Mebates1 ant( Proreetting# in parliament.

1. THE BUDGET.

The House of Commons last :light resolved itself into a Committee of Ways and Means ; and Lord ALTHOEP proceeded to lay before them the financial statements of the year. The receipts for the year ending 5th July 1834 were £46,914,586 The expenditure 44,737,556

Leaving a surplus of £2,177,030

This surplus was larger than any which had accrued since his acces- sion to office ; being larger by 675,0W1. than that of the preceding year, notwithstanding taxesto the amount of 1,500,000/ had been taken off; while the expenditure had been diminished by 650,000/. The charge for the ensuing year would be as follows.

Consolidated Fund

£30,500,000

Army 6,497,903 Ordnance 1,166,914

7,664,817 Navy 4,578,009 Miscellaneous 2,228,387 £44,971,213

This was the sum to be provided for. It appeared that the diminu- tion of Supplies, as compared with last year, was only 149,274/, not .500,000/. as he had anticipated. The difference was accounted for by sundry charges peculiar to the year, amounting to 404,000/ ; in detail as follows.

Payment to the East India Company, according to ar-

rangement

To the same for St. Helena £1259400000

Grant to the officers and men at Navarino 21" To encourage Steam Navigation to India

000

Advanced to pay Seamen

100,000

£404,000

The next year's income, assuming it to be the same as the last;

would be £46,914,586 The charge would be 44,971,213 The surplus £1,943,373

But this surplus existed on the supposition that there was to be no reduction of taxation. It should be remembered also, that be had 750,000/. to pay from August next, as interest of the Slavery Loan, which would reduce the surplus, it. round numbers, to 1.200,0001. But then, he would receive from the Bank of England 120,000/. ; he would save 50,000/. by the reduction of the Four per Cents. ; and expected to have 250,0001. additional Tea-duties,—though that was much less than he anticipated at the beginning of the session. These would raise his 1,200,000/. to 1,620,000/. Much had been said of the increased con- sumption of spirits, and an increased duty bad been talked of; but he did not belong to that school who imagined they could produce morality by taxation. Still he thought, that if an increase cot& be made to the revenue without increasing immorality, it ought to be made. He in- tended to propose an increase on spirit and beer licences, which to- gether would produce 195,000/. The retail spirit-dealers would have to pay 50 per cent. more for their licences, and the beer-sellers whose beer was drunk on the premises in the same proportion ; but when the beer is not consumed on the premises, the cost of the licence would be reduced one half. This would raise his surplus to 1,815,000/. The duties he meant to relinquish were— First, the House-tax • The reductions in the Customs, as stated by Mr

f1,200,000

I'oulett Thomson some days ago

2C0,000 Duty on Starch ' 75,000 Stone Bottles and Sweets

6,000 Assessed 'faxes, Shepherds' Dogs, Horses belonging to

poor Clergymen, Dissenting as well as of the

Church, Windows in small farm-houses, &e

75,000 Almnanacks, the duty to be abolished

25,000 £1,581,000 This suns deducted from his surplus of 1,815,000!., would leave him 2:34,000/. ; but then, he had included 400,000/. in his expenditure which would only occur in this year : the permanent balance would therefore be 011(1,0001. Besides, only half the House-tax would this year be de- ducted feom the receipts, and only half the interest of the Slavery Loan would be paid. The balance, therefore, for the present year, would he 1,185,000/ With this balance he was justified in making an experiment. Lord Althorp then read a number of documents, to prove the great in- crease in the consumption of spirits which had arisen in England and Scotland from the reduction of duty. In both countries time consump- tion was increasing ; but in Ireland the consumption was on the decline. The quantity of spirits brought to charge was about eight millions of gallons ; but the actual consumption amounted to twelve or fourteen millions. This proved that the duty was too high. He therefore pro- posed to reduce it from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. a gallon. He anticipated that, owing to this reduction, the quantity brought to charge would be increased from eight to ten millions of gallons : if so, the loss to the revenue would not exceed 200,000/. The amount of taxes reduced since 1831,

was ; but the reduction of income had only been 3,000,000/. This year, after providing fur the interest of the Slavery grant of twenty millions, he had still been able to reduce the taxation of the country to the amount of 1,500,000/. He read some tables of the official value of British exports ; from which it appeared that there had been an annual increase of 9,331,000/a on an average of the last three years, over the three preceding years. These were proofs that our trade and resources were in an elastic and flourishing condition. Lord Althorp sat down amidst loud cheers.

Mr. BARING expressed strong disapprobation of the system of keeping so small a surplus in hand. He also disapproved of time paltry reduction in the Custom-duties; it was merely throwing revenue away. The agricultural interest ought in the first place to have been relieved, by reducing stamps on leases and insurances, or a portion of the ?trait-tax, instead of the little paltry reductions on shepherds' dogs and horses. Ile charged Lord Althorp with having totally failed in his project fur reducing the Four per Cents.; as, out of eleven millions, the owners of upwards of five millions had dissented. How was he to raise this large sum ? He also charged the Commissioners of the Savings Banks and for the reduction of the Debt with gross jobbing, in selling and buying Stock in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry on his operations. By this jobbing,.a loss of 1,0850101. had been incurred, which could only be made up by an artificial rise in the Stocks. In case of a war, the property in the Savings Banks would be reduced from fifteen to ten millions, for the Stocks would soon go down from 90 to 60.

Lord ALTIIORP denied these charges. He bad provided ample means to pay off the dissentients. There was a gain of 118,8771. to the Sav- ings !leeks, and no loss ; and the Commissioners had done no more than they were especially authorized to do by Act of Parliament. He had sold out Stock in small quantities, in order not to lower the market and defeat his own operations. Mr. Baring had made mistakes, not he.

Mr. BARING insisted that there had been a loss in the operations alluded to.

Lord A LTH0aP denied it.

Mr. 111:11RIES explained, that there had been a loss from the first, but a gam which more than covered it from the subsequent operations.

Itir. Gousaunsr disapproved of the Budget, and doubted the policy of the reduction on spirits.

Mr. POULETT THOMSON defended the reductions in the Custom- dunes; and the system generally adopted by Ministers in the reduction of duties. He reminded those who maintained that the agriculturists had not been benefited by the reduction, that the reduction on raw materials benefited indirectly all who had capital to employ or labour to sell, by increasing the demand for both. It was impossible for time pro- ductive powers of the country to be extended without every class being benefited. He would therefore advocate the abolition of duty on cotton, glass, and paper; but at the same time, in reducing a tax, he must look to the pain with which it was paid. Sir HOBERT PEEL contended, that Ministers, disregarding clamour, should have acted up to their own principles, and repealed the taxes on glass amid cotton.

Mr. Hems expressed general approbation of the Budget, especially the abolition of the duty on almanacks ; be wished the tax on news-

papers had been also taken off. He thought it good policy to lower the duty on spirits : it would tend to diminish drunkenness.

Several other Members addressed the House briefly; and then the resolution moved by Lord ALTIIORP, of a vote of 4,230,000/. towards the Supply, charged upon the Consolidated Fund, was agreed to.

2. Pooe-L AWS.

Lord Bnoucarnat moved the second reading of the Poor-Law Amendment Bill, on Monday. He supported his motion in an elabo- rate address to the Peers, which occupied nearly three hours in the de- livery. He began by congratulating their Lordships on the failure of the attempts which had been made to excite the feelings of the country against the bill ; although he admitted that it had not met with that eager and almost universal support, Odell many: other measures in-

troduced by himself and his colleagues had obtained. He then pro- ceeded to describe the terrible evils which the present mode of adminis- tering the Poor-laws had brought upon the country,—evils which led to the multiplication of misery and excess of crime. An agrarian division of property would not be a worse evil than that which the continuance of the present system would infallibly occasion. This, he rejoiced to say, Isms no party question ; no personal feelings could interfere to pre- vent the subject receiving the attention it deserved and required. Lord Brougham then traced the history of the Poor-laws, from the act passed in the 43.1 Elizabeth, to the establishment of the allowance system. In ancient times, there was a tripartite division of property held by the Church : one third was for the support of the Church, another for the parson, and the other for the poor. It was thought by some, that if the right of the poor to this third was admitted and enforced, all difficulty would he put an end to : but he could not conceive any thing more mischievous than the doctrine that there was a certain fund to which at all times the poor might apply for sup- port. Much mischief lurked in the act of Elizabeth; but it lay latent in a great measure, until it was decided that a pauper had a right to a comfortable support at home. This was Mr. Pitt's plan in 1795. But

