rose to present a petition from a Mr. Jameson, a Writer to the signet in Scotland, who complained of having suffered severely from acts of Sederunt in the Court of Session. By these acts the court had the power of superseding acts of parliament. It was impossible for a suitor in that court to know what act was in force, or in disuse; for, strange to say, it rested entirely with the judges to declare which laws were in force, and which were in desuetude. Nay, one judge of the court had declared the clause of a bill to be in force, while another held that it was not. If, then, the law was held to be a lottery in England, how much more uncertain was it in Scotland. The commissioners of inquiry had stated, that the grievance now complained of should be inquired into; but no further mention was made of it. He had last year presented a petition from a Mr. Hay, on the same subject. It was the opinion of Blackstone, that if the judicial and legislative functions were united in the judges, the lives, liberties, and properties of the people would be at the mercy of a few individuals. It was only necessary to put a wig and a gown on any individual in order to qualify him to give lectures on public matters. We had many instances of judges going out of their way, for the purpose of delivering opinions on matters not connected with their duty. Witness the conduct of sir J. Silvester, who, in delivering a charge to a jury, went out of his way for the purpose of praising the Bridge-street Association. He thought it ill became men who were elevated to such high rank by the monarch, thus to go out of their way for such purposes. The magistrates of Montrose having quarrelled, a suit at law was instituted, but the judges Were unanimously of opinion, that the proceedings should be dismissed with costs. On that occasion, the lord president Hope behaved in a grossly improper manner. The House would recollect that a few years ago an alteration took place in the set or constitution of the burgh of Montrose. Upon that occasion a noble friend of his brought forward a motion on the subject, when ministers defended the alteration, and the motion was lost. Let the House, however, observe the alteration which took place in so short a time. The lord president Hope, in delivering the opinion of the court, advised the magistrates that they should be cautious how they granted criminal warrants under the new charter, as their situation might not protect them from the consequences of a civil action, what must be the situation of the country if magistrates were to be deterred from doing their duty.

said, he must protest against all that the hon. member had said respecting the court of session as being totally groundless; and he must add, that the hon. member had made but an ill use of his discretion in bringing this subject forward as he had done. He denied that the judges superseded the law by acts of sederunt; and with respect to desuetude, he understood it applied only to certain Scottish laws, and not to any British act of parliament. He had no doubt this petition would turn out to be one of that class of which they had already seen but too many.

complained of the hardship of allowing the judges to declare which laws should be held in force, and which in desuetude.

said, that so wedded was the noble lord to the abuses which existed in Scotland that he believed, if they were shown to be as black as ink, it would be impossible to induce the noble lord to remove them. He repeated, that the charges against the lord president Hope were true, and admitted of no justification. He had on one occasion ordered a person from the bar, declaring that acts of sederunt should supersede the law of the land.

could not allow the imputations thrown out against his relation to pass unanswered. The hon. member might think that abuses existed in Scotland, and wish to reform them; but was it fair to make such an attack upon the character of an individual upon the last day of a session? There was no man who knew the lord president who did not admire and respect him, both in public and private.

in rising to move for the I4th Report of the Commissioners on the State of Education in Ireland, said, that even in an economical point of view, the subject to which the Report referred was of some consequence, for since the Union no less than 1,200,000l. had been voted by parliament, for purposes connected with the education of' the poor in the sister country. This vast sum had been expended upon three foundations, which were not only useless for the purposes for which they were intended, but mischievous. The first of these foundations was the Protestant Charter Schools Foundations, for which 622,000l. had been voted since the Union; the next was the Foundling Hospital, on which nearly half a million had been spent; the third the establishment for the Discouragement of Vice. All these institutions connected the education of the people with an attempt at proselytism—at the educating of the children of Catholics in the Protestant religion. The result of this was, that not only did these attempts fail, but all other attempts at the education of the people were viewed with suspicion. In opposition also to the system which excluded Catholics from these schools, others were established, managed on a principle of exclusion towards the Catholics. The Report was drawn up by some of the ablest men Ireland had produced, and whose names would ever be connected with its politics and its literature. This year, the House had voted 100,000l. to the three establishments he had mentioned. He did not find fault with the liberality of the House towards Ireland, but he hoped hereafter that this liberality would be shown in acting on the wise suggestions of their own commissioners.

