Debatts anti Vrotetbings in Varliament.

Jambi! DISABILITIES.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, the order of the day was moved for the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill.

Before the debate, several petitions were presented, for and against the bill, but the great majority in favour of the bill. One gave rise to a cu- rious incident— Lord PALMERSTON stated the contents of a petition from the University of Cambridge in favour of the bill, which had been adopted in the Senate-House by a considerable majority. Mr. GOULBURN interposed, on the ground of mistake. He himself had al- ready presented a petition against the bill, adopted by a large majority of the Senate-House.

Lord Paresitesrow stated that his petition was adopted by the following ma- jority—in the Regent-House placets 50, non-placets 25; in the Non-Regent- House, placets 25, non-placet; 14; total for the petition, 75—against it, 39.

Mr. GOULBURN= Why, those are the very numbers of the majority in favour d my petition against the bill!" (Loud laughter.) The debate was begun by Mr. STAFFORD; who moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He reminded the House, that in comparison with the petitions presented on the Maynooth question the present petitions were but few. The pressure being se small, the duty of the House would be to treat the _question on its abstract Merits. Neither persecution nor toleration was here at stake; freedom was already ucos. ceded and guaranteed to every religion There was involved only the question whether the House would continue to hold certain beliefs or no-beliefs as disqua..

neighbouring toi s lifications to legislate. In reply to the plea that the admissions of Jews could but be few if the disqualification were removed, he asked, was that the argument that was successful in the case of seven millions of people in some years ago? If concession were made here, incoualdnietijanthele appointment of a Roman Catholic Lord Chancellor of Ireland ? A notice was now on the Order-book, that that concession would be sought in Committee on the Irish Charitable Trusts Bill. What then would stand between the English Ca_ tholics and the corresponding office here? Lastly, when a Roman Catholic Led Chancellor dispensed law in England, what should bar a Roman Catholic So. reign from the throne? A far greater grievance to the Jews than the one aimed at by this bill was the compulsory observance of the Christian Sabbath; yet there was no agitation against that. If such an agitation should arise, was the Theme prepared to give up the recognition of that day by all? Mr. Stafford's peroration—" When a Jewish peasant, who bad changed the re. ligion of the world, was brought before the assembly of that people, their cry was ' We will not have this man to reign over us: Since that day, from nation after nation from century to century, and throughout every struggle, the cry had gone from :firth to heaven, We toil/ have this man to rule over us.' Under that faith we are strong—under it we live—under it we will die. Maintain or concede what we may the difference is immeasurable and eternal between thosewho look on the cross of Christ as the fit punishment of a convicted malefactor, and us who, amid all minor differences, cling to that cross as our best hope of happiness here and our only hope of happiness hereafter." (Cheers.) The amendment was seconded by Lord BURGHLEY, on the ground that the bill tended to unchristianize the Legislature. He could not admit In- fidels or Mussulmans to a seat in Parliament; nor Jews,—towards whom, nevertheless, he entertained the most charitable feelings. Mr. W. P. Woon supported the bill. He endeavoured, in a speech of legal research, to establish that there was nothing in the common law or in the statute law of the country of so exclusively " Christian " a com- plexion that violence would be done by the removal of Jewish disabilities. Reviewing the cases in the law-books, the Old forms of writs, and the pro- visions of statutes, he contended, that all contradictions to his proposition were but seeming contradictions, or too extravagantly superstitious to be now gravely quoted. Of both characters was the presumed opinion of Lord Coke, that Jews were aliens. In the first place the passage really had nothing to do with Jews. Se- condly, the real point laiddown was, that no Infidel could be a natural-borzt sub- ject, because he was the subject of the Devil, who was the enemy of Christ our King. It was contended that an Infidel could not even sue or move in the courts: which, however, was too much even for the judges of those times, and was sup- pressed. The act of William the Third, excluding Unitarians from certain civil privileges, was aimed only against persons "who had been educated in or made profession of Christianity," and then "denied the doctrine of the blessed Trinity": the section seemed purposely moulded to leave the Jews intact. Since that time. acts had passed by which Jews had been admitted to legislative privileges in the Colonies. This was the case both in Jamaica and in Canada. The first Chris- tian principle was to do unto others as you would be done by. Mr. Blif.r.iF COCHRANE addressed the House at some length against the bill.

Mr. MONCKTON MILERS reminded the House of the distinctions drawn by Mr. Stafford between persecution and no-persecution. But surely the victim, and not the oppressor, should be consulted on that question. A le- thargic torpor, which Mr. Cochrane saw in the country and regarded as so sad a sign, was to Mr. Milnes the best proof that the bill did not outrage the religious sentiments of the public. How different the case of the May- nooth bill! This country, with a few Jews in its Parliament, would still be the most Christian country in the earth.

The exclusion from the Chancellorship in England depended on the office having church patronage: such was not the case in the Irish office, and there was therefore not the same occasion for exclusion. The principle of our constitu- tion was not exclusion, but the reverse; and 'every test was founded on some spe- cific object: for example, the Roman Catholic oath arose from fear of a Popish succession and 'Popish plots. The decision of the House would be of important influence beyond English shores. The question had raised the greatest interest in the Prussian Parliament: where lately complete emancipation was refused by only a narrow minority of 27. The question was a turning-point of liberty for large bodies of men in -foreign countries. If the House determined in favour of the Jews, it was to be hoped that no other authority would feel justified in closing the doors of Parliament against men such as hail beenselected by the people of England and approved by the English House of COMMOS.

Lord MAHON opposed the bill; addressing himself to confute arguments advanced by Lord John Russell and Archbishop Whately. "Suppose a Deist took his seat in the Rouse, and there reviled Christianity: would the Speaker have the power or right to interfere if the religious sanction were withdrawn? Might the Member not say, 'I have not sworn to any faith, and declare, as Condorcet declared, my disbelief in Christianity'?" There must en- sue a lowering of the tone of debate to enable persons to express opinions whieh would be most painful to the majority at first, but would by custom cease to be offensive, and at last enter into the recognized opinion of the House. The oath would exclude all honourable Deists; and others would be restrained from propa- gandism of their doctrines on the floor of the House.

Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH propounded a number of striking legal points arising out of the conflict of the Election Committee statutes and the statutes requiring oaths and tests. "The sum and substance of my argument," Sir William recapitulated, "is this. Baron Rothschild has been lawfully chosen a Member of the House of Commons; consequently, he is legally bound to serve, and may be summoned to attend in his place in Parliament: if, when summoned, be do not attend, he must be taken into custody, and otherwise punished: if he do attend, he would be entitled to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy according to the Jewish mode of taking an oath; but his religious faith would prevent him from taking the oath of abju- ration. He would therefore refuse to take that oath. What would be the conse- quence? I cannot pretend to say whether such a refusal would or would not, under the circumstances of the case, constitute an offence for which be could be punished. It is certain, however, that the House has no power to relieve Baron Rothschild from the obligation to take the oath of abjuration, no power to relieve him from the obligation to attend in his place in the House, no power to dispense with his services on an Election Committee, no power to declare his election null and void; and that no law nor custom of Parliament can be cited, no precedent can be produced, which would justify the House in expelling him. If, indeed, the House were nevertheless to expel the honourable gentleman, he would not thereby become legally ineligible; and, as often as the House might expel him, so often would the electors of the city of London be legally entitled to reelect him." Mem- bers who object to the present bill ought to propose some other effective means of escape out of these difficulties: but they had not attempted the task. The object of the bill was merely to make such an alteration in the form, not the sub- stance of the oath, as shall enable the Jew to swear the oath. The Legislature never meant the form to be a religious test. Wherever it was likely to prove BO'S easements had specifically provided the very means proposed in this case to avoid that difficulty. It was not, however, a question of mere precedents, but a struggle between the principle of religions equality and i its antagonist principle that the state is able and ought to determine what religion s the true rdigion. " How that doctrine of religious infallibility: of the state has been in all ages and among all people the plea for the crimes of intolerance and persecution! Under that plea Socrates was put to death and the Saviour was crucified. Under that plea the Pagan Empe- rors immolated the early Christians; the Albigenses were slaughtered, and our own fires were lighted in Smithfield. Under that plea Catholics burnt Protest- s/Its; Protestants burnt Catholics. Calvin kindled the fagot of Servetus with the approbation of Melancthon; and even the Pilgrim Fathers of New England were persecutors, and. hung Quakers on the gibbets of Massachusetts! Under the same plea in modern times, we excluded Dissenters front our Corporations and Catholics from Parliament; and for the same reasons Jews are now refused a seat in the British House of Commons. But religious liberty has triumphed over the rude bigotry of antiquity and the cruel persecutions of our forefathers; it will ultimately achieve a victory over the milder intolerance of honourable gentle- men opposite; and the result will be peace and good-will among men of every faith who are subjects of the British empire."

Mr. WALPOLE summed up an argumentative speech against the bill, thus- " When the noble Lord was returned fur the City in conjunction with a Jew, Ms first impression was that he would support the introduction of that gentleman to Parliament; and it was not till he had considered the subject in all its bearings that he found himself bound in duty to oppose it. It was therefore not without a struggle with his own feelings that he opposed this measure, when he thought of all that the Jews were, of all that they had been, and of all that they might be, and when he bore in mind that the time would yet come when they would again be what they once were, the favoured people of the Lord. This was, however, a question of principle, and when principle was at stake feeling must give way. He entreated the House to pause ere they gave in to the fallacious reasoning that because they had made a man a magistrate they should also make him a legisla- tor;—to pause ere they adopted the fatal maxim of the noble Lord, that all who bore the burdens of the state were entitled to its privileges and honours;—to pause ere they allowed themselves to be carried away by the fanciful notion that their constitution was a fundamental matter of an expansive character;—to pause ere they undermined, or in any way diminished, that great principle on which the state had always been founded; a principle which in the minds of all reflective men had been always associated with the national greatness, because it was iden- tified with the national goodness; a principle which animated the public conduct of their Government, and operated as effectively in their Legislature as in their households. And in conclusion they would perhaps permit turn to remind them, in the solemn language which was heard yesterday in every church in the king- dom, that whatever ye do in word or in deed, ye shall do all in the name of the Lord, Jesus.'" Mr. SHEIL supported the bill. His speech was not one of his best; but it contained effective passages.

"There has been repeated references in this House to the celebrated author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; but I think that a name still more illustrious might have been cited. Was not Bolingbroke, the fatally aocom- pfished Bolingbroke, to whose genius was offered tributes amounting almost to idolatrous veneration—was not Bolingbroke, who united to external accomplish- ment high intellectual endowments, and whose intercourse in private life exercised a species of fascination on all who had the misfortune to approach him—was not Bolingbroke, the Infidel Bolingbroke, a member of this House? Was he stopped by the test which arrested the Jew? Did he not, on the contrary, tread upon it and mount to the height of power, and become a confidential adviser of the Sovereign ? Is it not preposterous that a man by whom revelation was rejected, who doubted the immortality of the soul, who doubted a future state of reward and punishment, who doubted eternity and providence, who believed nothing, who feared nothing, who hoped for nothing, who laid no restraint upon his depravity, who had no incentive to virtue beyond such natural promptings as God may have given him,—is it not monstrous that such a fiend should find his way into the House of Commons, and climb to the pinnacle of power, and that you should slap the door with indignation in the face ot an honourable and conscientious man, who adheres to the religion in which he was born and bred—of a man who believes in the facts which constitute the foundation of Christianity—who believes in the existence of the noble part of our being—who believes in the mercies of God, and who practices humanity to man—who believes in the ten great injunctions on which all morality is based—whose ear is never deaf to the supplications of suffering, whose hand is open as day to melting charity,' and whose life perhaps presents a better exemplification of the precepts of the gospel than many of those men for the sake of whose Christian religion these dishonouring disabilities are injuri- ously maintained ?" In Belgium and in France all distinctions between Christian and Jew are abolished. I trust that Protestant England will follow that great ex- ample. A great deal of prejudice at one time exi-•ed in this country which is be- ginning to disperse. London has made a noble m destation of its will. Are you prepared to throw back the Jew upon London, in or that London may throw back the Jew upon you? Bat not only are the disqualil ations of the Jew inconsistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, but those disabilities impede the progress of Christian truth. They prevent the conversion of the Jew, and produce effects

