ISebateit anti flrocettlingli in Parliament. 1. CORPORATION REFORM.

The House of Peers reassembled on Saturday; when Mr. Knight concluded his argument against the bill. He warned the Lords, as they valued their own priviieges, not to sanction its principle, and implored them to proceed no further with the measure—

By proceeding, they would recognize its principle. By undertaking its improvement—by allowing that it was susceptible of alteration—they would be admitting the principle of general and wholesale disfranchisement, on that notion of expediency which, if allowed to prevail, would put an end to the laws of seven hundred years, and destroy the distinction they had maintained between the peer, the peasant, and the burgher. In the words of the poet, 'Meet minion."

On that day when their Lordships admitted the principle of arbitrarily depriving the lowest member of the state of his privileges, the House of Peers might view the privileges of themselves as destroyed. To finish his quotation from the same author,

Sir Charles Wetherell then claimed the right of offering such evi • dence as he thought proper to negative the preamble of the bill.

Lord Bitouoittot said, that the course taken by Sir Charles was irregular. It could not be allowed that he should make another six hours' speech : at that rate there would be no end to the harangues of counsel. Sir Charles had made the claim, and that was sufficient.

Sir Charles Wetherell said, he did not wish to speak, if it were admitted that be bad made the claim.

Counsel were ordered to withdraw; and the Earl of WINCRILSEA addressed the House. Ile hoped that Lord Melbourne would weigh

well the course he meant to pursue

Neverdid this House stand in such a situation as that in which it was now placed ; and if, after what they had heard delivered at that bar, there was one particle of honour left in this House, England might still be what she had been—a great and respected nation. ( Opposition cheers.) He would ask, was there any man who had heard that mitt powerful appeal at their Lordships' bar, who could put his hand on his heart and say, if they were to pass this bill, which struck at every prerogative of the Clown, and at the just rights and privileges of the People, that such a course was not taken to gratify the most democratic spirit that ever disgraced the country. (Much Opposition cheering.) Of this bill, which had been allowed to come up to their Lordships' House, he would say, in God's name, let them resist it now ; let them resist it at once, and follow the advice which had been given them by counsel; let a Parliamentary commission he issued • let them proceed on constitutional grounds ; and he would give to the proceedings his best consideration and the warmest support in his power. They might rest assured that they could not take away the privileges of any body of men—privileges which were of as much value to them in their station as were those possessed by their Lordships, without incurring a danger, the mere contemplation of which made bun tremble. He was confident that the most fearful consequences would result not only to this House but to the whole empire. The least that could be said of those who had sanctioned this measure was, that they had adopted it inconsiderately, having been betrayed by those who had been employed. He did, then, implore Lord Melbourne to consider well the course he would pursue. They were placed in a difficulty from which, if they endeavoured to escape in the wrong direction, they would bring ruin on this happy land. So great was his apprehension, that he would give up all be possessed to see their Lordships placed in a different situation—to see them relieved from a bill which he held to be grounded on the most atrocious attacks on the property and liberties of the country. ( Opposition cheering.) Lord MELBOURNE replied— "I can tell the noble earl at once the course which I intend to pursue. Two counsel having been heard at your Lordships' bar on the principle of the bill, according to the wish of many noble lords in this House, I beg to say I will now move that the further consideration of the measure be adjourned ; and on Monday next I shall move that this House do resolve itself into a Committee

on the bill."

Lord WINCEHLSEA said, that in that case he should move as an

amendment, an address to the Crown praying for any further instructions which may have been given to the Commissioners than those contained in the documents on the table: he would divide the House on that amendment.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE asked, whether Lord Melbourne intended to refuse that evidence should be taken at the bar in suppoit of the application of counsel? Lord MELBOURNE—" Certainly. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall not consent to evidence being called." The Duke of NEWCASTLE then spoke with so much agitation that it wds almost impossible to catch his meaning. He was supposed to

say that Lord Melbourne,

if he refused to hear evidence, would pursue a coarse of CM. duct that was directly opposed to every constitutional principle that ouenthto govern a peer, a man, or a British subject. If the' noble viscount and ni friends meant that the rights of the People should he taken from them by a measure so extraordinary, so arbitrary, and so revolutionary,—if the noble vcount meant to lequire that this House should thus vote away the rights of hhie fellow subjects,—be did say, that the course wit* so atrocious, as reg.irdidi the rights, liberties, and privileges of his fellow citizens, that those Alineaers t King who sanctioned it would be liable to impeachment ; and if no otl.er person was willing to come forward to impeach them, he himself would do it.

(Loud cheers.)

Lord BROGGIIAM reminded the Duke of Newcastle, that Lord Melbourne must be impeached, if at all, by the Commons, and tried by the Lords ; and that it was therefore somewhat irregular in the Duke, who was to be one of the judges, to make himself a party in the cause. Some further conversation passed between Lord FALMOUTH, the Duke of CUMBERLAND, Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord LYNDHURST and, at the recommendation of the Duke of CUMBERLAND, the House adjourned to Monday, in order that their Lordships might have time to cool.

On Monday, the Peers reassembled. Several petitions were presented for and against the bill. Among the former, was one from Northampton, by Lord SPENCER: who stated his entire toncurrenee with the measure, and hoped that it would pass.

Lord MELBOURNE then rose to move the order of the day; and was proceeding to address the House, when he was interrupted by Lord FALMOUTII. Lord MELBOURNE said, that he moved the reading of the order of the day; and would state his reasons in support of the motion.

A scene of riotous confusion • ensued. It was plain that Lords LYNDHURST, FALMOUTH, WESTBIEATH, and others, wished to deprive Lord MELBOURNE of his right to address the House. Lord BROUGHAM interfered ; but this only increased the disorder. Lord MELBOURNE more than once attempted to make himself heard. Lord LONDONDERRY spoke some inaudible words. At length, Lord MELBOURNE took advantage of a cessation of the uproar, and gained the ear of the House.

Ile commenced by repeating, that after he had given his reasons for the motion, he should conclude by moving that the order of the day be read ; and then proceeded as follows.

" Amidst the political difference and dissensions with which we have been agitated for the last five years, and which I am afraid still continue to distract and divide us,—of which I sin not unwilling to say that I am quite sick and tired —(" Hear, hear !" and laughter)—amidst, my Lords, these political differences and dissensions, it would be a satisfaction, it would be a very great satisfaction to me, if I could anticipate that I was on the present occasion about to propose a measure in the principle of which your Lordships were all agreed ;if I could believe that you all agreed that there was some evil to be remedied, some de. ficiency to be supplied ; that the state of things required some measure to be adopted, and that the only difference between us was, what should be that measure—what should be that remedy, which waste supply an admitted deficiency, and to convert an admitted evil into an acknowledged good. I should be glad, my Lords, if I could anticipate this, and if I could rely on your agreeing on these things as they have been agreed on in another place. When I recollect that this bill passed without a single division on the principle of the bill—I do not say without a dissentient voice, for there was a protest against it by several Members of the other House of Parliament—but when I recollect that it passed without a single division as to the piinciple of the bill ; and when I recollect, too, that it was admitted by Members from all parts of the empire in that House of Parliament, and by those who were of weight and of authority in that House of Parliament, and who, I hope, will have some weight with your Lordships, that the measure was one of necessity, that the principle of the measure was admitted, and thanit was acknowledged, too, that the time had come and that the period had arrived when the regulation of the abuses of Corporations must take place, and when such a plan of corporate government must be adopted as should systematically correct those aburies,—I think I may draw some encouragement from the circumstance, and hope that in this House, as in the other, there will be but little difference on the principle of the mea sure, and that the difference between us will be chiefly one of detail. I trust, if that should be the case, that these details may be adapted so as to meet the evils they are intended to remedy. In all those great remedial measures in which we have been engaged of late years, it has been my most anxious wish to open them in such a manner as not to pi ovoke hostility ; so that if I was not justified in anticipating that there would be an agreement among your Lordships as to their adoption, I should do my utmost to promote a spirit of conciliation—. to open them in such a way as not to tend to excite irritation —not to use any topics of an irritating nature, and in my consideration of the subject rather to look forward to the future than backward to the past—not to view them so much with reference to their past evils as to look at them with a view to their future advantages, and thus to avoid as much as possible introducing any thing that might tend to inflame the prejudices and irritate the feelings, and so to obscure the judgments of those who heard me."

With this view, he should not direct attention to cases of peculiar delinquency, such as those of Ipswich and Norwich, but would take his stand upon broader, more general, and public grounds. He would not enter into the history of corporations, and was not disposed to deny that originally they might have been favourable to liberty and commerce. But, he continued,

" These institutions are too narrow for the times and circumstances in which we are placed, and they are now too narrow and confined for the community over which they preside ; they are unfitted to discharge satisfactorily the duties they have to perform ; they are not only unfitted to di.. charge those duties satisfactorily, but conduce to many other evils, many other dangers, and stand in the way of many other benefits; and, in my Opinion, instead of forming the bulwarks of internal security, they form a source of peril, of hazard, and of danger. I will take, by way of illustrating. this opinion, the cases of three corporations only ; against one of which a great deal has been alleged, and, it must be confessed, not altogether unreasonably, that corporation having certainly laid itself open to suspicion—very likely beyond what is strictly just—by refusing to give any account of its affairs. These corporatioas are in the capitals of three neighbouring and indeed contiguous Counties; they are all flourishing towns, and all of them towns of manufacturing and commercial importance. The mode of selecting the members of the Corporations is pretty nearly the same in all three; and with respect to the Coincidence in the working of these Corporations, I, from my knowledge of that part of the country, was struck with the fact long before this Commission or this inquiry was thought of. These towns are Nottingham, Leicester, and Derby; their circumstances coinciding in many respects, but in many respects placed in very different situations."

Lord Melbourne then explained, that although the Nottingham Corporation was in the hands of the Liberals, Leicester in those of the Tories, while Derby was under the control of the Cavendish family, yet such was the inveterate evil of the system, that in all three the same extensive evils and bad consequences—the exclusion of one half of the inhabitants from all participation of authority—prevailed. In Coventry, where the Corporation is divided equally between the two partiee, fraud, corruption, and violence, prevail in elections. But it eons in Bristol that the evils of the corporate system were most striking. When Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne had been painfully aware of

the dangerous state of things in that city. Mr. Hogg, in his protest

said " No good man, no real wellwisher of the parties themselves, tau approve of the extreme hostility %hid& sonic of the inhabitants of Bristol. it is hoped but few of them, seem to entet tail. for the Corporation of their ancient and famous city, and for which the printed Report, although not penned in a spirit of kindness. has displayed no ark9uate cause. It WAS necessary to hear the evidence given on the trial at bar or the information tiled by your Majesty 'd Attoruey-Heucral against Charles Pinney, Hs+, sometime Mayor of the city of Bristol. and to observe the temper with which it was given, in order to estimate correctly the insane malignity by winch misguided persons may sometitnes be animated—to understand how it may happen that thy inhabitant should be willing his house and goods should be consumed, that the tradestnan should be content to see his shop in flames, And that the citizen should rejoice to have his whole city wasted, so that the Mayor and Justices might incur blame."

" That (said Lord Melbourne) is very strong language—more strong then I should use ; but, my Lords, I think it is true. I think there was that feeling in Bristol, though I would not venture to state it. I think there was a feeling of detestation entertained against the Corporation ; that they were unwilling to repress violence., at least beforehand ; and I think the language of Mr. Hogg is not stronger than is warranted by the facts. Why, then, my Lords, it 1. because the Corporation has no community of feeling with the public it is because of its secret character and mode of proceeding, and above all, because of its exclusive nature and oligarchical character, that these evils are produced which threaten the peace and security of the country. Why, good God, my Lords, we have passed through troublesome times—have seen a great deal of public excitement and publ;c tumult—but I can only say that I have felt much less fear from Birmingham or Manchester, than I have from any town where there was a corporation, and for that very reason. Great excitement has prevailed in Birmingham and Manchester, but there was no local odium, no local hatred, no local irritation, which are all far more violent than the hatred and irritation arising from public and political causes. In places having Corporations, we have not only irritations arising from the agitation of Parliamentary Reform, or the amendment of the Poor-laws, to guard against, but we have the Corporations themselves to contend with. There we have a peculiar element of evil, an additional source of danger — a system of things which, in fact, alienates the great majority of the inhabitants from the King's Government, and makes them disposed, if not to disturb, at least to wink and connive at the dis

turbance of the public peace.

