Kings, fathers, priests,—Saophis, and the might And Chebron's earlier fame. "Was she not great― The justice of her righteous sway was own'd Again they rose before him, pile on pile, When their huge shadows on the darkened wave Of kings-Syene's wealth-the sculptured halls, Stood thrones, once radiant with a Monarch's form. In their mysterious twilight met his eye, As the dark flood of time had roll'd along And left them scatheless ;-now, anon, the sound An awe-like fear-a moment-and he saw Where the long Desert mingled with the sky, Benhall, May 1. J. MITFORD. HISTORICAL CHRONICLE. PROCEEDINGS HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 31. A great number of petitions having been presented in favour of removing the civil disabilities of the Jews, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House should resolve itself into a committee, for the purpose of considering the laws relative to this subject. The motion was opposed by Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Estcourt, Mr. Plumptre, Col. Perceval, and Mr. Scarlett; and supported by Mr. Robinson, Col. Thompson, and Mr. O'Connell; but it was eventually carried by a majority of 70 to 19.-The House accordingly resolved into a committee, when a resolution declaring the expediency of removing the civil disabilities of the Jews was agreed to. June 1. Lord Morpeth moved the order of the day for the second reading of the IRISH TITHE Bill.-Lord Stanley moved, as an amendment, for leave to bring in a bill" for the conversion of tithe composition into rent-charges, for the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland." The noble lord supported his motion in a long speech, in which he contended that the revenues of the Irish Church, if properly distributed, were not more than sufficient to afford an adequate remuneration to the officiating clergy. In order to make a surplus, it was proposed by Government to reduce the incomes of the Clergy in a pitiful and beggarly manner, to which he never could give his consent. He was willing to reduce the inequalities of the existing incomes, and in cases where a surplus should be proved to exist, to expend that surplus in the building of glebe-houses, when required, or churches, should they be deemed necessary; and should any sums remain after these things were accomplished, to pay over the remainder to a general fund, to be managed by a body of Commisioners, for the purpose of augmenting those incomes which should appear to stand most in need of assistance. In conclusion, he called upon the House to concur with him in a proposition which he had every reason to believe would meet the concurrence of those who never would, and never could, concur in the abstract principle laid down by Government.-Lord J. Russell said that the proposed amendment had for its object carefully to preserve the inte IN PARLIAMENT. rests of the Protestant minority, while it wholly overlooked those of the vast ma jority, the "outlawed portion of the people," the 6,000,000 of Roman Catholics in Ireland thus placing entirely out of view the welfare of three-fourths of the community. In his view of the subject, a Church Establishment was not intended as a provision for the offspring of clergymen, but for the moral and religious instruction of the whole people. The Bill under consideration stood precisely on the principles of last year-the principles of preserving what was required for the maintenance of the Protestant Ministers of the Church, and devoting the surplus to the general education of the people, without distinction of religious creed. The discussion was carried on for three nights with great animation, with nearly the same arguments as were advanced last session- the main question being that of appropriating any surplus revenues which might remain, after providing for the due support of the Protestant religion in Ireland, to the purposes. of moral and religious instruction to the people at large. The ministerial measure was supported by Messrs. Buxton, H. Grattan, H. Stuart, Barrow, O'Brien, Roche, Bulwer, D. O'Connell, S. Rice, and Lord Morpeth; and Lord Stanley's amendment was supported by Messrs. Gladstone, Hardy, Knight, Young, Col. Conolly, Sir J. Graham, and Sir R. Peel. On a division, there appeared-for the second reading of the Bill, 300; for Lord Stanley's Amendment, 261: majority in favour of Ministers, 39. June 7. Mr. Tulk brought forward a motion that the House should agree to a resolution of a select committee in favour of Mr. BUCKINGHAM's claim to compensation from the East India Company, for the injustice which he had experienced at their hands. The motion was supported by Major Curteis, Messrs. Poulter, Hume, Richards, O'Connell, W. Harvey, and Major Beauclerk-and opposed by Messrs. V. Smith, Robinson and Hogg, Sir J. Hobhouse, and Mr. A. Pelham. On a division, there appeared -for the motion, 60; against it, 92; majority against it, 32. Mr. V. Smith obtained leave to bring in a bill for the election of CHARITABLE TRUSTEES in Corporate Towns in England and one single vote of the House, should dispose of all these great questions. The Bill, as sent up to the Lords, was a Bill regulating and reforming corporations; but allowing them still to exist as they now existed in England and Scotland. The amended Bill abolished all Corpora and Wales, a measure which the hon. member said was rendered necessary; in consequence of a defect in the English Corporations Bill. He proposed to make the trustees of charitable estates an impartial and unpolitical body, and with that view he had provided that the trustees should be elected according to the regulations, all their powers, all their trusts, and tions of the Municipal Corporations' Act, in respect to auditors and assessors, reserving at the same time the right of eligibility to the office of charity trustees to the members of the town councils. In order to exclude the possibility of partiality, the Bill provided that the constituent body should vote only for half the number of the trustees to be appointed, and that the number of the trustees should be fixed by the town-council. He further proposed that the Mayor should be a member of the charitable trust, because the necessity might frequently occur for communications between trustees and the corporate body; and that functionary, he conceived, er dignitate, the fittest organ of communication. June 9. Lord J. Russell rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the Lords' Amendments to the Irish MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS REFORM Bill. His Lordship proceeded at great great