ilkbate0 anIr Procrelrinoti in,i3ztrIlament.

1. Lust" CHURCH REFORM. On Monday, the House went into a Committee, and Lord ALTHORP moved his resolutions—the first of which only was read—relative to a reform of the Irish Church. The resolutions were as follow- " 1. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient that the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland should be authorized to appoint Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of carrying into effect any act that may be passed in the present session of Parliament to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church in Ireland ; and that the said Lord-Lieutenant be empowered to order and appoint such salary or other emoluments as he shall deem fit to be paid to such Commissioners, not being Bishops. .• 2. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is expedient to make provision for the abolition of the First Fruits in Ireland, and in lieu thereof to levy an annual as- sessment upon bishoprics and archbishoprics, and upon all benefices, dignitaries, and other spiritual promotions above the yearly value of 2001., to be applied to the building, rebuilding, and repairing of churches, and other such like ecclesiastical purposes, and to the augmentation of small livings, and to such other purposes as may conduce to the ad- vancement of religion, and the efficiency, permaneffey, and stability of the United - Church of England and Ireland.

"3. That it is the opinion of this Committee,-that vestry assessments for any of the , Rarposes to defray which the annual assessment mentioned in the preceding resolution say he applicable, should he abolished ; and that any law, statute, or usage, authorizing madh assessments, should be repealed."

He said, that as he had formerly explained the views of Government respecting their intended measure of Church Reform in Ireland, he would now only add gne remark,—namely, that as it was desirable that fhe collection of Church Cess should cease immediately, and as the bill intended to be brought in could not come-into operation this year, Go- vernment intended to advance the requisite sum to make good the defi- ciency.

Mr. LEFROY said, that . this was a subject of vast importance, in which the Church of England, as well as that of Ireland, was deeply interested. He would meet Ministers upon the general question of the right of the Legislature to interfere with Church property, or the rights of its present possessors, except for Church purposes. He complained that the annual tax to be laid upon all Church benefices would produce a sum much larger than the tax for which it was substi- tuted produced. Thus, the First Fruits which were to be abolished produced annually, upon an average, 3211. per annum; 214/. of which were paid by the working clergy. The whole amount of the Vestry Cess, which was applied to Church purposes, appeared from the return to be only 17,6271. 16s. But the sum which the proposed tax on bene- fices would produce was 60,000/. He therefore contended that the Clergy were really to be taxed for secular purposes, notwithstanding the assertion to the contrary, and that the Legislature had no right to levy such a tax. He went into a calculation to show that the property of the Church, if fairly divided (and he did not object to a more equit- able adjustment), reserving the rights of the present incumbents, would only yield each incumbent 2351. per annum, if the salaries of curates and other taxes were deducted from them. It was a most iniquitous proceeding to tax the clerical and let the lay impropriators escape. The Marquis of Drogheda held the tithes of twenty-eight parishes, contain- ing 10,481 acres ; and yet did not contribute one farthing towards the spiritual duties of those parishes. The Earl of Shannon, who had se- ven parishes of lay impropriations, paid only 35/. per annum to the clergy. He mentioned three other individuals, one possessing the tithes of 6,886 acres, another of 9,607 acres, who paid nothing; and of a third, holding 15,000, who paid only 311. 4s. 3d. per annum. He de- nied that there was any precedent which could justify Government in their proposed plan of spoliation. The consequences of their measures would be dreadful. The first would be the dismissal of a large body of poor curates ; another, the greatest dissatisfaction among the Pro- testants. The measure would be a violation of the Union : and if the King broke his part of the compact, the Irish Protestants might think themselves exempt from their allegiance. He concluded by tell- ing Ministers, that they might make what experiments they liked with politics, but he warned them against making the awful experiment of trying how a nation could prosper without religion.

The CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Lefroy, if he had any amendment to propose. But Mr. Lefroy said he should reserve it for a future reso- lution.

Mr. COBBETT and Mr. PRYME rose together : the former gave way.

Mr. PRYME contended, in opposition to Mr. Lefroy, that the House had a perfect right to deal as they liked with Church property for the public benefit. He could see no good reason why Church property, or the incomes of Clergymen, should remain untaxed. He was surprised to hear the Orangemen talking of joining their bitterest enemies to effect a repeal of the Union ; one of the first consequences of which would be, the assembling of a Parliament, four fifths of whose members would be Catholics : the abolition of the Protestant religion would speedily follow, without doubt.

Sir JOHN HAMMER considered the bill as a violation of the Corona- tion Oath, and of the Act of Union, and a most gross violation of the sacred rights of property. He looked forward with dread to its conse- quences. He did not say that it would produce a state of society such as that in which Archbishop Sharpe was murdered ; but it would excite a rancorous feeling, which would grieve every man who wished well to his country.

Mr. SHEIL said, the argument drawn from the fifth article of the Act of Union had been relied on by Mr. Canning and refuted by Mr. Brougham.

In 1825, Mr. Canning bad called on the Clerk to read the Article on a motion of the Member for Middlesex relative to the Church. Mr. Brougham observed, that the two churches were to be united in "government, discipline, and faith."

Temporalities were not mentioned, and the omission could only have occurred through design. He thought this observation was conclusive, unless "discipline and government" were a periphrase for riches, and in-the vocabulary of Ecclesiastics, " faith " was synonymous with gold. Mr. Sheil then argued at considerable length in favour of the right of the State to interfere with the property of the Church. He quoted Paley and Warburton, to prove that the religion of the majority ought to be the religion of the State. Clarendon also had declared, in refe- rence to Church property, that the " State may resume what the State originally gave." In foreign countries—in Russia, Prussia, the Ger- man States, Switzerland, especially the Canton of Berne, and in Tus- cany—the Church property in various shapes had been appropriated to secular purposes.

But come to England.' He should commence with a very recent example. The revenue of the church of Durham had lately been applied to the establish- ment of a University. Was this an ecclesiastical purpose? Had mathematics any thing to do with mysteries, algebra with theology, chemistry with the Church establishment? Alchymy had indeed "converso in pretium Dee." This was a strong case. The consent of the Prebends was nothing. They could not consent and bar their successors, and plunder the Corporation, if the principles of churchmen were well founded.

He then referred to the reign of Edward the First, and the ancient history of England, in proof of his argument. There were precedents at home and abroad in great abundance to show, that tithes and Church lands had in all ages been diverted from strictly ecclesiastical purposes. It was the doctrine of the Scotch Church—of John Knox—that the roor as well as the Clergy were to be suppoited out of the Church property. This was one of the grand principles of the Reformation in Scotland.

What eloquent lessons does the history of that country present to statesmen, if they would open their hearts to the philosophy which teaches by example. From 1666 to 1689, what events took place! The efforts made by the Govern- ment to inflict Episcopacy on the people, who repudiated the imposition, pro- duced disaster,- bloodshed, insurrection, multifarious crime. The Covenant is sworn at-Lanark—the battle of Pentland Hills is fought—the Scotch are de- feated-10 are hanged on the same gibbet, 35 are hanged at their own doois. Tortures follow—Maoail is tormented, and dies in a paroxysm of heroism and de votion. The cruelties of Lauderdale succeed—the Highlanders an. called from their savage bills, and quartered on the Western counties—Sharpe is murdered in open day, and pierced in the arms of his daughter, who shrieks in vain for mercy—the battle of Bothwell Bridge is fought—a reign of tenor r ommences- courts-martial, high owns of novel judicature, are established—leood flowing in torrents—a country covered with soldiers and banditti—misery unspeakable —famine, pestilence, and anguish are beheld on every side. At last a great event befalls—the Revolution takes place ; and on the 22d of June 1689, the following Act of Parliament is passed : " Act abolishing Episcopacy. When Hartle estates of this kingdom declared that Prelacy is and bath been a great and insupport- able grievance to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people, and therefore ought to be abolished, our Sovereign Lot d and Lady do hereby abolish Episcopacy ; and the King and Queen's Majesty do declare, that they will settle by law that Church Government in this kingeom which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people." (Much cheering.)

