NEWS OF THE WEEK.

THE Reform Bill has gone on not very rapidly this week ; but upon the whole, we are rather pleased with the manner of its pro- gress, if not with the extent. The language of the Opposition has been that of sane men. There are no longer threats of ulterior measures, no appeals to higher quarters ; it seems to he now a point conceded that they must take the Bill for better or worse, even if it should prove, as they expect, all for the worse and none for the better. Indeed, the only hope of its sturdiest opponent, Sir CHARLES WETHERELL, is now stated, by himself, to rest on the prudence of the people out of doors. " Confidence in an un- faithful friend;" says the wise man, "is like a tooth out of joint."

If Sir CHARLES keep the Bill from amendment from within, we will guarantee it from without.

Mr. HUME'S motion on Saturday was lost, as we anticipated, and lost, as we also anticipated, by the opposition of Lord ALTHORP. The only fact that it elicited was a somewhat curious calculation of the time that had been spent on the Bill. It appears that, reckoning the debates of last session, it has occupied the House forty-five days of nearly eight hours each on an average. Thg debates, if fairly taken down, would fill, very nearly, twelve octavo volumes of five hundred pages each! The only other business of Saturday was the discussion, in part, of clause 22nd. Lord AL- THORP'S indisposition took Wednesday out of the week ; so that, considering every thing, we are pretty well off in having last night got to the ;fah clause. The. appointment of the Commissioners, and the commencement of their labours, seem to indicate that the first half of the Bill is now secure.

Ireland has this week claimed from the Commons a tolerable share of attention. Its late Vice-Treasurer has been the subject of complaint ; item, its present Yeomanry ; item, the Subletting Act ; item, the—but we need not dwell on particulars ; there was of course nothing but complaint. The propriety of introducing Poor-Laws into the Green Isle, with a view to reduce the number of its grievances, was discussed on Monday. Mr. SADLER spoke long and ably, and, as usual, discursively on the subject. The weak opposition of Government, and various other indications, clearly show, that the labours of the member for Boroughbridge are not destined to be much longer exerted in vain.

The Coronation has been touched upon in the House of Com- mons. It seems destined to be a bone of contention in both Houses. Lord STRANGFORD excepted to the shortening of the Peeresses' trains ; Mr. HUME was equally strenuous in contending against any elongation of the queues of members. Truly it is no easy matter, even for the Privy Council, to settle this dispute be- tween kilts and farthingales. A new plan of putting down long harangues has been introduced during the week,--namely, snoring them down. It was voted disorderly by acclamation ; but when it becomes common, it will meet with more tolerance. It is decidedly more melodious than " Ohs," "Hears," or coughs ; and it may be kept up from the be- ginning to the end of one of Sir CHARLES WETHERELL'S longest, without the least fatigue. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY has fallen under the censure of Lords WYNFORD and CARNARVON: it is suspected that the Prelate has a design against the integrity of the Church, in his zeal to diminish the distance between the livings of pluralists from forty-five miles to thirty. There is certainly some appearance of a plot in the ease, but as Lord WYNFORD is on the watch, we feel satisfied it will come to nought. ' The bill to relieve barren lands from tithe, is progressing in their Lordships' House, with most mischievous celerity—and nobody says a word about it. Quis custodiet custodes? The Barren Lands lithe Bill is Lord WYNFORD'S own !

• Lord BROUGHAM, introduced a -bill last night for reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts. Doctors Commons stands by the river ; a south-west gale and a spring-tide would be a better re- form than any that his Lordship is likely to apply to it. The Irish Subletting Act has not been opposed by the Lords ; a fact which, as Lord WICKLOW well observes, proves the author of Advice to the Peers to be no better than he should be.

The drinkers of beer have been rescued from the Bishop of Loiv- DON by the strong hand of the Chancellor ; and travellers by steam, it would appear, are destined to be saved from Alderman WOOD, by the interposition of Mr. BERNAL. The licensed vic- tuallers are as spiritless as their gin, and the Watermen's C om- pany as crazy as their wherries on the occasion. However, we shall have a Reformed Parliament next year, and then morality and paddles will be properly looked to.

1. THE REFORM BILL. Previous to the House going into Com- mittee on Tuesday, Mr. HUNT, in presenting a petition from a Westminster Union, consisting of the working classes, reasserted that the people were now much cooler towards Reform than they had been. Wherever lie went, among high or low, he heard but one opinion, and that was against the Bill. If any doubts existed of this change in the feelings of the people, Mr. Hunt said, those who entertained it might call a meeting, and they would see that very different sentiments would be manifested now from those that were manifested when the Bill was first promulgated. Mr. LITTLETON said, if the Bill was not unpopular, it was no fault of Mr. Hunt's. In Staffordshire, the attachment of the peo- ple to Reform was as strong as ever; but it was unreasonable to suppose the same intense excitement was to prevail, now that the battle was won, as during the engagement. Mr. BENETT said, if the people were dissatisfied, they would have said so.

Mr. HARVEY advised Mr. Hunt and his allies to call meetings, and thus bring the matter to an issue.

Lord MORPETH, Mr. HODGES, Sir RONALD FERGUSSON, Mr. PAGET, and Mr. JAMES, severally denied, for their respective con- stituents, the truth of Mr. Hunt's assertions.

Mr. O'CONNELL said, the next thing that Mr. Hunt would tell them would be, that the people were grown enamoured of Schedule A, and grievously offended at the disfranchisement of the rotten boroughs.

Lord GEORGE LENNOX was at a loss to discover where Mr. Hunt got his information, seeing that he had never been absent from the House since his election.

Mr. HUNT said, he had presented petitions from all the great towns against the Bill, and at Preston the people were against the Bill. (Cries of " Oh, oh !") Mr. HUME asked— Why did not Mr. Hunt act like an honest man, and.vote against the Bill, if be thought it as bad as he declared it to be ? Mr. Hunt tried all he could to get up meetings and petitions against the Bill, and yet he voted for the Bill. The _pets of such a person were not worth attending to. Mr. Hunt said that wherever he went he heard the Bill denounced. Mr. Hunt ought to tell them what society he was in the habit of mixing with. Mr. Hume never heard any thing against the Bill from persons with whom he conversed. Let Mr. Hunt call a public meeting on this subject ; Mr. Hume would face him at such a meeting, and he would. venture to say that the result of it would be, that the people would indig- nantly deny the sentiments which Mr. Hunt attributed to them. When Mr. Hunt made his unmeaning complaint about the people being deluded, Mr. Hume would tell him that he was the only one in that House who could be fairly charged with practising delusion. Nothing could be more calculated to delude than speaking one way and voting another. Mr. SHELL observed, that Mr. Hunt was no doubt a well-mean- ing, but he would be found a false prophet, in his denunciations of the Bill. He spoke quite as much against it last session ; and the General Election gave him an answer. If his assertions were false then, there was but little reliance to be placed on them now. Mr. HUNT repeated his assertions, and concluded by declaring himself the only representative of the unrepresented part of the people.

