iliebateri an larntectling# in Parliament.

1. IRISH CHURCH REFORM. In the House of Lords, On Monday, before going into Committee on the Irish Church Temporalities Bill, Lord KENYON asked Lord Grey when the third reading of etiOill would take place ? Earl GREY replied that he really could not answer that question. They were then going into Committee : he could not say when they should be out of it, but if they should get through it this week, he would fix the third reading for Monday next.

The House went into Committee on the bill, and the first clause was agreed to.

On the second, which relates to the appointment of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, being read, The Duke of WELLINGTON proposed that one of the civil Commis. sioners should be named by the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, instead of by the Crown.

Earl GREY acceded to this suggestion.

The Earl of WieRcow moved, as another amendment to the clause, that the appointment and election of the four Bishops to the Board of Commissioners should be in the bench of Irish Bishops generally.

Considerable discussion arose upon this amendment, which was supported by the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Duke of CUMBERLAND, Lord ELLENBOROUGH, and Lord WYNFORD. It Was opposed by Earl GREY, Lord BROUGHAM, the Bishop of LONDON, and the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, who said that it would place the appointment of Commissioners in irresponsible hands. The Govern- ment was responsible to Parliament for the exercise of its powers ; but if the Bishops should make an improper appointment there would be aq remedy.

The amendment was finally negatived ; and the clause, with the Duke of Wellington's amendment, was agreed to.

An amendment to the third clause, also proposed by the Duke of 'WELLINGTON, by which the Archbishops of Dublin and Armagh are empowered to fill up vacancies which may occur among the Commis- sioners, was agreed to, and the clause passed.

Clauses 4, 5, and 6, passed with some verbal amendments.

The Bishop of LONDON, proposed an amendment to the 7th clause, which contains a proviso as to the Commissioners' proceedings re- quiring to be ratified by the Common Seal ; the object of which was to prevent such ratification in case only one episcopal Commissioner were present, and he objected to the proceeding, until a further duly-notified meeting had taken place, at which the decision of the previous meeting should be confirmed.

This amendment was agreed to, and the clause passed.

The other clauses, to the 20th, were agreed to, except the 11th, which was postponed. • The House then resumed.

On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the discussion was re- sumed in Committee, on Thursday.

The clauses from 79 to 116 inclusive, were agreed to, with a few verbal amendments.

. On the 117th clause being read, which authorizes the-Commissioners to suspend the appointments of ministers clerks, &e., to rectories where divine service shall not have been performed for the three years vett preceding the 1st February 1833, Lord WYNFORD moved, as an amendment, that the powers granted by this clause, should be transferred to the Bishop or Ordinary, subject to an appeal to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in Council.

The.Earl of RIPON opposed the ameochnent.

The Earl of LIMERICK spoke in condemnation of the clause, and of the bill as a whole.

Lord Phtnexerr defended the clause which would tend to the spread of Protestantism in Ireland. Lord Wynford's amendment, he said, would throw the whole power into the hands of the Bishop.

The Bishop of EXETER called upon Lord Grey to abandon the clause. Nothing would give greater satisfaction to the Irish Clergy. Lord MELBOURNE spoke in favour of the clause.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that livings in which service was not performed, ought properly to be called non-cures rather than sine- cures. •

He should like to see power given to the Commissioners to apply the seques- tered revenues, or part of them, to the building of churches and glebe-houses. If the noble Earl would introduce a clause to that effect, and likewise alter the date from which non-residence should be held to commence, he would have no objection to the clause.

A conversation arose between the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, Lord BROUGHAM, the Earl of WICKLOW, and Earl Grey, upon the subject of this clause, and finally, Earl GREY proposed, in order to meet the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury,

"That in any case where it was proposed to suspend a benefice in the diocese of a Bishop who was not a member of the Board of Commissioners, he should be called upon to take a part in and to assist at the deliberationrof the Commis- sioners on the subject, and that, in fact, he should act as a member of the Board on such occasions."

Lord WYNFORD withdrew his amendment, and

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that one of the objects he had in view would be entirely answered by Earl Grey's suggestion. He then proposed another amendment to the effect,

"That the revenues of the said suspended benefice should be appropriated to the building or repairing of the church or glebe-house in such benefice; or, if they should not be thought to require it, that then the revenues should be paid into the general fund under the management of the Commissioners."

Earl GREY decidedly objected to this amendment. He proposed, after its rejection, to alter the clause in the following manner; "The revenues to be received by the Commissioners, to be by them applied in such manner as might to them appear most expedient for the fulfilment of the purposes of the act."

The amendment of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY was then put. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE opposed it in a few brief remarks, and The House divided: for it, 84; against it, 82; Conservative ma- jority against Ministers, 2.

Earl GREY then moved, that their Lordships should regame, in order to consider what further alterations in the measure misift be necessary in consequence of that just made.

Lord KENYON objected to this coupe; be thought that the clause ought to be finished in the Committee. -

Lord BROUGHAM said, that

Earl Grey was responsible for the conduct of the bill, and it rested with him to decide in what way he would proceed. He had properly stated that time should be given to consider what alterations consequential on the amendment just made might be required. If, however, the noble Baron would undertake to conduct the measure further, as far as this clause was concerned, probably Earl Grey would surrender it into his hands.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it better to postpone the further consideration of the clause.

The House then resumed.

On Wednesday, clauses 49 to 60 inclusive, were agreed to with some verbal amendments. On clause 61, which regulates the application of the monies and funds which would come into the hands of the Com- missioners, being put, Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved an amendment that the tax raised on the Clergy should be applied to the augmentation of small livings, and that such application should be imperative on the Commissioners. The Earl of WICKLOW, Lord ELLENBOROUGH, Lord CARBERY, the Earl of HADDINGTON, and the Bishop of LONDON, supported the amend- ment, which was opposed by Earl GREY and the Earl of Rums ; and rejected, on a division, by .a majority of 56 to 36. The 62d clause was agreed to : the 63d was postponed. The clauses froth 63 to 75 inclusive passed, with some verbal amendments. The 76th clause passed, after some discussion, with an amendment proposed by Lord WHARucuree, to the effect-

" That if it should appear to the Commissioners, from peculiar circumstances, that it would be expedient that a church or chapel of ease should be erected in any parish or place, it should be lawful for the Commissioners, on the applica- tion of the Bishop of the diocese, and they should be at liberty to make advances of the monies or funds under their control for such purpose."

Clauses 77 and 78 then passed, and the Chairman reported progress.

On Tuesday, the consideration of the bill was resumed in Committee by the Peers. Clanses from the 20th to the 31st were agreed to, without amendment. On the 32d clause, which relates to the reduction of Bishoprics being read,

The Duke of WELLINGTON moved an amendment which would give the King, "if he were so minded," the power of doing that which it was proposed to do at once by the bill.

Earl GREY said, this was only a different way of doing the same thing. Perhaps the King, however, or his heirs, might not be so minded—what would be done then He thought it best to make things sure by a statutory enactment, and not leave room for contin- gencies. Lord WICKLOW supported the amendment- The Earl of ROME opposed the clause and thebill altogether, which he considered a shanieless violation of the Act of Union, and of the Coronation Oath. ,

The Duke of CUMBERLAND agreed with the Earl of Rosse. The Xing was placedin a dilemma by his advisers, and he cant d upon the House to deliver his Majesty from it by rejecting the-clause.

