met by an amendment on the part of Lord Colchester-that the Bills be read that day six months; and though supported by the Earls of Liverpool and Westmoreland, who voted with the Noble Marquis, both his measures were thrown out, on two divisions, by majorities of 139 to 101, and 143 to 109.

25. The Marquis of Lansdown moved for the production of returns of all the officers of Excise, who had, within the last year, taken the oaths of qualification enjoined by the acts 12 and 15 of Charles the Second. The purpose of his motion, he said, was to show, that Ministers had, in fact, exercised a dispensing power with respect to these oaths, which some of them would not permit to be repealed. The Earl of Liverpool explained that these oaths had been included in the annual indemnity act. Lords King and Holland bestowed much sarcasm upon the division, upon various details of the Catholic question, existing amongst Ministers, and contended, that though the act of indemnity might be admitted to protect the Officers neglecting to take the qualification acts, it offered no protection to the Commissioners appointing or employing such unqualified officers. The returns were ordered.

26. The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the Bills for the restoration, in blood, of the representatives of the attainted Scotch Lords, and for the reversal of the attainder of the Earl of Stafford. The Earl of Lauderdale made some objections to the form of the Bill relating to the Scotch Lords; and Lord Redesdale intimated an opinion, that the gentlemen in whose favour the measure was intended to operate ought to have been called upon to prove their right of succession, in the first place. The Lord Chancellor explained, that the King's sign manual, recommending a Bill of the nature of those before the House, had always been held equivalent to any proof of facts; because, in truth, according to the Constitution, the King, by the keeper of the Great Seal, did always determine questions of succession by the mere issuing a writ of summons, which was never withheld but in a case of manifest difficulty and doubt. A conversation of some length followed, the final result of which was, that the Bill was read a second time, with an understanding, that, before it passed, a committee might be appointed to search for precedents.

31.-Earl Grey presented the Catholic petition, which he introduced in a speech of great length; enforcing, by the usual arguments, that part of the petition

VOL. XV.

which was limited to the removal of disqualifications, and protesting against being understood to countenance the proposals for the suppression of the Protestant church, the proscription of Orangemen, and the disfranchisement of the corporations, which the petitioners had also urged in their petition.

The Earl of Liverpool introduced a Bill to relieve officers of the revenue from the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy. The Marquis of Lansdown expressed his satisfaction at the proposition, but lamented that the Earl Marshal of England was not included in it. Lord King professed some suspicion, that, though introduced by the Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury, the Bill might be defeated by the other Ministers. The Bill was read a first time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. -May 3.. The House met to-day, pursuant to adjournment, but no business of importance was transacted.

4. Lord A. Hamilton presented a pe tition from the Scots distillers, praying to be put on the same footing of favour in the English market as the distillers of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitting that the claims of the Scots distillers deserved consideration, pleaded the complicated nature of the subject as his excuse for not being able to give any distinct pledge upon the subject.

Captain Maberly then brought forward a motion for the relief of distress in Ireland, by empowering the Government to advance a million sterling by way of loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Goulburn, Mr Canning, Mr Peel, and Mr Abercromby, opposed the motion, all following pretty nearly the same line of argument, namely, that the commencement of a system of loans, which, from the nature of things, could not be contined for any considerable period, would only have the effect of diverting the gentry and manufacturers of Ireland from the cultivation of their proper and permanent resources; that it would interfere mischievously with the fair competition of capitalists; and that, by making the crown a frequent creditor with all the prerogatives of priority, which the King necessarily enjoys in the recovery of debts, it would exercise a very pernicious influence upon the general state of credit. Lord Althorpe, Mr S. Rice, Sir J. Newport, Mr Monck, and Alderman Bridges, supported the motion, which, however, on a division, was rejected by a majority of 85 to 38.

6. In the course of a desultory discussion of various topics, Mr Huskisson took occasion to remonstrate against the Z z

recent passion for forming companies, to be incorporated by Acts of Parliament. Such incorporations, he said, were not only an invasion of the Royal Prerogative of incorporating by Charter, but also a fraud upon the public, as the members of Companies incorporated by Act of Parliament were exempted from the operation of the Bankrupt Laws.

