NEWS Or THE WEEK.

THE House of Commons on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, was engaged in discussing points arising out of Mr. O'Connell's refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy. Mr. PEEL had- searched for precedents, but found none which would warrant them in hearing Mr. O'Connell at the table. He placed great stress upon this point of Parliamentary usage. Mr. C. W. WYNN and Mr. BROUGHAM, on the other hand, thought it of little con- sequence from what part of the House he addressed them. The SPEAKER announced to Mr. O'Connell that the House would hear him at the bar.

Mr. O'CONNELL advanced to the bar, and stated his argument firmly and temperately. The Oath of Supremacy of the 30th Charles II. had been repealed, he thought, by various statutes, but more particularly by the Act of Union, which took away their power to enforce this oath on Irish members. He, however,•rested his case chiefly on the Relief Act. Its object was to open both Houses of Parliament to Catholics ; and he argued both from the preamble of the act, and the construction of the tenth section, that their meaning, if they had any _meaning, was in his favour,—since he could hardly suppose it to have been the intention of the Legislature, that an act which was to afford relief to an entire nation should operate as an outlawry against him. If such had been the intention of the act, his case ought to have been specifically stated: it had been long known, and was on the records of Parliament. His right, he held to be plainly recognized by the new act ; and on that statute he stood, and claimed the benefit of its principle and its provisions. • The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir N. C. Tindal) addressed himself to Mr. O'Connell's legal argument as founded on the old law, and the union of the British and Irish Parliament ; and contended that the same legal consequences were continued after the Union as were com- mon to both Parliaments in their divided state. This practical con- struction of that act was given by the Irish members, in their having taken the Oath of Supremacy; and the declaration in the Relief Act that the old tests should be abrogated, was evidence that they were at that time in full force. He laboured to show that the meaning of the act, as far as regarded Mr. O'Connell, was plain and intelligible—that none could take the benefit of that act who were elected before it be- came a. law. The forfeiture of the elective franchise was the price of the law; and Mr. O'Connell must give up the benefit he derived under the old law, before he claimed the benefit of the new one.

Mr. G. LAMB saw nothing to hinder Mr. O'Connell from taking his seat.

Mr. FERGUSON was of opinion that those who were elected under the old law should come in under its provisions. Mr. M. FITZGERALD said that the most liberal construction should be put upon the Relief Act,—since every one disavowed that it was .intended to exclude Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. SUGDEN contended that Mr. O'Connell, by attempting to take his seat without taking the Oath of Supremacy, violated the law of Elizabeth ; and not only rendered himself amenable to penalties, but forfeited his right to sit in the present Parliament. Sir JAMES SCARLETT'S view of the case was of a mixed complexion. If he were sitting in a judicial capacity, he thought he would be bound to say that the old oaths were repealed, and that the penalties could not be enforced. As, however, he had many doubts on the whole question, which he had not had time to solve, he should vote against Mr. O'Connell's admission.

Mr. W. W. WYNN suggested that the point could be settled by a declaratory act giving Mr. O'Connell relief. Mr. DOHERTY contended that the new law was clear and specific against Mr. O'Connell. Even if a motion had been made while the bill was in the House, making his right to sit clear, he should have op- posed it ; and a declaratory law would render their proceedings ridicu- lous.

Mr. BROUGHAM argued that none of Mr. O'Connell's legal argu- ments had been fairly met. They professed to deny that the Legisla- ture intended to exclude him personally, and yet they acted as if such had been the case. The House ought not to adopt a course which would only oppress the individual, without advancing any general principle or upholding the authority of the laws. Mr. PEEL said that the act was intended to exclude Mr. O'Connell from its benefits.

The House divided on the Attorney-General's motion, that Mr. O'Connell should not be allowed to sit till he had taken the Oath of Supremacy. For the motion, 190 ; against it, 116; majority against Mr. O'Connell, 74.

Next evening, on a further [motion of the Solicitor-General, Mr. O'Connell Was called to the bar, and the decision of the House was communicated to him.

The SPEAKER—" I wish to ask you whether you will take the Oath of Supremacy ?" Mr. O'CONNELL—" Let me see that oath." (It was presented to him. After a short pause, he resumed)—" I see in this oath, one assertion as to a matter of fact which I know is not true ; and I see in it another assertion as to a matter of opinion which I believe is not true : I therefore refuse to take this oath."

