nebatel anV Prortaingst in Parliament. 1. THE IRISH CHURCH.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord MORPETH presented petitions from the Grand Juries of Mayo and Longford, and from a

parish in the county of Cork, for an alteration in the tithe system.

Afterwards, the House being in Committee, he developed the Go- vernment measure for abolishing tithes in Ireland and reforming the

Irish Church. He began by enforcing the necessity of altering the law ; in opposition to the prayer of a petition from theClergy of 'foam, Clonfert, and Killaloe, who had declared that it was sufficient to enable them to collect their dues, and who hoped that Government would

allow the law to take its course. Lord Morpeth contended, that the legal processes alluded to had been only very partially successful, and that the attempt to execute them was dangerous to the peace of the country. The necessity for mi alteration of the law was therefore at least as strong as ever. It Was proposed to convert the tithe, deducting

30 per cent. from its amount, into a perpetual rent-charge, payable by

the owner of the first estate of inheritance. These rent charges to be collected by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for seven years, afterwards as Parliament may direct. The tithe compositions to be revalued, on the plan of the bill of last year. Payment of the money, amounting to 637,0001., advanced to the Clergy out of the Million Loan, not to be required, but the remainder of the loan 463,0001. to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund, and no more advances to be made. Lord Morpeth then proceeded to what he called the " debateable

groom! ;" and observed, that in the answer he gave to Sir Robert Peel

on Friday respecting his resolution, he merely alluded to the terms of that resolution, which were such as would not provoke a division. He

would now state the principles on which he intended to proceed. Ministers felt that they could not abandon the principles on which they entered office. They could not shake off the engagements under which

they stood to do justice to the Irish People. (Loud laughter front the Opposition, and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The tenour of that honourable contract was, that the superfluity of Church revenues should

be applied to the religious and moral education of all sects in Ireland. By the present measure it was not intended to suppress any benefices; but it was proposed to establish a Committee of the Privy Council, who

should be empowered to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, fix the duties of future incumbents, and apportion their salaries according to their duties, very much according to the scale suggested last year by Sir Robert Peel- " We propose, that in all those benefices where it shall appear by the report of the Commissioners of Public hist' uction of last year, or by the evidence of the documents on which that report was founded, that there will be, in futine, from 50 to 500 members of the Established Church, the income of the clergy- '

man shall be fixed at a sum not exceeding 200L per annum ; where the !imam- of Protestants may vary from 500 to 1,0(10, the income of the clergyman is not

to exceed 3001. ; and where the number is from 1,000 to 3,000 Pr owstants, the

income is not to exceed 4001. per annum. Thus far I use the precise pi °por- tions of the right honourable baronet : but I add a little to his computations at each end of the scale. The right honourable baronet did not advert to the benefices in which the number was below tiny ; and it would not indeed be con- sistent with the tenour of his argument to have done so. Wherever this is the

case, I assign to the incumbent an isiconse not exceeding 1001. ; thus neces- sarily any part of the benefices which now exist, but placing the incumbents in a situation correspondent to the exceedingly light duties which, in the parishes to which I have just referred, they will be edited on to perform, and remunerating them in a manner at least as liberal as they can be from the in- come which this useful body of men are now able to realize. Where the members of the Established Church are three thousand and upwards (which will gene- rally occur in cities), the amount of duties being inctersed, and the expenses of living greater, we raise the income of the incumbent of such benefices to 5001. per annum."

Total £459.550

There are nominally 1335 benefices in Ireland ; of these a considerable number are sinecure. I du not mean that they have no members of ti e Established Church, but such as that no duties could be per formed in them, they being held by the dignitaries of the Church. There are also benefices which annot be pre- sented to according to the Church Temporalities Bil:, which has a'ready passed, divine worship not having been performed in them for the last three years. Now, I admit that I give the power to the Privy Council to constitute new benefices, a power which they are likely to exercise in those instances where extensive unions of parishes prevail in Ireland. I think, however, the number of benefices may be taken at 1,250 ; and in the computation which I have made I have selected a high rate of expenditure.

For 129 benefices, containing less than 50 members of the Esta- blished Church, at IOW. each £12,900 For 670 benefices, varying from 50 to 500 member_ ,s at 200/. each 134,000 For 209 benefices, fr 500 to 1,000, at 3001. each 62,700

' For 189, varying final 1.000 to 3,000, at 4001. each' 75,200

For 54, containing 3,000 and upwards, at 500/. eieh 27,000 Allowing glebe to the value of 25/. per annum to each of the 1,250 benefices 31,250

Curates 18,888

Total £361938

Amount of Church revenue under proposed plan .£459 550

Amount of remuneration to the clergy under proposed plan 361,938 Difference and surplus to be applied to other purposes £97,612

No part of this surplus would become available until advowsons in the hands of individuals had been purchased, and other existing interests satisfied ; but when an income was derived from this source it would be paid into the Consolidated Fund ; upon which in the mean while a charge of 50,0001. per annum would be imposed, to be devoted to the purposes of education. He was aware that many objections would be urged against his plan ; which he himself by no means considered as perfect as it was desirable to make it ; but, he argued- " We are not at liberty to frame and work out a system which would he con- sistent with our notions of an ideal establishment under the most favourable circumstances; but we must take the system which we find, and when we per- ceive that it stands in alarming and i llllll inent danger of being destroyed, pre- serve the most we can of its essential spirit and practical benefits. The 11 ish Church has been compared to a missionary church. This measure, while it does not diminish the number of benefices, assigns to the clergy duties more conformable to the example set by those to whom they were compared. I mean those dirties, the performance of which will confine them to their own ap- propriate circles and peculiar districts, and not to permit thorn to hat awe and to bewilder in the cities, the watering places, and even the theatres of Great Britain. (Load and continued cheers.) I don't mean to speak in terms of censure of the clergy generally ; and if any portion of the inhabitants of Ire- land have a stronger interest than another in the settlement of this question, I do in my conscience believe that class to be the clergy."

He concluded by moving tire following resolution- " That it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a rent- charge, payable by the owner of the first estate of inheritance, and to make further provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dirties."

