Clchatell an 7roteching4 in Parliament. 1. REFORM OF THE IRISH

CORPORATIONS.

The order of the day for the third reading of the Irish Municipal Bill having been moved in the House of Commons on Monday, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. SHAW rose and addressed the House, at considerable length and with extreme vehemence, in opposition to the bill. The scope of his argument was to prove that, in the present state of Ireland, to pass the bill would be to lay the Protestant minority at the mercy of an intolerant Popish priesthood; the effect of whose all-powerful influence over the mass of the Catholic population was visible in the crime and misery which overspread the land. He contended that the only principle con- sistently observed throughout the measure was that of giving power to the implacable enemies of the British connexion—to the men whose motto was " No Protestantism," though they exclaimed against the cry of " No Popery." He solemnly warned the Legislature and Ministers and the English people, to pause in the course they seemed bent on pursuing; and moved an amendment, that the bill be read a third time that day six months.

Mr. BLACKSTONE seconded the motion. The amendment having been put from the chair, Mr. WARD rose to oppose it. He remarked upon the inconsistency of those gentlemen who having in the most emphatic terms denounced the Irish Corporations as utterly corrupt and past mending, were that night about to support a motion which perpetuated the evils which they had so fully admitted to be absolutely indefensible. He wished to know from Sir R. Inglis and Sir R. Vyvyan, who opposed the third reading of the English Municipal Bill, how they reconciled their votes in favour of Lord Francis Egerton's motion for destroying the Corpo- rations, with their avowed principles, and with the votes which they would give in favour of Mr. Shaw's amendment that night ?

He saw no principle on which they could defend their proposed destruction of Corporations in Ireland, unless it were that ‘,%ich leads an army to spike its own guns lest they should be turned against them afrer they had fallen into the possession of the enemy. Now he protested against their legislating on any such false assumption. He could not consider the corporate system of one-third part of the empire as a weapon to be turned by the Catholic against the Pro- testant population of Ireland. He considered this bill for the better regulation of municipal corporations in Ireland as an engine for promoting good local government in that country. He was certain that it would be found a powerful engine for accomplishing that object when left to the natural operation of time and circumstances. Though at first there might be, as there had been with elections made under the influence of strong reaction, he was convinced that in the long run no man would be chosen by the municipal constituency who A was not prepared to exercise his municipal functions impartially for the benefit 7 of the community at large. He wished to see the municipal corporations of Ireland purified from abuses, and secured against the return of the abuses from which they were purified, by the vigilant superintendence of popular control.

The arguments used on the opposite side appeared to resolve them- selves into this, that the impartial administration of justice by corpo- rate bodies was impossible in Ireland— They seemed inclined to contend that we were bound to look to the impartial administration of justice, but that we were not bound to look to the machinery by which that impartial administration of justice was to he effected. Now, he admitted that fur the impartial administration of justice great sacrifices ought to be made, but be must contend at the same time that the machinery for se- curing it was by no means an unimportant consideration. Municipal institu- tions were, in his opinion, the first step to liberty, and after they were established the best and firmest guarantee for its continuance. They were the best schools for teaching the principles and the most constitutional fortresses for defending and preserving the privileges, of freemen. To use the words of an eloquent foreigner, De Tocqueville, " They are to liberty what primary schools are i9 science t they briug it within the people's reach : they teach men to use it and to enjoy it A. nation may establish a system of free government without municipal institutions, but it cannot establish the spirit of freedtan." The reason why the people of Ireland were not to be trusted with the exercise of the duties and privileges of local self-government, was that they were Roman Catholics— There was no other reason in the world. If they had been Presbyterians, or Protestant Dissenters, or Unitarians, or Baptista, or members of any other sect, you would not have endeavoured to withhold from them those rights; but be- cause they were Catholics you were determined to refuse them. He was well aware that for many yearn past it had been the policy—God knows that it never has been, and that it never would be, the interest—of the British Government to rule Ireland by and through that minority of which Mr. Shaw was so dis- tinguished a member. But surely the House neither had forgotten, nor would

forget, that ever since the first concession of privileges till then withheld and of rights; till then denied hail been made to the Roman Catholics in 1779, our history had been one continued history of concessions, one continued relaxation of the penal code, forced from the Legislature by that spirit of justice and that love of equal rights which, even in the worst of times, had always been the die. tiuguishing characteristics of the British Constitution. In the ) ear 1829 the final seal was set upon those concessions, and every barrier was removed which for so many years had distinguished the Catholic from the Protestant subjects of his Majesty. He did not wish for a better or a more comprehensive definition

of the object of the Act of Emancipation, which was then passed, than that which was given a few evenings since by the statesman who prepared-it. The Member for Tamworth had fairly told the House, that bisobject in bringing in

that bill was to establish a perfect equality of civil rights among all sects and denominations of his Majesty's subjects, and to make a man's civil worth, not his religious faith, a test of his fitness and qualification for office He now

called upon Sir Robert Peel to work out his own. principle fully and, fairly, by giving his assent to the third reading of this bill, without casting any unjust imputations upon those who were to be benefited by it. He had been too hasty. He ought not to have attributed any such imputations to the right honourable baronet, who had scorned to use them ; but they had been avowed by his party,

and lavishly flung around, without any regard either to truth or to justice. That party had declared over and over again, that the mere fact of there being such persons in existence as Irish priests and Irish agitators, was a sufficient cause to disqualify the people of Ireland for the enjoyment of municipal rights; that so

overwhelming was the influence of the priests and agitators, so calculated was it to taint every social and political relation in Ireland with a moral pestilence, that it was neither safe nor prudent to trust the people of Ireland with those rights which had been granted in full perpetuity to the inhabitants of the other portions of the empire. The same tone and the same argument had pervaded the discussion of a former night.

This was the line of argument taken by Sergeant Jacison ; and Sir Henry Hardinge had rested his opposition to the bill on a sermon said to have been preached by Father Kehoe. If Father Kehoe had used the language attributed to him, he desecrated his holy functions, and in- jured the cause he intended to serve. But had the violent and abusive language been all on one side ?—

He held at that moment in his hand the report of a speech delivered on a very grand and solemn occasion, at a great Conservative meeting, attended by all the wealth and all the respectability, and, to borrow the phraseology of Members

opposite, all the property of South Cheshire. At that meeting a speech was delivered by a clergyman of the Church of England, which would rank with the speech of Father Kehoe, and which ought no more to be taken as a criterion of

the sentiments of the' clergy of the Church of England than Father Keboe's speech should be taken as a criterion of those of the Catholic clergy of Ireland.

He held in his hand the speech of the Reverend Joshua King, delivered at a grand Conservative dinner jn South Cheshire. One of the arguments pointed against Mr. O'Connell on a former night was, that in an address which he had made to the electors of Limerick, he had called all those persons who had in-

tended to vote against the Liberal candidates " daemons." Would the House be- lieve that the Reverend Joshua King, who professed to be a minister of charity and religion, and to preach peace and good-will among men, had called a measure which had passed that House, and had been deliberately sanctioned by one branch of the Legislature, " diabolical ?" He was not for looking with too great nicety at these expressions; but if they were to avail themselves of every unguarded expression which fell from a rash and imprudent individual as a rea- son for stripping the people of Ireland of their rights, they ought, on the same principle, to have denied the Reform Bill to the people of England, because there were some individuals who urged it forward with precipitate violence, and because the people of England were led away by their influence. Let this House listen to the language of the Reverend Joshua King—" The grant to

Maynooth had been followed up by one of the most atrocious, unprincipled, and

diabolical measures that ever disgraced a Christian legislature, and which none but the very refuse of the Whig faction, impelled onwards in the mad career of revolution by Popish agitators intriguing fanatical Dissenters, and Infidel Republicans, would have ever had the audacity to insult the public by propos- ing." That was the language of a minister of the Church of England, who had the cure of 62,666 souls, in two different and distant parishes. His example would not contaminate the inhabitants of both parishes, for one of them be in- trusted to the care of his curates, and the other, which be called his patrimonial property, he superintended himself.

On the same occasion, this same Mr. King had thought proper to speak of the House of Commons in the following strain-

" Whenever the clergy of the Established Church were disparagingly men- Coned (and they were never alluded to by certain Members without acrimony and the bitterest inyective), such discordant yells were set up as were am um- passed in a menagerie of wild beasts at feeding-time, there being nothing human but their forms; and he was told that the two Whig Members for that sounty, and the shallow.pated Radical for the city, had learned the Irish yell to such perfection, that they would, on such occasion, astound even a keeper at Pidcock's or Wombwell's menagerie. And this was the conduct of legislators in the first Reformed House of Commons." Now, he would put it to Sir Robert Inglis, whether he had seen in the last House of Commons, or in this the second Reformed House of Commons, any instance of the House treating the clergy of the Church of England with that contumely and disrespect of which the Reverend Joshua King so bitterly complained? There might be dif- ferent views entertained by different Members as to the best mode of adminis- tering the rights and property of that church, but he boldly averred that there bad been no such conduct witnessed in that House as the reverend gentleman had taken upon himself the hardihood of asserting. Sir Henry Hardinge had put forth the old story of the " death's bead and cross-bones" in Kerry— Now, in this very district of South Cheshire, to which he had just been ad- vetting. he could state, upon the authority of one of the Members for that county, that a Conservative meeting had been held, to which the parties went rn procession preceded by flags, whiah answered exactly to the description given of those said to have been reared by the Member for Dublin, save that they placed the word ', Catholic " where Mr. O'Connell was said to have placed the word " Protestant." At that meeting there were poured forth denuncia- tions fast and furious against all those Members of Parliament who had the courage to vote for the extension of equal rights and privileges to our Roman Catholic brethren in Ireland. There was even a proscription promulgated against them. The Member for Dublin was represented as the Devil in propria persona ; nor was his tail forgotten. He did not see how violence of language could be urged on the one side as a fair argument for withholding from the people of Ireland rights to which they were entitled, and yet could be laughed at on the other as a mere joke, not worthy a moment's thought to any man of common sense and feeling.