The Marquis of LANS.DOWNE said, the amendment wfts not one of form merely, but of substance : it threw doubt upon what was at pre- sent fixed and settled. He argued that the clause was by no means contradictory of the Act of Union or the Coronation Oath- All the arguments lately founded upon the Coronation Oath, he woeld term, in nearly the words of Lord Liverpool, a tissue of nonsensical assertions. The Duke of WELLINGTON defended his amendment, which was proposed in a sincere wish to improve the bill. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY supported the amendment.

The Bishop of EXETER admitted that Lord Liverpool hid declared, that if the bill for Catholic Emancipation was passed in the House, he would not advise the King to refuse his assent to it merely on ac- count of the obligation of the Coronation Oath.

But in that very same speech, the Earl of Liverpool said that the Oath bound his Majesty in his legislative capacity, and that if any thing like a union of sees was proposed in Ireland, he would not advise his Sovereign to assent to it ; since, by the Coronation Oath, his Majesty was bound to maintain the interests of the Protestant Church; and if his Majesty did give such assent, it would be a vio- lation of the Oath.

He then insisted at length upon the disadvantages and inconveniences which would arise from the union of Bishoprics. The Bishop of Killala, for instance, who was near ninety years of age, would have the Bishopric of Tuam, which was seventy-seen miles long and sixty- three wide, added to his diocese, if the present Archbishop should die before him.

Lord PLUNKETT opposed, and Lord HARROWBY supported the amendment.

Lord BROUGHAM contended; that it gave no security whatever that even one Bishopric should be abolished.

It would be more wise, more straightforward, more open, to vote against the abolition of any one Bishopric, than to reject the clause which would abolish it by act of Parliament, while they would leave it to be abolished by the power of the Crown.

He quoted the opinion of Lord Liverpool, which had already been quoted by the Marquis of Lansdowne. respecting the obligation imposed on the King by the Coronation Oath. What Lord Liverpool had actually said was, "As to the arguments about the Coronation Oath, they were all a pack of nonsense." If he were the firmest of all sticklers for the Coronation Oath, he should not know how to vote for the Duke of Wellington's amendment.

Why, the Coronation Oath must, in that case, be continually violated ; there must be a conflict on the subject of the Oath on the suppression of every Bi- shopric—the Coronation Oath must be broken ten times—it would be violated whenever a Bishopric became vacant. -Why, if the bill were a breach of the Coronation Oath, which he did not say, the amendment of the noble Duke would ant save the Oath, but would compel a frequent violation of it. Again, if it were left optional, the decision would not be the result of calm and deli- berate judgment, but of intrigues at Court—of intrigues in the Cabinet, and in Parliament and Dot of Parliament ; it would not be the result of any principle, but it would be made a party and personal matter. Only this thing would be certain, that there would be much uncertainty, much inconvenience, and much injury, to public business. Finally, and principally, he objected to the amend- ment, because it would frustrate the great object of the bill. ("Hear !")

Much had been said of the additional labour imposed upon Bishops by the union of dioceses.

He had heard something said of the Archbishop of Tuam having 11,437,000 —he supposed souls—but no, they were acres, and acres, many of which, being mountain and bog, never would have any inhabitants; but though this Prelate had so many acres, the pastures or benefices he had to look after were only forty- three. ("Hear!") And to these forty-three it was proposed to add, when the time came thirty-one more, making in all, when united with Clogher, only seventy-four benefices, while one.diocese in England contained 1,100 or 1,200 benefices. He had never heard any body say that the Bishop of that diocese-was overburdened with work.

He concluded by stating his determination to oppose the amendment, as it would utterly nullify the whole principle of the bill.

The Earl of HARROWBY denied that he had any intention to defeat the measure by a side wind. His object in supporting- the amendment was to make the clause clear and unobjectionable.

Earl GREY, in reference to a remark of the Bishop of London, which was nearly inaudible, said that it never entered into his head that a Bi- shop would refuse an additional mitre and crosier. Should that diffi- culty really occur, some person might be appointed to perform the duties with the title of Coadjutor, who would be appointed to the Bi- shopric When vacant.

A division then took place : when there appeared for the Duke of Wellington's amendment, 76; against it, 90; Ministerial majority, 14.

The clauses from 33 to 48 were agreed to, and the House resumed. The 117th clause came again under consideration last night, and Earl GREY, in allusion to the vote of the previous night, observed that,

He wished not to conceal from their Lordships the disappointment and regret at the decision to which they had come. The circumstances under which that rook place, as well as those which attended the division, with the consequences of the result, had placed his Majesty's Ministers in a situation of difficulty and embarrassment. (" Hear, hear!

The amendment, however, was not of any great importance.

The effect of it was merely this—that; in the first instance, there was a limi- tation of those funds, arising from the parishes in which service bad not been performed for three years, to the building of churches and glebe-houses, before they were applied to any other purpose; but if it should appear to the Com- missioners that it was not necessary so to use those funds for the purpose of the parish, then they were to be transferred to the general fund to be used for the general purposes of the act. That he understood to be the meaning of the amendment, and he did not know, except under the circumstances in which that vote was passed, that he should make any objections to it, or that the effect of it Would be tb materially alter the discretion of the Commissioners. Taking into due consideration the effect of the amendment, inbis opinion, though he was far from considering it to be an improvement of the bill, if it were not extended beyond this, it would not much.impair the.measnre. Such: an.alteration, not afflicting any alteration in the general, principle of the bill, he did not consider that it was consistent with the duty which he had taken on himself to abandon the bill. (Cheers.)

But if further alterations Were made in the bill, in è same SeXte, then he must again take upon him to consider how tar it would be con- sistent with the duty he owed to his country and himself, to persevere in further recommending the measure to their Lordships for adoption.. He again expressed his great mortification and regret that the amend- ment was insisted upon.

The clause, as amended,"was then agreed to.

Clause 118 was struck out.

After a brief discussion, the remaining clauses in the bill were passed-; the schedules, postponed clauses, and the preamble, were agreed to without discussion, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

2. REMOVAL OF THE BISHOPS' FROM THE HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition, on Tuesday, frbm the Glasgow Political Union, praying for a repeal of the act of Charles the Second, whereby Bishops were allowed to have seats in the House of Lords. The Earls of HADDINGTON and ABERDEEN opposed the reception of the petition. Lord BROUGHAM also thought that it could not be re- ceived, as it referred to certain proceedings in that House with which the petitioners could only have become acquainted through a breach of privilege. Lord RADNOR then withdrew it.

3. SLAVERY BILL. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. STANLEY moved the second reading of this bill.

Mr. BUXTON, after a few preliminary remarks, gave notice that he should move an instruction to the Committee, to limit the apprentice- ships of the negroes to the shortest possible time required for the in- troduction of the necessary regulations, and that no money should be paid to the planters until slavery had entirely ceased.

Mr. HUME feared that the twenty millions would prove to be only a part of what the nation would have to pay for the emancipation of the slaves.

If the monopoly of sugar was to be retained by the planter, he apprehended that this country would be obliged to pay 4.000,0001. annually, in consequence of the increased price of sugar, besides the interest of the proposed grant-of 20,000,0001., which would be equal to another million. He entirely agreed in the plan of apprenticeship, for he believed that without it the production of sugar could not be maintained.

