Eirbatcd anti Prarraingl in 13adiantritt.

1. TI1E REFORM BILL. On Wednesday, the House of Lords pro- ceeded to discuss the postponed clauses one and two, including the dis- franchising Schedules A and B. Connected with these Schedules, a number of petitions had been presented previous to the House going into Committee.

The names of the first fifteen boroughs were merely read over. On Camelford being read, the Marquis of CLEVELAND paid a parting com- pliment to the disinterested conduct of the electors—twenty-six in number—who had returned Reformers, and called, as it were, for their own disfranchisement. Lord ELLENBOROUGII said, such conduct would oblige him to say " not content" to the vote. The next eighteen elicited no observation. Of Ilchester, the thirty-fifth on the list, the Marquis of CLEVELAND, in reply to a taunt from Lord ELLENBOROUGH, re- marked, that it possessed some claims to consideration : it was the principal town in Somersctshire, the county gaol was there, and crimi- nals condemned in the county were hanged at llchester. Ilchester, 'with these claims to attention, was allowed to follow its brethren ; as were the next fourteen in the Schedule.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH put in a word for Minehead ; which he con- ceived ought to have been saved from Schedule A, by being united to Dunster parish. He remarked on Wareham's being extended into three neighbouring parishes.

Lord KING said, Minehead was as completely a nomination borough na any in the list. It was in a state of decay, and yearly growing more insignificant. Dunster was a wholly separate town.

Lord BROUGHAM remarked, that Wareham greatly exceeded Mine- 3wad in the number of its houses and amount of its taxes.

Lord MALMESBURY said, there were several boroughs, luch as Caine, which, though in Schedule B, had less pretence to a member than any that were in Schedule A ; and there were not a few, of which Dartmouth was an example, that were exempt from both Schedules, sad yet were less worthy of one member than others that were included 1* them. Chippenham was to return two members, and yet it had not as many houses and 101. voters as Caine had.

The Marquis of LANSDOwNE said, that, draw the line where or bow they pleased, those places that were just below would appear to be harshly, and those that were just above favourably treated.

Minehead, Bishop's Castle, and Okehampton were added to the Schedule; and, with a remark on the relative importance of Appleby apd Westbury, Appleby was also added.

' On Amersham being put, the Duke of ]3UCKINGHAM complained that the rectory and manor-house had not been included in the survey of the borough.

Lord DURHAM said these houses were in reality but one—the manor- louse was part of the rectory; they were distant half a mile from the borough, and had never possessed a vote. The locality was proved by the map constructed by the Ordnance Survey Commission.

.Amersham was added, and the clause agreed to.

On. Schedule B, the Earl of HADDINGTON observed, that having consented to so large an enfranchisement, they bad virtually agreed to a orOrresponding disfranchisement : still he would have preferred that Seheduk -A had been extended, and that Schedule B had been altoge- Sher struck out of the Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM observed, that the rule of total and of partial dis- franchisement having been laid down, it must he impartially adhered to. The Earl of MALMESBURY thought, the circumstance of boroughs having but one member would continually lead to contested elections. When the first seventeen boroughs had been agreed to, Lord ELLEN- BOROUGH said, he thought the House ought to pause there : they had struck off as many members as they had given new ones. On the face of the Bill, they had no justification for going farther.

Lord BRoUGHAM said, the disfranchising and enfranchising clauses had no such connexion as Lord Ellenborough assumed. The House had to deal with the merits, or rather demerits of the nomination bo- roughs, without reference to the new boroughs.

Christchurch, on which the objection had been raised, was then added to the Schedule ; as were Horsham and Great Grimsby. -- The Earl of MALMESBURY proposed to substitute Chippenham for Caine.

Lord BROUGHAM said, the same rule had been applied to Caine and to Chippenham as to the rest; and by that rule, Chippenham had clearly the superiority.

On Helston being put, Lord ELLENBOROUGH called the attention of the House to a petition presented the same evening, which stated, that in calculating the assessed taxes of the borough, allowance had not been made for the horses of the yeomanry, which were specially exempt.

Lord Baouonam said, there was no proof that if there had been no yeomanry, the assessed taxes of Helston would have been any higher.

On the question of Dartmouth, the Earl of HADDINGTON urged the argument which was gone into at so great length in the House of Commons, of the defalcation of the assessed taxes collector not being allowed for.

Lord DCRIIAm reminded him, that the assessed taxes were taken not at the amount recovered, but at the amount assessed. The defalcation

formed no element of the calculation. •

Dartmouth, the last town in the Schedule, as well as the entire clause, Was then agreed to ; as were the preamble and title of the Bill ; and the report ordered to be brought up on Friday; to which day, be- cause of Thursday being Ascension-day, the House adjourned.

The Report was brought up last night. The Earl of CARNARVON opposed it, but declined dividing the House ; which, in its present state, he said, would be a fallacy and a farce. He would content him- self with the exercise of the only privilege he could exercise with free- dom—that of protest. Having done that, he should take no part whatever in the third act of the farce ; and when it was brought for- ward, he wished that noble lords opposite would have to address empty benches, at least with the exception of those they themselves oc- cupied.

The Earl of SUFFOLK remarked the terms which Lord Carnarvon applied to a measure that had been twice carried by so large majorities in the Commons House of Parliament.

The Earl of CARNARvoN said, he meant to limit the expression " farce" to the proceedings in their Lordships' House.

