The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-10 00:00:00

:f;Fj~, said to have taken place within the last four months. There were moral deluses as well as physical ; and on this occasio n his Riekst Hon. Friend seemed to have been de sirous to overwhelm the few circumstances which Were revelant to his motion, in the deluge of remarks which were utterly irrevelant to it. His Right Hon. Friend had been a little taken by surprise on the last motion which lie had brought forward, for he . found the paper for which he moved grant. d without op . - Position. His Right Hon. Friend was determined to guard himself against a similir surprise on this occasion, for be now mood for papers which he must know that it was impassible for any Government to grant. His Right Hon. Friend wanted to obtain a sight of cer tain ex-party affidavits, which had been forwarded to Government, cast ing reflections on individuals which were entirely unsup ported by facts. and which related to matters which might he th e subject of future legal proceedings. He denied that the Administration had shown any partiality to either of the two conflicting parties, either by what they had' dune, or by what they had left undone.—(Cheers.) His Right Hon. Friend near him had said, and had said very truly, that there was nothing in the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act which made it obligatory on the Govern ment to carry them into axecution. Any one might en force those provisions; and he did not know so'.at reason the P .rtuguese Consul-General had to call upon the,Bri tish Government to institute proceedings under that Act, when, if he had proof againq the parties, he omit,' institute them himself. He repeated the assertion,—the Portu guese Consul- General could have instituted such proceed ings himself, and it was not incembont on the Government to institute them for him.—(Cheers.) Oae word now as to the power which the Government possessed. under the same Act, to detain ships. Toe Act of Par. liament said, that when there was reason to believe that a ship, lying in an English harbour, was taking in arise and colliers to be employed against a State in amity with England, any party might lodge an informa tion against the captain and owners of the vessel with the officers of eustotos, and upon that information being veri fied, the (dicers of cestonis shal have power to detain the ' l 4, and to prevent the individuals on board of it from sailing. His Right Hon. Friend might not be aware of this fact, but lie (Lord Palmerston) would remind several of his Right Hun. Friends, colleagues in the late Ca binet, of it, by reminding them of what had occurred on the detention of the ship litzry. That vessel was de tained some time ago on the suspicion that it was proceed ing to the coast of Spain, as part of a projected expedition against the Monarch of that country. There were on hoard of that ship several Spaniards, a number of arms, a quantity of proclamations addressed to the people of Spain ; and there could be no doubt, morally speaking, that she was equipped fur purposes of war ; and yet, strong as the case was, he was sure that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber fur Boroughbritlee would agree with him in saying that there was no ground for detaining that vessel, except that she was preparing to take out arms which had not been entered at the Custom-house. The vessel was sub sequently proceeded against for having on board contra band arms ; but it was not found practicable to proceed against her under the Foreign Enlistment Act. That W3S a much stronger case than any which bad happened here. The vessel complained of in this instance had no arms on board, it was destined for a port of France, and its cargo Was consigned to French subjects. What the ulterior destination of the vessel and of the cargo were to be it would be idle to express a doubt ; hut in the execution of the law they must look only to facts prayed, and not to surmises, guesses, and doubtful interferences. If the y looked to any thing else but facts, when they were admi nistering a law, which was as strongly penal as the foreign Enlistment Act was, they must inevitel4 run into very great and dangerous abuse. He thought that he had now said enou g h to prove that the conduct of the present Ad ministration was not open to any of the censure which his Right Hun. Friend had passed upon it. He should not take the result of the inetion to be confined merely to the introduction of half a dozen additional affidavits, but to ex tend to the approval, or otherwise, of the manner in which the present Government had conducted its foreign rela tions.—(Hear, hear.) Sir R. PEEL thought that if the Government had so much confidence in a good cause, it would b e better if they were ready to meet any inquiry, or to crate a sufficient reason for not affording information, rather titan upon 'every occasion, when the conduct of Ministers was called into question, to shield themselves under the Reform Bill. --(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) The speech of the Noble Lord, the Member for Yorkshire, had but little reference to the present motion, but referred to what had taken place in the House on the subject of the neutrality observed by the former Government with respect to Ter ceira, as if Parliament had never expressed an opinion upon the subject, and the Noble Lord maintained that the Ministry of that day had escaped condemned n for the line of poli c y pursued by them with respect to Terceira, on the sole ground of gi - atitude to them for passing the Bill for emancipating Roman Catholics. But the House wolud remember that on the occasion to •svhich lie had referred, the Ministry had been carried thre(igh with a majority of 113, and therefore he (Sir R. Peel) was entitled to say that the opinion of the House was ;hat the Ministry hail not acted improperly in maintaining neutrally.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord bad also spoken of the forbearance used on that occasion towards the then Go vernment, but when he looked opposite, he saw no less than five Cabinet Ministers who had voted against them. The Right Hon. Gentlemen, the Vice Presidents of the Board of Trade and Controul,were tellers on the occasion. --(Hear, hear.) He did not intend to give an indiscri minate censure on the present Ministry with reference to the Present question, but was ready to give them credit Where they were so entitled. His Noble Friend who had sPoken last had said that no valid objection could he raised against the claims of the British subjects, and that the mode by which they had been enforced could not he called in question, and he (Sir R. Peel) was not disposed to diffe r from his Noble Friend, for it was impossible after ja perusal of the papers now on the table, to attempt to ustify or to attempt to palliat?the conduct of Portugal; at the same time when the House of Commons were en gaged i n passing a Reform Bill, which they were told Would cut off all chance of war, and when he heard at tempts made to excite the passions and divert the better judgment of th e H ouse b y d we lli ng on the grievances of dividuals, his expect itions of a n e t erna l peace f rom a Refor m i n Parliament were not great, particularly when he saw the promptness of Reformers for war.