The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-12 00:00:00

1 'ale the tame view of them as his hon. and learned friend R'! :o said that he fe t sacrificed hi s conec ' ent i ous op i n i ons and t o when he assented t o t h e i r b e i ng introduced int as concession he catholic Rel of Bill . Now he regarded those oath, !e did essi °os made t o those who felt more strongly than friend on the subje c t. He recollected that his right hon. , el le Present Governor of Ceylon, proposed in the coe-mi tt" t on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, that Ca teoliee should be prevented voting in any matters con ite.cted with the established religion of the country. That p.ropesition was rejected by the house, as it u as not t_onsidered that there was any danger in allowing Roman Catholic's M vote in any matters, supported as the Cl.urcl the vote the fetlings, the opinions, and the affections of Ite g n at body of the people of England.—(Hear,u hear.) an t °Wm be au osed that the people of Engirt w . ere indifferent to the question, aye or no ; but still he b een say he rsgretted exceedingly that such a question d t.:eirlaii6netraoderuyretvd,hibeebl,ieving as be did that it was calculate once raised, must convulse the coml . Iry.frotri one end to the other.—(A murmur of disappro !Dation fro 0 ki , ro the members round Mr. O'Connell.) He did l l ' lis t -:: Why the hon. members opposite should object to wer e " f -e g his deliberate opinion, that if any sound reason, ri se -urn'llted for such a cry, the whole country would T. , It ‘ 1) ei , mane upon the subjecr.—(Hear, hear, hear.) e and e ras he contended, the bounden duty of a tv!s ll lii patient government to suppress the agitation of a that '°° that might lead to raise up religious differences, Was Could in an way excite Protestant jealousy, or that end at all calculated to cause disunion between Protestants o 'lnman Catholics, whom he desired to tee placed upon I llaP ual a nd proper footing.—(Hear, hear.) He himself t ii the honour of representing a large county in this Prop er , tirr ) a nd he believed that at least one half the landed tle of _ti etx, that county was at the present moment in the Ro ' n ,:''n of Roman Catholics. He knew that every le n ''' Catholic in that county supported him at the ing election, and Le was not the least afraid of los tlis t t , h e, "Pport of that large, opulent, and . most re e t , e - re body of voters on any future occasion, by . tt: t u n 'Y r uPhel ding the Protestant religion and the Pro Ivi t i a , t -overnment of this country.—(Hear.) He stat e d tot b ' e l n th e l east desire to give offence to any party, with conrid g Irlauenced by religious feelings,—for he . did not 'Nest' " 44 ' to be a religious question, but rather and lonotlenief political prudence—that it was his fixed , ari hlishmeraule determination to support the Protestant Lsta- My ' ent h oth in Church and State, and to resent nn tcette att ete . ~18 that might be made to endanger it, or a r „ r "".Othee ley Roman Catholics or by any other class the hoie-eniloation ofpersons.—(Cbeers.) As far as to -el Catholics residing • the county he bad the honour thirtePbreseot were conceim i e n d, he could assure the house th e i r "' inten t i on or desire had ever been manifested o h . Part that could lead to an inference . that . they were , S ° ta l't t il tc the Protestant religion being the religion of tne tti,heitoesitiolpttn:ehe contrary, they had never shown the least abr . k from '' the full observance of either II spi r i t __ . in. . as any Othe u . l : the letter of this oath, and were as anxious th e ri ht r r of his Majesty's subjects to preserve . inviolate and to g d . t (I,' p ro perty as by law established in these realms, and -e"ttfti, disavow, and solemnly abjure any inten -1 n , "4 subverting the Established Church as settled by %:113;111.,ear,.he-ar, hear.) It was his firm belief that it tha t t , the wish of the Roman Catholics of . this country of th ue Protestant religion or the Protestant Government h e I . ei'e kingdoms should be in any way disturbed, and ti, ~t ' t the strongest persuasion that those Roman Ca- ZNch.tes who took this oath, did so without any evasion, ocation, or mental reservation whatsoever.—(Hear, h ea 's hear.) Although he did not agree with the 1: 0 ' baronet opposite, that the Roman Catholic mein eirt ef that house had not a right freely to discuss questions t th . 4t in e 2 to the pluralities . of . the . church, yet he conceived th e IheY were bound, in discussing questions relating to oath e " e , r eb, to remember the nature and solemnity of the th ) ; waich they had taken, and to abstain from doing any ch'l,-,.g,the tendency of which would be to subvert the g' 'eu establiehed by law—that was to change the reli. I)4} t 'l t e °f the state, or destroy the union which subsisted taut e eo church and state.. ; -(Hear, hear.) The Prates_ the e e+ church allowed those who dissented from it . te s a' re etit and fullest exercise of their religious opinions; o d p o l u n h i t o s n o s r , se Sues being the case, those who entertained ea p P° With respect to this oath should state clear! and th ett lY their ob'ection s to it or the alterations which orairlt„enld Propose making in ' its form or übstance, in their'dat the house might judge of the reasonableness effect any ett ea lre, and see whether it would be prudent . to te t i nn ange in it. Those who imagined that its interpre- Pars tv „ at i either ambiguous or doubtful were bound to tbeiootiouhetb.e„ht :,it,ze. said Hishun and ,earned friend on the i , e had objected to the aboli doin: . The 401. f reeholders but that be had advocated St an j e 'r a y with the oath ' . Now, although he (Mr. resisted I:upported Catholic emincipation, be strenuously . redo W O e Insertion of the clause in the Catholic Relief ich Inernber for tat .directed against the hon. and . learned the disfranchisu iin. " --(ll ear.) He had also objected to plan for e p ri a l y en in t of the 4O freeholders,and approved of the th ,s• Ptitte. But in giving . . g Catholic clergy out of his N the public oPport to these three important bl he e t tt e ar e l ss he was actuated only by a desire to do an act of ' n i t eutleta justice which, in his conscience, he believed would te r ~ _athe ultimate benefit of the state.—(Hear.) He i li a lid ,e wee free to confess, wish to make any sacrifice of pi a °Wn conscience, and therefore, he should not like to "'Pole migh t upon others the taking of an oath d w hich they pa, de inconsistent with their sense of d uty, orre thirt attt to their consc?ence . He was far from arg u i n g ssar a ll the hatoaths prescribed to be l taketinnawearnetntehcaet Sass eitte4it this oath was part of a solemn e t m ho n se c wife, opposed Ca- Were into to ally the fears o We t : e otancipation in spite of the unruly oaths that Dotc L Preased upon t h em, h e must say that they would g ro " justified in abolishing it without they had very good els e or ad opting such a '' unds f course.—(Hear, hear.) For nowl'art, he could not agree to any alteration of the oaths th e taken, and therefore he could not give his assent to for proposition of the hon, and learned member for Dublin th e ?Pointing a select committee upon a subject which was fully. competent to ke ' ch re . judge of, without any Peet iti c lulry having taken place.—Hear, hear.) He re nrha that the proper course to be ( pursued was, for those pleaseedhjecteel to the oaths to state as minutely as they Woul d ithe grounds o f t h eir objections, and then the house ! or era Re able to decid e whether they should be abolished itirZl'd•--.