prolong the contest, have lately reduced the Bonds to 85 to 864, and the Scrip to 20 to 21. Generally, indeed, within the last few days, all descriptions of Foreign Stock have declined considerably. The closing prices, on the 24th, are subjoined. BRITISH FUNDS. Three per Cent. Consols; ditto for the Account, 88 one-fourth, three-eighths.-Three per Cent. Reduced, 88 three-fourths, seveneighths. Three and a Half per Cent. Reduced, 96 one-fourth, one-half.-New Three and a Half per Cent., 95 one-half, three-fourths.Four per Cent. (1826,) 103 seven-fifths, 4.India Stock, 244 to 5.-Bank Stock, 212, 13.Exchequer Bills, 44, 45.-India Bonds, 29, 31. -Long-Annuities, shut. FOREIGN FUNDS. Belgian Loan, 94 one-half, three-fourths. Brazilian Five per Cent. 69 one-half, 70-Chilian, 26 one-half, 7.-Colombian (1824), Six per Cent. 24 one-half, 5.-Danish Three per Cent. 74 one-half.-Dutch Two and a Half per Cent. 49, one-eighth.-Dutch Five per Cent. 95.French Five per Cent. 104.-French 3 per Cent. 76, 77.-Greek Five per Cent. 39, 41.Greek Scrip 5, 6.-Mexican Six per Cent. 40, one-half-Portuguese Five per Cent. S3 onehalf, 6 one-half.-Portuguese New Loan, 20, three-fourths, 21.-Russian Five per Cent. 105, one-half, 6.-Spanish Five per Cent. 21, threeeighths, five-eighths. SHARES. Anglo-Mexican Mines, 14, 15.-United ditto, 13 5, 13 15.-Colombian Mines, 12 10, 13 10.Del Monte, 58 10, 59 10.-Brazil, 62 10, 63 10.Bolanos, 125, 135, BANKRUPTS, FROM JULY 30, 1833, to auGUST 23, 1833, INCLUSIVE. July 30.-J. HICKLEY, jun., George-street, Portman-square, tailor. J. EDWARDS, Crawford-st., St. Marylebone, cheesemonger. J. I. WINSTANLEY, Holborn-hill, hosier. A. DENHAM, Chorley, Lancashire, tallowchandler. R. PARSONS, York, surgeondentist. R. STAMPER, Torpenhow, Cumberland, drover. J. THOMAS, Worcester, draper. T. B. HAYWARD, Liverpool, tailor. August 2.-J. BURROWES, Camberwellgreen, bookseller. I. ROBINSON, Doncaster, dealer. J. DAVIES, Liverpool, painter. JAHAYTREAD, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, innkeeper. J. WIGLESWORTH, Robin Hood's Well, Yorkshire, innkeeper. S. G. DAVIS, Lower Mitton, Worcestershire, cattle-dealer. E. RAWLINGS, Bexley, Kent, tanner. S. NOTLEY, Newman's-court, Cornhill, chocolate-manufacturer. August 6.-J. GUNNER, York-place, Kentish-town, money-scrivener. J. PLOW. RIGHT and J. B. BOND, Great Surrey-street, linen-drapers. J. LATCHFORD, Piccadilly, bit-maker. W. FREEMAN, Edgeware-road, plumber. J. RANGER, Newark-upon-Trent, linen-draper. G. PIGOTT, Ranby, Nottinghamshire, corn-factor. J. DENT, Durham, draper. J. WRATHER, jun., Greenhammerton, Yorkshire, innkeeper. J. SMITH, Liverpool, ship-builder. H. ATKINSON, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, furnishing ironmonger. R. SUTCLIFFE, Butterworthhall, Lancashire, shopkeeper. J. GREEN, Colchester, tailor. August 9.-G. BRIDGER, Jermyn-street, hotel-keeper. W. PALMER, London-wall, stationer. J. G. and J. LOCKETT, Manchester, calico-printers. J. MURPHY, Liverpool, builder. J. DAVIS, Birmingham, victualler. T. BERKS, sen., Marlboroughroad, Chelsea, tallow-melter. J. DURBAN, Bristol, cheese-factor. W. DANCE, Redditch, Worcestershire, maltster. C. WEL MAN, Bridport, Dorsetshire, linen-draper. August 13.-H. S. and E. EMANUEL, Leman-street, Goodman's-fields, furriers. H. ENGLISH, Compton-passage, Compton-st., Clerkenwell, iron-founder. J. ROBERTS and F. WOOLFE, Gravesend, cheesemongers. H. T. ROGERS, Halifax, printer. J. LAMBERT, Manchester, distiller. R. PUTTOCK, Billinghurst, Sussex, grocer. H. HOWARTH, Greave, Lancashire, coal-dealer. J. WATTLING, Southtown, otherwise Little Yarmouth, Suffolk, merchant, J. WESTON, Stoke-upon-Trent, surgeon. J. BARNETT and J. DEVEY, Wolverhampton, factors. S. and J. MAGGS, Cheltenham, mercers. J. PRING, Gloucester and Bristol, dealer. J. JONES, Chippenham, Wiltshire, grocer. August 16.-L. WOOD, Tabernacle-walk, cow-keeper. H. TAYLOR, Bristol, shipbroker. W. HORNER, Stamford, Lincolnshire, innkeeper. J. DUDDERIDGE, Whitechapel, woollen-draper. J. BARNARD, Bristol, dealer in horses. M. WHITMARSH Wantage, Berkshire, corn-dealer. E. RAWLINSON, St. Helens, Lancashire, alum-manufacturer. August 20.-W. LLOYD, Union-street, W. August 23.-D. MILLER, Bristol, druggist. W. ROBERTS, Quebec, North America, cloth-manufacturer, July 22.