113cbattti ann prnceetringit in Parliament.

I. CHURCH-RATES.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day having been read for the House going into Committee on the subject of Church-rates, Lord .ALTHORP rose to explain the measure of which he had given notice for effecting their abolition. He said, that the mode most agreeable to the Dissenters would be, to exempt them altogether from the payment of rates ; but this mode would be detrimental to the Church ; and, if adopted, the number of professed Dissenters would be very much increased. Neither did he think that it would answer to do away with Church-rates altogether, and trust to the voluntary sub- scriptions of Churchmen for the repairs of churches. The measure he had to propose was this. In lieu of the payment of Church-rates, he would make a charge of 250.(X10/. a year on the Land-tax. This money would not be spent in aid of all the purposes to which Church-rates were now applied ; but would be paid into the hands. of the Church Commissioners (now only a temporary, but which it would l e necessary to make n permanent body), and be applied by them to repairing the churches simply. The chancel, now repaired by the Clergymen,

would be repaired out of this fund ; but in return, the Clergymen would have to provide whatever else was necessary for church w orabip. In

reference to pews, he thought that they who had the use of them ought to keep them in repair. The system he proposed would rt quire some new checks on parochial expenditure ; and it was intended, that the Churchwardens and Clergymen should, with the assistance of the County Surveyor, estimate the quantity and cost of necessary rem it's, and re- port it to the Quarter-sessions ; when the Magistrutes, it satisfied on the points to which it referred, would give a certificate ;hereof, and the Commissioners, if in posseseion of the necessary funds, wet Id then au- thorize the repairs to be done. It would be remembeR.d that the Church-rates averaged between 500,000/. and 600,000/. annually. It was therefore a great relief to reduce the amount to 250,0001. The sum so supplied would of course lessen the amount capal le of being applied to the reduction of taxation ; but he did not thii.k that this would be objected to, when it was considered that he laid no new im- post, and relieved the community from a considerable burden. He could not imagine upon what grounds Mr. Hume intendt d to oppose the measure. He thought it was one which ought to ratisfy both Churchmen and Dissenters. Lord Althorp concluded by moving the following resolution.

"'That it is the opinion of this Committee, that from and after a time to be fixed, the payment of Church-rates shall cease and determine ; that iu lieu of them, his Majesty be empowered to giant out of the proceeds of the Land-tax a sum not exceeding 250,0004 to be applien to the repair of parish-churches, and parochial chapels."

Mr. STANLEY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir M. W. RIDLEY, sup- ported the resolution,—on the ground that, in the first place, the feeling of the country was such that an alteration was absolutely necessary ; and secondly, that by the plan proposed, very great relief would be afforded to the Dissenters, while ample care would be taken of the Church Establishment, which they were determined to maintain. Mr. STANLEY dwelt especially upon the benefit which would arise from the prevention of those parish squabbles which annually desecrated the house of God ; and insisted that those Members who had voted for the grant to Maynooth College out of the public funds, would not be jus- tified in maintaining as a principle, that public money was not to be voted in support of the Church of England. Sir ROBERr INGLis said, that Church-rates were a lien upon the land and other property, and that every person bad bought his property subject to them ; and there- fore, whether Churchmen or Dissenters they had no right to object to the payment of them. Mr. AVYNN said, that if an Establishment was to be maintained, some fund should exist for repairing the churches. He would not pledge himself to support the Ministerial measure, but would vote for the preliminary resolution.

On the other hand, Mr. Hume, Mr. GISBORNE, Mr. WILES, Mr. DIVETT, Mr. C. FERGUSSON, NIr. HARVEY, Mr. GILLON, Mr. WAL- LACE, Mr. ROBINSON and Mr. RAINES, warmly opposed the measure,— on the ground that it was a mere deception ; that it gave no actual relief to the Dissenters, who objected less to the amount than to the prin- ciple of being compelled to pay for the support of a mode of worship which they disapproved ; that the Chnrch property was amply sufficient to furnish funds for repairing the churches ; at least it was proper to ascertain that such was not the fact, before the public money was voted for this purpose. It was maintained that the measure would be still more unpopular than the Marriage Bill, especially in those places where the Church-rates had been altogether refused. It was unjust beyond measure to tax the Irish and Scotch for the repairs of English churches; and Mr. WALLACE said he was sure the payment of the Land-tax would be resisted on that ground. The time was gone by when a Minister could cheat the people by making them pay indirectly what they refused to pay openly.

Mr. HUME moved that the second part of the resolution should be expunged, and that it should stand thus—that " after a time to be fixed, the payment of Church-rates shall cease and determine." The Com- mittee divided upon this amendment : for it, 140; against it, 256; Ministerial and Conservative majority, 116.

Mr. Ilrisxs moved that the Chairman report progress. Another division took place; and the amendment was lost, by 263 to 136. The original resolution was then agreed to.

There was some animated speaking in this debate. In reference to the best mode of supporting the Establishment, Mr. HUME said—

If the clergy wished for a separate Establishment, let them give up their re- venues altogether, and let the Chancellor of the Exchequer put them into the Budget, and then let the House provide for the Bishops and all classes of the

Clergy in the way which should seem fit and proper and becoming to them. He did not wish to touch the revenues of the Church: not just yet. ( Cheers and laughter.) They were not prepared for it yet. ( Continued laughter.) He would tell the honourable gentlemen who cheered, that he neverput for- ward a proposition which he did not hope to carry by convincing the House of the soundness and correctness of his views; and he did not, he repeated, think that they were yet prepared to receive a measure such as that to which he had alluded. ( Continued laughter.) Ile now proposed, that if they made any change, it should be made upon an intelligible principle, and not such a confused and improper one as that which had been recommended by the noble lord. This new tax would operate most unequally—

In Lancashire, for instance, the Land tax amounted to 12,122/. per annum. In the poorer county of Norfolk, the Land-tax amounted to 65,792/. ; in War- wickshire, it came to 25,0001. ; in Somerset, to 48,000/. From this it was ob-

vious that the tax must press very unjustly on certain portions of the country. Lord Althorp had made a very confused and complicated statement of that which ought to be a very simple thing. The principle on which he went was not good. The Dissenters had still to pay. Sir Romer boils maintained that the Dissenters paid a mere trifle to the Church— The highest amount ever collected for Church-rate was 568,0001. Admitting the respectability of the Dissenters, he would ask any one whether they contri-

buted a twentieth, he might say a fortieth, part of that sum ? Taking the landed rental of the country at 51,000,000/. the Church-rate amounted to 3d. in the pound on that sum. Now, he would ask Lord Althorp, whether be con-

ceived that the Dissenters, taking the whole of their property into consideration, Raid one- quarter of a farthing in the pound? This being the case, the conclu- sion was inevitable—that it was not of the pecuniary burden the Dissenters com- plained, but of being obliged to contribute to the support of the Church. How

then would the situation of the Dissenters in this respect be changed by tise. plan? The only difference would be, that instead of paying the rate to the Churchwarden, they would have to pay it to the tax-collector.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Church of Rome was, but the- Church of England was not, intolerant— He maintained there might be a Church Establishment supported by the-State and by compulsory payment, consistently with the maintenance of perfect tell. gious freedom, and without in the slightest degree violating the sanctuary of conscience ; every one being permitted to prefer and adhere to that religiourifaith of which iu his own conscience he approved. With those opinions he had. always gone along with the Protestant Dissenters of the country, in seeking the removal of religious disabilities, but always with the firm conviction of the necessity and advantage of an Established Church. Mr. HARVEY alluded to the often-repeated promises of' Ministers to redress all the real grievances of the Dissenters—

Well, what was the ground of complaint urged by the Protestant Dissenters of England—that generous and disinterested body of men, to whom the present Government mainly owed their power, and to whose good feelings and support they ought most respectfully to defer ? What was the grand objection which they urged ? They objected, not to the paltry payment of the Church-rates, even taking their annual amount at fully 600,000/., aggravated too by the man- ner in which that sum was raised, and the profligate manner in which it was expended ; but they objected because, as Christians, taking the Bible as the basis of their faith and hope, as Protestant Dissenters they were called on coercively to support a Church from whose doctrines and discipline, one or both, they con- scientiously and disinterestedly differed.

