Debates anb ilroceetangs In ftadiament.

L.. . ADDI/SSION or Sr.twisn COLONIAL SUGARS. :1/4100thelartukft) commons, on Tuesday, Viscount PALMERSTON moved lion—

dress be presented to her Majesty, stating that this House ideation the papers which, by her Majesty's gracious laid before them, containing copies of a correspondence

which has recently taken place between the Spahish Minister at her Majesty's Court and her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the subject of

a Maim made by the Spanish Government, in virtue of the treaties subsisting

betwemi the Crowns of Great Britain and Spain ; and praying her Majesty to direct that the subjects of the Queen of Spain should be permitted to import into the United Kingdom all the productions of the territories or possessions of the Spa- nish Crown, paying thereupon no higher duties of customs than are paid by the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nations on the importation of like articles being the production of the territories or possessions of such nations." This motion he supported in a long speech, of which it will suffice to indicate the course and the main points. He retraced the recent history of the Sugar-duties; beginning with the proposition advanced by the late Ministry to reduce them. The Opposition of that day made a trial of strength on that question; resisted the reduction, on the ground that it would enlarge the admission for the produce of slave-labour; drove the Ministers from power, and took their places. He verily believed that they would then have adopted the proposition of their predecessors, but that they were embarrassed by their own arguments; and therefore they set themselves to devise the notable expedient of admitting foreign sugar the produce of free labour at a reduced duty, while they still attempted prac- tically to exclude with a prohibitory duty slave-grown sugar. They were told that their measure would fail; that it would indirectly encourage slave-labour; that sugar would be admitted as the produce of free labour which was not so, and that the admission of other sugars would be de- manded under the "most favoured nation" clause in existing treaties. They persevered; the anticipations proved true; and under that clause they were compelled to admit sugars from the United States and from Venezuela—making two great holes in the system- " Look ! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through ;

See what a rent the envious Cases made."

At that time, the well-beloved Brutus had not yet dealt his fatal stab; but now Spain demands admission for the sugars of Cuba and Porto Rico. The note by the Duke of Sotomayor' making the demand, appeared to him to be unanswerable; while Lord Aberdeen's reply appeared full of fallacies. It was a curious specimen of what is called "legerdemain logic," which consists in skilfully slipping in some new word resembling but really dif- ferent from that with which the argument started. Lord Palmerston read the passages in the treaties of 1667 and 1713 upon which the claim rale& The 38th article in the treaty of 1667 secures mutually to the subjects of Great Britain and Spain the same privileges and immunities " whether they concern their persons or trade," in each country, as the native-born subjects. There are two treaties of 1713; and the 9th article in the treaty of July 1713 reassures the subjects of the two countries respectively that they shall "have and enjoy at least the same privileges, liberties, and im- munities as to all duties, impositions, or customs whatsoever, relating to persons, goods, and merchandise, ships, freight, seamen, navigation, and commerce, and shall have the like favour in all things, as the subjects of France or any other foreign nation the most favoured have, possess, and enjoy, or at any time hereafter may have, possess, or enjoy"; and the other treaty of December 1713 reiterates that assorance, with farther pledges. Spain denies that one party can set aside those treaties by a unilateral arrangement; and we ourselves have refused to recognize distinctions founded on the process in manufactures, though admitting that the stage or result of manufacture may modify the duty. In 1816, the United States laid a heavier duty on iron bars and bolts of iron formed by rolling than on those formed by hammering; we resisted the distinction and it was discontinued. It is said, however, that a treaty of 1670, confirmed by subsequent treaties, prevents the other treaties from applying to the West India trade. This is a specimen of legerdemain logic. The treaty of 1670 was one " for preventing depredations between the sub- jects of the two countries," and "for putting an end to war ": it prohi- bited the subjects and inhabitants of Great Britain from trading to places in the West Indies possessed by Spain, and the inhabitants or subjects of Spain from trading to places in the West Indies possessed by Great Britain; but it contained not a word to prevent any subjects of Spain from trading in ports of Great Britain; while British colonial subjects have for a long time carried on a direct trade in fish between Newfoundland and Spain. If the colonies of Spain did not trade with this country, it was not because they were prevented by the treaty of 1670, but by our Navigation-laws, which went upon the principle of protecting the British colonial trade as a nursery for British seamen. If the Navigation-laws were still in force, that would be the answer to Spain; but they are not so. Lord Palmerston continued a minute analysis of subsequent documents, to show that the treaty of 1814 stipulated a direct trade between Great Britain and the Spanish colonies in the same way as in the ports of Spain, annulling the treaty of 1670; and he contended that the subsequent decree of Spain, in 1824, throwing open her colonial trade, and the British Order in Council of 1828, throwing open the British colonial trade, attested the mutual construction which he put upon that treaty. Lord Aberdeen said that the engagement of 1814 was concluded in the "expectation" that the subjects of the Spanish American provinces would return to their allegiance, the King of Great Britain taking measures under that "ex- pectation": but the treaty contains no such word as "expectation"; it only says that the King is " anxious " that the troubles should be put an end to,— a very different thing. But then it is said, that the treaty of 1713 applied to "persons," not to " produce "—the argument of a pettifogging village attorney. The word "productions" is not, indeed, mentioned; but Lord Palmerston repeated the words quoted above in proof that produce was implied-

" What is the construction of her Majesty's Government? They say ' Yes, the treaty entitles you not to pay higher duties cm your imports than the most

favoured nations, but what are your imports?' Sir, this reminds me of a stork me by a friend of mine, of an election in which he was a candidate. A certain elector shortly before the polling-day had promised him his vote; but when the day came he was surprised to see the elector come up and vote for the other side. He went to the elector and asked him, How came you to vote against me? Did you not promise to vote for me ?' Yes,' said the man, 'I did promise to vote for you, but I did not say when.' So the Government say to the Spaniards—the treaty entitles you to pay the rate of duties paid by the most favoured nations for your imports; bat it does not say what your imports are. You are quite at liberty to import here the sugars of Venezuela or the United States on the terms those nations are importing those sugars; but there is nothing in the bond that enables you to import your own sugar. I say such an argument is a disgrace and mockery. You say that Spain shall have whatever advantages are given to the most favoured nations. The words are plain: yet you turn round and say that the treaty relates to persons, but not to productions. Now what are the pro ductions of Spain, except her colonial imports?

