Orinttrl ant Prisurtin0in 3arTiararnt.

—. ADDRESS TO TIIE KING. In the House of Lords on Wednes- day, Earl GREY, after a general allusion to the attack upon the King, by the sailor Collins, at Ascot Races, moved,

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, to express to his Ma- jesty our horror and indignation at the late atrocious and treasonable attempt upon his Majesty ; and our heartfelt congratulations that his Majesty escaped from it without injury to his sacred person. To express to his Majesty the deep concern. which we feel at there having been found, within his Majesty's domi- nions, a person capable of so flagitious an attempt ; and that we make it our earnest prayer to Almighty God that he will preserve to us the blessings which we enjoy under his Majesty's just and mild Government, and continue to watch over and protect a life so justly dear to us."

In introducing the motion, Earl Grey alluded to the precedents of addresses to George the Third, on the occasion of the attack by the insane female Margaret Nicholson in 1787; in October 1795, on a stone or bullet being discharged at the royal carriage while proceeding to Parliament; and again on Hatfield's attempt in the theatre in 1800. Earl Grey also mentioned the case of the assault on the Prince Regent in 1817. After noticing the particulars of the attack, and the com- mittal of the individual for high treason, Earl Grey concluded—.

" It is certainly gratifying to know, that, whether the perpetrator of the offence was led on by liquor or by madness, or by any other excitation, there is i no ground for suspecting that others were concerned n the attempt. Another consolation for us to know is, that the moment his Majesty appeared after the attack, there was one general expression of that loyal feeling which all English- men would naturally manifest on such an occasion. That the attack that was thus made was deep and flagitious in its nature, and that it is treasonable in its amount, no one can doubt ; and I am therefore sure that, under these circum- stances, which are known to all, there is no man among your Lordships that will not feel it to be the duty, as I sin sure it is the wish of this House, to vote an address expressive of those sentiments which every one must entertain who is acquainted with the King's paternal conduct, his affection and attachment to his subjects, and his sincere desire to support the Constitution."

The Earl of Er.no's said he heartily concurred in the address, and only regretted that it was moved in so thin a House; for he felt assured there was no member of the House who would not deem it a matter of feeling as well as duty to concur in it.

Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the thinness of the House was purely a matter of accident, arising out of its being a day not set apart for business. It was impossible to postpone the motion so as to allow their Lordships to be summoned, otherwise the attendance would necessarily have been most numerous. The Earl of ELDON agreed that the day of the week sufficiently es- • plained the thinness of the House. He believed not a single absent Peer would think that his absence would justify an hour's delay of the motion.

Earl GREY- " That is exactly the motive which made me propose this address im- mediately. When I heard of the occurrence, I was out of town ; and I have only arrived in town in time to frame the address ; so that I have had no op- portunity of giving any notice. I am, however, convinced, that if the address could have been deferred till to-morrow, and notice given, there would have been one of the fullest attendances ever witnessed in this House."

A Committee was appointed to draw up the address; wlich haviug retired, after a few minutes returned, with the document prcpared. A conference with the Commons, to request the concurrence of that House, was then sought, and granted.

In the Commons, the subject was introduced by Lord ALTHORP, after the request of the Peers for a conference had been made, and the cause of the conference reported to the IIouse. Lord Althorp ob- served, that Every man, not only in that House, but throughout the country, must feel indignaot, that so atrreious and violent an attack. :liould have been committed on his Majesty's peesiel, when appearing before his subjects ),:eterday. Fortu- nately, Lis Majesty reeei veil no injury ; and it was gratifying to reflect, that evhen his Majesty al.: enel heL,,• his people, he was recelved with the strongest

expressions of ap■ile ,•, and -., ea entliuniasin tillich must have convinced

his Mide.av the, ee red in the indignatmn by who h they were

all animated. I e hat the expreasions of itidignation to which

he had alluded e.', .••• - e. :tit any period, by every one of good feeling; but • e: the Frie,eht tine, wilco the couutry•

owed so St !: 1., they considered what pains

his AIajeety e,n nani, ,e,i51 the.wliole coune of conduct which he lied pmeued, it tot: , ,,,t aetenielonent that any indi-

vidual ceuld timed, anOoe. coehl be guilty of so ilagitieus and

atrocious au iittaek nine: i u lIe coneluded by muvie that the house concur, as requested, in the address of the Lords.

Sir ROBERT PEEL seconded the motion. Ire spoke of the attack, whether proceeding from derangement or otherwise, as one which should induce every Inau to eadeavour to allay the excitement that now prevailed in the country. He adverted to :Cir. Home's :illusion to the fear of pliy:;icid force us the cause which hal to Catholi-e Emancipation, and had produced Ileform-

When he conceded the P.ienfia Catholic Relief 3ihl, he had not yielded to physical force ; and when the 1 enneible gentleman \\Tilt On to asscrt that the pre- sent Ministers had done the sine with regard to the Ramo Bill, he -.yes li,onislied that the honourable member coehl proneunce such a libel upon hie friends and supporters out of doors, who eli gloried in what they called a bloodless Revolu- tion, effected only by tie here of reason and justice. To suilject Ole lionse on all oc- casions to the threat of physical force, was nothing more not les,- than the vilest and most degrading tyranny ; and it would be better at once to coroai tote a mob-com- mittee, to sit (he would nut say to deliberate) from day to day, and to issue its man- dates to be executed by the Ministers of the day. For one, he never would con- sent to sit in that House, and listen patiently to doctrines destructive not only of good government, but of every species of subordination. He advised those who talked of physical force, to look to other countries, in order that they might see its triumphs, and the womlers it had accomplished for personal freedom and the liberty of the presi. The physical force the honourable member for Middlesex wished to be called into actien, was similar to that which this day, the 18.th of June, the anniversary of the glories of Waterloo, had insulted the Duke of Wellington, the achiever of these glories, and the deliverer of Europe.

Mr. STANLEY deprecated allusions to topics of political difference— He deeply regretted that Sir Robert Peel should have intermixed with the expressieus of the indiAelailon of the House, and its abhorrence of the treasonable attack nude upon the pasun of his Majesty, sentiments and expressions which might lead, if the House were so disposed, to the opening of great political ques- • tions, which at this moment, and for too long a period, had disturbed the coun- try, and which it was the duty of every loyal subject to endeavour to allay. It was impossible that any man could consider with any other feelings than those of disgust, nay, even of shame, the disgraceful attack lately made on the person of the Duke of Wellington; but it was equally impossible not to feel a double disgust for the outrage, when it was considered that the occasion chosen for its commission was the anniversary of an event which had permanently secured the peace of Europe, and earned fresh laurels for the illustrious conqueror and new glories for his country, which it should remain for an Englishman to tarnish by attacking the conquering hero of Waterloo. Great as the disgust must be with reference to this subject, how much must it be enhanced and raised to a higher degree, because, ia the instance before the House, the outrage was directed to a higher and more sacred object—on one who possessed not only a personal, but a constitutional claim on the loyalty and affections of his people. The whole peo- ple of England repelled, reprobated, and shrunk from the attack made on the King; and he regretted that the right honourable baronet should, on the present occasion, have thought it necessary to connect together matters not only utterly unconnected, but also incapable of being connected, save by a link that united all that was base and sordid. He spoke for both Houses of Parliament, and for the People of England, when he said that they shrunk with horror and disgust from both these attacks; but at the same time he would add, what would do no disgrace to the Duke of Wellington—namely, that Mr. Stanley thought less of the instance referring to the noble duke, than of the attack made upon one to whom, on account of his high station and public character, the people of Eng- land looked with feelings of affection and reverence. He repeated, he regretted extremely there should be any attempt or tendency to mix up with politics the subject before the House; but he was the sure the House would not be disturbed by that circumstance from coming readily forward to join with the other House of Parliament in the proposed address of congratulation to his Majesty on his escape from danger, and expressive of their detestation of the atrocious attempt which had been made upon his Majesty's sacred person.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, in explanation, that he alluded to the expres- sions of Mr. Hume on a late occasion, and to a phrase used by the same gentleman on a former occasion, that "the day of vengeance was come."

