IDEbatts anb Ilirocetbings in Varliaratnt.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM moved the second reading of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill ; observing, that he could only take upon himself the statement of the important case in the absence of the Law Officers of Scotland— He reviewed the history of the subject from the earliest period of the Re- formation in Scotland, when patronage was an object of great jealousy to all classes ; the doctrine of nonintrusion of the presentee by the patron against i the wish of the parishioners being laid down n the Books of Discipline. The right, however, was exercised by the lay patron ; and in 1690 an act was passed by which the Presbytery were bound to admit the presentee if he were duly qualified; the onus of proof being thrown on the minority if they objected, on the presentee himself if the majority objected. The act of Anne (1711) re- pealed the act of 1690—to what extent, was a disputed question among the lawyers of Scotland; but, looking at the act as a whole, he considered that patronage was so far changed that it was taken from the Presbytery and trans- ferred to the Crown and lay patrons ; but the principle of admission to the Church remained the same. For a time, the patrons consulted the wishes of the congregation ; but in the lapse of time that ceased to be the case ; which was regarded by the Church as a grievance, and was the cause of a partial secession from the great body. Up to 1784, an address was annually agreed to hy the General Assembly, complaining of lay patronage as a crying grievance. That course was discontinued; but in 1834 the Veto Act was passed, and the Nonintrnsion party demanded the total abolition of patronage. To that de- mand Government objected, through him, that the claim of the Assembly amounted, not to a declaration of the law which might remove difficulties, but a subversion of the existing law. Sir James here read a long extract from his letter to the Moderator of the General Assembly, in order to show that the views there expressed were in accordance with the bill before the House. The Auchterarder decision turned upon the question whether the Presbytery were justified in refusing to take the presentee on trial ; but the Lords who delivered that judgment also considered what under the statute constituted "qualifica- tion," and declared in favour of the restrictive interpretation which limited it to "life, learning, and doctrine." That interpretation, contrary to the Presbyterian feeling and practice, created much regret and excitement in Scotland ; and the Earl of Aberdeen introduced his bill for giving a wider construction to the term. Not being supported by the Ministry of the day, the bill made no progress; but on entering office in 1841, Lord Aberdeen lost no time in ascertaining whether a settlement was still practicable. In the early part of the session, the result of Mr. Fox Maule's motion recorded the opinion of the House against the abolition of patronage ; and before a vote was taken on the revived bill, a dangerous, but he trusted not a fatal secession, took place in the Church. After that secession, the General Assembly re- scinded the Veto Act; a proceeding of honourable submission to the supremacy of the State and the power of civil tribunals. It was signified to the Assembly, that Government would give its consent to a measure securing the full right of objection to the people, and the right of deciding to the Church judicature. The Assembly referred the letter conveying that intimation to a Committee ; which replied, that it was most desirable that doubts regarding the state of the law concerning the settlement of ministers should be removed with as little delay as possible. A declaration in favour of Lord Aberdeen's bill of 1840, and of the present bill, bad been signed by 400 ministers and a very large pro- portion of elders ; which proved that the measure was approved by a great many of those who remained in the Church. After alluding to-a variety of opinions for and against the measure, Sir James Graham said that be still entertained a hope that the Church of Scotland would find a haven of peace and security; and in that spirit of hope and peace he moved the second reading of the bill.

Mr. WALLACE said, that the bill would create more doubts than had heretofore existed, and would make the people renounce the Church : it was, in fact, designed less to prevent disruption in the Church than disruption in the Cabinet ; and the people of Scotland believed that it was opposed to the Queen's coronation-oath. He therefore moved, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Mr. HUME seconded the amendment ; and Mr. Barixre COCHRANE condemned the bill, as coming too late after the recent secession, and not calculated to prevent a further secession.

Mr. RUTHERFORD opposed the measure— Great and momentous events had been going on in the Church of Scotland for years; and the result was, that the Church had been rent in twain, and now only commanded the affections of the minority. Government pretended that their measure was calculated to bring back to the Church those who had seceded from it : but if so, why had it not been brought forward in time to avert the calamity which it proposed to remedy ? Sir James Graham stated, as one reason, that the Veto Act had not been declared illegal by the Ge- neral Assembly: but had it been declared illegal in 1840, when the very same bill was introduced, or when Sir James wrote his letter holding out hopes of conciliation ? Was the bill declaratory or enactive? It was of no use to refer to the authority—and it was a great one—of Lord Jeffrey, one of the minority in the Court of Session, upon the Church question, if they were not to put themselves in the position of the persons whose opinions and acts had been so much run down, and who bad been called "rebels." They must look to the opinions of the House of Lords and the majority of the Judges, and must receive the law as they laid it .down not in the technical words of the judgment, but did this bill might oh' ties, eit Cotte learni the p no fu objec n the principles on which it had been pronounced. What It declared that members of the congregation ifin respect to his ministerial gifts and quail- nce to that particular parish ' ; while Lord 'tmin lodged that objections must be limited to life, altlitline. 'Le Coftealmin and the House of Lords judged, that if ;Viktqii-iilified in thit sense the Presbytery were bound to inquire bill gave to the Presbytery power to take into consideration s Orly, as to ministerial gilts and qualifications in the first place, and then to consider these objections with reference to the " particular cir- cumstances and condition of the parish, to the spiritual welfare and edification of the people, and to the character and number of the persons by whom the objections are preferred." In what statutes, or where was the record of usage and practice, which, if there were no such statutes, was to come in their place, and make this common law. He bad heard nothing of the kind referred to, ex- cept the resolution of the General Assembly in 1833, to the effect that the Prea. byteries had power to receive and decide upon objections of whatever nature, coming from heads of families; and he wanted to know what law that reso- lution was founded upon ? This was decided to be a violation of the rights of patrons, and the Judges limited the nature of the Lbjections which were to be made. Be contended that the bill before them was not declaratory of the law. Did it then enact under cover of declaring the law ? He would tell them from accounts received that day, that the bill was by no means such a favourite in Scotland as it was when first introduced in 1840, or even when reintroduced at the beginning of the present session. If it was an enactive measure, they were bound to have had regular communication with the Church upon the subject. The constitution of the Church of Scotland was as sacred as any constitution could be, where one country amalgamated in its legislative powers with another. Previously to the act of Union, there existed an act called the Act of Security, by which it was provided that the Church of Scotland, as then established, should remain for ever. That act of security was made a part of and embodied in the Act of Union. The people then did all that lay in their power to prevent future Legislatures from encroaching upon the con- stitution of the Church. Now, however, they were about to enact—they were going to alter, because by enacting they must alter, that constitution. And indeed, unless that were the case, the consent of the Crown would not have been necessary to it. Moreover, they were changing the constitution of the Church of Scotland, without having officially communicated with the Church. (" Hear, hear I ") What was it to him to speak of 400 ministers whose names stood signed to a resolution approving of the bill introduced in 1840? That bill, indeed, differed in important respects from the present, for it MIS purely of a declaratory nature. What was the use then of talking of the consent of these clergymen ? They were invading the rights of patrons—at least, if the House of Lords had justly defined the rights of patrons ; and be would take the liberty of saying, that many people had no great dislike to the measure upon that score. But upon whom were they conferring the rights of patrons ? They were giving them to the Church. They were giving them to a priesthood. They were giving them to that body of men which at this time of day, in this year of 1843, he should have considered as the very worst depositories of them. It was truly said by Milton, that "Presbyter is but old priest writ large." Absurd as it might appear in England, the people of Scotland had a deep-rooted wish to possess a voice in the nomination of their own ministers. Lord Moncreiff and Lord Cockburn had supported the Veto Act, and viewed it as a compromise between patronage on the one hand and the old and deep desire on the part of the people for its abolition upon the other. Now, let them not imagine that that feeling had died away in Scotland. Late events had given it more life and energy than it ever before possessed. In the seceding Church it would grow and increase until it sucked In the best portion of the Establishment, leaving in its place a mere skeleton of office-bearers without a people. He particularly condemned one condition attached to the right of objection. The Presbytery was to be called upon to institute a strict judicial examination into the life, character, manners, and conversation of those who made any objections. An objection from A.B. might be a good one if A.B. was a good man; but if, on the con- trary, A.B. had been known to swear, to talk loosely, if he did not attend church regularly—if he buried his child on a Sunday, for that was a great offence in Scotland—then A.B.'s objection was nought. They proposed to give the Presbytery power to go into deep considerations affecting a man's charac- ter—arecting the happiness of his family. Was there ever such a measure? At this time of day, were they going to arm the Presbyteries with this general power of inquisition into the life of any person who might state objections ? These were minor points: his grand objections were, that Ministers had waited for a calm before they had poured oil on the troubled waters; and that they had vested power in the Church which should be vested in the People, and without which the Scotch never would be contented with the constitution of the Church.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, supported the bill—

