Debates an Vonettlings in parliament.

GOVERNMENT POLICY IN IRELAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord Jocerria drew the at. tention of Government to the present seditious and treasonable juncture in Irish affairs.

Within the last few weeks the House had seen with indignation and disgust the language which some traitorous men were using in Ireland, with the object of raja_ ing a rebellion against the Crown and of overturning the institutions of the Era. pire. These attempts were indeed of no real danger to the institutions they assailed; for the English Throne, resting not on the bayonets of soldiers but on the broad basis of a people's loyalty and affections, would remain unshaken amid the shock of European politics. But the mischievous language of some might urge others into open treason, and the danger to be feared was to those misguidej individuals.

With the recollection of past conflicts, and the knowledge that years did not suffice to wipe out the stain of blood shed in civil contest—in the name of all loyal subjects, he asked whether Government thought it possessed sufficient power to crush this rebellious spirit; or whether the time had come when some lava. tion should be made in that law which allowed the instigator to be at large while the victim of his instigation suffered, and when power should be given to the Executive Government to meet with vigour and effect whatever emergency might arise? ("Hear, hear! ") Lord Joari RUSSELL said, that such language as had been lately used in Ireland might at some periods be passed by as the ravings of a distem- pered fancy, and as unlikely to produce any effect: unfortunately, that might not be the case at present. " I believe that the effect which has been produced by that language may be attributed partly to the exciteable nature of those to whom it is directed; partly to the very great distress which has been felt by all classes now during three years —a distress which naturally induces men to listen to any desperate language; and thirdly, to the great excitement which has been created by the events which have recently taken place in France and some other parts of Europe. But, what- ever may be the cause, it is certain that the utterance of this language has been followed by the manufacture of pikes, by the t ormation of rifle clubs, and by va- rious other preparations, all of which are openly avowed by a part of the press of that country to be with a view of stirring up civil war in Ireland." Lord John agreed that the danger of those proceedings was more to the public peace and the wellbeing of all classes than to the institutions of the country: the actors aimed at raising themselves, careless of the bloodshed and min that might ensue.

Lord Clarendon's task was most delicate and, difficult: while anxious to put down disaffection and rebellion, it was his warmest wish to listen to complaints and remedy evils or alleviate distress. He was in constant daily communica- tion with Ministers, and had informed them, that while, on one side, there were evident preparations for rebellion, on the other side there had been the most gra- tifying assurances to the Government of loyal support. Protestant and Catholic, clergy, priesthood, and laity, all parties and all classes alike, had joined in those assurances. Lord John, declining at present to declare detailed intentions, stated that the law had been most carefully looked into, and if further powers than those now possessed shall appear necessary, Parliament will be asked to atrust the Government with such powers. Lord Clarendon has to guard against favonr- ing or approaching to the semblance of favouring any one religions denomination or particular class, or he may lose much of the support hitherto received. Ill- nisters have the utmost confidence in him and his administration of affairs; they will do alt in their power to support the law in Ireland, and will not shrink from asking whatever further powers may be necessary to gain that end.

THE CH_ARTISTS.

On Thursday, Sir Jon/a- WALss asked whether the attention of the Go- vernment had been drawn to the meeting called for Monday next, and bad prepared such measures as might be necessary to secure the deliberations of Parliament from being overawed?

Sir GEORGE GREY answered this appeal by a formal statement— He held in his hand a notice published on Wednesday, and signed by three per- sons, one of them "Secretary "—apparently of the Chartist Association--annona- cing that a Convention of forty-nine " delegates " would assemble to superintend the presentation of a petition, and to devise such measures as might be necessary to secure the enactment of the People's Charter; "the men of London" were in- vited to take part in a great demonstration at Kennington Common, on Monday the 10th instant, and to accompany the petition in procession to the door of the House. Other information had reached. Government. --Mipters had directed a notice to be issued, which would, be published in hair an houoltroughont the streets of London and circulated over the country, pointing out that- by the sta- tute and common liivf of tlise realms this intended procession is illegal; warn- ing all loyal and peaceable subjects of her Majesty to abstain from taking part in such procession; and calling upon them to give their best assistance to the consti- tuted authorities in maintaining order, preventing disturbance, and preserving peace. (Much cheering.) Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR remarked that this would certainly be "taking the people by surprise." He cited precedents for the procession. In 1831, 150.000 men marched down and deposited their petition for lReform; in 1837, 100,000 marched to present the petition for the Dorchester labourers; and lately a large body of sailors presented a petition. Mr. O'Connor pledged his honour that there was no ulterior object in the meeting of Monday—no intention to break the peace or overawe the Legisla- ture: he would not lend himself to any demonstration calculated to do so. Sir GEORGE GREY observed, that SS to taking the people by surprise, Government had entered into deliberation upon the subject immediately after receiving notice of the meeting. He gave Mr. O'Connor full credit for being the last man to encourage any persona to join in violating tbo law of the land.

