17 JULY 1858, Page 2

'Matto ant Vrnuthingn in Vartigintnt.


Horst or Loans. Monday, July 12. /loyal Assent to Chief Justice of Bombay, County Management, Commissioners for Exhibition of 1851 Bills—Oaths Bill; Lords Beason. agreed to—Jews ; Lord Lucan's Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 13. Church Rates; Lord Derby's Answer to Lord Portman—Uni- versities (Scotland) Bill read a second time—Wills of British Subjects Abroad Bill read a second time.

Thursday, July 15. Government of India (No. 3) Bill read a second time. Friday, joly 18. Militia Ballot Suspension Bill read a second time—Government Of India (No. 3) Bill in Committee.

House or Comions. Monday, July 12. Supply; Civil Service Estimatei- Slave Trade ; Mr. Hutt's Motion—Government of New Caledonia Bill committed. TIsesday, July 13. Oaths and Jews Bills; Lord John Russell's Statement—Sup. ply ; il Estimates—Militia Ballots Suspension Bill read a third time and passed —Indemnity Bill read a second time. /redwesdag, July 14. Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Bill committed—Supply; Civil Estimates—Local Management Bill read a third time and passed. Thursday, July 15. Supply ; Militia Estimates supplementary—Corrupt Pm_ tiers Prevention Act Continuant. Bill committed—Purification of the Thames Bin read a first time—Legitimacy Bill committed—Civil Bills, &c. (Irelane) Act Con. tinuance Bill read a second time.

Friday, July 18. Corrupt Practices Prevention Continuance Bill Committed_ Jews ; Lord Lucan'sBill read a second time—Public Moneys ; Sir F. Baring's Complaint—Reformatory Schools (Ireland) read a third time and passed—In- demnity Bill read a third time and passed.


17o Lords.

Hour of Hoar of

Meeting. Adjournment. Monday bh 8h 10m Tuesday bit 7h 45m

Wednesday No sitting.

Thursday 5h .... 8h Om Friday 6h .(m)1711 30m

Sittings this Week, 4 ; Time, 16h 35,0 — this Session. 81 ; — 181h Wm

The Commons.

Hoar of Emu of Meeting. Adjournment

Monday Noon ah 40m .

eh .19n) 2h Om

Tuesday th .(aa) lh 45ali

Wednesday Noon ..• . 4h Ma

Thursday Noon .... Sh 45ra

eh .(m) lh 45ta

Friday Noon.... 4h Om Oh .(.) Oh em Sittings this Week, 8; Time, 49h loon — this Session HO; — 765h 57m


The Thursday sitting of the House of Peers was devoted to a debate on the second reading of the Indian Bill (No. 3). The Earl of Deasy, regretting that the task had not devolved upon his " noble friend and late colleague," moved that it should be read a second time. The greater part of the speech by which he supported his motion consisted of a re- capitulation of the steps taken in regard to Indian legislation, be with the opposition made by his party to any legislation, and ending let the passing of the present bill. Having drawn this historical sketch, he proceeded to unfold and comment upon the provisions of the bill, and to defend in detail the plan adopted by his Government : all matters with which every one is familiar.

On one or two points he proposed to offer amendments. One was to make clearer Mr. Gladstone's clause touching the employment of troops paid out of Indian revenue. He should propose an amendment to remove all am- biguity, to the effect that it shall not be competent, except to repel actual invasion or in a sudden and urgent emergency, to make the revenues of India applicable without the consent of Parliament to defray the expense of military operations, carried on beyond the frontier.