If a member for the Metropolitan county told the people that they should re- sort to the use of physical force if their grievances were not redressed, and talked of the day of vengeance being come, could they wonder that an ignorant man should be led away by the promulgation of such opinions, and fancy that he had a right to vindicate his personal wrongs by physical force?

.Mr..HUME complained ot the utter unfairness of such allusions—

If he had used language of the nature and character attributed to him, why had not Sir Robert Peel, or some other member, moved on the instant that it be taken down? Such, however, had not been done; . and it was now unfair and uncandid to repeat any allusion to expressions which he altogether denied.

• Nom= could say that he had not been the first to advise the People on all oc- casions to keep within the law, and to avoid any thing like the commission of a breach of peace or of good order.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL maintained that Sir Robert Peel had a perfect fight to connect .• the .outrage on .the.Duke of Wellington with that which had been committed on the King. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT lamented the attack committed upon the Duke of Wellington, whom he warmly eulogized. As to the attack upon the King, it was the isolated act of an individual, by which no nation or class could be degraded, for there were desperate and infamous indivi- duals in all nations and classes—

He protested not only against the attacks alluded to, but against others of an even more atrocious description, which had not been alluded to, and which must excite disgust unutterable in every true-hearted Englishman—in every manly mind : he alluded to the vile, the loathsome, the execrable attacks upon one whose sex, not less than her illustrious station, ought to have been her protec- tion—the attacks upon an illustrious lady, who had been brought forward in a way most deeply disgraceful to Eng1ishweta and which gave him doubt and ap- prehension where this incipient spirit of baseness might lead to.

The allusion to the Qucon ica lv caught up by Mr. Croker.

He admitted teat time nun wit ia 1 it-tilted the King might be mad :

if to meson fidsely feet; fel ee was madness, he certainly was

as mad as any one ' from Bedlam.

iy from madness ? Was he not pursu- is the first insult which had been e: 'sty, in coming to town from his !lie road by which his grandfather, . re ,a. 1? And was it possible not to ? He did not mean to con- to connect tile two t.tots of people. He

it • e eeeite went whieh, he main- ( Alinisters, to • whieh was calcu-

• , eel to call the pulffications the hands of e:: more horrible deteeetien. Ent this was town—and they all knew !,, :here 1..ol heen a representa-

e toieen be.) odium ; and lest the the play-bilis gave at full length

• la He WaS Jul p055C551011 of one of er libel never was published. He i They might not have heard of rl:c bill from a man who brought it from

But did ties

ing ti ,:!UTV

? li•I ;.• palace at Hleor, elei obliend e his father. e !e e her had he, • t•

ti lin,■!.

eat! late'! :•. elate'! :Otero:,

wide!, old paoeeee eed than that of w'•1- not all 1:,: the (-11 •,•: •

tion ill Iiv .

piece itself shouhl the gro:-,est •1 those play-bills, awl lie • mentioned this as a war this. He happened to 1,:e the theatre. lie now wi. ca :11.2 '''' :•mters. The act of this maniac was to be scouted as the act of a nom: lot it was net to be despised ; for the nature of your politkal maniacs: was to be excited by public excitement. There was no instance in which such peri,ons nee o not excite,l. awl urged forward by some great degree of public vont:notion, pro:loco(' by egitition, liv the Press, and by

violent and gross attacks mem the and Queen and other high personages of the realm: Therenire, it was not irrAwant to conneet these matters with the subject before them; tool he hoped the (.:Ivernineet would take them into their consideration.

Lord . JOIN RossEte. said. in ref; romp to the theatre—the Coburg —he had then heard of the lihel connected w:th it for the first time. The law, he thought, ought, in that case, to take its course. In the other libels alluded to, the diflieulty was to attempt to suppress, without spreading them.

Mr. CROKER pledged biteaelf the play-bill was as atrocious a libel as ever was published.

Mr. T. DUNC031111: said, Tr. Davidge lead been examined Concerning the play-bill alluded to, before the Bow Street Magistrates . It ap-

peared that it had been printed and placarded during Mr. Davidge's absence from town ; when he saw it he instantly bad it taken down, and

the announcement altered. There WilS no alteration whatever in the play, which was Tom Themb. An illustrious Duke,* it appeared, was present in the Coburg one evening during the performance of Tom Thumb, and saw it performed as it would have been in any other theatre in the kingdom.

Mr. HUNT blamed nothing and nobody kr the attacks on the King and Queen, but the Times.

Was it wonderful that their Majesties should be thus treated? Were there not attacks made on the Queen day after day in the Times, and were there not similar attacks upon the King for having been led by the Queen ? It was to this circumstance he attributed what haul occurred : lie should be ashamed of himself if he did not thus allude to the Times newspaper as being engaged iii instigat- ing the public to those acts of violence. De thought, with Sir Francis Burdett, the member for Westminster, that acts like those in question were dastardly and cowardly acts, let the individual against whom they were directed be as unpo- pular as he might. There was quite sufficient in the Times to account for the attacks made on the Duke of Wellington. Did not the Times say the mob might yet pull him to pieces, as a mob once treated De Witt?

After some further conversation on the play-bill thus introduced to the notice of the House, the address was read a second time and agreed to.

2. IRISH REFORM BILL. On Monday, a conversation took place on the motion for the order of the day being read with a view to the House going into Committee on this Bill.

Mr. PRAED said, that, according to the principles on which Mr. O'Connell's calculation of the number of members due to Ireland pro- ceeded, if Ireland got 178, England would get 1,004.

Mr. BLOLTNT, formerly the Secretary of the English Catholic Asso- ciation, in reply to a question of Mr. PETRE, stated, that the English Catholics would at no time have been satisfied with a less measure of Reform than they have received. The question was put in allusion to. an opinion said to have been hazarded by Mr. O'Connell, that the English Catholics would have been content with being allowed to act as justices of the peace.

Mr. O'CONNELL denied that he said they would have been contented with such a permission : what he said was, that they would have looked upon it as a boon. He commented on the conduct of the English Catholics in dividing against the restoration of their rights to the forty-

shilling freeholders, by whose exertions the Emancipation Bill had been obtained.

He beard the honourable and learned gentleman, after the division on that night, say, referring to the vote given by the English Catholic members on that occasion, that they -should be disfranchised of their rights, and that the penal code should be again applied to them. The English Catholic members expressed their opinions independently upon a certain subject ; and for so doing, the honourable and learned member would resubject them to the penal code ! Was the honourable member aware that such doctrine would justify altogether the existence of the penal code, for that code was enacted solely against opinions ?

Mr. O'CONNELL congratulated Mr. Petre on the defender which his conduct had procured— A defender who had kept him from his rights as long as he could, and who had at length conceded them to him voluntarily and of his own accord,—that was to say, vhen he was compelled to do so by the Irish people. Mr. O'Con- nell had not said that he wished the English Catholics to be unemancipated : what he had said was, that the English Catholic members who voted against the forty-shilling freeholders deserved to be deprived of the benefits of emancipation. Sir Robert Peel was possessed of a singular advantage with egard to this sub- ject, for haviag been on both sides of the question, he was enabled to speak with great facility on one side or the other.

Sir Roam'. PEEL replied with great severity to this attack upon his consistency— He would put it to the candour and good sense of tile House, whether Mr. O'Connell bad defended himself by attempting to divert the attention of the House, by making an attack on him. Ile agreed with the honourable and leavited gentleman, that there were politicians often destitute of principle ; and hefivould venture to add, that there were politicians who scrupled not to keep a whole country in agitation, and to prevent the return of tranquillity and pros- perity there, in order to promote their own private and personal ends. He would ask the House if there was common sense in the position, that members of Parliament, and those members Catholic, should, on account of their having given an independent vote, be deprived of their rights, and have a code of disabili- ties applied to them? That was what Mr. O'Connell would do with them, if he had the power to do so. The French Liberals had acted on this doctrine ; and when they got into power, displayeesuch. tyranny as never was exhibited before.

Mr. O'CONNELL said what he would do in power, was matter of prophecy, and Sir Robert Peel was a poor prophet : what Sir Robert had done, was matter of history.