(Hear, h ear. ) (Lath( etttl L. BUL WER thought that it was really, be wh iet i l iat Say t idiculous, to require persons to swear 4ho°ld vot e ettnll hands was confessed to be absurd. He IVlr. SHELLavesuch oaths done away with. oath w said • little remarkable that the L i ts s e , sa id it was not a I OWU erie gilled as to leave the party taking ; .t to put difference ustruction on it. There was, however, wa d e t hat th e ,s°l ° Pinion on the subject ; but he contended Was obr "artY taking italone could determine how far it The ige tory, and howle f. was not binding upon him. th e h r o i n gbt hOn` Secit ar f it the Colonies differed from that t h ' h eron e ary for for Oxford) in thinking n r e it om 2 l j he . mem er ti q ii 'fat t o i7l Catholic members of . t e h legislature bad g the t m ors t et e f til uterfere in questions relating to e p ':' tl ''' ,o b y e chur ch; but although this right was conceded "'At the ri ,_ poi nt , g t hon. Secre ~ , o sa at tary he forgot t y . err th ey ee ~ to which their th e e reoc e tn .' 'uouid atop, or the limits 4Wer e to i ght go. How were they to know when Mr, sl, ,Pause or when they were to go on ? 44 441 LEV hadstated was, that when es ilueatio, ---What he church 41 br 'elating to the temporalities of the c Retitle:tight for tek e • o i h,., , ward, the conduct of Roman Catholic ei o to abjureAutl be consistent with the oath they had elt as by all intention of subverting the Protestant Air oyl4 l , . toe_ , slit,. established.—(Hrar' r.) Ile hon. gen heniali had 411 . had not doubted that the ri ght . but what "alp adMitted the right to interfere ,_ ernitttd wi ped o e re right hon. Secretary had kr. .. M state to au, that the interference might be carried. th e intettaie/o..tv far that clearly fixed P et ; e'r--.The words of the oath taltink itt-1.--atioe t h ' n to it. The party the p r - sw ore tint at ought to be intention g've of subverting ....roteatatit C t he abjured all _ _ ear.) h en t th. Seizit. hurch as by law eetablished.—(l l the right y e ' Be eeete, contended that the view which a / oa 'Y had taken ofthe terms of the oath was N itl tro y , on _ and e d of th e e • The hon. and learned gentleman corn preeatid that theioterruptions ,which he had experien ced, the whi t ine ten right hon, secretary had acted, h (let sot f ee w ith a species of courtesy and urbanity,. eobb e ' l. h UL-re l tie nth distinguished him and for which ~ ~. S ee m y, - C,,, ee e.5...( A 1 , was bound to say he felt grate u f l and eoli 'augh.) He could assert that the Roman auf ee e % of i r 1 e , - ur e h i e and b d opinions so e'antl e - e to Cell h ad never expressed me exp eecto , t church as those that were con fro that eref to b e f on • PY members of that house, a gen 'oeli, e ll found iu the numerous petitions that poured t ; itee„n be e au against it. Let not the right hon. ttlit u Pey , 4:l:sued by h the horrid fancies with respect ch tt Y ,,Z hi ela t e, "e had before his eyes the avowed hoe the .:. estAliote had had declared against the ii Diesenter wax by l a ) The hostility of gerdeel the ' W-3 i w.--(Hear. . 'lmam from e eafety of tt e,eh more alarming, as far as re el°, "," the Roadtue church, than that to be appre pe.n.'og that an il Catholics ; and it was only that t c.tio n from a body r a,nd learned civilian presented a ~re c hurch and o wissenters, stating the junction of " i ocipi es . state to b at variance with the true Alr of Christie it e lioai e • AIETIRIEN n Y. Qin a of Di m had presented several petitions . from reh ; be. eters on the eubject of the established i t b 0 denied that any wish was expressed in I tVens that the union tetween church and state should be lissolved. Mr. SHELL did not speak of all Dissenter!. A retition had, however, bee❑ presented that day from a body of Dissenters, the pr..yer of which was for a separation such as he had described. After a few words from Mr. METHUEN, Mr. COBBETT rai , l he was sorry such a motion as the present had been made, as he had always been friendly to the Roman Catholics. If .uch an inquiry as that proposed far altering the oaths were granted, the country would be agitated from one end to the other. The learned doctor not surely know what was passing out of doors on this subject, although he had himself altered his mind with respect to the oath. The bon. member then read a passage from a report of a speech of Dr. Lushington, in which that hon. and learned gentleman said, " he thought every member of that house was bound to uphold the Protestant Church, and expressed a hope that the oath which they had taken had made a deep impression on the minds of Roma❑ Catholic gentlemen." He (Mr. C.) de precated their going into committee to do that which had expelled the Stuart family from the throne, and lost James 11. his crown—namely, the attempt to put a Roman Ca tholic, or person not a Protestant, into the University 01 Oxford. Mr. C. FERGUSSON said if the noble lord (Althorp) would proiniee to bring the matter forward on some future occasion, he would vote against the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, but otherwise he must vote for it. Mr. O'DWYER should of course vote for granting the corn mittee. Mr. LAMBERT Lore no ill will to the Protestant church, nor did he wish to see it subverted. On the con trary, so long as a state religion was necessary in the country, he devoutly wished it to be Protestant.—( Hear.) All he desired was, that the objectionable part of this oath should be erased from it, and he thought that if it were to run thus—" I do promise and swear to be faith ful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, and that I will uphold and support the constitution of the country as by law established,"—it would not only be satisfactory, but amply answer all the purposes which could render an oath useful or desirable. Mr. A. JOHNSTONE was glad the question of the oath was likely to be set at rest. At present such was the dubious state in which Roman Catholics were placed, that they were taunted with a construction of the oath inconsistent with their principles when they voted on cer tain questions. For instance, on the subject of Irish church temporalities, or any other subject connected with the established church, they were placed in a disagreeable and painful situation. Such was his (Mr. Johnstone's) feeling on this point, that if any motion such as that for the abolition of tithes, of which the hon. and learned member had given notice, was brought forward before the question was settled, he (ilr. J.) would consider it his duty to move the previous question. Mr. O'REILLY deeply regretted that this question was brought forward by a Roman Catholic member of the house. Mr. HOWARD thought the hon. and learned mem ber for Dublin had shown a sound discretion in bringing this question before the house. For his own part, as one of that sect who had been excluded for three centuries from that house, he felt it would be right that the oath should be put in such terms, that in taking it they should be above suspicion. As to what had been said as to the cry of " No Popery," he could state, from his own know ledge of the country, that such a cry could not be easily raised. Mr. LEECH thought that the agitation of the question would be prejudicial both to England and Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL rose to reply, and said that with regard to the remark made by the right lion, member for Taniworth, that he (Mr. O'C.) bad offered to take the oath of which he now complained, he would only say that he had not only said he would take it, but Ind actually taken it. But since then a controversy had arisen as to the construction to be put upon that oath, which had given him much uneasiness ; and he now pledged himself not to let the matter rest till he bad it definitively settled one way or other. The hon. member for Oxford bad brought the very same arguments to bear upon this ques tion which be had brought against the Catholicßill, as an infringement on the coronation oath. On both occasions the hon. member had stated it as his opinion, that parties were perjured. He (Mr. O'C.) was willing to leave it so. He had no objection that in taking the oath in question he should be put on the same footing with George the Fourth, when he gave his assent to the Catholic Reliefstßill. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary far the Colonies in deprecating the practice of multiplying appeals to government on every common occa sion. As to the meaning to be put on the oath, all that Catholics said was, that they would not endeavour to subvert the established church. They did not say that they should continue it.—(A laugh.) But in legislating on the temp..ralities of the church, lie denied that they were legislating on the church itself. The church did not depend on pounds, shillings, and pence. He would not vote on any subject strictly connected with the regulations of the church. He would not, for instance, vote on the question of whether there should lie ten or twenty bishops in Ireland; nor would he vote on the question (if it c.,me to he mooted), of whether the bishops should continue to sit in the House of Lords. The real objection to his motion, however, was that pointed out by the noble lord as to the appointment of aselect committee; and he felt it to be so strong, that he did not know how to meet it. He did not mean, however, to abandon the question. He would, therefore, bring the question again forward, in order to have it settled whether there should be an oath for members at all, and whether there should be a religious test of any kind ; and if so, if that religious test should not be made applicable to Protestants as well as Catholics. The course which he meant at present to pursue was to ask leave of the house to withdraw his mo tion ; and he gave notice, that when the bill, of which notice bad been given by the hon. member for Lancaster, was brought forward, he would move for leave to insert a clause for the abolition of all Test Oaths, not only for members taking their seats in the house, but in all civil situations. He pledged himself that, the question being now fairly raised, he should not abandon it till it was fairly set at rest. After a few words from Mr. BROTHERTON, which were inaudible, the motion was withdrawn. THE SABBATH. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath, against the Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath. Mr. WYNN presented sixteen petitions, ten of which were from parishes in the county of Montgomery, and six from parishes in the county of Merioneth, in favout of the Bill for the better observance of the Sabbath. Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented petitions from Greenwich, Blackheath, and another place, with a similar prayer. Sir A. AGNEW did not consider it necessary for him to go at length into the subject of his bill for the better observance of the Sabbath at that time. The number of petitions presented in the last session showed the wishes of the people on the subject. The voice of the country at large was unequivocally in favour of an alteration in the present laws.—(Loud cries of "No, no.") He would, there fore, content himself with moving for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose he had mentioned. Mr. CHICHESTER seconded the motion. Mr. POTTER, if allowed to express his feelings on the subject, must say at once that if the bill in question was substantially the same as the hon. baronet's measure of last year, he would give it his decided opposition.---(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Why move for leave to bring in a bill, and not explain its provisions? He (Mr. Potter) held in his hand the hon. baronet's bill of last year, and if the house feltinclined he would read it.—(Laughter, and loud cries of " No, no," from all parts of the house.) By one of the clauses of the bill of last year, not only were bakers to be prevented from worki ng on t h e S a bb at h, b ut b a ki ng was prohibited altogether.—(A laugh.) With regard, again, to the provisions of the bill as they related to buying and selling on Sunday, it was impossible they could ever be carried into effect in large towns. When the hon. baronet's hill of last year was brought forward, he (Mr. Potter) had the curiosity to go on two occasions into the houses of poor people on Sunday mornings, when he found that the meat they were preparing for dinner would, from the impure atmosphere of the places, be unfit for use if kept till the following day. That hill also prohibited travel. ling on Sundays. He would put it to hon. members whether such a provision ought to be sanctioned by that house. He would only, in order to show the hardship and injustice of such a clause, refer to the case of the shopkeepers in London. They were closely confined all the week, and yet the bill of the him. baronet would deny them the recreation of which they had so much need on Sunday. The bill also intended to prohibit the innocent amusements of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The amuse ments of the people hail already, of late, suffered unneces sary curtailment. A few years since that house bad passed a law to put down fairs in London ; this lie thought im proper. The Bill of the hon. baronet, so far from bene fitting religion, would be found to have a quite contrary effect. He would oppose it, being brought in. Lord MORPETH thought some legislative enactment on the subject necessary. It was necessary that the Sab bath should be a day of rest to the body and improvement to the mind. The laws both of God and man ordained that it should. On this ground, therefore, he ‘vould vole for the admission of the bill. Colonel WOOD said there were several objectionable details in the lion. baronet's bill of last year; but at the same time he must say that it was the general wish of the middling and upper classes of society that some legislative measure should be adopted by the house to insure the better observance of the Sabbath.—(Hear.) He was aware it was a difficult thing to legislate on such a sub ice. His own impression was that a great deal more tnight be done by example on the part of the hon. mem bers of that house, than by any act of Parliament they could pass on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) He would, however, vote for the introduction of the bill ; and if the house were pleased to allow it to be read a first and second time he thought the best course for the hon. baronet vould be to refer it to a committee up stairs, when they .vould he able to ascertain bow the Sabbath was spent, and vbat parts of the bill might admit of beneficial alteration. Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought the bill, having the )li . ject in view of that of the hon. baronet, would he best livided into two sep irate bills; the one endeavouring to 4.cure the better observance of the Sabblth as regarded trading on th it day, and the other as regarded amuse ' ments. The house, in his (Sir Robert Inglis's) opinion, had an undoubted right to legislate for the better ob •ervance of the Sabbath with rtsrect to trading on that day. With regard to amusements, be concurred with the bon. member that the example of that house would be better than its legislation. There was a very general and strong feeling existing in the country on the subject of the extent to which the profanation of the Sabbath was carried in large towns, as was proved by the fact of the petitiors, praying the house to interfere, which had been presented to it, being signed by 277,000 individuals. Mr. Secretary LITTLETON, without wishing to be understood as approving of the details of the bill, would vote for its admission, as he conceived the ,law, as it at present existed for the observance of the Sabbath, re quired alteration. He admitted that the example of hon. members and others would, in such a case, have greater force than the legislation of the house. One of the great est instances of Sabbath profanation was the markets held in so many places on the morning of that day. What, he would ask hon. members, was the cause of those Sabbath morning markets ? It arose from the circumstance of the masters of working people paying them their wages at so late an hour on the Saturday night as to render it impossible for them to purchase the articles they rt quired until the following morning. He thought something ought to be done to get this arrangement altered. It ap peared to him (Mr. Littleton) that another day than Sa turday ought to be appointed for masters paying their workmen their wages. In several large towns in the country masters had come to an understanding among themselves to depart from the practice of paying their workmen on Saturdays, and the change had been attended with the best effects. He thought it his duty to say thus much, as it was only by such means as he had relerred to that relief could he afforded. Colonel EVANS would vote for the bringing in of the bill of the hon. baronet ; but if the bill should prove to he essentially the same as ►hat of last year, he should afterwards give it his most decided opposition. An HoN. MEMBER, whose name was unknown in the gallery, said, that after labouring for the six days of the week, it was necessary the Sabbath should be observed as a day of rest. He would, therefore, vote for the intro• duction of the hill of the hon. baronet. Mr. T. B. LENNARD said that the right hon. Secre tary for Ireland had pressed on the attention of the house the necessity of changing the time of paying workmen their wages from Saturday till some other day. That might be practicable in some cases, but in others it would not. In many country towns it would be impossible for masters to pay their workmen their wages sooner than Saturday, because they did not thems4ves receive the proceeds of their goods, out of which they were to pay their men, be fore that day. With regard again to working on the Sabbath, there were many cases in which it was necessary man should work. There were many businesses, for ex ample, which required fires to be kept on all Sunday. If the present bill of the hon. baronet were the same as last year, be would give it his decided opposition. Mr. WARBURTON 'paid, that after the explanation, or rather no.explanation, of the bon. baronet, the bill, for any thing the house knew to the contrary, might be the same as that of last year. He, ih refore, thought the house would be warranted in deciding not to admit the bill ; still, he would not oppose its being brought in. Mr. ROBINSON said, that if the bill of the bon. baronet did not apply to other classes whom he (the hon. baronet) roust have in his eye, as well as to the labouring classes, he would oppose it in its after stage. In the mean time he would vote for its being brought in. Mr. ROEBUCK contended that there did not exist any necessity whatever for legislating on the subject. The Sabbath was well kept, and there was a growing improvement in this respect. Everybody was aware of this. The present was, therefore, not the time for le gislating on the subject, and he hoped the house would not admit the bill of the hon. baronet. But if he (ths hon. baronet) would entitle his bill " A Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath, by the Higher Classes;" and if, instead of prohibiting stage-coaches from running on that day, he prohibited the carriages of the rich—if instead of the omnibus he prohibited the chariot—if in stead of the steam-boats he prohibited boats sailing with parties of pleasure—if instead of shutting fields and gar dens, be shut up Hyde-park ; if be did this, he (Mr (Roebuck) would vote for the bill.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from all parts of the house.) Mr. RICHARDS said such a bill was necessary for the strict observance of the Sabbath, and, therefore, it should have his support. Mr. AGLIONBY said it was important the house should know whether the present bill was the same as that of last year. If it were, they might properly refuse to admit it. The alterations, so far as known, were quite unimportant. Mr. HARDY said, that one of the objects of the bill was to protect journeyman bakers from being compelled to work on the Sabbath Day. It was necessary for their spiritual improvement, that they should enjoy a day of rest. Were they to be deprived of all religious privileges on Sunday? They had been told that to propose legis lating for the better observance of the Sabbath, was a piece of cant. There was, no doubt, cant in some pro-- fessors of religion. There was cant also in many pro• fessors of patriotism, and of liberalism.—(Cheers.) It would often be found that those who made the greatest profession of patriotism, had least of it in reality. Ur. PEASE had received so many letters from all parts of the country respecting tl.e necessity of some legislative measures being adopted to secure the better observance of the Sabbath, that he felt it his duty to support the motion for leave to bring in the bill. He thought that a great deal might be done to enforce the better observance of the Sabbath, without at all trenching on the liberty of the subject.—(Hear.) Were the bill once in committee, he conceived a great deal might be done to expunge the objectionable parts which appeared in last year's bill. Mr. HUDSON would support the motion, reserving to himself the liberty of making any objecti o ns in committee: Mr. F. BUXTON supported the motion, because he found that there was a general feeling throughout the country that the sanctity of the Sabbath should be better preserved than at present; and that, for this purpose, some bill like that proposed should be framed.—(Loud cries of " No, no.") The Sabbath Day, in the metropolis and its suburbs, in particular, was profaned by many gross abuses, which everybody must ailow ought to be put an end to; and he trusted that the house would not run so counter to the deep feeling on this subject, which pervaded most of their constituencies, as to refuse the motion. The question was then put, and leave was given to bring in the bill. Sir ANDREW AGNEW then moved for leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend certain acts rela tive to the observance of the Sabbath Day in Scotland.