Orbatrg nub' PrarrOingl in Vadiamtnt.

1. THE REFORM BILL. The Reform Bill was carried up to the Lords on Monday, by Lord Joni.; RUSSELL and Lord ALTHORP, ac- companied by a great number of members. The House of Lords was more than ordinarily full, especially on the Opposition benches.

The first reading of the Bill having been moved and agreed to, Earl "'GREY rose to propose that the second reading should be taken on Thursday the .5th April.

Earl HARROWBY announced his intention to vote for the second -reading ; and stated the reasons that induced him. Instead of popu- lation alone, the principle of the new Bill combined population with property and taxation ; the amount of disfranchisement in Schedule B had been considerably reduced ; the privileges of freemen of incorpora- tions were perpetuated ; twenty-one members were allowed to England more than by the former Bill ; an intended improvement was indicated in regard to enfranchised towns, in appointing the Mayors returning officers, and in the expectation held out that charters would be granted to such as at present had none. For all these reasons, he would vote for the second reading of the present Bill ; not, however, retracting any of the sentiments which he expressed in respect to the former— He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, in order to see whether such -additional alterations might not be made in the Committee, as would enable him finally to vote for its passing into a law. He would propose such amendments, or would support them if proposed by others. But if, after all, he should find it impossible to introduce such amendments as in his opinion would render the Bill one which ought to pass into a law, he should still have an opportunity of .opposing it.

After repeating and enforcing this consideration, that if the amend- ments in Committee were not considered satisfactory, the House could still reject the entire Bill on the third reading, he adverted to the sen- timents of the people on the subject— He had opposed the Bill of last year, in the hopes that the arguments which had been used against the measure, and the additional time which would be al- lowed for consideration, would have had the influence to produce a very import- ant change in the general sentiments of the community; but he was compelled to confess that he had been disappointed, and that no such change had taken place. In the public feeling and sentiments generally, whether right or wrong, no material change had manifested itself, as far as lie could observe. He thought that the feeling was wrong; but the opinion did certainly appear to him to exist :generally in the community, that a change in the state of the representation was -called for. He, and those who concurred with him, objected to the whole Bill; but still they thought it better to make some concession to public opinion, and -to the declared sense of a large majority of the other House, than to risk the consequences that might result from a continued and decided opposition to all .change.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, he would not again oppose the second :reading of a Bill which had received the approbation of so large a .majority of the Commons— He would vote for the second reading in the hope that the Bill might be :brought into such a shape as to render it fitting to pass into a law, that the question might at last be settled. But still his opinion was, that the Bill as it now stood, ought not to pass into a law. It ought not to pass without much alteration.

He thought it ought to be allowed to go into Committee, in order -that they might see whether such alterations might not be made in the Bill as would render it advisable to pass it into a law. If such were re- -fused, there still remained the third reading, when the Bill might be zejected- He would go into Committee honestly and fairly. He would not enter it with a view to mutilate the Bill—to render it absurd or inconsistent with its principle, but with the design of modifying its provisions, so that it might be safely numbered among the laws of the realm. He would repeat, that he would got, by his vote, refuse to consider in Committee the Bill brought up by the Commons, the rather as it must be apparent that there was no party in the country to justify resistance to the consideration of the measure. The Vishop of LONDON said, on the last occasion he had been ne- cessarily absent, otherwise he would probably have voted for the second reading, as he intended to vote for it now— He saw considerable causes of objection to the former Bill ; and if the present were not altogether, it was in a great measure, liberated from them. He trusted, that whatever changes might be resolved upon in Committee, they would not extend to such a degree as to render it probable that they would be rejected by the other House of Parliament.

The Earl of CARNARVON declared his intention to oppose the se- cond reading. There were no such alterations in the Bill as could in- duce him to support it : lie would pursue that course which he consi- dered most compatible with the dignity and character of the House.

Earl GREY expressed a hope that Lord Carnarvon would reconsider the subject. He alluded to the statement of the Earl of Harrowby- The alterations were neither few nor immaterial ; and he was not ashamed to confess, that in the interval of time which had elapsed between the rejection o€ the former Bill, and the introduction of the present, he, and those who acted with him, had been most anxious to obviate all such objections made to the former Bill as could be obviated without a sacrifice of the principle and the effi- ciency of the measure.