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the resolution moved by Lord Morpeth did not compel him to divide the House ; and indeed he un- derstood Lord Morpeth to say on the previous Friday, that his reso- lution would be expressly framed with the view of not provoking a division. He therefore felt that it would be premature to discuss the various points indicated in Lord Morpeth's speech. He certainly did not consider that the answer he received on Friday was equivalent to a declaration of intention to abandon the principle of appropriation. At the same time, he could not help fancying. that there was some. thing in Lord Morpeth's expression that he could not "shake off" his pledge to the Irish People—something that convinced him, especially when accompanied with significant gesture, that Lord Morpeth would have shaken off the question if lie could. The noble lord's manner and appearance during that part of his speech strongly reminded him of the picture drawn by Horace- ., Hermit° anriculas,ut iniqme mentis resettles,

Cum gravins dors° sutra onus--"

(Laughter, in which Lord Morpeth joined heartily.) He trusted that Lord Morpeth would not suppose that he intended any thing offeresive- especially when he remembered that Horace addressed the expression to himself. The fact was, however, that Lord Morpeth could not shake off the troublesome incumbrance. With respect to the scale of compensation for the Clergy, which Lord Morpeth attributed to him, Sir Robert had merely taken it from Ministers for the sake of argu- ment, protesting at the same time against being supposed to sanc,ion it. He concluded by saying, that he should reserve to himself the power of discussing the principle of the measure at a future stage, un- shakled by his present vote.

Lord STANLEY asked how it was proposed to apply the 47,612/. beyond the 50,000/. intended to be paid into the Consolinated Fund. Lord MORPETH said, that for some time there would be no surplus under this head ; but when it accrued, it would be devoted to the pur- poses of moral and religious education.

Lord STANLEY was convinced that Lord Morpeth felt himself corn. pilled to do what he knew to be unjust, for the sake of procuring a surplus. It was impossible to settle this question while Members were called upon to violate principles they held sacred. What was Lord Morpeth's argument? It was this—that be would not refusal] the Church, f reland, though sensible of the necessity of that reform,

Compensation is to be made to the :parties who have feats of pre- sentation to livings. Lord Morpeth then stated the estin aced income and expenditure of the Church, and the amount of the expected sur-

plus—

The clerical tithe payable to the parochial clergy may be fairly stated at £511,500

Remitting 30 per cent. leases rent-charge

358,050 Ministers' money 10,000

Primate Booker's Fund 5,000 Glebe lands are supposed to be worth 92,000/. ; and after de-

ducting 5,500/. for rents, they will be

86,500 unless the surplus of Church-revenues should be applied to hie pur- poses—that surplus arising from the reduction below 500/. of every

clergyman who had not the care of 3000 souls. The evil was, that the clergy had too large flocks to take care of; and the remedy proposed was to increase the number of these flocks. Notwithstanding the pit- tance to be allowed the clergy was miserable, he still thought the sur- plus would be absorbed— By clinging, therefore, to an imaginary surplus—by clinging to the principle of appropriation in regard to a surplus which could only be made available by the adoption of a course calculated to incr ease the evil of the existing system, his Majesty's Government were about taking that course which must effectually prevent the two branches of the Legislature from coming to the so-much-de- sired settlement of this question. How far they were justified in encountering such a responsibility—such an awful responsibility, he must term it—he must leave to themselves and their consciences to say. (Loud cheering.) Lord JOHN RessELL said, it was unfortunate that Lord Stanley could not restrain his indignation at the notion that the revenues of the Irish Clergy should be proportionate to their duties- " What, in point of fact, is the grievance ?—thatgreat and horrifying grievance against which my noble friend has protested, and to which in terms of such com- bined alarm and wrath, h& has called the indignation of the Commons of Eng- land? Why, simply that a clergyman having to attend to 3,000 parishioners should not have more than 5001. a year. Now, let me for a moment remark, let me for a moment consider, what hitherto Was the state of these clergymen—of that body of which my noble friend has been so lining the ardent and enthusiastic de- fender? What was the case as regat ded those clergymen brought out by the digs cussions of last vear? Was it not most clearly proved, on the testimony of inure than one individual, that in many instances there were absentee clergymen receiv- ing from their livings s100/. and 900/. a year, while the superintendence of their parishes was committed to a curate receiving not more than 75/. a year ? ( Loud cheers.) Sir, such was the state of things which was permitted, and conti- nued even after the reform of the Church of Ireland : and now that my noble friend near me proposes that there shall' in future be some proportion between the income to be received and the duties to be performed by the clergy, up starts my noble friend opposite, and, in a speech of great brevity, but proportionate acerbity, plainly evinces that the very idea of such a proposition excites his in- dignation, and calls for the expression of his determined hostility. (Loud cheers.) If riot in words, in substance at least, my noble friend tells us he cannot hear that the stipend of the Irish clergy should be in proportion to the duties they shall have to perform ; and so alarming in his eyes is the idea of such a proposition, that lie finds it impossible to wait for that discussion which the right honourable baronet promises shall take place upon the general ques- tion,—a discussion which I have no doubt, as far as that right honourable mrable gen- tleman is concerned, will be conducted with all that temper and discretion for which he is so remarkahle,—but on the occasion of a merely formal resolution he starts up to tell his 3Iajesty's Government, that by supporting this alarming proposition, they are likely to endanger the settlement of the Irish Church ques- tion. Doubtless it is through a desire to showoff through the force of contrast the temperance and unassuming bearing of his right honourable coadjutor in opposition, that my noble friend upon every possible occasion enacts the Hotspur of his party. (Loud cheers and laughter.) It is clear he has closely studied the character; and so admirably has he caught up the picture which Shakspeare drew, that there seldom passes an occasion upon which the hot-headedness of his declamation fails to get time better of his reason, and make him diverge from that more natural course which the .more prudent and less impetuous leader of his party lays down. (Loud cheers.)

He would not then be tempted to discuss the details of the measure ; but he would say, that neither he nor his colleagues would shrink from or parry the principle of appropriation to which they were pledged, and on the practical assertion of which the peace and happiness of Ireland depended.

Lord STANLEY said, he would not reply to the Hotspur allusions, founded upon the quotation he had made some evenings past, and which had really passed from his recollection : but he would deny that he ob- jected to the payment of the clergy according to the amount of duty they performed.

After a few brief remarks from Mr. BuxToN, Mr. SHARMAN CRAW- FORD, and Mr. FINCH, the resolution was agreed to ; and leave was given to introduce a bill. Lord Moen:Tit said that the second reading of the bill would not be moved before the 16th of May.

2. REFORM OF THE IRISH CORPORATIONS.

Lord MELBOURNE, on Tuesday, moved the House of Peers to go into Committee 011 the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.

Lord FITZGERALD delivered a speech of several hours' length, in opposition to that portion of the bill which provides for the construc-

tion of new r tipal bodies in the place of the existing Corpora- tions ; which he agreed with Ministers should be utterly abolished. His arguments were the same as those used in the House of Com- mons by Lord Francis Egerton, Sir William Follett, Lord Stanley, and Sir Robert Peel ; and consisted mainly of an attempt to prove that the good government of Irish boroughs would be much better provided for by extending the provisions of the 9th of George the Fourth, and vesting the appointments of municipal officers and of the trustees of Corporation property in the Crown, than by the establish- ment of bodies whose chief and mischievous employment would be political ag'tation. lie therefore would agree only to the first, or destructive portion of the measure ; and moved an instruction to the Committee,

. . . " to make provision for the abolition of such Corporations, and for such arrangements as may he necessary on their abolition for seeming the efficient and impartial ad lll i ll istration of justice, and the peace aud good govern- ment of cities and towns in Ireland."