said, he entirely concurred with his hon. friend, as to the soundness of the principles laid down by the commissioners. Nothing could be more sound in the present state of Ireland, than that any system of education 'attempted to be made general there, should avoid all suspicion of an intention of proselytism. The state of the Established Church and the Catholics, in Ireland, was somewhat different from that of the Dissenters and the Church in this country; for whereas the Roman Catholics founded schools from which they excluded members of the Church, the Dissenters in England founded schools which were open to churchmen as well as to those who dissented from the Church. This led him to the statement of the reasons which had induced him to put off his Education bill for the -present session. His absence from town in the early part of the session, which had caused a delay, which he then regretted, in bringing forward the bill, gave time for a controversy which; had very widely diffused the principles of the bill. He had attended to the arguments of the various adversaries of the bill, and he should have had great pleasure if he could have found any line that would have reconciled all their contending objections. The Dissenters thought that the plan was too much connected with the Church, and that too much of the exclusive doctrine of the church would be propagated under it. Among a number of the churchmen an opposite fear prevailed. Between those diametrically opposite opinions it was extremely difficult to steer an even course. But this difference of opinion itself showed the necessity of meeting liberality on one side by concessions on the other. The controversy, (with a very few exceptions), was carried on by persons sincerely anxious to promote the education of all classes of the people. To men in this frame of mind, only a little farther discussion was necessary in order that some matters might be explained. It was for the purpose of affording this opportunity that he had postponed the farther consideration of the bill. In postponing it he would only remind both parties how great the concession was that each expected from the other. Those who thought the bill opened the door too widely to the dissenter, expected the dissenter to support by means of the tax a system of education from the benefit of which his children were excluded. If the regulations of the schools were such that it was made, if not impossible, seriously unpleasant for the dissenter, the hardship would be the same. The object of the churchman was to maintain the necessary connection between the school system of the country and the established church; but beyond what was necessary, not one step could be taken which was not con- trary to equity, to liberality, and to the interests of the establishment itself. On the other hand, let the dissenters look to the plan as it now was, and they would consider that even if there was no modification in the bill, a very great sacrifice would be made by the church to the peculiar principles of the dissenters. He thought, however, he could see how to modify the bill in parts Dot very material in themselves, but which the dissenters attached great importance to. He had the warmest attachment to the dissenters as the true friends of education; and it, was in this character that he besought them to reflect what principle this bill gave up—that which was indisputed between them and the church, in the bible society and in the Bell and Lancaster schools. The question as to these schools was, whether they should be conducted on such principles that the dissenters and churchmen could equally take the benefit of them? The churchmen said that the catechism, the liturgy, and a compulsory creed should be taught in these schools The dissenters said that it was much better that no liturgy, catechism, or compulsory creed should be taught, but that all sects of christians should be on an equality in these schools. Now this the bill sanctioned. One circumstance he hoped both parties would attend to,—that it was only by concessions that this great national object could be attained, and that if each was determined to give up, nothing because it was a concession to their adversaries, the conclusion to which they must come was, that no. national, provision could be made for the education of the poor.—And this brought him to the last objection which he had to mention; viz. that no such provision at all was necessary. This was the least founded of all the objections to the bill; for though there might be some doubt as to the mode in which the provision should be made, the want of such a provision had been clearly established. The parochial returns were said by those who raised this objection to be so incorrect that they could not be relied upon. His answer to this was very short;—he would put off the discussion of the bill for one season, and if they then found them incorrect, he must resort to other materials to prove, the necessity of a provision for education. The proofs of the necessity of a provision for education did not rest on parts of the return which were doubtful, nor on the disputable number of schools or scholars, but on the personal observations of the clergymen. In 220 out of the 800 parishes of Wales, the observations of the clergymen uniformly were, that these parishes were wholly destitute of the means of education, and that the people were extremely desirous to possess them. But as a delay was to take place, he would point out a way in which the correctness of the returns could be ascertained. Besides the general digest there were several parts of the digest, containing each a county, which remained for distribution. If any person would send to him for the returns of the counties in which he resided, he would take care that a copy should be supplied. He trusted this notice would have the effect of inducing people to investigate these returns, that the accuracy or inaccuracy of them might be ascertained. He entreated the conflicting parties to meet in the spirit of concession with mutual amity and good will. He would give his mite of concession, and if there was any part of the measure which could be shown to be inefficient or dangerous; or even if the whole should be shown to be of that description, he was not so far wedded to it, in preference to religious toleration and the cause of education, that he would not willingly abandon it. He had turned his attention to every thing that had been said and written on the subject, but he saw no reason to depart from the principle of the bill.