He hoped that the deliberations of their Lordships would not be such as would provoke general dissatisfaction or irritation, and bring the country into danger. He expressed his satisfaction at the declara- tion of the country of London, that he would not consent to any amend- ment that went to mutilate the Bill— When he (Earl Grey) went there, it would be with the desire to consider with the attention they deserved all the alterations that might be suggested. He would say so to the noble earl and the noble baron ; although he feared, from their speeches, that there were still great differences of opinion between him and them. But, admitting the principle of the Bill, he thought, after the second reading, they would find it impossible to stop short of the adoption of this important measure. On the subject of alterations in Committee, he would re.- peat what he had said at a late stage of the discussion on the former measure, when it was objected to him that he intended not to hear of any being proposed. He had then felt it his duty to declare before their Lordships, that he had an- nounced no such intention—that he was pledged to the great principle of the Bill, and that part of its provisions which was considered vital—those provisions, to disturb which would be as fatal to the measure as its absolute rejection; but other alterations, although they might be such as he could not assent to, might be fairly examined and discussed ; and they who supported them might state their reasons in their favour, while he who opposed them would be at li- berty to adduce the reasons of his opposition. Some of those alterations might be of a nature to which he should be compelled to object in the strongest man- ner; others might be proposed boraii fide with the desire of giving effect to the great principle of the measure, by introducing improvements, and removing what might reasonably be considered objectionable. To all such he was ready to lend not only the attention which was due to any thing which might proceed from persons so respectable, but attention accompanied with the most favourable disposition to adopt their suggestions.

The Duke of WELLINGTON called the attention of the House to the declaration of Earl Grey, that although the Bill had been altered, it was meant to be as efficient, and was as efficient, as the last— This was the point which their Lordships would have to consider. The question was not, whether alterations hail been made in this part or in that part, or in many parts of the Bill which their Lordships objected to last session; but the question they had to consider was this—whether this Bill, if passed (and ac- companied, let it be recollected, with the other bills at present inthe other House of Parliament), would afford to the country a prospect of having a Government under which the country could go on—under which it waspracticable that this or any other country could be governed, or which, if practicable, would not be pernicious.

The Duke remarked, that the principle of the Bill was not Reform, but disfranchisement and enfranchisement— The total alteration of the representation of this country, coupled with an al- teration of the representation of Scotland, amounting there to a complete revo- lution, and the overthrow in Ireland of all the measures which were adopted in that country three years ago,—these, and not Reform, were what their Lord- ships must consider as the principle of this Bill.

He expressed his regret at the determination come to by Lords Har- rowby and Wharncliffe-

All he could say was, that he most certainly differed from them; and he would manifest the difference of opinion on the question of the second reading of the Bill.

A brief conversation took place last night on the subject of the time fixed for the second reading. Lord WHARNCLIFFE mentioned that several Peers were engaged with the duties of the quarter-sessions ; and that Thursday was an inconvenient day, as it might possibly cause the debate to be prolonged into the following week. On these grounds he requested Ministers to postpone the second reading of the Bill till. Monday the 9th. Earl GREY said, decidedly opposed as he was to unnecessary delay, he would not object to a postponement of two or three days in order to meet the convenience of the House. He hoped, however, the circum- stance would be considered in the future stages; and that the interval between the second reading and the Committee would be shortened cor- respondingly.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed himself surprised at the readiness with which the request of Lord Wharncliffe was acceded to— He hoped it would be distinctly understood, that the postponement was not re- quested by that side of the House generally, and had been agreed to merely to suit the convenience of one or two noble lords who thought their attendance at quar- ter-sessions indispensable. He had always thought that the business of that House and of the quarter-sessions could go on at the same time; and if this were not so, it was a little surprising that the fact of next week being quar- ter-sessions week had not occurred to the noble earl when he first appointed the day for the second reading of the Bill, and had thus excited the attention and the anxiety of the empire at large. If there was a third party on that side of the House who adopted peculiar opinions, and who probably thought by this means to enhance their own importance, the noble earl would perhaps find that these— he did not know what to call them, for he would not give them the name by which they were known in the newspapers—that these persons were scarcely so important as to merit the deference he had now shown them.

The Duke of WELLINGTON objected to shortening the interval be-

tween the second reading and the Committee,—always supposing the Bill were read a second time. He dil not see any objection to the delay proposed by Lord Wharncliffe.

Earl GREY repeated, that considering how long the measure, in principle and detail, had been before the public, he thought the inter- val between the second reading and committal ought to be as short as possible.

The Earl of MALMESBURY thought the delay of small consequence, as, go into Committee when they would, they would not get out of it before Easter. He at the same time considered the second reading, from the nature of the Bill, to be impossible.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE alluded to what had fallen from Lord London- derry— With respect to what had been advanced by Lord Londonderry about seducing people to vote a particular way, he would say at once that it was not worth answering. If Lord Londonderry, in the debate that was to take place upon the question, should think limper to attack him or his motives, he cou'd assure the noble earl that he would be quite ready to reply.

Lord LONDONDERRY disclaimed all'personality; and the conversation ceased with the adoption of Lord Wharneliffe's suggestion.