He then referred to the laws of Canada.

In Canada, a case of roost peculiar and powerful illustration was presented. By treaty, on the cession of that province, the Roman Catholic Church was de- clared to he the established one. The revenues of the Church wet e made pay- able to the Catholic clergy. That treaty was confirmed by the 14th George III. Well, what was done ? The Protestants were exempted from the payment of tithes on those estates which they purchased from Roman Catholics. The mere sale was sufficient to discharge the property from all ecclesiastical impost if it passed to the hands of a Protestant. This was not accounted spoliation— this was considered quite legitimate and just. The feelings of Protestants were not to be outraged by a payment to a l'toman Catholic establishment. There was no plunder here. If this, then, was wise and just on the banks of the St. Lawrence, bow did the principle change on the banks of the Shannon? Did it depend on the latitude; or was it supposed that the Catholic millions of Ire- land were less sensitive to wrong, and less alive to humiliation, than the. Pro- testants who were located in the Canadian forests?

If the Government would boldly avow and act upon the principle of transferring the surplus revenues of the Church to secular purposes, they would do more for the pacification of the country than a whole code of rigour could effect.

Mr. HALCOMB objected to the proposed measure, as establishing a precedent dangerous to the Church of England as well as that of Ireland.

Mr. WARItE denied that the King would violate his Coronation Oath by assenting to this measure. He quoted the words of the Bishop of Landaff, who said that when the People declare through Parliament, that they do not require the King to adhere to certain parts of the Oath, the King is under no moral objection to adhere to them.

Mr. GirioN was strongly of opinion that a reform of the Church was necessary. It was unjust to tax a whole country for the support of a religion with which they disagreed.

Mr. MACAULAY said, there were two kinds of opposition to the bill. Some said it went too far, others not far enough. Now it would be injudicious to carry it further, for then it might be successfully resisted. He would therefore oppose any attempt to do so. Others thought that it was contrary to the Coronation Oath ; and the same arguments had been used against the repeal of the Test Act and of the Catholic disa- bilities, in both instances without effect.

Nor, in fact, did it deserve to have any effect. What was the oath ?—that the King would maintain for the Church "all such rights as do or by law shall appertain to the Church." But what was the other part of the King's oath?— "That he would govern his people according to the Statutes agreed to in Par- liament." That could not mean such statutes only as were then passed ; and if so, then it left the matter open to the King's power of agreeing to legislative measures that might pass both Houses of Parliament. That oath was not in- tended to guard against legislative enactments properly made in Parliament, but against measures like those adopted in the times of James the Second, to guard against the King unjustly exercising his prerogative to the destruction of the interests of the Chinch.

He denied that the rights of property were attacked by the proposed bill. The Clergy did not consider the livings as their own by right. They were not conferred for their exclusive advantage, but for the good of religion. The late Spencer Perceval, the head of the Church party, had interfered with the property of incumbents, by his bill for settling the minimum of curate's salaries. Church property was a kind of mixed property, more than salary and less than estate. He was surprised that any one could attack the proposed diminution of the bishops on the ground of its being a violation of property.

Take the see of Waterford. Was that to be held up as a robbery ? Who was robbed ? Was the late bishop? He was safe. Was the future Where would be his right to what he had not got : or where was the rational man that would give one sovereign for it ? What the robbery then was, or on whom committed, he was unable to telL He had small hopes of the increase of Protestantism in Ireland, under the present system. There was nothing more remarkable than the astonishing progress of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, and its sluggishness since. This furnished matter for serious reflection. He believed that truth was on the side of the Protestant religion, and that it would overcome error ; but he questioned whether it had not been encumbered by the help which had been given by the State.

Sir R. H. Nous and Mr. FINCH opposed the measure, on the ground of its being a spoliation of the Church ; and the former re- marked, that the appointment of an ecclesiastical commission was an interference with the prerogative of the Crown. This Lord Althorp denied ; he said the new Commissioners would not be authorized to supersede the power of the Crown.

Sir ROBERT PEEL objected to the arrangement by which some of the Commissioners would be paid, and others would have no salaries. When the unsalaried members—the Bishops—were called away, the paid ones—who were under the influence of the Crown, and removable at pleasure—would occupy situations of much greater importance than the other members. He thought that when the abolition of Church Cess was tinder consideration, it would have been better to inquire closely into the nature of the substitute which it was intended to establish.

Lord Althorp, in his speech in introducing the former bill, had calculated the Vestry Cess, the abolition of which was contemplated, at 60,0001. or 70,0001. a year; and he said then that it would not be necessary- to provide a substitute to a greater amount. Surely be should recollect that there were two species of Vestry Cess—one, from the levying of which in Vestry Roman Catholics were excluded, and which was applied to the maintenance of the fabric of the aura, and other strictly ecclesiastical purposes.

- [Here Sir Robert Peel was interrupted by a stranger, who had occu- pied a seat under the gallery, and who, rushing forward up the floor to the table where the mace lay, exclaimed—" Stop, Sir Robert Peel. I beg your pardon. I declare that I am a poisoned man. I am poisoned by Earl Grey. I am a poor unfortunate Irishman, and my name -is William. I came here to look for justice, and I am poisoned by Earl Grey's orders !" There were loud cries of " Order, order," &tiring the delivery of this extraordinary and incoherent address, and the Chairman

having called the Sergeant, the defendant was removed in custody out of the House. It aftewards appeared that his name was Dillon, and

that he was of unsound mind. He was ordered to be brought up to the bar on Tuesday.). Sir Robert proceeded. He said that the amountof Church Cess which was applied to strictly ecclesiastical purposes was much less than 60,0001. or 70,000/. It was plain that its amount was not known ; and yet it would have been better surely to have ascer- tained it before laying a tax as a substitute for it. He denied that the occupier of the soil would be relieved by the change, for the owner would at once raise his rent. He denied also that because Peter the Great and other despots had confiscated Church property, we were therefore authorized to follow their example. But his main objection to the measure was, that it violated every principle of justice in taxing existing interests. Was it fair to impose this tax upon persons who had taken their benefices upon the implied condition that they should not be subject to it ?

He would take as an instance, a benefice that had been entered upon, say three years ago, and the First Fruits of which had been paid : would it net be extremely hard, and most unjust, that the individual thus absolved from the First Fruits should be subject to this tax ? This was nut only subjecting to this tax existing vested interests, but subjecting to it a man who had already given his quota to it. There were many such cases in Ireland. He knew himself of a case where there was a living of 1,300/. or 1,400/. a year, where the incum- bent, owing to family circumstances, had been obliged to insure his life, and where he was in the receipt of only 3001. a year. The whole of that would be taken from him by this tax.

He thought that a stranger would be reasonably surprised that the House should be engaged in imposing a tax upon the Clergy just at the very time when they were in a state of unparallelled suffering : he would have supposed that means for their relief would have been the subject of consideration. He was convinced that no reform in the Church could be permanently useful, unless it were founded in justice : he therefore hoped that the House would reject the proposition laid down in the se- cond resolution, because it was contaminated by principles of paltry and unprofitable injustice.

Lord Joins RUSSELL believed that the amount of the Church Cess exceeded 602000/. annually. The object of Ministers was to maintain the Protestant Church in Ireland, by putting an end to the collisions between-Protestants and Catholics.

Mr. SHAW proposed, that the first resolution should be agreed to, and that the discussion on the second resolution should be postponed to the next day. Lord ALTHORP concurred. The first resolution was accordingly put and agreed to, and the House adjourned at half past one.