diametrically opposite to what is intended. The disabilities of the Jew are sufficiently vexatious to make conversion be regarded as a synonyms with apostacy. The fetters by which the Jews are bound, though apparently light, are strong enough to fasten him down and make it a matter of discredit that he should de-

sert his creed. Nothing effectual will be done for the extinction of Judaism till you yourselves have begun by making restitution of his birthright to every Eng- lishman by whom the Jewish religion is professed." "British feeling has taken root in the heart of the Jew, and nothing remains but that you should remove the obstacles which still exist to its development. Emancipate the Jew—abolish all distinction between him and the Christian! His exaltations and his sorrows will be the same as yours; his heart will beat with the same enthusiasm at English victory; and if there be need, his life-blood will be poured out for his country with the same prodigality as yours." (Great cheering.) Mr. NEWDEGATE told tales of the manner in which, as be had heard, the petitions for the bill had been got up. He complained that the intentions of Government on the Jewish question had been concealed at the general election. Were they to banish from their remembrance the history of the Jews?

Were they to forget that for eighteen hundred years the Jews had been scattered among the nations of the earth? Were they to be deaf to the decree of Provi- dence, that, because they knew not the time of their visitation, and refused to ac- cept Him who was their true King, they were unfit to legislate for themselves, and should cease to be a people ? What was the proposition now before the House? It was that they, a Christian people, should set at nought the truths of Prophecy; that they should be blind to the fulfilment of the decrees of Providence; and that they should in their weakness call in that people to legislate for them whom God had pronounced to be unfit to legislate for themselves.

The debate was adjourned, on the motion of Mr. CHARLES PEatusorr.

Its renewal was prevented, on Tuesday, by the counting-out on Mr. Anstey's motion against Lord Palmerston.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH Rolm In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Marquis of LANSDOWNE brought in a bill to enable her Majesty's Government to open and carry on diplo- matic relations with the Court of Rome. He claimed the privilege of members of that House to move the first reading at once. The bill was short, and would be in the bands of Peers next day: he hoped no objection would be felt to giving it a second reading on Friday.

Lord SrasiLET considered that day rather premature. For himself, ha saw no objection to diplomatic relations between the two states as temporal powers; but the Government was bound to provide such guards and re- strictions as the reasonable scruples of the body of the people would re- quire. The measure would give dissatisfaction to many persons, and should not be pushed forward with precipitancy. He urged Lord Lansdowne to re- consider his proposition, and permit the ordinary interval of a week to elapse between the stages of the measure.

The Duke of RICHMOND and the Earl of EGLINTOUN declared them- selves taken by surprise. Many parts of Scotland and Ireland would, never have heard of the bill. Earl FITZWILLLAM approved of the mea- sure, and hoped that the earliest day consistent with propriety would be fixed for the second reading.

On Tuesday, Lord LANSDOWNE consented to postpone the second read- ing till Thursday the 17th. Making that concession to the wishes of Peers, he hoped that when once the principle of the bill was affirmed by the House, no hinderance to its speedy progress would be offered in its further stages.

The Earl of EGLINTOUN had no objection to the principle of the bill, and

would not oppose its second reading; but he noticed that there was no clause to prevent the sending of an ecclesiastical ambassador to this coun- try. If that should happen, the Roman embassy in London might become a nucleus for Jesuits.

Lord LANSDOWNE would not ask the House to consent to any measure without proving that it would involve no injury to the Protestant religion of this country.

The Bishop of EXETER expressed his satisfaction at this declaration.

On Thursday, again questioned by Lord STANLEY, the hlarquis of LANSDOWNE stated, that if the second reading were carried on Monday, he should move the committal of the bill on Tuesday.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Lord Moarevn moved for leave to bring in a bill for promoting the Public Health, especially in Towns and Cities.

Lord Morpeth began his explanatory speech by declaring that Government en- tered on the subject with a sense of increased responsibility ; and that with re- spect to himself, whereas last session touch was necessarily said and little woe done, this session lie trusted to say less and do a great deal more. He proceeded with a few introductory remarks on the necessity of some centralized supervision to regulate the local agency; for he proposed to confide the habitual working or the measure to local bodies responsible to the communities whose interests are to be especially dealt with. He described the bill, and acknowledged the valuable assistance of the Attorney- General in drawing it up. He intended to abide by the proposal of last year to appoint a Central Board of Health, constituted in the same manner as then appeared to be sanctioned by Parliament. It would con- sist of five members; of whom two would be paid, and would be pre- sided over by some responsible member of the Government. In respect of the local bodies which Government proposed to call into existence, it was intended to adhere to the proposition of last year, which had been generally approved in the House and in the country. That proposition was, that these lo- cal Boards should be connected with and not distinct from the Town-Couucils in places where Municipal Councils existed. Two objections, however, had been urged against the employment of Town-Councils for sanatory purposes. It was said, first, that. those bodies were too numerous; aud, second, that the difference of the municipal boundary from that wanted for sanatory purposes would prove a perpetual source of difficulty. He proposed to obviate the first objection by pro- viding, that after a certain number ot the inhabitants of a municipal town had applied for the benefit of this act, and after a report had been received from the Inspectors on the local circumstances of the district, and on the expediency of applying the act to it, it should be lawful for the Executive Government, by an order in Council, to define the number of persons who were to curry it into effect. He took it for granted that that number would be less than the number of the Town-Councillors; and therefore the Government proposed that parties should be selected flour the Town-Council by themselves, and that those parties should constitute the Health Committee. As to the objection that the sanatory boundary would ontstep the municipal boundary, he proposed that the same order in Council which declared the act applicable to the outlying district should define the number of &unitary Commissioners to serve for that district; and that those Commissioners should be elected by the ratepayers on the same principles as the Guardians of the Poor, sod be associated for sanatory purposes with the Commissioners appointed by the Town-Council. In places uot muni- cipal, the order in Council would set forth the number of Commissioners for the district; and they too would be elected in the same manner hthe ratepayers. Government did not intend to make any exception in England and Wales to the operation of this act. Though he wished to have the same principleaapplied to Scotland and Ireland, he did not intend to encumber his bill with clauses apply- ing its provisions to those countries; but if his bill should be adopted and ap- proved in England and Wales, he hoped that it would be applied for both by Scotland and Ireland.