Mr. Hiram thought it might be " dangerous to interfere" with the pra. cession; and he thought that any meeting, however numerous—say a mil- lion—was not illegal, so long as the people were quiet. A few minutes afterwards, Sir GEORGE GREY gave notice, that on day, before before the other Orders of the Day, he should Move for leave to brig

FROST, JONES, AND WILLIAMS.

on Thursday, Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR presented a petition purporting to come from forty-nine delegates to the Convention now sitting in London, representing five millions of people, praying for the restoration of the con- victs Frost, Williams, and Jones. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL doubted the propriety of receiving a petition from a body calling itself "the National Convention," and he desired time to investigate precedents on the subject. The petition was withdrawn for the present. Later in the evening, Mr. O'Correion moved an humble address to her majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to extend her Royal pardon to John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, and all other political offenders. The principal reasons by which he supported this motion were, that informali- ties occurred at the trial; that the Judges were divided on the subject of an ob- jection taken; that the object of the Newport meeting was not to subvert the government, but to obtain better treatment for Vincent, then lying in gaol; that the ensooers had stall events been sufficiently punished, and had behaved well in their banishment; and that their release would be a very acceptable concession to popu- lar wishes. Mr. O'Connor thought he could prove that the disturbance in Wales had been brought about by an emissary of Government; and an opinion prevails that Mr. Frost's intention to oppose Lord John Russell at Stroud was the reason why Frost was assailed by all the terrors of the law. (Laughter.). Mr. O'Con- nor deprecated laughter, and trusted that the House would join m the appeal for mercy.

Sir GEORGE GREY recapitulated a few facts to show that the crime of the convicts was not of a venial character.

It was attended by circumstances of atrocity and consequences fatal to many. Whatever the intention of the insurgents, their acts so far partook of high trea- son that at the trial they claimed the privileges of prisoners charged with that class of crimes. An objection was taken, that a certain list of witnesses had not been delivered in time: the Judges were divided as to the validity of that objec- tion, in the proportion of 9 to 6: even had the objection been valid, it would only have caused a postponement of the trial: the Judges were unanimous as to the ealidity of the conviction. The other prisoners were treated with the utmost leniency, but it was necessary to make an example of the leaders. Under those circumstances, Sir George Grey felt bound to oppose the motion.

The motion was also opposed by Mr. CHAB.LES MORGAN; and by Sir DAVID DUNDAS, in stronger language than the other Ministers had used. Colonel THOMPSON thought the motion mistimed, but advised a clement course. The motion was supported, on the ground that the men had been sufficiently punished, by Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. SHARMAN CRAW- poRD, Dr. BOWRING, and Mr. GARDNER; on the ground that the con- viction was illegal, by Mr. HUME and Mr. WAKLEY. Mr. Wakley con- trasted the rigorous treatment of the prisoners with the reception to traitors in the shape of Kings, who tried to destroy the liberties of the people—the royal miscreants--(" Oh, oh! ")—royal ruffians, if Members liked that word better—coming from foreign countries to this land, receiving the sym- pathies of the first people here, and received as visiters at the Queen's Palace.

On a division, the motion was negatived,by 91 to 23.

SARDINIAN INVASION OF LOMBARDY.

In the House of Lords, on lifohday, the Earl of ABERDEEN adverted to the correspondence between Lord falmerston and Prince Metternich on Italian affairs, which was published some weeks since.