Mr. LEFROY presented a petition from a society calling itself the Protestant Conservative Society, praying that instead of a 10/. fran- chise, there should be in the Irish boroughs a SO/. franchise, to put them on the same footing as in England.

The Speaker having put the question for the House going into Com- mittee, Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move an instruction to the Committee, that the franchise should be extended to persons possessing a clear free- hold of 5/. a year. In making his motion, he complained that so im- perfect information had been afforded the House respecting the popu- lation of Ireland ; he deprecated also the want of copies of the charters of the several boroughs, the whole of which were accessible. He pro- ceeded to speak of the provisions of the present Bill. In the former Bill, the English form of registry was provided for. The dissolution took place, and the country, acting on that compact, returned Reform members. Now the compact was broken, by allowing the registry to remain as it was. This change had been introduced by the Tory :At- torney-General of Ireland. He commented on the narrowness of the Irish constituency. In seven counties, the 10/. voters would not exceed 400 each; in five more, they would not average more than 500: The entire constituency, he repeated, would not exceed 26,000—no human ingenuity would raise it above that number. As to the M. lease- holders, concerning which a notice of motion had been given, lie denied that any such class existed in Ireland. He asked why the freeholders of towns should not be allowed to vote for counties. In England, that right was taken away because of the distinction of interests commer- cial and agricultural ; but in Ireland no such distinction existed. If there were, on what principle was the franchise taken from freeholders of towns being counties in.themselves ? He commented on the spirit that was exhibited by the House in reference to the Irish Bill— The objet of all parties in the House seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was jus- tified in making this statement, when he saw two -members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was absolutely impossible that there should be a single Roman Catholic voter. If a system such as this was acted on, he declared that the Catholic question still remained to be settled. The 10/. franchise in Ireland was admitted by the member for Tamworth to be equal to a 201. franchise in England ; and it would seem that the Irish constitu- ency was to be rendered as narrow as possible, lest Catholic interests should ac- quire to great a preponderance. The only effect of such unjust and short- sighted legislation would be to prevent the Irish Bill from being final, seeing that it would not give one hour's contentment, or satisfy any party in the coun- try. In fact, there seemed to be a fatuity not easily to be accounted for in the conduct of Ministers on every subject connected with Ireland. The only thing in which they had succeeded in that country was this—they had effectually dis- gusted all parties. He might be told, that if he introduced improvements in this bill, the consequence would be to occasion the loss of the measure elsewhere; but after the example of the English Reform Bill, he was not much afraid of the Lords. Besides, let matters come to the worst, the Bill could only be lost; and he was willing to submit to its loss, if it could not be rendered satisfactory o the Irish people. He would rather encounter an injury than an insult.

Mr. STANLEY replied to the objections of Mr. O'Connell to the Bill, by a long and bitter tirade against that gentleman. He spoke of the contradiction between Mr. O'Connell's words and his acts— Mr. O'Connell, he doubted not, was most anxious to conciliate the Protestants of Ireland; he was undoubtedly desirous (in accordance with his own professions) to continue, augment, and perpetuate, the most kindly and liberal lings between the people of England and Ireland : yet, although such were the learned gentleman's objects, never was there man whose public conduct so grossly belie(' and contradicted his own professions—never man who took more studious or effectual means to mar lbe objects which he protested he had at heart. Did Mr. Stanley make an unfounded charge? Was not the learned gentleman the man who, while nominally calling upon the people to obey the law, spared no pains to excite their passions to its violation ?—was not he the person to preach conciliation and sow the seeds of bitter disunion ?—the individual who, while declining himself anxious to co-operate with the Government, assailed individual members of the Administration with abuse, not disgraceful to them, but utterly and ruinouslyi disgraceful to the man who uttered it, and at the same time ventured to claim the character of a gentleman?

He quoted a passage in one of Mr. O'Connell's letters, in which the

writer said he cared not though Mr. Stanley were starved in this world and damned in the next— This was the way in which the learned gentleman proceeded : with concilia- tion on his tongue, he scattered abroad the principles of disunion and irritation :— whenever he had occasion to allude to Mr. Stanley, he designated him, not as "an Englishman," but by what he considered the opprobrious epithet of " the Saxon ; " and this was the learned gentleman's mode of conciliating and co- operating with the Government ! Was the learned gentleman's conduct or speeches likely to hasten the progress of the Bill ?—did he expect to give satis- faction to anybody. by his proceedings ? If the learned gentleman wished to im- prove or alter the Bill, why not go into Committee with that view—the Corn.. mittee which he nightly delayed by discursive speeches ? and in which Com- mittee he would enjoy full opportunity for making every motion that he now proposed in the more inconvenient form of instructions.

As to the change in the plan of registry, it was suggested by Irish members—it was suggested by. Sir Henry Parnell. An alteration had been made in leaseholds : the English Bill was twenty-one years ; the first Irish Bill was nineteen years, the present Bill was fourteen years. The 50/. rent qualification had been omitted, at the special request of Mr. O'Connell himself. When the proper time came for considering the several amendments proposed in the Bill, he would go into the con- sideration of them candidly, with it view to the practical improvement of the Bill ; which lie would not deny admitted of improvement. The English plan of registration was but an experiment : let the working of both systems be watched, and that chosen which seemed best. Mr. Stanley went into a criticism of the reasoning by which Mr. O'Connell arrived at the conclusion that the county constituency of Ireland would not exceed 25,000; but he offered no counter-statement—indeed he admitted that he did not know the number. He spoke of the people of Scotland as much more stinted in the measure of Reform dealt to them than the Irish, and yet as magnanimously receiving the Bill as it was proffered— Not so with the learned member, who, in fact, made it a matter of complaint against Ministers that they did not throw themselves into the arms of one of the parties that Ministers, Ireland with the view to destroying its adversary. Ministers would do no such thing—they would not identify themselves with any faction or party, but would consult the general weal, uninfluenced by either.

Mr. Hum r. said, the concession to Ireland of as large a measure of reform as had been granted to England, was the more justly due, be- cause the Irish members were the persons through whose assistance the reform in England had been chiefly gained. Mr. Stanley's anger at Mr. O'Connell's announcement of his determination to agitate, was misapplied : he entirely forgot, that but for agitation, the Catholic Bill would never have been granted ; for that, and for every measure of amelioration extorted from the English Administration, Whig or Tory, the Irish were indebted to the dread of physical force produced by agi- tation, and to nothing else. Mr. Hume spoke of the flimsy pretext on which an additional member was to be granted to Trinity College— Was it not an insult to the people of Scotland, to give a college like that of Dublin—remarkable for nothing so much as the blustering bigotry of its reve- rend professors---two members, while the Universities of Scotland, which in one year have advanced the interests of science and literature more than the aptly- named "silent sister" has done in half a century, do not return a single mem- ber ? And all to promote Protestant ascendancy—that is, Orange oppression! But the people of Ireland would not, and ought not to be thus trifled with. Sir ROBERT PEEL fired at Mr. Hume's allusion to physical force. So, after that House had agreed to One great measure of reform, an honour- able member had the audacity to threaten them with an appeal to physical force on a mere question of detail—of choice between a 10/. and a 5/. franchise. He would tell the honourable member that he for one would to the last moment of his existence protest against such tyranny, and at all hazards resist such an ap- peal to physical force. If the proposition to reduce the suffrage qualification from 10/. to Si. warranted such a dangerous appeal to physical force, why should not the advocate of a 2/. vote, or of no pecuniary qualification at all, also force his measure by a like appeal to the mere physical force of the multitude ? Where was the limit to the application of the principle,. if once admitted? who could venture to circumscribe its horizon ? In fact, if once admitted, was there not an end to all social order, and to every thing like a government ? But mark the contradictory statements of the two physical-force advocates. The learned member for Kerry—so glib with his oily and crocodile professions of peace in that House, and so glib with blustering and exciting appeals to the angry pas- sions of the multitude out of doors—told them, by way of boast, that the Ca- tholic Relief Bill was obtained without bloodshed or violence on the part of the Irish people by means the most constitutional and peaceable ; while, on the contrary, the honourable member for Middlesex told them that it was extorted from a reluctant Government by the threat of physical force. There was not a Reformer of England that would not pronounce the honourable member's doc- trine a libel on the English people, particularly so far as it applied to the boasted abstinence of violence with reference to the English Reform Bill on the part of its advocates out of doors. If propositions like that then before the House were to be carried by mere tyrannical threats to appeal to physical force, it would be better at once to throw up the innckery of a deliberative assembly, and hand' over the functions of the Legislature to the delegates of the lowest rabble. Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought the Bill would effect a great good in the suppression of the nomination boroughs.

