Elcbatcl mar pram/rind in 43arTiantrnt.

I. THE Raronm BILL. On Tuesday, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY having stated his intention of further discussing the case of Dartmouth, it was again postponed.

Schedule C was then proceeded with ; and the various new boroughs were placed in the schedule without much opposition, up to the vote on the Tower Hamlets ; on which vote,

The Marquis of GlIANDOS brought forward his motion respecting the Metropolitan boroughs. He began by admitting the unpopularity of his motion, and denying solemnly that it was aimed at the principle of the Bill ; and after alluding to the case of Alderman Thompson in regard to the vote on Appleby last session,—which the Marquis deemed wholly incompatible with the independence of the Legislature, —he proceeded nearly as follows- " I propose, if I should succeed in defeating this vote with-respect to the Tower Hamlets, to propose an immediate addition to the representation of the County of Middlesex, by which we shall be giving an additional protection to the great agricultural interests of this important county. I do this, Sir, in order that both the moneyed interests and the agricultural interests may be represented. But what is it that we are now doing ?—We shall, if we agree to this vote, be placing these district boroughs in the handsof individuals who will have nothing but local interests to protect, and who must necessarily have a strong leaning towards popular questions, and that in a degree far too warm to be consonant with the real interests of the country. Sir, if I should succeed in my present attempt, I would propose to arrange the franchise ihi the following manner—I would. attach Lambeth to Southwark, Marylebone to Westminster, and the Tower Hamlets and Finsbury to the City of London. Why do I do ;his? On the very ground on which the Government has professed to act all along—viz. that of increasing the constituency of places that are now to be represented ; and I think that if we do this, we shall he giving to these places the power of exercising a right of voting perfectly in unison with the intention of the Minis- terial Reform Bill. When we are told that Finsbury, the Tower Hamlets' and illarylebone are not represented, I would ask whether there has ever been any question brought forward, affecting the interests of those places, that has not received the fullest attention from thisHouse ? Look at the case of St. Saviour's Church! Remember the question of the enclosing of Hampstead Heath! And then, if it be asked who represent the interests of the metropolis, let it be answered, at least three or four hundred of the members of this House. No one, I think, can say after this, that the metropolis is not fully represented ; and when it is further recollected that there is never a period when there are not at least one hundred and fifty members of this House residing within its limits—members always liable to be called on to assist its interests—members always open to communication with all parties—never let it be said that the metropolis is without its due influence within the walls of Parliament. I -am not one of those who can be frightened by being told, that if we do not agree to this additional representation of the metropolis, we shall be destroying the prin- ciple of the Bill. Sir, we have already agreed to the two main principles of this Bill—the destruction of the nomination boroughs, and the conferring the elective franchise on the occupiers of 10/. houses. After this, I beg to ask honourable gentlemen, whether they consider themselves indissolubly pledged to the giving those additional members to the metropolis? I beg to ask them, whether they consider this feature of the Bill so necessary to the welfare of Eng- land, that they will, without looking to the right hand or to the left, blindly go forward and give that power to the metropolis, which I, for one, certainly feel jealous of, besides entertaining the opinion that it might be better disposed of in another way_ ? I will only say one more word in order to explain my feeling more fully. In the first place, I object to the grant of these members to the Tower Hamlets ; and if I should succeed in my opposition, I shall follow that up by proposing to give two members to the County of Middlesex, by which that important county will obtain four representatives. I shall then leave the other six members to be disposed of by the House as in its wisdom it may think fit. Are there not all England, all Scotland, and all Ireland ? And who shall tell me that places cannot be found for these members without giving them to the metropolis, in some parts of which I sincerely believe that there is a disin- clination to receive this elective right, from a feeling that it will lead the way to much dissension and turmoil, and produce circumstances which will tend to break the good understanding, and destroy the peace and tranquillity of the district."

Mr. JOHN SMITH observed, that the Tower Hamlets contained many of the manufacturers and merchants that gave consequence to the rest of the metropolis. If that district had not a claim to repre- sentation, what was to be said to the claims of the small boroughs that were to retain, or of those that were to get representatives?

Lord ALTHORP thought, when Lord Chandos spoke of discontent arising from granting members to the metropolitan districts, it would be well to inquire what discontent would arise from *refusing them. The amendment, he admitted, did not 'affect the principle of the Bill; but it affected a most important detail. The-principle .of the Bill was to give the right of returning members to large masses and large pro- perty; and how .could they avoid applying it to the metropolitan

districts? •

Sir E. SUGDEN observed, that if members were to be measured by population and taxes, the metropolis should have not fourteen but fifty. This showed, that these principles could not be and were not founded on in the case in question. He counselled members against making London the arbiter of the empire. It had been said that Paris was France; and they knew the consequence—let them beware of malting London England. Sir Edward proceeded to state certain cal- culations of the increase of people and houses in the metropolis during the last ten years ; and asked, what would be. the amount of the con- stituency sought to beestablished in another ten years?

Mr. Macaulay said, in. that, as in every discussion, the first ques-; fion was, with wham lay the burden of the proof—.

Sir. Robert concluded by a series of statements, the result of which went to show, that in consequence of the higher rents in London than eltewhere, and from the operation of the system of double votes in neighbourhood of the Seraglio. That • was an influence which nothing could houses occupied by more than one person the franchise in London take away but an earthquake like that of Lisbon, or some plague even greater under the Bill would be hardly less restricted than universal suffrage. It was his opinion that the burden of proof in this instance lay upon the Op- position. He considered that he was speaking to a House of Reformers —(" No l")--there might be one or two 'exceptions ; but the peat body on that and on the other side of the House, had, he believed, agreed that some

change in the representation must take place. ("N ,

o, no! ' ) Ile did not as-

sert that every individual in that House entertained that opinion ; tnt he could not avoid taking it for granted that the great majority of the Opposition did ; for lie was warranted in saying that in a great majority uf the speeches they had delivered they had admitted the necessity of some change. If he did not entertain the opinion he now expressed as to their sentiments, 1 e must put aside all the addresses sent up from the country by the noblemen ai d gentlemen who in their different counties had opposed this measure of Reform, but all of

whom had said that some change was necessary—that some em must take place—and that some huge bodies of people mast have representatives given to them. Utile ftet was as he had stated, they on the side of the licuse on which he sot proposed that, as part of the large communities entitled to rspresentation, the inetropulitan districts should be represented. If enfranchisenent ought to be part of the Refortu that the times required,—and that gentlemen opposite ad- mitted to be necessary,—it was for those gentlemen to show why the places now proposed should not partake of the advantages of enfranchisement. Ile was aware that they bad no precise standard by which to determine what were the towns that should receive representatives. He should use the wool importance to constitute that standard ; for though it was passible to raise quibbles upon it, none could punsibly deny, that if they were compelled to bestow representation on one of two places, they would rather bestow it upon a town like Manchester than upon a petty village; and their choice would be guided by the greater importance of the place selected. If they took the amount of population as the standard Of impurtance—if they adopted that of the number of 10/. houses—if they took the amount of the assessed taxes—if they took the weidth--if they adopted intelligence as their criterion—indeed, estimate it as they might, let them take any combination of arithmetical figures that they pleased—let them multiply or divide, let them subtract or add, let them adopt the coutee pointed out by Lieutenant Drummend, or that of the honourable member who proposed to decide the question by the square root of population and tines—in short, let them take whatever course of arithmetic they pleased, there was none front which these metropolitan districts would not conic marked with the proofs of a most undoubted importance. If they took population, wealth, and intelligence, as the standard by which to measure their decision, fifty would be a more proper number of representatives than eight to give to these districts. That was a fact recognized by the honourable and learned gentleman himself. It was admitted by all honourable members, that in all these elements of fitness for the formation of a constituency, the Metropolitan districts stood higher than any other. If so, it was for those who wished to withhold the enfranclisement, to give the reason Why it should be withheld. The noble lord had offered some reasons for refusing the members to these districts, which reasons the honourable and learned gentleman had most elaborately exerted himself to upset. What, :said the honourable and learned gentleman, will you let loose 150,000 voters— will you give the rights of franchise to such an immense body? Yes, said the noble lord, I will add Marylebonc to Westminster; I will give the Tower Ham- lets and Finsbury to the City, and Lambeth to Southwark. Yes, they who hail talked so much of swamping constituencies—who exclaimed so loudly against such a course—who affected so much dread of a large constituency—actually proposed -to swamp Westminster with Marylebone, to swamp the City with Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets, and to swamp Southwark. with Lambeth; and that, too, although at the same time they described the present constituen- cies of each of these places as sufficiently inunerous. What! were they not afraid of the unhealthful state of the metropolis—of the agitation exited by elec- tions among such very large constituencies? No, they seemed to be afraid of none of these things when they made the proposal. Of what, then, were they afraid ? Of eight members. Simply of eight members—that must be the cause of their fear. But the fear was still more remarkable, for the noble lord pro- posed to add two members to Middlesex ; so that it might be said that the noble lord feared six members—a number not so great as was returned by some indi- vidual Peers to that House..