Lord Palmerston had there stated that Great Britain would not "view with indifference" any aggression by Austria on the rights or territories of the King of Sardinia. At the time, Lord Aberdeen thought the danger of aggression lay quite the other way,—recollecting the hereditary policy of the house of Savoy, that the Italian states were but an artichoke for it to devour leaf by leaf. The petite of Charles Albert has induced him to essay the whole plant at a meal.

Lis is the first power directly to controvert the public law of Europe; and it is desirable that the first instance of a violation of that law should not pass un- noticed by any state interested in the preservation of European peace. He wished to guard himself from misinterpretation: the effort of the Lombards to free themselves from Austrian dominion was their own affair; if they succeed, he had only to hope they might then be as much more happy as they would be more free.

Lord Aberdeen then pat a question to the President of the Council—whether our Government had ever expressed its opinion to the Sardinian Government, that any aggression by it on Austrian rights or territories would not be viewed by Great Britain with indifference?

Lord LANSDOWNE said, that though this country was not bound by any treaty to assist Austria in retaining Lombardy, Government had volun- tarily instructed its Minister at Turin to express hope and confidence that the King of Sardinia would preserve perfect neutrality. These assurances had been urged again and again, ana might have had their effect in retarding a step which in point of fact was not taken till it appeared highly improbable that Austria could maintain herself in Italy. Lord Lansdowne Was not prepared to say whether, in the event of Austria's proving unable to re- tain Lombardy, it would be of general advantage to Europe that the King of Sar- dinia should make himself master of that country: but he did confidently say that the late movement had been made against the advice of this country, con- veyed in instructions to our Minister, which were first laid before the Austrian Minister in London, and were perfectly satisfactory to him.

THE NAVIGATION-LAWS.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. HENRY BAILLIE inquired whether the Government intended to bring in a bill on the Navigation-laws before Easter?

Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed that it was desirable that the bill should be brought in before Easter, in order to a mature consideration of the subject; but on the other hand, it would be most unadvisable to impede the busi- ness already before the House. He feared he could not introduce the bill before Easter.

Mr. BRIGHT then alluded to the cotton cargoes now in the port of Havre, many of which belonged to British merchants; and asked if Govern- ment would inquire whether that cotton might not be imported from Havre in English ships to this country. Mr. L.A.BOUCHERE said, nothing was more clear than that, under the pre- sent law, cotton exported from America in French ships could not after- wards be brought here from Havre in any ships whatever. Ministers did not think themselves at liberty to set aside the Navigation-laws of their own authority. Mr. GLADST0NE felt great regret and dissatisfaction at these answers.

Four measures were mentioned in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the ses- sion, and this was one of them. One of them had become law, and two others Were in progress; but this fourth was to be heard nothing of till late in May—the same thing in effect with abandoning it altogether for this year. On that very

in a bill for the better security of the Crown and Government of the United Kingdom.

evening they were going into Committee on a bill of great importance, no doubt, but not mentioned in the Royal Speech. The Government, in justice to the special interests affected, and those of the country, and fonts own credit, should show it- self seriously determined to attain a settlement of this question in the present session.

Lord Jone RUSSELL dwelt again, as he had done lately, on the pressure of business and the scanty allowance of Government days. Sir ROBERT INGLIS proposed to grant more days for Government measures. Mr. Hula and Mr. RICARDO both prayed for the early introduction of the bill. My. WAWN and Mr. ROBINSON prayed the reverse. After some words from Dr. BOWRING and Mr. HUDSON on opposite sides, Mr. BRIGHT again rose, and asked was, it not the custom formerly to grant licences to admit par- ticular cargoes, the Navigation-laws notwithstanding; and could not the Board of Trade, or at least the Privy Council, still grant each lioenoea? Gentlemen opposed to alteration would probably not be offended at this course, under the present circumstances of the failing supply of cotton.

Mr. LABOUCHERE still held out. As the essential principle of the law forbids importation, it would be highly improper for Government to grant the facility required. As to the Government bill, though no progress would result from producing it before Easter, Ministers still hoped that the whole discussion may be satisfactorily concluded during this session.