The House having gone into Committee on the 22nd clause, Mr. E. PEEL moved his amendment for continuing permanently to resident freemen the rights of voting that they at present possessed. Captain BERKELEY spoke of the hardship which the clause might produce in Gloucester, where certain pecuniary advantages resulted from the possession of the freedom to the widows and children of freemen.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, if the rights of freemen were to by preserved in perpetuity, all other rights must. Scot and lot, am/...-74- potwalloping voters, and freeholders of boroughs, had quite4s.: valid a claim to retain their rights in perpetuity as freemen ha#0 Sir M. W. RIDLEY supported the amendment. Colonel BERESFORD declined, on the part of the freemen o wick, any participation in the generous feelings which freemen of other places to sacrifice their rights to the good oil community. . After rifew observations against the amendment from Mr. BWIf-11<- vorr, and in favour of it from Mr. WILKS and Captain FITZROY, Mr. D. W. HARVEY said— If the House legislated for existing interests, it exercised that sound spirit of legislation which ought to limit the anxieties of legislators. The argument against the suppression of these rights had been effectually de- stroyed by the appeal to the people. The enemies of the Bill had argued that without an appeal to the people the measure was a corrupt dealing with the corporate rights of the whole kingdom. Well, the appeal to the people had been made ; the Bill had been read and canvassed in every club and in every association throughout the kingdom ; and the people had approved of the Bill, and had consented to sacrifice their individual and personal interests upon the altar of their country. No set of men in England could he more jealous of their corporate rights than the consti- tuents of that borough which he had the honour to represent ; and yet, in their full cognizance of the effects and operation of this clause, they had not withheld their sanction from it. It would, indeed, have been idle for the people to have clamoured against nomination boroughs, and the rights of their proprietors, and yet keep up a clamour for their own cor- porate interests. When noble proprietors and privileged persons were called upon to concede their private interests, the people who made the demand felt that they were equally bound to give up their personal privi- leges. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the alternative which some mem- bers had supposed that the House was reduced to—namely, either to sacrifice the rights of freemen or the Bill—did not exist. It was not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill that corporate rights should be preserved, nor would Ministers abandon it if they were. Sir Robert said, the 101. householders would, in small boroughs,. constitute a more educated class than in large bo- roughs; and the continuance of the freemen's rights would correct such an inequality. It was a poor requital for the self- devotedness of freemen, to take away their privileges as the clause proposed.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, the corporate voters would justly have treated Ministers with scorn, had they violated the principles of the Bill out of any regard to their interests and feel- ings, or under a plea of rewarding their conduct. feel- ings, CHARLES WETHERELL denied that there was any defence, moral, political, or legal, for the clause. It was contrary to Magna Charta. He admitted that Magna Charta was the act of King. John, and the first political corporation charter went no further back than Edward the Fourth ; but he contended that King John's Charter not only provided for all the privileges that towns had, but for all that they ever should have. Sir Charles went on to argue, that to deprive the freemen of their votes, was in consequence to subvert Magna Charta ; that the dissatisfaction of the country at such a subversion was great and increasing ; that the proof of this was to be found in the returns for Grimsby, Durham, Beverley, and Dublin, and other populous towns—for Colchester, he believed, was dissatisfied, and so was London. He then adverted to the French Revolution. and the resolution respect- ing the Chamber of Peers. In England, Sir Charles said, we be- gan the destruction of the Constitution from the bottom ; in France it was begun from the top ; but the end in both countries would be the same. If Lords Althorp and Russell persisted in spoiling the freemen of their privileges, how would they be able to defend their own from attack ? How would they arrest an attack on hereditary honours, for which they afforded a precedent by their attack on hereditary rights ? Sir Charles insisted, that in this 22nd clause were planted the seeds of destruction to the Monarchical institutions of the country ; and he concluded by praying God that the majority out of doors might have more prudence than the ma- jority within, and that they would not act on an example of spoli- ation, without crime and forfeiture, without any grounds moral, political, or legal. Mr. STANLEY congratulated Sir Charles, after a six weeks respite, on the refresher which he had administered to the House on the subject of corporation robbery, Cromwell, the French Re- volution, the Peerage, and the Monarchy. Sir Charles, however, was greatly in error when he talked of dissatisfaction and increas- ing dissatisfaction.

The fact was, the only dissatisfaction against the Bill arose from the very slow progress which, thanks to the honourable gentlemen opposite, the Bill had made. The feelings of the people as to the Bill had been too clearly evinced on the late election. Witness the large majority which bad been returned pledged to the Bill—witness the fact, that in all the large towns the enemies of the measure were obliged to withdraw. In- deed, if he had not been greatly misinformed, the mover of the amend- ment, Mr. E. Peel, was indebted for his return for Newcastle solely to his assurance that he would support the Bill. It would be for the honour- able gentleman to reconcile to his constituents his professions and his practice.

After some farther conversation,—in which Messrs. GOULBURN, GREENE, ROBINSON;WRANGHAM, CHICHESTER, TREVOR, SIB- THORP, C. PELHAM, and Sir F. BLAKE, supported, and Mr. PRO- THEROE, T. DUNDAS, HOWARD, C. FERGUSSON, and Alderman WAITHISA.N opposed the amendment,—the House divided ; when the amendment was negatived by 210 to 131. To the clause securing the inchoate rights of resident freemen during their lives, on the suggestion of Mr. WILKES, was added a clause, providing, that whoever married a freeman's daughter or widow, previous to the passing of the Bill, in boroughs where sueh a marriage gave a claim to corporate rights, should be en- titled to the benefit of the original clause. Mr. TREVOR offered an amendment, continuing the rights of son-resident freemen during life ; it was rejected by 151 to 38.! The safte-mestaDer wished to substitute " within the county" for `'within itiyea miles of the borough," but did not press, the ameadaianit Mr. Poyarrr offered a clause, reserving the inchoate rights of freeholders, but did not press it. Mr. RUMBOLD, similarly, did not press his amendment for giving non-resident freemen of bo- roughs a right to vote in the boroughs where they resided. The question that the clause, with the amendments, stand part of the Bill, was carried without remark.

Lord PALMERSTON at an early part of the evening stated, that in consequence of Lord Althorp's indisposition, the Irish Esti- mates would be taken on Wednesday ; and in lieu of that day, Monday next would be set apart for the Reform Committee.

In the Committee on Thursday, Lord ALTHORP explained the mode in which it was meant that clause 23rd should work—

The Commissioners would have to decide as to the mode in which the counties contained in Schedule G were to be divided, and it had been ar- gued that the Bill ought to contain some declaratory clause as to their mode of proceeding. It would, however, be exceedingly difficult to word such directions in a manner so as to leave to the Commissioners the discretion necessary to the performance of their duties ; and as the plan was adopted of laying their report before both Houses of Parliament, he did not think any such declaratory clause to be necessary. The Commis- sioners would likewise have to arrange the limits of the new boroughs, and to add to the old boroughs such proportions of townships and pa- rishes as were required by the Bill. They would make their report to the Home Secretary of State, who would lay it before both Houses of Par- liament ; and after it was agreed to, it would be laid before his Majesty for his approbation. The report on each place was not to be dis- cussed separately, as this would lead to debates compared to which the discussions upon Schedules A and B would be brief and inconsiderable. If the report were erroneous, it would be referred back to the Commis- sioners to be revised; but if it contained no mistake, the House would report upon it to the Crown. The only difficulty was, that until the re- port should he approved, no election could take place, although the old election was repealed, and null and void. This difficulty was unavoida- ble. It had been found necessary to name a large number of Commis- sioners in order that they might divide and carry on their investigations at different spots ; but no decision was to be received unless sanctioned by a majority ; the minimum would be 1G, as the total number of Com- missioners had been fixed at 31. Some of these gentlemen were totally unconnected with politics, and of many the political opinions were to him unknown. Some of the Commissioners were already well known to the public, but others were not, although they were all gehtlemen of intel- ligence and science.