—(Hear, hear th.) Th e con d uct o f t h e Government of Portugal wi respect to the British claims was such as to justify th e e mp l oyment of force ; but he considered the claims of France stood on totally different grounds. France had de Mended redress to an extent not conferinable to justice or equity. He thought his Noble Friend opposite, in his anxiety to vindicate France, had made use of some expres sions, which before tie debate should be brought to a close, he would not be unwilling to retire front. Whether his Noble Friend slid so or not, lie (Sir R. Peel) would undertake to prove that the Noble Lord's justification of France was not well founded. The Noble Lord had said, that even if Bontiomme had been justly condemned, France was justified in demanding the reparation she had demanded. Wheat were the demands of France ? The dis missal of the Judges who pronounced sentence, a reversal of the sentence, and the payment to Bonhomme of a com pensation of 20,000 francs. If the sentence was well founded on legal evidence, such a demand was not war ranted.—(Hear.) Tt:e next demand made by France on the Portuguese Government—namely, that all the sen tences passed during the last two years on Frenchmen for Political crimes, should be: rescinded, was such a demand as was fatal to the integrity of any country ; and while he thought that the English Government were right in not refusing t o ass i st F rance in obtaining a just reparation, yet they were not bound to enforce a reparation of this nature. The Noble Lord on the third bench (Ebrington) had con gratulated the House on the fact that the removal of the former Government from office had saved the country the en,naity of th e recogn i t i on of Don Miguel on the throne ot P ortugal. It would be remembered that in 1830 it was announced by th e t h en Government, in the speech from the throne, that they thought the inconvenience of sus pending the relations with Portugal was so great, that it could not long be withheld ; and the Noble Lord then said (FePosseseing, as he then did, a full knowledge of the con ut, of Don Miguel —that when he considered that Portu gal‘ been for three years under the sovereignty of Don „,..g 4 . 0 ) his hostility to interfere with a de facto Govern le:llr.svas removed, and that he did not think it would be that ifth e G overnment longer delayed the recognition of cour "nee. He (Sir R. Peel) concurred with the se recommended then by the Nobl e L or d . — (H ear. ) It cie",}ll44. for one nat i on to i nqu i re i nto the private conduct that ar acter of a m o n arc h o f ano th er country, nor should so t i on c°o nuct or char ac t er b e an imp e di ment to hi s recog and ; for where he appeared to be the people's choice, a d arri ve reigned fur a peri o d of four y ea r s , th e t i me was save r When he might safely be recognised as ade facto . 8 In• It was very well for the Noble Lord to clothe IP e eoll with clap-traps, in order to raise a cheer at its The but he begged to disclaim any such object. mina ole tenour of his life had shown how much he abo glorietedtWar, and that he never was dazzled by the false °Y which it was eneompassed.—(Hear, hear.) R oti ..'"g all reference to party feeling, he would ask the • ro consider the present condition of this country With • teaPeCt to Portugal, and to say if, however the House aught divid e on ether questions, it was agreed on this— that England should preserve and maintain a strict neu trality. The country was bound to do this on every ciple of law, equity, and p r ud ence; but hNiiid ti;laesi tate to say, notwithstandi ng w h at hid ..fklkal't am the Noble Lord opposite, th a t a str i ct neutrality iitir not been. observed. The system notoriously pursued in', this'. country, of enlisting men, fitting up • armaments, and the purchasing of warlike stores for ! the put : pose of assisting one of the contending parties, %Vist a direct breach of those very international laws which provided a strict neutrality shMild be maintained. It was said that the House had only heard tumours and whispers, which did not prove any thine , ; but if this mo tion was carri e d h e (Si r R o b er t P ee l) would undertake to prove a vast deal. lie believed the fact to be notorious, that in the metropolis stations were fixed for the enlistment of private soldiers for the expedition against Don Miguel, anal where commissions were issued, an d that hundreds of young men had been so engaged—(Heir)—and he had also learned from those newspapers mist in the confidence of the present Ministry,.that n9.less than'four vessels lad en with warlike stores bad been seized, and remained three weeks under detention by the Custotn-house authorities. It was said to be in the power of any individual to prosecute for foreign enlistment, but the Act afforded no such power ; neither was there authority fur detention of vessels so cir curnstanced, but in the .Custom-house authorities only. They were, however, released by the direct intervention of the King's Government. Instead of referring the matter to the Court of Exchequer, which alone had the power to d cide upon the point, the executive Government of the country stepped in and directed the release of the vessels. This afforded matter of grave suspicion of a violation of neutrality. Was it a 'act, he asked, that these four vessels, thus released, after three weeks' detention by the Customs, formed part of the expedition of Don Pedro ?—(Hear, hear.) Was it a fact, that one of these vessels was the very vessel with a change of name, from which the proclamation of Don Pedro was issued ?_( Hear, hear.) If these were facts, and if these vessels were suffered to go to a French port, and to farm part of an expedition against Don Miguel, it was a violation of our neutrality. In a case of this kind, unless the contradictory evidence was strong in the extreme, the presumption was that there had been a departure from our neutrality. If the Noble Lord (Palmerston) stood on the public inconvenience attending the production of the papers moved for, that would be a different question ; but he (Sir R. Peel) did say, that the prima facie evidence of a breach of neutrality was extremely strong; and to say that a simple motion for papers was a censure upon the Government was an extraordinary argument. If the Noble Lord desired an alteration of the terms of the motion, it should be couched in the humblest tone ; but to reject a motion for information on tile ground that it was a censure upon the Government, was a more extraordinary mode of Treating a motion for information than he had ever heard. —(Hear, hear.) The Haute might reject the motion, but depend upon it, unless a prima facie case of observanee of neutrality could he made out, in the impending contest, the conduct of Government will have exposed the country to great mischief. The expedition was about to sail ; we had been substantially agents in that expedition, though it sailed from the ports of France ; and if Don Miguel was driven from the throne and Don Pedro established, would it or would it not be believed that England had been pre dominant? If we had observed our neutrality, and there was nothing in the records of the Foreign-office to substantiate the allegation that we had violated it, there was no reason why the papers should be refused. One word as to the municipal law. If the Noble Lord considered the Enlist ment Act injurious, why did lie not in an open and manly way, repeal it?:--(hear.) Whilst that law remained on the statute book, was it fitting that in that country which .d been at peace with Portugal for fifteen years, a party should be enabled to equip fleets against it ? The true policy o this country was a strict neutrality.