The House having resumed this subject on Tuesday,

Lord ALTHORP stated, that when he introduced the measure on a previous occasion, he had been led by Mr. Stanley to believe that the Irish Clergy would not object to being tinted to the amount sufficient to pay the Vestry Cess, about to be abolished. He found, however, that many of them did object ; and as he did not wish to inflict any hard- ship or injustice upon individuals, he should be ready to substitute any other mode of levying the sum required, that could be pointed out to him, provided it was adequate and feasible. He was so firmly convinced, however, of the necessity of doing away with the Vestry Cess, that he would persevere in his original plan, if no better one was suggested.

Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the best way would be to take a public vote for the sum required, that sum to be secured on the revenues of the Church. He was willing, if existing interests were secured, to let the resolutions pass without dividing the House upon them.

Lord ALTHORP would take the suggestion into consideration, but would by no means pledge himself to adopt it. There would be time hereafter to discuss the subject, although the resolutions might be passed now.

Mr. SHAW said, that although the present or future incumbents were to be taxed to the amount of 60,000/. or 70,000/, the portion of Vestry Cess devoted to ecclessiastical purposes was only 28,000/. as he found upon careful inquiry. He would suggest, as a substitute for the pro- posed tax, that the 400,000/. clue to the Board of First Fruits should be paid and put out at interest, to make up the amount of •the Cess. The surplus revenues of the Bishopric of Derry might also be applied to the same purpose.

A good deal of conversation ensued upon the point of exempting exist- ing interests from the payment of the tax; in the course of which, Mr. HumE reminded Lord Althorp, that the People must be considered as well as the Clergy; and Mr. FINN denounced the Irish Church Establishment as a monstrosity, by which more than seven millions of Catholics and Dissenters were compelled annually to pay a million sterling to support the religion of 700,000 of their fellow subjects. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE declared his determination to support the Establish- ments both of England and Scotland. An anonymous member wished Mr. JOHNSTONE would do unto others as he would be done by • and asked him how he, a Presbyterian, should like to be compelled to support a Catholic establishment?

The resolutions were finally agreed to ; on the understanding that Lord Althorp, without pledging himself or his colleagues, would take the subject into his consideratiou, and endeavour to devise some mode of exempting the incomes of the existing incumbents from the operation of the proposed tax.

2. IRISH DISTURBANCES BILL. The amendments to this bill, which was brought up from the Commons on Saturday last, were, on the rms-

.

tion of Earl GREY, taken into consideration on Monday. Several amendments were agreed to without discussion.

On the amendment to the 17th. clause (which takes political offences

out of the jurisdiction of the military tribunals,) being read, Lord ELLENBOROUGH spoke against the amendment.

The original enactment was proposed and agreed to by their Lordships on the ground that, in consequitice of the system of intimidation practised upon jurors in Ireland, justice could not be obtained if the political offences to which the

clime referred were tried according to the course of the common law. It was therefore deemed just and right to enact that such offences should be tried by the special courts established by the bill. If Earl Grey was right in thinking, when he brought in the bill, that these offences ought to go before a court- martial, because justice could not be obtained in the course of the common law, he must be wrong now in giving his assent to the amendment which had come up from the Commons, unless he was prepared to say that a material improve- ment had taken place in the moral condition of Ireland.

He remarked that the enactments of the bill were much more severe than those of the bill of 1829 for the suppression of the Catholic Association ; though the situation of Ireland was more alarming than now. Still, if Lord Grey thought that the ordinary tribunals of the country could not administer justice, he was certainly right in asking their Lordships to agree to the enactment originally proposed.

Nothing but the fact of a great improvement having since taken place in the condition of Ireland could justify bins in abandoning that part of the measure. If Earl Grey would state that the condition of Ireland was greatly improved, and that justice might now be expected from common juries, he (Lord Ellen- borough) would most joyfully accede to the amendment ; but unless such a statement was made, he should feel himself obliged, with great reluctance un- doubtedly, to express his dissent to the amendment which the Commons had irrationally come to.

The Earl of ELDON agreed in the truth of the saying, that "necessity justifies what necessity compels."

Had the Ministers applied that saying properly, if, after they had come down to that House and proposed that the trial by jury should be suspended, and cer- tain offenders subjected to courts-martial, it turned out there was no necessity for such measures? The enemies of the Reform Act had been represented throughout the country as the enemies of the liberties and the dearest rights of Englishmen, but he could inform Earl Grey that the sentiments of the people had experienced some changes on this point. He had lately been in the country; and lie was ashamed to hear how very much Earl Grey, for whom, though entertaining different political opinions, -he entertained the deepest respect, was abused. (Laughter.) The people said, never mind what the House of Lords did with respect to this bill, for it was sure of being materially altered in the House of Commons. That was certainly a new way of putting an end to the House of Lords.

He said that he had agreed to the original enactment, without the preliminary inquiry of a Committee, on the faith of the assertion of Ministers that it was absolutely necessary. He could not agree to the amendment of the Commons, until he was assured that so great an im- provement had taken place in the state of Ireland as to render it no longer necessary.

Earl GREY said, that he had introduced the bill without the previous formality of a Committee because the case was so flagrant and notorious as to induce the House of Lords unanimously, and the House of Com- mons by a very large majority, to assent to it. The ground of necessity was not to be abandoned because the present amendment had been in- troduced. Necessity had compelled Ministers to introduce the bill ; but they were bound to mitigate its severity, as far as it could be done without impairing its efficiency.i He thought that the amendment might be admitted without impairng the general efficiency of the bill.

He had been called on to state whether the condition of Ireland had improved. In reply, he would say that it had ; but not to such an extent, he regretted to say, as to justify the abandonment of the present measure. During the last Assizes, juries had performed their duties more effectively, and witnesses had been less deterred from giving their testimony than they had been a short time before: and in a letter which he had received from a high law authority in Ire- land, it was stated that the very expectation of this bill had produced the most salutary effects;and that there was every reason to believe, that when carried into execution, it would answer its purpose.

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that if the courts of common law were able to try one class of offenders in a proclaimed district, they were competent to decide upon all kinds of cases. •

If justice could be executed in the proclaimed districts by the ordinary courts of common law, courts-martial ought not to be employed at all ; but if justice could not be administered by common juries, and it was necessary to have courts- martial established, then he could see no reason for excepting political offences from their jurisdiction.

Lord PLUNKETT bad a very strong hope, that when the bill passed, there would be no necessity to carry it into execution in a single in- stance.

He should give the amendment his assent, because be believed that the effect of the general provisions of the bill would be, that facilities would be given to the common law to take effect, and that there would be found no necessity for subjecting political offences to the jurisdiction of courts-martial.

- Lord WYNFORD would oppose the amendments most strenuously. They went to destroy the bill altogether ; they were directly in the teeth of Lord Grey's introductory speech, and inconsistent, with the . preamble. He considered the present comparatively calm state of Ire- land with unalloyed alarm. The calm was produced by the same wicked agitators who bad before deluged the country with crime and terror. • The Reverend Mr. Doyle, at Naas, had been acquitted, on the charge of sedition, against the clearest evidence. Captain Burke was only acquitted by a jury, nine of whom were Catholics, because be was. a Catholic himself. Had he been a Protestant, he would have been found guilty.

The Earl of WICKLOW condemned the alteration in the bill.

The bill that was sent down to the Commons held political agitators as well as midnight marauders amenable to a • military tribunal ; but the amendment only bad the poor, ignorant, midnight marauder amenable, while it left the far guiltier agitator to be dealt with by the common law. Lord MELBOURNE reminded their Lordships, that the bill, as it stood, enabled the Lord-Lieutenant to disperse improper assem-' blies b7 his mere proclamations : so that the provisions bore out the allegations of the preamble.