The argument that the violent language of priests and agitators was a sufficient reason to deny political rights to the Irish people, was but an old argument revived. In 1825 it was used and splendidly refuted by Mr. Canning— He did not know whether the House recollected the passage to which he was alluding : if they did not, they would perhaps bear with him whilst he re- freshed their memories by reading it : " It is brought forward," said Mr. Can- ning, 4, as another objection to the concession of any political power to the Catholics, that they are, in Ireland especially, under the absolute guidance of their priests and of their political leaders—men whom they regard with a ve- neration bordering on idolatry. Sir. I admit the fact ; but I lay the blame on another quarter. If the Roman Catholic@ are idolators in religion (as we swear at this table that they are), we cannot help it. But if they are (as is now alleged) idolators in politics, it is we who have to answer for their error. If we withdraw from them the more legitimate objects of political reverence— if we deny to them, as it were, the political sacraments of the Constitution— what wonder that they make to themselves false gods of the champions of their cause—of their spiritual and political leaders? But, fortunately, the cure of this crime (if it be one) is in our hands. Let us open to them the sanctuary of the law ; let us lift up the veil which shuts them out from the British Con- stitution, and show them the spirit of freedom which dwells within—the ob- ject of our own veneration. Let us call them to partake iu the same rites with which our purer worship is celebrated. Let us do this; and depend upon it, we shall speedily wean them from their present political idolatry, and leave deserted the spurious shrines at which they now bow down before their Doyle, and O'Connells." ( Great cheering.) He might, and indeed he did, differ from some of the expressions which Mr. Canning had used in this magnificent passage. He could not call the shrines spurious at which the people of Ireland now bowed down and worshipped. He thought that no man who was " a mere Irishman" could exist without feeling deep gratitude to the Member for Dublin for the important services which he had rendered his country. (Loud cries of " Hear ! " from the Ministerial Irish Members.) That man who could divest himself of such a feeling would not have the ordinary feelings of his kind.

It was proposed by the Opposition to give the Lord-Lieutenant the power of making all the municipal appointments, of interfering in the petty local concerns of every borough. He thought this most impolitic, and that in the present state of feeling in Ireland it would be dangerous to impose upon even the popular Lord Mulgrave such odious duties— Rut if that were a dangerous experiment even with a popular Government in Ireland, what would be the result of it with an unpopular Government— with a Government, be would not say actually in league, but only suspected to be in league, with the minority of the inhabitants ? Instead of tranquillity, there would be confusion—instead of the orderly arrangements of justice, you would have a perfect chaos in Ireland. You would shut up the only safety- valve, and you would expose society in Ireland to a succession of explosions and convulsions which would ultimately shatter it to pieces. There was every reason therefore to press this bill upon the House, and to sanction it by a decisive majority. He felt no doubt as to the propriety of passing it into law, if they did not wish to deceive and disappoint the high-wrought expectations of the people of Ireland. When every recent change had tended to increase and strengthen the influence of the democratic principle among us, he could see no assignable reason for the House withholding from a large portion of the empire those institutions which would teach them to use with discretion the power which the Constitution gave them. Still less could he see any danger from acceding to the prayers of the people of Ireland when they called upon us with one voice to give them equal rights andprivileges with those which we ourselves possessed. He should therefore vote for the third reading of the bill, as he saw no danger except in rejecting it.

[Mr. Ward was repeatedly cheered throughout his speech by a very attentive and full House.] Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that he had been opposed to the second reading of the bill; that he wished to retain the existing Irish Cor- porations ; that he had voted for Lord Francis Egerton's motion, as calculated to prevent the evil of Catholic corporations being raised on the ruins of Protestant corporations ; but that he much preferred the rejection of the bill altogether, and should therefore vote for the amendment of Mr. Shaw.

Mr. W. ROCHE, Mr. EWART, Mr. MONTESQUIEU BELLEW, and Mr. VERNON SMITH, supported the bill. It was opposed by Mr. FINCH and Major CUMMING BRUCE. The latter gentleman spoke at great length, principally in defence of the O'Sullivan meetings and of the junction of Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham with the Tory party. He alluded to Mr. Shell's exclamation in reference to Lord Stanley's change of place, and said that he had treated the House to a scene from his last farce of " Where is he now?" He was proceed-

ing to make some further remarks on the same subject, observing that he was sorry Mr. Sheil was not in the House, when that gentleman, who was sitting in the side gallery opposite to Major Bruce, said very distinctly "Hear, hear !" This caused great laughter in the House, and somewhat disconcerted Major Bruce; who concluded by threaten- ing the Irish Catholic Members with the repeal of the Relief Bill if they persisted in their attacks on the Church.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT was convinced that a true exposition of the principles and provisions of the bill would remove the delusion that pre- vailed upon it. It was assumed that they who approved of the hill for reforming the Corporations of England, could not consistently object to a similar measure for Ireland— If the state of both countries was the same—if the habits and feelings of both people were similar—if the Corporations in both were founded on identical bases and for parallel objects—then, indeed, there might be some ground for the argu- ment. It was not necessary for him to inquire into the origin of corporations in England. In many of them it was lost in the darkness of time. They were intrusted with property for the general benefit of the citizens, without exclusion or distinction ; and the misappropriation of this trust by the corporate function- aries may be one argument fOr their removal, and the substitution of others.

i

But in Ireland all corporations were founded in a spirit of exclusion; whether they were those founded in remote times for personal defence against barbarian hordes, or those of a later period, the time of James, for the defence and main

tenance of the Protestant interest. In the former class of corportions, power and emolument were confined to those of English blood ; in the latter class, they were confined exclusively to Protestants. This was especially the case in the

Corporations of Ulster. It was quite dear, therefore, that they were founded upon a principle of exclusion. Not only so, but they were intended to answer another purpose, namely, that of maintaining political power, by returning :Slem- bees to serve in Parliament. But we are told that these institutions are con- trary to the spirit of the times, and theiefore this bill is introduced professedly for their destruction. (Ironical chars from the .illinisterial tenches.) Ile

used the words advisedly : the bill was intrialticed professedly for their destruc-

tion. And how did it proceed? Why, by the entire destruction of every Royal charter. (Renewed cheers front the Ministerial benclit,:.) Yes, by their en- tire destruction. And he would ask the Attorney- General fur Ireland, who

Lad introduced the bill with so much ability, to put his linger on a single clause laving a contrary tendency. And yet they were told that the bill was founded en Conservative principles! They were told that the pruning•knife was to be ttpplied to the rotten branches, but not the axt• to the roots of the institutions. Why, he would ask 1'1r. O'Lughleit himself if this was not mere trilling'? The axe was put to the rout. The existing Corpuratiolis were destroyed without an exception. Again, they were told of the rights of the freemen. Why, were they to form any part of the new Corporations ? The existing rights Of the freemen, like the charters of the Corporations, were destroted. Ile cared little whether they created new freemen or whether they did not create them, unless they preserved the rights of those existing. lint still, with all these objections,

Le did consent, in common with those with whom he had the honour to act, to the (lest' action of the Irish Corporations.

But it was said, when did this new light break in upon you ? fie, at least, was too young a Member to be charged with inconsistency ; but he would say that the existing state of things called for an altera- tion of the law-

-When, iu 1829, they passed the Act for Catholic Emancipation they were called upon to do so that there should no longer remain any existing difference

between Catholic and Protestant. When, in 1 s;:?., they pvsed the lteform Bill, they took away all particular power nom the Corporation:, and they were thus rendered worse than useless. lie for one hid been anxious fin the passing

of the Bill for Catholic Emancipation, in hopes that it would alleviate and

soften the rancorous spirit of religious animosity, and grant that equality of rights su loudly demanded. Those were the principles upon which that bill was founded ; and he was willing to admit that there should be no civil insti- tution—that there should be no subject of the King but who should be fully entitled, not in theory but in practice, to all that the present Constitution could

offer. But then, again, came the point : the bill was exclusive. Professing to take away ascendancy, it took it only from one party to give it to another. (Loud cheers.)

The Corporations under the bill would have scarcely any municipal functions to perform ; they would not have the management of the

local affairs of towns. By taking away their proper functions, you left them no employment but political agitation. They would be ex- clusive bodies. Lord Morpeth had said exultingly, that that there would be few Tories in the new Councils : he believed him ; but he would also say that there would be fewer Whigs—

Was it not clear that, looking at the creation of these constituencies, they would be composed of those most prone to agitation, and that the doctrine of all others to be inculcated would be that of unceasing enmity to this country? What other objects could be in view? And yet this very Government, during the present session, had pressed forward a motion for silencing the agitation of the Orange Lodges; and he believed that it was the Govet innent of Lord Mel- bourne who had endeavoured to prevent the assembling of the people, even for the purpose of petitioning. Why, then, were they giving legal authority to what they pretended to oppose ? Authorized by law, these municipal bodies could sit as loug

as it might suit their purpose, and discuss any subject they pleased, communicating with the parent society in Dublin, and thus acting as affiliated societies for the

purposes of agitation. Ile had sat throughout the debate, and had heard no

reason for this measure but the fanciful analogy between the condition of Eng• land and Ireland. Why, the masses of property were different, and the people were different : there was the greatest possible difference between the social state of the two countries; • and he was quite convinced that he was not assum- ing too much in saying that what was harmless in England was not so in Ire-

land. In the course of any of his observations lie did not wish to say any thing that could give pain to the feelings, and particularly-the religious feelings, of those who differed with him ; but he must be allowed to say, that it was impossible to legislate for Ireland on the same pounds as they legislated for England. They could not read a newspaper that did not contain accounts of armed resistance to the law in Ireland, while in England centuries had passed away since such a state of things was possible. Nor was it resistance only, or resistance of a casual and accidental kind, but determined and organized resist- ance. Let us have the same obedience to the law in Ireland as in England, and then will be the time—not for the same law, fur that they have already— but for the same machiuery for carrying that law into operation. Why, to what an extent must this state of things have arrived when Mr. Sheil—as ap- peared from the debate of a preceding evening—a gentleman of high character, and whose abilities rendered him fit for any constituency—at the peril of losing his seat, was compelled to refuse, reluctantly, but still compelled to refuse, obedience to the law.

Much had been said of the proceedings of the Catholic priests, of which there was abundant testimony in the report of the Intimidation Committee ; but he would not refer to that evidence : he preferred reading a letter which had been produced before the Carlow Commit- tee—

The letter was from Mr. Edward Fitzgerald to Mr. Vigors, the late Mem- ber for the county. The extract was as follows—" I had a long interview with

the Bishop this day [nobody, he presumed, would doubt that it was a Roman Catholic Bishop]: he agrees entirely with Wallace, and he has caused a circular to be addressed to the different parish priests to ascertain how we stand in the county ; and in the course of a week I am to summon a meeting (private) of ,st few of the leading men of the county, with the clergy, to meet at toy house, at which meeting Wallace will be present : in the mean time, you should be on the look. out for candidates. The Bishop would prefer thatyou should be the person, on behalf of the county, that should apply to Raphael, rather than allow O'Connell (as the Bishopsays) to dispose of the county." (Loud laughter and cheering followed the reading of this extract.) Now, he wanted to know whether they were not the bulk of the people that belonged to that class who, when a circular like that was sent, would be influenced by their spiritual superior? Was it right that a spiritual superior should exercise such a power over the people ? And what object would this bill effect but that of binding the tics between them more closely ? We know that Members oppo-

site stated before the passing of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act—and no doubt most conscientiously—that the passing of that Act would riot only take away the wish but the power of clergy to interfere in political matters. This effect, however, had not been produced, and ithe influence of the priest on his fleck was as great as ever.

