The Royal illness has this week led to important proceedings

in Parliament. On Monday, both Houses received a Message from his Majesty, requiring them to relieve him from the pain of sign- ing public instruments. A bill has since been carried, authorizing the use of a stamp instead of the Royal signature ; all the se- curities that the case admits of have been devised by Ministers to prevent the possibility of abuse during the administration of this delegated power. Some of the old Whigs, however, and some of the Tories, who have of late been serving an apprenticeship to the trade of opposition, have seized the opportunity to express much zeal on the necessity of preserving the liberties of the country from the possible risk that may attend Such a precedent. While our afilicted Monarch has been divesting himself of the cares of royalty, Prince LEOPOLD has incurred the displeasure of Lord ABERDEEN by refusing to allow himself to be forced upon the Greeks as their sovereign. His resignation was communi- cated to Parliament on Monday. On the same day, it was carried in the House of Commons, that Forgery shall still be punished with death. The question of a Representative Government for the Cape of Good Hope, came afterwards before the House. On Tuesday, an address was voted for the removal of Sir JONAH BAR- nnvcfrox • a motion for the repeal of Dramatic Censorship was lost; and state of Canada discussed. On Thursday, the abuses of the Ceylon Government, and Sir JAMES SCARLETT'S Adminis- tration of Justice Bill, were the prominent topics of debate. Last night, Mr. O'CONNELL'S motion for Radical Reform was brought forward, and lost of course.

2. THE ROYAL FUNCTIONS. The Duke of WELLINGTON in- formed the House of Lords on Monday, that he had a Message from the King to deliver to their Lordships. It was read by the LORD CHANCELLOR, as follows. "GEORGE R.—His Majeity thinks it necessary to inform the House, that he is labouring under a severe indisposition, which renders it incon- venient and painful to his Majesty to sign, with his own hand, the public instruments which require the sign.manuaL His Majesty relies on the

dutiful attachment of Parliament to consider, without delay, the means by which his Majesty may be enabled to provide for the temporary dis- charge of this important function of the Crown, without detriment to the public service."

The Duke of WELLINGTON, after stating that Ministers intended to reserve till the following evening the discussion of the measure which they meant to propose, moved,

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty from the Lords; stating that this House laments the severe indisposition under which his Majesty is unfortunately labouring, and assures his Majesty it earnestly and anxiously hopes that, by the favour of Divine Providence, his health will be re-established at an early period ; that the House will proceed to consider, without delay, the means by which his Majesty may be relieved from the pain and inconvenience of signing with his own hand those pub-. lie instruments which require the sign-manual, by enabling him to pro- vide for the temporary discharge of this important function of the Crown, without detriment to the public service."

Earl GREY expressed his anxious wishes for his Majesty's reco- very. The question just alluded to was one in which the utmost delicacy was due to the feelings of Royalty, while at the same time it was of the deepest importance to the people. It was in fact neither more nor less than a measure in some degree to dele- aate the Royal authority. He should, however, reserve the full expression of his opinions till the subject should be fully before the House.

The address was voted without a division.

On the same evening in the House of Commons, the SPEAKER having read the Royal Message, Sir ROBERT PEEL moved an ad- dress similar to that which the Duke of Wellington moved in the other house. Mr. BROUGHAM made some observations in a spirit similar to those which Lord Grey delivered, and the address was in like manner carried without a division.

The discussion was resumed by the Lords on Tuesday, when a bill to provide a Substitute for the Sign-manual was brought in.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, he felt deeply the force of the remarks that had fallen from Earl Grey last night as to the neces- sity of looking, not merely to the present time and the existing circumstances, but of avoiding the establishment of a precedent, which, with men of a different characterand in bad times, might lead to permanent mischief. The measure itself may be carried into effect in two ways. One is, to empower some individual or individuals to subscribe public papers in presence of the King, and by his express command. The other method is, to empower individual ndividual or individuals to affix a stamp prepared for the purpose, on instruments requiring the sign-manual, in the pre- sence of his Majesty and by his express command. The latter mode has been adopted at various periods of our history,—in the time of Henry the Eighth, in the reign of Edward the Sixth, in that of Queen Mary, and in that of King William. On the pre- sent occasion, the Lord Chancellor proceeded to state, it was the wish of Ministers to take counsel of Parliament, and to profit by the suggestions which might present themselves during the dis- cussion. The proposition of Ministers was this—that a commis- sion under the sign-manual should issue, for a limited period, au- thorizing one or more therein named to affix the Kings signature, by a stamp prepared for the purpose, to such instruments, war- rants, or documents, as require the sign-manual. Tile securities should be—the oath of the person or persons never to affix this stamp to any instrument except in the presence and by the com- mand of his Majesty ; and a provision rendering it imperative to have the intents and nature of the instrument or document indorsed upon it, and signed by three Cabinet Ministers to be named in the Bill. Nay, for further security, it was the intention of Ministers to propose that the stamp necessary for the purposes in question should be kept in the custody of certain high officers, and affixed only in their- presence. Such was the import of they measure which Ministers thought it expedient to propose, and on which Parliament was called to deliberate. A noble Earl had suggested the expediency of a Committee for the purpose of looking for precedents. Lord Lyndhurst (who had alreadyMade a diligent search, and examined documents, some of which were to be seen at the British Museum) did not anticipate that much additional light could be thrown upon the question.