'Did Government and the House see the full bearing of this novel in- terpretation of treaties? It untied the hands of Spain, tore to pieces the treaties of 1667 and 1713, and set Spain free to indulge her evident dis- position to lay higher duties on the produce and ships of Great Britain than on those of any other nations—of Belgium for instance; and we shall lose our trade with Spain, as we lost it with Brazil, in consequence of the absurd conduct of Government. They had broken faith with Spain without the common and vulgar excuse, sometimes so pleasing to popular assemblies, that it was profitable to do so. Lord Palmerston wound up with some allusions to "the Ashburton capitulation," the negotiations with Brazil, and the recent treaty with France; telling Ministers, who once said they would be content with posthumous fame, that theirs would be the fame, not of the early Caesars, who carried to the confines of the habitable world the arms and arts and civilization of the Roman empire, but the fame of their feeble and impotent successors, under whom the god Terminus was driven from point to point until he at last took refuge under the walls of the imperial city. Mr. GLADSTONE excused his rising at that early stage of the debate, by his consciousness that he had shared the responsibility of the measure in question; and he proceeded to reply to Lord Palmerston with a still longer speech and still more minute analysis of treaties—twelve treaties, extending over two hundred years. Previous treaties between Spain and England were confirmed by that of 1663, and again by that of 1667; but in 1783• there was an engagement between the two parties to make new arrange- ments, which was accompanied by remarkable declarations on the part of the negotiators. The British declaration divided the provisions into two classes—personal privilege and commercial regulation, and said that change would only be allowed in the latter class: the Spanish declaration spoke of the old treaties as being habitually set aside. The old treaties were not treaties of reciprocity. What was stipulated for was, that the subjects of each country should be treated by the other in a manner as favourable as the subjects of any other power. Spain proposed, in 1783, to negotiate no longer upon the old footing, but upon the footing of reciprocity. It was then a practice with Spain of twenty-two years' duration: in 1761, the Family Compact was formed between Spain, France, and Naples; those countries placing each other's subjects, not upon the footing of " the most favoured nation," but on that of absolute equality one with the other: had there existed treaties with this country containing the " most favoured nation " clause, Spain would have been obliged to put British subjects on the same footing with French or Neapolitans; but England virtually acknowledged that such was not the case. In 1786, this country formed an admirable commercial treaty with France, which contained the most favoured nation clause. But the most favoured nation clause contained an exception. On the side of England, France permitted England to introduce an exception in favour of the Methuen treaty; and on the side of France, England permit- ted France to introduce an exception in favour of the Family Compact with Spain. In 1809 Spain and England formed. an agreement to negotiate, and in 1814 the agreement was renewed; and pending the negotiations, the two countries were to trade on the same footing as in 1796: a report of the Board of Trade on the effect of that provision acknowledged the right of Spain to impose differential duties on British produce. On the other hand, when Mr. Pitt established a low tariff in favour of France, Spain had not the benefit of it, nor did Spain claim it. All these facts showed that Lord Palmerston put a wrong Interpretation on the early treaties. In the treaty of 1814 it was expressly stipulated, that on the commerce of the Spanish American possessions being thrown open to foreign nations, his Catholic Majesty promised that Great Britain should be permitted to carry on commerce with those possessions as the most favoured and most privileged nation: but how could that be necessary if the advantages were equally secured by the ancient treaties?

Subsequently, when we granted and claimed reciprocal reduction of duties with other countries, nothing of the kind was to be found in our treaties with Spain; who continued to pay higher duties on her produce coming into this country than other nations paid. In 1841, Lord Palmerston in- structed Mr. Aston to claim that our goods should be admitted to Spanish ports on the footing of the most favoured nation: it was refused. When our linen was afterwards admitted, the concession was made to all nations at once; and to this day, French goods in general are admitted at lower duties than our goods pay. So that both countries have continued to levy differential duties on each other's goods. But supposing that those older treaties were still in full force, Mr. Gladstone insisted that they referred

-not to goods, but to persons—that they were meant in fact to counteract in respect to Spanish subjects the effect of the Great Statute, (the 12th Charles IL,) which was for a long while the commercial law of this country—

The statute of Charles II, which remained in force for a long series of years, sad formed the basis of our present Customs-laws, granted tonnage-duties upon French wines imported into the port of London by British subjects of 4L 10s.,

and of 61. if imported by aliens; upon the like wines at our out-ports, of 31. if imported by British subjects, and of 41. 108. by aliens; upon Spanish wines im-

ported into London by British subjects 21.5s., by aliens 31.; Spanish wines im- ported into any out-port by British subjects 21. 5s., by aliens 31.; upon Rhenish wine, into whatever port, if imported by British subjects 11., if by aliens 11. 5s. There was also another tax imposed by the same measure on exports, called poundage, which differed in like manner according as the exports were made by aliens or British subjects. Now, he felt convinced that the interpretation he put upon the treaties with Spain—namely, that they were intended only to secure the interests of the subjects of the two countries respectively—was the correct one. He cited treaties with other countries, intended to secure the object imputed to the Spanish treaty; which being couched in .different terms, furnish negative proof that they were meant to attain different objects, and that the Spanish treaties therefore were misconstrued: the Methuen treaty, for instance, which was meant to secure a minimum duty on Portuguese wines imported into Great Britain, uses different terms. He cited several instances of higher duties imposed by us on Spanish produce—in 1668, 4d. a quart on French wines, 6d. on Spanish; in 1685, 81. a tun on French, 121. on Spanish wines; and from 1799 to 1825, a series of differential duties on Spanish and American tobacco, all unfavourable to Spain. Ad- mit the construction now claimed for the Spanish treaties—but always refused by Spain--and the real reciprocity treaties would all be cancelled; for the subjects of foreign countries would at once be put upon an equality with the " most favoured nation ": the Danes, for instance, the cheapest navigators in the world, could at once send their produce here on the foot- ing of the " most favoured nation," without according to us equality in turn. Mr. Gladstone admitted that he was dissatified with one position in Lord Aberdeen's reply to the Duke of Sotomayor- The noble Lord said—" While the treaty of 1667 gave generally to the subjects

of Great Britain and Spain rreesappeeccttively the privileges of the most favoured na- tion, the trade belonging to the West Indian colonies of the two countries was ex- pressly excluded [by the Navigation-law as to Spanish ships, and the treaty of 1670 as to British ships] from the enjoyment of the privileges so conferred." But from that position Mr. Gladstone dissented; because, supposing, there was no dispute as to the question of " subject or produce," and anwseing, for argument's sake, our Navigation-laws were abolished in favour of Holland, and that Java sugar came to us from Amsterdam, it was very questionable whether Spain would not be entitled to ask that her Cuba produce should be admissible from Cadiz.

The remainder of Mr. Gladstone's argument, however,—respecting the exclusion of the West Indies under the treaty of 1670, the extension of the Spanish colonial trade from motives of interested policy in Spain, and our opening of the West Indian trade in 1828 as a gratuitous act,—did not differ from Lord Aberdeen's. He concluded by declaring his confidence that the national faith is as safe with the present Ministry as it ever was in the bands of any Ministry in any former period of our history.

