Eirbatrif anti Pracrettingli in Parliament.

OPERATION OF THE ENGLISH POOR•LAW.

The debate on the English Poor-law, the commencement of which we mentioned last week, was resumed in the House of Commons on Monday.

Ni'. BROTIIERTON spoke against the introduction of the new system into the manufacturing districts. He believed it would reduce the rates, but did not think it would improve the condition of the poor.

Mr. CRIPPS defended the Poordlaw; and declared that be placed very little reliance otethe statements of Mr. Walter, as they appeared to rest simply upon assertions and complaints, the truth of which had not been investigated.

Colonel SIBTHORP preferred Mr. Walter's motion, which was for a Committee with powers to search into the whole question ; whereas the intention of Lord John Russell's motion was to limit the inquiry.

Mr. ALSTON assured the House, that in Hertfordshire the Poor-law had worked beneficially both in reducing the rates and in raising the character of the labouring population.-

Mr. ROBINSON denied that the reduction of the rates was altogether owing to the operation of the Poor.law. He could show, that since ISIS there had been a continued reduction of the rates. He preferred an unfettered inquiry, and would support Mr. Walter.

Mr. EDWARD BILLER spoke decidedly in favour of the new system. Major BEAuCLERIC contended for a full and complete inquiry.

Sir STRATFORD CANNING, considering it highly important that the

public mind should not be unsettled respecting the principle of the law, would oppose Mr. Walter's motion.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that the real question lay-within the nar- rowest compass; and he could give his opinion upon it as well in five minutes as in two hours— The whole question turned on this, what would be the impression produced on the public mind by the course of the House on this occasion? The terms of the uric motion might differ very little from the terms of the other. The in- quiry to take place in pursuance of the one might differ little from that insti- tuted under the other. The real question was, what would be the constinctien put upon the v to of the House by the public, by. those fur whom the law was administered, by those who administered it. If it were intended to repeal the new Poor law, to prejudice its operation, their coarse was pet fectly clear. If, on the other hand, it were intended to niaititain that act, to give the moral aid of the support of that House to those who had to administer the very diffi-

cult and important functions intrusted to the Poor• law C 'ssioners, the House ought to be most exceedingly cautious how they did any thing likely to create in the public mind a suspicion that the House had doubts upon the sub-

ject of this measure, or wished to shrink Sr the responsibility of arowilig its operation to be continued. The great object of the change in the Poor-laws was not to save expense. He should attaeli very little importance to the bent, fits del ivalile limn the measure if they were confined to as mere diminution of the poor. rates When he heard it stated that a saving of one, two, or three mipious a par bud already been effected by this 'mistier, lie was far from undervaluing au important a result. feeling, as he did, that MI reduction in une wise expenditure could he made without duing a vast pod to the labootiog classes; but the great object which he had contemplated in advocating the measure, was to improve the moral condition of the people—to give them a feeling of independence—to open 'white them the prospect that by industry, combined with good moral dial octet.. theme would be• a eeriainty of their being able to provide, its an independent and honourable 111411110, for their men sub- sistence and that of their families. Having given to the no.asure his cordial support. he must say that he had hitherto heard no facts stated of a motile to induce him to repent of that support, or incline him to take any ',top likely to prejudice the opeiation of the measure. He did not hesitate to Hay—and be was bound to give him frank opinion, whatever unpopularity might attach to it —be did nut hesitate to say, that being, as he was, unconvetted from his ori- ginal conviction as to the principle of the itie.isuie, he ti•It that it was entitled to a full and fair trial. The evils which it ha l for its object to remove. were of the most disastrous character, not only to 1.roperty but to the independence and moral condition of the p er classes; and he should therefore give his slippers to the amendment proposed by L0141,110 Russell ; which seemed best calm- fated to maintain the principle of the measure, and tended to increase its

efftracy. •

Mr. Roaavca gave the Poor-law his support, not because it di.

