Magri anti prom/limit in tlariiament. 1. ENGLISH CHURCH REFORM.

The House of Commons assembled on Saturday, when the Dropped Orders of the Day were proceeded with, and the adjourned debate on the Established Church Bill ordered to be taken on Monday.

On that day, several petitions against the bill were presented ; and among them one from the Dissenters of Manchester, by Mr. MARE PHILLIPS ; in which the petitioners strongly protested against having a' Bishop, Dean, and Chapter, inflicted on them. The following passages are selected from the petition— ",That the parish of Manchester comprises a population of not less than 300.000 per- sons, and that the county of Lancaster contains considerably more than 1.500.000 inha- bitants; the great majority of which are Dissenters and seceders from the Church as by law established, who support their own religious institutions by voluutary contri- butions. "Thad in the county of Lancaster there are 292 churches and 531 Dissenting and other chapels, being a majority of nearly two to one in favour of the Dissenters. " That although there are about twenty churches in this large parish of Manchester. they are pi incipally maintained by their respective conaregations, like all Dissenting chapels, and few of the resident clergy receive any adequate emolument or benefit whatever out of or from the parsonage.houses, glebes. tithes. baptismal, burial, or wedding fees, except the Warden, Fellows, Chaplains. Sze. of the existing Collegiate Church, all of whom are ministrants in this one church. and three or them pluralists. That your petitioners conscientiously believe that no religious advantage can by pos- sibility accrue to the inhabitants of Manchester by inflicting ou them the residence of • a Bishop, Dean, and Chapter. • • • " That whilst the industry, wealth, intelligence, and liberal opinions of Manchester have a special claim on the favour of an enlightened Administration, your petitioners cannot withhold an expression of their most lively. fears that to plant a Bishop, Dean. and Chapter. in this important populous district would not only endanger its peace and prosperity, but tend greatly to alienate the erections of the people from his Majesty's Government. to uphold which many of your petitioners have cheerfully given much of their time, vigorous efforts, and no small proportion of their property. " That the augmentation and concentration of the political power of the clergy of this district under a Bishop will have no beneficial influence whatever on the religions and moral welfare of people not attendant on their ministrations; but, on the contrary, can tend only to revive the feuds of former tinier, and to sow the seeds or future strifes, and interrupt the trade and commerce of the town ; thus, by rallying about the new dignitary to be created all the worst Influences of religious rancour and political animo- sity, will be endangered the now happily increasing harmony which exists arming all classes of the people. " That as the members of the Collegiate Corporation. except the Warden, are self- elected. and having the patronage and right of presentation to nearly all the churches in the parish, and are in no wise under powder control, being bound together by oaths not to reveal the secrets of the Chapterhouse, your petitioners humbly suggest that all self-elected and irresponsible corporations, but more especially such as are pro- fessedly ecclesiastical (although almost if not exclusively political). are of anequated origin. unadapted to the circumstances of the times in which we live, incompatible with the progress of religious and moral improvement, injurious lo trade and commerce, and subversive of civil liberty ; and that all such monopolies ought to be dissolved."

The prayer of the petitioners therefore was,

" That there may be no new creation of a Bishop for Manchester; but, on the con- trary, that the Collegiate Corporation of Manchester may, by acts similar to those which created it, be for ever dissolved."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then moved the order of the day for the ad- journed debate on the Established Church Bill. He stated the course he intended to pursue with regard to the bills for the regulation of the Church- " It is my intention with respect to the bill relating to the Established Church and the division of sees, to move the third reading to-night. I will not now

enter into a debate on this question, but merely take occasion to repeat what I

have often said before, and what, I regret to say, has not made such an impres- sion as so notorious a fact was calculated to do,—namely, that this bill does not increase the number of Bishops, but retains the same number exactly as it was before its introduction. With respect to the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, which relates to the Deans and Chapters, and the distribution

of a great part of their revenues to the cure of souls in populous parishes and

districts, there has been, I am sorry to say, so much opposition raised to this bill, that, at the present advanced period of the session, I do not feel confident that I should successfully carry it through the House : and when I say that, I do not mean to imply that if I pressed it I should not have a majority of this House to support me; but I certainly do mean to say, that there is, from vario quarters, so much opposition made to the bill, that undoubtedly, at this advanced period of the session, we should be compelled to sacrifice a large portion of time in order to succeed in getting it through Parliament." Lord John complained of the reluctance of the Deans and Chapters to relinquish their patronage, when so much had been given up by the Crown and the Bishops- " With respect to the patronage enjoyed by the Bishops, I must remind the House of what has been a good deal overlooked,—namely, that they have given