How were the Dissenting chapels kept up ?— Why, by the voluntary contributions of those who worshipped within their

walls; and when the Member for Oxford University (Sir Inglis), entered into a comparison, for the purpose of showing that in point of numbers Dissen- ters were insignificant, and in point of wealth beneath consideration, it was yet found that that body of Christians who, contrasted with the Church of Eng- land, might almost he considered beggarly in their resources, raised upwards of 1,000,0001. per annum by voluntary contributions for the erection and support of their own places of worship, and those who administered among them sacred things. But yet they were told that the Church of England—the pure Church —the essence of Christianity, as it was represented—if left to itself, wealth crumble beneath the weight of its own incumbent corruption, and that those who were now so eager for its legislative support would be the first to desert her. Where was the Attorney-General of England ? (A laugh.) Where was the Solicitor-General? He repeated, where was the Attorney-General ( Renewed laughter), that he was not present to take instructions from Govern- ment to go into the Court of King's Bench and wield that popular instrument of his authority—the tiling a criminal information against those who dared to whisper so foul a calumny against the Church as to say, that if left to theirmwn inherent energies, the establishment they were attached to, the articles therre- vered, and the doctrines they loved, and the buildings they held so sacred, would at once become crumbling mockeries of a starving Christianity. -

2. ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO UNIVERSITY DEGREES.

The attention of the House of Peers was again called to this subject on Monday, by the Duke of GLOUCESTER; who presented the petition (which he was said, by mistake, to have presented last Friday) against the admission of Dissenters to University honours, from 258 resident members of the University of Cambridge, or now assembled there. He said that he was informed by the Vice-Chancellor, to whom be had written for information on the subject, that the former petition, signed by Professor Sedgwick and the sixty-three other gentlemen, had been got up with much secrecy and despatch. The Duke was very much surprised when he heard of it, and absented himself from the House when it was to be presented ; as he was not prepared to speak posie tively as to the sentiments of the University on the subject. He had now very great satisfaction in presenting a petition much more nume- rously signed, of a directly contrary tendency to that which Earl Grey had presented. The Duke then enlarged upon the difficulties and dan- gers attending the admission of Dissenters to University honours; and concluded by saying that he had another petition of a similar kind to present from 755 out of the 1100 Bachelors and Undergraduates of the University. The first petition was read; and the Duke observed that it was signed by 11 Heads of Houses, 8 Professors, and 29 Tutors. The second petition was then presented and read.

Earl GREY said, that as an opportunity would soon be afforded of discussing the subject of the petition again, he would not then enter into the general argument. He considered it quite impossible, that if there were any danger to the Church or the Universities in granting the prayer of those who wished to admit Dissenters to University degrees, so many learned and pious individuals would have signed a petition to that effect. As respected the members who had signed the petition just presented, be would observe, that 258 far exceeded the number of those members of the University who resided in Cambridge. There were 193 members of the Senate resident in the University. Of these, 63 had signed the first petition, seven morb who had not signed, concurred in it, and there were others who were quite indifferent on the subject. Of those who had signed the present petition, 108 were not resident members; and if those 108 were deducted, it would be found that there was not so very large a majority of the resident members as might be supposed from the Duke's statement. He was himself still of opinion, that if the prayer of the first petition was granted, the Church would be strengthened, riot endangered.

The Duke of WELLINGTON spoke briefly in support of the petition. He observed, that as regarded degrees in medicine, law, and science, there were other modes of redress open to the Dissenters than those

which they rusty sought. If the measure, recently introduced to the other House, sliculd become law, they must take leave of the union of Church and State ; if indeed the existence of Christianity itself (so the reporters understood the Duke to say) were not endangered.

Lord BItOUGHAM said, he would abstain from discussing the subject which had been introduced with such singular ability by the Duke of Gloucester ; but there were one or two points which he could not stiffer to pass without observation. Both the Dukes of Gloucester and Wellington had taken one line of argument, which he entirely approved of—a sort of terlium quid, if he might use the expression—both the

noble persons who represented the Universities being learned as well as gallant officers. Why, said they, visit an innocent party with punish- ment? there are modes by which relief to the Dissenters might be given without inflicting injury on the Church. The meaning of this

Tie," Give to other bodies the power of conferring degrees." ( Laugh- ter, and cries of "No, no I ") That was his gloss, his interpretation of their line of argument. He agreed in that view of the subject ; but if it were not taken by other parties, mark the scandalous injustice which would ensue; if the learned bodies referred to declared, " We object to making Dissenters Doctors—we wont make Doctors of them ; and You of the London University, who don't differ with the Dissenters about the worship of God, and are willing to make them Doctors. if

you had the power—you shan't have any such power." What was this but the grossest injustice—the acme of Collegiate monopoly? It had been said that Sir Isaac Newton did not object to subscribe to the Thirty- nine Articles ; but as Sir Isaac must have matriculated during the days of the Commonwealth, it was not very likely that subscription to the Articles was rigidly exacted then. It was urged that Dissenters, if ad- mitted to degrees, would have an influence in the distribution of der-- cat patronage ; but they who made use of this argument, strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. The Lord Chancellor had eight or nine hundred livings in his gift, and eighteen or twenty Cathedral stalls ; but he never subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles. Lord Lyndhurst might have subscribed them ut Cambridge, but not as Chancellor.

Lord Erskine and Lord Loughborough never subscribed them. Lord Erskine belonged to one of the most noted Presbyterian families that ever took the Solemn League and Covenant—he came of a good Pres- byterian stock. The Lord Chancellor, the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster, even the Premier might Le Dissenters. What folly was it then to suppose that the admission of half-a-dozen Dissenters into the University Senate-house would endanger the Church?

The Duke of WELLINGTON complained that he had been misrepre- sented. The Universities, in the petitions before the House, did not object to other bodies granting degrees, but to their bearing the same title as theirs ; thus committing a fraud upon the world and upon those learned bodies. There was no objection to the Dissenters enjoying such honours as courts of law or medicine could confer.

The Bishop of LONDON thought highly of many Dissenters, who were ornaments to society ; but would persist in excluding them from privileges which belonged of right solely to members of the Established Church.

The Bishop of GLOUCESTER, in reference to what had been said of Sir Isaac Newton, observed that he had been appointed one of the Committee to maintain the right of his University to resist the order of Jumet the Second for conferring a degree on Father Francis.

The Bishop of EXETER adverted to the practice of requiring sub- scription to the Thirty-nine Articles from students before entering the

University of Oxford. This practice had been termed a solemn mockery. There were grounds for the censure, if the subscription signified that the party signing fully understood the Articles, and pro- fessed to believe them on examination ; but it meant no such thing ; and was simply tantamount to a declaration that the subscribers were members of the Church of England. That this was a correct view of the subject, was proved by the fact, that instruction in the Articles became a primary point in the education of students, who had been fre- quently refused degrees in consequence of not understanding the Articles of religion.

Lord BROUGHAM expressed his astonishment at the speech of Bishop Phillpots ; whose casuistry he would not attempt to follow, for he was

not certain that he understood it. But if subscription did not mean what it professed to mean,—if it meant whatever casuists might be pleased to term it,—if he might disbelieve any part or parcel of that which he professed his readiness to believe at all hazards,—if he might begin by subscribing to certain articles, and afterwards be at liberty to learn what those articles meant,—a more clumsy invention was never struck out by human brain, lay or clerical, academic or barbarous, than

to make a man, who was only called upon to state his belief Of one article, swear that be believed in thirty-nine other articles. He always

disliked the doctrine of subscription—always thought it a cloak for hypocrisy, a measure of jesuitism and casuistry, a trap for tender con- sciences, a desecration of the holiest objects. But it now appeared

before his eyes as a degree of desecration, a refinement of subtilty, as a device of jesuitism and casuistry, as a cloak for hypocrisy of the vilest and comeest nature, as a— The Marquis of SALISBURY rose to order, Lord Brougham was only entitled to explain ; but here be was wandering. far beyond it, and at- tacking observations which had come from the bench of Bishops.

