28 JULY 1849, Page 10

POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY NIGHT.

Both Houses of Parliament transacted a great variety of business yes- terday, chiefly in the way of advancing bills.

The Peers listened for some time to critical complaints by Lord BROUGHAM of what he deemed trivial or mischievous alterations made in his Bankruptcy Law Consolidation Bill by the Commons; but he wound up by proposing that, at so advanced a period, the House should agree to all the amendments except a few; which was done.

In the other House, two of the many conversations assumed the import- ance of debates. Mr. ANSTEY opposed the Slave-trade (Persian Gulf) Bin, as tending to embarrass our relations with Arabian chiefs whose independ- ence of Persia is uncertain; and to hamper our commercial proceedings as all slave-trade treaties continually do. He moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. Sir EDWARD COLEBROOK& seconded the motion. Lord PALMERSTON was sorry to observe the abstract love of slavery exhibited in the speeches of the mover and seconder. He declared that there was not the slightest doubt about the independence of the Arab chiefs; and that the slaves whom the bill was designed to protect specially claim our sympathy, because they are mostly Abyssinian Christians. Several other Members spoke on either side. Ultimately the amend- ment was withdrawn; several attempts at 'verbal amendment were negati- ved; and the bill passed.

The other debate arose on the question whether the House should waive its privileges by assenting to the amendments of the Lords in the Poor- Relief (Ireland) Bill, although those amendments touched upon rates. The SPEAKER stated, that the House had waived its privileges in regard to the Irish Municipal Bill of 1834, and the Irish Poor-laws of 1838 and '47. Lord JoHN RUSSELL observed, that in the case of a poor-law the Peers could scarcely handle it without infringing the privileges of the Commons. He moved that the Lords' amendments should be considered. Sir JAMES GRAHAM objected to strengthening such doubtful precedents by continuing a string of them; and he proposed a different course, which had been taken in the case of a local bill,—namely, that the Lords' amendments should be taken into consideration that day six months; and that a fresh bill should be introduced, embodying the amendments, to be passed through all its stages at once. After a longish debate, in which the majority of speakers were against the Government mode, Sir James Graham's amendment was negatived; the House proceeded to consider the amendments; and they were for the most part adopted.

Both Houses adjourned till this day—the Lords to meet at noon, the Commons at two o'clock.

The House of Lords met today at noon: more than a score of bills were advanced a stage, and the Royal Assent was given to sixty-five public and private bills—including the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Incumbered Esta- tes (Ireland) Bill, with some other Irish measures. A conference was held with the Commons on the amendments to the Poor-relief (Ireland) Bill; which the Peers are to reconsider on Monday.

The House of Commons met at two o'clock, and also pushed forward innumerable measures with headlong celerity. Mr. BErusan remarked the impossibility of checking the alterations in several of the number which had been amended by the Lords, and sent down that very day. Mr. Fox Meurx said, that the President of the Railway Board had been desirous of introducing an amendment into a Railway Bill which had come down from the Lords that morning, but had been prevented by the lateness. Then, said Mr. DISRAELI' the prorogation was premature. Subsequently, Lord Joins RUSSELL said there would be plenty of time to consider the amendments, and that the prorogation would not take place till Wednesday. Mr. Beruaz moved an address to the Crown, praying the appointment of a Commission to inquire on the spot into the means taken to suppress the insurrection in Ceylon; the Committee having been unable to com- plete its inquiry without evidence from that island. Lord Joins RUSSELL opposed the motion on the grounds that it implied a prime facie case against the Governor Lord Torrington; that the Committee advanced no evidence in support of it; and that it would be better to reappoint the Committee. The motion was negatived by 90 to 33.