The Sun. — London, England, 1837-02-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The motion of Mr. Charles Lushington for the removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords was only lost by a majority of 197 to 92. We confess we did not expect so large a minority. The Bishops have formerly contributed not a little to the unpopularity of the House of Lords, and the present unpopularity of the Peers seems to be particu larly visited on the Bishops, if we may judge from the ac cession to the numbers in the Commons who wish to see them removed from the Upper House. But if, as Lord John Russell stated, the arguments of Mr. Charles Lush ington went rather to change the Episcopalian for a Pres byterian Establishment, than tojustify the removal of the Bishops from the Upper House, may not his Lordship's ar gument, that the Bishops are the individuals of the Church who can best be spared to attend in Parliament, be rather an argument against the utility of Bishops than one in favour of their being Members of the Legislature ? Are not those the best friends of Episcopacy who contend that its duties are of the utmost importance, and that without the constant vigilance and labour of a Bishop the Church could not be well governed ? If a Bishop attends as he ought to his spiritual duties, we suspect he will have little time left for attendance in Parliament.—illorn. Chronicle. The " Finsbury Reform Dinner,"as the White Conduit house display of democracy and " domestic cookery" is lu dicrously called, was certainly a very droll affair, but to speak the truth, not a little disgusting also. The first toast was " The King—his just rights, and no more." The second toast was " The People—their just rights, and no less." Now, why the studied reservation which is observable in the words "no more" as applied to the words "no less" when attached in contra distinction to the rights of the people ? Can there be any doubt as to the meaning of these White Conduit toast makers ? Can anything be more contemptible than this sneaking, snivelling mode of insiiliating, that what they call the rights of the people shall be pushed as far as possible, while the constitutional rights of the Monarchy are to be re stricted to whatever limits the weakness of the Crown and the treachery of Ministers may invite the Radicals to pluck up courage enough to insist that they shall be confined to ? , We think this worth notice, as characteristic of the meanness of the spirit of the party ; and it is only in this respect that we consider it worth any notice at all : for the real nature of their schemes is as well known as their inability to carry them into effect is apparent. Mr.Hurne was the first speaker who inflicted an oration upon the Democrats, gorged, as the account runs, with " domestic cookery.') His speech was, as all his speeches have been recently, half Radical, half Ministerial. Ile attempted to persuade the company, that his only object was the public good, and that he was " never influenced ley personal feelings." No doubt he thought so, or he would not have said so : but we incline to believe that, upon reflection, he will find himself wrong. Was he all for the public, and not at all for himself, when in India he monopolized so many offices—when he entered Parliame.nt and sat and voted in it as " rank Tory"— when he immortalized himself in the affair of the Greek Loan—when he is paying those daily visits for places to the Treasury of which the Ministers complain so bitterly ? Ile, moreover, told his hearers, eaat in 1819 be was considered little better than " a wild beast.' Verily the march of civilization must have far out-strided the march of intellect, when he whom others considered little better than a wild beast in 1819, is, by his own confession, merely a goose now. Mr. Harvey, who followed Mr. Heine, differed from Into, and demonstrated that the Mid dlesex goose did not waddle far enoweli or fast enough for the consummation of Radicalism. This called up Mr. Roebuck, who, without compromising his own opinions (which, to do him justice, he never does anywhere), re probated Mr. Harvey for not holdin e the same language in the house of Commons. Sonic of the party kissed Mr. Roebuck, but they were quickly put down. Then Mr. Hervey tried to reply, but this was refused ; he was hissed in his turn, arid the meeting was threatened %vhli a break up hi the midst of the performances. At length, however, li-. Harvey was allowed to speak again, and the Hon. 'Member then asked Mr. Recheck why he did not " etn ;eels( his views in a substantive motion (for the llonse of Commons), instead of merely making a democratic speech on the first night of the Session ?" " Pretty play, gentlemen," as they say at single-stick matches when the playet (?) crack one another's crowns for the nmusement of the crowd. Here, however, the set-to stepped, Mr. Roebuck appearing to be satisfied with having "drawn the first blood." We, being neither umpires nor seconds, content ourselves with narrating the course of the combat, and give no opinion as to who had the best of it. Colonel Thomson rose, as he said, to calm the agitation of the scene. He compared himself to a shepherd in Viceii —thought that Messrs. Roebuck and Harvey were "elr reure.T niebo," arid proposed, after the peaceful and im partial practice of the rustic times to which his classic re collections (or something else) had transported him, to eeefer a prize upon each of the combatants. Fancy one of Virgil's shepherds in White Conduit-fields? Oh, Peter Pastoral ! Peier Pastoral ! who will hereafter call yours au overdrawn character ! The gallant shepherd then went on to declare, that he feared neither man nor devil—mean ing, of course, "one down and the other come on"—for lie admitted that he was afraid of "a mob," and apropos thereto called the House of Commons "a mob." Then, much more after the fashion of a Smithfield drover than a Virgilian shepherd, he talked about the iniquity of " the tax upon bacey," and in the same breath foli I attempted to say some civil things to the ladies ! —What an Arcadia would Shepherd Thomson's be, ye nymphs of White Conduit-fields ! Pig-tail for primroses, and short-cut instead of snow-drops, returns, for roses, and quids in place of cowslips—Virginia for violets, and instead of Pan's pipes, mere pipes of pipe-clay! The proceedings of the domestic-cookery and democracy feast were wound up with a speech from Daniel O'Connell, who made a puling, pitiful appeal on behalf of the Whigs ; and when that did not seem to take, he begged the company, if they were determined to kick out the Ministers, not to be so imprudent as to commence their kicking until Church rates should be aboli s h e d, an d th e I r i s h Corporation - Bill passexl, It is not very surprising that when it comes to a question of kicking, the tail should take the alarm, and de sire to be out of reach, or well cased before the operation begins. But does Daniel call this backing his friends the Ministers ? One word in conclusion. We beg to offer to Lord Melbourne, anti to the rest of the Cabinet, our congratulations upon this addition to the many public de monstrations and declarations which have recently been matte, that so far from it being possible for them to sa tisfy their Radical allies, those allies propose for them, as the ultimate reward of all their concessions, past, present, and to come, that they shall be " kicked out."