The SPEAKER—" You may withdraw." " Mr. 0-Connell having withdrawn, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that a new writ should issue for the election of a member of Par- liament for the county of Clare. It appeared, however, from a clause in the Act for Disfranchising the Forty-shilling Freeholders, that this could not be done at present. A short debate arose on this dilemma,' which ended in the adjournment of it for the night.

The discussion was on Thursday resumed, by the SOLICITOR-GENE-, RAL withdrawing his former motion, and-moving "that the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new writ, subject to the provisions of the recent statute on the subject of the Irish freeholders."

Mr. SPRING RICE opposed this course ; which went to make Mr. O'Connell a Parliamentary outlaw—deprived him of the choice of. re-. signing a seat which they could not otherwise take from him, and risked• the peace of Ireland by again arraying the opposing sphits at' the hus- tings. He moved for leave to bring in a bill, declaring that in all cases. the oath to be taken by Catholics should be the oath in the new act. Lord MORPETH seconded the notion; because, as they all said they were actuated by nu hostile feeling to Mr. O'Connell, it would give them an opportunity of proving that assertion. General GASCOYNE had opposed the Relief Act; but he would never carry his hostility the length of treating Mr. O'Connell as he had been treated. His real situation was well known when the measure was in progress. It was clear that his rights and interests had been compro- mised by the party on the right and the party on the left. Mr. RIDLEY COLBORNE suggested, that the writ should be sus- pended, as in the case of East Retford, in hopes that Mr. O'Connell might in time lose his reluctance to the Oath of Supremacy ! At all events, he might be allowed to take the Chiltern Hundreds, in place of being as it were expelled the House.

Mr. HUSKISSON lamented the clause in the act which excluded Mr. O'Connell, and he lamented the vote of the House on Monday confirm ing that clause ; but he could not consent to have a measure which ought to give peace to Ireland frittered away, because one clause pressed hard on the member for Clare.

Mr. FERGUSSON and Mr. LITTLETON thought Mr. S. Rice's motion calculated to create agitation in Ireland, while its success was hopeless. Lord Nu GENT was dissatisfiedwith the motion, and equally so with the amendment.

Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH and Mr.' Wamor HORTON .expressed friendly feelings towards Mr. O'Connell, and their anxiety to see him in the House.

Mr. SPRING RICE withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Secretary PEEL expressed his satisfaction at this; and pro- ceeded to give proofs of the change which the Relief Act had already wrought in Ireland. In mercy to the deluded sufferers in Lancashire,_ he had deemed it necessary to send to Ireland for troops. He wrote for three regiments without any previous communication with the Irish authorities as to whether they could be spared ; and the Lord Lieu- tenant had informed him, that, such were the appearances of tranquil- lity, the troops could be spared without inconvenience. There had also been a marked improvement in the intercourse of private life among the upper classes. Protestants were forgetting their animosi- ties; and he did not anticipate any bad results, even though there were a new election for Clare.

Mr. CLARKE thought that "the late measure" had been so benefi- cial, that more troops could be spared if they were wanted. The inbtion for a new writ, was carried. OnTuesday,Mr. HUME moved for a "committee of the whole House to consider of the corn-laws of the 9th Geo. IV. cap. 60, with a view of substituting a fixed duty on the importation of foreign corn into the

United Kingdom, and a bounty on the exportation. of British corn, in, stead of the present graduated scale of duty." The present system, Mr. Hume contended, was mischievous, and had not answered the end proposed. His object was a gradual approximation to an absolutely free trade in corn, in order to create a market on the Continent for our manufactures. To effect this, he would fix the 'duty on wheat at 158. per quarter, decreasing is. every year, until the farmer could show that he was subjected to heavier taxes than those which other classes of the community bore. A similar decreasing scale of duty he would apply to other grain ; and in the event of the British agriculturists having a glut from abundant harvests, he would allow them a draw- back on exportation. The evil besetting our manufactures was, that from their high price they could hardly compete with foreigners ; and the high price of manufactures was occasioned by the high price of food.

Mr. MARSHALL adopted all Mr. Hume's arguments, and cordially seconded his motion ; but hinted that it would be fully as well if there • was no duty at all. Mr. FITZGERALD observed that the bill of last session had fully an- swered all its purposes, so far as it had been tried, in rendering prices less variable. Mr. Hume's motion was made at an inauspicious lime, and in an invidious manner,—since the present distress was shared alike by the landowner and the manufacturer. In a time of scarcity it would be impossible to levy a fixed duty. Mr. HEATHCOTE was of the same opinion. Any proposal to change would be viewed with alarm by the agriculturists. The present duties only protected them till high prices rendered a change necessary. Lord MILTON and Sir G. Pin Liars admitted that the present corn- laws were an improvement on the past ; but Mr. Hume's proposition was worthy of consideration, and deserved to be adopted.