Another amendment he thus explained. " The other point to which I would refer is contained in an earlier clause of the bill—I think the 32d or 33d—which has reference to admission to the civil service. The law as it stands provides that all persons who are admitted into the civil service of the East India Company shall pass such examinations as shall be from time to time prescribed and regulated by the Court of Directors and the Presi- dent of the Board of Control. That power is now transferred to the Secre- tary of State; but this bill goes further than I think the justice, of the case warrants, and gives to the principle of competitive examination, for the first tune, a Parliamentary sanctions fettering the acts of the Executive by an Act of Parliament, and compelling an adherence to the principle of com- petitive examination. It is my intention to move the omission of the words which render it necessary for the Government to admit candidates for the civil service in the order of their proficiency at a competitive examination, leaving the law as it stands with regard to admission to the Indian civil service, subject to such regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Crown, and laid before Parliament." Finally he intimated that the Government will be happy to give the fullest and most impartial consideration to any amendments which may be suggested in the course of the discussion of this bill. (Cheers.) No opposition was offered to the second reading. Earl GRAN- VILLE, describing Lord Derby's speech as " a singularly clear and lucid statement of the legislation of this year with regard to India," criticized the course followed by the Government in not at once adopting Lord Palmerston's bill and modifying it—many of the provisions of this bill are exactly, and more substantially the same with those in the bill of the late Government—instead of seeking a little triumph by bringing in a new bill. Then he examined the clauses of the measures. The drift of his statements and arguments went against the establishment of a Council at all, and he said that he had only con- curred in proposing one in deference to public opinion, and because the Council Lord Palmerston proposed would not have had the disadvan- tages of that form of Government. He not only objected to the composition of the Council but to its number, and complained that he could not understand its course of procedure. Powers are given to the Council to stop the supplies, while other powers which they ought properly to exercise are refused them. Clause 56, restricting the Crown in the employment of the troops in India, appeared to him altogether unconstitutional, and he hoped it would be much modified. He should not oppose any provisions he deprecated. "It is likely that in a very short time we shall have again to discuss the question how is India to be governed ? Even the moat ardent admirers of this scheme must admit that the whole thing, is an experiment, and that it ought to be very much treated as such." The Earl of Eisanfisononon began by noticing Lord Derby's expres- sion of regret that it had not fallen to his late colleague to ask the House to approve this bill. " My lords, I feel still greater regret in stating that it would have been impossible for me, as a Minister of the Crown, conscientiously to ask your lordships to agree to this Bill, because, desirous as I am that whatever i

measure is adopted should be a permament one I could never have called upon you to agree to any Bill under which a portion of the Council of India

was not chosen by popular election; could I have asked you to ratify 5 proposal for introducing what is called competitive examination into the Engineers and Artillery of the Indian army." But he considered this bill as " more the bill of the House of Commons than that of the Ministry. That House was determined to legislate—to put an end to the double tio- vernment, to make a responsible Minister—but what have they done ? TheY have only put an end to the Court of Proprietors. The mode of choosing the Council affects the Minister's responsibility, and " unless the nominees of the Crown and the elected members can come to some amicable arrange- ment for dying alternately—(Great laughter)—it will be impossible to pre' serve the proper proportion." The Minister will not be solely responsible here, for he will not be able to expend a shilling, he will not be responsible in India, because a material part of the Government—the Councils of the So- w:fuer-General and Governors—will be elected not by him, but by the Council at home. Every man in India will look to the [tome Government .to reward his services. Then the members of the Council will not retire on 6001. a year, but will keep their patronage. • "Yon make a Council, then, part of which in ten years must be effete, and they will then be very numb in the position of a conclave of Cardinals with a dying Pope. (" Hear, kar ! and a laugh.) Canvassing will go on continually ; each man will be looking into his neighbour's face to see who is to the first, and ample pre- parations will be made, in the most pious disposition, for filling has place. liter eight or ten years, therefore, canvassing will be perpetually going on for succession to those respectable old men." Lord Ellenborough also strongly objected to the abolition of the Secret Committee. He concluded by It . expressing, in warning tones, the anxiety—never greater than now— with which he looks to the future. t necessary to send out a larger force than we can spare, but even that reinforcement will not enable us to maintain our position in that country unless we send out also a policy in- telligible and acceptable to the natives.

The bill was read a second time.


The House of Lords disposed of the Jew question at the Monday sit- ting. First, the reasons for not agreeing with the amendments of the Commons to the Oaths Bill, were considered. Earl GRANVILLE dis- cussed these reasons in connexion with the bill of Lord Lucan. Al- though ho did not think the mode of settlement adopted is the best mode, yet as it will obtain the practical object in view he was not disposed to be hypercritical. But when the House had adopted a measure which all knew would lead to the introduction of the Jews, it would be grossly inconsistent to agree to these "reasons." It would be childish to sup- pose these very flimsy reasons could influence the House of Commons. He knew it was of no use to appeal to the Government because they had to conciliate their supporters; but those supporters could not really be conciliated, when the thing itself was given up, by a few words offensive to the Commons and insulting to the Jews. It would be much better to make the concession in a frank spirit, and say that although they could not agree to admit Jews to the Legislature in the manner proposed in the bill, yet that they had taken measures to settle the question. The Earl of DERBY defended the course pursued by the House. They had not changed their opinions, and they were bound to state that fact. Courtesy to the other House demanded that the reasons of the Commons should be answered, so far as the Oaths Bill is concerned. The Lords' reasons are only answers to the Commons' reasons; and Lord Derby re- cited both, and maintained that there was nothing inconsistent in send-