2. FOREIGN POLICY. In the House of CoMmons, on Monday, on the motion for going into a Committee of Supply, Lord ELIOT en- tered into a long commentary on the foreign policy of the Ministry. He spoke of the resistance which the Dutch would oppose to the Belgian treaty, more especially the article respecting the internal navigation : the treaty must be violated in that respect, or Ministers must plunge the country into a war with the Dutch. He objected to the terms employed by Lord Palmerston in speaking of the Dutch debt, and to the distinction made between a guarantee and a surety; and hoped that it Was not meant on the distinction to found any scheme for evading the obligations to which England had fairly become a party. He next alluded to the expedition against Portugal ; which was made, he said, in violation of the municipal law in force in Europe. He described it as manned by British seamen, officered by British officers, its very marine dressed in British uniforms. He said, Don Miguel would not be the only sufferer if the expedition succeeded, for one of its objects was to hurl Ferdinand also from his throne. Lord Eliot then proceeded to comment on M. Perier's speech ; the demolition of the Belgian boundary fortresses ; and the expedition to Ancona, " the most flagrant violation of national law that ever was perpetrated." He commented at great length on this subject, and on the language of M. Wirier in respect to it. Lord Eliot did not con- clude with any question or motion ; his only object, as he stated; being to elicit from Government such information on the subject of our foreign policy as the present momentous crisis required.

Lord PALMERSTON observed on the difficulty which he naturally felt in answering where no definite question was put. To the doleful anticipations of Lord Eliot, he could only oppose the actual aspect of Europe, and that which it exhibited when the present Ministry came into office. As to the chances of war from the enforcement of the internal navigation clause of the Belgian treaty, he could see none. The Scheldt and the Rhine were declared free by the Congress of Vienna • all that was now provided for was, the free navigation of the canal that connected them. In respect of Portugal, it had given to

j England within the last four years just cause of war, not five times, but fifty times. And in what respect had England fallen short of her engagements ? Did any of those engagements call upon her to inter- fere to put down a civil war in Portugal? As to the expedition to Ancona, it had been satisfactorily explained.

Sir RICHARD VYVYAN observed, in reference to the peace which had been maintained in Europe for the last fifteen months, that by con- ceding all that an opponent asked for, peace might be at any time maintained. Portuguese ships had been seized, Belgium had been in- vaded, Ancona had been taken possession of, without remonstrance : these were the terms on which peace was maintained.

Sir ROBERT PEEL followed Lord Eliot's course in his remarks on the foreign policy of the Ministry, and at great length. He implored Lord Palmerston to retrace his steps in respect of Holland and Bel- gium; for though the question related only to a canal, it did not the less involve the independence of Holland. Sir Robert proceeded to comment on the occupation of Ancona ; on the great reforms which the Pope purposed introducing into the Legations ; he came at length to the question of Portugal. He denied that the private character of Don Miguel justified a violation in his case of any obligation which would be held binding in that of another monarch. Nations could only exist in relation to each other in one of two positions—peace or war. He saw nothing but danger if a neutral country were to interfere, in- directly, because the person at the head of the Government with which they interfered was obnoxious to the interfering party, or because of some private grievance. He understood from the noble lord, that this country was bound by the law of nations to maintain a strict neutrality.

Lord PALMERSTON—" By the law of nations, we may take any part we please; but I said, that Ministers were determined that this country should preserve a strict neutrality."

Sir ROBERT PEEL—Then, he was strongly of opinion that neutrality had not been observed by this country. Sir Robert went on to quote the refusal, in 1793, of President Jefferson to permit French cruisers to be fitted out in American ports; its foundation in the authority of Vattel ; and to the same doctrines as laid down in 1819 by Mr. Robert Grant, then Judge-Advocate. Sir Robert went into a history of the expedition and its commanders. Captain Sartorius had the command in chief; the Congress was commanded by an English naval captain under an assumed name, and so was the Asia. The expedition had in it 3,000 British subjects. Four vessels of war were fitted out in this country, winch proceeded to join a force fitted out in France. The expedition was in fact partly an English, partly a French expedition. Sir Robert quoted the conduct of Mr. Canning to the Spanish refugees, as the precedent which ought to have regulated the Government re- specting the Portuguese refugees— Mr. Canning and himself, in consequence of information which they bad re- ceived, sent for a distinguished Spanish officer, and said to him, " We have re- ceived intelligence that you are procuring a force to invade St. Donungo. If you do not desist from such preparations, you shall not remain here."

Colonel EVANS observed, that in most of the contests in South America, vessels bad been fitted out in American ports by the bellige- rent parties. In the expedition against Portugal, the munitions of war were purchased by a French merchant, and by him exported : how was the Government to interfere in such a case, merely on the belief or opinion of the purpose to which these munitions were destined ? In the same way, how could the inlistment of the men be prevented, when they went to France for the purpose of inlisting ? With respect to Holland, the paramount object of Europe was not to maintain its in- terest—the paramount object was to maintain general peace at the least possible individual sacrifice.

