Mantel an Promerino in Pediment.

1. IRISH CHURCH REFORM.

There was an unusually large attendance of Members of the House of Commons on Tuesday evening, when Mr. WARD brought forward bis motion on the subject of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had two motions on the Order-book, which he withdrew, in order to make way for the more interesting and important one of Mr. Ward ; who was therefore called upon by the Speaker, and rose to address the House.

Mr. WARD commenced by assuring the House, that he had not taken up the subject without a due consideration of the magnitude of the principle involved in it. He entirely concurred in the observation of Mr. Stanley, made two years ago, that "the question as to the maintenance of the connexion which in all Christian countries the Legislature has thought fit to establish between itself and the religion of the State, ought not to be raised without deliberate consideration : and on the part of Government, the plea of imperative necessity ought to be made out to warrant interference.* Agreeing with every word of this, the question he now asked was, whether this most imperative ne.

cessity had not arisen, as regards Ireland ? And whether the House could reject the accumulated evidence on this subject, or admitting it to be true, could refuse to apply the remedy which the Constitution had placed in its hands ? This was the case be had to make out ; and if

he failed in doing so, the House would be justified in rejecting his resolution. Mr. Ward then explained, that he had altered the form of

his motion, and separated the principle from the details of his measure,

in compliance with the suggestion of the very highest authority, 011 such subjects (the Speaker). He did not think be should be held to have acted unfairly in adopting such a course. He was not wedded to his own plan, but would support any fairer or more equitable mode of car- rying the principle of his resolution into operation.

He would now proceed to prove the imperious necessity of making a great change in the Protestant Church of Ireland. He did not wish to inflict long quotations on the House ; but it was essential to prove,

that some of the wisest and greatest statesmen always sought the cause of disturbances in Ireland in religious rather than political wrongs. He quoted passages from the writings of Sir James Mackintosh, and

and the speeches of Lord Charlemont, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Canning, in which this opinion was maintained. Lord Charlemont bad declared

that Whiteboyism was to be ascribed entirely to tithes. : Mr. Pitt had agreed with Mr. Fox on this one important subject. In a speech delivered by Mr. Pitt on the 21st of April 1800, the following passages Av ere to he found.

" I shall only say this upon so interesting a subject, that the prosperity of the Church of Ireland never can be permanent, unless it be a part of the Union to leave, as a guard, power to the United Parliament to make some provision on this subject beyond any act of their own that can now be agreed upon." " It may be expedient to leave to Parliament an opportunity of considering what may be fit to be done for his Majesty's Catholic subjects, without seeking, at present, any rule to govern the Protestant Establishment, or making any provision upon that subject. '

This, Mr. 1Vard maintained, was true political foresight ; and the experience of thirty years had only given fresh cause to deplore, that the advice had not been sooner followed. In fact, the Union with Ireland had never been completed. The interests of the two countries had never been identified. The Protestant Church had been the con- tinual and insurmountable bar to kindly approximation : that bar it was our interest as well as duty to remove.

Would any man say, that if Mr. Pitt's advice as to the Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy had been acted upon in 1801, the question of repeal would have been mooted in 1834? He did not believe it possible. Those who agi- tated the question here and elsewhere (elsewhere at least, for here it had not been dwelt upon with the weight he should give to the point), found it inva- riably necessary to connect the question of repeal with the claims of the Roman Catholics against the Irish Church. Half the petitions upon the table were framed upon that model; and if that objection were once removed, he believed that the great power of the word " Repeal" would be for ever at an end. Coining to more modern times, the entrance of the subject into Irish, imagina- tions he would not say, but into Irish minds, because they felt that they had justice on their side, was connected with the unwillingness of the Roman Ca- tholidto pay for a Church in the doctrines of which they did not believe.

