reports of the debates, as given in the newspapers, ought to be acquainted with. Our paper may, therefore, be considered as an introduction to the debates. The Parliament, in the language of the law, consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. The consent of each of these three bodies is necessary to the making of every act of Parliament. In ordinary speech, however, the Parliament means only the Houses of Lords and Commons. The House of Lords, in its original constitution, is not a representative body; but since the union with Scotland, in 1707, the representative principle has been partially introduced into its composition. It now consists, in addition to the peers of Great Britain and the prelates of England, of sixteen peers of Scotland, elected by the whole body of the nobility of that country, and of twenty-eight Irish peers elected by the nobility of Ireland. The remaining Scottish and Irish peers, as such, have no seats in the House of Lords; but many of them have been made British peers, and sit in that capacity. An Irish peer, also, being regarded as a commoner in Great Britain, may be elected a member of the House of Commons on renouncing his right of voting for the Irish representative peers; but a peer of Scotland cannot. The Scottish representative peers are elected only for one Parliament; those of Ireland for life. A vacancy in the number of the former, therefore, may be occasioned either by the death of an individual, or by his elevation to a British peerage; in that of the latter, a vacancy can be occasioned only by death. The Irish bishops are also represented by four of their number, who serve only for a single session, and sit by rotation. At present the House of Lords consists of Princes of the Blood Royal, (all Dukes) The power of calling together, or summoning the Parliament, is lodged in the king; and the form is by a writ, or letter, issued out of Chancery, addressed to each peer individually, and to the sheriffs of counties for the election of the members of the House of Commons. We may here notice, that, at the same time with the new Parliament, the Houses of Convocation of the clergy still continue to be called together, and to go through the form of commencing their sittings; but since the year 1717, they have been uniformly prorogued before they could proceed to business. It is part of the royal prerogative to prorogue Parliament, that is, to put an end to its sittings, and also to dissolve it, at pleasure, as well as to convene it. But no Parliament can be continued longer than seven years; and few last nearly so long. If, however, the death of the king should take place between the dissolution of one Parliament and the election of its successor, the old Parliament again meets immediately, and may remain in being for another half-year. The two Houses must be both prorogued and dissolved, as well as convened, at the same time. When the day appointed for their meeting arrives, the king either proceeds m person to the House of Lords, or empowers certain peers, as his commissioners, to open the parliament. This cere Your mony is gone through in the presence of both Houses, the Commons appearing at the bar, whither they have been summoned by the Usher of the Black Rod. They then return to their own House to elect their Speaker, while the Lords proceed one by one to take the oaths at the table. The Lord Chancellor is usually appointed by the Crown as the Speaker of the House of Lords, in which quality he takes i his place on a seat immediately below the throne, commonly called the woolsack. His duties, however, differ considerably from those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He is not in particular invested with authority to preserve order in the House, and he is accustomed to take a part in the debate, which the Speaker in the House of Commons does not. Formerly it was the custom for the person chosen to fill the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons, to manifest the greatest apparent reluctance to take the chair, and not to suffer himself to be conducted to it without the exertion of considerable force. A passage from the self-disparaging speech pronounced by Sir Christopher Yelverton, on his being elected Speaker in the year 1597, may amuse the reader :Speaker," said he, "ought to be a man big and comely, stately and well-spoken; his voice great, his carriage majestical, his nature haughty, and his purse plentiful and heavy. But, contrarily, the nature of my body is small, myself not so well-spoken, my voice low, my carriage lawyer-like, and of the common fashion; my nature soft and bashful; my purse thin, light, and never yet plentiful." Of late, however, this affectation has been quite discontinued; and although in case of two individuals being proposed for the office, each usually votes against himself, the one who obtains the majority of suffrages no longer either professes any reluctance to assume the chair, nor, after he has been seated, goes to anything like the old excess in underrating his own qualifications. After being chosen, he must have the approval of his Majesty; for which purpose the House is again summoned to the Bar of the House of Lords, where the requisite form (for it is nothing more) is gone through, and the new Speaker, on behalf of himself and his fellow-members, lays claim, by humble petition, to the free exercise of all their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges, more especially, freedom