7thatts anb Vroctebings in Varliament.

THE ASHBURTON TREATY.

In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord PALMERSTON moved for copies of all communications which have taken place between the Go- vernment or Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and of the United States with reference to the treaty signed at Washington on the 9th day of August 1842, and to the negotiations which led to that treaty ; and copies or extracts of all communications on the same subjects between her Majesty's Secretary of State and Lord Ashburton. He claimed the papers as necessary to complete the series already published up to the time that he left office, and as necessary to determine the relative share of praise or blame to be awarded to Lord Ashburton or the Government at

home. In the performance of a public duty, he despised the insinuation that he meant to disturb the friendly relations between this country and the United States ; with whom it especially behoves us to keep on friendly terms. He entered into an historical review of the treaties and negotia- tions, from 1782 and '83 to the award of the King of the Netherlands, re• fused by the Americans. The American Government pressed the British Government for a commission not only to report on the dis- puted territory, but finally to decide upon it, with power to refer dis- puted points to a Special Commission consisting of three scientific men : but they annexed to the proposal inadmissible conditions—that the map of Mitchell should be acknowledged as evidence, though it was known to be very incorrect, and that a Commissioner for Maine should attend the survey. The British Government chose to confine the negotiation to the Federal Government ; but they sent Colonel Mudge and Mr. Featherstonbaugh as a separate Commission to obtain information ; and they ascertained, in two surveys, that the British line did and the American line did not comply with the terms of the treaty. That information, coupled with the discovery of a certain red-line map drawn by the very negotiators of the original treaty, and confirming the British claim, placed the Government in 1841 in a situation in which none of their predecessors had been placed. It was then open to them to appoint another Commission of survey, with arbitrary power on disputed points ; another direct reference to arbitration—and the new evidence would have made it little difficult to establish the British claim ; or to negotiate for a conventional line. Such a line might have been negotiated by the British Minister at Washington, or the United States Minister here, or by means of a special mission— If the first course had been adopted, and the ordinary functionaries of the two Governments had been employed in the business, the failure of the negotiation, if it had failed, would not have attracted the same degree of observation as it must have done in the case of a special mission being sent out ; and it might be said that the parties would have been left in the same situation in which they stood before. This was one reason why negotiation by the ordinary instruments of the Government was in most cases preferable to a special mission. There was also another inconvenience in connexion with a special mission. Not only did its failure attract public notice and leave the question in a position lees favourable to adjustment than it had previously stood in, but the knowledge of this circumstance operated as a sort of pressure on the Government and their negotiator. It exercised a pressure on the negotiator in this way : no man who went out with pomp and parade on a special mission liked to come home empty-handed, and therefore he was naturally desirous of going and urging his Government to go to the full extent of concession rather than have it said he had come home without accomplishing his object. A special mission, therefore, was a mode of negotiation favourable to that party which was most pertinacious. Those who read the correspondence would readily see which party had that advantage in the negotiations. With every respect for the public talents and private virtues of Lord Ashburton, he condemned the choice of him as a negotiator. Govern- ment ought to have sent a man who would be heart and soul in the British cause, and who would have no leaning to the opponent party. But Lord Ashburton was both a British and American citizen ; and though he had princely possessions in England he was deeply con- nected with America. Moreover, some technical experience of &ph» macy was essential in the business of negotation : if such skill, intimate acquaintance with the people of the country, united with the most con- ciliatory manners, were the combination required, Sir Charles Vaughan might have been fitly selected: if a title of Peerage were required in addition to these qualifications, Lord Heytesbury might well have been appointed. Lord Ashburton, however, proceeded to his post ; and he began with a mistake—.

The noble Lord complained that it was unfair that he should be subjected to the disadvantage of making the first proposal. Now, there seemed to him no- thing unfair or unjust in requiring the noble Lord to make the first proposal even if it were a disadvantage to make the first proposal. It was natural for Mr. Webster to say to the noble Lord, " You have been sent by your country here; you have crossed the Atlantic, braving its gales and its storms ; you must have something to say—(Laughter)—you must have some proposal—tell us what it is." But he did not agree with the noble Lord in thinking it a dis- advantage to have the first move in a negotiation, any more than in chess, if this move were skilfully. made. But if that first move were imprudently and unskilfully made, then in negotiation, as in chess, it might cause the individual who made it to be checkmated, as he believed the noble Lord had been. However, the noble Lord at length made a proposition, and described it as his ultimatum. He thought it ought to have been his ultimatum, for he ought not to have gone further with respect at least to the territorial division. Still it was unusual to make the first proposition an ultimatum. This was not courteous, but rather offensive to the party negotiated with. It was the way in which a strong power negotiated with the weak, a conqueror with a van- quished party. It is saying, " This is my first word and my last ; take this, or you shall have nothing." This was not consistent with national courtesy ; and it was moreover inexpedient. A party negotiating was anxious to show the party who employed him that at the end of the negotiation he bad gained something by the manner in which he had conducted it ; and therefore he sometimes, even intentionally, demanded more than he meant to accept, that he might have a feather in his cap by being enabled to gain something in the end by this mode of proceeding. Lord Palmerston described Lord Ashburton's concession, after this ultimatum, of the Madewaska settlements, and a tract of territory North of the St. John ; declaring his conviction, that if he bad exhibited the same firmness as had been shown by the American Minister, he was satisfied that the negotiation would have terminated in the establish- ment of the St. John's boundary. He described how the negotiation ought to have been conducted— The noble Lord might have said, " Before we dispute the line, let us state the whole of the case to each other; do not let us set ourselves up one as the strong the other as the weak party. I will conceal nothing from you. I will not have recourse to the finesse or tricks of negotiations, but I will tell you where our case is strong or weak ; and you will do the same." The noble Lord might then have produced the reports of the British Commissioners, and the red-line map which had been found after the noble Lord had departed from this country, and which had been sent after him, and have said, " Here is our case." Mr. Webster might in answer have produced the imperfect reports of the American Commissioners, and have said, I have a red-line map too, and you see that it is exactly like yours." ("Hear!" and laughter.) If that course had been pursued, he could not but think that the negotiation would have taken an entirely different turn.

Then Lord Ashburton should have proceeded upon the understand- ing, that all that England was to get must be obtained by concessions for a consideration : and there were several equivalents which he might have rescued for the purpose,—the free navigation of the St. John; the

country between the two branches of the Connecticut, extensively oc- cupied by American citizens ; Rouse's Point ; the Sugar Island of St. George ; and a great tract of 4,000,000 acres of metalliferous land—

Lord Ashburton, in fact, went over to America with a bag of equivalents ; which he found so uneasy a burden, that he had thrown them all at the feet of Mr. Webster ; in short, he shot his bag without keeping one equivalent at the bottom. (" Hear, hear ! " and a laugh.) Mr. Webster bud taken them up one by one ; and first, he said, " You give us the navigation of the St. John's

river; we are obliged for that—it will be very useful to us." And he put that surrender in his pocket, never to be returned. Then he said, " Can you give us up the question of the ferry-streams? it is very little, but still I will po. ket that." Again, with respect to Rouse's Point and the long line of frontier be- longing to it, that was a most important concession : the American Govern- ment was well aware of the value of Rouse's Point, and yet it had been ten-

dered to them without being asked for : in reply, they said they were very much obliged, and would take care that Great Britain did not get it again.

