POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

The adjourned debate on Privilege was kept up with considerable Spirit during the greater part of last night's sitting of the House of Commons. The debate was opened by Mr. O'CONNELL ; who ex- pressed his deep regret that Lord John Russell had abandoned his ori- ginal position. It was not true that the power of the House had been tried and proved to be ineffectual for the maintenance of their pri- vileges. Why were the Judges and counsel allowed to violate the privilege of Parliament with impunity? The Juthses of the Queen's Bench had earned for themselves no respect, and deserved none front the House. The bill, in faet, affirmed the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, and would make it a precedent to be followed. He much doubted whether the bill would ever pass the Lords. There was a very able, though not a very wise man in that House, who would perhaps bring all his epigrammatic points to bear upon the question, so as to excite the people to dispute the right of the House to the posses- sion of any privilege at all.

Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT defended the Judges from Mr. O'Connell's

attack. There was a want of' respect for constituted authority, but the Judges did not suffer front it. They were reverenced as honest, per- fectly independent, and learned administrators of the law ; and if the House called them to the bar, it would be the last time it would exer- cise that privilege. Sir Williau supported the bill, on the ground that it was necessary, not only to stop the disgraceful contest with the wretched plaintiff, his attorney and clerks, but to secure the right of publication, for which the existing power of' the House had proved in- effectual.

Mr. CHAnLEs BULLER would vote wi:11 Lord John Russell, for the same reason. At present the House could only defend its privileges by a mode of' proc eding as cumbrous as the exploded practice of stop- ping the Supplies.

Mr. Hu 3IE—" A good practice too." Mr. llum.im—" No man at the present day would think of an act so extravagant." Mr. Husns—" But I would." (Laughter.)

Mr. GISBORNE expressed his determination to oppose the bill in that stage, and every other.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he foresaw from the first that the House would be compelled to resort to a legislative enactment ; but he thought they had done right to use the power they possessed—the power of im- prisonment. Had it not been proved that the power was ineffectual, he would have persevered in exercising it. Sir Robert took pains to show, by reference to the legal proceedings, that the House could not prevent the plaintiff' from getting his damages; wed that the attempt to stop the proceedings instituted by the authority of the Courts placed them in a position of extreme difficulty.

Mr. Hume told Sir Robert, that all he said had been said before. All the difficulties he pointed out had been pointed out before. The bill aself was a violation of the privileges of the House ; and, protesting against the shilly-shally conduct of the Government, he would vote against the bill.

Colonel Siunme rE ridiculed Lord John Russell and Mr. Hume ; whom he described as a couple of " repentant sinners." As for the waste of the time of the House, Lord John must be glad of the delay ; for It helped his Chancellor of' the Exchequer to get up a better budget. Let the noble lord now name a day for getting through the other " stages of IT bill, and so forth." " In my opinion," said the gallant Colonel, bowing with extreme solemnity to Sir Robert Peel, "it is only a loop- hole to noose my right honourable friend."

Lord Howlett, in a speech of much bitterness, reproached Lord John Russell with giving way at last— It was upon his noble friend's suggestion, his noble friend's advice, his noble friend's recommendation, that the House of Commons, after having threatened and blustered—( Cheers from the Opposithm)—at the commencement was now humbly to recede from all its lofty pretensions, and to acknowledge the necessity of' appealing for assistance to the other House of Parliament.

Mr. MACAULAY said, an act of Parliament was necessary, not because their powers were deficient in stringency, but because they could not be enforced without "a dissolution of society and a cruel pressure upon in- dividuals." [A. Cabinet Minister confesses that he and his colleagues have been engaged seven weeks in a course tending to " a dissolution. of society !"] Speeches in favour of the bill were delivered by Lord MA HON, Mr. BERNAL, Mr. CHARLES nom, and Dr. LTSLIINGTON. They do not call for particular notice.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply, reminded Lord Howick, that some- times prudence in the conduct of affairs was as essential as courage. He had not the courage to divide the people of England into two hostile parties on such a question as this. Replying to Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John said he should insert a clause in the bill to provide a remedy against the actions now pending, including Howard's.

Leave was given to bring in the bill, by a majority of 203 to 34.

A debate, or rather conversation, to which the Times applies the fit epithet of "scrambling," terminated in adopting a suggestion by Lord JOHN RUS..;EI.I., and acceded to by Sir ROBERT PEEL—that Sheriff Evans be discharged, with an injunction to attend at the bar, if called upon, on the 6th of April. Mn, Wateim supported this motion, on the ground that "the very paltry and contemptible position" of the House did not justify them in retaining anybody in custody for another night.

Two other subjects remain to be briefly noticed. Mr. HumE asked Lord John Russell if the Chief Justiceship of' Upper Canada were vacant ? Chief Justice Robinson had been absent front his post a year and a half. If his services were not needed, let the salary be stopped and the place abdished.

Lord Joux RUSSELL replied, that in consequence of a death in his family, the Chief Justice was unwilling to leave England before the beginning of April, when he would take his departure.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM noticed that the China papers on the table did not contain the protest of the American merchants against Mr. Elliot's blockade of Canton, nor any account of' the last conflict whh the junks. Had Government received no account of those occurrences?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that there were no official accounts. Private letters had been received from Captain Elliot, but he did not think they could be produced.