ing down the reasons and in agreeing to Lord Lucan's bill. By so doing they would leave it to the other House to act as it thought fit, and the option of rescinding a resolution to admit Jews would remain with them. He proposed to omit the sixth clause and substitute another for the

fourth, as follows— "4. Because, without imputing any disloyalty or disaffection to her Ma- jesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion, the Lords consider that the denial and rejection of that Saviour in whose name each House of Parliament daily offers up its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its co wets constitutes a moral unfitness to take part in the legislation of a professedly Christian community.: The Marquis of L NSDOWNE remarked, that Lord Derby overlooked the question when he said that he left it to the Commons to determine whether the Jews should be admitted or not. If they had left the other House of Parliament to determine that question, it would have done so long ago ; but they all knew that the House of Commons would not move upon it without the direct sanction and authority of their lord- ships' House. The course taken is most singular and inconsistent. There was a bill on the table intended to pave the way for admitting the Jews, and they were asked to agree to reasons why they should not be admitted because they were morally unfit ! The Earl of MALIIRSBURY said it is desirable it should be known that the Government have not changed their views, but that the concession has been made to a political necessity and not to a moral conviction. The Earl of CARLISLE described the proceeding as discreditable and inconsistent. The Earl of Henn- WrCxE would vote for the reasons because he was in favour of a compro- mise. When the admission of Jews to the House of Lords is discussed he will oppose that admission. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said the motive must be a strong one which made the noble lords opposite take so hypocritical a course. The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted the introduc- tion of reproachful language. Lord Derby had been animated by pa- triotic motives. The reputation of Sir Robert Peel, of whom the Duke of Newcastle was a follower' and whom he not only respected but loved, was amply vindicated, if it needed vindication, by what had taken place on this question. Sir Robert Peel's reputation was vindicated by the gratitude of his country. (Cheers.) The reasons were put seriatim. Upon clause 4 there was a division against the substitute clause ; but it was carried by 50 to 42. Clause 6 was struck out.

Shortly afterwards, the Jews Bill came up for the third reading. The motion was opposed by the Earl of GALLOWAY ; but it was carried, by 33 to 12.

On the question that it should pass, Lord REMESDALE moved two new clauses : the first, providing that no resolution should be moved without due notice being given, pursuant to standing orders, so as to prevent the House being taken by surprise ; and the second, providing that the question should not be mooted twice in the same session. But he was induced by Lord DERBY to withdraw them. Other attempts were made to " amend " the bill, but fruitlessly, and it passed without a division.