Mr. Pitt had mistaken the only good principle,—that men should be fed according to the work they (lid, and employed according to the de- mand for that work. The only safe charity was a hospital for accidents ; then came a dispensary : but he had strong objections to institutions fur the reception of the aged and infirm ; for age and infirmity were evils against which all should provide for themselves, at least to the utmost of their power. The greatest outrage, however, against sound principle, was a foundling hospital ; this he held to be a public nui- sance, which should be summarily abated. Lord Brougham dwelt at length on the evils of the allowance system—the incentive it applied to idleness, insolence, and improvident marriages. At this part of his speech, be paid some high compliments to the great services, original talents and discoveries, and admirable private character of Professor Malthus ; one of those high-minded and virtuous characters who could well afford to treat with disdain the malignant and flippant attacks of the low-minded and time ignorant. He next spoke in warm approbation of the Report of the Poor- Law Commissioners ; and referred to it for proofs of the evils which the allowance system had occasioned. With regard to the Poor-law itself, he would then say nothing. When its administration was improved, it would then be well to take time law into consideration. Ile next adverted to the senseless clamour raised against the authors of time present bill, on the ground that they were political economists,—as if political economists were necessarily mere visionaries and speculatists ! So far from it, the most practical men— among whom he instanced Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson, and Mr. Henry Thornton the banker—had been political economists. It was true, that scientific men were sometimes mistaken, but ignorant men were always absurd : " dressed in a little brief authority, they played the most fantastic tricks." The French Economists had been called Levellers and Republicans; but in reality they flourished under the despotism of the Bourbons. Lord Brougham was quite willing to share the obloquy of being a theorist, with the able men who had drawn up the Poor-Law Report. He then defended the establishment of a Central Board, and the alterations which the bill proposed to make in the law of settlement and the bastardy law ; and concluded by claiming for himself and his colleagues perfect purity of motive in bringing for- ward the measure.

Lord WYNFORD moved that time bill be read a second time that day

six months. He objected to the appointment of a Central Board, and to the alterations in the bastardy and settlement laws; the former of which would lead, he feared, to infanticide, and the latter would in many instances have a very cruel operation. He contended that the Magistracy might safely be intrusted with the administration of the ex- isting laws; that the present bill was unnecessary; and that at all

-events its consideration might be beneficially postponed.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA wished the bill to be amended in some of its provisions ; but on the whole, gave it his hearty support.

Lord ELDON wished the bill to be postponed at least till next session.

Lord A LVANLET objected strongly to the constitution and powers of the Central Board ; and against the bill generally, as being about to in- troduce the French system of Centradization into this country.

The Earl of RADNOR insisted upon the necessity of some central controlling power, to compel the adoption of an improved system in parishes, where the managers of the poor clung obstinately, and in many instances from corrupt motives, to a bad one.

The Duke of Wsa.mascros: tendered his sincere thanks to Ministers, for bringing forward a measure which so many other Administrations had neglected to bring forward, although all acknowledged the necessity of applying some vigorous remedy to the enormous evils of the present system.

Lord MELBOURNE was utterly opposed to the postponement of the bill. It would 1.e best to save as much time as possible. It had al- ways appeared to him absurd, that such a tax as the poor-rate should be levied by, and its produce placed under the control, of an uncertain,

local, partial government. The income. tax was laid on by Parliament ; but this tax was imposed secretly, silently, unknown. It operated like a baneful tree, which spread its branches over the land, exhaling pesti- lence, blighting whatever caught its infection, and rendering the earth fruitless

The Marquis of BUTE and Earl MANYERS supported the bill.

The Duke of RICHMOND also supported the measure, because no better had been suggested ; although he looked with alarm on the esta- blishment of the Central Board.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY viewed the bill in its present state with considerable alarm.

The Marquis LANDSDOWNE. spoke briefly in support of the bill.

After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM in reply, their Lordships divided on the question of the second reading : Contents, 76; Non- contents, 13; Majority for the second reading, 63.

Several petitions were .presented on Thursday for and against the bill. Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting one from Ashby-de-la-Zouch

and the vicinity, in favour of the measure, took occasion to explain sonic parts of his speech on Monday, which he said had been most grossly misrepresented : the misrepresentations were astounding. It had been said that he was opposed to all charities for the aged, sick, and infirm ; that in order to be received into an hospital, it was neces- sary for a man to break his leg—to put his leg under a broad-wheeled wagon, or something equally violent. According to this statement, he was also made to say, that a fever, or the most grievous calamity that could afflict a working man, no matter bow great it might be, was not to be noticed unless an individual broke his leg—unless a case was made out for a surgeon—no pity, no compassion would be extended by him to the sufferer. The most unmerited abuse had been lavished upon him for entertaining this falsely-imputed opinion. But it so happened, that he had guarded himself, over and over again, against such misconstruction.

What he had stated was this—that where there was a provision for persons— for able-bodied persons—where there was a known provision, whether in the form of alms or a proportion of tidies, or monastic doles that were bestowed at the gates of convents in former times, before the alteration made by Harry the Eighth, or provision derived from any regular fund for hospitals or infirmaries— it had always tended to create the evil which it was intended to prevent, because those who knew that such sources of provision existed would on every occasion infallibly draw upon them. He then said that he would step aside to consider the principle on which charity, public or private, ought to be bestowed. He immediately stated, that just in proportion as persons, from the nature of a charity, were enabled to look forward to it—were enabled, as it were, to depend upon it beforehand—just in that proportion it was bad, because it encouraged idleness; but that, on the other hand, just in proportion as any charity was so framed that individuals, whether they were idle ur industrious, could not calcu- late on it as a positive resource, just in that proportion it could do no harm, and really deserved the name of charity. It was asserted that he approved of no hospitals except hospitals for accidents. This was not the fact. Ile had made no objection to hospitals for incurable diseases and fevers, nor even to dispen- saries; although he observed, that he thought the articles delivered from dis- pensaries, and which formed a great part of their expenditure. might be pro- vided by individuals themselves if they acted prudently ; but still he objected nut to them because he did not wish to stretch the principle until it cracked. He also had not reprobated hospitals for the aged ; although he felt and he said that every man ought to lay by something to procure him the comforts necessary for old age. He did not, however, push his observation or his argument to that rigorous point which had been represented. But let them take the next step, and inquire what right the able..budied had to demand relief, as well as the aged, the sick, and the infirm ? lie had only objected to such institutions as sinned against all the true and real principles of charity—such an establishment, for instance, as the Foundling Hospital.

Lord Brougham then read part of the letter which in 1814 he had ad- dressed to Sir Samuel Romilly, and in which the opinion he had just expressed were stated as his own ; and concluded by reiterating his as- sertion, that on Monday night he had expressly made an exception in favour of hospitals for the aged and sick, though he objected to found- blip' hospitals.

!'he order of the day was then read for the House going into Com- mittee on the Bill.

Lord KENYON gave notice of his intention to move an amendment to the 55th clause, which makes a man chargeable with the support of the bastard children of his wife before marriage.

Lord TEINHAM moved that the bill be committed that day six months ; which motion was negatived without a division, and the House went into Committee.

The first clause, which appoints three Commissioners, was then read. A lengthened discussion ensued ; in the course of which Lord ALVANLEY proposed it plan which he had prepared to supersede the necessity of the bill ; and the main feature of which consisted in circu- lating information on the subject, and introducing a bill next session which should empower Magistrates to appoint Commissioners in their own districts to superintend the administration of the Poor-laws. Lord Baotionam, Lord WINCHILSEA, the Duke of WELLINGTON, and the Marquis of SAsissuav, supported the clause as it stood ; Lord WYN- FORD, and the Earls of FALmouril and HAREWOOD, disapproved of it; bat it was carried without amendment.

The second clause was opposed by Lord WYNFORD, but also carried. The third passed without discussion.

On the fourth clause (which directs a report to be made once a year by the Commissioners to the Home Secretary and Parliament) being read, the Duke of WELLINGTON moved an amendment, which will have the effect of making the report more complete in mutters of de- tail. This amendment was agreed to.

next clause on which discussion took place was the 18th, which refers to the religious instruction to be given in workhouse's. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of Exist's:it wished the Commissioners to have the power of appointing chaplains when neces- sary. Lord ELLENBoROUGH thought the clergyman of the parish should attend to that duty. Lord SEGRAVE and Lord WHARNC■.IFF:: insisted on Dissenting ministers having admission to workhouses. Lord Bitousiissi said the paupers might be compelled to attend divine wor- ship, but there was some difficulty as to Catholics and Dissenters. '!'be clause was finally postponed, and the Committee rose.

Last night, the House proceeded as far as the 51st clause. Several amendments were proposed, but none of importance acceded to ; except one which the Marquis of SALISBURY offered by way of amendment to the 49th clause—to the effect that the Commissioners may have the power of extending the term at which out-door relief to the able-bodied may he given. 3. CHURCH REFORM; DIFFERENCES IN THE CABINET.