The Loren CHANCELLOR contended, that the bill before the House would only give a practical effect to the law of 1793, by which Catho- lics were made admissible to corporate bodies. They had hitherto been excluded ; the present bill would prevent the law from remaining it dead letter and a mockery to the Catholics. It was agreed on all hands that a change should take place ; that great evils existed, which ought to be cured. But the opponents of the measure said, that if the patient were cured, he would become boisterous ; and therefore they proposed to put him to death. They admitted that the Corporations were full of abuses ; but, instead of remedying those abuses, they determined to abolish the Corporations themselves. It was said that the corporators were willing to surrender their privileges, and objected to the reconstruction of corporate bodies. No doubt—as they could no longer themselves retain the power they had abused, they would gladly prevent others from obtaining it but lie did not think the Legislature west to pay much attention to the wishes or suggestions of those penons. He contended that the election of a majority of Protestant limbers of Parliament, and of Protestant Local Commissioners wader the 9th of George the Fourth, proved that the members of the sew Corporations would teat, as was pretended, be exclusively Catho- lics; and he exclaimed against the folly of refusing men, who were allowed to elect Members of Pailiament, and local officers of various kiads, to choose their own Aldermen and Mayors.

Lord ABINGER advocated the plan proposed in the other House by Lord Francis Egerton, and that night by Lord Fitzgerald. He said

that Lord Cottenham, who maintained that the Act of 1793 gave the

Catholics the right to become corporators, had no clear ideas of the seal state of the law, and only mystified himself and the House. Cor- porations were originally established for the sake of protecting trade ; sad having failed to effect that object,—having in fact been injurious to commerce,—they should be abolished, and not restored. The erec- tion of new corporations on the principle proposed, would be equiva- lent to the estublibment of so many nuisances.

Lord HOLLAND said, that in a former debate it was repeatedly as- serted that this bill would effect a transfer of power. Now that was

undoubtedly the fact : it would transfer power from the attorney to the principal—from those who usurped to those who had a right to it. Speaking of a transfer, however, he would ask why Lord Lyndhurst did lot own his child—why he made over this motion, which was his, to Lord Fitzgerald as a foster-father? He suspected that he was a little bashful—a little reluctant to become the executioner of corporations, after the eulogies he passed upon them last year. But as a celebrated waiter observed, a year's reading effected wondrous changes; and he suspected that Lord Lyndhurst must have been very studious during the autumn and winter— "Do none of your Lordships recollect the beautiful imagery, the happy pen- cilling, in which that noble and learned lord portrayed the Mayors, Aldermen, and Town-Councils of the ancient Corporations of England? Do not your Lordships recollect the sort of camera lacida in which your Lordships saw yourselves reflected in the furred robes of the Mayor and Alderman, the mace, and an the paraphernalia of a country municipality ? ( Cheers.) And yet- ob inhuman and monstrous!—all these are to be swept away without the least semorse, or the least reflection of all their uses, or of all the ornaments which

appertain to them, and which the noble and learned lord then so poetically

described. ( Cheers.) Some of the arguments used by the noble and learned lord on that occasion will directly bear upon the subject now under your Lord-

ships' consideration; for he did not conhoe himself to the particular advantage

snuffing from English Corporations : no, lie described, and described in glow- ing and feeling terms, the sort of satisfaction which men received from the

knowledge that they were at least of importance in their own municipalities.

Be alluded to the sort of pride which men under such circumstances felt : nay, my Lords, he touched even upon that very subject which lately however he abase, when advanced by another, to speak of with considerable contempt and derision—he touched upon the advantages of being a representative under a system of free government, and of being educated in and familiarized with th principles of that government in which there was a combination of order and liberty, by the discharge of their duties as members of a municipal corporation." But there was another reason why Lord Lyndhurst, having "passed the chair," should shrink from bringing forward this motion : he must know that it was a most unusual proceeding to move an instruction upon a bill which came up from the other House of Parliament— "Precedents show that it is unusual : precedents may show more—they show that it is not very consistent with the safety, the dignity, or the advantage of this House. But not only precedents, but rule and reason, and the principles of those rules, reasons, and orders which guide the two Houses of Parliament, still more strongly show that is a proceeding to which there are strong and

forcible objections. As far as precedent goes, (I have with some little degree

of pains been searching fur them,) I find none where such a motion has been carried, and where the House of Commons has acquiesced in it. It is true

that at a very recent date-180S—two motions of the kind were made, but both

of them were rejected; one was negatived by the House itself, and the other was negatived in Committee. But my Lords, I find that in 1695 a Committee

was appointed—at least directions were issued to the Clerks of this House to

search for a precedent of such a proceeding—and they found, what ?—Two precedents ; and neither of them, my Lords, establishes the propriety or safety of the practice ; for one of them was extinguished by the intervention of a prorogation, and the other was connected with the transactions of those turbu- lent times the attainder and impeachment of the Earl of Danby ; and which

strongly proved the impropriety and danger of proceedings of this kind, and

that they were not fit for your Lordships to carry into execution. For what happened on that occasion? It is not necessary to fatigue your Lordships with

the whole of the details. A bill of attainder was brought up to this House

from the Commons. A noble lord who was anxious to save the Earl of Danby from all the consequences of an attainder, but not venturing to oppose the bill

directly in those turbulent times, moved that it should be a direction (that is the word in the Journals) to the Committee to leave out the attainder, and introduce the punishment of banishment. What was the consequence? When

the amendment was communicated to the Commons, they disagreed to it ; and it appears upon the Journals, that the Lords assured the Commons that the proceedings in the matter of the Bail Danby should not he made a precedent, and that they would willingly agree to introduce in the bill an enactment that it should never be considered as a precedent."