He noticed Lord Chandos's allusion to the interference of the Livery meeting with Alderman Thompson_ Theonly argument against giving representatives to the Metropolitan districts was, that the members would be called to a very strict account by their consti- tuents; that they would not speak their own sense, but merely the fluctuating sense of those wilco sent them as their representatives. But that argument ap- plied as strongly to the instances of members returned by individuals. He did not understand the grounds on which those who represented the submission of members to be called to account by a numerous constituency as a disgrace, while they thought it a point of honour to submit to the same strictness of ac- count to an individual. He did not understand that spirit of honour that could lick the heels of an oligarchy, while it spurned at the wishes of the people. (Cheers.) He did not understand that point of honour which made a man boast that he had gone out of his seat because he had voted in a particular manner against the wish of one man, his patron, while he taunted another member for quitting his seat solely because he had offended twelve thousand persons. But supposing this strictness of calling to account to be an evil, was that evil confined to the Metropolitan districts ? During the discussion on the Catholic claims, there were many gentlemen who disguised their opinion—who compromised their opinion for fear of offending their constituents. He did not understand on what ground they were more afraid on the subject of the influence to be ex- ercised by the constituency in the Metropolitan districts, than in Other large towns. He knew an instance of an individual who declared, that there were many gentlemen who said, on that occasion, that they could not vote for the Ca- tholic question if they wished toretain their seats. 'That, however, was not the evil of popular representation alone. It was the fault of all representations, in- dividual and numerous. To suppose otherwise, would be to manifest an igno- rance of human nature.

He proceeded to comment on the true objection...

But the great argument really was in plain- words, a dread of the preponder- ance of the people. There might be some evil in that ; hut if it was an evil, it was one which this Bill would not increase. It had always been found that a great city exercised an influence over the empire of which it formed a part. That influence, however, was not connected with the number of representatives it possessed. It might indeed exist without the city having any representative at all. It often existed under a despotic government. At Rome, the despotic Emperors, while they exercised the most unbounded and the most brutal ty- ranny, yet thought it necessary to conciliate the populace with expensive shows. At Madrid, under their tyrannical Government, the mob often compelled 'their despot King to promise the dismissal of an obnoxious Minister; they had done so in the reign of Charles the Second, and again in that of Charles the Third; but that had nothing to do with the share which the people of Madrid had in the Cortes. If there was any country in which the people exercised a morbid in- fluence over the Government, it was in Turkey; in despotic Turkey--even there, where reigned the most absolute, the most unmitigated despotism, the tyrant of Constantmople was .often forced to obey the will of the people living in the than that which had visited the city in 1656. But did the noble lord repose to take away that influence ? He knew it was impossible.

Mr. Macaulay pointed out the proper and only sure way of regulating this influence—

From all time, the City of London had liven cf great importance in the struggles of party or of the people; and it hail generally, by the three of its

power, decided those struggles; but it would be absurd to think of making a law to regulate a power which was only to be dreaded when all law li'aS at an end. As long as the rule of law continued, the power of London would only consist of the number of votes it had in that house. When law was at an end, the power of London would consist of 1,500,000 men, and of that pewer there was nothing to deprive it. As long as regular government exi-ted, the metro- polis was, in fiiet, weak ; but when the course if regular government was turbed, the metropolis possessed, and could employ, a cant and overwhelm:0g force.

He concluded— The cause of all commotions in states hail been, that the natural and artificial powers (lid not correspond with each other. That had been the case 7' le Governments of Greece and Italy. It was no new principle ; it hail Leen !aid

dowil by Aristotle ; it had been maintained and exemplified tr,.;

effects in the earlier ages were well known. In the last century it had inn I the French Revolution; in this the cry. for Reform. The tiallger WV, • :Joy:- glints to resist that alteration which had been rendered necessary. That hitines r this hill was intended to rectify.. It gave to the people a place in the go•oon- meat, like that which it must have in society ; awl was it uot a most mom:trims argument, to say that because a great iiaturtil power existed, it 1,1iindil have no political power associated with it ? Was it fur them to create dissensien where none had yet appeared ? This Bill was meant to be a great deed of recunri:ia- tion—would they deprive it of that character? would they make it produce heartburnings instead of peace? It was the object of the Government to frame a measure as final as any human measure could be—would they make it lived ? Was it to be the first business of the reformed House of Commons to dismiss a new measure of Reform ? The gentlemen opposite had frequently predicted that this settlement of the Reform question would not be permanent— they now took the greatest pains to accomplish their prediction. Ile :Treed with them in their dislike and dread of change, as change, and he should hear many practical orievances rather than attempt a change ; but when a change had become absolutely necessary, he thought it should be full and effectual. It was dangerous to change often. The Constitution was MOM injured by fre- quent tamperings than bye great revolution. lino members were DOW given to the Metropolitan districts, they would have clamours for members for them in the first session of the next Parliament ; and if geutlemen believed, as they prc- fussed to believe, that the new Piudiament sou:unlit be more democratize' than the present, the alteration would be larger. The question then was, whether they should pass the Reform Bill not only not perfect, but in such a state as was sem to engender discontent. He should support the propooition to give members to the Metropolitan districts, not only because members ought to be given, but he- cause the majority of that House were now on their trial before the country, and it was for them now to prove whether they were sincere or not—whether the pledge they had given in last October, to support the principle and the leading details of the Bill, was now to be redeemed. The question was not only whether the Metropolitan districts should have eight members or none, but whe'ther they would carry the Bill or compromise it—compromise that to which they hail pledged themselves, in order to it those who, finding it impossible to throw out the Bill, resolved to fritter it away.

Sir GEORGE Muartiv said, the numbers had not been fairly stated. The Metropolitan members would in reality amount to twenty-two, in- cluding the members for Middlesex. He considered such an accession of democratical power pregnant with danger. It was democracy that ruined Athens and Rome, and in more modern times Florence. The distribution of members was also unjust: if London received so great an addition, Scotland would be most unfairly dealt with.

. Mr. C. GRANT said, Rome might be said to have fallen a sacrifice to a military despotism ; but it was absurd to attribute the fall of nations to any one cause. The augmented representation of London was strictly conformable to precedent ; • and Ministers would have lain open to just reproach had they not endeavoured to preserve for the metro- polis what it had always possessed—a predominant voice in the Legis- lature, compared with other places.

Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that if there was any truth in the doc- trine that London should obtain from its increased importance a larger number of members, why should not Liverpool and Dublin be included in its application ? In ancient times, Tamworth was as large as Liver- pool—might not Liverpool then complain, that having so far outgrown Tamworth, that town had still two members, while Liverpool had no more? Might not Dublin complain that Cork and Belfast had got an additional member, while Kingsend and Drumcoruira still remained unrepresented? Sir Robert afterwards replied to Mr. 1VIacaulay's ar- gument, that if the Metropolitan members were not granted now, the first act of a Reformed Parliament would be to grant them— Why should a Reformed Parliament enfranchise those districts in particular, if it could be shown that there were other districts precisely in the same situa- tion, unless it was that the Metropolitan districts possessed the power of collect- ing their numbers together, and bringing them to bear on the representative body ? Of the doctrine that representation operated as a safety-valve for letting off popular discontent, Sir Robert doubted the truth— It was the boast of the French representative system, that a large proportion of the Chamber of Deputies was returned by Paris; yet he did not find that

Paris was the less disturbed on that account. He was not now speaking of what occurred in the ancient times of the despotic Bourbons, but of what had happened since a free constitution had been established in France. He recol- lected also the riots which occurred in this country in 1780; and he learned

from them that the number of representatives which the City of London sent to Parliament was not sufficient to prevent tumult and confusion. The fact was,

that religious enthusiasm or any other cause, acted on great masses of people

collected together, and they utterly forgot whether they were represented or not. Again, three towns in which the elective franchise was popular and extensive— he alluded to Bristol, Nottingham, and Derby—had been selected by his Ma- jesty, in the course of the present year, for a special commission. On the other hand, when he looked to Scotland, whose corrupt and inadequate elective system had so often been sneered at, he was at a loss to discover any ratio between dis- order and a want of representation. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed, that after all that had been said on the subject, it was pretty apparent that this question was started less from a consideration of the metropolis or its wants, than from the cir- cumstance of its being represented by gentlemen opposed in politics to those by whom it was started, and the expectation (which was, how- ever, not justified by experience) that it would continue to be so.

Lord SANDON said, the attempt to break up a town into fragments, in order to give each its representative, was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. He spoke of the rod which the Press held over members' heads ; and declared himself not to be intimidated by it from avowing his real sentiments.