Mr. PELHAM called the attention of the House to a resolution passed at an Anti-Slavery meeting, on Saturday last, "that the de}e- gates in London be again invited to watch over the conduct of the Representatives of the people in their endeavours to obtain the extfild- tion of slavery." He considered this resolution as highlyreprehensible, and had he been present at the meeting when it was put, should have opposed it, had he stood alone in doing so.

Dr. LUSHINGTON agreed in disapproving of this resolution, which- was carried in his absence also.

He gave notice that previous to going into Committee he should move art instruction to the effect that all persons who should have been slaves in the West Indian Islands, and who should have been within any part of Great Bri- tain or Ireland, and have returned to the West Indies, should be, ipso facto, free. He was confident that the House would agree to that instruction when they heard of the injuries suffered by that class of persons. Many of them who had: married, and contracted land in this country, having returned to the West In- .tes for the purpose of visiting their aged parents, were immediately seized, re- consigned to slavery, and, in some instances, confined in dungeons. He should also propose that no part of the 20,000,0001. compensation-money whatever should be paid to any slave-owner in the Island of Mauritius, unless he mails' out a title to his slaves by proving their legal importation. It had been, acknowledged in his presence by a Secretary of State for the Colonies (he meant Sir G. Murray), that the act of Parliament had been violated in that island to. no less an extent than 25,000 times since 1810.

Lord SANDON disapproved of unsettling the basis of a scheme which had been sanctioned by the House.

Mr. Wasole concurred with Dr. Lushington in his remarks respect- ing the Mauritius, and thought they would apply equally to Demerara.

Lord HOWICK objected to the confidence which Mr. Stanley seemed, disposed to place in the Colonial Legislatures ; which was very incon- sistent with the sentiments he professed on introducing the resolutions. He protested against the principle of the bill, which was nothing more nor less than the sacrifice of the welfare of the slaves to the pecuniary interests of the masters.

Mr. Evasts, Mr. BARINr., Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. BUCKINGHAM, Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, expressed their disappro- bation of many provisions of the bill ; but the latter said that as the resolutions had received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament,. he was not prepared to fritter away the measure and disappoint the hopes which those resolutions had excited.

Mr. GODSON was certain that 20,000,0001. was not a sufficient com- pensation for the loss which the planters would sustain by the measure. The bill was then read a second time, and was ordered to be coin= mitted on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Mr. STANLEY having moved the Order of the Day- for going into Committee on the Bill,

Mr. BUXTON rose to move-

" That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Slavery Abolition BM% that they shall not, for the sake of the pecuniary interests of the master, imposer any restraint or obligation upon the negro, which was not necessary for his own welfare, and for the general peace and order of society. That they shall litait the duration of any temporary restrictions which may be imposed upon the free- dom of the negro to the shortest period which may be necessary to establish, on just principles, the system of free labour for adequate wages." (Cheers.) He said, that all who took an interest in the abolition of Slavery looked upon the bill with the deepest mortification and disappoint- ment ; it was neither safe nor satisfactory. All the changes that bad' been made in it would be beneficial to the planter, and hurtful to-the- negro. Mr. Stanley, when he introduced the measure, had said, inA reference to the Colonial Legislatures, that it would be in vain to lot*, to them to carry a plan for the abolition of Slavery a single step ; sus& yet twenty-nine subjects relating to the feeding, clothing, and goventz.' ment of the negroes were, by the bill, expressly assigned to their mer- nagement. He remarked upon the conversion of the loan of fifteett: millions into a grant of twenty millions, Which was- a most fortunate windfall forthe -West Indians.

He spoke" fiadctg Within his own knowledie, when be asserted that debts which were bad in April were good now, and that parties who were bank- rupt in April were solvent now. (Cheers.) For the last forty: .years. they

had been clamouring for relief, on the ground that they were in tbelast stage of destitution and ruin ; but recently their case must have been even worse, for the popular voice had loudly and more loudly demanded the extinction of

Slavery. What was the effect? Government took up the subject, and the destitute, ruined planters, ran away with twenty millions of money as the sup- posed value of their property. ( Cheers.) He was perfectly ready to give the twenty millions, if it would secure emancipation, but certainly not otherwise. By the evidence of the West Indians themselves, it was more than they were entitled to ; and when they wanted aid, they estimated their condition and the value of their property low enough. He stated several circumstances relative to the first cost of negroes, and the cost of maintaining them, in order to prove that they were bad property, and that their masters would be enormously overpaid for them. He was most anxious, and so were the people out of doors, to do away with the apprenticeship part of the plan, which was a direct robbery of the negro. Besides, the plan would be impracticable : the negroes would not work without a motive for working.

He had received more communications than perhaps any other individual, not only from missionaries, but from others not friendly to his views; and they all concurred in this—that if justice.were not done to the negroes by paying them wages, it must produce insurrection. There was a determination among the negroes not to work without wages, and it was proved by the authority of their their commanders and generals, in the late commotions.

But would the people of England forego the use of sugar ? Would they pay twenty millions to keep the negroes in extreme idleness, or to

restore the old system and the use of the whip ? Without wages or

whipping, the negroes would not work, not because they were unlike, but because they were like other men. He was as sure as he was of his existence, that the consequence of this bill would be an insur- rection; and that Jamaica, in 1834, would be like St. Domingo in 1794.

Mr. STANLEY complained that Mr. Buxton did not treat the subject fairly, when be said that all the changes which had been made in the measure had been to the detriment of the negro.

When he first introduced the subject, the conditions imposed upon the slave were, that for seven and a half hours in each day he should labour for the benefit

of his master—that for the rest of the day he should indeed be free to work for

himself, according to a scale of wages' but that the whole of those wages were not to be devoted to himself, or to his family, but held for the State, for twelve years, as the price of emancipation. The change that had been subsequently made in this respect, was clearly for the benefit of the negro. Was it to his detriment that a quarter of his time had been given to him for his own exclu- sive benefit? Was it to his detriment that he had not been called upon to pay a tax to the State? ( Cheers. )

He thought that Mr. Buxton was disposed to throw additional diffi- culties in the way of a subject already sufficiently embarrassing. It was impossible that Parliament could legislate discreetly for eighteen different Colonies, each baying a distinct set of laws. There was a great difference between leaving the Colonies to originate a measure for the abolition of slavery, and leaving them to regulate the details of a plan for that purpose, when they found that there was no hope what- ever of perpetuating the system. With regard to the apprenticeships, he thought that they wore quite as necessary for the negroes as for the master.

He trusted that the House would sanction the apprenticeships as well aa the compensation. He trusted that the House would be too just, not to say Igene.,.

roes, to pass a resolution depriving the planter of his property without granting him compensation. He did not shrink from avowing that the plan of appren- ticeships formed part of the payment which it was intended that the proprietor should receive. He was zoady at the same time to admit, that when honourable members assented to the principle of apprenticeships they did not bind them- selves to the time that the apprenticeship should last.

He went into a long calculation to prove that the fair value of the negroes in the West Indies was thirty millions, and that taking the cost

of their maintenance into consideration, the owners would not be over- paid by the grant Of twenty millions and three fourths of the services of the slaves for twelve years. He laboured also to prove that there Was good reason to suppose that negro apprentices, like apprentices in this country, would work for their masters. He deprecated the language that was used in this House in reference to the chances of an insurrec- tion of the slaves.