In bringing up the Report, Lord BROUGHAM moved that the word " Great " should stand before "Bedwin," instead of after it. In print " Bedwin ( Great), Yarmouth," was intelligible enough ; but when engrossed, without parenthesis or point, as was the custom—Bedwin Great Yarmouth—it was possible the adjective might be applied to the latter town instead of the former, and Great Yarmouth be disfran- chised as well as Great Bedwin.

The Schedules being read over, very nearly the same string of ob- jections was taken to the different boroughs as in Committee; but none of them was discussed nor divided upon.

The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON said he would move, on the third. reading, to introduce a clause rendering it unnecessary for members takinc, office under Government to vacate their seats. On the sugges- tion of Earl GREY, he consented to waive this notice, and make the subject of it a special bill.

The third reading of the Bill was fixed for Monday; for which day the Lords were summoned.

2. &Oral REFORM BILL. This bill went into Committee last night. Sir GEORGE Mintaav-moved that the Counties in Schedule A (the large counties) should in future return two members each.

Mr. HumE observed, that the only purpose of such an amendment was to delay a bill with the extent of which everybody but the Anti- Reformers was perfectly satisfied.

The LORD ADvocATE remarked, that if the rule-of-three argument were to be admitted, the Metropolitan counties would have more ra- tional grounds of complaint than Scotland. Middlesex, Sorry, and Kent, exceeded all Scotland in the combined basis of taxes and population ; and yet they would only receive 43, while Scotland received 53 members.

The Anti-Reform Scotch members—Sir GEORGE CLERK, Colonel LINDSAY, Mr. R. A. DUNDAS, Sir A. DALRYMpLE, Mr. C. BRUCE, and Mr. PR1NGLE—supported Sir George Murray's amendment. Ultimately the House divided upon it : for the amendment, 61 ; against it, 168; majority, 107. The Committee will be resumed on Monday.

3. REFoRM PETITIONS. A number of petitions were presented. last night on the subject of Reform, most of them agreed to during the suspension of the "ten days." Mr. O'CONNELL presented one from Dublin, agreed to at a meeting of sixty thousand persons.

Sir R. H. Nails doubted if there was in Dublin a spot where so many men could meet to deliberate.

Mr. O'CoNNELL said, they did not meet to deliberate—they had made up their minds beforehand. Mr. SHAW stated, that there were not above one thousand, instead of sixty thousand ; and they were chiefly ragged boys and women. The respectable citizens of Dublin were opposed to Reform. Mr. 0' CONNELL said he would admit that the beggarly and bigoted- Corporation of Dublin were Anti-Reformers ; but would Mr. Shaw venture to call them "respectable," when out of 36 corporators 20 had taken the benefit of the InsolveneAct, some twice, some three times ?

In presenting another petition, Mr. O'CONNELL complained that the Dublin Corporation had imposed a toll on a new bridge to pay an

old debt to Government. •

Lord ALTHORP said, all he knew was, that the debt was promised to be paid by instalments : application was made for paymert, and the produce of the tolls in -question was set aside for that purpose.

Mr. Hume hoped the present Government would not show that spirit of favouritism towards the Corporation that the late Government bad done.

Mr. Dawson said, they were called on to pay the instalments by the Late Government.

Mr. HusiE—" What use was there to call, when they would not come, and were not made to come 2"

Some conversation followed on the debt of 49,0001. due by the Cor- poration to the citizens, or the Crown, or, as Mr. SHAW contended, to nobody—

Lord Aurnoor then presented the great Glasgow petition, signed by

fifty thousand persons. He said the expression in the last sentence, " intrigues of a faction," Was strong, but he did not think it unparlia- mentary.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE objected to it chiefly because it was not true.

Mr. R. A. DUNDAS took advantage of this petition to retract the aspersion lie had cast upon the officer whose presence at the Edinburgh meeting had culled forth his censure on a former occasion. He be- lieved he had gone thither, in the first instance, to preserve the public peace. Mr. Pundits still retained his opinion of the impropriety of one holding the King's commission being present where such flags and em- blems were exhibited. The honourable gentleman specified two,—one which represented a King without a bead ; the other a quotation from the Psalms, " Put not your trust in Princes."

Sir JOHN BYNG spoke of the officer in question as one who, though a Reformer, knew that his duty to his country was paramount to every other consideration.

The LORD ADVOCATE maintained that be could not have seen the objectionable emblem.

Some smart interchange of remark passed between Captain GORD07.1, Lord Roden's nominee, and Mr. HumE.

31r. GORDON spoke of the language at the Scotch meetings as dis- graceful to the country.

Mr. Hums: said, they were highly honourable to the country. He thought it very probable some of Captain Gordon's political friends had exhibited the flag complained of, with a view to bring disgrace on the meeting.

Captain GORDON observed, that after Mr. Hume's speeches at public meetings, he did not hold him a judge of what was constitutional.

Mr. HUME said, he did not care a pin for the opinion of the honour- able member for Dundalk, and was ready to leave it to the country to decide whose notions were most deserving of approbation.

4. THE CORN-LAWS. Lord Milton's intended motion was the ;subject of some discussion last night ; the greater part of the members advisino him to withdraw it. Three Scotch members—Colonel LIND- 1SAY, Mr. K. DOUGLAS, and Sir A. HOPE—and one English, Mr. SID- vionPE—advised Lord Milton to proceed.

Lord Mir.ToN replied to these conflicting calls at some length. He stated that the present laws were vicious in principle, and must be altered— "As to the great mass of consumers in the country, it cannot be denied that the present Corn-laws raise the price of provisions here beyond that which they bear in any country on the Continent ; and when we see the formidable compe- tition which there exists against our manufactures, I cannot help trembling for their preeminence, if the price of provisions in this country is to rest at a trembling so greatly superior to that of foreign nations. . These, Sir, are the reasons which have induced me to think that the present Corn-laws are not advantageous to the country. Whether, therefore, I consider the question in reference to the manufacturing classes or the agriAlltural classes, I ant satisfied that the Corn- laws are injurious to the great bulk of the community."