of debate, freedom of arrest for themselves and their servants, and free access to his Majesty whenever occasion may require. The Commons then return to their own House, when the Speaker assumes the chair, and the members take the oaths of allegiance and done between the hours of nine in the morning and four in supremacy in successive groups at the table. This must be the afternoon; and during that period of the day, whatever other business the House may be engaged with, must be suspended when any member presents himself to take the oaths. No member can vote on any question, except the election of the Speaker, before going through this ceremony, under severe penalties; and there have been even recent instances in which, members having done so by mistake, it has been found necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament to relieve them from the pains and disabilities they had incurred. In all other respects, however, except as to the privilege of sitting in the House and voting, a person returned to Parliament is a member from the moment in which his return is signed by the proper officer. He is no longer, for instance, liable to arrest, and (provided his election has taken place within forty days from the day appointed for the return of the writ) he may frank letters before he leaves the hustings. There is no introduction of members to the House at the beginning of a new parliament; the clerk merely, after each has taken the oaths, introduces him to the Speaker, who shakes him by the hand; but when a member is returned at any other time than at a general election, he must be led up from the bar to the Speaker by two other members, and must make three obeisances or bows on the way, that he may be the better known to all present. After the swearing in of the members in both Houses has been completed, or nearly so, which generally takes several days, it is customary for his Majesty either to come down to the House of Peers in person, and, the Commons having been summoned to the bar as before, to deliver a speech from the throne to the assembled legislature, or to depute certain lords, as his commissioners, to read such a speech in his name. A royal speech is likewise delivered at the opening of every succeeding session. It is usual for both Houses to take this speech into consideration the same evening, with a view to frame a reply to it, called the Address; but they one who first catches the eye of the Speaker, is named are not bound to make it the first matter upon which they by him, and is usually permitted to address the House. deliberate; and both Houses are accustomed to have a bill But his being named by the Speaker gives him no right relating to some other matter previously brought in and read, of precedence, if the House should think that another by way of asserting their right. The address, which is had risen, or on some other account has a right to be usually an echo of the speech, is moved and seconded by two heard, before him. Any member may move that another members, selected by the ministers for that duty, and who member shall be now heard; and if that motion be carappear on this occasion either in full dress or in uniform.ried, the Speaker's selection goes for nothing. This, When the address has been voted, it is sent up to his ma- however, is an expedient which, for obvious reasons, has jesty by a deputation, who, on their return, report to the been very rarely resorted to. A member may speak from House the terms in which it has been received, called His the gallery as well as from the body of the House, and Majesty's Answer. Hatsell says often does; but of late years very few instances of this practice have occurred. He must not, however, it seems, speak standing in any of the passages or from behind the clock. It is sometimes said, that a member has a right to have any act of parliament or other public document he pleases to call for, while speaking, read by the clerk; but this is a mistake. The House may object to the proceeding if they choose; but if no objection be made, the Speaker orders the paper to be read. No member, we may here add, can vote on any motion affecting his own private interests, or can even be present while it is discussed. Although the public are now admitted to witness the deliberations both of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons-to the former by the order of a peer, to the latter either by a member's order, or by the payment of half-a-crown to the door-keeper, the debates of the one house, as well as of the other, are still supposed to be carried on with closed doors. The order directing the Sergeant-atArms to take into custody all strangers who may be seen within the House is still passed by the House of Commons at the commencement of every session, and may at any time be enforced by a member to the clearing of the gallery. Whenever a division takes place, all strangers are obliged to withdraw, and the doors of the House are locked. The newspapers lately noticed some remarks that were made in the House respecting one of the sessional orders, commanding the back-door of the Speaker's chamber to be shut every day at twelve o'clock; when the Speaker, in answer to the inquiry of an honourable member, who expressed himself anxious to know where the said door was, was reported to have stated that he believed it was no longer in existence. This order was first passed on the 5th of March, 1662, on information received by the