Lord BROUGHAM—" It would be a good rule if noble lords who called others to order would catch some glimpse, some faint glimmer of the meaning of those whom they interrupted. (Cries cf " Order!") I am speaking in explanation. (" Order, order!") Well, I will move an amendment. (" Order, order") I will move it in what part of niy speech I like best. I have a right to be heard in explanation. Lord Wynford and another Peer rose together. Lord WYNEORD said, that in that stage of the debate Lord Brougham could not move his amendment. Ile appealed to him as the " Doctor of all order," to see that the orders and regulations of the !louse were observed.

The confusion now became very great. Several Peers attempted to speak. At last the Duke of RICHMOND obtained a hearing. He

contended that Lord Brougham had been personally alluded to, and, according to the customs of the House, had a right to be heard, even though he did not confine himself strictly to explanation. The Duke of Wellington had spoken twice already in this very debate. Lord Brougham had been called the "Doctor of Order," but he bail no more dam than any other member to take ups& himself the care of the orders of the House. The Duke moved that the debate be adjourned.

Several Peers attempted to speak, but were prevented by Lord BROUGICAM; who, sitting upon the woolsack, insisted that, in point of form, he must now put the question of adjournment. While he was putting the question, he glided off the woolsack, and took his stand on the floor of the House. He immediately claimed his right to speak on the whole question, but said that he should waive it. An explanation was always considered a privileged secoLd speech ; and the Duke of Wellington had made a second speech that evening. As to what had fallen front Lord Wynford, he said, that when Lord Wynford reached that scat on the woolsack which he so highly merited, and perhaps so ardently coveted, he hoped he would not find him treating the Chan- cellor, as he was treated, not as the Doctor, but the tyrant of order.

The Duke of WELLINGTON maintained that, unlike Lord Brougham's, his speech was strictly iu explanation.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that be had observed as a judge, that it by no means followed because an individual denied an act, that he bad not been guilty of it.

The Duke of WELLINGTON reiterated his former assertion.

After a few words of explanation from the Bishop of EXETER (who compared the subscription to the Articles to a child's repeating the Creed), Lord LONDONDERRY expressed his surprise at the extremely uncourteous treatment of the Duke of Wellington by Lord Brougham.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that if Lord Londonderry wished to make a quarrel between " the two Chancellors " (the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of Oxford University), he would not succeed. Both he and the Duke had lived long enough to know the material difference between a denial of fact, and a denial of opinion.

The Duke of GLOUCESTER spoke a few words, and the petition was laid on the table.

On Wednesday, Mr. GOULBURN presented a similar petition in the House of Commons.

3. JEWISH DISABILITIES.

On the motion of Mr. ROBERT GRANT, the House went into Com- mittee on Thursday, to consider the civil disabilities of 'the Jews. Sir R. INGLis and Mr. A. JOHNSTONE divided the House against the mo- tion : for it, 53; against it, only 9. The resolution, on which to found a bill, was then agreed to in Committee ; the report was brought up, and ordered to be considered the next day.

4. REPEAL OF THE UNION.

The number of Members present in the House on Tuesday was un- usually great. Many petitions were presented, by Mr. O'Connell and other Irish Members, for the Repeal of the Union ; and one by Colo- nel Verner against it. Mr. O'CONNELL was then culled upon by the Speaker. He commenced his argument by asserting, that there never was a greater mistake than the supposition that Ireland bad ever been rightfully subjugated to England. It happened only a few days ago, that a gentleman accosted him in the Lobby of the House, to this effect —that the Canadas were endeavouring to escape us ; America had es- caped us ; but Ireland should not. It was this spirit of domination which he regarded as the greatest bane to the welfare of both Ireland and England, and as the source of all the evils which had been infliettd on his country. It should be his first object to prove, that England had no title to Ireland by subjugation ; and then to see whether any title which she did possess was obtained before or subsequently to the Union. He would be as brief as he could on these points ; for no man was more fully aware than himself, that he had a most unwilling audi- tory. Two hundred and twenty years had elapsed since Ireland was recognized as a portion of the dominions of the British monarch. In 1614, the distinction between English and Irish subjects was put an end to. The Irish had previously applied, in the year 11146, in the reign of Henry the Third, and in 1278, under Edward the First, to have the protection of British laws extended to them. Subsequently, in the reigns of Richard the Second, Henry the Eighth, and Elizabeth, si- milar applications were made ; but the Barons, fearful that their atro- cities in Ireland would be put a stop to, successfully resisted them. In the interval mentioned, from Henry the Third to Elizabeth, the right of Ireland to a separate Legislature was recognized, and the Parliament of the Pale was formed—a Parliament of British subjects. The Irish wished to he subjects of the Monarch, but to have a distinct Parliament from the English. At length, in the reign of James the First, the in- habitants of Ireland were amalgamated under one Government. In this process, atrocities of the most horrible kind were perpetrated, such as the conduct of the Spaniards in America could not equal. Mr. O'Connell here read several passages from the works of Protestant historians, detailing some of the crimes which English chieftains com- mitted in order to gain possession of the lands and property of the native Irish. Previously to 1614, there was 110 right of domination on the part of England pretended to. That period must be fixed upon as the real one of the subjugation of Ireland. Still, however, she pos- sessed her Parliament, nominally independent ; and her clear title to it was undisputed. In 1778, the first act was passed relaxing the penal laws. Then Ireland began to flourish. In 1782, her right to full le- gislative and judicial independence was acknowledged. Never was there a revolution so glorious and so stainless as that, or so ennobling to those who achieved it. Mr. O'Connell proceeded to quote from the King's message to the Irish Parliament, and the reply of the Irish Parliament drawn up by Mr. Grattan, in which it was distinctly as- serted, that " the kingdom of Ireland was a distinct kingdom, with a Parliament of her own, the sole Legislature thereof." These were the sentiments of the nation. The address which embodied them proceeded from the Irish gentry, the heads of the Protestant families. Oh, there was many and many a name sarong them, which was then regarded with affection, and now lived in the recollection of the Irish people. Many and many a man dwelt with pride and exultation on the circumstance that his father or his grandfather had voted for this address. He had known this recollection soften the violence of political animosity : he had known much forgiven to the descendants of that band of patriots. The liberty of helandwas nobly asserted : they had not forfeited it, they had not given it up ; it was their charter then, it was their charter now ; and it rould no more be blotted out of their recollection than it could- out of their affections.

The English Parliament passed an act renouncing all right of inter-

ference with the internal affairs of Ireland, and the Irish Parliament one denying that such right had ever existed. He admitted that much evil might be laid to the charge of the Irish Parliament, but denied that it had done any thing like so much to be ashamed of as the English Parliament. In proof of this, he instanced the approval of the Wills cheren expedition, the vote that a pound-note and a shilling were equal to a guinea, and the conduct of the British Parliament on the Regency question, as contrasted with that of the Irish Parliament. lie then proceeded to enlarge upon the rapid growth of Irish prosperity from 1782 till the year of the Rebellion. In 1797, the value of linens exported was three millions, and of cattle and corn between two and three millions. He quoted from the speeches of Lord Clare, Lord Plunkett, Mr. Foster, Mr. Pitt, and Earl Grey, passages confirma- tory of the prosperous state of Ireland during that period. He chal- lenged the right of the Parliaments of the two countries to effect so violent a change as that brought about by the Union. A legislature could make laws, but not legislatures. He made quotations from writings of' Locke and the speeches of Mr. Saurin, to prove that the ablest men were of this opinion. The same thing had been said in extremely strong language (which Mr. O'Connell quoted) by Lord Plunkett and Earl Grey, who had told the people of Ireland to wait for a fit opportunity to recover their rights. He denied that the Act of Union was an international compact ; and said he would prove that there never before were such enormities committed as those by which the Union was brought about. The chief means be which that act was consummated were intimidation, bribery, corruption, treachery, and blood.