Government therefore did not professedly exclude the Metropolis from the ope- ration of this measure. ( Cries of "hear, hear! ") He did not wish to mis- lead his hearers. In the Metropolis we were far advanced beyond the rest of the country, by the constitution of the Commission of Sewers, and by the processes which they had carried into effect. Government had appointed a Commission to inquire what measures it would be beat to adopt for the sanatory regulation of the Metropolis. That Commission had already made some reports, and as far as they had reported their recommendations had been carried into effect. Further recoinmendatione were expected, and Lord Morpeth trusted in a few days to introduce a bill on the subject. "But, looking at the vast number of local in- terests and existing bodies," he said, "and the complications of society in a community outnumbering many Contioeotal nations, 1 apprehend that before this supplementary sanatory measure is passed, it will not be easy to apply the provisions of the bill I sin now about to introduce to the case of the Metropolis." The bill would make a distinction between duties obligatory and imperative on the local Commissioners cud duties permissive and discretionary. The imperative duties will be, to hold meetings for tram:actions of business; to appoint a eurveyor; all inspector of nuisances, to procure a map of their district; to make public sewers; to substitute suflicieut sewers in MIAS old ones be diecon- tinued; to require owner or occupier to provide house-drains; to cleanse and water streets; to appoint or contract with scavengers; to cleanse, cover, or till up offensive ditches; to keep a register of slaughterhouses; to keep a register of oer- tain ludgiughouses; to provide sufficient supply of water for dransage, lathe aid, private, and for domestic flee. Among the permissive powers given to the local Boards will be the following,—to enlarge, lessen, alter, arch over, and improve sewers; to remake or alter unauthorized sewers; to mile house-drains upon de- fault of owner and occupier; to require that new buildings be altered, &c., in case of building upon improper levels; to alter drains, privies, water-closets, and cess- pools, built contrary. to the act; to make by-laws with respect to the removal of loath, and the emptying of privies, &c.; to whitewash and purify. houses after no- tice; to require that certain furnaces be made to consume their own smoke; to provide buildings to be used as slaughterhouses; to make by-laws with respect to the licensing, &c. of slaughterhouses; to inspect slaughterhouses and places used for the sale of meat; to alter public buildings improperly built with respect to ventilation; to inspect lodginghouses; to pave streets, &c.; to provide places for public recreation; to purchase and maintain waterworks.

The rating clauses of the bill will be so framed as to admit of some of the rates being raised upon only those portions of the district that are to receive special be- nefit; and in the case of works of considerable magnitude of their being spread by small instalments over a great length of time. It gad been computed that the whole expenses of sanatory measures could be defrayed at a cost of not more than 4d. a week for each house.

He did not intend to include in this bill a clause for the removal of cemeteries from towns or for providing new cemeteries. That was a matter of sufficient im- portance to require a distinct bill. He intended, however, to propose that the Board of Health should be empowered, when any burying-place appeared to be destructive of the health and life of the residents in its vicinity, to prohibit the use of that burying-ground for interment in future. With regard to the subject of ventilation, he proposed to place it under the special supervision of the Central Board. Lord Morpeth followed up this description of his bill with an elaborate enforce- ment of the necessity of sanatory reform; citing a great number of statements and narratives from writings on the subject, to show the fatal effects of the pre- sent neglect in the principal towns of the country. Most of the cases which he mentioned, however, are already familiar to the public. He did not lay much stress on the possible approach of cholera—a temporary evil might be met by a temporary alleviation. But he quoted from the Mechco-Chirurgical Review, a rigid censor of the sanatory reformers, calculations by which the writer made out -that 30,000 deaths occurred in the course of the year from causes that can be prevented; and that 7,000,0001. or 8,000,0001. is spent in consequence. He con- cluded by claiming for the inhabitants of those hives of industry which supply the comforts of civilization to the whole race of mankind, that the home of labour should be rescued from filth, disease, and degradation, in their worst shapes.

A very desultory series of commentaries on Lord Morpeth's statement ensued; the speakers generally expressing strong approbation of the mea- sure, but finding fault with omissions. Lord Morpeth was blamed for not Including the Metropolis, by Colonel &armour, Mr. WARMLY, (who said the bill ought to begin in "stinking, filthy London,") and Alderman SID- NEY; for omitting the repeal of the Window-tax, by Lord Duncan, Cap- tain PECHELL, Mr. WARLEY, Mr. Humz, Alderman SIDNEY, and Mr. Joins REYNOLDS: further, Mr. Weictisic objected that no power was given to prevent the contemplated erection of a fever hospital in the heart of Is- lington; and Mr. WYLD objected to the expense, especially of the Ord- nance survey.

The Earl of LINCOLN protested against these observations— He would state his conviction that Lord Morpeth bad acted most wisely in not encumbering the measure with details which would only have impeded its pro. gress. The bill was sufficiently comprehensive already; and if it should pass it would be a most valuable contribution towards sanatory reform. The complicated subjects of interment in towns and the Window-tax should be dealt with by them- selves hereafter. The local machinery seemed to be a great improvement. Lord Morpeth seemed also inclined to confine within its legitimate bounds the central authority, and there was no more intermeddling with local authorities than was necessary. If it should be found that the measure in these respects was an im- proved one, he had no doubt it would meet with a more favourable reception than former bills on this subject., and that it would pass the House and prove highly -beneficial to the country. In answer to Mr. MONSELL, Imrd Mostrzrz said that a measure for Ireland would be introduced during the present session. In his general reply, Lord MORPETH said that the suggestion of esta- blishing fever hospitals in the outlets would receive the most serious attention of Government; but the transference of fever patients would certainly be attended with grave difficulty.