He contended that the measure was not introduced with a view of bringing back the seceders; and that it could not have been commenced until the General Assembly had forgone their claims, that patronage should be abolished, and the Church declared not bound to pay obedience to the law. The measure might have been objectionable bad it professed to be "declaratory," and de- clared the law laid down by the Lords to have been bad law : but because the Lords had delivered a correct judgment, it did not follow that the law thus declared should not be altered, so as to remove the doubts and difficulties which embarrassed it. Sir William Follett entered into some explanation respecting the Act of 1690, and its repeal by the Act of 1711; which was effected in rather an extraordinary manner: the Act of Anne only repealed, in fact, that part of the previous act which related to the right of presentation by the heritors and elders ; it was not a general repealing statute; and after restoring the patron's right, it had a proviso that the form of admitting ministers should be in the same way as theretofore. In the judgment on the Auchterarder ease, Lord Cottenham had expressly said, that even under that construction of the Act of 1711 did not affect the question at issue, the illegality of the Veto Act; and that showed that he did not hold the judgment which pronounced the Veto Act illegal to be inconsistent with the law of ob- jections as set forth in the bill. After some further remarks on coufiicting opinions and authorities, and arguing, from some experience in certain English parishes, against the expediency of vesting patronage in the hands of the parish- ioners, he answered Mr. Rutherford's question as to whether it was a declara- tory or enacting bill. Let them call it, if they would, a declaratory or enact- ing bill : it was in substance a bill to remove doubts, and to make provisions for carrying into effect what the Legislature had declared should be in future

the law of Scotland. It might be declaratory although it did not contain the word "declare," and it might be enacting although such a word was used. The word "declare," however, was used only in one clause of this measure; and it was clear that, as that clause was an enacting clause, the same as the other clauses, it was an enacting measure.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the amendment ; repeating many arguments respecting a legislative declaration of law adverse to the judicial declaration of law in the Auehterarder case; pointing to abuses which might arise under the bill ; and averring on the authority of what he had heard from Edinburgh, that it was not satisfactory to those who remained in the Establishment.

Sir GEORGE CLERK supported the measure, in the belief that the people of Scotland were desirous of reverting to the Act of 1690.

Mr. Fox MAULE, as one who had seceded from the Establishment without any feelings of anger, but rather with those of sorrow, asserted that the seceders scarcely took the slightest interest in the measure— The main objection to It was, that it gave a power to the clergy which ought not to be placed in their hands; the very ground on which the Non- intrusionist majority in the General Assembly rejected Lord Aberdeen's MVP

sure in 1840. The bill implied the liberum arbitrium; and he asked Sir James Graham' whether a measure ineolving the Berm arbitrium could obtain the approval of Dr. Cooke and other members-of the General Assembly ? If the honourable gentleman was not aware of the fact, he could inform him, that the heads of the Moderate party had met within these two days at Edinburgh,— Principal Macfarlan, the Moderator of the General Assembly, being present,— and expressed their determination at the very next meeting of the Commission of the General Assembly to oppose this bill ; which they denounced as in- volving the liberunt arbitrzum. He should record his opposition to the bill, because he thought it contained principles revolting to civil and religions liberty. Individually, he would not give the Government further trouble with respect to it, nor divide on the future stages of the measure ; but in his calm and deliberate opinion, he thought the bill was not one calculated to pro- mote the confidence of the people in the Church as it remained established by law.

Mr. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL opposed the bill, on the ground that it was most destructive, unconstitutional, and unworthy of a Conservative Government— It was utterly inadequate to meet the demands of the people on account of two great principles. They contended that the true principle with reference to the relations of pastor and congregation was that the latter should have a voice on the pastor being placed before them ; and in the present bill there was a clause opposed to that principle. They also claimed that the Spiritual Courts should be independent in their jurisdiction ; and yet there was a clause in the bill leaving those courts open to the review of the Civil Courts. The Church ought to have been consulted before an alteration was made in its constitution. The bill admitted the right of the congregation to object to the presentee: so

that a person who merely sat in a church—for the bill did not say whether he should be a communicant or not—would have the right to object. This was the same as giving the schoolboy the right of choosing his schoolmaster. This was not the practice of the Church of Scotland, and it certainly was not the practice of the Free Church. It was a very dangerous thing to set up this new patched-up Church—this new spiritual tyranny in Scotland. Be hoped that the people of Scotland would not resort to Rebeccaism or riotous proceedings; still their injuries and grievances should not be neglected by the House of Commons.

Mr. HOPE JortNaTosiE believed that the bill would be hailed by the whole Church of Scotland as a very great boon indeed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL reminded the House at some length, that the ques- tion before them was not the phraseology of particular clauses, nor the details, but the principle of the measure—

He contended, from analogy with Mr. Campbell's bill "to regulate the ex- treble of Church Patronage in Scotland," that Parliament might legislate with- out reference to the General Assembly; but insisted that the General Assem- bly bad in fact expressed approval of the measure, when they said that it was desirable to settle the law, and that they "relied with perfect confidence on the intentions of her Majesty's Government." He went on to maintain that the bill defined the rights of the Patrons, the People, and the Church, in Strict accordance with ancient usages and practice, and to deny that the Auchterarder decision was reversed. At the close, he expressed his confident belief that a large majority of the House would support Government.

On a division, the numbers were—

For the motion, 98; against, 80; Ministerial majority, 18.

SCOTCH UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSHIPS.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord CAMPBELL introduced a bill relating to the Professors in the Scotch Universities who have seceded from the Established Church— By an old act relating to the Scotch Universities' persons holding the offices of Professors were required to be members of the Church of Scotland. That act had not, however, been rigidly enforced : but in consequence of the recent secession the subject had been agitated, some of the most eminent Professors at Aberdeen and other colleges having seceded from the Church. He now begged to lay upon the table a bill, providing, that for one year and till the end of the then next session of Parliament, it shall not be lawful to commence or prosecute any suit or proceeding to eject these Professors, or to disturb them in the possession of their rights and privileges. Before the expiration of that act, the Government would have ample opportunity of considering what per- manent arrangement should be made on the subject.