From this point the debate retained small interest; for if the speeches on either side were not literal repetitions of what went before, they so closely resembled it in nature as to have all the effect of repetition. Sir FREDE- RICK TRESIOER and Sir GEORGE CLERK followed up Mr. Gladstone's resistance; but by the time the latter had risen, late at night, the House was so impatient that great part of his speech was all but inaudible.

In support of the motion, Mr. LABOCCIIERE followed up Lord Palmer- ston's arguments with more of the same tenour. He retorted on Mr. Glad- stone, that if Lord Pahnerston had instructed Mr. Aston to apply for the admission into Spain of British linens under the treaty of 1667, Lord Aberdeen, on entering office, had adopted and approved of that application. But, he contended, the question ought not to be decided on the technieel construction of treaties: the feeling ought to be—what an opportunity they had thrown away, when Spain was urging in a friendly method those very commercial arrangements which they should have urged upon her; and he proceeded to condemn the nugatory policy which fetters commerce on the pretext of discouraging the slave-trade, but without succeeding in pre- venting the passage of a single slave across the Atlantic. Mr. F. T. BARING said, inter alia, that the question as between nations must be decided on Lord Aberdeen's reply to the Duke of Sotomayor: in that reply, the Earl did not deny that the old treaties still exist; and therefore all that Mr. Gladstone said on that point was immaterial.

Mr. Banx.av addressed himself to discuss the policy of excluding slave- grown sugar.

It has, he argued, been proved that Spain has no claim of right to the admis- sion of sugar; and it is a farce to talk of a claim of honour advanced on behalf of a nation which so utterly disregards her treaties respecting the slave-trade as Spain does. He admitted that the attempt to draw a distinction between articles produced by slave-labour and free labour is an innovation; and that if practicable to its full extent, it would not be expedient; but modified as it is in the present instance, it is justified by higher considerations than those of mere trade—by the dictates of humanity. Without it, it would be idle to dream of continuing the policy for the suppression of the slave-trade, for which Great Britain has sacrificed so much. It is to no purpose to argue from the admission of slave-grown coffee or cotton, since the admission of the one does not encourage the slave-trade, while the other culture does not destroy life. Talk, however, of inconsistency—of con- tradictions in commercial policy ! what can be more inconsistent than Lord Pal- merston's course with regard to the slavearade---on the one hand repressing the supply, and on the other encouraging the demand? It is evident, on the con- trary, that our efforts should in the first instance be directed to check the demand for slaves, and then the supply would necessarily diminish. He did not attach much weight in a protective view to the distinction drawn between foreign free and slave-grown sugars. Leaving out of question the extra duty imposed on foreign sugar to compensate the Colonies for the state to which the legislation of this country has reduced them, and for the restrictions imposed on the consump- tion of their staples, he believed that the price of sugar in this country is regu- lated by the price in the general market of the world. If production remained stationary, the restriction would therefore have but a trifling effect. But the im- portant fact overlooked by gentlemen opposite was, that owing to increased con- sumption consequent on reduction of duty here, a Large permanent increase in the supply must take place; and as free-grown has not hitherto kept pace with slave-grown, it is clear that unless Government had adopted this measure, a de- cided impetus would have been given by their Sugar Bill to sugar-cultivation by slave-importing countries, and consequently to the demand for slaves. It is as- sumed, however, to meet this objection, that the indirect effect of the present plan is the same, for that the vacuum made by withdrawing free-labour sugar from the markets of Europe is filled up by slave-sugar: but, besides the obvious advantages enjoyed by those who import into the largest markets and the best for purchasing supplies, the important effect of direct trade in encou- raging the investment of British capital in order to secure mercantile remunera- tion is altogether overlooked. Lord Brougham's Act would not prevent it, for no law can prevent the natural course of trade; and if the rate of profit be higher in Cuba than in free-labour countries, capital will flow thither, while the demand for labour will increase, and will be supplied, despite our efforts to the contrary. He had had opportunities of personally strengthening these convictions during a tour in Cuba; and he felt convinced that the only effectual way of suppressing the slave-trade is to discourage the demand for slaves. He owned that he saw no better policy for this purpose than that of Government, especially the part called in question that night—the withholding from slave-importing countries the privi- leges conceded to other nations; a policy which he thought was creating a desire on the part of the planters of Cuba to give up the slave-trade, in order to par- ticipate in the British market. He could not so entirely approve another part of the Ministerial policy—the armed intervention on the coast of Africa: but he knew that it was impossible now to depart from it; and he hoped that, by en- hancing the cost of production, it might likewise dispose slave-owners to come to terms. But no scheme for suppressing the slave-trade was to his mind complete which omitted a provision for increasing the supply of free-labour produce; make therefore was glad to hear the right honourable gentleman the First Lord of the Trea- sury avow the other night that immigration into the free British Colonies formed part of his policy. The only way to terminate slavery is to undenien the slave- owner; and we have the means of doing so through our own colonies., This is no visionary idea. He found that since the late Minister's proposal to admit slave- sugar was rejected, the increased production of our possessions has been 20 per cent, and the reduction in price 30 per cent; and this notwithstanding the dis- couragement of these frequent attacks, and the very recent date of the relaxations with regard to immigration into the 'West Indies. If the effect of these relaxa- tions in Guiana and Trinidad were to equal that in Mauritius, where the crop will be doubled in three years, the Sugar question would in no great length of time settle itself. This is encouragement to persevere; and he trusted the right honourable Baronet would not be moved from his practical view of this important question by untenable pretensions like the preson, or by taunts of inconsistency. He assured the House, that be sought to lay before them no narrow or selfish view of this question. no one would be more glad to hear that a mutually advan- tageous treaty had been concluded with4ein, on terms affording guarantee for abolition of the slave-trade, and a reasonable prospect of ultimate emancipation in her colonies.

On a division, the numbers were—for the motion, 87; against it, 175; majority, 88.