Mr. WHITMORE thought the present system as bad as it could be ; but he could not concur in all Mr. Hume's views, as the country was not ripe for a free trade in corn, though he hoped the day would come when it would be allowed.

Mr. WonmousE deemed Mr. Hume's arguments so fallacious that he would undertake to refute them to the satisfaction of a meeting of weavers ; and " he would be crucified" if he did not beat him. The evils of the country were mainly owing to Mr. Peel's " infatuated act," the Small Note Suppressiuu Bill. Lord ALTHORP and Mr. Husicissox thought the motion equally inexpedient and ill-timed. Mr. Huskisson pronounced the execution of the project impossible. The motion was negatived by 154 to 12.

• The ChanceryReform B ill was read a third time in the Lords on Thurs- day. Lord Er-pox stated various objections to the bill. It ought not, he thought, to have been brought forward till the nature of the ulterior measures were known. He did not object to the appointment of a new Judge ; but it would be highly injurious to interfere with the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, even if it could be done. He objected also to the clause conferring more duties upon the Master of , the Rolls than at present appertained to his office. He thought the dawn of the long vacation a !Mender time for bringing in the bill ; and he expressed his surprise that the Chancery Commission had never called any of the Judges before them. These objections led the Loup CHANCELLOR over nearly the same line of argument as to the necessity of time measure which lie had traced on the seem' reading, and also into sonic further explanations of the working of the bill. The business of bankruptcy was to be confined to the Vice-Chancellor's Court, subject to the controlling power of the Lord Chancellor; the new Judge was to be enabled to hear all causes, pleas, demurrers, and motions—every thing, in short, growing out of a Chancery suit; and as it was at present uncertain whether the Master of the Rolls could hear pleas, demurrers, and motions, the bill conferred thepower, the possession of which was doubted. The Lord Chancellor mentioned that counsel had cheerfully acquiesced in a proposition he had made, to confine themselves to separate courts. his Lordship also mentioned that Government meant, at some future time, to remodel the revenue jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer; for at present it was cumbrous, inconvenient, amid expensive. Lord HOLLAND well believed that reforms were necessary in the Court of Chancery; but he thought the reforms began at the wrong end when they began with the appointment of a new judge. He was against passing the bill till he knew what the ulterior measures w.'rc ; and he proposed that it should be read a third time in a fortnight, when the Lord Chancellor could bring forward the question in a more tangible shape.

Lord BEDEsDALE also wished the bill withdrawn.

Lord TENTERDEN should have liked if time Exchequer Judges had been consulted on the measure ; but he had no objection to the ap- pointment of an additional Judge. The amendment was negatived, and the bill passed.

A conversation arose on Thursday in the Commons, on the motion for going into committee on the Judges' Salaries Augmentation Act. The object in view was to raise the salaries of the fifteen Scotch Judges. The Lord"Pentrtenoteof the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk were each to hav 1))001. a year, and the other thirteen Judges 5001. a year more than at present. The'propoig was oppose4 by Mr. DRUMMOND and Mr. HusnissoN, On the ground-'of the unfitness of the time, and pending the reforms which were to be next year introduced into the judicial establishments of Scotland.

Mr. BROUGHAM stood in the opposition for the same reason ; and because he thought that the salaries of public men should be propor- tioned to their labour. It would puzzle the English Judges to make out a vacation of six weeks in the year, while the Scottish Judges rested on Monday and the half of every Saturday ; they had an unin. terrupted holyday of four months at one period of the year, two at another, and three weeks at Christmas. They would find plenty of able advocates competent to perform the functions of Judges for 20001, a vear.

'Sir GEORGE WARRENDER also opposed the augmentation, in the present circumstances of the country. It was urged on the other hand, by the CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CHEQUER, that the measure was more an act of justice than of liberality, —since at the time the salaries of the English Judges was raised, a pledge was given that those 'of the Scotch Judges should be raised also. The augmentation was necessary to secure the services of emi- nent men.

Mr. FERGUSSON and the LORD ADVOCATE of Scotland contended that the Scottish Judges had no sinecure situations ; and that the augmentation was only a necessary remuneration for their labour, and to enable them to maintain their dignity. Four of the Judges, ob- served the Lord Advocate, could not afford to keep a private carriage to convey them to their courts.