Kninished parochial expenditure, but for other reasons of g• eater im- portance. He believed that the interests of the industrious poor were deeply involved in the existing law. He hoped that the peter would not be indiscriminately compelled to seek relief in the workhouse ; but that the able-bodied would never receive relief out of it. He haibeen informed by his constituents, that the impotent poor in the reighbour- lood of Bath were maintained out of the workhouse. He bad been Silted by Mr. Harvey, how he reconciled the support he gave to the system of centralization established by this law, with the pr;nciple of lowd self-government : now he could explain very easily how the two principles were united, and did not clash in the Poor-law- some of the honourable gentlemen who had spoken on this suh'ect would wake them believe that the question of relief was one which soleW interested Ilose persons in the parish who gave relief to the poor belonging to that parish. He for one would resist this view. Ile would say that the pour lelonged to the nation. The provision for them was a national concern ; and it ought not to be left to any locality to say whether they would relieve the poor 4 r not. It waa a principle of public polity that none should die of want. He thought the Legislature had done wisely in creating a set of Commissioners. who would exercise the necessary control to enforce certain fixed principles, whi'e they left to the locality to decide with revert to the particular persons who ,hould re- ceive relief. Certain rules were laid down by the Commissioners ; and persons were appointed local Guardians, whose duty it was to act in milli' mity with these rules in their particular district. Thus they cembined self-government with the principle of centralization. They gave to the central body what be- longed to the whole state, and they referred to the locality that which was of a peculiarly local character.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM had taken an anxious part in the discussion on this measure, and should be ashamed to shirk his share of the unpopu- larity consequent upon its support, were that unpopularity ten times greater than he believed it to be. He considered that the inquiry pro- posed byLordJobu Russell was perfectly satisfactory, and he would vote with the Government. He should, however, give his vote with greater satisfaction, if he were assured that the county which he represented, and where, from ignorance of its real nature, the Poor-law was unpo- pular, would he included in the inquiry ; and that, stopping short of the principle of the measure, the investigation should be complete.

Mr. SPRING Rice, in the absence of Lord John Russell, (who was unwell.) said that he should be ready to accede to many of the suggee• Lions thrown out in the course of the discussion, if he did not, for the sake of purchasing unanimity, endanger the principle of the bill— If the House were to show itself really to inquire not only into the details but into the principle, it would be thought without the House that there existed a disposition to retract as regarded the .principle, that they doubted she policy of it, and that they were going into an Inquiry which, more or less, would have a tendency to the retracing of their step., and the adoption of the old system. He considered that danger to be much lessened by the course which they pro- posed to take. His noble friend, when he originally introduced the measure, took his stand with perfect reliance on its justice, its policy, and expediency. Ile was supported then, as he had been on the present occasion, by Mr. Hume, Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Roebuck, gentlemen whom he named because they represented various classes ; and the House obtained from one and all of them an admission that they were friendly to the principle of The bill, and were determined to maintain it. He believed that the point which remained for consideration was, whether they were disposed to go into a full, and fair, and just inquiry into the operation itf the bill. With regard to this part of the subject, be begged to say, it was not now the intention of his noble friend, nor was it his intention, in moving the amendment, to exclude from the inquiry any one question that was not directly opposed to the principle of the bill. lie would try the case by the question put by Sir James Graham. He said it was a question whether this bill ought to be applied to the Northern parts of England, and be wished to know whether that was a matter which might he considered and discussed in this Committee. His reply was, that that was really within the fair scope and object of the Committee, and so far from seeking to exclude such an inquiry, he believed that the result would be as favourable as the result of the whole inquiry would he favourable to the principle of the bill ; and that instead of shaking the confidence of the people inahe administration of the Poor-laws. it would increase their confidence and confirm the measure in their gond opinion.

Mr. ROBERT PALMER and Air. G. F. YOUNG supported Mr. Walter's motion.

Mr. HARDY asked whether the operation of the bastardy clauses was to be inquired into?

Mr. SPRING RICE replied, that that portion of the question must certainly be investigated.

Mr. WAKLEY, though hostile to the measure, advised Mr. Walter to withdraw his motion.

Captain BOLDER() eulogized the character of Mr. Walter as a resi- dent country gentleman, and advised him not to withdraw his motion.

Mr. WALTER said, that if Lord John Russell or Mr. Spring Rice had on Friday made one half the advances made by Mr. Rice that evening, much trouble would have been saved. The discussion had obtained concessions of such importance from .Ministers, that he did not mean to press his motion to a division.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that he bud spoken precisely to the same effect as Lord John Russell had spoken, at the commencement of the debate.

The motion and the amendment were then both withdrawn ; and, on the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the following gentlemen were ap- pointed a Committee to inquire it to the operation of the P001'.1 .tY as administered under the regulations issued by the Commissiond s—