Earl GREY bore testimony to the fairness of Lord Lyndliurst's statement. There was only one point to which he was anxious to refer,—that was, the question of duration. He thought the Com- mission should be limited to as short a period as possible ; and he trusted that the measure would be again brought before Parlia- ment before the close of the Session. In conclusion, he suggest that the second reading be postponed till Thursday. The Duke of WELLINGTON agreed to the suggestion, on con( tion that the Bill should be passed through all its remaini

stages on that day. , The Bill was then read a first time. It was resolved that t1tg7', Standing Order of the House, No. 26,175, should be suspended ott.,. Thursday; and a Committee to report upon precedents was name ct ' ,," At the second reading of the Bill, on Thursday, the Earl of IiVistcamseA regretted that the bill was not aecon-wied with some evidence from the King's medical attendants. He was satis- Eed that his Majesty was suffering under sickness of no ordinary kind ; but he could have wished to have it attested by his Ma- jesty's physicians that the disease was not of a nature to impair the vigour of the Royal mind. A similar application might be made to their Lordships under circumstances differing from the present, and it behoved them to guard against the establishment of a precedent that might be abused. The Duke of WELLINGTON felt astonishment at these remarks. His Majesty had suffered under severe illness for six weeks, and had at length with his own hand required of the House to afford him some relief. His Majesty's physicians had never hinted at the existence of such an affection as that to which the noble Earl alluded; and they as well as Ministers were responsible to the House that no such disorder existed.

The Earl of WINCHILSEA explained. He did not mean to in- sinuate any doubts as to the soundness of his Majesty's intellect. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE had so understood the noble Earl. He did not mean to oppose the Bill, but he should give it his sup- port on the responsibility of Ministers alone ; and should it be ne- cessary to re-enact any of the provisions of this important Bill be- fore the end of the session, he should say with the noble Earl, that the constitutional practice of examining witnesses at their Lord- ships' bar should be resorted to.

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed. In the -Committee some verbal amendments were proposed. In answer to an observation of the Duke of NEWCASTLE, the Lord CHANCELLOR stated, that his Majesty had, on Wednesday, conversed for a considerable time with the Duke of Wellington, without suffering any inconvenience from the effort. Earl GREY suggested that a person of rank and station should be appointed to affix the royal signature. That important duty might, otherwise, be performed by a menial. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that the noble Earl had not read the Bill with his usual attention, else he would have per- ceived that the stamp could not be affixed without a memoran- dum in writing previously endorsed thereon by three members of the Cabinet. It was also provided that the signature could be affixed only in the presence of certain high officers of state, who were bound to attest it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR then, in conformity with a suggestion of Earl GREY, proposed to add to the words "by his Majesty's commands," "given by word of mouth." This was agreed to. His Lordship further proposed to insert a new clause in reference to the signature of military commissions. Instead of the memo- randum to be signed by three Cabinet Ministers, descriptive of the nature of the instrument, he proposed that a memorandum should be signed by the Commander-in-Chief. This also wa agreed to ; and after some further amendments, the bill was res turned, read a third time, and passed.

Shortly afterwards, Judges Parke and Gaselee entered the House of Commons, bearing a message from the Lords. They announced that their Lordships had agreed to a Bill enabling the King to appoint certain persons, who should have authority to affix the Royal signature to all public instruments that might re- quire the sign-manual. Sir ROBERT PEEL then moved the first and second readings of the bill ; which took place without R division. Sir C. WETHERELL proposed that the penalties of high treason should attach to the forgery of the Royal stamp ; but his proposition was not seconded. . Last night the bill was read a third time ; and it is understood that it will receive the final sanction of the Royal signature to-day.

2. GREECE. The papers on the affairs of Greece were laid on the table of the House of Lords by the Earl of ABERDEEN. His Lordship thanked the House for the forbearance which it had manifested towards Ministers during all the delays which had oc- curred in preparing these papers for its inspection ; and then he entered upon the history of the negotiations which had led to the election of Prince Leopold to the throne of Greece. We might well feel proud when a British Prince was proposed to us by our Allies as the object of their choice ; and we could not avoid assenting to it, the more especially as this throne had long been an object of his Royal Highness's ambition, and had been solicited for him ; while it was known that Greece herself was anxious for his Royal Highness's appoint- ment. Well, the offer was made to his Royal Highness on the 3d February. The acceptance followed close upon this; and the negotiations respecting it turned exclusively on one point. That one point was money. Prince Leopold stood out for a larger sum than Ministers thought he had any right to demand. They tried to argue the matter with him. "His Royal Highness maintained his demand with so much pertinacity, and gave us so fully to understand he would resign the high honour to 'which he had been raised unless this demand was agreed to, to the utmost farthing, that we saw we had nothing but the alternative to which I before alluded: and as our Allies had agreed, we felt that it would have been an ',Odious responsibility for Great Britain to destroy the prospects of a Bri- ..trah Prince being raised to the Throne of Greece by refusing that to which Other Powers had agreed ; and we consented. This was the situation of things some time since, when I replied to a question from a nob:e friend of mine, that the final arrangements were only delayed in consequence of negotiations still pending upon points of minor importance. These points, which I then called points of minor importance, only related to the form of the loan; and! therefore trust the House will consider me justified in so naming them. Well, my Lords, in a few days after, we found that fresh grounds of hesitation had sprung ue in his Royal High- ness's mind; and late on Friday night! received an intimation from his Royal Highness of his intention to resign the situation he had accepted, and to abdicate the high honour to which he had been raised. I do not enter on the reasons he assigned for resigning. Your Lordships will have laid before you, as speedily as possible, all that passed upon the subject. Already the information respecting these transactions is entire, with the exception of the last papers ; but all up to the close will be prepared as speedily as possible, that your Lordships may be enabled to form your own judgments."