Allusions had been made to the victory gained by the Scotch over the Episcopal Church with their good claymores ; and there were cer- tainly some who believed that the Catholics entertained the hope that they should strike down Protestantism and establish the faith of the majority in Ireland— Supposing it did so chance that they entertained it, he asked would it not be wiser and better at once to say to them that such an object could never be attained ? Would they not better discharge their duty to those who sent them there, by at once saying to them, " You shall have equal laws, equal justice, equal power of obtaining your rights; but understand distinctly that the Pro- testant religion must be the religion of the State " Would it not, he asked, be but right to proclaim that such was the determination of the Legislature? And was not the probability that, upon its being so proclaimed, those, if any, who now conceived the idea that the subversion of the Protestant religion was practicable, would soon cease to agitate fur an object which they knew was hopeless? Tell them, then, as was told to them when the question of Repeal was before the House, that the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain would not suffer a repeal of the Union, or the disturbance of the Protestant Esta- blishment in Ireland, and depend upon it they would soon cease to agitate for either. How immeasurably inure politic in the Government would it be moo* adopt this course, than in one session to frame a Church revenue appropi is uiu clause, and in the next to pass a measure having for its avowed object a tia;,fer of power to the Catholic party—who would regard it as a triumph over the Protestant party, who could not but look upon the measure as the grossest in- justice to their rights, privileges, and interests, Well, then, in such a state of society—in such a state of parties—with such a spirit of resistance to the laws openly avowed and defended—was it wise or expedient to press a measure of experimental legislation ? The Chancellor of the ;Exchequer had alruitt ii it to be a risk. If so, why try it ? For the attainment of some great national object a measure of doubtful success might be justifiable; but why they were to run a risk without having an object in view—why they were to run a risk fur the sole purpose of calling into existence a great number of bodies in Ire- laud, wholly useless for any purpose than those of discoid and agitation--he was wholly unable upon any principle of policy or reasoning to comp, ellend. True, they were told they might 'rescind the power they now poupuxM to grant if experience should :convince them of its having been unwisely given. Ile differed from the wisdom of such reasoning. It struck him to be a 1661! maxim for statesmen—one they would do well to have constantly before them—that power once given could not be got back. Acting upon this principle, he was not for giving power until he was convinced that it might be given with safety, nor disposed one day to give life to a system which on the next it would be necessary for the wellbeing and the benefit of the country to crush. ( Cheers.) Mr. Snare, said, that Sir William Follett's speech would have been a very powerful one against Catholic Emancipation, or the extension of Parliamentary Reform to Ireland; but those two measures having been granted, it was preposterous to rely upon a principle opposed to that on which they were founded, as a justification of the refusal of Municipal Reform to Ireland. Because in some details the Irish bill differed from the English—because Sheriffs were not to be elected in Ireland by the Town-Councils—abolish the Corporations, said Sir William Follett, altogether—

He should answer, that the appointment of Sheriffs was an incident to the

existence of corporate bodies, and not one of its elements; that Iceland td_i itItifautt require an exact identity in every particular, but a general assimilation—that she did not ask that all the details should be the same, but that the in inciples should be analogous : change the architecture of the edifice, but let the foun- dation of popular control remain untouched. Although over courts of justice an influence will cease to be exercised by corporations, yet over corporations it safe and salutary influence will still be exercised by the people. The nomina- tion of Sheriffs is taken away, but much is left behind,—the care of a diversity of local concerns, the guardianship of the public peace, the security and con- venience of public ways, the imposition of taxes, their apportionment and col- lection, and the management of corporate property. But he would not dwell on matters of detail ; be would turn to that point on which the opposition to the bill really rested. All that had been urged against the bill might be condensed into the phrase " No Popery "- No man has enlarged more eloquently and pathetically upon this topic than the honourable Member for Cumberland. The honourable baronet, relieved from those nautical occupations from which formerly the illustrations of his eloquence were derived, has recently taken to the consolations of religion ; and there is reason to apprehend, from the tone of his late oration, that the ex- First Lord of the Admiralty has sought in " Fox's Martyrs" a manual of le- gislation, and that he reads the signs of the times by the light of the Smithfield fires. "I do not believe that the speeches of the Catholic priests, to which he has referred, are accurately reported; and if I did, I should consider them as affording grounds fur increasing the estimates, and for establishing a higher class of rhetoric at Maynooth. But mark the inconsistency between the Con- servative reasoning and assertion. We are told that there is no connexion be- tween Parliamentary and Municipal Reform ; yet all the arguments against Municipal elections from the conduct of the Catholic clergy on Parliamentary elections are derived. Now, if the argument were good for any thing, it would lead to the abolition of Parliamentary, not of Municipal institutions. For may part, I avow the interference of priests at elections, if it gratifies the noble lord the Member for Lancashire, and the Member for Cumberland ; and I will add, that in no instance did the Catholic clergy interfere with more effect than in 1831, in order to carry the Reform Bill, when those honourable gentlemen were in office; and I do not, I own, recollect that on that occasion those distin- guished individuals deprecated the sinister assistance to which the Government, of which they formed a part, were indebted. They were silent upon the same principle on which the Conservatives upon Corporation abuses so long held their tongue." Why should the priesthood enjoy a monopoly of this anger ? should not the landlords come in for their share ? But after all, the conduct of the priests at Parliamentary elections had nothing to do with Mu- nicipal elections- " What connexion is there between Tithes and Borough-rates, between the Corporation-fund and the ensanguined treasure of the Church? On a Mum- ci al election I cannot conceive any one question by possibility to arise on which the priesthood can take the least political, personal, or any other imaginable concern. But in Parliamentary elections, what is at stake? The abolition of that detestable impost which has drenched Ireland in blood—which has pro- duced atrocities from which every feeling of humanity and every sentiment of religion are abhorrent, and which ought to make certain religious men whom I see before me kneel down and pray to God every night, before they sleep, that for Rathcormac they may be forgiven. Interfere at elections! Yes—they were the men who achieved Emancipation, who broke down the power of the 13erfsfords in Waterford, annihilated the Fosters in Louth, and triumphantly carried the Clare election. Led on by them, the intrepid peasantry rushed to the hustines with the fearlessness with which Irish soldiers precipitate themselves into the breach, drove Toryism from its holds, and of the emancipation of their country planted the immoveable standard. In the same noble cause they devotedly perse- vere. Never until the tithe question shall be justly adjusted will the clergy of Ire- land intermit their effirrts to achieve the redress of those grievances to which the disturbed state of Ireland may be referred. But you that talk of the Irish delay, have you no cause to louk at home? Do your priesthood never in poli- tical questions interpose. I ask the honourable Alember for Exeter, who has read a letter from a Catholic Bishop of Carlow, whether of the Bishop of Exeter he has ever heard ? Ile has referred to the Popish Doctor Nolan—has he no reason to recollect the Protestant Doctor Philpotts? That learned and able prelate I admire for his great talents, but surely they do not surpass his peleic rl 7-11, which with his religious emotions is associated. All that I ask is that mice should be made tor the Catholic Bishop on one hand, by those who., e e is so materially promoted by the Protestant Bishop upon the other. If 111, hi:titillation Committee contains UVi111:11:•e as to the Catholic priest- hood in ( ',I low, stalely there is very remarkable r vidence as to the body of Pro- test :nt ay in Devonshire. But turn to Ireland. 1)o the clergy of the Estae hi i.he I .!iii IA never interpose'? I1 as this Home never heard of the Reverend ? lie is a man of great abilities, with the most distinguished

• . as for popular excitement. Ile may be regarded as the finnider of

the Clubs, and as having been mainly instrumental in predueing tla. s.!an • Protestant feeling in Ireland. That reverend gentlemen vas a chap. lain er ile• ()range Society : it is proved in evidence before the Orange Con- .t he actually moved the creation of an Orarrge Lodge in one of his 3L(ie-tv's regiments. Well, this was the individual whotti my Lind fladdington t:, efliciate as one of his chaplains at the Castle. Talk, indeed, of the Catholic ektgy ! In November leeld, a meeting. of the Orange Society was held in Ile Win, at which the Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin presided, and at rr'Liclr the Reverend Mr. APCrea recited a poem, the burden of which was- " Then put yout trust iii God, my boys,

And keep your powder dry. !"

Show rue any of our prose equal to his poetry. I forbear from making any comments:a on it, and shall but observe, that although it has often been men- tioned in this House, I never heard it made the subject of Conservative con- demnation."

The objection on religious grounds was just as appplicahle to Muni. cipal Refill m in England as in Ireland. It was said that Corporations were established in Ireland to defend the Plotestant religion ; but were not the Test and Corporation Acts passed in England to protect the Church against the influence and energy of the Dissenters ?—

" They were regarded as the great bulwarks of the Establishment ; yet those bulwark, you surrendered in I 6:28 to the myriads of sectaries by which your Church was encompassed—to Baptists, Quakers, Socinians. Independents, PM'S-. byte' Lite, Alethudists: you threw open the fortresses of the Establishment to all the hordes WII0 with the Voluntary principle are battering your Church to the earth ; and when we, who are akin to you ( for your religion is only Popery eat down )—when we from whose ecclesiastical escutcheon your own, with a bar sinister, might be appropriately borrowed—when we, I say demand the benefit of British institutions, you affront is with a proposition which to the Di-enters of this country--when the Test and Corporation :lets Were at stake, and when Corporate Reform was in question—not one of vou, not even in the House of Lords, ever dated to make. The Duke of Wellington had not the boldness, my Lord Lyndhurst had not the dexterity, my Lord Winchilsea was not sufficiently excited, !lyre toy Lord Roden sufficiently inspired—it was resin veil for ins—it was reserved for colonial, dependent Ireland—for us, on whom a fac- tion trampled, but on whom, with God's blessing and the aid of our determina tion, they shall tread no more—flit. us, it seas reserved !bat we should be told, when to the interests of the thousand few the rights of the million many can no longer with common decency be sacrificed—that both from the few and from the many tl,eir national institutions should be taken away, and out of the ruins of the Corporations Dublin Castle should be enlarged."