(Hear!" and laughter.) Then the Sugar Island had been given up: Ame- rica replied, the surrender was very kind on the part of England, who had almady plenty of sugar islands, while they before had none. With respect to

the mineral district, the noble Lord was in like manner thanked for it ; and, though the Americans did not state it was at present of value, yet they calcu- lated upon getting some rich Englishmen to lend them money to work those mince, which would be a great source of profit to them. All these things had been given up at that stage of the negotiation when Lord Ashburton wished to keep the great territory North of the St. John's river. At the end of the negotiation, the noble Lord had nothing to offer as an equivalent ; and even- tually the noble Lord was in that position that he could only say, " Draw up the treaty, send it to me quickly, and I will sign it."

Lord Palmerston predicted that the concession of Rouse's Point would necessitate the erection of another fort lower down the Richelieu, to keep the Americans in check. To another part of the treaty there was the fashionable application of a sliding scale—

The treaty said the line was to go " to a point on the North-west branch of the river St. John, which point shall be ten miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, in a straight line, and in the nearest direction ; but if the said point shall be found to be less than seven miles from the nearest point or summit or crest of the highlands "—it was almost a Christmas puzzle to define its meaning—" that divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the river St. John, to a point seven miles in a straight line from the said summit or crest." He only hoped that the sliding scale might produce a more satisfactory result in our geographical relations with the United States than with our commercial relations.

Articles 9th and 2d he characterized as making very great steps in regard to the suppression of the slave-trade—backward ; and as aban- doning the explicit pledge of the treaty of Ghent that both parties bound themselves to the abolition of the slave-trade, substituting a valueless engagement. Here he made a digression on the abandonment of the treaty of 1841 by France ; the delay of which he imputed to personal dislike entertained by the French Ministers towards the late English Ministers, and the final abandonment to General Cass, the American Minister in Paris. Lord Aberdeen's letter to the First Lord of the Ad- miralty, condemning the destruction of slave-barrackoons on the coast of Africa, was another retrograde step. He did not apprehend so much as some from the 10th article of the treaty, authorizing the mutual surrender of criminals ; but he censured the correspondence respecting the Creole case— It was not a new case. Application bad been made by America for com- pensation on account of slaves liberated from the Enterprise, wrecked at Ber- muda in 1835, and others liberated from the Comet and Encomium some years before. Compensation was allowed in the case of the earlier vessels, but refused in the case of the Enterprise, on the ground that while slavery was consistent with the municipal law of the country into which the slaves were brought, the owners were entitled to compensation for the seizure of them ; but when the municipal law had refused to recognize slavery any longer, the slaves were simply aliens, and were entitled to their freedom without com- pensation. But Lord Ashburton did not seem to have understood this prin- ciple of law, for he had promised that no "officious interference" should take place for the future, beyond what was necessary for the execution of the muni- cipal law ; by which promise he meant either to give to Mr. Webster the de- sired guarantee, or to amuse him by a quibble. These were Lord Palmerston's objections to the treaty : how likely it was to lead to a lasting peace, was shown by the new proceedings in the American Senate to occupy the Oregon territory, and the declara- tion to Lord Ashburton, at a New York dinner, that other disputed points must be settled in the same spirit as the Boundary question—that of unqualified concession. In the remark of Lord Ashburton, that Boston was "the cradle of American freedom and independence," Spoke the American citizen rather than the British subject. Sir ROBERT PEEL indignantly commented on the unbecoming course taken by Lord Palmerston, who moved for papers which had already been refused, instead of moving a direct vote of censure, which Govern- ment could meet by a direct vote of approbation, and carry it by a large majority. (Cheers.) Sir Robert first took up those parts of Lord Palmerston's speech relating to the subject of slavery ; contending that the provision in the new treaty was a fulfilment of the treaty of Ghent, not a departure from it—

Had Lord Palmerston during his ten years of office been able to persuade the American Government to agree to the right of search ? Had he persuaded them, as Lord Ashburton had done, to cooperate with England on the coast of Africa? The French Government had undoubtedly refused to ratify the treaty; but was that owing, as Lord Palmerston had alleged, to General Cass P—No, but to the noble Lord himself, whose Syrian policy had incensed the French against England. Lord Aberdeen's letter to the Admiralty only bad reference to the prevention of unjustifiable attempts upon slave pro- perty on the coasts of countries not subject to British municipal law. To prevent abuses in the extradition of persona from one country charged with heinous offences in the other—a very necessary measure—a bill would be intro- duced on a future day. On the subject of the slaves imported in the Creole, Lord Ashburton had stated, broadly and decidedly, that the principles of general law bad affirmed the right of the slaves to their liberty, and had denied the claim of the owners to compensation ; but he had made no stipulation, and he had reserved the subject for the consideration of his Government.

With respect to the Oregon territory it was not necessary to say Much-

" We have to deal, however, with the American Government, and not with the Senate ; and from that Government we have on this subject met with no repulse, but we have every reason to hope that in the course of a few months arrangements will be made calculated to preclude the chance of future dif- ferences. If the Senate ever should pass a bill upon the subject, it cannot

take effect without the consent of the Executive Government. Such an event could never be a cause of war. The Executive Government have already sig-

nified to us their sentiments on the subject, and I feel I am quite warranted in the statements which I have been making."