It was in the administration of justice that the evils-of the existing system were perhaps, after all, the most glaring " Justice is the air which we breathe, it is the health of our lives ; if that be unjustly administered, or if it be irremediably suspected, then for that community there is no satisfaction, there is no peace, there is no happiness whatsoever." Lord Melbourne proceeded to express his belief that justice was not so corrupted even in the corporations of cities as it was in the small boroughs, which were convulsed with conflicting political feelings. Their Lordships were aware of the strength of those convulsions, and of the violence, hatred, and animosities which accompanied them. They overturned the understanding, corrupted the feelings, and made men forget every thing that was just and right. Even their Lordships were sometimes carried away by feelings of that nature; but he Was aristocratic enough and knew enough of human nature to know that those feelings were ten thousand times more intense in lower classes of society. So strongly did they operate, that it was impossible to obtain justice from Magistrates if' those towns at election times. The only inquiry made was, on what side was the party accused and accusing ? This decided the matter, and not the principle of justice. He would not dwell further upon this. But this in his opinion, formed one strong ground on which to rest his case, and upon which he called on the House to go into Committee on the bill.

It had been objected to the bill, that there was no qualification for Town-Councillors : but he would observe, that the idea of a qualification in corporate bodies was perfectly new. There existed no such thing at present. There were other objections raised by counsel—. "It was said that the Corporations were to be founded on annual elections. The answer was, all elections in corporate bodies had always been annual. It might be a wrong, or it might be a wise system, but it was no novelty. It was then said by the learned counsel, that we were going to establish a system of republics throughout the country. But we found those republics already established. If a town having a right to settle its own municipal government, to manage its own local affairs, and regulate its own police, were indeed a republic, then this system of republics had been already established by the ancient constitution of this country. The only alteration this bill proposed to make was that these republics should be popular instead of being oligarchical. They were at present nothing but oligarchies, and accompanied by all the evils and miseries that hat in all places and at all times flowed from that system of government ; a iystan which never promoted the welfare of those committed to its charge, but winch was always the object of hatred, odium and detestation— a system which generally terminated in tumult, turmoil, rebellion, and blood. That was the alteration we proposed to make. We were about to give the whole body of the people some interest in the government of their towns, and by that means to give them an interest in the preservation of the public peace and the protection and good management of public property."

One great object of the bill was to establish an efficient police

" Nobody could look, without feeling considerable apprehension, at the deficient and defective state of the police in the various great towns of the kingdom. They all knew, from the experience of the late few years, the benefit that had arisen from the institution of a well-settled police. Since the period of the establishment of the London Police, though they had passed through times likely to produce disturbance of the public peace, yet they had not been obliged to call out a single soldier in quelling riot. This was a great recommendation ; especially when their Lordships recollected the period when, on occasion of riots insignificant nsignificant in their character, those who opposed them threw the towns into great alarm, and„, the destruction of property was hazarded by regiments of cavalry being quartered on the inhabitants for several days. All attempts to extend the system into the country had failed ; but when the town should have a representative body which would hay; the resolution to carry into effect measures necessary for an effective police, it would remove that inefficiency which had hitherto resulted from a general assembly of the rate-payers, who never could be induced to tax themselves."

Lord Melbourne adverted to several other points of detail ; and concluded by moving the order of the day for the House going into Committee on the bill.

The Earl of CARNARVON was anxious that the measure should receive calm and cool consideration. He was not opposed to a measure of corporate reform : great abuses existed, and should be remedied ; and whoever might be Minister, would find it necessary to introduce some measure of corporate reform. But be put it to their Lordships' sense of justice, whether they could pass the bill before them without hearing evidence in disproof of the allegations in the Commissioners' Report, on which the bill was founded. He thought not ; and would therefore moue, n That evidence be taken at the bar of this House in support of the allegations of the several petitions, praying to be heard against t he bill, before the House be put into a COmmittee of the whole House on the said bill," Lord WINCHILSEA and Lord BROUGHAM rose together; and there was a struggle for precedence, which created much confusion. Lord WESTMEA'TH said that Lord Winchilsea ought to speak, because he had given notice of a motion. Lord Bnoucitam said, he could not interpose his motion while another was before the House. Lord WINCHILSEA said be was going to speak on the motion before the House. Lord BROUGHAM said, in that case he would cheerfully give way : be had been " taken in—misled " by the incorrect reason assigned by Lord Westmeath.

Lord WINCHILSEA then proceeded

Hecould fairly and honestly state, that he approached the question uninfluenced by any party feeling ; because it so happened that he differed as much with respect to It from many of his noble friends who sat on that side of the House, as he did from any of the noble lords who sat opposite. He was not unfriendly to Municipal Reform. He did not deny-that the altered circumstances of the country might demand very considerable changes in existing institutions. He did not deny the propriety of instituting an inquiry as to the expediency of extending those rights and privileges at present confined to a comparative few in all corporate towns. He did not mean to deny that very considerable abuses might in the course of time have crept into the administration of corporate property,. But there he took his stand. He maintained that the bill had come up to them upon grounds so unconstitutional as to render it impossible for their Lordships to entertain it. Ile maintained that the Commission upon whose report the bill was founded, was not legal, was not constitutional. (" Hear, hear !") There he took his stand.

He maintained that corporate property was private property; for it was originally given to individuals for services rendered in times of great difficulty and danger. He concluded by reading an amendment, though he did not move it, to the effect,

"That though the House was at all times prepared to lake into its consideration. and to give every support to which it was entitled, to any measure founded on constitutional prineiples, having for its object the extension of political rights and privileges, &c.• yet it telt it its bounden duty to withhold its consent to this measure, on account of the unconstitutional principles on which it was founded, and in the absence of any evidence on which the destruction of the charities of 185 corporate towns could be justified."

Lord BROUGHAM then delivered a long speech, which is but imper fectly reported. He declared his astonishment at the amendment proposed by Lord Carnarvon. In the first place, he was astonished, because, after what passed on the first night, when counsel were proposed to be heard—when it was distinctly stated on that side of the House, by all who agreed to the proposition, that it was adopted on the footing of its taking two, or at most three days, to discuss the matter—when it was known that bad they been of opinion that it would take more than such a period, there was no extremity of debate or dis cussion in that House which they would not willingly have preferred to hearing one single counsel make one single statement at the bar—and when now, having heard counsel at no little length, for three long days—after hearing all that two

of the most eminent and the most learned of them could urge—when, after all that, it was threatened to tender, by way of evidence, that which he would pre

sently show to their Lordships amounted to absolutely nothing—when, instead

of proceeding to discuss the principle of the bill, as had been agreed by compact, by compromise—("No, no!" and cheers)—when, instead of taking that course which he maintained had been determined upon by special agreement, at the time that the discussion of the principle was deferred upon the second qadingwhen, instead of taking that course, it was proposed to hear more counsel, and to call in witnesses—that proposition coming, to make the thing more wonderful still, from a noble earl who prefaced his statement with an admission which, to use a legal phrase—and a legal phrase on an occasion when the legality of a proceeding was questioned, might not be deemed out of place—when the noble earl then in legal phrase prefaced his speech with one admission which "showed him out of court," and again concluded his speech by declaring that he desired not to interpose one hour's delay between the House and the passing of the bill—when he found a proposition for the future hearing of counsel and the examination of witnesses come from a noble lord who so expressed himself-and when he remembered the especial agreement and compact into which the House had entered when it was just determined that counsel should be called in,—he confessed he could not adequately express the astonishment he felt at the course it was now proposed to pursue. But the noble earl's admission at the outset of his speech was in fact utterly destructive of the proposition with which he concluded. The noble earl began by stating that he candidly and fairly admitted in the fullest extent the absolute necessity of Corporation Reform. All that lie allowed—all that he stated as a matter which no man could doubt —and the greater part of all that was admitted by the noble earl who moved the amendment was admitted also by the noble earl (Winchilsea) who spoke after him ; but he wanted to have evidence to show that abuses existed—that the constitution of the corporate bodies was bad—that the evils which existed in the system were such as to produce evils in practice—in short, admitting the existence of evils and abuses, the noble earl, with admirable consistency, required that they should be proved. The noble earl admitted that the evil existed, and that a remedy was wanted ; yet, admitting these two facts, he required that proof should be called to their Lordahips' bar, and your Lordships' time spent, or misspent rather, in hearing evidence upon points upon which no one pretended to entertain a doubt. The noble earl commenced by admitting that to hear evidence was utterly useless and unnecessary—( "No, no!")—because he admitted the very things to prove which evidence alone was required. ("No, no!") But Lord Brougham found that some of their Lordships were already assuming a judicial character, and were even pronouncing a judicial decree against him as he passed along. He heard some noble lords pronouncing with authoritative mien and voice, "No, no no!" therefore he must be pardoned if he presumed to show, show, show—(Laughter and chccrs)—that the evidence which was about to be called to their Lorilehips' bar did not in reality lead to the possibility of any one result, except the spending of the valuable time of that House, and the frustrating the just hopes and expectations of the countiy.

It had been said that there was no precedent for refusing to hear evidence against the bill—.

In reply to that argument, he would only intreat their Lordships' attention to two cases—the measure for the abolition of Heritable Jurisdictions in 1747, and the proposed measure for the abolition of Negro Slavery in 1807. In each of those cases, interests far more important were as deeply, and even more deeply involved, than in the present instance; yet in each of these cases what was the course pursued ? Counsel were called in and heard upon the principle; but when they proposed to support them statements by evidence, they were immediately oidered to withdraw, and in neither case was a single witness heard.

Lord Brougham then at great length defended the legality of the Commission; and replied in detail to several of the arguments urged by Sir C. Wetherell and Mr. Knight. He spoke in high terms of the conduct of the Commissioners generally, and read some passages

from the Report and Protest of Mr. Hogg, which tended, as he said, to confirm the impression he had of Mr. Hogg, when he knew him on

the Northern circuit—namely, that he was a person full of joke and merriment; and be really could not believe him serious in many of his

remarks, though he had himself recommended Mr. Hogg to the CUM. missionership. He alluded to the torrents of abuse which bad been poured upon the bill— Every species of vituperative expression and offensive epithet bad been lavished on those who had sanctioned this bill. Never was there such an instance of ignorance or tyranny on record. Who had looked at the bill ? No lawyer could ever have seen it. To whom was this language applied ?—Not to t'huse who supported the bill in that House; but the body to which these words might be applied were nothing more or less than the Commons of England in Imperial Parliament assembled, and truly representing the People. (Loud cheers.) Again, it was said by one of the learned barristers, " that a bill was passed, called the Reform Act, I know not exactly in what year." " Oh yes," exclaimed Lord Brougham, " you do know the year well; you and those that instructed you, and those that you spoke for, and that you spoke to, know well what year It was that bill passed. And if you were to live not seven years, but seventy times seven years, after the bill passed, you will reflect—some of you at least with a bitter pang—to the last hour of your existence, on the passing of the i Reform Act, n the year 1832." ( Great cheers from the Ministerial beaches.)

But the opponents of the present measure would accept reform from the Tories

" Oh," it was said, on the part of the Corporations, " but we are ready to accept reform, provided it comes to us from a friendly hand; we are quite ready to sacrifice our rights ; we care not a farthing for the property or privileges which we have enjoyed since the days of Edgar and Alfred, by the sanction of the wise the pure, and the honest of all ages : every thing shall he aband,,ned cheerfully, even the Aldermanic robes of dignity, provided always that the sacrifice be demanded at our hands by a Tory Administration. From them we would receive as a blessing and a boon what from others would appear to us a burden and a curse. Not that we should altogether enjoy our degradation, or revel in feastless indolence. No; we are aware of the sacrifice we should make ' • but this good at least would begained to us, that we should have our friends in otlice, and we are necessarily friends of a Tory Administration." This was the real meaning of the arguments on the other side; but no man of common consistency of purpose, who hoped to earn a title to the respect of his countrymen, could for a moment lend his sanction to it.