Before either the bills or the reasons reached. the House of Commons Lord Jona RUSSELL called attention to what has taken place, putting himself in order by moving the adjournment of the House. For nine years bills relating to the Jews have been sent utp to the House of Lords and have failed to obtain their assent. At the end of last session the House of Commons appointed a Committee to consider whether they had power to admit Jews by resolution. Sir Richard Bethell's proposal to that effect failed to obtain a majority but it received the assent among others of Mr. Disraeli' Si- John Pakington, and Lord Stanley. Sir Jona Psxmorms said he was ready to move a resolution declaring that although it was competent to the House to receive a declaration in lieu of an oath, yet it would not be expedient to use that power until all other constitutional remedies had been tried. That Lard John con- sidered the right and true view of the question. In the present session another step was taken and Baron Rothschild was appointed a Member of a Select Committee. These proceedings made a great impression on Members of the other House. It was felt that very great difficulties, nay dangers, and collision with the courts of law might have arisen should the House seat Baron Rothschild by resolution. The fancy of the Lord Chief Justice went so far as to induce him to fees he might be imprisoned. Although the House would not have proceeded to that extremity it must have protected its member. The exercise of its power would have been attended with danger, be- cause the Houses far from being engaged in struggles with the preroga- tive, as it was when the courts were subservient to the sovereign, has so much power that there is a tendency to believe it may absorb more authority than it ought. The question could only have been settled by the House refusing to do any business until its Jewish members were seated by act of Parliament. If he were right then great credit is due to those who have prevented that embarrassment. Here Lord John described the mode adopted at the suggestion of Lord Lucan. " The bill is not certainly a concession of the whole principle of reli- gious liberty for which the House of Commons has been contending, but it is a practical solution of a very grave question, and, as such, it is my in- tention, when the Bill comes down from the other House, to move its se- cond reading and to endeavour to carry it through all its stages. (" Bear hear r) I propose, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to take precedence on that day, to move the second reading of the Bill on Friday next, giving ample time for discussion and division, if necessary. Supposing a majority of the House to affirm the principle' of the Bill, 1 hope the measure will be allowed to proceed through its remaining stages with that rapidity with which Bills are often pushed forward at so late a period of the session, and that DO further obstacle will be interposed." Next he said a few words on the mode adopted- by the House of Lords. " Singular to say, that House not only has not concurred in the clauses by which the disabilities of the Jews were removed, but, instead of saying that it has omitted those clauses because it thought—which it might fairly do in the exercise of its privilege—that the object would be better provided for in a separate bill, it has given all the reasons why no bill of this kind should pass at all. Certainly that is a course that might be said to be insulting to the House of Commons. I have heard it stated, on thehigheat authority, that it is not intended as an insult to the House of Commons, but, at all events, it is a course which might place this House iu sonic difficulty, and which still more exposes a singular inconsistency on the part of the majority of the House of Lords. I may quote from the votes of the House of Lords one of the reasons for omitting the principal clauses of the Oaths Bill. It is, ' because, without imputing any disloyalty or disaffection to her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion, the Lords conceive that the denial or re- jection of that Saviour'— Lord J. MANNERS—" I rise to order. I wish to know whether the rea- sons from which the noble lord is quoting are before the House ?" Lord J. RUSSELL.—They would have been had the Bill not been unfor- tunately delayed in the House of Lords, but they are to be found in the votes of that House, and therefore I think I may be allowed to refer to them. I remember Lord Castlereagh, upon being interrupted while quoting the votes of the House of Lords, declaring that that house was a court of record, and that therefore no Member ought to be interrupted when referring to its votes. (Cries of "Read, read!") The reason concludes thus : 'that the denial or rejection of that Saviour in whose name the Legislature daily offers up its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its councils constitutes a moral unfitness to take part in the legislation of a professedly Christian community.' I certainly cannot understand the consistency of the House of Lords in saying that the Jews have a moral unfitness' to take part in our legislation, and at the same time sending down a Bill by which Jews are al- lowed to take part in the legislation, not only of this House, but also of the House of Lords, if a majority of either House shall think fit to allow them to sit, omitting the objectionable words' upon the true faith of a Chris- tian.' It appears to me a matter of doubt whether in agreeing in the course proposed by the House of Lords we should not place some resolution on our journals, in which, without answering the reasons adopted by that House, we might state our reason for not taking notice of those reasons: saying, for instance, that, as the Lords have passed a Bill carrying into effect the object of the House of Commons, it is not necessary to consider their reasons. I think that 'with some guard of that sort—a guard for our own dignity and consistency, we might consent to waive insisting on our Bill, and we might concur in the amendments of the Lords. That is to say, that when we have passed the Bill to admit the Jews we might fairly consent to the Bill for altering the form of oaths, though not containing any provision for the admission of the Jews, because by so doing we both secure an alteration of the oaths and the admission of Jews to Parliament." When the Lords only make a difficulty of admitting a Jewish member into their own House, that point may be waived. By admitting the Jews- to Parliament we shall "consecrate the principle that religious opinion and religious faith do not constitute a disqualification for holding civil offices or for occupying a seat in the Legislature. I believe that the majority of thil"House have been quite right throughout in this contest, and that the House of Lords have been in darkness up to the present time. (" Hear, hear !" and laughter.) Yet we may hope that when the Jews have seats in this House, and when it shall be found by experience that those portentous consequences which have been predicted therefrom do not happen, the Lords may think right to put in a better and more consistent form their provisions on the subjecf.",' peers.) Mr. DISRAELI readily assented to the sgeangement proposed.

Lord Joss MANNERS talked of the great irregularity and unseemliness of the course pursued by Lord John Russell ; and expressed his surprise that Lord John should have spoken of "the supreme power of the House of Commons."

Lord JOHN Rossi:Li, said that the House of Lords is a Court 'of Record, and that its votes are matter for comment, the documents 'it prints may be quoted ; although speeches made cannot be referred to because the reports may be' incorrect. He was therefore quite in order in the reference he made. As to the power of the House of Commons he had always understood that if any laws did not please it and it chose not to pass a supply bill until a change was made, no power in the consti- tution could resist it. Of course the House is bound to exercise that power with the greatest 'moderation.

THE Sucks. Titans.

Monday evening hi well as Monday. Morning was fixed for Supply, but it had been arrangeethat the evening 'should be given up to a dis- cussion on our policy in relatitin to the slave-tracle. On the motion for going into dtentoittee, therefore, Mr. Burr called attention to the subject, set forth liis 'Oaks at length, and tell dnated by moving-

" That it is expedient to discontinue the practice of authorizing ber Ma- jesty's ships to visit and search vessels 'under foreign flags with a view of suppressing the traffic in slaves."

