would be protracted five or six weeks longer if public business was only taken at an early hour.

POST-OFFICE. On the motion for the second reading of the Post- office Bill, on Thursday, Mr. WALLACE moved a string of nineteen resolutions in favour of a complete revision of the system on which that department is conducted. Mr. WALLACE supported his resolu- tions in a long speech ; but at once withdrew them on the suggestion of Mr. SPRING RICE; and the bill, which was strongly approved of by Lord LOWTHER, was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Moniay.