up some most valuable patronage which was in their gift, and relinquished their

right to nominate to certain prebends and preferments, for the purpose of placing at the disposal of Government funds which might be better applied for contributing to the efficiency of the Church. I may mention one instance, on authority which cannot be doubted. The Bishop of London alone has prefer- ments in the Cathedral of St. Paul's, and sinecure preferments, to the amount of 10,0001. ; the whole of which he has expressed his willingness to relinquish_

I say, then, that such being the disposition on the part of the Crown—such being the disposition on the part of the Bishops—I do think that those prefer

the accomplishment of their object to the advancement of the general good the the Church, who interpose the objection of a vested right is patronage to the way of a measure of Church reform."

The Dissenters were also opposed to this bill, because they consi- dered that a portion of the Cathedral revenues should be pplied to the extinction of Chureh-rates: but until it should appear that the Church itself had no need for these revenues,—and Lord John si as persuaded that they were all required,—he would not agree to any such application of them. Lord John complained of the opposition of Mr. Hume, and other Members who generally supported Ministers, to the Esta- blished Church Bill. On a former occasion, Mr. Hume aid Dr. Lush- ington both expressed approbation of the proposed measures ; and he was surprised that now, when the session was so much more advanced, they should advocate postponement on the ground that further inquiry and consideration were necessary. He would refer to the bills for the Re- gistration of Births and Marriages as a proof of' his limit ty to relieve the Dissenters from injustice and annoyance ; and he hoped that it would be in the power of Government to effect a satisfactory settlement of the question of Church-rates. In conclusion, he stated that he had de. terrnined to persevere in attempting to carry the Established Church Bill and the Pluralities Bill ; but should postpone the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, and the Church Discipline Bill.

Mr. Hume said, that when Lord John Russell expressed his wish to provide for the wants of the Church, he ought to have stated what these wants were— It was because Ire wished to see the Church properly provided for, that he was unwilling that Parliament should give itis sanction to a measure vi hich provided that 148,400/. should be divided amongst twenty-six individuals; that 2,036 persons should only have 141,0001. ; and that five Bishops' sons aid sons-in-law should be allowed as much as three hundred curates.' Therefore 1:e thought the noble lord unreasonable in asking the assent of the House to a measure so une- qual in its operation. The noble lord had said that be approved of this bill : but what he had said on the 10th of March, when the Second Report was pre- sented, was on the supposition that the Bishops' Bill was only one °fa series of real measures of reform, in which the case of the poorer clergy was to be dealt with. He never had approved of the bill. Ile candidly acknowledged that he thought it desirable to abstain from all vexatious opposition to his Majesty's Ministers on this question, which might have the effect of transferring the Government to other hands ; a result which he looked upon as dangerous to the best interests of the country, and particularly with respect to the policy to be pursued to- wards Ireland. He considered It right, however, to record his opinion on this subject, and would leave others to pursue whatever course they chose.

Mr. LENNARD wished a commission to be appointed to ascertain what the value of Church property really was.

Mr. CHARLES BULLER explained, that the opposition to the bill had been postponed to a late stage at Lord John Russell's express request; and that he had therefore ample notice of the opposition he had expe- rienced, and had no right to complain of the period at which it was urged. Lord John made a great deal too much of the circumstance that the bill had passed the first and second readings without a division.

Sir ROBERT PEEL inquired what modifications it was intended to make in the bill?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he had only one alteration to propose, and that referred to the constitution of the Commission— Be shotill propose to constitute it of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the 'Bishop of London, and certain others to he hereafter named: the two last-named Bishops, and the three last-named laymen, to be removable at pleasure.

Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, Afr. Eivart.r, Mr. GROTE, Mr. BAINES, Dr. BOWRING, Mr. BROTHERTON, and Mr. TOOKE, spoke against the bill.