Mr Hume then brought forward a motion to institute an inquiry, whether the Irish Church establishment is not unnecessarily numerous and expensive, with relation to the amount of the population? The Hon. Member introduced his motion with a speech of vast extent, but of little novelty. He declared himself an enemy to all religious establishments. Mr Stanley opposed the motion, and exposed the exaggerations of the wealth of the Irish Church, upon which all the Hon. Mover's arguments rested. Mr Grattan and Mr Dominick Brown supported the motion. Mr Robertson suggested the possibility, that, by mutual concessions, it might be found practicable to adopt the Roman Catholic clergy into the Established Church; and cited the examples of Prussia, and some other German states, in which it had been found easy to unite Lutherans and Calvinists, sects as repugnant as the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland. Mr Plunkett spoke at some length against the motion. Mr Leslie Foster and Mr Dawson also opposed it. Sir F. Burdett warmly supported the proposition for inquiry. The House then divided, when the motion was rejected by a majority of 152 to 79.

7. A short conversation took place upon the subject of a proposed modifica tion of the Scottish Poor Laws, in the course of which Sir A. Hope, Mr Drum. mond, and several other Scottish Members, warmly opposed the change which had been proposed in Mr Kennedy's Bill. The change was from the present system, which, like the English poor laws, enfor ces a compulsory assessment for the poor, to a plan formed upon the principles of Mr Malthus, by which the indigent would be abandoned to the chance of voluntary relief.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer then brought forward the Budget. The interest of this communication was, however, much impaired by the previous disclosures of the 23d of February. The exposition, however, given by the Right Hon. Gentleman of the financial condition of the country was in the highest degree cheering and satisfactory, and the Resolutions moved by him were severally carried without a division. He announced it to be the intention of Government

to reduce the interest of Exchequer Bills from two-pence to three half-pence per day, by which about £220,000 will be annually saved. He also recurred to the Act for paying off the four per cents., and stated that the Dissents did not amount to more than seven millions; consequently, notice had been given that the whole would be paid off in October. In allusion to the Silk Weavers' Act, passed in the course of the Session, he said that its favourable effect already had been much greater than was anticipated, and that the trade was now in a state of the greatest activity. He stated that the repayments made on account of the alteration in the Silk Duties will be about £.500,000. At a later period of the evening, the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed, in a Committee, some alterations in the laws respecting Savings Banks, with a view of limiting the amount of deposits in those banks to such sums as might be lona fide the property of poor persons.

10. Lord Stanley moved the second reading of the Manchester Equitable Loan Bill. Mr Huskisson, in a speech of considerable length, repeated the objections which he had offered on a former evening, to the incorporation of commercial societies by Act of Parliament, instead of the old practice of incorporating by Charter from the Crown. The principal of these objections was, that the integral individuals of societies incorporated by Act of Parliament being irresponsible, the company itself was also uncontrolled by the fear which always operated to keep chartered companies within proper bounds. The Bill was read a second time.

Mr Manning then moved the second reading of the West-India Company Bill. Mr Sykes, Mr Williams, Mr Whitmore, Mr Smith, and Mr F. Buxton, opposed the Bill, as likely to raise the price of sugar, by giving a monopoly to the company to be incorporated, as holding out a temptation to delusive speculation, and as threatening to procrastinate the period at which the Negroes might be emancipated. Mr. T. Wilson and Mr C. B. Ellis supported the Bill, which they de scribed as a measure calculated merely to relieve the suffering Planters, by inviting capitalists to advance their money upon West India security. Mr Huskisson, protesting that he saw nothing in the Bill to take it out of the class of legislative incorporations, to which he had a general dislike, proceeded to answer the parti cular objections to its provisions. He denied that the Bill would give any monopoly of the sugar trade, that it was likely to lead to any delusion, or that it could affect the condition of the Negroes

otherwise than favourably. On a division, the motion for the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of 102 to 30.