House that several persons, not members, had come by the door in question into the Speaker's chamber, and thence made their way into the gallery; and it has since then been regularly repeated at the commencement of every session. If the back-door, however, be now really built up, as is understood, it would seem that its ancient and long-remembered offences might at last be safely permitted to rest in peace. We shall now throw together a few notices (chiefly selected from Mr. Hatsell's great work on " Precedents") of what may be called the every-day forms of the House of Commons, many of which are matter of constant allusion in the reports of the debates. On the Speaker making his appearance a few minutes before the hour of meeting, as soon as prayers have been read by the chaplain, he proceeds to count the members present, until (including himself if necessary) he has reckoned to the number of forty. If that number be present, business proceeds; if not, the Speaker only takes the chair for a moment to adjourn the house till the following day. A House, as it is termed, having been once formed, business may be continued, though there should be fewer than forty members present; but any member may demand that the House be counted, and if there are not forty present the House is adjourned. The members, in general, have no particular seats. At the opening of a Parliament, however, the four members for the city of London are accustomed to place themselves at the head of the front bench, or that which stands on the floor, at the right hand of the Speaker. On other occasions, this bench is usually occupied by the ministers, and is called the Treasury Bench. It is, however, merely conceded to them by courtesy. Formerly, it used to be reserved for those members who were Privy Councillors; and it is related that Mr. Pulteney, when the leader of the opposition, during the administration of Sir Robert Walpole, always used to speak from this bench. Any other member, who wishes to secure to himself a particular seat, may do so, but only for that one evening, by going down in the morning, and fixing a paper with his name to the back of the bench. But even after having done this, he loses his seat if he should be absent at prayers, or leave the House to attend the Speaker to the Lords. He also loses it if he goes out to the lobby on a division; and Mr. Hatsell intimates that the numbers on divisions are known to be sometimes affected by the operation of this rule. Members who have held the great offices in the ministry, are often allowed to keep the same seat without coming down to take it; and a member having received the thanks of the House in his place, is considered to be entitled to the same seat, at least for that parliament. While the Speaker occupies the chair, there is said to be a House; when a member is appointed to preside, the House is said to sit in Committee. These two states are further indicated by the gilded badge called the mace being in the former laid upon, and in the latter under, the table at which the clerks sit. The rules of proceeding are in some particulars different in Committee, from what they are when there is said to be a House. In the latter, a member can speak only once (except to explain) upon the same motion; in the former, he may speak as often as he pleases. The sitting in committee, indeed, seems anciently to have been considered as merely a conversational consultation:frequently, the members appear to have delivered their sentiments without rising. Again, in committee, the members divide by going, the ayes to the one side of the House, and the noes to the other. When not in committee, those on one side of the question remain in the House, those on the other go out to the lobby-the general rule being," that those that give their votes for the preservation of the orders of the house, should stay in; and those that give their votes otherwise, to the introducing of any new matter, or any alteration, should go out." (Journals of 10 Dec. 1640.) But the rule is embarrassed with many intricate exceptions, and a good deal of time has frequently been lost in determining which side ought to go out. With a view of avoiding this inconvenience, it was resolved by the House, a few days ago, that on any division, those who question the decision of Mr. Speaker do go forth." When two or more members rise at once to speak, the The exertion by a member of his privilege to clear the House of strangers has frequently given rise to a vehement debate; and some efforts have even been made to get the standing order in question repealed or modified, but hitherto without success. Those opposed to the exclusion have sometimes attempted to meet it by resorting to the expedient of moving repeated adjournments, and thus preventing business from proceeding, till the public have been re-admitted. Females, as everybody is aware, are not now admitted to the gallery; but it is not so generally known, that the practice by which they are excluded is comparatively a recent innovation. It appears to be not more than fifty or sixty years since ladies were accustomed to appear both in the gallery and in the space below the bar. Mr. Hatsell himself was present at the last occasion on which they were admitted. An interesting debate was expected; and both ladies and gentlemen were in attendance in great numbers. Many ladies, not having been able to obtain seats, it was ordered that the House should be cleared of the men strangers, which