But there was a meaning in this, and he would state it— "The meaning of an instruction to a Committee is this : there is no Committee of this House which sits without instruction. When your Lordships go into Committee on a Bill, what is your instruction? It is the principle which ap- pears in the bill. The instruction of the Committee is to revise, amend, and consider the means of carrying into execution that which they collect to be the principle on the face of the bill. The bill itself, therefore, is the instruction to the Committee to devise the means to carry its principle into execution. But the Committee has not any authority to depart from the instruction—that is, from the principle contained in the bill : therefore the two Houses of Parlia- ment have, when bills have been put into Committee, assumed to themselves the right of giving instructions when they wish to alter the principle of the bill. But mark, my Lords, that is well enough where it is your own bill, and where the Committee is sitting under your own instructions. You have a per- fect right to say to them, ' I meant to pass one law, but I now choose to pass another, and I instruct the Committee which I have appointed to make that al- teration.' If this bill originated with your Lordships, there is nothing to pre- vent you from converting it into a bill to reform the Church instead of reform- ing Municipal Corporations. But mark what the lens et consuetudo Podia- metal gives to each Hou-e of Parliament. It gives the House the power of seeding a bill a first and second time, when the principle may be settled ; it then gives it the opportunity in Committee of settling the details i and after- welds another opportunity of expressing an opinion on the third reading, whether upon further consideration of the principle and the details, the bill was such as to induce them to pass it. But an amendment made in this House to a bill originating with the Commons, is sent down to the Commons, who have the power simply to say whether they agree or dis- agree to it. Now, if that amendment be in effect a new bill, it is an attempt on the part of one branch of the Legislature to extort a bill from the other, without giving them the opportunity which the constitution of Par- liament gives them of considering the principle and details of every bill. (Cheers.) For that reason, any Loads, I say this is an unsafe, and an unusual experiment ; and I can therefore easily conceive why the noble and learned lord did not like to contaminate his hands, albeit they are so plastic and cement- ing in their nature, and so apt at bringing contrary principles into one converg- ing vote, with such a proceeding."

The choice between two measures lay before their Lordships. Now the measure of the Government went to establish institutions, which he would undertake to say that Ireland, more than any other country, required.

" I am not supporting any paradoxes ; I am not entertaining any strange or fanciful theory. I am speaking the language of all the most able writers on the Constitution of England—and the language of these very charters them- selves, which say that it is fur the quiet and good government of the town that they do—what ? Nut that they establish such Corporations as those described in your report, or such as those Corporations in England which we fortunately got rid of last year ; but that they establish corporations founded upon popular election and responsible government. (Loud cheers.) Dr. Robert- son states distinctly "—[Here Lord Holland, who had been speaking for some time in a state of great excitement, was obliged to pause for a few moineuts. On recovering, his Lordship observed, • Don't be alarmed, my Lords ; al- though I am in a state of great agitation,' which caused considerable laughter, ira which Lord Holland heartily joined.]

Ile described the benefits of agitation-

" The word agitation ' conveys no very accurate and definite idea; because there is included in the idea of ' agitation ' all the principles of a free Govern- ment. ( Cheers.) Your Protestant religion was agitation ; your Houses of Parliament agitation ,• free government is agitation ; and it is by agitation only that the great difficulty in the science of government is accomplished, and by which great order and a great love of liberty are ever united." He quoted a passage from Dr. Robertson in confirmation of this opinion ; and went on to contend, that the proposition of Lord Fitz- gerald would be faithless as well as dangerous, as the Legislature had by previous acts come under an engagement to give Ireland the benefit of the same principles as those on which England and Scotland were governed- " Are we to say to the People of Ireland, you shall have in name and ap- pearance an union with this country—you shall have Catholic relief—you shall be put on an equal footing with us before the law ; but when you come to enjoy that law, we will take very good care that you shall have no part of it ; or, if we cannot help admitting that the principle of the law would give you i part, then we will take away the principle itself altogether ; and where the law gives you any thing, there shall be no law of the sort ? The noble and feat ned lord who spoke last, says that the only question is between two nuisances. I really was very sorry to hear so learneda lawyer, and so distinguished a man as the noble and learned lord, speak of liberty, of freedom, of a representative government, as a nuisance. (Loud cheers.) The nuisance we propose to take away is a self-elected government—a combination of men defeating and evading the law, for the purpose of usurping to themselves illicit authority. The remedy we apply is simple and effective. We have heard much talking about Catholics and Protestants, Whigs and Tories, and various other nick- names and distinctions; but the persons to whom we give the power are, according to the showing of the noble lords themselves, the People of the country. Those noble lords say that the People are the majority. Why, my Lords, do you mean to give the People of Ireland the Constitution of England, and yet that the great majority shall have no advantage over the minority. (" Bear, hear, hear ! ") 1 wish to know by what beautiful device even the noble and learned lord, whose plastic and cementing hand I described before, would accomplish the difficult task of giving the benefits of the British Con- stitution to Ireland, and yet shut out the majority of the people in their muni- cipal governments? This is a problem to be solved; but it is a problem which the noble and learned lord never can solve. He was upon much better ground of opposition to the bill of last year than he is now. It is astonishing, after the denunciation passed by the noble and learned lord on the desti uctive mea- sures of last year, that he should be the person to propose the total annihilation of all the Corporations in Ireland. Last year, he in the most eloquent, clear, and luminous manner, pointed out the singular advantages derived from these local governments, and the great good they effected. lie sang

Darius, great and good ; ' But now he has *changed his tune.'

And has

' Seized a flambeau with zeal to destroy.'

By adhering to the principle of giving the people their due share in the government, the glory and greatness of this country might be pre- served almost for ever. Be that principle right or wrong, it was the principle of the British Constitution— Was not that principle to be yielded to Ireland ? Was that country to have only the semblance of a free constitution ? Was it to be said to them that, for some reason or other, they were to be shut out from the advantages which former legislation had procured thern, and they must be left to groan in their wrongs, or seek consolation in practices of revenge at which the mind recoils? Agita- tion he believed to be a real conservative principle. (A laugh.) Noble lords opposite might laugh, but what was the noble lord's speech but agitation—what was his address but agitation ? And the right of agitation within the law was, he contended, a sacred principle, in support of which he could quote many grave authorities—authorities of the Church too — (Looking at the Bishops)— and it would be found that agitation was the great security which Nature pre- scribed for liberty. The works of man, great and majestic as they might be, crumble before the hand of time ; mountains and hills were undermiued and washed away by streams ; but the rivers flowed the same from year to year, aad

from age to age-

.. Queeque immota quit; nimium rremit, ista peribuut ; Sed rose perps'tuo stud agilata manent." Lord LYNDHURST said, that the course he recommended, he had

always the courage to practise : the only reason why he had not moved the instruction to the Committee himself was, that he had already stated to the House the reasons which influenced him ; and nothing but the pointed manner in which be had been attacked should have induced him to trouble the House with a second speech. As to the point of order raised by Lord Holland, he would soon dispose of it. In 1808, Lord Grenville moved, and he believed Lord Holland

sanctioned, an instruction to the Committee on the Bank Charter to allow the admission of Catholics to the Board of Directors : that was as great and important a change as that which he proposed in the bill before the House; but it was not deemed irregular. He had been attacked for maintaining, in the case of Stafford, that proof of delin- quency should precede punishment, whereas he was for abolishing the Irish Corporations without such proof: but the bill before the House was one of general legislation, and bore no analogy to an individual ease. Lord Holland had said that the object of the bill was to reno- vate the Corporations—

Lord Hol.LAND—" Regulate."