It appeared to be forgotten by Sir William Follett, whose profes- sional engagements had probably prevented him from studying the history of his country closely, that in 1793, the Irish Corporations were thrown open to the Catholics. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel said that Catholics should be admitted to all corporate and civil offices. By a Protestant passive resistance that law has been frustrated. Sir Robert Peel gave the Catholics a key which would not turn the lock of the door- " Ile appears to me to adhere to his old Irish policy ; and although he car- ried Emancipation in obedience to his reason, he is acting on Emancipation in compliance with those religious instincts which he ought to get under his con- trol. In the course of the last session, I ventured to address myself to him in the language of strenuous, but most unaffectedly respectful expostulation: I pre- sumed to entreat of him to take a retrospect of his Irish policy, and to inquire from him whether of every failing, and every failure, he did not in his Irish policy find the cause. I told him, that Ireland had a grave ready for his Ad. ministration ; and that grave soon closed upon it. I should not venture to advert to what I then said, but what has since befallen has given to those obser- vations a remarkable confirmation. The moment the session of Parliament terminated, the subordinates of the right honourable baronet commenced the 'No Popery' cry. The result of that pious enterprise has corresponded with its deserts. The Parliament assembles, and at the very outset the right honour. able baronet tries his fortune on Irish ground again, by moving an amendment; and he is at once and signally defeated. A few days elapse, and lie sustains a still more conspicuous discomfiture. Not in order to give way to a feeling of inglorious exultation do I refer to the dissolution of the Orange Society, but for thepurpose of showing the 'sweet uses' of which adversity is susceptible, and, leaving out the offensive epithets in the citation, to point to the bright and precious jewel ' it contains. It was a vast and most powerful incorporation, including a hundred thousand armed men, with individuals of the highest sta- tion among its leaders, and a Prince of the blood at its head. Where is it now ? Can you not [addressing Sir Robert Peel] derive admonition from its fall You have seen Administration after Administration dissolved by the power of the Irish people : by the power of the Irish people vou have seen your Own Cabinet dashed in an instant to pieces; and now, struck to the heart, you behold your own gigantic auxiliary laid low. Taught so long, but uninstructed still, wherefore, in the same fatal policy, with an infatuated pertinacity do you disastrously. persevere? You think, perhaps, that Emancipation has failed. Six years in a nation's life arc less than as many minutes of individual duration. You have not given it, what you asked for yourself, a fair trial, and have your- self, to a certain extent, counteracted its operation. At the very outset, you entered into a struggle with the son of the earth, who has rebounded with fresh vigour from every fall ;' and, notwithstanding all your experience— although injustice carries with it the principle of self frustration—although the poisoned chalice is sure in its inevitable circulation to return to the lips of those by whom it is compounded—still, adhering to your fatal policy and haunted by your anti. O'Connellism—still, instead of rising to the height of the great argument, and ascending to a point of moral and political elevation from which you could see wide and far—you behold nothing but the objects which by their closeness be. Come magnified, and have nothing but the fear of O'Connell before your eyes. You do not legislate for a people, but against a roan. Even if I were to admit that he had been occasionally hurried into excesses, for which your impolicy should in reality be responsible, give me still ?cave to ask whether million* of his fellow countrymen, and your fellow citizens (for such, thank God, we are). and generations yet tinhorn must pay the penalty? Granting him a life as long as Ireland can pray and his adversaries can deprecate, will he not be survived by the Statute-book ?.7. Have you made him immortal as well as omnipotent ? Is your legislation to be built on considerations transitory as the breath with which he speaks ; and are structures that should last for ages to have no better basis than the mist rable antipathies by which we are distracted? Let us re- member, in the discharge of the great judiciary functions that are imposed upon us, that we are not only the trustees of great contemporary interests, but of the tvelfire obese by %Omni we are to he succeeded ; that our measures are is same sort te•t ireerit•irv, timid that we Leecueaall to posterity a blessing or a lane; aud, impre -sed with that high, anal I do not exaggerate when I call it that holy consaieliseuss, I,-t tts have a ,eve lest to a sentiment of iniselible partisanship we slf,a0d give ww. To distinetions behvern Catholic and l'rotestaut let there he ::11 curl, 1,14 there be an end to national animosities as well as to sectarian diai st.ih i'ori,11 the bad theolc;v that inverts the Scriptures, makes God aco■udin,4 to tram's itrAgc, and wit li ;iilethai passions full, the heart of man : peri-li the ltd reirienality that substitutes for the genuine love of country a feeling ofile,;eole datiarration tilaar ■ Our part, and of provincial turbulence upon ours and Life on • pothers relijon and spurious notoriety. I pronounce illy denunciation, live, let toe he permitt,•,1 to add, the spirit of genuine, phi!arithro..pie, foils' lt.n!!.., and forgiving Christianity amongst US; :11111 l'011111i111.11 With it live the px:ffird patriotism, o hie], to I he ‘veifirc of a great peop!c, and the glory of this ne,jestie empire, of all no, wishes to lies the dediettion,—which, superior to the otet.•lied ire-Ions that otoild. tar I,,, short-lived a, the passing itulici\d‘e.:intiansoft

which they net nuts emffion ity with the imp', ial policy n

Pitt, and the re,ttlts of the vast invention of James Watt,—sees the legislation of the one rati!ied lw the science of the other, itt the discovery of the mighty mechanist, scum made the Irish Channel like the Tweed, and of the project of the sent of Chatham la:bolds the consummation."

cheerio; at the eloe of Air. Slieil's speech was long and vehement ; and indeed during the whole time of its delivery the House was in a state of unusual excitement.]

Atr. Sri:ART Worn-ILLY spoke after Air. SliCil ; and Mr. IfItseonseE followed Alt. Wurtley ; but there were no passages of particular merit ar prominenve in either speech. Sir Roemer Peet. then addressed the House in reply to Mr. Steil; whose brilliant t loquetice, had evidently, he said, made a very deep impression. it was indeed an honour to his country to have sent to the I louse a I *oninions a man gifted with such into and extraordinary talent. Ile wished, however, that speech had been less elaborate, and that Air. Steil had not been so anxious to get to those passages which he knew wolthi excite and charm its audience ; for, in his impetuosity, he had entirely forgotten to grapple with the arguments of Sir William. Follett. Sir Pobert would take leave to strip the tinsel from Mr. Sheil's oration, mid ascertain what there was of substantial metal in it— Ile thought tlart the honourable and learned gentleman's argument amounted to this : first, that he had a doubt whether the dissolution of Corporations in Ireland was net at variance with the Act of Union; and, secand, whether the dissolution nil these: Corporations was not at variance with the spirit of the measure of Pai li unentary reform. The honourable and learned gentleman also expressed in doubt whether the dissolution of Cc:lea:ohms in Ireland, and the refusal of the majority or minority in that entiotry to participate in cor- porate privileges, seas not really inconsistent with the spirit nit the .1ct, of by which the disabilities of the Roman Catlinlies were removel. Many portions of the honourable and learned gkaitIcitiati's speech—those which were most loudly cheered, and which most def,2,lrted his audience, he knew, and rho honourable and learned gentleman as well he, had nothing whatever to rest upon. It might be very easy for 31i. Shell, in the course of a premeditated speech, to allude to the course of conduct pursued by a particular party—to the qualities possessed by particular Peers. It might be easy for the honourable annul learned gentleman, to allude to the boldness of the Duke of Wellington, the dexterity of Lord Lyndhurst, the excitement of Lord Winchilsea, or the inspiration of Lord Roden. (Laughter. ) All this it was easy for the honourable and learned gentleman to do; and although it had no reference whatever to the matter in debate, it was necessary that it should be noticed in reply, lest, as the character of the cheer by which it was received seemed to indicate, it should be taken as comprehending an overpowering argument against the party on this side of the house. Then the honourable and learned gentleman, pursuing the same career of el apemen, alluded to Dr. Philpotts in connexion with the Intimidation Committee. The honourable and gentleman knew that he should lose half his cheer if he did not introduce the Intimidation Committee. The honourable and learned gen- tleman recollected that Sir William Follett was Member for Exeter ; he recol- lected too that Dr. Philpotts was Bishop of Exeter ; and in order to meet the letter which the honourable and learned Member for Exeter had just read, implying that the Roman Catholic Bishop had summoned a meeting of his clergy for the purpose of considering the most effectual mode of securing the return of a popular Member, Mr. Spiel exclaimed, " Yes, but I refer you to the Intimidation Committtee, and to 'the part which the Bishop of Exeter took." The cheers with which that exclamation was received were redoubled by those who were not aware of the fact, that from the first word of the report to the last word of the evidence taken before the Intimidation Committee, the name of the Bishop of Exeter did not once appear. He repeated that these parts of the honourable and learned gentleman's speech, though very striking and very aleusing, had no reference whatever to the matter under distatesion; and for that reason he should take no further notice of them.

Sir Robert then went on to remark, that by the Act of Union the integrity of the Church was especially guaranteed, but there was no stipulation for the preservation of the Corporations. It was said that, having granted Parliamentary Reform to Ireland, you must grant Municipal Reform also; but he contended that there was no analogy between the two.

It was absolutely necessary, be apprehended, to the existence of the constitu-

tion and of the Government of this country, that an Imperial Parliament should exist. 1f, then, a more direct control were given to the people of this country over the election of the Members who composed the House of Commons, could a similar power of control be refused to the people of Leland ? In justice it could not. And as regarded the present measure, if they proposed to retain the Corporations in Ireland, and to exclude the Roman Catholics from an equality of privileges, then he admitted that they would be open to the objections of Mr. Shell. In the case of the Reform of Parliament, it was absolutely essential to retain the Parliament ; and as an extension of privilege had been given to the people of England, it became necessary that a similar extension of privilege as regarded the right of election should be given to the people of Ireland. But 011 the present occasion, the question was, is it for the good of Ireland—is it for the welfare of the people of Ireland—is it absolutely essential to the pure and impartial administration of justice in Ireland, that Corporations in that country should continue to exist. That was the point upon which the two sides of the House were at issue. Sir Robert defended the course he bad taken with regard to the Catholic Emancipation Act ; for the failure of which, as a measure of pacifica- tion for Ireland, Mr. Sheil felt bound to account. Mr. Sheil attributed it to the exclusion of Mr. O'Connell ; but Sir Robert would not pass so bitter a satire upon Mr. O'Connell as to say that his political course was influenced by feelings of personal disappointment. For his part, he did not claim gratitude for the performance of a positive duty ; but there were some who thought he bad claims upon the regard of Irish- men for his conduct in carrying the Relief Bill; and Sir Robert read a letter from Mr. N. P. O'Gorman, received after his resignation of office in IMO, couched in terms of compliment and thankfulness for his exertions on that occasion. He then went to argue, that because lie abolished the civil disabilities of the Catholics, it did not follow that be was to vote for the establishment of Municipal Corporations in Ireland. Nothing could be more fallacious than that argument— Offices existed, and it was necessary to maintain them. But originally every avenue to distinction was closed against them in the military and naval profes- sions and in civil offices. Was there any analogy between the placing a Roman Catholic on a footing of equality with respect to a Protestant, who had pre- viously the exclusive possession of those offices, and that of say ing that there should be no longer any monopoly of privilege to either party in these abused insti- tutions ? You say these institutions have been abused—we say they shall be abused no longer ; but this we hold to be consistent with the fist principle of equity, that if you destroy monopoly and exclusion on the one hand, you shall not, by an abuse of terms, establish and confer it on the other. ( Opposition cheers.) He had been emphatically reminded that a grave had been dug in Ireland for his Administration ; but be knew also that other Ministers, who had been supported and praised by the Catholic party had expe- rienced the same treatment at their bands—he had at least that conso- lation in the tomb. In 1834, the Ministers were denounced, in a letter from Mr. O'Connell to Lord Dmicannon, for appointing Lords-Lieu- tenant in different counties in Ireland, on the express ground that local authorities were not fit to be trusted with the administration of justice on account of their local prejudices ; and Sir Robert read a passage to that effect from a letter of Mr. O'Connell. He contended that strong political prejudices would prevail in the new Corporations— But his Majesty's Ministers had, in proper deference to the force of reason, removed sonic of the objections to this bill. They had admitted that, in the distracted state of Ireland, no popular assembly could be entrusted with the election of the Sheriff with whom the nomination of Juries was lodged. They had therefore taken from the new Corporations that power, thus departing from all analogy with the English Bill. Theu they had taken away all control over the new Police ; and in corporate towns where there were ports and harbours, the Corporations were nut to have any power in their management. These alterations were right ; and were made, not in submission to a majority, but from the dictates of their own consciences. They dimini,,hed the objections to this measure, but they at the same time aggravated the political danger of it. ( Opposition cheers.) They had by this bill constituted fifty political assemblies throughout Ireland, which would have the right of perpetually meeting and de- bating ; and yet, while his Majesty's Ministers dirt this, they at the same time distrusted those very bodies by taking from them many of their ',roper municipal functions. Where, then, would be their utility to their fellow citizens ? WIlat was there left for them to do to fill tip their time, but to too:note political agita- tion? ( Onwsition cheers.) By thus reducing their municipal duties to so narrow and circumscribed a limit, you wottid necessarily increase the intensity of that political agitation which would actuate them. If ever there was any thing calculated to increase religious animosities, ate' promote lax and lavish expenditure of the public money, 1:e wank! ventine to say it was the provision contained in this bill, which empowered cortain Commission-a-s to tax all their constituents for the payment of salaries to the Mayor, the Recorder, the Trea- Biller, and (try the expensive liberality of Mr. O'Loghlen) to every other officer whom the Commissioners should think it advisaMe to appoint.