Mr. CARDWELL still pressed for the admission of the Havre cotton: a short bill thr the purpose would pass unopposed before Easter. Lord HARRY VANE followed up the suggestion. Mr. POULETT SCROPE thought the Navigation-laws should be suspended in the present dearth of cotton, as the Corn-laws had been in the dearth of corn: the unused Havre oot- ton would employ thousands of English workmen now in distress.

Mr. HENRY J. BAILLIE, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, Mr. KERSHAW, and Mr. THorEAS BARING, spoke shortly on the other view.

Lord Joun RUSSELL rose and stated his intention, before Easter, either to fix a day on which Mr. Labouchere should go into the question, or to otherwise intimate the final views of the Government.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.

On Monday, the order of the day for the consideration of the report on the Jewish Disabilities Bill having been read, and the question put., that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. Goalies moved as an amendment," That it is the opinion of tids House, that, so long at least as the House of Commons exercises the an- thority which it at present does over the Established Church, no Jew ought to possess the franchise, much leas be allowed to sit in this House."

There was one class in the country, the usurers and gamblers in the public se• curities whose interests were in direct opposition to the good of the rest of the community. The words of the Apostle of peace and charity among men were— "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he bath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." To invite the revilers of Christ into the House, would be $0 draw Almighty vengeance on this Christian country. In support of the amendment, Mr. CoMmING BRUCE said, he did not consider a man's religion to be a matter solely between his Creator and hiffiself; itinklerially affected his fellow men, and had a strong tendency to .onalify or 'Esqualify him for high political functions. Sir W. VERNER thought the rilgthiti Church, including the laity, here mad in Ireland, had never ceased to suffer wrong since the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act passed. Mr. HORNET expected ere many years after this bill passed to see thirty or forty Jews in the House, and that four would represent London alone: they might also become Premiers and Chancellors of the Exche- quer; and then he could easily imagine that they would favour their own people on 'Change by any priority of information got in virtue of their office. Mr. ADDERLEY concurred in the doctrine of the amendment, as clear, logical, and bold. Sir ROBERT INGLIS also thought that it would have been sounder policy if the franchise had been denied to the Roman Catholics, rather than their admission to the Legislature surren- dered: Sir Robert hoped, however, that the amendment would not be pressed, but that the opponents of the bill would reserve themselves for a protest against the principle of the bill itself on the third reading.

For the bill and against the amendment, Mr. GARDNER spoke an ex- treme Voluntary speech, concluding—" The lamp of old Nonconformity has not yet burnt out." Mr. URQUHART expressed a hope that after the bill was passed an inquiry into the due functions of the House would be under- taken, and the Church be protected from the assaults of enemies whom municipal rights were now placing in the House. Lord DUDLEY &man gave the statistics of the petitions which had been presented on the bill.

Ample time had been asked by the opponents of the bill for the country to rise up against it: after ample time has elapsed, what are the results—petitions with 50,000 signatures against the bill, and petitions signed by more than 300,000 in its favour. In the latter class were petitions from almost every corporation in the kingdoin—Jedburgh and Sudbury being the only two on the other side. Lord Dudley stated that a learned Jewish doctor, a Rabbi, in a late lecture at Birming- ham, taking the Gospels as authentic histories of their times, avowed that Jesus of Nazareth was the victim of fanaticism, of the last of power and jealousy of the Jewish hierarchy. The feeling is one that grows among men of piety and reflec- tion, that complete toleration must be established. Mr. SIMEON neither concurred in the amendment nor supported the bat Mr. GORING withdrew his amendment, and the House went into Com- mittee. The clauses from 1 to 5 were agreed to.

On clause 6, Mr. WILLOUGHBY moved an amendment, to limit the num- ber of offices to be held by Jews.—Amendment negatived, by 196 to 99. Sir Roismax INGLIS then moved hianmendment, that no Jew should be a judge in any court of law or a Member of Privy CounciL—Amendment negatived, by 203 to 109.

Mr. ANSTEY moved a clause in protection of the English, Irish, and Scotch Churches. which the SPEAKER declared to be beyond the scope of the bill and inadmissible: it was therefore' withdrawn. The other clauses and the preamble were agreed to. Mr. LAW moved that the report be not received till Friday; and made some observations which elicited a sarcastic remark from Lord Joss RUS- SELL, that for a moment discomposed him. Ultimately it was agreed that the report should be received instanter, but the bill be read a third time on Monday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISEPON.