Lord MILTON thought no communities more proper for enfran- chisement coula be found than those under discussion. He perfectly agreed %tith Mr. il•lacaulay, that if the question were not settled now, it would be the first a Reformed Parliament would be called on to

settle. • Mr. I UNT ridiculed the notion, that none but democratic members would be returned for the metropolis. Did the House think any more democratic member would be returned titan the Secretary at War?

The antic cry about democratic members had been raised in the cases of Bir- mingham and Manchester, but no such kind of members would be returned from those places. It was said that Dr. Bowring and Mr. Cobbett would be returned for Manchester ; but, from the information which Ile had received, he could assure the House, that those individuals were as likely to be returned for the town of Manchester as for the University of Oxford. There would be no suds thing. some rich merchant, or some man of large property there, would be sure to be returned for Manchester. It had been also said, that Colonel Jones— who called himself a Radical, but Ile was only a half one—would be returned from one of those districts ; but from all he had heard, the Colonel had no more chance of it than he had. He begged to tell honourable members, that the country at large looked with anxiety to their votes on this question. Those who voted to-night would either vote for or against the Bill ; and the decision would be awaited for with the utmost anxiety in every part of the country. It would be better fur the House of Lords to reject the Reform Bill altogether than to throw out this clause ; if it should be thrown out, he was sure it would kid to confusion and convulsion.

Mr. C. REacessoN. and Mr. SLIM. said each a few words in favour of the clause.

The House then divided : for the amendment, 236; against it, 316: majority, 80.

Last night, Mr. Croker presented a petition from the borough of Helstone, of which he bad given notice. It was agreed that the case of the borough should be discussed on the report being brought up.

In the debate on the Metropolitan districts on Tuesday, Sir Robert Peel had gone into a long calculation, with a view to show that the number of voters would exceed the number of houses in these districts. Lord john Russell, in moving that the House should go into Com- mittee, now showed, from the returns, that Sir Robert had entirely miscalculated the case, in consequence of using the houses of 1821 instead of those of 1831; and that, had he used the latter, he would have foam! that the houses greatly outnumbered the voters.

Sir Robert Peel, in a long and elaborate answer, contended that he had not been convicted of any misrepresentation.

The conversation terminated by the House going into Committee. The remainder of Schedule C was agreed to without remark.

Ott Bradford being put, Lord G. Somerset asked, why Tynemouth and Huddersfield were not as worthy of two representatives each as Bradford ? They each paid more assessed taxes.

Lord John Russell noticed Brighton as an instance that assessed taxes alone could not be taken as a test, otherwise Brighton would ex- clude Birmingham.

Sir George Clerk spoke of the claims of Scotland to twenty more members. There were 140 members to be disposed of, and, from its population, Scotland bad a right to one-seventh of them. He thought the claims of Scotland and Ireland should now be put forward.

Colonel Cottony suggested a junction between the Scotch and Irish members, to obtain a proper share of members for their respective countries.

Mr. C. Fergusson also spoke of the propriety of making a stand for more representatives to Scotland and Ireland, instead of giving mem- bers to places of no significance in England.

Mr. Hume expressed his satisfaction to find his opinion gaining ground. He would divide the country into electoral districts, as the only fair plan. With respect to Scotland, it was, with its two millions and a quarter of population, to have .53 members ; while London, with one million and a half, was only to have 16. The Tower Hamlets could buy 50, nay 100, of the boroughs about which they were nightly battling.

Sir Charles Wetherell spoke in favour of Scotland and Ireland.

Sir George Murray thought that the time was a fit one for the Scotch and Irish members to press their case. They had heard from Mr. Hume, and they had formerly heard from Lord Althorp, that this measure would not be final.

Lord Althorp—" When did I say so?"

Sir George Murray could not recollect when, but he distinctly recol- lected Lord Althorp saying the measure went as far as Ministers now deemed it expedient it should.

Lord Althorp said, in the hurry of debate, he might have used the phrase "at present," but he did not believe one man in the House thought he meant by it that the Bill was not to be final.

The conversation was prolonged for some time ; but at length Brad- ford was allowed to stand in the schedule. On the other towns there was no discussion.

On the case of Dartmouth, Lord J. Russell stated, that the assessed • taxes he found, were calculated by the amount which the town was legally bound to pay. Whatever hardship the disfranchisement might seem to inflict, there was no violation of principle in the case of Dart- mouth, more than in the other boroughs of the schedule.

Sir H. Willoughby repeated his argument ; and a division took place on the question ; for the disfranchisement, 205; against it, 106; ma- jority, 99. The question was afterwards put, that Totnes do not stand in Schedule B, and carried.

The Chairman then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.

2. 'mu TITHES. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM having, on Monday night, asked Earl Grey when the measure respecting Irish Tithes was to be brought forward, Earl GREY answered, that it was in a forward state of preparation. The question was a difficult one, and its diffi- culties had been accumulated by former Ministries. The bill must, he said, be introduced in the Commons; he trusted it would prove a satis- factory one.

The Duke of WELLINGTON repelled, with great heat, the charge that the difficulties of the tithe question had been accumulated by former Ministries. He cited the Tithe Composition Act as a proof that they had done all they couM to remove them. That act had been accepted by two-thirds of the parishes in Ireland ; and when he left the Cabinet, there were no disturbances in Ireland on the subject of tithes. What Avas the cause of the present disturbances on that point ?- " My Lords, the cause is the encouragement which has been given to agitators to disturb the country. (Loud cheers.) I can tell the noble Earl, that so long as encouragement is given to agitators, you may double and treble the regular army in Ireland—you may heap pleasure of severity upon measure of severity— but you will not succeed in putting down agitation upon this question, or upon any of the others which may follow it."

The Duke proceeded to observe on the sacredness of tithes, con- sidered as property. The King had sworn to defend them ; and the House had very recently passed two acts, in which they conferred notable advantages on Dissenters, while they endeavoured, as fur as they could by oaths, to secure the property of the Church. He admitted, however, that even thus guaranteed, the question of tithes was sur- rounded with difficulties ; and he expressed his readiness to support any measure for preventing or putting down disturbance, which Earl Grey might propose.

Earl GRF.Y remarked, that he did not advert to the Tithe Composi- tion Act ; because, before he came into office, its defects had been re- marked. The accumulation of which lie complained was not caused by the late Ministry only; tithes had been a subject of dispute before he or the Duke of .Wellington was born. He adverted to the Duke's charge, that the Government encouraged agitation— This was a serious charge directed against the Government of the country. It was in effect, that by their measures all conduct they were encouraging agi- tation against the public peace. He thought he had a right to call upon the i noble Duke to specify t. In what instance had the Government encouraged agitation ? He contradicted the accusation of the noble Duke as flatly as the noble Duke had contradicted what had fallen from him. The noble Duke ac- cused him of encouraging agitation. He denied the truth of that. He said there was no man in the country more anxious to put agitation down.

The Duke of WELLINGTON explained what he meant by Ministers encouraging agitation. They did not renew the Irish Proclamation Act, as they had said they would ; they allowed O'Connell to escape un- punished, by the prorogation of Parliament ; they gave O'Connell a patent of precedence; there were the letters written by Earl Grey and Lord John Russell to Mr. Attwood, in reply to the thanks of the Birmingham Union ; there was a meeting of a mob in Regent's Park, held on the day the Reform Bill was thrown out, by two persons, —one of them in the service of Government, and the other a member of Parliament ; the line of march of that meeting was announced in the Government newspapers. Front all these facts, the Duke drew the in- ference that the Government was favourable to agitation. The Duke said he felt these things strongly— - • He felt that the country was in a most dangerous state—lie felt that his Majesty's Government had not only taken no measures to stop:the agitation, but that they had suffered a Lord of the Household and others of their supporters to go Wont attending public meetings, to preach up agitation to the people.

The Earl of EI.DON asked the Irish Peers, whether, if the powers that the common law conferred on Government had been actively put in execution Ireland could have been in the condition in which it now was ? He alluded to the speeches of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Sheil ; and asked why they had not been prosecuted, or, if they could not be traced to these persons, why the printers of these libels had not been prosecuted?

It was idle to believe that if the Reform Bill, as it had been offered to their Lordships last session, had passed, their Lordships would have been long left sitting in that House. There was no man who had been more deeply obliged to the fatherof the late King—there was no man who had entertained a more devoted attachment to the late King—there was no man who entertained a firmer sense of allegiance to his present Majesty than himself; and lie had felt it his duty distinctly to state, in the presence of a brother of his present Majesty (the Duke of Sussex), that if that Reform Bill were top, the consequence of the agitation Which the universal suffrage that it would create must produce, would be, that in the course of ten years there would not be a single member of the House of Hanover on the throne.