In the House of Lords, on the same evening, the Earl of CLARENDON brought forward the subject, in the shape of a resolution declaring the opinion of the House, that in reference to existing treaties with Spain and the regulations under which trade has been carried on with the Spanish colonies, the subjects of that power should be permitted to import the productions of the Spanish territories at duties no higher than those paid by the most favoured nation. This he enforced in a speech consisting in great part of quotations from the Duke of Sotomayor's note, with concurrent, and from the Earl of Aberdeen's, with dissentient remarks. He maintained that the treaty of 1713 annulled the treaty of 1670; but even supposing it did not, the circumstances of the world have so changed that the restrictions have become quite inoperative. The limitation of trading in the colonies only on permission has fallen as much into disuse as the restriction against our mariners and sailors entering havens with fortifications— The best proof was that our merchants did trade,. without question, within the prescribed hmits in the possessions of the respective sovereigns: and he said, therefore, that to take our stand upon the dead letter of a treaty was only a quib- bling in its worst form; the fallacy was so 'palpable that it would not be list- ened to in any court of justice, and. would be utterly scouted by every man of honour in any private transaction. Bryan Edwards observed, that in 1742 Madrid pursued a more liberal policy than this country; but in 1767, England made free ports of Jamaica and Domunca; in 1776 we permitted imports in foreign ships from Bermuda and the Bahamas; in short, during the whole period of the last century we carried on this colonial trade, confirmed by acts of Parliament, although our Navigation-laws were then in existence. As respected our relations with Cuba, we had a Consul and a Vice-Consul there : 400 or 500 British ships were in the trade; upwards of 10,000 tons of British shipping had been so em- ployed, and the quantity had gone on increasing. Daring the last twenty-two or twenty-three years these ships had brought the produce of Cuba and of Porto Rico direct to this country : we even now took her copper ore, which bore no differential duty, because we wanted it, though its production was attended with ten times more cost of slave-life than sugar. Her sugar was admissible for the purpose of exchange, for the purpose of being manufactured, and for the purpose of trade; it was in, dmiv.ible solely for the purpose of home consumption. The dead and buried letter of this treaty was called into existence for the sole object of excluding her Majesty's subjects from eating sugar. Although the letter of the treaty was obsolete, yet we guaranteed by the spirit that Spain should be admitted on the terms of the most favoured nation; and now we referred to this treaty, one hundred and fifty years old, to make a mare clausum round our isle, to exclude one particular produce for one particular object and in one particular event.

He argued that the Spanish decree of 1824 was in fulfilment of the treaty of 1814, although it did not expressly mention that treaty; and he 'quoted a remarkable extract from a memorandum addressed by Mr. Can- ning, in October 1822, to Prince Polignac-

After reviewing the American colonies, Mr. Canning proceeded to say—"The old pretension of Spain to interdict all trade with these countries was in the opi- nion of the British Government, altogether obsolete, and that even it attempted to be enforced against other nations it would be so regarded by Great Britain." Notwithstanding all this, notwithstanding that in 1814 we obtained from Spain a concession to trade with her colonies as the price of our mediation between them and other countries, although we embarked a great amount of capital in and re- tulated that trade, and although we appointed our own Consul, and although Spain confirmed all our acts, and admitted us to trade with Cuba, yet the noble Lord [Aberdeen] said that he saw no obligation on the part of the Crown of a reciprocal character. Was that fitting conduct on the part of this country, which had hitherto reason to be proud of the just fulfilment of her engagements ?

He strongly censured the distinction between " produce" and " per- sons" as setting a dangerous precedent to Spain ; declaring that his noble friend's distinctions might be suited to the atmosphere of Oxford, but were wholly unsuited to matters of international arrangement. Of the position of affairs with respect to the treaty of 1670 he gave this simple explanation— He begged of their Lordships to remember, that it was a mere restriction, by mutual agreement, between the two countries; or, in other words, that it was a suspension, by mutual agreement, of those general rights to which, without that special agreement, the colonies would be entitled. If that special agreement were annulled, the colonies entered into and became possessed of those general rights which, by that special agreement, had been suspended; and that that special agree- ment had been annulled by the concession of Spain in 1810, and by the Order in Council, and other subsequent acts, there was no doubt. Indeed, the whole course -of events for the last eighty years had entirely swept away every trace and vestige of the restrictive clause of the treaty of 1670.

The Earl of ABERDEEN resisted the motion, and Lord Clarendon's argu- ments. He defended the Sugar-duties Bill of last year, as conducive to the repression of the African slave-trade. He was astonished to hear his noble friend assert that Spain had always observed the ancient treaties; because Spain has always denied their validity, or the construction now put upon them. Lord Aberdeen cited the articles of the Family Compact relating to imports, &c., as being utterly in violation of all the treaties if interpreted as they were by Lord Clarendon; yet those articles received acquiescence and recognition in Mr. Pitt's commercial treaty with France, in 1786. Lord Aberdeen insisted that the true clue to the sense of the ancient treaties was to be found in the practice of the two countries- " It is vain to refer to the letter of these treaties, many provisions of which are inconsistent and contradictory; but it is to the constant practice and conduct pur sued in the execution of these treaties by both parties that we are to look for their true interpretation. Now, my Lords, Spain has always. resisted the obligation of these treaties, even where it would appear their provisions were most clear and specific. For example, British merchants, by the very express terms of one of the treaties—that of the year 1667—are exempted from certain contributions: the contributions are levied on them: we remonstrate; Spain says that these are old conditions—that the times are changed—that they no longer apply to a consti- tutional government—and that British subjects cannot expect to be better treated than Spanish subjects, notwithstanding the express provisions of the treaty."

Spam in fact does not claim to stand on the footing of the " most favoured nation "; and for a very good reason, since she is precluded from making such a demand by the fact that she imposes heavy duties on our shipping; though, if Lord Clarendon's argument were sound, it would entitle Spanish ships to be received in English ports as favourably as English ships. Lord Aberdeen referred to conventions with other countries,—the last com- mercial treaty with France, involving a reduction of duties on French wines ; the treaty negotiated with Portugal, but not completed, involving a reduction of duties on Portuguese wines, &c.,—as showing how these changes had been proposed without ever being imagined to imply corre- sponding reductions on Spanish produce. He repeated the argument in his note to the Duke of Sotomayor, that however unjust and illiberal it might seem, the engagement to open the colonial trade in the treaty of 1814 was a unilateral concession on the part of Spain, with no corresponding engagement on our part. The decree of 1824, he said, had nothing to do with the treaty of 1814—not at all: it was issued when the Spanish Government thought proper, to suit their own convenience; and it was not for several years, not till the Order in Council of 1828, that this country made any return. Lord Aberdeen touched upon the stipulations by which the United States and Venezuela obtained admission for their sugars— stipulations relating entirely to produce and not to subjects. Considering the interpretation put by Government on the treaties with Spain perfectly justifiable, he must oppose the resolution.

It was supported by the Earl of RADNOR; who pointed out the remark- able fact, that the treaty of 1670, though it prevented the ships of this country from going to the Spanish West Indies, said nothing about the produce of Spanish colonies not being brought to the United Kingdom. The Earl of CLARENDON having replied, the House divided—For the motion, 14; against it, 28; majority, 14.