length with a review of the alterations made in the Bill by the Lords, to which he said he could not give his consent consistently with the duty he owed to the House of Commons and to the country, since he was determined neither to barter away the privileges of that House, in compliment to the other Branch of the Legislature, to diminish the rights of any part of his Majesty's subjects-nor to impair the well-known principles of the Constitution. That House stood at present on the defensive. A Bill bad been sent up to the other House for the reform of the Irish Corporations. It had been returned with the title altered-with the preamble altered. Out of a Bill containing 140 clauses, 106 had in substance been omitted, while 18 new ones had been introduced. The whole purport and inten.. tion of the other House had been to destroy the Bill. Were the House to adopt the present amendments without alteration, they would altogether surrender their privilege of due deliberation; and instead of having bills sent up to the House of Lords after they had been read a first, second, and third time, and carried through committees, where they might be enabled to examine their provisions, they must be content to say that any Bill sent up to the Lords might be totally altered in its provisions, in its nature, in its title, and in its intention, and that a single reading, all their property. As it stood at present, it was a Bill to continue for the present generation, under less responsibility and less restraint than they at present enjoyed, persons holding offices in those corporations, which corporations they (the House of Commons) had declared to be corrupt. After some further remarks, his Lordship proceeded to state to the House the extent to which he should dissent from their Lordships. The alterations made by the Lords abolished corporations altogether. He should propose to meet the other House by giving corporations to eleven large towns, those corporations to consist of mayor, aldermen, and common council, elected by 101. householders. To twenty other towns he would propose to give a corporation, consisting of commissioners, to be elected, under the provisions of the 9th of George IV., by 51. householders. To the inhabitants of the other towns he would leave the option of having a corporation or not, as they might prefer. The Noble Lord concluded by moving, that the fourth clause introduced by the Lords, providing that there should be no corporations in Ireland, be rejected, and that the original clause, providing that the corporations should consist of mayors, aldermen, and common council, be restored.Sir W. Follett opposed the motion, contending that the other House was fully justified in the alterations it had made in the Bill, and that corporations were not necessary for the welfare of Ireland, since every town possessed local acts for its own government. The only object of the motion was to create schools of agitation in the larger towns.-Mr. S. O'Brien, Mr. Ewart, Lord Clements, and Capt. Berkeley supported the motion. Mr. G. Price, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Shaw supported the amendments introduced into the Bill. Mr. O'Loghlen was convinced that the Bill, as amended by the Lords, would inflict great injuries on Ireland. He should therefore oppose it. Mr. F. Shaw supported the Lords' amendments. Mr. D. Browne protested in strong terms against the insult which had been offered to Ireland by the Lords. Mr. Finch defended the Lords, and declared himself in favour of the amended Bill. The discussion was then adjourned. June 10. The debate on the IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Bill was re sumed; when Lord J. Russell's motion was supported by Mr. T. Crawford, who thought that the cause of Protestantism would be best maintained by admitting men of all persuasions to equal power and privileges.-Dr. Lefroy thought the effect of the motion would be, to give political power to the Catholics, to the utter exclusion of the Protestants. - Messrs. Grote and Wyse opposed, and Messrs. Richards and Praed supported the amended Bill.-Lord Ebrington, although averse to a collision with the Lords, felt himself bound to support the motion. Mr. H. Twiss and Lord Sandon spoke in favour of the amended Bill-a measure which was opposed by Messrs. Gisborne, H. Grattan, and Shiel.-Sir R. Peel opposed the motion, convinced that its tendency would be to promote political ascendancy, instead of giving repose; and that it would operate merely as a transfer of power from one party to another.-Lord Howick contended, that if they wished to see Ireland restored to tranquillity and prosperity, they should evidence their trust and confidence by giving to her an equal participation in the blessings enjoy ed by this country.-Mr. O'Connell called for justice to Ireland; and affirmed, that the collision between the two Houses had arisen from the insult offered to the Commons, and the determination evinced by the Lords to deprive the people of Ireland of a part of their liberty.-Lord Stanley spoke in opposition to the motion, and in favour of the Lord's amend ments. On a division there appeared-for the motion, 324; against it, 238; majority for Ministers, 86. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 13. The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the APPELLATE JURISDICTION Bill in the Court of Chancery. Lord Lyndhurst opposed the Bill, contending that the proposed separation of the funetions of the Lord Chancellor would seriously deteriorate, if not destroy, the character and utility of that office, and prove injurious to that House. His lordship concluded by moving that it be read a second time that day six months.-Lord Langdale spoke in favour of the second reading, and entered into various arguments to show the necessity of the separation of functions provided for in the Bill.-Lord Abinger supported the amendment. After a long discussion, in the course of which the Duke of Wellington spoke in favour of the amendment, and Lord Melbourne in favour of the original motion, their Lordships divided, when there appeared for the second reading, 29; against it, 94 : majority against Ministers, 65. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the same day, Lord J. Russell moved that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Bill be resumed.