Lord LYNDHURST, after some preliminary remarks, adverted to the precedents quoted by Lord Brougham— One of these precedents was the bill for the abolition of Hereditary Janis. diction in Scotland. It was said that here no witnesses were examined after counsel had been heard. Now, in order to make this precedent a case in point, noble lords would ask, was evidence tendered ? if tendered, was it discissed ? if discussed, was it rejected ? If this point could not be made out, what became of the precedent? Noble lords, however, would be surprised to hear that this was quite the reverse of a precedent in favour of Lord Brougham ; for in this very case evidence was tendered and received without an obje,-tion. True, this was only documentary evidence, but still it was evidence, and was as such received. So much for Lord Brougham's first precedent. The second precedent relied upon was the bill for the abolition of the Slavetrade. Before Lord Brougham had relied upon that case, he should have extended his inquiries, and ascertained what objections were made to the evidence in the cast,. It was true that Lord Grenville opposed the reception of some evidence in that case, and the House adopted his objection, but on grounds totally different from those taken now. Lord Grenville objected to the evidence, because in fact it was not evidence. He would read the passage, as confirmatory of the statement he had made. " Mr. Plummer, the counsel, observed, that front the long period Lord Balcarres had been Governor of Jamaica, he would be able to point out the consequences of this hill to the West India proprietors." Lard Grenville had hereupon remarked, that it was irregular to examine witnesses at their Lordships' bar who had no facts to state, but who merely appeared to express their views and opinions. No doubt, in this case, Lord Grenville was perfectly correct in describing such evidence as irregular ; for the House had to decide upon facts, not upon prophecies; and therefore he moved, supported by Lords Eldon and Liverpool, that the next witness he called. So much for Lord Brougham's second precedent. Now, if that nobleman, with all his acknowledged sagacity and accuracy, could not, with two or three days' notice, find out more substantial precedents than these, what conclusion could the House come to as to the justice and propriety of the case? The Slave-trade case also called to his recollection, that at the time it was brought forward, 1792, the agent for Barbadoes prayed to be heard vied voce at their Lordships' bar ; and his evidence was not only heard, but ordered to be printed. This fact put a final answer to his noble and learned friend's precedents.

With regard to the motion before the House, he could not conceive how any person with a sense of justice could refuse to hear evidence in defence of the parties accused ; but the fact was, that the object of the supporters of the bill was simply to strengthen a political party— This was a fact which no individual was so blind as not at once to perceive. The real object of bringing this bill forward at this season was with a view to the next election. Noble lords were aware of the great struggle which had been made in another House to prevent the division of the larger towns into more numerous wards, whereby a more mixed return had been effected. It was said that this was not a party reform, but one of principle ; but the Commission which Government had had the indecency to issue for dividiug the great towns into wards, before the bill had either passed the Lords' House or received the Royal assent, clearly proved that the whole was a party affair. Let Mr. Joseph Parkes, the keen, intelligent, active agent of that party, deny this if he could. By their own words and deeds they were convicted. "The division of these wards," it was recommended, "should be kept altogether a secret for the present." Was this no party matter ? Why, the supposed triumph of that party was the talk of all their clubs ; where the House of Lords, if it dared to assert the claims of justice and to act upon them, was attacked with the coarsest calumny and abuse. Yes, the sole object of this bill was the aggrandizement of the Whig power : the Reform Bill, it was found, had not sufficiently effected that cherished object ; and so the Municipal Corporation Bill was brought forward. This, if it did not complete the party triumph, would be followed up by other " Reform" measures : for so said Isaac Tonikins, in his new pamphlet, called "We Can't Afford It ;" and no man could better prop up a bad cause than Isaac Toinkins. (A laugh.) Isaac Toorkins said, "The same may be said of Municipal Reform, a measure of infinite use in furthering our emancipation from the Tory yoke, and of the next reform (the lowering of the qualification) which must be carried in order to complete the overthrow of our former masters." This was the line of argument which was made use of to authorize a departure from all the rights of property. He denounced, as a base, covert, political manceuvre, the attempt to deprive the freemen of the right of voting seemed to them by the Refoam Act. He asked the House, if it was just to pass such a bill on the authority of the Comnaissioners' Report ; for that Report was after all the groundwork of the measure? Who were the Commissioners upon whose authority they were called upon to pass this bill ? He asked their Lordships, what individual among them knew any thing of the Commissioners who had made this Report, or whether there was one noble lord in twenty who had heard the name of any one of them pronounced, until he saw the Report on the table ? He himself knew Nomething of these Commissioners, and the result of his knowledge of them he would soon communicate to their Lordships. He had already said, that in the appointment of Commissioners they required that they should be free from all imputation or suspicion of partiality or party motives. If a Comroittee were appointed in the Commons—in the olden tune at least—to investigate any trifling matter, it would be matter of reproach to the party propoaing it if he did not select a Wiled Committee, composed fairly of men of both sides of the house. Now let him direct their attention to the Report, and to the Commissioners themselves. Several of these gentlemen be knew ; and he begged to say, that in the oPservations he was about to make, he meant not in the slightest degree to reflect on theil private character or conduct—he alluded to them merely as party men. The first name he found on the list was Mr. John Blackburne. " I need not describe him (continued Lord Lyndhurst) ; everybody knows that he is a firm, &determined, uncompromising, and unflinching Whig. Ile is at the head of the Commission ; and this is ha, character—a very re,pectable man notwithstanding. The next was George Long—a very respectable Mail—went the same circuit with myself—but a Whig too. Theta we have Sampson Augustus Ittunball—a Whig, and something more. George Hutton Wilkinson—whom I am less acquainted with, but a Whig also, and seam:thing more. Thomas Jefferson Ilogg—my noble and learned friend, I am sure will vouch for Mr. Hogg as having always been considered at least a Whig. Peregrine Bingham—Whig again, my Lords, and something more. David Jardine—determined Whig. ,John Elliot Driukwater —strongly Whig. Thomas Flower Ellis— a follower, 1 believe, of my noble fiiend ; a Whig, I think he will not deny ; I do not say he is more. James Booth—Whig. Henry RoscoeI have the honour of knowing—honourable man—Northern circuit— decidedly Whig. Charles Austen—able man; but I should say rather more than a Whig. I know him well, and a very respectable man he is. Edward Rushton and name. Alexander Edward Cockburn—a Whig, and more. John Buckle—a Whig, and more. Daniel Maude—very respectable man—goes the Northern circuit ; but, as my noble and learned friend knows, strongly, strongly Whig. John Gambier—a gentleman who, I believe, did not sign the Report —strongly Whig. And last of all—though I must not, on reflection, say least either, for there is one other very important personage behind, Sir Francis Palgrave—not a Whig. Nineteen Commissioners who are Whigs, my Lords, and one who is not a Whig, but who has written on the subject of corporate reform, and is a good deal disposed against existing corporations. Last of all among these gentlemen, comes the Secretary—a frieud of my noble and learned friend again—Mr. Joseph Parkes, Secretary to the Political Union, Secretary of the Birmingham Union ! (cheers.) Secretary to this Commission, und Secretary to the Dividing Commission, giving instructions for the others to proceed upon—Mr. Joseph Parkes. ( The reading of this list caused considerable laughter in the House.) Now, I ask your Lordships, would you dispose of the most trifling pecuniary interest, where a question of party was concerned, by a tribunal so constituted ? 1 would appeal with confidence to my noble arid learned friend : if he were not sitting here as a party-man, he would ridicule the idea—he would laugh it to scorn. Would to God, my Lords, I had my noble and learned friend's power of ridicule and sarcasm ! How he would ' show up ' the twenty ! How Mr. Blackburne would figure as the prominent character in the procession ; and how admirably would the rear be brought up by his friend, Mr. Joseph nukes. 1Ve have nut even the advantage of the joint judgment of the twenty, my Lords, whatever that might be worth; as two Corn. missioners, or in some instances only one, is sent to make inquiries and collect evi. deuce. Ills report is transmitted to the Committee in town, and they, acting on that report, make their General Report—a very extraordinary mode of proceeding, I must say. I ask your Loidships, if I were sent down to a town divided into two parties—and in what country town are there not two parties? —if I, bolding the King's seal in any hand, declared that I came down there to receive colup:aints, do you think I should not in any place, however well regulated or well governed, have abundance of evidence to take down, from which I could manage to draw up a plausible report? But, any Lords, what is it we have here? We have no evidence. We have only the conclusions which these

gentlemen think proper to draw from the evidence—not the conclusions of the twenty, but the conclusion of the one or two individuals in each particular

place. My Lords, is not this fact in itself sufficient to destroy the Report ?" Lord Lyndhurst pointed out some errors in the Reports of the Commissioners ; which he maintained, went to destroy all trust in

their general correctness. He referred to Lord Broughatn's bill for establishing corporations in the new Parliamentary boroughs, and argued that Lord Brougham, the author of a bill which provided for the election of Aldermen for life and for 10001. qualification for Town Councillors, could not consistently support the present measure. Lord Lyndhurst concluded by declaring that this was a party measure— "Do you not see and agree with me, that under pretence to pass a bill to regu

late corporations, it is a party job? (Loud Opposition cheers.) It is brought forward for parry purposes—to supply the deficiencies of the Reform Bill—to destroy the Conservative interest in this and the other House of Parliament, in order for a shurt time—and, my lords, it will be but a short time—that the Whigs may triumph over them."

The Earl of RADNOR remarked, that Lord Lyndhurst's speech was clearly for throwing out the bill, though the question before the House was whether evidence on the bill should be heard or not. He denied that the measure was founded on the Commissioners' Report, hut, like the Reform Act, it rested upon the notoriety of the fact that a reform of the Corporations was necessary. If the bill was such as its opponents described it, they ought to throw it out at once, and not tamper with it by hearing evidence.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE supported the amendment ; not, he declared as a man of honour, for the purpose of procuring delay, but as a measure ef justice.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that to agree to the amendment, would be to stifle the measure. He contrasted the conduct of the Opposition in that House with that which the same party had adopted in the House of Commons— This bill might be as detestable in its object, and as unconstitutional in character, as It had been described to lie; yet it had not been impeded in the other House on any such ground ; it had not even been opposed in its principle in any one stage of its progress through that place. Ile was glad to hear from the noble lord opposite, a declaration that the principle of self-election was the cause of the prevalence of the abuses which existed in Corporations. On this principle, then, it appeared they all agreed ; and it might almost be assumed that their object in common was the utter and final extinction of this bad system of election. Lord Lyndhurst, however, with that sign of prudence which was peculiar to him when he addressed the House, took care in no one sentence of his speech which he could tax himself with recollecting, to admit that he would consent to see the principle of self-election altered. With all that caution which was characteristic of a very prudent man, who was not exactly aware of the situation he might be placed in another year, he had carefully left to himself a loophole through which he might creep, and make the admission that such reform as was now proposed was necessary. He challenged any one to deny that the examination of vitalises at the bar of their Lordships' House would be equivalent to defeating the bill altogether in any shape, and in all shapes.

It might be true, that in the live folio volumes of the Commissioners' Reports there might be some inaccuracies—it would be extraordinary if there was not ; but there was nothing in them to justify the accusation that the inquiry had been conducted with party views.

What were the noble lords opposite admitting, if what they stated about this being a party measure were correct? Were they of opinion that those prin. ciples, and that party to which they were attached, stood PO IOW in the opinion of the population of this country, that the mere destruction of the self-elected Corporations was to overthrow their interest ? Were they of opinion, that the mere introduction of the principle of popular election into these bodies would establish that principle which they held so in abhorrence, and which Lord Lyndhurst would say was the Whig principle, or something more than Whig? The noble and learned lord bad thought proper to indulge in a course of observations upon the.gentlemen who drew up this Report, for which the slight expression of approbation which accompanied it did not afford a very satisfactory apology. Lord Lyndhurst said he knew them to he most respectable individuals, of strict honour and integrity in private life ; yet he on the other baud asserted, that they would lend themselves for party purposes to carry on a quasi judicial inquiry ; and that they would collect evidence and partially select the facts that came before them, with the intention of misleading the Government and Parlianteut RS to the result of their inquiry. It was easy to fix a vague stigma upon public men ; and Lord Lyndhurst dealt largely in that sort of stigma, his object being

to fix a particular character upon those gentlemen. H ' e could assure him that

with their politics he was himself unacquainted ; they might be what Lord Lyndhurst had described them; but suppose that Lord Lyndhurst Was quite right in that respect, he did not know that the circumstance of a man being born a Whig, and something more than Whig, was to disqualify him for the exercise of Any sort of judicial functions. He was afraid that if the circumstance of an individual having been " a Whig, or something more than Whig " were to be a disqualification, it would reach to much higher and nature eminent characters( Great cheering)—than those who had been subject to the noble and learned lord's insinuations. (Renewed cheers.) He would say, in justice to individuals both in this House and out of it, that he did not believe that the circumstance of having been a Whig, and something more than Whig, unfitted a man for the exercise of any public function. But though Lord Lyndhurst endeavoured to cast only vague imputations upon the characters of must of the Commissioners, there was one imputation in which he indulged which was of a specific nature. The noble and learned lord, for the purpose of effect, and creating an unfevourable impression against one of the individuals who was not here to defend himself, wound up his list of characters, repeating it again and again, with the remark that Mr. Parkes was the Secretary of the Birmingham Political Union. Now, in this single instance, in which he condescended to name a specific fact, he was mistaken as to that fact. (A laugh and cheers.) He had received the most distinct assurance that Mr. Parkes never was the Secretary of the Birmingham Political Union. (cheers, and one or two cries of" No I " from the Opposition side.) He was quoting the expression of the noble aid learned lord ; he imputed again and again that Mr. Parkes was Secretary of the Birmingham Political Union ; and he now told him that he was afraid that that imputation was incorrect. No doubt, Lord Lyndhurst Wk9 mistaken ; but finding that he was so, would he not extend a little of the charity to those Commissioners which he was under the necessity of claiming for himself? ( Cheers.) Lord LYNDHURST denied that he had attacked the Commissioners; be had attacked those who appointed them : so much for that— There was another point on which he wished to remark. He felt that the noble marquis, in what he had said of those who were Whigs and something more than Whigs, had coaveyed an insinuation against him. Ile never belonged to any party till he came to the House of Lords. He had never belonged to any political society. He had been in Parliament for sixteen years, and he wished the noble marquis, if he could, to point out any speech or act of his which would justify his being described as a \nig, or something more than a Whig. The Duke of NEWCASTLE strongly supported the amendment—

This being a bill of pains and penalties, it was impossible that, acting in their judicial character, they could pass it without calling evidence. Ile confessed he was no Reformer. He objected to the word Reform, because it ccanpreheaded a Revolutionary principle. The country had gone a vast deal too far. in these measures of reform. To pass the bill would be a violation of Magna Chat ta. Ile objected to the measure altogether. He should wait to see what course was taken by other noble lords; • but, unless some one else did so, he should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.