See how this provision would operate in Belturbet with its :2000 inhabitants— That town was to have a corporation, while other towns—Ardfert, for in- stance—with a much larger population, were not to be incorpoi ated. Ile should be told, perhaps, that Belturbet was prosperous, and bad a considerable revenue. It had just 9/. a year ; it paid 51. a year on account of a debt, and therefore received a clear revenue of 4/ ; and this was to entitle it to be taxed to main- taM a 3layor, Treasurer, and all other offices. Whin bet was the lowest of the scale ; he would now take the highest, the city of Dublin. This bill certainly gave to Dublin a Mayor and Town-Council ; but the Corporation of Dublin would have no right (and wisely so) to appoint either the Sheriff ur the Re- corder. These appointments were reserved to the Lord-Lieutenant. Neither would they have any power respecting the paving, cleansing, and lighting the streets. So that here was a corporation constituted in the men opolis of Ireland, which was to have no one of the many usual municipal powers. When this Town-Council should be elected, every municipal object being reserved from its jurisdiction, what other inference could be drawn but this—that the object of that Council must be a political one; and the intention of so constituting it, by depriviug it of its municipal functions, was nothing but a provision for a political object. Believing, then, that these Corporations would evermore disturb the peace of Ireland, and engender political and religious animosities, he, on that ground, felt perfectly justified in withholding his assent from that portion of the bill which went to establish new Corporations.

Mr. Sergeant O'LOGHLEN defended the bill against several of the objections of preceding speakers.

It had been said in the course of the debate, that the forty Corporations of

Ireland constituted by James the First were founded for Protestant purposes. On this point he would do no more than beg the House to refer to the speech of Lord Stanley in bringing forward the Irish Reform Bill. He would not make any quotation from it himself ; he would merely say that it afforded a complete answer to this argument. Of these forty Corporations, however, but thirteen were included within the provisions of the bill ; the remainder having

become extinct. The remaining thirty-three to which the bill applied were founded long before, some of them, like the Corporation of Bristol, claiming

from prescription. He was aware, that when it was thought expedient to enact penal laws, provisions were introduceO for excluding the Roman Catholics from the powers to which by the original charters they were unquestionably entitled.

It had been asked by Sir Robert Peel why they gave a Corporation to Belturbet and excluded Ardfert?

His reply was, that many towns had been excluded because their corporations had become extinct. But Sir Hubert had not stated the rental of Belturbet quite accurately. If he looked to the Report, he would find that they had a laughter.) in the first period, the excise-duties paid by the town of Belturbet were 20,136/. ; in the second, they amounted to 23.6481. The amount paid by the town of Tamworth in the first period was 2,787/. ; in the second, 3,037/. (Cheers awl laughter.) And yet Tamworth had its Corporation, and no proposal had been made to exclude it. In the town of Middleton, in the same way, the are aunt of excise-duties paid in 1834 was 82,2621. They were asked what the Corporation of Dublin would have, left to do ; his reply was, that if their corporate property, amounting to 30,000/., were properly administered, they would no longer have occasion to tax the inhabitants. ( Cheers.) In one case, in the case of Youghall, a sum of 6001. a year had been regularly levied for paving, lighting, and cleansing the town ; the Corporation having, during the whole tune, an income of 9001. a year, not one shilling of which was applied to this purpose.

The interference of Catholic priests in elections had been given as a reason for refusing corporate institutions to Ireland— Ile really. thought they had a fair right to complain that some rather un- charitable industry hall been exercised in gathering up and repeating say in- cautious expressions that had fallen from ur been attributed to them. The honourable and learned Recorder for Dublin had on that, as on former occasions, alluded to the influence of the iniesthood in the elections of Dublin. He could not help saying, that if there were any one Member of that House who ought to abstain more cautiously than another from adverting to such topics, it was Mr. Shaw. lie would assert, and he could prove, that if any one Member of that House could be called the nominee of a clergyman, it was the honourable and learned gentleman. (" No, no!" front Mr. Shaw.) The honourable and learned gentleman said " no !"—he was perfectly sure he could, and he had furnished himself with proof of his assertion. Ile had the misfortune to be present at the last election for the University when Mr. Shaw was returned; and he also knew what had occurred at the election in 1834, in which the Reverend Mr. Boyton took an active part. Previous to the election there was a canvass iu the University, and a few data after the addresses of the candidates appeared. A letter frosts Mr. Boyton was published in the Dublin 'rapers an

I

extract from which Ire would read to the House. It was dated on the 13th of December 1834, immediately preceding the election, and was as follows—" And now to conclude, I once before took a similar line in similar circumstances re- specting the Representative of the University. I was blamed by some; but the , public will dome the justice to recollect,thatif 'hod not taken that course, Mr. Shaw woukl hove been ever since out of Porlkonent. lily Protestant brethren will, I know, give me credit for being honest in intention. They will recollect that! did not act imprudently then ; and I believe they will trust me that I am not acting imprudently now." He left it to Mr. Shaw to recognize between the patron and the patronized, and to decide whether the Reverend Mr. lloyton was or was not instrumental in procuring him a seat in Parliament, when he made use of the very strong expressions lie had just quoted.

It had been asserted by Mr. Shaw that he had not raised the cry of " No-Popery."

He could not confirm the honourable and learned gentleman's statement that he bad never joined in the " No Popery " cry ; for at an election for the city of Dublin, when the honourable and learned gentleman was opposed by a Roman Catholic candidate, he saw a placard of his with the inscription " No Popery," borne within a few yards of his jurlgnrent.seat. Ile alluded to this subject with great regret. 31r. Shaw had intioduced it ; and when he heard these charges made against the Roman Catholic clergy night after night, he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he did not collie forward and defend them.

Mr. O'Loeiti.EN concluded by saying a few words in defence of the general principle of the bill. The House then divided—

For the order of the day for the third reading For Mr. Shaw's ainetiatnent frciffl)

• Majority for the bill 61 Mr. O'CONNELL moved the adoption of a chaise which he said would put an end to an unjust equity suit then pending between some of the citizens of Dublin and the Corporation, respecting the Pipe- water tax. Mr. O'LOGIILEN opposed its introduction, and Mr. O'CONNELL withdrew it.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

'2. APPOINTMENT Or MAGISTRATES UNDER TILE MUNICIPAL ACT.

Lord JOHN RUSSET.I., on Tuesday, moved for a copy of the circular letter dated in October last, and addressed by the Under Secretary of the Home Department to the Mayors arid Chief Officers of the Boroughs mentioned in the schedules of the Municipal Act passed last session.