IRISH CHURCH.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. WARD moved an ad- dress to the Crown, expressing the opinion of the House that discon- tent in Ireland must be repressed by redress of Irish grievances, and especially by abating the Established Church—

He deeply felt all the difficulties of the question : it was one of money as well as creed: two Governments had already sunk under tbe attempt to settle It; and he did not wonder that a third shrank from an attempt which must wound honest feelings and alarm stubborn prejudices. Until settled, however, the question formed a bar to the union which the people of England so much de- sired, and converted Ireland into a source of weakness rather than strength. The assertion which he had made some time ago, that the sum and substance of the Irish policy of the present Government was the Arms Bill, had been met by an indignant denial; yet as the weeks of the session passed on, old bills dropped, new ones were not introduced, and the whole Irish policy of Government had finally concentrated in the Arms Bill. He admitted that his resolution unequivocally pledged the House to a great principle; and if it were adopted, they could not shrink from applying a radical remedy, with- out stopping at Temporalities Bills and Appropriation-clauses,— though ten years ago such measures might have been well enough, and have been a good step towards that national compromise which must sooner or later be effected. The Established Church in Ireland was a badge of humiliation for the Irish. All that had been done for religion in Ireland for the last three hundred years should be reversed; and if that were done, they would hear no more of jealousy between England and Ireland. Mr. Ward entered upon a long historical disquisition on Irish religious grievances; be- ginning with the Reformation under Henry the Eighth, when there was an agreement between the King and the people in England, while in Ireland the parochial clergy without exception abandoned their temporalities. In Eng- land, the public worship was to be carried on in the native language : in Ire- land, the people had their choice between two foreign languages ; and Spenser mentioned, that in the time of Elizabeth servants and horse-boys were set to ' collect tithes in remote parishes. Mr. "%Yard proceeded through the Protestant colonization of Ulster ; the rebellion of 1641; Cromwell's persecution ; the battle of the Boyne, the capitulation of Limerick and its violations ; the penal laws of Ireland, enforced by the Church; the Union ; the promises of Pitt, sacrificed to the narrow, bigoted mind of his master ; the abominations of the Tithe system were first recognized in 1821 and 1822, when Lord Wellesley was Lord-Lieutenant and Sir Robert Peel Secretary for Ireland, and when the first discussions were begun for ameliorating the condition of the Catholics : tithes were commuted twenty-five yr.ars after the tyranny of the old system was recognized; and in 1833 came the Church Temporalitiee Bill, a concession to public opinion which Sir James Graham said "strained hi* conscience to the utmost." The discussions which that measure

originated led to Mr. Ward's own proposition, declaring that the Esta- blished Church in Ireland should be reduced and that Parliament might deal with the surplus, adopted by Lord John Russell, after the short Tory administration of 1834-5, in his Tithe-bill of 1835 ; on which a struggle continued for three years, and ended in a compromise disgraceful to the Liberal party. The consequence was the Repeal agitation, offered as the only alternative to the continuance of the present unjust system. " I say there is an alternative, to the adoption of which the Church of Ireland is the main obstacle. All agree as to the danger which exists, though we differ as to its causes.- The noble lord the Secretary for Ireland says that all the evils of Ireland may be traced to the state of society in that country. I tell the noble Lord, that in many instances the state of society in Ireland may be traced to the statute-book. Some of the evils of Ireland, no doubt, no law could reach ; but the majority of them the law has made, and the law must remedy. Sift them, and you will find that the Church question is at the bottom of them all. Take the caw of the franchise : what caused the hostility of the great party opposite to the miserable franchise of Ireland ?—Why, their fears for the Church. What stands in the way of a more equal representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament P—Their fears for the Church. Why did they limit the municipal franchise ?—it was avowedly and notoriously on account of their fears for the Church. The Church stands in the way of the settlement of every question : and have I not, then, a right to ask, what is the precise value of the Church as an instrument for the dissemination of religious and moral principles in Ireland ? One of the greatest moral revolutions which ever took place in any country has just occurred in Ireland : the exchequer is beggared by the new-born virtue of the peasantry. These are most satisfactory proofs of improvement in the condition of the people. Who has wrought this miracle ? the Church ?—By no means. It has been effected by one of those bumble men on whose heads a price was set by the wisdom of our ancestors a hundred years ago, and who are still regarded in England with the most unwarrantable enspicion." Mr. Ward quoted returns to show that the Church revenues amount,i to 552,7534 devoted, in 1834, to 732,000 Episcopalians ; while the Protestant Dissenters numbered 764000, and the Catholics 6,427,712. He then alluded at great length to a remark by Sir Robert Inglis, in the debate on the Church Tem- poralities Bill, that the Church of Ireland had lost something of its holy and peculiar character; asking, when the Church did possess that peculiarly apostolical character ? was it at the time, between 1726 and 1740, when Primate Boulter said that be always considered it his duty to side with the English against the Irish, for the Catholics were the natural enemies of the King ; or when the Bishop of Elphin wrote to the Duke of Newcastle that he did what he could to recommend his Grace's government, by providing for many who were well-affected towards it ; when the same Bishop appointed French refugees, who could not speak even English ; when Lord Richard Tottenham, the present Bishop of Clonfert, was appointed to a living before he had ever read prayers, or to a bishopric before he bad ever preached, mar- ried, or baptized; or was it when Dr. Stewart, Bishop of Armagh, accu- mulated a fortune of 300,00W., and Dr. Porter, Bishop of Clogher, 250,0001.? He admitted, however, that the worst abuses of the old system were done away, and that a better spirit prevailed among the clergy ; but still many abuses galling to the Catholics remained, such as the unions of parishes : five or six parishes were thrown into a union to form an establishment for some favoured clergyman; and thus the union of Burnchurch comprised the eleven parishes of the county of Kilkenny, the living being worth 1,806/. a year; while the number of Protestants had decreased, so that in one of the parishes, in 1831, there were only six Protestants. Another united living attached to the church at Cavan was worth 2,339/., and comprised six parishes, extending over an enormous extent of country : in 1831 there were only 328 Protestants in the whole union. Another grievance was the feeling exhibited by the Pro- testants to their Catholic parishioners. In illustration, Mr. Ward read a letter to himself from the Reverend Edward Leslie, Rector of Dromore, who said, that if it were not for Parliamentary privilege he should be disposed to "inflict chastisement" on Mr. Ward, for quoting an expression used by Mr. O'Connell; and another letter from Mr. M`Ghee, who asked him to move for a Committee of that House to discuss with the writer the third canon of the third Lateran Council concerning the extermination of heretics, the Ribandman's oath, and many other things. Turning to foreign examples, Mr. Ward asserted that no other state adopts the system pursued in Ireland : Catholic Austria has founded and largely endowed a Protestant college ; Protestant Prussia a Catholic college. Canada has adopted the very plan applied by the Roman Catholic Parliament in Dublin under James the Second, and recently recommended by Mr. More O'Ferrall, and every man pays tithe to the pastor of his own communion. Having touched on the mortification to the Irish Catholic, of seeing those of his own faith kneeling round a thatched hovel for a church, while three or four Protestants occupy the comfortable church of the Establishment, Mr. Ward came to his proposal. Break up the Establishment ; do away with the cumbrous machinery of Archbishops and Bishops, and look only to the work- ing clergy actually needed for the Protestants of the Established Church in Ireland. Relieve the Catholics of the petty annoyances arising from the custody of their ancestors' burial-grounds by Protestant clergymen ; make the Catholic clergy the link between the Crown and the people ; and they might convert even Mr. E. B. Roche from Repeal. He would alienate the tithes from the Establishment, and redistribute them between the three religions in Ireland according to the numerical proportion of each. To the Protestant Episcopalians he proposed to give one-third, or about 78,0001.; to the Pres- byterians and Wesleyans he proposed to give another eighth of the same amount; and the remainder, or about 400,000/. per annum, he proposed to de- vote to the Catholics. Then he would substitute the congregational for the parochial system : he would break up the parishes, and pay according to the number in the flock, and not the size of the parish. The 400,000/. which he proposed to devote to the Catholics should be paid into the hands of their Bishops for the purpose of building and repairing chapels and schools, for other purposes connected with the spiritual instruction of the people, and for making Maynooth something like what an establishment for such a people ought to be. An annual statement of the distribution of the funds he proposed should be furnished by the Irish Secretary : Parliament reserving to itself a right of control over the money, so that it might, if necessary, be applied to other purposes connected with national education. To the meanness of the sums allowed for Maynooth he imputed the activity of the French Society for the Propagation of the Faith, which sends missionaries to all our Colonies. He anticipated objections to the plan ; arguing that the state is not hound to constitute itself judge of what is " true" in religion ; and that tho- roughly to apply the principle of only supporting that as the true reli- gion which happens to be the faith of the majority in this country, would lead to inextricable confusion : in India, for instance, Lord Ellenbornugh, instead of the gates of Soinnath, ought to parade the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Few countries had dared to apply the prin- ciple; and they had suffered by it—as Spain, who had driven out her Morisco people and made her Southern provinces a comparative desert ; who had lost the Netherlands by it : and France might return in sympathy for the Irish, Elizabeth's sympathy for the Huguenots. He concluded by moving, " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, representing to her Majesty, that, in the opinion of this House, it is not by measures for the repression of local violence that the discontents of Ireland can be allayed, but by removing those grievances which have formed for many years the subject of