—Times. There are few persons unbitten by the rabid mania of party, who are not now convinced that the last return of the Whigs to office has been a national calamity, and that under Sir Robert Peel's administration, had he been allowed to continue in office, the country would long ago have been safe, and valuable reforms in operation, instead of finding itself arrayed, as it now is, against the threatened popish revolutionary measures which Lord Melbourne and.his col leagues are compelled to bring forward by the unconstitu tional and irresponsible tyrant, who rules them as with a rod of iron. Every former administration, however unpo pular it may have become, has had to the last some adhe rents in the country ; but it was reserved for our present Whig rulers to a acquire alike the scorn of friends, and the ridicule of opponents. In whatever department viewed, whether home nr foreign, colonial or financial, this tribe of incapables appear but to rival each other in the fatal distinction of inefficiency. In the meanwhile, each one, naturally enough, asks his neighbour how much longer such a state of things can last? How much longer the affairs of a hitherto mighty empire, like that of Great Britain, can continue to be confided to hands, the majority of whom look to office as a mere means of subsistance, and are therefore willing to retain it upon any terms? The best state of a popular Government is when the rulers and the people mutually give and take the tone from each other. Is such the case at pre sent in England ? Is the Government the organ of the sense and feeling of the country upon any one topic, or in any one department ? and if it has any nominal adherents, are they not divided into two classes of the hungry ex yectants of patronage, and of those who look to the over ;throw of existing institutions as the consummation of their seorcely concealed wishes ? Still we are aware that there ' are many persons, whose judgment is entitled to re spect, who consider that the time is not yet ripe for the ex pulsion of the Whigs from office, and that grounded upon the opinion that their former dismissal was premature, of itself led to their return. These persons judge that the cup of general contempt is not yet full, and that the longer /heir dismissal is delayed, the more certain shall we be that their exit will be final and secure. In this view of the matter we do not deny that there is much plausibility ; but ought a whole nation and its interests, both abroad and at home, to stand still, while a tribe of blunderers are en hancing their career of fatal mistakes, and greedily pocket. ing their ill-earned reward? This kind of experimental mischief is neither adapted to public or private affairs ; and it therefore every day and every hour more strongly be hoves the good sense of the country to speak out, and em phatically put an end to a state of things, which not only arrests the march of national honour and prosperity, hut „may be tamely allowed to exist, till the incendiary hand which moves its puppets has raised the conflagration which I ie evidently aims to effect. —Morning Herald. 'The Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the.' Vase of Mr. Lechmere Charlton was last night laid be forer the House of Commons. We are h appy to perce i ve t h a notwithstanding all the undue exertions used by the Toi ies to bias the decision of the Com m it tee , the result is a ,i ci irlication, or rather an admission—for vindication was necessary-r—of the legality of the course pursued by the L ird Chancellor. The Report concludes by stating that, " under all the circumstances, the Committee were of opi nion that Mr. Charlton's prayer for his discharge, by reason of his privilege as a Member of Parliament, ought not to Le admitted." It is certainly desirable that the House of Commons should be vigilant in the assertion of its just and rational privileges ; for though the time is gone by when the Executive would dare to attempt any serious or un warranted encroachment on the liberty of the Members of the Senate, yet the very shadow of such aggression should be distinctly and energetically repelled ; but, at the same time, if every hairbrained bully, who may chance to be elected to the representation, be privileged to beard and insult with impunity the first officers oftheExecutive, the judi eial authority would sink into perfect contempt. The mortifi cation of the Tories appeared excessive at the " pet of their fancy" being still left in durance, and the Chairman of the Committee, after the reading of the report, sought to digest the venom of his spleen by moving that the proprietor of a Morning paper, which censured the mode in which the Tories endeavoured to pack the Committee, should be or dered to attend the bar of the House. After the unmea sured abuse and calumnious accusations which the Tory press have teemed against, not only the majority of the House of Commons, but his Majesty's Ministers, it ill be comes them to evince such extreme sensitiveness ; but the consciousness of the censure being deserved, naturally ag gravates the pain of its application. Lord John Russell exposed the monstrous audacity of the motion in a few ',vords. "To pass," said his Lordship, " over all minor observations of this description, a charge delivered by the Lord Bishop of Exeter, in which, as far as I remember, after representing the majority of this House, in their proceedings, to be under the guidance of a faction who wished to destroy property and all the institutions of the country, he proceeded to say, certain Mem bers of this House—sufficiently designated—the Members who professed the Roman Catholic faith—were guilty of treachery and perjury. Sir, if we are to take notice of breaches of privilege, I must say I think we ought not to lose a moment in vindicating the honour of the Members of this House, who, for giving their votes in Parliament, and for nothing else are declared by this Right Rev. Prelate, whose source foe making that declaration was the public press—he has declared them to be guilty of treachery and perjury. For my own part, when I read the pamphlet, I thought it as gross a breach as ever bad been committed of the privileges of this House ; but I was convinced that those Members whom it attacked would do far better to treat it with utter contempt—and not take any notice of' such pro ceedings, but act according to their own sentiments of what their duty was ; and are we now to be told that we are to take up cases of this kind, when a journalist chooses to say that some Member of the Committee had been whipped up to attend it ?" This seemed to abash even Tory impudence, or perhaps calumny being their chief hope in political disquisition, it was thought politic not to press a point which might compromise every scribe that wields a pen in their behalf ; he this as it may, the motion was withdrawn. Other privileges of the House were sub sequently brought under consideration, and on the proposi tion of Lord John Russell, a motion passed, " That a Se lect Committee be appointed to examine into precedents respecting the circulation and publication of Reports and Papers printed by order of that House, in order to ascer tain what was the practice of Parliament prior to and since the order for the sale of such Papers.' There are some privileges of the House of Commons long in abeyance, and their violation connived at, the formal abrogation of which would afford opportunity of enforcing those more essential to its dignity, and the protection of its free discussion. Of these we trust the present Committee will recommend the aboli tion.—Morninj Advertiser. One triumph of the Conservative cause succeeds an other, in unbroken series. I t seems to be in no degree material to the issuo in what part of Great Britain a con test for the election of a Member of Parliament takes place, or of what class of society the constituency is chiefly composed ; far, whether the, locality to be repre sented be in the e. , Nt, the west, the north, or the ,south — whether the voters be principally of the agricultural, the manufacturinz, or the commercial class, we need only hear of a seat in the liouse of Commons bang vacant to be as sured that the election of a Conservative Member, by a triumphant majority, is at hand. We present in another part of our paper the glorious progress and triumphant ter mination of yesterday's poll at the contested election for the county of Bucks. it will be seen that Mr. Har- Court, the Conservative candidate, outstripped his op ponent by considerably more than two to one. From the first we believe there was no doubt as to the result ; but it was not anticipated, even by the most san , guine friends of the Constitution, that the defeat of the Ministerial candidate would have been so signal, so dis graceful we may properly acid, to the party which brought him forward. The terns disgraceful is not gratuitously or inconsiderately employed here, for the party who put for ward Mr. Da.,hwood have acted throughout the affair in that spirit of mean malignity and low cunning which would disgrace any cause, awl the recorded votes of the electors attest bow correctly tie feelings and principles which guided them are understood and appreciated. To impose upon the Conservative candidate useless trouble and ex pOnse, and to annoy the Conservative electors, were the only objects which the party or the defeated candidate can be supposed to have hail for a moment in their contempla tion. It would be to stultify them to suppose that they can so fir have mistaken the character of the electors among whom they live as to flatter themselves with the least hope of success. But, by keeping back to the last moment, and encouraging in the meantime the expectation that no opposition would be attempted, they might take the Conservative candidate and his friends by surprise, and thus present such a comparative array of votes, although a majority was out of the ques tion, as might be less fatal to the future hopes of their party than an unresisting surrender. Upon this desperate speculation they proceeded. On the day of nomination their candidate emerged—we beg pardon, the candidate did not emerge, but his name only, from the darkness in ~tihich it had - hitherto been carefully concealed. The shal low trick has met, we rejoice to say, with its appropriate reward. The electors of Bucks have shown that they were not to be cheated by a sleight-of-hand device out of their right of genuine representation. They have mani fested meritorious vigilance, energy, and zeal in the main tenance of' their principles. The vacant place in their re presentation will accsrdingly be filled by a gentleman whose political principles, whose social station, and whose estimable character fully entitle him to their confidence and esteem. But the tricksters, we venture to say, will be heard of no mo re as a p o liti ca l party i n t h e county o f Buckingham for very many years to come.