Lord Howlett defended the bill. He allowed that the measure did not go so far us was desirable ; but it had the concurrence of the Church,

which was a great point to gain, and would effect considerable re- forms— He confessed, therefore, that he was surprised at the acrimony with which it had recently been treated in some quarters. The first and second readings of the bill had been agreed to without opposition. It was true that, as Mr. Boller had said, there had been a division on going into the Committee, upon a motion for an address to the King. praying that measures might he taken for obtaining a more extensive reform ; but on that motion, as well as on the only two occa • Mona in which divisions took place in the Committee, the majority in favour of the bill was large. On a similar motion fur an address to the King, made on the report, only 44 divided in favour of the motion, which was negatived by a majority of 86.

Mr. HARVEY said, that certain Members on his side of the House acted inconsistently, and rather suspiciously. The sole argument in

favour of the bill was, that if you rejected it, the present excellent Government would tumble to pieces— This appeared now to be almost the sole argument on which the House was asked to give its consent to the measure. But if on every occasion when there happened to be a difference of opinion between the Government and some of its usual supporters, they were to be threatened with the retirement of the former, it was impossible to see where such a mode of argument would cease, or on 'what trilling and insignificant occasions it might be resorted to. It was not his intention to enter into an examination of the details of the bill ; but whv, he would ask, as the principle of Appropriation had been so stoutly and strongly contended for in the case of the Church in Ireland, why should not the same principle be insisted upon as respected the Church in England? To call this a measure of Church Reform, was an insult to the understanding of reasonable men ; and if it were carried, it would prove a grievous disappointment to the expectations of the public.

Dr. Lestitstorosr denied that there was any inconsistency in deelin. Ing to harass the Government with vexatious opposition ; but, he added, of all men, the charge of inconsistency came worst from Mr. Harvey, who had deserted their ranks on the great question of the pacification of Ireland.

Mr. Hurr opposed the bill ; and Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS said be only took it as an initial measure. The House divided : for the third reading, 175; against it, 44; ma- jority, 131.

Some further conversation took13 lace ; in the course of which, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that t le incomes • mes of the Bishops would be limited to the sums named in the bill.

The bill was then passed. It was taken to the Lords on Tuesday (we believe) and read a first

time. Last night, Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading. He said tion thtoatthte number of bill had_ been misrepresented. There was to be no addi-

Bishops, as had been generally supposed. Then as to the Bishops' incomes, it was not taken into account that there was already an established system, but matter which was old was made the foundation of accusation against the new system. He denied that 15,001,1. a year was too much for an Archbishop, considering the station he was expected to fill. Their Lordships well knew that 15,000/. a year would not enable a man to live in princely luxury, though it would afford him the means of comfort, and of exercising a decent hospitality. There were always persons of considerable pro- perty willing to bold the high offices in the State, and lawyers had generally amassed a fortune before they were raised to the bench; but a clergyman generally came to his bishopric a poor man, and it was unfair to compare the case of Bishops with those of Judges or the principal officers of State. Then, were they prepared to alter the whole nature of the Establishment ? If not, they ought not to cut down the incomes of the Spiritual Peers. Lord Melbourne also de- fended the composition of the Commission.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, the bill did not go far enowth ; but he would not oppose the motion, as he considered that the measure was not to be a final one.

The Bishop of EXETER approved of the principle, but objected to some of the details of the bill.

The Bishop of HEREFORD was dissatisfied with the bill. He felt that it would strike a blow at the Church from which it never could recover.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was gratified at the unanimous ap- probation of the principle of the measure. The bill was then read a second time.

it THE IRISH CHURCH.

The House of Peers went into Committee on the Irish Tithe Bill on Monday.

Clauses 1st and 2d were agreed to.

Lord LYNDHURST moved to amend clause 3d, which provides for the conversion of tithe compositions into rent-charges at the rate of 70 per cent., by altering the rate of conversion to 75 per cent.

Lord HATHERTON, the Marquis Of CLANRTCARDE, Lord Pr .,NRET, and Lord MELBOURNE, opposed the amendment. It was suppeted by the Duke of IVELLitscroN, the Earl of Rirosr, Lord WIIARNCLIFFE, the Marquis Of WESTMEATH, arid the Earl of WINCHTLSEA, —who could see no reason why 30 per cent. should be deducted this year from the incomes of incumbents, when last year only 25 per cent. was con- sidered a sufficient deduction.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that the principle of' the calcu- lation which led Ministers to adopt 30 per cent. as the fair rate of con- version, was this. Tithes, under the most energetic Orange Govern- ments, had never been worth more than sixteen years' purchase : there- fore 16001. would redeem tithes worth 1001. a year. The interest of 16001. at 44 per cent. would be 701. ; and thus the titheowner would get the full value of his tithe if he were secured in the receipt of 70 per cent. of its nominal value.

