cond time. Sir James Graham corrected a misapprehension that prevailed as to the saving of expenditure that might result from this Bill; the general opinion was that the amount would not exceed 49,000l. The fact was, however, that a saving to that extent had already been effected, independently of what might be further expected from the operation of the Bill.

Feb. 28. The House resolved into Committee on the Reform Bill, and (again postponing the postponed item of Dartmouth, in Schedule B) proceeded to Schedule C, which is the enfranchising schedule, containing Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, the metropolitan districts, &c. The "Metropolitan Districts" were strongly debated, in consequence of the Marquess of Chandos having moved for the uniting of the metropolitan parishes to London, Middlesex, Westminster, and Southwark, for election purposes, instead of making them separate boroughs, with additional Members of their own. They were supported as an essential part of the Bill, and resisted as giving too much power to the democracy. The proposition, however, was carried by 316 to 236, being a majority in its favour of 80.*

Feb. 29. The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a grant of 100,000l. was voted for the relief of the distressed at Barbadoes, occasioned by the late destructive hurricane.

March 1. Numerous petitions were presented, complaining of the severe distress under which the silk and ribbon trade laboured; after which, the Earl of Grosvenor rose to make his promised motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the trade generally. His Lordship said that he had adopted general words in his motion, but his object was that the distresses of all branches of the silk trade should be inquired into. He contended that ground for inquiry was established by the fact of the trade having flourished previously to the removal of Parliamentary restrictions, by the proceedings of 1824 and 1826.-Mr. H. L. Bulwer seconded the motion, and reprobated as highly impolitic the adoption of the stern dictates of political economy, and the baneful consequences produced by free-trade. He said, exposed to the effects of such a range of policy, with a population so dense, and society constituted as society was at present in this country, it must inevitably have the tendency to throw out of employment thousands of artisans at every turn and change in trade which might take place.—Mr. P. Thompson

Counting the four tellers and the chairman, it thus appears that there were 557 Members present.

stated that he should not oppose the motion, though it was expedient to alter the wording of it; and maintained that all the difficulties of the trade were not traceable to the removal of protections, as they were termed, that had previously been extended to the trade. He strongly defended the principles and measures of his late Right. Hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson), as applied to this question. He begged to move an amendment to the motion, to the effect that the Committee be directed to inquire also into the state of smuggling. The motion was agreed to.

March 2. The House in Committee on the Reform Bill, the Chairman put the question, that Finsbury, in the county of Middlesex, do stand part of Schedule C, which was agreed to without any observation. Marylebone (Middlesex), Lambeth (Surrey), and Great and Little Bolton (Lancashire), were also put, and agreed to stand part of Schedule C, without comment.-The question was then put and carried, that Bradford (Yorkshire) stand part of Schedule C.-The same question was put and carried with respect to the following places:-Blackburn (Lancashire), Brighton (Sussex), Halifax (Yorkshire), Macclesfield (Cheshire), Oldham (Lancashire), Stockport (Cheshire), Stoke-upon-Trent (Staffordshire), Stroud (Gloucestershire). The list of the new boroughs contained in Schedule C having been thus gone through, Lord J. Russell proposed that the Committee should now return to the postponed case of the borough of Dartmouth. He therefore moved that that borough stand part of Schedule B.-Lord Althorpe said, that upon consideration he could not consent to exclude Dartmouth from the schedule.-The Committee then divided, and the numbers were, for the question, 205; against it, 106; majority, 99.-The question that Totness stand part of Schedule B, was then put and negatived.

March 5. In Committee on the Reform Bill, it was resolved that the following towns be inserted in Schedule D, and return one Member each; viz. Ashton-under-Line, Bury (Lancashire), Chatham, Cheltenham, Dudley, Frome, Gateshead, Huddersfield, Kidderminster, Kendall, Rochdale, and Salford.