On Tuesday, Mr. HORSMAN moved a resolution to this effect—That the distinction between the episcopal and common funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission, restricting the application of the first to episcopal purposes, and permitting no part of it ever to be applied. to panrual purposes, lain- expedient and should be discontinued. The distinction is bad, because it established principles not concurred in by Parliament,—that the episcopal estates were the property of the Bishops and not of the Church; and that however impoverished the parochial church, and how-

ever great the surplus of episcopal revenues, these surpluses should rather go to our Colonies or to foreign lands to found new bishoprics, than be applied to pa-

rochial purposes at home. Mr. Herman went into detailed proofs of the lament- able spiritual destitution in many parishes; and asked if it were still to be held, that under no circumstances should any surplus of the episcopal fends be re- Stored to the parishes whence they were derived ? There are now betsveen four and five thousand parishes in which the beneficed clergyman has not a house— how many of the Bishops are ill furnished with a residence? Above three thou- sand clergymen have incomes under 15W., some have lees than 101; while the Income of the poorest Prelate approaches that of a Secretary of State. There 'should be one general Church fund, and no ecclesiastical order should receive a preference over any other; for all were equally the servants of the Church, and all equally held its power and property in subserviency to its necessities and its benefit.

Mr. Reesman concluded with an culogium on the recent conduct of Govern- ment in its Church patronage, and rejoiced that a Prelate had been chosen for the highest ecclesiastical rule not on political considerations, but on account of the purity of his life and character. Lord AsuLge seconded the motion; thinking that equal and impartial menstire shotild be dealt out to all, and that while an increase of Bishops is not, a vast increase of working clergy is indispensable, at the present time.

Sir GEORGE GREY concurred in a great measure with Mr. Horsmau's arguments, but not with his resolution.

Measures were under Government consideration, by which some funds would be applied to provide an agency framed to penetrate the masses of the people, and visit them at their own homes under the direction of the parochial clergy. The o_pinion of the Bishop of London, that the episcopal and general fund should be kept distinct and never be fused, is but an individual opinion: no other Commissioner entertains it. The subject is under the attention both of the Government and the Commissioners; and it is hoped that the meesures in pre- paration will improve both the collection and the administration of eccle- siastical revenues. The adoption of the abstract resolution proposed, in the absence of any bill, would be attended with inconvenient consequences. Sir Heine would nat meet the motion with a direct negative, but would move the previous question, in order that the subject might be postponed, and be brought again before the House in a different shape.

PLUMPTEE and Lord SEYMOUR briefly supported ' the resolution. Sir-Ito-newt Nous doubted the propriety of a resolution to effect the °b- indle proposed; and on the Whole gave his support to Sir George Grey.

Sir RoisEnt.Petr, had also a difficulty in affirming by a resolution that which could" only be effectually done by a legislative measure.

• " Either the principle involved in this resolution is perfectly simple, or else it is not simple, but complex. If it be simple, then I say at once bring in a bill by means of which it shall be carried into practical operation. If it be complex, do not ask me to commit myself to something, respecting the details of which I have not heen informed; and I hope the House will not on this occasion involve them- selves in any inconsistency by voting for an opinion that is unfavourable to the principles of our past legislation upon this subject."

Sir Robert4upported the views already enforced respecting the parochial desti- tution-of Many districts; and pictured the painful position of lsrgyesa1of, benevolent feelings with bet 1501. a year and a congregation of 19., (t poor ; monk: In reference to the:great tithes, now held by Bishops...a:a print tea by Sir llobert-Iagrei,—he.euite agreed with those who-bold that4le propetty of eccleAstical:nor mitered ierations is sacred—as as any other sprihies$1 epro ity. " I should aa'strepuously. oppose the approprjatioti of church prapertselas I s obld resist interference with any other vested right. I say, that I am now opposed to any such appropriation; and, as fur as I can foresee any opinions of mine, I should say that, at all times, I shall be ready to oppose them: but the application of a portion of them to promote the interests of religion is a very different ques- tion. If honourable Members hold that the income of the Archbishop of Can- terbury may. be allowed to go on increasing till it reached a very great amount, say 200,0001, much as I respect the office and duties of that mo..t reverend Pre- late, I should be disinclined to manifest that respect by insisting that no pert of such a revenue was to be applied to the general advancement of religions inte- rests; and by the interests °Ilene-ion I mean religion as taught by the Estes bliehed Church In this matter we have no discretion to exercise; though I agree with the noble Lord opposite, that we might advantageously make some arrange- ment with regard to the Bishops' property different from that which now exists, provided such change be made consistently with the principles to which I have already adverted.'