Lord John Russell, Mr. Walter, Mr. Fazakerly, Sir James Graham, Mr. Poulett Scrope, Mr. Haines, Mr. Hume, Sit Tliamas Fremantle, Mr. Crt- wright, Mr. Itirneby, Mr. Esteourt junior, Mr. Ponemby, Mr. J. Loch, Mr. Wakley, Sir 0. Mosley, Mr. Volliele, Mr. Miles, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Harvey, Illr. Fledges (of Kent), and Mr. Chicheeters On Thurday, Mr. WALTER, who had given notice of a motion to add Major Beauclerk, Sergeant Gonlinutti, Mr. Freshtield, and Mr. Hardy to the Committee, said that, in the present state of the House. (the Ministerial benches were full and those of the Opposition almost

empty,) he should postpone his mu ' , and bring it on as an amendment to the first Order of the Day on !Monday. ( This announcement was received with derision, cheers, and &wings. ) Mr. Se tiro RICE strongly Objected to that course. Monday was in Order day, and it was 'irreg. sary for the convenience of their proceedings that the rule which gave Orders of the Day a precedence should be adhered to. Yet at twenty

minutes before ten, Mr. Walter, after having acceded to the appoint- ment of twenty-one gentlemen as a Committee, abandoned his motion for adding other gentlemen to the Committee, though the House was ready to give him a patient hearing, and it was the proper time for bringing it forward. He would not consent to the withdrawal of the motion.

Mr. WALTER attempted to speak, amidst cries of " Ob, oh !" and much confusion.

The SPEAKER said, that Mr. M'alter had a right to postpone his motion ; and that gentleman then walked out of the House.

.,1•04/

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Lord MELBOURNE, on Tuesday, moved the Peers to appoint a " Se- lect Committee to inquire into the progress and operation of the new system of education adopted in Ireland." He was desirous, be said, that the inquiry should be conducted impartially and dispassionately; and he would abstain, therefore, from all those matters of eager and animated discussion which had formed the subject of previous debate in that and the other House of Parliament. He reminded the Peers, that at the commencement of the present century Parliament WAS called upon to adopt a system of education for Ireland ; and that the Kildare Street Society had been formed for the purpose of establishing schools in different parts of Ireland. The system pursued by that society had by no means given satisfaction, and in 1531 Lord Stanley had pre- vailed upon the Legislature to sanction the new system of education, into whose operation and progress it was now proposed to inquire. The materials of investigation were before the House in three Reports of the Commissioners ; and though he had opposed former motions for inquiry, yet now, as the system had made great progress, and as it might be necessary to consider whether the means of extending it should not he given, he wee of opinion that it would he desirable that the House should know what had been done, and whether there was any real foundation for the attacks which had been directed against the Commissioners, and the mummer its which the new system worked.

The Bishop of ENLTER said, that it certainly would appear from Lord Melbourne's statement, that the House had nothing to do but to agree to the appointment of the Committee. Matter had gone forth, however, affecting himself personally, seriously impugning his honour ; and be intended to take that opportunity to repel the attacks which had been made 1114011 him. He should not regret. if in vindicating himself, the true character of the Irish system of education should be made appa- rent to the House. Dr. Phillpotts then proceeded to comment upon several passages in the Third Report of the Commissioners, which were given in reply to statements he made last session, in a speech which had since been published in the fore of a pamphlet. He contended, that in no instance had the charges of misrepresentation been substan- tially proved against him ; on the contrary, he could amid would produce evidence in support of' his statements. He maintained, in opposition to the Commissioners, that the education of the persons who were sent to Dublin to be trained as schoolinaaters and mistresses, was exceed- ingly defective as regarded religion ; that some of the persons selected for schoolmasters were guilty of great moral depravity ; that in one case a scholmaster about to be employed by the Commissioners was discovered by a clergyman to be an Infidel ; that copies of a disgraceful character had been found in one of the schools ; and that one of the Carlow schoolmasters was an active agent of Priest Maher in one of the foulest conspiracies on record to convict a party of soldiers of having drunk party toast-. Ile had been charged with misrepresenting the Commissioners is ith respect to the number of applications for schools from Protestant clergymen. He had said that the Commissioners had reported the number of applicant clergymen to he 140; but that, in point of fact, there were not so many, as many clerzymen had applied for several schools, and that the number of applications was only 140. The Commissioners in their Third Report said, that such had been their statement ; that they had never asserted the number of clergy. men who applied to be 140. True it was, that in one part of'the Re- port, the number of applications; was stated at 140; but 1)r. Phillpotts thought he bad a right to infer from another pas-age, which he quoted, that they intended to give the impression he had taken himself respect. ing the number of el, ;laymen. He had also said that the :signatures of some of the deo:petal were gross forgeries; arid he contended that he MSS justified in making the assertion, as one of them was that of a person so imbecile that he could nut tell what be did, and ;mother was that of a Mr. Robertson. who was nowhere to be found, upon an in- quiry. Very few Proteetatit clergymen were in correspondence with the Corn mis-ioners,—ill Lei lister there was only one ; in Connaught one ; in :Munster five ; in Ulster twenty-three: of Catholic clergymen there