Mr. CRAMPTON charged Mr. O'Connell with having expressed, on the 24th March last year, when the Bill was introduced, his approbation of the 10/. franchise.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, he had been entirely misreported.

Mr. CRAMPTON, however, went on to quote Hansard and the Mirror of Parliament, with a view to show that he had approved of that franchise.

This led to a retort from Mr. O'CONNELL; who said he had written to Ireland to show the falsity—the utter abandonment of truth—which Mr. Crampton had shown in his statement.

The Speaker having interfered—

Mr. O'CoNNELL asked whether " falsity " was not a Parliamentary word? - The Speaker considered no Word to be Parliamentary which was calculated to give personal offence to any person. Mr. O'CONNELL then said, that what he had expressed his approval of, was a 10/. chattel franchise, not a 101. freehold franchise.

The House at length divided on Mr. O'Connell's motion: for it 44; against it, 177.

In Committee, Mr. O'CONNELL moved to substitute 101. for 204 so as to give the franchise to persons possessed for a term of years of a clear interest of 10/. He explained at the same time, that the words complained of by Mr. Stanley were written when, Mr. Stanley being Secretary for Ireland, common thief-takers were sent to arrest Mr. O'Connell for a bailable offence. Mr. Stanley should also recollect the pains taken to pack a jury against him.

The amendment was not pressed to a division.

On the first clause being put, Mr. MuttEes moved a clause to give the franchise to tenants in occupation, who paid a rent of 301. on a lease originally of nineteen years' length.

Mr. STANLEY opposed this. It was negatived, after a short conver- sation, by 161 to 9.

The further consideration of the Irish Bill was then deferred till Monday.

3. BOUNDARIES BILL. On the third reading of this bill, last night, Mr. MoitEtoN moved the substitution of Wootton-under-edge for Thonibury, as the place of nomination for the western district of Glou- cester. This amendment was rejected, by 83 to 54.

Sir ROBERT PEEL moved that Litchfield be substituted for Walsall, as one of the polling-places of the Southern division of Stafford. This was agreed to.

Mr. BLAMIRE moved that the boundaries of Whitehaven be restricted to those pointed out by the local act 56th George III. The report of the Commissioners stated that the borough possessed 500 voters; yet they had included a large rural district, that contained only 30 voters at present, but which, being entirely the property of Lord Lonsdale, gave that nobleman the power of controlling the elections of the borough.

Mr. JAMES seconded Mr. Blamire's motion. Lord ALTHORP re- . sisted it ; chiefly on the ground, that by the local act the boundaries of Whitehaven were not fixed, but would be shifted from time to time as different places came successively under the operation of the act. The motion was rejected by 82 to 23.

Mr. GEORGE BANKES wished to add the parish of Trinity, lying on the opposite side of the Frome, to Dorchester. Mr. PORTMAN said, Trinity would add but one vote. Mr. BANKES said it would add three. The amendment was not pressed.

Mr. BEST moved the addition of the Isle of Purbeck to Wareham. Mr. PORTMAN thought it would have been better to give Purbeck a member of its own. Mr. RomNsoN was of opinion that Corfe Castle had been improperly overlooked. Mr. G. BANKES pressed for the junction of Purbeck with Wareham as tending to popularize the con- stituency of the latter. Ministers seemed disposed to accede to Mr. Best's motion ; when Mr. CALCRAFT entered the House, and declared that the addition would inevitably swamp Wareham altogether, and cause its representative to be nominated by the proprietors of the late borough of Corfe Castle, whose powers of nomination it had been the express object of the Reform Bill to destroy. The motion was nega- tived, by 122 to 55.

Mr. TENNYSON then submitted his amendment respecting Stamford. He stated that the necessary consequence of the addition of the parish of St. Martin would be to deliver the borough into the hands of the :Mar- quis of Exeter. It was the wish of the independent electors that the borough should rather be disfranchised altogether than thus converted into a nomination borough. Mr. Tennyson said, if the House adhered to the present boundaries of Stamford, a new Reform Bill would soon be necessary, as well as a new Schedule A. No independent man would ever again sit for the borough.

Mr. WILES seconded the motion. The proposed union was calcu- lated to deprive the electors of Stamford of all the privileges which they had so honourably struggled to attain, and so worthily exercised.

Lord A ttnone defended the addition, as a consequence of the general rule. St. Martin's was an actual part of the town of Stam- ford, united with it by the Militia Acts and Assessed Taxes. If the Commissioners had gone into the question of probable influences, the Bill would have been the most partial and unjust that ever was pre- sented to Parliament.

The amendment was rejected, on a division, by 172 to 19.

After some verbal amendments, the bill was then read a third time, and passed.

4. STATE OF IRELAND. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord BROUGHAM requested the Earl of Roden to postpone his motion on Ireland until the arrival of Lord Plunkett; which, from the pres- sure of business in the Irish Chancery Court, would not take place until the end of the ensuing week.

The Earl of RODEN objected to postponement, on the ground that Government alone was responsible for what had occurred there, and that the state of the country came officially under the cognizance of the Home Secretary.

Lord MELBOURNE admitted this ; but contended, that there were many subjects that the Chancellor of Ireland was alone capable of sa- tisfactorily explaining. He felt sure that Lord Roden would not wish to take advantage of that nobleman's absence.

On this allusion to taking advantage, the Earl of Rot:EN:declared, that after such an insinuation, he must proceed.

Lord MELBOURNE and Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the Earl of Roden was wholly mistaken in supposing that Government sought to divide their responsibility with Lord Plunkett; but it was evidently impossible, in the absence of that nobleman, to treat satisfactorily a subject with which he alone was fully acquainted.

Lord EteENnoeounit said, if Ministers thought the public service would suffer from the discussion, he would advise its postponement.

Earl GREY thought the state of Ireland would not suffer from the postponement From all accounts, the late attempts to enforce the law had been attended with success.

The Earl of RODEN at length consented to postpone his motion till Monday week.

5. POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND. On Tuesday, Mr. SADLER proposed a resolution, declaring it to be expedient to form a provision for the poor of Ireland, by means of a levy on the real property of that part of the United Kingdom, and particularly of the real property of absentees. When he last brought forward this subject, the indefinite nature of his resolutions was objected to; and it had been his intention in conse- quence to proceed on this occasion by bill, had not second thoughts convinced him that the form of resolution was preferable. He pro- ceeded to argue the question of the establishment of poor-laws in Ire- land on general principles. In all other countries the necessity of such laws was recognized. The poverty of Ireland especially called for them. The abuse of poor-laws in England was no more than all hu- man institutions were liable to. The distress of Ireland was the fruitful source of trouble there, and it deluged England with Irish labour, and thus tended to degrade the labouring classes of both countries. He denied that a legal provision for the poor diminished private charity, but the contrary. Mr. STANLEY complained, that after the House had been promised a definite measure with which they could grapple, they were again put off with a resolution neither from which, nor from Mr. Sadler's speech, was it at all possible to guess even at what plan he contemplated for removing the distress he had described. It was impossible that Government should, by supporting such a resolution, pledge themselves to a measure of whose principle and details they were wholly ignorant. The circumstances of the present Parliament forbade such a pledge. How could a Parliament which was not to meet again agree to a reso- lution which went to bind its successor? Mr. Stanley quoted an act which be had chiefly introduced to prove whether there existed in Ireland such a system of parish machinery as would render the intro- duction of poor-rates practicable— It was an act for amending the 58th and 59th of Geo. III., for the prevention of contaeious and epidemic diseases in Ireland. Though it only gave the power to Vestries to assess for the purpose of meeting the extremest casts of distress, be was anxious to ascertain from a trial of it, lhow far a more extensive system of compulsory relief might be safely introduced into Ireland ; and a clause in the act gave full power to Vestries to assess for the relief of distress coupled with disease, and also enabled them to afford employment to able-bodied persons who could not get work.

