7 A:biltt5aII1 Orattbings Varlianunt. THE: riu,ss 12; MALTA.

Lord BuorostAM called the attention of the House of Lords, on Tuesday, to the Ordinance for regulating the less in the -161;wd. of Malta. Ile said, that he considered the subject of great importance, not only as it affected :Malta, but English juriserudenee During thirty years in which he held a seat in the House of Common „ he had introduced several bills to amend the law of libel, and, as their Lordehips' knew, Ind givea testimony before it Committee of the Com- mons on the same sut ject. I Ip mentioned thcse circumstances to i.Itow that it Ives' very -natural that his attention should have beeu eirawu to the Ordinance which regelated the liberty of the press in Malta. At the same time, when he loeked at the 111.1111125 attached to the Report, on which the Ordinance tas b unded, conf:ossed that lte approached the subjeet with great reltv.tt0:ce, One of the Commissioners, Mr. .Austin, had been placed by himself, when Lord Chancellor, an a coin- lnissimi for reforming the esiniinal law of' England; and no man by his conduet could have eser‘2 tettply justified the confidence placed in him. "Mr. Austin Wits lint only possessed of a profound knowledge of the laws of his own c:.utal.:y, lle tva:: also thoroughly versed in the principles of general jurisprudenee ; hut lie protested he no more should have thought of putting Mr. Austin alone on a commission for reforming the criminal or any other law, than of appointing one who never wore a wig or a gown. By his vesy excellence, his very capacity, he was un- fitted for acting alone. With respect to the preposterous Ordinance, he blamed the late Colonial Secretary for not consulting the English Crown Lawyers before he issued it : that, however, was a mere error of judg- ment ; but if persisted in it would become a fault of a l'Cry different description. The Report of the Commissioners was referred by Lord Glenelg to the Coto-mitln '..`sielta, len th:tt be altered so as to be fitted to the circumstances of the island; but in that lack-learning Council, there was not the shadow of a lawyer. Witat was the result of the labours of the Commissioners and that most incompetent Council :— The Ordinance itself was concise enough, for it consisted of only five chap- ters, extending over four pages; though it was true that to these were appended forty close ly-priuted folio pages of notes and commentaries, 6-1 in number, to explain the law of four pages. But for whose use were these notes ? that of the subjects who were to obey t he ordinance ? No; these had only the four pages of law; the forty pages of commentaries were fin the ttse of their Lordships, and of' the oth,r House of Parliament, ta enable them to limier- stand the meaning of this liriiidant effort or legislation. Now, it would seem but fair that the expla liii ill slotuld have accontpanied the command; though, whetlter the Maltese had itkrcl. from the loss of these forty pages, or under- stood lu,-; it matter in their absence, was another question ; and certainly, wheu he looked at these explanations, he himself was inclined to the opium', that whatever right the Maltese had to complain of this Ordinance, which they did Ill it tiid could not understand, they had no occasion to complain of the loss of the,: !idly paglis, o htich would only liSle mystified them tett times more. Thu tAplantaion was more unintulligible, if possible, than t he thing explained. They were hoks, undoid,;mIle, ss liivlt 110 one but a person of learning, of acuteness and ingenuity, and possessed of much knowledge of various I.inds, could have 'written: but then, untiatunately the know], hg: displayed tvaii; not of that particular sube•et which was required' tbr the occasion, namely, a know- ledge 4)1 the EngliSli uris ; for certainly he had Decor met with it more curious as,emblago of blunders in this point or view in his life. The Commissioners said, perhaps the notes will not be strictly authoritative." This was a very safe proposition: it was very obvious that miles could not have the oullm- rity of a law; but then, why. make ordinances which required these enormously- extended exp'lanations ?