Lord MONSON had always understood that Mr. Parkes was Secre

tary to the Birmingham Political Union. •

Lord DUNCANNON said, that Mr. Parkes had never even been a member of the Council.

Lord MONSON believed he was an active agent of the Union.

Lord HATHERTON said, he had once been professionally consulted by the Union.

Lord PLUNKETT spoke against the amendment.

The Duke of WELLINGTON supported it— He bad at first been certainly disposed to go into Committee, with a view of making many alterations in the bill ; but when he came to hear counsel at the

bar, he saw it was impossible for him to do otherwise than agree to the motion

of Lord Carnarvon. Ile certainly did not think that so sweeping and general a corporate reform would have been introduced founded on the Report of the

Commissioners. Many of these corporations had conducted themselves most

laudably. The Corporation of Liverpool would be a credit to any country. The .asure was not general; it was only directed against 180 out of 300 corporatians. If any of these corporations misconducted themselves, the Court of King's Bench was the place where they should be brought to account. His vote should be given on the ground that it was not right to deprive these Corporations of their privileges and property except by a due course of law. Lord RIPON opposed, and the Marquis of BUTE supported the amendment, in brief speeches. Lord MELBOURNE replied. He began by alluding to Lord Lyndhurst's remarks on the precedents quoted by Lord Brougham— lie has told us that his precedent of the course taken by this House upon the Slave-trade was not in point, because upon that occasion the evideuee offered was evidence of opinion, not evidence of fact. Now, my Lords, I think there is some reason to doubt the accuracy of the noble and learned lord's statement; and although he represents that he has taken it from the reports of the proceedings, it is to he observed that the reports of those days were not taken with that accuracy which distinguishes those of the present time. But, may Lords, the noble and learned lord, not content with this manner of getting over the difficulty presented by my noble and learned friend, goes further back in Parliarnene tary history, and finds out that in the year 1793, this House did hear evidence at the bar, upon a bill for the abolition of the Slave-trade. They did so, indeed, my Lords ; but that was when the House swamped the bill sent up from the CUD-1E001M (Loud Ayers from the Ministerial benches.) When they Wanted to destro_y the bill, they took the course now proposed with regard to the bill on your Lordships' table, of hearing evident* against it. But in MOO, When they wanted to pass the measure for the abolition of the Slave-trade, they refused to hear evidenoe, as has been already stated by my noble and learued friend. (Loud cheers.) I must say, my Lords, that I cannot look upon the means taken to perpetuate the nefarious traffic in human flesh as a fit and proper precedent for your Lordships to follow with regard to the alleged abuses In Corporations."

He remarked on the breach of the engagement entered into on a previous night, when it was understood that the House should go into Committee after hearing the speeches of Sir C. Wetherell and Mr. Knight " I certainly, my Lords, should not the other night have consented to the post. ponement of the discussion, if I had not been misted and deceived as to the intention of the opponents of this measure. (Load cheers.) I ask if there was not a clear understanding—whether, if not in precise terms, there was not a distinct feeling, amounting to an implicit understanding—that no advantage was to be taken for the purposes of delay ? I state, my Lords, that I so understood its and that such was the feeling of the House ; and I beg for once to declare, that I will not again enter into any such understandings with those who afterwards may not have the will, or may want the power, to give effect to them:,

Be had many observations to make on the discussion; with which, however, he would not trouble the House.

"I think (Ile continued) you did wrong in hearing counsel. I think you will do further wrong in hearing evidence. This bill has been called a bill of pains and penalties : it is neither in form nor in substance such a bill : it has nothing in common with a measure of that description. It is a bill of general legislation : and I tell you that, by the course you are now putsuing, you are tearing up your own legislative powers by the roots. No bill can be presented to your Lordships, against which some persons may not allege, and with truth, that he has tights and interests involved in the issue of it ; and if you are never to pass any bill without following the couise for which you now propose to establish a precedent, you will destroy your own legislative power, and most effectually tear up your own authority in the State by the roots. I know not, my Lords, to what facts we are called to bear evidence. If counsel are to be confined to the proof of those facts set forth in their speeches, I am quite sure that we need not waste our time by hearing their witnesses. Those facts will not affect the bill, but the proving of them will be productive of inter minable delay. It is proposed, however, by the counsel, that a copy of tide bill shall be served upon every corporation ia the kingdom. The object of this is clear ; but I beg leave to state to those who are the abettors of this proceeding, that I am not to be beaten by delay. (Prolonged cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The noble lords who are the abettors of this proceeding will take upon themselves the conduct and Marshalling of the evidence. I, for my part, will attend in my place, and do the best in my power to advance the progress of the bill, and promote the interests of the country. My Lords, the learned counsel at the bar has told you that this bill will ptove the destruction of this House: I third:, any Lords, that

it may :

" ills dies utramque, Duca raivant."

"Why, my Lords, every one who knows the passage thus quoted by the learned counsel, knows that it alludes to a case of self •inutiolation—( Chet rs)—of selfdestruction—( Cheers)—of suicide, my Lords—(Loud elwers)—and so, my Lords, I can agree with the learned counsel, in thinking that if you follow the advice offered to you with respect to this bill, it may indeed move the destruc.. tion of your House." (Loud and long«managed cheering.) The Gallery was then cleared for a division ; when there appeared.— For the amendment l:24 Against it 54 Majority for hearing evidence --70 It was then agreed, after some conversation, in which the Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord CLANRIGARDE took part, that counsel should attend with evidence the next clay—or, as Lord BRouctlitai said, Mat day, at eleven o'clock. The House adjourned at a quarter past three.

On Tuesday, at the appointed hour, the Peers assembled ; and Mr. Knight proceeded to examine Mr. Carter, Town. Clerkof Coventry. This functionary stated several particulars respecting the rights of the freemen of Coventry, and the mode in which the corporate affairs were managed; which he stated to be very satisfactory, especially as regarded the administration of justice. The Commissioners did not conduct their inquiry temperately or properly. Their Report was incorrect. They took hearsay evidence ; and one of the witnesses, Marriott, who had been articled to him (Mr. Carter) had betrayed

confidence in his communications to the Commissioners

.. The evidence of Marriott was given anonymously.in eight or nine parts of the Report ; so that if I had not been IlWare or the felek, I should have summed that eight or nine dilierent parties had beat examined. Marriott's feelings, it would appear, were not friendly to the Established religion of the country ; for a gentleman told me that he had said that the churches of Euglautl would afford excellent materials for the re• paration of the roads. I saw him in frequent private comul tttt ication with the Commissioners. lie was in the habit of outing on them at their inn."

The Mayor of Coventry, and Mr. Woodcock, a solicitor there, gave substantially the same evidence. Both complained of the conduct of the Commissioners. Mr. Woodcock said—

They seemed to be generally hostile to the Corporation heard the evidence of a

Mr. Browitt. who admitted that he had been a party to get persons to swear, in order to qualify themselves for taking rip their freedom, that they had sened seven years apprenticeship to a freeman. Ile said the thing was common, and that he himself 1 a! been party to it, though he knew that some of them swore falsely. Witness yen oustrated to the Commissioners against their receiving the evidence of a person who had adntitted a fact which would disentille him to credit on his oath or affirmation. Browitt is a Quaker. Witness was told by Commissioners to sit down. Many facts were stated in the Report, on the authority of this Browitt.

Mr. Robinson, Town-Clerk of Oxford, was next examined. He said that the Corporation of Oxford held considerable landed property, but he never beard any complaint of the manner in which their funds were disposed of.

Mr. Sidebotham, Town-Clerk of Worcester, gave a similarly good character to the Corporation whose servant he is.

The TownClerks of Grantham and Sutton Coldfield gave evidence to the same effect. The Commissioners were wrong in saying, that in 'the latter place much dissatisfaction existed with regard to the conduct of the Corporation. In many respects the Report was untrue.

Mr. Stevenson, an attorney of Berwick-upon-Tweed, said that there was no a preponderance of opinion" against the existing system.

The complaints made against the management of the funds were made by persons trot entitled to share in them GO initio by the charter. The Corp ration was at present in debt to the amount t I about 50,0004. The lands. fisheries, and houses, the Corporation had, amounted to shout the annual value of 10,000J.

Mr. C. Meredith, an attorney of Leicester, spoke in high terms of the Leicester Magistrates. The peace of the town was preserved at i elections. The governing party n Leicester were men of substance, and well qualified to have authority. The Commissioners seemed inclined to take evidence on one side only—against the Corporation : the inquiry was conducted amidst much clamour, which the Commissioners did not attempt to put down. Mr. Burbidge, the Town-Clerk, gave several particulars relative to the Corporation property at Leicester. Hespoke highly of the general management of the Corporation. Great excitement prevailed in the Commissioners' Court of Inquiry ; there was much violence and clamour ; yet the Commissioners represented that all was peaceable and quiet. He never knew an instance of the corporate property being misapplied.

When examined by Lords BROUGHAM and PLUNKETT, Mr. Burbidge admitted the following facts— In the year 1826. there was a severe contested election in the borough ; when Sir Charles Hastings, Mr. tawny Cave. and Mr. Evans, were candidates. There was at that time the sum of 10.0001. raised for the purpose of returniog two candidates whose political opinions agreed with those or the Corporation ; and it was agreed that past of the expenses should be paid by the Corporation. The money was raised by individuals ; and Mr. Otway Cave promised to bear a part of the expenses, but he did not do so ; and theconsequence was, that the Corporation found themselves bound in hOnOUX to make good the sum to the parties by whom it was advanced. The money was hoe. rowed upon mortgage in the year 1829 ; and the vi itun-s added, that he did not feel himself justified in mentioning the name (Athe party who had advanced the manes-. When the Corporation refit flied the MOM., they sr ere obliged to mortgage the propeay of the Corporation to raise the money. The whole 78 collimators joined in that dis. posal of the lauds. The population of Leicester amounted to 40,00 persons ; but the whole of the corporate funds was at the sole disposal of the 72 poisons who formed the Corporation. At the time the funds of the Corporation were thus disposed of, there were political questions in agitation ; and with regard to the two candidates. Sir. C. Hastings and Mr. Otway Cave. the political opinions of the former were known to be in accordance with those entertained by the Corporation ; but with respect to the latter, his opinions could only be judged of front the circumstance that his ancestors were Tories, 'Mr. Evans was brought fora ant ou the Whig interest, which included the Dissenting interest. The Corporation did not give any money iksupport of Mr. Evans, nor was it ever intended they should do so.

Sir Charles Wetherell here said, that in default of evidence—of materials—he he must now stop : he had exhausted his Town-Clerks. It was agreed to adjourn the inquiry to the next day.

After a few words from Lord SALISBURY and Lord BROUGHAM, Lord MELBOURNE advanced to the table, and spoke as follows, with unusual earnestness.