March 6. A long discussion took place on the presentation of further petitions from parts of Ireland, complaining of the Government plan of general education. It was attacked as being inimical to Protestantism as well as to Christianity.-Mr. Stanley defended it as a certain "experiment," to try whether general education might not be promoted to a great extent amongst all classes and sects, without exciting rancour and prejudice; and contended that the selections and extracts made from the Bible

by the Board-consisting of two Catholics and five Protestants-were not "mutilations," but were in accordance with the recommendations of various reports and clerical authorities. Therefore, to say that the plan was unprotestant or unchristian, or was a mutilation of the Bible, or denied the children the use of the Bible, was contrary to the truth, and was only falling in with that extensive misrepresentation which still continued to be most actively directed against this plan. —Lord Acheson, Mr. Johnston, &c. observed that the plan had caused so much dissension in Ireland, that it would be better to withdraw the grants altogether, and leave the work of education to the different communities.-A protracted discussion also arose upon a motion of Mr. Dawson for certain returns respecting the appointment of two joint secretaries by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Hon. Member contending that the noble and learned Lord had unjustly and unwisely exercised his patronage in that country.The returns were not ordered. March 7. In a Committee of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the continuation of the annual Sugar Duties, observing that it was not his intention on the present occasion to propose any reduction or alteration in those duties. -The Marquess of Chandos opposed the motion, and proposed a reduction of dutynamely, that it should be 20s. instead of 24s. This led to a very extended debate, the opponents of the amendment resisting it on the ground that the revenue could not afford the defalcation that would be the result of such a reduction of duty; while its supporters strongly urged it as absolutely requisite for relief, and as that which they were entitled to demand at the hands of some of the members of the present Administration, as they had on former occasions called for a reconsideration of these sugarduties.-The Committee divided; but the amendment was lost by a very small majority, there being for it 134; against it, 148; majority, 14 only.-The House went into a Committee on the Reform Bill, and resumed the consideration of Schedule D. On the first proposition, South Shields, Mr. Croker moved that South Shields, North Shields, and Tynemouth, be united, and stand in the place of South Shields in Schedule D.The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed the motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he would not divide the House.-Lord Granville Somerset complained that greater consideration had been given to the Tyne than to the Severn.-Tynemouth was next placed in Schedule D, as was also Wakefield.

March 8. Mr. Stanley, for the purpose of bringing forward the same subject that had been proposed in the other House, relative

to Tithes in Ireland, moved that the House resolve itselt into Committee. This preliminary proposition led to a very extended debate; Mr. Sheil, and others, strongly protesting against the contemplated measures. It was vehemently urged that, if they were adopted, Ireland would be still more exasperated, would be driven to desperation, and that servile warfare only could be the result. Mr. Wallace afterwards proceeded to discuss the measures as if they had been proposed. — Mr. Stanley interrupted him, observing that he was not only debating what had not been proposed, but measures that were not those of the Government.Mr. H. Grattan contended that the plans were useless.-Lord Ebrington, as a member of the Tithes' Committee, observed that what the Government had to propose was founded on the recommendations of that Committee; and that, as to the great question, he should not deem any measure to be final that did not secure the complete revision of the Church Establishment of Ireland.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the way in which the evening had been occupied. The question of going into committee had been debated as if the measures of Government were before them, and as if agreeing to the question, that they resolve into committee, pledged members to the adoption of measures to be brought forward. Nothing could be more contrary to the experience and practice of Parliament. After some further discussion, the House divided on the question of going into the Committee, when the numbers were, Ayes, 314; Noes, 31. The Committee was postponed.

March 9. The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill, and proceeded with the remainder of Schedule D, beginning with Walsall, which Mr. Croker thought had claims much inferior to many other places.-The case called forth much conversation.—Mr. G. Bankes proposed that Purbeck should be inserted instead of Walsall; but this amendment was withdrawn, and eventually the Committee divided on the original motion, which was carried by 165 to 87, being a majority of 78.-Whitby also called forth a good deal of desultory discussion, and a division-namely, 221 for the motion, and 120 against it; majority, 101.-The Committee afterwards proceeded to Schedule E, which enumerates the places in Wales that are to share in elections for the shire towns. It was adopted with very little comment.-The Committee then came to the consideration of Schedule F, which regards the division of counties.