Lord Eldon added, that there was no act of James the Second which was not as excusable as would be the act of the Monarch who set his hand to that measure. He then went on to observe on a letter of Dr. Maltby, in which the Opposition was termed an ignorant faction. He could not believe. that the -letter was written by the reverend Bishop. Whether be did or not, Lord Eldon declared, that to call the Oppo- sition an ignorant faction, was an inexcusable libel.

The Bishop of CHICHESTER defended the expression complained of; it was used as a general proposition— He had said, that should the House of Lords reject the measure at present in progress, with the same precipitation as that with which they rejected the last, the Constitution provided a remedy for such a factious opposition. (" Hear, hear, hear!") He did not presume to compete with the noble and learned lord in a knowledge of the law and of the constitution; but he certainly con- ceived, that when the opposition in that house was pushed to a degree whirls rendered it inconvenient and impracticable to pass measures necessary for the state, there was a remedy in the hands of the Crown. (" Hear, hear!")

Dr. Maltby concluded by stating, that he had written the letter hur- riedly, and without the least intention of its being published. He did not maintain any opinion in secret which he was ashamed to avow pub- licly; but had the letter been written with a view to publication, he might have weighed the words of it more carefully.

Lord MELBOURNE replied to the Duke of Wellington's accusations. The Proclamation Act fell with the dissolution of Parliament : if the latter was wrong, so was the former ; if the dissolution was unchal- lenged, so must its necessary consequences be. Mr. O'Connell's escape was another of these inevitable consequences. By the act under which he had been prosecuted, it was the concurrent opinion of all the Crown lawyers that he could not be brought up for judgment. With respect to the silk gown given to him, it was justly due to his professional emi- nence, and ought to have been bestowed long before. For the terms so often complained of in Lord John Russell's letter, Ministers were no more responsible than they were for other sayings of gentlemen who were their friends. They were, in filet, if be might use so vulgar a word, the slang of the Opposition ; and had been used again and again before they were used by Lord John Russell.

But then, the noble duke stated, that there had been a public meeting in the Regent's Park, at which two members of his Majesty's Government attended. (" No, no ; friends.") Friends ! How was it possible that his Majesty's Go- vernment could be responsible for the conduct of all its friends ? But the noble duke said, that the line of march which the people were to take was pointed out in the Government papers. Did the noble duke mean the Gazette? There was no other Government paper. His Majesty's Government were very glad of all the support which their friends in the press gave them; but they really could not be responsible for every thing that appeardd in the papers which generally maintained their cause, or be expected to contradict every advertisement that happened to appear in them. (A laugh.) The Duke of WELLINGTON said, one of the persons who led the mob in the Regent's Park held office under Government. When Lord Mel- bourne spoke of Mr. O'Connell's professional eminence as deserving a silk gown, he forgot that Mr. O'Connell had been convicted, by a jury, of several offences, and only escaped punishment by an accident.

Earl GREY said, the reason why the Proclamation Act was not again proposed, was that the agitation was of a nature that no such act could put down. Of the determination to enforce the law wherever it was applicable, he referred to the Special Commission issued for trying the offences in the county of Clare. Of Mr. O'Connell's silk gown, Earl Grey said— The fact was, that there was no legal conviction ; but even if there had been, that would not of necessity exclude the individual from advantages to which he was entitled. But he had no hesitation in avowing distinctly and fairly (for he was not one of those who wished to affect mystery in such matters), that he had hoped Mr. O'Connell would have been brought to adopt a different line of conduct. He had been disposed to try the effect of conciliation. He had hoped that, by conferring on the honourable and learned gentleman the honours to which his station in his profession justly entitled him, a salutary result might have been obtained. He had no hesitation in saying, that in that expectation he had been grievously disappointed. ("Hear, hear !") Noble lords might make what advantage they thought proper of this admission, but he did not re- pent the step be had taken.

Lord Grey noticed the other charges--one founded on a hasty, perhaps an imprudent phrase, in a letter; another, on the conduct of two friends of Government, over whom Government had no control nor claim of control ; another, on certain announcements in a newspaper, which was IS often opposed to Ministers as in their favour. He then observed on the agitation which he found in the country on his entrance on office. The Birmingham Union had existed for twelve months; the Trades' Union had subsisted for a long time ; fires were blazing all round the country; even the Metropolis was not free from riot ; yet no power of Govern- ment was put forth to check these things. The last charge against Go- vernment was, that there was no prosecution for libel— He had heard Lord Eldon say, on a former occasion, that it was very easy for men to say, on reading a paragraph, that it was a libel, but that it was a very different thing when they came to the consideration of the responsibility of the Attorney-General. There was evidence to be procured; there were juries whose opinions must be taken. When Lord Eldon came to recollect these things, and consider these difficulties, he would admit that it was not a question of a light matter, whether a paper should be submitted to a prosecution or not, though what they read might appear at the time to be libellous ; and he must take leave to tell the noble earl that all the libellous matter was not on one side. (Cheers.) Lord RODEN described Mr. O'Connell as the great agitator, and as an enemy to the Protestant Church.

Lord PLUNKETT described the legal position of that gentleman at the period of the dissolution of Parliament— He had been indicted under a certain act of Parliament ; he had suffered judgment by default, and the act on which he had been indicted expired shortly afterwards. Now, if the noble and learned lord opposite would produce any authorities to show, that under such circumstances a conviction could legally exist, he should be ready to meet the noble and learned earl on that question. He was himself ready to maintain the negative, both on principle and on au- thority. If he was right in that opinion, that the jndgment suffered by de- fault under such circumstances was one that he was at liberty to arrest, surely they would not say that that punishment, which could not be visited on Min in point of law, should he visited on him in his professional character.

Lord Roden had said that O'Connell was the great agitator ; but lie was not the only one— If he was asked who was the agitator, he should say that it was the person who collected together large mobs of ignorant persons—who addressed them in a manner calculated to raise their jealousies, and revive their prejudices—who addressed English people, and called on them to form Protestant associations— telling them that there was a set of people who wished to put down the Pro- testants and their religion. Such a person was the true agitator. Such a per- son, who thus collected these ignorant assemblages together, and scattered among them ambiguous—no, not ambiguous, but unfounded assertions—such a person risked the making of Irish agitation not only formidable, but desperate. To accomplish that fearful object in Ireland, all that was wanted was—not a war against the State—not a war against the tithes—but a war between the Pro- testants and Catholics.

This long debate closed with a repetition, by Earl Wiciaow, of the charge against the Chancellor of haring, in 1824, divided in favour of a motion which went to tear up the Church by the roots. Lord Wick- low read this motion : it declared that- " It was expedient to inquire whether the present charges of the Cluirch of Ireland were not more than commensurate with the dunes performed, both in regard of the number of persons employed, and the emolument received by them."

Among the names of the minority, were those of Brougham, Spring

Rice, Lord John Russell, Ellice, and several others now connected

with Government. Lord Wicklow added, that the country then possessed a vigorous Government, and that the efforts of the Oppo- sition were treated with scorn and ridicule.

Lord BROUGHAM said, he had before denied that the resolution bore the meaning Lord Wicklow attached to it ; and now it was before the House, he could appeal even to Lord Wicklow for the truth of the denial. With reapect to the character of the Opposition with which be then acted, he said— They might have been opposed to a vigorous Government—the noble earl was pleased to say they were—but that they were the ridicule and scorn of that Government, he, from a constant uniform knowledge of the campaigns in which—for the rights of the people of England—fin. the right, of the people of Ireland—for the advantage of the established constitution itself— they had been engaged, he begged most solemnly to deny. ( ('heers.) That they were ever ridiculed and scorned by any Ministry to which they were ever opposed, he most humbly, but most confidently, in presence of all around him, denied. He had, however, lived to see an Opposition in another place, of which he should say nothing but this—that, with the wlvantage id talents and of high names, they were pursuing a course of conduct mast dan- gerous to the peace, prosperity, and stability of the Government and of the settled institutions of the country. How they carried on political WaqtrO, ;di might see ; and he must say, that in all his observations of Pal liamemary contests, be had never beheld more rancour, more political rancour, fleet he lent seen displayed towards the present Government by the present Opposition, Lord WICKLOW explained, that it was the friends of the Church, not the Ministry, that treated the Opposition with scorn and ridicule.