Lord DURHAM objected to an accusation of Prince Leopold, founded on papers not before the House. The Earl of DARNLEY and the Marquisses of LONDONDERRY and LANSDOWNE concurred in opinion with Lord Durham, and ex- pressed a wish to know how soon the House might expect to have the papers in question submitted to it. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that they should be furnished as speedily as possible ' • and in answer to a question by Lord Hor.- LAND, declared that he did not intend to submit to the House any motion-upon the papers before the House, or on those in the hands of Government.

In the House of Commons, the Grecian papers were laid on the table by Sir ROBERT PEEL ; who made the same statements as to the issue of the negotiations with Prince Leopold which the Earl of Aberdeen had done, but abstained from all comment on his Royal Highness's conduct. Mr. BROUGHAM declared that the communication did not sur- prise him.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL put some questions to Sir Robert Peel as to the causes which had led to the unfortunate result.

Sir ROBERT PEEL stated that all the papers should be before the House in twenty-four hours. Mr. BROUGHAM was disposed to regard the resignation of Prince Leopold as any thing but unfortunate. He should rejoice in any thing calculated to promote the honour and glory of that Illus- trious Personage, but he could not help considering it as an ex- cellent thing, that by that resignation this country was enabled to avoid the entanglement which the acceptance of that Sovereignty might eventually have brought about.

On Wednesday, Lord DURHAM rose to ask when the whole of the papers connected with Greece would be laid before the House. The production of all the documents would, he was convinced, remove the prejudice against an illustrious personage which the statement of the noble Earl had created. There were some errors in dates, too, which Lord Durham was anxious to correct.

The noble Earl had said, that till Friday last, Ministers were not in possession of any documents, nor had any thing transpired which might affect the ultimate result of the negotiations then pending. And in an- swer to a question from a noble Marquis, the 'noble Earl stated that the papers would be produced not in consequence of any thing that had fallen from the noble Marquis, but because the time had come when they might be brought forward, since the negotiations were concluded upon,all except a few minor points. Now this communication was made on the 16th May, and the fact was, that on the lath, the noble Earl had received a letter from Prince Leopold, announcing to him, in plain terms, that he might expect his Royal Highness's resignation, in consequence of despatches he had received from the Senate and People of Greece, declaring that they never would consent to the arrangements attempted to be forced upon them by the Allied Powers. Now this being the case, he certainly did think it a little extraordinary that the Noble Earl should declare, that up to a late hour on Friday last, neither his Majesty's Government nor the Plenipotentiaries had any idea of his Royal Highness's resignation.

Lord Durham also stated the nature of the money arrange- ments between the parties.

It was, in fact, upon grounds of great imp3rtance, and not in reference to any common pecuniary considerations, that his Royal Highness had acted. A mistake had gone abroad respecting these pecuniary transac- tions. It was fancied they affected his Royal Highness personally, while in truth they related entirely to the guarantee of a loan ; and the whole subject of discussion between him and his Majesty's Government was this loan; and when the noble Earl spoke of his Royal Highness's pertinacity in adhering to his demand, it was well to state that the amount of this demand was precisely the same with that required upon the part of Count Capo d'Istrias before his Royal Highness had any communication with the Allied Powers.

The Earl of ABERDEEN observed, that after his Royal High ness had received the despatches to which Lord Durham referred, he received others of a more cheering description. Lord Aber- deen also gave a different version of his own statement from Lord Durham's reading of it. He had never said that up to Friday last Ministers had no reason to ap- prehend a change in his Royal Highness; but he did say, that they had not been made acquainted with his decision until twelve o'clock on Friday night. And he had also said, that up to a very few days before this period all the negotiations had turned upon the loan, and the mode in which it should be paid. This was the fact, and would be fully borne out by the papers, when laid before the House. Then as to the letter containing his Royal Highness's resignation, it could not be produced by him alone: he was one of three parties concerned, the French and Russian ambassadors being equally engaged in the affair. He was not the master of the letter;. and even if he were, it could not be expected that he should produce that which would give a most erroneous view of the transactions, and one altogether different from that which would be presented when all the papers were on their Lordships' table. The conduct of Ministers, he could, were it necessary, submit to the judgment of any twelve unprejudiced men in the House or out of it, without fearing their verdict. The papers should be pro- duced on Friday. A conversation followed, in which Earl GREY and Lord HOL- LAND censured the expressions which the Earl of Aberdeen had used on a former occasion. Lord ELLErrnonorom and the Duke of WELLINGTON defended his Lordship. Last night, the rest of the papers were laid on the table. Lord HOLLAND objected at firk to the copies having been printed in- stead of written, but he did not press his objection. 3. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.. Mr. O'CONNELL moved last night for " leave to bring in a Bill for the effeetual and iadical re- form of abuses in the representation of the people and the Com- mons House of Parliament." He dwelt at great length upon the notorious abuses which at present infeeted every part of the Con- stitution—upon the exclusion of the people from that power to which reason and acknowledged right entitled them ; and con- tended with great earnestness, that the only cure would be found in universal suffrage and vote by ballot.