Ustray-raws.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, on the third reading of the Bills of Exchange Bill, Mr. MILNER Gamow moved a proviso to be added to the first clause. The object of the bill was the continuance of an act passed in 1839, abolishing the Usury-laws as to bills of exchange and loans above the value of 101. The bill contained a proviso exempting from its operation " lands, tenements, and hereditaments ": money could not be raised on those at more than 5 per cent. Now his proviso was for the pur- pose of abolishing that exemption : his object was to give a more free scope to the system of legislation which had now continued for two-and-twenty years. Mr. Gibson quoted the Report of the Committee of 1818 on the Usury-laws, and the evidence of Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Edward Sugden—all pronouncing those laws injurious to the landed interest ; as they are evaded by persons who must raise money, in a disadvantageous way, by the colourable purchase of annuities instead of contracting loans. The fact is, that they are the remnant of a barbarous system of legislation; and ought to be abolished now that we have satisfactory experience of the working of an opposite system.

Mr. WILLIAMS agreed that there was no ground for exempting landed property; but argued that the Usury-laws ought not to be suspended at all, as the small traders and shopkeepers need protection— In 1839, a period of pressure on the money-market, it was a common thing to charge on bills 15, 20, and even 30 per cent. They could not look at ancient or modern history without admitting the evils caused by usury. What was more strongly denounced in Scripture? (An ironical cry of Hearn Perhaps the honourable gentleman who cheered disallowed that authority ? He would suggest that the bill be limited to one year's duration, in order to allow time for inquiry.

Mr. Goma:maw said, that the exempting clause had been allowed to sleep for several previous renewals of the bill; and he was not now inclined, at the close of a session of Parliament, to embark the House in an ex- tended discussion of the principle. Many persons, however, it was well known, had been saved from ruin by having the opportunity of borrowing for a short period, and at a high rate of interest, the sums of money of which they stood in need.

Mr. F. T. Baum& collected that Mr. Goulburn was not adverse to the principle of the clause; and he suggested, that if the Government, in a future session, would consent to the appointment of a Committee to ex- amine into the effect of the Usury-laws on the landed interest, and have an inquiry into their operation, it would be better for the present to pass the bill without the clause. Such an inquiry would show that those who are "exempted " are really put to great inconvenience by the exemption.

Si' ROBERT PEEL agreed that experience had proved the greatest ad- vantage to have arisen from the relaxation of the Usury-laws. He did not believe that the prohibition was a benefit to the landed interest, but it would nevertheless be better to remove it by dint of inquiry and convic- tion than on a sudden. He thought that a Select Committee might be advantageously appointed next year to inquire what the operation of the Usury-laws was upon the real interests of the land.

Mr. Wennottros, and other Members friendly to the amendment, counselled Mr. Gibson to remain satisfied with the result of the discussion, and to withdraw his proviso. Mr. Gummi did so; and the bill was read a third time, and passed.

POOR-RELIEF IN SCOTLAND.

The House of Commons, in Committee on Monday, resumed the con- sideration of the details of the Poor-law Amendment ( Scotland) Bill. The 65th clause contained a proviso repudiating the construction that the bill was meant to extend a right to demand relief to able-bodied persons out of employment. In reply to Mr. HABTIE, the Loan .ADVOCATE said that there is a decision of the Court of Session that the able-bodied are entitled to relief ; but the prevailing opinion is that they are not so entitled. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that it would be a great evil to leave the law unsettled; and he contended that the able-bodied who cannot get work ought not to be allowed to starve, even though the workhouse or some equivalent test must be adopted. Mr. BORTHWICK said that the test would not work in Scotland. Eventually the clause was affirmed, by 73 to 21.

Several other amendments were proposed, but rejected by equally large majorities. A sharp discussion arose on the 72d clause, respecting the term for acquiring a settlement; which was condemned both by Scotch and Irish Members. The LORD ADVOCATE made some concession which was understood to mitigate the severity of the clause ; and it was affirmed, by 95 to 16.

The House resumed the Committee on Thursday. There was some op- position, especially on the provisions relating to settlement and the removal of Irish paupers; but it was not very obstinate. Some amendments were introduced: among others was one by the LORD ADVOCATE, to exempt from assessment to the poor-rate persons whose "means and substance" are estimated not to exceed the annual value of 301.; and, one by Lord Drnecew, to prevent the Board of Supervision from combining parishes with- out their consent. The bill passed the Committee.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill; which came down to the House, he said, recommended by the almost unanimous support of the other branch of the Legislature. The object of the bill is to remove every impediment whatever to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to municipal offices. He explained what the impediment is-

ing it. Mr. that gained him the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens and he became a candidate for the office of Alderman: by their choice he was elecled; and then this impediment arising out of the statute took effect, and he was excluded from the 'Ace of Alderman, because he objected to make the declaration previous to or on acceptance of the office. I submit to the House that this statement of facts alone is almost sufficient to justify this measure." The bill of 1828 contained this de- claration, proposed by Sir Robert Peel himself—" I, A. B., solemnly declare I will never exercise any power, authority, or influence I possess in virtue of my office, to injure or weaken the Church as by law established within this realm,. or to disturb the possession of the rights and privileges to which it is by law entitled." This was altered in the House of Lords, to begin thus--" I, A. B., do solemnly, and in the presence of God, testify and declare, on the tree faith of a Christian," &c. : the words thus inserted—" on the true faith of a Christian," constitute the impediment to the Jew. After the insertion of those words, it was thought unwise to reject the bill on that account "I doubt whe- ther the words were inserted purposely to disqualify a Jew from holding office. However, the House of Lords now make a proposal to us to restore the bill to the state in which it was sent from the House of Commons; and I hope the House will favourably receive that proposition. The act of 1828 was clearly intended to relieve Dissenters; but as far as the Jew is concerned, he is in a worse state than he was before. The bill proposes to enable Jews to make the same declara- tion in substance, only relieving them from the necessity of declaring when they make it that it is on the true faith of a Christian.' " Sir Robert concluded with this allusion to the great body of Jews, from whom, earlier in the evening, he had

presented a petition in favour of the Considering what the benevolence of that body is, a benevolence not restricted by narrow sectarian views—looking at their patronage of art, and the rewards and distinctions they have gained when they have entered on an honourable career of academical study in the University of London—looking at the several claims of the Jews to a favourable contempla- tion of their case, I feel a personal gratification in proposing a measure which will give them unrestricted admission to municipal offices, and at the same time be acceptable to the feelings of this great and powerful portion of our fellow-subjects."