recorded complaint and remonstrance between the two countries. That among the most prominent of these is the law by which the whole ecclesiastical pro- perty of Ireland is assigned to the clergy of a small section of the population ; and that this House, deeply impressed with the belief that such a law is not conformable to reason, or to the practice of any Christian country, pledges itself, after providing for existing proprietary rights, and for the claims of her Majesty's Protestant subjects, cordially to cooperate with her Majesty in effecting such a settlement of Church property in Ireland as will remove all just ground of complaint, and give satisfaction to the Irish people."

Mr. CAREW seconded the motion.

Lord ELIOT met it by a decided negative— He understood Mr. Ward to propose doing away with the "cumbrous ma- chinery" of Archbishops and Bishops, placing the Church property in com- mission, and retaining about 70,000L to maintain the Establishment! What was the compact entered into at the time of the Union ? The Protestant Le- gislature of Ireland would not have consented to the Union if the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment had not constituted one of its provisions. He was convinced that if the Union had not been carried Catholic Emancipation would not have been conceded. (" Oh! " from the Opposition.) It would only have been accomplished by means of bloodshed and revolution. He con- fessed that he saw no difference between the existence of a Protestant Esta- blishment and the existence of a Protestant Sovereign ; and so long as the So- vereign of this state must by the constitution be a Protestant, so long might the Catholics be called a "proscribed and degraded sect." Mr. Ward had ad- mitted that abuses had ceased to exist : but if so, the necessity for alteration no longer existed. Lord Eliot insisted that the Church property only amounted to 432,023/.; and for a population of upwards of 900,000 persons, spread over 20,000,000 of acres, it surely could not be said that such an amount was too much for their spiritual instruction, or that 2,000 clergymen, with an average income of say 150/. per annum, was too great an allowance. He cited the opinion of Mr. Grattan, Mr. Canning, Lord Planket, and Lord Castlereagh- (' Oh! ")—all strenuous supporters of Catholic Emancipation, that the main- tenance of the Protestant Establishment was necessary to preserve in good faith the Act of Union. Alluding to the difference of opinion prevailing among the Opposition on the subject of Mr. Ward's motion, Lord Eliot asked, in the words of the poet-

" Quid faciam via? Denique non omoes endem mirantur amautque. Tres milli convivm prope dia,autire videutur. Poseentes vario multinn dit ersa palato. Quid dew? quid non dew? Reouis tu quod jubet alter; Quod petis, id saue est iuvisum aealumqueduobus."

Members talked as if none but Roman Catholics were the people of Ireland; but he claimed for the Protestants to be considered a component part of the wealth, the intelligence, and the population. The question before the House was not whether any or what provision should be made for the religious in- struction of the majority of the Irish people : that question he should at any time be ready to discuss. On this point he contrasted the statement by Mr. O'Connell before the Lords' Committee in 1825, that the Catholic gentry would oppose a transfer of Church property to their own clergy, though in the event of Emancipation a wise Government would preserve the attachment of that clergy by the golden link of a pecuniary provision, with Dr. M'Etale's denunciation this year of any such project. IA ithout, however, discussing the practicability of making such provision, he was authorized to say that Government would not lend any countenance or support to such a proposition as that embodied in the motion.

The debate was adjourned, at nearly one o'clock in the morning.

It was resumed on Wednesday, by Mr. TRELAWNEY ; who answered objections to the motion ; contending that the Established Church really is a burden on the Irish people at large, since the tithes by which it is supported are the property of the State ; and arguing against state church establishments generally.

Sir ROBERT Noma replied to Mr. Trelawney's arguments, and then reverted to Mr. Ward's ; whom he accused of seeking to deliver the Irish Church, stripped and haltered, to her enemies— He agreed with Mr. Ward, that there had been so much misgovernment in Ireland for the last three centuries as consisted, first, in the neglect of the language of the people, and secondly, in the neglect to advance the interests of the Protestant Courch. If the Holy Scriptures and the Liturgy had been, as in England, translated into the vernacular tongue, a very different state of things might now have presented itself to observation. And Queen Elizabeth' not only neglected to fill bishoprics and kept them in her own hands, but for a hundred years after the Church became nominally Protestant, more than one Irish bishopric was suffered to remain in the hands of the Roman Catholics. Whoever was to blame for that, it was not the Church. Answering Mr. Ward's banter, he said that it was since the time of the Union that the bene- ficial change in the spiritual character of the Church was to be traced : four hundred new churches had been built in Ireland within the last forty-three years ; some of the most enlightened and able men were now in the Irish Church; and he could not help admiring the singular discretion with which Sir Robert Peel had filled up vacancies of the kind. A great part of Mr. Ward's speech proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the penal laws are still in existence. As to the unions of parishes, returns were very fallacious. There was, for example, a living in the county of Cork which consisted of six parishes : but one of the parishes contained only one tenement, and that was a sugar-house ; and another of those parishes, the parish of St.Do- minic, contained also but one tenement, and that was a distillery; and yet, on the table of that House, looking at the returns, it appeared that there was in this instance a union of six " parishes " held by one individual. Moreover, the ecclesiastical authorities were continually reducing the number of these unions. But statistics did not affect the conclusion to be attained ; for they would lead to establishing the faith of Brahma or Fo, if it happened to be the faith of the greatest numbers; whereas it was incumbent on individual if not on national conscience to promote the truth. And it was to be recollected, that the question was not one of establishing, but of destroying a church. Sir Ro- bert took exception to the accuracy of Mr. Ward's history respecting the capi- tulation of Limerick ; contending that the conditions which had actually been accepted were not violated. He opposed the motion, in the belief that the Established Church was the great link in the union between the two countries.