—Morning Post. A silver consular coin or denarius, was lately washed ashore at Lyme, and is now in Mr. Carter's numisma tic series. It bears the head of Mercury, with the petasus or winged cap. On the reverse is a Bigce, or chariot and pair. The legend is A. SAERI. The minting, triumvir's name, and C. MA., show the piece to have been a family coin of the Marii, a plebeian family, but enobled in history by the exploits of the great Marius. Lyme was a Roman station, and so was Canca Ariva, or Charmouth.— Wiltshire Herald. The Romans not only rewarded those who married but decreed penalties against men who remained in a state of celibacy. Fines were first levied upon unmarried men about the year of Rome 350 ; and when pecuniary forfeitures failed to ensure their obedience to these connubial edicts, their con tumacious neglect of the fair sex was punished by degradatina from their tribe. Celibacy continued, however, to gain ground in Rome; and, to counteract its effects, we find that, in the year 518 from the foundation of the city, the censors had re course to the extraordinary measure of obliging all the young unmarried men to pledge themselves on oath to marry within a certain time. In Babylon, an auction of unmarried ladies used to take place annually. The death of Ann Lock, at Pilton, near Barn stable, having taken place, as it was alleged, by the Barnstaple Union relieving officer neglecting to give her aid during her illness, although he had repeatedly promised to do so, the greatest agitation pervaded the town. At the inquest it was stated that Joce, the officer alluded to, had been repeatedly requested to send a medical man to the deceased ; he said he would do so, but no one went. In explanation he said he had quite forgotten it. The jury, after hearing the evidence of a surgeon, returned a verdict " that the deceased died from in flammation of the lungs, and the neglect of the relieving officer."—North Devon Advertiser. Like most Cantabs I acquired at College an un lucky taste for driving. I have driven my tandem for many thousand miles in safety, and used at times to exhibit at once my folly and my skill, by threading the narrowest and moat crowded streets in London. It is scarcely necessary to add, that eventually I broke my head ; though in justice to my skill I must declare that the fault was not mine, but my coach_ maker's. The shaft had been morticed into the splinter bar at the very point where its goodness was broken by a knot in the wood. One day after a long journey into the country, and within forty yards of my own door, the shaft broke, and I was thrown over the shaft-horse under the heels of my old favourite. There I lay insensible. The awkward hands who came to render assistance waisted (as I was afterwards in formed by my servant,) to move the horse away from me, at the risk of putting Isis heels upon my face ; but move he would not ; nor would he allow a foot to be raised, till at last I was fairly lifted up from under bins, and then, though not till then, he readily changed his position and moved wherever they pleased to lead him. I have no inference to draw from this, except a caution even to the most experienced whips against tandems. I mention this anecdote as a tribute of gratitude to my poor horse, who showed at least as much sense as his master. It may also supply a motive for a generous and hu mane treatment of this too often ill-used and noble animal.-- Caveat Einptor, Gent. " I've been buying a splendid pianoforte for my wife." said a gay bridegroom. " A Broadwood, of course," observed a lady. " 0 dear no, ma'am—it was a rose-wood." At the shop of a bookseller in Marylebone-lane, there is exhibited on a shop-board in front of the window, an octavo volume, to which is aned the following curious label : Crabbo's poetical poems, price only 91" IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 16. GRAND JURY BILL (IRELAND.) Mr. BERNAL and several of the Members of the House of Commons, brought up the Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill. Mr. Campbell appeared from the India House, and brought up resolutions, granting pensions. ABOLITION OF CHURCH RATES. Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition from the inha bitants of Great Yarmouth, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Lord SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Chat ham, which he stated was signed by the Churchwardens, and a number of the respectable inhabitants, praying that Church rates might not be abolished. The Noble Lord also pre sented petitions to the same effect from the householders and landholders of High Holston, in the county of Oxford. The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition numerously signed from the parish of Halton, praying for the total aboli tion of Church-rates. Lord ASIIBURTON presented a petition from a parish in Surrey, praying that their Lordships would not consent to the abolition of Church -rates. The Earl of BANDON presented a petition from the Governors of the Dispensary of Bandon, praying for the amendment of the first clause of the Irish Grand Jury Bill. The Noble Lord also presented petitions from the Go vernors of the Dispensary of Innishannon, and the Governor of the dispensary of Dundarron to the same effect—and con cluded by saying that he begged to ask the Noble Viscount op posite whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to make any such alteration? Viscount DUNCANNON said that a Bill to alter the Irish Grand Jury Act had had passed the House of Commons, and come up to their Lordships' House, and he would now move that it be read a first time ; and as it was desirable that it should pass as soon as possible, he would move that it be read a second time to-morrow. It was his in tention, when it was in Committee, to propose some alterations. The Bill was then read a first time. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES BILL. Viscount MELBOURNE said that he had to move the first reading of a Bill to suspend the operation of the Marriage Act, and the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Act, which had passed last Session. The pre sent Bill consisted of three clauses, the first of which provided the postponement of the operation of these Acts for four months from the Ist of March to the last day of June neat. The Bill was brought in on those simple grounds of which their Lordships were aware—the machinery by which the Acts were to be car ried into effect, consisted of the Boards of Guardians, and as there was reason to suspect that a great many more unions would.be formed by the Ist of July, it was thought better that the system should be carried into effect at once, and for this purpose, it was proposed to suspend the operation of the the Acts until then. The remaining two clauses of the pre sent Bill were consequent upon the first, and he would now move that it be read a first time. Lord BROUGHAM thought, on the short ground stated by his Noble Friend, that the operation of the Act alluded to ought to be postponed ; but he really could not, upon the short notice he had had, say that the present Bill might not require a great deal of alteration in its machinery. It had only been put into his hand about an hour ago, and it would be necessary to examine it carefully with two former Acts of considerable length. He should take the earliest opportunity of comparing them, and.give the present measure all the sup_ port he possibly could. The Bid was then read a first time. • The Marquis of LANSDO WNE presented petitions from a Dissenting Congregation in Hackney, and a Congregation of