He then turned to the settlement of the Maine Boundary, showing that Lord Ashburton had achieved a settlement, where others had failed through the long course of sixty years— After the lapse of fifty years from 1783, this Government feund itself in a worse position, for the attempted settlement by the treaty of Ghent was a failure. When the United States had declined to accept the decision of the King of the Netherlands, Lord Palmerston for three successive years went on pressing those states to agree to that award ; which would have advanced the American boundary to the crest of the very hills overlooking the St. Law- rence. For those three years he had taken no military opinions upon this boundary ; and now be came forward with a motion condemning this adjust- ment as dangerous to the British frontier. Lord Ashburton, it was said, had no technical skill in diplomacy: to be sure, be was not used to frame proto- cols; but compare what he had done with the acts of the late Ministers in their ten years of power, with the master-mind of the noble Lord to direct them, and the full opportunity of employing Sir Charles Vaughan—and Lord Heytes- bury too, as they bad not suffered him to go and govern India. In 1838, they themselves proposed a compromise, by which to divide the disputed territory ; that was the principle which they then said was the most simple and just. " Now, I wish the House to bear in mind," said Sir Robert Peel, "what it is I am labouring to prove. I want to show, that when we came into tower it was most desirable that we should attempt to effect a conciliatory arrangs. went with America at once, and without the loss of time and the expense of an exploratory commission. What I want to prove is, that the line agreed to and settled by my noble friend is one perfectly consistent with the honour of the country, and one which only a few short years ago the noble Lord was him- self anxious to adopt ; and I think I have already gone far to prove that our course was a wise one, and that by adopting a conventional line, we took the course he was anxious to pursue in 1838." The proposition was agreed to ; but a preliminary convention was necessary with a view to an exploratory commission. There were projets and rontre-projets ; but the attempt had no suc- cess ; and in 1841, just as he was quitting office, he wrote a despatch to Mr. Fox, full of disagreements, dissents, and refusals, but proposing a new com- mission of three scientific men. one to be recommended by Prussia, one by Sar- dinia, and one by Saxony. How did Mr. Fox, his own Minister, receive the proposition ? He said, "For God's sake, if you are to have an arbitration, save us from the philosophers. (Laughter.) Do not send the professors among us." And Mr. Featherstonbaugh, the man of science consulted by the noble Lord himself said, " Such a commission may occupy ten years, and at last perhaps you may have a decision against you." Thus stood the matter when Lord Palmerston left office.

Mr. Webster came into office : when he had had time to look into the papers, he intimated his willingness to settle the matter by a com- promise ; and was it not incumbent on the British Government then to take that offer without delay?- " I ask my gallant and honourable friend, (Sir Howard Douglas,) whether in 1828 he did not apprehend an American subject and bring him to trial for encroachments on the disputed territory, and whether on the very spot on which he was taken a fort was not erected by the authorities of Maine? ("Hear, hear!" from Sir Howard Douglas.) The vast tide of population—that rapid and resistless tide which knows no ebb—presses on from day to day, and each month that passed saw our territory further encroached on ; the dominion we had in 1838 we retained not in 1840; and had we postponed the settlement for another five years, the question would have settled itself by a contest for actual possession." Sir Robert went on to cite the authority of Sir John Harvey, the Governor of New Brunswick, a province into which the people of Maine made a sudden irruption; and of Sir William Colebrooke, Lord Sydenbam, and others, proving the state of excitement kept up on the borders. The state of things in 1841 was such that twenty-two battalions were in Canada, and if they had not settled the question those battalions would have remained there.

He had heard of no imputations against Lord Ashburton which could have precluded him from being chosen for such a commission. It was at Lord Ashburton's own desire alone that he was not called to the Cabinet Council ; and it was at the earnest request of the Administration, that, disregarding private wishes and inclinations, and believing his influence might be beneficial for the preservation of peace, he under- took his important mission ; and it was the Government, therefore, not Lord Ashburton, that would be condemned, were condemnation consi- dered just. Had he taken any basis for his negotiation but "the Dutch- man's line," he must have failed. The Americans, Sir Robert was con- vinced, conscientiously believed in the justice of their claims ; and Lord Palmerston's conduct had strengthened that feeling, by listening to compromise and offering to divide the territory. But Lord Ashburton had effected a better arrangement than the King of Holland's line—

Government were anxious to arrange the boundary so as duly to protect the interests of the North American Provinces in a military point of view. They therefore consulted all the most competent military authorities—Sir Howard Douglas, Sir James Keropt, Lord Seaton, Sir George Murray, and they had the aid of the Duke of Wellington ; and be apprehended that they had

suc-

ceeded in obtaining a boundary more favourable to security. As to the extent of the territory ceded, the new arrangement was also more favourable to this country : Lord Palmerston said that the division of territory by the King of Holland was in these proportions—three-fifths to the United States, and two- fifths only to Great Britain : the boundary of Lord Ashburton gives us a much larger extent of territory—about seven-twelfths to the United States and five-twelfths to Great Britain. Mr. Fcatherstonhaugh calculated the dif- ference in point of acres : by the award of the King of Holland we had about 2,600,000 acres, and the Americans 4,300,000 acres; and by the present division of territory we have about 3,400,000 acres, and the Americans about 3,700,000.

In the United States, some people made similar reproaches against Mr. Webster to those brought here against Lord Ashburton : and in proof Sir Robert Peel quoted some violent language in the Senate by Mr. Benton, " the Palmerston of the United States." But the general feeling in America was favourable to it ; and he begged the House to consider that no arrangement could have been permanent which had not been generally acceptable to the United States. There was the same preponderance of opinion in favour of the treaty in the British provinces—so nearly interested in the terms of the settlement. Mr. Webster had been attacked for not disclosing a red-line map in his possession, which was supposed to establish the English claim of boun- dary. He knew not why Mr. Webster, in an affair of diplomacy, should be assailed for not revealing to his antagonist the weak points of his own case. But maps, after all, were little to be relied on as evidence in matters of this description. Two contemporary maps, published in England, one of them by Faden, the King's Geographer, another in a book which Sir Robert Peel possessed, called Bewes's Journal, gave the line exactly as the Americans claimed it. And so did Mitchell's map, on which was marked the American line. Of that map Lord Palmerston had been in possession ; but Sir Robert Peel presumed he had not communicated it to the Government of America. In truth, no line on any such map proved any thing for this purpose, unless it could be shown to have been the line adopted by the official negotiators. Sir Robert Peel concluded by describing the decision of the House on the motion as substantially involving their opinion as to the adjustment of the specific differences between this country and America ; calling upon them, by rejecting it, to mark their opinion in favour of peace. He sat down amid loud cheers.