His Lordship then read the fol owing names—

The Right Hon. J.Abercrombie, T. Drummond, Esq. Lord Chief Baron of Scotland. J. E. Drinkwater, Esq. E. J. Littleton, Esq. T. F. Ellis, Esq. Davies Gilbert, Esq. H. Kerr, Esq. W. Courtenay, Esq. T. B. Lennard, Esq. H. Martin,Masters in W. Orde jun. Esq.

I W.Wingfield, Chancery. J. Romily, Esq. Sir J. W. Gordon, Bart. R. J. Saunders, Esq. H. Hallam, Esq. The Rev. R. Sheepshanks. F. Beaufort, Esq. R.N. ' W. E. Tallents, Esq. Launcelot Baugh Allen, Esq. H. Tancred, Esq. H. Gawler, Esq. J. Wrottesley, Esq. T. Birch, Esq. F. Martin, Esq., Royal Engineer. W. Leake, Esq. R. A. Scott, Esq. Royal Staff Benjamin Annesley, Esq. Corps. J. T. Chapman, Esq. W. Wild, Esq.

R. Dawson, Esq.

Sir E. SUGDEN thought that Parliament ought to regulate the subdivisions of these Commissioners, and that not more than five ought to assemble in any one place. He objected to the powers given to the Commissioners as indefinite, and as much greater than they ought to be. If it were necessary to ascertain the bounds of a borough, it might to he done by a jury, for on the boundary depended, in many cases, the right of toll and other dues. lord ALTHORP observed, that the division of counties and of boroughs would be made for election purposes only. The power of calling for documents and inspecting muniments was given to enable the Commissioners to ascertain clearly the number of 10/. houses in each borough which they were called on to survey. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL objected to the clause because it de- prived the Crown of its prerogative to dissolve Parliament at its pleasure. "Besides," said Sir Charles, " if we pass the Bill with this clause, how are we to move for any new writ in case of death or acceptance of the Chilterns ?" The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—" The Bill has reference to future Parliaments, not to this." Sir CHARLES WETHERELL admitted that objection was answered. He went on to comment on the individual Commissioners, and on the labour they must undergo— On one day they would be whirled off to Chester in the Telegraph, and on another they would be hurried away to Northampton in the Rocket. All this wear and tear of locomotion, it was much to be feared, would be productive of the most formidable consequences. He presumed it was in honour of the 1st of September that Ministers had selected these thirty-one sportsmen to mark, wing, bring down, and lacerate every bo- rough, town, and county in England, and return to Downing Street after having bagged their quarry. The county members who voted for such a course of proceeding were in effect treating their constituents as animals ferx natures, who might be packed in one preserve, or transferred to another, at the arbitrary will and pleasure of these erratic sportsmen, duly licensed by the Treasury. (Laughter.) Mr. WYNNE wished a clause introduced, providing, that if Par- liament were dissolved before the new machinery was perfect, it should be elected by the old. Sir R. lamas asked if instructions had been given to the Com- missioners. Lord ALTHORP said, none had been given. The Commissioners would draw up rules for their own guidance. He objected, after ParBanient had sanctioned the formation of a new constituency, to give the Crown special power by a dissolution to appeal once- more to the old constituency. Mr. FRESHFIELD put the case, that the Commission( rs did not make their award in three months ; and Mr. H. HUGIU,S objected to Chief Baron Abercrombie being at the head of the Commis- sioners.

Lord ALTHORP thought it very unlikely that the Commissioners, specially appointed as they were, would exceed their time ; and as to the Chief Baron, it was pretty obvious that the Lilairs of his Court would not interfere with his labours as a Commissioner.

(Laughter.)

In answer to a question by ATI.. HUNT, LORI ALTHORP stated, that the Commissioners would have no salary. Th4 would be paid their travellineeeepenses. Mr. WRANGHAM Mr. RARING WALL co:newt:led on the list of Commissioners, and ce:cepted to some of Ih names. 'Wall wished that the name of " Mr. Mogg " had been ,n the list.

The names were then agreed to ; as was that part wh:ch enacts that sixteen Commissioners shall be a quorum; and the whole clause was agreed to as part of the 1;i11. Sir GEORGE WARRENDER lv it hdr,:2w his notice of motion ro allow boroughs having more than 400 voters to return members as heretofore, chiefly because he did not wish to olIser any vex- atious opposition to ille Bill.

On the 24th clause, for the regulation of the boundaties of bo- roughs, being put, Mr. TENNI:SON said, he thought the Commis- sioners should have the power of separating from boroughs such places as were notoriously under local influence. Lord ALTHORP was decidedly hostile to this.

Sir RICHARD VI'VYA2g- observed, that no speech made in Par- liament went further against the Bill than Mr. Tennyson's. He compared the Commissioners to those in Mr. Fox's India Lord ALTHORP said, the Commissioners under Mr. Fox's Bill Were commissioners for managing the whole affairs of India; they were to be permanent and independent of the Crown. The pre- sent Commissioners would be merely appointed to discharge the duties assigned to been in this Bill, and after they had performed those duties their office would cease. -

Colonel SIBTHORP eave notice, that on the bringing up of the report, he would move, that no member of that House, or mem- ber's son, should be appointed to fill the situation of a Commis- sioner.

Sir CHARLES WETHERELL commented on Mr. TellilySOri'S pro- position ; which Mr. STANLEY observed was sufficiently put to rest by the expression of opinion on both sides of the House. After a few more words from Mr. TENNYSON, who said he only spoke the sentiments of his constituents, and from Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who both differed from Mr. Tennyson on the propriey of giving the Commissioners power to narrow boronebs, the clause was agreed to.

Alderman WOOD wished the 25th and 26th clauses to be taken; but Lord ALTHORP said he felt bound, by the contract entered into, not to go farther at that hour. It was then half-past one.

On the House going into Committee last night, the 25th clause was agreed to without discussion.

From the 26th clause, Lord ALTHORP moved that the words "charters and title-deeds " be omitted, as he considered the in- sertion of such to be unnecessary fox the purposes of the Com- mission.

On the 27th clause, Mr. VERNON remarked, that unless the hundred of Bassetlaw had been by this clause included in the county of Nottingham, that county would not have had a claim to any increase of members.

Sir EDWARD SUGDEN objected to the exclusion of Horsham, by which he contended that Worthing would command the election in the rape of Bramber.

After a long and desultory conversation, Sir T. FREMANTLE moved as an amendment, that the clause do stand as in the ori- ginal draught of the Bill. On this amendment a division took place ; when there appeared for it 29, against it 102. Clause 28th was omitted.