Sir ROBEILT PEEL said, that this motion was made partly at his re- quest ; as he wished to have an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the conduct of the Home Secretary in regard to the ap- pointment of Magistrates for the new Municipal Boroughs. He con- tended that, according to the principle adopted by Ministers, and laid down in the Report of the Corporation Commissioners, political bias in the appointment of Magistrates should not be discernible ; but that Lord John Russell had violated this principle, and, whether inten- tionally- or not, bad consulted the interests of his party rather than the ends of justice in selecting persons to fill the office of Magistrate. Such was at any rate a very prevalent belief in the country ; and his object was to give Lord John Russell an opportunity of explaining his conduct satisfactorily. Sir Robert then mentioned the cases of several towns where Lord John Russell had abandoned the principle he pro- fessed of choosing such Magistrates as the Councils recommended, when, and when only, it happened that the parties recommended were Tories. In Guildford, the Council had recommended nine Conserva- tives and three Whigs ; but Lord John selected out of the twelve, three Whigs and one Conservative,—thus ingeniouslycontriving to invert the proportions fixed upon by the Council. In Wigan, eight Whigs were sent up by the Council; and they were all appointed, although seven of them were active in election contests on the Liberal side. In Roches- ter, no choice of Magistrates was made by the Council, because that body was equally divided in political opinion, and could not agree upon any one point but, on the recommendation of Mr. Bernal and Mr. Law Hodges, lord John had appointed five Liberals and one Tory. In Coventry, there were eleven Liberals and one Tory ; and of the eleven, no fewer than eight had voted for the Liberal Members ; the remaining four, of whom Captain Gregory was one, not having votes for the city. At Leicester, eight out of ten Magistrates had voted for Ellis and Evans against Goulburn and Gladstone. At Plymouth, seven out of eight supported the Liberal candidates, and five of them were active supporters of Lord John Russell at the county election. One of the Plymouth Justices was also a brewer, although it was against the rule which Lord John pretended to have laid down, of not appointing brewers or attornies. In Bristol, although the Council was Conservative, as well as the great majority of the inhabitants, it was agreed by the dominant party that twelve of each party should be elected ; but Lord John Russell had reduced the number from twenty-four to eighteen, by striking out the names of six Conserva. tives,—among them Mr. John Daniel, who had been called the father of the old Corporation, and had been chosen Mayor under the new bill. Sir Robert Peel admitted, that it might be asked how be knew the politics of all these parties ; but he contended that the part they took at the last election was a sufficient test of the politics of the per- sons alluded to; and that, taking this as the criterion, they would be found to be of the Government party. Sir Robert said io conclu- sion- He bad thus gone through a variety of cases, and he conceived them to be amply sufficient to entitle him, not to complain of the acts of the noble lord, but, at least, to call upon him for some explsnation of the principles upon which he had proceeded in these nominations. When he found that in every case stated —and there were very many others of a precisely similar character—the noble lord's preference had been given to persons holding his own political opinions, to the exclusion of the best-founded claims on the part of persons holding other opinions, he could not but think that such a preference exhibited a very appa- rent departure from the principle that, in these selections, political considera- tions should have no influence. There could be no argument in defence of these proceedings, founded upon What might have obtained under the old Cor- poration system. The precise object of Municipal Reform bad been to do away with all such abuses; and it would therefore be no justification of these nomi- nations to say, that in the . late Corporations, 'appointments were made upon a similar principle. Corporation Reform had for its object the doing away with all such proceedings, and to give to the inhabitants of towns and cities full senility that the administration of all their affairs, that the course of justice, should be put upon an entirely pure and impartial footing, and that all political feeling and party-spirit should thenceforward be excluded from the administra- tion of municipal affairs ; so that all classes might have the fullest confidence in the persons to whom the administration of their affairs should be entrusted. Nor would it be any answer to say, that in the case of County Justices of the peace, one class of political opinions denominated. Honourable Members on the other side of the House often made statements as to the too exclusive cha- racter of the political composition of County Magistrates ; but whatever might be the case in this respect, it formed no grounds for another party adopting a similar plan of exclusion in the case of the Town Magistrates.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was glad that the charge against him had been made in a place where he had an opportunity of answering it, and where it was not pretended that his circular letter had been dated in January, after the triumph of the Liberals in the Municipal elections had been known, although it was quite notorious that his circular had been issued and published in the newspapers before it was possible to tell which party would have the ascendancy in the Councils. He re- minded the House, that he and his colleagues hind all along contended that the Magistrates selected should be gentlemen whom the great body of their fellow townsmen approved; and that it was fully under- stood, when the Lords altered the clause which gave the nomination of Magistrates to the Councils, that the Government should be at liberty to consult them in ,the same way that the Lords- Lieutenant were con- sulted as regarded the choice of County Magistrates. It was only upon the understanding that he would so act, that the House of Com- mons was brought to consent to the bill as altered by the Lords : and would it not have been quite preposterous, if, after such an under- standing had been conic to, he had disregarded the wishes of the Councils? Lord John went on to say, that the ride he had laid down was to sanction the recommendations of the Courted, unless, upon in- quiry, he found just ground to depart from it. He had acted in ac- cordance with this general rule in the ease of Guildford : he had se- lected two gentlemen who were Whigs, and two who were represented as moderate Tories. It was said that there were three Whigs arid one Tory ; but, as Sir Robert Peel bad himself intimated, it was difficult to tell what a man's politics really were : and as an illustrothin of this difficulty, Lord John stated, that one of the Exeter ihigistrates had been strongly objected to by one party as a Whig, by the other as a Tory. Ile had occasionally departed from his rule of not nomi- nating attornies and brewers. He had nominated one attorney for Chichester, and another for Leominster, both on the recommendation of noble lords who voted with the Opposition, and a brewer of King's Lynn at the reeorr,niendation of another lord who also voted against Ministers. He had added Tories to the lists sent up to him from Leeds, Liverpool, Hull, and other places. As the Rochester Town- Council had made no selection of Magistrates, he considered himself perfectly justified in nominating such gentlemen as he was assured by

the Member for that borough would execute the duties of the Magiste- rial office with advantage to the community. The gentlemen whom he had appointed at Plymouth were all persons of the highest respectability,

and he did not deny that they had been his supporters. [Here Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he did not question the respectability of any of

the persons appointed.] With respect to Bristol, Lord John said that several of the parties submitted for his sanction by the Council were objectionable. It would be invidious to state the nature of the objec- tion to them,—except in one case, that of Mr. Daniel, whose name , had- been already mentioned by Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Daniel had him.

-self publicly stated, that his great age and want of memory incapacitated Inn for the discharge of public duties. Lord John concluded by saying_ It was a source of great satisfaction to him, that there were only eight towns

that were made the subject of complaint ; the number of Magistrates appointed,

according to the account presented to Parliament, being not less than 428 ; and

there having been appointed since, as many as 200 or 250 more. He would

not pretend to say that there had not been any persons omitted who ought to

have been placed in the commission, or that there might not have been some some individuals appointed who had not the discretion, judgment, and cha- racter which entitled them to such a position; but he could say, lie did

believe that, on the whole, this list of perhaps 600 and more Magistrates

was a list of respectable and intelligent men. It was certainly a list of

which the majority entertained Liberal politics ; but he believed them

to be individuals who would not allow their politics to prevent them from doing their duty as Justices. He would not say a word in disparagement of the Magistrates of Counties, or of the manner in which the Lords-Lieutenant of Counties had exercised their discretion. He entertained a high opinion of the County Magistrates, and thought that the discretionary power was not alto- bether ill-placed in the Lords-Lieutenant ; but he would again say, he did lieve that the Borough Magistrates would be found as intelligent and as able well and honestly to administer-justice as the County Magistrates were known to be. And he was far from thinking that any thing which Sir Robert Peel had stated in the course of his speech had shown, that there had existed on Ike part of the advisers of time Crown the least disposition to sacrifice the ends of justice for the sake of the views of party. ( Great cheering.) Sir RICHARD VYVYAN reprobated the conduct of Lord John Russell, with much vehemence, especially as regarded the selection of Magistrates for Bristol. Ile asked what the reason was that Bath, with a population of 50,850, had eighteen Magistrates, all nominated by the Council ; while Bristol, with 104,000 inhabitants, had the list adopted by its Council cut down from twenty-four to eighteen ? Mr. Daniel had been marked out as time object of Government vengeance. Lord John Russell bad communicated with several individuals—would be name them ?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" No."

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN—" Were they not the officers of the Bristol Liberal Association ?" Lord John Russell well knew that polities had to do with these appointments. Ministers had not forgotten 1830, and the verdict of the Jury which acquitted Mr. Pinney. Lord Mel- bourne, after his resignation in 1834, had stated in reply to an address from Derby, that the conduct of the Bristol Magistrates rendered Municipal Reform necessary. It was, be believed, the intention of Lord John Russell to have the whole 'Magistracy of Bristol in time in- terest of Government. Three of the candidates for the Magisterial office, all of them Liberals, were objected to in the Council, yet these three were continued on the list by Lord John Russell— Ile had received information from Bristol, that the noble lord did not contemplate continuing on the roll those three to whom objections had been made in the Town-Council : a sacrifice was to be made of the opposite party, and six were to be rejected as a compensation. He did not believe this at the time. Ile thought that the noble lord would not go so fir in injustice—he con- cluded that the three would be rejected. But when he heard that the noble lord had not rejected the three, but that he had rejected the six of opposite opinions to his own—when he found that the noble lord had been carried so far by the spirit of partisanship—he said that he only waited for what he considered might be had, circumstantial evidence in proof that in doing this the noble lord was animated by corrupt motives. (Cheers .from the Opposition Members.) Any Minister of the Crown who, for the sake of promoting the party to which he belongs, does such acts as these, is guilty of corrupt motives. ( Continued cheering front the Opposition.) Ile was sorry that this question had not been postponed, as he had the strongest reason for believing he could give additional proofs why Coe noble lord pursued the course that had been adopted by him. Ile had always objected to transferring from the People to the Crown the right of choosing- their Magistrates, and now we saw the mischief of the transfer. I fere the People acted justly, and the Crown unjustly. The conduct of Ministers showed that men would not in any part of time country be allowed to take a middle course, or hold opinions without suffering for them. lie would ask Lord John Rus- sell to state the personal objections to the Bristol gentlemen whom he bad rejected.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—" I will not do so."

Sir Brown) VYVYAN CUDIIDDed. The noble lord might do so, especially when lie must in secret believe them to be fabrications. The conduct of the noble lad %%amid go forth to the country, and it would not and to his renown, as supreme Minister of Justice, and one of the directors of his Sovereign.

Mr. BEitsm. condemned the language of Sir Richard Vyvyan, and his imputation of corrupt motives to Lord John Russell. He said that he must take the responsibility of the seketion of the Rochester Alagistrates, who were all Liberals—and not Liberals of yesterday either, and who were recoumrinendcd by himself.

Mr. GOcLL'toRN strongly reprobated the practice of naming Magis- trates on account of their political opinions.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was by his desire that this discus- sion had been brought on !refine the holydays- " I have 111) right, nor do I pretend to any right, to find fault with the honourable b trmiet opposite (Sir It. Vyvyan) fur having uttered the expres- sions which he has thought proper to make use of. As a Member of Parlia- ment, the honourable baronet has a perfect right to use such expressions in respect to the conduct of a responsible Minister of the Crown. But I do say that I shall have a right to fiud fault with the honourable baronet—that I shall have a right to cast censure on the conduct of the honourable baronet, as a calumniator—( Loud cheers)- -if, having accused me of corrupt conduct, he dues trot immediately, and without loss of time, bring that question to a deci- sion. (Renewed cheering.) I am ready to abide the issue of that decision ; knowing as I do, that that charge of corrupt conduct is false and unfounded:" (Loud and general cheering.) Sir RICHARD VYVYAN rose to explain— ,6 First of all I admit that I used tine words " corrupt conduct ;" and that I used them in reference to the noble lord. I did accuse the noble lord of cor- rupt conduct ; and I used the words con upt conduct in this sense—namely, in the case where a Minister of the Crown acts with partiality in a matter of jus- tice when be uses the powers with which he is invested corruptly for the ad- vancemeat of the interests of his party. Now I repeat, that the noble lord's conduct, ever since he has been a responsible Minister of the Crown, has been more or less calculated to advance the interests of the party to which lie belong.. (Loud laughter and ironical cheering from the Ministerial side.) I mews this in the same full and entire sense of the words in which I ever meant it." Mr. POULETT Taomscus said he did not understand Sir R. Vyvyan ; and called upon him to state distinctly what he really meant, if be wished any attention in future to be paid to what be said. The SPEAKER said, that at first he was about to call Sir Richard Vyvyan to order; but he soon found that Sir Richard was about to exercise his right of making a distinct, grave, and precise charge against Lord John Russell; and then he suffered him to go on. Mr. Aber- cromby added, that the charge was not of a nature to be explained away by a general statement.