3. IRISH EDUCATION. In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, a con- versation of great length took place on this subject, on the presentation of some petitions by the Earl of RODEN. His Lordship said the peti- tions (eight in number) were from persons of various creeds and various forms of worship, but all of them agreed in reprobating the system of

education proposed by Ministers, as " unwise, impolitic, impracticable, and unchristian." He said he was one of those who thought that national education was worth very little without morality, and that there was no morality unless in the unmutilated Word of God ; and there- fore, that any system which denied that Word to youth was unlit either for Ireland or England. He maintained that the Kildare plan of edu- cation was not opposed by the Catholics until 1825; and that in 1831, the Society maintained 1,634 schools, and had under their care 132,570 scholars. Lord Roden admitted that the Commission recently mined by Government were in themselves most respectable, but said tiny were at the same time most unpopular ; and in proof of this, he read lin ex- tract from the great petition, signed by 280,000 Protestants, against the Commission and its plans. Lord Roden also read—to prove, he said, the opinions of clergymen of the Established Church—part of a letter,

conceived in a strain of strong irony, addressed by one of them to Dr. Sadlier, one of the Commissioners. He also read part of a speech of a Dr. Cooke, calling on the people to join " shoulder to shoulder, foot to foot, and heart to heart, in the cause of the Lord," to show the feel- ings of the Presbyterian clergy, on the same subject. Lord Roden concluded by an appeal to the Bishops— It was no trifle to interfere with men's consciences ; and he appealed to the Spiritual Lords, as conservators of morality—as successors of the men who had died on the scaffold, and at the stake, for this very cause—that they would in- terpose and protect the groundwork of their faith. He also asked attention to this solemnly and seriously ; he warned Government how they would per- severe in a course which must bring down the indignation of the Lord on this favoured land, by preventing the dissemination of those truths which he desired to be preached to the uttermost bounds of the enth.

Lord PLUNKETT remarked on the assumed unanimity of the Protes- tants on this subject. First, there were nine lords who were said to

be opposed to the Commission : now one of these was a minor, and one

denied the imputation. Among the Established clergy, Lord Roden had cited but one ihdividual, and his sentiments were certainly nor ex- pressed in a very Christian style. As to the 2:30,000, if the people were taught that it was a point of duty, of course they would sign. lie next adverted to the charge of mutilating the Scriptures— Did the noble lord mean that all the Gospel should be read at all times ion! in all places, and that every day in the week should be devoted to that purpose ? Did it never before enter into the minds of Protestant dignita 6,, and Protest at divines to select certain portions of the Scriptures to be read at certain times, on certain days in the week ? What was the greater portion of the beautiful

and simple service of the Church of England composed of, but selections from

the sacred Scriptures ? Did the service of the Church throm,,hout the 1.1'111.1ie course of the year, though it contained a great part of the Scriptures, end orace the entire of them ? Why, the noble lord might as well say that these seleetions constituted a mutilation of the Gospel,—he might as well call on the people to rise in mutiny against the framers of our Liturgy, and ask 200,000 persons to

address the King and the two Houses of Parliament to order the heads of the Church to frame a new service, as to come finward with the assertion tihielL he had made on this occasion in reference to the selections from the Scriptures which he had so vehemently condemned.

Lord Plunkett proceeded to defend the present Administration from the charge of suggesting the plan which they were endeavourieg to act upon : he showed, by extracts from the Reports of 1812 and 1825, that they were merely following what had been laid down to former Administrations. The extract from the Report of 1812 said, in regard to school-books- " In such selection of books for the new schools, we doubt not but it will be found practicable to introduce not only a number of books, in which moral prin- ciples will be inculcated in such a manner as is likely to make deep and lasting impressions on the youthful mind, but also ample extracts from the sacred Scrip- tures themselves, an early acquaintance with which we deem of the utmost im- portance, and indeed indispensable, in forming the miud to just notions of duty and sound principles of conduct. It appears to us, that a selection may be made in which the most important parts of sacred history shall be included, together with all the precepts of morality, and all the instructive examples by. which these precepts are illustrated and enforced, and which shall not be liable to any of the objections which have been made to the use of the Scriptures in the course of education. The study of such a volume of extracts from the sacred writings would, in our opinion, form the best preparation for that more particular reli- gious instruction which it would be the duty, and, we doubt not, the inclination also, of the several ministers of religion to give at proper times, and in other places, to the children of their respective congregations."

This Report, Lord Plunkett observed, was signed by the Arch- bishop of Armagh, the late Dr. Stuart ; the Archbishop of Cashel ; the Bishop of Killaloe ; Isaac Corry, Chancellor of the Irish Ex- chequer ; the present Bishop of Ferns ; Lovel Edgeworth ; John Leslie Foster. The Report of 1825—in which case the Commissioners were Leslie Foster, F. Lewis, W. Grunt, Mr. Glasscock, and Mr. Blake—stated, from the experience of Mr. Daly of Powerscourt-

" That the children who attended to the comment and explanation of a limited portion of the Scriptures, given by him at certain periods of the week, made more progress in religious knowledge than others who ranged through a greater extent without the advantage of exposition."

It was a great mistake that the Catholies objected to the Bible being taught in schools,—they onlyobjected to it without those comments that Mr. Daly found so useful. Lord Plunkett next read from the same report the proposed distribution of the hours of teaching. On two cluys the schools were to break up at an earlier hour, to allow of the Protestant children being instructed by the Protestant clergyman ; and on two days, to allow the Catholic children to be instructed by a Catho-

lic layman appointed for that purpose. The report described the book to be generally read in schools in these terms-

" It will be necessary also to provide a volume compiled from the Four Gospels, in the manner adverted to in our conference with the Roman Catholic Arch- bishops. Such a book, together with the Book of Proverbs, and the work con- taining the History of the Creation the Deluge, and other important events, extracted from the Pentateuch, may Le profitably used in the schools during the period of united and general instruction. We by no means intend such works as substitutes for the Holy Scriptures, although we propose that the reading of the Scriptures themselves should be reserved for the time of separate religious instruction."

The various Reports on Irish Education were referred, in 1828, during the Duke of Wellington's Administration, to a Select Committee, which recommended the establishment of a system of education founded on them. A subsequent Report, in 1830, also during the Duke's Admi- nistration, recommended a bill to be brought into Parliament for that purpose, mid a bill for that purpose was actually prepared.

Lord Plunkett concluded with reading a lesson, the only one yet sanctioned by the Education Committee, and which had been drawn up by Dr. Whately, and recommended for adoption by Dr. Murray ; and also a proclamation, issued in London by the opponents of the Com- mission.

These two documents run as follows—

THE COMMISSION'S ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND. " Christians should endeavour, as the Apostle Paul commandeth them, ' to live peaceably with all men,' even with those of ,t different religious persuasion. Our Saviour Christ commanded his disciples to

• love one another.' He taught theta to love even their enemies, to bless those that cursed them, and, to pray for those who persecuted them. Ile himself prayed for kis murderers. Many men hold erroneous .sluctrines, but we ought not to hate or pet, secute them. We ought to seek for the ru!h, and hold fast what we are convinced is the I null, but not to treat harshly those w ho are in error. Jesus Christ did nut in- tend his religion to be forced on men by violent means. He would not allow his (2sciples to tight for him. If any persons treat us unkindly,we must not do the same to them; for Christ and his Apostles have taught us not to return evil t■a- evil. If we would obey,' Christ, we must do to others 711,,t as I hey do to us, but as we would wish thou hu du to us. Quarrelling with our weighhours, and abusing them, is not the way to convince them that we are in the right ,wel they in the wrong. It is more likely to convince them that we have not a Christian spirit. We ought to show our- selves followers of Christ, who, • when lie was reviled,reviled not again,' by behaving gently and kindly to every one."

The Earl of RODEN said that he document.

THE OPPONENTS OF THE COMMISSION'S AD. IIRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

" Who is on the Lord's side? • He that is not with me is against me.'—Luke xi. 23. Protestants, awake! Friends of the Lord Jesus Christ and. the Bible, to your standard: a conspiracy is formed. The Powers of earth and hell are combined against the Lord and his anointed. The armies oh Infi,Ielitv. or aomisii Papacy, and Liberalism, are united to extirpate the Word of God troan the earth. They have begun their experiment upon Ireland; and if you sallIer theta to make good their ground there, you may rest assured that they will speedily extend their conquests. Shall the Bible be wrenched from the hands and hearts of the children of Ireland? Shall the Word of God, and all that has been done by Christian liberality for Ireland, be trampkil under foot, and scattered to the wind,ut the bidding of the Roman Catholic Priesthood? God forbid! Ye that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth, will never suffer such dishonour and indig- nityto be done to his name. Adopt, then,the only means you arecalled upon at present to use, to present such a sacrilege: add your names, without delay, to the petition about to be presented to both Houses of Parlia- ment, requesting them to interpose and prevent the proposed measure of taking the Scriptures from, the children of Ireland be- ing carried into effect."

had nothing to do with the second

Lord PLUNKET'F did not attribute such-a document to the noble lord ; but. the noble lord must know, that when holy and sacred names are used for such purposes, those who used them must be answerable for the consequences.

The Archbishop of ARMAGH thought, if the Catholics were con- sistent in refusing to allow the Bible to be taught without note or comment, the Protestants ought to be equally consistentin refusing to let it be taught with note or comment.