Lord LYNDHUBST'S amendment was carried, by 126 to 48.

Clauses 4th, 5th, Gth, 8th, 9th, and 10th were agreed to, with verbal amendments. Clause 7th was struck out.

Lord LYNDHURST moved to amend clause 11th, which provides for the reopening of the tithe compositions, by limiting its operation to 'the compositions effected under Lord Stanley's Act, leaving those made under Mr. Goulburn's prior Act untouched. • Lord MELBOURNE was opposed to the alteration, but would not divide the Committee; and the amendment was carried.

The next clause on which debate arose was the 50th, which raised the principle of appropriation.

Lord LYNDHURST moved to strike out this clause, with a view to the insertion of a clause which he had prepared, providing for the better distribution of the revenues of the Irish Church, but excluding the application of airy portion of them to the education of the people. Lord Lyndhurst supported his motion in a long speech; the aim of which was to prove that there was no surplus of Church revenue beyond the necessary wants of the Church, and that therefore it was folly to postpone the settlement of the tithe question under the pretence that such a surplus existed.

Lord MELBOURNE maintained the correctness of the calculations which showed a surplus of 75,000/. ; and said, that as the amendment would destroy the vital principle of the bill, to which he stood pledged, if it were carried he would wash his hands of the whole measure, and let it drop. He was supported by a decided majority of the House of Commons : when that majority dcserted him, he would instantly resign his place as head of the Government, but not before.

The Earl of MANSFIELD, the Archbishop of ARMAGH, and the Bishop of Exersa, supported the amendment. Catholic Members of of Parliament who voted for the Appropriation clause, the Bishop flatly accused of perjury. Lord HOLLAND denied the Bishop's right to judge the consciences of others. Lord HATHERTON and the Mar- quis of CLANRICARDE strongly supported the clause as it stood; and the Committee divided— For the clause 47

Against it 138 Tory majority 91 The remaining clauses of the bill were disposed of in a very summary manner.

The report was brought up on Tuesday ; when Lori LYNDHURST asked Lord Melbourne, on what day the bill would be read a third time? Lord MELBOURNE replied, on any day which suited Lord Lynd- hurst's convenience. Lord LYNDHURST named Thursday.

On Thursday, therefore, on the motion of Lord LYNDHURST, the bill was read a third time, and passed, without a single remark from any Peer.

It was taken to the House of Commons ; where, on the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the amendments were read a first time, ordered tAoubgeuspt.rinted, and to be taken into consideration on Tuesday the 2d

3. PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.

On Wednesday, the Prisoners Counsel Bill was received from the Lords, with amendments.

Mr. EWART said, that the most material part of the measure—that which allowed the prisoner the right of reply by his counsel—was struck out by the Lords. The amendment of the Lords was contrary to justice, reason, and common sense ; and be would rather abandon the bill than take it with so injurious an alteration. He moved that the bill be rejected.

Mr. CHARLES BULLF.R considered the amendment detrimental to the measure, but thought the Lords deserving of credit for returning the bill in its present shape.

Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK mentioned the great attention be had paid to the subject ; and was of opinion that it would he better to leave the law as it stood, than accept the bill with the Lords amendments.

Mr. O'CONNELL agreed with Sir Frederick Pollock ; though the bill contained much that would be of great service, in Ireland espe- cially.

Mr. POULTER was decidedly opposed to the bill.

Mr. MACLEAN said, that his opinion against the measure had been very much shaken ; and he desired time to consider the amendment, which he hoped would not be at once rejected.

Mr. HARDY was in favour of the amendment. If the prisoner's counsel were to have the last word, the task of refuting his fallacies would be laid upon the Mr. STRUTT and Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL supported the amendment.

Lord JOHN Resser.r. moved that the bill be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to coming to some arrangement with the Peers.

Mr. EWART said. the bill had been already sufficiently considered in Committee ; and protested against the course taken by Lord John Russell.