Whatever is done, means must be taken to give some one an interest in pre- serving, improving, and upholding the estates of the Church. Sir Robert thought that object would not be easy to attain, but that a nearer approach could be made to it by a bill than by an abstract resolution. Piecing confidence in the intentions of the Government, he had rather leave them to introduce their measure than support the resolution proposed. Considering that the House seemed animated with a desire to promote the interests of the Church, Sir Robert hoped the reso- lution would not be firmed to a division. If its mover found the proposed mea- sures of Government fell short of his desires, he could then move any amendment with reference to this question, which might promise better to carry out his views.

Mr. VERNON SMITH expressed satisfaction at the general tone of the dismission. He was immediately followed by Mr. BRIGHT, in a speech of so aggressive sod quasi personal a character as to draw rebuke upon him- self, in particular from Mr. WOOD; and another from Lord JOHN RUSSELL.

Mr. GLantrrowe supported "the previous question," though acknow- ledginislie justice of most of Mr. Horsman's arguments and observations.

Mr. Wool), thought the whole of the Ecclesiastical Commission revenues should be thrown into one common fund for the relief of spiritual destitu- tion in whatever shape it existed.

Lord JOHN Roseau. admitted that he could not maintain the proposi- tion controverted by Mr. Horsman's resolution: nevertheless, with regard to the resolution, he said-

" I own I should be unwilling to agree to it, because I really do not know to ' what the House and the Government might be considered to be 'pledged if it were affirmed. I understood the right honourable gentleman the Member for Northampton to say that this re-solution was to obtain the whole of these funds for the purposes of parochial destitution, and that no part of them should be hereafter applied to the founding additional bishoprics. The honourable gentleman who spoke last, to whom I always listen with great pleasure upon these subjects, is of opinion that while it is of the utmost impart- smce to relieve the spiritual destitution of parishes, there are cases in which the . endowment of additional bishoprics might be likewise most useful to the Church. ;Mist is my own view too, I confess. While I quite agree in the great want of Additional funds for the benefit of large parishes, yet, considering the constitution Italie Church of England,—considering how much that constitution requires 49t!eepiscopal superintendence and how much a useful Bishop can do, not only

.

in the yofbat which may properly be called episcopal superintendence, but in the way of increasing the parochial ministrations of the country,—considering this, I should be most unwilling to agree to a resolution which a part of the House might declare afterwards had been one that was to put a decided veto against any

increase of Bishops hereafter. That is one of my reasons for not voting for this resolution as it stands."

With regard to Mr. Reesman's proposal, Lord John did not think there was abstractedly, any reason why the funds applied new to episcopal purposes should not be applied to parochial purposes as well. It was a convenient amingement that was made at the time: but 'if there were a surplus of these funds, and it were convenient that they should be merged together, he confessed that he thought they should be so merged. Lord John stated his intentions. " With respect to the alterations now suggested by the honourable Member for Cockermouth, I hope I may be permitted to state, that many things have occurred to me with respect to these acts for the amendment and reform of the Church, which require further consideration, sea as to which I am anxious to obtain the sanction and guidance of the Primate, although, from the circumstance of his Grace having so recently taken possession of his see, I have been unable to consult him on the subject. I am unwilling to state my views to the House as definitive opinions, until I have had an opportunity of ascertaining the sentiments of a person of such high character and unsullied purity, and who, besides having acquired great experience in one of the most po- pulous sees in the country, has distinguished himself by his zeal in diffusing the benefit of instruction in the principles of the Church of England. I therefore wish, before making up my mind op this subject and introducing any measure to Parliament with reference to it, to have the benefit of a full conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have no objection to the general proposition that the two funds should be united; but I am not sure that it may not be thought de- sirable to effect other reforms. If a bill should be introduced for the purpose of uniting the two funds, I think it is very probable that other questions would be immediately raised, and we should be asked whether we had made up our minds respecting them.' The other speakers were—:-Mr. HUME, who would place the fund under the management or lay Commissioners; Lord HARRY VANS, who thought a local application of the funds was desirable; and Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE. In reply, Mr. Hoitsisaw said, he was satisfied, after the ex- planations Government had given, to leave the matter in their hands. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