LOH Joni- RUSSELL, after some expressions of regrct at being obliged to oppose the motion, proceeded to move as an amend- ment, resolutions recommending the plan of reform wYcli he had formerly submitted to the House. He would extend the right of representation to all the great towns which had sprung up since the first adjustment of the elective franchise ; and he would add to the number of the representatives which some of the larger counties and cities returned. In order to prevent, however, the undue increase of the numbers of the House, he would reduce the number of boroughs returning members, and concede to the greater number of boroughs the right of returning only one member. It would then remain for the House to award compensation to the boroughs which had been deprived of their privileges ; and that might 1-')e done by means of annu.al grants for several years. Reform, he contended, was absoluiely- necessary, in order to check the profligate expenditure of the public money.; but he did not look for retrenchment from a House of Commons like the present. No; he looked to Government, and to public opinion, which, somehow or other, had g-feater influence upon the present Administration than even majorities of that House.

Mr. STUART WoRmEy opposed Mr. O'Connell's motion. Lord ALTHORI, would support election by ballot, but lie was decideffly opposed to universal suffrage. Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN ventured a few words in defence of the borough system. Mr. HOBHOUSE created sonic merriment at the last speaker's expense. He gave his most unqualified slipport to the motion or Mr. O'Connell.

Sir R. PEEL said the question was exhausted, and he should therefore expend little time upon it. Voting by ballot he deemed favourable to hypocrisy; while he looked upon universal suffrage as incompatible with the continuance of the House of Lords. Mr. BaouGnam supported Lord John Russelfs plan, wi[li the exception of the scheme of compensation to boroughs. To Mr. O'Connell's he was strongly opposed.

On the question of universal suffrage, he observed, his opinion was pretty much the same as that of Mr. Fox, and he had some rear of a union between the Crown and a mob. On the subject of voting by bal- lot, he had great doubts. He meant, however, only to speak of it prac- tically; and be thought he ought to know something on the subject, hav- ing stood the contest of four elections, and some of them very long ones. At the same time, he spoke with doubt, because he knew that practical men :who had inquired into the subject, and who at the commencement of their inquiry were opposed to the ballot, had at the end warmly em- braced it as the only security for giving a conscientious vote. He would state the grounds of his opinion. The vote by ballot was suggested as a means of defending a man from the influence of his superiors, of supposed overbearing landlords, and of corrupt men of property ; and it was in- tended to supply by concealment a means of enabling the voter to guard against the influence of his landlord. This system, he thought, would make a man a hypocrite for his whole life, and his whole life one conti- nual lie. The man who could for months conceal the manner in which he had voted—who could hold his tongue on that subject which was the universal topic of conversation—who could keep his secret from his friend and his wife—who would never mention it even at the alehouse—would be false to his country and his friend, and could neither be true nor faith- ful in all the relations of life ; nor would men believe him true, unless human thought were subverted. Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, complained of the manner in which his motion had been met. Lord John Russsel and his friends, instead of meeting his arguments, had got up a little debate of their own, as if their object had been to defeat Reform altogether.

Sir Robert Peel had not denied the abuses of which he complained. He had not attempted to deny the trafficking in boroughs, and the sale of seats; but he had contented himself with asserting, that if the popular voice prevailed more strongly in that House, the Monarchy would be en- dangered. Sacred God ! -to hear it asserted that the freedom of the people would endanger the Monarchy ! It was not the people, but the aristocracy, who would put the Monarchy in danger—it was the corr up- tion of the boroughholders that had shorn the Monarchy of its bea ms, and dimmed the lustre of the Crown. Mr. Brougham had disported him- self, to the great amusement of the House, in comments on the plan of the ballot ; and he had taken America as the result of his experience, where he contended the ballot had-not produced good effects, and where its benefitswere evaded. But when Mr. Brougham wanted an illustra- tion, how was it that he passed overn place nearer home? How did he pass over France ? where eighty thousand electors, with sixty thousand places in the gift of the Crown which an elector could accept, were yet, through the means of the ballot, found virtuous enough to return a ma- jority of Deputies on the popular side.

The House divided. For Mr. O'Connell's motion, 13; against it, 213.

For Lord John Russell's amendment, 117; against it, 213.