Lord LISTOWEL said, that the cause of all Ireland's grievances might be summed up in three words—Protestant against Catholic. There had been no real union ; and in order to give it effect, he called upon the House gradually, on the demise of incumbents, to devote the sur- plus revenues of the Irish Church to great national purposes, and to abolish the Lord-Lieutenancy. As to the conflict of opinion among the Opposition, it only related to means, pointing to a common end on which all were agreed.

Lord BERNARD repeated many reasons against the motion— The wealth and resources of the Irish Church were greatly exaggerated. He was a member of an association for appointing additional curates, and he could say positively, that if they had the fund: they could have ten times as many clergy as there were at present, and ample occupation for them. Mr. BAILIE COCHRANE rejoiced that Government took a decided tone on this one point of Irish affairs ; for to their vexatious and harrassing policy, wanting in dignity and energy, he attributed many existing evils in Ireland ; expressing at the same time great respect for the Roman Catholics, and reservedly hinting at a provision for their clergy. Al- luding to his own vote against Ministers in a recent debate on Irish affairs, and to Sir Robert Peel's remarks upon the conduct of those on the Ministerial side who then opposed him, Mr. Cochrane said, (speak- ing, says the Times, with rather passionate energy,)— " I do claim, not only for myself, but for others here, courteous and becoming conduct from the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government towards those of his own party who have the misfortune to differ from hia views. (A marked cry of " Hear, hear ! " from Members on the back Minis- terial benches.) I do think that it is unbecoming the dignity of this House, that it is inconsistent with the independence with which Members enter upon the consideration of any question that may be brought under discussion, for the Prime Minister of the Crown to get up in his place and say, ' You differ from me—you will not divide with me—non tali ausilio—get over to the other side.' ("Hear! and a laugh.) For my part, I admit party; no one will sacrifice more for that party when he sees fit : but I will admit no party-feeling which entails upon me either a sacrifice of my principle or of my independence. (Cheers.) The right honourable Baronet formerly held this opinion himself; he expressed it in 1828: but he appears to have a very different notion of the duties of a party-man now.

No one else seeming disposed to rise, Mr. VILLIERS STUART said a few words in favour of the motion ; contending that the present Parliament was not to be shackled by the opinion entertained by the Parliament at the time of the Union.

Mr. HARDY was speaking on the opposite side, when a Member moved that the House be counted. Only 38 Members being present, the House adjourned, at eight o'clock ; and the motion fell to the ground.

On Thursday, Mr. WARD alluded to the abrupt termination of the debate— Government had given every facility for bringing forward his motiom—had made a House on Tuesday ; and it was not their fault that the House was counted out on Wednesday, but it arose rather from want of combination on the Opposition side. He had had assurances of support from many leading Members, and many honourable gentlemen had come to town on purpose to be present at the debate; but those honourable gentlemen who intended to speak had left the House precisely when their speeches were wanted. Therefore he should not feel justified in renewing the motion this session. He addressed a few words, however, to Mr. Escott. It was a silly and childish practice, unworthy of a grown-up man, to lie in wait there for an opportunity, when the number of Members was reduced within one of that which enabled the Speaker to keep the chair, to move the counting of the House. (" Hear!" and " Oh !") Mr. Ward was not present himself. (Loud laughter.) Be had delivered his own sentiments ; he saw there was a want of speakers, and he went out to see if he could induce some honourable gentlemen to enter the House. He the more regretted it, since it might be interpreted as an additional slight toIreland: his honourable friend (Mr. Roche) might so quote it. However, he believed that his honourable friend walked out among the rest, to accomplish the good work. Mr. EscoTT, retorting the charge of " childishness " upon the lame and impotent conclusion of Mr. Ward's able speech, said that the honourable Member's own friends were in fault ; and he justified his conduct on the score that so important a subject ought to be discussed with the solemnity suitable to its importance. He had himself remained, to enable the Speaker to keep the chair.

Mr. WARD admitted, that perhaps Mr. Escott had put the matter in a fairer way than he himself did. If he had said any thing offensive, he regretted it.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE thanked Mr. Escott for having torn off the flimsy disguise in which the House had been masquerading with questions re- lating to Ireland—

He was bound to say, that honourable gentlemen connected with the Go- vernment were attending in their places, and noble Lords and honourable Members on the Opposition first bench were all absent. For one hour he was sitting on that bench all alone in his glory. (Laughter.) He had himself thought of moving that the House be counted; but he reflected that some would say—" Oh! see what that factious Repealer has done." After making a speech of such transcendent talent, Mr. Ward would be unjust to himself to bring the motion on again ; but let it be understood that this result was brought about by that indifference on the part of the Representatives of England which rendered questions relating to Ireland of such little moment in their eyes.

Captain BERNAL observed, that only seven Irish Members were pre- sent when the House was counted. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES thought that better notice should be given to Members outside ; for he and some other Members came to the door, but were a few seconds too late. Sir GEORGE GREY said he had been placed in the same predicament. Mr. Roche should remember that a similar course had been taken on other important questions. Mr. REDHEAD YORK laid the blame on leading Members of the Opposition : he must say of that party, with which he was supposed to be connected, that it was prodigal of its professions; but that as regarded all practical measures, it was poor, paltry, and pitiful.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition from Lord Oranmore, an Irish Peer but not a Peer of Parlia- ment: the folio it lug are the most material passages in this remarkable document— "To the Lord, -1,dritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the JL „ht Honourable Dominick Lord Oranmore and Browne, showeth, That your petitioner desires, as much as any of your Lordships, Temporal or Spiritual, on religious as well as political grounds, that all the people of Ireland were members of the Church 'of England. That your petitioner is devoted to the preservation of the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, as the only means of preserving the Union of the Crowns; knowing that the very unsatisfactory cooperation of the British and Irish Legislatures before the Union, as well as the Union itself, was effected only by every species of fraud, corruption, and intimidation, and that two really independent Legislatures could never coOperate; the necessary result of them want of cooperation being civil war, ending in forced reunion or separation. That your petitioner is sincerely alarmed at the late progress of Repeal agita- tion in Ireland. That your petitioner has no doubt this agitation arises from a general and growing sense of the injustice of the laws appropriating the whole Church property to the religion of one-tenth of the Irish people. That the Irish Church property was originally given to support the religion of all. That no precedent exists on earth for the appropriation of such property to the religion of a small minority. That there is no similar instance of any country counting its own population against that of a province, for the purpose of ap- propriating the Church property of that province for its colohiste. That Log- laud herself bas not done so in Scotland, Canada, Malta, the Ionian Islands, nor India. That none of those countries would be content had England pur- sued towards them the same policy as towards Ireland. That much less would proud England herself have ever borne a Boman Catholic establishment, had James conquered William, though all her landed aristocracy conformed to the religion of their Roman Catholic Sovereign. [The petitioner goes on to contend that Catholic Emancipation could not have been a final adjust- ment of the matter; and that an appropriation of Church property to other than ecclesiastical purposes would not be more satisfactory to the Roman Catholics.] That your petitioner would not venture thus to tender his humble advice to your Lordships, if he believed the Protestant and English interest, or the interests of true religion, were promoted by the present appropriation : on the contrary, he is thoroughly convinced the true religion suffers seriously from its professors having a monopoly of Church property. And England, and the English, and Protestants, and descendants of the English, for the last seven centuries, are thereby rendered odious to the majority, and by them considered aliens in blood, language, and religion. Indeed, your petitioner himself, after his family have been settled more than twenty generations in Ireland, but originally English or Norman, unconnected with England but by ties of unceasing loyalty to the Crown, feels himself estranged from those otherwise attached to him, by being participator in an unjust monopoly. That your petitioner the more fearlessly states his views, as, though a party-man, and ever glorying in the name of Whig in its best acceptation, in this plan he can have no party object. He disdains accusing this present Administration of having (as, he confesses, he expected in 1841) done any thing particularly to excite Repeal agitation. He repudiates the common cant, that had a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy been made in 1829, or had the Appropriation-clause of 1834 been passed, the Roman Ca- tholics would now be satisfied ; he does not believe any bargain of half and in- completejustice to the majority of the Irish people could be satisfactory, when- ever it might have been made. • * • That your petitioner might naturally despair of the consummation of his wishes, did he not see her Majesty has three Ministers, one of whom conquered Napoleon, a second who has carried Roman Catholic Emancipation against the feelings of the Sovereign and a body of Protestants, and a third who has induced Parliament to grant 20,000,000/. to redeem the country from the shame of Slavery and to abolish two Archbishoprics and eight Bishoprics in Ireland. Your petitioner' there- fore, prays that your Lordships will take measures to have the whole Church property of Ireland, lands and tithes, except mensal lands for the clergy of the three religions, sold to the best advantage, (preserving the life-interests of the present incumbents,) and the produce vested in the Consolidated Fund, and