He entreated Mr. Buxton to consider the measure with more favour : to ex- ert himself rather to point out the real advantages and substantial benefits which it would be productive of, and to persuade the negroes to justify the confidence which the British people placed in them and to prove by their industry, their labour, their bettering of their own condition during the interval of their ap- prenticeship, that they were worthy of the great boon which the justice and humanity of the British people was bestowing upon them at so great a sacrifice. (Cheers.) Mr. MACAULAY said, that there were three objects which the bill was intended to effect. The first was the abolition of Slavery, and that

part of the bill had his entire and most cordial approbation. He dwelt

at some length and with much earnestness upon the evils which Slavery engendered and perpetuated. With regard to the compensation clause, that also had his full approbation. It had been said that the planter ought to receive no compensation, because there ought to be no in- demnity for the abandonment of crime. He protested against such a doctrine.

If they were to violate the public faith pledged to the West India planter, they would establish aprecedent of a most monstrous and injurious character. To illustrate this position he would take an instance from the commonest life.' Suppose a Catholic gentleman had ordered an image for the decoration of his

chapel to be sculptured by a first-rate artist, and that when, after immense skill

and labour, the image was finished, lie should say to the artist, "Take it back; since I ordered it my mind has been enlightened ; I now believe that the Pro-

testant is the true religion. I therefore consider the contract between you and

me as sinful, and I cannot consent to perform my part of it." Would not the argument that would justly be used be, " Ifyou are enlightened, so much the

better; but you must pay for the contract into which you entered when you

were in a state of darkness?" Or suppose a Mahometan, having three or tour wives in Ida Harem, were to embrace Christianity, would he be entitled to break his contract with them, turn them all out into the world, and leave them to starve ? Or, in the case of a lottery, which, as all gaming was vicious, ought never to be resorted to by a Government, would it not be the height of enormity, if, after all the tielreta had been sold, Government were to declare that they had become sensible of their error, and to leave the purchasers to digest their loss? 4

But though be approved of two gteat principles of the bill, the third, the apprenticeship scheme, he strongly objected to.

There could be no question that it was the solemn duty of Parliament to do all they could to protect the planter; but he had great doubts if the provision in question would have that effect. If they could prove to him that what they were about to do was calculated to improve the morality of the slave, and thereby enable him, when he became wholly free, better to discharge the duties of a citizen, he should assent to it. He should not refuse to assent to it because it was severe, provided it could be shown that that severity was likely to be efficacious. What he objected to was this, that the restraints laid on the negro by the bill were not so laid with the sole view of improving his moral character.

The ninth clause of the bill contained a provision that it should be lawful at any time for a slave to purchase his freedom upon the payment of a price fixed.

Now, that clause admitted a principle in which he could not acquiesce— namely, that the planters had a right to compensation from their slaves. The planters and the state had been accomplices in a crime, and it would be exceed • ingly hard and unjust to throw the burden of retribution on one party ; but it would be still more hard and unjust to lay any portion of it on the third and in- jured party. It was clear, however, from this clause, that a negro who was fit for all the duties of civil life might still be kept in slavery Why was he to give this money to his master? If the clause had provided that when the slave had laid up a certain sum in the Savings Bank he should become free, that would have been a fair proposition ; but when they compelled him to pay it to the master, they compelled him to pay the price of a right; a principle the justice of which he could never admit.

He did not apprehend, with Mr. Buxton, that any insarrection would ensue from the operation of this part of the plan, or that it would lead to a state of gross cruelty.

It would, in his opinion, be merely a state of dead slavery ; a state destitute of any vital principle. He did not see reason to apprehend any cruelty ; for what motive could the stipendiary Magistrates hay, for hostility towards the slaves? The contrary would, he thought, be the case. The Magistrates would be ac- countable to the Colonial Office; the Colonial Office to the House of Commons, in which every whipping would no doubt be told. The object of the Magistrate, therefore, would be to be as lenient as possible. His apprehension was, that the result of continuing this state of society for twelve years would be that the whole negro population would become inactive, would sink into weak and dawdling inefficiency, and would be much less fit for liberty at the end of the period than at its commencement. His hope was, that the system would die a natural death ; that a few months' experience would so establish its utter inefficiency as to induce the planters to abandon it, and to substitute a state of freedom.

Lord SANDON defended the bill.

Lord HOWICK said the apprenticeship scheme was a mere delusion. Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. BERNAL condemned the plan.

Mr. BUXTON and Mr. STANLEY spoke a few words in explanation, and the House divided : for Mr. Buxton's resolution, 151; against it, 158; Ministerial majority, 7.

The House adjourned at three o'clock.

The question being put on Thursday, at the morning sitting, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee,

Dr. LUSHINGTON proposed " That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Slaver/ Abolition Bill, to insert in the said bill a clause for the immediate emancipation, without re- striction of all slaves who may. at any time, previous to the passing of this bill, have been brought, with the consent of their possessors, or may at any time after the passing of this bill, with like consent, be brought into any part of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Ireland."

Mr. STANLEY acceded to this motion, and it was accordingly carried. The House then went into Committee, and Mr. STANLEY stated, in reference to the vote on the apprenticeship clause of the previous day, that

It was impossible to look to the opinion then expressed, and not to perceive that there was a strong feeling, not, he believed, against the principle of ap- prenticeship as an intermediate state of probation between slavery and perfect freedom, but to the period which Government had adopted for that purpose.

He therefore proposed, instead of retaining the period for prmdiaI apprenticeships at twelve yeats, and non-prmdial ones at seven, to con- fine the former to seven, the latter to five years.

Indeed, he might say that the periods would virtually be reduced to six and four years, because, by the new arrangement, the plan would come into opera- tion in 1833 in place of 1834, and the time would end in 1840 in place of 1845. He made this explanation' before going into Committee, being very desirous the bill should be passed with the consent of all parties as far as it was practicable.

Lord SaNnosr complained that Ministers had committed a direct violation of the contract made with the West India body for the pur- pose of gainink their cooperation, and that without the least communi- cation having beefi Made with them on the subject. It was a direct breach of good faith, a departure from a specific contract.

Mr. STANLEY replied, that the negotiation with the West India body was undoubtedly binding on them as members of that House, but it only bound them as Ministers to propose the term of twelve years to Parliament.

He called on Lord Sandon to say whether -"there had not been on the part of Government every, endeavour to maintain their part of the agreement; but, surrounded as they were with difficulties on all sides, notwithstanding their utmost exertions to keep inviolable their portion of the contract, there were cir- cumstances, as was evident from the close division of last night, which might render it impossible for them to carry the term of twelve years to its full

extent. '

Mr. STEWART and Mr. MARYATT feared that evil consequences would ensue when the yews of the alteration arrived in the Colonies. • Lord SANDON did not think that the vote of the previous night in- volved the necessity of adopting the views since taken up by Ministers. Lord ALTHORP said, that Lord Sandon seemed to think that Minis- ters ought to have waited for a division ; but it should be remembered that Ministers had the means of ascertaining pretty nearly how the question would be decided, and it was more respectful to the House to adopt the course that had been adopted. (Cheers.) If Ministers had been moved by any force, it was by the force of opinion in that House. After a few words from Mr. SHEIL and Lord SANDON, the Chair man reported progress and the House adjourned.

In the evening sitting the discussion was resumed.