Leave was given to bring in the bill: it was introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday the 18th.

CASE OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord STANLEY presented four peti- tions from different sections of the West Indian Colonial interest; and took the opportunity of bringing the state of the West Indies and the condition of the sugar-trade, with the remedies proposed by the petitioners for relief of their distress, under the notice of the House. All the petitions, he said, concurred in their description of the present state of the sugar-trade as most depressed and alarming. As a consequence, the ruin of the colonists is now in active progress; and unless speedy relief were found, that ruin would soon be consummated. The disasters which had occurred were at- tributed to the inconstant legislation of the Imperial Parliament: the peti- tioners, at a loss what course to pursue, besought the Government to state what is to be their fate. To tell them at once that they are no longer to produce sugar, would be a great blow, but less cruel than to protract the agony of present suspense.

Lord Stanley thought the West Indian interest substantiated their accusation, that, when they were struggling to overcome their difficulties—at the moment when they had the greatest reason to rely confidently upon British legislation—at that moment, when they received the greatest amount of encouragement, when they had been induced to embark yet larger amounts of capital upon the good faith of British legislation, there came a sudden change in the course of that le- gislation, which in the highest degree aggravated the evils by which they were surrounded.

Recurring to the Emancipation Act of 1833, he quoted the redaction of the period of apprenticeship to seven years in place of the twelve originally proposed, as an unfair and uncompensated abatement of the composition paid for emancipa- tion. When afterwards apprenticeship was again curtailed by two years of its promised duration, the compensation suffered a further deduction. But even then, nothing was more distinctly averred than that the planters would not be deprived of that protection which while slaveholders they had enjoyed against foreign slave- Sagan. It was urged over and over again, that if our colonial production should diminish, that diminution would and should be made up by the higher price. The production had decreased. The annual surplus over consumption of 500,000 hundredweight, which was produced on a yearly average throughout the period from 1815 to 1834, had dwindled to an average deficiency of 314,000 hundred- weight in the five years of apprenticeship. In three years after 1839, ace fell further from 3,520,000 hundredweight to 2,100,000 This enormous diminution, however, did not measure Though the prices of sugar had advanced since eman- cipation, the cost of labour had swelled in enormous disproportion. whilet sugar formerly worth 29s. 5d. rose in value to 38s., labour rose from as 5d. to 21s. 7d. per hundredweight. Under all these difficulties the planters hx, up without despair, in their reliance on the assurances of Parliament. When the high price of sugar was under discussion Parliament refused to assent to the motion of a supporter of Government to ;educe that protection. A greater ma. jority in 1841 confirmed that refusal. Again, in 1844, the reliance and hopes of the colonists were confirmed when the duties charged on the produce of our on Colonies were reduced. Finally, in 1845 and 1846, the principle was laid down on all sides, that slave-grown sugar should never be allowed to interfere with the regular supply of free-labour sugar. These were the circumstances under which the planters were induced to increase and extend their operations, to incur enor-

mous additional expenses in immigration with a view to insuring a greater sup- ply of labour, and under which the East India market was opened up and stimu- lated to a degree that made it probable that more sugar would be produced them than was absolutely required for the total consumption of this country. And thus it was that after the Parliamentary faith had been pledged, and the colonists had been encouraged, a perfect and a rapid change of policy was made in 1846. On a sudden, not only was slave-labour introduced and brought into competition with British labour, but it was introduced without that discriminating duty which in 1840 the same Ministers deemed to be indispensable to the protection of our Colonies—without that duty of 12s. which, a few years before, was thought the very minimum which could be safely resorted to—with a duty of only 7s., year by year to be reduced, and so far reduced in the course of six years, that our

Colonies are put eventually on precisely the same footing as Cuba and Brazil, al- though we, from motives of humanity and at the dictates of religion, prohibit to

our own countrymen that species of labour by the means of which alone they can carry on the competition. " Under these circumstance," Lord Stanley con- tended, " the act of 1846 has been a bounty on and a bonus to slave-labour. With a degree of infatuation which appears to me to be monstrous, you waste the lives of your subjects, the wealth of the country, and the energies of your seamen, on the pestilential coast of Africa, in an attempt which you confess yourselves to be hopeless, and not only hopeless, but so utterly unsuccessful as to tend rather to in- crease than diminish the evil which you are seeking to put down; and you go to all this expenditure of life and money for the purpose of eradicating on the coast of Africa that very trade which in Cuba and Brazil you are doing all in your power commercially to foster." The palpable result induced by this abrupt breach of faith had been loss and bankruptcy to colonists and colonial traders. Sugar had fallen from 37s. to 23s.: but while our own colonial sugars had thus fallen, those of Cuba and Brazil had suffered no fall at all but had actually risen in value. Some minor differences existed in the prayers of the petitions; but they all con- curred in demanding a good supply of African labour, the equalization of the duties on ram, the admission of molasses into breweries and distilleries, and the removal, wholly or partially, of the duties on the importation of West Indian su- gar. One of the petitions demanded the abolition of the Navigation-laws. Lord Stanley viewed the beginning of an agitation on this subject with much regret: he admitted, however, that if everything was to be sacrificed to theory—if one in- terest after another was to succumb—if they had indeed entered on a circuit in

which, having taken the first step, it was indispensable to go the whole round—if