Mr. HOPE said, a prima fade case was made out of the expedition having been fitted in British ports.

Mr. HU3IE asked, how the Foreign Inlistmcnt Bill had been violated. The facts sworn to before the Lord Mayor constituted no such viola- tion. Sir Robert Peel was the last person who ought to interfere in such a case ; for a short time before the Inlistment Bill was passed, a large expedition had been fitted out in Cork without ever attracting his notice.

The conversation was continued by Sir F. TnI:Ncu, Sir J. Dovii, Mr. FANE, Mr. G. KNIGHT, Mr. COURTENAY, Sir R. FRANCO, Mr. BARING, -Mr. Alderman DimaesoN, and Mr. HUNT; which last gentleman contended, that Ministers had committed a clear breach of the law of nations, in permitting the expedition against Don Miguel to sail from a British port.

The question for going into Committee being put, Lord PALMERSTON replied ; and Sir RICHARD iTyvvast, Colonel E vates, Sir ROBER'V PEEL, and Lord ELIOT again addressed the House. Lord ELioT theaght the debate had effected at least one good, in eliciting the bril- liant and unanswerable speech of Sir Robert Peel. The long discus- sion of this no-question terminated with the Speaker's leaving the chair- 3. Inuit TITHES. The postponed resolutions were again brought forward on Tuesday.

Mr. WALLACE requested a week's postponement, in order that the House might be in possession of the entire report of the Committee.

Mr. STANLEY thought, after two nights' full discussion, the resolu- tions might now be passed. They were meant to meet a pressing emergency, and therefore he was anxious to have them passed. He de- nied that all the Irish members were against the resolutions ; only 27 gentlemen out of 100 had at all opposed them. Equally unfounded was the allegation that Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, had combined to op- press Ireland, in a case where there were 314 English and Irish mem- bers on one side, and only 31 on the other.

Mr. M. O'CONNELL said, in the minority of 31, there were 8 county members ; and had his father been present, there would have been 9 county members. He expressed an opinion, that the resolutions had been prematurely brought forward, in order that Mr. Stanley might have the advantage of his father's absence. At this announcement, there was a cry of " Oh !"

The right honourable gentleman might sneer at that assertion, but he begged to tell him, that his smiles and sneers were minded in Ireland ; and that tie would be made to answer for them, not in that House, but in Ireland.

The House at length got into Committee; when Mr. RUTIIVEN moved, as an amendment to the first resolution- " That the:property of the Church of Ireland required revision and modifica- tion; and that it was expedient to facilitate the future appropriation of Church revenues to the original objects,—the maintenance of the clergy, the building of churches, and the relief of the poor."

After Mr. H. GRATTAN and Mr. J. GRATTAN had spoken for, and Mr. G. KNIGHT, Mr. LEFROY, and Mr. PENHRYN for the resolution, Mr. HUNT moved that the Chairman report progress, in order to give all the Irish members an opportunity of speaking on the subject.

Mr. STANLEY said, there was no progress to report. They had sat in Committee three nights, and done nothing. Such a mode of pro- ceeding was a mere waste of time. The Committee divided : for the adjournment, 27 ; against it, 123. There was a second division on the resolution also, on a motion of Mr. HUNT: for it, 86; against it, 11.

The second and third resolutions were carried without observation.

The House went into Committee on Wednesday also on the same subject; but nothing was done. After a long conversation, in which

Mr. LAMBERT, Mr. DAWSON, Mr. C. FERGUSSON, Mr. MULLINS, Sir C. WETHERELL, and Sir E. SUGDEN took part, Mr. HUNT moved an adjournment ; to which Mr. STANLEY reluctantly consented.

Last night, the House went once more into Committee on the Irish Tithes resolutions.

Mr. HUME thought the fourth resolution, and the measures to be founded on it, pregnant with danger. He felt assured that the arrears would be cheerfully paid if the people had the assurance that tithes were to be abolished. He would therefore have the bill for that pur- pose brought in ; and he was certain no one would object to the inser- tion in it of a clause conferring extraordinary powers for the collection of arrears, provided they were not paid within a certain time.

Dr. LUSHINGTON thought the proposed measure one of great nicety. Unless very delicately and wisely managed, it might deluge Ireland with blood : at the same time, to pass over the present resistance to tithe, was to shake every law on which property rested for its security. He thought Irish landlords greatly to blame in not instructing their tenantry-that the abolition of tithes would only increase rents—

He was convinced that the Irish people at large conceived that the tax would be abolished and not transferred. ( No, no!") What then would they do with the Church property in Ireland? (" Hear!")