He referred to the act, and read certain clauses in it, by which it appeared that the officers of the Board of Health were to be appointed by the Vestry of the parish, and were armed with the power of bor- • rowing money from the consolidated fund, for the purposes of the relief - of the poor, in case of danger from sickness.

Were not these, he would ask, officers for the relief of the poor, and was not this act a poor-law? After some observations on the difficulty of defining absenteeism, and the manifest injustice as well as impolicy of taxing absentee mort- gagees, Mr. Stanley concluded by moving the previous question.

Mr. CHAPMAN supported the amendment. It was impossible to do any thing in the present Parliament, and he expected much from the next.

Mr. JAMES GRATTAN thought the numerous reports on the table on. the subject of Mr. Sadler's motion sufficiently relieved him from the charge of proposing an indefinite measure. Mr. Grattan felt assured that the demand for the repeal of the Union would never cease, until the condition of the working classes of the two countries was assimi- lated.

• Mr. Starcietmen thought a well-defined system of poor-laws would do much good in Ireland. He would support the resolution, but at the - present period of the session he thought it would be as well not to press it to a division.

Mr. WvsE said, until the tithe question was settled, he would vote neither way.

Mr. RUNE observed, that Mr. Sadler had made out no case— He did not and could not show that any advantage resulted from the English poor-laws. So far were they from conferring benefit, that Mr. Hume con- tended the system destroyed the independence of the people, without effectually relieving their poverty.The poor-laws threatened to swallow up the fee-simple of the land. The condition of the Northern and Southern districts of this country was very strongly contrasted : it would be found that in the former, where the poor-laws were not enforced in the same manner as in the latter, the people were morally and physically in a better situation than in the South. The same remark applied to the Northern and Southern parts of Scotland.

Mr. SIIEIL thought that it should be first tried how far the surplus of the Church property would suffice for the maintenance of the poor, before any other expedient was had recourse to.

Mr. SPRING RICE thought it most absurd to attempt to establish a system in Ireland so notoriously full of defects as the English system was. If the alloy could be taken from it—if it could be rendered bene- ficial where it had been already in use—then we might speak of extend- ing it.

Mr. O'CONNELL strongly opposed the resolution-- The tendency of such laws was to put an end to social charities—instead of being an exercise of Christian feeling, it was opposed to it. He did not believe that there was a worse species of practical infidelity than that of a system which dammed up the sources of Christian charity into the narrowest channels, and took away its power of flowing freely among the habitations of the wretched. He denied that there was any right of the poor to be supported by the rich— he denied the right of any man to put his hand into the pocket of any other man to obtain his own support. The only right of this kind was where a man left the poor his heirs, in which case they really had a right, but there the limit of the right stopped. In all other circumstances, men ought to be left to the natural sources of charity; and if there were no poor-laws, there would be no end of those sources.

Mr. J. SMITH strongly urged the necessity of some legislative provi- sion, because of the impossibility of again rousing the English to commiserate the sufferings of the Irish poor, should a general case Of distress, such as had been on two occasions so munificently relieved, again occur.

After a reply frem Mr. SADLER, the House divided : for the pre- vious question, 77; against it, 58; majority against the resolution, 19.

6. CHURCH PROPERTY. On Monday, Lord KING, in presenting petitions to the House of Lords on the subject of English tithes, said— The Reform Bill had now passed, and the people would naturally expect to see its effects. Schedule A, that great protector of abuses, was now passed away ; and the people would look for the removal of the abuses which it had 80 long fostered and defended, whether they were in Church or State. The pub- lic now began to be sensible that the revenue of the Church was a property with which it had as much right to interfere as it had with that which paid the Mi- nisters of State. It was impossible that the Legislature should any longer tole- rate such abuses as now existed in every part of the country, of clergymen receiving large incomes, for which they did no duty, while they gave to the curates, by Whom the duty was performed, not enough for a bare stibsistence. He had mentioned a case of this kind which occurred near Exeter, and another in Oxfordshire. There was another in a parish near Yeovil, from which the incumbent, who was a prebendary of Lincolu, received 6001. or 700/. a year, and 'paid his curate only 304 a year. Thee were only a few of the cases which might be mentioned, but they were abuses Nvhich, few or many, could not be allowed to continue longer.

No reply was made to Lord King's observations, though the Bishop of London was present.

7. MILITARY FLOGGING. Mr. Hu:ser brought forward, on Tuesday, his motion for an address to the King to suspend all flogging in the Army for a twelvemonth. Mr. limit's whole speech W;i8 made up from extracts from the well-known Adventures of the gallant Lieutenant John Shipp, front which he read, for nearly an hour, extracts of eases detailed by the Lieutenant, where flogging had been cruelly and caprici- ously applied, and, as must happen, with the worst possible conse- quences.

Mr. HUME followed Mr. Hunt. He admitted that, according to Lieutenant Shipp, when the latter left the service, eight or nine years ago, the practice of flogging was beginning to diminish.

Sir JOHN HOIIHOUSE said, there had been a great and beneficial change in the discipline of the Army during that period. Mr. Hunt

bad spoken of men receiving their option of a private fbn or the chance of more sere punishment by a Court-martial. osuch prac-

tice did or could prevail—

As to secret courts, there were various courts in ;he count rv • proceed-

legs were secret, 80 far as the public wet:. ocur:, ; hot ). e;:erts- tnartial were always transmitted to the Cinal•!•. • '1 !• pro- ceedings might, on a proper oee ;sir ;!, be •: !!.oli;‹, • i.te the House. Mr. Hunt knew hi. :; ! .. ; aUEeied

to the matter in the debate lot rho they

Ivere. It lvas a mistake to oppo.,e that ; ;.-d his

• i

opinions; he hail net ehangell t n. Ile : ction with Mr. R. Grant, and with the sanetiou of I. • !, in framing the Articles of War, been aide to red 300 to 200 inflicted by regimental courts- ‘• ;et by • ; ;!11 from 500 to 300. This was an attempt at I;•:,..HtI i I; House, that there was the greatest ih,p(1,ition in the cor-

poral punishments.

Colonel EVANS thought that, iu p.. esing

altogether with corporal punishment Mr. KEN:ris suggested the substitution imprisonment.

Mr. B. GRANT doubted wIn•ther the . ef

varying the Articles of War, as a: , Ir. hunt supposed.

Sir J. Bue:a: thought, as the d tin!: t h ee;.;,oral punishment as far as 1;L;81:•ilrolt: vn8L:1CfnU1 CUL ia..n Ctib h t not to be pressed.

The House divided on the motion for it, 15; ege!ast it, 33; majority, 18.

Immediately previous to Mr. Hunt's -bringing 0:1 Ids motion, the following petition from the Etiltor of the 1;"cck& Di:Tait:A was pre- sented by Mr. HUME.