On clause 29th, Colonel Woon moved =amendment, that that clause also be omitted. He contended, at great length, that the attempt at registration of votes would only be a source of vexation and expense, and what he said Mr. Tierney had denominated the clauses of the bill of 1897, from which it was copied, "mere impracticability and moonshine." Lord ALTHORP defended the clause. No expense would be im- posed on the parishes ' • for the expense being a national one, would very properly be borne by the nation; but if the parishes bore it, it would be no great burden. Similar lists of jury-men and militia-men were now made out at no great expense. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN felt assured, that the clause would only open the door to endless litigation and expense. Sir Edward also contended, that shortening the time of election and appointing district polls would increase expense instead of diminishing it. The voters must, he said, be conveyed in vehicles, and all of them must be polled. Mr. Sergeant WILDE ridiculed this notion of increased expense, ascontrary to fact and common sense. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL objected to the registry on the score . of .expense. The plan of district polling be looked on as by far the most exceptionable part of the Bill. It would be productive or such expense as small freeholders-could not conveniently afford. . Mr.-larrEnTorr said, it was matter of surprise that registration, in a sec country like England, should have been so long unpro- yided for. Mr. NORTH recommended the Irish system of registry.

Lord ALTHORP objected to the adoption of a system which, it was acknowledged, required amendment.

No division took place on Colonel Wood's motion.

Clause 30th was read, for the purpose of being postponed to this day.

2. MANNOOTH COLLEGE. On Wednesday, a long conversa- tion took place on the subject of the grant to this college, against which a petition was presented by Sir R. H. INGLIS. The petition was signed by 7S0 Protestants of Ireland; and it objected to the grant chiefly because the piliAls at the College were the sons of persons in humble life, bee:vise none of them had been distin- guished for his attainments, and because of the disinclination to the circulation of the Seripteres, which the petitioners alleged was fostered at the College. It spoke also of the hardship of compel- liwr the petitioners to contribute tmeards the inaintenance of as institution for the promulgation of erroneous and idolatrous doc- trines.

The language and sentiments of the petitioners were severely critieized by Mr. O'CONNELL. He said he would make a bar- gain with Sir Robert Inglis : if Sir Robert would cease to compel the Catholics to contrieete to the Peolestant Church, they would most cheerfully relinquish the contributions of the Protestants to the Catholic Church.

Mr. Hums commeetel el i fate ceueeleint that persons of hum-

ble birth were chiefly e ll.i l et Thlynooth. Ile observed that nearly the whole of the (A-1-zy.,.)1' S.:.,,!;:x.d rose fl• :n tile same ranks which the petilioni•r.: c,,,1;:ic:a:cci as un:It for i:2 a1 honours. He ridiculed the notion that fist _71'an?t 011111t to because of the alleged idolatry of in India we supported the

open and avowed idolatry () Mr. SPRING RICE be best discussed in the Committee of Supply.

Mr. GRATTAN described the petition as any thine- but respect- able. It had been hawked all over the couairy, and signatures bad even been sought in the prisons of Dublin.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, he knew nothing of the petitioners, nor of their character ; he was asked to present the petition, and did so as matter of public duty.

Mr. O'CoNecarm called Sir Robert's attention to the signature of the Reverend Percival Magee, a prelate, who thought to justify the large income which be received for doing nothing, by calumni- ating those by whom it was paid.

3. NEWTOWNBARRY MASSACRE. On Wednesday, a long conversation took place on this affair, which the Irish members are not inclined to pass over in silence. Mr. LAMBERT read a letter from the Rev. Mr. Walsh, stating that he merely informed Major Bustle that a shot had been fired, leaving the Major to draw what inferences he pleased. Mr. Walsh neither knew, nor pretended to know, the motives of those who fired it. Mr. MAXWELL remarked on the statement of a woman being ripped open ; he did not believe that such an atrocity had oc- curred.

Mr. BLAME:VEY and Mr. AVALXER declared that it had. tt turned out, on explanation, that a female had been shot, and that the ball, slanting along the abdomen, had laid it open—she was pregnant, and the child as well as the mother was killed. Mr. CRAMPTON spoke of the affair as under a judicial investi- gation, and deprecated discussion of it. He said a bill had been found against a Policeman. Mr. O'CONNELL said, this statement proved what he had before asserted, that no bill had been found against a Yeoman, and that there was no trial pending—" it was a mockery and delusion to assert that there was."

Mr. STANLEY said, the whole matter rested on the fact, whether the Yeomanry had orders to fire or not. Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that the captain had sworn that he gave no orders. He afterwards remarked, that he knew nothing of the matter but-what he had learned from the newspapers.

Mr. STANLEY—" Hear ! hear !"

Mr. O'Coxaraar.—" The right honourable gentleman may cheer, but I should be glad to know from what other source he derives his knowledge of the matter." Mr. H. GRATTAN said, the case was simply—should the Govern- ment put down the Yeomanry, or the Yeomanry put down the Government.

Mr. HUME adverted to the broad fact of the case. Govern- ment were grievously mistaken if they supposed that seventeen persons were to be killed and no inquiry. follow. The Irish mem- bers would bring this matter forward night after right, until jus- tice was done ; and they were right to do so. Mr. STANLEY said, the only anxiety on the part of Govern- ment was to do justice impartially to all parties. The question of the legal guilt of the Yeomanry was still undecided; and while that was undecided, whatever opinion of their moral guilt Govern- ment might entertain, it could not act upon it. Mr. HUME repeated the fact, allowed by every one, that men with the arms of Government in their hands had killed seventeen of his Majesty's subjects • Government were bound to inquire if they had.done so without authority, as was stated; and if they had, atone to deprive them of their arms.

4.- IRISH ESTIMATES—SIR GEORGE HILL. In the Irish Esti- mates, on Wednesday, on the vote forthe office of Vice-Treasurer. Mr. O'CONNELL asked for some explanation of the defalcation of Sir George Hill, formerly alluded to by Mr. R. Gordon. Mr. SPRING RICE stated the particulars of the case. Between five and six years ago, a balance of several hundred pounds bad been due from the Vice-Treasurer of Ireland to the public. At that period, the Treasury arranged that 10,000/. should be issued annually, on account, to the Vice-Treasurer ; and that he should every year deliver in his attested account, duly vouched, of the expenditure of the money, in the same way as all other accountants. Urgent and repeated calls had been made upon the Vice-Treasurer to render his accounts ; but this he bad neglected to do ; alleging, as his reason, that the difficulty arose from a part of the papers being in Ireland and a part in England, and making various other excuses. At length the Vice-Treasurer, Sir George Hill, was appointed Governor of St. Vincent's in the West Indies ; and he left this country without rendering any account whatever of the public money intrusted to his care. In consequence of further applications, Sir George 1f ill had at last rendered in his accounts ; but they were unsupported by vouchers, and were altogether in a condition which made it impossible that they could be audited, examined, or passed. Assuming, however, that the accounts were correct, it appeared by Sir George Hill's own showing, that he was in debt to the public the stun of 2,1801. He had been called upon to pay this balance, and to put his accounts in a state so that it inieht he ascertained whether he was not indebted to a larger amount. Neither of these requisitions had he complied with ; but he bad written to the Treasury Board to say that his nephew, Mr. Hill, who was in Ireland, would pay the balance for him. Application had conse- quently been made to this Mr. Hill ; and the only result was, that that gentleman had declared his ‘..illingness to pay the money when Sir George Hill directed him to do so. This he supposed Sir George had not done, for the money had not yet he n paid. Air. R. GORDON, Mr. II umE, and several other members, re- probated the conduct of the former Government, in first allowing the accounts of the Vice-Treasurer of' Ireland to lie over so long, and then appointing one, who was a public defaulter, to an office of high trust while his accounts were still unsettled. Mr. DAWSON spoke of the delicacy of his situation in relation to Sir George, which rendered it difficult for him to insist on the regular production of his accounts. He denied that it was just to asperse Sir George until his accounts were settled. He afterwards stated, that it was not until after Sir George's appointment that the account of the deficit was known. It had been estimated at 4001. or 5001.