Mr. STANIAY moved the insertion of the words ." 1st November

1833," in the blank in the first clause, as the period at which the eman- cipation of the negroes should commence, which, after some discussion, was agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, and .5, then passed with unimportant amendments.

On 6th clause being read, which enacts that the apprenticeship of the prmdial labourers should not continue beyond the — day of the year ---, The CHAIRMAN said, it is now proposed to fill up these blanks with the words "1st June 1840."

Mr. BuxTost moved, as an amendment, that the apprenticeship should expire in 1836, instead of 1840. Mr. HARDY seconded the motion.

Lord .ALTHORP opposed it.

Dr. LUSHINGTON regretted the decision of Lord Althorp, and would support Mr. Buxton's amendment.

Mr. WARD, Lord MORPETII, Colonel TORRENS, and Admiral FLEM- ING supported the original clause, and Mr. BUCKINGHAM, Mr. PEasn, and Mr. STRICKLAND the amendment.

A division took place, and the amendment was lost by a majority of 206 to 89.

Clause 7 was then put, and Lord Howlett moved, as an amendment, with a view to do away altogether with the apprenticeship of non- prmdial negroes, that the term of such apprenticeship should be reduced from June 1838 to June 1834.

After a short discussion, the amendment Was negatived. The 8th clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.

4. SUGAR REFINERIES. Mr. CLAY, on Wednesday, moved the fol- lowing resolution- " That it is expedient that foreign sugar be immediately admitted into this country for the purpose of being refined for exportation."

He supported it .in a speech of great length, in which he described the ruinous effects brought upon the refining trade by the prohibition of foreign sugars. In 1818, when foreign sugars were admitted for re- fining, 711,000 hundredweights had been exported ; in 183.3, this great business had dwindled down to an export of 135,000 hundredweights, in the two first quarters of the year. In 1830, there were 234 pans at work in the Metropolis ; in 1833, only 70. From this it would appear how much the refining trade suffered from this state of e' The 1 country at large, moreover, suffered great injustice from it. ire were i paying from 7s. to Ps. per hundredweight more for refined sugar than i we need pay, if foreign sugars were admitted. In other words we paid a tax of a million and a half per annum to the West Indian monopolists. Mr. HARVEY, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, Mr. Mascot:, and Colonel He adverted to the injurious effects upon our foreign trade in conse- TORRENS congratulated Mr. Clay on the success of his exertions, as quenee of the prohibition of bringing home the sugar of foreign min- the Government had virtually conceded the point he required. tries, especially that of the Brazils. No better time could be taken Mr. CLAY then withdrew his motion. for making the proposed alteration than the present, just after the country had been acting with such unexampled liberality towards the 5. EAST INDIA CHARTER BILL. The report on this bill was

West Indian proprietors.

(a measure which he admitted to be.good it itself,) must have on the eastern the doors of the refiners, which, if admitted, would give employment and bread Mr. WILBRAHAM then withdrew 117s motion.

nery by which it nught be carried into effect. barristers' advocates, and attornies, to practice in India without a licence Lord Aranoar said, the West Indians objected to the renewal of ceived, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Friday.

the act, because it gave a bounty to the refining of foreign, in prefer- The House adjourned at a quarter to three.

ence to the refining of British sugars. He admitted that it was expe- Previously to the motion for the third reading being put on that day, dient that foreign sugar should be admitted for the purpose of refining, Mr. C. FERGUSSON presented a petition from the Court of East India but the question was, in what manner could it be admitted, without in- proprietors, praying to be heart by counsel against the passing of the terfering with the revenue of the country, and without putting into the bill, and moved that the prayer of the petition be granted. This was pockets of the refiners a considerable bounty. He was not satisfied opposed by Mr. CHARLES GRANT, and rejected by a majority of 100 to that the success of the refiners in this country was not owing to the 33. bounty; so that, perhaps, it would not be much relief to ',them, were The question was then put, that the bill be read a third time. A they to adopt the plan he proposed, of refining sugar in bond. Such a debate ensued, in which Mr. BucKINGHAM, Sir R. INGLis, ;Ar. WYNN, plan would do away with the drawback ; consequently, no undue ad-1r. c.

vantage would be gained by the refiner, and no injury would be in-

flicted on the revenue. He believed, however, that it was not Mr. tion was carried without a division.

Clay's wish that sugar should be refined in bond: his object was to ob-

tain the renewal of the act, which had expired in 1831, with some new Mr. SHEIL then proposed a clause, for making due provision for the

provision, to prevent a bounty being given for the refining of foreign Roman Catholic and other Dissenting Churches in India. . . sugar. But the difficulty was to ascertain what quantity of refined Mr. GRANT proposed as a substitute for this clause, a proviso,

sugar might be manufactured from one hundredweight of raw sugar. "That the Governor-General shall be empowered to apply such sums as may Certainly a greater quantity might be produced than sixty-one pounds of re- le deemed necessary for maintaining Church Communion in India, for other fined, and eighty-one Rounds of bastard ; and therefore the Government thought sects as well as for the English and Scotch." it necessary to ascertain more accurately than they could at present the exact Mr. SHEIL expressed himself satisfied with this proviso, and withdrew amount of raw sugar which ought to be exported in return from one hundred- weight of raw sugar. Such be the state of the case, be really mast say that Mr. CUTLAR FancussoN proposed an amendment to the 53d clause,

he thought it impossible, during the present session, to frame any measureon just the object of which, owing to the talking in the House, was not dig-

principles to determine this point. He did not, however, think there coula be tinctly understood ; it was negatived by a majority of 78 to 33. t any objection to allowing sugar in bond to be refined for exportation ; but if the West India proprietors should strongly object to such a measure, he should Mr. CHARLES GRANT moved an addition to clause 99 in these words-- feel bound not to give it his support. At any rate, this was all that could pbssibly "Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall prevent the Company from be done in the present session, granting to Communities, not being of the Church of England, such sums as He concluded by saying, that if Mr. Clay would withdraw the word may be necessary for education or public worship." " immediately " from the resolution, he would not oppose it; unless he This Was opposed by Mr. A. JOHNSTONE and Sir ROBERT INGLIS, found, what he did not expect, that the West India Interest had strong but carried, on a division, by 92 to 8.

objections to the proposition. Mr. WiNN moved a clause to abolish Haileybury College. .. Mr. MARYATT, Mr. BERNAL, and Lord SANDON, would not oppose Mr. ROBERT GRANT said, it would be inconvenient to abolish such Lord Althorp's moderate proposition. a seminary at once. . , .