Eight years ago, he had subelitted- a resolution condemning the polity of attempting to suppress the Slavestrirde by an armed force. The

House rejected his resolution' but many Members had expressed regretpromisedfor their votes and had promised to amend their conduct if he would them an opportunity. ' But eonsidering the late period of the

and the critical negotiations pending with a foreign state, he did not in- tend to propose a resolution similar to that of 1850. We have tried for forty years and have not succeeded in putting down the Slave-trade. It has continued in Cuba with increased vigour, and almost with impunity. It was never in greater activity than at the present moment. Cuba and Brazil could put it down, but so long as African slaves fetch high prices it will be impossible for England to stop the operation of the law of sup- ply and demand, and arrest this kind of merchandise in its progress to the market. He cited the evidence of Captain Hamilton, Sir Charles Hothain, Commodore Mansell, Sir Fowell Buxton, the late Mr. Bandi- nell of the Foreign Office, and the late Duke of Wellington, to show that the Slave-trade can never be extinguished by force. In fact, the system had altogether failed. The sufferings of the negroes have been increased, because they were concealed on the coast and packed for deportation in less roomy vessels. The work of watching and chasing slavers is fatal to the health of the gallant men engaged ; and the responsibility of these cruelties and sufferings rests upon every man who upholds the system. Today it has embroiled us with America, tomorrow it may embroil us with France. He denied that we had decreased the Slave-trade with Cuba, or extinguished an amount of slavery in Brazil, he ridiculed our inconsistency in attempting to put down the Slave-trade, while by Sugar-duties bills we increase slavery ; and he implored the House to take counsel from reason and expediency rather than from the delusions of a fatal consistency.

Mr. CARDWELL remarked that Mr. Hutt had omitted to state that the Committee of the House of Lords, in 1850, came to a conclusion exactly opposite to the Committee of the Commons over which Mr. Hutt pre- sided, and to the Committee of 1853, which considered the results ob- tained as an inducement to persevere. The report of Mr. Hutt's Com- mittee was the report of its chairman by whose single vote it was carried, while the report of the Lords' Committee was unanimous. Mr. Hutt had in 1860 predicted that it would be hopeless to attempt to put down the slave-trade with Brazil. In 1851 that trade had expired. The British mivadron has not only extinguished the slave-trade with Brazil, it has diminished that on the African coast, and has put down piracy. Mr. Cardwell had once been favourable to the withdrawal of the squadron, but when all the evidence that bore upon the question had been laid be- fore him he arrived at an opposite conclusion. The withdrawal of the mivadron would be fatal to our great trade with Africa, would cause piracy to revive, and give a powerful impetus to the slave-trade. He trusted the House would not sanction a retrograde policy inconsistent with our material interests, derogatory to our honour, and prejudicial to civilization.

Mr. SEYMOUR Furzoenaen, premising that our slave-trade policy, is not a policy of sentiment, but of high principle, stated a number of facts to show how beneficial it has been.

Fifteen years ago the number of negroes annually exported from Africa was 135,000. Now, during the last three years only 15,000 have been exported to Cuba. Ten years ago not a puncheon of palm oil could be obtained in the Bight of Benin. Last year the export was valued at 900,0001. The total value of exports from Western Africa is 2,000,0001. per annum. These facts show that the natives are becoming sensible of the advantages of legal commerce. Four years ago Lagos was the most notorious slave-market on the coast. Last year its exports amounted to 180,0001. At Loando the Portuguese have extinguished the slave-trade, and as it had diminished legitimate trade had increased. Yet fifteen years ago 18,000 slaves were annually exported from Loando. Recently attention has been anxiously directed to the sources of cotton supply. Now it is not to India, but to Western Africa that we must look for sup- plies. In 1855 and 1856 twenty times as much cotton was exported from Western Africa as was exported from America from 1784 to 1791. Thus in a few years we have greatly diminished the slave-trade and given birth to a rising and valuable commerce.

On the subject of the difficulties between England and foreign powers arising out of our policy, Mr. Fitzgerald said that Mr. Hutt's apprehensions with regard to France would prove unfounded. As regards the United States, he made some additions to former explanations. Only that morning he had received through Lord Napier a statement of the opinions of General Cass. Lord Napier wrote-

" General Cass stated to me that the course taken by her Majesty's Government was worthy of a great and generous country—of one whose unquestioned power and promptitude to repel aggression were accompanied by the disposition to recognize an error and redress an injury, if inconsiderately committed. He assured me em- phatically, that after the satisfactory declaration that had been made by her Ma- jesty's Government the Government of the United States would give their attentive consideration to any proposal which her Majesty's Government might suggest for the verification of the nationality of vessels and their right to the flag which they displayed."

