MR. PEASE'S NOTIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY DUTY.

A CORRESPONDENT at Darlington has sent us the Durham Chro- nicle, with a letter calling our attention to the defence of his Par- liamentary conduct made by Mr. JOSEPH PEASE, the Member for South Durham, at a public breakfast at Darlington, on the '20th of last month; and, apparently, inviting us to express our opinion upon it.

The subjects on which Mr. PEASE volunteerel explanations, or to which his attention was drawn by persons present, were—the Coercion Bill ; Mr. TENNYSON'S motion for short Parlisments ; the impressment of seamen; absence from the House when large sums of public money were voted ; and his reported assertion that it was his primary duty to support the King and the Gm-eminent.

Mr. PE A SE'S defence appears to have been satisfacte,y to those of his constituents who were present; but it semis to us that they

were very good-humoured and easily satisfied. We will give a few extracts from the Honourable Member's address, in order that our readers may judge for themselves.

With respect to the Coercion Bill, Mr. PEASE said that he de- clined voting at all on the first and second reading, but supported it in its final stage, on the grounds alleged by Ministers for its necessity, and because "lie had ample opportunities 'f ascertain- ing that there was not one peace-loving man in Ireland a Ito did not regard it as a blessing." " He could not make up his mind to vote for all the pitovisions t f the Coerchm Illl ; and no power on earth should have induced him to do ; but when a motion was made to read it a third time ' that day six months,' 1 e opposed the amendment, and thus virtually voted for the passing of the bill. Mr • * He had a great abhorrence of military tribunals ; and nothing sl ould have in- duced him to vote for them. But he would avow, that had be to ihoose between ial before seven British officers, assisted by a barrister of so many years' stand- ing, five out of the seven o be unanimous in convicting, and thc sentence to be referred to the Lord-Lieutenant, and trial by a jury constituted under the cir- cumstances he had described, he would prefer the former alternative.

How Mr. PEASE reconciled it to his conscience to vote for a bill containing provisions which he so solemnly avers that "no power on earth should have induced hint" to vote for, he does not ex- plain ; and would perhaps have timund some difficulty in the at- tempt. His conduct, however, as regards the Coercion Bill, is venial when compared with his shuttling on Mr. TsatNirsoN's motion.

"He was a fi.iend to shortening the duration of Parliaments ; and he humi toted against Mr. Tennyson's motion (which was not brought Arword, thc company would remember, till after Mr. Wilks, the Member for Boston, had found it impossible to bring mat a similar one with any prospect of advantage ra-antdetthoerteuntei_eee;el•nleset.,ecoolutininttwesttsh,fierti:enirentielsv,s,e,enitiauttieoen'erwththeoe- ftgullietrduo,oitnthitorieli-nesri Was ever any thing so barefaced as this? Here is a Member of Parliament who refuses to vote for the abolition of a "practice which outraged all Christian principle, and was a violation of the great moral law," because there were only eighty or ninety mem- bers in the House to vote on either side of the question 7 It the Reformers of Durham are of opinion that the number of members present at a debate in the House of Commons makes any dif- ference between right and wrong, and that a small number justi- fies their Representative in upholding unchristian barbarity, then let them again return Mr. PEASE to Parliament : but if they do, they are not the men we take them for.

His reasons for being absent when the Miseellanems Es inmates were voted are curious.

" He had sent papers to every town in the Divisions, showing thv nature f the;se Estimates, with the view of courting commentary upon them ; bet he re- ceived none. It was slot he had received letters from \Vest Aucklaiol remon- strating against his coodoet ; but he defied tow man to prove that he ever re- ceived such emu:model:ions. Moreorer, he ;lid not leave town till he hod a"- certailed Mat the Estimates u,,re so much reduced that it icas not expected any dirtmou taL, place upon them."

From this it appears, that Mr. PEASE expected the yeomen of Durham to instruct him in the commonest duties of a Member el Parliament. This is of a piece with his conduct on most occa- sions—any thing hii an excuse for not giving an independent vote. He never mild have expected a commentary on the Miscellaneous Estimates from the Durham farmers and shopkeepers ; who elected him for the especial purpose of seeing that their money was not improperly vole,' away. Verily he has proved himself a vigilant guardian of the public purse With respect to his notable declaration, " that it was his primary duty to support lime King and the Government," he gives the fel lowing ex piana hon. " tie did sly 112,:t to do so was one of his primary duties. He hail made, the table of tile an affirmation that he would support King Willi3■11 against all trai,orous conspiracies to subvert his authority. Hut if he s:ii-I this in fealty to the Monarch, he had not forgotten his duty to his constituents;

and the sole the observation, shipped of the gloss that had been put it, was, that he was !lie friend of order, law, and good government."