He would show that rebellion was fomented, that divisions were kept up, that religion was distorted from its high and holy purposes, and perverted into an instrument of discord and assassination ; he ivould trace these calamities to the promoters of the t'nion,'to effect which they set the Catholic against the Protestant and the Protestant amtinst the Catholic, and made the country one universal bedlam, on purpose that they might assume the office of keeper, and turn it to their own profit and entolumeut. Could they then call the union effected by such means, a contract ?

The really most powerful motive to effect the Union was, be bad no doubt, a financial one. England owed 420,01Ke000/. Ireland only 26,000,0001. ; yet Ireland was called on to hand over her resources to a nation by which she had been unifiumly oppressed. Chief Justice Bushe had declared in the Irish Purliament, that England sought to carry the Union from intolerance of the prosperity of Ireland. In this light the nation regarded it at the time ; and in this light it was regarded by Earl Grey.

" Twenty-seven counties (said his Lordship) have petitioned against the measure. The petition from the county of Down is signed by upwards of 17,000 respectable independent men, and all the others are in a similar propor- tion. Dublin petitioned under the great seal of the city, and each of the corpo- rations in it followed the example. Drogloala petitioned against the Union, and almost every other town in the kingdom in like manner testified its disapproba- tion. Those in favour of the measure, possessing great influence in the country., obtained a few counter. petitions ; yet, though the petition from Down rl'iLS signed by 17,000, the counter-petition was signed only by 445. Though there were 707,liter who had signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declared themselves in favour of it dill not exceed 3,000; and many of tilese even only prayed that the measure might be discussed. If the frets I state are true, and I challenge any man to falsify them, could a nation in more direct terms express its disapprobation of a political measure than Ireland has of a legislative union with Greet Britain? In fact, the nation is ovally mi.:hi- mous, and this great majority is composed. not of fanatics, bigots, or Jacebins, but of the most respectable in every class of the community."

Vast armies were required to compel the Irish to submit. When a rebellion threatened to explode in 1797, the military force runounted to 78,994 men ; in 1798, after the rebellion had been put down, it amounted to 91,00a; in 1799, to 114,0(X); and in 1=00, to 129,215 men. These armies were employed to put down public meetings, and stifle resist- ance to the "Tejon as far as practicable. In 1797, the army was com- manded by S:r Ralph Abercroinby, who found it in a most disorganized state. Militsry licentiousness bad, in fact, been encouraged to goad the country into rebellion, in order that the Union might he inure easily carried. There was evidence that the Government had the best in- formation as to the proceedings of the disaffected, and could have nipped the rebellion in its bud, had such been its policy. The Union had been procured by the familiar use of torment, by the dread of the mili- tary, and by corrupting the members of the Irish Parliament. Mr. Grattan told Lord Castlereagh to his face, that three millions had been given to carry the Union ; and he was riot contradicted. Thirty-seven peerages were given, eight lawyers were made judges ; twelve bishops, and a frightful number of admirals and generals, were made for Union votes. A million was illegally granted to the owners of rotten bo- roughs disfranchised ; of which Lord Shannon received 35,0001. for his share, and another peer 45,0001. for his. It was arranged that two-

seventeenths of the national expenditure should be defrayed by Ireland: only half of this was the fair proportion. A statement had been made of the number of millions paid by England for Ireland ; but this was done only because Ireland had been taxed more than she could bear. The United Parliament added five millions to her taxation, and in this way rendered her revenue less productive. Had Ireland been placed under water for twenty-four years, she would have been saved an expenditure of 219,000,0001. He saw by some papers on the table, which had been laid there by Mr. Rice, that Ireland had obtained a bonus of 39,000,000/., in consequence of the difference between Irish and Eng- lish rates of duty. If that were the case, it was an argument in his favour ; for it proved that Ireland had gained by her Parliament having

imposed lower rates of duty than the English Parliament. He found that 47,000:000/. of war-taxes had been reduced in England, but only 1,500,000L in Ireland. The basis of taxation was unjust to Ireland.

Among the other consequences of the Union, were the Insurrection Act, which had prevented the Irish enjoying the advantages of the English constitution for twenty years, the absenteeism of the great proprietors, and the pauperism and emigration of the labourers. It had beeri said that the imports and exports of Ireland had increased since the Union ; but how ? By import of manufactured goods and the export of food. The effect of this in Ireland was visible. Were he there, all that he should have to say would be, " Cironospiee." Ile

thought that he had said enough to justify the House in granting the inquiry he asked for. He was a sincere friend to the British con-

nexion; and advocated repeal because he thought it would prevent separation. It was his eventual object to propose that a kderal con- nexion should be established between the two countries.

In the restoration of the Parliament little difficulty would be found. They had the King, they had the Loots ; it only be necessary to fix an Irish House of Commons upon the basis of the Reform Act, a basis which the uni- versal Irish people would receive and sanction. To sum up in a few words the substance of what be had addressed to the Muse be had shown the effect of the Union upon trade and manufactures, upon imports and exports. on the labourers and artisans of both countries, on the morals of both, on the spirit of liberty and national independence—he had shown the possible effect of the Union on the question of total separation—be had shown the facility with which the federal connexion might he formed—and lie had shown the leAkt with which Ireland could be governed by a Parliament of its own instead of a despotic rule. Eng- land, be had shown, had not made Ireland happy or done her puke ; and now, in the name of Ireland, lie called for a restoration of her Parliament. lie con- cluded by moving for a " Select Committee to inquire and report on the means by which the dissolution of the Parliament of Ireland was effected; on the effects of that measure upon Ireland, and upon the labourers in husbandry and operatives in manufactures in England ; and on the probable consequences of continuing the legislative Union between both countries." When Mr. O'Connell concluded his long speech, it was almost mid- night. Mr. SPRING RICE said be was ready to go on, if the House wished it ; but it was agreed to adjourn the debate.

On Wednesday, the order of the day having been read for resumingit, Mr. SPRING RICE commenced his reply to Mr. O'Connell ; whose absence from the House (occasioned by indisposition) he very much regretted, though he would assure 3Ir. O'Connell and his friends, that lie would say nothing in his absence which be should not be equally ready to say were he in his place. Mr. Rice then proceeded to remark upon the substitution of the motion for a Committee of Inquiry, instead of that which Mr. O'Connell had originally given notice of. The object of that manoeuvre was too palpable for any one to be taken in by it. Mr. O'Connell had indeed himself openly avowed that he expected by his change of motion to gain a few more votes. But it was fit that the Members for Great Britain should be made aware that any person who voted for this motion for a Committee would be immediately proclaimed a decided Repealer in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had supplied a com- mentary on its own motion in its present form. At the Dungurvan election, Mr. Barron, the unsuccessful candidate, had professed his wil- lingness to vote for a committee of inquiry ; but Mr. O'Connell de- nounced this offer as a most gross attempt at delusion, and told the Dungarvan Repealers that it was an insult to their understandings to suppose that they could be taken in by so flimsy and futile an expedient. set now, all that Mr. O'Connell himself pretended to ask for was in- quiry. Mr. Rice then defended himself from the charge which his opponent had advanced respecting the preparation of papers which both had moved for at the same time. The fact was, that Mr. O'Con- lien's papers were got ready before his own. Ile then stated the nature of the amendment which he intended to move. He would not meet the question by a simple negative : he would propose as a resolution that Parliament would persevere in the course hitherto pursued of giving the best attention to the affairs of Ireland, and of striving to promote her interests, and that Parliament would strenuously maint Ain the Legislative Union between the two countries, for reasons which would be stated. He then would propose that these resolutions should be communicated to the other House of Parliament for their concur- rence in the shape of an address to the King, and that the answer of his Majesty should be conuminicated to both Houses. This was en unusual step ; but lie would say, that if any man proposed to dismem- ber the State, and to deprive it of the power which Union conveys, it became the duty of the Legislature strongly to express their opinion upon it ; and when the individual who brought forward such a propoat- tion did so fur the sake of creating agitation, it was a gross lib:union- meat of duty not to express that opinion in strong terms. Mr. Rice then proceeded to comment upon Mr. O'Connell's quotations from the early history of Ireland, and the accounts of the atrocities committed by British invaders ; all of which, he contended, were utterly beside the real question, and could only have been introduced for the eke of creating an effect out of doors. He quoted some passages nom the letters of Burke, who condemned this practice of raking up oh; griev- ances, after England bad shown the disposition to behave better to- wards Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had laboured excessively to prove that England had no right to the domination of Ireland. Who said she had? Who claimed that right? Who governed Ireland ? Was it not the Legislature of the United Kingdom ? and who would say that Ire- land was riot well represented here ? He then referred to the conduct of the Irish Parliament, and of the leading Irishmen on the popular