was done; when the ladies entered in such numbers as completely to fill both the galleries and the seats below the bar. In this state of things, a member, irritated by the expulsion of some gentlemen for whom he had procured places, demanded that the House should be cleared of all strangers. The enforcement of the standing order was a matter of course. But the officers found their duty of turning out the fair intruders no easy work; a violent and determined resistance was offered to them; and for nearly two hours the House was kept in a state of the most extraordinary ferment and commotion. Ever since this singular scene, females have been rigorously excluded from the House. The only relaxation of the prohibition is the practice, that has been introduced within the last few years, of admitting a small number of ladies to a place called the Ventilator, above the ceiling, through the apertures in which they both hear and see very well what goes on below. Twenty-five tickets for this apartment are issued every night by the Sergeantat-Arms. Ladies are also now admitted into the new gallery which has been formed in the House of Lords. They used formerly to place themselves behind the curtains on each side of the throne. In ancient times, however, they seem to have appeared more openly. In 1675, Lord Shaftesbury is recorded to have complained to the House of "those droves of ladies that attended all causes: "it was even come," he said, "to that pass, that men even hired, or borrowed of their friends, handsome sisters or daughters to deliver their petitions." At this time, again, ladies seem to have only contrived to get admission into the House of Commons occasionally, and by stealth. Hatsell quotes from Grey's Debates a curious notice in proof of this, which is not calculated to give us a very high idea of either the dignity or the decorum by which the proceedings of the House were in those days characterized. PARLIAMENTARY TERMS. UNDER this head we propose to notice, from time to time, such terins, connected with the proceedings of Parliament, as occur in the reported debates, and may not be intelligible to every reader. ADJOURNMENT.-The adjournment of either house is the continuance of its sittings from one day to another, generally to the next, but sometimes to that day fortnight, or even longer. Either house adjourns at its own pleasure, and independently of the other. A member may move the adjournment of the house at any time, and repeatedly in the course of the same evening; for a proposition for adjournment at one stage of the proceedings is considered to be a different question from the same proposition made at another stage. Were it regarded as the same question it could not be put in the same evening, or even in the same session. Sometimes only the debate is adjourned, the house continuing to sit, and proceeding with other business. ORDER OF THE DAY.-The order of the day is the list of the matters appointed to be discussed on that day, as printed in the paper called the "Votes," which is now issued every morning. When it is moved, therefore, to read the order of the day, the meaning of the proposition is that the house shall pass from the consideration of the question then before it, and take up the business mentioned in this list. The adoption of the motion is a way of avoiding the coming to a decision upon the question in hand. The order of the day, however, can only be moved while the house is proceeding with some question not set down in the list. to a period when the house will not be sitting. In these circumstances of course it falls to the ground. Sometimes the motion is made for the next reading being taken this day three months, or after any shorter interval that will carry it over the prorogation. CALL OF THE HOUSE.-Very great difficulty has always been experienced in securing the regular attendance of members. It is, however, in the power of any member, upon giving previous notice, to insist that the house shall be called over on any particular day, when those who do not answer to their names are ordered to be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The chief inconvenience which this subjects them to consists in the fees which they must pay before they can be liberated, and which are of considerable amount. THE AFFAIRS OF BELGIUM. THE events that have taken place since the revolution which separated Belgium from Holland, have been of great importance to all European states, and the condition of affairs in those countries still continues to excite considerable interest. The narrative of those events is long, and calculated to give rise to more questions than there is space here to discuss. But it may, nevertheless, be useful to give some account of the causes which led to the revolution; for the first consideration in regard to the Belgian question is, whether that revolution was justifiable-or, in other words, whether it was morally right. This can only be determined by reference to the peculiar circumstances of the case; for whilst every revolution is in itself an enormous evil, yet, when the public grievances are too heavy to be borne, and the redress of such grievances is otherwise impracticable, resistance to an oppressive government may become even more than excusable. An individual cannot break the ties which bind him to his family, or his friends, without pain and inconvenience, but cases do sometimes arise in which it is desirable to sever even domestic and