the West Indian must follow the agricultural interest—he did not see why they should stop now before this maritime interest in the career of destruction. As to the demands of the petitioners regarding their rum, he censured the uncertainty which here also the Government were putting on commerce by their vacillation. On the point of immigration, Lord Stanley declared his doubts whether such a supply of immigrants could be obtained as would produce a sensible effect on the price of labour: but every facility ought to be accorded. He feared that no great supply of labour could be procured without reviving and encouraging those intes- tine wars in Africa which were waged to supply captives for the slave-trade. In recapitulation he was finally and decidedly of opinion, that do what they would, apply what Palliatives they might, it was impossible—and the result of the past year had shown it to be impossible--in the present state of the West Indies, in the present state of our colonies in every part of the world, that the proprietors could, on equal terms, compete with slave-grown produce. The only remedy that could be beneficial to the West Indies and the sugar-growing interest, was a return to the practical system of keeping out the slave-grown sugar by means of dif- ferential duties. He had not altered histvpinion, or seen reason to alter it, with respect to that general policy of free tradeto which one after another of the great interests of the country were being sacrificed. He had not bowed his knee to this idol—a sorry idol it was; for, although it might appear a golden image, its feet

were of brassy and the remainder of yet baser Materials. He believed that the Government, in following free trade' would find they had been following a phantom to their own destruction, as well as to the ruin of the Colonies of this country.

Lord Stanley was answered by Earl GREY; who fixed with success on the more vulnerable parts of his review.

It was quite impossible to deny the existence of very great distress iv the West Indies. The depression was, however, not limited to the West Indians: it affected various interests in different degrees. The fall in the prices of other articles had been as great as that in the case of sugar—for example in indigo, rice, sago, and spices. Still, he admitted that the West Indian distress was of a distinct and more permanent character. But further, it was not of a new nature, created by any one modern act or series of acts of Parliament. Lord Stanley's allegation that the present distresses were the fruit of the act of 1846 was flatly contradicted by the petitions of his own clients who dated their evil times from a far earlier beginning. He recollected a declaration of Lord Stanley's own in the House of Commons, in 1833, that the history of the West Indies for half a century past had been alternations of short periods of delusive prosperity with frequent recur- rences of periods of extreme distress. Lord Grey believed the real cause of the present heavy distress lay in the mistake of the legislation of 1833. Instead of removing at that time the causes which after emancipation were likely to leave the Negro without motive to labour, the time of meeting the difficulty was thrown upon the future. If freedom had iyeeu established, and the laws equally applied to all classes of the community, the Colonies might have legislated for themselves with safety: but any system of nwthfied labour, any system of slavery, ought not to have been trusted to the local Legislatures: Colonies infallibly pass harsh laws for the regulation of forced labour. The whole difficulty arose from the gra- tuitous use of laud; which the Negro obtained for a mere nominal consideration. In the absence of any legislation to raise the price of the land to him, and to :give him an adequate motive to engage industriously in labour for wages, much of the evil which bad occurred was inevitable. The colonists were treated unjustly and cruelly in the subsequent compulsory abolition of apprenticeship. The result was, that before the end of that period, all hope of cooperation or confidence be-

tween the planters and the labourers had disappeared. The machinery of a doomed system was therefore used to scourge out the last profit to be got from the

estates and the Negroes. Moreover, the system of taxation made it the interest of the Negro to devote his labour to his own ground rather than to the land of the planter. It might appear a paradox, but Lord Grey thought protection a burthen to the planter. The existence of protective duties induced the planters to bid against each other for the labour, ao that in a short time the wages rose and the labourer became more and more independent. At first the Negro had been content with moderate wages, and did a fair amount of work; but it could be shown from facts that the competition by the masters had been such that the more the wages rose the less work was done. Lord Grey read a statement concerning an estate in St. Kitts. The expenses for labour during the first four years amounted in the

azgregate to 6,5601. in producing 15,965 hundredweight of sugar; the labour in tEe last four years cost 8,6631. to produce 14,008 hundredweight. There were evidences, however, that this evil had seen its greatest height. He had received despatches from more than one Governor expressing hopes that the present dis- tress was working beneficially by reducing the enormous wages of labour. In British Guiana, a reduction of twenty-five per cent had occurred, and he saw by a local newspaper that the reduction had been borne cleerfully and with good humour. In that Instance, there had at once, without any expensive immigra- tion scheme, been obtained the great addition of one-fourth of the whole labour in the colony, for the plantations. What proofs could be clearer that protection had thus worked an evil to the planters which was only lessening under the pre- sent system? Protection was a burthen on the labourer in England, the cost of which did not go into the pockets of the planters; and would any man tell him it was just to call on the over-taxed people here to pay 3,000,0001. a year, the lowest possible cost of renewed protection, in order to keep up the wages of Negroes in Demerara to 2s. 1d a day of five hours' labour? The evidence of the period between 1838 and 1848 refuted the charge now made against the act of 1846. Many of the West Indians themselves were of opinion that Parlia- ment could not now retrace its steps.

Lord Grey stated the measures of relief to the Colonies which the Government propose, but added nothing to the information already obtained from the other 111 onse of Parliament. He alluded to the alteration of the Navigation-laws, which would be extensive. The admission made by Lord Stanley, in his hope that if Government did not restore protection they would yield other advantages now de- nied, gave him great pleasure. In candour he could not profess a belief that the Government measures, or any others that could be adopted, would materially re- move the distress, or cause the West Indian Colonies to flourish. When as great distress as the present had existed under Lord Stanley's regimen, the remedy he proposed was a measure breaking in on the principle of protection. Lord Grey marvelled how Lord Stanley could keep his countenance in saying that the mea- sure of 1844 did not practically expose our Colonies to competition with slave- grown sugar. The case of the Irish servant who took the wine from the bottom of the cask, as his master would have missed it if taken from the top, was the only analogous one he could recall. Sir Robert Peel has said, with the force of truth, that the admission of any sugar not grown in our own islands breaks down the discriminations between slave-grown and free-grown sugars.