-Their Lordships resolved into Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. Their Lordships proceeded to the consideration of the several clauses. The clause at the commencement of the bill, giving the King the power to appoint commissioners, occasioned a good deal of conversation, Earl Wicklow proposing that they should be appointed by the hierarchy of Ireland. It was finally arranged, at the suggestion of the Duke of Wellington, that two should be appointed by the King, and one by the Lord Primate, &c. July 23.-Their Lordships again resolved into committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. Clauses 20 to 32 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 32 being proposed, the Duke of Wellington moved an amendment to the effect that power be given to annex the sees (proposed to be abolished) to other bishoprics in commendam, and to vest in the ecclesiastical commissioners the revenues of such sees for ecclesiastical purposes-Earl Grey could not agree to this amendment; it would most materially alter the character of the measure.-After a long discussion, the committee divided, when the numbers were-for the amendment, 76; against it, 90; majority against the amendment, 14. July 24-Their Lordships again resolved into committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. Clause 48. Lord Plunket moved an amendment, for the purpose of more strictly conforming to the terms of the act of union, which provides that the Church of Ireland be represented in Parliament by the presence there of an archbishop and three bishops.-The clause, as amended, was adopted. On clause 61 being proposed, Lord Wharncliffe proposed an amendment, providing that the produce of the taxation upon the livings should not go towards the reduction of the church cess, but should be appropriated to the augmentation of the smaller livings. It was opposed, the committee ultimately dividing on it. The numbers were for the clause in its original shape, 56; against it, 36; majority against the amendment, 20.. July 25.-The consideration of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill was resumed in committee. On the 117th clause, which gives the power to the commissioners to suspend livings, where there had been no service performed for three years, and to appropriate the revenue, Lord Wynford moved as an amendment that such powers be transferred to the bishop of the diocese and his ordinary, instead of remaining with the commissioners. His Lordship contended that the clause under discussion gave a power to the commissioners which they ought not to possess. The power ought of right to belong to the bishops, who were more conversant with ecclesiasti cal affairs. After some discussion, in which several noble Lords took part, Lord Wynford withdrew his amendment, to make way for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who moved that the profits of the suspended benefices should be applied to the building of churches and glebes.-The Marquis of Lansdowne resisted the motion, on the ground that the commissioners would be the best judges of the necessity, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Grey having argued to the same effect.-The House divided on the amendment, when the numbers were-Ayes, 84; Noes, 82. July 26.-Earl Grey, in moving that the House again resolve into Committee on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill, stated that after the adverse decision on the former evening, he had desired time to consider the effects of that amendment. He regretted the result. He did not think that the amendment by any means improved the Bill; but he did not consider that he should be justified in not still pressing forward the measure. He had made all possible concessions, his only object being to strengthen the Protestant Establishment in Ireland; but though he proceeded with the Bill, he should not feel himself precluded from moving an amendment on the report-In the Committee all remaining clauses of the Bill, some postponed clauses, and the schedules were agreed to. July 29.-Earl Grey moved that the report of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill be received.-The motion was opposed by the Earl of Winchilsea, and on a division the numbers were-Ayes, 68; Noes, 38: majority, 30.-The report was then presented, and several clauses were read. The Duke of Wellington, by way of amendment, proposed that the commissioners be required to swear that they were of the Protestant religion, which was acquiesced in.-The setting apart twenty livings for the Junior Fellows of Dublin University, &c. was urged.