were no fewer thaa 317 to cominimicat• with the Boxed; and among these were pereoes who, as he learned frog. the R,•port of the littimi- dation Committee, had earned discord into fateiliee, broken the peace of society, and urged the pea:satiny even to commit murder. Dr. Phi& potts, in support of this accusation, read an extract from a sine. It of Mr. O'Connell delivered at Cirrhav, when Father Tyrrell u as stand- ing by his side. In that :speech Mr. 0•Cennell told his hearers, that persons opposed to them were savages and should be treated as such ; and should he spit mine and ii .tilted in the str,icts. Women were told not to live with their husbands vi rettised to vote fur their country, and the daughters of such men vs, le told to spit in their lather's faces. For such exhortations Fat her TN I tell w 1••■ morally responsible. as the sworn supporter of Mr. 0170iptiell. Father Tyrrell himself had also told the electors that they should no more think ot prostituting their votes than of prostituting their wares and daughters. Protestant clergymen had the greatest difficulty to obtain access to the schools; and in one inetallee a tutu was it sehoohitstress, and received 2(01. a year from the Board. In another edited all afar was erected, and he had been attacked for saving that mass was performed theme it was true that 001.s teas not perform, d, but a bat slut rhat •ign.ry. as othee Popish ceremonies were ? A moiler scheolmaater had organized is 'pro- cession in honour of Dr. Ma AHole. in which a hamper was carried with the inscriptton •• Liberty amid Religion." Thie wale on the (Wes. sion Of nu irruption into the island ot Achill. when it was declared that " Protestantism began ru hell. and in hell it would remain ; " and Dr. Mac Hale expressed his approval of this sentiment. The Reve- rend Mr. Nattgles was a Piutestent missionary in Achill, and he had hewn sneered at by the Commissioners because he was neither rector nor mate of Achill, but he was a zealous and pious Protestant of most extraordinary talents, and had devoted himself to the rescue of thou- sands of his fellow creatures from the persecution of a " rabid priest- hood." He had stated last year that a schoolmaster named O'Donnell bul been dismissed from another employment for using treasonable, or at least seditious language, to the coast-guards; and the Board had furnished this O'Donnell with funds to prosecute the publisher of his speech for a libel, althoUgh Lieutenant Irwin, an officer of high character, states that be recollects having dismissed O'Donnell— Here then was the statement corroborated, nay, almost proved, and the charge justified by facts within the cognizance of the Board. And yet they supply this man with funds to harass a parson who publishes a speech spoken in Par.

E i

ament : he did not blame the individual, but he did blame those who, in the teeth of such circumstances said, go and bringyour action. The Board, in fact, commanded the schoolmaster to make oath that it was not the case ; the officer declared that it teas ; the schoolmaster said be was not dismissed, or at least not dismissed for that offence ; the officer affirmed that he was. if the officer spoke the truth, the schoolmaster was guilty of perjury ; yet the Com- missioners forced him to take the oath, knowing, as they did, that it must be a false one, for it was contradicted by the positive declaration of an officer in his Majesty's service.

He should wait t:11 the Committee was appointed to prove several other charges against the Board, especially the perversion of Scripture, by means of garbled extracts and unauthorized translations, to Popish purposes. In the Gospel of St. Luke, perhaps the most important passage, which related to the incuination of the blessed Saviour, was

omitted, though that gospel was professedly given as a whole. A few years ago, lie had supposed that no extracts, but the entire Bible, would be used in the schools ; for be relied on the sworn testimony of Dr. Murray in 1824 and 1826. Dr. Murray had sworn that be would ob. sect to extracts from Scripture unless they were taken from the Douny version of the Bible ; but now he sanctioned compilations which were neither in the authorized nor the Doilay version. He had said before :hat be should now distrust the oath of anyCatholic prelate on a matter which concerned the interests of his religion. That remark had given great offence ; but be would repeat it, and would not shrink from the full responsibility of it. Dr. Phillpotts read extracts from speeches delivered by Mr. O'Connell, Dr. Croly, and Dr. Nolan, to prove that Catholics were not to be believed on their oaths : but the quotations were simply declarations in favour of liberty and Irish independence, and did not seem to be applicable to the purpose of Dr. Phillpotts ; rho, however, said that " justice to their beloved country " included the destruction of the Church of England and of Ireland, and all that Protestants held dear. The Bishop of Exeter concluded his speech by warning the House against a system for rearing the youth of Ire- !and in the belief of principles which would perpetuate the misery of their country.

The Archbishop of DUBLIN protested against the conversion of the Louse of Lords into an arena for the settlement of such charges as those brought against the Irish Commissioners by the Bishop of Exeter. All these accusations must be proved or disproved in committee. As there were 1500 schools, it was impossible to be prepared with answers to all the charges which might be brought forward, and of which no notice had been given to the Commissioners. illany reports had been circulated; but when inquired into, in almost every instance they had been proved to be gross exaggerations or mere falsehoods. Yet the authors and retailers of these calumnies never manifested any repentance or gave any apologies to the injured parties.