Mr. Hume said, that he rose several times while Sir Richard Vyvyan was speaking, to move that his words be taken down ; but he could not catch the Speaker's eye. He wished to know what Sir Richard Vyvyan's intentions were ? Did he mean to impeach Lord John Russell? He should like to see something of that kind. He should like to see the first impeachment of the Tory party, and how it would recoil upon themselves. (Loud cheers and laughter.) Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he had brought forward the subject that evening at the request of Lord John Russell himself. Mr. RICHARDS rei erased the charge tf corruption, not oily against Lord John Russell, but against the whole of the Government. He added, that be bud risen several times the previous night to take notice of an expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. O'CONNELL—" The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not speak last night."

Mr. RICHARDS—" Well, I'll suppose the observation to have been made by the right honourable gentleman in some speech "-

Mr. EWART rose to order. Mr. Richards could not be allowed to waste the time of the House in inventing speeches for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Illenatins resumed-

" I admire much, Sir, the economical feeling, if I may so term it, of the honourable gentleman opposite with regard to the time of the public, particu- larly W.111.11 I recollect that he so constantly wastes that time with the most use- less 'notions. (Loud laughter, in which Mr. Evart joined.) I have not addressed a single speech to the House fora considerable time; but the honour- aide gentleman opposite speaks ad nauseam. ( Continued laughter.) Night after nigjit, the meagre powers of the honourable gentleman are almost inces- santly called into requisition ; and he now gets up to stop me when speaking is order."

Mr. Richards was going on to speak of the popular election of the Peers ; when, At the request of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, the SPEAKER read the ques- tion before the House.

Mr. DUNCOMBE asked if Mr. Richards's arguments about the Mo- narchy and the Lords had any thing to do with the question ?

The SPEAKER said a few words, which are not intelligibly reported, to the effect that Mr. Richards might be in order.

Mr. RICIIARDS went on again ; and, amidst almost constant laughter, attempted to defend the language of Sir Richard Vyvyan. He ad- mitted he had not risen to speak to the question before the House.

Dr. LUSHINGTON said, it would be a waste of time to answer Mr. Richards ; who certainly had adhered strictly to his intention of not speaking to the question before the House. With regard to the charge of corruption against the Home Secretary, it was quite competent for Sir Richard Vyvyan to make, and it was his duty to make it, provided he could substantiate it ; but he reqrrested Sir Richard to say whether he intended to come forward and substantiate the charge? [Dr. Lush- ington sat down, but Sir Richard Vyvyan did not rise.]

Dr. LesIIINGTON then continued— The honourable baronet was silent. (" Hear, hear, hear! ") Good Gml what sense must the honourable baronet have of the feelings of justice—what must he think of tl:e opinion of the country, or how did he estimate the value which every man attached to character ? The honourable baronet did not pre- tend to say that by the evidence at present in his possession he had established the charge which he made; for what did it amount to but this—that be- cause certain individuals named in the list sent up to his noble friend had not been accepted, but others substituted for them—upon such grounds, without even towel taining what was the information which guided the conduct of his noble friend, the honourable baronet thought fit to impute to him motives of corruption Now, God willing-, this was tl.e case which should no to the country—that the honourable barouet had charged the noble lord the Secretary of .•;tate with a corrupt abandonment of his duty, autl had declined to prodoec any proof of his clang,', and then adopted a COW •(` Which he never since he had a seat in that House saw pursued before towards any individual Member—namely, to decline to retract or boldly come forward to maintain his asset lion. (../Incit cheering.) Mr. 1VINNE professed himself most anxious at all times to restrain Members from trenching on the forms of the House ; but he must say, that it was not unusual in the heat of debate to stigmatize as corrupt the practice of making judicial selections to suit party purposes. This was really the fair interpretation of Sir Richard Vyvyan's words. [Ihre O'Connell smiled.] He would not be deterred from his attempt to prevent unpleasant consequences, by the merriment of Mr. O'Con- nell, who seemed to regard such feelings lightly.

Mr. O'CONNELL interrupted Mr. Wynn, and said-

" Really I think I have a right to interfere. Nobody deserves less, or cares lees for the taunts of the honourable gentleman. The honourable Member who sits near me said something which made me laugh. I believe I ought to have laughed at the honourable gentleman opposite, but I did not." (Much laughter.)

Mr. WYNN said, that his heart was not so seared to the effect of bitter expressions as Mr. O'Connell's, and he bad certainly not the shield of a

• ' vow in heaven." ( Opposition cheers:) Mr. SPRING RICE said, that Mr. WYNN was altogether wrong in laying down the rule of order. In this case, the question was not a personal one. Sir Richard Vyvyan had a right to charge a Minister of the Crown with corruption. The orders of the House were entirely beside the question. Mr. Rice then defended the con- duct of Lord John Russell.

Lord SANDON thought, that, when rightly understood, the language of Sir Richard Vyvyan did not bear the construction put upon it on the Ministerial benches.

Mr. C. Woon said, that if Sir Richard Vyvyan would declare that all he intended to impute to Lord John Russell was a desire to pro- mote the interests of his own party, the House ought to feel satisfied.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE had really imagined, when Sir Richard Vyvyan first stated his charge, that it was a serious matter; but when be found that the evidence for it was the removal of a superannuated Tory from a list of Magistrates, it became quite ridiculous in his eyes. He would take the opportunity of telling Sir Robert Peel, that it was dangerous to assume that the politics of men accorded with those of their Representatives; for he was well acquainted with Knaresborough, and knew that Mr. Richards's votes afforded no clue to the opinions of his constituents, who were nearly all Radicals, and voted for Mr. Richards on the faith of his professions of Radicalism on the hustings.

Mr. RICHARDS solemnly denied that he had professed Radicalism to his constituents ; and appealed to his colleague, Mr. Lawson, who was present, to confirm the truth of what he uttered,—offering to abide by his decision.

There were loud calls for Mr. Lawson; but he did not rise, although entreated by Mr. Richards.

Mr. BUNCOMBE said, he was quite ready to retract all he had averred against Mr. Richards, if Mr. Lawson would say that the votes of that gentleman were not inconsistent with his professions to his con- stituents on the hustings.

[There were again loud calls for Mr. Lawson. Mr. Richards eagerly pressed him to rise, but Mr. Lawson kept his seat.]

Mr. EWART rose—[dle. calls for Mr. Lawson still continuing, he said he would give way if Mr. Lawson would respond to the call of the House, but Mr. Lawson remained immoseahle.] Mr. Ewart then said, that as Mr. Lawson would not rise, he should go on, nothing doubting the existence of those Reform principles of which Mr. Richards had in theory arid practice given such illustrious iii■Ediwes. At some length he defended the conduct of Ministers ; ard obse: led that during the last short reign of Sir Robert Peel, he had thrust scrcit Tory. Magistrates on Liverpool.

Mr. Wyss: said, he was responsible for those appoietleeers, its his capacity of Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster ; and t h:it y %ve;•.! 0•• made with the approbation of Lord Derby, the Lord- Lieetemt.t.

Mr. ROEBUCK said, that he was now less astonishcd wl:•:t he or,- easionally witnessed in the House than he was sill en rirq he ( iitered it ; but he could not suppress his extreme surprise that :.;ir I■1 hurt Peel should assume the office of grand protector of justice. !(,ng as Alagistrates were appointed by a Tory Govertma at, Sir nob, it Peel was not solicitous about their character : it was only v, hen eh-clod by the People that he wished to inquire into their politics— It was gross hypocrisy on the part of the right honotmtble baronet to say that he cared any thing about the admiuistratiou of justice by t he Magistrates. It was because he felt that the People had got the better of him—it was because he felt that the power which lie had so long exercised was crumbling into dust— it was because he felt that the days of Tory domination had for ever passed away, now that the People possessed the power of electing their own Alagistrates- that he became so anxious about the administration of justice. Never before that night had he heard any thing so audacious as the pretence, the exttaerdinary and shallow pretence, ofcaring about the administration ofjustice, so suddenly put forth by the right honourable baronet, just at the moment when the People had acquired the right of regulating that administration, and after the tight honourable baronet had spent a lung life in the support of Tory dominatitut. IVIty was not the feeling of the right honoutrible baronet evinced with respect to County Magistrates ;is well as to the Alagistrates of Corporate Towns? Because the great majority of the former were still Tories. Why did not the same spirit of virtue which prompted him to exclaim against a list of twenty Liberal :Magis- trates for Town A, induce him to exclaim against a list of twenty Tory Magis- trates for County II? 'flue right honourable baronet charged his Majesty's Government with having consented to the recent appointments of the Magistracy for patty purposes: did he never look back to his r•wn conduct in that respect ?— did he not recollect the numerous AIagisterial appointments which be had wade in consonance to his own political feelings? 'f he observations of the right lionoorable baronet were the cant of a man who, having belonged to a domi- neex ing party, now found that that party was deprived of power. He was in- dignant because he was impotent.

Sir ROBEar Pser., with some difficulty, and amidst cries of " Spoke !" obtained leave to reply to Mr. Roebuck; declaring that he would offer to opposition to that gentleman's rejoinder. Ile distinctly denied that in any one instance he had appointed a M agisti ate with political views. the bud never dune it, directly or indir, ctly, though repeatedly solicited by Members of Parliament. Ile did not complain that the People, having got power, exercised it. That was not his complaint. He complained that, as is the cases of Guildford and Bristol, when the People use their power in the furtherance of Con- servative principles, due weight was not given to their representations by the Government. Sir Robert then repeated his statements in re- ference to Bristol and Guildford, and concluded by charging 3Ir. Roebuck with attending to the voice of the People only when it was on his side.

Mr. Rot:aces said, that though he bad a right to reply to Sir Robert Peel, the defence of Sir Robert had been so dull and so weak, he did not think it necessary to avail himself of his right.

Mr. T. GI.ADSTONE objected to the religious tenets of some of the Leicester Magistrates.

Captain BERKELEY defended Lord John Russell.

Mr. O'CONNELL huh hoped that the time was gone by when the religious creed of a person could be brought against him as a charge. He observed that the debate had assumed various shapes— The House had been witness to three kinds of public exhibitions—tragedy, comedy, and farce. (A laugh.) Tine performance commenced with all the tragic dignity of an impeachment of a Minister ; Urea they had the amusing comedy or interlude between the honourable Member for Finsbury and the honourable Member for Knaresborough ; and, finally, they had the broad farce exhibited by the last-named gentleman in his reply. But various and amusing as the debate had been, he thought it hail also been very useful—useful in this, that it had brought out Sir Robert Peel's admission that the popular voice ought to be respected in matters of municipal government. After some further talking,—in which Mr. GLADSTONE, Lord G. SOMERSET, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL joined, and Mr. SCARLETT 111 vain attempted to obtain a bearing,—

The SPEAKER said, in reference to the attack on Lord John Russell,

He believed that it was the general sense of the House that what had passed ought not to be considered as personally offensive on either side. That being the case, lie was bound to call upon Lord John Russell and Sir Richard Vyvyan to give a pledge to the House that no steps should be taken to carry the matter further.