Baptists in the - parish of Corsby, Wilts, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from the Congre gations of Dissenters in the county of Norfolk, from Weather_ field, Suffolk, and from Hamilton, praying for the total aboli tion of Church-rates. The Noble Lord thought it right to call the attention of the House to part of the petition from Hamilton. The petition was signed by a grea number of persons as highly respectable as any of his Majesty's subjects could possibly be ; and, although he entirely approved of the petition generally, yet some of its language was . so strong, that he was bound to bring it to the notice of their Lordships. At the same time the petition was respectful, and he did not think that the strength of its lan guage ought to cause the House to reject it. The petitioners, in speaking with reference to the Est,.blished Church, ex_ pressed their astonishment that it should be so mean, so unjust, and so obnoxious, as to exact form its poorer brethren a tax which they consider they were in nowise bound to pay. The Noble Lord then presented petitions from dissenting con gregations in liadleigh, Anglesey. Wincanton, Highgate Chapel, Huddersfield, Bradford, Marlborough Chapel, Old Kent-road, Stepney Chapel, Stepney, Earl-street Chapel, Walwortti, Clapton Chapel, Upper Clapton, a chapel in Islington, and from the Town-Council of the Borough of Newport, all praying for the total abolition of Ch'ireh-rates. The Noble Lord said that all the petitions he had now pre sented (and he had a great ninny more to the same effect, but which he should not detain the House with at present,) joined in praying for the total abolition of Church-rates without throwing any portion of them on a general fund. They also all joined in opinion that matters had better remain as they at present were-, than that such commutation should take place. Although most of them were Dissenters, many of them were Churchmen who joined in the petitions ; and the ground they took was, that it was unjust to cast upon Dissenters this tax for the support of a Church of which they were not members. Not all of them, but some of them, held it to be contrary to the rights of conscience, and contrary to the laws of God, that they should be called upon to pay this rate, and consequently they held it to be illegal, and such as could not be enforced by the laws of man. The House then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 16. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. Mr. SEIAW LEFEYRE brought up the Report of the Committee on the Chester and Birkenhead Railway. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL brought up the Report of the Committee on the Edinburgh Police Bill. The Report of the Committee on the Commercial Railway Bill was also brought up and laid on the Table. Mr. BARNARD, in the absence of the Chairman of the Greenwich Railway Company, presented a petition from the Directors of that Company, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to raise a further sum of money. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition from the Sunder. land Railway Company, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of that Company. Mr. HALFORD presented a petition to the same effect from the Warrington Railway Company. Captain GORDON brought in the Aberdeen Roads Bill. Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from the Trustees of the Glasgow Roads, praying for leave to Ling in a Bill. Lord JAMES STUART presented a petition from the Ardrossan and Johnstone Railway Company, praying for leave to establish a railway between those two towns. Sir JOHN BECK ETT presented a petition from the Trus tees of the Leeds and Rochdale roads, praying- for leave to bring in a Bill for altering and amending their line of road. Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from the South London Market Company, praying the House not to grant any Bill for establishing another Market in the parish of St. George, Southwark, which was in their immediate neighbour hood. BIRMINGHAM GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. CLAY presented a petition praying for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the line of the Birmingham Grand Junction Railway. CEMETERY_(NOTTINGHAM.) Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Nottingham, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to erect a Cemetery in that town. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the National Endowment Insurance Society, praying for leave to bring- in a Bill to enable them to sue and be sued in the name of the Chairman. GLASGOW AND KILMARNOCK .RAILWAY. Lord W. BENTINCK presented a petition, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend this line of Railway. Mr. CHALMERS presented a petition from Dundee, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to supply that town with water. Mr. E. TE NNE NT presented a petition for the establish ment of a Cemetery in the North of London. Mr. ANGERSTEIN presented a petition, praying fur the extension of tho Greenwich Railway. CHURCH RATES. Petitions praying for the total abolition of Church-rates were presented by Mr. DOBBIN ' Mr. JERVIS ' and Admiral ADAMS. Mr. BAINES presented petitions from Wellington in So mersetshire, from Bow Chapel, London, and from Nuneaton (eight in number), praying for the entire extinction of Church rates. WILK S said he had a petition on the same subject, of importance, from the number and respectability of the signatures attached to it. It was from the deputies of several congregations of Protestant Dissenters within 12 miles of London. They represented 120 congregations, and they prayed the house to take immediate measures for the entire abolition of Church-rates. The Hon. Momberthen presented petitions from Wellingborough in Northampton, from Sheer ness in Kent, and from Bewley in Southampton, to the same effect. Mr. VERNON SMITH presented similar petitions from the Mayor aad Town Council of Northampton, and from Woodford, Alnwick, Milton, and other places in Northampton shire. Mr. TIMM presented petitions to the same effect from the inhshitants of Aylesbury, from the Dissenters of Old Chapel, Chelmsford ; from the congregation of Watsford, in Suffolk; and from Great Yarmouth, signed by the mayor as chairman of a public meeting called for that purpose —all praying for the total a b o liti on of Church-rates, and respec tablyallsine and numerously signed. The ATTORNEY-ENERAL presented a simil ar pe tion from the congregati o n o f Albion-street Chapel, Edi n . burgh. Mr. OSWALD pr esen t e d a p e tition from Glasgow, g by 42,000 inhabitants, praying for the total abolition of Church-rates. He would merely express his concurrenc e in the views of the petitioners, and state that the places of abode of all of them were attached to the signatures. Mr. C. LUS HINGTON and Mr. BA INE S supported the prayer of the petition, and the latter Gentleman added that the petitioners wished that no grant should be made to the Scotch. Church on account of the deficiency in its revenues arising from the abolition of Church-rates. Mt:: C. LUSH INGTO N said he had a petition to present which embodied the sentiments of millions. It was from mi. nizters end laymen of Dissenting Congregatlons assembled in London, from various parts of Great Britain, for the total abolition of Church-rates. He need not inform the House that considerable excitement existed on this subject through out the country ; but so great was it in the metropolis, that it led to the formation of a Church Abolition Society.— ( Shouts of laughter from the Opposition benches.) He was sorry for the mistake he had made—he meant to say a Chttrch-rate Abolition Society. The petition which he held was signed by 400 delegates from every part of Great Bri tain and Scotland—(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—who came to London for the purpose of impressing upon the represen tatives of the people the necessity of an immediate abolition of Church-rates. He had also 36 petitions to present from Frome, from East Cambridge, from Southampton, and from various other places to the same effect. BENEFIT SOCIETIES. Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD presented a petition from Birmingham, praying for the repeal of all laws relating to Benefit Societies, and that these bodies be allowed to form their own rules and regulations. Mr. WILKS supported-the prayer of the petition, and was proceeding to address some observations to the House, when The SPEAKER reminded the Hon. Member that he was infringing upon the rule of the House. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been requested to support the prayer of many of these petitions, but he thought the proper time would be when the subject came under the consideration of the House. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD also supported the prayer of the petition. Mr. BARLOW HOY presented petitions to the same ef fect from London, Westminster, Birmingham, Canterbury, Southampton, and two other places. Mr. HUME supported the prayer of the petitions. Mr. DUGDA LE gave notice that, on the Ist of March, he should submit a Resolution that the Proprietors of all Railway and Canal Companies be made responsible for the depredations and injuries occasioned by their servants. Mr. S. LEFEVRE presented petitions from Woodchurch, and another place in Southampton, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Mr. 11. HINDE gave notice that on bringing up the Re port of the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill, he should move the introduction of a clause to provide for the en dowment of hospitals and almshouses for the widows and orphans of freemen. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented two petitions from Edinburgh, praying for a repeal of the duty on Life In surances. Mr. H. GRATTAN presented petitions from Kilmore, Duleek, Knockmartin, Kilmurray, and Kilmore, all in the county of Meath, prayint , for Corporate Reform for Ireland, to the same extent as had been granted to England and Scot land, and for the abolition of tithes. That from Kilmore com plained of having been designated as " aliens in blood, in reli gion, and in language." TITHE COMMUTATION ACT. Sir E. KNATCHBULL was anxious to obtain, from the Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), some information with reference to the Commutation Act of last Session. An opi nion generally prevailed that this Act required much amend ment and improvement, and that it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to introduce a measure in the present session for that purpose. Perhaps the Noble Lord would be kind enough to inform the House what the intention of his Majesty's Government really was ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL was quite aware that' such re ports as those mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet pre vailed, but he could not imagine from what source they had arisen. The Tithe Commissioners had uniformly expressed an opinion that there was no necessity for introducing an amendment, or alteration, by which the operation of the Act of last Session could be rendered more easy or efectual, and that, therefore, there was no reason for proposing any such amendment.—(Hear.) He could also state, that the Government on their side had no intention whatever of pro posing an amendment or alteration of that Act. Mr. HODGES had heard the statement of the Noble Lord with regret, as there were clauses in the Tithe Bill with respect to rating that undoubtedly required alteration. THE COLONIES. Mr. E W ART wished to ask the under. Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received any report from the Commissioners on that subject. Sir GEORGE GREY said that the Commissioners were proceeding to make enquiries on the subject -of the Colonies, and he believed that' some of their Reports had been made, but none as yet had been sent to the Government. Mr. E WART wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government as fast as those Reports appeared to lay them before the House. Sir GEORGE GREY did not anticipate that the Re ports would be laid before the House as they were received. There could be no objection, however, to lay them upon the table, but there was an objection to lay them before the House before the Government had had an opportunity of reading them. Mr. EWA RT then said he would give notice of his inten tion to move to-morrow that the Reports should be laid on the table as they appeared. Sir G. GREY said ho did not refuse to give them as they appeared to the House; he only claimed the right, on the part of the Government, to read them first. Mr. E WART expressed himself satisfied with this state ment. CORN TRADE WITH MALTA. An lioN. MEMBER wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was the intention of his Ma jesty's Government to make any alteration in the regulations with respect to corn going to Malta, or whether they intended to stand by the statements in the Gazette. • _ Sir GEORGE. GREY said that in consequence of a ques tion by the Hon. Member for Worcestershire last year, he stated that it was the intention of the Government to act on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry of 1830, and directions to that effect had been sent out to Malta. The Government had seen no necessity to make 'any alteration on the subject, but was still determined to act upon that recommendation. Of course, the establishments which had been kept up for the purpose of se curing corn would cease the moment the necessity for them did not exist. CANADA. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Home Department intended to let the House have the Report of the Canada Committee, before he called upon them to express any opinion of what had taken place. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was certainly his inten tion that the Report should be laid on the table before he made any proposition to the House. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL opportunity of stating to the House the course I wish to pursue with res pect to public business for to-morrow and next week. It is my intention to move to-morrow that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill take precedence of other Orders of the Day fixed for to-morrow. If the Bill is read a second time to-morrow, I shall then move that the Committee stand appointed for Monday next.—( Hear, hear.) A Noble Lord opposite (Lord Francis Egerton) has given notice of a motion, the same as he brought forward last year, proposing instructions to the Committee for the abolition of Corporations. Now that, I suppose, will be the chief debate on the subject of that Bill, and it certainly is possible that that debate will last more than one day. Now, supposing that to be the case, I certainly wish if an arrangement could be made, to let my Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bring forward the question of Church Rates on Thursday, and put off the Canada question till the following Tuesday—that will depend on gentlemen being willing to give us pre cedence on Thursday.--( Hear.) With respect to another question which the Hon. Member for Berkshire has asked me more than once, namely, with respect to the Committee on the Poor-laws, finding there is no chance of our concurring as to the terms in which that Committee should be appointed (and if a Committee is to be appointed, it is desirable that no time should be lost in coming to an issue on the question in what terms the Committee should be appointed), and therefore I shall not object to let the Honourable Member make his motion. Then I will move my amendment, or I will first move for the Committee, and the Hon. Gentleman can then state his views and move any amendment he thinks proper, and I propose that this should be done on Friday next. Mr. WALTER would agree to the Noble Lord's proposi tion, that he should move his amendment upon the Noble Lord's motion for a Committee. CORPORATION OF LONDON. Mr. MACLEAN wished to ask the Noble Lord op posite whether any steps had been taken towards effecting a Reform in the Corporation of London, and when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into that subject would be laid before the House. • _ Lord JOHN RUSSELL said there were some papers con nected with that Report which were not at present fully com pleted, but he trusted that in a week or ten days, he should be able to lay the Report on the table. WEST INDIES. Mr. MACLEAN also wished to ask whether any steps had been taken for the purpose of carrying into effect a Bill passed last Session for the purpose of enlarging the ju dicature in the West India Islands. Sir G. GREY said that instructions had been sent out to the authorities in the West India Islands to carry into effect the Bill of last Session. ..„ Mr. MACLEAN then wished to know if the Hon. Gen tleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, could inform the House whether or not any law had passed the West India Legislature on the subject. Sir GEORGE GR E Y—l believe there has. THE BALLOT, TITHES, &c. Mr. O'CONNELL presented twelve petitions , from dif ferent places in Ireland in favour of the rote by Ballot— (Hear) —eleven petitions in favour of the abolition of Tithes —twelve petitions praying the House to grant a measure of Municipal Reform for Ireland, similar to that now enjoyed byEngland and Scotland—two petitions in favour of Poor-laws for Ireland—two for Peerage Reform on Radical principles— and one petition complaining of a particular grievance under what was commonly called Lord Stanley's Act. The petitions were all ordered to be brought up and laid on the table. MR. LECHMERE CHARLTON. Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Lechmere Charlton. The Clerk then proceeded to read, in a very hurried and almost inaudible voice, the Report. It stated that the peti tions presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Hud dersfield, and by the Hon. Member for Lambeth, from Lech mere Charlton, Esq., a Member of that House, had been re ferred to the Committee. The warrant for the commit ment of Mr. L. Charlton to the Fleet Prison, and the order of Court, upon which it was founded, were produced, and it appeared from them that lie had been committed for writing a letter to W. Brougham ; Esq. a Master of the High Court of Chancery, for attempting improperly to influence that Court. The report had been agreed to by a majority of 10 out of 15 who composed that Committee (as we understood)— Mr. O'CONNELL—Speak up. The Clerk proceeded—The Committee found that the order of the Court did not set forth the letter in question upon which the charge was grounded. The Committee directed that letter to be produced, inasmuch as, although the Lord Chancellor had the power of determining what he conceived to be a contempt of Court, it was necessary that the House .of Commons should be correctly informed upon the subject, and to decide whether this letter was of such a character. The Committee had also summoned Mr. Cheri ton before them ; and they found upon exemination that the letter was expressed in an improper and intemperate manner. It was offensive to the Master, and thereby a contempt of the authority of the Court under which he acted—having been written with the intent to influence the conduct of the Master, with a view to obtain a further hearing of a cause which, if it had been applied for in a proper manner, Mr. Charl ton would have obtained.—( Hear, hear.) The report then proceeded to detail the particulars of the letter written by Mr. Charlton to the Master, and the cause to which it referred, and then proceeded to point out what the law and usage of Par liament had been in such cases, commencing so far back as 16-11. Under all the circumstances the Committee were of opinion that Mr. Charlton's prayer for his discharge by reason of his privilege of Parliament, ought not to be admitted. . Mr. W. WYNN had been charged by the Committee to lay before the House a paragraph which had appeared that morning in one of the newspapers, which attributed the at tendance of Members solely to party feeling and party purposes. He had seldom seen a fuller attendance of Members, and the report which had just been read would show how the reflection was met by the Committee—that the great majority of those who usually agreed with Mr. Charlton in politics, had agreed that he should not by his privilege of Parliament be entitled to his discharge.—( Hear, hear.) There was no other op portunity of contradicting the calumny which had been thrown upon the motives of those Hon. Members who had attended the Committee, than by bringing it before the House. The publication of the paragraph in question tended directly to obstruct the course of justice. He would read it to the House : " We directed attention, ten days ago, to the indecent con duct of the Tories on the question respecting the claim of pri vilege by Mr. E. Lechmere Charlton against the process of the Lord Chancellor for a gross contempt of Court. This conduct is repeated by the Tories, who are notoriously whipping' the Committee of Privileges. That Committee, being subgtaatially open to all Members of the House of Commons, is, it would seem, to take the place of packed special juries of former times ; and such is the rage of party spirit that even a grave and responsible judicial inquiry is to be turned into an arena of political faction. The Tory whippers-in,' who are well known under that denomination, daily display the utmost industry in the exercise of their honourable vocation. It matters not whether the authority of the Great Seal or a great constitutional question be at issue, everything now is to be sacrificed to party feeling and party objects. The simple matter of reference to this Committee is, the consideration of all matters touching privilege; and the consideration of the letters to the Speaker from the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Charl. ton. On this simple inquiry the Committee has now sate • in secret and solemn conclave a full fortnight. The Lord Chancellor either has or has not the power of committing a Member of the House of Commons for contempt. No man of common sense doubts that a vio lation of law, or a contempt of the Courts of Justice, is aggravated in the case of a Member of the Legislature, and not privileged. ' It requires little knowledge of Parliamentary history and legal decisions to be able to pronounce that, as in the case of Mr. Long Wel lesley, the Court of Chancery ought not to be over-ridden by the House of Commons. With respect to the par ticular ' contempt' assigned by the Lord Chancellor against Mr. Charlton, we apprehend that the Privilege Committee is no ap pellate jurisdiction. It is for the Judge to decide what is a con tempt' of his Court and authority. In the present instance the perpetrator is, we understand, a petitioner and Counsel of the Court. In such relations he is surely amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court in which he petitions and prac tises. But the whippers-in' now inform us that this pecu liar Committee is not only to decide whether Mr. Charlton is ' privileged,' but is also to determine whether his offence is or is not a contempt' of the Court of Chancery ; that is to say, they are to usurp the functions of the Judge ! Mr. Charlton's letters to Mr. W. Brougham and to the Lord Chancellor may be acceptable as a matter of taste to the Tories, but the whippers-in' will find it hard to persuade the country or the House of Commons collectively that his epistles are not vulgar as well as subversive of the course of justice. In charity to the Honourable Member, they maardesir'e to use him for ulterior objects ; but, whatever the report of a.' whipped' Committee, they will fail in per suading a Reformed House of Commons that the Lord Chancellor of England, and the highest judicial offi - cars of the realm, are to be insulted with impunity, or that the municipal rights of a populous borough are to be sacrificed to the old nuisance of borough mongering. If the ' whip ' is to decide this constitutional and important reference, we hope it will be applied on both sides of the House. Certainly it is the duty of every Liberal to attend this day, in order that Parliament itself, as well as the Lord Chancellor, may not be brought into contempt.' " The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that John Black, the proprietor of the Morning Chronicle newspaper, be ordered to attend at the bar of the House to-morrow.—( Loud cries of No I no I) Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I really wish that the Right Hon. Gentleman had taken some further time for considera tion before making this motion ; however, if the Right I-lon. Gentleman is, as he appears to be, the organ of the Com mittee in this case, I must say That I think that their opinion that he should press this case before the attention of the House, is not a course which I think is warranted or expedient. Pub lic writers have been accustomed now for some years to indulge in great latitude of observation upon the proceedings of that House, and the custom which formerly prevailed of any per- son or set of persons taking offence at any paragraph in the newspapers has been abandoned.