" My Lords, I protest most distinctly, for the third time, against this proceding, both upon reason and upon principle. I do not hold myself bound to it as a precedent: I deem it, my Lords, to be most erroneous, most prejudicial, and most pernicious ; and I will not be bound by it in any respect. But at the same time, my Lords, I feel I am bound to bow to a majority of this House. Mind, (said he, with very great emphasis,) I wish to be understood that I consider myself as bowing to a majority, and to that only, and not to any thing that I have heard in support of this proceeding. ( Clicersfroni the Ministerial benches.) But I protest against it, in reason and in priuciple. I, however, consider myself as being coerced by a superior—mark, by a superior power. Therefore, my Lords, your Lordships may act as you think proper." ( Great cheering from the .Lilinisterial side of the Rouse.)

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY remarked, that there was some difference between Lords Melbourne and Brougham : the latter was in favour of hearing witnesses.

Lord BROUGHAM denied this tle entirely agreed will what had fallen from Lord Melbourne, and was from the first opposed to having witnesses examined at the bar. As to the examinenation of Town-Clerks, he conceived that the House might just as well examine any of the Six Clerks in Chancery as those persons. lie considered that their Lordships, by admitting evidence on this bill, had allowed a very improper precedent; for it was opening the door to the admission of evidence in the case of every bill which might be brought before the House.

Lord LYNDHURST said, that this was only wasting time, as there was no question before the House.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said, with extreme vehemence of tone ard gesture Afterthe statement which had been made by the first Minister of the Crown, who of course was well acquainted with all the principles of the bill, the House had only one course to pursue, and that was to act upon their own discretion. Lord Melbourne had introduced the bill on his own responsibility, and their Lordships' duty was to see that it was one which ought to be passed. Without professing any great legal knowledge, he would ask if there ever was was an instance in which a Minister of the Crown strove without due inquiry to pass a measure involving the property of individuals to a considerable amount. Ile contended, that if this bill were to pass, patties would be defrauded out of their property by a body of irresponsible Commissioners ; which property, in the instance of the two cases in Essex, was given to them by the Crown itself, and that within the last seven years. Lord LYNDHURST said, those cases would be inquired into in their turn.

Their Lordships then adjourned.

On Wednesday, Mr. Burgess, who performs the duties of TownClerk of Bristol, for Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, was examined. He stated that the conduct of the Magistrates gave general satisfaction ; arid, except in the case of the Bristol riots, he knew of no complaints against them. The Corporation monies were religiously, properly, and prudently applied ; and the distribution of the charity funds was generally approved of. The conduct of the Commissioners was very proper, with one exception—they ought not to have communicated privately with the enemies of the Corporation. Be had never made the charge of "scandalous falsehood" against Mr. Gambier, one of the Commissioners. There was no efficient police force, because the inhabitants would not contribute their quota towards the expense : this had given rise to much bickering and ill-blood. Mr. Tripp, Alderman of Bristol, gave substantially the same evi. dence as the Town-Clerk's deputy. Mr. Botcler, Town-Clerk of Sandwich, was next examines]. He said that the affairs of the borough, especially as respected the administration of justice, were satisfactorily conducted.

Mr. Wood, a freeman of Sandwich, confirmed this statement.

The examination of witnesses was then discontinned tor the day. The examination o Witttesses was resumed. op, 'fbursday. M. Q. W. Ledger, Town-Clerk of Dover, stated that the administration a justice was well attended to in that town. Commissioners under a

local act were elected annually, much to the discomfort of the respect

able inhabitants, who were annoyed by the and confusion thereby created. Persons of different opinions belong to the Corporation. Conceiving the Commission to be illegal, the Corporation refused. to produce their books and papers to the Commissioners. He denied that the Duke of Wellington, as Lord Warden, influenced the Corporation.

Mr. Thomas Merryman, Town-Clerk of Marlborough, said that the local affairs of the town were administered satisfactorily. The Report of the Commissioners contained much matter not publicly stated. The town was benefited, not injured, by the political subserviency of the Corporation to the Marquis of Aylesbury : his Lordship i was very popular in Marlborough, and t would cause great regret were he to sell his property there. Witness had not read the bill, and could not say that there was any thing in it which would induce his Lordship to sell bis property. His Lordship might sell it, if people committed depredation on it, but he could not say that the bill would encourage depredations. A person objectionable to Lord Aylesbury certainly would not be admitted a burgess.

Mr. Booth, Alderman of Norwich, said that the affairs of no town could be more impartially and Satisfactorily managed. There was an unfair statement in the Commissioners' Report respecting the balance of public money in the Treasurer's hands. He knew of no instance in which corporate or charitable funds had been misapplied.

Mr. Harvey and Mr. Newton, Aldo men, and Mr. Preston, Recorder of Norwich, gave evidence to the same general effect.

Mr. Lewis, Town-Clerk of Rochester, said that he had protested against much of the evidence taken by the Commissioners, as being contrary to any rule of law. Mr. Ellis had told him that no improper evidence would be put in his notes. He could not say upon what evidence the Commissioners' Report was founded. There was great " scurrility, rancour, and violence" in Rochester, against the Corporation. The demeanour of the Commissioners was courteous, but they should have rejected much evidence which they received.

Mr. Cooper, Town-Clerk of Henley-on-Thames, stated nothing worth noticing.

Mr. Tyrrell, agent for Mr. Mackintosh, who purchased from the Crown the manor of Havering-Atte-Bower, said that the lord of the manor had the power of appointing two Magistrates, and the inhabitants a third. This privilege of appointing Magistrates rendered the estate much more valuable : Mr. Mackintosh paid 72,000/. for it. The present bill would take away the right to appoint Magistrates.

Mr. Blegg, Town-Clerk of St. Alban's, said, that after the inquiries of the Commissioners were over, several inhabitants stated that they had no complaint whatever to make against their system of local government; and that this was the prevailing opinion ; though no observation to that effect appeared in the Report.

The examination of witnesses was continued on Friday.

Mr. Philip George, Town-Clerk of Bath, said that the present Corporation was an efficient instrument of local government, and there was nothing in the bill that would improve it. The Commissioners had expressed themselves satisfied with the manner in which the corporate property was managed.

• Mr. Gunning, a barrister, and a member of the Corporation, gave similar testimony. Mr. William Holmes, a member of the Corporation of Arundel, complained that the Commissioner, Mr. Maude, bad acted unfairly : he had made statements which he did not give the Corporation party an opportunity of examining, though in his Report he said that he had ; this was particularly the case with respect to summoning a man as a juror. The Commissioner also made unfair representations respecting the letting of corporate property and the conduct of the Magistrates—their conduct was satisfactory, although it was said that corn.plaints were made on that subject. Mr. Rady, a resident of Llanelly, said that Lord Cawdor was the lord of the manor ; that the people were satisfied with the Corporation, and did not want a Town. Council.

Mr. Newton, Town-Clerk of East Retford, spoke highly cf the local government of that borough. He did not think that it was true, as stated by the Commissioner, that an Alderman of East Retford had obtained a situation through the Duke of Newcastle's influence

"There is a statement in the Report impeaching the judicial conduct of the Junior Bailiff; and especially a statement that a witness stated that he had seen the Junior Bailiff and a criminal sealing and rolling together on the floor or the court is not true, as respects the general habits of the Junior Bailiffs. The name of the person making Site statetnent was Mr. Rigsby ; the name of the Railiff referred to was Slaney ; Mr. Sauey denied the statement at the time, and I called the attention of the Commisal0110114 to the denial; the denial is nut noticed in the Report."

Mr. Kenrick, Town-Clerk of Boston, complained of the Commiseioners' statement that the political character of the Corporation was visible in all its operations this was incorrect, in his judgment. The servants of the Corporation had frequently voted for Whig candidates in opposition to the Corporation. There were many substantial persons in Boston opposed to the Corporation. Mr. Evesham,_ Town-Clerk of Bedford, said that the bill would effect a change for the worse in the management of affairs in that place : there was at present "no abuse in the administration of af, fairs."

A witness from Poole said, the Corporation gave satisfaction generally; though there were malecontents, as there would always be. A witness from Bridgewater spoke favours" ment of that town. _ --Ny or use local govern Captain Bes`s

vsi spoke in favour of the existing system at Rochester, .....ere‘he resides.

Mr. Fisher, Town-Clerk of Doncaster, gave similar testimony in respect to Doncaster.

Mr. Peel, member of Shrewsbury Corporation, said that the respect.able inhabitants disapproved of thep roposed alterations, though the Dissenters were opposed to the Corporation. A gentleman from Kidderminster offered to give evidence on behalf of the TownClerk, who had presented a petition praying the House

"not to destroy his prospects." This occasioned laughter among their Lordships, but they would not allow the witness to be examined.

Counsel were then ordered to withdraw.

The Marquis of SALISBURY said, it was desirable to know when the examination of witnesses would be concluded......

It appeared to him, that so much doubt had been already thrown ,ion the Report of the Commisiouers, and so much stated in direct contradietion of their statements, that it was seared} worth while going further svith the inquiry, unless they were prepared to go through the entire list of boroughs. Ile certainly would be glad to kuuw to what length the iitquiry was to be carried?

Lord LYNDHURST said, that delay was required, in order to enable witnesses to arrive who would give evidence on petitions which the House had resolved to hear.

Lord BROUGHAM agreed that enough had been heard ; though he suspected that be had arrived at a different conclusion from Lord Salisbury as to the value of the evidence. He would second Lord Salisbury in a motion to close the inquiry.

Lord FALmotsrn said, he thought their Lordships had decided on last Monday night upon hearing evidence in support of certain petitions before the House ; and if that were the case, witnesses ought certainly be allowed sufficient time to arrive.

The Duke of WELLINGTON entreated their Lordships not to waste more time than was necessary in hearing witnesses— A great deal of light had 'inquest iooably been thrown on the subject by the evidence given at the bar. He thought the counsel might be able to conclude at an early hour to morrow, tlw remainiug cases which it uould be necessary to bring beIhre the noose. Alter that should be done, then the House. he thought, is hen the evidence had been fully considered by them, should proceed with the hill. It was absolutely impossible that this inquiry ever could have been intended to base been gone into so far as to occasion a very great luss of time at the close of the session, befure the provisions of so important a measure were taken in corsideration.

The Earl of HAREWOOD di' not think it necessary to examine the state of every borough in the cauntry

There was enough of evidence to enable them to make the bill less oppressive and less overthrowing of esery thing appertainiug to the ancient Corporations of the country.

The Earl of MANSFIELD felt great difficulty in deciding how to proceed— Were they to hear all the Corporations, this inquiry would be interminable. With every sense of justice. therefore, to the parties, it was necessary for the House to in. terfere, and stop the proceedings somewhere. At the same time, he thought it would be only just to afford those towns that were ntlectisl by any particular prtwisidn of the bill, an opportunity to be heard specifically upon such provisions, when the House went into Committee on the bill.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH apprehended, that the House was bound, by its order, to hear all the evidence counsel thought fit to offer : it would be unjust to prevent the evi.' -me from proceeding.

Lord BROUGHAM said, thst the House was certainly bound by its order to hear all who had petitioned.

Sir Charles Wetherell said, in reply to an inquiry, that he should be ready with the ease of Liverpool, and five others, on Saturday. The House then broke up.

2. IRISH CHURCH REFORM.

The House of Commons went into Committee on the Irish Church Bill, on Monday, for the purpose of considering the postponed clauses. The only discussion of moment took place on the Slat clause, which authorizes the remission of the money advanced out of the million loan to the clergy.

Mr. 1lAnvEY moved to strike out the clause. It was insinuated that the insertion of this clause would facilitate the passing of the bill elsewhere— Was there any of that kindly feeling shown at present in that other place ? (Cheers.) They would find, indeed, that the stubbornness there prevailing would be only increased by this abandonment of the public funds. In the attempt which that House was making to run a race of popularity with the Representatives of the People, by impressing the country with a sense of their assumed jealousy of the vested tights of the lower classes, would they not, if they rejected this bill, say that they bad done so from regaid to the pockets of the People, and to check the mad and profligate waste of the People's Representatives? It was again insinuated that the remission was necessary because the money could not be recovered. But that argument would not hold good : by the act commonly called Stanley's Act, the composition then made compulsory fur the tithes of 1834 was rendered a prinntry charge upon the laud; and how could the framers of this bill, if they pretended to be unable to collect that, hope to recover hereafter the rent charge which the measure established as its future substitute? Ile called upon the Government to state what equivalent the country was to have for the money proposed to be remitted ? With this example of Ireland befiwe them, might not the tenantry, and especially the Dissenting tenantry of England, claim an exemption from their tithes for the next three years—from 1835 to 1838? They might with equal justice; and the only difference would be, that the House would then be called upon to advance three or four millions for the English clergy, instead of the one million which they had advanced to that of Ireland.