Lord Joilw Resset.t. and Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, being thus called upon, mutually declared that they did not consider the expressions per- sonally offensive.

The question was then put, and the motion agreed to.

3. THE COMMANDER OF THE FORCES LORD BRUDENELL.

Sir WILLIAM 11IOLE.9.'ORTII rose, on Wednesday, to ask a question of the Secretary at War –

Having read the decision of a Court-martial, in which it was stated that there had been introduced into the Fifteenth Regiment of Hussars "a practice which cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create thsunion and Order from the Horse Guards, that " his M to be most injurious to his Majesty's service ;ajesty has been pleased to approve " having read likewise, in a Genera and confirm the finding of the Court ;" and likewise, that "his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the Fifteenth Hussars ;" he wished to ask the Secretary at War whether, without this decision being previously .cancelled—without its being solemnly proclaimed to the Army as being most unjust and false—it could possibly be true that the noble lord in question was appointed to the Lieutenant. Colonelcy of the Eleventh Light Dragoons? It it were true, he wished to know likewise whether the Secretary at War had approved of and sanctioned this appointment? Lord HOWICK said, Lord Brudenell had been appointed to the com- mand of the Eleventh Dragoons ; a fact which Sir William Moles- worth must have known previously to putting his question, as the ap- pointment had been gazetted. As to whether he had approved of that appointment, Sir William bad, by asking that question, proved his ignorance of the practice adhered to in making such appointments— The duty of a Secretary at War, as many honourable Members from cape. rience knew, and particularly the gallant officer opposite (Sir Henry Hardinge), was confined to watching over the arrangement of the finances appropriated to the Army. He had no concern or right whatever to interfere in any respect in Army promotions, appointments. or in any thing connected with the discipline or internal management of the Army ; for all that related to these matters, the Commander-in-Chief, and he only, way responsible. According to the usual practice, the Secretary at War was never made aware of any intended promo- tion or appointment until the Horse Guards minute had actually been rpproved by his Majesty, and sent by the Commander-in-Chief to the War Office. The Secretary at War had no more to do with military appointments than the bouourable baronet had.

Lord Howick admitted, however, that he had known of the con- templated appointment of Lord Brudenell, and had not objected to it.

Mr. Hume said, that as Lord Howick had candidly stated that he was not responsible for the military appointments, he wished to know, on behalf of the Commons of England, who was responsible?

It was fit that somebody should he responsible to the country for the manage- ment and control of the Army, and moreover, that the country should know avho that responsible person was. The Government, responsible to the coun- try for the general conduct of its affairs, entrusted to a noble lord the manage- anent and superintendence of the internal affairs of the Army. Ile wished it to be understood, whether that noble lord was independent of all responsibility, and whether his acts, as Commander-in-Chief, were to be suliject to no control from any qua, ter whatsoever? Was the Secretary at War, in point of fact, as lie had really stated the case to be, merely a clerk to the Commander-in- Chief ? It was neceary that the country should be put in possession of the real nature of the case, and that it should be understood whether the party exercising the entire control and management of the Army was or was not sub- ject to the same responsibility which attached to Ministers themselves.

Lord Jolts: RUSSELL said, he rather agreed with Mr. Hume as to the powers of the Secretary at War, so far as promotions and ap- pointments in the Army were concerned— If the Commander-in-Chief, being a person of high station in the Army, and acquainted with the merits of different officers in the service, did his duty to the Crown, he was responsible for the appointments ; and the Ministry, and the First Lord of the Treasury were responsible for advising his Majesty to listen to his recommendation. if, on the contrary, the Ministers forming the Cabinet were of opinion that the discretion was wrongly exercised by the Com- mander-in-Chief—that it was not upon the whole exercised for the benefit of • the Army and of the service of the country—the responsibility fell upon them for not advising his Majesty.to remove him.

Mr. Hum:, amidst cries of " Spoke !" asked if the promotion of Lord Brudenell had been sanctioned by Ministers?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that he knew that the appointment was contemplated, but had not thought right to interfere with it.

• Sir HENRY HARDINGE agreed with Lord Howick and Lord John Russell— There was certainly a general responsibility, and the special responsibility rested with the Commander-in-Chief. He agreed with the noble lord, that if

the Commander-in•Chief conducted the affairs of the Army in such a way as not to secure the confidence of the Government, it was a fit subject for the

consideration of the Government whether they would not advise his Majesty to remove him from his office. If they disapproved of any particular appoint- ment, they were bound to remonstrate against it.

Sir Henry proceeded to state some particulars respecting the case before the Court-martial ; but was interrupted by the SPEAKER and

Mr. Hums:. He went on, however, to mention, that Lord Brudenell bad petitioned the King to order that he might be tried by a Court- martial ; but that the King had refused the request ; at the same time, it was intimated to Lord Brudenell, that as his offence had been one of discipline only, he might one day be reinstated in his former rank. From inquiries at head-quarters, he had ascertained that there never was an appointment which gave, more general satis- faction than that of Lord Brudenell.

Lord GEORGE LENNOX said, that he had been in the Army twenty- four years, and nothing had given him greater pleasure than the resto- ration of Lord Brudenell.

Sir WILLIAM Mco.rswonrit then gave notice, that soon after Easter, he should move an address to the King on the subject of Lord Brude- nell's appointment. Sir William also stated, that he should move that evening for copies of Lord Brudenell's petition to the King, and his Majesty's answer. But, on the suggestion of Lord HOWICK, who wished to consult Lord Hill, he agreed not to move for the papers in question that evening.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL. In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, the Lord CHANCELLOR explained the provisions of this bill, and moved that it be read a second time. The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to the bill being pressed forward with so much haste ; but would not oppose the motion. Lord MELBOURNE said, that at ample time would be afforded for its discussion ; but it was de. strable to pass it without unnecessary delay. It had hitherto, he ob- served? been a cause of complaint that bills were too late, not too early, in their arrival from the other House. Lord Lvrrolluasr ob- jected to the er post facto operation of the bill it was intended to make that legal which was illegal at the time it was done. He would not, however, oppose the motion. The second reading was then agreed to.

STAFFORD Dz8FRANCHISEHENT BILL. This bill was read a first time by the Peers on Tuesday, on the motion of Lord CLANR E ; and the second reading was fixed for the 15th of April.

INTERCOURSE WITH THE AMERICAN COLONIES. A Committee was appointed, on Wednesday, on the motion of the Duke of LEINSTER " W inquire into the means of facilitating the existing intercourse be. tween the United Kingdom and our American Colonies."

INCREASE OF CATIIOLICISM. The Duke of Newcastle, on Wednes- day, called the attention of the Peers to the danger to Protestantism arising from the spread of Popery. Sixty years ago, there were only thirty Catholic chapels in England, but now there were 510. In Kid- derminster and Dover, Protestant chapels had been converted into Papist chapels, and eleven new Papist chapels were in the course of erection. After some further remarks in a similar strain, the Duke moved for returns of . . . . all Roman Catholic chapels, with the dates of their erection; also returns of all monastic establishments, distinguishing whether fur monks or nuns, together with the number in each ; • also for a return of all Roman Catholic colleges and seminaries in England and Wales, distinguishing those which be- longed to the Jesuits ; and also of the number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain in the year 1799, and their progressive increase down to the present time."

Viscount Mu.notraNE explained, that it was out of the power of Government to furnish some of the information required by the Duke of Newcastle. They could ascertain the number of Catholic chapels, because they were licensed like other Dissenting places of worship ; the number of monks could be ascertained, because at the time the Catholic Relief Bill was passed they were registered, and any addition. to their numbers prohibited ; but nunneries were not prohibited, and there could he no account of the number of nuns. Roman Catholic, as well as other Dissenting seminaries, might be established anywhere, and there was no record of them kept. It was utterly impossible to ascertain the number of Catholics in England.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE thought that the Established clergy could supply the number of Catholics in every jiariah.

Lord HOLLAND said, that this would be giving the Protestant clergy the Popish power of inquisition. How was the clergyman to ascertain the religion of every man in his parish ? Ile held it to be the first doc- trine of the Protestant religion, that no man had a right to say or to judge what were the religious opinions of another.

Lord CLANRICARDE thought no Parliamentary grounds for the mo- tion had been made out.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, it would be impossible to comply with parts of the motion.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE protested against imposing on the clergy the task of ascertaining the faith of every man in their parish. They might as well be asked to number the Baptists, or any other sect.

Filially the motion was agreed to, except in so far as related to tha number of Catholics in England, and the number of their seminaries.

PENSION LIST. Mr. HARVEY stated, in the House of Commons, on 'Wednesday, that he should bring forward his motion on the Pen- sion List on the 19th of April; and should move that the House be

called over on that day. •

HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY: SUNDAY TRAVELLING. Mr. BETHELL, on Wednesday, moved the third reading of the Hull and Selby Railway Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP moved that it be read a third time that day six months. The House divided ; and rejected the Colonel's amendment, by 121.3 to 9.

The bill having been read a third time, Mr. LAWSON moved the reintroduction of a clause which had been struck out by the Commit- tee, to prohibit travelling on Sunday, on the railway. Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Mr. TREVOR supported the motion. It was opposed by Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. HUME, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. POTTER, and Colonel Tliostesost.

Colonel TttQsrrsots said— From what he had just heard, he gathered that he was right in his persuasion that the proprietors of the railway had power to make any regulations for the travelling on it they pleased. Now, if this House was applied to by certain individuals requesting us to shut their mouths in the Dog-days lest flies should enter in, should we not reply to them, " Shut them yourselves." Allusion had been made to something he had said in the Committee, and therefore, he was under the necessity of repeating here, leaving it to obtain such credence as the belief of his capability for giving evidence might procure, that in 1808 he was going as Governor to Sierra Leone, and Mr. Wilberforce, as would readily be believed, gave him advice on many subjects, which no man could do better than to follow ; and among other things said to him, "that, for his part, he did not believe the Sabbath tohe of divine obligation upon Christians; but he thought it an excellent political institution, and hoped the Government in Sierra Leone would do every thing in its power to uphold it."

The clause was rejected, on a division, by 101 to 14; and the bill was passed.

CRACOW. Lord PALMERSTON stated, on Wednesday, in reply to questions from Mr. P. M. STEWART, that he had received no informa- tion direct from the Russian authorities, but that he had received answers from some of the British Residents in Foreign Courts, respecting the banishment of the Poles front Cracow. With respect to the quarantine stations established by Russia on the Danulni, she had no right on that pretext to obstruct the trade on the river. Mr. STEWART said, that after the unsatisfactory answer of Lord Palmer- ston, he felt it his duty to give notice that, on the 15th of April, he should bring forward a motion respecting what he must deliberately de- signate the aggression of Russia.