—(Cheers from the Opposition ) Mr. STANLEY said, in the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat town lie (Mr. St miry) must say, he had fairly confined himself to the question before the House, and had not gone into those other topics which some Hon. Members had sa amply discussed. Upon some points the Right Hon. Baronet had given Lis Majesty's Government a full justification; and he should tnerefore not enter into a comparison between the plan pursued lay his Noble Friend and his predecessors. But th e [lon. Baronet had adopted an extraordinary course when he comulained of Ministers showing a desire to flinch from the discus-ion, and to evade the question be fore the House, and when he taunted them with alluding on a former occasion to the question of Reform ; for the words were scarcely out of his mouth before lie turned round and talked of a promptness for war, which a re farmed Parliament could not gratify.—( Hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet and other Hon. Members expressed their fears and anticipations that Government would in ' volve Europe in war. But week after week, and month a , ter month, this had been thrown out against the present Govetnrnent, during a year which required, if it ever was required, the most consummate prudence to prevent the country being involved in that calamity.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) He remembered the Hon. Member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) coining forward and saying, "If you can for only six months keep Europe from war, I will grant that you possess consum mate prudence."—(3e tr.) The six months had gone by, and the peace of Europe rested on a more solid foun dation than ever.—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) Then they were told that the French troops were in Bel. gium ; and what security was there, it was asked, that they would return ? Our confidence in the French Go vernment—(Cheers from the Opposition interrupted the sentence.) Why that cheer? Had that confidence been violated ? He would tell the Hon. Member who seemed by that cheer to sneer at the character of a great nation. to come forward and say whether it had violated the con fidence placed in it?—(Cheers.) Then it had been said we had allowed a French fleet to enter the Tagus ; anal when, it was asked, would it quit it? Did it not quit it the same day on which it was pledged to quit it ? (Hear, hear.) Did it make any more reprisals than it was justified in au ,king ? With respect to the sentences on the individuals referred to, did the Right Hon. Ba ronet suppose that the French went to war for the sake of 13onhomme alone ? If the sentence of Bonhomrne was just, and according to the law of Portugal—and the Right Hon. Baronet talked of the danger of interfering with these sentences and with the legal authority of Portugal, but he would ask him whether the sentence against Bon homme was Just, that he should be banished to the pesti lential climate of Anemia ?—whether he would contend that it was consistent with law and justice that Bonhomme should be flogged a second time in prison ?—(l-lear.) Sir R. PEEL—." I was aware of that."—(Hear.) Mr. STANLEY—" If the Right Hon. Baronet was aware of the fact, I am surprised he did not state it"— (Cheers.) He (Mr. Stanley) would go farther, and say, that'where the Judges were not independent, the Govern ment, and not the Judges, were responsible for such a sen tence ; and a foreign Power was not to be interdicted from interference on the base pretext that it was the sentence of Judges. He (Mr. Stanley) would not quote from Mr. lioppner, whose evidence seemed to he suspected, but he would quote a despatch from Mr. Matthews, who, in 1828, stated that the fate of the prisoners would be de cided according to the impression which the Government took of their case, for that no Judge would venture to act in opposition to the desires of the Government.—(Hear.) Then what became of the argument about inviolability and security, when it was notorious that the Judges were thus dependent on the Government ?—(Hear.) He (Mr. Stanley) agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet with respect to the relative situation of Great Britain, and as to the expediency of maintaining our relations with that country. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated truly that it was not the character of the Prince on the throne we were t ) con sider ; but the Right Hon. Baronet must admit that there was a time in the history of England, not far remote from the present, when a Government, composed of persons with whom the Right Hon. Baronet acted, justified the continuance of a war with France, on the ground that there was no security for the peace of Europe from the personal character of Napoleon Bonaparte.—(Hear, hear.) But he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet that we were bound to preserve a neutrality ; but the Hon. Baronet was bound to show that the neutrality had been broken, by stat ing some fact, and net by begging the whole question. The Right Hon. Baronet said that Government had been culpable for suffering recruiting and purchasing of stores and provisions for Don Pedro ; but he called upon the Right Hon. Baronet to show by what Act of Parlia ment, unless the purchases'and enlistments were open and notorious, the Government would have been authorised to prevent them. He believed that it was notorious that in various parts of the kingdom there had been enlisting of men for Don Pedro ; he believed the fact to be so. But if we were bound to enforce the enlistment law, we were hound not to overleap the technical difficulties and over step the law ;—not to proceed on mere belief, but on facts capable of being established by legal evidence. The Right Hon. Baronet said correctly, that the four ships were de taMed at the Custom-house, he believed on a supposition that they were intended for Don Pedro; but on a full in vestigation of the grounds of the charge, it was given as the legal opinion of those who were consulted on it.— (Hear, hear, from the Opposition)—that the evidence was not such as would substantiate the charge, or as afforded a chance of conviction; and Government would not have been justified in proceeding in a case where their law ad visers told them they had no chance.—(Hear, hear, from 'the, Opposition.) . .r Not one of the ships was armed, and they were all the property of a French subjec', who claimed them as his property, and sub s t ant i ate d . his clai m . H e (dr.:Stanley) entirely denied the position of the Right flOn.,Baronet, that there had been any enlistment of Bri tl4lilitildiers; and there was no legal proof that any persons were enlisted in, the service of Don. Peiro ; and he would ~. ask the. Right fitin.'l3 . aronet on what ground he would inter - iiora,notdriety.and.public repo r t, t o prevent a ship from frOm this"tn . nf or.e i en country. On these grounds, 11 is ers rested trek defence, an d l et not t h e Right Hon: Baron e t says that this was only a mo ti on f ir papers. i l k He (Sir R. Peel) had been too log in Par iatnent to urge such a plea, and they (the Ministers) had been long enough on the opposite side of the House to know that they never made a motion for papers which the Government was un willing to graft, which was not a direct attack upon the Government—(Hear, hear) —and tneant to be a censure on them. It this was not a part of the words of the motion, it was a part of the intent of the motion; and if he (Mr. Stanley) l;ad had a doubt upon the subject, that doubt would have been resolved by the whole speech of the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, which was a censure on the conduct of Government in regard to Portugal. He hoped the Hon. Member would not, as on some other oc casions, withdraw this motion.