Throughout the whole of the commentary there was an affectation' of vast accuracy, of ultra accuracy ; but he would read a few sped- mans, that the House might judge whether the notes did not make the text confusion worse cOnfounded. Publications were described as "Any words printed in alphabetical or other characters." Here their Lord ships would observe how very careful the Commissioners were to guard against libels in hieroglyphics, or in Chinese; for these were the only two forms of writing which had no alphabetical characters. Then the accurate Commis- sioners went on—"and %rail types, or iii any other manner, on one or rases papers or other substances." The Commissioners in their explanatiim of this passage were candid enough to admit that any attempt to enumerate I lie spticjes of the substances on which a writing may be printed, or to define their semis handbill, card, or rot __.(Great htnahter)—would be useless. Among the species, however, tile gave " for example, a hook, pamphlet, lilt stitched sheet,

consisting of paper, parchment, or linen." There was much more infonuatiot; on this point in the contmentary, with which he would not trouble the Masc. had nut been put into the text, for they would have had any

ell'ect. of explaitilmf. it clam,e involved the publisher of ally He would only observe that he was very glad, so far, that these i. xpiiii,,,tio, mdiiieatioa tilijceted to la th . ii,nititii., not only ir it wo, au., wilfully, but duw, " neglig: nti:.-.- What \VII, 1110 lb:1111111011 a negligence iitiorilid lit- i1,0 COininliontirs ii• " Nc,iii.,ITIlec," ilay laid out, " is the want: II. dm ,ittirn'tion; meiming hy di:21:11,21111,i th.. alb:nil:tit ilttr—(Lfrorylacy)—!runi a riven pith., by vita tie of a :,,i.,..a hoe, or laid., or principlo;tof mural:id" Lur(1, 11:v11;dt:tut wit loony sliniiar al leini;ts to define and exp:,de ii,y lt,-tl,Il1,t or weels end in the °stile:mem Persons were lialde le at fete.: six tiomth s imprisonment who "said or published any tliien 0isre- pvt. tfttl of ti u Sovereign "-- Now this pittme, "dittrespecfful," was (11.140 llsW ill law, totally impreee- Luted, ard quite und.tined ; bar, notwithstanding, those who spoke disre- spectfully of tin, Sii.:vereigu Wile to II, :11111.itetra YO 111-eive 111011111: 1111111'4011- t 110 C011iti to 1111119011, at the instant, inty fi..rent without any evil intention, without unkindness, but which were impropor iii themselves and disrespectful towards the object of them, bur which no Mail iii his would call a libel. "Why, he had hundises of times seen the term " pax blind old King" applied to one monarch or this uottetry ; "the to I old "King" said of another. Now these expresduus wore both improper themselves, indecorous, and disrespectful; but oho had ever thought of char!zing t he at levers of' them with libel, and sending them to prison, as would infitilildy be done at Malta under this Ordinance ? Then there seas the expression " jolly old tar," applied very commonly to the late King— tut excellent, warm-hearted Mall. Now, there seas nothing respect rtil in this term, especially as applie1l to the Sovereign, in reference t o whom i141 :inch farni- liarity could be countenanced ; but who evor thought of calling the expression litellons, and puttishing those who used it as criminals?

The greater part of Lord ifrottellam's speech cousisted of remarks similar to those quoted, by whielt he 'kept the 111011Se in al met constant laughter. Ile oliceted. in a more serious tone, to the provisbms which rendered it libellous in any mammy to ridicule or revile ally class of Christi:01s 01' :tny doet line of elle seet, especially the Roman Celielic. tel lilj jIll,. ?or. ■S ilberrorce would have been liable to pettish:tient for saying dist Secinianisin was the " half-way house to Infidelity t " thom:.11, when reptonelled with using so harsh an expres- sion, Mr. Wiliierforec corrected hi:itself good-humouredly by saying, :!;oebtiauistil half-way house ,/,'inn Infidelity." It mon- strous and sidle:them to pretend that the censorship of the pv. ss was abulished in Malta, when this Ordinance was substituted for the old law. If the Government did not C011SCIll YO withdraw or suspend the Ordinance for the purpose of' reconsidering it, he was sure the House

would agree to the t a a hun WWI he concluded, for " lIlt idt11•111iS to the (men, praying' her Mejesty to disallow or suspend the ordinance respecting the liberty of the press in Malta, so that the matter involved in it might be reconsidered."