side in 1782, and to the subsequent attempt of the Irish Volunteers, in 1783, to overawe the proceedings of that Parliament. Even in those glorious days, the constitution was in imminent danger, and was only saved by the prudence of Lord Charlemont, Grattan, and a few others. In the interval from the declaration of the independence of the Irish Legislature to the Union, the dangers which arose were very serious There was a dispute between Ireland and Portugal, and there might have been a war in which England was not called upon to join. Then came the Regency question, and it might have happened that there

would have been distinct Sovereigns in the two countries. Of all

Parliaments, the Irish Parliaments of those days were undoubtedly the worst. There was a Committee called the " Scrambling Committee, in which the members, under pretence of voting money for public ser- vices, each scrambled for the largest share. The Irish Parliament was called the " Family of Jobs." Mr. Rice dwelt some time on tire open undisguised profligacy of the Irish Parliament; and quoted front the speeches of Grattan, in confirmation of his opinion that it effected no good for the Irish nation. He utterly denied the assertion that the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland were not competent to form the Union. Were the Irish Members willieg to early out the argument against the legality of the Union ? By so doing, they would be obliged to admit, that as far as Ireland was con- cerned, Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform were null and void. As for the declarations of Lord Grey, Lord Plunkett, and others, at the time of the Union, he regarded them as mere rubbish—a bundle of trash. It had nothing to do with the settlement of the ques- tion in dispute now. It was remarkable, that about fifty years after the Union with Scotland, the Earl of Islay brought forward a motioa for its repeal, on the groand that Scotland had been unfairly treateder the financial arrangements. Lord Islay said, that unless the Union were dissolved, Scotland would become the most miserable nation on the face of the earth. But what did the Scotch think now ? There was not a Scotehman, out of Bedlam, froth the borders to the Orkneys, who, were he asked whether the Union should he dissolved, would not tell the querist to go to bed. Nor would a long period elapse ere Irishmen would view the question of the dissolution of their

Union with England in the same light. After adverting to some of the events of the Irish Rebellion, and denying in strong terms that the Government of the day had fomented it Mr. Rice went.o.n to aboyr what Ltd berm wore fer !reload or the Urania Parliament ; and con- tntsted its proceedings with those of the Irish Legislature, whose mo. nous for inquiry into the distresses of the people never ended in grants of money, but in idle talk. From 11401 to 1834, sixty-one Committees had sat upon Irish affairs. Irchael had been allowed a free trade in turn and butter with England. fler banking laws had been amended —a most important benefit. The gt end jury laws had been amended. Half a million had been granted for public works. The Vestry Cess lad been abolished, and a survey of the whole country ordered. Tithes were to be commuted ; and bows-, er some Irish Members might sneer at this, he could tell them, that in 178), Mr. Grattan in the Irish Parliament, had introduced a measure tier the commutation, not the abolition, of tithes. Then the sinecures in the Irish Law Courts had been abolished. !louses of industry, hospitals, dispensaries, savings banks, and friendly societies had all been established by acts of the Imperial Putliament. At the time of the Union, the ignorance of the tower elasses was deplorable, but the Irish Parliament had dune nothing to remove it. Now, upwards of 560,000 children were in the course of education. Mr. Rice referred to the state of the Irish constituen- cies previously to die Reform Bill, and pointed out the benefits which bad accrued to Ireland from that measure. 1k quoted statements of the money granted for public works, employment of the poor, and encouragement of manufactures, which were uniformly more liberal to Ireland than to England and Scotland. Sun ly the disposition of the English Parliament towards Ireland was net to be gathered from the Distraining of Crops Act and the Coercion Bill. Mr. O'Connell bad committed a great mistake in supposing that Ireland derived no benefit front the repeal of taxes in Englund. Were there no taxes prejudicial to the Irish poor in existence previously to the Union? What was hearth-money, but a tax felt in every cottage in Ireland, by those who had actually no property ? There were no direct taxes paid by the poor Ism; they were taxed indirectly in the consumption of certain articles. There had been an enormous bulk of taxation paid by Great Britain over and above the proportion paid by Ireland; and Mr. Rice entered into several details to prove that many taxes paid by the English were never extended to Ireland,—such as the Income-tax, and the duties on beer, bricks, soap, glass, and starch. There were others—such as the Stamp and Legacy duties—where the duties paid in Ireland were only half of those levied in England. Enormous grants had been made to Ireland since the Union. For its charitable and literary insti- tutions, no less than 4,225,0001. ; for the encouragetnent of her manu- factures, 1,340,0001. ; for public works, 3,162,000/. With respect to the proportions of taxation paid on either side the Channel, he would say, that whether that of two-seventeenths, as mentioned by Mr. O'Connell, was unfair or not to Ireland, was of little moment, for it Lad been completely set aside ; and the variation had been altogether in favour of Ireland. Mr. Rice read tables of the Irish Income and Ex- penditure, from which it appeared, that in 1801 the deficiency nearly 'doubled the ordinary revenue, which was 2,49-2,729/. ; but in 1817, the revenue was 4,209,1001., and the deficiency little more than in 1891, or 4,300,305/. After entering into several other financial details, proving that Ireland had gained to a very great extent by the arrange- ment respecting the National Debt which was made at the time of the Union, Mr. Rice went on to argue from the great increase had taken place in the imports, exports, shipping, a 'el manufactures of Ire- land, since 1800, that there ('mild be mm question as to the :Idvanrz:ges the country had reaped from the Union. He also showed, the: tie trade and manuMetures of Ireland, from 1780 to 1797, were &cameo ly in a Mate of extreme depression. Now the cotton, silk, linen, leathsr, goad porter trades, and the manufacture of machinery, were flourishing. Ile wished the Members of that House who were porter-brewers would be contAnt with exporting their manufactured article, and refra:n frem the composition of inflammatory harangues. Ile would now advert to the condition of the city of Dublin, which it was of had Veil so much injured by the Union. 'There was unquestionable evidence, in the first place, to prove that in 1780 the working classes in .Dublin were in a state of the most wretched poverty, and that a year or two before the Union they were by no means better off. But what had occurred since ?

The number of houses built in Dublin, from 1800 till 1834, amounted to 2213. But it might be said those houses were of a !nimbir and wretched de- Betiption. Now he had prepared a valuation of the 17,:f2d houses in Dublin, the rental of which amounted to 704,757/., or 401. per lieu e; and the anneal louse rental added to Dublin since the Union amounted to I2S,520/. Was this, he would ask, another proof of the increased poverty of rh- town? If exports aad imports greatly increased betokened poverty, would it he said that such large additions to the buildings of the town, together with a v ly improved rental, was another index of national degeneracy ? Upon street., on Dublin a sum of G1,000/. had been expended.