As a proof of the unfounded nature of some of the charges which had been brought forward, he would mention that a highly-respectable clergyman, of the name of Perrin, had accompanied Mr. Price to the school, where it was re- ported treasonable sentences had been set to the children for writing-copies. That gentleman represeuted the statement as being totally false ; and he more- over stated, that seeing the misrepresentation in the columns of the Standard newspaper, he wrote and sent a true account to the editor of that journal. The only notice taken of his letter was an announcement that a letter had been re. reived, pointing out some inaccuracies in the statement previously published, and that it could not be inserted at that moment. This happened about half a year ago. He would, by way of example, just mention a specimen of the com- plaints that were brought before him. He had been told that in a small town In his immediate neighbourhood, the children of Protestant parents were not allowed to attend the school, as they would be compelled, on entering it, to go iu at the door of the burying. ground of a Catholic chapel. His answer was, that although this did nut appear to him a very formidable ground of objection, would see to it himself. He consequently went, accompanied by the curate of the parish, and in passing up the principal street observed " National School" written over what he should have imagined to be the entrance; he, however, proceeded, and went in at the gate alluded to. Now, though there did not ap- pear any great hardship in this mode of entry, he returned into the street, and there he found the entrance he before observed and ; this entrance from the street was the one that had been always used.

The persons who brought these charges in the House of Peers re- minded him of the son of Sir FraticisWronghead, in the Provoked Hus-

band, who advised his father to bring a rude carter, who had broken the family carriage, "before the Parliament-house." It was an un- founded assertion that the attempt to establish a system of united edu. cation had failed ; for 17,874 Protestants and 96,514 Catholics attended the schools. It was said that the Catholics would gladly accept the education offered them, on the condition of using the authorized ver- sion of the Bible—.

When some persons were asked on what grounds they held this view, he was told that their meaning was, that the Roman Catholics would be glad to make use of the Scriptures if it were not for the influence of the priests. He certainly thought this rather a rash position, but he was not prepared to deny it. But how, be would ask, was this influence to be destroyed? By searching the Scriptures. That is, whenever the dominion of the priests is to be destroyed, it was to be done by reading the Scriptures; and when reading the Scriptures is the point, that could not be done because of the influence of the priests: this was indeed a most encouraging prospect. On similar pre- mises he could solve the great problem of squaring the circle : give him but a triangle of half the al ca, and he would construct the squate ; and if they wished to obtain that tria. gle, why it was half the area of the square. This was not a sort of argument that was satisfactory to the Commissioners; nei- ther, he would tell their Lordships, would it be to the British Legislature. There were many versions of the Bible, and nothing was more dan- gerous than to give currency to the idea that the differences were on The Earl of WICKLOW expressed his strong disapprobation of much that had been done by the Commissioners ; and considered it perfectly proper that the Bishop of Exeter, whe had been accused of falsehood; should publicly defend himself.

Lord PLUNICET could not imagine what it was that had infused such a portion of fury into the mind of the Bishop of Exeter. He could not find any thing in the system to justify the fierce and unmeasured abuse with which it bad been assailed. One of the lessons given to the children taught them brotherly love, and how wicked it scums to quarrel on account of religious differences. It was easy to coneeive, however, that Dr. Phillpotts, who thought it consistent with his duty as a Christian to designate the Catholic clergy, as a " rabid priest- hood " should take offence at this lesson, which was hung up in every school-room tinder the control of the Commissioners. Lord Minket wished to direct the attention of the House to a pamphlet proks4g to be a report of a speech delivered by Henry Lord Bishop of Exeter, though he did not know that the Bishop would allow that it was published by his authority. The pamphlet was not indeed quite theosame as the speech ; there had been a little cookery, a little dress. ing up, and many answers were given to arguments which were not given at the time by the right reverend prelate. He had taken up the pamphlet intending to mark such passages as appeared to transgress the bounds of Christian moderation ; and he found that he had been obliged to mark every page, as it consisted from beginning to end of pious vituperation. The Bishop had endeavoured to fasten on Dr. Murray language which he repudiated, and on this misconstruction founded a determination in future never to believe a Roman Catholic bishop on his oath. Now in his conscience he must declare, that this a its the most monstrous, frightful, and disgusting proposition that could come from any one who had the least pretensions—he would not say to the character of a Christian bishop or a Christian clergyman, but to the character of a gentleman. (Lord Melbourne said its logic was an a par with its charity.) What would the Roman Catholics think of this ? Was it possible to conceive any thing more galling or insulting than to be told that their bishops, and, by implication, the whole tatho. lie body, were not to be believed on their oaths ! He need not enlarge on the gross impropriety of preferring charges without inquiry, for the purpose of exciting the popular mind against the Irish system of edu- cation, and of applying to the inferior clergy for the materials of sudden and unforeseen attacks on individuals who could not defend themselves. Lord Plunket adverted to the charge recently delivered to his clergy by the Bishop of Exeter, which he described as containing the most um warrantable sentiments conveyed in the most unwarrantable language_ Whathad the right reverend prelate done ? He positively declined that the measures he assumed to be under contemplation, and which, without remorse, he fastened upon the members of his Majesty's Government, were calculated to effect the overthrow of the Protestant Church. Was it right, because the right reverend prelate was conscientious in his opinion, that he should pro- nounce all those who happened not to coincide with him guilty of perjury, and careless of the oaths they had taken, if they presumed to act on their own judgment? If such a charge had proceeded from a less reverend personage, he should say it was a most odious thing in any individual to declare, that because he thought certain measures calculated to produce a mischief, every person who adopted them must therefore be wilfully violating their conscience and the solemn oaths they had taken. He hoped he was as zealous for Protestant is- terests as Dr. Philpotts ; and his film conviction was, that the measurer alluded to were eminently calculated to support those interests—nay, more,