Mr. MACAULAY began by disclaiming any against the United States, and avowed that he could not conceive Lord Ashburton to have a personal enemy ; but the declaration of Sir Robert Peel, that he took upon himself and his Government the matter and manner of the nego- tiation, made it doubly necessary to scrutinize the conduct of a respon- sible public servant. Moreover, it was the first state negotiation between England and any foreign country which had been completed by the present Government ; and it was necessary to see how far that Govern- ment, retaining power, as it probably would do, for some time longer, would adopt a policy pacific in truth or pacific only in show. He made the large concession that it was most necessary to take some means of arriving at a settlement of the Boundary question : but there were three essential conditions to a settlement,—that the dignity and honour of the country should in no respect be compromised ; that the treaty should remove all causes of difference, or at least not place this country in a worse position than before; and that the feeling of both countries should be so conciliated as to render the recurrence of differences in the highest degree improbable. With respect to the first point, the British Plenipo- tentiary's letters were marked by a certain humble, cunning, wheedling tone: Lord Ashburton, for instance, urged his opposition to the last war with America as a reason why the United States Government should act with confidence towards him ; a most improper plea for the organ of the Government in 1806, Mr. Fox, negotiating with Talleyrand, did not plead his opposition to the war in 1793 and 1803. Contrast with Lord Ash- burton's manner that of the American Minister. Lord Ashburton hesi- tated to surrender the Madawaska' settlement, on the ground of huma- nity, the inhabitants having expressed great apprehension of being given up by Great Britain : Mr. Webster replied by adopting a statement of the Maine Commissioners, which represented the inhabitants as being actually fugitives from the tyranny of England into a ter- ritory which they supposed to belong to the United States : Lord Ashburton rejoined by quietly giving them up ; expressing great respect for the Maine Commissioners. Why should the Queen of Eng- land ask to retain control over her subjects on the ground of " hu- manity " ? And if it were necessary that this country should submit to that disgrace, why not settle the surrender by oral negotiation, instead of parading our humiliation before the world in the written correspond- ence? Mr. Macaulay referred generally to the tone of the correspond- ence for a proof of his position. With respect to our being placed in a worse position, he confined himself to one point ; contending that the 8th article of the treaty, establishing the independent American and British fleets on the coast of Africa, practically surrendered the right of search. He insisted, against Sir Robert Peel, that the American Se- nate is part of the Executive power ; and in the Senate Mr. Ryles had declared that the 8th article of the treaty was so much waste paper. In fact, the Queen had ratified the treaty in the sense that it does not abandon the right of visit, and the American President had ratified it in the sense that it does so. Did any one ever hear of such a mode as that of settling long-disputed questions between the two countries, and laying the foundation of long-continued amity ? It was remarkable that, throughout the correspondence, not a single line was to be found in ex- planation of the article; every thing respecting it seemed to have passed in conversation. Which, then, of two suppositions was to be adopted—that in conversation with Mr. Webster, Lord Ashburton let fall some observations which induced him to believe that the right was abandoned ? [Sir Robert Peel expressed dissent] or that Lord Ashbur- ton, in his conferences with Mr. Webster, allowed his speech to get the better of him ?— " I have sometimes observed that that able and ingenious man," said Mr. Macaulay, "when on the floor of this House, allowed his speech to get the mastery of Lim ; and so he has given utterance to words which he had not well weighed before, nor could accurately remember after."

On the first day of the session, Sir Robert Peel was obliged to rise himself in the House of Commons and contradict what the American President had said about the 8th article! The two independent squadrons on the coast of Africa met under circumstances in which it was all but impossible that cases of collision should not arise. The policy of the Government, though intended to promote a pacific arrange- ment, was more likely than any policy hitherto adopted by this country to cause before long a devastating war.

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS entered into a brief account of the encroach- ments of the United States on the disputed territory. When be was first appointed Governor of New Brunswick, in 1823, he at once felt the necessity of urging a definitive settlement of the boundary. A Mr. Baker was sent by Maine to warn the people of Madawaska not to serve in the English Militia ; and in the exercise of his authority, Mr. Baker for a time detained the mail-bags and warned the postman off the ground : Sir Howard caused Mr. Baker to be arrested ; refused to treat with the authorities of Maine ; had him tried, and he was fined and imprisoned. On the very spot where Mr. Baker was arrested, Lord Palmerston had permitted the Americans to build Fort Jervis, and not far from it Fort Fairfield ! In October 1831, some gentlemen from Maine came into the Madawaska settlement to direct the election of municipal officers for the Penobscot district : his successor, Sir Archibald Campbell, caused those persons to be arrested ; the American Government demanded their release, which Sir Archibald refused ; but on application to the British Ambassador at Washington they were released ! Successive encroachments by the United States had been permitted by Lord Palmerston, until at last nothing was left for the present Government to do, but to make a conventional line, or to go to war. Sir Howard Douglas averred that the arrangement of Lord Ash- burton had not in the slightest degree impaired the defence of New Brunswick.

At this point, Mr. Baoronarox caused the debate to be adjourned, at a quarter past one o'clock iu the morning. It was resumed on Wednesday, by Sir CHARLES NIX=; who had listened with great pleasure to Lord Palmerston's speech ; and also to Sir Robert Peel's, though it was not very short. Considering that it travelled over sixty years of negotiations, Lord Palmerston's could not have been more condensed— The right honourable Baronet bad got up to answer that speech with con- siderable warmth, and with an excited manner ; • and be thought it often hap- pened that when the right honourable Baronet failed in argument, he endea- voured to fetter their judgment by the power of his eloquence, and also by the strength of his action. He confessed that he always admired the right honour- able Baronet ; but towards the end of his speeches he was considerably bewil- dered, so eloquent was his language and so expressive was his manner. Last night, a mist, something like a dream, had come over his eyes during the right honourable Baronet's speech, which had almost the effect of mesmerism, and obliged him to retire from the House, so as to prevent his hearing the speech of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, in every word of which he agreed. (Great laughter from the Ministerial benches.) He ought to have said that he had read it that morning. Sir Charles dilated upon several topics touched upon by previous speakers. To the 8th article of the treaty he particularly objected, that in pledging America to keep a squadron of eighty guns on the coast of Africa, it did not specify the size of the guns : four schooners with twenty swivel-guns each would form a compliance with the letter of the treaty. And as the right of search had not been distinctly recognized, he feared that, were we engaged in a war with another power, the first thing that America would do, if we should press our own seamen, would be to declare war against this country. He successively en- larged upon the concessions of the Madawaska settlements, the boun- dary of the St. John, and Rouse's Point. On the subject of the last, he quoted the subjoined passage from a report by an American officer on the national defences and boundaries, laid before Congress- " A work here, on Lake Champlain, may be made to command the pass of the Lake, and is considered by far the moat important of any proposed on the whole line of frontier. The position of Lake Champlain is somewhat peculiar : while Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior, stretch their whole length along the frontier, (forming, in fact, the boundary,) Champlain extends deeply, into our territory ; and while its Southern extremity reaches almost to the Hudson, it finds its outlet to the North in the St. Lawrence, nearly midway between Montreal and Quebec, the two great objects of attack. This is undoubtedly the course by which the British possessions can be most effectually assailed; while at the same time it would afford to the enemy, possessing a naval supe- riority, equal facilities for bringing the war within our own borders, if it be left unfortified."

He could understand Sir Robert Peel's anxiety, finding the country at war in China and India, to settle all differences with America as speedily as possible ; and Lord Ashburton appeared to have been sent out with the determination to effect a settlement, no matter how dis- advantageous to this country. The result was a most unwise and im- politic measure.

Mr. DISRAELI was surprised that Sir Charles Napier had not said one word in favour of the argument of Lord Palmerston's speech, after what had occurred that day— In the course of the morning he saw two spirited horses run over an old woman; and, on inquiring to whom they belonged, he was told that they were Sir Charles Napier's horses, who was then on a visit to Lord Palmerston. It was to be presumed that the gallant Member had visited the noble Lord to be crammed for his speech of that night ; and certainly, if that were the case, the gallant officer was crammed with a speech in a condensed form.