Sir John Newport had told the House in 1822, that "the tithe sys- tem could not be continued, unless it was determined to entail eternal misery and disquiet on Ireland." When the extreme danger and delicacy of the topic was urged, Mr. Spring Rice replied, " There is one thing more dangerous than discussion, and that is despair; and that "tithes were the last drop in the full cup of Irish suffering." Sir Henry Parnell attributed the distress of Ireland "to political excitement arising out of religious wrong." No one had better described the effect of the tithe system than Mr. Stanley, who, Mr. Ward regretted exceedingly to find, was not in his place. He regretted this circumstance more espe- cially, as much of his argument was founded on language of Mr. Stanley, and the line of policy he had pursued. However, the House, he hoped, would do him the justice to believe, that if be did not forego the arguments he had intended to use in consequence of Mr. Stanley's absence, he would not on that account make use of any which he would not have urged had he been in his place. [The House responded by a general cheer to Mr. Ward's anxiety to have this matter clearly under- stood.] In the year 1832, Mr. Stanley had described the resistance to tithes as universal, among the Protestants of the North as well as the Catholics of the South ; and the remedy he proposed was commutation. But commutation would not do. It was not enough without a new ap- propriation. The results of Mr. Stanley's measure had proved this in the clearest manner. He had the resources of the empire at his command. The House reposed unlimited confidence in him—he had men, arms, money, Tithe-bills, Coercion-bills—nothing was refused him ; and what was the result? Was Ireland tranquil ?—was property in Ireland secure? Mr. Stanley made the Crown the grand Receiver- General for the Church: he thought he could settle the question at once by making the Crown the creditor. But even then, Sir Henry Parnell told him, that his system of advances and repayments was imprac- ticable. Sir Henry was "convinced that the means by which that ob- ject was to be effected would not succeed. They had the most distinct proof in the evidence given before the Committee that they could not succeed. To his own knowledge that evidence was correct." In this opinion almost every Irish Member—not professional agitators, but men of judgment, patriotism, and influence—had entirely concurred. The Solicitor-General, indeed, (Mr. Crampton)—who, by the way, had no seat in the House at present—indulged in a too fond dream, and prophesied that combination would give way ; that though the arm of the Church was weak, the arm of the Law would be found to be strong' that conspiracy would melt away before it, "like snow before the summer's sun." It was dangerous for a lawyer to indulge in poetry. There never perhaps was a case in which all these bright visions had so withered away. All that was done, was to collect 12,0001. at the ex- pense of 26,0001. Mr. Ward then adverted to the large military and police force kept up in Ireland for the sake of collecting tithes ; de- grading the gallant officers and soldiers of the army, by compelling them to perform the duties of tithe-proctors. In 1833-4, the cost of the Army in Ireland, which varied from 19,000 to 23,000 men, was

1,025,621/. ; and in 1832 the Police force had cost 287,1921., and con. siderably more since that year. e. measures had failed as well as

military ones ; the annual average (since 1817) of suits brcught in Ec- clesiastical Courts, at Quarter-sessions, and before the Magistracy, was 18,000; of which at least a third, he could safely say, were for ar- rears of tithe. Then, vast sums, amounting to 1,378,369/., had been expended in providing schools and instruction for the poor. Ever Since the Union, they bad been labouring in a variety of wsys to prop up the Establishment in Ireland; and every effort lad been equally unsuccessful.

Mr. Ward read several statistical statements, from which he made out that the members of the l'rotestant Church in Ireland did not ex- ceed 600,000 ; while the annual revenue of the Church derived from lands belonging to the Bishops, Deans and Chapters, glebes and tithes, was 937,456/. Out of 18119 clergymen, in the year 1819, 531 were non- residents; and the resident clergymen who did the duty lived upon in- comes varying from 18/. to 701. iir many instances—the average of the whole being only 70/.

What sort of feeling was this calculated to create in Ireland, when they saw the whole actual work' of that wealthy church done for comparatively so small a sum? With what grace could the Irish be expected to submit to the burdens imposed on them for the maintenance of such an establishment as this ?As Mr. Shell had said, there was no more reason why there should. be divines with- out a congregation than boroughs returning members without constituents. What, then, might be asked, did he wish to destroy the Church, or abolish the Establishnient altogether? Ile did not hesitate to say, that be contemplated Bathing of the kind. What he wished was to do away. with the glaring dis- parity that existed at present between the scales of duties and compensation. lie did not see why 800/. or 1000/. a year should be given to the rector of a parish which did not contain more than ten or twelve Protestants ; these ten or twelve Protestants constituting, as they did in many cases, only the family of the rector or vicar brought into the parish for that very purpose. In cases

where there remained only a remnant of a Protestant flock, full provision might be made for that remnant by securing the services of a curate, without going to

the expense of a rector. According to the evidence to which he had alluded,

the income of a Presbyterian minister in Dublin, Armagh Newry, Belfast, &c. varied from 250/. to ti001. a year, and partially averaged throughout the country