-Earl Grey replied that he was inclined to admit the principle of the suggestion, and thought that, if ten livings were set apart, the arrangement might be beneficial.-The report was eventually agreed to. July 30.—The order of the day for the third reading of the Irish Church Temporalities Bill was read, and after the Earl of Eldon, the Earl of Longford, Lord Ellenborough, the Earl of Haddington and Lord Bexley had strongly protested against the measure, and an amendment for its rejection being moved by the Duke of Buckingham, seconded by Lord Wynford, the house divided, when the numbers were-for the motion, 135; against it, 81; majority in favour of the third reading, 54. Aug. 1.-Lord Bexley moved the second reading of the Jewish Civil Disabilities Removal Bill. In doing so his Lordship observed that he was not the enemy of the political rights of any body of men, although many went so far as to contend that the Jews never could be, for any length of time, the subjects of any Government, except one of their own. He believed the British Jews to be attached to the country of their birth; he believed them to be good subjects, and thought that the removal of civil disabilities was not only calculated to make them better subjects, but to afford increased chances of their conversion. On these grounds he moved the second reading of the Bill.-The Archbishop of Canterbury felt bound to resist the Bill. He maintained that the Jews, on account of their tenets, were disqualified from co-operating in the work of legislation in a Christian Parliament and a Christian country.-The motion led to a somewhat lengthened debate, after which the House divided; when the numbers were-for the second reading, 54; against it, 104; majority against the Bill, 50. Aug. 2.-The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the second reading of the Dramatic Performances Bill, and in doing so, he entered into a history of the patent theatres, and contended that monopoly in such matters was ruinous to the best interests of the drama and dramatic literature. The Earl of Glengall opposed the motion, and concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The Bishop of London also complained that theatres should be kept open till the mornings of Sunday had commenced.-Lord Wynford also complained of this Bill, interfering as it did with patent rights; although he felt bound to admit that he did not know of more rational amusements than dramatic entertaiments, when they were properly conducted.-Lord Melbourne expressed his disapprobation of portions of the Bill.—Their Lordships then divided; the numbers were—for it, 14; against it, 19. Aug. 5.-The Marquis of Lansdowne having moved the committal of the East India Company's Charter Bill, Lord Ellenborough moved that it be an instruction to the committee to omit all such provisions of the measure as alter the existing laws in the East Indian presidencies. His Lordship's motion was negatived without a division, and the House went into committee on the bill. " Aug. 6.-The Marquis of Westminster gave two notices for the next session-1. That if no other peer brought forward the subject of the removal of the civil disabilities under which the Jews laboured, he would revive that question; and 2, That he should next session propose the foregoing of the privilege of proxy. Aug. 9.-The Lord Chancellor (in reply to inquiry from the Marquis of Clanricarde) observed that his multifarious occupations had prevented him from being able to devote requisite attention to a Bill for altering the Law of Patents; but that if it were postponed till the next session, it should have his anxious consideration. On the motion for further considering the East India Charter Bill, the Earl of Aberdeen moved that Counsel he heard in support of the claims of the Carnatic creditors. The Marquis of Lansdowne replied that the claims of these creditors would not be substantially affected by the Bill-that they remained as distinctly recognized and secured as before; but that he had no objection to the introduction of a clause with such specific recognition.-The Earl of Aberdeen rejoined that, “ ་ ་ ་ as he never doubted that the sense of justice would prevail, after this statement hý would not press his motion.-After some further conversation, the report was again taken into consideration.-After some unimportant alterations, the Marquis of Lansdowne proposed an amendment to the effect that nothing should be done by the Governor General as to the abolition of slavery, without first communicating with the Court of Directors and the Government at home. It was agreed to. Aug. 12.