" That your petitioner, en the 2.1111 of 'May last, reeeived from 11,;,,ber1 Bell, the printer and publisher or the ll'eekte .Pispehi nee simper, or eh i‘.:1 ),,:ar petitioner is editor, a letter which had been addressed to him hy it private 01 t1 :e Cl Dragoon Guards, commonly called the See:c11 Greys, row stat1oned at It tradabaiu, cad ;ranked. by Major Wyndham, the eelcer in comma :el ur the regiment. " That from this letter year petitioner published in the fi•elde Dispatch of the 97th of May the extracts which follow:—' As 0 private of that re:se-lent, I have certainly the means of knowing fully the opinices which pervade t he rank in which I serve. It was surely true that a few sent their names to the roll ur the Political Union; but let no man think that those who refrained front doing so eared less for the interests of their country. for one, made no :such public :tvoival of my opinio1i5-41 I knew it to be an infringement of military law ; but I was one who watelled with trembling anticipa- tion the movements of the people of Birmingham. We knew well the position in which we might be placed should events require the physical action of the eommunity; for while we ventured to hope that any collision between the civil aud military threes would be prevented by the moral energies of the former, we could nut help betraying a fear that the unprincipled and lawless, who are ever either more or less to be found, might take the opportunity or the turning of affairs to commit outrages on property, in Which instance we would certainly have considered ourselves, as ,olitiers, bound to put down such disorderly conduct. This, I say, we should certainly have felt to have been our duty ; but against the liberties of our country we would have never—never- never—raised an arm? The Scotch Greys have honourably secured it high character in defbnce of their country, and they would be the last to degrade themselves below the dignity of British soldiers in acting as the tools of a tyrant. The Duke of Wellington may, if he sees or bears of this, assure himself that military government shall never again set up in this country.' "That on the arrival of the Week/yDispatch containing these extracts, in Birmingham, a 'report got abroad that the author of the letter from which they were taken was a private in the Scotch Greys, of the name of A. Somerville: and, as will be presently seen, this report had immediately reached the ears of the commanding officer of the regiment, Major Wyndham.

"That in a day or two after, this man Somerville was picked out from the ranks, and directed to perform with an unbroken horse an exercise which, even with the best trkined horses, is one of difficulty ; and that, having failed to perform it, lie was ordered tO try again, which, considering the thing to be impracticable, he declined; for which act ofdisobedience he was immediately placed in confinement.

." That shortly afterwards, he was sent for by Major Wyndham, and privately sub- jeeted to a series of interrogatories with respect to the letter which he was reported to have written to the said Robert Bell. That Major Wyndham demanded of him whether he Was not the author of 'the libel on the Scotch Greys which had appeared in the Weekly Dispatch ;' to which Somerville at once frankly answered he was the writer of the letter alluded to, but that he did not consider it any libel. That on this, Major Wyndham broke out into a strain of great abase of the letter, declaring the sentiments it contained to be abominable and inflammatory—calculated tteehcouttige the Political Unions, which he said were illegal, and the mob to break the peace; which it was the duty of the military to preserve ; that Somerville had, in writing it, been guilty; of treason to the King, by whom he was paid; that soldiers had no right to form opinions on any political subject whatever, and that their only duty was °Wenn*.

That Somerville replied, that he could not see how there was any treason in saying that the Scotch Greys would never fight against the liberties of their country ; that he considered soldiers were not paid by the King. but by the People, and sworn only to be faithful to the King, in his capacity of head of the People ; that he thought it had been admitted by his Majesty's Ministers that there was nothing illegal m the Political Unions, constituted as they had hitherto bean ; and that, so far from wishing to encourage th mob to ylolence„he lied said, in the letter complained of, that he and his comrades would, under any circumstances, consider it to be their duty to put down all outrages on property. "That Major Wyndham shill persisted in pronouncing Somerville to have been guilty of most unjustifiable conduct, and dismissed him with these emphatic words—' Bat, my lad, you are now where y011 Will repent of it.' "That five minutes after this preliminary interrogation, Somerville was arraigned before a coursmartial for the disobedience of orders before-mentioned; anti being found . guilty, was s ettenced to receive 200 lashes on his bare back. "That two hours after, 100 of the number of lashes awarded were inflicted upon him, in the presence of the assembled regiment ; and that he now remains in confine- ment. awaiting the infliction of the remainder of this most cruel aud ignominious punishment.

" That Som.e-ville had never before been tried or punished for any offence whatever, having always before conducted himself with unimpeached correctness and steadiness.

" That year petitioner conceives it to be clear, front the facts before stated—some of which he knows to be true, and all of which he belie..'es can be fully substantiated. —that the msu has been thus punished, degraded, and disgraced, loss on account of the act of insubmalitiation of which he was Annul guilty. than of the political offence he has given to his officers by writing the letter before mentioned to the said Robert Bell. " That it appears to your petitioner."' the man was purposely entrapped into the offence which he conmiiited against military law, in order that In, :night be punished for what was no oil:hove against any law, either military or civil ; and that the conduct of his commanding etlicer, in extracting from the man while ia custody, nod on the point of being triel for a disobedience of orders, a confession that he had been ;platy of something else, which in the judgment of that offices amounted to treason, was in- fallibly calculated to produce on the mind or Major Wyndham, and through him on the minds of the other members or the court-m:011:d, ae impression against the prisoner which must have bad a great, though most nefair, influence in determining the measure of punishment he should receive. "That your petit ioner begs to submit that there was not hint! iii the published and before-recited extracts from Somerville's letter whis-lu elm ii te hey, thus marked him out for vengeance, or ii Inch it was not perretly benmiag io a luuO lou sel,lier to him-us written: that it has ien long settled lu..v that the character or u.ins,n merges no further in that or sot thor than is ab,adutely necesary f:r tirs ems! (toed- pline ; and that there w as nothing subversive of geed di- sisia••• h!..-s ex- pressing an e.rene:,t wish that a measure whieh ' • '• 111,1, House of. Commons, :n al a Va,t malority cut t.:e .eem- to the welfare of the country, should 1 carried 1:-. ■■••"••• his announcing it to be the ileterminatiou of hi themselves to any attempt that might be m,, : arms the sease of tlw King, the hin.a's )11.

l'oopl,s Oil th, sat That Well II I,■ 'Ir

:f ;VeS I:p ;LII i-htll to iiuiuuk for il :In.. .1;1 ut citizen of ..

won! I eely f:: • ri .1

liii ;I:e:11-, that tido per. 1:_ tiae seM P it•ioali•tt-ille is suelt 1 :41;,-..; lis tight 1 c I, ia or eeinion 1e5s,,..40.1. by of thmPiP ,•-•,lidects—a.n.1 is of a tondem•y

the .?r2.ay, as to deserve thue nt.,••!- • • !• into

-•• it. !;•.;';.',TO, please your I lonoural I I. 71, t.t., '1', 1 or tt • A. SonvAxilk, and to i;..) us Im-v. is: ;lies .. u. I -It- rp.), yOtt : • • - 11V -:11I • ot to lend het Mia n by force of 11,10:1,. end tile IL, tins Army,

.■ , coantry,

; • : f a set of

but ulry

tint . • rest ;

110P 1,:trilbl-O the course of the debate on Mr. 1.;ent's motion; it mentioned by Mr. R. GRANT 01111 Sir JOHIC punishments by in,--talments were illegel ; end that, in sullic.dug t1:::nierville could be zu:ain punished for the same o:Tence, the 1e.:iti0iter was under it tnis- c•h:e. No motion Avas made upo;: the p: titiun. A petition WaSi pre- sented 011 the saine subject from thc iluiPIjO u, of the l'elitical of Shureditch.

8. Conm.,-F.:1's COUItTS. 0:1 recoanItt.:1 of this lull on Wed- nrstlav, :Mr. HUM,: rroposrd to ti:r toot no person should be in future elected a tt 1.;; 1;z:d not attei:ded at least two courses of lectures on mei:lei:I jte.i:Trtideue.:,.

Lord ALTHORP thought such a re::zzi.:t:,;:t could nut be carried into effect.

Mr. WYNN observed, that a knov‘ It d,..;e of the rules of evidence, and skill in applying them, was much mere necessary than a smattering of medical knowledge. •

Mr. SCIIONSWAR said, he never knew of it medical inan's applying for a coronership, who had not been unsuccessfid in his own profession.

The Committee divided : for the amendment, I I ; against it, 80. Mr. WAnnenrox next moved a clause to provide that all coroner's inquests should be open.

Mr. CRIPPS thought, in private houses such a rule would be ex- tremely inconvenient, Without any use; otherwise he was not op- posed to it.

Mr. O'CONNELL denied the existence of the inconvenience.