—(Great cheering.) I must say that for the last two or three years, if that practice had been persevered in, those who would have had most reason to complain would have been the majority of this House. There are no terms of abuse—( Cheers)—there are no terms by which men could be vilified or lowered in the estimation of their fellow-countrymen, which have not been applied to the majority of this House, and to the conduct which they have pursued. —( Renewed cheering.) To pass over all minor observations of this description, a charge delivered by the Lord Bishop of —(the name was losb amidst cheers on the Ministerial side) —in which, as far as I remember, after representing the ma jority of this House in their proceedings, to be under the guidance of a faction who wished to destroy property and all the institutions of the country—( Hear, hear, hear)—he proceeded to say, certain Members of this House sufficiently designated—the Members who professed the Roman Ca tholic faith—were guilty of treachery and perjury. Sir, if we are to take notice of breaches of privilege, I must say I think we ought not to lose a moment in vindicating the honour of the Members of this House, who, for giving their votes in Parliament, and for nothing else, are declared by this Right Rev. Prelate—whose source for making that declaration was the public Press—he has declared them to be guilty of tree . - chery and perjury. For my own part, when I read the pamphlet I thought it as gross a breach as ever had been committed on the privileges of this House ; but I was convinced that those Members whom it attacked would do far better to treat it with utter contempt--(Tremendous cheering,) —and not take any notice of such proceedings, but act according to their own sentiments of what their duty was.—( Cheers.) And are we now to be told that we are to take up cases of this kind, when a journalist chooses to say that some Member of the Committee had been whipped up to attend' it P—( Laughter.) Supposing that there was some founda tion for it, what does it amount to—nothing more than that which has great prevalence in this House—party feeling. The journalist tells you, that some Members attended, who thought more of party-spirit than the question for their examination. I shall not enter into the question now as to the manner in which the Committee has done its duty. I think the COM_ mittee have their best vindication in the report which has been presented to this House. They have given it as their opinion, —an opinion from which I differed, while I attended the sittings of the Committee—that they were bound to sift the entire of the charges, and to examine the character of the letters to the Lord Chancellor ; but I think that they should be perfectly satisfied with having performed their duty to the Members of this House in vindicating its privileges, and I believe they have come to a just decision, that the pri vilege of Mr. Charlton ought not to protect him from the commitment to which he has been subject; and having so acted, I am of opinion that any proceeding against a newspaper on account of a paragraph in its columns containing various state ments, would be beneath the dignity of this House.--4 Cheers.) I am told there have appeared paragraphs on the opposite side with respect to the divisions in the Committee, either attack ing or ridiculing the part taken by my Right Honourable Friend the Attorney-General. If, therefore, this House should resolve to bring up the writer of the paragraph in the Morning Chronicle in order to be consistent we should have also at our bar the proprietors or editors of the Morning Post, of the John Bull, and of the other Lon don newspapers, and see what they have said on the conduct of the Members of this House.--( Cheers.) I really hope the Committee will not deem it necessary to push the matter further. I am fully aware of the inconvenience of the system some time since in operation, of summoning to the bar every one who commented severely or 'otherwise upon the conduct and character of Members of Parliament. It has never produced any useful result, and I hope it will not be now renewed. I trust therefore the case will not further be proceeded with, and that it will not be necessary to take the opinion of this House upon Hear, hear.) Mr. PRA E D said the Noble Lord had attempted to draw an analogy, which he thought it would be bad taste in him to follow.—( Cries of " Oh, oh I") There was not the least analogy between the libel brought to the notice of the House by the Noble Lord, and that brought to the atten tion of the House by his Right Honourable Friend. That was not the occasion on which to discuss a question ee ns o opposite p p,o Os i of the great importance, which he thought the Noble Lord had very mistakingly introduced.—( Laughter, and cries o f " Hear, hear.") He was extremely sorry thaotnoa. u q se u o e_ e s n ti (t o lce n mr o i f such great i m portance should be received with such levit y by lion. Gen tlemen oh on whateveroppositee ffe side i v e o f tonetheH n might receive the remarks ho should make, they would not disturb his self. possession.—( Loud cries of Hear, e hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches, echoed ba c k by th benches.) Nor should he say one word offensive to Opposition. indi vidual, or discourteous to the Hous e at Withlarge.—(Hear.)l great submission to the Noble Lord, h e would suggest to h" case a little more analogous to th e case then under their con sideration. An individual had written a private letter, offen- ' sive to a person exercising the functions of a Judge in a . p!tr. titular case, and calculated improperly to influence his dec►sion in the matter pending before him. For writing that letter, the Lord Chancellor committed that individual to an indefinite term of imprisonment, and he now stood committed to the Fleet for writing that private offensive letter, so calculated to influence the Judge, until the Lord Chancellor should make a further order. Here was a paragraph in a public newspaper grossly offensive to a Committee exercising judicial functions, and cal culated improperly to influence them in the discharge of their judicial duty.--( Cheers from the Opposition.) It did appear to him that as the Committee was a strictly private one, and debated with closed doors, an inquiry was more necessary in this than in any other case ; because the writer of the para graph almost assumed that he had derived his information from a Member of the House; and it appeared to him desirable to notice it on another ground, viz., that they might have an opportunity of pointing out the gross and scandalous false hoods throughout the whole of the paragraph. He believed there was not the shadow of a foundation for one single inu enda contained in it.—( Cheers from the Opposition benches.) Mr. WYNN—The present case appeared to him to differ widely from any of those which had been cited, inasmuch as it represented a Committee of the House of Commons sitting upon a judicial question as a packed Special Jury.—(Hear.) It was infinitely more offensive than any of the productions that had been quoted ; but he rather wished that opportunity would be given to Members of opposite political principles to state, whether they saw anything of undue political bias in that Committee. He (Mr. W.) sat in the chair, and he could certainly state upon his honour as a gentleman, that ho did not see anything of the kind. The motion was then withdrawn. PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE. Lord J. RUSSELL rose to move fora Select Committee on a subject certainly of very great importance, but upon which, in that stage of the proceedings, it was not prudent nor right in him to make many observations to the House. It appeared to him that with regard to their privileges, they had now come pretty much to hat he thought was the right course upon subjects of that kind—namely, that they enjoyed every privilege necessary for carrying on their proceedings freely and undisturbed, without being anxious to push them beyond that point.—( Cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") In former times it might have been necessary to have proceeded against a Judge, because then the prerogative of the Crown had been used for the purpose of interrupting the proceedings of that House, and of interfering with the freedom of debate. These times have long since gone by, and it was only ne cessary for them now to take such proceedings upon matters of privilege as would enable them to carry on their discussions and debates, and the various functions they enjoyed, undisturbed by any authority. The ques tion to which he wished immediately to call the attention of the House were the proceedings that had taken place in the Court of King's Bench with respect to the publishing of papers ordered to be printed by that House. It could not be denied that the House must have a certain la titude in that respect, and that it ought in a great degree to prescribe for itself what that latitude ought to be.