But this improvement was not confined to Dublin,. It ran through Limerick, Belfast, and all the towns of Ireland. The wretchedness of the Irish agricultural population had been vastly exaggerated ; as would appear by a reference to the evidence given before the Agricultural Committee of 1830. The total amount of property massing by probate in Ireland had increased since 1819 from 2,000,0001. to 3,612,000/. Ire the year 1825, an act had been passed to allow of the transfer of stock from England to Ireland, for the sake of facilitating the payment of in- terest; and no less than sixteen millions were transferred to Irish ac- count. During the last year, the sums paid into the Savings Banks amounted to 349,000/. n bile the amount drawn out was only 252,000/. There were no Assessed Taxes in Ireland; but the duty on wrought plate had risen, on an average of three years, from 1801-2,3 to It4•27-89, one hundred end ninety-seven per cent. At the Union, there was only one (7atholic chapel of any extent iu Dublin ; now there are eight or nine, winch must have cost 40,0001. The internal traffic of the country bud been greatly augmented 1, as was proved by the ton. nage on the Grand, Braid, and Borough Canals. On the first, there bad been an increase, booing the Let ten years, of 62 per cent. ; on the becoud, of 61; on the third, of 49 per cent.

in his peroration. he exhorted the house to act as if the honour, liberty, and happiness of the country depended on their conduct. He could not do better than quote the dying words of Grattan—" I most strongly recommend, that the two countries should never separate, and Shat Ireland should never seek for any connexion except that with Great Britain."

Sir. Rice then took out a paper, supposing it to be his amendment ; but it prove 1 to be something else, and he was unable to find the right document. '1'his occasioned a good deal of laughter in the House and bustle on th Treasury bench ; in the midst of which Mr. Rice re- commenced speaking, in order to give his colleagues an opportunity of finding the lost paper. After quoting some of the more violent pas- sages from Mr. O'Connell's speech, and pointing out their manifest tendency to produce agitation in Ireland, the paper not having been found, he eradiated by apologizing to the House, and stating the sub- stance of the amendment he intended to move.

Mr. FERGUS O'Coarstoit moved the adjournment of the debate ; but the SPEAKER said, the amendment had not been seconded. Mr. EMERSON Tesneeter seconded the amendment ; and immediately moved the adjournment ; by which he, and mot Mr. O'Connor, secured the privilege of commencing the debate next day. This defeat of' Mr. O'Connor occasioned considerable merriment.

On Thursday, before the debate was resumed, some conversation oc- curred respecting 811 assertions of Mr. O'Connell, in his speech on Tuesday, that one of the Members of Wiltshire was present at the time when the remark was made in the Lobby respecting the separation of the United States, Canada, and Ireland, from Great Britain. Mr. O'CoNeeet. said that he alluded to Mr. Benett ; but both Mr. Beeterr and Mr. METHUEN denied any recollection of the circum- stance. Mr. O'Cotesnesa, however, said that he distinctly recollected that Mr. Bennett was present.

Mr. E. TENNANT, the order of the day having been read as usual, then addressed the House, in a very long speech ; in the course of which he went over much of the saute ground as Mr. Rice. Ile dwelt particularly on the condition of Ireland previously to and since the Union; and maintained that in every way Ireland had gained prodi- giously by the connexion. As to the independence of the Irish Legis- lature, which it was asserted had been secured by the act of 1782, nothing could be a greater fallacy. The Irish Parliament was any thing but independent.

Nothing could be more unreal than the pageant of that boasted independence. The Irish Legislature, in fact, remained as folly under the control of the Eng- lish Alinistry as Isiore: and even the boasted repeal of Poyning's Law turned out to be at best het a specious delusion. The Minister resigned the privilege df opposing the introduction of an Irish bill ; but he retained the equivalent power of a veto when it had passed ; thus bringing the Legislative portion of the Government completely under British control. The act which wrought this effect seas introduced in the Irish Parliament in 1782, and was generally

known by the title of Yelverton's Act : it enacted that no bill should pass into

a law in Ireland unless returned under the Great Seal of Great Britain. At the very moment when the Irish Legislature assented their independence on the principle that the King governed Ireland in right of his Irish crown, and not as a portion of the realm of England, it actually passed a law by which its acts were thus subjected to the control of a foreign cabinet. The I loose would oh- m.' Ve also, that no line of distinction was drawn between local acts and public acts—all were alike to be submitted to the same ordeal ; and the veriest legisla- tive act affecting the interests of lieland—a bill for a road or a turnpike, for a canal or a bridge, for a tax, a duty, or a police regulation—was alike subjected

to the control of the British Minister. And yet to this humiliation Ireland submitted without a murmur, and called her condition independence ! Not only on those treasures was the Dish Parliament completely amenable to a su-

perior power, but this same independent Parliament was totally exploded from one of the noblest fields of legislation' that could possibly give dignity or impor- taloa! to a country—external legislation. From this she was complettly ex- cluded, even in matters in which her own interests were west I:. at ly cone: coed.

Mr. Tennant insisted upon the impossibility 1.:1 baying in- deptident legislatures in Englend and Ireland. He instanced the pre- seet state of the American Republic, and the iii-tory of Spain read Prntugal, Holland and Belgium, Denmark, and Norway, to prove the feeble nature of that federative tie which Mr. O'Connell sought to form between England and Ireland. The nearer the ap- proach to independence, the nearer was the approach to rebellion. A considerable portion of Mr. Tennant's speech was devoted to a de- scription of' the probable state of Ireland were the Union repealed and Mr. O'Connell installed Dictator. He made more than one allusion to the motives of Mr. O'Connell for keeping up tine agitation ; and said, that if the Union was carried by money, that was also the great incentive to the exertions of those who wished to dissolve it. He re- probated the conduct of the i'antholic clergy, and asked the Protestant Members of Ireland how they could expect, after the Repeal of the Union, to combat this giant influence single-handed. As to absen- teeism, it was absurd to suppose that it had been caused by the Union. As long ago as the middle of the seventeenth century, it had been com- puted by Prior to drain off a million and a half annually from Ireland. The scourges of Ireland were not the respectable classes, they were not the noble and illustrious, but the base and indigent of men. He concluded with declaring most solemnly, that he should vote for the amendment in the full conviction that in so doing he gave his vote for the preservation of the laws, religion, and happiness of his country.

The amendment was then read from tqe chair, as follows.

" We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons in Parliament assembled, feel it our duty humbly to approach y our Majesty's throne. to record in the most solemn manner our fixed determination to niaintaiu unimpaired and undisturbed the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland ; which we consider to be essential to the strength and stability of the empire, to the continuance of the con- nexion between the two countries, and to the pane and security and happiness of all classes of your Majesty's subjects. " We feel this OW determination to be as much justified by our views of the general interests of the State, as by our conviction that to no other portion of year Majesty's subjects is the maintenance of the Legislative Union more important than to the in- habitants of Ireland themselves.

" We humbly represent to your Majesty. that the Imperial Parliament have taken the affairs of Ireland into their most serious consideration, and that various salutary laws have been enacted since the Union, firr the advancement of the must halm-tont in- terests of Ireland, and of the empire at large.

" 1 u expressing to your Majesty our resolution to maintain the Legislative Union in- violate, we humbly beg leave to assure your Majesty. that we shall persevere in apply- ing our best attention to the removal of all just causes of complaint, and to the promo. tiou of all well -considered measures of improvement."