that they were the only measures that could give security to the Protestant Chu ch. And it was most unconstitutional and improper to charge the whole body of

Roman Catholics in the other House of Parliament who had supported throe

measures with being guilty of base perjury for having so done. It wan a grits

and unfounded accusation also of the l'rutestants who had stood by them; fa if the one party were guilty of perjury, the other were equally guilty of sider. nation of perjury in standing by them. It was a gross violation of every prin. ciple of propriety in the right reverend prelate, taking on himself, in the charge of the highest duty of his episcopal office, when addressing his clergy and telling them the duties incumbent on them, not merely to say that the tnewhert of the Government of the country, but that the majority of the CI11111111111S of England, were guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury in this matter. What business had he to introduce politics at all ?

The Earl of FINGALL deprecated in the strongest manner the tone in which Dr. Phillpotts spoke of the Irish Clergy. Ile had called the men to whom in all circumstances of distress the Irish People looked up, " a rabid priesthood." Dr. Murray's character needed no &truce; he was esteemed and loved by all who knew him. With respect to the charge of perjury against the Catholic Members, he considele.1 it ex- tremely inapplicable, as it was their regard for an oath which for so log a period had kept them out of Parliament.

The following Committee was then appointed— The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Viscount Dons cannon, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Duke of Wellington, the atoqua of Salisbury, the Marquis of Clanricarde, the Duke of Leiuster, the E irl ut von, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Eat I of Ripon, the Earl of Radnor, the Earl on Arden, the Earl of Wicklow, the Earl of Fingal!, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Chester, the Bishop of Killaloe, Lord Brougham, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Cloncurry, Lord Plea. ket, Lord Fitzgerald, Lord Hatherton, Viscount Melbourne.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, on Monday, called the attention of the House of Commons to an article reflecting on line. essential points. Unlearned persons would and must abide by 4 authority of their spiritual instructors as to which translation was the most correct ; and it would be well if those who were friends to the progress of religion among the people, would not exaggerate differences, but encourage the idea that on main points all were alike ; otherwise the ignorant would be apt to say—clergymen teach us conflicting doe. trines ; we cannot tell which is right ; let us reject the religion alto. gether. He rejoiced at the appointment of the Committee. If its decision were unfavourable to the Commissioners, they would at ones resign their posts, and thereby be saved much annoyance and labour. He should rejoice at any improvement of the system ; but the great question to be determined was, whether the people of Ireland, who could not be coerced into the adoption of any religion, should be left in worse than darkness, or whether an attempt should not be made to enlighten them. self end others, in the Irish correspondence of 'the Morning Chronicle. The gravamen, of the stutement was, that until within three weeks of his election for Bandon Mr. Jackson was an uncertificuted bankrupt. The same article contained some vulgar ribaldry .aimed against Mr. Emerson Tennent and his father, who had been in his grave twenty years, and was one of the most respectable merchants in Belfast. With regard to the charge against himself, Mr. Jackson explained, that in order to assist a younger brother, one of a large family, in by no means wealthy circumstances, be had become security for the debts of a mer- cantile concern, which was reduced to bankruptcy in consequence of the fraud of one of the partners. The Sergeant, being a lawyer, was not It proper subject for the operation of the bankrupt laws ; but he was legally liable for the debts of his brother. He sold his patrimonial property, and even his library, to pay those debts; and he devoted a considerable portion of the subsequent proceeds of his practice at the bar to discharge them in full; which he had now done, as well as re- purchased his patrimonial estate. His friends at the bar had offered him assistance in the time of his difficulty ; but be had declined it, choosing rather to rely on his own exertions. As to his being an un- certificated bankrupt till within three weeks of his return for Bandon, why, every creditor Signed the certificate in 1817 or 1818. 111r. Jackson thanked the House fur the attention which they had paid him, and sat down amidst loud cheers from both sides. Mr. LEFROY confirmed a portion of Sergeant Jackson's statement, from his own knowledge, and highly eulogized his ability and integrity. Mr. SPRING RICE considered attacks upon private character, for the purpose of influencing political conduct, as ungenerous, unmanly, and base. Had Mr. Jackson, however, been longer in the House, he pro- bah): would not have felt so warmly on the subject. iSlany such charges had been brought against Members, and they were generally directed against those on the Nlinisterial side of the House. Havins so triumphantly exposed the falsehood of the calumny be complained of, Mr. Rice suggested, that Mr. Jackson would do well not to pursue the matter any further. Mr. JACKSON, said, he would not take any further steps in the House, but would institute legal proceedings against the newspaper, or its informant, if the name of the latter were given up.