It was not necessary that inquests should be held in private houses. The Jury • could take a view of the body, and then retire to a public-house, or to a barn or, if it were fine weather, to a field, or any other place, and conduct the inquiry. No inconvenience could result from making-inquests public, but frightful con- sequences might result from allowing them to be held privately. Murders could be hushed up. It was a frightful power to give a Coroner, that of excluding all persons from the investigation into the cause of a man's death. No better mode could be devised of giving impunity to murder. His opinion was, that murder was committed at the Manchester massacre, and that the Jury would have returned a verdict to that effect if the inquest had been properly conducted.- Publicity was the genius of the British law. The high j

est udges were exposed •

to the watchful eye of the public, and why should not Coroners be subject to the same scrutiny? Sir ROBERT 'Nous was for continuing the discretionary power that Coroners at present possess, of excluding the public when extraordinary, circumstances called for it— It sometimes happened that the publication of the evidence taken before a Coroner facilitated the escape of a prisoner ; and in other cases it operated to the prejudice of a prisoner, by creating an unfavourable impression against hunt- previously to his trial. What was meant by publicity was; that reportersshould be present to send forth to the world every thing which occurred before the Co. roner; and to that he decidedly objected. Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that a verdict of murder was as likely to - prejudice the public without evidence as with it. The fact was, thfi discretionary power supposed to be vested in Coroners was mere judge- made law, and not more than fourteen or fifteen years old. Mr. HUNT said, a clause should be inserted to prevent a Coroner from summoning one jury and then dismissing them and summoning, another—

There was a case of that kind, out of which had grown a prosecution for libel, which he believed was now before one of the criminal courts. A man was mur- dered in the Palace of St. James's ; and the Coroner having called one Jam, dismissed it, and summoned another. The consequence was, that the bloody

.and mysterious transaction had never undergone a thorough investigation, for the person who was principally implicated had never been examined. Sir Cuanats WETHERELL replied with great heat to this implied at- tack on the Duke of Cumberland—

The honourable member had thought fit to state that the person principally concerned in a murder committed within the precincts of St. James's Pal:melted not been examined on the inquest. But the honourable member must be aware that the principal person—that is, the man who was guilty of the murder—had killed himself, and could not be examined by the Coroner, otherwise than by the inspection of the murdered body; and from that and the other testimony, it was plain that the man had cut his own throat. The honourable member for Preston must have read the libel to which he had alluded, and he ought not to have made himself a copyist of so scandalous a libel.

Mr. HUNT—" I read the libel as it appeared in the reports of the honourable and learned member's speeches."

Sir C. WETHF.RELL—" What, then, was it that the honourable member for Preston dared to say,?" Mr. Hese, in a very loud tone—" Hear, hear!" (Laughter.) Sir C. WETI1E1tELL—" What was it that the honourable member for Pres- ton dared to state, in allusion to the case in which the name of a certain Il- lustrious Person was implicated?"

Mr. HUNT, still louder than before—" Hear, hear, hear !" (Laughter.) Sir Charles not being able to elicit from Mr. Hunt what he meant to say, then declared that Mr. Hunt's statement was not true. Sir Charles went on— He could assure Mr. Hunt, that it was physically demonstrated upon the inquest to have been impoesible that the man had 'died by anv other than his own hand. Face to face with Mr. Place, the foreman of that Jury, Mr. Hunt would nut have dared to state what he had inaccurately and untruly stated in the House of COMMOUS. Mr. Hunt, were he in the presence of any one ed. those Jurors, would rather be in any ether breeches than his own. The state- ment of the Honourable Member tin. Preston was so audacious, that no other man in the House would dme to make it.

Mr. Heeer replied

Sir Charles Wetherell had dered to accuse him of audacity.; but at the 9ame time Sir Charles bad not the audacity to say that the inquest lout been satisftc- torv. Sir Charles said that he had told untruths; but at the same time bad

shrunk from meeting the most important fact, Which he had stated, namely, that the principal person, the Duke tbf Cumberland, Charles's client, had not been examined. He would therefore still say, that the mysterious and bloody ease had not yet been investigated. He hoped that it would. Sir

Charles bad dared to say, in terms not the most retined, that he would not dare

to say in the presence of Francis Place, that the inquest hall not been

satistitctory. Twenty years ago, four days after the murder, he told Mr. Place

what were his opinions upon the subject. Front all that be hall heard from Mrs. Spills, and from the motlier of the murdered man, respecting the appear- :once of the INA s i which Signs teas fetund lying, the basin full of blood, and the razor (placed upon a bureau at some distance from the bed), be thought it impossible that, if all the evidence hatl been heard, any honest unpacked jury would have found the verdict which Sir Charles so much relied upon. It

might be vary well for Sir Charles to sav in that liouse, that the principal person hml cut his throat ; but it was well-known, that the person principally concerned, in the opinion of the ptddic, was still living. ( Question, vcoaliv;; !) Mr. Calves, in allusion to the razor, observed, that the Bow Street officer who first entered the room, had stated to him (Mr. Cripps) that he lifted the razor from the bed and placed it on the bureau. •

Mr. ADEANE objected to the publicity of Coroners' courts.

The House, after some further conversation, divided : for the amendment, 94; against it, 54; majority, 40.

Mr. F. LEWIS expressed great surprise at the line pursued by Mi- nisters on this occasion, in taking no decided part in a discussion which

was of so high importance. It was their duty, as they had the power, to protect the country from so great and sudden changes as the amend- ment went to introduce. He thought it most unfair also that the Law Officers should have given no opinion on the subject.

The Coroner's Jury was one of the oldest institutions of the country; and he thought that, when the nature and constitution of that institution were invaded,

the Leader of the Ministerial party in that House—the Chief of the Govern- ment in that House—should do something more than merely state his own in- dividual opinion : he should assume the responsibility of the measure, or oppose it altogether.

Lord ALTHORP said, be had always been of opinion that all courts of justice should be open to the public, and especially that every pro- ceeding should be open to the public which involved the liberty of the subject.

It was a mistake to suppose that the present was any great innovation : prac- tically, the Court of the Coroner had always been open, and it surely was not too much to support an Act of Parliament which merely went to declare that to be the law which was in perfect conformity with the acknowledged practice. Some cases had been adverted to in which it was stated that much difficulty and disadvantage had arisen from the disclosure of the facts; but in all those cases the facts had been published, and in every one of them the publication proved advantageous. In fact, experience bad fully established the truth, that the evil of admitting strangers to these Courts was much less than the evil of their ex- clusion. Up to the present time, the right of their admission was doubtful ; but it was now, for the first time, proposed to place it beyond all doubt; and the proposition had certainly received his support in his iudividual capacity, for he thought that no inconvenience of moment would arise from it, and it might be productive of much advantage. All this he thought himself fully at liberty to do; and he knew not upon what authority it could be inquired of him to make every question of that nature a Government question.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he would have spoken on the ques- tion, but he only entered the House when the discussion was terminat- ing. He never had had any doubt that Coroner's courts ought to be open.

Mr. BARING wished to know, if an inquest was held in a private house, whether it was to be open to all the blackguards in the street?

Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know who were meant by blackguards of the street? The Lord Chancellor's Court was open—was it filled by blackguards?

Sir ROBERT PEEL repeated the objection of inconvenience. Was the view of the body in a private house to be public also ? According lo the amendment it would.

The ATTORNEY -GENERAL said,there was in his mind but one objection to the amendment, and that was, that it was unnecessary. A Coroners' court was an open court ; and of -all-others it ought most to be-Operr.: If there was any danger from a crowd, the Coroner could provide a sufficient force to guard against it.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL said, the King's Bench had lately decided, that the sitting of any two magistrates before whom an information was sworn, would constitute a court, to which the public, blackguards and all, had right of access.

9. THE ANATOMY BILL. On Tuesday, Earl Mitaxo moved the second reading of this bill.

The Earl of MALMESBURY said, the bill provided, in ease of persons dying in workhouses or hospitals, where the parties did not express dissent, and where no claim was made by any relation within forty- eight hours, that the bodies might be given to the anatomist ; but this was not enough, for in the case of many persons carried to hospitals, consent or dissent was impossible, from the nature of the injuries re- ceived. He objected also to the sale of bodies, which the bill would legalize; and he drew a conclusion from the fact, that as the legalizing of the sale of game had not suppressed poaching, so neither would the legalizing of the sale of dead bodies suppress the trade of the resurrec- tion-men. He was not, however, opposed to the second reading: he would endeavour to remedy the defects of the bill in Committee.