Mr. FERGUS O'Cosreon said, the question was not one of mere multiplication ; it was a question whether Ireland should be an inde- pendent kingdom, the right arm of England, or be degraded and de- based, a shame to her Representatives, a drag-chain on the resources of England, and a beggar at her gates. He denied that English gentle- men, who bad not resided in Ireland, were competent to fOrin an opinion on the real condition of the country. Of course, as the popu- lation bad greatly increased, they required more houses to live in, and consumed more clothing and food ; but that did not disprove the fact of their extreme wretchedness. What ought to be the food of the Irish peasantry, was exported to feed the absentees ; and their imports con- sisted of manufactured articles, which they were too poor to produce themselves. Remarks had been made respecting the mode in which the services of Mr. O'Connell were recompensed : that recompense was a voluntary one on the part of those who made it. Grattan, Horne Tooke, and Fox, had all been remunerated for the sacrifices they had made to the public ; and there was certainly nothing discre- ditable in it. There was no truth in the assertions that the Irish Ca- tholics would seek for a foreign connexion. In 1798, out of a hundred state prisoners, only three were Catholic. The idea of establishing a Catholic ascendancy was absurd. He was a Protestant himself, and would resist any such attempt with all his strength. Ther.y was a vast deal of inconsistent absurdity in the declarations of Mr. Rice and Mr. Tennant, that the Irish were well off and comfortable, and yet the prey of agitators. When men were living in comfort, it was out of the power of mischief-makers to persuade them that they were oppressed and miserable. He entreated Mr. Littleton to judge for himself, and MA to be swayed by the opinions and misrepresentations of his colleagues.

Mr. LimeTosr said, that any person, however argumentatively, his- torically, or financially conversant with the present question, would feel considerable difficulty in following the discursive and declamatory speech of Mr. O'Connor. After the extraordinary and powerful. speech of Arr. Rice, it was unnecessary for him to enlarge upon the sulecet, for the statements of that speech had by no means been controverted. That speech would be referred to hereafter as a manual on the subject, by all who should be disposed to examine the question as one of mere his- toric interest. Nothing had been heard of Repeal from 1800 to 1832. It was in fact a sentiment not of natural growth in Ireland. It was now conceived for the purposes of a selfish and most unjustifiable de-

scription. He would call the attention of the House to were to be the results of Repeal. A threat of confiscation had been held out. A tax of 75 per cent. was to be imposed on the incomes of absentee landlords. Then it was said that no person would be allowed to hold estates both in England and Ireland. The passing of a bill to effect this was avowed by Mr. O'Connell, at a public dinner, to he one of

the first results he expected from Repeal. It was said that there would be a Federal Union : but this was impracticable. The men who talked in this way were actual Separatists. Mr. O'Connell, judging from his speeches and his actions, must be a Separatist, if in his senses. Shy- lock did not demand the life of his debtor—only the pound of flesh

nearest the heart : so Mr. O'Connell did not demand separation—only those measures which made separation inevitable. He regretted that Mr. O'Connell was not present, ns he wished to direct his attention to a passage in his speech at the dedication of a Roman Catholic chapel at Kildare, as reported in the Pilot.

"How," asked the Member for Dublin, "can any men sitting in London know our wants and our wishes, and what is right to be done in the internal conduct of our affairs? How can you let them know your desires? Why, if the Parliament were sitting in Dublin, and your Representatives were doing wrong, you could take your short sticks in your hands sonic tine morning, and go up and tell them to vote honestly and rightly." ( Shoats of " Hear !" and cheers from Mr. F. O'Connor and 31r. O'Dwyer.) The Members for Cork and Drogheda applauded that recommendation. lie was extremely glad they did so. This was said to be one of the great and principal advantages of a do- mestic Legislature ; and yet, in the same speech in which Mr. O'Connell gave such advice he deprecates violence, and talks about " the red UM of Cod's ven geance being for ever lifted up against the man who shells a fellow creature's blood." One argument was worth a thousand rhetorical flourishes—" Take your short sticks in your hands, and go up and tell them to vote honestly and rightly." ( Cheers and laughter.) If there was any gentleman present, and peradventure there might be four, who were pluming themselves on the idea of having seats in Mr. O'Connell's domestic Legislature, he would beg most sin- cerely to tender them his cordial congratulations on the brilliant prospect before them of their Parliamentary independence.

He warned the Repealers, that there existed on the part of the labouring population of England, a strong feeling that they were in- jured by the incursions of the Irish peasantry; and if Repeal were ear- ned, the table of the House might soon be covered with petitions for the exclusion of the " stranger " (to use Mr. O'Connell's favourite ex- pression), and that the Irish might be shut out of England altogether.

It would not he very difficult to foresee the result of such appeals in a Parlia- ment exclusively British, consulting only British interests, founded only on British predilections, and in which not only the eloquent advocacy of Mr. O'Connell would be wanting, but in which not a favourable voice would be raised, however feebly, by any one connected with Ireland by property, or by any obligations of honour or interest inclined to promote the welfare of that

• country.

Mr. Littleton then described the base and degraded condition of the old Irish Parliaments, and the demoralizing effects of their corruption, which were felt throughout the country.

Those evils were not merely historical; they actively displayed themselves up to the present moment. Still, however, they were not the natural growth, nor did they originate in the peculiarities of Irish character—they were insepara- bly connected with the Government which was obliged to manage its move- ments through the instrumentality of such a domestic Legislature. And he believed if it were now again reestablished, in times of broil and emergency, when the exigency of the again seemed to justify the means, Ministers, it would be found, would not be backward in availing themselves of the facilities which were afforded ; and a system of corruption would again secretly and silently become the settled system of their government in that country.

He had no right to question the purity of' Mr. O'Connell's motives. He was quite Willing to admit, that up to the period of Catholic Emancipation, he had conferred on his country the greatest possible benefit. Since that time, he had been a most unfortunate obstacle to the social welfare and progressive improvement of the Irish. lie did hope, however, that after the solemn adjudication of this question by Parlia- ment, be would have the prudence to desist from agitation, and would unite himself with all that was intelligent, worthy, and respectable in Ireland, in an endeavour to maintain public peace and existing in- stitutions.

Mr. BARRON followed Mr. Littleton, in a speech in favour of Repeal, which is briefly reported, and contains no passages that call for quotation. Mr. RUTH FEN moved that the House should adjourn ; which, after some opposition from Lord ALTHORP, was agreed to.

Nearly the whole of last night was again occupied with the discussion of this question. Mr. RUTIIVEN, Mr. H. Gitarrate, and Mr. SHEIL, spoke in favour of Mr. O'Connell's motion ; and Mr. JOHN Baowea, Sir DANIEL SANDFORD, Mr. LAMBERT, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, stip- ported the amendment. The arguments used were, with scarcely any exception, the same as those advanced by the speakers In the earlier part of the debate.

Sir DANIEL. SANDFORD, who expressly asserted his freedom from party bias, and his determination to act with perfect independence, al-

luded particularly to the declaration of Mr. O'Connell that a consider- able portion of the Scottish people were in favour of Repeal. Thdre had certainly been a petition in favour of that measure presented from Paisley ; but it proceeded almost exclusively from the Irish Catholic emigrants. Sir Daniel said, that he considered financial details as very fallacious guides towards ascertaining the moral condition of a country. Returns of imports and exports might shoW the wealth of a country, but not how that wealth was diffused. He maintained, that full mea- sure of justice was not meted out to Scotland at the time of her Union with England, nor since. She was not as well treated by the Reform Act as Ireland, if her wealth and intelligence were taken into account. But she was peaceful, because there were no political agitators to dis- turb her population. He was utterly opposed to the Repeal of the Union, and could not rest satisfied without raising his voice against it.

Mr. H. GRATTAN maintained, that his father was to the very last in favour of a Repeal of the Union, as the only means of preventing se-

paration. He endeavoured at some length, and with much ingenuity, by taking the averages of different periods from those chosen by Mr. Rice, to prove that the immediate effects of the Union were disastrous to Ireland.