-Sir R. Peel said that after the result of Saturday's division, he should offer no vexatious opposition; but as there were alterations proposed that were not even in print, he submitted that they should be first printed-Mr. O' Loghlen replied, that his propositions would be, to disagree with the Lords as regarded all their amendments; and that the new clauses would be for the limited number of boroughs to be retained by the Bill, together with such alterations of other clauses as would meet the limited instead of the larger number of Corporations. Those parts being new, would be printed forthwith. The House then went on with the consideration of the Lords' amendments, and restored the principal clauses which their Lordships had struck out; and having disposed of the clauses up to the 87th, the further discussion was postponed. The June 14. The House of Commons resumed the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the IRISH CORPORATIONS' Bill, beginning with clause 87. Lords' amendments were disagreed totwo new clauses were proposed, and a schedule retaining 12 Corporations was adopted.-Lord J. Russell then moved that a committee be appointed to draw up a report, to be presented to the Lords, stating the grounds upon which the House had felt itself called on to disagree with their Lordships' amendments. The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed. Mr. S. Rice brought in a Bill" for the Relief of his Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion." It was read a first time. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 17. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and a numerous body of the Commons appeared at the bar, to request a conference with their Lordships on the subject of the amendments to the IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Bill. The conference having been conceded, Lord Melbourne after .. wards moved that the amended Bill be taken into consideration on the 24th instant, which was agreed to. In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, the same day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer uppeared at the bar of the House, and said that as the Chairman of the Committee appointed by the House to draw up rea sons to offer to the House of Lords for disagreeing to certain amendments made by their Lordships in the Irish Municipal. Corporations Bill, he was directed to state, that they had drawn up those reasons, and to report the same to the House. It stated that the Bill for the better regulation of Corporations in Ireland had been framed on the principle of a reform of abuses, retaining a system of municipal government, but that the Bill which had been returned from the House of Lords abolished Municipal Corporations in Ireland altogether, and placed the corporate funds under the control of a board of commissioners. The Bill, as amended, contained an entirely new principle and a new title, and must, therefore, be considered as an original measure; that from an earnest desire of preserving a good understanding and correspondence between the two Houses, and considering it essential to the well-being of the Monarchy, that House had proceeded to take into consideration the amendments made by the House of Lords; and they hoped that the measure founded thereon would meet with the concurrence of the other House of Parliament.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer and a great number of Members proceeded to the House of Lords to request a conference. On the return of the managers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that a conference had been held with the Lords, and that the Bill and the Amendments of the Commons had been left with their Lordships. SPAIN. FOREIGN NEWS. The affairs of the Peninsula appear to be assuming a fearful attitude; and there would be little risk in hazarding an opinion, that Spain is approaching towards some great political convulsion; unless she is enabled, by one simultaneous effort, to crush the rebellion which is desolating her northern provinces. It appears that the successor of Mendizabal, as Minister of the Queen, (M. Isturidz), undertook to dissolve the Cortez on the 23d May. The decree of the Queen for the purpose was accompanied by a manifesto addressed to the people of Spain, in which the factious opposition of the Procuradores to the new Cabinet, and their violent and despotic measures, are assigned as the causes of their dissolution. The manifesto also states that the late Chamber was formed on too limited an elective basis, and that in order to escape from the vicious circle that would keep back the revision of the fundamental laws of the realm, ber Majesty will adopt provisional measures that the new Deputies shall be a faithful representation of the wishes and interests of the country, and that to effect this she shall follow the project of law voted by the Chamber of Procuradores of the second Cortes. The manifesto concludes with an expression of her Majesty's reliance upon the co-operation of the parties to the Quadruple Treaty. The Spanish Premier is proceeding boldly in the contest, in which he has engaged against the Procuradores. A late Gazette contains the dismissal of seventeen of the late members who had voted against him in the Estate from various government appointments. To add to the general confusion, General Cordova had been sent for in haste to Madrid, having, previously to his departure, ordered his troops back to Vittoria, and commanded them not to move from that place. The Carlists being thus left at liberty to direct their whole force against General Evans and St. Sebastian, had made an attack on the British line, in which they were bravely repulsed, with the loss of 150 men, including twelve officers. Cordova is openly accused of treachery, his conduct having been such as to deprive the British General and the force under his command, of all opportunity to profit by their recent gallant bearing and hard-earned success. Accounts from Bayonne of the 25th May state, that, on the arrival at Saragossa of the news of the resignation of M. Mendizabal's Ministry, the National Guard of that place met, and resolved among other things, that a correspondence should be immediately opened with the National Guards of Catalonia and Valencia, for the purpose of preparing to march on Madrid, should the Regent "persist in being led by the councils of the Camarilla." Recent intelligence from Madrid states, that an account of the defeat of Colonel Valdez by the Carlists, under Cabrera, had been received. It mentions, that in addition to the killed, 600 prisoners were taken, and that 54 of the Queen's officers had been ordered to be shot, by command of Cabrera, out of revenge for the murder of his mother by the Queen's forces. Valdez says, that hearing 2,000 Carlists were in the neighbourhood of Bag |