The Earl of ROSEBEIIRY supported the bill, for the sake of the poor themselves, who were the parties most interested in the cheap and pro- per education of medical men, without which they must necessarily be given over to quacks and pretenders.

Lord Wvxman proposed to give for dissection the bodies of all per- coins convicted of felony. As a proof of the influence of the dread of dissection, he mentioned the case of Colonel Despard ; who said he was not afraid to meet death, but he could not think without horror of the dissection that N11:s to fellow. Lord Wynford also proposed to repeal that part of the law which confiscates the property of suicides, and to give the bodies of such persons rather to the anatomist. He moved tint the bill be read a second time that day six months.

The Earl of Ham:wow) also objected to the measure.

Lord Laouanam hoped the bill would be allowed to pass the present stiara, for the purpose of maturely considering its details in Committee.

The llons-e divided on the question : for the second reading, 15; foc Lord Wynford's amendment, 10; majority for the bill, 5.

10. Peocesstoes IN IRELAND. Oil Tuesday, Sir ROBERT BATESON.; in presenting e petition from the Proteetant Conservative Society against the hill for preventing processions in Irelaml, eepreesed a hope that it would not be pressed forward so as to ieterfere with the approaching processions of the 11th July, for which extensive preparations had beers made.

Mr. STANLEY snrid, the bill referred only to processions in whicir arms, banunere, or music were displayed. Tine preparations spoken of eil'ortled the strongest areeueent for speedily passing the bill. The bill was read a second time.

II. Norn:;a, S rata COMMLSSION. tii. II1.1cr last night preevinted a petition, signed by three or four thousand persons of Not- tin:el:atm complaining of the conduct of the Visiting. Magistrates of the peed there. The petitionl stated, that a men named Cutts, imprisoned on mu eliarge connected oith the late riots, had been kept for five days with- out winter with a view to torture him into a con:fee:elm At the end of the fifth day, Cette was reduced to drink his own urine. He was dis- charged without Ineinee tried. Mr. Litunt complained that Mr. O'Con- nell had refused to present this petition, unless substantiated by affida- vits ; which, as the Magistrates had refused to swear the parties, could not be done. From his own experience of what gaolers could do, he was quite prepared to believe all that the petition affirmed.

Mr. E. DENISON explained a notice of this petition in the House of Lords, which proceeded on the supposition of its having been already presented, as originating in the length of time it had remained in Mr.; limit's possession. Ill refutation of its allegations, he read a letter of the solicitor of the prisoners, in which he declared, that Bone of therm had made any complaint of threats or privations of any kind or for an purpose.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the charges in the petition were most improbable. The number of names to a petition might give weight to opinioas, but they could not alter facts ; and it was plain that here the facts were grossly misrepresented. He opposed the printing of the petition.

Mr. GEORGE Lama stated, at the same time, that the fullest in-; quiry would be made into its allegations.

Mr. O'CONNELL explained. that there was no real difficulty in the way of procuring the affidavits, which he felt himself bound to demand in support of so extraordinary allegations. He had, however, received such private information as induced him to think that inquiry was called for.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table, on the understanding that an inquiry would be made by Government.

12. NEWSPAPER REPORTS. On Wednesday, Mr. O'CONNELL com- plained of the report in the Times of that morning, of the observations that he had made on the motion of Mr. Sadler. He noticed several portions of the report, in which he was made to say what he never had said or thought of saying.

The report began—" Mr. O'Connell would oppose the honourable member's proposition. It was true that in doing so he was acting in the teeth of Ids re- iterated pledges to his countrymen." That was totally untrue—he had given no such pledges. The report nest said, after assigning: some reason for his making more pledges—" But he trusted to his influence with his countrymen to con- vince them, that his reasons for now opposing the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, which he had often and so earnestly advocated, were cogent, valid, and reasonable." All that Inc had ever said on the subject was, that his dispositioe to relieve his countrymen had overpowered his judgment two or three times, and that he had acceded to the plan of giving poor-laws to Ireland. His great anxiety to get relief had over-ruled his judgment ; but, on mature examination, he bad changed his opinion. He had not uttered one word of what was printed. Thereport went on—" He had formerly stated it to be his opinion, that a maia source of the wretched condition of the poor of Ireland was the total absence a 14,ts1iitive plionaun tor their wants." He had never said any such thiug. It was a gross misrepresentation; and if be bad said so yesterday, he must have invented it to calumniate himself. Again—" It was now his equally conscien- tious opinion, that poor-laws could but aggravate that wretched condition." (" Hear! hear !" from Mr. Rice.) It was going rather too fur to make a speech for a man that was to convict him of gross contradiction—that was to show that he violated his pledges, and to insinuate that he had improper reasons for the violation.

Mr. O'Connell observed, that the speed' attributed to Mr. Hunt on the same occasion was equally a misrepresentation ; and he requested • Mr. Hunt to say if it was not.

Mr. HUNT concurred in this statement. There were many points in the speech given to him which he never uttered or thought of. The speech attributed by the Times to Mr. Hunt rues thus—.

• He would not waste the time of the House in exposing the fallacy of the learned member's present views; indeed he had himself exposed them in all their nakedness when stating them • but would at once declare, that the only ground the learned member now hail opposing poor-laws in Ireland, was his belief that, if they were adopted in that country, such would be their beneficial effect upon the condition of its unfortunate pour, that they would no longer serve as • useful tools in agitating his darling measure of a " repale" of the Union. (" Hear!" and laughter.) This was the plain fact, which not all the learned • gentleman's recklessness of assertion could force him to deny. He dreaded the adoption of poor-laws in Ireland, because he felt that they would induce a ':peaceable and settled state of things rather unfavourable to his agitation- schemes of personal aggrandizement. ("Hear!") By the English law, every man was bound to maintain his own bastard ; but in Ireland, in consequence of the absence of so wholesome and just a provision, it was not, he believed, a very rare occurrence for it wretched mother to be consigned to prison for the cost of the maintenance of the illegitimate offspring of sonic leading politician, whose only talk was cant, whose only conduct was the basest treachery. ("Hear ! hear !")

Mr. O'CONNELL having stated that the misrepresentations were such that it was impossible not to suppose them wilfully committed, the SPEAKER said, if that were supposed to be the case, the House would not consult its dignity if it did not take notice of the subject. Mr. O'CONNELL said, he would, if possible, trace the matter; and if there were personal malice perceivable in it, he would mention it again.

Mr. G. DAWSON observed, that the practice of misrepresentation was of long standing, and had been observable throughout the whole of the debates on the Reform Bill; and that the only way to end it— Which in a Reformed Pailiament be hoped to see done—was by send- ing forth authorized reports of what passed in the House.

Last night, Mr. O'CONNELL stated, that he had seen the conduc- tors of the Times ; who had satisfied him that there was no blame on their part ; and the reporter, whom be had also seen, had explained the erroneous report, by the circumstance of a confusion and noise in the Gallery, from a number of persons quitting it while Mr. O'Connell was speaking. Under these circumstances, be meant to say no more on the subject.

As an appendix to Mr. O'Counell's complaint, Mr. Dawsow last night made another on the same journal, which had improperly described him as speaking of the shameful misrepresentations of Hansard. [Mr. Dawson does not seem to have been aware, that this error had been corrected by the Times before his complaint was made. The correc- tion appeared yesterday.] Sir HENRY PARNELT. also complained of a paragraph of the Chronicle, in which it was stated, that the general impression of the Committee on • the disturbances in Queen's County was, that they originated in • the abominable [a misprint for "iii tolerable] exactions of the gentry, and the state of distress to which the poor had been reduced in consequence. - Sir Henry said, the Committee had resolved that the paragraph in ques- =tion was a gross misrepresentation of the facts given in evidence before the Committee ; and requested him to communicate this resolution to the House.

No motion was made either on Mr. Dawson's complaint or Sir Henry Parnell's communication.