A Member under the Gallery (Mr. H. GRATTAN, we understood) said —" Apply it to its original use—it was to the support of the poor, the maintenance of the clergy, and keeping in repair the houses of worship." (" Hear!")

Mr. Wvsr. and Mr. Snaw said a few words,—the one in favour of the abolition of the tithe system, the other against the extinction of tithes.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, a mere change in the mode of collecting the revenue of a sinecurist and overgrown church was not what Ireland required— It was in vain for that House to attempt' put down agitation, while mil- lions of the people were called upon to support in affluence and idleness the mi- nisters of a religion to the tenets of which they could not conscientiously sub- scribe. Sir Robert Peel had asked the House whether they would yield to mob dominion ? He would ask Sir Robert whether the agitation which prevailed in Ireland on the Catholic question, and which he thought it desirable to calm by concession, was not as much mob dominion as that which now existed in that country ? The Solicitor-General for Ireland had proposed, in order to avoid any collision between the tithe proctor and the peasant, that notices respecting the enforcement of the arrears of tithes should be affixed to the doors of paro- chi:l churches in Ireland. What information would these notices, stuck in Protestant churches, convey to the Catholic peastintry? What use was there in affixing notices to churches which were not frequented ? He would not deny . that many eloquent sermons were delivered in those churches; but it was the fact, that there was unluckily no admiring congregation to listen to them. There were several parishes in Ireland, where, though the Protestant clergyman resided in his parsonage, with glebe land attached to it, there was no such thing to be found as a Protestant church. What would Mr. Cramptou du in those places ? Would he build churches on purpose to place the notices on the doors? HMI.. Crampton would take his advice, he would fix his notices on the cattle pound-gate, for that was the place best known to the unfortunate people of Ire- -land. He advised the House not to look at this question merely as an Irish question ; for it was one which, if not properly dealt with, might make the call for the repeal of the Union irresistible. The people of England supported the view of the question which had been taken by the Irish population ; and there never would be peace in Ireland, or tranquillity in England, until every abuse, both licele4astical and Parliamentary, was redressed. When he recollected the a.,istanco which had been given by the Irish people to the people of England, in their tempt to remove those corruptions at present existing in the representa- tive system, he could not turn his back upon them, now that they were endea- vouring- to correct their own Church abuses. He would not, therefore, join the unholy crusade about to be commenced in vindication of a law which was not founded on reason or justice ; and he cautioned Mr. Stanley to take care, lest, by the measure he was proposing, he should involve the country in fresh diffi- culties, occasion the effusion of much innocent blood, and lead to the downfal and disgrace of the Administration to which he belonged.

Mr. HUNT objected to paying bad Irish debts with good English money.

Mr. STANLEY said, a great many persons had resisted the payment of tithe from intimidation, who would gladly pay their arrears if the bill were once passed. No sooner did the speech in the other House reach Ireland, than, in one parish, a large tithe-payer came forward with his arrears ; observing, as the Government were now in earnest, it was needless to hold out any longer. The only object of the measure was to compel payment from solvent debtors ; no harshness was meant, or would be practised, to those that were unable to pay. It was in fact one in which mercy was as much consulted as judgment.

The Committee at length divided on an amendment proposed by Mr. Lambert at the previous sitting : for the amendment, 25 ; against it, 130.

On the original question,—Mr. PERCEVAL having asked if the reso- lution pledged the Committee to any alteration in the appropriation of tithes,—

Mr. STANLEY said, his only object was to alter a system which was oppressive to those who paid, and insecure to those who received—.

At the same time, he was free to confess, that, in his opinion, the property of the Protestant Church of Ireland ought not to be diverted to other but the Pro- testant Church purposes.

Mr. Sums recalled to Mr. Stanley's recollection the resolution of 6th May 1824, that nine of the present Ministers had voted, " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the revenues of the Church of Ireland be not more than commensurate with the duties which its ministers perform." Mr. Sheil asked, could the Lord Chan- cellor, with all his Protean powers—could the noble Paymaster of the Forces—escape from the pledge:; which they had given, without a breach of political honour?

Mr. STANLEY declined further explanation, on the plea that the proper time for explanation was not come.

To a question of Sir Roamer INGLIS,—whether, after gaining this resolution, Government were prepared to consider the rights, not merely of the incumbents, but of the Church in perpetuum—he equally refused mu answer.

Mr. GRATTAN offered an amendment, to the effect that the House would provide for the future appropriation of tithes, more in accord- ance with their original purpose and the feelings of the Irish people; but he (lid not press it.

The report was ordered to be received on Monday.

4. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Lord MORPETII, on Wednesday, pre- sented a petition from Dewsbury, in fiwour of the Government plan of education.