The motion for referring the bill to a Committee was then agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.

TRINITY HARBOUR BILL.. Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY moved the second reading of the new bill—the second of the season—on Monday. The motion was supported by Mr. Witats ; and opposed by Lend Advocate MURRAY and Mr. PRINGLE; but carried, by 64 to 19. Sir ANDREW then moved that the Standing Orders be suspended, and that the bill be referred to a Select Committee the next day. Sir GEORGE CLERK, the Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. PRINGLE, opposed this motion ; and another division took place—for the motion, 76; against it, 26; majority, 50.

On Thursday, Sir A. LEITH HAY presented the report of the Com- mittee ; which recommended the withdrawal of the bill, on account of an informality— The manuscript copy of the Mil introduced into the House was different in some respects from the printed copy which was afterwards circulated, and which was referred to the Committee. Words were introduced, and others altered, and blanks were filled up, which welt. deemed informal by the Com- mittee ; and they would not allow the bill to proceed in that state ; and they there- fore agreed to report to the House that the bill should be withdtawn, and ano- ther introduced.

He moved for leave to bring in a third bill. This motion was opposed by Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, Sits JP -TES GRAHAM, SIR GEORGE CLERK, and Mr. J. A. Adulator; but carried, by 33 to 25. Sir ANDREW HAY gave notice, that be should the next day move the sus- pension of the Standing Orders, in order that the bill might be commit- ted without delay.

Last night, Sir ANDREW HAY brought in the bill, which was read a first time ; and he then moved that it be read a second time on Monday.

Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, Sir GEORGE CLERK, and Sir JAMES GRAHAM, opposed the motion. Mr. WILKS supported it. Sir AN- DREW HAY asked for the Speaker's opinion. The SPEAKER said, that as the promoters of the bill had not used proper care in their conduct of it, he could not say that this was a proper case for the indulgence of the House. Sir ANDREW HAY bowed to the decision of the chair, and withdrew the bill.

TAMPERING WITH COMMITTEES. On Monday, Mr. BENETT referred to the evidence given at the bar of the House by Mr. Cundy, relative to his conversation with Mr. Benett on the subject of the Brighton

Railway and the conduct of Sir Charles Burrell. Mr. Benett gave a flat contradiction to every statement of Cundy, item by item. On Tuesday, Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Committee of the Line projected by Cundy, in which the petitioners expressed their belief that Sir Charles Burrell had received extravagant compensation to induce him to support Stephenson's Line. Sir CHARLES BURItELL assured the House, that the compensation he was to receive was left to arbitrators to fix ; and that he had only supported Stephenson's Line because be thought it was the best." Several Members spoke in com- plimentary terms of Sir Charles Burrell's character; and Mr. HUME withdrew the petition.

THE CHARITABLE TRUSTEES BILL was recommitted on Tuesday. Mr. PRAED proposed to amend clause 3d, by givlug freemen, as well as burgesses, a right to vote in the election of Trustees. Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. HARVEY supported the motion ; which was opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and rejected, by 65 to 48. The clause which makes the Mayor Chairman of the Trustees, was objected to by Sir ROBERT PEEL; and Mr. VERNON SMITH modified it so as to allow the Trustees the right of naming their own Chair- man ; but if they could not agree within a certain time, then the Mayor to be Chairman; and the clause thus amended was agreed to, by 57 to 34. The remaining clauses and the preamble were then passed.

The report was brought up oa Thursday. Sir R. ROLFE (Solicitor- General) then moved a clause, the object of which was to secure particular funds to any charity to which they were devised, the sur- OM to go to the borough fund. Mr. CHARLTON vehemently opposed this motion, the nature of which he appeared to misapprehend. He spoke several times, though interrrupted by the Speaker, and re- peatedly called to order. He fancied that the Member for Cheshire (Mr. Stanley, we suppose) said his conduct was disgraceful, and he declared that be would make him remember it. He was assured by Mr. GORING, that the Member forCheshire had made no such remark; but he appeared to disbelieve Mr. Goring. He attacked Mr. Robert Gordon for laughing at him ; but Mr. GORDON declared that be was not laughing at Mr. Charlton. Several Members advised Mr. Charl- ton to " withdraw ;" but he persisted,—more, it would seem, to the amusement than annoyance of the House.