The Earl of Wiceeow said, by the new arrangement the whole of the Government grant would go to the Catholics. He believed in twelve months Ministers would find it convenient to alter their plans. The Earl mentioned an anecdote respecting Mr. Stanley's views on the subject— At the very time that Mr. Stanley was making his statement, a friend of Earl Wicklow was near Mr. O'Connell in the other House ; and on expressing his surprise at the course taken by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. O'Connell observed, "If you knew as much as I do you would be still more surprised. Mr. Stanley declared, only fourteen days before he leftlreland, that he meant to support the Society." "How then,' said his friend, "came Mr. Stanley to change?" " Oh, ' replied Mr. O'Connell, "we have threatened him into it."

The Duke of WELLINGTON was of opinion that the existing plan of education was one which would do much more good than the plan sought to be substituted for it.

The Earl of RADNOR said, the dissatisfaction:on the subject of the Government plans was solely occasioned by the violent and irritating i speeches made on the subject n Ireland. He deprecated the mode of arguing adopted by Earl 'Wicklow in mentioning in one house what passed privately between two gentlemen in another.

Earl WICKLOW said it was no secret. Colonel Perceval publicly mentioned it at a public meeting. •

The Duke of Ricamoxo said he had Mr. Stanley's authority to assert that he had never entertained two opinions on the subject, and there- fore had never changed his opinion from threats or any other cause—

Before the noble earl had made the allegation, it would have been well if he

had asked Me. O'Connell and Colonel Perceval why they did not attack the right honounible Secretary in his place in the other House ; but it was not only ou this question' but on every other, where a member of his Majesty's Govern.. ment was to be attacked, the attack was commenced in that House where he could not be present to answer it.

The Bishop of LONDON admitted that between the two great reli- gious parties of Ireland, Ministers were placed in great difficulty ; but he thoughi!. they had not taken the right way to get out of it.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the grant was withdrawn from the Kildare Street Society, because, after a fair trial, it had proved to be unfit for a national institution, by persisting in regulations which ex.. eluded a large portion of the community from receiving advantage from the grant.

Lord CLONCURRY said a few words ; after which Lord RODEN summed Ill) the debete. His Lordship said, the cry against the Kildare Street Society Was raised by the Catholics, of whom Ministers were the mere puppets ; lie spoke as the organ of the Society, and he told Ministers that the Protestants of Ireland would not be imposed on by their scheme of concession education. Their motto was " no surrender."

4. CON'AOI.IDATION OF NAVAL BOARDS. :On the second reading of this bill, which took place on Monday, Mr. CROKER spoke at great length against its principles and in deprecation of its anticipated effects. He commenced with the historical argument cited by Sir James Gra- ham. Mr. Secretary Pepys published two works—" The Diary " and " Memoirs of the Navy." The earliest event mentioned in either, occurred in 1673 ; therefore they could contain nothing whatever respect- ing the conduct of the Duke of York previous to 1668, when he went abroad. But not only did James not destroy the Navy Boards at the estoretion, the first act of the Restoration was to establish them. The Restoration took place 29th May, and on the 29th June the same year, Mr. Pepys was sworn a Commissioner of the Navy. From that period downward, the Navy Board was never abolished. Sir James Graham had said, a brighter day dawned on the country front the period of the abolition of the Navy and Victualling Boards : if he alluded to the battles of Opdam and Solebay, the Navy Board existed when they were fought. When James the Second went abroad, the Ad- minilty was put in commission ; which fact had led the editor of Pepys's Diary to suppose the Navy Board was dissolved, and perhaps Sir James had fallen into the same mistake. When the Duke returned, he recommended the appointment of new Commissioners, such as Sir Anthony Deane, a shipwright, like Sir Robert Seppings ; this was the supposed abolition. Mr. Croker went on to say, that having conducted

the affairs of the Secretary's office of the Admiralty for twenty-two years, lie must, in honour and conscience, declare lie bad never known any thineb of that under-current of opposition to which Sir James Gra-

ham hadadverted. He admitted that they did not always agree with the Ad:air:dry, but he considered that the delay which such difference of opinion caused was always salutary. Mr. Croker defended the

Navy Board front misappropriation of the public money, on the ground that such misappropriation was justified by precedent ; and cited Hatsell to show that supplies granted for the Navy were always attended with difficulty in practice, and that the various sums for the service gene- rally must be added together, and the excess of one be employed to supply the deficiency of another. Mr. Croker mentioned various iesemces of this practice. In 1798, 1,5401. was voted to form a reser- voir within the Dock-gate at Plymouth; and the same grant was voted every year until 1809, solely because the money had always been ap- plied to some other purpose. In 1798, 2,000/. was voted for a pain- ter's shop, and the vote was repeated every year till 1809; and no shop NVaS vet built. He adverted to these votes to show that the practice so inuch complained of' Was. an old one.

Mr. Croker proceeded to notice some other points complained of. The non-keeping of a ledger by the Navy-office arose out of the fact that they had no person to keep it. A case had been attempted to be made against the Navy Board respecting an order for the gradual dimi- nution of the workmen in the public dock-yards--the fact was, the Ad- miralty sent the order to the Navy-office on the one day, and on the next it was transmitted, verbatim a literatim, to every dock-yard in the kingdom. The price-book had been complained of, but the price- book was one of official value merely, and had no reference to buying and selling. The next charge was the theft of five and a half tons of copper. The fact was, that this was an accident, against the occurrence of which no precaution would have availed. Mr. Croker ridiculed the notion that naval officers at the heads of the various departments could effectually superintend or check them. There would be one head dis- puting precedency in knowledge with the shipwright, another discussing the issue of bark with the doctor; and in the accountant branch the case would be yet worse. Mr. Croker had never met a naval officer hi his life who was conversant with accounts. The inevitable result would beethat in every case in these departments the subordinate men would do the duty; and therefore it would be much the wiser way to impose on them the responsibility, and form them into a Board, subject to the im- mediate control of the Admiralty. Mr. Croker concluded by allud- ing once more to his twenty-two years' service ; and by declaring that, looking to the manner in which he had laboured during that period, it would be impossible, under the new system, to do the business of the Admiralty without three or four principal Secretaries and three or four secretaries to each department. Sir TAMES GRAHAM replied, in the first place, to Mr. Croker's his- torical argument. Sir James said; his authority was the first report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry. It was divided into periods, and the third period commenced with the Restoration— The Commissioners who drew up that report were as accurate in their state- ments as the tight honourable gentleman, and perhaps a little more so. For they proceeded as follows—" All the proceedings of the Duke of York in the manage- ment of the Navy, either when he was Lord High Admiral or after he came to thZ throne, are minutely detailed in a great number of manuscript volumes in the Pepysian Library at Cambridge, of which thirteen volumes have at our desire been sent for our perusal." They then proceeded to state the contents of those vohunes. The House would recollect that the right honourable gentleman had asserted that the Duke of York did not revoke or abolish the powers of the Navv Board. (" Hear, hear t" from Mr. Croker.) Well, upon that point, too, Le would Join issue with the right honourable gentleman. The report pro- ceeded—" The powers which had been granted to the Commissioners. of the

Admiralty and Navy Board, were recalled. (Loud cries of Hear from the .Airinisterial benches), and the entire management was put into the hands of the Duke as Lord High Admiral, to whom three new commissioners were appointed to act with the Treasurer of the Navy, the Comptroller, the Surveyor, and the Clerk of the Acts, as. principal officers and commissioners of the Navy."

For proof of the disobedience of the inferior Boards, Sir James said he relied on the statements of Sir George Cockburn ; whose evidence, though not printed, was accessible to every member of the House. He also referred to the evidence of Mr. Keith Douglas ; who stated that in all attempts at retrenchment, the subordinate Boards were likely to offer resistance, as they were interested in maintaining an over-establishment. Sir James proceeded to say, that the lull he had submitted to the House was drawn up with the full approbar.on of all his colleagues in office, who were unanimously of opinion that the control of the Admiralty over the inferior Boards should be:an efficient one. The grand objec- tion to the present system was this-the•Board of Admiralty was not always cognizant of the steps taken by the subordinate Boards, and it had therefore no control over them within such a period as made it a real and efficient control. Sir James concluded by stating, that the bill he had introduced had received the most perfect approbation from Mr. Barrow ; an approbation so much the more valuable, that Mr. Barrow was opposed to him in politics, and had never scrupled to maintain his opinions-

Mr. Barrow not only thought the measure practical, but salutary, and that it would have the effect of correcting many of those grievances which he well knows to have existed. By the opinion of Mr. Barrow, he felt fortified in the strong sentiment he entertained in favour of the measure-a measure by which be gained no patronage, as indeed besought none.