Lord GisEeimo was not capable of coping with Lord Brougham on points of' legal iticeiy, but he svas prepared Si) defend the intent and spirit of' the Ordinance. lie could not believe that Lord Brougham was serious ill declaring that the ordiuttnee was no improvement On the pre- vious censorship of the press, under -which discussion on political nub- jects lVit..1 completely suppressed— When its looked to the state of Malta, and to the manner in which the grievanccs and aluve- were allowed to continue for the last twentydiec or thirty years, and tle: all the places of honour. and emolument in the island were assigneit to any (dhers rather than native,: of the island—that the country wns home down lo. heavy taxes—that the salaries of strangers for the Arcs they held were excessive, While 11i0 11111101' oiliCes 1116.1 by tile natives were most I nadequately paid—that the former appointments were mere sinecuree oldie the duties were perfernes1 by natives having small incomes—that the Amities' of the isknitl had withered uira, and the schools had decayed under flue' blight- ing indounce of the a iithotit ies in this place,—he woulti ask whether they might not fairly impute the existence Lind continuance of such a stale of things to the want of the liberty or the loess, and the consequent want of public die- cession intheir island? If this had existed, the smacks that would hare been made on this state or things would have proved a cheek on the administration at 3Ialta in the course that was allotved to continue there.

It was to be expected that after the censorship was abolished there would be an outbreak of furious attacks oil the Covermuent, ando e in- dividuals connected with it, unless some restraint were placed on publi- catiens, such as the Ordinance provided. lie contended, however, that a -very considerable advance towerds freedom had been made by granting permission to discuss political questions ; and he entirely disagreed from the position that, because it was not prudent or practicable to introduce the entire machinery or Elielbilt libel law into Malta, no approximation should be made towards liberty of the press. There were no jury trials for libel, lett there was nothing to prevent the introduction of tint mode of' trial, should it be deemed advisable, The Judges of the island would. be well qualified to frame a jury law. In the meanwhile, the 0141in:ince possessed this great recommendation—it wes tteceptable to the Maltese people ; tied it must not be supposed that Malta was to be treated as a conquered country, or that its people bad no claim for consideration at their hands. Lie was perseaded that, on the whole, the Ordinance was calculated to work well in Malta, and especially, those parts of it which related to attacks on religion and definnation of' private character. lie should oppose the ittotitm, for the reasons stated. The Marquis of NORMANDY felt it unnecessary to speak at length after Lord Glenelg's eloquent reply to Lord Brougham. Reference had been made on a previous evening to the removal of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General of Malta: he had heard the stories of both, and was quite satisfied that their removal was proper. To prove that the provisions in the Ordinance respecting religion were required, Lord Normanby read an attack in an E•lish newspaper, the Hadequin, published in Malta, on the Catholic religion, which was called " the most detestable the world ever saw." The Ordinance va.; still under consideration, and the Governor had beim directed to report upon it to her :1Iajesty in Connell.

The Duke of 1Ver.mscrrox always felt particularly anxious upon any uestion connected with the pt.,: itl the Crown ; and he should ,• q '- have risen to speak on the sithje, t !11.•!. Leril 131 . on:di:ea 1, before the I rouse " in an unric:•!!l -- --t.' were ; at rl.•0-.1 7'

nlanlo's declaration that the )!•i \'•" t,, bV her -AP.I.icqy hi Couneit, that Lord Pirotielnen should 1 'with -,,,,pect to the press in .1%1 :le ahe part of the (,2itee11's dominions in hiCh tunweessar.e. it was 31alta- Our 1;u4n:.;•-:, at 'Ar■Illa WaS to g:IVri Ibr g.:, at naval The Aralte,e eon-iste1 loo,ono per:011:: ; w11.011 bet dttl.t;,iiicd respect and regard, being coovinced that her Me5. sty had no Letter or more de- voted ,ttbie,:ts; and it u-as the duty of her )Iaje-ty's (I:wet:0111,mb, and it the tittIy of thi, loic,e, f;tr as it was in its poue•-.t :,p-rint.•nd it •

goverto::: ot of the people of Malta. The people •.is 7:11:Ita 1-V;ed th • M

language. and that alone; they v. a people t vi011 Oot or, oil (km write a line; and surely. of •.•1 the ie,t-tti: of this ;••••1:0.-..... whielt was the least necessary tiu a people a 111." and he be hetieve,1 that the description xeltich he had gie,,a vats the true 011V, WaS hat of a Iree prcss.