Mr. GORDON (Lord Roden's nominee) said the petitioners were a set of degraded Infidels and Radicals.

• Mr. STRICKLAND said, they were in every respect as respectable as the clergymen they opposed, and in number as 20 to 1.

Mr. STANLEY mentioned a fact connected with the Government plan—he had that day received a letter from the Secretary of the Edu- cation Board, which stated that 61 schools and 14,000 pupils had placed themselves under the guidance of the Board ; and there were applications from 150 other schools, containing an equal or a greater number of scholars. This was as great a progress in three months as the Kildare Street Society had made in the first four years of its establishment : of the 61 schools, 60 were established on the joint application of Catholics and Protestants, and 20 of the 60 on the application of Catholic and Protestant clergymen.

The presentation on Thursday of several petitions by Lord RODEN and others, led to a conversation of some length on this worn-out subject.

The Earl of WINCUILSEA, in presenting a petition signed by a nu- merous body of clergymen, gentlemen, and freeholders of the county of Kent, observed, that a matter of greater importance to the mainte-

mance of the Protestant Establishment than the proposed system, had not occurred in this country since the Reformation. His Lordship em- phatically iMplored the noble Earl at the head of the Government not to persevere in this new system.. : Earl GREY condemned the continuance of such discussion on a peti- tion, the question having been fully debated on motion regularly brought before the House ; and repeated that the plan had not been proposed without the maturest consideration. Indeed, the amplest sue_ cess had attended the adoption of the system in all the free-schools in Ireland.

5. PLURALITIES Btu. The Lords, on Tuesday, went into Com- mittee on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Bill. Lord Suffield offered an amendment, to prevent Bishops from holding offices in commendam. He mentioned a case of a rector with the cure of 120,000 souls being appointed to a Prebendal stall ; in consequence of which, he did not attend to his cure more than three times in the subsequent year.

The Bishop of LONDON gave the particulars of this case. The rector in question was Rector of Marylebone : he received in 1829 a Prebend of Canterbury• as Canon Residentiary, he was obliged in his turn to fill the office of Vice-Dean for a year, and was of necessity ab- sent from his parish for that time. The cure of Marylebone must not, however, be set down as including 120,000 souls; there were five churches in that parish.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY eulogized the Rector of Maryle- bone, Dr. Spry, and considered the appointment in question as equally • creditable to him and to Lord Liverpool. As to the amendment, he considered it quite irregular ; it belonged to the King's prerogative only to destroy commendams.

Lord KING expressed surprise at the Archbishop's argument—it could only be based on the principle that the King could do no Wrong. He alluded to a case of a curate of a parish who was paid by the Vicars'-Choral of Exeter, and only received .50/. a year.

The Bishop of EXETER defended the Vicars'-Choral. Oa learning the particulars, he had written to them, and they promptly agreed to raise the curate's income to 1501.

Lord KING admitted, that when the conduct of the Vicars'- Choral was exposed, it had been rectified.

Lord Haitaowav observed, that there were 2,200 places deprived of incumbents under the existing system ; the evil would be much dimi- nished by the present bill. He objected to Lord Suffield's amendment : the prohibition of pluralities to the dignitaries of the Church would be highly injurious to the Church.

Lord SUFFIELD counselled the withdrawing of the bill. A measure might hereafter be introduced which would meet the wishes of all parties.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the bill went as far as was de- sirable. In respect to Bishops, the state of the Church was most anomalous—one of them had only 5001. a year. Bishops had many heavy expenses consequent on their situations ; they were obliged to maintain an appearance in the world : in some eases it was impossible to provide for them without commendams.

Some further conversation took place ; after which, several of the clauses were agreed to.

Lord KING and others objected to the clause which provides that separate parishes held by the same clergyman must be within thirty miles of each other. Lord King thought they ought to be contiguous. He objected to the principle of the alterations— All the alterations in the law respecting Church affairs appeared to be, to pro- vide well for the higher dignitaries of the Church, and to make their life as comfortable and easy as possible. The Legislature felt great compassion for the well-paid rectors, but seemed to care little or nothing about the poor curates; doubtless regulating its conduct according to the maxim, "de minimis non carat lex."

Lord SUFFIELD offered an amendment embodying Lord King's sug- gestion ; but afterwards withdrew it, as hopeless— More than two-thirds of his auditors were Bishops; and of the other third, not more than two or three were friends to any reform, ecclesiastical or other- wise, deserving the name.

Lord KING proposed to limit licences for holding more than one living to graduates who had been First Classmen at Oxford, or Wranglers and Optime men at Cambridge.