OUTGOING TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.

On Wednesday, the adjourned discussion of the second reading of Mr. Sharman Crawfoni's Outgoing- Tenant Bill proceeded for a considerable time.

The second reading was opPosed by a weighty legal speech from Mr. NAPIER. His chief objections to it were, that under the Semblance of dealing with the compensation for improvements, the bill really established what was called " fixity of tenure; and that it assumed all Irish land- lords to be bad and WO tenants to be virtuous. Sir GEORGE Gitea-also opposed the bill. He thought the true remedy for the agrarian evils of Ireland was to be found rather in mutual agreement between landlords and tenants,than in acts of Parliament; and considered it would be-hazardous to sanction the principle on which it was founded—that simple " occupa- tion," indePendently of improvement, gave a right to compensation. Major HI4osraix stated that losbild to bring far more ejectinents in respect to his property in the North, where tenant-right existed,. than in respect to his property in Limerick, where there was no such right. . Sir JOHN

WALSH also opposed thetbill , - •.„

LOD:I-CASTLEREAGH thought it fair that this bill should g6!to a Cern- mittee as well as,thedloveralnent billS "Thit'isecend reading ' was further supPorted by-Mr. Disetius Ofeotimost,,Mr: Eiwr, Colonel RAWDON, and Mr. SCIJLLY. MY. POULETT SCROPE thought that if the matter were not soon settled by Parliainenti. the people would settle it themselves in a very summary and disagreeable manner.

On a division, there appeared 145 to 22 against the seeond. reading. The bill therefore is lost.

THE INCOME-TAX BILL was read a second time in the House-of Lords on Thursday; the Marquis olLatiateaavwn explaining the measure. 'Lord SvaaLey took occasion to express his,cencureence .withMinieters in yielding to the general feeling against increase of the Ineeme-tax: and warned them against too hasty a reduction of taxes on the next rturence oft surphg.„..._ EMIGRATION TO CANADIc'k.1 9111914 P.0144)011 Monday, Lord STAN- LEY, stated that he hid received anopy-of it billnowintssing though the Cana- dian Legislature, -which would Much ampedethe action of-is bill recently passed here. By one provision in it: the preseet tax OR adult immigrants will be raised from 7s. to 20a.; the impost at New York- being but 10s. By another the captains of emigrant-vessels are. obliged; under penetty, to furnish minute infor- mation About each emigrant, which it is impossible they can always know. Lord Stanley inquired whether the Government intended to disallow this bill of the Colonial Legislature? Earl GREY regretted the enactment of the higher tax and the requirements binding on captaius. The situation of the colony, however, made it natural that there should be a-strong.feeling on the subject; for 100,0001 of expenseshad fallen on the colony from the sickness and 'death among immi grants. Lord 'Grey intended, however, to-vend out a despatch recommending some of the most 'objectionable clauses in the bill to be reconsidered. The opera- tion of the bill is Oonfined to one year. Until it has been received in the shape of a law, no advice can be given to:the Queen on the..point of disallowance. In the House of Commons, On the same evening, Mr. HAWES informed Mr. MONSELL that be could hold out no hope that the act would be disallowed.