4. Purrismumsrr -OF FORGERY. In a Committee on the Forgery Bill, on the readinc, of the clause, declaring that the forgery of 0 Exchequer Bills, bank-notes, orders for the payment of money, should be punished capitally, Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH moved as an amendment, the substi- tution of an inferior punishment. Sir ROBKRT PEEL could not 'support the amendment. From the -peculiar nature of the crime of forgery—from'the peculiar-cir- cumstances under which it might be committed, and the conse • uences to which it led, he was inclined to think, that death operated more efficiently than any other punishment in cases of forgery. He could not allow that the unwillingness to prosecute in such cases sprung from any conviction that the punishment was too severe : he ascribed it in a great measure to the expense which such prosecutions entailed. There was not, moreover, Sir Robert contended, a greater number of cases of forgery aban- doned, than of murder and burglary. From certain returns, which he quoted, the 'rouse would perceive that the convictions were more numerous in proportion for forgery than for murder. The latter was as five to eight, the former only as one to five. If, then, the punishment of death checked the crime of forgery, it was a protection to public morality. The parties most interested in the question of the preventing of forgery were the London bankers and Bank of Eng- land, and lie would advert to the magnitude of the property they had at stake. He would first take. the case of the Bank of England, and the House would see if the punishment of death might not be necessary for the protection of its prope...ty. The number of Stoek Accounts, in the Bank of England, was not less than :300,000. It pays, in one year, not less than 900,000 drafts, and there are not less than 1,000 transfers of Stock made in its books daily. Before they came to any determination on this suhjeet, they ought to look to the state of criminal prosecutions for forgery at the pre- sent moment. And first, he would beg the House to look at the number of prosecutions instituted by those establishments most exposed to suffer from forgery. The prosecutions, then, ofethe Bank of England since the withdrawal of the 1/. notes, had heen gradually on the decline. Bear this in mind, therefore, when the question of altering the law was to be con- sidered, that in an estaNishment which had 300,000 accounts of Stock, which paid 400,000 checks every year, and which had 1000 transfers of Stock every day, there had been only two prosecutions for forgery at the last assizes, while up to the present moment there was not a single pro-. eecution peeding for the mxt assizes. This was the state of crime, with reference to this great establishment, under the present law of -punishing forgery by dcatli. He confessed he had not heard from Sir James Mack- intosh that satisfactory explanation of the nature and effect of secondary minis:in-lents which he expected from hlin with reference to this subject. The men accustomed, as forgers generally were, to all the comforts and many of the luxuries of life, were not likely to be influenced so much by the fear of the punishment of transportation and imprisonment as of death ; or else they were, by their habits and education, placed in a situa- tion which prohibited the beneficial exercise of the system of secondary punishments. In many cases the Government had tried the effect of se- condary punishments. They had imprisoned men for seven years, and what was the consequence? Why, that the low diet and the languor pro- duced by solitary confinement had given rise to a mortally infectious disease, which the most eminent physicians ascribed, after the most minute inquiry, to purely moral causes, to the languor of long and solitary con- finement, coupled with the prison diet, which, as a fit punishment, was al- lotted them. Then came the question of the infliction of hard labour. Now, with every disposition to make the criminal suffer by the infliction of hard labour, it not unfrequently happened that his previous habits of life pre- cluded the possibility of their putting that portion of the sentence in force. It was frequently impossible to inflict such a punishment. But supposing he did send a man of education to thc hulks at Deptford or Chatham, after he has been there for two or three years, suffering under the eyes of the public, what security bad the Executive that the public sympathy would not be as mach awakened in his favour, and the public prejudice as much directed against the infliction of hard labour, as it is now against the taking away the life of the offender for the same crime ? What certainty had he that the public and prosecutors would not shrink as much from inflicting the punishment of solitary imprisonment or hard labour, as they now do from that of death ? The infliction of secondary punishments, such as hard labour, low diet, and solitary confinement, had been tried for ten years, and they found it impossible to continue it, for the conse- quence always was, that they were compelled to alter the diet of the prisoners, and to give a kind of nutriment, which rendered the situation of the convict an object of envy to the agricultural labourer, whose honest industry would not procure him any sustenance of the same description.

Mr. BnouonAm begged to state, that from the same facts he had arrived at very different conclusions from those of Sir Robert Peel.

In the last seven years there had been 217 convictions for forgery—. that is, 217 persons sentenced to death, independent of those who were compelled to suffer minor punishments for minor offences of the same nature. And how many have been subjected to the unsatisfactory and ineffectual, and all but impracticable secondary punishments, which the right honourable gentleman describes ? Why, of this 217, just twenty-- four were executed—just nine to one therefore have been subjected to the secondary punishment alone. If, therefore, there is but one criminal hung out of every ten, the punishment of death, upon which the right ho- nourable gentleman lays so much stress, terrifies, not because it is certain, but because it is nine to one that the criminal escape. The persons who commit forgery are practical men, they are skilled in calculation. They know that one in ten is executed, and that the others escape. It is, there- fore, ten to one, in the present case, in their minds, that, having com- mitted forgery, they may not, if detected and convicted, escape that punishment which the right honourable gentleman says they so much dread. The question then is—and it is not a new one—whether, if the chance of the punishment of death happening to one in ten, does not pre- vent the crime of forgery, the certainty of the secondary punishment, which they also must calculate on, will not operate materially to in- fluence those who are -disposed to the commission of such a crime' It is well known that the into who generally embark in hazardous enter- prises, such as those undertaken by the forger, are persons of a very san- guine temperament, and that they generally build very strongly on their good fortune, andtake a very favourable view of the prospects under which they venture to commit such a crime. Ought the Legislature, then, to build up a fabric to encourage those sanguine temperaments, and hold out to the forger a prospect spread before him, a-field of chances, in which there are nine to one in favour of his escaping with impunity from the fate which should await his crime ? First, there is the chance that he will not be detected ; secondly there is the chance that when detected, he will, from motives of humanity, and because the persons on whom he has forged disapprove of the punishment of death, not be prosecuted ; next is the chance that when prosecuted he may, from some flaw in the evi- dence, escape conviction; and lastly, there is the chance, that, after having run through all this gauntlet, he will be landed in such a situation, that it is ten to one whether he does not escape capital punishment. This is the position in which those who commit forgery feel. themselves now, and these are the terrors which the right honourable gentleman would have

them to believe lea to the gradual 'extinction of forgery. One great dill:is culty was to induce juries, under the existing law, to convict for forgery; but the grand difficulty was, to prevail on prosecutors and witnesses to come forward. Even if prosecutors were callous themselves—which was rarely the case—they were surrounded by persons who were not so, and who would dissuade them from prosecuting, lest, in the event of a conviction, the judge should happen to lean towards severity.