5. SEE OF DERRY. In the same committee on the Irish Esti- mate, on the vote for dissenting clergymen being moved, Mr. HUME suggested that it ought to be paid out of the fines due to the bishopric of Derry. He understood there was a fine of 25,0001. which was not due in time to be paid to the late Bishop. Mr. STANLEY admitted the power of the Legislature to dispose of the revenues of the Church; but denied the right, as much as lie denied its right to take away the property of individuals. Mr. SHELL replied to this doctrine— The Secretary for Ireland had, in touching on this subject, taken occa- sion to reiterate the opinions expressed by him when he first came into the House, relative to the Established Church. This reiteration was of great importance, as he was now a member of the Cabinet, and held such important functions connected with the Government of Ireland. • Were they to be told that there was no change to be made in the Church Esta- blishment ? This was decidedly at variance with the declaration made by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords, who had proclaimed his de- cided conviction that the Irish Church Establishment was not fitted for Ireland. So that a Cabinet Minister in the Commons dissented froth a Prime Minister in the Lords. But how stood public opinion in England? Even from the great seminary of orthodoxy—from the chair of Political Economy in Oxford—a distinct announcement had been made, that it would be necessary for Ireland that the Irish Bishoprics should be dimi- nished. Mr. Senior had proposed to apply the revenues of eighteen bi- shoprics to the purposes of the state. He owned, that as a Roman Catho- lic he would not disguise the feelings which he felt at beholding one tithe of the nation's substance devoted to the religion of one tithe of the na- tion's numbers. He was no enemy of the Established Church. He was sworn not to conspire for its overthrow ; but he could not be so far its friend as to be reconciled to its enormous opulence. He would not touch a single actual incumbent; but for the sake of that mere legal idealism, a successor, he would not desire to see a system perpetuated, against which reason, justice, policy, seven millions of the Irish nation, and a large portion of the English people, concurred in remonstrating. kgreat retrenchment was requisite. A schedule A was required for the Irish mitres. It was not in these days of reform that we should talk of the vested rights of the Established Church of Ireland, by which millions of the national wealth were dedicated to the maintenance of the institu- tions alien to the nation. The Established Church might be left in its legal preeminence; its Bishops (although their number should be reduced) might be maintained in due dignity, and its priesthood in comfort ; and at the same time much of its opulence might be applied to purposes more consistent with the national good. Thus the hostility of the nation would be mitigated, and one of the great sources of discord would be removed. Lord Grey, he trusted, would avail himself of the first opportunity afforded to commence this most important reform. Until it took place, it was idle to think that the prosperity and peace of Ireland could be materially promoted.

6. IRELAND—POOR-LAWS. In the Committee of Supply on Monday, the vote for the Royal Dublin Society was fixed at 5,5001., instead of 7,000/. as formerly. The ground of the dimi- nution—which it was stated would be carried farther next year— was the intolerant principle on which the Society was conducted, which had converted it into a political club, instead of a society for the promotion of art and science. It is intended that in future the amount of the grant shall be measured by that of the local con- tributions.

A conversation afterwards took place respecting the merits of Mr. Gregory, whom Mr. O'CONNELL represented as a party zealot, and whom Mr. GOULBURN vindicated as his "dear friend." It appeared from what was stated by Mr. LEFROY, that Sir Anthony Hart, the late Chancellor, had been chiefly guided in his appoint- ment of magistrates by Air. Gregory. When the Estimates had been gone through, Mr. SADLER brought forward his motion respecting the introduction of poor- laws into Ireland. He quoted Locke, Lord Hale, Blackstone, and Burke, to show that the public support of the poor was a sacred duty. He also quoted the well-known saying of Dr. Johnson, that where the poor were taken care of, there mankind were civilized. Mr. Sadler went on to observe, that they had the testi- mony of numerous old as well as recent authorities to the wretchedness of Ireland. He particularly instanced the ravages of the typhus fever in 1817 and 1818, originating, as medical men declared, in a scarcity of the necessaries of life. The same cause, he said, had lessened the average duration of life in Ireland com- pared with that of England.

In the population returns of 1821, the number of persons in England under forty years of age was 8,601,468 ; the number above forty years was 2,469,600. In Ireland, according to the same census, the number of persons under forty years of age was 5,593,883. Now the number of per- sons above forty years of age which the proportion of English census would give was 1,714,014, while the netual number .vas but 1,099,370; that is, leaving a deficiency in the Irish population of persons above forty years of age, as compared with the English, of 600,000 souls in round numbers. Again, if, in the same plan and according to the returns of 1821, they compared Wales and Connaught, they would find that xviiile in the former the number under and above forty years of age stood as 530,700 to 169,419 souls, in Connaught they were 927,393 under forty years of age, and but 181,644 above forty ; though if the health and lon- gevity were as they ought to be—and under good government they would be equal to those in Wales—the number would be 296,050. In round numbers, then, the health and longevity of the labouring classes in this country, as compared with the mortality in Ireland, were superior by 126,000 in every million of inbabitants,—au enormous disproportion, which could only be accounted for by the wretched state of the poor of Ireland.

To the Same cause—insufficiency of food—Mr. Sadler ascribed the great number of idiots and lunatics in Ireland. Front the phy- sical he proceeded to the moral consequences of extreme poverty-, —the riots which it produced, the spirit of general turbulence which it generated. Mr. Sadler ridiculed the notion that the ex- cess of the population in Ireland was the cause of the sufferings of the people, while it exported 18,000,000 quarters of corn per annum ; and while, if the land were fairly divided, there would be at least twenty acres for each family. He equally denied that want of capital was the source of Irish distress : the amount of capital had increased since 1700 from ten to twenty millions, and the rental had in that space of time increased tenfold, while the rental of England had only increased three and a half times.• He then adverted to the state of England in Elizabeth's time; which, he contended, was in every respect as bad as the state of Ireland was at present. He showed that private charity could not meet the distress of the country ; and mentioned, in proof of it, that in the last distress at Limerick, men worth from 80,0001. to 100,0001. had been applied to by the Bishop, and the whole amount of the contributions fell short of 100/. Mr. Sadler said, he was of opinion that poor-laws would be ultimately found to be an economical mode of relieving Ireland, for they would raise the value of pro- perty in Ireland, and prevent the influx of Irish vagrants into England. He concluded by moving, " That in the opinion of the House, it was expedient to institute a legal provision for the poor of Ireland."