— Agreed to. The same HON. BARONET then moved for leave to bring in a bill to enable local authorities to change Saturday and Monday fairs and markets to other days. Mr. P. HOWARD must really protest against this bill of the hon. baronet's, the mention of which he thought more particularly calculated to excite alarm in the minds of all classes, and which, if carried, would produce the greatest mischiefs. The bon. baronet appeared to think there could not be too much of a good thing; but he (Mr. P. Howard) thought that this multiplicity of bills was calculated to effect nothing like a beneficial object. Mr. O'CONNELL concurred with the hon. member, and must really suggest to the hon. baronet that be was rather too premature in thus bringing on his third bill before he had made sure of the two first or even the first. The house had merely given him leave to introduce the bills, tl,ey said nothing about allowing them to pass.—(A laugh.) The lion. baronet, while he was about it, seemed determined to cut the working part of the week short enough, or rather too short; for no sooner had the house allowed him so far to have his way about his Sunday Bill, than he set to work upon Saturdays and Mondays.—(A laugh.) This was rather too much. Sir M. W. RIDLEY said (as we understood him, for the extreme impatience of the house manifested itself in the most unequivocal way), that he thought the present bi the most f all the four. Mr. M. PHILLIPS protested more particularly against this portion of the lion. baronet's projects. The ereat markets of the principal cities and towns of the empire were held on Saturdays or Mondays—Smithfield on Mon days—and he (Mr. Phillips) considered that any attempt to interfere with the present well-advised arrangement of market days would be most prejudicial to all classes, if not wholly destructive of a great portion of internal traffic. The only improvement that could be made would be that labourers, &c., should be paid on the Saturday mornings, so as to enable them to make all their purchases by the close of the day. Lord MORPETH supported the motion, and said that a petition had last session been presented to the house from the grasiers of Skipton, which altogether was in fa vour of this specific bill, and mentioned that the cattle fair at Skipton being held on a Monday was greatly pre judicial to their interests as traders, and opposed to their ' feelings as Christians, as they were compelled to travel ,vith their cattle all the Sunday, in order to arrive i❑ time fur the Monday's fair. Mr. GISBORNE addressed the house amidst the greatest uproar and confusion of cries of " Question, ques rim)," " Divide, divide," &c. The hon. member parti cularly objected to this portion of the hon. member's id ans. Sir J. WROTTESLEY said that any alteration in the Saturday's market would he very injurious to Birmingham and many other great towns. No doubt the sanctity of 'he Sabbath was not preserved in all its desirable purity in the metropolis, but even here a very great improvement had taken place in the last few years. The proposition of the hon. baronet, if agreed to, would derange, to a very mischievous extent, the internal traffic of the country, and if the hous.3 did not at once reject it, their table would be loaded with petitions against so prejudicial a plan. Sir R. PEEL thought, as the house had agreed to the other motions of the hon. baronet, they should, for the s►ke of consistency, agree to this ; the more particularly when it was considered, that if they rejected this specific - motion on the ground of opposition to the principle it con tained, such a proceeding would ipso facto imply that they had approved of the principle of the motions they had agreed to. He saw no reason for singling this specific motion out for rejection. It was but one of the wings of the great measure. Mr. CRIPPS recommended the house to clip the wings, bill and all.—(A laugh.) The measure, if agreed to, would materially injure internal traffic, if nut put an end to it altogether. The house then divided, when there appeared— For the motion 137 Against it Majority against the motion -44 DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. Mr. Tennyson was called upon to bring forward his motion for a Bill to shorten the Duration of Parliaments, the greatest confusion prevailing in the house, cries of " Postpone, postpone !" When silence was in some mea sure restored, Mr. TENNYSON said, for his own part he felt too exhausted to do justice to his very important motion at that late hour of the night, and as the house appeared also unwilling to enter upon the question, he would readily agree to postpone his motion, provided the hon. member for Barnstaple, who had also a motion on the same sub ct, would consent to postpone that motion, he (Mr. Tennyson) would be willing to name the 15th of May (as we understood), the first open day, as the day on which he would bring forward this important question. Major FANCOURT was understood to accede to the hon. member's proposed arrangement, and the motion was accordingly postponed till the 15th of May. Mr. GOULBURN then brought forward his motion of an address on the subject of the deaneries of Raphoe and Down. The question before them involved the consider ation whether eleven parishes should or should not be pro , • perly attended to as to their spiritual wants, and whether adequate remuneration should be made to those who under took the duties. The members of the preceding parlia ment were fully aware ofthe extent of the mischief arising from these unions, and it had been a subject both of regret and complaint—of regret to the friends of the established church in Ireland, and of complaint to those who were ever anxious to assail and revile it. The object of those interested in the main'enance of the established church was to do away with the pluralities, and place the parishes in such a position as to make them adequate to the main tenance of persons who would undertake to fulfil the dutit s. During the administration of the Duke of Wel lington, a committee of inquiry had been appointed to in vestigate into the subject, and, with the assistance of the Master of the Rolls and some other intelligent laymen, they reviewed the whole system with great diligence. The consequence was, that in the July of 1831, the com missioners laid a report upon the table of that house, in which the evils arising out of the union were pointed out, and the proper remedies au:Tested. In the part of the report which referred to the deanery of Down, it was stated to be a union of six parishes, producing 3,0001. per annum, because of the tithes and five other parishes being annexed to the deanery; and the report went on to recommend that the parishes should be separated, leaving to the dean 1,000/. per annum. It event on to recommend, that at the next voidance of the deanery the parishes should revert to the incumbents. When, after this report, be (Mr. Goulburn) heard that the deanery of Down became vacant, lie had hoped that the recommendation of the commissioners would have been attended to, more espe cially as this was a case in which the duties for which 2,800/. were paid, were performed by curates, who only received 751. or 76/. each—(Hear)—when to his surprise he learned that the appointment to this situation had been made, and made to a near connexion of one of the com missioners, he thought the recommendation contained in the report would be adopted, but he found the suggestion had not been attended to. This was in 1832. He con sequently asked the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) concerning the matter, and the reply was, that he had not at that time bee❑ aware of the matter, but he assured him the recommendation of the commissioners should be carried into effect. In the ensuing parliament, he (Mr. Goulburn) repeated his question, and was told that the bill for regulating the church temporalities would make an adequate provision to meet this case, but to his surprise no such provision was introduced. Fortunately that bill bad been withdrawn, because of certain informa lities. Up to the present period he found no measures taken to fall in with the suggestions of the commissioners, and therefore it was that he called upon the house to address his Majesty to have the recommendation of that report carried into effect without delay. In the case of Raphoe no practical inconvenience resulted, but in that of Down the grievance was of a crying nature, as five pa rishes were dependant upon the spiritual services of curates with small incomes, and in a part of the country where a growing town was situated, which was daily increasing in population. He would move : " That his Majesty be graciously pleased to give directions to have carried into effect the recommendation contained in the report of the Ecclesiastical Inquiry in Ireland, with regard to the deaneries of Down and Raphoe, as contained in the report of the 13th of July, 1831." Mr. STANLEY must object to the proposed address. He would not dispute the statement of the hon. member, neither would he undervalue the labours of the committee. The hon. member omitted in his statement on this matter one important fact, to wit, that there was no legal power to carry into effect the object of the commissioners, because the chapter could still induct fresh curates and vicars. In the Church Temporalities Bill of last year a remedy had been introduced. The hon. gentleman com p!ained that no step had been taken in pursuance of the recommendation of the committee, but he did not take into consideration that the passing of the bill altered the views of the commissioners. It was net, therefore, to be presumed that the measures consequent on the recommend ation of the committee were abandoned ; but the necessary steps were to be taken, and the two cases were to be ren dered separate before they came under the consideration of the Privy Council in Ireland. The Church Temporali ties Bill made such changes that it would be necessary for the commissioners to revise their report and snake alterations accordingly. By a statement which ap peared the other day, it appeared that the Dean of Down bad surrendered a living of 1,0001. per annum, and under these circumstances, if the suggestions of the commissioners were carried into effect, he would be re• duced to an income of only 3501. per annum. He was sure the house would not u. ish to be accessory to any mea sure so unfair as to enforce such a sacrifice. He could assure the hon. gentleman (the member for the University of Cambridge) that it was the wish of the Irish govern ment to make adequate provision for those who performed the duties by an equal division; and he would go further, and promise, that if, at the close of the session, no mea sure were adopted, he (Mr. Stanley) would join in an address to the Crown on the subject. After this explana tion and promise of support on a future occasion, lie hoped the hon. member would withdraw his motion. After a few words flout RUTHVEN, which were rendered inaudible by a noi,e in one of the side galleries, Colonel CONOLLY said he was aware that the Dean of Raphoe was anxious to urge the matter to an imme diate issue. Mr. LITTLETON had merely to state, that since the passing of the Church Temporalities Bill, an inquiry had been set on foot for the retinue of income, and though some difficulties lay in the way,these returns had now been procured. With reTect to the deanery of Rapboe, tin re ,vere circumstances which, if explained, would justify the lelay. Sir ROBERT PEEL was satisti-d that the right hon. gentleman (the Si.:!''eta,...y for the Col-nies) would cut off ~ is right hand before he won rt.; e ,;:t's a reason that which 'he did not deem Fufficient, or mare c ple",4e which he Was nut ready to redeem. S in his (6:tit. Peel's) opinion, the case before them was one which call, d fot revocation, and if his hon. friend the member for th, University of Cambridge pressed his motion to a division, lie should feel himself bound to vote with him. It wa , the universal opinion, that great evil arose out , f the unions in the Deanery of Down, and the report fully bore out that opinion. Here the right hon. baronet read over the passages in the report refereed to by Mr. Goulburn, and yet, despite this very recommendation, a son of one of those very commissioners was appointed to the vacancy. —(Loud cries of " Hear.") What confidence could there 'he on the part of those who suffered from these union, it • itch transactions as this were permitted with impunity ? Mr. STANLEY said, the right hon. baronet argu:d a, though it was intended not to carry the recommendations if the commissioners into effect in this case. If that were done, the income of the Dean would be reduced to 380/. per annum ; whereas the commissioners recom otendrd that he should have about 1,000/. or 1,1001. per annum. The income at present was from 1,5001. to 2,0001. The question was, be believed, now before the Privy Council in Ireland. His Majesty's Government were de• termined to enforce the spirit of the commissioners' re commendations. Mr. HUME thought it a matter of serious importance. A commissioner who had made a certain recommendation vas the first to break that recommendation in the person of his own son.--(Hear.) If ever interference with an appointment was justifitble, it was in such a case as this._. (Hear.) . . Mr. ROBINSON considered this a most serious case, and one involving the character of public men. It seri ously affected the character of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was already celebrated for giving good things to his family. Mr. LITTLETON thought the house should not ex press any very strong opinion until they ascertained the ourse that would be taken by the Lord Lieutenant in council. He had seen a letter, not directed to him, but transmitted to him by the Primate, expressing an opinion, that in consequence of the Church Temporalities Act, i would be necessary for the commissioners to revise their report. Colonel DAVIES said that this appointment was in• dependent of any recommendation the commissioners might m ike on that score, as it took place before the Church Temporalities Act came into operation. The whole case was very discreditable to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.—(Loud cheers.) tie hoped the right hon. gentleman would not withdraw his motion, and he was sure it would be carried. Mr. SHEIL considered the facts required no com mentary. _ 111 r. - GOULBURN acceded to the request made to him, and withdrew his motion. From the general expression of feeling in the house, he was satisfied that his object was attained. Mr. HUME thought public justice required that the overplus should be refunded. Sir R. PEEL said it was much more important to effect the separation and division of the Union into five livings. CALLS OF THE lIOUSE. Mr. SPRING RICE said there were two notices— one for the 15, and the other for the 22d of April—for motions relative to the repeal of the union. He was told that it would be brought on. He should therefore move that the house be called on those days. After a few words from Sir ROBERT PEEL, depre cating the unnecessary inconvenience of two calls, _ Mi. SPRING RI(:E confined his motion to the first date, with the understanding that he should then 'anew it if requested. Mr. ROBINSON begged to move a call of the house for the 25th of March for his motion for the commutation of taxes.