Dr. LnsansoroN earnestly supported Mr. Clay's resolution. His The House again divided: for Mr. Wynn's clause, 20; against it, constituents asked for no bounty, but they demanded that the West 46; majority, 26. Indians should not possess the monopoly of the homeniaritet. . ' . The bill then passed, and the House adjourned at half-past two. Mr. •Pomerr THOMSON had prepared a bill for the purpose of allow-

ing sugailn bond to be refined for exportation. ,

Ile would lay on the table of the house a full report, received only two days ago, of the experinients on sugar made by Dr. Ure„ at the desire of the Govern- ment, during the last eighteen months, the result of which was, that it was clear that on West India as well as foreign sugars a considerable bounty was paid on exportation. Three experiments had been made on West India sugars, and the first,'which was made from a necessary cause upon very iudifferent su- gars, left in result that there was a bounty upon that description of sugar to the amount' Of Is. 6d. • the second experiment left a bounty of 5s., and the third left one of 6s., on West India sugars. He had tried to check this in every pos- sible way, and it was clear that this bounty was, to a certain extent, beneficial to the manufacturers; for although it was ultimately received by foreigners, yet it passed through the hands of the manufacturers. He had made all inquiries that he could to ascertain the result of the refining process, and had inspected the books of a manufacturer for the last three years, from which it appeared that in the first year the bounty was 4s. 10d. ; in the second, 4s. dd., and in the third, 3s. 9d., thus proving that there is a bounty which varies between 4s. and 5s, on every hundredweight of West India sugar refined in this country. He now came to a point in the report to which he was most anxious to refer—viz. the subject of foreign sugars. By an experiment on one parcel of those sugars of an inferior qualiity, it appeared that the bounty on it was 2s. ; when, how- ever, it was mixed half and half with West India sugar, the bounty rose to 38. 3d. ; thus showing that by a combination of the two inure could be got than could be obtained from either singly. [In answer to a question from a Member, Mr. Thomson said that the parcel of sugar last referred to was Brazi- lian sugar.) From another experiment made on foreign sugars of the average price of West India sugars, a bounty of 8s. was produced. Now, all this showed that these results depended not so much on the prices of sugars as on their qua- lity; and it was clear, he contended, that the scale for the drawback could not be fixed upon the pi inciple proposed by the old bill. It was his firm conviction that the only means of settling the ques- tion would be to allow that all sugars, whether British or foreign, should be refined in bond.

One reason which influenced him in bringing forward this proposition was the large amount of the di awback, which was extracted from the produce, and the consideration whetlwr it was expedient to continue to pay it. Taking the bounty at 4s. the hundredweight, which would be above the mark, it would appear that upon 4,000,0001. of produce there is a tax levied upon the people of 800,0001.!

He concluded by expressing his hope that Mr. Clay would consent to alter his motion to the following form.

"That it is expedient that sugar under lock be admitted for refining, for the purpose of exportation."

a tax of a million and a half per annum to the West Indian monopolists. Mr. HARVEY, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, Mr. Mascot:, and Colonel He adverted to the injurious effects upon our foreign trade in conse- TORRENS congratulated Mr. Clay on the success of his exertions, as quenee of the prohibition of bringing home the sugar of foreign min- the Government had virtually conceded the point he required.

brought up on Mondey.

He knew not what was the nature of the understanding come to between the Mr. WILBRAHAM moved a new clause, the object of which was to noble Lord and the West India body, but when it was recollected that a loan of I do away with the salt monopoly of the Govermnent of India. 15,000,000/. had been changed into a gift of 2o,000,pow., it was too much to i Mr. Hesse said that the monopolies of salt, and opium also, should say that a pledge given at one time, should be biliding at another, when all the be done away with.

to many very deserving and distressed artisans. Clauses requiring two years' notice to be given before altering the , He had couched his resolution in general terms with a view to leaving Charter, and a full statement, to be laid before Parliament annually in it to the proper department of the Government to provide the machi- May, of the financial circumstances of the Company ; also one to admit

Mr. EWART seconded the motion. from the Company, were then added to the bill. The report wits re- o .a.sr. TEwAnT MAcxENTIE, Mr. WHITMORE, Mr. C. FERGUSSON,

Mr. CHARLES GRANT, and Mr. P. THOMSON took part, and the mo- tain the renewal of the act, which had expired in 1831, with some new Mr. SHEIL then proposed a clause, for making due provision for the

provision, to prevent a bounty being given for the refining of foreign Roman Catholic and other Dissenting Churches in India. . .

sugar might be manufactured from one hundredweight of raw sugar. "That the Governor-General shall be empowered to apply such sums as may Certainly a greater quantity might be produced than sixty-one pounds of re- le deemed necessary for maintaining Church Communion in India, for other fined, and eighty-one Rounds of bastard ; and therefore the Government thought sects as well as for the English and Scotch." it necessary to ascertain more accurately than they could at present the exact Mr. SHEIL expressed himself satisfied with this proviso, and withdrew amount of raw sugar which ought to be exported in return from one hundred-

his clause.

weight of raw sugar. Such be the state of the case, be really mast say that Mr. CUTLAR FancussoN proposed an amendment to the 53d clause,

he thought it impossible, during the present session, to frame any measureon just the object of which, owing to the talking in the House, was not dig-

feel bound not to give it his support. At any rate, this was all that could pbssibly "Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall prevent the Company from

Mr. MARYATT, Mr. BERNAL, and Lord SANDON, would not oppose Mr. ROBERT GRANT said, it would be inconvenient to abolish such moved for leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of Perlis- any balance by which it could be protected. .

had a right to demand an alteration of the present system. He de- ported the motion.

for that purpose, and for obtaining freedom of election ; and a more : In the bill which he proposed to brine in, the term of future Parlia- was sure would greatly depreciate them in the eyes of the country. .

.inents was not fixed, though he believed that if the \I.'s]] es of the na- He would vote for the motion, as he had not heard a single sound tion were consulted, Triennial Parliaments would be esialdished. That argument against shortening the duration of Parliaments. .was a point, however, which could be debated in the Committee. Mr. GASKELL and Lord SANDON opposed, and Colonel EVANS and -Mr. IlumE seconded the motion. It might have b(.en expedient to '111r. IlAwKiss advocated the adoption of Triennial Parliaments. pasz,i the Septennial Act, at the period when it was enacted, but it

shoold not have been permitted to outlive that expediency. He believed thia the shortening the duration of Parliaments would he attended To put the present questien in a right point of view, he would ask if any man

tvi th the most beneficial results. would, without check, and without control, confide, even to the chosen friend ' of his bosom, the comfort, respectability, and substance of his family for such a Lord ALTHORP said, that if Parliaments were in the same situation period as seven years? If, then, they would not do it in private life, why should a, Lraterly, he should feel himself bound to support the motion, but they be required to do it in public, where so many interests were wrapped up ?

tin :ets were now changed, and the members of that liouse really re- He admitted that the proposition was brought forward at an awkward

pi., ..,eited the people. He did nut think, therefore, that the sane! time, but he should vote for it, as it had the sanction of all past ex- iiiity existed as heretofore for shortening the dunaion of Podia- perietice. inm,!i, nor did he think that the repeal of the Septek.dal Act would Mr. STANLEY bad no hesitation in voting against a proposition for be iii oductive of advantage to the people. The proposed period of shortening the duration of Parliaments.

three years would be too short—it would derange the fixed and steady march of public affiiirs. For these reasons, if the motion were He bad, on the hustings at Lancaster, made a statement from which he was pressed, he should move the previous question. and extensive reform, they were justified in looking upon it as final ; and that

Mr. COBBETT said, he should be contented with nothing less then a whenever the subject of the Ballot or Triennial Parliaments: might be brought return to the old English 'intake of hod eg a Parliament once a ye!tr. forward, he should assuredly vote against them. Ile knew not what were the The Septennial Act was not brought in to preserve the liberties of the indications they had ; for he saw none of the extreme unpopularity of that

people and the Protestant religion. House or that Government. What test was there which could be applied to It was no such thing ; it was done with a view to keep the plunder they had their conduct, and which, being applied, would show that they had neglected got--the plunder of the Church ; they were afraid that plunder would be taken their duty—that they had shrunk from their responsibiiity—that they had vie-

got-.-the feel safe in possession of it He should not characterize the aets that had been raised? He knew not where to find these tests, nor where to look for the proof done in that House ; he wire afraid to do so while he wear ithin its ..calls that this question was one on which the public mind was bent with any degree and under its roof. The most illiall1OUS thing—the base apostacy iiself—a , :ag- ing three times between Catholic and Protestant, was not equal to the turpitude He then replied to the arguments of Mr. Sheil and Dr. Lushington

of this bill. The law was positive that the members should only sit there for in favour of the motion, and concluded by declaring that he should, for three years, and yet they had dared to give themselves authority to sit for his part, have great pleasure in voting for the amendment.

lour years longer. The present Parliament might, with the sane! jasziee, enact Mr. O'CONNELL, Major BEAUCLERK, Mr. GISBORNE, Mid Sir R. that they would sit for seven years, or for the naturallife of any member amongst them. FERGUSON, spoke- a few words, and the House divided : for the motion,

ject this measure.