He had been perfectly sincere and determined when he gave his notice of motion ' • but now, he confessed he saw clearly that it was hopeless to look for a settlement of the question during the present session. He concluded-

" This, Sir, is not a question that is to he carried by storm. I desire no triumph of one party over another. What I want to see, is this question settled with the consent of the landed interest. What I wishedwas—though perhaps it was a vain wish on my part—to be an humble instrument towards inducing all parties to take a calm and consentaneous view of this question. Above all, I deemed it necessary that the agricultural interest should be a consenting party; because I should be extremely sorry that this question should be settled consenting as to leave a sting behind. Pressed, however, as I have been by different honourable friends on all sides, I think that I shall be showing a greater deference to the House, if I now declare that I abandon all thoughts of bringing the question forward during the present session; and allow me to add, that the probability is, that in so doing I Must altogether resign the motion into hands more competent than mine to do it justice."

Lord ALTHORI' afterwards explained, that so convinced was Govern- ment of the inexpediency of agitating the question this session, that they had resolved to oppose Lord Milton's motion had he brought it forward.

5. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. The bill for abolishing the punish- ment of death in cases of theft or robbery, unaccompanied with vio- lence or threats of violence, went through committee in the House of Commons on Wednesday; on which occasion, several members spoke on the principle of the bill.

On the:question of the preamble, Sir ROBERT PEEL contended for the retention of the punishment of death in the case of horse-stealing, and also for stealing in dwellinghouses, on account of the risk to the security of property that its repeal would occasion in both cases, espe- cially in Loudon.. He afterwards spoke at some length of the inefficacy of secondary punishments--

Suppose Fauntleroy, for instance, if he had been sentenced to a secondary punishment and transported, and suppose that, of the 300,0001. or 400,000/: of which he defrauded others, he could reserve some 30,000/. or 40,0001. for his future use—what would be the result when he got out to New South Wales? Why, he might lead a life of learned leisure,—for he was a man of learning,— and be exempt from all personal restraint; and it was probable that in three or foss years the Government would. be teased with applications for the remission

of the remainder of his sentence. In that case would not the law be defeated? Then it had been suggested, that, as a secondary punishment, parti.es should be exposed to infamy, by being compelled to work and to exposure in the public

streets. He, for one, could not concur in the propriety of that kind of punish- ment. There was something so revolting in that sort of exposure, that be was

sure it would beget a sympathy for the criminal rather than a proper feeling in the justice of his punishment. He had also heard of solitary confinement being mentioned as an effectual secondary punishment. Those who thought so were, he apprehended, not well acquainted with the operation of that sort of confine- ment on some men. It was a fact, well known to these conversant with prison discipline, that a solitary confinement of six weeks would have the effect on some men of renderims. them insane for the remainder of their lives. He should

therefore pause before he gave to a judge the power of inflicting such a punish- ment at his discretion, when it was.probable that, at the time, he was not at all acquainted with the way in which it would operate. Under these circumstances, he thought they ought to pau,e bcfore they resorted to secondary pluaishments which experience luul shown were not very effintual. 1k was disposed to go along with the supporters of this bill in diminishing the severity of punishment, where it could be done wit!' a reasonable hope of decreasing crime by that means ; but there were, as lie had before stated, cases in which lie could not concur in the removal of the capital punishment. By the bill, it was proposed that steal- ing iu a ilwellinghouse, \Iliac it was not ;neon:ponied with violence should not be punishable with death. Now he AVOUN suppose that a plan was laid to rob a

house in concert with some of the servants of the owner : that servant might so

arrange, that the iobbery could be effnted, and to a large amount, without ren- dering any violence neces,,ary, though the parties might be prepared to use it if occasion should require ; yet by this bill such criminals would escape, while those who used any violence, though they might steal to the value of only a few pounds, would be liable to suffer death.

Mr. F. 13ux-rox, Mr. W. 'WYNN, Mr. G. Lamp and others, de- fended the bill.

Mr. Brx-rox noticed the disinclination not only of prosecutors to prosecute, but of juries to convict, as the law at present stood. Mr. WYNN said—

They would be as unwise as their ancestors, who had awarded the same punishment for lifting up a latch tied by a bit of string, or breaking a windoW

and abstracting an article from it, as they did in a case of most atrocious robbery, if they did not makea clear distinction and classification with respect to those crimes which should, and those crimes which should not, be visited capitally. It

was desirable that the punishment should remain with reference to certain of-

fences committed during the night, but that it should not extend to the same offences when perpetrated in the day. With respect to horse-stealing, he thought that a regulation should be adopted in the exportation of that animal, by which the offence might be greatly cinched. Particular ports might be named from which alone horses should be exported ; and a hook might be kept in which a description of their marks, &e., should he entered. Executions for that offence very rarely occurred. He recollected but one in London. That was the case of Probert; and he suffered for former crimes rather than fur stealing the horse,

since the offence was committed under the least aggravation that it was possible

to imagine. It was necessary that the law should be altered, when they saw witnesses, jurors, and judges all combining to deprive it of its severity. The law would be better administered if a lighter and more certain punishment were af- fixed to certain crimes. Ile thought that the brand might be introduced bene- ficially-. A culprit la-ould carry that stun with him to whatever country he went ; and the fear of such a disgrace would operate as a preventive of crime.