--(flear,-hear.) He knew the Hon. Member did not expect it would he granted; his object was only to make an angry attack on the Govern ment, and to shrink from the consequences by withdraw ing his motion.—(Cheers.) Sir R. PEEL explained, amidst cries of " spoke." We understood him to say that he had not alluded to the second fliieging of M. Bonhomme, because he considered the Go. vernment to be in fault, not the Judges. Sir C.WETHERELL contended that a more plain and palpable case of violation of neutrality had never Le en rstabli , heil. Having stated and explained the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, the Hon. Gentleman pro ceeded to contend that this was a case which clearly came under that Act, anti th it the Government itself bad, by acting on the complaint and detaining the vessels for a time, acknowledged th it a case had ben fitly made out for its interference. It had been said that this motion should have been a larger one, and that if the Government was to be put on its defence, a Committee of Imtiry . should have been moved for, and the whole case submitted to en investigation. Now he certainly would have no ob jection, if he c uld not get the papers, to take a Committee, if the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would give them one on this matter. It had been stated that the Law Officers of the Crown had given it as their opinion that this was not a case for interference on the part of his Majesty's Govern ment. Those Hon. and Learned Gentlemen were now present, and though he would not call for the production of their opinion, he should very much like to know whether they had given such an opinion as that attributed to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said there was nothing ' whatever in this case that would have justified the interfe rence of Government. Unit, r the provi.ions of the Foreign Enlistment Bill, Government could only act upon deposi tions formaly laid before it. The remarkabl e property of the Foreign Enistment Act was, that when a seizure was made ita cases of this kind, it was to be referred, like any common seizure, to the Court of Exchequer, but no seizure had been made here, and therefore there had been no re ference to the Court of Exchequer in this instance. In truth his Learned Friend opposite, who had given an opi nion in reference to this case, upon ex-parte affidavits ; had, in arguing this subject, tale , n altogether a wrong view of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistmi-M Bid, arid of the duty which that Act imposed upon the GovernmeLt of the country. He well remembered the days when that Act was under discussion, and when his eloquent Friend, the then Member for Knareaborough, pointed it out to them as a must unwise Act of Parliament ; and if he (the Attorney-Gi-neral) thought so then, he could not but think that it was an Act which should never he enforced unless wl•en circumstances fully warranted its application. They were nut, under the mask of impartiality, to seek to interpose wherever they could with this Act of Parliament to prevent Englishmen from giv4ig that aid which they were always ready to afford to the cause offre,dom through. out the world ; and they were not to restrict and hind them down by an overstrained interpretation of such a law from interfering in such ca,es, because they knew that :heir interference would be always on the good side.— ( Hear.) In conclusion, he begged to repeat that there had been no facts in this case to warrant the interference of his Mijesty's Government. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that this was a case in which, if ever the discretion given to his Majesty's Government should be vested in them, such a discretion might be safely vested in them. There was nothing that at all called for their interference in this instance. He was a good deal ainased by finding the Hon. Member for the University o , Oxford exhibiting himself as the champion of the monks of Coimbra. The atrocious sentence pronounced by the monks of Coimbra was obviously pronounced upon the individual in question because he was a freemason ; and it was a remarkable fact that he was not arrested until Sept-mber, 1830, or sentenced until the 11th of Deeemler in that year ; although the matter alleged against him taken place in April, 1828. Yet these monks of Coim bra, who had acted in such an unjustifiable manner, met with a defender in the person of the Protestant Member for the University of Oxford ?—(A laugh.) There was no one who had the hardihood in that Rinse to call him_ self the defender of Don Miguel, but he (Mr. O'Connell) would ask th. House and the nation, whether it this mo tion should be carried, every friend of Don Miguel out of that House would not triumph at its success?—(Cheers.) Nu one, he repeated, had had the hardihood in that House to stand forward and avow himself the defender of such bloo ly despot, yet party spirit drove men to join with such a wretch, and to do his work, as the supporters of this motion undowitedly did.—(Hear, hear.) Lord SANDON raw no ground to shake his confidence in the foreign policy of the present Government. Mr. COURTENAY briefly replied, and the House di vided, when the numbers were— For the motion., 139 Against it Majority for Ministers 135 On our return to the gallery we found Colonel SIBTHORPE remonstrating, as we were then given to understand, against a proposition made by Lord Altitorp, that the House should sit on Saturday. Lord ALTHORP said his proposit'on was solely brought forward from a conviction of tie pressure of public business. fhe conversation then dropped; but we believe it was decided that the Reform Bill would be gone into on tha day. LANDLORDS (SCOTLAND). Mr. GILLON, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Landlords' right of Hypothec, observed that the law of Hypothec was familiar to Hon. Members from Scotland, and also the cause which had drawn the public attention particularly to that law, and to its in adequacy to the existing state of the country. The law has worked well in remote periods, when agriculture was comparatively in its infancy, but was found in its present shape unsuited to what he was happy to allude—the greatly increased commerce and improved agriculture of that part of the kingdom. The effect of the law had undoubtedly been to create a confidence and mutual security between the landlord and tenant, highly advantageous to the interest of both. Since the decision of the case, however, to which he had alluded, purchasers found themselves in a state of insecurity, an insecurity which must either continue, or the sales must be effected in a manner detrimental to the interests of ail parties, and which would operate as an indirect tax on grain. The object, therefore, was, to frame a law which, while it should maintain that wholesome confidence which ha , ' existed between the landlord and tenant, should afford to the purchasers of farm produce that reasonable security to which they were entitled. The Lord Chan cellor, before whom the case had come to which he had alluded, had brought in, in another place, a Bill to amend the law of Hypothec, but numerous petitions had been presented from almost every agricultural county in Scotland, representing that change as to.) sudden and sweeping. Lord Belhaven had subsequently introduced a Bill on this subject, but from the sudden dissolution of Parliament that Bill had dropped. He had in sonar points followed the