The discussion was prolonged by Mr. K. DOUGLAS, Sir J. B. MAn- TIN, Sir G. CLERK, Sir G. COCKBURN, and Mr. HUME, who strongly recommended the plan. • No division took place. Sir J. GRAHAM stated, that the saving to be effected by the plan would amount to 49,000/. a year.

5. SILK TRADE. On Thursday, Earl GROSVENOR I/10Ved for a Select Committee of the House of Commons, to inquire into the facts

connected with the distressed state of the silk trade, particularly in Spitalfields and Coventry. His arguments were somewhat desultory. • He quoted certain documents to show, that up to the change in the law in 1825, the trade was prosperous, and that the importation of raw silk was gradually augmehting, notwithstanding the duty; and that, since the change, the trade had been gradually getting worse, notwith- standing the removal of the duty and the still augmented importation • of material. He spoke of the system of reciprocity as a mistaken one, of which France received all the benefit ; and expressed his opinion, that had Mr. Huskisson been still alive, be would have seen ample - reason to reconsider his plans.

Mr. H. L. BULWER, who had a motion on the same subject, which he waived, seconded Lord Grosvenor's motion for a Committee.

Mr. P: THO3ISON, in stating that Government were willing to ac- cede to the Committee, went into some detail to show that the distress

• in Spitalfields was not different from, nor More aggravated than what • had been repeatedly felt there long before Mr. Huskisson's plans were

dreamed of In 1793, there were 4,000 looms standing ; in 1793, equal distress prevailed ; in 1810, it was found necessary to grant • 20,000/. of the public money to relieve the distress in Spitalfields; in 1817, the distress was equally severe ; in 1819, a committee was

moved for, and granted, to inquire into it. Mr. Thomson said, that much of the distress that had visited the trade since 1826, arose out of a most improper proceeding of Lord Liverpool's Government in 1824; in which year it had been proposed to reduce the duty on raw silk .50 per cent., and to take off simultaneously the prohibition on manu- factured silk, and impose a duty instead; but, on the representations

of the throwsters, the duty on raw silk was reduced, and the prohibi- tion on manufactured silk was continued to 1826; and this led to a system of over-trading from which the trade had not yet recovered. Mr. Thomson adverted to Lord Grosvenor's argument, that the im- portation of raw silk had been increasing up to 1823. The average, he showed, for five years previous to 1823, was only 1,873,0001bs. ; while the average from 1826 to 1831 was 3,739,0001bs. The distress of one place naturally rose out of the competition of another. At Manches- ter, for instance, there was but one silk-mill previous to 1819; from 1819 to 1823, five more were built ; since 1823, seven more had been added. This was the cause why the throwsters of Macclesfield, who had at one time a comparative monopoly, were now suffering. The poor-rates of Coventry had been relied on to prove the excessive dis- tress in that town : in 1829, those rates were 12,400/. ; in 1830, from an apprehended change in the law, and from the consequent stagnation of trade, they rose to 20,0001.; in 1831, they fell again to 12,300/.' and this year, it was calculated they would not exceed 13,0001.; thus,. 4001. was the whole amount of increase during the last three years. The protection which Coventry sought might be estimated from the amount of protection they now enjoyed : on the three articles which the Co- ventry manufacturers exclusively fabricated, the first was at present

• ,protected by i ditty of 55, the second of 63, the third of 41 per cent. The burden of the silk complaint, up to 1826, was the smuggler ; and on that head, what was Mr. Baring's statement ?-that with a duty of 20 or 30 per cent. it was impossible to prevent smuggling. Could it be prevented, then, by a renewal of the prohibition laws? Mr. Thom- son contended, that, looking to the trade generally, the removal of these laws had been salutary. The looms had been greatly improved in

• polity, and they had been also increased in number; while the foreign importation had not at all increased : it produced 677,0001. in 1828, . and in 1831 not above 600,0001.- Neither had the smuggling trade • much increased : it was calculated at 150,000/. before 1825, and it was . now 'calculated at 206,0001. The silk exports had in the mean time very greatly increased. In 1824, the official value was 102,000l.; in 1827, 1828, 1829, it averaged 215,000/. in 1830 and 1831, it amounted to -348,000/. ; last year it was 500,000/. Mr. Thomson concluded by , expressing his opinion, that an alteration in the duties was essential to the prevention of smuggling ; that the duties mint be lowered so as to take away the inducement; .and, at the same time, that the remain- - ;big duties on the raw materials must be removed, to encourage the yhotne manufacturer. After a few words from Alderman WAITIIMAN on his favourite topic,. the falling off in the exports ; from Mr. ROBINSON, on the glove trade ; Mr. WILBRAHAM, Mr. GEORGE BANKES, and Mr. KEARSLEY of Wigan, who said the Administration were "a noodle and doodle Administra- tion,"-at which the House shook with laughter,-Mr. BARING spoke.. He said there was no doubt that smuggling prevailed to a great degree.. The higher classes would not look at any silk but French. Smuggling. was formerly a disreputable trade, now the most respectable houses were engaged in it. He agreed in the principle of free trade, but thought its application to the silk trade was improperly made. It ought' to have been applied to new and unsettled trades, not to old-established manufactures. Mr. Baring spoke with great contempt of the phi- lasophers-- If they adopted the system which was forced on them with all that-pre- sumption and arrogance which the pure philosophers manifested, they would be answerable for all the degradation and all the moral consequences which must flow from following a particular system implicitly, without looking to the attendant circumstances. He was aware that those philosophers woUld. not hear any thing about .moral consequences, unless they could he demon- strated by lines and figures ; but with that sort of reasoning he never could. coincide.

Mr. ATTWOOD made a long and furious attack upon free trade in tiny. form, to which the House listened with impatience.

Mr. CHARLES GRANT, Sir R. VYVYAN, Mr. HUNT, and Lord' EASTNOR, severally spoke on the question ; which Lord .ALTHORP summed up by stating the distinction between it and that of the glove.. trade, with which it had been attempted to be mixed up- The Vice-President of the Board of Trade had stated the principle on which. the Committee was to be granted ; it had no reference to the state of the glOve- trade. Government agreed to the Committee, not on account of the existing: distress, but in order to institute certain inquiries. One of those was, whether the distress of the silk trade was to be attributed to smuggling. It was well - known that smuggling went on in silk as a regular trade, and that there was an: insurance-office established in Paris for its fin therance. No such contrivance existed as to the glove trade. It was ridiculous to apply the term free trade to one so protected as the silk trade was : it was equally riiliculous to talk of pro- hibition, where so minute was the difference between the two manufactures, that officers had frequently gone into rooms where they knew there were both French: • and English goods, but durst not make a seizure, from not being able to distin- guish between them.

The motion was agreed to ; and the names of the Committee will be moved on Monday.

6. SOAP. Previous to going into Committee on the Reform Bill on • Tuesday, Mr. Alderman Tuomrsos: brought forward a motion for the repeal of one half of the duties on soap. The Alderman entered into rarious calculations to show that, taking every thing into account, the duty on common soap, such as is used by the poor, does not fall short of 120 per cent. while that on fine soap does not exceed 7.5 per cent. He noticed also- the drawback system practised in respect of soap exported to Ireland, where no duty is charged ; and contended, that in conse- quence of the facilities for smuggling back the soap so exported, hot more than two-thirds of the soap sold in England paid duty. He read,. in confirmation of this view of the case, the following statement pub- lished by the Statistical Society- The population of England and Scotland, according to the census of 1821. consisted of 14,118,638 persons ; who were, by the tables of the Society, divided into seven classes, consisting of 2,941,363 families, and whose consumption of soap was as follows: 1st Division-The poorest class of peasantry and labourers, 31'1b. each person per annum. 2nd Division-Labourers earning less than /2s. per week, workhouse allow- ance, 71b. each person per annum.

3rd Division-Labourers and artisans earning from 12s. to 20s. per week, 91b. each person per annum. 4th Division-Ditto ditto, 40s. per week, 121b. each person per annum

5th Division-Shopkeepers and others, whose incomes are under 400/. per annum, 151b. each person per annum. 6th Division-Middle class, 2-11. each person per annum.

7th Division-tipper class, 301b. each person per annum. The average quantity of soap consumed, according to this classifi- lb. cation, would exceed 10Ib. for each person, viz 140,820,420 The quantity upon which duty was paid in 1621 was 91,468,907 Leaving to be accounted for 49,351,513

The Alderman added a statement of the loss to the revenue if halt the present duty were charged all over the kingdom-

The net amount of duty received in 1831, at 3d. per lb £1,283,453

Proposed reduction of half the duty £641,779

Duty on smuggled soap, 49,351,513 lb 308,446 Ireland, calculated at only 511) on 8,000,000, the last

population return 250,000

Increased consumption 5,000 tons, at 14/. per ton 72,000

£1,072,251

Leaving only a deficiency of .f 11,223

The Alderman wished for a Committee of the whole House ; but this was negatived, after an admission, by Lord ALTHORP, that the only ob- jection to the mation was the chance of falling off in the revense; and a remark by Mr. HUME, that the better way would be to wait until. the entire tax could be removed, and then the apparatus for collecting it could also be got rid of.