Lord LYNDIICRST—" The noble lord said renovate first, and used the word regulate afterwards "- To renovate them ! How were they to be renovated ? the word imported the bringing them to their original condition. The noble lord could not have looked at the Report, or he would have seen that fcrty corporations, and not one or two which he had mentioned, bad been created by James the First in one year, and pt ineipally for political objects under a system of exclusion. He relied not upon his own assertion in this respect, but on the report of the Com- missioners; from which it appeared, that the Corporation of Sligo made an application to the Court of King's Bench to open their corporation. The ap- plication was refused, thereby showing in the clearest manner, that these Cur- porations were in their original state close and exclusive bodies. The same remark applied to almost every corporation in Ireland, for, if reference was had to the Report of the Commissioners, it would be found that the governing char. tern took their date from the reign of Elizabeth, and principally from James the First ; but all of them, with very few'exceptione, were close cm porations. Now, under such circumstances, to talk of renovating, was too extravagant to bear an argument. But then it was said, the noble viscount by this bill destroyed these close corporations. How was this effected? The noble lord removed all the members of the existing bodies—he changed the constituency—altered the form of the corporations— took from them duties hitherto performed by them, and added duties they were never before called upon to discharge ; and this was called renovation.

A very great objection to the measure was, the expense it would en- tail on the boroughs who would be compelled to maintain corporations. Ile had received no answer to the remark he bad made on a previous evening, that no bill might pass the House, for none was as yet intro. duced, for dividing the boroughs into wards: and that power was given to the Town-Clerk, the creature of the Corporation, after the first year, to make out the lists of voters. He saw no occasion for corpo- rations—Manchester and other towns were better governed without, than many towns with corporations. But if there were corporations in England, it did not follow that there should be corporations in Ire- land. He would repeat, in reply to the grand argument for the bill, that Ireland was in very different circumstances from England and Scotland. The same law would not produce the same effects in Ire- land as in England— It was childish to contend for that principle of equal legislation ; and it woul I be, as a noble and learned lord had said on a former occasion, making history an old almanack so to legislate. The impossibility of equal legislation bad been shown by the noble viscount in this very measure ; for he had withdrawn from it all the powers and influence enjoyed and exercised by the English Corpora- tions, and so far acknowledged that Ireland could not be treated in the same way as this country. Ireland hail tad a Coercion Bin ; where had been a cor- responding measure for England ??Again, a Constabulary Bill was now before the House fur Ireland, which had no corresponding measure for this country. Ire. land most be regarded as she existed : her character, feelings, and parties must be looked to, and legislated for accordingly. Ile had promised the House that he would not trespass long; he hoped he had fulfilled that promise. The question really was, both parties having agreed upon the extinction of Corporations in Ireland, what ought to be the substitute. lie concurred in the view of Lord Fitzgerald ; and the noble viscount opposite preferred his own plan. It was for their Lordships to decide. ( Cheers. ) Lord MELBOURNE said it was unfairly assumed that English Corpo- rations were not established, as the Irish were to promote religious and political purposes— A very large number of Corporations in the West of England were created by the Duke of Somerset, in order to obtain through their means an influence in the House of Commons; and when the Catholic interest prevailed again, Queen Mary gave chatters to many Corporations in the North of England, where the Catholic influence at that time predominated : and therefore in that particular, in restrect of the nature of their origin, there was no difference between the constitution of Corporations in England and Corporations in Ire- land. But lie apprehended that the real question was, not how the Corpora- tions of either country were originally constituted, but what were the objects for which they were created ; and this being the case, the question they were then called upon to decide was, whether these Corporations, intended to carry into effect certain objects should be done away with, and if so, what bodies they would substitute for ;hem.

It bad been said, that all the powers which they ought to exercise, were taken away by the bill from the municipal bodies it was intended to construct ; but when asked what remained, he would reply, that it was a sufficient answer, that theCorporations themselves would remain—the local aristocracy and local government which in Ireland were especially required. There was certainly in Ireland too great a disposition to turn for every thing to the Castle—

He did not know whether there had not been in England too much of local management and control—that was, too much without the survey and manage- ment of the hnpreme Government, and, if lie might be permitted to use the slang of the day, too little of the principle of centralization ; but if there was any thing in Ireland which we ought to foster and bring forward, it was local authority, local interference, local distinctions; all of which their Lordships were now joining to do away with at one blow ; and to do away with in those large cities which were growing into importance, whose interests must he in- jured, whose feelings, bound up as they were with their interests, must be com- promised by the course which their Lordships were hastily, and rashly in his opinion, about to pursue.

As to the points about the Wards and the Town-Clerk, mentioned by Lord Lyndhurst, they might be properly discussed in Committee, but the time had not come for debating mere matters of detail. It was an objection to the-bill, that some who supported it went beyond its authors in their anticipation of its effects ; but if such objections were valid, no great measure ever could be carried- _ When the Petition of Right was proposed, was it thought a sufficient reason Mr refusing it, that it might possibly lead to more violent measures, or more violent harangues ? And then the Habeas Corpus Act—did Charles the Second refuse his assent to that because the powers of the Government might but ue .0 tateualvt, uttoree Ana Mt the te volution—would It have bees

enough to contend that that great step ought never to lie taken, lest revolutions should become of daily occurrence ? If their Lordships, as a deliberative assembly, would nut take any step because other persons might look fur greater consequences than they expected from it, he would say that no great MUMS* ever would pass ; no act of whatever importance would he curried if this wen to constitute a valid objection to it. Now, what were the leasona which these were to expect that these Town-Councils would become schools of agitation,oe political bodies ? Had they become so in England ? and if they had, had