A petition in favour of the Church having been presented, on Monday, by the Bishop of DERRY, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY asked the Marquis of Lansdowne, whether he adhered to the opinions he had given respecting the appropriation of Church property; or whether he bad changed his opinion and agreed with his colleagues in the Lower House ? Lord MELBOURNE rose to order ; he objected to raising an argument on words spoken elsewhere. Lord Wicssow thought the strict point of order might be dispensed with on this oc- casion ; and Lord LONDONDERRY said, that Earl Grey bad, in a recent debate taken a speech of Sir Robert Peel from his pocket and read extracts from it. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE asked, whether Lord Londonderry intended to make a motion ? Lord LONDONDERRY said, " Yes," but he went on speaking for some time, and then sat down without making a motion. Of this the Marquis of' LANSDOWNE corn- planted ; and Lord LONDONDERIty said, the Marquis was pursuing a very unworthy course—be was speaking on a petition. A scene of consi- derable confusion ensued ; in which Lords KENYON, LONDONDERRY, LANSDOWNE, ELDON, MULGRAVE and BROUGHAM. performed parts. Lord LONDONDERRY made several attempts to speak, but was declared out of order by Lords ELDON and Mescaavr. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE refused at that time to state any thing further. s'especting his opinions as to the appropriation of the surplus of Irish Church property. Finally, order was restored, at the request of Lord 13ROUGHAM ; who expressed his wish to proceed with the Poor-law Bill.

4. CALUMNIOUS STATEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT.

The Earl of Lists:ales, on Monday, complained in warm language

of certain statements which had been made in the House of Commons (by Mr. O'Connell) relative to his treatment of his tenantry ; state- ments which were utterly false. He was interrupted in the course of his remarks by Earl GREY; who said, it was impossible the House could entertain the complaint. If the remarks alluded to had been published, the publication would be a breach of privilege ; but their Lordships had nothing to do with discussions in the House of Com- mons.

Lord LIMERICK said, he did not wish to act in a disorderly manner; bat he had been represented as having ejected two hundred families

from their holding; under him, and thereby driven them into extreme want ; whereas there were only eleven persons ejected, from whom he could get no rent whatever.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH complained, that similar calumnious statements had been made respecting his treatment of his tenantry;

and he concluded an indignant speech by moving for some correspon.

dence which would prove their falsehood. At the suggestion of Lord MELBOURNE, the motion was postponed till the next day ; when the Marquis of WESTI■IEATII again introduced the subject, by asking Lord Brougham if he would support a bill for preventing slanderous and calumnious observations in Parliament ? He did not wish to prosecute the editor or proprietor of a newspaper ; he wished to get at the fountain-head.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, the Marquis of Westmeath was out of order.

The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, he intended to conclude with a motion for papers.

Lord BROUGHAM thought he had better do so.

Lord WHARNCLIEFE said, the standing order for preventing "sharp or taxing speeches " was sufficient to provide for decorum in debate. But Lord WESTMEATH observed, that this order did not referto "the other place ;" and moved for a copy of an extract from a letter from himself to Mr. Littleton, and another from a Mr. Fitzgerald to Lord Wellesley, beginning and ending with certain words.

There was a little confusion then in the House, arising from several of their Lordships talking at the same time ; and

Lord BROUGHAM observed, that it would be convenient if only one person would speak at a time. In reply to the Marquis of West- meath's question, he would say, that he would decidedly oppose any bill for preventing Members of Parliament slandering any persons— He would go further, and say, that he did not think the Parliament could pass such a bill. It would be, in fact, virtually repealing the Bill of Rights.

A most important, a most sacred section of the Bill of Rights, gave perfect im- punity to every Member of Parliament with respect to what he said in his place in Parliament ; for that he was not amenable to any tribunal ; and it was not

possible that they could have absolute freedom of discussion it any line of limi-

tation were marked out. If such a line were laid down, the privilege of speech in the Great Council of the Nation would depend upon the dictum of judges or upon the caprice of juries. Onejury might think that was slander which

another jury might view in a very different light ; so that there would be mil end to nice and minute distinctions. There was one point, however, which ought not to be lost sight of: under certain circumstances, an individual who felt himself aggrieved had his remedy—not a nominal remedy, but a remedy which was perfectly available, not merely against printers and publishers, but against Members of the Legislature themselves. If any Member took upon himself to print the slander which he had uttered, he was, to all intents and purposes, answerable for it. Such a person had no right to complain that he was so answerable; because the public would not be at all the worse if they did not hear those slanders, which was not the case with respect to discussions touching political affairs.

In proof of this, Lord Brougham mentioned the case of a noble Member of Parliament, who had been imprisoned for two months far making and publishing a libellous speech, and another who had been accused of libelling a taxgatherer in Liverpool, and who published his speech in order to vindicate himself from the charge. He was prose- cuted and convicted, notwithstanding the privilege of Parliament, and notwithstanding the late Michael Angelo Taylor made a motion on the subject in the House of Commons. After a few words from Lord IllEsnoveNE, the motion was again withdrawn, to be amended ; and the discussion was closed.

On the motion of the Marquis of WESTMEATH, the papers alluded to in this discussion were' ordered to be printed, on Thursday. The Earl of STRADBROKE took the opportunity of denying some statements which had been made by Mr. O'Connell to his prejudice, but siile- quently recalled. The circumstances referred to had occurred during the time of his father, who was known universally to be an excellent landlord. It appeared that sixty-three tenants of tniddlemen, whims e leases had expired, insisted upon retaining their tenements on his pro- perty without paying rent for them. Forcible means were taken to eject them, and a murder unfortunately occurred. Lords CLIIDEN, WEsrmEarn, and Lim:toes, spoke in high terms of the late Lord Stratibroke ; and very indignantly of the efforts made by the press (the " ragamuffin part of it, in Ireland," was Lord Westmeath's expression) to run down Mali landlords.

5. RENEWAL OF THE COERCION BILL.

In the House of Commons on Monday, the question of the second reading of the Coercion Bill having been put by the Speaker, Mr. Poi:La:re Scum: moved the following resolution as an amendment.

"'That iu order to secure lit;, nod proven} in Ireland. to remove every pretext for crime add outrage. a u.I to give eft■yt to tvin,ver me 'sure of severity which may be adopted for hi SUppre,,,th. it is rxp di a Ilia! the population of that island be assured of the means of ,Opporl li peacetal and honest industry; and that this !louse Shall. at the earliest oppurttnnty. turn its at teat iuu to sonic measure calculated to ae• comp1i,11 this most desi■ALI,. ohjoet ."

Ile supported this amendment in a speech of some length, the object of which waa to prove the necessity of establishing a system of Poor-laws in Ireland, in tinier to relieve the distress of the people, whence the present disturbances almost entirely sprung.

FEanes O'CoNNon act-untied the amendment.

Mr. LeerLerox was opposed to discussing the question of Poor- laws for Ireland at that period of the session ; especially as the Com- missioners appointed to inquire into the subject had not yet reported. Mr. T. ATTWOOD spoke against the bill, and in favour of the amend- ment. Government should supply every man in Ireland with bread. Mr. O'CONNELL wished Mr. Scrope to withdraw his motion. Colonel EvoNs supported it.

Lord ALTIIORP said, that Mr. Attwood asked what was impossible, when he demanded that Government should furnish every 111:111 in Ireland with bread. The next thing he would say would be, that Go- vernment should supply every Irishman with " paper."

Mr. ScaorE said lie would then withdraw his amendment, but would again propose it on the third reading. (Cries of " Oh, oh I") Mr. Hens remarked, that it would really be a great waste of time to discuss the subject twice. Mr. Scrope should divide the House at once. This was accordingly done, and the amendment was rejected by 89 to 34.

The discussion was interrupted by Mr. Ellice's explanation of the circumstances attending his remittance of money to Colchester, else- where noticed ; after which, the question that the bill be read a second time was again put from the chair.

Mr. O'CoNNELL expressed his disapprobation of two clauses ; one of which, be said, gave a perfect indemnity to the soldiery employed in enforcing the act, and almost equal indemnity to the Magistracy ; the other rendered the assembling for the purpose of petitioning in pro- claimed districts, without the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant and with- out ten days' notice, punishable as a misdemeanour. He hoped that these two clauses would be removed. Mr. O'Connell then argued against the propriety of passing any such measure as the Coercion Bill. A measure of protection, not of coercion, was requisite. There would always be agrarian disturbances in Ireland, as long as the landlords treated their tenantry so cruelly. 1 le wished Ministers would pay some attention to the evidence of Mr. Barrington ; who told the Committee on the State of Ireland, in 1832, that the disturbances were all to be tracel to local oppression, and not to political agitation. He knew that the passages in Lord Wellesley's letter, which asserted the con- nexion between !medial and political agitation, were dictated by the Irish Attorney-General,—a rank partisan, as undisguised and unmiti- gated an opponent of liberal principles as any man in the country. While the Marquis of Anglesey was canvassing for Mr. Perrin. every one of Mr. Blackburn's relations and all whom he could influence, voted against the Government candidate, though he voted indeed himself for Mr. Perrin. Government was not aware of the power the existing law gave them. Under the Whiteboy Act, the utterance of a single word to excite injury to property was a transportable offence. Was not that enough ? In those counties where there had been the greatest agitation against tithes—in Wex- ford, for instance—the crimes were the fewest in number. Out of a population of 245,000 persons, only seven were for trial at the late Assizes, and Baron Forster congratulated the Grand Jury on this happy state of things. In periods when there was great political agitation, there were fewest crimes. In 1821 and 18-22, when there was no agita- tion in consequence of the King's visit to Ireland, the agrarian dis- turbances were at a greater height than had ever been known. He should oppose the clauses which he objected to in Committee, if they were not abandoned by the Government.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL spoke briefly in defence of the bill, and said that the two clauses ought to be retained.