Mr. Disraeli addressed himself to strengthen some points of argument to which Sir Robert Peel bad already adverted more generally. The treaty of Washington embodied more favourable terms than the King of the Netherlands' award, which Lord Palmerston so strongly urged America to accept. He regretted, indeed, that that award had not been accepted by America, for it would have prevented the evils which re- sulted from the insurrection in Canada • but still, better terms had now been obtained ; as be showed by simply stating the provisions of the treaty- " In the first place, Lord Ashburton relinquished a strip of land running near Vermont and New York; he also gave up an angle of land near the source of the river Connecticut. These were the two portions of territory which the noble Lord bad consented to abandon : but we received an equiva- lent for this land, our title to which was not disputed—we received a strip of land contiguous to New Brunswick. For the surrender of the piece of land near the source of the Connecticut river, Lord Ashburton obtained the con- cession of a district of territory, which was also a most important military frontier. As far as regarded the extent of territory that had thus been ex- changed, he would only say, that we had given up to the Americans 100,000 acres, and that we bad received in return upwards of a million of acres. So much for the amount of the territory exchanged under this treaty; but in ad. dition, we obtained a most important military frontier for Canada, and at no point was any portion of the State of Maine brought nearer to Quebec than before. Supposing that we had extended to America the navigation of the river St. John, and that this was a great advantage to America, still it would be seen that, by the 7th article of the treaty of Washington, America gave to us an equivalent in the free navigation of the St. Lawrence. It appeared that there were separate channels in the river St. Lawrence, on both sides the Long Sault Islands and Bouchart Island, the channels in the river Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the Ca- nadian and American shores. The navigation of the river St. Lawrence, then, might be taken as being divided at this spot into two channels; one of which was broad and shallow, but almost dry, and therefore often unnavigable in the summer; this was the Canadian channel. The American channel was much narrower, but was of considerable depth, and was always open. This division of the navigation of the river between the two countries at this place was made by one of the articles of the treaty of Ghent; and ever since that time, if the channel on one side of the river was shallow, our vessels could not pass through the American channel without asking permission. He contended, therefore, that by opening the navigation of this important river to both nations, we had gained more than an equivalent to any sacrifice that could be made by opening the navigation of the river St. John."

He disputed the importance of Rouse's Point as a military post— It was well known that Lake Champlain was an American lake, and the en- trance to it was by a passage up a river which runs into the St. Lawrence. Rouse's Point was situated two miles from this river, and the navigation could only be impeded by a force advancing from this place. But there were two other really strong fortresses near the mouth of this river, which belonged to this country, and which in time of war could be easily made available for the purpose of impeding the navigation. On Rouse's Point, however, there was no fortress; nor could one be erected there that would be of any serious conse- quence. The buildings that formerly stood there had been neglected, and the fort was in rains; and great doubts were entertained if any one would ,ever think of erecting a fort there again. He explained the nature of the " red-line map," about which so much bad been said ; having seen it at Paris— It was a map eighteen inches square, by D'Anville ; one of the smallest maps that D'Anville had ever drawn. It was not a map of Canada, or of the disputed territory, but a map of North America; and consequently this broad red line—(A member opposite—" Strong")—well, this strong red line, would itself cover, and did cover, a portion of the map equal to the disputed territory. (Laughter and cheers.) See what a small space Maine itself would occupy on a map of North America eighteen inches square. That was the map by D'Anville : but there was in England another map, which he supposed was the map yesterday referred to by the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Government, of greater dimensions, but which was also marked with a strong red line, giving the limits according to the American claim. That was the map by Mitchell; a map which was recognized as of authority, having been brought from the collection of his late Majesty. King George the Third, who, it was well known, had taken a great personal interest in the affairs of Canada and of North America generally. Now, it might be a question whether either of those maps had guided the negotiations ; but there could be no doubt which of these two maps was the authoritative one—which of the maps had been used by the American negotiators in 1782. He would refer to a private letter from Dr. Franklin to Mr. Livingstone, in 1782, not quoted by Mr. Sparks, printed in a work published twenty-five years ago by Mr. Temple, Dr. Frank- lin's grandson, which contained the whole of Dr. Franklin's correspondence while he was in Paris. Dr. Franklin, in this letter, says—" I am perfectly clear in my recollection that the map we used in the negotiations was the one drawn by Mr. Mitchell about twenty years ago; and that we relied much on the opinion of Mr. Adams, who was concerned in the former discussion as to this treaty." Here was a clear proof that the map used by the negotiators at that time was not D'Anville's scrubby eighteen-inch affair, but Mr. Mit- chell's.

Mr. Disraeli described attacks made on Mr. Oswald, the British ne- gotiator in 1782-3 ; whom Lord Shelburne, having choice among a host of the ablest diplomatists, said that he had chosen "for the simple rea- son that he was fitted for the great work that was to be done, by the qualities both of his head and his heart—because he was a man inflexi- bly upright, because he had been long and laboriously engaged in com- merce, and was well versed in the local knowledge of America": pre- cisely the reasons for which Lord Ashburton had been selected ; so con- stantly does history reproduce itself. He defended Mr. Webster on the score of not having produced the "red-line " map— As to the imputations which had been thrown out upon the American Minister in this matter—as to the non-production of this map and so forth— they were absurd. It was understood that when Lord Ashburton was sent out on a special mission to settle this question, it was to settle the question on the principles of compromise and convention ; and Mr. Webster very rightly consi- dered that it would be most unwise to produce any of the old elements of mis- conception between the two countries—any of the old documents on either side.

In the course of some further observations, he ridiculed Lord Palmerston's boast that he had maintained peace for ten years ; when he had been on the verge of war with Russia, France, and America, and actually at war in tha Levant, Afghanistan, and China.

Mr. Rawss rose to oppose the motion. He began by saying, that he should express an opinion on the question somewhat different from that which had been expressed by Members on his side of the House. He saw the origin of the differences with America in the attempt of the negotiators to describe a line over a country which had never been ex- plored or surveyed—

Here Mr. Hawes was interrupted with the remark that there were not forty Members present. The SPEAKER counted thirty-four; and there- upon left the chair, at a quarter past seven o'clock.

On Thursday, Mr. HUME asked Lord PALMERSTON, whether be had any intention of renewing the debate, which had terminated so disgrace- fully to that House ? (Ministerial cheers.)

Lord PALMERSTON replied-

" I beg to say that I do not intend to give any further notice of motion on the subject. (Cheers on the Ministerial side.) My object was to have the question discussed; and I am quite satisfied with that which has taken place:' (Renewed cheers. A short pause.) "By way of explanation, I may add, that after the statement of the right honourable Baronet at the head of the Govern- ment, that he could not without prejudice to the public service grant the papers for which I bad moved, I could not have pressed my motion to a divi- sion."