any power ? He knew nothing more weak or feeble than an assembly tell steps out of its own province to misuse and pervert the authority with which they were invested, for the accomplishment of other objects. Some persons dreaded the power the Catholics would gain by the bill— Hut, after all, did the Roman Catholics abuse their Parliamentary franchise? There were 105 Irish Members of the House of Commons, and only 35 of these were Roman Catholics, and many of them of one family—(" Hear, hear 1^)— and elected under peculiar eircunistauces. Brit this state of things would not always exist, because Mr. O'Connell—whether man or devil--whether he were 4, spirit of health or goblin damned "—( Loud laughter)— was an individual or being of rather unusual occurrence. Every age did not produce them, and ne man ever precisely filled the situation another had occupied. His predominance in the Irish representation was owing to the peculiar eircu mstanees of the present time, and therefore it was not wise or prudent for a great assembly like that to legislate on such narrow grounds. Ile said, then, that there was no reason to believe that the Roman Catholics would exercise more power than necessarily. belonged to their numbers, their weight, and their influence. As to the influence of the priests, he would remind the House that other parties exercised influence in this country— Undoubtedly every form of government was liable to abuse; and if these was one in our own which' was more to he deplored than another, it was that in the relations of life, between master and servant, between landlord and trout, between customer and seller, every power was exercised to force the conscience and drive people to vote. He thought this a very great evil, but he believed it obtained wherever a popular form of government prevailed. With regard to the influence exercised by the priests, he would remind the House, that it was a very difficult and W..:ate thing to separate the influence of the ministers of religion from the influence of religion itself; and where a participation is the rites of that religion was considered absolutely essential, the power they exercised must be commanding. A power of this kind was a blessing or a earn to a country, according to the manner in which it was employed. At any rate, they could not hope to diminish that pourer by condemning it ; arising as it did from the habits of the people, as well as the religious influence which the priests might be supposed to possess over their minds, and which was no doubt exerted.

Lord Melbourne concluded with solemly warning the Peers against the dangers they were about to incur by voting fur the instruction. Lord Frrzstatats) replied, and the House divided.

For the instruction moved by Lord Fitzgerald—

Present, 133; Proxies, 70 = 203 Against it-- Present, 72; Proxies, 47; = 110

A nti• Ministerial majority', 84 After the division, Lord LANSDOWNE observed, that the bill had now been taken oat of the hands of Siinisters, but they did not wish to impede its progress. Ile hoped that time would be allowed for the printing of the new clauses to be moved by Lord Lyndhurst.

Lord LvNiatiertsv said, the clauses should be printed and time given for their consideration.

Lord Met.notarse—" Are we to have the Committee on Thursday? But I suppose the noble lord will not have patience to wait so long?"

Lord LYNDHURsT said, that he should propose that the blouse should go into Committee on Tuesday next.

The House then adjourned, at a quarter to one.

3. CHANCERY REFORM.

On Thursday, the Loan CHANCELLOR moved that the passage is the King's Speech relating to Chancery Reform should be read. This having been done, lie called the attention of the House, in the first place, to the enormous increase of business in the Court of Chancery since the time that Lord Ilardwicke presided there: on an average of four years, it was as 1283 causes to 411 annually. Petitions and appeals haul been greatly increased within the last ten years. The number of petitious in 1821, 1822, and 1823, was 1487; in 1833, 1834, and 183.5, 2817. 'File appeals in the three former years were 42; is the three latter, .55. In 1812, the money in the hands of the Account.. ant-General of the Court was 28.137,0001., and stood against 6266 causes; in the month of October 1835, the same officer had in hand 39,780,00)1., standing against 10,299 causes. Having stated enough to prove the importance of an efficient and well-regulated Court of Chancery, seeing the enormous amount of property which was liable to its jurisdiction, Lord Cottenham went on to mention the various alterations which had been made in the practice of the Court, in the days and number of hours that the Chancellor had to sit in the House of Lords or in his own Court, for instance—and the inconvenience Arising from the existing practice to suitors in appeals. He said that the conclusion which almost every person acquainted with the subject had arrived at was, that no single person was capable of performing the duties of Chancellor in his own Court and in the House of Lords also. It was therefore proposed that certain persons, not members of the House, should be appointed to hear appeals to their Lordships, with power to declare their opinion, as Judges and Privy Councillors do now when called upon. At present there Was an arrear of nearly 700 causes in the two ('oats of the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, the average number of causes set down for hearing being 1302 ; so that at present there was a great arrear of business where there ought not to be any. It followed that the present machinery was inadequate; for although Lord Brougham, by miraculous exertion (which had indeed injured his health), had disposed of 147 appeals in one year, that ex. traordinary exertion could not be kept up. Last year was most favourable for the despatch of appeal business in the House of Lords, for both Lord Brougham and Lord Lyndhurst devoted much of their time to it ; and a large number of appeals were disposed of, in addition to that " most grievous cause " (Small v. Attwood) which occupied so much time last session, and which, he feared, would occupy as much this session. That cause proved the necessity of having to the calculation of the parties, if it was to commence immediately, and be beard three days in each week, it could scarcely be got through the bill, that—

in matters of appeal required consideration. The Judicial Committee The bills set re then read a first time, and ordered to be printed. of the Privy Council had this defect, that it was not the duty of any individual to preside over it.

and the machinery now in use in the former Court be transferred with Mr. W. Deecomee seconded the motion.

the chief provisions of which were thus stated— orders of the day.

Court of Chancery. It provides, in the first place, that after the appointment of a Judge to be at the head of that mutt, to be appointed according to the court so important as the Coati of Clutneery lar.;1it to be put as net Is a: pos.

Lordships, your Lordships shall sit fur the purpme of hearing appeals in error, Colonel .51111110RP, Mr. CAYLEY, and Colonel THOMPSON spoke notwithstanding troy prorogation or dissol tit. of Parliament. It further

provides that the Equity Judge:: shall he subject to summons before your Lord- ships, in the same manner that the Cinnion Law Judges now are ; and that must titter a tew words or lose caste,—for the " pressure from without" the same power of summoning shall remain in your Lordships, notwithstanding was thrown upon him. He did not deny that the landed interest was any such prorogation or dissolution of Parliament. It further provides, that in a distressed condition ; but that distress arose from the just dispen- the ;Lord Chancellor shall be present at all sittings of the Privy Council to sation of Providence, by which it was decreed that those who infringed hear appeals; with the proviso, however, that in the Lunt Chancellor's Ewers- upon the rights and comforts of others, should have the mischief fall sary absence, the Lord Pt esidcnt shall have power to appoint any other member eventually on their own heads.

of the Judicial Committee to take his place." Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to the motion, as tending to hold out Lord LYNDHURST asked, whether appeals from the Master of the expectations which might prove fallacious when the Chancellor of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor were to be made in the first instance to Exchequer came to lay his financial statement before the House—

the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chancery, or directly to the With his views of public credit, he could not consent before the exact

House of Lords ? amount of surplus was ascertained to involve the House in any promise as to In Chancery." distress. Ile believed that there was a great deal, but he did out conceive that Lord LANGDALE thought the bills would do much good; but he it was of a nature to be relieved by the removal of taxation, at least to any observed that they would still leave the political and judicial functions such extent as appeared to be contemplated, or as was within the capacity of

of the Lord Chancellor united. Moreover, there would bean appellate the probable surplus. Very unfavourable changes had taken place in respect jurisdiction, as well as an original jurisdiction, in the hands of the Lord !limner of competition which was at work not only here, but in all the coun- ChiefJustice of the Court of Chancery. These were points of grave tries of the glebe. The greater part of the advantage which had been derived importance, and lie intended to bring them seriously before the House from cultivation in Jamaica, and other West India islands, had been transferred at a future stage of the bill. to the richer lands of Demerara and South America, and legislative inter- Lord ABINGER was averse to the continuance of the union of the femme could do little or nothing to alleviate the consequent distress of the political and judicial functions in the Lord Chancellor. With re. Jamaica cultivator. The application of steam-power in lieu of physical spect to the Equity business in the Court of Exchequer, the diffi- strength had made a great revolution in this respect as well as others—a revo- culty wits, the want of a competent person to attend to it; for the lutiou which could not be counteracted by any reduction of taxation.