Mr. LEFROY charged Ministers with legislating merely for the pro- tection of Catholic agitators and priests, and neglecting the Protestant population. Every concession was now to be made to Mr. O'Connell. But Ministers would be obliged to come hack and ask for the bill in its integrity, or succumb to the man whom they had denounced as the chief enemy of the peace of Ireland.

Mr. RONAYNE, Mr. RUTIIVEN, and Mr. T. ATTWOOD, opposed the bill. Mr. ATTWOOD said— Ile would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that they were deluded by the Tories, who only wished to destroy them. They talked of agitation: why he knew some little of that trade—he knew what agitation was. (Laughter. ) Yes, he had been an agitator himself, and he had done much good by it. (Laughter.) Yes, in 18-32, when he agitated to the ritmost of his power, there was not a single case of depredat. in Birmingham: the very thieves and pickpockets, and vagabonds left of their occupations to follow him. (Much laughter.) The evidence they had before them proved, that the outrages of which they heard SO much had no connexion with political agitation, bat were the result of grinding and bitter misery.

After some remarks from Mr. WALKER, Mr. II. GRATTAN, and Mr. CALLAGHAN, the bill was read a second time by 146 to 25.

On Tuesday, the House resolved itself into Committee on the bill, on the motion of Lord ALTHORP; Mr. FERGUS' O'CONNOR moved to strike out the first clause ; which reehaets the old bill, with certain omissions subsequently specified. The Committee rejected the motion, by 90 to 21.

A long but extremely dry and desultory discussion then ensued ; its the course of which, Mr. O'CONNELL moved the amendments to the eleventh and twenty-eighth clauses, the nature of which he explained in his speech on the second reading: the first was rejected by 121 to 38; and the second was withdrawn, on Lord Althorp's consenting to mistime the consideration of the 28th chose.

Sir Roamer Ptati. &Aired, that the bill was drawn up in a most ambiguous and blundering manner ; and especially animadverted on re- taining the preand,le of the old bill, which referred to political agita- tion, while the claim-es to repress that species of agitation were with- drawn. S NrAM admitted this; but said that the preamble spoke the brignage of the Let:. i,lat lire when the old bill was passed. TI,e Ilouae then resumed.

Oil Wednesday, the dkenssion was resumed in Committee. Mr. O'CoxNete. melt. test attempts to mitigate the bill, by expunging the clamed wlaicit -'t-iiivtt till' Habeas Corpus Act, and render it penal to make signals by lir rccket,, &e. ; but they were both unaurcessful ; his first anionSment laana rejected by 72 to 35, and the second by 7t to 27. The I lomo resumed, and the report was ordered to be received the sext day.

6. EI.Ecen0a: .yr CoLCHESTER; BREACH OP ParvieecE.

At the eveniiig sitting of the I louse of Commons on Monday, 11Ir. O'Conexeet., as Cbairmati of the Committee on the Inns of Court, moved that the Committee be allawed to report from time to time. This was agreed to ; and Mr. O'CoNNELI, being called upon by the Speaker, brought up a report : it was handed to the (leek, who began to, read as follows—" Report of the Committee on Church Patronage in Scotland"—amidst loud lanaliter. Mr. O'Connell then presented the right report ; and moved that it be read. Mr. WYNN asked it Mr. Ellice would be in the Ilmiae that evening ; and Lord A 1.TM/a P re- plied that he thought he woutd, but could not tell. ;X Der a brief dis- cussion, it was agreed to read the report which contained extracts from the evidence of Lord Western, and was to this effect-

" Q. Did you write to Mr. Ellice to and down money to carry on the elec- tion for Colchester in favour of Mr. lIarvey ? " A. No: I wrote only in behalf of Mr. Mayhew. "Did you not apply for them jointly ?

" Yes ; but the object of getting the money was to support Mr. Mayhew. Could not tell who the parties were who dist, ilmted the num-y, but understood there were disputes about the disci ;Indian. The sum Wa, :Ala Mr. I larvey and 3Ir. 31a) hew did not coalesce, but displayed the st violent hostility to each other. The sum was paid over to NIr. Saville, of Colchester, who acted as treasurer of the common fund for the two pal tics —of NIr. Mayhew and Mr. larece. Hid not ou public political grounds support Harvey, as will at Mr. Mayhew. Ile supported only Mr. Mayhew, who was loomed. The 500/. was sent down for Treasury purposes."

Lord ALTHORP said, We knew nothing of the matter, but was quite sure Mr. Ellice could explain it.

Mr. TENNYSON said, that Mr. Ellice wished the matter to be brought forward in the House rather than before the Committee.

Some other business was then transacted. In the imurse of the evening, Mr. Ewes took his place.. .1 gave an explanation of the cir-

cumstances alluded to. During tl llefOrm struggle in 1831, the Charles Street Committee of Tonics raised funds for the support of Tory candidates at the election. 'the Reformers did the Saw, and their Committees sat at the ( /MI and A velum amid other places. Mr. Ellice, then Secretary of the Treasury. took a very active part in the management of the elections for the Government and the Reformers. Ile had repeatedly been applied to by the friends of Mr. Mayhew, for money to aid him in his severe r011te,t at Colchester ; amid obtained 5011/. from the Reform Committees, to be applied to the perfectly legal means of sending down the outvoters to Cub heater. Not one shilling of this money came from the Treasury ; it was much more likely to have comae from his own pocket. In this respect, Lord Western had most completely misrepresented the transaction. Mr. Ellice read two notes, addressed by him at the time to Mr. Harvey, and now put in his hand by the courtesy of that gentleman ; from which it appeared, that the 5001. and another sum of 200/. bad been received from the subscrip- tion funds of the Reformers.

Mr. HUME confirmed the statement as to the Crown and Anchor Committee.

Mr. HAavEr denied that he had ever received any assistance from the Committee, or that he had ever applied for momy for himself.

Mr. CHARLES BuLLEa said, that he had applied for assistance, but could not get any. (Laughter.) Mr. WYNN said, that it was matter for inquiry whether the 5001. paid by Mr. Ellice was or was not public money.

Mr. RIGBY WASON said, it was well known that public money had been expended for electioneering purposes. (Cries if" Nu, no!") Oh, but sue!: was the fact. The thing was as notoriona as the sun at noon- day. The secret service money should be done away with entirely, or else properly applied—not to the payment of the electioneering ex- penses of gentlemen who by means of such assistance got returned for places to the representation of wide!' they had no title.

After a few remarks from Sir 11. HARDINGE and Mr. BARING, the conversation dropped.

Mr. O'CoNNELL again called the attention of the House to this sub- ject on Wednesday. lie considered it necessary that some inquiry should take place. It was certain that some proof of the correctness of Mr. Ellice's account of the source from which the 500/. sent by him to Colchester was derived, ought to be presented to the House. The proof ought to be forthemning in the subscription-books of the Committee, who had furnished the money. He moved that the evi- dence of Lord Western should be referod to a Select Committee of Privilege. Lord JOHN RPSSELL did not think a Committee necessary, as the explanation of Mr. Ellice was satisfactory. A Secretary of the Trea- sury might fairly give his vote, and excite others to do the same, with. out being guilty o: any irregularity. Mr. TENNYSON opposed the motion : he implicitly believed Mr. El- lice's statement.

Mr. Hem: a1,° expressed his entire belief in Mr. Ellice's statement, but thought an inquiry shan't] take plats.„

Colonel EVANS wished for au investigation.

Air. Cliam.14; Briaann thought it vas ungrateful upon the part of a Parlizonent which owed its existence to the labours of Mr. Ellice and his friends opposite to cavil uhout t!i means by which so much good had been effected.