social ties. So it is with nations. Cases have not unfrequently arisen where a struggle against an obnoxious dynasty has been far from censurable, although accompanied by many calamities and sufferings; and amongst such cases the Belgian revolution appears deserving of being numbered. It is seldom, indeed, without powerful reasons that any nation has broken the bonds which united it to the existing order of things, and has thereby put in jeopardy its industry, its commerce, its wealth, and almost its very existence. By the treaty of Vienna, the allied powers united Belgium to Holland, giving to the new state the title of Kingdom of the Netherlands. It does not seem that the wishes of either people entered much into the consideration of the allies, the object being the stability of the peace of Europe, by preTHE PREVIOUS QUESTION.-This is another contriv- venting Belgium from becoming a province of France. ance for escaping from the necessity of coming to a decision There were indeed many grave objections to the union,upon an inconvenient question. A motion is sometimes which may well have been called an unnatural marriage. For, made to which abstractly there is no objection, but which in the first place, the Belgians are Roman Catholics, whilst yet, from the time at which it is brought forward, or the the Dutch are almost all Protestants, so that their views in special bearing which it is intended to have, is felt by some regard to religion were certain to be opposite. Holland is a member or members, to be one which it would be improper commercial, Belgium a manufacturing and agricultural to assent to. In these circumstances those who are opposed state, so that their wishes in regard to taxation, and proto its being carried put to the house the previous question,-tecting duties, could not be very united. Their languages, shall a vote be taken upon it at all? Instead, however, of habits, and feelings were dissimilar, and there was a marked moving (as would seem most natural) that the question antipathy of each to the other. under consideration be not now put, it is the usage to move "that that question be now put;" in dividing upon which the mover votes against his own motion. Thus, for instance, when Mr. Hume moved, on the 14th February, that the existence of sinecure offices was inexpedient, the result is recorded in the Votes in the following form :-" The previous question being put, That that question be now put: the house divided,-Ayes, 138; Noes, 232." Here the mover of the previous question, and all those who were of opinion with him, that Mr. Hume's resolution should not be put, voted in the majority, against the motion. The question, however, which has been quashed in this manner is only got rid of for the present; and may be brought forward again on any future day. The previous question cannot be moved when the house is in committee. . THIS DAY SIX MONTHS.-It is frequently moved, in order to defeat a bill before the house, that it be read again this day six months. This motion is made with the intention, and, if carried, has the effect, of deferring the next reading of the bill till after the prorogation of Parliament, or The extent of Holland was estimated at 2,860,888 hectares of about 2 acres each; that of Belgium at 3,337,249. The population of Holland in 1815, was 2,046,885; that of Belgium 3,377,617. By the new constitution of 1815, (which was rejected by the majority of the Belgian notables, who had been assembled for the purpose of sanctioning the union,) 55 members were assigned to each nation, as its share of the representation, notwithstanding the superiority of Belgium in population and extent; and the large debt of Holland, and the comparatively small debt of Belgium, were charged equally upon the two states. The Belgians were attached to trial by jury; but, without their consent, it was summarily abolished in Belgium, and the Dutch mode of criminal procedure substituted. The publicity of judicial proceedings in its most important branch, the examination of witnesses, was also abolished, and by protracted delay, the law providing that the judges should not be removed, was rendered nugatory. Great partiality began to appear in the patronage of the court, the ministry, and the army. In 1816, of eight ministers of state only one was a Belgian; of 28 diplomatic agents, one; of 244 ministerial officers in civil departments, 65; of 85 generals, 16. The officers of the king's guard were all Dutch, and so were three-fourths of the artillery. The Belgians were taxed for Dutch objects, and the mode of taxation was particularly obnoxious. For instance, the mouture, or tax on meal, and the abattage, or tax on cattle slaughtered, were serious grievances, inasmuch as no man could grind his own corn, or kill his own pig, without the intervention of the revenue-officers. The king of the Netherlands took into his own hands the control of education, and deprived the heads of families of the sacred right of bringing up their children in the way they thought best. Particular teachers and methods of instruction, and books printed in Holland and drawn up on the Dutch system, were imposed by authority, with the view of infusing into the minds of the young Belgians, religious and political opinions incompatible with those of their fathers. A college was established at Louvain, called the Philosophical College, to which, instead of the ancient colleges, every Catholic Belgian educated for holy orders was