Mr Maberly next brought forward his motion for the repeal of the House, Window, Servant, Horse and Carriage Taxes, amounting, in the whole, to three millions and a half. The Hon. Member directed his arguments principally against the Sinking Fund, and the other financial arrangements of the Ministers. The general purport of his speech was to show that the Sinking Fund might be abandoned without injury, in order to set the Surplus Revenue free for the reduction of Taxes. Mr Leycester seconded the motion, and took nearly the same line of argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the Sinking Fund, by which, he said, thirty-nine millions of debt had been redeemed since 1816: he professed an unwillingness to indulge in anticipations of any kind, but begged to deny that he had ever declared that no further remission of taxes could be expected before 1829. Mr Hume contradicted, in the most positive manner, the assertion that thirty-nine millions of debt had been redeemed. Mr Alderman Heygate declared, that, though he thought the Assessed Taxes the most objectionable of all sources of revenue, he could not consent to repeal them at the expense of the Sinking Fund. Mr Maberly replied shortly, when the House divided. Ayes 78, Noes 171-majority against the motion 93.

11.-Lord Althorp, in a very long speech, introduced a motion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of Ireland generally, with relation to population, employment, commerce, the church, tithes, rents, the military es tablishment, the insurrection act, the state of education, and the Catholic question. Sir H. Parnell seconded the motion. Mr Goulburn, at some length, vindicated the conduct pursued towards Ireland by Parliament and by Ministers; he deprecated engaging in so wide a field of inquiry, as that suggested by the noble mover, and proposed as an amendment," that the inquiry of the Committee be limited to the nature and extent of the disturbances that have prevailed in those districts which have been subjected to the Insurrection Act, that is, to Cork, Limerick, Tipperary, Clare, and Kilkenny." Lord Milton supported the original motion. He thought that the widest scheme of inquiry was necessary to throw open to the people of England full information as to the state of the Sister Island. He argued in favour of Catholic emancipation, and

called upon the Government to discountenance the Orange system, by excluding all Orangemen from office. Mr North supported the amendment, in a speech, which was highly complimented by all the subsequent speakers on either side of the House. He seemed to think that colonization presented the only effectual remedy for the evils which oppress Ireland. He defended the Clergy of the Established Church in that country from the attack which had been made upon them on a former evening, and declared without hesitation, that the property in their hands was (even with a view to secular advantages only) more beneficially bestowed for the people, than it would be in the possession of the lay gentry. Sir John Newport and Sir John Sebright supported the original motion. Sir F. Burdett followed on the same side; he charged Mr North with inconsistency, in resisting the most ample inquiry, while he acknowledged the dreadful evils to exist in Ireland, but concurred with that gentleman in the opinion that colonization was the most promising remedy for these evils of such a bold and comprehensive policy as colonization on a proper scale, he had, however, he said, no hope from the present Ministers. Mr Peel support

ed the amendment, and pointed out the advantage which must result from limiting the inquiry to what the committee could effectually engage with. Mr Canning supported the amendment. He spoke less to the question, than in explanation of his own views upon the subject of Catholic emancipation. Mr Tierney supported the motion in a humorous and sarcastic speech.-On a division, the numbers were, for the amendment 184, against it 236—majority 48.

13. An interesting conversation took place on the subject of the existing Corn Laws. Mr Curteis, the Member for Sussex, complained that the averages by which the importation of foreign grain was to be regulated were never fairly struck, and moved for a return of the names of persons who have made returns of sales of corn in the markets of London, Liverpool, &c. for the six weeks preceding the 15th of May, with a view to check the frauds practised in striking the averages. Mr Huskisson acknowledged the existence of the evils of which Mr Curteis complained; and allowed the imperfection of that system from which the evils emanated. He should be happy, he said, to see the day when a more general feeling should exist for revising the present system; and he had felt great pleasure on seeing a petition from a part of the empire peculiarly alive to the merits

of the subject, requesting Parliament to adopt the system of free importation, guarded by a sufficient protecting duty, in preference to the law at present in operation.