He begged the friends of reform not to c'tatv the sliailow of an imputation to

ha cast tipon one who was so zealous in its came. When Scipio Africanus- ( Loud laughter)— that illustrious Roman—( ( coonnued hrughter )—was charged by factious tribunes with offences against tire ryuldie, his only answer was, on the day of the anniversary of Ina triumph over Hannibal, " Follow me to the temples, and return thaeks to the immortal Clods for that mighty victory." (Continued laughter.) He did not know whether the House would be dis- posed to pay the same reverence to those who were concerned in the victory over the Boroughinongers, which the Homan people did to the conqueror of Ilan- nibal ; but if they should, he c attended that Mr. Ellice WAS entitled to all pos- sible gratitude and respect. he concluded by moving-, as an amendment, that the house having heard the statement of !Ur. Ellice., (Vetoed his explanation satisfactory, and that consequently they would proceed 110 further with the matter.

Mr. TENN vsos: seeorded the amendment.

Arr. \1'a NN in- iated upon inquiry ; which nualit not to be silenced by the high character of Mr. Ellice. He alluded to the ease of Mr. Freemantle iu 1807 ; who, while Secretary of the Treasury, had writ- ten to a gentleman in Hampshire requesting his vote, and Laying dated his letter from the Treasury, consequently ,outs snider the animadver- sion of the House. The conduct, of the Secretary of the Treasury ought to be the more sempulously •;:vestigated, because he was the only officer who had the disposal of secret service money, under Mr. Burke's Act, and who was not sworn with respect to its distribution.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; was, under that act, obliged to swear that the money received by him on account of foreiAn secret service had been Lona fide expended. The Semetaty of State for the Home Department also swore that the money received by him for secret service was expended in the detection and defeat of treason and other dangerous conspiracies. The only limitation, however, which the act imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury was, that he should not draw on account of secret service a larger sum than II4,900/. in any one year ; and the only check upon the expenffiture was. that the names of the persons who received se: rot service money, togethec with the BMUS paid them, should be entered in a book, to be pi tiliteed in unbar :loose of Parliament, if required. Under these chattimstancts, it appealed to him that

the Secretary of the Treaaury was the most impr.gwr. person in the whole kingdom to be employed in the di-tribution of money subscribed for the purpose of carrying on elections. ( Cliet.rs.) Mr. SPRING RICE argued, that a Committee of inquiry was useless ; because the House had already Mr. Ellice's testimony as to the source whence the WO/. was derived. If his evidence was credited. what more could be desired ? if a Committee were appointed, Mr. Ellice must still he the principal witness ; and if the Cosionittee believed him, there was an end of the matter ; but if they rsjoitted his testimony as worth- le s, were they to lied other es ideece to th.: perpose ? Alr. Itice also referred to Clio letters which Ali.. Ellie:. bad written respect- ing the money. [Mr. Wynn said, he had neva'. seen therril Then, Mr. Wynn was unrandid in thus taking part in I he debate of a tplestiott involving personal feelinga, without hav:ag taken the trouble to read letters relating to it, which had appeal': ti ill all the newsp,pi rs. He contended that if Mr. Ellice had mada the statement to the Committee which he had made to the House, no further limey: dings would have been deemed necessary; and he thought that Mr. Ellice should stand as well before the House as he would have dune before the Committee.

Mr. HENRY BULWER was satisfied with Mr. Ellice's explanation.

Mr. ALEXANDER BARING contended that further investigation was required.

There were two Secretaries of the Treasury in this country, one doing the finance department, and the other doing what was called the jobbing work. (Laughter.) Yes, he repeated, d • g what was called the dirty we:Is of the Treasury. ( Great laughter.) It had been the case in every Ad • -'stration hitherto; and, in spite of every reform, would doubtless, as long as human nature continued to be human nature, be the case in every succeeding Adminis- • tration. Mr. Ellice, then, was the person selected to work the elections of The couaecy; and Lord Western applied to Lim, not in his individual capacity, but to the Treasury-, and to him as Secretary of the Treasmy ; and the defence of that Secretary is, that he did so, not only in the case of Colchester, but in a dozen cases besides. Really, where a Secretary of the 'treasury would boldly make this statement, and a noble Lord ( Lord John Russell) would support him in the statement, it seemed to him to be carrying party feeling to a length almost unaccountable. ( Cheers and connter-cheers.)

Lord ALTHORP said, the case of Mr. Fremantle, mentioned by Mr. Wynn, was very different from that before the House ; for Mr. Free- mantle had written from the Treasury chambers to the Barraek master- General, directing him to use all the inftunce of his department in favour of a certain candidate. Lord Althorp did not agree with Mr. Baring as to the duties of a Secretary of the Treasury at an election ; for he recollected, that when Mr. Freemantle mentioned that he stood in a difficult situation, from having been appointed to office just before a general election, Mr. Rose said, he could not imagine how a general election could increase the work of a Secretary of the Treasury. (Laughter.)

Mr. G. F. YOUNG nun Mr. ESTCOURT spoke in favour, Mr. C. FERGUSSON and Mr. O'Dwynn against the appointment of a Com- mittee; and Mr. O'CoNsrata. replied. The House divided : fur the motion, :14 ; for Mr. Charles Buller's amendment, 114; majority, SO.

7. MILITARY TORTURE.

On Monday, at the morning sitting, .Mr. TENNYSON presented a petition from some of his constituents of the borough of Lambeth, one of whom was a clergyman of the Established Church, respecting the late horrible flogging of Henderson at St. George's Barracks. The petitioners prayed the House to inquire into the circumstances of the case. Mr. TENNYSON Said, that the occurrence had justly caused the most extraordinary sensatic's in the Metropolis, and wherever the case bad been heard of.

The flogging bad been inflicted to such an extent, in the very heart of the Mewls:di:a that the shrieks and calls of mercy of the man (Henderson) were

beard in the neighbourhood, and caused some of the men and officers who wit. nesseul it to faint. Tire petition entered into details of so horrible a character, that he had d..eined it right to intimate to the Secretary at War his intention to presort the petition ; and he was glad to see Mr. Ellice in his place. Three hundred lashes had been inflicted fur a comparatively trilling offence. Ile ad- mitted that the pledge which, had formerly been given was that the number

should not exceed lashes! that flogging should only be applied to stealing, mutiny, or drunkenness ; but there was also a pledge that the extreme number should only lax applied in extreme cases. The petition stated, that the man's groans, shrieks, and cries for mercy, were heard in the neighbourhood ; that Willi! of the soldiers fainted at the sight ; and that two officers, from feelity honourable to their nature, also fainted in consequence of this dreadful exhibi- tion. The pAitioners expressed the unqualified disgust with which they con- templated such proceedings—such brutal exhibitions.

Mr. F.:Lame said, these cases were of a most painful character. it was well known that he was an advocate for restraining flogging within the narrowest possible limits, consistent with the discipline of the army.

The charge in the present case was, in the first place, for drunkenness when nn duty—a situation where the strictest conduct was requisite. If drunkenness were to lie an apology for improper conduct, or crime, then would it become difficult in- deed to restrain the conduct of many individuals. Not only was this man drunk on duty, and when the piquet approached, but he used the most mutinous language, and threatened to strike the sergeant. Ile would not repeat the language that was teed ; indeed it was not fit to be repeated. lie agreed that the sentence was severe, but it was by no means the man's fit st offence. Within two short periods he had been guilty of offences : one was that of having made away with Iris clothes ; and the other was that of having threatened to strike his sete:eant, and that too at a time when he was not drunk. The man vas a bail charwter; mid that, without doubt, had weighed with the officers in apportionffig the punishment. With respect to the circuniatances of the case detailed in the rtition, none" of them' had yet come to his knowledge—he was tinily acquainted with tile fitct of the sentence, together with the nature of the charge, awl the character of the man. He was ready to admit, that if officers retired, in con- sequence of what was taking place, that ought to have led the commanding officer to remit some portion of the sentence, or to hesitate about further pro- ceeding. How the circumstances were, he knew not--Ire did not admit them, for he was not in a situation to admit or to deny ; but he was ready to admit, that if they were correctly represented, they warranted the warmth of language and feeling evinced by the petitioners.

The subject was of a very anxious character, for the state of pub- lic opinion was rapidly becoming such as to require the deepest atten- tion and consideration. But it was too true, that since the diminution of flogging, the increase of crimes in the Army had been very great. In the course of the last two years, one fifth of the troops in English stations had passed through the common goals. Some strong power was necessary to restrain men, with arms in their bards, tin such a country as this. There had been no military executions for thirty years. Would the country bear to see the practice of shootit:g -addicts revived ? Seeing that the question had arrived at the point to which he List alluded, and to be prepared for the consopiences tit public feeling- :ttsl opinffia, be Lad advised his Alajesty to issue a 01:11111k,1,01 to investigate }Ili! IltIOSIi011— Impure into the present state of the military code of this etaintry—itito the state of the military codes of other countries—ill fact, to reviw the w Iffi'w military sestein of this country. Ile hoped that this recommendation thigl,t meet his ..1,1jesty's sauctien ; that between this and the next sc!,sioti the Comtuissitat might issue ; and that by the next session a report might lie made. lie was (pine sure that this was requisite. Enough had been done to show how narrowly military proceedings were watched ; it was equally clear what a

ightfid responsibility rested on those officers who had to maintain the discipline of the Army. Mr. EWART regretted to see that there were still predilections to- wards old and obsolete principles as to maintaining discipline—that there was still too strong a conviction of the power of the lash ; but lie hoped these notions were wearing out. Colonel EVANS hoped that the Commission would not be composed exclusively of military men.