Court was properly a Common-Law Court. A division took place, and the motion was rejected, by 208 to 172;

Lord Wereeono also objected to the union of judicial and political majority, 36. functions in the Lord Chancellor. The person who presided in that MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

House should be entirely unconnected with any party in it. STAMPS ON NEWSPAPERS. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition The Duke of WELLINGTON asked, what was to become of the to the House of Lords on Monday, from the proprietors of the 7 zoles, House of Lords—of its jurisdiction—after Parliament had been pro- Morning Herald, Morning Post, and Standard newspapers, complaining rogued or dissolved? of the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to charge news- Lord COTTENHAM said, that, for the purpose of hearing appeals, it papers exceeding a certain size with double duty. This regulation, was proposed that the House should sit notwithstanding a prorogation Lord Lyndhurst said, appeared to have been taken with a view to or dissolution. favour the only morning paper (the Chronicle), which supported powerful judicial machinery in the House of Lords; fur, according Lord MELLOURNE said, in reference to Lord Langdale's objection to

While the measure now propneed had been framed so cautiously as to admit

this session. Then what was to become of other suitors ? That was of any future alteration wheel their Lordships might deem necessary, had such a serious consideration for the House. Should u hearing be denied to ,a change as Ciat pointed at been introduced in the first place, it might have been this cause, or to the multitude ? This great inconvenience arose from di.-ffieult, if objected to, to recede, aria to return to the state of things which the House having jurisdiction only during the sitting of Parliament, now existed. The bill had been framed with the greatest care, and he trusted instead of throughout the year. Ile jurisdiction of the Pi ivy Council that it would receive their Lordshipa' assent.

4. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

Having thus stated some important inconveniences that exist in the On Wednesday, the order of the day having been read, the Marquis House of Lords, the Privy Council, and the Chancery Court, as judi- of CHANDOS (who resisted applications from SIr. Hems:, Mr. Mice- chit tribunals, it was his trim to remedy them. His first proposition INGHAM, aril other 'Members, to postpone his motion), called the at- was to provide a permanent Judge for the Court of Chancery, whose tention of the Commons to the claims of thelAgriculturiets for a remission attention should he confined to his judicial duties. Ile would next of taxation. Ile referred to the evidence given before the Committee propose that the House of Peers should continue to sit throughout the on Agricultural Distress, fur proof of the melancholy fact that the

year for strictly judiciul purposes, and thus prevent the expense arising situation of the farmer had not been bettered since 1833. The testi- frOm the breaking-off of causes in the middle, which, in the instance mony of thirty-six witnesses put this factbeyond doubt. His object was he had mentioned, ( Small v. Attwood,) had been enormous—perfectly to obtain alleviation of the existing Xfficulry, by the abolition of frightful. It had been said, that in effecting any reform on a large scale, such taxes as pressed unfairly on the agriculturists; who, lie corn- the Court of Review must be considered ; fur at present that Court &alined, had not been benefited to the extent that was their due by the had not adequate duties to perform. But he could mat then recom. very large reduction of taxation that had been made within a few years. mend any change ; as by the measure fur abolishing Imprisonmeot for Ile denied that the interest whose claims he advocated wished to pre- Debt, considerable additional business would be thrown upon that serve any monopoly : they inertly asked to be fairly considered in any Court ; and until the fate of that bill was decided, it would be inexpedient reduction of taxee tvhich the state of the reveime would enable the to meddle with the Court of Review. Great inconvenience was said Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. He concluded by moving a re- to result from the Equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer; in solution, " that in the application of any surplus revenue towards the which Court the annual number of eases decided since 1820 was only relief of the burdens of the country, either by remission of taxation or 120 ; and it was a question whether this branch of the Exchequer otherwise, due regard should he had to the oeceseity of a portion there Court business should not be transferred to the Court of Chancery, of being implied to the relief of the agricultural interest."

it to the Court of Chancery. This point required further considera- Lord JOHN Res-sue 'opposed it ; and dwelt upon the numerous tion. His object now was to appoint a Chief Judge in Chancery, measures which Parliament had passed for the relief of the agricultu- who should attend solely to Chancery business; while the Lord Chan- ral interest ; laying especial stress on the Poor-law, and referring to the

cellur for the time being should be at the head of all the ultimate ap. 'Tithe-bill, introduced by him this session. He observed that the pellate jurisdiction of the country, by presiding at the trial of appeals Marquis of Chandos had proposed no specific plan ; and he objected before the House of Lords and the Privy Council. to pledging the House to his %ague resolution. If the motion was not For making the alterations proposed, two bills had been prepared ; withdrawn, be should move art amendment, that the House pass to the " The first of these bills is relative to the administration of justice in the Lord DARLINGTON supported the motion, in a brief speech, little of

which nicer heard.

provisions of the bill, the Lord Chancellor shall cease to exercise the jurisdic- Mr. Home contended, that the agricultural interest, by means of the

Mon in that court. It then gives power to his A1ajesty to appoint the said predominance it possessed in the Legislature, bad been enabled to bene-

Judge fur that court, under the style and title of Lord Chien Justice of the Court tit itself enormously at the expense of the commueity at large. He of Chancery; and that all forms and appeals heretofore addressed to the Lord enumerated a large number of articles of general consumption, whose Chancellor, shall, fur the future, be addres,ed to the Lund Chief Justice of the price had been much reduced front various causes; in the advantage of Court of Chancery. The bill than provides as to the precedency awl salary of which reduction landowners and farmers fully participated. Ile re- that Judge. The bill is now in blank as to both the Ofle xcrl the other of these nfinded the House of the exemption from the tax on the descent of points; but I apprehend that your Lordships will co:we've tliiit the Lea I of a persouul proper se enjoyed by the latalowners, and which since 1816

Lad amounted to Limey millions. lie referred to the prices of tvheat aide on a feotieg with the Lord Chief Justice .II the Ciini t of Eire,'. Bench.