There were several reasons why freedom publication should not be allowed in 31:tha-

t:frit becatt,•2 tilt. intention of its entwtment ivas not for Malta, but for the teighl,atning coasts of FT:111Ce, Italy, aiiil a ; :11,4 auxt, if ti ay vere to havg a fn.:, re, in l.iIt, in Gait's mine lei it nre,,,, in the )1:t1tese lan:tatat....e- Wor.q.,r1,q,..,,hter): awl, he t., r •,,noni,..nd to the noble 'Mar-

quis oppo,ite, it he wt-ttlit I sten t' i ,.ii:it to his recommendation, :La!: it'

Gover.i.aent ..11. ;11.0Ot to ilnenIthe ()rdioant..e, I•.- woul-1 have the kindness to insert a lit ;lc partigraph to cinan that the pr...ss to come under the re-otle- flan: of this Ordinatwe musti M th• lan•-ue::•:, and that he ‘loe!

alio take care that the Ordinet.ce iteff 1, op in the 31:1; language.

lr it Wvre true th.it h. in lqalia,

la,en no fee: Hess 11.••he -,e0:111 iemitet Lord Glenebr. ticc he had been in (elle:, twenty-live v, during which the il ui iiiL,u er.thicot EtJaad had taken pl;e:o ; and it was stran;,... Ilea Lord tiie;., IgI i,v I ,ever ;bought of applyites the remedy of a free paas till March last.

The Earl of RIPON spoke briefly iu defence of former Governors of Malta. especially Sir Frederick Ponsonby : he thought it too had that two gentlemen going out from this 011111111'y Iiuuld hap censure on one unfortunately now not able to defend hi use!

Lard Ilnouciram was delighted to that the Ordinance was to be reemisidered. 11.0 hoped there woeld Ue an intelii:tild? definition of the libels to which the law NVOUld app!. This the Or1inance did lee furnish ; neither was there a puldie pre centor to conduct proseemio. which might become necessary under it. lie actin ov.-ledgod that it e easy to pick hole: in the first attempt to 1.e.ke a code of' the but not so easy to make that first tutempr. [le would acquiesce in tia, Duke of Wellington's suggestion, and witl: lraw his motion.

The Marquis of LAssoow!vr. submitted, tied in one very il:110-0q..o: particular the Ordinance required no amembnent at all, thou111 1,1'1 Brougham had said that it did, lie had said that there was no provision to nb.:et the ease of ridicule or personal reviling ; but at page those offences were expressly enumerated, as "any wri111.;• censuring any person in any private capacity, or reviling, ridiculing, or otherwise insulting any person ill any civil capacity whatsoever." It. was also an error to affirm that no pttbl, prosecutor was provided, for the Ordinance appointed one to carry the law into effect.

Motion withdrawn.

IlEca.LATiox or ExcLtsu PutsoN:.

The House of Commons, on Monday, went into (mu 'e 011 the Bill for the better ordering of Prisons. Clau:e :Id, which provi;les that in order to prevent contamination arising from the as.,-.eiation of any prisoner may be .sepangety confined during a part cr the bole of

his term, was strongly opposed by Mr. D. it Sir C. II. Stirrit, Mr. PAEINGTON, and Mr. Esrcouirr. Mr. Pm:Ise:170N said, that in his Opinion, solitary and separate conlitiement were really the same. Lord GRANVILLE So:el.:lister and Mr. ilmtxtme objected to the separ,,te eon- finement of' pris.mers before trial. Sir HARRY VERNEY that the object was to prevent contamination, which might take place 1-21" ,re Just as well as after trial; and he hoped that the clause would be tivanted So as to at the separation of untried prisoners. 3Er. Ilutscot: sitg,gested that the power to imprison offenders separately should be limited to one year's confinement. Fourteen cases of insanity had oc- curred in the Philadelphia Penitentiary, whence they were about to take their new system. Mr. ItAwns, Lord Joux tiesscn.L, .11 r. Fox MA UT.E, Intl Sir 11 one ter ROLFE contended, that experienee had proved that the morals and health of prisoners had been improved by the plan which the bill proposed. Lord JOHN R ussuir. said, he intended to propose ;1 grant of money for the erection of a model prison. 'Pile Committee divided, and the clause was adopted, by a vote of 1 1; Another division took place on a motion by Mr. 1 to aminul clause inth, so as to abolish superannuation allowances to Chaplains and

Gaolers ; which amendment was rejected by to 31 ; and the Com- mittee rose.