Sir ROBERT INGLIS moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He thought that Sir Robert Peel had committed a great his- torical and legal error— He had led the House to believe that the disabilities of which the Jews com- plained were to a certain degree created by the act of 1828, and the declaration under it as modified by the House of Lords. But nothing was more clear than this, that up to 1828 no Jew was ever admitted to any corporate office whatever in any town or city in England. He doubted if ever they were admitted, except by oath upon some Christian symbol, the cross, or something held in reverence by Christians. It had been concluded that the House of Lords altered the declara- tion without consideration: his impression was, that, right or wrong, they made the alteration for the purpose to which the alteration was applied. The present bill was not limited in any way, and included all of the Jewish religion; it was, in fact, a naturalization bill for the whole of the Jewish people. There was no- thing in the act to prevent a German Jew from holding office in the city of Lon- don, and this without taking any oath whatever and without giving .security to the Queen or his fellow-citizens that he is disposed to bear true allegiance to the Queen, and conduct himself with propriety in the daily business of life. The late liberal Dr. Arnold made this strong distinction between the NM of the Jews and every sect of Christians, in regard to claims of admission to public office—" The Jews are strangers in i England; and they have no more claim to legislate for us than a lodger has to interfere in the concerns of his landlord. They are volun- tary strangers here, and have no right to legislate unless they acquiesce in our moral law, which is the GospeL" Within the last six months, an instance had occurred of what the Jews would do if they were admitted to a voice in public affairs. The Governor of Charlestown, Mr. Hammond, on an occasion calling for gratitude to the Supreme Being, thought it his duty to call on his people for a public expression of thankfulness, and issued a proclamation to that effect, in which he introduced the name of our Saviour in reverent terms. The Jews com- plained of this, and besieged him with letters charging him with having violated the laws of the State, on the ground that those laws expressly excluded all pre- ference to any form of religion on the part of the Government; whereas, by the language of his proclamation, he had manifested a preference for Christianity. In like manner, the Jews, if placed in a situation to do so with effect, might complain of our laws for the observance of the Lord's Day. He never would consent to a measure which was incompatible with our duties as a Christian people—to intro- duce an element which would render the working of a Christian constitution im- possible. Mr. PLUALPTRE seconded the motion. Those for whose opinions he had the greatest respect considered this measure as being of a piece with other measures introduced by the Government in the last and in the present ses- sion—disreputable to the Legislature, injurious to the national interests, and calculated to lose the favour of the Most High.

Lord Joint RUSSELL supported the motion. Mr. Plumptre evidently thought that political power ought to be confined to those who hold the " The impediment exists in consequence of the enactment which passed in 1828 for the purpose of repealing the Test and Corporation Acts, and substituting in their room a declaration to be made in lieu of the sacramental test and other de- clarations which were previously required. Generally, the declaration is to be made subsequent to appointment to office; and, therefor; the passing of the Annual Indemnity Act relieved those who might be disqualified from the con- sequences of not making the declaration. But with respect to corporate offices, the enactment of 1828 was, that the declaration substituted for the sacramental test was to be taken within one month before admission to office, or upon admis- sion to office. Now, serious doubts have arisen from time to time as to the proper construction of these words; and I believe that it has been held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that the law would be satisfied if the declaration were made after admission to office; but upon appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber that judgment was reversed, and the law laid down that the declaration to be made in the case of municipal offices must be made either previously to or upon admis- sion to office. In consequence of this, it rests with the authonties of the Munici- pal Corporation, if they think fit, to require the Jew to make the declaration previously to the acceptance of a corporate office. Now, the practice of so re- quiring the declaration to be made has not been universal throughout the coun- t:ry. In Portsmouth, I believe, a Jew is a member of the Corporation, because the ruling authorities of that corporate body have not required the taking of the declaration on his admission to office. In Birmingham and Southampton Jews are also members of the Corporation; consequently the law itself appears uncertain, at least it was uncertain till finally ruled by the Court of Appeal. The object of the present bill, therefore, is to introduce a uniform practice, and to remove by law the impediments to a Jew holding a municipal office, which the Corporation may now at their discretion impose." Sir Robert Peel mentioned instances in which Jews have been admitted to higher offices; one of the Rothschilds, Sir Moses Montefiore, and Mr. Cohen, having filled the posts of Deputy-Lieutenant and County Magistrate. "Mr. Salomons was elected Sheriff of Middlesex; but there was a doubt whether or not the declaration ought not to be, made either previous to or upon acceptance of office. In the year 183.5, Parlia- ment altered the law in that respect exp essly exempting the office of Sheriff from the act of 1828, and permitting its dduties to be performed without making the declaration, giving a period of six months from the time of taking office for mak- omens discharged the duties of Sheriff of Middlesex in a manner same opinions as the majority of the House of Commons. By refe ringto the measures which had been passed in favour of those differing on religurie subjects from the great body of the people, as likely to incur the displeasure of the Most High, he clearly showed that he would confine political power to the Church of England; and thus he took the narrowest ground of in- tolerance. Lord John, on the contrary, believed that such measures would draw down upon them the blessing of the Most High. He admitted, how- ever, with Sir Robert Inglis, that the House of Lords formerly meant to exclude Jews from office; but now the Peers themselves propose that the exclusion should be abolished. Sir Robert Inglis said that the bill would lead to further claims from the Jews: Lord John admitted that it would; he thought they ought to claim further privileges—

"When I consider that these men were born intffis country, that they perform

all the duties of subjects of the Queen, that they contribute to the wealth of the country, and are neither disaffected nor disobedient to the laws; and when, further, I hear it admitted, even by my honourable friend (Sir R. Inglis), that they are liberal and charitable beyond most classes of Christians in their contributions to relieve the needy and indigent who are not of their own persuasion —I cannot but say that I think they have a right to claim these privileges, and that it would be unjust to withhold them. My honourable friend says, that the bill is so drawn that aliens might enjoy the privileges which it confers. Why, that matter is still left under the general law. This bill would give no more rights to a German Jew than it would give to a German Christian. The mea- sure relates only to the case of subjects of her Majesty who may fairly claim all the rights and privileges of British subjects. My honourable friend says that the Jews are a nation, and that they value their position as that of a nation: but whether they be a nation or not, we know that they do in fact perform all their duties as individuals; and it matters not whether they be called or whether they are a nation or not, so long as they are living in obedience to the laws. We have nothing to do with the question whether a gentleman calls the people to whom he belongs a nation,' a sect,' or a' persuasion.' The Jews are, in fact, as they at present exist, just as much as the Welsh or the Scotch, a put of the nation to which the laws apply. Supposing any one of them to come under the purview of any of your laws, or to be subject to any civil action or criminal mdictment, you would not give him any benefit if he said, I belong to another nation—I am not an Englishman;' and as in such cases the Jews would fall under the consequences or penalties of the laws, you ought to give them the privileges and benefits conferred by the laws upon other subjects. Sir Robert Inglis reminded him of a somewhat irreverent comparison which he had heard Mr. Dugald Stewart use: " Mr. Dugald Stewart said, that the University. of Oxford which had not made any great progress in science and knowledge, while such progress had gradually increased elsewhere, reminded him of a ship or barge moored in the midst of a rapid current, by which you might measure the rapidity of the current which was passing by. So we find not unfrequently, with my honourable friend moored and anchored in the midst of the current, that we are passing by while he remains in his fixed position." ( Laughter.)