Mr. LAMB observed, that horse-stealing and cattle-stealing were Fenerally- perpetrated by gangs : the crime was much less frequent than it had once been—

With respect to privately stealing, there bad been some increase, but not a very material one. Those who looked to the papers that were laid on the table, would perceive that the increase waS very small indeed. As to female malefac-

tors, there was no increase. Indeed, since 18:29 there had been a positive de- crease • and it m female por- tion he consolatory to the House to know, that the feale por- tion oisociety was in a sound and wholesome state. (A laugh.) With respect to abolishing the punishment of death for stealing above the value of 5/., he had, when his honourable friend brought in the bill, stealing the propriety of such a measure. He, however was now of opinion that such an alteration was advis- able. That was the only crime on the statute-hook, the punishment of which

depended on the criterion of value ; and he thought that it had better be re-

moved. The right honourable baronet had adverted to the aggravated crime of servants robbing their masters. But still let them bring forward whatever case

they would, the capital punishment depended on the stealing over the amount of 5/., although a robbery of less amount might be attended with circumstances' of greater atrocity. He agreed with the honourable member for Weymouth, that nothing could bemore disgusting than the shifts to which jurymen were obliged

to have recourse, for the purpose of lowering the value of property stolen to a certain sum ; and therefore the system ought to be altered. It had been sug-

gested, that by raising the value to 1001., and awarding capital punishment only to those who stole to that amount, the difficulty which juries now felt in con- victing would be removed. But lie objected to this, because he did not think i

that, in any case, the value should be the criterion of punishment. If they abolished the punishment of death in every case except in those where the pub- lic feeling went along with them, he did not think that they would be going too far.

• Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought the appointment of a public prosecutor, as in Scotland, would be attended with most beneficial consequences.

Mr. HUME called the attention of Government to the abuses arising out of the discretionary power vested in the Government of New Sotith Wales, of commuting the punishment of transported felons.

Instead of persons who had been brought up in a respectable class of life being at all entitled, when transported to New South Wales, to be treated in a-wny

different from that in which other convicts were treated, it appeared to him, that if any thing they should be subjected to a still severer punishment. He was convinced that nine out of ten of the "gentlemen" convicts who were sent out there, escaped in a great degree the punishment due to their offences ' - and the result was, that in such cases transportation had little or no beneficial effect whatever. If Government put an end to such a state of things, and if it took care to exclude no individuals from punishment except fit and proper objects for Mercy, he was quite certain that the secondary punishment of transportation would be found in most instances to be amply sufficient.

Mr. LAMB said, he had been long of opinion that transportation waS. a most improper punishment for persons educated as gentlemen. He thought they-ought to be punished at home. At any rate, if trans- ported, they ought unquestionably to be treated as other criminals were.

6. THEATRICAL MONOPOLY. On Thursday, MT. E. L. Ifottifea moved for the appointment of a Committee- to inquire into the laws connected with dramatic literature and the performance of the drama. In introducing this motion, Mr. Bulwer went into the history of the present restrictions and their results:— The reason why the minor theatres had been placed under such restraints as to amount almost to a suppression, was the licentious manner in which they had been conducted in the reign of Charles the Second. It was not for the purpose of encouraging literature, but to suppress indecency. How did those reasons now apply? Let any one who visited the minor theatres answer the question ; and truth would oblige him to state, that the audiences and the performances were of a most respectable character. What was the object of giving the monopoly to the two patent theatres ? Was it not to raise the dignity of the national drama? Had it answered that end ? So far from it, it was a cause of general complaint that the drama began to decline from the time the monopoly was given. It was a reproach to Sir William Davenant, that in his time the mono- poly had greatly deteriorated the character of the drama ; but from that time to the present, with some few exceptions, it had been growing worse; and now it was an admitted fact, that the poverty of the drama was greater than was known in any other department of literature. how few performances were there now at our patent theatres which were fit for grown-up men and women to witness? If they were to have monopoly, they svere bound to see that it an- swerel its object. What, he nand(' were the fruits it had produced ? Where were the sublime tragedies, the chaste and brilliant comedies, which the patent of monopoly was intended to tbster? We might say to the monopolists- " Ilave you encouraged such performances ? Have you prelbrred them to equestrian spectacles, to wild beasts, tire-eaters, and sword-swallowers; in a Iron!, have you put the drama in a better situation than it was when you re- ceived it front Ben Jonson 0101 Shakspeare? If sett have not, then you are not entitled to a monopoly." What, he would ask, had we got instead of the ster- ling di-aortae performances which we had a right to expect ? We had dioramas and cosoloramas, si horses, and lions, and elephants, and boa .constrietors ; but were these the kind of exhibitions xvIlich the patents were intended to en- courage ; and if they were not, ought those patents and the monopoly which they gave to be allowed to continue?

He noticed the argument, that notwithstanding the restrictions, the minor theatres existed. and prospered— lie admitted that was the fact ; but it was done at the risk of heavy penalties, and this fact ought of itself to tbrin a just ground for inquiry ; for if those minor theatres were in reality the evils which some would represent them, then they should not be permitted to infringe upon the patent rights of others ; but if they were, as he contended they were, of service to the drama,—if they tended to encourage that competition by which the drama would be improved and the public benefited,—them they ought not to be exposed to those heavy penalties to which they were all oow liable. As long as public opinion was in favour of the i

continuance of those theatres, it would be in vain to attempt to put them down; and if they could not be put down by law, would it not be much better that they should be regulated by law ?