Mr. HUME said, "Then, Sir, I now beg to give notice, that on Friday the 31st instant, I shall submit the following resolution to the House- " That the House, looking to the long-protracted negotiations between the Government of this country and that of the United States of North America as to the settlement of the North-western boundary, and taking into considera- tion the state of our foreign relations in October 1841, is of opinion, that the treaty of Washington is alike honourable and advantageous to each of the high contracting parties; and that the thanks of this House are due to the Ministers who advised, as well as to the right honourable Lord Ashburton, who had negotiated and concluded that treaty." (This announcement was received with loud cheers from both sides of the Rouse.)

Subsequently, Lord PALMERSTON, correcting an error into which he had fallen on Tuesday, stated that Lord Ashburton was not an American citizen.

IRISH POOR-LAW.

Mr. Srarrm O'BRIEN moved, on Thursday, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which the Act for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland (1 and 2 Viet. c. 56) has been carried into operation ; and also as to the results of that measure upon the condition of the poor and of society at large in Ireland, with power to report their opinion to the House in reference to any modifications of the Poor-law which may appear to them desirable. He alluded to the opposition of the peasantry to the enforcement of the law ; and complained at great length of the power of the Commissioners, the workhouse dietary, the cost of the workhouses, (1,200,000/. having been spent on ill-constructed buildings,) the size of the unions, the removal of Mr. Phelan, a Roman Catholic Commissioner, and of the neglect of emigration as a means of improving the condition of the Irish people. While he was speaking, a fruitless attempt was made to count out the House ; which drew from him an indignant remark on the little attention paid to an important Irish question.

Lord ELIOT called to mind that the members of the present Govern- ment bad not supported the Irish Poor-law, or had rendered it a hesita- ting support, to show that their predilections were not originally in its fit-

your. He defended the resident Commissioner in Dublin, Mr. Nichols; and quoted letters from various parts of Ireland to prove that opi- nion against the working of the law was by no means unanimous. The causes of the dissatisfaction that did prevail were twofold,—first, there were deficiencies in the existing law ; and next, gross and he be- lieved wilful misrepresentations prevailed on the subject of those defi- ciencies. The Government, however, had a measure prepared to remedy the defects adverted to in the law ; and as that was the case, he thought the appointment of a Committee would be absurd. The re- moval of Dr. Phelan rested solely with the Commissioners, and had been dictated by economy ; Dr. Phelan having completed a report on the medicaltharities of Ireland, for which he had been appointed.

The motion was supported by Sir DENHAM NORREYS, Mr. FRENCH, Sir ROBERT FERGUSON, and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD ; it Wa8 opposed by Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT, Sir HENRY WINSTON BARRON, Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. Ross, and Lord BERNARD.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, who opposed the motion, stated, that the Go- vernment measure would deal with all branches of the law of which Mr. O'Brion had complained. To agree to the Committee wonld lead to most serious misconceptions, as it was the distinct intention the Government to adhere to the principle of the existing Poor-law Ireland.

The motion was negatived, by 108 to 23.

SCOTCH POOR-LAW COMMISSION.

The Earl of ROSEBERY called the attention of the Lords, on Monday, to the Commission of Inquiry into the operation of the Scotch Poor-laws. He admitted that the persons selected were unexceptionable ; but he regretted that, in addition to the persons appointed, there had not been two or three Commissioners who could better report the condition, the wants, the situation, and the feelings of the population of the great towns. And Dr. Alison, who had administered to the distresses of so many, and had written works upon the subject, should have been a Commissioner. The Duke of WELLINGTON defended the composition of the Commission, as calculated, from the high character of the noble- men and gentlemen in it, and the selection of the religious ministers, to give satisfaction in Scotland ; and Mr. Twisseltou had obtained an accurate knowledge of the working of the Poor-law in this country, and bad been engaged in investigating the distress of the town popu- lation at Paisley. Lord CAMPBELL hoped there would be no change in the principle of the Scotch law. The Earl of HADDINGTON remarked, that Dr. Macfarlan, of Leith, was a minister in a large and populous town. The matter then dropped.

SUPPLY.

The House of Commons went into:Committee of Supply on Mon- day. On the vote of 18,182,1001. to meet Exchequer Bills, Mr GOULBURN stated, that the interest paid on Deficiency Bills to the Bank was 2d., the same as the amount paid to the public. The interest payable on the Exchequer Bills issued on Saturday was lid. Mr. Wii.- raem WILLIAMS said that the interest might be reduced to lid. or lid. without injary to the public, and with a saving of 150,0001. He was supported by Mr. HUME and Dr. BowRING. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER contended, that the interest, which was paid annually, should not be regulated according to the fluctuating interest paid in the market for money. Mr. DIVETT opposed the suggestion of further re- ducing the interest. The vote was agreed to.

Sir GEORGE CLERK proposed a vote of 200,919/. for the Commis- sariat. Mr. HUME, assuming that at a period of distress every mode of lessening the expenditure should be adopted, urged the reduction of our Colonial expenditure. Canada, if allowed the use of the prerogative granted to it, would pay its own expenses. Sir ROBERT PEEL remarked, that our whole military force, exclusive of that in India, was but 95,000 ; 10,000 less than the regular army of France. Of that number, 45,147 were in our Colonies; the necessary consequence of the vast accessions made to our Colonial possessions within the last thirty years. The estimates were not greater than the efficiency of our establish- ments required. Mr. flume some time since asked for a reduction of the forces in India and China, on the ground that matters had come to a close : but he did not put implicit faith in the aspect which affairs then bore ; and the result showed that it was better for the House to have adopted his advice than that of Mr. Hume. Mr. FRANCIS BARING, Lord Jolts RUSSELL, and Mr. BERNAL would not object to the pro- posed expenditure : it was opposed by Mr. WILLIAMS but ultimately agreed to.

The vote of 110,0001. for Civil :Contingencies was postponed, with Sir ROBERT PEEL'S concurrence ; Mr. Hums and Mr. WILLIAMS stating that they had not had time to examine several of the items included in it ; and the Committee adjourned.

COST OF ROYAL PALACES AND GROUNDS.

Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS moved, on Thursday, for an account of the public money expended on each of the Royal Palaces, Gardens, en' Parks, and the appurtenances thereof ; stating the amount of expenditure from Parliamentary grants, Crown revenues surrendered to the public by Civil List Acts and other sources, and also the amount of the salaries or other emoluments received by the Rangers and Deputy Rangers in each year from 1811 to 1842 inclusive. The expenditure on the palaces within the last eight years had been 458,000/. ; on the Royal Parks and Grounds, 433,0001. ; and, making some necessary deductions and additions, the total outlay was 940,0001. Some of the Palaces were scarcely ever used by the Queen—such as Claremont Palace; Hampton Court was reserved for the pensioners of the Government; and Kew Palace, he believed, for the King of Hanover. In such times of finan- cial distress, the expenditure should be limited to what was absolutely necessary for the comfort of the Queen.