iti France. to prove to what a vast extent the agriculturiets hail easel the The bill then link, ells til provide—and t110 ■hiliellIty we 11.ive had in sotisfac•

briefly, amidst much interruption. Colonel THOMPSON said that he

Lord COTTENHAM replied—" In the first instance to the Court of application. tle did not deny fur a moment that there was much agriceltural

to whole districts of land in this country, particularly clay lands, by the in-

Ministers, as the size of that paper was selected as the maximum. The pretence was to exclude double sheets, or compel them to pay double postage, but one half of a double sheet usually consisted of advertisements— The average number of advertisements in such a paper was 600, upon which the duty paid was 43/. and when 10,000 copies were published the duty was I I!., so thatevery 1(1,000 copies so published brought h6/. to the revenue, and thus found its way back to the pockets of the public. There must, then, be a great loss to the revenue if the proposed plan were carried into effect, and which amounted to a prohibition upon double newspapers. They say that, even supposing the postage upon papers could be procured, and that they were able to publish double papers, yet by the charge of one penny upon the mere inere,ce of size, it was calculated that it would not produce more than 40/. or 411. There was, then, the difference between the two sums lost to the revenue, even taking it in that view. The prohibition of double papers by a high duty, must produce au entire loss to the revenue of 56/. upon 10,000 copies of such papers. Lord RIPON said a few words as to what took place when the ell restriction upon the size of newspaper sheets was abolished, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1825.

Lord LANSDOWNE said he would not discuss, upon the presentation of a petition, a measure which was before neither House of Parlia- ment. Ile only knew that the object of the measure alluded to was to give the greatest facilities to the circulation of newspapers.

The petition was laid on the table.

SEATS OF THE BISHOPS IN PARLIAMENT. Mr. CUTHBERT RIPPON moved the House of Commons on Tuesday, that the "attendance of the Bishops in Parliament is prejudicial to the interests of religion." Mr. Gissos seconded the motion. Tile scope of the arguments em- ployed by both gentlemen was, that the ecclesiastical duties of the Bishops were amply sufficient to occupy the whole of their time; that their attention was abstracted from holy things by a residence in a dis- sipated metropolis, and mixing in the struggles of party ; and that the minds of the laity were alienated from the Church by the political con- duct of the Prelates.

The motion was briefly opposed by Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, Mr. LawsoN, and Lord JOHN RIISSELL, who said that the House and the country were not prepared to entertain such a proposition ; and was negatived, by 180 to 53.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Mr. O'CONNELL, on Wednesday, in. quired whether, in the forthcoming bill for reforming Courts of Equity, it was intended to introduce a clause to prevent a practice inconsistent with common sense, viz. that a Judge should hear and decide an appeal in the House of Lords'against one of his own decrees? Sir JOHN Ca:nem:Ls said, that even if he were acquainted with them, it %%amid be irregular for him to disclose the enaetments of a measure in the other I louse of Parliament. He would go so far as to say, that he disapproved of the practice alluded to where an appeal was merely teede from the Lord Chmeellor to the Lord Cd-asdlor- air entlene eiltie!,.!11; but the Lord ( leumellor often only m aced. Mr. (Yew: ES said, the Attorney-General did not Meet his TICS- Ii011 : he did not refer to 17:1SCS e the Lord (;bane; nor oely ass:sted in the same way tlt3t a Judge vim had tried a case at Nisi Prins aid. d the other Judges i,n Ponce, on a question of new trial. His question went to the ease of a Judge even volunteering to sit on an appeal from himself. when it teas pas:diritt that a suspicion of his motives might be excited.

IlsotsmaTiox OF VOTERS BILL. The clauses in this bill, which were not previously disposed of, were passed in Committee last night. The report is to be brought up on Monday.

COPYRIGHT ACT: UNIVERSITY PRIVILEGES. Mr. BUCKINGHAM, on Thursday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to repeal so notch of the Copyright Act as enjoined the gratuitous delivery of every published work to eleven of the public institutions, colleges, and libraries in the United Kingdom.

GRAND JURY L, WS. Lord Motterrn, on Thursday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the Irish Grand Jury Laws.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. On the same day, Mr. AGLIONLY ob- tained leave to introduce a bill to prevent sentence of death in eases of murder from being executed sooner than fifteen or later than twenty- seven days after the passing of the sentence.

INQUESTS AT WOOLWICH. Mr. WAKI.F.Y, on Thursday, moved for copies of the evidence given at the inquests on the bodies of the two soldiers at Woolwich who died in the hospital subsequently to flogging. Lord JOHN RUSSE1.L objected to calling for the evidence given before a court of law in cases where the necessity for such a proceeding was not made out. After a few words front Mr. Hume, Mr. WAKLEY withdrew his motion.

DOVER HARBOUR. On the motion of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, on Thursday, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the state of Dover Harbour.

GREAT • NORTHERN RAILWAY Brats This bill was thrown out on Tuesday, at the second reading, by a majority of 99 to 85.

EDINBURGII ANNUITY TAX. Mr. GILLON, on Wednesday, pre- sented a petition from Thomas Chapman, who was confined in Edin- burgh Gaol for non-payment of the Annuity-tax. He represented the hardship under which the prisoner laboured: he was old and infirm, and resisted payment of this abominable impost on conscientious grounds.

Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that the law must be enforced as long as it existed, but he should willingly vote for abolishing the tax when it came before the House in a regular way.

Mr. WALLACE presented two petitions against the tax; one from T. Russell, a Town-Councillor of Edinburgh, and the other from 695 inhabitants of Perth.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that there were difficulties, not created by Government, in the way of the settlement of this question ; but still he thought, that if both parties were reasonable, a settlement might be effected.

Sir WILLIAM RAE gave notice, that if nothing was done sooner, ha should bring the subject before the House is a fortnight. EDINBURGH POOR-RATES BILL. On Thursday, Sir JOHN CAMP- BEI:I. brought up the report of the Committee on this bill, the objeetof which is to put an end to the exemption from the payment of certain municiaal rates hitherto enjoyed by the members of the College of Justice, consisting of six hundred opulent persons. Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON and Sir GEORGE CLERK opposed the bill, on the ground that it deprived the law incorporations of Edinburgh of a pecuniary privilege which they had enjoyed for hundreds of years. Mr. ItonsaT STEcater and Mr. J. A. Mumma- (the Lord Advocate) supported the bill. Mr. JOHNSTON moved that certain amendments proposed by Sir John Campbell should be read thut day six months. The House divided, and rejected the motion of Mr. Johnston, by 108 to 77.

Tile BUDGET. Mr. SPRING RICE mentioned, on Monday, that he should be obliged to postpone his financial statement from Friday the 29th April to Friday the 6th May.