He noticed also the censorship of the drama ; and contended that such a censorship was as indefensible as a censorship of the press would be— The manner, too, in which that censorship was exercised was as had its the principle itself. Was it not most absurd that the censor should have the power to strike out any part he pleased of a new play, while he was prevented from touching a line of an old one ? Thus, the most indelicate plays of Beaumont and Fletcher could now be performed by law, and the censor Intl no power to prevent it. What was it, then, which prevented such representations? The good taste and good feeling of the public, and to that they ought to be left.

He concluded with an observation on the injustice of the present law respecting the copyright of dramatic literature— It was said of dose boroughs, that they were of advantage in the facility they afforded to men of talent, whO might represent the literature of the country. What, however, had such men done for literature ?=Nothing. It was well known that a man might write a play, which any manager could take and mangle and alter as he pleased, and bring it forward for representation ; and though it might be ever so successful, the author could never derive one sixpence profit from it. If it were damned, the author had all the odium ; but if it were successful, the manager hail all the profit. If Shakspeare were at the present day to produce one of the best of his admirable productions, from which a ma- nager might derive thousands and tens of thousands of profit, the unfortunate author might nevertheless be allowed to starve in a garret.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL said, the whole question involved in Mr. Bulwer's motion had been amply discussed before the Lord Chancellor, on Mr. Arnold's petition ; and the decision was, that the Crown ought not to establish a new theatre to be open throughout the year, and by implication, that the multiplication of places of theatrical amusement was not advisable. He should therefore oppose the Committee. Sir Charles contended, that the unlimited establishment of theatres would extend, instead of checking, the irregularities of which Mr. Bulwer complained ; and he stated, as be said, advisedly and from historical research, that the moral discipline of theatres was always most relaxed when there were most of them. He argued from the example of Paris, that the increase of places of theatrical entertainment was unfavourable to the higher productions of the drama. France had no longer a Cor- neille or a Racine, and the cause was admitted by Frenchmen to lie in the increase of the Parisian playhouses. He defended the censorship as essential to the preservation of public morals. Without it, anything, however sacred, might be exhibited on the stage. Sir Charles did not anticipate, from any change in the law as it affected dramatic property, a new race of Shakspcares or Jonsons-

. The audiences at the great theatres formed a body of competent judges. Could the same be predicated of those who probably would attend the host of minor theatres, the establishment of which appeared to he the object of the honourable member? He did not think, if the proposed change were made, that it would lead to the production of such works as Steele's Cato (Laughter), or Dr. John- son's kola. (Laughter.)

Mr. GEORGE LAMB thought that the admitted inconsistency and in- efficiency of the great theatres formed a sufficient ground for inquiry; which, however, he would rather have had to originate in the House of Lords, where the great State officers were, to whose control the theatres were subject.

The theatre had always been the foster-child and the offspring of monarchy ; and during the only period that what might be called a republic existed in this country, the theatre was a complete failure. Indeed, it would seem as if repub- lican institutions did not harmonize well with theatrical amusements. At all events, one thin„.. was certain, that the theatre principally flourished under a monarchy, and the monarchs of this country had been uniformly decided patrons of the drama.

He remarked on Lord Brougham's decision, alluded to by Sir Charles Wetherell— •

Without at all quarrelling with the decision pronounced by Lord Brougham and the two learned Judges whom he had called to his assistance, in the case brought before him last year,—without denying that that decision was founded on law and justice,—he would beg to observe, that it left the law precisely as it

stood before it was pronounced ; and that the only effect of it (a by no means marvellous consequence of a decision in courts of law) was, that it discontented all the parties concerned.

Mr. Lamb said, he should be decidedly opposed to the inquiry, if be thought it would lead to the multiplication of theatres, or allow every man to set up a theatre that liked : he believed, however, it would only lead to placing the laws affecting the drama on an intelligible basis. As to protecting the rights of authors, it had been attempted to frame a bill for that purpose, but it was given up as nugatory. Even in France, notwithstanding numberless acts on the subject, it had been found extremely difficult, if not impossible. He concluded—.

The theatre was the flower of the Crown—the child of monarchy ; and he did not think that it would ever flourish under any other parent.

Mr. W. BROUGHAM supported the motion.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL said he was surprised that Sir Charles Wetherell, who could relax his toils in listening to Madame Vesiris at the Olympic, should object to the minor theatres.

It might be true that there were sometimes bail things exhibited at the minor theatres, but could the large theatres be exempted from that charge ?. Could any one go there without being struck with the revolting sights that were to be seen there? It was impossible, in fact, to take any modest woman to such places without a fear that something might occur to shock her modesty. There were scenes to be witnessed there, that would not be witnessed in the theatres in Paris, or Naples, or any of the great capitals of the Continent.

Mr. III:31E was glad that the monopoly was about to be destroyed. They had got rid of others more formidable, and they did right to put an end to that which was as indefensible as it was injurious—the thea- trical monopoly.

Mr. ROBINSON concurred with Mr. Hume.

- Mr. Stml wound up the debate at some length— The first question was, whether a dramatic censorship should exist, by which a previous approbation by a licenser should be rendered requisite; the second, whether certain theatres should enjoy a monopoly of the dead as well as living genius of the country through their exclusive right to represent regular tragedy and comedy ; the third, whether means ought not to be taken to give to dramatic writers a privilege analogous to that which was conferred through the medium of copyright on other authors.

He denied the propriety of a license—in Ireland it hadnever existed. How was England situated before its introduction ?