The Solicitor-General's clause was carried ; and after several divi- sions on minor points, the report was agreed to.

Last night, the bill was read a third time and passed.

THE POOLE CORPORATION BILL passed through the Committee on Monday, after some opposition from Mr. PRAED and Mr. Twiss. On ihursday, the bill was read a third time, by 74 to 30, and passed.

COUNTY ELECTIONS POLL BILL. On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the report on this bill was agreed to on Tuesday; after the House had been divided four times by Sir T. FREMANTLE, the Mar- quis of CHANDOS, and the Earl of LINCOLN, in opposition to clauses which were all agreed to by large majorities. Last night, after a protracted discussion, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice, last night, that he should proceed with this bill in Ccimmittee on Mon- day. He also stated that after the first appointment of a Chief and ten Assistant Revising Barristers by the Crown, he should propose that the Lord Chancellor should fill up vacancies. The Right Honourable Thomas Erskine, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal, would be the Chief Barrister.

TILE POST-OFFICE BILL went through the Committee last night. In the course of the discussion, Lord LOWTHER strongly defended the bill, as calculated to put an end to jobbing. He also said— It had been alleged of the present Administration, that they showed a dispo- sition to create Commissions on every possible occasion; but, so far from this being the fact, he was prepared to prove, that under their arrangements several bad been suppressed ; and, indeed, he would go so far as to say, that if a com- parison were instituted between them and their predecessors, the balance would be found much in their favour. (Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches.) DISCIPLINE OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH. Dr. BOWRING, on Tuesday,

presented a petition from Hugh Craig, a Magistrate of Kilmarnock, who had been deposed, by the authorities of the congregation with which he was connected, from the office of Ruling Elder in the Church of Scotland, to which be was appointed in 1820, in consequence of having presided over a meeting in March 1834, to petition for the sever- ance of the Church from the State. He had appealed from this de- cision, which was announced to him within twenty-four hours after the commission of the alleged offence, to the Presbytery of Irvine and the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, and the General Assemblies of 1834 and 1835; but his sentence of deposition had been confirmed, because he refused to retract certain expressions attributed to him, but which he never used. As he conceived that the Ecclesiastical tribunals had exceeded their power, be prayed the House of Commons for redress. Sir GEORGE CLERK said, that the petition could not be received ; as the House had no power to interfere in the internal affairs of the Church. He denied its authority altogether in matters relating to the discipline of the Church of Scotland. Mr. HUME said, that the Church of Scotland was in a different situ- ation from that of the Catholic Church. The Scottish Church had begged money from the House ; and they voted annually about 15,0001. for its support. -The King also presided, by his Commissioner, in the General Assembly. He considered that the House was entitled to prevent the repetition of such ill-treatment as that under which the petitioner suffered. Mr. Fox MAULE and Mr. PRINGLE denied the right of the House to interfere with the regulation of the Scotch Church. Dr. Bowarsc said, that the petitioner was deprived of his Eldership for performing a civil duty as a Magistrate. The Church could not legally punish any person for his conduct in civil matters. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON considered it impossible that the peti- tioner could be retained in his spiritual office of Elder after the con- duct of which be had been guilty. He had concurred in the advocacy of the separation of the Church from the State. Having thus tried to destroy the Church, he could not with safety be retained as one of its officers.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the argument against the reception of the pe- tition was this—that the alleged offence, being a spiritual one, the House could not interfere. If the Church were to be separated from the State, then he could see the force of the argument. His friend Bailie Craig bad done no more than advocate that separation which was alleged to exist— He would put the case of a clergyman who was deprived of his benefice for being a Tory. Was there any thing spiritual in being a Tory ? he thought the least in the world ; and yet, according to that doctrine, he could be deprived of his benefice and punished for being a Tory. It was alwa) s the case when a spiritual court took up a temporal case, they let in the House to jurisdiction. What was the question at issue? The petitioner presided as a Magistrate over a public meeting which was held by his townsmen ; and for so doing lie

i was displaced from a situation of honour in his church. Why, upon the same principle, every signer of a petition to that House would suffer the same punish- ment if it was upon the same subject. There being such monstrous proposi- tions brought forward, be should most certainly vote for the laying of the peti- tion on the table ; though no person was more convinced than he was that the House ought not to interfere in spiritual matters.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, the King was prevented by hisCoronation Oath from interfering in any thing connected with the government of the Scottish Church. It would be hard indeed, if the House should interfere to deprive the Scottish Church of that independence for which the Scottish people had fought, bled, and conquered.