Lord MORPETII defended the clause, on the ground that to attempt to recover the arrears would entail worse evils on the country than the loss of the money. Lord STANLEY poposcd the remission of the money, because it gave a direct encouragement to those who resisted the law. It ought to be recovered from the owners of the land.

Mr. O'CONNELL reminded Lord Stediley, that

. . , . be had himself advanced 60,000i. formerly to the clergy; and done all in his power, by horse, foot, and art?dery, and turning barracks into haggards for corn, to collew,d at amount. HS was, however, only able to collect 12,0001., after

urring 20,000 1.0 •

/ • sts How, then, could he gravely urge the Govern ment to atte,--

,ae recovery of 600,0001. similarly Mr. Hume did not think it would pacify Ireland to allow those who had not paid tithes for four Years to escape.

Sir ROBERT PEEL had been a party to a proposed remission of the -million ; and therefore felt bound to vote with Ministers.

The Committee divided ; and rejected Mr. Harvey's motion, by 252 to 25.

The remaining clauses were agreed to ; several fresh ones added; and then the /Souse resumed.

Last night, the report was brought up, and the bill was recommitted. Several new clauses were added, after a lengthened discussion, which was destitute of interest and importance ; all the amendments proposed being negatived. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday next.

3. ORANGE LODGE& Mr. 1-113:a called the attention of the House, on Tuesday, to the establishment of Orange Lodges in the Army. He said that he had been wholly ignorant of their existence in the Army until he had read portions of the evidence given before the Oraoge Committee, in the Dublin Orange newspapets. Upon inquiry from Members of the Committee, he found it was the fact that a limber of Orange Lodges bad been formed in the Army. He found that all such associations were illegal, both by military and civil law. In Ifel, the Duke of

• York had issued an order against the establishment of Orange Lodges in the Army; yet, subsequently to this, they had been formed. By the 39th of George III., every society having branches or corresponding societies, or having branch committees, was illegal, and every Member of such societies was liable to certain penalties. He had delayed bringing forward this subject until the evidence had been printed and placed in the bands of Members. Upon that evidence he relied for proof of the facts stated in the resolutions he intended to propose to the House. Mr. Hume then moved the following series of resolutions ; with extracts from the evidence appended to each resolution, in proof of the correctness of what was stated therein. (Most of this evidence appeared in the two last numbers of the Spectator : it is therefore unnecessary to repeat it.)

" Resolution 1. That it appears, from the evidence laid before this House, that there Chit to present in Ireland more than fifteen hundred Orange Lodges; some parislit•s eoutainiug as many as three or four private lodges, consisting of members varying in 'number from 16 to 260, acting in communication and correspondence with each otla•r, and having secret signs anti passwords as bonds of union, and all depending 011 the Grand Lodge of Ireland.

" Resolst ion 2. That the Orange Institution of Ireland is unlimited in numbers. mut exclusively a Protestant Association. That every member must belong to n private lodge ; to which he is admitted under a religious sanction. and with a religious (Teo. minty. carrying a Bible in his bands, submitting to certain forms and declarations, and taught secret signs and pass.words. " Resolution 3. That no lodge can be constituted oithont a warrant of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, signed by the Grand Master and Office.bearers fur the time being, and having the seal of the Grand Lodge thereto affixed. " Resolution 4. That it appears by the laws and ordinances of the Orange Institution in Ireland, dated 1835. that the Secretary ot each l'rivate Lodge is directed to le

port to the Secretary of the District Lodge; the Secretary of each District Lodge to report to the Grand Secretary of the County I.odge; the Grand Secretary of the County Lodge to report to the Deputy Grand Secretary ol the Grand Lodge in Dublin; and the Grand Lodge to hold meetings at stated periods. to transact the ordinary business of the Society ; and the Deputy Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge to com municate half-yearly to each lodge in Ireland, and also to the Grand Ledge of Great Britain.

" Resolution 5. That Orange Lodges have individually and collectively addressed his Majesty, both Houses ot Parliament, the Lord Lieutenant, and others. on special occasions of a political nature.—stich as en the subject of the Colonies, the Change of Ministry. the Education of the People, the Repeal or the Union, Catholic Emancipation, and Reform of Parliament.

" Resolution 6. That the Grand Lodge of Ireland has interfered in political questions. and expelled members for the exercise of their constitutional and social rights; has interfered at elections, and delimited criminal prosecutions, as appears from the evidence and front the minutes o: prezsedings in the book ot the Grand Lodge, produced Wore the Sr lea Committee.

" Resolution 7. That it appears by the books of the Grand Lodge of Ireland. produced by its Deputy Grand Secretary, before the Select Committee of this House, that the undermentioned warrants for constituting and holding Orange Lodges IlaVe been issued, to non commissioned officers and privatesof the tbllowing Regiments of Cavalry and of Intantry of the Line, at home and abroad ; to non commissioned officers of the Staff of si•veral Militia Regiments ; to members of other corps ; and to the Police. {Then follows a list of the n•ginients; which has already appeared in the Spectator's ' Gleanings from the Evidence" given before the Committee.]

" Resolution 8. That such warrants are sent privately and indirectly to such noncommis:4(mM oilleors and privates, is Wield the knowledge or saect ion of the COMIIMI111jug ofiker$ of snob regiments or .corps ; and every lodge held in the Army is considered as a District Lodge. " Resolution 9. That the General Orders of the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces (Parliamentary Paper, No. 395 of 1835) addressed in the years 1822 and 1829 to Commanding Officers of Regiments and of Deptits. awl to General Officers and oilier Officers on the Stall, at flume and abroad. strongly reerobate the holding of Orange bikes in any regiment, as "fraught with injury tu the di,cipline if .the Army ;'' awl "that, on military grounds, the holdng of Orange Lodges in any re!dment or corps. is cmtrary order and 5, the rules of the service ;'' and that a disn•gard of this cant iou will sub. ject offending parties to trial mill punishment for disobedience of Orders."

" Resolution 10. That these resolutioes, and the evidence taken belbre the Select Committee on Orange Lodges. be laid before his Majesty.

" Resolution 11. That an humble address be presented to his Majest y. praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his Royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange Lodges in his Majesty's Army, In contravention of the General Orders or the Commanderan-t hid'. of his Majesty's Forces. issued in Itit. years 1822 and 1829, %Inch strongly reprobate and forbid the holding of Orange Lodges in any of his Majesty's Iteginients • and also, to call his attention to the circumstance of his Royal Highness Ernest, Dile of Cumberland. a Field Marshal in his Majesty's Army. has lug signed warrants, in his capacity of Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Irelabil (some of them dated so recently as April in the present year), which warrants have been issued for constituting Orange Lodges in the Army."

The first resolution was then put from the chair.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN said, he intended to move an amendment to Mr. Hume's resolution. The present proceeding was a mere farce, considering that the subject was already under examination by a Coinmittee of the House. It was not fair to found attacks on the characters of individuals upon the partial evidence in the possession of Members. It was a fact, that Riband Societies were prevalent in the Army. He had disbelieved this, until it was clearly proved. Ile was for the suppression of all such societies, and would move as an amendment,

That an addless be pr;•sented to Ilia Majesty, praying him to direct his Royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange Lodges existing in his Majesty s Army, jut contravention of the General Orders issued in 1822 and in 1829; and also to cause investigation to be made into the existeace of Mien' secret stmieties."

Mr. Fists: supported Mr. Hume's resolution, frie was opposed to Orange, Riband, and all secret societies.

.._99Iope1 WOOD had been assured by the Duke of Cumberland, and .4Zoite COliVinCed•' tat his Royal Hipline:A knew nothing and utterly diapproved of Orange Lodges "in Regiments oldie Line," Mr. H. MAXWELL could not defend the practice of forming Orange Lodges in the Army: he considered it highly improper • but he could most sincerely declare, that, until it was stated before the Committee, he was utterly ignorant of their existence.

Mr. WARD said, that the facts stated in Mr. Hume's resolutions were substantiated by the evidence given before the Orange Committee. The resolutions stated Nets, not opinions. Orange Societies had been formed in regiments stationed at Malta mid in Cana; and the resolutions conveyed those facts to the Crown, not presuming to hint what course should consequently he pursued.

It had been said that the Illustrious Personage to whom allusion had been so fiequently made in the course of the present debate, was ignorant of the purposes to which the warrants signed by him were to be applied. In answer to that proposition, he begged to remind the House of a series of resolutions adopted at a meeting of the Grand Orange Lodge held last year at Mr

house of Lord Kenyon, a meeting at which Ids Lodge, Righness lir

the chair. These resolutions provided for the very case complained of in the motion now under consideration ; for they went to exempt.non.cominissioned'

officers and privates from the fees of 15s. on admission into the lodge, and from a further fee of 5s. finany advanced step which they might attain. in Site society, and the fee for signature as a magistrate. He reminded the +louse, that the resolutions to which he had already referred had been passed at a meeting of the Grand Orange Lodge in London, at which the Illustrious Duke had presided. Those resolutions provided for the issue of warrants for the admission of soldiers and sailors into lodges at lower rates than other classes ; and who could tell that there might not at this moment lie a dozen lodges in the regiments of the Guards, and a similar number in the shifts: of war lying at Portsniouth and Plymouth ? He had no wish to prejudge the decision of the Committee, but they had already sufficiently furnished data to justify the House in denouncing the system.

lie was strongly opposed to those secret societies, to that spirit of Orangism which pervaded the bench and the bar—

He could not but remind the House of the feeling manifested by the Chaplain to the Order (the Bishop of Salisbury), in his recent charge to the Clergy of

his diocese. The right reverend prelate called on the Protestants to commemorate the 5th of November, as "an indelible evidence of the hostility of Popery

to our Protestant religion and establishment—that religion and establishment

which the three powers of the realm are bound by the most solemn oaths and engagements to protect and maintain!" He weut further, and called upon his

Clergy " to celebi ate that day as Protestants, as ministers of the Church of Eng land, and as loyal subjects, by inculcating to their congregations the truth of Scripture, the deliverance of their country from a Popish dynasty, and the in extinguishable hostility of Popery to the national institutions of the country." Were these the feelings which ought to be nourished towards a large portirin, and a valuable portion, of their fellow countrynien ? Did they deserve this

manifestation of distrust and animosity? " Be active," continuer! this man of peace, " and Popery would never again gain the ascendancy." Mr. Ward was prepared to say, that he never hoped to see Popery ascendant in Ireland—he stood only for equal rights to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. Believing, as he did, that the introduction of Orange Lodges into the Army was a system in. cieasing in this country as well as in Ireland,—and contriving that Mr. Hume had only discharged his duty in submitting these resolutions to the House, which only went to expose the evils of which proof was afforded by the evidence now on the table of the House,—he should give his cordial support to the motion, which it would only be false delicacy in the House to reject. (Muck cheering.) Colonel PERCEVAL maintained that Orange Lodges were societies of a purely defensive character. He wished there was no necessity for them, and advocated the suppression of all such associations. With regard to the warrants they were uniformly signed in blank, by Mr. Maxwell, himself, and then by the Duke of Cumberland,—who signed them on the faith of his and Mr. Maxwell's signature. He protested to God, that be bad no idea that the warrants would have been used for the establishment of societies in "Regiments of the Line." But really, he conceived that the principles of Orange Lodges were not more objectionable than those of Freemasons, of whom he was also one.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL regretted that Mr. Hume had brought forward the subject at this time; though he admitted that it must next session occupy much of the attention of Parliament. He certainly could not be charged with peculiar hostility to Orange Societies— While a member of this House and of the Government, be had ever been an enemy to all associations of this kind. He bad not hesitated in being a party to Inca framed in the spirit of the Constitution to put down associations which he thought dangerous to that Constitution, and injurious to the authority of the Crown. In this feeling, he had been a party to the proclamation to which Mr. Hume had alluded, which had put down the proceedings—the dangerous proceedings, as he believed—of the Birmingham Political Union, in 1831 ; and when persons in humble situations of life had involved themselves in the guilt of illegal tiansactions he had thought it his duty to consent to that degree of punishment which might deter others from following so mischievous an example. Therefore, having always entertained those opinions—entertained them in opposition to large and popular bodies,—and when be had expressed those opinions of them in humble situations of life,—he now felt it his duty to express the same opinions of censure and condemnation when sonic of the highest and most illustrious persons in this counuy, aided by strong party connexion—aided by persons of tile highest rank, military and civil—had involved themselves deeply in the mischiefs and injuries which these societies were calculated to create. If those societies served to preserve the peace and harmony of the state, the case might be different ; but when it was seen, that by degrees they rose until they broke that peace of which they professed to he the conservators—when they poisoned and corrupted the sources of justice they so much landed—when they perverted and seduced that soldiery whom the King alone had the lawful preogative to command—wben all these evils were visible, he thought the House could not but be sensible that it was its duty by every tneans in its power to • discountenance, and, if possible, to put a termination to, societies of this kind. He was alarmed by the declaration of Colonel Perceval and Mr. Maxwell, of their ignorance of the existence of Orange Lodges in the Army— To add to the alarm consequent on this statement, there was also the fact, stated not on vague evidence but by their own Secretary,—who, he must say, with the utmost fairness and frankness had produced all the information in his power,— that these warrants for lodges had been sent, lie believed to no less than forty regiments. Thus it appeared, by the confession, by the testimony, of their own Secretary, that the warrants were sent amongst non.eommissioned officers—amongst soldiers, anxious to do their duty to their King, to the Protestant religiou' and to the Protestant Church ; and wriio 11.igrants sioneil by the honourable Member who had !1st spoken, signed by the -Duke of Cumberland, a Prince of the bloods, neither of those individual* knowing one word about the matter, or supposing they did know, were prepared to condemn the proceeding as subversive of discif,"^.. lie owned this confession was one of a practice which could the late too loudly condemned; and when the practice had been condemned by the _ _t Duke of I'M k as fraught with tiaur some surprise that a declaration had not been by ta the discipline of the Army, e felt some member;