The difficulty of attempting to verify the flag borne by any ship is not likely any longer to occur. Lord Napier said in his despatch that General Cass had informed him that "the ships despatched to the Cuban waters had been furnished with the usual instructions issued to the vessels employed on the coast of Africa." There was at present, therefore, an American squad- ron on the coast of Cuba, instructed to cooperate with us if we would only continue that policy which hitherto had so nobly distinguished us. He trusted the House would not countenance Mr. Hutt's motion.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that the steps taken by the Government in giving up the claim to the right of search carried out to some extent the Principle of Mr. Hutt's resolution. But Mr. Gibson repeated Mr. Hutt's arguments against the employment of the squadron. He also asked the Government to repeal the act of 1845, which enabled English cruisers to capture Brazilian vessels and English law courts to deal with Brazilian subjects. In consequence of the maintenance of that act, Brazil will not conclude any commercial treaty with this country, nor pass any law re- lating to the property of British subjects dying intestate. He also called attention to the conduct of " our dear friends" the Turks, who persist in carrying on the slave-trade.

The motion was opposed by Mr. ARTHUR Mums, Mr. J. H. GURNEY, Sir GEORGE PECHELL, and Sir CHARLES NAPIER. Then Mr. ROEBUCK struck in. Denouncing the slave traffic as the greatest stain on hu- manity, he contended that our endeavours to prevent it have been frus- trated mainly by France and America ; that the sufferings of the weetched Africans would be less were the trade open ; that we are not strong enough to cope with America and France • and it is not our shame, but the shame of America that we have failed. Sir Jowls PA■ErNaTOx and Mr. Burros/ opposed the motion with more statistics, show-

ing that we have greatly diminished the slave-trade and proportionately aneeuraged cultivation and legitimate commerce in Africa; and that all

the hopes founded upon these improvements would be baffled were our squadron withdrawn. Lord CLARENCE PAGET supported the motion on the ground that our policy makes broken-down invalids of gallant Eng. lishmen, and inflicts agonies upon the negroes that no pen can describe. He spoke from experience as a commander of a war-ship engaged in the blockade.

Lord PaLsteasrox said that if the squadron were withdrawn, and the act of 1845 rescinded, the slave-trade would be pampered to the utmost degree. He denied that the horrors of the middle passage have been in. creased. It was said that Cuba can obtain as many slaves as she wanted, but the high price of slaves in Cuba demonstrates that the supply fans short of the demand. He insisted that our policy has been eminently successful, for we have put a stop to the enormous slave-trade of Bread —70,000 negroes annually—by the operation of our squadron and the law of 1845 ; and the interior of Brazil has been improved as a cone. quence ; but the act of 1845 is our only security against the revival of the trade.

" The commercial resources of Africa are of vast importance to this coun- try. The production of such articles as palm-oil, coffee, and cotton, is in. creasing every year. We are told that these productions increase only be- cause a demand for them has begun. Begun I Why, we should have hada demand for them at any time if the people of Africa had been able to pro. duce them ; but when the industry and agnculture of the country were pare. lyzed—when there was no security for life, liberty, and property, how could we expect that they would grow articles to meet the demands of commerce? The demand was for flesh and blood, not for cotton and coffee ; and when the demand for flesh and blood in some measure ceased, then the people were able to meet the calls of legitimate commerce. I venture to say that yon will find on the West Coast of Africa a most valuable supply of cotton, so essential to the manufactures of this country. It has every advantage for the growth of that article. The cotton districts of Africa are more exten- sive than those of India. The access to them is more easy than to the Indian cotton districts ; and I venture to say that your commerce with the Western Coast of Africa in the article of cotton will in a few years prove to be far more valuable than that of any other portion of the world, the United States alone excepted." It would be injudicious to adopt the motion on com- mercial grounds, and equally so on political grounds. We have been eminently successful since 1815. " I say, then, we have been eminently successful in our endeavours to enlist all the Powers of the world in a condemnation of this great crime ; and it would be dishonourable to this country, and abandoning the high position in which we have hitherto stood, if we were suddenly to turn round at the moment of success and say we would retrace our steps, let slavery take its course, and set an example to the world the very opposite of that which has redounded so much to our honour. Now, it is a curious coincidence—though there may be no real connexion between the two—that from the time when this country fast began to abolish the slave-trade, followed up by abolishing slavery within i the dominions of the Crown, and to use its influence for the suppression of the slave-trade elsewhere,—from that period this country has prospered in a degree which it never experienced before." If we persevere we shall succeed. "To effect this will, no doubt, require great exertions. What great object can be accomplished without exertion ? And if our exertions and sacrifices should succeed in completing this object, I am persuaded the people of this country will not grudge them. On the contrary, they will tell you to go on pursuing the policy you have hitherto followed, and, so far from grudging the small amount of money that may be required, they will say it is well applied for the promotion of so noble an object." The motion was further supported by Mr. GILPIN and General THOMPSON, and opposed by Mr. DRUMMOND and Mr. COGAN.