Lord John proceeded to remark, that Sir Robert Inglis would no longer

have the aid of Mr. Gladstone, whose absence he regretted; or Mr. Goul- burn, whose silence he admired. He would not allow Sir Robert Inglis to take advantage of Dr. Arnold's fanciful theory about exclusion of the Jews, unless he would subscribe to the whole plan: Dr. Arnold contemplated a state with a large comprehensiveness of religious doctrine, taking into one Christian community all denominations of Christians—Roman Catho- lics, and Dissenters of every kind. Lord John Nailed the measure as one calculated to extend the charitable feelings by w 'ich the members of the community ought to be united.

Mr. TRELAWNEY supported the bill, as an instalment; Mr. MONCEIITOM lilnriEs, as being, by its example, likely to serve persons of the Jewish persuasion in other parts of the world.

The House divided; and the second reading was affirmed by 91 to 11. PRIVILEGE.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, on the motion of the LORD CHANCEL- LOR, John Harlow was called in and examined. He stated that he lived in Leicester Square; that he had brought an action against Thomas Baker, for language used in giving evidence before a Committee of that House [on Gambling] which he could prove to be false and malicious; and he hoped the House would give him an opportunity of seeking redress. It had in- jured him in his business, [as a tobacconist.] Lord CAMPBELL asked whether the witness meant to go on with the action? Mr. Harlow replied- " My Lord, I am not at this moment prepared to say that I will, or that I will not." He withdrew.

Peter Taite Harbin was next called. He stated that he was an attorney acting for Mr. Harlow. Being asked if he meant to proceed with the action, he said—" I have not had instructions at present to discontinue it."

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved—" That John Harlow has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House." Lord BROUGHAM opposed the motion. He felicitated himself and the House on the fact, that during the four years in which he held office it had never fallen to his lot to make such a motion as the present. He called to mind that when he himself had argued in Sir Francis Burdett's case at the bar of that House against the privileges claimed by the other House, he was not then called upon, as Mr. Harbin now was, for venturing as an attorney to do his duty to his client. He sketched the privileges of Parliament; which he described as consisting in the power to remove all obstruction to the full discharge of their duties—to liberate any Member from personal constraint, to protect their witnesses as they would be treated in a court of justice, to punish them for prevarication, and to compel their attendance. But he contended against the claim ad- vanced by either House to declare what its own privileges were, arrogating to themselves the power to be lawgivers without the intervention of the other branches of the Legislature; and he solemnly protested against that irresponsible power, on behalf of the other branches of the Legislature, of the people of England and their most sacred liberties, on behalf of the law, and on behalf of the highest court of law in the land—the House of Lords itself, before whom the case might eventually come in their judicial capacity. He denied that a witness could be protected for giving false evidence. He pointed out how the action would not necessarily be stayed even if the parties were committed to prison, until they should have com- mitted all the attornies in the country, and set Parliament in irreconcile- able conflict with the courts of justice. He glanced back at the origin of Parliament, in the time of Henry the Third, to show that Parliament itself, and much less its privileges, have not existed from time immemorial. He touched upon that stretch of Parliamentary power which resulted is the execution of Charles the First and the overthrow of the monarchy, and mentioned some other extravagant instances of Parliamentary oppression,— such as the sentencing a gentleman in James the First's time to be put in the pillory, fined a thousand pounds, and imprisoned for life, for calling the

Elector Palatine " a goodman Palsgmve," and the Princess Elizabeth his wife " a goodwoman Palsgrave"; the Standing Orders of 1698 and 1699 exempting the servants of Members of Parliament and Peers from action and arrest; and the Standing Order of 7th George L, which declared it to be a high breach of privilege to write the life of any deeeeeed Peer, and which he recommended to the attention of the noble and learned Lord [Campbell) who was understood to be writing the lives of Lord Chancel- lors. [Lord CareenaLs--" I shall go in company with you, if I go to the Tower."] Lord Brougham supposed that the Crown were opposed to Par- liament, and he defied the House to carry its high privileges against the Crown; from whom, indeed, it must borrow troops and the powers to en- force them. IIe contended that the House might safely leave its privileges to the protection of the ordinary courts of law. The LORD CHANCELLOR defended his conduct in referring the matter to a-Select Committee for reference as to precedents. He reminded the House that its witnesses are obliged to attend and give evidence on compulsion; that if they were exposed to actions at law, and even successfully resisted such actions, they must sustain unmerited loss, because they could recover no more than the taxed costs. He cited several precedents to show that the House had uniformly asserted its privilege when challenged; and he reminded Lord Brougham that the Court of Chancery continually arrests actions in the Law Courts.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that he did not deny the right of the House, but the expediency of interference, except to stop a positive obstruction. In this case, if the witness had sworn falsely, where was the party to go to obtain redress? The LORD CHANCELLOR answered, that he might apply to the House for leave to sue the witness.

Lord CAMPBELL supported the motion; arguing at length against the expediency of submitting the privileges of the House to the decision of the Judges. He recounted some very extravagant judgments, such as that of Chief Justice Tressilian [who was afterwards hanged] in the reign of Richard the Second, that the right to limit the extent and mode of business in Parliament was inherent in the Sovereign; and the decision of the Judges, that it was impossible to impeach the King's Ministers in the High Court of Parliament.

After a few words from the Earl of Wimstow against the motion, it was agreed to; as well as another, that John Harlow be committed to the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. A similar motion re- specting the attorney gave rise to some further discussion. The Duke of WELLINGTON pointed out that the word "Lords" seemed designedly omitted in the " declaration." Lord BROUGHAM said, that was the fault of the special pleader; and he excused the attorney for performing his duty to his client: but the Loan CHANCELLOR thought that he was the more guilty of the two. Lord BROUGHAM here said, it had been just com- municated to him that John Harlow had instructed his attorney to dis- continue the action. But eventually the motion was affirmed.

On Tuesday, Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from John Harlow, expressing contrition for having committed a breach of the privilege of the House, praying for pardon, and promising to discontinue the action against Mr. Baker. Lord Brougham, with some sarcasms on " the offence of appealing to the law," moved his discharge on payment of the fees. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that as Lord Brougham was not acting as counsel for Harlow, that person must not be held answerable for what he said. The motion was agreed to. Harlow was called to the bar, admonished by the LORD CHANCELLOR, and discharged from the custody of the Black Rod, on payment of the customary fees. [Said to be about NI.] A similar petition was presented from Peter Taite Harbin, the attorney, with like results.

Lord CAMPBELL gave notice, that he should, early next session, introduce a bill to enable the two Houses of Parliament, when an action was brought In violation of their privileges, to stop that action in the same manner as actions are now stayed for the publication of papers published under the orders of the House. Lord BROUGHAM—" Then there is an end of the privilege, that is quite clear!"