Bill of that Noble Lord ; and in others he adopted a different course— he had substituted intimation in place of registration as therein proposed. The reasons for this change, which he had adopted after anxious inquiry among the parties inte rested on both sides, were threefold. First, it appeared to hint bird to force the tenant to go to market when he might dispose of his produce without leaving his farm. S:condly, that it opened a wide door for fraud to the tenant, by making the sales and registrations in a distant part of the country ; and, thirdly, that this regis ter would be held merely as a catalogue of names of tenants whose credit was doubtful. He had been assured of the valuable advic.: and assistance of that Noble Lord in promoting a wholesome modification of the law. His object was, that ample time should be afforded for the consideration of his proposition by every class of persons in Scotland who were to be affected by its operation. He had ventured, as a landholder of Scotland, and of course deeply interested in the security of that class, to propose a measure which he hoped would be found, at the same time, not incompatible with the in terests of others.—Leave given. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, end the House adjourned at Two o'clock. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS, The divisiciO of last night was one of great importance, as it was one of confidence in. his Majesty's Ministers. The motion, though for papers respecting ships detained on suspicion of be longing to the expedition of Don Pedro, was ,virtually one of censure on the Ministers, and the result is therefore of great moment. Although the whole night was lost on Portuguese pi litics, the division of 274 with the Ministers to 239 against them shows the confidence of the House with them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice that the House should meet on Saturday, at twelve o'clock, to go on with the Reform Bill, and thus make up for the loss of this night. ENGLAND. Ramsdell, J. C.—Yorkshire Althorp, Vis.—Northamptonsh. Ricicford, W.—Aylesbury Anson, Sir G.—Lichfield Rider, T.—Kent Atherley, A.—Southampton Robarts, A. W.—Maidstone Baillie, J' E.—Bristol Robinson, Sir G.—Northampton Baring, Sir T. B.—Chipping- itooper,J 'B.—Huntingdonshire Wycomb Russell, Lord J.—Devonshire Baring, F. T.—Portsmouth Russell, Sir It. G.—Thirsk Bayutun, S. A.—York Russell, Lieut.-Col.—Tavistock Beaumont, T. W.—Northumb. Russell, W.—Durham County Benett, J.—Wiltshire Sandon, Viscount—Liverpool ' Bentinck, Ld. G.—King's Lynn Sanford, E. A.—Somersetshire Berkeley, Captain—Gloucester Schonswar, G._Null Bernal, R.—Rochester Scott, Sir E. D.—Lichfield Blake, Sir F.-Berwick Sebright, Sir J.--Hertfordshire Blomire, W.—Cumberland Skipwith, Sir (I .—Warwicksh , Blount, E.—Steyning Smith, G. R.—Midhurst Blunt, Sir R. C.—Lewes Smith, J. A.—Chichester Bouverie, D. P.—New Sarum Smith, V.—Northampton Bouverie, P. I'.—Downton Spencer, Hon. F.—Worcestersh, Briscoe, J. I.—Surrey Stanhope, R. IL—Dover Brougham, J.—Winchilsea Stanley, Lord—Lancashire Brougham, W. —Southwark Stanley, Right Hon. E. G. S.._ Bit I kelev Sir It. W.—Beaumaris Windso r Bull er J . W.--Exeter Stanley, E. J.—Hi n d on Buliver, E. L.—St. Ives Staunton, Sir G.—Heytesbury Burton, Henry—Beverley Stephenson, H. F.—Westbury Buxton, T. F.—Weymouth, Re. Stewart, P. M.—Lancaster Byng, Sir John—Poole Strickland, G.—Yorkshire Bing, Gea—Middlesex Strutt, E.—Derby Byng, G. S.—Milbourne Port Stuart, Lord D. C.—Arundel Calvert, N.—Hertfordshire Stuart, Lord P. J.—Cardiff Campbell, I—Stall - brit Surrey, Earl of—Horsham Carter, J. B.—Portsmouth Talbot, C. R.—Glamorganshire Cavendish, Ld. G.—Derbyshire Tennyson, C.—Stamford Cavendish, C. C.—Yarmouth, Thicknesse, R.—Wigan Isle of Wight Thomson, ltt.Hon.C. P.—Dover Chichester, J. P. B.—Barnstaple Thompson, P. B.—Wenlock Clive, E. B.—Hereford l'omes, J.—Warwick Cradock, S.—Camelford Torrens, R.—Ashburton Crampton,P.C.—MilbournePort Townley, R. G.—Cambridgesh. Creevey, f.—Downton 'l'ownshend, Lt. C.—Tamworth Cripps, Joseph—Cirencester Tracy, Charles—Tewkesbury Cunliffe, Offiey—Chester Troubridge, Sir E.T. —Sandwich Curteis, H. B.—Sussex Tynte, C. K. K.—Bridgew a t e r Davies, Colonel—Worcester Tyrrell, Charles—Suffblk Denison, W. J.—Surrey Venables, Ald.—London' Denman ' Sir 'F.—Nottingham V ernon , G . J . — Derbyshire Dundas, Sir R. L.—Richmond Vernon, G. H.—East Retford Dundas, J. C.—Richmond Villiers, 'l'. H.—Bletchingly Dundas, T.—York Vincent, Sir F.—St. Alban's Easthope, J.—Banbury Waithman, Ald.—London Ebrington, Viso.—Devonshire Walrond, B.—Saltash Ellice, E.—Coventry Warburton, H.—Bridport Ellis, W.—Leicester Warre, J. A.—Hastings Etwall, It. jun.—Andover Warrender, Sir G.—Honiton Evans, Col. De Lacy—Rye Wason, R.—lpswich Evans, W.—Leicester Waterpark, Lord—Knaresbro' Evans, \V. B —Leominster Watson, Hon. R.—Canterbury Ewart, \V.—Liverpool Webb, E.—Gloucester Fazakerlev, y J. N.—Peterboro' Wellesley, W. 'l'. L . —E ssex Foley, T. H.—Worcestershire Western, C. C.—Essex Folkes, Sir W.--Norfolk Weyland, Major R.—Oxfordsh. Fordwich, Lord—Canterbury Whitmore, W.—Bridgenorth Fox, Lieut.-Col.—Calne Wilbraham, G.—Cheshire Gordon, it.—Cricklade Wilde, T.—Newark Granam, Sir J. R. G.—Cumber'. Williams, Sir J. IL—Carmarth. Grant, Rt. Hon. R.—Norwich Williams, J.—Winchilsea Guise, Sir B. W.—Gloucestersh. Williams, W.—Monmouthshire Handley, W. F.—Newark Williamson, Sir H —Durham Harcourt,G. V. G.—Oxfordsh. Willoughby, Sir H.—Yarmouth, Harvey, D. \V.—Colchester Isle of Wight Hawkins, J. H.—Tovistock Wood, C.—Wareham Heneage, G. F.—Lincoln Wood, J.—Preston Heron, Sir R.—Peterborough Wood, Alderman—London Heywood, B.—Lancashire Wrightson, W. B.—Hull Hodges, 'l'. L.—Kent Wrottesley, Sir J.—Statfordsh. Hodgson, J.—Newcastle-on-Ty. Honie, Sir W.—N ew t own SCOTLAND. Hoskins, K.—Herefordshire Adam, C.—Kinross, Re. D Fe ix rg o t n ,s , o, J , A.—Vs Howard, Il.—Sh ore h am Agnew, Sir A.— , -- it (- . 4 ._ las li g s o rs " a'rt ß , e Sc . c. Howard, P. H.—Carlisle Howick, Ld. _N ort h um b er l an d Gilion, W. D.—Selkirk, & c . Hudson, T.___E ves h arn Hughes, Colonel—Grantham Grant, Rt. Hon. C.—lnverness- Hume, J.—Middl esex shire i ngi hunt, ib) Henry Sir vv.____ _Preston i,iiieo Haliburton, Hon.—Forlarshire , Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.—P er th, & c . James, 'W.—Carlisle Inshire Johnston„A..—Crail, Re. Johnston, J.—Dunfermlin, &c. Jerningham, R. V.—Pontefract Johnstone, J. J. 11.—Dumfries Johnstone, Sir J. V.—Y or k s hi re Jones, J.—C armart h en shire Kemp, I'. R. —Lewes Loch King, E. B.—W arw i c k Mackenzie, J. A. S.—Ross-shire M'Lcod, It.—Sutherlandshire Knight, H. G.—M a lt on Knight, R.—Wallingford Ross, IL—Aberdeen, Re. Labouthere, IL—Taunton Sinclair, G., jun.—Caichness-sh. Langston, J. H —O x f or d Stewart, Sir M. S.—Renfrewsh. Cawley, F.—Warwickshire Stewart, E.—Wigton, &c. Lee, J. L.—W e ll s Trail', G.—Orkneysh i r e Lefevre, C. S.—Hampshire IRELAND. Leigh, T. C.—Wallingford Acheson, Lord—Ca of Armagh Lemon, Sir C.—Cornwall Belli s'., Earl of—Co. of Antrim Lennox, Lord A.—Chichester Bodkin, J. J.—Galway Lennox, Lord J. G.—Sussex Boyle, Hon. J.—Cork, City of Lester, B. L.—Poole Brabazon, Lord—Co. Dublin Littleton, E. J.—Staffordshire B rowne, J. — C o. of M ayo Lumley, J. S.—Nottinghamsh. Brownlow ' C.—Co. of Armagh Lushington, Dr.—llchester C arew , It. S.—Wexford County Moberly, W. L.—Shaftesbury Chapman, M.—Westmeath Co. Macaulay, T. B.—Ealne Chichester, Sir A.—Belfast Macdonald, Sir J.—Hampshire Clifford, Sir A.—Bandon-bridge :Mackintosh, Sir J.