compelled to resort, in order to receive instructions from professors of an opposite persuasion to his own. This was sufficiently galling to Catholics; but the Belgians were interfered with, not only in the exercise of their religion, but also in the use of their own language. Incredible as it may seem, in a country where French was the language of literature, of conversation, of the bar, and where the Flemish and Walloon tongues were the only others in use by the common people, a decree was issued declaring the Dutch to be the national language. The Belgians were forbidden from defending their interests in the States-general, in the Courts of Justice, or by any public acts, except in Dutch. The father of a family was obliged to make his will in a language which he did not understand; and barristers, notaries, professors, and even judges, were compelled to relinquish their situations, not merely from disgust, but from inability to hold them. Such an accumulation of grievances naturally produced general discontent, and this discontent, as might be expected, began to find a vent in the public press. Then commenced a series of prosecutions against the Belgic press, and the writers who presumed to give their opinions on public affairs. Penalties of imprisonment and banishment were inflicted in gross violation of justice on some of the most upright men in Belgium. In December, 1829, a final blow was levelled at the press, which would effectually have suppressed it, for it inflicted imprisonment upon the expression of any disapprobation, or, as it was termed, calumniation of the intentions of the existing government; and no less than thirty prosecutions against the press were commenced in the course of one month. Thus the Belgians were goaded for fifteen years; and when denied a free press-tried by dependent judges-and governed by irresponsible ministers-it would indeed have been wonderful if they had not murmured. Such were the grievances which led to the revolution of August, 1830, whereby the Belgians threw off the yoke of the King of Holland, and broke the bonds of the treaty of Vienna. They proceeded to frame a new constitution, and after much discussion, determined that Belgium should be a constitutional monarchy. Among several candidates, the choice first fell upon the young Duke de Nemours, second son of the King of the French, for King of Belgium; but the French King thought it his duty to refuse his son's acceptance, and, after an intermediate regency, the crown was offered to Prince Leopold of Saxe Cobourg, who accepted it in July, 1831, and is now the reigning sovereign. From the moderation and discretion which characterize this prince, there appears every hope that he may be suited to so distracted a country as Belgium has for some time been-that he may tranquillize its factions-compose its troubles-and rule it in quietness and peace. Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, in undertaking the arbitration of the differences between Holland and Belgium, had to decide upon a just and permanent settlement, with the deep responsibility laid upon them of thus guarding and preserving the peace of Europe. Upon the first view of the case, it might appear that the Belgians were not likely to receive any great countenance from three, at least, of the arbitrators, who, for many reasons, would not be especially inclined to favour the authors of any revolutionary movements. If, therefore, in the enforcement of its decisions the Conference has found it absolutely necessary that the citadel of Antwerp should be taken out of the hands of Holland by an issue at arms, it may be fairly supposed that this measure of warfare was not resorted to, except under the conviction of an imperious necessity which even the especial friends of Holland could not deny. The labours of the Conference for two years would have been futile indeed, if the arbitrators had possessed no power to compel the observance of their decisions. It has been the fashion to stigmatize the Belgic revolution as a bad imitation of the three days of Paris, and it may be true that this was the spark which set fire to the powder in Belgium. But if the Belgians suffered for fifteen years all that could hurt the moral, political, religious, and intellectual feelings of a nation, there is surely sufficient cause for the effect, without ascribing it merely to the revolution of France. The Belgic revolution was foreseen, and foretold; and the king had ample warnings to which he shut his eyes until it was too late. It has also been the custom of some to praise the high degree of physical happiness which existed in Belgium under the Orange dynasty; but it is a great mistake to suppose that where the land is well cultivated, and the people active and industrious, they have nothing more to wish for. Belgium flourished externally in spite, and not by reason of the measures of her government; and if that government may claim the merit of advancing her industry, it is but little excuse for the violation of sworn faith and established laws, or the obstinate disregard of the rights of its subjects. The population of Belgium, according to the official census, was on the 1st of January, 1831, 4,082,427. It now consists of the following provinces: viz. The population of Holland, according to the "Almanac de Gotha," is 2,444,550, being little more than one half of that of Belgium, as above stated. But the province of Lux embourg is included, according to some