Coevnicier.

On Wednesday, the order of the day for the Committee on the Copy- right Bill 'having been read, Mr. 'WA ELM' presented a petition against the hill from the President and Council of the British Medical Associa- tion.

Mr. Sergeant TALEOURD moved " that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.''

Mr. lArARIIt'RTON said, that when the measure was last under consi- deration, he gave the learned mover notice that he would oppose its further progress, if brought forward on a Wednesday- Ilere was a hill in which the public had a paramount interest ; and it was not lit that it ollould be brought forward on a night when 31ioi-t,fs were ab- set t, and elt-f . . prevented the attendance of other 31.' TIme ..11-em- im• 1' tr ', tad p•-,tpanol the consid•a• ;1 I-:•1 of an it»? •rt • meas-ure, be- eau,. le, ••• that a nandocr of the NT:embers •1'. 1 1,, liere5sarily q1),.■,1. ' the woldd c ii 20 to 30

.. met Ile ion-4 viCe !.:, ,!. ,n to the Iiia ,*1.01 al ,eh i,,): !,) v to deprive ;!•..-1 ;:f '.: only to he 1:1 r the

,

\. .lies'.

Akio to consider t to an invitatiort

' tOO' tl .1'

' him vexations

-1 1 1,,,se. Its plc hal It'll to

• I' that impor- .11111 Member, an any other • the ("intro- - 0., 10 gt this .. • mad of -me Members r 01 - bind philoso- • .f )10robers , cf those • :1 I.,. it grecd

cc IliS 1,1

ila: !loose .0 ani,ourn.

11.1bert ,,robably

. ait, fear- 'hug itt ‘-el'y much

Ott ametcb•, part of 11 .• LH. F.ve c"Intiv the clanse tm st...rd, as h.- s'. •..ty years the bill voold lue., 1 e The fourth s, Ow; :1 . 10'. r. I ' and n to eltielt tiep. ,

'Ij • Tl'y I '1 ,,praio11

it. 13i. led, by a s:eouti the same .ioti.•ns for ts, s were

.1:1, as,igtis,

., 1 - ; ,rs :after-

. 11,-. 1,1 the 0 , 1 ler d'', :'.ion , 1, 1, should he would

t"lat tlle term of

• ,aitee, or and his "Hied the. ;•. 1:h every

••; were • • ' 'eave

The I loose rose ce half-1,:tst twelve.

1 1 literisic Te.uir. IN A r

S. i:'- ill

ilesriatehes 1 0 i'.•0 "lritish it

' of th,: h tIlt!•rit:e or Ilriti-11

1- an.I I : . Co\ L-ta•••••.:111 o utterly call,a1 the ton said, he: Nil, 1 .Lo• ..:1 Is Of I

O 1,•.;115 liatt eIaps,a1 aggression on II time 51115 n 0 NV •.••••••: nutted on Ilriti-d• .1 led ht.:en offer. ;,1 to 0'

1 'en received Ile

I the law of nations. i'v,.o:l -t to, tS:', I, the British merchants bad

' .raded to the Coat of a • a N. lilooti interropiiiin but in 1 iza-1, the French commander on the eenst, wider pretence that the Moors of Por-

tendie, with whom the Ltd a commerce in gum, afforded ;Cid to tlw Trazars. a people -with whom Fraoce was at war, requested the captain of a British merchantman " to get under weigh and not trade with the Moors of Porientlie ;” 1:11,1111.r. that it' this "request.' were tracts of Govern-

, l‘y French in the to the When he . Dr. Lush-

0.1 be; ween ws, el. Nine

ears since the

redia,,s ;IS soneltt. The

: an injury had been coin-

unrearessed. mit insult iio apology whatever bad

' ,,-h antliori:ies had violated

spent was made in violation of the treaty. The British captain tempe- rately but firmly refused compliance with the demand ; and the conse- quence was, that the French commander fired upon and captured two British vessels, destroyed gum worth 5,000/., and made the super- cargoes and other officers prisoners. This occurred in 1834, and up to 1839 no reparation whatever had been obtained for the outrage. In February 1835, the French Government blockaded the whole of that part of the African coast, in defiance of an express understanding with England, on no justifiable pretence, and manifestly for the purpose of securing the monopoly of a profitable trade, in which they had suc- ceeded. They established a station for receiving gum front the Tra- zars, although they alleged a war with the Trazars as an excuse for their blockade. Last year, twenty-nine hundredweight of gum had been imported into England, but not an ounce directly from Western Africa in British bottoms, but by a circuitous route. Dr. Lushing- ton concluded, by protesting against further delay in obtaining a satis- factory settlement of this matter.