the interest thereof appropriated liermanently to the support of the Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic religions, in proportion to their numbers ; and to enable her Majesty to conclude a concordat with the head of the Roman Catholic Church, putting an end to the unworthy system of connivance now pursued as to the intercourse of Roman Catholics with the see of Rome, and

establishing' the religion of one-third of the people of the United Kingdom on a constitutional basis—that is, perfect equality with the Churches of England and Scotland.

"And your petitioner will, as in duty bound, ever pray. ORANHORE." In presenting this petition, Lord Fortescue cordially supported its prayer.

The Duke of WELLINGTON wished to warn the House of one cir- cumstance connected with the petition-

" The prayer of this petition goes to neither more or lees than this important que stion, whether your Lordships are to repeal or to maintain the laws by which the Reformation has been established in this United Kingdom. That is the question submitted for your Lordships' consideration in this petition, from a Peer of Ireland though not a member of this House ; that is the question, which I beg your Lordships to consider well, and to decide whether or not you will listen to such arguments in support of such a proposition." (Loud cheers.) The Earl of WICKLOW regretted that the petition had ever been pre- sented ; for it went to the subversion of the Established Church—the destruction of the Reformation in Ireland. [The Duke of WELLING- Tox—" Ay, in the United Kingdom."] Yes, in the United Kingdom, though the noble Lord would begin with Ireland. Parliament had already legislated far enough on this subject.

Lord BROUGHAM concurred in many:statements of the petition, but not in its conclusion ; and one mistake in particular he corrected— There never was a grosser delusion than to fancy that the abuse of the Irish Church-600,000, or 800,000 or 1,000,000 Protestants enjoying the benefit of its revenues, while 6,000,000 or 8,000,000 Roman Catholics derived no benefit from those revenues in the shape of religious instruction—there never was a grosser delusion than to suppose that this entailed any suffering on the peasantry of Ireland, that any man felt that be was materially injured thereby in his person or estate, or that he was to be viewed as an object of compassion because of this public abuse. It might be wrong—it deserved to be rectified—be hoped it would be; but it affected the 8,000,000 of the Irish Catholics in this respect, and nothing more—they had a right to complain that they paid their own priests, while, not they, but the tithe, which did not belong to them, and the Church-lands, which did not belong to any man, defrayed the expenses of the Protestant Church. In that respect the Irish Roman Catholics were no worse off than the Presbyterians in the North : they had the same cause of complaint with the people of Ulster, and no more; for the Regium Donum could not be called a State provision.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE agreed with the petitioner on some points ; but differed wholly as to the belief that the state of public feeling with regard to the Church had given rise to the Repeal agita- tion. He would pay the Catholic clergy, but would not take the pro- perty of the Established Church for the purpose.

LAW OF MORTHAIN.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord Joint MANNERS called attention to the existing law of mortmain ; observing that he did so on understanding that a right reverend Prelate had relinquished a similar project in consequence of the difficulties and objections with which the Law-officers of the Crown had threatened him—.