Mr. SPRING RICE could not allow the right of the Scottish Church to misapply their spiritual functions for the purpose of inflicting a temporal wrong. In the present case, however, he admitted that the House should not interfere. It was the habit of? the House to receive petitions which could lead to no result. Mr, Warburton had presented

one against the decision of a court of law ; the petition presented by Sergeant Jackson from Dr. Mulholland was analogous to the one then under consideration ; and as the language of Bailie Craig was respect- ful, he would vote to receive Ins petition if the motion was pressed; but he advised Dr. Bowring not to press it.

Mr. CLAY hoped Dr. Bowring would not withdraw it. But, after a few words from Mr. GOULBURN,

Dr. Bowarxe did withdraw the petition ; as the question of juris. diction would remain undecided by so doing.

THE New POOR-LAW. Mr. WALTER presented a petition from Petworth, on Wednesday, complaining of the operation of the new Poor-law, and especially the regulation forbidding out-door relief to labourers. He persisted in making a speech on the subject, though repeatedly interrupted by the Speaker. Mr. Waesev and Major BEAUCLERK thought the House ought to hear Mr. Walter. But,

after a desultory conversation, it was agreed that the subject should be discusssed on Monday.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. On the motion of Lord JOHN Rus- tins, who said that there would be no time to proceed with it this

session, the Poor-law Amendment Bill was ordered, on Thursday, to be read a second time that day three months.

GREEK LOAN BILL. The House went into Committee on this bill, on Thursday ; when Lord PALMERSTON moved the following resolu- tion- " That his Majesty be authorized to guarantee one portion of the last instal inent of the loan to be contracted fur by the King of Greece, in pursuance of the convention relating thereto ; and that provision be made out of the Consoli- dated fund of Great Britain and Ireland for the payment and interest of the sinking fund."

He explained the reasons for applying to Parliament in this instance ; which were briefly as follow. England, France, and Russia, had agreed to guarantee a loan of sixty millions of francs fur the use of KingOtho's Government ; the money to be paid in three instalments, and to be ap- plied to purposes of revenue. Forty millions of francs had been paid over, but not strictly applied according to the terms of the treaty, nearly eleven millions having been given to Turkey as the purchase-money of a piece of territory. On this ground Russia refused to guarantee her portion of the third instalment ; which was urgently wanted by theGreek Government ; and Lord Palmerston did not think that England could honourably back out of the engagement, or that it would be politic in her to do so. He therefore asked Parliament to sanction the advance of the money; the interest of which would only be about 12,000/., and which

interest, from the state of the Greek revenue, would certainly be paid by the Government of Greece. Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. Hume, Lord DUDLEY STUART, Mr. BARLOW Hor, Major BEAUCLERK, Mr. T. BARING, Dr. BOwRING, Mr. Pevsie, and Mr. G. F. YOUNG, opposed the motion ; on the ground that the

Government of Greece had not acted with good faith towards this country, and that to supply it with money would be playing the game of

Russia. Mr. Got:stens' supported Lord Palmerston. Mr. ROBIN. SON moved an amendment- " That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the treaty of 1832 not having been fulfilled on the part or Greece, is sirUwlly cancelled; and that it is not expedient to guarantee any portion of the third instalment, without the concurrence ,of all the parties to that treaty."

A division took place : for Lord Palmerston's resolution, 81; for Mr. Robinson's, 40. The resolution of Lord Palmerston was then reported, and the bill ordered to be printed.