1011. The Government allowance was divided into three classes, allotting to one 100/., another 751., and another 55/. a year. If this were not sufficient evidence, let them look to the clergy of Scotland. In what country on the face

of the globe were the duties of the Christian minister more faithfully performed than in Scotland ; and in what country on the face of the globe were the minis- ters of religion more loved and respected? And how were they paid? The minimum payment was, he believed, 150/. a year ; but generally in the country districts 1801. and 2001. a year. Some few were 250/. per annum, and in no instance exceeding :3001. He thought he should deal not illiberally with Episco-

pacy if he proposed as a fit scale of remuneration as ample compensation as the Presbyterian clergyman of the North of Ireland, and as the whole clergy of the Established Church of Scotland received for their labours and faithful discharge of all the duties of a Christian minister.

This arrangement might be made by giving Commissioners similar powers to those exercised by the Minister of Public Instruction in France, where provision was made in the Budget of every year for the payment of clergymen of all denominations. This system in France was found to work well : it prevented invidious rivalry between different sects, and secured to the population a full measure of instruction. And, under existing circumstances, he thought it might be a very fair question whether, in the case of Ireland, it would not be wise to apply some portion of the Church incomes to the decent support of the mi-

nisters of the various religions prevailing in that country. He should not go into the details of his plan now, but was perfectly prepared to

do so if the House assented to the principle. Now, the right to reduce the Church Establishment depended on their right to deal with Church property at all. This principle he had most distinctly embodied in his resolution. He had been blamed by some persons for doing so, as it

ivas raising a new ground of contention. But he would do no Member the injustice to suppose that he could vote for the resolution, without

believing that he had full right to regulate the distribution of Church

property. (Cheers.) An objection had been made to touching Church property, on account of an article in the act of Union : but it would be

found that such an argument would not apply. The article in question

stated, that "the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United Church, should remain in full force for ever." Not a word

about temporalities—[ Here Mr. Ward was interrupted by a contemptu- ous laugh from Colonel Perceval ; but he turned round to that gentle- man, and slowly repeated the sentence, at the conclusion of which he Was loudly cheered by the House.] He was aware that Mr. Canning and Sir Robert Peel had held, that the article in the act of Union was conclusive against the right of interference with Church property ; but, coupling the speech of Mr. Pitt before the Union with the omission of the word " temporalities " in the act of Union he thought it was fair

to assume that it was not the intention of the Union, to preclude

future interference with the property of the Church. But supposing that such was their intention, how could their acts bind future genera- tions, or prevent the Legislature of the United Kingdom from modify- ing the act of Union in such way as the interests of the country pointed

out? Lord Brougham had replied to Mr. Canning, that it was mon- strous to assert that such a system as that of the Irish Church should

never undergo revision; ar.d that there was no analogy between private and Ecclesiastical property,—as the Church received its property for the performance of certain services, but private property was held. un- conditionally.

In point of fact, it was no longer a question of principle, but of expediency. The right was conceded last year by the Church Reform Bill. That bill dealt

With the Bishops prospectively ; he did no more. It abolished half the Vestry

cess at one blow, and laid an income-tax on actual existing incumbents; which was further than he ventured to go. Were there any other grounds on which it

Would be concluded that we had no right to deal with Church property ; or was

there any thing in the state of Ireland which rendered the assertion of that right Inexpedient or dangerous ? Why, almost every member of the present Govern- ment had already answered that question. Lord Althorp, in 1824, had asserted that a different distribution, or even a diminution of the Church property, was not calculated to injure the Church. The Lord Chancellor also made use of the expres,ions to which he had already referred. The Member for Essex (Mr. Ai,,,inder Baring) had protested against the doctrine that they had no right to Interfere with the Church. This was not a mere theoretical opinion—it was the practice of every nation in Europe. It was the opinion of our old divines. He quoted passages from Warburton and Paley in defence of these doctrines. He also referred to Bacon ; and contended that if the State had the right to transfer Church property from Catholics to Protes- tants, it had not lost the right of making another transfer now. It had indeed been urged by Sir Robert Peel, that no property would be safe, if the property of the Church were touched—that if a prescription of' three hundred years were not sufficient to guard the property of the Establishment, a prescription of one hundred and fifty years would not preserve the lands of individuals. But these two questions stood on a very different footing. It would be under,- stood with reference to the Church, that salaries were uot given when these ceased to be work to be performed. As Grattan had said, the Church properly was looked on in Ireland, not as the gift of God, but as a salary for prayer; and the principle of the alteration was obvious. But with regard to lay pro- perty, Mr. O'Connell himself would tell Sir Robert Peel, that you could not touch former private settlements without shaking the title of almost every indi- vidual ai ha had acquired property since the relaxation of the Penal Laws. They might therefore fairly set the interests of the present generation against the dormant claims of centuries. Sir James Mackintosh, in his last work, touched on this very subject : he said that it was one of the most malignant properties of confiscation, that it was irrevocable. Persons purchased the con- fiscated property bond fide : it descended to innocent children ; it became secu- rity for creditors; so that all the interests of the nation becatne concerned in ite stability. 'This was the feeling which he apprehended at present prevailed in Ireland ; a feeling which could only he stictigthened by that great act of justice and policy which lie now called on the House to assent to.