The Earl of LINCOLN objected to the returns, as impracticably exten-

sive and costly ; and proposed to limit them to five years. The average expenditure on the Royal Palaces had been 40,000/. a year, and on the Parks 20,000/. Hampton Court with its collection of pictures was a source of popular enjoyment. And the present Government had re- commended as pensioners in that palace none but the most fit recipients of the Royal bounty ; the last being the Marchioness of Wellesley and the sister of Mr. Drummond. The King of Hanover retains only a small house on Kew Green ; and Claremont Palace is the private pro- perty of the King of the Belgians. Mr. HOME, supporting the motion, remarked that it was much to the credit of the King of the Belgians, that since he left this country he bad not pocketed one shilling of the public money : he wished he could say the same with regard to the 21,0001. given to the King of Hanover.

Sir ROBERT PEEL contended that the Earl of Lincoln's proposition would afford every necessary information ; and he argued that the Parks were kept up, not for the Queen's use, but for the recreation and benefit of the public. He referred to the great expenses incurred in the late christening, in the visit of the King of Prussia, and in the Royal progress to Scotland; all of which had been defrayed from the Queen's privy purse, without any application for aid from the public, except in respect of a small sum laid out on Windsor Castle when the Prince of Wales was christened ; and he reminded the House that the Queen had submitted her household to the Income-tax. The whole of those ex- penses were provided for by a system of economy. The returns, as amended, were ordered.

LORD DENMAN AND SIR THOMAS WILDE.

A very long and somewhat curious conversation, arising out of the Privilege debate in the Commons, took place in the House of Lords on Monday. Lord DENMAN drew attention to a report in the Morning Chronicle, of Sir Thomas Wilde's speech on Wednesday, in which he

was made to misrepresent Lord Denman's words in the judgment on Stockdale's case. According to the report, Sir Thomas represented the Judge as saying, " it mattered little whether or not licentious books might be read by the inmates of a prison, old and young persons, placed there with a view to their reformation and amendment"; ; whereas what be actually did say was this- " The defamatory matter has no bearing on any question in Parliament, or that could arise there. Whether the book found in the possession of a pri- soner in Newgate were obscene or decent, could have no influence in determin- ing how prisons can be best regulated; still less could the irrelevant issue whether it was published by the plaintiff. The most advisable course of legis- lation on the subject is wholly unconnected with those facts ; the inquisitorial functions would be exercised with equal freedom and intelligence, however they were found to be ; and if the ascertainment of them by the House was a thing indifferent, still less could the publication of them to the world answer any one Parliamentary purpose."

Lord Denman proceeded to justify that judgment ; referring to the high character of the Judges who had concurred in it—Mr. Justice Littledale, Mr. Justice Patteson, and Mr. Justice Coleridge.

Lord BROUGHAM produced a letter from Sir Thomas Wilde ; stating

that he had been astonished to find what was fabricated for him in the report of his speech by the Morning Chronicle. In reality, he had re- presented Lord Denman as arguing, that with reference to the privi- leges of the House of Commons, the existence of the books and their use by the prisoners were not necessarily involved in the report. Lord Brougham hoped that the example of Sergeant Wilde's disclaimer would be followed up either by a worthy Baronet, who was said to be the proprietor of the paper in question, or by some other person who had the superintendence of that paper. That worthy Baronet was a Mem- ber of the other House of Parliament, and was therefore in a situation to be aware of the falsehood of the charge that had been made—less against Lord Denman than Sir Thomas Wilde, to whom the words had been attributed. He admitted, that generally speaking the reports were given with great fairness and impartiality to all parties ; but he reminded the proprietors of newspapers and the public, that though the law shielded Members of Parliament for what they might say in their place, it did not shield the publisher of libels uttered in Parliament. In Lord Denmau's judgment on Stockdale's case he entirely concurred.

Lord CAMPBELL, giving Lord Denman full credit on the score of anxiety to maintain the public morals, agreed with Sir Thomas Wilde, j

that the Judges were not justified in determining upon the privileges of either House of Parliament.

While Lord Campbell was speaking, there was a loud talking on the woolsack, between Lord Abinger, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Denman, and Lord Brougham. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE twice, in a loud voice, called " Order, order!" Lord BRouGHAst started suddenly up from the woolsack, and, with great warmth, addressing Lord Lans- downe, cried out, " I should like to know where the disorder is : I am not aware of any disorder !" He was answered by renewed cries of " Order, order ! with " Hear, liear ! " Lord LANSDOWNE said, he had not called order until the four noble lords on the woolsack talked so loud that he could not hear what was passing. Lord BaouGHAm—" Ay, but the noble Marquis did not call order until all the talking was over." (A laugh.)

Lord CAMPBELL proceeded. He contended, moreover, that if the sub- ject matter of the Parliamentary paper was an inquiry into the condition and internal management of gaols, it might be most essential to state that books of an obscene and licentious character were in the hands of the prisoners : it might be necessary as a step towards some alteration. Lord Denman had pronounced a glowing panegyric on the judgment delivered by himself and his colleagues on the Bench : on the other hand, the judgment had been condemned by all Westminster Hall ; and the Act of Parliament which had been passed on the subject, and which declared it " essentially necessary to the due performance of the func- tions of the two Houses of Parliament that they should have the privi- lege of pnblishing whatever of their proceedings they think may be essential for public information," was virtually a reversal of the judg- ment.

Lord ABINGER insisted that the opinion of Westminster Hall was ge- nerally in common with the judgment ; and Lord DENMAN appealed to the act as proof that the House of Commons did not previously possess the privilege asserted, or else where was the necessity of legislation ? Lord BnouGHAm again, joined in the contest ; and attributed Lord Campbell's persistence in his opinion to annoyance at his discomfiture as counsel, against whose arguments, urged for sixteen hours, the Judges had decided. The Duke of WELLINGTON remarked, that Lord Denman himself had, in the House of Lords, supported that bill which Lord Campbell described as reversing the judgment. Lord CAMPBELL ag..in asserted that all the lawyers in the House of Commons, some of them now members of the Government, were against the judgment. Lord BROUGHAM remarked, that each time Lord Campbell had ad- dressed himself to the House he had not improved his argument. Lord CAMPBELL—" How often have you spoken ?" Lord BROUGHAM —" How often have you spoken ? "

After a few more remarks, the subject dropped. Sir Thomas WILDE repeated this explanation in the House of Come mons, on Tuesday ; admitting however, that he had used terms of too strong censure.

LORD BROUGHAM AND LORD LYNEDOCH.