When a national stage did indeed exist—when Garrick, and Mossop, and Barry performed before the assembled nobles and great gentry of that country (and in that country civilization had at that period reached the highest point to which it could attain)---no licenser was found necessary. Why? Because the spirit of true decorum, and that refinement which is inseparable from decency, forbade the performance of irreligious or immoral compositions, and issued its inviolable injunctions against the infringement of propriety.

The next question was easily answered—if minor theatres were per- mitted at all, it was only reasonable that they should be allowed to act the best plays, and not be restricted to the worst.

On the remuneration of authors, Mr. Sheil said— A play is performed ; it is eminently prosperous; the author receives a cer- tain sum on the third, the ninth, the twentieth representation. Why should his emoluments end there? Why; as long as the theatre has a profit, should he not participate in it ? Why should the managers of the provincial theatres be per- mitted to perform his play, and allow him no portion of the receipts? Take the case of Mr. Sheridan Knowles. That gentleman—whose name he felt a pe- culiar.pleasure in naming in that house, because lie was a near relative of the illustrious person who had in that house been so eminently distinguished—bad written a variety of works, which refuted the allegation that dramatic genius was extinct. The tears of thousands who witnessed Virginius performed by Macready afforded the best proof that the tragic muse had not departed from the British stage. His new production was as deeply impressed with the signet of genius. Was it not most unjust, that from the performance of his tragedies in the theatres of Dublin, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, he could derive no sort of emolument?

Mr. Sheil concluded by remarking on the opposition of Sir Charles Wetherell— He owned that to Sir Charles's opinion on dramatic questions he was not in- clined to attach any very great importance, when he found him confounding Steele's comedy of the Conscious Lovers with Addison's tragedy of Cato. (Loud laughter.) And how could he have made such a mistake with regard to Cato? Was he not himself the great stoic of Toryism? Was not Borough- bridge a modern Utica? (A laugh.) Did not the honourable, the learned, and exceedingly dramatic gentleman, realize, in the opinion of iris party, the famous lines—

"A good man struggling with the storms of fate, And greatly falling, with a falling state?"

The Committee was agreed to. The following are the members— Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwer; Mr. Lamb, Earl of Belfast, Mr. Shell, Mr. Gal- ley Knight, Mr. Stanhope, Mr. John Stanley, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Lord Porchester' Mr. Lennard, Mr. Mackinnon, Mr. Gillen, Mr. William Brougham, Mr. Alderman Waithman, Mr. Jephson, Colonel De Lacy Evans, Mr. John Campbell, Mr. Henry Bulwer, Mr. Duncombe, Lord John Russell, Sir Charles Wetherell, Sir George Warrender, Lord Viscount Mahon.

Power to send for persons, papers, and records ; five to be the quorum.

7. DISTURBANCES IN QUEEN'S COUNTY. On Thursday, Sir HENRY PARNELL brought forward his motion for a Special Committee " to ex- amine into the state of the disturbed counties in Ireland, and the laws at present in force for the suppression of outrages against' the public peace."

The motion was seconded by Sir CHARLES COOTE. Mr. LEADER and Mr. WYSE opposed it, and Sir F. TRENCH supported it.

Mr. O'CoNNELL strongly deprecated the motion, on the supposition that it was to lead to the reestablishment of the Insiwrection Act; which he proceeded at some length to deprecate. Mr. STANLEY observed, that if Mr. O'Connell had been in the House some three weeks ago, he would have known that he could not more deprecate the renewal of that odious act than Government did.

He lost no opportunity of repeating, that he believed having recourse to such an extraordinary measure for putting down a temporary evil, only increased ti tenfold ; that though it might cut down the stalk, it left a root which sent forth branches much stronger and much more noxious than those which had been cleared away. He therefore distinctly disavowed any intention, either by

word, act, or thought, of renewing the Insurrection Act ; and, to judge of the Government, he thought the honourable and learned gentleman should refer to their acts, and not to what had been said. In Clare, Limerick, and Galway, Government had put down disturbances, not by means of the Insurrection Act, but by the ordinary course of law ; and if the Magistrates did their duty in Queen's County, he had no doubt the testa would be the same.

After some conversation, in which Mr. G. DAWSON, Mr. CRAMP- TON, Sir ROBERT BATESON, and others took part,—Mr. WYSE moved to add after the word Ireland, " and into the immediate causes which have produced these events, and the efficiency of the laws for the sup- pression of outrages against the public peace." Thus amended, the motion was agreed to. The' following are the names of the Coin- mittee—

Sir H. Parnell, AIr. Stanley, Sir G. Murray, Lord Ebrirgton, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Rice, Lord Killeen, Colonel Conolly, Mr. Crampton, Mi. More O'Forrall, Mr. T. Lefroy, Sir C. Coote, Sir J. Burke, Mr. Wyse, Mr. J. Grattan, Colonel Perceval, Mr. Wallace, Mr. J. E. Gordon, Lord Oxmantown, Lord Duncannon, Mr. O'Connell, the Earl of Ossory, and Mr. James Lambe' t.

8. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. On Wednesday, in reference to a corn- plaint of the Committee on Irish Tithes, that a paper which had been printed for the consideration of the members of Committee, had been published in the Dublin Evening Mail as the report of the Committee, Mr. STANLEY said, that Mr. Sheehan, the proprietor of the Mail, had been examined before the Committee, and had declared that he had not received the document, directly nor indirectly, from any of the members, but declined saying how he bad received it. Mr. Stanley moved that Mr. Sheehan should attend on the following evening. He said the pre- tended report was extremely incorrect.

Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. HUMS thought that its being incorrect was sufficient proof that it could not be considered a breach of privilege. But the SPEAKER explained, that the mere fact of its purporting to be a report of a Committee of the House constituted a breach of privilege.