The opinions which be now expressed, Mr. Brougham said, he had learned from his great and lamented friend, Sir Samuel Ro- mily ; and concluded by expressing his hope that he should live to see the day when this stain should be removed from our sta- tute-book.

Mr. F. BUXTON, Mr. WYNN, and Mr. J. MARTIN also sup- ported the amendment. The House then divided. For the amendment, 113 ; against

it, 128.

5. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL. On the order of the day for the further consideration of this bill, Mr. E. DAVENPORT objected to the provision by which the rights which the County of Chester had enjoyed for ages, were to be destroyed. The character of the hill was so arbitrary, that it might be supposed to have been drawn up by the Grand Vizier, rather than the King's Attorney- General. (A laugh.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL defended his bill.

He proposed, however, to withdraw, for the present, the rlause limiting arrests to 100/., and that relating to the statute of limitations. He had introduced two clauses, at the suggestion of the member for Ripon. The first related to the surrendering in d'scharge of bail, and it allowed the bail of a party proceeded against in niesue process, to render him in the gaol of the place where he resided. In order to secure the advantages attending the rapidity of proceeding in the courts of Chester and Wales, he had introduced a general clause, which had met with the concurrence of all the Commissioners—that in all cases where the party on trial was entitled to judgment, on the certificate of the judge, the party might pro- ceed to judgment, and to the taxation of costs, and sue out execution within seven days, unless the adverse party gave security for the amount, subject to the direction of the judge. In judgments in ejectment, the se. curity to extend to such sum as the cfficer of the court should deem suffi- cient to prevent spoliation and waste, unless the tenant agreed to give up the farm within six days after the commencement of the ensuing term. He had no objection to introduce a clause to make it incumbent on judges, for the present, to go to the different places where the assizes were now held, and to meet at Chester. This would perhaps qualify the opposition to the measure.

Sir C. WETHERELL observed, that instead of being one bill, it ought to be three separate bills, for it contemplated three distinct and important objects.

With respect to the additional judges, he had no objection to this part of the bill, assuming that the Welsh judicature was to be abolished ; but in regard to the combination of the Welsh counties, it appeared to him a little inconsistent with the project of dividing counties elsewhere. There was to be a consolidation of counties in Wales, and a division of counties in England : either might be right, but both could not be right.

Mr. D. DAVENPORT and Mr. SADLER opposed the measure. After some further discussion, the House went into Committee on the Bill, and several clauses were added.

6. DRAMATIC CENSORSHIP. Mr. LENNARD moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the third and fourth clauses of the statute 10 George II. c. 28, which empowers the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the acting of any new play or entertainment on the stage. Mr. Lennard gave an account of the circumstances in which this statute was passed, and then illustrated, by recent examples, the manner in which it is enforced.

Sir Robert Walpole, it was well known, had been assailed by every method which party ingenuity could devise dining the latter period of his admi- nistration, and the stage was not unfrequently made the vehicle of politi- cal attack. From the manager Jf a minor theatre he obtained the manu- script of a piece called The Golden Ruff, in which his government had been handled with particular severity. On the occasion of bringing forward the bill in question, the Minister read aloud to the House the most ob- noxious passages of this drama, which completely produced the effect that be intended. All parties exclaimed against the licentiousness of the stage, and the measure was accordingly carried. Lord Chesterfield, indeed, ob- served that it conferred a power which was unknown to Royalty itself,— that it was greater than any ever sought to be established before,—that it was a direct violation of the liberty of the press, and a grievous injury to the literature of the country ; but it was hurried through the House, not- withstanding, without attracting more notice than a common turnpike- bill. Such, however, was its effect, that not even a sung or a single sen • tence could be added to a dramatic entertainment without the express permission of the licenser. The abuse of which he complained perhaps would not be so great if the Lord Chamberlain himself always inquired when he exercised the powers which the licensing act conferred on him ; but he did not, but deputed his functions to the Deputy Licenser, who seemed to think that there was no limit to the extent of his privileges. Perhaps the House was not aware of the extreme fastidiousness with which the present Deputy Licenser performed the duties of his office. He had a paper in his hand which proved that lectures on astronomy could not be delivered without Mr. Colman's permission ; and this was an innocent sample of the Deputy Licenser's hypercritical -sensitiveness on the pre- tence of protecting the public against " immoral tendencies." (Laughter.) No manager could permit a song to be sung unless he had the Deputy Licenser's permission, without forfeiting his licence, if the Deputy Li- censer chose to exercise the power which the present act invested him with. In one letter the Deputy Licenser objects to the character of a Captain Reheat!, on account of its "indecorous language, and its tendency to bring an honourable profession into contempt.' (Laughter.) In other letters, the shears of the fastidiously sensitive moral author of the Broad Grins were applied to cutting off such immoral expressions as "My angel was divine," and "such an angel, by Heaven, was she," and other similar phraseology of stage lovers. The phrases "thousand kisses," and "thighs," also excited the moral ire of the delicate author of the Broad Grins. An unlucky wight of an author of a play which Mr. Colman cast his fastidiously critical eyes over, happened to use the expression "mer- ciful power," upon which the sage Deputy Licenser piously observed, "If the expression does not allude to a different power from that of God, it ought to be omitted." (Great laughter.) Another dramatist ventured to make a chambermaid in a farce facetiously say that " her mistress's dressing-case was likely to join in wedlock with her master's arm-chair." (Continued laughter.) The passage was struck out—it shocked the mo- desty of the Deputy Licenser. Another specimen of the moral sensitive- ness of Mr. Colman's criticism possessed the additional recommendation of illustrating his sagacious loyalty. A play was submitted to him, in which a regent is made to complain, among other inconveniences at- tendant upon royalty, of its " tediousness." " The phrase tedious- ness ' as applied to royalty, must not be permitted," writes the Deputy Licenser, and accordingly it is forthwith expunged. Still more recently a farce was prohibited, because it contained one character, entitled John Domrille, which was thought to allude to Sir J. Wyattville, his Majesty's architect.