Mr Wodehouse then moved the continuance of the existing Salt Duties, as a substitute for the Window Tax on small houses, which he proposed to repeal. Mr W. enforced his motion in a very able speech, in which he proved that all the evils of smuggling, perjury, and penal in. flictions, which were alleged against the former Salt Tax, had been removed by the reduction that had taken place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared the inclination of his own mind, to be favourable to the motion, but said, that, pledged as he was upon the subject, he could not feel justified in proposing a continuance of the Salt Tax, unless called upon to do so by the unequivocal voice of the country. (The Right Hon gentleman was here cheered by the House in a manner which he interpreted to mean that he ought to adhere to his promise.) He therefore moved the previous question. The motion was then withdrawn.

17.-A conversation took place on the Beer Duties' Bill, against which several Members expressed themselves decidedly hostile, as it would be ruinous to the Licensed Victuallers if passed. Mr H. Drummond, on presenting a petition from the Magistrates of Stirling against the measure, gave notice, that if the part of

the Bill relating to small or cheap beer were not altered, he should oppose the Bill altogether as far as concerned Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had many alterations to make, particularly with respect to the scale of duties. The House would then see what he really desired, and he should be prepared to state what course he would pursue, and whether he would persevere in the Bill or not. The latter observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer excited the manifest satisfaction of the House.

Mr F. Buxton moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of George I. as restricts Partnerships and Societies from insuring Ships and Goods, and from lending money upon Bottomry. The object and the effect of this Bill would be, the Hon. gentleman explained, to give Joint Stock Companies the right of making Marine Insurances in common with the two great Chartered Companies, namely Lloyd's and the Sun Fire Company. The motion was opposed, on the ground that the Bill would destroy those Chartered Companies; but Mr Huskisson showed that they only took four parts out of one hundred in the business of insurance, and that the other ninety-six parts were in the hands of private individuals, members of Lloyd's. The arguments in favour of the measure being of a convincing nature, the leave asked for was granted, and the Bill brought in and read a first time.

JULY.

5. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.James Martin, alias Leechman, a boy who stated himself to be ten years of age, was was found Guilty of theft, with the aggravation of habit and repute, and sen tenced to transportation beyond seas for fourteen years.

12.-Daniel, or Donald Gow, a boy about 15 years of age, was convicted of theft, and being habit and repute a thief, and sentenced to transportation for life.

Robert Brown was then put to the bar, accused of the murder of Mary Brown, his illegitimate daughter, by putting her into the water or river of Slitrig, near Smithfieldhaugh, in the parish of Kirk ton, Roxburghshire, on Saturday the 3d of April last, by which the child was drowned. Brown pleaded Not Guilty. The evidence adduced in this case failed in supporting the conclusions of the indictment. It was proved that the deceased had been seen in the company of

the accused a short time before the body was found in the river, but nothing else was elicited in any way to throw suspicion on the panel, who, besides, produced abundant evidence of his good character. The Lord Advocate said, he would not trouble the Court or the Jury farther with this case. It was evident a child had lost its life under suspicious circumstances: and though the evidence had not turned out as he thought, considering the situation which he held, he would not have discharged his duty to the country if he had not brought it forward.-The Jury, after a few minutes consultation, found a verdict of Not Guilty, and Brown was discharged from the bar.

13. James Scott, a lad of 16 or 17, was convicted of having, on the 10th of March last, stolen from the cabin of the smack Venus, lying in the harbour of Leith, in which vessel he was an apprentice, a wooden box, containing £.1500 in sovereigns and half sovereigns, addressed

to Masterman and Co. London, and the property of John Maberley and Co. Bankers in Edinburgh. The prisoner pleaded Guilty, and the libel was restricted to an arbitrary punishment. Sentence of fourteen years transportation was pronounced. The prisoner had buried the box in Leith Links, and afterwards taken out part of the contents.