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL was read a third time on Monday. Sir Jotter CAMPBELL moved the insertion of a new clause, empowering freemen who were entitled to vote before the passing Of the Municipal Act, but bad not claimed the right, to claim it now. Mr. THORNELY opposed the clause ; but it was carried, by 218 to 14. Mr. HARVEY moved a clause to prevent persons holding judicial appointments from being eligible to seats in Parliament, or in the Town-Councils. After a brief discussion, this clause was rejected, by 111 to 52. The bill was then 'reseed.

ADMISSION OF FREEMEN TO THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. Mr. WILLIAM Wu.erams, on Monday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to abolish the stamp-duty now 1.1114 on the admission of freemen to vote for Members of Parliament in cities and boroughs in England.

REPEAL or THE SEPTENNIAL. ACT. Mr. SPRING Rice, on Tues- day, requested Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt to put oil' a motion, which stood in his name that evening, for the repeal of the Septennial Act, in consequence of the absence of Lord John Russell. Mr. TENNYSON said, that as the chief Minister of the Crown in that House was absent, he would yield to the suggestion of his "right honourable friend," and postpone his motion till the ISth of April ; which, on examining the puller, he fuund to be the first open day. The subject had now been put off fur two years, and he was determined to take the sense of the House upon it this session.

TUE MINT. On Tuesday, Mr. LABOCCHERE called the attention of the House to the system on which the business of the Mint was conducted. He had carefully considered the subject, and had resolved to submit a bill to the House for the purpose of effecting certain altera- tions; and also to move for a select Committee to investigate other matters relating to the Mint, with which the bill would not deal. Mr. Labouchere then explained, that great irregularity and inconvenience prevailed in the mode of paying the salaries of officers and defraying the expenses of that department. Money was paid to the Master of the Mint, and repaid by him ; his salary being now fixed at 2000/. a year, instead of being derived, as formerly, from a percentage on the amount coined, when it sometimes was as high as 12,000/. a year. Money was received for the service of the mint from various sources: among them was a charge of 13,0001. a year on the Consolidated Fund by virtue of an Act passed in the reign of Charles the Second; there was also an eternal vote by the house of Commons, which varied in amount. Another irregularity was the practice of retaining funds for the purchase of bullion : he had now 80,0001. employed in that way. Not one word could be said against the conduct of the officers of the Mint : men of greater respectability and higher professional honour could not be found ; but the laws which regulated their proceedings were Meonvenient and defective, and the whole system required re- modelling. He moved therefore for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the Royal Mint. Mr. HUME seconded the motion ; and bore testimony to the neces- sity of amending the system under which great irregulai itics prevailed ; though he did not mean to say that any thing was dune contrary to law. Mr. SPRING RICE said diet this measure had the sanction of the Crown. It would put an end to a complicated, diflitult, operose, and unintelligible system. It was distinctly to be understood that no in- quiry into the standard of value was to be undertaken by the Committee. Leave was given to bring in the bill ; and, on the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, it was read a first time. A Select Committee, named by Mr. Labouchere, was also appointed.

MORTGAGES ON SHIPS. Mr. G. E. YOUNG, or Tuesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to put au end to the practice of raising money by fraudulent mortgages of ships, and to facilitate bonafide transactions.