Mr. STRICKLAND complained of the vagueness of Mr. Sadler's argument. It was easy to describe the sufferings of the poor— the difficulty was in the remedy. He had listened in vain for a proposal of any thing like a practical system of poor-laws in the speech of Mr. Sadler. If they merely extended to Ireland the poor-laws of England, they would inflict a mischief on the former, which they would long have occasion to repent.

Colonel TORRENS said— The system of affording compulsory relief to able-bodied labourers was a system which included every topic of political economy and of social arrangement. Now the honourable member for Boroughbridge had treated this system throughout the whole of his speech without any re- ference to those principles of political economy en which it depended. He was surprised that any person,' gifted with the acuteness of the -ho- nourable member, could have Come to the important conclusions at which he had arrived, without considering the grounds upon which they rested. He considered this question to be quite as much an English as an Irish question. When two countries were as closely connected with each other as England and Ireland were, it was impossible that there could long exist a different rate of wages in the two countries. Either the Irish popu- lation must be raised to the level of the English, or the English must be degraded to the level of the Irish people. Mr. RosnsrsoN was favourable to Mr. Sadler's exertions, and hoped he would continue them. Lord ALTHORP said, he filly admitted that in Ireland there was great distress, but still he thought it was somewhat exaggerated, and that upon the whole Ireland was in an improving state. He agreed with Mr. Sadler, that the opinion of the necessity of intro- ducing a system of poor-laws into Ireland was gaining daily force, but still no plan for their introduction had been broached. And to premise relief generally, without any digested plan by which relief was to be administered, would be of all things the mat short- sighted and injudicious. He was disappointed to find that Mr. Sadler-had confined himself to general reasoning on the subject, and had not offered to the House some specific scheme on which they might come to a practical conclusion. From the importance of the subject and the sufferings of those whom it regarded, he would not negative the motion, but merely move on it the previous question. . . Mr. Sam argued for the introduction of compulsory assess- ment as an experimental measure. - Dublin had petitioned for the power of relieving pauperisM from want! demand had originated from the failure of the Association. Even if it had succeeded, he should desire to put an end to a system by which charity was mulcted, while parsimonious opulence escaped from contri- bution. The tax which pity levied on its slender resources enabled in- sensibility to hug itself in the ignominious consciousness of its privilege, and gave a base immunity to men without a heart. He would, he owned, disturb the sordid luxuries of men who, in the midst of the public scorn, turned their self-applauding contemplation to their chests of gold. But

the society to which he had referred had failed, and it would be vain to argue the question upon an hypothesis of its success. If private bene- volence could support its weight, it were well ; but when it sinks beneath it, it was but reasonable to give it an auxiliary, and enable it to bear the burden which it had no longer strength sufficient to sustain.

Mr. Shell alluded to the conflicting opinions given on the subject of the poor-laws before the Irish Committee by Dr. Doyle and Dr. Chalmers. He admitted the difficulty of deciding where so emi- nent men had differed ; yet he thought, with his superior local knowledge, Dr. Doyle was the better witness. One spoke of what he had seen, the other of what lie had heard. Dr. Chalmers talked of human nature ; Dr. Doyle of its peculiar modification in his own country. Dr. Chalmers was afraid of congealing the pure sources of gratuitous benevolence. He did not know that in the heights of society in Ireland, the moral temperature was already below the freezing-point ; and that there was a crust of ice upon the fountain of sympathy which charity could not melt, but which the law perhaps might break. He spoke of the absentee system, and the cure which a poor- law would administer to that evil ; but above all, he begged the House, when they were called on to legislate for the relief of that country, not to lose sight of the peculiar evils which not the ab- sentees, but the laws, had inflicted on Ireland. The " clearing system " was sent like a chariot with two scythes fas- tened to its wheels by the law itself (the Subletting Act and the Disfran- chisement Bill), to mow the people down. He should not discuss the abstract propriety of preventing farms from being broken into fragments; but he complained, and common feeling complained, that no measures of cotemporaneous counteraction were provided,—that no issue was af- forded, even by emigration, for the ejected tenantry, but that thousands upon thousands were driven from the fields where they were born, and hoped to die, without supplying them with a place of refuge in the forests of Canada, or even in the blasted wilds of Australian sterility. But, in- stead of providing this resource, a proceeding was adopted which ought to make the perpetrators and the participators shudder. A scene of greater affliction was not to be found in the annals of human sorrow. Whole masses of the people were turned out with the world before them and Providence for their guide. Old decrepit men, children scarcely able to crawl, women almost in a state of nudity, and men with brawny arms and famished faces, went forth in droves of destitution. Some lay down in ditches to die ; others raised hovels for the purposes of casual mendicity on the brow of some bill in the public way ; scme retreated to excavations in hogs, and hewed themselves out a habitation in a mo- rass. But the greater part found their way into the obscure lanes and

alleys of ruined districts in cities,—they swarmed in human clus- ters in garrets and in vaults ; if you looked up, you saw famine glaring from a sashless window in the attics of some deserted house; and if you looked down, you beheld it in a cellar, seated upon its bed of short and pestilential straw. There wag no exaggeration in this. The Com- mittee report that the ejected tenantry suffered affliction which it was not in the power of language to describe. But this was called a state of transition. Call it pestilence, famine, death, and men would tremble; but call it transition, envelop it in the technical vocabulary of fiscal sci- ence, and a directory of economists will speak of it with the tranquillity with which a French philosopher would have expatiated on the process of regeneration which his country was undergoing through the sangui- nary celerity of the guillotine. Mr. STANLEY complimented Mr. Sheil on his eloquent speech, but could not help suspecting that he had given a very exagge- rated description of the evils whose existence he so vividly de. scribed. Mr. Stanley said he had made many inquiries into the operation of the Subletting Act, and lie had never been able to trace a single case of ejection to its operation. With respect to experimental poor-laws in Dublin, it must be evident no experi- ment could be tried there without a law of settlement, or the ne- cessary consequence would be an influx of poor from every cor- ner of Ireland into Dublin. To Mr. Sadler's resolution the grand objection was, that it was so vague and general that any two members agreeing to it, might afterwards be found voting one for and the other against the measures to be founded on it. Mr. LEADER spoke in favour of, and Lord MORPETH against Mr. Sadler's proposition. Mr. SPRING RICE thought it would stimulate able-bodied la- bourers to emigrate, when they had an assurance that their fami- lies would be provided for in their absence.

After some further conversation, the previous question was car- ried by 64 to 52.