Lord BROUGHAM, on Tuesday, called attention to another personal matter. The report of some former remarks of his had proved un- pleasing to Lord Lynedoch. It appears that he had quoted observa- tions by " some ridiculous member of the League " about Lord Lyne- doch and the siege of St. Sebastian, which had been attributed to Lord Brougham himself. He had also spoken of Lord Lynedoch as a mem- ber of the League ; which he is not. Lord Lynedoch had sent him an extremely friendly letter, asking him to correct those points • and in answer he sent a correct extract from his speech, and promised to con- tradict in his place the statement that Lord Lynedoch was a member

of the League. Before, however, he received Lord Lynedoelfs letter, there appeared in a Scotch paper a statement, that he had received a hostile message from that nobleman ; and the assertion was copied into the London papers. Nothing could be more ludicrous than the idea of a venerable man, upwards of ninety years of age, and suffering from physical inability, writing a challenge. But Lord Brougham expressed his determination of asserting the privilege of Parliament, and bringing to the bar of the House the printers of the newspapers that dared to utter such scandalous and scurrilous statements as that of which he complained.

MISCELLANEOUS.

CANADA CORN-TRADE. Mr. EWART asked on Thursday, whether,

under the intended measure, foreign corn, imported from any part of the world into Canada, could on paying the three-shilling duty be exported thence to this country free, like United States corn ? Mr. GLADSTONE supposed that Mr. Ewart made the common mistake of thinking that the law regards foreign produce imported into colonies and reexported hither as colonial produce ; which is not the case. Bat raw materials, brought into the colonies, manufactured there and then imported into this country, were considered as articles of colonial produce, inasmuch as all manufactured articles were considered as the produce of the countries where they were manufactured. Mr. EWART wished to know whether flour was considered as a manufactured article? Mr. GLADSTONE said that it was. In reply to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. GLADSTONE said that it was the intention of Government to introduce a bill on the subject after Easter.

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND COLONIZATION. The motion on Syste- matic Colonization, by Mr. CHARLES BULLER, which stood for Thursday the 23d instant, has been postponed to Thursday the 6th April. It is now entered in the following terms- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will

take into her most gracious consideration the means by which extensive and systematic colonization may be most effectually. rendered available for augment- ing the resources of her Majesty's empire, giving additional employment to capital and labour, both in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies, and thereby bettering the condition of her people."

THE Doc-cater Bus., to prevent the use of dogs in tracks and such carriages throughout the country, was opposed on the report, on Wed- nesday, by Mr. BARCLAY ; who moved that it be reported that day six months. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX supported the bill, on the ground of the dog's structural unfitness for draught, of the cruelty to which he is subjected by hawkers, and of the tendency of the work to produce hydrophobia. All these points were contravened by Mr. HOME; who asserted the real cruelty of many sports in which dogs are used by the rich, and defended the vested rights of poor traders. Eventually, the report was carried, by 100 to 54. The order that the bill be read a third time on Thursday, opposed by Mr. Hume, was affirmed by 97 to 46.

Scorrisu CHURCH. At the request of Lord BROUGHAM, on Tuesday, Lord CAMPBELL postponed his motion on the Scotch Church from the 27th to the 31st instant.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Before the Athlone Elect:on Committee, on Tuesday, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham gave up the case for the defence ; the fatal proof being, the payment of money by Mr. Farrell's agent to the landlord of' a public- house. The Committee passed the following resolutions, which were reported to the House— That Daniel H. Farrell, Esq., is not duly elected as a burgess for the town of Athlone to serve in the present Parliament.

That the last election for Athlone was a void election.

" That D. H. Farrell, Esq., was, by himself and his agent, Mr. Henry French, guilty of treating. That an objection was raised to the validity of the election on the ground of want of due notice, four days being declared neces- sary by the statute of 1 Geo. IV. cap: II, and that such notice had not been given ; but the Committee are of opinion, that the result of the election was not affected by the want of such notice. It appears further, that the law in Ireland is different to what it is in England on the subject. The statute of I Vic. did not extend to Ireland; which the Committee deemed it advisable should be the case."

The Nottingham Committee closed its inquiry on Thursday. The evidence was generally uninteresting ; consisting of technical proof of agency, and proof of small acts of bribery, all pretty much alike. The evidence of one witness, Charles Clark, may serve as a specimen-

" I am a voter of Nottingham. On Tuesday night, Hibbard and Pickering asked me to vote for Walter. I told them I did not intend to vote. Hibbard then whispered into my ear, that if I would vote for Walter there would be 51. for me after the election, if 1 would not say any thing. Hibbard then in- vited me to go to his house, and drink whatever I pleased. I went there seve- ral times and drank, without paying for it. I polled for Mr. Walter. I told Hibbard and Pickering that I had gone through, after the election. Hibbard said he would call and leave what he had promised at my house. On Satur- day, I went to Hibbard's again, and went up stairs. The staircase was lined with men, waiting, as they toll me, to be paid. I saw Hibbard and some other

i

gentlemen. He put 10s. into my hand, and said he would call and leave the rest at my house. I was not satisfied. Got two tickets afterwards instead, to go to the Castle. Heard Mr. Ireland say to say master, that if he would vote for Walter he would give him an order to supply goods to the entertainment at the Castle. My master received the order and executed it. The amount sup- plied was about 151. 10s." On Tuesday a question was raised, whether or not the Committee could admit in evidence the evidence taken before Mr. Roebuck's Committee. It was decided that it was prevented by the Act of Indemnity. The next day and the following were taken up by the addresses of counsel. The Committee passed a resolution which set forth a list of twenty-seven voters who had received bribes, in sums ranging from 7s. 6d. to 3/., but mostly of 11. each ; as much as 51. having been promised in some in- stances. They also resolved- " That John Walter, Esq., was not duly elected a burgess for the Borough of Nottingham at the last election. That the election for the borough of Nottingham was a void election. That John Walter, Esq., through his agents, bad been guilty of bribery and treating. That it has not been proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge and consent of the said John Walter, Esq."

These resolutions were reported to the House on Thursday evening ; and a long conversation ensued as to the course of proceeding. The Earl of LINCOLN moved that the evidence should be printed ; and inti- mated that unless Mr. Hogg, the Chairman of the Committee, moved to suspend the writ for a new election, he should do so. The motion for printing was carried. Mr. H000 said, that he had no authority from the Committee as to the suspension of the writ ; but in his individual capacity he moved that it be suspended for a fortnight. Lord JOHN RUSSELL deprecated the notion that in all such cases the writ should be suspended ; and Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. HAW Es objected to the establishment of such a precedent. The motion was withdrawn ; and then Mr. HOME, to bring the question to a decision, moved that the writ do now issue ; the Earl of LINCOLN moving as an amendment that it do not issue till that day week. The suspension in the particular case was supported by Sir GEORGE GREY, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. GOULBURN • and opposed by Mr. FRENCH, Mr. Hoot, Mr. AGLIONBY, and dr. COCHRANE. Ultimately, the amendment, suspending the writ for a week, was carried, by 91 to 69.