Lord TENTERDEN objected to this— He was one who had been fortunate enough to obtain, at a very early period of life, almost all the honours which the University of Oxford could bestow; and could take it upon him to say, after forty-six years' subsequent experience in the world, that no more uncertain—indeed worse criterion—could be selected of general intellectual competency or fitness for the office of pastor, than the cir- cumstance of a candidate's having obtained honours at the University. ("Hear,

hear!") • The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House resumed.

6. ARMY ESTIMATES. In a Committee of Supply on Wednesday, Sir JOHN HOIDIOUSE stated, that the Estimates had been so long de- layed, solely from a wish to make every practicable reduction in them. He stated the reductions seriatim. The only important one was the sum of 90,000/. for the Irish Volunteers. The whole amount of re- ductions, deducting several items of increase, amounted to 135,6081. The total charge for effective, was 3,579,373/. ; for non-effective, 2,734,952/. The forces of all ranks, in 1831, were 109,048 men ; in 1832, 109,198. In the Colonies, there was an increase of 832 men, making the total increase 982. The Army was at present within 1,336 men of its full establishment.

Sir HENRY PARNELL said, by the plans which he submitted to Go- vernment, a saving of 600,0001. would have been effected. He noticed the particulars in which a saving was proposed. He meant to bring back the Land forces to the number to which they amounted on the present Ministers' taking office—to get mid of the Waggon-train—to reduce recruiting expenses—to accommodate mess allowances to the reduction in the Wine-duty—to place the table at the Horse Guards on the same footing as that at Dublin Castle—to get rid of the Riding establishment—to reduce the expenses at the Horse Guards—to get rid of the system of Army Extraordinaries--to transfer the payment of Chelsea out-pensioners to the War-office, and to abolish the system of in-pensioners altogether. He thought, also, that considerable saving might be effected in the mode of clothing the Army, and also in its pay—which had been properly increased in 1806, on account of the change that then took place in the value of money, and would as pro- perly be reduced now that the value of money had returned to its old standard.

Lord ALTHORP observed, that there were many of the principles laid down by Sir Henry Parnell in which he fully concurred ; but unless they were worked out in a practical shape, it was impossible to concur, at once, in their application. In one particular—that of clothing—some practical persons, of whom he sought information, were of opinion that Sir Henry Parnell's plans would- lead to increased expense. On the subject of the Waggon-train, persons conversant with the matter en- tertained opinions wholly different from those of Sir Henry— As to a reduction of the Army, he begged to say, that considering the general circumstances of this country, and of the world at the time, though he and his colleagues had entertained an anxious hope up to the latest period, that they could propose such a reduction in the Land forces, they did not think they would be justified in proposing such a reduction at the present moment.

Colonel DAVIES expressed some surprise that Lord Althorp, a mem- ber of the Finance Committee, should take. so long to make up his mind to reductions which he himself had recommended. If he had a committee, he pledged himself, that instead of 600,0001. he would effect a saving of 1,000,000/. If he obtained a seat in a Reformed Parlia- ment, his first motion should be for such a committee.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, Sir Henry Parnell relied on the calcula- tions of civilians, in regard to subjects that were only properly under- stood by military men. Even the apparently simple subject of military clothing, was much more intricate and important than at first sight it might appear to be. He declared his readiness, whenever Sir Henry Parnell thought fit, to meet his plans.

Sir HENRY PARNELL observed, that there was an interest to which even that of the Army was subordinate. Sir Henry Hardinge, like other military men, thought of no interest but that of his own pro- fession.

Mr. HUME deprecated war establishments in the midst of peace : they not only perpetuated the public burdens, but they made Govern- ment too ready, because too able, to interfere on every trifling occasion with the affairs of their neighbours,—of which they had an example in Mr. Canning's wild goose chase to Portugal in 1826.

After some further conversation, Sir JOHN HOBROUSE rose to notice the observations of Sir Henry Parnell. From Sir Henry's state- ment, it might appear, that in quitting office he left behind him a regu- lar plan which his successor had only to follow : on the contrary, there was nothing but loose draughts, tables, and general calculations.

Sir HENRY PARNELL denied this— He had not left only loose and general calculations at the War-office, but a spe- cific paper, headed "Au Abstract or Statement showing the:sums voted under the principal heads of the Estimates of 1631, and the reduction proposed to be made in the Estimates to be voted in 1832." This paper was the result of eight months' continual application, and exhibited what might be done in the way of reducing the expenditure of the Army.

Ultimately the votes were agreed to without a division.

7. NAVY ESTIMATES. In Committee, on Monday, the following

votes were taken-

72,0001. for wages of men on hoard ships in ordinary ;

30,3561. for salaries in the Navy Pay Office; 20,0511. for salaries in the Scientific department; 72,2241. for salaries in the Dockyards; 457,200/. for repairs and building of vessels;

47,0001. for repairs of Dockyards.