statistical tables, in the Germanic Confederation. For further information in regard to the Belgian revolution, see the "Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 10, article 1;" same "Review, No. 12, art. 9;" "A Letter on the Belgic Revolution," London, Hansard, 1831; " Edinburgh Review, No. 112, art. 6." There been but little read in this country. are numerous foreign publications on the subject which have BANK OF ENGLAND. DURING the last session of Parliament, a Committee of Secrecy, consisting of thirty-two members, was appointed to inquire into the expediency of renewing the charter of the Bank of England, which will terminate on the 1st of August, 1834, upon a twelvemonths' notice to that effect being given The allied powers, whose intervention was first solicited by the government; and also to examine into the system of by the King of Holland, have occupied themselves down to banking, particularly that of banks of issue, adopted in the present time in arranging the terms of separation and England and Wales. Some of the Bank Directors, many peace between the two countries. The Conference of Lon-eminent bankers, and other persons possessing knowledge don has laboured long and laboriously to effect a pacification and amicable settlement of differences, but its task appears, even yet, not brought to a close. It is impossible here to detail the numerous proceedings and protocols of the Conference; but it would be very wrong in those who do not thoroughly understand its operations, to deny it the high merit of having laboured strenuously for the preservation of The five great powers, as they are called, namely, peace. and experience of the subject, were examined before this committee, and the accounts of the Bank of England were also submitted to their inspection. The points to which the attention of the committee was principally directed, were— 1st, Whether the paper circulation of the metropolis should be confined, as at present, to the issues of one bank, and that a commercial company, or whether a competition of different banks of issue, each consisting of an unlimited | Allowing for possible omissions, the whole amount may be number of partners, should be permitted. 2ndly, If it should be deemed expedient that the paper circulation of the metropolis should be confined, as at present, to the issues of one bank, how far the whole of the exclusive privileges possessed by the Bank of England are necessary to effect this object. 3rdly, What checks can be provided to secure for the public a proper management of banks of issue, and especially whether it would be expedient and safe to compel them periodically to publish their accounts. An immense mass of documents and evidence was collected elucidatory of these points, and, on the 11th of August, 1832, reported to the House, by whom they were ordered to be printed. An early opportunity will be taken to give a complete analysis of this report in a Supplement to the "Companion to the Newspaper." In the mean time, it may be stated that Lord Althorp has intimated his intention to bring in a Bill, without proposing a new Committee, on the subject of the renewal of the Bank Charter. EAST INDIA COMPANY IN February, 1830, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the affairs of the East India Company, and the trade between Great Britain, the East Indies, and China. This Committee has been reappointed in each successive session since that time, and has examined a great number of witnesses, and collected an immense body of evidence on these subjects, which have been at different times reported to the House and ordered to be printed. These Reports, three in number, have now been published. The first contained an examination of the commercial relations of the Company with China, as well as the state of the British trade generally with that country, and also that of the Americans and other foreigners. The second was principally directed to the territorial possessions of the Company in India, and to points connected with the government, laws, productions, and commerce of that country; The third, which consists of a volume of report and several volumes of evidence, several others being prepared, and in the hands of the printer, is miscellaneous, and embraces every other topic connected with the subject. As the approaching termination of the East India Company's charter, which expires in April 1834, as well as the importance of the subject, cannot fail to render an epitome of these reports interesting to the public, an early Supplement will also be devoted to that purpose. THE IRISH CHURCH. AMONG the subjects which have engaged the attention of Parliament since its meeting, one of those which have excited the greatest public interest is the reform of the Irish Church. The views of the Government upon this subject were explained by Lord Althorp to the House of Commons, on the 12th February, on asking leave to bring in the bill for carrying them into effect. It will be the object of this article to present a brief but comprehensive outline of the proposed measures, drawn up in such a manner as may place their amount and character, and the reasons upon which they are founded, in the clearest light before all our readers. There are at present twenty-two dioceses in Ireland, or four archbishoprics and eighteen bishoprics, the gross amount of the revenues of which, according to Lord Althorp's statement, does not exceed 150,000l., producing, after deducting the