Charles MacEwan, an itinerant wireworker, was then accused of assaulting, and maiming, so as to cause mutilation, in so far as he did, on the evening of the 22d May last, in the house of William Gray, in Bathgate, bite off a part of the nose of Hugh Robertson, travelling jeweller. The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and that what he had done was in defence of his wife and himself. The evidence in this case was conclusive against the prisoner, who was accordingly found Guilty, and sentenced to be publicly whipped through the town of Bathgate on the 28th July, and to be afterwards kept at hard labour in the Bridwell of Edinburgh for twelve calendar months.

14-Alexander Martin, alias Milne, was put to the bar, accused of theft, stouthrief, and housebreaking. He plead ed Not Guilty, and the first charge of simple theft having been abandoned, evidence was led to establish the others. It appeared that, as Alexander Hervie, a man of nearly 81 years of age, and his daughter, residing in the parish of Kemnay, were preparing to go to bed on the evening of the 15th April last, they observed a man look in at one of the windows. The old man went to the door, but saw no person. His daughter then darkened the fire, but almost immediate ly heard a noise as if some person was on the house top. She went out and saw a man, who came down and seized her by the throat. She tried to prevent his entrance into the house, but he overcame her. Hervie went to the assistance of his daughter, but he also was soon mastered by the ruffian, who forced his way into the house, took hold of him, threw him on the floor, and struck and kicked him while there, by which he was severely bruised, and had one of his knees cut. He also seized Hervie's daughter by the arms, throwing her against the chairs. On which she cried out, "That if he would spare their lives, he should have all that was in the house." Hervie lighted a fir-candle, and the man went to the drawers, took out a knife, and said "that this would do for him if he made any resistance." Christian Hervie then took from the drawers fifty shillings and two silk handkerchiefs, which she gave to the man, who counted the money, and

threw away a shilling and sixpence as bad. He then, still having the knife in his hand, made her take an oath that she would not describe his person or dress. Christian Hervie identified the prisoner as the man, and all the other evidence corroborated hers. The Lord Advocate confined the whole charge to stouthrief and theft from lock fast places, and the Jury, without leaving their box, returned an unanimous verdict, finding the stouthrief, as libelled, Proven, and theft from lockfast places, as limited, also Proven. The prisoner was sentenced to be execu ted at Aberdeen on the 27th August.

[Martin was executed according to his sentence.]

15. Robert Dennet was accused of having, at Dunbar, on the 3d day of June last, committed a most violent assault on Francis Findlay, with the intent of murdering him. The prisoner pleaded Guilty of the assault, but without the intention to murder. The Lord Advocate confessed himself at a loss to account for the want of the intent to murder, when one man attempts to cut another's throat. It would be for the Jury to judge, but he should not restrict the libel. From the evidence of Francis Findlay, it appeared that both himself and the prisoner, who lodged in his house, had been drinking that day (the latter for three days previous;) from some complaints of the neighbours, he had given him notice to quit his house, but told him he might sleep there that night, for which he thanked him. The witness had taken off his coat, waistcoat, and neckcloth, and was loosing his shoes, when he felt the prisoner's arm round his neck, and thought that a pin in his sleeve had scratched his neck; finding the blood falling on his hand, he exclaimed, "Good God! Robert, you have cut my throat," and made towards the door, calling "Murder." The first person who came was Jean Henderson, who held the wound, from which the blood was springing, till Dr Turnbull came. The wife of Findlay corroborated by her evidence that of her husband. Catharine Reid recollected of Findlay having his throat cut; it was on a Thursday night. About one o'clock on the Wednesday morning before, she accidentally heard the panel and Findlay's wife in conversation. He then said, if she (Findlay's wife) would give her consent, he would do for Frank; "he had often had a mind to do for him, and he would do it immediate❤ ly." The witness understood that they were speaking of the husband, Findlay. The Jury without retiring found the prisoner Guilty of the crime as libelled, and the Court sentenced him to be publicly