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") In any measure to be considered by Parliament, it was hardly necessary to consider that the power of printing and publishing papers should be confined to Members of that House; because if they took such a limit they would be unable to judge properly of many things essentially due to legislation in that country with respect to complaints made to that House. It was one of the most important privileges of the subject that they should have the right to make their complaints known to the House. Then if they received all complaints, they must receive some which reflected grossly upon the conduct of individuals, and they might even be construed to be libellous. It was impossi ble for the House to lay dotvn the limit, the extent to which such complaints might be made public, for then it would be found impossible, if they did not know to some ex tent that the Legislature would not be able to apply a remedy. The question then arose, whether, if the House made these proceedings in any way public, were they to do as in former times, publish them under the authority of the Speaker of the House, or in what other way ? Both methods were publications in law, and he (Lord J. Russell) could not see the grounds upon which the publica tion by order of the Speaker should be a fair and a permitted proceeding, and that the publication of them by means of sale, and under the authority of the House, should bring their printer into a Court of Law, and he made to suffer in damages by action at law. With these views, he thought it very essential that before the House came to any decision upon the matter, they should appoint a Select Committee to inquire into, and report to the House, all precedents upon the point, as well as the law and practice of Parliament with re spect to publication. The point upon which this question had arisen, was one which brought the matter in dispute peculiarly under the notice of the House. It had arisen upon tne pub lication of a Report which he had presented to the House, not by command of His Majesty, but by the express direc tions of an Act of Parliament, which directed that all Reports of the Inspectors of Prisons should be laid before the House, and if they were not printed, the Parliament would be unable to apply any remedy to public grievances. There was no stepping out of their way—there was no wish on the part of the Inspectors, or on his part, to bring needless or useless charges to injure any individual. He therefore thought that if in such a case it was not allowable for the House to publish their proceedings, and to obtain all the information which they could obtain—if they were to admit their power to be restrained to this effect—it would be setting a precedent by which the utility of that House would bo very much curtailed, and by which the power and usefulness of the Members of this branch of the Legislature would be in a great measure destroyed ; and any person acting under the orders of this House might be subjected to penalties and forfeitures of the Courts of Law. Ile would not detain the House by re ferring to any precedents; he wished that an inquiry should take place before a Committee of the House, who would collect all the precedents that bear on the subject. He would therefore move " that a Select Committee be appointed to examine into precedents respecting the circulation and publication of repor's and papers printed by order of that House, in order to ascers. tain what was the practice of Parliament prior to and since ass order for the sale of such papers." Mr. C. W. WYNN would not say that the particular circum stances of this case were stronger than any others, the attempts of which had been to limit the privileges of that House; but at the same time he would say that if there was one case in which he ap prehended there was so much justification of the course which. the House had pursued, in printing the information which. came before them, it was such as the present.—( Hear.) In consequence of the numerous complaints of the hardship endured by children in factories, a Bill was introduced, and af terwards passed through the Legislature, directing inspectors to be appointed, who should make reports from time to time. The reports thus made were directed by Act of Parliament to be laid. before the House.—( Hear, hear.) In order that these re ports should be of service, it was essential that they should be circulated throughout the country, and he might be allowed to say further, that it was most essential to any individual who might find himself injured in any respect by these reports, that he should have an opportunity of petitioning that House of making a counter-statement, and of vindicating himself. The SPEAKER then put the motion, which was agreed to, and the following Committee appointed : Howick. Lord O'Connell, D. Strickland Sir G. Campbell, Sir J. Peel, Sir R. Tancred, H. W. Clerk, Sir G. Pollock, Sir F. Villiers, Charles Follett, Sir W. W. Roebuck, J. A. Wilde, T. • Inglis, Sir R. H. Stanley, Lord Wynn, C. W. CHURCH BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL postponed his motion for leave to bring in a Bill for carrying into effect the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners till this day fortnight, the new Report of the Commissioners not having yet been received. PLURALITIES BILL. The NOBLR LORD then proceeded to move for leave to bring in a Bill to restrain and regulate pluralities, and to enforce residence in certain cases. The Noble Lord said that after the Bills which had been introduced last year, and which, with very few alterations, had passed tho. House of Lords with respect to pluralities ; and as the Bill which he was now about to introduce was founded upon that, it would be un necetsary for him to go into its details—the better course in his opinion being to discuss the merits of the Bill at a future stage. The Noble Lord then moved for leave to bring in. the Bill. Mr. HUME concurred with tho Noble Lord that it would be better to discuss the merits of the Bill at a later stage, but he begged to enter his protest against the legalising of plu ralities. His object was to abolish them altogether, and upon the next occasion it was his determination to take the sense of the House upon that subject. Leave was then given to bring in the BENEFIT SOCIETIES. Mr. BARLOW HOY said, that he rose in pursuance of the notice he had given, to call the attention of the House to the number of petitions presented from various pa rts o f the country from Benefit Societies. He thought it would be of great advantage that the existing laws would b e compressed into one simple Act which, while it was sufficient to prevent abuse, would not unnecessarily restrain them, or deprive them of the power of managing their property.--( Hear.) He had endeavoured in the last Session to obtain a Com mittee to inquire into the nature of these Societies generally, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer requested a postponement of his motion, on the ground of the important business which remained to be done at the end of the Ses sion, but did not oppose the motion on any other grounds. He would now ask what more important business could the House have before it than this, which regarded the interests of 12,000 or 16,000 Societies, the number of members of which was about two millions ; and it might be fairly calculated that the interests of at least 3,000,000 indivi duals were involved indirectly in the welfare of those Societies. Hear.) The members of them wished to set aside, in the days of their youth and strength, a portion of their earnings which would assist them in old age and sickness, and thus to. stand aloof from the assistanc e of Poor-laws, charitable in stitutions, or of alms. He considered therefore, that th ey were worthy of encouragement, and instead of being controlled, and restrained by one barrister, that they should be al lowed to frame their own rules, which should be sufficient for their government, when signed by the magistrates at quarter sessions, or by a barrister of four or five years standing: There was a great difference between Benefit Societies and the Savings Banks---as in the one there was only a contingent benefit, in which they allowed all the Members to partici pate ; but in the other they might draw their money at a very short notice, with a certain and fixed rate • of interest. lie hoped, the Noble Lord would afford those institutions protection, and the power to do what they pleased with their own. He had no personal object in the part he hadi taken ; he only wished to aid the' humbler classes of his coun trymen in their laudable endeavours to assist each other. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by m ov i ng t h at a Selec t Committee be appointed to inquire int o t h e state of the laws affecting Benefit Societies. Mr. P. THOMPSON that, feeling the fore% of th THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1837.