7. BELGIUM. On Monday, some conversation took place in the House of Lords, concerning the retirement of the French troops from Belgium,—on a motion of the Marquis of LONDONDERRY for an account of the sums paid by this country for the erection of forts in that country. Lord Londonderry wished to receive some information respecting •a report that, agreeably to a request of "Prince Leopold," ten or twelve thousand French were to re- main in Belgium. He would like to know if Earl Grey were a party to this ruse de guerre. The Marquis said, nothing would satisfy him but the retreat of the French from the Netherlands: if "Prince Leopold" required assistance, he might apply to the Conference, but not to France. He said he had received positive information that it was proposed to give France complete control over six fortresses, "including Courtrai ;" and that France was to enter into a separate treaty with Belgium in respect to others. He read a part of one of the letters that passed between Lord Grenville and M. Chauvelin, to which he begged Lord Grey's earnest attention, in the hope that he would imitate Lord Gren-

and benevolence from the harden of its exclusive sustainment. This vale's conduct on the occasiOn of the early ne.fotiations with Ra- publican France.

Earl GREY, after remarkint on the extreme irregularity of the Marquis's speeches on this and former occasions, said—

When lie wrs questioned, formerly, as to whether the French troops would retire from Belgium, he had observed, that with respect to what the French Government would do it was impossible for him to say, but that he had no difficulty in stating that the English Government had a right to expect, that when the object for which the French troops had advanced into 13elginm—namely, the repulsion of the Dutch invasion— should be effected, those troops would he withdrawn from Belgium. He repeated that statement now. He added, on the former occasion, that he relied upon the good faith and honour of the French Government to execute what, in his opinion, it had engaged to execute. More than that he would not state on the present occasion. He had stated likewise, on the occasion referred to, what was certainly correct, that intelligence had been communicated to the English Government, that the Marshal who commanded the French army in Belgium had received orders to withdraw with his troops into the territories of France. As to what circumstances had since occurred, what might depend on them, and to what they might tend, he must for the present decline saying any thing.

He added, that as little would he enter into any explanations re- specting the fortresses to be demolished—

He would only ,.oggest to the noble Marquis, not to rely so entirely upon the information which he received, because, though he spoke of the demolition of the fortress of Courtrai, he would be surprised to hear that there was no fortress at Courtrai.

The Duke of WELLINGTON observed that this was correct; Courtrai had no fortress. The Duke mentioned his having had an interview with Earl Grey, in order that, as the officer appointed to superintend these fortresses, he might give him what informa- tion he possessed respecting them. He said he had no doubt that the pledges of the King of France would be faithfully observed; hut, at the same time, he gave it as his opinion that if any troops remained in Belgium it would be no justification of their remain- ing that they were requested to do so by "King Leopold"—for King he was, and King the Duke must, as a good subject, style him, since he was so acknowledged by the British Government. • If troops were necessary to support King Leopold, it must be against the Dutch or against his own subjects ; it was not just, in either case, that Leopold should be supported by French aims, while William was refused support from the arms of the Con- ference ? If we had interfered at all, it ought to have been for the King of the Netherlands, or some one of his family. The Duke observed, that the occupation of France in 1815 was not by the authority of one, but eight powers • and care was taken that the troops of neighbouring states shad not be employed. Against the occupation of Spain, England had over and over again pro- tested; and had it not ceased, wa would have withdrawn our am- bassador. We threatened the same thing in regard to the Austrian occupation of Naples. A question was put to Lord ALTHORP last night, touching the authenticity of the protocols which have appeared in the news- papers, and to which we have elsewhero alluded. Sir RICHARD VYVYAN, who put the question, wished at the same time to know, if the armistice alludod to in the last protocol had been agreed to ; and if any renewed assurance had been given by the French Government of their intention to withdraw the French troops from Belgium ? Lord ALTHORP said, protocols of a similar purport to those de- scribed by Sir Richard had been agreed to ; he had not time to read newspapers, and could not therefore speak to the character of those that had appeared there. If Sir Richard wished to in- volve the country in a war, the other questions were precisely such as he would be Inclined to press. Lord Althorp declined giving them any answer.

8. THE CORONATION. In the Committee of Supply on Wed- nesday, Mr. SPRING RICE proposed 50,0011/. as a vote for the ex-

penses of the Coronation. He stated, at the same time, that he had every reason to believe that the vote would exceed the ex- pense.

Mr. HUME protested against even such an expenditure as 50,0001., but said he would content himself with protesting. Mr. HUNT—" If the honourable Member for Middlesex be sin- cere in his opposition to the grant, he will divide the House upon it, and in that case I'll divide along with him." Mr. HUME observed, that he did not, seeing the feeling of the House was against him, think it necessary to put his sincerity to that test.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, if the ceremony had been performed privately in the House of Peers, as had been suggested, it might have called forth observations " as to popular principles, which were entirely repugnant from the measures to which such obser- vations might have reference." Mr. O'CONNELL said, it was quite consistent in Mr. Hunt to

doubt Mr. sincerity, if there were any truth in the ob- servation that men always judged others by themselves. He, how- ever, thought the coronation requisite, not only as a recognition of the Sovereign by the people, but as a recognition by the Sovereign of his duties to the people. He should have voted against a pri- vate coronation in the House of Peers.

Mr. Hums said, he had never mentioned any thing about the House of Peers ; but he was certain the ceremony might have been conducted in the Abbey for 5,0001. instead of 50,0001., and the country have been much better satisfied. The subject of exp .nse was again taken up by Mr. JAMES on Thursday. He insisted that 5,0001. would have amply sufficed for it. The House was very impatient under this argument. On the same night, Mr. HUME, on bringing up the report of a Committee appointed to examine the seats prepared for the Com- mons [there are 410 of these seats], stiongly objected to the mem- bers going in Court-dresses. Mr. Hume's views were not con- curred in by the House.

9. BEER Btu.. On Monday, the Bishop of LONDON, in pre renting petitions against the new beer-houses, defended himself against the charge of wishing to interfere with the pleasures of the poor, in his opposition to these houses. He merely wished to place beer-houses on a similar footing with bakers' shops, which shut up at seven o'clock on Sundays, and to prevent gambling being carried on in them.

The clergy were placed in circumstances of considerable difficulty whenever measures were brought forward which affected the morals and happiness of the lower orders. If they remained silent, they were im. mediately accused of supineness and indifference with respect to the poorer classes; and if they lifted up their voices against measures which they conscientiously thought produced pernicious effects, they were then charged with hypocrisy and cant. Now he should be glad to know by what authority any persons assumed to themselves the right of charging the clergy with saying one thing and meaning another? If the clergy were guilty of inconsistency—if they attempted to abridge the enjoy- ments of the poor, while they passed over the licentiousness of the rich, then there would be some ground for such an accusation.; but that ground did not, in fact, exist. He had himself been subject to censure and ridi- cule, for lifting up his voice against the licentiousness and vices of the great.

