moval of London bridge. According to the best opinions upon that subject, the effects of that removal upon the current of the river would be considerable. The opinions of the best engineers had been taken on the subject, but none of them, not even Mr. Rennie himself, although all admitted that an alteration would take place, could say what that alteration would be. Therefore, as in four or five years the starlings of the bridge would be taken away, and the effects ascertained, would hon. gentlemen, to effect any object of taste or even of utility, commence such a project at the present day, rather than postpone it for four or five years? Although friendly to the scheme ultimately, he would appeal to the House and ask, would it sanction such an attempt, until the result of the one to which he referred had been ascertained; and encourage people to lay out their money in the construction of a quay, without knowing whether it could be useful? He should repeat, that although favourable to the scheme ultimately, he thought the House ought to take care that those individuals whose property might be affected by it should be indemnified; and that the project should not be commenced until the starlings of London bridge should have been removed. For these reasons, and to save expense to all parties, he thought the best mode would be to reject the motion for bringing in the bill.

Sir J. Yorke argued against the measure, contending that it would create new nuisances rather than diminish those at present in existence.

The Hon. G. A. Ellis thought his gallant friend had not been fairly treated. He had heard many arguments in favour of the measure, but not one against it. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the bill to be introduced and printed; after which it might be opposed in the committee.

Lord Palmerston thought the House ought not at any rate, to reject the proposition of his gallant friend in its present stage. The only question was, whether they should entertain the proposition. The propriety of carrying it into effect, and the particular mode of doing so, would be matter for future consideration. The bill was, in fact, of a public nature, and his gallant friend had been anxious to make it a public measure; but the forms of the House rendered it necessary for him to bring it forward as a private bill.

The construction of quays on the River Thames would, in his opinion, be highly advantageous to the public. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, had urged rather a whimsical objection to the measure. He had argued, that it would be dangerous to construct a quay on the river, because the building of the new bridge would have the effect of contracting the bed of the river. If it were said, that, after the removal of London Bridge, the river would be increased in its volume, and that its banks would require to be extended, he could understand such anticipation as an argument against the bill; but he could neither understand nor admit the validity of an objection founded upon the contraction of the bed of the river. With respect to the necessity for the measure, he thought no question could arise, for he would call upon any hon. gentleman who should proceed from that House to the eastern extremity of the metropolis, through the great leading avenues, to say, was not the measure called for? If such hon. member were to go in his carriage, he would be obliged to proceed as if in a funeral procession; for any attempt to quit the line would be attended with imminent danger. He had heard of the confusion which followed the battle of Leipsic, where men, horses, and carriages were mingled together; but he could not conceive it possible that that scene could have equalled the confusion daily to be witnessed in the city. He thought any plan, therefore, which had for its object to establish an open channel of communication through the metropolis, was worthy of attention.-Having said thus much respecting the utility of the measure, he trusted he might be allowed to offer a few observations on its claims to support on another ground; namely, the ofnament which the proposed quay would be to the city. There was no hon. member who heard him, and who engaged in periodical voyages to the out-ports of the metropolis, to indulge in white bait for example, who did not, in his progress on those little excursions, lament the appearance which the banks of the river presented. Every man who had been in Dublin and Paris spoke in praise of their quays, and drew comparisons to the disadvantage of London. Foreigners said— "Well, we have seen your town, but where is the Thames?" For all these reasons he trusted the House would agree to the introduction of the bill, and thereby afford

full opportunity to the examination of all alleged grievances, and the investigation of all claims to compensation. He hoped his gallant friend's plan would be carried into effect, and that it might be said of him, not, indeed, as was said of a Roman Emperor, that what he found brick, he left marble, but that he found the banks of the Thames covered with mud, and left them protected and embellished with granite.

Sir R. Wilson supported the motion, in the hope that, if the measure was found practicable, something might hereafter be done for the improvement of the suburbs; but, in giving it his support in the present stage, he begged to be understood, that if, in its progress he found it likely to be injurious to individual interests, he would oppose it. As to what his hon. friend had said about the quays on the Seine and the Liffey, and of those rivers being but small compared with the Thames, he begged to remark that, if his hon. friend had been in St. Petersburgh, he would have seen one of the noblest rivers in the world adorned with quays which would be an ornament to any metropolis.