On a division Mr. Hutt's resolution was negatived by 223 to 24.


The House of Commons went into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

On the vote of 20,000/. to complete the suns of 40,000/. for the ex- traordinary expenses of Ministers at foreign courts Mr. WISE complained that this is a steadily increasing item-10,0001. in excess of last years' vote. If our Ministers qualified themselves much of the expense for interpreters &c. would not be incurred. He moved that the vote be re- duced by 10,0001. Mr. G. A. Helm:row said the present Government are not responsible for the increase. The expenditure will be revised in the Foreign Office. Mr. SEYMOUR Frrzosearm pointed out that the Paris Conferences, the Danubian and Montenegrin questions led to great expense. He promised that the expenditure on these matters shall be vigilantly watched. On a division the amendment was negatived by 85 to 55. Mr. WISE then moved that the vote should be reduced by 50001. Negatived by 89 to 61. On the vote of 39,4001. for non-conforming and other Ministers in Ireland, Mr. BAXTER, describing the item as a political bribe moved that it should be reduced to 366, the sum allowed for the widows and orphans of ministers. Negatived by 165 to 55. Mr. GILPIN moved that the vote should be reduced by 346/. the increase on the vote of last year. Negatived by 147 to 69. The report of previous votes was brought up on Tuesday. On the vote of 16,4741. for the National Gallery, Lord ELelto, referring to the lack of accommodation for the collection of national pictures, suggested that room should be made by giving the Royal Academy notice to quit. He felt no ill-will towards the Academy, but their position in relation to the National Gallery is false and unfair. If the gallery were exclusively available for the national collection, no expense need be incurred in pro- viding accommodation. Mr. WILLIAM CONIEGHAM concurred in these views. The Academy occupies a portion of a building intended for an- other purpose. It is an irresponsible body ; it has large funds ; it re- fuses to produce its accounts, or state its duties ; it exercises an injurious pressure on art. He thought this irresponsible society should no longer be allowed to enjoy a monopoly beneficial only to its members. Mr. DISRAELI admitted that the state of our national collections is 1111* satisfactory, and promised to submit at the proper time arrangements to remove the great existing deficiencies. Mr. DANBY Seymouat regretted that Mr. Disraeli had not made a more definite statement. It is time that the Royal Academy left Trafalgar Square. Lord ELCHO moved that the vote should be reduced by 3001., the salary of M. Otto Miindler, the travelling agent. This appointment is mischievous. M. MUndler travels actively about, lets it everywhere be known that he is the agent of the National Gallery, and thus raises the price of pictures. For one Paul Veronese, valued at 3701., 20007 has been paid, and for another-that would not fetch 40001., 14,0001. had been paid; Why cannot agents be established in different parts of the Continent, who could go quietly about and buy -pictures at reasonable prices Mr. DISRAELI said, that no doubt a " great revolution" must take place in the management of the National Gallery, but to assent to the motion would be a harsh step towards an individual. Mr. COWPER took the same view. Mr. Wu-sow defended Mr. Miindler. On a division Lord Elcho's motion was carried by 128 to 110. Then followed great cheer-

ing. After this the House went into Committee of Supply, when several votes were contested.