March 10. The House in Committee on the Reform Bill, when the remaining schedules, some amended clauses, and some amendments to clauses, were agreed to; and

the report ordered to be taken into consideration on the 14th.

March 13. Mr. Stanley moved the adjourned question, that the House go into Committee on the Tithes in Ireland; which was acquiesced in, after some ineffectual opposition. Mr. Stanley pursued the course adopted by the Marquess of Lansdowne in the House of Lords on a former evening. He adduced evidence to show the systematic opposition to tithes, and of the effective character of the combinations. He dwelt on the inutility of military or police interference to defeat those combinations-gave affecting details of the absolute destitution which had, in consequence, fallen on many of the Clergy, and urged the necessity and justice of affording them relief. He also contended that the relief must be accompanied by a remedy for the existing evils regarding tithes, otherwise the relief extended to the now suffering and destitute Clergy would operate as a premium upon disaffection, and resistance to all law. He proposed resolutions founded on the recommendation of the Select Committee's report. The reso lutions led to extensive discussions though not decided opposition. Mr. Sheil said the proposition was impracticable-the police and the military had been unable to enforce tithes, and what could be expected from making the King the Tithe-Proctor-General? Sir R. Peel consented to the resolutions, on the understanding that the payment of tithes now due should be enforced. He was willing to ascertain whether there might not be a mode of sustaining the Clergy less objectionable than tithes. But he also understood that the support extended to the Irish Church should be fair and equal-that the revenues raised for the Church in lieu of tithes should be devoted exclusively to the Church.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his concern at the manner in which some Hon. Members had urged the question; they viewed the Clergy in the light in which the French emigrants had been considered, and not as individuals who had rights. The debate was eventually adjourned.

March 14. The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved that the report of the Reform Bill be taken into consideration -Mr. Croker proposed, by way of amendment, a series of resolutions of immense length, examining the objects and fallacies of the Bill, and declaring that they would be unjustly, inconsistently, and capriciously carried into effect by the Bill. They were negatived.The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that they rather surprised him, but that he viewed them in the na

ture of a protest," or written speech.Mr. Croker said he had endeavoured to embody the arguments which had been adduced against the Bill, in order that they might be found in the journals.-A protracted discussion took place relative to several clauses of the Bill;-the report, however, was ultimately taken into consideration, and the Bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time on the 19th.

March 15. Mr. Hunt proposed his longpromised motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the affairs at Manchester, on the memorable 16th of August, 1819. It was seconded by Mr. Hume, and resisted by Mr. G. Lamb and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground of the inexpediency of inquiry after the legal proceedings that had taken place, and the time that had elapsed. These, however, admitted in effect that no time could alter the character of the transaction.-Mr. Lamb moved "the previ ous question." - Dr. Lushington strongly urged the necessity of inquiry, adding that he should be well pleased to see so creditable a proceeding distinguish the close of the career of the unreformed Parliament; but if it were not now resolved on, he felt quite assured that inquiry into those transactions would be amongst the first demands of a reformed House of Commons.-The question led to much discussion, in which Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Peel, &c. took part. The original motion was eventually negatived, there being for the previous question 206; against it, 31.