Mr. Secretary Peel fully concurred with his hon. friend that, until the removal of London bridge, the project then under discussion ought not to be attempted. His noble friend had said, that, if the effect of building the new Bridge were to contract the stream of the Thames, this could be no objection to the construction of a quay. But it was impossible to say on which bank this effect might be produced. He had himself seen a man standing on dry ground, under the fifth arch of Waterloo Bridge; and he believed that the tendency of the stream was, to recede from the Southwark side. The likelihood that the removal of London Bridge would tend to increase that inclination, was therefore deserving of attention. His noble friend said, look to Dublin-look to Paris; but the quays in those cities were built upon the natural, banks of the rivers. That could not be the case here; and he should object to building into the Thames. If, as his noble friend had said, a foreigner at present asked, "where is your Thames?" where could it be found if the proposed plan were carried into execution? After going down towards the river from the Strand he would find an enormous granite wall, 30 feet high and 30 feet wide. Much had been said of the convenient approach to the city which the projected line of

quays would open; but he doubted very much whether a person, having to go from Pall-mall to St. Paul's, would descend Craven-street, and proceed by that route, particularly as he would have to pay two turnpikes. He should request that the measure might be deferred until the effects of the removal of London Bridge were ascertained.

Mr. Baring considered the building of a quay on the banks of the Thames not merely a question of ornament, but a measure which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of facilitating the communication between the extreme parts of the metropolis. It must strike every man who had visited foreign countries, that the communication between the different parts of this metropolis was worse than it was in almost any city of Europe; and that the convenience of the inhabitants was less consulted in the greatest commercial capital of Europe than in many of the insignificant towns on the Rhine. He should give his support to the plan of the gallant member, not only because it was useful and ornamental, but because it was absolutely indispensable for the conve-nience of the metropolis.

The House then divided; For the motion 85; Against it 45: Majority 40.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS PETITION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AGAINST.] Lord Palmerston presented a petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of the University of Cambridge, against the concession of any further claims to the Catholics. The petitioners declared that, though their apprehensions on this subject had been often previously stated to the House, they had recently been much strengthened by the violent language used by the Catholics in this country. The petitioners discovered, both in that language and in the language used by the Catholics elsewhere, proofs of their entertaining principles hostile to religious liberty. They were convinced that if the concessions which the Catholics now asked were granted, they would lead to fresh demands. They also thought that the measures which they sought to carry could only be devised with the intention of producing a great change in the church establishment of England. They therefore prayed the House not to entertain the question, and more especially not to entertain that part of it which went to admit. Roman Catholics into parliament.

Mr. W. J. Bankes said, he should be sorry if this petition were laid upon the table in perfect silence, and without obtaining some portion of that attention to which it was entitled on account of the quarter from which it came. On a former night, when the absence of all petitions against these claims was alluded to, as a proof that a great change had taken place in the public mind upon this question, he had taken the liberty of warning honourable gentlemen not to lay too great stress upon that circumstance, as he believed many petitions were at that moment in preparation. In that belief he had not been disappointed. Indeed he had at the time information that the university which he had the honour to represent intended to petition, He would mention a fact connected with this petition, which might give it a stronger recommendation to the notice of gentlemen on the Opposition benches, than it would otherwise possess. Those who were at all acquainted with the institutions of our universities, were aware that it was but seldom that a layman filled the office of vice-chancellor. A layman, however, now filled it, and fully concurred in the prayer of the petition. It was consequently a petition which expressed the sentiments, not merely of the clerical, but also of the lay members of the university, and therefore might be received without exciting the sneers and laughters which had been excited by some petitions on the same subject, for no other cause that he could learn, except that they came from clergymen. He protested against the scoffs and scorns which were cast upon the petitions of the clergy. Considering their education, their rank in life, and their importance in the country, they were entitled to attention and respect. As they were the only class of men who had no persons to represent their interests in that House, it was unfair, impolitic, and unjust, to treat them with ridicule, when they presented to its consideration a humble but honest declaration of their opinions. They were, besides, the only class of men who were so treated; for if a word was said against the army, the navy, the law, or the commerce of the country, numbers of members belonging to those different occupations were ready to start up, and retort with interest the sarcasm on the offender. The clergyman, however, was obliged to silence, and could not defend himself by the eloquence of any of his brethren. He ought, there

fore, to be defended by the generosity of the House against sneers and sarcasms; which, if they meant any thing, could only mean that he ought not to come there as a petitioner. He contrasted the different modes in which the petitions of the Catholic clergy, and those of the established church, were received by the House. The former were heard with kindness and attention, and were made the subject of lofty encomiums: the latter were flouted and discountenanced, and all but laughed out of the House. He thought that hon. gentlemen would perform their duty in a more fair and candid manner, by listening to the arguments which the clergy urged against these claims, than by denouncing them without examination as absurd and ridiculous, and by assailing them with laughter as soon as they were brought into the House.