The neccesity for flogging must be removed, and that could only be done by improving the character of the soldier ; and they could not improve the charac- ter of the soldier so long as this punishment remained. In a time of war, it might be dangerous to make the experiment ; but now when the country was at peace, danger from the experiment was not to be apprehended.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR trusted that Mr. Tennyson would not give Imp this case. It ought not to be given up or delayed.

As had been truly said, this being a time of peace, there could be no fitter opportunity for attempting an amelioration of the practice, and thus not sub- ject the feelings of the public to be harrowed up as they had been within the last few days on this subject.

The discussion on this subject was resumed on Wednesday, at the morning sitting. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN expressed his detestation of the horrible and inhuman practice of flogging. He should never forget the expressions of abhorrence which the flogging of a British soldier in Holland laid called from some Dutch and French soldiers who witnessed it.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY spoke in defence of his relative, Colonel Bo, water; who had no power, as had been asserted, to mitigate the punish- ment until the surgeon declared that the sufferer could bear it no longer; for the Court-martial was a District, not a Regimental Court- martial. It was not true that the drums were especially ordered to be beat to stifle the cries of the man who was flogged; for they are always ordered to beat on such occasions. Henderson was a robust 1111111, not a delicate one ; and he shook the halberts to which he was tied, so much that they could hardly he held. He had committed forty offences of different kinds ; though Sir Matthew Ridley did mean to say that h. e hal been flogged forty times. The offence for which ha had been just punished was a most serious one : he had been put as sentry over the canteen to prevent others from getting drunk, and had got drunk himself. He also attempted to strike his sergeant. An officer and two soldiers fell out of the ranks while the sentence was reading, on account of the heat of the sun, not because they could not endure the punishment. Sir Matthew Ridley said he made these statements not in defence of the practice of flogging, but in justification of Colonel Bowater's conduct.

Major BEAUCLERK thought that bad men should be turned out of the Army, after having become unfit for it. He was utterly opposed to the practice of flogging; and was sorry to say that marine flogging bad much increased lately. At Portsmouth alone, thirty-six men had un- dergone the lash during the last year. Major Far/come said, the House had itself to blame for the con- tinuance of this practice ; having resolved by a majority of :227 to 9-I to give the power of flogging to the Horse Guards. Colonel Bowater and his officers were not to blame for what had occurred. Next session, he would renew his motion for the entire abolition of flogging.

Mr. IVILKS said, that the statement of Sir Matthew Ridley proved that flogging had done no good. Here was a man flogged forty times— Sir M. W. RIDI.EY observed that the man bad been punished forty times—he did not say flogged forty times. Mr. WILKS—" It is evident, however, that the intended effect has not been produced."

Mr. SINCLAIR spoke strongly against a practice which had produced universal disgust in the public mind,

Colonel DAVIES maintained that flogging was necessary to maintain discipline : though he knew it required some boldness to state such an opinion.

Sir E. CODRINGTON insisted on the necessity of substituting some other punishment before flogging could be safely abolished.

Mr. O'DwvEa said, that flogging %vas now reduced to a practice, and that the art was one of the first things taught a drummer or a smith.

Mr. HuGnEs I IUGHES complained of the inequality of punishments in the Army. Ile had never heard of a Colonel being flogged for drunkenness, but he had often heard of drunken Colonels.

Mr. THOMAS DUNc051RP: referred to the circular issued last year from the Horse Guards on this subject.

By that order, the public were led to believe the practice of flogging, if not en- tirely abolished, would be so mitigated as to render it quite unobjeetionable. lithe present instance was in strict accordance with that circular, it only showed that the order was a perfect face; and the House was misled, and Idled into a sort of foolish confidence in the Government, when the Secretary at War called on them not to pass an opinion on the system itself. Ile trusted, however, it would be a lesson to the House not to place reliance on ambiguous pledges and circulars, but at once to come to a resolution to put an end to the practice. The Moons had been deluded in a similar manner on the subject of the impressment of seamen. The motion of Mr. Buckingham was met by a request from Sir James Graham, then First Lord of the Admiralty, that the House would suspend its judgment on the question, it being his intention to introduce a measure into the House for the registration of merchant seamen, which he trusted would get rid of the evil complained of. Since that period, Sir James Graham had seceded from the Ministry, and had been so occupied with the consideration of the Irish Church, that little time was left him to attend to any other subject. The ques- tion of impressment had, however, been completely got rid of for the present session. He would remind the II:mse, that a majority of the members of the present Cabinet stood pledged by their recorded votes and opinions to oppose mili- tary flogging; and he thought, therefore, the Iloie.e and the public had a right to call on them to give effect to those opiaious by introducing a measure for its immediate abolition.

Colonel EVANS reminded the House, that the Commission spoken of by Mr. Ellice was to be composed entirely of military men.

Mr. TENNYSON said— If the man had committed fatty ili&rent offences' and been as frequently pu- nished, he thought the proper course to be pursued was to eject him from the Army, instead of awarding a punishment so unequal and so revolting to human nature. Ile believed if the House sutliqvil this punishment to continue to harrow the feelings of the people, it would create a great reaction in the Army, subvert the discipline, and increase insubordination. Ile trusted the House would receive an assurance from his Majesty's Ministers that the commission should be peedily issued, and that it should not be exclusively composed of military men.

Mr. CHARLES GRANT could not say how the Commission was to be composed. He admitted that no one could read the account of the case on which the petition was founded, without shuddering.

Mr. RUTIIVEN said, he was told that Henderson had died that morning.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY said that was not true. He had seen him that morning : he was better, and would probably leave the hospital at the end of the week.

Mr. RUTHVEN was glad the report was unfounded. He wished to know whether the drummers were changed at every ten instead of every twenty-five lashes, as was usual.

Mr. LENNARD hoped Mr. Tennyson would press the House to some resolution in condemnation of the barbarous practice.

Mr. TENNYSON was indisposed to throw any impediment in the way of Ministers; but if any delay occurred in their proceedings, he would move an address to the Crown.

And here the discussion closed.

8. AUSTRALIAN COLONY.

W

Mr. W. WIIITMORE, at two o'clock on Thursday morning, moved the second reading of the bill to establish a colony in South Australia.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG objected to proceeding with it at so late an hour. Mr. WurrstoitE explained briefly the objects of the bill ; which was intended, lie said, to introduce a better system of colonization, and en- courage the emigration of able-bodied labourers.

Mr. F. O'CONNOR would oppose the bill ; for there was a want c able-bodied labourers both in Ireland and in other parts of the empire.

Mr. SIIEIL said that Mr. O'Connor spoke something very like a paradox.

In his own parish, there were upwards of two hundred persons a week who said, " Give us food, or give us work ; " while it was not always possible to give them food, and impossible to give them work. As the plan had received the disinterested sanction of his Majesty's Government, he thought it deserved con- sideration, as a question of philanthropy and of national usefulness.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that in the sanction which Ministers had af- forded to the introduction of the bill, they had not given it any undue encouragement.

Not only had the authors of the measure made out a strong prima facie case for the introduction of the bill, but they had also made such an explanation of the principles on which the colonization was to be conducted, as induced him to hope that the plan would have a successful issue. A very heavy responsibility bad rested on him personally, in steering .a middle course between refusing encou- ragement and giving too decided a sanction to the measure, and he had suggested some alterations in the bill, which he thought necessary to secure it efficiency. There was one to whirl' he particularly wished to call the attention of the House and that of the framers of the bill, as some alteration in it would be re- quired,—naniely, that some engagements should be entered into, and some stuns be deposited, for the purpose of securing the State against any charges for go- vernment appearing in the Miscellaneous Estimates. In order to effect this object, he had suggested that there should be covenants, and a certain sum put dawn as a guarantee ; and in accordance with this suggestion, it had been ar- ranged that '20,000/. should be placed by the authors of the project in the hands of the Treasury. A slight alteration was, however, required to make this sunt available fur the purposes of Government, as under the bill as it stood at present the sum could not be touched. He hoped that the House would allow the second reading, and that an early day might be appointed for the Committee, that the bill might pass into a law this session." HuGnEs Humus maintained that it was absurd to expect the House to jump at a conclusion in an hour or two, on a subject which bad occupied the framers of the bill nine or ten months. Now, what did the preamble of the bill contain ? It declared it was intended to occupy waste and unoccupied lands. (d laugh. ) The honourable and gal- hut Member ( Colonel Torrens) might laugh ; but if report said true, in tread of laughing, he ought to explain, for no one was more interested in the explanation. ['Colonel Torrent—" Head the test of the sentence ! "J " Waste and unoccu- pied lands which were supposed to be fit for col Atkin." Which were sup- posed! And was the House to desire the labouring population to expatriate themselves on such grounds as these? That Ilotew ought to be a conservative body, and not to sanction any such plan without being folly convinced of its sneceeding. (hi this grounds, although be was not thsposesi to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months, vet, in order to give time for the due consideration of the bill, he should move that it be read a second time that day week. Colonel ToartrNs declared himself at a loss to understand how the Member for Oxford could object to the colonization of unoccupied. lauds. 1Vould lie have occupied lands colonized ? Sir lli:Nar Wit.t.orcilas opposed the bill. There was a great dis- position to divide without discussion, and he should therefore vote for Mr. Hughes's amendment. 'The division then took place : for the second reading, 33 ; against it, 17 ; majority, 16.