Mr. STANLEY observed, that the greatest confidence must of neces- sity be reposed in the Distributing Officer. If confidential documents should get abroad during the sitting of a Committee, like that now sit- ting on Bank affairs for instance, much inconvenience would be the necessary result. The printer was prepared to show that no copy had been allowed to leave his office without authority. It was also ascer- tained that one member of Committee had not received his copy of the document referred to. The conclusion was, that it had been conveyed to the Dublin Evening Mail by some of the subordinate officers em- ployed to distribute the papers.

The attendance of Mr. Sheehan was agreed to.

Mr. Sheehan was called up to the bar on Thursday. He admitted that he was the proprietor of the Dublin Evening Mail; that he sent to his paper, in manuscript, the document whose publication was com- plained of. He refused to state from whom or how he got possession of it.

A discussion took place on the question whether Sheehan had been guilty of a breach of privilege or not.

Mr. A. LEFROY accused Mr. Stanley of acting partially, unfairly, and ungenerously.

Mr. STANLEY protested against the attack. He was simply fulfilling a duty imposed upon him by the Committee— The Committee had been unanimous in their directions to him, with the exception of a single member, who was opposed to the polities professed by the Dublin Evening Mail. One of the members of the Committee who had sanc- tioned the present proceeding, was the father of Mr. Lefroy ; and he had done so because one of the missing copies of the report was his own, and should have been placed in his hands.

Mr. A. LEFROY having described this statement as an accusation against his father, Mr. GOULBLTRN interposed. He observed, that Mr. Sheehan might have supposed that he was merely putting in circula- tion a report that had been agreed to.

However, this was not the question ; they had ascertained that there had been a manifest breach of duty among some of the individuals to whom the House had intrusted the distribution of secret papers. A sealed letter to a member must have been improperly opened, and the contents communicated. He would therefore say, that it was most important that they should ascertain the quarter in which the blame lay.

After some further conversation,—in which Mr. J. E. GORDON and Mr. SHAW defended Mr. Sheehan,—the question was carried. It was further agreed that Mr. Sheehan should be committed to the cus- tody of the Sergeant at Arms ; and that the officers of the House con- nected with the delivery of the document in question should attend the House next day.

Last night, Mr. Witham the Committee Clerk, Mr. Bull the Clerk of the Journals, Mr. Hansard, Mr. William Bellamy, and Rees a por- ter, were examined at the Bar. The examination proved only, what the public is quite aware of already—that in every department of the state, from the highest to the lowest, from the multitude of officers and

slender amount of duty, nothing is done well or regularly. Mr. Witham described the process by which Committee secrets were sought to be kept— He had received the draft of the Report, which he had transmitted through the Journal Office to be printed. He had not sealed it ; he had attached a piece ofpaper, describing what was to be done, and delivered it into the Journal Office. It was left open on Mr. Bull's desk. He had received twenty-four copies of the pri nted draft, sealed up : twenty were sealed up together. He had to distribute these twenty copies among the members of the Committee; and, to distribute them, he liad sent them to Mr. Bellamy, the under door-keeper. Of the four others, he had given one to the member -who said he hail not received his copy ; one was disposed of by the direction of the Chairman, the Chairman got a se- cond copy, and he had one himself. It was the 14th of May when he delivered the draft into the Journal Office, and he did not believe that any person could have had access to it there to copy it. When he heard that Mr. Lefroy's copy was not delivered, he inquired of the porter, and he said the copies had been de- livered. When he saw the porter who took out the copies, be was drunk. He was not an official messenger ; his name was Butler, and he was employed by the lower door-keeper. He delivered the copies to a porter to give to the lower door-keeper, who had to distribute them.

It did not appear very clearly from the examination, at what point the missing copy had made its escape—whether while in the custody of Bellamy or Butler. Mr. Bellamy, it appeared, kept no account of the copies given out for distribution, or of the porters to whom given; nor did be make any inquiry whether they reached their destination or not. Butler, it seems, had been complained of before, and had been sus- pended. A petition was afterwards presented from Mr. Sheehan, expressing regret that he had committed a breach of the privileges of the House ; and after some discussion, he was called to the Bar, admonished by the Speaker, and ordered to be discharged on payment of the fees.

The Speaker, on being appealed to, promised that better regulations should be adopted for the distribution of such papers in future.

9. CAPTAIN GRAHAM. The case of this person, who commanded at the Newtownbarry massacre, was once more brought under the no- tice of the House of Lords last night, by a petition presented by the Earl of WICKLOW. The petition was signed by thirty-six Magistrates and by five Peers, and prayed the House to interfere with a view to Captain Graham's restoration to the magistracy. It had been stated on a former occasion, that a magistrate could not legally call forth the Yeomanry ; this Lord WICKLOW denied, on what he termed the highest legal evidence—Lord Edon's.

Lord GRANTHAM also wished for information on the subject. The Duke of Bees NGII st said there was no doubt of the power of the Magistrate to call out the Yeomanry when he pleased. Lord MELBOURNE said, he would not pronounce an opinion ex

int- proviso on the question, although this was the first time he had ever heard a doubt suggested with respect to it. Captain Graham's case, like every other case, must stand on its own merits.

The Earl of HAREWOOD expressed dissatisfaction at the state of doubt in which the question of the Magistrate's power was left.