Mr. Hume said, that no language had been used by gentlemen on his side of the House, which could warrant the hon. member in asserting, that there was a wish on their part to denounce and get rid of the petitions of the clergy. It would be preposterous for men who professed liberal principles, to adopt such an illiberal mode of proceeding. The hon. gentleman had raised a phantom, which had no existence but in his own mind, for the sole purpose of demolishing it after it had been raised. What he had said regarding the clergy on a former night, he was ready to say again. He had expressed his regret, that the clergymen of England, who were superior to the generality of the people, in education and rank in life, should be a century behind them in mildness and liberality of feeling. With christian charity always in their mouths, they ought to exhibit a little more of christian charity in their practice. Enjoying civil rights themselves, they ought not to seek to debar others from a full participation in them. If there was any difference in the attention which the House bestowed on the petitions received from the Catholic, and the established clergy, it was owing to this circumstance--that the former petitioned for justice, whilst the latter sought to perpetuate injustice.

Mr. W. J. Bankes said, in explanation, that the remarks he had made were not so much intended to apply to what had been said, as to what had been done, by gentlemen on the other side. He recollected, that when an hon. member had presented petitions from the clergy of

Essex and Ely against these claims, they were received with a sneering laugh, instead of the fair attention to which they were entitled.

Sir E. Harvey begged to observe, that when he presented the petition from the archdeaconry of Essex, which did equal honour to the hearts and heads of those who signed it, it was received with an uproar and clamour which was more worthy of a bear-garden than of the House of Commons.

Mr. Carus Wilson contended, that the ridicule thrown upon the petitions of the clergy was most undeserved, as they had always been the guardians of our religious rights.

Mr. Spring Rice said, he belonged to the University of Cambridge, and was most anxious not to speak of it in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. He allowed that the petition was entitled to every attention; but, at the same time, it ought not to be taken as speaking the unanimous opinion of the university. He knew that there were a great many of the resident members who dissented from its prayer; and he believed he might say, that among them were some of the most enlightened and popular members of the senate. With regard to what had fallen from the last speaker, about the clergy being the guardians of our religious rights, he thought it savoured more of a Popish than a Protestant doctrine. Every man ought to be the judge of his own opinions; and the best defenders of our religious rights had always been found in the lay members of the community.

Ordered to lie on the table.

CANADIAN WASTE-LANDS BILL.] Mr. Wilmot Horton rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the sale and improvement of Waste Lands in the province of Upper Canada. The principal features of the bill were those relating to the sale of lands, to the apportionment of lands for settlers, to the lending of money to settlers, and the means of providing them with food for a certain period. It was proposed, that a company which had been projected for the purpose of purchasing up those lands, should be permitted to purchase upon a valuation, to be ascertained by commissioners sent out to Canada for the purpose, two of whom were to be appointed by the Crown, and two by the Company. The estimates were to be made on the bases of the

general value of lands now unreclaimed. They were now abroad, and the company had proposed to take up lands yearly to the amount of 20,000l. In that estimate it had been stipulated, that they were not to overlook such interests in the territory as were vested in the church of Canada. To effect these purposes, the company were to apply to parliament for a bill of incorporation, and empowering them to make such arrangements to this end, as might be considered consistent with the general interests of Canada, and the empire at large. The precedent of the Australian company was that on which the Canadian Waste Land company was to be founded. Such was the general outline of the bill, and the project on which it was founded. When the bill should be before the House, it would be his duty more fully to explain its contents; and he trusted it would, on examination, be found, not only calculated to improve the condition and strength of our colonies in North America, but prove of great and general advantage to the empire.

Mr. W. Smith was extremely desirous, that the bill should not be so incautiously framed as to injure or prejudice, the native Indians in the vicinity of these waste lands; as had been the case in the former arrangements made relative to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Mr. W. Horton said, there was no reason to apprehend any such results from the enactments of this bill.

Mr. Hume expressed his regret that, five years ago, when he had strongly recommended a change in the colonial system, some proposition of this kind had not been made. He had said then, and the result verified his prediction, that the system of emigration held out at the time, would be defeated by the bad system of the colonial authorities, the inordinate demand of augmented fees for individual profita system so different from that pursued by the United States in their sale of waste lands-and the other abuses which prevailed in British colonies. He could now support the arguments which he had used five years ago, by the official returns since received from Canada, which showed that out of 39,000 persons who had gone out, only a hundred families had been able to obtain a footing on the waste lands: so that the great bulk were ac tually deprived of the intended benefit held out to them in the first instance. If