March 16. Sir J. Graham brought forward the Navy Estimates, repeating that there were savings in every item of charge, with three exceptions-that the net saving was 961,000l. and that the reduction in the number of men was 5000, namely, 4000 seamen and 1000 marines. Mr. Sadler moved the second reading of the Factories' Bill, in a speech of considerable length. His desire was that the Bill should be considered in a Committee of the whole House, but it appeared to be resolved that it should be referred to a Select Committee, and he had no alternative.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that would be the best course, especially after the allegations made by the Hon. Member. The statements appeared to be incredible. If they were true, there ought to be some regulations. At the same time he would not pledge himself to support this Bill, whatever might be the report of the Committee.-The second reading was not generally opposed, though it led to a good deal of conversation. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.

i

planters, on the first appearance of the Order, declared their determination not to adopt it; and on the Governor's declaring that he had no discretion, and must carry it into effect, they proceeded so far as to withhold all supplies of provisions; and on a vessel being dispatched to Martinique for that purpose, contrived to frustrate it, by preventing the acceptance of the Government Bills offered in payment. The Government, in retaliation, laid an embargo on all vessels at St. Lucia, against which, however, a spirited protest was sent on the part of the agent to Lloyd's; and on the 23rd of January the embargo was taken off. At St. Kitt's, resolutions were passed by the House of Assembly to refuse all grants of money, and to disregard all recommendations whatever from the English Government, until some measure is adopted showing a proper regard to the rights of property in the West India Colonies. At Antigua, a discussion of the Order in Council by the Legislature had taken place, but with closed doors. The

FRANCE.

FOREIGN

The Chamber of Peers has resolved, by a majority of 89 against 46, that on the 21st January, the Anniversary of the Execution of Louis XVI. the public administrations, the courts, and the tribunals, shall be closed in token of mourning. This has created much dissatisfaction among the Deputies, who had proposed a law for repealing the law of 1816, which established a national funeral service on the day in question.

M. Casimir Perier has failed in the prosecution which he instituted against M. Carrell, the well-known and spirited editor of "The National,"—and with whom the Revolution of July really originated, as he was the first to denounce the famous Ordinances -and the Editors of "The Mouvement," for a seditious libel; but, on the other hand, he has escaped a defeat in the Chamber of Deputies upon the question of reducing the salaries of the Marshals, after a hard-fought struggle. The Ministerial proposition was preserved by a majority of only three, the numbers being 163 to 166. In another division, Ministers were left in a minority of 14. The Opposition papers exult loudly over both these occurrences as undoubted victories.

ITALY.

On the 22nd of February the French troops landed at Ancona; on the following morning they proceeded to take possession

debate was, however, so vehement, that the angry expressions reached the ears of the persons waiting without. One member is said to have proposed that it should be kicked under the table, or thrown out of the window. The members of the Council of Antigua showed more moderation than the Assembly, and were disposed to meet the Order half way. The Legislature of Grenada had so far entertained the propositions as to refer the Order to a Committee, but not the least expectation was entertained that it could become a law in that island. It should be recollected that the Order has the force of a "recommendation" only in those Colonies which possess legislative bodies, but in the Crown Colonies, such as Trinidad, St. Lucia, Demerara, &c. its adoption is preremptorily required. The planters have met in Trinidad, and were to assemble in Berbice. On all sides the utmost indignation is expressed, accompanied with threats of inflicting all the injury possible on the mother-country. STATES.

of the fortress, to which they procured access by breaking down the gates, which the Papal troops, it appears, would neither defend nor open. This gentle violence excepted, the troops of the two Powers seem to have displayed a reasonably accommodating spirit; for the fort was subsequently agreed to be kept possession of by guards equally selected from each. The entire of the French force amounts to but 1500 men, while that of the Austrians amounts to 20,000; but it does not appear that there is any disposition on the part of the Austrians or French to molest each other, and the Pope is quite unequal to cope with either. the French Ambassador demanded an audience for M. Cubieres, the commander of the expedition, the Holy Father gave him a flat refusal, andCardinal Bernetti exclaimed, that since the time of the Saracens, nothing like the French invasion had been attempted against the Sovereign Pontiff. A formal protest against the landing of the French forces was issued by the Pope on the 25th; and a formal demand of their instant departure, and also of compensation for the damage they had occasioned.

When

"The presence of our troops at Ancona," says the "Messager des Chambres," "is a real guarantee to the Italians, and to Austria a significant engagement, to show to her our firm determination not to allow her to establish herself in Romagna, as she has done in Lombardy."