He knew that the House and Government had fallen considerably in the esti- Mr. CUMMING BRUCE and Mr. FINCH opposed it. mation of the people; and when he recently appealed a second time to his con- Sir E. CODRINGTON,_ Mr. SHEIL, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, Mr. stituents he was returned solely on the ground that he had uniformly voted in BUCKINGHAM, and Lord SANDON, supported it. the Minority. The people began to feel that the present were no better than Sir CHARLES BURRELL would vote against the bill on principle. the former Ministers and that the Tories might as well have remidned in power ; He took this course not out of any disrespect to the Jews, but considering if so, the Reform Bill was nothing but robbery and delusion—robbery of those this as a Christian House of Commons, they had no right to enter it. The

who had converted a trust into a property and delusion of those who wished to

bring the trust back to its original purpose. (Cheers.) prophecies contained in the Holy Scriptures respecting the Jews had been ful- - This was the first Parliament under the Reform Bill, but not the had gone to portions of the earth which no Christian had ever yet reached. first Reformed Parliament : it might remain for the next to perform They had penetrated into all parts of Europe, Asia Africa, and America, and the duties which the present refused.to discharge. The time, however, they were to be found in the very interior of Africa south of Timbuetoo. must come, when a new appeal would be made to the people who (Great Laughter.) He felt that he should not be doing his duty as. a Chris- - Lord JOHN RUSSELL .thought that the character of the Whig Minis- 6, Hear, hear .r") He contended that the present proposition couldnot

fry was to the full as good as Mr. Kennedy -himself possessed in that .House. With regard to the proposed measure, he felt some difficulty Colonel Fox here called out—" Those canting ' hears."

in giving his opinion upon it on account of its vagueness. Sir CHARLES BURRELL—" Whoever said that, said what was most

If it had been for any fixed period—if it had declared that new Parliaments unjust and untrue." elhould be called every year, every three years, or every five years, he should Colonel Fox disclaimed any personal allusion to Sir Charles Bee- /lave known how to meet, and how to deal with it; but when he was required rell; who expressed himself satisfied with the explanation. .

to give a decision upon the motion in blank, and when no period of duration Sir RORERT INGLIS moved that the bill be read a third time that was,named, it seemed hardly fair to expect that any man should arrive at a con- day six months. dushre judgment. It was like sending Parliament on an expedition with sealed Mr. ROBERT GRANT replied, and the House divided : for the bill, orders' not to be opened until it reached . a certain latitude and longitude. 189; against it, 52; majority, 137. (" He ar I") It wasthen road a third time, and passed.

' He was utterly opposed to Annual Parliaments, and thought indeed that a long duratio On Thursday, on the motion of Lord BExt.EY, it was read a first nwas to be preferred. time in the House of Peers. By the constitution of this country, the House of Commons held the public

purse in its hands, and consequently, the power of giving supplies from it ; it 9. BLOCKADE OF THE PORTUGUESE PORTS. The Marquis of Lad, therefore, for a time the whole power of the kingdom. What power had LONDONDERRY moved, on Monday, for the production of all papers re- the Crown opposed to ;hat? The power of dissolution. If the Crown dis- ceived at the Foreign Office, before- the 15th July, which were the paved a House of Commons, one of precisely the same opinions as that dismissed ground of the order issued from that office acknowledging the blockade might be returned by the people. When such was the case, there remained no of Lisbon. lie asserted that no information could have been received further cheek, and ihe House of Commons remained supreme. The people, by Government, which, up to that period, could justify them in sup-

therefore, by reelecting the same or similar members, enjoyed, in fact, the su- preme direction of the state. This enormous power ought to be met by some posing that the blockade was any thing more than a paper one. The

counterbalance on the part of the Crown. If Parliament were made of three whole affair was got up in this country by Monsieur Lima, at the years' duration it would, in fact, be only oftwo years' duration, and the Crown Foreign Office. He then adverted to Earl Grey's speech on bringing would thus be deprived of the power of choosing the time when a dissolution forward the Irish Church Bill, which he characterized as puerile, and should take place. There must, them be dissolutions of Parliament from time full of sound and fury. _ 6. CHINA TRADE BILL. This bill Was read a second time, on to time, and you -would thus get, not the .deliberate sad consistent-opinion of the

Tuesday, in the House of Commons. . .. -country—which he thought ought in all eases to be supreme—but an opioion formed undg the chance of misapprehension, and error, and passion, and delw-

7. DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. Mr. TENNYSON, 011 Tuesday, sion and yau would thus place the constitution in a state of Jeopardy without

ments. He reminded the House, that when Lord John Russell brought It was the result of many years' consideration, and from this opinion forward the Reform Bilrqn 1831, he stated that it was not the intention be had never varied, that the alteration to Triennial Parliaments would of Ministers to originate any motion on the subjects of the Vote by Bal. be the total destruction of our mixed Constitution ; nor did he think lot and the shortening of Parliaments ; but that they should leave it to that there would be any great advantage in substituting five years. for individual members to take up these subjects as they saw fit. It was seven. He should therefore vote for the amendment.

an almost universal conviction among the people, that the term of seven Mr. SHEIL remarked upon Lord John Russell's apprehensions of the years was too long for the duration of Parliaments. Since the passing consequenees of a dissolution when the public mind was in a state of of the Septennial Act in 1716, a general corruption had spread itself excitement. among the constituency of the empire and their representatives. Under

of each being five years. Before the reign of Henry the Eighth, what- pular excitement ? (Much cheering.) Did Lord John Russell mean to say that the intervention of the public upon that occasion was of no use? If so, against en prepared to take the reins of Government, if his Majesty's present Ministers

Dr. LUSHINGTON said-

not disposed to depart, that the Government having carried a large, sweeping, from them, for it was too near the time when they ;cot it for them to 'kited their pledges—that they had failed to fulfil the expectations they had of earnestness. of earnestness.

Mr. JAMES KENNEDY said it would be the worst possible omen to I- 8. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. Mr. ROBERT GRANT moved the

third reading of this bill on Monday.

filled to the very letter. That people had been scattered to the winds, and they tian if he did not raise his voice against this proposed alteration of the constitu tion. ( be compared with that of Catholic emancipation. ("Hear, hear I") Earl GREY replied that he had no objection to the production of the papers, which were accordingly ordered.

10. Boaotion OF WARWICK. The motion for a new writ for this borough was deferred on Monday, on the motion of Sir RONALD FER- GUSON, till the 15th August.