—(Oh He was aware calls were unpo pular, and at such times members liked to be away. If the sense of the house appeared to be against him, he should not press his motion to a division ; but if gentle men chose to be absent on the day of so important a mo tion, he should take care their c tnstituents knew it, and they might answer it to them in the Lest way they could. —(Oh ! oh !) Mr. HANDLEY expressed great surprise at the threat held out. Were they to be threatened like naughty boys, that their constituents should be told of them ?—(Cheers.) H. should consult his own convenience, and not the hon. member's, and did not doubt but that he should be able to satisfy his constituents. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON deprecated the assump tion of the hon, member for Worcester.—(Hear.) The hon. member did not know his place in thus lecturing the house.—( Hear.) Mr. HUME said the hon. and learned gentleman had fallen into the same fault which he blamed its another. He did not see how the house could reject the motion, because it would be a rejection of the principle that all the mem bers were bound to attend that house. Mr. ROBINSON disclaimed using the offensive terms imputed to him. What he had said was, that if hon. members did not support his motion, he would leave it to their constituents to pronounce upon their conduct. He would not press his motion to a division. By consent of the house the motion was then withdrawn. BOROUGH OF WARWICK. Mr. HALCONIB rose to make his promised motion respecting the recent election for the borough of Warwick. In the course of his prefatory observations, the hon. member repeated his conviction that the report of the committee was drawn up by Mr. Parkes. Sir RONALD FERGUSON observed, that the hon. member for Dover was totally ignorant upon that part of the subject as he wag upon every other. The report was the report of the committee, and was drawn up by a member of the committee. Mr. HALCOMB proceeded to treat the report as the report of the committee, but protested against a single alleged case of bribery being punished unless all similar cases were visited with a similar infliction. He concluded by moving the appointment of a " select committee, to take into consideration the evidence already before the house relative to the borough of Warwick, and to report to the house full particulars respecting the cases of bribery, and the class or description of persons bribed; and whe• ther any treating, and to what extent, by the authority of the candidates or their agents, occurred after the issuing of the writ ; and particularly to report whether, in the event of disfranchising the parties bribed, or that class of electors to which they belong, a sound and competent constituency will remain in the borough; and that such committee be appointed by ballot, two members being named by the house." Mr. AUTHYEN seconded the motion. The SPEAKER having put the motion, the gallery was cleared for a division; but Mr. HALCOMB observed, that in consequence of many of his friends having left the house, he would not press the motion to a division. The motion was consequently negatived without a division. EASTER RECESS. Mr. SHELL wished to ask the noble lord on what day he intended to move the adjournment for the holidays, and what was to be the length of the recess ? Lord ALTHORP said, that he intended to move the adjournment on the Wednesday before Easter, but for what length of time he could not then state, but would be prepared to give an answer to the hon. and learned mem• ber in two or three days. WARWICK. The Warwick Borough Bill was read a third time, and passed. ARMY ESTIMATES. Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the committee of supply, the resolutions of which were read and agreed to. RECIPROCITY DUTIES. Mr. G. F. YOUNG stated, that in consequence of a communication which he hail received from the Vice- President of the Board of Trade, he begged leave to post pone his motion for a repeal of the Reciprocity Duties Act from Tuesday next to Thursday, June 5. THE SABBATH. Sir ANDREW AGNEW brought in two bills, the one to promote the observance of the Lord's Day, the other to explain and amend certain acts relative to the observance of the Sabbath Day in Scotland. The hills were both read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday, the 17th of March. TURKEY AND RUSSIA. Mr. SHEIL postponed, but we were unable to hear to what day, his notice which stood for Friday—" To move a humble address to his Majesty, praying that there be laid before this house copies of any communication between his Majesty's government and the Russian govern ment with respect to any treaty between Russia and Turkey, which has been entered into since the Ist of January, 1833." The home adjourned at a quarter past one o'clock this morning. ' FROM LAST NIGT.II"S GA ,:0rt..1....4.a, Commission by' the I.c rt: ....!..t.n..ut oft t: •. er '.7 Rowland Gardiner Alsicni, I,sq., to be Peu Commis ion by the Lord Lieutenant of thc„,Oom:ty isal `F4' 6 Lancaster. 'i,--N,Wf' ' 4,1 r, ;, William Gerard, Esq., to be DeputtLsl4 `',,, I)ECLARATION OF INSOLIM4c 7::-:!1-:11.. ts 54 RICHARD BOWLES, carpenter, SpaldiQ, Vccoi;igllik ''', • ..."..) BANKRUPTCY ENLARGAA.I::r, e.k....:1>k,' P 1 Y 1,41 CHRISTIAN JEGER, commission-x*4lok morns,i;is erp oLoil.:Tirt;io,LX arch 14 to April 5, at one, at the Clarendon- AANKRUPTS. JOHN NUTTALL, <zrooer, Birmingham, to surrender March 24, at one, and April 04, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Ilindmarsh and Son, Crerent, Jewin-street, Cripple gate. JAMES FRANCIS PRESCOTT, painter", High.street, Marylebone, March 27, at eleven, and April 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Bailey, Berner's-street. " RICHARD LITSON, victualler, Laystall-street, )larch 19, at three, and April 22, at eleven, at the Cotnt of Bankruptcy. Miller and Dyson, Bedford-row. HENRY FULLER, surgeon, St. Matthew's-place, Hack ney-road, March 21 and April 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy, May, Princes-street, Spitalfields. JOHN MERIDETH CONNORTON, mast-maker, Shad Thames, Surrey, March 21 and April 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Quallett and Hancock, Prospect-row; Bermond,eY. EDWARD ASHENDEN and THOMAS COOPER BAKER, brick-maCre, Sittingbourne, Kent, March 18, at half-past eleven, and Ap:il 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. Marson and Dadley, Church-row, Newington-butts. WILLIAM SWA LES, silk-niercer, Great Portland-street, March 19, at one, and April 22, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. James, Bucklersbury. THOMAS ELY, commission-agent, Mark-lane, City, March 20, at twelve, and April 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bank ruptcy. AP Leod and Stenning, London-st., Fencherch-st. JOHN THOMAS TWELLS, draper, Tamworth, Safford shire, March 19 and April 22, at eleven, at the Court of i3ank ruptcy. Parker, St. Paul's Churchyard. THOMAS WILSON, builder, Manchester, March 31 and April 2t;i ; at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester, Milne, Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple, London ; Walker and Jesse, Manchester. HENRY GREGOIIY DREWE, coal merchant, Swansea, Glamorganshire, March '27 and April 22, at eleven, at the Mackworth Arms Inn, Swansea. Goren and Nation, Orchard street, Pcrtman-square, London. JONATHAN BURROWS, victualler, Holme Pierrepoint, Nottinghamshire, March 20 