-On the motion of the Earl of Ripon, the Slavery Abolition Bill was read a second time. Aug. 13. The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Scotch Burghs Bill; and in doing so he spoke at great length in its support, entering into the history of the burghs, the assumptions of power of the towns' councils to the exclu sion of the burgesses, and the establishment, in practice, of the principle of selfelection. The discussion on the Bill occupied several hours, and it was finally read a second time. Aug. 14. The House resolved into committee on the Colonial Slavery Abolition Bill. The moving of the several clauses called forth a good deal of desultory discussion, as well as some pointed remarks from the Lord Chancellor, who vindicated the rights of the negro race, by declaring that they had as good a qualification to şit in the Commons, if elected, as any gentleman of England, or to seats in the Upper House, if raised to the peerage, as either of the Dukes opposite (the Dukes of Wellington and Cumberland), the one illustrious by his actions, and the other called illustrious by the courtesy of their Lordships. The Duke of Cumberland complained of this personal allusion, the more especially as he had taken no part in the evening's proceedings. Aug. 15.-Their Lordships again resolved into committee on the Colonial Slavery Abolition Bill, beginning with the consideration of the 24th clause, which enacts the compensation of 20,000,000/-Lord Ellenborough said he did not object to the amount, but thought that the compensation might be more beneficially awarded by perpetual annuities.-The Earl of Ripon replied that, by the present arrangement, the planters and others who would receive the compensation might purchase the annuities if they were so disposed.—The clause was eventually agreed to, as were other clauses. The Committee on the bill occupied the whole of the remainder of the evening. HOUSE OF COMMONS. July 22.—Mr. Stanley moved the second reading of the West India Slavery Bill. Mr. F. Buxton gave notice that there was to be no discussion in the present stage of the Bill; that he should hereafter submit two propositions-first, to limit the apprenticeships to the narrowest space consistent with due preparation for a state of freedom; and, secondly, to guard against the granting of any of the compensation until the abolition of negro slavery had been fully and entirely effected.-Dr. Lushington said that he should resist any longer apprenticeship than was actually required to prepare for the altered condition of the negro race; and, secondly, he should propose that the slaves in the Mauritius should not be any longer retained in bondage, except where the owners could show that those slaves had been not illegally imported. He also should protest, after his knowledge of them, against any thing being left for the Colonial Legislatures to do in devising or arranging the measures for completing the abolition of slavery.-After an extended discussion the Bill was read a second time.-The third reading of the Jews' Disabilities Bill led to considerable discussion. Sir R. Inglis moved that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.-Mr. Grant replied, and the House divided.-For the third reading, 189; against it, 52; majority, 137. July 23.-Mr. Tennyson moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Septennial Act. The period, he was of opinion, had arrived when the question, which had been expressly reserved on the introduction of the Reform Bill, ought to be determined. He hoped it would not be argued as a party question. The principle for which he contended was, that the representatives of the people ought to be accountable to their constituents within a shorter period than seven years.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer calied upon the House to decide whether so important a motion ought to be introduced on the 23d of July? At such a period of the ses sion it was impracticable that a full discussion could take place. Besides, it was to be remembered that the present was the first session of the new Parliament, so that the question, which was surrounded with difficulties in itself, was not pressing, and therefore, under all the circumstances, ought to be postponed. At the same time, he did not wish to meet the motion with a direct negative. He therefore moved the previous question.