It was impossible for any one seriously to consider the state of this country and of Ireland—to see the millions of people suffering from the extreme of want, ignorance, and misery—and not to ask himself what had been done during the year 1843 by Parliament to ameliorate the condition of the people ? No- thing. He had given notice of his motion because—he said it more in sorrow i than n anger—the sectarian bigotry and the selfish credulity of some, and, if he might so say, the want of moral firmness in others, had all conspired to render nugatory and of no effect measures which might have been beneficial in themselves, and certainly would have been a practical guarantee afforded by Parliament of the good-will entertained by it for the people. It was, there- fore, only after that House declared that the poor should not be taught—that ignorance should not be instructed—and that the unemployed should not be set to work by public munificence, that he asked them to carry that principle to its legitimate extent which alone could justify them in acting on it, and while they refused to be munificent as a state, to throw every facility in the way of private munificence and beneficence. Such considerations ought to have weight with Sir Robert Peel, who in one of the Education debates laid stress on its effect in encouraging individual exertion. Lord John referred to the various acts on the subject of mortmain ; beginning with the Act of the 9th of Henry the Third, tracing the subsequent confirmations and relaxations of that act, down to the Mortmain Act of George the Second. By that law, nothing savouring of the realty might be in any way conveyed to any body or bodies politic or corporate for any charitable purpose, unless by deed executed twelve months and enrolled six months before the death of the donor. Such laws had their origin in the natural dread which the great feudal Barons and each successive King entertained of the growing power and wealth of the monastic body : but, however, necessary in the fifteenth century, they were altogether the reverse in the nineteenth. What possible danger to the State on the ground of non-performance of military service, or otherwise, could now arise from relaxing those restrictions? At a time when there were 6,000,000 beyond the pale of the Church—when discontent and rebellion were rife in every part of the land, arising almost entirely from ignorance and destitution— when they were told by the President of the Board of Trade that the acces- sories of life were decreasing in one class and increasing in another—were they to be met with the cant and worn-out objection against perpetuity ? Were they to be told that it was necessary to prevent lands from being tied up in perpetuity in order to encourage the spirit of commerce ? He thought that at present the country was suffering more from the excess of commercial com- petition and enterprise than would arise from any check given to commerce by the repeal of the Mortmain Act. He believed that he should be met with the assertion, that some forty or fiftyyears hence, the Church would be wealthy enough to Christianize the whole people of this country. Forty or fifty years hence !—Why, who could say where England herself would be then ? Another objection might be, that if a relaxation were made in respect of Protestants, it must be made also in respect of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. In political matters, they had been placed on a footing of equality with Protestants, and why not with reference to this subject ? He was prepared to allow wealthy Roman Catholics to build and endow Roman Catholic schools and colleges for the Roman Catholic population of the country ; and he would go further, and say, that among the boons which Parliament should grant to Ireland he ranked the revision of the Mortmain-laws. If they were not prepared to shift the burden of supporting their clergy from the shoulders of the miserable and ground-down peasantry of that country to the shoulders of the State, at least they might permit those who were willing to bear their portion of those burdens to do so ; they might at least permit the rich Roman Catholics to administer to the wants of their poorer brethren in that country. Fears lest the dying should be molested by solicitations were altogether unfounded, or at least grossly exaggerated. To remove objections, however, he proposed the limita- tion set by the 38th of Henry the Eighth, and would allow not more than one- third of an estate to be bequeathed by will ; while no bequest might bold good unless made one month and enrolled one week before the death of the testator. Legal ingenuity was already devoted to make exemptions in the operation of the existing law ; but if bequests might be left to St. George's Hospital, why not to Sr. Thomas's ? If a person living in Bolton might leave his estate to the Royal Naval Asylum at Greenwich, why might he not found one in his native town ? If he could leave a legacy to the Bath Infirmary, why not to Bedlam? The effect of the measure he recommended would be the encourage- ment of charity, religion, and devotion. Schools, hospitals, churches, cathe- drals, were wanted; and, in his opinion, something more—the reestablishment of religious houses. He never could believe that the teeming millions of our agricultural and manufacturing districts would be brought within the pale of Christian civilization without the establishment of some sort of monastic insti- tute. He could never believe that those who were now suffering under the effects of extreme ignorance would be taught unless by such means. The House should not flatter themselves that the Education Commissioners would ever be able to effect that object. The repeal of the Mortmain Act afforded the means of endowing such institutions. It had come to his knowledge within the last three or four days, that at this moment there was a lady at Leeds, aged eighty, who wished to leave 25,000/. for the erection of churches, but the validity of the bequest depended on her surviving for a year. Every conveyancer could mention similar cases. He hoped he had convinced the House that they ought to adopt his proposition. "In an age confessedly devoted to money- getting—when the wealthy are wealthier and the poor poorer—when hundreds of thousands are without food, religion, andemployment—I ask you to have the courage to believe in the nobler impulses of our nature; to appeal to the glorious spirit which built our cathedrals, our colleges, our convents ; to give scope to the exercise of those virtues without which no country can become or remain great—faith and charity; and to brush away from the statute-book the cobwebs which a faint-hearted age imposed for the purpose of entangling and fettering a munificence which they could not love or understand, and which we mournfully desiderate." Lord John concluded by moving the following reso- lution—. That it is inexpedient, in the present condition of the country, to continue the existing restrictions on the exercise of private charity and muni- ficence."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM called upon the House to reject the motion— In a House so thin that it was almost a question whether he should address it or move that it be counted, and so late in the session as the 1st of August, they were called upon to entertain a proposition to remove from the statute-book a law with reference to real property which had prevailed from the reign of Edward the First, the English Justinian, down to the present time ! It must be remembered, moreover, that the limitation only applied to real propsrty ; there was no restriction as to personal property. Lord john Manners admitted that he had a view to the reestablishment of monastic institutions: Sir James entreated the House to pause before they took a step of which they could not see the consequences. The proposition to repeal the 9th of George the Second must be accompanied by many mamma of detail which required careful consideration; and he must beg to differ with Lord John, not only as to the principle he advocated, but also as to the mode in which he intended to alter a law of which the commentator Blackstone had declared that by it Edward the First " effectually closed the great gulf in which all the landed property of the kingdom was in danger of being swallowed." Mr. CHARLES BULLER contended, that the only effect of the present law is to provide work for the lawyers in devising clauses of evasion in charters and deeds of gift— Instead of being afraid that "a great gulf" would be opened by the mea- sure, he wished he could see any sign among landed proprietors that they were inclined to give over much property to public purposes. When he looked at our colleges, when he looked at the hospitals of the country, he confessed it was not without shame that he observed that not one-fiftieth part of the means of those institutions had been contributed by men in the present age. As SO any fear that agriculture would suffer, it had always been found that the Church and corporations were the best landlords. The proposal would also afford a means of doing away with Church-rates. He thought that there was nothing in which our ancestors showed so much wisdom as in preventing public bodies from being dependent on the great mass of the people ; and he also thought that there was nothing by which we had so much shaken the power of the Church as by making her dependent on the people for support. He would, however, treat the statute of George the Second with great caution.

Sir ROBERT Ilium would not say that he was opposed to the motion ;

but he could not concur in putting the Church of England on an equa- lity with sects, nor could he agree to the revival of convents. Mr. BERNAL objected to the sweeping character of the resolution, and ex- pressed his concurrence with Sir James Graham's views. Mr. BORTH- WICK promised his vote to the mover. Lord Joan Mcsistuts, however, withdrew the motion; to be reintroduced next session.

THE COALWHIPPERS BILL.

— The House of Commons began morning sittings at twelve o'clock on Tuesday ; when Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, moving that the House do go into Committee on the Coalwhippers Bill, stated the object of the measure— By acting as agents to procure employment for the coalwhippers of London, the publicans had obtained a mastery over the men, and compelled them to spend great part of their earnings in drink ; so that about 2,000 families were reduced to great poverty and degradation. The remedy of these evils had been attempted by legislation in 1807 and subsequently ; the last measure, in 1838, requiring the wages of the men to be paid on ship-board from day to day ; but, like the previous attempts, it was a failure. The essential feature of the bill before the House was the establishment of a public office to which parties might apply when they wanted gangs of coalwhippera. If this public office demanded the same or lower wages for the gangs, then parties would be bound to take them ; but as soon as it exceeded the expense incurred in the original way, then it would be no longer necessary to do so. Though the bill interfered with the freedom of labour, still the parties would remain as they were when that interference injured their interests.

Mr. HAWES made two objections to the bill,—that the 15th clause, in providing 1,0001, (to pay for certain expenses in the proposed office,) placed an additional tax upon coal, and ought therefore to have been introduced in a Committee of the a hole House; and that that object of the bill ought to have been mentioned in the preamble. After some dis- cussion, the SPEAKER decided that the provision allowing the 1,000/. to be borrowed out of the fund raised from an existing duty of Id. per ton on coal did not authorize the increase or continuance of the duty imposed by another act, the one imposing the duty : it was not therefore to be regarded as a new tax.

Mr. HUME objected, that the bill did not touch the real ground in which the condition of the coalwhippers originated, which was the interference to " regulate " the coal-trade : that interference, by shutting out competition and raising wages, had caused the existing evils. He moved as an amendment, that a Select Committee be ap- pointed to inquire into the condition of the coalwhippers and the effects of legislation upon it since the 1st and 2d of Victoria c. 101. The amendment was supported by Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, Dr. Bownixo, and Mr. F. T. BARING; the original motion by Sir %must CLAY. On a division, the original motion was carried, by 53 to 17; the House went into Committee, and at once adjourned ; to sit again on Tuesday next.

SUDBURY.