After some further discussion, Lord BROUGHAM interposed— There were two ways of ascertaining what the law was, and of .proclaiming it; and those were, by declaratory acts of Parliament, or the decisions of the Judges in the courts of law. But could an individual Pier be called upon to declare the law, merely because he happened to be a member of the Executive ? He was not more bound to answer on that account than individual members of their Lordships' House. Let a ease arise, and then let it be discussed on its own merits in the proper manner, and in the proper place; but it was most irregular to call upon an individual Minister to state his own views of an abstract ques- tion of law.

It seemed to be admitted by Lord Melbourne and the other speakers, that the Yeomanry were justified in acting when so ordered by a magis- trate; but the right of the magistrate to give the order remains as it was.

10. IRISH ENGLISH AND SCOTCH ENGLISH. Some very bitter words passed, on Thursday, between Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. J. E. Goanosr, on the relative value of their orthoepy.

Sir ROBERT BATESON having presented a petition from the Master of the Sutalay School of Belfast, against the Irish Education system, Major MACNA MA 12 A said he felt bound to state, that much of the present disorders had arisen out of the attempt to compel Catholics to attend the Kildare Street Schools.

Mr. J. E. GORDON denied this, and referred for proof of the desire of Catholics to send their children to these schools; to the evidence taken before the Royal Commissioners in 1824.

Mr. O'CONNELL wished to Correct Mr. Gordon's chronology, as it was • comical to refer to what was printed in 182.5 in order to prove what oc- curred not until 1829.

Such, however, was the result of the attempts made to give what the honour- able member for Dundalk was pleased to call " edication ;" and he put it to the House, whether Major Maenamara was, as a member for the county, as a magistrate, a major of militia, and a resident, not more likely to know more of the county than any Englishman or Scotehman who might visit it.

Mr. J. E. GORDON fired at the attack on his pronunciation. He asked how the member for Kerry dared to criticise his language.

He always endeavoured to speak the King's English intelligibly, and lie hoped he did so. He had never called the word "education"—he always called it "education" (A laugh); and at all events, he never did, as the member for Kerry did, bring into that house all the vulgarism of a pauper with all the in- solence of a demagogue.

The SPEAKER said, it was impossible for Mr. Gordon not to know, that such language was a gross breach of the laws and usages of the • House.

Mr. Gonnow apologized to the House, and pleaded the frequency of the member for Kerry's attacks in palliation—.

He could not help expressing his opinion of the vulgarity and meanness of criticism indulged in by the honourable member fur Kerry, who had acted three times by him in this way.

11. LORD MUNSTER. On Wednesday, this gentleman entered into what lie termed " an explanation" of his late conduct in regard to the Reform Bill and the resignation of Ministers.

He was fully aware of the difficulties of the task lie was about to enter upon, but lie trusted that lie should not ask in vain for their Lordships' indulgent con- sideration. He assured them that he would not have trespassed on their atten- tion at all, were it not that his conduct had been made the subject of the grossest misrepresentations, the injustice of which he hoped to be able to prove to their Lordships. He must premise what he had to say to their Lordships, by declar- ing that his opinions, however valueless they might be, had always been what was called Liberal; and it was well known that he had always considered Reform—a Moderate Reform—to be just and necessary. Indeed, ninny indivi- duals were aware that in October Iwo, be bad advocated, in a quarter where his opinion had been attended to, a Moderate Reform ; which, it it had been adopted, would, he believed, have relieved the country from the difficulties in which it was now placed. But he confessed that the extent of the present measure of Reform did alarm him ; and he stated his opinion openly, for it was not his habit to hide his sentiments. Holding as he did these opinions, yet, when called to their Lordships' House, he considered it to be impossible for him to do otherwise than to support the Ministerial measure of Reform ; because he felt, that if he had opposed the clauses of the Bill to which he objected, he might have created a false impression respecting the opinion of one to whom he owed every thing. Under these circumstances, he did not hesitate what course to pursue; and he determined to avoid, as far as in him lay, producing those results in the country which of late their Lordships had witnessed, and of which God forbid that they should see the like again. He trusted that he had yindi- cited this part of his conduct to their Lordships' satisfaction; but being upon his legs, he would take the opportunity of alluding to certain aspersions which had been cast upon his character out of doors. Ile was at fir inclined nclined to con- sider these calumnies hardly worthy of notice, being convinced that those who knew his character would need no other proof of their falsehood ; but as they had been very generally disseminated, he thought, upon consideration, that it would be as well publicly to refute them. It had been stated that he had un- handsomely intrigued against Earl Grey's Government, and endeavoured to un- dermine that noble lord's Administration. This was a very serious charge ; but he would convince their Lordships, by a short and simple statement, that it could not, with any justice, be imputed to him. The truth was, that for six months before, and for twenty-four hours after the resignation of his Majesty's Ministers had been. accepted, it was, from certain circumstances, out of his power to act in the manner imputed to him, even if he had been so unworthily inclined. After apologizing for having occupied the time of the House so long, lye concluded by stating that lie had felt it to be his duty to make these few ob- servations, for the purpose of setting himself right with their Lordships and the country.

. Lord Munster addressed the House from the Opposition benches. No fuller account of his explanation appears in any of the reports.

12. BEER ACT. Mr. A. TREVOR, the member for Durham, moved on Thursday for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Beer Act. One cif the amendments proposed by Mr. Trevor was to deny a license to any one who did not previously obtain a certificate from the clergy- man and two magistrates of the district. He proposed also to shorten the hours of the beer-houses. The motion was coldly received by the House. Leave was refused, on a division—for bringing in the bill, 12; against it, 109.

13. RIDEAU CANAL. On the motion of Mr. SPRING, RICE, last night, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the expenses incurred and those required to finish this undertaking.