On the vote of 35681. for the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commis- sion, Mr. MUGESSENt thinking it would tend to the advantage of the Church if these expenses were paid out of its estates, moved the rejection of the vote. Mr. WALPOLE said that the Church pays the greater part of the expense. The public benefit as well as the Church, and they should pay a share. Motion negatived by 67 to 61. On the vote of 11,4001. for the expense of the Statute Law Commis- sion Mr. Lome KING raised the objections he annually prefers against the Commission, which is "the greatest obstacle to law reform," and moved that the vote be reduced by 18611. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended the Commission. It has drawn up ninety-three bills, but the great pressure of other business has prevented the Government from sub- mitting them to the House. Motion negatived by 85 to 52. On the vote of 13,8221. for the Scotch fisheries, several Members objected, and Mr. WHITE moved that the vote should be disallowed with the exception of 21601. required for pensions. The chief duty of the Fisheries Board seems to consist in putting a brand on herring barrels. Mr. WILSON defended the vote as " a wise expenditure." Motion negatived by 119 to 58. Mr. GILPIN objected to the vote of 5000/. for Highland roads and bridges. Mr. CAIRD said these roads and bridges could not be supported by assessment. They are principally used by English tourists. Motion negatived by 118 to 73. Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved the rejection of the vote of 20,0001. for promoting the improvement of the Kafka and the settlement and govern- ment of British Kaffraria. In four years 350,0001. have been voted for colonial purposes in Kaffraria. Motion Negatived by 177 to 30. In Committee on Wednesday Mr. WHITE divided against the vote of 19,2961. for repairs of the British Embassy at Paris, but he only mustered 51 against 113.

THE Tuwairs.

The orders of the day in the House of Commons were postponed until a later period of the evening in order that Mr. DISRAELI might move for leave to bring in a bill for the purification of the Thames. After much deliberation the Government have come to the conclusion that the work of purifying the Thames must be met by local resourses. But the Metropolitan Board of Works has not had hitherto power adequate to the discharge of the duties imposed upon it. The unlimited rating power of the board is of no use, because a rate exists only for a year and no one will make considerable advances upon that security. Now they have given the subject of drainage great attention, and they do not shrink from the responsibility of effecting the object they have at heart. The estimate of the cost of the drainage works is 3,000,0001. The Government proposes to enable them to levy a special rate of 3d. in the pound for forty years. This will yield 140,0001. a-year, and not only pay for the works but furnish a sinking fund to liquidate the advances. The Government propose to guarantee the advances up to 3,000,000/., at a rate of interest not exceeding 4 per cent. Perfect freedom will be granted to the Board as regards the construction of the works, and the whole are to be finished in five years and a half.

Some question was raised whether the bill could be brought in with- out being preceded by a resolution, since it contained money clauses. Mr. DISRAELI said he had been informed by the highest authority that he had made no mistake in point of form.

Mr. Wittresis and Mr. AYRTON were greatly satisfied with the state- ment. Not so Mr. JOHN LOCKE who objected that it was not explained what will be done, nor Mr. BYNG who thought the Government should have retained a veto. Sir BENJAMIN HALL hoped the bill would contain safeguards against the reflux of the sewage. Lord JOHN MANNERS said the bill would enable London to remove, at its own expense, an ac- knowledged nuisance, in a manner entirely consistent with the habits and customs of this old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon Community. The bill met on the whole with approval.

Mr. DISRAELI made some additional statements. He said that the Go-

vernment have provided that the Metropolitan Board of Works shall not create a nuisance in any quarter; that that result shall be attained by the system of intercepting sewers; and that provision shall be made for such temporary and permanent works of deodorization as the metropolis has a right to require. The Board will have the power of issuing bonds and debentures which will become a popular security. - The bill was read a first time.

UsirvaasirrEs (Sem-LAND) B.L.—This measure was read a second time on Monday on the motion of the Duke of MONTROSE. There was no in- terest in the debate, beyond a demonstration against the union of the two Aberdeen Colleges by Lord Aberdeen and Lord Stanhope.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTION/.—The House went into Committee on the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance Bill. This is not a mere continuance bill, but contains some alterations of the law. Thus clause 1 provides that it shall be lawful for any person to pay the actual travelling expenses bond fide incurred in bringing any voter to the poll. Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH moved the insertion'of the word " not " before the word " lawful." There was much debate, but the amendment was nega- ived by 165 to 70.

IRISH Junes.—The second reading of the Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was opposed by Mr. COGAN on the ground that it would in- terfere with the independence of Judges by enabling the Irish Government to remove any revising barrister on account of " misconduct " or permanent Infirmity. Mr. WALPOLB said that the clause was taken from the County Court Act, but he was willing to remove the words "for misconduct." As to these "Judges," out of 33, 30 have been obliged to discharge their fur actions by deputy. The second reading was carried by 97 to 62. CHIJRCH-RATES.—In reply to a question from Lord PORTMAN, the Earl of Denny said the Government will introduce a bill on the subject of Chinch-rates. They will be grateful for the suggestions and advice of Lord Portman, and obliged if he will introduce a bill.