STAMP-DUTIFS BILL. On the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, this bill was read a third time on Monday. Mr. Rice then brought up a clause to compel every newspaper to use a distinctive die; which was agreed to. Mr. WALTER strongly disapproved of several of the pro- visions of the bill, especially that which rendered it necessary for every proprietor of a newspaper to register his name at the Stamp-Office. It was some consolation to know, that if the bill passed the House of Commons, it would not pass the Lords. Mr. Rice said, that he had that morning seen Mr. Walter's observations in print (alluding to a

Times leader on the subject, which Mr. Walter's present speech re- sembled) ; and he must tell him, it was not very regular to declare

within these walls, that a measure passed by the Commons would be rejected by the Lords— It would require all the constitutional knowledge possessed by Mr. Walter, whether acquired in former days or during his attendance in Parliament, to reconcile with the usages of that House the statement that a money bill, a bill for the repeal of taxation, a bill for the relief of the people, although it might pass in the House of Commons was not likely to pass elsewhere. With respect to the clause to which Mr. Walter especially alluded, it had been dis- cussed in the Committee on two days, and no objection was made to it. It was felt that there was great responsibility attached to the conduct of a public newspaper, and that those who gave to the public the species of information which it contained had no right to hide themselves from the public view. There was not the slightest intention to curb the expression of opinion. That would remain as free as ever ; and surely, to let it be known from whom that opinion proceeded, would not, if it were doubtful, make it either right or wrong. Mr. WALLACE moved to omit the clause relative to the registration of proprietors.

The House rejected the motion, by 58 to 15.

On the question that the bill " do now pass," Mr. WAKLEY charged Mr. Rice with breach of faith, in not repealing the objectionable parts of former laws against the press; and divided the House against the bill; but was defeated, by 55 to 7; and the bill was passed.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES. The report on the Registration of Births Bill was received by the Lords on Thursday, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday. On the motion of the Bishop of EXETER, the Marriage Bill was recommitted ; and the Bishop moved, as an amendment to clause

20th, that the following declaration should be made by the parties about to be married, in lieu of that required by the Bill-

" I, N, declare, in the presence of Almighty God, and before these witnesses, that I take M. to be my lawful life, to live with her according to God's holy or- dinance ; and, in the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, I solemnly promise to be to her a loving and faithful husband, and to keep to her during • e.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH and Lord MELBOURNE strongly opposed the amendment; as destroying a principal object of the bill, which

was to imil.e marriage a eisil tontlact for those who objected to its being a religious contract.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY could not consent to marriage being in no respect a religious ceremony ; and supported the amend- meet.

The House then divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out be retained : contents, 15; non-contents, 19.

The Bishop of EXETER then moved the insertion of the declaration.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, Lord ELLENBOROUGH, and Lord MEL- BOURNE, opposed the motion. Lord MELBOURNE said, that the decla- ration was entirely inconsistent with the principle of the bill ; and lie hoped that the point would not be decided in so thin a House. He moved that the House resume. Contents, 15; non-contents. 17.

The amendment was then agreed to; arid the bill was ordered to be reported on Monday.

EDINBURGH POOR-RATE BILL. On Tuesday, Lord HATHERTON moved the second reading of this bill ; whose object is to subject the Members of the College of Justice,—the Judges, Advocates, and Writers to the Signet,—to the payment of poor-rates, from which they have been exempted since 1542. Lord MINTO supported the bill. It Was strongly opposed by the Earls of HADDINGTON and Hussmt, as an invasion of vested rights, and an unjustifiable attempt at spoliation. Lord HADDINGTON moved that the bill be read a second time that day three ne ".s. This was agreed to without a division.

STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Some conversation respect- ing this bill occurred on Wednesday. Lord Aslistneroe intimated his doubts whether disfranchisement would be the proper course to take. Lord CLANRICARDE said, that lie intended to adhere to the plan of dis- franchisement ; but if the measure were postponed, he hoped it would be taken up next session with the determination to do something.

Last night, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second reading of the bill. Ile went into a detail of the evidence to prove the exten- sive and habitual corruption of the voters.

Lord ASHBURTON objected to disfranchise the whole borough ; but they had a correct list of the persons who bad been bribed, and they ought, by a new bill, to be incapacitated &cm voting at subsequent elections.

The Loan CHANCELLOR could not agree to disfranchise the whole borough ; but thought that some strong measure was required.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the bill might be read a second time, and then they might see whether the modifications proposed could not be made in it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the bill could not be altered so as to make it one for disfranchising individuals by name.

Lord MELBOURNE could not support the second reading ; but he had no wish to spare the delinquents, and would vote for another measure.

The House divided : for the second reading, 4; against it, 55.

The Marquis of CLANitICAUDE immediately brought in a bill to disfranchise the burgesses of Stafford. It was read a first lilac ; to be read a second time on Tuesday.