-After a lengthened debate, the House divided, when the previous question was carried by a majority of 49, the numbers being-ayes, 213; noes, 164. July 21. In the Committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill, Mr. F. Buxton brought forward his motion for an instruction to the Committee against further restraint on the negroes than was absolutely requisite for their welfare; that none should be imposed for the pecuniary interest of the masters. This led to an extended debate. The motion for going into committee was finally carried by a majority of seven; the numbers being-for the motion, 158; against it, 151. July 25-Mr. O'Connell complained of a breach of privilege on the part of the Chronicle and Times in "reporting" the debates.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord J. Russell, Sir R. Peel, &c., bore testimony to the general fidelity of the debates, and urged the withdrawal of the motion, they deeming it one calculated to increase rather than to diminish the difficulties, and it was eventually withdrawn.The House proceeded afterwards with the Slavery Abolition Bill in Committee. Mr. Buxton's amendment for the reduction of the term of apprenticeships to three years was rejected. July 26.—Mr. O'Connell renewed his complaint about the publication of the debates, and moved that Messrs. Lawson, of the Times, do attend the House on Monday. Several Members again bore testimony to the general fidelity and ability with which the debates are reported; but they said, as the publication of debates is undoubtedly a breach of privilege, if the motion were pressed they had no alter native-they must support it. The motion was therefore carried. July 29.-Mr. O'Connell again brought before the House his complaint against the Press, observing, that as he did not want the printer but the proprietors, he should amend his motion-Mr. Methuen moved an amendment, to the effect that the order be discharged, as he looked upon the quarrel in the nature of a private one, and one in which the House ought not to involve itself.—Mr. Robinson seconded the motion.-A very lengthened discussion ensued, the general wish being decidedly that an adjournment of the question should take place. The majority of Members who spoke bore testimony to the general fidelity of the reports of the debates. Mr. D. W. Harvey ridiculed the idea of verbatim reports, and condemned the lengthy character of modern speeches. He suggested as a remedy, that with the exception of the ministers, or those who brought forward motions, members ought to be limited to a quarter of an hour; that there should be a time-glass on the right of the chair to notify when the quarter was exhausted, and that then it should be notified to the hon. member that "his sand was out."-Sir R. Peel ob served that he had been in Parliament for twenty years; that during such period he had occasionally contributed figures, or other aid to reporters, when asked; and that during 15 out of the 20 years he held office, he never had application from any reporter for any favour.-The House eventually divided. The numbers werefor the motion, 48; for the amendment, 153; majority against the motion, 105. July 30.—Mr. O'Connell, in allusion to his pledge of the previous evening, to clear the gallery until justice was done by the reporters to the proceedings of the House, said he should not carry his threat into effect. His object had been obtained. It had been promised that in future justice would be done. He did not believe it, but, however, he would wait and see-Mr. Roebuck brought forward a motion for pledging the House to take into consideration, with as little delay as possible, the best system which could be adopted for ensuring to the people general education. Mr. Grote seconded the motion.-Lord Althorp and Sir R. Peel professed themselves friendly to education, but not to a compulsory system for its promotion.-After some observations from other members, Mr. Roebuck consented to withdraw his motion. Mr. C. Buller moved the following resolution: "That it is the opinion of this House, that in order to satisfy the just expectations of the people, it is ne cessary that such extensive reductions be made in the expenditure as shall effectually diminish the burdens of the country; and that it is the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to make such arrangements previous to the next session of Parliament, |