Ho denied that the bill, in its present shape, was not calculated to put an end to political agitation. Is it nothing, he asked, for the Lord-Lieutenant to have the power to suppress political associations? Was it nothing that Justices of the Peace had the power to disperse political meetings? It was in vain to deny that the political association chiefly aimed at by the bill was the Irish Volunteers. That association held its meetings in Dublinotid-nat in the dia. tricts that ought to be proclaimed. It was closely connected, he believed, with the proceedings in districts which ought to be proclaimed ; but its meetings

were not held in those districts; and therefore, even if the bill had become law in the form in which it was first introduced, the political agitators would not have been subject to the newly-established tribunals.

As to the amount of the alteration, he begged Lord Eldon to recol- lect, that Sir John Scott's coercive measures in 1794, and subsequently the Six Acts in 1819, received very important alterations before they were passed into laws.

The Duke of WELLINGTON was glad that it was considered safe to mitigate the harsh provisions of the bill. But he complained that the amendments were inconsistent with the preamble, and with the spirit of Earl Grey's opening speech.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE denied that the provisions were incon- sistent with the preamble of the bill. The offences were the same, and the punishment the same as in the bill as it originally passed.

The only difference was in the mode of ascertaining the guilt ; and that differ- ence was founded on a just anxiety to preserve the jurisdiction of our common law tribunals in such cases as they would be efficient.

The Earl of RODEN said, the direct tendency of the clause was to punish the lower orders and let the high delinquents escape altogether. He contended that the state of Ireland' was not improved, and read some resolutions entered into at a Kilkenny meeting, to prove that crime had increased in that country.

Lord TEYNHAM approved of the conciliatory spirit which Ministers had shown by adopting the amendments.

Earl GREY repeated that the real efficiency of the bill was unimpaired. He should have been better pleased if some of the amendments had not been made; but now it was their duty to consider whether the bill was not effectual to the end proposed.

The clause, as amended, was then put and agreed to. The clause which exempts from summary conviction all persons who refuse to dis- perse from a public meeting within a quarter of an hour after notice, was put and agreed to ; after a few remarks from Lord ELLENBOROUGH and Earl GREY.

Several other clauses, as amended, were read and agreed to.

The proviso which prohibits the Lord-Lieutenant from proclaiming any district merely because tithes shall not have been paid therein; next came under discussion.

The Duke of WELLINGTON strongly objected to it. Its direct ten- dency was to deny justice to the Clergy. Why did not the framers of the bill begin their preamble with " Whereas it is expedient that no payment of tithe shall take place in Ireland ?" He quoted a passage from a speech of Lord Brougham at the beginning of the session, to the effect that he fully concurred in the responsibility of bringing in this bill, and was firmly convinced of its necessity for the protection of the poor and peaceable—of those who were always ready to yield obedience to the laws. The Duke proceeded to contend, that the clergy, of all men, needed and deserved this protection, and yet Government-expressly re- fused it to them. He also was distinctly opposed to the alteration which exempted from trial by courts-martial persons who, even in pro- claimed districts, bad been guilty of acts of an insurrectionary cha- racter, if they were not accompanied by threats and violence. This, be maintained, was an amendment in direct violationLof the spirit and intent of the bill.

Lord BROUGHAM admitted, that the first amendment objected to by the Duke of Wellington was no improvement to the bill. Neither had it injured it, for it was entirely inoperative; and he could not think of any good reason for its insertion.

The Lord-Lieutenant might proclaim any district, if it were disturbed or in- subordinate—that was the leading enactment of the clause; but then came the proviso that the district should not be proclaimed merely because tithes should have been peaceably withheld in it. Why say tithes only ! Why not say rent? Why not say the King's taxes? Why not say a man's lawful debts? But he would not say a word more upon the absurdity of this proviso, as he really con- sidered it to be wasting their -Lordships' time to argue against it. This, how- ever, he must say, that, though indefensible, it was harmless.

He'defended the second amendment which the Duke had denounced. Offences of combination and conspiracy were the most difficult, he would not say for juries, but even for judges, to decide on, of any which came into our .courts of jnstice ; and were therefore, in his opinion, wisely excluded from the decision of military tribunals. There was another reason why lie would not submit to a court-martial the trial of combinations for non-payment of tithe. He asked any man whether the Government ought to bring tithe cases, which were in themselves most unpopular, before courts-martial, which of themselves were scarcely less obnoxious to the feelings of the public ?

He disregarded the insinuations against the Ministry, thrown out by ignorant, or factious persons, for admitting alterations in the bill sug- gested by others. He never objected to take a leaf from another man's book, if that book were better than his own. It was said that the bill as amended was nothing. An assertion more contrary to truth never was hazarded by the ferocity of faction. Lord Brougham then read over the different penal enactments of the bill ; and concluded by as- serting, that since its entrance into the House of Commons, the bill -had increased in vigour, in efficacy, and in necessary severity.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM said, it appeared to be Lord Brougham's wishro make April fools of their Lordships, by withdrawing their at- tention from the points properly under discussion. The proviso told the people of Ireland that tithes alone were exempted from the pro- tection to be afforded to' property in general by this bill. It was the first stab made at the Protestant interests of Ireland, and he would therefore oppose it.- ' - The Bishop of LONDON was opposed to the proviso. Its absurdity and inconsistency had been forcibly exposed by Lord Brougham, but lie did not believe that it siould be inoperative. The people of Ireland would take is an encouragement to persist in refusing to pay tithes. Lord Peubrenrr said, the inference which the mass of the people of Ireland would draw from the proviso would be the very reverse of that glanced at by the Bishop of London. It should be borne in mind how much odium the Government of Ireland bad incurred by their exertions to collect the tithes. He enforced the argument of Lord Brougham, that the bill would be effectual for the putting down of disturbances. It would be more advantageous for the interests of the Clergy than the Insurrection Act of 1787. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that the danger of delay was so great as to counterbalance his objections to the amendments, and he should therefore vote for their adoption.

The Earl of RODEN and Lord WHARNCLTFFE wished for a delay of twenty-four hours previously to sanctioning this proviso.

Earl GREY said, that if a delay of twenty-four 'hours were granted for that clause, it would be asked for other clauses. Perhaps the pro- viso would be rejected ; a conference with the House of Commons must then ensue ; and it would be impossible to pass the bill before the recess, unless they sat after Good Friday. The consequences of this delay might be very serious as regarded Ireland. He would add, that if Government had been fairly seconded anti aided in their endeavours to enforce the ordinary laws, by those who in that House and elsewhere were so fond of lavishing every abusive term in the language upon it, there would have been no necessity for the present objectionable bill.

The Earl of HARROWEY, in order to render the clause free from its exclusive and partial character,—by which it would seem that tithes alone were to be exempted from the protection afforded to other kinds of property,—would move that to the provision that no district be pro- claimed merely for the " non-payment of tithe," the words "rent or taxes " should be added. The adoption of this amendment would save time, and render a conference with the Commons unnecessary.

Lord MELBOURNE put it to Lord Harrowby's common sense, whether his amendment could possibly save time.

Besides, if it really was his opinion that the exception of tithes would create an impression that tithes ought not to be paid, the addition of the words "rent and taxes " would only have the effect of extending that impression to them.

Lord BROUGHAM said, the adoption of Lord FIarrowby's suggestion would cause a greater delay than a conference. The introduction of the proposed words would be the fruitful source of much debate else- where.

The House then divided : for Lord Harrowby's amendment—pre- sent 40, proxies 5, total 45: against the amendment—present 46, proxies 39, total 85 : Ministerial majority, 40.

The rest of the amendments of the Commons were then agreed to, and the House adjourned at half past eleven.

The Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Duke of Richmond sat as Commissioners, and gave the Royal assent to this bill on Tuesday.