A brief discussion ensued as to when the bill should be committed; and it was agreed that it should be proceeded with On Tuesday morning.

9. PROSECUTION 01"f1111 TRUE SUN.

Mr. Feticus O'Coxxou moved the Commons, on Wednesday, to ad- dress the Crown to pardon Mr. Patrick Grunt and Mr. John Bell, sentenced to imprisonment for a libel published in the True Sun. lie spoke at some length in support of his motion ; and dwelt upon the in- justice of prosecuting the proprietors of the True Sun for an offence which Earl Fitzwilliam and Mr. Brougham, a Master in Chancery, and the Lord Chancellor's brother, had committed with impunity.

Mr. Hume se:1)11(112d the motion, and reprobated all attempt to stifle the expression of public opinion.

Sir Jou N Cssietter.ia at great length defended his conduct in the pro- secution (w Lich was not originated by him, though the accidental illness of Sir William Horne threw on him the duty of conducting the trial); and maintained the necessity of putting a stop to inch libels as those for which Messrs. Giant and Bell were punished. As for the Lord Chancellor's evidence before the Libel Committee, to which Mr. O'Connor had rekrred as an authority against the prosecution, it could not be quoted, without a gross breach of privilege, as it was not yet re- ported to the House: it was only delivered to Members, with an ex- press injunction not to let it out of their own hands. If the evidence of Lord Brougham, however, was such as had been described, Sir John Campbell declared that he wholly dissented from it. What Lord Fitz- william had said about the refusal of taxes, was privileged, being spoken in Parliament; and he did not see how the expression attributed to Mr. Brougham could be ascertained without the employment of spies ; besides that great latitude ought to be allowed to a Member addressing his constituents. Sir John also defended his conduct in prosecuting a seditious handbill of a very gross kind, calling upon the people to form a national convention. Subsequently a meeting had been held in Cal- thorpe Street for some such purpose; and the consequences were well known to have been very serious. Ile would always be ready to act as he had acted in regard to the prosecutions in question, notwithstanding the obloquy which Mr. Hume had attempted to cast upon him. Mr. Hume had interfered to prevent his election for Edinbugh—he had written a letter advising the electors not to return him. It would have been more becoming in him not to have mcddkd in his affairs ; but his efforts had been unsuccessful, and Sir John gloried in representing the metropolis of his native land.

Mr. flume said, that as Sir John Campbell had alluded to his letter to the Edinburgh electors, he ought in candour to have mentioned the letter to the electors of Dudley, which lie had written at Sir John's own request, recommending bins to the electors. (Cheers and loud laughter.) Sir Joust CAMPBELL said, there was a wide difference between the two letters.

With regard to the Dudley election, Mr. Hume said that he would give no opinion as to the candidates, unless he was asked by electors individually ; but in regard to the Edinburgh election, he wrote to one of the candidates, and that letter was read publicly at the hustings, and published in all the newspapers of the day.

Mr. Hume rejoined. He had stated the case fairly.

He received a letter from Mr. Cook, of Dudley, written at the request of Sir John Campbell ; and he begged that Sir John would produce both the letter and the answer. If not, Mr. flume would produce them to-morrow, when it would be seen that he had stated the matter fairly.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE was in favour of the motion for liberating the proprietors of the True Sun ; not that the sentence was unmerited, but because higher parties were allowed to commit a similar offence with impunity.

Lord ALTHORP, in a very low tone, spoke against the motion. Mr. O'DwvEn supported it.

Mr. TENNYSON suggested the propriety of not pressing the motion ; as he thought, in that case, " the noble Lord might be induced to ex- tend pardon to these individuals."

Mr. MAXWELL would not vote for the motion ; but if the prisoners were not released, he would vote for a similar motion on a future oc- casion. %0NNE1.1. said, shut in our rode of laws, there were none So oar ag -ously disgraceful, so thoroughly disgusting, as the law of libel ; which wide the publication of an undeniable truth, fur a laudable pur- pose, enrol He had brought in a bill at the early part of this session to remedy many of the faults of that law : but the wet blanket of a Committee had been thrown over that bill ; it had been suffocated by that proceeding ; and whether it would ever be suffered to revive again, was more than he could pretend to prophesy. The Attorney-General treated with great contempt the doctrine that any thing *which was calculated to offend the feelings of another was a libel : but by whom had that doctrine been held and maintained ? By no less an authority than Lord Ellenborough, who had laid it down very distinctly in the case of " The King and Cubbett." This it was that had rendered It libellous to call Lord lialdwicke "a Cambridgeshire sheepfeeder," though he unquestionably did feed steep in Cambridgeshire ; and to call Lord Redesdale "a stout-built special pleader," though every body knew that he had been a special pleader, and was at the time of the publication stout-built.

As to the publication of the Lord Chancellor's evidence, it was given before an open Public Committee ; and though its publication were a breach of privilege, every Alember might quote it from his own recol- lection.

The Lord Chancellor did, in the most emphatic terms, condemn all these public prosecutions fur libel ; and what was mote, he condemned them in such terms, that the Attorney-General felt very uneasy about his prosecution of the 7'rue Sun. That prosecution was certainly covered by the denuuciation of the Lord Chancellor—indeed it came four hundred miles within it ; and so strongly did the Attorney-General feel it, that the Lord Chancellor was immediately asked, "Doyou condemn the prosecution of the 7'rue Sun ?" " Oh, no," said the learned Lord, "that was a vet y good prosecution ;" and thus the Attorney- General got off under shelter of the Lord Chancellor, just like a rat under the corner of a cloak. (" Hear, hear ! " and laughter.)

Sir John Campbell would insinuate, with legal tact, that resistance to

taxes followed the publication of the libels he had prosecuted ; but Mr. O'Connell ridiculed the idea of calling an attack of some poor old women on a tax-colleeter, by which they recovered some goods he had seized, such a resistance to the payment of taxes as justified public pro- secutions. Ile thought that Mr. O'Connor and Sir Henry Hardinge had not conducted the case of the True Sun proprietors with so much prudence as zeal : they had not shown much adroitness as tacticians.

They had aerosol men of high station of recommending similar resistance to

that recommended by the True Sun, and had blamed the Government for patronizing parties who hail given such recommendation. Now, such accusa- tions almost prevented the Government from acceding to the proposition for raecey; for i: might be conceived that in acceding to it they were tacitly con-. demning themselves. The course pursued by Sir Henry Hartlinge on this occa- sion was a good patty tactic, but it was a bad expedient for obtaining mercy. It was a good smooch at the Government ; but pour Itch and Grant would not lie a whit the better for it. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord opposite, yielding to the well-known generosity of his disposition, would overlook these party tactics, and would say "There is no resistance now, and there can be no resistance in future, to the payment of these taxes. These poor men are count- ing their continuance in prison, not by days, but by hours; they are struggling for existence : they have families to supra : their offence has ceased, and there-

fore their • !intent shall cease also."

Mr. O'CONNOR offered to withdraw the motion, if Lord Althorp would give hint ally promise. ( Cries of "No, no ! ") In justice, then, to the parties, he could not withdraw the motion.

The House divided; and rejected the motion, by 108 to 46.

10. PRIZE FIGHTING.

There was a conversation on this subject, at the early sitting on Monday. Mr. Buiscoe and Mr. Ewa ter expressed their abhorrence of the practice ; and the former presented a petition from Staines, praying the House to adopt measures to put it down.

Mr. THOMAS ATWOOD thought the House ought to hesitate before it interfere d further upon this subject ; the law, if enforced, was already severe enough.

As to hosing, he did not view it in the light that some did ; it was manly, and the contests that took place were in the pursuit offione. ( Cries of "Money, money.") Mr. PLUMTRE said, that the country could not tolerate such atrocious and terrible practices.

Mr. ReTuveN said, that Ireland was free from them. There was no manly courage in prize fighting.