11. CONDUCT OF THE EARL OF WARWICK. MT. O'CONNELL, On Friday, asked Lord Althorp'whether, after the report of the Warwick Election Committee, the Earl of Warwick was to be continued in his Lord-Lieutenancy?

Lord ALTHORP said, that it had not been usual to appoint or remove Lord-Lieutenants of counties, on account of their political opinions, though it had sometimes been done. The case of Lord Warwick was, he admitted, a peculiar one. The charge against him was of a very serious nature. Before taking any steps on the subject, Government had determined to write to his Lordship, who was abroad, calling upon him for an explanation. It was fair that he should have an opportunity of making his defence.

12. BANKRUPTCY COURT BILL. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, this bill was read a second time in the Lords on Tuesday.

13. BURGLARY BILL. On the motion of Lord SUFFIELD, this bill, after a few observations from Lord WYNFORD, was read a second time on Monday. On Tuesday it went through the Committee, and the report was ordered to be brought up next Monday.

14. SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS BILL.. This hill went through the Committee on Monday, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

15. DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. E. L. BULWER moved the third reading of this bill. Mr. Rona moved that it be read that day six months.

The House divided; for Mr. Rotch's motion, 7; against it, 38; majority, 31.

The bill was then read a third time. On the question being put that it do pass, Lord W. LENNOX proposed a clause, which be afterwards withdrew, to prevent any new theatre being erected within a mile and a half of Covent Garden or Drury Lane.

The bill then passed.

16. TIIELI.USSON ESTATE BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, on Monday,

• moved the third reading of this bill. It was opposed by Lord Halt- aownv, who said, that if such a measure were allowed to pass, the in- terference of Parliament would not long be limited to the third or fourth generation, but that there would be no security for property. Lord 13itononasi supported the bill, and the House divided : for it, 87; against it, 20; majority, 67. It then passed.

17. BitrAcir or PRIVILEGE ; MR. O'CONNELL AND THE RE- . PORTERS. Mr. O'CONNELL, On Thursday, rose to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance.

Colonel PERCEVAL here moved that the Gallery should be cleared, which, however, was not done.

Mr. O'CONNELL then moved that Mr. W. J. Clement should be called to the bar of that House. He had also to complain of the pro- prietors of the Times, Mrs. Anna Brodie, Mr. J. Lawson, and others ; but he gave the priority to the Morning Chronicle, on account of the article which had appeared that day, excusing the omission of a report of one of his speeches. That article exhibited symptoms of shrinking; but the very same day another of his speeches was treated in the same manner. He then denounced the monopoly of the press, and com- plained of his best speeches not being reported. The Morning Post reporters were the most impartial,—probably because they were Scotch- men.

He had procured from the Stamp-Office a list of the journal proprietary of the Metropolis, and he should wage war with thein all till be defeated them. He would move day by day for their appearance at the bar of the House for breach of privilege.

Mr. O'Dwrra seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP said that the technical reason for the motion was, that proceedings in Parliament were reported in the newspapers ; but the real reason was, that they were not reported. He believed that, ge- nerally speaking, the reports were very fairly given.

Upon this subject he could not help observing, that Mr. O'Connell VMS ex- periencing a little of the effect of what he formerly called "passive resistance." (A loud laugh.) With respect to the reports of the debates, no man could wish them to be discontinued; and every man must wish that they should be fairly and impartially given. As to the motion, he did not think that it was one to which it was advisable to accede.

Dr. Bannwist regretted that Mr. O'Connell should have made the attack which caused the hostility of the reporters to him. It appeared to him that of all the members in the House, Mr. O'Connell had been best treated in the Parliamentary reports. On the whole, the reporters acted with great fairness.

Mr. O'CONNELL was willing to defer the attendance of Mr. Clement till Monday—further than that he would not go. He would not consent to be a victim without defending himself.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the case of Mr. O'Connell was not a solitary one.

Rd recollected, that when, on some occasion, the present Lord Chancellor expressed an opinion personally unfavourable to the reporters, his punishment was, that for a time all his opinions on questions ti( law and of foreign and do-

mestic policy were suppressed. He agreed that the circumstance in question was an abuse of power, but he did not see his way out of the difficulty, and

thought that if the House adopted the proposition of the Member for Dublin, they would scarcely extricate themselves without some loss of dignity. He sbould therefore vote against the motion.

Sir S. WHALLEY said, the wonder was, that the reports were given so well, not that there were occasional errors.

. Mr. SPRING Baez thought, that the best course to be taken was to get rid of the motion by moving the previous question. • Mr. O'CONNELL again declared that he would not submit to the . basest of all despotisms. Mr. SANDFORD said, the only way the reporters could act wonhl be not to report Mr. O'Connell at all. •

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said— He was perfectly astonished at the general acenracy—( Cheers)—at the mbre. than extraordinary fidelity with which the reports of that House were given—a fidelity which was almost marvellous so instinctively afid instantaneously were the ideas of honourable members caught hold of by the gentlemen in the Gallery.

Sir ROBERT PEst. observed, that— If Mr. Clement were called to the bar of that House, he really could lot understand in what manner they were to address him—(A laugh)—or what pro- mise they should exact. (,4 Bear, hear !") The real question was, that the power of that House was so great that they were afraid to exercise it. (" Hear !") If they were to exclude reporters altogether, such a proceeding would be entirely dissonant to the feelings of the public, and would inflict a serious injury on the business of that House' and of the country—("Hear !")— and yet what other control had they than by a threat, which, however, they would be all averse to putting into execution.

The speeches of Mr. O'Connell were of far too much importance to be suppressed.

This casual collision between the honourable gentleman and the Press—. (Laughter)—would soon pass away; and if he would be advised by him, he would at once withdraw his motion. ( Cheers.) By devising any new means of making the public acquainted with their proceedings, it was his own opinion that they should not at all improve the reports. (" Hear, hear!")

Mr. O'CONNELL then withdrew his motion till Thursday next.

Mr. O'CONNELL last night again brought this subject before the House. He complained of a breach of privilege in a letter published in the Times of that morning, signed by the reporters, in which they

refused to report him unless he apologized for having spoken what was true. He alluded to the circumstance of his speech on the Irish Poor

Laws having been summed up in eighteen lines and a half; and moved that Mrs. Anna Brodie, J. J. Lawson, and J. W. Lawson, should be called to the bar of the House on Monday.

Mr. Hums seconded the motion, not on the grounds taken by Mr. O'Connell, but that they might have the matter laid fully before them. He certainly was of opinion, that while persons were allowed to re- port the proceedings of that House, they ought to report them fairly, and not give the arguments on one side and suppress those on the other. i i‘r. . H. CURTEIS put it to the gallantry of the honourable and learned mover, whether he would call a lady to the bar. (Laughter, aid cries of " Hear ! ") The lady named in the motion was the widow of a clergyman and resided at Eastbourne, and he put it to Air. O'Connell whether he would insist on her coming up to London to attend at the bar of the House.

Mr. 0' CONNELL—" I will let the lady off."

Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Mr. C. FERGUSSON. and Lord A LTHORP sup- ported the motion. The latter said, that he should not himself have thought it worth while to introduce the subject to the notice of the House; hut as a breach of privilege, had undoubtedly been committed, the motion, if pressed, must be agreed to. The motion was then carried.