Sir JOSEPH YORKE spoke- " My honourable friend over the way (Mr. Fergusson), a Scotchman him. self, possessed of acute talents, in coming from the East like the wise mail- (Laus;hter)—has given us a description of the difficulties under which these Scotch Judges labour, of the prodigious information they are possessed of, and the amazing quantity and variety of the matter that comes before them in all shapes, and concludes by also telling us that it was necessary to strengthen their wits with a large quantity of money. Now, I have always understood that the poorer a man was the sharper he was. (Laughter.) It has been held as a rule as long as I remember, that lie was not to blow his jacket out with roast beef and plum pudding more than every other Sunday, and an excellent variety of porridge on other days. (Continued laughter.) The good old rule for making a clever judge has been to keep him spare, and then not to let the brain or sensorium be overflowed by sanguineous humours, but clear as nature left it before breakfast, so that at all times of the day lie might be able to give a clear and satisfactory decision upon any case that might be brought before him. (Laughter.) That is my notion.** • How can the M inisterscome down at th is period of the session, and ask to increase the sa- laries of judges, particularly in the present state of the country. (Hear.) Pretty economy this is. A few poor clerks are dismissed to make. a shpw to the public, and thousands are voted away in one night. Such conduct is un- worthy the government of the great Duke. The conduct of my right honour- able friend and his colleagues puts me in mind of that of the man who stopped up the spiggot and let the liquor run out at the bung-hole." (Much laughter.) ' My argument is, that a reasonable compensation should be given on the scale implied by the prayer of Hagar, which might he thus briefly quoted Give me neither poverty nor riches; poverty lest I steal—riches lest I for- get my God' When his right honourable relative, who was called for short- ness ' Prosperity Robinson'—(Loud laughter)—came with his proposition to increase the salaries of the English Judges he was not surprised ; but for the right honourable gentleman opposite to increase the salaries of the Scotch Judges, did appear strange''

Mr. PEEL justified both the time and the propriety of the measure ; but though he could not alter his opinion of the justice of the aug- mentation, he should recommend the motion to be withdrawn for the session, as even many of those who were friendly to it were anxious for a postponement. The motion was therefore withdrawn.

A singular petition has been presented by the LORD ADVOCATE from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, complaining of illiberal conduct on the part of the members of Zion College, in the matter of sonic records of the early history of the Scottish Church. " The Book of the Universal Kirk," as the document is called, consists of three manuscript volumes, and contains the records of " the Kirk" for the first fifty years of her establishment. During the troubles in Scotland which preceded the Revolution, the volumes came, by some means, into the hands of the Reverend Archibald Campbell, one of the nonjuring Scottish Bishops, and grandson of the Marquis of Argyll. He had offered to sell them to the Church of Scotland for a large sum, which the Church was either unable to pay, or unwilling, seeing that Mr. Campbell had never acquired any right of property in them, and had moreover added some humiliating stipulations. Failing in his mercenary views, Campbell transferred the custody of the work to Zion College, under an injunction that. the College should neither give it up, nor permit transcripts to be taken, or even the partial ab- breviates possessed by the Kirk to be collated with the originals. The General Assembly have therefore applied to Parliament to devise means to enable Zion College to do that which they must, as an act of justice, wish to do,—restore to the Church of Scotland these ancient records, which, in whatever way obtained by the College, the Church of Scotland consider to be their property.

All the members, whether Scotch or English, who spoke on the question, stigmatized the transaction ; and more formal proceedings in Parliament are threatened, if the President and Fellows of Zion Col- lege should persist in retaining the books or preventing copies from being taken.

In a Committee of Supply, last night, the remaining Irish esti- mates were proposed. A sum not exceeding 90001. to the Society for Discountenancing Vice, and 25,0001. to the Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor, were allowed to pass with little opposition. Not so the vote of 8,9281. to the Roman Catholic Seminary at Maynooth. Lord MANDEvILLE held the grant to be so abominable, that if Minis- ters wilfully and wickedly persevered in it, he was afraid they would draw down upon themselves, and the whole kingdom, the direct and