The true way to view the labour question was, to compare the present price and 'value of piece-labour with its cost before emancipation. Such a comparison gave remarkable results. The same quantity of hole-digging which cost 41. 10s. to 51.8g. under slavery was now done by free Negroes working in gangs for from 21. 14s. to 31. 2s. In Tobago also operations costing 81. done by alave-gangs cost but 11. 198. 10d. done now by free-gangs. It was Lord Grey's conviction that five or six men of capital and science now emigrating and establishing a central factory in Jamaica could not fail of great success. A great property is in store in the West Indies forsuch enterprise. Nowhere do such favourable opportuni- ties now offer of investing capital, under the guidance of resident and watchful science.

The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from the Council and As- sembly of Barbados in favour of protection. He addressed the House with eloquence, and replied to Lord Grey with closeness and cogency.

The question returned simply to this—shall we as the English nation, after so many sacrifices to abolish the slave-trade, for the sake of one penny in the price of a pound of sugar, submit to share the profit of the Cuba &atm.? Great as were the abominations of the slave-trade formerly, our blockade has made them still greater. When the slave has arrived at Cuba or in the Brazils, practices there which were never known or heard of in the worst days of slavery, in our own colonies, are now tinconcealed fronkthe face of day. The professed importa- tion of one sex alone, With intention to*tvrk the slave to death—the deadly arms never laid aside, and the attendant bloodhounds—were only isolated horrors. "I am convinced that the people have been misled; and that they are ignorant of the inevitable truth, that if they violate their most sacred duties and the holiest feel- ings, and become abettors in the guilt of others, they will be condemned, in some way or other, to be partakers in the punishment; for, as the noble Lord has elo- quently remarked, it is impossible that any nation can continue long to set at defiance the plainest laws of God without some corresponding suffering accruing to the sinners. You cannot share the Cuba profit without incurring your share of the Cabe guilt; and you cannot incur the Cuba guilt without having recorded against you the Cuba chastisement. Let, then, this question, in all its forcible simplicity, be stated in England, and I doubt not of the result."

Lord Asatturaow thought the Government measures of pecuniary relief would be beneficial: but the deepest injuries would accrue if other means were not speedily resorted to. He presented several petitions in the same sense with those already presented.

There was no question before the House, and the prolonged discussion here dropped.

TRADE WITH CHINA.: TEA-DUTIES.

On Thurday, Mr. CARDWELL called the attention of the Commons to the report of the Select Committee appointed in 1847 to consider the state of our commercial relations with China; his object being to suggest a reduction of the duty on tea.

He showed that trade with China has not been extended to the degree which might have been expected from the increased communication with that country and its population of three hundred millions; our export-trade being but 2,400,0001. in 1845. The increase of trade so far as it has gone, has even been carried on at a loss, which has been computed at 35 or 40 per cent. When it ceased to be remunerative, our export-trade passed from the hands of the British merchant to the manufacturer; and when he relinquished it in disappointment, it was taken up by the native merchant anxious to extend the market for his teas. Why was the trade with China unremunerative ? The return that China makes for the commodities which she imports are principally three,—silver, about 2,000,0001. annually; silk, an increasing trade; and tea, the last being by far the most im- portant article of export. Sir John Davis says that the import-trade of China is limited by its export-trade; and it is our onerous duties on tea which prevent oar taking a larger quantity of that article. The ratio of duty to the export-price averages about 200 per cent; but on poorer qualities it has been observed to be as high as 1,000 per cent. The Americans' who have the greatest advantage in competing with us in the Chinese market for manufactures, have no duty on their tea. The exports of cotton-wool from the United States to Great Britain have fallen from 1,165,000 bales in 1837-8 to 830,000 bales in 1846-7. The con- sumption of cotton-wool in the United States has risen in the same time from 246,000 bales to 427,000 bales. The export of cotton cloths from Great Bri- tain to China has fallen from 1,540,0001. in 1845 to 888,0001. in 1847, with no prospect of an increase for 1848. There has been a corresponding reduction in the shipping.

Mr. Cardwell admitted that the revenue from the tea-duty-5,110,8971. in 1846 —cannot be spared; but he suggested a reduction. If the duty were reduced from 2s. 21d. to ls. per pound, the revenue derived from the same quantity of tea would be 2,300,0001. But if, as is probable, the public were to expend the same amount of money on their tea, there would be an additional consumption of 24,000,000 pounds, with a corresponding increase to the revenue, which would then be 3,500,0001- That would imply an increase in the consumption of sugar, and a proportionate increase of the sugar revenue animating to 455,0001. Mr. Cardwell concluded by moving for Consular correspondence on the subject from China, since the 1st July 1847.

The motion was seconded by Mr. EWART with the well-Itnown exam- ples of increased revenue from the reduction of the duty on coffee and cocoa.

Sir CHARLES WOOD did not resist the motion, but did oppose the sug- gestion of reduced duty.

He admitted the depressed state of the trade with China. It is always the case on the first opening of any trade, and was notably so in South America. All the mercantile world rush in; the markets are glutted; prices fall, and dis- aster is the consequence. He admitted also the force of the arguments for re- ducing the tea-duty : the same might be said of many other articles, especially of tobacco; and that night abolition of the Window-tax had been demanded. But if he were to take off 2,000,0001. of taxes on tea, 1,700,0001. on windows, and 4,000,0001.00 tobacco, it would be necessary for the people of this country to sub- mit to additional taxation from some other source. Whether they would pre- fer an Income-tax or a Property-tax, he could not pretend to say; but as Lord John Russell was to make his financial statement on the 18th, It would be best to abstain in the mean time from any farther observations.

The motion was supported by Mr. Mos•sarr,___Mr. WritLast BRowN, Mr. .MASTERMAN, Dr. BOWRING, and Mr. JAMES WILSON: it was opposed, on the ground that the way to remedy deficiencies of revenue is not to take off taxes, by Lord GEORGE BENTINCE; On the ground that reduced taxa- tion does not always lead to increased consumption, by Mr. BROTHERTON, Alderman SIDNEY, and Mr. Hunsosi.

The motion for correspondence passed flees. con.