—Knaresbro' Copeland, Alderman—Coleraine Mangles, J.—Guildford Doyle, Sir J. M.—Carlow Co. Marjoribanks, S.—Hythe French, A.—Roscommon Co. Marryatt, J.—Sandwich G rattan, H.—Meath Co. Marshall, W.—Bevsrley Hill, Lord Arthur—Co. of Down Mayhew, W.—Colchester Hill, L.rd G. A.—Carrickfergus Milbank, M.—Camelford Howard, R.—Co. of Wicklow Mildmay, P. St. J.—Winchester Jephson, C. D. O.—Mallow Mills, J.—Rochester Killeen, Lord—Co. of Meath Milton, Visc.—Northamptonsh. King, R.—County of Cork Moreton, H.—Gloucestershire Knox, Col.—Dungannon Newark, Lord—East Retford Lamb, G.—Dungarvon Noel, Sir G.—Rutlandshire header, N. P.—Kilkenny Norton, C. F.—Guildford Macnamara, W. N.—Cl a r e C o . Nowell, A.—Westmoreland M u lli ns , F. V.—Co. of Kerry Nugent, Lord—Aylesbury O', onnell, D.—Co. of Kerry Ord, W._alorpeth O'Connell, M. D.—Co, of Clare Paget, Sir C.—Caernarvon O'Connor Don—Roscom. Co. Paget, T.—Leicestershire O'Ferrall, It. M.—Co. of Kildare Palmer, C. F.—Reading O'Neill, Hn. Gen.—Antrim Co. Palmerston, Vis.—Bletchingley Ossory, Earl of—Kilkenny Co. Pelham, C. A.—Lincolnshire Ponsonby, G.—Youghall Pendarves, E. \V.—Cornwall Power, R.—Waterford County Penleoze, J. S.--Southampton Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.—Limerick Pepys, C. C.—Malton Ruthv e n, E. S.—D ownpatr i c k Petit, L. H.—Ripon Shed, It. L.—Co. of Louth l'etre, E.—llchester Walker, C. A.—Wexford Phillips, Sir B. B.—Haverfordw. Wallace, T.—Drogheda Phillips, C. M.—Leicestershire Westenra , H.—Monaghan Co. Philips, G. It.—Steyn,ng White, —Co. of Dublin Ponsonby, Hon. J. B.—Higham White, S.—Co. of Leitrim Ferraro Wyse, T., jun.—Tipper a ry C o . Poyntz, W. S.—Ashburton TELLF.R9. Price, Sir R.—Herefordshire D uncannon, Vi s.—Kilkenny Co, Itainsbot tom, J.—Windsor Morpeth, Viscount—Yorkshire, We may count upon no lack of industry in the Opposition, in discovering questions to occupy the time of the House to the exclusion of the Reform Bill. Last night was entirely engrossed by one of those convenient questions, for purposes of delay, into which all sorts of subjects may be introduced. The question, if we were to judge of it, Mr. Cour renay's motion, might he supposed simple enough. The motion was for '' Copies or extracts of des patches, if any, supplying information relative to enlistment in any foreign forces, or aiding in the equipment of an expedition proceeding to Por tugal; together with a statement of proceed:nes, if arty, taken by Government therein." But this mo tion was only a peg on which to hang attempts to prove the contradiction between the former prin. ciples of Lord Grey and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Goderich, &c., and the former principles and present practice of Lord Palmerston with regard to Portu gal,—and that we were bound by our treaty with Portugal to defend Don Miguel against the late hos tilities of the French Government. The British public are tolerably sick of Portuguese affairs, and naturally conceive that our own affairs are sufficient in all con science to occupy our Statesmen, without reference to the eternal subject of Don Miguel and Don Pedro, and the conduct of the Portuguese tribunals. It does not appear that the Opposition took anything by their motion. Lord Morpeth contrasted, in a very happy manner, the blustering imbecility of Lord Aberdeen, as exemplified in the cases of Marcos Ascoli, M. Fragoas, Mrs. Story, &c., and the mis chievous effects of his system in the seizure of British vessels at Terceira—the levy of fresh imposts on British subjects, the allowing the Ninns to rot in the Tagus, after it was determined that there was no pretence for capturing her—the plundering of the St. Helena by the Diana, arid the gross insult of the Captain and crew. Since the present Government came into office, the complaints of British subjects had been promptly attended to, redress for injuries to them was categorically demanded, arid acceded to without delay by the Portuguese Government. The consequence of the altered conduct was gratefully felt by the British residents in Lisbon, from whom Government received thanks for the paternal protec tion extended to them. It was truly remarked by Sir George Murray, that a great part of the discussion which had arisen out of the motion, was wide of the matter. The question was, whether or not the Foreign Enlistment Act had been violated, and whether or not the Government had been a party to the violation. Sir George jocularly observed that he would not defend that Bill ; that, professionally speaking, he should rather be inclined to wish that no such B:11 existed, and that there was a free trade in arms. It does seem to us little better than trifling, to allow belligerents to raise loans to enable them to carry on was,and yet to prohibit the free trade in arms. He who can obtain money, can easily obtain men. Lord Palmerston successfully showed that Government had not made itself a parry to the violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The speech of Mr. Stan ley-, in answer to Sir Reber Peel, was keen and spirited. This unprofitable discussion was tenni 'rated by a division of 274 to 139, giving Minister , a majority of 135.—Morning Chronicle. The Ministerial declarations in the House ( f Lords on Tuesday night on the subject of Irish ithea, as we anticipated, have been received by the public with sentiments of astonishment and in dignation. Men of all parties anti religious opi nions (the Tories excepted) marvel at the blindness of Lord Grey to the state of Ireland, and they deplore his uncalled fur and impolitic expression of determination " to improve the condition of the clergy," and to enforce by new coerc ve laws the payment of tithes by a Catholic laity for the maintenance of a Protestant hierarchy. A more monstrous proposition, more palpable ignorance ,if the real state of a suffering and oppressed nation, Vever were displayed. Our ardent and sincere sup p qt of his Lordship's Administration in his bold and statesmanlike conflict with the vile corporation of boroughmongers has been gratefully given ; but we will be influenced by no fears, even for the Re form B:11 it , elf, in condemning his gratuitous and un accountable declarations in favour of the corporation of hest) Protestant Priests. On this most imminent and critical question political par ties and the Tory Journals appear to have changed places it: r, lation to his Lordship's Cabinet. We should think that the hysteric raptures of the Tory Press, and the hollow flattery of Sir Robert Peel, will convince Lord Grey that he has committed a capital error in thus obtaining the approval of his enemies by estranging the political affections of his best friends. Sure we are, that throughout England his senti ments on the Irish Church will be received with grief and dismay, and that their effect in Ireland will be most disastrous. We are at a loss to account for the Ministerial infatuation, except by attributing it to the casual influence of an interview with Lord Plunkett, who, fresh from Ireland, may have ino culated Lord Grey with representations coloured by the notorious participation of the " Plunkett family" itt the fat things of the Irish Church. We know, however, that Government is in possession of honest information, from a high Military Officer, that all the disposeable troops of the Horse-Guards could not enforce the future levy of tithes. The letter also of Major Miller, the Military Superintendent of Munster, to Mr. Stanley, with a return of outrages connected with the tithe system in that province, details the most heart-rending information of "an organized opposition to