3. LABOUR IN FACTORIES. Mr. WILSON PATTEN, on Wednesday, moved an address to the King for a Commission "to collect informa-

tion in the manufacturing districts with respect to the employment of children in factories, and to devise the best means for the curtailment of their labours." He denied that the object of this motion was to de- feat Lord Ashley's bill. The object was not to prevent a law from passing to contract the hours of infant labour, but to do so hi a way the

least likely to injure and embarrass the manufacturing districts. It was but justice that both sides should be heard. Hitherto only strong ex- ports statements had been made, and very unfair means had been taken to prejudice the public, and work upon the feelings of members, in order to induce the in to support the Factories Bill.

When the Committee was appointed, it was suggested that all the points con- nected with the factory system should be taken into consideration ; but an in- fluential member of the Committee said, " You had better let me make out my case before other evidence is gone into." The consequence was, that letters were sent down to the country requiring the attendance of witnesses who would support the views of that individual. He had seen some of those letters, in which those to whom they were addressed were asked to send up witnesses to be examined before the Committee ; but, at the same time, they were strictly cautioned against sending up any witnesses on whom they could not decidedly rely, or who were likely to put forward any statement in opposition to the views of those by whom the inquiry was called for. This inquiry occupied the whole of the session. No fewer than eighty witnesses were called to establish the case. But was every branch of the subject examined ? Was every point con- nected with the manufacturing classes inquired into? No such thing. It ap- peared that twenty-one medical men were examined; and their evidence seemed mainly to have guided the decision of the Committee.

No witnesses were examined from the West of England, but no fewer than fifty-seven were examined from Leeds.

One of these witnesses, whose statement, perhaps, created a greater sensation in the minds of the Committee, as well as in the public mind, than that of any other person, on account of his alleged sufferings, and the unfortunate deformity of his person, declared that he was in the first period of his youth as straight as any member of the Committee; but that, having been obliged to attend a fac- tory, his labour was so excessive, that he first began to feel pain in his legs and knees, then in his thighs, and that, finally, he was attacked by a violent spit- ting Of blood. Such evidence was sufficient to lead away the feelings of every humane man ; but then came the question, was that evidence true? Would it then be believed, that the distortion or deformity of this man's limbs had no- thing to do with the alleged cruelty and oppression wha lie was supposed to have undergone in a factory ? Such, however, was the fact. His deformity arose from an accident which he had experienced in a wrestling match.

The witnesses were examined and cross-examined in private; and all whose evidence was considered unlikely to promote the views of those who sent for them, were remanded back again to the country. He might here be permitted to observe, that the Committee which sat to ex- amine evidence on this subject had been a most expensive one. The member for Middlesex had drawn up a paper by which it appeared, that of all the Com- mittees ever appointed by the House, none had been so expensive as that. There had been a Committee on the East India question, a Committee on the West India question, a Committee on the Bank question; but that on the Factory Bill was the most expensive and extravagant of all. Not less than 9a. a day, together with their expenses up and down, had been paid to witnesses, young and old. Not only was that the fact, but he believed that some of the public money had been expended in smuggling witnesses out of London, because their evidence did not accord with the feelings of the complainants.

He concluded by calling on the House to say whether they ought not to have more information previously to legislating on this subject. Lord MOLYNEUX seconded the motion. He believed that there was not one atom of truth iu the gross attacks made upon the manufacturers. He had visited many of the mills in various parts of the country, in Nottingham, Rochdale, Manchester,. and in other places ; and he had never seen any thing to justify the slanders upon the manufacturers. Lord ASHLEY opposed the motion. There was sitfficientsvidence intend, in posscsoica of Parliament;

In 1796, Dr. Aikin and Dr. Perceval, men of considerable science, pointed out the numerous evils attendant on this system. In 1802, the late Sir Robert Peel introduced a bill for the preservation of the health of apprentices and others employed in cotton-factories. If any gentleman would look at that bill, he would at once see the enormities which it was meant to correct. In 1816, an inquiry took place into the state of the cotton manufactures of the United King- dom, when a large body of evidence was collected. On tharevidence a bill was constructed, which went up to the House of Lords. Two Committees sat upon this subject in the House of Lords in 1818 and 1819. The result of their inquiries was two large folio volumes.

Upon this evidence a bill was founded, but it was confined to cotton- factories, and limited the hours of labour to twelve. In 1825, Sir John Hobbouse introduced a bill for the regulation of cotton-factories, which was not decided upon till 1830. In 1832, Mr. Sadler brought in his bill ; but nothing was done in it till March 1833, when he (Lord Ashley) introduced the bill which now stood for a second reading. Yet they were now called upon to institute a Committee of Inquiry into this subject, which he had shown was by no means new. In allusion to what had been said of the evidence given by those who had worked in factories, he should merely observe, that he did not build his case on anv one of the statements made by the operatives. He would strike them all out, and he would yet support the bill which lie had introduced independent of their aid, while he had breath in his body. His case rested on the evidence of twenty-one medical men, the most eminent, he would say, in that most eminent profession. The work of the last Committee of the House of Commons ap- peared to him to be a work of supererogation, because there was previously evidence enough in the libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Com- mons to justify an extremely strict measure. He might be asked, for what reason he had selected ten hours' labour as the maximum? The reason was, because he feared that he could not reduce the hours of labour to nine if he tiled.

Ile had the testimony of no fewer than ninety medical men, con- nected with cotton districts, in favour of his measure. He read extracts from the evidence of medical men given before Sir Robert Peel's Committee ; also from the treatise of Dr. Kaye, of Manchester, an enemy of his bill; also from a pamphlet by Mr. Gregg, of Bury. A pamphlet had lately been published by Mr. Kirkman Finlay against his bill ; but that gentleman had not even attempted to rebut the evi- dence given before the Committee in 1832. He would rest the whole of this case upon medical evidence, and he would maintain that there was a mass of medical testimony that could not be got over in favour of his bill. He referred to the evidence of one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, who declared that he had never seen children ill-used in the factories. He was asked whether he had not a child employed in a factory? Ile replied " Yes." The interrogatories were pursued until the reluctant witness was brought to acknowledge that he had struck his child down and broken her arm. On being asked why he had chastised his child, he replied in these words—" Just for not doing what I ordered her." When the Rouse heard it asserted that facts which were asserted by the witnesses were incredible, let them reflect upon the statement made by this witness, who at the same time declared that he had never seen children ill-used in factories.

In conclusion, he called upon the House, as men and Christians, not to support a motion which would tend to delay or defeat a measure which the interests of humanity required should be carried as speedily as poible.

Mr. Iloalato Ross would vote for the motion, because the evidence was all on one side hitherto, and the manufacturers ought to be allowed the opportunity of clearing themselves from the imputation which had been thrown upon them.

Mr. GISBORNE complained of the way in which the greatest manu- facturers in the country were year after year kept in agitation and sue- pence, by all these attempts at legislation.

He contended that the medical evidence given before the Committee last year war very unsatistlictory, inasmuch as it consisted chiefly of brief answers to what he considered medico-moral essays, propounded as questions by the Chairman. Ile read several passages from the evidence to illustrate this observation, and then remarked, that it never occurred to the Chairman that the question turned upon the point of too much work or too little food. The medical witnesses

should have been asked whether it was better to labour twelve hours a day, and have plenty to eat, or only ten hours a day, with an insufficient supply of food? Mr. WYNN read a number of depositions taken before Coroners' In- quests, to prove that in the Montgomeryshire manufactories the chil-

dren were not overworked.

Mr. LENNARD and Lord MORPETH considered that sufficient evidence was already before the House to justify them in legislating on the sub- ject. They were opposed to any further delay.

Mr. G. W. WOOD urged the necessity of further inquiry. Before Lord Ashley reduced the productive power of the country one sixth, he ought to ascertain clearly that he was going to benefit the children.

Dr. LUSHINGTON and Mr. LISTER opposed, and Mr. PHILLIPS and Mr. FERGUSON advocated inquiry.