In the House of Commons-, on Tuesday, Colonel RusrnanooKE moved the issue of the writ for the borough of Sudbury, the representation of which had been in abeyance for nearly two years ; and he hoped that the House would coincide with the Lords, who had rejected the dis- franchising bill. Mr. BLACKSTONE, contending that general bribery had not been proved against the borough, but that those individuals who had been guilty ought to be disfranchised, moved as an amend- ment, for leave to bring in a bill for an effect* inquiry into bribery and corrupt practices alleged to exist in the borough. Sir GEORGE GREY supported the amendment ; imputing the failure of the bill before the Lords to combination among the witnesses. The original motion was support by Sir ROBERT INGLIS ; the amendment by Mr. Gru.., Pr. NICHOLL, Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, and Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE. Sir ROBERT PEEL had been convinced by the evidence that general bribery did prevail in Sudbury. He had no great confidence in the success of the proposed inquiry ; but, deeming bribery in boroughs more calculated than any thing else to induce further changes in the constitution, he thought that all modes of investigation should be ex- hausted before the issue of the writ. The amendment was carried, by 138 to 25.

PRIVILEGE: LORD BROUGHAM AND THE PRESS.

In the House of Lords, on Friday, Lord Baouniusr drew attention to a gross breach of the privileges of that House, in the shape of a libel in the Examiner newspaper— lie had observed, that such offences grew more frequent and more rank to- wards the end of the session; for the obvious reason, that the usual imprison- ment till the close of the session would only last for a week or two. He should therefore give notice, that at the commencement of the next session he would call the printer of the paper to the bar of the House. He would not de. tam the House with a long statement as to the ribaldry, the libel, the slander, the falsehood, mixed up with an equal proportion of malice, of which he now complained ; but would read the passage. In the debate on the Defamation and Libel Bill, he differed with Lord Campbell respecting impunity for pub- lishing debates in Parliament ; and he had said that treason might be spoken in Parliament with impunity, because no man was answerable for what he said in Parliament ; but that if such treason, for instance, as an inducement to assassinate the Sovereign were spoken, and propagated through the press, past all doubt the propagator of such sentiments through the press would not be free from punishment. His noble and learned friend (Lord Campbell) had reminded him that that case was expressly provided for, but in his answer he had said, " Yes ; but I will take the case of the suggested assassination of a coal- men person"; which was, he thought, though not likely, a perfectly possible case. Now, upon that observation of his, thus arising, was founded, in this paper— which, he might remark, contained a report which was a complete corrective and refutation of the falsehood—the following gross, scandalous, and utterly false charge—s charge as false as it was foul—. In opposing that part of Lord Campbell's bill which would hare legalized faithful reports of proceedings in Parliament, Lord Brougham objected that private assassination might be recommended in Parliament.' The meaning of this is obvious enough; it was a revival of the foul calumny against ML Cobdea." LordJ3rougham, would venture to say, that no human being who had read his observations on the occasion to which he had referred, except this malignant and false writer, ever dreamed that he had made the slightest reference to Mr. Cobden, or that he could by any possibility have made such reference ; and the more so for this reason—that he had always spoken of Mr. Cobden with the greatest personal respect and kindness. indeed, he had never made the slightest allusion to Mr. Cobden in connexion with ouch a subject; although be had referred to a Dissenting parson in the town of Sheffield, who had openly spoken of towageination and of Mr. Drummond 's unhappy fate. He believed that Mr. Cobden was a moat res- pectable man—one who would shudder at the idea of assassination; and though a charge of the sort had been made against Mr. Cobden in consequence of some observations he made in the other House, no allusion to it had been made in their Lordships' House. The article proceeded—" The charge was false ; every one knows it to be false; but Lord Brougham in cold blood reverts to it,"—as if he had ever said such a thing I—" because it pleases the Tories, from whom he hopes for a judicial appointment." (Laughter.) Was not that very ridiculous, spiteful, and false? He might appeal to his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, whether he had ever shown any very great fondness for judicial appointments ? The writer proceeded- " His fitness for which he illustrates in this peculiar way : and is there a hireling assassin of character in the press who can do worse than obtain his wages by dealing in false accusation for the wicked pleasure of his patrons?" This was so stupidly written that it really ought scarcely to offend any one. He should not have seen this production, but that it had been sent to him with the paragraph marked so as to draw his attention to it. It had been sent to him to give him pain : it had not done so, but it had produced the utmost scorn in his mind. He would say no more now than that there had never been a libel more gross; for that, in imputing motives of a scandalous nature to a Member of Parliament, it contained a scandalous and most despicable falsehood. In reply to Lord Brougham's appeal, the LORD CHANCELLOR stated, that some communications had passed between them in reference to the permanent Presidency of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; an appointment which Lord Brougham had declined.

Lord CAMPBELL doubted whether Lord Brougham was not departing from precedent in giving notice now of his intention to take up the matter next session. The remedy upon a breach of privilege was usually resorted to only where it was inconvenient to wait for the feed- num remedium of the law—

Lord BROUGHAM—" I shall put a stop to all difficulty on that sub- ject: I shall proceed at law and prosecute ; and shall see whether the law as it now stands, or as it may stand under my noble friend's bill, affords any protection to Members of Parliament when they are so scandalously libelled."

Lord CAMPBELL—" Theo, of course, I have no more to say on the question."

• MISCELLANEOUS.

Hum Poem-ram The House of Commons went into Committee on the Poor-relief (Ireland) Bill on Thursday. On the 10th clause, Sir DENHAM NORRETS, objecting that the rating-returns which it authorized were already used for political purposes, moved an alteration restricting the returns to informa- tion respecting Poor-law rating only. Lord ELIOT said that the change would necessitate an alteration in the Municipal Act, impossible at so late a season; and the amendment was negatived, withouyffivision. On clause 11th, Mr. Sams( O'BRIEN moved an amendment, dating the expense of each pauper on the union to which he may belong instead of the separate electoral division. The amendment was rejected, by 112 to 17. Having arrived at the 16th clause, the Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.

THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS (IRELAND) BILL was considered in Com- mittee by the Commons, on Thursday. Counsel were heard against provisions in the bill, against which Mr. James Lennox Livingstone, the Earl of Glengall, the Marquis of Clanricarde, and Lord Dunsany petitioned. In accordance with the petition, on coming to the 4th clause, Mr. THOMAS Duzicowwz moved to extend the time for commencing the operation of the bill from six months to six years after its passing. After a long discussion, the year 1845 was eventually fixed upon. The other clauses were disposed of, and the House resumed.

LIBEL LAW. In the House of Loads' on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM stated, he had received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice adhering to the amendment he had proposed for extending the penal operation of the Defama- tion and Libel Bill to threats of defamation as well as of libel. Lord CAMP- BELL acquiesced ; though he feared that by making the enactment too general it would become inoperative. He hoped it would be understood that, with the exception of that point, the House was unanimous upon the measure. The amendment was agreed to, and the bill passed. It was read a first time in the House of Commons on Tuesday, and is to be read a second time next Monday.

THE ROYAL AssEsr was given by commission, on Tuesday, to the Loan 'Societies Act Continuance Bill, and to several undiscussed and private bills.

THE EPWORTH ANTI-CORN-LAW PETITION. On Monday, the SPEAKER reported that Samuel Potts, whom a Select Committee had pronounced guilty of breach of privilege in forging signatures to a petition, was in custody. It was ordered that the Speaker's warrant do issue for Potts's committal to New- gate.