STATE OF IRELAND. In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. Pou- LErr SCROPE endeavoured, in an address of an hour's duration, to engage the House in discussion on the question which he put to the Secretary for Ireland, "whether any and what legal proceedings have been taken against such Boards of Guardians or Relieving-officers as have neglected the duties imposed upon them by the Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 31, of affording due relief to the destitute poor." Mr. &rope introduced a great mass of details, showing how the Guardians of many Unions in Ireland were allowing the people to starve, notwithstanding the positive laws that entitle the poor to a support from the land. The information, however, was but the reproduction of what has already appeared in all the public journals. Mr. Scrope was interrupted by Mr. HumE and Mr. AGLIoNny with objections on the ground of order. limy Members had come to the House prepared for the discussion of the New Zealand Constitution Bill, and none could have expected a general discussion respecting Ireland on the mere putting of a question. A te- dious wrangle followed on the comparative merits of Ireland and New Zealand. Ultimately, Sir Witaxam SomiresaLLE answered the question which had been put. The Guardians of the Unions of &aline and Cavan had been dismissed, and paid Guardians appointed; and since that had been done the evils which had sprung up were disappearing. He was not able to tell dr. Screw that any other measures had been adopted by the Poor-law Commissioners against the persons mentioned in the question put.

NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL. On Wednesday, Mr. LABOUCHERE moved the order of the day for going into Committee on the New Zealand Con- stitution Bill. The Earl of Luscous reminded Mr. Labouchere that when the House permitted the bill to be read a second time before Christmas, it was on the understanding that the discussion should be taken on the motion to go into Com- mittee: but it was impossible to do justice to the principle of a bill for suspending the constitution of a colony in the morning of a Wednesday's sitting. Mr. Hawes, the Under-Secretary, was out of the House; Lord John Russell, who had been Celonial Secretary, was absent. Under all these circumstances, Lord Lincoln -urged Mr. Libouchere not to press the motion. Mr. LADOUCHERE declined to give way; as there was little diversity on the principle of the bill, and the Com- mittee was the proper occasion for discussing the details. Accordingly, the dis- cussion proceeded. Mr. GLADsrowE turned it at once on the treaty of Wai- tangi," to which he avowed his unflinching adhesion; • and on the conduct of Bishop Selwyn, which he defended on the presumption that Dr. Selwyn had not been guilty of the indiscretion imputed to him. He was supported in these views by Sir EDWARD BuxTON and Mr. CARDWELL. Mr. LABOucHERE endeavoured to show that Government had not altogether acted in disregard of the treaty of Wai- tangi. Towards the close of the day, Lord LINCOL-N pointed out how vainly the debate had been diverted to other topics, leaving the bill untouched. Ulti- matel'

y the House went into Committee, but did little more than order "pro- gress to be reported.

Esuortarcr Sur Envisrost. On Thursday, Mr. LABOUCHERE announced his intention of introducing a bill to make farther provision for the conveyance of passengers by sea to the North American Colonies.

IRISH POOR-LAW: THE " QUARTER-ACRE " CLAUSE. Mr. PoITLETr SCROPE gave notice, on Tuesday, of a bill to amend the Irish Poor-Relief Extension Act, by repealing the "quarter-acre" clause, and extending the power of purchasing or hiring land to be occupied with workhouses.

EMPLOymENT ON IRISH WASTE LANDS. On Thursday, Mr. PouLErr SCROPE gave notice, that on Tuesday next he would call the attention of the House to the propriety of bringing into cultivation waste lands in Ireland, in order to provide labour for the unemployed poor of that country.

Poon REmOVAL. On Thursday, Mr. BAINES obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the procedure in respect of orders for the removal of the poor in England and Wales, and appeals therefrom. The object of the bill was to amend the order of removal; to abolish obstructions arising from mere te.hnicalities; and to give Quarter-Sessions power to decide on the ground of appeal. Sir CHARLES WOOD did not oppose the bill; but he did not expect that it would effect its purpose.

CUSTODY OF ACCUSED PERSONS. On Thursday, Lord NUGENT moved for leave to introduce a bill to repeal so much of the act 2 and 3 Victoria, c. 56, as empowers magistrates, under the sanction of the Home Secretary, to provide for the separate imprisonment of persons committed for trial. Lord Nugent cited evidence from the reports of the Prison-Inspectors, including some of the highest authorities, to prove that separate confinement is accounted by prisoners a severer punishment than the tread-mill. The restrictions on prisoners, such as those controlling the correspondence with friends—proper enough in the case of con- victs—are unjust to those whom the law presumes to be innocent. Mr. Baron Aldersoa holds that there ought to be houses of detention for untried prisoners and distinct penitentiaries for convicted criminals. Sir GEORGE GREY opposed the motion. In the case of untried prisoners, the classification is not penal, ut highly protective, as it saves them from contamination and mortification. :After a brief discusaion, the motion was withdrawn.

BARRAcE CANTEENS. In reply to Colonel LINDSAY, Mr. Fox MAULE stated, on Tuesday, that though these establishments could not be done away with im- mediately, yet as the leases of them expired they would not be renewed, and spirituous hquors would be no longer sold in canteens.

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD PALMERsTON. On Tuesday, Mr. CHISHOLM AN- IrrEY rose to move his immense string of demands for papers on the subject of foreign policy. He said that he should only take the opinion of the House upon two out of the forty sections; namely, two relating to the defences of the country against foreign aggression and against treason at home. He disclaimed personal motives; but undertook to convict Lord Palmerston of violating the laws of his country, of nations, of nature, and of God; and avowed that he had ulterior measures in view. Mr. Anstey had scarcely got under weigh before there was a consentane- one rush of Members to the door, and the Rouse was soon "counted out." Neat day, Mr. ANSTEY threatened that, he should make his motion as an amendment on the neat Supply night.

A NEW Warr has been ordered for Dublin University, in the room of Mr Frederick Shaw, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT. Lord JOHN RUSSELL has announced that the financial statement will be made on Friday the 18th.