the payment of tithes, which, taking its rise in some of the counties of Leinster, has extended itself into Munster, and is rapidly over spreading the country." His returns prove that a general insurrection prevails in Tipperary, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, arid the adjoining counties. This ecclesiastical revolt exists equally in districts where tithes are compounded for, arid in many places alike among Protestants and Ca tholics. Major Miller's returns contain reports of the state of each parish in his district. They de tail accounts of a series of threatening notices against payment; of the non-payment of tithes for the past year, and the abandonment of all efforts to enforce in, o()ff parishes; agents tie di proctors sn .a i hunted ned, a like w and dno olev s purchasers,ou under the threat and fear of death, of mortal conflicts ' %% ith valuers, proctors,'and clergymen,of bloody battles with police and military. And Ireland is called by the " Lord Bishops" a Christian country! The re turn respecting Inch, a '.parish in Tipperary, and where the tithes are compounded, states that Inch " has no Church, tithe not paid." Is it for such a horrible and barbarous state of society that Lord Grey claims for the Irish Church Establishment the privilege of the laws of the Medes and Persians, which alter not ? The first and only foundation of a hierarchy—of any system of hired arid salaried priesthood—is its original contrivance for the well being of society. Ceseante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex. The Irish Church has survived its utility ;he death-warrant is signed. Vainly does Lord Grey proclaim to the Irish " I will not remedy your com plaints till you cease to represent them." As well might a physician refuse to prescribe for the first symptoms of a vital disease till the patient was in extreinis. We cannot suspect Lord Grey of the Quixotic or Machiavellian design of conciliating his enemies, or of sopping the Spiritual Peers by chi valrous declarations in favour of the Irish clergy. Old birds are not caught with chaff, arid the slight efficacy of such political bird-lime was signally dis played by the votes of the Bishops against the Re. form Bill, notwithstanding the baits held out for them by the Lord Chancellor in his memorable de claration of the inalienable rights of the parsons. The Tory Opposition, with thuae adroit tactics pecu liar to their late smares for th e Mi n i stry, are sensibly alive to the injury sustained by the Government in these unlucky declarations. Sir R. Peel artfully, but unsuccessfully, on Wednesday night, laid the trap for Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley, by endeavouring to de coy them in the Lower House, into a repetition of the Premier's sentiments; the sagacity of those Mem bers of the Cabinet doub:less discerned and avoided the pitfall, but the feelings of the Irish Members TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN. SlR,—The question mooted by General Dalbiac, st Bristol, furnishes matter for grave consideration, and allow me to suggest through your columns that the honour of the army and the safety of the citizen alike demand that the law should he settled in a distinct, intelligible form. It would be idle, in these enlightened days, to entertain much dread of our standing army; and I will add that to that army is this metropolis and the entire nation much in debted. In Lord Gordon's riots what could equal the for bearance of the disciplined soldiers ? In every subsequent riots have not the citizens of London looked to the re gular force with confidence that it was mighty to protect them ; but that, as it was strong, it was merciful ? The records of half a century—the opinions of all parties, at test the truth of my statement. But a perilous question has been mooted—a question that strikes at the root of military discipline; a question that strikes at the foundation of British liberty; a question that, whilst undecided, leaves the duty of a soldier undefined,—the safety of the citizen precarious. For to what does this doctrine, as laid down by Chief Justice Tindal, amount but to this ; that a subaltern officer may act without the orders of his superior ; a soldier, without the orders of any officer ? Let us supp , se a case. Let us suppose that a party of soldiers were assembled without an officer, on any spot, odfoctthreinee:;e:r; whilst a riot was proceeding ; as the law is now laid down, they would be justified in charging and firing on the alike e ul point isn?t should d r rather, er,l people, without any order so to do. And is this a safe demand gtein that the' t e h e d would say, do not the discipline of the army and the peace defi nitively settled ? That the English soldier is alike distinguished for hu manity as for courage, is beyond a doubt ; that he is alike conspicuous for moderation as for that true courage from which moderation is inseparable, who will deny? But the liberties of England must not be left to depend on the dispositions of individuals, how ever well-disposed ; nor must so vital a question be left unsettled. And, after all, let the ask, if Magistrates do their duty, how rarely, how very rarely, must it occur, that officers should search for them in vain ? And shall the liberty of the subject be endangered—shall the discipline of the army be unsettled—because Magistrates are supine and inactive ? Shall the soldier be exposed to obloquy, and the Magi strate be sheltered from censure? Shall th,t troops of England be exposed to obloquy for magisterial inactivity ? God forbid ! Th e honour of the British army, the pre servation of British liberty, alike forbid the ides. But it is imperatively requisite that this matter should he definitively settled ; the liberty of the suhject must not be left to chanc e ; the laws of England must not vacil late between these various opinions ; the preservation of our lives, of our properties, of our families, must not be left dependent on accident ! Let, then, the law on this Point be declared without delay, and let it be placed be yond controversy and dispute. Your obedient servant, ALPHA. The Crown, Di xon, from Li ver p oo l to Charleston ( no t New Brunswi c k, as stated onWednesday),was on shore near Cahore Point, coast of Wexford, 15th inst. The Master and eight of the crew drowned. PORTUGAL LIST OR. THE MAJnRITY OF TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FOUR WHO VOTED FOR MINISTERS. w. re strongly excited. Mr. O'Connell declared that Irish tithes were defunct. This is the conse (pence of contempt of long continued and aggravated evils. The state of the law was the first cause of complaint, the legal grievances of which have been re , ently excellently stated in the publication of " Ob-ervations on Tithes and Tithe Laws," by the late Sir George Wood, one of the Barons of the Exchequer. Those grievances were treated with in:t tention and contempt; the whole system and principle of remuneration is now impugned I. Thus the insane crusade of the Duke of Wellington, aeainst any Reform of the representation, will end it, the destruction of the borotighinongers. Our cootemporaiy, the Standard, has a long and laboured article in support of the dying Church, and in the spirit of its argument contends, that the lands occu pied by the Church and the tithes are the pro p, sty of the clergy, and ludicrously maintains that they have not half enough, which, as far as concerns their own desires, we do not doubt. The argument of Lord Grey and the St indard was essentially the fdlacy of Burke, so un aeswerably refuted by