This is ingenious, it must be confessed. We have not had art opportunity of sez:ing how Mr. PEass would act under a Tory Government; but we suspect that his conscience would have rebelled as strongly against opposition to Government under GEORGE the Fourth and,,CASTLEREAGII, as it does.;liOW under the opportunity for relaxation as other professional men enjoy. What This passage needs little comment. What reliance can be placed minister of state, lawyer, physician, or merchant, can depart from in a man who is ready to vote against a principle which he pro- his place of business for one third of every year When did the fesses to approve of, because it is discussed at a late period of the session ? This was Lord ALTHORP'S excuse for voting in opposi- tion to his recorded opinions—the motion, he said, was brought for- ward on the :lit!, of July. But Mr. PEASE is one of the Quin- quennial gentry. The worthy electors of South Durham are mis- taken in supposing that he would have voted for Triennial Parlia- ments, at whatever period of the session a motion to return to them might have been made. Moreover, unless there is good reason to expect that a motion will be carried,—unless there is some " pros- pect of advantage" in bringing it forward,—Mr. PEASE, it seems. will also vote against it. This is much the same as saying, that he will only vote in the mujority,—a practice to which this inde- pendent member of Parliament has very generally adhiTed. A valuable friend of popular rights he would have proved, some ten or fifteen years ago! His conduct on Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S Motion fin abolishing im- pressment of seamen next comes under review. He says, " Ile did not doubt that the 'Members who introduced many of the motions which were mimed during the last session, were actuated by the purest motives; but he coottolde,1 gal it teas prejudicial, even to their 11lieetS, to introduce them at per:ods whim they emdd not ?Tee-ire that attcution to tch;ch their

»writs eolith-111,cm. Such teas Mc case reyard to the motion on the im- pressment outrag«l all Christian pi halide, and

was a rb,lothm •irtat me,,ii1011. ; bllt n'hiCh 1114! Mit A' F,, liefirildig MIHdrd it, a IIMISt; if' cl20.,1 mit h 1,111 MCMberS, mid them, morn ma by the previous b- fours of the se sNion." It will always depend upon the temper of the Bishop, his private mu Me late session), in consequence of the great pressure if public busbies., connexions, and those of the candidate for ordination, whether the whi fihtahne con:i iitbrednit was only calculated 10 impede,withoutlleiuding b: 11;v examination be a strict or lax one : but without looking for super I profitable I l'Ire'll a ; a' ieldrehe" c.ould There was thjeirreospneclist aofcearitlaiisnso,uottiounrofyilacaerl ian-

I lint : ; reflect .

human impartiality in Bishops, it is plain that their usual conduct which there was no hope of the questioo being carried. Ile considered the pe- as respects the ordination of clergymen may be much improved. , tiod at which it was brought forward (July :Nth) much too lato to answer any It is a scandal upon the heads of the Church to see so many dis- useful purpose; and hail expressed this opinion to the Member for Lambeth, in sipated, worthless fox-hunters, in the seats which ought to be the Independent Heading-room of the house of Commons, when that honourable gentleman first signified his intention to replace Mr. Wilks's dropped notice. filled by painstaking men of God. He thought it better not to discuss the question last session ; but he had never The Times is liberal towards the Bishops. Four thousand I shirked the question itself. He was ready to support a motion for limiting the pounds a year is a good round sum,—sufficient to support a family duration of Parliaments to fire 'nears. If their duration were reduced to three without a good stringent bribery and intimidation as large as Dr. PHILLPOTS'S in considerable splendour. Our Years, bill, far stronger than contemporary would allow incumbents to be absent from their

any that now existed, there was no probability that independent men of mode- reign of WILLIAM the Reformer and Earl GREY. Whatever character the King and his Ministry bore, Mr. PEASE would pro- bably have considered it his primary duty to support them.

In the course of his speech, we observe that he avowed himself friendly to the Ballot, National Education, an extensive plan of Church Reform, and the abolition of Tithes. On the last of these subjects he is reported to have spoken as follows— "lie believed Ministers seriously intended to make a great modification in the Tithe system ; as well as to abolish Church-rates. Where they intended to get the mcney to substitute for them, he did not know ; but doubtless there would be a great howl in that other place.' It would, however, be vain to resist it ; for the people had declared it should be. As to the tithes, he did not doubt the Church would offer the Wesleyans and Dissenters a proportion of the good things, in order that she might keep part of what she hail got; and he feared the bait would be swallowed. ( Ctif'S of " No, no!") Ile wished he might be wrong ; but he could not forget the lesson he learnt in the last session of Parliament, when a church establishment was imposed on the people of India—against which he was the only man who raised his voice in Parliament. The principle which he had always contended for was, that those who profited by the in- struction of ministers of religion were bound to pay for it, and to pay well ; but in the case of the Indian Church, the benefit would be derived solely by the English residents, while the cost of the Establishment would have to be defrayed entirely out of the pockets of the natives, lie objected to this ; but such was the feeling of the House of Commons on the subject, that he believed, if he had pressed the subject to a division, he should have gone out almost alone.

What Mr. PEA':E can mean by saying that be " was the only anon who raised his voice in Parliament" against the Indian Church Establishment, is more than we comprehend. We find, on turning to the brief sketch of the debate given in Number 264 of the Spectator, that Mr. CHARLES BULLER, Mr. HUME, MT. SHEIL, Mr. O'DwvErt, and Mr. RUTIIVEN, opposed the Govern- ment on that question, though no division took place. Mr. O'CONNELL also gave it his qualified opposition; and only consented to withdraw it on the understanding that some arrangement was to be made for the Catholics.

We have now gone through the principal part of Mr. PEASE'S vindication ; and are sorry that we cannot, according to the wish of our correspondent, bring ourselves " to regard his Parliamen- tary conduct more favourably than we have hitherto done." From the character Mr. PEASE then bore, we strenuously supported him as a candidate, and bailed his election as one of the good signs of the times. But now we know better : we judge him not according to the good or evil report of others, but out of his own mouth. He seems to be utterly disqualiffial, by his political notions and habits of thought, from representing an independent constituency. We should conceive it absurd to rely upon his support on any one subject, however openly he may have avowed his opinions in fla- vour of it. A thin house, a late period of the session, will always serve him for an excuse for political apostacy. To think favour- ably of such a Representative, is impossible.