society in which such a use was made of their names. the

some surprise that a declaration had not been by ta the discipline of the Army, e felt some member;

bode, from the highest to the lowest, deeply lamenting that they lu • society in which such a use was made of their names. the

duty to at once abandoned the Society; and he considered t of Cumberland must be aware that it was not consistent with his _ ty0:. to retain the situation that the Duke which he now filled. lie had endeavoured ascertain who were the parties who bad used the duty to at once abandoned the Society; and he considered t of Cumberland must be aware that it was not consistent with his _ ty0:.

Duke of Cumber

land's authority for the establishment of Orange Lodges in the y t. and he would read the answer to two questions which threw some BO

on the subject-h Arm ;

The first question was, " Ate you aware whether the members of the Grand Lodge approve of Regimental Lodges?" The answer was, " Of my own knowledge there is a vast difference of opinion on this subject : many intelligent and influential men seem to think that it was not right or conducive to the good of the Army, but that thy were overborne in that opinion by a certain majority." With respect to that majority, he could suppose not es s than three hundred persons of rank, property, and influence, to have been assembled in the Grand Lodge during the deliberation on that question. However that might be, it was surprising that the minority should not have taken pains to make the discussion of that .question known to Colonel Perceval, and to all those high personages, who, It would seem, were in the minority, and whose names appeared signed at the top of the warrants,—documents which doubtless had produced the greatest effect, when distributed amongst the poor and ignorant members of the Army, and amongst other parties. The answer to the next • question showed that the feeling of the body was, that because institutions dangerous to the Protestant Church existed throughout the British Army, it was right to counteract their operations by the formation of Orange Lodges. Now, if he wanted any proof of the danger of such associations, it was this.

There was a difficulty in the way of agreeing to Mr. flume's resolutions; which was, the reference to the Duke of Cumberland— The House must consider that it was hardly possible for it to agree to that resolution, naming that illustrious individual, though in the mildest Serums, without its being considered as a heavy censure on the part of this House. Now he had collected from Mr. Patten, that there were persons disposed to

• come forward and to give evidence to show that the opinions of the Duke of Cumberland were repugnant to the formation of Lodges in the Army. He was not disposed to come to a resolution touching at all the conduct of any indivi • dual, if it could be said that that individual had not been failly heard, or if that individual wished to make any defence or explanation. He thought that, with regard to his Royal Highness, that opportunity of explanation had not • been fully afforded ; and therefore he thought the House ought not to come to any thin* smite than a general resolution on the subject. He objected to the

• resolution being adopted without giving further notice to his Royal Highness of the debates which bad taken place on his conduct as Grand Master. With this opinion, therefore,—and at once admitting that he was ready to agree to those resolutions which concerned the constitution and the introduction of Orange Lodges into the Army,— he was disposed to propose that the remainder of-this debate should be postponed for some days, in order that, if any evidence should be tendered before the Committee with reference to this subject, the Committee should have an opportunity of receiving and furnishing it to this House. With respect generally to the evidence which related to the Army, he understood it was fully closed ; and therefore there could be no objection to agree to an address to the Crown on that head.

Mr. Slum. moved that the debate be adjourned to Tuesday next.

Mr. HOME wits quite willing to agree to the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the Duke of Cumberland an opportunity for explanation.

The SPEAKER put the question of adjournment ; and

Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose to address the House, as perhaps he would not have the opportunity of doing so on 'Tuesday next. He thought the discussion premature ; and that the Crown would be awkwardly placed if the resolutions were agreed to. He condemned the formation of military Orange Lodges as much as any man ; but he objected to affirm all the facts stated in Mr. Home's resolutions. The seventh resolution affirmed the existence of Orange Lodges among the Police ; of which there was no proof— Mr. Htimr.—" I stated facts, which it is impossible to contradict, respecting the formation of Orange Lodges among the Limerick Police." (Tumultuous cheering from the Ministerial benches.)

Sir R. PEEL—" The honourable Member has also made the same charges against 'other corps ;'as, for instance, the Sappers and Miners."

Mr. HUME (starting up)—.4 Yes I did ; and I proved it by refer. ence to the evidence." Here Mr. Hume, says the Times, "quoted chapter and verse, but we did not hear the figures pointing out the pages and the questions." (Great cheering.) Sir R. PEEL—" The officer in command at Malta denies it in toto." (Cheers from the Opposition.)

Mr. H IISIE—" Let him deny it again, if he pleases. I produced the certificate and number of the lodge held at Malta ; and the right honourable baronet, had he been in the House, might have seen it."

(Immense cheering.)

Sir R. PEEL—" If you can establish that fact, I say at once that I have no objection to agree to this resolution." ( Great cheering) Sir Robert then went on to state, that he would agree to a resolution descriptive of Orange Lodges, and to an address praying the King to direct his attention to the formation of Lodges in the Army.

Mr. HUSIE—." That would clearly be dictating to his Majesty." (Great laughter and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Sir ROBERT PEEL was satisfied of the impossibility of satisfying loyalty so sensitive as Mr. Home's. He then observed, that he could not vote for the resolution in which the Duke of Cumberland's name was mentioned : he could not imply censure upon him, in the present state of the question.

Lord Howicg said, that the facts relative to the existence of Orange Lodges must undergo immediate inquiry. By agreeing to the adjournment of the debate, he did not imply any censure on the Duke of Cumberland ; who ought to have that opportunity of explanation which the facts required. The question of adjourning the debate to Tuesday next was then put, and carried.

On Thursday, Mr. Witsox Parresr presented the third and last Report from the Committee. He also stated, that the Committee had received a letter from the Duke of Cumberland, which had been added to the Report. In reply to questions from Mr. HOME and Mr. WALLACE, he stated that the Inquiries of the Committee did not extend to English and Scotch, but were limited to the Irish Orange Lodges.

• 4. GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.

A considerable portion of Thursday evening was occupied in a rather tiresome discussion as to the right of' certain witnesses to refuse to answer questions put to them by the Committee on the Yarmouth Election ; on the ground that they were defendants, liable themselves to prosecution, ana expressly warned by the Committee not to criminate themselves.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON reported, that William Green, Edwatd Latham, and E. H. L. Preston, refused to answer questioN OR the ground above stated; and moved that they be brought to the bar. Preston was the first that appeared. He was interrogated by the SPEAKER, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and Mr. TAN.. CRED. He repeatedly declared his determination not to answer any questions ; and was ordered to withdraw.

Mr. O'CONNELL moved that Preston be committed to Newgate. Sir R. ROLEE (Solicitor-General) regretted Sir John Campbell's absence, but was convinced that he would agree in the opinion that the witness was justified in refusing to answer the questions put to him !fere was a witness called before a Committee, the very object of which was to inquire, among other things. into the propriety of prosecution Hurt very individual. (Loud cries itt " No! ") Well, it might nut be iii slew to prosecute him; but it was impossible nut to feel that that might be the result ; and as the result ot tlw inquiry might be the commencement of a prosecution against any or the patties implicated iii the supposed bribery, he did think it nos the hardest proceeding he had ever heard suggested. to call a iwrson there to say to him. " Now, e are going to examine you : take notice, that evidence may be addeced which a ill affect-yon with a prosecution for bribery, and thud you may be implicated by the very evidence we seek to obtain ; " and then to puoish him for refusing to give evidence on that gronual. Ile would say. on every principle of law, that as a party was not bound to answer any questions tending to criminate himself. so neither was he called upon to answer any questions what ver, put by a tribunal. the very objeet of whiell Wa9 to prove his own guilt. (" Hear I " and " No ! ") It appeared to him to be an argument a fortiori, that if a a it tress mere privilegtA :against miswering a question which might criminate himself'. he was not hound to answer other questions ; the very object of the inquiry by the tribunal from objets they emanated being to involve him in guilt. Suppose the ease of a bill of indictment for misdemeanour, before a Grand Jury : suppose one of the parties implicated by the indictment %s ere brought up, and addressed thits—" So far as these questions criminate you. do not ansuer them : they criminate other individuals ; do yott object to answer as far a. they are concerned ?" If he were placed in such a situation, Ile should certainly decline to answer a single wired.

He should decidedly oppose the motion for committing the witness to Newgate.

Mr. HOME said, that if the SolicitorGeneral was right, all ioquiries by the House would be fruitless— It would only he necessary for an agent to give notice to every person who might Le examined as a witness in a bribery case, that his reply might criminate himself, to render the inquiry wholly useless, and to set the tamer of the House at defiance.

Mr. O'CONNELL was perfectly astonished at the Solicitor-General's speecli They all understood time ground—the lentil ground—that a man was not bound to convict himself. That ass law—perhaps it ass not common geese. It relaxed the ad. miuismition ofiustice exceedingly. Why should not a nian criminate Mansell ? Whom did he protect f Was it the innocent ? No; be could riot protect the innocent. but ho could protect the guilty. Did the witness conic %%Main that rule of law? He did not; he tool; no such ground at all. Ile did not ; he took this ground—that a certain notice bea.11 served upon him. Ile supposed the agents would not be crimival enotigh to draw up such a notice on their own 'not ion. Ile believed it origivated with the Corn. mitts*, as many strange things sometimes did. Now, after all. a hat was the effect of this notice? A caution to the witness not to criminate himself; and the moment any quest ioa was put to him which had the least tendeney to criminate himself, he might take that ground, and refuse to answer it. This was the broad ground for the witness to take, and the notice did nothing but call upon him to take this broad ground. But the witness did not take it ; he was out protecting Mansell; he was nut avoiding ca. minating himself, but was avoitling criMinating others.

Mr. TANCRED, as a member of the Committee, would state some facts respecting the notice which had been referred to

ol the first thy the Committee met, an honourable member of it —the honourable and learned Member for Cardiff—MOVNI a string of resolutions; iii compliance with one of which, a degree of superabundant caution was obseived, and a notice was ordered to be drawn -up. and served ussm every person who, in the Inkiest possible range, the agent or the petitioners thought might be in any way is hatever eliminated. Ile I elieved the agent ens required, by the strict terms of the resolution, to give notice to no fewer than three honored persons. The object of the Committee was, that those individuals might attend in person (as the gentleman who had just left the bar had done), or by their agents, to watch the progress of the evidence, and see whether any part`of it in the slightest degree implicated them, and rendered it necessary fur them to refuse answering the questions put to them. Ile had no hesitation in Row Slitting COR■ fidentls, kr the preseece atilt: members of that Committee, that too or three persons thought fit to interpret it as constituting them defendants. The noble Chairman of the Committee had repeatedly said to every witness produced—" Witness. you are not bound in any way whatever to criminate yourself; and in any question that occurs ltaviug that tendency, you have only to throw ',ourself upon the Committee for protection, and they is ill judge of it, and tell you whether it shall be put or not." A person of the name orGreemhe believed, had declined to answer, on the ground that the notice constituted him a defendant ; and his example had been followed by the gentlemau who had just left the bar. For his own part, lie confessed he was disposed to consider the notice an injudicious one, as he had formed the same opinion of the resolutions on which it was founded. Dr. Nictiou. said, the notice had been copied from Lord John Russell's bill, introduced in 1833; but it had been rendered more extensive in its operation by an amendment of Mr. Pease.