Mr. G. LAMB opposed the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL could not give it his support.

Mr. Leonard had told them they had a sufficient security in the good taste of the public against the abuses of the drama. He could not admit this proposition, for he entertained by no means a flattering opinion of the public " good taste." He could not forget, when he heard the good sense and good taste of the public appealed to as a guarantee, that the stage would not be perverted to improper uses, that not very long since all the alleged circumstances connected with a celebrated murder were exhibited at one of the minor theatres, before the persons charged with

the murder were put on their trial. (Hear !) or could he forget that the bodily and mental infirmities of the late Sovereign of this country were in the same way catered up as food for the good taste and good sense of the public. (Hear, Hear !) The fact was, the public appetite for scandal and improper excitement alone rendered a check on dramatic ex- hibitions necessary. He really saw no necessity for removing the exist- ing regulations, and he thought they should not be tampered with. For- merly specific reflections were cast upon classes of the people ; at present there were none. The citizens of London were wont to be designated as very licentious characters,—as usurers, and as cuckolds. (A laugh.) There were no such exhibitions of licentiousness in the present day, and he saw no reason why there should be any particular legislative enactment which might be misconstrued into the necessity of Parliamentary interference. He saw no reason why they should transfer Mr. Colman's jurisdiction to a jury, which was the proposition of Mr. Lennarcl, unless some gross abuses were proved to have existed, of which he was not cognizant. The motion was negafived without a division.

7. BREACFL OF THE SABBATH. Mr. HOBHOUSE presented a petition signed by seven or eight thousand journeymen bakers in Westminster and Southwark, praying that the law which now per- mitted dinners to be baked within certain hours on Sunday, might be altered.

Sir F. BARING supported the petition. It was the duty of the House to aid as far as possible the observance of the Sabbath. • Mr. HUME thought the best thing the House could do,would be to abstain from interference in the matter.

Mr. SLANEY asked, whether preventing bakers from baking din- ners on a Sunday would not be more injurious to those who were, by the present custom enabled to send their humble provisions to be baked on Sunday than it could be beneficial to the bakers.

8. CANADA. Mr. LABOUCHERE submitted to the House cer- tain resolutions on the state of the Judicature and Legislative Councils of Canada. Out of the twenty-seven members who sat in the General Legislative Assembly for Lower Canada, eighteen were placemen, and but nine in- dependent members. Among the placemen, seven were members of the Executive Council, and but nine of the placemen were native Canadians. The rest were men who had gone out thither to make a fortune, and who, having succeeded in that object, would feel no further interest in the co- lony. Of the seventeen members of the General Legislative Assembly who sat for Upper Canada, twelve were placemen, and only five were unofficial men. Under these circumstances it could not be matter of sur- prise that the body uniformly sided with the Executive Government; and as their acts had been frequently opposed to the feelings and interests of the people, the Legislative Assembly, that ought to represent the popular wish, had, in fact, been opposed to the opinion of the great mass of the nation.

The second point to which Mr. Labouchere wished to call the attention of the House, was the present state of the Administra- tion of Justice.

The Judges now depended for their salary on the annual vote of the House of Assembly. He did not wish that Judges should court popular applause, but equally unwilling was he that they should seek Ministerial approbation. Yet they were obliged to do so in Canada; and as long as the Judges remained dependent on the pleasure of the Crown, the House must and would retain that as the only check on their conduct. The Judges were consequently in a situation of necessity, which made them, in acting; and feeling, political partisans. In the first place, they were members of the Executive Council. He should but waste their time if he attempted to argue on such a fact. There was a strong feeling in this country against such an union of opposite duties—a feeling that was was powerfully manifested in Lord Ellenborough's case. He would give one instance of the practical effect of this system of judicature. The Court of Quebec, two years ago, was occupied with a number of prose- cutions for libel. The Chief Justice of that Court was the Chairman of the Executive Council and the Speaker of the Legislative Council ; two of the Judges were members of both Councils, and the remaining Judge was a member of one of them. The Jury were appointed by the Sheriff,' who was a salaried officer of the Council ; and he happened at that time to be the son of the Chief Justice. The Attorney-General, by whom the prosecutions were instituted, was the colleague of the Chief Justice in the Legislative and Executive Councils; and thus all the officers con- cerned in the administration of justice were connected politically toge- ther. There was at that time a feeling all over the country, that the pri- soners had not the least chance of justice. (Hear, hear.) The Canada Committee, in a recommendation given to the Government, stated that one of the most important subjects of inquiry with them had been the state of the Legislative Councils; and they recommended that the Legis- lative Assembly should be made more independent, and that the Judges should not be members of the Executive Council. Under these circum- stances, adopting their opinion, he should move a resolution, declaring that the House concurred with that opinion of the Canada Committee ; and stating, secondly, that it was the opinion of that House, that the majority of the Legislative Council ought not to be composed of Officers of tbe Crown, and that every measure, having for its object to connect

more intimately that branch of the Constitutional Government of Canada with the interests of the Colony, would be beneficial. He should propose, in the third place, to declare, that it was not expedient to fill the Judicial Seats of Upper and Lower Canada with members of the Legislative and Executive Councils.