MILBANK PENITENTIARY. Mr. Fox MAcI.E, on Tuesday, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to Milbank Penitentiary. Mr. HAWES said that he had expected to have heard some account from Mr. Maule of what the Government intended to do with respect to a reform of prison discipline. He really thought that the Home Unice was one which aid little good. Mr. seams Rice said, that Mr. Hawes did not seem to be aware how difficult a subject be had touched upon. The question of prison discipline war under the anxious consideration of Ministers; and there was now oe the paper a notice for the introduction of the largest measure for the reform of the Criminal Law ever laid before Parliament. Alderman Wool) defended the conduct of the civic authorities of London is reference to management of Newgate prison. Mr. Fox Mwtrs.e de- nied that the Home Office was justly liable to the imputations emit upon it by Mr. Hawes. The first clause of the bill he proposed, enacted that the Secretary of State should be empowered to order the removal of prisoners from Newgate to the Penitentiary, with the view of adopting a system of secondary punishment.—Leave given.

IMPRISONMENT l'OR DEBT BILL. On Wednesday, Sir JOHN CAW- BELL moved the Huuse to go into Committee on this bill. Mr. Mass Pommes suggested that the motion should be postponed till after Easter, in order to give the trading community time to examine a mea- sure which required careful inspection. Mr. RICHARDS denounced the measure; and moved that the Speaker do leave the chair that day sin months. The House divided; and there appeared—for going int; Committee, 95; for Mr. Richards's motion, none. The House tbea went into Committee. On the 12th clause being read, Sir Jou% CAMPBELL said that this clause would authorize the arrest of Members of Parliament who were now exempt from liability to arrest ; and itz therefore moved to amend it so as to continue the privilege of Mem- bers. Mr. JERVIS said, the privilege was bad in principle a person who could not pay his debts ought not to be a Member of Parliament- If he stood alone, lie would divide the Committee against the amend- ment. Mr. Iticoeuris thought Members of Parliament should he especially amenable to the law. Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Sir R. M. ROLFE, and Mr. LYNCH, supported the amendment. Mr. Sergeant WILDE doubted the necessity of introduti ig the words of the Amend- ment. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, if the amendment was rejected, Members of Parliament might be arrested, when their privileges ought to exempt them from arrest. Mr. TOOKE felt ashamed to protect Members who wished to cheat their creditors. Mr. MA11.11 PHILLIPS would not allow a Member of Parliament to be. shielded by his privilege from the punishment of fraud; and by this bill it was only in eases of fraud that a man would be arrested. The Committee divided : and the numbers given by the Tellers were—fos the amendment, 44 ; against it, 51 ; whereupon there were loud cheers. Mr. BERNAL, the Chairman, said that the Tellers had given wrong- numbers. Mr. Jsams, one of the Tellers, pointing to the old lobby, said—" The number there was forty.four." Sir R. M. ROLFE, an- other Teller, pointing to the new lobby, said—" The number there was fifty-one." Mr. Cuesaa FERGUSSON, who was Teller with Mr Jervis, said—" The number in the old lobby was fifty-four, not forty- four." Mr. JERVIS—" I thought the number announced was forty- four." Sir A. L. 11 AY—" I thought the number was forty-four.' The Tellers were then sent back to settle the matter with the Clerks-, and when they retinue(' to the House, the numbers were finally rae- elated to be furthe amendment, 54; against it, 51. The other claeses. were agreed to; and the report was ordered to be brought up on Mon- day next.

RI TORM OF THE Pose-orrice. On Thursday, on the 1110110110

Mr. Lairorentae, seconded by Mr. Wessece, four bills were intro- duced to effect changes in the management of the Poet-office. The first was to repeal the 160 or 170 Acts now in force; the second Se: amend the criminal law in reference to the department ; the third was: for the regulation of the rates of postage, and the internal managemen'

of the Post-office ; and the fourth related to franking letters. III repls to a question by Mr. flume, Mr. SPRING RICE stated that it was in- tended to reintroduce the bill, rejected last session by the Lords, fog vesting the control of the Post-office in a commission.

MARINE INSURANCES. Mr. ROBINSON, on Thursdae, moved a reso- lution pledging the House to repeal or reduce the stamp-duty oil marin.s insurances; but he withdrew it, on the representation of Mr. Seaisc Rice, that Government had the subject under consideration, and that when he made his financial statement, but not before, he would sae what could be done in the way of reducing the duty,—which he admitte.: to be, like other taxes, one that could nut stand the test of arguthens on its own merits.

Trie RI.CRALIriEs BILL was read a first time on Thursday, on the motion of Mr. F. T. BARING. TILE LAW or LIBEL AMENDMENT BILL was read a first time, and ordered for a second reading on Wednesday week, on the motion of Mr. O'CoNNELL.