Mr. GROTE seconded the motion ; and impressed upon the House the necessity of not allowing British commerce to be interfered with on frivolous pretences. He hoped Ministers would feel the deep import- ance and absolute necessity of taking steps to procure redress and repa- ration from the French Government.

Lord PALMERSTON agreed that Dr. Lushington had correctly stated the facts of the ease: and he had conveyed to the French Government,

his opinion that British subjects were entitled to reparation for the in- jury they had sustained. He regretted to say, the French Government contended that their officers were justified in what they did, and that no grounds existed for pecuniary compensation. The matter, however, was still under discussion ; and therefore he was convinced that Dr. Lushington would feel that it was contrary to Parliamentary practice, ad disadvantageous to the public interests, to accede to his motion.

Alderman THOMPSON thought the papers ought to be produced. It was plain that no redress would be obtained except through the inter- vention of Parliament.

Mr. H4wEs said, he believed the last communication from the French Government was an absolute and entire denial of the claim. This was given in July last ; and in what state was our trade at pre- sent? Had the protection of in armed force been extended to it ? If so, how did it happen that it was extinguished?

Mr. HUME believed, that under similar circumstances the President of the United States would have laid the affair before Congress and re- quested advice and assistance ; and why did not Lord Palinerston do the same ?

• Lord PALMERSTON by no means conceived the matter to be in the state represented by Mr. Hawes—he considered it as still under dis-

cussion. Every year, at a certain season, one or two armed vessels were sent to the port of Portendie for the protection of British commerce.

In reply to a question from Sir ROBERT PEEL, Lord PaLatEnvoN said, that the French Government did not pretend that they had a right

to take pilots from British merchant vessels ; and that Count Sebastiani, when he conveyed the expression of his Sovereign's regret that the pilot had been taken from the Express, used the words "British ma- rine," as embracing the mercantile navy as well as vessels of war.

Dr. Luseuxcaox withdrew his motion ; adding, however, that having taken the subject up, he would not shrink from pursuing it.

DANISH DUTIES ON BRITISH MERCHANDISE.

Mr. Ginsox moved for papers relating to the" duties and fees lately ha- posed by Denmark on the transit of goods between Hamburg and Lubeck." He stated a grievance of which British merchants trading to the Baltic complained. By the road from Hamburg to Lubeck, a dangerous naviga- tion of seven hundred miles round the Sound was saved. The road, in fact, formed the nearest communication between the West of Europe and the Baltic. But the Danish Government, in 1838, imposed a duty of ten sehellings per hundred.weight upon all goods sent from Hamburg to Lubeck, but only five schellings on goods sent from Lubeck to Hamburg. The operation of the discriminating duty was of course favourable to Russia and Prussia, and injurious to this country. Upon representation by the British Government, the duty was equalized—being five schellings both ways ; but then, certain articles—hemp, tallow, and others of Russian produce—were exempted from any duty at all ; and thus Russia was still favoured, and a discriminating duty in point of fact kept up. It was pretended that the duty was levied to keep the road in good repair ; but the road was not repaired—it was execrable. Mr. Gibson contended also, that Denmark could not make good a claim, by the law of nations, to impose the ditties she levied ; and he thought that Lord Palmerston was bound to afford the House some explanation of this matter.

Mr. FINCH seconded the motion.

Lord PALMERSTON feared be must admit the right of Denmark to impose a transit-duty on goods passing through her territory, provided the duty were moderate, not more than equivalent to the service per- formed for it, and the same in amount to all nations. Upon the subject of the inequality which favoured Russia, the British Government had remonstrated -with Denmark. The matter was still in abeyance, but be should not object to Mr. Gibson's motion slightly modified. He could also state, that with respect to Stadt-duties, he was in communi- cation with the government of Hanover.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS.