immediate wrath of Almighty God. Sir ROBERT Nous and Colonel S1BTFIORP participated in his lordship's alarms. Sir Robert could not understand how men could reconcile it to their consciences to pay for teaching a religion which they believed to be idolatrous. The Co- lonel declared that Ministers were introducing a system for the encou- ragement and protection of beings who were not much better than devils incarnate. Mr. H. MAXWELL considered this Antichristian grant a disgrace to the House ; and Mr. SPENCE declared the College of Maynooth a fostering place for idolatry and blasphemy. Mr. M. FITZGERALD, and some others, supported the grant, on the ground that it might be made without any danger to the Established Church. Mr. PEEL did so on the ground of its justice. The Govern- ment was in some sort pledged to the vote. Of the money, 7,0001. was spent in supporting two hundred and fifty students in the College. All Governments since 1795 had concurred in the grant. He did not con- sider it one of wickedness and iniquity. After some further opposition, and the refusal of a pledge on the part of Government that it would not be proposed again, the vote was carried, on a division, by 118, to 14.

The new Funding Bill was read a third time last night,—after some opposition from Mr. HUME and Mr. Maim Inv ; who reiterated their statements that the measure was a losing one, and were answered that it would be found gainful. The new Sinking-fund Bill, which was also read a third time, met Mr. HumE's approbation.

Mr. PEEL'S Metropolitan Police Bill has passed the Committee. The salary of the Magistrates is fixed at 8001. a year. The maximum contribution in the different parishes has been fixed at 8d. in the pound sterling, upon the annual value of property. Mr. S. WORTLEY, in moving for papers connected with the colony of Sierra Leone, with a view to proceedings next session, alluded to the great expenditure in money, and the many sacrifices of valuable lives which had been made, to maintain the colony, without any ade- quate benefit, inasmuch as it had not served the end proposed. Sir GEORGE MURRI‘± assented to all this, and granted the papers.

The LORD ADVOCATE of Scotland has carried a Bill through the Commons, awarding the penalty of death for any attempt to murder, by throttling, suffocating, throwing sulphuric acid, or any other means by which the lives of the lieges can be by possibility endangered. Mr. WARBURTON'S Bill for Regulating Anatomical Schools passe d the Commons on Tuesday, after a good deal of opposition from Mr. SADLER and others. The objections were chiefly founded in respect for the feelings of the poor, whose relatives alone could be made sub- servient to the interests of science. It was answered, that it was the poor only whom the bill would chiefly benefit, as the rich could always command the best advice. The bill, too, W9.S necessary to stop various atrocities to which the law was inadequate.

A Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has at length been provided by the French Ministers. Count Portalis, Keeper of the Seals, has got that office ; and M. de Bordeau has had the Seals transferred to his keeping. This is merely a change of the relative positions of the per- sons, and adds no strength to the Ministry. M. de Chateaubriand is expected in Paris from Rome, and some intriguing against the Ministry is anticipated. In a conversation in the Chamber of Deputies on the expenses of the year, the Minister of Finance stated that the expedition to the Morea had cost about 800,0001. sterling.

A French fleet has very ineffectually blockaded Algiers these eighteen months, in order to extort reparation for some forgotten in- sult. The Constilutionnel now affirms that the Ministers are pre- paring a " decisive expedition" against Algiers ; meaning to take pos- session of the town and fortresses, and " keep them till a new order of things takes place."

Don Miguel, in a royal order which he has issued, blames the " ex- cessive zeal of the authorities" for many of the harsh criminal proceed- ings that had been instituted ; and directs that bare accusations, " especially if anonymous," shall not be made the grounds of judicial proceedings. This order was calculated to convey an impression that Miguel had at length opened his eyes to the odium of the atrocities imputed to his Government. A tragedy enacted at Oporto four days afterwards forms the best commentary on the value of the pacitic decree. Twelve men, most of whom held high civil and military situ- ations, were hanged at Oporto on the 7th, for rebellion against Miguel in May last year ; and according to their sentence, the heads of the unfortunate sufferers were exposed for three days in different parts of the city. This bloody scene was the less expected, as, to soothe the public mind, it had been given out that the individuals were to be pardoned.

A Russian bulletin mentions the defeat of a body of Turks who had crossed the Danube with the intention of making an incursion into Little Wallachia. In some other skirmishes on the banks of the river, the Russians are said to have been equally successful, and all at an expense of life on their part inconceivably small. General Diebitsch, the Russian Commander-in-Chief, from whose activity and military skill so much was expected, has resigned the .command. Ill health is the excuse, but probably not the true motive. There are renewed rumours of a peace being likely to be patched up, through the influence of the Continental powers.

The Greeks are said to have taken Missolonghi, to have obtained possession of the Castle of Romelia, and to be bombarding the fortress of Lepanto.