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Sir JOHN YARDE BULLER moved for a Select Committee to investigate the allegations contained in the petition of David Philips, presented to the House upon the 11th July. Agreed to.

NEW ZEALAND.

In reply to Mr. 'lawns, on Monday, Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM HOPE stated that the published accounts from New Zealand were substantially correct; despatches having been received from Captain Fitzroy to the 26th March. He strongly impressed upon the House, that the outbreak was owing to nothing fresh which had occurred, but that it was the renewal of insurrectionary attempts. After a very brief recital of the facts, he added, that the event was regarded with great alarm in New Zealand; the pro- ceeding being one arising out of no collision with the settlers, out of no accidental circumstance, and out of no disputes going on between the settlers and the Natives, but out of a determined attempt on the part of the Native chief Held to deny the sovereignty of the Queen of England. The effect of the arrival of the North Star with additional troops had been to restore a degree of confidence.

In reply to Lord Howlers, Sir ROBERT PEEL said that it would be in- Convenient to publish the instructions to Governor Grey, lest they should reach the colony before he was there to put them in operation; but ex- tracts relating to the recent event should be laid before the House.

On Thursday, at the instance of Mr. Jonas ABEL SMITH, Sir ROBERT PEEL agreed to fix upon Monday for the New Zealand estimate, in Supply. Mr. S/1ITH then gave notice, that on Monday Mr. Charles Buller would move the following resolution-

" That this House views with feelings of great apprehension the state of affairs in New Zealand; and that these feelings are greatly aggravated by the want of any sufficient evidence of a change of that policy which has led to such disastrous results."

The following conversation ensued. Mr. Aumostar put two questions to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in order to remove some misapprehensions prevalent out of doors. He asked, first, whether the late lamentable disaster did not take place in the Northern extremity of the Northern Island, about 400 miles distant from any of the settlements of the New Zealand Company ? And secondly, whether that portion of the island has not always been under the immediate management and supervision of the Church Missionaries, the Protectors of Aborigines, and the Government; the New Zealand Company having no land there, nor any connexion with it? Mr. G. W. Hoes: thought that he had explained that this occurrence had no connexion with the late &sputes. With respect to the supervision of the Church Missionaries—of that he could say nothing. The Bay of Islands was a place where whalers resorted; there was congregated there a large body of runaway sailors and convicts; and he believed that the neighbourhood contained the worst species of characters in the whole of New Zealand. Mr. Acruowev wished to know whether he was correct in stating that the New Zealand Company had nothing to do with that portion of the island ? Mr. G. W. HoPE—Most certainly so. He thought he had answered that.

COLONIAL LANDS. On Monday, Lord STANLEY laid on the table of the Lords a bill for regulating the sale of waste lands in the Australian Colonies. It WAS read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday.

EXTRADITION OF FOREIGN OFFENDERS. In the House of Lords, OR Thurs- day, the Earl of ABERDEEN laid on the table a bill to amend the act for appre- hending and giving up. to foreign nations fugitive criminals. We have received from France and America all the offenders for whom we have applied; but incon- sequence of technical difficulties it has been found impossible to surrender to France any one offender, and to America more than one or two. The bill pro- vided only that the warrant of the Secretary of State should in all cases be (E- rected to the Head Police Magistrate of the Metropolis, instead of the Magistrate* generally throughout the country, so that uniformity of decision should be M. cured. It was read a first time.

THE lawn MEASURES. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Earl of Devon stated, that after consulting several Members of the other House, he found it would be quite impossible to pass in this session the bills he intended to intro- duce founded on the report of lus Commission. He had prepared a bill for pro- viding a short form of lease to be executed by parties at a reduced expense in evecp respect; and her Majesty's Government were very favourably disposed towards the reduction of the stamp-duty upon that. Another bill, taken almost verbatim from a clause in the Commissioners report, was to alter the law with respect to Gectment for non-payment of rent and distress. Early next session he hoped the overnment would take up the whole subject, including that of tenure under leases renewable for ever.

In ler to Lord MONTEAGLE, OR Tuesday, Lord STANLEY stated, that be be. lieved there would be found great difficulty in engrafting the modifications de- signed by the Government on the Landlord and Tenants (Ireland) Bill: he did not give up the hope of being yet enabled to lay the amended bill before their i Lordships; but he felt bound in fairness to give notice that he had no intention of calling on the House to express an opinion on the bill in the present session.

THE LUNATICS BILL, after having run the gauntlet of many hostile attempts at alteration, for several mornings, passed the Committee on Wednesday ; to be reported on Friday.

DUTIES ON COAL. The House of Commons having gone into Committee on the Coal-trade (Port of London) Bill, on Monday, the Earl of Lincoln- moved an amendment on the second clause, providing that the duty of 14. per ton be con- tinued, in addition to the tax of Is. per ton, which will not expire till 1862; the object being to make a fund applicable to improvements. Mr. WiLtrards ob- jected to the continuance of the tax: he did not object to the improvements, but he recommended a tax on houses above a certain rental as less oppressive to the poor. The amendment was opposed by Mr. MASI'ERDIAN, Mr. Hume, Mr. How, Lord Howlers, and some others. Sir ROBERT PEEL insisted on the neces- sity of improving the state of the Metropolis. There were districts, it seemed, in this town which were fitly called fever-districts.. Dr. Southwood Smith said he meant by fever-districts those districts in which fever was always present; and he stated that in the London Fever Hospital, from January to the end of April in the present year, they had received five hundred fever-patients; and during that time they refused twenty or thirty patients a day from want of room. Such dis- tricts as those of which Dr. Southwood Smith spoke were those of Bethnal Green and Whitechapel. The object, then, of the Government was to provide a fund by means of which these monstrous evils might be obviated. A Committee of the House of Commons had suggested that the best way of doing this would be by a tax on coals. He contended that the poor would especially .benefit by the change. The advantages in this respect of the late improvements in St. Giles's were mani- fest: such improvements his noble friend meant to extend, and for that pur- pose he proposed to continue a tax on coals which was now in existence. Even tnally, the amendment was affirmed, by 69 to 42; the remaining clauses were disposed of; and the House resumed.

RAILWAY IRREGULARITIES. A Select Committee of the Lords have made their report on a petition in reference to the Irish Great Western (Dublin to Galway) Bill. The report stated, that it had not been the practice of the Com- pany to require references from applicants for shares, and that allotments had been made to persons under feigned and fictitious names, and also to paupers and others who had no means of paying a deposit; that the system adopted was one which tended to defeat the object of Parliament in its rules on this subject; and that the reduction made last session in the required amount of deposit had had the effect of facilitating the commission of fraud.