Sir James Mackintosh (when y 'wig) in his Vindicice Galliacce. There is 'a wide distinction between trust property and private pro pr-rty. No public servants are proprietors. They rue sata ied by the State for the performance of certain duties. Judges are paid for the distribution of justice ; Kings for the execution of laws ; soldiers for the public defence; priests, where there is an established religion, for public instruction. The mode of their payment is indifferent to the question. It was generally in rude ages by land, anti in more civilized times by money. A Cerrito ial pe , .sion, however, is no more property than a pecuniary pe. sion. Although in the various changes of cedars siastical remuneration of labour, the State intrusted the priests with a portion of land as the source and security of their pensions, they are no'niore :he proprietors of it than other State servants are of that portion of the revenue from which they are paid. The lands of the Church have none of the requisites of property ; they are not originally held for he benefit of those who enjoy them. The priesthood was a Corporation, endowed by the country, and destined for the benefit of other men. They are only entrusted with the administration of the lands farm which their salaries are paid. The attempt to sanctify Church property as inalienable, and not the property of a trust, is absurd as well as futile. The Druids, doubtless, set up the howl of sacrilege, when the first Christian Legislature took from them their temples and possessions. The Scottish Episcopacy made a similar outcry, when its revenues were alie nated in support of a new establishment. The State is the sole proprietor of an Established Church. This is an inconvenience to which the " alliance be tween Church and State" subjects all hierarchies; awl thus they contain in their own constitution the seeds of mortality. The doctrines of Lott] Grey on lis subject are the worn-out opinions of by-gone ages. His Lordship cannot coerce a Catholic people to maintain a Protestant Establishment. The pro ceedings in the House of Commons last night, on the presentation of the anti-tithe petitions, will prove to his Lordship, that the Irish people will have an Tholition of tithes, and nothing less. The Irish Tithe Committee is jocosely denominated the Coro tier's Inquest. His Lordship, if in office five years hence, will find work enough to patch up the Eo,: : lish tithes, and may find it convenient to leave Irehiroi it) herself on that question. Already we see that the great towns—imodon, Ehriburgh, Thrming teim, Leeds, and Shefihid—will not pay Church rates, and the Protestant Dissenters are taking their ground on the principal of a free trade is religion. The people have discovered that the clergy do not render them service in proportion to their pay, that the drones rob the bees. Tire periodical season of shaki,g the hive is approaching. The Church must and will be again reformed. Voluntary contribution will be substituted for tithes levied by policemen and aimed proctors; the salaries of the working clergy fill be equalized and more liberal, their dirties „ii! be better executed, their lives will be more irre oroachable: and even if the Bishops retire from the !louse of Lords, they will thereby add respect and power to the Church and State. If the Church power in England and Ireland outlives Lord Grey, it will not survive the nineteenth century. Irish tithes have indisputably died a natural death—their longe vity only is miraculous. The people of the United Empire begin to discriminate between Priestianity and Christianity. —Morning Chronicle. From the days of the revolution of July, 1830, to .he 3d of February, 1832, the blood of no French man was shed upon the scaffold in the metropolis of France. During all that time the apparatus ofjudi• cial death, the horrible guillotine, which was worked with such tremendous activity at the period of the rormer revolution, remained in a state of perfect The great traitors who had conspired to sub vert the liberties of their country, and who com menced the short reign of despotism by military execution upon the citizens of Paris, received the indignant mercy of a people, who did not stain their glorious triumph by making the name of justice sub servient to the passion of revenge. Thus the great criminals being spared as to their lives, and left in captivity to meditation and repentance, the French Government thought, very properly, that it would look inconsistent and unequal to punish with death culprits whose crimes were as inferior to theirs as their power to inflict evil upon society was compara tively limited. There was also a natural repugnance on the part of the people to see human life taken in any case, when even the crimes of the Ex-Ministers were thought not tojustify it. Therefore the guillotine had rest; nor did Justice feel herself defrauded of her rights, because the axewhich fell not on the necks of illustrious culprits ceased to drink the blood of vulgar criminals; nor did crime increase in Paris because the work of judicial extermination was suspended, and the axe of death rusted in its place. On the part of the French Government the show of hu manity was only for a purpose; and, that pur pose being served, an experiment was made, some time ago, to get the guillotine at work once more its the Place de Greve; but the people, considering he ground of that spot consecrated by the blood of the martyrs of liberty, gave indications of opposing the execution, and the design was then abandoned. An attempt was afterwards made to carry the sen tence of death into effect ou the Place Vauban, be hind the Hotel des Invalides ; but the protest of the occupants of that establishment was effectual in preventing the infliction of what they c rnsidered an ignominy on the neighbourhood, and in some degree on themselves. The third experiment was more sue ' cessful; the terrible apparatus of sanguinary law was finally erected on the Place de la Barriers St. Jacques. The axe, cleared from the rust of a long interval of repose, has again drunk human blood ; and the Ministry of Louis Philippe, whose father perished by a similar machine, have ascertained the gratifying fact that the guillotine need not be discarded in Paris as a necessary part of the machinery of the State. Upon this subject one of our Paris correspondents made the other day the following judicious remarks: —" The renewal of these revolting scenes in Paris is lamented and condemned almost unattimiusly by the public. The penal code was considerably ame liorated in the passage through the Chamber of Deputies of the law for revising the criminal laws, and will undergo further modifications in the Cham ber of Peers, before whom that law is about to be brought. A powerful effort will, I am sure, be made to abolish the punishment if death altogether; ,s hick effort some pretend would have succeeded, but for the alleged necessity of making examples in case.; of high treason. The abolition of the penalty p s i death is riot likely, therefore, to rake peace i n , France im me di ate l y; b ut t h e d ay i s no td when capitol p un i s h men t w ill cease altogether. I nere, Novthe word think I m a y v enture to predict, howe'er, except murder and treason. d trea son no crimes will in fu ture b e punished with death d Judges under most Governments have lawyers ari d been very much given to the ptaeuce of ad o p :ing such a latitude, with regard to the con sou is a very comprehensive struction of preriensive word, and Crown diet word, as to make it I.lcl a drag-net to cotcli rest.