He called upon the House not to shrink from the performance of its duty. He would confidently ask any Member acquainted with Ireland, whether its public tranquillity and domestic pea's did not depend upon the settlement of this question during the present year ? The character of the House depended upon its decision, whether it would uphold the colossal injustice of the Irish Church.

When the Dissenters made their claims in this country, and urged the aboli- tion of the Church Establishment, they were answered by the statement, that the basis of that Establishment was the great majority of the population of England which belonged to it. When they had granted to Scotland an Este • blishment correspondent with the opinions of the great majority of the popula- tion of that country, let them not disgrace themselves by rivetting the chains of another nation, which had struggled, although not so successfully, yet with not less justice, than Scotland for its rights. The members of the Church of England, to which he belonged, he would most strenuously recommend not to commit the cause of the Church of England by doing injustice to Ireland. The Church Establishment in England and the Church Establishment in Ireland stood on two very different footings. Not only were the doctrines of the Churcla in conformity with the religious opinions of the great majority of the population, but the Church itself was strengthened by the respect and affection of the great body of the people. It had been said that the people of England were not prepared for such a proposition ; and that if they were to pass it in that House, the other branch of the Legislature would not concur in it. As for the people, he was convinced they were prepared for it; and as to the other House, the House of Commons had nothing to do with it. It was the duty of the House of Commons to proceed without fear, or without any other consideration than that of placing itself right in public opinion. It was the duty of Members to redeem the pledge they had given to Ireland "to extinguish all just causes of complaint, without injury to the rights and property of any class of his Majesty's subjects, or to any institution in Church or State." Mr. Ward con- cluded by moving the following resolution- " That the Protestant Episcopal Establishment in Ireland exceeds the spiri- tual wants of the Protestant population ; and that, it being the right of the State to regulate the distribution of Church property in such manner as Parlia- ment may determine, it is the opinion of this House that the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland, as now established by law, ought to be reduced."

Mr. GROTE seconded the motion, and complimented Mr. Ward on the distinguished ability and eloquence of his speech; which, he said, had made it a part of his duty to trespass but a short time on the pa- tience of the House. He considered that the adoption of the resolution would be wise at all times, but it was particularly wise now. Those who maintained that it was competent to past Legislatures to tie up Church property for ever, in his opinion ran counter to the clearest dictates of justice and policy.

A stronger case than the present could hardly be made out. If be were drawing on his imagination, he could not state circumstances more cogent than those which really existed. The population of Ireland, miserably poor, and gifted with extreme vivaciousness and susceptibility of excitement, were pecu- liarly subjects for religious and political disunion. What was the result ? That the Catholic population of that country entertained the most uncontrollable hos- tility towards the Protestant Establishment. That Establishment became the object of enmity, not merely on account of its wealth, but on account of its in- volving in itself the maintenance of the Protestant ascendancy. The adoption of the proposed measure was necessary, not only as redressing religious grie- vances, but as tending to prevent the perpetuation of political disunion. Let the Protestant Church be properly maintained in Ireland, but let it no longer assume that to which it is not entitled.

There was only one topic on which the advocates for Repeal were unanswered.

No man could answer them when they pointed out the affluent condition of the Protestant Church in Ireland ; and when they contrasted the magnanimous conduct which England had pursued in respect to religious matters towards Scotland, and the conduct which she had pursued on the same subject towards Ireland. To that representation no answer could be made. He trusted, how- ever, that the House would deprive the friends of Repeal of that solitary weapon.

Lord ALTISORP then rose and spoke as follows.