A vote of 30,0001. intended for a new dock at Woolwich, was post-

poned. Several smaller items were agreed to without observation, and the House then resumed.

8. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. Mr. EWART obtained leave, on Tues- day, to bring in a bill to repeal the law which makes sheep-stealing, horse-stealing, cattle-stealing, and stealing in a dwelling-house without violence, capital. He noticed the anomaly of condemning a great num- ber of persons, few or none of whom it was meant to execute. In England, in 1830, the condemnations were 1,400, the executions 46; in France, during the same year, the condemnations were 92, the ex- ecutions 42. He noticed also the superior nicety of definition, in the latter country, of the vol avec cinq circonstances, and our loose definition of burglary—.

It was important that not only the sentence of the law, but the whole pres- sure of public opinion should bear down upon the criminal. But if enactments were at variance with the opinions of society, they excited an antagonist force, and checked the influence and power of the law. If this were true in all stages of society, it was especially true when society was in a disorganized state. Too severe a criminal code produced a set of men ever ready to act as the advanced- guard of anarchy and of revolution. It created a centrifugal force in society, which disturbed its balance and interrupted the harmony of its movements. He anxiously hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would assist in any amendment which was attempted; but remedial measures were not sufficient—preventive measures were indispensable. If there were any admonition which he wished to be thundered in the ears of every Legislature, it was this—" Educate your people : be not content with giving them a horror of the punishment—give them a horror of the crime also."

He concluded by a eulogy on the character of the great biographer of Lorenzo the Magnificent-

" darum et venerabile nomen

Gentibus et multum nostrm quad proderat urbi;"

whose maxim, like that of Beccaria, was that a proper system of ame- lioration should commence in education and end in prison-discipline.

Sir ROBERT PEEL seemed to think, that any such amendments as the bill contemplated would require a very extended consideration— First of all, the House must review all secondary punishments. Next, it ought to consider whether the increase of civilization had not given greater facility to the commission of crime than it had afforded means for preventing it. It ought also to consider whether the facility of escape had not increased with the pro- gress of mechanical inventions, and the rapidity of steam communication, 9. MALT DRAWBACK. Mr. H. Ross last night, on the order for the committal of this bill, moved that it be committed that day six months. He said the bill had shaken his confidence in Ministers. The drawback had put down smuggling in the Highlands of Scotland, and established 334 legal distilleries there, and the reduction proposed by the bill would ruin the legal manufacturers and restore the smugglers.

Mr. SINCLAIR seconded the amendment.

Mr. Grtaoar described the bill as injurious both to the fair trade and to the morals of Scotland. The charge of fraud, made against the Scotch distillers by the Irish distillers, had been completely disproved by the Excise. If it ever existed, its recurrence was in no respect pro- vided against by the bill. The revenue, under the change of system, might improve for the first six months, but he felt confident it would fall off ultimately.

Colonel LINDSAY took the same line of argument.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, the drawback system was an experimental one ; it was employed to put down smuggling, and was not intended to be permanent. Ministers believed that, under existing circumstances, its reduction would neither raise the price of spirits nor encourage smuggling. The measure originated in a wish to do justice to all par- ties, and not in compliance with the clamour of the Irish distillers.

After some further conversation, the House divided on Mr. Ross's amendment : for it, 36 ; against it, 74. The House then went into Committee; the clauses, with some verbal amendments, were agreed to, and the report ordered to be received to-day.

10. BUCKINGHAM PALACE. Sir F. TRENCH brought forward, on Tuesday, his plan respecting this palace. Sir Frederick proposes to set it apart for the use of the King's College and the Royal Academy, and various other purposes ; to let the garden on building-leases for villas ; to build an interim palace for the King on the site of Marlbo- rough House, twice as big as York House, and to cost twice as much, and no more ; and to erect, at leisure, a proper and splendid palace out of the remainder of the saving to be effected by the appropriation of Buckingham Palace. The saving, Sir Frederick calculates, according to one plan, at 1,769,000/. ; according to another, at 857,750/. ; or, de- ducting 160,0001. for the interim palace, 1,609,0001. in the one way, and 697,7501. in the other.

Lord DUNCANNON observed, that a Committee of the House had already reported on the subject of the Palace ; and a bill for appropri- ating 75,0001. to complete it had been ordered to be brought in. The buildings were at present in progress. Under such circumstances, he thought any discussion of Sir Frederick's scheme uncalled for.

Mr. GORDON observed, as one of the Committee, that the prima facie probability of Sir Frederick's plan was such that the Committee did not consider it worth while to examine it. If he could get any indi- vidual or company of individuals to offer 400,0001. for the house as it stood, no doubt the Government would gladly part with it.

The plan of Sir Frederick, after some further conversation, was al- lowed to drop.