and April 22, at eleven, at Wilson's Hotel, Nottingham. Payne and Daft, Nottingham; Taylor, Featherstone-buildings, Holborn, Londen. JOHN and WILLIAM 31`CONOCIIIE, stone_masonr•, Liverpool, April 1 and 22, at two, at the Clarendon.roorns. Liverpool. Norris, Allen, and Anthony, Great Ormond-, street, Lor,don ; Toulmin, Liverpool. JOHN TAPLEY, jun., woollen-draper, Torr, Devonshire, March 31 and April 2.2, at two, at the Half Moon Inn, Exeter. Berkeley, Lincoln's Inn, London ; Bush, Trowbridge. HENRY MANN, linen.draper, Beccles, Suffolk, March 22 and April 22, at twelve, at the Office of Mr. Newton, Norwich. Newton, Norwich; Taylor and Co., Bedford-row, London. CHARLES COUPLAND, money-scriviner, Leek, Stafffird. shire, March 22 and April 22, at twelve, at the Angel Inn, Macclesfield. Johnson and Weatherall, King's Bench-walk, Temple, London ; Condlyffe, Leek. ROBERT TODD, merchant, Liverpool, April 1 and 22, at twelve, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Massey, Liver pool ; Adlington and Co., Bedford-row, London. THOMAS COLLIER, hatter, Holywell, Flintshire, March 22 and April 22, at two, at the Justice-room, Holywell. Meyrick and Cox, Red Lion square, London; Oldfield, DIVIDENDS. 'l'. Riddell and C. Buckle, innkeepers, Stratford, Essex, April 1, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy—H. Vos and J. C. Essers, merchants, New-court, Crutched-friars, April 3, at half.past one, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Sayre, cheese monger, High-street, Shadwell, April 3, at half past eleven, at. the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Maberly, banker, Bread.street, Cheapside, March 25, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy— S. Bennett, flock-merchant, Horsley, Gloucestershire, April at eleven, at the Fleece Inn, Cheltenham—D. Thackeray and Co., brewers, Walton, Lancashire, April 2, at ten, at the Com missioners' Rooms, Manchester—T. Fletcher and Co., bankers, Liverpool, April 8, at one, at the George Inn, Liverpool—W. Tuck, miller, Elsing, Norfolk, April 4, at six, at the Offices of Messrs. Bignold and Co., Norwich—D. Carr, grocer, Birming ham, May 7, at one, at Radenhurst's Royal Hotel, Birmingham —J. Whitby, grocer, Weasenham, St. Peter, Norfolk, April 4, at eleven, at the Norfolk Hotel, Norwich—T. B. Hayward, Liverpool, April 9, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liver pool—B. G. Roper, manufacturing-chymist, Chester, April 5, at one, at the Clarendon buildings, Liverpool—T. J. Spence, linen factor, Manchester, April 23, at ten, at the Commissioners' Rooms, Manchester. CERTIFICATES--Arm 1. J. Anderson and J. Perry, painters, Worcester—J. and J. Wright, ship-chandlers, Limehouse-hole, Poplar—D. Ramsay, nurseryman, Gloucester road, Old Brompton—W. Armitage, victualler, Sowerhy-bridge, Yorkshire—R. Rawings, sen., ve terinary-surgeon, Wells—F. and H. Fry, butchers, Bath— R. and T. Williamson, flour-dealers, Manchester. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. It. L. Percy and J. M`Gill—W. Jones and 0. Elias, joiners, Liverpool—J. Walford and M. Roberts, stonemasons, Whit church, Shropshire—J. Crook and R. F. Priest, turners, Mit chell-street, St. Luke's—J. and D. Fox, card makers, Gomer sail, Yorkshire—E. Keat and W. Nutt, hearth-rug manufac turers, Cleveland-street, St. Marylebone—J. Smith and I. Bennett, porter dealers, Ripley, Derbyshire—S. and J. Dean, surgeons, Witton, Cheshire—J. Wills and H. L. Vesconte, merchants, Dartmouth—E. Edwards and W. Jones, tailors, Newport, Monmouthshire--C. Smithson and Co., solicitors, New Inn (as far as regards C. Hawdon)—M. Brewer and A. B. Goss, grocers, Ormskirk, Lancashire—J. Todd and Co., silk manufacturers, Manchester (as far as regards C. Todd) —J. Mo rison and N. J. Friedlander, hygeists, Hamilton-place, New road—M. J. Pain and M. A. Peche, milliners, Great Port land-street, Oxford-street—H. Castellain and A. F. Schaezler, merchants, Copthall-court, London—J. B. Besozzi and J. Bartlett, linendrapers, Weymouth—J. Smith and G. Flint, timber-merchants, Conisbrough, Yorkshire—T. Hunt and J. Dalton, vellum-binders, St. Mary Axe—A. M. Sandeman and W. F. Mould, accountants, Sion College-garden, Alderman bury—S. Carter and S. Ashweek, milliners, Plymouth—J. Lockett, jun., and C. Swain, copperplate-engravers, Manches ter—J. Parlour and B. M`Dermott, linen-drapers, Vine-street, Waterloo-bridge-road—J. Flint and Co., Bothwell, Leeds, tan ners (as far as regards J. Flint)—W. Sandys and H. Sandys, jun. attorneys, Crane-court, Fleet-street. COURT FOR THE RELIEF OF INSOL- VENT DEBTORS. The matters of the Petitions and Schedules of the Prisoners hereinafter named (the same having been filed in the Court) are appointed to be heard at the Court-house, in Portugal_ street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, on Thursday, the 13th of Marcb, 1834, at Nine o'clock in the Forenoon. Bradley, W., shopkeeper, Little York-place, Gloucester-place, Marylebone. Christian, H., commission-agent, Mincing-lane. Corrie, A., lace-manufacturer, Wellingborough, Northampton shire. Currey, G., fruiterer, Cromer.street, Brunswick square. Davies, W. 0., stable-keeper, South Molton.street, Hanover square. Hall, M., broom-dealer, Wagstaff-buildings, Great Guildford street, Borough. Howes, S., butcher, Tabernacle-square, Old-street.road. Johnson, J. P., parliamentary-agent, Duke-street, St. James's. Lamb, R., corn-dealer, Adderbury East, Oxfordshire. Osborne, J. W. P., sergeant to the City of London Police, St. Mary at Hill. Sager, E., woollen-carder, Haslingden, Lancashire. Shirt, S., gentleman, William-street, New North-road, Islington. MEETINGS OF CREDITORS AT THE COURT, BASINGHALL-STREET (From the London Gazette.) TO-MORROW, MARCH 12. Au N. J. Kidder, silversmith, Strand F. H. Hemming and Co., lacemcn, St. Paul's Churchyard 1 12 PENSIONERS AND PLURALISTS.--Mr. Harvey's motion for an inquiry into civil list pensioners e;nbraced only a fraction of the entire numbers; some of the largest and perhaps most objectionable are charged on the consolidated fund and West India duty. This will be apparent on reference to the roll of pensions in the Block Book,—a work which on this, and every other public abuse, is replete with authentic information. Nl'hy, too, not institute inquiry into the enormous amount of church pluralists and their patrons, contained in the same invaluable record of civil and ecclesiastical misgovernment. During the three years' labour of the " Reform Ministry and the Reformed Parliament," we regret so little progress has been made in removing the opprobrium attached to British institutions, by the publication of the extraordinary volume to which we have alluded. David Hume had frequent discussions with his friend Dr. J.—, on the subject of religion ; the one maintaining the sufficiency of the light of nature for all practical purposes, the other insisting on the necessity of revelation. One evening, after a long argument on the subj ct, at Dr. Hume rose to take leave. The Doctor begged that he would wait a single moment for a candle to let him see the way down stairs. " Noe" says the philosopher, " there is light enough still remain ing." lie began to grope down the staircase, when un luckily putting his loot into a tub of dirty water left be hind by a careless chamberlain, he lost his balance and rolled down heavily to the landing place. Dr. J hastened with a candle to his assistance, exclaiming, as ith ill-suppressed triumph, " Oh, David, David, 1 alwaya told you the light of nature would never do !" o.rford University Magazine