"Since my honourable friend, who rose to support this motion, commenced his address, circumstances have come to my knowledge which induce me to

move that the further debate upon it be adjourned to Monday next. I cannot now state what those circumstances are; but I hope the House has sufficient confidence in me—[Here Lord Althorp was interrupted by loud cheers from

every part of the House; some of them having a rattier ironical and peculiar sound)—I hope, I repeat, that the House will have sufficient confidence in me to believe, that I would not make such a proposition unless I were convinced of its propriety. I now move that the further debate on this motion be ad- journed to Monday next."

Prod:gious shouting followed; in the midst of which Lord ALTHORE rose again, and moved further that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next. The numerous muster of Members was then broken up, by a general rush to the door. 2. POOR LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord ALTHORP, on Monday, moved that the House should go into Committee on this bill. On the question being put by the Speaker, Mr. POULETT SCROPE rose to move an instruction to the Committee, and took the opportunity of speaking on the general merits of the aseasere. Of many parts of it he approved ; and especially of that which put an end to the allowance system, which he considered the jewel of the bill ; and regretted that Lord Althorp should have shown a disposition to alter it. Ile had strong objections to the workhouse system proposed to be adopted universally. It was like applying a remedy necessary in extreme cases only, to all which might require at- tention. He insisted upon the absolute right to maintenance which the poor of this country had by the law of the land ; and was astonished that those who contended so warmly for the right of' pensioners to the looney they received, could thus tamper with the vested rights of the poor. He concluded by moving an instruction to the Committee, to the effect that persons in the extremity of distress had a right to paro- chial "chef, and that this right should be preserved inviolate.

The SPEAKER intimated, that it was not in order to instruct the Committee to do that which it had the power to do without any such instruction. And Mr. Scoot% after a few words from Mr. ROBIN- SON—who advised him to propose a clause on the third reading of the Lid, to the seine tenor as his instruction—withdrew the motion.

Sir Eakins/ WitmoT regretted that Government did not entirely do away with local taxation, and assume the direct maintenance of the poor.

Mr. CORBETT expressed his surprise at this suggestion ; which might as well have been carried one step further—the Government

might as well assume the care and guardianship of us all. He was right glad that Mr. Scrope had so broadly asserted the absolute legal claim of the poor to be maintained.

It was their right by the law of England, and, as Blackstone said, by the law of nature; and if it was denied thew, with what justice could the Legislature eompel them to join the militia and expose their carcases for the defence of that laud on which they had no claims whatever? He would give the House the history of this bill, and a very curious history it was. He recollected that a noble and learned Lord in another place, promised to bring forward a Poor-law bill ; but a session having elapsed without its being introduced, a Commission of inquiry was appointed. The noble and learned Lord to whom he alluded had declare* when a member of that House, that the principles of Malthus were pesfectly sound. And what were the principles of Malthus? Why, he pro- lased that an act of Parliament should be passed enacting, that if a poor man married, the consequences should be on his own head, and he declared that fur such a person there was no scat at nature:41mnd. Those were his very words —he referred the poor to nature's laws. But if the Legislature denied the right of iclief to the m poor man, let the not speak to him of nature ; for the laws of nature would justify him in taking what he found nearest to his hand, and what he liked best. The law of England, too, declared that any man in dire necessity had a right to seize on the means of sustaining life wherever he those. (" Oh, at4 !") That was the law of England. (" Oh .0" and laughter.) Aye, but ooppose the laughers were to watt till they heard him out, before they laughed. -Was it not the doctrine of lawyers, that a man in want had a right to seize on the means of satisfying his hunger ; but that no such right could exist in Eng- land, because the parish-officers were always at hand, ready to afford him relief? He therefore contended, that if this mode of obtaining relief was taken away . from the poor man, the right of seizing cot the means of existence returned to him.

Lord ALTHORP observed, that there was nothing whatever in the bill which denied the right of the poor to be maintained : that principle was not affected by it.

Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD said, that the man who tendered his honest labour for bread, had as much right to it as Lord Althorp had to his bat or coat ; nay, more right. Ile denied the absurd assertion that the Poor-rates pressed heavily on the people of England. Out of the House of Commons, no one could be found to say so. He contended that it was the alteration in the currency, that really caused the distress. The Speaker then left the choir.

The 13th clause of the bill was read by Mr. BERNAL' as Chairman of the Committee. It enacts that the administration of the relief of the .poor should be placed under the direction and control of the Com- snimoners.