Mr. SPRING RICE apologised for the absence of Lord Althorp, who was unwell. He was in favour of inquiry. The consequences of le- gislating on partial information might be to throw the children out of work. The question was between severe work and starvation.

Mr. M. ATTWOOD and Mr. DUNCOMBE considered the Commission unnecessary. The latter gentleman read a quotation from a speech de- livered in 1825 by Mr. Huskisson, who had produced an advertisement of the following import from the Macclesfield silk manufacturers.

" To Overseers. Guardians of the Poor, and Families desirous of settling in Macclesfield. Wanted immediately, from 4,000 to 5,000 persons, from seven to twenty years of age." So that the silk manufacturers were content to receive children at the tender age of only seven years, to be employed in the throwing and manufacturing of silk. " The great increase of the trade having caused a great scarcity of workmen, it is suggested that this is a most favourable oppor- tunity for persons with large families and overseers who wish to put out children—(children of seven years of age!)—as apprentices, to insure them a comfortable livelihood. Application to be made, if by letter post-paid, to the editor of this paper." This (continued Mr. Duncombe) was worth the evidence of five thousand persons who might be examined before a Commission.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was of opinion that Lord Ashley's bill had better be referred to a Select Committee, and be dispassionately quire& into. The Government did not take part with the manufactu- rers, although Lord Ashley had so framed his bill as to make it ap- pear that such was the case.

Zolt, FIELDEN said, that be was introduced into his father's mill when he was only ten years old ; that he now employed between 2,000 and 3,000 persons ; and that he could, both from observation and ex- perience, bear witness to the exhaustion which the children manifested before the work was donor He said the evidence of the medical men was confirmed by his own experience ; and he would certainly support Lord Ashley's bill.

A Member said, that there were ninety factories in the counties of Wilts, Gloucester, and Somerset, and yet not a single witness from these counties had been examined.

••Mr. WILSON PATTEN briefly replied, and said that be would modify his motion so as to compel the Commision to proceed with despatch, " so as to enable the House to legislate on the subject during the pre- sent session."

The House divided : for the commission of inquiry, 74; against it, 72; majority, 2.

Lord ASHLEY said, that from the division which the House had just come to, it was clear that some bill for the regulation of factories must pass this session. As the House had decided to appoint a Commis- sion, he thought he had a right to ask Ministers to appoint the Com- mission immediately, and to place upon it medical men of the highest skill and eminence.

Mr. SPRING RICE said, that Lord Ashley might be satisfied that the utmost care would be taken by Government in the selection of the Commissioners ; for it would be worse than folly to appoint Commis- sioners whose characters were not far beyond all impeachment. It ought, however, to be observed, that this appointment of a Commission was not upon the motion of the Government, but on that of an indivi- dual wholly unconnected with Government.

The House adjourned at half past two.

4.. ABUSES OF THE CHURCH IN WALES. Lord KING, On Tue.1,:iy, expressed bis regret that the Bishop of St. Asaph had not been present the day before, in order that he might have taken the opportunity then presented, of doing right to a party to whom he bad done a wroa—lie meant Mr. Johnes, the author of the prize Essay on the Caieies of Dissent in Wales.

The Bishop had said that the Essay contained gross falsehoods, and he in- stanced two ; one of them where it was said that Christ Church, Oxford, de-

riVed 4,0001. a year from Wales—when the fact was, that it derived only 2,000/.

a year from thence. "Ex uno disce ()mites," had been the remark of the Bishop; who did not seem to be aware, that in no less than four places of the

second edition of the Essay, it was said that Christ Church, Oxford, only de- rived 2,5001. a year from Wales. Yet that the Bishop had seen a secowl edi- tion, was clear from the other instance of supposed falsehood he had pointed out, which regarded the parish of Llanidloes, which was only to be found iu the se- cond edition.

. The Bishop of ST. ASA PII regretted that illness had prevented his attendance in the House the day before. He regretted also that their Lordships should be troubled about so insignificant an affair; although he was obliged to Lord King for giving him the opportunity of show- ing that he had made no false statement.

He would read a paper which be had received frdm a most respectable ol'-rgy- anon of his diocese, by which it appeared that in one part of the Essay ret...; ,ed

to, it was said that Christ Church, Oxford, received 4,7001. from Wales, z...;. is another part of the same work that the sum was 4,5001. Lord King had ,:-.•!.en of two editions, and had said, that in the second the error w:s correct..t ; Gat it seemed that psis (the Bishop of St. Asaph's) informant had spoken fr..ni the first. The fact was, that the whole sum received from Wales was 2,000/., of which Christ Church obtained only 5001.

. What was said in the second edition of the book relative to the parish of Llanidloes, and the salary paid by Archdeacon Johnes to his curate, was a gross misrepresentation. The object of the author was to adver- tise his unsaleable Essay, which he had printed at a great expense. His (the Bishop's) income was put down at 9,267/. in the Essay. That

this was a gross misrepresentation, was apparent front the returns of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners upon the table. He would only add, that he should not retract any thing which he bad said, and was indeed compelled to repeat that there were many misrepresentations in the book. The letters published in a Morning Paper, making statements, and calling upon him to answer them, were highly disorderly.

The Marquis of WESTMINSTER regretted that the Bishop should have made criminatory remarks upon an absent person.

The Bishop had made serious charges against this gentleman on a former cc- cation and he now tried to bolster them up by bringing forward fresh charges. He said, too, that he had evidence that Mr. lohnes's statements were untrue, and he refereed to a letter which he said he believed to be written by a most respectable gentleman, and which would prove them to be so. That brought

the matter round to the question, that he (the Marquis of Westminster) had before urged to the House,—namely, that they should probe the subject to the bottom ; and for that reason he should be glad to call the persons who could give them information to the bar of the House. The petition which the Bishop before referred to did not mention him, but he had chosen to take it to himAlf, and to direct-his remarks to it, and to attack the person who had presented it. The statement which had subsequently been published in the Morning Chro- nicle, seemed to him a triumphant answer to the right reverend Prelate. The

statement in the paper might be disorderly, and for once he should be glad to see the printer called to the bar, because it would afford an opportunity of prey- ing the truth of the statement.

5. REFORM IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY. Upon the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, on Wednesday, a bill to amend proceedings in the Court of Chancery was brought in, and read a first time. As many opportunitieS for discussing its already explained provisions, would occur; he would only state in addition, that Masters in Chancery were for the future to be appointed by the Crown, instead of by the Chan- cellor. He also mentioned, that a mistake had gone abroad relative to the appointment of local Commissioners of Bankrupts; it was sup- prised that the Chancellor had the power of appointing them, and he had consequently received many distressing applications for the ap- pointment. Bat the fact was, that the Judges going the Circuit had that power; and as long as he remained Chancellor, he would not in- friijgc upon it, 6. IRISH JJBY Brt.r.. Lord Pi.melorr, on Tuesday, moved the smolt' reading of this Bill. • Lord CAREER] strongly opposed it. The effect of would be to put illiterate men upoW juries many of them even ignorant of the English

language, for the only qualification was payment of rent to the amount of 151. per annum. A more dangerous mode of obtaining jurors had never been introduced.

The Earl of Wicnow said, that it would be much better to continue the present system. The Jury system of Ireland worked extremely well. The Twelve Judges were of that opinion.

Lord WYNFORD said that their Lordships had done wrong—they had indeed been guilty of inflicting a grievous injury on the people of Ire- land, by voting for the Coercive Bill, if there was any pretence what- ever for the introduction and passing of this.

Why had they been called upon to agree to that bill—why had they con- sented to adopt it ? Because they were led to believe that Juries in Ireland were too subject to fleeting opinion, and too subservient to popular feeling. And yet they were now asked to pass this bill, which gave to popular feeling a greater sway, and a stronger power than it had ever before been allowed to assume.