expenses of collection, a net revenue of 130,000l. Of this sum, about 100,000l. arises from the rents of lands. The whole revenue of the deans and chapters is 23,6007.; but this is burdened with a necessary expenditure amounting to 21,4007; leaving a remainder for the deans and chapters of only 22007. There are, in fact, very few prebendaries in the Irish Church whose income is derived from the funds of the chapter alone. The number of the other benefices is 1401, the whole income of which, as nearly as can be ascertained from returns which are not yet quite complete, is about 580,000l., or at most, 600,000l. The entire revenue of the Irish Church, therefore, may be stated as follows: Revenue of Bishops' sees. £130,000 2,200 600,000 Total 732,200 seem, taken as not exceeding 800,000l. This is the official account; the authorities for its accuracy have not yet appeared. According to law, the whole income of every benefice both in England and Ireland, for the first year after it has become vacant, belongs, under the name of First Fruits, to the Crown, which, however, has in both countries made over the revenue thence arising to special purposes connected with the ecclesiastical establishment. In Ireland the First Fruits are paid to a Board appointed for their management; and are applied in the first instance to the repair of churches, and, after that object has been satisfied, to the augmentation of poor livings. Were the First Fruits exacted according to the actual value of the benefices, they would produce a considerable sum; but, in point of fact, they are exacted according to a valuation made in the reign of Henry VIII., nearly three hundred years ago, when the nominal income, at least, of every living was greatly below what it is at present; and consequently they yield only a very trifling proportion of what the law originally intended they should amount to. It has been sometimes proposed to fulfil the original intention of the law by ordering a new valuation, real income; but however equitable this re-adjustment may and rating each benefice for First Fruits according to its it is liable to various objections on the ground of expediency. We shall mention only one-the obvious hardship of taxing an individual on his entry into a living (the time when his necessary expenses are most heavy) to the without diminishing the just amount of the tax, to lay it on extent of the whole of his year's income. Ministers propose, in a less oppressive form. Instead of the whole amount of the income for one year, they propose to exact a percentage, or portion, of it every year. This proportion is to vary from ing nothing, those of more value paying not only a larger five, to fifteen per cent.; livings under 2007. a year paythe hands of one individual, the aggregate amount of the sum but a larger rate; and, where several benefices are in whole being taken as his living, so that, however small his preferments may be individually, he shall, as he clearly ought, pay the high rate appropriate to his large revenue. The incomes of the bishops are to be subjected to this tax as well as those of the inferior clergy; but in the case of the former it is not to be levied upon any that do not amount to 4000l. a year; those of that amount are to pay five cent.; those between 6000 and 10,000l. ten per cent.; those per cent.; those between 4000l. and 6000l., seven per between 10,000 and 15,000, twelve per cent.; and if there are any above the last-mentioned amount they are to pay fifteen per cent. This tax, let it be observed, is to be imposed immediately, upon the actual incumbents of the several sees and other livings; and the income of the bishopric of Derry is besides to suffer an immediate reduction from its present amount of 12,6597. to 8000l. which the proposed tax will further reduce to 72001. The tax thus imposed, it is calculated will produce about 69,000l. a year; and the management of this revenue it is intended to give to a Board of Commissioners consisting of members of the Established Church, so appointed as to be entirely independent of the government. They are to apply it, and the other funds committed to their administration, to the following objects; the augmentation of poor livings, the building of glebe-houses, the dividing of unions, and the building of new churches whenever a certain portion of the expense shall be subscribed by private individuals. A fund being thus provided for these purposes, it is proposed that the tax upon the people of Ireland, commonly called the vestry cess, or church-rates, by which they have been hitherto met, shall be immediately and entirely abolished. This is a measure calculated to remove one of the strongest causes of popular dissatisfaction and irritation connected with the present condition of the Irish Church. The vestry cess, although paid by all the inhabitants of the parish, is imposed only by those of them who belong to the establishment; so that it sometimes happens that fewer than half-a-dozen members of the Church of England have the power of assessing at their own pleasure, and for the exclusive purposes of their own communion, several thousands of their Catholic fellow-parishioners. According to a statement subsequently made in the House, the pecuniary relief thus conferred upon the people will really be to an extent not much short of 90,000l. per annum. But this is, after all, perhaps, the least part of the benefit which the new arrangement will bring along with 't. |