7. FRENCH EXPEDITION TO ANCONA. The Earl of ABERDEEN; on Monday, asked Earl Grey the object of the French Government in undertaking this expedition ; and whether it was made in concert witlz• England ?

Earl GREY having declined to give any answer, unless that the fact of the expedition's being contemplated had been communicated to his Majesty's Government, Lord ABERDEEN expressed great astonishment' at the brevity of the reply. After the repeated praises of France, and. its sincerity, good faith, and friendly feeling,--notwithstanding the closeness of the union between England and France, which had been boasted of in the august presence of the Lord Mayor, at the late City dinner,-it was strange that Earl Grey could give no other ex- planation of an expedition that would give rise to suspicion in every' part of Europe. Lord Aberdeen proceeded to comment on the neve principles of intervention which the Ministry had laid down. Austria bordered upon Italy, and was immediately interested in its disturbances, and, moreover, had been specially invited to interpose by the Pope him- self ; but France had no concern with Italy, much less was She invited 'to interfere in its cause. A French force coUld propoSe to itself no object but to protect revolt or to excite it, The present, Lord Aber-. -deem- concluded; vii au -eknedition worthy of the best days of the

Republic, and-only to be paralleled by the expedition to Egypt. • .

Earl- Gatr said, Lord Aberdeen's .conduct was more extraordinary • than the expedition on Which. he had chosen to dilate.. He aiked.a• question ; be got an answer ; and then he must raise a discussion on a -.surmise, for-which surmise .everi there was no foundation.. Lord Grey said, notwithstanding Lord Aberdeen's sneers, he still retained the opinions which he had expresseilythere" and elkivitere : he was happy to know that the most perfect 'friendship subsisted between England and France ; and he trusted that Lord Aberdeen's .endeavours, how- ever well-intended, would not prove successful in breaking it. In re- spect to •intervention, • be had enlylollowed ont _the rule laid down by Lord Aberdeen and his coadjutors when in office—that non-interven- tion Was the rule, and intervention the 'exception. In the expedition in question, there was no brvach of faith committed or intended. . What would have been the conduct of Lord Aberdeen in a case of for greater impeatance,—the' expedition to Africa,..--luid siiniler-miestions been put to him as that which. he had now put? How would he have answered? What Earl Grey now did,—that when the proper time arrived, all re-

quired explanation would be given. '

. The Marquis of LOXDOXDEIlliV asked, if the ratifications of the Bel- gian treaty were likely to be exchanged ; and if any information had been received respecting the Belgian fortresses ?

Earl GREY said, that Government had a right to expect the ratifica- tions would be sent ; and he confidently believed that they would. At present he could give no other answer.

S. LORD PLUNKETT. Last night, the Marquis of Londonderry put some questions to Lord Plunkett, of a rather delicate kind. He said a statement had appeared in the Irish newspapers, from which it

would seem, that Lord Plunkett's family held twenty-two places., from which they derived from 30,000/. to 36,000/. a year. He thought, as

a member of so economical a Ministry, Lord • Plunkett ought. to 'take sonic steps .to. 'clear. himself, of snail an imputation of extrava- gance. Mr. O'Connell had represented Lord Plunkett as a bad legis- lator and a venal politician. Lord Londonderry said, he fully con- curred in one half of this charge ; of the venality be would say nothing': What he wished to know was, if Lord Plunkett, in addition to the papers be had moved for respecting his Secretary, intended to move for an account of the offices held by his family ?

Earl Radnor blamed the disorderly proceeding of the Marquis in speaking when there was no motion before the House.

The Marquis of Londonderry said he had a petition to present. When called on, however, to present it, he said he would defer doing so until a future day.

Lord Plunkett said he could not defer it. Unless he presented it .now, he would move that lie had been guilty of a breach of order..

Lord Ellenborough thought a peer ought to be permitted, even up to.the last moment, to alter his mind on any question, without being held guilty of a breach of order.

Some interchange, of eminent took place between Lord Enclitic,- rough, Lord Plunkett, and LordTeynham, on the subject; when Lord Ellenborough was called to order, for speaking when no question was before the house.

• The Lord Chancellor at length rose, to suggest to the House, that all the speakers were equally out of order. There was a question in his hands, which he had not yet put ; and to allow of an orderly dis- MISSiOn he would read it. He then proceeded to read the question ; but had not advanced six words, when there was another call for order, from Lord Ellenborough.

Earl Grey said, Lord Ellenborough had better defer his observations, at least till the question was put.

It was put accordingly— - " That Earl Vane (the 'Marquis's Parliamentary title) having made a speech when there was no -question before the House, and having, when called to order, stated that he had a petition to present, and having, after making his observa- tions, refused to present the petition, had committed a breach of the Orders of that House."

Lord Plunkett then addressed the House with great bitterness. He said the screeching and screaming of Lord Londonderry was sufficient to alarm the people in the streets.* In return to the question put by Lord Londonderry, Lord Plunkett asked—

Whether the noble Marquis had instituted any proceedings against newspa- pers, or moved for any inquiry in their Lordships' House for statements respect-

ing the emoluments which lie derived from the public, or about emoluments which he had solicited, and had been refused? ( "Hear, hear! ") Had it ever happened to the noble Marquis to see or hear of newspaper statements about his own emoluments or the emoluments from the public enjoyed by the Stewart family ? As to these allegations about him (Lord Plunkett) and his family, they were founded in absolute falsehood. whether it was the usage of this House to call upon a person to account for the manner in which the members of his family were provided for, he would leave to their Lordships to judge. He had never been in the habit of soliciting emoluments, nor, above all things, had he ever so solicited them as to induce even his own friends to lift up their hands and exclaim "This is too bad."

He had two sons in the Church and two at the bar, and he defied calumny to say they did not perform their duty in both.

Lord Londonderry spoke of his application to Lord Liverpool for a pension— It was not for himself that he had asked it, but for the profession to which he *en belonged. It was the rule, that when one had served during a certain period, he should have a pension whether he was rich or poor ; and he had, therefore, thought it hard that it should be in the power of any Government to decide whether it should be granted or not. Heliad, therefore, demanded his pension; reserving to himself the power whether to accept of it or not. There

• Lord Londonderry speaks very loud, and very much in the throat ; he has the true

choleric cry. • was no action of his that could justify the imputation that he-was avaricious, or that he was anxious to enrich his family by emoluments derived from the public; and no one was purer and less solicitous about the favours of the Crown than that individual of his family who had held the highest situation in the State. But he had thought it his duty to uphold the character of ambassadors; and it was their cause that he had advocated, and not his own; rimd-he-thoug.ht it a Most unwise • determination when the. Government refused to.grant. him his pension.

- Lord Londonderry was then proceeding to.read. the newspaper-list of Lord Plunkett's family places, when he was iiitcminted by Earl Grey. The further conversation turned on the point, whether, the Marquis should then be allowed' to present his, petition, or pot. It-was at length terminated by -Lord 'Londonderry's begging pardon of the . House ; on

WhichLord Plunkett withdrew his motion. „ .

9. MALT Daawaacx. The bill, which as introduced. previous to the Christmas rectss on this subject; Was read a second time on Wednesday, after a division, which-was called for by Mr. Git,Losr. The numbers were 41 for and 17 against the second reading.

10. DORSET COUNTY. ELECTION. A Committee to determine on the validity of Lord Ashley's return Was.balloted for on. Thursday. _ The fedloWing are the members H.' Binglinra Baring, 'P. B. Thomson, the Lord Advocate; .Sir John Johnstone, P. 'M. Stewart, 11. Clive, Sir E.

S. Hayes, A. Cole, R. J. Smith, H. Reis, Lord Eliot. . ,

11. JAM.AICA. The Duke of WELLINGTON, on Monday, expressed some surprise. that the Earl of Belmore, having received directions to proclaim martial law in Jamaica in June, should not have done so un- til the end of December.

Lord GODERICH said, the order in Council, with the proclamation and a circular from himself, were sent to the Governors of all the Co- lonies. • In the circular, it was stated that the proclimatien was to be used if necessity called for it, and only-then. The despatches were re- ceived in Jamaica in July; at which time no Such necessity existed. Lord Goderich said he had no objection to lay the circular on the table. With respect to the correspondence of which it bad been the subject, he must first look over it.

12. HURRICANE AT BARDADOES. On Wednesday, 100,000L was voted in aid of the sufferers by the late storms in this island, and in St. Lucia and St. Vincent.