contended, that the Education bill was an attack upon religious liberty, and he hoped it would be manfully resisted by those who were interested. The dissenters were to be taxed for the support of schools, the teachers of which were to be chosen by the established clergy, and who would teach in a manner which would be agreeable to that clergy. The accuracy of the returns in the digest had been disputed, and with reason; for the Sunday schools were almost entirely overlooked. He should oppose the measure, as its tendency and effect would obviously be, to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the established church, to the exclusion and injury of the dissenting interests.

said, his hon. friend had no right to assume that there existed on the part of the advocates of the measure the least disposition to do any thing in the slightest degree offensive to one class or description of religious sects. The, report was agreed to by gentlemen who were as strenuous supporters of religious liberty, and as warm friends of the dissenting interests, many of them being themselves dissenters, as persons in or out of that House could possibly be.

said, he conceived it to be most important that the country should understand, before the prorogation of parliament, how her majesty was to be placed at the ensuing coronation, and that every precaution should be taken that was calculated to prevent the peace of the capital from being disturbed upon that occasion. If any of his majesty's ministers had been in the House, he should have felt it his duty to have gone at greater length into this subject than he then felt inclined to do: but being one of those individuals whom a noble marquis on a former night had accused of having by their exertions risked the peace of the country, he could not allow himself to be placed in such a situation again as would compel him to have recourse to similar proceedings, without protesting most loudly against it. From the nature of the court to which her majesty's claims had been submitted, he could not draw any favourable augury as to their decision; though he was convinced that her lawyers had made out as clear a right for her coronation as existed at present for the king's. Taking for granted, then, that the decision of that court would be against the existence of the claim, the point which he wished to ascertain was this—whether ministers intended to persevere in their, system of insulting, persecuting, and oppressing the Queen upon all occasions, or whether they intended to assign her a place among the other members of the royal family at the ensuing coronation. That her majesty would attend in person at that ceremonial, he entertained not the slightest doubt. From what he knew of her spirit and resolution, he was convinced that she would be present at it if not as a part of it, at least to prevent the rights of future queens-consort from being compromised and degraded in her person It was upon that account that he now gave notice, that he should to-morrow submit to the House a motion on the subject,

lamented the introduction of such a subject at a time when no minister was in the House to notice it. He trusted that her majesty would not be so ill-advised as to pursue the plan which the hon. gentleman had chalked out for her. She had already had ill-advisers enough about her; and he trusted, for the sake of the little credit and popularity which she still had left her, she would not interfere in the manner alluded to.

should not have risen, if it had not been for the extraordinary expression which had escaped from the hon. gentlemen, as to the little credit and popularity which her majesty retained. He was surprised the hon. member had dared to make such an assertion, when he must have known that ninety-nine out of every hundred of his own constituents were strongly biassed in favour of her majesty. So far from her majesty's popularity being upon the wane, it had even increased since the conclusion of the infamous investigation into her conduct. Her majesty, he was sure, would not be dictated to by any person, as to the course which she ought to pursue. He had, however, no hesitation in saying, that it was the decided intention of the Queen to attend the coronation, notwithstanding any thing that had occurred, or that might occur, before a particular tribunal.

conceived that nothing could be more ill-advised than her majesty's intention of disturbing the coronation.

said, that if the hon. gentleman intended his observations to apply to him, he could only inform him that he never had the honour, and most probably never should of being one of her majesty's advisers.