He moved that the bill be read that day six months.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE defended, and Lord ELLENBOROUGH and the Earl of RODEN opposed the bill. He said it was a sop to Cerberus.

Lord PLUNKETT, in reference to the expression that this bill was in- tended as sop to Cerberus, declared bimself at a loss to know the meaning of the expression.

If he were compelled to guess who was meant by Cerberus, he should say that be supposed Mr. O'Connell. Whether Mr. O'Connell would be a proper guardian for the place of which Cerberus was the keeper, it was for the Noble Lords to say ; but he had not introduced the name of Mr. O'Connell. Too much stress Lid been laid on the name of that gentleman. He was not to be induced to bring in a bill because Mr. O'Connell approved of it, or to be diverted from lainaing, in a bill because Mr. O'Connell disapproved of it. As to the qualification—the present one for a juror was the posses- sion of a forty-shilling freehold ; and the only alteration made was that the qualification should be a leasehold of 15/. It was to be hoped that such a change would be considered an improvement.

Lord Wynford's amendment was put and negatived, and the bill was read a second time.

7. POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND. Lord A LTHORP, on Tuesday' brought up certain documents emanating from the Poor-Laws Com- missioners. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that since he had read those docu- ments, he felt bound to say that be must oppose the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland. Mr. RICHARDS, Sir E. KNATCIIBULL, Mr. H. GRATTAN, and Colonel Worm, were in favour of their introduc- tion into Ireland. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that Poor-laws, divested of the abuses which existed in their administrntior in England, would he advantageous to Ireland. Sir R. PEEL said, the whole subject must shortly come before Parliament, and he recommended that a Com- mission, composed of persons of high character, should be appointed to inquire into the condition of the Irish poor, and to report as to the best means of relieving them, and to declare what part of the English Poor-law system might be with advantage extended to Ireland.

8. OATits OF CATHOLIC MEMBERS. A conversation took place on Monday, just before the House went into Committee on the Irish Church Reform Bill, relative to the oaths of Catholic members. Mr. A. JouNsToxn was of opinion that they ought not to vote or speak on the subject of temporalities of the Irish Church. Mr. O'CONNELL ridiculed the idea of being prevented from doing so by his oath. Lord Aurnour and Dr. LUSHINGTON were of opinion that the Catholic mem- bers lied an equal right with others to vote upon this subject ; and the latter gentleman said, that lie had been misunderstJod on a former oc- casion when he was supposed to have expressed a contrary opinion. lie had intended to have explained his real meaning, which was quite the reverse of what bad been imputed to him at the time, but was prevented by one of Mr. O'Connell's little speeches of two hours length.

9. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Lord WHARNCLIFFE, on Mon- day, presented a petition for the better observance of the Sabbath; and said, that it would be quite impossible to make Andrew Agnew's bill palatable to the people of this country. TI:e bishop of LONDON presented petitions to the like effect from the parishes of St. Bride, and St. John, Hampstead. He agreed with Lord Wharncliffe that it was best not to go too far in legislating on this subject. Lord ELLEN- BOROUGH wished that the Bishop of London would immediately intro- duce some rational measure; for the one introduced into the House of Commons would disappoint all the intentions of the Bishops.

10. MILITARY FLOGGING. On Tuesday, when the report of the Mutiny Bill was brought up, Mr. HUME moved the insertion of the fol- lowing clause- " That it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal nun:A:pent, by flogging, on any private soldier, corporal, or ,non-commissioned officer in the Army or Mi- litia of the United Kingdom, within the United Kingdom, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

He was anxious to see whether Lord Althorp, who had voted with him on this question when out of power, would suNort him now. On the 15th of March 1824, he had submitted a similar proposition to the House, and was seconded by Sir Ronald Fergusson,

He now observed many gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial benches who supported hint upon that occasion. Amongst the forty-seven members who voted for the proposition, were Lord Althorp, Mr. Baring, Mr. Denison, Lord I)nncannon, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Lennard, Dr. Lushington, Colonel Moberly, Mr. PhillipS Sir M. W. Ridley, Lord Stanley, and Sir J. Wrottesley; and the Tellers were ioseph Hume and J. C. Hobbouse. ( Cheers and laugh- ter.) Of course he expected all those gentlemen to vote with him Upon the pre- sent occasion • but he regretted that he should not have the assistance of the late Secretary at War as teller. (Laughter.) He quoted from the speech of Sir John, then Mr. Hobhouse, some very strong expressions condemnatory of the practice of flogging in the Army. He reminded the House that a slave in the Colonies could only receive fifteen lashes, whilst a British soldier might be subjected to 300, 500; or 1,000 lashes. He also declared, that the practice of branding with gunpowder was cruel and impolitic, as tending to prevent refor- mation in the criminal.

Mr. LENNARD, Captain BERKELEY, and MT. O'CONNELL supported

the clause.. . . • •

Mr. R. GRANT, whn:.14 undertaken the temporary charge of the

bill, could not assent to the clime; because he found that the majority of military men declared flogging to be necessary.

Lord ALTHORP was surprised that he should have been one of Mr. flume's minority on the occasion alluded to. He formerly thought, and he thought so still, that it was not prudent to take away the power of inflicting that punishment from the officer. He should be acting in a way quite inconsistent with his duty if he did not oppose Mr. Hume's proposition.

Captain CURTEIS, Major HANDLEY, Mr. SHELL, Mr. GORE LANG- TON, supported, and Sir JOHN BYNG opposed the introduction of Mr. Hume's clause.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, he would not entirely, and in all cases, take away the power of inflicting corporal punishment.

In cases of mutiny, fairly understood, he would admit that power : but he did object to applying it to cases of insubordination, which brought in every possible case, even to a hasty word spoken to some petty officer. Rather than inflict such a disgraceful punishment he would say, in extreme cases, shoot a man; for it was better that one man should suffer death than that a whole hotly should be disgraced. He remembered the times when soldiers were sentenced to 1,000 and to 1,500 lashes; an extent of suffering at the bare mention of which human nature recoiled,—when men's whole lives might be said to be a continual punishment ; for as the whole of that enormous load of cruel suffering could not be borne at once, it was given by instalments ; and when so many lashes were owing to a soldier it was no uncommon thing for a commanding-officer, on any slight offence, to order the man out to get some of the lashes that were owing to him. That time was now gone past ; and lie hoped that the time was not distant when the practice might with safety be altogether discontinued.

He was certain, that had Sir John Hobhouse remained in office, a clause limiting the power of flogging to extreme cases, would have been introduced into the Mutiny Bill.

Lord PALMERSTON defended the practice of flogging. This was not a question to be decided by private feeling, but by grave considerations of the public good. It was a mere play upon words to say that the French soldiers were not subject to corporal punishment. They had not our mode of punishing, but they had other modes.

In other armies of Europe, though our mode of punishment was net known, would it be said that they had no corporal punishment ? He would only men- tion that which was practised in the Russian army, in which, unless it was abolished very recently, they had a practice of placing the soldier who was to be punished in a small cell, which was too low to enable him to stand upright, and the floor of which was of pointed spars, so that he could not lie down. This was a punishment of so severe a kind, that few men could survive if exposed to it for more than a few hours. Let it not, then, be said that foreign armies had no corporal punishment because they had not such as ours.

He concluded by declaring, that it would be a most dangerous pro- ceeding to abolish flogging in the Artny.

Sir RONALD FERGUSSON could not vote either for or against Mr. Hume's proposition. One species of punishment abroad and another at home would be extremely unsatisfactory.

The average number of years which a soldier passed in his native land was four out of twenty. It was clear, therefore, that the soldier would still during four fifths of his service he subjected to this punishment.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT suggested, that there might be introduced in the amendment these words,—" that the Mutiny Act shall confine this punishment to open mutiny, thieving, and being drunk on guard."

Mr. HUME acceded to the suggestion.