Mr. LAMBERT dwelt upon Mr. O'Connell's proceedings in tine work of agitations. He complained of Mr. O'Connell's absence; as he had

ascertained that he was in the precincts of the House, and he had given him notice that he intended to make his career in Ireland the sub- ject of remark. [ While Mr. Lambert was speaking, Mr. O'Connell entered, and took his seat, amidst the cheers of his friends. One of Mr. Lambert's remarks, or rather the manner in which it was made, threw the House into a convulsion of laughter. Mr. O'Connell had said at a public meeting " Only imagine two hundred and fifty gentle-

men taking houses in Dublin and furnishing them from the shops of the different tradesmen, and spending their incomes there!" Gentlemen, said Mr. Lambert, gentlemen! It was the peculiar mode of pronouncing this word, as the Reporters inform us, that excited the risibility of the House so powerfully.] Mr. SIIEIL objected strongly to the amendment. It conveyed an intimation that the Imperial Parliament pledged itself that the uniform

tenor of policy exercised towards Ireland was one of wisdom and justice. He denied that there was any more reason to apprehend that the Irish Parliament would be overawed by mobs, than an English one; and reminded those who were of a different opinion, that Crom- well had once removed the mace, and that Lord George Gordon and his mob had attempted to overawe the House of Commons. The pro-

ceedings of the Irish Parliament had been misrepresented. In 1793, it had made a great step towards relieving the Catholics from the penal- ties to which they were liable. He asked why a Committee should be refused for inquiry into the state of Ireland, when Mr. Stanley had at once granted one to examine into the complaints of the Canadians, Mr. Stanley said, " Let the Canadians prove their ease if they can." That was all he and his friends asked for—an opportunity of proving their case.

Sir ROBERT PEEL was received with cries of " Withdraw !" and " Go on !" which lasted some time. He expressed'his willingness to

do either, as the House thought best ; but he really thought it was time that this debate should be brought to a close. If it were to last ten times as long,—if ten times the argument and ingenuity were brought to bear upon the subject that had already been employed upon it,—still the convictions would press upon the country, that the House ought not to submit to the dismemberment of the empire. When Mr. Canning was asked to refute some arguments in favour of the Repeal, be replied, " Repeal the Union—restore the Heptarchy!" Were the Union repealed, England would sink to a fourth-rate power, and Ire- land become the province of some other country. He quoted a pies- sage from the evidence of Mr. Shell in 1825, given before a Committee of the House of Commons, in which that gentleman had declared, that if Catholic Emancipation were granted, the Irish would be quite in- different as to the Union ; and that whenever " any mention was made in a Catholic assembly of the evils of that measure, it was made for the purposes of rhetorical excitement, and not with any serious view

on the part of the speaker to disturb that which, in his humble judgment, was perfectly indissolubk." Sir Robert then put a num- ber of cases, in which the impracticability of two distinct Legis- latures acting together under one Sovereign was shown. What Minister would hold power in England, if the King had servants in

Ireland whom he could not control ? Suppose the King were to go to war, and one Parliament should grant supplies which the other re- fused. How would the question of money be arranged ? What pro- portion of the expenditure of a war, supposing both Parliaments sanc- tioned it, should be borne by each nation ? He defended at great length the conduct of Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh at the period of the Rebellion and the Union. He did not know whether it was the inten- tion of the Repealers or not to restore the ancient monarchy of Ireland ; but if it were, he hoped that they would choose a legitimate descendant of the ancient Sovereigns.

He disclaimed any intention of presuming to interfere in the arrangement of the Irish crown, but, from the judgment he was able to form from his reading of Irish history, there was no person, in the event of the ancient monarchy being restored, who would be better entitled to the dignity than his honourable friend Mr. Fergus O'Connor. (Loud laughter.) lie owed a deep debt to Irish hos- pitality, argil he was proud to acknowledge the con tesy and kindness which he met in Ireland ; and in return, he would hope for that country, if it should re- turn to its ancient system of government, that one of the ancient race, in the person of the honourable Member for Conk, should assert his rightful supremacy. There were, however, it appeared, certain preliminaries which Mr. O'Connor would have to perform in case of his elevation to the throne— First a white cow was to be sacrificed ; and then the Monarch postulate was to strip stark-naked and bathe in a vat ; after which he was to vat of the flesh and drink of the broth of sacrifice. The custom of the ceremony with the title he would take leave to hand over to the honourable Member for Cork ; pre- mising that the office required some culinary skill, as it was indispensable that the Monarch should make his own soup. ( Continued laughter.)

Sir Robert Peel concluded by protesting in the most solemn manner against the motion. And the debate was adjourned once more, on the motion of Mr. CALLAGHAN, to Monday next.

5. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.

A bill for the repeal of this act, brought in by Mr. J. A. MURRAY, was read a second time on Thursday. It was opposed by Mr. FINCH, Sir R. INGus, Mr. PLUMETRE, Mr. PEASE, and Mr. A. JOHNSTONE; and supported by Lord ALTHORP. The second reading was carried by 6510 14.

6. MISCELT.ANEOUS SUBJECTS.

EXCHEQUER OFFICES BILL. On the motion of Earl GREY, the House of Peers considered the bill in Committee on Tuesday. Only one immaterial amendment was made ; and the report was received on Thursday.

CI.FRKSHIP or THE PIPE IN SCOTLAND. The bill for the abolition of this office, which, since the abolition of the office of Chief Baron, has become a sinecure, was read a first time, on the motion of Lord SHAIIEMBultY, on Thursday. Lord BROUGHAM said,

He could not suffer the first reading of this bill to take place without doing an act of justice to a most upright and liberal-minded individual, who had freely made a very great sacrifice to the public. With the exception of the Marquis Camden, he knew of no individual who had done so munificent an act as Mr. Murray, the Member for Leith ; who had given up to the public any claim to compensation on account of the abolition of the office of Clerk of the Pipe. which was effected by the present bill. lie had at once acceded to the abolition of the office without the least regard to his own vested interest. and the Lord Chancellor thought that such an-example ought not to be suffered to pass unnoticed by their Lordships.

(A similar compliment was paid to Mr. Murray in the House of Commons, by Mr. HOME and Mr. Wilar.acr, after the bill had gone to the Upper House.] ERRoNEOLTS JUDGMENT IN THE IRISH Crows. On Thursday, Lord Immitunsr presented a petition from Mr. Richard Radford Roe ; who complained that he had been imprisoned for five years and five months under an erroneous judgment of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, which having been argued on a writ of error here, had been set aside.

Another ground of complaint was, that there were certain fees connected with the prosecution of a writ of error which the petitioner was not in a situation to pay, and that he still remained in custody on account of those fees. It was, he conceived, it case of extreme hardship, and required some legislative interposition for the relief of the petitioner.

Earl GRLY said, it was a very hard case the fees ought to he remitted.

Lord BROUGHAM said,

If ever there was an instance that particularly elucidated the fiction of the law, which made the judge counsel for the prisoner, it was in the ease of Mr. Radford Roe. If ever there was an individual who had a right to complain of the ad.ninistration of justice in this country, it was Mr. Radford Roe.

SMUGGLING ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time on Tuesday, on the motion of Lord AUCKLAND, and passed.

AMENDMENT or THE BEER ACT. A bill, brought forward for this purpose by Lord KENYON, was referred on Tuesday to a Select Com- mittee of the Lords.

ADMISSION or DISSENTERS TO UNIVERSITY DEGREES. A bill for effecting this object, was read a first time in the House of Commons on Monday, and ordered to a second reading on the 30th instant.

HERTFoRD BOROUGH BILL. Mr. BERNAL moved the third reading of this bill on Monday. A brief debate ensued, in which Colonel EVANS, Sir R. PEEL, Mr. WALTER, Lord G. SOMERSET, Mr. E. J. STANLEY, and Sir H. HaRDINGE, took part. The third reading passed without a division ; and then Colonel EVANS proposed as a rider, that " in future elections for the borough of Hertford, the Ballot be adopted." This was rejected, by 100 to 82. Sir R. PEEI. moved an amendment, the object of which was to disfranchise the voters resident in Hertford before the Reform Act came into operation, and to limit the bill to that effect. Mr. Britaaat. opposed the amendment ; and it was rejected by 144 to Ha Colonel EVANS moved another amendment, the object of which was to lessen the boundaries of the new borough, and thereby the power which the bill would give to the neighbouring landed pro- prietors. This was also rejected, by 117 to 19; and the bill BUsINEss IN COUNTY COURTS. Mr. E. J. STANLEY obtained leave, on Thursday, to bring in a bill to render the transaction of all business in county courts, relative to county.rates and the expenditure thereof, open to the public.