Mr. PEASE had no intention of making each witness a defendant, but was anxious that the evidence in so important an investigation should be taken with unusual vigilance.

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON differed from the SolicitorGeneral, and attributed the opinion Mr. Rolfe had given to his ignorance of the practice of the Common LaW—the learned gentleman was more familiar with that of the Equity courts.

Mr. HARDY thought the witness justified in refusing to the answer the questions. Mr. SPRING RICE reminded the House, that to discover the truth, should be their object : the witness should answer all questions which did not criminate himself.

Mr. SHAW defended the witness.

Sir R. INGLIs and Sir R. PEEL, called upon Ministers to stand by the opinion of their own Law Officer. Mr. Sergeant WILDE said, the witness had been premature in the objection he bad taken ; but it would be dealing harshly with him to send him to Newgate : he suggested that be should be called in and admonished.

Mr. O'CONNELL altered his motion in compliance with this suggestion.

On a division, this motion was carried, by 113 to 65. Preston was called in, "admonished" by the Speaker, and then ordered to withdraw.

John Edward Latham and William Green were brought to the bar, and examined by the SPEAKER. They also refused to answer questions, for the same reasons as those assigned by Preston ; and were told by the SPEAKER that they must submit to be examined by the Committee, without prejudice to their right of declining to answer questions which would tend to criminate themselves.

Lord FRANCIS EGERTON moved that William Prentice be committed to Newgate.

, Mr. HARDY moved that he be brought to the bar, admonished, arid 'discharged. A brief discussion ensued ; and Lord Francis Egerton's asotion was carried, by 81 to 14. So Prentice was sent to Newgate.

5. IeswicH BRIBERY.

The SPEAKER informed the House, on Monday, that he had received a letter from one of the Members for East Norfolk, stating that the Grand Jury at the Norwich Assizes would have completed their business by Tuesday ; and that the evidence of Mr. Thomas Moore Keith, now in custody of the Sergeant-atArms, was necessary to support the bill of indictment against John Pilgrim.

Mr. HUME moved that Keith be permitted to go down, in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Lord ,STORMONT moved that the prisoner be reprimanded and discharged.

Mr. 1Va8oN said, that it would be a perfect mockery to discharge Keith after five days' imprisonment, after keeping Sparrow in custody for six weeks.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported Lord Stormont's amendment— He entreated the House to recollect, that this was the seventh prisoner whomn they had detained in his Majesty's gaol of Newgate on account of the report of the !live ich Election Committee. Therefore, without denying that the offence of Mr. Keith was as great as or greater than that of Sparrow, he Ilubmitted that the fact of their having afforded a warning to other offenders, by detaining so many persons, some of whom had been confined in Newgate for six or seven weeks, was sufficient to induce the House to come to some immediate determination on the subject. (" Oli, oh'") Mr. HOME was astonished at Lord John Russell's argument ; which amounted to this, that if seven men committed a murder, it would be sufficient to punish five or six of them, and take no notice of the others.

Mt. P. M. STEWART said, that Keith's offence was of a very aggravated nature— He hail recommended the absence of Pilgrim ; and had been accessory to prolonging it, not merely as Clipperton had done, by corresponding with him, but actually by offering a personal interview with 'him at Calais to relinquish the charge of embezzlement if he would perseverk in a breach of the privileges of that House. What were they now asked to do ? Why, to liberate Keith, to enable him to prosecutes charge of embezzlement which he had himself pro. peered to forego. When Mr. Clipperton, a professional man, had endured seven weeks' imprisonment, and sustained the pecuniary lo.at inevitable on his ab • sence from business, he saw no reason for releasing Keith, the worst offender in this memorable transaction, after an imprisonment of only five days' duration.

Mr. CUTI.AR FERGUSSON and Lord EBRINGTON regretted that they could not vote with Lord John Russell; as, of all the parties implicated, Keith was the most guilty. The House divided ; and passed Mr. Hume's motion, by 110 to 102.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

SCoTTISH CHURCH COMMISSION. Sir WILLIAM RAE presented a petition to the House Commons, on Monday, relative to the Scottish Church ; and took occasion to complain of the manlier in which the Commission had been made up—ten of its members, out of eleven, being decided adherents of the present Government. One of them had even printed his hostility to the Established Church. No confidence could be placed in the report of a Commission so composed. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the subject which the Commissioners would have to inquire into had nothing to do with party politics; and maintained that the selection of the Commissioners had been fairly made—

What objection could be made to the noble earl (Minlo) who was one of the Commis.

siouers man of great ability, great knowledge, and as great impartiality? The same might be said of Mr Mountstuart Elphiustone. a genaiiran of whose aid any Government is-01dd be glad; nod he believed that he had been more than once solieited to take office. Other members were klioun to be firmly attached' to the Church of Scotland. The Plocurator of the Church was also one of the Commissioners. and the brother of two honourable Members, who had so tar taken part with Sir O illiam Rae, as to have voted for the committee. It was fair to presume, therefore. th,it there existed among the Commissioners no feeling unfavourable to the Church of Snotivml. With It-gaol to the individual who had printed his hostility' to the Church, he hail understood from those who were anxious Sir an investigation of tile subject. that it was only fair that some person attached to the Dissenters of Scotland should belong to the Commission—that it would bz taken by the Dissenters as an in idence of impartiality, as for as they were concerned.

THE WEST INDIA LOAN. Mr. SPRING RICE, on Monday, entered into a detailed account of the terms on which he had borrowed fifteen millions sterling to pay the owners of emancipated slaves. It appeared that the bargain had been made with Messrs. Rothschild on terms unprecedently favourable for the public.

" That the Commissioners for Compensation sl Id Le directed to pay to the owners of slaves the interest on the amount of their claims, from the 1st of August 1831. at a rate not exceeding 31. 7s. 8d. per cent."

Mr. Iluste remarked, that it depended altogether upon the price of Consols whether the bargain was a good one or not— Mr. Rice had contracted a loan of fifteen millions ; for which he gave 100/. Stock, and I1l.fls 10d. Long Annuities ; se that, in point of fact, he gave III/. 5s. 10d, for every 1001.; with this difference only, that 100/. of that sum was paid in Stock. The goodness of the bargain depended upon wIwther the Three per Cents. should be at par or not Mr. Rice thought that they would not be at par for several years; and Mr. Ilume's expectation was, that they very soon amid be at par, in which case the contractor would have a great advantage. He would lucre preferted a more simple sys. tern of making the loan. Ile would have preferred if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had Said to the contractor, " I want 100/.; say what rate you Can give it at ?" and whatever the rate oil which it was borrowed was, it might be reduced to 3+ per cent. Whether the Lean was profitable or not, depended entirely upon the rise or fall of Stocks.

Mr. RICE replied, that by the provisions of the Act, be was obliged to raise part of the sum by way of annuity.

The resolution was agreed to.

THE BUDGET. On Thursday, Mr. SPRING RICE said tliat he should snake his financial statement on Friday next.

ASILITIA STAFF 181. L s he d reeding of thihim , tm. *object of which is to reduce the number and cost of the Militia Stilr, was moved by Lord JOHN RUSSELL last night. Colonel Sibs-nom op. posed the motion, in a nonsense speech, which was much laughed at. Lord HOWICK defended the hill. It was necessary to cuttail the ex.. pense of this almost useless branch of the service, whir+ had cost six millions since the peace. The bill was read a second time.

GENERAL DARLING CAPTAIN ROBISON. Last night. a majority of 89 to 46 agreed to an instruetion moved by Lord JOHN' R“SSEI.I. to the Committee on General Darling's conduct by which the Committee are precluded from inquiry into the proceedings of the Courtmartial on Captain Robison.

CASE OF COI.ONEL BRADLEY. Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE, on Tuesday, moved for a Seleet Committee to inquire into the treatment of Colonel Bradley by Colonel Arthur. Mr. Hume and Mr. PRYME supported the motion ; it was opposed by Lord Homo:, Mr. CUTLAK FERGUSSON, and Sir ROBERT PEEL ; and rejected, by 104 to :6'

, moved , moved

CASE OF CAPTAIN ACHESON. Mr. Platiktyrae, on Thursda3,3 an address to the King for the minutes of the Court-martial by whose sentence Captain Acheson, of the Royal Artillery, had in 1824 been dismissed the service. The Captain's offence was refusing, when at Malta, to fire salutes on the occasion of Roman Catholic processions. His refusal to obey his commanding officer in this instance proceeded entirely from a conscientious feeling. Sir JOHN BECKETT, Sir JOHN ELLEY, and Mr. C. FERGUSSON, opposed the motion. Sir JOHN ELLEY said— He conceived it to be the duty of every British officer and soldier, when sta.. tioned in a foreign country, to respect the religious ceremonies of the country in which he might happen to be, whatever might be his own private religious opinions. Did toe house wish the A.any to beco:ne a deliberative body ? If they did, where was their boasted discipline? The duty of the British soldier was to obey the order of his commanding officer, and not to argue the propriety of Ids commands.

Mr. O'CONNELL strongly protested against this slavish doctrine. He denied the legality of the order which Captain Acheson had dis. obeyed, and supported the motion.

Mr. P. HOWARD opposed the motion— There could be no doubt, he apprehended, that Captain Acheson's duty required that he should have fired the salute. He bad a case in point—it was the case of the train hearer of the Kirig of Assyria. ( Great laughter and cheers.) He hoped the House would hear the ease, because it did seem to him to bear strongly on the question at issue. When the train bearer of the King of Assyria—(Loughter)—when the train-bearer of the King of Assyria went and cried to the piophet Nathan, " I attend my sovereigu to the temple where he goes to worship? " the prophet said to him, "Co in pe.e!e." No doubt, the prophet Nathan gave the train, bearer this advice, because he knew that the trainbearer was merely acting in an official capacity, and performing is civil service in going to a place of worship to which he did not belong. ( Cheers and laughter.) Now it seemed to him that Captain Acheson's and the train bearer's were parallel cases; and that Captain Acheson, acting upon the principle of the train-bearer, might, in the discharge of his official duty, have overcome his religious scruples. This was the broad line of distinction. He had stated it clearly, and he hoped to the perfect satisfaction of the House. ( General cheers.)

The motion was rejected, by 54 to 27.

LIMITATION OF POLLS BILL. This bill was read a third time, and passed the House of Commons, on Monday.

ADMISSION OF LADIES TO THE COMMONS GALLERY. On Tuesday, Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELY moved that the House agree to the report of the Committee recommending that accommodation should be made for ladies in the Gallery of the House. But upon a division, there appeared a majority of 89 to 83 against the motion. So the ladies will be excluded, as heretofore.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Last night, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved, " That for the rest of the session, Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices." This resolution bad been adopted last session on the 9th of July.

Mr. HUME said

" I quite agree with the noble lord, Hutt it is desirable that some arrangement of the kind should be made; but 1 SS fish to ask 'list prospect the noble lord eau afford us of the termination or the session? Suppose, as is alleged. that the bill now belore the other House should be rejected, it would be my business to submit to this House the propriety of u call *Stile House, in onler to determine what measure should be adopted in such an event. It is certainly expedient to get the bills through. and that the attendance should not be thinner thou can be avoided ; but this House is the Great Council of the Nation. and ought to be ready to meet the emergency I have contemplated. I do not, therefore, agree to the proposal of the noble lord because I thiek the session near its end."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated, that in case of the emergency alluded to by Mr. Hume, he agreed with him in thinking that an extraordinary course of proceeding would be required on the part of this House. With that course the motion which he bad now made could not interfere, as it could easily be set aside .in case of urgency or necessity.

Mr. ROEBUCK suggested, that the House should adjourn for a month or six weeks, while the farce was going on in another place. (Crtes of " Order!" and " Chair !")

The SPEAKER said, Mr. Roebuck must be aware of the impropriety of the expression.

Mr. ROEBUCK resumed

" Certainly, after what you, Mr. Speaker. have said. I feel that it would have been better not to have made the observation; but I should not have discovered its improprietv—(" Order!")—I hope I may be permitted to finish my sentence-Hi should nut hwe'discuvered its impropriety, seeing what has been allowed to be said in another place regarding this blouse." (cheers.)

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the House of Commons would best maintain its dignity by not taking notice of any thing offensive or derogatory that might be said in another place. THE LATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved, and Sir ROBERT PEET. seconded the following resolution.

" That Mr Speaker be requested to acquaint Mr. Henry Seymour, that this Hour entertains the highest sense of the exemplary zeal and fidelity with which he has uniformly discharged the duties of his situation during his long attendance in the service of time House."

The resolution was agreed to unanimously.