After some conversation, in which Lord MELBOURNE stated, that from the difficulty of drawing a line between rural beer-shops and town beer-shops, the bill had been left unaltered in that re- spect,— The LORD CHANCELLOR delivered his sentiments at length. He thought two things had in respect of the bill been confounded— the fall in the price of the article, and the extension of the licences. If the former had not accompanied the latter, he did not believe any increase of demand for beer would have taken place. The only pos- sible case where the new beer-shops could have extended the drink- ing of beer, was that of remote or solitary districts, where, from the control exercised by the magistrates, there had been previously no public-house at all. Lord Brougham said, though lie would con- cur in any plan for preventing the establishment of beer-houses in obscure or lonely places, where they might be the haunts of dangerous characters, he must oppose any attempt to control them elsewhere, under any other limits than those to which the licensed victuallers were subjected. If they shut up the new houses at seven o'clock, what would be the consequence ?— These houses, where the comparatively poisonous gin was sold, would be open, while those shops, where the comparatively innocent beer was sold, would he shut. This would be giving to the licensed victuallers, in addition to their other advantages, the monopoly of time; and the labourer who needed refreshment would be compelled to go for it to one of the gin-plus-ale houses. They were open at all times—at Christmas, ori•Saint Monday and on Saintless Saturday. At all hours, and all days of the week—Nectar atque dies patet atri janua Ditis. He objected to any distinction being made between the old and new houses, which should

have the effect of encouraging the consumption of ardent spirits; and so deeply was he convinced, in consequence of the investigation made by the Police Committee of the other House into the causes of the atrocities perpetrated by the lower orders of the metropolis, of the cruel evils and boundless mischiefs which arose from the consumption of ardent spirits by the common people in this town, that he confessed himself to be per-

fectly willing, if he could only see his way, to lay an entire prohibition on the consumption of spirits. If he could procure this object, he cared not a rush at what sacrifices it was done,--by what legislative enactments

it was effected; and he would willingly throw overboard his principles of free trade and unfettered industry, to lighten the vessel and get it into that port where he desired to see it. But he knew the thing was impos- sible, without making an invidious, intolerable, and therefore, in a free country, an impracticable distinction between the different classes of the community. He had therefore given up the speculation of endeavouring to prevent the consumption of ardent spirits; but the next thing to be done was to discourage it as much as possible.

For a simi'ar reason, he was opposed to tacking to the Amend- ment Bill a clause to prohibit skittles, because it would naturally send those who delighted in skittles to the licensed house. There were difficulties in the way in whichever point of view the subject was contemplated; but the only plan which promised extrication from them, was to place old and new houses in every respect on the same footing. Lord WYNFORD said, the magistrate had at present the power of fixing the hour of shutting.the licensed houses. LORD ORD CHANCELLOR admitted this, but contended that the same regulation should apply to both, not the same regulating The French Minister submitteeleillae Chamber of Deputies on power merely. Saturday last, his bill for the future regulation of the Peerage. It 10. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. Last night, Lord BROUGHAM laid on the table a bill for amending these courts. The law which leaves inviolate the persons of members of either House of Par. liament, leaves notwithstanding. in cases of Common Law or Equity proceedings, their property liable to sequestration, in order, where inece'ssary, to compel them to put in such answers as the Court may require. By the 4th Geo. IV., which assimilated the Eccle- siastical Courts to the Courts of Common Law and Equity, ordi- nalry persons were rendered liable to the punishment of contempt, but no provision was made for members of Parliament ; in conse- quence of which, in as far as these courts are concerned, members of Parliament are placed completely above the law. If summoned by- Doctors Commons, a member may refuse to answer, and laugh at the Court. The object of Lord Brougham is to remedy this de- fect in the Ecclesiastical Courts, by granting them the same right of sequestration as the Courts of Common Law and Chancery. A great portion of the discussions which have occupied the Lords an 1 Commons for the last three weeks might have been spared, had the protocol agreed to in respect to the stay of the French army in Belgium been hid before the public when it was signed. It has at length reached us, through that medium—the foreign journals—which commonly, strange to he told, affords free Eng'and the earliest notices of those obligations into which its Governor nt may see fit front time to time to enter. This proto- col, whie'r runs as follows, is dated 611i August, and is signed by all the Ambassadors of the Five Powers.

" That the moment the Government of his Britannic Majesty received informati.m of the renewal of hostilities between Holland and Belgium, it gave orders for a division of the fleet to assemble as soon as possible in the Downs, where it would be ready to concur in any measures which. might be deemed necessary for the reestablishment of the armistice which the Five Powers had engaged to maintain between Holland and Belgium; and that after the dispatch of this order, the new Sovereign of Belgium had claimed the assistance of the Five Powers, and, more especially, naval succour from Great Britain.

" The Plenipotentiary of his Majesty the King of the French declared that the Sovereign of Belgium had just required the armed intervention of France, in consequence of the renewal of hostilities between Holland and Belgium ; and he had even added, that the necessity for the assistance of the French Government was extremely urgent, and that there was not a minute to be lost to prevent a general conflagration.

" The danger being so pressing, the King of French decided imme- diately upon forming an army to march to the succour of the Belgians, and drive the Dutch troops back upon their own territory. " The Plenipotentiaries of the four other Courts having made the Pk.: nipotentiary of France acquainted with the declarations expressed on the same subject by the French Government to the representatives of those four Courts at Paris, the Plenipotentiary of France, referring to those de- clarations, announced that as soon as the object they pointed out should be attained, the French army would return into the Department of the North.

" These declarations having been made, the Conference considered that, on one side, France, in coming to the determination she had adopted,. had not had time to fuliil the obligation, which she was fully desirous to do, of acting in concert with her allies ; hut, on the other hand, she had manifested an intention of not availing herself of the measures taken, but in execution of the engagements entered into between the Five Powers relative to the maintenance of the armistice between Holland and Bel-4 gium.

" Consequently the Plenipotentiaries of the Five Powers regarded the entrance of the French troops into Belgium as having taken place not with any intention peculiar to France, but for an object towards which the deliberations of the Conference were directed ; and it remained un- derstood, that the extent to be given to the operations of these troops and their continuance in Belgium should be fixed by common agreement be. tween the Five Courts at the Conference of London.

" It also remained understood, that in case the co-operation of the Eng: lish fleet should be required, this fleet should act only for the purpose of accomplishing the same views and upon the same principles.

"Besides, it remained agreed that the French troops should not past the ancient frontiers of Holland, that their operations should be confined to the left bank of the Meuse, and that under no circumstances should they invest the fortress of Maestricht, or that of Venloo, because then the war would be carried too near the frontiers of Prussia and Germany,, and might give rise to serious and complicated questions, which the Powers were desirous of avoiding ; and finally, that in conformity with the declarations made by the French Government to the representatives of the Four Courts at Paris, the French troops should retire within the limits of France as soon as the armistice was reestablished as it existed before the renewal of hostilities.

" Finally, the Conference agreed that these last events ought to induce it the more strongly to occupy itself with a definitive treaty calculated to put an end to all differences between Holland and Belgium, and which was indispensable for the maintenance of the general peace."

This, it must be admitted, is plain enough, and better than a thousand arguments, and answers the cavils of the Marquis of LONDONDERRY and the arguments of Sir RICHARD VYVYAN. The French army have commenced their retreat ; and there can be no doubt, that in a very short time the whole of them will be once more within their own territory. The elections for the approaching meeting of the Belgian States- General are nearly finished. They have hitherto gone, without an exception, in favour of the new King and his friends. Even at Ghent, which is commonly looked on as the hotbed of Orange influence, two popular members have been elected. Three more protocols appeared yesterday, the last of them dated so late as the 23rd August. By these it is arranged, that a six- weeks truce shall take place between Holland and Belgium, and that whichever power presumes to violate it, will be considered as placing itself in a state of warfare with the Five Powers.