Lord S ANDON seconded the motion.

Sir GEORGE MuartA.v admitted that the Judges, with the ex- ception of the Chief Justice, ought not to be members of the Le- gislative Council ; and three Judges, he begged to say, had recently resigned the seats which they had held in it. The appointment of Judges during good behaviour was very well as a general principle, and ought to be adhered to wherever practicable; but he much doubted the advantage of carrying that principle into full operation in Canada. All his experience respecting that colony and others led him to this conclusion. There was extreme difficulty in getting judges for that colony—men whose fitness could be regarded as certain. They were, ac- cordingly, often compelled to send out persons scarcely qualified for those situations; and if, upon trial, it was found they were unfit, it was highly important that the power of removing them should be vested in the Crown. In the mother country the case was different. Sir George concluded by moving the previous question. Lord Howicx, Lord ALTHORP, Mr. C. GRANT, and Mr. HUME supported the motion. Mr. E. DENNISON and Sir ROBERT PEEL opposed it. At the division, there appeared for Mr. Labouchere's motion, ; against it, 155.

9. FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER. CENT. DUTIES. Mr. HUME moved,

" That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to lay before the House an account of the proceeds of the Four-and-a-half per Cent. Duties during the last ten years, how they were appropriated, the balance that was paid into the Exchequer, the de- ficiencies (if any), and how they were to be made good."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM seconded the motion.

The subject was of importance, not only es regarded the disposal of the duties of the Customs without the sanction of Parliament, but as involving on the part of the Crown Lawyers a claim for a more arbitrary and mone strous exercise of prerogative than had been attempted since the accession of the House of Brunswick to the Throne. If the Ministers did not give notice of their intention to bring in a bill before the close of the session, to limit and restrain the prerogative on this point, he should consider it his duty to move a resolution to that effect on the motion for the House to go into a Committee of Supply. If the Crown were advised to stand on the extreme of its prerogative, nothing more could be done but that, following its example, the house must stand on the extreme of its privi n he - les, and withhold t eipplies by a motion of adjournment.

°Mr. HumE then expressed his willingness to leave the subject in the hands of Sir ,James Graham. The motion was agreed to.

10. CAPE OF Goon HOPE. Lord MILTON presented a petition from British settlers and others resident at the Cape of Good Hope, praying for a representative Government. This led to a conversation, in the course of which Sir GEORGE MURRAY expressed his conviction, that a representative Govern- ment was ill suited to the Cape—that the materials for forming it, did not, in fact, exist.

Mr. WILMOT HORTON acquiesced in the truth of the observa- tion, as applied to the actual condition of the colony ; but con- tended that it would soon be found worthy to enjoy the blessings of representation. Mr. HUME declared that without a representative Government, the colony could never hope to emerge from barbarism.

9. REVENUE OF CEYLON. Mr. STUART moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the revenue and expenditure of Ceylon.

The total colonial debt, in December 1824, amounted to 463,2011.; there was a sinking fund of 176,0001., which had been altogether dis- posed of for other purposes ; and the debt, in 1826, had increased to 491,0001. The entire system of management of this island demanded Inquiry. When Ceylon came into our hands, its expenditure, under the Dutch, was but 16,000/. per annum ; in 1825, the costs of the civil esta- blishments (incheling a salary of 10,0001. a year to the Governor) alone amounted to upwards of 111,600/. And this, and the debt of half a mil- lion, and an expenditure annually exceeding the revenue of 100,000/., were all owing to the monopoly by the Colonial Government of all the commerce of the island. That mnnopoly was even more strict and oppressive than that enjoyed by the East India Company, particularly so far as the growth and sale of cinnamon, the staple produce of the island, were concerned.

The cost of the military establishments was a heavy tax on the inhabitants. The colony was under the control of a soldier—one of a class peculiarly ill-fitted to preside over a commercial community. Few countries could rival Ceylon in natural advantages ; but, so oppressive and strict is the commercial monopoly, that since 1810, the period at which a law was passed permitting strangers to set- tle there, but two individuals had availed themselves of it. In the administration of law, moreover, the most shameful abuses pre- vailed. Of some of these Mr. Stuart himself had been a witness.

Sir G. MURRAY said, that no man was more orosed to mono- poly than he was. Since his appointment to his peesent office he had taken care to guard against it, and against all the other undue influence of colonial patronage. He admitted the expense of the present administration of the colonies, but pledged himself to re- duce it on every occasion. He had at that very moment mea- slues in operation to effect such reductions, and should therefore oppose the present motion as unnecessary. Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr.H LIME, Sir C. FORBES, and Lord ALTHORP, supported the motion. In the division, 38 voted for it, and 82 against it.

10. MEXICO. Sir ROBERT WILSON attempted to get up a con- versation on the affairs of Mexico ; and with that view repeated a part of the observations which he had made in the debate of last week. Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. HUSKISSON added a few words, and then the subject was abandoned.