IRISH BOARD OF WORKS. On Tuesday, Colonel DUNNE moved for volumi- nous returns of all estimates, plan of works, statements of pay, wages, and al- lowances, and the names of the receivers; accounts of homes, mules, and asses, employed; tools issued; and generally of all monies spent in Ireland under the 9th and 10th Victoria, cap. 107. There was a general complaint in Ireland that an enormous proportion of the funds advanced had, been ab- sorbed in expenses of the Government staff; and that a very small benefit had been reaped by the owners who were now responsible for the debt. Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that if it were passible to give the returns required, they could only be made in several months' time, and at an ex- pense of volumes of paper and thousands of pounds. Moreover, many of the facts were sufficiently evidenced by returns already made to the House. The original presentments were about 10,000,0001.; and the stun actually laid out on works was from 4,000,0001. to 5,000,0001. A brief discussion followed, in which it came out that Colonel Jones had been in the habit of siguing blank checks; a practice which was generally censured. Ultimately the motion was withdrawn.

EJECTMENT'S IN GALWAY. On Tuesday, Mi. r. Geonna gave explanations on the subject:of the share attributed to him in the late illegal eject:fleets in

way. The The only persons who had any legal interest his lands had been legally removed after legal notice, in consequence of the nonpayment of large arrears of rent: in every other instance the person removed was an intruder from some other region, who had squatted on his land without say sorreepermission.-.

IRISH WASTE LANDS. On Thursday, Mr. FITZSTEPIIEN FRENCH aSked twi to bring in a bill Mr the reclamation of waste lands in-Ireland.- The great, ob- stacle to the reclamation of waste-lends in that. country -is the difficulty of s1- fining boundaries between cootiguoua_svpottiesilt sisch km& Re :proposed to appoint the Chairman of the Board of Works, with two other persons unpaid, as Commission, with powers to fix upon the lands necessary for the public service; to dividethem into farms of 100 or 120 acres, and lease them. The measure was seconded by Mr. Potrurrr SCROPE, and supported by Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD. Sir GEORGE GREY did not oppose the motion hot foresaw difficulties, and sus- pended his judgment till he should see the bill.—Leave given. THE SATTARA CASE. On Thursday, Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON moved for s select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Court of Directors of the gast India Conap.ny and of the Government of Inaia towards the late Rajah of gattara. Mr. Thompson renewed the usual statements on the subject, with ad- ditional evidence. He promised that General Lodwick, one of the persons en- gaged in the affair, would depose how he had been instructed by Sir Robert Grant to employ two Native soldiers for the purpose of entrapping the Rajah into state- ments which should bark up an erroneous despatch that had been hastily sent to the Court of Directors, affirming his guilt; and how Colonel Ovans had sup- messed the evidence of a man who had disclosed a similar conspiracy against the jab. Mr. Thompson undertook to prove, from official and authentic evidence, that Colonel Ovens had systematically suppressed evidence, intercepted the Ra- jah's correspondence, and extorted false documents against the Rajah. Sir Tames Carnac had been forced into hostility against the Rajah by a threat from a mem- ber of the Council of Bombay, that if persevered in the opposite coarse mat- ters should be disclosed detrimental to his character as a public man. Sir Jolts HOBHOUSE---" God bless my soul!" Mr. TudarPsotir—" To that exclamation of the right honourable Baronet I say. Amen!" Mr. Thompson urged the House, in the name of justice, to grant inquiry—as rigorous as they pleased. Mr. CORNEWALL LEWIS opposed the motion mainly on the ground that charges so atincioue, against men like Sir Robert Grant—so spotless and unimpeachable— were incredible; that General Lodwick's evidence was the result of disappoint- ment; and that the whole affair was a res judicata. The motion was supported by Mr. CHISHOLM ANSTEY; opposed by Sir J. W. HOGG, who said that the charges had been repudiated again and again. Mr. THOMPSON—" But never antwered." Sir ,L W. Hoc° "At all events they have been repudiated, both at home and ithruad."—Debate adjourned.

wae

Pon. On Tuesday, Mr. ANSTEY moved an address to the Queen on occa- sion of the recent Continental eventa, praying her Majesty not to consent to any new territorial arrangement that did not recognize andsecure to Poland its liber- ties and independence. Mr. Anstey having supported his motion at some length, was seconded Mr. OSBORNE; who at the same Moment drew attention to the fact that fewer than forty Members were present. The SrEAKER immediately acted on the discovery, and adjourned the House. THE YARMOUTH FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL was read a second time on Wednesday.