The House divided : for the original motion, 151 ; against it, 140; Ministerial majority, 11.

After the division was announced, Mr. Hymn said he would bring up a similar clause upon the third reading of the Mutiny Bill to-morrow night. Subsequently, however, be expressed his conviction that it would be unnecessary, after the House had expressed its opinion in so intelligible a manner.

The House adjourned at a quarter to one.

11. MINISTERS AND POLITICAL UNIONS. Sir J. TYIIELL, On Tuesday, asked Lord Althorp if it were true, according to Mr. M. O'Connell's statement, that the Ministers had furnished franks last year for letters to be sent to members of the Political Unions. Lord ALTHORP said, be understood Earl Grey was the person alluded to ; and Earl Grey said that he had never given any franks, knowingly, to members of Political Unions. Mr. CHARLES WOOD, who was the Private Secretary to Earl Grey, confirmed this statement. Mr. M. O'CONNELL said, his authority was Mr. Rushton, who had seen Mr. Joseph Parkes coming from the Treasury with a number of official franks, which were addressed to members of Political Unions. Sir J. TYRELL said, he would move that Mr. Rushton and Mr. Parkes be summoned to the bar of the House ; and he would move also for a .return of the names of those Ministers who were members of Political Unions. Mr. H. GRATTAN hoped he would also move for a return of -all who were members of Conservative Clubs. A Member congratu- lated Sir John Tyrell on his discovery of a mare's nest: he seriously thought the time of the House should not be taken up with such a " Cock and bull story." After a few remarks from Mr. O'CoNiczu. and Mr. R. PALMER, Sir JOHN TYRELL withdrew his motion.

12. SUGAR REFINERIES. Mr. CLAY, on Wednesday, presented a petition, signed by almost every person connected with the sugar-refining business in London, and possessing a capital of between two and three millions, against the restrictions imposed upon the importation of , foreign sugars. They complained of the non-renewal of an act which expired In 1830, which allowed foreign sugars to be refined in this- - country under certain regulations. They stated that the trade was fast leaving the country, to the injury of the papermakers, coopers, and others, besides those directly engaged in the trade.

Mr. EWART bad been requested by his constituents to support the petition. The existing state of the law was productive of serious loss- -11e asked what would have become of the cotton trade, if that had been subjected to the same restriction as the trade in sugar ?

Mr. Moantsox and Mr. O'CONNELL supported the petition. The latter said, that bad legislation had ruined the Dublin refining businesi. Before the Union, there were eleven refineries in Dublin, now there was not one.

Lord ALTHORP could state nothing satisfactory on the subject. He Was aware that there was only half a year's stock of raw sugar to he refined at present in the country, and he was also of opinion that the trade ought not to be left in such a situation.

13. LIVERPOOL ELECTION. Mr. BANNERMAN, On Tuesday,brougbt up a report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the bribery and corruption practised at the last Liverpool election; which is as fol- lows— " That cases of bribery and corruption have been proved at the late electiqn for Liverpool ; but that such cases do not appear to bare been with the autho- rity of the candidates, or to have:been pursued systematically or extensively."

The practice of bribery at the last election having been proved, the Committee will now proceed to consider the question of the disfran- chisement of the old freemen on the ground of their notorious corrup- tion at the last and previous elections.

14. NORWICH ELECTION. The Committee reported, on Wednesday, that Lord Stormont and Sir James Scarlett were duly elected.

15. HERTFORD ELECTION. The Committee on this election re- ported, on Tuesday, that Lords Ingestrie and Mahon were not duly elected ; and that bribery and treating existed previously to and during the last election. Mr. BERNAL also moved that no new writ be issued for Hertford previously to the 16th of April. This was agreed to.

16. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION. The Committee reported, on Tues- day, that Mr. J. B. Hoy was not duly elected, and that Mr. J. A. Penleaze was duly elected for Southampton.

17. LONGFORD ELECTION. The Committee reported, on Tuesday, that Messrs. White and Roche were not, and that Lord Forbes and Mr. A. Lefroy were duly elected.

IS. NEW WRIT FOR COVENTRY. Mr. SPRING RICE, on Thursday, moved for a new writ for a member to represent Coventry in the room of Mr. Ellice, appointed Secretary at War. This motion had been postponed in consequence of a petition against the late return.of Mr. Ellice as well as Mr. H. Bulwer the complaint was finally disposed of on Thursday, by the Committee reporting both these gentlemen fairly returned.

19. BIRMINGHAM AND LONDON RAILWAY BILL. This bill was lead a third time on Wednesday, and passed. Sonic discussion arose relative to a misunderstanding which had gone abroad respecting the liability of subscribers, after the transfer of their shares, to pay the debts of the Company. Mr. LITTLETON explained the meaning of a standing order of the House, which he had introduced, and which had been the cause of the erroneous impression alluded to. The real object of that order, which bound subscribers and their representatives to pay the amount subscribed by them, was to secure adequate subscriptions by responsible persons. As soon as Parliament, having by means of this deed ascer- tained the solidity and adequacy of the subscription, passed the act authorizing among other things the transfer of the shares, the validity of the subscription-deed ceased.

'20. THAMES TUNNEL. Sir E. CODRINGTON, on Monday, pre- sented a petition from the proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, praying for aid to enable them to complete their work. He recommended the undertaking.

In July Izzl I, there passed over London Bridge 99,000 persons ; over Black- friars, 66,000 persons. So that it was not too much to say that this tunnel—a sort Of Irish bridge, since it passed under water—would be of great utility. If the tunnel were completed, vast quantities of goods would pass through it from the Commercial Docks, which now had to be carried four miles round by Lon- dun Bridge. The consideration of the petition was postponed, in consequence of Lord Althorp's absence.

21. APOTHECARIES MoNorom The Earl of Roseberry, on Wed- nesday, presented a petition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town-council of Edinburgh, against that part of the Apothecaries Act which prevents graduates of the Scotch Universities from acting as apothecaries in England and Wales, unless licensed by the Apothe- caries Company. Lord WYNDFORD thought that a clause ought to be introduced into the bill, giving to those graduates, who must be well- educated men, the right of practising as apothecaries in any part of the United Kingdom.

22. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. The SPEAKER, on Wednesday, wished to call the attention of the members to the inconvenience which.

arose from the mode of presenting petitions. By the present rules it was impossible for any member to know whether he would have an op- portunity of presenting his petition on any particular day or not. The names were all put down in a book, and a hundred and fifty names might be called over and no one be present to answer.

To prevent a recurrence of this inconvenience, he would suggest to the House that, after Easter, continuing the early sittings as heretofore, they should at each tally sitting go through the paper of that day, and that only. This would lead . to a certainty of each member presenting his petitions on the day for which they were fixed. Thus there would be a new paper to be gone through each day. By the practice of the House hitherto, when a daily list was made out, it was open for the insertion of members' names at ten o'clock in the morning. Now, this gave an unfair advantage to those gentlemen who happened to reside near the House. He would suggest, that, to equalize the advantage to all mem- bers, the daily list should be opened at eleven o'clock, instead of ten; • and he had no doubt that the entry of one hour would afford sufficient business for the early sitting of that day. Mr. LITTLETON said, that though the experiment had not succeeded as fully as could be wished, yet the present plan bad enabled the House to get through a greater amount of business than the old one, particu- larly in the presentation of petitions. He had opportunities of knowing (as one of the Committee on Petitions) that number of petitions presented; and he found that, up to the 2d of April last year, when no election ballots had interfered, the number of petitions presented WAS 926 ; but that in the present session the number of petitions received by the House up to the same date was 2,457. He would make only one suggestion on what had been proposed by the Speaker, and in the propriety of which they must all concur : he would venture to suggeit that the hour for opening the daily list for entering the names of members who had petitions to present should be at half past eleven each day.

The proposal seemed to be agreed to.