Mr. Coarser hoped the House would never disgrace itself by legis- lating on the subject.

Sir CHARLES Benet:Ls said, that measures were sought in further- ance of the existing law only.

It was not to he endured that these proceedings should place, congregating as they did all the scoundrels and ruffians of the Metropolis and of differcut parts of the country. They were attended by none but blackguards. There might be individuals of a different character attracted from curiosity, but he was quite sure that none such could remain.

The petition presented by Mr. BRISCOE was then ordered to lie on the table.

11 TREATY OF CONSTANTINOPLE On Monday, Mr. Slum. called the attention of the House to the late treaty between Russia and Turkey.

It would be in the recollection of the House, that he some time since brought forward a motion for a copy of a treaty, which more particularly related to the passage of the Dardanelles. Lord Palmerston said that a part of it had been objected to by England, and the same sentiment was expressed by the then Se- cretary for the Colonies. lie also said, it would be inconsistent with the inte- rest of the State just then to lay the treaty upon the table of the House; but that it should, upon the first convenient opportunity, be submitted to their con- sideration. Now what he wished to ask was, first, whether or not the objec- tions of the British Government had been met by Turkey and Russia ; and secondly, was Lord Palmerston prepared to lay the treaty upon the table?

Lord PALMERSTON replied, that the treaty was one with which this country was not concerned. It- had only been communicated to us. With respect to the result of the explanation, he was not prepared to give any explanation. (Loud and general laughter.) El WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.

William Oram, one of the witnesses, who was charged with abscond- ing was brought on Tuesday to the bar of the House of Peers, having voluntarily surrendered himself. He stated, in reply to some questions from the Lord Chancellor, that it was to avoid some penalties, not to

avoid obedience to the order of the House, that he had been living in Boulogne. Ile had been informed of the process of the House in the second week in June, but did not know bow to act. He then with- drew; and Lord WYNFORD having presented a petition from him, ex- pressing contrition for his offence, he was discharged, on payment of tees, and ordered to appear on Friday.

A conversation then ensued relative to the payment of the expenses on the AVarwick and Liverpool Bills ; and it was finally agreed, that the Committee appointed to inquire into the expenses on the Warwick Bo. rough Bill, should also report with reference to the expenses of the Liverpool Bill.

13. MiSCELLAN1t0US SUBJECTS.

MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE ; CREATION OF OFFICES. There was along conversation in the House of Commons, last night, respecting The Inito - 1:er of (dikes created by the present Ministers ; which Mr. t;oto.licax, who brought the measure forward, contended was great beyond all !Imre-

dela. In all, Ministers had made 42.5 new appointinorts to

with various salaries from 100/. to 6000/. a year ; amountiug ,:lteeether to 1:25,000/. annually. Ile particularly animadverted upon the numb r of clerks appointed to superintend the distribution of the million loan to the Irish Clergy, and the numerous assistant-barristers aepoinegl. There had been 105 legal appointments. Mr. LITTI.:Aox, A Ir. FRAN- CIS BARING, and Air. SPRING RICE defended the conduct of Alinister,, —on the ground that the appointments were necessary ; tint they were not permanent ; that low salaries were attached to them ; and that but for the abuses of Tory Governments, there would have been no twee- sion for them. Sir Romer PEEL thought that it was highly proper to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. Mr. Hest!: said, that when Tory attacked Whig—when rogues fell out—he hoped good would come of it. Mr. GROTE approved of, and Mr. ConeETT re. probated the appointment of so many Commissions : soon the house itself would have nothing to do.

RIV.ISTRATION OF VOTERS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, on Mon- day, that the bill to effect a better registration of voters, would be aban- doned this session, but reintroduced early the next.

CIVIL. COURTS IN IRELAND BILL. Mr. LITTLF.TON, on Monday, postponed this hill till next session. Mr. F. O'CONNOR said, it was the best bill relating to Ireland that Ministers had brought forward ; and it was very wrong to postpone it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. It Was carried by Lord MORPETH, on Tuesday-85 to 45—that for the remainder of the session, Thursdays excepted, orders of the day should take precedence of notices of motions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICES BILL. On Thursday, this bill dropped through, in consequence of fewer than forty Members being present to discuss it in Committee. It was intended to do away with some sinecure offices, and reduce the salaries of the Speaker and Clerks, the former from WOO/. to 5000/. a year. This provision was strongly opposed by Mr. 11 t,lins and Mr. Wys:o. The latter gentleman said, that the salary did riot pay the expenses of the Speaker ; and that in consideration of this, Lord Colchester was allowed to hold a sinecure of 1500/. a year. It should also be remembered, he said, that the Speaker's duties bad been increased fourfold since the amount of his salary was fixed forty years ago.

GRANT TO THE SEAMEN OF NAVARINO. The House of Commons, in a Committee of Supply, on Monday, granted 60,000/. to his Majesty to remunerate, as lie saw fit, the officers and men engaged at Navarino. Sir Edward Codrington's share will be 78801.; which at first he refused to take, but was afterwards persuaded to accept cheerfully. This subject was restroed on Tuesday ; when several Members ob- jected to the unequal division of the grant, of which by far too large a portion was given, according to their views, to the Admiral. Mr. 1 lunn HuGnes moved to defer the consideration of the report of the Committee; which Mr. &Anoccum: wished to be received then. The House divided : for the postponement, 14; against it, 30. The reso- lutions were then reported, and agreed to.

WEsTERN RAILWAY BILL. Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET moved, on Tuesday, that the amendments to this bill made in Committee should be road a second time. Mr. R. PALMER, the Marquis of CHANDOS, Colonel LANG'SON, Mr. MILDMAY, Mr. METHUEN, Mr. AI.EXANDER BARING, and Sir CuAnses Brotanss, opposed the motion ; Sir lircuarin VYVYAN and Mr. PEASE supported it. The motion was carried, by 83 to .55. On Wednesday, the hill was read a third time, and passed. It WaS read a first time in the Peers on Thursday ; but their Lord- ships threw it out last night, on the second reading, by a majority of 47 to 30.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH Btu.. Lord SUFFIELD withdrew this bill on Tuesday, on the suggestion of Lords Boot:Glum and WYNFORD.

Scorns!' CourtenEs. Lord BROUGHAM presented forty-seven pe- titions to the house of Peers on Wednesday, from various places in Scotland, relative to Church patronage. The petitioners, be said, all agreed that some alteration in the law was necessary, but differed as to the nature of the alteration. After alluding to recent proceedings of the General Assembly on this subject, Lord Brougham stated some particulars relative to the amount of accommodation afforded by the churches and chapels in Scotland to the population ; from which it ap- peared, that out of a population of 940,000 individuals, there was only accommodation for 170,000. He thought that the people of Scotland had o good right to a share of the half-million recovered some years ago front Austria, for the purpose of building new churches. Alter a few. remarks from Lord HARROWBY, Lord MELBOURNE, the Marquis of BUTE, and the Duke of HAMILTON, the petitions were laid on the table.

GRANT To CAPTAIN Ross. Among several votes passed by the House of Commons on Monday, was one of 50001. to Captain Ross.

PRISONERS COUNSEL BILL. This bill was read a third time on Tuesday, and passed. ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH SABBATH BILLS. Sir ANDREW AGNEW mentioned, on Monday, that he bad abandoned his Scottish Sabbath Bill for this session; and Mr. POULTER gave notice that next session he should bring forward another measure on the subject.

CONDUCT OF THE EARL OF WARWICK. Mr. PETRE last night, after a brief conversation with Sir HENRY kiARDINGE and Sir ROBERT PEEL, withdrew his notice of motion respecting Lord Warwick's conduct, which had stood for the 31st instant. He had already deferred it twice, at the request of Lord Warwick's friends.

'CHANNEL FISHERIES. Mr. ALEXANDER BARING presented two pe- anions last night, from the fishermen of Essex and Jersey, complaining of molestation from the French, and requesting the protection of Government. Lord PALMERSTON said, that the matter was in course of inquiry; that it was a difficult and delicate subject, but that in almost every case of collision between the fishermen of the two countries, the English appeared to be in the wrong. He did not think a speedy ad- justment could take place. Sir ROBERT PEEL made a few remarks on The great importance of putting an end to the disputes.

EXPENSE OF COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY. A motion by Mr. JAMES KEissreuv, for a Select Committee to inquire into the cost and services of the several Commissions of Inquiry, with a view to the discon- tinuance of such as had become unnecessary, especially that for build- ing additional Churches, was withdrawn on Tuesday, after a discussion, in the course of which Lord ALTH0RF admitted that the progress of the Corporation Commissioners had been slow, and that much time had been lost by the Charity Commissioners.

Doa CARLOS. Lord PALMERSTON stated, on Monday, that Govern- ment had no authentic information as to the arrival of Don Carlos in Spain.