Colonel TORRENS wished to propose an amendment, to the effect that the several parishes, into which the Commissioners might deter- mine to introduce new regulations, should have the liberty of considering for twelve months whether they would adopt them ; and in case of refusal, that the Law Officers of the Crown should be directed to introduce bills into Parliament compelling them to adopt the rules of the Commissioners. This he thought would popularize the bill.

The CHAIRMAN objected, that the amendment related to the latter part of the clause ; and that an amendment to the preceding part might ha proposed first.

Mr. Poui.urr Stamm then moved, that instead of the Commis- '

loners being empowered to'adininister relief to the poor, they should be empowered to administer the laws for their relief; and he moved the Msertion of the words " the laws," &c.

A very long and desultory, but extremely dry discussion arose, as to the effect of this amendment, in increasing or curtailing the powers of the Commissioners ; and finally it was withdrawn.

. Lord SaraDoN moved, to strike out the words in the clause which conferred the power of administering the relief of the poor to the Com- missioners. This amendment, after some some discussion, was also ,withdrawn.

An amendment, proposed by Sir JAMES SCARLETT—wbich enabled the Commissioners to administer relief" according to existing laws, or etch laws as shad be in force at the time being "—was agreed to.

Colonel TORRENS then moved the amendment which he had before proposed. It was objected to by Lord ALTHORP, and negatived with- out a division.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT moved the Omission Of the words in the clause .which forbid appeal to the Courts of-Law from any decision of the . Commissioners. But it was postponed, at the suggestion of Lord .ALTHORP; who seemed disposed, however, to concur in it.

The clause, as amended, then pasaed; and after a brief discussiou, the clauses from the 14th to the 20th inclusive were agreed to. The Committee then rose.

[During the whole of this debate, Lord Althorp spoke in so 'ex. tremely indistinct a manner, as to be almost inaudible in the Gallery.]

3. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK BILL. At the morning sitting of the House of Commons on Monday, Mr. CLAY moved the third reading of this bill, which he trusted would be carried, notwithstanding the Treasury notes, requesting opposition to it, had been fluttering about all the morning. Mr. O'CONNELL, Sir 1'. FREMANTLE, Mr. P. M. STEWART, and Mr. HARDY, supported the IliOtiO11. Mr. HERMES moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months; on the ground that to pass such a measure was a violation of the contract entered into by Government with the Bank of England. Sir CHARLES PEPYS ( Solicitor-General), Mr. POLLOCK, Sir JAMES SCAREETT, Alderman THOMPSON, and Lord ALTHORP, spoke strongly on the same side. Mr. CORBETT said, " Being firmly convinced, that of all the scourges which have been inflicted upon mankind, banking, banks, and bank paper, are the greatest, I shall not vote for the establishment of a new bank; but as this new bank inlay probably do mischief to the old one, I shall not vote against it. I therefore think the the safest course will be not to vote at all." (Loud Laugher.) The House divided : for the third reading, 137 ; against it, 76; majority against Ministers, 61.

On the motion of the Marquis of BUTE, the bill was read is first time in the Lords in the evening. On Tuesday, Earl GREY presented a petition against it; and expressed his surprise and regret that it had passed the House of Commons. He intended to move, that (amass] should be heard against it on the second reading; which the Marquis of BUTE proniised to postpone for a few days.

JEWISH DISABILITIES. On Monday, Mr. HARDY opposed the motion for going into Committee on the bill for removing Jewish Disabilities ; but his motion for that purpose was rejected, by 63 to 7; and the bill went through the Committee.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL. This measure was read a third time on Monday, and passed.

WARWICK Bonotruft BILL On the motion of Lord DURHANI, on Tuesday, the House of Peers agreed to address the King, prayiog him to issue a proclamation for the apprehension of Lapworth, Orion, and Bingley, three important witnesses who had been summoned to give evidence, but who could not be found by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The examination of other witnesses was then continued.

CORN LAWS. Earl FITZWILLIA1M, on Tuesday, in presenting peti- tions from Edinburgh and London for the abolition of the Corm laws, stated his belief that the question was making favourable progress in the public mind; and that he should not call the attention of the House to it this session.

FOREIGN POLICY. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice, that on Monday next he would move for certain papers connected with the embassy to Russia. He also again complained of the treatment of S'ir John Campbell by the Pedroites. Earl GREY said that Government was not in the slightest degree influenced by any thing which his Lord- ship gave utterance to on the subject.