FACTORY BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated on Monday, when ques- tioned by Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, that he could not fix any day for pro- ceeding with this bill.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES BILL. Monday week is the day fixed for proceeding with the bill for regulating the duties and in- comes of Cathedral Dignitaries.

METROPOLITAN POLICE Corners BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL named Monday next for the discussion of this measure.

CITY POLICE. On A Merman W000's motion, the House. on Tuesday, agreed to suspend the Standing Orders, so as to allow a bill to be intro- duced to enable the Corporation of the City of London to regulate their Police. Alderman Wood explained, that the Corporation had not given the required notices within the time 'inscribed by the rules of the House only because they had been kept in ignorance of the intentions of her Majesty's Government. Mr. HAWES thought no case had been made out for the motion, but, as it was supported by Mr. Fox Maule, did not divide the House.

IMPRISONMENT FOR CHURCH-RATES. Mr. BAINES stated at length the case of John Thorogood, confined in Chelmsford Gaol for refusal to pay church-rates. He contended that it was disgraceful in the Church to enforce the canon-law so strictly against persons refusing to pay church-rates, while it was notorious that breaches of that law by the clergy themselves were connived at. He moved for a copy of the de- cree issued from the Bishop of London's Court, under which Thorogood had been imprisoned. The motion was supported by Mr. EASTROPE and Mr. HumE, opposed by Mr. G. H. VERNON and Dr. Nicistou., and carried without a division.

EDUCATION. In reply to Lord STANLEY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that he hoped to bring forward the estimate for education in about six weeks : it would be a separate estimate, containing no items unconnected with education.

Mr. DILLox's CASE. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, on Thursday, moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the claim of Mr. Dillon for prize. money. This person, in 1822, was engaged in the Coast Guard service at Mill Cove, on the coast of Cork ; and he claimed to have driven a smuggler with a valuable cargo into Kinsale, not having force enough to board her : the Harbour-master at Kinsale received between four and five thousand pounds, whereas Dillon got only a present of 50/. from the Treasury, after many applications. The answer to this state- ment, given by Mr. SPRING RICE, was, that the smuggler leaked ; the crew rose upon the master and forced him to take his vessel into Kin-

sale ; and that Dillon performed nothing effective towards the capture. The claim bad been preferred to every Ministry since 1822, and had always been rejected, after strict investigation. Motion withdrawn.

HARBOURS. On Mr. EDWARD RICE'S motion, an address to the Queen was voted for a Commission of Inquiry into the state of the Harbours on the South-eastern coast of England, with a view to their improvement.

CARLOW ELECTION. The following Members were appointed, on Tuesday, to try the petition against the return of Mr. Bruen for Carlow—

Liberals, Tories, Mr. Grote ; Mr. Tollemache ; Colonel Butler ; Mr. Matinsell-2, Mr. John Martin ; Mr. Ainsworth ; Mr. Morris ; Lord Arthur Lennox ; Sir R. Dundee;; Mr. Protheroe ; Mr. Brocklehurst-9.

SALE OF BEER. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of HARDWICKE presented a petition from persons in Wisbeach, complain- ing that their trade had been injured by the establishment of beer- houses ; and asked Lord Brougham what he meant to do with his bill upon the subject ? Lord BROUGHAM had hoped that a bill introduced by Lord Francis Egerton into the House of Commons would prevent the necessity of his interference ; but he intended to move the second reading of his own bill one day next week. The Earl of HARDWICKE remarked, that country gentlemen and Magistrates found the greatest difficulty in doing any thing with beer-houses- He might quote himself as a proof of the way in which a person desiring to do nothing but strict justice had been treated. Some time ago, a conviction had been made out by him, inflicting certain penalties on a beer-house keeper; but the beer-house keeper brought an action against him on the ground of informality. The Judge at Cambridge sent the matter to the courts above, where he was cast, and costs to a considerable amount given against him, ii- though he had understood the superior courts always dealt very leniently with the mistakes of Magistrates.

Lord BROUGHAM said, similar cases were very common, but the law did not empower the Judges to show indulgence to the technical errors of Magistrates.